Why didn't cosmic radiation from the stars and UV radiation kill the crew of Apollo and friends half a century ago?

submitted by neuroatypical from self.conspiracy

There ain't no ozone layer on the moon. Only now do people think that radiation from space is dangerous enough not to return.

But the point is--whether or not people realized landing on the moon is dangerous--the radiation should have been deadly back then too.

all 42 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]SMCAB 7 insightful - 4 fun7 insightful - 3 fun8 insightful - 4 fun -  (14 children)

Hahaha nobody went to no moon bro. They can't tell you if it's gonna rain in 15 minutes on our own planet and they are driving a remote control car on Mars? Get the fuck out of here!

[–]BISH 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (9 children)

They called Nixon from the moon... On a landline.

[–]SMCAB 3 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 4 fun -  (4 children)

I know man it's so impressive that the technology was better in 69 than today as far as space travel. We were so special to have won that cold war.

[–]BISH 3 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 5 fun -  (3 children)

I wonder what ever happened to the cameraman that filmed the lunar Rover return launches?

He's s a forgotten hero. They just left that fella on the moon's surface, so he could record the launch from the moon.

I wonder what happened to him?
I wonder how they sent the film in his camera back to earth?

Weird.

[–]SMCAB 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

You're right, nobody ever talks about him. A true hero, banished to a life to be extinguished forever in the desert.

It's pretty insane that to this day we haven't solved the tyranny of the rocket equation, still can't leave "low earth orbit", and we can't go back to see how we did it all, because we destroyed and lost all that data we had. Mans greatest achievement, thrown into an office garbage can. Sad. Don Pettit is my hero. Gus Grissom and the boys would be proud.

[–]weavilsatemyface 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I wonder what ever happened to the cameraman that filmed the lunar Rover return launches?

He hitched a lift back to earth with this guy of course.

Or just maybe... they used a remote controlled video camera and transmitted the video back to earth duh.

This is why moon landing denialists don't get any respect. They don't fucking think things through.

"I personally have no clue how to build a car engine, therefore cars don't exist and the Indianapolis 500 is a hoax herp derp".

[–]BISH 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Nice logical fallacies.

+50 years later and NASA admits they don't have the technology to go back. It's fake AF.

[–]weavilsatemyface 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

No, Nixon called them, from a landline that went to NASA that then was connected to their radio communicator to the Apollo lander.

I mean, I'm sure that NASA probably did something more sophisticated, but they could have just had some junior scientist hold the telephone receiver up to the radio link between Houston and the Apollo lander. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to think of that.

[–]BISH 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

That's bad comedy.

The entire charade was a hoax.

[–]weavilsatemyface 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

LOL. Moon landing denialists are the perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect. Too bloody dumb to realise how bloody dumb they are.

Imagine being so fucked in the head you would have to be to think that, at the height of the Cold War, America's arch-rivals in the USSR would go along with the hoax to enhance America's reputation as winner of the space race. That's almost as dumb as libtards who can't tell the difference between men and women and think that the Jan 6 riots was an insurrection.

I suppose now you're going to say that the Soviet Union never existed and the entire Cold War was a hoax too?

[–]BISH 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I suppose now you're going to say that the Soviet Union never existed and the entire Cold War was a hoax too?

Is this the best you can come up with?

You happen to be...

the perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect. Too bloody dumb to realise how bloody dumb they are.

[–]weavilsatemyface 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

"We can't do this one thing, so that means we can't do this completely different thing that needs utterly different and unrelated skills and technology either!!!"

They can't tell you if it's gonna rain in 15 minutes on our own planet, so buy a smart phone for under $500? Get the fuck out of here!

[–]SMCAB 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

They literally admit to you that they have no clue how to travel to the moon now. It isn't any harder to understand than that. The people who told you they went in 69 are the same people telling you they can't do it now.

Don't be mad your overlords lied to you. If they aren't liars, why aren't they lying to you about having zero clue how to go to the moon now? You can't have both.

[–]weavilsatemyface 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

They literally admit to you that they have no clue how to travel to the moon now.

You are saying this two days after the Artemis mission launched. Do try to keep up.

The people who told you they went in 69 are the same people telling you they can't do it now.

The people who ran the Apollo programme in '69 are all retired or dead now. The people who are in NASA now are saying that they are on track to go back by 2025. Personally, I doubt they'll make it that quick, due to budgeting constraints and lack of the "Can Do!" spirit of the 50s and 60s, but I could be wrong.

While NASA has lost a lot of unwritten institutional knowledge since the early 1970s, and picked up a lot of bureaucratic deadwood of the sorts that caused the space shuttle Challenger disaster, the idea that they have "no clue" how to get to the moon is bullshit. It's just rocket science.

In 2022, we literally have no clue how to build a new DeLorean because the parts are all gone, the tooling is gone, and the blueprints were deliberately destroyed to prevent competitors stealing the design. Does that mean that DeLoreans never existed?

We can't build an Apple II computer in 2022. The chips aren't available, the parts are gone, the tooling and moulds to make the computer have been destroyed. Nobody makes 5.25" floppy disc drives any more, and its not economical to tool up to make more. Even if we could find the blueprints, and we probably can't, we'd have to tool up from scratch, and the techniques used in 1977 to make the Apple II are obsolete or not cost effective any more. By your logic, that means that the Apple II was a hoax.

[–]SMCAB 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Get over it dude.

[–]package 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Too dangerous does not mean instant death, certain death, or even visible injuries during the course of a mission; it means a higher than acceptable chance of harm to any potential crew when considering available funding, the current state of tech, and the value of potential data obtained during a mission in the opinion of those responsible for planning such missions

[–]Musky 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

It's not an instant death sentence, but their DNA is scrambled now. https://www.space.com/astronaut-spaceflight-cancer-dna-mutations-study

It's one of the reasons space travel with chemical rockets is not viable. Also, even the speed of light is too slow to get anywhere.

[–]LordoftheFlies 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (6 children)

Asbestos everything, that's why.

[–]Musky 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

A lot of people don't realize we still use asbestos. It was only banned for a little bit in the US.

[–]jet199 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Asbestos is safe so long as you don't cut into it.

[–]Musky 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

It's sometimes unavoidable during renovation and construction. I worked briefly for a father & son construction company till both of them died of cancer within a few months of each other. That had to be from the nasty stuff they were exposed to. It's not just asbestos, concrete dust ain't great either and there's a lot of lead in insulation.

[–]Bigs 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Fucking patriarchy, amirite?

[–]doginventer 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Asbestos Van Allen belt?

[–]LordoftheFlies 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

EVERYTHING.

[–]0rco 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Moon landing and space is fake

[–]weavilsatemyface 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

TL;DR: the radiation dose from traveling to the moon and back is small and manageable, with only a small risk of being fried by a solar flare.

Only now do people think that radiation from space is dangerous enough not to return.

Not true. Even back in the 50s and 60s scientists were unsure whether people could survive travel through the Van Allen belts. That's one of the reasons the first space traveler was a dog. And during the Apollo mission, there was a real risk that a solar flare in the earth's direction could have killed the astronauts.

As far as UV radiation, that doesn't penetrate either the walls of the space ship or the astronauts' space suits, so no worries there. But higher energy radiation was and is a real risk for space travelers. Each of the Apollo missions no more than a couple of weeks, give or take a few days, so the risk was manageable, but for a Mars return trip (fast, expensive: eight months travel there and back; slow, cheap, 18 months travel there and back) the radiation dose will be significant even if there are no solar flares. The estimated radiation dose for a single Mars trip is estimated to be about 2/3rds of the entire lifetime dose that NASA permits for astronauts.

[–]BISH 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

As far as UV radiation, that doesn't penetrate either the walls of the space ship or the astronauts' space suits, so no worries there.

NASA magic.

[–]weavilsatemyface 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

UV radiation doesn't penetrate ordinary clothing, you muppet. How is it going to get through the metal walls of the space ship?

[–]BISH 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

UV radiation doesn't penetrate ordinary clothing.

How about cosmic rays? Do they penetrate clothing?

you muppet.

[–]weavilsatemyface 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

How about cosmic rays? Do they penetrate clothing?

Of course they do. Some of them even penetrate the metal space craft, and some penetrate the earth's magnetic field and atmosphere to reach ground level. You think that "Cosmic rays! Gotcha!", but it's old news, scientists worked all this out long before the Apollo programme. We're talking 1940s and 50s science here. You're seventy years out of date.

Its all about exposure over time:

  • Even though the radiation levels in the Van Allen belts are relatively high, the journey through them is only a few hours, giving a radiation dose equivalent to a chest X-ray or eating 500 bananas.

  • The journey to the moon takes about three days, and the same back again, plus the time spent at the moon. The average radiation dose for the astronauts during Apollo 7 through 15 was 0.38 rad or 38000 bananas. That's roughly equivalent to two mammograms or half the dose from a chest CT scan, or about half the average yearly radiation exposure for Americans.

  • Worst case projection for the Apollo programme was that the total dose could have reached up to 270 rads, or more if the astronauts were on the lunar surface, if a major solar particle storm occurred during the mission. That is a life-threatening dose, which would require immediate return to earth for emergency medical treatment. But fortunately such solar events are rare, although one occurred mid way between Apollo 16 and 17.

In contrast, a Mars mission would likely take 18 months rather than a week or two. And being further from the sun, the cosmic ray exposure would be higher. (On the other hand, any solar flare particle events would be spread out more, and so less dangerous.) It is likely that a Mars mission would expose the astronauts to at least 14 rads of radiation. So although that is still well less than the 100 rads or so that is considered life-threatening, or the 400 rads that is considered a fatal dose, its still a lot. It's roughly 15 times the average American's radiation dose over a year.

[–]BISH 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

You think that "Cosmic rays! Gotcha!", but it's old news, scientists worked all this out long before the Apollo programme. We're talking 1940s and 50s science here. You're seventy years out of date.

Seventy years later, and they still haven't solved this technical obstacle.

This is checkmate. You got rekd.

[–]weavilsatemyface 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Five thousand years of civilisation, and we still haven't solved the technical problem of people drowning. Obviously boats, bridges and life-preservers are all HOAXES because people can still DROWN if they fall into the water. Checkmate NASA!

Yes, if the astronauts had been hit by a particle storm while in flight, they would have got a dangerous dose of radiation, possibly even a fatal dose. Nobody said that space exploration wasn't dangerous. But they didn't, and the radiation dose they got was well within reasonable limits: about half a years worth of radiation in less than two weeks.

If the air seals on the command module had failed, and they lost all their air, they would have died. And if the rocket had blown up on launch, they would have died. And if they fucked up the calculations and crash landed on the moon, they would have died. If they had hit the earth's atmosphere at the wrong angle, they would have either burned up or bounced off into space. There were lots of things that could have gone wrong, but didn't. What's your point?

Every time I drive my car, there are lots of things that might kill me. The engine might catch fire and I get trapped in the car and burned to death. I might drive off a bridge into a river and drown. (Wait, no, bridges are a hoax, nobody has any clue how to cross water without drowning.) A truck might lose its load which falls on me and crushes me. I might be hit by a speeding car coming from the other direction. Obviously cars are a hoax and nobody actually drives anywhere! Checkmate Ford and Toyota!

[–]BISH 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Five thousand years of civilisation, and we still haven't solved the technical problem of people drowning.

You have run out of valid arguments.

Feel free to continue to fool yourself, but you aren't fooling anyone else.

Bye.

[–]weavilsatemyface 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You have run out of valid arguments.

I'm literally using your arguments. You've just acknowledged that they aren't valid. Which is the whole point I am making, duh.

[–]weavilsatemyface 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I mean, seriously dude, what exactly do you think this argument is? There's radiation in space, therefore... what? There's radiation on earth too. Do you think that means nobody's gone to the earth? Oh wait...

There are venomous snakes in Texas, and nobody has solved the technical problem of not being bitten by snakes, so therefore nobody has been to Texas. Checkmate Greg Abbott!

I mean dude, that is literally the level of your argument. It's just sad and embarrassing to even see it.

[–]BISH 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

There's radiation on earth too. Do you think that means nobody's gone to the earth?

You have run out of valid arguments.

Feel free to continue to fool yourself, but you aren't fooling anyone else.

Bye.

[–]notafed 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

"NASA recently changed its lifetime radiation requirements for astronauts that critics said were discriminating against women, who historically had lower limits than male astronauts. (To date, other genders have not been disclosed in the agency population.)"

Uhh... did I miss something or did we suddenly have a third sex to consider in genetic studies?

[–]Newzok 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's seeping into everything. Who cares about their gender, their capability and resilience are the only things that matter. Let's see if women and nbs can take as much radiation as dudes.

[–]weavilsatemyface 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

did I miss something or did we suddenly have a third sex to consider in genetic studies?

Check your privilege, bigot! I'm all triggered. Don't you know that gender is a spectrum comes in seven different spectrums? There are 58 genders 68 genders 72 genders 81 genders 92 genders 112 genders.

[–]Alienhunter 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Radiation takes a long time to build up damage when it's relatively weak. Astronauts simply weren't on the moon long enough, couple weeks or even a couple months won't be very much to worry about, if they started living there for years on a moon base or something then radiation needs to be taken very seriously. One reason why Musk's Mars plans won't work.

The real dangerous places in the Solar System for radiation are actually the Galilean moons. They're right in a Van Allen belt and deadly exposure is reached in a few hours or days depending on which moon you are on. Why that retard with the Europa colony idea can be dismissed outright when they act dumbfounded at the idea that your astronauts will literally drop dead day 2 into the mission.

[–]Canbot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The radiation is probably very exagerated. Just like global warming.

[–]Markimus 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Only now do people think that radiation from space is dangerous enough not to return.

"What they don't know can't hurt them" that's what I tell married women, works a charm. Same principle I imagine.