Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
The Hoax Theory / Re: Radiation
« Last post by jfb on March 21, 2018, 06:54:55 PM »
So, wait...

Is the claim that the radiation levels for the Apollo missions that were posted on the first page are unrealistically low?  That they should be much higher than that?  Is it possible that, like the Mars data, he's confusing units (milli- vs. micro-)?

Another thing to remember is that absorbed dose (rad or gray) is not the same as effective dose (rem or sievert):

Radiation typeAbsorbed dose (mGy)Effective dose (mSv)


The alpha effective dose is significantly higher than anything else, but it's only really dangerous if you inhale or ingest an alpha emitter like polonium.  Most alpha particles are slow and heavy and can be blocked by little more than a sheet of paper. 

The average American's effective radiation dosage from both natural and artificial sources of background radiation is on the order of 6 mSv/year (source), or about .016 mSv/day.  Given that 1 mGy translates to at least 1 mSv, then yeah, the Apollo astronauts absorbed at least one order of magnitude more radiation than someone standing at sea level per day for the durations of those missions.  The Apollo 14 astronauts absorbed considerably more than that.

Was it a big deal? 

Here's a chart of radiation amounts and effects in Sieverts.

The annual maximum dose for radiation workers is 50 mSv.  100 mSv is the lowest one-year dose clearly linked to increased cancer risk.  400 mSv is the dose where symptoms of radiation poisoning appear. 

Assuming the worst possible case scenario where the Apollo 14 astronauts were exclusively exposed to alpha radiation inside their bodies, they absorbed an effective dose of 228 mSv.  Significantly increased risk of cancer, but short of the dose necessary for acute radiation poisoning. 

Assuming a more reasonable scenario of mostly beta and gamma radiation, you're looking at 11.4 mSv on top of their annual background dosage (which, being pilots, would be a couple of mSv higher than the rest of us), which is well below the max annual dosage for a radiation worker. 

For the remaining missions, you're looking at an additional couple of mSv on top of the annual background dosage.  You're looking at a small increase in cancer risk. 
The Hoax Theory / Re: Radiation
« Last post by benparry on March 21, 2018, 05:19:08 PM »
lol thanks Jason. it never amazes me how simple the answer always is
The Hoax Theory / Re: Radiation
« Last post by Jason Thompson on March 21, 2018, 05:12:10 PM »
I see a nice graph there showing RAD levels in uGy/day which seem to be hovering between 300-600uGy/day. That's not actually 'much higher' than any of the doses listed on the Apollo data, which are given in mGy/day and range from 0.12-1.27mGy/day. Units are critical. Since 1mGy/day = 1000uGy/day, the Apollo data range from 120-1270uGy/day, so the Mars data sit comfortably in the middle of that range.
The Hoax Theory / Re: Radiation
« Last post by benparry on March 21, 2018, 04:30:18 PM »
just while tim's account is activated he has posed a question. with the Mars rover mission he states that the radiation equipment measured the radiation that man would have been exposed to daily. he states that this is much higher than the Apollo missions showing that radiation levels in space are higher than we are being told. he uses this link as evidence.
Clavius Moon Base / Re: Clavius: missing photos
« Last post by JayUtah on March 21, 2018, 09:51:37 AM »
Indeed, when was the last time you saw an image in TARGA format?  This plagues engineering greatly too.  Back in the 90s there was a big push to do everything with CAD/CAE/CAM.  But no one product had staying power, and there were few, if any, common digital formats for design data.  So even after some firm upgraded to a new system, instances of old computer systems had to be kept and maintained in order to access the old stored designs.  Even at the time the space shuttles were retired, there was no definitive external record of any of the orbiters.  Each contractor and subcontractor had its own digital record in its own format  It remained the case that if you really needed to confirm exactly how something was built on the orbiter, you had to go and physically inspect the orbiter.
Tech Support / Re: Two New Users
« Last post by LunarOrbit on March 20, 2018, 07:56:30 PM »
Guy called William Wagner is trying to get on :)
Thanks for the heads up. I've approved his account.
The Hoax Theory / Re: Radiation
« Last post by benparry on March 20, 2018, 04:24:47 PM »
I've been having a chat with him on FB but it would be interesting to hear your guys views. does it generally take a long time to approve new accounts
The Hoax Theory / Re: Radiation
« Last post by bknight on March 20, 2018, 03:40:39 PM »
ah ok cool thanks Jay. Tim informs me he has created an account so hopefully he can throw his two penneth in soon.

It should be interesting whether or not he accepts the valid understanding of the radiation he speaks or just hand waves it away, because it doesn't look right to him.
Tech Support / Re: Two New Users
« Last post by Bryanpoprobson on March 20, 2018, 01:47:09 PM »
Guy called William Wagner is trying to get on :)
The Reality of Apollo / Re: Digitizing NASA data tapes
« Last post by apollo16uvc on March 20, 2018, 12:32:25 PM »
We are currently brainstorming on the best way to digitize 1179. When processing the BCDIC data to ASCII we get mostly garbage and the occasional readable string.

The best way might be to read it without any retries and try and make something out of it, this may requirements a firmware hack of the drive. The .TAP format does support forward and backwards retries but it reads the same errors each time.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10