Faked images from our trip to the moon?

reply to post by kinda kurious



It doesn't matter, because Van Allen's first measurements indicated the radiation was lethal. He did a 180 because NASA said they couldn't get a shielded (heavier) capsule there. I'm sick of repeating myself when I already posted the reference.

reply to post by grizzle2


But you've already stated IN THIS THREAD that you acknowledge we went.

Originally posted by grizzle2
I didn't say we didn't go, only that we didn't go the way we're told.

Ring any bells? So WHY do you continue to bicker? Do you simply enjoy it or are you going to explain YOUR THEORY?

Originally posted by grizzle2

It doesn't matter, because Van Allen's first measurements indicated the radiation was lethal. He did a 180 because NASA said they couldn't get a shielded (heavier) capsule there. I'm sick of repeating myself when I already posted the reference.

"Lethal" isn't a unit of measurement of radioactivity. Actual numbers would be helpful.

reply to post by grizzle2


grizzle literally if you read through the links myself and kinda kurious provided you will realize that they not only traversed the VAB but they were also shield by harmful radiation

its seeming like you are just acting thick headed and only want to hear and read what only agrees with you

Originally posted by grizzle2
reply to post by kinda kurious

 

It doesn't matter, because Van Allen's first measurements indicated the radiation was lethal. He did a 180 because NASA said they couldn't get a shielded (heavier) capsule there. I'm sick of repeating myself when I already posted the reference.

You keep repeating it, but it is factually incorrect. Here is an article about the belts from May 9, 1958 (before NASA even existed) which states:

The radiation zone is by no means a "death belt" that will keep humans from reaching space, but it might do some damage to men who live for a long time in a satellite. Van Allen figured that the radiation level inside the satellite might reach about 0.06 roentgens per hour. At this rate a man would receive in five hours his maximum weekly permissible dose of 0.3 roentgens... The crew of an outbound spaceship need not worry about the radiation belt. If moving fast enough to leave the earth, they would pass through it in about 20 minutes.

Subsequent articles in the following years (as more data came in) supported this. Van Allen never said that crossing the belts was impossible

You fell for Colliers' revisionist fantasy hook, line & sinker,

reply to post by Saint Exupery

If moving fast enough to leave the earth, they would pass through it in about 20 minutes.

Must of been early research.
Didn't it take around 4 hours to go through and that was just the edge/

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Saint Exupery

 

If moving fast enough to leave the earth, they would pass through it in about 20 minutes.

Must of been early research.
Didn't it take around 4 hours to go through and that was just the edge/

Someone else in this thread said that, but it was wrong. Escape velocity is ~25,000 mph, which puts you past the belts in ~ two hours. Someone recently took the Apollo 11 parking orbit, Trans-Lunar Injection (TLI) burn parameters, location of the burn over the Earth and the location of the belts and created a couple of videos showing the trajectory out of the belts:

(edited to add: time increments are 10 minutes each)





Hope this makes things clearer.

(Edited again to add: Van Allen didn't know about the outer belt when he gave the 20-minute figure. He was refering to the time to clear the inner belt, visible in these videos as the yellow area close to the Earth. You can see that 20 minutes is about right for that.)

reply to post by Saint Exupery


Fine but 2 hours is still a lot more than 20 minutes..
Obviously that 1958 paper you linked to was way off the mark IMO..

reply to post by backinblack


See my 2nd edit. As you say, it was early research.

Originally posted by kinda kurious
reply to post by grizzle2

 

But you've already stated IN THIS THREAD that you acknowledge we went.

Originally posted by grizzle2
I didn't say we didn't go, only that we didn't go the way we're told.

Ring any bells? So WHY do you continue to bicker? Do you simply enjoy it or are you going to explain YOUR THEORY?

Why do you continue to be such an ankle-biter? The fact is that the original tests indicate that the radiation in the VABs is lethal. This is how it went - Van Allen and the Army sent up rockets with geiger counters. The first one stopped functioning. They theorized that was because it was overloaded. So they sent up a better one. Sure enough, their theory was correct. That's how Van Allen became famous, by warning about the lethal danger of the VABs. He continued to say this, for years, until NASA decided that they would go ahead anyway with the thin aluminum hull ship and no radiation protection in the suits. So Van Allen did an about face and said "OK, the belts are safe".
But something is really badly wrong with that. NASA doesn't get to change or dictate reality. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy just like ad homenim. 2 + 2 = 4 in any case, not 1, not 0, not 5. My theory is that we're not being given the whole story, in act we're being given an entirely contrived story. This is by far not the only problem with the official story. What the truth is, no one can know for sure, only that something stinks very badly.
Why continue to argue? Why do people continue to argue with the facts as though they don't exist? Why do people substitute personal attacks for facts?

Originally posted by Saint ExuperyYou keep repeating it, but it is factually incorrect. Here is an article about the belts from May 9, 1958 (before NASA even existed) which states

Yes I've read that. So why have all subsequent manned missions been low-earth orbit? Nothing of interest any higher? Really? The occupants of the space shuttle reported the visual effects of cosmic rays at 350 miles altitiude. And then there's the problem with being outside the belts, and outside the module, with no radiation protection whatsoever. Why is it that NASA continues to do research on new radiation shielding? Can't they just use the Apollo shielding?

Of cause they did. Where have you been?????
If man really went to the moon, and that means going past the van allen radiation belt and out to the moon in their space suits without getting exposed to the deadly radiation of space. Why can we lend the astronaught suits to the people of Japan to help clean this radioactive waste?????
Is it because we have never been to the moon , so therefore the suits wouldnt work to block out the radiation??

reply to post by meathed


I would like to have some of that camera film also. It's pretty good, not one trace of cosmic ray or x-ray fogging. Despite the fact that even on the earth, if you leave film around long enough, the background radiation will fog it. And then there's the OMNIMAX filming of the ISS construction. They could only take the film out from between containers of water for a short time, so as to avoid fogging of the film from cosmic rays, even though they were in low earth orbit. What gives there?

I see Grizzle is still shouting out uneducated guesses again. Ive tried to reason with this guy, but he has 'studied' things about radiation and knows better then all of us. Even after his studies he had to pull a wikipedia article to tell me what the Apollo suits were made of .

He is very ignorant of ANYTHING you say and well just refer you back to his articles on random websites for sources.
All i can recommend is ignoring him.

As for the flag photo, its obviously a perception change. One photo has the module in the background and the next has it underneath the view. Hence the flag would face the other way.

reply to post by meathed

Why can we lend the astronaught suits to the people of Japan to help clean this radioactive waste?????

>sigh<

There is a saying...."There are no stupid questions...."

But, I do not believe that to be an absolute truth. CONTEXT and INTENT of questions matter. ATS should be a source of quality information, not nonsense and poppycock.....


SO, here we have, yet again (even though ALREADY ADDRESSED in thread) more ignorance about EVA suits?? With this silly comparison, and rhetorically obtuse suggestion?

NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS do NOT emit the same type of "radiation"!!!!

Still......the notion of a space EVA suit as protection, even from that sort of radiation, would seem to be of some value. They DO have a completly self-contained breathing system, for life support.

BUT......they are designed to work in a VACUUM!!!! Not at sea level Earth atmospheric pressure!! AND, the space suits are much, much too heavy (** see below), in normal ONE Earth gravity ('g'). There are already environmental suits designed for the nuclear power plant activity.....at a managable weight, with their own environment. AND, since they do not require the sort of pressurization that a suit intended for a VACUUM needs, they provide more flexibility of movement, for the wearer.

Gee.....this is REALLY basic knowledge. It is actually quite childish, to make such silly claims and 'comparisons'...."meathed"....don't you agree? Seeing how, with some science education, and common sense, the differences are fully understandable.

Various HazMat suits

(Ya know.....the real thing about nuclear power plants isn't always the "radiation"....it is the RADIOACTIVITY from any contamination that escapes containment. "Getting it on you"......so, those suits provide proper protection, to prevent direct skin-to-contaminated items contact. AND, breathing aparatus, so as to not inhale atoms of uranium, strontium or plutonium, etc).

Overview

The United States Department of Homeland Security defines a hazmat suit as "an overall garment worn to protect people from hazardous materials or substances, including chemicals, biological agents, or radioactive materials." More generally, Hazmat suits may provide protection from:

(skip).....

Nuclear agents—possibly through radiation shielding in the lining, but more importantly by preventing direct contact with or inhalation of radioactive particles or gas .

en.wikipedia.org...




NOW.....suits for space environments:

library.thinkquest.org...


An Apollo-style EVA suit:

en.wikipedia.org...

(**)Weights:

EVA Suit Weight: 76 lb (34.5 kg)

Total EVA Suit Weight 200 lb (91 kg)

(SO, you see....the garment itself is bad enough...though manageable in Earth gravity. But, adding the life support (PLSS) is another 124 pounds....bringing the whole shebang up to the 200-pound mark).


Image of the Apollo suit without the outer reflective, thermal and micro-meteorite layers.

reply to post by weedwhacker


That is awesome WW. I'm not sure why you bother but glad you do as I learn so much. BTW, your Signature says it all. It sums up all the dimbulbs.

We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology - Carl Sagan

They equate getting new apps for ther iPhones as computer programming.

ETA: Great Resource for exploring Spacesuits in visual detail. (See Buzz / Neil Flown Suit section)

reply to post by weedwhacker


I asked a stupid question, you gave a stupid answer,.
Kind of makes us even

Originally posted by kinda kurious
ETA: Great Resource for exploring Spacesuits in visual detail. (See Buzz / Neil Flown Suit section)

Oooooppppsss. Forgot link.

www.hq.nasa.gov...

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by ashtonkusher
no stars in the picture....

It was sunlit, not many stars visible in day time..

ive seen pictures where it was in sunlight and u can see stars...

Originally posted by ashtonkusher
ive seen pictures where it was in sunlight and u can see stars...

Yes but that is because you live in Hollywood.