COMPLETE STATIC READING EDITION

The Van Allen belts

Could anyone survive the radiation?

← Interactive guide and chronology · The Moon File hub: the history, the full timeline and every file · What people say ↓

The strongest version of this theory

Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisShare

NASA itself says the belts are a problem.

In October 2014 Orion engineer Kelly Smith said in a NASA video that the belts were dangerous and that “we must solve these challenges before we send people through this region of space.” If NASA still has to solve the problem, the argument goes, it cannot have done so in 1969. [1][2][3]

The sources

  1. NASA: NASA Premieres ‘Trial By Fire’ Video on Orion’s Flight Test (release 14-278, 8 October 2014) ↗

    NASA’s announcement of the video in which Kelly Smith describes the uncrewed Orion test flight.

  2. NASA Science: What are the Van Allen Belts? ↗

    Primary institutional record. Carried from the first edition and re-listed 23 October 2026; cited for the specific point in the text.

  3. FlatEarth.ws: Orion EFT-1, Apollo and the Van Allen Radiation Belts ↗

    A debunking site that transcribes the relevant passage of NASA’s video verbatim, including the “we must solve these challenges” line.

What the dosimeters measured

Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisShare

A dose problem, not a wall.

The belts are zones of trapped particles, not a barrier. The dose depends on how long you stay and how you travel. Apollo trajectories crossed them in a few hours, avoiding the most intense regions. [1]

Each crew wore dosimeters. Crew-average skin doses ranged from 0.16 rad on Apollo 8 to 1.14 rad on Apollo 14, an average of 0.46 rad; most of it came from passing through the belts. No crew exceeded the annual limit for radiation workers. [2][3]

Smith was narrating a video about an uncrewed test flight. The danger he named was to Orion’s “guidance systems, on-board computers or other electronics”, and he said sensors on board would record radiation levels for scientists to study before crews flew on the new spacecraft. [4][5]

What we can’t tell you. Skin dose in rad is not the same as whole-body effective dose.

The sources

  1. NASA Science: What are the Van Allen Belts? ↗

    Primary institutional record. Carried from the first edition and re-listed 23 October 2026; cited for the specific point in the text.

  2. Apollo Experience Report: Protection Against Radiation, 1973 ↗

    Official1973 radiation report. Apollo11’s0.18rad value is an average skin absorbed dose; it must not be mislabeled as a whole-body effective dose.

  3. Apollo Lunar Surface Journal: Radiation Environment and dosimeter readings ↗

    Primary institutional record. Carried from the first edition and re-listed 23 October 2026; cited for the specific point in the text.

  4. NASA: NASA Premieres ‘Trial By Fire’ Video on Orion’s Flight Test (release 14-278, 8 October 2014) ↗

    NASA’s announcement of the video in which Kelly Smith describes the uncrewed Orion test flight.

  5. FlatEarth.ws: Orion EFT-1, Apollo and the Van Allen Radiation Belts ↗

    A debunking site that transcribes the relevant passage of NASA’s video verbatim, including the “we must solve these challenges” line.

The danger Apollo missed

Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisShare

A solar storm between Apollo 16 and 17.

The ALSJ review notes that the only solar particle event in the 1964–1976 cycle big enough to threaten an unprotected crew came on 4 August 1972, midway between Apollo 16 and 17. A crew on the surface could have received a skin dose of about 600 rem. [1]

NASA now plans radiation forecasting and shielding for Artemis crews. [2] Apollo’s safety record included luck.

The sources

  1. Apollo Lunar Surface Journal: Radiation Environment and dosimeter readings ↗

    Primary institutional record. Carried from the first edition and re-listed 23 October 2026; cited for the specific point in the text.

  2. NASA Science: Protecting astronauts from space radiation at the Moon ↗

    Primary institutional record. Carried from the first edition and re-listed 23 October 2026; cited for the specific point in the text.

WHAT PEOPLE SAY ABOUT THIS FILE

The claims, rated.

3 claims people make about this file, each rated documented, partly true, disputed, unproven or false. Think a rating is wrong? Use Dispute or Support, or join the Discussion.

All 111 rated claims ↗

← The Moon File hub: the history, the full timeline and every file

PREVIOUS CASE
The Earth in the window↗NEXT CASE
Slow motion and wires↗

Discussion

Comment, dispute or support a claim, submit a source or rate this page through a short Google Form. It asks you to sign in with Google so we know you are a real person; your email is never shown. Nothing appears here until it has been reviewed. Conversation on X tagged #AIFiles #AIFilesMoon shows up below after the daily refresh.

CommentSubmit a sourceRate this pageStart a discussion on XFull forum topicSee all disputesFollow updates (Google Group)

Reader comments

Approved reader comments and ratings are shown on the interactive edition. This plain reading edition does not load them.

On X

This plain reading edition does not load posts. You can read this subject’s threads on the forum: Forum: #AIFilesMoon.

Reader comments are shown only after review, and rows removed from the form’s sheet disappear at the next refresh. X posts are a read-only daily snapshot; posts deleted or made private there are removed at the next refresh. Inclusion is not endorsement. A submitted source stays pending review until a page update says otherwise.