Scientific Forums


Pages: (2) [1] 2   ( Go to first unread post )

Add reply · Start new topic · Start new poll


> Moon Landing Conspiracy Battles, Regarding film & radiation fogging.
krisdevalle
Posted: Apr 10 2012, 07:34 AM


Newbie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 5
Joined: 10-April 12

Positive Feedback: 0%
Feedback Score: 0


I know you guys are probably champing at the bit to have another go with the crazies but I'd like to establish from the outset that I am not one of them. I'm here because I'm responding to a challenge, and I require some help from people who are most likely more knowledgeable in physics, radiation, and the variables involved.

Currently I am in a 'debate' with someone who maintains that the Apollo missions must be faked, as there is no noticeable radiation fogging in any of the thousands of photographs taken and developed.

He cites this test performed on the Space Shuttle as evidence that the films should have exhibited some noticeable fogging.

(can't post a link at this stage)

The Effects of Space Radiation on Flight Film

Mark H. Holly, NASA Contractor Report 188427

I read the article- in most of the examples the results are that the fogging is either minimal, or that increase in graininess or contrast was not readily apparent. I believe Apollo missions used 70mm Ektachrome, in a variety of speeds.

His counter-argument is that the shuttle has higher hull shielding, and that the Apollo missions went for a longer duration, passing through areas of higher radiation exposure.

I know there are particular variables here, and some interesting questions raised. For example, I am aware that the Hassleblad film canisters were aluminum, which will stop, at least, alpha and beta radiation. But that's pretty much where my knowledge of radiation, exposure and shielding stops. But of course those films are inside aluminum shells, inside maybe some container, inside the spacecraft hull. So there's some attenuation going on there which is probably a big contribution to the lack of noticeable fogging.

I believe the gentleman who thinks this is valid proof of a hoax will be watching this thread, so I would put it to the experts - is there a discrepancy here, and what variables should be considered?

cheers

Kris
Top
batfly
Posted: Apr 10 2012, 08:03 AM


Newbie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 6
Joined: 10-April 12

Positive Feedback: 0%
Feedback Score: 0


Here is the publication
CR188427
The Effects of Space Radiation on Flight Film
Mark H. Holly
September 1995
National Aeronautics and
Space Administration

You will note the tests were conducted in LEO on board the Space shuttle, which has more shielding than was available inside the LEM as well as only a fraction of radiation levels and less time of exposure.

In fact, different levels of radiation exposure depended upon where the film was situated inside the shuttle. Meaning, there were hot spot areas of concentration and amplification due to the shuttle structure / shape... the same phenomena seems likely to apply inside the LEM which could further amplify the concentration of the already higher than LEO radiation.

Flight film is stored surrounded by water in order to avoid fogging. None of these precautions were done for the Kodak film used in the Hasselblad cameras inside the LEM. So that LEM film should have been exposed to immensely higher levels of radiation going through the Van Allen belts and on the Moon with all the solar radiation than the film tested inside the shuttle in LEO.

In the 1995 Shuttle tests, Many different grain sizes, aka speeds of film, were tested with varying levels of fogging.

Apollo used many different speeds of Kodak film... Black and White and color photographs...

The film traveled from Earth to the Moon and back and none of the photos show any signs what so ever of any fogging...

Which leads me to the question... Why is Nasa conducting tests in LEO for fogging?

Why not dig up the ancient kick *** Hasselblad technology immune to fogging and test why it never had issues with fogging compared to more contemporary film in 1995?


Apollo used multiple speeds aka varying grains sizes black and white and color film... not just a single type and speed of film.

How is it that radiation outside LEO, through the Van Allen belts and then on the Moon and back repeated over several different Apollo missions using multiple different Kodak ASA film would not fog any of the different speed film like the different speed films were fogged on the Shuttle in LEO in 1995...?
Top
krisdevalle
Posted: Apr 10 2012, 08:12 AM


Newbie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 5
Joined: 10-April 12

Positive Feedback: 0%
Feedback Score: 0


^
|

There's your guy.

Apparently he's after logical and rational responses, but I can't be responsible for what you do to him.
Top
batfly
Posted: Apr 10 2012, 08:17 AM


Newbie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 6
Joined: 10-April 12

Positive Feedback: 0%
Feedback Score: 0


Since when is science a gladiator sport?
Top
batfly
Posted: Apr 10 2012, 05:26 PM


Newbie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 6
Joined: 10-April 12

Positive Feedback: 0%
Feedback Score: 0


Here is another source regarding the radiation on flight film:

Lloyd P. Oldham and Harry L. Atkins, "Photographic film and the Skylab environment," Appl. Opt. 16, 1002-1008 (1977)

Photographic films used in the Skylab orbiting laboratory experienced changes in their response to radiant energy due to storage and use in the Skylab environment. All available data from flight film and premission tests were compiled and analyzed to quantify this environmental impact. This paper gives an overview of that evaluation, provides examples of flight film performance data, and summarizes the conclusions and recommendations derived.

If I find any more I'll let you know.
Top
batfly
Posted: Apr 12 2012, 07:15 PM


Newbie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 6
Joined: 10-April 12

Positive Feedback: 0%
Feedback Score: 0


Yawn...<<insert cricket sound track here>>
Top
rpenner
Posted: Apr 12 2012, 07:41 PM


Fully Wired
*****

Group: Moderators
Posts: 5709
Joined: 27-December 04

Positive Feedback: 84.5%
Feedback Score: 397


This claim is basically inapplicable pseudo-scientific fraud being passed along via repetition and distortion.

Not all radiation is created equal.
Shielding is important.
Time and exposure is important.

So if someone does an experiment with 25-100 rads of 8000 keV radiation on unshielded film, this is quite different than a fraction of a rad of 3-5 keV radiation on appropriately shielded film.

http://www.clavius.org/envradfilm.html

Holly did tests which centered on proton fogging and specifically used films that were more sensitive to radiation.

This post has been edited by rpenner on Apr 12 2012, 08:02 PM


--------------------
愛平兎仏主
"And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus." Philippians 4:7
It's just good Netiquette. Failing that, Chlorpromazine.
Top
batfly
Posted: Apr 13 2012, 03:28 AM


Newbie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 6
Joined: 10-April 12

Positive Feedback: 0%
Feedback Score: 0


1. "This claim is basically inapplicable pseudo-scientific fraud being passed along via repetition and distortion."

How is NASA research regarding the effects of radiation on flight film in LEO "inapplicable pseudo-scientific fraud"?

Was NASA involved in a conspiracy to stick a foot in their mouth?


2. "Not all radiation is created equal."

What do you mean precisely?

Are you saying the radiation within LEO is of the type and intensity that will cause fogging on differing types and speeds of flight film, whereas the type and intensity of radiation outside LEO and on the lunar surface is the kind that leaves no trace on ALL the thousands of negatives shot on the moon leaving them crystal clear with absolutely no fogging?


3. "Shielding is important."
Was it important enough for NASA and Hasselblad to have documented shielding specifications regarding the proper storage and handling of the cameras to avoid the effects of radiation on flight film for the Apollo mission? If so where is that documentation...?

I've been looking all over the place for this but have found absolutely nothing about it...


4. "Time and exposure is important."
Over 7 days beyond LEO... plenty of time and plenty of radiation exposure.


5. "So if someone does an experiment with 25-100 rads of 8000 keV radiation on unshielded film, this is quite different than a fraction of a rad of 3-5 keV radiation on appropriately shielded film."

Regarding the effects of radiation in LEO on flight film, This reference you provided is "inapplicable pseudo-scientific fraud"

This particular experiment is inapplicable. However the 1995 LEO tests are very much applicable to the Apollo missions.

I'm not sure why you provided this example, unless perhaps you're attempting to inject a straw man as if it is my argument...? However, that would be quite the logical fallacy.

6. "Holly did tests which centered on proton fogging and specifically used films that were more sensitive to radiation."

How is the film Apollo used specifically insensitive to radiation? If you research the Apollo record, you will notice Apollo used a whole range of film with varying quality and speeds. Very much comparable to the range of quality and speeds tested in LEO in 1995 by NASA.

I'm trying to find documentation regarding NASA's awareness of the radiation issues on flight film before they went to the moon to take the most absolutely fantastic crystal clear images there. I just can't find any.

I'm beginning to surmise NASA just plain lucked out.
Top
rpenner
Posted: Apr 13 2012, 06:52 AM


Fully Wired
*****

Group: Moderators
Posts: 5709
Joined: 27-December 04

Positive Feedback: 84.5%
Feedback Score: 397


I'm going to put my foot down. If you are going to insist on some weird conspiracy theory and read things just for confirmation bias, then we can have no discussion and I will ban you.

Radiation fogging of film is not new.
Here's a discussion of it in the 1967 Lunar Orbiter:
QUOTE
Boeing's proposed design was beautifully straightforward except for one feature, the camera. Instead of being all-electronic as were prior space cameras, the Eastman Kodak camera for the Lunar Orbiter made use of 70-mm film developed on board the spacecraft and then optically scanned and telemetered to Earth. Low-speed film had to be used so as not to be fogged by space radiation.

from Apollo Expeditions to the Moon (1975)

The camera magazines were modified, so the skin doses of Apollo astronauts overstates the radiation exposure of the actual film.
http://www.nasm.si.edu/events/apollo11/obj...id=A19980009000

Film speeds were mostly ASA 64-160 which is much slower than the sensitive films in the Holly paper. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/a16.photidx.pdf

With faster film, fogging is seen. http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/c...m/magazine/?124




--------------------
愛平兎仏主
"And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus." Philippians 4:7
It's just good Netiquette. Failing that, Chlorpromazine.
Top
batfly
Posted: Apr 13 2012, 11:16 PM


Newbie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 6
Joined: 10-April 12

Positive Feedback: 0%
Feedback Score: 0


I don't see any fogging in your examples? And non of the examples show Men on the moon.

And regarding the slower film used by Apollo where we can actually see Astronauts and stuff in focus supposedly on the moon...

The 70 MM Color photos taken with SO-168
www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/catalog/70mm/magazine/?114
www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS16-114-18387

They ALL seem crystal clear... Without any fogging what so ever.

The hypothesis / explanation you give is due to the lower ASA speed. SO-168

However there is yet another study I found done by Sky Lab 1972 concerning SO-168 at a maximum of 4 RADS (That is the total exposure for any variable amount of time... so if they only were doing the test for lets say a day, the radiation would have to be higher in order to reach 4 RADS)


The conclusion:
processing type SO-168 film to a lower ASA value will give more usable results. Usability in this particular instance means that which will produce results with the greatest amount of information rather than that which is of subjectively better quality.



Author: Pierce, W. N
Subject: ASTRONOMICAL OBSERVATORIES; METEOROIDS; OPTICAL MEASUREMENT; OPTICAL MEASURING INSTRUMENTS; PHOTOTUBES; REFLECTING TELESCOPES
Year: 1972
Language: English
Book contributor: NASA
Collection: nasa_techdocs

Link to Doc:
ia600505.us.archive.org/21/items/nasa_techdoc_19750007870/19750007870.pdf

Description:
Investigations were performed to determine optimum exposure and processing procedures necessary to partially offset the effect of radiation to which film type SO-168 will be exposed during the Skylab Mission. This task became necessary when it was determined that original predictions of 2 to 3 RADS of radiation to which the film will be exposed were too low, and that levels as high as 3.5 to 4.0 RADS may be incurred, thus reducing image quality below an acceptable level. Tests results show that forced processing of type SO-168 film tended to reduce the density range to an unusable level, and that processing to a lower ASA value would provide greater image quality for the user.

SO...

The total amount of RADS for the apollo missions was well over this 4 RADS which should have caused fogging issues to the SO-168

Going through the Van Allen belts should have peppered the film.

Look at the math:
www.braeunig.us/apollo/apollo11-TLI.htm

The craft speed will average into 1500-2000mph. Now, the Moon is on average 238,855 miles from Earth.

There are five sets of belt regions to contend with. Let's call them Blue, Green, Yellow, Orange and Red.

Blue: 1.8 Re x (6378 km/Re) x (1 hour/25,000 km) x (60 minutes/1 hour) = 27.6 minutes
Yellow: (1.4 x 6378) /25,000 x 60 = 6.1 minutes
Orange: (1.0 x 6378) / 25,000 x 60 = 15.3 minutes
Green: (0.25 x 6378)/25,000 x 60 = 3.8 minutes
Red: 0 minutes
Total transit time……………………… 52.8 minutes
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blue: = 27.6 minutes x ( 60 sec/ 1 minute) x (0.0001 Rads/sec) = 0.17 Rads
Yellow = 6.1 minutes x 60 sec/minute x 0.005 rads/sec = 1.83 Rads
Orange = 15.3 minutes x (60 sec/minute) x 0.01 rads/sec = 9.18 Rads
Green = 3.8 minutes x (60 sec/minute) x 0.001 rads/sec = 0.23 Rads
--
0.17 + 1.83 + 9.18 + 0.23 = 11.4 Rads total

11.4 RADS is well over 4 RADS

Don't give me the time of exposure nonsense either... because RAD means the total amount of exposure of radiation... Time of exposure is redundant when talking about RADS.

In other words you can get 4 RADS in a couple of minutes or in a couple of days depending upon the level of radiation you are being exposed to.


How did the SO-168 film used by Apollo escape any signs of radiation fogging? I find it very inexplicable.

[Moderator: Banned for denial of scientific expertise and substituting conspiracy hypotheses, confirmation bias and Dunning-Kruger overconfidence.]

This post has been edited by rpenner on Apr 14 2012, 08:19 AM
Top
Exergone
Posted: Feb 13 2014, 12:37 PM


Newbie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1
Joined: 13-February 14

Positive Feedback: 0%
Feedback Score: 0


"Insurmountable radiation" seems to be the favorite Moon hoax argument. I think because it is the most technically complicated point of hoax to understand for the average Joe, with many variables to consider. Hoaxers particularly get hung up on why Apollo film was not ruined by radiation. And I find only vague mentions of how the Hasselblads were specially modified in some way to protect against radiation, without specifics.

But I wanted to point out the glaring error in the banned poster's response, for any others who happen across this thread while searching for Moon hoax info, pro or con.

Batfly added up rads based on an exterior exposure, not the inside of the spacecraft. Apparently he failed to read the entire article he linked to as proof for his math- www.braeunig.us/apollo/apollo11-TLI.htm

"This is, of course, the radiation dose that an unprotected astronaut, i.e. one outside the spacecraft, would receive. The Apollo 11 astronauts where safely inside a spacecraft having a multi-layer hull with a total thickness of several centimeters (see below) and a shielding rating of 7 to 8 g/cm2. This hull provided excellent shielding from the particulate radiation of the VARB, as it was constructed from materials ideal at stopping this type of radiation. The actual radiation dose received by the astronauts throughout the entirety of the Apollo 11 mission was less than one rem, as measured by dosimeters."
Top
brucep
Posted: Feb 15 2014, 10:20 PM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 3832
Joined: 3-October 09

Positive Feedback: 88.37%
Feedback Score: 146


QUOTE (Exergone @ Feb 13 2014, 12:37 PM)
"Insurmountable radiation" seems to be the favorite Moon hoax argument. I think because it is the most technically complicated point of hoax to understand for the average Joe, with many variables to consider. Hoaxers particularly get hung up on why Apollo film was not ruined by radiation. And I find only vague mentions of how the Hasselblads were specially modified in some way to protect against radiation, without specifics.

But I wanted to point out the glaring error in the banned poster's response, for any others who happen across this thread while searching for Moon hoax info, pro or con.

Batfly added up rads based on an exterior exposure, not the inside of the spacecraft. Apparently he failed to read the entire article he linked to as proof for his math- www.braeunig.us/apollo/apollo11-TLI.htm

"This is, of course, the radiation dose that an unprotected astronaut, i.e. one outside the spacecraft, would receive. The Apollo 11 astronauts where safely inside a spacecraft having a multi-layer hull with a total thickness of several centimeters (see below) and a shielding rating of 7 to 8 g/cm2. This hull provided excellent shielding from the particulate radiation of the VARB, as it was constructed from materials ideal at stopping this type of radiation. The actual radiation dose received by the astronauts throughout the entirety of the Apollo 11 mission was less than one rem, as measured by dosimeters."

Nice post. Thanks.
Send PM ·
Top
Declan Lunny
Posted: Feb 15 2014, 10:24 PM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 609
Joined: 15-January 14

Positive Feedback: 0%
Feedback Score: 0


QUOTE (Exergone @ Feb 13 2014, 07:37 AM)

But I wanted to point out the glaring error in the banned poster's response, for any others who happen across this thread while searching for Moon hoax info, pro or con.


Good post, great service to the public. I also thank you. Post more.


--------------------
"No one will ever take you as serious as you take yourself, although more often than not you will expect them to." ...... Declan Lunny
Top
Justin_Settanni
Posted: Mar 20 2014, 03:17 AM


Newbie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 20-March 14

Positive Feedback: 0%
Feedback Score: 0


I don't think radiation fogging can occur if the planet or moon in question has no atmosphere to hold the radiation, Radiation would only occur with a solar flare or CME from the sun, possibly a solar storm, but those can only occur in a atmosphere, which the moon lacks. So I believe radiation fogging would not play an important factor in this argument, But what is quite suspicious is the original tapes for Apollo 11 were actually lost, NASA admits this. Also, radiation can effect the moon, but in a very small way due to the fact that there is no atmosphere, meaning radiation just floats near the moon or on the surface but does not stick around.
Top
Guest
Posted: Mar 20 2014, 03:28 AM


Unregistered









Radiation floats? Good news! tongue.gif
Top

Topic Options Pages: (2) [1] 2 

Add reply · Start new topic · Start new poll


 

Terms of use