Read:  http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMERGERI7H_index_0.html

John Hoffman Writes:  hoffman868@bellsouth.net

The facts keep dribbling forward from Apollo missions and NASA. The 'soup' of deadly radiation in space is being exposed and admitted. There is no way around it.

I would have thought that it might have been a good idea to accomplish all this testing before 1969, the first time they 'went' to 'the Moon' and back. I'm sure the families of the 'fellow travelers' would have wanted it done beforehand.

My comments on info from the above article:

"Beyond Earth orbit" means above the lower level of the Van Allen Belts which start at 500 miles above the surface of our planet, Earth. Vehicles and humans must stay well below that lower limit because the deadly radiation trapped there in the 'belts' was proven by Dr James Van Allen, who was the discoverer.

"Simulated lunar regolith" means 'fake' Moon soil. I saw some 'fake' Moon rocks at NASA in Houston in 1990. The expert told us they were 'fake' at the time. He said they were made to design the equipment BEFORE the missions. Oh, well.

This may be the most absurd statement in the article:

“Solar particle events are made up of protons that can be shielded quite simply,” added Alessandra.

Alessandra may not know that the half-thickness for protons is 10 inches of pure polyethylene or 2 feet of water. Those two are needed due to the large number of hydrogen atoms present for elastic collisions with the protons traveling at the speed of light. Hydrogen atoms are composed of one proton. Metals, especially heavy ones, like lead, are not good for proton shielding. Heavy metals are good shielding for gamma, beta and x-radiation, because they contain a large number of electrons for collisions, to attenuate the radiation.

I had to install and maintain and inspect all of the items mentioned above while working as a nuclear engineer in the Navy for over 7 years. We removed and replaced it in the shipyard. Radiation safety was a very high priority.

Encasing the work area and men in a suitable level of radiation is NOT done 'quite simply' in space, or on planets with little or no atmosphere to protect them.

Proof of what I stated is taken from the article:

"Radiation shielding can be counter-intuitive because denser and thicker does not always mean better."

My grand-father would not let my father read Buck Rogers comics, even though he never heard of the deadly radiation in space in 1930, preventing human travel. That may still be a good idea to help... close the money hole.

ROSSINI for space radiation protection testing: http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Space_Engineering/SEMX3HERI7H_0.html