5) Cosmology: Fake It ‘Til You Make It

the so-called Kármán line…sits some 62 miles (100 kilometers) above Earth’s surface, and it’s generally accepted as the place where…outer space begins…

Anything traveling above the Kármán line needs a propulsion system that doesn’t rely on lift generated by Earth’s atmosphere — the air is simply too thin that high up… 

people who fly above an altitude of 60 miles (100 km) typically earn astronaut wings from the Federal Aviation Administration. 

I don’t know about you, but 60 miles up wasn’t at all what I envisioned whenever I heard the news of “outer space”. After all, that’s well within Earth’s atmosphere.


Earth’s atmosphereis divided into five different layers, based on temperature…

the bulk of the atmosphere is located close to Earth’s surface—up to a distance of around five to nine miles…the troposphere…

The stratosphere reaches from the top of the troposphere…to an altitude of approximately 30 miles…

the mesosphere reaches as far as about 53 miles above Earth’s surface. Temperatures decrease…with altitude….[to] about -90°C (-130°F).

The thermosphere…reaches out to around…372 miles…Solar radiation makes the upper regions of the thermosphere very hot, reaching temperatures as high as 2,000°C (3,600°F). 

The uppermost layer, that blends with what is considered to be outer space, is the exosphere. The pull of Earth’s gravity is so small here that molecules of gas escape into outer space.

There is no clear-cut upper boundary where the exosphere finally fades away into space. Different definitions place the top of the exosphere somewhere between 62,000 miles and 120,000 miles above the surface of Earth.

How fortunate that we have that technological marvel that pierces the darkness of the far reaches of space and delivers knowledge to our doorsteps as easily and often as magazines!

The crisp, stunning images from the Hubble Space Telescope are a wonder to behold. As one can see in the image comparison below, Hubble’s views are significantly higher resolution than similar images obtained by ground-based observatories.

Ground-based (left) vs space-based (right) images of star-forming regions in the Whirlpool Galaxy. On the left is the view from the WIYN telescope at Kitt Peak in Arizona. On the right is the view from the Hubble Space Telescope.

Terrestrial telescopes must look through Earth’s atmosphere, which blurs the view and limits their resolution. Orbiting above Earth’s atmosphere, Hubble avoids that problem and can get a clearer view of the universe.

Press pause. Rewind to the first graphic where Hubble is located in the thermosphere at 340 miles above Earth.

OK, so maybe I’m being petty. We’ll consider that the scientists weren’t clear about “the bulk of the atmosphere” in the troposphere. I’ll let that one go.

World Atlas

The Hubble telescope, since its launch in 1990, has given us insight into space and the galaxies that surround us. Creating millions of pictures, the Hubble telescope has continued to be a valuable tool for space exploration. It has amazed us with incredible images of different star objects, galaxies far away, supernovas, and nebulas.


Three thousand light-years away, a dying star throws off shells of glowing gas in this image from the Hubble Space Telescope of the Cat’s Eye Nebula.
(Image: © J. P. Harrington (U. Maryland) & K. J. Borkowski (NCSU) HST, NASA)

But does Hubble show us what the universe really looks like?

no, according to NASA…

Hubble doesn’t use color film (or any film at all) to create its images. Instead…using what’s called a CCD (charge-coupled device) to record incoming photons of light…

Hubble has five scientific instruments which include cameras and spectrographs. A spectrograph is an instrument that splits light [AKA electromagnetic spectrum] into its individual wavelengths…Hubble’s main camera…can see three different kinds of light: near-ultraviolet, visible and near-infrared. But Hubble can only see each kind of light one at a time…


[as it] travels about 5 miles per second: That is like traveling from the eastern coast of the United States to the western coast in 10 minutes.  Hubble takes sharp pictures of objects in the sky such as planets, stars and galaxies… billions of light years away…The telescope can lock onto a target that is one mile away without moving more than the width of a human hair.

OK, but how much does the width of a human hair matter when locked onto a target billions of light years away? Seriously? We’re supposed to take this at face value?

Once the target is acquired, Hubble’s primary mirror collects light. The mirror can collect about 40,000 times more light than the human eye.

And you expect us to believe that there is no intervening light source or object blocking the view of the target billions of light years away?

When scientists estimate that there are 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars in the universe? It seems to me that any hobby photographer would question the ability to avoid all other light sources or obstacles in order to focus on one source “billions of light years away”…

But when it comes to the moon…

Not even the Hubble Space Telescope can discern evidence of the Apollo landings. The laws of optics define its limits.

Hubble’s 94.5-inch mirror has a resolution of 0.024″ in ultraviolet light, which translates to 141 feet (43 meters) at the Moon’s distance. In visible light, it’s 0.05″, or closer to 300 feet. Given that the largest piece of equipment left on the Moon after each mission was the 17.9-foot-high by 14-foot-wide Lunar Module, you can see the problem.

I see the problem alright. Just how big does anything look from billions of lightyears away?

These are significant inconsistencies.

Most importantly, despite the use of visual terms, these instruments are gathering invisible data from spectrographs.

Where Do the Colors in Hubble’s Images Come From?

Hubble pictures start out as shades of black and white. The Space Telescope Science Institute adds colors to the pictures for different reasons. Sometimes colors are chosen to show how an object might look to the human eye. Other times colors are used to highlight an important detail. Or they can be used to show details that would otherwise be invisible to the human eye…

So what Hubble’s NASA “writers and visualizers” are imaging is imaginary, NOT reality. 

For me, that’s a big problem.


Name: Robert Simon
Title: Lead Data Visualizer and Information Designer

My role is to make imagery from Earth sciences data. I turn data into pictures…I rely on engineers and scientists to produce the data…each instrument provides a very specialized type of information…

Our team is purely about communications. We translate data into a useable and understandable form. Our writers and visualizers explain what we are seeing and our Web developers tell the world.

1. “Our team ispurely about communications.” Just like advertising. Or propaganda. This team is not about scientific discovery.

2. “We translate data into a useable and understandable form.” To be used for what purpose?

3. “Our writers and visualizers explain what we are seeing” to fit with NASA’s presentation of the universe.

4. “our Web developers tell the world.” Again, this is all about media influencers, not physics.

But, but, but NASA says that

since 1990, the Hubble Space Telescope has helped to answer some of the most compelling astronomical questions of our time, and uncovered mysteries we never knew existed. With vision that spans the [invisible] ultraviolet through visible and into the [invisible] near infrared, Hubble investigates everything from black holes to planets around other stars. Its unique capabilities are revolutionizing astronomy as Hubble continues humanity’s quest to explore the universe.


If NASA “has to” photoshop an image of the earth supposedly taken from a satellite only 350 miles above earth, how can we possibly trust any image supposedly taken from the Hubble telescope of objects reported to be millions of lightyears away?

The NASA photoshoppers don’t even bother to maintain consistency. Are they banking on our gullibility or mocking it?

Which of these photoshopped images are accurate depictions of earth?


There is a photo of me in the front seat of a nursing class frantically waving my hand to force the instructor to call on me yet again. The pharmacology teacher finally told me to quit pointing out the errors in the pharmacology text. And here I thought the publishers would want to correct them in the next edition.

In a court of law an advocate don’t need to prove anything, simply show enough holes in the opposition’s story to establish doubt. NASA’s story does not hold up to scrutiny.

You are trusting in what you are told by scientists, and they don’t prove what they claim to be reality.

Hubble…has played a key role in the discovery of dark energy, a mysterious force that causes the universe to expand faster and faster as time goes on.

And here is a statement that can be fact checked. And it turns out that Hubble is given credit for what earth bound telescopes discovered.

…the unexpected finding made in the late 1990’s that the rate of expansion of the Universe is increasing due to dark energy…was totally unexpected and won its discoverers the Nobel prize for physics...Between 1994 and 1998 twenty astronomers located in America, Europe, Australia and Chile looked at 16 high red shift supernovae.

Hubble turned 30 years old in 2020…Since the telescope’s launch, five space shuttle missions have carried astronauts to Hubble to repair and upgrade it. The last mission was in 2009…The telescope will not be repaired or upgraded again. But, it is expected to continue to work past 2020.

Yep, just like earth-bound devices like computers and cell phones which have been working just fine without repairs or upgrades for the last 11 years are are expected to continue working.

Meanwhile, NASA and its international partners are preparing the James Webb Space Telescope to launch in early 2021. The Webb…will be able to see through clouds and dust in space.

Is that an implicit admission that Hubble can’t see through clouds and dust in space?

One line of inquiry that should not be ignored by us earthlings is aligning Hubble’s history with the history of the technologyon which its images are based.

  • 1969 – CCD (charge-coupled device) in initial stages of development by Bell Labs at AT&T.
  • 1977 – Home computers become widely available.
  • 1981 – First electronic cameras record images as continuous signals, as videotape machines did, not as discrete (digital) levels. Images had quality of the television of that time and had a lower quality of images comparing to the standard film. They also needed equipment for capturing and printing of images. They were mostly used by newspapers and military.
  • hs-1990-04-a-full1990 – Hubble Space Telescope launched. The first images were determined to be only a 50% improvement over ground-based images.
  • 1993 – first servicing mission to install new equipment.
  • 1997 – second servicing mission to install new equipment. Digital cameras are becoming available to the public, but Hubble continues to work with 1997 technology for the next 20 years. Anybody on earth still using 20 year old cameras? In an atmosphere where temperatures reach as high as 2,000°C (3,600°F)
  • 1999 – third servicing mission to restore Hubble to working order after it had shut down at some time prior.
  • 2002 – fourth servicing mission canceled and further missions paused halted after loss of all seven astronauts / technicians aboard the Space Shuttle Columbia. 
  • 2003 – An estimated repair cost of $1 billion was determined to be too expensive and was not done. Hubble was planned to be retired by 2010.

The most recent visit was in May 2009, when astronauts performed five tricky spacewalks to add a new camera, spectrograph, and make unprecedented repairs and upgrades that left Hubble more powerful than ever before.

NASA scientists hope those upgrades will add at least five more years of life to the aging Hubble Space Telescope.

Hmmm. This article is still “Live! From NASA! History’s premier outer space propaganda website!” in 2022, 8 years after Hubble’s expected life span and 13 years after the last repairs and upgrades.

In the last 13 years, which of your much simpler earth-bound electronics have not required continuous upgrades, or are no longer serviceable, or simply quit functioning? Can you imagine any equipment as high tech as the Hubble would have to be to deliver on its claims, as exposed to the intense heat at its location, can possibly be still working just fine??

As a intelligent, well-read individual with higher order analytical thinking skills I personally haven’t been convinced that what I was told is believable.

Fifty years on, the Apollo Moon programme is probably still humankind’s single greatest technological achievement.

On 16 July 1969, astronauts Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collins were strapped into their Apollo spacecraft on top of the vast Saturn V rocket and were propelled into orbit in just over 11 minutes. Four days later, Armstrong and Aldrin became the first humans to set foot on the lunar surface.

An estimated 650 million people watched Armstrong’s televised image and heard his voice describe the event as he took “…one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind” on July 20, 1969.

Or did they?

apollo-moon-landing-hoax-1-213x300-1After collating various sources of data on this subject and comparing and contrasting conflicting statements, I can’t believe that

  • after failing to overtake Russia in the seven years between the two contestants seizing rocket science from Germany in 1945 and rocketing men into Earth’s atmosphere in 1962,
  • that in the next seven years America had the technology to propelled a series of spaceships in round trips totaling 500,000 miles to the moon and back.

You don’t have to be an astrophysicist to compare our current technology with that of 50+ years ago to draw a conclusion that the technology just wasn’t there to reach the moon. The farthest any astronaut had made it from earth until then was 162 miles high, lasting only 5 hours of flight time, via the most highly developed rocket propulsion system. Next step, the moon, was one giant leap alright.

For one thing, there is basic high school knowledge of physics – Newton’s third law of motion. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. After 62 miles above earth the air is too thin to “push” against to achieve lift and flight by conventional aircraft. Rockets must be used to reach heights above the Karman line. And what are they pushing against? The earth! 


Saturn V was an American human-rated super heavy-lift launch vehicle used by NASA between 1967 and 1973.

A three-stage, liquid-fueled rocket, the Saturn V was developed under the Apollo program for human exploration of the Moon and was later used to launch Skylab, the first American space station [positioned only 250 miles above earth].

As of 2022, the Saturn V remains the only launch vehicle to carry humans beyond low Earth orbit [defined as 1,200 miles above earth], as well as the tallest, heaviest, and most powerful (highest total impulse) rocket ever brought to operational status…


107896500_saturn_v_rocket_v1_976-ncThe Apollo 11 mission to the moon used the Saturn Rocket as shown above.

  1. The 1st stage
    1. burned 521,000 gallons of fuel
    2. to produce 7.5 million pounds of thrust 
    3. for 3 min
    4. to propel the spacecraft 42 miles 
    5. at 6,164 miles per hour.
  2. The 2nd stage
    1. burned 340,000 gallons of fuel
    2. 1.1 million pounds of thrust in a vacuum
    3. for 6 minutes
    4. to propel the spacecraft 67 more miles to 109 miles high
    5. at 15,647 mph.
  3. During Apollo 11, a typical lunar mission,the third stage
    1. burned 87,000 gallons fuel
    2. 200,000 pounds of thrust
    3. for about 2.5 minutes
    4. to reach another 9 miles higher 
    5. at 17,432 miles per hour. 

As shown in the diagram below, the spaceship is no longer being driven straight up away from earth. The thrusters have turned the ship 90 degrees to orbit  the earth.

p6xcr5zi0d_1447345581677Orbital velocityis the velocity needed to achieve balance between gravity’s pull on the satellite and the inertia of the satellite’s motion — the satellite’s tendency to keep going [vertical to Earth]. This is approximately 17,000 mph (27,359 kph) at an altitude of 150 miles (242 kilometers). Without gravity, the satellite’s inertia would carry it off into space. Even with gravity, if the intended satellite goes too fast, it will eventually fly away. On the other hand, if the satellite goes too slowly, gravity will pull it back to Earth. 

The velocity of the rocket depositing the satellite into orbit determines the velocity of the satellite in its motion perpendicular to the earth. Recall that above the Karman line there are not enough atmospheric particles to push against the forward motion of satellites to slow or stop them. Therefore there is no need to apply a countering continuous force via fueled engines to keep satellites in orbit.

But that also raises the question: what are the rocket thrusters pushing against when they are perpendicular to earth in order to overcome the gravitational effect of the earth and shove off further into space?

the [third] stage [engine / EDS] reignited for a second burn of five minutes, 48 seconds, “reaching the lunar transfer velocity of 25,000 miles per hour, enough to escape earth orbit” placing Apollo 11 into a translunar orbit [for] the command and service module, or CSM, Columbia…with the LM [lunar module, Eagle]. 

The “translunar orbit” refers to the entire round trip “orbiting” the earth with a side trip to the moon.


If you’ve ever looked at a schematic for an Apollo flight…you’ll notice right away that it traces out a figure 8…

The Earth, if we think about it from a position hovering somewhere above the North Pole, rotates from west to east, which happens to be the same direction it travels around the Sun. The Moon does the same thing. It rotates west to east and travels around the Earth in the same direction…In both cases, the eastern edge of the body, the edge towards which all that momentum goes, is called the leading edge. The opposite side away from which all that momentum goes is called the trailing edge. (it’s the spin and the direction of travel that matters here.) This becomes important when you do a gravity assist, also called a fly by…the Apollo spacecraft…is affected by all the bodies near it…that’s exerting a gravitational pull…If it flies past close enough and stays flying fast enough that it can’t be captured by the body to start orbiting it, that spacecraft will slingshot around. The spacecraft will get a boost of momentum and change in directionBut the side of the body matters. If the spacecraft flies past the trailing edge, it will get a bigger boost of momentum because it’s going with the direction of travel. If it flies past the leading edge, it will…lose some speed because it’s flying against the direction of the body’s travelEvery mission launched [from earth] towards the east, taking advantage of the Earth’s rotation to need a little less fuel to get into orbit. From there, the next big mission event was the translunar injection or TLI burn. This changed Apollo’s orbit from a nearly circular one to an elliptical one with the apogee, the furthest point, somewhere near where the Moon would be in three days time — mission planners had to account for travel time over some 250,000 miles…passing by the leading edge would…act like a gravitational brake almost, changing the spacecraft’s path to an ellipse that would bring it straight back to Earth without any input from the crew…every mission flew this same basic shape. They all entered the Moon’s orbit from the leading edge side, never the trailing edge side. Apollos 11 and 12…adjusted to get into orbit and land…Main source, and also the book to check for more info: “How Apollo Flew to the Moon” by W. David Woods.

Once in space, as in earth’s thin upper atmosphere, the velocity attained by the last boost was supposedly not hindered by any particles, so the spaceship was able to coast for 75 hours without additional engine assist during the 240,000 miles to the moon. And back again.


This sounds great on paper, but does it really work in reality?

Earth exerts an gravitational effect…that is 80 times stronger than the moon’sIf the moon’s 1/80th force of gravity could slow down the spaceship once it reached the moon, wouldn’t Earth’s much stronger gravity also slow down and eventually drag back the spaceship before it even left its vicinity?

And let’s say the spacecraft did reach the moon, and return back to the earth. Against what is its last engine thrusting to prevent crash-landing from gravity, since there is no mass behind it? 

Ahh, there is the mass of the spacecraft itself.

Thrust is the force which moves the rocket through the air, and through space. Thrust is generated by the propulsion system of the rocket through the application of Newton’s third law of motion; For every action there is an equal and opposite re-action. In the propulsion system, an engine does work on a gas or liquid, called a working fluid, and accelerates the working fluid through the propulsion system. The re-action to the acceleration of the working fluid produces the thrust force on the engine. The working fluid is expelled from the engine in one direction and the thrust force is applied to the engine in the opposite direction.

the Apollo Service Module Propulsion System (SPS), a liquid-fuel rocket engine used on Apollo spacecraft…Apollo astronauts used the SPS to steer the spacecraft toward the Moon, place it into lunar orbit, and propel it back toward Earth.

Using storable propellants, the SPS produced a thrust of 21,900 pounds…up to 12.5 minutes, as required. 

Compare the SPS to the size of engines 1-3 in the Saturn rocket which, combined, used almost 1,000,000 pounds of liquid fuel – including oxidizer needed for combustion, as there is no oxygen in space – to produce a total 9 million pounds of thrust just to escape Earth’s gravity.

fig2And this one little engine was able to adjust direction with bursts of propulsion during a round trip of 500,000 miles which we – now – know is filled with space debris hazards needing to be avoided, brake against the moon’s gravity, lift off against the moon’s gravity, and brake against Earth’s gravity.

Wow. Talk about the little engine that could!

And then everything goes dark on the moon.

On July 19, after Apollo 11 had flown behind the moon out of contact with Earth, came the first lunar orbit insertion maneuver…a retrograde firing of the SPS for 357.5 seconds placed the spacecraft into an initial, elliptical-lunar orbit… Later, a second burn of the SPS for 17 seconds placed the docked vehicles into a [changed] lunar orbit…

On July 20…the Eagle [lunar module / LM] undocked and separated from Columbia [command module] for visual inspection…when the LM was behind the moon…Armstrong stepped onto the moon. About 20 minutes later, Aldrin followed him. The camera was then positioned on a tripod about 30 feet from the LM. 


Notice how all the interesting stuff happens “behind the moon”? So NASA intentionally planned the placement of Apollo 11 to be out of sight of earth-bound instruments. That makes sense given the Space Race with Public Enemy #1 The Soviet Union.

It is important to note here that “The Moon always keeps the same face towards Earth because it takes the same amount of time to rotate on its axis as it does to orbit our planet.

But doesn’t this picture show that the astronauts positioned on the surface must be facing earth because of the brightness and the shadows cast by the sun?

According to NASA, unlike the earth, the entire moon, even the far side away from the earth, is always lit by sunlight. 


Whaaat? That doesn’t make sense in a 5th grade classroom.

At any given point in the moon’s trajectory around the Earth, only half of its surface is facing the sun, and therefore, only half of the moon is lit up. The other half of the surface faces away from the sun and is in shadow…

At “new moon,” on the other hand, the moon isn’t even visible from our vantage point. This is when the moon is between the sun and the Earth, so that the side of the moon reflecting sunlight is facing away from Earth. 

In the days before and after a new moon, we’ll see a sliver of the moon reflecting sunlight. And during those times, the faint brightness of the rest of the moon — the part not brightly lit as a sliver — is a result of what scientists call “earthshine,” in which the moon’s relatively dark disk is slightly illuminated by sunlight that reflects off of Earth, then off the moon, and back to our eyes. 

Don’t be so bedazzled by “astronomy” that your common sense shuts down. And don’t just take everything you are told at face value.

Armstrong and Aldrin spent 21 hours, 36 minutes on the moon’s surface…Docking with Columbia occurred…at 128 hours, three minutes into the mission….Four hours later, the LM jettisoned and remained in lunar orbit.

Once used, the ascent stages of the [Apollo] capsules [the LM / lunar modules] were jettisoned and either crash-landed on the moon, burned up in Earth’s atmosphere, or – in one instance – went into orbit around the Sun.

But where exactly they ended up is not known in every case.

So zero physical evidence of the lunar modules.

Trans-Earth injection of the CSM began July 21 as the SPS fired for two-and-a-half minutes when Columbia was behind the moon…

Every single argument claiming that NASA faked the Moon landings has been discredited.

But even today, 50 years later, people discuss conspiracy claims online, on television programmes and around the dinner table…

Moon fact: With a powerful amateur telescope you can see the Apollo landing sites.

But then, we’re told the complete opposite.

As you’re well aware, no telescope on Earth can see…anything…Apollo-related. Not even the Hubble Space Telescope can discern evidence of the Apollo landings. The laws of optics define its limits.

Hubble’s 94.5-inch mirror has a resolution of 0.024″ in ultraviolet light, which translates to 141 feet (43 meters) at the Moon’s distance. In visible light, it’s 0.05″, or closer to 300 feet…

No problem for NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO), which can dip as low as 31 miles (50 km) from the lunar surface, close enough to image each landing site in remarkable detail.

There’s a number of problems with this report. 

  1. Contradictions within the astronomical community of ability to view evidence from earth.
  2. Contradictions within astronomy stating Apollo 11 conducted its moon landing / moon walk behind the moon, which never faces earth, so how could anyone view evidence from earth with any equipment? 
  3. Massive contradiction between Hubble’s inability to view detail on the moon while capable of viewing objects millions of light-years away.
  4. Anyone who questions if NASA really pulled off the moon landing has to rely solely on evidence presented by NASA to prove otherwise. 

Certainly as time passes and our entire society becomes more technology savvy and equipped, more and more questions are being raised about the validity of NASA’s claim that the US had the capability of flying astronauts to the moon in 1969.

What is NASA’s response? 

NASA has released new photos of the Apollo 11 moon landing

Half a century ago, while those on Earth were enjoying a lazy Sunday in the summer of ’69, some 384,000 km away, two men were climbing down the steps of their spaceship – onto the surface of the moon…

Here, shared by NASA for the first time, is a unique glimpse of that extraordinary day in the history of humanity.

Seriously? Kids today can doctor photos on their phones.

Supporting my skepticism of 1960’s technological ability to send humans to the moon is the fact that, despite quantum leaps in technology supposedly sending space vehicles to much further reaches of outer space beyond the moon, neither the United States nor any other nation has tripped to the moon since 1972.

And, according to NASA itself, they can’t.

Over 60 years ago [in 1958], the United States launched its first satellite into space: Explorer 1, which included a Geiger counter. [Because an earth-based scientist had detected radiation.] To NASA’s surprise, it was registering radiation levels a thousand times greater than anyone expected. The radiation wasn’t of earthly origin, and it occupied an area scientists had considered a void. It also far outpaced the levels of radiation that would be expected from cosmic rays alone. So what was it?

Two donuts of seething radiation called the Van Allen radiation belts [named after their discoverer.]

The outer belt is made up of billions of high-energy particles that originate from the Sun and become trapped in Earth’s magnetic field, an area known as the magnetosphere. The inner belt results from interactions of cosmic rays with Earth’s atmosphere. 

One key finding was data showing that the inner edge of the outer belt is…impenetrable barrier

understanding the dynamics of the Van Allen radiation belt is essential for protecting technological assets and planning crewed space missions.

Still studying the Van Allen Belts 60 Years After America’s First Spacecraft because [they] are a hazard to both astronauts and spacecraft…”

VanAllenProbes Decal2012_4PrintThe inner Van Allen Belt extends typically from an altitude of…620 mi to…7,500 mi above the Earth…

The outer belt…at an altitude of…8,100 to 37,300 mi above the Earth’s surface.

Lucky escape

So how did NASA solve the problem of crossing the Van Allen belts?

Answer #1:

The short answer is they didn’t…the Apollo spacecraft…took them through the inner and outer belts

Models of the radiation belts developed in the run-up to the Apollo flights indicated that the passage through the radiation belts would not pose a significant threat to astronaut health. And, sure enough, documents from the period show that monitoring badges worn by the crews and analysed after the missions indicated that the astronauts typically received doses roughly less than that received during a standard CT scan of your chest.

But that is not the end of the story. To get to the moon and safely back home, the Apollo astronauts not only had to cross the Van Allen belts, but also the quarter of a million miles between the Earth and the moon – a flight that typically took around three days each way.

They also needed to operate safely while in orbit around the moon and on the lunar surface…As such, they and their crews were vulnerable to unpredictable solar flares and events…

The crewed Apollo flights actually coincided with the height of a solar cycle...solar flares and solar energetic particle events are more common during times of heightened solar activity…

There is no doubt that the political imperative in the 1960s to put US astronauts on the moon “in this decade” was the primary driving factor in the mission timing…

History tells us that the gamble of flying during the years of high solar activity during the Apollo era paid off. None of the Apollo flights were blasted by powerful solar flares or engulfed by clouds of solar energetic particles [or irradiated by the Van Allen Belts.]

What are the odds of that! So another PR writer gives a different explanation. One clear evidence that something sketchy is going on with NASA is the volume of new and contradictory arguments defending its claims.

Answer #2:

How NASA Worked Around Earth’s Radiation Belts to Land Apollo 11 on the Moon

On July 20, 1969, Apollo 11 landed on the natural satellite and broadcast a live view of the lunar surface, Earth, space and of astronauts working on the surface.

Yet still, there are doubts these days that humans actually achieved this feat.

Are you getting that!! This article actually states that the live broadcast of the lunar event should be convincing enough! I’m speechless at the audacity, no – the utter lack of credibility – of that argument. Try presenting that in court at your burglary hearing. “Your Honor, I have video showing my alibi.” “Case dismissed.”

And that’s without investigating the technological development of television broadcasting at that time.

Moving on while shaking my head in disbelief AT THE AUDIENCE’S CREDULITY…

Answer #3:

the following question appeared on Quora on August 23, 2018:“When will the existence of the Van Allen belt and our inability to penetrate its harsh radiation with today’s technology force NASA to admit it faked the moon landing?”

Some people believe we never went to the Moon because of the existence of the Van Allen radiation belts. The idea is that any astronauts en route to outer space has to pass through these belts and, in so doing, they would receive a lethal dose of radiation.

So engineers fashioned shielding that consisted of a spacecraft hull and all the instrumentation lining the walls.

Further, knowing the belts’ absence above the poles, the altitude of the lower edge of the inner belt being ~600 km (well above the LEO) and the location of the South Atlantic anomaly, where doses are at a high 40 mrads/day at an altitude of 210 km allowed NASA to design the Apollo translunar injection (TLI) orbit in a way that the spacecraft would avoid the belts’ most dangerous parts.

Apollo 11 bypassed the inner belt and only passed through the weaker part of the outer belt (Fig. 4). According to NASA’s ‘The Apollo Spacecraft: A Chronology’, the high-altitude nuclear tests would have had a significant impact on Apollo orbits but NASA scientists had accounted for this possibility in radiation-protection planning.

Fig. 4: This figure shows only the final leg of the path through the belts. Red marks indicate the time in 10-minute intervals of the Apollo 11 flight. The first red dot near Earth is the point of TLI. From AP-8 Trapped Proton Environment for solar maximum and minimum. Source: National Space Science Data Center, December 1976


Fig. 4: This figure shows only the final leg of the path through the belts. Red marks indicate the time in 10-minute intervals of the Apollo 11 flight. The first red dot near Earth is the point of TLI. Photo: Apollo 11’s Translunar Trajectory

Several factors worked in favour of the minimum exposure trajectory. We all know that Earth’s axis is tilted by 23.5° relative to the ecliptic plane. In 1969, the magnetic north pole was displaced from the geographical north pole by 11.4°. Therefore in 1969, the Van Allen radiation belts could have had a maximum inclination of 34.9° (23.5°+11.4°) with respect to the ecliptic (Fig. 5).

Take your pick of alternative histories.

NASA’s Explanation of Why We Haven’t Been Back to the Moon


Data…recorded by Explorer 1 was humanity’s first glimpse of Earth’s radiation belts…named the Van Allen Belts…

Satellites that unwittingly or intentionally venture into the belts can be damaged by the radiation, which could have an impact on unprotected astronauts as well. Understanding the dynamics of this region is essential for protecting technological assets and planning crewed space missions.

“Could have an impact on unprotected astronauts?” “Planning crewed space missions?” Sure sounds like manned space craft haven’t been through the Van Allen Belts yet.

There are strong reasons to reject the claim that the Apollo spacecraft were capable of taking humans through the Van Allen radiation belts.

Van Allen Probes…launched on Aug. 30, 2012…study two giant belts of radiation that surround Earth…

The radiation belts, or Van Allen belts, were discovered with the very first launches of satellites in 1958… Subsequent missions have observed parts of the belts…from below – but…

Within mere days of launch, the Van Allen Probes showed scientists something that would require rewriting textbooks…something happened no one had ever seen before: the particles settled into a new configuration, showing an extra, third belt extending out into space. 

Incorporating this new configuration into their models of the radiation belts offers scientists new clues to…a region…impacting satellites and spacecraft…potential threats to manned space flight.

Another long-lived NASA mission has come to an end [in 2019], this one after more than seven years of dancing through the perilous belts of radiation around Earth.

Scientists have puzzled over Earth’s radiation belts since they were discovered in 1958 based on data from NASA’s Explorer 1 spacecraft, its  first mission. But for decades, spacecraft observations were limited to brief forays because the region is so hazardous…

no one actually dared to send a spacecraft,” Nelli Mosavi, project manager for the Van Allen Probes at Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, told Space.com. “The legacy is the resilient spacecraft we built [looong after the late 1960’s] to withstand these environments that no one else could have gone to.”

Radiation is also a key threat to astronauts living and working on the International Space Station, [located just below the Belts] and protecting humans from the dangers of radiation is one of the most important challenges NASA will need to tackle as it looks to expand human exploration of space.

Before launch, scientists thought there were two stable belts…the Van Allen Probes…revealed that instead, the belts can fluctuate from [two to] three thinner belts to one massive one…in just seconds.

I encourage you to listen to NASA’s own public service announcement, launched in 2014, on Apollo’s replacement, the Orion spacecraft.

Don’t overlook the visuals in the film created by NASA to publicize their planned mission. It is so realistic that it could easily be misinterpreted as the real thing.

We are headed 3600 miles above earth…As we get further from earth, we’ll pass through the Van Allen Belts, an area of dangerous radiation…But Orion has protection. Shielding will be put to the test as the vehicle cuts through waves of radiation. Sensors aboard will record radiation levels for scientists to study. We must solve these challenges before we send people through these regions of space…It’s time to head home…75 miles above earth…We’re now traveling more than 20,000 miles per hour…An envelope of hot plasma surrounds the vehicle…reaches temperatures of 4,000 degrees Fahrenheit, almost twice as hot as molten lava. This may be the most dangerous part of the flight…A specially constructed heat shield takes the full brunt of the inferno. This is the largest heat shield of its kind ever madeOne day people will be aboardFor the first flight, we won’t have astronauts inside.


You are so concerned about the safety of the astronauts NOW despite the massive advances in aerospace technology in the intervening 40 years that you won’t expose the astronauts now.

But you would in 1969 with knowledge but far, far less technology in 1969? And successfully, without any damage to equipment or life?

I can’t believe that.

NASA’s new Orion space capsule is one step closer to…a mission around the moon.

Artemis 1 will be a crucial uncrewed test of the moon program ahead of expected landings by astronauts. During the flight, Orion will swing around the moon carrying sensors and simulated human bodies to measure radiation and stress levels in deep space. Its “passengers” include a “moonikin.”

Following Artemis 1 will be a crewed mission around the moon called Artemis 2, perhaps as soon as 2023. A crewed landing may follow, which NASA is hoping to fly in late 2024.

Wow. Only now being cautious about the capability and safety of landing humans on the moon?

NASA’s own data indicates that 50 years after the claimed achievement the US is still struggling to pull off the capability for a moon landing.

In early November [2020], engineers at Lockheed Martin working on Orion noticed that a power component inside the vehicle had failed, according to an internal email and an internal PowerPoint presentation seen by The Verge

a representative for Lockheed Martin said in a statement to The Verge. “We are fully committed to seeing Orion launch next year [2021] on its historic Artemis I mission to the Moon…

NASA is now targeting early next year [2022] for the maiden launch of its next megarocket: the Space Launch System. 

The behemoth moon rocket, the first since the Apollo program, is months behind schedule…but could now potentially fly Feb. 12 [2022].

The agency is now targeting a launch in March or April 2022 for its Artemis 1 flight, an uncrewed mission around the moon and the first flight of its massive Space Launch System (SLS) rocket…the first in the Artemis program that aims to return astronauts to the lunar surface later this decade

Hmm, seems this endeavor is a lot more complicated than at first conceived.

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