Van Allenin vyöhykkeet ovat kokoelma latautuneita hiukkasia, jotka Maan magneettikenttä on kerännyt yhteen. Auringosta tulevan energian seurauksena ne voivat kasvaa ja vähentyä, paisuen joskus niin suuresti, että matala Maan kiertoradalla olevat satelliitit joutuvat alttiiksi vahingolliselle säteilylle.[1] —Karen C. Fox, NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center
Edetessämme kauemmaksi Maasta, kuljemme Van Allenin vyöhykkeiden läpi, joka on vaarallisen säteilyn alue. Tämänkaltainen säteily voi vahingoittaa ohjausjärjestelmiä, mukana olevia tietokoneita tai muuta Orionilla mukana olevaa elektroniikkaa. Luonnollisesti meidän täytyy läpäistä tämä vaaravyöhyke kahdesti, mennessä ja tullessa. Mutta Orionilla on turvaa. Suojaus laitetaan kokeiluun, kun kulkuväline leikkaa säteilyaaltojen läpi. Mukana olevat sensorit tallentavat säteilytasot tiedemiesten tutkittaviksi. Meidän täytyy ratkaista nämä haasteet ennen kuin lähetämme ihmisiä tämän avaruusalueen läpi. —Kelly Smith, Nasa-insinööri
Van Allenin vyöhykkeet on nimetty ne löytäneen James Van Allenin mukaan, joka 1950-luvulla lähetti geigersäteilymittareita raketeilla avaruuteen. Säteily oli niin voimakasta, että geigermittarit jumittuivat. Jos ihminen on Maassa säteilyalueella, jossa hänen geigermittari jumittuu säteilyn voimakkuudesta, on hän jo kuollut.
Kuun etäisyys Maasta Apollo-lennoilla vuosina 1968-1972: 384000km
Säteilyvyöhykkeet sisältävät voimakasta säteilyä, joka voi tappaa astronautit ja vahingoittaa tai tuhota avaruusaluksen herkät elektroniset laitteet.[2] —Mark Moldwin, avaruustieteen professori
[...] Asiantuntijat sanoivat avaruussäteilyn olevan niin vaarallista ja niin huonosti ymmärrettyä, että on epätodennäköistä, että ihmiset pääsevät Marssiin tai edes takaisin Kuuhun ennen kuin astronauttien suojaamiseksi on kehitetty parempia keinoja.[3] —Maggie Fox, Reuters, 1.4.2008
[2] Mark Moldwin, An Introduction to Space Weather, Cambridge University Press, (2008), s. 54.
[3] Maggie Fox, What's keeping us from Mars? Space rays, say experts, Reuters, (APRIL 1, 2008 / 5:57 AM).
The exposure level in the heart of the inner zone is about 20 r/hr within a shield of 1 g/cm2 of iron. Owing to the great penetrability of the high-energy protons therein, effective shielding is quite beyond engineering feasibility in the near future. Hence, the inner zone must be classed as an uninhabitable region of space as far as man is concerned. [...] Through mechanical and electronic equipment can operate within the high radiation areas, a living organism cannot survive this level of radiation damage. Hence, all manned space flight attempts must steer clear of the two belts of radiation until adequate means of safeguarding the astronauts has been developed. ━James A. Van Allen, "The Danger Zone", Space World, (1961), s. 53, 54.
Solar (or star) flares of protons, an 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 Earth [b-Lorr]. Such does are fatal and millions of times greater than the permitted dose. Death is likely after 500 REMs in any short time. [...] Cosmic particles are dangerous, come from all sides, and require at least 2 meters of solid shielding all around living organisms. ━John H. Mauldin, Prospects for Interstellar Travel, Univelt, California, (1992), s. 226.
Van Allenin vyöhykkeiden säteilystä, vyöhykkeiden jälkeisestä avaruussäteilystä, auringonsoihtujen säteilystä ja aurinkomyrskyjen säteilystä ks. Randy Walsh, Apollo Moon Missions: Hiding a Hoax in Plain Sight - Part I, (2018), s. 101-163; Marcus Allen & Trevor Weaver, Apollo Moon Hoax: The Real Evidence - A Reference Guide to the Facts, (2021), s. 41-48, 141-144; Ralph René, NASA Mooned America!, CreateSpace, California, (2017), s. 95-96, 125-137, 149, 169-174; Craig Fraley, Why There's Doubt: Moon Landings, CreateSpace, California, (2017), s. 18-32; Bill Kaysing, We Never Went to the Moon: America's Thirty Billion Dollar Swindle!, Desert Publications, Arizona, (1981), s. 193; Bart Sibrel, Moon Man: The True Story of a Filmmaker on the CIA Hit List, Washington, D.C., (2021), s. 101-103, 138-146, 211; Bulcsu István Siklós, Lunar Geology and Ionising Radiation from a Revisionist Perspective, Aulis Online, (July 2020), "Radiation and the Apollo Missions", s. 2-10.
[...] It is impossible to detect the true intensity of the radiation belts with our level of technology, so as of right now, data regarding the radiation belts, is a moot subject. And what information does exist, is subject to conflicts and contradictions. —Randy Walsh, Apollo Moon Missions: Hiding a Hoax in Plain Sight - Part I, (2018), s. 181-182.
You don't need to understand the effects of radiation on the human body but just have a look at the processes: how NASA talks about it, what is available as data, what is convincing and what is questionable. The danger of radiation is well recognized by experts internationally while at the same time an uncertainty about the effects on human health is also admitted – due to the lack of information. But wait, the astronauts who "returned from the Moon" have been incredibly healthy. NASA should celebrate their remarkable health because this would be an important result of the whole program: there is no harmful effect on human health in deep space. However, the reality is that NASA is keeping silent about this, and instead the Constellation Program asked for expert advice on this matter from the National Academy of Sciences and received the confusing answer that they don’t have any such information either. Further, currently European scientists are preparing an investigation of radiation during the coming unmanned mission of the Orion spacecraft to be launched next year. To resolve this cognitive dissonance, you have to exclude one fact as false. Either there is no harmful effect on health or Apollo astronauts did not go into deep space yet. The astronauts are very healthy so make your choice... —Phil Kouts, The Apollo Program through a Prism of Critical Thinking, Aulis Online, (March 2020).
Apollo 11 turned out to be one of a string of lucky Apollo missions that were not hampered by space weather events, which was something of a miracle. Any number of space weather disturbances could have endangered the lives of the astronauts either directly or by damaging equipment. —Barbara B. Poppe and Kristen P. Jorden, Sentinels of the Sun: Forecasting Space Weather, Johnson Books, Boulder, CO, (2006), s. 72.
Coronal mass ejections consist of large, balloon-shaped clouds of solar plasma and magnetic field that contain up to 10 to the 16th grams of matter and reach speeds in access of 2,500 km/s. The kinetic energy alone is sufficient to boil the North Atlantic Ocean. —National Research Council of the National Academies, Space Radiation Hazards and the Vision for Space Exploration, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., (2006), s. 28.
Two potential hazards to the lunar mission were more difficult to take into account: meteoroids and radiation [...] Radiation (subatomic particles, x-rays and gamma rays) was more worrisome. Of special concern were the high-energy protons shot out of the sun during major solar flares, which could subject astronauts on the surface to lethal doses of radiation. Solar flares were more troublesome because they are completely unpredictable. —William D. Compton, Where No Man Has Gone Before: A History of NASA's Apollo Lunar Explorations, Dover, New York, (2010), s. 75, lainattu, Bulcsu István Siklós, Lunar Geology and Ionising Radiation from a Revisionist Perspective, Aulis Online, (July 2020), s. 2.
Astronauts on the lunar surface could in reality be exposed to every kind of radiation – alpha, beta, microwave, x-ray, gamma, Bremsstrahlung, Cherenkov radiation, Askaryan radiation, high-energy protons and neutrons, galactic cosmic rays (GCR) and solar particle events (SPE). This is all in addition to the hazards of unconsolidated regolith, micro- (and not-so-micro) meteorites, equipment malfunction and stranding. The presence of all kinds of radiation on the lunar surface understandably poses a problem for the historicity of NASA's alleged manned missions to the Moon. NASA does appear somewhat coy in the quoted sources, acknowledging the presence of radiation but failing to mention that such radiation would have been injurious or fatal to any astronaut unwise enough to set foot on the lunar surface. Since the Apollo crews all apparently returned alive from the lunar surface without suffering any radiation-related ill effects, one can only conclude that the astronauts were protected by some unknown anomaly that switched off all radiation for the duration of their trips, or that they were never on the Moon in the first place. —Bulcsu István Siklós, Lunar Geology and Ionising Radiation from a Revisionist Perspective, Aulis Online, (July 2020), s. 3.
Vuosien 1968-1972 Apollo-lentoja lukuun ottamatta kaikki miehitetyt avaruusalukset ovat pysyneet reilusti (650km) alle Van Allenin ensimmäisen säteilyvyöhykkeen (1000km) alkamista.
Consider this peculiar fact: in order to reach the surface of the Moon from the surface of the Earth, the Apollo astronauts would have had to travel a minimum of 234,000 miles*. Since the last Apollo flight allegedly returned from the Moon in 1972, the furthest that any astronaut from any country has traveled from the surface of the Earth is about 400 miles. And very few have even gone that far. The primary components of the current U.S. space program – the space shuttles, the space station, and the Hubble Telescope – operate at an orbiting altitude of about 200 miles. (*NASA gives the distance from the center of Earth to the center of the Moon as 239,000 miles. Since the Earth has a radius of about 4,000 miles and the Moon’s radius is roughly 1,000 miles, that leaves a surface-to-surface distance of 234,000 miles. The total distance traveled during the alleged missions, including Earth and Moon orbits, ranged from 622,268 miles for Apollo 13 to 1,484,934 miles for Apollo 17. All on a single tank of gas.) To briefly recap then, in the twenty-first century, utilizing the most cutting-edge modern technology, the best manned spaceship the U.S. can build will only reach an altitude of 200 miles. But in the 1960s, we built a half-dozen of them that flew almost 1,200 times further into space. And then flew back. And they were able to do that despite the fact that the Saturn V rockets that powered the Apollo flights weighed in at a paltry 3,000 tons, about .004% of the size that the principal designer [Wernher von Braun] of those very same Saturn rockets had previously said would be required to actually get to the Moon and back (primarily due to the unfathomably large load of fuel that would be required). To put that into more Earthly terms, U.S. astronauts today travel no further into space than the distance between the San Fernando Valley and Fresno. The Apollo astronauts, on the other hand, traveled a distance equivalent to circumnavigating the planet around the equator nine-and-a-half times! And they did it with roughly the same amount of fuel that it now takes to make that 200 mile journey, which is why I want NASA to build my next car for me. I figure I’ll only have to fill up the tank once and it should last me for the rest of my life. —Dave McGowan, Wagging the Moondoggie: Part I, The Center for an Informed America, (Oct 1, 2009).
[...] Why it is that the space shuttle never went to the Moon. I was thinking about that the other day as I was reading another heaping pile of 'debunker' blather about how, once you're into low-Earth orbit, 90% of the work of getting to the Moon is already done. The 'debunkers,' you see, claim that comparing the distance astronauts travel into space today (200 miles) with the distance they traveled back in the magical 1960s (234,000 miles) is entirely unfair because it is, as any fool knows, during that first 200 miles that all the heavy lifting is done. Once you’re in low-Earth orbit, it is a fairly easy matter to briefly fire the engines and 'slingshot' out of orbit and set a course for the Moon. And getting back is just as easy – just 'slingshot' around the Moon and cruise on back to Earth. It hardly even requires any fuel. It’s just a matter of, you know, falling through the void of space. If that is the case, however, then how come none of the space shuttles, during the more than a quarter-century that the program has been in operation, has ever done a fly-by of the Moon? The Apollo 13 crew allegedly made the flight in a lunar module composed of Popsicle sticks and Scotch tape, and yet the obviously vastly more sophisticated space shuttle can't make it there and back? Really?! Why couldn't it, on any one of its missions, have just used the old 'slingshot' approach to go to the Moon and back? And please, let's not trot out the old "there was no reason to do that as there was nothing to gain" excuse, because that is clearly a complete load of horseshit. The space shuttle is far better shielded than the Apollo craft were, it carries plenty of fuel and plenty of provisions to last for the duration of the trip. Indeed, today's astronauts should be able to travel to the Moon and back in relative comfort. So why has it never been done? Apollo 8 did it all the back in 1968 [...] —Dave McGowan, Wagging the Moondoggie: Part X, The Center for an Informed America, (Dec 7, 2009).
On June 24, 2005, NASA made this rather remarkable admission: "NASA's Vision for Space Exploration calls for a return to the Moon as preparation for even longer journeys to Mars and beyond. But there’s a potential showstopper: radiation. Space beyond low-Earth orbit is awash with intense radiation from the Sun and from deep galactic sources such as supernovas [...] Finding a good shield is important." —Dave McGowan, Wagging the Moondoggie: Part III, The Center for an Informed America, (Oct 1, 2009).
How then did they do it? My guess is that the answer lies in that gold foil wrap. While it may look like an amateurish attempt to make the modules appear more 'high-tech,' I have a hunch that what we are looking at is another example of the lost technology of the 1960s – this time in the form of a highly-advanced superpolymer that provided maximum radiation shielding while adding virtually no weight. So all we have to do is track down a few leftover rolls of that stuff and we should be well on our way to sending guys back to the Moon. —Dave McGowan, Wagging the Moondoggie: Part III, The Center for an Informed America, (Oct 1, 2009).
According to Charles Buhler, a NASA scientist currently working on the force field concept, "Using electric fields to repel radiation was one of the first ideas back in the 1950s, when scientists started to look at the problem of protecting astronauts from radiation. They quickly dropped the idea though because it seemed like the high voltages needed and the awkward designs that they thought would be necessary [...] would make such an electric shield impractical." What a real journalist would have asked here, of course, is: "After dropping the electric shield concept, exactly what did they decide to use to get our astronauts safely to the Moon and back on the Apollo missions? And why can't we do the same thing now, rather than reinventing the wheel? Don’t you guys have some of that gold foil in a closet somewhere?" No one in the American media, of course, bothered to ask such painfully obvious questions. —Dave McGowan, Wagging the Moondoggie: Part III, The Center for an Informed America, (Oct 1, 2009).
The other article from Space.com details yet more of the lost technology of the 1960s: "Though engineers are well on their way to preparing us for life on the moon, some major issues have yet to be resolved. 'Something that we'll have to consider is radiation,' Zacny (with Honeybee Robotics, a NASA contractor) said. 'We can close ourselves in habitats, but radiation protection requires a lot of shielding. We cannot solve this problem yet. Radiation can kill us.' Moon dwellers will also have to contend with the ubiquitous dust on the surface of the moon, which gets into everything and can wear down joints and connectors and prevent sealing off doors. It also poses a health risk to people, as it can cause breathing difficulties and is difficult to filter out of habitats." ("How to Build Lunar Homes from Moon Dirt," September 3, 2008) —Dave McGowan, Wagging the Moondoggie: Part XIII, The Center for an Informed America, (Jul 13, 2010).
The following is from an article on BoingBoing.net by Maggie Koerth-Baker How space radiation hurts astronauts: "Space is full of radiation. It's impossible to escape. Imagine standing in the middle of a dust storm, with bits of gravel constantly swirling around you, whizzing by, pinging against your skin. That's what radiation is like in space. The problem is that, unlike a pebble or speck of dirt, ionizing radiation doesn't bounce off human flesh. It goes right through, like a cannonball through the side of the building, leaving damage behind... All of the astronauts we've sent into space so far have, at least partially, benefited from Earth's protective barriers, Francis Cucinotta told me. He's the director of the NASA Space Radiobiology Program, the go-to guy for finding out how radiation hurts astronauts. He says, with the exception of Apollo flights to the Moon, the human presence in space has happened within the Earth's magnetic field. The International Space Station, for instance, is above the atmosphere, but still well inside the first line of defense. Our astronauts aren't exposed to the full force of galactic cosmic radiation... If our future really does lie in the star then this is a mystery we're going to have to figure out." (Didn't NASA already figure this out when they sent manned missions beyond the belts 9 times?) —Craig Fraley, Why There's Doubt: Moon Landings, CreateSpace, California, (2017), s. 24-25.
In a CNN article published October 13, 2016, Charles Limoli, professor of radiation oncology at the University of California, Irvine said in regards to space radiation: "These charged particles are very dangerous. The reason is, they are very energetic and fully ionized, and when they travel through the body, they produce this type of damage that the cells and tissues of your body find very difficult to recover from..." In regards to radiation shielding, Limoli said: "...Currently, there is no technology that can stop these particles from penetrating spacecraft and affecting the astronauts." Even after fifty years of advanced technology since Apollo 11, there is still no technology that can protect the astronauts in the spacecraft from space radiation. —Craig Fraley, Why There's Doubt: Moon Landings, CreateSpace, California, (2017), s. 25.
Bill Wood is a scientist with degrees in mathematics, physics, and chemistry. He is a space rocket and propulsion engineer. He held a high-security clearance for several top secret projects and has worked with MacDonald Douglas engineers who worked on the Saturn 5 rocket. During the Apollo missions, he worked for Goldstone Communications as a Communications Engineer. Goldstone was responsible for receiving and distributing the images that were sent from Apollo to Houston. Bill Wood stated the following in the documentary What Happened on the Moon. "The Apollo capsule was made unusually thin to keep the weight down. They couldn't even carry enough air to be equivalent to sea level air pressure. They ran at reduced pressure to make the walls thinner. The LEM was made out of very thin material. Almost no protection against radiation. The size of the ship they would need to deal with the radiation would be much more massive and it wouldn't have made the weight requirement for the Saturn 5 to get out of orbit. They decided this was a problem they were not going to deal with and just tell everyone the radiation was okay." —Craig Fraley, Why There's Doubt: Moon Landings, CreateSpace, California, (2017), s. 27-28.
Researchers point out that it doesn't matter how fast they were going, the astronauts were still immersed in deadly radiation for 2 hours with no additional protection. It's akin to swimming at the bottom of a pool at tremendous speed or walking for 2 hours. Either way, you're equally as wet. Unlike water, however, radiation doesn't wipe off. As we have read, radiation passes through the body damaging DNA as it does so. —Craig Fraley, Why There's Doubt: Moon Landings, CreateSpace, California, (2017), s. 29.
How dangerous is radiation on the Moon? The following is from Science.NASA.gov., Radioactive Moon: "The surface of the Moon is badly exposed to cosmic rays and solar flares, and some of that radiation is very hard to stop with shielding. Furthermore, when cosmic rays hit the ground, they produce a dangerous spray of secondary particles right at your feet. All this radiation penetrating human flesh can damage DNA, boosting the risk of cancer and other maladies... [...] Out in deep space, radiation comes from all directions. On the Moon, you might expect the ground, at least, to provide some relief, with the solid body of the Moon blocking radiation from below. Not so. When galactic cosmic rays collide with particles in the lunar surface, they trigger little nuclear reactions that release yet more radiation in the form of neutrons." The lunar surface itself is radioactive! So which is worse for astronauts: cosmic rays from above or neutrons from below? Igor Mitrofanov, a scientist at the Institute for Space Research and the Russian Federal Space Agency, Moscow, offers a grim answer: "Both are worse." —Craig Fraley, Why There's Doubt: Moon Landings, CreateSpace, California, (2017), s. 29-31.
