The Ionizing Radiation Environment in Space

and Its Effects

Jim Adamsa, David Falconera and Dan Fryb
a

The Center for Space Plasma and Aeronomic Research (CSPAR), UA Huntsville.
b
Space Radiation Analysis Group, NASA Johnson Space Center

Abstract. The ionizing radiation environment in space poses a hazard for spacecraft and space
crews. The hazardous components of this environment are reviewed and those which contribute
to radiation hazards and effects identified. Avoiding the adverse effects of space radiation
requires design, planning, monitoring and management. Radiation effects on spacecraft are
avoided largely though spacecraft design. Managing radiation exposures of space crews involves
not only protective spacecraft design and careful mission planning. Exposures must be managed
in real time. The now-casting and forecasting needed to effectively manage crew exposures is
presented. The techniques used and the space environment modeling needed to implement these
techniques are discussed.
Keywords: ionizing radiation, space radiation, radiation effects, radiation protection
PACS: 61.80.-x, 87.53.-j, 94.20.wq

INTRODUCTION
The ionizing particle environment in space is the dominant source of ionizing
radiation within space systems. The radiation doses from particles greatly exceed
those from other sources except at or very near the exterior surface where solar UV
and x-rays can be important. It is for this reason that basic research on space radiation
has immediate applications in spacecraft design and crew protection. Research which
serves to characterize the radiation environment within the heliosphere and the nearby
interstellar medium is directly applicable. Results that permit the estimation of the
environment up twenty years in the future and at locations where no measurements
have been yet made are particularly useful for space system design and mission
planning.
Management of crew radiation exposures is essential if humans are live and work
safely in space. Research that provides for situational awareness of the ongoing and
evolving radiation environment due to solar activity is of great importance. Models
that permit the extrapolation of current conditions one or more days into the future are
highly desirable as they could form the basis for planning to minimize crew exposures.

SPACE WEATHER: THE SPACE RADIATION ENVIRONMENT

AIP Conf. Proc. 1500, 198-203 (2012); doi: 10.1063/1.4768766
2012 American Institute of Physics 978-0-7354-1114-2/$30.00

198

IMPORTANT COMPONENTS OF THE SPACE RADIATION

ENVIRONMENT
The components of the space radiation environment that are of practical importance
are those that contribute to radiation effects or radiation dose to space crews. The
dominate component is usually galactic cosmic rays (GCRs). GCRs are always present
though their intensity varies with the solar activity cycle. Both an eleven-year and a
twenty-two year periodicity have been firmly established. Cosmic rays are known to
include electrons and atomic nuclei from hydrogen to at least uranium. Most of these
nuclei have been experimentally detected and their relative abundances measured. The
abundances resemble the general abundance of elements, given in [1] and [2].
However nuclear fragmentation during the interstellar propagation to Earth increases
the abundances of the rarer elements. The abundances of Li, Be, B, and the sub-iron
elements, Sc, Ti, V, Cr and Mn are dominated by fragmentation of heavier elements.
Elements with odd atomic numbers also tend to be enhanced by fragmentation, see [3]
for details. GCRs with energies up to a few 10s GeV/nucleon have significant
practical effects. The total flux of cosmic rays at higher energies contributes little [4].
GCR electrons are of no importance in the inner heliosphere. The practical effects
there are due to GCR nuclei. The elemental spectra which are important depend on the
specific application. The spectra of the more abundant elements up to Fe make
significant contributions to radiation doses to space crews. The GCR spectra which are
important for radiation effects vary from case to case. GCR protons are the principal
source of radiation dose but not the main cause for single event effects now. They are
expected to become more important in the future. GCRs heavier than Fe can be the
dominate source of single event effects (SEEs) in hardened components. Anomalous
cosmic rays are not important in the inner heliosphere.
Anomalous cosmic rays are important in the outer heliosphere, where their flux
exceeds that of GCRs at energies below 100 MeV/nuc [5,6]. For total dose effects,
cosmic ray electrons become competitive with anomalous protons in the heliosheath.
Unlike GCRs, solar energetic particles (SEPs) occur sporadically but can be quite
intense, easily exceeding the GCR flux up to energies as high as 1 GeV/nuc. Solar
energetic particles consist of electrons and the nuclei from H to perhaps U. SEP ions
have been detected in charge groups up to 76 Z 82 [7]. Solar energetic electrons
are of no direct importance but can be used as a diagnostic for situational awareness.
As with cosmic rays, SEP elemental abundances resemble solar system abundances
[2]. The SEP heavy ion abundances are quite variable from event to event, however.
Because SEP spectra are much softer than GCR spectra and because SEPs are richer in
protons, the relative abundance of heavy ions in SEP fluxes inside crewed space
systems is much lower. For this reason, the radiation hazard to the crew is dominated
by SEP protons. Secondary neutrons also contribute due to secondary production in
heavier space systems and from albedo in low Earth orbit and on the lunar surface.
For radiation effects, the radiation doses are due to SEP protons except very near
the surface. Heavy ions are important for single event effects as they are for GCRs.
Trapped radiation is also important. Like GCRs, it is always present. The Earth has
strong trapped radiation belts and Jupiter has even stronger ones. The planets Saturn,
Uranus and Neptune also have radiation belts but they are weaker than Earths belts.

199

The important components of the radiation belts are protons and electrons. In the
Earths inner belt, only protons are able to penetrate deep enough into space systems
to pose a hazard for space crews. Even electronics is rarely near enough to the surface
to be affected by electrons in the Earths inner belt. Trapped protons can deliver
hazardous doses of radiation to crew members during extra vehicular activity (EVA).
These radiation doses can also damage the electronics. In addition the trapped protons
can cause single event effects [8].
The Earths outer belt is dominated by electrons. While these electrons dont have
the energy to penetrate deeply into spacecraft, they embed so much electrical charge in
the surface materials that the dielectrics breakdown and electrical discharges can occur
[9]. These can directly affect the electronics within the spacecraft.

THE INFLUENCES OF RADIATION SPACECRAFT DESIGN

Radiation can damage the electronic systems in spacecraft. There two basic
mechanisms, total radiation dose and single event effects. Both electrons and protons
can come to rest in dielectric layers within the gate oxide layers in metal oxide
semiconductor field effect transistors (MOSFETs). The accumulated charge over the
mission can shift the operating voltage of a digital electronic component that uses
MOSFETs so much that the circuit will no longer switch in response to the normal
gate voltage change between logical states of the circuit, so the circuit simply stops
working. In addition, protons can displace atoms from their crystal lattice sites in the
semiconductor, creating electron traps that impede the flow of electrons in the circuit.
This displacement damage will increase the electrical resistance of the circuit. It
affects both electronic components and solar cells. Care must be taken in the design of
space systems to avoid these total dose effects. With reliable models of the space
radiation environment [10, 11] and the effects of shielding [12, 13], the total radiation
dose to electronics can be estimated. It turns out that with the use of shielding and
radiation-hardened electronics, space systems can be designed that do not suffer from
total dose effects.
Single event effects (SEEs) are much more challenging for space system designers.
The list of single event effects keeps growing as new devices are developed a new
effects are discovered. There are both destructive and nondestructive effects. The
destructive effects include Single Event Gate Rupture (SEGR), Single Hard Error
(SHE), Single Event Burnout (SEB), Single Event Snapback (SES) and Single Event
Dielectric Rupture (SEDR).
In non-destructive SEEs, the functionality of the circuit can be recovered. The most
common begin as Single event transients (SETs). SETs are the result of a radiationinduced current or voltage pulses. They may or may not result in an error. The most
common kind of error that begins as a SET is a single event upset (SEU). A SEU is a
radiation-induced bit flip. It can be corrected by re-writing the bit. Other nondestructive SEEs are single event functional interrupts (caused by ions striking the
control or mode circuitry in a chip); single event latchups (a bit get permanently stuck
in one state until the power to the chip is cycled); and multi-cell upsets (in which a
single particle causes multiple SEUs). Multi-cell upsets can occur in the same word,

200

which will defeat the usual error-detection and correction paradigm [14] used in
spacecraft design.
Designers rely on flux models of the space radiation environment to estimate SEE
rates so that they can devise a robust design that will not fail on orbit. They need to
know the most extreme radiation environment they can expect to encounter during the
planned mission at a confidence level of their choosing. Currently, this relies on
predicting the radiation environment as much as 20 years in the future so as to cover
the planned time of the mission. While this can be done with some confidence for
cosmic rays, and trapped radiation, solar energetic particle events cannot be predicted
in advance, certainly not 20 years in advance. At present engineers either use previous
measurements of extreme events like the October 1989 event [15] or probabilistic
models for the bounding-case particle event at their chosen confidence level [16,17].
All these models rely on accurate measurements of SEP spectra over long periods of
time.
For missions at distant locations in the heliosphere, designers rely on extrapolating
measurements from 1 AU using some extrapolation law. See Lario et al. [18] for a
discussion of radial extrapolation.

PROTECTING SPACE CREWS FROM RADIATION

The effects of radiation on space crews can either be acute or chronic. The effects
of an acute dose at the levels a crew member might experience are malaise, nausea and
vomiting. While these symptoms are not, in and of themselves, life threatening, they
would be hazardous during an EVA.
The effects of chronic doses include carcinogenesis (both leukemia and solid
cancers), neurological damage (affecting motor skills and behavior) and degenerative
tissue damage diseases such as heart disease, cataracts, respiratory and digestive
diseases.
Of course radiation exposures should not be allowed to approach the levels that
could result in either acute or chronic effects. NASA sets radiation exposure limits
based on the recommendations of the National Council for Radiation Protection.
These limits are designed to insure that the health risks for space crews do not exceed
those for terrestrial workers in other hazardous professions. Limits are set for doses to
the eyes, skin and internal organs. These limits are age- and gender-dependent. In
addition to the dose limits NASA operates on the principle that radiation exposures
should be kept as low as reasonably achievable, the so-called ALARA principle.
Radiation exposures are managed in several ways. First of all, crewed missions and
the vehicles to conduct them are designed with radiation protection in mind. Mission
concepts are evaluated to determine the potential radiation exposure crews would
receive. Evaluations of crewed missions to Mars [19] have left the viability of these
missions in doubt principally because of the uncertainties in risks of chronic effects.
The effectiveness the shielding afforded by the vehicle is taken into account for all
crewed missions. It will also be a design factor in future missions, including
interplanetary ones [20].
Basic research on the space radiation environment is used in mission design and
planning in ways that are similar to those for unscrewed missions. The designers need

201

to know the upper bounds that the elemental energy spectra will reach at specified
confidence levels. For crew doses, the emphasis is on time integrated fluencies, but
because crew members move into locations affording differing amounts of shielding,
fluxes are also important. NASA is currently developing improved space weather
climatology models that can provide more detail on the upper bound environments.
The relevant characterizations sought are the peak SEP flux spectra and integrated
fluence spectra for the initial part of a solar particle event and for the entire event or
episode of events.
In addition to mission planning and crewed system design, NASA manages
radiation exposure during missions applying the ALARA principle and, in any case,
insuring that dose limits are not exceeded. To manage radiation exposures during a
mission, situational awareness is essential. NASA relies on NOAA to report and
forecast weather conditions in space. These reports are based on data from NOAAs
weather satellites and ground stations. NASA also monitors the radiation environment
on the ISS using a tissue equivalent proportional counter [21] and a charged particle
directional spectrometer [22]. In addition, NASA has computational tool that
calculates when the vehicle will next enter a region of low geomagnetic cutoff,
potentially exposing the crew to SEPs. There is another tool to model the shielding
afforded crew members in different locations within the ISS or on EVA.
NASA is developing tools that allow them to go beyond nowcasting the space
environment. NASA is now evaluating an All Clear forecast tool [23] that evaluates
the non-potential energy stored in the magnetic fields of each active region on the Sun
to estimate the threat level. This tool gives a whole-Sun threat level for the coming
day. When the threat level is low, EVAs and other activities that place crew members
in less well-shielded locations can be undertaken with lower risk. This tool is currently
available in the WWW at http://www.uah.edu/cspar/research/mag4-page.
For the purpose of managing crew dose during mission operations, it would be very
desirable to extrapolate the current space weather situation 1-2 days into the future so
that the managers will be able to predict the consequences of continuing on the
mission time line. NASA is seeking several capabilities. Before an event occurs
knowledge of the interplanetary magnetic field conditions [24, 25] could be used to
understand the magnetic connections of Earth to the active regions on the Sun. That
knowledge could be used in models of SEP acceleration and propagation [26, 27] to
forecast the time profiles of events from each active region should they occur in the
immediate future. That knowledge could be used to weigh the threat posed by the
stored magnetic free energy in each active region in order to better understand the
risks of a significant particle event at Earth in the coming day.
Once an event has occurred on the Sun (as observed in x-rays and coronagraph
images) knowledge of the pre-existing interplanetary magnetic field conditions,
coupled with models for SPE acceleration could perhaps be used to forecast the
coming solar particle event at Earth. Once particles begin to arrive at Earth, perhaps
the additional knowledge of their energy spectra can be used to refine the predictions
so as to forecast how the event will evolve of the coming day.
It is clear from the discussion above that the radiation exposure management for the
crew can be improved if models that characterize the interplanetary magnetic field and

202

describe particle acceleration following outbursts on the Sun can be developed that are
accurate and fast enough for use in real-time radiation exposure management.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was supported in part by the NASAs Living with Star Programs Targeted
Research and Technology Program and NASAs Space Radiation Analysis Group.

REFERENCES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

Norbert Przybilla, Maria-Fernanda Nieva and Keith Butler, Ap. J., 688, L103L106 (2008).
Edward Anders and Nicolas Grevesse, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 53, 197214 (1989).
J. A. Simpson, Ann. Rev. of Nucl. and Part. Sci., 33, 323-382 (1983).
J. A. Lesniak and W. R. Webber, Astrophys. J., 223, 676-696 (1978).
A. C. Cummings and E. C. Stone, Sp. Sci. Rev., 78,117-128 (1996).
A. C. Cummings, E. C. Stone, and C. D. Steenberg, Ap. J. , 578,194210 (2002).
D. V. Reames and C. K. Ng, Ap. J., 610, 510522 (2004).
R. D. Schrimpf and D. M. Fleetwood, Radiation Effects And Soft Errors In Integrated Circuits And
Electronic Devices, Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Company, Ltd., 2004.
9. Andrew Holmes-Siedle and Len Adams, Handbook of Radiation Effects, London: Oxford Univ.
Press, 2001.
10. The Space Environment Information System (SPENVIS), http://www.spenvis.oma.be/
11. Cosmic Ray Effects on MicroElectronics (CRME) https://creme.isde.vanderbilt.edu/
12.J. Tweed, S.A. Walker, J.W. Wilson, F.A. Cucinotta, R.K. Tripathi, S. Blattnig, C.J. Mertens, Adv.
Space Res., 35, 194-201 (2005).
13. Seltzer, S. M., SHIELDOSE, A Computer Code for Space-Shielding Radiation Dose Calculations,
National Bureau of Standards, NBS Technical Note 1116, Washington D.C.: U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1980
14. R.W. Hamming, The Bell System Technical Journal, 29, 147-160 (1950).
15.Allan J. Tylka, James H. Adams, Jr., Paul R. Boberg, Buddy Brownstein, William F. Dietrich, Erwin
O. Flueckiger, Edward L. Petersen, Margaret A. Shea, Don F. Smart, and Edward C. Smith, IEEE
Trans on Nucl. Sci., 44, pp. 2150-2160 (1997).
16.J. Feynman, G. Spitale, and J. Wang, JGR, 98, 13,281-13,294 (1993).
17.M.A., Xapsos, G. P. Summers, J. L. Barth, E. G. Stassinopoulos, and E. A. Burke, IEEE Trans. on
Nucl. Sci., 46, 1481-1485 (1999).
18.D. Lario, M. B. Kallenrode, R. B. Decker, E. C. Roelof, S. M. Krimigis, A. Aran and B. Sanahuja,
Astrophys. J., 653, 15311544 (2006).
19.Francis A. Cucinotta, Walter Schimmerling, John W. Wilson, Leif E. Peterson, Gautam D. Badhwar,
Premkumar B. Saganti, and John F. Dicello, Rad. Res., 156, 682-688 (2001).
20.J. L. Shinn, J. E. Nealy, L. W. Townsend, J. W. Wilson and J. S. Wood, Adv. Space Res., 14, 863871 (1994).
21.T. B. Borak1, T. Doke, T. Fuse, S. Guetersloh, L. Heilbronn, K. Hara, M. Moyers, S. Suzuki, P.
Taddei, K. Terasawa, and C. J. Zeitlin, Rad. Res., 162, 687-692 (2004).
22.Gautam D. Badhwar, Physica Medica, 17, 287-291 (2001)
23.David Falconer, Abdulnasser F. Barghouty, Igor Khazanov, and Ron Moore, Space Weather, 9,
S04003 (2011)
24.P. Riley, R. Lionello, J. A. Linker, Z. Mikic, J. Luhmann, and J. Wijaya, Solar Phys., 274, 36-45
(2011).
25. S. M. P. McKenna-Lawlor, C. D. Fry, M. Dryer, D. Heynderickx, K. Kecskemety, K. Kudela, and J.
Balaz, Annal. Geophys., doi:10.5194/angeo-30-405-2012 (2012).
26.O.P. Verkhoglyadova, G. Li, G. P. Zank, Q. Hu, and R. A. Mewaldt, Ap. J., 693, 894900 (2009).
27. J.G. Luhmann, S.A. Ledvina, D. Krauss-Varban, D. Odstrcil and P. Riley, Adv. in Sp. Res., 40, 295
303 (2007).

203

Copyright of AIP Conference Proceedings is the property of American Institute of Physics and its content may
not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.