Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by 000063

Go outside on a sunny day. Sunlight has UV radiation. If you go outside for short periods, you become pale (assuming you're white). Go outside a moderate amount, and you get a healthy skin tone. Too much, and you get sunburns and skin cancer.

Similarly, months in space would mean more exposure to radiation than a few days in space. I cannot explain it in any simpler terms.

Ahh, I see.
You have gone from wanting to provide actual facts and evidence, to providing analogies.
Sorry, doesn't help.

well I provided a report that is packed full of factsand figures and seems to say that long term missions are quite dangerous.

I am puzzled why you have not commented on it further - if you have solid evidence that it is wrong I'd expect you to say so.

Are you still perusing it perhaps?

Here it is again for anyone who hasn't seen it yet.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

well I provided a report that is packed full of factsand figures and seems to say that long term missions are quite dangerous.

I am puzzled why you have not commented on it further - if you have solid evidence that it is wrong I'd expect you to say so.

Are you still perusing it perhaps?

Here it is again for anyone who hasn't seen it yet.

edit on 25-7-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)

I have commented on the report. Its you who haven't applied this report to the question I asked.
I asked, based upon the radiation that Apollo received, how long could they have stayed on the moon?
Whats your answer to that? Does this report actually answer that question? Cause I didnt see it.

Originally posted by MacTheKnife

Originally posted by FoosM
[long post deleted by moi ... see it above]
The highest dose received from the missions was like 1 rad and change. Does this make sense?

Yes. Part of the problem is that you're using peak numbers as being the flux for the whole transit of the VABs, just as JW (wrongly) does. I've seen the trajectory taken by Apollo enroute to the Moon posted in this thread and a map of the VABs as well. Going just from memory I believe the worst dose rate only happened for

Originally posted by MacTheKnife

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
reply to post by FoosM

 

I think they are worried about the galactic cosmic ray exposure, not exposure to solar flare.

Well which one is it, because Im seeing reports for either or.
I dont understand why after 40 years, including the success of Apollo, this is not clearly
agreed upon in the scientific community. There must be a scam going on.
Corporations using scientists to milk unnecessary research money from the Government.

What's not agreed on is human reaction to various types of radiation and dose rates. You may find is amazing that there aren't people willing to be irradiated at different rates and with different energies and particles until they develop cancer (or something) but I don't.

Well you cant have it both ways.
Either NASA sent biology into space to make sure it was safe for astronauts; which they didnt.
or
As people keep reminding us, the Astronauts were daring test pilots who risked their lives against all odds and came out winners.

So, as far as I can see, NASA somehow knew about all the dangers of space radiation, and thought it feasible to send multiple ships to the moon without any worry.

But now, in the 21st century, they are coming up with radiation as being the excuse for why we cant go back to the moon, and to Mars. Saying things like, 'we dont fully understand the radiation environment' or, 'we need special shielding materials that dont yet exist', etc.

Now Im surprised that so called truth seekers dont find issue with this. And that if you believe space radiation was never a problem in the past, why do you believe its a problem now?

Somewhere there is a lie. The lie either occurred in the past, or the lie is occurring in the present.

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Are you still perusing it perhaps?

Here it is again for anyone who hasn't seen it yet.

edit on 25-7-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)

I have commented on the report. Its you who haven't applied this report to the question I asked.
I asked, based upon the radiation that Apollo received, how long could they have stayed on the moon?
Whats your answer to that?

I have no idea, and I said so - nor does anyone else AFAIK - has the question ever been given any serious study?

You claim it is a long time, but I see no real attempt by you to provide any justification beyond some radiation numbers for specific missions.

Presumably if doses could be kept to those levels they could stay on the moon for a long time.

What were the dose levels for other missions? Are the dose levels you gave typical? What is the nature of solar events during the various missions? How did the earths magnetic field affect teh dioses?

As the report says -

The amount of radiation received by astronauts depends on several factors including orbital inclination, altitude, position in the solar cycle, and mission duration.

did you account for all teh possible factors in your scenario?

Does this report actually answer that question? Cause I didnt see it.

It has an exposure figure for a 180 day lunar mission in table 5 - isnt' that the sort of thing you are asking about?? .

reply to post by FoosM

The trajectory you have seen is wrong and biased.

Please produce the correct trajectory.

As for the question you have been perseverating about, no-one can answer it definitively because there are so many variables; that is why there has been renewed interest in studying the long term effects of radiation in space. The only data we have for the Apollo astronauts is what is recorded on their dosimeters. This is the "skin" dosage. Much as you might enjoy the idea, the astronauts were not killed and autopsied so observations of their deep tissue could be performed. Based on the dosimeter readings, they could have spent something like thirty years on the Moon. There are two obvious problems with this:

1. There would certainly be multiple CME's and X- class flare during this time, any one of which could have killed them instantly and

2. Because we do not how much damage Galactic Cosmic Rays caused to the astronauts' deep tissue, including the all important brain, we can only go to the charts and calculate probabilities.

In other words, you have been asking another non-sensical question. Radiation is all about probabilities. Probabilities that a solar flare will or will not occur, probabilities that a star somewhere will go supernova and release a burst of gamma radiation, probabilities that said radiation events will or will not strike a given astronaut, probabilities that a given astronaut's DNA will be able to repair itself rapidly enough....

reply to post by FoosM

Well you cant have it both ways.
Either NASA sent biology into space to make sure it was safe for astronauts; which they didnt.
or
As people keep reminding us, the Astronauts were daring test pilots who risked their lives against all odds and came out winners.

I hope you realize that this is a false dichotomy.

Originally posted by FoosM
Well you cant have it both ways.
Either NASA sent biology into space to make sure it was safe for astronauts; which they didnt.

so what was the point of the monkeys and dogs then??

So, as far as I can see, NASA somehow knew about all the dangers of space radiation, and thought it feasible to send multiple ships to the moon without any worry.

didn't they send instrumented probes to measure the radiation, from which they could deduce how dangerous is was??

But now, in the 21st century, they are coming up with radiation as being the excuse for why we cant go back to the moon, and to Mars. Saying things like, 'we dont fully understand the radiation environment' or, 'we need special shielding materials that dont yet exist', etc.

What is your evidence that the long term radiation environment is completely understood??

Here's NASA's project for better understanding it: Radioactive moon

And it seems that new forms of shielding have already been developed and are in use on the ISS - Radiation to mars

Now Im surprised that so called truth seekers dont find issue with this. And that if you believe space radiation was never a problem in the past, why do you believe its a problem now?

Ah...I see.....you are trolling.

You know that multiple short term radiation exposure is not as damaging as a single long term exposure, but you are completely ignoring it with your simplistic argument that if the exposure on a couple of Apollo missions wasn't very high, then therefore it's not a problem to reach Mars.

Never mind the complexity the rest of the world sees in such a trip, or the actual risk that might be involved - your highschool math tells you it must be safe! Well thanks for putting us all stright!!

Somewhere there is a lie. The lie either occurred in the past, or the lie is occurring in the present.

the lie is you, right now, today, on this page, being a troll and pretending ignorance.

i guess I've seen you squirm and slither and avoid questions before - but I've not actually seen you ignore informatio as you have in this post.

Thanks for the enlightenment - I'll bookmark this page to remind you every now and then

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by MacTheKnife

Originally posted by FoosM
[long post deleted by moi ... see it above]
The highest dose received from the missions was like 1 rad and change. Does this make sense?

Yes. Part of the problem is that you're using peak numbers as being the flux for the whole transit of the VABs, just as JW (wrongly) does. I've seen the trajectory taken by Apollo enroute to the Moon posted in this thread and a map of the VABs as well. Going just from memory I believe the worst dose rate only happened for

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

Well you cant have it both ways.
Either NASA sent biology into space to make sure it was safe for astronauts; which they didnt.
or
As people keep reminding us, the Astronauts were daring test pilots who risked their lives against all odds and came out winners.

I hope you realize that this is a false dichotomy.

If he doesn't the rest of us do. And again I will repeat that the radiation hazard faced by someone on a 1000 day mission is just a tad different from that faced by Apollo. If Foosm can't ... won't ... be bothered to understand this simple concept then he's only demonstrating his "silliness".

BTW : against "ALL" odds ...

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by MacTheKnife
What's not agreed on is human reaction to various types of radiation and dose rates. You may find is amazing that there aren't people willing to be irradiated at different rates and with different energies and particles until they develop cancer (or something) but I don't.

Well you cant have it both ways.
Either NASA sent biology into space to make sure it was safe for astronauts; which they didnt.
or
As people keep reminding us, the Astronauts were daring test pilots who risked their lives against all odds and came out winners.

So, as far as I can see, NASA somehow knew about all the dangers of space radiation, and thought it feasible to send multiple ships to the moon without any worry.

I don't know it was without any worry but I don't think radiation was among their biggest concerns during a mission.

Originally posted by FoosM
But now, in the 21st century, they are coming up with radiation as being the excuse for why we cant go back to the moon, and to Mars. Saying things like, 'we dont fully understand the radiation environment' or, 'we need special shielding materials that dont yet exist', etc.

Now Im surprised that so called truth seekers dont find issue with this. And that if you believe space radiation was never a problem in the past, why do you believe its a problem now?

Do you think there might, just maybe, be some perhaps slight difference between what was being discussed for long duration missions and Apollo ? What might Carnac say was the difference ?

Originally posted by FoosM
Somewhere there is a lie. The lie either occurred in the past, or the lie is occurring in the present.

The only lie needed here is the lie down you should have after trying to spin this hard. Much as we all appreciate the show, you can rest now.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

The trajectory you have seen is wrong and biased.

Please produce the correct trajectory.

NASA doesnt provide one so there is no way it can be analyzed.

As for the question you have been perseverating about, no-one can answer it definitively because there are so many variables; that is why there has been renewed interest in studying the long term effects of radiation in space. The only data we have for the Apollo astronauts is what is recorded on their dosimeters. This is the "skin" dosage. Much as you might enjoy the idea, the astronauts were not killed and autopsied so observations of their deep tissue could be performed. Based on the dosimeter readings, they could have spent something like thirty years on the Moon. There are two obvious problems with this:

1. There would certainly be multiple CME's and X- class flare during this time, any one of which could have killed them instantly and

Really DJW001?
Really?

an X class flare could have killed them... instantly?

You know you are wrong DJ. X-class flares have no effect against CM and LM shielding.
Probably no effect on Astronaut suits! Where did you get this idea that it did? Whats your source?

“X-class flares are the most powerful of all solar events that can trigger radio blackouts and long-lasting radiation storms,” disturbing telecommunications and electric grids, NASA said.

I mean, I agree with you, I always thought that such flare would kill Apollo astronauts.
Im glad you admit to this. But now you have to explain how Apollo 12 survived the flares.
Either the flares are not that dangerous, either Apollo shielding is that advanced...

As I previously have posted for all to see and consider:



www.abovetopsecret.com...

Proof that seven X-Class flares occurred during Apollo 12.
SEVEN.

Apollo 12
Average Radiation Exposure 0.58

Thats under a RAD or REM.

DIdn't you say they should have been killed instantly DJ? Obviously the shielding of Apollo was so advanced that it could block SEVEN Class "X" Solar Flares and several "M" class flares.

The Sun spews out a constant stream of X-ray and extreme ultraviolet (EUV) radiation. This energy, along with that from cosmic rays, affects the Earth’s ionosphere,
In addition to the daily fluctuations, activity on the Sun can cause dramatic sudden changes to the ionosphere... The Sun can unexpectedly erupt with a solar flare, a violent explosion in the Sun's atmosphere caused by huge magnetic activity. These sudden flares produce large amounts of X-rays and EUV energy, which travel to the Earth (and other planets) at the speed of light... When the energy from a solar flare or other disturbance reaches the Earth, the ionosphere becomes suddenly more ionized, thus changing the density and location of its layers. Hence the term “Sudden Ionospheric Disturbance” (SID) to describe the changes we are monitoring and also the nickname of our space weather monitoring instrument, SID.

Solar flares can last for hours to days. They are still, and have been, unpredictable.
A low dose flare would, for example, require 9 inches of aluminum to bring it down to 1.5 rads.
A high dose, in the BeV range, would require, like five feet of structure to shield against.
So supposedly, even the thickest portion of the CM would be inadequate as shielding against Solar Flares.
Nobody, not even NASA has stated otherwise.

And before anyone says, well what about the Solar Proton Events?
How do we identify Solar Proton Events?

According to NASA themselves:

Sudden ionospheric disturbances (SID) such as SWF, SEA,
SPA and others are usually associated with solar proton flares

Another indication

Solar flares of importance 3 or 3+ sometimes generate
energetic protons and heavier nuclei of Bev-energy range which
are detected as an unusual increase of cosmic-ray intensity by
ground based observation

and finally:

LDE-type flares (Long Duration Events in SXR) are associated with the interplanetary protons (SEP and STIP as well), energized coronal arches and radio type IV emission.

All these requirements were met for those flares. So the chance the those flares spewed deadly protons is... undeniable.


tony-ridley.com...
solar-center.stanford.edu...
www.sciencedirect.com...
books.google.com...=onepage&q=rads%20solar%20flare&f=false
apollomaniacs.web.infoseek.co.jp...
www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.sciencedirect.com...

reply to post by FoosM

NASA doesnt provide one so there is no way it can be analyzed.

Pay attention FoosM, it has been provided in this thread.

Really DJW001?
Really?

an X class flare could have killed them... instantly?

Yes, a sufficiently large flare could have killed them instantly if it were directed at them while they were unsheltered on the surface of the Moon. Why do you suddenly not understand this?

“X-class flares are the most powerful of all solar events that can trigger radio blackouts and long-lasting radiation storms,” disturbing telecommunications and electric grids, NASA said.

I mean, I agree with you, I always thought that such flare would kill Apollo astronauts.
Im glad you admit to this. But now you have to explain how Apollo 12 survived the flares.
Either the flares are not that dangerous, either Apollo shielding is that advanced...

Were there any radio blackouts or disturbed electrical grids during Apollo 12?

Proof that seven X-Class flares occurred during Apollo 12.
SEVEN.

But, as has been pointed out several times before, they were not pointed in the right direction to hit the astronauts.

DIdn't you say they should have been killed instantly DJ? Obviously the shielding of Apollo was so advanced that it could block SEVEN Class "X" Solar Flares and several "M" class flares.

I said they COULD be killed instantly, FoosM. Why must you always twist other people's words? I assume the rest of your statement is intended as sarcasm.

Solar flares can last for hours to days. They are still, and have been, unpredictable.
A low dose flare would, for example, require 9 inches of aluminum to bring it down to 1.5 rads.
A high dose, in the BeV range, would require, like five feet of structure to shield against.

Are you claiming that there was an X class flare that lasted for days during Apollo 12? Not even your own misinterpreted data can be twisted to support that.

All these requirements were met for those flares. So the chance the those flares spewed deadly protons is... undeniable.

If they did, they spewed them in the wrong direction, FoosM We've been through all this before:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Obviously I know that LRO images don't convince the mentally challenged amongst us of anything, but for those of us that aren't quite so open-minded that our brains have fallen out - some excellent High-res images of the Apollo 11 landing site from the LRO:

jumpjack.wordpress.com...

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

Originally posted by FoosM
The trajectory you have seen is wrong and biased.

Please produce the correct trajectory.

NASA doesnt provide one so there is no way it can be analyzed.

Yes they actually do but even that's beside the point. How do you know that the purported trajectory is "wrong and biased" ? If you don't know what trajectory Apollo took, how can you compute the radiation dose that supposedly would have happened as a result ?

Originally posted by FoosM
Solar flares can last for hours to days. They are still, and have been, unpredictable.
A low dose flare would, for example, require 9 inches of aluminum to bring it down to 1.5 rads.
A high dose, in the BeV range, would require, like five feet of structure to shield against.
So supposedly, even the thickest portion of the CM would be inadequate as shielding against Solar Flares.
Nobody, not even NASA has stated otherwise.

I'm curious where the 9" and 1.5 rads come from. I checked the references you listed and didn't see them in any of the articles. But putting satisfying my curiousity aside, I have to ask ... so what ? What's the significance of 1.5 rads ? Let me grant you a QF of 2, that's 3 rem compared to a lifetime limit of something around 70 rem (depending on age and sex, see Table 1B in the paper linked to by Aloysius the Gaul).
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0df6a0367c33.jpg[/atsimg]
It's less than the 20 rads (in a single, short dose) you mentioned a page ago as making people vomit. So why do you mention 9" (assuming that number is correct for 1.5 rads) ? Is this an example of trying to scare people with "large", but irrelevant, numbers ?

As for the high dose flare, in the "BeV range" ... where did that come from ? Do you realize that doses aren't measured with electron volts, that eV is a measure of energy ? So I'll assume you meant to indicate that more shielding would be required for particles or photons with energies in the BeV range. So what's the fluence of particles or photons with those types of energies in a high dose flare and what would the resultant equivalent dose be for an Apollo astronaut ? The point I'm trying to get across is that those particles or photons are so relatively rare that they have very little probability of causing a biological problem so shielding from them isn't required. I'm also sure this has been explained to you at least once in this thread.

From hesperia.gsfc.nasa.gov...
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/05cd139f05ac.gif[/atsimg]

BTW did you read the 1962 New Scientist article (really, a 1962 article ?) on radiation dangers that you linked to ? Did you see the part that says "The inner part of the Van Allen belt presents a bigger difficulty, but the general consensus of opinion at the conference was that a combination of shielding (5 gm/cm^2), fast enough exit speed through the belt and choice of exit route from the Earth would enable a spaceman to survive this particular hazard." So what was the average rating of the Apollo capsule ? IIRC it was something like 7-8 gm/cm^2. Looks like your reference has a consensus of opinion agreeing with the approach the James Van Allen recommended back then ... and was subsequently used by Apollo.

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by 000063

Go outside on a sunny day. Sunlight has UV radiation. If you go outside for short periods, you become pale (assuming you're white). Go outside a moderate amount, and you get a healthy skin tone. Too much, and you get sunburns and skin cancer.

Similarly, months in space would mean more exposure to radiation than a few days in space. I cannot explain it in any simpler terms.

Ahh, I see.
You have gone from wanting to provide actual facts and evidence, to providing analogies.
Sorry, doesn't help.

Funny, I've often asked myself what it would take to help you understand.

You quote-mined again, and you outright lied. An analogy is an illustration, used to help one's audience understand a point. Not only did I use more than just an analogy, I made my point quite clear. Here, lemme quote my entire post, including the bits you removed from your response, and highlight my point in yellow.

Originally posted by 000063

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by 000063
Tell you what, I'll do my best look up the information you're asking for right after you produce the "killer" solar flare/SPE numbers to support your claim. I can't guarantee I'll find it, but I'll do my best.

I mean, I looked up what evidence there was of solar flares presented in this thread, and I found you making a similar claim that "major" flares/SPEs occurred. When asked what was "major", you said you were using NASA's definition. When asked what that definition was, you asked the debunkers what NASA's definition was, and changed the subject in the usual fashion.

edit on 2011/7/22 by 000063 because: /

Well whats the point? If Apollo could withstand major solar flares, then it really doesnt matter which flares I mention.

The point is that you claimed that NASA has not addressed the "killer flares". You have provided no evidence of this. You have not even admitted you were wrong.

So its quite clear that Apollo's aluminum hull, would have sufficiently protected the astronauts from even a massive "killer" flare. And obviously they dont have to go to the moon during Solar Max, they can go during Solar Min. What is the excuse for NASA not returning to the moon for longer missions or Mars? Why are they saying the issue is radiation?

Because you are exposed to more radiation the longer you are in space.

Go outside on a sunny day. Sunlight has UV radiation. If you go outside for short periods, you become pale (assuming you're white). Go outside a moderate amount, and you get a healthy skin tone. Too much, and you get sunburns and skin cancer.

Similarly, months in space would mean more exposure to radiation than a few days in space. I cannot explain it in any simpler terms.

Speaking of "presenting evidence", where on those numbers on flares you claimed were produced earlier in the thread? Because I looked, and all I found was you refusing to produce said numbers and desperately trying to change the subject when asked for proof, or ignoring it entirely. Much like you're doing now, actually.

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

The trajectory you have seen is wrong and biased.

Please produce the correct trajectory.

NASA doesnt provide one so there is no way it can be analyzed.

You said "wrong and biased", FoosM. There's no way you can say that unless you have the correct trajectory to compare it to. Unless, like usual, you were being reflexively contrarian, and bluffing.

Really DJW001?
Really?

an X class flare could have killed them... instantly?

You know you are wrong DJ. X-class flares have no effect against CM and LM shielding.

Oh, good, so you're withdrawing your claim of "killer" flares and events. Glad to have that cleared up.

Probably no effect on Astronaut suits! Where did you get this idea that it did? Whats your source?

First, produce your source saying that X-class flares have no effect against CM and LM shielding.

I mean, I agree with you, I always thought that such flare would kill Apollo astronauts.

NVM, the killer flares and SPEs are back on.

Originally posted by 000063
NVM, the killer flares and SPEs are back on.

And I had such high hopes after this post (below) from a few pages ago ...

Originally posted by FoosM
Well whats the point? If Apollo could withstand major solar flares, then it really doesnt matter which flares I mention.

"A large sunspot appeared on August 2, 1972, and for the next 10 days it erupted again and again," recalls Hathaway. The spate of explosions caused, "a proton storm much worse than the one we've just experienced," adds Cucinotta. Researchers have been studying it ever since.
Cucinotta estimates that a moonwalker caught in the August 1972 storm might have absorbed 400 rem. Deadly? "Not necessarily," he says. A quick trip back to Earth for medical care could have saved the hypothetical astronaut's life...

Surely, though, no astronaut is going to walk around on the Moon when there's a giant sunspot threatening to explode. "They're going to stay inside their spaceship (or habitat)," says Cucinotta. An Apollo command module with its aluminum hull would have attenuated the 1972 storm from 400 rem to less than 35 rem at the astronaut's blood-forming organs. That's the difference between needing a bone marrow transplant or just a headache pill.
Modern spaceships are even safer. "We measure the shielding of our ships in units of areal density--or grams per centimeter-squared," says Cucinotta. Big numbers, which represent thick hulls, are better:
The hull of an Apollo command module rated 7 to 8 g/cm2.

So its quite clear that Apollo's aluminum hull, would have sufficiently protected the astronauts from even a massive "killer" flare. And obviously they dont have to go to the moon during Solar Max, they can go during Solar Min. What is the excuse for NASA not returning to the moon for longer missions or Mars? Why are they saying the issue is radiation?

www.evms.edu...

And just to answer (again) FoosM's question above ... long duration missions will primarily be limited by the cumulative effects of GCR. And by "long" people are meaning years not weeks. And even that problem is solvable, if by nothing more than a brute force application of existing technology. But that method (or really most any long duration mission, even using some novel "exotic" and less expensive shielding) is going to cost big $$$s and nobody wants to spend those kind of $$$s in todays climate. Ships to go to NEOs or Mars and habitats to stay on Mars or the Moon don't exist now. To design and build and test/validate them is no small amount of effort (and $$$s). I don't see why this is so hard to understand.

And I don't see how this relates back to whether JW is a nutter or whether the gov't pulled the wool over our heads re: Apollo.

Just to provide some context of what Astronauts would have to face beyond LEO

James van Hoften, a former crew member on Discovery and Challenger who chaired the study committee, encountered space radiation during a spacewalk outside Challenger. "I saw what looked like a white laser line go right through my eyes," he said. "I thought, 'Well this can't be good…having high-energy particles fly through your head.' "
The biological effects of radiation exposure vary and are not entirely understood. Much of what is known comes from the study of accidental occupational radiation exposure, and from atomic bomb survivors, who received massive doses of gamma rays instantaneously. An atomic bomb is very different than what astronauts would experience, although the committee pointed out that, despite years of study, we don't know exactly what to expect in deep space.

Dont know what to expect, after successful Apollo missions? How does that make any sense?

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

NASA doesnt provide one so there is no way it can be analyzed.

Pay attention FoosM, it has been provided in this thread.

NASA does not provide one.
If you have a certified version from NASA please do post.

Yes, a sufficiently large flare could have killed them instantly if it were directed at them while they were unsheltered on the surface of the Moon. Why do you suddenly not understand this?

Classic example of moving the goalposts. But just to be sure, unsheltered, what's your definition of this? Not being in the LM & CM, or not being 10 feet underground?

And for those people that keep insisting that the radiation from the flares was not heading towards Earth, and consequently the moon. I specifically provided evidence that it did. It comes down to, of course their energy hit the Earth, how else do you think they made measurements from the Earth!

First:

The Sun can unexpectedly erupt with a solar flare, a violent explosion in the Sun's atmosphere caused by huge magnetic activity. These sudden flares produce large amounts of X-rays and EUV energy, which travel to the Earth (and other planets) at the speed of light... When the energy from a solar flare or other disturbance reaches the Earth, the ionosphere becomes suddenly more ionized, thus changing the density and location of its layers. Hence the term “Sudden Ionospheric Disturbance” (SID) to describe the changes we are monitoring and also the nickname of our space weather monitoring instrument, SID.

The X-ray, radio and optical emissions during the solar flare event are the indicators (perhaps secondary manifestations) that proton acceleration is occurring.

Second:

Solar flares of importance 3 or 3+ sometimes generate
energetic protons and heavier nuclei of Bev-energy range which
are detected as an unusual increase of cosmic-ray intensity by
ground based observation

In other words, observatories on Earth, not space, recording SIDs are recording them
because their energy is reaching Earth. I conveniently even circled the (+3)
measurements which can mean BeV energy hitting our planet.
(1 to 2) can mean MeV to TeV is reaching the Earth.
Because LDE flares are associated with Solar Proton Events.
This cannot be denied.

Even the "M" class flares can be dangerous in this regard.

LDE flares are important with regard to forecasting proton showers.

They selected these particular flares for a reason, to predict proton storms that hit the Earth!

As a matter of fact, the flares coming from the Western half of the Sun seem to have a direct line to Earth via the Parker Spiral. So even if you do not want to include the flares from the Eastern half, within the flares given during Apollo 12, we have a good number from the west directing Solar Protons towards Earth & the Moon!

Six flares. Four of which were "X" class.

But of course, we all know that even flares that we CANT see can spew out protons that can hit Earth.

An example of proton events impacting spacecraft from
flares on the 'invisible' portion of the sun, is the event ob-
served on 8 and 9 August 1970. During this event the entire
inner heliosphere was populated by energetic particles...
A possible flare located approximately 400 be-
hind the east limb was assumed to be the source of this parti-
cle event.

Regarding CMEs

CMEs are associated with slow LDEs very often. It is well known, that there is temporal relationship between CMEs and associated flares. The duration of the CMEs acceleration phase is related to the duration of the rise phase of a flare.

This is a clear-cut case of Solar Protons and X-class x-rays directed to the Earth and occurring during Apollo. So again, how did Apollo shielding block all this radiation? And if they could block CME's, X-class flares, then there is no radiation problem for long term missions.

But wait, lets take it further.

If you go to the
The Solar Longitude Dependence of Proton Event Delay Time
You will see that there was indeed a Proton Event measured during Apollo 12.
That begs the question, where is all the information on SPEs during Apollo?
Why cant we see them?

More to come...






www.dtic.mil...
www.ips.gov.au...
articles.adsabs.harvard.edu...
www2.ucar.edu...
www.dtic.mil...

Its called...

SDF NUMBER 450A

And it was a warning.
A warning that NASA did not heed.
And why would they if they weren't planning to land men on the moon.

FROM SPACE DISTURBANCE FORECAST CENTER ESSA BOULDER COLO

SDF NUMBER 450A ISSUED 0400Z 19 NOV 1969
CLASS M AND X, FLARES ARE EXPECTED DURING THE NEXT 24 HOURS
ESPECIALLY DURING THE 1200-2400Z PERIOD.
A. OF THE 2 NE COlYlPLEX CENTERS THE REGION NEAR N14 E34 REMAfNS ,THE
MORE ACTIVE. THREE SIGNIFICANT FLARES HAVE OCCURRED, THERE SINCE
THE LAST MESSAGE NAMELY CLASS X'S AT 18/1636(28) AND 2117(S8),
AND A POSSIBLE M AT APPROXIMATELY 0121(lN) TODAY. CONCERNING THE
1636Z FLARE NO INDICATION OF SOLAR PROTONS HAS BEEN DETECTED A~ OF
THE TIME OF WRITING. THIS FLARE OF GREATER THAN 1 1/2 HOUR DURATION
OCCURRED NEAR THE CENTER OF THE LARGE HORSESHOE-SHAPED PENUMBRAL
STRUCTURE PRESENTLY NEAR N14E34. RADIO NOISE EMISSION AT 10eM WAS
OF THE ORDER OF 1000 FLUX UNITS WHILE THE SPECTRUM OF RADIO WAVE-
LENGTH OBSERVATIONS DISPLAYED A CLASSIC V-BURST PROFILE.
B. IT APPEARS VERY LIKELY THAT SOLAR WIND GEOMETRY PRECLUDES
ENERGETIC PROTONS FROM BEING DETECTED IN THE VICINITY OF EARTH AS
A RESULT OF THE 18/1636Z FLARE. CONTINUED CLASS M AND X ACTIVITY
IS DEFINITELY EXPECTED FROM THE N14E35 REGION DURING THE NEXT 2
DAYS. APPROXIMATELY 15 TO 20 HOUR INTERVALS OF TIME SHOULD SEPARATE
THE PERIODS OF ACTIVITY.

FLARE ,AND PROTON EVENT PROBABILITIES FOR THE NEXT THREE 24 HOUR
PERIODS BEGINNING 19 NOV/0400Z ENDING'23 NOV/0400Z.
CLASS M OR GREATER 90/90/90
CLASS ,X 50/50/50
PROTON EVENTS 25/35/50

So a warning was issued prior to Apollo 12 mission.
Due to the heavy number of solar flares being detected.
Yet the mission continued?
Why?