NASA Admits Cosmic Radiation Makes Space Travel Too Dangerous

and of course the technology was shitty compared to what we have these days.
we never went to the moon. never goin there soon. .. what does that mean.. governments lieing..

Not really, the sacrifice of three or so astronauts to win the space race against the russians (at that time) was an acceptable loss to NASA.

Kurbrick filmed the moon landing in the Nevada desert, they can't really travel in space, at least not back then, and probably can't now either.

Cosmic rays are so dangerous and so poorly understood that people are unlikely to get to Mars or even back to the moon until better ways are found to protect astronauts, experts said on Monday.

And NASA is not properly funding the right experiments to find out how, the National Research Council committee said.

"One of the big issues is they have really cut funding for biology issues," retired space shuttle astronaut James van Hoften, who chaired the committee, said in a telephone interview.

"It is tough on them when they don't have any new money coming in. They are using old data," he added -- including research done on survivors of the nuclear bombings of Japan during World War Two.

"Given today's knowledge and today's understanding of radiation protection, to put someone out in that type of environment would violate the current requirements that NASA has."

The committee of experts agreed that NASA'S existing radiation safety standards can protect astronauts and they urged the U.S. space agency to keep them in place.

The Earth's bulk, atmosphere and magnetic field protect life from the solar radiation and the cosmic rays that travel through space. Astronauts have just a thin layer of shielding.

Van Hoften knows from personal experience.

"My introduction to space radiation came first-hand as a crew member aboard the Space Shuttle Challenger in April 1984. 'What the heck was that?' I blurted out after seeing what looked like a white laser passing quickly through my eyes," van Hoften wrote in the introduction to the report.

"'Oh, that's just cosmic rays,' said Pinky Nelson, my spacewalking partner and space physicist. The thought of extremely high-energy particles originating from a distant cosmic event passing easily through the space shuttle and subsequently through my head made me think that this cannot be all that healthy. The truth of the matter is that it is not."

NOWHERE TO HIDE

The cosmic rays include galactic cosmic radiation or GCR and solar particles.

"You can put on very thick walls and they just won't protect you from that," van Hoften said. "The younger you are the worse it is," he added, because as with many types of radiation, it can take years for the damage to cause disease.

"It might be OK if you just send a bunch of old guys like me," he laughed.

Any mission to Mars using current technology would take three years, van Hoften said. That long in space would subject astronauts to too much radiation .

"It hasn't really gotten the airing that it needs. In the committee we stewed over this for a long time before we said anything," he added.

Ejections of dangerous particles from the sun can be forecast, but astronauts must hide in specially shielded areas of shuttles or space stations and may miss important tasks, the committee said.

Adding more shielding can make spacecraft too heavy and is too expensive, added the report from the council, one of the independent National Academies of Science that advises the federal government.

The report, commissioned by NASA's Exploration Systems Mission Directorate, said the radiation poses cancer and other health risks for years after astronauts return to Earth.

"The committee finds that lack of knowledge about the biological effects of and responses to space radiation is the single most important factor limiting prediction of radiation risk associated with human space exploration," the report reads.

NASA should just admit there is an alien base on the moon, that way they could justify funding more missions to waste our money.

Hardly.

They talked about how additional information learned recently makes it difficult for people to return to the Moon, since we have a higher requirement for safety now than we did in the 1960's.

The business about how a Mars expedition would "take three years" is true for the round trip (assuming something based on a Hohmann orbit), but going back to the Moon would probably not result in any dramatic health problems -- after all, about 18 guys took the trip and survived.

Ah, but you don't understand that these dangerous "space rays" only started showing up in about 1975.

Back in the Apollo period (late 1960s to early 1970s) there weren't any of these pesky rays fucking up the neighborhood and lowering property prices, so there was no problem for the Apollo astro-nots.

Sure, Dunc. Sure they did.

Uhhh, they survived because they never went. Duh.

Well, as long as we have GLP, you know there's one place where the rest of the world won't laugh at you. There has to be some comfort in that, I'm sure.

Yes, and as far as I know, most of the astronaughts that went to the moon are still walking around in their old folks homes, or died of old age. So, did they go to the moon, or is the cosmic radiation they were exposed to not enough to cause cancer or kill them?

A strong piece of evidence against the alleged moon landings is that, to my knowledge, NASA has never done a long-term followup study on the effects of space radiation on the Apollo astronauts. According to the official NASA story, the Apollo astronauts were essentially guinea pigs in a political contest, and their lives were expendable. But since they indeed survived, a retrospective study on what happened to them biologically would be extremely informative.

If they really went to the moon, that is. If they didn't really go, then any such study would be a waste of money, and NASA wouldn't even suggest it.

I guess the guys that went back then and came back healthy were just lucky? Give me a break. They didnt understand the radiation levels in space 40 years ago? Thats laughable.

The stats say that they didn't go.
Impossible for all those people, all those days on all those missions and not one had cancer or other side effects.

Follow the maths.

Watch this video of the bubbling paint...Astronaut even talks about it..saying he can flake it off with his finger!...yep...radiation..: [link to www.youtube.com]

Paint, eh? Yeah, I've never heard of paint bubbling, flaking, or otherwise losing adhesion on Earth. Musta been those dangeruz space rayez.


Stupid, stupid stuff. Cosmic rays, both solar and extra-solar, been known about since well before any of the Apollo series flew. Solar flares were described as a problem in science fiction stories of the 40's. Balloons and sounding rockets were investigating by the 50's. I have in my personal collection books written prior to 1969 that contain extensive tables, charts, and calculations.

For twenty years before Apollo the technical limitations against a long-duration space-flight were understood, and ideas to combat the various radiation hazards were being talked about, both inside agencies like NASA and outside; by businesses, by European, Soviet, Asian space agencies, by the far-flung space sciences community, by interested amateurs.

What has changed in the years since the lunar landings? 1) We have been looking at long-duration missions, both surface stays and flights to other planetary destinations. 2) We have increased standards of health and safety across the board, especially in regards to potential carcinogenic and mutagenic threats. 3) We have continued to expand and refine our knowledge (as we do in every other scientific field).



That something is new to a poster at GLP does not mean that something is new to the rest of the world.

Or alternatively, be sure of your facts. Al Shepard (Apollo 14 commander) dies of leukemia in 1998. At least one Apollo astronaut who went to the Moon but didn't land, Jack Swigert, also died of cancer.

As for other side effects, apparently the Apollo astronauts have developed cataracts at a statistically significant earlier age than normal, possibly due to their exposure to radiation during their flights.

Sounds like any other corporate environment.

Both.

Let's look at one relevant phrase from the article that seems to be getting missed:



From a space.com report on the same subject:



In other words, while radiation was at an acceptable level, by the somewhat cavalier standards of the 1960s, for a short duration mission to the Moon, it is months-long stays outside the magnetosphere that present problems. This is hardly brand new knowledge, there have been concerns about this issue dating right back to the Apollo program itself. This report just quantizes what we know.

It's not all lost. Lunar bases can be covered in a layer of regolith, or sited within lava tubes. Mars missions are a bit more problematic, and may have to wait until plasma shielding becomes feasible, or new propulsion technology is developed that significantly cuts travel times.

hey guys it is DUMB CAN CUNTZ ready to esplain how we went to the moon with all that nasty radiation out there .. while of course dodging the arguement of this thread - RADIATION, not to mention 240 degree temperature!, assuming that the astronauts would stay cool, the film would still melt and be ruined! lol kunts is da man.

What about "Any mission to Mars using current technology would take three years, van Hoften said. That long in space would subject astronauts to too much radiation ." do you not understand? The lunar missions were only for a few days and radiation doimeters were worn which indicated that the astronauts did indeed get radiation, but not a harmful amount for such short exposure. Furture planned missions to the moon are for MUCH longer periods.

Still no Apollo landing site photos from the Japanese or Chinese lunar orbiters

The temperature of what was 240 degrees on the Moon? At what time of day is it that temperature? Given the maximum temperature reached in Death Valley at midday in midsummer, can we say that the temperature of the Earth is 134 degrees?



Keeping in mind the above, and also noting the lack of convective heating due to the lack of atmosphere, can you substantiate this in any way?

Actually there are, but I doubt you'll be satisfied, ass the cameras don't have anywhere near the resolution to see the actual hardware.

[link to www.unmannedspaceflight.com]

Keep in mind that the accusation usually leveled at this point about how spy satellites can see number plates here on Earth neglects to mention that the KH-12 has a primary mirror the size of the Hubble telescope.

I too used to think that the "Moon landing never happened" folks were nuts, but now I'm starting to think there's some merit there. It's sad if it's true, because it was one of America's finest hours, but shit, the evidence just keeps stacking against it more every year.

And what evidence is that, you ask?

The fact that we haven't been back. With all the advances in technology, it should be a cakewalk now. Sure, you can say we risked over 18 lives just to show up our rivals in the Cold War and now we have no reason to go back when robots can do the job for us. But still. There's something fishy there.

But, but, but /everyone/ knows that vacuum is freezing cold - haven't you ever heard the phrase "the icy depths of space"? Except, of course that vacuum is actually very hot, that's how thermoses keep your coffee hot. <WEG>

How many billions of dollars do you have in your back pocket? Just because something is technically possible doesn't mean that it is cheap, or politically acceptable.

The analogy often used for this point is that there are currently no supersonic passenger planes since the retirement of Concorde on financial grounds. Does this mean that Concorde was a hoax, or that a new supersonic plane couldn't be designed and built if the economic justification existed?

"Billy Joel", the reason for not going back to the moon (to date) has always been money, not technology.

Faking the lunar missions, by way of a "conspiracy", is impossily problematic. First, do you have any idea how many people it takes to make a movie? How do you keep all those people perfectly silenced? Massive conspracies simply do not exist, especially not in the USA.

Not to mention that people _all over the world_ were listening directly to the Apollo transmissions. I ask you to describe an Earth orbit that is synchronised to the Moon. Show your math. (xrrc va zvaq gung, vs gur beovgny crevbq vf gur fnzrnf gur zbba'f, gur bowrpg vf cebonoyl va gur fnzr beovgny fybg nf gur zbba. Ohg qb cyrnfr qrzbafgengr lbhe fxvyym jvgu beovgny zrpunavpf.)

I have yet to see a single shred of valid, positive evidence supporting the "moon hoax" nonsense.

ESL!

Nonsense. They survived because the cosmic rays are not fatal. Harmful, but not fatal. Did you read the article?