6 comments

  • saltcured 9 minutes ago
    I remember reading, long ago, an assertion that most shielding ideas were counterproductive for astronauts.

    It was stated that most shielding would turn high energy photons into much more harmful showers of particles, worse than the original photon going directly through tissue. Was this an untested myth?

    HDPE has been around since the beginning of the space race, so it seems like someone ought to have considered this before? Has the understanding of particle interactions improved a lot since then, such that HDPE shielding would not have been considered before?

  • anishvarghese 6 minutes ago
    This targeted shielding is a classic aerospace mass tradeoff much like armoring a fighter pilot instead of the entire plane.
  • ericd 27 minutes ago
    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.
  • bcraven 30 minutes ago
    “It still gets people surprised,” Milstein says. “Everybody asks, what about the head? But we’re actually able to reduce the effective dose by 60 percent without protecting the head, the arms, or even the legs.”

    Whilst I understand the maths here, I can see why someone would be nervous!

    • weinzierl 12 minutes ago
      You need to protect anything with relatively fast dividing cells best because this is where the cancer risk is highest. The brain with its slow dividing cells and fast killing tumors is the last thing to protect.
    • antonvs 14 minutes ago
      It's ok, everything except your brain will be protected from radiation!
      • weinzierl 10 minutes ago
        Your brain is quite robust against cancer and when it gets it, if is often a relatively fast death, so exactly the right trade-off.
      • clickety_clack 11 minutes ago
        You’ll be cancer-free on average!
  • alehlopeh 1 hour ago
    The use of “we” in this headline is really jarring.
    • ButlerianJihad 38 minutes ago
      We Flew to the Moon and Back So You Wouldn't Have To!
      • antonvs 14 minutes ago
        You're welcome!
  • TheDudeMan 1 hour ago
    Why wouldn't it?
    • rtkwe 1 hour ago
      The difficulty is making it protective but light enough to not significantly hinder the spacecraft or person wearing it, all of which is covered in the article.
    • solarengineer 1 hour ago
      Poor design, flawed assumptions, manufacturing defects, inability to bear the gravitational and rocket launch forces, inability of the jacket to last the duration of the radiation exposure - these are some reasons that come to my mind on why a radiation-blocking vest wouldn't have worked for the journey to the moon and back (i.e. your question "Why wouldn't it?".)