Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

originally posted by: turbonium1

I've shown you my sources, right?

yes and you have continually shown that YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND THEM

The sources clearly state, repeatedly, that aluminum is not only a poor material for shielding GCR radiation, it actually makes it more hazardous to astronauts in the spacecraft. Our future spacecraft will not be built with aluminum shielding, for that very reason.

first Orion is primarily built from aluminium..

second, the hazard that GCR present is a very very low hazard.. even if aluminium makes the GCR's more hazardous it is still very very low hazard and will still take SEVERAL MONTHS for an astronaut to get a 5% increased chance of developing cancer in their later life.

Do they make any exception(s) for their statements, within the documents?

No, they do not.

If there had any exception(s) to this, they'd have mentioned it in the documents.

You claim GCR radiation is only a concern for long missions, not for short missions like Apollo's, right?

You base that on figures in their document, which you think are 100% accurate, valid, genuine measurements of GCR radiation, taken in the deep space environment. Yes?

Do you not recall why you're wrong, so I need to spell it out for you, once again?

They are NOT actual measurements of GCR radiation taken in deep space. They aren't even real figures. And not even in deep space. They are guesstimates, nothing more.

they arent real figures??

so when they measure the GCR radiation on their trip to mars its not real figures??
when chandrayaan measures the GCR radiation on its trip to the moon its not real figures??

You should really know this, since I've already explained it to you, over and over again.

yea and that is going to work right?? GCR radiation data collected in deep space by satellites and probes are not real figures because you say so and it proves you wrong..

They say it in the document, and that's how I know about it, and told you it.

They don't use these figures, as they are not genuine, or even measurements..

You can't, either.

in some of the documents that you brought up a long time ago, even in those documents it stated the GCR figures.. and even then it said it would take a few months for the accumulated dosage to reach 1 Sv with aluminium shielding..

you continually ignore this, you continually cherry pick to maintain your fantasy.. the fact is, GCR radiation is low level even when intensified by aluminium it is still low level.. 2 weeks exposure to GCR behind aluminium will be no where near 1Sv accumulated dosage.. you should just stick with the VAB and solar particles.. for 2 weeks GCR's are a negligible hazard.

perhaps i can put it like this:

bob is outside collecting rain water, rain is falling at roughly 0.1 litres per hour. he has a reservoir that can collect upto 1000 litres.. this means that in about 10000hours the reservoir will be full or about 416.7 days..

lets just assume that aluminium shielding just happens to turn the rain water from 0.1 litres per hour to 1 litre per hour.. this now means that the reservoir will fill up in 1000 hours or 41.7 days..

now when the reservoir fills up there is a mechanism that will trigger 5% of the time causing bob severe discomfort.

the thing is, bob plans to only put the reservoir up for no more than 5 days
meaning the reservoir will only collect 120 litres, well below the 1000 litres to cause bob discomfort..

knowing all of this, you are now claiming that it is all impossible because aluminium will intensify the rain water flow and that Bob should die as its too hazardous even though the reservoir is 12% full..

originally posted by: choos
a reply to: turbonium1

What about the great pyramids? They were building small mounds and then they started building huge pyramids and then the went back to building small mounds..

Are the great pyramids a hoax??

It doesn't conflict with the official story, in ONLY conflicts in your mind because you are unable to comprehend the governments decisions to cut back coupled with your inability to comprehend anything science related

You've solved secrets of the great pyramids, now??

Nobody knows how it was done, or who did it, or why it was built to begin with!

You don't know, either.

Building mounds, then building the great pyramids, and then back to building mounds again?? Hilarious, really!

originally posted by: turbonium1

Building mounds, then building the great pyramids, and then back to building mounds again?? Hilarious, really!

so if the egyptians were building mounds and then built the great pyramids and then back to building mounds again..

you would believe that the great pyramids were not real, perhaps maybe a hologram?? hilarious indeed.

p.s. if you dont like the pyramids ill use skyscrapers:

Burj Khalifa UAE height 828.0 m completed 2010
23 Marina UAE 395.0 m completed 2012
Princess Tower UAE 392.0 m completed 2012
The Index UAE 328.0 m completed 2009

seems in the UAE the were only capable of about 328m in 2009 and then in 2010 they go right upto 828m!!!!!!! and then 2 years later they go back DOWN to 395 m and 392 m.. do you believe the burj khalifa to be a hoax also??

Would turbonium please tell us what sources he has that give his radiation data that proves his case, because apparently the figures he has been quoting aren't real, in which case any arguments he has been making with those figures are irrelevant?

Would turbonium please give sources showing that aluminium is the only construction material used in the Apollo CSM?

Would turbonium please tell us specifically which technology wasn't available in the 1960s?

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Lets wait and see. In 10 years perhaps mainstream argument will hold, 20 -30 years from now will become harder to explain that trip to the Moon in 1970th, 60 years from now you won't care.

Hehe)))

a reply to: choos


On the paper it is possible. Just stay healthy decade or two and see how in schools students learn of ancient usans went to the Moon along with who built the pyramids to the mix.

cheers)

a reply to: ppk55

My dog said you are lying

I am not saying the moon landing was a hoax, nor am I saying it wasn't. I am just here to ask a couple of questions that I have not heard answers to. Perhaps some one with knowledge in this area could explain...

As Neil Armstrong is going down the ladder to set foot on the moon for the first time he stops at the last step and says, "The LEM footprints are only depressed in the sediment about one or two inches." He would state in later interviews that this was in reference to concerns people had that the layer of sediment on the surface of the moon might be too thick to land in and walk in safely. He then steps onto the moon and makes the footprint we have all seen pictures of a thousand times while saying the famous quote, "One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind."

So here are my questions. While landing, the LEM fired its main engine for several minutes to slow its decent to touch down softly on the surface of the moon. As Neil Armstrong stated, the surface was covered in one to two inches of sediment. As the LEM neared the surface it also fired thrusters to correct its position and attitude. The main engine was still firing straight down. A rocket engine. Firing straight down into one or two inches of fine sediment. Think about that. Why was the sediment not blown out away from the LEM in all directions? Why was the sediment not hanging in the atmosphere around the LEM? Dust can hang in the air on this planet for quite some time. The gravity on the moon is only 17% that of the earth. Fine sediment didn't settle that fast. Why was it not evident in the video or photographs? Why was it not blown away from the LEM altogether by the main engine? The LEM wasn't that big. The ladder was only a few feet away from the engine bell. Surely fine sediment just a few feet away from a rocket engine would have at least been disturbed, right?

a reply to: Vroomfondel

Because the engine was throttled down to minimum power at touchdown. It was also very diffuse thrust because of that big engine nozzle.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Vroomfondel

Because the engine was throttled down to minimum power at touchdown. It was also very diffuse thrust because of that big engine nozzle.

Also forgot no atmosphere meaning thrust doesnt blow anything on earth it would because we push air particles at it. Cant create wind on the moon so unless the trust is literally only going to move something it comes in contact with. As you said was powered down and its dispersed over a wide area. People see rocket launches here on earth and think it should be the same on the moon. If it was then obviously it was faked.

a reply to: dragonridr
a reply to: zaphod58

I know the atmosphere is not the same as on Earth so of course its behavior wouldn't be the same. If the engine is generating thrust without atmosphere it must be able to move the sediment much more easily than it can move the LEM. Even diffused, it was still generating enough force to keep the LEM from slamming into the moon. That much force would have at least disturbed the layer of sediment but there was no evidence of that in the pictures or video. The engine isn't pushing air molecules at the sediment, its pushing exhaust gases. If there is enough motive force in those exhaust gases to move the LEM doesn't there have to be more than enough to move dust?

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
If there is enough motive force in those exhaust gases to move the LEM doesn't there have to be more than enough to move dust?

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
Why was the sediment not blown out away from the LEM in all directions?

A little bit of the finer stuff probably was blown away, but the coarser stuff remained. Also, what you called "sediment" is actually called "lunar regolith" and it has properties unlike earth sediment. Because of the impacts of micrometeorites, and the lack of Earth-style wind and water related erosion on the moon, instead of small particles being rounded like they often are on Earth, the moon particles when examined under a microscope have sharp or jagged edges which makes it harder for them to roll past each other, and they stick together better.

As proof of this property, just try to put a bootprint in sand like the bootprints we see on the moon. You can't do it because the sand doesn't stick to itself like the lunar regolith does. This chunk of regolith behaves differently than the sand we are familiar with:

science.nasa.gov...

A speck of Moon dirt. The strange shape tells a tale of violence: It results from the welding of rock, mineral and glass by the heat of micrometeoroid impacts. Image credit: David S. McKay, NASA/JSC...

Micrometeorites, many smaller than a pencil point, constantly rain onto the surface at up to 100,000 km/hr (about 62,000 mph), chipping off materials or forming microscopic impact craters. Some melt the soil and vaporize and re-condense as glassy coats on other specks of dust. Impacts weld debris into "agglutinates." Complicated interactions with the solar wind convert iron in the soil into myriads of "nano-phase" metallic iron grains just a few nanometers wide.

These processes form the "regolith" -- Greek for stone blanket (litho + rhegos) -- covering the Moon's surface. What greets astronauts and spaceships is a complex material comprising "sharp, abrasive, interlocking fragile glass shards and fragments," Taylor says.

Emphasis on the "interlocking" statement mine, and this interlocking is why the lunar regolith sticks together not only for making more distinct bootprints, but may also be less inclined to blow away during a lunar landing.

Why was the sediment not hanging in the atmosphere around the LEM?

What atmosphere? If you take the best vacuum pump you can find on Earth, and evacuate all the air you possibly can from it, it will still contain more atmosphere than the so-called "lunar atmosphere" which is in reality a vacuum better than the best vacuum you can make on Earth.

Dust can hang in the air on this planet for quite some time.

Yes. But there's no significant amount of air on the moon, so it can't hang in the air. However your question raises an interesting point.

Apollo 11 didn't have much problem with too much moon dust being blown up by the descent engine obscuring the vision of the astronauts on descent, but some of the other Apollo landing sites did. So, the moon's surface is obviously not entirely uniform since some landing sites kicked up a lot more dust on landing than others, which made visibility during landing a bit more problematic at some sites.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

Except that in the lower gravity on the moon it didn't require as much thrust to slow down as it would on earth. At the low end it was rated at 1000 lbs of thrust, but with that big engine bell 1000 lbs isn't as much as it sounds.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I used the term sediment per Neil Armstrong's commentary from the last step of the LEM ladder as he observed the LEM footprints were only one to two inches deep in the 'sediment'. OK, the sediment is coarse and doesn't slide easily over itself. Agreed. But we are talking about enough force to slow the LEM to nearly a full stop just prior to touching down. Even at 17% of Earth's gravity the ratio of force applied to the LEM would be same as the ratio of force applied to the dust. It would take only 1/6th of the force to move the LEM on earth to move the LEM on the moon. And it would likewise take 1/6th the force to move dust on the moon as it would on Earth. Also, any particles lifted off the surface of the moon would settle back down 1/6th as fast as they would on Earth. But they would eventually settle back on the surface. In the mean time, they should be visible. They would not settle back in their original position because they would be moving away from the LEM in all directions. That cloud should be visible in every direction from the LEM. As noted, there is an absence of atmosphere on the moon. As such, once the dust was blown off the surface and set in motion, it would continue and remain 'airborne', so to speak, until settling back down the appropriate distance away. The formula for ballistic motion could be used to calculate the exact distance from the LEM the dust would settle and how long it would take to get there if you knew the mass of the dust and the force applied to it. The end result, without bothering to nitpick the finer details, is that dust should have been blown up off the surface and remained there for some time. It would not swirl, or ripple. It would simply move, until gravity pulled it back down.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Right. Lower gravity meant it needed less force to move the LEM. Which means it also needed less force to move the dust. The ratio would be the same.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
That cloud should be visible in every direction from the LEM. As noted, there is an absence of atmosphere on the moon. As such, once the dust was blown off the surface and set in motion, it would continue and remain 'airborne', so to speak, until settling back down the appropriate distance away. The formula for ballistic motion could be used to calculate the exact distance from the LEM the dust would settle and how long it would take to get there if you knew the mass of the dust and the force applied to it. The end result, without bothering to nitpick the finer details, is that dust should have been blown up off the surface and remained there for some time.

Have you tried calculating how much time it takes for the dust to fall back down with no atmosphere holding it up?

It takes longer for them to get out of the lunar module than for the dust to fall back down, right?

In fact you don't have to do any calculations on how long the dust will take to fall, because you can just watch this video and assume it will fall at the same rate as the hammer and the feather, right? Which is pretty fast, right?

a reply to: Vroomfondel

And there's no atmosphere to hold the dust up so it falls back down quickly.

originally posted by: choos
first Orion is primarily built from aluminium..

Orion has never flown humans into deep space, either.

Anyway, by pointing out that Orion is built primarily of aluminum, you're obviously implying that Orion will use aluminum for radiation shielding...otherwise, it wouldn't be relevant to bring up...

Now, I've got no idea WHY you'd mention it, because aluminum is NOT being used for radiation shielding in the (primarily aluminum) Orion spacecraft...

The spacecraft can be primarily aluminum, as Orion is, but to fly Orion into deep space, it needs to have radiation shielding. These shields are NOT aluminum, since - AS WE SHOULD ALL KNOW BY NOW - aluminum has proven to be worse than no shield at all, as it actually intensifies the radiation.

So they are trying to develop radiation shielding for the Orion, as proven by the following sources (and many others)...

NASA's Project Constellation aims to return humans to the Moon by the year 2020, using a new generation of manned spacecraft. The Orion crew exploration vehicle (CEV) is the Constellation component inhabited by the crew during the trans-lunar transit and return trip. The ionizing radiation environment is significantly harsher in interplanetary space than in LEO, thus posing an increased risk for detrimental health effects. Minimizing crew radiation exposure on board Orion has been addressed by the prime contractor Lockheed Martin starting as early as the design phase of the vehicle. Radiation analysis of the CEV CAD models containing material and mass density information is used to assess the effective dose incurred by crew members. Ray-tracing is employed to reduce the 3D vehicle geometry and detailed anatomical models to sets of layered shielding configurations. Radiation transport is then modeled using 1-D analytical codes such as HZETRN. Shielding optimization is addressed iteratively, by evaluating the radiation exposure impacts of different protection strategies such as design changes (i.e., material selection), crew repositioning and cabin reconfiguration, and deploying individual shielding.

Publication Date: 2008

www.academia.edu...


Now, look at this 2014 article (I put the headline in bold)...

www.engineering.com... px

Orion Spacecraft will carry Radiation Shield designed by High School Students

Orion is the first spacecraft designed to transport astronauts as far as Mars. NASA plans to launch the first Orion test flight later this year. Longer distance space flight poses a number of design challenges.

“In deep space the challenges are zero gravity and a radiation environment. So bone loss, muscle loss and the radiation as you don’t have the atmosphere of the Earth to protect you,” said Laurence Price Deputy Program Manager at Lockheed Martin.

Price is talking about the Van Allen Belt, a tightly packed field of radiation around the earth that acts as a layer that protects earth from charged ions. NASA has to study this area of radiation before they can send a manned spaceflight through it, and possibly on to Mars sometime after 2020.

The test flight will allow NASA to, among other things, experiment with different approaches to shielding radiation. “At Langley we have an analysis tool that we use that understands the shielding and the ability of different materials to shield different types of radiation,” said Mark Geyer Manager of the Orion Program at NASA. Price added, “So these are things we have to solve in the future before we can have long duration exploration with humans following machines.”

I'll go over the last quote, to start with..

"...before we can have long duration exploration with humans..", does not mean it concerns ONLY long duration missions. I'd like to make that clear, because you keep trying to make that argument. Mark Geyer says that we need to solve such things as radiatio before we can have long duration missions, which is true. He is not lying

From the same article...

NASA has to study this area of radiation before they can send a manned spaceflight through it

That is EXACTLY what I've been telling you, for crying out loud!! So now, you know even THEY are admitting it.

The most important point is - if NASA has to study the VAB "before they can send a manned spacecraft through it", then the Apollo spacecraft NEVER flew men to the moon!

There would be no need for NASA to study the VAB "before they can send a manned" craft through it, since NASA's Apollo manned craft would have already gone through it - 18 times, on 9 missions, perfectly safe and sound - over 40 years ago!!

originally posted by: choos
yea and that is going to work right?? GCR radiation data collected in deep space by satellites and probes are not real figures because you say so and it proves you wrong..

I was referring to the figures in the documents I cited.

You know that, of course. You also know I'm right about those figures being 'geusstimates', too.

That's why you didn't use those figures in your argument, as you know the figures are not genuine.

Still trying to spin around my arguments, hey?? ....no go, bub.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Vroomfondel

Because the engine was throttled down to minimum power at touchdown. It was also very diffuse thrust because of that big engine nozzle.

The Apollo footage shows the LM's descent to ground, with (supposedly) 'moon dust' spewing outward in every direction. So that's what should be seen in all the Apollo images, around the LM. But we see no disturbance of dust near the LM, anywhere.

You'd almost think the LM didn't land at all, and was just put down on a sci-fi movie set, as a stage prop!!

I bet the continuity crew got their asses fired after the NASA honchos saw that major glitch-up!

originally posted by: turbonium1
These shields are NOT aluminum, since - AS WE SHOULD ALL KNOW BY NOW - aluminum has proven to be worse than no shield at all, as it actually intensifies the radiation.

Maybe we should all know that by now, but I looked at the box of foil I made my tinfoil hat from, and it says "Aluminum foil". Please give me a source on how aluminum amplifies radiation, so I can see if what you're saying is true and if I should change my "tinfoil hat" to another material. Next time I'm in the supermarket I'll have to see if any of the foil is actually tin...am I the only one whose tinfoil hat is really made from aluminum?

"...before we can have long duration exploration with humans..", does not mean it concerns ONLY long duration missions. I'd like to make that clear

I give you a zero on reading comprehension for concluding that "long duration" does not mean "long duration". There are lots of examples of the "short versus long duration" phenomena you can find in everyday life. Pass your finger through a candle flame and it won't get burned, hold it there and it will get burned.

In dental or medical x-rays they put the x-ray machine right next to your head and shoot radiation at your mouth, yet the x-ray technician or dentist leaves the room completely since they can't be around the radiation...why? It's the same reason, short versus long term exposure to radiation. Your exposure is short and not very risky. They have many more patients than you, day after day, week after week, month after month and if they stay in the room those small levels of radiation add up, so they avoid them by leaving the room, to avoid cumulative longer term exposure to radiation.

So in addition to working on your reading comprehension, you also need to pay more attention to every day examples of how long term exposure to something can harm us in ways that short term exposure doesn't, like in the dentist office.