How did Apollo missions solve the cosmic radiation problem?









up vote
33
down vote

favorite
6












One of the major hurdles of space exploration is cosmic radiation. How did the Apollo missions solve the radiation problem?



NASA would have shielded the astronauts to some level by some material. How did they try to at least minimalise the effect?










share|improve this question



















  • 1




    Also: Could an Apollo crew have been killed by Solar radiation?
    – DarkDust
    Nov 5 at 14:14











  • NASA knows that this problem exists and took a risk?. they would have shielded the astronauts to some level by some material. My question how did they try to atleast minimalise the effect.
    – r2_d2
    Nov 5 at 14:21










  • IIRC, the largest amount of radiation the astronauts were subjected to occurred when flying through the Van Allen belt. No idea how long that took (a few hours?)
    – DarkDust
    Nov 5 at 15:51










  • @r2_d2: If an efficient shielding wiith minimal weight (less than 0.1 % of the Command Module) would been possible, NASA would have used it.
    – Uwe
    Nov 5 at 20:35







  • 9




    @r2_d2 Everything involves taking a risk. NASA reduced risks where practical, sure. Compared to the other risks involved in early spaceflight though, and given the duration, this was not considered a high risk compared to sitting on top of a possibly-exploding rocket with a possibly-leaking life support system and a possibly-failing re-entry system. And that's before we look at the lunar lander risks. So your assumption is incorrect - they simply assessed this risk and decided it was not worth addressing.
    – Graham
    Nov 6 at 9:06















up vote
33
down vote

favorite
6












One of the major hurdles of space exploration is cosmic radiation. How did the Apollo missions solve the radiation problem?



NASA would have shielded the astronauts to some level by some material. How did they try to at least minimalise the effect?










share|improve this question



















  • 1




    Also: Could an Apollo crew have been killed by Solar radiation?
    – DarkDust
    Nov 5 at 14:14











  • NASA knows that this problem exists and took a risk?. they would have shielded the astronauts to some level by some material. My question how did they try to atleast minimalise the effect.
    – r2_d2
    Nov 5 at 14:21










  • IIRC, the largest amount of radiation the astronauts were subjected to occurred when flying through the Van Allen belt. No idea how long that took (a few hours?)
    – DarkDust
    Nov 5 at 15:51










  • @r2_d2: If an efficient shielding wiith minimal weight (less than 0.1 % of the Command Module) would been possible, NASA would have used it.
    – Uwe
    Nov 5 at 20:35







  • 9




    @r2_d2 Everything involves taking a risk. NASA reduced risks where practical, sure. Compared to the other risks involved in early spaceflight though, and given the duration, this was not considered a high risk compared to sitting on top of a possibly-exploding rocket with a possibly-leaking life support system and a possibly-failing re-entry system. And that's before we look at the lunar lander risks. So your assumption is incorrect - they simply assessed this risk and decided it was not worth addressing.
    – Graham
    Nov 6 at 9:06













up vote
33
down vote

favorite
6









up vote
33
down vote

favorite
6






6





One of the major hurdles of space exploration is cosmic radiation. How did the Apollo missions solve the radiation problem?



NASA would have shielded the astronauts to some level by some material. How did they try to at least minimalise the effect?










share|improve this question















One of the major hurdles of space exploration is cosmic radiation. How did the Apollo missions solve the radiation problem?



NASA would have shielded the astronauts to some level by some material. How did they try to at least minimalise the effect?







apollo-program radiation cosmic-radiation






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Nov 6 at 0:23









Peter Mortensen

1867




1867










asked Nov 5 at 14:06









r2_d2

3711311




3711311







  • 1




    Also: Could an Apollo crew have been killed by Solar radiation?
    – DarkDust
    Nov 5 at 14:14











  • NASA knows that this problem exists and took a risk?. they would have shielded the astronauts to some level by some material. My question how did they try to atleast minimalise the effect.
    – r2_d2
    Nov 5 at 14:21










  • IIRC, the largest amount of radiation the astronauts were subjected to occurred when flying through the Van Allen belt. No idea how long that took (a few hours?)
    – DarkDust
    Nov 5 at 15:51










  • @r2_d2: If an efficient shielding wiith minimal weight (less than 0.1 % of the Command Module) would been possible, NASA would have used it.
    – Uwe
    Nov 5 at 20:35







  • 9




    @r2_d2 Everything involves taking a risk. NASA reduced risks where practical, sure. Compared to the other risks involved in early spaceflight though, and given the duration, this was not considered a high risk compared to sitting on top of a possibly-exploding rocket with a possibly-leaking life support system and a possibly-failing re-entry system. And that's before we look at the lunar lander risks. So your assumption is incorrect - they simply assessed this risk and decided it was not worth addressing.
    – Graham
    Nov 6 at 9:06













  • 1




    Also: Could an Apollo crew have been killed by Solar radiation?
    – DarkDust
    Nov 5 at 14:14











  • NASA knows that this problem exists and took a risk?. they would have shielded the astronauts to some level by some material. My question how did they try to atleast minimalise the effect.
    – r2_d2
    Nov 5 at 14:21










  • IIRC, the largest amount of radiation the astronauts were subjected to occurred when flying through the Van Allen belt. No idea how long that took (a few hours?)
    – DarkDust
    Nov 5 at 15:51










  • @r2_d2: If an efficient shielding wiith minimal weight (less than 0.1 % of the Command Module) would been possible, NASA would have used it.
    – Uwe
    Nov 5 at 20:35







  • 9




    @r2_d2 Everything involves taking a risk. NASA reduced risks where practical, sure. Compared to the other risks involved in early spaceflight though, and given the duration, this was not considered a high risk compared to sitting on top of a possibly-exploding rocket with a possibly-leaking life support system and a possibly-failing re-entry system. And that's before we look at the lunar lander risks. So your assumption is incorrect - they simply assessed this risk and decided it was not worth addressing.
    – Graham
    Nov 6 at 9:06








1




1




Also: Could an Apollo crew have been killed by Solar radiation?
– DarkDust
Nov 5 at 14:14





Also: Could an Apollo crew have been killed by Solar radiation?
– DarkDust
Nov 5 at 14:14













NASA knows that this problem exists and took a risk?. they would have shielded the astronauts to some level by some material. My question how did they try to atleast minimalise the effect.
– r2_d2
Nov 5 at 14:21




NASA knows that this problem exists and took a risk?. they would have shielded the astronauts to some level by some material. My question how did they try to atleast minimalise the effect.
– r2_d2
Nov 5 at 14:21












IIRC, the largest amount of radiation the astronauts were subjected to occurred when flying through the Van Allen belt. No idea how long that took (a few hours?)
– DarkDust
Nov 5 at 15:51




IIRC, the largest amount of radiation the astronauts were subjected to occurred when flying through the Van Allen belt. No idea how long that took (a few hours?)
– DarkDust
Nov 5 at 15:51












@r2_d2: If an efficient shielding wiith minimal weight (less than 0.1 % of the Command Module) would been possible, NASA would have used it.
– Uwe
Nov 5 at 20:35





@r2_d2: If an efficient shielding wiith minimal weight (less than 0.1 % of the Command Module) would been possible, NASA would have used it.
– Uwe
Nov 5 at 20:35





9




9




@r2_d2 Everything involves taking a risk. NASA reduced risks where practical, sure. Compared to the other risks involved in early spaceflight though, and given the duration, this was not considered a high risk compared to sitting on top of a possibly-exploding rocket with a possibly-leaking life support system and a possibly-failing re-entry system. And that's before we look at the lunar lander risks. So your assumption is incorrect - they simply assessed this risk and decided it was not worth addressing.
– Graham
Nov 6 at 9:06





@r2_d2 Everything involves taking a risk. NASA reduced risks where practical, sure. Compared to the other risks involved in early spaceflight though, and given the duration, this was not considered a high risk compared to sitting on top of a possibly-exploding rocket with a possibly-leaking life support system and a possibly-failing re-entry system. And that's before we look at the lunar lander risks. So your assumption is incorrect - they simply assessed this risk and decided it was not worth addressing.
– Graham
Nov 6 at 9:06











5 Answers
5






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
59
down vote













While cosmic radiation is a problem, it's the same as with radiation on Earth: the risk is cumulative. The levels were low enough that missions of 1-2 weeks at this level did not pose a big health risk, so no shielding was necessary.



The big remaining problem was radiation from solar flares and CMEs. These produce so much radiation it wasn't possible to build a shield thick enough to protect from them (within the weight budgets available for Apollo). So NASA looked at solar activity, launched during periods when activity was low and hoped a CME wouldn't occur.



The Apollo spacecraft had a thin aluminium hull. This blocks some of the radiation, but not much.






share|improve this answer






















  • I wonder if a thin layer of lead might have blocked more radiation (or does that only work against Superman)?
    – Xen2050
    Nov 7 at 11:51






  • 1




    @Xen2050 It would have, but it would also have been very heavy. Not only that, but it would have required more aluminum to support the lead, further increasing weight. Lead is too soft to be used as a structural material.
    – kingledion
    Nov 7 at 12:46






  • 3




    A thin layer of lead would have generated lots of secondary radiation. You'd need a thick layer of lead, but that'd have been too heavy.
    – Hobbes
    Nov 7 at 14:37

















up vote
43
down vote













They didn't, which is why the Apollo astronauts saw blinding flashes inside their eyes during the mission and then had a much higher probability of suffering from cataracts later in life.



The flashes were from Cerenkov radiation passing though their eyeballs, occurring as often as 2 per minute on the Apollo missions.



Of the 39 astronauts to suffer from cataracts later in life 36 had flown on Apollo missions. On near Earth missions such as visits to space stations, the Earth's magnetic field provides some protection.






share|improve this answer




















  • And is this one of the reasons we aren't sending people outside the magnetosphere anymore?
    – Mindwin
    Nov 6 at 15:54






  • 13




    @Mindwin Possibly, but it's a ways down the list of reasons, beneath "lack of consistent funding" and "no rockets big enough".
    – anaximander
    Nov 6 at 16:49






  • 4




    Aren’t the oldest Astronauts those who have flown Apollo missions, therefore more likely to develop cataracts?
    – Michael
    Nov 6 at 19:28






  • 3




    @Mark Alan Shepard was the first American in space in the Mercury spacecraft Freedom 7, and walked on the Moon as commander of Apollo 14 </pedantMode>
    – Dave Gremlin
    Nov 6 at 21:27






  • 1




    @DaveGremlin There were seven Mercury astronauts, six of whom - as Mark wrote - didn't go to the moon (and one of whom was grounded in 1962 but later made it to LEO in ASTP/SATP).
    – GNiklasch
    Nov 7 at 13:00

















up vote
39
down vote













Apollo solved the cosmic radiation problem in a counter-intuitive manner: by minimizing shielding.



Most cosmic rays are very-high-energy atomic nuclei; the rest are very-high-energy protons. When these particles strike something (eg. a sheet of aluminum), they generate a shower of secondary radiation. Any effective shield needs to be thick enough to both trigger the secondary radiation and then absorb it. If the shield just triggers the secondary radiation, it makes things worse, because the secondary radiation is likely to be absorbed by the human body, where the primary radiation is likely to just pass through without interacting.



There are some materials, such as water or hydrogen-rich plastics, that can absorb cosmic rays without triggering the secondary radiation, but Apollo didn't carry enough water to provide a meaningful shield, and the mass limitations didn't permit a plastic shield.






share|improve this answer
















  • 13




    Nitpick: Protons are atomic nuclei, too. Hydrogen, you know :-)
    – jamesqf
    Nov 6 at 4:04

















up vote
1
down vote













Cosmic radiation is not an acute problem, if you ignore the sun weather and gamma bursts which occassionally occurs. Keep in mind that the life time likelyhood for cancer is anyway around 40 %. The additional radiation per year in the ISS is e.g. 44 to 105 milli Gy. According to the wikipedia graphic below, the increase in cancer-chance is neglectable. Moreover, small radiation doses induce up-regulation of anti-oxidative molecules in cells, which lowers cancer chance even more over longer time-spans.



The other case, if the radiation is so high that astronauts would be killed instantly, is also neglectable. In such a case the electronics would fail too even if hardened.



In conclusion. Is radiation a problem? No, not really. Especially if you compare cancer rates to smoking. However, one can always try to make things better. One way would be to use water or the fuel to shield the astronauts. Unfortunately, this is not always achievable with current payloads.



https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a1/Increased_risk_with_dose.svg






share|improve this answer





























    up vote
    0
    down vote













    The "shielding" on the Command module, i.e. outer skin component, was actually stainless steel. Aluminum and other alloys were used for the basic spacecraft structure. Materials were chosen which minimized radiation effects as much as possible. Alpha and beta particles such as are common in the Van Allen belts are easily stopped by thin layers of metal. Cosmic rays are extremely energetic and would not be stopped by lead sheeting.




    The Command Module (CM) consisted of two basic structures joined together: the inner structure (pressure shell) and the outer structure.



    The inner structure was an aluminum sandwich construction which consisted of a welded aluminum inner skin, adhesively bonded aluminum honeycomb core, and outer face sheet. The thickness of the honeycomb varied from about 1.5 inches (3.8 cm) at the base, to about 0.25 inches (0.64 cm) at the forward access tunnel. This inner structure was the pressurized crew compartment.



    The outer structure was made of stainless steel brazed honeycomb brazed between steel alloy face sheets. It varied in thickness from 0.5 inch to 2.5 inches. Part of the area between the inner and outer shells was filled with a layer of fiberglass insulation as additional heat protection.




    (Wikipedia: Apollo Command/Service Module)






    share|improve this answer










    New contributor




    user152202 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.

















      Your Answer





      StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
      return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
      StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
      StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
      );
      );
      , "mathjax-editing");

      StackExchange.ready(function()
      var channelOptions =
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "508"
      ;
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
      createEditor();
      );

      else
      createEditor();

      );

      function createEditor()
      StackExchange.prepareEditor(
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      convertImagesToLinks: false,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: null,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader:
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      ,
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      );



      );













       

      draft saved


      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function ()
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f31820%2fhow-did-apollo-missions-solve-the-cosmic-radiation-problem%23new-answer', 'question_page');

      );

      Post as a guest






























      5 Answers
      5






      active

      oldest

      votes








      5 Answers
      5






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes








      up vote
      59
      down vote













      While cosmic radiation is a problem, it's the same as with radiation on Earth: the risk is cumulative. The levels were low enough that missions of 1-2 weeks at this level did not pose a big health risk, so no shielding was necessary.



      The big remaining problem was radiation from solar flares and CMEs. These produce so much radiation it wasn't possible to build a shield thick enough to protect from them (within the weight budgets available for Apollo). So NASA looked at solar activity, launched during periods when activity was low and hoped a CME wouldn't occur.



      The Apollo spacecraft had a thin aluminium hull. This blocks some of the radiation, but not much.






      share|improve this answer






















      • I wonder if a thin layer of lead might have blocked more radiation (or does that only work against Superman)?
        – Xen2050
        Nov 7 at 11:51






      • 1




        @Xen2050 It would have, but it would also have been very heavy. Not only that, but it would have required more aluminum to support the lead, further increasing weight. Lead is too soft to be used as a structural material.
        – kingledion
        Nov 7 at 12:46






      • 3




        A thin layer of lead would have generated lots of secondary radiation. You'd need a thick layer of lead, but that'd have been too heavy.
        – Hobbes
        Nov 7 at 14:37














      up vote
      59
      down vote













      While cosmic radiation is a problem, it's the same as with radiation on Earth: the risk is cumulative. The levels were low enough that missions of 1-2 weeks at this level did not pose a big health risk, so no shielding was necessary.



      The big remaining problem was radiation from solar flares and CMEs. These produce so much radiation it wasn't possible to build a shield thick enough to protect from them (within the weight budgets available for Apollo). So NASA looked at solar activity, launched during periods when activity was low and hoped a CME wouldn't occur.



      The Apollo spacecraft had a thin aluminium hull. This blocks some of the radiation, but not much.






      share|improve this answer






















      • I wonder if a thin layer of lead might have blocked more radiation (or does that only work against Superman)?
        – Xen2050
        Nov 7 at 11:51






      • 1




        @Xen2050 It would have, but it would also have been very heavy. Not only that, but it would have required more aluminum to support the lead, further increasing weight. Lead is too soft to be used as a structural material.
        – kingledion
        Nov 7 at 12:46






      • 3




        A thin layer of lead would have generated lots of secondary radiation. You'd need a thick layer of lead, but that'd have been too heavy.
        – Hobbes
        Nov 7 at 14:37












      up vote
      59
      down vote










      up vote
      59
      down vote









      While cosmic radiation is a problem, it's the same as with radiation on Earth: the risk is cumulative. The levels were low enough that missions of 1-2 weeks at this level did not pose a big health risk, so no shielding was necessary.



      The big remaining problem was radiation from solar flares and CMEs. These produce so much radiation it wasn't possible to build a shield thick enough to protect from them (within the weight budgets available for Apollo). So NASA looked at solar activity, launched during periods when activity was low and hoped a CME wouldn't occur.



      The Apollo spacecraft had a thin aluminium hull. This blocks some of the radiation, but not much.






      share|improve this answer














      While cosmic radiation is a problem, it's the same as with radiation on Earth: the risk is cumulative. The levels were low enough that missions of 1-2 weeks at this level did not pose a big health risk, so no shielding was necessary.



      The big remaining problem was radiation from solar flares and CMEs. These produce so much radiation it wasn't possible to build a shield thick enough to protect from them (within the weight budgets available for Apollo). So NASA looked at solar activity, launched during periods when activity was low and hoped a CME wouldn't occur.



      The Apollo spacecraft had a thin aluminium hull. This blocks some of the radiation, but not much.







      share|improve this answer














      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer








      edited Nov 5 at 18:30









      mustaccio

      35217




      35217










      answered Nov 5 at 14:59









      Hobbes

      81.4k2223364




      81.4k2223364











      • I wonder if a thin layer of lead might have blocked more radiation (or does that only work against Superman)?
        – Xen2050
        Nov 7 at 11:51






      • 1




        @Xen2050 It would have, but it would also have been very heavy. Not only that, but it would have required more aluminum to support the lead, further increasing weight. Lead is too soft to be used as a structural material.
        – kingledion
        Nov 7 at 12:46






      • 3




        A thin layer of lead would have generated lots of secondary radiation. You'd need a thick layer of lead, but that'd have been too heavy.
        – Hobbes
        Nov 7 at 14:37
















      • I wonder if a thin layer of lead might have blocked more radiation (or does that only work against Superman)?
        – Xen2050
        Nov 7 at 11:51






      • 1




        @Xen2050 It would have, but it would also have been very heavy. Not only that, but it would have required more aluminum to support the lead, further increasing weight. Lead is too soft to be used as a structural material.
        – kingledion
        Nov 7 at 12:46






      • 3




        A thin layer of lead would have generated lots of secondary radiation. You'd need a thick layer of lead, but that'd have been too heavy.
        – Hobbes
        Nov 7 at 14:37















      I wonder if a thin layer of lead might have blocked more radiation (or does that only work against Superman)?
      – Xen2050
      Nov 7 at 11:51




      I wonder if a thin layer of lead might have blocked more radiation (or does that only work against Superman)?
      – Xen2050
      Nov 7 at 11:51




      1




      1




      @Xen2050 It would have, but it would also have been very heavy. Not only that, but it would have required more aluminum to support the lead, further increasing weight. Lead is too soft to be used as a structural material.
      – kingledion
      Nov 7 at 12:46




      @Xen2050 It would have, but it would also have been very heavy. Not only that, but it would have required more aluminum to support the lead, further increasing weight. Lead is too soft to be used as a structural material.
      – kingledion
      Nov 7 at 12:46




      3




      3




      A thin layer of lead would have generated lots of secondary radiation. You'd need a thick layer of lead, but that'd have been too heavy.
      – Hobbes
      Nov 7 at 14:37




      A thin layer of lead would have generated lots of secondary radiation. You'd need a thick layer of lead, but that'd have been too heavy.
      – Hobbes
      Nov 7 at 14:37










      up vote
      43
      down vote













      They didn't, which is why the Apollo astronauts saw blinding flashes inside their eyes during the mission and then had a much higher probability of suffering from cataracts later in life.



      The flashes were from Cerenkov radiation passing though their eyeballs, occurring as often as 2 per minute on the Apollo missions.



      Of the 39 astronauts to suffer from cataracts later in life 36 had flown on Apollo missions. On near Earth missions such as visits to space stations, the Earth's magnetic field provides some protection.






      share|improve this answer




















      • And is this one of the reasons we aren't sending people outside the magnetosphere anymore?
        – Mindwin
        Nov 6 at 15:54






      • 13




        @Mindwin Possibly, but it's a ways down the list of reasons, beneath "lack of consistent funding" and "no rockets big enough".
        – anaximander
        Nov 6 at 16:49






      • 4




        Aren’t the oldest Astronauts those who have flown Apollo missions, therefore more likely to develop cataracts?
        – Michael
        Nov 6 at 19:28






      • 3




        @Mark Alan Shepard was the first American in space in the Mercury spacecraft Freedom 7, and walked on the Moon as commander of Apollo 14 </pedantMode>
        – Dave Gremlin
        Nov 6 at 21:27






      • 1




        @DaveGremlin There were seven Mercury astronauts, six of whom - as Mark wrote - didn't go to the moon (and one of whom was grounded in 1962 but later made it to LEO in ASTP/SATP).
        – GNiklasch
        Nov 7 at 13:00














      up vote
      43
      down vote













      They didn't, which is why the Apollo astronauts saw blinding flashes inside their eyes during the mission and then had a much higher probability of suffering from cataracts later in life.



      The flashes were from Cerenkov radiation passing though their eyeballs, occurring as often as 2 per minute on the Apollo missions.



      Of the 39 astronauts to suffer from cataracts later in life 36 had flown on Apollo missions. On near Earth missions such as visits to space stations, the Earth's magnetic field provides some protection.






      share|improve this answer




















      • And is this one of the reasons we aren't sending people outside the magnetosphere anymore?
        – Mindwin
        Nov 6 at 15:54






      • 13




        @Mindwin Possibly, but it's a ways down the list of reasons, beneath "lack of consistent funding" and "no rockets big enough".
        – anaximander
        Nov 6 at 16:49






      • 4




        Aren’t the oldest Astronauts those who have flown Apollo missions, therefore more likely to develop cataracts?
        – Michael
        Nov 6 at 19:28






      • 3




        @Mark Alan Shepard was the first American in space in the Mercury spacecraft Freedom 7, and walked on the Moon as commander of Apollo 14 </pedantMode>
        – Dave Gremlin
        Nov 6 at 21:27






      • 1




        @DaveGremlin There were seven Mercury astronauts, six of whom - as Mark wrote - didn't go to the moon (and one of whom was grounded in 1962 but later made it to LEO in ASTP/SATP).
        – GNiklasch
        Nov 7 at 13:00












      up vote
      43
      down vote










      up vote
      43
      down vote









      They didn't, which is why the Apollo astronauts saw blinding flashes inside their eyes during the mission and then had a much higher probability of suffering from cataracts later in life.



      The flashes were from Cerenkov radiation passing though their eyeballs, occurring as often as 2 per minute on the Apollo missions.



      Of the 39 astronauts to suffer from cataracts later in life 36 had flown on Apollo missions. On near Earth missions such as visits to space stations, the Earth's magnetic field provides some protection.






      share|improve this answer












      They didn't, which is why the Apollo astronauts saw blinding flashes inside their eyes during the mission and then had a much higher probability of suffering from cataracts later in life.



      The flashes were from Cerenkov radiation passing though their eyeballs, occurring as often as 2 per minute on the Apollo missions.



      Of the 39 astronauts to suffer from cataracts later in life 36 had flown on Apollo missions. On near Earth missions such as visits to space stations, the Earth's magnetic field provides some protection.







      share|improve this answer












      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer










      answered Nov 6 at 1:17









      Robert Longson

      671412




      671412











      • And is this one of the reasons we aren't sending people outside the magnetosphere anymore?
        – Mindwin
        Nov 6 at 15:54






      • 13




        @Mindwin Possibly, but it's a ways down the list of reasons, beneath "lack of consistent funding" and "no rockets big enough".
        – anaximander
        Nov 6 at 16:49






      • 4




        Aren’t the oldest Astronauts those who have flown Apollo missions, therefore more likely to develop cataracts?
        – Michael
        Nov 6 at 19:28






      • 3




        @Mark Alan Shepard was the first American in space in the Mercury spacecraft Freedom 7, and walked on the Moon as commander of Apollo 14 </pedantMode>
        – Dave Gremlin
        Nov 6 at 21:27






      • 1




        @DaveGremlin There were seven Mercury astronauts, six of whom - as Mark wrote - didn't go to the moon (and one of whom was grounded in 1962 but later made it to LEO in ASTP/SATP).
        – GNiklasch
        Nov 7 at 13:00
















      • And is this one of the reasons we aren't sending people outside the magnetosphere anymore?
        – Mindwin
        Nov 6 at 15:54






      • 13




        @Mindwin Possibly, but it's a ways down the list of reasons, beneath "lack of consistent funding" and "no rockets big enough".
        – anaximander
        Nov 6 at 16:49






      • 4




        Aren’t the oldest Astronauts those who have flown Apollo missions, therefore more likely to develop cataracts?
        – Michael
        Nov 6 at 19:28






      • 3




        @Mark Alan Shepard was the first American in space in the Mercury spacecraft Freedom 7, and walked on the Moon as commander of Apollo 14 </pedantMode>
        – Dave Gremlin
        Nov 6 at 21:27






      • 1




        @DaveGremlin There were seven Mercury astronauts, six of whom - as Mark wrote - didn't go to the moon (and one of whom was grounded in 1962 but later made it to LEO in ASTP/SATP).
        – GNiklasch
        Nov 7 at 13:00















      And is this one of the reasons we aren't sending people outside the magnetosphere anymore?
      – Mindwin
      Nov 6 at 15:54




      And is this one of the reasons we aren't sending people outside the magnetosphere anymore?
      – Mindwin
      Nov 6 at 15:54




      13




      13




      @Mindwin Possibly, but it's a ways down the list of reasons, beneath "lack of consistent funding" and "no rockets big enough".
      – anaximander
      Nov 6 at 16:49




      @Mindwin Possibly, but it's a ways down the list of reasons, beneath "lack of consistent funding" and "no rockets big enough".
      – anaximander
      Nov 6 at 16:49




      4




      4




      Aren’t the oldest Astronauts those who have flown Apollo missions, therefore more likely to develop cataracts?
      – Michael
      Nov 6 at 19:28




      Aren’t the oldest Astronauts those who have flown Apollo missions, therefore more likely to develop cataracts?
      – Michael
      Nov 6 at 19:28




      3




      3




      @Mark Alan Shepard was the first American in space in the Mercury spacecraft Freedom 7, and walked on the Moon as commander of Apollo 14 </pedantMode>
      – Dave Gremlin
      Nov 6 at 21:27




      @Mark Alan Shepard was the first American in space in the Mercury spacecraft Freedom 7, and walked on the Moon as commander of Apollo 14 </pedantMode>
      – Dave Gremlin
      Nov 6 at 21:27




      1




      1




      @DaveGremlin There were seven Mercury astronauts, six of whom - as Mark wrote - didn't go to the moon (and one of whom was grounded in 1962 but later made it to LEO in ASTP/SATP).
      – GNiklasch
      Nov 7 at 13:00




      @DaveGremlin There were seven Mercury astronauts, six of whom - as Mark wrote - didn't go to the moon (and one of whom was grounded in 1962 but later made it to LEO in ASTP/SATP).
      – GNiklasch
      Nov 7 at 13:00










      up vote
      39
      down vote













      Apollo solved the cosmic radiation problem in a counter-intuitive manner: by minimizing shielding.



      Most cosmic rays are very-high-energy atomic nuclei; the rest are very-high-energy protons. When these particles strike something (eg. a sheet of aluminum), they generate a shower of secondary radiation. Any effective shield needs to be thick enough to both trigger the secondary radiation and then absorb it. If the shield just triggers the secondary radiation, it makes things worse, because the secondary radiation is likely to be absorbed by the human body, where the primary radiation is likely to just pass through without interacting.



      There are some materials, such as water or hydrogen-rich plastics, that can absorb cosmic rays without triggering the secondary radiation, but Apollo didn't carry enough water to provide a meaningful shield, and the mass limitations didn't permit a plastic shield.






      share|improve this answer
















      • 13




        Nitpick: Protons are atomic nuclei, too. Hydrogen, you know :-)
        – jamesqf
        Nov 6 at 4:04














      up vote
      39
      down vote













      Apollo solved the cosmic radiation problem in a counter-intuitive manner: by minimizing shielding.



      Most cosmic rays are very-high-energy atomic nuclei; the rest are very-high-energy protons. When these particles strike something (eg. a sheet of aluminum), they generate a shower of secondary radiation. Any effective shield needs to be thick enough to both trigger the secondary radiation and then absorb it. If the shield just triggers the secondary radiation, it makes things worse, because the secondary radiation is likely to be absorbed by the human body, where the primary radiation is likely to just pass through without interacting.



      There are some materials, such as water or hydrogen-rich plastics, that can absorb cosmic rays without triggering the secondary radiation, but Apollo didn't carry enough water to provide a meaningful shield, and the mass limitations didn't permit a plastic shield.






      share|improve this answer
















      • 13




        Nitpick: Protons are atomic nuclei, too. Hydrogen, you know :-)
        – jamesqf
        Nov 6 at 4:04












      up vote
      39
      down vote










      up vote
      39
      down vote









      Apollo solved the cosmic radiation problem in a counter-intuitive manner: by minimizing shielding.



      Most cosmic rays are very-high-energy atomic nuclei; the rest are very-high-energy protons. When these particles strike something (eg. a sheet of aluminum), they generate a shower of secondary radiation. Any effective shield needs to be thick enough to both trigger the secondary radiation and then absorb it. If the shield just triggers the secondary radiation, it makes things worse, because the secondary radiation is likely to be absorbed by the human body, where the primary radiation is likely to just pass through without interacting.



      There are some materials, such as water or hydrogen-rich plastics, that can absorb cosmic rays without triggering the secondary radiation, but Apollo didn't carry enough water to provide a meaningful shield, and the mass limitations didn't permit a plastic shield.






      share|improve this answer












      Apollo solved the cosmic radiation problem in a counter-intuitive manner: by minimizing shielding.



      Most cosmic rays are very-high-energy atomic nuclei; the rest are very-high-energy protons. When these particles strike something (eg. a sheet of aluminum), they generate a shower of secondary radiation. Any effective shield needs to be thick enough to both trigger the secondary radiation and then absorb it. If the shield just triggers the secondary radiation, it makes things worse, because the secondary radiation is likely to be absorbed by the human body, where the primary radiation is likely to just pass through without interacting.



      There are some materials, such as water or hydrogen-rich plastics, that can absorb cosmic rays without triggering the secondary radiation, but Apollo didn't carry enough water to provide a meaningful shield, and the mass limitations didn't permit a plastic shield.







      share|improve this answer












      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer










      answered Nov 5 at 21:01









      Mark

      3,7301726




      3,7301726







      • 13




        Nitpick: Protons are atomic nuclei, too. Hydrogen, you know :-)
        – jamesqf
        Nov 6 at 4:04












      • 13




        Nitpick: Protons are atomic nuclei, too. Hydrogen, you know :-)
        – jamesqf
        Nov 6 at 4:04







      13




      13




      Nitpick: Protons are atomic nuclei, too. Hydrogen, you know :-)
      – jamesqf
      Nov 6 at 4:04




      Nitpick: Protons are atomic nuclei, too. Hydrogen, you know :-)
      – jamesqf
      Nov 6 at 4:04










      up vote
      1
      down vote













      Cosmic radiation is not an acute problem, if you ignore the sun weather and gamma bursts which occassionally occurs. Keep in mind that the life time likelyhood for cancer is anyway around 40 %. The additional radiation per year in the ISS is e.g. 44 to 105 milli Gy. According to the wikipedia graphic below, the increase in cancer-chance is neglectable. Moreover, small radiation doses induce up-regulation of anti-oxidative molecules in cells, which lowers cancer chance even more over longer time-spans.



      The other case, if the radiation is so high that astronauts would be killed instantly, is also neglectable. In such a case the electronics would fail too even if hardened.



      In conclusion. Is radiation a problem? No, not really. Especially if you compare cancer rates to smoking. However, one can always try to make things better. One way would be to use water or the fuel to shield the astronauts. Unfortunately, this is not always achievable with current payloads.



      https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a1/Increased_risk_with_dose.svg






      share|improve this answer


























        up vote
        1
        down vote













        Cosmic radiation is not an acute problem, if you ignore the sun weather and gamma bursts which occassionally occurs. Keep in mind that the life time likelyhood for cancer is anyway around 40 %. The additional radiation per year in the ISS is e.g. 44 to 105 milli Gy. According to the wikipedia graphic below, the increase in cancer-chance is neglectable. Moreover, small radiation doses induce up-regulation of anti-oxidative molecules in cells, which lowers cancer chance even more over longer time-spans.



        The other case, if the radiation is so high that astronauts would be killed instantly, is also neglectable. In such a case the electronics would fail too even if hardened.



        In conclusion. Is radiation a problem? No, not really. Especially if you compare cancer rates to smoking. However, one can always try to make things better. One way would be to use water or the fuel to shield the astronauts. Unfortunately, this is not always achievable with current payloads.



        https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a1/Increased_risk_with_dose.svg






        share|improve this answer
























          up vote
          1
          down vote










          up vote
          1
          down vote









          Cosmic radiation is not an acute problem, if you ignore the sun weather and gamma bursts which occassionally occurs. Keep in mind that the life time likelyhood for cancer is anyway around 40 %. The additional radiation per year in the ISS is e.g. 44 to 105 milli Gy. According to the wikipedia graphic below, the increase in cancer-chance is neglectable. Moreover, small radiation doses induce up-regulation of anti-oxidative molecules in cells, which lowers cancer chance even more over longer time-spans.



          The other case, if the radiation is so high that astronauts would be killed instantly, is also neglectable. In such a case the electronics would fail too even if hardened.



          In conclusion. Is radiation a problem? No, not really. Especially if you compare cancer rates to smoking. However, one can always try to make things better. One way would be to use water or the fuel to shield the astronauts. Unfortunately, this is not always achievable with current payloads.



          https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a1/Increased_risk_with_dose.svg






          share|improve this answer














          Cosmic radiation is not an acute problem, if you ignore the sun weather and gamma bursts which occassionally occurs. Keep in mind that the life time likelyhood for cancer is anyway around 40 %. The additional radiation per year in the ISS is e.g. 44 to 105 milli Gy. According to the wikipedia graphic below, the increase in cancer-chance is neglectable. Moreover, small radiation doses induce up-regulation of anti-oxidative molecules in cells, which lowers cancer chance even more over longer time-spans.



          The other case, if the radiation is so high that astronauts would be killed instantly, is also neglectable. In such a case the electronics would fail too even if hardened.



          In conclusion. Is radiation a problem? No, not really. Especially if you compare cancer rates to smoking. However, one can always try to make things better. One way would be to use water or the fuel to shield the astronauts. Unfortunately, this is not always achievable with current payloads.



          https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a1/Increased_risk_with_dose.svg







          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited Nov 9 at 8:42

























          answered Nov 7 at 12:42









          dgrat

          1829




          1829




















              up vote
              0
              down vote













              The "shielding" on the Command module, i.e. outer skin component, was actually stainless steel. Aluminum and other alloys were used for the basic spacecraft structure. Materials were chosen which minimized radiation effects as much as possible. Alpha and beta particles such as are common in the Van Allen belts are easily stopped by thin layers of metal. Cosmic rays are extremely energetic and would not be stopped by lead sheeting.




              The Command Module (CM) consisted of two basic structures joined together: the inner structure (pressure shell) and the outer structure.



              The inner structure was an aluminum sandwich construction which consisted of a welded aluminum inner skin, adhesively bonded aluminum honeycomb core, and outer face sheet. The thickness of the honeycomb varied from about 1.5 inches (3.8 cm) at the base, to about 0.25 inches (0.64 cm) at the forward access tunnel. This inner structure was the pressurized crew compartment.



              The outer structure was made of stainless steel brazed honeycomb brazed between steel alloy face sheets. It varied in thickness from 0.5 inch to 2.5 inches. Part of the area between the inner and outer shells was filled with a layer of fiberglass insulation as additional heat protection.




              (Wikipedia: Apollo Command/Service Module)






              share|improve this answer










              New contributor




              user152202 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
              Check out our Code of Conduct.





















                up vote
                0
                down vote













                The "shielding" on the Command module, i.e. outer skin component, was actually stainless steel. Aluminum and other alloys were used for the basic spacecraft structure. Materials were chosen which minimized radiation effects as much as possible. Alpha and beta particles such as are common in the Van Allen belts are easily stopped by thin layers of metal. Cosmic rays are extremely energetic and would not be stopped by lead sheeting.




                The Command Module (CM) consisted of two basic structures joined together: the inner structure (pressure shell) and the outer structure.



                The inner structure was an aluminum sandwich construction which consisted of a welded aluminum inner skin, adhesively bonded aluminum honeycomb core, and outer face sheet. The thickness of the honeycomb varied from about 1.5 inches (3.8 cm) at the base, to about 0.25 inches (0.64 cm) at the forward access tunnel. This inner structure was the pressurized crew compartment.



                The outer structure was made of stainless steel brazed honeycomb brazed between steel alloy face sheets. It varied in thickness from 0.5 inch to 2.5 inches. Part of the area between the inner and outer shells was filled with a layer of fiberglass insulation as additional heat protection.




                (Wikipedia: Apollo Command/Service Module)






                share|improve this answer










                New contributor




                user152202 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                Check out our Code of Conduct.



















                  up vote
                  0
                  down vote










                  up vote
                  0
                  down vote









                  The "shielding" on the Command module, i.e. outer skin component, was actually stainless steel. Aluminum and other alloys were used for the basic spacecraft structure. Materials were chosen which minimized radiation effects as much as possible. Alpha and beta particles such as are common in the Van Allen belts are easily stopped by thin layers of metal. Cosmic rays are extremely energetic and would not be stopped by lead sheeting.




                  The Command Module (CM) consisted of two basic structures joined together: the inner structure (pressure shell) and the outer structure.



                  The inner structure was an aluminum sandwich construction which consisted of a welded aluminum inner skin, adhesively bonded aluminum honeycomb core, and outer face sheet. The thickness of the honeycomb varied from about 1.5 inches (3.8 cm) at the base, to about 0.25 inches (0.64 cm) at the forward access tunnel. This inner structure was the pressurized crew compartment.



                  The outer structure was made of stainless steel brazed honeycomb brazed between steel alloy face sheets. It varied in thickness from 0.5 inch to 2.5 inches. Part of the area between the inner and outer shells was filled with a layer of fiberglass insulation as additional heat protection.




                  (Wikipedia: Apollo Command/Service Module)






                  share|improve this answer










                  New contributor




                  user152202 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.









                  The "shielding" on the Command module, i.e. outer skin component, was actually stainless steel. Aluminum and other alloys were used for the basic spacecraft structure. Materials were chosen which minimized radiation effects as much as possible. Alpha and beta particles such as are common in the Van Allen belts are easily stopped by thin layers of metal. Cosmic rays are extremely energetic and would not be stopped by lead sheeting.




                  The Command Module (CM) consisted of two basic structures joined together: the inner structure (pressure shell) and the outer structure.



                  The inner structure was an aluminum sandwich construction which consisted of a welded aluminum inner skin, adhesively bonded aluminum honeycomb core, and outer face sheet. The thickness of the honeycomb varied from about 1.5 inches (3.8 cm) at the base, to about 0.25 inches (0.64 cm) at the forward access tunnel. This inner structure was the pressurized crew compartment.



                  The outer structure was made of stainless steel brazed honeycomb brazed between steel alloy face sheets. It varied in thickness from 0.5 inch to 2.5 inches. Part of the area between the inner and outer shells was filled with a layer of fiberglass insulation as additional heat protection.




                  (Wikipedia: Apollo Command/Service Module)







                  share|improve this answer










                  New contributor




                  user152202 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.









                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer








                  edited Nov 8 at 6:24









                  Nathan Tuggy

                  3,58442436




                  3,58442436






                  New contributor




                  user152202 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.









                  answered Nov 8 at 6:04









                  user152202

                  1




                  1




                  New contributor




                  user152202 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.





                  New contributor





                  user152202 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.






                  user152202 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.



























                       

                      draft saved


                      draft discarded















































                       


                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function ()
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f31820%2fhow-did-apollo-missions-solve-the-cosmic-radiation-problem%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                      );

                      Post as a guest














































































                      Popular posts from this blog

                      𛂒𛀶,𛀽𛀑𛂀𛃧𛂓𛀙𛃆𛃑𛃷𛂟𛁡𛀢𛀟𛁤𛂽𛁕𛁪𛂟𛂯,𛁞𛂧𛀴𛁄𛁠𛁼𛂿𛀤 𛂘,𛁺𛂾𛃭𛃭𛃵𛀺,𛂣𛃍𛂖𛃶 𛀸𛃀𛂖𛁶𛁏𛁚 𛂢𛂞 𛁰𛂆𛀔,𛁸𛀽𛁓𛃋𛂇𛃧𛀧𛃣𛂐𛃇,𛂂𛃻𛃲𛁬𛃞𛀧𛃃𛀅 𛂭𛁠𛁡𛃇𛀷𛃓𛁥,𛁙𛁘𛁞𛃸𛁸𛃣𛁜,𛂛,𛃿,𛁯𛂘𛂌𛃛𛁱𛃌𛂈𛂇 𛁊𛃲,𛀕𛃴𛀜 𛀶𛂆𛀶𛃟𛂉𛀣,𛂐𛁞𛁾 𛁷𛂑𛁳𛂯𛀬𛃅,𛃶𛁼

                      Crossroads (UK TV series)

                      ữḛḳṊẴ ẋ,Ẩṙ,ỹḛẪẠứụỿṞṦ,Ṉẍừ,ứ Ị,Ḵ,ṏ ṇỪḎḰṰọửḊ ṾḨḮữẑỶṑỗḮṣṉẃ Ữẩụ,ṓ,ḹẕḪḫỞṿḭ ỒṱṨẁṋṜ ḅẈ ṉ ứṀḱṑỒḵ,ḏ,ḊḖỹẊ Ẻḷổ,ṥ ẔḲẪụḣể Ṱ ḭỏựẶ Ồ Ṩ,ẂḿṡḾồ ỗṗṡịṞẤḵṽẃ ṸḒẄẘ,ủẞẵṦṟầṓế