Did NASA just admit they never put Man on The Moon? [Video]

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation
Just Googled "stolen and missing moon rocks" did we?

Not all of us has a crystal ball like you, my friend.

-MM

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657
a reply to: Zaphod58

Yes you are correct. Anyone with a question can go to the Smithsonian Institute in Washington DC and see just how thick the capsule that held the returning astronauts actually is. From personal experience I'd say roughly ten inches thick.

That is not a solid aluminum structure but a honeycomb; mostly hollow and covered by an aluminum skin roughly 0.020 inches thick.

-MM

a reply to: Zaphod58

Ham radio operators were able to triangulate the signals coming from Apollo as being from a location near the moon.

It didn't require triangulation. But it did require a directional antenna aimed at the Moon to hear transmissions from the Moon's surface.
legacy.jefferson.kctcs.edu...

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

Really? And you think the earth is still flat? Triangulation has been used almost as long as radio has been used. It doesn't matter WHERE the signal is coming from, as long as you have a good signal. Apollo broadcast to multiple locations due to the rotation of the earth taking stations out of line of sight. That gave radio operators plenty of opportunity to triangulate the signal.

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

And yet, you completely skip the rest of the post. What a shock. Look at the actual size of the "missing" rocks. They're tiny shavings of rocks that were given to museums.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

Really? And you think the earth is still flat? Triangulation has been used almost as long as radio has been used. It doesn't matter WHERE the signal is coming from, as long as you have a good signal. Apollo broadcast to multiple locations due to the rotation of the earth taking stations out of line of sight. That gave radio operators plenty of opportunity to triangulate the signal.

That is about as easy as firing a gun from the Earth and hitting one of the astronauts if a bullet could go that far - impossible to be that accurate without supercomputers at that time. In addition the Earth is always moving & rotating and the Moon moves related to the Earth, you telling me that a amature HAM operator in 1969 could find the signal and keep it open considering all of these variables - no way my friend. This is not like tuning in a station on your HAM radio, you have to find a signal 250,000 miles (400,000 km) away transmitted from a tiny antenna about the size of a fridge and hold the signal as the Earth and Moon both move.

-MM

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

And the rest of that material acts as shielding as well. It was built that way for a reason. Aluminum itself doesn't work as a shield against everything, but aluminum combined with everything else works as a shield for short term space flight.

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

You're talking about radio signals. It's quite easy to be "that accurate", and is all the time.

a reply to: Phage

Triangulation gives a more accurate position though.

a reply to: Zaphod58
Not in this case. The antenna had to be carefully aimed at the moon in order to gather enough of a signal. As the Moon moved across the sky Baysinger had to re-aim. Aimed at the Moon, astronauts. Not aimed at the Moon, no astronauts.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

And yet, you completely skip the rest of the post. What a shock. Look at the actual size of the "missing" rocks. They're tiny shavings of rocks that were given to museums.

Oh, I was just joking since your avatar had a crystal ball.

I must humbly admit that I my knowledge of Moon rocks is lacking, the documentary in my post seems pretty informed though, thus their claims are my claims, I can't really go more in-depth than that. Sorry about that Zaphod58.

-MM

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

I must humbly admit that I my knowledge of Moon rocks is lacking, the documentary in my post seems pretty informed thou

Documentary? From Jarrah White? Seriously?
Do you think "Ancient Aliens" is a documentary too?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

I must humbly admit that I my knowledge of Moon rocks is lacking, the documentary in my post seems pretty informed thou

Documentary? From Jarrah White? Seriously?
Do you think "Ancient Aliens" is a documentary too?

AA is my alternative favorite series at the time, there are some real pearls there - take it as pure entertainment because that is what it is. That reminds me that I must find the episode sent last friday online somewhere.

-MM

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

It's right in the wiki link you posted. The average size of the rocks was between 0.05-1 gram.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

And the rest of that material acts as shielding as well. It was built that way for a reason. Aluminum itself doesn't work as a shield against everything, but aluminum combined with everything else works as a shield for short term space flight.

Aluminum was not chosen by NASA for its shielding properties - as it is a poor shield - but for being lightweight and relatively strong for its weight.

-MM

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

It works as a shield against Alpha and Beta particles, even the more high energy particles. The rest of the structure also served as shielding. Since aluminum is lightweight, and isn't very dense there's very little secondary radiation given off. The materials behind the aluminum served to continue the braking of the incoming particles. For a short term stay, such as Apollo, aluminum works as both a strong outer shell, as well as a shield.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

It works as a shield against Alpha and Beta particles, even the more high energy particles. The rest of the structure also served as shielding. Since aluminum is lightweight, and isn't very dense there's very little secondary radiation given off. The materials behind the aluminum served to continue the braking of the incoming particles. For a short term stay, such as Apollo, aluminum works as both a strong outer shell, as well as a shield.

If the solution is as simple as aluminum sheets then why is NASA today in 2014 calling passing the Vann Allen Belts radiation a problem that "must be solved" before they can send people through it? If it was as simple as just plastering some more aluminum sheets 0.020 inches thick , then don't you think that the NASA Engineers in 2014 would have tought if that?

And yes, I have read your "Orion spacecraft has to take a different trajectory through the Vann Allen Belts than the Apollo Missions and therefore has to cope with more radiation" argument, which is still not sourced by you and therefore conjecture at best.

And again yes, I've read your "Orion must also take into consideration the 500 day long trip to Mars" argument, which is not likely since the OP video does not mention solving any other radiation problem than the Vann Allen Belts. Orion is supposed to be a multi-purpose spacecraft, I'm sure they will have different shielding for different kind of missions as having a low weight is paramount; thus on a trip to the Moon it will have other shielding than a trip to Mars to save weight.

-MM

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

Once again, read everything. For short term missions like Apollo it works. Long term missions aluminum is a lousy shield.

And yet again, solve the Van Allen Belt radiation problem and you solve everything but a massive solar flare impacting the ship. Orion is a multimission ship yes, but that means that the shielding is going to be identical regardless. Only the on board equipment is going to change. That's like saying that the F-18 changes the skin and external materials when it's flying as a fighter, as opposed to when it's flying as a strike aircraft.

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation
Oh, I was just joking since your avatar had a crystal ball.

I must humbly admit that I my knowledge of Moon rocks is lacking, the documentary in my post seems pretty informed though, thus their claims are my claims, I can't really go more in-depth than that. Sorry about that Zaphod58.

-MM

How the hell can this conversation even continue beyond a statement like that?

You're basically saying "I have no idea what I'm talking about, but I enjoyed how ______ presented his/her/their theory so I'm just going to parrot their words and deflect when I can't explain myself."

This is seriously the tone of each and every post from OP in this thread, except this time you've admitted you have no idea...very hard to take someone seriously after something like that.

Absolutely insane.

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation
And yes, I have read your "Orion spacecraft has to take a different trajectory through the Vann Allen Belts than the Apollo Missions and therefore has to cope with more radiation" argument, which is still not sourced by you and therefore conjecture at best.

And considering the first quote I included from you, I don't think you're in any position to demand sources or to declare someone else's information to be 'conjecture at best'.