Comment on Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Scientific Evidence by jfb.

Apollo Moon Landing Hoax - Scientific EvidenceWhich tests? Citations, please.

The following report has been discussed elsewhere in the thread: http://ston.jsc.nasa.gov/collections/TRS/_techrep/CR188427.pdf

Here was the conclusion:

The effects of radiation for STS-48 are apparent in the final images produced
by the high speed (above 400 ASA) flight original films. The color films, 7296
and 5030, exhibited an increase in minimum density and a decrease in contrast.
When seen in the final image, shadows would appear grainy and ambiguous in the
darker detail. Flatness in the tonal range is the effect of the lowered
contrast. The black and white films, 5454 and 5453, and color negative film,
6028, displayed identical effects only to a lesser degree. Reversal film 5020
was not significantly affected by the radiation. All color films exhibited a
shift in color balance. The color shifts, increases in base exposure and
decreases in contrast, are functions of the film’s representative speed. While
6028 was the least affected of the negative films, it should be noted that
reversal film 5020 showed the least apparent damage (because the effected part
of reversal film is beyond the useful density).

The film didn’t turn black. Some loss of contrast and shadow detail is about the extent of it. Total radiation exposure for this test was 313-363 mrad over something like 130 hours. And this was for high-speed (ASA/ISO 400 or higher) film.

I found the following paper

http://pcams01.mib.infn.it/ICATPP10th_2007/Software%20Applications/HayatsuK.pdf

estimating the average lunar surface radiation dose during quiet solar periods being in the neighborhood of 225-250 mSv/yr. Converting Sv to rad isn’t straightforward, since Sv takes biological effects into account: 1 rad (or 1 mGy) of X-rays results in 1 mSv equivalent dose, while 1 rad of alpha particles results in 20 mSv equivalent dose.

Given that the equivalent dose value (Sv) will always be equal to or greater than the absorbed dose value (rad or Gy), however, we can at least place an upper limit on rads of 225 to 250 rad/yr (685 mrad/day) on average during quiet solar periods. Given that the bulk of the radiation is in the form of cosmic rays and fast neutrons, which have a 20 to 1 and 30 to 1 dose equivalent, the actual number is going to be smaller than that. My estimate (for what it’s worth, which isn’t much) is roughly 100 rad/yr, or 270 mrad/day. That’s about 4 times higher than the dose received on STS-48.

Depending on the film type and speed, you would see some degradation in the final images. The film wouldn’t turn black, it wouldn’t melt, it wouldn’t disintegrate.