logoalt Hacker News

ericdtoday at 6:36 PM2 repliesview on HN

This seems sort of interesting as a sort of emergency backup, but it seems like the real solution for any sort of long distance/long duration in space is just making mass to orbit dramatically cheaper and shielding the spacecraft.


Replies

dredmorbiustoday at 9:03 PM

Mass requires reaction (generally: fuel) both to accelerate and decellerate. Absent alternative delta-V mechanisms (usually: aeroraking, as lithobraking is perceived as generally too extreme), this rapidly runs into the tyranny of the rocket equation.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation>

Even without earth-to-orbit costs, that mass has real costs, and reduces available payload.

If that shielding mass can be dual-use (e.g., water), reactive (e.g., electromagnets), or reduced to a very small amount (emergency shelters, wearable garments), it becomes more practicable. That still doesn't make it easy.

There's also a discontinuity in radiation exposure. Passing through radiation belts (e.g., Earth's van Allen belts, or those around Jupiter), and solar storms, are both predictable and special precautions can be taken. Cosmic ray radiation is unpredictable, high-energy, and is far harder to guard against. Some risk is inevitable.

show 1 reply
bell-cottoday at 7:54 PM

A spacecraft with a 4m diameter spherical living space and 4m of water shielding around it will weigh about 1,000 tons. The propellant tanks needed to move it around the solar system will be similarly titanic.

How many orders of magnitude were you figuring for your "dramatically cheaper"?

show 2 replies