Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Was the 1969 Moonlanding fake?
- Thread starter Strike
- Start date
Easy 10
Brain dead MUG SHEEP
I think the Russians sent a monkey up there first.Fluffster said:
Hungry Joe.
New member
(NOTE; I'M NOT A CONSPIRACY THEORIST!)
If you believe the first was fake for the reasons given then, yes they were all faked.
Scary Avatar!
If you believe the first was fake for the reasons given then, yes they were all faked.
Scary Avatar!
magoo
New member
This thread was started the last time they showed the documentary.
And i'll say now what i said then.
The whole thing was being watched very carefully during the height of the cold war by the Russians. If they had smelled a rat don't you think they would have said something?
All the conspiracy theorists were basically proven to be talking cack.
And i'll say now what i said then.
The whole thing was being watched very carefully during the height of the cold war by the Russians. If they had smelled a rat don't you think they would have said something?
All the conspiracy theorists were basically proven to be talking cack.
Hungry Joe.
New member
I just phoned REM's Michael Stipe to ask him what he thought and he said this...
Here's a little agit for the never-believer. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Here's a little ghost for the offering. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Here's a truck stop instead of Saint Peter's. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Mister Andy Kaufman's gone wrestling.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Well, that's cleared that up then.
Here's a little agit for the never-believer. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Here's a little ghost for the offering. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Here's a truck stop instead of Saint Peter's. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Mister Andy Kaufman's gone wrestling.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Well, that's cleared that up then.
Easy 10
Brain dead MUG SHEEP
I just saw Adam Ant at the bus stop in Norfolk square and asked him what he reckoned. He said...
"I'm the dandy highwayman that you're too scared to mention"
"I spend my cash on looking flash and grabbing your attention"
I was about to ask him again, but his Number 5 turned up and off he went. Tch.
"I'm the dandy highwayman that you're too scared to mention"
"I spend my cash on looking flash and grabbing your attention"
I was about to ask him again, but his Number 5 turned up and off he went. Tch.
Phaedrus said:
Sorry, another point - all the US manned missions took off from the same place, Cape Canveral/Kennedy, so that's another 'fact' raised by the 'documentary' that is an outright lie and doesn't stand up to the briefest scrutiny.
You see the adults haven't had to try very hard and we've managed to blow every one of the arguments raised out of the water without even having to quote US government propaganda. And of COURSE NASA came out of it looking bad - that was the slant the program-makers wanted to put on it. Think 'Goodbye Goldstone'.
Sorry to keep on about this but I'm really irritated that people can waste time and money putting on (and watching) something that had it's origins in the same Redneck philosophy that spawned the Timothy McVeigh and Militias - namely that the biggest enemy of the US people is the US government.
Hungry Joe.
New member
But Tim, what has the launch area got to do with the destination? They can change direction once launched and it also depends on the placing of the earths rotation at the time. Many of the sceptics on the programme were scientists and former astronauts. Did you see the programme? They can't all be accussed of being redneck philosophers.
looney
Banned
- Jul 7, 2003
- 15,652
US Seagull said:
Have to agree with the idiot US Seagull here, if it was faked so many astronimers would have spoted it by pointing there scopes at were the landing should have taken place that there would be an outcry.
The only people who question it are Cospiracy theory nuts and Muslims.
When man asends the stars there will be no more need for the Koran Suma (I think).
You said 'southern hemisphere' - no matter how the earth revolves that stays the same in the, er, south. Also rockets aren't like planes, they aren't piloted as such on take-off, they just go where they're aimed.Phaedrus said:
No I didn't see it but I watched a similar program a week or so ago when a serious academic said that the on 9/11 the Penatgon was hit by a missle fired by a US fighter, not by an aeroplane. Just because someone is prepared to say it on TV doesn't make it a fact.
Hungry Joe.
New member
There isn't a telescope powerful enough to see the surface of the moon in detail enough to spot a landing.
Hungry Joe.
New member
Brovian said:
I was paraphrasing as I can't remember the exact words the scientist used but the point was that no other manned mission has taken the route that the Apollo missions supposedly took as to do so meant negotiating the radiation belt, which is real and is a fact. Also rockets have many other rockets that they use to change course once taken off, they don't just point and shoot.
Phaedrus said:
Would think the Hubble would be good enough, currently Mars orbiting satellites could just make out one of the Rovers on the surface. When the Moon landing vehicle lifted off it left the launch platform behind and thats big. Remember no weather on the Moon means everything will be intact so should be visable at least to orbiting satellites
*Ahem* - Regarding the radiation here is scientific proof as requested.
What is the actual amount and nature of radiation present in the Van Allen Belts?
How long would an astronaut be exposed to that radiation while passing through the belts on a lunar trajectory, and what dose of radiation would he receive?
What would be the likely health effects?
Regarding the Van Allen belts, and the nature of the radiation in them, they are doughnut-shaped regions where charged particles, both protons and electrons, are trapped in the Earth's magnetic field. The number of particles encountered (flux is the technical jargon, to impress your friends!) depends on the energy of the particles; in general, the flux of high-energy particles is less, and the flux of low-energy particles is more. Very low energy particles cannot penetrate the skin of a spacecraft, nor even the skin of an astronaut. Very roughly speaking, electrons below about 1 million electron volts (MeV) are unlikely to be dangerous, and protons below 10 MeV are also not sufficiently penetrating to be a concern. The actual fluxes encountered in the Van Allen belts is a matter of great commercial importance, as communications satellites operate in the outer region, and their electronics, and hence lifetimes, are strongly affected by the radiation environment. Thus billions of dollars are at stake, never mind the Moon! The standard database on the fluxes in the belt are the models for the trapped radiation environment, AP8 for protons, and AE8 for electrons, maintained by the National Space Sciences Data Center at NASA's Goddard Spaceflight Center. Barth (1999) gives a summary which indicates that electrons with energies over 1 MeV have a flux above a million per square centimeter per second from 1-6 earth radii (about 6,300 - 38,000 km), and protons over 10 MeV have a flux above one hundred thousand per square centimeter per second from about 1.5-2.5 Earth radii (9,500 km - 16,000 km).
Then what would be the radiation dose due to such fluxes, for the amount of time an astronaut crew would be exposed? This was in fact a serious concern at the time that the Apollo program was first proposed. Unfortunately I have not located quantitative information in the time available, but my recollection is that the dose was roughly 2 rem (= 20 mSv, milli-Sievert).
The time the astronauts would be exposed is fairly easy to calculate from basic orbital mechanics, though probably not something most students below college level could easily verify. You have perhaps heard that to escape from Earth requires a speed of about 7 miles per second, which is about 11.2 km per sec. At that speed, it would require less than an hour to pass outside the main part of the belts at around 38,000 km altitude. However it is a little more complicated than that, because as soon as the rocket motor stops burning, the spacecraft immediately begins to slow down due to the attraction of gravity. At 38,000 km altitude it would actually be moving only about 4.6 km per sec, not 11.2. If we just take the geometric average of these two, 7.2 km per sec, we will not be too far off, and get about 1.5 hours for the time to pass beyond 38,000 km.
Unfortunately calculating the average radiation dose received by an astronaut in the belts is quite intricate in practice, though not too hard in principle. One must add up the effects of all kinds of particles, of all energies. For each kind of particle (electrons and protons in this situation) you have to take account of the shielding due to the Apollo spacecraft and the astronaut space suits. Here are some approximate values for the ranges of protons and electrons in aluminum:
Range in Aluminum [cm] Energy
[MeV] electrons protons
1 0.15 ~ nil
3 0.56 ~ nil
10 1.85 0.06
30 no flux 0.37
100 no flux 3.7
For electrons, the AE8 electron data shows negligible flux (< 1 electron per square cm per sec) over E=7 MeV at any altitude. The AP8 proton compilations indicates peak fluxes outside the spacecraft up to about 20,000 protons per square cm per sec above 100 MeV in a region around 1.7 Earth radii, but because the region is narrow, passage takes only about 5 min. Nevertheless, these appear to be the principal hazard.
These numbers seem generally consistent with the ~2 rem doses I recall. If every gram of a person's body absorbed 600,000 protons with energy 100 MeV, completely stopping them, the dose would be about 50 mSv. Assuming a typical thickness of 10 cm for a human and no shielding by the spacecraft gives a dose of something like 50 mSv in 300 sec due to protons in the most intense part of the belt.
For comparison, the US recommended limit of exposure for radiation workers is 50 mSv per year, based on the danger of causing cancer. The corresponding recommended limits in Britain and Cern are 15 mSv. For acute doses, the whole-body exposure lethal within 30 days to 50% of untreated cases is about 2.5-3.0 Gy (Gray) or 250-300 rad; in such circumstances, 1 rad is equivalent to 1 rem.
So the effect of such a dose, in the end, would not be enough to make the astronauts even noticeably ill. The low-level exposure could possibly cause cancer in the long term. I do not know exactly what the odds on that would be, I believe on the order of 1 in 1000 per astronaut exposed, probably some years after the trip. Of course, with nine trips, and a total of 3 X 9 = 27 astronauts (except for a few, like Jim Lovell, who went more than once) you would expect probably 5 or 10 cancers eventually in any case, even without any exposure, so it is not possible to know which if any might have been caused by the trips.
Much of this material can be found in the 1999 "Review of Particle Properties", (see below) in the sections on "Atomic and nuclear properties of materials", on "Radioactivity and radiation protection", and on "Passage of particles through matter".
By this point I have no doubt told you more than you really wanted to know about the Van Allen belt and the Apollo radiation problem! Nevertheless, I have barely scratched the surface, and waved my hands a bit, to make it seem likely that I'm not full of baloney. But in the end you always have to either do it all yourself, or trust a stranger completely, or try to find some path in between: which means understanding a little science, so you can judge for yourself if my arguments make any sense at all, check a little, think about it, maybe do a bit of research on your own from the references if you are interested. The only alternative is to trust no one and do everything, which is simply impossible for anyone; or really give up all your judgements to other people, who may be saints or crooks, wise or insane. I hope you will try to find the possible but not perfect in-between path by learning some science. It is hard, but it is fun and interesting, and it gives you your own power to think and evaluate for yourself, albeit in a limited and imperfect way.
What is the actual amount and nature of radiation present in the Van Allen Belts?
How long would an astronaut be exposed to that radiation while passing through the belts on a lunar trajectory, and what dose of radiation would he receive?
What would be the likely health effects?
Regarding the Van Allen belts, and the nature of the radiation in them, they are doughnut-shaped regions where charged particles, both protons and electrons, are trapped in the Earth's magnetic field. The number of particles encountered (flux is the technical jargon, to impress your friends!) depends on the energy of the particles; in general, the flux of high-energy particles is less, and the flux of low-energy particles is more. Very low energy particles cannot penetrate the skin of a spacecraft, nor even the skin of an astronaut. Very roughly speaking, electrons below about 1 million electron volts (MeV) are unlikely to be dangerous, and protons below 10 MeV are also not sufficiently penetrating to be a concern. The actual fluxes encountered in the Van Allen belts is a matter of great commercial importance, as communications satellites operate in the outer region, and their electronics, and hence lifetimes, are strongly affected by the radiation environment. Thus billions of dollars are at stake, never mind the Moon! The standard database on the fluxes in the belt are the models for the trapped radiation environment, AP8 for protons, and AE8 for electrons, maintained by the National Space Sciences Data Center at NASA's Goddard Spaceflight Center. Barth (1999) gives a summary which indicates that electrons with energies over 1 MeV have a flux above a million per square centimeter per second from 1-6 earth radii (about 6,300 - 38,000 km), and protons over 10 MeV have a flux above one hundred thousand per square centimeter per second from about 1.5-2.5 Earth radii (9,500 km - 16,000 km).
Then what would be the radiation dose due to such fluxes, for the amount of time an astronaut crew would be exposed? This was in fact a serious concern at the time that the Apollo program was first proposed. Unfortunately I have not located quantitative information in the time available, but my recollection is that the dose was roughly 2 rem (= 20 mSv, milli-Sievert).
The time the astronauts would be exposed is fairly easy to calculate from basic orbital mechanics, though probably not something most students below college level could easily verify. You have perhaps heard that to escape from Earth requires a speed of about 7 miles per second, which is about 11.2 km per sec. At that speed, it would require less than an hour to pass outside the main part of the belts at around 38,000 km altitude. However it is a little more complicated than that, because as soon as the rocket motor stops burning, the spacecraft immediately begins to slow down due to the attraction of gravity. At 38,000 km altitude it would actually be moving only about 4.6 km per sec, not 11.2. If we just take the geometric average of these two, 7.2 km per sec, we will not be too far off, and get about 1.5 hours for the time to pass beyond 38,000 km.
Unfortunately calculating the average radiation dose received by an astronaut in the belts is quite intricate in practice, though not too hard in principle. One must add up the effects of all kinds of particles, of all energies. For each kind of particle (electrons and protons in this situation) you have to take account of the shielding due to the Apollo spacecraft and the astronaut space suits. Here are some approximate values for the ranges of protons and electrons in aluminum:
Range in Aluminum [cm] Energy
[MeV] electrons protons
1 0.15 ~ nil
3 0.56 ~ nil
10 1.85 0.06
30 no flux 0.37
100 no flux 3.7
For electrons, the AE8 electron data shows negligible flux (< 1 electron per square cm per sec) over E=7 MeV at any altitude. The AP8 proton compilations indicates peak fluxes outside the spacecraft up to about 20,000 protons per square cm per sec above 100 MeV in a region around 1.7 Earth radii, but because the region is narrow, passage takes only about 5 min. Nevertheless, these appear to be the principal hazard.
These numbers seem generally consistent with the ~2 rem doses I recall. If every gram of a person's body absorbed 600,000 protons with energy 100 MeV, completely stopping them, the dose would be about 50 mSv. Assuming a typical thickness of 10 cm for a human and no shielding by the spacecraft gives a dose of something like 50 mSv in 300 sec due to protons in the most intense part of the belt.
For comparison, the US recommended limit of exposure for radiation workers is 50 mSv per year, based on the danger of causing cancer. The corresponding recommended limits in Britain and Cern are 15 mSv. For acute doses, the whole-body exposure lethal within 30 days to 50% of untreated cases is about 2.5-3.0 Gy (Gray) or 250-300 rad; in such circumstances, 1 rad is equivalent to 1 rem.
So the effect of such a dose, in the end, would not be enough to make the astronauts even noticeably ill. The low-level exposure could possibly cause cancer in the long term. I do not know exactly what the odds on that would be, I believe on the order of 1 in 1000 per astronaut exposed, probably some years after the trip. Of course, with nine trips, and a total of 3 X 9 = 27 astronauts (except for a few, like Jim Lovell, who went more than once) you would expect probably 5 or 10 cancers eventually in any case, even without any exposure, so it is not possible to know which if any might have been caused by the trips.
Much of this material can be found in the 1999 "Review of Particle Properties", (see below) in the sections on "Atomic and nuclear properties of materials", on "Radioactivity and radiation protection", and on "Passage of particles through matter".
By this point I have no doubt told you more than you really wanted to know about the Van Allen belt and the Apollo radiation problem! Nevertheless, I have barely scratched the surface, and waved my hands a bit, to make it seem likely that I'm not full of baloney. But in the end you always have to either do it all yourself, or trust a stranger completely, or try to find some path in between: which means understanding a little science, so you can judge for yourself if my arguments make any sense at all, check a little, think about it, maybe do a bit of research on your own from the references if you are interested. The only alternative is to trust no one and do everything, which is simply impossible for anyone; or really give up all your judgements to other people, who may be saints or crooks, wise or insane. I hope you will try to find the possible but not perfect in-between path by learning some science. It is hard, but it is fun and interesting, and it gives you your own power to think and evaluate for yourself, albeit in a limited and imperfect way.
Hungry Joe.
New member
:thud: I give up. I was undecided but you've convinced me.
That thing about the 9/11 is definately true though.......
That thing about the 9/11 is definately true though.......
US Seagull
Well-known member
looney said:
looney said:
Actually, as somebody else said, there isn't a telescope powerful enough to see the surface of the moon at a high enough resolution to pick out any of the detris from the landing. But that doesn't actually matter. The fact is if you want to convince yourself that they really landed all you need is a laser and a sensitive enough detector and you can shine your laser at the mirror that was left on the moon by the Apollo landings and detect the returned beam. Scientist use this to measure the distance to the moon to a very high precision. It also demostrated that the moon is actually receeding from the earth.
In response to the "why doesn't NASA dispute the claims?" question, NASA are very busy doing REAL SCIENCE. Do you really expect them to take time out to debunk the claims of every crackpot that says the landings where faked? Especially when every single point has been debunked many times over. If only there was some kind of giant global network of computers containing billions of pages of information that you could search for the information debunking all this crap
