Before we sent a man into space we had to obatain a tremendous
amount of data on Ionizing Radiation flux in space beyond our atmosphere. All of this data would have to come from unmanned probes. The trouble with unmanned probes is that even if you are receiving the most accurate data physically possible from their detectors, this data would only be measuring the amount of energy available from ionizing radiation in a given section of space. This data cannot give you the ionizing potency of those radiative species in the human body until you put a human body in it's path and measure the amount of sieverts absorbed by the human body from a given amount of Roentgens incident on that human body. I don't know of any test groups of animals that were first sent up to the moon to gather this data. You have got to have a biological medium to obtain dosage level in sieverts. This means that you have got to have a biological quality factor, (relative biological effectiveness) to determine the amount of radiation exposure to men on the moon. This factor for x-rays, gamma rays, beta rays and high energy protons is 1, for thermal neutrons about 3, for fast neutrons about 10 and for alpha particles about 10 to 20. Also we had yet to discover or accurately measure some of the particles that we are know dealing with in space. Several detectors would have to be used to accurately monitor total dosage. You can't expect to protect your astronants by letting them wear a tiny quartz crystal gamma beta dosimeter. Just to measure the neutrons would require a large and bulky detector of 70 to 100 pounds. The radiation absorbed dose, (RAD) is a standard used to measure this and is egual to 100 ergs. The roentgen can also be used but it is only accurate for gamma and and X-rays. The most useful unit is the radiation equivalent man (rem) which is equal to the quality factor described above times the number of rads. To complicate maters farther, large doses cause somatic and genetic damage, chronic doses cause both damage but genetic damage has no threshold. I have spent hours looking for meaningful and credible dose level data and flux density levels of the total radiative spectra available at the surface of the moon and to no avail. About the only thing I can find for high Earth altitudes is "very high levels of X-rays and cosmic rays were measured in the Van Allen Belts". Incidently this bring me to another important point. We are led to believe that the astronants spend only 2 or 3 minutes in the belts. If you consider escape velocity from Earth (25,000mph) you would spend almost 2 hours in the belts since they extend over 40,000 miles. Which brings me to another important point. Once you reach escape velocity, you should be able to coast to the moon in less than 10 hours. I don't think they slowed down while going through that 40,000 miles of Van Allen Belts. Why is their average speed only about 2000 mph. They were not using gravity kicks back then. Even if they took an extremely curved path and doubled their distance that would still result in a fairly slow speed of 4000mph. Correct me if i am grossly wrong here. Once you are free of Earths gravitational field proper, there
is nothing further to impede your speed. I just looked in at several of the geosychronous satellite links and just when i thought that I had hit pay dirt my attempts at browsing a half dozen high energy radiation detection links returned nothing but internal server errors. So, where can I find some useful and credible info on all the different radiation detectors worn by the astronants and fitted into the lunar orbiter and lander. With no atmosphere and virtually no magnetic signature to speek of, the moon is subject to the full measure of the Sun's ionizing flux at its given distance from the Sun. This flux is much greater than the flux at our feet here on Earth and is strong enough to radio-activate the Lunar Regolith. I for the life of me cannot see how anyone can take the few numbers which are made available by NASA and boldly stake there lives on those figures or for that matter proove to me through their calculations that we put 12 humans on the moon for several man hours and pulled them back out of that microwave-like oven in time to serve Thanksgiving dinner. If I can get enough of a grasp on the subject to ask these few
simple questions I feel quite confident that I can do the math and come up with the conclusions
of the true believers. All I need is some credible info. Too much of it is hidden away from the
public. Hiding all this information is not going to save us from our inevitable fate, win any
wars or save the free world. I don't belong to any organizations and I am not picking up anyone elses torch. These are my opinions, convictions and questions. I am just a simple 47 year old
Native American from the Bayou regions of Louisiana.
BOO GHOSTLIGHT






A few more bits:


An important step towards imaging detectors was made in the Philips Research Lab in Amsterdam, where ideas about segmented monolithic silicon devices were put into practice around 1965, with the 'checker board' detector for the ambitious 3-D project: BOL.


Around 1970 the BBD and the CCD, respectively in Philips-Eindhoven and Bell- Murray Hill were attempts to combine imaging and charge readout in the same device, although not aimed at detection of ionizing particles. After intensive development of CMOS manufacturing technology the widespread use of CCD would only begin 20 years later, even though the CCD is a simple concept.




Here is a good place to get some info on modern and more accurate
gamma and x-ray detection. Also the invention of the Hydrogen
getters which removes the extreme hazards of battery operated electrical equipment in oxygen saturated atmospheres like spacesuits and space crafts.


http://www.sandia.gov/media/NewsRel/NR2001/RD100.htm




Here is another good site which i think explains how we could
end up with so many kilograms of radioactive Lunar rocks. I think it also
answers a question of ionizing radiation flux densities on the
Lunar regolith. If matter is irradiated for 4 billion plus years by
high energy particles you end up with radio-activated matter just
as you end up with radio-activated matter in our upper atmosphere.
That shoud provide plenty of background radiation on the moon.

http://www.sandia.gov/media/NewsRel/NR2001/RD100.htm

Well, for one thing, there isn't really any need to send human or animal bodies to the Moon just to test the effects of radiation on them. Just send a few mechanical radiation detectors and then set up the same conditions artificially here on Earth. And don't say we don't have enough data on the effects of radiation on humans either. Such testing had been going on non-stop ever since even before the first atomic bombs were set off in the 1940's.

second, the radiation levels on the Moon are not going to be significantly different from the levels found just outside of the Van Allen belts. Once we had those measurements, we could extrapolate the rest.

As for yet undiscovered particles, if they didn't know about them then they never entered into the decision-making process. NASA isn't going to put all plans on hold just because they might discover new forms of danger. They're going to go on the best available data at the time. And that best-available data said that the dangers were manageable.

And of course all of this discounts the fact that the lunar modules were designed to cut out as much radiation as economically possible. All it takes to stop some forms of radiation is a thin plastic sheet. I direct you to the Clavius radiation pages for a very clear and understandable explanation of the radiation dangers involved. Especially good is the radiation primer. After that you can read about the specific Apollo dangers.

http://www.clavius.org/envrad.html
http://www.clavius.org/envsun.html
http://www.clavius.org/envradfilm.html

Getting to the Moon is not a matter of getting out of the Earth's "gravitational field". In fact, the gravitational field doesn't just stop at a certain point, or else the Moon wouldn't be in orbit around it. The lunar modules were put on lunar trajectory orbits, and as I understand it, they started out boosting to a high speed, which then slowed constantly as it climbed out of the Earth's gravity well. They were calculated to have enough speed to bring them to the point at which the Moon's gravity overcame that of the Earth, at which point it started accelerating again as they got pulled towards the Moon.

Finally, I've heard nothing at all to the effect that the lunar rocks or lunar surface was much more radioactive than found here on Earth. Probably it's a bit more, but well within tolerable limits.

_________________
...And that, my leige, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped. --Sir Bedevere

<font size="-1">(fixed link)</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: David Hall on 2002-11-29 07:34 ]</font>

By the way, if you want more information, why don't you start reading the replies we have been making to your posts? Kucharek has already provided a couple of nice links for you in this post. Other good references have been given also.

__________________
...And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped. --Sir Bedevere

If Boo's big problem is that radiation levels weren't tested by sending biological speciments around the Moon and back, then his problem is simple ignorance. Because the Russians DID send biological specimens around the Moon and back. I bet that Boo didn't know that.

Boo: "Incidently this bring me to another important point. We are led to believe that the astronants spend only 2 or 3 minutes in the belts. If you consider escape velocity from Earth (25,000mph) you would spend almost 2 hours in the belts since they extend over 40,000 miles. Which brings me to another important point. Once you reach escape velocity, you should be able to coast to the moon in less than 10 hours. I don't think they slowed down while going through that 40,000 miles of Van Allen Belts. Why is their average speed only about 2000 mph. They were not using gravity kicks back then. Even if they took an extremely curved path and doubled their distance that would still result in a fairly slow speed of 4000mph. Correct me if i am grossly wrong here. Once you are free of Earths gravitational field proper, there is nothing further to impede your speed. "

This is a common error and first appeared in newspapers in November 1958, when a headline said: "Russians say they can send probe to moon in ten hours'. What they REALLY said was that they could launch a probe to the moon at 25,000 mph. The newspaper reporter just divided that into the distance to the Moon and came up with the obvious -- but wrong -- answer.

You do start out at 25,000 mph, Boo, that's about 35,000 feet per second. Every second you lose 32 feet per second of velocity, due to gravity. As you get farther away, that loss rate drops because of the inverse square law, but the outward velocity continues to drop until you pass into the Moon's gravitational sphere of influence (which is DIFFERENT from the gravity equal midpoint, a concept discussed in print since at least the days of Jules Verne).

The fact that Boo doesn't even understand this point suggests he be remanded to reading several basic books on space flight before people waste more time on one-on-one remedial tutoring.

Well? there are somr interesting ideas here
I will attempt t limit my responce to "WE"
are being taught.. what I call the theory of
education: I also call this "ENFORCED STUPIDITY"
When I too equipment to PSU see link
I call it Police State University
They aQused Me {well never mind} GU_ you know
So I took the Gravity Wave detector to another
U... and thing were going very well .. Room?
install {etc etc} untill it got to the top
and then suddenly stop: That department head
{from Berkley} {probably feeling threatened}
put a stop to Student Understanding {more Enforced Stupidity} Go to So No Ma

The fact that Boo doesn't even understand this point suggests he be remanded to reading several basic books on space flight before people waste more time on one-on-one remedial tutoring.


[/quote]


Do you know which direction or what orientation the sun earth and moon were in
when the launches were made. If you do then
I will send you the equations and math to
calculate the differences caused by the indidual gravity fields. If you don't then I
will send you the figures for all the the possible situations. I have to go to work now
so later. I believe that it hardly makes any
difference but you know more about it than I do, So you probably already know that.

Yes i am sure they did that and right there in the middle of the most intense cold war on earth, they just mailed to results to NASA.

No, but the Soviet Union, in possession of that information, did embark on a program to send men to the Moon. They probably would have succeeded if their delivery rocket had gotten through its development without blowing up.

The radiation hazard argument doesn't stand up to even cursory scrutiny. Humans work with radiation exposure in lots of job environments. The maximum acceptable occupational exposure is (typically) 5 REM. The Apollo astronauts received less than 1/5 of that passing through the van Allen belt. What do you see as the issue here?

Boo: "es i am sure they did that and right there in the middle of the most intense cold war on earth, they just mailed to results to NASA."

Better yet, they announced the results to the world via TASS. Aside from knowing the basic fact -- the radiation didn't have ANY effect on any of the specimens -- what more did NASA need to know?

How do you imagine the Russians were able to get the specimens to survive if you're remotely accurate in YOUR view of space radiation?

It's Jay's radiation 'Bogey Man' all over again. HB's have heard figures for safe exposure to radiation (5 REMs?) and then assume any exposure over this limit equals instant death. This figure is the highest amount allowed by law, because above this figure (well above, just to be on the safe side) radiation starts to have nasty effects, such as increased likelyhood of cancer, etc. This limit is not the point where radiation becomes fatal.
Why would the astronauts risk the harm from radiation? Why do pilots fly into battle? Why do race car drivers race? Why does anyone do a risky job? You'll have to ask them.

<a name="<a name="."> page . aka.NPR"> page JD2452608.NPR aka NPR
On 2002-11-29 12:11, HUb' wrote: HUb'
SURE? I use my own words one is Kounts
to count a Kount must be 100000kt and
the next Kount must happen in less time
than the Kount B4 thussly k....k...k..
about as close as U wannaB to these K's was
in '58 about 8000 yards {4 Miles} its to close
but never mind for now. I can tell you that
4Myself i `poise Newclear Public Reality
in othewords a 110000kt rocket in ever YARD
cabable of a BIG boost to your fav roost
or beyound if yound be? So now about the COST
of your own BoosT_R yeah many on a penny sounds right 2me
So its just a matter of WHO supplies this:?
back to the Air.LINE tail and other Quail

This data cannot give you the ionizing potency of those radiative species in the human body until you put a human body in it's path and measure the amount of sieverts absorbed by the human body from a given amount of Roentgens incident on that human body.

False. Knowing flux and energy and type of particle will give you a good enough idea of human absorbed dose.

I don't know of any test groups of animals that were first sent up to the moon to gather this data.

I do.

Also we had yet to discover or accurately measure some of the particles that we are know dealing with in space.

Do you have a source for this? My research indicates extensive investigation was conducted throughout the 1960s.

Just to measure the neutrons would require a large and bulky detector of 70 to 100 pounds.

Why would you consider neutrons a significant source of cislunar radiation?

chronic doses cause both damage but genetic damage has no threshold.

Why is this fact relevant for Apollo missions?

I have spent hours looking for meaningful and credible dose level data and flux density levels of the total radiative spectra available at the surface of the moon and to no avail.

AP8 and AE8. They're standard references throughout the world.

We are led to believe that the astronants spend only 2 or 3 minutes in the belts.

Who led you to believe that? That's not my claim.

Why is their average speed only about 2000 mph.

Um, basic orbital mechanics. If you have to ask this question, then you're not scientifically equipped to challenge the authenticity of the moon landings.

As to the avoidance of the Van Allen belts, you need to consider the translunar trajectory as a three-dimensional creature, beginning at an orbital inclination of some 33 degrees. Then you'll understand how it was possible to miss the relatively intense inner belt and pass through a thin section of the milder outer belt.

Once you are free of Earths gravitational field proper, there is nothing further to impede your speed.

What makes you think the Apollo spacecraft was ever "free" of Earth's gravitational field?

the moon is subject to the full measure of the Sun's ionizing flux at its given distance from the Sun.

Which is, quantiatively ... ?

This flux is much greater than the flux at our feet here on Earth

Really? How much stronger? In what forms?

and is strong enough to radio-activate the Lunar Regolith.

What does it mean to "radioactivate" something? Is that a term used on Star Trek?

... pulled them back out of that microwave-like oven in time to serve Thanksgiving dinner.

Just so you're aware, microwave ovens do not use ionizing radiation. They use EM radiation below the visible spectrum, whereas EM radiation in cislunar space is harmful only above the visible spectrum.

I feel quite confident that I can do the math and come up with the conclusions
of the true believers.

Why do you call us "true believers"? This isn't a religion. We aren't taking this on faith. We're taking it on science.

As for the computations, the problem is the geometry of exposure. You can integrate fluences and energies for a translunar trajectory -- it's difficult and easiest done numerically by big computers -- and come up with a total exposure. But it's not simply a matter of multiplying exposure by quality factor and saying that's the absorbed dosage.

A particle that enters at the top of your head traveling along the long axis of your body will have a much better chance of hitting something in your body and ionizing it than if the particle just zipped through your hand. More meat means more chance of absorption. And where the particle hits makes a difference. Blood-forming organs are extremely sensitive to ionizing radiation. Fingernails aren't.

Because of all these vagaries, skin absorbed dosage as measured by a pendant dosimeter is still the preferred method for radiation management.

All I need is some credible info. Too much of it is hidden away from the
public.

Have you tried a library? Don't assume that it doesn't exist if it's not on the web. The web is great, but you can't say information is being suppressed simply because it isn't in the few places you first looked.

Do you live near a university? Call up the physics department and ask to meet with a professor.

JayUtah: you need to consider the translunar trajectory as a three-dimensional creature, beginning at an orbital inclination of some 33 degrees

Can anyone please direct me to a good illustration of this? Every illustration I've seen since 1969 is greatly simplified. E.g.: does not show the Apollo craft heading toward a point in space that the Moon will eventually arrive at too, a point which, to me, seemed to be lost on the first HB I ever read, William L Brian, in his arguments about the neutral point.

8:56 A.M.
<a name="2-12-02.K5"> page 2-12-02.K5 aka CONTRA VERSES AKA kount V
Ok #1 Math ? spacaffically Mymathica 5.0
anyone buy this? YET? any U's offering to teach 5?
{anyway when I ask about OLD matLab}
{{ it became probable to me that THE UN moniters were already In}
.2 100000k & Not KOunting Do not forget the
Magnitic string when counting.. Some how that count
got diskcounted some when {in '58} (BWUW)
?3 pi? REMark's about? Boo ?/? HUb's ays two stars **