Did We Really Go To The Moon

What's the big deal about radiation?

The Apollo capsules were in fact, far less protected from the harmful effects of radiation than today's space shuttles. Any vessel penetrating the Van Allen Radiation belts would be encompassed by harmful radiation for 45 or more minutes. This would not result in 1 Rad, as NASA claims would have been an acceptable amount, but rather a possibly lethal dose. As recent as two years ago, the space shuttle crew experienced the "shooting-star" syndrome associated with lethal doses(Even with eyes closed, you cannot shut out the high level dose of radiation) Other problems also began to manifest, and the shuttle was moved to a lower orbit below the "danger zone". This is well documented including reports on CNN. If our modern space shuttles are not adequately shielded, why would you think 30 year-old vessels that were only shielded for re-entry heat, would be properly shielded for radiation. This is only one of many, many inconsistancies in the uneven history of the space program.
I am over 40 years old and have followed all of the launches from the beginning. I've been to Johnson (JPL) and Mission Control, and have touch the (so-called) moon rocks (Once in school '72) and once in Houston. I was a believer until good science and common sense showed me otherwise. Believing in the moon-landings is a near religion for some--sacreligious to even question the authenticity of NASA or the validity of the programs. Forget the goofy conspiracy websites and the "debunkers". DO THE MATH. Like me, you too will find more holes in the Moon Landing myth than a piece of Swiss cheese.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Re: What's the big deal about radiation?

Okay, I will.

The inner Van Allen belt has a thickness of around 4000 km, and a yearly radiation density corresponding to 2500 rem / year behind 1/8" aluminum plate. (Source: Modern Astrophysics, Carroll and Ostlie) Let's take the worst case and assume that 2500 rem / year is valid for the entire 4000 km of the belt.

Each one-way trip took 4.5 days, for a rough velocity of 3500 km/hr. Each trip through the belt would last roughly 1.1 hours, and would expose astronauts to 313 mrem of radiation (actually much less, since the shielding was much greater than 1/8" aluminum). The astronauts would have been subjected to maximally ~640 mrem of radiation during their trip.

By contrast, the annual limit for occupational exposure of radiation workers set by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and DOE is 5000 mrem per year. (Source: Oak Ridge National Laboratory, http://www.ornl.gov/Env_Rpt/aser95/tb-a-2.pdf)

Perhaps you should DO THE MATH, too.

- Warren

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Judgement day

Sorry neelix, but I didn't quite get in before the last dude. I was about to say never say "DO THE MATH" - because as it stands today, the math (or maths as we say in OZ) will always be correct - and who the hell has enough resources to critique it.

Even going on about the limited computer power is trivial, because the space engineers seemed to think that going to the moon comprised simply of knowing the orbit path, having enough power and plotting a few trajectories - neither any of these need any great computer power to generate the necessary results.

Sorry, but no matter how strikingly unbelievable this event seems to be, the MATH is and will always be on the pro-moonlanding side. But at least, neelix, you are thinking instead of re-iterating - it's a welcome surprise on these pages.

I'll be off in my spaceship now. bye.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Inner Belt

Whether you check Stern's NASA-sponsored site or other sources, you find many wild variations on the danger of the Van Allen Belts. Sorry Chroot, your math, unfortunately is not entirely correct, because the Belt(s) are always in flux. The "inner belt" is the most dangerous, and the one we read about NASA avoiding with our modern space shuttle and satellites in high orbit. Even Stern's schoolroom primer warns of the dangers of this inner belt, and that neither man nor spacecraft is fully protected. This NASA sponsored site also presumes that during a flight during a non-flux journey an astronaut would experience roughly 2 Rad (different from your calculations, although I do appreciate your homework). 2 Rad is certainly not enough to cause permenant damage without repeated and prolonged exposure, without sufficient recovery/regeneration time. However, this is still textbook and does not account for flux and trajectory of the craft through the inner belt.

 

Re: Inner Belt

Please provide a reference to a peer-reviewed work that demonstrates the nature and amplitude of the "flux."

Hence my responds begins "The inner Van Allen belt has..."

It's dangerous -- more so than sitting in your La-Z-Boy, for sure. It's also true that no spacecraft is "fully protected," in that some radiation exposure is inevitable. I have calculated the magnitude of this exposure.

I'm rather sure that 2 rem was arrived at by taking even more conservative assumptions than I made. In any event, it's in the same order of magnitude.

You've still provided no hard data on this "flux" you keep bringing up. If you're going to continue to use it in arguments, you're going to have provide some numbers that describe it. As for the trajectory, why would you think the astronauts would take some meandering path through the inner belt? Even if they took a path several times longer, they'd still receive less radiation during their trip than OSHA considers important for people who work in nuclear plants.

You continue to fail to support your arguments.

- Warren

 

The reason dontbelieve says never say "Do Math" is because math supports just what he would have you believe is not the case. The reason it is aways correct is because it was done. The math supports the fact and not the other way around.

And trying to disprove such is a near religion for others.

 

Did Americans and Russians fly to the Moon, or were so-called "Moon flights" faked?

By Der Voron, author of book "Unidentified Flying Objects: Starcraft"


It may be that both Americans and Russians never flew to the Moon. Because of a very simple thing:

Take-off after landing on the Moon (to return to the Earth)

To take off, the spacecraft, both modern and of those times (60-70s), needs a carrier rocket weighing many tons, yet more tons of fuel for it, and a powerful space-vehicle launching site.

How to take all this with a spacecraft to be able to take off from the Moon after landing on it? The mid-rank carrier rocket Ariane-5, for example, weighs 750 tons (the rocket itself and the fuel), and the "lite" carrier rocket Dnepr-1 (created basing on the strategic intercontinental ballistic missile SS-18 Satan) weighs 211 tons. They develop the power of about 10-20mn KWt. We certainly can take in account that a rocket able to launch a spacecraft from the Moon should have the power of about 36 times less than here on the Earth -- as the Moon gravity is 6 times smaller and as thrust needed will decrease 36 times if antigravity force is 6 times less, but even in this case the rocket would weigh about 750/36, i.e. about 21 tons minimum (the rocket and the fuel), plus the weight of details for deploying a temporary launching site. Even if the weight of these details equals to the minimum possible weight of about 50 tons, then the spacecraft should be able to take with itself a minimum weight of ~70 tons. No such spacecraft were developed before the flight to the Moon, none even close to that; today's most powerful spacecraft's weight carrying capabilities couldn't approach even the numbers thrice smaller than this (for example, one of the most modern Russian carrier rockets, Titan-4, which is approximately equal to Space Shuttle carrier rocket by its parameters, is able to carry only about 17.5 tons of weight; Ariane-5 is able to carry up to 10 tons, Dnepr-1 less than 4 tons).

Parameters of carrier rocket Ariane-5 are provided above only as an example, this rocket is not able to launch spacecraft into outer space. For this we need a rocket like Russian Energia or Space Shuttle carrier rocket, or even more powerful. Energia weighs about 2,400 tons, and 2,000/36 is about 67 tons; Space Shuttle carrier rocket weighs about 2000 tons, and 2,000/36 is about 55 tons. It is not possible to deliver such a load to space even in our times... But if even we assume that the mass of this rocket -- needed to launch the craft from the Moon -- is 750/36 (mid-rank Ariane-5's mass divided by 36), then its weight is still over 20 tons, plus details for deploying launching site on the Moon, altogether about 70 tons. If even details for lunar launching site weigh zero tons, then we still need to deliver the carrier rocket to the Moon. Such a weight could not be delivered into outer space (into the space closer to the Moon) in those times, there were no Energia or Space Shuttle rockets then, and I think there are no such rockets even now... Else why does NASA not fly to the Moon now, when they have much more advanced rockets? Why don't they fly to the Moon at least once in 10 years? We don't mean today's Russia, they lack money even for Buran (spacecraft analogous to Space Shuttle)...

The official story of American flights to the Moon -- about Russian flights see below -- says that larger command module rocket "Columbia" remained in lunar orbit while the lunar module "Eagle" separated and descended with firing retro rockets to the lunar surface. The astronauts exited "Eagle" to take pictures and recover lunar material from the surface. They then returned to the lunar lander module to return back to the "Columbia" command module. The "Columbia" broke out of lunar orbit to go back to Earth and splash down with parachutes.

"Eagle" reportedly weighed about 16 tons, and its ascent stage about 6 tons. To launch a satellite of such a mass, at least Ariane-5 class rocket is needed (see the rockets' parameters above), and Ariane-5 will deliver it only to the space near the Earth, not the outer space and not moreover the space near the Moon. This can be done only using Energia-class rockets. Before launching "Eagle" from the Moon the rocket able to deliver the "Eagle" from the Moon to the Earth, i.e. to the space close to the Earth -- here we have to swap the places of Moon and Earth -- itself needs to be delivered to the Moon in the spacecraft. Such a rocket, as calculated above, would weigh no less than 20 tons (Ariane-5's mass/36). See above about delivering capacities even of modern spacecraft. Plus launching spacecraft, even of this mass -- 6 tons, like Eagle's ascent stage -- requires deploying a launching site so the weight of this site cannot be considered as "zero". How was it deployed on the Moon?

If even we suppose that several carrier rockets like "Columbia" could deliver all this to the Moon in several lunar modules "Eagles" (seems this should have been a very hard task for such modules to land on the Moon since the Moon has no atmosphere, which diminishes the speed of similar modules when these land on the Earth), then how was for example the Lunar launching site deployed? On-site by astronauts in spacesuits? And why was all this praiseworthy process, or at least its part, not shown on the photos or on the videos? Where are photographs of such a praiseworthy achievement like Lunar launching site? And if somehow no launching site construction was still required to take off from the Moon, why are there no photographs or videos of the spacecraft taking off from it? Wasn't it impossible to take photograph/videos of the spacecraft taking off from the Moon, from "Columbia" rocket? If this was a hard technical task in those times, then why weren't at least preparations for this takeoff photoed or videoed, by astronauts on-site? Did the NASA astronauts return to "Columbia", "which remained in lunar orbit", using the rope that was hanging out of it? And where are Russian photographs and videos dedicated to their "Lunar takeoff" preparations?

The NASA photo below, with its absolutely impossible (for the lunar landscape) shadows -- like if they were made with the use of different projectors shining at different angles -- can be an additional proof of all told above. Maybe NASA, let's say, "feels ashamed" for the mystification, and therefore provided such photos as hidden hints? Or, more probably, did they provide contradictory materials to entangle all this more and more?

NASA photos, with their absolutely impossible (for the lunar landscape) shadows -- like if they were made with the use of different projectors shining at different angles -- can be an additional proof of all told above. Maybe NASA, let's say, "feels ashamed" for the mystification, and therefore provided such photos as hidden hints? Or, more probably, did they provide contradictory materials to entangle all this more and more?

Or maybe NASA astronauts still visited the Moon and videoed/photoed all what is claimed to be lunar videos and photos, but these got of such a poor quality due to some details of lunar atmosphere and climate that NASA decided to order new "better looking" videos/photos to Hollywood? Then we understand why there are such errors in them.

We think Russians, shocked by such a "challenge" from NASA, in turn invented their own "success story" about "flying to the Moon" and "taking samples of lunar rocks" by their "unmanned" "Lunohods"...

 

cross posting is VERY bad form

 

Miracles

No matter how good the mathematics, a whole bunch of algebra still does not launch a rocket to the moon. Unless the feat is repeated, how is anybody under 30 years of age meant to take it seriously enough. Wet1, ask yourself why people (myself obviously included) still beg the question whether the feat has actually been attained. The way the moon landings were original talked about I thought we would have been taking elevators to the moon by now.

Alas I'll sit and wait. I still laugh when people say stuff like "We can put a man on the moon yet we still can't get the economy right". Maybe they are both simply unreachable goals. But who am I to argue with Mathematics.

 

Welcome to sciforums, Der Voron.

As Asguard mentioned, here we do not cross post. Please respect this. Believe me, users here will find your post if they are interested.

 

Your precise point of not seeing this event happen in your lifetime is mentioned within this thread by me, dontbelieve. I would dearly love to see this feat repeated. I would also love for others to see such.

Even more, I would wish for a colony there. There may even be a good thing to come of all this. If nothing else to shame our political leaders into repeating this so that others might see the same thing. (If it is done, Please, Please, put it down near the original landing site so that it may be captured within photographic record again.)

 

I can't believe that a mere 30 years after it happened that people don't believe it happened. What we have in favour is tons of evidence that show the moon landings took place.

What precisely do we have against? All we have is naysaying and denial on the basis that it's "all a big conspiracy".

This is the same as the UFO proponents. They have zero evidence of aliens and spend most of their time naysaying and denying on the basis that it's "all a big conspiracy".

I am quite convinced that these people who claim we didn't goto the moon are all communist conspirators. They are clearly still smarting from the collapse of the USSR, and in a lame attempt to bolster their bruised and battered egos now spend their time trying to disinform the public about the fact that the USSR got beat to the moon by denying that the US ever went there, and staged the whole thing.

Prove me wrong conspirators.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

kind regards
Paul

 

There is a lot to be said for the old adage of "seeing is believing". It is how we learn and know things for ourselves. Admittedly, everyone that wanted could not go. That was the reason for the photographic record. In today's technology it is hard to tell what is real from what is computer generated. To the eye, (when done properly) there is no difference. This leads our younger folks to doubt anything seen as real. From this basis it is easy to go on a witch hunt to find what is a suspected hoax. This sort of thing tends to snowball all out of proportion to reality.

Basically what was mentioned was that we have a whole generation of people who only know of this accomplishment by dated and poorly kept photograpic records. Photograpic records that in no way measure up to our abilities at present. Fox network did no favors by running their little conspircy hoax program.

What is not thought of, is that there are massive amounts of records that show that this and that corporation manufactured this and that componet for NASA's needs. This was not the setup of a few "government controlled" corporations making all. Nor has anyone been able to point to the moon rocks and samples and say this is of earthy origin. In otherwords, they didn't just grow here for our benefit. But evidence hunters, looking for that conspiracy are going to throw all that out because it doesn't say what they wish to find. The conspiracy hunters are certain if they can raise enough clamour about it that surely someone will think that there is smoke so there must be a fire.

Literally thousands of photos have been poured over but the evidence still rests with the accomplishment of the fact that it was done. None of our conspiracy hunters want to acknowledge that telementry from around the world tracked, picked up signals, and monitored the craft on its voyage there and back. As there are records of this it is easy to see. Once again, it is easier to holler it wasn't done.

Much like religion, some folks will continue to deny this, even if we were to return to the same place on the moon that the landing took place at and saw the remains of the landing that were left behind and the footprints that are on the surface of the moon for all time. Those items are not going anywhere, short of a meteor impact taking them all out. Someday, sometime, there will be a return to see what was left. Till then, the Doubting Thomas' will be content to holler we didn't do it. Afterwards, they will look pretty foolish.

 

I hear ya wet1. Several very good points.

kinds regards
Paul

 

Of course we went to the moon, what was Aollo 13 was all about? If we never went, then this would have never happened. All the people that do not believe it say that the pictures were faked and that we never left low earth orbit. Well if we never left low earth orbit then what the hell was Apollo 13 doing so far from home?
Now people are beginning to say the Holocaust never happened! Even when people that SAW the camps in person are still living! as with the Apollo program, there are always people saying that really good, or really bad things never happened, one day we will have never nuked Japan for crying out loud.
I really get pissed when I see things like this............ :bugeye:

 

Ask the Hubble guys if they can spot some old american flags on the moon

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

, oh wait what are all these chinese flags doing here....

 

I got news for you.
On the moon, the astronauts have left optical corner reflectors so that the distance from moon to earth could be measurd directly by sending a laser pulse in the moon direction and measure the round trip time. This distance has been measured from earth. So maybe the Hubble guys didn't see the american flag, but several laboratories have seen the optical corner reflectors.

 

We have irrefutable evidence we went to the Moon, Moon rocks, Laser refractors for distance measuring and radio data transmitted from the Moon.

We can pass through the Van Allen's Belt, the Astronauts in the Space Shuttle pass through the Van Allen's Belt's Magnetic Anomally all the time and never are hurt, spending more time there than the Apollo Astronauts spent going through that field of Beta-Particles and Alpha Radiation (nearly harmless anyway).

We were able to take off from the Moon easily due to 1/6th Earth's Gravity.

Even Van Allen himself said that the Moon Hoax was laughable.

Welcome to science.

 

Are the laser reflectors still usable? if so, then anyone could prove or disprove the landings with a bit of effort.

 

hi gays i sorry for my english , so i wanna tellin somethin about that , i do read all about from both side ,i stay on neutral position , i just want to know the thuth , i had some expireance in photography ,phisics, chemisty ,aerospace, i try to see from that point , i will be realy happy for USA if they taken moon , but if that goverment lie i very sad , that mean in usa things is wrong to much , so now lemme show some quests about ,1 why 7 time send crew to the moon ? that to risky for politician reason if it real mission ,enough just one , the answer on that i found in time ,-that was period when have bad war in vietnam ,cia killed JFC , bad situacion in Cuba , USSR leader in cosmos ,i think for NIXON administration need some very good news to give a people in USA some hope to forget about vietnam and so on , well other quest is why camera moved when fixed both astronauts WHO?? ESLE move camera follow and corrected the focus on a both astronauts????...., 3 quest why we not see a large space on the moon surface ?just about 50 metre max of horizon distance?what moon is so small ? where the horizon about 2-3 kilometres?why they not fix moment when the moon-rover go by the large moon space ?4 quest is why the trajectory of the sand which push from whell of moon-rover and boot of astronauts moved like it happen in atmosphere ? 4 quest WHY we see the trace of boot near of aerospace landed on the moon ?why that dust not move away when spacecraft landin on the moon ? and why we not see the crater down on the ground after missile engine of spacecraft tryin to break the fall on moon ?, ..other importan quest why do not send for independent laboratory testing small part of ground from moon in USSR ,and not send still why ? SO I THINK THAT ENOUGH ,i can tellin more but i think with my english that will come boredom crap ,so i just wanna know truth no matter it mean