J. White calculates why Apollo craft could not have survived passage through the VABs

a reply to: eriktheawful

The physical evidence proves that Apollo astronauts survived the VA belts. The backup from the correct mathematical analysis shows that we really understand the situation, and as it should, enforces reality.

originally posted by: charlyv
a reply to: eriktheawful

The physical evidence proves that Apollo astronauts survived the VA belts. The backup from the correct mathematical analysis shows that we really understand the situation, and as it should, enforces reality.

No need to tell me, I completely agree.

a reply to: FoosM

Read again. "ONE MISSION, Gemini Xi, was specifically programmed to miss the anonaly in order to protect a nuclear-emulsion cosmic-ray experiment." Link.



Now, I'm done with this thread. It's in the hoax bin where it belongs. If you want to bring any new claims then start another thread, but hopefully by now you have learned not to trust Jarrah on anything that involves numbers larger than his IQ.

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: FoosM

Read again. "ONE MISSION, Gemini Xi, was specifically programmed to miss the anonaly in order to protect a nuclear-emulsion cosmic-ray experiment." Link.

Well thats one thing you are right about

For future reference:

Gemini Mission were not and are not evidence that Apollo could traverse the Van Allen Belts.
Gemini Missions were investigating radiation levels below the belts (LOW EARTH ORBIT), where the space stations
and the shuttle missions operate(d) and the affects of passing through the SAA (South Atlantic Anomaly) as well
as the affects of being in LEO during an increase SPE's from solar flares and CME's (which weren't identified till after Apollo).

From:
ntrs.nasa.gov...

The principal source of radiation for low-earth-orbit, low-inclination space flights is in the area of the South Atlantic magnetic anomaly. None of the Gemini dose measure­ ments reported in this paper are of high enough intensity to be considered hazardous. There is a trend toward larger doses as missions are flown higher and longer. Extended orbital operations between 1400 and 4400 kilometers would encounter high interior radiation levels. Pronounced spacecraft geometry effects have been measured in manned spacecraft. Radiation dose is already a criterion used in mission planning. Instrumentation for radiation measurements on Gemini spacecraft is described.

Space- radiation-dose measurements during Project Mercury clearly established the region of the South Atlantic magnetic anomaly as the principal source of ionizing radiation in low-altitude nonpolar orbits. This fact was shown by comparing the proton flux in the nuclear emulsions from the three-orbit Mercury-Atlas (MA) 7 mission
(which did not traverse the South Atlantic magnetic anomaly) with the higher proton flux recorded on the six-orbit MA-8 mission.

This is key:

Like the Mercury missions, all manned Gemini missions were instrumented to record the radiation dose. Since the radiation dose encountered in low-altitude (100 to 200 nautical miles) earth orbit was not sufficient to warrant real-time measurement
for radiological-safety purposes, a passive-dosimeter system was devised for the Gemini Program.

In other words, they weren't planning any trips where radiation levels would be a concern, like:

Extended orbital operations between 1400 and 4400 kilometers

Therefore, no manned mission tested a traversal through the full extent of the Van Allen Belts. They only tested
the safe limits of LEO orbits where we have been operating to this very day.

With this thread I have attempted to get Apollo apologists to confirm if any Gemini and Apollo Missions travelled
through the intense regions of the Van Allen Belt. Not the SAA, which is bad enough, but the real belts.
Nobody wants to clearly state one way or the other.

For along time Apollo apologists have claimed that passage through the belts were accomplished
by skipping the hot areas- the centre, the core, the harshest most intense regions. But when its pointed out that Apollo went through the hot regions, all of a sudden it wouldn't be a problem to do so. That does not pass the smell test.

The Apollo missions are consistent with radiation level exposure for extended LEO operations.

a reply to: FoosM

You were shown several times the path that Apollo took....and you refused to acknowledge it, but instead deflected.

You were shown several times, with math, what the levels of the VABs were......and you refused to acknowledge it, or prove the math wrong with your own figures. Instead: you again deflected.

You were shown several times how dosage of radiation is figured out, with the key being the amount of time exposed.....and again, instead of acknowledging it, or showing how all nuclear science is wrong, you instead, once more, deflected.

You were shown several times how even in the lower parts of the belts, the astronauts for Gemini's dosage levels were higher, because of that key factor that you, again, for some strange reason, ignore: DURATION OF EXPOSURE. That the orbits of Gemini exposed those astronauts much more than the quick path that Apollo took on it's way to the moon.

Instead you deflected.

Even your own material that you used shows how you ignore over and over THE DURATION OF EXPOSURE when it comes to dosage.

You've not proven anything, except that you know how to deflect, try to confuse an argument, and that you have nothing to back up the claims that you make.....just like this last post of yours where you make an ASSUMPTION about a statement......

This thread really does belong where it is.

a reply to: FoosM

You really have no understanding of anything you read.

Radiation was considered as part of mission planning. Part of Apollo's support mission was to monitor solar flare events to make sure there wouldn't be any problems. They planned the trajectories to spend the minimum time in the belts. You keep trying to make sly insinuations about their trajectory but aren't prepared to provide your own proof, instead you demand that other people do your work so you can com up with a big "A-HA" moment.

If you believe any Apollo mission spent significant and life threatening time in the heart of the VAB then show us your maths or any kind of supporting evidence. I am stating, as a fact, that they did not. Do your worst - you will produce nothing of any relevance.

Let's say it again: Apollo's trajectories were designed to spend the minimum time possible in the VAB. There are lots of documents available that prove they knew exactly what the VAB were and they had lots of data on space radiation from unmanned probes that showed they knew what they were doing. Even 50 years ago they knew more than you do now.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: FoosM



If you believe any Apollo mission spent significant and life threatening time in the heart of the VAB then show us your maths or any kind of supporting evidence. I am stating, as a fact, that they did not. Do your worst - you will produce nothing of any relevance.

He never has and never does remember this guy can't even figure out how shadows work and you are asking for proof of trajectories from him !

originally posted by: eriktheawful
a reply to: FoosM

You were shown several times the path that Apollo took....and you refused to acknowledge it, but instead deflected.

One path. How many missions where there?
Now, I will ask again, have there been any Apollo missions that NASA admitted to having gone through
the harshest part of the VABs?

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: FoosM

You really have no understanding of anything you read.

Radiation was considered as part of mission planning. Part of Apollo's support mission was to monitor solar flare events to make sure there wouldn't be any problems.

So why didn't they document the X class solar flares that occurred during Apollo 12?

They planned the trajectories to spend the minimum time in the belts. You keep trying to make sly insinuations about their trajectory but aren't prepared to provide your own proof, instead you demand that other people do your work so you can com up with a big "A-HA" moment.

I don't have to provide proof, its a matter of record.
I should ask the question, why have you not updated your own information on the matter
instead of talking about something you are clearly not so educated about?

Its like asking me to prove if water is wet. You should know this by now.

originally posted by: FoosM
So why didn't they document the X class solar flares that occurred during Apollo 12?

www.hq.nasa.gov...

Public Affairs Office - "This is Apollo Control at 97 hours, 3 minutes. We are now some 4 minutes from LOS from Apollo 12. The spacecraft currently on the 7th revolution around the Moon. The crew is some 4 hours into a 8 and a half hour sleep period. Here in Mission Control now we have received word from the Solar Particles Alert Network that they have observed a moderate solar flare; this apparently is the same solar flare that we watched on the second of November. The flare has now rotated around and is coming back into the field of view. Based on the previous information that we had from this flare, we would not expect it to be a problem; the particles associated with it were quite low and from our previous information we would not expect to get a significant level of radiation to the crew. We will however be monitoring the particles coming from the flare now over the next few hours, determining the types of radiation levels we can expect for both inside the spacecraft and outside the spacecraft and evaluating this in terms of any possible impact on the mission. To repeat the classification that we have of the flare at this time, based on optical data, is that it is a moderate flare and we would not expect it to be a problem.

Public Affairs Office - "This is Apollo Control at 235 hours, 31 minutes. We have just had a report from the radiation support room that our solar particle alert network has detected a very small solar flare. The - We haven't gotten a description of the size of the flare except that it was quite small and at this time we have gotten no readings from instrumentation on the spacecraft to indicate the presence of any additional level radiation as a result of this flare.

Moderate. Not X Class. Publicly announced during the mission to waiting journalists.

Also reported in this:

www.hq.nasa.gov...

So yeah, really secret.

I don't have to provide proof, its a matter of record.
I should ask the question, why have you not updated your own information on the matter
instead of talking about something you are clearly not so educated about?

If you're making a claim about something then yes you do have to provide proof. If it is a matter of record you should have no trouble finding it instead of expecting everyone else to find it for you.

You have demonstrated throughout every post you make that you have not made, nor are you prepared to make, any effort of your own to provide proof of any claim you make. Back up your claims, like you expect everyone else to do, or they are worthless.

Hypocrisy.

originally posted by: FoosM

originally posted by: eriktheawful
a reply to: FoosM

You were shown several times the path that Apollo took....and you refused to acknowledge it, but instead deflected.

One path. How many missions where there?
Now, I will ask again, have there been any Apollo missions that NASA admitted to having gone through
the harshest part of the VABs?

The trajectories of ALL the Apollo missions are detailed on the link in Bob B's trajectory analysis. So you can do the exact same maths he did.

And your question is meaningless unless you say what you mean by "the harshest parts of the VABs". Clearly none of the Apollo missions crossed the centre of the proton belt but if I say this then you will come up with some misquoted document and say "Ha, look, you were wrong!"

Conversely, if I tell you that Apollo did pass through moderately high radiation areas then no doubt you will pull another lame "gotcha" out of somewhere.

What precise level of radiation flux are you talking about? And do you mean proton or electron radiation? Then we might get somewhere. (Might, but I doubt it as you refuse to learn.)

originally posted by: FoosM

originally posted by: eriktheawful
a reply to: FoosM

You were shown several times the path that Apollo took....and you refused to acknowledge it, but instead deflected.

One path. How many missions where there?
Now, I will ask again, have there been any Apollo missions that NASA admitted to having gone through
the harshest part of the VABs?

Tell you what, let's do it this way.

Because you have failed over and over to back up your claims, but instead simply make posts with opinions, ask questions that have already been answered several times, and basically deflect with every chance you get, how about you show us that you can actually do some research on this subject:

Go out, research the paths that each Apollo mission took to the moon, then come back with that information and links to them, and show us yourself.

You do not have to believe what NASA tells you if you don't want to. But then you do need to show what it is you think they are lying about. You have to show what it is that they are saying (and no...just you saying it will not be enough. You need to quote and provide links), and then turn around and show Why you think it is a lie, or wrong.

Each of us that have debated you in this thread have done just that. We have gone out, gotten the information, used it in our posts, and even provided the source links for that information.

You, on the other hand, have failed to do this over and over again. Instead, you've posted quotes and links to information that actually proved you wrong.

So show us that you can do better than that. Actually give substance to your posts and show us what each path that each Apollo mission took. You don't need to believe them, but let us see if you can actually go out and retrieve the correct information and present it.

If this thread had been in the Debate Forum, you would have been eaten alive by your opponents.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

originally posted by: FoosM
So why didn't they document the X class solar flares that occurred during Apollo 12?

www.hq.nasa.gov...

Public Affairs Office - "This is Apollo Control at 97 hours, 3 minutes. We are now some 4 minutes from LOS from Apollo 12. The spacecraft currently on the 7th revolution around the Moon. The crew is some 4 hours into a 8 and a half hour sleep period. Here in Mission Control now we have received word from the Solar Particles Alert Network that they have observed a moderate solar flare; this apparently is the same solar flare that we watched on the second of November. The flare has now rotated around and is coming back into the field of view. Based on the previous information that we had from this flare, we would not expect it to be a problem; the particles associated with it were quite low and from our previous information we would not expect to get a significant level of radiation to the crew. We will however be monitoring the particles coming from the flare now over the next few hours, determining the types of radiation levels we can expect for both inside the spacecraft and outside the spacecraft and evaluating this in terms of any possible impact on the mission. To repeat the classification that we have of the flare at this time, based on optical data, is that it is a moderate flare and we would not expect it to be a problem.

Public Affairs Office - "This is Apollo Control at 235 hours, 31 minutes. We have just had a report from the radiation support room that our solar particle alert network has detected a very small solar flare. The - We haven't gotten a description of the size of the flare except that it was quite small and at this time we have gotten no readings from instrumentation on the spacecraft to indicate the presence of any additional level radiation as a result of this flare.

Moderate. Not X Class. Publicly announced during the mission to waiting journalists.

Also reported in this:

www.hq.nasa.gov...

So yeah, really secret.

Great, you showed me a moderate solar flare, now show me the X class solar flares.
Because thats what I stated.

a reply to: eriktheawful

Well said.

The link to Bob Braeunig's page which Jarrah used has a link to the orbital elements for all the Apollo missions.

It also shows how to calculate the translunar trajectory from those elements.

Foos: I've wasted literally hours already crunching the numbers to show you why Jarrah's video is total hogwash. You have ignored it and changed the subject repeatedly.

So Foos, if you want to see how the trajectories aligned with the VABs for ALL the missions then why don't you man up, get your pencil sharpener out and do some maths?

Show us the results here if you dare.

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: FoosM

originally posted by: eriktheawful
a reply to: FoosM

You were shown several times the path that Apollo took....and you refused to acknowledge it, but instead deflected.

One path. How many missions where there?
Now, I will ask again, have there been any Apollo missions that NASA admitted to having gone through
the harshest part of the VABs?

The trajectories of ALL the Apollo missions are detailed on the link in Bob B's trajectory analysis. So you can do the exact same maths he did.

So Bob has the trajectory of an Apollo mission that goes through the heart of the Van Allen Belt?
I didn't see that, which one is it then?

originally posted by: FoosM

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: FoosM

originally posted by: eriktheawful
a reply to: FoosM

You were shown several times the path that Apollo took....and you refused to acknowledge it, but instead deflected.

One path. How many missions where there?
Now, I will ask again, have there been any Apollo missions that NASA admitted to having gone through
the harshest part of the VABs?

The trajectories of ALL the Apollo missions are detailed on the link in Bob B's trajectory analysis. So you can do the exact same maths he did.

So Bob has the trajectory of an Apollo mission that goes through the heart of the Van Allen Belt?
I didn't see that, which one is it then?

You tell us, Foo. Do some maths instead of getting everyone else to do the donkey work.

Or are you afraid that you will accidentally work out that Apollo was possible, like your Aussie pin-up did?


By the way, the Apollo 12 flares were explained to you four years ago. Have you forgotten which arguments you've already used?

originally posted by: Rob48

You tell us, Foo. Do some maths instead of getting everyone else to do the donkey work.

Or are you afraid that you will accidentally work out that Apollo was possible, like your Aussie pin-up did?


By the way, the Apollo 12 flares were explained to you four years ago. Have you forgotten which arguments you've already used?

Why should I have to do any math? Either Bob has calculated like NASA that one of the missions went through
the belts or not. Either his work supports NASA's statements or it doesn't, I don't have to check his math for his mistakes. So tell me, does Bob's math correlate with NASA's statements?

That post does not explain away the fact X class flares occurred.
I asked the question, "were there any major flares during any Apollo mission?'
Everyone said "NO". Then I went ahead and proved them all wrong.
Do you want to claim that no major solar flares occurred during Apollo?

CLAVIUS:

Clavius answered 6 years ago
Solar flares occur in a wide variety of strengths. That is, the sun belches out a little bit in the way of flares every day -- sometimes up to a dozen. These are little solar tantrums that barely register on our sensors and cause no detectable biological effect for astronauts.

Then at the other end of the scale you have the wholesale solar blasts -- what we call "X-class events" that send a shotgun blast of particles in one direction out into the solar system. Those would be very dangerous for astronauts, but occur only very rarely.

How rarely? Well, during the Apollo operational period 1969 to 1972, there were only three solar events that had a biological significance. That is, events that would have registered on the astronauts' dosimeters. The event in August 1972 was a whopper. It occurred between Apollo 16 and Apollo 17. Had a mission been flown during that time, and had the flare been aimed at Earth, it is likely the astronauts would have become severely sick. The other two, however, would not have resulted in illness, but may likely have caused the astronauts to have radiation-influenced health problems later in life.

So X class flares are dangerous.
But I'm sure when it comes to Apollo all of sudden, just like the deadly VABs, they are not.
LOL

a reply to: FoosM

Please go back through this thread and show where I said "No." to the question about solar flares during Apollo.

Please. Let's see it.