Comments on: Ion Shield for Interplanetary Spaceships Now a Reality

By: charbel

charbel — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 16:45:29 +0000

i got you a tips for spare on energy to the spaceship the atmosfer of mars is big and the thing i wana say is you can get the energi from the atmosfer off mars but its will be a problem when you coming upp agen from the atmosfer

By: Damion

Damion — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 19:45:59 +0000

Wow, this is really amazing!
I bet there going to use this for SPACE COMBAT!!!!!

By: RetardedFishFrog

RetardedFishFrog — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 13:15:13 +0000

They should make a very large solar-powered version of these. Put one at EM L1 and the other at EM L2 to shield a future moon base.

By: dollhopf

dollhopf — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 10:54:50 +0000

just another crazy idea

would it be useful to upgrade the ISS with a Bamford small-scale magnetosphere generator? The ISS then possibly could orbit earth in a much higher orbit, because the crew's health would no longer depend on the protecting earth magnetosphere. Thus, the atmospheric drag of low orbit could be avoided.

What side effects could such a magnetosphere have to the station's system?

By: dollhopf @ Prime

dollhopf @ Prime — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 10:09:53 +0000

)) oh my goodness )) amusing
thanks

By: Prime

Prime — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 02:15:25 +0000

Although this research isn't generally known to the public, it describes, in part, a non-rocket approach to the Magnetic Ion type shield.
http://community-2.webtv.net/SkyVessel-1/doc0/
As you can see, there are many more advantages to this approach.

Prime

By: Chuck Lam

Chuck Lam — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 14:32:10 +0000

To Peter, I'm thinking that the 'lost contact' with several probes over the years could easily be the result of destruction running into space debris rather than failure of communication electronics. It would be challenging to prove or disprove the possibility of space debris induced vehicle destruction. Or, for that matter, the statistical odds for such an event. I don't believe space is as empty as we think it is. Space debris may be an insurmountable barrier to space travel.

By: Peter

Peter — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 04:56:50 +0000

Sakib,

We HAVE a particle shield around Earth, how do you think life has survived here so long?
And Chuck, there really aren't a lot of space rocks etc out there. That's why they call it a vacuum in space. There's nothing there. Think about our satellites and robot probes, none have been hit by anything bigger than dust! I think this is a HUGE step forward! If you can live within the shield, and work electronic equipment then we have the first working part of the first Starship!

By: Ben

Ben — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 15:04:15 +0000

>historians running the economy;

Surely this is a very good idea?!

If only financial policy makers could look a bit further back than the last quarter they might be able to avoid such huge disasters.

They only had to search wikipedia for "Savings and Loans scandal", an event which occurred less than twenty years ago to avoid this whole mess.

Ben

By: Chuck Lam

Chuck Lam — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 14:56:14 +0000

I suspect the radiation challenge will be fairly easy to deal with. The real problem, as I see it, will be to protect the space vehicle from destruction running into unknown space debris. For example, I don't believe there is any way to avoid destruction traveling ten or more miles per second running into a baseball size chunk of something solid.

By: Dan

Dan — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 14:03:30 +0000

Won't the magnetic field adversly effect electronic and other equipment on board ship?

By: Paul Eaton-Jones

Paul Eaton-Jones — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 10:27:15 +0000

Here in Britain 'big science' has always been a long way behind other countries and science like this is right at the back of the queue. It's usually down to the ingenuity of the scientists concerned that gets it done. Even though Beagle 2 ultimately failed, because the project was done on a shoestring, the team strove like heroes to get it to Mars. The problem in Britain lies with the fact that government departments are usually run by ministers who have either no interest in the portfolio or they have no qualifications or experience in the ministry. We've had people with degrees in classics/English running the science department; historians running the economy; economists running education etc. etc. No wonder we're now a third world country.

By: Sakib

Sakib — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 10:26:00 +0000

I think 5 years is quite feasible, at least it will be tested and optimised rather than being rushed. It'd be cool if we could have a planetary shield for Earth!

By: dollhopf

dollhopf — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 09:48:47 +0000

What funds do Dr Bamford and the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory have? Having a working full size prototype within five years is too late. I guess that NASA's Orion crew exploration vehicle would need partial redesign to integrate the shield device. And in five years it would presumably be too late for changes. The speed of realisation depends on money. Public money is devoured by the fight against the impact of the financial crisis. And due to the disastrous financial situation of research in Britain I wonder that they made it so far at all.

Presumably, we will have to wait for many years before we will see real progress. The war chests of science are empty. And then there is always a lobby who claims the money for something else.

By: The Occupant

The Occupant — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 06:15:51 +0000

This makes me very happy, Mars, though still an extremely difficult challenge, is starting to look human doable again.
Cheers guys, you have made me dream again!

By: Astrofiend

Astrofiend — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 23:11:40 +0000

Good work… and me thinks they'll have a long time to perfect the technology before we start sending people into interplanetary space… Similar technology could also be highly useful for permanent moon bases and the like too.

By: luke carter

luke carter — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 22:15:56 +0000

cool. i can imagine this being used for moon stations as well.

By: Damian

Damian — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 20:39:59 +0000

"they have devised a system no bigger than a large desk"

How large a desk are we talking here?

By: Ian O'Neill

Ian O'Neill — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 20:13:42 +0000

@Kurt:- While this isn't the silver bullet that will protect astronauts 100%, it does cancel out the significant risk of high-energy (charged) particles. As the majority of solar wind particles are high energy protons, this is a good answer. As for X-ray and gamma radiation, there will still need to be a "safe zone" inside the spacecraft with a protective hull – although damaging EM radiation will hit you without warning. I think we have a while to go before we start manufacturing the first USS Enterprise…

Cheers

Ian

By: watchful stone guardian

watchful stone guardian — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 19:39:32 +0000

"they have devised a system no bigger than a large desk that uses the same energy as an electric kettle."

Future British astronauts will now be faced with a terrible dilemma… raise the shields or plug in the kettle for a cuppa. That'll be a tough call!

By: Kurt Fitzner

Kurt Fitzner — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 19:09:45 +0000

While the article does mention the similarity in the effects of a solar event and nuclear radiation on a human, they have vastly different causes. No sort of electromagnetic shielding can keep out nuclear radiation simply because of the fact that neutron particle radiation has no electromagnetic charge. It passes through a magnetic field like it's not there.

So while this is an exciting discovery, it has no effect in a traditional nuclear/radiological environment.

By: Dark Gnat

Dark Gnat — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 15:51:29 +0000

I've been hoping for something like this for a long time, and I knew it was feasible.
This is very exciting.

By: NoAstronomer

NoAstronomer — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 14:34:04 +0000

Is there any potential application for orbiting (unmanned) satellites to protect them from solar flares?

By: neil

neil — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 13:51:21 +0000

now all we need is a spacecraft that's worth a s***. NASA? anyone?

By: baley

baley — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 12:36:12 +0000

@Mark

This is what is in use for nuclear fusion reactors ( super conductors magnets)

@mrt181
this is only for charged particles Gamma rays and neutral particles cannot only be absorbed by a the spaceship structure.