Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

reply to post by FoosM

Now I, and many others, discovered JW on Youtube, and that video he has posted is the only video Ive seen.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

3. Yes, the inside information I have is that I have seen that particular video and I want to know why you claim he lied in that video.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Which is it FoosM? Have you seen the original video or not? You seem to be having a hard time keeping your story straight. I never claimed that Jarrah lied in the video you kept trying to direct me to. Have you seen the original or not? If you haven't, what makes you so sure he didn't lie?

1. To revise one's work does not make one a liar.

Agreed. However if one revises one's work to cover up a lie, well, that's a different story. At least you are now acknowledging that Jarrah White has edited that, and probably other, videos.

Getting back to your latest attempted diversion: why are you posting information about X-ray safety? Are you implying that the solar wind is composed of X-rays? What is the difference in X-ray levels between those on the surface of the Earth and those in space? Hint: the atmosphere is not made out of lead.

Originally posted by DJW001

Getting back to your latest attempted diversion: why are you posting information about X-ray safety? Are you implying that the solar wind is composed of X-rays? What is the difference in X-ray levels between those on the surface of the Earth and those in space? Hint: the atmosphere is not made out of lead.

Sorry DJ, I should have realized that Foos would use my correction to sidestep your question and completely change the subject. I'm sure we are in for an epic cut-and-paste of mulitple incorrect uses of "deep space".

I'll defer to the questions at hand.

reply to post by FoosM

Yes, the magnetosphere intercepts high energy particles. We have addressed that form of radiation. The highest levels encountered were in the brief passage through the fringes of the Van Allen belt, not on the way to the Moon, not in orbit around the Moon, not on the surface of the Moon. Don't tell me you want to go back to that.

But you still don't seem to understand that there are different type of harmful radiation. Your post was talking about electromagnetic radiation (x-rays). X-rays are not affected by the magnetosphere, neither is ultraviolet, neither are gamma rays. There is no difference in the levels of electromagnetic radiation in deep space as compared to LEO. So, if the Apollo spacecraft were sufficiently shielded for electromagnetic radiation in LEO, they were sufficiently shielded for electromagnetic radiation in deep space.

[edit on 8/8/2010 by Phage]

Originally posted by Phage
So, if the Apollo spacecraft were sufficiently shielded for electromagnetic radiation in LEO, they were sufficiently shielded for electromagnetic radiation in deep space.

[edit on 8/8/2010 by Phage]

HERETIC!!!!!

Burn the unbeliever!



Anyway, to move the discussion to where it should be, I will pre-emptively retract my pedantic "deep space" correction.

OK Foos, you are clear to answer the radiation questions waiting for you....

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by FoosM


Because at this point, it appears Apollo was designed for LEO and not deep space.

I gave up on Foos a long time ago when it became apparent that s/he was intent on nothing less than cementing his place as the internet's most clueless poster. (Although, I must admit, his cut-and-paste skills are unparalleled.)

Anyway, a bit of housekeeping, just for those who are enjoying our resident jester's implosion:

Apollo wasn't designed for "deep space", it was designed for cis-lunar space.

But that's another term Foos doesn't understand, and, true to his militant ignorance, will refuse to look up.

Wow... I mention your name and *poof* like the The Great Gazoo you appear. Fascinating. Well why you are here, let me impress you some more with my C&P.

Tracking vehicles in low Earth orbits (LEO) is quite different from tracking deep space missions. Deep space missions are visible for long periods of time from a large portion of the Earth's surface, and so require few stations (the DSN uses only three, as of February 20, 2010). These few stations, however, require the use of huge antennas and ultra-sensitive receivers in order to cope with the very weak signals. Low earth orbit missions, on the other hand, are only visible from a small fraction of the Earth's surface at a time, and the satellites move overhead very quickly, which necessitates the use of a large number of tracking stations, spread all over the world. The antennas required for LEO tracking and communication are not required to be as large as those used for deep space, but they must be able to track quickly.

These differing requirements have led NASA to build a number of independent tracking networks, each optimized for its own mission. Prior to the mid 80's, when the Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System (TDRSS) satellites became operational, NASA used several networks of ground based antennas in order to track and communicate with Earth orbiting spacecraft. For the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo missions, these were the primary means of communication, with the Deep Space Network (DSN) being assigned a supporting/backup role.

Ouch.

The DSN, as the name implies, tracks probes in deep space (more than 10,000 miles (16,000 km) from Earth), while TDRSS is used to communicate with satellites in low earth orbit.

How far away is the moon Tomblvd? Right. Ouch.

The first EVA in deep space (not on the moon or in the Earth's orbit) was made by American Al Worden, on the return trip of Apollo 15. This was done two more times: by Ken Mattingly on Apollo 16 and by Ron Evans on Apollo 17.

Ouch.

Yeah, we can see why you gave up.

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

Thank you for making my point. And making it rather well.

You see something on Wikipedia and automatically assume it's true and proper usage, but anybody with a working knowledge of astronomy knows that the term "deep space" has a specific meaning.

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th edition, defines it thusly:

The regions beyond the gravitational influence of Earth encompassing interplanetary, interstellar, and intergalactic space.

Other definitions:

space well outside the earth's atmosphere and especially that part lying beyond the earth-moon system

and

space beyond the limits of the solar system.

If "deep space" meant what you say it does, why bother with the term "csi-lunar space"?

Foos once again walks into a closed door.

[edit on 8-8-2010 by Tomblvd]

Why do they use 'csi-lunar'? who cares...

And no, I didnt make your point, I busted it wide open.
And no, I didnt use wiki definitions, I specifically used NASA definitions.

Its called the DEEP SPACE NETWORK it was called a DEEP SPACE EVA.
So by your rationale, why didnt they call it CIS-LUNAR NETWORK or CIS-LUNAR EVA.

Exactly, ouch.

And by your definition you posted, you support NASA's definition.

space well outside the earth's atmosphere

How NASA describes it to high schoolers:

Beyond the Atmosphere

The exosphere starts at the top to the thermosphere and continues until it merges with interplanetary gases, or space. In this region of the atmosphere, Hydrogen and Helium are the prime components and are only present at extremely low densities.

So how far does the exosphere extend?

The upper boundary of the exosphere can be defined theoretically by the altitude about 190,000 kilometres (120,000 mi), half the distance to the Moon) at which the influence of solar radiation pressure on atomic hydrogen velocities exceeds that of the Earth’s gravitational pull.

half the distance to the moon? So two thirds the distance to the moon is considered interplanetary space.

And what did you quote TOM?

The regions beyond the gravitational influence of Earth encompassing

interplanetary

, interstellar, and intergalactic space.

Oooouch...

Walking into closed doors? Not me, I got the keys baby, the keys.


en.wikipedia.org...
www.nasa.gov...
en.wikipedia.org...

dbl post

[edit on 8-8-2010 by FoosM]

Boy, did I predict that or what???

Sorry Foos, check the post before your first C&P-fest....

They're waiting....

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by FoosM

 

Yes, the magnetosphere intercepts high energy particles. We have addressed that form of radiation. The highest levels encountered were in the brief passage through the fringes of the Van Allen belt, not on the way to the Moon, not in orbit around the Moon, not on the surface of the Moon. Don't tell me you want to go back to that.

But you still don't seem to understand that there are different type of harmful radiation. Your post was talking about electromagnetic radiation (x-rays). X-rays are not affected by the magnetosphere, neither is ultraviolet, neither are gamma rays. There is no difference in the levels of electromagnetic radiation in deep space as compared to LEO. So, if the Apollo spacecraft were sufficiently shielded for electromagnetic radiation in LEO, they were sufficiently shielded for electromagnetic radiation in deep space.

[edit on 8/8/2010 by Phage]

If you want to discuss the issue of radiation.
Explain then how the glass in the CM/LM windows protected the astronauts from from the various forms of radiation found in space, LEO or Deep Space.

Originally posted by FoosM
If you want to discuss the issue of radiation.
Explain then how the glass in the CM/LM windows protected the astronauts from from the various forms of radiation found in space, LEO or Deep Space.

NO.

First, YOU explain what levels of radiation, and what type, needed to be shielded, taking into account the actual exposure - ie when and what parts of the astronauts would be exposed, etc. Because to expect you to understand anything presented here, YOU need to prove that you have a basic understanding of the issues.

I don't think you have. Prove me wrong.

Anyway, I'm just popping in to make a couple of points. I'm still going to finish the radiation 'treatise', so may I suggest that you guys simply wait a bit. (I'm not talking to you, Foos, you can continue embarrassing yourself at will..)

And to FoosM, may I again ask the big questions.


1. WHY CAN'T YOU PROVE THE APOLLO HOAX CLAIM TO THE SATISFACTION OF ANYONE WHO MATTERS? (Where's your noted scientist, noted engineer, noted politician, or an Erin Brokovich?)

2. If radiation (for example) is your big ticket item, where's the noted radiation expert to back you up? Isn't a bit strange that the only people egging you on are those trying to help jarrah avoid starvation, from Youtube revenue?

and of course..

3. WHY DO YOU KEEP CHANGING THE SUBJECT and IGNORING THE PUBLISHED SCIENCE?


Oh, and if you don't get it - those are all rhetorical questions. I, and I suspect most people watching this farce, know what the answers are.

Doesn't take a rocket scientist.

Originally posted by CHRLZ
1. WHY CAN'T YOU PROVE THE APOLLO HOAX CLAIM TO THE SATISFACTION OF ANYONE WHO MATTERS? (Where's your noted scientist, noted engineer, noted politician, or an Erin Brokovich?)

Appeal to authority.

2. If radiation (for example) is your big ticket item, where's the noted radiation expert to back you up? Isn't a bit strange that the only people egging you on are those trying to help jarrah avoid starvation, from Youtube revenue?

Appeal to authority. Red herring.

3. WHY DO YOU KEEP CHANGING THE SUBJECT and IGNORING THE PUBLISHED SCIENCE?

Strawman. Appeal to authority.

Oh, and if you don't get it - those are all rhetorical questions. I, and I suspect most people watching this farce, know what the answers are.

Doesn't take a rocket scientist.

Fear. Refusal to address the argument.

Originally posted by Riposte
Appeal to authority.

Perhaps before pretending to be an expert on fallacies, you should actually read and understand what they mean.

'Appeal to authority' refers to the fallacy of using specific claims by one or two 'authorities'. It *may* be a fallacy when the authority is proven to be no such thing (Like Jarrah's Art Teacher!), or when the authority is actually not providing expert opinion on their field of expertise. As Wiki states (and who would argue with Wiki..):

On the other hand, arguments from authority are an important part of informal logic. Since we cannot have expert knowledge of many subjects, we often rely on the judgments of those who do. There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true. The fallacy only arises when it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism.

I hope this helps you understand, so you won't make that mistake again.

Appeal to authority

Umm, no, that second point had nothing to with authority. It was an observation about the spamming hereabouts.

Red herring.

It had no colour at all, and was not a fish. This is clearly a Faulty Generalisation, and is Detrimental to the Respect of Marine Life...

3. WHY DO YOU KEEP CHANGING THE SUBJECT and IGNORING THE PUBLISHED SCIENCE?

Strawman. Appeal to authority.

Strawman? What new topic did I raise? And then refer back to the first error you made, and re-read that Wiki quote.

Oh, and if you don't get it - those are all rhetorical questions. I, and I suspect most people watching this farce, know what the answers are.
Doesn't take a rocket scientist.

Fear. Refusal to address the argument.

Argument from Ignorance. Perhaps you should backtrack and read what I have written SO FAR about radiation, and... let's debate shall we?

Originally posted by FoosM

If you want to discuss the issue of radiation.
Explain then how the glass in the CM/LM windows protected the astronauts from from the various forms of radiation found in space, LEO or Deep Space.

You already explained it.

posted by FoosM

 

Because at this point, it appears Apollo was designed for LEO and not deep space.

[edit on 8/9/2010 by Phage]

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Originally posted by FoosM
If you want to discuss the issue of radiation.
Explain then how the glass in the CM/LM windows protected the astronauts from from the various forms of radiation found in space, LEO or Deep Space.

NO.

First, YOU explain what levels of radiation, and what type, needed to be shielded, taking into account the actual exposure - ie when and what parts of the astronauts would be exposed, etc. Because to expect you to understand anything presented here, YOU need to prove that you have a basic understanding of the issues.

I don't think you have. Prove me wrong.

Anyway, I'm just popping in to make a couple of points. I'm still going to finish the radiation 'treatise', so may I suggest that you guys simply wait a bit.

Good, cause then you can

Explain how the glass in the CM/LM windows protected the astronauts from from the various forms of radiation found in space, LEO or Deep Space.

Then I want you to consider the following:
New Scientist 15 Nov 1962 page 337

an astronaut on a week's trip to the Moon has something like a 20 per cent chance of

annihilation

.
Moreover, virtually nothing can be done to shield, or otherwise protect, him from these intense jets of
energetic particles.

This is during the Solar maximum, in which the Apollo missions allegedly flew. Caused by major flares that give off "tens of thousands" of rads.
But then supposedly you also have, in between, flares that give off, thousands, and hundreds of rads right?
So how many flares actually went off during the Apollo missions?

Can't astronauts be shielded from this potentially harmful radiation? The simple answer is no, not completely. Shielding provided by the typically-available structural aluminum skin on a spacecraft (around 5mm thick) is significant but it provides very little reduction in the number of energetic ionizing particles. And, the shielding itself produces secondary neutrons and other energetic particles which pose an additional hazard. The amount of aluminum shielding required to eliminate the currently-perceived risk from these heavy ions would produce a spacecraft so heavy that it could never be launched. And, even if this were done, astronauts working outside the spacecraft would still be exposed (especially if a solar event occurred). Hydrogen rich compounds such as polyethelyne and water are much more effective than aluminum and are being considered for spacecraft use (water, which must be on board for consumption anyway may have a secondary use as shielding in the future). Estimating the risk in any given situation (orbital inclination and altitude if in Earth orbit, type of shielding, current state of the solar wind, etc) is the real challenge. Currently, NASA's plan is reduce the uncertainty of long-term risk to 600% by 2002 and reduce it further to 300% by the year 2008. See NASA's Strategic Plan for more detail.

The overall uncertainty in the risk to humans due to ionizing radiation in space can be attributed to three broad categories:

Uncertainty in the radiation itself; how much of what kind, etc.
Uncertainty in the effects of shielding. Shields produce a great variety of secondary particles which are generally a hazard too.
The most uncertainty in estimating risk lies in the response of cells and tissues to the radiation they encounter.

Gee... you get the impression we never went to the moon, that we still got alot to figure it out.

And when NASA wants to do the following:

An award-winning NASA aerospace engineer--whose childhood dream was to work for the space agency--has resigned in protest over NASA's planned radiation experiments on monkeys. April Evans, a NASA Space Flight Awareness Honoree and nine-year veteran of the U.S. human spaceflight program, resigned after learning that NASA plans to spend $1.75 million to have up to 30 caged squirrel monkeys subjected to dangerous levels of radiation...

...Evans, who had been working on the development of the International Space Station as a team leader, also stated that the test "lacks scientific merit."

"NASA's reliance on cruel and crude radiation tests on monkeys is as absurd as trying to use a Wright Brothers airplane to go to the moon," says PETA Vice President of Laboratory Investigations Kathy Guillermo.

In the experiments, monkeys would be blasted with a harmful dose of ionizing radiation. As a result, the animals would likely suffer from brain damage, cancerous tumors, blindness, and a loss of motor control. Following the radiation exposure, these highly intelligent and social animals would spend the rest of their lives in a laboratory, where they would be isolated in cages and subjected to years of behavioral experiments.

Evans encouraged NASA to develop better space radiation shielding to protect astronauts instead of tormenting animals. Her position is in line with that of the European Space Agency, which has rejected the use of cruel experiments on primates.

It makes you wonder... did they use the Apollo astronauts as guinea pigs?
Cause I dont recall any biology going to the moon to test for radiation poisoning.

How do present-day astronauts survive? The answer is - they can't for very long. Their radiation dosage is carefully monitored, and when the dosage approaches a safe lifetime maximum, they must retire from space flight. The Space Shuttle, Mir and Space Station Freedom all provide some measure of shielding, but only against "routine" radiation. Solar "storms" or "flares" are very bad events from the radiation dosage point of view, and generally, Space flight is avoided when solar activity is at a peak.

That didnt stop NASA did it? They even had two DEEP SPACE EVAs!
Were they ignorant to the dangers?

No. The simple fact is, Apollo was slated during Max Solar Cycle. To risk a Astros being fried by a flare, let alone the VABs, was simply too risky. Cant make it, fake it.


www.nsbri.org...
www.peta.org...
www.adl.gatech.edu...

reply to post by FoosM


Why are you so selective in your quotes?
Here is how that New Scientist paragraph opens.

Solar flares constituted the really serious danger. Some figures for major flares-the worst may result in a radiation dose of some tens of thousands of rads and pretty rapid death-were given in Paris by P.P. Saksonov.

It's talking about major flares and the chart which is referenced shows that during solar maximum the probability of encountering a flare of high energy particles at high intensity is .3%. It's hard to see where that 20% figure comes from.
Source


But there were no major flares during any of the Apollo missions and the command module was well shielded (despite what that 1962 article claimed).

In terms of hazard to crewmen in the heavy, well shielded Command Module, even one of the largest solar-particle event series on record (August 4-9, 1972) would not have caused any impairment of crewmember functions or ability of the crewmen to complete their mission safely. It is estimated that within the Command Module during this event the crewmen would have received a dose of 360 rads to their skin and 35 rads to their blood-forming organs (bone and spleen). Radiation doses to crewmen while inside the thinly shielded Lunar Module or during an extravehicular activity (EVA) would be extremely serious for such a particle event. To monitor particle activity, a nuclear-particle-detection system (figure 3) was designed to have a relatively narrow acceptance angle. It measured the isotropic proton and alpha particles derived from solar-particle events.

lsda.jsc.nasa.gov...

But even that event would not have necessarily been deadly to astronauts on the surface of the Moon.

"A large sunspot appeared on August 2, 1972, and for the next 10 days it erupted again and again," recalls Hathaway. The spate of explosions caused, "a proton storm much worse than the one we've just experienced," adds Cucinotta. Researchers have been studying it ever since.

Cucinotta estimates that a moonwalker caught in the August 1972 storm might have absorbed 400 rem. Deadly? "Not necessarily," he says. A quick trip back to Earth for medical care could have saved the hypothetical astronaut's life.

science.nasa.gov...


The time spent in the LM was brief. It was a calculated risk that the astronauts were willing to take. If there had been any indication (major sunspot activity) of an elevated risk they may have reconsidered the landings. They didn't have to.

Surely, though, no astronaut is going to walk around on the Moon when there's a giant sunspot threatening to explode. "They're going to stay inside their spaceship (or habitat)," says Cucinotta.

science.nasa.gov...

Get off the radiation horse. It's dead.

[edit on 8/9/2010 by Phage]

Originally posted by FoosM
It makes you wonder... did they use the Apollo astronauts as guinea pigs?
Cause I dont recall any biology going to the moon to test for radiation poisoning.

That's not surprising really, for a start Jarrah won't have mentioned it as it threatens his ideas and you would have to carry out research to find out.

But it wasn't NASA that sent animals and plants to the Moon I''m afraid, it was the Russians aboard Zond 5 which flew around the Moon and returned to Earth with it's living payload healthy and alive.

On September 18, 1968, the spacecraft flew around the Moon. The closest distance was 1,950 km. High quality photographs of the Earth were taken at a distance of 90,000 km. A biological payload of two russian tortoises, wine flies, meal worms, plants, seeds, bacteria, and other living matter was included in the flight. On September 21, 1968, the reentry capsule entered the Earth's atmosphere, braked aerodynamically, and deployed its parachutes at 7 km. The capsule splashed down in the Indian Ocean and was successfully recovered, safely returning the biological payload, first in history animals made Moon-flyby.

en.wikipedia.org...

EDIT TO ADD:

Oh Foos, you might also be interested in this document regarding the radiation doseage experiments on Zond-5 and Zond-7 (by the USSR, not NASA). You probably won't like the conclusion though

Cosmic Radiation Measurements using Nuclear emulsions aboard the Zond-5 and Zond-7 automatic stations

[edit on 9-8-2010 by AgentSmith]

FoosM, you completely AVOIDED my questions. ALL OF THEM.

So why should I answer you?

I said I would complete the radiation analysis, and I will. Much of it is already covered in this thread anyway.

But that will be aimed at people with logical minds, who can follow a systematic approach. People who understand that different types of radiation present different risks. People who understand that you need to quantify and measure the radiation. People who understand how shielding works. People who don't selectively quote and deliberately attempt to mislead the forum.

In other words, FoosM... you're not included.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by FoosM

 

Why are you so selective in your quotes?


Why are you selective with yours?


Here is how that New Scientist paragraph opens.

Solar flares constituted the really serious danger. Some figures for major flares-the worst may result in a radiation dose of some tens of thousands of rads and pretty rapid death-were given in Paris by P.P. Saksonov.

It's talking about major flares and the chart which is referenced shows that during solar maximum the probability of encountering a flare of high energy particles at high intensity is .3%. It's hard to see where that 20% figure comes from.
[url=http://books.google.com/books?

So whats your point?
Also if you can't find the 20% quote, well read further.
Or add the numbers up in the chart.

Oh, I get it, your suggesting that ONLY flares of high energy particles at high intensity is dangerous to astronauts? Is that it?

But there were no major flares during any of the Apollo missions and the command module was well shielded (despite what that 1962 article claimed).

The 1962 article claimed there was a major solar flare during Apollo?
And you are saying that even though there would be one, Apollo was shielded sufficiently to protect astronauts onboard? Are you serious?


from NASA Mooned America, p. 134:

On page 256 of 'Astronautical Engineering' there is a chart that shows the dosage of four different flares. On August 22, 1958 there was a low energy flare that could have been reduced to 25-rem with 2-cm of water shielding.

So even a low energy flare would need 2 centimeters of WATER shielding to reduce the rem to 25. What was equivalent to 2cm WATER shielding on the CM. And if the CM could block solar flares so well, why does NASA claim that radiation is a problem for going to MARS?

In terms of hazard to crewmen in the heavy, well shielded Command Module, even one of the largest solar-particle event series on record (August 4-9, 1972) would not have caused any impairment of crewmember functions or ability of the crewmen to complete their mission safely. It is estimated that within the Command Module during this event the crewmen would have received a dose of 360 rads to their skin and 35 rads to their blood-forming organs (bone and spleen). Radiation doses to crewmen while inside the thinly shielded Lunar Module or during an extravehicular activity (EVA) would be extremely serious for such a particle event. To monitor particle activity, a nuclear-particle-detection system (figure 3) was designed to have a relatively narrow acceptance angle. It measured the isotropic proton and alpha particles derived from solar-particle events.

lsda.jsc.nasa.gov...

But even that event would not have necessarily been deadly to astronauts on the surface of the Moon.

"A large sunspot appeared on August 2, 1972, and for the next 10 days it erupted again and again," recalls Hathaway. The spate of explosions caused, "a proton storm much worse than the one we've just experienced," adds Cucinotta. Researchers have been studying it ever since.

Cucinotta estimates that a moonwalker caught in the August 1972 storm might have absorbed 400 rem. Deadly? "Not necessarily," he says. A quick trip back to Earth for medical care could have saved the hypothetical astronaut's life.

science.nasa.gov...

400 rem, not deadly, LOL.
A quick trip, when vomiting in their space suits, cognitive impairment?
What's a quick trip? 2 hours?

You believe that NASA spin? I wouldn't trust that guy with my life, would you?

The advice in the nuclear war manual entitled "Nuclear War Survival Skills" published by Cresson Kearny in the U.S. was that if one needed to leave the shelter then this should be done as rapidly as possible to minimize exposure.

In chapter 12 he states that "Quickly putting or dumping wastes outside is not hazardous once fallout is no longer being deposited. For example, assume the shelter is in an area of heavy fallout and the dose rate outside is 400 R/hr enough to give a potentially fatal dose in about an hour to a person exposed in the open.

If they absorbed 400 REM they would be dead men moonwalking.

NASA allows a career exposure of 400 rem. A career.
25 rem spread over 30 days.

400 rem is critical to debilitating with:

Inability to perform routine tasks

Not useful when you have to seriously concentrate to get back home!

LEO heavier shielded space station:

hielding: Very dense materials (like lead) or materials high in hydrogen (like polyethylene or water) act as effective radiation shields. Such shields act to stop or slow down the ionizing protons and radioactiveparticles. The thicker the shield the better, although the thickness has to double each time to be only 50% more effective. The aluminum shell of the station provides some protection, but not very much. There is very little Lead (Pb) on board the station.

And that Yahoo claims the CM was heavily shielded would you trust him with your life?

The time spent in the LM was brief. It was a calculated risk that the astronauts were willing to take. If there had been any indication (major sunspot activity) of an elevated risk they may have reconsidered the landings. They didn't have to.

Surely, though, no astronaut is going to walk around on the Moon when there's a giant sunspot threatening to explode. "They're going to stay inside their spaceship (or habitat)," says Cucinotta.

science.nasa.gov...

Get off the radiation horse. It's dead.

You said it...


en.wikipedia.org...
www.e-missions.net...

reply to post by FoosM


Once again, you've side-stepped the issue of Jarrah White's truthfulness by cutting and pasting. What is the relative radiation absorbency of water and aluminum? Why do you expect others to do your math for you?

Better than that, he's completely ignored the ACTUAL EXPERIMENT carried out by the USSR after his article was written, in which the RUSSIAN scientists conclude that the trip is perfectly safe.

As for his arguments that it was 'too risky', pathetic! Since when are half the things we do not risky? Last time I checked people still bungee jump, race cars, ride horses, basejump, etc and those are just RECREATIONAL! Not everyone are WIMPS that are held back by risks and frankly if humans had not ever done anything because it was dangerous we wouldn't have got where we are today. Just because radiation seems dangerous and makes you cry because you don't understand it doesn't mean everyone else is affected by this.

reply to post by Tomblvd


I wonder by chance were you in a past life that caused the salem witch trials? you know the christians that stating non-believers to be burned at the stake?

Just sayin'!