Potential hazards from the high-altitude electrical discharges called sprites and jets are unknown. Since they seem to occur between the cloud tops at around 15-km altitude and at the base of the ionosphere near 100-km altitude, interest in their effects will depend on the future use of this region of Earth-space.

Astronaut radiation exposure is a major concern of our manned space flight program. Most manned missions occur in orbits that are below the regions where the Van Allen belt radiation is most intense.

Extravehicular activities (EVAs) in the region of anomalously high radiation over the South Atlantic are also avoided.

The "danger zone" for spacecraft is in the region of the South Atlantic, where the energetic particle populations in the radiation belts are found at unusually low altitudes due to a local weakness in Earth's magnetic field. This chart shows the region as mapped by registering the times when communications are lost, or computer glitches occur with orbitting satellites.

For missions that leave low-Earth orbit, like the Apollo missions to the moon, the ability to rapidly traverse the radiation belts and to predict the occurrence of solar energetic particle events is essential. (but apparently was not available between 1963/1972)

WHILE ENVISIONED MANNED MODULES FOR FUTURE MISSIONS TO MARS ARE GENERALLY EQUIPPED WITH SHIELDED ASTRONAUT SHELTERS, ADEQUATE WARNING IS NECESSARY FOR THESE TO BE USEFUL.

AN ASTRONAUT ON THE LUNAR SURFACE WOULD BE IN DANGER OF A LETHAL DOSE OF RADIATION FROM SOLAR ENERGETIC PARTICLES WERE A MAJOR CORONAL MASS EJECTION TO OCCUR UNNOTICED

The time frame of the "manned" lunar missions was right smack in the middle of a solar maximum, a period of high solar activity when it would have been most likely to see solar flares of high magnitude erupting from the Sun, the Soviets knew of the danger, but desperate for some sort of tactical advantage the US went ahead with the charade, here are the sunspot figures (smoothed) for the period of the Apollo program when men were supposedly "walking around" in the microwave oven on the Lunar surface, now of course we see that for humans to survive in the environment outside the VAB, they need specially shielded Astronaut shelters - but these were not available for the Apollo missions, but amazingly no crispy critters.

1967.5 ---- 93.7	1968.5 ---- 105.9	1969.5 ---- 105.5
1970.5 ---- 104.5	1971.5 ---- 66.6	1972.5 ---- 68.9

There was a pronounced incline in the intensity of the solar cycle sunspot numbers since 1900, my page on "Geomagnetic" contains many plots and graphs of ACTUAL readings and measurements -all of which can be checked easily and simply.

And the information presented in "paper to Nature" that shows the doubling of the solar coronal mass during the past century "Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Chilton, England, UK" offers a reason why the incline is there, the data that is presented in the charts of Sunspot cycle activity leave no doubt as to the trend - then suddenly we see a marked reduction in intensity for cycle No.20, did NASA know that the cycle would be less intense or were the figures doctored to make the cycle seem less severe and thus defeat the argument that it was dangerous? - one thing is for sure - from the incline trend of the previous 60 years (6 solar cycles) - NO-ONE COULD HAVE PREDICTED THE REDUCED INTENSITY OF CYCLE 20 - but even during this "reduced" cycle the solar flare and CME activity was still quite high and totally unpredictable - in fact the Apollo 11 mission fell right in the highest period of activity at a solar maximum - not a solar minimum!!!!!!!!!!

The following chart shows this incline trend clearly - maybe we should ask NASA why it is that even today we do not see accurate predictions for the duration or intensity of the solar cycle - anyone who has watched will be well aware of how many "educated guesses" we have seen from the various bodies who make predictions - they obviously do not have access to the "crystal ball" that was used by NASA when they decided that cycle 20 would be the one best suited to run the Apollo program.

Well after the Apollo missions there was still MAJOR concern for the pilots, crew and passengers of HIGH FLYING AIRCRAFT - imagine how much stronger the radiation is outside the VAB - and then think about why the US has not constructed a space station on the Moon, after all the moon does not have a decaying orbit, nor is it knocked out of it's orbit by solar storms like the Mir or ISS or the satellites that all need constant attention to orbit maintenance,

It's because of the potential danger from solar coronal mass ejection, which cannot be accurately predicted even today let alone during the period of the Apollo missions.

Here is an extract from a description of the Lunar Landing Module, published by NASA.

At sea level, the Earth's atmosphere is a mixture of gases - primarily of nitrogen (78% by volume), oxygen (21%), water vapor (varying amounts depending on temperature and humidity), and traces of carbon dioxide and other gases. Oxygen is, by far, the most important component of what we breathe and, indeed, the Apollo astronauts breathed almost pure oxygen laced with controlled amounts of water vapor. With the nitrogen eliminated, the cabin pressure could be considerably less than sea-level pressure on Earth - about 4.8 psi (pounds per square inch) versus 14.7 psi - and, CONSEQUENTLY, THE CABIN WALLS COULD BE RELATIVELY THIN AND, THEREFORE, LIGHT IN WEIGHT.

Neither the LM or the CSM had "safe" enclosures for the crews to migrate to in the event of a solar event, yet at the very height of a solar cycle, when there was even less ability to predict or measure the intensity of solar activity, a whole series of "manned" lunar missions took place