Space Tourism and Radiation

We are being lied-to on a massive scale

lies

Something not quite right here:
SpaceX, the rocket company headed by Elon Musk is about to launch space tourists on a trip around the Moon, despite dire warnings since the 1950’s of “deadly” Van Allen radiation belts. Do travel companies, however exotic, send their customers on potential suicide missions? Maybe the explanation is that the science of Van Allen and countless other scientists over the past 60 years is baloney. Why, after all this time do NASA engineers tell us that they don’t have a clue what level of radiation they are likely to encounter?

dragon2.png

History
Van Allen said “All manned space flight attempts must steer clear of these two belts of radiation until adequate means of safeguarding the astronauts has been developed”.   Moreover, Van Allen advised they would have to be shielded with some extra layers of protection beyond that of the spacecraft itself.  These findings were also published in Scientific American Magazine, March, 1959. Two years later, Van Allen updated his report in Space World Magazine, December, 1961. In brief, he reported that everything he had found in 1959 was still valid.  It was also in that year that President John F. Kennedy told an assembled group of students and dignitaries at Rice University in Houston, that it was America’s destiny to put a man on the moon by the end of the decade. Article in Media Bypass Magazine,Sept.1997
https://archive.org/details/MediaBypassSept1995Vol3No9

Ignoring the warning, in December of 1968 Apollo 8 was launched and crossed the Van Allen belts the crew being the first humans to see the far side of the Moon. The final manned lunar mission, Apollo 17 was launched on 7 December 1972 and no human has been above low Earth orbit since that date…until now:

Let’s go to the Moon again
nytimes.com: SpaceX, the ambitious rocket company headed by Elon Musk, wants to send a couple of tourists around the moon and back to Earth before the end of next year. If they manage that feat, the passengers would be the first humans to venture that far into space in more than 40 years. Below is a confusing and contradictory video narrated by a NASA engineer who tells us that they just don’t know what to expect when they fly their *unmanned for safety* Mars craft through the belts. What became of the 60+ years of science? Can it be that after the problems encountered in landing Apollo 11 and all the gravity problems encountered by the preceding probes, NASA has given up on NASA science and the engineers have decided to do the job themselves?
(VIDEO) NASA’s Orion Engineer Admits They Can’t Get Past Van Allen Radiation Belts  See also the page Moon: Gravitational Anomalies: where we take a look at some other science induced problems.Mission Mars

NASA Orion Manned Mars Mission
21stcenturywire.com says: In the video presentation below, NASA engineer Kelly Smith explains about many of the risks and pitfalls surrounding the new Orion Deep Space Mission to the planet Mars.
Surprisingly, chief among Kelly’s concerns is whether or not his spacecraft can successfully pass through the perilous Van Allen Radiation Belts. Such is the prospective danger in fact, that NASA will have to send a dumbie (dummy?) craft first in order to ‘test out’ what the potential radiation effects will be on future human crews, as well as on the ship’s delicate sensors and equipment.
(VIDEO) NASA’s Orion Engineer Admits They Can’t Get Past Van Allen Radiation Belts
Why is SpaceX Elon Musk making promises before these tests are carried-out?

There’s a discussion here that says it’s the electronics only that need protection. So why cannot they calculate it from the NASA math below? Are there no scientists and mathematicians on the manned Mars project?

But the Chinese have already answered the question for them?

china-moon-rover-yutu
China’s Yutu moon rover, part of the Chang’e 3 lunar landing mission launching in December 2013. Credit: China National Space Administration

Bristling with microelectronics the Chinese Lunar Exploration Program soft landed a rover and other equipment in 2013, apparently without damage.
Chang’e 3, launched on 2 December 2013 aboard a Long March 3B rocket, landed on the Moon on 14 December 2013. It carried with it a 140 kg (310 lb) lunar rover named Yutu, which was designed to explore an area of 3 square kilometres (1.2 sq mi) during a 3-month mission. It was also supposed to conduct ultra-violet observations of galaxies, active galactic nuclei, variable stars, binaries, novae, quasars, and blazars, as well as the structure and dynamics of the Earth’s plasmasphere.
Chang’e 4, originally scheduled for 2015, was a back-up for Chang’e 3. However, as a result of the success of that mission, the configuration of Chang’e 4 was adjusted to test equipment in advance of the next mission.[9]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Lunar_Exploration_Program#Phase_II:_Soft_landers.2Frovers

piinsky
JPL Education – NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory

NASA Math!
spacemath.gsfc.nasa.gov: 4. Some people believe that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax because astronauts would have been instantly killed in the radiation belts. According to the US Occupation Safety and Health Agency (OSHA) a lethal radiation dosage is 300 Rads in one hour. What is your answer to the ‘moon landing hoax’ believers?

(I must admit that I was a doubter after reading Van Allen, but here we have NASA telling us there is not a problem at all)

Note: According to radiation dosimeters carried by Apollo astronauts, their total dosage for the entire trip to the moon and return was not more than 2 Rads over 6 days. The total dosage for the trip is only 11.4 Rads in 52.8 minutes. Because 52.8 minutes is equal to 0.88 hours, his is equal to a dosage of 11.4 Rads / 0.88 hours = 13 Rads in one hour, which is well below the 300 Rads in one hour that is considered to be lethal.
Also, this radiation exposure would be for an astronaut outside the spacecraft during the transit through the belts. The radiation shielding inside the spacecraft cuts down the 13 Rads/hour exposure so that it is completely harmless

Questions arise with the above as to where (if they ever did) did they get their data regarding the benign radiation? If it exists, it has not been made public and even NASA engineers don’t know about it. Additionally: everything I’ve read on the subject of Apollo shielding says it did not exist.

Wiki says: September 26, 1957: Thirty-six Rockoons (balloon-launched rockets) were launched from Navy icebreaker U.S.S. Glacier in Atlantic, Pacific, and Antarctic areas ranging from 75° N. to 72° S. latitude, as part of the U.S. International Geophysical Year scientific program headed by James A. Van Allen and Lawrence J. Cahill of The University of Iowa. These were the first known upper atmosphere rocket soundings in the Antarctic area. Launched from IGY Rockoon Launch Site 2, Atlantic Ocean; Latitude: 0.83° N, Longitude: 0.99° W.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Van_Allen#International_Geophysical_Year

The Geiger counter carried on these missions and in its present form has been with us since 1928, so what is the problem?  Why does NASA need to do the measurements again?

vanallen
James Van Allen built his career on the dangers he is now denying. But that’s how science works!

Professor Van Allen’s 2004 response to Jay Windley and Lambert’s enquiry
Dear Mr. Lambert,
In reply to your e-mail, I send you the following copy of a response that I wrote to another inquiry about 2 months ago —

Ø The radiation belts of the Earth do, indeed, pose important constraints on the safety of human space flight.

Ø The very energetic (tens to hundreds of MeV) protons in the inner radiation belt are the most dangerous and most difficult to shield against. Specifically, prolonged flights (i.e., ones of many months’ duration) of humans or other animals in orbits about the Earth must be conducted at altitudes less than about 250 miles in order to avoid significant radiation exposure.

Ø A person in the cabin of a space shuttle in a circular equatorial orbit in the most intense region of the inner radiation belt, at an altitude of about 1000 miles, would be subjected to a fatal dosage of radiation in about one week.

Ø However, the outbound and inbound trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft cut through the outer portions of the inner belt and because of their high speed spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. The resulting radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal dosage – a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such flights. I made such estimates in the early 1960s and so informed NASA engineers who were planning the Apollo flights. These estimates are still reliable.

Ø The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense.
James A. Van Allen
http://www.moontruth.org/VanAllen/letters/index.htm
(James Van Allen denying the very radiation dangers he built his career upon.)

NASA Scientists and Engineers Evaluate Orion Radiation Protection Plan: Is this some kind of joke?!!

radprotect
Stowage Bags On Board Orion The crew will use stowage bags on board Orion during missions to deep space to create a dense shelter. Credits: NASA taking the piss

Orion will be equipped with a radiation-sensing instrument integrated into the vehicle called the Hybrid Electronic Radiation Assessor, or HERA, to provide a warning if crew members need to take shelter in the case of a radiation event, such as a solar flare. To protect themselves, astronauts will position themselves in the central part of the crew module largely reserved for storing items they’ll need during flight and create a shelter using the stowage bags on board. The method protects the crew by increasing mass directly surrounding them, and therefore making a denser environment that solar particles would have to travel through, while not adding mass to the crew module itself.
Read it and weep at: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/scientists-and-engineers-evaluate-orion-radiation-protection-plan

The Engineer
Scientist’s look upon engineers as being underlings, tinkerers and they want no part or responsibility for their work. However, having given the engineers no information, if the craft fries in the Van Allen they will say “Van Allen told you so”. If the flight is successful they will say “it’s all down to NASA math” (above) and ‘we knew what would happen all along’. Science has to maintain the illusion that it knows it all. Scientists will avoid giving information to engineers because that means responsibility and responsibility means they will get the blame if anything goes wrong. They will be expected to put it right and they like that job to stay with the engineers. This is how science works.

The Answer
Science has become politics, the danger from Van Allen’s radiation was a NASA cold war scam and Van Allen was a NASA patsy.

“In the May 4, 1959 issue of Time magazine, its writers credited James Van Allen as the man most responsible for giving the U.S. “a big lead in scientific achievement.” They called Van Allen “a key figure in the cold war’s competition for prestige. …. Today he can tip back his head and look at the sky. Beyond its outermost blue are the world-encompassing belts of fierce radiation that bear his name. No human name has ever been given to a more majestic feature of the planet Earth.”” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Van_Allen

Challenging dominant physics paradigms by Juan Miguel Campanario and Brian Martin: “The usual image of the scientist is of a cool, calm, detached, objective observer, but the reality is quite different (Mahoney 1976; Mitroff 1974), as anyone who knows scientists is aware. The classic study of the psychology of scientists is Ian Mitroff’s book The Subjective Side of Science, in which he revealed that Apollo moon scientists were strikingly committed to their ideas, so much so that contrary evidence seemed to have little influence on their views. As well, scientists express strong views, often quite derogatory, about other scientists. To expect every scientist to react coolly and objectively to a competitor’s idea is wishful thinking, though there are some scientists who approach the ideal. Intriguingly, Mitroff found that it was often the top scientists who were the most strongly committed to their ideas.”
See also: Moon gravitational anomalies for scientist’s intransigent mind-set.

diggingdog
The Digging Dog

13 thoughts on “Space Tourism and Radiation

  1. The problem with space travels is that it’s impossible to get propulsion by expanding gasses in a vacuum, hence all the other points about radiation, etc., etc., are moot.

    Like

      1. My personal evidence is that the laws of physics are all consistent in disproving rockets working in the vacuum of space.
        Three main explanations are given on how rockets allegedly work in a vacuum. I will address each one trying to point out why they’re incorrect and can’t stand up to serious scrutiny.

        THE RECOIL FALLACY
        This is perhaps the most commonly used analogy to help the averageJoe figure out how a rocket work: “Well Joe, just think of a shotgun, you pull the trigger, a charge explodes, a bullet is propelled forward at high speed and you feel a recoil that push you backwards (same in the wheelchair-medicine ball variant). Ya know, action-reaction, Newton 3 law, etc. OK, now bear with me Joe, a rocket is like a shotgun that instead of bullets shoots out highly pressurized gasses. Do you think you wouldn’t feel the recoil shooting a rifle in a vacuum? Of course you would, so, since a rocket and a rifle use the same principle, they must work just fine both in your backyard and in the vacuum of space. Right?”
        Wrong.
        The fallacy lies in equating the bullet in the rifle with the expanding gasses in the rocket. Why? Because, from a newtonian point of view, in the two systems the bullet and the gasses have opposite inertia. Inertia of rest vs inertia of motion.
        The players in this scene are:
        the Rifle/Wheelchair (= The Rocket)
        the Gasses/Joe-the-ball-thrower (= The Force)
        the Bullet/Medicine ball (= The external pressure/Resistance to the expanding gasses)
        In the rifle/wheelchair example, the whole system is at rest initially. The rifle, the bullet, the wheelchair, the medicine ball and Joe-the-ball-thrower are solid objects, and they just love to stay at rest (Newton 1 law). To put anything in the system in motion, overcoming inertia, you need to apply an external force (action). Newton 3 law tells us there can be no action without a reaction, so the same force applied to the bullet or the medicine ball will be applied in the opposite direction to the rifle/wheelchair. Who provides the force? The expanding gas in the rifle (or Joe-the-ball-thrower sitting in the wheelchair).
        So far so good.
        On the other hand, contrary to solid objects, the molecules of a gas are, by their nature, in an endless state of motion, they’re constantly moving around at great speed, whizzing and bouncing all over the place. No external force or any kind of “pushing” is needed to put a gas in motion, as the gas molecules are already in motion.
        Can you see the difference here?
        In a rocket, as soon as you open the valve of the combustion chamber in a vacuum (no external pressure), the gas will say thank you and merrily shoot out, ON ITS OWN. It isn’t the rocket pushing the gas out, the gas inertia of motion is doing all the job.
        The gas won’t need no stinking push by the rocket.
        If no force is pushing the gas out, from whence should the “recoil” force be coming? Recoil to what?

        Bottom line: Newton 3 law actually disproves rockets working in the vacuum of space.

        THE CONSERVATION OF MOMENTUM FALLACY
        Here the idea is that when a rocket “expel” mass, in the form of burned fuel, in one direction, conservation of momentum says it has to be propelled in the opposite direction in order to conserve the total amount of momentum in the system.
        The law of conservation of momentum states that in a system not subject to external forces the total momentum is always conserved.
        That’s a logical consequence of Newton laws. Without external forces the interactions inside a system must always involve some kind of exchanging, like typically in a collision between two objects, where the energy/velocity lost by an object has to be transferred to the other (inelastic collision) or simply exchanged (elastic collision), so that in the end the total momentum of the two object is the same before and after the collision.
        Let’s take a look at how that applies to a gas expanding in a vacuum.
        A gas expanding against a vacuum is not interacting with anything, by definition, hence his momentum cannot be exchanged with anything, it follows that:
        THE EXPANSION OF A GAS IN A VACUUM WILL NOT AND CANNOT AFFECT ITS TOTAL MOMENTUM (i.e. THE TOTAL MOMENTUM OF THE GAS MOLECULES BEFORE THE EXPANSION IS CONSERVED AFTER THE EXPANSION).
        The logical, unavoidable consequence, and key point here, is that – if we assume a rocket in space can be accelerated by expanding gas in a vacuum – in order to account for the accelerating rocket we end up INCREASING the total momentum of the system. In other words, we end up violating the law of conservation of momentum.

        Bottom line: the law of conservation of momentum actually disproves rockets working in the vacuum of space.

        THE PRESSURE IMBALANCE FALLACY
        In this case the explanation goes something like this:
        inside the combustion chamber of the rocket there are pressurized gasses. The pressure is equally balanced in all directions and the system is in equilibrium, but as soon as a valve is open on one side and the pressurized gas is free to expand outside, a pressure imbalance develops inside the chamber, as the chamber’s wall directly opposing the valve will experience a pressure not offset by its counterpart. This imbalance will create a force that will push the chamber and in turn the rocket forward (as an aside note, in the end that means the rocket is pushing on itself, AKA the Baron Munchausen effect).
        Let’s devise an experiment in which we have a container in a vacuum with pressurized gas inside and let’s assume, for the sake of simplicity, it’s shaped like a cylinder.
        The container has two walls, let’s call them A and B (corresponding to the bases of the solid). Wall A can be opened, to let the gas exit the container. Wall B (opposite to A) can move along the inner part of the cylinder, like a piston, and we have arranged the system so that the weight and the friction of the wall/piston exert a resistance (inward force) that balance the internal pressure of the gas.
        Now, starting from a point in which the system is in equilibrium let’s remove wall A allowing the gas to freely expand.
        According to the explanation, the wall B should now be subjected to a force directed outwardly, caused by pressure imbalance. Such outward force (conceptually equivalent to the force that would purportedly propel a rocket) should cause the wall/piston to move accordingly in an outward direction. If you have the piston connected to a gauge, this movement would be read as an INCREASE in internal pressure.
        We are now at a point where, ceteris paribus, just opening the container (i.e. increasing the volume), we had the effect of measuring an increasing in internal pressure.
        Until you can demonstrably invalidate Boyle’s law PV=K, we are dealing here with a thermodynamics absurdity.

        Bottom line: the laws of thermodynamics actually disproves rockets working in the vacuum of space.

        Conclusion: the laws of physics are all consistent in disproving rockets working in the vacuum of space.

        Like

  2. I see no reason why a rocket shouldn’t work in an atmosphere. Propulsion is all about resistance, and propulsion in a fluid is all about displacement. A rocket and a row boat use the same principle. The more fluid mass per unity of time is displaced the greater the resistance opposed by the fluid and in turn the greater the backforce/recoil you feel. As soon as the produced resistance overcome your inertia of rest you start to move in the opposite direction.
    Can you propel a boat by rowing in the air? Yes but since the air density is 1/1000 that of water, to get the same resistance you need an oarblade about 1000 times bigger, or you need to row 1000 times faster.
    A propeller engine is like a fast moving row, it displaces air instead of water.
    A jet engine burn fuel and expels exhausted gasses. To make room for the exhausting gasses the surrounding air has to be displaced. The more air is displaced the greater the resistance, so here we are again.
    A rocket is like a jet engine that has its own oxygen stored in the fuel but that’s irrelevant as far as propulsion is concerned.
    Take away resistance and no matter if boat, plane or rocket, it’s game over for travelling.
    Not sure if you’re implying that you assume the space saga is real but no wonder it can’t be properly explained by newtonian physics, being newtonian physics probably incorrect.

    Like

    1. Got it.
      You don’t believe there has ever been a rocket in space (in a vacuum)?
      I agree the world is driven by lies and Ponzi money, everything is a lie. I would like to do some research on your theory but where do I start?

      Like

    2. Lerameistezet
      I took a look on the Internet. This guy says the same things as you do:
      Scientist Shows Proof That Rockets Do Not Work In The Vacuum of Space

      This is an experiment to test the same theory:
      Rockets in a Vacuum Chamber – Newton’s third law of motion Visualized

      He fires a rocket in a vacuum chamber and measures the thrust. The problem is that the chamber fills with gas from the rocket.

      On the other side of the argument is weight and mass, both of which are dependent on the environment they happen to be in. Mass is said to be the amount of matter, but if submerged in water its weight is less, suggesting less matter when we know its the same. In orbit around a planet there is no weight at all. What happens when you have a weightless rocket expelling gas? We then need to look at inertia and matter and mass with no weight. It’s complicated.

      Like

  3. I’m certainly not the first to point out how unscientific “rocket science” actually is (Space oddity is a much more apt definition, thanks David), so it’s not really “my theory”.
    Yes, googling something like rockets in vacuum or thrust in vacuum you find several threads, more or less interesting, with guys holding my position but more often than not using wrong or weak arguments, so they’re easily dismissed as charlatans or nuts.
    However, trying to debate is a lost cause, they will keep bringing up the three above fallacies over and over again. You’ll find yourself hitting a brick wall very soon, mostly ridiculed and insulted. It seems this topic is the proverbial elephant in the living room that nobody is able or want to see.
    The keyword here is inertia, not mass. They want you to focus on the fact that a solid object and a gas have both mass, so there’s no difference. The difference is they have opposite inertia. A bullet will stay at rest inside a box until some force will push it out, a gas molecule will fly off a box as soon as the door is opened, because a gas molecule is already in a state of permanent motion. Nothing is pushing the gas out, it’s the nature of gasses to expand indefinitely. If the expanding molecules don’t encounter resistance, as in a vacuum, they have nothing to exchange momentum. Momentum is mass*velocity, therefore is akin to say the velocity of the molecules stay constant during the expansion. If velocity don’t change there’s no acceleration, and if acceleration=0 then force=0, since F=ma. In other words, no force is involved in expanding a gas against zero resistance, that’s why it’s called a free expansion. The same amount of force involved in the gas expansion (zero) will be applied to the rocket in the opposite direction (Newton 3 law), so you can do the math.
    Anyway you’re not going to find any “ultimate” proof on either side so at the end of the day you’re left only with your grey matter to form your own opinion.

    Like

    1. The problem with this is that you cannot do an experiment, as the guy in the video found. It’s difficult to even do a thought experiment with no data.
      When I was walking the dog I began to think explosion. An explosion in space would cause gas and fragments to fly in all directions I would think – silently. (By the way they would not keep going in a straight line as Newton and NASA suggest, they would orbit the nearest large body). Would an explosion in space react as it does in an atmosphere? I doubt it. Would an explosion behind a rocket drive it forward? There is no way, as you say, to test it.
      This applies not only to rockets but to all astronomy and to particle physics.

      Like

  4. .
    Your article makes more sense that reading most mainstream garbage. Thank You.
    .
    Did you see this explanation from the NASA’s mouthpiece regarding Apollo astronaut’s issue with Van Allen belt?

    .
    See said the radiations are not real dangers to astronaut as they flew through it fast and overall exposure is quit less.
    .
    So what’s your stand on this?

    Like

    1. Hi Partha Sarathi Mishra
      The radiations are not real dangers because
      they are not real dangers. There’s a video on
      Youtube somewhere by a guy who worked on the first reactors. The maintenance team used to swim in the cooling pond. That was until the health and safety regulations were concocted.
      When NASA wanted to fly through the radiation belts they had to apply to change the safety rules. That’s what they did.
      None of these people had a problem with radiation. I’ve searched the Internet and no one tells us what uranium radiation is and so I have to go along with the video. He says it’s ultraviolet light.

      Like

      1. No I’m not saying that. An author I was reading questioned van Allen about his claims and van Allen said he stood by his findings. The safety restrictions are too high. I suspect this is to deter those who would use radioactivity for aggressive purposes.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.