Nvidia Debunks Conspiracy Theories About Moon Landing

a reply to: ZombieZygote

AH ….. The deadly Van Allen Radiation Belts, favorite of conspiracy loons.....

By the late 1960's the Van Allen Belts were well charted, scientists knew what sections to avoid

In addition the speed of the spacecraft and fact that the metal shell and insulation of the command
module allowed the crew to pass through with minimal exposure

Even then the astronauts carried personal dosimeters and film badges which recorded radiation exposure

Total exposure was limited to several hundred millirem - less than exposure for workers at nuclear power plants

As an aside worked one summer between college terms at industrial laundry which cleaned uniforms for nuclear power plants - probably got more exposure from that versus what astronauts received

a reply to: norhoc

The density of the radiation belts is not static, it varies with solar activity and amount of charged particles being pumped out by the sun

Right now is in quiet period and solar flare activity is low

In the early 1960's were number of nuclear tests (STARFISH PRIME) where large nuclear weapons were detonated in space

This increased electron particle density for number of years

a reply to: firerescue

So what would the affects of increased electron particle density be?

a reply to: toysforadults
By 1969 the extra high energy electrons were only at 1/12 of their peak, so that wasn't much of an issue:

www.popsci.com...

By 1969, the high-energy electrons injected into the lower Van Allen belt by the Starfish Prime event had decayed to one-twelfth of its post-test peak intensity.) By February of 1964, NASA was confident that Apollo crews would be passing through the belts fast enough that the spacecraft’s skin and all the instrumentation lining the walls would be enough protection. It might seem foolhardy in hindsight for NASA to have accepted the risks of send astronauts through the Van Allen belts without extra protection, but it was a minor risk in the scheme of the mission.

To monitor radiation exposure during the flights, Apollo crews carried dosimeters on board their spacecraft and on their persons. And these readings confirmed NASA had made a good choice. At the end of the program, the agency determined that its astronauts had avoided the large radiation doses many feared would ground flights to the Moon. Over the course of the lunar missions, astronauts were exposed to doses lower than the yearly 5 rem average experienced by workers with the Atomic Energy Commission who regularly deal with radioactive materials. And in no case did any astronaut experience any debilitating medical or biological effects.

While it's true there were no immediate biological effects, astronauts have had health problems from radiation over the decades from far more energetic particles than those electrons. A couple of millimeters of aluminum can stop most of those electrons, but it can't stop the other deadly particles that did harm the astronauts, like much higher energy protons. Not only are protons far more massive than electrons, the the ones coming from other galaxies can have incredible amounts of energy that the aluminum doesn't block, but it creates a spray of ionizing particles when struck by these high energy protons.

observer.com...

Exposure to cosmic radiation—specifically, charged high-energy protons—causes permanent tissue damage to DNA molecules, effectively shutting down the body’s ability to repair itself...

“Once you’re out of the earth’s magnetosphere, and you are in an aluminum can—you are in serious trouble. Protons react violently with aluminum and vice versa so it would destroy the cells in your body much more quickly if you are in a structured aluminum can,” said President of Bigelow Aerospace, Robert Bigelow to the Observer in a previous interview.

That may be why the rate of cardiovascular disease among astronauts who left low earth orbit is 4-5 times higher than astronauts who didn't, according to that article. Those protons coming from other galaxies are really hard to block, especially the ones with the highest energy which create the most damage.

Apollo astronauts had limited radiation exposure due to limited mission times, but the longer the mission the bigger the issue, and the more shielding will be needed. The Van Allen belts are not the only radiation problem outside low earth orbit.

originally posted by: ZombieZygote
Even current astronauts admit that they need to figure out a way to get humans safely past the Van Allen Radiation Belts before they can leave low Earth orbit.
Yet somehow they did it plenty of times during the Apollo missions? When asked about it, one of the Apollo astronauts said, "We weren't aware of it at the time." Like that ignorance magically kept it from killing them.

Please post your source for that quote. I highly doubt that the astronauts were not aware of the radiation in the Van Allen belts, that sounds like something you or someone else invented. The Van Allen belts were known since at least 1958 and there's no reason the astronauts wouldn't be aware of them in 1969-1972.

originally posted by: yuppa
New craft require different set ups. DUH!

Especially 2018 electronics versus 1969 electronics which are hardly comparable, they are vastly different. The human risks are about the same but perhaps better understood now that we have more data on the Van Allen belts and more data on the effects of radiation on astronauts. Concerns about radiation other than the Van Allen belts is on our plate too, outside low earth orbit.

Stupid uninformed morons would believe no moon landing, yet they can't explain how thousands kept it secret, when there have been leaks for almost everything and that other countries managed to not use "the fake landing" against America, something they would relish in.

Give them facts, they counter with nonsense.

originally posted by: ZombieZygote

originally posted by: MteWamp

originally posted by: ZombieZygote
a reply to: MteWamp

You ask me if I have an actual argument, after spewing forth a bunch of condescending nonsense. Perhaps lead by example? Any proof on your behalf to validate your laughable claim?

Your Honor, the defense rests.

🙄 How old are you, 10?
Even current astronauts admit that they need to figure out a way to get humans safely past the Van Allen Radiation Belts before they can leave low Earth orbit.
Yet somehow they did it plenty of times during the Apollo missions? When asked about it, one of the Apollo astronauts said, "We weren't aware of it at the time." Like that ignorance magically kept it from killing them.
I bet you also believe that the Tesla is flying through space as well. 😂

Seriously?
Show me.

Between you knuckledraggers and the flat earth idjits, well, at least it's entertaining.

S-H-O-W M-E.

Just so we're clear, that's english for "Show me".

Jesus...

originally posted by: damonster
Stupid uninformed morons would believe no moon landing, yet they can't explain how thousands kept it secret, when there have been leaks for almost everything and that other countries managed to not use "the fake landing" against America, something they would relish in.

Give them facts, they counter with nonsense.

Well, yeah, but hey, that's their job, so who can blame 'em. All normal folks can really do is just snicker behind their backs.

Just think of it as a game.

Fish in a barrel, you know, that sort of thing.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Problem is that once leave Earth magnetic field are exposed to all sort of high energy particles, both from solar activity
and from cosmic sources outside solar system

One scenario is being caught by solar flare burst which releases storm of high energy particles

Shielding - items which contain carbon and hydrogen are effective at slowing and absorbing particles, objects
like plastics, food, water, even bagged up excrement are effective at shielding

One scenario for the ISS in orbit around the earth to resist a solar flare is to build a "storm shelter" of these materials and have the crew take shelter until flare passes

originally posted by: firerescue
One scenario is being caught by solar flare burst which releases storm of high energy particles

I think that was a much bigger risk to the Apollo astronauts than the Van Allen belts. Apparently NASA's plan was something like "cross your fingers and hope it doesn't happen during one of the short Apollo lunar missions", and that plan worked because it didn't happen.

But that's not a good plan for a much longer mission like one to Mars, where they would need a lot more of the types of shielding you mention. The chances of that happening during a mission go up with the length of the mission.

Aside from that there were many other things that could have easily killed them, like thousands of components that could have failed. The apollo 11 guys accidentally broke the switch that enabled the rocket to get off the moon so that could have possibly killed them right there if they hadn't figured out a solution. They only had about 30 seconds of fuel left when they landed so if they were still over a steep crater looking for a landing spot at that time they could have run out of fuel and that would have killed them. In the grand scheme of things, the Van Allen belts were on their list of concerns, but not anywhere near the top of their list.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Anyone who has ever taken a Photo class understands the issues with exposure.

The same can be used to manipulate bright objects into disappearing into a white shape.

The stars thing isn't a deal killer for me, but there are some things that are not so easily explained. I'm not saying that I think that they were all staged on earth, but I'd love some answers that pass muster, and some do not, still to this day.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I didn't mean they could go through that data, I meant that one of the reasons we've not been back to the moon is because people can go through everything and anything, as in pictures, video footage etc. (I probably should've been clearer, my bad).

originally posted by: ZombieZygote
a reply to: MteWamp

You ask me if I have an actual argument, after spewing forth a bunch of condescending nonsense. Perhaps lead by example? Any proof on your behalf to validate your laughable claim?

And zip. Just as expected.

As I said, the defense rests.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Anyone who has ever taken a Photo class understands the issues with exposure.

The same can be used to manipulate bright objects into disappearing into a white shape.

The stars thing isn't a deal killer for me, but there are some things that are not so easily explained. I'm not saying that I think that they were all staged on earth, but I'd love some answers that pass muster, and some do not, still to this day.

I find that nearly every objection I've seen similarly reflects more of the lack of understanding of the person making the objection, than having any validity, so we must have different musters. It's not just exposure, some people don't understand how shadows work, they don't understand how photographic lighting works in general, (something the nvidia demo can help with to show where the lighting for Buzz Aldrin comes from), they don't understand radiation or the Van Allen belts nor the path Apollo astronauts took through the belts, and so on through the list. I have no idea which answers you think fail to pass muster because you didn't mention any, but I have yet to find those, I just find more of the same as this exposure thing, on a wider variety of issues.

a reply to: Dwoodward85
I'm not following you at all here. I thought I understood what you said before and stated my objection, but now I don't even have any idea what you mean. I don't think whether we went back or go back to the moon or not has anything to do with whether or not they find the missing Apollo 11 telemetry tapes. If you look at the tape records, it looks like NASA kept them for almost 6 months going through and getting everything they needed from them at the time, before they sent them to a warehouse for storage. They had continuing missions to worry about with Apollos 12 and higher. I also suspect that the Apollo 11 video was a bit of a kluge to meet the mission timing that was really substandard in many ways. It was only 10 frames per second because of the slow scan, which was a terrible frame rate, and it was not broadcast compatible. Apollo 12 and up video cameras had a much higher 30 frames per second frame rate, that was broadcast compatible, and in a way you could say at least 3x better quality because of the 3x better frame rate. Even if they found the original Apollo 11 telemetry tapes, they would still have the very slow 10 fps frame rate video.

The primary reason they stopped going to the moon was the price tag of continuing the missions, since the "space race" had already been won and people were already bored with missions to collect more moon rocks. How could the Apollo 11 telemetry tapes be a factor? They were looking for those in 2006-2009 so I don't think they even missed them until then (did they?), and they had nothing to do with the decisions made in 1972 to stop the moon missions, which is why I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

a reply to: damonster

The Church of Moon Landing is in session.

Thats why we have Islam? Allah was too big of a secret for Mohammad to keep for himself?

Do you believe in Islam? You have to. 1.5.billion people can't be wrong. That sort of lie... Too big to be a lie.. You also have to believe in Christianity. And buddism. Too big to be lies.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

With me, there are some photo issues in a few of the photos--and I promise, not only have I taken photography courses, I'm also highly trained in Photoshop (and many other Adobe CC2018 programs). I'm not goint to get into the specifics, because I really don't want to get into a discussion about it, but like I noted, it's just a few, and it's not like I'm convinced that this was all done on a sound stage.

It does make me wonder, though, if some photos were doctored in the old-school ways (which were not easily done), and if so, why?

I like mysteries, though, and am often content in wondering without needing absolute answers.

a reply to: Prene
Obvious strawman is an obvious way to avoid the current discussion topic without contributing anything of value.

a reply to: SlapMonkey
NASA doesn't deny doctoring photos for publicity purposes, so you can certainly find doctored photos. They didn't have photoshop in 1969 but there were other methods.

For some people, that's where their research stops and they call NASA fakes and liars, but for others who look deeper, what they can find are scans of the original photos that have only the amount of image manipulation of things like contrast etc needed to get the best quality scans, but as this explanation says, if you really want to you can even get the original unprocessed scans without manipulation and most people who say things like you just did haven't even looked at those.

apollo.sese.asu.edu...

Scanning Details

Each metric frame is scanned using a Leica DSW 700 photogrammetric scanner, which obtains a 200 pix/mm (pixel size: 5 microns) spatial resolution and 14-bit A/D (16,384 shades of grey). The DSW 700 was modified from the original 12-bit A/D to a 14-bit A/D because the Moon is a very high-contrast target and the original film is capable of capturing a very wide range of grey scale variation. The combination of small pixels (5 micron) and the 14-bit gray scale results in a very detailed scan and, of course, very large raw scan files. Metric film scans are approximately 1.3 GB each and panoramic film tiles are 1.9GB each and require eight tiles for a single panoramic image.

Image Processing Notes

The scans of the Apollo flight films are processed using a standard set of procedures. First, the unexposed portions of the film along the edges of a scanned frame are cropped, and the frame is straightened. Second, the background is removed from all of the scans, by assuming that the average DN values of the unexposed regions at the edge of each raw scanned image represent the background (i.e., film base and fog). Third, a flatfield correction (derived from the actual image data) removes vignetting to the first order. Fourth, the reseau patterns (the small crosses visible on Apollo images published elsewhere) are removed from the images. Fifth, a logarithmic histogram transformation is applied to the image. This is necessary because of the logarithmic response of film, which makes the raw scans appear very contrasty. Since photographic paper also has a logarithmic response and reverses the films response, conventional paper prints have a natural contrast range. The logarithmic histogram correction applied to the scanned images therefore produces a virtual print that simulates the natural contrast of a conventional paper print. Sixth, since the uncompressed images produced by the initial scanning process result in extremely large images, the scale is reduced by a factor corresponding to the square root of 2, which serves to reduce the image size by 50%, and the images are converted from 16-bit to 8-bit. The original, unprocessed raw scans are also provided on this website in full-resolution 16-bit TIFF format.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

For some people, that's where their research stops and they call NASA fakes and liars, but for others who look deeper, what they can find are scans of the original photos that have only the amount of image manipulation of things like contrast etc needed to get the best quality scans, but as this explanation says, if you really want to you can even get the original unprocessed scans without manipulation and most people who say things like you just did haven't even looked at those.

Yeah, maybe most haven't looked that deep, and I may be mistaken that I have seen the absolute originals, but that doesn't change my point.

No big deal, though--I'm in the business of photo manipulation as part of my day job, so you'll have to excuse me if I have a few concerns about a few photos that, again, I don't feel that I've found sufficient explanation for. But not big deal.

Best regards.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Arbitrageur

With me, there are some photo issues in a few of the photos [...] I'm not goint to get into the specifics, because I really don't want to get into a discussion about it.

I'd like to hear what those issues are, and this thread seems as good as any to discuss them.

a reply to: MteWamp

Right around the 3 minute mark

www.youtube.com...

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
Yeah, maybe most haven't looked that deep, and I may be mistaken that I have seen the absolute originals, but that doesn't change my point.

If you don't think whether or not you've looked at the most original scans affects your point, then you are completely missing my point that it matters a great deal.

I've seen numerous photos manipulated by NASA (or others, such as Google Moon app) which were not claimed to be "original", but when I went to look for the unaltered scan also offered by NASA, I've been able to find it.

I think if you're going to raise your concerns it's only fair if you show some examples, otherwise I don't get your point in mentioning your concerns at all. Maybe what you've looked at has been manipulated by NASA, and if you can look at the original imagery in addition to that, you would be able to stop posting about your concerns of some images not passing muster.