New satellite images of lunar landing sites.

[ichy]

Cataracts that *might* be related to radiation exposure (don't forget that most of these guys had also been test pilots, with all the exposure to bright light, radiation, etc that that entailed) are hardly the same as being "nearly irradiated to death." I know that astronauts are chosen from a pool of people who're much healthier than average, but most of the Apollo guys are doing quite well for people their age. If I remember correctly John Young only retired from NASA in 2004. Radiation in space isn't a non-issue, but it's no show-stopper either.

 

[dennilfloss]

Uhhh... from the Moon's orbit. At the satellite's pericynthion it's only 13 miles above the surface.

That is so evident it neededn't be said. What do you expect from an 8" mirror? With diffraction limit being what it is, Hubble itself cannot resolve less than 80m on the moon's surface.

 

[Locut0s]

The shuttle was one of the worst decisions NASA ever made. While the moon landing were expensive at least they had a PR return on the dollar if not something scientific (though the scientific gains really diminished after the first landing). The shuttle really didn't end up being THAT much cheaper and had basically zero PR AND scientific return. All those years of shuttle missions, just so America could continue to say they had a functioning manned space program. Just think what they could have done with that money if it were spent on robotic space missions!! The return would have been hundreds of times better!! OR, if they still wanted to continue manned space flight (I DO think it has its place) they should have continued the Apollo missions and transitioned them into R&D and study for Mars missions.

 

[Locut0s]

Sorry but that's nonsense. Most of the Apollo astronauts have lived to ripe old ages. 9 of the 12 men who walked on the moon are still alive, and 2 of the 3 who died passed away for reasons that couldn't have had anything to do with radiation (Pete Conrad was killed in a motorcycle accident and Jim Irwin died of a heart attack.) I suppose it's possible that Alan Shepard's leukemia was caused by radiation but 74 isn't an unnaturally young age to die.

This doesn't mean though that they were NOT exposed to high doses of radiation. What it more likely means is one of 2 things, or both of these things. (1) These people were specifically chosen because they were in amazing fucking shape and could withstand many of the physical and psychological tests that others couldn't. (2) That high doses of radiation over short periods isn't nearly as dangerous as most people think.

 

[Locut0s]

NASA took big risks with the shuttle program as well. STS-1 was the first time the shuttle had EVER flown, and they put people on it! How's that for danger? That flight has gone down in history as a triumphant achievement but it came close to being a catastrophe at several points in the mission. It actually could've been flown unmanned, but interestingly enough two of the loudest voices speaking out against an unmanned test mission were John Young and Robert Crippen, the first flight's crew.

As for the Apollo 11 astronauts NASA certainly knew that they could get them back, they simply had to prepare for the possibility of something not working. It's not like they sent them to land and then figured "aw shucks, let's hope this rocket engine fires."

I think what Fritzo was getting at was no that the flight crew aren't brave but that the current atmosphere is one of too much caution. I'm not sure I entirely agree with this but I get his point. There are many astronauts that would jump at the chance of a one way mission to mars for example. One in which there is no plan to get the men back at all.

 

[Locut0s]

John Kennedy - tell me if you aren't moved by this:

"Those who came before us made certain that this country rode... SNIP

One of the great speeches to be sure!! Moving indeed. If only the likes of this could be said by a president in this day and age. But he's be all but booed off the stage for saying 1/2 the things he said there about the cost and sacrifice of it all.

 

[ichy]

The shuttle was one of the worst decisions NASA ever made. While the moon landing were expensive at least they had a PR return on the dollar if not something scientific (though the scientific gains really diminished after the first landing). The shuttle really didn't end up being THAT much cheaper and had basically zero PR AND scientific return. All those years of shuttle missions, just so America could continue to say they had a functioning manned space program. Just think what they could have done with that money if it were spent on robotic space missions!! The return would have been hundreds of times better!! OR, if they still wanted to continue manned space flight (I DO think it has its place) they should have continued the Apollo missions and transitioned them into R&D and study for Mars missions.

I mostly agree, albeit with few nitpicks. The last three Apollo missions were much more science focused than the first landings, although their scientific value did diminish fairly quickly. I think it's a shame that the last few landings were canceled, but the science return from Skylab was far greater than it would've been from flying Apollo 18-20.

The shuttle was a fiasco. Using it to launch satellites was ridiculous since unmanned vehicles could do that more efficiently and without risking human lives. Most of the microgravity science flights were a waste of money, although some shuttle science missions were worth it. The Shuttle Radar Topography mission and the earlier space radar missions that preceded it produced a treasure trove of data with serious real-world value. Servicing the Hubble Space Telescope was also something that only the shuttle could do, although in hindsight it would've probably been more cost effective to just launch a new telescope every few years rather than fixing the old one :-/

Re: radiation, I don't have dosage figures but the current time in space record holder is a Cosmonaut named Sergei Krikalev with over eight hundred days in space! He's doing fine, and while I get that you get less radiation in LEO he was also up there a loooong time compared to the Apollo guys. There's also an astronaut biography called Riding Rockets whose author is very candid about his fears (it's the first time I heard an astronaut admit that most of them are scared shitless in the hours and minutes before launch) and he never once mentioned worrying about radiation. That part is a totally manageable risk.

 

[ichy]

I think what Fritzo was getting at was no that the flight crew aren't brave but that the current atmosphere is one of too much caution. I'm not sure I entirely agree with this but I get his point. There are many astronauts that would jump at the chance of a one way mission to mars for example. One in which there is no plan to get the men back at all.

IMO if NASA had the money for a real human exploration program AND a clear vision for what they were supposed to do then they'd be willing to take reasonable risks to accomplish it.

 

[Fritzo]

Cataracts that *might* be related to radiation exposure (don't forget that most of these guys had also been test pilots, with all the exposure to bright light, radiation, etc that that entailed) are hardly the same as being "nearly irradiated to death." I know that astronauts are chosen from a pool of people who're much healthier than average, but most of the Apollo guys are doing quite well for people their age. If I remember correctly John Young only retired from NASA in 2004. Radiation in space isn't a non-issue, but it's no show-stopper either.

This happened at least two other times as well:

http://sciencefocus.com/blog/how-apollo-astronauts-avoided-deadly-solar-flare

It was just luck that they didn't fry up there.

 

[Fritzo]

I mostly agree, albeit with few nitpicks. The last three Apollo missions were much more science focused than the first landings, although their scientific value did diminish fairly quickly. I think it's a shame that the last few landings were canceled, but the science return from Skylab was far greater than it would've been from flying Apollo 18-20.

The shuttle was a fiasco. Using it to launch satellites was ridiculous since unmanned vehicles could do that more efficiently and without risking human lives. Most of the microgravity science flights were a waste of money, although some shuttle science missions were worth it. The Shuttle Radar Topography mission and the earlier space radar missions that preceded it produced a treasure trove of data with serious real-world value. Servicing the Hubble Space Telescope was also something that only the shuttle could do, although in hindsight it would've probably been more cost effective to just launch a new telescope every few years rather than fixing the old one :-/

Re: radiation, I don't have dosage figures but the current time in space record holder is a Cosmonaut named Sergei Krikalev with over eight hundred days in space! He's doing fine, and while I get that you get less radiation in LEO he was also up there a loooong time compared to the Apollo guys. There's also an astronaut biography called Riding Rockets whose author is very candid about his fears (it's the first time I heard an astronaut admit that most of them are scared shitless in the hours and minutes before launch) and he never once mentioned worrying about radiation. That part is a totally manageable risk.

Today we have shielding. Back then some of the walls of the lander were literally paper thin, and they were the only humans to leave Earth's magnetic field. That means they had little protection against any cosmic radiation that felt like zapping them. Also, Earth's Van Allen belts have waves of intense radiation around their edges. As long as you stay around 300 miles or so above earth's surface, you're fine. Above that and you're washed in energetic particles. Their solution rather than shielding was to use speed to move through as quickly as possible.

Fortunately there were no direct flares and the astronauts kept to fairly low doses. They were lucky. Back then, we only had minutes warning about solar flares. Today, we have days, even weeks.

The government would never allow missions with that much risk involved to fly today, mostly because if there was a disaster, politicians and department heads would be blamed and fired. Look what happened after Challenger blew up---heads rolled.

 

[Macamus Prime]

The guy who was punched in the face by Buzz Aldrin continues to get owned.

As well as every conspiracy theorist out there. Bunch of idiots.

 

[dennilfloss]

The guy who was punched in the face by Buzz Aldrin continues to get owned.

As well as every conspiracy theorist out there. Bunch of idiots.

 

[ichy]

The government would never allow missions with that much risk involved to fly today, mostly because if there was a disaster, politicians and department heads would be blamed and fired. Look what happened after Challenger blew up---heads rolled.

Challenger wasn't the result of a calculated risk, it was caused by almost criminal negligence. There's a difference between saying that we want to do something where we know we can only mitigate but not totally avoid all danger, and launching a manned rocket when the engineers are begging you not to do it in such cold temperatures. Missions like Apollo 8 were risky because they were going to new places and you simply can't remove the danger from something like that. Challenger was destroyed by a known problem (O-ring blow-by had first been noticed on STS-2) that had been ignored.

 

[Fritzo]

Challenger wasn't the result of a calculated risk, it was caused by almost criminal negligence. There's a difference between saying that we want to do something where we know we can only mitigate but not totally avoid all danger, and launching a manned rocket when the engineers are begging you not to do it in such cold temperatures. Missions like Apollo 8 were risky because they were going to new places and you simply can't remove the danger from something like that. Challenger was destroyed by a known problem (O-ring blow-by had first been noticed on STS-2) that had been ignored.

That's just it- in the public eye, risk that goes wrong will be viewed as negligence. Lawyers will sue lawyers, people will loose their jobs...nobody wants to go through that anymore.

40 years ago if someone died on a dangerous job, we were like "Wow, what a brave man.." Now people's first reaction is "WHO'S FAULT WAS IT?"