Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Artemis II and the invisible hazard on the way to the Moon

ansto.gov.au

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 72 posts

Re: Artemis II and the invisible hazard on the way to the Moon

#21

Post by cubefox »

spacedoutman wrote: post #7
zeristor wrote: post #3

I thought one of the things with New Space is that Commercial off the Shelf parts were being used more and more. I’m assuming if that’s a case there have been more mishaps. How does SpaceX tackle this with both the rockets, and the thousand of Starlinks.

The threat of radiation is severely overblown. NASA is overpaying for underperforming "hardened" hardware that performs no better than non-hardened. You can see this yourself with the mars helicopter ingenuity. If you are desperate for extra safety then just include multiple computers, literally what spacex does.

> If you are desperate for extra safety then just include multiple computers, literally what spacex does.

That does nothing to protect the human body from the radiation damage.

Talking about microchips is a distraction.

Re: Artemis II and the invisible hazard on the way to the Moon

#22

Post by cubefox »

zeristor wrote: post #3

I thought one of the things with New Space is that Commercial off the Shelf parts were being used more and more. I’m assuming if that’s a case there have been more mishaps. How does SpaceX tackle this with both the rockets, and the thousand of Starlinks.

You should read the article. The problem is the destructive effect of radiation on the human body, not on the space hardware.

Re: Artemis II and the invisible hazard on the way to the Moon

#23

Post by UltraSane »

zeristor wrote: post #3

I thought one of the things with New Space is that Commercial off the Shelf parts were being used more and more. I’m assuming if that’s a case there have been more mishaps. How does SpaceX tackle this with both the rockets, and the thousand of Starlinks.

The BAE Systems RAD750 radiation-hardened single-board computers used by Orion are commercial products but typically costs between $200,000 to $500,000 per unit

Re: Artemis II and the invisible hazard on the way to the Moon

#24

Post by glimshe »

arowthway wrote: post #17
voidUpdate wrote: post #6

I enjoy how moon-landing deniers will use the van Allen belts as a reason for why the astronauts could not have made it to the moon because of radiation exposure. Like, you don't believe NASA that they went to the moon, but you believe NASA that the van Allen belts exist?

I'm not disputing that conspiracy theorists tend to lack rigor but there is a full spectrum of positions between "space is fake" and "one specific extraordinary achievement with high incentive to fake it is fake".

There's indeed a full spectrum of positions in this case, but they are all worthless in the sense that they add nothing to someone's understanding of reality.

Re: Artemis II and the invisible hazard on the way to the Moon

#25

Post by Eddy_Viscosity2 »

voidUpdate wrote: post #5
Terr_ wrote: post #2

> Dose rate matters. Particle type matters. Direction matters. Shielding matters. There's an old story where a professor quizzes his physics class about how to most-safely distribute different kinds of radiation sources. A common variation involves three baked cookies, emitting alpha particles, beta, and gamma respectively. One must be eaten, one must be held in your hand, and one must be placed in a pocket. A hint,…

Are we protecting the person with the cookies, or everyone else? I'm struggling to think of the best answer Alpha: In the hand held away from the body would be reasonably safe. In a pocket of a lab coat might provide a little more shielding from the body with the coat material, but it is physically closer. Eaten would be very bad for the user, but protect the outside world the best Beta: Medium penetration, would lik…

Can these cookies be weaponized? Are there secret cookie enrichment factories? Would weapons-grade cookies still be good with milk?

Re: Artemis II and the invisible hazard on the way to the Moon

#26

Post by K0balt »

Terr_ wrote: post #9
voidUpdate wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are we protecting the person with the cookies, or everyone else? I'm struggling to think of the best answer Alpha: In the hand held away from the body would be reasonably safe. In a pocket of a lab coat might provide a little more shielding from the body with the coat material, but it is physically closer. Eaten would be very bad for the user, but protect the outside world the best Beta: Medium penetration, would lik…

IIRC: * Alpha in hand. Eaten, the "shielding" that blocks it will actually be very active living cells, leading to severe health outcomes. Your external layers of dead skin cells will be be fine, putting it in your pocket would be excessive. * Gamma in hand, because whether it's in your hand or in your pocket, it's roughly the same risk, and most of it is actually going through you without stopping to have an effect.…

Same with x-rays. People tend to think “soft” X-rays are safer because they are quickly absorbed by tissue without passing through.

The radiation that passes through is not the problem.

Re: Artemis II and the invisible hazard on the way to the Moon

#27

Post by throwanem »

Terr_ wrote: post #2

> Dose rate matters. Particle type matters. Direction matters. Shielding matters. There's an old story where a professor quizzes his physics class about how to most-safely distribute different kinds of radiation sources. A common variation involves three baked cookies, emitting alpha particles, beta, and gamma respectively. One must be eaten, one must be held in your hand, and one must be placed in a pocket. A hint,…

Eat the gamma, pocket the beta, hold the alpha. Nothing in the picture here stops gamma rays so it doesn't matter what you do with those; skin will stop alpha particles, but so will mucosa (and you die of that); in your pocket, the beta source will spall X-rays off your trousers at least some of the time so the beta burns will be mitigated.

Re: Artemis II and the invisible hazard on the way to the Moon

#28

Post by spacedoutman »

cubefox wrote: post #21
spacedoutman wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The threat of radiation is severely overblown. NASA is overpaying for underperforming "hardened" hardware that performs no better than non-hardened. You can see this yourself with the mars helicopter ingenuity. If you are desperate for extra safety then just include multiple computers, literally what spacex does.

> If you are desperate for extra safety then just include multiple computers, literally what spacex does. That does nothing to protect the human body from the radiation damage. Talking about microchips is a distraction.

Depending what model you subscribe too, small dose radiation can be healthy for you.

Re: Artemis II and the invisible hazard on the way to the Moon

#29

Post by tyho »

voidUpdate wrote: post #5
Terr_ wrote: post #2

> Dose rate matters. Particle type matters. Direction matters. Shielding matters. There's an old story where a professor quizzes his physics class about how to most-safely distribute different kinds of radiation sources. A common variation involves three baked cookies, emitting alpha particles, beta, and gamma respectively. One must be eaten, one must be held in your hand, and one must be placed in a pocket. A hint,…

Are we protecting the person with the cookies, or everyone else? I'm struggling to think of the best answer Alpha: In the hand held away from the body would be reasonably safe. In a pocket of a lab coat might provide a little more shielding from the body with the coat material, but it is physically closer. Eaten would be very bad for the user, but protect the outside world the best Beta: Medium penetration, would lik…

Eat the gamma cookie, it's the worst option for any, but with gamma it won't matter much whether it's in your hand, pocket or gut.

Pocket the beta emitter, a little bit of shielding will make a big difference.

Hold the alpha emitter, if you hold it with just a pair of fingers you will be able to reduce you dosage a lot compared to holding it tightly.

Re: Artemis II and the invisible hazard on the way to the Moon

#30

Post by JumpCrisscross »

voidUpdate wrote: post #6

I enjoy how moon-landing deniers will use the van Allen belts as a reason for why the astronauts could not have made it to the moon because of radiation exposure. Like, you don't believe NASA that they went to the moon, but you believe NASA that the van Allen belts exist?

Any entertaining “Artemis II is a hoax” takes?
Post reply on HN