View Single Post
  #83 (permalink)  
Old 09-August-2007, 09:25 PM
Jason Thompson Jason Thompson is offline
Established Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,293
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SLF:JAQ SFDJS View Post
Nasa says the moon is radioactive. How much more conclusive can that be?
The luminous strips on the hands of my alarm clock are radioactive. The smoke detector on my ceiling has a radioactive source in it. The rock under aberdeen is radioactive. Once and for all will you please grasp the concept that this is meaningless without NUMBERS attached to it.

Quote:
It's also amazing that they state that they do not have a way to shield against this inoizing radiation.
What they state is that they have no way to effectively shield against that radiation for long duration exposure such as any future lunar astronauts will be exposed to.

Quote:
Apollo could not have the shielding for this radiation if they don't have it today.
But the key issue we've been trying to get you to grasp is whether or not they needed it for the short Apollo missions. Radiaition exposure has different effects depending on intensity and length of exposure. In many ways it is far more dangerous to spend months in a low level radiation environment than it is to receive a short burst of high intensity radiation. A chest x-ray will not harm you. Sit in lower intensity x-rays for months at a time and you will very likely get sick. Do you understand this?

Apollo was a short flight with the astronauts spending a few days out in space. Future missions are planned to last months or even years. What was fine for Apollo in terms of radiation shielding will be hopelessly inadequate for the planned missions because of their duration.
__________________
"The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: They don't alter their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views." The Doctor, Doctor Who: The Face of Evil.
Reply With Quote