Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

page: 52
59
<< 49  50  51    53  54  55 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 04:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
According to you're argument, radiation levels beyond LEO are very high,


This is a fact.


Originally posted by Zaphod58

and aluminum shielding is not only like having no shield, out intensifies radiation levels.


Also a fact.


Originally posted by Zaphod58

Now, also according to you man can only attain LEO because of radiation levels.


Not with a thin aluminum shell, that's for sure. (It's possible with other materials, althougn nothing is fully developed yet)


Originally posted by Zaphod58

In orbit we have satellites that have to be shut down at times because if radiation levels.


Yes.


Originally posted by Zaphod58

But out well beyond LEO similar satellites, with aluminum shielding have been operating for almost forty years!


Yes. But that doesn't mean it's less hazardous beyond LEO. It's really much more hazardous.

Maybe this source will help you out...


Operational Considerations for CubeSats Beyond Low Earth Orbit


Design Challenges for Interplanetary Spacecraft
• Radiation
• Lifetime
• Navigation and Control
• Communications

– Use radiation tolerant components
– Memory Scrubbing
– Triple Module Redundancy
– Selective Shielding of Sensitive
Parts
– Selective Functional Redundancy
– Operational planning for SEE
tolerance


kiss.caltech.edu...


So you've wrongly assumed that aluminum is the radiation shield for all spacecraft built of aluminum.

You can see from this source it is the components themselves which are radiation hardened. The aluminum is not acting as the shield.

In LEO, the electronic components are simply switched off and back on again, if the components within such craft are not radiation hardened.

That's about it, hope it's clear now...




posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 04:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbonium1

First of all, because it's also been corroborated by non-NASA sources.

Second, the reports are contradicting the Apollo story, so why would they do that if it wasn't legitimate data?.


first, there is just not enough data to make a firm conclusion, you should have learnt about this in high school.. you cant run a survey by asking 10 people..

secondly, scientists have confirmed that apollo landed on the moon, scientists who are also non-NASA sources confirm they landed on the moon.. so i guess that means NASA did land on the moon.

thirdly, you say non-NASA sources have corroborated with the reports, some of those reports were gathered during the apollo missions, so if those non-NASA corroborations are good enough for you to confirm the reports, its good enough for you to confirm where and how NASA achieved those results right?





The experts state that aluminum is an inadewuate shield beyond LEO, and will increase the radiation hazard beyond LEO. That's not my opinion of it, they STATE it.

They say aluminum is a poor shield beyond LEO, which means it is not adequate for ANY period of time within that environment. It is a blanket statement. It does not specify any time period within that statement.

They don't say it's adequate shielding for 12 days or less. YOU do. So YOU are the one who has to back up that claim.

It's not up to me to back up the reverse.


apollo's longest mission was for 12 days.. the radiation levels for the missions 7-15 for the astronauts are listed here on pg 3:
www.hq.nasa.gov...

that there says that the radiation received on the skin was at most 1.14 rads.. thats not enough to make one sick.

so now its your turn. show me your numbers.




What is your source for this?

Let me guess - another Apollo document?



apollo went to the moon these observatories were able to track them.
www.astr.ua.edu...
www.honeysucklecreek.net...

next is this report:
www.hq.nasa.gov...

which has the average skin dose for missions 7-15.

NASA has put down their evidence they went to the moon. so lets see yours that says they didnt, and no more speculation and conjecture.



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 04:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by turbonium1
 


And you yet again show you have little or no understanding of radiation. There was quite a bit of secondary shielding in the CM due to the equipment and various other things in there.


The equipment is more of a shield beyond LEO than aluminum, but then, so is a burlap sack.

They are hardly regarded as adequate shields.



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 05:10 AM
link   
reply to post by turbonium1
 


And yet again inadequate doesn't mean impossible, fatal, or anything but more hazardous. Secondary shielding doesn't fact to be perfect, but out makes a big difference in exposure levels. You seen to think the only way we could go to the moon is to have perfect shields that block all radiation when the reality is you don't, depending on the type of radiation, secondary shielding, tine of exposure, etc. You ignore most of that just to say the shielding is inadequate.



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 05:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by choos

first, there is just not enough data to make a firm conclusion, you should have learnt about this in high school.. you cant run a survey by asking 10 people..


What conclusion? Those of the experts I've cited? How many more do you need to see?

So how much Apollo radiation data have you seen? Must be loads of it to make you so sure of your conclusion.


Originally posted by choos

secondly, scientists have confirmed that apollo landed on the moon, scientists who are also non-NASA sources confirm they landed on the moon.. so i guess that means NASA did land on the moon.[


The same way experts I've cited won't say Apollo was a hoax. Think about it.


Originally posted by choos

thirdly, you say non-NASA sources have corroborated with the reports, some of those reports were gathered during the apollo missions, so if those non-NASA corroborations are good enough for you to confirm the reports, its good enough for you to confirm where and how NASA achieved those results right?



No, I'm referring to very recent sources, which contradict Apollo's account.


Originally posted by choos

apollo's longest mission was for 12 days.. the radiation levels for the missions 7-15 for the astronauts are listed here on pg 3:
www.hq.nasa.gov...

that there says that the radiation received on the skin was at most 1.14 rads.. thats not enough to make one sick.



As expected, you support Apollo with more.Apollo documents!

I just cited the same document...

"in the heavy, well-shielded command module, even the largest solar-particle event on record (November 12, 1960) would not have caused any impairment of crewmember functions or ability of the crewmen to complete
their mission safely."


What a superb source you have there!!

Tell me about the "well-shielded" CM, I'd like to know more ...

edit on 9-6-2013 by turbonium1 because: typo
edit on 9-6-2013 by turbonium1 because: word fix



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 05:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbonium1

What conclusion? Those of the experts I've cited? How many more do you need to see?

So how much Apollo radiation data have you seen? Must be loads of it to make you so sure of your conclusion.


to make conclusive data you need lots of it, take estimating SPE's, that is inconclusive data.
so then where is the data that says aluminium will magnify all incoming radiation levels. and since radiation beyond LEO is already so deadly, aluminium should have killed all on board right?

p.s. assuming you will jump on this, not the all radiation and not just GCR. perhaps you can look up the makeup of GCR's?




The same way experts I've cited won't say Apollo was a hoax. Think about it.


but you say the reports have non-NASA corroborations which makes the reports legit.
non-NASA scientists amatuer astronomers amateur ham radio operators were also able to confirm apollo manned lunar missions.. why do you say they are not legit?

sounds like hypocrisy.




No, I'm referring to very recent sources, which contradict Apollo's account.


the thing is they dont contradict them.. please provide evidence that the levels inside those apollo aluminium shells were at a dangerously high level that they should have been severely sick in 12 days of exposure.




As expected, you support Apollo with more.Apollo documents!

I just cited the same document...

"in the heavy, well-shielded command module, even the largest solar-particle event on record (November 12, 1960) would not have caused any impairment of crewmember functions or ability of the crewmen to complete
their mission safely."


What a superb source you have there!!

Tell me about the "well-shielded" CM, I'd like to know more ...


that isnt really evidence that says the levels of radiation inside an alumnium shell were so high they should make someone sick.

im still waiting for it.

and if you want to know more about the CM look it up yourself, run some numbers and see for yourself if the CM is good or bad since you dont trust NASA. good chance to deny ignorance.
edit on 9-6-2013 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 05:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by turbonium1
 


And yet again inadequate doesn't mean impossible, fatal, or anything but more hazardous. Secondary shielding doesn't fact to be perfect, but out makes a big difference in exposure levels. You seen to think the only way we could go to the moon is to have perfect shields that block all radiation when the reality is you don't, depending on the type of radiation, secondary shielding, tine of exposure, etc. You ignore most of that just to say the shielding is inadequate.


Inadequate means it won't work.

The environment beyond LEO is very hazardous. You need an adequate shield.

Aluminum increases the radiation hazard, which is already hazardous.

But because they don't say anything about instant death, you conclude that aluminum is just fine and dandy!

Wowww



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 06:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbonium1


Do you get it yet?


www.cs.odu.edu...

Table 2. Annual Dose and Dose Equivalent for GCR in Spherical Shell Shield for 1977 Solar Minimum

aluminium:
shielding thickness of 1g/cm2 equals 22 cGy/YR
shielding thickness of 2g/cm2 equals 22 cGy/YR
shielding thickness of 5g/cm2 equals 22 cGy/YR
shielding thickness of 10g/cm2 equals 22 cGy/YR

22cGy/YR is about 0.06cGy/day times 12 which equals 0.72cGy for a 12 day mission

how much is a gray?? convert it to whatever you want with an online converter!

p.s. its about 0.72 rads average for a 12 day mission.

do you get it yet?
edit on 9-6-2013 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 08:23 AM
link   
Right now (June 9th, 9:15 AM U.S. EDT), the "Science Channel" is showing Moon Machines, which (IMO) is one of the best Apollo Program documentary series ever made.

Each episode of this series concentrated on the engineering of the specific pieces of the Apollo hardware (and one episode on software). There are episodes on the Saturn V launch vehicle, Command Module, the LEM, Rover, Space suits, and the navigation computer. The filmmakers interviewed the actual engineers involved in the design and construction of the various pieces of Apollo hardware.

Great series. It shows the design and construction process during the of the Apollo Program (including a trial and error processes that was prevalent during the design phase).



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by turbonium1
 


Inadequate means it's not as effective. It's just like if it was here on earth with a nuclear reactor. If you had inadequate shielding then you would see more radiation coming from it but that wouldn't mean it wouldn't work or that it would kill the workers.

I don't think that aluminum is just fine because they don't say instant death. I think that it works because I've taken the time to understand radiation, unlike you, and take into account things like secondary shielding, time of exposure, and other important and relevant facts. You on the other hand see "inadequate" and immediately jump to "impossible", without trying to understand why it is or isn't.
edit on 6/9/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


Well the way you have to look at it is like this. Look at most every single g=v agency. What exactly are they designed to do? Lie, trick, steal, kill, control. All of them the front is "we're here to do some good". But behind the scenes they pretty much all have hidden agenda's to harm the people. The appollo missions were also done almost exactly like the movie below which was released in 1929. They obviously liked the dramatization of that kind of rocket hanger and other effects, which they used then in real life decades later.

Again no one can say for sure but we know that every agency there is is designed to cause harm in some way. That's how any criminal enterprise makes there money, by taking advantage of others. The moon mission would be perfect for both scaring other nations into thinking they are really powerful (wizard of oz effect), plus it only probably cost about 1 billion so if you're figures are right they pocketed 23 billion. In todays dollars that would have the buying power of about at least 100 billion. The mars missions were the same scam. (6:40 ... looks the same as the way the appolo missions are structured)



edit on 9-6-2013 by spartacus699 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbonium1

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by turbonium1
 


And yet again inadequate doesn't mean impossible, fatal, or anything but more hazardous. Secondary shielding doesn't fact to be perfect, but out makes a big difference in exposure levels. You seen to think the only way we could go to the moon is to have perfect shields that block all radiation when the reality is you don't, depending on the type of radiation, secondary shielding, tine of exposure, etc. You ignore most of that just to say the shielding is inadequate.


Inadequate means it won't work.

The environment beyond LEO is very hazardous. You need an adequate shield.

Aluminum increases the radiation hazard, which is already hazardous.

But because they don't say anything about instant death, you conclude that aluminum is just fine and dandy!

Wowww


Aluminum doesnt increase the radiation hazard since its effective against Alpha and beta particles. Now aluminum hurts you if your caught in a gamma ray burst but come on guys really? Iis anybody aware that there was 2 inches of phenolic coating a form of fiberglass around the command module? It was needed insulation to protect the craft if it was just an aluminum hull it would get oftly hot.Glass is very effective at stopping most radiation. Look at Xray technicians they sit behind a glass wall. Come on do your homework before you come up wiith stupid stuff like they would have died from radiation.



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by spartacus699
 


So i guess Russian scientists were just to stupid to realize we faked the moon landing? They would have just been intimidated at the power of the United States? Come on you know the Russian scientists were right on the heals of the Americans trying to put a man on the moon. Were you aware the Russians are going back they are building a huge facility whos sole purpose is to put a man on the moon by 2020 Putin thinks russia needs to take the lead in space. I dont think they would spend billions if the cosmonauts cant get there would make them look foolish and russians dont like to look foolish.



posted on Jun, 10 2013 @ 05:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by spartacus699
The moon mission would be perfect for both scaring other nations into thinking they are really powerful (wizard of oz effect), plus it only probably cost about 1 billion so if you're figures are right they pocketed 23 billion. In todays dollars that would have the buying power of about at least 100 billion. The mars missions were the same scam. (6:40 ... looks the same as the way the appolo missions are structured)


so i guess constructing and launching into orbit the ~15+ of these monsters and the launch towers all came for free:


or are you claiming that they never built or launched these things?



posted on Jun, 10 2013 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by spartacus699
 



The moon mission would be perfect for both scaring other nations into thinking they are really powerful (wizard of oz effect), plus it only probably cost about 1 billion so if you're figures are right they pocketed 23 billion.


I agree with where you are going with this (follow the money) but I would object to your numbers.

Obviously we can all agree on the ~$23 billion/give or take a billion/ as being fairly reliable cost of Apollo during the 1960's. They spent the money. Now we have to take a look at an example of how it was spent. Here's an example:

The Hughes Aircraft Surveyor program contract was set for about $67 million dollars. The cost of the Surveyors came out to be roughly $335 million dollars, a 5.5 fold increase.

It's my idea that when NASA quotes the cost of Apollo they are only speaking of Apollo hardware costs which (I believe) includes the massive overtime labor costs from the project suppliers themselves.

But Surveyor was obviously critical to the moon landing program and should be included in the price of Apollo, no?

So are too Mercury and Gemini programs critical to the moon landing effort so those program costs should all be wrapped up in the $23 billion figure, are they not? I don't think they are.

It could also be argued that all the development costs for communications satellites should be added into the cost of Apollo because without the Howard Hughes satellites -- space travel to the moon would be a foolish trip indeed.



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 07:12 AM
link   
Jesus, is this still going on?

To anybody who still can´t wrap their minds around the fact the we indeed went to the moon numerous times, please just visit the kennedy space center and inform yourselves properly first. You guys get caught up in small details that simply "couldn not have happened" but guess what? You either misinterpret facts or you base your conclusions on made up facts.

You know how I know? Because we went there, plain and simple.

I think it is quite arrogant of you guys to assume that your limited knowledge is enough to deny those great teams who made these things possible the recognition they truly deserve. And I can fully understand that Mr. Armstrong once punched one of you guys.

I think it is sad that you can´t accept the fact that it happened. After all these years and so many fascinating snippets of info we heard it is like debating with young-earthers. It almost seems to be a matter of faith with you guys.



posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by choos
to make conclusive data you need lots of it, take estimating SPE's, that is inconclusive data.
so then where is the data that says aluminium will magnify all incoming radiation levels. and since radiation beyond LEO is already so deadly, aluminium should have killed all on board right?


You know what the experts have stated in these reports, correct?

So it's based on their own data, etc.

Do you dispute what they say?


Originally posted by choos

but you say the reports have non-NASA corroborations which makes the reports legit.
non-NASA scientists amatuer astronomers amateur ham radio operators were also able to confirm apollo manned lunar missions.. why do you say they are not legit?


Ham radio operators wouldn't know a real mission from a simulation, so it's not valid.

I'm referring to the experts on radiation beyond LEO, how to shield humans against it. Aluminum failed.

All the sources agree on that. Both NASA and non-NASA sources.



Originally posted by choos

the thing is they dont contradict them.. please provide evidence that the levels inside those apollo aluminium shells were at a dangerously high level that they should have been severely sick in 12 days of exposure.


They do contradict them, no doubt about it.

You came up with this claim about 12 days. Not the experts. Just you.

And you have to support your claim, period.


Originally posted by choos

that isnt really evidence that says the levels of radiation inside an alumnium shell were so high they should make someone sick.



Proof, no....but it's very revealing.

It reveals that NASA lied.

Why would they lie? Any possible reason?

Sure, for just one reason.



posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 11:03 PM
link   
NASA claimed it was a well-shielded craft. They lied.

The radiation problem was thus resolved! Oh yes indeed!



posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Nightaudit
 



You know how I know? Because we went there, plain and simple.


Sources please

And maybe you could explain how NASA top doctors failed to ask Ken Mattingly "Have you ever been stricken with measles?" It was a standard question on military medical exams of the 1960's and it still is to this day.


How could the NASA doctors not know the answer to that question before he was selected for that mission?



posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbonium1

You know what the experts have stated in these reports, correct?

So it's based on their own data, etc.

Do you dispute what they say?


yes i know what the experts are stating in these reports heres an example:
www.cs.odu.edu...

thin piece of aluminium 22 cGy/year and 20cGy/year. PER YEAR i think you can work out how much exposure for 12 days right?
this is for a solar minimum for when GCR's are meant to be their strongest. what about during a solar maximum such as when the apollo missions were? got that too:

i think your reports have spoken enough right??

do you understand it yet? when i say its insufficient for long term missions but sufficient for 12 days?

p.s. heres a hint: One sievert carries with it a 5.5% chance of eventually developing cancer.




Ham radio operators wouldn't know a real mission from a simulation, so it's not valid.

I'm referring to the experts on radiation beyond LEO, how to shield humans against it. Aluminum failed.

All the sources agree on that. Both NASA and non-NASA sources.

what about the observatories tracking the missions??

www.astr.ua.edu...
www.honeysucklecreek.net...

also the experts on radiation beyond LEO have also said the radiation levels inside an aluminium shell is not deadly nor is it high enough to hinder a 12 day mission. explaination? see above.






They do contradict them, no doubt about it.

You came up with this claim about 12 days. Not the experts. Just you.

And you have to support your claim, period.


look at the numbers, your own report supports my claim with the numbers.. come to think of it, have you even read the entire report??




Proof, no....but it's very revealing.

It reveals that NASA lied.

Why would they lie? Any possible reason?

Sure, for just one reason.


ive posted numerous proof and now numbers as well.. still waiting for your proof/numbers that show the levels of radiation inside an aluminium shell will hinder a 12 day mission.
edit on 13-6-2013 by choos because: (no reason given)
edit on 13-6-2013 by choos because: (no reason given)


you know, im beginning to think you are trying to spread disinformation.. many people have asked where your numbers to how high the radiation was inside the aluminium shells were for a 12 day period, but still nothing..
edit on 14-6-2013 by choos because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
59
<< 49  50  51    53  54  55 >>

log in

join