Arxiv:1710.07311V4 [Physics.Med-Ph] 17 Feb 2018 80 Years of Solar Measurements
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Limitations in Predicting the Space Radiation Health Risk for Exploration Astronauts Jeffery C. Chancellor,1 Rebecca S. Blue,2 Keith A. Cengel,3 Serena M. Auñón-Chancellor,4, 5 Kathleen H. Rubins,5 Helmut G. Katzgraber,1, 6, 7 and Ann R. Kennedy3 1Department of Physics and Astronomy, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-4242, USA 2Aerospace Medicine and Vestibular Research Laboratory, The Mayo Clinic Arizona, Scottsdale, AZ 85054, USA 3Department of Radiation Oncology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA 4University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX 77555, USA 5National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX 77058, USA 61QB Information Technologies (1QBit), Vancouver, British Columbia, V6B 4W4, Canada 7Santa Fe Institute, 1399 Hyde Park Road, Santa Fe, NM 87501, USA Keywords: space radiation; radiobiology; aerospace medicine; interplanetary; animal model; clinical; mono- energetic; solar particle event; galactic cosmic ray. Running Title: Predicting Space Radiation Risk Despite years of research, understanding of the released Report No. 98: Guidance On Radiation Re- space radiation environment and the risk it poses to ceived in Space Activities.1 In this report, authors rec- long-duration astronauts remains limited. There is ommended that NASA astronauts be limited to career a disparity between research results and observed lifetime radiation exposures that would induce no more empirical effects seen in human astronaut crews, than a 3% Risk of Exposure-Induced Death (REID). likely due to the numerous factors that limit terres- This was re-emphasized in the 2015 NCRP Commen- trial simulation of the complex space environment tary No. 23: Radiation Protection for Space Activities: and extrapolation of human clinical consequences Supplement to Previous Recommendations, which con- from varied animal models. Given the intended fu- cluded that NASA should continue to observe the 3% ture of human spaceflight, with efforts now to rapidly REID career limit for future missions outside of LEO.2 expand capabilities for human missions to the moon This limit has been accepted in NASA’s Spaceflight and Mars, there is a pressing need to improve upon Human-System Standard document, NASA STD-3001 the understanding of the space radiation risk, pre- Volume 1 (Revision A).3 dict likely clinical outcomes of interplanetary radia- Despite the adoption of these guidelines and the past tion exposure, and develop appropriate and effective 30 years of research, there has been little progress on mitigation strategies for future missions. To achieve fully defining or mitigating the space radiation risk to hu- this goal, the space radiation and aerospace com- man crew. In fact, the NCRP’s recent conclusions spec- munity must recognize the historical limitations of ified that their 3% limit may not be conservative enough radiation research and how such limitations could given the incomplete biological data used in existing pro- be addressed in future research endeavors. We have jection models, and that such models may overestimate sought to highlight the numerous factors that limit the number of allowable "safe days" in space for mis- understanding of the risk of space radiation for hu- sions outside of LEO.2 As a result, NASA has yet to es- man crews and to identify ways in which these limita- tablish mission exposure limits for crews of exploration- tions could be addressed for improved understand- class missions outside of LEO. ing and appropriate risk posture regarding future hu- A recent report by Schwadron et al. has identified man spaceflight. further concerns regarding the interplanetary radiation environment.4 The unusually low activity between so- lar cycles 23 and 24 (1996-present) has resulted in the Introduction longest period of minimum solar activity observed in over arXiv:1710.07311v4 [physics.med-ph] 17 Feb 2018 80 years of solar measurements. The lack of solar activ- While space radiation research has expanded rapidly ity has led to a substantial decrease in solar wind density in recent years, large uncertainties remain in predicting and magnetic field strengths that typically attenuate the and extrapolating biological responses to radiation ex- fluence (the flux of particles crossing a given plane) of posure in humans. As future missions explore outside Galactic Cosmic Ray (GCR) ions during periods of so- of low-Earth orbit (LEO) and away from the protection lar minimum. As a result, Schwadron et al. project that of the Earth’s magnetic shielding, the nature of the ra- GCR fluences will be substantially higher during the next diation exposures that astronauts encounter will include solar cycles (24-25) leading to increased background ra- higher radiation exposures than any experienced in his- diation exposure and, subsequently, as much as a 20% torical human spaceflight. In 1988, the National Coun- decrease in the allowable safe days in space (outside of cil on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) LEO) to stay below the 3% REID limits.4 2 flight crews. 4 Here we seek to highlight these factors that contribute 3.5 to the challenge of radiation risk prediction and mitigation 3 for future exploration spaceflight. Our intent is to provide Human an understanding of the current state of radiation-specific 2.5 d = 30 cm literature, efforts towards better defining the space radia- 2 Pig tion environment, and the difficulties in realization of this d = 20 cm effort that limit current knowledge. Further, we hope to 1.5 identify opportunities for future research that could best Depth in Tissue (cm) 1 elucidate a path towards successful definition and miti- Mouse 0.5 d = 3 cm gation of the space radiation risk to humans outside of LEO. 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Proton Energy (MeV) The Space Radiation Environment FIG. 1: Depth dose, energy, and linear energy transfer char- acteristics of protons. The range of proton energies relative to Biological stressors related to space radiation are due the body diameter (dotted lines) and bone marrow depth (or- to the effects of energy transfer from a charged particle to dinate) for mice, pigs, and humans for energies up to 60MeV. the human body. The combination of a particle’s charge, mass, and energy determines how quickly it loses en- ergy when interacting with matter.5–7 For example, given The study of human health risks of spaceflight (e.g. equal initial kinetic energies, an electron will penetrate bone health, behavior, nutrition, etc.) typically involves further into aluminum than a heavy charged particle, and analogs that closely represent the space environment. an x-ray will, on average, penetrate even further. In bio- In most cases, theory, models, and study outcomes can logical tissue, the absorbed dose that a particular target be validated with available spaceflight data or, at a min- organ receives from heavy-charged particle radiation de- imum, observation of humans subjected to analog ter- pends not only on the energy spectrum of the particles restrial stresses. In contrast, space radiation research is but also on the depth and density of the tissue mass that limited to the use of analogs or models that for many rea- lie between the skin surface and the target organ (for sons do not accurately represent the operational space example, see Figure 1, which demonstrates the tissue radiation environment or the complexity of human phys- depth ionized hydrogen (proton) penetrates as a function iology. For example, studies on the effects of space ra- of energy). diation generally use mono-energetic beams and acute, The radiation dose to an astronaut, measured in units single-ion exposures (including protons, lithium, carbon, of Gray (Gy, defined as Joules per kilogram (J=kg)), is oxygen, silicon, iron, etc.) instead of the complex energy deposited with a distribution in tissues that results from spectra and diverse ionic composition of the space radi- the specific energy fluence of the particles. The heavier ation environment. In addition, a projected, cumulative the charged particle, the greater the amount of energy mission dose is often delivered in one-time, or rapid and deposited per unit path length for that particle. This is sequential, doses delivered to experimental animals. In called linear energy transfer (LET). most cases, these dose-rates are several orders of mag- The space weather environment is most commonly nitude higher than actual space environment exposures. categorized into three sources of ionizing radiation, each Even the use of animal models introduces error, as stud- of which is associated with different energy and preva- ies make use of a variety of animal species with differing lence and, thus, different radiation-related risk (Figure responses and sensitivity to radiation that may not rep- 2). First, the GCR spectrum consists of primarily ion- resent human responses to similar exposures. Further, ized hydrogen as well as less frequent heavier-charged studies do not challenge multiple organ systems to re- particles, with relatively high LET, that contribute to the spond concurrently to the numerous stressors seen in an chronic, background radiation exposure for long-duration operational spaceflight scenario. Historical epidemiolog- astronauts. Solar Particle Events (SPEs) consist mostly ical studies of humans, which are generally used for cor- of short-duration exposures of high-energy protons that relation of animal and experimental models, include pop- emanate from the Sun within regions of solar magnetic ulations such as atomic bomb or nuclear accident sur- instability.8 Finally, solar wind consists of mostly low en- vivors exposed to whole-body irradiation at high doses ergy protons and electrons. The background dose-rate and high dose-rates, limited to scenarios not found in for solar wind varies with the solar cycle, but is easily spaceflight. These disparities and numerous other en- shielded by modern spacecraft designs and is consid- vironmental considerations contribute to the large uncer- ered to be of negligible risk.