Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
The Center for Space Plasma and Aeronomic Research (CSPAR), UA Huntsville.
b
Space Radiation Analysis Group, NASA Johnson Space Center
Abstract. The ionizing radiation environment in space poses a hazard for spacecraft and space
crews. The hazardous components of this environment are reviewed and those which contribute
to radiation hazards and effects identified. Avoiding the adverse effects of space radiation
requires design, planning, monitoring and management. Radiation effects on spacecraft are
avoided largely though spacecraft design. Managing radiation exposures of space crews involves
not only protective spacecraft design and careful mission planning. Exposures must be managed
in real time. The now-casting and forecasting needed to effectively manage crew exposures is
presented. The techniques used and the space environment modeling needed to implement these
techniques are discussed.
Keywords: ionizing radiation, space radiation, radiation effects, radiation protection
PACS: 61.80.-x, 87.53.-j, 94.20.wq
INTRODUCTION
The ionizing particle environment in space is the dominant source of ionizing
radiation within space systems. The radiation doses from particles greatly exceed
those from other sources except at or very near the exterior surface where solar UV
and x-rays can be important. It is for this reason that basic research on space radiation
has immediate applications in spacecraft design and crew protection. Research which
serves to characterize the radiation environment within the heliosphere and the nearby
interstellar medium is directly applicable. Results that permit the estimation of the
environment up twenty years in the future and at locations where no measurements
have been yet made are particularly useful for space system design and mission
planning.
Management of crew radiation exposures is essential if humans are live and work
safely in space. Research that provides for situational awareness of the ongoing and
evolving radiation environment due to solar activity is of great importance. Models
that permit the extrapolation of current conditions one or more days into the future are
highly desirable as they could form the basis for planning to minimize crew exposures.
198
199
The important components of the radiation belts are protons and electrons. In the
Earths inner belt, only protons are able to penetrate deep enough into space systems
to pose a hazard for space crews. Even electronics is rarely near enough to the surface
to be affected by electrons in the Earths inner belt. Trapped protons can deliver
hazardous doses of radiation to crew members during extra vehicular activity (EVA).
These radiation doses can also damage the electronics. In addition the trapped protons
can cause single event effects [8].
The Earths outer belt is dominated by electrons. While these electrons dont have
the energy to penetrate deeply into spacecraft, they embed so much electrical charge in
the surface materials that the dielectrics breakdown and electrical discharges can occur
[9]. These can directly affect the electronics within the spacecraft.
200
which will defeat the usual error-detection and correction paradigm [14] used in
spacecraft design.
Designers rely on flux models of the space radiation environment to estimate SEE
rates so that they can devise a robust design that will not fail on orbit. They need to
know the most extreme radiation environment they can expect to encounter during the
planned mission at a confidence level of their choosing. Currently, this relies on
predicting the radiation environment as much as 20 years in the future so as to cover
the planned time of the mission. While this can be done with some confidence for
cosmic rays, and trapped radiation, solar energetic particle events cannot be predicted
in advance, certainly not 20 years in advance. At present engineers either use previous
measurements of extreme events like the October 1989 event [15] or probabilistic
models for the bounding-case particle event at their chosen confidence level [16,17].
All these models rely on accurate measurements of SEP spectra over long periods of
time.
For missions at distant locations in the heliosphere, designers rely on extrapolating
measurements from 1 AU using some extrapolation law. See Lario et al. [18] for a
discussion of radial extrapolation.
201
to know the upper bounds that the elemental energy spectra will reach at specified
confidence levels. For crew doses, the emphasis is on time integrated fluencies, but
because crew members move into locations affording differing amounts of shielding,
fluxes are also important. NASA is currently developing improved space weather
climatology models that can provide more detail on the upper bound environments.
The relevant characterizations sought are the peak SEP flux spectra and integrated
fluence spectra for the initial part of a solar particle event and for the entire event or
episode of events.
In addition to mission planning and crewed system design, NASA manages
radiation exposure during missions applying the ALARA principle and, in any case,
insuring that dose limits are not exceeded. To manage radiation exposures during a
mission, situational awareness is essential. NASA relies on NOAA to report and
forecast weather conditions in space. These reports are based on data from NOAAs
weather satellites and ground stations. NASA also monitors the radiation environment
on the ISS using a tissue equivalent proportional counter [21] and a charged particle
directional spectrometer [22]. In addition, NASA has computational tool that
calculates when the vehicle will next enter a region of low geomagnetic cutoff,
potentially exposing the crew to SEPs. There is another tool to model the shielding
afforded crew members in different locations within the ISS or on EVA.
NASA is developing tools that allow them to go beyond nowcasting the space
environment. NASA is now evaluating an All Clear forecast tool [23] that evaluates
the non-potential energy stored in the magnetic fields of each active region on the Sun
to estimate the threat level. This tool gives a whole-Sun threat level for the coming
day. When the threat level is low, EVAs and other activities that place crew members
in less well-shielded locations can be undertaken with lower risk. This tool is currently
available in the WWW at http://www.uah.edu/cspar/research/mag4-page.
For the purpose of managing crew dose during mission operations, it would be very
desirable to extrapolate the current space weather situation 1-2 days into the future so
that the managers will be able to predict the consequences of continuing on the
mission time line. NASA is seeking several capabilities. Before an event occurs
knowledge of the interplanetary magnetic field conditions [24, 25] could be used to
understand the magnetic connections of Earth to the active regions on the Sun. That
knowledge could be used in models of SEP acceleration and propagation [26, 27] to
forecast the time profiles of events from each active region should they occur in the
immediate future. That knowledge could be used to weigh the threat posed by the
stored magnetic free energy in each active region in order to better understand the
risks of a significant particle event at Earth in the coming day.
Once an event has occurred on the Sun (as observed in x-rays and coronagraph
images) knowledge of the pre-existing interplanetary magnetic field conditions,
coupled with models for SPE acceleration could perhaps be used to forecast the
coming solar particle event at Earth. Once particles begin to arrive at Earth, perhaps
the additional knowledge of their energy spectra can be used to refine the predictions
so as to forecast how the event will evolve of the coming day.
It is clear from the discussion above that the radiation exposure management for the
crew can be improved if models that characterize the interplanetary magnetic field and
202
describe particle acceleration following outbursts on the Sun can be developed that are
accurate and fast enough for use in real-time radiation exposure management.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was supported in part by the NASAs Living with Star Programs Targeted
Research and Technology Program and NASAs Space Radiation Analysis Group.
REFERENCES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Norbert Przybilla, Maria-Fernanda Nieva and Keith Butler, Ap. J., 688, L103L106 (2008).
Edward Anders and Nicolas Grevesse, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 53, 197214 (1989).
J. A. Simpson, Ann. Rev. of Nucl. and Part. Sci., 33, 323-382 (1983).
J. A. Lesniak and W. R. Webber, Astrophys. J., 223, 676-696 (1978).
A. C. Cummings and E. C. Stone, Sp. Sci. Rev., 78,117-128 (1996).
A. C. Cummings, E. C. Stone, and C. D. Steenberg, Ap. J. , 578,194210 (2002).
D. V. Reames and C. K. Ng, Ap. J., 610, 510522 (2004).
R. D. Schrimpf and D. M. Fleetwood, Radiation Effects And Soft Errors In Integrated Circuits And
Electronic Devices, Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Company, Ltd., 2004.
9. Andrew Holmes-Siedle and Len Adams, Handbook of Radiation Effects, London: Oxford Univ.
Press, 2001.
10. The Space Environment Information System (SPENVIS), http://www.spenvis.oma.be/
11. Cosmic Ray Effects on MicroElectronics (CRME) https://creme.isde.vanderbilt.edu/
12.J. Tweed, S.A. Walker, J.W. Wilson, F.A. Cucinotta, R.K. Tripathi, S. Blattnig, C.J. Mertens, Adv.
Space Res., 35, 194-201 (2005).
13. Seltzer, S. M., SHIELDOSE, A Computer Code for Space-Shielding Radiation Dose Calculations,
National Bureau of Standards, NBS Technical Note 1116, Washington D.C.: U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1980
14. R.W. Hamming, The Bell System Technical Journal, 29, 147-160 (1950).
15.Allan J. Tylka, James H. Adams, Jr., Paul R. Boberg, Buddy Brownstein, William F. Dietrich, Erwin
O. Flueckiger, Edward L. Petersen, Margaret A. Shea, Don F. Smart, and Edward C. Smith, IEEE
Trans on Nucl. Sci., 44, pp. 2150-2160 (1997).
16.J. Feynman, G. Spitale, and J. Wang, JGR, 98, 13,281-13,294 (1993).
17.M.A., Xapsos, G. P. Summers, J. L. Barth, E. G. Stassinopoulos, and E. A. Burke, IEEE Trans. on
Nucl. Sci., 46, 1481-1485 (1999).
18.D. Lario, M. B. Kallenrode, R. B. Decker, E. C. Roelof, S. M. Krimigis, A. Aran and B. Sanahuja,
Astrophys. J., 653, 15311544 (2006).
19.Francis A. Cucinotta, Walter Schimmerling, John W. Wilson, Leif E. Peterson, Gautam D. Badhwar,
Premkumar B. Saganti, and John F. Dicello, Rad. Res., 156, 682-688 (2001).
20.J. L. Shinn, J. E. Nealy, L. W. Townsend, J. W. Wilson and J. S. Wood, Adv. Space Res., 14, 863871 (1994).
21.T. B. Borak1, T. Doke, T. Fuse, S. Guetersloh, L. Heilbronn, K. Hara, M. Moyers, S. Suzuki, P.
Taddei, K. Terasawa, and C. J. Zeitlin, Rad. Res., 162, 687-692 (2004).
22.Gautam D. Badhwar, Physica Medica, 17, 287-291 (2001)
23.David Falconer, Abdulnasser F. Barghouty, Igor Khazanov, and Ron Moore, Space Weather, 9,
S04003 (2011)
24.P. Riley, R. Lionello, J. A. Linker, Z. Mikic, J. Luhmann, and J. Wijaya, Solar Phys., 274, 36-45
(2011).
25. S. M. P. McKenna-Lawlor, C. D. Fry, M. Dryer, D. Heynderickx, K. Kecskemety, K. Kudela, and J.
Balaz, Annal. Geophys., doi:10.5194/angeo-30-405-2012 (2012).
26.O.P. Verkhoglyadova, G. Li, G. P. Zank, Q. Hu, and R. A. Mewaldt, Ap. J., 693, 894900 (2009).
27. J.G. Luhmann, S.A. Ledvina, D. Krauss-Varban, D. Odstrcil and P. Riley, Adv. in Sp. Res., 40, 295
303 (2007).
203
Copyright of AIP Conference Proceedings is the property of American Institute of Physics and its content may
not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.