It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why I believe the Moon landings may have been faked

page: 55
57
<< 52  53  54    56  57  58 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 11:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

Yes, like there are satellites orbiting Earth, using current technology.

"Current technology" doesn't mean 'Any spacecraft using current technology can fly humans to the moon'...


that makes no sense you havent thought it through..

satellites are using current technology (this new radiation shielding) even though they dont have human occupants to protect..

but the craft that is carrying human occupants chooses not to use current technology (this new radiation shielding)




They do NOT have any spacecraft capable of "completely protecting" humans from space radiation, first of all.


but they go from cosmic rays being deadly when exposed to it for about 7 days, to completely safe with this new shielding for single short missions to the moon..

that is a HUGE leap.


Orion is not capable of flying beyond LEO with humans, just like Apollo was not capable of it, nor have any other spacecraft been capable of it, ever.


your opinion, have you finally got how many gray/hr they would be exposed to yet that would prove your opinion?


As for "going through the VAB", you mean briefly skimming along the lower fringes of the VAB, while in LEO, right?

That's like saying an airplane flew through a hurricane, because it went along the outer fringes of it. Not exactly the same thing, is it?


not exactly skimming through, they will go through the SAA every 90 mins. this new shielding would reduce that dosage to nearly 0.





No. It DOES make it worse than before..

And I'd like you to prove they say it is "still very low".... when they don't even know HOW much worse it becomes, as yet!!


ive already proven to you multiple times that it is still pretty low.. look at the numbers.. if you dont want to look at the numbers look at how thick the aluminium needs to be to satisfactorily keep dose readings to within prescribed YEARLY limits.

or even look at the gray/hr that cosmic rays would be in your deep space both at a solar minimum and a solar maximum.. that would be your base starting point..

oh and btw since you said they dont know how much worse aluminium makes it how come you seem to know that Apollo is impossible??

do you have secret figures to back up your opinions??




What are you talking about? I never said anything about shielding they had and/or lost...


yes you have.. you have previously claimed that constellation was cancelled due to not having the technology to protect against cosmic rays, that occured in 2009.

your own article you like to quote from says they have the required technology for short single missions to the moon in 2007.
and in 2014 they had built and tested Orion, (which began its construction after 2007) without this new protection even though its still going to be exposed to the VAB (if it stays only in LEO as you claim).

so in 2007 they had the technology and in 2009 they lost it.

and finally what is this new feasible new radiation shielding that would make short single trips to the moon possible?? why doesnt the technology world know of this??




posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 11:57 PM
link   
a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo


Kosmos series launches were hidden among classified launches, lumped together with top-secret military spacecraft.

Kosmos-110 long-duration mission reportedly revealed multiple problems with dog's health, As a result, Soviet scientists at the IMBP, in Moscow proposed a whole new program of life-science experiments aimed to advance fundamental understanding of space biology rather than to prepare for other particular missions.


Kosmos-110 was launched into 190 x 882 kilometre orbit carrying the dogs Veterok and Ugolyok.

The inner Van Allen Belt extends typically from an altitude (1,000 km) to (6,000 km) above the Earth.







posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 12:36 AM
link   

edit on 4/3/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 12:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Misinformation

Do you not have to bother providing sources or anything? Is that OK for you but no-one else?

Did the reported health problems include radiation sickness? Simple yes or no.

You quote (supposedly) a bit about Kosmos-110 being hidden amongst other launches but my book from 1968 reports the results presented by the Soviets at a conference and the Pathe news reel is from 1966. Not so secret.



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 12:49 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

All that is needed is life support.

Are you trying to tell me that this is impossible? Sources for that? Please do tell us which aspects of adding people to the equation are impossible.

If you are going to claim that the radiation issue is critical, then you need to answer the question you've been asked multiple times: what is your proof that the Apollo astronauts would have, and did, receive a lethal dose of radiation?



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 02:51 AM
link   
A completely different narrative of Kosmos series satellites has emerged, one that challenges the popular understanding of Kosmos and it's classified nature. By allegedly achieving such an extremely dubious scenario, the Soviets did NASA a good turn in what would otherwise signal their defeat too the more incognizant individuals. Thereby, concordantly paving to way for NASA's own deliberately absurd deception... Once again the propagandists have failed to produce the holy grail for apollo...



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 02:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

and finally what is this new feasible new radiation shielding that would make short single trips to the moon possible?? why doesnt the technology world know of this??


They only say that current technology allows for single trips to the moon.

It was never explained, it was dropped into the report out of the blue, let's just move along now, folks.

And if we ALREADY HAVE done manned missions to the moon, then we've already proven to have the technology for those missions. But they don't mention it. They just say that "current technology" "allows for" these missions.

So why would they say 'current technology' allows for it? They are saying "current technology" should work - "allows" for it. Not that it is PROVEN to work, just "allows for it".

They ignore the technology PROVEN to work, but mention technology that ALLOWS FOR IT, in a report about sending humans into deep space, which was only done with the PROVEN technology, that they completely ignore in the report!!

I guess Apollo is never mentioned because something so magnificent as Apollo 'needs no mention'!! It's said without saying it, that's why nobody really bothers to bring it up!!


Once more, from their report...

"Exposure from the hazards of severe space radiation in deep space and/or long duration missions is a critical design constraint and a potential ‘show stopper.’ Thus, protection from the hazards of severe space radiation is of paramount importance to the agency’s vision."

They must have forgotten to mention that short missions in deep space are an exception to this statement, for some reason. I'm sure it was an oversight, though!! Perhaps they were really tired at the time they wrote their report, or something, right??



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 03:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

They only say that current technology allows for single trips to the moon.

It was never explained, it was dropped into the report out of the blue, let's just move along now, folks.


its your report that you love quoting from all the time.. so when it says something that doesnt agree with your opinion it means nothing who would have thought.

a few pages ago you were saying how it was meant to be good for your opinion also..

now tell us what this current technology of shielding is..

just before you also claimed satellites are using current technology what would happen if i find a satellite launched after 2007 that is using aluminium as its main component?? would that mean current technology is to use aluminium for the hull??
(as just a FYI satellites need to be protected against particle radiation also)


And if we ALREADY HAVE done manned missions to the moon, then we've already proven to have the technology for those missions. But they don't mention it. They just say that "current technology" "allows for" these missions.


because short single missions to the moon limits exposure to well within limits ie. using aluminium hull for a short single mission to the moon is sufficient as the exposure is limited by the time spent in deep space.


So why would they say 'current technology' allows for it? They are saying "current technology" should work - "allows" for it. Not that it is PROVEN to work, just "allows for it".


because it is precisely that, current technology is sufficient to get man to the moon for single short missions.. no matter how you try to twist it, it is what it is.

aluminium is satisfactory for usage as the hull since to limit exposure to particle radiation they simply need to spend less time exposed to it.. its as simple as that.


They ignore the technology PROVEN to work, but mention technology that ALLOWS FOR IT, in a report about sending humans into deep space, which was only done with the PROVEN technology, that they completely ignore in the report!!

I guess Apollo is never mentioned because something so magnificent as Apollo 'needs no mention'!! It's said without saying it, that's why nobody really bothers to bring it up!!


Apollo had no shielding against GCR's if it did please show us. they did not purposefully select aluminium to specifically shield against particle radiation, if they did please show us.



Once more, from their report...

"Exposure from the hazards of severe space radiation in deep space and/or long duration missions is a critical design constraint and a potential ‘show stopper.’ Thus, protection from the hazards of severe space radiation is of paramount importance to the agency’s vision."

They must have forgotten to mention that short missions in deep space are an exception to this statement, for some reason. I'm sure it was an oversight, though!! Perhaps they were really tired at the time they wrote their report, or something, right??


space radiation can be reduced by reducing exposure time.. reducing exposure time means shorter missions..
come back when you can understand this.

also can you please fill everyone in what this mysterious particle radiation shielding is?? im sure the people operating the large hadron collider would love to use it also as would the ISS.

p.s. since you claimed no one knows how aluminium affects cosmic rays, how do you know it will make it deadly within 7 days??

p.p.s before i forget, what is the background cosmic ray level in deep space?
edit on 3-4-2016 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 03:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Misinformation

You appear to be confusing the cosmos unmanned satellite with the cosmos missions using a vostok aluminium based craft carrying animals and people.

Please enlighten us as to how your confused babble of word salad means radiation was fatal to the animals and people exposed to it on these space missions.
edit on 3/4/2016 by OneBigMonkeyToo because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 04:35 AM
link   

a reply to: choos

now tell us what this current technology of shielding is..


the current state of radiation shielding technology is literally crap ...

they also plan on hanging their food supply on the walls so it can be irradiated as well.. with the added benefit of saving the energy a microwave oven would use.


by the time orion reaches NEO it should be full of it ....


edit on 3-4-2016 by Misinformation because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 04:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Misinformation

a reply to: choos

now tell us what this current technology of shielding is..


by the time orion reaches NEO it should be full of it ....



it went to HEO in 2014, wasnt full of it..



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 06:10 AM
link   
a reply to: choos

Unlike...



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 03:12 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 04:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Misinformation

There's no need to produce a smoking gun - that's your job. So far all your bullets have been duds and haven't stood up to the arsenal aimed at you.



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 12:26 PM
link   
a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

No smoking guns but he has produced several steaming piles.



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 08:01 PM
link   
If i remember correctly there's a video showing Neil Armstrong ejecting from a Lunar Lander trainer when it went out of control and crashed.

NASA was fully aware of the lack of radiation shielding and took a calculated risk on the Apollo missions. NASA officials held the breath and prayed that there wouldn't be a large solar flares during the missions.

The Apollo missions were not without incidents on any mission, Even Apollo 11 had problems with the computer during landing and when Armstrong landed, the lander was down to the last few seconds of fuel.

NASA estimated the cost of the space program from 1959-1973 to be an estimated $20.4 billion dollars, the estimated cost of a 2018 landing is $104 billion.



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 09:12 PM
link   
Guys, just think about it, why to abandon working interplanetary venture when enormous input was a success and points out to aim for a new goal after so many successful missions?

There is permanent Moon base that can not be ignored as logical continuation of trouble-free landings, for instance. Makes no sense. Its like to invent a computer concept and put it on the shelf because 'been there, done that', 'no longer a challenge, hence we shift to sending probes to Mars because there is nothing else to do on that damned Moon anyway'. Sort of like why to give up unparalleled to Earthlings achievement without to at least to make an attempt to build a fundament on the Moon for future generations. Say, lets continue tossing darts into the sky using millennia old formulas only this time higher and with better photographic gear)

cheers)



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 10:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: choos

because short single missions to the moon limits exposure to well within limits ie. using aluminium hull for a short single mission to the moon is sufficient as the exposure is limited by the time spent in deep space.

aluminium is satisfactory for usage as the hull since to limit exposure to particle radiation they simply need to spend less time exposed to it.. its as simple as that.

space radiation can be reduced by reducing exposure time.. reducing exposure time means shorter missions..
come back when you can understand this.



They never say aluminum is adequate shielding for humans in deep space, it's the complete opposite!

You have no proof, and trying to twist it doesn't help you, either..


You assume that 'current technology' means aluminum shielding, which is utter nonsense...

Where do they state anywhere in these reports that aluminum is adequate shielding for a short mission in deep space, up to a week... ?

They don't say it, as you know...


Do you really grasp what they say about aluminum, in these reports??

- Aluminum shielding is an adequate material for manned missions within Earth orbit.

- In fact, it was long-considered to make adequate shielding for any future manned missions beyond LEO, period. Nothing was mentioned about short missions being adequate, as you claim they are.

- This was a LONG-HELD BELIEF.

- Recent findings show they were wrong on that belief.


No exceptions, as I said.



posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 12:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

They never say aluminum is adequate shielding for humans in deep space, it's the complete opposite!

You have no proof, and trying to twist it doesn't help you, either..


you know what lets just simplify it.

Is usage of aluminum in the hull of a spacecraft deadly regardless of how long they spend in deep space?

if it isnt it means Apollo was definitely possible.. all i need you to say is that usage of aluminum on the apollo spacecraft hull made the mission impossible to survive.

also you have again failed to answer my questions, what is the background GCR's levels in deep space?
and what is this new current shielding technology?
edit on 9-4-2016 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 12:20 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



new topics

top topics



 
57
<< 52  53  54    56  57  58 >>

log in

join