Hello. Semi-former HB here.

[powermac]

I had been an ardent hoax believer for many years, but have recently come to the conclusion that the pro-lunar landing proponents have pretty much demolished a lot of the hoax proponents' theories.

However, a major issue for me still remains radiation. I've accepted the fact that the Van Allen belts do not completely encircle Earth, thus the missions' launch trajectory could have gone through areas of comparatively lower radiation and reached the moon.

But, how could the crews, particularly the Apollo 16 crew, have survived the increased radiation once they got to the moon? Am I right in thinking that Earth's atmosphere somewhat acts as a radiation shield? Well, there's no atmosphere on the moon, so would it not be logical to assume that the astronauts would be bearing much more radiation (and heat, for that matter,) being put out by the sun?

How could those flimsy spacesuits and the flimsy LM afforded these men any sort of protection? I keep going back to Bill Kaysing's comment about being made to wear a lead shield when you're given a dental x-ray on the Fox special. It seems to be a fairly logical point.

Thanks.

PowerMac

[lonewulf]

Hello, power.

I'm not an expert by any means, but I'd like to open up with some quick comments.

What, exactly, do you mean "flimsy"? Heat-wise, there was no real need to worry. The suits were made very reflective for the purpose of reflecting the sun's rays. Without air to "hold in" heat, the only heat that really affects you is direct cosmic radiation. The suits were reflective for a reason.

As for the continuous radiation exposure, I've not read anything on that yet, so I'll let someone answer that and enlighten me with his knowledge.

Also, I had some dental X-Rays recently when I went to the dentist. No lead shield required. Just a few snapshots. The person that avoided the exposure, though, was the dentist herself; she stood behind a wall to protect her from the rays. The reason was because of threat of continued exposure; the patient only gets a few x-ray snapshots a few times, she would receive radiation doses daily if not for the protection.

So while it seems to give the argument credence, I highly doubt it was as much an issue as Kaysing would make it out to be (But like I said, I'd rather an expert answer that question).

Also, about the Van Allen belts: It's not just that the Van Allen belt isn't the same intensity at all points, but also that the exposure was very limited. They went in and went out the other went quickly, to make the exposure to radiation as short and sweet as possible.

Anyways, I'm gonna shut up now before I say something stupid.

[Bob B.]

The analogy of a dental x-ray is not correct in this case. X-rays in the Earth-Moon vicinity are pretty benign and are simply not a problem. The type of ionizing radiation (the dangerous type) found on the Moon is high-energy particles, chiefly protons, alpha particles, and electrons. Particle radiation is fairly easy to block with lightweight materials; you certainly don’t need to use lead. The aluminum skin and insulation on the lunar module was a rather effective shield. Likewise, the multiple layers of the spacesuits provided adequate protection.

Thanks to the opponents of nuclear energy and Hollywood, the general public has had it drummed into their heads that radiation = danger. This is not always the case, but the hoax proponents don’t know any better. To them, there is radiation in space therefore space is deadly. Unfortunately these people really have no idea what they’re talking about. If you press them to explain what they mean, all they can do is wave their hands and repeat themselves without providing the slightest justification for their claims.

Space radiation can be dangerous in situations of long-term exposure, but the Apollo missions were very short, only 8 to 12 days. This short duration coupled with the shielding provided by the spacecraft and spacesuits resulted in a low level exposure that far less than anything that could be considered a significant health risk.

[Bob B.]

lonewulf said:

Also, I had some dental X-Rays recently when I went to the dentist. No lead shield required. Just a few snapshots. The person that avoided the exposure, though, was the dentist herself; she stood behind a wall to protect her from the rays. The reason was because of threat of continued exposure; the patient only gets a few x-ray snapshots a few times, she would receive radiation doses daily if not for the protection.

You also have to realize that we live in a lawsuit happy world. When a shield is used it is probably more for liability reasons than actual safety. I think it is extreme overkill in most cases.

[Bob B.]

Regarding the heating issue, the spacesuits reflected most of the Sun's radiation thus they really didn't heat up very much. The suits were also equipped with a cooling system to remove metabolic heat. Below is a Web page describing the operation of the backpacks and the cooling system.

www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/plss.html

[Ranb]

powermac said:

But, how could the crews, particularly the Apollo 16 crew, have survived the increased radiation once they got to the moon?

PowerMac

The first thing you need to ask yourself is what the actual exposure rates were in space and on the moon. From what I have read, none of the hoax proponents have ever stated any actual radiation exposure rate figures.

I do not remember what the actual exposure rates are, but they were not high enough to be life threatening. The astronauts did have higher exposures than the federal government allows for workers in the nuclear power industry; 5 rem per year. 25 rem acute dose results in minor blood changes, 100 rem, radiation sickness, 500 rem, half dead in 2 weeks, 1000 rem, near 100% die within two weeks.

Ranb

[powermac]

Okay, thanks for the input, folks. A lot of what you've said makes sense.

PowerMac

[iamspartacus]

The HBs usually lump electromagnetic and particulate radiation together and don’t bother to distinguish between them. The electromagnetic type, x-rays and gamma rays are the most energetic and thus most penetrating and do require a material of high atomic weight (like lead) to absorb them. As has already been pointed out these are not strong enough in the Luna region to be a problem (lead suits not necessary) though could be during a solar flare.

The Earth’s magnetic field which generates the Van Allen belts does protect us from particulate radiation. The belts contain captured atomic particles like helium nuclei (alpha) and fast moving electrons (beta). These can be a problem when passing through but this can be mitigated by shielding of a low atomic weight like aluminium (lead would also work of course but it’s not necessary) and reduced exposure. All of which Apollo did.

So if an HB tells you you need a lead suit to survive on the Moon ask him which type of radiation he has in mind (electromag or particulate, see if he knows the difference). Ask him how strong he thinks it is up there (make sure he gives you a measurement with units and a verifiable source for his information). He won’t of course, they never do!

[powermac]

iamspartacus said:

So if an HB tells you you need a lead suit to survive on the Moon ask him which type of radiation he has in mind (electromag or particulate, see if he knows the difference). Ask him how strong he thinks it is up there (make sure he gives you a measurement with units and a verifiable source for his information). He won’t of course, they never do!

Heck, I don't know the difference. I thought radiation was radiation. You know, "the-sun's-just-a-giant-nuclear-reactor" neophyte.

Thanks for the heads-up.

[PhantomWolf]

powermac said:

Heck, I don't know the difference. I thought radiation was radiation. You know, "the-sun's-just-a-giant-nuclear-reactor" neophyte.

Thanks for the heads-up.

Radiation is merely a coverall catch phrase to mean something that is produced by an item. Light is radiation. At higher energies we have ionising radiation such as X-rays, but an x-ray is just really high energy light.

Clasically there are three types of Radiation.

Alpha Radiation - This is a lrge particle radiation. It is a Helium neucli and is generally pretty sluggish snd heavy. It can be stopped by a few inches of air, your skin or a piece of paper. It's pretty rare in space

Beta Radiation - This is also particles. They are high speed electrons and protons. This is the stuff found in the VA Belts. They can be very dangerous because they are harder to stop and will pass through your skin and damage cells. Still a hydrogen rich material such as an organic polymer or water, will work really well at stopping and absorbing these. A few inches of metal will as well, but the heavier the metal, the more likely you are to get a secondary "braking" radiation released. This is basically an x-ray. Using lead or other heavy metals in shielding for high energy Beta radiation is the worst thing you can possibly do, the braking radiation will kill the person it supposed to be protecting. Light metals such as aluminium and polymers or water are your best bets. Beta radiation is the majority of space radiation. About 95% of it.

Gamma Radiation - This covers any high energy electromagnetic radiation. ie Photons, or light. High energy photons are very, very hard to stop and can do serious damage. Luckily for space travellers, they are also extremely rare in space, and are not produced by the sun in any great amount.. In fact on the surface of the moon, the amount of gamma radiation created by high energy protons impacting with the soil, is greater than what the sun produces. We currently have satellite specially looking for them. It's name is Chandara and if space was full of Gamma rays, then the infrequent bursts that Chandara picks up would be blocked out in the noise and lost. They aren't. The Hoax Proponents will try and convince you that space radiation is all gamma though, comparing it to X-Rays and nuclear reactors of weapons, all major Gamma sources, but this just shows their ignorance.

[Bob B.]

powermac said:

Heck, I don't know the difference. I thought radiation was radiation.

Most of the hoax proponents don't understand it either, and if they do know, they are counting on the fact you don't. They are simply using scare tactics to manipulate you into believing somthing that's not true.

No one here faults you for not knowing much about radiation, heck, most people know very little about it. I commend you for having an open mind and taking the time to seek answers.

[Bob B.]

phantomwolf said:

Clasically there are three types of Radiation.

Another type of radiation is neutrons. There is very little neutron radiation in space; in fact, I've never heard it mentioned. Neutrons are not a problem in space travel; however neutrons are generated in large numbers by nuclear reactors or in a nuclear blast.

Alpha and beta particles have an electric charge, thus they interact electrically with the atoms in a material through which they pass. These electrical interactions causes the particles to loss their energy fairly quickly, therefore they don't penetrate very deeply. Neutrons have no electric charge, thus they pass right through matter until they hit something, namely an atom.

Neutrons can be very damaging and can alter the properties of the material they are bombarding. The bombarded material can become radioactive itself. Nuclear reactors often use large tanks of water to shield against neutron radiation.

[JayUtah]

Hey, nice to see you again.

In many ways we living a radiophobic culture. Bob lives in Dayton: elevation 800 feet. I live in Salt Lake City: elevation 4,500 feet. I am exposed to considerably more background radiation on a daily basis than Bob, both because there's less air above my head and because the natural minerals around me are more radioactive. Do I worry? Should I be worried? No. Radiation is a fact of life, whether from natural or artificial sources.

As everyone has explained, x-rays are just light. Well, they do have more power to ionize (i.e., cause damage) than visible light, but the important part to know is that just like visible light, x-rays come in different shades or colors that correspond to wavelength. Wavelength, in light, corresponds to energy and penetrating/ionizing capacity. Diagnostic x-rays are "blue" x-rays. They have a certain amount of penetrating power. That's how they do their job. Natural x-rays are "red" x-rays. They have a lower penetrating power. In fact, natural x-rays don't get farther than about one meter in air.

So yes, the atmosphere presents an opaque shield to far ultraviolet and x-rays, the commonly occurring natural electromagnetic radiation from the sun. But it's not hard to provide artificial shields against those sources. They just aren't that strong. If you were on the lunar surface in nothing but a T-shirt and gym shorts, you'd want to worry about the x-rays. But of course in that case you'd have a whole lot more to worry about.

The dentist not only has to worry about the more penetrating power of his diagnostic x-rays, but also the legal limits imposed by our radiophobic culture. Make no mistake; there is a real danger from repeated exposure to those x-rays. But the dentist is being extremely cautious.

Each American is allowed only a certain amount of radiation each year from "occupational" sources, and a certain amount of lifetime exposure. The dentist and his/her assistants fall under the "occupational" rules, and so do you when you're in their office. Since the dentist has no way of knowing how many x-rays you have already received that year (you can have about 20 chest x-rays a year without hitting the limit) or how many you will get later, the safest bet for him (since he's the one who will get sued and/or fined) is to make sure you get next to nothing on your visit to his office. Therefore the lead apron. The assistant hides behind the wall because he/she fires off the x-ray machine a dozen times a day. After a few months without protection, she'd be over the legal limit.

The legal limit is 1/700 of a lethal dose.

The sun is normally quiescent, even during periods of "elevated" solar activity. You get a steady flow of particles from the sun, but it's of relatively low flux (i.e, density) and of relatively low energy (i.e., penetrating/ionizing capability). And it's anisotropic, meaning it flows primarily in one direction and so you can hide from it.

Solar "events" spew particles, but the events occur in varying magnitudes. Chances are a detectable solar event occurred while you were reading this post. But it was only a small spike above the normal emissions. The other end of the scale are the massive events that cause power failures on Earth and make satellite operators leave frantic voice mail messages with their insurance agents. A couple years ago we had "Black October" in which a nearly unprecedented sequence of X-class (the solar equivalent of Hurricane Katrina) events battered the solar system. Those are what you have to watch out for. If you are caught in a space suit or an Apollo spacecraft in one of those, you will be concerned for your survival.

Thankfully those events are quite rare. And so the protection against those for Apollo was strictly statistical. The chances of an X-class event happening in a given two-week period (the duration of an Apollo mission) are exceptionally small. There's a greater chance the booster will blow up underneath you at launch. But the reason NASA is worried about radiation now, whereas before they didn't seem worried, is because we're considering longer missions. The chances of an X-class event during a six-month mission are large enough to worry about. And the chance of one in a two-year mission approaches certainty. Therefore, unlike Apollo, now we have to worry about shielding against the worst the sun can dish out.

But normally it's a kitten. You can conduct short missions in cislunar space without solar events being a first-order concern.

[Retrograde]

jayutah said:

If you were on the lunar surface in nothing but a T-shirt and gym shorts

BTW, this should only be attempted by professional stunt people ;D

[Retrograde]

bob said:

Neutrons can be very damaging and can alter the properties of the material they are bombarding.

Yes, in extreme cases, neutrons can cause a chunk of the appropriate material to change its properties quite rapidly, become extremely hot, create an explosion that destroys a large part of a city, makes a nice mushroom cloud, etc....