Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

page: 24
54
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 03:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by turbonium1
 



The Apollo spacecraft were primarily thin aluminum shells. It's a well-documented fact that aluminum is a very poor shield against the radiation within the VA Belts.
Please provide such documentation. But you understand that the interior of the command module was lined with equipment right? Equipment which quite effectively absorbed radiation. The skin was not the only protection.




I went through six weeks of radiotherapy 26 years ago. On a daily basis I received a hell of a lot more radiation than the Apollo astronauts did.
edit on 4/21/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)


There's equipment covering the windows? Not that it helps in shielding, anyway. Aluminum is a poor shield, and equipment is no better. It smacks of desperation, too.

You have no sources, then?

I will post a few of mine asap.. .




posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 04:11 AM
link   
Here's one source on aluminum shielding...

"The ISS is basically an aluminum structure. a well-proven technology for that historical development. However, aluminum is a poor radiation shield material to hazardous outside of LEO applications."

(from page 282 of below link)

books.google.ca...=o nepage&q=radiation%20poor%20shield%20%20aluminum&f=false



posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 04:49 AM
link   
Another source...

"Clearly, aluminum which was taken as a reasonableshield material a few years ago is now considered a poorcandidate for future spacecraft construction"

webcache.googleusercontent.com...:9OHEEx4jn58J:citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.37.9353%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3D ps+aluminum+is+a+poor+radiation+shield+material+to+hazardous+outside+of+LEO+applications&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca

There's a pdf version of the above soyrce, as well.


The two sources I've posted clearly support my argument. You have not shown any sources to support your case, as yet.

If you can't, then it obviously confirms Apollo was a hoax



posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 04:52 AM
link   
Aside from the facts, as apparently, none are needed to prove the Apollo missions DID NOT land on the Moon, who or what left all the foot prints and tire tracks on the lunar surface? The images from the LRO were pretty crisp, and well, pretty obvious.

Who is going to 'disclose' the hoax? Someone that went there and checked?

The Saturn V doesn't have enough nuts to put the lunar payload in orbit? Huh?

The flag 'waving' is proof of a hoax? What ?

The technology didn't exist? ???????????? Yeah it did, it wasn't much technology to be sure, but it did. All they needed was a pretty decent calculator, which is basically what they used.

and on, and on, and on. Well, we'll know for sure in our life times. The fact that the stuff is there and visible on the Lunar surface. The foot prints, tire tracks, descent stages, instrumentation packages and it's all visible to the naked eye, might be a clue there. But if it was a hoax, where did all the moon rocks come from? I think you could call that evidence in a way.

Saturn V weighed ONLY 3,000 tons? What does that have to do with anything ?



posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 07:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by CarbonBase
Aside from the facts, as apparently, none are needed to prove the Apollo missions DID NOT land on the Moon, who or what left all the foot prints and tire tracks on the lunar surface? The images from the LRO were pretty crisp, and well, pretty obvious.

Who is going to 'disclose' the hoax? Someone that went there and checked?

The Saturn V doesn't have enough nuts to put the lunar payload in orbit? Huh?

The flag 'waving' is proof of a hoax? What ?

The technology didn't exist? ???????????? Yeah it did, it wasn't much technology to be sure, but it did. All they needed was a pretty decent calculator, which is basically what they used.

and on, and on, and on. Well, we'll know for sure in our life times. The fact that the stuff is there and visible on the Lunar surface. The foot prints, tire tracks, descent stages, instrumentation packages and it's all visible to the naked eye, might be a clue there. But if it was a hoax, where did all the moon rocks come from? I think you could call that evidence in a way.

Saturn V weighed ONLY 3,000 tons? What does that have to do with anything ?


Alright, get a telescope that can see the surface of the moon, take the picture that i can see with my naked eye?!?!? i look at the moon everyday with my naked eye, i have never seen a flag.

They had rovers on the moon, you know, ROBOTS on the moon.

And they could have easily get moon specimens from Antarctica, and the only way you will know that it's actually a moon rock, if you were to go get one right now off the surface and compare it with their findings.

Conspiracy theorists get their ideas from Visual propaganda, and so do the believers.

You say they had the technology, alright, they did have the technology to send man past LEO and to a martian rock with absolutely no rescue, but when you talk about mars it's too dangerous, radiation is a problem, life support systems, electronics, RADIATION, psychological breakdowns blah blah blah... If the program wasn't faked, and wasn't for some mere profit to push spy technology into LEO we would have had humans on mars already.

You all talk about the thousands of people that worked on it, well lets just say NASA (which is military) kicked them all in the nuts.
edit on 21-4-2013 by XaniMatriX because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by XaniMatriX
You say they had the technology, alright, they did have the technology to send man past LEO and to a martian rock with absolutely no rescue, but when you talk about mars it's too dangerous, radiation is a problem,


Yes, it was too dangerous. You're talking about a mission that lasted a week, compared to a mission that would last for a year or so probably, certainly months at best. They had the technology for short missions, but certainly not for a mission that would have to last as long as one to Mars would.



posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbonium1

Same reason they didn't go over 40 years ago - a lack of required technology.


so in your world technology comes free?? also are we talking about technology for prolonged stays onthe moon or short term stays on the moon?? if you mean they didnt have the technology for prolonged stays on the moon then yes, we all agree NASA didnt have the technology and still does not have the tech for prolonged stays on the moon.


Many people say that NASA itself is a waste of taxpayer's money, let alone a specific project.

And public apathy never stopped NASA's Space Shuttles from looping the Earth over and over again, for about 30 years! .

yes they do, so how do you think NASA is able to convince the Gov. (its payer who needs to justify these to the taxpayer) to fund its space station ventures its shuttle ventures and its moon bases if many people believe NASA is a waste of taxpayers money? perhaps you want NASA's money to grow on trees?



Lack of support didn't stop the Shuttle program, as I said.

NASA can't put astronauts on the moon, that's why only LEO flights are done..

NASA had support from its payer (gov) to continue with the ISS, that is one of the reasons why they did not pursue the moonbase.


NASA's projects are never 'profitable', except to those involved in the project, like suplliers. The taxpaying public don't profit from it, but they certainly pay for it.


yes then i suppose the spike in interest in the fields were completely pointless, the jobs and oppurtunities were pointless. satellites and GPS all pointless and should be put away. you need to think more broadly, the taxpayer wont benefit directly, but indirectly they will. think of the olympics. gov's fund them, but what does the taxpayer get?? they dont get no handout, what they do get is increased tourism, which they can benefit from.


Don't see anything relevant to the issue of aluminum shielding. Can you be more specific?

were you able to identify the difference in radiation types?

were you able to identify which types of radiation would pose the greatest threat to astronauts excluding a major solar event?



posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbonium1
Another source...

"Clearly, aluminum which was taken as a reasonableshield material a few years ago is now considered a poorcandidate for future spacecraft construction"

webcache.googleusercontent.com...:9OHEEx4jn58J:citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.37.9353%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3D ps+aluminum+is+a+poor+radiation+shield+material+to+hazardous+outside+of+LEO+applications&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca

There's a pdf version of the above soyrce, as well.


The two sources I've posted clearly support my argument. You have not shown any sources to support your case, as yet.

If you can't, then it obviously confirms Apollo was a hoax


sorry, both your sources are referring to prolonged stays outside of LEO, not short term which was what the apollo missions were. in other words, your sources are looking for ways to protect astronauts from major solar particle events and/or all galactic cosmic rays.

andif you went to this posted by phage earlier:
www.hq.nasa.gov...

they had contingency plans for if or should a major particle solar event happened to be detected.



posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 11:21 PM
link   
reply to post by choos
 


choos, you can quote all the scientific studies but it wont change the fact that only NASA, NASA under RICHARD NIXON, has been able to demonstrate a human being outside LEO.

Nobody else can demonstrate a human outside LEO. And until such a demonstration is made all the radiation experts in the world can have nothing to say about it. Period.

This continuing ignorance on the part of Apollo believers is both unscientific and irrational.



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 01:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by choos
 

Nobody else can demonstrate a human outside LEO. And until such a demonstration is made all the radiation experts in the world can have nothing to say about it. Period.


I completely agree and further to this, no space agency has been close enough to the sun yet to check its composition and temperature. Just like radiation, it may completely change when you get close to it - we don't know cos we haven't checked.



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 04:32 AM
link   
It's not so much about the Moon, it's about technology. If NASA had technology to send people to the Moon in the 60s, this tech would show itself today in many places. Where is this tech exactly? Have you heard about a far space station in Lunar orbit? And what about highly protected radiation suits in Fukushima? If astronauts' moon suits were such a good protection, why not use them to inspect damaged nuclear reactors? Also will a NASA expert fly over a damaged nuclear reactor in a copy of the Apollo spaceship? If not, then all these arguments are nothing but a well-dressed fantasy.



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 06:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by mrkeen
It's not so much about the Moon, it's about technology. If NASA had technology to send people to the Moon in the 60s, this tech would show itself today in many places. Where is this tech exactly? Have you heard about a far space station in Lunar orbit? And what about highly protected radiation suits in Fukushima? If astronauts' moon suits were such a good protection, why not use them to inspect damaged nuclear reactors? Also will a NASA expert fly over a damaged nuclear reactor in a copy of the Apollo spaceship? If not, then all these arguments are nothing but a well-dressed fantasy.


It's already been explained that the radiation the the Apollo astronauts were exposed to was a different type of radiation (not all radiation is alike). It's not that the spacesuits (or the ship) was "such good protection", but instead it's that they were good enough for the type of radiation they would encounter.

For example, the space station has been testing the use of polyethylene for radiation shielding -- basically thin sheets of plastic. This polyethylene is great for the alpha particles and high energy protons it encounters because of the polyethylene's high hydrogen content -- and hydrogen is good at stopping alpha radiation and high-energy protons.

On the other hand, it is NOT good for stopping gamma radiation, which would be more prevalent in Nuclear power plants. The radiation in a nuclear plant is NOT the same kind of radiation encountered by Apollo -- i.e., there were not high amounts of gamma radiation.

As for other tech that was helped along by the Apollo program...have you ever used a computer? Not that the on-board computers were extremely powerful (they were not that powerful -- not even for their time), but the computer resources required back on Earth by the engineering teams to design and fly Apollo was great, and the need for those computers helped kick-start the computer revolution.


edit on 4/22/2013 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 07:52 AM
link   
Thanks for the clarification, but I heard that there are all types of radiation in space. I am currently searching for the links. So you say that the main tech the Apollo missions brought about are computers. Do you mean that computers were used to the extent that overshadowed any other tech, like life-support, space navigation, radiation protection, propulsion? This can only happen if the whole mission was simulated on a computer. Otherwise there should be more tech.

Here, I found something about gamma-radiation in space:

A solar flare is an explosion in a solar atmosphere and was originally detected visually in our own sun. Solar flares create massive amounts of radiation across the full electromagnetic spectrum from the longest wavelength, radio waves, to high energy gamma rays (en.wikipedia.org...).

Do you mean that astronauts were sent without any protection whatsoever against possible solar flares? These solar flares seem to be pretty frequent:

edit on 22-4-2013 by mrkeen because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by mrkeen
Do you mean that astronauts were sent without any protection whatsoever against possible solar flares? These solar flares seem to be pretty frequent:

edit on 22-4-2013 by mrkeen because: (no reason given)


Basically, yes. That's one reason that the original Apollo astronauts were test pilots. Being a test pilot was a dangerous business to begin with (there was a time in the 1960s that test pilots were dying at the rate of one per week in accidents). These test pilots understood that there were great risks with Apollo, but were willing to take them.

And while there was a chance for a solar flare, the chances of a solar storm happening at that particular moment were actually lower than many of the other risks -- such as the rocket blowing up on launch. The risks were great all around -- again, hence the use of test pilots.

Furthermore, the Apollo command module DID provide some shielding to attenuate a deadly 400 rem solar flare down to a less-potentially lethal exposure rate. Granted, if an astronaut was walking on the Moon during a flare, that would have been bad -- but solar flares don't come out of nowhere. There would have been enough warning of an oncoming solar storm to make sure the astronauts could stay in the command module.

There would have still been a potentially lethal dose of radiation from a flare, even inside the command module, but there could also be potential life-saving treatment a few days away on earth. Solar flare radiation affects the blood-making organs inside the body, but there is a potential treatment for that sort of radiation poisoning.

Again it was all about risk management.

Having said that, the safety culture of NASA today would not have allowed for those risks. But it was a different era then with different priorities and a different risk-to-reward ratio.

edit on 4/22/2013 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 09:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


Hmm... This would mean that back then the price of human life (especially a quality pilot) was not considered very high. This is a questionable statement, but taking into account the ultra high stakes, I can believe it. But the irony is that it was not only about the people who were sent, but the equipment. The spaceship was not able to fulfil the mission without the crew. If anything happened to the crew on their way to the Moon, the whole mission would fail. The equipment would be lost. An insane amount of money and effort would go to waste. I don't believe NASA were so crazy as to risk this precious equipment to that degree. The crew didn't have to be killed by cosmic radiation. Just major burns or sickness due to some solar flare could be enough to bring to an end the tremendous effort of so many people. If I were a NASA specialist I would think of a better shielding to reduce risks. And if such shielding did not exist, chances that the USSR could send somebody to the Moon were extremely low. So no real need to hurry. First, develop proper shielding, test it (speaking about the first dog/monkey on the Moon, lol), and then send people there. To me that's logical. But NASA obviously followed some other line of reasoning.
edit on 22-4-2013 by mrkeen because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by mrkeen
 


First of all, it is common knowledge that test pilots (in general) and the Apollo astronauts (specifically) took great risks. I'm not sure why you are suddenly surprised by this.

Secondly, as I said, the risk of a solar flare happening during the Apollo flights and being directed towards the Apollo spacecraft were low -- lower than other dangers posed by the Apollo mission. So it's not that it was at all likely that a solar flare would kill them. Given the relatively poor record of launch failures up to that time, it was more likely the astronauts would die in a launch explosion/launch accident rather than a solar flare.

Thirdly, once the astronauts are in space, the cost of the spacecraft hardware is already consumed. It's not like they would likely reuse any of it if the astronauts died by solar flare (maybe the LM and attached rover could be worth recovering and reusing, but I doubt they would do that, considering that is just adding the the risk of an already risky mission).

edit on 4/22/2013 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


Even if the cost of manufacture and launch is insignificant (which it isn't), there is still one thing to take into account: publicity. Other countries, especially the USSR were able to track all the radio communication of the astronauts, and if the mission had failed due to technical reasons, it would have become known to the whole world. You can send people to be killed or burned (if they agree to take risks), you can build another Saturn-5 rocket and all the modules (that's expensive, but feasible), but you can't reverse the possible effects of bad publicity. The only reason for not providing better radiation protection could be the fact that it was impossible at that time. So this shifts the whole point of achievement to being lucky rather than being able to go to the Moon in a technologically safe manner. Sort of crossing a railroad in front of a locomotive. I believe there is a huge difference between "we can do it" and "we can try and hope we don't get killed, but we kinda not sure". Maybe that's the reason why we didn't see a manned Moon mission taking place in recent decades. Because this is still not a technological achievement, but a game of Russian roulette. At least this is what follows from the info in your posts.
edit on 22-4-2013 by mrkeen because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by choos
 


choos, you can quote all the scientific studies but it wont change the fact that only NASA, NASA under RICHARD NIXON, has been able to demonstrate a human being outside LEO.

Nobody else can demonstrate a human outside LEO. And until such a demonstration is made all the radiation experts in the world can have nothing to say about it. Period.

This continuing ignorance on the part of Apollo believers is both unscientific and irrational.


Backe to this illogical reasoning?? Just like a broken record, guess I have to repeat it too.

By your logic, the Concorde never flew, it can't fly, it can't carry the passengers it says it could at supersonic speeds. Nobody can demonstrate a Concorde carrying passengers at supersonic speeds so therefore it was all a lie. So until such demonstration is made all speculation that the Concorde could carry the amount of passengers it states it could, at supersonic speeds, is just that, unproven speculation, and all experts in the world can't say otherwise.
edit on 22-4-2013 by choos because: (no reason given)


P.s. just to add some extra flavor, since you believe no one can go beyond Leo due to radiation, how is it that you are so sure that someone cannot survive a trip beyond Leo. According to you, no one has ever demonstrated a trip beyond Leo, which means all experts have no say on it, which also means that what you are saying is also false and unknown. So how sure are you that man cannot go beyond Leo?
edit on 22-4-2013 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by mrkeen
 


Wouldn't a failure of any system be bad publicity? I'm not sure why you are singling out the possibility of failure due to solar flare.

For example, if the ascent engine on the LM failed (and the LM had only one of them), then the two astronauts on the Moon could never return. That would be bad publicity, too.

**

Besides, the CM could attenuate the radiation from a solar flare to a point that would not necessarily be lethal. The same would NOT be true for an astronaut outside the CM (say, walking on the moon), but the effects of a solar flare do NOT come without warning. Astronauts would have been able to retreat to the "relative" safety of the CM and attempt to protect the larger blood-producing areas of the body.

Protecting certain part of their body is important because solar flares can cause problems with the blood-producing organs of the body -- mostly bone marrow. The poisoning from radiation that an astronaut got from a solar flare would need to be treated as soon as possible back here on Earth. The treatment could be radical, and may consist of a bone marrow transplant -- But that may not always be the case. If even 5% of the bone marrow survives intact, then it may be possible for the marrow to regenerate (with other treatments).

Here is an article about the "Odd list of body parts" that may need to be protected in the event of a solar storm:
Odd list of body parts: which parts are most sensitive to solar flares?

edit on 4/22/2013 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 08:52 PM
link   
I am yet to read anything in this post as to how the hoax supporters think that all the people who worked on the missions where kept quite? Over half a million people worked on the Apollo missions.
Please explain your theory's on how all the people involved where kept quite for the rest of their days so much do that NOT ONE has ever come forward or even intimated a hoax.
Over 500,000 people....
And your theory's on where the rockets went if not the moon?

All I've read so far is "it was fake it was fake, radiation blah blah blah"
There's just too much involved on pulling off a hoax of this magnitude that none of you have touched on.


Back your theory's up people! Details! Convince me!
Otherwise it's just a lot of hot air.

"if you eliminate the impossible whatever remains however inprobable is the truth"





new topics
top topics
 
54
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join