Why I believe the Moon landings may have been faked

a reply to: TerryDon79

Plus, aluminum in spacecraft is not used for shielding -- it is used as a lightweight and relatively durable outer skin.

For Apollo, no material was added for the sole purpose of specifically providing radiation shielding, but the fibrous insulation provided between the inner and outer hulls provided the secondary benefit of being adequate shielding for the short duration of the Apollo missions. That same insulation would not be good enough for longer-duration missions (month or months long flights outside the Earth's magnetic fields).

For the space station (ISS), aluminum is again used on the skin because it is lightweight and tough. Just like Apollo, aluminum was NOT added specifically for radiation protection. The space station instead uses polyethylene plastic panels and sheets, which provide a high level of protection per unit thickness.

Also, the type of radiation ISS shields against is different than what Apollo encountered. Apollo encountered higher levels of cosmic radiation that the ISS does not encounter, because the ISS is within Earth's magnetic shield, which provides some protection. Then again, Apollo astronauts only spent a week or two in space, while astronauts on the ISS spend many months at a time, so those polyethylene panels on the ISS needs to be an effective radiation shield.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Yep. I also remember reading that the astronauts did suffer from mild radiation sickness.

originally posted by: turbonium1

You made up a fantasy-story, as usual...

Nobody mentions Apollo data, let alone make up lame excuses for not using it...

You are thinking up any excuse, of your own invention, like you have done here...

so you think that a long term mission will contain two passes through the VAB every two weeks or so??

so if they were planning a trip to mars, you think that using a two week mission to the moon (which includes traversing the VAB twice) as the basis to extrapolate the expected radiation that would be received for a trip to mars??

basically what you are telling me is that assuming a trip to mars would take 6 months, the missions planners plan to put them on a course to mars for one week then have them return to LEO, then send them on their way to mars again for one week and have them return, so on and so on until they reach mars?????

The Apollo-ites want an excuse for these studies not including Apollo's data, when it should have been the very BASE point of the research papers.. not treated as so much trash, like it is...

for a short two week mission Apollo data would be useful.. but for anything more than a month or two it gradually becomes less and less relevant.

These papers are saying over and over that aluminum cannot shield humans against radiation within the deep space environment. And, we must try and find something which DOES shield humans in deep space...

THAT is what these papers are really about, quite clearly.

yea it also says that the reason they are seen as not suitable for deep space missions is because in order to keep accumulated dosage BELOW THE ANNUAL LEO limits they require an amount of aluminium that is seen as unacceptable.

what you fail to understand is that staying BELOW that limit IS ACCEPTABLE.. and when you realise how long Apollo stayed in deep space you would maybe realise that they would be no where near the annual limitations let alone the career limitations.

Despite the fact they state aluminum won't shield humans against radiation in deep space, and no manned spacecraft will be built of aluminum for deep space missions, at all, in future - it must exclude short-term missions, like Apollo's, even though nothing is ever said, or even implied, to that effect.

the short term missions are irrelevant for these studies.. short term missions allows astronauts to experience HIGHER radiation dosage than a long term mission.

You think because they refer to long-term missions, they exclude short-term missions, without ever saying it, since you 'know' it was meant that way, of course!


You see nothing of the reality.

no im saying short-term missions are irrelevant for these studies.. you are the one saying it MUST be for ALL MISSIONS because they said hazardous..

you know what else is hazardous??

Grand Central Station.. if grand central station was a nuclear plant it would be shut down due to the high levels of radiation.

now a paper would come out and say grand central station (if it was a nuclear plant) should be shut down because of the hazardous levels of radiation that are posed to the workers..

and you would claim that grand central station (railway station) should be permanently shut down because it is hazardous to commuters who pass through the station once a year..

a reply to: leastofthese

Was there a point to that statement?

Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) confirms the added hazard of aluminium shielding

MIT’s Ali Rahimi and several colleagues found that aluminum magnifies, rather than blocks

a reply to: Misinformation

trollololololol

and the full quote

MIT’s Ali Rahimi (at right) and several colleagues found that the foil magnifies, rather than blocks, radio waves, specifically at government-controlled frequencies — oops.

sorry buddy you are off topic.

a reply to: choos

Makes his hat less useful.

originally posted by: Misinformation
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) confirms the added hazard of aluminium shielding

MIT’s Ali Rahimi and several colleagues found that aluminum magnifies, rather than blocks

But the aluminum on the Apollo spacecraft was not used for shielding.

a reply to: choos

Anyone old enough to have used rabbit ears knows that, I'm surprised it took this long for an actual study to confirm it.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: turbonium1

Do you actually read what you post or the articles you link to?

I mean deep space and LEO are 2 completely different things for a start.

Deep space and where the Apollo missions went are different.

You're pulling arguments out of thin air. You take an article saying that aluminium isn't good in deep space and equate it to the moon landings? Bravo. Keep up the great work
/sarcasm

I agree with you, the Apollo missions were different, and did not go into deep space!

Deep space is anywhere beyond LEO, and the moon is beyond LEO, as we know...


So Apollo spacecraft would not have worked in deep space missions, like I said....

originally posted by: turbonium1

I agree with you, the Apollo missions were different, and did not go into deep space!

Deep space is anywhere beyond LEO, and the moon is beyond LEO, as we know...


So Apollo spacecraft would not have worked in deep space missions, like I said....

and still continue to fail to understand that 2 weeks exposed to GCR's has minimal effects.. you dont need a shield to specifically protect against that for that short amount of time..

its hazardous to live in chernobyl, but you can still go through it without any protection. do you get it?? its called exposure time!!

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
a reply to: TerryDon79

Plus, aluminum in spacecraft is not used for shielding -- it is used as a lightweight and relatively durable outer skin.

For Apollo, no material was added for the sole purpose of specifically providing radiation shielding, but the fibrous insulation provided between the inner and outer hulls provided the secondary benefit of being adequate shielding for the short duration of the Apollo missions. That same insulation would not be good enough for longer-duration missions (month or months long flights outside the Earth's magnetic fields).

For the space station (ISS), aluminum is again used on the skin because it is lightweight and tough. Just like Apollo, aluminum was NOT added specifically for radiation protection. The space station instead uses polyethylene plastic panels and sheets, which provide a high level of protection per unit thickness.

Also, the type of radiation ISS shields against is different than what Apollo encountered. Apollo encountered higher levels of cosmic radiation that the ISS does not encounter, because the ISS is within Earth's magnetic shield, which provides some protection. Then again, Apollo astronauts only spent a week or two in space, while astronauts on the ISS spend many months at a time, so those polyethylene panels on the ISS needs to be an effective radiation shield.

The documents say that aluminum WAS always used for radiation shielding, though!

No other material was ever claimed for shielding space radiation in Apollo spacecraft, first of all...

You know about some type of radiation shielding, which is not actually mentioned in any of their documents.

But what, if anything, was ever said about Apollo's radiation shielding, for that matter?


Your argument is hopeless, really...

You claim something, and say it over and over again, aware of not being truth, but saying it is...


As saying Apollo had radiation shielding for deep space missions, with no documents to support the claim, or anything else....


Your claim has nothing to support it. No problem, just by claiming it over and over again, your Apollo-ites follow that exact same claim as one universal viewpoint, and repeat it over and over, like you do...

This is not an 'answer' to the problem, you are just repeating the same old feeble excuse, which many others have tried, and failed, so many times before you...

a reply to: turbonium1

Find any Apollo documentation that specifically states that aluminium was used purely as a radiation shield.

Find any Apollo documentation that specifically states that only aluminium was used as a radiation shield.

Find any documentation anywhere that shows Apollo astronauts received a fatal dose of radiation.

Oh, and deep space is anywhere beyond the moon, not LEO.

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1

I agree with you, the Apollo missions were different, and did not go into deep space!

Deep space is anywhere beyond LEO, and the moon is beyond LEO, as we know...


So Apollo spacecraft would not have worked in deep space missions, like I said....

and still continue to fail to understand that 2 weeks exposed to GCR's has minimal effects.. you dont need a shield to specifically protect against that for that short amount of time..

The documents I've cited don't support your claims - not in any way, or shape, or form.


They refer to future missions, and talk about how to protect astronauts for long-term missions in deep space.

Referring to long-term missions is not defined as a specific duration, as a period of time - ie: being a month, or being six months, etc....

They simply say long-term missions would be riskier to astronauts than a short-term mission - which makes perfect sense, for sure!

They never say a short-term mission is safe, or nearly so, or whatever. They don't exclude them. You assume they do, which is simply not true.


They state aluminum would be a poor radiation shield for deep space missions, and possibly would make it more hazardous to astronauts than before!!

You ignore the facts, stated many times in these papers, hopelessly trying to interpret the statements to your own 'version' of it, to fit in the Apollo fantasy-tale.

They state that NO spacecraft built in future for deep space manned missions will have aluminum shielding. They make no exceptions to this statement, either.

You cannot put words in their mouths, for twisting it into your own 'version', that doesn't even exist in reality!


You're also confused by the numbers in the papers...

Those numbers would show it is safe to go into deep space, true....

But they are not actually numbers, they are just 'estimates'.

These estimates were done by taking measurements in LEO, and extrapolating the data for deep space...


Do you think it's a bit odd that they ignored the Apollo data, to choose the data from LEO, and extrapolating their 'guesstimates' of deep space radiation?

What a joke!

Apollo is supposed to have gone to the moon, 9 times, with all the astronauts returning to Earth, safe and sound. With all the radiation measured and recorded on all missions into deep space, going to the moon and back.....

And they don't use it, at all??


What don't you believe, then?

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: turbonium1

Find any Apollo documentation that specifically states that aluminium was used purely as a radiation shield.

Find any Apollo documentation that specifically states that only aluminium was used as a radiation shield.

Find any documentation anywhere that shows Apollo astronauts received a fatal dose of radiation.

Oh, and deep space is anywhere beyond the moon, not LEO.

No, deep space is anywhere beyond LEO. NASA says it, among others,...so think again.

It looks like Apollo has NO documentation, for ANY radiation shielding that was used (or not used !)...

You must think that Apollo had radiation shielding, yes?

What about showing the data on it, then?

I'd love to see it - do you know where I might find this data?

originally posted by: choos

so you think that a long term mission will contain two passes through the VAB every two weeks or so??

so if they were planning a trip to mars, you think that using a two week mission to the moon (which includes traversing the VAB twice) as the basis to extrapolate the expected radiation that would be received for a trip to mars??

basically what you are telling me is that assuming a trip to mars would take 6 months, the missions planners plan to put them on a course to mars for one week then have them return to LEO, then send them on their way to mars again for one week and have them return, so on and so on until they reach mars?????

No, you don't get it.

The data would have been collected throughout the mission(s), right?

The measurements in the VAB, and beyond it, yes?

And they'd know when they're within the VAB, and when they're beyond it, right?


So they'd know what data came from inside the VAB, and they'd also know what data they'd collected beyond it, true?

Get it now?

a reply to: turbonium1

Let's see your official NASA definition of deep space then in terms of the reports you keep quoting. The definitions I've seen refer to places beyond the Earth-Moon system. If you know better then show us your source.

Apollo has plenty of documentation about the radiation levels it experienced and what protection its construction afforded, you've been given it many times. Google it if you've forgotten. You missed my point and not provided what I asked for, so why should I given you the same information again.

Apollo was constructed of the lightest material available that was structurally capable of surviving a lunar mission. That material also afforded some protection against radiation. It was not specifically incorporated for radiation protection.

If you're claiming no data exist on Apollo's ability to withstand radiation or the radiation levels the missions experienced, then how are you able to prove that the crew experienced dangerous levels of it?

Maybe you could provide that data from the many other missions from many countries that have collected radiation information. The data that would prove your claim that Apollo astronauts would have suffered a fatal radiation dose. Just a thought.

originally posted by: choos

and still continue to fail to understand that 2 weeks exposed to GCR's has minimal effects.. you dont need a shield to specifically protect against that for that short amount of time..

You base that claim on what, exactly?

Is it based on your belief in Apollo doing it, then?

Apollo is the one in question, here, so what else?

They have no actual numbers to show that, just Apollo's fake numbers, which show (big surprise!) Apollo was 'real'.


The Apollo data must be so great...since nobody has ever 'dared' to try and USE it!

Apollo craft were mainly aluminum, with other materials, too...

Aluminum will never be used in shielding any future spacecraft going into deep space, but nobody knew about that, back in the Apollo-era. Not a clue, from 9 missions into deep space, either.


Sure, that's totally believable...not

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: turbonium1

Let's see your official NASA definition of deep space then in terms of the reports you keep quoting. The definitions I've seen refer to places beyond the Earth-Moon system. If you know better then show us your source.

Apollo has plenty of documentation about the radiation levels it experienced and what protection its construction afforded, you've been given it many times. Google it if you've forgotten. You missed my point and not provided what I asked for, so why should I given you the same information again.

Apollo was constructed of the lightest material available that was structurally capable of surviving a lunar mission. That material also afforded some protection against radiation. It was not specifically incorporated for radiation protection.

If you're claiming no data exist on Apollo's ability to withstand radiation or the radiation levels the missions experienced, then how are you able to prove that the crew experienced dangerous levels of it?

Look -

If Apollo had flown into deep space, 9 times, and accurately measured all the radiation encountered? In a (mainly) aluminum spacecraft, while not a clue about their craft actually intensifying the radiation??

What makes you believe that Apollo measured all the radiation in deep space, with complete accuracy, and showed how safe it was for the astronauts, yet never knowing that their craft intensifies the radiation??

If you say it was too small to measure, or whatever, you have no claim that ANY of their measurements were accurate!! 'Too small to measure' is not an excuse here..

If a measurement can't be done on GCR radiation, over several days in deep space, then why is it preventing ANY missions into deep space? It's too small to measure the hazard that intensifies an aluminum craft, but we'll never build aluminum craft for that very reason - it's no wonder that the Apollo data is treated like so much crap!

Im glad you put reason number 1 on your list first, Im so sick of telling people that. To me , How the heck do You lose something so important ? That alone proves the video was recreated and that means its a fake.