BradGuth writes:

On May 8, 9:24 pm, (Michael Moroney)
wrote:
Question: I'm certainly not one of those who thinks the moon landings
were a hoax, but I do wonder about one thing. As I understand, the
moon's surface is about as dark as charcoal, and the space suits were
quite white. In the photos from the moon, the space suits do in fact
appear white, but the moon's surface in the same photos appears as a
light gray. It seems to me that there isn't enough contrast. If the
camera settings were such that the surface appeared light gray, the
space suits should be dazzlingly overexposed. Kind of like how the full
moon may appear bright when viewed from Earth, but how bright would it
appear if someone painted a large part of it with bright white paint.

Not only is the moon physically dark as coal, but also highly
saturated in solar UV.

Go figure how such unfiltered Kodak moments entirely failed to respond
to the unavoidable secondary/recoil flood of the bluish hue or black
light generated tint of weird color saturation.

I don't know much about photography (probably obvious from my original
note to someone who does), but even I know the answer to this one. It's
called an UV filter for the camera lens.

It's exactly as though xenon arc lamp spectrum illuminated, isn't it.

Or the sun. I don't know of any way to tell that apart from the photos.

You can do your own hourly math on those to/from Van Allen belt dosage
amounts. There's roughly a 75,000 km trek each way, so that's 150,000
km worth of Van Allen badlands (not including whatever is outside or
being anywhere near that naked and thus reactive moon of ours).

What was their average speed? (1.5 km/s?)

Say twice that velocity while going to/from through the Van Allen
zones = 13+ hours.

Wikipedia states an object shielded with 3 mm of aluminum is exposed to
2,500 rem per year. That results in 0.285 rem per hour or 3.7 rem for
the trip. Thanks. Off to see what 3.7 rem does to you.