So no, it was not sufficient, and it is still not sufficient.
So no, it was not sufficient, and it is still not sufficient.
According to NASA, the astronauts on apollo 14 got a dose of 1.4 rem which is well beneath the lethal dose.
Also, I have stood next to x ray sources for at least 5 hours on a few occasions and I have not had any health problems. Without specific numbers, statements such as these (including the one I just made) are pretty useless. In the labs I participated in, the calculated radiation exposure was very low overall. Hell, we get hit by muons all the time.
Why don't you open the PDF that I linked to and specifically point me to the radiation levels that are stated in there incorrectly?
^ xrays and gammas pass through without much damage.
Alpha particles are easily stopped, but mild shielding from protons releases even more beta rad.
Particulate rad is the bad boy, and really disrupts DNA as it passes through tissue.
The real problem is like hitting you with a tennis ball at 10mph or 1000 mph.
Those real high energy tennis balls gotta hurt
The key to understand here is that the radiation levels on the moon in a spacesuit are absolutely lethal - if you would stay a long time.
The very simple math that radiation absorption is proportional to the length of time of exposure just doesn't register with many people.
Weeks in a space station at much lower radiation versus 8 hours total outside the LEM during a moon mission.
And the spacesuit is very effective against Alpha radiation, Alpha radiation can be blocked pretty effectively with household aluminium foil. Likewise, Gammy radiation goes right through, but then so does it go through the body. Only a minor amount of Gammy radiation gets absorbed when it passes through you (absorbed == flipped a couple bits in your body == unwanted). I don't think that there is substantial X-ray radiation on the moon but I'm sure somebody can point me to source saying there is. (?)
Also, I mentioned this earlier, but in the 1960ties we were just exposing people to much more radiation knowingly. We just ignored the threat.
Just look at how much Navy personnel (in some NATO states such as Germany in particular) got their brains microwaved from the naval radar systems of the time. As a matter of fact, a friend of mine just mounted his new radar on his yacht. The instructions give specific details where and how high to mount the sucker so that you don't fry people's head when they walk around the boat, even at the stern. The yacht next to it had the same unit just clipped at right above head level (so that if you stand further in front of it you are inside the cone). Is that healthy? Nope. Do people fall over dead? Nope? Do they get cancer later? Maybe. That's where statistics come back in.
That is very interesting stuff.Even NASA have no clear calculations about moon's surface radiation, how should the "disbelievers" count it?
You can't count the typical Solar Wind and Cosmic ray dariation since it's reflective, unstable, and has changing sources.
The truth is, the Radiation type that we get on Daily basis is non Ionising, and bigger kind of wavelenghts.
Now, the Cosmic radiation OTOH is Ionizing and alpha,Gamma ray based. Many different kind of particles are just jumping, bumpin around on moons surface, and anythiny flying outer World's Magnetic Field get's the Bombardemend. 8 hours of constant X-ray exposure (On High Level) would kill anyone. it would burn tissues, change DNA source, cause mutations and whatnot. Cosmic ray is a much more dangerous/powerfull source of radiation! And with a Visible Bubble head protection, you won't have any way to get isolated from it!
If you read those articles clearly, you will see that even NASA doen't have that under controle. And they never had it 40 years ago!
This thread turned out to be more interesting than I ever thought.
Come on guys play nice. This is interesting. We dont have to go into personal remarks to ruin it. Isnt EVERYONE learning something from this??I think you read too many Marvell books to arrive at your idea what radiation is where and what cosmic rays are.
Since Redmist and Deamonbarbecue seem to have the best hold over this , I would like to hear more of what they have to say.
Ibanez Roadstar II
EBMM AXIS HoneyBurst
VHT 50/12 Pitbull
Jack Nicholson: It's not true. Some have great stories, pretty stories that take place at lakes with boats and friends and noodle salad. Just no one in this car. But, a lot of people, that's their story. Good times, noodle salad. What makes it so hard is not that you had it bad, but that you're that pissed that so many others had it good.
I was merely pointing out that DB had no clue about what kind of radiation exist and how they are measured and that in fact the "buzzwords" he threw into the round are, precisely, what is usually used in comic strips such as Fantastic 4 and Superman.
I can only recommend that both sides on this argument have a quick look at this little 10-pages brochure. Yes it is published by NASA and even if you think you have to ignore the moon numbers this brochure has the concepts of radiation, absorption and exposure explained nicely. And I can assure you that their definitions match what you learn when you study physics.
At the very least you get one thing out of it: people won't say your radiation talks sound like out of a comic book anymore
Marvel?, I never read one marvel comic in my entire life! I know cosmic ray from science classes etc.
Anyways, you try to put "others" to a certain position to elliminate anything they say, but it won't work!
You still can believe, I don't give a flying batman carbon/kevlar suite chip!
But don't try to show us as fools! That's not polite, it's not working !
Last edited by daemon barbeque; 07-22-2009 at 05:01 PM.
Please read this carefully, look at the particle penetration diagram, read about astronomy and how many stars explode, new stars occur, how much radioctive particels move in the belt (Van Allen), how many Neutrons come with the solar winds, and look at the Penetration diagram again!
NASA kan kiss my butt. It's not my tax money they are playing with!
Frank Lee wonders if they will film the Mars landing in the same place they filmed the Moon landing.
After doing a bit more research, it seems that NASAs understanding of radiation and calculations back in the late 60s only took into account what they understood at the time about ordinary particulate radiation. They did not understand that solar winds, flares and general flack from other systems caused much higher speed and energy rad than was expected from ordinary alpha proton rad.
These types of high energy rad could easily pass through heavy shielding.
Physics experts from China, Britain, Italy, Russia, and even NASA themselves have since stated this. In 1969, the lunar module skin was only a couple of ml thick which is all they thought they would need.
NASA certainly hadn't even considered the neutron presence on the moon surface itself, caused by relentless bombardment from ionizing rad hitting the moon suface, which is very dangerous and nearly impossible to shield against.
The NASA link still seems to fail to mention this type of lethal rad, even though they spent a lot of money in 1999 to map the moon surface to find out just where the really bad hotspots are.
Radiation is not even my biggest concerns about the validity of the moon landings.
If they did walk on the moon, then the nauts were extremely lucky to not have been killed by the rads.
But why did they have to fake photos and such.
In hindsight, people are much more likely to believe in the landings if evidence of photo fraud had not been handed to future skeptics on a plate.
Got any links?
Romans 3:23; 6:23; 5:8; 10:13; 10:9-10
They only say that you take damage when exposed to too much radiation. Hello Caption Obvious.
The person making up the claim that the levels on the moon are too high (for which kind of radiation, again?) is you.
1) We don't have too much radiation on earth because of our Magnetic field and atmosphere. Moon doens't have that. It's naked! Even that is enough to know about the moon radiation levels. It's just too high. Not important if it's 100 times more or 1000.000. If you can get skin cancer in texas under bare-sunlight, you can understand how strong it is without any atmosphere.
2) Moon does not absorb too much of the radiation, and it reflects it pretty strong. If Hubble needs to shut down the systems because of radiation (And it's not as much as it's on the moon, because of reflection levels), think about "glass" helmets getting the radiation.
3)Neutrons penetrate everywhere, NASA didn't know that that well then, so the space-suits where not a protection against Neutron radiation!( It's prettymuch impossible without concrete...)
4) The radiation level on moon is just too high for Earth- based creatures, period! it's not important how much, it's already unprotected by magentic field and atmosphere. It's ash/dust everywhere, and reflecting everythin'(That's why it's so bright in the night).
"Just too high" just doesn't do it, man.
Hubble spends decades out in the wild. The Moon missions spent 8 hours outside the LEM. At some point even you have to do some math, as painful as that might be.
For what it's worth, it is very likely that any of the moon mission's astronauts could have taken damage if unexpected solar activity had occurred while they were caught outside. NASA pretty much admits that right in the documents that I linked to, and it will be a problem for future spaceflight.
In the end, the people who's argument you bought have no clue whatsoever what the radiation levels on the moon are. Nor do they know how much of which radiation the spec suits successfully shielded from. Their argument is purely pulled out of thin air (or lack thereof ).
And that goes back to what I said earlier: to capture people like you operators always resort to something that requires that the target person is uncomfortable with statistics at least or with any scientific math, preferably. Your unconscious fear of radiation, something you don't understand, can't see but can kill you, combined with the inability to make estimations of quantity that aren't obvious off, make you an ideal target for them. And you swallowed it hole like a fish which continues to think it's a good lunch even after it noticed the hook.
Normally I would give those who fuel these conspiracy theories (who I am pretty sure mostly do this as a social experiment and just get a kick out of people believing in them) an "A" for effort. Dragging people's thought to radiation is obviously smart and the whole thing is borderlining professional intelligence work, so I am almost admiring them.
However, in this particular case I am just pissed.
The Moon landings are the prime example of American resourcefulness and American determination (well, and our willingness to let Germans come up with the gear, but really the American effort put behind it was the more important factor here).
Dragging this American achievement into the dirt just to have some fun at the expense of a number of low-math-skill fools is a too high price to pay for the entertainment.
And it is no coincidence that Buzz Aldrin whacked that conspiracy guy on the nose. What would you feel if you were part of the greatest achievement of your country and your time, or humanity and all times, and some obviously low-class moron ambushes you in front of your home accusing you of having faked it? This is a truly good result out of having nominated Buzz for the first moon landing. At some point it had to pay off to send some balls to the Moon.
I haven't read the whole thread so I'm sorry if this has already been mentioned:
The Apollo astronauts placed mirrors on the moon. Read about it here: http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/21jul_llr.htm
As the picture shows, earthbound lasers can bounce their lasers off of the mirrors placed by Armstrong. If that isn't proof enough for you (in addition to what uOpt is saying), then only person you're fooling is yourself.