Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
a reply to: onebigmonkey

The Russians stay well below 475km. They won't risk it. They won't even risk a monkey.

The altitudes anyone orbits at is determined by the need to stay in orbit, not some pretend concept you've invented.

Gemini 11 reached an apogee of over 1300 km. No-one died.

Where does that fit in your grand illusion?

a reply to: onebigmonkey

People genuinely interested in learning things might also want to look into 'Kosmos-110', which sent two dogs into space over 22 days in 1966 with an apogee of 904 km specifically to look at the impact of radiation in the VAB.

The doctor examining the dogs afterwards (Dr Yegorov) noted "no harmful effects" from radiation, and that the main impact of their prolonged ride above the imaginary glass ceiling were dehydration and issues related to weightlessness.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: turbonium1

So the sum total of your opinion is that "They didn't do what I think they should do, therefore they didn't do it at all"?

No, they didn't do what THEY PLANNED to do.

That's a fact. It is not my opinion.

We can only speculate on the reason(s) for it, of course....


I see no reason for it if Apollo was genuine. But it makes perfect sense if Apollo was a hoax, though.

You think the public was so bored with moon landings, it's one of the reasons they cancelled Apollo?

The public didn't give two s^&&^s about the Shuttles, but they went for nearly 40 years! Good reason, but just not here, I guess??


And so, you just claim it was a 'lack of money'....

It's no better than the 'public boredom' excuses.


Yes, since the budget was so much smaller, they had to spend the next 40 years flying around LEO with Shuttles!!

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: turbonium1

So the sum total of your opinion is that "They didn't do what I think they should do, therefore they didn't do it at all"?

No, they didn't do what THEY PLANNED to do.

That's a fact. It is not my opinion.

We can only speculate on the reason(s) for it, of course....

Which is pretty much all you've done.

It's simple: changing political goals, changing public attitude, changing budgets. What is so difficult?

You know what, I'm going out later to get a Ferrari. I have no idea where the money will come from, and I'll probably have to do without, oh I dunno, food or something, but who cares. I've said I want a Ferrari, now I have to go buy one right?

If I haven't bought a Ferrari by closing time today does that mean cars will stop working?

I see no reason for it if Apollo was genuine. But it makes perfect sense if Apollo was a hoax, though.

Because you can not grasp the concepts outlined many many times to you. Your inability to understand how the real world works does not invalidate the science and engineering behind Apollo, or the vast amount of evidence that supports the provable fact that it happened.

You think the public was so bored with moon landings, it's one of the reasons they cancelled Apollo?

Already proven to you to be true.

The public didn't give two s^&&^s about the Shuttles, but they went for nearly 40 years! Good reason, but just not here, I guess??

40?

Really?

The shuttle did stuff. It had payloads. It earned money. It helped build the ISS. It had political support. Until it stopped having political support. And money.

The US hasn't flown a human into space now for four and a half years. Is that because it is impossible? They used to launch people into space but now they don't - was the shuttle a lie?

And so, you just claim it was a 'lack of money'....

It's no better than the 'public boredom' excuses.

Not just me, pretty much every normal person out there.

Yes, since the budget was so much smaller, they had to spend the next 40 years flying around LEO with Shuttles!!

Yes, because the budget was so much smaller.

Which technology didn't they have during Apollo that prevented the landing on the moon?

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: onebigmonkey

People genuinely interested in learning things might also want to look into 'Kosmos-110', which sent two dogs into space over 22 days with an apogee of 904 km specifically to look at the impact of radiation in the VAB.

The doctor examining the dogs afterwards (Dr Yegorov) noted "no harmful effects" from radiation, and that the main impact of their prolonged ride above the imaginary glass ceiling were dehydration and issues related to weightlessness.

Of course, the US believed their mortal enemy, who had no reason to lie to America, merely because they're a bunch of godless Communist maniacs intent on destroying our free world!

Good to know!

a reply to: turbonium1

You demand evidence. you get evidence, you dismiss evidence.

I don't know which of your reflexes is quicker, the knee-jerk or the hand-wave.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

It's simple: changing political goals, changing public attitude, changing budgets. What is so difficult?

Compare manned and unmanned exploration of space.

Unmanned craft don't stop all further exploration of space, then go back into LEO for the next 40 years.

Unmanned craft didn't drop all the technologies which got the craft to Mars, during the 40 years it stayed in LEO.

Unmanned craft didn't stop in reaching for goals because the public was bored with it, or stop all their progress in space exploration with nonsensical excuses.


Space exploration is the same for manned and unmanned craft. It's not a giant Apollo spike, which you want to believe it is, and countless excuses for nothing even close in over 40 years since, despite far superior technologies at hand.

Sad, indeed.

originally posted by: turbonium1


Space exploration is the same for manned and unmanned craft.

Then you should have no trouble believing that the technology that landed Soviet, Chinese and US unmanned probes is capable of landing a person on the moon.

Which technology wasn't available in the 1960s that stopped them?

It's not a giant Apollo spike, which you want to believe it is

Don't put words in my mouth. You have no idea what I believe, you aren't interested.

I find all aspects of space exploration interesting, not just Apollo. People (unless they are real morons) don't claim the rest of the space program is a fake, so there is no need to defend it, or explain it to people with a fundamental educational deficiency.

originally posted by: turbonium1

Space exploration is the same for manned and unmanned craft. It's not a giant Apollo spike, which you want to believe it is, and countless excuses for nothing even close in over 40 years since, despite far superior technologies at hand.

Sad, indeed.

define a giant apollo spike.. is landing on an asteroid counting as a giant spike?? what about being on the outer fringes of the solar system??

to you these two things must be childs play right?

p.s. you still havent told us what technology was missing.. its the lunar module technology i believe you were trying to suggest that was missing a few pages back..

Well, let's assume just for the sake of argument that turbonium believes that it is the lander technology that wasn't available.

Which part?

Its a simple arrangement of a two part vehicle with rockets on each part that made a controlled ascent and ascent from a surface. Both ascent and descent were filmed in long unbroken sequences showing previously unknown details and behaviour of materials entirely consistent with a zero atmosphere low gravity environment. China's lander (a simple arrangement of a body with legs and a rocket engine mounted underneath) showed exactly the same material behaviour.

We have to assume he or she believes that it is possible to get a craft to the moon in the 1960s, after all we have photographs taken by Lunar Orbiter, Ranger, Zond and Luna probes to show that this happened. Several of these probes took images of Earth during their missions, and that allows us to verify the time and date these were taken thanks to the unique meteorological features a picture of Earth provides.

So, the next bit is to land on the surface, which again has been done by both Soviet and US unmanned probes during the 1960s - probes with a body, legs to support them, and rocket engines mounted underneath. Surveyor probes even managed to photograph Earth while on the surface, again providing us with a unique time signature to date the images. Soviet probes even managed to take off and return, so we know this is possible as well.

What's left? Separating two craft an re-uniting them? Done in Earth orbit many many times both by Gemini, Apollo and Soviet programmes in the 1960s. The principle of launching a craft and then performing a rendez-vous and docking in space is the same then as it is now, it's all in the timing.

Is it life support? Well, we've had long lasting missions in space before and after Apollo - the only difference is that they stayed in LEO. Mercury, Gemini, Skylab and all the Soviet and Chinese orbital and space station missions still managed to cope with making sure there is food, water and oxygen without any problem.

The only thing we have left then is the supposedly searing radiation hell of space. The searing radiation hell that no-one but a half dozen hoax believers seem to think is instantly fatal. Lunar probes in the 1960s used photographic film in cameras exposed for long periods of time to this searing radiation hell without melting, fogging or otherwise damaging the film, that's how fatal it is. Soviet and US probes took radiation readings in the VAB, around the moon and on the lunar surface before any humans set foot there and revealed that it is not likely to provide a problem to adequately shielded people and spacecraft. The only people who claim that the shielding used is not adequate are those same half dozen hoax believers and they have absolutely nothing to support that notion.

No matter how many times they claim otherwise, animals have been sent into and beyond the VAB into the searing radiation hell of space and they have survived.

The only (and I mean only) claims that space radiation can not be protected against on missions as short as Apollo comes from people who do not understand what radiation is, what the VAB are, and how radiation works. They can't produce any data that proves their point, and when they try they invariably prove nothing but their ignorance. The websites from which they copy and paste their ill-informed accusations are in it for money, not truth, and they are the people who deserve your attention, not people like me doing this for fun and for free.

So, turbonium, which part of Apollo's technology didn't exist? Rocket engines? Water? Be specific, cite evidence to support your point, or everyone here will just see that all you have are the Emperor's new clothes - lots of fuss about them, but actually there's nothing there. This is in direct contrast to the mountains of evidence (often evidence that you claim didn't exist) provided to you that you have seemed not to see and to which you have not responded.

Man up. Evidence - you demand it often enough from others, how about providing some of your own. Stand by your claims or stop making them.

originally posted by: turbonium1

Space exploration is the same for manned and unmanned craft.

Only a total IDIOT could believe that You do know the meaning of manned and unmanned ?

So lets have a fund raiser lets do a kickstarter to get you into orbit above the VAB we won't have to provide you with anything other than some power and protection that's all an unmanned probe would need, so lets get you up there so we don't need to see anymore BS excuses from you.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

Proof please. Show is proof that aluminium us a poor shield for the Apollo missions, because no matter how many times you repeat this claim, you haven't.

Have a look...

"Whereas aluminum was considered a useful shield material a few years ago, now it is considered as not only a poor shield material but may even be hazardous to the astronaut's health because dose equivalent may be a poor predictor of astronaut risk."

"Clearly, aluminum which was taken as a reasonable shield material a few years ago is now considered a poor candidate for future spacecraft construction."

"In fact studies using biological-based models of radiation response indicate that aluminum may indeed provide an additional hazard to the astronaut..This ineffectiveness and possibly added hazard of aluminum result from the secondary particle production processes in breaking up incident GCR ions within the shield."

"Aluminum is now estimated to be of little value in protection from the galactic rays, and further code improvement is expected to further detract from aluminum as a useful shield material."

"The need to look at new ways of constructing spacecraft is now evident because current estimates indicate aluminum to be an ineffective protection material."

www.cs.odu.edu...

"..aluminum has been shown to be a poor material for spacecraft construction since secondary radiations create an additional hazard and any improved protection occurs only at very large depths."

www.stfc.ac.uk...

I've shown these statements before, and your reply was 'they are talking about LONG term missions, not SHORT term missions like Apollo'. Longer missions are mentioned in their introduction, which you've taken to mean short-term missions are excluded.

But they are clearly referring to ANY and ALL manned missions into the (deep space) environment...

Recall a few quotes..

"Whereas aluminum was considered a useful shield material a few years ago, now it is considered as not only a poor shield material but may even be hazardous to the astronaut's health because dose equivalent may be a poor predictor of astronaut risk."

"Whereas aluminum was considered a useful shield material a few years ago, now it is considered as not only a poor shield material but may even be hazardous to the astronaut's health because dose equivalent may be a poor predictor of astronaut risk."

"Clearly, aluminum which was taken as a reasonable shield material a few years ago is now considered a poor candidate for future spacecraft construction."


They don't make exclusions for any sort of short-term manned missions. Nor do they specify it is only relevant to long-term manned missions.

Unless you can prove otherwise, you must accept the fact they are referring to ALL manned missions in deep space.

The Apollo missions don't work with their statements, clearly not, so they simply ignore the whole thing, as if it never happened at all. Which is quite true!


On the VAB, now..

"The objective of RPS is to measure the inner Van Allen belt protons with energies from 50 MeV to 2 GeV. Presently, the intensity of trapped protons with energies beyond about 150 MeV is not well known and thought to be underestimated in existing specification models. Such protons are known to pose a number of hazards to astronauts and spacecraft, including total ionizing dose, displacement damage, single event effects, and nuclear activation. This instrument will address a priority highly ranked by the scientific and technical community and will extend the measurement capability of this mission to a range beyond that originally planned. The project's goal is the development of a new standard radiation model for spacecraft design."

directory.eoportal.org...


“This is the first time we’ve been able to measure the high energy particles in the heart of the radiation belts,” Mazur said. “We’re able to measure at the one billion electron volt level; particles at that energy are virtually impossible to shield against. They will easily penetrate half-inch thick aluminum plate.”

These suites have confirmed previous hypotheses about the belts’ behavior, while also revealing that the belts are a far more dynamic and changing environment than previously thought. “We expected to see a fairly placid radiation belt system,” Baker says. “Instead, we see that the belts have been extraordinarily active and dynamic during the first few weeks.


www.nasa.gov...-bF_ko


So all manned spacecraft going into deep space will NOT have aluminum shielding, as it would make it MORE hazardous to astronauts. Apollo makes no sense here, obviously.

The VAB are now understood to be entirely different than we once believed. Like back in the Apollo-era, for example.

The VAB also have radiation which is "virtually impossible to shield against". That's hardly relevant for your magical Apollo missions, right?

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

The only thing we have left then is the supposedly searing radiation hell of space. The searing radiation hell that no-one but a half dozen hoax believers seem to think is instantly fatal. Lunar probes in the 1960s used photographic film in cameras exposed for long periods of time to this searing radiation hell without melting, fogging or otherwise damaging the film, that's how fatal it is. Soviet and US probes took radiation readings in the VAB, around the moon and on the lunar surface before any humans set foot there and revealed that it is not likely to provide a problem to adequately shielded people and spacecraft. The only people who claim that the shielding used is not adequate are those same half dozen hoax believers and they have absolutely nothing to support that notion.

“We expected to see a fairly placid radiation belt system,” Baker says. “Instead, we see that the belts have been extraordinarily active and dynamic during the first few weeks."

Yes, they certainly knew it was safe to fly through the VAB back then, right?

"Whereas aluminum was considered a useful shield material a few years ago, now it is considered as not only a poor shield material but may even be hazardous to the astronaut's health because dose equivalent may be a poor predictor of astronaut risk."

And they certainly knew aluminum shielding was safe, too!


Dream on...

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: turbonium1

Space exploration is the same for manned and unmanned craft.

Only a total IDIOT could believe that

You do know the meaning of manned and unmanned ?

So lets have a fund raiser lets do a kickstarter to get you into orbit above the VAB we won't have to provide you with anything other than some power and protection that's all an unmanned probe would need, so lets get you up there so we don't need to see anymore BS excuses from you.

Since YOU are the one claiming we went to the moon, you go right on ahead.

Then we'll see who the total IDIOT really is here...

originally posted by: choos

define a giant apollo spike.. is landing on an asteroid counting as a giant spike?? what about being on the outer fringes of the solar system??

to you these two things must be childs play right?

p.s. you still havent told us what technology was missing.. its the lunar module technology i believe you were trying to suggest that was missing a few pages back..

If you want to know what technology was missing, simply look at what they are currently doing, and you'll have your answer. They are studying the VAB, trying to develop a lunar lander, trying to develop adequate radiation shielding for both spacecraft and crew, among other things.

They are not doing all these studies, R&D, etc. for fun, they do it because they NEED to, before going on any manned missions beyond LEO.


Apollo was a spike for many reasons...

They progressed normally, right up to point Apollo (supposedly) first flew to the moon, and then, they took up right to the point they had left it, immediately after Apollo ended.

I'll go into it further, another time.

a reply to: turbonium1

Clearly this is all you have: crossing the VAB is your "they did not have the technology", as this is the only thing you challenge.

Your challenge don't hold up.

Longer term missions are not just briefly mentioned in the introductions, they are specifically the topic of discussion.

Let's look at this one www.stfc.ac.uk...

What is the title?

Mars Radiation Risk Assessment and Shielding Design for Long-Term Exposure to Ionizing Space Radiation

Can we see a few clues there? I don't know about you but the words "Mars" and "Long Term" are pretty major hints that we are not talking about a fast jaunt through the VAB and a week or so in space.

The other article you use ntrs.nasa.gov... is also specifically looking at long term doses for astronauts based on modern standards for exposure. It doesn't just vaguely mention them, it refers to annual dosage rates for long term space workers.

You completely gloss over the fact that both these papers refer to long term exposure levels and just pick out the sentences where they say that aluminium is maybe not the best thing to use in that type of mission given that fancy new materials (and the key word there is "new") are available. Tell us what they should have used then.

You also managed to do some very skilled copying and pasting from an article revealing refinements in our understanding of the VAB. What they discuss are the very dynamic nature of the belts, how they change over a matter of hours as a response to intense solar events. How many of these intense solar events occurred during Apollo missions.

The quote you give about particles penetrating aluminium - which ones do they refer to? Very very very very high energy ones. How many of these are there likely to be? You're also assuming that any craft passing through the VAB would spend a long time in the zone to which the paper refers. The article says they build satellites to survive these problems - are they covered in a foot of lead?

You have, as usual, cherry picked quotes and references that suit your purposes, glossed over the bits that don't suit you and failed to deal with the fundamental issue of proving that Apollo did not cross the VAB, land on the moon and return again, or what the radiation levels would have been during that journey. You ignore the fact that dogs and turtles were given long exposures in space without being instantly fried, and that Gemini XI spent significant periods in the VAB without killing either astronaut, both of whom went on to crew Apollo 12.

Tell us what radiation levels would have been experienced during the Apollo missions. Here's a start:

www.hq.nasa.gov...

Don't forget to chase up the references.

Aluminium was the construction material they used because it matched the design requirements of being both light and provided sufficient protection for the mission duration. It was not the only material involved in the spacecraft's construction. Apollo missions did not spend long enough in the VAB to suffer enough radiation to cause concern. You have failed to provide any evidence that they spent too long in the VAB and you have failed to provide any evidence that the radiation levels they would have experienced, or did experience, were any kind of problem.

If you look at pretty much any study of missions beyond LEO to (for example) Mars or asteroids or wherever the major concern is not what will happen to astronauts crossing the VAB, it is long term exposure to the risks of radiation in deep space. Apollo knew about that risk, had contingencies for it and had monitoring programmes in place to make sure they had enough warning to deal with any solar events that might occur. They put more effort into preventing micro-meteorite damage than they did radiation protection and for good reason - it's more likely to be a real and immediate danger, as opposed to radiation exposure that might cause illness at some point in the future.

Finally, you cannot include a time machine in your claims. You can't produce modern data and modern materials and say "well they should have known this and they should have used these". They didn't have them so couldn't have used them. They built spacecraft and designed missions and procedures based on knowledge they had and made informed judgements about what they considered to be acceptable risks. Changing levels of understanding and changing ideas of what constitutes 'acceptable risk' does not invalidate what went on before.

All you have is this big radiation bogeyman that you think is so important but we're all still waiting for you to produce actual numbers that prove Apollo couldn't have got to the moon without killing its crew. Jarrah tried that and failed miserably.

originally posted by: turbonium1

If you want to know what technology was missing, simply look at what they are currently doing, and you'll have your answer.

No, we want to know what technology you are claiming was missing.

They are studying the VAB,

Because you don't stop measuring things when you don't have all the answers. The VAB structure was broadly understood during Apollo, the exact behaviour was not. Current work is on refining the models and improving our understanding.

trying to develop a lunar lander,

For longer missions, using new materials. The basic design of them is the same: a body, with legs, a rocket underneath. Prove the Apollo version didn't or couldn't work.

trying to develop adequate radiation shielding for both spacecraft and crew, among other things.

For longer term missions with newer materials. New materials that will be lighter and have less of a fuel cost.

They are not doing all these studies, R&D, etc. for fun, they do it because they NEED to, before going on any manned missions beyond LEO.

And no-one doing these studies has ever come out and said "hang on, they couldn't have done Apollo they way they said because..."

Apollo was a spike for many reasons...

They progressed normally, right up to point Apollo (supposedly) first flew to the moon, and then, they took up right to the point they had left it, immediately after Apollo ended.

No. They carried on exploring the moon up until 1972 - they did not just suddenly stop once they go there, they carried on going there. Had the budget not been cancelled they would have carried on beyond that. They carried on with Skylab (using Apollo equipment), then the shuttle, they carried on exploring other planets, developing new probes and measuring techniques. Space exploration did not stop, it changed focus. That change of focus does not prove the original focus did not work.

originally posted by: turbonium1

If you want to know what technology was missing, simply look at what they are currently doing, and you'll have your answer. They are studying the VAB, trying to develop a lunar lander, trying to develop adequate radiation shielding for both spacecraft and crew, among other things.

we are studying the weather also.. yet we allow commercial flights.. i dont see you claim airlines are a hoax..

we are FURTHER developing not developing the lunar lander theres a difference.. what technology was missing from the lunar lander?? every single part of what the LM can do has been demonstrated.. i believe the russians were able to return a very small amount of lunar sample from the lunar surface with a probe.. why is it that NASA, the gods that were able to fake lunar gravity, unable to develop a lunar lander??

adequate radiation shields for a long term mission.. how long was the longest mission for apollo?? 13 days or so?? do you know what exposure time means??

not one of your missing technology excuses is logical.. try harder..

They are not doing all these studies, R&D, etc. for fun, they do it because they NEED to, before going on any manned missions beyond LEO.

which will be alot longer than 13 days beyond the VAB.. do you know what exposure time is??

Apollo was a spike for many reasons...

They progressed normally, right up to point Apollo (supposedly) first flew to the moon, and then, they took up right to the point they had left it, immediately after Apollo ended.

I'll go into it further, another time.

Apollo didnt just goto the moon with absolutely nothing to support it.. it had the entire history of rockets unmanned and manned to support it.. your perceived giant spike is purely due to your ignorance alone..

originally posted by: turbonium1

So all manned spacecraft going into deep space will NOT have aluminum shielding, as it would make it MORE hazardous to astronauts. Apollo makes no sense here, obviously.

The VAB are now understood to be entirely different than we once believed. Like back in the Apollo-era, for example.

The VAB also have radiation which is "virtually impossible to shield against". That's hardly relevant for your magical Apollo missions, right?

wrong.. you started with the wrong knowledge and came to the wrong conclusion..

as already stated but continually ignored, future manned spacecraft (Orion) will be made of Aluminium..

also radiation in the VAB which are virtually impossible to shield against covers only a relatively small area.. around the globe..
for example:
if there was a single burning tree in front of you and you had to walk to the market for food which was behind the tree, someone like yourself would be doomed to failure because you cant work out how to walk AROUND the burning tree..

When explorers first set out to conquer inhospitable places, Antarctica, the poles etc, it was obviously fraught with danger. And the people who got to these places could only stay for a limited duration. Over time, a couple of years at the most, explorers from other countries came and stayed a bit longer, and so on.

Up to present day, people now live and work and study in these conditions for months and months at a time. Mainly because of technology and logistics being as good as they are.

This should be the exact same scenario with the moon.

I can't for the life of me understand how the Russians (who at one point were neck and neck with USA to get there) can be so far behind still with their abilities to get to the moon. Nor how, as quick as the Chinese or Indians are progressing, that they haven't yet put a man on the moon, seeing as they've been doing it longer than the USA were when they eventually went.

A venture to the moon in this day and age would be a hugely profitable enterprise for whatever country that announced they were going there. The rights for the TV coverage, the merchandise, they would make billions from it over years to come.

The whole world would be watching. It would be one of the biggest events ever to happen ever in the modern age. The end results would far outweigh the initial costs.

But there's not even a snifter of that happening.

In my opinion there are only two reasons why NO ONE has been back in over forty years. Either they found something on the moon originally that could or would be a potential danger to the human race, and warned or showed other countries who intern ceased to try themselves.

Or they simply didn't go in the first place....