|
Post by swank23 on Oct 10, 2009 1:05:38 GMT -4
I understand what you are saying, but it seems that the problem should be solved. When I look at the lunar landing module, I can not seem to understand exactly what was used to shield the men from the radiation. What I am basing this on is the official word from NASA. They stated that the astronauts received only a cumulative of 2 hours of radiation exposure and this article paints quite a different picture.
What exactly was used to shield the astronauts from exposure on the lunar landing module, on the lunar rover, and in the space suits?
Why not use the same equipment? Why a force field or a concrete dome made of moondust? I would think that 40 years of research would produce something more than capable of replicating the Apollo missions.
|
|
|
Post by swank23 on Oct 10, 2009 0:58:17 GMT -4
I have had people tell me that the radiation is uneven, but the article states that space beyond low earth orbit is "awash" with radiation. Awash means to overflow with. Maybe it was a bad word choice, but I have read that the reason the Russians, nor any other industrialized nation, have not gone to the moon was because they could not solve the radiation issue.
|
|
|
Post by swank23 on Oct 10, 2009 0:53:55 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by swank23 on Oct 10, 2009 0:41:44 GMT -4
I have asked several people about this and I honestly cannot get a straight answer. I know that the question becomes what is long term exposure, but the article makes it sound like a trip to the moon would be dangerous exposure, especially when the astronauts get to the face of the moon. From what I can gather from research, exposure of one day would be enough to cause cancerous growths. NASA states that the exposure to radiation for the astronauts going to the moon in the Apollo missions was about an hour and coming back was about an hour. Two hours was acceptable, but this article makes it sound very, very different. When I look at pictures of the lunar landing module, I cannot see how it could have withstood the radiation. (this is the quote that makes me question the capabilities of the lunar lander) "The most common way to deal with radiation is simply to physically block it, as the thick concrete around a nuclear reactor does. But making spaceships from concrete is not an option"
I hate to say it, but this just doesn't add up.
|
|
|
Post by swank23 on Oct 10, 2009 0:25:11 GMT -4
My friend found this article put out by NASA. It is talking about the radiation exposure an astronaut would receive going to the moon or to mars. This is the article. science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/24jun_electrostatics.html I have always lambasted anyone who tries to talk about the Van Allen Belt, NASA clearly states that the astronauts received minimal exposure due to the one hour time frame, but this article seems to directly contradict what NASA has said. I can normally shut most people up about the moon landings, but I really do not know how to argue with this point. Please answer these questions so that I can shut my friend up. 1)Why would NASA be worried about any of this. We obviously had the technology in the 60's to take care of the problem. I would think that by now we would have technology that far surpasses what we had then. You will have to forgive my lack of knowledge concerning the eccentricities of space travel. 2)These are the quotes that he keeps throwing in my face. "Space beyond low-Earth orbit is awash with intense radiation from the Sun and from deep galactic sources such as supernovas. Astronauts en route to the Moon and Mars are going to be exposed to this radiation, increasing their risk of getting cancer and other maladies. Finding a good shield is important." I thought that the Van Allen Belt was only an hours worth of exposure time? This definitely makes it sound like all of space past low earth orbit is "awash" with radiation. "Portable designs might even be mounted onto "moon buggy" lunar rovers to offer protection for astronauts as they explore the surface, Buhler imagines." Once again my friend keeps pointing to the fact that we already supposedly took care of this. "The most common way to deal with radiation is simply to physically block it, as the thick concrete around a nuclear reactor does. But making spaceships from concrete is not an option." I am really confused and I hate being wrong. Please help me debate my friend into little pieces. I am really starting to question myself.
|
|