Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Vault
Time Travel Schematics
T.E.C. Time Archive
The Why Files
Have You Seen...?
Chronovisor
TimeTravelForum.tk
TimeTravelForum.net
ParanormalNetwork.net
Paranormalis.com
ConspiracyCafe.net
Streams
Live streams
Featured streams
Multi-Viewer
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Paranormal Forum
Conspiracies & Cover-ups
Flat-Earth
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="nickrulercreator" data-source="post: 174960" data-attributes="member: 10256"><p>If.. you know.. read what I wrote, you'd know it's not because of "reasons." The LM's descent engine cut off a few feet above the surface (to be precise, it was 7'2", or 2.2m according to <a href="https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/a14-43939523-LM10-LM14-Fam-Manual.pdf#page=26" target="_blank">this manual</a> from NASA. It was not a foot above when it cut off.</p><p></p><p>You'd also know that I never said there was no displacement of moon dust. I emphasized multiple times that the dust would be, and was, blown away. I only showed that the LM's engine was never powerful enough to make a crater, even if it was a foot above the surface.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>How does radio work? Hmmm. Maybe Nixon's phone was patched up to NASA so that he could use their antenna.</p><p></p><p>Actually that's exactly what happened. NASA simply put Nixon on one end, and the Astronauts on the other, and they talked through a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkes_Observatory#Apollo_11_broadcast" target="_blank">64-meter dish</a> antenna.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Again, not "reasons." Read what I wrote, don't ignore it.</p><p></p><p>Also, if we faked it to prove our superiority, why not just actually land to prove our superiority. We had the rocket (Saturn V), there's no reason we couldn't go.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You're funny. Honestly, you're really not seeing this at all, are you? Not only have you not provided ONE source for anything you've claimed, that's all you've been doing, making claims. I can show why your claims are wrong with such simple logic, but nope, that's not good enough for you.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>They were never an issue. If you want a brief, non-detailed, really poor explanation, here you go:</p><p></p><p>The type of radiation in the belts is particle radiation. This means that high-energy subatomic particles made up the belts, specifically electrons and high-energy protons in the inner belt, and high-energy electrons in the outer belt. Now, the Apollo spacecraft had shielding. The aluminum hull of the Command module acted as a barrier and protected the astronauts from this radiation. The high-energy protons were simply too large to enter the CM. The electrons in both belts were able to pass into the CM, but the radiation wasn't high basically due to the time spent in the belts and path taken by the spacecraft. </p><p></p><p>Time: The astronauts never spent anymore than 4 hours total inside the belts (both on the way to, and back from, the moon). Most of this was in the outer belt, and about 25-30 min in the inner belt. The inner belt is the more dangerous one, but since a far shorter time was spent in it, the amount of radiation received is next to nothing. </p><p></p><p>Path: The spacecraft did not go directly through the most intense parts of the belts. Like a real belt, the VA belts are not surrounding all of Earth. They look like donuts around the planet, with the most intense parts having (very little) inclination compared to the equator. This is a cross section of the belts with the Apollo spacecraft's path overtop: </p><p><img src="https://www.popsci.com/sites/popsci.com/files/styles/1000_1x_/public/import/2014/image-of-Apollo-11-and-van-allen-belts.gif?itok=f74W60BG" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></p><p>As you can see, the path never touched the most intense areas of the belts. The spacecraft went around it, hitting the low-intensity areas.</p><p></p><p>Here's another diagram:</p><p> <img src="https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-cb113a5de296509943fb5f74fecfb60f" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></p><p></p><p>A spacecraft in the belts with 3mm of aluminum shielding receives about 25 Sieverts of radiation per year, most from the inner belt. The Apollo CM had a minimum of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Command/Service_Module#Construction" target="_blank">.75 inches of aluminum</a>, or 19mm of aluminum (.5 in at minimum for outer wall, .25 in for inner wall). This provide far more shielding. ADDITIONALLY, the 25 Sv is per YEAR. They stayed in the belts for 4 hours, just a tiny, tiny fraction of the full year of exposure. The mission also bypassed the inner belt (almost completely), so that reduces the amount of radiation received even more.</p><p></p><p>Now, if you want a VERY well-done explanation with tons of detail and math that goes into the belts far better than I ever could, check these out:</p><p></p><p><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20170821064300/https://www.braeunig.us/apollo/VABraddose.htm" target="_blank">Apollo and the Van Allen Belts</a> - this one i highly recommend you read, seriously. Don't skip it, it provides extremely valuable insight into how radiation affected the astronauts. It's well-written, well-researched, and does an excellent job of explaining why the belts weren't a problem.</p><p></p><p><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20161111142907/https://www.braeunig.us/apollo/JWhite.htm" target="_blank">Radioactive Anomaly III</a></p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.clavius.org/envrad.html" target="_blank">Clavius: Environment - radiation and the van allen belts</a></p><p></p><p>Oh, and another good explanation of why there can't be a blast crater:</p><p></p><p><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20170715235952/http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/LMcrater.htm" target="_blank">Lunar Module Blast Crater</a></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>What? What's the issue with the telemetry communications at the time? We were sending spacecraft to Mars and Venus, and had sent plenty of unmanned missions to the Moon before Apollo. What problem was there with the telemetry in Apollo missions?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Nah, you need to stop making baseless claims.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>How does this prove if the missions were real or not? Also, lots of the data still exists. This isn't really a very thing to argue on.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="nickrulercreator, post: 174960, member: 10256"] If.. you know.. read what I wrote, you'd know it's not because of "reasons." The LM's descent engine cut off a few feet above the surface (to be precise, it was 7'2", or 2.2m according to [URL='https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/a14-43939523-LM10-LM14-Fam-Manual.pdf#page=26']this manual[/URL] from NASA. It was not a foot above when it cut off. You'd also know that I never said there was no displacement of moon dust. I emphasized multiple times that the dust would be, and was, blown away. I only showed that the LM's engine was never powerful enough to make a crater, even if it was a foot above the surface. How does radio work? Hmmm. Maybe Nixon's phone was patched up to NASA so that he could use their antenna. Actually that's exactly what happened. NASA simply put Nixon on one end, and the Astronauts on the other, and they talked through a [URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkes_Observatory#Apollo_11_broadcast']64-meter dish[/URL] antenna. Again, not "reasons." Read what I wrote, don't ignore it. Also, if we faked it to prove our superiority, why not just actually land to prove our superiority. We had the rocket (Saturn V), there's no reason we couldn't go. You're funny. Honestly, you're really not seeing this at all, are you? Not only have you not provided ONE source for anything you've claimed, that's all you've been doing, making claims. I can show why your claims are wrong with such simple logic, but nope, that's not good enough for you. They were never an issue. If you want a brief, non-detailed, really poor explanation, here you go: The type of radiation in the belts is particle radiation. This means that high-energy subatomic particles made up the belts, specifically electrons and high-energy protons in the inner belt, and high-energy electrons in the outer belt. Now, the Apollo spacecraft had shielding. The aluminum hull of the Command module acted as a barrier and protected the astronauts from this radiation. The high-energy protons were simply too large to enter the CM. The electrons in both belts were able to pass into the CM, but the radiation wasn't high basically due to the time spent in the belts and path taken by the spacecraft. Time: The astronauts never spent anymore than 4 hours total inside the belts (both on the way to, and back from, the moon). Most of this was in the outer belt, and about 25-30 min in the inner belt. The inner belt is the more dangerous one, but since a far shorter time was spent in it, the amount of radiation received is next to nothing. Path: The spacecraft did not go directly through the most intense parts of the belts. Like a real belt, the VA belts are not surrounding all of Earth. They look like donuts around the planet, with the most intense parts having (very little) inclination compared to the equator. This is a cross section of the belts with the Apollo spacecraft's path overtop: [IMG]https://www.popsci.com/sites/popsci.com/files/styles/1000_1x_/public/import/2014/image-of-Apollo-11-and-van-allen-belts.gif?itok=f74W60BG[/IMG] As you can see, the path never touched the most intense areas of the belts. The spacecraft went around it, hitting the low-intensity areas. Here's another diagram: [IMG]https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-cb113a5de296509943fb5f74fecfb60f[/IMG] A spacecraft in the belts with 3mm of aluminum shielding receives about 25 Sieverts of radiation per year, most from the inner belt. The Apollo CM had a minimum of [URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Command/Service_Module#Construction'].75 inches of aluminum[/URL], or 19mm of aluminum (.5 in at minimum for outer wall, .25 in for inner wall). This provide far more shielding. ADDITIONALLY, the 25 Sv is per YEAR. They stayed in the belts for 4 hours, just a tiny, tiny fraction of the full year of exposure. The mission also bypassed the inner belt (almost completely), so that reduces the amount of radiation received even more. Now, if you want a VERY well-done explanation with tons of detail and math that goes into the belts far better than I ever could, check these out: [URL="https://web.archive.org/web/20170821064300/https://www.braeunig.us/apollo/VABraddose.htm"]Apollo and the Van Allen Belts[/URL] - this one i highly recommend you read, seriously. Don't skip it, it provides extremely valuable insight into how radiation affected the astronauts. It's well-written, well-researched, and does an excellent job of explaining why the belts weren't a problem. [URL="https://web.archive.org/web/20161111142907/https://www.braeunig.us/apollo/JWhite.htm"]Radioactive Anomaly III[/URL] [URL="http://www.clavius.org/envrad.html"]Clavius: Environment - radiation and the van allen belts[/URL] Oh, and another good explanation of why there can't be a blast crater: [URL="https://web.archive.org/web/20170715235952/http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/LMcrater.htm"]Lunar Module Blast Crater[/URL] What? What's the issue with the telemetry communications at the time? We were sending spacecraft to Mars and Venus, and had sent plenty of unmanned missions to the Moon before Apollo. What problem was there with the telemetry in Apollo missions? Nah, you need to stop making baseless claims. How does this prove if the missions were real or not? Also, lots of the data still exists. This isn't really a very thing to argue on. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Paranormal Forum
Conspiracies & Cover-ups
Flat-Earth
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top