Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Olmstead]

So you think if you drop something into a shadow on the moon it becomes impossible to see?

Not to belabor the point, but this hypothetical "totally black" shadow would also prevent one from seeing stars.

 

[threadworm]

How thick was the Command Module pressure hull? What was it made from?
Don't worry, I will tell you

The inner structure was an aluminum sandwich construction consisting of a welded aluminum inner skin, adhesively bonded aluminum honeycomb core, and outer face sheet.
The thickness of the honeycomb varied from about 1.5 inches at the base to about 0.25 inches at the forward access tunnel. This inner structure was the pressurized crew compartment
The outer structure was made of stainless steel brazed-honeycomb brazed between steel alloy face sheets. It varied in thickness from 0.5 inch to 2.5 inches. Part of the area between the inner and outer shells was filled with a layer of fiberglass insulation.

But...but...It didn't have the words 'radiation shielding' on it!!

 

[ferd burfle]

A cite to a page with an ad for Coors Light in the middle of a pop science story. How about a cite to a peer reviewed academic journal?

 

[ferd burfle]

From a recent Chinese research paper 2024:



From magazine article:




Please also refer to my post in which I made it clear what type of radiation hazard I was referring to:

• Post #2,284
• Jun 19, 2026

Jun 19, 2026

I missed the reference to the Science.org article, my apologies.

 

[threadworm]

The quip about a Geiger counter being more useful than the equivalent of Dettol was clearly facetious. If the rescue medics really felt it was important to spray the capsule with antiseptic as well as over the astronauts - supposedly making them strip inside the capsule and changing into wetsuits (as that is how they appear on camera, i.e., wearing wetsuits coming out of the capsule and onto the raft, albeit impossible to identify they are the Apollo 11 crew, and supposedly to explain why they are not in their spacesuits) - then why not exercise proper caution and take the capsule into dock in a protective environment?

"If I ran the zoo..."

So you're acknowledging that there was no radiation danger and a geiger counter would have been pointless? Or is that just your fallback now that you've had it comprehensively ridiculed?

There is no 'supposedly' about it they changed into protective (not wet) suits. If you're claiming it wasn't them, provide some evidence. They did exercise caution: the decontamination process, necessary or not, took place several kilometres away from the substantial numbers of people, including the president, gathered on USS Hornet. If they weren't exercising caution, they wouldn't have bothered .

 

[Foster Zygote]

I missed the reference to the Science.org article, my apologies.

It's still a valid point. Vixen keeps referring us to the magazine article, but not to the actual journal publication it references. The fact that the actual source never refers to the moon as "heavily radioactive" is something she seems reluctant to address.

 

[Steve]

It's still a valid point. Vixen keeps referring us to the magazine article, but not to the actual journal publication it references. The fact that the actual source never refers to the moon as "heavily radioactive" is something she seems reluctant to address.

Reluctant? Reluctant??? Vixen is terrified to address myriad points across many threads that expose her abject ignorance on pretty much any topic she tries to discuss.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

The Van Allen belts are not a radioactive substance. They are simply radiation. Passing through them irradiates the visitor. It does not contaminate the visitor. Encountering something that has been irradiated requires no special handling, except maybe pick up the microwave popcorn bag by the edges as instructed.

From a recent Chinese research paper 2024:

Space radiation exposure is one of the major risks for astronauts’ health (1–3) as the chronic exposure to galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) may have late health effects such as induction of cataract (4), cancer (5–7), or degenerative diseases of the central nervous system (8) or other organ systems (9, 10). Moreover, exposure to large solar particle events (SPEs) in a situation with insufficient shielding may cause severe acute effects (11). The exposure to GCR is inevitable but generally contributes a low dose rate compared to the sporadic, unpredictable, but sometimes very intense SPEs in which solar energetic particles are accelerated close to the Sun by solar flares and coronal mass ejections. The nucleonic component of GCR consists mainly of protons (~87%), helium (~12%), and heavier nuclei (~1%) (12). These nuclei have very high energy and are therefore highly penetrating. Because of their single charge, protons are only weakly ionizing, and helium nuclei are four times more ionizing per nucleus. The remaining 1% of nuclei are high (H) atomic number (Z) and energy (E) elements (HZE) that contribute to radiation damage disproportionally according to the square of their nuclear charge, Z, resulting in very dense ionization along their tracks. Because of nuclear fragmentation and other complex interactions with matter, their exact effects on humans are uncertain but may be considerable (13, 14). https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aaz1334

Note that @Vixen responded to remarks about the Van Allen belt by quoting a research paper that talks about the risk caused by galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) and solar particle events (SPEs). The direct risks to health from GCRs and SPEs have almost nothing to do with the Van Allen belts. Which tells us something of how little @Vixen knows about GCRs, SPEs, and the Van Allen belts.

Galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) move at almost the speed of light.

But @Vixen doesn't know that. @Vixen seems to think GCRs loiter within the Van Allen belts.

When that Chinese research paper says "The exposure to GCR is inevitable", it's saying the exposure to Galactic Cosmic Rays is essentially the same wherever you are. Whether you're in the Van Allen belts or well outside the Van Allen belts doesn't materially affect your exposure to GCRs.

There is a connection between GCRs and the van Allen belts, but it's indirect. When cosmic rays hit the earth's atmosphere, their collisions with atmospheric particles of gas produce pions, muons, and neutrinos, and free neutrons. Those free neutrons are unstable, with a half life on the order of 15 minutes. Their decay produces a proton, an electron, and an antineutrino. Those decay products move in all sorts of directions, but protons and electrons have electrical charge so they respond to the earth's magnetic field. Many of the protons end up in the inner Van Allen belt. By that time, however, they are merely energetic protons, not GCRs.

That Chinese research paper says nothing about the Van Allen belts. What it does imply, however, is that the astronauts' exposure to GCRs "generally contributes a low dose rate compared to the sporadic, unpredictable, but sometimes very intense SPEs in which solar energetic particles are accelerated close to the Sun by solar flares and coronal mass ejections." Those SPEs also have very little to do with the Van Allen belts, aside from another indirect connection: Those SPEs contribute electrons (and some other particles) to the outer Van Allen belt.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Note that @Vixen responded to remarks about the Van Allen belt by quoting a research paper that talks about the risk caused by galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) and solar particle events (SPEs). The direct risks to health from GCRs and SPEs have almost nothing to do with the Van Allen belts. Which tells us something of how little @Vixen knows about GCRs, SPEs, and the Van Allen belts.

Galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) move at almost the speed of light.

But @Vixen doesn't know that. @Vixen seems to think GCRs loiter within the Van Allen belts.

When that Chinese research paper says "The exposure to GCR is inevitable", it's saying the exposure to Galactic Cosmic Rays is essentially the same wherever you are. Whether you're in the Van Allen belts or well outside the Van Allen belts doesn't materially affect your exposure to GCRs.

There is a connection between GCRs and the van Allen belts, but it's indirect. When cosmic rays hit the earth's atmosphere, their collisions with atmospheric particles of gas produce pions, muons, and neutrinos. Those free neutrons are unstable, with a half life on the order of 15 minutes. Their decay produces a proton, an electron, and an antineutrino. Those decay products move in all sorts of directions, but protons and electrons have electrical charge so they respond to the earth's magnetic field. Many of the protons end up in the inner Van Allen belt. By that time, however, they are merely energetic protons, not GCRs.

That Chinese research paper says nothing about the Van Allen belts. What it does imply, however, is that the astronauts' exposure to GCRs "generally contributes a low dose rate compared to the sporadic, unpredictable, but sometimes very intense SPEs in which solar energetic particles are accelerated close to the Sun by solar flares and coronal mass ejections." Those SPEs also have very little to do with the Van Allen belts, aside from another indirect connection: Those SPEs contribute electrons (and some other particles) to the outer Van Allen belt.

I recall she also thought that the VARB had something to do with X-rays.

 

[LondonJohn]

I am looking at these pics with great interest.

Please can you now acknowledge that when in shadow on the Moon, it is pitch black? For the avoidance of doubt, 'pitch black' meaning there are no gradations of grey or grey scale, as we see on Earth due to our atmosphere. Please provide a simple 'yes' or 'no' with no 'it depends' or other qualifiers.

Yes or no?


(Take a deep breath, be brave...you can do it!)

No.


(And you've now been educated on this matter several times, including explanations of how and why you're wrong. Why are you unable and/or unwilling to be corrected by people who know better than you?)

 

[LondonJohn]

Stop pretending radiation is harmless. Marie Curie died a horrible death.

If you thought Jay was "pretending radiation is harmless", your ignorance and incompetence is even worse than I'd thought.

 

[Steve]

Note that @Vixen responded to remarks about the Van Allen belt by quoting a research paper that talks about the risk caused by galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) and solar particle events (SPEs). The direct risks to health from GCRs and SPEs have almost nothing to do with the Van Allen belts. Which tells us something of how little @Vixen knows about GCRs, SPEs, and the Van Allen belts.

Galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) move at almost the speed of light.

But @Vixen doesn't know that. @Vixen seems to think GCRs loiter within the Van Allen belts.

When that Chinese research paper says "The exposure to GCR is inevitable", it's saying the exposure to Galactic Cosmic Rays is essentially the same wherever you are. Whether you're in the Van Allen belts or well outside the Van Allen belts doesn't materially affect your exposure to GCRs.

There is a connection between GCRs and the van Allen belts, but it's indirect. When cosmic rays hit the earth's atmosphere, their collisions with atmospheric particles of gas produce pions, muons, and neutrinos, and free neutrons. Those free neutrons are unstable, with a half life on the order of 15 minutes. Their decay produces a proton, an electron, and an antineutrino. Those decay products move in all sorts of directions, but protons and electrons have electrical charge so they respond to the earth's magnetic field. Many of the protons end up in the inner Van Allen belt. By that time, however, they are merely energetic protons, not GCRs.

That Chinese research paper says nothing about the Van Allen belts. What it does imply, however, is that the astronauts' exposure to GCRs "generally contributes a low dose rate compared to the sporadic, unpredictable, but sometimes very intense SPEs in which solar energetic particles are accelerated close to the Sun by solar flares and coronal mass ejections." Those SPEs also have very little to do with the Van Allen belts, aside from another indirect connection: Those SPEs contribute electrons (and some other particles) to the outer Van Allen belt.

Vixen was wrong again?? Say it ain't so!

 

[LondonJohn]

Excellent observation! Is the penny now beginning to drop..?

It dropped a long time ago: you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Steve]

If you thought Jay was "pretending radiation is harmless", your ignorance and incompetence is even worse than I'd thought.

Seems you have unreasonably high expectations for Vixen's ignorance and incompetence.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

She must be showing us the lost art of debate.

I think you mean the art of lost debate?

 

[JayUtah]

If you thought Jay was "pretending radiation is harmless", your ignorance and incompetence is even worse than I'd thought.

I did say that it was not medically significant. That remains true. The total exposure profile for the J-mission astronauts was on the fuzzy boundary of medical significance. The 2.5-hour exposure of Apollo 11? No. That might have been different if solar activity had been different. But the facts are the facts.

Saying that a certain exposure profile is not medically significant is not the same as saying radiation is harmless. But the harm varies with exposure, and some exposures can be easily healed from. Begging the question that the lunar surface is a “searing radiation hell” substitutes ignorant fear for facts.

Yes, Marie Curie died a horrible death after a lifetime of exposure to moderate-to-high levels of ionizing radiation, and ingesting and inhaling radioactive substances. That doesn’t mean the Apollo astronauts should have. Their exposure was vastly smaller.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Not to belabor the point, but this hypothetical "totally black" shadow would also prevent one from seeing stars.

Also, touching the shadow-blackened surface would expose the astronauts to blackbody radiation, which the frogmen would then have to decontaminate during recovery with flashlights.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Stop pretending radiation is harmless. Marie Curie died a horrible death.

No one here is saying that.

Marie Curie was exposed to ionizing radiation for decades as a result of her work, when the health risks were not yet understood. Likewise, Louis Slotin and Valeri Perevozchenko died horrible deaths, after severe radiation exposure.

The only one making false claims about the dangers of radiation is you. You keep implying that any exposure to ionizing radiation is too dangerous to allow. In fact you keep referring to the radiation environments encountered during a lunar mission with colorfully histrionic adjectives in an attempt to support your misconceptions. But humans are exposed to ionizing radiation with little to no risk all the time. It is something that can be dealt with. Mission planning can minimize exposure. Shielding can attenuate it. It can be kept within acceptable human tolerance. And the risk of coronal mass ejections can be calculated.

 

[Vixen]

So you think if you drop something into a shadow on the moon it becomes impossible to see?

Foster Zygote, shadows on the Moon are always pitch black, yes or no?

 

[threadworm]

Foster Zygote, shadows on the Moon are always pitch black, yes or no?

https://flic.kr/p/yH43Cr

No.