Comments by "MRA" (@yassassin6425) on "The Problem with the Next Moon Mission" video.
-
21
-
10
-
10
-
8
-
7
-
5
-
@carlton7015
"research standard camera film not, protected from heat or vaccume film."
So for starters you expect to be taken seriously but can't even spell the word 'vacuum'.
Hasselblad adapted their 500EL camera for the Apollo missions by removing the viewfinder, modifying the shutter, replacing the usual plastic black outer surface with reflective bare metal, and using special lubricants resistant to vacuum and high temperatures Moderate speed and low sensitivity film types that was used was well protected. In fact, the camera films were doubly protected as they were in custom built aluminium and steel magazines that were a lot thicker than the standard Hasselblad ones. Also, heat transfer is not significant in the absence of convection.
Also, appreciating that "research" does not involve self-proclaimed overnight armchair 'expertise' following a squandered evening consuming junk You Tube videos, cherry picked click bait confirmation bias, quote mining, false equivalence and circular self-referencing pseudoscientific conspiracy websites, do feel free to share - how precisely did you do yours?
"vaccume 10 to the minus 12 tor and suits not capable of protecting the former."
Never ceases to amuse that when a crap conspiracy video or junk currently trending on social media makes a claim it's then subsequently parroted en-masse by scientifically illiterate buffoons such as yourself in the mistaken belief that it makes you sound informed and clever. A vacuum doesn't exert a force. Increase the Torr value, the closer it gets to nothing. A vacuum of 10^-11 or 10^-17 torr can both be considered as zero, because they are so little. They are not negative numbers, but rather fractions: 10^-11 torr, for instance, is 1/100,000,000,000th of a torr. On the moon, particles are so sparse that there are only 100 molecules per cubic centimeter. (In comparison, Earth's atmosphere at sea level has about 100 billion billion molecules per cubic centimeter.) So assuming that there were half this in some other region of space, 50 molecules per cubic centimeter of even a quarter, 25 molecules per cubic centimeter, your Torr value would increase as you approach what is termed a 'perfect vacuum'. The Torr value associated with this has no effect whatsoever upon a spacesuit in which the pressure from within is maintained at a trivial 4.8psi. For reference, soda cans range between 30 and 50 psi, but can withstand up to 100. To clarify again - a vacuum is simply the absence of matter. It doesn't exert a force. You could place a suited astronaut in a perfect vacuum and the interior pressure of the suit would be the same. What difference does 100 molecules per cubic centimetre, 50, 25 or none make? So again, if the pressure inside is 4.8 psi and the pressure outside is essentially zero, the pressure differential is 4..8 psi.
"Repressuristion temp drop of capsule after moon walk"
What?
"flag"
What about it?
"foot prints"
Should be one word. What about them?
"not forget the saturn five rocket not capable of reach enough power to launch velocity to escape orbit"
What on Earth are you talking about? The first stage (SI-C) was powered by a cluster of five F1 engines collectively producing 7.5 million lbs of thrust at lift off. These burned for 2 minutes and 41 seconds, lifting the rocket to an altitude of 42 miles and a speed of 6,164 miles per hour. The second stage (S-II) contained five J-2 engines. After the first stage was discarded, these burned for approximately 6 minutes at 1.2 million lbs of thrust, taking the vehicle and payload to 115 miles altitude and 15,500 mph. The Third stage (SIV-B) then placed Apollo in a circular parking orbit 1,640 miles downrange at an altitude of 118.8 miles (191.2 km) with an orbital velocity of 17,432 mph. Trans lunar injection was performed by the restartable J-2 engine in the S-IVB third stage of the Saturn V rocket. Apollo 11′s S-IVB burned for 5 minutes, 41.01 seconds @1,138.50 kN (255,945 lbf) achieving a velocity of 24,994.656 mph to send it to the moon.
"There's too much to list it's a joke"
So basically, you have lazily regurgitated ill-informed opinions and factoids and claims of others equally as clueless as yourself about subjects that you demonstrably haven't got the remotest idea about.
The only joke here is you.
Dumb online conspiracy believer.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
A hangar is it now? But I thought it was supposed to be a film studio in Hollywood? No, wait, Shepperton UK...or was it Elstree? no, no, definitely Pinewood...or maybe Twickenham? Which hangar? Cannon AFB New Mexico, or Area 51 or Groom Lake Nevada? Hold on, surely it was supposed to be filmed in the desert - Nevada, or possibly the Utah outback? What about Death Valley?...although most insist it was Arizona don't they? Forget all that - definitely Devon Island Canada. You complete goons can't even agree. I guess it depends upon which online conspiracy theorist that you allow yourselves to be duped by.
Gotta say, that's some aircraft hangar to convincingly replicate 1/6th gravity and a vacuum. And what about that concrete dust, sand and stone enabling the precise reconstruction of Theophilus in The Sea of Tranquility; the Head Crater vicinity, Ocean of Storms; the Fra Mauro Formation near Cone Crater; the eastern edge of Mare Imbrium, Hadley Rille; The Descartes Highlands; and the eastern edge of Mare Serenitati in the Taurus Littrow Valley. Shout out to the props department too, that managed to fashion fake moonrock from this consistent which each of those six landing sites and collectively dupe an entire branch of science called geology for over half a century in the process.Meanwhile, a random, insignificant gullible conspiracy believing troll on the comments section of You Tube knows better.
Nothing gets past you genius.
3
-
"The Problem with the Next Moon Mission is that it will actually be the First moon mission"
There were nine manned missions to the moon and six landings. It would have been at least ten had it not been for the near catastrophe and aborted landing of Apollo 13 and the premature cancellation of the programme and with it, Apollo 18, 19 and 20. There have also been a multitude of unmanned landings. Six government space agencies, Interkosmos, NASA, CNSA, ISRO, JAXA and ESA, have reached the Moon with uncrewed missions. Three private/commercial missions, Beresheet (hard landing), Hakuto-R (hard landing), and Odysseus (soft landing) have also reached the lunar surface. Hope this helps.
"and it will never launch"
And when it does, you'll brand that as fake as well.
What a strange way to live your life.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Area 51? Wow...now that's a thought. Was it your own? It wasn't was it. Tell me more, because, (at the risk of sounding contrary), I thought that is was supposed to have been filmed in Hollywood. Actually, on second thoughts, it was Stanley Kubrick at Shepperton UK. Wait, some say Pinewood, or was it Elstree?...or maybe Twickenham so as not to arouse suspicion. Hold on, stop right there! - it was definitely Cannon AFB New Mexico, that was it. A converted hangar...or was that as you say Area 51? No, that was in the desert, Groom Lake. Or was it Arizona? the Utah outback? Death Valley some say. No, without a doubt Devon Island Canada.
You complete goons can't even make your minds up. I guess it depends upon which dumb online grifter/conspiracy theorist you allow yourself to be duped by.
Got to say though, that must be some 'stage scenery" to convincingly replicate, uncut, and six times, the 1/6th gravity and the vacuum of the lunar surface - not to mention the precise reconstruction of Theophilus in The Sea of Tranquility; the Head Crater vicinity, Ocean of Storms; the Fra Mauro Formation near Cone Crater; the eastern edge of Mare Imbrium, Hadley Rille; The Descartes Highlands; and the eastern edge of Mare Serenitati in the Taurus Littrow Valley. Shout out to the props department too, that managed to fashion fake moonrock consistent which each of those six landing sites and collectively dupe an entire branch of science called geology for over half a century in the process. Any other rays of insight genius?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
"Start with the first moon mission. Because that baby has been debunked."
How interesting. Has it? Why? Because some random on the comments section of You Tube decreed it to be so? Then you'll have no problem whatsoever presenting your singular most compelling and irrefutable piece of evidence then that the Apollo missions were faked. Naturally you'll be keen to avoid the same old obligatory, predictable dumb online conspiracy theory that is consumed and regurgitated ad nauseum by those with zero knowledge of the science, technology and the history of the Apollo Programme and has been debunked over and over and over again. So do you have anything vaguely resembling your own thoughts or observations based upon informed understanding that objectively debunks the Apollo moon landings? Or do you simply have personal incredulity and ignorance like all the rest?
"And the only people who still believe it are brainwashed."
You mean entire branches of science, specialist fields of expertise such as aerospace engineering and rocketry worldwide, Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalists, technical writers, Nobel Prize winning physicists, over 10,000 private initiatives and investments and each of the 76 other space agencies on the planet? In short, domains, disciplines and individuals far cleverer and more informed than an insignificant, random, gullible Dunning Kruger afflicted believer in dumb online conspiracy theory with zero knowledge of the subject whatsoever. And no, known science and technology is not a question of 'belief' that would be the the junk online conspiracy theory that you mindlessly consume and regurgitate.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"There is no proof Neil Armstrong ever walked on the moon for the first mission to the moon."
On the contrary, there is abundant and demonstrable scientific, technical, historical, independent and third party evidence that both Armstrong and Aldrin walked on the moon. As there is for those that followed: Conrad, Bean, Shepherd, Mitchell, Scott, Irwin, Young, Duke, Cernan and Schmitt. The fact that you are oblivious to this has no bearing upon reality.
"The suit was made by the same company that made the Playtex bra."
After the Apollo 1 tragedy, NASA dictated the AL7s had to withstand temperatures of over 1,000°F. The solution was a state-of-the-art fabric called Beta cloth, made of Teflon-coated glass microfibers, used for the suit’s outermost layer. For the suit’s creator, the International Latex Corporation in Dover, Delaware, the toughest challenge was to contain the pressure necessary to support life (about 3.75 pounds per square inch of pure oxygen), while maintaining enough flexibility to afford freedom of motion. ALC were a division of the company that manufactured Playtex bras and girdles. The specialist team within this had engineers who completely understood the application and behaviour of rubber. They invented a bellowslike joint called a convolute out of neoprene reinforced with nylon tricot that allowed an astronaut to bend at the shoulders, elbows, knees, hips and ankles with relatively little effort. Steel aircraft cables were used throughout the suit to absorb tension forces and help maintain its shape under pressure. What's your point?
'Bo knows nothing'.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@carlton7015
"Not forgetting van Allen belts space ratiation."
What about it? Incidentally, it's 'radiation' and there are different types of it. The belts consist of diffuse toroidal volumes around the Earth's equator within which radiation levels are elevated by the planet's magnetic field trapping charged particles from the sun. The inner torus is populated by energetic protons which they passed through in mere minutes and against which the hull of the CM was an effective shield. The hull of an Apollo command module rated 7 to 8 g/cm2. The craft took an hour and a half to traverse the more extensive outer torus but this region has mainly low energy electrons and so was less of a concern to mission planners. Also the inclination of the trajectory being in the plane of the Moon's orbit avoided the strongest regions of the belts near the equator.
The Van Allen belts are no threat to astronauts passing through them at tens of thousands of miles per hour. Early probes enabled scientists to calculate the energies and distribution and understand that whilst subject to some degree of flux, they could be easily traversed, whilst Apollo dosimeters confirmed, that astronaut exposure from belt passage was roughly the same as a chest x-ray. Exposure for the entire trip to the moon was equivalent to between one to three mammograms, or half the annual exposure of residents of Denver CO.
"Wet flag"
What?
"Shadows light falloff"
What does this even mean?
"fake back grown"
I think you mean 'background'. No backgrounds were faked and all of the images and footage are consistent with the known topography of the six landing sites.
"tin foil and tape holding the lander together"
Nope. Mylar and kapton used as MLI and nothing to do with the structural integrity of the LM. Does your wallpaper hold your house together?
"10 to the minus 12 tor welds metals together and would probably out gas glass your answer shows how desperate nasa are to defend the obvious lie."
It's nothing to do with me and nothing to do with NASA. Your sentence is utter drivel. As I said, you are simply one of many gullible and scientifically illiterate conspiracy believers that are parroting this nonsense because it is trending on social media or some junk conspiracy video, about a subject you clearly have no knowledge of whatsoever.
"There's loads more like lack of testing in a vacuum"
Again, complete rubbish. Allied to which, the LM was tested in space during the unmanned Apollo 5 mission.
"10 to minus 12 is an infinitely higher vacuum your answer is more conspiracy fake science"
What do you mean - 'infinitely higher vacuum?' To reiterate - a vacuum is simply the absence of matter. The closer is gets to a perfect vacuum the closer it gets to nothing. As I have attempted to explain to you, this means that a as your vacuum increases it's could mean that instead of 100 molecules pre cubic centimetre, there are only 25. This does not suck, nor does it create a force. If you place a pressurised container within it, which is then opened that air will rush out as the gas particles fill the empty space. Doesn't matter what the Torr value is, the LM was pressurised to only 4.2psi. That's a minute pressure differential. It's irrelevant what the value of the vacuum is, i's a vacuum, so essentially nothing. The pressure is generated upon the walls from the interior of the vessel.
This is not 'my answer' this is basic high school science for God's sake. The fact that you are utterly unable to comprehend this and regard online conspiracy theory as a substitute and compensation for your lack of even a basic education is as laughable as it is tragic. That you then wear this ignorance and feel the need to proudly display it like a badge of honour is frankly unfathomable.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Hollywood? Wow...now that's a thought. Was it your own? Be honest, it wasn't was it? In a studio or a basement? Tell me more, because, (at the risk of sounding contrary), I thought that Stanley Kubrick was supposed to have filmed it at Shepperton UK? Wait, some say Pinewood, or was it Elstree?...or maybe Twickenham so as not to arouse suspicion. Hold on, stop right there! - it was definitely Cannon AFB New Mexico, that was it. A converted hangar...or was that at Area 51? No, that was in the desert, Groom Lake. Or was it Arizona? the Utah outback? Death Valley some say. No, without a doubt Devon Island Canada.
You complete goons can't even make your minds up. I guess it depends upon which dumb online grifter/conspiracy theorist you allow yourself to be duped by.
Got to say though, that must be some Hollywood Studio to convincingly replicate, uncut, and six times, the 1/6th gravity and the vacuum of the lunar surface - not to mention the precise reconstruction of Theophilus in The Sea of Tranquility; the Head Crater vicinity, Ocean of Storms; the Fra Mauro Formation near Cone Crater; the eastern edge of Mare Imbrium, Hadley Rille; The Descartes Highlands; and the eastern edge of Mare Serenitati in the Taurus Littrow Valley. Shout out to the props department too, that managed to fashion fake moonrock consistent which each of those six landing sites and collectively dupe an entire branch of science called geology for over half a century in the process.
Any other rays of insight genius?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@johnnyreality
You only need to reply the once.
"If you believe that over 50 years ago in a span of 4 years they went 9 times to the moon, landing 12 men on 6 of those ocassions"
Known demonstrable science and technology is not a question of "belief", whist the correct spelling is 'occasions'.
"and that they took 3 cars"
Three lunar rovers, folded and stowed in quadrant 1 of the LM descent stage.
" played golf"
Why are you goons so fixated on this? One astronaut, Alan Shepherd used a modified six iron head to affix to the shaft on his sampling tool to fashion a makeshift club which he then used to hit two golf balls. He scuffed the first shot, and connected with the second launching it an estimated 40 yards. This took all of around 3 minutes of the total 9 hours and 23 minutes that he and Ed Mitchell spent on the lunar surface during the two Apollo 14 EVAs performed on the lunar surface out of a total of 16. Hardly "playing golf".
"emitted live television"
Yes, slow scan images sent via unified S-Band. What is it that you don't understand this time?
"and spoke to Tricky Dick on the phone"
Indeed they did. Radio transmission. It's a thing! Newsflash...a bloke called Marconi 1895. Radio stations had been broadcasting landline calls for decades before Apollo.
Whitehouse landline places call to Houston + Existing microwave telephone exchange network + patch to DSN = Giant f**k off radio dish directed at the moon.
Why is it even necessary to explain this to someone in the 21st century...again?
"nevermind that since then not a single astronaut has gone farther than 250 miles while the moon is at 384,855 miles away"
Absolute nonsense. As far back as September 1966 Gemini 11 used the rocket on its Agena target vehicle to raise its apogee to 853 miles (1,373 km).
"while the moon is at 384,855 miles away"
No it isn't. The Moon is an average of 238,855 miles away from Earth.
"I have a bridge for you"
Said the gullible believer in dumb online conspiracy theory.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@rlupara
"Let me guess, you call "conspiracy theory" all opinions which have oposite expression from "official " mass media, isn't it?"
And you would be spectacularly wrong again. Incidentally, the correct spelling is 'opposite'.
"Unfortunately , as the history in the past shows, the most "conspiracy BS" creates fat paid mass media and fat paid "scientists " .The key word is fat paid."
Does it? Name one. Incidentally, that's two words. You're not particularly bright are you.
And meanwhile the crap online conspiracy theory that you yourself "trust" is entirely and unfailingly honest, unwaveringly accurate and consistent, not in the least bit intentionally deceptive, misleading, fallacious, exploitative, opportunistic monetised or manipulative and with your best interests at heart is completely free of vested interest and agenda? Righto then.
The key words are fat Alex Jones.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"This title implies that there already was a previous moon mission?"
There were nine, with six landings and a total of 12 astronauts that walked on the surface of the moon. It would have potentially been 20, were it not for the aborted Apollo 13 mission (for some inexplicable reason, NASA faked a failure?), and the premature cancellation of the Apollo Programme in 1972.
"The footage in this video was done in a movie studio!"
A "movie studio"? Fascinating. Which one? I'm sure it was supposed to have been Hollywood, but what about the "basement"? No, hold on, it was definitely Shepperton UK...or was that Elstree?, no, without doubt Twickenham. No wait, I though it was alleged to have been shot in a converted hangar?...Cannon AFB, New Mexico, that was it. Hold on, what about Area 51? - but then, most maintain that was out in the Nevada Desert!. Hang on, what about Death Valley California, the Utah outback, or Arizona? You complete goons can't even make your minds up or get your stories straight. I guess it depends upon which dumb conspiracy theorist you allow yourselves to be duped by?
Got to say though, that must be some 'movie studio" to convincingly replicate, uncut, the 1/6th gravity and the vacuum of the lunar surface - not to mention the precise reconstruction of Theophilus in The Sea of Tranquility; the Head Crater vicinity, Ocean of Storms; the Fra Mauro Formation near Cone Crater; the eastern edge of Mare Imbrium, Hadley Rille; The Descartes Highlands; and the eastern edge of Mare Serenitati in the Taurus Littrow Valley. Shout out to the props department too, that managed to fashion fake moonrock consistent which each of those six landing sites and collectively dupe an entire branch of science called geology for over half a century in the process.
"Seriously, what's the matter with you people?"
And by that, you mean entire branches of science, specialist fields of expertise such as aerospace engineering worldwide, Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalists, Nobel Prize winning physicists. some 10,000 private sector initiatives and each of the 76 other space agencies on the planet! In short, domains, disciplines and individuals far cleverer and more informed than an insignificant, random, gullible Dunning Kruger afflicted believer in dumb online conspiracy theory with zero knowledge of the subject whatsoever.
"We don't have the technology today to put a human being on the moon and bring him back alive, let alone 55 years ago!"
Precisely what technology was lacking then, and now? Incidentally, the last manned lunar landing was 52 years ago.
"You just don't want to dismiss this science fiction fantasy for some reason, do you?! Sad..."
Said the impressionable believer in junk online conspiracy theorists in the absence of any knowledge of the science, technology or history of spaceflight and the Apollo Programme at all.
2
-
@growlkitty
"The shielding required to safely allow the LM modules to pass through the Van Allen Belts for one. There is no way a human being could withstand the concentrated radiation from the photons that the Van Allen Belts circulate within the spheres. Unless some sort of artificial shielding was invented to protect the humans inside the spacecraft as it passes through the Van Allen Belts, nobody within the craft would survive."
Said no physicist, astrophysicist, radiobiologist, aerospace engineer...not to mention the late James Van Allen himself, ever. But you, an insignificant, random, gullible conspiracy believer on the comments section of You Tube claim to know better? Righto.
"The only alternative would be to make the Luna Craft out of led, not aluminum, and make it nine inches thick."
That is absolutely the last thing that you want to do. Come back when you understand Bremsstrahlung.
Let's face it, the only reason that you've actually heard of the belts in the first place is because some online con artist grifting junk conspiracy theory told you what to think about them. if you have anything vaguely approaching a shred of integrity or humility (and your arrogant posts are suggesting that you don't), then I'd like you to honestly ask yourself the following questions:
1/ How much do I genuinely know about the Van Allen Belts? - their shape extent and distribution? Energies and intensity? Type of radiation?
2/ What do I actually understand by alpha and beta particle radiation and shielding against it?
3/ What have I understood about the actual structure of the Command Module and the materials that it was fashioned from?
4/ What have I learnt about the trajectories flown by each of the Apollo missions and their passage through the belts?
5/ What do I know about what James Van Allen himself, (and his soviet counterpart Sergei Vernov) had to say about the belts and the Apollo missions?
6/ What have I done to challenge my preconceptions and the claims made by online conspiracy theorists in relation to the VABs?
If the answer to these questions is nothing, then obtaining the answers will prevent you from humiliating yourself in the future and avoid making such a dumb and ignorant statements on on a public comments section with no actual prior knowledge about the subject whatsoever.
2
-
@growlkitty
"The radiation levels on the moon is another problem."
In terms of prolonged habitation, yes.
"The earth is protected from lethal radiation by its atmosphere and the Van Allen Belts."
Partially by its atmosphere, but predominately by its magnetic field of which the VABs are a result of.
"The moon has no atmosphere or magnetic field to protect it from the constant bombardment of photons from the sun. Those space suits wouldn't be able to protect the occupants, at least not for an extended amount of time."
Apollo astronauts on the lunar surface received a measured average of 60 microsieverts of radiation per hour. That's 5 to 10 times higher than the rate experienced on a trans-Atlantic passenger flight. Charged particles such as galactic cosmic rays (GCRs), which are accelerated to tremendous speeds by faraway supernova explosions, contribute about 75% to this total lunar-surface dose rate. So it wasn't an issue for the Apollo astronauts but as I said any prolonged habitation would necessitate new methods of shielding. You can get 300 rem spread out over a number of days or weeks with little effect. Spreading the dose gives the body time to repair and replace its own damaged cells. But if that 300 rem comes all at once, around 50 percent of people exposed would die within 60 days without medical care. The main danger beyond the protection of the earth's magnetosphere comes from CMEs and solar particle events. The Apollo programme coincided with a solar maximum, and mission planners took a calculated risk. They were very fortunate, because between Apollos 16 and 17 there was an SPE. a moonwalker caught in the August 1972 storm might have absorbed 400 rem. Although serious they would have returned to earth with sufficient time to be treated. The key is time and intensity. Furthermore, with notice, the aluminum hull of the lunar module would have attenuated the 1972 storm from 400 rem to less than 35 rem at the astronaut's blood-forming organs. That's the difference between needing a bone marrow transplant, or having a headache.
Seriously, why are you doing this to yourself? - you haven't got the remotest idea what you are on about.
2
-
@growlkitty
So you completely ignore and disregard my recommendation to actually learn about the VABs and arrogantly/brazenly plough on regardless of your demonstrable ignorance and scientific illiteracy.
"But if the astronots of the Apollo adventures actually did try and pass through the Van Allen Belts, it would be akin to being in a microwave oven. It might not kill them right away, but it wouldn't be pleasant eventually."
Again, said no physicist, astrophysicist, radiobiologist or aerospace engineer ever. Specifically, here is what James Van Allen himself had to say about the transit of Apollo.
"the outbound and inbound trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft cut through the outer portions of the inner belt and because of their high speed spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. The resulting radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal dosage – a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such flights. I made such estimates in the early 1960s and so informed NASA engineers who were planning the Apollo flights. These estimates are still reliable."
So who to listen to? Entire branches of science and the physicist that the belts are named after? - or a random gullible online conspiracy believer on the comments section of You Tube with absolutely zero knowledge of the subject whatsoever? Tough one that.
"In one of the space shuttle missions, the craft went to the highest orbit ever achieved by the craft and it's crew."
STS-31 which deployed the HST during which Discovery briefly reached an orbital apogee of 621 km (386 mi), the highest altitude ever reached by a Shuttle orbiter.
"As the spacecraft approached the first VA belt, the entire crew reported seeing what seemed to be falling stars when they closed their eyes. These were high frequency protons that passed through the ships hull, through the crews space helmets, through their skulls, and out the other end. These are the photons that cardboard has no influence on."
You are referring to cosmic ray visual phenomena, or light flashes (LF), also known as Astronaut's Eye, which are spontaneous flashes of light visually perceived by some astronauts and observed outside of the Earth's magnetosphere. They were first witnessed by the Mercury astronauts in the early 1960s. It is posited that these are caused by charged particles traveling through the eye, and, possibly, some other visual cortical areas. Research suggests that the particles are not a serious hazard for short trips to the moon or Earth-orbital missions such as the shuttle. They are also observed by the crews of the ISS.
"The craft was ordered to immediately discontinue it's course and to turn around."
No it wasn't...why are you lying?
"No such attempt to approach the magnetic field was ever done again as far as I know."
The apogee of STS 31 was necessary for the mission objectives and near the operational limit of the shuttle. The heavy lift capability was abandoned in 1972 following the cancellation of Apollo, and with the advent of Artemis and the SLS, manned crews will be traversing the belts once again. In September 1966, the crew of Gemini 11 utilised the rocket on its Agena target vehicle to raise its apogee to 853 miles which remains the highest Earth orbit ever reached by a crewed spacecraft discounting the Hohmann transfer TLIs of the Apollo crews.
Why do you think that a spacecraft traversing the VABs should be fashioned from nine inches of lead when they are composed of highly charged alpha and beta particles?
2
-
@growlkitty
All of your comments are visible - so that completely invalidates your irrational paranoia. Seriously, if you don't even understand shadow banning, a flawed algorithm that even a child can get their head around, then commenting on the physics of the VABs may be a tad premature to you. It's astonishing the amount of conspiracy believers that think that their dumb comments are valid because a broken spam filter has removed them.
"My mind is made up on this matter."
Of course it is. As I said at the start of this thread, as an emotionally invested conspiracy believer you are amongst the most closed minded communities on the entire internet next to political extremists, religious fundamentalists and cult members. Your "mind is made up" over a matter that you demonstrably have absolutely zero knowledge of whatsoever. Have you any idea how dangerous that is?
"don't want people to start thinking for themselves, to ask questions, to acquire the ability to think critically."
You don't think for yourself at all - you are a believer in junk online conspiracy theory and that is the diametric opposite of critical thinking.
"Asking questions that have no answers isn't something that is encouraged in this day and age."
Read this thread ffs. Every claim you have made has been specifically addressed. You have simply ignored all of it. The problem is, in this day and age, you people ask questions but aren't remotely interested in listening to the answers.
"Elon Musk has the money and resources to send up a moon probe. Send him a letter and maybe he will fund the Legacy of Apollo history gathering project?! If I was a multi-billionaire I would definitely fund the project."
When are you goons going to comprehend that space exploration isn't about revisiting the same places. The emphasis is upon the far side of the moon and the south pole region in the search for water ice. Moreover, NASA, nor any other private initiative is neither obliged nor duty bound to satisfy the protestations and insistence of a cretinous community of conspiracy believing scientific illiterates on the internet that will simply declare that to be faked too.
"I did this research well over twenty years ago and don't remember verbatim where I got it or what was said about the VA Belts, but I remember that it was made clear that no human being would survive going through it."
Research? You don't even know the meaning of the word. Research and confirmation bias are two completely different things. Watching crap conspiracy theory videos on the internet is not "research". You are adamant that no human being can survive passage through the belts, but you can't remember where you got that from. Are you aware of how ludicrous that sounds? Why don't you find out what James Van Allen himself had to say about that? I have even furnished you with a quote that you completely ignored too.
I have two questions for you:
1/ Using known physics to support your answer, why do you think that nine inches of lead shielding would be necessary to traverse the VABs?
2/ Why did you find it necessary to lie about STS 31? I'm referring to your ludicrous claim that "the craft was ordered to immediately discontinue it's course and to turn around."
All that you have accomplished in this thread is your own complete humiliation. Earlier, when it became apparent that you hadn't got the remotest idea what you are on about I urged you to have some humility and integrity - but you just bludgeon on, impervious to the responses to you, making more of a fool of yourself.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
@MS-ib8xu
"I would highly suggest watch the film "American Moon." It is very obvious"
Very obviously three hours of falsehoods, fantasy, deception and outright lies.
Out of curiosity I watched more of this the other week. I knew it was farcical, but I hadn't appreciated quite how bad it actually is. It's an appalling documentary, one sided, dishonest, deceptively edited, badly researched and aims to bombard the lay audience with falsities, erroneous claims and supposition so as to bamboozle and misinform. I was astonished by the level of inaccuracy and intentional misrepresentation. Today, I clicked to a random timestamp, saw the "non-parallel shadows" picture, and immediately questioned why there's no mention of David Percy getting caught red-handed twenty years ago cropping the photograph to hide the shadows changing directions.
I then recalled that it's made by the vile Massimo Mazzucco, a professional con artist who preys upon the gullible, impressionable and ignorant for personal gain. After all, nothing says trustworthy like a man that killed people for money shilling fake medical treatments.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ffs - this again? Seriously, how many times? So because you struggle to understand something, because of your staggering scientific illiteracy, you brand something as fake?
The signal on your phone is received by a crappy 1.94 square centimeter antenna nestled into the bottom of your device, as opposed to a 210 ft wide radio telescope dish. The current 4G communication band is 0.8-2.6GHz, and the main communication frequency band used by 5G is also below 6GHz, your signal can dip as low as a trivial -30 dBm. A cell phone transmits 300-600 milliwatts to a 2-foot-long antenna and have towers to bounce signals off when there is no line of sight. They also have millions of other users that compete for bandwidth. Thus, depending on how many users there are, and whether there are enough towers to connect the signals, you might not get any service. The transmitters used in space have exponentially greater power than the few milliwatts of a cell phone, using a high gain receiver and directed focused antenna arrays. The Apollo radio transmissions broadcast at 20 watts, to a huge parabolic dish almost 200 feet in diameter which reduced the amount of battery power needed by the lunar module. They are entirely different scenarios.
Why is it even necessary to explain this to someone in the 21st century?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@realomon
Well firstly, I live in the UK and don't get CNN. Secondly, I don't really watch television. And what does any of this have to do with TV? Much of the garbage that you spout was started by a TV special on the Fox Channel. And meanwhile of course, the conspiracy theory that you worship at the altar of is of course entirely and unfailingly honest, unwaveringly accurate and consistent, not in the least bit intentionally deceptive, misleading, fallacious, exploitative, opportunistic monetised or manipulative and with your best interests at heart is entirely free of vested interest and agenda? Righto then.
Hollywood? But I thought it was supposed to be Shepperton Studios UK. Or was that Elstree or Pinewood? No wait, surely it was Area 51 Nevada? Or wasn't it Cannon AFB New Mexico? Definitely in a desert...Utah? Death Valley? Arizona? - no, hang on, Devon Island Canada! If only you complete goons could make your minds up. I guess it depends upon which dumb online conspiracy theorist that you allow yourself to be duped by?
Got to say though, that must be some 'Hollywood Studio" to convincingly replicate, uncut, the 1/6th gravity and the vacuum of the lunar surface - not to mention the precise reconstruction of Theophilus in The Sea of Tranquility; the Head Crater vicinity, Ocean of Storms; the Fra Mauro Formation near Cone Crater; the eastern edge of Mare Imbrium, Hadley Rille; The Descartes Highlands; and the eastern edge of Mare Serenitati in the Taurus Littrow Valley. Shout out to the props department too, that managed to fashion fake moonrock consistent which each of those six landing sites and collectively dupe an entire branch of science called geology for over half a century in the process. And just think, you found all this out for yourself! Clever lad!
Can I borrow one of your childish emojis? Cheers genius. 🤣
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mcbusinessmonkey
Thank you for your reply.
"Well, the dust under the lunar module remained so free from disturbance"
No it didn't. You can clearly hear Buzz Aldrin during the landing of Apollo 11 say - "picking up some dust" at about 20 feet before touchdown and you can see it on the footage.
"the astronauts footprints under the landing module seem to depress the dust about 10cm. For me, 10cm of dust removal is a crater (now we have a definition of crater)"
No we don't - we have your definition of a crater. A crater is a large bowl-shaped cavity in the ground or on a celestial object, typically one caused by an explosion or the impact of a meteorite.
10cm is a depression - an imprint, but actually your approximation, which is all that this is based upon is double the depth that the footprints made. Even if you walked into thick mud on earth and sank that far, you wouldn't refer to your footprints as a 'crater' nor would they be comparable to one.
"but the surface seems undisturbed by the space craft landing on it."
Again, "for me", "seems to", "seems" - so merely your opinion based upon personal incredulity.
"They must have used some amazing secret technology to make that happen."
Not really, given that the surface of the moon is covered in regolith which is a dust like blanket of unconsolidated, loose, heterogeneous superficial deposits covering solid rock. And what do you expect at 10% of the descent engine's rated thrust? The LEM descent propulsion engine only had a thrust (at full power) of 10,125 lbf (45.04 kN) . To achieve that, it only needed a combustion chamber pressure of 100 psi (690 kPa). The exhaust exited through an expansion bell 59 inches in diameter, having an area of 2,700 square inches. Thus, at full power, the pressure of gas leaving the engine bell was only 0.037 PSI. Being in vacuum, it immediately spread out, dropping rapidly toward zero pressure.
The dispersal of dust on the ground is caused not by rocket exhaust, but by the displacement of air. There is no air on the Moon, therefore no significant dust movement beyond that which is observed by Aldrin and captured on the LEM camera.
Very basic physics...but then, you bizarrely term a footprint a 'crater'.
"What do you observe Mossadayassin?"
And there it is - another agenda driven anti-semitic conspiracy believer that despises having their emotionally invested irrational beliefs challenged.
And regarding what I observe, evidence and phenomena completely consistent with the known physical laws and axioms governing the Apollo programme. I also observe a random nobody feeling the desperate need to sound clever by parroting dumb conspiracy theory over the comments section of a video entertainment platform about subjects that they clearly have no knowledge or understanding of whatsoever.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mcbusinessmonkey
a/ Are you equally confused by the google alerts process as you are the definition of a crater?
b/ Incorrect. Antisemitism speaks for itself as does belief in dumb online conspiracy theory. The term 'conspiracy theorist' has been used in literature for in excess of two centuries.
c/ Logic, reason and independently verifiable fact are again self-evident and have no need to be weaponised.
d/ Incorrect. The schematics and fine details of the lunar landing module are fully available and readily accessible online. You can purchase literature on the mechanics of the Apollo vehicles. Specific details? You mean thrust settings, the dimensions of the engine bell and the application of some elementary mathematics?
"Before I go"
You've already made two valedictory posts - is that a promise this time?
"I would like to say that I have personally observed the moon behave in a manner that radically defies the standard model. I’ve seen the moon stall in the sky next to horizon for three hours, only to race back into its correct trajectory within 30 minutes.I’ve seen the full moon in the same sector of the sky as the setting Sun. I don’t think the moon is anything but plasma, like the Sun… And that makes it quite difficult to land on…"
Fascinating. Odd that the entire field of astronomy and astrophysics, rocketry and aerospace engineering the world over remains oblivious to these revelations. You should record and publish your findings and data - a Nobel Prize may not be so forthcoming though. Don't forget to tell them the University of You Tube sent you.
Quick tip, look into lunistice.
Some tips on humility -
A smart person can fake being stupid. A stupid person cannot fake being smart. As you are ample testimony to - increasingly, stupid people actually seem to believe they are smart. "I reject reality and substitute it with my own version." - Every conspiracy theorist ever. I substitute it with what someone else without even a foundational knowledge in science says or what "seems to me". Today, the world is full of subjectivists and relativists who actively sneer at the Truth and proclaim that everyone has their own truth. When you start believing your own truth, your own propaganda, your own bullshit, you become a narcissist.
The internet does not substitute for a lack of education - particularly in the case of those such as yourself that lack a basic grasp of reality and choose to inhabit a fantasy world in which the idiot is always right and honest, and anyone who opposes the idiot always wrong and dishonest. A global Confederacy of Cretins is being established, whose doltish values are transmitted by bizarre memes that crisscross the internet at a dizzying speed, and which are always accepted uncritically as the finest nuggets of truth. Woe betide anyone who challenges the Confederacy. They will be immediately trolled.
And yet here you are using a device that allows you instantly share your asinine claims with people all over the world. You live in a world that has been shaped by the effectiveness of the scientific method and yet you remain blithely and blindly in opposition to it based upon your own ignorance, impaired perception and conceit and arrogance. Confidence is the prize afforded to the mediocre. You top out the Dunning Kruger scale - imagining yourself as a genius, and geniuses dunces. Such is the inverted reality that you construct.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Oh ffs...this again? Really? It's the same things over and over and over and over again.
One astronaut, Don Pettit, speaking in 2017 used an unfortunate clumsy turn of phrase "destroyed". Since then, conspiracy theorists and those dimwits that parrot their quote mined nonsense have obsessively fixated upon it because that's what they do. However, if you have a modicum of intelligence, critical faculty, integrity and the will to objectively appraise the information that you receive and you place his sentence within it's full and intended context - the rest of the interview, then it's abundantly clear what he is referring to. The premature cancellation of Apollo in 1972 due to the retraction of funding from congress and the lack of political and public will, resulted in the abandonment of the specific expertise, the tooling, the production processes, the plants and most significantly, the heavy lift capability that sent crewed missions to the moon. Emphasis was placed instead on low Earth orbit, primarily, the development of the Space Shuttle which promised much, but failed to deliver in terms of its commercial and financial returns and launch cadence. The other huge project was obviously the construction of the ISS. Neither of which send man to the surface of the moon. Deep space exploration became the preserve of unmanned missions - robotic landers and probes. Pettit was speaking prior to the approval of Project Artemis that will return man to the surface of the moon. The technology of Apollo is old and obsolete but since much of the hardware remains, you can understand that his use of the word 'destroyed' was metaphorical. Rebuilding a manned programme to the moon using modern technology that has superseded that of Apollo has been a protracted and painstaking process on a budget that is a fraction of that of Apollo. Why is it even necessary to explain this...again?
1
-
I'm guessing that English is not your first language or that you dictated this into your phone?
Any permanent settlement on the moon would need to be shielded. The main hazard in the absence of a magnetic field is actually radiation. This was no hazard to the Apollo astronauts during their brief stays on the moon, who received a measured average of 60 microseiverts an hour. However, any prolonged stay would necessitate shielding, probably a combination of water and rock which is why any moon base would likely be underground. The moon is bathed in cosmic rays, but the real danger comes from CMEs/SPEs. The Apollo programme coincided with a solar minimum, but they still took a huge risk with all nine missions to the moon. Data gathered over four years from the Chinese Chang'e 4 lander has shown that radiation on the moon can spike to potentially harmful levels to human habitation.
The very large craters that you see on the moon were the result of sizeable impacts that may amount to an extinction event here on Earth. Of course, since there is no atmosphere, the moon is far more vulnerable to meteorite and asteroid impact. However, since the vulcanism on the moon practically ceased 3 billion years ago, and has been geologically dead for some 1 billion years, unlike the Earth, these features are not largely erased as they are on Earth, but remain on the surface as evidence of bombardment throughout that period of time.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@brandonlaragirl
"I'm willing to put my money that you also believe the government I mean why would the government ever lie to us"
A lame strawman. At no stage have I suggested that governments wouldn't. And what do you mean by "the government"? Past or present? Also, there are in excess of 200 governments worldwide.
Should we trust our governments? No. Patriotism, as far as I am concerned, involves distrusting the government. Keep them in check. They are our employees...they are there to represent us, yet they are frequently self-serving. But that distrust is pointless if we're fooled into thinking that our government is always up to something and yet we can't discern when it is, and when it isn't - or detracts from genuine corruption or duplicity. Of course governments lie, deceive and conspire. No one in their right mind would suggest otherwise. But simply because they do that does not then logically follow that any random conspiracy theory of one's arbitrary choosing, devising or consequence of personal bias/agenda should automatically be assumed to be true. A lazy syllogistic logical fallacy.
"The government" is irrelevant. The scientific, technical, historical, documented, independent and third party evidence that you are wholly ignorant of is manifest and has a voice of its own. Know science is not a question of 'belief' and at no point have I mentioned mine.
Genuine question for you. Do you have anything vaguely approaching or resembling and original thought or observation ever even occasionally entering your vacuous cranium or do you simply rely upon what ridiculous online conspiracy theorists tell you to think about the world?
"and you got all of your vaccinations, is that correct?"
No, unsurprisingly you are wrong again - and what sort of twisted world do we now inhabit in the west in which freaks like yourself use vaccination in the pejorative sense? What's wrong with you?
"All your vaccinations"? What does this even mean? To return to your question, I'll tell you one vaccination that I never required - small pox. Do you think that even your feeble minded conspiracy theory addled brain can figure out why? Hardly surprising that you are easily occupied and entertained by your puerile emojis.
Wait, you have a playlist devoted to Art Bell!!! That's even funnier. I willing to bet that you believe all conspiracy theorists. Why would conspiracy theorists lies to us?
See how ridiculous your initial statement was? Of course you don't.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@David-cv1se
"Originally it was Universal Studios"
Wow! - and to think, no one noticed. Incredible, and so many people visit unaware of this. It also managed to elude half a century of investigative journalism worldwide. How did you, a random bloke on the comments section of You Tube, establish it for yourself? A remake? So you didn't even know that that were a further five missions, plus one inexplicably staged/faked failure.
Hang on a minute...I thought it was supposed to have been filmed by Kubrick at Shepperton UK...or was that Pinewood? No, no, it was definitely Elstree, or maybe Twickenham? Hmmm.
No wait, what about Cannon AFB, New Mexico.? - 'Operation slam dunk'1968?? Bart Sibrel said so, so it must be true (even though the term slam dunk was not coined until the early 70s by Laker's announcer Chuck Hearn - (but we'll ignore that). Cannon AFB it is then. Hold on, what about a secret hangar in Area 51, Nevada - or Groom Lake? Or was it in the Arizona desert, the Utah outback or Death Valley. No, no, it was without doubt Devon Island Canada, that's what they said.
You complete goons can't even get your stories straight. It's hilarious. I guess it depends upon which dumb online conspiracy theorist that you allow yourself to be duped by.
Astonishing then that 'Universal Studios' was able to replicate a vacuum and 1/6th gravity uncut, and precisely reproduce Theophilus in The Sea of Tranquility; the Head Crater vicinity, Ocean of Storms; the Fra Mauro Formation near Cone Crater; the eastern edge of Mare Imbrium, Hadley Rille; The Descartes Highlands; and the eastern edge of Mare Serenitati in the Taurus Littrow Valley. Shout out to the props department too that managed to produce fake moon rocks and in so doing fool an entire branch of science called geology in the process - evading detection for over 50 years from mineralogists, petrologists and analytical laboratories across the world.
You haven't really thought this through have you?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@simonovessimon4242
Sigh. The Van Allen Belts are not a magnetic field - it is a consequence of the magnetosphere. Notice I say'belts' since there are two, with a third that is transitory. You didn't even know that. The belts consist of diffuse toroidal volumes around the Earth's equator within which radiation levels are elevated by the planet's magnetic field trapping charged particles from the sun. The inner torus is populated by energetic protons which they passed through in mere minutes and against which the hull of the CM was an effective shield. The hull of an Apollo command module rated 7 to 8 g/cm2. The craft took an hour and a half to traverse the more extensive outer torus but this region has mainly low energy electrons and so was less of a concern to mission planners. Also the inclination of the trajectory being in the plane of the Moon's orbit avoided the strongest regions of the belts near the equator.
The Van Allen belts are no threat to astronauts passing through them at tens of thousands of miles per hour. Early probes enabled us to calculate, whilst Apollo dosimeters confirmed, that astronaut exposure from belt passage was roughly the same as a chest x-ray. Exposure for the entire trip to the moon was equivalent to from one to three mammograms, or half the annual exposure of residents of Denver CO. The inner Van Allen Belt extends typically from an altitude of 0.2 to 2 Earth radii or 620 mi to 7,500 mi) above the Earth.The VAB are toroidal and trace the shape of the earth's magnetic field, so you need to think of the actual trajectory in terms of the three-dimensional transit. The highly technical reports of Apollo, accessible but admittedly, doubtless beyond your comprehension, give the three-dimensional details of the translunar trajectory as did the PMP. Each mission flew a slightly different trajectory in order to access its landing site, but the orbital inclination of the translunar coast trajectory was always around the vicinity of 30°. Stated another way, the geometric plane containing the translunar trajectory was inclined to the earth's equator by about 30°. A spacecraft following that trajectory would bypass all but the sparse edges of the Van Allen belts.
"do your own research"
Appreciating that "research" does not involve self-proclaimed overnight armchair 'expertise' following a squandered evening consuming junk You Tube videos, cherry picked click bait confirmation bias, quote mining, false equivalence and circular self-referencing pseudoscientific conspiracy websites, do feel free to share - how precisely did you do yours?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"In the moon is not dust"
Correct. The moon is a rocky body with a combination of metallic substances found within the layers of its surface. While the moon is mostly made of iron, other metals found on the moon are magnesium, aluminum, silicon, titanium, gold, silver, and mercury. The dust /
lunar regolith that covers the surface is composed of rock chips, mineral fragments, impact and volcanic glasses and a peculiar component only found on the Moon called agglutinates. This has been formed by meteorite impacts over billions of years.
"Dust just existences on planets that have atmosphere"
Does it? Tell that to an entire branches of science called geology and astronomy, analytical laboratories and mineralogists/petrologists across the planet that have examined samples from the 382 kilograms (842 pounds) of lunar rocks, core samples, pebbles, sand and dust from the lunar surface. Or the 2200 separate soil samples from six different exploration sites on the Moon - not to mention the 121.6 g of material returned from asteroid Bennu. Then explain why a planetary body requires an atmosphere to have dust. Don't forget to mention that the University of You Tube sent you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ValMartinIreland
The Soviet Union/CCCP as it was then.
By the time of The Apollo missions, and actually, by Shepherd's first Mercury flight, NASA had already established at least 30 ground stations on five continents; several islands; and aboard ships sailing the Atlantic, Indian and Pacific oceans. This required the complicity of foreign nations and governments. However, countries such as Australia were eager to directly participate and the U.S. encouraged them to take the helm of the communications stations. NASA selected the Parkes Observatory in New South Wales, Australia, to receive the remote Apollo 11 moonwalk readings, or telemetry. Whilst the 85-foot antenna at Honeysuckle Creek to the south, which tracked the LEM and the moonwalks. Spain for example, offered Robledo and Fresnedillas.
There were also independent institutions and facilities most famously Jodrell Bank Observatory in the UK, which was used to observe the mission, as it was used years previously for Sputnik. At the same time as Apollo 11, Jodrell Bank scientists were tracking the uncrewed Soviet spacecraft Luna 15 that I mentioned, which was trying to land on the Moon. In July 2009, Jodrell released some recordings that Sir Bernard Lovell's team had made. But there are also many, many others, such as Pic du Midi Observatory (in the French Pyrenees), The Arcetri Observatory near Florence, Italy and the Catalina Station of the Lunar and Planetary Laboratory. The Bochum Observatory director (Professor Heinz Kaminski) was able to provide confirmation of events and data independent of both the Russian and U.S. space agencies. This in addition to thousands of amateur radio operators/technicians and astronomers across the globe. NASA released information to the public explaining where third party observers could expect to see the various craft at specific times according to scheduled launch times and planned trajectories. There was even a group at Kettering Grammar School who using simple radio equipment, monitored Soviet and U.S. spacecraft and calculated their orbits.
1
-
@buzzedalldrink9131
"wrong read Van Allens book"
Visit a library? You can't even punctuate a sentence properly. What book are you referring to? Could you also provide a source and reference in which he, the physicist that originally made calculations to allow the Apollo transit through the belts that bear his name, also said it was impossible.
"sounds like you have no idea how to do research"
Said the gullible believer in dumb online conspiracy theory.
"there’s a thing called a library. You should go there and learn about radiation and rocketry"
And what specifically did you learn yourself about radiation and rocketry that invalidates the Apollo moon landings? Odd that - because entire branches of science such as physics, specialist disciplines including aerospace engineering worldwide,, Nobel Prize winning physicists, Pulitzer nominated investigative journalists, over 10,000 private sector enterprises, independent and opposing nations, and each of the 76 other space agencies all understand that the Apollo moon landings were real. All domains with considerably more expertise and understanding than a random, arrogant yet insignificant conspiracy believer mouthing off over the comments section of You Tube that claims to know better.
Let's face it, the only reason that you've actually heard of the belts in the first place is because some online con artist grifting junk conspiracy theory told you what to think about them. Assuming you have even a shred of integrity and humility then I'd like you to honestly ask yourself the following questions:
1/ How much do I genuinely know about the Van Allen Belts? - their shape extent and distribution? Energies and intensity? Type of radiation?
2/ What do I actually understand by alpha and beta particle radiation and shielding against it?
3/ What have I understood about the actual structure of the Command Module and the materials that it was fashioned from?
4/ What have I learnt about the trajectories flown by each of the Apollo missions and their passage through the belts?
5/ Instead of bullshitting on the internet what do I really know about what James Van Allen himself, (and his soviet counterpart Sergei Vernov) had to say about the belts and the Apollo missions?
6/ What have I done to challenge my preconceptions and the claims made by online conspiracy theorists in relation to the VABs?
If the answer to these questions is nothing, then obtaining the answers will prevent you from humiliating yourself in the future and avoid making such dumb and ignorant statements on on a public comments section with no actual prior knowledge about the subject whatsoever.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Deeky76
And meanwhile, entire branches of science, specialist fields of expertise such as aerospace engineering worldwide, Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalists, Nobel Prize winning physicists and each of the 76 other space agencies on the planet don't? In short, domains, disciplines and individuals far cleverer and more informed than an insignificant, random, gullible Dunning Kruger afflicted believer in dumb online conspiracy theory trolling the comments section of You Tube
I'm curious to learn though - since you claim to know everything, could you please account for ALSEP, the SW, SEP, PSE, ASE, HFE, CPLEE and in particular, the LPME.
Go ahead then.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@5-Minutegeography
"I need no fancy letters next to my name to understand things."
No one is suggesting that you do, but defer to those branches of science that do and perhaps actually learn about it. Moreover, from your posts it's quite clear firstly, what sources you are repeating this nonsense from, and secondly, that contrary to your illusory superiority and deluded self-assured beliefs, you really don't 'understand things'.
"Why not learn that questioning the official narrative is actually helpful for your cognitive faculties? Looks like you're the one who needs humility here."
What 'official narrative' would that be? You think that NASA has managed to collectively corrupt and coerce and coopt entire branches of objective science? We are discussing known science here - you actually regard that as an 'official narrative'? this is governed by physical laws and mathematical axioms which are therefore by nature demonstrable and have a voice of their own. If you wish to falsify this, then instead of badly parroting junk conspiracy theory which only demonstrates your limited 'cognitive faculties', then by all means go ahead. I am irrelevant to this exchange. I am simply referring you to the actual science that you are clearly woefully ignorant of.
"Anyway, there's no evidence astronauts can stand on the moon (past the belts) and suffer no incredible damage from radiation."
Nice false negative there. You claim to 'understand' but then humiliate yourself by making another ridiculous and meaningless statement based upon your limited preconceptions. No use saying it - now explain why. What precisely you mean by 'incredible damage' and specifically, what 'radiation' are you referring to? Detail the reasons why and qualify and substantiate your claims with evidence based science and measurement as opposed to arguments from ignorance and personal incredulity.
1
-
@5-Minutegeography
Your comment is shadow banned - I will summarise here:
"The official narrative that USA has made it to the moon. You need to stop calling every idea that contradicts your government-fed knowledge a 'conspiracy theory.'"
To clarify again. This is not 'my knowledge' - this is accepted fact corroborated by ineluctable and independent scientific evidence. Nothing to do with any 'government', nothing to do with me - the physical laws that govern the science of Apollo that you are in contention with are axiomatic and therefore have a voice of their own. These cannot be subverted or corrupted.
"No, NASA has not managed to corrupt the WHOLE objective science of space, but they do have the power to fake a moon landing in order to spread propaganda against the USSR."
And no one noticed. Not one branch of science, not one contractor, not one of the 77 space agencies, not one astrophysicist, geologists, aerospace engineer - simply a bunch of self-appointed armchair conspiracy believers over the comments section of a video entertainment platform that claim to know better through sheer arrogance and deluded illusory superiority. The USSR tracked every Apollo mission to the moon. Luna 15 was a desperate attempt to beat Apollo 11 to the lunar surface and return a sample. It crashed into a mountain due to an error in the descent trajectory. The Kremlin acknowledged the failure and congratulated NASA on the success of Apollo 11.
"The Apollo missions were plagued by inefficiency from the get go."
Every mission suffered from and was plagued with problems and technical hitches - for Apollo 13, the crew were extremely fortunate to return to earth alive. To many at NASA, this was a greater triumph than placing man on the moon.
"The damage from the solar radiation which the Van Allen Belts protect the Earth from."
It is the magnetosphere that protects the earth - the Van Allen Belts are just one part of this.
"Also, NO ONE can take any picture on the moon without those pictures quality being severely compromised by said radiation."
Again, no use saying it, explain why.
"You don't trust science, you trust government-controlled science."
Once more - because you are desperately struggling here - known objective science is not answerable to any 'government' and it cannot be influenced or compromised. It is the ultimate arbiter and it demands evidence. As such, it is completely in support of the authenticity of the Apollo moon landings.
To return to your previous post, you claimed this.
"Anyway, there's no evidence astronauts can stand on the moon (past the belts) and suffer no incredible damage from radiation."
There are a plethora of measurements, academic publications, research findings and data into the radiation levels on the moon. The validity of the landings is not in question and is not doubted by any related specialist field or branch of science. 50 years later, you claim to know better. What "incredible damage" and specifically what "radiation" are you referring to. Present your data, cite the measurements and substantiate your claims.
1
-
@5-Minutegeography
Genuinely, I'm curious. Why are you doing this to yourself? Is this how you interact with people in the real world - if at all? You clearly have zero actual knowledge of the Apollo programme, nothing in the way of scientific understanding and are under the deluded belief that parroting junk online conspiracy theory over internet comment sections makes you sound authoritative, informed and clever. Comments such as:
"I have bad news for you, there's overwhelming evidence the moon landing was faked: 1- Those moon rocks turned out to be petrified wood"; "Even if they were rocks from the moon they could be rocks that fell on Earth from the moon because of asteroid collisions that happened on the moon"; or, "Dude, did you know temperature reaches +150F on the moon during the day and -150F at night? NO CAMERA can work in these extreme temperatures especially cameras from the 1960s."
All you are achieving is showcasing your complete ignorance. And yet still you continue. You seem to think that simply stating something based upon your preconceptions makes it true.
"Basic scientific evidence says there shouldn't be fading of sunlight in the corners of pictures taken allegedly on the moon."
What? What the hell are you talking about? Examples?
"Bill Kaysing, an engineer who worked on the lunar modules spoke out against it and was accused of the same accusations you're accusing me."
Kaysing never worked on the Lunar Modules. Absolutely false. He had a degree in English literature and worked briefly for Rocketdyne as a service engineer - a role title that was a complete misnomer and basically involved sweeping the floor and assisting the trained personnel by passing them tools and making them coffee. He was promoted to a librarian and copywriter and left under acrimonious circumstances prior to the Apollo programme. Bill Kaysing was the Godfather and originator of the Apollo conspiracies and his ludicrous allegations and claims although routinely dismissed and debunked are still naively regurgitated by people like you. You may as well be referencing Alex Jones.
"Books were written on the subject debunking it including NASA Mooned America, and We Never Went to The Moon."
The latter is Kaysing again. Yes. Many more books have been written on ancient aliens, bigfoot, flat earth and the Loch Ness Monster. They are complete horseshit too. What's your point? Why don't you learn the actual science and technology surrounding Apollo instead on relying on individuals with as much idea about the latter as you?
"Also, not everyone involved in the preparation for the alleged landing has to know it was fake, only the higher ups knew."
I would like you to read that back, then read it again, and then again. Then actually exercise even a modicum of introspection and self-appraisal. Do you even actually believe this yourself? Are you aware how utterly absurd this statement is? I'm genuinely of the opinion at this stage that you are simply trolling. No one could actually be this dumb.
"The USSR didn't expose the fakery of it because of political considerations."
The USSR? Political considerations? What?
All of your claims have been systematically addressed and debunked and yet like any conspiracy theorist, you simply ignore the evidence and replies and just plough on regardless with more recycled nonsense.
To return to this. To remind you, this is what you said:
"Anyway, there's no evidence astronauts can stand on the moon (past the belts) and suffer no incredible damage from radiation."
There are a huge volume of studies, measurements, academic publications, research findings and data into the radiation levels on the moon. The validity of the landings is not in question and is not doubted by any related specialist field or branch of science. 50 years later, you claim to know better. What "incredible damage" and specifically what "radiation" are you referring to. Present your data, cite the measurements and substantiate your claims - only, you keep forgetting. Go ahead then.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@knickyak7268
"no he wasn’t you could hear him blowing as he said that inside his helmet that doesn’t make sense ether!"
Why are you pretending to ask a question when you have already made up your mind? Why are you people so contrarian? Even if you think that this was staged, there would still be a discrepancy given he is wearing a helmet, so clearly there is an explanation. Provide me with a precise time stamp and I will willingly explain the context to you.
"Not saying we never went"
It certainly doesn't sound like that.
"but alot was fake"
If the moon landings were real, then why would it need to be?
"like Nixon call which has minimum 1.3 delay there 1.3 back 2.6 seconds between Speakers And it was without delay"
This again? Seriously? - and yes, there was a delay. The communication signal speed is the same as the speed of light. The moon is 384,400 km away. The speed of light is 299,792 km/s. This means, even considering additional time delays through relays and equipment that would equate to a fraction over 1.25 seconds. However, this was only in one direction. Since the recording of the conversation took place on Earth, and Nixon was also on Earth, as soon as the astronaut’s voice is heard, Nixon can and does answer immediately and we hear it immediately and without delay. The time delay is only apparent when Nixon finishes a sentence… we don’t hear a reply from the astronauts for about 2.5 seconds… about 1.25 seconds for Nixon’s voice to get to the moon, and another 1.25 second for the astronauts reply to return to the Earth. There are also edited versions of the exchange on some documentaries that have removed this lag. Why is it even necessary to explain this again?
1
-
"NASA faked the entire thing."
Nine times, six landings and inexplicably, one failure and near catastrophe - and no one noticed. Having managed to fool entire branches of science, specialist fields worldwide such as aerospace engineering, independent nations, the best investigative journalists on the planet and each of the 76 other space agencies for over 50 years, they didn't reckon upon random conspiracy believers on the comments section of a video entertainment platform over half a century later. Nothing gets past you.
"The moon is IN Earths atmosphere."
Technically yes. But the "outermost atmosphere" that you are referring to is so sparse as to almost be non existent. We a talking 02 atoms per cc on the lunar surface. It was 'recently discovered' due to that fact and based on observations by the ESA/NASA Solar and Heliospheric Observatory, SOHO, shows that the gaseous layer that wraps around Earth (the geocorona), reaches up to 630 000 km away, or 50 times the diameter of our planet - much further than previously thought. One of the spacecraft instruments, SWAN, used its sensitive sensors to trace the hydrogen signature and precisely detect how far the very outskirts of the geocorona are. These observations that hadn't been attempted before, could be done only at certain times of the year, when the Earth and its geocorona came into view for SWAN. This is what science does - pushes the frontiers of our knowledge and continually makes discoveries. What's your point?
"The moon rocks are fake. They are not from the moon."
Said no geologist, petrologist, mineralogist or independent analytical laboratory ever - but again, you know best.
"I have many arguments."
- From ignorance and incredulity. Do you have anything informed or original to say instead instead of consuming and regurgitating dumb online conspiracy theory about subjects you clearly have absolutely zero knowledge of whatsoever?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Well let's see. That'll be entire branches of science, specialist disciplines and fields of expertise such as aerospace engineering and rocketry worldwide, Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalists, Nobel Prize winning physicists over 10,000 private sector investments, organisations and initiatives, and each of the 76 other space agencies on the planet. In short, domains, disciplines and individuals far cleverer and more informed than an insignificant, random, gullible Dunning Kruger afflicted believer in dumb online conspiracy theory with zero knowledge of the subject whatsoever.
And no, known science and technology is not a question of 'belief' that would be the the junk conspiracy theory that is subscribed to by weak minded buffoons with an IQ less than 100 and allow online con artists and grifters to tell them what to think.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@FFE-js2zp
There is no link, and if you attempt to post one it will likely be shadow banned.
Lunar samples have not been "all lost" that is an outright lie, and NASA have never said that they lost data pertaining to radiation measurements from Apollo. They never declared that "no radiation hazard existed" either. The quote you have posted from Popular Science details how they traversed the outer regions of the VABs. The trajectories that the Apollo missions flew threw the VABs posed no significant hazard to the astronauts, but beyond that and the protection of the earth's magnetosphere, radiation in space is always a hazard. Due to the enforced timing, the Apollo missions coincided with the height of a solar cycle, the periodic waxing and waning of activity that occurs every 11 years. Given that solar flares and solar energetic particle events are more common during times of heightened solar activity it was a huge gamble and they were very lucky.
The new craft, Orion utilises onboard systems use modern electronics that are far more sophisticated and vulnerable to particle radiation than their Apollo-era counterparts and it is designed for missions of longer distance and duration. The Apollo Guidance Computer used low density integrated circuits and magnetic core memory, both of which are extremely radiation resistant. When high-energy protons and other ions hit orbiting spacecraft, they often leave ionization tracks in electronic chips. These tracks can upset spacecraft computer memories and otherwise disrupt sensitive electronics. Artemis 1 will sent it out to a apogee of 40,000 miles beyond the moon, a record for a spacecraft rated to carry humans.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tvviewer4500
"You know what the worst part of people like you is, Son?"
Well given that like Apollo, you know nothing about me, this should be interesting. Go ahead, I'm all ears.
"You never did anything. You just read a book and repeated something."
Said the online conspiracy believer. Actually, take your own advice - and perhaps read a book or two. 'Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica' would be a good place to start.
"Life gets really dull when you build your foundation based on only the "truisms" you are exposed to rather than the ones you discover for yourself"
You mean, that time you watched a You Tube conspiracy video?
As I explained - I am irrelevant to this exchange. The known science of Apollo is supported by physical laws and mathematical axioms that speak for themselves. I'll remind you again, you are welcome to attempt to falsify them.
Wonderful, and for the third time of asking I am inviting you to share them 'son'. From your 'discoveries', present your singular best evidence that the Apollo missions never happened - I'm still waiting. Go ahead then. What's wrong? Are you doubting the strength of your own conviction? Off you go, clever lad.
1
-
Why are you pretending to ask questions, demonstrably in the absence of knowledge before arrogantly making claims about subjects you know nothing about and on that basis, (none whatsoever), declaring something to be fake?
You are referring to a 2014 video entitled 'Orion: Trial by Fire' in which Kelly Smith discusses the challenges posed by the VABs for the then new Orion capsule. Because the computers aboard Orion are much more powerful than those carried by NASA’s Apollo moon missions during the 1960s and 1970s, such advanced high density electronics are more susceptible to the levels of radiation found in the Van Allen belts and beyond. This is a given and needs no further explanation. However, understand that the read only core rope memory used by Apollo is radiation hard. In contrast, radiation ionising the underlying semiconductor material - for instance when an electron tunnels into a transistor, can cause adverse effects. Look up single event upset and the more destructive single event effects/latch-up for more information. The large bipolar (NPN and PNP) transistors in the AGC were not very sensitive to radiation. Modern MOSFETs are much more radiation sensitive. Orion's onboard systems use modern electronics that are far more vulnerable to particle radiation than their Apollo-era counterparts. When high-energy protons and other ions hit orbiting spacecraft, they often leave ionisation tracks in electronic chips. These tracks can upset spacecraft computer memories and otherwise disrupt sensitive electronics. This was not a problem for the Apollo design. Smith stated that these challenges "needed to be solved" before we can send a crew into those regions of the belts and beyond. In the same year Orion was sent into the densest regions of the belts and last year, to orbit the moon and return to Earth as part of Artemis 1, to overwhelming success. Why is it even necessary to explain all this again?
So you also use one conspiracy theory to justify belief in another? Great logic.
1
-
1