Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

Nothing worse than an educated idiot trying to point out the obvious, i cant believe how gullible some people are! Just so easily led and without the slightest amount of discerning ability. When the final stage of the great deception is implemented you will all be like a heard to slaughter. Talk about a necessary evil!

First up against the wall when the revolution comes, we know.


reply to post by FoosM

"Next hoax"? What was the first?

And, of course, FoosM spams pictures and videos and text without actually backing up his assertion of killer flares and SPEs, or addressing the evidence presented against it. I am not surprised in the slightest.

I also find it odd that he has declared, on multiple occasions, that debunkers "can't" use NASA's evidence to prove the landings weren't faked, yet sees fit to use it himself to "prove" the landings were faked. I suspect the reason for this is twofold: assuming the landings were faked, therefore all the evidence was also faked or is automatically unreliable(Affirming the Consequent), and trying to deprive debunkers of their primary source of evidence while he's free to use it himself(Double Standard).

I also notice that after his big rant about how I always claim HBs focus on "anomalies", he never responded to the part where I pointed out that he himself had declared the "anomalies and contradictions" evidence of a hoax.

Originally posted by 000063
First up against the wall when the revolution comes, we know.


reply to post by FoosM

 

"Next hoax"? What was the first?

The manned moon landing, duh How can you post in a thread and not know the subject of discussion?
Wait a minute, are you sure you are in the right thread?

And, of course, FoosM spams pictures and videos and text without actually backing up his assertion of killer flares and SPEs, or addressing the evidence presented against it. I am not surprised in the slightest.

Spam? Oh thats rich. Just because you cant understand it, dont call it mystery meat.

And why dont you ask CHRLZ for his "be all end all" radiation compendium?
Been waiting for that for many moons!


CHRLZ has, most likely, come across some information that is confusing him.
He is probably by now discovered that NASA is using two sets of numbers regarding space radiation.
And that they do so to purposefully confuse the public about it.
And he has to ask himself, why?
Why would they do that?
Why?

reply to post by FoosM

He is probably by now discovered that NASA is using two sets of numbers regarding space radiation.
And that they do so to purposefully confuse the public about it.
And he has to ask himself, why?
Why would they do that?
Why?

Are you claiming that NASA is using two sets of numbers regarding space radiation? Please provide some evidence of that. Remember, Jarrah's claims about Kovalev's data were proven to be a lie, so you will have to provide another source. Why do you keep saying such silly things? Why?

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by FoosM
So... landing on a fast spinning asteroid in deep space is more feasible and beneficial than
returning to our moon?

Landing?! What are you talking about? DAWN is only orbiting Vesta. After one year, it will move on to Ceres. I think you need to read up more on the DAWN mission.

NASA's next big goals for human spaceflight, as articulated by President Barack Obama, are visiting an asteroid by the year 2025 and landing on Mars in the 2030s.

Maybe next time its good to read the whole post before responding.

The longer you spend out in space, the more radiation you're exposed to. The Apollo missions were short in length (less than 2 weeks) . A mission to a NEO could take months, if not more. So yes, radiation becomes a much greater concern. I don't get why this is so hard for you to grasp.

What are you talking about? Which radiation? Apollo was a well shielded craft and no astronaut was exposed to high level of radiation. Why would a few more weeks in space matter. As long as the shield is intact no radiation can get through!

reply to post by FoosM

Why would a few more weeks in space matter.

Now you need to explain why it wouldn't.

Originally posted by FoosM
What are you talking about? Which radiation? Apollo was a well shielded craft and no astronaut was exposed to high level of radiation. Why would a few more weeks in space matter. As long as the shield is intact no radiation can get through!

What in this thread, or any other place you've read, makes you think the above (underlined) ? Is this another strawman you're trying to erect or are you really this ignorant of the topic ? If it's the latter, how are you so vehement in your statements re: the hazards presented by radiation to space travel ? I suspect it's really a sophmoric attempt at sarcasm but I'd rather give you the benefit of the doubt.

As for the DAWN mission, what about that appears "wrong" to you ? Or is this just an infantile rant against all things "NASA" ? Are the ISS and HST and STS all "hoaxes" of some sort ? How about New Horizons or Messenger ? Is there some new JW nonsense video on any or all of these ? And in what way is DAWN (or any of these missions) related to the topic of this thread ?

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by FoosM
So... landing on a fast spinning asteroid in deep space is more feasible and beneficial than
returning to our moon?

Landing?! What are you talking about? DAWN is only orbiting Vesta. After one year, it will move on to Ceres. I think you need to read up more on the DAWN mission.

NASA's next big goals for human spaceflight, as articulated by President Barack Obama, are visiting an asteroid by the year 2025 and landing on Mars in the 2030s.

Maybe next time its good to read the whole post before responding.

Or maybe jra read the same post I did and thought just what I did. That you're conflating DAWN and some far off NEO mission because both have the word asteroid in them. Afterall you posted some innuendo re DAWN, linked to a vid re: DAWN, and then asked "So... landing on a fast spinning asteroid in deep space is more feasible and beneficial than returning to our moon?" If DAWN wasn't the object of your ire, perhaps it's you who should learn to construct more focused posts.

EDIT : FWIW perhaps landing on a NEO might be more "beneficial" than returning to the Moon or going to Mars. It's a hot topic among those pushing for manned exploration of space. Aside from the knowledge we might gain from visiting a NEO, a fair number of them are thought to have a high percentage (relatively speaking) of water content. And water is needed by us humans, and not just to drink, but because it can be processed into fuel. Fuel that didn't have to be lifted out of a deep gravity well.

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by 000063
First up against the wall when the revolution comes, we know.


reply to post by FoosM

 

"Next hoax"? What was the first?

The manned moon landing, duh

How can you post in a thread and not know the subject of discussion?
Wait a minute, are you sure you are in the right thread?

I was sardonically saying that the moon landings weren't a hoax.

And, of course, FoosM spams pictures and videos and text without actually backing up his assertion of killer flares and SPEs, or addressing the evidence presented against it. I am not surprised in the slightest.

Spam? Oh thats rich. Just because you cant understand it, dont call it mystery meat.

I call it spam because of its lack of relevance to the subtopics being discussed. Heck, its relevance to the moon landings and whether they were a hoax or not is questionable at best.

And why dont you ask CHRLZ for his "be all end all" radiation compendium?
Been waiting for that for many moons!

Trying to shift the burden of proof, again. I expected more from--actually, that's exactly what I expected from you.

CHRLZ has, most likely, come across some information that is confusing him.
He is probably by now discovered that NASA is using two sets of numbers regarding space radiation.

Can you show us these numbers? That's rhetorical; you're bluffing and blustering. You can't.

And that they do so to purposefully confuse the public about it.

Can you show us evidence of their motives? That's rhetorical; you can't.

And he has to ask himself, why?
Why would they do that?
Why?

All I see is affirming the consequent, and not backing up your claim of "killer flares and SPEs". Funny thing is, you used the same type of wording when you bought it up a page or ago.

Originally posted by FoosM
What are you talking about? Which radiation? Apollo was a well shielded craft and no astronaut was exposed to high level of radiation. Why would a few more weeks in space matter. As long as the shield is intact no radiation can get through!

Well, at least you're finally admitting Jarrah was wrong about something.

Unless you were being sarcastic or something. It's hard to tell with you.

Originally posted by FoosM
Maybe next time its good to read the whole post before responding.

I read your whole post. To echo what MacTheKnife said. It looked like you were saying that DAWN was going to land on the asteroid.

What are you talking about? Which radiation? Apollo was a well shielded craft and no astronaut was exposed to high level of radiation.

Apollo was well shielded for the length of time that it was to stay in space. But from what I understand, GCR's are harder to shield against and the longer you stay out in space, the more you're going to be exposed to them. So a mission that's going to last several months is going to need stronger shielding.

Why would a few more weeks in space matter. As long as the shield is intact no radiation can get through!

A few more weeks? I said months (plural). Missions that would take 100 days or more. The longest Apollo mission was 12 days. And radiation did get through, but it was minimized to safe levels.

Originally posted by MacTheKnife

EDIT : FWIW perhaps landing on a NEO might be more "beneficial" than returning to the Moon or going to Mars. It's a hot topic among those pushing for manned exploration of space. Aside from the knowledge we might gain from visiting a NEO, a fair number of them are thought to have a high percentage (relatively speaking) of water content. And water is needed by us humans, and not just to drink, but because it can be processed into fuel. Fuel that didn't have to be lifted out of a deep gravity well.

We "know" the moon has water.
We have experience being on the moon,
We have mapped it, its closer by, it moves slower, its larger.
Why try to ride a bull when you can easily mount a pony?

I mean, what do they want to do, drag the asteroid back to Earth?
How will they mine it? Its ludicrous.
Its setting the bar so high that they can have an excuse to say, its not possible after spending all kinds of tax dollars. Or simply fake it, LOL.

Originally posted by jra

Apollo was well shielded for the length of time that it was to stay in space. But from what I understand, GCR's are harder to shield against and the longer you stay out in space, the more you're going to be exposed to them. So a mission that's going to last several months is going to need stronger shielding.

A few more weeks? I said months (plural). Missions that would take 100 days or more. The longest Apollo mission was 12 days. And radiation did get through, but it was minimized to safe levels.

Well whats the proof that they cant keep the GCR's down to a minimum?

MIR Station, 180 days (thats what 6 months?) 17.20 rem thats about 0.09 rem a day.
Apollo 11 9 days, 0.18 rem is 0.02 rem a day.
Apollo 14 9 days, 1.14 rem is about 0.12 rem a day. (the worst)

Unless my math is wrong, I dont see the problem!

Apollo astronauts managed to go through the belts, do EVAs on the moon fully exposed to GCRs, and their radiation exposures are no worse than Shuttle, ISS, or MIR station exposures with longer missions. So I dont see a shielding problem. Show me how this is a problem, because it sounds like NASA is just making excuses!

NASA should by now with special polymer compounds or alloys be able to make lighter and better radiation shielding than Apollo. So I dont see whats stopping them besides politics!

Originally posted by FoosM

MIR Station, 180 days (thats what 6 months?) 17.20 rem thats about 0.09 rem a day.
Apollo 11 9 days, 0.18 rem is 0.02 rem a day.
Apollo 14 9 days, 1.14 rem is about 0.12 rem a day. (the worst)

Unless my math is wrong, I dont see the problem!

Apollo astronauts managed to go through the belts, do EVAs on the moon fully exposed to GCRs, and their radiation exposures are no worse than Shuttle, ISS, or MIR station exposures with longer missions. So I dont see a shielding problem. Show me how this is a problem, because it sounds like NASA is just making excuses!

Aren't ISS & Shuttle missions below the VAB's? Hence the lower rates of exposure and longer missions are possible for the smae or lower rates as Apollo?

How is that a problem? it makes perfect sense to me and AFAIK agrees with your previous comments (as I understand them) that radiation is higher further out.

NASA should by now with special polymer compounds or alloys be able to make lighter and better radiation shielding than Apollo. So I dont see whats stopping them besides politics!

Why should they have been able to develop such polymers?

Is there any reason to think that there is some sort of polymer that could achieve this?

A google search for "polymer radiation shielding" yeilds a number of results that seem to refer to using moon or mars soil combined with polymers to create radiation shielding, also discussion of boron-filled polymers possibly being both structural and shielding, and there are polymer X-ray shielding available but no indication that it could be structural or simply be "applied" to aluminium to increase its shielding - ie you could probably put a cm around a space craft to ad shielding?

Are there lighter alloys with better shielding? If not then the same question - why is it that NASA "must have" been able to devlop them by now??

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by FoosM

MIR Station, 180 days (thats what 6 months?) 17.20 rem thats about 0.09 rem a day.
Apollo 11 9 days, 0.18 rem is 0.02 rem a day.
Apollo 14 9 days, 1.14 rem is about 0.12 rem a day. (the worst)

Unless my math is wrong, I dont see the problem!

Apollo astronauts managed to go through the belts, do EVAs on the moon fully exposed to GCRs, and their radiation exposures are no worse than Shuttle, ISS, or MIR station exposures with longer missions. So I dont see a shielding problem. Show me how this is a problem, because it sounds like NASA is just making excuses!

Aren't ISS & Shuttle missions below the VAB's? Hence the lower rates of exposure and longer missions are possible for the smae or lower rates as Apollo?

Thats what we have been told. But look at the numbers. Apollo went to the moon and still managed to have, in some cases, lower exposures than LEO missions. That tells me that the space radiation outside the belts is not an issue! They went through the Van Allen Belts, past the magnetosphere into open space exposing themselves to the whims of the Sun. They landed on the moon, conducted EVAs, even Deep space EVAs, and didnt show any issues with radiation exposure. If radiation was an issue out in space, then there should have been an elevated dose for Apollo vs LEO missions. So please explain what's stopping us from going to Mars?

reply to post by FoosM


This document seems to give different figures for the average measured and "effective" doses received than yours - note that it is averaged over all missions, and not just 1 or 2.

What were the other Apollo and MIR mission doses that you didn't mention?

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by FoosM

 

This document seems to give different figures for the average measured and "effective" doses received than yours - note that it is averaged over all missions, and not just 1 or 2.

yeah like 10 missions when only 6 landed on the moon.
But how are the numbers different. ?

Originally posted by FoosM
Thats what we have been told. But look at the numbers. Apollo went to the moon and still managed to have, in some cases, lower exposures than LEO missions. That tells me that the space radiation outside the belts is not an issue! They went through the Van Allen Belts, past the magnetosphere into open space exposing themselves to the whims of the Sun. They landed on the moon, conducted EVAs, even Deep space EVAs, and didnt show any issues with radiation exposure. If radiation was an issue out in space, then there should have been an elevated dose for Apollo vs LEO missions. So please explain what's stopping us from going to Mars?

The answers have already been given to you. $$$$$s and the "politics" of spending them on pretty much any manned mission is the short form. And what part of months and years vs days and weeks wrt to radiation exposure do you not understand ? Do-able ... I think so, but it'll cost.

FYI : the best plan I've read used water (since you'll need it) as secondary shielding on the way there and waste (yes, fecal matter) on the way back (no sense in dumping it if it can serve a purpose).

Originally posted by FoosM
We "know" the moon has water.
We have experience being on the moon,
We have mapped it, its closer by, it moves slower, its larger.
Why try to ride a bull when you can easily mount a pony?

Without going into details, it's certainly a debateble point (Mars vs Moon vs NEO). Had Space.com not borked it's forums, I could point you to a indepth discussion of the pros and cons of each.

Originally posted by FoosM
I mean, what do they want to do, drag the asteroid back to Earth?
How will they mine it? Its ludicrous.

Who mentioned dragging any asteroid anywhere ? Just like you'd have to do with a long duration mission to the Moon or Mars, you'd have to "mine" insitu. That's not impossible, just incredibly difficult. Akin to the Panama Canal or perhaps the Pyramids of Giza in their day. Besides I don't think Obama's plan is to "mine" anything. That's a much longer term goal of the NEO proponents, a "stepping stone" technology to deeper space.

Originally posted by FoosM
Its setting the bar so high that they can have an excuse to say, its not possible after spending all kinds of tax dollars. Or simply fake it, LOL.

Almost right. It's setting the bar so far out in time that the present administration can bask in the aura of manned space exploration without having to do the heavy lifting of actually paying for it. A time honored tradition practiced by both sides of the aisle.

I have not had time to read through this whole thread (almost 10k posts lol) so I'm not sure that I know ALL of what is being debated. However, I have a piece of information that is very valuable.

One of my friend's uncles recently (within the last 8 months) retired from working for the U.S. government and got his paperwork signed allowing him to share information that is not generally expressed to the public. I haven't ask my friend about what all his uncle has told him (although I should, because I know it will be mind blowing) but one thing he did mention is that the live video of the moon landing in 1969 was staged. According to him we really did get to the moon, but the video was filmed in a studio.

There is an interesting explanation behind why, but I cannot seem to remember all of it right now. But basically, it was for security purposes. If they had been showing a live video feed from the landing and something were to go horribly wrong (god only knows what could have been there/happened), having a live video of it would be one of the worst things that could happen. People at home could have potentially been watching the brutal and gorey death of those men. Also, other countries (Russia) would see what had happened and there is no telling what the response from them might have been.

So that's all I have for right now, if you all feel that this could be of great value I will do what I can to find out more from my friend's uncle. Otherwise do with this tidbit of information what you want.