{paginate}
2 of 2
2
{/paginate}
Yuri GAGArin falling in capsule 1961 to Lady GAGA falling from piano 2011, 50 years to the day - no fan for the sh^$ to hit
Posted: 13 April 2011 02:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  10730
Joined  2008-02-21

Hmmm. After a VERY drawn out, dragging introduction to the subject, the author seems to be suggesting that manned flights to the moon were “inconceivable!!” (Obligatory Princess Bride reference) wink

the author brings up the radiation potential of the van Allen Belts, and says, in effect, that while those may, perhaps, have been passed through quickly enough, when added to the ?known? radiation levels on the surface of the Moon, it would have been lethal at worst, or doomed anyone trying to do so to serious cancers later in life.  Since only ONE (1) for astronaut reportedly had cancer, therefore manned flights to the moon could NOT ( and did not) occur.

radiation of the Moon?  Now There’s something i haven’t heard of (other than what would be considered “standard” ambient radiation after being exposed to unfiltered solar winds/etc.

Is the Moon truly radioactive? If so, how bad/strong is it? gulp

 Signature 

“Always, I Do What Is Necessary” - Rissa Kerguelen
Go to my Blog. It’s lonely.

I Am Still The Black Swan Of Trespass On Alien Waters
To the believer no proof is required; to the skeptic no proof is sufficient.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 April 2011 02:37 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5147
Joined  2005-01-27

ah what the heck… here some Doctored Cosmonaut Photos for your enoyment.

 Signature 


“By the sweat on our brows, and the strengths of´╗┐ our backs…Gentlemen. Hoist the Colours! And you, madam, I warn you, I know the entire Geneva Convention by heart!”
Trust me.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 April 2011 02:46 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6930
Joined  2005-10-21

Far as I know, it’s not any more radioactive than anything else.. Probably even less so. Now, mind, the surface is bombarded by solar radiation, un-hindered by atmosphere or a magnetosphere, but that’s one of the reasons you wear a space suit, right?

Let’s see… The Van Allen Belts produce enough radiation that if you have a shell of 3mm aluminum, you’ll collect 25SV, in a year. That’s roughly two weeks before you’d run into health issues. Shooting through on your way to the moon? Piece of cake. *checks* Roughtly equivalent to your normal radiation dosage for three years.

Ahh.. waitasecond.. Here we go. From Wikipedia: “The radiation is actually evidence that the astronauts went to the Moon. Irene Schneider reports that 33 of the 36 Apollo astronauts involved in the nine Apollo missions to leave Earth orbit have developed early stage cataracts that have been shown to be caused by radiation exposure to cosmic rays during their trip.[71] At least 39 former astronauts have developed cataracts; 36 of those were involved in high-radiation missions such as the Apollo missions.[72]”

So yes - there’s enough cosmic radiation to do some damage… but it’s not gonna fry them in their suits.

I’ll just throw this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings

 Signature 

1: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If it does what it says, you should have no problem with this.
2: What proof will you accept that you are wrong? You ask us to change our mind, but we cannot change yours?
3: It is not our responsability to disprove your claims, but rather your responsability to prove them.
4. Personal testamonials are not proof.

What part of ‘meow’ don’t you understand?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 April 2011 04:53 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  61098
Joined  2005-04-14

Well, the main radiation you’d have to worry about would be ionising radiation.  The Van Allen belt would be a bad place to hang around for long, because it tends to trap and focus a lot of radiation in a small area.  But if you’re in an enclosed metal capsule and travel quickly through it (as most astronauts and cosmonauts did), then you can get through it without anything drastic happening. . .in the short term, at least.

Out beyond that, you mainly have the “free flying” radiation.  There’s always some, but the amount varies considerably from time to time and place to place.  If you were to go out on a long spaceflight during a period of major solar flares, for example, then you’d be exposed to a lot more radiation than you would when the sun was being all quiet and peaceful.  The sun tends to have a predictable cycle of such things, which lets planners plan ahead a bit.  That doesn’t mean that the sun can’t go and do something surprising even during its “quiet” phase, of course.

Then there’s the radiation that comes flying through space from other suns, or even other galaxies.  I’m not sure if there’s any sort of cycle with that. . .I wouldn’t expect there to be much of one.

So there’s always going to be a good bit of radiation when you’re in space, but you can time your flight to avoid much of the worst of it.  And a well-designed spacecraft will shield you from much of it, too.  As for the rest that does get to you. . .well, the human body can actually handle a fairly hefty dose of radiation without anything drastic happening in the short term.  In the longer term there can be all sorts of health hazards. . .which is exactly what we’ve seen with many of the people who first went into space.  Especially with the cosmonauts, it seems.  The radiation-induced eye damage as has already been mentioned, for example.

I seem to recall that a lot of really high-energy particles came flying through space and left all sorts of microscopic tunnels through the spacecraft and people, and that microscopic analysis of some of their equipment revealed lots of these little holes.  Obviously, that would be a problem over a long term of exposure.  But for the length of time that these people were in space, it wouldn’t really do much.

As far as I’m aware, the moon itself isn’t any more radioactive than the Earth is.  It gets hit by a lot more radiation from space, but the Earth and the moon are made of the same stuff. . .and the moon has a lot less of it all.

 Signature 

“If any man wish to write in a clear style, let him be first clear in his thoughts.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 April 2011 09:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  10730
Joined  2008-02-21

Hmm. After patiently wading through the previous 24+ pages of ‘theory’, I have, I think, come across the ‘radiation problems’ that this theorist has with the whole moon landings issue;

Page Link

25. Van Allen radiation belts, sunstorms and sunspots, radiation on the moon and flashlights: “Moon flights” are impossible

The low radiation data at the “moon astronauts” - the too low flash light rates - the “moon flights” cannot have been performed

and

The Explorer satellites of the late 1950s have a casing of 3 mm aluminium. They

—state in the inner of the Van Allen radiation belt a radiation up to 200 millisievert / hour, this is 1,2 mio. times more than the dose in Germany per hour

—state in the outer Van Allen radiation belt a radiation up to 50 millisievert / hour, this is 400,000 times more than the dose in Germany per hour.

(In: Koelzer, Winfried: Die Strahlenexposition des Menschen; Informationskreis KernEnergie, [The radiation exposition of humans; information circle atomic energy], November 2004, p.11; and: medicine worldwide: Strahlenbelastung in der Raumfahrt [Radiation in space]; OnVista Media GmbH, version of 9 June 2004; Wisnewski, p.195)

Another source states that there is an average radioactive radiation in the Van Allen radiation belts of of 600 millisievert / hour.

(In: Cull, Selby: Giant Leap for Mankind or Giant Leap of Faith? Examining Claims That We Never Went to the Moon ; The Journal of Young Investigators, Issue 2; January 2004; Wisnewski, p.195)

The description of the Van Allen radiation belts of Smolders seems to be very clear:

“The radiation dose in these belts is between 75 and 100 roentgen per second - but not more than 15 to 20 roentgen are acceptable per day. So the dose in the belts is lethal. This is the reason why the Soviets have objections against higher orbits.”

Fun stuff!! cheese

 Signature 

“Always, I Do What Is Necessary” - Rissa Kerguelen
Go to my Blog. It’s lonely.

I Am Still The Black Swan Of Trespass On Alien Waters
To the believer no proof is required; to the skeptic no proof is sufficient.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 April 2011 05:21 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6930
Joined  2005-10-21

Right.. except that you stop most of that radiation with a thin metal shell. If you were out on a spacewalk, you might be in trouble, but even then, it’s not much.. and that’s assuming he’s not pulling those numbers out of his ass…

Van Allen himself was consulted on the launch, and they estimated about *one* rem (10 mSV) for the trip.

Yes, they got irradiated, about as much as is allowed for workers in the nuclear field. Trip to the moon = annual dose for someone in a nuclear plant.

 Signature 

1: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If it does what it says, you should have no problem with this.
2: What proof will you accept that you are wrong? You ask us to change our mind, but we cannot change yours?
3: It is not our responsability to disprove your claims, but rather your responsability to prove them.
4. Personal testamonials are not proof.

What part of ‘meow’ don’t you understand?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 May 2011 05:28 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
New Member
Rank
Total Posts:  13
Joined  2011-04-04
Accipiter - 13 April 2011 04:07 AM

From your link:

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 May 2011 06:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6930
Joined  2005-10-21

Umm.. that’s not how it works.

 Signature 

1: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If it does what it says, you should have no problem with this.
2: What proof will you accept that you are wrong? You ask us to change our mind, but we cannot change yours?
3: It is not our responsability to disprove your claims, but rather your responsability to prove them.
4. Personal testamonials are not proof.

What part of ‘meow’ don’t you understand?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 May 2011 06:35 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  61098
Joined  2005-04-14
LastProphet - 11 May 2011 09:28 PM
Accipiter - 13 April 2011 04:07 AM

From your link:

 Signature 

“If any man wish to write in a clear style, let him be first clear in his thoughts.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 July 2011 11:40 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Senior Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  738
Joined  2006-12-06

Looks like it’s all the same dude

 Signature 

“I have CDO. Its like OCD, but in alphabetical order, LIKE IT SHOULD BE!!”

Profile
 
 
   
{paginate}
2 of 2
2
{/paginate}