|
Keep debates civil. |
On March 30 2017 05:23 thePunGun wrote:There's actually a more feasable solution out there, superconducting shields: Show nested quote +A team at CERN is working with the European Space Radiation Superconducting Shield (link is external) (SR2S) project to develop a superconducting magnet that could protect astronauts from cosmic radiation during deep-space missions. The idea is to create an active magnetic field to shield spacecraft from high-energy particles.
The superconductor coils for the prototype magnet will be made of magnesium diboride (MgB2), the same type of conductor that was developed in the form of wire for the High Luminosity Cold Powering project at CERN's Large Hadron Collider.
.... Source
That's the "force field" we were talking about.
Too heavy, too expensive, too power hungry for now. It could be possible later down the line, but again, this is considered to be used on "habitation sized" vehicles.
That's my problem with the nanontubes as well. Yes, it sounds brilliant and i'd love to see them implemented because it'd mean that not toooooo far off they'll be used in normal construction (maybe my lifetime even) - but nanotubes are ridiculously hard to manufacture. One of the leading research groups (Bayer) gave up and is selling/sold their data.
Everything in regards to nanotubes has to be taken with many grains of salt.
|
Hey fun fact:
The O'Neill cylinder was the blueprint for the citadel in Mass Effect. 
edit:
That's the "force field" we were talking about.
Too heavy, too expensive, too power hungry for now. It could be possible later down the line, but again, this is considered to be used on "habitation sized" vehicles.
Well, Cern said it'd take at least 2 decades and it will probably be powered by "solar reactors", that transmit the required energy via micro waves to the spacecraft. If that's not science fiction, then I don't know what is.. 
|
On March 30 2017 05:30 thePunGun wrote:Hey fun fact: The O'Neill cylinder was the blueprint for the citadel in Mass Effect.
That actually is a fun fact. Didn't occur to me, and i played all of them.
Well, Cern said it'd take at least 2 decades and it will probably be powered by "solar reactors", that transmit the required energy via micro waves to the spacecraft. If that's not science fiction, then I don't know what is..
Not more or less than space suits out of nanotubing. Or fusion for that matter.
All are "proven" concepts. But little more, if anything. We have "microwaved power" before, we have tokamak etc, and we have made a tiny amount of nanotubes. Out of those i guess nanotubing would be the most realistic for the near future, but still way off to be feasable especially without knowing if they'd be cancerous. Which kinda would defeat the purpose (nanotoxic).
|
On March 30 2017 05:30 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2017 05:23 thePunGun wrote:There's actually a more feasable solution out there, superconducting shields: A team at CERN is working with the European Space Radiation Superconducting Shield (link is external) (SR2S) project to develop a superconducting magnet that could protect astronauts from cosmic radiation during deep-space missions. The idea is to create an active magnetic field to shield spacecraft from high-energy particles.
The superconductor coils for the prototype magnet will be made of magnesium diboride (MgB2), the same type of conductor that was developed in the form of wire for the High Luminosity Cold Powering project at CERN's Large Hadron Collider.
.... Source That's the "force field" we were talking about. Too heavy, too expensive, too power hungry for now. It could be possible later down the line, but again, this is considered to be used on "habitation sized" vehicles. That's my problem with the nanontubes as well. Yes, it sounds brilliant and i'd love to see them implemented because it'd mean that not toooooo far off they'll be used in normal construction (maybe my lifetime even) - but nanotubes are ridiculously hard to manufacture. One of the leading research groups (Bayer) gave up and is selling/sold their data. Everything in regards to nanotubes has to be taken with many grains of salt.
Ah yes, the nanotube hype train that eventually gave way to the nanotube disappointment train.
Seems like the most feasible solution for the question at hand though. Manufacturing troubles are much less troublesome than the issues here with the other methods.
|
On March 30 2017 05:41 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2017 05:30 m4ini wrote:On March 30 2017 05:23 thePunGun wrote:There's actually a more feasable solution out there, superconducting shields: A team at CERN is working with the European Space Radiation Superconducting Shield (link is external) (SR2S) project to develop a superconducting magnet that could protect astronauts from cosmic radiation during deep-space missions. The idea is to create an active magnetic field to shield spacecraft from high-energy particles.
The superconductor coils for the prototype magnet will be made of magnesium diboride (MgB2), the same type of conductor that was developed in the form of wire for the High Luminosity Cold Powering project at CERN's Large Hadron Collider.
.... Source That's the "force field" we were talking about. Too heavy, too expensive, too power hungry for now. It could be possible later down the line, but again, this is considered to be used on "habitation sized" vehicles. That's my problem with the nanontubes as well. Yes, it sounds brilliant and i'd love to see them implemented because it'd mean that not toooooo far off they'll be used in normal construction (maybe my lifetime even) - but nanotubes are ridiculously hard to manufacture. One of the leading research groups (Bayer) gave up and is selling/sold their data. Everything in regards to nanotubes has to be taken with many grains of salt. Ah yes, the nanotube hype train that eventually gave way to the nanotube disappointment train. Seems like the most feasible solution for the question at hand though. Manufacturing troubles are much less troublesome than the issues here with the other methods.
I agree that it's the most feasible out of all the sci-fi stuff, but they're still far from "feasible". And certainly not ready in the next decade, if we shoot something up there dressed in nanofied cancer, we might as well drop the shielding altogether. Nanotoxicology actually is a thing with nanotubes. Carbon nanotubes basically are as bad, if not worse, than asbestos.
edit: personally, dropping the shielding for the most part would not even be the worst thing. I do know that this isn't the most loved opinion i have there, but there's always the option of just having a "one way trip".
|
Only people who think we'll reach Mars within a decade are the numb nuts who buy into Musk's Mars hype though. 2050 is a more reasonable estimate.
|
Mars One though!
2050ish is where i'd put it too. Before, it's just not reasonably doable. Not that i think that it needs to be done in the first place, but that's a different story.
|
Zurich15365 Posts
Doesn't change the fact that there still isn't a way to protect humans from GCR right now, is there? it seems to be either "scifi material we haven't found yet" or "force field we currently can't generate". Or, giant blob of mass.
At least to me it was pretty revealing that for all the talk about making the trip to Mars happen in terms of just flying the craft, no one seems to address that we can't go anyway currently without microwaving our central nervous system.
|
On March 30 2017 05:58 zatic wrote:Doesn't change the fact that there still isn't a way to protect humans from GCR right now, is there? it seems to be either "scifi material we haven't found yet" or "force field we currently can't generate". Or, giant blob of mass. At least to me it was pretty revealing that for all the talk about making the trip to Mars happen in terms of just flying the craft, no one seems to address that we can't go anyway currently without microwaving our central nervous system.
There might be, but you discarded it with a notion of needing multiple tons of shielding per square meter. Which is an assumption made by a sci-fi author in 1974 which got published. It's not a study even.
Liquid Hydrogen does shield against GCR. That's why they want to implement it into the nanotube suits (not liquid, obviously). The question is, how much is needed. That's a question i can't answer. It boils down to, yet again, what can we realistically fire into orbit without years of orbital construction - and does the amount of LH2 (amongst other things like plastics etc, composite shielding) fit in there.
edit: considering that we're looking at realistically something that's, on realistic estimates, is "barely" happening in our lifetime, nanotubing might be the way to go. But so might be fusionpowered EM drives, who knows.
|
Zurich15365 Posts
On March 30 2017 06:07 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2017 05:58 zatic wrote:Doesn't change the fact that there still isn't a way to protect humans from GCR right now, is there? it seems to be either "scifi material we haven't found yet" or "force field we currently can't generate". Or, giant blob of mass. At least to me it was pretty revealing that for all the talk about making the trip to Mars happen in terms of just flying the craft, no one seems to address that we can't go anyway currently without microwaving our central nervous system. There might be, but you discarded it with a notion of needing multiple tons of shielding per square meter. Which is an assumption made by a sci-fi author in 1974 which got published. It's not a study even.
No need to be so aggressive. I was really just looking for something online-linkable for what I read in recent enough (2016) book about possible - or impossible - space colonization. Which basically tells the same story, that for all the challenges of taking a trip to Mars, GCR is the one no one has an answer for today. Everything else is at least theoretically solvable given high enough budgets.
Like I wrote above, that was indeed revealing to me, especially since it appears in zero of the discussions today about humans on Mars.
|
United States24770 Posts
On March 29 2017 22:58 zatic wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2017 07:24 micronesia wrote:
NASA unveiled the basics of their plan and timeline for a manned trip to Mars. Does anyone know what current radiation dose estimates are? I don't see how they will solve that problem unless they put astronaut health low on their list of priorities. It's even worse. Estimates for a Mars mission go from anything from close to zero to an average of 10 year shortened lifespan due to increases cancer risk. Do you know the actual estimated dosage (in Rem or Sieverts or what have you)? Shortened lifespan seems like an odd way to measure long-term effects, because most research on the subject of radiation exposure attempts to convert non-acute dosage into chances of getting a type of cancer that would be fatal if left untreated. Since cancer is typically treated, I think there are unnecessary extra uncertainties when reporting estimates in shortened lifespan.
Even if you accept that (and I am sure you'll find enough volunteers), prolonged exposure to cosmic rays might actually fry your brain to an extend that austronauts might become unable to perform their functions during the mission itsself.
It could very well be that even the best of the best arrive as blind imbeciles after an 18 month transfer to Mars. It's probably never discussed publicly because there simply isn't a solution, and it might put a hard stop on human space exploration. That seems strange and even incorrect to me. If the dosage is low enough that lifespan is getting shortened by a matter of a few years at most, then the effects on localized parts of the body should be pretty benign unless all of the radiation exposure occurs over a very short period of time (not the case for a mission to Mars). I think acute radiation dose is being confused with longer-term exposure.
On March 30 2017 02:04 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
More radiation shielding? I get that it requires more fuel which makes the trip take longer but it should be possible? I saw one idea where they used human waste as shielding or you could just launch more shit into space. It might require orbital assembly and you probably have to send fuel and supplies to Mars so you can refuel for the trip home.
So perhaps it makes trips impossible right now but it shouldnt be a dealbreaker.
In theory the obvious answer is to just continually add more and more shielding, but obviously the practical limitations on that are extremely important.
On March 30 2017 02:06 LegalLord wrote:
Send a doge first so you can study the effects of radiation on mammals. It's the only logical way.
Generally I don't think we need to do a Mars mission in order to study this. There are far less expensive ways to irradiate things (I have the same response for the next couple of posts after this one I just quoted as well). Keep in mind that an experiment with a sample size of like one or five wouldn't be that useful for drawing conclusions about shortened lifespan. If the mission increases your risk of early death by 10%, the effects may not be visible in the specimens. In addition, you'd have to wait a long time after the experiment to see if the specimens died early.
Water is good for shielding neutrons and some other stuff, but definitely not as good for gammas due to the low atomic number. I think the top response in that thread is proposing a solution using water which is currently infeasible although an interesting thought experiment.
On March 30 2017 04:22 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2017 04:16 zatic wrote:Well, that's exactly what all estimates seem to be saying. But in reality that means to travel for any extended amount of time away from Earth safely, we would have to sorround us with so much water for shielding, that it's just not going to happen until really scifiy stuff like space elevator or lunar mass driver. I personally find it pretty depressing that we have to leave all space exploration to the robots, and might be stuck on Earth for who knows how long  What about a space suit with a layer of water? Less weight, can last a lot longer for shielding purposes.
A space suit with literally meters of thickness of water would be ridiculously unwieldy.
On March 30 2017 04:50 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2017 04:25 LegalLord wrote:
Why not just lead? Shielding is generally a function of density so you're hardly going to be able to overcome the mass problem. Half truth. How well something shields radiation is a mix of density and number in the atomic table. Second, lead actually would be bad as a radiation shield for interplanetary travel. Not because of weight/mass, but simply because it's good as a shield against x-ray and gamma-ray radiation - which are not the primary problem. Cosmic background radiation is, next to highly penetrative neutron radiation, beta particles etc. It also changes some radiation into worse stuff, for example beta radiation will hit on one side, unshielded x-ray radiation comes out the other (the inside of the ship in that case). While you are right that lead is more prone to Bremsstrahlung radiation than most other materials, you also stated that lead is good shielding against x-rays. I believe you could compensate for the buildup with the design, although an exclusively lead shield may still be a mistake; you would want hydrogenous material to at least help with the neutrons etc.
You'd also have to make it easy to access and easy to switch out (like the tiles on the shuttle), since it will degrade.
Lead won't happen. What type of degradation are you referring to? I'm not in love with lead or anything (and some other metals are nearly as good).
On March 30 2017 05:08 LegalLord wrote:Did some digging and found out that NASA has actually thought about this in far more depth than we did. Their answer? Hydrogen, and specifically a hydrogen-containing composite. General background of the issue for those curious: Show nested quote + Nearly everything we know about the radiation exposure on a trip to Mars we have learned in the past 200 days.
For much longer, we have known that space is a risky place to be, radiation being one of many reasons. We believed that once our explorers safely landed on the surface of Mars, the planet would provide shielding from the ravages of radiation. We didn’t how much, or how little, until very recently. Radiation and its variations impact not only the planning of human and robotic missions, but also the search for life taking place right now.
The first-ever radiation readings from the surface of another planet were published last month in the journal Science. The take-home lesson, as well as the getting-there lesson and the staying-there lesson, is this: don’t forget to pack your shielding. [Mars Radiation Threat to Astronauts Explained (Infographic)]
"Radiation is the one environmental characteristic that we don’t have a lot of experience with on Earth because we’re protected by our magnetosphere and relatively thick atmosphere. But it’s a daily fact of life on Mars," said Don Hassler, the lead author on the paper, "Mars’ Surface Radiation Environment Measured with the Mars Science Laboratory’s Curiosity Rover." SourceNASA commentary: Show nested quote +On Aug. 7, 1972, in the heart of the Apollo era, an enormous solar flare exploded from the sun’s atmosphere. Along with a gigantic burst of light in nearly all wavelengths, this event accelerated a wave of energetic particles. Mostly protons, with a few electrons and heavier elements mixed in, this wash of quick-moving particles would have been dangerous to anyone outside Earth’s protective magnetic bubble. Luckily, the Apollo 16 crew had returned to Earth just five months earlier, narrowly escaping this powerful event.
In the early days of human space flight, scientists were only just beginning to understand how events on the sun could affect space, and in turn how that radiation could affect humans and technology. Today, as a result of extensive space radiation research, we have a much better understanding of our space environment, its effects, and the best ways to protect astronauts—all crucial parts of NASA's mission to send humans to Mars.
"The Martian" film highlights the radiation dangers that could occur on a round trip to Mars. While the mission in the film is fictional, NASA has already started working on the technology to enable an actual trip to Mars in the 2030s. In the film, the astronauts’ habitat on Mars shields them from radiation, and indeed, radiation shielding will be a crucial technology for the voyage. From better shielding to advanced biomedical countermeasures, NASA currently studies how to protect astronauts and electronics from radiation – efforts that will have to be incorporated into every aspect of Mars mission planning, from spacecraft and habitat design to spacewalk protocols.
“The space radiation environment will be a critical consideration for everything in the astronauts’ daily lives, both on the journeys between Earth and Mars and on the surface,” said Ruthan Lewis, an architect and engineer with the human spaceflight program at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. “You’re constantly being bombarded by some amount of radiation.”
...
Using materials that shield more efficiently would cut down on weight and cost, but finding the right material takes research and ingenuity. NASA is currently investigating a handful of possibilities that could be used in anything from the spacecraft to the Martian habitat to space suits.
“The best way to stop particle radiation is by running that energetic particle into something that’s a similar size,” said Pellish. “Otherwise, it can be like you’re bouncing a tricycle off a tractor-trailer.”
Because protons and neutrons are similar in size, one element blocks both extremely well—hydrogen, which most commonly exists as just a single proton and an electron. Conveniently, hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, and makes up substantial parts of some common compounds, such as water and plastics like polyethylene. Engineers could take advantage of already-required mass by processing the astronauts’ trash into plastic-filled tiles used to bolster radiation protection. Water, already required for the crew, could be stored strategically to create a kind of radiation storm shelter in the spacecraft or habitat. However, this strategy comes with some challenges—the crew would need to use the water and then replace it with recycled water from the advanced life support systems.
Polyethylene, the same plastic commonly found in water bottles and grocery bags, also has potential as a candidate for radiation shielding. It is very high in hydrogen and fairly cheap to produce—however, it’s not strong enough to build a large structure, especially a spacecraft, which goes through high heat and strong forces during launch. And adding polyethylene to a metal structure would add quite a bit of mass, meaning that more fuel would be required for launch.
“We’ve made progress on reducing and shielding against these energetic particles, but we’re still working on finding a material that is a good shield and can act as the primary structure of the spacecraft,” said Sheila Thibeault, a materials researcher at NASA’s Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia.
One material in development at NASA has the potential to do both jobs: Hydrogenated boron nitride nanotubes—known as hydrogenated BNNTs—are tiny, nanotubes made of carbon, boron, and nitrogen, with hydrogen interspersed throughout the empty spaces left in between the tubes. Boron is also an excellent absorber secondary neutrons, making hydrogenated BNNTs an ideal shielding material.
Computer simulation of Martian polar plume
This computer simulation, based on data from NASA’s Mars Atmosphere and Volatile Evolution, or MAVEN, spacecraft, shows the interaction of the streaming solar wind with Mars’ upper atmosphere. MAVEN is gathering information on the space environment at Mars—information that will be key to planning a human mission to Mars in the 2030s.
Credits: X. Fang, University of Colorado, and the MAVEN science team
Read more about MAVEN's atmospheric particle mapping
“This material is really strong—even at high heat—meaning that it’s great for structure,” said Thibeault.
Remarkably, researchers have successfully made yarn out of BNNTs, so it’s flexible enough to be woven into the fabric of space suits, providing astronauts with significant radiation protection even while they’re performing spacewalks in transit or out on the harsh Martian surface. Though hydrogenated BNNTs are still in development and testing, they have the potential to be one of our key structural and shielding materials in spacecraft, habitats, vehicles, and space suits that will be used on Mars. SourceAlso force fields.
There's really nothing knew there except for the recent radiation measurements from Mars. Hydrogenous materials are good for shielding small particles like neutrons and high-Z materials (e.g., lead) are good for shielding gammas. An ideal solution will likely be a combination of those two categories.
On March 30 2017 05:42 m4ini wrote:
edit: personally, dropping the shielding for the most part would not even be the worst thing. I do know that this isn't the most loved opinion i have there, but there's always the option of just having a "one way trip".
I am a strong believer in NOT sending astronauts on a mission unless we can be reasonably sure we can bring them back safely. Of course there is some risk but to send people to their deaths or to their demise to explore space when we could send robots instead is ridiculous.
|
On March 30 2017 06:24 zatic wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2017 06:07 m4ini wrote:On March 30 2017 05:58 zatic wrote:Doesn't change the fact that there still isn't a way to protect humans from GCR right now, is there? it seems to be either "scifi material we haven't found yet" or "force field we currently can't generate". Or, giant blob of mass. At least to me it was pretty revealing that for all the talk about making the trip to Mars happen in terms of just flying the craft, no one seems to address that we can't go anyway currently without microwaving our central nervous system. There might be, but you discarded it with a notion of needing multiple tons of shielding per square meter. Which is an assumption made by a sci-fi author in 1974 which got published. It's not a study even. No need to be so aggressive. I was really just looking for something online-linkable for what I read in recent enough (2016) book about possible - or impossible - space colonization. Which basically tells the same story, that for all the challenges of taking a trip to Mars, GCR is the one no one has an answer for today. Everything else is at least theoretically solvable given high enough budgets. Like I wrote above, that was indeed revealing to me, especially since it appears in zero of the discussions today about humans on Mars.
Didn't mean to come off as aggressive. And of course radiation constantly pops up in regards to humans on mars, just not frequently - for a reason. Humans on mars have less of a problem with radiation (underground habitats). It's the trip that kills it (literally).
There's really two types of radiation you need to worry about. Solar radiation (commonly, low-mid energy protons, electrons, x-ray and the such), and GCRs (commonly, heavier protons, alpha particles).
The first stuff we can shield against conventionally. In regards to GCR not having an answer, no idea where you got that from - NASA itself gives you an explanation on how you could possibly shield against it.
“The best way to stop particle radiation is by running that energetic particle into something that’s a similar size,” said Pellish. “Otherwise, it can be like you’re bouncing a tricycle off a tractor-trailer.”
Because protons and neutrons are similar in size, one element blocks both extremely well—hydrogen, which most commonly exists as just a single proton and an electron. Conveniently, hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, and makes up substantial parts of some common compounds, such as water and plastics like polyethylene. Engineers could take advantage of already-required mass by processing the astronauts’ trash into plastic-filled tiles used to bolster radiation protection. Water, already required for the crew, could be stored strategically to create a kind of radiation storm shelter in the spacecraft or habitat. However, this strategy comes with some challenges—the crew would need to use the water and then replace it with recycled water from the advanced life support systems.
Again. We know how to stop GCR. Hydrogen does it. The problem now is an engineering one: the shielding needs to be "integrated" in the pod. As in, to save weight (or we go back to orbital construction, which nobody really wants), the shielding also has to double as structure. You can't build a space ship and then plonk plastic/water/lead on it. It's actually possible to do it like that, if you're willing to spend the time/money/effort for it. It's just not really feasible in the real world as long as you can't "build" a ship out of hydrogen or LH2. Which incidentally is what they did with the nanotubes, those proposed suits are basically hydrogen-composite "armors".
For a space ship, you could come up with different designs. As i mentioned, i don't know how thick the layer needs to be (it actually doesn't need to stop the radiation either, just slow the particles down so something else can block them, like polyethylene - pretty much exactly like for example composite armor on battle tanks), but i doubt it's impossible.
Again, didn't mean to sound mean, guess it's my inner german.
While you are right that lead is more prone to Bremsstrahlung radiation than most other materials, you also stated that lead is good shielding against x-rays. I believe you could compensate for the buildup with the design, although an exclusively lead shield may still be a mistake; you would want hydrogenous material to at least help with the neutrons etc.
An exclusive lead shield will be deadly. There's zero reason to even argue it, it won't stop half the radiation that's out there. Yes, it's good against x-rays and gamma radiation, but you'd only need a "bunker" in case of massive solar storms/ejections. Otherwise you can go with lighter, easier to work with material.
What type of degradation are you referring to? I'm not in love with lead or anything (and some other metals are nearly as good).
Can't tell, only know it does. Also shown in radiation aprons in medical institutes, they only have "x lifespan" (10 years or something?).
|
Why not just use the Astronauts feces to protect from Radiation, along with a outer wall of water...?
|
United States24770 Posts
On March 30 2017 10:10 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Why not just use the Astronauts feces to protect from Radiation, along with a outer wall of water...?
If you read the preceding discussion, you will see that a very large amount of water would be needed to provide reasonable shielding (generally same argument for the feces). It's not currently feasible to build a spaceship with meters-thick walls/tanks of water for shielding.
Source
|
On March 30 2017 10:20 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2017 10:10 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Why not just use the Astronauts feces to protect from Radiation, along with a outer wall of water...? If you read the preceding discussion, you will see that a very large amount of water would be needed to provide reasonable shielding (generally same argument for the feces). It's not currently feasible to build a spaceship with meters-thick walls/tanks of water for shielding. Source
Where was that made clear?
Why not just use the Astronauts feces to protect from Radiation, along with a outer wall of water...?
Because, why use feces in the first place then?
I do think there's better sources for hydrocarbons than just plain poop though.
|
That idea sounds like shit.
Truth be told there's not much more to say considering NASA has a better solution than any half-baked idea we can come up with. Water is really bulky, LH2 requires an unpleasant amount of thermal isolation (which would also be a completely shitty requirement for suits), and most other ideas have some impractical energy requirements. And so on.
@zatic: people probably don't talk much about this for the same reason they don't talk much about the logistics of refueling a battle tank. It just isn't the kind of thing that makes for good small talk.
|
On March 30 2017 10:31 LegalLord wrote:
That idea sounds like shit.
Truth be told there's not much more to say considering NASA has a better solution than any half-baked idea we can come up with. Water is really bulky, LH2 requires an unpleasant amount of thermal isolation (which would also be a completely shitty requirement for suits), and most other ideas have some impractical energy requirements. And so on.
@zatic: people probably don't talk much about this for the same reason they don't talk much about the logistics of refueling a battle tank. It just isn't the kind of thing that makes for good small talk.
You have the insulation for some parts of the ship anyway.
NASA states that they'll most likely use liquid hydrogen for space exploration. That plus the fact that the entire ship has to be thermally insulated either way makes me think that the thermal insulation in regards to the ship itself is not the biggest problem.
Battle tank refueling if you run out in simulated combat actually makes good pub talk, btw. From experience. 
edit:
Of course, entirely different story for the space suits. But nanotubes, right?
edit2: in fact, some form of circulating LH2 in the ship behind insulation serves multiple purposes on top, such as cooling the ship which can't radiate/conduct heat, and "stirring" the LH2 to prevent it from freezing which would be disastrous. The longer i think of it, the more i think that it's actually the most realistic solution - it just turns into an engineering problem. But if you look at the design of turbopumps and cooled rocket nozzles, it's not "unsolvable". Those things are complicated af.
|
|
|
Zurich15365 Posts
This was so exciting holy shit. What is there to say, great fucking job SpaceX!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
