The emphasis is mine. They "can" give those doses but nowhere does it say they always will especially as mentioned before because they are directional (not all are pointed our way) and they vary in intensity. And as for cosmic rays, your own source says the Earth is shielded from them by the atmosphere. All spacecraft orbit above the atmosphere. All spacecraft are therefore vulnerable to cosmic rays. They are not a great danger because of their infrequency and because as mentioned they often pass through things without effect. If considering interstellar travel however, they are more of a cause for concern because of the cumulative effect from the years of travel. Take your head out of the sand and learn something.

Electronics are affected by radiation too. Even worse for them as they don't have the benefit of being able to heal themselves. The comparison is accurate whether you choose to believe so or not.

I dont beleive we landed when they first said we did but I beleive we have landed by now. There are actually theories that there is a major mining project going on on the moon.

""No cheese. I am accusing you of not paying attention. People who lack knowledge don't exactly lie. They may quote sources that do, but they don't know enough genrally speaking, to lie.
You have linked to an Apollo 17 page. Jesus.

And please, don't reference ALSJ. The data there will refute your claims, and teach you what you need to know.""

Yes Jesus knows the Moon landings is a lie. Now try reading the Apollo 17 document. You'll find the info about the Apollo 16 flare that never happened according to you in there also.


""This is your quote, Not Jim's.

Jim is an experienced flight controller, who actually knows what he's talking about, and a space consultant to MSNBC ( the only good one there is, very likely, since he's a bonified expert on the subject), as well as a bunch of other stuff. He's very knowledgable, and will make you look silly...why don't you challenge him? He's a member here.


""There was no directional flare that posed any hazard to Apollo 16, or any other Apollo mission, thank God!


If there was a major STE detected, the SM and heat shield of the Apollo CM would've provided highly adequate shielding against solar radiation. I am supposing you have a problem with what amounts to about 25 feet of shielding...


It was not ever an operational problem for Apollo missions.""


What you claim would be the equivalent to 25 foot of shielding amounts to SFA unless you are protected ALL OVER by 2 metres of shielding.

"Observations have shown that cosmic rays with an energy above 10 GeV (10 x 109 eV) approach the Earth’s surface *isotropically (equally from all directions)*; it has been hypothesised that this is not due to an even distribution of cosmic ray sources, but instead is due to galactic magnetic fields causing cosmic rays to travel in spiral paths"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_radiation

Solar (or star) flares of protons, and occasional and severe hazard on the way out of and into planetary systems, can give doses of hundreds to thousands of rem over a few hours at the distance of the earth. Such doses are fatal and millions of times greater than the permitted dose. Death is likely after 500 rem in any short time."

"***Cosmic particles are dangerous, come from all sides, and require at least two meters of solid shielding all around living organisms***. Earth's atmosphere provides the equivalent of 10 meters of shielding."

"By comparison, solar flares can deliver GeV protons in the same energy range as most cosmic particles. Increase of energy accounts for most of the increased radiation danger, because GeV protons or their products will penetrate several meters of material." - John Mauldin, p226 Prospects For Interstellar Travel

First of all - as I see it, you believe Apollo proved that the VA Belts are quite safe for an astronaut(s) to travel through / spend time within, for a period of 2 hours (or less), and for another 2 hour period, going through it again, a week or two later.

But the rest of your argument?

Are you suggesting that we are deliberately planning to extend the time that astronauts are exposed to radiation from the VA Belts in the future?

Or, do you think we're planning to conduct manned missions that will (or could) expose future astronauts to much more radiation from the VA Belts, as compared to the 2 hours of exposure, which have already (in your view) been proven to be quite safe, by the Apollo missions?


Where do you get the idea that we are planning future manned missions that will/could expose humans to (in your view) "unsafe" levels of radiation from the VA Belts?
"Unsafe" - in your view, this would have to be more than 2 straight hours of direct exposure to VA Belt radiation, correct?

Cheese, Instead of dealing with my data, I get a reply of "What's your PhD in". You misquote sources, refuse to acknowledge basic scientific facts, are aggressive in the way you talk to people, and it's obvious that you know absolutely nothing about radiation. Solar Flares are *DIRECTIONAL* and of difference *INTENSITIES* . Do you understand what this means? Read this http://books.google.com/books?id=PRa5P6dtk...1M#PRA1-PA99,M1. Read the paragraph below Maudlin's comments.

At the end of the day, you've ignored scientific data, ignored peoples comments and posts, such as: If these Cosmic Rays are so dangerous, how do people in LEO survive them and you've been wilfully ignorant in the process.

Can you also PLEASE learn how to use the quote system properly, the way you do it makes it hard to determine who is saying what. If you are using someones post in your own wrap it in quotes like this:



That would come out like this:

Take 5 minutes away from the keyboard guys, it's not worth blowin a gaskett over.

We're talking 1970s technology. The control circuits aren't single micrometer or nanometer scale, they're bigger. It takes more radiation hits to damage any given component.

Plus as of right now the Voyager probe has run so low on power that all it can really do is tell us where it is and occasionally send back some info on the local magnetic field. Its not like it's been tasked with fine measurements or course corrections.

Interesting.
You don't believe we landed in July of 1969.
Yet, you believe we have done so by December, 2007.

Just curious: when do you "believe" it was actually done?




Well, that would certainly imply that we've landed there, I should suppose!
That there are such "theories" in existence (and I do not doubt you), stands as testimony to the wildly skewed, nonsensical thinking that presents in so many people these days...

???



You know, I have now grown tired of this incessant quoting of material you do not understand, with nonsensical statements regarding something than cannot be done, and is not necessary (2 meters of lead shielding...one of the oldest and most ridiculous ideas put forth by HBs...a product of mis-interpretation and lack of education).

I am also bored with your lack of reading what's been written, and your obvious reticence to do your homework.

I also think you should take the time to learn how to use the various features on the site to make your posts more readable.

Radiation discussions bore me. They were not an operational problem on Apollo. Specialists in the field, including Dr. van Allen himself, worked on it with NASA vis-a-vis protection, and most of those who were involved in mission operations didn't care about it..at all, including the astronauts.

It's time for you to move into some other question you have, because you're no longer making any sense with this issue.

Turb, you know better. I don't believe anything about Apollo. I don't need to believe it.
I know they were quite safe to travel through, in the manner which we did so. So did Dr. Van Allen.
The data verifies that completely.





Nope.



Possibly.




I said nothing about any plans to deliberately expose astronauts to unsafe conditions. We have never deliberately planned to do anything like that. We plan to be safe, and that's what we continue to do, to the best of our ability.

We have been talking about all sorts of manned space initiatives for as long as I can remember. I only know about Constellation's plans specifically right now, but there are alot of things on the table in the think tanks, just as there always are. Back in the day, we envisioned manned outposts in geosynchronous orbit...for one. That would've been something to investigate vis-a-vis van Allen radiation protection, since such an outpost would sit smack dab in the middle of the outer radiation belt...continuously.

What we're doing is studying more about the belts, expanding our options and understanding of what's possible for humans in the future.



Well, I don't know. Van Allen Belt radiation varies in intensity depending on where you are in the belts, and fluctuates within a given region.

I don't know what you mean by "direct", precisely, but no human has ever been directly exposed to Van Allen radiation, nor to any of the more intense radiation the belts can provide. I know two hours of the exposure levels we received were quite safe, and in fact, we could've endured a hell of alot more with no ill effects.


As I've indicated, this radiation argument is boring, frankly.
Radiation is a highly complex topic that few people actually understand very well. This six feet of lead nonsense is a classic example. As impractical as that is, and unecessary, people don't seem to understand that the nature of Van Allen radiation is best shielded by plastics. Metals can actually intensify the particles energy!

I'm tired of repeating what can be easily understood by a little investigation, and alot of disciplined study of what will be found.

As pertains to Apollo, it was a non-issue, operationally.
We flew purposefully through the very thinnest parts of the belts, and we flew through them very fast, with a shielded vehicle, and many dosimeters, some dedicated only to Van Allen radiation. The data is clear:

We received nothing close to a significant dose of Van Allen (or any other form of...) radiation on any Apollo mission. We went through fast, and by the time we were executing transposition and docking maneuvers (maybe 40 minutes to 90 minutes after TLI), the Van Allen belts were history. The people who designed the spacecraft insulation, and the trajectories we flew, did it with protection from the Van Allen Belts in mind. Dr. Van Allen himself was of course consulted, and agreed with the plans.


The case for Van Allen radiation prohibiting Apollo missions was essentially closed before we went to the Moon.

Thanks for the advice.

I know the Moon Hoax thing's been done to death .....I Know i Know I know ....but ya do gotta wonder why this Buggy hasn't left any tracks .....Dont you ?


(AS17-140-21354)

You are right, the Moon hoax thing has been done to death... usually in the right forum, which is the conspiracies forum. As this post seems to have nothing to do with "Extraterrestrial Life & The UFO Phenomenon" I am going to move this to the conspiracies forum and merge it with the ongoing debate there.

An apology.

This topic was temporarily locked. This was completely accidental and was the result of a glitch I have been on the receiving end of before. Very rarely, when I merge threads, the thread becomes locked. This has not occurred for a while and so I did not realise that this had happened.

I apologise for the inconvenience caused and in particular I apologise to Bogeyman who I denied locking the thread too.

There is a perfectly rational explanation why they are no dune buggy tracks in that picture .

In a sad and desperate attempt by NASA to bump up the tv viewing figures ( there had been complaints to the networks that the moon landing tv specials had replaced the re-runs of 'I Love Lucy' in the schedules), they decided to follow up on the golfing escapades of Apollo 14 by trying to introduce the rest of the worlds favourite sporting past-time to the US of A.

SO-CKER!

So the Apollo 17 Astronauts were told to have a kick about with giant moon boulders.

The dune buggy was one of the goalposts. The LM lander was the other.

Therefore the tracks that the production crew had laid out to make it look as if the dune buggy had been driven to that spot were mostly replaced by boot prints during the kick boulders in lunar gravity demonstration.

No I don't wonder. You can see quite clearly the multiple footprints around it that have disturbed the dust erasing any sign of tracks that were there. This can also be seen in the videos or in successive photographs. One does have to wonder though what a missing tracks anomaly would mean. We know the vehicle works as there is video of it being driven. Why not drive it or push it into place? Do people really think it was lowered in place for some reason? Why would that even be done? It doesn't make any sense.

How ironic that someone who only earlier today was complaining about the:should post this.

The 1972 lunar World Cup seems like a perfectly rational explanation for no dune buggy tracks in that picture.

Double standards would seem to be a perfectly rational explanation for your post.

I suggest you chose one option or the other...

either continue to post "humorous" posts and quit complaining when others do like wise

or quit posting "humorous" posts yourself.

But where was the Russian linesman?

I have already asked that we keep on topic in the ! England 1966 World Cup Shock Exclusive ! thread, I am now asking the same thing here.

The Russians linesmans passport wasn't valid at the Van Allen belt checkpoint!

I don't either, frenat (of course). Many thanks to Bogeyman for the ident on the photo (AS17-140-21354).
That makes it easy.

Here's the original:



Of course, you can clearly see the tracks outside of the dark area, which is the characteristic of the area where the crewmen do all their banging about and walking. This photo was taken post EVA-2 on AS-17, from the LM. The reason why all you see are footprints, and not tire tracks is precisley because of what you said.

The keys are as follows.

That's a clean LRV. Nice and clean.

Too clean, actually. The reason is that the crew spent about an hour after parking the LRV at it's final resting place for the day cleaning up. Cleaning off each other, cleaning off the LRV, removing the ton of dust all over everything, taking out all their gear and samples, dumping things on the ground and picking them up again... closing out the vehicle,etc...it's quite an operation, and they make a mess of the area doing it, oddly enough.


They moved constantly all around the LRV, pushing dirt all over the place and obliterating any tracks in the local area, because they were all over the back of it, where are the goods are kept. They were actually all around it, but spent alot of time traversing to and from the rear.


As is apparent, the LRV obviously wasn't dropped there.

...this could hurt, cheese. Did you bother to read the post immediately above this one?

Nope I was writing it at the same time it was posted.

And I decided to choose this option

"either continue to post "humorous" posts and quit complaining when others do like wise"

BTW did you start this thread yourself because you behave as if you own it personally?

Post EVA 2 you claim is when all those bootprints were made. Good. I'll need to check out the Apollo 17 SCFilms DVD set to see for myself how many times they could have possibly left those bootprints.




As is apparent from said DVD set(s) the tv camera conveniently wouldn't work when they traversed between stations on Apollo 15,16 and 17, so there actually isn't any proof that the dune buggy wasn't shifted about on lunar sound stages and dropped into locations.

No.
I do, however, attempt to direct the discussion toward the most beneficial direction, that being an educational one, since all HBs lack knowledge in the subject matter (which is why they're HBs). I behave as I always have:

As someone who knows alot more about it than any HB does, and who wishes to impart knowledge to others.
That's where the fun is...in the learning that can be had.

Please do. It's amazing how much of a mess you can make in an hour on the Moon.
The possibilities were three on EVA closeouts, during the EVA-1, 2 and 3 closeouts, and most certainly during the EVA 1 prep and LRV deployment.




It didn't "conveniently" not work. It was off during transit because the S-band antenna couldn't track the Earth while they were in motion (we tried it once as I recall, but it wasn't very cool).

Further, proving that what happened happened is not required.
Proof is required that it didn't. That's a common HB ploy...the accuser seeks proof from the accused that they didn't do what the accuser alleges. Unfortunately, that's not the way it works.
The proof of fakery would be your burden, as the accuser, one which I'm afraid you will never be able to provide.

Which is why I stated that these threads are ideally educational, and why I'd love more questions about that which you're confused about, rather than silly declarations based upon a gross lack of knowledge.

I attempt to direct the discussion towards the dark horrible filled with radiation places that no moon landing believer dares to go.

Pleased to meet you.

Please see below.

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17OTM.html


http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973ICRC....2.1486F

"Solar flares are on those things you need to take a calculated risk on because they will zap you with radation once they get to you. But you've got a long time, hours, if not a day or more to either come back to Earth, find a shielded place, or prepare yourself".

They had plans for this. **The plan was to turn the bulky end of the ship toward the incoming front of radiation**. **That bulk of the ship had all the fuel in it and could provide plenty of protection for that burst of radiation**"

- James Oberg- Did Man Land On The Moon- Zig Zag Productions

"Observations have shown that cosmic rays with an energy above 10 GeV (10 x 109 eV) approach the Earth’s surface *isotropically (equally from all directions)*; it has been hypothesised that this is not due to an even distribution of cosmic ray sources, but instead is due to galactic magnetic fields causing cosmic rays to travel in spiral paths"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_radiation

Yes its fascinating stuff watching them beavering about at the LRV at the end of the day.




Yes on ONE occasion for about 3 secs the tv camera managed to work as Gene Cernan drove off to park up the LRV. Every other occasion it NEVER so there is no proof the LRV wasn't being moved about and DROPPED onto locations.

We landed on the moon. The flags and hardware are still there for anybody's viewing if you have the telescope.

You would make a fortune if you had that telescope. There is no telescope yet made that has the resolution to observe Apollo hardware on the Moon from Earth.

Of course that's if you count all the OTHER video of the lunar rover in motion. What you are suggesting here is a terrible logical fallacy by the way. Your proof is going the wrong way round. There needs to be proof of movement of the rovers, not a conclusion based on LACK of evidence.

What 'OTHER' video of the lunar rover are you referring to?

The Apollo 16 rover run is over a very short area, and all other footage is 16 mm dac played back at strange fps rates, shot 'allegedly' from the lunar rover that DOES NOT constitute traversing miles and miles of the lunar surface during Apollo 15,16 and 17.

So THERE IS 'NO' EVIDENCE!

Quite correct, you do not have any evidence that the Lunar Rover was "dropped into position."

Telescope??? What kind of telescope are you using to see the flags and hardware on the moon surface?

Yes I am quite correct. All the so called 16 mm evidence of the rover? in motion constitutes yards on lunar soundstages NOT miles on the Moon.

So the rover wasn't driven to locations on the Moon it was dropped into place.

So if the Rover could be driven, whether on the moon or on a set, why would it have to be dropped into place? Why not drive it or push it?

there are Hubble images of the leftover hardware on the moon

No there are not. The Hubble has a resolution of about 300 feet per pixel at the distance of the Moon. I'd like to see you pick out the Moon hardware in one of those pictures.

Are you posting these together because you think they are somehow related? Do you not realize that solar flares and cosmic rays are not the same thing? Solar flares are highly directional. That is a fact. Cosmic rays are not but they are also present in low Earth orbit at the same intensities as they would be on a trip to the Moon. They are a problem when thinking of interstellar travel with trip times measured in years but not for short trips in orbit or to the Moon. Why do you keep ignoring this?

No I posted that comment with the following two links referring to the Apollo 16 flare above it.

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17OTM.html


http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973ICRC....2.1486F

You for some unknown reason have wisely choosen to ignore that solar flare.

Totally irrelevant. All sorts of things have been "envisioned" over the years by NASA (and others), as suggestions/ideas for potential future programs/missions. So what?
Why bring up something they once considered in the past (or "back in the day"), when it has absolutely nothing to do with their actual plans for the future?

From a Sept. 2006 article..

Boston University today announced it has received an eight-year, $42.5 million contract from NASA to study Earth's radiation belts, a region which can be dangerous to astronauts and orbiting satellites...The two-satellite mission, slated for launch in 2012..

http://www.astrobiology.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=20777

The VA Belt mission launch is planned for 2012. NASA plans to send astronauts to the moon in (or by) 2020.

The Shuttle and the ISS always remain well below the Belts. And, except for the mission(s) noted above, no other missions planned up to 2020 will require astronauts to travel through the VA Belts.....let alone come within 300 km of them!



Why will it take years longer this time
Why such an intensive study of the VA Belts is needed
Etc,

There's always a spin (excuse) applied to each story, for only one, single, purpose - to try and maintain the illusion of Apollo's authenticity and believability to the public.

But it isn't hard to see through the spin, and to realize what NASA is really trying to do.

If your country had never sent man beyond LEO, you would do exactly the same things as NASA is doing (and planning to do) for "returning" men to the moon.

The only difference is that you wouldn't have to create a cover story (spin) for each of those things, unlike NASA.

To expand on my last point...

NASA is approaching the VA Belts as if they've never sent astronauts (humans) through the Belts, or within the Belts, or even anywhere close to the Belts, because they do represent a significant hazard to human health.


The VA Belt studies are planned for 2012, because they still present a largely unknown hazard to astronauts, and NASA itself admits to that.

The manned missions planned for 2020 will require traveling through the Belts. The Shuttle flies well below the Belts, and the program won't even exist by that time. The ISS stays well below the belts also, with astronauts, so it's absurd to claim the 2012 studies are so ISS astronauts can finally be safe after 10 years of being unsafe!

We have no other manned missions planned in which the VA Belts pose a hazard to astronauts. Only the plans for manned missions to the moon, which require 2 hours inside the Belts, each way.


The problem is that they had to lie to us about the Belts being safe 40 years ago, or else they couldn't have sold us on their BIG lie - Apollo's manned moon landings.

NASA never sent astronauts (humans) through the Belts, or within the Belts, or even anywhere close to the Belts, because they really do represent a significant hazard to human health. But they have to spin the truth for the sake of keeping the 40-year-old lies of Apollo intact.

Russia would do the same studies as NASA has planned to do in 2012, if they also had plans to send astronauts beyond LEO by 2020.

But they would not have to lie about the reason for the study, in order to maintain a 40-year-old illusion.

Well stated turbonium. Thanks for the link to that article.

"Explorer I ran into a belt of intense radiation at 600 miles. The satellite carries a Geiger tube to count cosmic rays. At 684 miles the tubes registered 140 counts per second. The Geiger tubes had been knocked out by radiation too intense for them to handle. The satellites passed through radiation 35,000 counts per second. The belt may extend outward 8,000 miles. LEAD SHIELDING WOULD REDUCE THE DOSE TO A SUPPORTABLE LEVEL." Time Magazine May 12, 1958

"Unless some practical way can be found to shield space travellers against the effects of radiation, manned space rockets can best take off through the radiation-free zone over the poles" - James Van Allen 1959

Thanks, cheese

I wonder how long they'll keep spinning the truth to cover for Apollo's fakery. What will they say after the 2012 VA Belt study shows that a space capsule's outer shell has to be several inches thick - at least - to protect humans from 2 hours of radiation exposure within the Belts?

Maybe they'll use the same excuse as they did for the SPE's - "The Apollo astronauts were unbelievably lucky to avoid SPE's (lethal VA Belt radiation)".

Or they'll say the eggshell Apollo capsule was completely safe, but figured that adding 6" of thickness to the capsule shell for the 2020 mission would make it "even more" completely safe!

There's always going to be an excuse. It isn't important how ridiculous the excuses get, because as long as there is an excuse, it gives the Apollo believers something they can hold on to.

I still get a kick out of these two articles..

The probe SMART-1 is now conducting a detailed photographic survey of the Moon with high-resolution cameras capable of clearly seeing the Apollo landing sites. European scientists intend to use these and other sites of lunar landings by unmanned probes to help calibrate the instruments aboard SMART-1.

SMART-1 is imaging the Apollo landing sites and other notable locations during these tighter and tighter orbits, but it will likely take several months before the photos are resolved enough to show sufficient detail. Photos of these sites may start being released later this year and may end the infamous conspiracy theory that the lunar landings were a hoax once and for all.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0238.shtml

World's biggest telescope to prove Americans really walked on Moon

Conspiracy theorists, you have a problem. In an effort to silence claims that the Apollo Moon landings were faked, European scientists are to use the world's newest and largest telescope to see whether remains of the spacecraft are still on the lunar surface.

Now astronomers hope to kill off the conspiracy theory once and for all by using the Very Large Telescope (VLT) - by far the most powerful telescope in the world - to spot the Apollo lunar landers.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml.../ixnewstop.html

The articles are obviously biased towards Apollo being factual. The authors spout off that we 'crazy conspiracy theorists' are soon going to be proven the fool, once and for all, when we see all those amazing images of the Apollo landing sites, taken by the VLT in 2002....

...uhh...that is, when we see all those amazing images of the Apollo landing sites, taken by the Smart-1 in 2004 or 2005.....

Nope. Still no luck.

"Curse you all, hoax believers!", the Astronomer cried defiantly. Glancing upwards, he began shaking his fist at the moon, as it seemed to be mocking him in a crescent-shaped sneer.

Yes when you spend the equivalent in todays money of 100 billion (tax) dollars to get past the Van Allen belts to bring some moon rocks back and play golf, you need a little bit of luck thrown in for good measure.

http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/lu...wed_050112.html


Not like Apollo

Despite the apparent ease of past lunar exploration radiation-wise, such as NASA's successful Apollo moon landings, without adequate shielding long-term occupation of the moon and space exploration may remain out of reach, researchers said.

"A lot of people think about the Apollo astronauts, and that they didn't have much protection and were fine," Lane told SPACE.com. "But in Apollo, it was a very short mission and a lot of it was basically luck.

***I'm not sure how they managed to be so lucky, but I don't think you can count on luck on short missions for the future or trips to the planets.***"

turbonium, you seem to be stuck in some sort of time loop. You post the same old, tired stuff about the ESO telescope. You then admit that it doesn't constitute evidence one way or another. Then you post it again. You are beginnig to be less like a conspiracy theorist and more like a spammer.