Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

originally posted by: turbonium1

We are not building aluminum craft because it makes VAB radiation even worse, unlike the aluminum Apollo craft which was perfectly safe, in the same radiation.

too bad orion uses aluminium, might want to get your facts straight before you spout it as facts.

a reply to: AthlonSavage

If a Moon Hoaxie could do High School math, they wouldn't be a Moon Hoaxie.

originally posted by: turbonium1
We're studying the VA Belts before we go to the moon, unlike Apollo, because the Belts were perfectly safe back in the day.

We studied the VAB before Apollo.

You might want to look into who Van Allen was and when he did his research. The Russians also did a lot of work into them. Claiming that the VAB were not known about or researched before Apollo is simply not true.

We're still unable to build a lunar lander, unlike Apollo, when non-existent technologies turned into a perfectly functional craft, in no time.

Again this is simply not true. Lunar landers were built before and after Apollo. The LM was developed over many years and tested - component by component and in its entirety, before it landed. The only difference is the presence if a person.

We need to fuel the lunar craft in LEO before going half a million miles out to the moon and back, unlike Apollo.

This is simply the current favourite method given the desired aims of proposed missions. We do not need to do that, we just choose to because it helps get bigger payloads and allows for ,ore versatile planning for a multi-purpose space vehicle. Neither Russia nor China refuelled their craft in LEO before going on to the moon and back. No organisation sending any craft to the moon has 're-fuelled' in LEO - they all launch and go.

We are not building aluminum craft because it makes VAB radiation even worse, unlike the aluminum Apollo craft which was perfectly safe, in the same radiation.

Aluminium is by far the best material for the job - unless of course you can prove otherwise with your vast understanding of the subject. As has already been pointed out, Aluminum is still the material of choice.

We didn't need any animal tests before sending humans out, so if we actually do animal test flights some day, as I see happening, I can't wait to hear what excuses Apollo-ites spew out!

Apart from the fact that dogs and chimps were sent into space by the US and USSR. Turtles went round the moon before people did. Do actually know anything about the space programme? They were sent to test the survivability of space, not to fly anything. In order to see if people can fly a spacecraft, sooner of later you need to send people. If you want to test if a human can land on the moon, you have to land a human on the moon.

What technology did not exist at the time of Apollo that prevented them getting a man to the surface of the moon and back?

a reply to: DJW001

Hey now, just because Jarrah White can't do third grade arithmetic doesn't mean he's stupid . . . I mean there's waaaaaay more reasons than that.

a reply to: choos

Yeah I love 8th when people try to say aluminum makes things worse when it's the most effective against most types of radiation. For example rap a hamburger in aluminum foil and put it in a microwave. Hamburger stays cold and microwave has so many high energy particles bouncing off it it destroys the microwave. That aside the best thing is glass on all types of radiation and apollo was insulated with glass fibers. That stops all radiation that's why when you go have an xray the techs sit behind a glass panel.

Love it when some idiot knowing nothing about high energy particles try to make blanket statements they read on an Internet site.

originally posted by: choos

if it had genuine investors and financial backers then it would have..

They had loads of money, in fact.

It was mostly spent on the Shuttle program, though.

With 40 years of it, and nothing else.


Nonsense.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: choos

if it had genuine investors and financial backers then it would have..

They had loads of money, in fact.

It was mostly spent on the Shuttle program, though.

With 40 years of it, and nothing else.


Nonsense.

NASA's budget during the first decade or so of the shuttle program was about 1/2 to 1/3 the budget that it was during the height of the design, research, testing, and development days of Apollo.

For example, from 1973 to 1989, NASA's budget averaged about $15 Billion (in today's dollars). From 1964 to 1969, NASA's budget averaged about $37 Billion.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

Aluminium is by far the best material for the job - unless of course you can prove otherwise with your vast understanding of the subject. As has already been pointed out, Aluminum is still the material of choice.

I've gone over this many times, but still you live in denial.

Review the studies I've shown you on this, so you'll know - aluminum is not only a poor shield against the radiation found in deep space, it makes it EVEN MORE HAZARDOUS THAN IT WAS BEFORE!

That is a fact.

You say Orion is an aluminum craft, so aluminum cannot be a poor shield for manned moon missions....

No. Aluminum IS a poor shield for such missions.

You will never see an aluminum spacecraft like Orion go past LEO with a human crew.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
NASA's budget during the first decade or so of the shuttle program was about 1/2 to 1/3 the budget that it was during the height of the design, research, testing, and development days of Apollo.

For example, from 1973 to 1989, NASA's budget averaged about $15 Billion (in today's dollars). From 1964 to 1969, NASA's budget averaged about $37 Billion.

Ok. What about the years you left out... 1969-1972??? Why do you skip over Nixon's first term?? Tell us the facts man!

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: choos

if it had genuine investors and financial backers then it would have..

They had loads of money, in fact.

It was mostly spent on the Shuttle program, though.

With 40 years of it, and nothing else.


Nonsense.

NASA's budget during the first decade or so of the shuttle program was about 1/2 to 1/3 the budget that it was during the height of the design, research, testing, and development days of Apollo.

For example, from 1973 to 1989, NASA's budget averaged about $15 Billion (in today's dollars). From 1964 to 1969, NASA's budget averaged about $37 Billion.

You've shown that Constellation's failure was NOT due to any lack of money, as you claim.


Let's compare the Apollo program to the Shuttle program..


The Shuttle had about 1/3 to 1/2 the annual budget of Apollo, right?

Over 3 times longer than Apollo, the Shuttle program would have more money than Apollo did, yes?


For Constellation, there was a (supposed) 'return' to the moon, announced in 2001, to occur by 2018, later by 2020.
So in 17-19 years.

Over 2x longer than Apollo, with 1/2 the budget, let's say...

Brutal failure.


It's sad.

These experts say aluminum was assumed to be very effective material in shielding against any/all space radiation.

It worked in LEO, so they expected it would work just as well beyond LEO, too.

Apollo was built mostly of aluminum, in that belief, as we know.


But we now know aluminum is NOT a shield for all types of space radiation. It makes it even worse than before, in fact.


Apollo's time has come to an end, without a doubt.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: choos

if it had genuine investors and financial backers then it would have..

They had loads of money, in fact.

It was mostly spent on the Shuttle program, though.

With 40 years of it, and nothing else.

Nonsense.

you answered yourself..
money was not put into the Lunar modules further development.. it doesnt matter how much money they have if they dont put money into its development then it isnt going to do anything..

therefore if the LM had genuine investors and financial backers it would have been further developed.. get it yet?

originally posted by: turbonium1

You've shown that Constellation's failure was NOT due to any lack of money, as you claim.

Let's compare the Apollo program to the Shuttle program..

The Shuttle had about 1/3 to 1/2 the annual budget of Apollo, right?

not really, at the time that the shuttle was running NASA's entire budget was about that.. but the shuttles budget was not the entire NASA budget.

whereas majority of NASA's budget in the 60's was for supporting Apollo

Over 3 times longer than Apollo, the Shuttle program would have more money than Apollo did, yes?

For Constellation, there was a (supposed) 'return' to the moon, announced in 2001, to occur by 2018, later by 2020.
So in 17-19 years.

Over 2x longer than Apollo, with 1/2 the budget, let's say...

Brutal failure.

It's sad.

again you are assuming that NASA's ENTIRE BUDGET was to be put into the single effort of making the constellation program a success and completely ignore any other programs NASA needs to maintain..

We are going to stay in low earth orbit for 50 years. 2018 at least.

originally posted by: turbonium1
These experts say aluminum was assumed to be very effective material in shielding against any/all space radiation.

get your facts straight..

Aluminium is an effective shield against MOST types of particle radiation..

unless you want to prove that the experts say that Aluminium is a very effective shield against ANY/ALL space radiation??

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

Again this is simply not true. Lunar landers were built before and after Apollo. The LM was developed over many years and tested - component by component and in its entirety, before it landed. The only difference is the presence if a person.


Apart from the fact that dogs and chimps were sent into space by the US and USSR. Turtles went round the moon before people did. Do actually know anything about the space programme? They were sent to test the survivability of space, not to fly anything. In order to see if people can fly a spacecraft, sooner of later you need to send people. If you want to test if a human can land on the moon, you have to land a human on the moon.

No viable, fully functional lunar lander vehicle exists, as yet.

Demonstrations of genuine working lunar landers have never been done, afaik.

No proof for your claim, none.


As for animals, tests were done in LEO, but never beyond LEO.

How absurd.

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1
These experts say aluminum was assumed to be very effective material in shielding against any/all space radiation.

get your facts straight..

Aluminium is an effective shield against MOST types of particle radiation..

unless you want to prove that the experts say that Aluminium is a very effective shield against ANY/ALL space radiation??

No. They had once assumed it was the case, in earlier times. It was a long held belief, which they found out was wrong, many years later on.

That is the fact, now killing the Apollo story.

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1
These experts say aluminum was assumed to be very effective material in shielding against any/all space radiation.

get your facts straight..

Nobody goes over 475km. That is the glass ceiling. Get your facts straight.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1
These experts say aluminum was assumed to be very effective material in shielding against any/all space radiation.

get your facts straight..

Aluminium is an effective shield against MOST types of particle radiation..

unless you want to prove that the experts say that Aluminium is a very effective shield against ANY/ALL space radiation??

No. They had once assumed it was the case, in earlier times. It was a long held belief, which they found out was wrong, many years later on.

That is the fact, now killing the Apollo story.

no source showing that experts saying that Aluminium is a very effective shield against ANY/ALL space radiation???

so no its not killing the Apollo story its only killing your understanding of how particle radiation (or even any radiation) works..

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1
These experts say aluminum was assumed to be very effective material in shielding against any/all space radiation.

get your facts straight..

Nobody goes over 475km. That is the glass ceiling. Get your facts straight.

There is no glass ceiling, this a complete fabrication in your part. It is not a fact.