The Moon is Hot, in more ways than not

by; Brag Guth / IEIS~GASA    updated: October 24, 2003

As pertaining to those insisting that I'm the one misrepresenting the issues.

I think I'm not the one misrepresenting; as I'm trying to use the information provided by those smarter than myself and, even with a few unintentional mistakes, I'm still more right than not. If it's your life that's on the line, and you had to select, I'd go with the village idiot, especially if his ideas are more likely than not to save your butt.

This paper is actually not about the thermal issues of our moon, even though its core is reportedly still nicely cooking away, via something nuclear, and of the outer body or hull of the moon offers a relatively cool sub-zero crust, though somewhat more so than Earth, loaded up with radioactive substances, as well as wherever the sun shines is where it obviously gets toasty hot. All of which are actually darn good thermal issues to know about, though not the real issue at hand, as compared to solar generated radiation and then secondary radiation is what's really too freaking hot to touch, moon suit or not.

Going somewhat by what the Earth L2 environment represents (3.18e5 rads as per con_x_dose1.pdf page 8), I've roughly recalculated as to what I believe the lunar surface as offering, 15e3 Sv/y as seriously nasty. After all, our moon (other than when there's an eclipse) obtains no Earth shielding affect whatsoever, nor is there benefit form Earth's electromagnetic buffer zone absorbing and/or deflecting squat as with respect to residing at Earth L2, plus there's all of that clumping moon dirt shedding secondary radiation at you from nearly all directions, and I do believe you're at least twice that nasty if you're having to take the overall impact into account by compressing the vast bulk of annual dosage into just those sunny days worth (15e3/365 = 41 Sv/Av.day X 2 = 82 Sv/solar illuminated day, which is only 342 rads/hr).

In other unpleasant words of wisdom; if you're going to the moon, with the intentions of doing another one of those fully solar illuminated 36 hour EVAs, be prepaired to DIE for it.

Unfortunately, our government, thereby your government, misrepresents all sorts of things all the time, including upon many items directly responsible for provoking others if not subsequently taking human life without just cause, yet perhaps yourself and of your sanctimonious "all knowing" expertise, expect of my limited resources to outperform the sorts of grandeur of those NASA/DHS dog-wagging infomercials. Unfortunately, I simply can't compete on such a thoroughly unlevel playing field, especially when this skewed field has been made damn near vertical.

If you still can't figure this one out for yourself, that we've all been snookered, or if you're on the side that's been perpetrating this cold-war ruse all along, then obviously there's no hope in convincing folks like yourself, as that would be like expecting the Pope to make good on a number of issues, or for our resident warlord to admit he was literally dead wrong, and as you know, that isn't going to happen either (no matters what), even though we'd all be better off if these folks would simply fess up.

BTW; I'm using DHS as the catch-all for the cloak and dagger aspects of NSA/DoD/FBI/CIA, as these were the nice folks that informed our NASA, of what they could and/or could not do.

As pertaining to another tit for tat on secondary lunar radiation (solar illuminated surface, as opposed to the lunar nighttime), at this time I have no specifics that you and others can't outperform. All that I can do is apply what I've learned from a number of respectable folks, in that nearly all substances, including lunar basalt dirt (supposedly that'll include the clumping formula), will react nicely to the gauntlet of solar influx. Thereby, of the actual daylight lunar surface environment is in fact somewhat worse off for ware, offering more radiation than your being in orbit about the moon. The more surrounding density there is, the worse off the secondary radiation becomes, of which such radiation is traveling off in every which way but lose, so that by merely standing behind just any old rock isn't going to cut it.

I'm assuming that residing behind a sufficiently large lunar rock, that rock creating a shade of -250ºF, is obviously offering a less solar irradiated environment, and thereby offering less secondary, though that had better be a very large rock, or perhaps small mountain. That's exactly why you'll need an overkill of mass shielding your butt, not so much for the primary radiation, as for the secondary aspects.

On the other hand, Lunar surface by earthshine should be considerably less affected, though well enough illuminated.

Speaking of certain other illumination worthy issues: http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-illumination.htm

I've been asked by a wizard of NASA (specifically by one of those pro-Appollo wizards), of what's believable;
I define "believable" as in the eye of the beholder, thus I can't necessarily prove onto the likes of yourself any more than you can onto me, though if two or more independent souls are somewhat saying the same thing, I tend to follow their lead, at least until something doesn't click, like so much of Apollo simply doesn't click anymore (why is that?).

Do we simply know less than we did 35 years ago, or perhaps, are all of the village idiots, like myself, getting dumber by the minute?

An example of what I'll believe about secondary radiation;
On Earth, in order to obtain a 1024:1 reduction in secondary X-Ray radiation. For that to happen, I believe this requires roughly 7" of lead. This analogy of avoiding secondary radiation comes from a half dosage shield requirement that's been specified by folks in the radiation business, of requiring 0.7" of lead for obtaining a 50% level, obviously that being of a whole lot more thickness if the substance were of aluminum. Even though aluminum, because of it's less density than lead, creates somewhat lesser secondary/kg, we'll still require considerably more thickness than lead, as well as in more directions, as in surrounding yourself in nearly all directions.

Outside the Van Allen zone of death, such as where ISS resides well below, and/or of orbiting about the moon, you may not require 7" of lead, as those locations are far from being surrounded by the sorts of lethal particles the Van Allen zone has on tap. As far as the ultimate solution of shielding from space radiation goes, the added distance placed between yourself and the Van Allen zone is what actually makes it possible for the likes of yourself to survive right here on Earth. Though residing external to this Van Allen zone, there's little between you and of whatever new gauntlet of highly charged solar debris has to offer, where the closer to objects of mass you've become associated with, such as the lunar surface, the more secondary radiation becomes apparent.

Of course, you have to first survive the initial raw impact of whatever solar and galactic radiation, before there's a need for being concerned about the secondary issues. Getting up close and personal with any substance, such as moon dirt, is where those secondary radiation issues will hit you where it counts. Though the pro-Apollo camp will insist that men have walked harmlessly for days on the moon, when in fact that sort of solar exposed EVA would not have been all that survivable, at least not without dyer consequences, perhaps to the point of needing banked bone marrow, as we're not talking about any walk in the park.

As for a lunar nighttime EVA; especially under the relatively terrific illumination of earthshine, would have been doable with far fewer complications, as well as a mere fraction of the primary radiation exposure, thereby zilch worth of secondary radiation exposure. Zilch representing not 1% of the primary radiation exposure associated with the alternative of having a sunny day, thus not 0.1% the secondary factor. I'm not sure but, I can't hardly believe that earthshine could even deliver 0.1% of what our sun has to offer, so perhaps we're looking at as little as 0.01% (34.2 mr/hr) of daytime radiation for an given lunar nighttime exposure, of which certainy implies that the illuminated moon is where the real action is, as well as for being a whole lot hotter than just thermally hot, as opposed to the lunar night becoming quite EVA survivable.

A good moon suit should cut the bulk of your radiation exposure by a factor of 200:1, thus the lunar nighttime environment of 34 mr/hr becomes 0.17 mr/hr within the suit, thereby 10 EVA hours is worth roughly twice your daily dosage on Earth.

Keeping in mind, we're not talking about those fully solar exposed EVAs receiving the likes of potentially 1000+ X-rays/hr of just your leg or arm, but of a TBI dosage that's all inclusive, including your eyes and brain, upon such organs that are normally excluded when medical dosage levels are applied because, there's a wide and well documented consensus of exactly what happens when those organs are exposed to such horrific levels, whereas 1 Sv (100 rem/rad) becomes sort of a red-line of dosage for those organs, as even lesser amounts are easily detected as creating damage, some of which is irreversible, of which the radiation treatment itself an induce a cancer, by the fact that your own immune system is trying to reject the damaged DNA/RNA as foreign material. I'm not absolutely certain but, having your own body rejecting your eyes or any portion of your brain doesn't seem like such a good outcome.

I've been informed upon countless times, that our sun was either inactive at the time of Apollo, and/or that it was otherwise within a fairly good deal of solar maximum phase. So, once again I'm confused; either way a solar illuminated moon seems like a fairly bad thing, as not only is it way hotter accomplishing anything while roasting under 1400 w/m2 (adding in your 1000 btu of body heat), but if the direct solar impact from the solar maximum phase doesn't manage to get you right off the bat, then of the solar minimum aspects will, by way of producing even more of the secondary radiation than not. As hard as it may seem, trust me, this was not one of those win-win situations for those Apollo astronauts.

A good substitute for shielding your body, other than a great deal of mass, is for having a good deal of distance filled mostly by hydrogen between yourself and of whatever is radioactive, which is going to become damn hard to do if your walking on it. So, it's rather imperative to sort of work in the dark, even though earthshine is way more than sufficient, as even the vibrance of starlight is sufficient to see by, as long as one of those stars isn't our sun. Fully solar exposed EVAs are not only receiving the total thermal influx of nearly 1400 watt/m2, which is tough to deal with considering that a working astronaut is generating another 1000 btu/hr, but also receiving those highly energetic spectrums of solar UVa/b/c, where it's the UV/c and of those shorter wavelengths that'll be saying hello to your DNA/RNA.

As long as you're within one of those moon suits, little if any UV/c gets through, though the shorter wavelengths are not even slowed down by such, thus since you can't afford the distance as a factor for any shield, instead you'll need a considerable mass surround. Moon dirt of mostly basalt can become that mass, as long as it's situated between yourself and of whatever is trying to attack your DNA/RNA, whereas a sufficient mass of 1 meter in thickness is worth roughly 341 g/cm2, which of course is not of any EVA option, though just about right for a lunar survival habitat. A barrier of 3 meters worth is roughly 1024 g/cm2, whereas this amount of mostly basalt mass will afford a multi-year capability, obviously excluding whatever daytime EVAs, that'll keep those sunny days down to a dull roar of perhaps 10 mr/day interior (keeping in mind that we been recently informed the moon itself is roughly twice as radioactive as Earth). Since an lunar habitat will be limited to a 50% solar exposure, thus the interior of a good habitat might drop to as little as 1 mr/24 hr., but only if those hours are of lunar nighttime hours. Though taking a few nighttime EVA strolls will likely bring your average TBI dosage back up to levels of accumulating at or above 10 mr/hr from the galactic influx, that which is a survivable 240 mr per 24 hours spent nighttime exposed to the galactic influx which irradiated the lunar surface in the same manner as the sun.

Obviously I'm having to estimate upon some relatively low levels of lunar background and galactic influx, thereby I'm not intentionally misleading simply because I'm not being specific upon any one specific wavelength, although instruments can determine if it's advisable or not to perform any EVA, or to otherwise stay inside until whatever influx of nasty stuff has passed. A lunar transport constructed of mostly basalt composites will likely perform as a sufficient shield of at least 34 g/cm2 (basalt fibers themselves offering as little as 27 g/cm2 or a raw product density of 2.7 g/cc), that's roughly 10 cm worth of material being somewhat more dense than aluminum, thus quite heavy but for the 1/6th gravity making the transporter into a manageable machine or lunar bus that'll do the task of shielding while transporting those folks intent upon getting out and about.

As far as accommodating a fully solar exposed outing, having your lunar bus constructed of 10 cm worth of basalt composite will suffice if that duration isn't for days on end, and those fools intent upon getting a first hand look-see at the sun are only planning upon minutes worth of EVA, as hours would be asking a lot of anyone, like life itself is where such EVA time is certainly worth far more than money, as it's your DNA/RNA that's on the line. Having your own cash of banked bone marrow on hand would certainly improve your chances but, why even risk it if those EVAs can be more than accommodated via earthshine, at a fraction of the radiation influx, within a moon suit that can technically and energy wise manage keeping you warm a whole lot easier than keeping you cool, as otherwise why even chance leaving the lunar bus, when using robotics should more than suffice.

I'm not going to suggest that folks of the pro-Apollo camp, nor even of those pro-ESE or bust sorts of individuals need to lose faith in what they perceive as history. If believing in those having "the right stuff" suits you fancy, even if the only supportive evidence comes from within their own binding "nondisclosure" establishment, as well as for having to use skewed laws of physics, then so be it. However, I'm certainly not going to intentionally provide the same sorts of disinformation, as lives and limited resources could be at risk, which is actually the underlying pretext of why I've touted upon the robotic mission, rather than of anything intended for accommodating mere humans, that's including my LSE-CM/ISS as simply way too much pie in the sky, as robotics will not only offer the most BANG for our buck, but avoid altogether having to recover another bach of thoroughly roasted astronauts, and of accomplishing nearly whatever at 1% the cost impact of any human accommodating mission, while likely not even contributing 10% of the CO2 for Mother Earth.

Think about it; if we had to send off a crew of astronauts in order to photograph Mars (without their having to land on Mars), that mission alone would have required at least another decade, at least a hundred times if not a thousand fold more investment, as well as 100 times the amount of artificial CO2 created for our environment. Secondly, those astronauts would either be DOA, or in a seriously bad way of needing a bone marrow transplant upon returning home, not to even mention upon the possibility of what the next mission involving an actual Mars landing would have to entail (lethal Mars microbes and all).

At least my LSE-CM/ISS is doable, as well as affordably resolving all sort of means to better ends, as it's certainly well enough shielded and capable of affording whatever amounts of that infamous clumping moon dirt on behalf of any manned mission going off to wherever. As a staging or pitstop/gateway (moon dirt depot), loaded with resources and of a sufficient abode hosting Earth sciences away from home, the LSE-CM/ISS is just the ticket to ride. Though short of my having this piece of cake, and of being able to eat it, I'd just as soon have the TRACE-II mission underway, as for that robotic instrument stationkeeping at Venus L2 (VL2) because, once again, we can do this one with what we've got, at less than a penny on the dollar for what just about any alternative agenda that's on the books. This TRACE-II could have already been on-station for 0.1% of what the initial infomercial phase of their ESE fiasco is costing us, and that's just the tip of their ESE iceberg that could run 10 trillion before they're either done, or we're all quite dead from either old age and/or from one of their ESE disasters. And, if their ESE fiasco doesn't create sufficient carnage, obtaining those lethal Mars microbes (that being another trillion + disaster waiting to happen) will just as likely as not, kill us all.

The previous page/report on "Space Radiation" will soon get another update, where perhaps more feedback will be introduced and, as always my testy dyslexic way of doing things will gradually be improved upon, in spite of all the warm and fuzzy flak coming my way. Actually, with winter comming on, I could use some more of that flak to heat my home, so keep it coming.


To the INDEX page: GUTH Venus (with loads of recently posted UPDATES)
alternate URL's: http://guthvenus.tripod.com  and  http://geocities.com/bradguth
Copyright © 2000/2001/2002/2003 - Brad E. Guth
GUTH Venus: All Rights Reserved
Webmaster: Brad Guth - Brad Guth / IEIS~GASA   ~  1-253-8576061
created: October 23, 2003

Brad Guth / IEIS IEIS-Brad@Juno.com

(due to officially sanctioned email bashing, as well as unauthorized moderation, if push should come down to shove, you can post your reply in Google using "bradguth-email" or "gv-bradguth-email" in your subject line, perhaps that way I'll find you)