Re: Moon hoax as American as apple pie

[Jay Windley]

"Brad Guth" > wrote in message
om...
|
| At the cloak and dagger cold-war moon-race timeline, the USSR had just
| as much if not more to hide from their public as well as ours than we
| did.

No. They took every *other* opportunity at the time to embarrass the United
States. Why not now?

| Sorry but, a nearly naked 4 hour exposure is not all that
| survivable

You are not an expert in cislunar radiation. Prof. Van Allen is an eminent,
world-recognized expert. I trust his judgment over yours.

| Again, you're either functioning on your Borg collective
| implant or you're dumber than a post.

Or I'm a fully qualified engineer with a list of people claiming to have
received said signals.

| using various directed (extremely low power at that)
| microwave frequencies, essentially utilizing the CSM/lander
| as a transponder

No. Insufficient time in the transmissions for a double round trip.

| I know that Walter Cronkite wasn't looking up at the sky, certainly I
| wasn't and, I don't know of anyone that was

Only the entire Australian nation. The TLI burn was seen by millions. Your
"stealth satellite" story is amusing, but let's stick to reality.

| Sorry again, NO such thing as bone dry on Earth

Your ignorance of Portland cement duly noted. Any ceramics engineer can
tell you that cement works the way it does *because* it's bone dry.

| whatever lunar color content, as B/W film is simply far better in
| every other category, especially for any survey requirements.

Both color and black and white film was used.

| "Got any hard figures for the radiation on the moon? If so, let's see
| 'em."
|
| Pretty much the same as what's at Earth L4 or L5

I already commented on that page. It's extremely naive. I don't consider
you an expert in space radiation, so I don't consider a web page you wrote
to be evidence of your claims. As I said, the qualified experts have
specifically and soundly repudiated your findings.

| That's easy, they weren't entirely stupid, certainly well
| funded and subsequently well paid.

Ad hoc explanation rejected. You say the alleged hoaxers were stupid enough
to leave a certain bit of ambiguous evidence, but smart enough not to leave
any conclusive evidence. You have no falsifiable evidence.

| Pushing an entire print is one sure fire way of over exposing the
| entire photo print, as it'll bleed light all over the freaking photo
| paper and thus turn out way too dark.

No. Your ignorance is noted.

| all those near UV
| and upper UV rays were not being blocked by any atmosphere

But they were blocked by the Lexan helmets.

| changing the shutter speed or going wide open on the
| lens was also not impossible

Hasselblad cameras with wide angle lens and relatively slow film are not
good astronomy cameras. Apollo 16 took an astronomical camera, and *did*
take pictures of stars.

| plus offering whatever (0.5 g/cm2) worth of
| radiation proofing for those astronauts

The suits were not designed for shielding against radiation. Your inept
attempt at computation does not arrive at anything remotely accurate for an
exposure for lunar astronauts.

| Would you be interested in doing a website for me?

No. I only deal with people who know what they're talking about.

--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org

[Brad Guth]

The con_x_dose1.pdf clearly specifies, that within the Van Allen zone
as situated behind 8 g/cm2 worth of Aluminum, as such we're looking at
1.74^3 rem/year, of course that amount of shielding was not entirely
surrounding, as well as the chart was based upon being solar exposed
roughly 50% of the time. So, even if you'd care to remove the solar
maximum event, not to mention some of that shielding, as then you're
looking at even greater secondary radiation, by 1.25 to as much as 2.5
times greater.

Any way you care to cut into it, the half solar impacted Van Allen
zone of 4.767 rem per day, or 198.6 mrem/hr is certainly taking their
accumulations way into boosting beyond the reported 35 mrem/day. Give
that situation full/24 hr. sunsine and I'll just bet we're not
receiving less radiation.

Now, for doing that within a moon suit @0.5 g/cm2 = 2.45^5/year or 2.8
rem/hr, where of course that's still based on 50% obstructed by good
old mother Earth and thereby not being fully solar illuminated, so I'd
plan upon being a little extra irradiated as for being in transit
between Earth and the moon.

So, all and all your're absolutely right about the Van Allen zone of
death being survivable, as long as the sun isn't up and, as long as
you don't spend any significant amount of time there, and you're
taking any number of DNA boosting supplements in order to offset
whatever TBI dosage, as doing even a shaded EVA of 11.2 rem for the 4
hours worth is generaly survivable but certainly not without risk as
well as exceeding the reported Apollo mission average of 35 mrem/day,
not to mention of what any film would have become badly fogged.

I guess I wasn't aware there was a secret back-door workaround to
evading the Van Allen zone of death (other than a polar trajectory),
at least not without compromise of becoming more solar exposed, nor
was I aware there was any shortcut method of otherwise making it
through the 69,000 km passage any shorter than a straight (tangent)
shot, of which I can't see how the Apollo class trajectury could have
managed such, as I seem to recall the orbiting loop or transition was
more like they were obtaining a 45 degree exit/reentry (from/to the
Van Allen zone), where upon return and subsequent reentry had to be of
somewhat lesser speed and thereby spending more (not less) Van Allen
time than of exiting towards the moon.

All and all, the 15 day mission(s) of Apollo was just as you say, not
dealing so much with the Van Allen zone, but neither was there good
shade to be had, plus of what other had to have been taking a toll was
not so much solar flare issues but of the solar minimums that created
such a great deal of secondary radiation. Whatever solar flare issues
were merely a detriment to those foolish enough to making extended
EVAs in spite of the fact that the sun was not being blocked by Earth,
as I've estimated a sunny lunar day at 10.36^3/365/24 = 1.18265 rem/hr
and, that's just based upon what's at L2 X 2, of which L2 is certainly
nowhere as exposed as what's existing at L4 or L5, thereby L2 is not
the least bit similar to what was more likely the L4/L5 like
environment on the moon (unless you're hiding under a substantially
big rock).

I'll certainly become truly impressed if you're going on record as
stipulating Earth L4/L5 and thereby the moon are somehow representing
less radiation than L2, or even perchance of less lethal forms of
radiation, as otherwise it seems only logical that being fully exposed
is just asking for it.

We can certainly cut into those numbers (such as eliminating any solar
maximum event) but, try as you may and you still will not approach
anything close to averaging 35 mrem/day, whereas climbing Mount
Everest you'll get at least that much if not more. If that were 3.5
rem/day I'd certainly have bought it, but not hardly 350 mrem nor
least of all 35 mrem/day and, that's even if you excluded the EVA
component worth of radiation. Lets just say for argument sake that the
real numbers could have been 350 mrem/day; exactly how far off do we
have to establish before something starts smelling like rotten eggs
(10%, 100%, 1000% or how about 10,000% = 3.5 rem/day)?

You and I both know that IF the dosage had in fact been reported much
greater than 35 mrem/day, any film would have been noticeably fogged
big-time (even 10 mrem X 15 should have detectably fogged, though
oddly we're not given access to even one out of a thousand negatives
or transparencies, which sort of sounds a great deal like all those
invisible WMDs). Since NASA/NSA/DoD didn't have a prepared solution
for dealing with the film environment issue, thereby the reported
dosage simply had to be fudged by at least a factor of 10 if not 100,
as otherwise any village idiot could have figured out that America as
well as the entire world was being snookered, even those heathen
Russians could have figured that one out.
-------------------------------------------------

"You are not an expert in cislunar radiation. Prof. Van Allen is an
eminent,
world-recognized expert. I trust his judgment over yours."

That's just fine and dandy by me, no argument, other than I and a few
thousand others (including new guard NASA) obviously no longer agree
with Mr. Van Allen. If you wanted to educate a village idiot, such as
myself, give me some rough idea as to what Earth L4 or L5 is like, or
even L1 (SOHO).

"Insufficient time in the transmissions for a double round trip"

An inline radio link utilizing another sub frequency introduces no
detectable delay, other than what's delayed within the onboard
receiver/transmitter circuitry, that's not going to be a millisecond.
Besides, what Walter Cronkite and you and I saw and heard was only
what came by way of NASA channels and, there were a sufficient number
of mostly military satellites already in place that could easily have
been utilized as a go-between transponder (if you think we couldn't
have pulled that off, then we certainly couldn't have gone to the
moon).

"Only the entire Australian nation. The TLI burn was seen by
millions. Your
"stealth satellite" story is amusing, but let's stick to reality."

Where did I ever stipulate our astronauts were not in space and those
landers didn't go to the moon?

"Your ignorance of Portland cement duly noted. Any ceramics engineer
can
tell you that cement works the way it does *because* it's bone dry."

Noted, I'll report to everyone that I've learned from you that the
lunar soil was essentially of Portland cement. Perhaps that's
explaining why the lunar reflective index became more like 50% rather
than the 10% that you and I can see from Earth, as Portland cement
would certainly have photographed to that extent.

"I already commented on that page. It's extremely naive. I don't
consider
you an expert in space radiation, so I don't consider a web page you
wrote
to be evidence of your claims. As I said, the qualified experts have
specifically and soundly repudiated your findings."

Very good, again I entirely agree that I'm no radiation expert, but
neither are you. I'm just going by what others have to offer, some of
which are NASA moderated reports and/or of USAF documents, where I
suppose they don't know what they're talking about either.

"Ad hoc explanation rejected. You say the alleged hoaxers were stupid
enough
to leave a certain bit of ambiguous evidence, but smart enough not to
leave
any conclusive evidence. You have no falsifiable evidence."

That's right again, as equally you seem to have nothing of independent
source nor even any one of those tens of thousands of
negatives/transparencies to work with. In fact, the pro-NASA camps
doesn't seem to have squat. That's almost as bad as invisible WMDs,
just not nearly as much carnage.

"But they were blocked by the Lexan helmets."

I was speaking of UV hitting those cameras and of their film inside,
not of astronauts dancing around a stage setting in front of a blue
screen.

"Hasselblad cameras with wide angle lens and relatively slow film are
not
good astronomy cameras. Apollo 16 took an astronomical camera, and
*did*
take pictures of stars."

Thanks for the usable feedback, as I'll certainly look for those star
images (you do realize that a sufficient portion of the lunar terrain
needs to be in those images) and, I'll also inform everyone with a
$2000+ camera to not ever bother taking star photos because, you've
stated that such efforts will be a waste of time and of no use
whatsoever (that must be because Hasselblad builds all sorts of ****
poor cameras and utilizes even worse optics).

BTW; those Hasselblad cameras did have other than a wide angle lens to
work with. I forgot to mention; my Pentax 5X7 and of it's wide angle
lens must be terribly broken because, I've taken pictures of stars
above the Earth horizon (I guess I'll be wanting my money back).

Regards, Brad Guth / IEIS 1-253-8576061 http://guthvenus.tripod.com
alternate URL: http://www.geocities.com/bradguth

[Brad Guth]

Since you ARE as radiation engineer/expert, tell me what the secondary
radiation level was inside the command module, the lunar lander as
well as for being on the lunar surface (no fair hiding behind Earth),
or is that going to be another "nondisclosure" thing, or perhaps lunar
rocks and clumping soil don't create secondary radiation?????.

Secondary radiation (x-rays) foggs film big time.

From NASA; solar minimums produce far greater amounts of secondary
radiation than of solar maximum. I can find all sorts of official
documents backing this up.

Why is it that YOU keep harping on the solar maximum as being of any
importance?

You know damn well and good that the vast majority of their exposure
was solar minimum induced, thereby loads of secondary radiation
issues.

And about taking pictures; There was no requirement for taking
pictures just right, as any half assed image of the lunar terrain
including whatever (dim) stars in any form would have been more than
sufficient, and you know that. If one star is blurred then all of the
stars are equally blurred (though the moon isn't spinning, just quite
slowly if you account for it's orbit about Earth, so what?), at least
there'd be a sufficient number of stars recorded and, anyone smarter
than myself could have placed the photographer on the lunar surface,
based solely upon those poorly imaged stars situated above a given
lunar terrain, and you know that as well.

Leaning back against the +/- 250 degree F lander (preferably the cold
shaded side) so that the camera was perhaps looking 5 or so degrees
positive, that's hardly difficult and, I do believe there was a tripod
mount as well as an number of available other bracket opportunities to
have managed without cracking wind. Good grief, if this poorly
photographed survey mission was from a one and only mission, I just
might have to agree with you.

"the Schmitt camera is unsuitable for photographing terrain"

Was that statement a joke or what? The lunar landscape was supposed
to average 10% solar reflection, so are you stating that this fine
camera and of it's touchy film would have melted down?

You never commented about establishing the lunar SAR imaging thing;
how come?
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/moon-sar.htm

[Joe Durnavich]

For what it's worth, here are the results of a study done on the
Shuttle to test radiation fogging of various modern high speed film
types in low earth orbit:

http://www.musc.edu/cando/symp99/acrobat/rad.pdf

Note the tested films are all much higher speed than the films used on
Apollo, which were only ASA 64 to 160. I do notice that the 400 speed
Fuji Provia transparency film tested here, the slowest film mentioned,
showed "no significant damage."

--
Joe Durnavich

[Jay Windley]

"Brad Guth" > wrote in message
om...
| Since you ARE as radiation engineer/expert, tell me what
| the secondary radiation level was inside the command module,
| the lunar lander as well as for being on the lunar surface
| (no fair hiding behind Earth)

Where in these structures? At what times? Under what conditions? You keep
asking these questions as if I should come up with one number to apply in
all circumstances. You're stabbing blindly in the dark, unaware of the
implications of what you're asking.

Generally secondary radiation in the interior is of little or no concern to
spacecraft constructed in the Apollo fashion.

| Secondary radiation (x-rays) foggs film big time.

Agreed. And particle radiation will also "fog" film, but only at certain
conditions of flux and energy. The characteristic effect of particle
radiation on film is generally of the low-flux, high-energy variety that
produces spots and not the high-flux, low-energy variety that produces
fogging. X-ray and similar EM emissions are more characteristic of fogging.

Nevertheless, secondary radiation inside spacecraft such as the Apollo
command module is too weak to have any observable effect on slow film.

| From NASA; solar minimums produce far greater amounts of
| secondary radiation than of solar maximum. I can find all
| sorts of official documents backing this up.

Yet you are unable to find the records of the LLTV flights. It seems your
desire to do research varies with whether you believe that research will
support or undermine your conclusions.

Your statement applies only to spacecraft in low earth orbit. As the
atmosphere expands in response to increase solar influx, it erodes the lower
portions of the Van Allen belts resulting in a lesser degree of trapped
radiation for spacecraft operating between the upper atmosphere and the Van
Allen belts.

This has almost no implication for Apollo missions whatsoever. Further, the
secondary radiation produced by the interaction of trapped particles with
the skin of an Apollo spacecraft is essentially negligible at the CM center,
whether during a minimum or a maximum.

| Why is it that YOU keep harping on the solar maximum as
| being of any importance?

I'm just responding to your comments. You can't seem to decide whether
you're talking about a solar minimum or solar maximum, nor can you seem to
provide any evidence that you understand what either of these terms mean, or
how they are applied to space travel both in orbit and to the moon. I am at
a loss to respond to questions that seem less like interrogatives and more
like buzzword-laden word salads.

| You know damn well and good that the vast majority of their
| exposure was solar minimum induced, thereby loads of secondary
| radiation issues.

No. I know "damn well" that the primary source for Apollo concern was solar
particle events, and that secondary radiation from Van Allen belt transits
was very near the bottom of the radiation list. Next down on the list was
primary radiation from the belt transit.

These are still the primary concerns for the engineers of all nations that
design and build spacecraft to operate in and beyond the Van Allen belts.

| There was no requirement for taking pictures just right, as
| any half assed image of the lunar terrain including whatever
| (dim) stars in any form would have been more than sufficient,
| and you know that.

Please refrain from telling me what I do and do not know. I fundamentally
disagree with many of your statements, so I do not respond favorably to the
notion that I somehow "know" that you are correct. I am directly
challenging your understanding of these and related concepts.

My tests have indicated that it would have required an exposure of around 30
seconds with the lens wide open to expose starlight on that film. At that
exposure, any image of the lunar terrain or the lunar module or a fellow
astronaut would be far too overexposed to be recognizable.

"Sufficiency" is not the issue, as you seem to believe it's somehow
suspicious that NASA did not provide a certain photograph you deem
indispensible for verification. That you would have done it differently is
not proof of fraud. I see no need to impose upon NASA obligations that
arise from your personal opinion.

You seem to believe that NASA intended the mission photography to be proof
of the authenticity of the missions. I do not agree with this. The
photographs nevertheless are strong proof of the reality of the missions,
but this was not the intent in having them taken. Their proof value for
authenticity is completely accidental. The astronauts used the photographs
to document a mission whose validity was not seriously in dispute. To fault
NASA for not taking photographs specifically intended at authentication is
an entirely circular argument.

It simply is not suspicious at all that Apollo astronauts did not attempt to
take pictures of the stars with their Hasselblad cameras.

| I do believe there was a tripod mount ...

No.

| ... as well as an number of available other bracket
| opportunities to have managed without cracking wind.

No. The Hasselblad camera could be operated pistol-fashion purely
hand-held, or it could be operated from the mount on the RCU. While the
camera-RCU mount was reasonably stable, the RCU itself was not a stable
platform. It was suspended by two points from the PLSS straps and as such
was subject to a wide range of motion.

| "the Schmitt camera is unsuitable for photographing terrain"
|
| Was that statement a joke or what?

Not at all. Clearly you do not understand this type of camera or its
strengths and limitations, nor do you seem to understand the general
principles of photography. Again we seem to be rapidly bumping against the
limits of your understanding, which makes it strange that you have so
conclusively eliminated the possibility that the Apollo missions were
genuine.

| The lunar landscape was supposed to average 10% solar
| reflection, so are you stating that this fine
| camera and of it's touchy film would have melted down?

No. Again, please stop putting words in my mouth. I made no mention
whatsoever of the "touchiness" of the Schmidt camera's film, nor did I imply
in any way that the inability of this camera to appropriately image lunar
terrain had anything to do with thermal stress.

For sufficiently distant terrain a Schmidt camera suffices optically.
However, the same problems which prevent simultaneous usable exposures of
terrain and stars affect this camera. And then some. In addition to the
limited dynamic range of *any* film -- including the Schmidt film -- the
Schmidt optics will scatter glare from the surface across the imaging field.

You cannot escape these facts:

1. The Hasselblad cameras and film intended for documentary photography were
not well suited to astronomical photography.

2. The Schmidt camera and film intended for astronomical photographer were
not well suited to terrain photography and portraiture.

3. NASA provided appropriate and specialized equipment for each desired
photography mode.

4. It was neither feasible nor required to simultaneously photograph the
terrain and the stars.

Your attempt to read into this situation some sort of ulterior motive or
criminally missed opportunity is a comical tempest in a teapot. If you
understood anything about the topics you allude to, you'd realize just how
silly and ignorant your arguments appear.

| You never commented about establishing the lunar SAR imaging thing;
| how come?

Because it doesn't interest me. Please stop trying to change the subject.

--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org

[Brad Guth]

Joe Durnavich > wrote in message >...
> For what it's worth, here are the results of a study done on the
> Shuttle to test radiation fogging of various modern high speed film
> types in low earth orbit:
>
> http://www.musc.edu/cando/symp99/acrobat/rad.pdf
>
> Note the tested films are all much higher speed than the films used on
> Apollo, which were only ASA 64 to 160. I do notice that the 400 speed
> Fuji Provia transparency film tested here, the slowest film mentioned,
> showed "no significant damage."

Thanks so much for the lead, I'll see what I can learn. Actually, I'd
be somewhat surprised if the secondary radiation within ISS is all
that great, especially taking into account of having mother Earth in
the way for 12 out of 24 hours and of having the Van Allen zone of
death above.

On the other hand, L4/L5 are in fact radiation hot spots, just like
the moon

This is about semantics as much as it's about our understanding L4/L5
radiation.

Basically, we're having to deal with secondary (X-Ray) radiation, as
obviously you need to be sufficiently shielded against any typically
sudden solar output, often referred to as a solar maximum event, even
though there's any number of definitions for what constitutes "solar
maximum" as well as for what's subsequently determined as for being
classified as solar minimum.

For my understanding of what shielding density does for abating
secondary radiation, I've created another reference URL page update
that's going to be revised as I learn more truths. For now I'm working
from the NASA new guard charts provided within the con_x_dose1.pdf
file, as well as reflecting upon what the likes of others such as Jay
Windley and Henry Spencer are having to say.

Here's an excerpt from the page:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/space-radiation.htm
================================================== ==============================

As compared to Earth L2, L4/L5 are certainly radiation hot spots,
except for the fact that the lunar surface facilitates one better by
creating secondary radiation, as in X-Rays.

Now then, as for speaking of dosage reduction as a ratio of density;
L2 at 1 g/cm2 = 2.46^3 rem/year, whereas all things being equal at 10
g/cm2 = 91.8 rem/year. Unless my math is incorrect (always a
possibility), that's roughly a 27:1 improvement created by a 10 fold
increase in mass. Actually it's not linear but exponentially greater
as you further increase upon density, where as the next ten fold might
appear to represent a 50+ fold improvement and of the subsequent next
ten fold increase in mass could very well represent a 100 fold
reduction (at this point we're only dealing with secondary radiation
issues), so that's certainly not the 27 X 27 but more likely a factor
50 X 100 or 5000:1 reduction in those nasty secondary x-rays in going
from 10 g/cm2 to 1024 g/cm2.

Reductions of mostly secondary radiation (according to
con_x_dose1.pdf)
0.1 to 1 g/cm2 = 13:1
1.0 to 10 g/cm2 = 27:1
10 to 100 g/cm2 = 50:1
100 to 1024 g/cm2 = 100:1

Obviously the last two categories represent my own village idiot
estimate, though based upon the previous two density shifts.

If 10 fold in mass from 1 g/cm2 to 10 g/cm2 affects a 27 fold
radiation reduction, then I was at first thinking that perhaps another
10 fold mass had ott to represent at the very least a 729 fold
reduction, though perhaps more then likely since this chart is clearly
going exponentially nonlinear (as the con_x_dose1.pdf clearly
indicates), whereas another 10 fold increase had ott to easily exceed
27 X 50 or how about at the very least 1024:1, while a 100 fold might
thereby represent 50 X 100 or how about attributing at least 4096:1
worth in reductions of those secondary radiations noted at 10 g/cm2.

Whom is kidding whom; any way you care to cut it, there's a good deal
of solar/cosmic radiation at L4/L5, as equally more so while being
situated on the moon, specifically because of those secondary X-Rays
created from all that clumping soil and rocks which do not exist at
L4/L5. This one has become another Duh! A significant correction in at
least my misunderstanding that's become a whole lot more clear and
believable than NASA's Apollo bible.

================================================== =============================

Unlike Jay Windly and Henry Spencer, I'm not always right, though why
then should these two "all knowing" individuals be essentially
contradicting each other and/or why should they be opposing other life
NOT as we know it and/or other intelligence NOT as we know it. You'd
think if Earth were getting itself hotter by the year, say 1°K/year,
and you had all the essential resources and loads of natural energy
all about, seems rather pointless to think otherwise that at least
some of us would stop fighting with one another, long enough to make
whatever improvements and/or adaptations happen. Obviously the likes
of Jay and Henry totally disagree with that assessment, as they'd
rather remain on the hunt for those invisible WMDs, carnage and all,
or simply wagging another dog to death in favor of their pagan
religion.

Come to think of it, I should have been posting this under "Animal
Rights".

Regards, Brad Guth / IEIS http://guthvenus.tripod.com

[Jay Windley]

"Brad Guth" > wrote in message
m...
|
| Thanks so much for the lead, I'll see what I can learn.

What's the point, Guth? You'll just make up what you want to hear and
incorporate it into another one of your typically verbose yet entirely
content-free mass postings.

As I said, my sole interest is in your claims that the Apollo missions were
not genuine. Insofar as your generalized ramblings on radiation relate to
that, they interest me. Your other fantasies do not.

--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org

[Joe Durnavich]

Brad Guth writes:

>Basically, we're having to deal with secondary (X-Ray) radiation, as
>obviously you need to be sufficiently shielded against any typically
>sudden solar output, often referred to as a solar maximum event, even
>though there's any number of definitions for what constitutes "solar
>maximum" as well as for what's subsequently determined as for being
>classified as solar minimum.
>
>For my understanding of what shielding density does for abating
>secondary radiation, I've created another reference URL page update
>that's going to be revised as I learn more truths. For now I'm working
>from the NASA new guard charts provided within the con_x_dose1.pdf
>file, as well as reflecting upon what the likes of others such as Jay
>Windley and Henry Spencer are having to say.
>
>Here's an excerpt from the page:
>http://guthvenus.tripod.com/space-radiation.htm

The discussion between you and Jay has piqued my interest in radiation
on the Moon, especially secondary radiation and how it might have
affected the Apollo astronauts. I know next to nothing about
radiation, so I visited your web page to educate myself on the
subject, and Brad, I have to tell you up front that it is not doing it
for me. I just did not come away from it a man more knowledgable
about radiation.

First, I need to get clear on what a "solar minimum" is and why it
would be more dangerous to the Apollo astronauts. Am I right in
thinking that the terms "solar minimum" and "solar maximum" refer to
the 11-year sunspot cycle?

And, am I right in thinking that the reason the space environment is
more dangerous during a solar minimum is because the sun's magnetic
field is smaller and its protection against the very energetic cosmic
rays is less?

Next, on your web page, if I am following you correctly, you suggest
the Apollo astronauts should have been affected by the solar minimum
radiation effects, and I quote: "and the same as for those Apollo
missions having no shade, plus their having to deal with some (many
hours worth) of the Van Allen zone of death plus all the secondary
caused by solar minimum." Brad, here is a graph of the solar cycles
back to 1750. As you can see, the Apollo lunar mission era, 1969
through 1972, occurred during a solar maximum and not a solar minimum
as you say:

http://science.msfc.nasa.gov/ssl/pad/solar/images/zurich.gif

Can you clear that up?

Finally, I am intrigued by the notion of secondary radiation effects
coming from the lunar soil. Looking at Henry's statements about
requiring "2-meters of lunar soil," to protect against radiation, I
see he was talking about protecting against major solar flare events
and long term effects of cosmic radiation. Apollo was betting on not
getting a major solar flare during a mission, and the time on the moon
was only 3 days at most during a mission, which does not qualify as
"long term." Thus, I don't see where Henry's statements have much to
do with any of the Apollo missions. In fact, the context of the
discussion was about lunar bases, long term habitation, tourism on the
moon, etc.

But do you have any data on how much secondary radiation there is on
the moon? Are the basaltic maria's worse off in this regard than the
anorthositic highlands? What about standing on that volcanic orange
soil they found on Apollo 17? I bet the secondary radiation from
something like that would toast your 'nads with rads, right?

--
Joe Durnavich

[Jay Windley]

"Joe Durnavich" > wrote in message
...
|
| First, I need to get clear on what a "solar minimum" is and why it
| would be more dangerous to the Apollo astronauts. Am I right in
| thinking that the terms "solar minimum" and "solar maximum" refer to
| the 11-year sunspot cycle?

This is how astrophysicists use the terms. It's not clear that this is how
Brad Guth uses the term. He seems to fasten onto certain buzzwords such as
these two, and "secondary radiation", and sprinkle them liberally throughout
a pile of impressive-sounding numbers and verbal gibberish.

The principal effect of the solar cycle on the Apollo missions (as opposed
to earth orbit missions) is in the statistical modeling of solar particle
events. The effect of the solar cycle on the geometry and intensity of the
Van Allen belts is comparatively irrelevant.

| And, am I right in thinking that the reason the space environment is
| more dangerous during a solar minimum is because the sun's magnetic
| field is smaller and its protection against the very energetic cosmic
| rays is less?

Galactic cosmic radiation (GCR) typically has very low flux anyway.
Although the energy and mass of these particles can be very high (and
therefore have an especially ionizing effect), they are not considered an
especially serious threat to spacefaring.

| As you can see, the Apollo lunar mission era, 1969 through 1972,
| occurred during a solar maximum and not a solar minimum as you say:

In terms of actual large-scale events, the Apollo 11 mission marked the
beginning of the major decline in dangerous (i.e., potentially fatal to
Apollo astronauts) events, corresponding to the "downslope" of that solar
maximum. The biggest cluster of large-scale events occurred in late 1968 and
early 1969. After that they peter out pretty fast, except for one whopping
blast between Apollo 16 and 17.

| Thus, I don't see where Henry's statements have much to
| do with any of the Apollo missions.

They don't. While they offer a credible solution to the problem of
long-term habitation, Apollo used an entirely different strategy to manage
the radiation threat. Unfortunately the strategy for managing the biggest
threat -- solar particle events -- was largely, "We hope no events occur."

| But do you have any data on how much secondary radiation
| there is on the moon?

Keep in mind that secondary radiation, while not insignificant, is not
really something you need to worry about in the short term. Yes, if we want
to put bases on the moon and live there for months or years, the secondary
radiation produced as SPEs hit various materials becomes an issue. The
lunar surface itself produces very little secondary radiation in response to
the normal solar wind. You would literally get a higher dose by living in
Denver instead of in Houston.

"Secondary radiation" is one of Brad Guth's buzzwords. I don't think he has
much of a clue how it fits into the general picture.

If you plot the sum of primary and secondary radiation dose inside a
shielded chamber as a function of shielding thickness, and keep the primary
radiation constant, the graph is initially flat (the primary radiation plus
no secondary radiation at zero shield thickness). Then in increases
(unabsorbed primary radiation plus shield-induced secondary radiation).
Then it falls off sharply as the shielding absorbs the majority of primary
radiation, and the inner material of the shielding absorbs the secondary
radiation created in the outer thickness of the shielding.

This, of course, is somewhat simplistic. The total secondary radiation
picture depends heavily on the total primary radiation picture. Clearly
higher-energy primary radiation penetrates farther into the shielding before
being absorbed, leaving relatively little shielding to absorb any secondary
radiation. But for the energies of the typical high-flux primary radiation
encountered during Apollo missions, the thickness required to significantly
attenuate both the primary and secondary radiation is on the order of
millimeters of aluminum, not inches or feet.

The radiation levels literally vary throughout the command module's habitabl
volume. Not that any of them is especially dangerous in the normal flight
profile. But the issue here is that there is no isometric "level" of
radiation that applies at all times and to all points in the command module.
It would be insanely complicated to compute accurately the radiation dosage
at any one point, at any one time, in the command module. This is why it
was measured instead of finely computed. In a radiation emergency the
astronauts had a hand-held radiation detector that they could have used to
sniff out the safest area of the command module.

--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org

[Jay Windley]

"Brad Guth" > wrote in message
om...
|
| I now have yet another perspective on secondary radiation ...

There is no mention made in the article about differentiating the effects of
primary and secondary radiation upon the film samples. You keep using the
phrase "secondary radiation" as if you understood what it means. The
radiation environment in any spacecraft is a combination of primary and
secondary effects, usually with no attempt to differentiate between them.
This is because it is usually not interesting, and because secondary
radiation is almost negligible except in the cases of unprotected exposure
to solar particle events.

| Perhaps the film fogging exercise and results are not actually as
| impressive as the 65 mrem/half-day potential that the shuttle crew may
| have to deal with, as opposed to the reported 20 mrem/full day
| exposure of an Apollo mission ...

Think very carefully and see if you can come up with a reason why an
earth-orbit mission might be understandably subject to a greater daily dose
of radiation than an Apollo mission.

Hint: the earth's magnetic axis is inclined 11 degrees with respect to its
spin axis, and its magnetic center is displaced 280 miles from its geometric
center.

| The fact that the superior Fuji ISO/400 film showed little fog is
| partly an indication that the Fuji product chemistry is simply
| superior to that of the Kodak products

When understanding fails, draw an irrelevant conclusion.

| Good grief, get over the idea that I'm not as smart as yourself

No, you should get over the idea that your ideas come from an insufficient
understanding of the facts, and that those who object to your ideas do so
not out of some hypothetical loyalty or "Borgification", but out of a sheer
desire to see the facts accurately represented.

| but, at least I can see a whole lot more of what's what ...

No. You can't, and the reason you can't is precisely *because* you lack the
appropriate expertise and undersanding.

| ... than Bush can see of those WMDs

When understanding fails, draw an irrelevant conclusion.

| the last time I checked, no one had to die because of
| any of my mistakes

Interesting you should bring that up. Many of us have been in the position
of asking the public to trust their lives (or at least their safety) to our
expertise. That degree of trust tends to transcend social or political
loyalties. Engineers are voracious consumers of fact stripped of bias,
spin, or concealment. Very little else satisfies their needs. You seem to
want to make this a matter of belief, of trust, of loyalty. You rant on
about perceived ulterior motives or intent to deceive, when what you least
seem to want to talk about is facts and your understanding of them. It's
not a matter of who has the most saintly motives. It's a matter of who
actually understands the issue.

I'm not interested in what you believe might be harbingers of death. I'm
more interested you as a harbinger of ignorance. I can't do much about the
absurd political situation in the world today, but I can do something about
*you* and *your* contribution to the state of ignorance in the world. Just
as Joe has done, some impressionable child (or even an adult) will someday
surf into your site and think that just perhaps this Brad Guth guy knows
something, because after all he's taken it upon himself to presume to
educate.

You don't seem to think there's anything wrong with filling people's heads
with ill-reasoned, factually bankrupt conclusions that fail to correspond to
reality. That's what I find strange.

--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org

[Jonathan Silverlight]

In message >, Joe Durnavich
> writes
>
>Next, on your web page, if I am following you correctly, you suggest
>the Apollo astronauts should have been affected by the solar minimum
>radiation effects, and I quote: "and the same as for those Apollo
>missions having no shade, plus their having to deal with some (many
>hours worth) of the Van Allen zone of death plus all the secondary
>caused by solar minimum."

Perhaps he'll also explain how the astronauts spent "some" hours in the
van Allen belts, given that they were moving about 25000 miles per hour.
--
"Roads in space for rockets to travel....four-dimensional roads, curving with
relativity"
Mail to jsilverlight AT merseia.fsnet.co.uk is welcome.
Or visit Jonathan's Space Site http://www.merseia.fsnet.co.uk

[Jay Windley]

"Brad Guth" > wrote in message
om...
| Perhaps we should just agree to disagree.
|
| It seems rather odd that you (Jay Windley) have equally devoted so
| much effort into supporting that which simply can not be proved nor
| substantiated by other than the words of those having every ulterior
| motive in the book for doing exactly what you have been doing.

I find it odder that you, Brad Guth, have devoted so much effort to writing
copious amounts of verbage that serves little except to obfuscate what would
otherwise be fairly comprehensible ideas. I find it further odd that you
depart so quickly and so cleanly from any discussion of fact or science and,
when cornered, bang on your same old drum of "ulterior motives".

You are so concerned about whether or not I have "ulterior motives" that you
have completely ignored the issue of whether I'm right and know what I'm
talking about. This is the typical approach of the troll.

| The open science and supposed engineering simply isn't there to be
| had.

Open your eyes. Spacecraft engineering is a multi-billion dollar worldwide
industry, most of the products going into these radiation environments.
They all use Apollo data, even the countries that don't like the U.S. If
you claim Apollo data is wrong, then you have to explain why those other
countries haven't called us on it.

| NASA accomplishments and their Apollo results are those
| within a "lock-box" and, they've thrown away the key.

No. The Apollo missions are documented to an obscene degree. Your track
record indicates you simply aren't interested in looking anything up unless
you believe you can make it fit your theory.

| 2) Though Kodak film was sufficiently sensitive and/or sufficiently
| inferior to the likes of Fuji film, as with regard to being fogged,
| though it wasn't measurably fogged.

You don't appear to understand film speeds. The film speeds in the STS
experiment were wholly beyond the Ektachrome film used for Apollo.

| 3) The extreme thermal impact issues upon the film was oddly
| immeasurable, as well as radiation being immeasurable, either of which
| are simply impossible feats if in fact the film was ever on the lunar
| surface.

No. This is circular based on your essentially fantasy-based estimates of
radiation. The thermal response of the film was studied empirically.

| 4) Their lunar surface images nearly all included a far greater
| illumination reflection index than 10%, like nearly 50% as referenced
| to those moon suits and any number of other items involved.

You have yet to supply any physics or engineering rigor for this argument.
You just keep repeating it.

| 5) The primary spacecraft (not the lander nor those moon suits) was
| sufficiently shielded to have humanly survived, but not so unaffected
| by as little as 20 mrem/day, though even as little as 300 mrem should
| have been measurably detected on the Kodak film in question.

No. Again you seem to have no concept of film speed and how it relates to
radiation exposure.

| 6) There's still no proven lander prototype test flights that can
| demonstrate the actual flight technology and/or pilot skill needed.

I spoke about this at length. You ignored the discussion almost entirely.

| 7) Their lunar surface images nearly all included far greater
| illumination reflection than 10%, like nearly 50% as referenced to
| those moon suits and any number of other items involved.

You already said this.

| 8) Surface radiation is rather considerable, much greater than L4/L5
| due to the solar/cosmic radiation interacting with all that bone dry
| clumping lunar soil and highly reflective rock that was subsequently
| creating X-Rays.

No. Secondary radiation in this context is negligible.

| 9) The full spectrum of solar/cosmic influx is simply much greater
| than 1400 watt/m2, especially as for what's at Earth L4/L5, which is
| receiving at the bare minimum 6^5 rem/year ...

[rest of numerical salad snipped]

You can't even stay consistent with numbers, units, or concepts. You're
trying to "razzle-dazzle" with figures, but it's all just handwaving.

| 10) Stop already with the solar maximum as being of concern

The solar maximum *is* a concern because that was the solar attitude during
the Apollo missions. The increased effects of the solar minimum apply
*only* to low earth orbit.

| 11) Oddly, when I've suggested what's entirely possible (well within
| existing technology and for pennies on the dollar compared to anything
| Mars) with our re-utilizing the moon as a base of robotic SAR imaging
| operations (extreme VLA among other task), all the sudden you don't
| give a tinkers damn.

Not "all of a sudden." I've *never* given a tinker's dam.

| 12) Since the moon rotation in relationship to the stars and of other
| planets is but 1/27th that of any Earth rotation, not ever varying a
| thousandth of a degree in respect to alignment with Earth itself ...

LOL!

| 13) You know damn good and well that I'm sufficiently right about
| Venus

I don't care about your ideas on Venus, and I know "damn good and well" that
you haven't been right about anything having to do with Apollo.

| 14) Unlike yourself and those otherwise pretending as being morally
| proper

I have made no representation regarding morality, although I note that you
tend to descend into pseudo-moralistic rhetoric when cornered on technical
subjects.

| 15) Lets just agree to disagree

No. Either support your arguments factually or retract them. Since you
admit not being an expert on radiation, I recommend a retraction. I will
not agree to simply leaving you alone to continue dispensing ignorance in
public. These are not moral or other "soft" issues upon which it is
acceptable for one person to have one view and another person to hold a
different view. These are matters of fact and detailed understanding.
There *is* a right and wrong answer, and if you believe your answers are
right then you have a responsibility to provide the facts that say so.
Instead you have simply spoken copiously from a position fo extreme
prejudice and ignorance.

| On your side of this argument, science as well as the laws
| of physics must be skewed in favor of NASA

Not "skewed in favor." They are simply in agreement.

| 16) Photography speaking; You've been suggesting that a given camera,
| of it's optics and/or film is an all or nothing proposition, somehow
| unaffected by extreme temperatures or radiation, specific to one and
| only one narrow task, not to be incorporating the in-between of one
| extreme or another.

Not at all. Nevertheless those are the words you have put into my mouth
time after time. You seem unwilling to grasp that cameras are *not* "one
size fits all."

| Trying to get a straight answer that's backed by other than words from
| yourself is like expecting the Pope to ever acknowledge ...

Physician, heal thyself.

| Basically, you've been and you still are telling nice honest folks
| that of Earth L4/L5 and thereby of the moon are relatively
| solar/cosmic cool zones

No. They are simply not the "zones of death" you describe in your
hysterical writings.

| not to mention that the lunar reflective
| index of 10% as viewed from Earth or Hubble is actually more like
| nearly 50% as viewed from being on the surface

Again, can you provide an argument based on the physics of illumination to
support this point?

| Somehow I'm certain that you'll post references as to why
| I'm entirely dead wrong in every category.

Obviously you're used to opposition, and obviously you're used to writing
off that opposition as a matter of some mythical cabalistic loyalty. In the
East they have a saying: "If one man tells me I'm an ass, I can ignore him;
if ten men tell me I'm an ass, I should purchase a saddle."

--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org

[Jay Windley]

"Brad Guth" > wrote in message
om...
|
| Something other I've learned some time ago, is that of TRW Space Data
| formulated their GEO (30,000 to 40,000 km or mid Van Allen zone)
| dosage/environment for being shielded by 2+ g/cm2 (300 mils) at 2^3
| Sv/year

That's for an orbit more or less continuously inside the Van Allen belts.
The primary source for radiation in this orbit would be trapped particle
radiation, which is considerable regardless of solar weather.

| assesment is only 27 times greater
| then the official NASA con_x_dose1.pdf report.

This radiation study is for x-ray observatories orbiting at the Earth-Sun L2
point, at an altitude of approximately 625,000 km. The primary source for
radiation in this orbit would be GCR and SPE, the former of which is of
insignificant flux, and the latter of which is very sporadic and highly
dependent on the solar cycle.

| I'm sure that you're going to stipulate that they came into
| that inferior conclusion because TRW doesn't know squat about
| what they're talking about, and you do.

No, I'm going to point out that you drew this completely irrelevant
comparison because *you* don't know squat about what *you're* talking about.

And no, I will not "agree to disagree". If you're going to make statements
in public, you have a responsibility to support them in public. If you
cannot or will not, then you have no right to be treated as a reasonable
person.

--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org

[Joe Durnavich]

Brad Guth writes:

>8) Surface radiation is rather considerable, much greater than L4/L5
>due to the solar/cosmic radiation interacting with all that bone dry
>clumping lunar soil and highly reflective rock that was subsequently
>creating X-Rays.

Brad, I am still trying to find evidence of these secondary X-rays. I
took the time the other night to check into sources I had available
such as the Lunar Sourcebook and the Apollo Preliminary Science
Reports. From these I conclude that:

1. The major types of radiation in the lunar environment are Solar
Wind, Solar Cosmic Rays (SCR), and Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCR).
These are all particle radiation.

2. Your talk of a radiation that is (1) worse at solar minimum,
(2) that penetrates meters into the lunar regolith, and
(3) that generates significant secondary radiation convinces
me that you are talking about GCRs, whether you realize it
or not.

3. The secondary radiation generated by GCRs is dominated by
neutrons. Other radiation products are pions and gamma rays,
but these are nowhere as great as the neutron radiation.

4. The flux of GCRs is very low, typically around 2 protons/cm^2 sec
during solar maximum. During solar minimum, when the solar
magnetic field is less extensive, the flux can be around twice
as high, 4 protons/cm^2 sec. Compare these fluxes to SCRs
which can be as high as a million protons/cm^2 sec during
a major SCR event.

In short, I can find no evidence of significant X-ray secondary
radiation from the radiation you describe above that interacts
strongly with "all that bone dry clumping lunar soil."

There is one source of X-ray secondary radiation I did find, though,
and that is from X-rays in the solar spectrum itself. These cause the
surface of the lunar soil to fluoresce in the X-ray range. Apollo 15
carried a detector to sense these fluorescent X-rays as a means to
determine the composition of the soil. The X-ray energies they
studied were only in the 1 to 3 keV range, which are very low energy.

By the way, everything I read so far is pretty much how Jay and Henry
describe it. Jay's claims are entirely consistent with the evidence,
and contrary to what you claim, is not "essentially contradicting"
Henry's claims. I only mention this because I think it is a sign you
are not keeping straight the different types of radiation and their
energies, fluxes, and effects.

If you have some evidence of considerable secondary X-rays coming from
the lunar surface, I would love to see it. This is an interesting
subject regardless of moon hoax theories and whatnot.

----

From the Lunar Sourcebook
Table 3.5 Summary of the three major types of radiation in the lunar
environment

1. Solar Wind

Nuclei energy: ~0.3 to 3 keV per nucleon
Electron energy: ~1 to 100 eV
Flux: ~3 x 10^8 protons/cm^2 sec
Lunar penetration, protons and alphas: <micrometers
Lunar penetration, heavier nuclei: <micrometers

2. Solar Cosmic Rays (SCR)

Nuclei energy: ~1 to >100 MeV per nucleon
Electron energy: <0.1 to 1 MeV
Flux: ~0 to 10^6 protons/cm^2 sec
Lunar penetration, protons and alphas: centimeters
Lunar penetration, heavier nuclei: millimeters

3. Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCR)

Nuclei energy: ~0.1 to >10 GeV per nucleon
Electron energy: ???
Flux: 2 to 4 protons/cm^2 sec
Lunar penetration, protons and alphas: meters
Lunar penetration, heavier nuclei: centimeters

--
Joe Durnavich

[Joe Durnavich]

Jay Windley writes:

>"Joe Durnavich" > wrote
>|
>| Am I right in thinking that the terms "solar minimum" and "solar maximum"
>| refer to the 11-year sunspot cycle?
>
>This is how astrophysicists use the terms. It's not clear that this is how
>Brad Guth uses the term. He seems to fasten onto certain buzzwords such as
>these two, and "secondary radiation", and sprinkle them liberally throughout
>a pile of impressive-sounding numbers and verbal gibberish.

That sure seems to be the case, especially considering Brad's latest
response suggesting the solar maximum is of no concern to the Apollo
missions.


>"Secondary radiation" is one of Brad Guth's buzzwords. I don't think he has
>much of a clue how it fits into the general picture.

He claims too that NASA is hiding all the data on the secondary
radiation coming from the lunar soil. In fact, though, Apollo 17
stuck a 2-meter probe into the soil designed to measure the most
common secondary radiation in the soil, namely, neutrons. I would say
why they were keenly interested in measuring the secondary radiation,
but I think it will be more fun to see what Brad imagines the reason
to be.


>If you plot the sum of primary and secondary radiation dose inside a
>shielded chamber as a function of shielding thickness, and keep the primary
>radiation constant, the graph is initially flat (the primary radiation plus
>no secondary radiation at zero shield thickness). Then in increases
>(unabsorbed primary radiation plus shield-induced secondary radiation).
>Then it falls off sharply as the shielding absorbs the majority of primary
>radiation, and the inner material of the shielding absorbs the secondary
>radiation created in the outer thickness of the shielding.

I have a question about the units used to specify "thickness." For
example, Brad states on his web page:

"I've learned that the bulk density of the Moon is reported at
3.41 g/cc, thereby 2 meters worth of lunar clumping soil and
mixed lunar rock are worth 682 g/cm2"

Aside from Brad's misuse of the mean density of the moon as the
density of the regolith (the regolith is actually around 2 g/cm3 and
maybe even less), I can picture what a "g/cm3" looks like as a measure
of density--I just picture a sugar cube comprised of tightly packed
sugar grains. But I am not so sure what a "g/cm2" looks like as a
measure of thickness. The Earth's atmosphere is said to have a
thickness of 1000 g/cm2. What constitutes the "cm2" here that the
grams are in?


>The radiation levels literally vary throughout the command module's habitabl
>volume. Not that any of them is especially dangerous in the normal flight
>profile. But the issue here is that there is no isometric "level" of
>radiation that applies at all times and to all points in the command module.
>It would be insanely complicated to compute accurately the radiation dosage
>at any one point, at any one time, in the command module.

On a related note, after reading a few papers, it didn't take me long
to appreciate the fact that engineers who design spacecraft are very
interested in the types, the levels, and the effects radiation has on
their machines. I didn't realize, for instance, that soft X-rays can
cause defects in optics. Conspiracists, I guess, think they are now
revealing the real truth about radiation, information which formerly
was hidden in a "lockbox."


>This is why it
>was measured instead of finely computed. In a radiation emergency the
>astronauts had a hand-held radiation detector that they could have used to
>sniff out the safest area of the command module.

That device is one of my favorite looking Apollo instruments. Almost
looks like something you would find in a Star Trek sick bay:

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-368/p110b.jpg

--
Joe Durnavich

[Jay Windley]

"Joe Durnavich" > wrote in message
...
|
| But I am not so sure what a "g/cm2" looks like as a
| measure of thickness.

"Mass per unit area" is a special concept limited to shielding. Because
flux is expressed as the rate of particle incidence per unit area, it is
helpful to specify shielding as the mass of shield material behind that unit
area, whether it's aluminum 3 millimeters thick or two feet of cork.

--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org

[Joe Durnavich]

Brad Guth writes:

>In reply to; Joe Durnavich

....

>I'm confused (as usual); It seems the pro-Apollo camp until lately
>(like right about now) had previously been clarifying upon whatever
>solar flares there were, as in that such events had been relatively
>small (hardly solar maximum, more like solar mediums) and furthermore,
>most of those Apollo mission timelines had supposedly managed to
>exclude even those events and thereby avoided much of what was
>possible in terms of potentially lethal external radiation levels. Now
>you're saying or implying just the opposit. Of course, the so called
>solar maximum needs to be an ongoing event during time of mission
>flight but, now that you've mentioned it, of any such solar event,
>even modus ones would have become somewhat testy for those EVAs, while
>creating less secondary radiation for those being spacecraft shielded.
>Basically, if we're dealing with any shielded space travel timeline as
>well as accommodating extended EVAs, it's a lose-lose proposition, as
>it's either or, but certainly not good for both.

Brad, I am just as willing as the next guy here to have Brad Guth as
my professor of radiation, but if my degree from Brad Guth Online
University is going to have any merit, you are going to have to be
able to keep clear the concepts of solar maximum, solar minimum, and
solar events.

For extra credit, I scanned in a graph from the Lunar Sourcebook and
colored in the cycle phases for you. The red areas are the maximum
phases of the solar cycle and are called "solar maximums." They are
just phases of the sunspot cycle and are not "events." I marked the
Apollo lunar mission years in yellow at the bottom of the graph.
Notice that the Apollo missions occurred primarily in the solar
maximum phase of the cycle:

http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/images/solarcycles.jpg

The vertical spikes on the graph are Solar Particle Events. These
events, and even then only the larger ones, are the radiation hazards
Apollo astronauts had to be concerned about. As you can see, they are
sporadic. No harmful or lethal event occurred during an Apollo
mission. All this analysis you are doing, then, is irrelevant.

And just so you don't miss it, Brad, the legend for the curve, the
sunspot numbers, is on the right of the graph. The proton fluxes
marked on the graph's left vertical axis apply only to the Solar
Particle Events, the vertical spikes.


>"Finally, I am intrigued by the notion of secondary radiation effects
>coming from the lunar soil. Looking at Henry's statements about
>requiring "2-meters of lunar soil," to protect against radiation, I
>see he was talking about protecting against major solar flare events
>and long term effects of cosmic radiation. Apollo was betting on not
>getting a major solar flare during a mission, and the time on the moon
>was only 3 days at most during a mission, which does not qualify as
>"long term." Thus, I don't see where Henry's statements have much to
>do with any of the Apollo missions. In fact, the context of the
>discussion was about lunar bases, long term habitation, tourism on the
>moon, etc."
>
>I believe I've understood all of that, whereas obviously for such long
>term considerations (presumably we're speaking decades worth) had to
>be striving for something near 1 rem/year (2.74 mrem/day), though 10
>rem/year along with good diet and strong supplement of DNA boosting
>steroids had ott to have been sufficient. Thus if achieving the 1
>rem/year is what that 2 to 3 meters worth of 3.41 g/cc lunar soil
>should accommodate, though Earth density soil would have made a 2
>meter depth more than sufficient, then it stands to reason that it'll
>take something close to the 1024 g/cm2 in order to match that same
>level of protection. Permitting a ten fold or 27.4 mrem/day dosage is
>not by way of utilizing 1/10 of that 1024 g/cm2, it's perhaps more
>likely 90% or 922 g/cm2 if we're discussing secondary (X-Ray)
>radiation reductions, as based upon what I've learned, it's
>exponentially nonlinear.

As I pointed out in the other post, the only radiation that penetrates
meters into the lunar soil are Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCR). Not only
is the GCR flux very low, but the secondary radiation generated by
them in the soil consists primarily of neutrons. The notion that
there is deadly secondary X-ray radiation coming from the lunar soil
doesn't appear to have any basis in fact.

--
Joe Durnavich

[Brad Guth]

Fred Garvin > wrote in message >...
> On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 00:52:33 -0400, Brad Guth wrote:
>
> >> You have absolutely no idea what you're blathering about. Talk to your
> >> primary care physician about increasing your meds, Brad. You are
> >> becoming even less lucid, moment by moment, post by post.
> >
> > Moon or Venus, it's become one or the other but not both
> >
> > This little tit for tat that's ongoing over whether or not we've been to
> > and walked on the moon is not so much about my having to prove that we
> > didn't, as it's having to do with the fact, that for the life of myself
> > and for the love of God I can't seem to prove we ever did. Taking someone
> > others word for it is hardly sufficient, especially when the pro-Apollo
> > side has all the ulterior motives, certainly the means and the
> > opportunity to boot.
>
>
> (snipped out a huge amount of total bull****)
>
>
> Seek professional help as soon as you can. Seriously, you're pretty ****ed
> in the head.

Say what?

Just because my dyslexic mistakes haven't gotten any one killed like
all those hiding WMDs, you don't like me.

How about giving me some numbers instead of mental advice and
otherwise your warm and fuzzy flak.

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

I've noticed 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 any number of ongoing tit for tats
under various topic/subject as this GOOGLE: "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.

If you want my attention focused elsewhere; tell me what the
environment is like at Venus L2.

Regards, Brad Guth "GUTH Venus"

[Herb Schaltegger]

In article >,
"Jay Windley" > wrote:

> Apparently we've exercised Brad's
> one original thought today.

"Exercised" or "exorcised"? Does Brad know or appreciate the
difference? ;-)

--
Herb Schaltegger, Esq.
Chief Counsel, Human O-Ring Society
"I was promised flying cars! Where are the flying cars?!"
~ Avery Brooks

[ceniza]

This is a great Subject Title....
As Americans, we should just embrace the quite obvious moon hoax.
Kinda like those people who say it doesn't matter if Jesus existed or not,
the important
think is message and teachings.
Of course, with the moon hoax we don't have either, but that doesn't matter,
we should just embrace
the fact that there is no message or lesson to be learned.
Maybe just that America is the land of kickass entertainment!


Brad Guth > wrote in message
om...
> Herb Schaltegger > wrote in message
>...
> > In article >,
> > (Brad Guth) wrote:
> >
> > >(Snipped more pseudo-scientific-sounding delusional feces . . .)
> >
> > Brad, increase your meds. Seriously.
>
> All you have to do Herb, is provide your own superior numbers and/or a
> web page that I can post a link to, so that others and myself can
> compare whatever it is that you have to stipulate as opposed to my
> uneducated arguments. In the mean time, I'll continue to read of what
> others have to say and, I'll even do my best to understand it, even
> though you seem to have more ulterior motives at risk than you or I
> can shake a flaming stick at.
>
> In spite of others such as yourself, I believe I'm getting somewhat
> closer to understanding the harsh environment of Earth L4 or L5,
> thereby I'm slowly gaining ground upon what Venus L2 may have to
> offer. The following updated page is becoming both "good news" and
> "bad news".
>
> Here's my latest update and, as far as this village idiot can figure,
> it's become somewhat worse off than I thought, at least the Van Allen
> zone as representing any significant radiation buffer simply isn't
> what the pro-Apollo cults have to say, even though it's a fairly nasty
> place to spend any amount of time in a craft as ****-poorly shielded
> as what the Apollo missions had to work with and, don't even mention
> anything of TRW Space Data, as that's 27 times worse off.
>
> http://guthvenus.tripod.com/space-radiation.htm
>
> There's been another metric tonne worth of new information I've
> learned about the radiation environment at Earth L4/L5, not to mention
> the greater risk imposed from secondary (X-Ray) dosage that's
> attributed to solar minimum cosmic radiation interacting with the
> likes of any shield and/or the lunar surface.
>
> This is where the opposition (perhaps that's you) offers somewhat
> intentional disinformation, as being tossed out like warm and fuzzy
> flak at my position, where actually that's what's been giving me
> insight and further motivation into learning what's more likely the
> case than not, like what our atmosphere and of the void or space in
> between Earth's atmosphere and 590 km has to offer, a factor of
> roughly 274,000:1 in reducing radiation exposure as opposed to the Van
> Allen zone attributing another mere 200:1 influx buffer.
>
> Regards, Brad Guth "GUTH Venus"

[Jay Windley]

"ceniza" > wrote in message
...
|
| As Americans, we should just embrace the quite obvious
| moon hoax.

What about those of us who think it's quite obvious that it *wasn't* hoaxed?

| the important thing is message and teachings.

No. The important thing is the standards by which claims are made and
tested. What about when someone says it's "obvious" that *your* ethnic,
racial, or religious group shouldn't have the same rights as others? What
about when someone makes an accusation against you on the basis of
non-existent evidence?

The ability to recognize and dispose of a flimsy, ill-supported argument is
important. It may seem a waste of time when the conspiracy theory is
"harmless", but if you don't learn the skills then how are you going to
recognize and reject the next conspiracy theory that sends millions of
innocent people to gas chambers?

Conspiracism is not helpful. It's not constructive. It's not benign. It's
an infectious cognitive dysfunction that needs to be shown for what it is.

| Of course, with the moon hoax we don't have either

Yes, we do. The "message" is that people who never finished college but who
have plenty of books and videos to sell you on their wacky theories which
the "Gubmint doesn't want you to know," shouldn't necessarily be trusted
implicitly. There's more to telling the truth than speaking in hushed tones
and playing eerie music, or pretending to be experts in this or that.

The "teachings" are the vast improvements in science and engineering and the
greater understanding that came from reaching for the moon. We learned a
lot in the 1960s, and it would be a shame to throw all that out just because
a few malcontents want your money.

| Maybe just that America is the land of kickass entertainment!

.... and gullible souls with no interest in the world around them.

--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org

[Jay Windley]

"Brad Guth" > wrote in message
om...
|
| "No harmful or lethal event occurred during an Apollo mission",
| that's just my point, solar minimum supposedly kicks up by far
| the most in secondary radiation.

Define "solar minimum".

| Here's what I've offered in reply to something Jay Windley
| proposed.

I made no such proposition.

As usual you have completely misunderstood what you have read. I made no
claim that the paucity of secondary radiation on the lunar surface was due
to some unique property of the material. In fact, I specifically disclaimed
that notion when I described the reaction of the lunar surface material to a
solar particle event.

--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org

[Ami A. Silberman]

Um, Brad, you do know that the LM made all of ten flights, all of them
successfully. The space shuttle has had two failures in about 100
flights, and near as I can tell the Osprey has had

The Osprey doesn't crash "every time it flies", its just that it crashes
about once per 1000 hours of flying time. (4 crashes in 4000 total hours
according to one source I've seen.) Suppose that the LM was just as
dangerous. No, say it was 10 times as dangerous. Considering that the
total amount of powered flight time of all the LMs was about ten hours.
(It was less -- powered descent was about 15 minutes.) If it crashed at
ten times the rate of the Osprey, about 1/10 of an LM would have
crashed.

[Ed Rhodes]

"Herb Schaltegger" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> (Brad Guth) wrote:
>
> >(Snipped more pseudo-scientific-sounding delusional feces . . .)
>
> Brad, increase your meds. Seriously.

....perhaps to the point of catatonia?

[Jay Windley]

"Brad Guth" > wrote in message
om...
|
| Since I'm not even attempting to be the expert that you already are,
| I'm merely attempting to extrapolate upon what seems to be entirely
| missing data from what I would have thought was a done deal ...

If you're not an expert, how do you know that your extrapolation method will
work?

| If you perchance have any source of external expertise that might even
| know the likely environment of Venus L2, then none of this tit for tat
| would even be necessary, though you seem to be continually playing
| with the deck of cards, instead of shelling out numbers.

I don't particularly care what the environment of Venus L2 is. I do,
however, care that you're stomping all over the Apollo missions in order to
try to figure it out. You seem to want to get considerable rhetorical
mileage from my unwillingness to help you along in your delusion. Be that
as it may; you can either defend your Apollo statements or withdraw them. I
have no intention of "agreeing to disagree" on them because you're simply
ignorant about it.

And in the meantime you can remove my name entirely from your web site, as
what you've said there about me isn't true.

--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org

[Jay Windley]

"Brad Guth" > wrote in message
om...
|
| I hope that you're not going to start in suggesting that
| in the late 60s we had a fly-by-wire modulated main rocket
| engine as well as trim rocket technology down pat ...

Since you have shown remarkable ignorance of nearly every aspect of every
topic you bring up here, why should I expect that you have any sort of
experience in or understanding of guidance system technology? You seem
comfortable in the role of naysayer, but I doubt strongly that you have done
any meaningful research to convince yourself that your naysayings have
merit.

I suggest you go read up on the Polaris missile guidance system and then
shut the hell up. Fly-by-wire is simply a digital guidance system with
human input signals instead of those looked up in a table.

| nor that our astronauts were flight proficient at "Bang
| Bang" analog piloting a spacecraft within a foreign environment
| at 1/6th gravity

What are these supposedly great unknowns in piloting in the lunar
environment? You make it sound like some great mysterious void. What
*exactly* couldn't have been accurately predicted and therefore simulated
for training purposes?

| ... and without their ever once accomplishing a single speedy
| drop-in and down-range prototype test landing here on Earth?

But that wasn't your original demand. You wanted to see extended flights.
You wanted to see numerous flights. You claimed no records of that existed.
And when it was pointed out to you that records and evidence of that flight
testing was plentiful, you changed your demand and now you want to see some
sort of flaming orbital descent to an earth landing.

Only now you are pretty sure you're asking for something that wasn't done.
But now you have to justify your expectation that a manned landing wasn't
possible unless such a test *was* done. And since I don't consider you an
expert on flight control or guidance, I don't consider your mere say-so
sufficient justification.

What *exact* understanding would such a test have provided? And I don't
mean handwaving answers like, "It would have shown they could actually do
it." I want to know specifics. I want to know how Brad Guth came to the
realization that this specific test is the sine qua non of moon landing.

| OOPS; I forgot, that yourself and all others supporting our
| cold-war Apollo ruse/sting can't possibly say anything other
| with involving lethal nondisclosure consequences.

Or so it pleases you to believe. You seem to believe the "truth" is hiding
behind some soft of non-disclosure agreement, when in fact the "truth" is
published on several web sites, in several books (e.g., Hall's "Journey to
the Moon"), and available from many individuals. Your unfamiliarity with
those sources is not because those sources have been sworn to secrecy, but
because you're either too stupid, too afraid, or too lazy to actually
consult them.

Please, by all means persist in your quest for ignorance. Just keep my name
out of it.

| The only way that even those trim stabilisation rockets could have
| functioned without an atmospheric buffer is working against a rather
| substantial X/Y set of sufficiently massive energy gyros, even that's
| leaving out the Z axis for being at the mercy of the control operator.

And this word salad is supposed to mean something? Throwing out a whole
bunch of impressive-sounding jargon doesn't make you competent in the field.
I suggest you study the error and error-rate recovery optimization theory
which has been part of the standard literature since the early 1960s.

"Atmospheric buffer"? Just what is that supposed to mean? A fluid
atmosphere provides negligible assistance in RCS-type attitude control.
Passive attitude control is accomplished by adjusting the vehicle's mass
properties to attain a desirable moment of inertia. Further, an atmosphere
complicates the process by introducing unwanted moments and drifts. It is
quite easier to land on the moon were thrust and gravity are the only forces
that must be managed.

A moon landing is a fairly straightforward application of delta-v. You've
got a certain velocity consistent with keeping you in orbit at a certain
altitude. Bringing that (horizontal) velocity to zero while descending from
that altitude according to a velocity profile is a fairly easy task,
especially when gravity is so weak. In fact, it's hardly different from a
programmed ascent to an orbital insertion point except in the sense of doing
it backwards. It can even be done as a series of timed piecewise linear
burns, putting it well within the capacity of even the stupidest
programmable guidance system of the 1960s.

If that zero point is some altitude above the actual surface of the planet,
all that remains is to lower the LM on its thrust -- LLTV-fashion -- to the
surface itself, blissfully unaffected by air gusts and blessed with a weak
force of gravity (and therefore a weak engine and therefore weak error
moments).

The ability to fly any rocket-powered spacecraft to that zero point was
already established by decades of experience in the reciprocal problem of
ascent. So well did we know how to do that, that we could even do it in a
fuel-optimal manner. The ability of a human and/or computer to fly from
that zero point to a soft landing was aptly demonstrated. Now to be sure,
this "zero point" didn't exist explicity in the Apollo descent profile.
Since the problem of de-orbit and the separate problem of a hover-type
landing overlap, there is a smooth transition between the deorbit and the
terminal descent ("low gate") of the landing.

So how do you test those profile elements in a "safe" environment?

De-orbit for a lunar landing can't be tested on or near earth because of
earth's atmoshpere. And the tests can't be done with the same hardware
intended for the moon because obviously it would lack the delta-v capacity
to slow from an *earth* orbit. Luckily, as I've stated, it's a very
straightforward theoretical problem when you eliminate the atmosphere.

But you can test this in the vicinity of the moon. And that's exactly what
was done on Apollo 10. The LM flew the deorbit to the point where they
transitioned from an orbital mechanics problem to a simple flight dynamics
problem. Then they lit up their ascent engine and went back up into orbit.

If you take certain precautions, you can test the terminal descent procedure
on earth. And that's exactly what the LLTV was designed to do. At a point
where the LM would cease being an orbital animal and being hovering, the
LLTV could accurately simulate the "feel" of the spacecraft. And the
astronauts showed they were able to manuever, control, and land such a craft
without the aid of a computer and while compensating for wind. Not a
surprise, then, that the Apollo commanders found the actual LM -- with its
overpowered RCS, its guidance computer, and its vacuum flight environment --
easier to fly than the LLTV.

The only problems came from the LLTVs having been rather hastily designed
and built. They were not LM prototypes, as you seem to believe, but rather
training vehicles. A prototype is the pathfinder for the technology, while
the trainer is the pathfinder for the crew. The ad hoc nature of the
vehicles meant they broke down frequently, sometimes during a flight. The
problems with the LLTV do not derive from any inherent difficulty in the
problems they were meant to solve, but from the fact that they were thrown
together to solve one specific problem. There is not much of lasting value
in the LLTVs. They were not intended to "transition" into functioning VTOL
craft, or indeed to be especially good examples of VTOL design. They were
intended for one purpose: give the pilot some idea of what the LM would be
like to fly.

| Not that today we can't accomplish such feats, with a few compact CRAY
| computers onboard and a few million lines of code running plus just
| about every X/Y/Z and acceleration sensor within our technology
| applied and of nothing whatsoever missing a single digital bit.

LOL! You really do have *absolutely no clue* what is required to achieve
flight stability and control, do you? A digital autopilot for attitude hold
takes up about one single page of source code and was quite within the
capacity of a rocket-mountable computer of 1960.

| Too bad none of that works for the V-22 Osprey

Apples and oranges.

| nor just about any other fly-by-wire craft we've got to
| work with

Such as?

| though we've got lots of dead folks that certainly tried their
| best to prove otherwise.

Such as?

[Ami A. Silberman]

>
> | Too bad none of that works for the V-22 Osprey
>
> Apples and oranges.
>
And wrong, to boot. The Osprey has a fatal crash about once every
thousand hours of flight (which is unacceptably high for an operational
aircraft). The LM had maybe a total of ten hours of powered flight. If
the LM crashed ten times as often as the Osprey, it still would have
been unlikely to crash.

[Brad Guth]

I really don't know for absolute certainty if my highly subjective
interpretations of the published information about our moon that's oddly
missing or at least incomplete is any different than of my highly
subjective interpretations upon images obtained by the Magellan mission
persay the one and only last word. Deductive reasoning has generally
functioned just fine and dandy getting myself this far in life without
getting in too much trouble, or of getting someone other killed, whereas
I'm not at all convinced that our perpetrated cold-war administrations
and of those supporting such actions can say the same.

I realize that I've been pushing several of these 'do not push' buttons,
along with my lose cannon method of getting folks thinking along the
lines of what's most important about the likes of Venus, and/or even as
per considering upon the prospects of our getting a TRACE-II established
at VL2. If my focus wasn't being so continually bashed from the very
start of five years ago and counting, and/or continually ignored by all
of those nice folks claiming as being so all-knowing, then perhaps I'd
never have bothered with whatever our moon has or has not to offer.

Since most of the 'sci.skeptic', 'sci.history' and of multiple other
such 'sci.all-knowing' forums that summarily suck as badly as
'badastronomy' and even by your 'apollohoax' having usually focused upon
sucking up to whatever's NASA/Apollo or bust, whereas it seems these
folks are not persay really contributing as honest 'skeptics',
'science', 'physics', or even wizards about squat, in fact they're
mostly reacting as mainstream borgs of dog-wagging spinners of the
necessary disinformation hype and damage-control, performing exactly as
the sorts of 'Skull and Bones" moles functioning on behalf of
contributing whatever suits their pagan God(NASA/Apollo). I've noticed
how they seem to have all the right words and usually better math, while
they've otherwise buckled under specific questioning, by way of their
usually seaking out something to bash about or merely by way of going
off-topic, and/or by simply not answering specific questions, other than
continually quoting from their scripted and thereby pre-approved
NASA/Apollo bible.

Such as; I'll re-offer the following, that I've never had problems with
images of our moon obtained from orbit, not from anything Apollo while
in orbit, via Hubble or even the likes of KECK, as they each depict a
mostly basalt dark moon as it should be, in places as little as 3%(coal
like) reflective, at best 25% reflecting within only an extremely few
maximum lunar white-out zones. However, I still have some questions as
to the surface conditions that seem to defy all sorts of physics as
recorded by the unfiltered Kodak eye.

Why did there seem to be so much terrain that was 55+% reflective once
upon the lunar surface?

How is it that selective portions of their lunar terrain were
retro-reflective?

Why was there's never darker substances of raw basalt exposed under
and/or all about those undocumented landers, as depicted from images
obtained from orbit that clearly indicated 5% or less reflective index
wherever NASA/Apollo pointed out as being their official landing sites?

Why wasn't it much hotter than reported while supposedly walking upon
the actual dark lunar surface?

At 1.4 kw/m2 worth of continual and unobstructed influx, and therefore
doesn't IR energy reflect and thereby contribute?

Isn't the radiant influx along with the added portion of radiated energy
as IR coming off the lunar surface technically far worse off than
conductive forms of heat that can be easily insulated against?

Why was the Kodak eye (unfiltered except for a full spectrum band-pass
polarised filter) so unable to record the 256 fold increase in near-UV
and UV/a energy?

Where the heck was the likes of the Sirius star system all of this time?

Where was good old blazing (80+% reflective) Venus all of this time?

Shouldn't Venus have been photo recorded as nearly as bright as per
those 85% reflective moonsuits?

Why was the film exposure to the 'blue' spectrum of our American flag so
unusually subdued?

How in the freaking heck did the raw solar spectrum become so nicely
xenon like?

Why was the 3.1 g/cm lunar basalt and other supposedly heavier
substances so none-reactive?

Where did all the meteorites and their impact strewn shards go?

Why was there never once a dust-bunny impacting at 30 km/s or even 3
km/s?

Why is there still nothing of interactive scientific instrumentation
deployed upon the moon?

Isn't there any functioning and thereby R&D documented AI/robotic lander
that'll at least manage a one-way lunar deployment?

What's the secondary TBI difference between the fully illuminated side
of the moon as compared to the nighttime side and/or earthshine
environment, or didn't our command modules (on 7+ Apollo occasions) and
numerous other robotic missions before and after ever once bother as to
recording squat as to such raw surface emissions of thermal and
radiation levels that should have been rather easily obtained data of
the sorts of differentials from such a relatively low (100+km) orbit?

In a little further research retrospective; exactly how long does it
require for ice to vaporise in space?

The same goes for dry-ice(frozen CO2), how much time per ccm or per m3
into becoming vapor?

In spite of all the orchestrated flak imposed against my suggestions on
behalf of seriously accomplishing nothing but good and honorable things
with ISS, I also have managed to create a few other related topics,
several of which are not specifically about our moon or Titan, though in
more than a few ways offering just about everything under the sun on
behalf of improving future space exploration and just plain old space
travel bang for the buck/euro that's at least indirectly related to
folks utilizing our moon as a rather necessary gravitational booster
shot. Of such missions passing as close to the moon as possible hasn't
even been such a new idea, it just so happens to coincide with the even
better physics and science logic and numerous other values of what the
LSE-CM/ISS is good for.

"Terraforming the moon, before doing Mars or Venus"
"The Moon, LSE-CM/ISS, Venus and beyond, with He3 to burn"
"Lunar/Moon Space Elevator, plus another ISS within the CM"
"Space Policy Sucks, while there's Life on Venus"
"Ice Ages directly regulated by Sirius"
"SETI/GUTH Venus, no kidding"
"Terraforming the moon"
"Relocate ISS to ME-L1"

Relocation of ISS to ME-L1 is certainly a task that's much easier said
than done, but at least it's something that's been doable. For the
benefit of salvaging our environment, extracting and exporting
helium-3(He3/3He) to Earth is just offering a little beneficial fusion
icing on the cake.

As I get the chance, I'll search for and extract your name and even your
'apollohoax' as being of no further value to what I have to offer. As I
learn of what's what, and if that's supportive of what you've published
that I've previously disagreed with, I'll gladly deliver an honest
retraction, making certain that others realize that I've actually made
another mistake, which is entirely unlike a certain resident warlord
that you admire which apparently never makes a mistake.

Regards, Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

[Brad Guth]

I wonder what the heck 'Fredrick Garvin' had to say?

It seems that whenever my lose cannon has managed to wing someone, that
lo and behold they vanish like another one of those WMD, either that or
their borg collective brings in the troops. At times the entire topic is
scratched. Fredrick Garvin must be another one of those all-knowing
wizards that is so damn smart that even he can't answer my questions.

Following their trail of damage-control, dog-wagging hype and cold-war
spin that these fools have in common with the likes of apollohoax; it's
almost exactly like searching for Osama bin Laden and all of those WMD.

Of course, if these fine and upstanding folks shared upon anything other
than what was NASA/Apollo approved, as such their lives wouldn't be
worth squat.

Just asking about the radiation calibrations as obtained by way of
directing our satellite instruments at the moon is enough to start
WW-III. Of course, I'm speaking of the secondary hard-X-ray dosage that
would have traveled unobstructed, outward in all directions from the
solar illuminated moon, only to being intercepted by any one of our
terrestrial satellite instruments focused upon the moon.

Trying to extract any such honest data from a NASA memory/archive bank
is nearly impossible. You'd think that such raw and basic information
would have been a matter of boasting our butts off. What could possibly
be the harm in comparing the day/night worth of those hard-X-Rays or,
even as to the IR spectrum worth of what's being nicely reflected off
the basalt dark moon, as persay being derived from such a highly IR
reflective surface as well as the highly reactive substance of our moon?

Regards, Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

[Brad Guth]

Interesting how I can manage as to reply to certain freaks within
GOOGLE but not even access their reply within MAILGATE. In this case, I
can't imagine why the likes of 'Fredrick Garvin' isn't being allowed
into the MAILGATE archives. He must have done something really bad.

BTW; what sort of topics has 'Fredrick Garvin' contributed, or don't
you ever contribute squat?

I notice how 'Fredrick Garvin' seems to arrive extremely late into
whatever topic, usually as to bash the given topic and author unless
it's been about something that supports his status quo, such as
indiscriminate killings of Muslims seems to be right up your
all-knowing expertise as just perfectly fine and dandy if it's
something that suits our resident warlord.

If we did an investment search, do you suppose that we might discover
the gas, oil and energy related stocks that are yours, possibly even a
little recently acquired ENRON, and those of Halburton just
sufficiently prior to our WMD fiasco.

Regards, Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm

[Brad Guth]

Dear Fredrick Garvin,
Once again with all the none-contributions and/or off-topic replies.

Apparently you can't manage as to offer anything that's specific, at
least not on-topic. In this case it's all about the Apollo ruse/sting of
the century that I'm saying sucks, and that you and your friends haven't
managed as to coming anywhere close to resolving what the Kodak eye
recorded as being so unusually artificial xenon illumination spectrum
like, not to mention those other details I've offered that simply do not
add up to physics-101.

Regards, Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm

The following is re-posted on yourbehalf because folks within in
MAILGATE can't read whatever it is that you're having to say. Why is
that?
-

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.space.history/browse_frm/thread/f81f290189bf769f/0c3466435ae71fb7?_done=%2Fgroup%2Fsci.space.histor y%3F&_doneTitle=Back+to+topics&_doneTitle=Back&&d#0c3466435ae71fb7
Fredrick Garvin Feb 4, 3:40 pm

Newsgroups: sci.space.history
From: Fredrick Garvin > - Find messages by this
author
Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 23:40:13 GMT
Local: Fri, Feb 4 2005 3:40 pm
Subject: Re: Moon hoax as American as apple pie

Note: The author of this message requested that it not be archived. This
message will be removed from Groups in 6 days (Feb 11, 3:40 pm).


You are one wacky assclown! You need to seek serious help right away,
I'm
serious. You're pretty messed up in the noggin....


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

[Rhonda Lea Kirk]

Fredrick Garvin wrote:
> Brad Guth expelled the following:

>> Dear Fredrick Garvin,
>> Once again with all the none-contributions and/or
>> off-topic replies.

Dear Brad,

When are *you* ever on topic for sci.space.*history*?
That's a serious question.

> You are one delusional and screwed up individual.

>> The following is re-posted on yourbehalf because
>> folks
>> within in MAILGATE can't read whatever it is that
>> you're
>> having to say. Why is that?

> I don't know genius, why don't you figure it out if
> you're that concerned. What the hell is "mailgate"?

Fred,

He's using a web-based interface for reading news. It's
possible to use mailgate.org just like any other
newsfeed but apparently Brad hasn't figure out how to
set it up his newsreader. The web interface is slow and
cumbersome, and it is not updated as quickly as one
might hope, so he's probably missing some posts.
Maybe even a lot of posts.

On the other hand, although Brad's pretty nutty, I
think he inspires some of Pat's better works. <g,d&r>

rl

[OM]

On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 23:55:18 GMT, Fredrick Garvin >
wrote:

> You are one delusional and screwed up individual.

....No more screwed up than you for replying to the ignorant piece of
trailer trash. If you weren't replying to him, we'd never see the
*******.

<PLONK>

Took care of *that* problem...

OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

[Brad Guth]

Rhonda Lea Kirk,
Thanks for all of your positive feedback. I actually have no problems
with your personal assessment of myself being "pretty nutty", just like
all of those conditional laws of physics are equally "pretty nutty" if
those are having something/anything to do with actually walking on the
moon.

I'm still wondering as to why those "pretty nutty" conditional laws of
physics don't apply equally to Venus as they managed on behalf of those
NASA/Apollo folks that can't seem to tell the difference between
artificial xenon illumination and that of the raw solar influx that was
absolutely overloaded (roughly 256 fold greater) with near-UV and UV/a
photons, that which their unfiltered cameras loaded with sensitive Kodak
film entirely failed to record the slightest hint of any color/spectrum
intensity skew.

I may have to keep offering this contribution in spite of all the
orchestrated flak imposed against my research and suggestions of other
life on Venus, and of otherwise seriously accomplishing perfectly good
and honorable intentions on behalf of relocating ISS towards the moon,
I've managed to create a few related topics. Several of these topics are
not specifically about our moon or even Titan, though in more than a few
ways offering just about everything under the sun on behalf of improving
future space exploration and just plain old space travel bang for the
almighty buck/euro that's at least indirectly related to folks utilizing
at least the mutual gravity-well aspects of our moon, or even the moon
itself as a rather necessary gravitational booster shot. Of such
missions passing as close to the moon as possible hasn't even been such
a new idea, it just so happens to coincide with the even better physics
and science logic and numerous other values of what the LSE-CM/ISS is
good for.

"Terraforming the moon, before doing Mars or Venus"
"The Moon, LSE-CM/ISS, Venus and beyond, with He3 to burn"
"Lunar/Moon Space Elevator, plus another ISS within the CM"
"Space Policy Sucks, while there's Life on Venus"
"Ice Ages directly regulated by Sirius"
"SETI/GUTH Venus, no kidding"
"Terraforming the moon"
"Relocate ISS to ME-L1"

BTW; can't but notice how my science and physics related questions about
our moon have become so 'nondisclosure' taboo these days.

I believe that one-on-one I can manage a whole lot better than this, but
here's one of my old external moon topic pages:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-photo-entro.htm

The LSE-CM/ISS: http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm

Your basic township on Venus: http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm

Summary/update page of interesting stuff:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/update-242.htm

Regards, Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm


"Rhonda Lea Kirk" > wrote in message


> Fredrick Garvin wrote:
> > Brad Guth expelled the following:
>
> >> Dear Fredrick Garvin,
> >> Once again with all the none-contributions and/or
> >> off-topic replies.
>
> Dear Brad,
>
> When are *you* ever on topic for sci.space.*history*?
> That's a serious question.
>
> > You are one delusional and screwed up individual.
>
> >> The following is re-posted on yourbehalf because
> >> folks
> >> within in MAILGATE can't read whatever it is that
> >> you're
> >> having to say. Why is that?
>
> > I don't know genius, why don't you figure it out if
> > you're that concerned. What the hell is "mailgate"?
>
> Fred,
>
> He's using a web-based interface for reading news. It's
> possible to use mailgate.org just like any other
> newsfeed but apparently Brad hasn't figure out how to
> set it up his newsreader. The web interface is slow and
> cumbersome, and it is not updated as quickly as one
> might hope, so he's probably missing some posts.
> Maybe even a lot of posts.
>
> On the other hand, although Brad's pretty nutty, I
> think he inspires some of Pat's better works. <g,d&r>
>
> rl




--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

[Brad Guth]

"Ami A. Silberman" > wrote in message


> >
> > | Too bad none of that works for the V-22 Osprey
> >
> > Apples and oranges.
> >
> And wrong, to boot. The Osprey has a fatal crash about once every
> thousand hours of flight (which is unacceptably high for an operational
> aircraft). The LM had maybe a total of ten hours of powered flight. If
> the LM crashed ten times as often as the Osprey, it still would have
> been unlikely to crash.


Sorry, but good try. You're still not being specific about those
fly-by-rocket landers.

No R&D documentation, especially nothing AI/robotic that worthy of any
demo on behalf of safely delivering a pizza off a 3 story building.

Forget our supposed manned landers; just focus upon those supposed
AI/robotic fly-by-rocket Russian landers that also can't be demonstrated
nor otherwise backed up with any documentation upon their R&D step by
step efforts.

Comparing aerodynamics to something that's entirely 3D fly-by-rocket
isn't even within the same ballpark.

You do realize exactly how darn hot and nasty the fully solar
illuminated lunar surface of such dark basalt is, don't you?

You do realize that the lunar surface is highly reactive, more so than
aluminum. Thus hard-X-Rays (at least a good 1e6 m2 worth) are being
created just about everywhere. Of course, wizard Jay of 'apollohoax'
knows for a fact that our sun isn't a resource of anything that's the
least bit nasty. In fact, according to the likes of wizard Jay, the
earthshine lunar environment is just as bad off if not much worse off
than by sunlight.

Regards, Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

[Brad Guth]

"Ed Rhodes" > wrote in message


> "Herb Schaltegger" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > (Brad Guth) wrote:
> >
> > >(Snipped more pseudo-scientific-sounding delusional feces . . .)
> >
> > Brad, increase your meds. Seriously.
>
> ...perhaps to the point of catatonia?

As usual, you're not contributing squat.

Please pick up the slack, or don't bother.

Regards, Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

[Jay Windley]

"Brad Guth" > wrote in message
news:0d539fe43d4845c3f2f01065fa19ef30.49644@mygate .mailgate.org...
| "Ami A. Silberman" > wrote in message
|
|
| Of course, wizard Jay of 'apollohoax' knows for a fact that
| our sun isn't a resource of anything that's the least bit nasty.

I never said any such thing.

| In fact, according to the likes of wizard Jay, the earthshine
| lunar environment is just as bad off if not much worse off
| than by sunlight.

I never said any such thing.

If you want to be stubbornly delusional, be my guest. Just leave me out of
it.

--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org

[Brad Guth]

Your carfully constructed phrases and words of wisdom consistantly
implies that our government never makes even an honest mistake nor lies
about squat, thereby whatever's NASA/Apollo is the absolute truth and
nothing but the truth.

I believe that Kodak as well as ROSAT and other hard-x-ray observational
data proves otherwise.

Regards, Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

[Brad Guth]

Why are you still avoiding the ROSAT hard-x-ray data?

Why don't we obtain some feedback directly from the retired Kodak folks
that have little or nothing to lose?

Regards, Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm

[Brad Guth]

Rhonda,
Do you have any suggestions as to getting rid of all the negativism
within this forum that sucks. Like how about excluding 99% of the fools
that seemingly focus all of their supposed talents upon enforcing and
extending their mainstream status quo or bust, whereas these folks are
pathetic examples of what's become so space-toilet qualified about this
and just about any other topic/author that they elect to take issue
with, which usually represents a great deal of bashings for sport.

Or, are you having to become just as anti-truth as the rest of the
bunch?

Regards, Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm

[Brad Guth]

Fredrick Garvin,
Sorry, I didn't realize the laws of physics and of all the hard work
and accomplishments of other scientists that are by their own published
words on my side of this argument (that's including Kodak and just
about every stinking photographer on this planet) is what you'd
classify as "spewing the bull****".

Actually, others do not seem to have "a different opinion", unless
orchestrated mainstream status quo flak is what you'd call an opinion.

An opinion represents openly sharing information, ideas and speculating
until them Apollo cows come home. Without subjective notions and
conjectures being out and about, there wouldn't much point in life as
we know it, much less on behalf of whatever we don't know of.

BTW; why are you answering on behalf of 'Rhonda'?

Regards, Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm

[Dale]

On 13 Feb 2005 05:54:05 -0800, "Brad Guth" > wrote:

>Fredrick Garvin,
>Sorry, I didn't realize the laws of physics and of all the hard work
>and accomplishments of other scientists that are by their own published
>words on my side of this argument (that's including Kodak and just
>about every stinking photographer on this planet) is what you'd
>classify as "spewing the bull****".

You include "Kodak" as a scientist? "Kodak" is a tradename,
not a person.

What's the up side of being totally bonkers, Brad?

Dale

[Scott Hedrick]

> On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 17:35:58 -0800, Brad Guth expelled the following:
> > Do you have any suggestions as to getting rid of all the negativism
within
> > this forum that sucks.

Sure- stop posting.

[Brad Guth]

WOW, impressive reply.

I see that intellectual incest runs amuck within and throughout your
family tree.

Seems if you can't contribute, you shouldn't.

At least I'm attempting to improve the future, as I certainly can't do
all that much for the collateral damage and carnage of innocent of your
past, although apparently you wouldn't have changed one damn thing
about the past anyway, thus need I suggest what you have enstore for us
in the future certainly can't be much better.

Regards, Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm