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

originally posted by: ChaosComplex

originally posted by: JustMike
So, I don't know why you referenced the thickness of a pressure vessel within the SM (where the astronauts never were) in order to support your assertion that the shielding of the CM spacecraft was inadequate.

Yes you do, we all know why simple things are misrepresented and twisted to fit ridiculous claims. It's difficult to fabricate your own reality based on real facts, that wouldn't be very fun now would it?

The aluminum skin around the honeycomb in the crew compartments where even thinner, see my reply.

-MM

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation
It's been explained repeatedly to you. Notice where they're planning on going? MARS. That requires a different trajectory than the moon.

Do you have any scientific sources that states going to Mars requires a different trajectory through the Vann Allen radiation Belts than going to the Moon? Or is this just conjecture on your part?

-MM

originally posted by: Bilk22
Oh and just how did they "use low exposure"? What does that even mean? (I assume you want us to believe they just zipped past the VAs at hyper speed)

No, it means that you don't understand the VAB.

After you look into it, you will see that there are ways to go beyond the VAB with minimal exposure (hint: the VAB doesn't cover the entire circumfrence of the Earth uniformly)...is circumfrence even the correct word when describing a sphere?

originally posted by: WanderingSage
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

Is it possible that 40-50 years ago they just didn't know about the radiation. I mean the astronauts could have gotten lucky and didn't get to messed up from it. I myself was exposed to gamma radiation and I'm fine. Not saying that this is what I think the case is, but it IS possible.

how were you exposed to gamma radiation?

a reply to: Bilk22

Polyethylene is radiation shielding? Really? You want to go with that?

30 seconds of research could have prevented this most recent flare-up of Foot in Mouth syndrome

Polyethylene is a good shielding material because it has high hydrogen content, and hydrogen atoms are good at absorbing and dispersing radiation. In fact, researchers have been studying the use of polyethylene as a shielding material for some time. One of several novel material developments that the team is testing is reinforced polyethylene. Raj Kaul, a scientist in the Marshall Center's Engineering Directorate, previously has worked with this material on protective armor for helicopters.

"Since it is a ballistic shield, it also deflects micrometeorites," Kaul says. "Since it's a fabric, it can be draped around molds and shaped into specific spacecraft components."

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

It's the difference between a trip of a few hundred thousand miles, and trip of several million miles to a totally different orbit. It's going to depend on when they launch, that will determine the trajectory that they use. Space trips are not one size fits all.

Here's the report from the Indian probe that's on the way to Mars now.

The probe repeatedly passed through Earth's Van Allen radiation belts. Indian officials mitigated the threat by beefing up the craft's computers with radiation shielding.

spaceflightnow.com...-So

Mars Orbiter.

It passed through the dangerous Van Allen belt, which has radiation that can damage electronic systems, and came out unscathed.

articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com...

They would make several passes around Earth, using the gravity to slingshot them towards Mars, to help conserve fuel, and keep fuel weight down.

a reply to: Bilk22

Lighter materials make outstanding shielding material in space due to the high energy of the particles. If you use dense materials like lead, you get more bremsstrahlung, which results in more radiation in the capsule. Lighter materials that aren't as dense have much less secondary radiation, since there are fewer particles in the material to be hit by the incoming particles.

a reply to: Zaphod58

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

It's the difference between a trip of a few hundred thousand miles, and trip of several million miles to a totally different orbit. It's going to depend on when they launch, that will determine the trajectory that they use. Space trips are not one size fits all.

Interesting stuff, but remember that the NASA Engineer in my OP video explicitly says that the spacecraft will go through the Vann Allen Belts twize and not multiple times as the spacecrafts in your links did:

Naturally, we have to pass through this danger zone twice, once up and once back.

-NASA Engineer

-MM

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

That's because they will be much larger than a probe, which means they can carry more fuel. The basic trajectory will still be the same regardless, and will still require a trip through the thicker portions of the Belts, where electronics and astronauts can both suffer damage without proper shielding.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

That's because they will be much larger than a probe, which means they can carry more fuel. The basic trajectory will still be the same regardless, and will still require a trip through the thicker portions of the Belts, where electronics and astronauts can both suffer damage without proper shielding.

Do you have a scientific source for that claim? Your weight theory makes no sense to me as the heaviest payload to the Moon in the Apollo where much heavier than the Orion's.

-MM

Slightly related to the topic at hand, for those of you interested in space exploration and even the development/testing of new rocket designs etc...oh and you need some spare time to burn.

Kerbal Space Program

This game let's you build your own space program from the ground up. You can play a few different ways, including starting with a basic fuel tank, rocket engine, and capsule to work your way to having satellites orbiting the other planets in the solar system...even building a space station!

When you build a rocket, you have full control of the staging, once in orbit (or at anytime really) you can tell your crew members to do experiments from within the vehicle, exit the vehicle and do experiments...all kinds of things...and each time you can get different results depending on what planet you're orbiting, whether you're under acceleration, way too many factors to list here.

The game can be time consuming, it can be slow paced and frustrating, but it does give a realistic experience and I recommend it to anyone interested in a pretty cool simulator. Of course there is a good helping of dry humor in the game to keep you interested...

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

Larger than a probe. What the hell does Apollo have to do with Orion being larger than a probe, or able to carry more fuel than a probe. I didn't think it was THAT hard to understand.

The Mars Orbiter Mission, launched by India weighs less than 3,000 lbs fully fueled with all the components attached. It weighs a little over 1,000 lbs with no fuel on board. The Orion capsule weighs over 21,000 lbs at liftoff, and the service module weighs over 27,000 lbs at liftoff.

That sure seems to make sense to me that it can carry a lot more fuel than a probe.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

Larger than a probe. So now you're saying that Orion is a probe, not a manned craft?

The Mars Orbiter Mission, launched by India weighs less than 3,000 lbs fully fueled with all the components attached. It weighs a little over 1,000 lbs with no fuel on board. The Orion capsule weighs over 21,000 lbs at liftoff, and the service module weighs over 27,000 lbs at liftoff.

That sure seems to make sense to me that it can carry a lot more fuel than a probe.

Even so, do you have any science source to back up your claim that the Orion must take a different trajectory than the Apollo Mission spacecrafts that forces it through the worse part of the Vann Allen Belts with the higher radiation?

-MM

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

The radiation belts are of varieing intensity and density, solar activity can increase the amount of radiation but rapid transit through these regions limit's exposure, I do feel they did go to the moon though they covered up finding remains and ruin's up there of that I am certain and I also believe they sent more missions of a military nature up there for asset retrieval once they found those remains', something up there scared the men in power and they knew just how fragile and little we for those they sent there found themselves in the shadow of the past, the remains of a technology thousand's of years ahead of ours.

If they had stages these shot's at area 51 (though I do believe they had a stand by set and some of the footage was made there with a switch between feed's when necessary) then they would have made certain the set was pristine and marking such as the rumored set piece markings would not have been overlooked, then neither would this.
files.abovetopsecret.com...
Blow up and highlighted from this
files.abovetopsecret.com...

Or this
files.abovetopsecret.com...
From this
files.abovetopsecret.com...

Or this
files.abovetopsecret.com...
Astronaut in the foreground
files.abovetopsecret.com...

There is simply so much up there they would not have put in there faked photos as it would have caused too much of a headache for them.

All around the world there are legend's of a golden age in which man was caste from the heaven's by the god's.
Does that mean there was a war, possibly a war of resources in our own solar system in which humanity lost badly.
Did this scare the hell out of the policy maker's and did the astronaut's encounter some presence still on our moon.
ronrecord.com...

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

Once again, it will depend on when they launch what the best trajectory is going to be. There may be some that don't have to go through the thicker portions of the Belts, but those might be when Mars is farther away, so you don't want to use them. There is no "set" trajectory to anywhere, it's all dependent on when you launch the mission, and how far away the target is.

But again, Orion is also going to be used to go for an asteroid landing, which means that they may have to go through any trajectory to get to it. So they're making a one capsule for all uses system, instead of different capsules for different missions. Apollo was only good for LEO, and moon landings. Orion is going to be designed to go for several different missions to keep costs down.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

Once again, it will depend on when they launch what the best trajectory is going to be. There may be some that don't have to go through the thicker portions of the Belts, but those might be when Mars is farther away, so you don't want to use them. There is no "set" trajectory to anywhere, it's all dependent on when you launch the mission, and how far away the target is.

But again, Orion is also going to be used to go for an asteroid landing, which means that they may have to go through any trajectory to get to it. So they're making a one capsule for all uses system, instead of different capsules for different missions. Apollo was only good for LEO, and moon landings. Orion is going to be designed to go for several different missions to keep costs down.

So, you are now saying that the Orion could chose a trajectory through the Vann Allen Belts that has the least amount of radiation, and that your previous argument where you claimed the Orion spacecraft had to cope with more radiation because of its trajectory is not true in all cases?

-MM

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

No. I'm saying what I've always said. If Mars at its closest approach requires them to go through the thicker parts of the Belts, then they'll go through the thickest part of them. It all depends on orbital mechanics. Orbits aren't perfectly flat, as some people think. So sometimes they'll have to go through the thicker parts of the Belt to get there, and other times they won't have to. So you build your capsule to go through the thicker parts of the belt.

Even if it doesn't have to go through the thicker part of the Belts, it still has to deal with much more radiation than Apollo did. Apollo missions lasted a little over a week. Mars missions will be more like a year.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

Larger than a probe. What the hell does Apollo have to do with Orion being larger than a probe, or able to carry more fuel than a probe. I didn't think it was THAT hard to understand.

It seems everyone is dumber than you are, even NASA Engineers that build the next manned missions are so dumb that they cannot understand that the Vann Allen Belts pose no problem to spacecrafts.

-MM

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

Show me where I've even once hinted at that. Just because you chose to not read what I said the first time, doesn't mean that I think I'm smarter than everyone else.

I've never once said that the Belts aren't a problem for space craft. In fact I've said the OPPOSITE thank you. The Belts are a big problem for space craft, to the point that some satellites have to be switched off to go through them safely. Show me where I've even once said it's not a problem.