While we're on the subject of upside down air liners...
More to be informative, than a question:
science.nasa.gov/Are Terrestrial gamma-ray flashes Hazardous to Air Travelers?/10feb_friendlyskies?
K
|
While we're on the subject of upside down air liners...
More to be informative, than a question:
science.nasa.gov/Are Terrestrial gamma-ray flashes Hazardous to Air Travelers?/10feb_friendlyskies?
K
The question is, if TGF is dangerous, is it possible to build material into the shell of the plane to shield passengers from harm.
In retrospect, how many people are suffering as a result of exposure after a flight. Any studies on that?
Hi! rosemcs
It should be quite possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by rosemcs
At the present time NASA engineers are developing radiation, and impact shielding for long duration spaceflight, such as the Moon colonization, and the Mars Expedition, and colonization.
Behind the Scenes: Space Radiation
Spaceflight-relevant types of ionizing radiation and cortical bone: Potential LET effect?
See table:
PubMed Central, : CMAJ. 2009 June 9; 180(12): 1216?1220. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.081125.
Located here:
The space-flight environment: the International Space Station and beyond
Impact Studies:
NASA - Micrometeoroids and Orbital Debris (MMOD)
Unfortunately, the present administration is trying to find ways to pay for its policies.
One way is to cut NASA funding to the bone, and only have them (NASA) act as a oversight department to the commercialization of space exploration.
More "smoke and mirrors" This is only the beginning:
SPACE.com -- Lawmakers Slash $670 Million From NASA Budget Request
How many people realize the benefits of space exploration:
NASA spinoffs, space benefits, space history, NASA space spinoffs, NASA technology products
That's what the Gamma-ray Burst Monitor (GBM,) mentioned in the article will be trying to find out.Quote:
Originally Posted by rosemcs
There has already been studies on airline passenger exposure to radiation.
hps.org/Radiation Exposure During Commercial Airline Flights
K
Seems to me that if these TGFs are associated with lightning, then anyone who is ever near a lightning strike is at risk. Even if you were comfortably "safe" in your house, if lightning hits a tree in your yard you'd be exposed - much more so than an airline passenger flying through a thunder storm.
Borrowed from the article:Quote:
Originally Posted by ebaines
Fishman offers some good news: "If TGFs originate near the tops of thunderstorms and propagate upward from there, airline passengers would be safe."
"But if the source is compact and the gamma-rays originate close to an aircraft, then that could be a problem," says Fishman.
Over the course of human history... So far, So good.
True. When an airliner is struck by lighting, the outer skin of the airplane offers some protection.Quote:
Originally Posted by ebaines
With the make-up of the human body being nearly 70% water, we are excellent conductors.
Several years ago. I was finishing up some yard chores before a thunderstorm came through, and almost became a leader myself.
It was several seconds before the charge hit next door, I felt an unusual tingling with it being strongest at the nape of my neck, I just squatted down when the charge hit.
I didn't feel right for a couple of days.
Interesting topic, KUXJ. I had a family friend that was struck by lightening in his pool and became paralyzed, having to learn how to talk all over again. It makes one think how vulnerable we are on the ground and in the air, to the forces of nature.
On a different topic, concerning the Burmuda Triangle and how much more radiation it must have, because of the increased storms.
Lightning has been know to travel 35miles, that's where the expression "out of the blue" comes from.
Back when we had our pool, I always kept an eye on the radar, and lightning detector, and I shut the pool down when the storms reached my imposed 40mile distance.
The kids, and the DW didn't like it, but they understood.
Concerning the BT. There is definitely something going on there, and its not alone as there are other hot-spots in various corners of the world.
I was one of the co-authors of the Dwyer paper and I'm pretty familiar with the issues. First, the large-scale gamma-ray production is unique to the high-altitude environment. There are a few gamma-rays when lightning strikes on the ground but never enough to worry about. Second, the number of times that a TGF ever hits an airplane is probably very small -- it's probably one of the smaller risks you have to worry about. Finally, there would be no shielding against it -- these are high-energy gamma-rays that could punch through perhaps up to an inch of lead. An airplane built that way wouldn't fly... -David Smith
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:27 PM. |