NASA Warped our View of Space

[Evan Burton]

*sigh*

Perhaps you need to brush up on your reading comprehension. A far better idea would be to print out the article, seek out an expert in the field at your local university, and ask them to discuss with you the ramifications of what is said with regard to Apollo.

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.

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.

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. "

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

(my bolding)

They have used a bad phrase in there with the "the Moon itself is radioactive!" as it conveys the wrong impression.

The effect they are talking about sounds like Bremsstrahlung. Thus if it is, the effect is a secondary radiation. The Moon itself is not radioactive per se.

The article is referring to finding out radiation levels in deep space (normally from 2 x 10^6 km and further from the Earth), which will be necessary for a manned Mars mission, and finding out in more detail the measures needed to protect astronauts for long term lunar stays (i.e. a colony or outpost).

I and many others have said this time and time again - it is the increased duration of future lunar missions that requires increased protection from radiation.

Come on Duane - send some e-mails out to experts in this discipline, and ask them if it was impossible for the Apollo astronauts to have survived their exposures.

May I suggest starting with Richard Setlow? If you have a look at some of his articles, you'll get other names to try. Don't limit yourself to US scientists; contact people in Europe, Asia, etc.

[Duane Daman]

*sigh* is right .

This article has nothing to do with my needing to " brush up on my reading comprehension "... I thought we were supossed to stop with the insults on this forum ... As a moderator you should be enforcing this rule , not breaking it ..

I understood the article just fine ... This NASA scientist wrote an article which just blew the entire Apollo myth of manned lunar landings apart ( whether he realized it or not ) ... If you read the article again , you will realize that any astronaut attempting to stroll around on the radioactive lunar surface, with the lack of protection the Apollo crews had , would have sizzled like a coackroach in a hot frying pan .

For someone who has always endorsed NASA sites , have you now changed your mind because this space scientist doesn't agree your opinion on this ?

And now instead of believing what this renowned NASA scientist has to say about the dangerous levels of radiation on the moon , you now want me to ignore his evidence and refer to some scientists in Europe ?

How ludicrous .

[Kevin M. West]

*sigh* is right .

This article has nothing to do with my needing to " brush up on my reading comprehension "... I thought we were supossed to stop with the insults on this forum ... As a moderator you should be enforcing this rule , not breaking it ..

I understood the article just fine ... This NASA scientist wrote an article which just blew the entire Apollo myth of manned lunar landings apart ( whether he realized it or not ) ... If you read the article again , you will realize that any astronaut attempting to stroll around on the radioactive lunar surface, with the lack of protection the Apollo crews had , would have sizzled like a coackroach in a hot frying pan .

I must have missed that part in the article, could you quote that specific part again?

For someone who has always endorsed NASA sites , have you now changed your mind because this space scientist doesn't agree your opinion on this ?

And now instead of believing what this renowned NASA scientist has to say about the dangerous levels of radiation on the moon , you now want me to ignore his evidence and refer to some scientists in Europe ?

How ludicrous .

No, we believe what the article says (well, I do, and I'm assuming others who disagree with you do), the problem is that you don't understand what you're reading. It doesn't support your position. To make an analogy you probably won't understand, it's like you heard the term 'oxygen toxicity' and decided that breathing is a hoax, because oxygen can be deadly, without taking the time to learn that the amount and exposure time are important factors (as the type, amount, and exposure time are important factors with radiation).

I don't know if your ego is too big to admit that you don't know something, or you're in denial about not knowing it, or you're just messing with us, but for some reason you refuse to take the time to learn about the subject you keep cutting & pasting articles about.

[Evan Burton]

*sigh* is right .

This article has nothing to do with my needing to " brush up on my reading comprehension "... I thought we were supossed to stop with the insults on this forum ... As a moderator you should be enforcing this rule , not breaking it ..

I understood the article just fine ... This NASA scientist wrote an article which just blew the entire Apollo myth of manned lunar landings apart ( whether he realized it or not ) ... If you read the article again , you will realize that any astronaut attempting to stroll around on the radioactive lunar surface, with the lack of protection the Apollo crews had , would have sizzled like a coackroach in a hot frying pan .

For someone who has always endorsed NASA sites , have you now changed your mind because this space scientist doesn't agree your opinion on this ?

And now instead of believing what this renowned NASA scientist has to say about the dangerous levels of radiation on the moon , you now want me to ignore his evidence and refer to some scientists in Europe ?

How ludicrous .

Yes, you should brush up on your reading comprehension because you seem to be reading things that aren't there!

I re-read the article and nowhere can I find them saying "...that any astronaut attempting to stroll around on the radioactive lunar surface, with the lack of protection the Apollo crews had , would have sizzled like a coackroach in a hot frying pan..."

I am not in any way disagreeing with the article; I said it used a bad phrase because it conveys the wrong impression.

How about you try to contact the scientist mentioned in the article, Harlan Spence, and ask him direct questions relating to Apollo?

[Dave Greer]

*sigh* is right .

This article has nothing to do with my needing to " brush up on my reading comprehension "... I thought we were supossed to stop with the insults on this forum ... As a moderator you should be enforcing this rule , not breaking it ..

I understood the article just fine ... This NASA scientist wrote an article which just blew the entire Apollo myth of manned lunar landings apart ( whether he realized it or not ) ... If you read the article again , you will realize that any astronaut attempting to stroll around on the radioactive lunar surface, with the lack of protection the Apollo crews had , would have sizzled like a coackroach in a hot frying pan .

For someone who has always endorsed NASA sites , have you now changed your mind because this space scientist doesn't agree your opinion on this ?

And now instead of believing what this renowned NASA scientist has to say about the dangerous levels of radiation on the moon , you now want me to ignore his evidence and refer to some scientists in Europe ?

How ludicrous .

EDIT - Moderated my own post.

Edited May 5, 2007 by Dave Greer

[Duane Daman]

This article made these claims ...

"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 ."

Thus ... Cockroach , sizzle , frying pan ... That was an analogy, not a direct quote from the article .... So go brush up on your comprehension skills Matt and Evan ...

As for Dave , it's too bad you don't moderate all of your posts ... Especially since so little of what you post is the truth .

[Dave Greer]

This article made these claims ...

"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 ."

Thus ... Cockroach , sizzle , frying pan ... That was an analogy, not a direct quote from the article .... So go brush up on your comprehension skills Matt and Evan ...

As for Dave , it's too bad you don't moderate all of your posts ... Especially since so little of what you post is the truth .

Didn't Brehmstrahlung radiation on the moon get discussed in another thread? OK I'll bite again. Duane - can you point us in the direction of a scientific, technical document that shows how much Brehmstrahlung radiation is present on the moon, and why it means that astronauts can't land there? Preferably something that doesn't use a handwaving argument involving cockroaches.

PS I'm forced to moderate my own posts because your inane meanderings sometimes bring out the worst in me.

[Peter McKenna]

This article made these claims ...

"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 ."

Thus ... Cockroach , sizzle , frying pan ... That was an analogy, not a direct quote from the article .... So go brush up on your comprehension skills Matt and Evan ...

As for Dave , it's too bad you don't moderate all of your posts ... Especially since so little of what you post is the truth .

Duane,

Hopefully you are able to benefit form this;

The CERN Laboratory has been doing considerable work in attempting to understand UHECR or Ultra High Energy Cosmic Radiation . This is the energy for that could produce what is termed Hadron upwards showers. A Hadron is a large nuclear particle that typically forms part of an atomic nucleus, such as protons or neutrons. I believe that this is the effect that was referred to in the article you pasted in. Since UHECRs occur on the frequency of only a very few per square kilometer per century, the probability of an astronaut being affected by one is incredibly slight.

http://cerncourier.com/main/article/47/3/27

Now, identifying the lunar surface as "radioactive" is entirely a misnomer. Since UHECR may strike humans on earth with far more likelyhood than an astronaut on the moon, would that human suddenly becaome radioactive, because he emitted a proton or neutron? No. For something to be radioactive it must, by universally accepted definitions, by composed of material which exhibits "radioactive activity". That is, material composed of unstable isotopes which decay, while emitting photons (electromagnetic radiation), and particles, such as gamma rays, xrays, protons (Alpha particles), electrons (beta particles), neutrinos, and the occasional neutron. The moon may contain some naturally occurring radioisotopes, but no probably no more so than the earth. UHECR's while can be attenuated by the earth's atmoshere, are not absorbed (not significantly) by the earth's atmoshere, so people on earth can be struck by the UHECR almost as likely as an astronaut on the moon.

Jim Mattehws from LSU has been conducting experiments on Earth to collect these rare collision for study, but it is very difficult and takes tremendous patience.

The terming of the moon as "Radioactive" is a misnomer. I don't care who said it.

Solar flares are a different story, and could pose a hazard, but the vehicles they inhabit provides adequate shelter, and ample warning can be provided if they are near to their vehicle. More concern would exist if much longer stay times in space were an issue, or a larger population were on the moon, without nearby shelter, and it is likely (IMO) that new studies are examining a scenario where astronauts (and other moon or mars habitants) may not have easy acess to shelter.

What Cosmic Rays are caused by, exactly, remains a mystery. They result in compton effect and scattering, neutrino streams, and a host of subatomic particle interactions due to the incredibly high energies they possess. They can cause (as a secondary ot tertiary effect) hadron upwards showers, but they are relatively rare and not a concern for the average person or astronaut.

Would it surprise you to learn that there is a great liklyhood that you have emmitted a neutron (or several) during your life? Or absorbed some? I know I have. Typically neutrons are moving at such high speeds & at such high energies that they can pass right through a person without causing damage (although the water in a human can "Thermalize" or slow down a neutron, where it could strike and be absorbed by another nucleus, it is not likely).

However, due to the rarity of High Energy Cosmic rays striking any particular location, the concern is very minimal.

I suggest reading up on Jim Matthews work and The CERN Laboratory work, to name a couple. NASA are not experts in high energy physics, although I would guess they have a few physicists specializing in this field on staff, the JPL group wouldn't be the best source for this info ( and I believe the article you referenced came form the NASA JPL lab).

Good luck in you research

Edited May 8, 2007 by Peter McKenna

[Dave Greer]

The cosmic rays in low earth orbit , though dangerous to some degree , do not represent the dangerous health hazzards to astronauts that they do in deep space ...

"The hazards of space travel

The ultimate vacation, a trip into deep space, is fraught with danger, primarily from energetic particles. Even in the comparative safety of low-Earth orbits, beneath the protection of Earth’s magnetic field, astronauts have reported flashing lights inside their eyes. Energetic protons, perhaps trapped in the Van Allen radiation belts, pass through the satellite walls and the astronaut’s eyelids, striking their retinas and making their eyeballs glow inside.

Once outside the Earth’s magnetosphere, astronauts are exposed to the full blast of the ever-flowing solar wind. They could then suffer serious consequences from solar energetic particles even within their spacecraft, resulting in cataracts, skin cancer or even lethal radiation poisoning."

http://ase.tufts.edu/cosmos/print_chapter.asp?id=34

Apollo sounds more like a fantasy all the time , doesn't it Matt ?

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 .

Duane - you do realise that the quote you are using above is from a NASA funded site? Are you saying you agree with NASA's position on space weather?

[Duane Daman]

I agree with any of nasa's positions which provide evidence that the Apollo Program was a hoax .

[Dave Greer]

I agree with any of nasa's positions which provide evidence that the Apollo Program was a hoax .

That is one of the funniest and most self-serving statements I've heard in a long month of Sundays!

[Duane Daman]

And that has to be one of the most non funny and lame rebuttals coming from you yet .

If I sound "self serving" then I must be hanging around too many of nasa's self serving sites and BS pro Apollo forums .

I guess I better get back to the conspiracy sites then , where at least I can read the truth about how and why nasa faked the moon landings.

Edited May 14, 2007 by Duane Daman

[Dave Greer]

And that has to be one of the most non funny and lame rebuttals coming from you yet .

If I sound "self serving" then I must be hanging around too many of nasa's self serving sites and BS pro Apollo forums .

I guess I better get back to the conspiracy sites then , where at least I can read the truth about how and why nasa faked the moon landings.

I think the irony in your statement must have been lost on you.

If you feel happy in your "comfort zone" on conspiracy sites then knock yourself out. I prefer to look at the issue from both sides, by examining pro-Apollo and pro-hoax evidence, on a variety of sites and from a variety of sources. The pro-Apollo evidence wins hands down every single time. Pro-hoax evidence seems to be built on rank bad science, hand-waving and conjecture that on a superficial level could fool the casual observer. When put under scrutiny, do any pro-hoax claims have merit enough to dis-prove Apollo? None I've seen.

[Duane Daman]

If you haven't seen any hoax evidence that's convincing , it only means that you are either blind or haven't looked at the evidence with an open mind .

The Apollo myth is unraveling right in front of everyone's eyes .... At least those who aren't too afraid to look at the truth of it ..

You spend way too much time hanging out with your back slapping buddies , on misleading forums like clavius and Bad Astronomy , to understand this ...The guys who run those sites only have one weapon left in their arsenal , and that would be character assassination of those who are busy exposing the Apollo fraud .

I was only kidding when I said I would return to the conspiracy sites ... but then subtle humor always did seem to go right over your thick skull .

In fact , I have discovered in researching Apollo , that the best proof of it being faked was supplied by nasa themselves .... I just got finished watching a couple of nasa's new DVD collections ..... 'The Apollo Collection ' and 'Men on the Moon' ... and after watching this nasa footage of the alleged moon landings , I am even more convinced than ever , that the entire Apollo Program was a total scam ..

I compared the real space missions , such as John Glen's Friendship 7 flight in LEO , to the bogus and embarrassing footage of the Apollo missions , with their faked still photography ... and the difference was astounding !

One thing I noticed right away was that the audio transmissions between Glen and mission control were filled with static and also a delay ... Two things which were completely missing from all of the Apollo voice transmissions ... And as Glen orbited the Earth , many different tracking stations located around the world , picked up his voice as others were losing it , as it faded out of range .... I don't remember this being the case with Apollo as they orbited the Earth and then allegedy went into a trans lunar trajectory ..

Apollo 1 couldn't even get their radios to work correctly between two buildings , yet we are suppossed to believe that Houston was able to communicate with an Apollo space craft , 240,000 miles out into the cosmic radiation of deep space , on the radioactive lunar surface , with NO DELAYS , NO STATIC , NO INTERFERENCE and CRYSTAL CLEAR , INSTANTANEOUS REPLIES every time they talked !?!? .... Right .... But you want everyone to believe this is just hand waving and conjecture.

If you ask me , it looks like the pro Apollo evidence is based on rank bad science .

[Duane Daman]

bump