Why I believe the Moon landings may have been faked

What is the radiation shielding for the Orion spacecraft?

Is it described in any documents?

I would like to see those documents, if they exist..

Any craft built for deep space manned missions would describe the radiation shielding, right?

You say they built an aluminum craft which are designed for manned deep space missions, then you try to twist my argument to fit your bs spin.

Sad.

originally posted by: turbonium1

No, that is NOT what I claimed!!

I said they were not going to build spacecraft with aluminum as shielding for a manned deep space mission...

Got it, yet?

Orion is a planned manned deep space missions spacecraft.. it was designed to ferry astronauts to the vicinity of the moon and possibly mars.

you are arguing that no future manned spacecraft will ever dare to use aluminium because it is unsafe.

and yet Orion exists.

a reply to: turbonium1

Have not heard of Google?

www.engineering.com... px

The final incarnation will be made of Tantalum, Tin, Zirconium, Aluminum, and Polyethylene. The heavy metals will block gamma rays while ions and neutrons are captured by the hydrocarbons of the polyethylene.

Oooh look, Aluminium.

Just as with Apollo, Aluminium is a construction material that happens to provide some radiation protection against some radiation types. Other materials and construction techniques provide other protection.

You are the only person claiming that Apollo was only built out of Aluminium and for the sole purpose of providing radiation protection.

Everyone knows it's a big ball of moldy cheese, sheesh.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: turbonium1

Have not heard of Google?

www.engineering.com... px

The final incarnation will be made of Tantalum, Tin, Zirconium, Aluminum, and Polyethylene. The heavy metals will block gamma rays while ions and neutrons are captured by the hydrocarbons of the polyethylene.

Oooh look, Aluminium.

Just as with Apollo, Aluminium is a construction material that happens to provide some radiation protection against some radiation types. Other materials and construction techniques provide other protection.

You are the only person claiming that Apollo was only built out of Aluminium and for the sole purpose of providing radiation protection.

They built a spacecraft that was planned to send humans into deep space. Why would they not have known the materials to use before they even started to build it? They say it will have different materials for the final version?!?

Keep trying, everyone!!

a reply to: turbonium1

What you can try doing is presenting any evidence, any at all, that tells us at what point we get a dead astronaut on the way to the moon.

Or indeed answers to any of the other repeated questions you've avoided.

a reply to: turbonium1

shifting the goal posts much??

Orion uses aluminum in its construction. You are arguing that any aluminum is forbidden because it is "proven" (with false data I should add, again your claim) to be merely unsafe.

originally posted by: choos
a reply to: turbonium1

shifting the goal posts much??

Orion uses aluminum in its construction. You are arguing that any aluminum is forbidden because it is "proven" (with false data I should add, again your claim) to be merely unsafe.

As usual, you've butchered my actual claims, trying to salvage your hopeless arguments..

You know very well that I never said "any aluminum is forbidden". That's why you said it, not me.

If you can't quote my statements, what does that say about your argument? That you don't even have one..

Again, the experts said aluminum was a poor radiation shield in deep space, and even intensifies it. All I did was quote the experts.

And the experts said no future manned craft going into deep space will use aluminum for shielding a crew from radiation. Again, all I did was quote the experts.

You know very well the experts made these statements, so why would you hide from the experts?

Because the experts don't say aluminum works great in deep space, for short missions, like Apollo's were, instead of saying aluminum makes it worse than before in deep space.

They don't say deep space manned missions can use aluminum shielding for short missions. What would that mean for Apollo missions? They don't mention it. Why would they ignore Apollo? Wouldn't Apollo have 'proven' aluminum works in manned deep space missions, and they would have specifically excluded short missions?

Of course, that's your job, to exclude short missions!!

a reply to: turbonium1

So what you are arguing now is that aluminum can be used but is advised not to?

so Apollo is completely possible even if it used only aluminum, ok cool but you didn't need to waste a year arguing to us that Apollo was completely possible

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: turbonium1

What you can try doing is presenting any evidence, any at all, that tells us at what point we get a dead astronaut on the way to the moon.

Or indeed answers to any of the other repeated questions you've avoided.

You assume astronauts flew to the moon, and want me to prove when they'd be dead going there??

Nobody went to the m8on, nobody went into deep space, so nobody would have died. Do you think data is available showing how they could have lived if they went, even though they didn't??

You need to have a valid question before you start demanding I have the burden of answering it.

You are hardly one who should spew on about avoiding questions!!

Do you want to explain why the experts said aluminum mqkes radiation worse in deep space?

Why do the experts say future manned missions into deep space will not use aluminum shielding?

Why do you Apollo-ites believe the experts have excluded short - as in, all Apollo-length - missions from their above statements?

By saying long missions are a greater concern than short missions, that is their focus.
To try and resolve the problems of long
missions would resolve the lesser problems of
a short mission, obviously.

To say long missions are the greater concern, greater problems, compared to a short mission, does not exclude them.

They would mention any sort of exception to their statements. If they do not indicate any specific mission, as included, or excluded, then it applies to ALL of the missions.

As much as you'd like to put words in their mouths, that is not the reality








missions.

originally posted by: turbonium1
You assume astronauts flew to the moon, and want me to prove when they'd be dead going there??

Nobody went to the m8on, nobody went into deep space, so nobody would have died. Do you think data is available showing how they could have lived if they went, even though they didn't??

You need to have a valid question before you start demanding I have the burden of answering it.

You are the one claiming that the Apollo spacecraft and the radiation environment of space would provide a lethal dose of radiation. So when would it happen? You are also basing your entire premise on them not going and avoiding the evidence that proves they did.

You are hardly one who should spew on about avoiding questions!!

And yet here you are, avoiding a question.

Do you want to explain why the experts said aluminum mqkes radiation worse in deep space?

I know what the radiation issues are from Aluminium. I also know that Aluminium is not the only construction material used in Apollo, that it wasn't intended as the only source of radiation protection, that they used an orbital trajectory designed to minimise exposure to the VAB, that there were no CME events during any of the missions that affected them, that space weather was monitored continually by ESSA and NASA, and the missions themselves were short enough to mean that exposure levels were not likely to reach danger levels.

Why do the experts say future manned missions into deep space will not use aluminum shielding?

Why do you assume that aluminium is being used as the only shield in Apollo? Why do you continually equate the short term missions of Apollo with the long term missions of modern plans? Why do ignore the Aluminium used as a construction material in Orion?

Why do you Apollo-ites believe the experts have excluded short - as in, all Apollo-length - missions from their above statements?

Because Apollo were not long term missions. Why do you ignore the reports that specifically mention Apollo?

By saying long missions are a greater concern than short missions, that is their focus.
To try and resolve the problems of long
missions would resolve the lesser problems of
a short mission, obviously.

To say long missions are the greater concern, greater problems, compared to a short mission, does not exclude them.

They would mention any sort of exception to their statements. If they do not indicate any specific mission, as included, or excluded, then it applies to ALL of the missions.

As much as you'd like to put words in their mouths, that is not the reality








missions.

You're doing a pretty good job of twisting words yourself. Find any report from any scientist that states Apollo didn't happen.

So, again, in all that bluster you avoided answering the question:

With the vast amount of radiation data available to you from 5 decades of data collection by both manned and unmanned missions, please work out for us when the Apollo astronauts would have received their fatal dose. Just after leaving LEO? Halfway there? Orbiting the moon? On the way back? Surely you have a vague idea based on the information at your fingertips?

And some more: What evidence do you have that Apollo's design meant it couldn't get to the moon?

How do you account for the 100% consistency between every satellite photograph taken of Earth and every Apollo still, 16mm and TV image of Earth in terms not just of the weather systems on view, but the angle of the view, the position of the terminator, the landmasses visible, the receiving station, the descriptions given by the astronauts?

How do you account for Apollo imagery, both on the surface and from lunar orbit showing details that could not have been known about in advance? Details that are entirely consistent with images taken by Soviet, Chinese, Japanese and Indian probes as well as later US ones?

How do you account for the evidence of Apollo astronaut activity in photographs taken by the LRO, details confirmed by Indian and Japanese probes?

originally posted by: choos
a reply to: turbonium1

So what you are arguing now is that aluminum can be used but is advised not to?

so Apollo is completely possible even if it used only aluminum, ok cool but you didn't need to waste a year arguing to us that Apollo was completely possible

Aluminum as used in Apollo craft, which is purely aluminum, and is referred to as 'aluminum', and is referred by experts as 'aluminum' which will not beused as a radiation shield for any manned deep space craft, and the same material they refer to which actually intensifies deep space radiation.

What you refer to as 'aluminum' is not what the experts were talking about. You are referring to an alloy, which may include aluminum, but is mixed with other materials and this is reffered to as an alloy

It is not referred to as aluminum.

Nice try, anyhow!

You think that even though Apollo was mostly aluminum, it was not the only thing shielding the radiation in deep space...

Aluminum intensifies deep space radiation. Shields are generally used to block out radiation, so how would you say aluminum helped in shielding Apollo spacecraft?

Well, I guess it didn't really help a whole lot, right?

So when the radiation hit aluminum, it became worse.

But then, the radiation came to a thin layer of fibrous insulation - the true radiation shield of the Apollo spacecraft.

I would like to know all about this fibrous insulation which you claim was a radiation shield.

I'm quite sure you'd like to know al about it, even more!!

Now, the fact Apollo had a thin layer of fibrous insulation does not prove it was an adequate radiation shield.

I don't recall they even said it was their radiation shield, or part of it, though...as it would be mentioned at the time, of course.

No documents on the radiation shield, which I know of...so where are the documents on the radiation
shield?

And the papers I cited say aluminum is no shield for deep space, but never mention this fibrous insulation which makes a great shield.

They would also have no reason to say aluminum would not be a radiation shield for deep space missions, since Apollo didn't use it as a shield, but had fibrous insulation between thin aluminum layers, and that was their shield, in deep space!!

Maybe you should tell the experts about this fibrous insulation which nullifies the crappy aluminum that intensifies the hazard...

a reply to: turbonium1

I was hoping for this rant of yours, you say Apollo spacecraft was using pure aluminum in its construction??

Can you prove this??

If I told you that what you refer to as pure aluminum is classed as, I think, 4000 series aluminum.
And the aluminium used in the Apollo spacecraft was actually 7075, which is a high grade aluminum alloy.

So in actuality, what you refer to as the "aluminum" used in Apollo missions and the aluminum that you believe is very bad because you think it is pure aluminum is wrong.

But feel free to prove Apollo used pure aluminum

originally posted by: turbonium1
You think that even though Apollo was mostly aluminum, it was not the only thing shielding the radiation in deep space...

Where did I say it was mostly aluminium?

Aluminum intensifies deep space radiation. Shields are generally used to block out radiation, so how would you say aluminum helped in shielding Apollo spacecraft?

Define 'deep space radiation'? You do know there are different types right?

Well, I guess it didn't really help a whole lot, right?

"Guessing" is all you seem to be doing.

So when the radiation hit aluminum, it became worse.

Quantify it.

But then, the radiation came to a thin layer of fibrous insulation - the true radiation shield of the Apollo spacecraft.

'Thin layer of fibrous insulation'? Really? Let's see you put some numbers and facts to that. I'll not hold my breath.

I would like to know all about this fibrous insulation which you claim was a radiation shield.

I'm quite sure you'd like to know al about it, even more!!

Now, the fact Apollo had a thin layer of fibrous insulation does not prove it was an adequate radiation shield.

Again with the 'thin' and 'fibrous' - numbers, facts, actual figures, because I don't think 'fibrous' means what you think it does.

I don't recall they even said it was their radiation shield, or part of it, though...as it would be mentioned at the time, of course.

No documents on the radiation shield, which I know of...so where are the documents on the radiation
shield?

Just because you don't know about them, doesn't mean they don't exist.

And the papers I cited say aluminum is no shield for deep space, but never mention this fibrous insulation which makes a great shield.

For long term missions.

They would also have no reason to say aluminum would not be a radiation shield for deep space missions, since Apollo didn't use it as a shield, but had fibrous insulation between thin aluminum layers, and that was their shield, in deep space!!

Maybe you should tell the experts about this fibrous insulation which nullifies the crappy aluminum that intensifies the hazard...

Maybe you should answer the questions asked...

originally posted by: choos
a reply to: turbonium1

If I told you that what you refer to as pure aluminum is classed as, I think, 4000 series aluminum.

correction, near pure aluminium is the 1000 series.

originally posted by: choos
a reply to: turbonium1

I was hoping for this rant of yours, you say Apollo spacecraft was using pure aluminum in its construction??

Can you prove this??

If I told you that what you refer to as pure aluminum is classed as, I think, 4000 series aluminum.
And the aluminium used in the Apollo spacecraft was actually 7075, which is a high grade aluminum alloy.

So in actuality, what you refer to as the "aluminum" used in Apollo missions and the aluminum that you believe is very bad because you think it is pure aluminum is wrong.

But feel free to prove Apollo used pure aluminum

What do they refer to as aluminum, then?

They say aluminum intensifies radiation in deep space, and won't be used to shield humans in any future missions in deep space.

You said it was aluminum, but it had other materials to shield humans in deep space, like fibrous insulation...

Now, you say it was not aluminum, at all, it was an alloy of aluminum...

Where do they claim Apollo was not aluminum, but an alloy which is part aluminum, with other
materials?

You make claims that never have supporting evidence, and this is just one more example...

As usual..

a reply to: turbonium1

In the documentation that describes its construction, Aluminium was only one material used. You've been told this and provided with links to back it up. Read the thread.

originally posted by: turbonium1

What do they refer to as aluminum, then?

according to you, the articles are referring to pure aluminium.

unfortunately for you, Apollo was using an aluminium alloy.

and also according to you, since its an alloy, its completely different therefore your argument is wrong.

They say aluminum intensifies radiation in deep space, and won't be used to shield humans in any future missions in deep space.

yes and you are claiming that it is in reference to pure aluminium, the aluminium used in apollo was an alloy. and you have also claimed that since its an alloy its different.

You said it was aluminum, but it had other materials to shield humans in deep space, like fibrous insulation...

not just fibrous insulation, there was also the outer hull made from stainless steel, the heat shield, the entire service module, all the contents of the service module, the lunar module and its propellants, all onboard equipment, clothing, spacesuits, even the air inside the cabin will act as a shield to a certain extent.

Now, you say it was not aluminum, at all, it was an alloy of aluminum...

you are the one claiming it was pure aluminium, i was correcting you, you are the one claiming the papers are referring to pure aluminium also.

Where do they claim Apollo was not aluminum, but an alloy which is part aluminum, with other materials?

Command Module
The CM was a conical pressure vessel with a maximum diameter of 3.9 m at its base and a height of 3.65 m. It was made of an aluminum honeycomb sandwhich bonded between sheet aluminum alloy.
nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...

your turn, where do they claim pure aluminium was used??

You make claims that never have supporting evidence, and this is just one more example...

As usual..

I eagerly await your supporting evidence that they used pure aluminum.

The document didn't refer to aluminum as pure, and I told you this was the aluminum I cited..

They would know if Apollo was built of aluminum, in whatever form, or forms, used...

Whatever formed the Apollo craft, it worked superbly...or so you claim...


You claim Apollo used an alloy of aluminum, not pure aluminum.

The paper is referring to aluminum, in pure form...they don't say it is pure, you just assume it is, anyway..

Apparently, they are saying aluminum intensifies radiation in deep space, and saying that aluminum won't be used to shield humans in deep space, while completely ignoring the 'fact' we used aluminum as an alloy, not pure aluminum, nor as a radiation shield!!

Good one!!