No ability to scan for life aboard Apollo?

So we can land by remote control in the 60'? How interesting.

Working together to promote government funding all along?

Oh please, remember that whole bit about them not liking us? I t was
real, sorry.

looter92@hotmail.com (Carl Wilting) wrote in message

I dont really believe you know or care what the Russians believe about
anything, but here is a story where they say that Apollo 11 was the
only Spacecraft to fly to the Moon, and they're not even sure about
that.

Well, at least we did send lots of stuff to the moon, some of which
actually landed in one piece. There's lander debris all over the
place, could have been astronauts as well, but they weren't that
stupid.

Here's some of their own scientific evidence on the Van Allen zone and
more.

Notice how we never seem to get a straight answer, as well as no
specific numbers. That'll be especially true of Earth L4 and L5
because, of whatever EL4/EL5 have to offer is nearly exactly what the
moon receives, though the substance of the moon itself is what
subsequently creates secondaries, which are mostly of X-Ray class
radiation.

Elsewhere on this Earth, there's an ongoing tit for tat under the
following GOOGLE topic/subject: "Moon hoax as American as apple pie"

Otherwise checkout my: http://guthvenus.tripod.com/space-radiation.htm

There's also a good reference report, officially NASA moderated no
less, that tells a great deal more than the pro-Apollo cult wants you
to know. Then there's the TRW Space Data report that published their
research as indicating 2^5 rem/year as opposed to the con_x_dose1.pdf
report that stipulates 7.42^3 rem/year based upon the same shield
density of 2+ g/cm2, that's roughly 27 times greater dosage for the
mid Van Allen zone than even the NASA new guard report was willing to
convey or perhaps more likely was providing for the Van Allen zone
average and not of any specific GEO zone.

It's not what's outside the space craft that actually matters, it
what's being TBI to death (that's you) inside by secondary radiation,
as that's what the NASA report (con_x_dose1.pdf) offers and even by a
whole lot more so to the point of what TRW stipulates, as within the
Van Allen GEO zone being 2^3 Sv/year situated behind 2+g/cm2 (300
mils) of solid aluminum (that's 2^5 rem or rads/year and, that's also
in orbit which is 50% exposed to whatever direct solar flux and/or
shaded by mother Earth).

The amount of Apollo to/from Van Allen travel-through time was at the
very least 4+ hours worth but, Others and myself calculated as much as
7+ hours because, by one conservative estimate and even more so by
another, the spacecraft average travel-through speed was not the 11+
km/sec which many of the pro-Apollo cult state, nor was it a straight
and/or tangent to/from shot and certainly it wasn't of any polar
escape route.

The amount of shield necessary to have pulled their average interior
dosage well below 20 mrem/day would have needed to be something like
70 to 100 g/cm2. Keeping in mind that those raw EVAs were a bit testy
and, the lander itself was little more than aluminum foil, so that
their hourly accumulations would have been much greater than within
their command module.

In somewhat elevated and/or N/S locations on Earth, you and I receive
roughly 365 mrem/year or 1 mrem/day, climb mount Everest and you'll
get lots more.

At 590 km (solar minimum) and 0.0 g/cm2, according to the official
NASA chart, externally there's roughly 10^4 rem/year or 274 rem/day.
Add whatever shield depth and you get what the charts indicate. Of
course, I already utilized the "solar minimum", whereas the "solar
maximum" chart only adds further insult to injury unless you're
extremely well shielded, in which case the solar maximum is better off
because there's less secondary radiation being created (trust me; even
10 g/cm2 is not terrific shielding unless you're situated below the
Van Allen zone).

Obviously 590 km is residing sufficiently below the Van Allen soup
base and, subsequently indicating how much further reduction our
atmosphere and of the distance in between accomplishes (274,000:1).

At Earth L2 (0.0 g/cm2) there's roughly 6^5 rem/year or 1.64^3
rem/day, however L2 is being 85% shielded or blocked by Earth itself
as well as receiving benefit from Earth's magnetosphere deflecting
and/or altering some of the worst that our sun has to offer.

Earth L4 or L5 are indeed relatively hot zones as compared to L2, at
least ten fold and perhaps as much as 100 fold hotter because, of the
100% plus 24/7 solar/cosmic exposure as well as there being absolutely
no magnetosphere deflection benefits whatsoever. That makes EL4/EL5
raw exposure worth as much as 6^7 rem/year (1.64^5/day), that is if
you included all of the solar flare attributes for a given
solar-active year.

Of course, a solar minimum year you could cut 75% right off the top,
that's still leaving 1.5^7 rem/year and, wouldn't you just know it,
the solar minimum is actually what introduces by far the most
secondary (X-Ray) radiation inside a shielded craft, so, you're
definitely in a lose-lose proposition unless you've got some fairly
terrific speed in order to make your mission as short as possible,
and/or you've banked some of your own bone marrow for injection upon
your return, as the option of packing along 100 g/cm2 is not very
realistic unless it's in the format of a relatively small personal
travel pod/coffin.

If you apply some of your own math you can easily get confused, at
least I do, however a rough idea can be obtained as to the amount of
radiation subdued by our atmosphere, as well as that which is subdued
by the Van Allen zone (typically 1,000 km out to 70,000 km). By
reading from the charts, it clearly looks as though the atmosphere and
of the space in between Earths' atmosphere and 590 km does a whole lot
more good for us than Mr. Van Allen's zone of death, though the
magnetosphere is perhaps best at defending Earth from those solar
winds loaded with iron particles and a bloody host of other nasties
that interact with oneanother, making the Van Allen zone a relatively
poor location to spend any amount of time because, the radiation is
coming at you from all directions, plus there's whatever direct solar
flux has for you.

If we utilized the solar maximum of EL4/EL5 being 6^7 rem/year, minus
what's at 590 km (also using solar maximum) being 3^5 rem/year, that's
only a ratio of reducing the radiation influx by 200:1, although if
you consider what the Van Allen zone is otherwise stoping or modifying
is perhaps somewhat more lethal than of what our atmosphere stops,
where that's another issue that I'm not prepared to share any data on
until I learn more.

BTW; these are not my numbers, they are mostly NASA numbers, with the
exception that since I can't seem to locate anything specific on EL4
or EL5, so I've extrapolated the best that I can. If I'm wrong, either
tell me what's what or sue me.

Regards, Brad Guth "GUTH Venus"