Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

page: 9
52
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Anonbeleiver77
Sorry to repeat myself
but if it was a hoax... where the .... did the apollo rockets go for days at a time?
They hide behind sputnik?
I suppose the Russians who where tracking the whole thing where in on it too?
As well as the tracking stations down here in Australia too they where able to fool radio telescopes that can see into deep space into seeing something that wasn't there go to the moon and came back?
I supposed they paid or threatened every astronomer, every radar operator, every one with a telescope, every major
country in the world into going along with the most expensive hoax ever?
For what?
Your a bunch of idiots seriously
Making me angry I got on here to report something that really happened to like minded open minded people...
to say that something that the whole world watched in so many ways witnessed and so many put so hard work into was a hoax....the greatest achievement EVER! EVER!!!!! in the history of mankind is a hoax???!!!!
MORONS!! Its you lot that make everything else on here seem a joke...
What we can't go to the moon but UFOs are real?
Take a look at your logic
its just not possible it was a hoax!!!!


It's one's opinion, like any other

Why are you so angry about the hoax opinion?

You believe it was real, like most people do.

Who cares? What's the problem?




posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 08:58 AM
link   
reply to post by turbonium1
 


There was no "shielding" per se -- at least nothing that was put there specifically for shielding. HOWEVER, the structural mass of the Apollo command module did provide adequate "secondary" shielding for the task at hand. The aluminum skin, the fibrous insulation, and even the heat shield all contributed to this "passive" radiation shielding.

To get through the Van Allen belts, NASA relied on a quick journey through the belts rather than on providing purposely-built shielding against the radiation. The speed with which they passed through the belts exposed the astronauts to higher-than-normal radiation, but nothing that would necessarily be harmful.

Once past the belts and on their way to the Moon, there was a risk of a major solar flare occurring (one pointed the astronauts' way) which would have exposed them to potentially harmful radiation levels, but that sort of flare never happened during an Apollo mission.

...By the way, as someone mentioned above, denser materials would have been WORSE due to bremstrahlung radiation. The cosmic rays hitting the denser material would cause other more dangerous radiation to be emitted out the back side of the material, doing more damage to the astronauts.


The bottom line is that while the astronauts were exposed to more radiation than the average person living on Earth, they exposure was not dangerously high -- at least not a danger that would necessarily cause illness. I suppose one could argue that the astronaut's MAY be more susceptible to getting certain cancers later in life, and that person may have a point -- but these guys were test pilots, anyway. Test pilots in the 1960s risked their lives all the time (there was a time in the late 1950s and early 1960s that one test pilot per week was dying in an accident). To these test pilot Apollo astronauts, the reward was well worth the risk.

edit on 3/9/2013 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by turbonium1
 


Here, simpler terms for you.


HEAVY SHIELD UNNECESSARY — Heavy shielding as protection for an astronaut against space radiations may not be necessary, at least for trips of less than 50 hours and at distances not greater than 618 miles from earth…. [B]iological specimens were encased in different types of metal to test their effectiveness as shielding materials. Some specimens were shielded only by the thin aluminum covering of the specimen capsule and the comparatively thin shell of the recovery capsule. Radiation dosimeters showed that aluminum provided better shielding properties than lead and that any heavy metal such as gold or lead becomes a hazard during a solar flare as high energy protons interact with these heavy metals to create damaging X-rays.

blog.nss.org...


Of primary cosmic rays, which originate outside of Earth's atmosphere, about 99% are the nuclei (stripped of their electron shells) of well-known atoms, and about 1% are solitary electrons (similar to beta particles). Of the nuclei, about 90% are simple protons, i. e. hydrogen nuclei; 9% are alpha particles, and 1% are the nuclei of heavier elements. [10] A very small fraction are stable particles of antimatter, such as positrons or antiprotons, and the precise nature of this remaining fraction is an area of active research.

en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 3/9/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)
edit on 3/9/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 10:37 AM
link   
You Americans should be proud for such an astonishing accomplishment. It gives me the chills just by only thinking about it.



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Anonbeleiver77
Sorry to repeat myself
but if it was a hoax... where the .... did the apollo rockets go for days at a time?


Oh, I know the answer to this one. According to the Aussie "genius" they were in a "polar orbit". Now, somebody who knows how to do research would know that a polar orbit means that you orbit around a longitude (north pole to south pole and back) instead of around a latitude. But according to Jarrah, it means that you just circle the north or south pole in a way that totally doesn't violate the laws of physics allowing you to stay hidden by being over an unpopulated area. Then when a bunch of people point out you're a moron, you lie and claim it was a trap you set to see if people were paying attention.



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 06:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
There was no "shielding" per se -- at least nothing that was put there specifically for shielding. HOWEVER, the structural mass of the Apollo command module did provide adequate "secondary" shielding for the task at hand. The aluminum skin, the fibrous insulation, and even the heat shield all contributed to this "passive" radiation shielding.

To get through the Van Allen belts, NASA relied on a quick journey through the belts rather than on providing purposely-built shielding against the radiation. The speed with which they passed through the belts exposed the astronauts to higher-than-normal radiation, but nothing that would necessarily be harmful.

Once past the belts and on their way to the Moon, there was a risk of a major solar flare occurring (one pointed the astronauts' way) which would have exposed them to potentially harmful radiation levels, but that sort of flare never happened during an Apollo mission.

The bottom line is that while the astronauts were exposed to more radiation than the average person living on Earth, they exposure was not dangerously high -- at least not a danger that would necessarily cause illness.
edit on 3/9/2013 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)


This is the real bottom line - Apollo spacecraft didn't have adequate shielding for the environment(s) beyond LEO

What else can be concluded from the facts on hand?

As we know, the Apollo spacecraft shell was mostly made out of aluminum. Here's a list of materials for the structure...

"The inner structure is of aluminum sandwich construction, which consists of a welded aluminum inner skin, adhesively bonded aluminum honeycomb core, and outer face sheet. The thickness of the honeycomb varies from about 1-1/2" at the core to about 1/2" at the forward access tunnel. This inner structure - basically the crew compartment - is the part of the module that is pressurized and contains an atmosphere.

The outer structure is the heat shield and is made of stainless steel honeycomb brazed between steel alloy face sheets. It varies in thickness from 1/2" to 2 1/2".

Part of the area between the inner and outer shells is filled with a layer of fibrous insulation as additional heat protection.


More details on the heat shield..

"..a phenolic epoxy resin, a type of reinforced plastic.."

"The heat shield varies in thickness: the aft portion is 2 inches and the crew compartment and forward portions are 1/2 inch"

"The heat shield has several outer coverings: a pore seal, a moisture barrier (a white reflective coating), and a silver Mylar thermal coating that looks like aluminum foil"

www.hq.nasa.gov...

We know aluminum is a poor radiation shield, specifically for radiation beyond LEO. I cited a source on that fact...

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

Aluminum made up the vast majority of the spacecraft's shell. So what about the other materials?

The heat shield has stainless steel, epoxy,a "pore seal", Mylar and a "white reflective coating". Around the crew compartment area, the heat shield was 1/2" thick. There was also some fibreglass (for insulation).

If you think this makes an effective radiation shield, let's see the proof for it!

The current designs do not use ANY of these materials for radiation shielding, to my knowledge. That shows just how effective they are.

It's only 'effective' for Apollo spacecraft, it seems.



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 07:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
reply to post by turbonium1
 


To get through the Van Allen belts, NASA relied on a quick journey through the belts rather than on providing purposely-built shielding against the radiation. The speed with which they passed through the belts exposed the astronauts to higher-than-normal radiation, but nothing that would necessarily be harmful.

Once past the belts and on their way to the Moon, there was a risk of a major solar flare occurring (one pointed the astronauts' way) which would have exposed them to potentially harmful radiation levels, but that sort of flare never happened during an Apollo mission.

edit on 3/9/2013 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)


Apollo was 'lucky' to avoid SPE's. Apollo used the 'speed' method to avoid radiation.

The future missions will not try to be "lucky". The future missions will need adequate shielding, not just 'speed'.

If those aren't silly excuses, then what would be?

A genuine moon mission wouldn't need to use ridiculous excuses. It would stand up on its own merit..
edit on 10-3-2013 by turbonium1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 07:27 AM
link   
reply to post by turbonium1
 


Future moon missions also plan on staying much longer than Apollo did. Apollo was on the moon for a matter of hours. The next landings are planning on staying there. That means they have to come up with better methods of shielding.



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 07:29 AM
link   
reply to post by turbonium1
 



This is the real bottom line - Apollo spacecraft didn't have adequate shielding for the environment(s) beyond LEO


Please stop repeating statements that have been shown to be untrue. Radiation exposure is a matter of exposure over time. The Apollo astronauts spent less than two weeks outside of Earth's magnetosphere. The shielding provided by the structure of the spacecraft was adequate for that period of time.


What else can be concluded from the facts on hand?


You have been ignoring facts, so your conclusions are likely to be irrelevant.


As we know, the Apollo spacecraft shell was mostly made out of aluminum. Here's a list of materials for the structure...


"The inner structure is of aluminum sandwich construction, which consists of a welded aluminum inner skin, adhesively bonded aluminum honeycomb core, and outer face sheet.[Edited for brevity --DJW001]


More details on the heat shield..

"..a phenolic epoxy resin, a type of reinforced plastic.." [Edited for brevity --DJW001]


www.hq.nasa.gov...

We know aluminum is a poor radiation shield, specifically for radiation beyond LEO. I cited a source on that fact...

You cherry picked a source. In fact, both aluminum and epoxy are ideal shielding materials due to their low Z.


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


There you go again. Here:


Good laboratory practice is important to keep radiation doses low. To reduce bremsstrahlung, (90)Y should not be shielded by lead but instead perspex (10 mm) or aluminium (5 mm). Bremsstrahlung radiation can be further reduced by adding a millimetre of lead on the outside of the primary shielding material. If suitable shielding is used and larger numbers of handlings are divided among several persons, then handling of beta emitters can be a safe procedure.


www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

This was literally the first thing to come up on google. I can cite countless papers.


If you think this makes an effective radiation shield, let's see the proof for it!


You sound like a broken record. Here, read this:

w3.tue.nl...


The current designs do not use ANY of these materials for radiation shielding, to my knowledge. That shows just how effective they are.


Your knowledge is incomplete. Every spacecraft currently in use is mostly constructed of aluminum.


It's only 'effective' for Apollo spacecraft, it seems.


Repeat: every spacecraft is constructed of aluminum. It is the ideal material. It is light weight, and its low density is a safeguard against secondary radiation.



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 07:32 AM
link   
hey ppk

how many of the 400,000 people that worked on the lunar missions have given a death bed confession ?



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 01:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbonium1

Originally posted by Anonbeleiver77
Sorry to repeat myself
but if it was a hoax... where the .... did the apollo rockets go for days at a time?
They hide behind sputnik?
I suppose the Russians who where tracking the whole thing where in on it too?
As well as the tracking stations down here in Australia too they where able to fool radio telescopes that can see into deep space into seeing something that wasn't there go to the moon and came back?
I supposed they paid or threatened every astronomer, every radar operator, every one with a telescope, every major
country in the world into going along with the most expensive hoax ever?
For what?
Your a bunch of idiots seriously
Making me angry I got on here to report something that really happened to like minded open minded people...
to say that something that the whole world watched in so many ways witnessed and so many put so hard work into was a hoax....the greatest achievement EVER! EVER!!!!! in the history of mankind is a hoax???!!!!
MORONS!! Its you lot that make everything else on here seem a joke...
What we can't go to the moon but UFOs are real?
Take a look at your logic
its just not possible it was a hoax!!!!


It's one's opinion, like any other

Why are you so angry about the hoax opinion?

You believe it was real, like most people do.

Who cares? What's the problem?


What's the problem? Why am I angry?

I'll say it again "the greatest achievement by mankind EVER"
Saying it was a hoax is not only an insult to the thousands that worked on it but an insult to all of us everyone the human race as a species!



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 07:47 AM
link   
To be honest, I find most of the "We never went to the Moon" crowd irritating. Not because I disagree with them...I disagree with a lot of people, and enjoy a good, lively discussion. I don't even mind that some of them don't understand what seems to be basic physics and / or math. My personal pet peeve is the moving goalpost. I've had this same thing happen on more than one occasion, and it goes something like this:

"We never went to the Moon!"
"Yes, we did"
"Prove it!"
"What would you consider proof?"
"Photographs!"
*insert linkage to huge volume of photographs*
"Well...those are all studio fakes! Video or it didn't happen!!"
*insert links to huge amounts of video documentation*
"Obvious fakes! What kind of sources convinced you that was real?!"
*insert references to a long, long list of engineers, mathematicians, physicists, doctors, pilots, and even astronauts*
"Well...they're all lying, and the proof is right here on this geocities website!"

No matter *what* proof you present, it's never good enough...on the other hand, anything, and I do mean *anything* that might remotely support the idea that we didn't and / or can't go to the Moon is accepted as Gospel, regardless of credentials or quality.



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 09:04 AM
link   
reply to post by turbonium1
 


Another annoying aspect of the "oh noes teh danjerus radeashun" argument is the complete lack of historical context. In the 1960's scientists were still in the trial and error stage of gathering data about the effects of radiation. For goodness' sake, they flew planes through mushroom clouds just to "see what would happen".

My father was an airforce technician. Him and his mates would sit in the cocpits of the planes that had flown through nuclear blasts at Maralinga(south Australia) just to "see what would happen". They really weren't aware of the dangers involved. Thought they might get super powers or something.

By todays standards the Apollo missions seem a little lax in the radiation shielding department, but this is a reflection of the state of our knowledge back then, as much as it is also a reflection of the state of health and safety regulations in industry in the past. People took more risks in every dangerous field of endeavour. Regardless, the only real risk to the moon missions in terms of radiation were solar flares. Sure, they took a gamble, but were there any dangerous flares? No. End of story.



edit on 12-3-2013 by mrwiffler because: cause
edit on 12-3-2013 by mrwiffler because: jjnln



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by mrwiffler
 


I think the hardest thing to ignore is that in order for people to claim there wasn't adequate shielding, they essentially need to know three things:
X) The radiation levels in cislunar space
Y) The shielding capabilities of the equipment
Z) Human tolerance to radiation.
They all claim that the radiation levels would be lethal yet nobody in 40 years has been able to show that x-y>z . . makes you wonder.



posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Anonbeleiver77
 


what they just went into orbit and stuck around for a few days and came back sat in quarantine and popped out and pretended they'd been to the moon?


The spacecraft would have been one of the brightest objects in the night sky as it circled the Earth every ninety minutes. The Soviets and Chinese would scream bloody murder.

The spacecraft went to the moon without any humans on board, as usual.



posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Apollo was on the moon for a matter of hours. The next landings are planning on staying there.

No, Apollo 17 allegedly 3 days. Did they sleep well ?
What did they do in the evening ?
There is no next landing.



posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Ove38
 


Even three days is still insignificant compared to how long they're planning the return mission to stay. You're talking 72 hours (a matter of hours) as compared to 6+ months. NASA plans to be back by the end of the next decade, with eventual plans for a permanent outpost. Apollo was there for three days maximum.

Why wouldn't they sleep? I'm sure they slept just fine. After returning to the lander, they had to go over their suits, replenish supplies, etc. After that they went to sleep, got up and did it again.
edit on 3/13/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ove38

The spacecraft went to the moon without any humans on board, as usual.


Do you have any proof of this? To me, it would be far more impressive to perform this mission with 60's robots than humans. I mean, you'd have to make a humanoid robot that could climb a ladder and drive a car, that's pretty freaking cool.



posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by captainpudding

Originally posted by Ove38

The spacecraft went to the moon without any humans on board, as usual.


Do you have any proof of this? To me, it would be far more impressive to perform this mission with 60's robots than humans. I mean, you'd have to make a humanoid robot that could climb a ladder and drive a car, that's pretty freaking cool.

Don't you get it ? The spacecraft went to the moon without any humans on board, as usual. The ladder climb and car drive, was filmed on earth.



posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by Ove38
 


Even three days is still insignificant compared to how long they're planning the return mission to stay. You're talking 72 hours (a matter of hours) as compared to 6+ months. NASA plans to be back by the end of the next decade, with eventual plans for a permanent outpost. Apollo was there for three days maximum.

Why wouldn't they sleep? I'm sure they slept just fine. After returning to the lander, they had to go over their suits, replenish supplies, etc. After that they went to sleep, got up and did it again.
edit on 3/13/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

Exactly where did they sleep ? they're planning the return ? they never went !






top topics
 
52
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join