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

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: FoosM

The outer shell, honeycomb, fuel, water, and onboard equipment all provided some shielding.

And some shielding is not radiation shielding.
It basically means no shielding for radiation.
Your skin is some shielding for a bullet too.

a reply to: FoosM

My skin is also some shielding against radiation. Not all radiation is the same, and some can me stopped by a few sheets of paper.

a reply to: FoosM

Because some radiation still gets through.

a reply to: FoosM

Then why do humans get exposed going through the VABs like at the SAA in any of the spacecraft?

For the same reason you get exposed to radiation just standing around outside.

a reply to: FoosM

College rule paper is a radiation shielding...

Sure it's not a good one, but it still offers a tiny fraction of shielding. Aluminum foil (the cooking kind) offers quite a bit of radiation shielding. Gold foil even more...

You don't need to be 100% protected from radiation in space...just enough to survive a few days.

originally posted by: FoosM

originally posted by: choos

are you willing to admit that the Apollo command modules hull would have stopped/attenuated most of the particles?? i cant explain it to you if you ignore this fact.

its like trying to explain to you why the sky is blue when you dont believe in refraction..

Are you willing to admit that Apollo had no special shielding for radiation?

well... yes.. aluminium is not special shielding for radiation its not perfect, but it does the job well enough.. but this is not really admitting, since its well known that aluminium is not special shielding for radiation, it just happens to be good enough..

so are you willing to admit that the aluminium hull of the command module would have stopped/attenuated most of the particles??

originally posted by: FoosM

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: FoosM

The outer shell, honeycomb, fuel, water, and onboard equipment all provided some shielding.

And some shielding is not radiation shielding.
It basically means no shielding for radiation.
Your skin is some shielding for a bullet too.

some shielding does not mean NO shielding..

the oxygen inside the command module also provided some shielding.. are you claiming that air does not provide any shielding what-so-ever against particle radiation??

a little bit of skin doesnt stop a bullet, but it will slow it down a bit..

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: FoosM

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: FoosM

The outer shell, honeycomb, fuel, water, and onboard equipment all provided some shielding.

And some shielding is not radiation shielding.
It basically means no shielding for radiation.
Your skin is some shielding for a bullet too.

some shielding does not mean NO shielding..

the oxygen inside the command module also provided some shielding.. are you claiming that air does not provide any shielding what-so-ever against particle radiation??

a little bit of skin doesnt stop a bullet, but it will slow it down a bit..

Funny skin shields some types of particle radiation as well. Some particles can't pass through the skin. People don't understand but particle radiation can be stopped in fact best insulation is glass. Which by the way alot of fiber glass resin was used in Apolo. It's a great insulator. Slap it between an inner and outer hull like they did in apollo.

Well it took long enough for people to finally admit that Apollo
had no special shielding for going through the VABs and further out into space.
Everything hinged on "just in time" or "fast enough" to keep those doses within
LEO territory levels, or SAA exposure levels.

But that if that is NASA's scientific explanation, its a bullcrap explanation.

Apollo was just moon landing fantasy for the public and a step to Skylab for the space
program; where the US was woefully behind the USSR.


Here is a post showing the goal-post moving NASA have been doing:

I was at Wikipedia reading the Van Allen Belt theory. The proof the astronauts survived was because some developed Cataracts. That seemed strange and by that logic my mother / my father in law and my sister could all say theyl been to the moon as they all developed cataracts at a young age.


So I started viewing the history and here it is.

How the Moon Landing Van Allen Belts Shill Story Progressed

The Conspiracy Argument
The radiation from passing through the van Allen radiation belt is fatal.

Initially we had sophisticated Space suits. This is the official statement originally provided by NASA to Russia when they asked.

By December 2002 the astronauts were protected by the metal hull of the space ship and the moon is a long way from the radiation belts.

In December 2003 We relised they actually had to fly through the belts so they decided the time to get through the belts was only 30 minutes

In December 2004 everyone had overstated the radiation affects.

By December 2005 We lost the sophisticated space suit theory. Maybe someone tested them. So they decided the radiation levels only equaled a chest xray and some astronauts had developed cataracts proving they had been to the moon.

Now in 2006 They were navigating the ship on a safe course around the belts going through the thinnest parts but we still don't know how they measured that path yet. The radiation levels are now equivalent to living at Sea level ?? for 3 years.

December 2007 not much happend to improve the theory we were better at navigating and still had sophisticated space suits.

In December 2008 An amazing thing happened The Hulls are now made of Aluminum so they were lite weight and radiation proof and the now once again deadly radiation is now shielded by thin aluminum.

December 2009 some smart person did the math it wasn't 30 minutes but 4 hours to pass through the belts. Not sure if this one way or 2 hours there and 2 hours back. Now armed with the new Aluminum hulls they traversed the radiation was kept at bay via the special secret low radiation path in 4 Hours (I guess NASA new that it was not 30 minutes all along since they created the special secret path through). We were no longer getting a chest XRAY or living at Sea level we were now working in a nuclear energy industry for a year (not sure where perhaps inside a fusion reactor )

December 2010 to Today Apart from minor tweaks they are proud of their aluminum shielding idea, losing the space suits and taking 4 hours navigating around the safest path to only get the exposure of working in a nuclear power plant for a year with side affects of cataracts.

lunaticoutpost.com...

Here are the references:

References


November 2002
en.wikipedia.org...

Rebuttal: none

December 2002
en.wikipedia.org...
Rebuttal: The moon is well beyond the van Allen radiation belts and the astronauts were protected by very sophisticated spacesuits. The spacecraft did move through the belts but the astronauts were protected from the ionizing radiation by the metal hulls of the spacecraft. Ionizing radiation is easily stopped by thin sheets of metal.


December 2003
en.wikipedia.org...
The Moon is ten times higher than the van Allen radiation belts, and the astronauts were protected by very sophisticated spacesuits. The spacecraft moved through the belts in just 30 minutes, and the astronauts were protected from the ionizing radiation by the metal hulls of the spacecraft.

December 2004
en.wikipedia.org...
The Moon is ten times higher than the van Allen radiation belts, and the astronauts were protected by very sophisticated spacesuits. The spacecraft moved through the belts in just 30 minutes, and the astronauts were protected from the ionizing radiation by the metal hulls of the spacecraft. Dr. James Van Allen, the discoverer of the Van Allen radiation belts, has even rebuked the claims that radiation levels were too dangerous for the Apollo missions.
The landing skeptics consistently overstate the radiation hazard and side effects and ignore actual measured effects of the radiation.

December 2010

en.wikipedia.org...

The spacecraft moved through the belts in about four hours, and the astronauts were protected from the ionizing radiation by the aluminium hulls of the spacecraft. In addition, the orbital transfer trajectory from the Earth to the Moon through the belts was selected to minimize radiation exposure. Even Dr. James Van Allen, the discoverer of the Van Allen radiation belts, rebutted the claims that radiation levels were too dangerous for the Apollo missions.[109] Plait cited an average dose of less than 1 rem (10 mSv), which is equivalent to the ambient radiation received by living at sea level for three years.[110] The spacecraft passed through the intense inner belt and the low-energy outer belt. The astronauts were mostly shielded from the radiation by the spacecraft. The total radiation received on the trip was about the same as allowed for workers in the nuclear energy field for a year.[111]

The radiation is actually evidence that the astronauts went to the Moon. Irene Schneider reports that thirty-three of the thirty-six Apollo astronauts involved in the nine Apollo missions to leave Earth orbit have developed early stage cataracts that have been shown to be caused by radiation exposure to cosmic rays during their trip.[112] However, only twenty-seven astronauts left Earth orbit. At least thirty-nine former astronauts have developed cataracts. Thirty-six of those were involved in high-radiation missions such as the Apollo lunar missions.[113]

So based on the radiation exposure Gemini, Skylab, the Shuttle Missions, ISS, etc all went to the moon too!

a reply to: FoosM

Nothing has changed but the strategies used to make the explanations comprehensible to the scientifically illiterate.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: FoosM

Nothing has changed but the strategies used to make the explanations comprehensible to the scientifically illiterate.

Oh, I see. So 30 minutes is another way of saying 4 hours. Gotcha.

It is a strange thing is that the astronaut's footprint sink like 10 inches into the soil, while the 4,000 pound (2 ton) the lunar lander has not sank into the soil at all. As the astronaout probably weighed about 22 pounds (100 kg) with equipment one would expect the lunder lander to have sunk considerably deeper into the soil.

First footprint on the moon



-MM

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

The regolith of the moon was said to be powdery and fine to a depth of a couple of inches, with harder and more packed regolith beneath that. The descent engine of the LM cleared away most of the top layer of powdery loose material to expose the denser dust under, as can be seen in this image under the engine bell (and the ray pattern of the thruster-blown dust), so much of the dust where the landing pads touched down was cleared away:

Click Here for source image (larger).

The astronauts would have walked in the undisturbed areas, but as you indicated, they were not as heavy.


By the way, Russia's Luna 17 (which carried the Lunokhod 1 Rover) weighed about 2000 pounds on the moon, yet it's landing pads did not sink too deeply, either. Here is an image of Luna 17 taken by the Lunokhod 1 Rover:



Source:
lunarnetworks.blogspot.com...

originally posted by: Box of Rain
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

The regolith of the moon was said to be powdery and fine to a depth of a couple of inches, with harder and more packed regolith beneath that. The descent engine of the LM cleared away most of the top layer of powdery loose material to expose the denser dust under, as can be seen in this image under the engine bell (and the ray pattern of the thruster-blown dust), so much of the dust where the landing pads touched down was cleared away:

Click Here for source image (larger).

The astronauts would have walked in the undisturbed areas, but as you indicated, they were not as heavy.


By the way, Russia's Luna 17 (which carried the Lunokhod 1 Rover) weighed about 2000 pounds on the moon, yet it's landing pads did not sink too deeply, either. Here is an image of Luna 17 taken by the Lunokhod 1 Rover:

Source:
lunarnetworks.blogspot.com...

Even at 1/6 of the earths gravity one would expect a deeper crater from sheer blasting power the lunar lander rocket engine, and why is there no blast sand on top of the landing gear?

-MM

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation

originally posted by: Box of Rain
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

The regolith of the moon was said to be powdery and fine to a depth of a couple of inches, with harder and more packed regolith beneath that. The descent engine of the LM cleared away most of the top layer of powdery loose material to expose the denser dust under, as can be seen in this image under the engine bell (and the ray pattern of the thruster-blown dust), so much of the dust where the landing pads touched down was cleared away:

Click Here for source image (larger).

The astronauts would have walked in the undisturbed areas, but as you indicated, they were not as heavy.


By the way, Russia's Luna 17 (which carried the Lunokhod 1 Rover) weighed about 2000 pounds on the moon, yet it's landing pads did not sink too deeply, either. Here is an image of Luna 17 taken by the Lunokhod 1 Rover:

Source:
lunarnetworks.blogspot.com...

Even at 1/6 of the earths gravity one would expect a deeper crater from sheer blasting power the lunar lander rocket engine, and why is there no blast sand on top of the landing gear?

-MM

If the surface under the powder on top is harder-packed, then why would you necessarily expect there to be a crater?

The LM descent engine was fully throttelable. It was throttled down to only about 1000 lbs of force as the LM got closer to the surface. Also, the LM had contact probes sticking down under each landing pad that were 5 feet long. When one of these 5-foot long rods contacted the lunar surface, a contact light came on in the LM, telling the astronauts to shut down the engine. Therefore, not only was the engine was throttled-down as they neared the surface, it was also shut down while the LM was still about 4 feet off the surface. This created less dust kick-up onto the LM itself, and less of a chance of blasting the harder sub-surface material.

This contact probe/engine shutdown procedure is why there is little to no dust on the landing pads. The engines were cut while the pads were still 4+ feet above the surface, so there was little dust that would be at a level above the pads in order to fall on top of them.

By the way, this is also good evidence for this landing being in vacuum conditions. On Earth with an atmosphere (such as in a studio), you would expect the dust to remain suspended in the air for a while, creating a cloud. So, if this was done on earth, the air-suspended dust would in fact hang there long enough to be able to fall upon the landing pad. However, there is no atmosphere on the Moon, so there is no air in which the dust could remain suspended. There would be no dust cloud - only dust that would be blown along a parabolic path, falling back to the surface along that parabolic path. Granted, the dust would fall at 1.62 m/sec/sec, but that is still much faster than powdery dust on Earth falls, which can stay suspended in the air for a minute or more.

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

Even at 1/6 of the earths gravity one would expect a deeper crater from sheer blasting power the lunar lander rocket engine, and why is there no blast sand on top of the landing gear?

Reality is not always what you expect, is it? The lunar soil was displaced radially because there was no atmosphere to cause it to billow.

originally posted by: Box of Rain

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation

originally posted by: Box of Rain
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

The regolith of the moon was said to be powdery and fine to a depth of a couple of inches, with harder and more packed regolith beneath that. The descent engine of the LM cleared away most of the top layer of powdery loose material to expose the denser dust under, as can be seen in this image under the engine bell (and the ray pattern of the thruster-blown dust), so much of the dust where the landing pads touched down was cleared away:

Click Here for source image (larger).

The astronauts would have walked in the undisturbed areas, but as you indicated, they were not as heavy.


By the way, Russia's Luna 17 (which carried the Lunokhod 1 Rover) weighed about 2000 pounds on the moon, yet it's landing pads did not sink too deeply, either. Here is an image of Luna 17 taken by the Lunokhod 1 Rover:

Source:
lunarnetworks.blogspot.com...

Even at 1/6 of the earths gravity one would expect a deeper crater from sheer blasting power the lunar lander rocket engine, and why is there no blast sand on top of the landing gear?

-MM

If the surface under the powder on top is harder-packed, then why would you necessarily expect there to be a crater?

The LM descent engine was fully throttelable. It was throttled down to only about 1000 lbs of force as the LM got closer to the surface. Also, the LM had contact probes sticking down under each landing pad that were 5 feet long. When one of these 5-foot long rods contacted the lunar surface, a contact light came on in the LM, telling the astronauts to shut down the engine. Therefore, not only was the engine was throttled-down as they neared the surface, it was also shut down while the LM was still about 4 feet off the surface. This created less dust kick-up onto the LM itself, and less of a chance of blasting the harder sub-surface material.

This contact probe/engine shutdown procedure is why there is little to no dust on the landing pads. The engines were cut while the pads were still 4+ feet above the surface, so there was little dust that would be at a level above the pads in order to fall on top of them.

By the way, this is also good evidence for this landing being in vacuum conditions. On Earth with an atmosphere (such as in a studio), you would expect the dust to remain suspended in the air for a while, creating a cloud. So, if this was done on earth, the air-suspended dust would in fact hang there long enough to be able to fall upon the landing pad. However, there is no atmosphere on the Moon, so there is no air in which the dust could remain suspended. There would be no dust cloud - only dust that would be blown along a parabolic path, falling back to the surface along that parabolic path. Granted, the dust would fall at 1.62 m/sec/sec, but that is still much faster than powdery dust on Earth falls, which can stay suspended in the air for a minute or more.

Video evidence, and transcripts from the astronauts contradict your assertions

a reply to: FoosM

Care to link that?