Faked moon landing?

tyreay · 07-05-2007, 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John

If the Russians could put a man in orbit, why couldn't we send someone to the moon?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyreay

Outer space is awash with deadly radiation that emanates from solar flares firing out from the sun. Standard astronauts orbiting earth in near space, like those who recently fixed the Hubble telescope, are protected by the earth's Van Allen belt. But the Moon is to 240,000 miles distant, way outside this safe band. And, during the Apollo flights, astronomical data shows there were no less than 1,485 such flares.
John Mauldin, a physicist who works for NASA, once said shielding at least two meters thick would be needed. Yet the walls of the Lunar Landers which took astronauts from the spaceship to the moons surface were, said NASA, about the thickness of heavy duty aluminum foil.

How could that stop this deadly radiation? And if the astronauts were protected by their space suits, why didn't rescue workers use such protective gear at the Chernobyl meltdown, which released only a fraction of the dose astronauts would encounter? Not one Apollo astronaut ever contracted cancer - not even the Apollo 16 crew who were on their way to the Moon when a big flare started. "They should have been fried", says Rene.

Thats how. Please refer to the past posts.

Nimuae · 07-06-2007, 11:09 AM

NOBODY has ever walked on the moon !

knot_e_lady · 07-06-2007, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyreay

Thats how. Please refer to the past posts.

The radiation in space isn't like the radiation here on earth. It is VERY low dose, so the only way you can get sick from it is if you stay in it for a month or more. Obviously the Apollo flights never took that long.

Also, if a solar flare did pop up, they have hours, even days before detection of the flare and the time it reaches earth. By that time the astronauts are either out of harm's way, or they turn the ship so that the bulk of the landing module faces the flares, then the bulk of the ship plus the fuel will hold off the radiation.

tyreay · 07-06-2007, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by knot_e_lady

The radiation in space isn't like the radiation here on earth. It is VERY low dose, so the only way you can get sick from it is if you stay in it for a month or more. Obviously the Apollo flights never took that long.

Also, if a solar flare did pop up, they have hours, even days before detection of the flare and the time it reaches earth. By that time the astronauts are either out of harm's way, or they turn the ship so that the bulk of the landing module faces the flares, then the bulk of the ship plus the fuel will hold off the radiation.

The 1485 flares mentioned REACHED earth during the moon landing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyreay

John Mauldin, a physicist who works for NASA, once said shielding at least two meters thick would be needed. Yet the walls of the Lunar Landers which took astronauts from the spaceship to the moons surface were, said NASA, about the thickness of heavy duty aluminum foil.

I think I'll take the word of a physicist working for NASA.

knot_e_lady · 07-06-2007, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyreay

The 1485 flares mentioned REACHED earth during the moon landing.

I think I'll take the word of a physicist working for NASA.

ROFLMAO!!!

And just where did you get that quote?

Solar events occur every few days. The mistake is to assume that all these events are potentially lethal, or even of any serious concern. The astronauts would only be harmed by the most energetic solar events, the kind that occur only once in ten years or so. And although the results would be harmful, they would probably not be fatal.

In 1972 there was a series of enormously powerful solar events. These would have disrupted an Apollo mission and probably made the astronauts sick or damaged their equipment. The next such event occurred in 1989, damaging several communications satellites. The next occurred in 1997. The chances of a first-magnitude solar event happening during any given Apollo mission were astronomically small.

The use of the given statistic is highly misleading. We know that some traffic accidents are fatal, but the vast majority of them are not even injurious and produce only minor property damage. Reporting the total number of accidents as if they were all fatal would be dishonest. A complete discussion of solar radiation and its effect on Apollo missions is here.

Dr. Mauldin apparently worked on the early planning of the Voyager missions, but otherwise is a college professor. The statement in question comes from Mauldin's Prospects for Interstellar Travel, not from any work he did for NASA. And it applies only to long-term interstellar travel, not travel to the moon and back -- very different problems. Ralph Rene naively seems to believe that space is space.

The hypothetical spaceships Mauldin describes in Rene's quote are those in which several generations live their lives during the long interstellar journey. Thus the ship must provide a much higher level of protection than simply for two weeks relatively close to Earth. The interstellar radiation environment is much harsher; in the Solar System the pressure of the solar wind keeps out the interstellar radiation. And finally, Mauldin's shielding must shield not only against radiation but also the impacts of debris such as dust, through which the ship is moving at near relativistic speeds -- not the comparatively sedate speeds of travel between Earth and Moon. This whole line of reasoning seems to treat radiation as a homogeneous "boogey man" with straightforward effects and remedies. While huge thicknesses of dense material such as lead and concrete must be used to stop wave radiation (e.g., gamma rays), wave radiation is not the chief concern in space.

A more complete explanation on radiation and it's effect can be found here:

Clavius: Bibliography - the Milne article

Or if you would like to remain ignorant on the subject, be my guest.

Oh, and as for the 'expert'?

Here is the guy you've been quoting:

As with the Collier article, the basis for this article is the arguments of the supposedly brilliant Ralph Rene, who has no qualifications or credentials in any kind of science or engineering. When a self-taught "engineer" says something is impossible, but a host of fully-qualified professional engineers claim to have accomplished it, it's more parsimonious to attribute the discrepancy to the deficiency of the self-guided education.

tyreay · 07-06-2007, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by knot_e_lady

ROFLMAO!!!

And just where did you get that quote?

Solar events occur every few days. The mistake is to assume that all these events are potentially lethal, or even of any serious concern. The astronauts would only be harmed by the most energetic solar events, the kind that occur only once in ten years or so. And although the results would be harmful, they would probably not be fatal.

In 1972 there was a series of enormously powerful solar events. These would have disrupted an Apollo mission and probably made the astronauts sick or damaged their equipment. The next such event occurred in 1989, damaging several communications satellites. The next occurred in 1997. The chances of a first-magnitude solar event happening during any given Apollo mission were astronomically small.

The use of the given statistic is highly misleading. We know that some traffic accidents are fatal, but the vast majority of them are not even injurious and produce only minor property damage. Reporting the total number of accidents as if they were all fatal would be dishonest. A complete discussion of solar radiation and its effect on Apollo missions is here.

Dr. Mauldin apparently worked on the early planning of the Voyager missions, but otherwise is a college professor. The statement in question comes from Mauldin's Prospects for Interstellar Travel, not from any work he did for NASA. And it applies only to long-term interstellar travel, not travel to the moon and back -- very different problems. Ralph Rene naively seems to believe that space is space.
The hypothetical spaceships Mauldin describes in Rene's quote are those in which several generations live their lives during the long interstellar journey. Thus the ship must provide a much higher level of protection than simply for two weeks relatively close to Earth. The interstellar radiation environment is much harsher; in the Solar System the pressure of the solar wind keeps out the interstellar radiation. And finally, Mauldin's shielding must shield not only against radiation but also the impacts of debris such as dust, through which the ship is moving at near relativistic speeds -- not the comparatively sedate speeds of travel between Earth and Moon. This whole line of reasoning seems to treat radiation as a homogeneous "boogey man" with straightforward effects and remedies. While huge thicknesses of dense material such as lead and concrete must be used to stop wave radiation (e.g., gamma rays), wave radiation is not the chief concern in space.

A more complete explanation on radiation and it's effect can be found here:

Clavius: Bibliography - the Milne article

Or if you would like to remain ignorant on the subject, be my guest.

Ah, evidently you didn't even actually go to the link in the OP, or the same link I posted since then. I guess its been too long since I posted the link so here it is again:

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm

I'm the one that gets to ROFLMAO here!!! Really the debate has turned post script.

Tell you what, I'll go check out your link and I will do so with an open mind. Lets see if you could please do the same and read through the entire page on the OP link(also posted above). I realize there are lots of sites that attempt to debunk the OP, even NASA sites but really, in the end, this is all written in defense of an awful lot of evidence.
Or if you would like to remain ignorant on the subject, be my guest.

knot_e_lady · 07-06-2007, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyreay

Ah, evidently you didn't even actually go to the link in the OP, or the same link I posted since then. I guess its been too long since I posted the link so here it is again:

Was The Apollo Moon Landing Fake?

I'm the one that gets to ROFLMAO here!!! Really the debate has turned post script.

Tell you what, I'll go check out your link and I will do so with an open mind. Lets see if you could please do the same and read through the entire page on the OP link(also posted above).

ty, I've read them all. Most of the websites are just reguritations of the same articles. On top of that, I've seen the recreations that were done in the desert on the NGC special. Did you?

All of them seem to be quoting one or more of 3 'experts'. Bill Kaysing, who was a tech writer for Rocketdyne in the early 60's, and in no way is an engineer or scientist at all, Ralph Rene, a self taught engineer, but who most real scientist think of as a 'crackpot and a charlatan'. But hey, he's got a book to sell you...

Oh, and David Persey, a 'award winning' photographer, yet no one can seem to find any kinds of awards he might have won.

And also The Jodrell Bank radio observatory in the United Kingdom, among others, tracked the spacecraft independently of NASA. [the man who did the actuall tracking was intervied on the NGC show, and he says, yes, it did go to the moon] And since the United States and the Soviet Union routinely tracked each other's spacecraft and listened in on their radio traffic, it's reasonable to suppose that the Soviet Union also tracked the Apollo spacecraft. These signals have to be received with precisely-aimed radio telescopes. There are plenty of non-NASA non-Americans who can testify to having intercepted Apollo radio traffic from the moon. NASA even published its radio frequencies ahead of time so that other countries could listen in.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyreay

I realize there are lots of sites that attempt to debunk the OP, even NASA sites but really, in the end, this is all written in defense of an awful lot of evidence.

Evidence? What evidence? Suppositions and opinions that can easily be explained away by science and straight forward common sense.

But I supposed all the evidence that it DID happen, namely, tracking it to the moon, lasers being bounced off of mirrors placed on the moon during the mission, properties of items moving that could only been done in a vacuum AND zero gravity, pictures of the Apollo 15 landing site from earth, rocks of chemical makeup that could only be found on the moon (confirmed by renowned geologists the WORLD OVER), well, forget all that evidence. Some crackpot said it didn't happen.

highway80west · 07-06-2007, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nimuae

NOBODY has ever walked on the moon !

Oh yeah!? Ask Neil Armstrong, Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin, Charles Duke, David Scott, and other moonwalkers.

* SIGH *

John · 07-09-2007, 09:03 PM

Even though the moon walk took place in the 60's, i think that NASA could have invented a suit that could ward off the the harmful effects of the solar flares.

Scott · 09-18-2007, 06:31 AM

I haven't posted here in a long time because I've been talking on some other forums.

I've been posting at this forum under the name of David C which is my real name.

Loose Change Website - Version 2.0

If you see something I said you disagree with there, post it here and we can talk about it here.