Community > Forum > Technology & Science > The Great Unknowns of Space Radiation

The Great Unknowns of Space Radiation

Posted by: Chamberland - Tue Jun 13, 2006 1:39 pm
Post new topic Reply to topic
 [ 63 posts ] 
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
The Great Unknowns of Space Radiation 
Author Message
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
User avatar
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 6:15 pm
Posts: 1233
Location: London, England
Post    Posted on: Wed Jul 19, 2006 12:58 pm
Ekkehard Augustin wrote:
Since insects may suffer impacts of the radiation quicker and more intensice than humans because of they are that small and have nearly no protection layers they may be the best indicatior he can think of.


I thought insects were supposed to be more resilient to radiation than humans, arn't cockroachs one of the few living things to survive the radiation caused by nuclear fall out for instances?

_________________
A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
User avatar
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 5:38 pm
Posts: 1361
Location: Austin, Texas
Post Re: Reality Check   Posted on: Wed Jul 19, 2006 3:04 pm
ralphbuttigieg wrote:
Do you seriously think the first testing of a new space station module is a stunt?!
No. I think putting cockroaches in it is the stunt. I mean there is no cockroach life science; they just put a few in to say they did, as far as I know.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
User avatar
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2004 6:12 am
Posts: 321
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Post    Posted on: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:24 am
Andy Hill wrote:
At the risk of introducing sumething that relates to the original subjet of this thread, here is an article from SPACE.com that suggests that radiation may enhance the bone loss caused by weightlessness.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/0 ... bones.html

I've seen a discussion of this in another forum, and one interesting point made was that while a short term exposure to a large dose of radiation may have bad effects, the same dose spread over a long term may actually be beneficial to health.

http://www.jpands.org/vol9no1/chen.pdf


Back to top
Profile
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Wed Sep 27, 2006 1:57 pm
Hello, beancounter,

an article under www.wissenschaft.de is reporting another "stunt" today. The experiment has been done on Earth and is meant to examine the impacts of space radiation under the conditions of a manned Mars trip.

Rats have been exposed to artificially created radiation got from a particle accelerator. The dose was close to that of cosmic radiation.

The article says that cosmic radiation includes nuclei of heavier elements like iron also - which have been used in that experiment.

The radiation has been directed to the brains of the rats. It has been found that the rats later had problems of orientation and learning. They also couldn't concentrate on something that well no more and showed signs of fear under stress - which wasn't the case before the experiment.

It isn't known why and which way these are the effects but it is mentioned that the radiation creates free oxygen radicals which result in processes of aging and damge the body.

To be developed new medicines might reduce these effects - strawberry extracts and extracts of a fruit called "Blaubeeren" in german increased the capability of the rats to resist.

The article refers to the team of Bernard Rabin, University of Maryland in Baltimore and the Online-Service of the New Scientist ( http://www.newscientist.com/news.ns ).

Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
avatar
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 12:34 am
Posts: 450
Post Comparing Risks   Posted on: Tue Jan 30, 2007 11:54 pm
I apologize for not reading all the posts, so this may be repetitious.

The highest level of cosmic radiation is seen about 30,000 feet above the surface of the earth, in RAD/year (Radiation Absorbed Dose). Above that the dose rate (in RAD) decreases to a much lower rate in space because the radiation cascades produced in the atmosphere increase the total radiation absorption. Highly relativistic charged particles produce only about 50% more absorbed radiation that near relativistic particles passing through tissue. The total charge (Z) of the particles, however, increases the radiation absorption by a factor of Z^2 (26^2 = 676 times greater for a rare relativistic iron atom), and this shows up in the “Radiation Absorbed Doseâ€


Back to top
Profile WWW
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Sun Feb 11, 2007 10:06 am
I agree to you, rpspeck.

What I am out on is to mention that the even those effects and impacts yoiu see could be reduced - underlining your view.

The newest edition of Wirtschaftswoche is reporting that futurely nanorobots could repair human verves. So might it be possible that nanorobots are close also that could repair effects and impcts of cosmic radiation?

...



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)


Back to top
Profile
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Mon Jun 25, 2007 11:52 am
The finding that fungi grow the better in the presence of radiation shows that there are life forms that might benefit from space radiation.

Of course fungi aren't insects or the like. But since non-animals have been found now that might survive that radiation the probability might be increased now that bacteria could be found also that can survive it or even benefit from it.

Interesting might be also that humans also have the substance the fungi apply to use radiation - so it would be interesting if humans can apply it to handle the impacts of space radiation.

But the point is that there was one unknown that is known now and that is positive in particular - space radiation might assist life instaed of destroy it.

What about it?



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)


Back to top
Profile
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Thu Jul 05, 2007 1:21 pm
Regarding the view that the insects abouard Genesis 1 are doing an unvoluntary stunt I randomly found an article under www.wissenschaft-online.de from 1999 reporting that mice have been exposed to a real stunt down here on Earth. I don't remember having or having seen this posted already and thus tell it here.

Indian scientists had injected different amounts of coffein into 471 mice and then exposed them to radiation of 7,5 GRay or 750 Rad. That's normally deadly for mice and has severe impacts on human health - but 70% of those mice who had got 80 milligrams coffein per kg of weight of their bodies one hour ago survived the deadly radiation and still lived 25 days later. 196 mice didn't get no coffein and died.

This stunt is much more cruel than that the insects are doing - but it seems to be survivable easyly.

50 milligram coffein proved to be two view and also an injection after the stunt is no rescue.

A man would have to drink 100 cups of coffee to survive like the mice - so it seems to be impractical for astronauts. But to drink coffee would help to survive space radiation as well as strawberry extracts and Blaubeeren extrcats would assist.

So combinations of coffee with strawberry and Blaubeeren might be positive for astronauts.

The article refers to Bhabha Atomic Research Centre ( www.barc.ernet.in/ ) and Kachadpillill C. George.



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)


Back to top
Profile
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:43 am
In between there was an articel under www.wissenschaft.de saying that it has been found that coloured birds, birds laying eggs of particular size, flying long distances or living distributed over large areas suffer more by radioactivity than other birds.

This has been found by Czernobyl. The cause is the particular consumed or particular required amount of antioxidants by those birds.

This may assist the idea that food containing much antioxydants can assist the ability of astronauts to handle and survive space radiation easyly.

What about exposing simply human acids, cells etc to space radiation? Cells extracted from a human body? This might avoid experiments with living beings.



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)


Back to top
Profile
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Wed Aug 22, 2007 12:26 pm
Regarding the antioxydants in coffee an article under www.wissenschaft.de is reporting today that it has been found that a large portion of them is not in the coffee before roasting.

The antioxydants are created by roasting and treating coffee. They are listed to belong to the groups of chlorogenacid-lactones and phenyle-indanes. The first of these - of which ten variants are to be found in coffee - are created during the roasting.

Pressures and temperatures are also responsible for the creation of the antioxydants.

The article refers to the german-americanteam around Thomas Hofmann, University of Enginering, Munich, who also is the author of the article I am referring to, and a lecture at the annual meeting of the American Chemical Society, Boston ( http://oasys2.confex.com/acs/234nm/tech ... 120733.HTM ).



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Ecconomist)


Back to top
Profile
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Fri Apr 11, 2008 10:53 am
According to an article under www.wissenschaft.de today american scientists have developed a method to imitate the way cancer cells resist ray therapies.

There is a subsatnce called NF-kappaB which blocks against Apoptose - in cancer cells it is permanently active. The new medicine imitating taht would prevent the self-destruction of damaged normal cells - to me this sounds as if the self-destruction of cells damaged by space radiation would be prevented also.

According to the article it is thinkable to apply the medicine in the case of an attack by atomic bombs.

The article refers to Lyudmila Burdelya (Roswell-Park-Cancer Reserach Institute, Buffalo) et al.: Science, Vol. 320, p. 226 ( http://www.sciencemag.org/ ).

Because of tests down on Earth there will be sufficient experience and knowledge to test this via animals sent into space without turning the trip into a stunt I think.



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)


Back to top
Profile
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Wed Sep 10, 2008 10:07 am
The article "Creature Survives Naked in Space" ( www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080908-s ... ature.html ) reports that water bears (tardigrades) turn out to be capable of surviving the radiation in space when exposed directly to it.

The article says that
Quote:
The tardigrades were aboard the FOTON-M3 spacecraft launched by the European Space Agency (ESA) in September 2007 and were exposed to open space conditions, the scientists reported today.
.

Quote:
Most survived exposure to the vacuum and cosmic rays, and some even survived the exposure to the deadly levels of solar UV radiation, which are more than 1,000 times higher than on the surface of the Earth.

The survivors "could reproduce fine after their space trip,"


Quote:
Jonsson suspects that even the water bears that got through the space trip without any trouble may in fact have incurred DNA damage, but that the animals managed to repair this damage. Figuring out how they did that could inform medical research.
.

Of course this still means that the trip was a stunt - but some survived and may be indicating that there is a way to control and repair cell damage caused by radiation in space. This in turn might enable to get rid of the threat by the radiation.

As the according article under www.wissenschaft.de says the animals were exposed to free space for ten days - which would not be done with humans that are protected for this reason. That article also mentions that before only a few bacteria and lichens proved to be capable of surviving the environment of space.

The german article refers to Ingemar Jönsson (University Kristianstad, Sweden) et al.: Current Biology, Vol. 18, R729 ( www.current-biology.com/ ).

Dr_Keith_H, what can you say regarding this?

What about the imßplications of this finding?



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)


Back to top
Profile
Spaceflight Participant
Spaceflight Participant
User avatar
Joined: Wed May 21, 2008 4:21 pm
Posts: 74
Location: Baltimore, MD
Post    Posted on: Wed Sep 10, 2008 9:14 pm
Ekkehard Augustin wrote:
...Because of this it allways will be cheaper to use reusable vehicles...


WRONG. It's cheaper to use expendables!! Werner VonBraun got it right in the first place, that's why we're going back to essentially his design for the Apollo systems. When you do the engineering and the math, throwing the hardware away instead of designing it to come back is cheaper - MUCH cheaper, not just a little.

Emory


Back to top
Profile WWW
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Thu Sep 11, 2008 8:11 am
Hello, VAXHeadroom,

you seem to answer to something I said in quite another thread - which thread was it?

There is strong evidence that I am right. It simply depends on the number of flights the reusable vehicle can do in its lifetime. It also has to do with the technological progress reducing the required investment.



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)


Back to top
Profile
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Thu Jan 29, 2009 10:46 am
The article "Odd Asteroid Hangs Out with Earth" ( www.space.com/scienceastronomy/090125-a ... 09-BD.html ) refers to
Quote:
The asteroid, catalogued as 2009 BD
.

What about using it as a test-bed to answer the question of the Unknowns? Its diameter is 10 meters, it doesn't have much gravity, it is not much farther away than the Moon but might be a substitute for a space vehicle and it always is in Earth's vicinity.

It will be favourable to first read the short article.



What about it?



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)


Back to top
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 63 posts ] 
 

Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests


© 2014 The International Space Fellowship, developed by Gabitasoft Interactive. All Rights Reserved.  Privacy Policy | Terms of Use