If the radiation doesn't get to you, those inbound dust-bunnies well
Most snookered moon website of the decades:
With several images on the above link. Of course these images do manage to continue indicating those illumination hot zones, as well as for the lack of surface meteorites and shards strewn about, as well as continually offering the unusually high degree of illumination reflection index being 55+%. As for another typical example within "The Great Moon Hoax" page that follows, as well as for just about any number of other skewed images, that which simply do not permit 2+2 to equal 4, more like that of a 3 or perhaps 5, but never 4.
"Astronaut Edwin E. Aldrin, Jr., lunar module pilot, walks on the surface of the Moon near the leg of the Lunar Module (LM) "Eagle" during the Apollo 11 exravehicular activity (EVA). Astronaut Neil A. Armstrong, commander, took this photograph with a 70mm lunar surface camera. While astronauts Armstrong and Aldrin descended in the Lunar Module (LM) "Eagle" to explore the Sea of Tranquility region of the Moon, astronaut Michael Collins, command module pilot, remained with the Command and Service Modules (CSM) "Columbia" in lunar orbit."
It's simply pretty damn hard to honestly account for an average reflective index of 11% as imaged by KECK-II or Hubble, as well as any number of other officially acquired images, especially when all of those Apollo images (thousands of them) failed at finding much of anything below 25%, with damn near the bulk of all other terrain being 55+%, and most often of supposedly moon rock faces that were even brighter. Never any of the moon basalt fields nor basalt shards in view, nor apparently retrieved, as imaging such should have been pressing the photographic extremes of contrast between those 80~85% reflective moon suits and of their surroundings, and at least of dimly allowing stars to being imaged, especially that of Sirius and even of way more so intensity of the likes of Venus.
Now this seems like perfectly good physics; such as, if there's to be no atmosphere, and if absolutely everything is potentially impacting at such a horrific velocity, that there should only be loads of pristine meteorites and their shards strewn about, and of otherwise an environment of relatively sharply split basalt moon rock as resulting from such impacts, in fact, just about every hour there should have been a delivery of at least a micro-meteorite per m2, yet never was there once reported such an event of anything touching down, as if there were, even the impact from a mere dust bunny (2 mg) impacting at just 10 km/s should have sent a small cloud of that infamous clumping moon dirt high into the associated zone above and of surrounding every impact, such as from the sorts of 100+ kg impact (100 KJ) aftermath worth of kinetic energy released from this mere dust-bunny. Of course, from an actual micro-meteorite of 2 grams worth would likely have become 100 tonnes (100e6 Joules) at impacting the moon. Unless there was something attributing to it's deceleration, such as having to catch up from the rear, as in somewhat of a horizontal assault coming at you like a bat out of hell from over the horizon, a rear-ender sort of speak, as this mode could certainly have moderated such impacts, though eventually lunar impact those still would, just at somewhat lesser velocity due to the extremely thin sodium atmosphere, or as perhaps having to pass through an astronaut should impede something. Although, as for those frontal assault velocity sort of impacts are obviously just the opposite, as in potentially exceeding 30 km/s. Do the math, then you tell me what's what.
Later on, I'll offer a bit more upon these potentially lethal lunar dust-bunnies, as for their offering much worse things than mere radiation. Although, if you somehow managed to dodge all this incoming physical flak, as then you'll need to focus upon the radiation factors, either that or upon getting your self as far away from all that highly reactive clumping moon dirt as possible, whereas the only viable zone of relatively short-term sustaining of your life (lunar lander or not) is of what's illuminated by earthshine instead of direct solar impact.
This following reply is actually well above average, in that David Knisely had been responding to my village idiot style of awareness and comparisons of all those relatively sizable and smaller meteorites and their shards strewn about Mars, as for at least half of the Mars globe had been pulverised nearly as bad as our moon, plus as for Mars having so damn little of any significant atmospheric buffer zone as to preventing new arrivals, although having a sufficient degree of surface weathering upon, and to erode and subsequently cover up to some degree of their fair share of said meteorites, still there's at least 100 fold more remaining meteorite and their shards as quite visible, as well as indicating of the sorts of believable meteorite like composition, as to being seen on Mars than of what's situated on our moon, at least by way of those Apollo acquired images.
From: David W. Knisely
"It is as cluttered, at least in some places. However, on the moon the smaller surface rocks are subjected to an almost continual bombardment over the centuries by small meteoroids and micrometeorites, which tends to break them down into small shards or even pulverize them into the material which makes up the lunar soil. Mars has an atmosphere which is thin, but is just thick enough to screen out most smaller meteoroids, so many of the surface rocks remain almost untouched sitting on the surface. Even so, as the Opportunity rover has shown, there are places on Mars which have very few surface rocks exposed."
I'll have to guess, I still don't know or understand why smaller sorts of moon rocks would have been singled out for pulverising, as opposed to larger ones not being targeted by all of the truly horrific influx of those nasty meteors, meteorites and micro-meteorites plus a few million dust-bunnies per year, as it otherwise seems like a rather simple sort of moon boot kick, or that a shovel could have easily uncovered the dark basalt like bulk substance of the moon, much like what the rocket thrust from the lander should have easily blown clear from beneath those landers.
On behalf of supporting our NASA; if it should turn out that our KODAK film can so easily withstand a 500°F thermal cycling differential, without ever being the least bit distorted nor cracked, as well as not being the least bit fogging for all the radiation, and that of all the unusually 55+% illumination index (illuminated hot spots and all) of those photographed lunar landscapes nearly devoid of meteorites and shards as being the norm, as well as for there never being a hint of micro-meteorites incoming, and especially of their not photographing upon anything remotely dark basalt looking, are all none the less true to form, then I certainly wont have to hide, as I'll become the first to post my retractions, stipulating that because none of the vast numbers of NASA hugging folks could independently substantiate a damn thing, other than by their stipulating only upon whatever was officially moderated to death by their NASA, which of course we already knew about such data that simply didn't add up. Whereas I'll certainly admit that I, as well as thousands of others far smarter then myself, simply couldn't put their two and two together, at least not so that it would have ever yielded the required Apollo "three" or "five" as for the sorts of skewed answers that's become so essential in order to have supported those lunar landings, whereas actually the correct answer to the Apollo 2+2 has become just about anything but 4.
This is also not my suggesting that our NASA doesn't for certain know a good many things about our moon that should hold up in any court of physics, just that some of their information wasn't acquired as first hand as they'd like us to believe, and as a result there's certain compromises or perhaps conditions of extreme administration risk and/or shame being at risk of exposure. In other words, there's been a good chance of there becoming a truly lethal outfall of truths that'll never end, at least creating staggering levels of embarrassments never before encountered, not even by biblical standards.
BTW; Since the moon composition/density offers absolutely nothing like Earth (though oddly much closer density to that of Mars, or even that of Io or Europa), especially since it's been most recently determined that the moon contains a thermal nuclear core and Earth doesn't, you may need to reconsider that perhaps Sirius/abc might have delivered the likes of Venus and our moon, while otherwise passing near enough to have UV illuminated Earth as well as that of our entire solar system for thousands of years at a time upon every 110,000 year cycle, leaving Earth with perhaps another 90,000 year timeline prior to modern mankind screwing up the environment, in which an ice-age could have developed and subsided prior to the following influx cycle of a Sirius encounter, of which must have happened as of roughly 40,000+ years ago. Now there's also something to being said for the horrifically skewed orbit of Pluto, as perhaps being so thoroughly and/or wildly elliptical, I'm thinking because of this near fly-by of the relatively massive gravity influence(s) of the Sirius star system.
A nice sort of lunar day might offer 364 rads/hr, a bad sort of day is 10+ fold worse.
Of course the sort of unusually calm solar weather days associated with all of those Apollo missions must have been offering at most a mere 36 rads/day (1.5 rads per hour), and thus within their nifty moon suits received only .015 rad/hr, though actually our lucky Apollo mission astronauts seemed to have acquired less than 15 mr/day, making for those external levels of exposure at best worth 1.5 rads/day (inclusive of all secondary factors was such a terrific deal).
Although, of those cameras and their film packs must have seen at least 10 fold greater internal radiation than whatever the astronauts received, thus film was potentially receiving 1.5 rads/hr, of which apparently the batch of KODAK film they used was not only thermally tolerant as to sustaining multiple cycles of a differential consisting of 500°F, but furthermore recorded absolutely none of that radiation, nor was it physically even the least bit measurably affected by such thermal extremes. Cosmic rays were apparently also off-line during those Apollo missions, and gamma rays hadn't even been realized as a threat, so that those must not have been a measurable factor, much like the for real threat of micro-meteorites were absolutely nowhere to be found.
Like any good magic act, as for making policy look like happenstance, and/or vice versa, is key to snookering folks. By quietly keeping the pressure on, always ready as to take advantage of any true happenstance and/or if need be creating and/or allowing what looks like happenstance is crucial to fooling folks into believing absolutely anything. Like how the Monks and the Pope turned so many horrific events into their advantage, whereas they also managed those allusions of happenstance into favoring their policy of hidden agendas, thus when millions of Cathars needed to be exterminated, it became the will of God (happenstance) that was not to be challenged. In the case of numerous modern day events, such as our cold-war(s) against humanity in general, and of our continuing energy cold-wars against this very same humanity (apparent scum of the Earth), our NASA became the default cloak of preference on behalf of NSA/DoD cloak and dagger agendas, as for their implementing that supposed will of God.
This following is another correction prompted by David W. Knisely;
It seems like our moon has been offering several happenstances; one of which is the fact that it's the one of the recorded moons that's rotation is so absolutely synchronized to our rotation, another being that it's orbit is highly regular within 5.5%, additionally there's been a mutual gravity-well that's creating a true sort of DMZ or gravity null zone between. In addition to those three rather significant happenstances, the moon offers an insignificant atmosphere, as well as being a geologically stable environment, thus making it into an absolutely ideal instrument platform (except for the continued influx of those pesky micro-meteorites), as well as for the moon already being an ideal satellite that's not only entirely self operating along with having a thermal nuclear core but, it's been taking full advantage of tidal forces, so that an additional 4+ terawatts is available without upsetting the space-time-continuum of our mutual existence, actually 5 terawatts should be available for the taking.
On top of all that, there's lots more, as there's all sorts of energy to being had, as in unlimited solar, a nuclear geothermal core, the terrific potential of tether dipole energy, and simply loads more from all of that He3 or 3He that's just about anywhere you'd care to look, energy that's just been sitting there, much like it's nuclear core and of those vains and/or deposits of other radioactive elements. That's a rather great deal of happenstance that's just sitting there for the taking, much like the holy grail pot of gold at the end of a rainbow, with the exception that for this pot-of-gold terminated rainbow being that essentially everyone on Earth can actually see directly into this pot, and soon many others are going to be able to reach out and touch it, and even extract from this overflowing pot of energy, as if need be in spite of, and/or without any help from our NASA.
Because there's so much that can more than be sufficiently disputed as to the content of those Apollo/lunar landscape images, I'll just reassure folks that of the vast bulk of those images (illuminated hot spots, sorely lacking meteorites and all) where a lunar surface reflects sunlight at 5 fold greater than ever recorded by the likes of KECK-II or Hubble, or by any other method of observation, which actually isn't all that important of an issue until you compare how many of those laser photons would have been reflected from a 2 km diameter illumination zone, as opposed to whatever a few of those deployed retroreflectors could have delivered. Seems there's absolutely no contest, as to what a staggering surface area of 3.143e6 m2 at even a mere 11% reflective index would have so outperformed what even 100 m2 worth of retroreflectors had to offer, though at apparently better than 50% reflective index is where 3.142e6 m2 would have been damn hard to match with even 1000 m2 of retroreflector, and optically way too freaking bright to even look at without having to utilize extensive filters. Although it's certainly possible of whatever robotically deployed retroreflectors could be detected, especially since Hubble at nearest encounter could capture at least 100 frames that could have been digitally stacked and photo software enhanced (not distorted) so that a sufficiently usable 0.1 meter resolution would enable a perfectly good look-see. Of course all of this Hubble class of lunar imaging would have been nicely accommodated via earthshine, so as to not damage those supposedly sensitive CCD devices of Hubble, for the same reason why such vibrant earthshine would have been way more than sufficient for those Apollo missions, and of so much safer from all the solar flak to boot.
I forgot that Hubble has but 80 meters of raw pixel resolution, though of using 100 of those stacked images and photoshop enhanced is certainly worth at least one meter/pixel, even though our NIMA could have further resolved that down to 0.1 meter without their even trying. For some reason the only time when Hubble can manage such terrific resolution is when imaging upon the likes of V838, or of some other wallpaper worthy subject that's humanly unobtainable, but fully intended as to bringing in more funding and notions of risking another batch of astronauts along with their shuttle.
Another somewhat curious thought goes along with the location and most likely unavoidable photographic opportunities of certain Apollo missions capturing the brilliant likes of Venus, at least as for going by various simulators including the NASA-JPL Solar System Simulator, whereas at times such as Apollo-11 having Venus and Mars nearly aligned along with Mercury off to the side, then there's nearly always the horrific intensity of Sirius along with it's peak wavelength of 375 nm (UV/a), that which essentially should have damn near burnt holes in those film transparencies and negatives. Apollo-14 must have looked directly at Venus as though it was crashing into the moon, as for being so close by and of absolutely no lunar atmosphere nor was there any other form of light pollution nor refraction getting in the way, just their own personal efforts of having to continually dodge those nasty micro-meteorites and even potentially lethal dust-bunnies, and of otherwise being nearly TBI to death. In other words, with the exception of Apollo-16's terrific view of Mars and not that of Venus, all other missions had various good to super terrific views of Venus plus other planets that somehow never got recorded along with the basalt and meteorite shard strewn lunar landscape.
BTW; about those laser retroreflectors of the type supposedly utilized by those Apollo missions were not even all that operationally critical about their being pointed exactly dead-on Earth, since their photon output was creating at least double the divergence of whatever was entering, and of whatever was entering angle could even be offset by several degrees with relatively little retroreflection degrade, thus whatever entered was being returned at twice the divergence but in nearly the same direction as entering, reasonably regardless of their deploymant angle, whereas at least this sort of instrument placement was not the least bit beyond the most basic of fundamental robotic deployment capabilities of those late 60's, especially those of any proper tripod supported retroreflector representing the one and only stable form of device positioning at that.
There's Lots of Other Influx That Actually Includes Pesky Micro-Meteorites
Speaking of having to survive the lunar environment, especially of those long sunny days worth. It's not so much the radiation nor even the heat that'll get to your butt, though such external thermal influx combined along with the 1000 BTUs/hr of your own internal body heat that must be extracted is a wee bit more technically challenging than for just keeping yourself warm, but it'll be those micro-meteorites along with whatever TBI worthy dosage of what's external to those moon suits that's sufficiently nasty business, and only of what's getting sufficiently through to your body that counts.
Everything from the 250,000 m3 Hindenburg blimp to that of a dust bunny speck hits the deck at nearly the same velocity. A 60 second free fall at 1.625 m/s requires the travel distance (d = 0.5g * t2) of 2.925 km, and as such the final impact velocity (Vf)becomes (Vf = Vi + 2g * d) which becomes 27.8e3 km/s worth of smacking the lunar deck impact velocity.
Whereas the following kinetic energy rule applies; 1/2*M*V2
A micro grain of sand (of typically less than 1 cmm); .002g * .5 * 773e6 = 773 kg impact, or 773 MJ.
A somewhat more sizable chunk (say not more than 1 ccm); 2 g * .5 * 773e6 = 773e3 kg or 773 GJ.
Fortunately for Apollo huggers, and according to their skewed way of blind Borg faith, their moon offered little more than a "walk in the park" as far as radiation dosage is concerned, and there's absolutely no technical problem whatsoever in dealing with all the direct and full spectrum of solar energies. While working the lunar surface within a flimsy moon-suit, upon arriving within a flimsy lander, there's never once out of 200+hours worth of lunar EVA timeline did a meteorite nor micro-meteorite impact anywhere in sight, nor even dust bunny issue, in fact there were somewhat damn few existing/old surface meteorites and even fewer shards strewn about, almost as though the moon had and perhaps still has a terrifically dense atmosphere or perhaps some force field that would have been required in order for such being the case. Then as for the unusually reflective surface that offered 5 fold brighter than of any other form of observations is just another one of those terrific examples of how wonderful and exacting those Apollo missions corrected upon the otherwise skewed reflective readings of all other forms of observing upon such objects in space, in much the same manner as for why all of the solar influx was nearly nonexistent, as well as whatever surface secondary radiation of hard X-Rays simply wasn't present during those Apollo missions.
BTW; the direct solar (full spectrum) photon influx was roughly 1400 w/m2 (including a good deal of UV/a/b/c), plus if you'd care to somehow account for all the other 55+% worth of lunar reflected solar illuminations, or at least those of the IR portion of reflected heat should have made for the hot side of their moon-suit taking in nearly 2,100 w/m2, say there's but two m2 worth of solar exposed moon-suit plus the 1000 BTUs of what's trapped inside, and I believe that's cooking with gas. With that much energy influx plus there being 100% O2 within, best hope any astronaut flatulence factor was under control (had a cork in it), as that's roughly a continuous 15,000 BTUs plus containing a rather highly volatile O2 environment to boot. I'm not absolutely certain but, I believe the likes of CO and 100% O2 makes for a rather testy cocktail that's just looking for a highly reactionary way of expanding.
I believe there's another testy way of looking at lunar life, as for our radiation proof astronauts having to avoid those pesky micro-meteorites. As for nearly anything traveling within 100,000 km of the moon will have it's trajectory somewhat influenced, whereas those within 2r (1738 km from the surface) are most likely to impact, and of those within 173 km don't stand much of any chance in their ever not impacting, thus the 1.625 m/s/s of gravitational sink is going to make for any EVA exposed event into a freaking turkey shoot. Particles clocking in at 5+km/s if you're lucky, as otherwise as much as 15+km/s might be the norm. It doesn't take a great deal of math to understand the least of impact worthiness of what even a flyweight 0.002 gram (dust bunny) worth of something impacting at merely 10+km/s is capable of delivering a sufficiently lethal punch of 100 KJ, and as such is certainly worth doing serious physical if not irreparable bodily harm to any moon suit and of it's occupant, and I'd hardly expect that of any micro-meteorites ever being much less than 2 mg, nor of ever impacting at less than 10 km/s (60 second free fall if the Vi=250m/s), which clearly represents a most likely base of such opportunities delivering upon those 100 KJ impacts.
Keeping in mind that such a micro-meteorite is perhaps only of 1 mm, thus if each and every m2 of the lunar surface received but just one of those impacts per day, within 1e6 days (2,739 years) we'd have covered that square meter by a depth of 1 mm, which may seem just fine and dandy, as long as your body is absolutely nowhere around when any of those items are arriving. incoming at 10 km/s is bad enough, though of those specks arriving at 30+km/s are going to be worthy of making your day from a surface range of as much as 1 km, whereas such meteorite shards are nearly as bad if you're the one standing within a neighboring patch of clumping moon dirt, and obviously much less safe if you're within the impact zone of a few meters. If we allotted for such a micro-meteorite impacting every hour/m2, that's still 114 years required in order to layer 1 mm worth of those impacts, thus I tend to believe that at times there could easily be such impacts per hour/m2, though undetectable untill it's too late, and thereby rather unhealthy as for any astronaut that's standing essentially naked on the moon.
Open space radiation is one thing that's bad enough, and well documented of what's available from outside of anything Apollo influenced, as for clearly being downright lethal within a relatively short timeline, though such exposures well always become quite another testier issue when you're closely associated with some degree of shielding mass that's responsible for creating all those secondary hard X-Rays, and so much worse off if the bulk of what's irradiating yourself is for that of being sandwiched between such reactive mass, as well as from otherwise being specifically situated directly into the likes of a highly reactive lunar surface, and as for all of that reactive substance being directly on the unobstructed receiving end of whatever the sun produces.
As lo and behold, of what the sun typically throws at you is only somewhat less lethal than of the secondary shards of hard X-Ray dosage the moon itself has to offer, that's specifically of the sort of TBI worthy dosage that's being lunar surface generated from every angle, though to some degree your TBI dosage is also obtaining those additional hard X-Rays created by way of your flimsy lander as well as from the mass of your moon-suit. However, the vast bulk of the most harmful sorts of dosage is still of what arrives directly off that reactive lunar basalt density, a surrounding environment of relaticely dark (11% reflective) lunar terrain that's offering far worse TBI dosage, that's which is clearly coming at you from nearly every possible angle, being worse off than for what's created by the lesser density of whatever is constructed of aluminum, as in more reactive compared to that being created from the lesser aluminum density. Of all that mysterious clumping basalt moon dirt, that which you're supposedly having to walk sufficiently deep within, should be giving new meaning to the term "hot foot", as in not only exceeding +250°F, but as well as delivering a darn good amount of those pesky hard X-Rays, as in coming at you from every which way but lose.
BTW; exactly how far does the sort of lunar surface created (hard X-Ray) radiation travel through the vacuum of space, meaning the the same as the near vacuum of the lunar environment?
Being that's there's no significant lunar atmospheric density, seems like we should be talking about those X-Ray trajectories of 10, 100 and even 1000+ meters. As such the surrounding solar illuminated plus cosmic bombarded lunar surface could actually compile quite a great deal of such secondary dosage upon whomever is walking about, as opposed to the TBI dosage of otherwise merely traveling yourself through free space and having to accumulate only of what the few square meters worth of surrounding aluminum is delivering, and not of the potential 1e6 m2 or so worth of you surrounding lunar surface that's creating those nasty X-Ray bombardments. Basically I'm thinking the lunar surface being more dense than aluminum, as well as representing at least 1000 fold more exposure area that's within your personal X-Ray target range, that this alone must represent a somewhat greater risk than as for traveling through space. Too bad we still have absolutely nothing of interactive lunar instruments to learn from, as all we've got are those NASA moderated words of a chicken bloated fox.
Seems if being surrounded by the sort of substances worse off than aluminum for creating secondary radiation, as for being that those stray hard X-Rays are what they are, and coming at you from nearly all directions; what's the total impact upon an astronaut having to work and/or survive per day within not more than a 0.5 g/cm2 worth of moon suit?
Are future moon suits in need of offering 2+ g/cm2, possibly even requiring 5 g/cm2, plus offering sufficient micro-meteorite resistance, perhaps capable of supporting a super-sonic bullet-proof nature?
Now you'd think that these two simple questions would have been fully documented and recorded in stone by now, but that's not been the case and that's not all. Of anything whatsoever specific as to humans surviving the lunar environment, there's still a great deal of doubt, so much so that there's enormous disagreements plus a host of other questions that simply shouldn't be, especially since we were supposedly there, at least six times worth, as in been there done that, plus having numerous lunar probes deployed and even a few satellite surveys since.
I'll suppose this lunar research phase could use yet another one of those corrective "so what's the difference" salutations. However, it seems rather crystal clear that of most any free space environment that's 100% solar irradiated (Earth L4/L5), of this sort of raw exposure that's otherwise clear of any Van Allen zone of death, as well as nowhere near any moon that's worth at the very least 3.64e4 Sv (3.64e6 rem) per year, as opposed to residing here on Earth being worth less than 0.364 rem/year (1e7:1). Lo and behold, when we toss in the secondary reaction of what the sun and cosmic influx has to throw at the lunar surface and, guess what folks, it's NOT getting any better off. In fact, if any number of micro-meteorites doesn't manage to get to you first, then at least another 10% worth of influx being created into hard x-ray dosage well, at least it'll certainly fog all of your lousy KODAK film. I hate being the messenger of such bad news but, that's on average as much as a whopping 11,000 rads/day (458 rads/hr), so you'd better hope to Christ that there's absolutely none of those nasty sunspots anywhere in sight on the days you're out and about collecting any of that reactive basalt maria having deposits of He3. And BTW; I wasn't even suggesting upon anything as lethal as for the late October/November 2003 cycle, as those solar deliveries were entirely off the scale of moon-suit surviving while in earthshine, much less fully solar exposed, as in order to survive those events you'll be badly in need of a bank bone marrow transplant as well as for my 50t LM-1 bus, or of otherwise safely lounging within either the underground LSE lobby or within the massive security of the CM/ISS.
If you're having to work any moon-suit EVA, trust me folks, I believe the very last thing you'll want to see is sunrise, though of a micro-meteorite shower, much less of anything larger, could just as easily terminate your life as we know it, day or night and without warning. Of the other for certain death sentence is exactly the sort of flak our sun produced in late October/November 2003, as within a few hours worth of EVA exposure and you're internally dying on the spot, unless you've got your personal stash of banked bone marrow standing by for the required transplant.
The absolute least/minimum degree of what a fully solar illuminated lunar dosage represents is perhaps 1 Sv/day (100 rads/24 hour as what's external to your suit), whereas otherwise the more typical TBI environment is 3.64 Sv (364 rads/day) of which 36 hours represents 5.46 Sv worth of external radiation environment that's certainly humanly survivable for that limited timeline of surface expedition, though not without your entire body taking on a good many of those hard X-Ray rads (at the very least we're talking 5.46 rads, though more than likely 55 rads per 36 hour stint), such as for your sensitive eyes and perhaps even whatever was within those moon-suit boots certainly wasn't enjoying any radiation free zone, whereas your toes were hardly happy campers. But only because your suit represented sufficient density to fend off the bulk of such a horrific amount (5.46 Sv/36 hr) of external environment should have avoided your dependence upon receiving banked bone marrow once returning to Earth, though even as little as taking in 5.5 rads within the suit should have made some hair fall out or at least lose color, among may other medically detectable losses due to such a rapid exposure, plus whatever added dosage your to/from travel time amounted to.
Here's another brief analogy go at this radiation exposure, as based upon this offical report: http://conxproject.gsfc.nasa.gov/radiation/docs/con_x_dose1.pdf whereas I've conservatively estimated the Earth L4/L5 raw environment at 3.18e6.
3.18e6/364 = 8.736e3 per day 8.736e3/24 = 364 rads/hr and that's on a reasonably nice day.
Unfortunately, The lunar surface isn't anything like Earth L4/L5, and that's because it's simply much worse off, due to having the moon itself being worse off than Chernobyl, plus having all that dense clumping moon dirt to react with. Of those cameras and their film packs having as little as 10% the shielding of what those moon-suits offered is rather embarrassing to say the least, as of their intended photographic exposures as well as portions of film between frames and as for any leader/trailer portions of film would have nicely recorded such horrific radiation exposures, especially of those nasty cosmic and gamma rays because, those energies well get into you and of your camera as incoming TBI dosage as well as for their creating all those additional hard x-rays by subsequently reacting off the camera housing as well as for all the surrounding territory of highly reactive lunar surface, just as well as off anything other having mass (such as those film packs and of whatever other film storage was being utilized).
Affording a shield density of at least 10 g/cm2 (that's offering 37 mm or nearly 1.5" worth of solid aluminum) might have sufficiently protected that film, but even that much would have permitted a minimum film exposure of of 250 millirem per day (0.250 X 15 days is 3.75 rads), although the solar flux at the time wasn't being all that mild, so go figure out how in the hell such film recorded absolutely nothing worth of radiation exposure, especially when hours were spent nearly naked to the lunar environment, not to mention the thermal stress environment impact of +/-240°F. Low speed film as utilized would have faired somewhat better off than higher speed flim, though not have been entirely unaffected by the overall mission.
Of course, perhaps none of this radiation actually matters, since every m2 of the lunar surface should expect to receive at least a micro-meteorite per day, whereas a solar storm (of which there were such ongoing events during Apollo) is shedding off more submicron flak than you can possibly shake a flaming stick at, none of which ever makes it to Earth's surface because of the Van Allen expanse, as well as for the terrific benefit of our thick atmosphere attenuating almost everything into energy rather than reaching the surface. Few of any lunar bound micro-meteorites impact below 5 km/s. A micro-meteorite being less than 1 mm in size, although at 5+km/s it's packing quite a physical punch, and of those trekking along at greater speeds of 10+km/s are certainly going to represent themselves as a somewhat serious moon-suit hole punch or at least as a pincushion.
From time to time there are numerous other sizable meteorites to deal with, such as all those that should have already been strewn about the surface in far greater amounts than of all those visible impacts and shards detected on Mars, especially since there's no lunar atmosphere to deflect nor aerobreak worth squat, as it's an acceleration of 1.6 m/s all the way to home plate. Whereas if the moon should encounter something along the way, such as merely an object (another speck of sand) drifting relatively slowly through our solar system, as for that speck being in the pathway of Earth and moon which are traveling along at 30+km/s, then apply whatever 1.6 m/s rate of acceleration on top of the original encounter speed and, lo and behold, whatever free standing life as we know it doesn't stand a freaking chance in hell of surviving such an impact, as even if that were a .002 gram micro-meteorite could represent nearly a tonne blasting itself through your flimsy lander, equally flimsy moon-suit, it's occupant and all, as though it weren't even there to start with.
Not being there to start off with could actually become the holy grail answer to surviving such a lunar EVA, as I believe we may have had the lunar orbit routine under control, as accomplishing just a manned lunar orbit with whatever instrument deployments is downright testy by itself, though nowhere as irradiated to death nor as pulverised as for being on the surface, whereas the further away from something having no energy absorbing atmosphere and of no protective Van Allen expanse, the better. As for otherwise being somewhere that of whatever debris influx is entirely uninhibited, as well as for that being attracted via gravity is simply not improving your odds, especially within any 36 hours worth of Apollo EVA. Of just the highly visual area surrounding a lunar astronaut should have more than attracted at least one such micro-meteorite impact per EVA, perhaps one per hour detected within a given 100 m2 zone shouldn't have been entirely unexpected, which is obviously a relatively nearby turf that's existing within a 10m X 10m zone of offering potential astronaut death by way of micro-meteorite impact(s), and even of secondary shards if there ever was.
Sorry folks, for as much as you may need to believe in Santa Claus, there's no freaking way our incest cloned astronauts were ever that radiation proof nor impact resistant, much less could KODAK film have survived untouched within those thin aluminum housed cameras and of sufficiently radiation sensitive film at that which oddly still can't be professionally inspected, not even a non-photographic leader/trailer portion is available for independent analysis. The fact that we have absolutely no functional lander test flights documented by those of 1/6th mass so as to fly-by-wire and test pilot simulate the lunar environment, and of those we supposedly have never once accomplishing those essential aerial drop-in and selectively own-range pilotted landings, especially not by way of any of those Apollo astronauts which obviously never transpired, meaning clearly that we didn't, and it's that simple.
Instead, because of all the Apollo set-backs and numerous unresolved compromises, as perhaps our ultimate cold-war disinformation backup plan, we first snookered America, including the likes of Walter Cronkite (that's almost like snookering God), next we proceeded to snooker the entire world, though paying one hell of a price at that, and over the decades created whatever necessary skewed science as well as skewed physics in order to secure all lids and cover our moon tracks, plus we indirectly inflicted so much global instability as well as humanitarian carnage that of today makes the likes of Hitler look like a daycare provider, which isn't even nearly as bad off as what the Pope did to all those nice Cathars.
In other words; Judas Priest, or perhaps it's Christ Almighty, we've NOT set even any TBI hot-foot on the moon, at least not yet. Though I'll suppose if going by the most recent of our immoral standards imposed by our very own resident warlord, perhaps we can go on record as stipulating "so what's the difference" by applying his Texas style of educational "high standards and accountability". At least that's something better off than having to look for more of those stealth WMD donkey-carts.
Obviously there's become no difference between a damn lie, a half lie or that of the truth, as it seems the pro-NASA/Apollo collective of Borg incest can't allow one tid bit of their acknowledgment nor credit as for what I've since discovered as boldly existing on Venus (Guth Venus, and of there most likely being some other life NOT as we know it), nor of recognizing any worth for my lunar space elevator (LSE-CM/ISS) or GMDE (Guth Moon Dirt Express) contributions, nor of anything whatsoever that's otherwise being the least bit further informative and positive, as in uplifting about what our moon has to offer humanity, much less other life on Venus. Seems the status quo has become so dumbfounded, as well as for their rejecting upon whatever is technically supportive, such as for my thoughts on the benefits of astronauts banking their bone marrow or even the positive prospects of my IRRCE research for applied h2o2/c12h26 (or slush hydrogen) energy that's not only quite doable for here on Earth, but as well as for the environments of our moon, plus also for the likes of maneuvering about Mars and Venus. In other words, it seems that I'm way too freaking right about far too many things, so much so that of the entitled establishments of our "status quo" cults have been entirely dumbfounded ever since I took aim (3 years ago), with there being absolutely nowhere for these folks to go but back into one of their spendy space toilets.
Of course, I could always goto the officially approved likes of Salem bin Laden, in order to obtain a rather substantial financial backing the way our resident warlord initially did as a strategic move, or I could trade off some of our best field tactical weapons onto those nice Taliban folks in exchange for my soul, as well as sacrificing a few thousand other souls that apparently don't count, especially if they're foolish enough to being in tall buildings or flying back to Tel Aviv (saved only by flight-800 taking the hit).
It has become my opinion, as well as that of thousands of others far smarter than myself, that our Apollo/lunar science is seriously bogus, it's a blatant series of carefully orchestrated lies based upon conditional as well as skewed physics and of subsequently creating absolute toilet bowl science, plus ever since involved with another series of cold-war stings, of sustaining a world class ruse/sting by way of a continuation of such lies that highly professional liars continue to propagate at any cost, at all cost, including whatever human sacrifices when and wherever necessary, and of their own kind if need be. Ever since Apollo, it's been infomercial this and infomercial that for decades, as in delivering disinformation on steroids, along with fearsome dog wagging that's off the scale of immorality. That's not for saying that a great deal of what we currently realize about the moon isn't sufficiently on target, just that so little if any of that data was obtained by way of what any of those Apollo missions contributed in person, and of more so than not, it's not the sort of data supporting the Apollo outcome, though perhaps their replacement arguments well have to become that the lunar environment has drastically changed itself into becoming far nastier than before, much like global warming has been adding insult to injury.
Because there's still so much that's so freaking out of lunar character, as well as photo graphically skewed within those Apollo images, I've sort of given up on trusting anything Apollo because, if you're that pathetically stupid and/or snookered as to believe in NASA's lunar hot spots, lack of any stars, lack of any other dark basalt (keeping in mind that there should also have been lots of such basalt offering less than 5% reflective index), lack of existing meteorites strewn about, lack of significant surface radiation exposures and so on, in that case there's absolutely no hope for humanity, at least not of your's.
In spite of all their warm and fuzzy flak, most of the following pages are those about positive sorts of what can honestly be done with the likes of our moon and of places like Venus. Some of my ideas are even obtainable goals from existing technology, for pennies on the dollar, as in sort of "off the shelf", while others are merely based upon a positive outlook of what's reasonably doable within our existing levels of technology and expertise.
Of superior basalt insulation, structural attributes, LSE tethers, of H2O2/C12H25 and the IRRCE, as well as of a few other "what's the difference" updates:
Of course, there are all those fairly numerous references to Venus (Guth Venus) as well as a few too many topics pertaining to our resident warlord throughout just about every page. If I could I certainly would, return the favor that is, by giving back to NASA/NSA/DoD and onto so many others associated, exactly what they all deserve, as this is where I'll honestly concur along with our fearless leader, that given the degree of carnage and downright wrong doings, especially of any warlord that goes about inventing WMD, which is sort of exactly what the Pope did to the demise of those nice Cathars, should receive the ultimate punishment, as I quite frankly can't seem to differentiate between the likes of Saddam and that of our resident warlord. As in other approved leadership words of his wisdom "what's the difference", at least as far as I can tell they're both guilty of sufficient atrocities against all of humanity, whereas we utilized our truly world class (shock and awe) WMD technology, much like the methods we orchestrated of our satellite intelligence on behalf of Israel for improving the outcome of their 6-Day war and subsequently we suffered the USS LIBERTY fiasco, whereas certain other warlords depended upon utilizing their stealth donkey-carts.
"So what's the difference?" At least of cold-war body counts over the past 4 decades, seems we've got the likes of Saddam beat by at least 10 fold, with no end in sight, and somehow that's got to be a good thing, as otherwise there's something not right with this picture.
That's obviously why we're currently over invested into our WMD R&D plus constructing more than just those lethal laser cannons, as for the next generation of those instruments will become capable of offering ethnic cleansing capability without leaving a physical trace of from where and/or from whom the dastardly deed was administerd. Sort of makes you feel all warm and fuzzy all over, when in reality it's more like becoming all warm and fuzzy within, having sufficiently damaged DNA so that your own immune system will actually accomplish the task. This is even somewhat like how you go about getting nice folks like JFK assassinated, by knowingly allowing the infection to feaster if not nurtured along so that the outcome is exacting what the doctor ordered (death from causes other than from within the cult). If you'll care to take a little retrospective notice, even though the original moon-race represented 90% of what the final JFK timeline was all about, there's not a paragraph nor a phrase associated having anything whatsoever NASA/NSA/DoD incorporated within all of the JFK demise investigations, which seems rather odd of something consuming 90% of one's time and of our national resources, that there was not a single issue nor consideration ever contemplated.
Was the demise of JFK a necessary phase of our cold-war moon-race?
Absolutely, the poor bastard simply had to go, especially if so many of his moon-race issues simply weren't going according to plan, nor within budget, more like running seriously amuck, and as a result of those issues there were going to be extremely high level plugs (thousands of them) about to be pulled by JFK himself, in order to keep from embarrassing America by unnecessarily killing off astronauts and of otherwise thoroughly draining our national resources into the toilet, as there were many other cold-war agendas as well as humanitarian worthy agendas besides the moon-race that badly needed our attention, which simply wasn't about to happen under the voracious investment drain and staggering infrastructure of the NASA/NSA/DoD cold-war ruse/sting. Essentially, our NASA/NSA/DoD had stepped way over the line, and there wasn't any way of their ever going back without losing face, losing tens of thousands of highly paid jobs and of ever greater indignity via loss of authority along with losing all those perks and benefits that were about to be flushed down that proverbial toilet by JFK, and that was way before we even had a working space toilet, so that you should understand or at least be able to clearly see and/or smell why all those NASA/NSA/DoD folks had been so painfully bloated.
This is not to say that on behalf of our perpetrated cold-war(s), that as such supposedly wholesome war games tend to go, we didn't do the right sort of thing, as obviously the entire USSR along many other nations around the world were financially devastated on just about every front, so much so that the USSR even lost control over those Taliban (we sure as hell didn't help that situation by outfitting those nice Taliban and the likes of their Osama bin Laden with modern stingers and of far worse technology plus WMD knowledge), and just look at where that got us. Just think, specifically because of our cold-war tactics, besides all the tens of thousands (actually hundreds of thousands) that needlessly had to die throughout the USSR empire, as of today we wouldn't be out scouring all those territories in search of those stealth donkey-carts if it weren't for the demise of the USSR (are we good at this cold-war game of shooting off both feet or what?).
As you can clearly interpret, I'm offering way more than just your typical lose cannon, thus obviously the likes of NASA can't touch this hot potato without getting seriously burned, though you can safely touch me by offering your thoughts and better ideas as to how we might circumvent if not thoroughly circumcise the establishment right where they're standing. ESA seems to be plugging along just fine and dandy, as is China and even India hasn't been all that shy about their space technology and of so many advancements benefiting most of their humanity, while we're still stuck in this freaking energy resource conquering war-path. Whereas anything we place into space research is pure happenstance that's either accomplishing a further sting and/or capable of distracting the herds away from the truth, such as our recent Mars missions. It's been called "dog wagging" and/or "disinformation-R-us", as something we're damn good at doing, even better than Saddam at pretending as to having those WMD, which unfortunately turned out being disguised as donkey-carts (certainly had myself fooled).
So, being that I'm the certified chief lose cannon and/or village idiot from hell, that's not planning on going away any time soon, there's ample time for yourself to contribute something on behalf of humanity, though you'll first need to forget about whatever the likes of NASA or of their incest Borg collective has been telling you, because they're simply chuck full of it, as in chuck full of lies and betrails that's simply too far gone into the cesspool of life to be worth salvaging. Fortunately for all of humanity, there's China, India, even Russia and even the likes of Japan plus the ESA that's soon going to run off with whatever is lunar, especially upon the LSE-CM/ISS opportunity, and of more than likely they'll run off with all that's Venus to boot. In other words, all the rats are for good reason leaving their sinking NASA ship.
Other somewhat difficult readings:
Guth Venus LSE-CM/ISS and the GW Bush Moon
What went so terribly wrong with those Apollo missions
Instead of our going to Venus, lets just give them a call
Moon Dirt simply isn't just Moon Dirt, it's Everything Dirt along with an He3 boost
A local area code laser call to Venus is cheaper than moon dirt, even if the damn stuff wont clump
"SADDAM HUSSEIN and The SAND PIRATES" by; Henry Kroll