Notices
Results 1 to 7 of 7
Like Tree2Likes
  • 1 Post By Harold14370
  • 1 Post By Harold14370

Thread: Radiation, Film, and the Moon Landing

  1. #1 Radiation, Film, and the Moon Landing 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    4
    I'm sure you clicked on this expecting to shoot-down some uneducated buffoon who thinks the moon landing was a hoax - Nothing could be further from the truth. However, in debating with these cretins I have come across an argument I couldn't debunk and I'm looking for some help to understand what's happening.

    The hoaxer brought up the question; Why was the film aboard the spacecraft not exposed by the radiation in-transit to the moon?

    This seems like a reasonable question to me intuitively, though I thought it might have something to do with the amount of radiation experienced by the spacecraft, the type of radiation, or possibly that the film was protected from radiation. I simply don't know and I can't find any of the standard resources (badastronomy) talking about this issue.

    If anyone could help that would be great.

    Thanks,

    theresidentskeptic


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    I suppose the answer to this would be the same as the answer to why the astronauts weren't killed by the radiation, as discussed here.
    Moon astronauts

    It's addressed specifically here.
    http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo/moon_hoax_FAQ.html

    3.5 Wouldn't the radiation and the temperature extremes of the Moon damage or destroy equipment, especially vulnerable items like photographic film? See section 3.3 about temperature extremes and why they are a non- issue. Most equipment (including photographic and television cameras) was designed with special protective measures so as to allow them to operate properly in the Moon's harsh environment. As for equipment and photographic film, the radiation on the Moon was not high enough to damage (or even fog) film to any perceptible degree, and most other equipment is much more rugged than photographic film.


    Theresidentskeptic likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    4
    Thanks, that helps, but I think what I would need to know is how much cosmic radiation it would take to expose a piece of film. I could simply say "There wasn't enough radiation", but they may demand evidence in which case I wouldn't be able to present it. Perhaps I should just pull out the ol' physics textbook and study up.

    ...not that I'm going to convince these people anyway...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Here is something else I found.
    Clavius: Environment - radiation and photographic film
    Apparently the kooks are basing their argument on a study done by a Dr. Groves, who exposed his photographic film to a dose of around 25 rads, which is many times more than what the astronauts picked up (which was discussed in the previous reference as 0.41 rad). It also says the Hasselblad cameras had a thicker than normal magazine to protect the film.
    Theresidentskeptic likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Theresidentskeptic View Post
    I'm sure you clicked on this expecting to shoot-down some uneducated buffoon who thinks the moon landing was a hoax
    Absolutely true. You really disappointed me. I don't know if I will ever be able to forgive you.

    Oh, shucks, OK then, since it led to Harold's interesting debunks.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    4
    Excellent! Precisely what I was looking for! Thank you so much!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Clavius.org is the go-to website for debunking moon hoax proponents.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Alleged moon landing
    By BlueLantern in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: November 10th, 2010, 07:54 PM
  2. STS-126 Landing
    By jeffinspace in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: December 1st, 2008, 03:17 PM
  3. Moon landing photo's
    By leohopkins in forum History
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: April 25th, 2008, 12:55 AM
  4. Was the moon landing faked?
    By MacGyver1968 in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: November 16th, 2006, 08:17 AM
  5. THE FIRST LANDING ON THE MOON: CONSPIRACY OR NOT
    By anandsatya in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: December 26th, 2005, 01:02 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •