Anyone ever look at the moon and think

[aboutfkntime]

Ok, so what science is there that suggests astronauts could not have survived the van allen radiation belts in 1969?

YOU admitted that radiation can be deadly

You... did that

I assume you based that on science

so... what science is there that suggests astronauts could have survived the van allen radiation belts in 1969... with NO shielding?


on earth:
" NEVER expose your skin to the sun... it can be deadly...
... ALWAYS cover-up... and/or, ALWAYS apply sunscreen "

hundreds of miles closer to the sun, in the middle of a radiation belt:
" it's all good... nothing to worry about up here... no protection required "





do you think that David Sibeck was lying, when he stated that radiation belts pose a hazard to spacecraft and astronauts... ?

why on earth would he do that... ?

why on earth would you assume that he is lying... after earlier admitting that radiation can be deadly?

[The Noose]

YOU admitted that radiation can be deadly

You... did that

I assume you based that on science

Yes, they can be deadly if exposed to a high enough dose over a specific period of time like i said previously.
But they were not exposed to enough radiation for long enough given their trajectory, speed and the ships design:

The aluminum outer layers and the poxy resin heat shield are enough to act as a shield, like i said previously.
The protons and electrons that are found in the VAB are absorbed by light materials. The heat shield that protected the command module had several layers of aluminum and fibrous insulation.

What kind of shielding do you think they needed?

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.

So what science is there that suggests astronauts could not have survived the van allen radiation belts in 1969?

do you think that David Sibeck was lying, when he stated that radiation belts pose a hazard to spacecraft and astronauts... ?

No.

[aboutfkntime]

do you think that David Sibeck was lying, when he stated that radiation belts pose a hazard to spacecraft and astronauts... ?

Yes, they can be deadly if exposed to a high enough dose over a specific period of time like i said previously.
But they were not exposed to enough radiation for long enough given their trajectory, speed and the ships design:

The aluminum outer layers and the poxy resin heat shield are enough to act as a shield, like i said previously.
The protons and electrons that are found in the VAB are absorbed by light materials. The heat shield that protected the command module had several layers of aluminum and fibrous insulation.

What kind of shielding do you think they needed?

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.

So what science is there that suggests astronauts could not have survived the van allen radiation belts in 1969?


No.

aight then... radiation belts DO pose a hazard to spacecraft and astronauts

and I assume that John Lane, an applications scientist with ASRC Aerospace Corp. at Kennedy Space Center (KSC)... was not lying either when he stated... "I'm not sure how they managed to be so lucky. I don't think you can count on luck on short missions for the future or trips to the planets."... right?

like I said earlier... believe whatever you need to believe to help you sleep at night

what kind of " science " protected the camera/film... ?

or was that also just pure... " luck "... ?

speaking of luck...



Upon close inspection one might notice that the Lunar Lander... is in truth made out of cardboard paper, a few old curtain rods, a roll of roofing paper, some floodlight holders, gold foil, and lots and lots of scotch tape to hold it all together on the hostile environment of the moon's surface.

“ Anyone who thinks that this landed and launched from the surface of the moon... is sadly deluded. ”

[aboutfkntime]

Yes, they can be deadly if exposed to a high enough dose over a specific period of time like i said previously.
But they were not exposed to enough radiation for long enough given their trajectory, speed and the ships design:

The aluminum outer layers and the poxy resin heat shield are enough to act as a shield, like i said previously.
The protons and electrons that are found in the VAB are absorbed by light materials. The heat shield that protected the command module had several layers of aluminum and fibrous insulation.

What kind of shielding do you think they needed?

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.

So what science is there that suggests astronauts could not have survived the van allen radiation belts in 1969?


No.

whats up with NASA... ?

how is it even slightly possible....

NASA have THOUSANDS of TOP scientists, the best in the world

did you hear me... ???

I said.... THOUSANDS, of scientists... THE BEST, in the world

they have a MASSIVE organisation

they have DECADES of experience

they (supposedly) already have a successful moon landing on their resume'

they have spent TRILLIONS of US taxpayer dollars since 1969

ooops, I mean... hundreds of billions... of US taxpayer dollars

so...

how is it even slightly possible that Elon Musk, who has never made 1 red cent out of Tesla... and who had (get this...)... NO EXPERIENCE WHATSOEVER until 2004 loooool... could teach NASA, anything at all about space exploration???

HOW IS THAT EVEN SLIGHTLY POSSIBLE... ???

NASA should be BY FAR the preeminent authority on that subject... they should be DECADES ahead of Musk, and they should be DECADES ahead of everyone else in the world... but apparently, they are not...

... whats up with that ? LMAO

[The Noose]

aight then... radiation belts DO pose a hazard to spacecraft and astronauts

and I assume that John Lane, an applications scientist with ASRC Aerospace Corp. at Kennedy Space Center (KSC)... was not lying either when he stated... "I'm not sure how they managed to be so lucky. I don't think you can count on luck on short missions for the future or trips to the planets."... right?

I gave you the science behind the radiation. It shows clearly the missions avoided the most harmful radiation.

Your arguments are not based on any science.

Yes, they were lucky they were not caught by a geomagnetic storm which potentially poses some hazards to the astronauts and spacecraft.

But thats not much of an argument for the belief the radiation should of been lethal.
I dont see how it could of been.

You dont know enough to justify your belief.
You said

...there is also plenty of science available

yet cannot show any of the science. You just repeat the same quotes, that dont suggest at all the radiation would of been lethal.

You can try shifting the goal posts as much as you want.

Back up your claim that there is "plenty of science available" that shows the radiation would of been lethal.

[aboutfkntime]

I gave you the science behind the radiation. It shows clearly the missions avoided the most harmful radiation.

Your arguments are not based on any science.

Yes, they were lucky they were not caught by a geomagnetic storm which potentially poses some hazards to the astronauts and spacecraft.

But thats not much of an argument for the belief the radiation should of been lethal.
I dont see how it could of been.

You dont know enough to justify your belief.
You said yet cannot show any of the science. You just repeat the same quotes, that dont suggest at all the radiation would of been lethal.

You can try shifting the goal posts as much as you want.

Back up your claim that there is "plenty of science available" that shows the radiation would of been lethal.

what convenient pseudo-nonsense

I did not see any science whatsoever in your post proving that

that is absolute horse-shlt

FACT: NASA admit they knew very little about the Van Allen belts until 2012... and they also admit that they gave no thought whatsoever to radiation shielding back in 1969

it gets worse...

"Different shielding techniques are therefore used dependent on the application and the type and energy of the radiation.

Cosmic radiation is not a common concern on Earth, as the Earth's atmosphere absorbs it and the magnetosphere acts as a shield, but it poses a significant problem for satellites and astronauts, especially while passing through the Van Allen Belt or while completely outside the protective regions of the Earth's magnetosphere. Frequent fliers may be at a slightly higher risk because of the decreased absorption from thinner atmosphere. Cosmic radiation is extremely high energy, and is very penetrating."

In some cases, improper shielding can actually make the situation worse, when the radiation interacts with the shielding material and creates secondary radiation that absorbs in the organisms more readily. For example, although high atomic number materials are very effective in shielding photons, using them to shield beta particles may cause higher radiation exposure due to the production of bremsstrahlung x-rays, and hence low atomic number materials are recommended. Also, using material with a high neutron activation cross section to shield neutrons will result in the shielding material itself becoming radioactive and hence more dangerous than if it were not present."

so, frequent fliers are exposed to more cosmic radiation simply because of the altitude, and because the atmosphere is thinner... and yet the Van Allen belts are totally harmless?

FACT: NASA admit that they knew little about the Van Allen belts until 2012... the revisionist science that you are pushing, was totally unknown back in 1969... and you know it

FACT: NASA also admit that they did not use radiation shielding back in 1969... it was simply NOT part of the design

so your science... is nothing but convenient revisionist assurances

YOU said that radiation can be lethal

well, you should not be rewarded for that amazing discovery

I said... that it is dangerous, and I have proved the science MANY times

here is your science, FROM NASA...

NASA sent a probe through the Van Allen belts to answer that very question... and this was the result...

"We study radiation belts because they pose a hazard to spacecraft and astronauts," said David Sibeck, the Van Allen Probes mission scientist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland, in an August 2016 NASA statement."

also...

"When pressed on the original moon landing, the study's co-principal investigator John Lane, an applications scientist with ASRC Aerospace Corp. at Kennedy Space Center (KSC)... "I'm not sure how they managed to be so lucky. I don't think you can count on luck on short missions for the future or trips to the planets."

your science... is made up of revisionist assurances, and a TRUCKLOAD of "luck"

look, as I said earlier... I think that this is a no-brainer... this is CLEARLY obvious... and the only person who could possibly believe that fairy-tale has a reason for NEEDING to do so

good luck with that reason... but that reason should not dumb down the rest of humanity

you can continue believing that fairy-tale if you wish... but in the future, the crackpots who believe the moon-story will be viewed like the quack doctors back in the early 1900's who recommended radium for "wellness" therapy... or the quacks who used to blow smoke up peoples ass to cure disease

a kayak would probably be more reliable, and offer more effective shielding... than this ridiculous thing...



how did they protect the cameras/film... ?

I really need an answer for that one

no, wait... let me guess, they got " lucky "... AGAIN... right ?

and, whats up with NASA.... ???

how is it even slightly possible....

NASA have THOUSANDS of TOP scientists, the best in the world

did you hear me... ???

I said.... THOUSANDS, of scientists... THE BEST, in the world

they have a MASSIVE organisation

they have DECADES of experience

they (supposedly) already have a successful moon landing on their resume'

they have spent TRILLIONS of US taxpayer dollars since 1969

ooops, I mean... hundreds of billions... of US taxpayer dollars

so...

how is it even slightly possible that Elon Musk, who has never made 1 red cent out of Tesla... and who had (get this...)... NO EXPERIENCE WHATSOEVER until 2004 loooool... could teach NASA, anything at all about space exploration???

HOW IS THAT EVEN SLIGHTLY POSSIBLE... ???

NASA should be BY FAR the preeminent authority on that subject... they should be DECADES ahead of Musk, and they should be DECADES ahead of everyone else in the world... but apparently, they are not...

... whats up with that ? LMAO

you are unable to add up 2+2 because... you simply don't want to

[The Noose]

I did not see any science whatsoever in your post proving that

Here it is again...The VAB can be deadly if exposed to a high enough dose over a specific period of time.
But they were not exposed to enough radiation for long enough given their trajectory, speed and the ships design:
The aluminum outer layers and the poxy resin heat shield are enough to act as a shield.
The protons and electrons that are found in the VAB are absorbed by light materials. The heat shield that protected the command module had several layers of aluminum and fibrous insulation.
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.

This is why the astronauts didnt die.

If you think anything is inaccurate, please explain.

that is absolute horse-shlt

Calm down. lol

"Different shielding techniques are therefore used dependent on the application and the type and energy of the radiation.

But you cant explain what type of shielding was needed and why... can you.

Cosmic radiation is not a common concern on Earth, as the Earth's atmosphere absorbs it and the magnetosphere acts as a shield, but it poses a significant problem for satellites and astronauts, especially while passing through the Van Allen Belt or while completely outside the protective regions of the Earth's magnetosphere. Frequent fliers may be at a slightly higher risk because of the decreased absorption from thinner atmosphere. []Cosmic radiation is extremely high energy, and is very penetrating.[/B"

[]In some cases, improper shielding can actually make the situation worse[/B, when the radiation interacts with the shielding material and creates secondary radiation that absorbs in the organisms more readily. For example, although high atomic number materials are very effective in shielding photons, using them to shield beta particles may cause higher radiation exposure due to the production of bremsstrahlung x-rays, and hence low atomic number materials are recommended. []Also, using material with a high neutron activation cross section to shield neutrons will result in the shielding material itself becoming radioactive and hence more dangerous than if it were not present.[/[/I]"

so, frequent fliers are exposed to more cosmic radiation simply because of the altitude, and because the atmosphere is thinner... and yet the Van Allen belts are totally harmless?

You literally dont understand what you are posting.

Where does it say the radiation should of been deadly to astronauts?

I have proved the science MANY times

The science on why the astronauts should have died?
No you have not.
You have posted quotes you dont comprehend....like the ones below.

here is your science, [BFROM NASA[B]...

NASA sent a probe through the Van Allen belts to answer that very question... and this was the result...

Ok cool. Finally i can see the results of what the probes discovered....

[BSIZI]We study radiation belts because they pose a hazard to spacecraft and astronauts,[/I]" said David Sibeck, the Van Allen Probes mission scientist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland, in an August 2016 NASA statement."[/SIZE]

Er...what were the results?
That quote didnt say anything about any results.

You dont even understand the quotes you copy and paste.

[aboutfkntime]

Here it is again...The VAB can be deadly if exposed to a high enough dose over a specific period of time.
But they were not exposed to enough radiation for long enough given their trajectory, speed and the ships design:
The aluminum outer layers and the poxy resin heat shield are enough to act as a shield.
The protons and electrons that are found in the VAB are absorbed by light materials. The heat shield that protected the command module had several layers of aluminum and fibrous insulation.
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.

This is why the astronauts didnt die.

the reason why the astronauts were not affected by radiation whilst travelling in a vehicle that did not contain any radiation shielding... is because they did not pass through the Van Allen belt

If you think anything is inaccurate, please explain.

Calm down. lol

But you cant explain what type of shielding was needed and why... can you.

according to NASA, the type of shielding they require on spaceships is, radiation shielding... and they insist that they require the radiation shielding to protect them from the harmful radiation they will encounter when passing through the Van Allen belt

and even now, NASA admit that they still need to do much more research in order to determine the most effective kind of shielding to use

once again, NASA did not even consider radiation shielding in the original design back in 1969... WHICH MAKES YOU LOOK SPECIAL... for insisting that they accidentally solved that problem anyway...

You literally dont understand what you are posting.

Where does it say the radiation should of been deadly to astronauts?

The science on why the astronauts should have died?
No you have not.
You have posted quotes you dont comprehend....like the ones below.

Ok cool. Finally i can see the results of what the probes discovered....

Er...what were the results?
That quote didnt say anything about any results.

You dont even understand the quotes you copy and paste.

the stuff above... is stuttering, and pointless...

Silbeck's statement was clear, and impossible to misunderstand... "radiation belts pose a hazard to spacecraft and astronauts"

not understanding why astronauts require radiation shielding, from a radiation belt... kinda makes you special...

continue believing the moon-story, if you need to...

and continue avoiding my question about how the highly sensitive camera/film were undamaged...

and whats up with NASA... ?

how is it even slightly possible....

NASA have THOUSANDS of TOP scientists, the best in the world

did you hear me... ???

I said.... THOUSANDS, of scientists... THE BEST, in the world

they have a MASSIVE organisation

they have DECADES of experience

they (supposedly) already have a successful moon landing on their resume'

they have spent TRILLIONS of US taxpayer dollars since 1969

ooops, I mean... hundreds of billions... of US taxpayer dollars

so...

how is it even slightly possible that Elon Musk, who has never made 1 red cent out of Tesla... and who had (get this...)... NO EXPERIENCE WHATSOEVER until 2004 loooool... could teach NASA, anything at all about space exploration???

HOW IS THAT EVEN SLIGHTLY POSSIBLE... ???

NASA should be BY FAR the preeminent authority on that subject... they should be DECADES ahead of Musk, and they should be DECADES ahead of everyone else in the world... but apparently, they are not...

... whats up with that ? LMAO

[aboutfkntime]

on earth:
" NEVER expose your skin to the sun... it can be deadly...
... ALWAYS cover-up... and/or, ALWAYS apply sunscreen "


thousands of miles closer to the sun, in the middle of a radiation belt:
" it's all good, nothing to worry about up here... no protection required "

[alexguiness]

We never landed on the moon.

Apparently the 'technology' was the equivalent of a pocket calculator in 1969.

Now in 2020 with the huge quantum leaps in technology, we should be able to go back easily.

If it was so easy in 1969, why is it so hard in 2020?