NASA's Van Allen explanation

To me the faked moon landing scenario is intriguing, although unlikely. Be that as it may, it has persisited for years in CTists imaginations. And there seems to be some interesting evidence to support their assertions, including the perplexing behavior of the astronauts themselves.

Be that as it may, this document hopefully will lay to rest one of the biggest bones of contention between the CTers and those that believe we really went to the moon: The Van Allen Belts.

For those of you who need a refresher, the Van Allen belts are two barriers of moderate to high radiation levels (made up of protons and positive ions) and encircle the earth. Most are a result of solar diffusion of oxygen. As a basic tenant, these belts are dangerous to human and biological life, if exposed long enough in them.

These belts also have been one of the "silver bullets" to the moon landing conspirators' arguments: There was no way in the 1960's we could have passed those belts successfully without killing the astronauts.

The document I included above basically asserts how NASA did it; what shielding was used and the speed at which Apollo traveled through them, limiting the rad dosage to the astronauts.

Despite some 40-plus years since our moon landing, NASA indicates that future moon missions will run in much the same way as it did ion 1969. Anyway, fodder for the skeptics....

Dear behindthescenes:

How�s your prozac therapy coming along? It�s good stuff, I use it too, now and then. Actually today falls right in the now-and-then category!

Alright here�s the thing about the Van Allen Belts. The problem � however difficult --is not getting through the belts, it�s what�s AFTER the belts that would have done any astronaut in.

The Earths�s magnetosphere (van allen belts) shields us from definitively deadly solar and cosmic radiation. Less than 0.1 percent of that nasty stuff gets past it. I�m glad you initiated this thread. Because it will remind people that any biologicals venturing past the earth�s magnetic fields would get �roasted�. There is a reason why we�re assembling the international space station so close to Earth and not on the Moon. And no, it�s not to save �fuel� from having to travel so far. Because once you�ve overcome our planet�s gravitational forces it takes only minimal energy to fly through space (there is no friction/resistance)

Here�s another link to a Van Allen Belt discussion internet.ocii.com.... The author of that article calculated a minimum radiation exposure of 375 rem/day for the Apollo astronauts. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation estimates that our Moon travelers were only exposed to a cumulative 0.5 rem for their entire mission. And, I would agree with their assessment, they're not �lying�. Because the astronauts never went past the Van Allen belts!

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

[edit on 12/15/2006 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]

Look, I'm not a very smart guy, I'll admit that. And I often speak before I think.

But on the surface of the anit-Allen belters argument, I say they're not accounting for the shielding on Apollo in relation to the type of radiation in the Van Allen. I understand space is filled with radiation waves that can kill a typical biological in a matter of days, with the proper exposure; but radiation is a strange phenomenon. I mean, looking at the Polonium 210 discussion (which I freely acknowledge has nothing to do with the Van Allen belts) we're talking about radiation that can be blocked by a piece of paper.

And for Apollo, it required 1/8" aluminum shielding to properly keep the Rad levels in check, given the rocket's speed.

Just something to consider.

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
And no, it�s not to save �fuel� from having to travel so far. Because once you�ve overcome our planet�s gravitational forces it takes only minimal energy to fly through space (there is no friction/resistance)

[edit on 12/15/2006 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]

Uh... what? That's technically true; if something is free of any gravitational pull, then it's fairly easy to move it wherever you want to. The thing is that where the ISS is, the Earth's gravity still pulls on it hard (about 90% as much as on the surface, actually). In fact, it's what keeps the ISS in orbit. The Moon too, for that matter. Getting out farther requires more fuel.

Past the influence of the Earth's gravity, there's still the Sun's gravity that you have to deal with. That's why a trip to Mars would requires a really large amount of fuel compared to, say, a trip to the Moon.

As for the radiation past the Earth's magnetosphere: yes, it is a lot stronger, but Apollo astronauts didn't stay there for too long and the craft was shielded, minimizing exposure. Radiation is a serious issue that must be dealt with for future trips to Mars or long stays on the Moon, but it's not something that can't be dealt with.

Dear cdrn:

Perhaps I�m misunderstanding you here. But if you�re saying the Earth�s gravity is still �pulling� on the international space station 90% as much as here on our planet�s surface then that would mean � there�s still a whopping 0.9G force inside the spacecraft. Therefore, the astronauts would be experiencing next to normal Earth-type gravity conditions and no weightlessness. Perhaps you meant to say something different.

As for the radiation in �outer space� � it�s unimaginably large. We�ve lost many a communications� satellite due to solar flare ups. It�s easily one of the greatest obstacles to space travel. Which is what�s so ridiculous about all this talk about flying to Mars � without even having explored the Moon. One might wonder, what are they up to now? Perhaps this is a way of getting funding for some kind of Moon base under the pretext that one is needed as some kind of �pit stop�.

Here�s another link with emphasis on the dangers of radiation -- NASA REALLY MOONED US! www.maar.us...

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

[edit on 12/15/2006 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
Dear cdrn:

Perhaps I�m misunderstanding you here. But if you�re saying the Earth�s gravity is still �pulling� on the international space station 90% as much as here on our planet�s surface then that would mean � there�s still a whopping 0.9G force inside the spacecraft. Therefore, the astronauts would be experiencing next to normal Earth-type gravity conditions and no weightlessness. Perhaps you meant to say something different.


[edit on 12/15/2006 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]

Ok, here you are wrong. There is gravity in space and the reason the astronauts are weightless is because the floor of the space craft is falling away from the astronauts feet faster than the astronauts are falling, due to the weight of the craft. The same thing happens within an elevator on earth thats in free fall. So alot of the reason you are weightless in space, near the earth, is because you are literally falling around the earth. This is orbit. This also explains why you dont need to be constantly burning fuel as you orbit the earth.

Now if you are far enough away from any massive bodies in space gravitational fields will not effect you and you stay in motion due to newton's first law of motion.

[edit on 15-12-2006 by XphilesPhan]

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods

As for the radiation in �outer space� � it�s unimaginably large. We�ve lost many a communications� satellite due to solar flare ups. It�s easily one of the greatest obstacles to space travel.

[edit on 12/15/2006 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]

Ok, here you are confusing two different phenomena. The reason solar flares interferes with satellite communications is because the flares contain sharged particles being churned within the flare.

What happens when you move something with charged particles moving within it? you create Electro-Magnetic fields. This is what happens in altenators, electric motors, etc.

Now our satellites use Electro-Magnetic fields to communicate, they also use internal EM fields to operate.

Radiation has nothing to due with this phenomenon.

Dear cdrn andXphilesPhan:

I apologize. I was wrong about the gravitational pull on the space station � it is indeed as you both say 90%. I did not realize how much of the weightlessness has been artificially induced (through the rotational speed).

However, concerning the radiation issue, I�m not so sure I was �wrong�. Charged particles coming from the solar flares ARE radiation. But perhaps you�re more referring to the effects as opposed to the composition of the particles themselves.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
Perhaps I�m misunderstanding you here. But if you�re saying the Earth�s gravity is still �pulling� on the international space station 90% as much as here on our planet�s surface then that would mean � there�s still a whopping 0.9G force inside the spacecraft. Therefore, the astronauts would be experiencing next to normal Earth-type gravity conditions and no weightlessness. Perhaps you meant to say something different.

Nope it's true (although I read 88%), but the people in the Shuttle and ISS still experience 0G due to orbiting around the Earth in a constant free fall. You can do this on Earth too, for example the Vomit Comet flies in a parabolic flight path and everyone inside can experience 0G for a short time.

As for all this talk about radiation. The Apollo astronauts went to the Moon during times of low solar activity, thus the radiation was not as strong past the Van Allen belts. Although there was a decent sized solar flare that went off between two Apollo missions, but I forget which ones at the moment. But the radiation in space is not constant, it fluctuates all the time. The longer you stay out there, the more likely you'll get exposed to higher amounts of radiation or solar flares.

This wasn't a big issue for the short Apollo missions, but for future Lunar and Mars missions, it will be.

Here are some links on the subject if anyone cares to read up on them.
www.clavius.org...
www.clavius.org...
www.clavius.org...

Dear jra:

As you can see from my post above, I�m admitting that I was wrong about the gravitational force acting upon the ISS.

But on the radiation issue I insist I�m correct. You may or may not have read my thread on How Hydrogen Bombs Brought Down The WTC�s (Hypothesis). Well, there many have complained about the to-be-expected radiation effects. The thing to keep in mind here is that the sun IS nothing but one HUGE hydrogen bomb � twenty-four seven and not just for a few seconds. Furthermore, unlike at the WTC�s there is nothing between the sun and space travelers once they go beyond the protective Van Allen Belts. There is no �steel� or �concrete� to absorb any of the high energy particles (radiation). There is nothing but empty space. You�d be staring directly into the mother of all nuclear explosions, non-stop. Would you want to hitch a ride under those conditions?

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
Dear cdrn andXphilesPhan:

I apologize. I was wrong about the gravitational pull on the space station � it is indeed as you both say 90%. I did not realize how much of the weightlessness has been artificially induced (through the rotational speed).

Nope, you're still wrong. The astronauts experience weightlessness because, paradoxically, the ONLY For they experience is gravity. This has nothing to do with their speed around the Earth. If they were not in orbit and instead somehow suddenly stopped moving in relationship to the Earth, they would still experience weightlessness. The only difference is that they would plunge down to the Earth instead of being in orbit around it.



Anyways, yes, the sun undergoes nuclear fusion, but not all nuclear reactions (even nuclear fusion reactions) are the same. They have different products at different energies. Hydrogen bombs aren't a good comparison anyway, since most of the radioactive fallout resulting from them is caused by the nuclear fission of the bomb jacket itself. Besides, the fusion reaction inside a hydrogen bomb (deuterium-tritium) is not the same as that occurring inside the sun (proton-proton). The latter doesn't produce harmful free neutrons.

Of course, that doesn't mean that the sun doesn't produce high-energy radiation. It does produce gamma rays and x-rays. The good thing is that these can be shielded to some extent by the spacecraft.

edit: Read this:
en.wikipedia.org...
Not that much of the sun's radiation is ionizing (and thus very harmful); most is in the visible, UV and infrared spectrum.



[edit on 15-12-2006 by cdrn]

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
As you can see from my post above, I�m admitting that I was wrong about the gravitational force acting upon the ISS.

Yes, but XphilesPhan's reply wasn't there when I started my reply. I noticed after I posted, but I just left it there anyway.

But on the radiation issue I insist I�m correct.../...The thing to keep in mind here is that the sun IS nothing but one HUGE hydrogen bomb � twenty-four seven and not just for a few seconds.../...You�d be staring directly into the mother of all nuclear explosions, non-stop. Would you want to hitch a ride under those conditions?

But the radiation from the Sun is not constant. There is a thing called the Solar cycle where the Sun goes through periods of low and high solar activity. The cycle is about 11 years (+/- a few years).

Would I want to hitch a ride? If it's during a period of low solar activity, then yes I'd love to.

Also I found this: lsda.jsc.nasa.gov...

In terms of hazard to crewmen in the heavy, well shielded Command Module, even one of the largest solar-particle event series on record (August 4-9, 1972) would not have caused any impairment of crewmember functions or ability of the crewmen to complete their mission safely. It is estimated that within the Command Module during this event the crewmen would have received a dose of 360 rads

to their skin and 35 rads to their blood-forming organs (bone and spleen). Radiation doses to crewmen while inside the thinly shielded Lunar Module or during an extravehicular activity (EVA) would be extremely serious for such a particle event.

EDIT: Oh yeah. I was going to post a link to this space weather site too. www.spaceweather.com...

[edit on 15-12-2006 by jra]

Of course the moon landing was real. The Roswell ET crash of 1947 was 22 years before the landing. Giving more than two decades for the U.S. government to reverse engineer alloys capable of moving living creatures through the strongest radioactivity.

[edit on 15-12-2006 by Frith]

Originally posted by jra

As for all this talk about radiation. The Apollo astronauts went to the Moon during times of low solar activity, thus the radiation was not as strong past the Van Allen belts. Although there was a decent sized solar flare that went off between two Apollo missions, but I forget which ones at the moment. But the radiation in space is not constant, it fluctuates all the time. The longer you stay out there, the more likely you'll get exposed to higher amounts of radiation or solar flares.

This is my understanding too.
They went up at low activity...with a hope and a prayer I reckon.

What people dont seem to get is that radiation out there ain't constant. It radiates from one place to another in peaks and troughs. There ain't some unversally spaced large dollops of radiation just sitting out there permanently stationed. The Sun has shown to man that these energies come in bursts. Interstellar bursts are out just that bursts of energy. If it were not for the belt we would be in trouble for sure.

Originally posted by jra
This wasn't a big issue for the short Apollo missions, but for future Lunar and Mars missions, it will be.

You betcha. I think NASA say 3 years on Mars will equate to a lifetimes safe dose...thats without the lethal bursts / storms. They will need more than a 1/4 inch aluminium then

Its amusing that the radiation issue is used by some to say we did not go to the moon but find it acceptable that lifeforms can exist or have existed on Mars with no protective belt???...........

well, another thought is some insight gained by training soldiers about nuclear explosions. time distance and shielding

essentially the theory is that radiation is strongest when you are closer to the detonation and unshielded.

the further away you are the less you recieve. it radiates omnidirectionally from a center point. up close and you get more further away you get less. think of it like a flashlight thats pointed at you. at 2 feet you get hit by all the light. at 20 you get hit by only a fraction of the light. same concept. at our distance to the sun you get significantly less than if you were in say mercury's orbit.

now, thats not to say that its not still high in our orbit just saying that at our distance you need much less shielding than you would up close to it.

so i guess what im saying is that the ammount of radiation we recieve in space between here and the moon 'should' be managable due to distance with some shielding.

for the record the T in TDS is time referring to time since detonation and isnt applicable in this scenario.

just my opinion though i will admit the nuke part of my job was always the one i focused on the least. so, ill admit now i could be off on a tangent that doenst make sense or even right

Dear something smells:

I�m not so sure that wing-and-a-prayer philosophy would have worked. For example, precisely when Apollo 12 was �parked� on the Moon there were several MASSIVE solar flare-ups.

1. Apollo 12 (Ocean of Storms)
Landed on Moon: 19-Nov-1969 at 0654 UT
Departed Moon: 20-Nov-1969 at 1425 UT
www.nasm.si.edu...

2. Solar Flare Activity
1318246911190623074908120921 ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov...
DATA CODE LEGEND
-ALPHA SOLAR FLARE PATROL FORMAT Jan 1955 - Present =============================================================================== Columns Fmt Description ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1- 2 I2 DATA CODE (always 13) 3 I1 OBSERVATION TYPE (1=Cine,2=Visual,3=Visual with Photos) 4- 6 I3 STATION CODE (numeric code used within Center) 7- 8 I2 YEAR 9-10 I2 MONTH 11-12 I2 DAY 13-16 I4 START TIME (hours and minutes observation began) 17-20 I4 END TIME (hours and minutes observation ended) 21-24 I4 START TIME 25-28 I4 END TIME . . . . . . Maximum of 8 start/end pairs. . . . 69-72 I4 START TIME 73-76 I4 END TIME 77-80 A4 STATION NAME (abbreviation of observatory name) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I realize it�s a bit of a hassle to decipher the �1318246911190623074908120921�.
It translates into: On 19-Nov-1969 between 06:23-07:49 UT and 08:12-09:21 UT there was major solar flare activity.

The consequences of this? I believe NASA has answered this already. www.nasa.gov... But to make sure no one misses this, here�s an excerpt �Astronauts in low-Earth orbit are mostly protected by the magnetosphere, but do receive higher doses of radiation than people on the ground, especially near the magnetic poles of Earth. The greatest radiation danger would be to astronauts who participate in exploration of the Moon and Mars. The astronauts would be located far outside the protection of Earth's shields, where the effect from a CME-driven shock wave can bombard them with as much radiation as 300,000 chest X-rays at once! It would take only 45,000 simultaneous chest x-rays to kill you.�


As a side note, NASA forgot to �edit out� the stars from this picture of the sun�s corona it�s showing in above article.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
For example, precisely when Apollo 12 was �parked� on the Moon there were several MASSIVE solar flare-ups.

I'm sorry, but I find your link pretty much useless. How did you determine that it was a "MASSIVE" solar flare from that? I do know that there were over 1400 detectable solar flares during the Apollo missions, but these were all minor. During Apollo 12, the external radiation sensors of the Command Module did go off when a minor flare erupted, but the internal radiation sensors didn't detect any dangerous amounts of radiation. I can't find any links about "MASSIVE" solar flares during that mission though.

And as far as I can find. Apollo 14 had the highest amount of radiation exposure, which was at 1.14 rads (skin dosage). Compare that to Apollo 12's 0.58 rads.

BIOMEDICAL RESULTS OF APOLLO
In comparison with the doses actually received, the maximum operational dose (MOD) limit for each of the Apollo missions was set at 400 rads (X-ray equivalent) to skin and 50 rads to the blood-forming organs.

Radiation doses measured during Apollo were significantly lower than the yearly average of 5 rem

set by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission for workers who use radioactive materials in factories and institutions across the United States.

Also from that site...

One small event was detected by a radiation sensor outside the Apollo 12 spacecraft, but no increase in radiation dose to the crewmen inside the spacecraft was detected.

EDIT to add more:

In terms of hazard to crewmen in the heavy, well shielded Command Module, even one of the largest solar-particle event series on record (August 4-9, 1972) would not have caused any impairment of crewmember functions or ability of the crewmen to complete their mission safely. It is estimated that within the Command Module during this event the crewmen would have received a dose of 360 rads to their skin and 35 rads to their blood-forming organs (bone and spleen).

[edit on 16-12-2006 by jra]

Dear jra:

Excuse my sloppiness. I forgot to post the original link to NOAA www.ngdc.noaa.gov...

COMPREHENSIVE FLARE INDEX

The comprehensive flare index (cfi) was developed by Helen W. Dodson and
E. Ruth Hedeman, McMath-Hulbert Observatory.:
ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov... Five measures of flare importance are added to obtain the cfi. They are:

1) Importance of ionizing radiation as indicated by time-associated Short
Wave Fade or Sudden Ionospheric Disturbance -- Scale 0 - 3.

2) Importance of H-alpha flare -- Scale 0 - 3.

3) Magnitude of 10.7 cm solar radio flux -- characteristic of the log of
flux in units of 10 exp(-22) W/m sq/Hz.

4) Dynamic spectrum -- Type II = 1, Continuum = 2, Type IV with duration
> 10 minutes = 3.

5) Magnitude of ~200 MHz flux -- characteristic of log of flux in same units
as 3).

"Major" solar flares are any which satisfy one or more of the following
criteria:

Short wave fade (or Sudden Ionospheric Disturbance) value >= 3.
H-alpha flare of importance >= 3.
10.7 cm flux >= 500 units.
Type II radio burst.
Type IV radio emission of duration > 10 minutes.

Comprehensive Flare Index "Major" Flares -- Helen Dodson-Prince
ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov...

Begin HHMM H-a McMath Profile
YYMMDD ID# UT Lat Long Imp Plage abcde Index
====================================================================
691119 69101 0458-0615 14 -33 2N 10432 12321 9
691119 69102 0659-0728 07 -29 1B 10432 01302 6
691119 69103 1852-1942 13 -25 1B 10432 31121 8


The list above is different from the one I originally posted. It doesn�t matter. Solar Flares are unpredictable and are very FREQUENT. There is no way any astronaut would have signed up for a �suicide mission� to the Moon.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

Also, NASA (lawyers) can sleep soundly. They didn�t lie. The astronauts were indeed not exposed to anymore radiation than normal. Because they never went to the Moon.


[edit on 12/16/2006 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]

Hey, Wizard, you just make me feel soooo stupid. I mean, the evidence is soooooooooo obvious, that nobody should have believed the Moon Landing story even for a second.

I have known this for a while now, but mostly because I have a solid knowledge of media - and I can see the manipulations fairly easily. What I did not realize is that there were so many give aways...too easy.

Thanks, anyway.

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
Solar Flares are unpredictable and are very FREQUENT.

They are indeed unpredictable and frequent, but most are minor. And like I said, there were 1400 solar flares during the Apollo missions, but none of them were major enough to cause any harm.

There is no way any astronaut would have signed up for a �suicide mission� to the Moon.

The astronauts were originally test pilots. They knew the risks and were aware of the dangers and they did sign up. Maybe you wouldn't sign up, but plenty of other people would. As has been shown, the dangers weren't as bad as you are trying to claim.

And just look at all the risks people took to accomplish things through out history. Many people died just trying to figure out how to fly, it didn't stop people from continuing. Same goes when it came to breaking the sound barrier. If you think the risks and dangers are enough to prevent some one from going, well you're highly mistaken.