Japanese lunar light farming

1 06 2011

Rendering of a solar array ring on the Moon's surface. (Credit: Shimizu Corporation)

Definition of mixed emotions: Reading an ambitious plan recently released by the Shimizu Corporation of Japan that effectively wields fear of radiation to incentivize lunar colonization for solar power generation. 

Wow.  While I abhor anything that preys upon the irrational fear of nuclear energy, I’m all for the use of solar power.  (I’d like to make the ironic point here that “solar power” is also nuclear energy – the result of a giant nuclear fusion reactor, albeit a natural one.)  I’m also certainly for anything that makes an extraterrestrial business case, and I further endorse any plan that leads us off-world so that we can begin developing the practical know-how to live there.  Throw in the fact that the endeavor would ease stress on the terrestrial ecosystem at the same time, and the idea seems like a home run.

Diagram depicting the lunar power delivery process. (Credit: Shimizu Corporation)

How does it work?  Quite simply.  Called the LUNA RING, solar arrays are to be installed across the lunar surface in an equatorial belt.  Panels on the sun-facing side of the Moon then deliver energy via circumferential transmission lines to laser and microwave transmitters on the Earth-facing side.  These transmitters then beam the energy to receiving stations on the Earth, providing power enough for all.

Sound too good to be true?  Well, it may be.  The problem, like many great ideas, is funding.  The technology is all but completely available to make an attempt, but the capital costs here are incomprehensible.  Yet-to-be-invented tele-robotics plays a major role in construction, (which as I’ve previously mentioned is a very smart move,) and when weighed in combination with untried lunar transport, operations, and manufacturing techniques, equates to a seriously steep R&D curve.

However, this sort of distance planning can demonstrate that the basic elements already exist, which may be exactly what we need to convince  governments and the power industry that the venture is possible.  And, if Japan suddenly puts the economic weight of the government behind a plan like this, e.g., by making a call to return to the Moon and by actually launching small-scale versions of this system, then we should all take note… and I believe we should all participate.

The International Space Station is an endeavor that has and will continue to benefit many.  An international effort to establish renewable lunar-terrestrial power production can benefit everyone, both immediately as well as by developing the skills we’ll need to expand into the cosmos.

Good on ya’, Shimizu Corporation, for thinking big.  Hopefully it’ll catch on.

Advertisements




Radiation, Japan, and irresponsible reporting: Part II

22 03 2011

Example of a uranium ore mine, a very natural source of radiation and radioactive material… and contamination if you track uranium dust home with you. (Uncredited)

So, after my last post, you’ve got the subtle (and not-so-subtle) differences between radioactivity (overweight atoms), radioactive material (the material containing or composed of the overweight atoms), radiation (invisible light and particles emitted by the overweight atoms), and contamination (having radioactive material someplace you don’t want it).

Hopefully, you can also see why mixing these up prevents people from making any sense of either the situation at hand or what scientists tell them (when they’re actually interviewed) on the news.

For instance, if a newscaster says something akin to, “A plume of radiation was released,” well, that doesn’t really make sense.  That’s like saying, “A plume of blue has been released.”  You can release a plume of blue something, be it smoke, confetti, etc., but you can’t release blue.

Similarly, radiation is produced by something else – so, you could say, “A plume of radioactive steam has been released,” and that means that the plume of radioactive steam would be producing radiation as it moved and dissipated, which is perfectly reasonable.  However, just saying the radiation part is nonsensical, and further, adds to the terrifying mystique around the word “radiation” …

Radioactivity is just chemistry and physics, nothing more, nothing less.

Let me provide a second example.  If a scientist reports that there is “radiation” detected somewhere, you now are prepared to understand what he’s not saying, which can actually be more valuable than what he said.  In saying that radiation has been detected, the scientist has not said that they’ve actually found the radioactive material responsible for producing the radiation, or further, any radioactive contamination.  He’s simply saying that instruments have detected either the invisible, high-energy light (gamma rays/x-rays) or atomic particles being shed by radioactive material.  The radiation in this case could be from the sun, plants, humans (yes! – we’ll get to that), granite, radon from igneous rocks, or something more sinister – the scientist hasn’t specified.  He’s reporting facts.  -At such and such a location, radiation of a given intensity has been found.

So, what can such a statement tell you?  It can tell you from a health perspective how long it’s safe to be in the area where the radiation was detected, but it says nothing about the nature, presence, or movement of the material responsible for producing the radiation.  I cannot stress how important it is that this be made clear in the media.

So, for retention’s sake, I’ll pause here to keep these posts divided into brief segments.  Stay tuned for Part 3, where we discuss how radiation is truly crippled by the laws of physics, how that can be best (and simply!) used to your advantage, and just exactly why it’s bonkers for everyone to be snapping up iodine pills.

Until then, cheers.





Radiation, Japan, and irresponsible reporting: Part I

17 03 2011

Intensity diagram of the Japan quake. The epicenter of the quake is represented by the black star. (Credit: United States Geological Survey)

While the media continues to sensationalize what is already a “gee-whiz” bewildering topic for most ordinary people on planet Earth – nuclear reactors and radioactivity – the recent run on Potassium-Iodide tablets in the United States and on the Internet betrays just how badly the outlets are throwing gasoline on the raging inferno of ignorance out there when it comes to radiation.

I can only presume this is to attract viewers.

Consider this  the first in a small series of posts that seek to contribute a clarifying voice out into the chaos.  To what end?  Hopefully, by the end of these posts, intrepid reader, you’ll understand why the nuclear reactor disasters are serious, but you’ll also see why they pale in comparison to the biochemical environmental apocalypse taking place in Japan due to everything else the earthquake and tsunami destroyed.

So, first, let’s start at the beginning.   What is radiation?

Let me emphasize – there is nothing magical or supernatural about what we call “radiation” and/or “radioactivity.”  A radioactive atom is an overweight version of a “normal” atom, and it naturally tries to get rid of energy to slim down to normal size.  To do this, it “radiates” energy in the form of intense invisible light (gamma rays) and physical bits of itself (atomic particles) away from itself.  That’s it.

Really, radiation science is a form of chemistry.  It’s equally amazing that chemicals can combust to drive cars, that acids burn, etc.  So, let’s get over the “mysterious” hump right here: Radiation is just the chemistry and phsyics of overweight atoms, and it obeys the same laws of physics as everything else.

Second, and most importantly before we go any farther, is to start to understand the terminology used (and misused) everywhere.  So, there is really only one thing you need to understand to understand how radiation works and how to deal with it, and it is this: There is a difference between “radiation” and “contamination.”  A huge difference.  -And to confuse the two is to commit a gargantuan error.

Radiation refers to the invisible light and particles that the overweight (i.e., radioactive) atoms are sluffing off.  Experiencing radiation is like basking in the glow of a heat lamp.  You can get burned/damaged by it, but it won’t come off on you.

Radioactive Material is (unsurprisingly and simply) the name given to material that emits radiation.

Contamination, on the other hand, is when radioactive material is actually moved, blown, spilled, etc., someplace that you don’t want it.  If you get covered with dust that is radioactive material (see above), then you have been contaminated.  This is what you need to wash off, make sure you don’t inhale, etc.

So, what’s the take-home?

  • You can stand next to radiation without fear of getting contaminated.  There’s nothing mysterious in the air – it’s no different than how you can walk away from an x-ray machine without fear of tracking some of the x-rays home with you.
  • Radioactive material emits radiation, but it won’t result in contamination if the material is tidy, safely contained, and solid.

You can see now how if you say, “There’s radioactive material over there!” it means something very different than, “There’s radiation over there!” and very different still than, “There’s radioactive contamination over there!”

The first sentence could simply refer to completely safe-to-handle medical sources or other, completely expected sources of radiation.

The second sentence is very ambiguous and refers to the presence of the invisible light (gamma/x-rays) or particles, meaning that radioactive material must be nearby – but it may still be completely expected.

The third sentence is the only one of the three that implies anything is wrong.  Contamination means radioactive material has been deposited somewhere you don’t want it.  So – by mixing these up, which often happens in the news, the conversation can’t even sensibly go any farther.

To be continued…





Space radiation has Astronauts seeing stars

2 01 2011

View of Earth at night from the International Space Station. The thin atmosphere layer visible acts as a natural radiation shield. (Credit: NASA)

There are many astronauts experiences that are well understood.

Everyone knows about “weightlessness,” or floating in a microgravity environment, (which is actually perpetual free-fall around the Earth, but that’s a technicality for another post.)

Everyone has heard about the problem of space sickness that hits some astronauts and not others.   Disruptions in our sense of orientation (i.e., up and down,) are likely to blame.

However, what many do not know about are the strange “flashes” of light astronauts see while in space and what it might mean for their future heath.  With commercial space travel on the horizon and space tourists and commercial astronauts lining up to take part, the realities of space travel must be explored and disclosed.

The Earth’s atmosphere normally acts as a shielding layer, protecting the surface from cosmic and solar radiation.  However, when we travel beyond the atmosphere, (i.e., space,) we increase our exposure to such radiation.  In truth, these “flashes” reported by astronauts are actually electrochemical reactions occurring in astronauts’ eyes as a result of high-energy radiation striking their retinas.  A radiated particle passes through the lens of the eye, strikes the retina, and fakes out the optic nerve, which in turn interprets the signal as light.

So, aside from being strange, what are the potential effects of these flashes?

There appears to be a relationship between this radiation exposure and later development of cataracts, a disease characterized by a clouding of the lens of the eye.  According to a 2001 study, a total of 39 astronauts have developed cataracts later in life, and 36 of them flew on high-radiation missions, such as those to the Moon.

Scientists are currently working on nailing down the genetic link between radiation exposure and cataracts, but until then, it simply appears that exposure to space radiation increases your risk of cataracts later in life.  Advances in and the regularity of surgically-implanted interocular lenses make cataracts less of a concern, but effects like these are something for the aspiring casual spaceflight participant as well as for future planetary and deep space explorers to be aware of.





A Radioactive Astronaut-Hopeful (Space update)

20 11 2010

Me probing an old military well in the Nevada wilderness for geologic data.

By education and trade, I’m a geologist, having worked now in the professional world for more than six years getting my boots dirty performing hydrogeology, water resources, drilling, geomorphology research, and environmental contaminant transport and remediation work in some of the most remote territory this country has to offer.  However, in my push toward becoming an astronaut, one may wonder why I suddenly think it’s a good idea to be working as a radiological engineer and pursuing graduate work in Radiation Health Physics (in addition to my Space Studies work at UND).

Why not study something more direct, like Planetary Geology (Astrogeology)?

The answer, while seemingly obscure, is simple:  What does geology, outer space, the Moon’s surface, Mars’s surface, and advanced spacecraft power and propulsion systems all have in common?  Radioactivity.

Boltwoodite and Torbernite, uranium-bearing mineral samples. (Credit: Ben McGee)

On Earth, (and other heavy rocky bodies,) radioactivity is a natural occurrence.  Plants (and even human beings) all beam out radioactive gamma rays from a natural isotope of Potassium.  (This is prevalent enough that you can calibrate your instruments to it in the wild.)  Even more to the point, radioactive Uranium and Thorium are more common in the Earth’s crust than Gold or Silver.  These elements are crucial to determining the ages of rocks.

Now, go farther.  As we move outside the Earth’s protective magnetic field, (i.e., orbit, Moon, Mars, and everything beyond and in-betwixt,) cosmic and solar radiation are essentially the greatest hazards an astronaut may face.  Radiation shielding and measurement are of primary importance.

Illustration of a manned NTR exploration spacecraft and landing capsule in Mars orbit. (Credit: Douglas/Time Magazine, 1963)

Farther still, once a spacecraft travels beyond about Mars, the intensity of sunlight is such that solar panels are inadequate to supply necessary power.  Nuclear reactors, (Radioisotope-Thermoelectric Generators, or RTGs,) are necessary.

Plus, in order to get out that far (to Mars or beyond) in a reasonable amount of time, our chemical rockets won’t provide enough kick.  Instead, Nuclear Thermal Rockets (NTRs) are about the most efficient way to go, something I’m in the midst of researching in earnest.

Hence, in addition to having experience as a field geologist (for future visits to the Moon, Mars, asteroids, etc.,) being trained to swing a radiation detector around, understanding the exact hazards radiation poses and how it works, and knowing your way around a nuclear reactor are all uniquely suited to space exploration.

Admittedly, it’s an unconventional path, but it’s my path: Riding gamma rays to the stars.





Year 2069 on the Moon: Fort Rille

23 10 2010

My ShiftBoston Moon Capital Competition entry. (Credit: Ben McGee)

Well, being that the Moon Ball is already past us and I my inbox hasn’t lit up, I imagine I didn’t win anything and it’s safe to submit my concept of “Fort Rille” to the world.   What is it, exactly?  It’s a concept for a future lunar settlement (year 2069, 100 years after Apollo 11,) that I entered in ShiftBoston’s Moon Capital Competition.

I don’t think the concept was far-out enough to please the judges, frankly.  (-And I have my suspicions that, not being a graphic designer, my artwork may have held me back as well…)  However, I do think this is exactly what our first settlements will look like.  Much like the Old West and turn-of-the-20th-Century exploration expeditions after which my concept was modeled, life will be rough, exciting, fulfilling, and a little dangerous.

Highlights include hybrid solar and betavoltaic battery power systems, Earth-telecommuter-controlled robots and roving lifeboats to help out, sunglasses to protect against high-intensity glare, and ubiquitous polymer-based duster-style jackets for weight, warmth, and radiation protection.

The contest designers wanted something a little less practical, I imagine.  I just couldn’t stop myself from creating what I think we’ll actually see in another 50 years.  (And yes, you might note that the “fort” isn’t military, and the more lunar-savvy amongst you might also object that while the settlement is called “rille,” it isn’t on a rille – it’s in a crater.  But that wasn’t the point.  I just thought the name captured the right feel of the place.)

Go ahead and take a look.  If you’d like, let me know what you think.

I may be projecting, but I imagine some pretty cool science and blues would (will?) come out of a place like this.  Which, of course, naturally go hand-in-hand.





Suiting up for radiation

7 09 2010

Common radiation detection instruments. (Credit: Nevada Technical Associates, Inc.)

So, I’m heading out this week for radiological instrumentation training.  And while I’m studying the latest in handheld “duck-and-cover” devices, I thought I’d take a second to talk about radiation protection.

Actually, everyone is used to doing it.  The dental chair.  The strangely-shaped things in your mouth.  The lead apron.  -Or how about gooping up before hitting the beach or the hotel pool?  X-Ray Machines and UV rays.  -Not quite scary as they are inconvenient.

Well, what are x-rays and ultraviolet rays other than electromagnetic radiation?  -That’s right, they’re the same as the “radiation” that serves as the terror-inducing, little-understood plot point in a zillion bad sci-fi flicks.  X-rays are simply a stronger variant of the ultraviolet-rays that can fry your skin and a weaker variant of the gamma-rays that beam out of radioactive cesium and can fry your DNA.

The apron you wear at the dentist and the sunblock you slather on are common radiation shields.  And, for that matter, so is your skin.

Radiation is a way of life – it beams down from the sun and up from the Earth’s rocks.  Plants soak up naturally-radioactive potassium and beam radiation at you from all sides, 24-hours-a-day.  We’re built to handle it down here.  Life has adapted.  -And while politicians count on the scary sci-fi-effect the word “RADIATION” has on people, it’s nothing to worry about compared to the chemicals we deal with and transport in day-to-day life.  (Try breathing chlorine bleach for more than a couple of seconds and you’ll see what I mean.  But seriously, don’t do that.)

1999 solar eclipse, highlighting the sun's corona. (Credit: Luc Viatour)

In space, however, it’s a different story.  Without the Earth’s atmosphere to act as a natural shield, we’re unprotected from the sun and distant stars’ powerful cosmic radiation.

To make matters worse, most radiation shields (e.g., lead,) are heavy.  The cost of launching heavy materials up to space is enormous, not to mention that lead is a toxic metal, poisonous to astronauts with long exposure times.

It’s times like these that companies like Radiation Shield Technologies catch my eye.  While they’re not necessarily working on NASA-spirited technologies, (they’re more looking at the emergency responders,) the product they’re offering definitely has out-of-this-world merit.

Namely, they’ve developed a fabric called Demron, which according to a Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory study possesses many of the radiation-shielding properties of lead while being lightweight, flexible, and potentially layer-able with a bullet-proof fabric like Kevlar.

To me, products like this are where we need to start looking to develop the practical tools of next-generation astronauts and space workers (astrowrights).  While Demron currently doesn’t shield well against the most extreme high-energy rays and particles, it is definitely a start, and it’s much more user-friendly and cost-effective (lighter) than lead.

Considering what an effective combination Demron would be with the micrometeorite protection that a ballistic fabric like Kevlar would offer, I would challenge clothing designers to start putting their heads together to incorporate them into comfortable, practical space-wear for our men and women in orbit.

Like on Earth, radiation is a way of life in space, too.  We should start thinking that way, and Demron seems a good place to start.








%d bloggers like this: