Cosmic rays and aluminun vs composite
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: May 2010
Location: SNA
Programs: AAdvantage Platinum
Posts: 529
Cosmic rays and aluminun vs composite
Does anyone know how much protection an aluminum airframe/skin affords against in-flight radiation and whether the new composite materials (ie 787) differ?
#2
Suspended
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,728
There's a break-even point on shielding, given that secondary, tertiary, and quaternary radiation emitted from the shielding itself can be more dangerous than the initial particle that simply zips right on through lower-density materials without causing any problems.
I forget who wrote it, but one comment early in the space race said something to the effect that Man was safest in space with just enough shielding to keep out the UV and keep in the air.
#3
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: DTW
Programs: DL 0.22 MM, AA 0.34 MM, PC Plat Amb, Hertz #1 GC 5*
Posts: 7,511
It's been quite some time since I rolled the numbers, but as I recall the majority of radiation exposure at high altitude is not X-rays, but cosmic radiation - high energy stuff.
There's a break-even point on shielding, given that secondary, tertiary, and quaternary radiation emitted from the shielding itself can be more dangerous than the initial particle that simply zips right on through lower-density materials without causing any problems.
I forget who wrote it, but one comment early in the space race said something to the effect that Man was safest in space with just enough shielding to keep out the UV and keep in the air.
There's a break-even point on shielding, given that secondary, tertiary, and quaternary radiation emitted from the shielding itself can be more dangerous than the initial particle that simply zips right on through lower-density materials without causing any problems.
I forget who wrote it, but one comment early in the space race said something to the effect that Man was safest in space with just enough shielding to keep out the UV and keep in the air.

