Radiation

[JayUtah]

In closing I will say that if we could shield GCR's then the biggest obstacle to interplanetary travel would be removed.

Agreed, with the proviso that we can shield against GCR, just not in a way that doesn't require unacceptable tradeoffs in the other aspects of spacecraft design.  It's the tradeoffs that you need to consider.  A lot of otherwise smart people make the mistake of comparing Apollo to prospects for interplanetary and interstellar travel, wrongly believing the problems of one are the problems of the other.

It is the radiation exposure over the six month trip  that presents the greatest obstacle.

Agreed.  But then what about missions of 10-12 days?

[LunarOrbit]

We all know that 9/11 was an inside job but does anyone really want to prove it?

[JayUtah]

Shielding of SPEs is well understood scientifically...

You're quoting research aimed at long-term spaceflight, such as for a Mars mission.  Radiation management is a whole-mission approach.  Shielding is part of it, but only a small part.  Telling me that Apollo had no GCR-specific radiation shielding is akin to telling me that my fruit salad has no eggs in it.

[smartcooky]

I think timfinch is missing a couple of really important points about the radiation issues.

Firstly, space radiation (GCR, SPE and the trapped radiation of the VAB etc) is NOT the same as the nuclear radiation (from fission) that he is used to dealing with. He has this lay "OMG Radiation" idea that critics of cellphones (RF radiation) and microwave ovens (microwave radiation) whip up into a frenzy about.

Secondly, he fails to understand that space radiation is in the form of a spectrum of radiation energies. At the low, less dangerous end are low energy particles and at the other end are high energy dangerous particles. However, the bombardment of radiation across the energy spectrum is not evenly distributed all the way from low energy to high energy. Low energy particles are far less dangerous to humans and are far more frequent. Conversely, high energy particles are far more inimical but are far less frequent. The whole thinking behind using spacecraft materials as shielding is that it is a compromise. It will shield against the vast majority of particles; those that represent the lower level danger to biology. The high energy particles, while they represent a greater danger to biology, are hugely less frequent (the higher the energy, the less frequent).

Shielding against really high energy particles is simply not yet feasible, since it would require heavier shielding, and therefore more weight, and therefore eating into payload. There is also the issue of secondary radiation (Bremstrahlung?) which means that heavier shielding causes almost as many problems at it solves.

The Apollo missions were short, so exposure to the higher energy end of the spectrum was limited. GCR and SPE will become more problematic on longer missions such as to Mars or the asteroids.

[Count Zero]

Early on, it was suggested that cosmic rays could penetrate the Apollo spacecraft. From “Biomedical Results of Apollo” section IV, chapter 2, Apollo Light Flash Investigations we have the following account:

Crewmembers of the Apollo 11 mission were the first astronauts to describe an unusual visual phenomenon associated with space flight. During transearth coast, both the Commander and the Lunar Module Pilot reported seeing faint spots or flashes of light when the cabin was dark and they had become dark-adapted. It is believed that these light flashes result from high energy, heavy cosmic rays penetrating the Command Module structure and the crew members’ eyes. These particles are thought to be capable of producing, visual sensations through interaction with the retina, either by direct deposition of ionization energy in the retina or through creation of visible light via the Cerenkov effect.

When Galactic Cosmic Rays collide with another atom, such as those contained in the Aluminum, Stainless Steel or Titanium structures of a spacecraft, they can create a shower of secondary particles, These secondary particles cause radiation damage in living organisms (humans).

This quote does indeed indicate that cosmic rays could penetrate the Apollo capsule.  Notice that the observations in the quote were made during trans-Earth coast; that is when the spacecraft was returning from the Moon to the Earth.  Thus to substantiate your contention that Apollo could be penetrated by GCRs (which no one here disputes), you have provided evidence that men did, in fact, travel to the Moon and back aboard Apollo.

In nearly two decades of interacting with people who want to believe (for some reason) that the Apollo landings were faked, I have observed in them one consistent type of argument that all of them use, which can be summarized thus:

"I do not understand (X), therefore (X) is fake, therefore Apollo is fake."

Or, to put it another way:

"(X) does not match my expectations, therefore (X) is fake, therefore Apollo is fake."

Somehow, to these people, the possibility that their understanding may be incomplete, or that their expectations could be wrong seems nowhere near as likely as a world-wide conspiracy involving countless physicists, engineers, geologists, radio operators, and builders and operators of satellites in dozens of countries.

Let's look at your contention(s):

Let me start off by saying that I don't necessarily believe it is impossible to travel to the moon.  I believe that current technology has not advanced to the point that it can be done safely.  I believe sixties technology was wholly incapable.  I believe the Apollo missions to the moon if they occurred at all were unmanned.  I believe the truth of the deception can be deduced from the space mission data conducted this century.

and

If the data obtained by the MSL/RAD transit to Mars is to believed then it can be ascertained that cislunar space has a background GCR radiation level of approximately .45 mgy/day.  That would imply that irrespective of VAB transit all apollo missions would have as a base line a corresponding dose level.  of the nine apollo lunar missions only 5 had such a level.  If you add the anticipated VAB transit exposures then only Apollo 14 have a high enough exposure to have actually traveled through the VAB and cislunar space.  It is interesting to note that all of exposure levels of the lunar flights correspond closely to LEO missions.

and

The exposure levels of the Apollo missions do not correspond to current data expectations.

To summarize:

"I do not understand why the Apollo radiation measurements are so low (i.e. comparable to measurements in LEO), therefore the Apollo radiation measurements were actually made in LEO, therefore Apollo is fake."

Or, to put it another way:

"The Apollo radiation measurements do not match my expectations for a lunar mission, therefore they were not made during a lunar missions, therefore Apollo is fake."

Have I got that right?

Why is fraud your go-to explanation?
Is it impossible that your understanding of the GCR flux vs. energy levels could be wrong?
Is it impossible that your understanding of Apollo shielding versus the relevant flux and energy levels could be wrong?
Is it impossible that the designed differences between the manned Apollo spacecraft and the unmanned MSL may have been so great as to render invalid 1-1 comparisons between radiation measurements?
Is it impossible that differences between the instruments used to measure radiation on spacecraft built 40 years apart may be so great as to render invalid 1-1 comparisons between measurements?
Is it impossible that the Apollo dosimeters were not designed correctly to measure GCRs in cislunar space, thus leading to the false low readings (after all, Jack Swigert died of bone cancer and Alan Shepard died of leukemia).
Is it impossible that there is anything I haven't mentioned or you have overlooked to explain this discrepancy that you think you have discovered?

Why is the global conspiracy more attractive to you than any of these possibilities?

[Ranb]

It seems that the principle of time-distance-shielding was lost on timfinch when this was taught to us Sailors in nuke school and prototype.

timfinch, were you stationed on the USS Tunny?

[BertieSlack]

If you have Information contrary to the information I have provided I would love to see it.

As i have already pointed out, the Soviets had data - prior to Apollo 8 - that the radiation environment for manned lunar missions was not prohibitive. Those results were published. Chandrayaan-1 also returned published radiation data in 2008/09. You claimed that the radiation data was either inaccurate or faked. But you failed to answer my subsequent questions.

So which is it? Inaccurate or faked?
Did Zonds 5 & 7 go to the Moon or not?
Did ISRO's Chandrayaan-1 go to the Moon in 2008?

[onebigmonkey]

Lunar orbiter probes also carried radiation experiments, and the results from the first one can be found in this

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19690029828

Pretty much anything that has left Earth orbit has had some sort of radiation detection equipment in them, and the results have been pored over by scientists worldwide. None of them contradict Apollo's findings.

Another factor you have to consider is that if somehow the radiation data prove no-one went to the moon then you also have to come with reasonable, logically consistent and technologically possible explanations for the wealth of other data that prove they did. There is no explanation that makes sense other than they went to the moon.

[bknight]

argumentum ad populum?

You dodged my question, I'm asking whether the academia's evaluation of Apollo, not the general public is more precise and knowledgably than your opinion?

Can you truly believe that academia is interested in exposing a fraud of this magnitude.  If I had definitive proof of the deception, I would take it to my grave.  The truth cause the collapse of our government and our way of life.

You have no proof, just inadequate expertise to evaluate the radiation data.  I can see now that no amount of discussion will convince you of your inability to understand the radiation data.  You might as well say "I am right everyone else is wrong."

[bknight]

We all know that 9/11 was an inside job but does anyone really want to prove it?

Stay on target, trying to propose a new and different hoax will bury you.

[timfinch]

I am an electrician by trade and I have never designed anything other than motor controls.

And yet you feel qualified to call NASA and anyone else that has in any way supported them liars? Why?

I'm not a radiation expert. I couldn't even pretend to understand it. So I fall back on simple logic when someone claims the Van Allen radiation prevented Apollo from sending humans to the Moon.

We can all agree that NASA can not control the radiation. If they could, it wouldn't be a problem because they could just make it go away. But they also can't control every human on Earth who would have the ability to study the radiation for the rest of time. You see, this isn't something that NASA could have lied about in 1969 and then just forget it... no, they'd have to maintain and protect that lie forever, or they would eventually be exposed as liars. Can you imagine how embarrassing that would be? 

For NASA, lying about the radiation would be like me trying to convince you it was a sunny day when it was really raining. All you would have to do is look out a window to know I was lying. So why would I even bother trying if my lie could so easily be exposed? Why embarrass myself like that?

There were other countries (some hostile to the US) in the 1960s that were capable of independently studying the Van Allen Radiation. They would have known whether NASA was telling the truth and would have been more than happy to catch the United States is such a monumentally embarrassing lie. NASA would have known what the stakes were, and they would have known a lie about something like the radiation would be guaranteed to fail... maybe they could get away with it for a couple years, but come on... do you really expect me to believe they thought they could fool us forever? Why would they lie if they were guaranteed to get caught and embarrass themselves and the country?

So you can make all the claims you want about the radiation. You can claim expertise and quote a bunch of radiation numbers that you know I won't understand. But you will fail the logic test because it makes no sense for NASA to lie about things they can't hide or control.

I am not sure NASA ever lied about radiation.  I am sure they lied about sending men to the moon.  If I had been in their place I would have lied too.  Billions of dollars wasted and national pride on the line.  I would have lied my ass off.  It was one thing to tell a lie and a whole different thing to believe a lie.  I choose not to believe this one.  The king has no clothes...

[onebigmonkey]

I choose not to believe this one.

And therein lies the crux of the matter.

[Ranb]

I am not sure NASA ever lied about radiation.  I am sure they lied about sending men to the moon.  If I had been in their place I would have lied too.  Billions of dollars wasted and national pride on the line.  I would have lied my ass off.  It was one thing to tell a lie and a whole different thing to believe a lie.  I choose not to believe this one.  The king has no clothes...

You said earlier, "I believe sixties technology was wholly incapable".  By wholly you mean everything they claimed to have used to get men to the moon was not up to the task?  Things like rockets, computers/navigation and spacesuits?

[LunarOrbit]

I am not sure NASA ever lied about radiation.

Then what is the problem? Why are you arguing the matter if NASA was telling the truth?

NASA claims they studied the radiation and that it wasn't harmful enough to prevent sending humans to the Moon. If you're not saying they lied about that then I guess it's case closed?

I am sure they lied about sending men to the moon.

It doesn't matter what their reason for lying would have been, the radiation is just one example of how the logical argument I made in my previous post applies.

NASA can't control all people for the rest of time. They can't stop curious people 100 years later from going to the Moon and discovering there are no human footprints there. If there was some insurmountable obstacle in 1969 that prevented people from going to the Moon, that insurmountable obstacle would still exist 100 years later. People would realize that if they can't go to the Moon in 2069 then there's no way they could have done it in 1969. That means the hoax would be 100% guaranteed to fail eventually. Surely NASA would have realized that it would be pointless to try faking it.

It would be far less embarrassing to NASA and the United States if they had just come right out and said "Sorry everyone, we studied the possibility of sending people to the Moon but we can't do it. Here's why...".

If I had been in their place I would have lied too.

I find that is a common trait among conspiracy theorists. They believe other people are liars because they would lie when in the same situation. That says a lot more about you than I think you realize.

Billions of dollars wasted and national pride on the line.

But like I said, it would have been less embarrassing (and less expensive) to come right out and be honest about the whatever obstacles that supposedly made going to the Moon impossible. Only a dishonest person would believe trying to pull off a giant hoax that is 100% guaranteed to fail is the better alternative to telling the truth.

How would the failure of the hoax affect "national pride", by the way?

I choose not to believe this one.

That's fine. We can't force you to believe anything. All we can do is answer questions and provide facts.

[JayUtah]

If I had been in their place I would have lied too.  Billions of dollars wasted and national pride on the line.  I would have lied my ass off.

Except it requires more than just lying.  You don't seem to have considered much of what would have followed from the lie, or the political environment in which such a lie would have had to be maintained.  For example, Nixon came to power just as the first manned landing mission was being prepared.  The Apollo project was the brainchild of his nemeses Kennedy and Johnson.  It would have been fairly easy for him to expose the lie as the machinations of his political enemies.  Nixon was obsessed with finding out dirt on his enemies and exploiting that for political gain.  Heck, he might even have been able to get Johnson imprisoned.  Your view of a "national pride" secret that had to be kept at all costs -- and was -- is fairly naive as far as politics goes.

Kennedy had to be sold on the feasibility of the Moon missions.  Contrary to popular misconception, he didn't just set NASA on that task out of the blue.  Kennedy was presented with several technical projects aimed toward national pride.  Landing a man on the Moon was not his first choice.  Top NASA officials including Wernher von Braun spent a week in Washington working out enough of the details to prove to Kennedy it could really be done.  Only then did Kennedy agree, and thereafter he had Jim Webb in his office frequently to make sure the program was progressing.  After Kennedy was killed, Webb put the screws to Congress to maintain funding, and thereby made a ton of political enemies.  Nixon fired him on the spot as soon as he took office.  After the Apollo 1 and Apollo 13 accidents, those same hostile Congresspeople investigated NASA precisely to attempt to discover whether there were any shenanigans.  Finally, a retired FBI agent told me years ago the bureau was well aware of Soviet spies working in Apollo and its contractors.  The Soviets, having been beaten to the Moon, had no reason to keep any secrets they may have discovered.

Then there's the practical aspects, which would take days to cover.  Most hoax claimants are completely unaware of the vast amount of material that's available on Apollo, dating from its earliest conceptual stages, and all available for anyone to peruse.  According to you, this is largely just a cover story.  But it's one that stands up in the industry even decades down the road.  All of that would have to be convincingly faked such that it would still fool aerospace engineers decades hence -- including people well motivated to expose it.  And also, for example, that you can't hide something as big as the CSM in low Earth orbit.  It would be a bright, moving, naked-eye object.

I choose not to believe this one.

And you've built an entire speculative alternate reality around that disbelief -- an alternate reality in which you are competent in space science and you are smarter than all those "sheeple."  It's also an alternate reality in which hundreds of thousands of professionals -- including me -- have to be lying to protect the horrible truth.  The problem is not that you choose to disbelieve.  The problem is in what you have to either ignore or face up to in order to support that disbelief.

The king has no clothes...

You seem fond of trite little phrases like this, but they have very little convincing power.  The emperor, in fact, has a very full wardrobe.  I work in an industry where tens of billions of dollars of private yearly revenue depends in large measure on Apollo data being accurate and Apollo engineering being real.  There is no room in that industry for deep, dark secret-keeping.  And that's just the tip of the iceberg.  The record of the Apollo project is not just a few photos and a few artifacts gathering dust museums.  And it's not surveyed thoroughly in just a few Google sessions.  It's unbelievably vast, and being picked over constantly by people who want to know how it was done.

As I said earlier, you give the reader a choice about how to take your disbelief.  You seem to prefer that the reader take you as a "discerning" person who has seen through a vast global conspiracy, and has the goods to prove he's right.  Unfortunately the more parsimonious explanation is that you're just mistaken.  Over on another forum I frequent, there's a guy who is absolutely sure he's proven that the heat shields on Apollo couldn't possibly have worked.  He styles himself as a self-taught genius in physics.  But as you can guess, he has no clue how the physics actually work and no clue how the engineering was accomplished.  He still sticks to his guns, though.  In his world, all one would ever need to know about heat transfer, chemistry, and thermodynamics is in his simplistic little home-grown models.  Being told he lacks appropriate rigor doesn't sit well with him either.  In like manner you have your simplistic model of radiation, and you can't be told it's not accurate, and you postulate a huge global conspiracy to keep it valid.  The easier explanation is simply got it wrong.