Zzzaks drivel

[Nute]

16 hours ago, zzzak said:

 

As I have said afaic the Earth is an oblate sphere, I'm not questioning that but was merely interested in the two items that I posted seeking a rational explanation, this apparently was to much for some of the forum members as you have seen.

Shadows don't turn corners.

If you know anything about photography in the late 60's you will know that celluloid film stock is very heat sensitive so none of those miraculous images would have come out, in the shade the film would have shattered as it was advanced and when exposed to the heat it would have lost the ability to capture an image, Armstrong had the camera strapped to his chest without a viewfinder and he would have had to make the exposure adjustments while wearing heavy gloves, not happening, but by a miracle every photo came out perfectly, but the big thing from all the alleged missions is where are the photos of the Earth, there aren't any, not a one, did they not look up or something, the "Blue Marble' image is an illustration done by a guy working for NASA, he even admits it, so there was only one camera on the Apollo 11 mission so who took this, where was the camera mounted ?

 

 

 

 

But you didn’t think shadows could be anything but parallel until I proved otherwise. Their direction is dictated by the angle of the object casting the shadow. It’s physics. 
 

The reality is that no matter how much of the hoax “ evidence” is shown to be incorrect the conspiracy theorists will just go back to the internet for another piece of so called evidence. 

[zzzak]

10 hours ago, Tango said:

I didn't lose my rag, just posted the two things that I think would explain the phenomenon illustrated in the picture that you posted. I don't have the skills to try to explain them, so I left it that further research could be undertaken if required or desired.

With respect to the arguments around whether the earth is flat or spherical, I have my own beliefs. If others have a different belief, then, that is highly unlikely to affect my day-to-day life, so I have no strong feelings on it. Live and let live. In fact, this is my philosophy towards most things that are unlikely to affect my personal life.

However, there are things that do get me going. Take, for instance,  the current UK government's reclassification of the UK State pension as a "benefit". Why change this classification, unless it's to introduce some changes to the pension? This is something that does animate me, as there could be repercussions that do affect me directly. Here, I could very much lose my rag! Selfish? Probably! But I doubt that I'd be alone in this.

So, in conclusion, your beliefs on the shape of the Earth or some of your other beliefs may or may not align with mine, but you're entitled to them and, as they're things that are highly unlikely to affect me directly, I have no strong feelings on them. Peace. 

Sorry, I wasn't referring to you losing your rag, you're the only one that didn't, that remark was for the others.

[Pedro]

2 hours ago, Nute said:

But you didn’t think shadows could be anything but parallel until I proved otherwise.

Right, you proved it.

[alfalfa]

19 hours ago, zzzak said:

 

As I have said afaic the Earth is an oblate sphere, I'm not questioning that but was merely interested in the two items that I posted seeking a rational explanation, this apparently was to much for some of the forum members as you have seen.

Shadows don't turn corners.

If you know anything about photography in the late 60's you will know that celluloid film stock is very heat sensitive so none of those miraculous images would have come out, in the shade the film would have shattered as it was advanced and when exposed to the heat it would have lost the ability to capture an image, Armstrong had the camera strapped to his chest without a viewfinder and he would have had to make the exposure adjustments while wearing heavy gloves, not happening, but by a miracle every photo came out perfectly, but the big thing from all the alleged missions is where are the photos of the Earth, there aren't any, not a one, did they not look up or something, the "Blue Marble' image is an illustration done by a guy working for NASA, he even admits it, so there was only one camera on the Apollo 11 mission so who took this, where was the camera mounted ?

 

 

 

 

So, where is it stated that the man coming down the steps is Armstrong?  In the second picture, the presence of wheel tracks says that this is one of the later landings, with the moon rover.

 

I watched the landing on tv, in real time (well, real to me) in 1969.  The first pics of Armstrong were taken by a tv camera mounted on the lander.  They were very grainy and inverted and had to be righted so  you could understand what you were watching.  

 

Here is one person's response to the question who took the pictures. that dovetails with what i remember watching: 

"Neil did; It was a camera mounted on the side of the LM. Just before he climbed down, Armstrong pulled a lanyard to deploy the camera package which mounted a low quality, slow scan, TV camera. The slow scan is why there was ghosting on the image as the background image was not totally overwritten by the moving image of the astronauts in the foreground.

When you watch the entire video of Apollo 11’s time on the moon, about an hour, you can see them walk up to the camera and change the lens a couple times. It’s obviously attached to the side of the spacecraft. They were their own camera crew with the lander acting as their tripod.

What conspiracy theorists don’t understand is that this was the Cold War and the Soviets had every reason to publically expose any fake as they wanted to show the US space program was inferior to their own. They were watching carefully, following the spacecraft by radar and radio direction finding. They never had any objection; the moon landings were real by every test they could imagine."

Some other info:

"On July 20, 1969, the Apollo 11 Lunar Module landed with two cameras, but only one went outside — carried by Neil Armstrong. That explains why nearly every photograph of an astronaut on the surface during that first landing is of Armstrong crewmate Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin. Armstrong had the only camera for nearly the entire two-and-a-half hours the two walked around the Sea of Tranquility.

An official NASA document describes how the space agency's public affairs department, scrambling to satisfy the world's media for photographs of the historic moonwalk, suddenly discovered an embarrassing oversight.

"They started looking for the best shot of Armstrong," according to a transcript included in the Apollo 11 Lunar Surface Journal. "Soon they were looking for any shot of Armstrong."

Aldrin, who was busy setting up lunar experiments, did briefly take over the camera and remarkably, snapped only a single photo of Armstrong. The camera "just wasn't part of what his job was at the time," Levasseur says."

 

 

Lastly, the question as to why the film didnt freeze (or melt).  There is no atmosphere on the moon.  The film would only melt if exposed directly to sunlight, which it wasnt.  It was sealed in a vacuum, protecting it from temps.  "This is a crucial detail, since on the Moon there’s no significant atmosphere that can be heated by the ground and therefore there is no way to transfer heat from the ground to the films. Vacuum is a very good heat insulator, as thermos flasks demonstrate. In a vacuum there is no heat transfer by conduction or convection, which are the main heating and cooling processes on Earth. There’s no air to warm or chill objects by contact."

 

Again, when researching, ask both questions and look at both answers.  Otherwise, i bet you will tell me there is no Santa Claus, too.

 

 

 

[Pedro]

11 minutes ago, alfalfa said:

So, where is it stated that the man coming down the steps is Armstrong?  In the second picture, the presence of wheel tracks says that this is one of the later landings, with the moon rover.

 

I watched the landing on tv, in real time (well, real to me) in 1969.  The first pics of Armstrong were taken by a tv camera mounted on the lander.  They were very grainy and inverted and had to be righted so  you could understand what you were watching.  

 

Here is one person's response to the question who took the pictures. that dovetails with what i remember watching: 

"Neil did; It was a camera mounted on the side of the LM. Just before he climbed down, Armstrong pulled a lanyard to deploy the camera package which mounted a low quality, slow scan, TV camera. The slow scan is why there was ghosting on the image as the background image was not totally overwritten by the moving image of the astronauts in the foreground.

When you watch the entire video of Apollo 11’s time on the moon, about an hour, you can see them walk up to the camera and change the lens a couple times. It’s obviously attached to the side of the spacecraft. They were their own camera crew with the lander acting as their tripod.

What conspiracy theorists don’t understand is that this was the Cold War and the Soviets had every reason to publically expose any fake as they wanted to show the US space program was inferior to their own. They were watching carefully, following the spacecraft by radar and radio direction finding. They never had any objection; the moon landings were real by every test they could imagine."

Some other info:

"On July 20, 1969, the Apollo 11 Lunar Module landed with two cameras, but only one went outside — carried by Neil Armstrong. That explains why nearly every photograph of an astronaut on the surface during that first landing is of Armstrong crewmate Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin. Armstrong had the only camera for nearly the entire two-and-a-half hours the two walked around the Sea of Tranquility.

An official NASA document describes how the space agency's public affairs department, scrambling to satisfy the world's media for photographs of the historic moonwalk, suddenly discovered an embarrassing oversight.

"They started looking for the best shot of Armstrong," according to a transcript included in the Apollo 11 Lunar Surface Journal. "Soon they were looking for any shot of Armstrong."

Aldrin, who was busy setting up lunar experiments, did briefly take over the camera and remarkably, snapped only a single photo of Armstrong. The camera "just wasn't part of what his job was at the time," Levasseur says."

 

 

Lastly, the question as to why the film didnt freeze (or melt).  There is no atmosphere on the moon.  The film would only melt if exposed directly to sunlight, which it wasnt.  It was sealed in a vacuum, protecting it from temps.  "This is a crucial detail, since on the Moon there’s no significant atmosphere that can be heated by the ground and therefore there is no way to transfer heat from the ground to the films. Vacuum is a very good heat insulator, as thermos flasks demonstrate. In a vacuum there is no heat transfer by conduction or convection, which are the main heating and cooling processes on Earth. There’s no air to warm or chill objects by contact."

 

Again, when researching, ask both questions and look at both answers.  Otherwise, i bet you will tell me there is no Santa Claus, too.

 

 

 

Wait, … no Santa Claus ???

Now this isn’t funny anymore!

[zzzak]

On 15/03/2024 at 09:21, alfalfa said:

So, where is it stated that the man coming down the steps is Armstrong?  In the second picture, the presence of wheel tracks says that this is one of the later landings, with the moon rover.

 

I watched the landing on tv, in real time (well, real to me) in 1969.  The first pics of Armstrong were taken by a tv camera mounted on the lander.  They were very grainy and inverted and had to be righted so  you could understand what you were watching.  

 

Here is one person's response to the question who took the pictures. that dovetails with what i remember watching: 

"Neil did; It was a camera mounted on the side of the LM. Just before he climbed down, Armstrong pulled a lanyard to deploy the camera package which mounted a low quality, slow scan, TV camera. The slow scan is why there was ghosting on the image as the background image was not totally overwritten by the moving image of the astronauts in the foreground.

When you watch the entire video of Apollo 11’s time on the moon, about an hour, you can see them walk up to the camera and change the lens a couple times. It’s obviously attached to the side of the spacecraft. They were their own camera crew with the lander acting as their tripod.

What conspiracy theorists don’t understand is that this was the Cold War and the Soviets had every reason to publically expose any fake as they wanted to show the US space program was inferior to their own. They were watching carefully, following the spacecraft by radar and radio direction finding. They never had any objection; the moon landings were real by every test they could imagine."

Some other info:

"On July 20, 1969, the Apollo 11 Lunar Module landed with two cameras, but only one went outside — carried by Neil Armstrong. That explains why nearly every photograph of an astronaut on the surface during that first landing is of Armstrong crewmate Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin. Armstrong had the only camera for nearly the entire two-and-a-half hours the two walked around the Sea of Tranquility.

An official NASA document describes how the space agency's public affairs department, scrambling to satisfy the world's media for photographs of the historic moonwalk, suddenly discovered an embarrassing oversight.

"They started looking for the best shot of Armstrong," according to a transcript included in the Apollo 11 Lunar Surface Journal. "Soon they were looking for any shot of Armstrong."

Aldrin, who was busy setting up lunar experiments, did briefly take over the camera and remarkably, snapped only a single photo of Armstrong. The camera "just wasn't part of what his job was at the time," Levasseur says."

 

 

Lastly, the question as to why the film didnt freeze (or melt).  There is no atmosphere on the moon.  The film would only melt if exposed directly to sunlight, which it wasnt.  It was sealed in a vacuum, protecting it from temps.  "This is a crucial detail, since on the Moon there’s no significant atmosphere that can be heated by the ground and therefore there is no way to transfer heat from the ground to the films. Vacuum is a very good heat insulator, as thermos flasks demonstrate. In a vacuum there is no heat transfer by conduction or convection, which are the main heating and cooling processes on Earth. There’s no air to warm or chill objects by contact."

 

Again, when researching, ask both questions and look at both answers.  Otherwise, i bet you will tell me there is no Santa Claus, too.

 

 

 

I took notice of what you said and went to the NASA site and it is indeed Aldrin in that photo so there, I've learnt something albeit minor, while I was on the NASA site I came across a picture of the lander in all it's glory and seriously they must be kidding, its made out of shit left over from a  hardware shop sale, further on the photos celluloid film used to get damaged in the airports under a low level radiation scan so how did they get all those rolls of film back throught the Van Allen belts, no way Jose.

 

 

 

[Buckster]

25 minutes ago, Marcel said:

I've been trying to make sence of you zzzak ...why do you bother wasting your time trying to prove these subjects on here...wouldn't be more comfortable for you to post these things on a conspiracy forum or something....don't know if you realized but this is a motorcycle base forum..go out and repair that 950 ...would love to see more of it instead of this crap.

 

 

That bike will never be on the road again.

[Sir Fallsalot]

7 hours ago, Marcel said:

At the pace it's going...I believe so also....to bad he doesn't have the same drive to finishing his bike....other than debating these pointless discussions...

Fuck me @Marcel have you re started you medication you just typed out something that makes perfect sense, but i believe he won't stop until everybody believes his version of the truth and once that happens he will then try to convince everyone that the real truth is correct and every conspiracy theory is wrong  

[Saul]

44 minutes ago, Sir Fallsalot said:

Fuck me @Marcel have you re started you medication you just typed out something that makes perfect sense, but i believe he won't stop until everybody believes his version of the truth and once that happens he will then try to convince everyone that the real truth is correct and every conspiracy theory is wrong  

Yep that is his game without doubt.    

[Six30]

21 hours ago, Marcel said:

I've been trying to make sence of you zzzak ...why do you bother wasting your time trying to prove these subjects on here...wouldn't be more comfortable for you to post these things on a conspiracy forum or something....don't know if you realized but this is a motorcycle base forum..go out and repair that 950 ...would love to see more of it instead of this crap.

 

 

 

[zzzak]

You alright mate, is everything going good, aaaah that's good, anyway just one thing that you might like to consider, your constant allusions to conspiracy theories and political mentions are kind of getting the fundamental purpose of the forum off track if you know what I mean, so if you stop mentioning things that cause me to respond in order to set you right we'll all have a much better time.

I'm sure that all the others agree with me as well, it's not that we don't like you or anything, it's just that you can be a bit disruptive, tata for now.

 

[Buckster]

[XTreme]

Wouldn't be happening if @Six30 had got the Mod gig!

[Six30]

5 minutes ago, XTreme said:

Wouldn't be happening if @Six30 had got the Mod gig!

Does Hi Bucky come across as a bit gay ?

[alfalfa]

On 15/03/2024 at 15:29, zzzak said:

I took notice of what you said and went to the NASA site and it is indeed Aldrin in that photo so there, I've learnt something albeit minor, while I was on the NASA site I came across a picture of the lander in all it's glory and seriously they must be kidding, its made out of shit left over from a  hardware shop sale, further on the photos celluloid film used to get damaged in the airports under a low level radiation scan so how did they get all those rolls of film back throught the Van Allen belts, no way Jose.

 

 

 

Try searching for reasons things did happen, or did work at the same time as looking for the conspiracies.  (Not a dig, just help <G>).   Given that i am an old nerd and lived thru the original three space programs (Mercury, Gemini and Apollo) its funny to think now that future generations would question they did happen.  Meaning, they would have included rebuttals for all the "facts" out there today.

 

The Lunar Lander was made of the lightest materials possible as weight is a penalty during space travel.  You can not stand in one, on Earth.  On the moon, however, the cold, lack of atmosphere and low gravity all came together to make it stiff enough to support people and equipment.  So, cardboard?  doubt it.  lightweight, thin materials?  definitely.

The Van Allen belts?  think those were a surprise to trip planners?  Naw.  They had already been to space, been around the moon, and actually (fortunately) didnt have the internet with the millions of lines of bullcrap "facts" leading them wrong.  They had scientific, verified info.  Available in books (remember those?) that have stood the test of the scientific method.

If you want a better mind exercise than googling moon myths, take some time and figure out how you would go to the moon.  What spacecraft, what protection, what food, fuel, etc.  It was done in the 60s, with none of what we have today.  Computers were huge and had low capabilities.   No one had sent men up in rockets before Mercury (ok, the Russians, but during the same time frame).    Then, sign up at Blue Origin, or Virgin Galactic, save up your $$ and go up yourself to see if it is real.

 

Lastly, ask yourself why would we fake it?  what would be gained by faking it?   Whatever you do, dont watch Capricorn One 

[Tango]

1 hour ago, alfalfa said:

 Computers were huge and had low capabilities.   

When I was working in electronic design and development at my first company, circa 1984, someone donated an old DEC PDP 11 computer to us to play with. It was the size of a small wardrobe,  with the magnetic reel-to-reel tape reader. It had a pcb which had 1kB of ferrite core memory, which was about 12" square! It was a fairly early one, from about 1974!

[zzzak]

“It is commonly believed that man will fly directly from the earth to the moon, but to do this, we would require a vehicle of such gigantic proportions that it would prove an economic impossibility. It would have to develop sufficient speed to penetrate the atmosphere and overcome the earth’s gravity and, having traveled all the way to the moon, it must still have enough fuel to land safely and make the return trip to earth. Furthermore, in order to give the expedition a margin of safety, we would not use one ship alone, but a minimum of three … each rocket ship would be taller than New York’s Empire State Building [almost ¼ mile high] and weigh about ten times the tonnage of the Queen Mary, or some 800,000 tons.”—Wernher von Braun, the father of the Apollo space program, writing in Conquest of the Moon

[alfalfa]

1 hour ago, Tango said:

When I was working in electronic design and development at my first company, circa 1984, someone donated an old DEC PDP 11 computer to us to play with. It was the size of a small wardrobe,  with the magnetic reel-to-reel tape reader. It had a pcb which had 1kB of ferrite core memory, which was about 12" square! It was a fairly early one, from about 1974!

My first foray into computers was using a General Automation Spc 16/65.  the 2-1/2 megabyte hard drives where the size of a current desktop computer cabinet :).   Trying to remember if the 16 was how many kb of ram it had to execute programs.  To start it, there was a panel key sequence you went thru to get it to boot (instead of just powering it on).  ahhh, the good old days

 

[alfalfa]

41 minutes ago, zzzak said:

“It is commonly believed that man will fly directly from the earth to the moon, but to do this, we would require a vehicle of such gigantic proportions that it would prove an economic impossibility. It would have to develop sufficient speed to penetrate the atmosphere and overcome the earth’s gravity and, having traveled all the way to the moon, it must still have enough fuel to land safely and make the return trip to earth. Furthermore, in order to give the expedition a margin of safety, we would not use one ship alone, but a minimum of three … each rocket ship would be taller than New York’s Empire State Building [almost ¼ mile high] and weigh about ten times the tonnage of the Queen Mary, or some 800,000 tons.”—Wernher von Braun, the father of the Apollo space program, writing in Conquest of the Moon

well, that right there proves we never went    Guess it was a good thing he hired the right people between 1953 and 1969, eh?

He was right about the three rocket part.  Just got the size wrong.

 

 

 

[zzzak]

Well he was the head designer so I would imagine that he knew what he was talking about, sadly JFK didn't and by 1968 they knew that they couldn't do it hence the coverup, even now they admit that they can't go higher than low Earth orbit.

[zzzak]

You may find this interesting reading.

[alfalfa]

The lead designer said it would take 3 rockets larger than a skyscraper, 16 years before they did it and that is all the evidence needed to claim it was a hoax?  Ignore all the other pictures, video, papers, books, etc, & etc.  This one, outdated, off the cuff comment was all that is required to debunk things.  I really would like to cut into someone's mind to see why they choose the path(s) they do.  Most of em claim that the govt is too stupid to brush their teeth, but at the same time they have the tools and smarts to pull something over 4 billion people.  Thank god for the 200 peeps that keep us truly informed!

What does it mean to you that the atmosphere extends beyond the moon?  Is it that you can breathe on the moon?  Try that and get back to me?  Hey, did you know that the moon has gravitational pull on the earth and vice versa?  If that is true why cant we just walk to the moon?  I mean we have gravity on earth and i can walk almost anywhere here.  This statement might give you a better understanding of what atmosphere is out there at moon doggie distance:

"This work allowed the team to map the geocorona's extent and get a handle on the region's density. They found that the geocorona is denser on Earth's day side, because of compression from solar radiation. But "denser" is a relative term: There are just 70 hydrogen atoms per cubic centimeter (0.06 cubic inches) at an altitude of 37,000 miles (60,000 km) on the day side and a mere 0.2 atoms per cubic centimeter at the moon's distance, the new study reported."

And, do you think its possible that the comments from Obama and Nasa (the links dont work, by the way) might be referring to the situation at that moment?  i.e., we no longer had Saturn rockets, only the shuttle.  The shuttle was designed for low earth orbit work and didnt carry enough fuel to get to the moon.   That is currently being changed with the SLS system and Starship. (of course, fodder for future conspiracy "theorists").

The one big issue with the internet is that anyone can create a site that looks professional    Especially a writer of fiction.

 

Try this site: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories

Major point of that (and most other conspiracies) is that how do you successfully control the hundreds of 1000s of people involved in the "hoax" to keep quiet.  Friend i worked with instantly found conspiracies for EVERY news item that came up, for the last 20 some years.  I always wondered what makes someone go that route, versus using a little common sense when deciding.  But, since I really enjoy banging my head on the wall, let's keep this going!  I know i wont change you and i really know you wont change me 

 

some more info re: Van Allen Belts - 

Related

Why are the Van Allen radiation belts such a huge concern for space exploration in 2023 when we have already gone to the moon a bunch of times and the astronauts were not harmed?

Because the Apollo astronauts passed through them briefly, no more than four time total, in a disposable spacecraft with a dinosaur for a computer.

Passing through the Van Allen belts was not then and is not now a serious threat to the health of the crew, so long as they don’t make a habit of it. A much bigger concern is the radiation exposure for the rest of the voyage. During the Apollo program, crew dosimeters tracked the accumulated exposures throughout the mission.

The average radiation exposure for an Apollo astronaut was approximately 0.18 REM over the course of the mission, with the highest recorded exposure being 1.14 REM by one crewman on one mission. Of that, only a few tenths of a REM came from passage through the Van Allen belts.

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 much higher even in LEO, planners designed the translunar injection (TLI) orbit in a way that the spacecraft would avoid the worst of the radiation, passing quickly through only the weaker, outer edge of the outer belt, and over the side of the Earth shielded from solar flux.

[zzzak]

1 hour ago, alfalfa said:

The lead designer said it would take 3 rockets larger than a skyscraper, 16 years before they did it and that is all the evidence needed to claim it was a hoax?  Ignore all the other pictures, video, papers, books, etc, & etc.  This one, outdated, off the cuff comment was all that is required to debunk things.  I really would like to cut into someone's mind to see why they choose the path(s) they do.  Most of em claim that the govt is too stupid to brush their teeth, but at the same time they have the tools and smarts to pull something over 4 billion people.  Thank god for the 200 peeps that keep us truly informed!

What does it mean to you that the atmosphere extends beyond the moon?  Is it that you can breathe on the moon?  Try that and get back to me?  Hey, did you know that the moon has gravitational pull on the earth and vice versa?  If that is true why cant we just walk to the moon?  I mean we have gravity on earth and i can walk almost anywhere here.  This statement might give you a better understanding of what atmosphere is out there at moon doggie distance:

"This work allowed the team to map the geocorona's extent and get a handle on the region's density. They found that the geocorona is denser on Earth's day side, because of compression from solar radiation. But "denser" is a relative term: There are just 70 hydrogen atoms per cubic centimeter (0.06 cubic inches) at an altitude of 37,000 miles (60,000 km) on the day side and a mere 0.2 atoms per cubic centimeter at the moon's distance, the new study reported."

And, do you think its possible that the comments from Obama and Nasa (the links dont work, by the way) might be referring to the situation at that moment?  i.e., we no longer had Saturn rockets, only the shuttle.  The shuttle was designed for low earth orbit work and didnt carry enough fuel to get to the moon.   That is currently being changed with the SLS system and Starship. (of course, fodder for future conspiracy "theorists").

The one big issue with the internet is that anyone can create a site that looks professional    Especially a writer of fiction.

 

Try this site: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories

Major point of that (and most other conspiracies) is that how do you successfully control the hundreds of 1000s of people involved in the "hoax" to keep quiet.  Friend i worked with instantly found conspiracies for EVERY news item that came up, for the last 20 some years.  I always wondered what makes someone go that route, versus using a little common sense when deciding.  But, since I really enjoy banging my head on the wall, let's keep this going!  I know i wont change you and i really know you wont change me 

 

some more info re: Van Allen Belts - 

Related

Why are the Van Allen radiation belts such a huge concern for space exploration in 2023 when we have already gone to the moon a bunch of times and the astronauts were not harmed?

Because the Apollo astronauts passed through them briefly, no more than four time total, in a disposable spacecraft with a dinosaur for a computer.

Passing through the Van Allen belts was not then and is not now a serious threat to the health of the crew, so long as they don’t make a habit of it. A much bigger concern is the radiation exposure for the rest of the voyage. During the Apollo program, crew dosimeters tracked the accumulated exposures throughout the mission.

The average radiation exposure for an Apollo astronaut was approximately 0.18 REM over the course of the mission, with the highest recorded exposure being 1.14 REM by one crewman on one mission. Of that, only a few tenths of a REM came from passage through the Van Allen belts.

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 much higher even in LEO, planners designed the translunar injection (TLI) orbit in a way that the spacecraft would avoid the worst of the radiation, passing quickly through only the weaker, outer edge of the outer belt, and over the side of the Earth shielded from solar flux.

Cheers, I'll take a look at it later.

[alfalfa]

1 hour ago, zzzak said:

Cheers, I'll take a look at it later.

Your choice in motorcycles makes you seem normal, so I will go with that! 

[Tango]

 

Not really related to the subject, but a good illustration on how quickly things were developing at that period of time!