|
Post by cos on Oct 10, 2009 11:55:37 GMT -4
I've read the article and it is quite clearly concerned about long term exposure associated with a lunar or Mars base. Here is a Nasa paper summarising the radiation hazards of the Apollo missions. lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/S2ch3.htmNow what in your article contradicts this? The authors are credited at the bottom of the article so why not drop them an email and ask if they think anything they have written casts doubt on Apollo. It doesn't.
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Oct 10, 2009 11:55:39 GMT -4
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. The USSR also had the serious problem of their N-1 launch vehicle exploding every time they tested it. The Americans didn't have that problem with the Saturn V. www.astronautix.com/lvs/n1.htm
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Oct 10, 2009 12:02:03 GMT -4
I will submit that I think the NASA article about "awash with radiation" was somewhat dramatized. Nonetheless, it is a real issue for lond duration lunar missions. What for Apollo was an "unlikely occurrance" (a major flare/CME aimed at Earth/Moon) becomes a "probable" for missions lasting many months or more. They need to plan for it.
There are different types of radiation, swank23, and each is dealt with differently. What protects from ray radiation (gamma, X) may be inappropriate for particle (proton, electron) radiation.
Thin aluminum and polyetheyne plastics are quite good at attenuating particle radiation. Hard ray radiation, over the long term, requires more massive shielding. It also depends on the "flux", or magnitude of the radiation over time. It all varies on solar behavior and events in galactic space. On a normal basis, it's not a lethal situation with appropriate shielding and a relatively short mission. The Constellation planners are looking at long term missions, which brings up shielding requirements which Apollo's short flights didn't need. (though they did have some "contingency" plans if such an event occurred)
It's a valid question, hope these answers are helping.
|
|
|
Post by swank23 on Oct 10, 2009 12:04:16 GMT -4
How exactly is the Apollo mission not considered long term duration? At first, everyone seems to want to say that the astronauts were only exposed to 2 hours of radiation, but that is not true. here are two more articles for you to chew on. www.space.com/scienceastronomy/radiation_evarm_020716.htmlwww.universetoday.com/2005/09/09/radiation-on-the-moon/This is a quote from the above article. "The first global mapping of neutron radiation from the Moon was performed by NASA's Lunar Prospector probe in 1998-99. LEND will improve on the Lunar Prospector data by profiling the energies of these neutrons, showing what fraction are of high energy (i.e., the most damaging to people) and what fraction are of lower energies. With such knowledge in hand, scientists can begin designing spacesuits, lunar habitats, Moon vehicles, and other equipment for NASA's return to the Moon knowing exactly how much radiation shielding this equipment must have to keep humans safe." Notice the last part of the quote. Are you telling me that we had no idea if the astronauts would be safe and that we are JUST NOW getting around to finding out,but we sent the astronauts anyway and that we are just now starting to worry about this? With that reasoning, then we got to the moon by an act of God. Bob B. you state that I keep insisting that the Apollo missions are long duration but you state that they are not. They are long duration, especially considering that NASA has not idea how much radiation exposure a human would need to be able to endure in order to go "back" to the moon. So far, I have my answer on the materials used to protect to astronauts from radiation exposure and the answer is NO MATERIALS WERE USED. Now, please explain to me how the astronauts were not exposed to intense radiation. NASA admitted in the article above that they have NO IDEA how much radiation exposure would occur on the moon. I am repeating myself because I cannot get an answer that jibes with the facts that I am presenting along withe links to the articles. If NASA has no idea how much radiation exposure would occur on the moon then how can anyone determine what is long term exposure and what is short term exposure?
|
|
|
Post by swank23 on Oct 10, 2009 12:10:29 GMT -4
Thank you for the links guys. I am reading them over and I will email the authors of the article Cos.
I think that the information is so contrarian that I need to go to a pro for an answer.
Once again, I would like to thank all the posters for the intelligent banter, the reserved tone, and the respect most people do not give to hoaxers.
Cheers to all!!
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Oct 10, 2009 12:13:21 GMT -4
How exactly is the Apollo mission not considered long term duration? At first, everyone seems to want to say that the astronauts were only exposed to 2 hours of radiation, but that is not true. here are two more articles for you to chew on. www.space.com/scienceastronomy/radiation_evarm_020716.htmlwww.universetoday.com/2005/09/09/radiation-on-the-moon/This is a quote from the above article. "The first global mapping of neutron radiation from the Moon was performed by NASA's Lunar Prospector probe in 1998-99. LEND will improve on the Lunar Prospector data by profiling the energies of these neutrons, showing what fraction are of high energy (i.e., the most damaging to people) and what fraction are of lower energies. With such knowledge in hand, scientists can begin designing spacesuits, lunar habitats, Moon vehicles, and other equipment for NASA's return to the Moon knowing exactly how much radiation shielding this equipment must have to keep humans safe." That article also says, '"We really need to know more about the radiation environment on the Moon, especially if people will be staying there for more than just a few days,' says Harlan Spence, a professor of astronomy at Boston University." Clearly, he's talking about longer missions than Apollo when he says that. The longest Apollo missions involved only three-day stays on the lunar surface. He specifically says, "more than a few days."
|
|
|
Post by swank23 on Oct 10, 2009 12:36:16 GMT -4
Laurel, I read the same statement; however, it was anecdotal and it does not state anything specific. Although he may have said "staying there for more than a few days", he has no idea what he is basing his statement upon. The article very clearly states two very important facts:
"Out in deep space, radiation comes from all directions. On the Moon, you might expect the ground, at least, to provide some relief, with the solid body of the Moon blocking radiation from below. Not so. When galactic cosmic rays collide with particles in the lunar surface, they trigger little nuclear reactions that release yet more radiation in the form of neutrons. The lunar surface itself is radioactive!"
as well as this quote
"The first global mapping of neutron radiation from the Moon was performed by NASA's Lunar Prospector probe in 1998-99. LEND will improve on the Lunar Prospector data by profiling the energies of these neutrons, showing what fraction are of high energy (i.e., the most damaging to people) and what fraction are of lower energies. With such knowledge in hand, scientists can begin designing spacesuits, lunar habitats, Moon vehicles, and other equipment for NASA's return to the Moon knowing exactly how much radiation shielding this equipment must have to keep humans safe."
In the scientific method we always operationalize variables. This quote "staying there for more than just a few days" is far from operationalized. There is no way for anyone to know what length of exposure is long term or short term if no one knows exactly how much radiation exposure one would endure on the surface of the moon. This is A HUGE variable that any responsible scientist would want to know in a concrete fashion before exposing any human being to that type of danger.
I am beginning to think that the people who firmly believe that the Moon landings happened are struggling with battles of cognitive dissonance as the lunatics who swear that they were staged.
From all the of data that I can gather, I am unable to confirm either proposal.
|
|
|
Post by swank23 on Oct 10, 2009 12:42:38 GMT -4
I meant the same battles of cognitive dissonance. I am a college student and I am a science major, and from what I can gather, there is simply not enough concrete data to convince me that we either went, or staged the landings.
My professors preach constantly to never speculate beyond the data. All of the blueprints for the Saturn rockets are missing. All of the original tapes of the moon landings are missing, and the data concerning radiation exposure is contrarian. Due to those facts alone, I cannot say for sure one way or the other what actually happened. Doing so requires an act of faith but faith and pure science are diametrically opposed to one another.
Thank you once again for the intelligent and thoughtful responses.
|
|
|
Post by cos on Oct 10, 2009 12:53:15 GMT -4
All of the blueprints for the Saturn rockets are missing.
Not true. But are you seriously saying that the Saturn V didn't exist!
|
|
|
Post by swank23 on Oct 10, 2009 13:11:16 GMT -4
Touche Cos!!! You are correct the blueprints are on microfilm; however, the original tapes covering the "live" video feed are gone. www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/30/AR2007013002065.htmlIn my opinion the original tapes being missing is much more confounding than the Saturn rocket. I was basing my non-speculation on the non accumulation of appropriate data. Thank you for clearing up my misunderstanding regarding the Saturn rocket. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Oct 10, 2009 13:12:53 GMT -4
There's a space.com article about that too. www.space.com/news/spacehistory/saturn_five_000313.htmlPersonally, I would like to see one of the surviving Saturn V's sometime. I've read about them and watched the launch footage and so on but I think I would better understand how enormous this rocket is if I actually saw it for myself.
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Oct 10, 2009 13:38:05 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Oct 10, 2009 13:50:53 GMT -4
Also, the tapes that are missing are an oddball purpose built format - it's not like they were standard video tapes. The video information was one track in a multi-band transmission of telemetry data.
|
|
|
Post by cos on Oct 10, 2009 14:08:03 GMT -4
In my opinion the original tapes being missing is much more confounding than the Saturn rocket. I was basing my non-speculation on the non accumulation of appropriate data.
This is well known but since recordings exist of the event and also many many hours of lunar surface footage from later missions, I can only use Occam's razor to conclude that it was an honest mistake.
By the way, when I was a student back in the early 80's, I had the privilege to be shown around Jodrel Bank. It came up in conversation that one of the guys had been there on the night of the moon landing and he showed me a trace of the communications with lunar module that allowed them to track it to the surface. They even knew that it had overshot the proposed landing site by a few miles!
Sad that the original tapes aren't to hand but they are not really vital to prove the veracity of the event.
|
|
|
Post by swank23 on Oct 10, 2009 14:25:47 GMT -4
Laurel- I can not find any links to the original video footage from other Apollo missions. Apparently the footage that most people see is the restored footage of the broadcast of the monitor images from NASA's control room. I am not saying that it does not exist, but what I am saying is that what I have found is either of very poor quality or it is the restored footage of the footage. The reason that so many hoaxers focus on the 11 footage is because of the depth of quality that could be discerned by viewing the 11 footage. I have also seen several of the photo's, but they were mainly released during the 90's, if I am not mistaken. Although the original photo's were taken in digital imagery, no hi-def images were released until the 90's. (I could be wrong on this so if you could kindly point me to the direction of only the original footage of the 12 or latter missions.) I watched your link, but it looked like restored content only and coverage of the control room by way of a documentary.
Thanks.
-S
|
|