Seriously guys, how do you find the strength to carry on under the onslaught of such wilful ignorance?
Established Member
Seriously guys, how do you find the strength to carry on under the onslaught of such wilful ignorance?
Order of Kilopi
Well I know scientists have said the moon is not radioactive and levels of radioactivity have been directly measured on the moons surface, so that's pretty convincing. However, on the other hand, in one episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer they said that anything that has been in space can be tracked because it gives of cosmic rays, a type of radiation, so in fairness I'd have to say the jury is still out on this issue.
Established Member
I'm looking for the smiley face or wink icon here...don't see it...Originally Posted by Ronald Brak
Senior Member
Something I don't understand..."scientists" say the Moon is not radioactive, yet radioactivity has been measured on the Moons surface by, I assume, these same "scientists"???
That doesn't make sense...
The "jury is out" because of something you saw on Buffy??...on the other hand, in one episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer they said that anything that has been in space can be tracked because it gives of cosmic rays, a type of radiation, so in fairness I'd have to say the jury is still out on this issue.
That really doesn't make sense.
Established Member
You meant that as a joke, did you?
I seriously hope so...
Established Member
Oh, come on folks! I hope this is not a sign that the Internet has caused us to require a smiley to know when someone is joking.
Senior Member
I think you're right, Joe...my apologies....
Established Member
That comes from spending too much time with conspircy theorists, even the most outlandish claim could still be their serious opinion.
However, I don't think a CT who really believes this, wouldn't have survived for more than 3000 posts on this board.
Banned
This is one of the sources for the radiaton exposure on and traveling to the moon.
http://video.csupomona.edu/NASA/Dest...rrow25-035.asx
A video about the problems of radiation returning to the moon and on to Mars. Pretty much anywhere outside the protection of the Earth's magnetosphere. Funny how they talk about finding a material to achieve this feet as using metal would be too heavy and thick to lug into space. Don't explain how Apollo did it though and it seams like they are starting from scratch.
Established Member
The Apollo missions were much shorter duration than a Mars mission and the new Moon missions are planned to be, radiation exposure that is acceptable for ~10 days is a major problem for an 18 month one, particularly as the 18 month one is likely to get hit by a major solar event unlike Apollo.
Order of Kilopi
Long-duration missions and short-duration (e.g., Apollo) missions take fundamentally different approaches to radiation protection. What worked for Apollo won't necessarily work for long stays on the surface or long cruises to Mars. So in some ways new missions are indeed starting from scratch.
The Moon itself is not radioactive. But someone on the lunar surface is exposed to hazards from cosmic and solar radiation, and to small secondary effects.
Newbie
According to table 2 on http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/S2ch3.htm the dose received by the apollo astronauts was between only .16 and 1.14 rads.
Where's the problem?
Established Member
Are you planning on answering any of the questions presented to you on this thread?
Order of Kilopi
What are the outstanding questions at this point?
The key issues for me are: Does SLF now understand that the Apollo astronauts did not receive large radiation doses? Does he understand the fundamentals as to why?
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?
The Leif Ericson Cruiser
Established Member
Here's what I see as outstanding:
But do you now understand the context of that statement (which is, at best, an oversimplification)?Where on the Earth? Exposed for how long on the Earth versus how long on the Moon?And now you can add to that:That is a quantitative statement. Please provide numbers to back it up. After all, ten times a very small number is still a very small number.
Quote:
What kind, how long, and how much difference does it make. Being bombarded with radiation for billions of years doesn't make an object radioactove.The moon has been bombarded by solar radiation and cosmic radiation for billions of year.
Order of Kilopi
He owes us a quantitative argument for, a clarification of, or a retraction of the insinuation that the Apollo astronauts would have been exposed to a level of radiation consistent with causing illness that should have manifested itself by now.
Moderator
SLF:JAQ SFDJS;1044557, you have opened yet another thread while there are questions pending in this thread.
This is becoming too much of a habit with you. Before you continue with your new thread, please address the questions raised here.
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov
Moderation will be in purple.
Rules for Posting to This Board
Order of Kilopi
Well this is the problem. They were exposed to that in 10 days! They got what most people get in 360 days in just 10. Not imagine what sort of doses the new crews will bwe getting when they spend 30-40 days up there and you'll see the problem, well NASA's one. The HB's have an entirely different problem, but that can't be corrected short of elective surgery I fear.
Order of Kilopi
those really are some outstanding questions..
i await some outstanding answers..
Established Member
A check of SFL's public profile shows they were online this morning, but I guess we can give them the benefit of the doubt, maybe they were just checking the board before heading to work (I know I do that sometimes too). Hopefully answers will be coming soon.
Established Member
SLF,
I think you have a bad understanding of what it takes to block radiation.
Here is an experiment you can run at home.
Hold your hand next too (not above) about 12 inches (40cm's) from an buring incadecent lightbulb. You will be able to feel the Infared Radiation from the bulb.
Now hold a single sheet of white paper between your hand and the light bulb. You'll find that thin sheet of paper is it all it takes to block the IR radiation from that bulb.
Now look at X-Ray vests. A thin 1/4 inch (6mm) vest made of lead beads is anought to block the X-Ray from a medical machine. X-Rays are almost as strong as gamma rays.
Cosmic Rays are particle's however not EM Radiation, this makes them even easier to block.
If you were to equate it out compared to X-Ray's, having the same amount of radiation of both, a simple peice of lead foil would suffice for Cosmic Rays as opossed to the 1/4inch sheilding needed for X-Rays.
Established Member
Actually, lead would be a terrible material for cosmic rays. Particle radiation such as high energy protons and electrons is best shielded by light metals, plastics or water. In heavy metals such as lead you get secondary radiation actually emitted from the material you are using to block the radiation.
Banned
Nasa.org was my primary source. This is where the claim originated. Nasa- Radiactive moon and Taking a Radioactive Bath - Space Daily.
Dangerously radioactive
More dangerouse environment as a whole on the moon
Yes, oversimplified but accurate
We are exposed for example - solar radiation on Earth. Greater risk on the moon.
In relative terms
Not at moment
Going back to the moon and Mars the mean ambient radiation would not be a smart way to design a spacecraft or suit.
More protection needed
More shielding considering the unkowns that are coming to light since the Apollo missions like the problems of shielding agains cosmic radiation and the extent of neutron radiation scattering at the surface of the moon.
Nasa says the moon is radioactive.
Order of Kilopi
Link please, so we can see the context.
Besides, Nasa.org has nothing to do with the space agency, and if you go to that site, you get blasted with stuff. Evidence that you may not be citing real examples.
Order of Kilopi
Nasa.org was my primary source.
And it was discussed, not that it has anything to do with NASA.
Nasa says the moon is radioactive.
It then went on to explain that it is detectable secondary radiation, which is not at all the same as saying the Moon is radioactive. And we know from other sources the magnitude of that secondary radiation, which is not significant for Apollo missions.
You were asked to provide numerical quantities for your claim or to withdraw your assertion about the supposed hazard to Apollo astronauts. Do you intend to satisfy that request? I do not accept your continued handwaving.
Established Member
Would the chair I'm sitting on and the coffee I'm drinking also have detectable secondary radiation?
Order of Kilopi
If they have carbon, you can even tell how old they are from the radiation that is detected.
If you're using the canary method? No.
Established Member
Established Member
Try www.nasa.gov next time. Having nasa in the URL does not mean it is NASA.
Order of Kilopi
The thing I find the funniest about this sort of topic is that these new sources of radiation are just like earthquakes or meteorites. If you get the stats on the number of earthquakes detected, or meteorites found for each year over the last 50 odd years, you'll see that both have been trending upwards, sometimes by significant amounts. Does that mean we have been having more earthquakes or getting hit by more meteorites? Nope, it means that our ability to detect and report them is getting better and picking up ones we would have missed previously. The reason that we didn't know about the secondary gamma radiation that the moon creates on being hit by cosmic rays is because it so insignificant that the detectors that where sent pre-Apollo just couldn't pick it up. It is only as our tools have gotten so much better and capable of detecting minute amounts of radiation that we have detected it. It's a bit like demanding to know how people could have been drinking the water from the local supply and living because the new spectroscope has now detected that there is 0.0006% Arsenic in it, so everyone who previously drank it should have been poisoned off.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote