NASA Warped our View of Space

[Duane Daman]

Kevin .. If you prefer the truth , then do some investigating on your own , outside of all those self serving nasa sites and pro Apollo discussion forums ... That way maybe you will stop swallowing every piece of moon landing fiction that nasa has shoved down your gullible throat .

[Kevin M. West]

Yep, you can't back up your argument, so you resort to name calling. Typical Duane.

[Dave Greer]

Whew , what a relief ... I thought you were going to tell me that cosmic ray radiation had been found at the beach !

I'm sorry to have to be the one to break this to you Duane, but cosmic rays ARE found "at the beach" i.e. at sea level. You might not like the fact that thousands of cosmic rays pass through your body every minute of your life, but a fact it is. The flux of these particles is attenuated by the atmosphere, but not eliminated. Something like 10% of the annual radiation dose you receive is caused by energetic cosmic particles flying right your body, damaging DNA all the way.

So, why is the mere presence of "cosmic rays" prohibitive to a trip to the moon? Certainly the particle flux is stronger in deep space than at earth sea-level, but then it's only a two-week round trip, not a life-times exposure. The particle flux is of course reduced by the spacecraft shielding - several millimetres of aluminium - and astronuats have a certain amount of protection form their suits during an EVA.

Clearly, we can't just really on "cosmic radiation is deadly in any amount" as an argument against Apollo. It's the amount, or more specfically the exposure (even MORE specifcally, the absorbed dose), that is relevant.

The real question is: what scientific evidence and data is there that supports the assumption that cosmic particle radiation is an insurpassable barrier to manned spaceflight outside the magnetosphere? I look forward to seeing some articles that back this position up with facts and data, rather than the handwaving arguments many "moon hoax" sites use.

Given that Duane has used the radiation argument as a reason why Apollo can't have happened several times on various forums, I'm sure he can lay his hands on the relevant studies very easily, if indeed these studies do exist.

Edited April 26, 2007 by Dave Greer

[Evan Burton]

The real question is: what scientific evidence and data is there that supports the assumption that cosmic particle radiation is an insurpassable barrier to manned spaceflight outside the magnetosphere? I look forward to seeing some articles that back this position up with facts and data, rather than the handwaving arguments many "moon hoax" use.

Given that Duane has used the radiation argument as a reason why Apollo can't have happened several times on various forums, I'm sure he can lay his hands on the relevant studies very easily, if indeed these studies do exist.

I'd be interested to see it, too. Some type of paper written by a person qualified in the field, and saying that Apollo could not have happened because there was too much radiation. A modern paper, since our knowledge is greater now.

Saying that radiation in deep space is dangerous is insufficient, because we have said time and time again that that point is acknowledged but the duration of the exposure is a key factor.

[Duane Daman]

What are Cosmic Rays?

In 1912, Victor Hess, an Austrian physicist discovered cosmic rays during a balloon flight. As he rose in altitude, he found that the residual level of radiation recorded on his meters at ground level ... first decreased, and then steadily increased with altitude. He declared that there was a need ...

"to have recourse to a new hypothesis; either invoking the assumption of the presence at great altitudes of unknown matter or the assumption of an extraterrestrial source of penetrating radiation."

In 1936, after 24 years of denial by the scientific community, Hess won the Nobel prize acknowledging his discovery as somewhat important. In 1999, their origin is still only theoretical, a series of best guesses.

The Earth's surface, and lifeforms like humans, are shielded from the influence of cosmic rays by the Earth's magnetic field and the magnetic field associated with the solar wind --- which flows like a river from the Sun to, around, and beyond the Earth.

Patrick M. Hurley has written that the energy of most cosmic ray particles exceed a billion electron volts. Entering the Earth's atmosphere they smash into atoms and knock out electrons and protons thereby changing the atmospheric elements by ionization. Most of these secondary radiations and particles are held in the atmosphere at various elevations by a combination of the Earth's gravitation, magnetic field, and other factors.

Cosmic rays are extremely penetrating micro-matter (atomic nuclei) which travel through space at speeds approaching that of light. These rays have far more energy (impact, destructiveness) than the alpha, beta, and gamma rays emitted by radioactive atoms, and, are that much more fatal. Cosmic rays - particles are strongly affected by magnetic fields.

There is no known technically available, economical, and lightweight portable or human designed barrier to cosmic rays. They can penetrate many feet of soil, rock, and metal. After penetrating through and interacting with a 10,000 mile protective magnetosphere of the Earth, AND, 600 miles of atmospheric molecules, cosmic rays are still powerful enough to penetrate up to 10 or 20 feet of rock or concrete or many floors of a tall building. Striking the molecules of dense physical objects often results in the destruction of those molecules and the generation of secondary particles --- which may then represent a greater density of less penetrating though dangerous radiations.

Hydrogen has been suggested as a possible barrier in a National Research Council press release, quoting Brookhaven National Laboratory Senior Biologist Richard B. Setlow --- who acknowledged the impracticality of it for humans. Galactic microwave radiation, also dangerous to terrestrial life, is also believed to interact with cosmic rays. Essentially, beyond the protection of the Earth's larger environment, humanity has no protection.

http://www.earthtym.net/spacemyth.htm#hazards

[Dave Greer]

What are Cosmic Rays?

In 1912, Victor Hess, an Austrian physicist discovered cosmic rays during a balloon flight. As he rose in altitude, he found that the residual level of radiation recorded on his meters at ground level ... first decreased, and then steadily increased with altitude. He declared that there was a need ...

"to have recourse to a new hypothesis; either invoking the assumption of the presence at great altitudes of unknown matter or the assumption of an extraterrestrial source of penetrating radiation."

In 1936, after 24 years of denial by the scientific community, Hess won the Nobel prize acknowledging his discovery as somewhat important. In 1999, their origin is still only theoretical, a series of best guesses.

The Earth's surface, and lifeforms like humans, are shielded from the influence of cosmic rays by the Earth's magnetic field and the magnetic field associated with the solar wind --- which flows like a river from the Sun to, around, and beyond the Earth.

Patrick M. Hurley has written that the energy of most cosmic ray particles exceed a billion electron volts. Entering the Earth's atmosphere they smash into atoms and knock out electrons and protons thereby changing the atmospheric elements by ionization. Most of these secondary radiations and particles are held in the atmosphere at various elevations by a combination of the Earth's gravitation, magnetic field, and other factors.

Cosmic rays are extremely penetrating micro-matter (atomic nuclei) which travel through space at speeds approaching that of light. These rays have far more energy (impact, destructiveness) than the alpha, beta, and gamma rays emitted by radioactive atoms, and, are that much more fatal. Cosmic rays - particles are strongly affected by magnetic fields.

There is no known technically available, economical, and lightweight portable or human designed barrier to cosmic rays. They can penetrate many feet of soil, rock, and metal. After penetrating through and interacting with a 10,000 mile protective magnetosphere of the Earth, AND, 600 miles of atmospheric molecules, cosmic rays are still powerful enough to penetrate up to 10 or 20 feet of rock or concrete or many floors of a tall building. Striking the molecules of dense physical objects often results in the destruction of those molecules and the generation of secondary particles --- which may then represent a greater density of less penetrating though dangerous radiations.

Hydrogen has been suggested as a possible barrier in a National Research Council press release, quoting Brookhaven National Laboratory Senior Biologist Richard B. Setlow --- who acknowledged the impracticality of it for humans. Galactic microwave radiation, also dangerous to terrestrial life, is also believed to interact with cosmic rays. Essentially, beyond the protection of the Earth's larger environment, humanity has no protection.

http://www.earthtym.net/spacemyth.htm#hazards

An interesting mish-mash of ideas, science and plenty of pseudo-science. However, the author of the site is no scientist - he used to service main-frame computers.

Nonetheless, I'll look at his claims in more detail when I have the time - his site is quite large and doesn't seem well maintained. For example, only 3 of the links to external references on the page you linked actually work - and at first glance none of them seem to support his conclusions.

It may take a while to look at this one, I certainly won't have time this weekend.

[Evan Burton]

I actually find that quite funny. The author quotes Richard Setlow about the cosmic rays. As it turns out, for another forum, I had previously e-mailed Dr Setlow regarding this:

Dear Evan,

The Committee considered all sources of radiations in Space. We concluded that Solar Particle Events (SPE) would be the major source of radiation exposures supplemented by the cosmic ray background composed of many types of particles including heavy nuclei. To the best of my knowledge, all space missions carry devices to measure the radiation doses. Astronauts should not be outside of a space craft if there were an SPE. They should be shielded inside the space craft. Hence, radiation exposures for Apollo missions would be very small. Hence, I believe that radiation exposures from Apollo missions were very small, unless astronauts stayed outside during an SPE about which they would have been informed.

You could get simple, short descriptions of what is known from 2 summaries that I wrote: (1) " The U.S National Research Council's views of the radiation hazards in space" Mutation Research (1999) 430, 169-175 and (2) " The hazards of space travel" EMBO Reports (2003) 4, 1013-1016. Radiation is only one of the hazards. Microgravity is another.

Sincerely yours,

Richard Setlow

________________________________

From: Evan Burton [mailto:xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Sent: Mon 1/1/2007 6:11 AM

To: Setlow, Richard

Cc: xxxxxxxxxxx

Subject: Radiation Hazards to Crews of Interplanetary Missions

Dear Sir,

I refer to a report which you chaired in 1996, Radiation Hazards to Crews of Interplanetary Missions.

Firstly, some quick background. I am one of the many people who, on what seems like a daily basis, try to rebut arguments put forward by people who claim that the Apollo missions were faked by NASA. I have an aviation background, not physics or biological sciences.

The above report is being discussed on a forum which (despite its name) tries to dispel the myth that Apollo was somehow faked. The link to the relevant section (a discussion on space radiation) is:

http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cg...798&page=12

To cut a long story short, could I ask two brief questions:

1. Was radiation / exposure data from Apollo considered (amongst other sources) when making the report's determinations?

2. Do the report's findings (in any way) support the proposition that radiation should have killed (or at least seriously harmed) astronauts on a typical 14-day Apollo lunar landing mission?

I would also ask permission to post your reply to the thread linked above.

Thank you for your time.

Evan Burton

xxxxxxxxxx, NSW

Australia

My bolding.

[Duane Daman]

Evan ... I don't see what you think you have proven with your post ... Today's scientists are finally admitting that the cosmic ray radiation of deep space is deadly to humans ... and so far no one at nasa has managed to come up with the proper shielding to protect their astronauts against it , either going to Mars or the moon .

Manned deep space flight is the myth here ... The reality of the manned lunar landings are the myth ... Not the fact that it was a hoax .

The entire lunar surface is hot with all kinds of radiation ... and no pristine perfect color photographs could have ever been taken in such an enviornment either ... and that's why the photos were faked ... Some even with backwards shadows , missing buggy tracks , spotlights and huge arc light reflections in the astronot's visors .

[Dave Greer]

Evan ... I don't see what you think you have proven with your post ... Today's scientists are finally admitting that the cosmic ray radiation of deep space is deadly to humans ...

Deadly at what level of exposure? For how long? Seconds? Minutes? Hours? Weeks? Months? Years? With what kind of shielding? A few mm of aluminium? A couple of inches of polyethylene? Water? How about six feet of lead? Will exposure at a certain level cause radiation sickness? Or lead to death? Or will it lead to an increased chance of cancer in later years? These are the extremely pertinent questions you handwave away with an all encompassing "cosmic radiation is deadly, therefore men did not go to the moon".

and so far no one at nasa has managed to come up with the proper shielding to protect their astronauts against it , either going to Mars or the moon .

Define "proper shielding". No amount of shielding can eliminate all radiation - even the earth's atmosphere doesn't block out all cosmic rays, yet we don't see entire populations dropping down dead from radiation poisoning. So what level of shielding is appropriate for a 2 week trip to the moon and back? Or for a six month stay on the ISS? Or for a six month stay on a manned lunar base? Or for a 2 year round trip to Mars? Or for a generation ship to Arcturus? Do you think each of these scenarios needs the same solution to the radiation problem?

Manned deep space flight is the myth here ... The reality of the manned lunar landings are the myth ... Not the fact that it was a hoax .

Hey, it's the internet - you can believe what you like, even if it's based on little more than quicksand arguments and a bottle or two of snake-oil reasoning.

[Duane Daman]

And you can believe anything you want to also ... You're right Dave .. the internet IS filled with all sorts of quicksand arguments and bogus information .... Most of it coming from nasa 's own self serving web sites .... So if you're looking for snake oil salesmen , you are sure to find plenty of them still defending the lost Apollo cause .

You don't have to believe any of the hoax evidence , because today's scientists are already questioning how the manned trips to the moon could have ever been technically feasable ... They are studying the old Apollo LM's and equipment , to see just exactly how they were designed to fly to, then soft land on the lunar surface , and then launch without the help of a ground crew , almost 40 years ago, with the computing power of a cheap wristwatch !

Sceintists today also realize that manned space flight is a technical imposibility for many reasons , the lack of proper radiation shielding being only one of the problems ... So it shouldn't be too much longer until all of them will figure out that no men have ever gone to the moon and lived to tell about it .. and that the Apollo Program was nothing more than a COLD WAR , SPACE RACE BLUFF and POLITICAL PUBLICITY STUNT !

Edited May 1, 2007 by Duane Daman

[Dave Greer]

And you can believe anything you want to also ... You're right Dave .. the internet IS filled with all sorts of quicksand arguments and bogus information .... Most of it coming from nasa 's own self serving web sites .... So if you're looking for snake oil salesmen , you are sure to find plenty of them still defending the lost Apollo cause .

You don't have to believe any of the hoax evidence , because today's scientists are already questioning how the manned trips to the moon could have ever been technically feasable ... They are studying the old Apollo LM's and equipment , to see just exactly how they were designed to fly to, then soft land on the lunar surface , and then launch without the help of a ground crew , almost 40 years ago, with the computing power of a cheap wristwatch !

Actually they're looking to see what lessons they can learn from the Apollo programme and take into the Orion/Constellation programme. No need to completely re-invent the wheel, but having an understanding of what problems Apollo engineers faced and why they made the design decisions they did will stand them in good stead. It's part of what's called good engineering practice.

Sceintists today also realize that manned space flight is a technical imposibility for many reasons , the lack of proper radiation shielding being only one of the problems ... So it shouldn't be too much longer until all of them will figure out that no men have ever gone to the moon and lived to tell about it .. and that the Apollo Program was nothing more than a COLD WAR , SPACE RACE BLUFF and POLITICAL PUBLICITY STUNT !

Which scientists are these?

[Duane Daman]

NASA's scientists .... and actually they're looking to see just exactly how did that antiquated Apollo equipment fly to and land men on the lunar surface , when no one can figure how that can even be done today !

You really need to read more of space.com insteady of nasa's Apollo fairy tale sites Dave ... Then you will be more informed as to what a quandry today's rocket scientists are really involved in at the present time .

You see, the closer they all look at technical Apollo evidence , or perhaps I should say the closer they all look at the LACK of Apollo technical evidence , the more obvious it becomes that the official version of the Apollo Program never really happened .

[Dave Greer]

OK - I asked you which scientists "realize that manned space flight is a technical impossibility". Your reply:-

NASA's scientists .... and actually they're looking to see just exactly how did that antiquated Apollo equipment fly to and land men on the lunar surface , when no one can figure how that can even be done today !

So you are now claiming that NASA scientists are the ones who realize that manned space flight is a technical impossibility? Hang on - if NASA scientists are claiming this, who keeps perpetuating what you perceive to be a myth, i.e. the Apollo missions? You didn't think that one through very well. Let's add it to the ever expanding list of "Duane-isms".

You really need to read more of space.com insteady of nasa's Apollo fairy tale sites Dave ...

Duane, remind me never to go hunting with you. I wouldn't feel safe from an accidental shooting even with you hog-tied in the boot (that's the trunk for our US brethren...)

What do I see when I look at space.com? The very first article is discussing morbid practicalities of a manned mission to Mars! Your quote is like me saying "You really should listen to Percy rather than Sibrel". Gimme a break! Do you even bother reading the links you reference?

You see, the closer they all look at technical Apollo evidence , or perhaps I should say the closer they all look at the LACK of Apollo technical evidence , the more obvious it becomes that the official version of the Apollo Program never really happened .

Please supply a quote from a NASA scientist or engineer who agrees with your baloney comment.

[Peter McKenna]

NASA's scientists .... and actually they're looking to see just exactly how did that antiquated Apollo equipment fly to and land men on the lunar surface , when no one can figure how that can even be done today !

You really need to read more of space.com insteady of nasa's Apollo fairy tale sites Dave ... Then you will be more informed as to what a quandry today's rocket scientists are really involved in at the present time .

You see, the closer they all look at technical Apollo evidence , or perhaps I should say the closer they all look at the LACK of Apollo technical evidence , the more obvious it becomes that the official version of the Apollo Program never really happened .

Obviously your understanding of cosmic rays and radiation on the moon is somewhat lacking. Cosmic rays are of the highest order energy levels of naturally occurring radiation encountered. Its radiation not particles, not the stuff of the Van Allen belts. Cosmic Rays are not shielded by Earth's atmoshere (to any significant degree) and is measured at high altitudes using water tanks (a group of physicists from the US are running an experiment in South America right now trying to quantify Cosmic Ray radiation levels amoung other things. Cosmic Rays are intemittent, limited in area and not particularly harmful (no more so than here on earth).

What makes the surface of the moon so full of radiation? Are you confusing radiation and contamination? The moon is not radioactive as your post states, but if some sort of radiation is emmitted in space, the surface of the moon may be subjected to this same radiation, to the same exposure, but it is not literally radioactive. Where does this theory come from?

Deep space radiation (other than cosmic rays) can include emmisions of high energy particles (from the sun, i.e. solar activity such as solar flares, I believe). Some of these particles can be of high orders of energy, but are again, intemittent, and typically not a problem, also astronauts should be able to be provided some advanced warning to allow them to get back in the capsule, and to relative safety (as the particles are shielded by low-Z elements, not lead, as had been pointed out by Kevin and Dave, et al in previous posts, and these are heavy particles, which are stopped by less dense materials) if a transient occurs. This info is available on multiple space exploration sites.

Although I don't want to suppress anyones free speech, students read these posts and the author should do a little futher research on radiation in space from bona fide scientific sites and not the fly by nigght conspiracy central sites pushing half baked ideas and invalid statements. FWIW.

[Duane Daman]

Peter ... With all due respect , you don't have a clue what you're talking about ... My information doesn't come from fly by night conspiracy central sites .. only some of it does ! .. LOL

Here is your question ;

"What makes the surface of the moon so full of radiation? Are you confusing radiation and contamination? The moon is not radioactive as your post states, but if some sort of radiation is emmitted in space, the surface of the moon may be subjected to this same radiation, to the same exposure, but it is not literally radioactive. Where does this theory come from?"

And here is my answer ;

I read mostly scientific sites , and the lunar surface is completely radioactive ... I know how everyone likes to object to my copying articles , but when I write something on my own , some of the members here choose not to believe what I write ... So here's where I got my information about the amount of radiation on the moon .

RADIOACTIVE MOON

"How much radiation awaits lunar colonists? A new NASA mission aims to find out.

September 8, 2005: On the Moon, many of the things that can kill you are invisible: breathtaking vacuum, extreme temperatures and space radiation top the list.

Vacuum and temperature NASA can handle; spacesuits and habitats provide plenty of air and insulation. Radiation, though, is trickier.

The surface of the Moon is baldly exposed to cosmic rays and solar flares, and some of that radiation is very hard to stop with shielding. Furthermore, when cosmic rays hit the ground, they produce a dangerous spray of secondary particles right at your feet. All this radiation penetrating human flesh can damage DNA, boosting the risk of cancer and other maladies.

Above: The surface of the Moon is exposed to space radiation.

According to the Vision for Space Exploration, NASA plans to send astronauts back to the Moon by 2020 and, eventually, to set up an outpost. For people to live and work on the Moon safely, the radiation problem must be solved.

"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.

To carefully measure and map the Moon's radiation environment, NASA is developing a robotic probe to orbit the Moon beginning in 2008. Called the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO), this scout will pave the way for future human missions not only by measuring space radiation, but also by hunting for frozen water and mapping the Moon's surface in unprecedented detail. LRO is a key part of NASA's Robotic Lunar Exploration Program, managed by the Goddard Space Flight Center.

One of the instruments onboard LRO is the Cosmic Ray Telescope for the Effects of Radiation (CRaTER).

"Not only will we measure the radiation, we will use plastics that mimic human tissue to look at how these highly energetic particles penetrate and interact with the human body," says Spence, who is the Principal Investigator for CRaTER.

By placing the radiation detectors in CRaTER behind various thicknesses of a special plastic that has similar density and composition to human tissue, Spence and his colleagues will provide much-needed data: Except for quick trips to the Moon during the Apollo program, most human spaceflight has occurred near Earth where our planet's magnetic field provides a natural shield. In low-Earth orbit, the most dangerous forms of space radiation are relatively rare. That's good for astronauts, but it leaves researchers with many unanswered questions about what radiation does to human tissue. CRaTER will help fill in the gaps.

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!

So which is worse for astronauts: cosmic rays from above or neutrons from below? Igor Mitrofanov, a scientist at the Institute for Space Research and the Russian Federal Space Agency, Moscow, offers a grim answer: "Both are worse."

Mitrofanov is Principle Investigator for the other radiation-sensing instrument on LRO, the Lunar Exploration Neutron Detector (LEND), which is partially funded by the Russian Federal Space Agency. By using an isotope of helium that's missing one neutron, LEND will be able to detect neutron radiation emanating from the lunar surface and measure how energetic those neutrons are.

Right: The distribution of ground-level neutron radiation around the Moon's south pole. "Hot spots" are red; cool spots, blue. Credit: Lunar Prospector. [More]

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. "

This damaging evidence against the reality of the Apollo manned missions came from a NASA site !!! .. How about that ?!?!

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/08...oactivemoon.htm

Edited May 4, 2007 by Duane Daman