We Finally Know How Much Radiation There Is on The Moon, And It's Not Great News

a reply to: dragonridr

Asbestos is not glass, it's a fibrous mineral.

Of planets without a breathable atmosphere and natural shielding from high levels of radiation and harmful dust just about everywhere....

Let me list what we have already done on earth. This is what we know so far:

Underground living

Source Link: en.m.wikipedia.org...

There are various ways to develop structures for underground living.

Caves (Natural) - have been used for millennia as shelter.

Caves (Constructed)/Dugouts - are a common structure for underground living. Although the tunnelling techniques required to make them have been well developed by the mining industry, they can be considerably more costly and dangerous to make than some of the alternatives. On the plus side, they can be quite deep. Some examples would be the Sassi di Matera in Italy, declared by UNESCO a World Heritage Site, and the town of Coober Pedy in Australia, built underground to avoid the blistering heat of the Outback. One of the traditional house types in China is the Yaodong, a cave house. Also, see the Nok and Mamproug Cave Dwellings in Togo, Africa.

Earth berm structures - are essentially traditional homes that have then been buried, typically leaving at least one wall exposed for lighting and ventilation. However, because they are to be buried, the structures must be made of materials capable of surviving the increased weight and moisture of being underground.

Rammed earth structures - are not truly underground, in the sense of being below grade or buried beneath a berm. Instead, they are structures made of tightly packed earth, similar to concrete but without the binding properties of cement. These structures share many properties with traditional adobe construction.

Culvert structures - are a very simple approach. Large precast concrete pipes and boxes a few metres across are assembled into the desired arrangement of rooms and hallways onsite, either atop the existing ground or below grade in excavated trenches, then buried. This approach can also be referred to as Cut and Cover.

Urban underground - living is so common that few even think of it as underground. Many shopping malls are partially or totally underground, in the sense that they are below grade. Though not as exotic as the other underground structures, those working in such urban underground structures are in fact living underground.

Shaft structures - For example, Taisei Corporation proposed to build Alice City in Tokyo Japan. The project would incorporate a very wide and deep shaft, within which would be built levels for habitation, all looking in toward a hollow core topped with a huge skylight.

Tunnels - including storm drains, are used by homeless people as shelter in large cities.



And so, how best do we utilize past experiences to possibly work on uninhabitable worlds, asteroids, etc., without the luxury of “made for earth” heavy construction equipment (Excavators, Loaders, Paving Machines, Backhoes, Bulldozers, Dump Trucks, Trenchers, Compactors, Graders, Telehandlers, Tower Cranes, Feller Bunchers, Dragline Excavator, Wheel Tractor Scraper, Pile Driving Machines, Concrete Pumps, etc.) Explosives (dynamite, nitro glycerin, even c-4, etc.)

But going back to hand tools that worked here on earth (picks, axes, shovels, chisels, hammers, battery operated hand tools etc.)


Using the “what came first? the chicken ....OR the egg? analogy

What comes first? the excavated leveled and formed and rebarred and cemented (I can’t see astronauts pounding moon rocks, creating yet more dust into some sort of moon cement which is going to need lots of precious water and the labor of mixing the right consistencies) flat landing/launch pad first? .... OR the first massively weighted starship landing onto unleveled, uneven, unweight tested moon soil and dust surface? Don’t forget, the powerful engines much bigger than the Apollo LM engine will kick up lots of dust that may fall back unto the ship (if not on landing, then on takeoff) in its hull crevices, nooks and crannies, seals, etc.



If you get past that without the ship toppling over or sunk into the surface because of weights and balances and center of gravity which may or may not apply, come in to play...... thennnnn you can start unloading all of what it will take to build what? Not the habitat first, but a landing/launch pad for future flights, and then the habitat. While the landing/launch pad is being constructed, living on the ship may make better sense ...then hassling with the unknowns of moon habitat construction.



I’ll stop my babble for a moment.... perhaps you are starting to see the Better Said Then Done coming into view of the reality and enter the realm of details...

We are a big picture species until the details to implement kick us in the butt. Yes humans do wear blinders..

a reply to: Ophiuchus1

Did the astronauts who went to the Moon die younger than what is normal?

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Ophiuchus1

Did the astronauts who went to the Moon die younger than what is normal?

not to my knowing, perhaps not enough of a test samples pool...

We are talking long term exposure which has yet to play out for long term effects, not the few days of limited exposure the astronauts spent on the moon

a reply to: carewemust

originally posted by: Ophiuchus1
not to my knowing, perhaps not enough of a test samples pool...

Yes, there are too few astronauts who went to the moon to do much in the way of statistics. Even with a ten times larger sample, it would be difficult to statistically validate a small increase in death rates, like the 3% increased risk of death from radiation exposure limit NASA has set for astronauts.

However, the total astronaut pool is larger and astronauts in other cases got a lot of radiation, such as skylab. Astronauts were categorized as "high dose" and "low dose" of radiation. The "low dose" astronauts had a higher "survival without cataracts". The difference is statistically significant as seen by the non-overlapping error bars (with the exception of the 69 year old data point).

Space Radiation and Cataracts in Astronauts

My own retraction. There are many dangers to living off world. I leave it at that.

originally posted by: ArMaP
a reply to: dragonridr

Asbestos is not glass, it's a fibrous mineral.

Well it is a silica (silicon dioxide, or quartz). So is glass main difference would be you can look at Asbestos as being natural and fiberglass as being man made. Other then that the effects on the body are very similar.

Was this radiation powerful enough to destroy any film in the cameras they took with them back then?

originally posted by: Ophiuchus1
The last sentence in the abstract to the Cataract study ....
"These results suggest increased cataract risks at smaller radiation doses than have been reported previously."

If I read the abstract right and your post (correct me if I misunderstood)... seems to me, if I relate this to the moon, not only are you affected by high radiation, lung debilitating dust, now in the mix is going blind from cataracts.... geeee living out in space is looking (excuse the pun) better and better...

Sorry I had a link mixup. I corrected my post to include the link where that cataract graph originated, which was not the link I originally posted, that you cited, which is this link:

meridian.allenpress.com...

That full report seems to be behind a paywall and the other report isn't so I thought the free report would be more useful even if a bit older.

Health effects from "zero-G" in space seem to be significant for prolonged missions. Hopefully at 1/6 G the moon will not have such adverse consequences. But the moon is not far away and a 2 month stay on the lunar surface is possible, though with some risk. Also, don't forget about unpredictable solar flares! NASA figured solar flares hitting the moon aren't frequent and the Apollo astronauts will only be there a few days, so let's cross our fingers and hope they get lucky. That strategy worked for stays of several days on the moon, but I'm not sure it's a good strategy for stays of several months. Probably not.

The bigger problem is a trip to Mars where the trip is much longer and as I said in my earlier post in this thread, a very strong magnetic shield might deflect galactic cosmic rays (GCRs), but it's not clear that such a strong magnetic field won't present health hazards of its own. It would have to be many, many times stronger than Earth's magnetic field to deflect GCRs. Shielding materials light enough to put on a spacecraft are not that effective against GCRs, so I don't know exactly how the radiation problem for sending humans to Mars will be solved.

Yes, space is an inhospitable place for us humans, which is why the argument the universe is "fine tuned" for humans seems out of touch with reality. It's more like 99.9999999%+ of the universe is completely inhospitable to humans, once we leave our little cocoon on Earth.

Edit to add, I found this more recent information on cardiovascular disease for moon astronauts:

Space Radiation Devastated the Lives of Apollo Astronauts

New research points to serious concerns about human survival during deep space travel.

originally posted by: Cropper
Was this radiation powerful enough to destroy any film in the cameras they took with them back then?

No for a couple of reasons one the radiation levels are just not high enough. Film was damaged but most photos you would not even detect the damage. Every now and then a film frame might get hit by a high energy particle but the odds are very low. So bottom line the camera offers some protection and the radiation was no where near high enough to damage the film.

Digital also can end up with white spots as the cmos is hit by particles. so to an extent film may be better ? though it does not really damage the camera most of the time.

a reply to: Arbitrageur


I dont think it will be all they can do is slow down the exposure rate. You can have them behind a tank of hydrogen for example that works sort of. Maybe another containing water somewhere else. And you can also reduce exposure using glass so it may just be a case of admitting they will recieve radiation damage. So i guess astronauts would need to make a choice on if they think its worth it.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

The magnetic field of Earth redirects low energy particles like solar wind, but it doesn't stop high energy particles like cosmic rays.

So what does? Something in the atmosphere is shielding the Earth surface from all those space nasties.

i came across one unverified story that a last minute addition was made to the Apollo program with a small box to help with radiation shielding for the crew, all top secret stuff if it was so.

Being able to crack the radiation shielding problems will make trips to Mars more practical. Sounds like we would be fried by the time we got there with the current technology.

If one has an aversion to getting a lung full of moon dust, then perhaps it is better you stay on Earth. It will most likely hurt and take years off your life expectancy as it comes with the job of colonizing new worlds. Absolutely try and limit ones exposure to it, but it is not practical to avoid it on the Moon. It does appear to have a high static and diffusion charge as it clings to everything and goes everywhere.

Starting a base in some cave system deep in a valley has already started some of the excavation work and provides lots of natural shielding.

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: Arbitrageur

The magnetic field of Earth redirects low energy particles like solar wind, but it doesn't stop high energy particles like cosmic rays.

So what does? Something in the atmosphere is shielding the Earth surface from all those space nasties.

not "something" in the atmosphere. it is THE atmosphere.

oh and i dont believe it is 100% protection, some particles still reaches the surface.

originally posted by: kwakakev
So what does? Something in the atmosphere is shielding the Earth surface from all those space nasties.

The atmosphere itself provides radiation protection. The higher the altitude, the less atmosphere above you, the less atmospheric protection, the higher the radiation. This shows higher radiation at the "mile high city" Denver versus lower altitudes.

slideplayer.com...


In a typical commercial flight, you get a lot more radiation than what you would get in Denver, but the flights are of limited duration. It's an occupational risk for pilots though, and I probably got more radiation as a frequent flyer than I did as a radiation worker handling gamma ray and neutron radiation sources as part of my job.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thanks.

So the Earth has a Magnetosphere produced by its molten core that extends about 400 - 2000 Km above the surface. This helps deflects the charged matter from the solar winds.

The Earth also has its ozone layer, about 80 - 100km up. This helps soak up some of the more harmfully types of radiation.

Next is the atmosphere, a low density gaseous layer that also helps absorb some radiation as it is full of all kinds of stuff.

It does sound tough trying to replicate this with material science in a light weight manner suitable for space travel and colonization. Thick, heavy and dense materials appears one way to limit exposure by absorbing it, gets expensive launching enough material to be effective.

With light one type of radiation, we have mirrors that can reflect it. X rays do have a better penetration rate than light rays, also function at a higher frequency. Some kind of high density / high frequency mirror to limit the X rays going straight through it?

How effective is the gold foil that some satellites use in reflecting radiation? How well would a layer of liquid Ozone go in absorbing radiation? What about solid Ozone for a more dense shield?

a reply to: kwakakev

Both the atmosphere itself and the magnetic belts absorb (why the sky is blue) or diverts most filthy Hobbitses! Crap still gets through which why some experiments are deep underground. They think they have “detected” supernovae events in the geological record!

Moon base sounds all future and very Jetsonish but there are practical issues that need to happen. None of it being done as far as I know.

What I do know is that robots/voxel manipulaters are being designed, tested, and a library of programs are being constructed (MIT). These are near single purposes robots that use light weight but still strong materials (like “make triangle” instructions). Some do 2D, others, 3D, and depending on the strut material and the structure’s purpose, a little variation makes it stronger. Or flexible. If you can make triangles then you can make geodesic domes... where have I seen sci-fi art depicting the same... ???

Magnets at the Legrange point that shields the planet’s surface from radiation (saw this idea for Mars. NASA).

And who knows what the X-37B is doing (and can post about it!!). But there several engin/trustees/rockets being researched including EM (Shawcraft), fusion rockets (makes a plasma that has heat/energy vented out one end of tube, and a new engine technology that will be able to from ground to near earth orbit (NEO).

And all the wild patents by Pias... it will happen (humans living in space) but I hesitate to think it will be soon (unless a certain black triangle floats out of a hangar!!)

Some how, progress always makes a slow down!! Weird, huh??

Wow, there’s some REALLY PESSIMISTIC people in this thread. Humanity NEEDS to leave Earth and become a multi planetary species. That’s the only choice we have if we want the human species to survive. We only have so many resources and mineral Elements, and putting industry and mining in Space/the asteroids/Moon will leave a less polluted and cluttered planet for our children and nature. Humanity will continue to grow in population as well, and Space based industry, resource extraction and habitats will be VITAL if we want to expand our numbers.

originally posted by: johnthejedi24
Wow, there’s some REALLY PESSIMISTIC people in this thread. Humanity NEEDS to leave Earth and become a multi planetary species. That’s the only choice we have if we want the human species to survive. We only have so many resources and mineral Elements, and putting industry and mining in Space/the asteroids/Moon will leave a less polluted and cluttered planet for our children and nature. Humanity will continue to grow in population as well, and Space based industry, resource extraction and habitats will be VITAL if we want to expand our numbers.

Hmmmm... let’s see, read the link below.... and then analogize this but in space terms, to what you wrote ... just to see if you get the hint of comparisons of going to new worlds not knowing if the most basic forms of detectable and non-detectable life exists.

Yeah, that’s it, let’s contaminate, mine pollute and clutter waste on those planets and astroids. We’ve already done it to ourselves and are to lazy to fix it...... it’s not profitable I suspect, for the rich and powerful....huh?

I guess it’s not alright for an alien force to do that to earth, oh the outrage..those damn Aliens killing us for what’s left of our natural resources......but yet we are now the alien force that does it to our neighbors in space..... and everything is hunky dory. That’s where humans fail to repair their own destruction.

As for our children? That’s the same tired excuse that politicians use to try to get elected.... when in doubt of loosing ...use the “for the children” strategy. Now you want to use it as leverage to rape pillage and plunder space.

No.... there is going to be much disappointment in the farce of industrializing space. Why should space be a reward when we can’t take care of our own planet?

This is said like a true Space Imperialist...

Space based industry, resource extraction and habitats will be VITAL if we want to expand our numbers.

How’s this for reality’s pessimism?

Native History: Columbus Sets Sail, Starts Rape & Pillage of ‘New’ World

indiancountrytoday.com...

But I digress.... this is suppose to be a thread about the detection of high levels of radiation on the moon and it’s ramifications to include other hazards in discussion...

There are ways to reduce the danger. If at some point we really want to spend some significant amount of time there, the habitats can be covered by a layer of lunar regolith. This will already reduce the amount of radiation. There are other things: storing water in the walls of the habitat will further reduce the amount of radiation inside. And of course lead or other kind of shielding will still further reduce it.
This should be enough for small scale exploration. If we want to have very long term expeditions or even colonization then we need to move things underground.

It's in human nature to explore, at some point -if we don't kill ourselves before- we will colonize other worlds, regardless of the risks and challenges to overcome.

originally posted by: CrusherIt's in human nature to explore......

100% in agreement with those words “but” how about making best efforts to finish exploring without destruction, our own Planet?

The ...amount... of New discoveries on our own planet alone will not pale in comparison to any other single planet in our solar system. I have firm faith in that imo.

Under the guise of scientific exploration outside our planet, is imo, driven by exploitation exploration.... that is to say $pace, $pace, $pace!


Let’s do this list below ........ it’s easier and closer to come out of our seas to breath fresh air, it’s easier and closer to descend from the highest peaks to breath fresh air ... with the sun shining bright and not killing us with high levels of radiation....




How cool is this, and we didn’t have spend billions to find it! Imagine, after much hazards going to a another planet and finding the same on that planet.... only to say to yourself... “I’ll be a monkey’s uncle” “we have the same thing on earth”