Did NASA just admit they never put Man on The Moon? [Video]

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

Sill, I would like you to find a source for your claims that Orion has to go through the more radiated parts of the Vnn Allen Belts - and you still have not provided it after many pages.

Well let's see...

The Orion doesn't have to go through there, but if that is when the launch window happens to be then they will have to fly through it. Pretty simple actually.

They would prefer not to fly through it, but sometimes things just don't work out that way.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

Sill, I would like you to find a source for your claims that Orion has to go through the more radiated parts of the Vnn Allen Belts - and you still have not provided it after many pages.

The Orion doesn't have to go through there, but if that is when the launch window happens to be then they will have to fly through it. Pretty simple actually.

Well, I would not say it is "pretty simple" - they don't call it Rocket Science for nothing you know

Seriously though, I don't reject there being different "launch windows" that yield different trajectories, I'm questioning the claim that the Orion needs extra radiation shielding than the Apollo spacecrafts because it must take a more dangerous trajectory, I just don't buy that without a scientific source.

-MM

originally posted by: WanderingSage
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

Is it possible that 40-50 years ago they just didn't know about the radiation. I mean the astronauts could have gotten lucky and didn't get to messed up from it. I myself was exposed to gamma radiation and I'm fine. Not saying that this is what I think the case is, but it IS possible.

Just because they did not know about the radiation back then, does not mean it would not have affected the computer systems.

Radiation like this can harm the guidance systems, onboard computers, or other electronics on Orion.

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

Well, I would not say it is "pretty simple"

No it is pretty simple...if they have a launch window that takes them through a thicker area then they have to factor that in, but if they don't have to then they have less to worry about when it comes to shielding.

I'm no rocket scientist, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

It needs more shielding for both the Van Allen Belts, and the fact that it's going to be exposed to radiation for 500 days on a mission to Mars. The Belts aren't the only source of radiation in space. Apollo missions on average lasted 8-10 days, so exposure wasn't nearly the problem for them as it will be for astronauts going to and from Mars.

a reply to: thesmokingman

Technology has moved on, your watch is more powerful than the computer that put men on the moon.
Circuits are now fully integrated solid state chips and there cirucuit pathways are mere microns apart, there circuite were primarily discreet component's and far less semi conductors were used, semi conductors are prone to EMP and radiation interferance but Discreet component's are often almost imperviouse so?.

Some US military circuitry used in fighter's uses a form of miniaturised Valvies manufactured using pressure crystalized artificial diamond as Valves are impervious to EMP's.

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

I'm questioning the claim that the Orion needs extra radiation shielding than the Apollo spacecrafts because it must take a more dangerous trajectory,

The only reason that would be done is if they have to fly through an area that is thicker, which isn't their first choice I'm sure.

Now if it doesn't have to fly through the thicker part, such as the Apollo didn't have to then the extra shielding would not be necessary.

Now that is unknown until they figure out when a good time to actually launch and head to Mars without using an enormous amount of fuel. So what exactly is it so hard to understand?

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

And what about the layers of stainless steel? You don't consider those layers might help to protect the crew? The design teams sure did. And not just for their heat shielding properties, either.

The actual radiation levels encountered by the Apollo mission crews were actually not very high. From Apollo 7 to 15 average crew radiation doses ranged from a low of 0.16 rads (Apollos 7 & 8) to a high of 1.14 rads (during Apollo 14). Apollo 11 (first moon landing mission) was 0.18 rads for the mission.

ETA: I forget to link my reference. It's from NASA. APOLLO EXPERIENCE REPORT - PROTECTION AGAINST RADIATION . (PDF document. 5.33MB.) The above rad dose details can be found on page 7 of the .pdf (which is numbered page 3 in the document.) END ETA.

Clearly, the shielding was quite adequate for these missions. However, they were quite short. Longer journeys of many months (like eg to Mars) are a different story entirely as it's not just the Van Allen belts that have to be dealt with, but cosmic radiation beyond.

a reply to: JustMike

Steel being ferrous has a strong magnetic attraction so would definitely attenuate any radiation carried by a magnetic field, by how much is questionable and the thickness of the steel, the shape of the capsule and it's velocity through the magnetic band would all have relevance to the question, well pointed out.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

It needs more shielding for both the Van Allen Belts, and the fact that it's going to be exposed to radiation for 500 days on a mission to Mars. The Belts aren't the only source of radiation in space. Apollo missions on average lasted 8-10 days, so exposure wasn't nearly the problem for them as it will be for astronauts going to and from Mars.

It is radiation in the Vann Allen Belts that the video in the OP is about, not the other radiation of space.

As we get further away from Earth, we will pass through the Vann Allan Belts, an area of dangerous radiation. Radiation like this can harm the guidance systems, onboard computers, or other electronics on Orion. Naturally, we have to pass through this danger zone twice, once up and once back. But Orion has protection, shielding will be put to the test as the vehicle cuts through the waves of radiation. Sensors aboard will record radiation levels for scientists to study. We must solve these challenges before we send people through this region of Space.

The NASA Engineer does not mention other radiation sources.

-MM

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

Because that's the primary radiation threat, but it's not the ONLY threat that they have to protect for. If you protect for passing through there, your shielding for other radiation sources should be good enough for anything but a major eruption, or something along those lines.

Trying to compare Apollo and Orion though is like comparing the Wright Flyer, and an F-22. Apollo didn't have the electronics that Orion is going to have that could be effected by the Belts. It also was a completely different mission than the ones that Orion may be tasked for, so it didn't have to do some of the things that Orion is going to have to do. Apollo has already proven that short trips through the thinner portions of the Belts are possible, now Orion is going to have to prove that short trips through the more dangerous parts of the Belts are possible, so that they can start looking at more ambitious missions with it.

a reply to: LABTECH767

Absolutely, though stainless steel is a bit odd in the way it behaves compared to other ferric materials. Anyway, I am sure the research & design teams spent a lot of time and effort trying to find that happy medium between reasonable shielding and structural integrity for these spacecraft. Stainless steel sheet is incredibly tough, as are some aluminum alloys. I've been trying to find details of precisely what types of stainless steel and al alloys they actually used but that info is a bit harder to track down.

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

Watch Interstellar the movie, in the future the history books get changed to tell the tale of the US hoaxed moon missions to get the soviets to bankrupt themselves trying to get to the moon.

Many truths are laced in fiction.

A modern day calculator has more power than the computers aboard the Apollo missions. They also were in an era often referred to as the use of steam gauges vs. MFD Displays, Avionics, and modern electronics. It was not comparable to the Orion in terms of electronic systems aboard. And as many have said radiation exposure vs. time of exposure will determine the actual dose of the astronauts. An 8-10 day mission vs. several months means a much higher dose of radiation exposure due to several forms of high level radiation. That's about as layman term explanation as I can think of.

Yes we went to the moon. The LRO has proven it with many photos. As for passing through the van allen belt astronauts experienced an average of 1.6 mGy due to the high velocity of the TLI (trans-lunar injection). Little more than the amount of a chest x-ray.

It still blows my mind people believe we never went.

I am NOT concerned with whether we went or not. I AM concerned with what they actually saw up there

intresting!
did any of the men who went to the moon,
die of cancer?

Neil Armstrong die on August 25, 2012, 82 years old.
he died from complications that followed the cardiovascular procedures.

a reply to: buddha

Alan Shepard died of Leukemia in 1998.
Deke Slayton died of a brain tumor in 1993 (didn't land on the moon, but flew the Apollo/Soyuz mission in 1975).
John Swigert died of cancer in 1982.

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

just finished watching Richard Hoagland ("Richard Hoagland - Revelations of the Chinese Moon Mission - Latest Updates on Enterprise Mission") on Youtube, and this occurred to me.

I think we really did go to the moon... AND I think we faked moon landings in a studio. NASA had to broadcast footage from the moon that showed the astronauts doing all their mundane scientific research. What the footage DID NOT show was anything interesting (like structures or ruins or .... fill in the blanks). The broadcasts we see were the cover for all the real reasons the US went to the moon to begin with... to hide what was found from citizens, and from the Cold War adversaries.

That's why I believe they went to great lengths to make the studio footage look so real... just not real enough to stand up to scrutiny and advancing technology 30 or 40 years later.

Hoagland found some interesting things in footage released by the Chinese from their 2014 lunar rover missions. Worth a listen.

I remember reading that during the space race the old soviet union was sending up monkeys to see if they could survive that radiation, and they all died !!!

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Going through the thickest part of the Belts, they would have. Going through the thinner portions of the Belts, they would have survived, as long as they didn't stay in them for long periods of time.