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

Kristina Rojdev; William Atwell

doi:10.2478/gsr-2015-0006

.blurhash-client-img { display: none !important; }

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

Gravitational and Space Research

Volume 3 (2015): Issue 1 (July 2015)

By: Kristina Rojdev and William Atwell

Open Access

|Jul 2015

Figures & Tables

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

**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.)**

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.)

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.)

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.)

Table 1.

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

Table 2.

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

8* MOFs are seen as a catch all phrase for periodic nanoporous materials. This is a non-metal, carbon-based framework that does not have the chemical structure of a CNT, has similar properties to MOFs, and large adsorption capacity.

Table 3.

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)_97.7C_2.30	0.95	SPE, GCR
H	(C₂H₄)_97.7(CH₃)_2.3	0.95	SPE, GCR
CH₄	(C₂H₄)_97.7(CH₄)_0.32C_1.98	0.95	SPE, GCR
Base	(C₂H₄)_93.27C_6.73	0.96	SPE, GCR
H	(C₂H₄)_93.27(CH₃)_6.73	0.96	SPE, GCR
CH₄	(C₂H₄)_93.27(CH₄)_0.93C_5.8	0.96	SPE, GCR
Base	(C₂H₄)_89.06C_10.94	0.97	SPE, GCR
H	(C₂H₄)_89.06(CH₃)_10.94	0.97	SPE, GCR
CH₄	(C₂H₄)_89.06(CH₄)_1.51C_9.43	0.97	SPE, GCR
Base	(C₂H₄)_79.41C_20.59	1.00	SPE, GCR
H	(C₂H₄)_79.41(CH₃)_20.59	1.00	SPE, GCR
CH₄	(C₂H₄)_79.41(CH₄)_2.84C_17.75	1.00	SPE, GCR
Base	(C₂H₄)_63.16C_36.84	1.04	SPE, GCR
H	(C₂H₄)_63.16(CH₃)_36.84	1.04	SPE, GCR
CH₄	(C₂H₄)_63.16(CH₄)_5.08C_31.76	1.04	SPE, GCR
Base	(C₂H₄)₅₀C₅₀	1.10	SPE, GCR
H	(C₂H₄)₅₀(CH₃)₅₀	1.11	SPE, GCR
CH₄	(C₂H₄)₅₀(CH₄)_6.9C_43.1	1.10	SPE, GCR
Base	(C₂H₄)_39.13C_60.87	1.16	SPE, GCR
H	(C₂H₄)_39.13(CH₃)_60.87	1.17	SPE, GCR
CH₄	(C₂H₄)_39.13(CH₄)_8.4C_52.49	1.16	SPE, GCR

Table 4.

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	Li_2.35Si	1.67	GCR
H	91% Li_2.35Si 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	LaNi_4.7Al_0.3	8.00	GCR
H	LaNi_4.7Al_0.3H₆	6.08	GCR
H	96% LaNi_4.7Al_0.3 and 4% H	7.6	GCR
Base	LaNi_4.8Sn_0.2	8.40	GCR
H	LaNi_4.8Sn_0.2H₆	6.38	GCR
H	96% LaNi_4.8Sn_0.2 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	Ti_0.98Zr_0.02V_0.48Fe_0.09Cr_0.05Mn_1.5	7.20	GCR
H	Ti_0.98Zr_0.02V_0.48Fe_0.09Cr_0.05Mn_1.5H_3.3	5.80	GCR
Base	TiCr_1.8	5.70	GCR
H	TiCr_1.8H_3.5	4.50	GCR
Base	TiFe_0.9Mn_0.1	6.50	GCR
H	TiFe_0.9Mn_0.1H₂	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	Y₃Al₂H_6.5	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

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.

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).

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 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 seven non-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)**.

**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 MHs compared with aluminum (red) and HDPE (black)**.

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.

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 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 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 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.

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 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 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 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.

Table 5.

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

Table 6.

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

Table 7.

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
Base Material	SPE	GCR
Zn₂₁₆C₃₁₃₂O₇₀₂H₁₂₄₂	34%	12%
C₁₅₃₆H₈₆₄Cu₉₆N₃₂O₄₈₀	3%	2%
C₂₈₈H₉₆Cu₄₈O₂₄₀	0%	2%
H₁₁₂C₁₉₂O₁₂₈Zr₁₂Ti₁₂	2%	1%
H₁₁₂C₁₉₂O₁₂₈Zr₂₄	1%	1%

Table 8.

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
Base Material	SPE	GCR
(C₂H₄)_97.7C_2.30	0%	0%
(C₂H₄)_93.27C_6.73	1%	0%
(C₂H₄)_89.06C_10.94	2%	1%
(C₂H₄)_79.41C_20.59	4%	2%
(C₂H₄)_63.16C_36.84	8%	3%
(C₂H₄)₅₀C₅₀	12%	5%
(C₂H₄)_39.13C_60.87	17%	6%

References

Authors

Metrics

Articles in this issue

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/gsr-2015-0006 | Journal eISSN: 2332-7774

Journal RSS Feed

Language: English

Page range: 59 - 81

Published on: Jul 1, 2015

Published by: American Society for Gravitational and Space Research

In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services

Publication frequency: Volume open

Keywords:

Galactic Cosmic Rays,

Solar Particle Events,

Radiation Shielding,

Metal Organic Framework,

Metal Hydride,

Nanoporous Carbon Composite,

HZETRN,

Deep Space

Related subjects:

Life sciences,

Life sciences, other,

Materials sciences,

Materials sciences, other,

Physics,

Physics, other

© 2015 Kristina Rojdev, William Atwell, published by American Society for Gravitational and Space Research
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

Volume 3 (2015): Issue 1 (July 2015)

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

Figures & Tables

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Table 1.

Table 2.

Table 3.

Table 4.

Figure 5.

Figure 6.

Figure 7.

Figure 8.

Figure 9.

Figure 10.

Figure 11.

Figure 12.

Figure 13.

Figure 14.

Figure 15.

Figure 16.

Figure 17.

Figure 18.

Figure 19.

Figure 20.

Figure 21.

Figure 22.

Figure 23.

Table 5.

Table 6.

Table 7.

Table 8.

Paradigm

My account