A new Apollo Moon Landing Conspiracy Emerges !!

[onthecuttingedge2005]

What NASA has to say

Question:
(Submitted February 28, 1997)


I wonder if you could tell me exactly what the VAN ALLEN BELT is and how much radiation does it contain, ie how many rems of radiation are there out there? Plus, what protection would organic life need to be protected from this radiation?

Answer:
David Stern, a researcher in another lab here at Goddard, has graciously supplied an answer to your question, given below:

"The radiation belts are regions of high-energy particles, mainly protons and electrons, held captive by the magnetic influence of the Earth. They have two main sources. A small but very intense "inner belt" (some call it "The Van Allen Belt" because it was discovered in 1958 by James Van Allen of the University of Iowa) is trapped within 4000 miles or or so of the Earth's surface. It consists mainly a high-energy protons (10-50 MeV) and is a by-product of the cosmic radiation, a thin drizzle of very fast protons and nuclei which apparently fill all our galaxy.

" In addition there exist electrons and protons (and also oxygen particles from the upper atmosphere) given moderate energies (say 1-100 keV; 1 MeV = 1000 keV) by processes inside the domain of the Earth's magnetic field. Some of these electrons produce the polar aurora ("northern lights") when they hit the upper atmosphere, but many get trapped, and among those, protons and positive particles have most of the energy .

"I looked up a typical satellite passing the radiation belts (elliptic orbit, 200 miles to 20000 miles) and the radiation dosage per year is about 2500 rem, assuming one is shielded by 1 gr/cm-square of aluminum (about 1/8" thick plate) almost all of it while passing the inner belt. But there is no danger. The way the particles move in the magnetic field prevents them from hitting the atmosphere, and even if they are scattered so their orbit does intersect the ground, the atmosphere absorbs them long before they get very far. Even the space station would be safe, because the orbits usually stop above it--any particles dipping deeper down are lost much faster than they can be replenished.

"If all this sounds too technical but you still want to find out-- what ions and magnetic fields and cosmic rays are, etc.--you will find a long detailed exposition (both without math) on the World Wide Web at: http://www.phy6.org/Education/Intro.html

Good luck!

David Stern

Note:

Another point of particular interest to us in high-energy astrophysics is the South Atlantic Anomaly. This is a region of very high particle flux about 250 km above the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of Brazil and is a result of the fact that the Earth's rotational and magnetic axes are not aligned (see http://www.oulu.fi/~spaceweb/textbook/radbelts.html). The particle flux is so high in this region that often the detectors on our satellites must be shut off (or at least placed in a "safe" mode) to protect them from the radiation.

Andy Ptak
for Ask an Astrophysicist

you can read the article here:
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970228a.html

[onthecuttingedge2005]

radiation dosage per year is about 2500 rem, assuming one is shielded by 1 gr/cm-square of aluminum (about 1/8" thick plate) almost all of it while passing the inner belt.

doesn't seem to be very lethal at all, if fact a CT scan is more deadly than the Van Allen Belt which turns out to be 8.680 Rem's of radiation a day or 0.0024 Rem's per second if you remain in the belt that is.

this is equivalent to 4 chest X-Rays per day while in the inner Van Allen Belt.

Jerry

[onthecuttingedge2005]

I think I can faithfully say to my self that the astronauts would not of had any difficulty with radiation sickness.

so, now, We ought to study how much fuel to weight ratio the Saturn V rocket had and then plot for the moon using the remain fuel and inertia, I might do the numbers later so we can verify the math. but I have a hunch all the numbers are going to match up.

Jerry

[TechStuf]

Like I stated before, if anything proves they went to the moon, it's the lunar rover rooster tails....all that fine dust would have kicked up quite a cloud which would have taken a while to settle on an earth studio....that is unless they had a super sized vacuum chamber back then....which is virtually impossible.

NASA'S revelation that they lost or taped over the original apollo tapes says that they either want the controversy to continue, possibly to give conspiracy buffs something to keep them harmlessly distracted, or that they really are hiding something profound.

Knowing NASA, it's probably both.

[onthecuttingedge2005]

Like I stated before, if anything proves they went to the moon, it's the lunar rover rooster tails....all that fine dust would have kicked up quite a cloud which would have taken a while to settle on an earth studio....that is unless they had a super sized vacuum chamber back then....which is virtually impossible.

NASA'S revelation that they lost or taped over the original apollo tapes says that they either want the controversy to continue, possibly to give conspiracy buffs something to keep them harmlessly distracted, or that they really are hiding something profound.

Knowing NASA, it's probably both.

Hi Tech.

I absolutely agree with you.

the rooster tails would always work out to be about six times further than on Earth given the 1/6 gravitational difference. also the hammer and the feather experiment as well and the clumsiness of the Astronauts walking around on the surface says a lot.

I am pretty positive that they indeed stepped foot on the moon. I don't see any negative data that would of said otherwise.

however, I do think it would be more difficult going through the BIBLE belt than anything else because this is where most of the conspiracies started from.

Jerry