Apollo and radiation - Page 2

Occam · #31 (**permalink**) 05-August-2007, 11:59 AM

Seriously guys, how do you find the strength to carry on under the onslaught of such wilful ignorance?

Ronald Brak · #32 (**permalink**) 05-August-2007, 12:14 PM

Well I know scientists have said the moon is not radioactive and levels of radioactivity have been directly measured on the moons surface, so that's pretty convincing. However, on the other hand, in one episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer they said that anything that has been in space can be tracked because it gives of cosmic rays, a type of radiation, so in fairness I'd have to say the jury is still out on this issue.

Dave J · #33 (**permalink**) 05-August-2007, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronald Brak

Well I know scientists have said the moon is not radioactive and levels of radioactivity have been directly measured on the moons surface, so that's pretty convincing. However, on the other hand, in one episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer they said that anything that has been in space can be tracked because it gives of cosmic rays, a type of radiation, so in fairness I'd have to say the jury is still out on this issue.

I'm looking for the smiley face or wink icon here...don't see it...

R.A.F. · #34 (**permalink**) 05-August-2007, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronald Brak

Well I know scientists have said the moon is not radioactive and levels of radioactivity have been directly measured on the moons surface...

Something I don't understand..."scientists" say the Moon is not radioactive, yet radioactivity has been measured on the Moons surface by, I assume, these same "scientists"???

That doesn't make sense...

Quote:

...on the other hand, in one episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer they said that anything that has been in space can be tracked because it gives of cosmic rays, a type of radiation, so in fairness I'd have to say the jury is still out on this issue.

The "jury is out" because of something you saw on Buffy??

That really doesn't make sense.

Laguna · #35 (**permalink**) 05-August-2007, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronald Brak

[...] However, on the other hand, in one episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer they said [...]

You meant that as a joke, did you?
I seriously hope so...

Joe Durnavich · #36 (**permalink**) 05-August-2007, 06:17 PM

Oh, come on folks! I hope this is not a sign that the Internet has caused us to require a smiley to know when someone is joking.

R.A.F. · #37 (**permalink**) 05-August-2007, 07:28 PM

I think you're right, Joe...my apologies....

ineluki · #38 (**permalink**) 05-August-2007, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Durnavich

Oh, come on folks! I hope this is not a sign that the Internet has caused us to require a smiley to know when someone is joking.

That comes from spending too much time with conspircy theorists, even the most outlandish claim could still be their serious opinion.

However, I don't think a CT who really believes this, wouldn't have survived for more than 3000 posts on this board.

SLF:JAQ SFDJS · #39 (**permalink**) 07-August-2007, 08:50 PM

This is one of the sources for the radiaton exposure on and traveling to the moon.

http://video.csupomona.edu/NASA/Dest...rrow25-035.asx

A video about the problems of radiation returning to the moon and on to Mars. Pretty much anywhere outside the protection of the Earth's magnetosphere. Funny how they talk about finding a material to achieve this feet as using metal would be too heavy and thick to lug into space. Don't explain how Apollo did it though and it seams like they are starting from scratch.

Grashtel · #40 (**permalink**) 07-August-2007, 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SLF:JAQ SFDJS

This is one of the sources for the radiaton exposure on and traveling to the moon.

http://video.csupomona.edu/NASA/Dest...rrow25-035.asx

A video about the problems of radiation returning to the moon and on to Mars. Pretty much anywhere outside the protection of the Earth's magnetosphere. Funny how they talk about finding a material to achieve this feet as using metal would be too heavy and thick to lug into space. Don't explain how Apollo did it though and it seams like they are starting from scratch.

The Apollo missions were much shorter duration than a Mars mission and the new Moon missions are planned to be, radiation exposure that is acceptable for ~10 days is a major problem for an 18 month one, particularly as the 18 month one is likely to get hit by a major solar event unlike Apollo.

JayUtah · #41 (**permalink**) 07-August-2007, 09:42 PM

Long-duration missions and short-duration (e.g., Apollo) missions take fundamentally different approaches to radiation protection. What worked for Apollo won't necessarily work for long stays on the surface or long cruises to Mars. So in some ways new missions are indeed starting from scratch.

The Moon itself is not radioactive. But someone on the lunar surface is exposed to hazards from cosmic and solar radiation, and to small secondary effects.

Lethargic · #42 (**permalink**) 07-August-2007, 11:41 PM

According to table 2 on http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/S2ch3.htm the dose received by the apollo astronauts was between only .16 and 1.14 rads.

Where's the problem?

Kelfazin · #43 (**permalink**) 08-August-2007, 12:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SLF:JAQ SFDJS

This is one of the sources for the radiaton exposure on and traveling to the moon.

http://video.csupomona.edu/NASA/Dest...rrow25-035.asx

A video about the problems of radiation returning to the moon and on to Mars. Pretty much anywhere outside the protection of the Earth's magnetosphere. Funny how they talk about finding a material to achieve this feet as using metal would be too heavy and thick to lug into space. Don't explain how Apollo did it though and it seams like they are starting from scratch.

Are you planning on answering any of the questions presented to you on this thread?

Van Rijn · #44 (**permalink**) 08-August-2007, 01:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kelfazin

Are you planning on answering any of the questions presented to you on this thread?

What are the outstanding questions at this point?

The key issues for me are: Does SLF now understand that the Apollo astronauts did not receive large radiation doses? Does he understand the fundamentals as to why?

Kelfazin · #45 (**permalink**) 08-August-2007, 01:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Van Rijn

What are the outstanding questions at this point?

Here's what I see as outstanding:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jason Thompson

What is your source for claiming the Moon is radioactive? How radioactive is it? How does the radiaition exposure there differ from the radiation exposure here?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Van Rijn

Quote:

Originally Posted by SLF:JAQ SFDJS

Yes, the Nasa article did state the moon was radioactive.

But do you now understand the context of that statement (which is, at best, an oversimplification)?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Van Rijn

Quote:

Originally Posted by SLF:JAQ SFDJS

I agree that we are exposed to radiation on Earth but not to the extent the Nasa astronauts would have been on the moon.

Where on the Earth? Exposed for how long on the Earth versus how long on the Moon?

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayUtah

I agree that we are exposed to radiation on Earth but not to the extent the Nasa astronauts would have been on the moon.
Do you know the extent? If I asked you for a number representing mean ambient radiation on the lunar surface, could you give me one?
The moons atmosphere offers no protection.
No one said it did. What kind of protection do you think was needed, and how do you know that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jason Thompson

Quote:

Originally Posted by SLF:JAQ SFDJS

I agree that we are exposed to radiation on Earth but not to the extent the Nasa astronauts would have been on the moon.

That is a quantitative statement. Please provide numbers to back it up. After all, ten times a very small number is still a very small number.

Quote:

Quote:

The moon has been bombarded by solar radiation and cosmic radiation for billions of year.

What kind, how long, and how much difference does it make. Being bombarded with radiation for billions of years doesn't make an object radioactove.

And now you can add to that:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Van Rijn

The key issues for me are: Does SLF now understand that the Apollo astronauts did not receive large radiation doses? Does he understand the fundamentals as to why?

JayUtah · #46 (**permalink**) 08-August-2007, 01:49 AM

He owes us a quantitative argument for, a clarification of, or a retraction of the insinuation that the Apollo astronauts would have been exposed to a level of radiation consistent with causing illness that should have manifested itself by now.

Jim · #47 (**permalink**) 08-August-2007, 03:55 AM

SLF:JAQ SFDJS;1044557, you have opened yet another thread while there are questions pending in this thread.

This is becoming too much of a habit with you. Before you continue with your new thread, please address the questions raised here.

PhantomWolf · #48 (**permalink**) 08-August-2007, 06:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lethargic

According to table 2 on http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/S2ch3.htm the dose received by the apollo astronauts was between only .16 and 1.14 rads.

Where's the problem?

Well this is the problem. They were exposed to that in 10 days! They got what most people get in 360 days in just 10. Not imagine what sort of doses the new crews will bwe getting when they spend 30-40 days up there and you'll see the problem, well NASA's one. The HB's have an entirely different problem, but that can't be corrected short of elective surgery I fear.

novaderrik · #49 (**permalink**) 08-August-2007, 07:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kelfazin

Here's what I see as outstanding:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Thompson View Post
What is your source for claiming the Moon is radioactive? How radioactive is it? How does the radiaition exposure there differ from the radiation exposure here?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLF:JAQ SFDJS
Yes, the Nasa article did state the moon was radioactive.
But do you now understand the context of that statement (which is, at best, an oversimplification)?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLF:JAQ SFDJS
I agree that we are exposed to radiation on Earth but not to the extent the Nasa astronauts would have been on the moon.
Where on the Earth? Exposed for how long on the Earth versus how long on the Moon?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
I agree that we are exposed to radiation on Earth but not to the extent the Nasa astronauts would have been on the moon.
Do you know the extent? If I asked you for a number representing mean ambient radiation on the lunar surface, could you give me one?
The moons atmosphere offers no protection.
No one said it did. What kind of protection do you think was needed, and how do you know that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Thompson View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLF:JAQ SFDJS
I agree that we are exposed to radiation on Earth but not to the extent the Nasa astronauts would have been on the moon.
That is a quantitative statement. Please provide numbers to back it up. After all, ten times a very small number is still a very small number.

Quote:
Quote:
The moon has been bombarded by solar radiation and cosmic radiation for billions of year.
What kind, how long, and how much difference does it make. Being bombarded with radiation for billions of years doesn't make an object radioactove.
And now you can add to that:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Van Rijn
The key issues for me are: Does SLF now understand that the Apollo astronauts did not receive large radiation doses? Does he understand the fundamentals as to why?

those really are some outstanding questions..
i await some outstanding answers..

Kelfazin · #50 (**permalink**) 08-August-2007, 04:48 PM

A check of SFL's public profile shows they were online this morning, but I guess we can give them the benefit of the doubt, maybe they were just checking the board before heading to work (I know I do that sometimes too). Hopefully answers will be coming soon.

dgavin · #51 (**permalink**) 08-August-2007, 05:07 PM

SLF,

I think you have a bad understanding of what it takes to block radiation.

Here is an experiment you can run at home.

Hold your hand next too (not above) about 12 inches (40cm's) from an buring incadecent lightbulb. You will be able to feel the Infared Radiation from the bulb.

Now hold a single sheet of white paper between your hand and the light bulb. You'll find that thin sheet of paper is it all it takes to block the IR radiation from that bulb.

Now look at X-Ray vests. A thin 1/4 inch (6mm) vest made of lead beads is anought to block the X-Ray from a medical machine. X-Rays are almost as strong as gamma rays.

Cosmic Rays are particle's however not EM Radiation, this makes them even easier to block.

If you were to equate it out compared to X-Ray's, having the same amount of radiation of both, a simple peice of lead foil would suffice for Cosmic Rays as opossed to the 1/4inch sheilding needed for X-Rays.

Jason Thompson · #52 (**permalink**) 08-August-2007, 05:18 PM

Actually, lead would be a terrible material for cosmic rays. Particle radiation such as high energy protons and electrons is best shielded by light metals, plastics or water. In heavy metals such as lead you get secondary radiation actually emitted from the material you are using to block the radiation.

SLF:JAQ SFDJS · #53 (**permalink**) 08-August-2007, 08:24 PM

Nasa.org was my primary source. This is where the claim originated. Nasa- Radiactive moon and Taking a Radioactive Bath - Space Daily.

Dangerously radioactive
More dangerouse environment as a whole on the moon
Yes, oversimplified but accurate
We are exposed for example - solar radiation on Earth. Greater risk on the moon.
In relative terms
Not at moment
Going back to the moon and Mars the mean ambient radiation would not be a smart way to design a spacecraft or suit.
More protection needed
More shielding considering the unkowns that are coming to light since the Apollo missions like the problems of shielding agains cosmic radiation and the extent of neutron radiation scattering at the surface of the moon.
Nasa says the moon is radioactive.

NEOWatcher · #54 (**permalink**) 08-August-2007, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SLF:JAQ SFDJS

Nasa.org was my primary source. This is where the claim originated. Nasa- Radiactive moon and Taking a Radioactive Bath - Space Daily.

Link please, so we can see the context.

Besides, Nasa.org has nothing to do with the space agency, and if you go to that site, you get blasted with stuff. Evidence that you may not be citing real examples.

JayUtah · #55 (**permalink**) 08-August-2007, 08:55 PM

Nasa.org was my primary source.

And it was discussed, not that it has anything to do with NASA.

Nasa says the moon is radioactive.

It then went on to explain that it is detectable secondary radiation, which is not at all the same as saying the Moon is radioactive. And we know from other sources the magnitude of that secondary radiation, which is not significant for Apollo missions.

You were asked to provide numerical quantities for your claim or to withdraw your assertion about the supposed hazard to Apollo astronauts. Do you intend to satisfy that request? I do not accept your continued handwaving.

nauthiz · #56 (**permalink**) 08-August-2007, 08:59 PM

Would the chair I'm sitting on and the coffee I'm drinking also have detectable secondary radiation?

NEOWatcher · #57 (**permalink**) 08-August-2007, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nauthiz

Would the chair I'm sitting on and the coffee I'm drinking also have detectable secondary radiation?

If they have carbon, you can even tell how old they are from the radiation that is detected.
If you're using the canary method? No.

nauthiz · #58 (**permalink**) 08-August-2007, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NEOWatcher

If they have carbon, you can even tell how old they are from the radiation that is detected.

JimTKirk · #59 (**permalink**) 08-August-2007, 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SLF:JAQ SFDJS

Nasa.org was my primary source. <snip>

Try www.nasa.gov next time. Having nasa in the URL does not mean it is NASA.

PhantomWolf · #60 (**permalink**) 08-August-2007, 11:31 PM

The thing I find the funniest about this sort of topic is that these new sources of radiation are just like earthquakes or meteorites. If you get the stats on the number of earthquakes detected, or meteorites found for each year over the last 50 odd years, you'll see that both have been trending upwards, sometimes by significant amounts. Does that mean we have been having more earthquakes or getting hit by more meteorites? Nope, it means that our ability to detect and report them is getting better and picking up ones we would have missed previously. The reason that we didn't know about the secondary gamma radiation that the moon creates on being hit by cosmic rays is because it so insignificant that the detectors that where sent pre-Apollo just couldn't pick it up. It is only as our tools have gotten so much better and capable of detecting minute amounts of radiation that we have detected it. It's a bit like demanding to know how people could have been drinking the water from the local supply and living because the new spectroscope has now detected that there is 0.0006% Arsenic in it, so everyone who previously drank it should have been poisoned off.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Bart Sibrel's article	AstroMike	Conspiracy Theories	69	14-October-2009 01:56 PM
Moon Hoax	Mastercat	Conspiracy Theories	454	30-December-2006 02:36 PM
Something confusing on NASA Scam (and a good website)	BigJim	Conspiracy Theories	47	28-April-2003 10:32 PM
The artful dodges of "Cosmic" Dave Cosnette	JayUtah	Conspiracy Theories	95	06-July-2002 01:02 PM
GIGANTIC Moon Hoax page written by one Brad Guth. It just go		Conspiracy Theories	25	19-June-2002 04:00 AM