Saturday, October 17, 2009

Van Allen Belts- waggin the moon doggie relevant

And now, I understand there are actually two radiation belts.

Link here

Impact on space travel

Solar cells, integrated circuits, and sensors can be damaged by radiation. Geomagnetic storms occasionally damage electronic components on spacecraft. Miniaturization and digitization of electronics and logic circuits have made satellites more vulnerable to radiation, as incoming ions may be as large as the circuit's charge. Electronics on satellites must be hardened against radiation to operate reliably. The Hubble Space Telescope, among other satellites, often has its sensors turned off when passing through regions of intense radiation.[9]

Missions beyond low earth orbit leave the protection of the geomagnetic field, and transit the Van Allen belts. Thus they may need to be shielded against exposure to cosmic rays, Van Allen radiation, or solar flares. The region between two to three earth radii lies between the two radiation belts and is sometimes referred to as the "safe zone".[10][11]

A satellite shielded by 3 mm of aluminium in an elliptic orbit (200 by 20,000 miles) passing through the radiation belts will receive about 2,500 rem (25 Sv) per year. Almost all radiation will be received while passing the inner belt. [12]

and some cool pics!

Simulated Van Allen Belts generated by a plasma thruster in tank #5 Electric Propulsion Laboratory


  1. I just read part 3 of the series and the arguments he makes there are also weak. He states there is a contradiction between the need of shielding in thr 60s and today for future explorations. There is no contradiction whatsoever, only good ole Dave comparing things that can't be compared by forgetting one variable of the equation: the time of exposure. It's one thing to go for 3 or 4 days through a radiation source, it's another when you work for weeks on a moon base or for months on a trip to Mars. There's also the fact that at that time, the deep space radiation was not as well known as today, the deep space exploration probes Voyager/Pioneer had not been launched yet so the composition of the cosmic rays was only incompletly known (Gamma ray bursts were only discovered 1967 for instance).
    The rock exposure argument has the same flaw, the moon rocks were bombarded for billions of years, the astronauts only for few days, it's quite a difference.
    The next time you get a X-ray notice how the operator is shielded behind lead plates and special glass, while you are exposed to the rays. The difference? You get your X-ray done once every ten years, he is behind his apparatus every day so he must be protected.

  2. And as for his main argument (I suppose it is, because he named the whole series after that) of wagging the moondoggy to divert attention from the Vietnam war, is also a non starter (imho). The diversion occured, if it was faked or if it was the real deal exactly the same. And Nixon might have been an evil bastard, but capable of planing the whole Apollo distraction several years before he even needed it is quite a stretch.

  3. Especially if one considers that it was Kennedy who started it (yes I know Kennedy was only a puppet and the real decisions are made in the background).

  4. hey gallier, I have been trying to read the additional parts and I keep getting, the site is down.

    So I have had zero chance :(

    I heard dave interviewed, I think his main arguement is the technology was not there, as in not capable of carrying out such a mission.

    The Van Allen Belts are what have thrown me, since I first heard this controversy, before Dave wrote this series, the problem with technological availability being another good arguement.

    I think silv, said, wether they went to the moon or not is almost irrelevant.

    Since NASA is first and foremost an arm of the US military, the need to go to the moon may have been neither here nor there. The ability to launch certain types of missiles using outer space/ space based weapons is the meat and potatoes of the matter.

    Nobody has pointed out the weakness is one of his arguements from a photography perspective, I saw in the second part, Dave had a bunch of stuff about shadown etc., but since it is not within my grasp of knowledge I didn't get into it.

    And silv, if I have interpreted incorrectly please feel free, but that is the way I interpreted it.

    I know, everything is so subjective.

    btw, thanks gallier!

  5. Sorry, hung over kinda and a bit slow on the uptake, but you are saying we probably didn't go to the moon. Correct?

  6. Hey Blake: I know we are getting into "tin foil" hat terrirtory here, but were discussing Waggin the moon doggie- Dave McGowan, link to the right in the bar, except the site is overloaded and down continuously.

    Dave makes the arguement that no man went to the moon in the '60's and were discussing that concept.

    Gallier has taken exception to the work, Nobody has written a post taking to task the photography section, and me, I am trying to figure out wether it was done or not?

    Until very recently I did not even know this was controversial!
    So I have been trying to read up on the whole subject....

    Admittedly, some of it is over my head completely.

  7. Though I will say this, as interesting as it all is, and it is an interesting concept.

    I don't want to get to carried away with it myself, there are far more serious issues that need addressing..
    that said, everyone needs a diversion. :)

  8. Your right on what I said and that was the goal was not to land on the moon but rather to send missiles into space and then bring them down in a predetermined spot. It was the guidance systems on ICBM’s that NASA was concerned about, the thing about ICBMs is that when they are fired or launched they actually enter outer space and then they just sorta wait for the planet to rotate under them before falling towards the target, and fall they do as it is just the warhead that returns to earth and it dose this without fuel save for the deorbiting rockets on board.

    Now as I have said before there is simply no way that the American people would have agreed to the enormous sums of money to build yet another weapons system, so the deal was to create a space race with the Russians as in got to get to the moon FIRST. If it was so important to actually land on the Moon then why did the Russians not continue? I mean really it’s not like the Americans could really lay claim to the moon or could they? It’s not like they haven’t layed claim to everything that they have gotten their hooks into. So why did the Americans NOT lay claim to the Moon, they did after all plant their flag there did they not. We’ve all seen the pictures of the flag. The reason is simple, because they couldn’t, just saying that you’ve been there just ain’t enough, they knew it and so did the RUSSIANS who would have called them on it had they tried.

    A permanent military base on the moon would be an enormous asset to either side, but the cost of building such a base would (even if it could be done) be of such a huge expenditure that even the Americans during their most extravagant period of excess could simply not have afforded it.

    Even the Russians during those years who seemed to have no problem with finding moneys for their military couldn’t swing it. If it could have been done it would have been done, it’s just that simple, but as it wasn’t done I for one don’t think that they ever landed on the moon as that was never their intention.

    The Americans have always been good at slinging the BS and this was no different than fighting the commies in Korea, in Vietnam, the Iraqis and now Afghanistan it’s all the same same. The one thing that one can rest assured of is that no matter what the Americans say it’s just a Lie. If Washington says that Tuesday follows Monday check the calendar, Yuh know just to make sure.

  9. I never have believed the moon landings were real. I could never think of a reason to believe it. There are lots of reasons not to believe it, #1. being that it was on TV 8-) #2. Politicians say its true 8-), #3. It served the needs of the Military Industrial Complex and therefore was likely motivate to generate more $$ rather than knowledge #4. The control systems needed to keep the ship upright while decending onto the moon didn't exist - no way they would have a man do it like in the movies - too risky. #5. The Van Allen radiation belt. #6. Much cheaper to fake it than do it. #7. Faking it guarenteed success- which was NECESSARY. Failure was not an option.

    Now, can someone list all the reasons why we should believe it ?

  10. Doug

    the Much cheaper to fake it than do it argument doesn't hold water.
    The hardware was built, the rockets flew, the developement was made. Saturn V is the most incredible piece of hardware ever made and it was not faked, how could you fake that? Thousands of people (civilians) saw their launches, the Saturn V was also used for the Soyouz-Apollo Rendez-vous and they launched also the Skylab.
    99% of the effort was made for faking the last 1% ? Ridiculous.

  11. And one more thing. Concerning the radiation , oh Please. Having spent just a bit more than a few years as a Radio Microbiologist working at one of Canada’s foremost nuclear research labs namely The Greater White Shell Nuclear Research Station I am confident in saying that the so called astronauts did not survive an extended stay on the moon as a matter of fact I am amazed that they could even survive an orbit of said moon..

    Flying though the Van Allen belts is the equivalent to flying through a microwave oven cooking at full bore, and we all know what happens to tinfoil in a microwave oven (come on we’ve all done it). Now to the suits, with enough mass the suits can indeed distribute microwave radiation to an exceptable level. Try this sometime, put a heavy cast iron pan or a thick aluminum pot in the microwave oven and see what happens , nothing happens is what, same reason that your microwave oven doesn’t explode when you turn it on, it’s because it has enough mass to absorb the microwaves.

    Cosmic radiation is different, and the difference is that microwave radiation is much the same as the radiation beamed into your home everyday and you and I pick up everyday as the TV and Radio signals that make our lives so nifty. One as in the radio frequency from a microwave is unmodulated and the Radio frequency from the radio and TV station is modulated ,a simple Faraday cage will effectively bring these radio waves to ground and the suits that the astronauts wore with their metal mesh could very effectively have done this. But as I said there is a difference and that is that cosmic radiation is actually incredibly small particles traveling at near light speed , these do damage to living tissue, one cannot deflect these or run them to ground they have to be stopped with something akin to lead or uranium. Somehow I doubt very much that the astronauts wore suits lined with a minimum of two inches of lead or uranium, although two inches would not have been nearly enough and lets not forget the tin bucket that they flew up in..

    So whether or not they flew around the moon is neither here nor there as they might well have done so at great peril and survived as the trip would have been relatively short but coming back as relatively unscathed from staying on the moon for as long as it it said that they did is to say the very least very unlikely.

  12. Silv
    There seems to quite some confusion as to the nature of the van Allen belt and the cosmic background radiation. The Van Allen belt and the cosmic radiation are not of electromagnetic nature, so comparing them to microwave is not valid.

    And just for info, the Van Allen belt is 45000km wide, the space craft had a speed of 40000km/h, how long do you think were they exposed to the Belt's radiation? Yes a little bit more than 1 hour.

    Here a wikipedia entry about that subject
    (yes I know wikipedia is evil and so on).

    There are enough conpiracies and falsehoods around, one does not need to add some which make no sense.

  13. Very interesting discussion!
    Seeing as I'm neither a photographic, 3D or radiation expert, I have nothing other to add than a layman's perspective..

    The 'totality' of the claims made by NASA is the issue. Focussing on one particular aspect of the story, and getting bogged down in shadow detail etc, is a normal tactic in 'debunking'...

    I'm not saying that the scientific process shouldn't be used when arguing from different standpoints, indeed it should, but then it would be nice to have the design blueprints of the original technology used at the time...

    Have you ever had that gut feeling, that you 'know' you're being lied to?

  14. gallier, the rockets were built and they went into space, no one is disputing that, even Dave says that is legit, the point is, did it go to the moon?

    and if you re-read silv's reply he actually points out the differences
    in cosmic radiation vs microwave.

    I am getting that his use of the microwave would be to demonstrate the results of exposure to the van allen belt radiation.

    But right here "Cosmic radiation is different, and the difference is that microwave radiation is much the same as the radiation beamed into your home everyday and you and I pick up everyday as the TV and Radio signals that make our lives so nifty. One as in the radio frequency from a microwave is unmodulated and the Radio frequency from the radio and TV station is modulated ,a simple Faraday cage will effectively bring these radio waves to ground and the suits that the astronauts wore with their metal mesh could very effectively have done this. But as I said there is a difference and that is that cosmic radiation is actually incredibly small particles traveling at near light speed , these do damage to living tissue,"

    He is pointing out the difference in the radiation from the microwave vs the radiation from the van allen belts.

  15. hello people, ok, thinking, thinking, thinking......

    the van allen belt is 45,000 kms wide, travel through it took just over an hour.

    Ok for clarity, is this both the inner and outer belts?

    Which would then change the exposure time to over two hours.
    Then the return trip , is it another two hours?

    Are we looking at two or 4 hours of mass radiation exposure??

    Now here is an interesting news story.

    CT scan leads to radiation

    Hospital error leads to radiation overdoses
    After Cedars-Sinai reset a CT scan machine in February 2008, more than 200 brain scans on potential stroke patients were performed at eight times the normal dose of radiation, the hospital says.

    Scores of radiation overdoses at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center have been traced to a single cause: a mistake the hospital made resetting a CT scanner.

    The dose of radiation was eight times what it should have been.

    The error went unnoticed for the next 18 months, until this August, when a stroke patient informed the hospital that he had begun losing
    his hair after a scan.

    40% of them ( 206 patients) had suffered patchy hair loss. Many also experienced reddening of the skin.

    And the astronauts with major exposure for either two or 4 hours suffered no ill effects?

    But, these brief catscans caused sypmptoms of radiation poisoning?

  16. Keep diggin Penny..

    For those that didn't catch Dave McGowan's interview with Maria Heller, I've uploaded it for 100 downloads here.

  17. You guys rock. Silv - more than a pretty face, ha ha. And Gallier keep doing that thing. There's nothing wrong with a Devil's advocate. But just quietly mate, what do you make of the fact that NASA lost ALL the footage?

  18. nobody said:
    But just quietly mate, what do you make of the fact that NASA lost ALL the footage?

    Did they? AFAIK they lost the original footage of Apollo XI but not everything. I would like more than hearsay about the bold claim that everything was lost.
    And working myself in an administration I can tell you that obvious things can get missed, like putting up a team to ensure data preservation (hey we even had a developper team forget to put a search feature on the new document editor they're working on, a thing obvious to anyone with a passing glimps of the workflow).

    Another point I wanted to address:
    Dave makes the argument that in the 60s the technology was not there to go to the moon but it was there to fake the moon landing pictures and videos. Doesn't make sense, since video technology at that time was primitive (
    and rockets had a long history of incremental progress (do not forget the Von Braun was the mister rocket, he built the A4 (V2) in WW2, he was a bright passionate guy and babbled about the moon already at that time (matter of fact a cousin of my father worked at Peenemünde during war and knew Von Braun personally))

  19. "he was a bright passionate guy and babbled about the moon already at that time"...

    yup he did... He said it was a practical impossibility if i remember correctly. Not that I spoke to him of course. I wouldn't be so bold as to lay claim to having known the man, or anyone in my family for that matter.

  20. I spent more time last night reading up on the radiation angle.

    And radiation is a huge problem, not just from the van allen belts, but there is radiation everywhere, and the moon having no atmosphere is chock full of radiation, since there is nothing to shield it. Such as the protection we have on earth.
    Apparently there is even radiation from all the atomic bomb testing up there!
    Then solar flares.And so forth and so on

    and then this piece that Dave had linked was interesting

    "Space beyond low-Earth orbit is awash with intense radiation from the Sun and from deep galactic sources such as supernovas. Astronauts en route to the Moon and Mars are going to be exposed to this radiation, increasing their risk of getting cancer and other maladies. Finding a good shield is important."


  21. which btw, dave site is available this am, so I am trying to read some more of it....

    gallier, I saw your blog was french, are you billingual?
    If you are good for you, I am totally jealous of people who can speak more then one language.

  22. I grew up bilingual in France being born from Germans living exactly on the border of the 2 countries. We really lived both cultures to the fullest and this long before European integration started for real. I'm therefore both German and French. This said, this had a tremendous effect on my views of the world, having had the luck to see the world from two perspectives. English is only my third language that I acquired from school and work. That is one reason I struggle to get some coherency in my posts (a part from the fact that I'm not supposed to this at work and at home there's a lot of distraction from my son, so I cannot really put enough effort on that subject). I'm not really a good writer anyway (even in French or German) so my apologies if my posts aren't up to task.

  23. no your posts are fine, very clear and understandable. When we had our only child, she was educated in two languages, therefore she is fluently bilingual.
    I read early on that additional languages stimulate the brain in different ways. And it is best to learn second languages as early as possible.

    I should try to take a kick at that can!
    I think it is marvelous.

  24. Gallier2,

    The purpose of the moon landing was to get everyone to worship technology and believe that technology was to save us from the scourge of communism. It was not to collect moon rocks.

    For this reason it had to be successful. To guarentee success it had to have been faked.

    The rockets were real - they needed them to put satellites up to watch everybody while the communists snuck in through the back door.

    The satellites are necessary for the communists to watch everybody and to supply mass communications for mass propaganda. (The purpose of TV, etc is for propaganda, not to make people happy or to make money)

    We all know that the purpose of money itself is control, even for individuals after a certain small amount nothing more to be gained except power and control. Fiat currency is an instrument of control, not wealth.

    There are two components to understanding the world: Those who control and those who are controlled. No one really gives a flying F$%# about their fellow man, or moon rocks for that matter. For little people safety and comfort are what matters, for the controllers, creating fear and uncertainty is what matters.

  25. BTW: Fear and uncertainty is what lead us into the space race. We had to beat the godless Russians.

  26. Doug said:
    The purpose of the moon landing was to get everyone to worship technology and believe that technology was to save us from the scourge of communism. It was not to collect moon rocks.

    oh, absolutely, no contestation on my side about that. It was barely more than dick wagging. If you follow up a bit on the whole Apollo program (from the official side) it is even common knowledge that all the scientific parts of the program were added at the last moment because some (military?) knuckleheads didn't want to ruin the mission by doing some useful stuff like deploying instruments on the moon. The laser reflectors are still there btw and can be checked with relative ease (nothing beyond amateur astronomer possibilities).
    As for the rockets, they are in fact a argument against the hoax, you have to consider that Saturn V (and the russian equivalent N1) are really fscking huge, beyond anything else ever constructed.
    If it was to stealthly lift some heavy stuff upthere, they would not be adequate, because they are far from discrete. Even the acceleration round out of earth orbit in direction to the moon were visible from ground. Every Saturn launch was observed and followed by thousands amateur astronomers around the world.
    As for the sneakiness of NASA, don't get me wrong, I don't think they are any better than other institutions (the shenanigans concerning the GISS data concerning climate change are a good illustration of what I mean). This said, the space shuttle was built with the way it was built exactly for arming space, heavy payload for low orbit, exactly what is needed for militarisation of space. Just to tell,I'm not against alternative interpretations of events, I think the WTC was brought down by orbitting microwave-lasers, so my belief is even beyond the controlled demolition conspiracies on that subject.
    Which brings up good points (but messes a lot of others).

  27. "I think the WTC was brought down by orbitting microwave-lasers"

    and you were doing so well...

    ah well.

  28. "The laser reflectors are still there btw"

    Reflectors aren't needed at all to bounce a laser off the surface of the moon and back. Try threading a needle from 230,000 miles away...

  29. > "I think the WTC was brought down by orbitting microwave-lasers"

    > and you were doing so well...

    > ah well.

    Ok, it was a bit overstated, to be correct I should have said:
    I do not dismiss outright the possibility of the use of SDI technology to bring down the WTC, as this can explain a lot of problems in the narrative even when considering controlled demolition. The "vaporization" of the steel being one these problems (and the fact that the first pictures from above the WTC lack rests of the roofs). There are a lot of other points here and there that do not completely put this hypotheses to lala-land. This said, I do not have much on that subject and will not engage in a discussion about this subject, it's not the right thread for that. I brought this example up only to illustrate that I'm hardly an apologist for the mainstream versions of events.
    Concerning the moon mission, I'm still quite sure it was not faked. And the arguments McGowan brought up were not good, by a long shot (I still have to read 3 of 6 pages but do not expect to find better arguments).

  30. Gallier: in part 3, and I am reading it and posting at the same time, so bear with me. Once we get through the vietnam stuff...

    The interpretation I take from this, is the contradiction Dave is pointing out stems from NASA itself.

    He quotes from the article linked... where he says and I have already quoted the relevant section, finding a good shield is important, and I said huh, and obviously Dave said huh to that too.

    Finding a good shield is important as in 2005 they hadn't already done it, and still need to do it?

    That is the contradiction.

    And that is what he is pointing out. NASA's contradiction.

    What happened to the radiation shielding that they should have had from '69 to '73??

    The astronauts would have had all manner of radiation exposure, not just from the van allen belts but on the moon surface, just out in space etc.,

    NASA is contradicting itself in it's very own information.

    Claiming it is important to have radiation shielding, as if they never already had it?

    A good shield is important from radiation even if your going to be exposed to it for a few moments.

    I am going to use the xray example.

    I had to have a brain ctscan this year, and I laid under a lead blanket to do so.

    I had my hip x-rayed some time ago, and they covered my organs.

    I have had dental xrays, and they give me a long lead bib to wear, that covers my digestive, reproductive heart, lungs etc.

    It is important to shield oneself from radiation even for brief exposure times.

  31. Hey Gallier2, I think your grasp of the English language is excellent. You're more than capable of articulating your thoughts.

    As for Judy Wood et all, we'll have to agree to disagree.

    The way I see this whole Apollo resurgence is this; McGowan does make valid points, most notably:

    1. Why have we not, in 40 years, come ANYWHERE close to the achievements of the Apollo Moon missions in terms of human space travel.

    2. Why can NASA not produce design blueprints for ANY of their Apollo apparatus?

    3. Why is all the data missing?

    4. What type of batteries can sustain ALL the equipment needed to power the Lunar module, as well as all the external equipment. (1960's technology, we know a bit about batteries then versus batteries now)

    5. How DID they get that lunar buggy to the moon?

    Here's just a few that I hope you can give me a well articulated answer to...

  32. Let me try to give some answers as they touch also points McGowan made that I wanted to address.

    1. Why have we not, in 40 years, come ANYWHERE close to the achievements of the Apollo Moon missions in terms of human space travel.

    Because it costs an arm and a leg. The dick wagging purpose gone, there's no point in going to the moon. Also, the strategic choice of the space shuttle precluded anything else. Earth orbit has uses beyond pure science, commercial and military satellites can be financed easily. Deep space exploration has many difficulties to get financing. And besides, ISS, Hubble, Cassini and other space probes etc are achievements often overlooked because not as spectacular than Apollo but really fascinating if one takes the effort to actually learn about (the Voyager missions are particularly high-points in the genius of man, but it is not told in a simple blog comment).

  33. 2. Why can NASA not produce design blueprints for ANY of their Apollo apparatus?
    3. Why is all the data missing?

    This claim is often brought up but I haven't seen any confirmation that it is factual. AFAIK there a lot of blueprints that are missing but it is far from being all blueprints. A little bit of googling and wikipedia surfing brought up a lot of facsimiles of original documentation.

    This said, to explain how it is even possible to lose such 'important' data demands a little bit more than a little bit hand waving. I will succintly enumerate possible reasons that are part of the things I read about:
    - data format: a lot of data is recorded on tapes for which hardly any hardware exists anymore
    Here an easy link to get a view of the problem

    - lack of interest: engineers are people who like to build new stuff, conserving old stuff is not what they are paid for/good at/interested in. This said they are often more passionate and have a better understanding of the importance of the data.

    - There's a lot of secret technology involved with high classification level. If the knuckleheads in management do not provide budget for data conservation, no data conservation will be made (matter of fact, I'm working myself in an administration and if I hadn't taken provision myself for certain data conservation, we would be in a delicate position today because we would have lost crucial parts of our project).

  34. 4. What type of batteries can sustain ALL the equipment needed to power the Lunar module, as well as all the external equipment. (1960's technology, we know a bit about batteries then versus batteries now)

    Not really. Battery technology is quite old (goes back to antiquity). To remember the first car to go beyond 100km/h was an electric one (
    The LEM used two 28-32 volt, 296 Ah silver-zinc batteries; 56.7 kg each in the ascent vehicle and four (Apollo 9-14) or five (Apollo 15-17) 28-32V, 415 Ah silver-zinc batteries; 61.2 kg each.

  35. 5. How DID they get that lunar buggy to the moon?

    By train? Joking aside, it's not difficult to search for that
    The moon rovers weighted 210kg and were designed to be folded and stored in quadrant 1 bay of the LEM. It was designed to be unfolded in place. 210kg is not much when one compares the total mass of the LEM which was neat 15000 kg .

  36. Just to add a final point, a lot of arguments McGowan brought up in the 3 first parts (haven't got to the 3 others yet) are nothing more as argument from personal ignorance. A person with a little science, engineering background sees it directly

  37. Gallier2, thanks for the comments.

    On point 1, I think you're way of the mark. If it cost sooooo much, how come the US could afford to send all those missions during what was, one of the most expensive wars of all time (current campaigns excepted). Besides, money is NOT the issue. Determination is. If the determination is there to do something, be it fight a war, build a road, feed the poor, the money can be printed to facilitate it.

    On points 2 and 3, I see you're going with good old human error. Remember that the Apollo efforts did not just consist of engineers.
    Lack of interest? I doubt it.

    Point 4 - Batteries. Lets find out what the power requirements would have been to power all the equipment (oh, no we can't because we don't know exactly what equipment was there...damn!)

    Point 5 - Nowhere in my limited searches can i find a diagram or picture of the rover in its collapsed state, care to share?

  38. Point 1 - Determination to pay for it, where's the difference.

    On Point 2 and 3 - Human error but not only, obsolescence of data formats plays also a role.

    Point 5 - Nowhere in my limited searches can i find a diagram or picture of the rover in its collapsed state, care to share?
    and here from Apollo 16 in hires the LRV is visible at the right of ladder

    took five minutes to find

  39. The main entry point to the archives from which the pics were taken, there are a lot more there

  40. Thanks Gallier, interesting!

  41. gallier2,

    I think Judy Wood makes some excellent points regarding 9/11.

    I don't think we will ever know what actually brought the buildings down. If I had to bet, I would bet on Judy Wood being closer than anyone to finding the truth.

    But I am not much of a speculator and I know what didn't happen...

    I don't believe any amateur astronaut has proof that they put a man on the moon, despite observations of a rocket going up by many.

    I do not believe the control of the landing unit was left to a man - a man that just experienced a very long and scary space flight. No electronic system of the day could control the decent and prevent the rocket from toppling over during the decent toward the surface of the moon.

    Maybe they put an automated system up there to place the mirrors. Maybe the mirrors are not even there.

  42. Going back to point 1 Gallier, the issue of why nobody has bothered going back for 40 years, or beyond 400 miles, you assert this is purely a question of economics. I don't believe this is the case.

    Take LCROSS for example. I think I read somewhere that this cost in the region of $500,000,000.. and.... it failed it's objective.

    Now, somewhere along the line, one has to ask the question, "would it not have been more cost effective to re-use technology from the Apollo missions?" seeing as they were SO successful?

    As for Points 2 and 3 - It's just too easy to throw around statements of human error. Yes, we're all prone to it, but those plans were duplicated, and improved upon (allegedly) during the course of the Apollo missions. For there to be little to no evidence for, strikes me as suspect. It's precisely this information, if produced, that could put an end to the technical feasibility of many of the questions raised.

    Point 4 - Lets not forget about those batteries! So we know what power they held, now to find out how much they used in their missions. Again, flight data would be able to reveal this.

    Point 5, the lunar rover... I'll concede I was lazy when looking for it, still, seeing it hanging off the side of the landing module just adds to the prop look of it all.

    I can see the amount of faith you have in this claimed achievement in NASA. Me, I have little faith. Any organisation that can elevate Wehrner von Braun from Nazi Scientist responsible for the V2 rocket, which, lets not forget, caused the deaths of 1000's of people, let alone the slave labour used to build them, to Walt Disneyesque champion of industry is grotesque.

    You are aware of Operation Paperclip I presume?

  43. wow, hello gallier and edo, and doug.

    Can I comment, on what a great discussion you have all been having?

    No name calling or anything, you all make me smile, there is hope for humanity yet!

    Been thinking and reading more on this.....
    I don't think the cost issue is really and truly a factor because if they wanted to do it, the money would be spent.
    Look at the money spent on warfare?

    So, I am going to get the cost issue out of the way, as not viable.

    I saw a piece last night, reiterating that the only human beings to EVER traverse the radiation of the van allen belts were the apollo astronauts.

    Never before and never since.
    What does that make you all think of?
    Steel framed buildings.

    Still thinking of the radiation exposure aspect, cosmic, solar and van allen belts and others and thinking specifically of Apollo 13,
    Apollo 13 drifted, or orbitted in space for 6 days, or just 1 hour shy of 6 days, so for all intents and purposes, lets call it six days.
    Six days of exposure to radiation, constantly, 24 hours a day, 6 days.
    I looked at the pictures of them when they landed.

    And for all that radiation exposure, they looked ok, hair and all, smiling etc.

    Now my husband, who is a space nut... is even conceding there are some valid arguements in Dave's scenarios

    The technological capabilities 40 yrs ago, vs now don't make much sense.

    As a child he wrote to NASA constantly, for all manners of pics, and god know what else, my mother in law recounts stories of tubes from NASA coming to the house, finally, she threw them all out!
    He wishes he had them now.

    That said, it is hard to let go of, a treasured belief. Especially one that held the imagination of so many. It is powerful stuff.

    Almost like a religious belief in some ways.

    So he is still hopeful, but not quite as certain as he used to be.

  44. Yeah, great convo going on here...

    But, I have to say, it's starting to take on a familiar format, so I'm bowing out gracefully.

    Dave McGowan knew what he was getting into when he set out on Waggin the Moondoggie, and in certain respects, you get what you ask for. Same for me.

    There are plenty of space nuts that will treat NASA like Christians treat the Bible, or Muslims the Quran. It's got faith written all over it, and its also probably another reason why, for me, it doesn't fit.

    Nevertheless, Gallier's brought some interesting discussion and thats worthwhile.

  45. yes gallier did raise some interesting points and I didn't want him to get in trouble at work either.
    hoping all of this discourse is on personal time???
    Edo, don't want you to get in trouble at work either

    So, I am hoping anyway?

    This discussion is starting to fall into a familiar rut, one I have seen play out in the 9/11 debate.

    An appeal to authority kind of thing.

    Yet, I will point out, silverfish is a radio microbiologist, which means he has a good knowledge of radiation and radioactivity,

    I looked it up to find out more about it.

    His knowledge on the subject of radiation and the vanallen belts was not really considered.

    In all the reading I did, I mostly find that concerns of radiaton exposure and poisoning due to this were pretty well dismissed/dismissive.

    Also the length of exposure time in the van allen belts varied on NASA supporter websites from one hour to four hours.

    If the NASA supporters cannot get their info correct,what does that say?
    Never mind the addressing of radiation from other sources.

    And that bothers me.

    Why the conflicting information?
    Why the glossing over?

    If silverfish reads this, just curious, and if you wanted to entertain this thought?

    An hour in the van allen belts, how many x-rays would that be equivalant to?

    WE all gotta decide for ourselves and Dave McGowan gave it his best, and I do agree he made some very good points and offered up some food for thought.

    And isn't that the best of all, that it took us off in a different direction?

    Still kudos to all!

  46. Sorry to be a bit more dismissive, I read the other part of Dave McGowan and it has not gotten better. He still compares things that can't be compared, he still forgets to include a time parameter, still makes unbacked extraordinary claims.
    I will not go in details anymore (or at least not hijacking your blog for that Penny), but he comes out as really clueless about the subjects of physics, astronomy, optics, maths and so on. The nerd in me weeps when he sees asinine arguments he brings (which btw contrary to his bold announcements at the start are not new at all, the only hoax claim he made I hadn't read before was that with the moon buggies and that was the easiest to debunk).

    The positive that I gather from this experience is that I found some really extraordinary web sites with incredible pictures and ressources about the early days of space exploration.

    And BTW I do not hold NASA in high esteem at all, they were quite good in the sixties but after the Apollo it degenerated into your standard government agency where management mediocrity overuled engineering qualities.
    Richard P. Feynman's assesment of the Challenger disaster is a must read to understand what cultural shift occured at NASA in the '70s

    This cultural shift (coinciding with Reaganism/Political correctness/'Nannystatism'...) may be a clue as to why it was possible to go to the moon in the 60s but not after the 80s anymore.

  47. Hey Gallier!

    one more sort of funny aside. I was telling my hubby, I went and looked at the orginal footage from the '69 apollo walk and it is terrible, really terrible, at one point one of the astronauts is transluscent.

    and we were joking that 40 yrs ago, they had the technology to put men on the moon, through all the adversity of outer space, but they didn't have the technology to get even remotely decent footage of the event.

    BUT, now they have the technology to take great footage, but NOT to put men on the moon.

    except for Osama Bin Laden, he is still in the '60's with his videos.
    I dunno what the hell is with that?
    Cripes the guy is what, a billionaire?

  48. gallier
    "This cultural shift (coinciding with Reaganism/Political correctness/'Nannystatism'...) may be a clue as to why it was possible to go to the moon in the 60s but not after the 80s anymore."

    this just isn't credible, once the technology is there, it can only be improved upon.

    Look at cars, look at cameras, look at anything.... cars are lighter, faster, more fuel efficent, cameras, cripes no film. tv, from black and white to colour to high def plasma.
    Look at our computers, from then to now...

    this is simply not credible IMO to say we could go in the '60's but not in the '80's

    If the technology was in fact there, it had no where to go but to vast improvement and really from then to now, there should have been manned missions to mars with the progression of technology.

  49. Last comment, here are the fascinating links I found concerning Apollo I talked about in last comment:

    The handbooks of the Lunar Rover

    Index of the different missions

    don't miss the picture archives of Apollo 15, all the pictures taken are there. You can see that only a few pictures are really good shots, there's a lot of misshots with cutted heads and feets, bad expositions, blurrings and so on (just to counter one of Dave's point concerning the photos).

    Nice blog with historical documents concerning the planing of the mission

    I found this
    quite fascinating, looking at Plan-B in case of major problems with Saturn V
    with the procedures in case of a crash landing

  50. The problem is not technological at all. It's political through and through. The technological prowess of the Apollo mission was only possible because of the nearly infinite budget and the lack of reusability constraints. The error people here make and Dave's done it a lot in his post, is that you do not design things the same way if you make only a small number of items with one time use or a big series of things. You don't build a Rolls-Royce the same way as Volkswagen. He also compares mass market technology with super-high tech, in the 60s there were no remotes for TV so it was impossible to remotely control a camera on the moon (a non sequitur). There were remotes in the 60s, nobody could afford them. For the NASA at that time, several thousand dollars for these cameras were nothing.

    As for the original Apollo 11 footage it is well known that it was a TV camera filming the monitor with long persistance phospore that was fed with the stream coming from Parks/Australia. The blurring and translucency are results of that.

  51. So Gallier, my final point...

    Are you going to address Penny's question on radiation?

    you've addresses very well points of things that can be 'seen'.

    Now lets hear about the things you can't see.

  52. Edo:
    check this news story out from today.

    Link and relevant quotations:

    Travel to Mars – on a one-way ticket?

    Radiation problem

    Aside from the logistics of trying to launch a rocket off the surface of Mars, perhaps the biggest challenge to sending humans to the red planet is radiation exposure in interplanetary space.

    Humans on Earth are shielded from radiation by the planet's atmosphere as well as a belt of charged particles – the Van Allen radiation belt – that is held in place around Earth by its magnetic field.

    Damaging radiation comes both from solar flares as well as cosmic rays ejected by distant exploding stars called supernova. Beyond low-Earth orbit a spacecraft would have no protection from either of these sources of radiation.

    “We are years away from having something that would be operationally relevant to protect astronauts,”


  53. and then one more, because this gets into how the van allen belts function.

    expanding human presence in space

    a paper and discussion.

    "...constructing a space-assembled MEO or GEO space station that would provide a habitat outside the protection of the Van Allen belts..."

    JJ: Was that a misprint or a misconception? The Van Allen belts absolutely do not provide protection from radiation. Their existence adds to the exposure problem.

    K;they do to Earth, in that they are the captured (via Earth's Magnetic Field) the incoming solar and intersteller sourced particles that would otherwise make life - as we know it- on Earth untenable.

    JJ:The Earth's atmosphere and magnetosphere both provide protection at the surface. The Van Allen belts do not provide protection, but are a result of the magnetosphere trapping charged particles that would be filtered out at least partially by the atmosphere in the absence of a magnetosphere. Look at dose rates in very low orbit versus in the middle of the belts for a meaningful comparison. Radiation in the belts is hard on electronics and on people.

  54. Penny, do not forget the time of exposure, it's the most important component on the question of radiation. You can bring up thousands of article on the trip to Mars, they are not relevant for the Apollo missions. One trip to Mars takes at least 6 months, so the exposition is for a minimum of 12 months (if one considers a trip back). That's several orders of magnitude different. It's the same thing with Dave's point about micrometeorites and radiation on the moon rocks. The time of exposure is the important variable. It's a bit like a lottery if you play once you probably won't win, if you play millions of times you are almost certain to win.

    Here an article which talks a little bit about that.
    the interesting in this article is that there are links to peer-reviewed research papers on the subject.

  55. gallier, the comment that got me in that first article was

    “We are years away from having something that would be operationally relevant to protect astronauts,”

    How is that possible, What about apollo?
    And that section is not specific to travel to mars, it is addressing the issues with interplanetary space trave, which would include travel to the moon.

    "Damaging radiation comes both from solar flares as well as cosmic rays ejected by distant exploding stars called supernova. Beyond low-Earth orbit a spacecraft would have no protection from either of these sources of radiation."

    Beyone low earth orbit, means just that, once you get beyond low earth orbit, you got troubles.

    From the other article, the van allen belts are tough on human flesh, which is exactly what silverfish said.

    I mentioned I found so much conflicting information wrt van allen belts and radiation, conflicting exposure times for flight in and flight out, and this included on sites that supported the men on the moon scenario.

    There should not be that level of conflict. That should be straightforwrd information. I also noticed some of the support sites failed to mention the van allen belts as plural, because there is both an inner and an outer belt.

    These little slips regarding factual information, these little ommissions always make say hmmm??

    I understand the less exposure vs more exposure.

    Which is why I specifically mentioned Apollo 13, being bombarded with radiation for an extended period of time.
    No reports of radiation sickness?

    Yet, we have people getting radiation from CT scans and getting radiation poisoning, including hair loss??

    Gallier, the simple fact is once you pass through earths low orbit, your are being subjected to far more radiation than I can fathom.
    And the higher you get, including passing through the van allen belts, and then beyond, the worse it gets....
    and NASA is years away from addressing that?

  56. Penny, we can argue Van Allen belt radiation as long as we want, as long we do not provide (concrete) numbers, it will be wasted time.

    I haven't yet found compelling data (by compelling I mean easy to understand values for the layman, which does not need some profound knowledge of physics, physiology, statistics).
    The data I have shows that a satellite on a elliptical orbit between 200 and 20000 miles, thus crossing the inner Van Allen belt (the strong one) daily, will be exposed to a radiation level of 25 Sv per year (with an aluminium shield of 3mm 1/8th"). For remainder 1 Sv is enough to provoque nausea and 6 Sv is almost always lethal.
    So, the Apollo astronauts were exposed between 1 and 4 hours 2 times, so between 2 and 8 hours.
    So they were exposed to, if taking the satellite number (which is probably much higher than necessary) we have an exposition between
    25 Sv / 365 / 12 = 0.006 Sv
    25 Sv / 365 / 3 = 0.023 Sv
    hardly something to worry about.

  57. For comparison
    The background radiation level on earth is about 0.0024 Sv / year

    So they got between 3 to 10 times what we get on average in a year on Earth.

  58. And just a last comment (I have real work to do), the burden of proof lays now on the side of the hoax theory proponents. Babbling and waffeling about microwave ovens, disajusted X-ray machines don't count as long as no proof of the relevance are made (with hard numbers, with proper mathematical and sound reasoning)

  59. except, it's impossible to prove a negative?

    "You cannot prove or disprove an existential negative because absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

    therefore, like a law case, the requirement is only to poke enough and sufficient holes to cast doubt on the entirety of the case.

    Hence beyond a reasonable doubt.

    I went to one of the link you provided, and clicked to another link

    "For reducing GCR (galactic cosmic rays) cancer risks, shielding materials are marginally effective because of the penetrating nature of GCR and secondary radiation produced in tissue by relativistic particles."

    Isn't that exactly what silverfish said, only not in those words.

    That the nature of the cosmic radiation was different, with the implication being it was worse?

    "But as I said there is a difference and that is that cosmic radiation is actually incredibly small particles traveling at near light speed"

    And shielding materials less then effective?
    Yes, that is what silverfish said.

    He also said, they could not have made such a short journey unscathed.
    that link seems to make the same conclusion.

    Therefore, how did they?
    and NASA is acknowledging in 2009, they have only begun to scratch that itch, yet, 40 yrs ago they weren't itchy at all?

    I know you have work to do, so let us say, we will agree to disagree.
    Because I think there is something fishy there, you don't and never the twain shall meet.

    And you got a little guy who depends on you.

  60. Penny, when we talk about the radiation hazards in space we have to be careful of what we are talking about. There are several sources of radiation and we must assess each source individually. So let me list the different kind of radiations encountered and the different dangers:
    - solar wind
    - solar flares
    - normal cosmic radiation
    - GRB (gamma ray bursts)
    - lower Van Allen belt
    - higher Van Allen belt
    - maybe others I forgot

    The most dangerous of all these are solar flares and GRB. Solar flares are relatively predictable and didn't happen during the appolo missions.
    GRB are totally random, nearly unstoppable but quite rare. If one had happened during the moon trips, astronauts would have been toast, no question.
    The lower Van Allen band was treated in previous comment, the higher Van Allen belt is bigger but with lower intensity so comparable or less exposition the the lower one.
    Remains the solar wind and the cosmic radiation.
    If you follow the links in the article of NewScientist (btw a really horrible magazine) you can read the abstract of the space radiation study they are refering to and they assess that cosmic radiation starts to be a problem for astronauts when they are exposed for more than 180 days.
    Sorry have to go, will try to dig a bit more data at home.

  61. Gallier and Edo, if you guys are hanging about, check out my latest post, and more importantly the documentary I have linked to

    I think both of you will find it interesting.

    Arsenal of Hypocrisy NASA and global domination agenda