To sum up: I asked for a contemporaneous (1969 or earlier) mention anywhere about how 'the worst of the VARB would be avoided.' (Several of you made this claim, words to this effect, and no one disagreed.) No. Here is
exactly what you asked for:
"...Therefore, all the Apollo missions must have taken this into account, i.e., the launches timed and the flight trajectories carefully plotted so the astronauts would not be 'dosed.'
...
Therefore there surely are CONTEMPORANEOUS reports/accounts/papers/studies/documents proving this, or at least MENTIONING IT." The closest you came was in the 1969 Mission Report wherein 'pass rapidly' through the belts was the only mention. This is not 'avoiding the worst of the belts.' Factually incorrect. Let me commend to your attention highlights (in bold) of documents I have already cited for you:
On lunar missions, they are encountered in two complete traversals of the radiation belt on translunar and trans-Earth injection. Since the angle of inclination of the plane of the geomagnetic equator to the plane of the coplanar orbits of the Moon and the vehicle around the Earth varies continuously on a daily and monthly cycle, the geomagnetic trajectory through the radiation belt varies from crossing to crossing. Sometimes the trajectory traverses the inner belt more peripherally, sometimes more centrally.
There is also a nice little diagram of the Apollo XII TLI and TEI gemagnetic trajectories.
A computer program has been compiled at Bellcomm to compute the instantaneous and accumulated particle flux intercepted by a spacecraft in orbit or on a given lunar trajectory. A detailed mathematical description is given in Appendix B. The program uses the following initial six parameters to specify an orbit: atlitude, longitude, latitude, azimuth, elevation, and velocity magnitude at burnout and it computes the orbit as a function of in-plane angle or true anomaly. A subroutine then converts geographical coordinates into B,L coordinates. A second subroutine interrogates the memory and reads out the particle (proton and/or electron) fluxes out of ~1200 B,L boxes and the instantaneous and accumulated fluxes read out.
Methods are now under development to determine the optimum trajectories (in terms of dose rates) to be used for various mission profiles. If this method proves successful, the mission may be made more complicated due to the specification of a path to be followed through the Van Allen zones.
There, in black and white, are three examples directly discussing concerns of Apollo translunar trajectories with regard to the Van Allen belts - in other words, three examples of what you
guaranteed we could not find. And this is just a facile word-search of NTRS and documents I already had on hand; it is not an engineering exercise.
Allan, why are you refusing to uphold your guarantee? And I'm not looking for clever answers from other board members; I really would like Allan to explain why he is apparently so committed to denying the facts presented to him.
I'm leaving this thread because I don't need any more reminders of how easy it apparently is to get humans to do what you do here. Allan, that's very disappointing to read. I thought you were here to learn something. The above makes it sound like you only came here to confirm your preconceived notions.
What
was easy here was for you to get useful information about the Apollo program and spaceflight in general, freely given by people who have accumulated a great deal of knowledge on these subjects. Instead of learning from it, you are avoiding it. Why is that? Are you afraid to challenge your own assumptions? Do you not like the idea that the same country involved in Vietnam could accomplish this? Is it a religious thing? Or what?
Whether it's money Wrong. I do not get paid for providing information to you, nor to any other hoax believer.
or MKULTRA Wrong. Nothing to do with me.
or inborn delusion Wrong. The same principles that applied to Apollo apply to other space projects - military, civil, and commercial - and each type of which I have worked on. If I was deluded, I would not be approaching the quarter-century mark in my line of work.
or simple wishful thinking Wrong. I
am paid to perform actual space engineering, and have both both the education and experience to back up what I say. Wishful thinking is not part of my job skill set.
or, most certainly, Evil at work, Are you saying that I'm evil for providing you with facts contradicting your claim? This must be a new definition of "evil" with which I am not familiar.
I'd prefer not to hear any more of it... Allan, that's really too bad. You can
still decide to stick around and learn something, if you like. Or you can close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears, and shout "La la la I can't hear you". The latter approach is easier, because it never means having to admit an error, but really won't help you in the long run.
Personally, I hope you choose the former.
Edited two paragraphs in the "wishful thinking" and "delusion" responses.
