How did they know during Apollo how much radiation shielding was needed for their spacecrafts and their space suits? They are not even sure today how much shielding they will need on the return to the moon. I've read here that the Apollo astronauts were not in the Van Allen belts very long so they did not receive much exposure. But on the moon which is radioactive they were exposed to cosmic rays, solar radiation, x-rays, gamma rays, beta rays, protons, neutrons for days. Why didn't any of the Apollo astranouts get sick from the radiation?

You should read this page and this page for about 95% of the answer. The rest of the answer is that Apollo wasn't the first object to enter the Van Allen belts. I can't remember, offhand, the name of the probe, but I'm pretty sure I remember Jay mentioning it in the Van Allen Belt page somewhere.

__________________
[Dr. Horrible]___________________________[Penny]
Listen close to everybody's heart________And you believe there's good in everybody's heart
And hear that breaking sound_____________Keep it safe and sound
Hopes and dreams are shattering apart____With hope you can do your part
And crashing to the ground_______________To turn a life around

How did they know during Apollo how much radiation shielding was needed for their spacecrafts and their space suits?

Because they had been studying it continuously for nearly a decade beginning with Explorer I.

They are not even sure today how much shielding they will need on the return to the moon.

Of course they are. They just don't know yet how to reconcile it with other mission requirements and constraints. If I know how far it is to Las Vegas, but I don't know how exactly I'm going to get there, I can still tell everyone that "my getting to Las Vegas will be a problem," without intending that to mean I don't know what the goal is.

But on the moon which is radioactive...

That's news to astrophysicists.

...they were exposed to cosmic rays, solar radiation, x-rays, gamma rays, beta rays, protons, neutrons for days.

I hate to alarm you, but you're being exposed to those exact same hazards right now, as well as dozens of known carcinogens.

Why didn't any of the Apollo astranouts get sick from the radiation?

Because there wasn't as much radiation as conspiracy theorists say. A better question is why the world's astrophysicists don't seem surprised at the astronauts' general good health.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

I'd say better than 'general' good health. Nine out of twelve men that walked on the moon are still living and one of the deceased was in great health when an accident claimed his life , that almost ALL of them still live and breathe is a little surprising to me. Not that I'm complaining (I love those guys)

Wikipedia: Van Allen radiation belt

__________________
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0....

But on the moon which is radioactive

Last time I checked, everything emits radiation, even if it's only an infinitesimally small amount. It's not like the Moon's some sort of cosmic radiation sponge, and glows green during the daytime.

It is the duration of exposure, intensity, and type of radition that matters.
(this the thrid attempt to post this, the last two tries the power was knocked by lighting.)

__________________
If it's just us, it seems like an awful waste of space.
Contact Carl Sagan

If they want to go back for a short visit, like the Apollo flights, they can have pretty much the same shielding. If they want to go back and stay there a bit longer, they'll need more shielding. If they want to stay long term, they'll have to have even more shielding, and prepare for the occasional solar storm.

Guess what? So are you. For instance, the potassium 40 in you accounts for a significant portion of your yearly radiation dosage. It's meaningless to say something is radioactive unless you quantify it. Pretty much everything is a little radioactive. The surface of the moon is radioactive in the same sense as you, a chunk of dirt, or ocean water is. That is to say: Not very.

Because there wasn't anywhere near enough radiation to cause radiation sickness. There wasn't even enough to significantly increase their chances of developing cancer.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

Because, believe it or not, they actually did some research on the subject before they sent men there. The Moon was studied in depth, as was the space environment. Explorer satellites, Lunar Orbiter, Surveyor, Ranger, Russian Luna probes, even the Mercury and Gemini flights had radiation dosimeters.

The planned lunar missions are long duration flights. They have totally different radiation shielding requirements from the short Apollo missions. They know how much shielding they will need. They're just not sure the best way to go about it without compromising the rest of the flight too badly.

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? Numbers are required, or else you are just handwaving.

__________________
"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.

You know, I'm getting really disappointed by the decline in quality (if such a thing were possible) in the HB claims over the last few years. For example, the OP didn't even mention alpha particles.

Guess they're running out of original material, which is underscored by the constant recycling of useless, worn-out, old HB claims.

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

Which is exactly why we have to go back to the moon and on to Mars, to get more material for the HBers!

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

You guys shouldn't waste your time responding. GHGF:TTHG:SFGG (or whatever her ID is) almost never responds to the answers.

SLF:JAQ SFDJS...other than the OP, will you be participating in this thread??

Just curious...

Absolutely correct. The type of radiation was, at least in part, high energy particles, which would be somewhat attenuated or blocked by the spacecraft and space suits. The duration during the pass through the van allen belts especially was very short. The times of the flights were not during sun storms or other hazardous times.

The amount of radiation the astronauts were exposed to was relatively small, all things considered. It might be equivalent to getting a couple of x-rays and then taking a trans-continental flight.

In theory, any radiation exposure will increase the chances of cancer because it can cause genetic damage. In practice that small an amount is unlikely to have enough effect to really notice any increased probability, especially with such a small group. And it would be far too little for any acute symptoms of radiation sickness.

SLF:JAQ SFDJS wrote: <another seagull post>


GoAT.

__________________
"Slapping a guy on the head is just as funny now as it was eighty years ago."

The general strategy for Apollo shield design was, "Build the ship as if there was no special need for radiation sheilding." Then see how much shielding you got just from the normal structure, skin, etc. If there are any serious problems, solve them at that place in the design, such as adding polymer or fibrous panels or simply using a thicker skin material. In other words, radiation shielding was not a primary design criterion. It did not "drive" the design. The CM was not intended to survive "hard" radiation, nor was any expected during Apollo missions. The more dangerous solar flares are not common enough to worry about. So you get enough shielding incidentally from the ordinary construction.

However for long-duration missions that won't work. Radiation mitigation is a primary design criterion, so we can't just re-use Apollo designs and strategies. That doesn't mean we "still don't know how to do it." I means we have a different problem now than we had. Engineers aren't put off by problems that haven't been solved yet: that's what engineers like.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

That is soooo rude.

I had the same thing happen to me in this thread. My answers to the OP's questions went ignored because the OP abandoned the thread after about an hour and never returned. If there isn't a forum rule against that, there should be. A person certainly doesn't have to partake in a thread if they don't want to, but if a person starts a thread they ought to be obligated to participate and acknowledge responses. It is just common courtesy.
_

__________________
Webmaster, Rocket & Space Technology

I think we have done this poster as discourtesy, and would like to apologize on behalf of BAUT. Although seagull posting is quite common here, it has yet to be even 24 hours. We know little of this person and there real-life obligations. I think we're better than that, as frustrating and useless as the all-too-common seagull postings are.

Edit: Forgot response to OP: You are new, but please remember that you are expected to interact with any threads you create in the ATM or CT section. Otherwise, your posting is taken as "seagull" style, (drop a load of crap and fly off...). It's bad form, and actually bannable if repeated. Please try to keep this in mind, and avoid this appearance.

__________________
"I have this theory that the Apollo missions were faked when NASA found out that general relativity was wrong because the Earth was expanding due to the Sun's iron core being influenced by magnetic waves from the electric universe after being perturbed by Planet X and thereby causing global warming. Where should I start a thread about this?" ~ ToSeek

"Those are the people that wonder how a thermos knows whether to keep something hot or keep something cold." ~ NeoWatcher

Well, I am generally pretty willing to give the benefit of the doubt. But the OP in this thread has had several threads with no or minimal followup to his/her original breathless "could it be...?" posts. If SLF:JAQ SFDJS eventually returns this thread and actually participates, rather than merely dropping more unsubstantiated claims or insinuations, I will be happy to apologize.

__________________
"Slapping a guy on the head is just as funny now as it was eighty years ago."