Moon hoaxers and their radiation belt.

[Mudcat]

Something that moon hoaxers like to go on about is the radiation belt between the Earth and the moon they claim is a huge determent to space travel and would make getting to the moon next to impossible, especially at the time of the original lunar landings.

Those moon hoaxers are typically unwashed delusional nutcases so today (after watching a special about 'the moon hoax' I thought I'd look into the Van Allen radiation belt^wp and I have to admit I don't really understand it.

There are two belts of concern, the inner belt (that extends from an altitude of 1k-10k km and has high concentration of energetic protons exceeding 100 MeV), and the outer belt (extends from an altitude of about 13k to 60k km and contains 0.1–10 MeV of high energy).

Just how dangerous is that, exactly? What would the effects of it be on humans passing on through without the intention of hanging around to bask in the cosmic radiation?

 

[Erock]

They went around the edges.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuH4rxda3Z4

The ISS passes through the South Atlantic Anomally several times a day.

 

[Mudcat]

They went around the edges.

I was already aware of that when I read the wiki page I had linked to earlier. Was asking just how deadly the belt actually is (I know that the briefest of exposures probably won't kill you, it's just a curiosity thing). Sorry if I didn't make myself clear on that.

 

[rjh01]

I think the following quote answers the question

The belts pose a hazard to satellites, which must protect their sensitive components with adequate shielding if their orbit spends significant time in the radiation belts.

If it will take a significant time to damage a satellite then how can it significantly damage a human who spends only a brief time in the belt? Shielding would also protect the humans.

 

[sts60]

Bob Braeunig's excellent analysis.

 

[drewid]

And a couple of animations showing how to mitigate any possible problem by going round it.

Here

 

[Mudcat]

If it will take a significant time to damage a satellite then how can it significantly damage a human who spends only a brief time in the belt? Shielding would also protect the humans.

I think a moon hoaxer would probably argue there's a difference between electronics and human beings. That is also one of the few times I would agree with a hoaxer.

Thanks Sts for the link.

 

[Ray Brady]

Only 30% of the astronauts who claim to have gone to the moon have subsequently developed super-powers. This is well below the expected level of 100%.

 

[drewid]

Only 30% of the astronauts who claim to have gone to the moon have subsequently developed super-powers. This is well below the expected level of 100%.

 

[Ranb]

No HB I have debated with online has ever been able to come up with any exposure rates or doses to support their claims. They just claim the radiation levels were too high. The radiation claims are not nearly as foolish as the claims that there should be stars in the photos of the lunar landscapes.

Ranb

 

[Halcyon Dayz]

I think a moon hoaxer would probably argue there's a difference between electronics and human beings. That is also one of the few times I would agree with a hoaxer.

Humans however heal damage over time, machines don't.

The life expectancy of satellites orbiting inside the VABs depends on the levels of radiation there.
So knowing very exactly how high these levels are is of the utmost importance to the private companies who own these multi-million dollar assets, and the engineers who work for them.

 

[Sledge]

Only 30% of the astronauts who claim to have gone to the moon have subsequently developed super-powers. This is well below the expected level of 100%.

Only approx. 1/4 of astronauts can expect to develop unhideable mutations. 3 of the 12 "astronauts" who "travelled" to the "moon" have died. Need I say more?

 

[BaaBaa]

Died or..."died"?.

 

[Newtons Bit]

NASA put a dosimeter on the spacecraft and measured less than 5 rem (0.05 Sv) when going through the Van Allen belt. Yes, the belt is energetic, but if you go through it quick enough it's not a problem.

The author of XKCD created a chart showing different sources of radiation and the levels emitted. The amount the astronauts were exposed to is equal to five of the red bubbles. It's half the level thought to increase chances of cancer.

 

[Mudcat]

No HB I have debated with online has ever been able to come up with any exposure rates or doses to support their claims.

I know, I'm familiar with that too. Thought I'd get some input from people here who actually knows a thing or two about it so I could shut them down once they truck out the radiation argument.

They just claim the radiation levels were too high. The radiation claims are not nearly as foolish as the claims that there should be stars in the photos of the lunar landscapes.

I love it when they start disputing the photographic evidence. I've had some experiences with photography so while I might not be familiar with the specific photographic equipment used I can still shut them down easily.

 

[000063]

No HB I have debated with online has ever been able to come up with any exposure rates or doses to support their claims. They just claim the radiation levels were too high. The radiation claims are not nearly as foolish as the claims that there should be stars in the photos of the lunar landscapes.

Ranb

Jarrah White gave numbers with a fatal dose. oddly enough, they were the unshielded numbers. The actual exposure numbers, according to his own source, would be much lower.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread566601/pg292#pid10225531

 

[Ranb]

I have not viewed very many of the JW videos, so I was unaware that he actually came up with a number. No surprise that he cherry picked only that data which suited his conclusions.

I wonder why these HB's can't simply go to a lighted asphalt parking lot at night and take a photo of the lot which includes part of the sky? This would show them that the shutter speed used would be far too fast to capture an image of the stars. As remarkable as a camera can be, it has a long way to go before it matches the capabilities of the human eye.

Ranb

 

[Obviousman]

I have not viewed very many of the JW videos, so I was unaware that he actually came up with a number. No surprise that he cherry picked only that data which suited his conclusions.

I wonder why these HB's can't simply go to a lighted asphalt parking lot at night and take a photo of the lot which includes part of the sky? This would show them that the shutter speed used would be far too fast to capture an image of the stars. As remarkable as a camera can be, it has a long way to go before it matches the capabilities of the human eye.

Ranb

HBs, on average, will try to avoid anything that shows their conclusions wrong. A small number are like JW (both of them) who themselves show they are wrong and then steadfastly refuse to admit it.

 

[FatFreddy88]

The evidence that the moon missions were faked is crushing. The reason they had to fake them was probably space radiation. Here's some alternative info on space radiation.
http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-...n-missions-were-faked-studio.html#post3989728

 

[twinstead]

The evidence that the moon missions were faked is crushing. The reason they had to fake them was probably space radiation. Here's some alternative info on space radiation.
http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-...n-missions-were-faked-studio.html#post3989728

It is not "crushing" in any way, shape, or form. The moon missions were some of the most heavily documented events in human history. The evidence they happened as advertised is what is actually crushing. So your single "alternative" source on radiation trumps everything else brought up in this thread? I don't think so.

I don't think you have any idea what you are talking about.