Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

[The23rdman]

I think it is more interesting that NASA has said that the risks now are too great to enter deep space, but they didn't think the risk was too great during the Apollo missions. This even though Van Allen has changed his tune to state the risks from that are less now. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

[Arouet]

[Arouet]

[The23rdman]

The link Sydner posted that started the moon hoax debate had a quote from NASA... (Reuters) - 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. I'll admit I don't know how reliable the source was.

[really?]

[really?]

[really?]

[The23rdman]

[Misha]

I just read this this morning in Lifton's and Mitchell's book - "Hiroshima In America." This passage in on page. 44, second paragraph down:

"Even as the scientists celebrated their success at Alamogordo the first radioactive cloud was drifting eastward over America, depositing fallout along its path. When Americans found out about this, three months later, the word came not from the government but from the president of Eastman Kodak Company in Rochester, New York, who wondered why some of his film was fogging and suspected radioactivity as the cause." [Bold italics are, Misha's]

Keep in mind the film used during the Apollo missions were from Eastman Kodak. I am inferring from this passage that the fogging occurred at the Kodak facility in Rochester, NY! As you guys are aware, I think, that film is highly susceptible to alpha, beta and gamma radiation whether through the Van Allen belts or galactic cosmic effects. How did the Apollo astronauts overcome this hazard not only to themselves but the film itself?

Really, I understand all too well the history of the Cold War. My posts under the assassination of JFK reflect my knowledge of the Cold War dynamics in part. In fact, one cannot truly understand the Cold War without serious research into the Kennedy Administration.

[Misha]

[Arouet]

[Arouet]

[The23rdman]

[Misha]

[Arouet]

Again, from my preliminary readings, the issue is not just solar flares, of which there are a lot of them - the astronauts were suitably protected from normal ones. The issue is a major one. And from what I understand, those were predictable a few days in advance - though no more than that. The idea is that they would have known that there wasn't going to be one at the beginning of the trip, so it was the end of the trip that was most at risk, but even then, the risk of a major solar flare going in their precise location would have been low risk.

If that picture that I've just described is accurate, Misha, would you say that was an acceptable risk? if not, what level of risk would you consider acceptable?