Acceso abierto

Hydrogen- and Methane-Loaded Shielding Materials for Mitigation of Galactic Cosmic Rays and Solar Particle Events

Kristina Rojdev
Kristina Rojdev
 y 
William Atwell
William Atwell
   | 01 jul 2015
Gravitational and Space Research's Cover Image
Acerca de este artículo
Artículo anterior
Artículo siguiente
Cite
Article Category: Research Article
Publicado en línea: 01 jul 2015
Páginas: 59 - 81
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/gsr-2015-0006
© 2015 Kristina Rojdev et al., published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

Figure 1.

SPEs in accordance with the solar cycle (NASA, 2008). (This figure is from a NASA document and is not subject to copyright within the US.)
SPEs in accordance with the solar cycle (NASA, 2008). (This figure is from a NASA document and is not subject to copyright within the US.)

Figure 2.

Differential fluence of several GCR elemental species (hydrogen, helium, oxygen, and iron) for both solar minimum and solar maximum (Badhwar et al., 1994). (This figure is from NASA research and is not subject to copyright within the US.)
Differential fluence of several GCR elemental species (hydrogen, helium, oxygen, and iron) for both solar minimum and solar maximum (Badhwar et al., 1994). (This figure is from NASA research and is not subject to copyright within the US.)

Figure 3.

Integral and differential energy spectra for the SPEs occurring 19-24 October 1989, which exhibited a high fluence of higher energy protons (Tylka and Dietrich, 2009). (The data in this figure was provided by William Atwell for the referenced paper and he has given permission for replication here.)
Integral and differential energy spectra for the SPEs occurring 19-24 October 1989, which exhibited a high fluence of higher energy protons (Tylka and Dietrich, 2009). (The data in this figure was provided by William Atwell for the referenced paper and he has given permission for replication here.)

Figure 4.

Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite system (GOES) satellite measurements of particle fluxes of various energies during the four SPEs of 19-24 October 1989. The times of the Ground Level Enhancements (GLE) and Energetic Solar Particles (ESP) are indicated on the plot. The ESP occurs when there is a bow shock enhancement of solar protons (NOAA, 2014). (The data in this figure is from the NOAA online database and is not subject to copyright within the US.)
Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite system (GOES) satellite measurements of particle fluxes of various energies during the four SPEs of 19-24 October 1989. The times of the Ground Level Enhancements (GLE) and Energetic Solar Particles (ESP) are indicated on the plot. The ESP occurs when there is a bow shock enhancement of solar protons (NOAA, 2014). (The data in this figure is from the NOAA online database and is not subject to copyright within the US.)

Figure 5.

Differential spectrum of the 1977 solar minimum GCR environment pre-coded into HZETRN. For ease of viewing, only the protons are plotted. The code includes a total of 39 species for the GCR environment.
Differential spectrum of the 1977 solar minimum GCR environment pre-coded into HZETRN. For ease of viewing, only the protons are plotted. The code includes a total of 39 species for the GCR environment.

Figure 6.

SPE dose as a function of depth for liquid hydrogen, liquid methane, aluminum, and HDPE (Atwell et al., 2014). The input environment for this calculation is the Band fit of the October 1989 series of events (Figure 3), and the resultant data presented in this figure is from a simulation performed with HZETRN 2010 (Wilson et al., 1991; Wilson et al., 1995; Wilson et al., 2006; Slaba et al., 2010a; Slaba et al., 2010b).
SPE dose as a function of depth for liquid hydrogen, liquid methane, aluminum, and HDPE (Atwell et al., 2014). The input environment for this calculation is the Band fit of the October 1989 series of events (Figure 3), and the resultant data presented in this figure is from a simulation performed with HZETRN 2010 (Wilson et al., 1991; Wilson et al., 1995; Wilson et al., 2006; Slaba et al., 2010a; Slaba et al., 2010b).

Figure 7.

GCR absorbed dose curves for three MOF materials and their hydrogen-loaded counterparts compared with aluminum (red) and HDPE (black). The hydrogen-loaded versions are denoted by a dashed line and a filled in marker. The non-hydrogen-loaded MOF is denoted by a solid line and an open marker.
GCR absorbed dose curves for three MOF materials and their hydrogen-loaded counterparts compared with aluminum (red) and HDPE (black). The hydrogen-loaded versions are denoted by a dashed line and a filled in marker. The non-hydrogen-loaded MOF is denoted by a solid line and an open marker.

Figure 8.

GCR absorbed dose curves for two additional MOF materials and their hydrogen-loaded counterparts compared with aluminum (red) and HDPE (black). The hydrogen-loaded versions are denoted by a dashed line and a filled in marker. The non-hydrogen-loaded MOF is denoted by a solid line and an open marker.
GCR absorbed dose curves for two additional MOF materials and their hydrogen-loaded counterparts compared with aluminum (red) and HDPE (black). The hydrogen-loaded versions are denoted by a dashed line and a filled in marker. The non-hydrogen-loaded MOF is denoted by a solid line and an open marker.

Figure 9.

GCR absorbed dose curves for seven non-hydrogen-loaded CNTs compared with aluminum (red) and HDPE (black).
GCR absorbed dose curves for seven non-hydrogen-loaded CNTs compared with aluminum (red) and HDPE (black).

Figure 10.

GCR absorbed dose curves for seven hydrogen-loaded CNTs compared with aluminum (red) and HDPE (black).
GCR absorbed dose curves for seven hydrogen-loaded CNTs compared with aluminum (red) and HDPE (black).

Figure 11.

GCR absorbed dose curves for five hydrogen-loaded lithium MHs compared with aluminum (red) and HDPE (black).
GCR absorbed dose curves for five hydrogen-loaded lithium MHs compared with aluminum (red) and HDPE (black).

Figure 12.

GCR absorbed dose curves for five hydrogen-loaded MHs compared with aluminum (red) and HDPE (black).
GCR absorbed dose curves for five hydrogen-loaded MHs compared with aluminum (red) and HDPE (black).

Figure 13.

GCR absorbed dose curves for two MHs and their hydrogen-loaded counterparts compared with aluminum (red) and HDPE (black). The non-loaded versions have solid lines and open markers. The hydrogen-loaded versions have dashed lines and filled markers.
GCR absorbed dose curves for two MHs and their hydrogen-loaded counterparts compared with aluminum (red) and HDPE (black). The non-loaded versions have solid lines and open markers. The hydrogen-loaded versions have dashed lines and filled markers.

Figure 14.

SPE absorbed dose curves for three MOFs compared with their hydrogen-loaded and methane-loaded versions, as well as aluminum (red) and HDPE (black). The base MOF is depicted by a solid line, the hydrogen-loaded version is depicted by a dashed line and a filled marker, and the methane-loaded version is depicted by a dotted line and an open marker.
SPE absorbed dose curves for three MOFs compared with their hydrogen-loaded and methane-loaded versions, as well as aluminum (red) and HDPE (black). The base MOF is depicted by a solid line, the hydrogen-loaded version is depicted by a dashed line and a filled marker, and the methane-loaded version is depicted by a dotted line and an open marker.

Figure 15.

SPE absorbed dose curves for two MOFs compared with their hydrogen-loaded and methane-loaded versions, as well as aluminum (red) and HDPE (black). The base MOF is depicted by a solid line, the hydrogen-loaded version is depicted by a dashed line and a filled marker, and the methane-loaded version is depicted by a dotted line and an open marker.
SPE absorbed dose curves for two MOFs compared with their hydrogen-loaded and methane-loaded versions, as well as aluminum (red) and HDPE (black). The base MOF is depicted by a solid line, the hydrogen-loaded version is depicted by a dashed line and a filled marker, and the methane-loaded version is depicted by a dotted line and an open marker.

Figure 16.

SPE absorbed dose curves for three CNT materials compared with their hydrogen- and methane-loaded versions, as well as compared with aluminum (red) and HDPE (black). The base material is depicted by a solid line, the hydrogen-loaded version is depicted by a dashed line and a filled marker, and the methane-loaded version is depicted by a dotted line and an open marker.
SPE absorbed dose curves for three CNT materials compared with their hydrogen- and methane-loaded versions, as well as compared with aluminum (red) and HDPE (black). The base material is depicted by a solid line, the hydrogen-loaded version is depicted by a dashed line and a filled marker, and the methane-loaded version is depicted by a dotted line and an open marker.

Figure 17.

SPE absorbed dose curves for two CNT materials compared with their hydrogen- and methane-loaded versions, as well as compared with aluminum (red) and HDPE (black). The base material is depicted by a solid line, the hydrogen-loaded version is depicted by a dashed line and a filled marker, and the methane-loaded version is depicted by a dotted line and an open marker.
SPE absorbed dose curves for two CNT materials compared with their hydrogen- and methane-loaded versions, as well as compared with aluminum (red) and HDPE (black). The base material is depicted by a solid line, the hydrogen-loaded version is depicted by a dashed line and a filled marker, and the methane-loaded version is depicted by a dotted line and an open marker.

Figure 18.

SPE absorbed dose curves for two CNT materials compared with their hydrogen- and methane-loaded versions, as well as compared with aluminum (red) and HDPE (black). The base material is depicted by a solid line, the hydrogen-loaded version is depicted by a dashed line and a filled marker, and the methane-loaded version is depicted by a dotted line and an open marker.
SPE absorbed dose curves for two CNT materials compared with their hydrogen- and methane-loaded versions, as well as compared with aluminum (red) and HDPE (black). The base material is depicted by a solid line, the hydrogen-loaded version is depicted by a dashed line and a filled marker, and the methane-loaded version is depicted by a dotted line and an open marker.

Figure 19.

GCR absorbed dose curves for three MOF materials and their hydrogen-loaded and methane-loaded counterparts, compared with aluminum (red) and HDPE (black). The base material is depicted by a solid line, the hydrogen-loaded version is depicted by a dashed line and closed marker, and the methane-loaded version is depicted by a dotted line with an open marker.
GCR absorbed dose curves for three MOF materials and their hydrogen-loaded and methane-loaded counterparts, compared with aluminum (red) and HDPE (black). The base material is depicted by a solid line, the hydrogen-loaded version is depicted by a dashed line and closed marker, and the methane-loaded version is depicted by a dotted line with an open marker.

Figure 20.

GCR absorbed dose curves for two MOFs and their hydrogen-loaded and methane-loaded counterparts, compared with aluminum (red) and HDPE (black). The base material is depicted by a solid line, the hydrogen-loaded version is depicted by a dashed line and closed marker, and the methane-loaded version is depicted by a dotted line with an open marker.
GCR absorbed dose curves for two MOFs and their hydrogen-loaded and methane-loaded counterparts, compared with aluminum (red) and HDPE (black). The base material is depicted by a solid line, the hydrogen-loaded version is depicted by a dashed line and closed marker, and the methane-loaded version is depicted by a dotted line with an open marker.

Figure 21.

GCR absorbed dose curves for three CNTs and their hydrogen-loaded and methane-loaded counterparts, compared with aluminum (red) and HDPE (black). The base material is depicted by a solid line, the hydrogen-loaded version is depicted by a dashed line and a closed marker, and the methane-loaded version is depicted by a dotted line and an open marker.
GCR absorbed dose curves for three CNTs and their hydrogen-loaded and methane-loaded counterparts, compared with aluminum (red) and HDPE (black). The base material is depicted by a solid line, the hydrogen-loaded version is depicted by a dashed line and a closed marker, and the methane-loaded version is depicted by a dotted line and an open marker.

Figure 22.

GCR absorbed dose curves for two CNTs and their hydrogen-loaded and methane-loaded counterparts, compared with aluminum (red) and HDPE (black). The base material is depicted by a solid line, the hydrogen-loaded version is depicted by a dashed line and a closed marker, and the methane-loaded version is depicted by a dotted line and an open marker.
GCR absorbed dose curves for two CNTs and their hydrogen-loaded and methane-loaded counterparts, compared with aluminum (red) and HDPE (black). The base material is depicted by a solid line, the hydrogen-loaded version is depicted by a dashed line and a closed marker, and the methane-loaded version is depicted by a dotted line and an open marker.

Figure 23.

GCR absorbed dose curves for two CNTs and their hydrogen-loaded and methane-loaded counterparts, compared with aluminum (red) and HDPE (black). The base material is depicted by a solid line, the hydrogen-loaded version is depicted by a dashed line and a closed marker, and the methane-loaded version is depicted by dotted line and an open marker.
GCR absorbed dose curves for two CNTs and their hydrogen-loaded and methane-loaded counterparts, compared with aluminum (red) and HDPE (black). The base material is depicted by a solid line, the hydrogen-loaded version is depicted by a dashed line and a closed marker, and the methane-loaded version is depicted by dotted line and an open marker.

UT1

CNT = Nanoporous Carbon Composites
ESP = Energetic Solar Particle
EVA = Extravehicular Activity
GCR = Galactic Cosmic Ray
GEO = Geostationary Orbit
GLE = Ground Level Event
GTO = Geostationary Transfer Orbit
HDPE = High Density Polyethylene
LEO = Low Earth Orbit
MEO = Medium Earth Orbit
MH = Metal Hydride
MOF = Metal Organic Framework
SPE = Solar Particle Event

CNT material formulas and densities used for radiation transport calculations and the simulated space radiation environment (“Exposure”) used. “Base” signifies the unaltered material, “H” is the hydrogen-loaded version, and “CH4” is the methane-loaded version. The subscripts give the mole percent of each radical in the group. This information was provided by Drs. Daniel Liang, Matthew Hill, and Song Song.

CNT
Loading Condition Chemistry Density (g/cm 3) Exposure
Base C2H4 0.95 SPE, GCR
Base (C2H4)97.7C2.30 0.95 SPE, GCR
H (C2H4)97.7(CH3)2.3 0.95 SPE, GCR
CH4 (C2H4)97.7(CH4)0.32C1.98 0.95 SPE, GCR
Base (C2H4)93.27C6.73 0.96 SPE, GCR
H (C2H4)93.27(CH3)6.73 0.96 SPE, GCR
CH4 (C2H4)93.27(CH4)0.93C5.8 0.96 SPE, GCR
Base (C2H4)89.06C10.94 0.97 SPE, GCR
H (C2H4)89.06(CH3)10.94 0.97 SPE, GCR
CH4 (C2H4)89.06(CH4)1.51C9.43 0.97 SPE, GCR
Base (C2H4)79.41C20.59 1.00 SPE, GCR
H (C2H4)79.41(CH3)20.59 1.00 SPE, GCR
CH4 (C2H4)79.41(CH4)2.84C17.75 1.00 SPE, GCR
Base (C2H4)63.16C36.84 1.04 SPE, GCR
H (C2H4)63.16(CH3)36.84 1.04 SPE, GCR
CH4 (C2H4)63.16(CH4)5.08C31.76 1.04 SPE, GCR
Base (C2H4)50C50 1.10 SPE, GCR
H (C2H4)50(CH3)50 1.11 SPE, GCR
CH4 (C2H4)50(CH4)6.9C43.1 1.10 SPE, GCR
Base (C2H4)39.13C60.87 1.16 SPE, GCR
H (C2H4)39.13(CH3)60.87 1.17 SPE, GCR
CH4 (C2H4)39.13(CH4)8.4C52.49 1.16 SPE, GCR

Results of a preliminary study (Atwell et al., 2014).

MOFs CNTs MHs Total
Superior to HDPE 1 7 1 9
Between Al and HDPE 9 7 14 30
Inferior to Al 0 0 25 25

MH material formulas and densities used for radiation transport calculations and the simulated space radiation environment (“Exposure”) used. “Base” signifies the unaltered material and “H” is the hydrogen-loaded version. This information was provided by Drs. Daniel Liang, Matthew Hill, and Song Song.

MH
Loading Condition Chemistry Density (g/cm3) Exposure
Base Li2.35Si 1.67 GCR
H 91% Li2.35Si and 9% H 0.84 GCR
Base LiB 1.65 GCR
H 91% LiB and 9% H 0.67 GCR
Base CaNi5 6.60 GCR
H 96% CaNi5 and 4% H 6.6 GCR
H CaNi5H6 5.01 GCR
Base LaNi4.7Al0.3 8.00 GCR
H LaNi4.7Al0.3H6 6.08 GCR
H 96% LaNi4.7Al0.3 and 4% H 7.6 GCR
Base LaNi4.8Sn0.2 8.40 GCR
H LaNi4.8Sn0.2H6 6.38 GCR
H 96% LaNi4.8Sn0.2 and 4% H 8.4 GCR
Base LaNi5 8.20 GCR
H LaNi5H6 6.22 GCR
Base Al2Cu 5.83 GCR
H Al2CuH 5.39 GCR
Base Al 2.70 GCR
H AlH3 2.5 GCR
H BaAlH5 3.30 GCR
H SrAl2H2 2.64 GCR
Base Ti0.98Zr0.02V0.48Fe0.09Cr0.05Mn1.5 7.20 GCR
H Ti0.98Zr0.02V0.48Fe0.09Cr0.05Mn1.5H3.3 5.80 GCR
Base TiCr1.8 5.70 GCR
H TiCr1.8H3.5 4.50 GCR
Base TiFe0.9Mn0.1 6.50 GCR
H TiFe0.9Mn0.1H2 5.20 GCR
H LiAlH4 0.92 GCR
H LiMg(AlH4)3 1.80 GCR
H Mg(AlH4)2 2.24 GCR
H NaAlH4 1.81 GCR
H Y3Al2H6.5 4.10 GCR
Base V 6.00 GCR
H VH 5.60 GCR
H VH2 2.30 GCR
Base Li 0.53 GCR
H 80% Li and 20% H 0.57 GCR
H 85% Li and 15% H 0.56 GCR
H 90% Li and 10% H 0.55 GCR
H 95% Li and 5% H 0.54 GCR

MOF material formulas and densities used for radiation transport calculations and the simulated space radiation environment (“Exposure”) used. “Base” signifies the unaltered material, “H” is the hydrogen-loaded version, and “CH4” is the methane-loaded version. This information was provided by Drs. Daniel Liang, Matthew Hill, and Song Song.

MOF
Loading Condition Chemistry Density (g/cm 3) Exposure
Base C432H288Be48O144 0.42 GCR
H C432H1120Be48O144 0.46 GCR
Base Mg18O54H18C72 0.91 GCR
H Mg18O54H141C72 0.95 GCR
Base Al4O32C56H44 1.61 GCR
H Al4O32C56H96 1.68 GCR
Base C200H128* 0.31 GCR
H C200H325* 0.35 GCR
Base C27H31NO22Sc3 1.03 GCR
H C27H66NO22Sc3 1.07 GCR
Base Zn216C3132O702H1242 0.25 SPE, GCR
H Zn216C3132O702H14814 0.30 SPE, GCR
CH4 Zn216C4189O702H5470 0.31 SPE, GCR
Base C1536H864Cu96N32O480 0.47 SPE, GCR
H C1536H2734Cu96N32O480 0.50 SPE, GCR
CH4 C1908H2352Cu96N32O480 0.55 SPE, GCR
Base C288H96Cu48O240 0.95 SPE, GCR
H C288H531Cu48O240 0.99 SPE, GCR
CH4 C362H392Cu48O240 1.06 SPE, GCR
Base H112C192O128Zr12Ti12 1.10 SPE, GCR
H H260C192O128Zr12Ti12 1.33 SPE, GCR
CH4 H208C216O128Zr12Ti12 1.17 SPE, GCR
Base H112C192O128Zr24 1.20 SPE, GCR
H H260C192O128Zr24 1.22 SPE, GCR
CH4 H208C216O128Zr24 1.27 SPE, GCR

Aggregated data of materials exposed to a GCR and how they compare with a typical spacecraft material (aluminum) and the standard radiation shielding material (HDPE).

GCR
MOFs CNTs MHs
non-loaded H-loaded CH4-loaded non-loaded H-loaded CH4-loaded non-loaded H-loaded Total
Superior to HDPE 0 1 0 0 7 0 1 7 16
Between Al and HDPE 7 9 5 7 0 7 2 4 41
Inferior to Al 3 0 0 0 0 0 9 16 28

The percent increase in dose for the methane-loaded MOF materials compared with the hydrogen-loaded equivalents for both the SPE and GCR cases. The comparisons were made for a thickness of 30 g/cm 2.

MOF
Base Material         CH4 dose higher than H
SPE GCR
Zn216C3132O702H1242 34% 12%
C1536H864Cu96N32O480 3% 2%
C288H96Cu48O240 0% 2%
H112C192O128Zr12Ti12 2% 1%
H112C192O128Zr24 1% 1%

The percent increase in dose for the methane-loaded CNT materials compared with the hydrogen-loaded equivalents for both the SPE and GCR cases. The comparisons were made for a thickness of 30 g/cm 2.

CNT
Base Material         CH4 dose higher than H
SPE GCR
(C2H4)97.7C2.30 0% 0%
(C2H4)93.27C6.73 1% 0%
(C2H4)89.06C10.94 2% 1%
(C2H4)79.41C20.59 4% 2%
(C2H4)63.16C36.84 8% 3%
(C2H4)50C50 12% 5%
(C2H4)39.13C60.87 17% 6%

Aggregated data of materials exposed to a SPE and how they compare with a typical spacecraft material (aluminum) and the standard radiation shielding material (HDPE).

SPEs
MOFs CNTs
non-loaded H-loaded CH4-loaded non-loaded H-loaded CH4-loaded Total
Superior to HDPE 0 1 0 0 7 0 8
Between Al and HDPE 5 4 5 7 0 7 28
Inferior to Al 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
eISSN:
2332-7774
Idioma:
Inglés
Calendario de la edición:
2 veces al año
Temas de la revista:
Life Sciences, other, Materials Sciences, Physics
RSS Feed de revista