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

spacemath.gsfc.nasa.gov...

4. Some people believe that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax because astronauts would have
been instantly killed in the radiation belts. According to the US Occupation Safety and Health Agency
(OSHA) a lethal radiation dosage is 300 Rads in one hour. What is your answer to the 'moon landing
hoax' believers?
Note: According to radiation dosimeters carried by Apollo astronauts, their total dosage for the entire trip to the moon and return
was not more than 2 Rads over 6 days.
The total dosage for the trip is only 11.4 Rads in 52.8 minutes. Because 52.8 minutes is equal to 0.88
hours, his is equal to a dosage of 11.4 Rads / 0.88 hours = 13 Rads in one hour, which is well below
the 300 Rads in one hour that is considered to be lethal.
Also, this radiation exposure would be for an astronaut outside the spacecraft during the transit through
the belts. The radiation shielding inside the spacecraft cuts down the 13 Rads/hour exposure so that it is
completely harmless.

Well NASA need to make their minds up and keep the lies straight either way don't they.
Either it is a 'challenge' or as they say above 'completely harmless'.

Also could NASA have dropped something unmanned on the moon that they could then transmit to from space which would then appear to be transmitting from the lunar surface thus fooling the rest of the world?

a reply to: johnb

My point exactly (as the OP). All these years the deniers (and NASA) has claimed the Van Allen Belts radiation were safe, and now all of the sudden it is a "chellenge" that "must be solved" before the can "send people" through it. Still in this thread the deniers keep claiming the Vann Allen Belts radiation is so low that just some thin aluminum plates will shield from it, if that is the case then why is NASA claiming it to be a "challenge" that "must be solved" - I'm sure their engineers would have thought of adding some aluminum plates as shielding if it was so simple. The deniers in this thread are actually claiming the opposite of what NASA is saying in the video.

-MM

a reply to: johnb

The Belts aren't uniform. They're thicker in some places and thinner in others. Some areas are so dangerous satellites going through them are shut off first.

The route Apollo took was through a thinner portion.

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

You just flat refuse to believe anything that goes against you don't you.

Aluminum worked fine, for Apollo, which lasted about 10 days total. Orion missions will last longer and go places Apollo didn't. Shielding that worked for short missions won't work for long missions.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation
You just flat refuse to believe anything that goes against you don't you.

The same statement can be used against you too, my friend. Your arguments just does not sum up.

-MM

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

Read almost any source, including NASA. It's been said repeatedly that for long term missions aluminum is a poor shielding material. On a mission to Mars with an aluminum skin they might as well be unshielded.

Start saying things that are backed up, instead of cherry picking, and I might listen.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation
Start saying things that are backed up, instead of cherry picking, and I might listen.

I've asked you of sources for your claims that the Orion must take a trajectory that takes the spaceship through a more dangerous part of the Vann Allen Belts than Apollo since Page 7 (and again here and here), and you still have not backed it up, sir. I've backed up all my claims in this thread, unlike yourself.

-MM

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

Because again, there is no set trajectory! It won't be set until much closer to launch time. It MAY have to, it may not. It depends on the day, the month, even the YEAR they will launch.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

Because again, there is no set trajectory! It won't be set until much closer to launch time. It MAY have to, it may not. It depends on the day, the month, even the YEAR they will launch.

If there is no set trajectory, then why must - as you claim - the Orion spacecraft be additionally shielded than other Moon missions in the later years (or even the Apollo Programs spacecrafts)? What is so "magical" about Orions computers to require extra Vann Allan Belts radiation shielding? If Orion needs more sheilding because it is a multipurpose spacecraft that might go to Mars at a later stage (Yeah, right...Like that is ever going to happen...), then don't you think they will change the shielding according to the requirements of the purposed mission, anything else would be crazy considering the cost per pound when venturing to space using the current public domain rocket technology.

-MM

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

If you change the shielding you have to start the testing program all over again to test it with the new weight and balance. Instead of having to test three different capsules, spending five or six times the amount of money or more, one for all the missions makes more sense both fiscally and mission wise.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

If you change the shielding you have to start the testing program all over again to test it with the new weight and balance. Instead of having to test three different capsules, spending five or six times the amount of money or more, one for all the missions makes more sense both fiscally and mission wise.

I hardly think so as the maths for calculating radiation shielding are available. Even if you did require to stage test all shields you can do the first stage test using the minimal radiation shielding, and the second stage test using the maximum shielding, and extrapolate results using the variables from those two.

-MM

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation

If there is no set trajectory, then why must - as you claim - the Orion spacecraft be additionally shielded than other Moon missions in the later years (or even the Apollo Programs spacecrafts)? What is so "magical" about Orions computers to require extra Vann Allan Belts radiation shielding? If Orion needs more sheilding because it is a multipurpose spacecraft that might go to Mars at a later stage (Yeah, right...Like that is ever going to happen...), then don't you think they will change the shielding according to the requirements of the purposed mission, anything else would be crazy considering the cost per pound when venturing to space using the current public domain technology.

-MM

The primary goals of Exploration Flight Test 1 — EFT-1 — are to test Orion’s 16.5-foot-wide heat shield, its computer hardware, software and navigation systems and to verify the high-tech electronics can endure the higher radiation levels found outside the protection of the Van Allen belts that shield space station astronauts.

“That’s a big issue for the computers,” said Mark Geyer, NASA’s Orion program manager. “With these processors that now are so small, they’re great for speed and size but they’re more susceptible to radiation.”
spaceflightnow.com...

understand??

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

what you are proposing is to do two real tests that serve the same purpose.. one more useless than the other..

why would you do the minimum shielding test?? Orion is designed as an all-purpose craft, having minimal shielding will make the craft a single purpose craft and no longer an all-purpose craft

originally posted by: choos
spaceflightnow.com...

understand??

Is NASA backpedaling now that we're onto them? That article you are linking was written after this post was made on ATS, are they trying to clean up their previous mess now, or?

-MM

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

Flight testing isn't that easy. I have seen several aircraft that everything looked great in the models and on paper, and when it flew it barely flew and wound up being canceled. Or it was terrible on paper and flew great in real life.

Models only get you so far.

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

Yes, because I'm sure they're worried about what we're saying on ATS.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

Yes, because I'm sure they're worried about what we're saying on ATS.

Agreed.

-MM

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation
Models only get you so far.

I've gone pretty far with some models, so I don't know about that.



-MM

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation

Is NASA backpedaling now that we're onto them? That article you are linking was written after this post was made on ATS, are they trying to clean up their previous mess now, or?

-MM

no.. it goes hand in hand with saying protecting the delicate electronics aboard the Orion is a challenge since they are much more sensitive to radiation than the Apollo computers..

these electronics need a guarantee of not failing when in an area of elevated radiation, these electronics are supporting life.

people have been saying this from the start, you just never thought of it.

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation

Is NASA backpedaling now that we're onto them? That article you are linking was written after this post was made on ATS, are they trying to clean up their previous mess now, or?

-MM

no.. it goes hand in hand with saying protecting the delicate electronics aboard the Orion is a challenge since they are much more sensitive to radiation than the Apollo computers..

these electronics need a guarantee of not failing when in an area of elevated radiation, these electronics are supporting life.

people have been saying this from the start, you just never thought of it.

It is you that is not listening; in this thread I've asked here, here, here, here, and here what is so "magical" about the Orion spacecraft computers that requires it to have new "challenges" that "must be solved" before sending people through the Vann Allen Belts, and so far none has come up with a likely answer, instead deniers keep bringing up the Apollo spacecraft computers as a qualified method of comparison - which it is not; rather the Orion's challenges should be compared with recent Moon missions - of which there are several. I highly doubt that the Orion Missions computer is so much more advanced than the 4M's launced this year (or any of the other six Moon missions launched in the last four years) that it is a "challenge" to shield the Orion spacecraft from radiation that the other Moon missions the last few years did not have to solve.

-MM