5 Questions to Ask Before Choosing Radiation Shielding for Your Satellite

Why Questions Matter

Radiation shielding is one of the most consequential design decisions in space engineering. The wrong choice can doom a mission to early failure; the right choice can extend operational life by years and save millions in costs. Yet shielding is not a component you can simply buy off the shelf. Its effectiveness depends entirely on where your satellite will fly, how long it will operate, and what electronics you’re trying to protect.

Rather than starting with materials, the smarter approach begins with questions. This article highlights five essential questions every satellite team should ask before settling on a shielding solution.

Question 1: What Orbit and Environment Are You Designing For?

The radiation landscape is not uniform. The orbit your satellite occupies determines the dominant sources of radiation, and with them, the shielding strategy.

• In Low Earth Orbit (LEO), spacecraft are bombarded by trapped electrons and must frequently cross the South Atlantic Anomaly, where proton fluxes spike.

• In Medium Earth Orbit (MEO), satellites like GPS experience intense trapped proton radiation that can deliver high cumulative doses in a relatively short time.

• In Geostationary Orbit (GEO), spacecraft face a steady onslaught of trapped protons and electrons, demanding robust shielding to ensure long mission lifetimes.

• In Deep Space, beyond Earth’s protective magnetosphere, galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) dominate. These particles are so energetic that shielding them is extremely challenging; in some cases, additional mass only produces secondary showers.

Understanding the orbit is not just step one—it’s the foundation. Without it, every shielding choice risks being mismatched to the real environment.

Question 2: How Long Does the Mission Need to Survive?

Time is just as important as place. A six-month CubeSat demonstration in LEO will encounter far less cumulative dose than a ten-year communications satellite in GEO.

Radiation damage builds over time in the form of total ionizing dose (TID). For example, a five-year GEO mission may accumulate 50–100 krad(Si) behind just 2 mm of aluminum. That level of exposure is far beyond the tolerance of most commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) components.

Short-duration missions can often get away with minimal shielding, relying instead on system-level redundancy and error correction. Long-duration missions, however, must plan for cumulative degradation. Without proper design, a satellite may work perfectly in year one only to degrade rapidly in year three or four—well before its expected end of life.

Question 3: What Mass and Volume Tradeoffs Can You Afford?

Shielding is not free. Every additional millimeter of material increases spacecraft mass, and every kilogram added drives up launch costs. This tradeoff forces engineers to think carefully about efficiency.

Aluminum, for instance, adds about 2.7 g/cm² per millimeter of thickness. Applied across an entire enclosure, that quickly grows into kilograms of additional weight. For small satellites, where every gram counts, this overhead is often unacceptable.

This is where more efficient materials come into play. Hydrogen-rich polymers and advanced composites can provide significantly greater dose reduction per gram than traditional metals. Melagen’s MLC1 composite, for example, has shown up to 3× better TID reduction per unit mass compared to aluminum, with particular advantages in thin, board-level shieldingMelagen Labs Technical Data She….

The question is not simply “does the shielding work?” but “does the shielding work at a mass budget the mission can actually afford?”

Question 4: What Type of Electronics Are You Protecting?

Not all electronics respond the same way to radiation. Shielding requirements depend heavily on the sensitivity of the devices on board.

• Radiation-hardened (rad-hard) components are built for space. They can tolerate hundreds of krad(Si) and are resilient against single-event effects. But they are expensive, slower, and often generations behind the cutting edge.

• COTS components are cheaper and far more powerful, making them attractive for AI-on-orbit, edge computing, and high-performance payloads. Their weakness is survivability: many fail around 10–20 krad(Si). Without additional shielding, they are often unusable in GEO or long-duration missions.

• Hybrid architectures are increasingly common, where rad-hard controllers manage mission-critical functions while COTS processors deliver performance.

The more COTS you include, the more aggressively you must design shielding. This is where advanced materials and spot-shielding techniques can enable missions that otherwise wouldn’t be possible.

Question 5: How Will You Validate Shielding Performance?

A shielding design is only as good as its validation. Models and simulations are powerful, but they are not enough on their own.

The process usually begins with modeling tools like SPENVIS, OMERE, or CREME96, which estimate dose accumulation for different orbits and shielding configurations. These results are refined using Monte Carlo transport codes such as GEANT4 or MCNP, which simulate particle interactions inside materials.

But modeling must be backed by testing. At ground facilities, shielding samples are exposed to proton beams, heavy ions, or gamma sources to measure actual performance. Finally, the gold standard is in-orbit demonstration, where shielding is benchmarked directly against traditional materials.

For example, Melagen’s MLC1 composite has shown up to 30% lower cumulative TID compared to aluminum at equal mass in modeled LEO and GEO environments, and is now undergoing validation on missions such as SpaceX Transporter-17 and ISS MISSE-23Melagen Labs Technical Data She….

The critical question is: how has the shielding been tested, and can those results be trusted for your mission profile?

A Smarter Way to Choose Shielding

Radiation shielding is not a matter of guesswork. By asking the right questions—about orbit, duration, mass tradeoffs, electronics, and validation—you build a framework that guides you to the right material and design.

The stakes could not be higher. History shows that radiation failures have caused hundreds of millions of dollars in losses. Yet with thoughtful planning, shielding can extend mission lifetimes, enable the use of advanced COTS processors, and keep spacecraft operating reliably in some of the harshest environments imaginable.

—

This article is part of Melagen University, an open knowledge hub dedicated to helping engineers and builders understand radiation risks and design resilient spacecraft. In the next installment, we’ll explore real-world case studies of shielding failures—and how smarter materials and designs could have prevented them.