Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

Originally posted by choos

Originally posted by turbonium1

No, they are referring to ANY mission beyond LEO. Again, here's the quote...

"..aluminum is a poor radiation shield material to hazardous outside of LEO applications."

What does "outside of LEO" refer to, then? Obviously, it refers to ANY mission outside of LEO! Whether it's a short term mission, or a long term mission.

The short-term missions don't fit your argument, of course. So you claim only long-term missions are being referred to, not any short-term missions..

You have no evidence for that claim, of course.

Now what?

edit on 26-4-2013 by turbonium1 because: fix typo

there is a difference between short term LEO and long term LEO.. long term missions needs to take into account survival from and recovery of large solar particle events pointed directly at the astronauts and staying there afterwards and possibly taking more.

short term missions does not neccesarily need to take these into account. its similar to passing through the VA belts.

if they were to put the ISS within the VA belts, then yes they dont have the tech or material to protect an astronaut, but if they were only going to pass through the VA belts for a short period of time then aluminum is good enough protection. this goes for beyond LEO as well, short term they can make procedures to shorten the mission. long term they HAVE to protect them with shielding.

edit on 27-4-2013 by choos because: (no reason given)

It is "beyond LEO".

You can't spin it to fit the Apollo yarn

Simple as that.

. ,

Originally posted by turbonium1

It is "beyond LEO".

You can't spin it to fit the Apollo yarn

Simple as that.

whats the greatest danger beyond LEO?

Originally posted by choos
[whats the difference between particle radiation and wave radiation? which is more prevalent to an astronaut and which one can be feasibly protected against?


you have yet to realise that NASA can go back to the moon for short term purposes.. permanent is a different story. a moon base is permanent, permanent requires technology and very advanced material to protect against all types of radiation. short term, if you are willing to take the risk, need not fully protect against all types of radiation.

you are using your long term ventures beyond LEO logic for short term purposes.

if i were to use your logic then the ISS is impossible as well, even though it is in LEO it passes through the SAMA for about 30 mins per 90 mins orbit which is about 8 hrs per day.. how do you explain that?

The ISS isn't in the VA Belts, and SAMA can't even compare to it.

The initial missions were planned as short-term stays - you should look this up for yourself...

No long term missions, no moon bases, no Mars mission - these were stages in their overall 'vision', not actual projects underway.

They had one goal - a real manned moon mission. But they clearly failed.

Originally posted by choos

Originally posted by turbonium1

It is "beyond LEO".

You can't spin it to fit the Apollo yarn

Simple as that.

whats the greatest danger beyond LEO?

A thin aluminum spacecraft!!

Okay, what about it?

Originally posted by turbonium1

The ISS isn't in the VA Belts, and SAMA can't even compare to it.

The initial missions were planned as short-term stays - you should look this up for yourself...

No long term missions, no moon bases, no Mars mission - these were stages in their overall 'vision', not actual projects underway.

They had one goal - a real manned moon mission. But they clearly failed.

but the SAMA is an area of high radiation. often astronauts need to do EVA's. how is it possible that they can do EVA's in those magical spacesuits when they have the obstacle known as the SAMA.

p.s. the SAMA is part of the VA belts. and the ISS does pass into this as well as the shuttle.

Originally posted by turbonium1
A thin aluminum spacecraft!!

Okay, what about it?

how much exposure does one need before they die immediately?

"Beyond LEO" says it all, really.

reply to post by turbonium1


beyond LEO is all you will say?

so you are saying that as soon as any living thing passes LEO they will immediately die from radiation sickness?

Originally posted by choos

Originally posted by turbonium1
A thin aluminum spacecraft!!

Okay, what about it?

how much exposure does one need before they die immediately?

I don't think the exact number is known, or if there is a set limit. Usually thing that can kill you have an LD50 value in wich 50% of the people die from a certain amount. With radiation though its hard to figure out do to the variables, but if you get a does of about 1000rem you'll most likly be dead in an hour. 500rem you have about 2weeks.

reply to post by choos


More than 1700 meteoroid impacts

I noticed that, too.

a large 5000kg meteor impact and the ascent stage impact which happens to weigh 4547kg

It is my understanding and Apollo defenders have told me that NASA kept a constant and highly detailed records of weights of items aboard every Apollo flight. NASA went so far with the weight/safety considerations that HASSELBLAD CAMERAS WERE TOSSED OUT onto the "lunar surface" due to fears that the craft would be too heavy on the return journey to Earth.

Some person held the job at NASA (or maybe it would be the Bellcomm guys?) keeping track of every item on the flights and when that item was jettisoned and through his expert record keeping, a highly accurate estimate of weight data should be available for every mission.

If NASA was good at keeping records then some good researches might find the old reports of the weight controller - whomever that person might be - for each individual Apollo mission.

choos, I don't have the mathematical talent to do this. But a person good at math should be able to get the weights figures for each Apollo module and plug them in with the last known orbital parameters of all the modules.

The next step would be to take those inputs and compute the lunar orbit scenarios for each of the abandoned Apollo lunar ascent modules.

Do you see where I am going here?

The next step would be to suggest some possible lunar orbit decay scenarios for the missing modules and then look for those events on the seismometer data which was active until September 1977.

The last step would be to prove all this on the LROC images.

If we ascertained the variables then it should be easy then to compute those missing modules. It might even earn somebody their PhD because nobody in the last 43 years has been able to figure this out.

Somebody reading this thread right now could possibly deal with this sort of math problem!

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by choos

 

More than 1700 meteoroid impacts

I noticed that, too.

a large 5000kg meteor impact and the ascent stage impact which happens to weigh 4547kg

It is my understanding and Apollo defenders have told me that NASA kept a constant and highly detailed records of weights of items aboard every Apollo flight. NASA went so far with the weight/safety considerations that HASSELBLAD CAMERAS WERE TOSSED OUT onto the "lunar surface" due to fears that the craft would be too heavy on the return journey to Earth.

wouldnt say fear, but more precaution. you have this thing a camera, that you no longer have a use for that you know is going to weigh you down, even though its minute in comparison. but its there and you know its there taking up space and mass. effectively transporting junk. so why not? what could they learn that they dont already know since it was built on earth.

Some person held the job at NASA (or maybe it would be the Bellcomm guys?) keeping track of every item on the flights and when that item was jettisoned and through his expert record keeping, a highly accurate estimate of weight data should be available for every mission.

If NASA was good at keeping records then some good researches might find the old reports of the weight controller - whomever that person might be - for each individual Apollo mission.

choos, I don't have the mathematical talent to do this. But a person good at math should be able to get the weights figures for each Apollo module and plug them in with the last known orbital parameters of all the modules.

The next step would be to take those inputs and compute the lunar orbit scenarios for each of the abandoned Apollo lunar ascent modules.

Do you see where I am going here?

The next step would be to suggest some possible lunar orbit decay scenarios for the missing modules and then look for those events on the seismometer data which was active until September 1977.

The last step would be to prove all this on the LROC images.

If we ascertained the variables then it should be easy then to compute those missing modules. It might even earn somebody their PhD because nobody in the last 43 years has been able to figure this out.

Somebody reading this thread right now could possibly deal with this sort of math problem!

not sure how they would track a module even given all accurate details, but you would still need visual confirmation to verify your results. these maths calculations, they are just estimates not definite locations. and after orbiting the moon for about a year the errors compound together. you might end up with an answer but you still could be half a moon away.

the more time that goes by the greater the error margins. and lets not leave out the minute chance that it could also have been knocked out of orbit early by some meteor or other junk.

Originally posted by choos
reply to post by turbonium1

 

beyond LEO is all you will say?

so you are saying that as soon as any living thing passes LEO they will immediately die from radiation sickness?

I'm simply quoting the experts on radiation shielding, who state that aluminum is a poor shielding material, particularly beyond LEO. The first two quotes below were posted earlier...

"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."

"Clearly, aluminum which was taken as a reasonable shield material a few years ago is now considered a poor candidate for future spacecraft construction"

Now, let's see what NASA itself states about aluminum shielding. I've put some very relevant comments in bold for you..

"Aluminum has been found to be a poor shield material when dose equivalent is used with exposure limits for low Earth orbit (LEO) as a guide for shield requirements." (pg.4)

"Whereas aluminum was considered a useful shield material a few years ago, now it is considered as not only a poor shield material but may even be hazardous to the astronaut’s health because dose equivalent may be a poor predictor of astronaut risk" (pg.4)

"In fact studies using biological-based models of radiation response indicate that aluminum may indeed provide an additional hazard to the astronaut (ref. 7). This ineffectiveness and possibly added hazard of aluminum result from the secondary particle production processes in breaking up incident GCR ions within the shield." (pg.6-7)

"Space radiation exposures will be the primary limiting factor in space exploration and in establishing a permanent human presence in space. During the past several years of shield code development, it has been established that aluminum space structures would make poor shields for human occupants. The need to look at new ways of constructing spacecraft is now evident because current estimates indicate aluminum to be an ineffective protection material." (pg.8)

www.cs.odu.edu...


I don't know what else you need to understand that aluminum is a very poor radiation shield. In fact, aluminum might be worse than nothing at all, because - as NASA itself states above - aluminum "may even be hazardous to the astronaut’s health"

Simply connect the dots. Apollo's spacecraft was essentially a thin aluminum shell. Perhaps at the time, it was thought to be an effective radiation shield. But we now know it is so poor, it may even be an addition hazard for astronauts.

You cannot use an aluminum spacecraft like Apollo had beyond LEO. To attempt it would be virtual suicide.

Apollo never left LEO. The Apollo astronauts could not leave LEO because they would either not survive the voyage, or would suffer severe health effects. They would certainly not come out of it in perfect health, right into their 70's and 80's.

Do you comprehend this?

It was real. Have you ever been there for a launch? Radio communication coming from the moon, TV signals coming from the moon. Good Grief.

Originally posted by MuzzleBreak
It was real. Have you ever been there for a launch? Radio communication coming from the moon, TV signals coming from the moon. Good Grief.

The launches are real, but the rest was fake. Experts I've quoted state that an aluminum spacecraft - like Apollo had - are poor shields, likely hazardous in the environment beyond LEO. You can't dismiss this fact.

reply to post by turbonium1


everything you have posted is saying they believed aluminum was a good shield, so once upon a time they would have sent man to the moon in an aluminum shell, because they believed it was a good enough shield.

what may have killed them or maybe made them sick is a large solar particle event aimed directly at them. especially if they were still doing EVA's.

GCR's are estimated to double at solar minimums and are at their minimum during solar maximums. They went during a solar maximum, so GCR's are at their minimum, if a large solar particle event should happen they would have to take precautions which they had. luckily it didnt happen.

most importantly this was all seen as an acceptable risk because aluminum was seen to be a good enough protection for such a short amount of time.

obviously if you were to extend the missions to several months or several years, you would have to take into account of CME's directed at the astronauts, as well as GCR's at solar minimums. at the time of the apollo missions shielding was not fully understood to the level we know now, so to them it was good enough since they would only be there for a short amount of time.

p.s. the ISS which passes through the SAMA is predominantly made of aluminum.


p.p.s. i make that the astronauts were able to live into their 70's and 80's is due to the fact they were exposed to radiation, high or low, for only a short amount of time. Their DNA was able to heal itself. which is the difference between survival for a long mission and a short mission, which is where shielding plays a larger part.

Originally posted by turbonium1

Originally posted by MuzzleBreak
It was real. Have you ever been there for a launch? Radio communication coming from the moon, TV signals coming from the moon. Good Grief.

The launches are real, but the rest was fake. Experts I've quoted state that an aluminum spacecraft - like Apollo had - are poor shields, likely hazardous in the environment beyond LEO. You can't dismiss this fact.

Most of the radiation in the Van Allen belts is particle radiation--alpha and beta--and won't penetrate a thin layer of Aluminum. According to reliable sources:

" A satellite shielded by 3 mm of aluminium in an elliptic orbit (200 by 20,000 miles (320 by 32,000 km)) passing the radiation belts will receive about 2,500 rem (25 Sv) per year. Almost all radiation will be received while passing the inner belt.[23]"

A passage thru the belt at 20K MPH would take 3 hours thru, and 3 hours back. that would amount to about 30 mSV maximum of radiation--enough to cause minor problems, but no significant radiation sickness. Most of the lunar astronauts are developing cataracts from their passage though the belts.

I work with radiation weekly, subjecting patients to it. Some of my older acquaintenaces lost fingers due to unprotected exposures. Real risks exist, but limited exposure is not necessarily deadly.

Originally posted by choos
everything you have posted is saying they believed aluminum was a good shield, so once upon a time they would have sent man to the moon in an aluminum shell, because they believed it was a good enough shield.

That's like saying 'What you don't know can't hurt you!'

People also believed it was safe to watch atomic bomb tests in street clothes, too, but that didn't protect them from the radiation.

Ignorance is no defense.

Originally posted by turbonium1

That's like saying 'What you don't know can't hurt you!'

People also believed it was safe to watch atomic bomb tests in street clothes, too, but that didn't protect them from the radiation.

Ignorance is no defense.

edit on 28-4-2013 by turbonium1 because: typo

theres still nothing stopping them from reaching the moon though. beyond the VA belts, apart from large solar particle events directed at the mission aluminum is good enough protection.

they probably couldnt have protected themselves from very large solar flares, but how many solar flares occured during the entire apollo era? frankly there would have been more immediate dangers present for the astronauts than a large solar event.

Originally posted by choos

Originally posted by turbonium1

That's like saying 'What you don't know can't hurt you!'

People also believed it was safe to watch atomic bomb tests in street clothes, too, but that didn't protect them from the radiation.

Ignorance is no defense.

edit on 28-4-2013 by turbonium1 because: typo

theres still nothing stopping them from reaching the moon though. beyond the VA belts, apart from large solar particle events directed at the mission aluminum is good enough protection.

they probably couldnt have protected themselves from very large solar flares, but how many solar flares occured during the entire apollo era? frankly there would have been more immediate dangers present for the astronauts than a large solar event.

edit on 28-4-2013 by choos because: (no reason given)

NASA didn't start tracking, or lets say were not able to track solar flares until 1972, and that technology was improved in 1977, so they wouldn't even know what they are going into, which would be the FIRST priority, ahh but why bother, you guys enjoy your Hollywood story, done with this post. peace.

Originally posted by XaniMatriX

NASA didn't start tracking, or lets say were not able to track solar flares until 1972, and that technology was improved in 1977, so they wouldn't even know what they are going into, which would be the FIRST priority, ahh but why bother, you guys enjoy your Hollywood story, done with this post. peace.

for real??? who told you this?

look up SPAN (heres a hint: SOLAR PARTICLE ALERT NETWORK)