Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

Originally posted by backinblack

Why don't you do the calculations to show how much effect his omissions would actually have instead of posing a ridiculous and illogical extreme?

Why don't you quit the BS you seem to call others out for???

What BS would that be then??

Exactly what "ridiculous and illogical extreme" did I pose??

Here you go - www.abovetopsecret.com...:

Originally posted by backinblack
Yep. lets all just accept one guy has it perfect without question..

Though he freely admits to multiple omissions ..

So in this post you have said we should treat him as perfect - which is extreme - and in the same post you have said he admits he has made admissions - which makes any suggestion of perfection illogical - even more so, were that possible, than the general illogicality of anything being perfect in the 1st place.

BTW, why can't we get the actual trajectory from NASA rather than this guy basing his on "one" set of figures then NOT allowing for ANY course changes as he clearly states ??

Dunno - is that actually the case, or have you just not seen or found one yet? Have you asked them for it?

Lunar laser ranging experiment

i know it is wikipedia but search anywhere for more info on it. didn't take the time to go through all 528 pages on this but every time i see debates on moon landing all the conspiracy theorists never bring this up or try to refute it. It's a man made laser reflector put on there by apollo 11 and since then has given extremely accurate measures of the moons distance. go to any of the observatories that can check it with their equipment, they will show you shooting the laser to any part of the moon results in no return signal, but put in the coordinates from where apollo 11 placed the reflector and what do you know you get a returned signal.

sorry if anything like this has been posted before, but every time i see stuff about the moon landings being a hoax there is never any mention about this. how else would a man made object perfectly get placed and set up on the moon in the 1960's?

Originally posted by deathlord
how else would a man made object perfectly get placed and set up on the moon in the 1960's?

The smarter HB'ers will say it was done with an unmanned lander as the Russians did during the Apollo program. The stupider one's will go off on a tangent about how bouncing lasers of the Moon can be done w/o a retroreflector.

Originally posted by MacTheKnife

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by MacTheKnife

BTW if you wanted to be spoonfeed the trajectory data in 10 min increments back "in the day", it was available. See the foreward in the link I previously provided.

Perhaps if your Google-fu is strong enough you can find MSC-01855 supplement1, volume 2 today.

edit on 1/8/11 by MacTheKnife because: Added pic of MSC-01855 foreward

therefore, the spacecraft traveled through the heart of the trapped radiation belts.

Explain it.

What's to explain ? How much of the "heart" of the VAB did Apollo 14 traverse ? My understanding of the general trajectory taken during Apollo was that they spent a short amount of time in a "high" zone of flux rather than a long amount of time in lower zones of flux so as to reduce the cumulative exposure.

You see, you are not explaining the contradiction.
Which is it, did the craft go through the heart of the VABs or did it skip it by skirting the edges of the belt?

Originally posted by FoosM
You see, you are not explaining the contradiction.
Which is it, did the craft go through the heart of the VABs or did it skip it by skirting the edges of the belt?

When you can better explain what is actually meant by "heart" I'll have a go at it. How much of the "heart" did A14 go through, a tiny slice or right down the middle ? Tell you what though, when you plot the A14 trajectory like Braeunig did for A11, and find it spending enough time in the "heart" so the expected dose is deadly, then you're onto something. Until then you're playing semantic word games in a desperate attempt to find some contradiction that in the end means nothing w/o the evidence I've just mentioned.

Supposedly this article was also posted in the PRAVDA.

Russia Continues to Surpass Americans in the Space Race
Front page /
30.01.2004 Source:


Cosmonauts May Soon Add Another One to the Russian Space List of Firsts

On July 25, 1969, many Americans watched their televisions in awe as astronaut Neil Armstrong walked on the moon and said, "One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind." Americans were amazed at what advances in technology had produced: a man on the moon. Ticker tape parades greeted returning astronauts. America had proven itself a leader in the space race.

Russia and the USA wage a hidden political war

Lately, some have begun to suggest that this was not the case at all; some people have suggested that America never made it to the moon and that it was
just an illusion made with trick photography. Bart Sibrel is one of those people. He made a video called, "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon," in which he provides much documentation to suggest that man has yet to walk on the moon. Is this possible? Could have America faked the entire moon landing?

On first thought, it might sound ludicrous for many--to think that man has not walked on the moon. After all, it would require such a grand conspiracy that, certainly, someone who was privy to such information would have spoken. Nevertheless, there are those who are skeptical of this moon-walking.

Surprisingly, some of the ideas presented by them are not as preposterous as they might sound. Based on surveys, it has been estimated that between 6 and 20 percent of Americans do not believe a man actually walked on the moon. Are 6-20 percent of Americans fools, or are they a little brighter than the rest?

In order to fully understand the claim that man did not walk on the moon, the events leading up to this event that most Americans consider an historic fact must be re-examined and scrutinized. We must go back in time, when the space race between Russia (or the Soviet Union, as it was known then) first started. By doing this, I feel that you will better understand the arguments both for and against the claim of man walking on the moon.

What I present here may shock many fellow Americans, as we generally view our nation and its space exploration program as being, by far, superior to that of all other nations. After all, we were the first nation to have "a man walk on the moon" (or so we believe). While this might possibly be true that America was the first nation to have a man walk on the moon (though there is evidence to suggest otherwise). As difficult as it may be for many to admit, this appears to be the only "first" America had in the great space race.

If we are to be honest, during the "space race" from the late-1950s until the time American astronauts were to have walked on the moon, Russia was utterly devastating America. This was probably both due to the fact that Russians were highly educated and the fact that, with Russia's strict Communist leadership at the time, failure was not an option. And Russia's society encouraged intelligence, whereas America's society has beenencouraging a host of things--such as artying and irresponsibility--none of which promoted intelligence.

In 1957, America was astonished, as was the rest of the world, when it was discovered that a Russian satellite, Sputnik, had gone into outer space. People were absolutely amazed that such a device made it into outer space. Not only was the scientific community of America in awe, but so too was the American military, who were greatly concerned about Russia having the ability to put such a device in outer space.

Later that year, Russia again made a first, when a small dog, Laika (which means "barker"), was launched into outer space. This again sent shockwaves throughout the world. Americans heard about this and were astonished that a dog went into outer space. This dog was actually put into orbit, and unfortunately died 6 hours later while in space, not being able to withstand the rigors involved.

Meanwhile, in 1957, while America stood shocked at Russia's progress, America attempted to launch its own satellite into outer space. This was meant to show the Russians that America too was a contender in the space race. A satellite was to accompany the rocket, which had been tested for stress. America felt everything was prepared. But the rocket blew up at the launch pad, never leaving the ground. It was an international embarrassment.

In 1959, trying to copy what Russia had done two years prior, America was finally getting an animal into outer space. A couple of monkeys went up only 300 miles for just 15 minutes total. This, of course, was a far cry from the orbit in which the Russian dog was put two years previous. However, the monkeys did return alive.

While America was sending rockets up for 15 minutes in 1959, Russia was again making shockwaves when its satellite Luna-1 flew by the moon. Later in 1959, the Russian satellite Luna-2 reached the moon's surface and left national symbols of the then-USSR. Again in 1959, the satellite Luna-3 made another first for Russia, when it took pictures of the far side of the moon, transmitting these pictures back to Russia.

Russia also had the first space probe to circle the earth.

A couple years later in 1961, Russia then became the first country to have a man orbit the earth, Yuri Gagarin, who road aboard the space craft Vostok. This again astonished the international community, who were surprised that such a feat never tried before could be accomplished. While the Russians were orbiting the earth, the American Alan Shepard was launched just 115 miles into space, not even going close to the distance Russia's dog had traveled two years prior; and he landed in the Atlantic Ocean 15 minutes later. Meanwhile, Russia again had nother first in 1961, when its interplanetary probe Venera-1 was launched to Venus.

In 1962, America became the second country to have a man of its own in orbit around the earth, John Glenn. Parades greeted John Glenn when he returned. Due to his notoriety, he later became a U.S. Senator because Americans care more for celebrity status than fit politicians.

President John F. Kennedy at this time said America would have a man on the Moon by the end of the decade. He was later assassinated in 1964, leaving his dream of having a man on the moon to be fulfilled by others.

In 1962, Russia was the first nation to have two rockets with cosmonauts in outer space at the same time. It was known as the first "formation flying" in space when the two manned spacecraft, Vostok-3 and Vostok-4, traveled near each other in unison.

In 1963 Russian cosmonaut Valentina Tereshkova became the first woman in space. She was aboard the Vostok-6. Not only was this significant by the fact that she was a woman, but she was also just a regular person, who had worked at a textile factory. So she was also the first public citizen in space, not being the typical cosmonaut.

In 1964, trying to duplicate what Russia had done back in 1959, America launched the Ranger VII, which took pictures of the moon and then crash-landed into it. Nevertheless, it did send some interesting images of the moon, close-up images that attracted a great deal of curiosity to Americans, who might have only been able to have seen such images if Russia had shared theirs.

In 1964, Russia became the first nation to have launched two satellites, Elektron-1 and Electron-2, while just using one rocket.

In 1965, tragedy struck when the American rocket Atlas blew up on the launch pad, causing incredible damage. This terrible event sent a chill up many potential astronauts' backs. It re-emphasized the importance of safety precautions. Some feel that this accident was not quite that--that it may have very well have ended that way due to some astronauts not wanting to go along with a plan; in short, some feel they were assassinated by their very own government. It is not known what evidence such thoughts are based on, however, if any.

Russia too had a disaster related to safety at a different time, in which many engineers died. This had occurred several years prior. Nevertheless, over the years, Russia has shown itself to be much, much safer in its space flights and landings than America.

In the year that America's rocket was smoldering on the launch pad, on March
18, 1965, Cosmonaut Alexei Leonov took the first space walk, a ten-minute
tethered excursion outside Voshkod 2. On June 3, 1965, Edward White II is the first American to walk in space on Gemini 4, though not as far out in space. He stayed out for 22 minutes.

In 1966, Neil Armstrong and other astronauts went in space aboard the Gemini VIII and Agina. They met amid outer space and docked. Later, a malfunction with Armstrong's rocket caused him to return to earth prematurely, but fortunately no one was injured.

Meanwhile in 1966, Russia became the first nation to have an unmanned space probe, the Lunar IX, to actually land softly on the moon. It transmitted pictures from its surface back to earth. Also in 1966, the Venera-3 became the first spacecraft to reach the surface of Venus. National symbols of the USSR were left there. In 1966, Russia had the first satellite put in orbit around the moon, the Lunar X space probe.

In 1967, Russia had the first two unmanned spacecrafts that automatically met in space then docked and undocked.

Also in 1967, tragedy struck three American astronauts who died while sitting inside a rocket. Their capsule burst into flames. The reason why it caught fire is largely unknown; it is thought to have started as the result of a spark of unknown origin that was somehow able to ignite the extremely well-insulated fuel tanks. Again, some feel that there may be more to this incident than we currently know.

In 1968, Russia's unmanned rocket Zond-5 became the first to travel around the moon and return back to earth unscathed. Russia was the first to have a manned spacecraft orbit the earth, Vostok, several years prior. Russia had already showed the world that it was the first to have an unmanned spacecraft, the Lunar IX, softly land on the moon, and now it showed the world that it could even have an unmanned spacecraft circle the moon and return, with Zond-5.

Why didn't Russia then send up a man on one of its spacecrafts to the moon?
It would have seemed simple enough. I'll get to this later.

1969 - Again, Russia had another first: The first docking of manned spacecraft (Soyuz-4 and Soyuz-5), and crew transfer from one spacecraft to the other through open space.

1969 - Still another first for Russia occurred: The first formation flying of three manned spacecraft, Soyuz-6, Souyz-7 and Soyuz-8, during which they maneuvered relatively close to each other, with ground facilities providing simultaneous support for the three spacecraft.

Meanwhile, in America, the end of the decade was approaching. The late-President John F. Kennedy's dream was becoming just that: a dream. Violence gripped America, with the war in Viet Nam and racial riots across America's cities. America's leaders were desperately looking for "heroes"--some people to keep the public's minds off of the problems at home. America was looking for something to distract Americans from the failing policies. America's leaders wanted to show the world that its insane policies were a match to the highly educated Russians and their orderly society. While America's wars at home and abroad were causing much turmoil, America desperately needed some "pride"--anything for which to be
proud.

Russians had wanted to go to the moon. However, there were many concerns
with safety. The Van Allen Belts released a deadly radiation that could easily fry a person to death. Plus, the moon is 250,000 miles away--quite a distance. While I'm not familiar with how fast the rockets were, traveling at 1,200 miles per hour, it would be approximately a 20-day journey each way, provided there were no problems. Even at 2-3 times that speed, it would still be a difficult journey. The amount of fuel required would be staggering, with the added weight of people, food, air, supplies, etc. Yet somehow, these rockets managed to go much, much faster in a zero atmosphere with nothing with which to propel? Perhaps, the speed is possible, yet one cannot deny the deadly radiation rays out in space known as the Van Allen Belts.

One cosmonaut who was sent in far outer space reportedly experienced the Van
Allen Belts harmful effects firsthand. According to various sources, while he left white, he came back black; he was cooked to a crisp due to the harmful radiation. This was despite heavy shielding to dissipate any rays, which did no good. Those who knew about this incident were reportedly devastated.

Then, suddenly, out of nowhere, as Americans and the rest of the world stood
in front of their televisions, two astronauts stepped on the moon in 1969. Up until then, America was putting people about 400 miles away in orbit--far away from the harmful Van Allen Belts. But suddenly Americans made it into outer space--landing and walking on the moon--250,000 miles away, no less?

In 1965, the U.S. made a fake moon landscape, which was used for testing a space vehicle. Some have suggested the scenery for the moon landing was faked. Could this have been it?

Russia seemed to continue to have "firsts"--except for the moon landing. On
April 19, 1971, they had the first Space Station. The Soviets launch Salyut 1, the first orbiting space station. Salyut 1's original crew reportedly died during re-entry on June 30, 1971. Georgi Bobroeolski, Vladislav Volkov, and Victor Patsayev had spent a new record of 23 days in outer space.

It wasn't for two more years that the first American Space Station--May 14, 1973--was developed. The first American space station, Skylab, is damaged during launch. The first of three crews arrive 11 days later for a 28-day stay. They make in-orbit repairs and set records for time spent in space.

Russia had the first woman, Svetlana Savitskaya, to participate in a space walk on July 17, 1984. With her partner, Vladimir Dzhanibekov, she conducted welding experiments for over three hours outside the Soviet space station Salyut 7. Savitskaya had become the second woman to fly in space during a Soviet mission in 1982.

There were all these "firsts" by Russia. Yet Russia has yet to land a man on the moon? Why? While people seldom hear about it, nor do they listen even if so, Russian Cosmonaut Boris Volynov has gone on record saying that he does not believe that Americans landed on the moon. It seems he is far from the only one to think this way. Indeed, it is doubtful he is the only cosmonaut to feel this way.

Further, one astronaut--Neil Armstrong, the first man to walk on the moon--has confirmed some doubts. This is not to say that he supports the contention that man did not land on the moon. He is an astronaut, after all. He probably enjoys the notoriety. And you have to wonder if some of the past astronauts might have been given the death sentence for planning to go on record about such things? Or were there merely some bad "accidents"? Whatever the case may be, Armstrong is getting older. And he does seemingly admit that something is amiss.

Indeed, there is definitely something wrong here. If you take a moment to view video footage of the moon landing by U.S. astronauts from back in the 1960s, you'll notice that the dust kicked up by astronauts immediately settles down, just as if it was sand on the beach. Yet we all know that not only does the moon have less gravity, but it also has zero-atmosphere. Therefore, the moon dust should travel further given the force and little to counteract it. Yet, for some strange, unexplained reason, the moon dust resettles back to the ground at the same gravitational rate of 32 ft./sec. as the earth.

In a letter I received back from the astronaut Armstrong, which asked him about this strange fact of the same gravitational pull on both the moon and earth, the response I was sent surprisingly admitted that, yes, the gravitational pull should be different. Of course, Armstrong didn't come right out and admit that this was the case. That might be the death sentence for him--similar to what 3 other U.S. astronauts experienced in the 1960s when their simulated rocket mysteriously blew up during a ground test? Oh, it was just an accident? It makes you pause for a moment.

Now, of course, it looks like the race to Mars has begun. U.S. President George W. Bush has stated that, perhaps, man will walk on Mars by the year 2020. Bush stated that NASA may send astronauts to the moon again so that they may experience the effects of space travel shortly before sending them to Mars.

But if you look at the facts, you really have to wonder: Has man made it to
the moon yet?



Mark Farrell
Pravda.Ru

Now there are two problems with this article.
He doesn't name the cosmonaut who died, and he doesn't provide direct evidence of the
letter from Neil Armstrong.







www.thebirdman.org...&NWO/+Doc-ConspiracyTheory-General&Msc/DidAmericaLandOnTheMoon.html

Originally posted by MacTheKnife

Originally posted by FoosM
You see, you are not explaining the contradiction.
Which is it, did the craft go through the heart of the VABs or did it skip it by skirting the edges of the belt?

When you can better explain what is actually meant by "heart" I'll have a go at it. How much of the "heart" did A14 go through, a tiny slice or right down the middle ? Tell you what though, when you plot the A14 trajectory like Braeunig did for A11, and find it spending enough time in the "heart" so the expected dose is deadly, then you're onto something. Until then you're playing semantic word games in a desperate attempt to find some contradiction that in the end means nothing w/o the evidence I've just mentioned.

Why should I define what NASA means by "heart" ?
Why doesn't NASA?
This is all part of the vague games they play.

But I can tell you how the average person would interpret the words:

-The central or innermost physical part of a place or region
-The most important or essential part
www.thefreedictionary.com...

Sounds like to me, dead center, hottest area of the belts.
So, how do you explain that?

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by MacTheKnife

Originally posted by FoosM
You see, you are not explaining the contradiction.
Which is it, did the craft go through the heart of the VABs or did it skip it by skirting the edges of the belt?

When you can better explain what is actually meant by "heart" I'll have a go at it. How much of the "heart" did A14 go through, a tiny slice or right down the middle ? Tell you what though, when you plot the A14 trajectory like Braeunig did for A11, and find it spending enough time in the "heart" so the expected dose is deadly, then you're onto something. Until then you're playing semantic word games in a desperate attempt to find some contradiction that in the end means nothing w/o the evidence I've just mentioned.

Why should I define what NASA means by "heart" ?
Why doesn't NASA?
This is all part of the vague games they play.

But I can tell you how the average person would interpret the words:

-The central or innermost physical part of a place or region
-The most important or essential part
www.thefreedictionary.com...

Sounds like to me, dead center, hottest area of the belts.
So, how do you explain that?

You should define "heart" because you're the one placing the meaning on it. I explain it that you're reaching very very hard to spin the words used to mean something they didn't. But hey go ask the medical officer who wrote that part of the mission report and see what he has to say. With A14's orbital inclination of 30.8 deg vs A11's of 31.4, the trajectory won't have varied very much from the illustrations you've seen from Braeunig's site. I'd have said it got closer to the "horns" of the VAB but that's just as non-specific as "heart". So why don't you use the orbital elements given by NASA for A14 and show how the trajectory went dead center of the "heart" of the VABs.

But let me guess ... you won't do that (no doubt can't) because you'd rather rest your case on some non-specific wording than go with the specific technical data. And what is this case again ? That the Apollo missions didn't go to the Moon because the VABs can't be traversed due to radiation. So believing this, where would is lead us ? It would mean those orbital elements showing such a trajectory (to the Moon) must be false. But if they are false then so isn't the mission report and so there's no reason to believe the reported dosimeters. After all the astronauts were safely on the ground or in LEO, certainly not in the VABs in any way. So the medical officers report stating they went through the "heart" of the VABs is therefore false as well. So you're using those (untrue) words to show what again ? That A14 did go through the VABs "heart" ? Or ????

And why would the medical officer writing the (false) report make up a (false) statement about going through the "heart" of the VABs ? Wouldn't it have been cleaner instead to just have the (fake) dosimeter data show everything inline with prior (fake) mission data and with expectations ? How did the (fake) too high readings and the word "heart" ever escape the ever watchful eyes of the NASA brass in the final mission report ?

I am amused though that you think NASA 40+ years ago was playing word games re: a hoax theory that hadn't even been invented yet.

Originally posted by FoosM
Now there are two problems with this article.
He doesn't name the cosmonaut who died, and he doesn't provide direct evidence of the
letter from Neil Armstrong.

www.thebirdman.org...&NWO/+Doc-ConspiracyTheory-General&Msc/DidAmericaLandOnTheMoon.html

edit on 2-8-2011 by FoosM because: (no reason given)

I'd say there's more than two. I wouldn't be bothered to refute all the BS but someone must have had a lot of spare time on his hands ...

tech.dir.groups.yahoo.com...

And what is the purpose of the aforementioned article ? Does Farrell bring some hitherto unknown facts to light ? Is the person who can't understand how rockets work w/o air some technical expert that exposes some arcane hidden gotcha to expose NASA ?

While Farrell might appreciate the "orderly society" of Stalin and his successors, I doubt much of us would.

Originally posted by MacTheKnife

You should define "heart" because you're the one placing the meaning on it. I explain it that you're reaching very very hard to spin the words used to mean something they didn't.

Oh so wait a minute. You are now saying you know exactly what NASA meant by "heart"?

What you are saying is that "heart" does not mean center, or main. Fascinating. How do you have the peas so say that. LOL. It sure sounds like you are the one spinning what definitions of the word means. Im sure if NASA said, "center", you would say, "Nah, that means they didnt even go through the belts!" You guys are full of noise.

Well if you know, and if its contrary to the dictionary meaning of the word that I provided, then please enlighten us to what NASA actually meant by saying "heart". What does that mean for you, the edges of the belt? The least energetic part of the belt?

Originally posted by MacTheKnife

And what is the purpose of the aforementioned article ? Does Farrell bring some hitherto unknown facts to light ? Is the person who can't understand how rockets work w/o air some technical expert that exposes some arcane hidden gotcha to expose NASA ?

As I said, the article was published in PRAVDA. Its an example that the rest of the world doesn't necessarily believe that Americans landed men on the moon. That it was a Hollywood production.

Mainly only Americans believe they landed men on the moon, is an accurate statement, i believe. Americans would be very surprised to find out exactly how few non Americans believe in the moon landings.

reply to post by lestweforget


Got any facts to back that statement up?

I'm not American - everyone I know of personally belives Apollo 11 landed on the moon - most might not know how many subsequent missions were sent......but they all believe that it happened.

and they all roll their eyes at the idea it didn't happen.

Originally posted by MacTheKnife
With A14's orbital inclination of 30.8 deg vs A11's of 31.4, the trajectory won't have varied very much from the illustrations you've seen from Braeunig's site. I'd have said it got closer to the "horns" of the VAB but that's just as non-specific as "heart". So why don't you use the orbital elements given by NASA for A14 and show how the trajectory went dead center of the "heart" of the VABs.

But let me guess ... you won't do that (no doubt can't) because you'd rather rest your case on some non-specific wording than go with the specific technical data. And what is this case again ? That the Apollo missions didn't go to the Moon because the VABs can't be traversed due to radiation. So believing this, where would is lead us ? It would mean those orbital elements showing such a trajectory (to the Moon) must be false. But if they are false then so isn't the mission report and so there's no reason to believe the reported dosimeters. After all the astronauts were safely on the ground or in LEO, certainly not in the VABs in any way. So the medical officers report stating they went through the "heart" of the VABs is therefore false as well. So you're using those (untrue) words to show what again ? That A14 did go through the VABs "heart" ? Or ????

You see thats just silly. What I am saying is that as long as Apollo managed to traverse the heart of the trapped radiation belt, survive with multiple "X" class flares erupting throughout the mission, manage to print well exposed photography on the moon despite the severe amount of secondary X-rays and Neutrons bouncing of the surface, then NASA is lying that radiation problems of outer space.

But you guys want it both ways. You want to say, radiation was not a problem for Apollo, but is somehow a problem for future missions. That doesnt fly. And so far, nobody on your side has been able to explain why. All you keep saying is, the mission are longer. But that means nothing when "X" class & LDE flares did erupt during Apollo. Those are supposedly the "killers" But they didnt kill anything. As a matter of fact, they barely raised the radiation level of Apollonauts more than 2 rads.

The first satellite failure due to total dose was the Telstar. Telstar was launched a day after the July 9, 1962 Starfish nuclear test. The Starfish, a nuclear weapon of 1.4 Megaton strength, was detonated at an altitude of about 248 mi (~400 km) above Johnston Island in the Pacific Ocean. The explosion produced beta particles (electrons) that were injected into the earth's magnetic field and which formed an artificial radiation belt. This artificial electron belt lasted until the early 1970s.

So there were THREE belts that Apollo actually had to pass through? Could it be that when they created the third belt the US knew for sure they couldn't get passed the belts with Apollo?

The total ionizing dose (TID), mostly due to electrons and protons, can result in device failure (or biological damage to astronauts)

holbert.faculty.asu.edu...

Radiation Hazards.
Going outward from earth’s surface at the geomagnetic Equator, radiation from the Van Allen belts begins to increase rapidly above 600 miles and then falls away rapidly near 30,000 miles out. This radiation increase goes up to about 10,000 counts per second (a measure of charged particles) and returns to 10 counts per second beyond what we might say is the outer fringe of the Van Allen belts. The maximum count (10,000 per second) occurs within the internal belt at the geomagnetic Equator and between 1,400 and 3,000 miles altitude.

Correcting this number of counts to roentgens, scientists tell us that the effect is between 10 and 20 roentgens per hour. The safe or maximum dosage of radiation is 0.3 roentgen per hour, so it is clear how lethal the internal belt would be to human habitation. Actually, the combined energy possessed by one-radiation particle enables it to penetrate the human body and destroy or disturb a human body cell. Sustained exposure to these high-energy particles within the outer belt would kill too many body cells for the exposed person to survive.

docs.google.com...:pOt_5m5Ug4EJ:sq5.cawg.cap.gov/AE%2520Briefs/Textbook/Chap24_Space_Environment.pdf+statute+miles+size+van+all en+belt&hl=en&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgRygeTgy4lEE7HkEvR_yXMFMoIcRl-P0DZ6dE_YWSdwJ9KCnngV3HbiktUJunnAHCHW3jkXJQgRD7usqDCwRSKABYCD_0jLfg_Rp6HmTjgSBUEQMkQOTC Ntr00MKGbWdGVwoZK&sig=AHIEtbRGRPmy92y88AWVKlC2viPrNFjgrw

Originally posted by FoosM
You see thats just silly. What I am saying is that as long as Apollo managed to traverse the heart of the trapped radiation belt, survive with multiple "X" class flares erupting throughout the mission, manage to print well exposed photography on the moon despite the severe amount of secondary X-rays and Neutrons bouncing of the surface, then NASA is lying that radiation problems of outer space.

You are assuming that "heart" means a specific area - ie the most dangerous part - whereas ther is no such definition in any of hte documetnation I have read, including those you linked to.

So you are essentially making up a definition to suit your case.

"Heart" could have meant anything from the very middle to some part of it "inside" the profile which NASA thinks to be "the edges" - there is jsut no way to know from what you ahve produced.

But you guys want it both ways. You want to say, radiation was not a problem for Apollo, but is somehow a problem for future missions. That doesnt fly.

Only because you persist in saying that there is no extra danger from long term exposure to GCR.

This dochotomy of yours looks only at the VABs - you keep ignoring hte much made points that GCR represents long term danger - I posted a documetn that gave someindicative figures for long duration missions - including one on the moon which you weer specifically asking about.

And you simply failed to respond to it once you realised that it did have an answer to your questions.

And so far, nobody on your side has been able to explain why.

Yes we have - many times.

You being dogmatic about not bothering to read it does not mean the information has not been posted or does not exist.

It just means you are a troll.

Let me respond to both your posts in 1 go ...

Originally posted by FoosM
Oh so wait a minute. You are now saying you know exactly what NASA meant by "heart"?

What you are saying is that "heart" does not mean center, or main. Fascinating. How do you have the peas so say that. LOL. It sure sounds like you are the one spinning what definitions of the word means. Im sure if NASA said, "center", you would say, "Nah, that means they didnt even go through the belts!" You guys are full of noise.

Well if you know, and if its contrary to the dictionary meaning of the word that I provided, then please enlighten us to what NASA actually meant by saying "heart". What does that mean for you, the edges of the belt? The least energetic part of the belt?

I'm not sure by what "logic" you came to the conclusion I know what the report meant by "heart". Just as I wouldn't know what someone means by the "heart" of a car (? the engine ?) or "heart" of a donut (? the hole ?), I don't know what the person meant by "heart" of the VABs. The word does not have a specific technical meaning, that I know of, in this regard like "eye" does with a hurricane. But whatever interpretation you (or I) wish to apply really isn't important. You know what NASA says the trajectory is. You can compute for yourself if A14 went through the "heart" or not. Stop being lazy and waving your hands, do the math !

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by MacTheKnife
With A14's orbital inclination of 30.8 deg vs A11's of 31.4, the trajectory won't have varied very much from the illustrations you've seen from Braeunig's site. I'd have said it got closer to the "horns" of the VAB but that's just as non-specific as "heart". So why don't you use the orbital elements given by NASA for A14 and show how the trajectory went dead center of the "heart" of the VABs.

But let me guess ... you won't do that (no doubt can't) because you'd rather rest your case on some non-specific wording than go with the specific technical data. And what is this case again ? That the Apollo missions didn't go to the Moon because the VABs can't be traversed due to radiation. So believing this, where would is lead us ? It would mean those orbital elements showing such a trajectory (to the Moon) must be false. But if they are false then so isn't the mission report and so there's no reason to believe the reported dosimeters. After all the astronauts were safely on the ground or in LEO, certainly not in the VABs in any way. So the medical officers report stating they went through the "heart" of the VABs is therefore false as well. So you're using those (untrue) words to show what again ? That A14 did go through the VABs "heart" ? Or ????

You see thats just silly. What I am saying is that as long as Apollo managed to traverse the heart of the trapped radiation belt, survive with multiple "X" class flares erupting throughout the mission, manage to print well exposed photography on the moon despite the severe amount of secondary X-rays and Neutrons bouncing of the surface, then NASA is lying that radiation problems of outer space.

But you guys want it both ways. You want to say, radiation was not a problem for Apollo, but is somehow a problem for future missions. That doesnt fly. And so far, nobody on your side has been able to explain why. All you keep saying is, the mission are longer. But that means nothing when "X" class & LDE flares did erupt during Apollo. Those are supposedly the "killers" But they didnt kill anything. As a matter of fact, they barely raised the radiation level of Apollonauts more than 2 rads.

What's silly is you hiding behind the words "heart" and "severe" and "killer" and not putting numbers up to back the words.

And it has been explained over and over and over and over. There's no "both ways" about it. You have some too simplistic concept of how these things work in the real world (or don't actually care to know). Just because a flare is an M or X class doesn't mean it's a "killer" to people in a spaceship ... even when it might be for someone unprotected on the Moon's surface (and not all will be). Did you not read the link you provided that said this very thing ?!? Long duration missions have 2 problems as a result of their long duration. One is that the travellers will be exposed to GCR, the worst parts of which are hard to shield against. The longer the exposure the higher the probability is of some biological damage. This is a pretty simple concept, even you should be able to comprehend it. If not go sit out in the Sun this weekend for 8 hours straight and then try to figure out why you got a sunburn. The other is that the longer the trip the more time they have to be exposed to a really large flare or worse, some SEP event that sends particles in their direction. Again not a hard concept for most to comprehend. Toss the dice once and the chances they'll come up snake-eyes is small. Toss them a dozen times and the chances snake-eyes will come up at least once is larger.

BTW : How did NASA Hoax HQ, which was clever enough to fake the ATSIII pictures of the Earth's cloud cover, ever let the word "heart" and such "high" (fake) dosimeter readings slip through into the mission report ? I mean they must have had the script from the prior missions, why deviate so much and raise suspicions for A14 ?

Originally posted by FoosM

The first satellite failure due to total dose was the Telstar. Telstar was launched a day after the July 9, 1962 Starfish nuclear test. The Starfish, a nuclear weapon of 1.4 Megaton strength, was detonated at an altitude of about 248 mi (~400 km) above Johnston Island in the Pacific Ocean. The explosion produced beta particles (electrons) that were injected into the earth's magnetic field and which formed an artificial radiation belt. This artificial electron belt lasted until the early 1970s.

So there were THREE belts that Apollo actually had to pass through? Could it be that when they created the third belt the US knew for sure they couldn't get passed the belts with Apollo?

The total ionizing dose (TID), mostly due to electrons and protons, can result in device failure (or biological damage to astronauts)

Can result ... not will result. Do you understand the difference ? Do you understand why and how there's a difference ? My guess is that you don't want to.

So how much of the particles injected by Starfish Prime were left during Apollo ?

And don't forget this part ...

The total accumulated dose depends on orbit altitude, orientation, and time. To compute TID we need to know the integrated particle energy spectrum, (E), that is, fluence as a function of particle energy.

Note the bolded parts.

Originally posted by FoosM

Radiation Hazards.
Going outward from earth’s surface at the geomagnetic Equator, radiation from the Van Allen belts begins to increase rapidly above 600 miles and then falls away rapidly near 30,000 miles out. This radiation increase goes up to about 10,000 counts per second (a measure of charged particles) and returns to 10 counts per second beyond what we might say is the outer fringe of the Van Allen belts.The maximum count (10,000 per second) occurs within the internal belt at the geomagnetic Equator and between 1,400 and 3,000 miles altitude.

Correcting this number of counts to roentgens, scientists tell us that the effect is between 10 and 20 roentgens per hour. The safe or maximum dosage of radiation is 0.3 roentgen per hour, so it is clear how lethal the internal belt would be to human habitation. Actually, the combined energy possessed by one-radiation particle enables it to penetrate the human body and destroy or disturb a human body cell. Sustained exposure to these high-energy particles within the outer belt would kill too many body cells for the exposed person to survive.

I thank you for now putting the links near the quoted material ! Two* things to note in the above. The first I've bolded. Is this your "heart" ? Did any Apollo mission go through there ? For how long ? The second is again shielded vs unshielded exposure (again). Did you not see this portion from your link above, not 2 paragraphs down from that you quoted ?

Therefore, the concentrations of radiation within the Van Allen belts pose a hazard to astronauts. If it were justified to keep a manned space vehicle within this portion of the magnetosphere for any length of time, the occupants would have to be protected by heavy shielding. During the Apollo Program, astronauts had to pass through both Van Allen radiation belts on the way out and on the return trip, but the exposure time was very short and insignificant. Orbits of manned spacecraft, such as Russia’s Soyuz and the US Space Shuttle, are beneath the internal Van Allen belt because its altitude of 600 miles is much greater than the usual orbit.

*OK, really 3 things. Counts per second may be a measure for a particular detector, but as a general measure it is not. It would be parts per second per some defined area, like per square cm.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by FoosM
You see thats just silly. What I am saying is that as long as Apollo managed to traverse the heart of the trapped radiation belt, survive with multiple "X" class flares erupting throughout the mission, manage to print well exposed photography on the moon despite the severe amount of secondary X-rays and Neutrons bouncing of the surface, then NASA is lying that radiation problems of outer space.

You are assuming that "heart" means a specific area - ie the most dangerous part - whereas ther is no such definition in any of hte documetnation I have read, including those you linked to.

So you are essentially making up a definition to suit your case.

"Heart" could have meant anything from the very middle to some part of it "inside" the profile which NASA thinks to be "the edges" - there is jsut no way to know from what you ahve produced.

The heart of the radiation belt, where fluxes peak

Cant be any clearer now, can it?

The problem is serious. Over the past 20 years, radiation effects have caused between one and two satellites per year on average to suffer total or partial mission loss.1 Satellites at low latitudes in low Earth orbit (LEO) stay relatively safe by ducking the intense heart of the radiation belts higher up. But at higher altitudes and higher latitudes, where Earth's radiation belts reside and radiation from solar storms invades, radiation hazard cannot be ignored. James Michener, in his book Space, describes the fictional death of two astronauts on the Moon from radiation emitted by a solar stor

However, the 0°‐pointing (BLC flux) e1, e2, and e3
observations have significant levels of contamination in the
“heart of the radiation belts” (L = 4.5–5.5), with a very
significant fraction of the measurements corrupted by
proton contamination.

The research spacecraft CRRES, operated by the US Air Force with NASA participation, was at that instant deep inside the radiation belt, at a distance of 2.55 RE. CRRES (pronounced "cress") stands for Combined Release and Radiation Effects Satellite, reflecting the spacecraft's multiple duties--to probe the radiation belt, as well as to release clouds of barium and lithium vapor, tracing motions of the magnetosphere the same way as a plume of smoke traces the motion of wind. CRRES was also a testbed for a variety of electronics circuits, to help engineers design electronics and microcomputers to perform reliably in space, even in the heart of the radiation belt.

October 1963 to December 1968
on several inner-zone magnetic
field lines. The stability of these
protons in the heart of the inner
zone (1.2

Originally posted by FoosM
As I said, the article was published in PRAVDA. Its an example that the rest of the world doesn't necessarily believe that Americans landed men on the moon. That it was a Hollywood production.

How is an American getting an article published in Pravda indicative of what Russians, let alone the rest of the world, believe re: Apollo ? Moreover who cares ? The truth of the matter is not open to an opinion poll. There are people who don't believe Nazis* exterminated Jews and gypsies during WW2. That doesn't make it any less true.

And Pravda (Online) ... что кусок дерьма !

[thus Godwin's law is served ! ]

Originally posted by FoosM

The new developed wave-particle interaction analyzer will also be installed in the satellite. The apogee geocentric altitude is about 5 Re, and the inclination of the satellite will be 31 deg, so that the satellite can observe the heart of the outer radiation belt. In this presentation, we will report the overview and the current status of the ERG project.

Oh wait!
Apollo - Inclination (deg)
7 31.608
8 32.509
9 32.552
10 32.546
11 32.521
12 32.540
13 32.547
14 31.120
15 29.679
16 32.542
17 28.526

www.ists.or.jp...

Go back and brush up on your orbital mechanics. Inclination is just one parameter (element) that determines the path an object will take as is goes around the Earth. The longitude of the ascending (or descending) node, the argument of periapsis and of course the apogee will all determine where (if at all) that object passes through the VABs. That's because the VABs are aligned with the Earth's geomagnetic axis and not it's spin axis. Imagine a donut wrapped around the Earth but somewhat "tilted". If you had bothered to understand Braeunig's page on this ...

... since the VARB circle the geomagnetic equator rather than the geographic equator. We need to transform the coordinates to yet another reference plane. To do so, we must know the inclination and ascending node of the geomagnetic plane in relation to geographic equator. In 1969, the north geomagnetic pole was located at approximately 78.6o N and 70.2o W. The inclination angle is, therefore, 90 - 78.6 = 11.4 degrees. The longitude of the ascending node is 90o ahead of the north geomagnetic pole, or -70.2o + 90 = 19.8o E.

Unlike the ascending node of the orbital plane, which is fixed in relation to the stars, the ascending node of the geomagnetic plane is fixed to Earth. As Earth rotates, the node moves through 360 degrees of celestial longitude each day, and is, therefore, time dependent. The celestial longitude of the ascending node at the time of TLI is equal to the local sidereal time: LST @ 19.8o E, 16-Jul-69, 16:22:13 GMT = 13h 18' 43" = 199.68o. The node advances at a rate of 360 / 86,164.1 = 0.00417807o/sec.

Locating Apollo 11 in relation to the geomagnetic plane is similar to the method employed earlier: (1) determine the equatorial coordinates, (2) calculate the longitude of the geomagnetic plane's ascending node, and (3) transform the coordinates using the previously given equations. After deriving the spacecraft's latitude in the geomagnetic coordinate system, we can plot Apollo 11's horizontal and vertical distances from Earth relative to the geomagnetic equator and axis, as follows:

[picture deleted by moi]

Apollo 11's TLI launch point was very close to the descending node of the geomagnetic plane, which is a very advantageous place to start. As the spacecraft swings around Earth and heads out toward the Moon, it travels in the direction where the geomagnetic plane slopes away from it. In fact, by the time Apollo 11 reaches a distance of about three Earth radii, the geomagnetic axis is tilted almost exactly in the direction of the spacecraft, resulting in maximum separation between Apollo 11 and the geomagnetic plane. This optimal alignment is maintained until the spacecraft is well beyond the limits of the VARB.

... it would have saved me all this typing.

So a satellite launched from Japan (presumably to be from Tanegashima Space Center) with same TSD profile and inclination as one launched from FL will intercept (if at all) differing portions of the VABs. Moreover an object on the way to the Moon (like Apollo) will have differing altitudes as it passes through the VABs than one whose apogee is some 5 Earth radii, even if both are launched from the same site at the same time with the same inclination.

Go look at the pretty picture at the wiki here and see if it helps.

ps - You should have used the TLI inclination, not the parking orbit one. Not that it would have made much of a difference.

But good finds on the "heart". Now tell me where relative to the "heart" did Apollo 14 go. And which "heart" of which belt ? Outer, inner, electron, proton ? Do the math !

Lastly I gave you a star above because you put the links near the quotes, I see you're slipping. Can I get it back ?

Originally posted by FoosM
[

The heart of the radiation belt, where fluxes peak

Cant be any clearer now, can it?

Excellent - and where is that from??

Do we know how long Apollo 14 spent in the "heart" to experience it's increased radiation?

And finally, of course, how is this at all relevant to your assertion that radiation is supposedly not actually a problem for long missions?