Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

The moon will serve as a very important step in space exploration. A colony on the moon will someday be fact and not science fiction. There is many resources on the moon which could be mined and used for space travel. It would be much easier to mount a expedition to the outer worlds from a moon base. Launch from earth you have gravity to contend with requires more resources. The inital expenditure to establish a base would be enourmous. But would well be worth the money. The recent impact of a spacecraft into the moon was notibale and the information gained from that test would be very valuable. Maybe they are considering mining the moon, or testing for internal geometry. and want more information on the internal structure. Either way NASA deserves all the funding they can receive. Rememmber, what you enjoy today came in a great deal from NASA and it's scientific exploration.

Originally posted by choos


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?

You don't understand what environment they're referring to....

"No exposure limitation has been recommended for deep space missions as yet, but in the interim the recommendation is that estimates of interplanetary exposure using quality factors dependent on the linear energy transfer (LET) with exposure limits recommended for operations in low Earth orbit (LEO) be taken as a guide to deep space mission shield requirements. These LEO exposure limits were established under the assumption that the GCR components are diminished in LEO by their deflection in the Earth’s magnetic field so that LEO exposures are dominated by trapped protons and electrons. Deep space exposure estimates using LET-dependent quality factors result in exposures of as much as 1 Sv/yr near solar minimum depending on shielding."

Let's read on...

"Radiation protection systems (shielding, monitoring, and medical supplies) impact mission cost, and uncertainty in past shielding databases is inadequate for present design studies. For example, the required shielding to reduce the
5-cm-depth dose from GCR at solar minimum to 45 cSv behind an aluminum shield was estimated to be 2 g/cm2
by the NCRP in 1989 (ref. 4), to be 7 g/cm2 by Simonsen, Nealy, and Townsend in 1992 (ref. 6), and to be 55 ± 10 g/cm2 by the present estimate (table 2) using current transport codes and databases. 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 (ref. 7)."

So from table 2, which you think supports your case, they state...

"...55 ± 10 g/cm2 by the present estimate"

OK, what about Apollo's shielding, then?....

"The hull of an Apollo command module rated 7 to 8 g/cm2. A modern space shuttle has 10 to 11 g/cm2. The hull of the ISS, in its most heavily shielded areas, has 15 g/cm2."

www.nasa.gov...

How do you like the numbers now? Not so much, I'm sure.

Originally posted by choos

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??

It's obvious that you haven't read it, or perhaps you did, and simply failed to understand what it means..

Estmates (for aluminum shielding) were 2 g/cm2 in 1989 (ref. 4), Then in 1992, it rose to 7 g/cm2. By 1997, when this report came out, it had spiked up to 55 ± 10 g/cm2.

But that's not where it ends. What else did they say? Let me remind you...

"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 "

By 1997, they already understood that aluminum was not only an inadequate material for shielding BEYOND LEO, it would probably be hazardous to humans.

This assertion was later confirmed to be accurate, as we know.


Now do you get the point?

reply to post by turbonium1


From more experts.

Conclusion: For lunar sortie missions, the duration is short enough that GCR creates no serious
risks. For lunar outpost missions the probability of encountering an SPE during Solar Maximum in a
6-month rotation is 1% to 10% depending on the assumed energy of the SPE. Even with > 30 g/cm2
of regolith shielding the 95% CI dose from a major SPE would exceed the 30-day limit. The GCR
during Solar Minimum for a 6-month stay on the Moon is marginal against the annual limit, but this
can be mitigated somewhat by use of regolith for shielding the habitat.

www.marsjournal.org...

Lunar Sortie Mission:

A lunar sortie (or lunar sortie mission) is a human spaceflight mission to the Moon. In contrast with lunar outpost missions, lunar sorties will be of relatively brief duration.

lunarsortie.com...

So the experts are saying that a lunar sortie (Apollo) is short enough term that aluminum shielding isn't going to be a significant risk as far as GCRs go.

Originally posted by dragonridr
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.

Not again, spouting the Russia (USSR) nonsense!!

The Soviets and US were in a 'Cold War' at the time of Apollo, right? Which means they were bitter enemies, yes? Any hoax by the US would be 1. Immediately recognized as a hoax by the Soviets, and 2. Immediately trumpeted to the world as a hoax by those same Soviets.

What did the USSR say about the JFK assassination?

Nothing.

It was during the Cold War, like Apollo. And many Americans were skeptical about the official account for JFK. Not like the official account of Apollo, which a vast majority accepted as true. So JFK would've been an ideal opporunity for the Soviets to pounce on. They know many Americans doubt their own government, already!

But the Soviets do nothing at all. Complete silence.

Aside from what it reveals about the entire 'Cold War' issue in general, it also proves your argument has no merit.

Originally posted by turbonium1
Not again, spouting the Russia (USSR) nonsense!!

The Soviets and US were in a 'Cold War' at the time of Apollo, right? Which means they were bitter enemies, yes? Any hoax by the US would be 1. Immediately recognized as a hoax by the Soviets, and 2. Immediately trumpeted to the world as a hoax by those same Soviets.

What did the USSR say about the JFK assassination?

Nothing.

Turbo: It's the last dying breath of the Apollo Defender..... I like to call it the "Soviet Strawman".

If you pushed them for a source link on it I think they only have one quote from one former Soviet cosmonaut.

Additionally, it represents a fatal flaw in the logic of Apollo Defenders because they will utilize the Soviet Strawman while criticizing yours (or my) ability to research. It's pathetic.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

Originally posted by turbonium1
Not again, spouting the Russia (USSR) nonsense!!

The Soviets and US were in a 'Cold War' at the time of Apollo, right? Which means they were bitter enemies, yes? Any hoax by the US would be 1. Immediately recognized as a hoax by the Soviets, and 2. Immediately trumpeted to the world as a hoax by those same Soviets.

What did the USSR say about the JFK assassination?

Nothing.

Turbo: It's the last dying breath of the Apollo Defender..... I like to call it the "Soviet Strawman".

If you pushed them for a source link on it I think they only have one quote from one former Soviet cosmonaut.

Additionally, it represents a fatal flaw in the logic of Apollo Defenders because they will utilize the Soviet Strawman while criticizing yours (or my) ability to research. It's pathetic.

edit on 6/14/2013 by SayonaraJupiter because: additionally

And they'll never stop spewing it forth, ad nauseum.

It boggles the mind. .

Originally posted by turbonium1
And they'll never stop spewing it forth, ad nauseum.

It boggles the mind. .

This thread is a total victory for disclosure which is a victory FOR ALL MANKIND.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by turbonium1

 

From more experts.

Conclusion: For lunar sortie missions, the duration is short enough that GCR creates no serious
risks. For lunar outpost missions the probability of encountering an SPE during Solar Maximum in a
6-month rotation is 1% to 10% depending on the assumed energy of the SPE. Even with > 30 g/cm2
of regolith shielding the 95% CI dose from a major SPE would exceed the 30-day limit. The GCR
during Solar Minimum for a 6-month stay on the Moon is marginal against the annual limit, but this
can be mitigated somewhat by use of regolith for shielding the habitat.

www.marsjournal.org...

Lunar Sortie Mission:

A lunar sortie (or lunar sortie mission) is a human spaceflight mission to the Moon. In contrast with lunar outpost missions, lunar sorties will be of relatively brief duration.

lunarsortie.com...

So the experts are saying that a lunar sortie (Apollo) is short enough term that aluminum shielding isn't going to be a significant risk as far as GCRs go.

The author is described as an 'independent contractor', so I've no idea why you'd say he's an 'expert'. Anyway, we'll assume he is, for argument's sake...

But it's one person, which you call an 'expert, which magically changed into the plural - 'experts.

It's just the one person, your one 'expert', right? Now, let's move along....

He claims..

"For lunar sortie missions, the duration is short enough that GCR creates no serious risks"

Hey, Apollo missions were short duration, lunar sortie missions, too!

So what about shielding? Nothing is mentioned about shielding, let alone aluminum shielding, within that statemen
Since no shield is mentioned, one can safely assume there IS no shield Nothing more. No aluminum, and no shield.

It's your own invention, not valid in any way.


Here's what he says about Apollo data...

"The results are shown in Table 12 for the Apollo Command Module, a CEV with an aluminum pressure shell, and the CEV with 5 g/cm2 of HDPE added for radiation protection. Note that the density of HDPE is about 0.95 so that 5 g/cm2 corresponds to a thickness of about 5 cm, or 2 inches. It is stated that the Apollo Command Module, which corresponds to a thickness of approximately 5 g/cm2 was modeled with a CAM process. Even so, despite the tendency for the CAM to be more accurate, it is difficult to understand why the doses are so much greater for an aluminum CEV than for the Apollo Command Module since it is hard to believe that the CEV pressure shell is much less than 5 g/cm2. The dose equivalents in Table 12 are very high compared to other estimates in the literature. At first it appeared that the results in Table 12 may have been the result of a typographical error, but Figure 11 shows that the ESAS Report corroborates the high estimates of Table 12. Note that the estimated BFO dose equivalent from a 4X major SPE is considerably greater than the 30-day allowable dose equivalent in Table 1."

So the Apollo data "is difficult to understand". It does not make any sense to the 'expert'. The Apollo numbers are much lower than they should be. Then they actually are. Hmm.

Maybe he thinks "it is hard to believe" anything about Apollo!!

Originally posted by turbonium1

You don't understand what environment they're referring to....

"No exposure limitation has been recommended for deep space missions as yet, but in the interim the recommendation is that estimates of interplanetary exposure using quality factors dependent on the linear energy transfer (LET) with exposure limits recommended for operations in low Earth orbit (LEO) be taken as a guide to deep space mission shield requirements. These LEO exposure limits were established under the assumption that the GCR components are diminished in LEO by their deflection in the Earth’s magnetic field so that LEO exposures are dominated by trapped protons and electrons. Deep space exposure estimates using LET-dependent quality factors result in exposures of as much as 1 Sv/yr near solar minimum depending on shielding."

this is gold!!! read the last line:

"Deep space exposure estimates using LET-dependent quality factors result in exposures of as much as 1 Sv/YEAR"

i think you can calculate how much that is for 12 days right?

Let's read on...

"Radiation protection systems (shielding, monitoring, and medical supplies) impact mission cost, and uncertainty in past shielding databases is inadequate for present design studies. For example, the required shielding to reduce the
5-cm-depth dose from GCR at solar minimum to 45 cSv behind an aluminum shield was estimated to be 2 g/cm2
by the NCRP in 1989 (ref. 4), to be 7 g/cm2 by Simonsen, Nealy, and Townsend in 1992 (ref. 6), and to be 55 ± 10 g/cm2 by the present estimate (table 2) using current transport codes and databases. 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 (ref. 7)."

So from table 2, which you think supports your case, they state...

"...55 ± 10 g/cm2 by the present estimate"

if you actually bothered to look at the table, you would find that at SOLAR MINIMUM to reduce radiation exposure to 45cSV/YEAR you would need 55 ± 10 g/cm2..

again i think you can work out how many cSv that is for 12 days right? maths is not too difficult for you?

p.s. do you even know how much a cSv is compared to a Sv?

OK, what about Apollo's shielding, then?....

"The hull of an Apollo command module rated 7 to 8 g/cm2. A modern space shuttle has 10 to 11 g/cm2. The hull of the ISS, in its most heavily shielded areas, has 15 g/cm2."


www.nasa.gov...

How do you like the numbers now? Not so much, I'm sure.

the numbers are still not favouring you.. you constantly neglect that the radiation has been accumulated for one year. i believe you do this on purpose.

seriously even if you look at the numbers for 1 g/cm2 its all for radiation accumulated over a period of ONE YEAR

It's obvious that you haven't read it, or perhaps you did, and simply failed to understand what it means..

Estmates (for aluminum shielding) were 2 g/cm2 in 1989 (ref. 4), Then in 1992, it rose to 7 g/cm2. By 1997, when this report came out, it had spiked up to 55 ± 10 g/cm2.

*sigh* thats to keep astronauts safe to within the set limits for radiation exposure over a YEAR.

currently exposure in LEO is set at 0.5 Sv PER YEAR which is surprise surprise, 50cSv PER YEAR

But that's not where it ends. What else did they say? Let me remind you...

"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 "

By 1997, they already understood that aluminum was not only an inadequate material for shielding BEYOND LEO, it would probably be hazardous to humans.

This assertion was later confirmed to be accurate, as we know.


Now do you get the point?

i dont think you get the point..
they say this because the radiation astronauts are exposed to OVER A YEAR is close to and sometimes exceeding the limitations set out depending on the conditions.
Also when i say conditions i mean solar maximum/minimum and the one f the largest solar particle events in recorded history.


p.s. One Sievert (Sv) carries with it a 5.5% chance of eventually developing cancer.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

Originally posted by turbonium1
And they'll never stop spewing it forth, ad nauseum.

It boggles the mind. .

This thread is a total victory for disclosure which is a victory FOR ALL MANKIND.

Absolutely right. Justice for all humanity.

Apollo's days are numbered, clearly.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

Originally posted by turbonium1
Not again, spouting the Russia (USSR) nonsense!!

The Soviets and US were in a 'Cold War' at the time of Apollo, right? Which means they were bitter enemies, yes? Any hoax by the US would be 1. Immediately recognized as a hoax by the Soviets, and 2. Immediately trumpeted to the world as a hoax by those same Soviets.

What did the USSR say about the JFK assassination?

Nothing.

Turbo: It's the last dying breath of the Apollo Defender..... I like to call it the "Soviet Strawman".

If you pushed them for a source link on it I think they only have one quote from one former Soviet cosmonaut.

Additionally, it represents a fatal flaw in the logic of Apollo Defenders because they will utilize the Soviet Strawman while criticizing yours (or my) ability to research. It's pathetic.

edit on 6/14/2013 by SayonaraJupiter because: additionally

God your still going with your same suppositions we argued over months ago?!

Not one scientist, astronomer, engineer or mathematician who where involved has ever come forward or even hinted at a hoax.
Not for money, fame, principles, guilty conscience, anger or after just drinking too much.
Not on their death bed.
How many countries including us down here in Australia where tracking the Apollo missions and saw them go to the moon and back?
I suppose you'll go with "solid hologram" or something?

C'mon stop flogging a dead horse!
It happened its fact men walked on the moon simple as that.
The only real question is why we stopped going...

reply to post by turbonium1


So an independent contractor can't be an expert huh? Or is it only the people that agree with you that can be experts.

According to experiments done by Stanford University, the annual dose of radiation an astronaut would be exposed to (you do understand annual means yearly right?), is between 6.2 and 6.5 cGy for skin (27.4-21.8 cSv annual dose equivalent) behind 1, 5, and 10 g/cm2 of aluminum at solar minimum, 5.7-5.8 cGy for bone marrow (16.7-14.6 cSv), and a total dose equivalent of 17.9-15.4 cSv. For a solar maximum it would be 18..4-18.0 cGy (79.8-56.2 cSv), 16.4-16.1 cGy (44.5-37.0 cSv), with a total dose equivalent of between 48.8 and 39.3 cSv.

In a 30 day period maximum exposure is .25 Gy for bone marrow, 1.0 Gy for the eye, and 1.5 Gy for skin. That means that in 30 days they could safely be exposed to 25 cGy, 100 cGy, and 150 cGy in thirty days. The numbers calculated by Stanford are for a year in space. Apollo astronauts would easily be able to stay in space for the duration of their mission, and have minimal risk for their health long term.

Originally posted by choos

Deep space exposure estimates using LET-dependent quality factors result in exposures of as much as 1 Sv/yr near solar minimum depending on shielding."

this is gold!!! read the last line:

"Deep space exposure estimates using LET-dependent quality factors result in exposures of as much as 1 Sv/YEAR"

"....near solar minimum depending on shielding."

Why did you snip out the part about shielding? Any reason?

He "estimates" for "near solar minimum" as "depending on shielding". .

Let's cut to the chase, these are simply made-up numbers for non-existent shielding. One of countless possibe scenarios. If you disagree, show where it's at all valid. I'd love to see it.

Originally posted by choos

i think you can calculate how much that is for 12 days right?

You want me to calculate - based on the made-up numbers, which depends on the non-existent shield, and plop it into your non-existent argument?


You refuse to see the elephant in the living room. His name is Apollo. He is right there, but you won't acknowledge him. You don't ask yourself why he's ignored by those who should love and embrace him. Those people are experts on elephants. They want to understand everything about them. So why would they dismiss the one they already have, to look for others somewhere far away?

Because that is not a real elephant in their living room, it is just a fake. Very realistic, good enough to fool many people at a glance, But it's not real.

In the case of Apollo, the same scenario unfolds time and time again. Especially within current (or fairly recent) reports..

It's in yours, as well. I'm sure you don't see it, though.

What do they say about deep space? A few examples here...

There are no guidelines for allowable radiation exposure in deep space. A common assumption is to use LEO guidelines as a first approximation for deep space.

Cucinotta et al. (2005) provide thickness distributions in aluminum-equivalent depths for the Apollo Command module and several more recent spacecraft used in LEO. Minimal areal-densities of spacecraft such as Skylab, the Space Shuttle, or the International Space Station (ISS) are 2 to 5 g/cm2. However, averages are in the range from 5-10 g/cm2 of aluminum-equivalent material. The launch requirements for deep space may require reduced shielding mass compare to these vehicles.

Current thinking (Anderson et al. 2005) seems to favor use of the LEO limits as guidelines for deep space mission exposures, principally because computation of conventional exposures based on linear energy transfer (LET) in a target medium by flux of ionizing radiation may be performed with little ambiguity. However, the basis for radiation damage to mammalian cellular systems by continuous low dose rate heavy-ion radiation (galactic cosmic rays - GCR) is related to LET in an indirect and complex fashion. For a given ionizing particle species and energy, cell damage are highly variable for different cell types.

And one more...,
..
Deep space exposure estimates using LET-dependent quality factors result in exposures of as much as 1 Sv/yr near solar minimum depending on shielding


Deep space is not well-understood, or even close to it. They don't have any solid information or facts on this environment. They always need to qualify their statements. See above.

They often begin with LEO, using it as a reference point for the environment beyond LEO (ie: deep space). Estimates are made on that basis, and by unmanned craft.(ie:the two probes in the VAB)

But Apollo supposedly went into deep space - nine times! They'd have loads of information and data, right?
This would be much more useful than crude estimates. They'd already have adequate shielding for the initial missions they planned (by 2020 or so).

They don't use Apollo for anything at all, though. Apollo data is never cited, it is either completely ignored, or it's deposed as so much garbage, like they did in your report.

It's time to connect the dots, isn't it?

Something that's always bugged me about the first moon landing is the eagerness to show it to the whole world, when a Challenger moment would have set back the entire project. It's almost as if they were absolutely certain that they would have a successful mission on the first go. What was NASA's go to plan had the mission gone pear-shaped right before the eyes of the whole world?

Originally posted by Zaphod58

reply to post by turbonium1

 

So an independent contractor can't be an expert huh? Or is it only the people that agree with you that can be experts.

I get it now! To call him an expert is fine and dandy, but asking for evidence....that's a real big no-no!!

Good one. Really. Made me laugh.

Originally posted by Zaphod58

According to experiments done by Stanford University, the annual dose of radiation an astronaut would be exposed to (you do understand annual means yearly right?), is between 6.2 and 6.5 cGy for skin (27.4-21.8 cSv annual dose equivalent) behind 1, 5, and 10 g/cm2 of aluminum at solar minimum, 5.7-5.8 cGy for bone marrow (16.7-14.6 cSv), and a total dose equivalent of 17.9-15.4 cSv. For a solar maximum it would be 18..4-18.0 cGy (79.8-56.2 cSv), 16.4-16.1 cGy (44.5-37.0 cSv), with a total dose equivalent of between 48.8 and 39.3 cSv.

In a 30 day period maximum exposure is .25 Gy for bone marrow, 1.0 Gy for the eye, and 1.5 Gy for skin. That means that in 30 days they could safely be exposed to 25 cGy, 100 cGy, and 150 cGy in thirty days. The numbers calculated by Stanford are for a year in space. Apollo astronauts would easily be able to stay in space for the duration of their mission, and have minimal risk for their health long term.

And your source might be nice to see, too....,

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
Something that's always bugged me about the first moon landing is the eagerness to show it to the whole world, when a Challenger moment would have set back the entire project. It's almost as if they were absolutely certain that they would have a successful mission on the first go. What was NASA's go to plan had the mission gone pear-shaped right before the eyes of the whole world?

Take Two, perhaps?

Movies are magical indeed!

Originally posted by Anonbeleiver77


Not one scientist, astronomer, engineer or mathematician who where involved has ever come forward or even hinted at a hoax.
Not for money, fame, principles, guilty conscience, anger or after just drinking too much.
Not on their death bed.

Right. The Apollo story is universally accepted as genuine, by one and all.

They just happen to disagree on everything else.

And nothing seems odd about that?...

Yikes!

Originally posted by turbonium1

"Deep space exposure estimates using LET-dependent quality factors result in exposures of as much as 1 Sv/YEAR"

"....near solar minimum depending on shielding."

Why did you snip out the part about shielding? Any reason?

He "estimates" for "near solar minimum" as "depending on shielding". .

Let's cut to the chase, these are simply made-up numbers for non-existent shielding. One of countless possibe scenarios. If you disagree, show where it's at all valid. I'd love to see it.

because the whole point was to point out that it was over a period of ONE YEAR..

but if you were so concerned about the shielding perhaps you should have referred back to table 2 which give you the equivalent dosage in ONE YEAR and the equivalent dose penetrating 0cm depth is between 1.32Sv PER YEAR to 0.53Sv PER YEAR, DEPENDING ON SHIELDING

gosh do you blindly ignore everything that doesnt agree with what you are saying?

You want me to calculate - based on the made-up numbers, which depends on the non-existent shield, and plop it into your non-existent argument?

then by all means use the real numbers which you seem to imply you have.

you realise all scientists/engineers will be using these numbers. if these scientists and engineers are using these "made-up" numbers you realise that it can fail?? do you even realise what you have just stated??

"THE ENTIRE SPACE INDUSTRY IS USING FAKE MADE-UP NUMBERS"

You refuse to see the elephant in the living room. His name is Apollo. He is right there, but you won't acknowledge him. You don't ask yourself why he's ignored by those who should love and embrace him. Those people are experts on elephants. They want to understand everything about them. So why would they dismiss the one they already have, to look for others somewhere far away?

Because that is not a real elephant in their living room, it is just a fake. Very realistic, good enough to fool many people at a glance, But it's not real.

but you are not acknowledging the facts, look at the numbers, i know you dont want to believe them because they dont agree with your theory but you realise how foolish it is to believe that, when the entire space industry have been using these numbers?

perhaps you can show me any numbers which can correlate your story?

In the case of Apollo, the same scenario unfolds time and time again. Especially within current (or fairly recent) reports..

Deep space is not well-understood, or even close to it. They don't have any solid information or facts on this environment. They always need to qualify their statements. See above.

They often begin with LEO, using it as a reference point for the environment beyond LEO (ie: deep space). Estimates are made on that basis, and by unmanned craft.(ie:the two probes in the VAB)

But Apollo supposedly went into deep space - nine times! They'd have loads of information and data, right?
This would be much more useful than crude estimates. They'd already have adequate shielding for the initial missions they planned (by 2020 or so).

They don't use Apollo for anything at all, though. Apollo data is never cited, it is either completely ignored, or it's deposed as so much garbage, like they did in your report.

It's time to connect the dots, isn't it?

in my report?? which report?? i havent posted any reports?? only re-posted reports that you have used, and those reports have given numbers.. funnily enough none of the numbers agree with your theory.. looks like you have been twisting the words of the reports to serve your agenda, this leads me to believe that you are a dis-info agent.

from your own report you posted and the quote you have posted several times:

Deep space exposure estimates using LET-dependent quality factors result in exposures of as much as 1 Sv/yr near solar minimum depending on shielding

do you even understand what that means for a 12 day mission? read table 2 even with MINIMAL SHIELDING they will get 1.32Sv PER YEAR (equivalent dose), since you refuse to calculate how much that is over a 12 day period i guess i have to help..

its equal to an equivalent dose of 0.045 Sv for a 12 day period

these are real scientists using many sources available to them to come up with these estimates and these are not numbers from LEO only, perhaps you dont even know what the voyager program is?..

real engineers will use these studies to get a grasp of what kind of requirements will be needed to build future crafts.. or perhaps all these engineers are in on the apollo hoax as well

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

Originally posted by turbonium1
Not again, spouting the Russia (USSR) nonsense!!

The Soviets and US were in a 'Cold War' at the time of Apollo, right? Which means they were bitter enemies, yes? Any hoax by the US would be 1. Immediately recognized as a hoax by the Soviets, and 2. Immediately trumpeted to the world as a hoax by those same Soviets.

What did the USSR say about the JFK assassination?

Nothing.

Turbo: It's the last dying breath of the Apollo Defender..... I like to call it the "Soviet Strawman".

If you pushed them for a source link on it I think they only have one quote from one former Soviet cosmonaut.

Additionally, it represents a fatal flaw in the logic of Apollo Defenders because they will utilize the Soviet Strawman while criticizing yours (or my) ability to research. It's pathetic.

edit on 6/14/2013 by SayonaraJupiter because: additionally

You do realize every observatory on the planet was tracking the apollo mission right? Here ill give you one of them because well they saved the astronauts lives.

Chabot Observatory calendar records an application of optical tracking during the final phases of Apollo 13, on April 17, 1970: The Chabot Observatory calendar records an application of optical tracking during the final phases of Apollo 13, on 17 April 1970. "Rachel, Chabot Observatory's 20-inch refracting telescope, helps bring Apollo 13 and its crew home. One last burn of the lunar lander engines was needed before the crippled spacecraft's re-entry into the Earth's atmosphere. In order to compute that last burn, NASA needed a precise position of the spacecraft, obtainable only by telescopic observation. All the observatories that could have done this were clouded over, except Oakland's Chabot Observatory, where members of the Eastbay Astronomical Society had been tracking the Moon flights. EAS members received an urgent call from NASA Ames Research Station, which had ties with Chabot's educational program since the 60's, and they put the Observatory's historic 20-inch refractor to work. They were able to send the needed data to Ames, and the Apollo crew was able to make the needed correction and to return safely to Earth on this date in 1970."

This is all to shape us into the society we are today.. to entertain ''them''