Why I believe the Moon landings may have been faked

originally posted by: turbonium1
Aluminum could not have shielded astronauts going to the moon, which Apollo claimed to do. Not possible.

NASA never claimed that the aluminum shielded the astronauts from cosmic particle radiation. There was no material that was provided on the Apollo spacecraft to specifically shield from radiation.

The aluminum skin and fibrous insulation were provided to create the walls of the spacecraft -- not as a shield for cosmic particle radiation. In fact (as you pointed out) the aluminum actually increases the effect of cosmic radiation. However, the fibrous insulation that was provided (as insulation) had the added benefit of shielding against cosmic radiation somewhat.

I say "somewhat" because even though the insulation provided some protection from the cosmic radiation, the Apollo spacecraft had no good answer for shielding the astronauts from radiation other than minimizing their exposure to it -- which is what was done. The Apollo missions were short, and thus the astronauts' exposure times were kept within relatively safe levels. Increased, but still relatively safe.

But no, the aluminum did not shield them from particle radiation -- nor was it ever intended to do so, nor was it ever claimed that it could do so.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: choos
a reply to: turbonium1

no not for that very reason.. the reason they said was because it was not economically viable to use aluminium as an effective shield.. and it is for this very reason..

im not putting words in their mouth because the report states this clearly.

Where are quotes from the reports to support your claim, then?

It is just nonsense, as usual...

oh back to the ignorance argument again??

have you even read YOUR articles fully yet??

this is copied and pasted straight from YOUR article:

However, the shield of 30 g/cm2 would result in
high mission cost. If a specific design for the solar
maximum mission is considered, then a more modest
shield of 10 g/cm2 would be sufficient. Although a shield
of 10 g/cm2 is massive compared with those typical for
space operations today, it may be considered manageable
(ref. 16) but incompatible with the requirement of low
mission cost.

www.cs.odu.edu...

Shield mass can be a high cost factor in system designs for
the long-term operations required

www.minimagnetosphere.rl.ac.uk...

oh and btw

Current
technology is adequate for a single lunar mission for casual
astronauts. Revolutionary technology needs to be developed
for human space missions to Mars for NASA’s vision.

www.minimagnetosphere.rl.ac.uk...

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: choos

no you clearly said "after they tried using it and failed", and now you are saying they didnt use it..

make up your mind first before jumping to conclusions.. so which one is it??

You are confused, that's all..


We know they didn't use the Apollo technology, as I said.

However, we also know they were instructed to USE it, at first...

Iirc, they asked old Apollo engineers to help them out...

Anyway, they must have tried to do it with Apollo technology at first, because they were told to do it, and they failed to make it work...like I said.

there you go again saying they tried to use it and failed.. are you going to go back to them not using it at all this weekend??

so again ill ask my orginal question:
"can you show us when and where they tried using it??? can you show us where and when they built Apollo hardware and it didnt live up to what it was supposed to do? perhaps an article showing us that between 1990-2016 somewhere the guberment built a fully operational Saturn V with command module and lunar module and all and when they went to test it it blew up when they pressed the ignition switch."

they either tried to use and failed or didnt use it at all.

make up your mind before you jump to conclusions.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: turbonium1

The denial is strong in this one. I assume you believe James Cameron and the National Geographic Society are also propagating hoaxes? What would be the motivation for the Trieste hoax? The Cameron hoax?

First, I've never said anything about Cameron and/or NGS involvement in the Trieste (as a hoax). It is not relevant to the issue.

Second, the motive(s) are not relevant, either, and would just be speculation, anyway..

given the pace of technology not to further it equals grand waste of recourses. If we assume 1960th landing, by Moore law we should be chatting from Mars by now.


cheers!

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: turbonium1

exactly what element of the LM " could not be tested on earth " ??????????????

Only the whole LM, itself, was never tested on Earth!!

Nothing much, at all!!

the time gap! Something fabricators never thought would come about. They thought fabricating is only few years discrepancy so we can sustain the fact until real mission fixes it all.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: turbonium1

Aluminum could not have shielded astronauts going to the moon, which Apollo claimed to do. Not possible.

Not according to the leading Soviet authority at the time:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

(But you already knew that, didn't you?)

The USSR didn't know any better, since we now know aluminum is NOT a good shield in deep space, for a fact!

To confirm what we know today is not true doesn't exactly help your case...

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: turbonium1

Do tell us which time you think was the first time it was used.

What are you referring to here, specifically?

a reply to: turbonium1

The USSR didn't know any better, since we now know aluminum is NOT a good shield in deep space, for a fact!

As you know, Apollo did not need "deep space shielding." I suggest that everyone just leave you on this thread by yourself... even the trolling here has no amusement value, and there have been no newbies straying in here in ages. Bye.

a reply to: turbonium1

I would like to know when you think the LM was first used.

While you're at it, you can detail your in depth knowledge of the LM testing and development programme.

originally posted by: turbonium1


The USSR didn't know any better

My 1968 copy of "Handbook of Soviet Space Science Research" says the Soviets know quite a lot about the subject, considerably more than you.

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: choos

no you clearly said "after they tried using it and failed", and now you are saying they didnt use it..

make up your mind first before jumping to conclusions.. so which one is it??

You are confused, that's all..


We know they didn't use the Apollo technology, as I said.

However, we also know they were instructed to USE it, at first...

Iirc, they asked old Apollo engineers to help them out...

Anyway, they must have tried to do it with Apollo technology at first, because they were told to do it, and they failed to make it work...like I said.

there you go again saying they tried to use it and failed.. are you going to go back to them not using it at all this weekend??

so again ill ask my orginal question:
"can you show us when and where they tried using it??? can you show us where and when they built Apollo hardware and it didnt live up to what it was supposed to do? perhaps an article showing us that between 1990-2016 somewhere the guberment built a fully operational Saturn V with command module and lunar module and all and when they went to test it it blew up when they pressed the ignition switch."

they either tried to use and failed or didnt use it at all.

make up your mind before you jump to conclusions.

Here's one source which mentions it...

books.google.ca... Qlmit43u9ZBNac&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjIyc3-hbrLAhVXzGMKHdaIC4YQ6AEIMTAE#v=onepage&q=heritage%20technology%20constellation%20program&f=false


There are many other sources you can find with ease, by yourself...

It mentions Apollo and Shuttle technologies as being 'heritage technology'..

This was required technology, and would guarantee they'd succeed, just like Apollo (supposedly) did it over 40 years earlier!!

It failed miserably, however.


Why?

They had all the required technology at hand, after 40 years later, it fails.

It had complications - fit/ form, lousy contractors, etc..

This is pure bs, of course..

Every contractor is approved beforehand, and replaced if needed (delays, etc)


Now, who develops technology for a manned moon landing, drops it, to develop a 'far more advanced' technology, which can't even send humans beyond LEO.

Then, in an attempt to have another manned moon landing, knowing this requires proven technology, in manned moon landings, expects to use this same technology, already proven to work superbly.

Apollo-ites claim manned moon landings used 'outdated' technology... while newer, more advanced technology has replaced most of it...

I agree we have far more advanced technology today, compared to Apollo's technology...

I agree Apollo's technology is wholly 'outdated', also...


We have advanced technology, and much more knowledge of space, than ever before.

The exploration of space, whether it is by a manned craft, or by an unmanned probe, is through our technological advancements...

Exploration of space, or a planet, or a solar system, or a distant star, and everything beyond...that is how we always have explored space. And we always will, forever..


Advanced technology in human space exploration goes outward, same as unmanned probes go further and further outward... and how the planets are further studied through our unmanned craft, ever more, in greater detail...

Our advanced technology will advance our human space exploration, in much the same way as our unmanned craft have done, and will, in future. ...


A manned moon landing will not go backwards, it will only lead us to many more moon landings, longer stays, and moon bases...this is how exploration ACTUALLY works..

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: turbonium1

I would like to know when you think the LM was first used.

While you're at it, you can detail your in depth knowledge of the LM testing and development programme.

The LM was not used, as it didn't actually work at all, to begin with!

A lunar lander has not yet been built, even close to matching up with your 'amazing' LM!!

Why anyone believes the LM capable of perfect landings and ascents within a little-known alien environment, without testing it as intended, landing, separating in two, and top half ascending from lower part, into lunar orbit, then docking to another craft going a few thousand miles per hour, and perfectly done over and over again.


On Earth, they had one of the goofiest contraptions ever built, a piece of junk supposedly being the - ahem - training vehicle, for simulating the 'amazing' LM!!

I suppose it's infinitely easier to build an actual LM for an alien environment, no testing required, which works perfectly for humans at first go!!

Sure..

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo

originally posted by: turbonium1


The USSR didn't know any better

My 1968 copy of "Handbook of Soviet Space Science Research" says the Soviets know quite a lot about the subject, considerably more than you.

I'm sure they knew more than anyone did, save a few US scientists, perhaps.

At that time, anyway.

We know much more now than they would ever have known, back in 1968.

Like these two examples, below...

Aluminum was thought to shield radiation in deep space, and we now know this is not true.

The moon was believed to have no water, in any form, which is simply not the case, as we all know today.


There are many other examples, as well...

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: turbonium1

The USSR didn't know any better, since we now know aluminum is NOT a good shield in deep space, for a fact!

As you know, Apollo did not need "deep space shielding." I suggest that everyone just leave you on this thread by yourself... even the trolling here has no amusement value, and there have been no newbies straying in here in ages. Bye.

No need for shielding Apollo craft against deep space radiation, since they never went into deep space, in the first place!

originally posted by: greenreflections
given the pace of technology not to further it equals grand waste of recourses. If we assume 1960th landing, by Moore law we should be chatting from Mars by now.


cheers!

They found the moon was really boring. Seen one crater, you've seen 'em all.

So they didn't see any reason to continue with moon exploration - been there, done that, let's move along now folks!

Earth orbit is way more fun than exploring any of the planets, or a boring moon. So, the next 40 years, they decided to fly around in Earth orbit, over and over, ad infinitum - wheeee!

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: turbonium1
Aluminum could not have shielded astronauts going to the moon, which Apollo claimed to do. Not possible.

NASA never claimed that the aluminum shielded the astronauts from cosmic particle radiation. There was no material that was provided on the Apollo spacecraft to specifically shield from radiation.

The aluminum skin and fibrous insulation were provided to create the walls of the spacecraft -- not as a shield for cosmic particle radiation. In fact (as you pointed out) the aluminum actually increases the effect of cosmic radiation. However, the fibrous insulation that was provided (as insulation) had the added benefit of shielding against cosmic radiation somewhat.

I say "somewhat" because even though the insulation provided some protection from the cosmic radiation, the Apollo spacecraft had no good answer for shielding the astronauts from radiation other than minimizing their exposure to it -- which is what was done. The Apollo missions were short, and thus the astronauts' exposure times were kept within relatively safe levels. Increased, but still relatively safe.

But no, the aluminum did not shield them from particle radiation -- nor was it ever intended to do so, nor was it ever claimed that it could do so.

Short missions into deep space must have adequate shielding..

There are many problems however..

We don't know what would be considered as 'adequate' shielding, yet.

We know it is not aluminum, that's for sure.


If you believe they now have adequate shielding on hand, I'd love to see it. Now, please go right ahead, and show me it exists, if you can..

a reply to: turbonium1

So the extensive timeline of LM development freely available with a simple google search never happened right?

The people who worked on, and built, the LM, and did all the testing of on the ground (recorded in these in house journals) never happened?

www.jsc.nasa.gov...

So the footage of the LM in Earth orbit from Apollo 9, that didn't happen right?

The footage of the LM broadcast on live TV being extracted after TLI didn't happen right?

The LM impact ascent module impact sites on the moon aren't there right?

Any proof you can provide that would prove the LM was not capable of landing on the moon would be just peachy.

a reply to: turbonium1

Still waiting for your proof that the CM construction would not and did not provide adequate protection, or that any astronauts would have received a fatal dose.

You've had a few weeks now and you have done nothing to support your claim.

Again.