Dr. Jeffrey A.

Hoffman, PI
MIT Dept. of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Dr. Peter Fisher, Co-I
MIT Dept. of Physics
Dr. Oleg Batishchev, Research Scientist
MIT Dept. of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Use of Superconducting Magnet
Use of Superconducting Magnet
Technology for Astronaut
Technology for Astronaut
Radiation Protection
Radiation Protection
NIAC Phase I Fellows Meeting
Atlanta, Georgia
15-16 March, 2005
Presentation
The Radiation Problem
Methods of Shielding
Details of Electromagnetic Shielding
Future Work
Nature of Space Radiation
(outside the Earths radiation belts)
Solar Radiation
Flares
Coronal Mass Ejections
Galactic Cosmic Radiation
Solar and cosmic proton
energy spectra
[Spillantini, et al., 2000]
Galactic Cosmic
Ray Spectrum
Simpson (1983)
Radiation
Terminology:
RAD (Radiation Absorbed Dose; cgs) =100 ergs/gm
GRAY or Gy (SI unit) =1 joule/kg =100 rads
REM (cgs) or SIEVERT or Sv (SI) Dose Equivalent Units
Rad or Gray dosage multiplied by a quality factor (QF)
Quality Factors:
X-rays, Gamma Rays, 0.1-1.0 MeV electrons : QF =1
Thermal Neutrons (<.005 MeV) : QF ~2.5
1 MeV Neutrons, 0.1-1.0 MeV Protons : QF ~10
Alpha Particles and Heavy Nuclei : QF up to 20
Effects of acute doses received by
homogeneous irradiation of the whole body (1):
0 to 250 mGy (1-25 rad): no biological or medical effect,
immediate or long-term, has been observed in children or
adults. This is the domain of low doses.
250 to 1000 mGy (25-100 rad): some nausea may appear
along with a slight decrease in the number of white blood
cells.
Note that for doses higher than 250 mGy (25 rad), long-
term effects (risk of cancer increasing with the dose) have
also been observed.
1000 to 2500 mGy (100-250 rad): vomiting, change in the
blood count, but satisfactory recovery or complete cure
assured.
The most sensitive cells are rapidly dividing cells such as stomach lining and
intestinal cells (and hair cells).
>200 rad affects blood cell count and ability to fight infection.
The next to go are sperm cells and bone marrow.
Effects of acute doses received by
homogeneous irradiation of the whole
body (2): Lethal Doses
2 Gy (200 rad) can be a fatal dose in some circumstances
2.5to 5 Gy (250-500 rad): consequences on health become
serious; hospitalization is mandatory.
4 Gy (450 rad) 50% will die in ~6 weeks with no treatment.
>5Gy (>500 rad): death is almost certain.
8 Gy (800 rad) 100% will die at with no treatment.
Up to 20 Gy (2000 rad) have been survived with exceptional
treatment and luck
Long-Term Effects of Radiation
4 x 10
-4
fatal cancers/ REM with long latency
i.e. 1000 REM total body dose gives a ~40%
chance of cancer over the long term
Hardiest tissues are nerve cells and egg cells
Long-term effects of radiation received in <1
week ~ 2X more dangerous than equivalent
amount received over the long term
Allowable Radiation Doses
Legal Limits based on annual exposure (radiation workers)
5 REM/year in USA with guideline of <10 REM/5 years
2 REM/year in Europe
Epidemiological studies cannot track risk at <5 REM (acute) or <10 REM
(lifetime)
Actual Doses:
Sea Level Background Exposure 0.005 rad/year (.05 in brick houses)
Round Trip Cross-Country Airplane Trip 0.004 rad
Living in Denver (Mile-High City) 0.20 rad/year
Chest X-ray 0.05 rad
Dental X-ray 1.0 rad (mainly limited to mouth)
Typical Shuttle Flight 0.05 rad (HST flights up to ~2 rad)
Apollo Moon Landings 0.2-1.1 rad
Skylab 2,3,4 (1,2,3 months) 2.4, 6.0, 7.4 rad
ISS ~1mSv (0.1 rem)/day
Estimated Mars trip (no large solar flares) ~100-150 rem
Radiation Exposure Limits (radiation
workers and astronauts):
Bone
5 cm
Eye
3 mm
Testes
3 cm
Constraints in REM
Skin
0.1 mm
1 yr average daily rate
0.2 0.5 0.3 0.1
30 day max
25 75 37 13
Quarterly max
35 105 52 18
Yearly max
75 225 112 38
Career Limit
400 1200 600 200
(Double the statistical chance of leukemia in 20 years from 1 in 50,000 to 2 in 50,000)
Lots of uncertainty still exists, requiring experimental data!
QuickTime and a
TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
QuickTime and a
TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Passive Shielding against Radiation:
Passive Shielding against Radiation:
Electrons, photons, low-energy protons (SPEs):
No nuclear reactions
Stopped mainly by interactions with electrons
Maximize number of electrons per unit mass (Pb)
High-energy protons, neutrons, and cosmic rays:
Interact with nuclei to create showers
Maximize ratio of electrons per nucleon
Hydrogen ratio = 1
Light elements ratio ~0.5
Heavy elements ratio <0.5
Annual Galactic CR Radiation Dose
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Aluminum Shielding Thickness (cm)
Solar Minimum
Solar Maximum
Solar Flare of August 1972 would have exposed unshielded astronauts to 960 rem.
With 9 cm of Aluminum shielding, the dose equivalent would have been 40 rem.
QuickTime and a
TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Real limits on radiation are statistical, based on small percentage
increase in long-term cancer risk, with much uncertainty.
Magnetic Shield (conceptual)
Magnetic Shielding - basic concepts
Lorentz force on charged particle:
Force is perpendicular to motion, does no work
For relativistic particle moving perpendicular to
field, motion is circular, with radius:
, where
e.g. T = 9 Tesla, 2 GeV radius = 1.1m
(desired thickness of
magnetic shielding
region = 2r)


F = q

v

B
( )
/c = qvBsin /c
= mv /B =0.3GeV/Tm
r
Magnetic Shielding - Details
Baseline - Toroidal Magnetic Field
9 Tesla; 1.5m thick (both are variable)
Habitable Volume 7m diameter x 7m height
(116 m
3
volume)
Overall size 10m diameter x 10m height
Simulation Method - basic
Monte Carlo Integration
100,000 test particles at each of 28 energy bins
Particles impact outside of shield isotropically
Trajectories calculated in 0.5 cm steps
Keep track of particles entering habitable volume
Calculated with and without B-field, to show
reduction factor R:
R = (number entering no field)/(number entering with field)
Calculations repeated for different field strengths
and thicknesses
Simulation Method -
more realistic field geometry
Include radial dependence of magnetic field,
such that
(For a uniform field B of thickness L, bending is BL
2
.)
Assume 50 cm radius zero field at each end of
cylinder to account for inner coil discontinuities.


B = B
o
r
o
/ r
( )


BL
2
= B r
( )
r
in
r
out

rdr = 20.25T m
2
Simulation Results
Use simulations with and without B-field at
different energies to produce R(E).
Use input spectrum for species i.
(F
i
given in stand-alone table.)
Flux inside habitat is given by:
All protons below 2 GeV are rejected.
50% of protons at 3 GeV are rejected.
Curves for heavier elements similar but slightly
less rejection because of lower Z/A.

i
= F
i
E
2.7

i,inside
(E) =
i
(E)/R(E)
Z M F %dose Z M F %dose
1 1 485 71 15 31 0.005 0.012
2 4 26 6.4 16 32 0.03 0.074
3 7 0.121 0.033 17 35.45 0.005 0.0012
4 9 0.087 0.023 18 40 0.009 0.024
5 10.8 0.192 0.049 19 39 0.006 0.015
6 12 0.986 0.24 20 40 0.018 0.045
7 14 0.218 0.054 21 45 0.003 0.00077
8 16 1 0.25 22 47.867 0.01 0.0026
9 19 0.015 0.0038 23 51 0.005 0.0013
10 20 0.152 0.0065 24 52 0.011 0.029
11 23 0.026 0.049 25 55 0.009 0.024
12 24.3 0.197 0.0077 26 55.485 0.110 0.028
13 27 0.031 0.040 27 59 0.001 0.0026
14 28 0.163 0.012 28 58.69 0.007 0.0017
Table 1 - Abundance and contribution to dose inside habitat for ideal case for each element.
Comparison of
Ideal and
More Realistic
magnetic field
configurations
Ideal too optimistic.
More realistic too
pessimistic.
1GeV 2GeV 4GeV
Overall difference
in flux for the two
cases is ~3.3
Oxygen
Hydrogen
Helium
Carbon
Comparison of flux
inside habitat with
and without ideal
magnetic field
No B-field
Ideal 9 Tesla
B-field
Elements
Z = 1-9
Comparison of flux
inside habitat with
and without ideal
magnetic field
No B-field
Ideal 9 Tesla
B-field
Elements
Z = 10-18
Aluminum Silicon
Sulphur
Comparison of flux
inside habitat with
and without ideal
magnetic field
No B-field
Ideal 9 Tesla
B-field
Elements
Z = 19-27
Iron
Comparison of flux
inside habitat with
and without ideal
magnetic field
No B-field
Ideal 9 Tesla
B-field
Element
Z = 28
Nickel
Special Considerations for
High-Energy Cosmic Rays
Magnetic shielding becomes less effective at higher energies.
Above ~4 GeV/nucleon, particles lose energy at a ~constant
rate (which is lower than for lower energy particles).
e.g., an alpha particle loses ~120 MeV passing through the
human body whether its energy is 10 or 100 GeV/nucleon
Below ~1 GeV/nucleon, energy loss ~1/v
2
, so an alpha particle
with 500 MeV/nucleon deposits all its energy (2 GeV) into the
human body, ~16X higher than a 10-100 GeV/nucleon alpha.
Passive shielding increases the number of lower-energy
particles due to energy losses and secondary production.
Magnetic shielding does not reduce the energy of particles and
creates fewer secondary particles than secondary shielding.
Summing over all Energies
Total flux reduced by ~10.7
Radiation in free space reduced from
~90 rem/year to ~8.4 rem/year
(~300 rem considered lethal)
Linear treatment justified because in the
energy range not blocked by the magnetic
shield, the energy deposition rate is ~constant.
Vary magnetic
field strength from
9 to 9.2 Tesla.
Overall flux reduction
increases to ~11.1
i.e., ~20% increase in
field strength leads to
~20% reduction in flux.
Vary thickness of
magnetic field region
from 1.5m to 1.7m.
Overall flux reduction
Increases to ~13.1
i.e. ~20% increase in
field thickness leads to
~30% decrease in flux.
Bending Power L
2
Analytic Study
We develop a detailed transfer model of cosmic radiation througha
combined region containing matter and a strong magnetic field.
The goal of this calculation is to model the radiation penetrating
the habitable volume.
Physiological effects of the penetrating radiation are considered
separately. It will be based on the comparison of the total dose
calculations with existing NASA biomedical data and approved
standard radiation requirements.
Detailed space systems engineering design work will then produce
a believable mass model associated with the assumed magnetic
field.
Analytic Study - 2D
Contours of the calculated
magnetic field created by a
system of 4 coils. Dark region
at the bottom resembles space
craft, to which the habitat is
attached.
Zoomed portion of the domain,
showing non-uniform grid
spacing.
We are also running a full 3D calculation.
Radial coil configuration
8, 16, 32 coils
Magnetic field 8 coils
Magnetic field 16 coils
Magnetic field 32 coils
Magnetic field 32 coils
movie
QuickTime and a
BMP decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
QuickTime and a
BMP decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Kinetic Modeling
The most detailed evolution of charged and neutral particles is
given by the numerical solution of collisionally-coupled kinetic
equations for charged and neutral species:
As the particle density is low, these equations are coupled through
sinks/sources, which occur as a result of particle interaction with
elements of infrastructure. Particle tracing in the fixed non-
uniform magnetic field is being presently developed.

= =

= =

+ +

+
,... ,
r
v
,... , ,
p
)
c
B v
E (
r
v
n N C
f
t
f
He p i C
f
q
f
t
f
N
N N
i
i
i
i i

Design Considerations
A practical magnetic shield needs a coil system
with mechanical support as well as control and
cooling systems. We need to assess:
Weight
Power Consumption
Helium Coolant Amount
Stored Energy
Internal Mechanical Forces
Scaling from AMS
Original inspiration for study came from Alpha Magnetic
Spectrometer (AMS) experiment, to be flown on ISS.
AMS Cryomagnet
Cryomagnet Scaling
The AMS cryomagnet has the following characteristics:
A central field of 0.9 T.
A bending power 0.8 Tm
2
is over a volume of 0.7m
3
.
The heat load is about 10 W.
2500 l (312 kg) of liquid helium will be carried.
5.5 MJ is stored in the magnetic field.
A coil mass of roughly 1000 kg and a total mass of
roughly 2357 kg.
A power consumption of 700 W to power four
cryocoolers.
Mass Scaling
Assuming =5 gm/cm
3
for coil conductor gives
coil mass ~244 T.
AMS coils are 61% of total mass of 2357 kg,
giving ~395 T for the magnetic shield.
Need to revise scaling to handle magnetic field
stress, which wants to
push magnets apart.
Magnetic Field Stress
Stress forces B
2
Strength of support structure cross-sectional area
Support size [M
shield
/M
AMS
]
1/3
~5, so area ~25.
B
shield
/B
AMS
~10, so need 100X strengthvs. 25, so
need an extra factor of 4 M
shield
~1600 T.
Helium Requirements
Two ways to estimate Helium requirements:
Radiative transfer heat load surface area of coils
2.4 kW for magnetic shield
75 T LHe (for 3 year mission)
169 kW to run cryocooler system
Conductive transfer through cryomagnet supports
cross-sectional area (like strength), which scales with M
coil
1.7 kW for magnetic shield
52 T LHe (for 3 year mission)
117 kW to run cryocooler system
Handling Quenches
AMS magnets store 5.5 MJ
Sudden loss of superconductivity dumps energy
into 1500 kg of structure T ~30 C
o
Magnetic Shield stores 16 GJ , requiring ~5000 kg
for same temperature rise.
Summary of Simulation Results
Overall radiation flux (dose) reduced by 3-10 X
in a ~200 m
3
habitable volume
Mass between 400-1600 T
52-75 T liquid Helium for a 3 year mission
117-169 kW to run cryocoolers
Needs dump mass of 5000 kg to limit
temperature rise following quench (16 GJ ) to
< 30 C
o
Design Optimization - (conceptual)
Mass of support structure B
2
L
Bending BL
2
Reducing field by 10% and increasing L by 7%
keeps same bending but reduces mass by 13%.
In a real spacecraft design, one end of habitable
volume will be connected to spacecraft services,
so no coil is required, reducing mass ~20%.
Need for detailed analysis
All scaling arguments are based on reasonable
physics, but must be considered nave and limited
in accuracy (first-order).
Need detailed study of various AMS systems to
allow extrapolation over the range we are
proposing.
e.g. Cooling loop expansion from 10 W to 2 kW,
but liquid He heat transfer ultimately limited by
Gorter-Mellink effect, which needs more study.
MIT-designed magnets
for KSTAR
Note: Superconducting magnets of the size and strength needed
for magnetic shielding are being built!
Contacts with NASA
Frank Cucinotta - J SC radiation protection group
Can take our flux numbers and translate more accurately into
doses.
Sees 2 GeV as critical threshold for efficacy of alternative
shielding systems.
Franklin Chang-Diaz - J SC Plasma Propulsion Lab
Interested in superconducting magnets in space for use with
propulsion systems
Concentrating on high-temperature superconductors rather than
low-temperature helium-cooled superconductors
Planning an Integrated Concurrent Engineering (ICE) exercise
to look at integrating magnetic shielding into a human space
flight vehicle.
(Good opportunity to comparehigh- and low-temperature
magnetic shielding systems.)
Contacts with NASA (cont.)
Trent Martin - J SC AMS Deputy Project Manager
Wants to work with us on scaling AMS systems to size usable
for human exploration.
Bill Polowski - J SC artificial gravity study
Could use magnetic shielding coils as a stator to suspend and
rotate interior crew cabin to make a short-radius centrifuge
Kirk Sorensen - MSFC In-Space Propulsion Technology
Projects Office (Tethers)
Electrodynamic tethers can provide propulsion near J upiter
Need to protect electronics and scientific instrumentation
against radiation for extended missions
QuickTime and a
TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Exploring the Jovian Magnetosphere
Future Work
Objectives of Study Phase I Phase II
Detailed study of the trajectories of a realistic spectrum X X
of cosmic rays through the proposed magnetic shield to
determine actual shielding efficacy
Examine the feasibility of enlarging the AMS X
superconducting magnets
Reduce the mass of the magnet system X
Integrate superconducting magnetic shield into a human X X
space vehicle (conceptual) (systems
design)
Detailed comparison of magnetic radiation shielding with X
traditional shielding technologies (Al, H
2
O, LH
2
, Pb)
Additional applications of superconducting magnetic X
technology for long-duration human space flight
Other exploration applications of this technology X
HIGHEST-PRIORITY RESEARCH QUESTIONS (1)
1. What are the carcinogenic risks following irradiation by protons
and HZE particles?
2. How do cell killing and induction of chromosomal aberrations
vary as a function of the thickness and composition of
shielding?
3. Are there studies that can be conducted to increase the
confidence of extrapolation from rodents to humans of
radiation-induced genetic alterations that in turn could enhance
similar extrapolations for cancer?
4. Does exposure to heavy ions at the level that would occur
during deep-space missions of long duration pose a risk to the
integrity and function of the central nervous system?
HIGHEST-PRIORITY RESEARCH QUESTIONS (2)
5. How can better error analyses be performed of all factors
contributing to estimation of risk by a particular method, and what
are the types and magnitude of uncertainty associated with each
method? What alternate methods for calculation of risk can be
used to compare with conventional predictions in order to assess
absolute uncertainties? How can these analyses and calculations
be used to better determine how the uncertainties in the methods
affect estimates of human risks and mission costs?
6. How do the selection and design of the space vehicle affect the
radiation environment in which the crew has to exist?
7. Can solar particle events be predicted with sufficient advance
warning to allow crewmembers to return to the safety of a
shielded storm shelter?
LOWER-PRIORITY RESEARCH QUESTIONS
1. What are the risks of reduced fertility and sterility as a result of
exposure to radiation on missions of long duration in deep
space?
2. What are the risks of clinically significant cataracts being
induced by exposure to radiation at the levels that will occur on
extended space flights?
3. Can drugs be used to protect against the acute or carcinogenic
effects of exposure to radiation in space?
4. Is there an assay that can provide information on an individual's
sensitivity to radiation-induced mutagenicity and that can be
predictive of a predisposition for susceptibility to cancer?
5. Are there differences in biological response arising from
exposure to particles with similar LET, but with different atomic
numbers and energies?
Radiation Exposure Limits (radiation
workers and astronauts):
Bone
5 cm
Eye
3 mm
Testes
3 cm
Constraints in REM
Skin
0.1 mm
1 yr average daily rate
0.2 0.5 0.3 0.1
30 day max
25 75 37 13
Quarterly max
35 105 52 18
Yearly max
75 225 112 38
Career Limit
400 1200 600 200
(Double the statistical chance of leukemia in 20 years from 1 in 50,000 to 2 in 50,000)
QuickTime and a
TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
QuickTime and a
TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.