Reference field specification and preliminary beam selection strategy for accelerator-based GCR simulation.

ABSTRACT

The galactic cosmic ray (GCR) simulator at the NASA Space Radiation Laboratory (NSRL) is intended to deliver the broad spectrum of particles and energies encountered in deep space to biological targets in a controlled laboratory setting. In this work, certain aspects of simulating the GCR environment in the laboratory are discussed. Reference field specification and beam selection strategies at NSRL are the main focus, but the analysis presented herein may be modified for other facilities and possible biological considerations. First, comparisons are made between direct simulation of the external, free space GCR field and simulation of the induced tissue field behind shielding. It is found that upper energy constraints at NSRL limit the ability to simulate the external, free space field directly (i.e. shielding placed in the beam line in front of a biological target and exposed to a free space spectrum). Second, variation in the induced tissue field associated with shielding configuration and solar activity is addressed. It is found that the observed variation is likely within the uncertainty associated with representing any GCR reference field with discrete ion beams in the laboratory, given current facility constraints. A single reference field for deep space missions is subsequently identified. Third, a preliminary approach for selecting beams at NSRL to simulate the designated reference field is presented. This approach is not a final design for the GCR simulator, but rather a single step within a broader design strategy. It is shown that the beam selection methodology is tied directly to the reference environment, allows facility constraints to be incorporated, and may be adjusted to account for additional constraints imposed by biological or animal care considerations. The major biology questions are not addressed herein but are discussed in a companion paper published in the present issue of this journal. Drawbacks of the proposed methodology are discussed and weighed against alternative simulation strategies.