The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Did we land on the moon?  (Read 203018 times)

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8670
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #250 on: 07/12/2008 13:59:48 »
It's well known that the atmosphere shields us from a lot of radiation. It figures that, without the atmosphere, we would be exposed to a lot more radiation. However people can survive reasoanble amounts of radiation so there's no problem with short haul space travel. A mission to Mars would be a problem but just nipping out to the moon for some rocks isn't a major health issue. I for one would love to take that risk (though if I could put it off for 20 years it would make sense)
 

lyner

  • Guest
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #251 on: 07/12/2008 16:16:40 »
Can you get low gravity Zimmer frames? I'll join you.
 

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #252 on: 07/12/2008 17:22:39 »
OK here is an anomoly.

How come the films taken did not get contaminated with radiation fog?
CONCLUSIONS
Modern high-speed film emulsions are extremely sensitive to exposure to the high-energy form of radiation
experienced in low earth orbit. The payload structure does not provide sufficient shielding to block this high
LET radiation. These results indicate that high-speed photographic films are possibly not suitable for image
recording in space shuttle payloads without special shielding. Preference should be given to lower sensitivity
films where possible and testing should be used to verify the choice of material.
http://www.musc.edu/cando/symp99/acrobat/rad.pdf
 

lyner

  • Guest
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #253 on: 07/12/2008 18:23:06 »
I thought that the early hi res pictures of the Moon, taken by unmanned craft, were scanned photographs, taken and developed on board. That system worked pretty well. Vacuum tube imaging was pretty rubbish until a couple of decades ago.
It is only relatively recently that solid state image technology has been good enough for good quality pictures.

How radiation-hardened is the equipment used in other un-manned space missions, in any case?

BTW, AKF, are you really not old enough to have seen the event, first hand? Were you really so wise at the time as to spot all the 'flaws' in the production, or did the idea of the conspiracy only get to you later, when it appeared on 'fashionable' websites?
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8670
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #254 on: 07/12/2008 20:08:07 »
"Modern high-speed film emulsions are extremely sensitive to exposure to the high-energy form of radiation experienced in low earth orbit. "
And didn't exist at the time.

They were taking pictures on the moon. There was no shortage of sunlight. Why in the name of all that's holy would they have taken high speed filem?
 

lyner

  • Guest
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #255 on: 07/12/2008 22:36:12 »
As I said. 125th at f8 would be fine for normal film. A bright sun with no cloud. In fact, they would be using fine grain (i.e. SLOW/ ISO 50 or 100) film, in all probability.



Any more 'anomalies'?
 

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #256 on: 08/12/2008 09:56:33 »
The point is that radiation affects all film, not just high speed film. Apparently this was how radiation was first discovered. There was no evidence of this happening on the early films and photographs, although there was mention of white flashes from some astronauts, yet none was mentioned by others. Worth remembering that the film used went through Van-allen's belt 2 times then in orbit around the moon, during decent and ascent from the surface with no atmosphere and during both landing and take off. Prevention of radiation contamination would have required thick lead film canisters, and a lead camera, both of which were never mentioned so presumably never used.

http://www.orau.org/ptp/Library/mddc1065.pdf The following document dates back to 1948 Titled Photographic Film as a Pocket Radiation Dosimeter, which led to the used of small samples of film used as badges for people working in the radiation industry. Proving that Modern High speed film is not required to record radiation contamination.
« Last Edit: 08/12/2008 11:13:15 by Andrew K Fletcher »
 

lyner

  • Guest
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #257 on: 08/12/2008 17:57:15 »
AKF, why do you ignore my crucial point which relates to total dose of radiation?
Months and months in low Earth orbit compares with a few  hours of actual transit time through the belts (they only extend to a few Earth radii, at most and the craft is traveling relatively fast at that time).
You make assertions about the implied levels of radiation. Have you researched to find the actual levels and doses? It would be easy to integrate the dose over a typical Moon shot and to compare it with the space station experience. If you want to convince me (and yourself, I should hope),  then you should do the calculation. I have often pointed out to you that the actual numbers count in Science. Hand waving doesn't prove anything.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8670
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #258 on: 08/12/2008 18:31:24 »
Anyone ever taken their holiday snaps through a security Xray machine? They usually survive. The worst you get is a bit of background fogging. This is much worse for some films than others. Since, as AKF says this was how such radioactivity was discovered, the scientists had plenty of experience of what films to use.

From time to time people have Xray images taken of themselves- in my case it's generally my teeth.
These involve enough radiation to fully expose the film, but they have little or no effect on the people. It seems that film is more sensitive than people. This is also consistent with the discovery of radioactivity being due to its effect on film rather than people.

Since films go through the radiation exposure of  space travel without undue effects it's fair to assume that  people can.
 

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #259 on: 09/12/2008 13:34:00 »
This might help as it mentions some measurements. Both publications are worth a read.

http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/s2ch3.htm

Quote
Problems Involving Radiations of Manmade Origin
Protection against manmade sources of radiation is a ground support function concerned mainly with the protection of the ground personnel, the general public, and the environment against detrimental effects of radiation. Much of this effort involved routine health-physics procedures governed by U.S. Atomic Energy Commission regulations (Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, 1971) and U.S. Department of Labor Standards (Title 29, Code of Federal Regulations, 1971). However, certain problems concerning spacecraft radioluminescent sources were peculiar to the Apollo Program. The chief problems were leakage of radioactive material from radioluminescent switch tips, and emission of excess soft X-ray radiation from radioluminescent panels. Both of these problems were solved.



http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast23feb_2.htm

Quote
They spent a few hours within the Van Allen belts and estimates of the total exposure during their entire flights were about 2 rems (the equivalent of about 100 chest x-rays or about 40% of the maximum permissible dose of radiation according to OSHA standards).



There appears to be enough radiation present to cause problems with the films used. Even radiation on the dials, which alone should have given condierable cause for concern. Add to this the man-made radiation from nuclear explosions, together with natural solar and cosmic radiation plus the flashing lights observed by some astronauts, which represent the radiation striking the film on board and we should be able to determine whether or not any fim canister had been to the moon and back or not by observing the footage for radiation contamination.

BC you imply that special raidioactive resisting film was used
 

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #260 on: 09/12/2008 13:34:43 »
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/cis98/cis98.jhtml
 
Until recently, x-ray inspection units used for airport security have been relatively safe for films. However, as airports step up their security measures, some have introduced a new type of inspection unit that has a greater potential to fog film. To date, these units are not widespread, but we expect them to become increasingly common.

This new equipment is intended for checked luggage, although it is possible that boarding-gate security checkpoints will use it in the future. Because your checked luggage may be subjected to these new units, we suggest that you hand-carry your film and request visual inspection.

Historically, fog caused by x-ray radiation has appeared as lines or patterns across the width of roll film. The patterns are usually widely spaced lines followed by many more closely spaced lines. This happens because the image of the plastic core at the center of the roll and the individual laps of the film are projected onto the other laps of film in the roll. Undulating or wavy patterns may also occur throughout the length of the roll; this happens when the film is x-rayed at an angle and the shadow from the end of the film spool and magazine alters the exposure. Shadow images from other objects may also be evident. For example, film x-rayed inside a camera may show images of camera mechanisms

The fog caused by the new airport inspection units is usually more pronounced. It typically appears as soft-edged bands 1/4 to 3/8 inch (1 to 1.5 cm) wide. Because the new equipment uses a higher and more focused x-ray beam, the banding will be very dark on negative films and very light on reversal films. Depending on the orientation of the film to the x-ray beam, the banding may be linear or wavy, and can run lengthwise or crosswise on the film. It can also undulate, depending on the combination of the angle of exposure and the multiple laps of film on the roll. However, the fog will usually lack the more subtle patterns produced by traditional types of x-ray equipment.

X-ray fog may appear as follows:

    * On Black-and-White Negative Films--Dark areas in patterns as described above.

    * On Color Negative Films--Dark areas with neutral or brown patterns.

    * Color Reversal Films--Minus-density area with patterns as described above.

CAUSES

X-ray fog can result from exposure to x-rays from medical equipment, airport inspection equipment, industrial x-ray sources, and other sources of x-rays, as well as from gamma rays from radioactive materials.

Airport x-ray inspection equipment is the most common source encountered by most photographers. Except for the new types of inspection units described earlier, most inspection units in use today are relatively safe for films with an ISO speed or Exposure Index (EI) of 400 or lower. However, multiple exposures without reorientation of the film, cumulative doses of more than five exposures, and malfunctioning inspection units can cause fog. Films with an ISO speed or EI higher than 400 require added precautions because they are much more sensitive to x-ray exposure. Even with "film-safe" x-ray units, you should limit exposure to one inspection. For films with a speed of 1000 or higher, request visual inspection if allowed by local regulations or law.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

Other factors can affect the severity of x-ray exposures on photographic films. Film that is--or will be--underexposed and film that you intend to push-process may be particularly vulnerable to x-ray exposure.

Underexposure. X-ray fog occurs in the lower exposure range of the film. Film that is underexposed has more of the image recorded in this range. Therefore, the effects of x-ray exposure may further reduce the quality of underexposed images.

Push Processing. Push processing involves overdevelopment of film to increase the effective speed and increase the density of underexposed images. Just as overdevelopment increases image density, it will also increase the density of any fog, including x-ray fog.

Limiting x-ray exposure is increasingly important for film that may be subject to underexposure or push processing.
PREVENTION

At airport inspection stations, be sure to look for posted advisories on potential effects on film. Requesting visual inspection of photographic materials is still the best preventive measure, when it's allowed. For easy inspection, carry the film in a clear plastic bag.

If you choose to place your film in luggage that you will check, ask if the luggage will be x-rayed. Be aware that security procedures in some locations may prohibit informing passengers whether or not their checked luggage will be x-rayed. Because of random x-ray examination of checked luggage and differences in procedures worldwide, we suggest that you not carry film in checked luggage. By hand-carrying your film, you will know if it is subjected to x-ray inspection.

If possible, you may want to have your exposed film processed locally before passing through airport security. X-ray exposure has no effect on processed film.
CORRECTION

You can compensate for any overall fog during printing of negatives, but if the fog is significant, prints will show a loss of shadow detail and reduction in contrast. Also, x-ray fog commonly appears in patterns; it is impossible to compensate for it in printing, because you can't separate the fog exposure from camera exposure.
 

Offline Bikerman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 119
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #261 on: 09/12/2008 17:29:38 »
But this is surely old refuted stuff.
The films on Apollo were carried in metal canisters much reducing any potential fogging. We also have more recent evidence - I presume you would not dispute that the Lunar Orbiter and Luna 3 missions actually took place? Both used on-board film/development (this was before the age of digital photography and the film images were developed on board before scanning and transmission).
 

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #262 on: 09/12/2008 17:34:54 »
In this document it states even lead lined canisters will not provide the film with protection from radiation.

NAS A/TP--2000-210193
The Effect of Radiation on
Selected Photographic Film

“a standard lead-lined film bag will not
prevent radiation damage,and there is no place in the Shuttle that offers any real protection from
radiation.”

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20010004099_2001000061.pdf
 

Offline Bikerman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 119
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #263 on: 09/12/2008 17:40:25 »
So then you do think that the Lunar 3 and Lunar orbiter projects were a hoax? Interesting. That opens up a whole new conspiracy theory since one was US and the other was USSR. Global conspiracy to pretend they orbited the moon.

Keep taking the tablets.
 

lyner

  • Guest
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #264 on: 09/12/2008 18:27:41 »
AKF
Your acres of quotation are all very interesting but you don't support it with any actual numbers, relating an Xray machine with the Van Allen belts.
As I keep telling you  - the actual numbers are the important issue. If you reqally want to convince us to take the idea more seriously you
need to tell us the total dose that might be expected. That involves some SUMS, dear boy. (Or find someone who has already done them and can show their workings).

In any case, if we forbad people to ever be exposed to radiation which can fog a film, we'd never be allowed to have an X ray picture, would we?
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8670
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #265 on: 09/12/2008 18:44:41 »
Here's part of the conclusion from the page AKF cited.
"The 120-day samples were used to determine which films fell into the good, marginal, and unsatisfactory
categories. Of the three different types of photographic films tested, only the motion picture
films had results that were entirely unsatisfactory. IMAX motion picture films have been used in
the past with excellent results. However, the films were only manifested on Space Shuttle
missions that never exceeded 20 days or 200 nautical miles in altitude."
It seems that, apart from motion picture film, a few months in space doesn't cause insurmountable problems.

Since we also know that people are less susceptible to the effects of radiation than film is, we can conclude that the people who went to the moon wouldn't have been zapped.
Numbers would be good but even without them we know that people could survive the radiation dose unscathed.
As a reason to think we never went to the moon this is a complete red herring.
 

Offline Bikerman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 119
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #266 on: 09/12/2008 18:55:34 »
This really is old and boring stuff.
We went to the moon. Get over it.
The conspiracy theories, over the years, have got increasingly more desperate as they are debunked point by point.
The problem with this sort of guff is, rather like UFOs and other conspiracy theories, you can never completely debunk it to the satisfaction of the conspiracy theorist. What they have is rather analogous to a religious faith - a blind belief, regardless of evidence, that someone is doing them over.
Never-mind that we can point to a HUGE amount of evidence to the contrary. Never mind that we can point to extant 'kit' like the lunar-reflectors that are used, almost on a daily basis, to measure the earth-moon distance. Never mind that such kit cannot have been possibly 'placed' on the moon by remote...
Faith is impervious to reason, and this sort of conspiracy theory is much more allied to theology than science. Science starts from observation. Theology starts from a-priori assumptions.
« Last Edit: 09/12/2008 19:11:38 by Bikerman »
 

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #267 on: 10/12/2008 10:15:30 »
Bikerman. I have to agree with you here. It is indeed old boring stuff. And it does not matter one bit whether they did or did not land on the moon. My problem was with a landing happening in 1969, when technology was very basic to say the least, including photographic technology. The arguments against a successful landing are strong on viewing the conspiracy video’s. The arguments for and against are indeed pointless as either way we cannot undo history.

Your last comment about what is the point of an argument about lunar landings when more pressing immediate problems are worthy of attention is a valid one.

The thing about radiation is that it does leave a lasting imprint on film. In fact it leaves an imprint on everything including the meteor’s that hit the earth and indeed the rocks that are to be found on the lunar surface. So stating we have manufactured a film that avoids radioactive contamination and can still react to solar radiation to form a clear picture without fogging. And that placing a film inside a camera or a canister may reduce fogging, but will not prevent it may be in need of some thought. Careful analysis of the original photograph and video footage against footage taken onboard low altitude orbit might prove very interesting.

Here lies a reliable method of proving or disproving whether the film and film footage went to the moon and back!
I will leave this to the experts in photography.
« Last Edit: 10/12/2008 10:17:24 by Andrew K Fletcher »
 

lyner

  • Guest
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #268 on: 10/12/2008 16:14:44 »
But there is no doubt, whatsoever, that film went to and from the Moon at that time because there are pictures of the far side, from manned and unmanned craft. If no film could survive then where did the pictures come from? Are you saying they were all TV pictures? How could they have been recorded (as the far side pictures would have had to be)? An AMPEX VT machine would have been required if it had been TV.
You still have not come up with any quantitative arguments about this and, I think I may have mentioned it before, THE NUMBERS COUNT.

btw, what was 'basic' about the film technology in the 1960s that would make it react any different to ionising radiation? That's just a 'filler' comment which proves nothing. Give us some numbers.

If you are prepared to leave it to "the experts in photography" then you just have to accept that you have no argument. You are the one who claims the conspiracy - you have to prove it.

We've buried this particular 'anomaly' give us another, less 'wishy washy' than that one.
 

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #269 on: 10/12/2008 19:05:21 »
Long range photography will bare the scars of radiation. No doubt about that. The point I have tried to make is that the footage from the landing craft will / should bare the same radiation marks. If it does, they went to the moon. If it don't they did not go. simple enough.
 

Offline Bikerman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 119
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #270 on: 10/12/2008 22:36:53 »
Andrew,
what you are doing is starting from an assumption and using it to disprove a hypothesis. The assumption is that there should be some fogging or other artefacts on the film and the hypothesis is that we did not go to the moon.
That is getting it completely wrong. We know that we went to the moon - there is no reasonable doubt about it. I could spend hours discussing the various lines of evidence but there is no need since they exist in books, papers, websites and other testimony.
The question, therefore, is if there are no radiation effects on the film then why not?
One reason could be that the metal shielding used was sufficient to prevent such damage. Another could be that we overestimate the amount of damage that would be produced. Whatever the reason, we know that the film went to the moon - it is beyond doubt. To turn this around and say - if we can't explain why there is no fogging then we didn't go - well, I'm sorry but that is silly..
 

lyner

  • Guest
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #271 on: 10/12/2008 23:13:28 »
Long range photography will bare the scars of radiation. No doubt about that. The point I have tried to make is that the footage from the landing craft will / should bare the same radiation marks. If it does, they went to the moon. If it don't they did not go. simple enough.
Actually, you started off by claiming that humans couldn't survive the radiation. You later said that there should have been enough radiation to fog photographs and that was, somehow, a proof about the medical risk.
In fact, photographic film has worked more than adequately under all sorts of space conditions. So what are you saying now?
Do you really believe this rubbish or do you just hate to be wrong?

btw, what is "long range photography"? The camera doesn't care how far the light has traveled.
 

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #272 on: 10/12/2008 23:18:28 »
The medical risks associated with radiation are well established. There are other risks associated with how the body rapidly deteriorates in space and that walking on arrival back on earth proves somewhat difficult. Worth remembering when watching the footage of the return to earth.

Long rage photography refers to the location of the camera and the target in the lenses. I.E. we know the camera is at X when the photograph was taken so we can use this to determine the level of radiation in the pictures. What did you think I meant?
 

Offline Bikerman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 119
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #273 on: 10/12/2008 23:35:05 »
I take it that you are aware that astronauts DO and HAVE suffered the effects of radiation? The most recent study I can think of looked at the vastly increased incidence of cataracts in astronauts:
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/531868
 

lyner

  • Guest
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #274 on: 11/12/2008 11:00:34 »
So we have established and seem, all, to agree that there are some effects due to radiation. But we also seem to be agreeing that the effects are detectable rather than lethal. The detectable effects of alcohol on the liver of drinkers are no proof that people haven't been drinking the stuff for years.
There were also effects on the astronauts' skeletons - very detectable, too. Could that prove they didn't go?
If these guys had been told that they would lose their legs as a result of the trip, I bet most of them would still have wanted to go.

Quote
Long rage photography refers to the location of the camera and the target in the lenses. I.E. we know the camera is at X when the photograph was taken so we can use this to determine the level of radiation in the pictures. What did you think I meant?
Dunno. Your answer still seems to imply that both ends of the process count; i.e "location" and "target". I just think the original statement was somehow designed to give some weight to the argument - but it doesn't.

In any case, without quoting some actual quantities, you have no argument. You still have produced none.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #274 on: 11/12/2008 11:00:34 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length