@BadBunnyRides hmm gamma radiation hmm solar winds to name but a few hense the reason we have a magnetic field that stops upwards of 99% entering earth itself, even the hottest part of our earth only recieves up too 0.2% of the suns power and heat ...
@MrNewyork1975 Hope you don't mean that that the magnetic field "stops" any gamma or heat radiation, because it doesn't. It only stops charged particles.
Informed (Real) reality says there were at-least 4 fatal attempts at landing on the moon using Nazi anti-grav in 1947-9 1951 1967 & again in 1973 (Germans lost the war but Nazis & Illuminati financiers won with nuclear devices developed at Tunguska used as blackmail) & the fatality was due to 'HIGH ENERGY PARTICLES' our magnetic field largely protects us from & the last two attempts successfully brought back 400,000+ y\o scientific archaeology.
The one thing that has always stuck out in my head about the lunar missions, hoax or not, is the lack of jumping. Imagine buying a trampoline for your kid and he or she leaps up and down a mere 1 or 2 feet over and over again... If you told your kid...any kid, they could jump 10 feet, wouldn't they? Now imagine you are on the moon, and weigh 30 lbs.On earth, weighing 200, you could jump 3 ft. On the moon, wouldn't you go 6 times as high? If you could jump 15-20 ft, wouldn't you? Just once?
@epiphanyswr Jumping 15-20 ft??? First: The astronauts had very heavy, stiff and clumsy spacesuits that restricted their movements a lot. Check "Apollo/Skylab A7L" on wikipedia. How high would YOU jump in such a suit on Earth?
Second: Jumping high, if they could, would have risked them to fall when they landed, damaging the suits or life support system.
@awey271 Loosing balance is always very easy when one jumps and one can never be sure not to fall at the landing.
I'm convinced that the suits restricted their leg momvements enough to make it impossible to jump 10 feet. They would have had to bend their knees more than the suits allowed. It's only in science fictions films astronauts can run and jump as if they had jogging dresses.
@DeadJesus100 What kind of radiation What kind of radiation What kind of radiation What kind of radiation What kind of radiation What kind of radiation What kind of radiation What kind of radiation What kind of radiation What kind of radiation What kind of radiation What kind of radiation What kind of radiation What kind of radiation What
I gotta know....What kind of radiation What kind of radiation I gotta gotta gotta know!!!!.
to the dude who said the radiation is not that difficult to shield against, solar winds gamma radiation that could kill ya in minutes micro metoerites, the sceptics offered NASA the challenge of taking some of the spacesuits and clean up chanobyl but they rufused saying it wouldnt be enough protection for the person inside
As far as anything left or placed on the surface of the moon, all could have been done by unmanned spacecraft or probes flying over the moon and dropping it to the surface. Even by a roving probe dropped to the surface and then driven off into a crater or to the darkside.
When NASA admitted several years ago that all plans no longer exsisted for all Apollo missions, that's when flags went up for many people. They said it was all destroyed because they had no room to store it????!!!! Huh?
Holy crap!! There is some arguing going on in this comment page huh? If someone has an opinion, it gets criticized if it differs from theirs. Good stuff. Makes me feel hopeful that we will not kill ourselves.
What ever happened to respectfully disagreeing, then moving on not calling eachother idiots?
@centurion180ad The mottle of centurion180ad is: Lets steal others comments because I can not think of anything original to say myself. It is idiots like you who make actually questioners sound like crazy assholes. All you truthers out there...be sure to thank him for his services in making you all look like morons.
The solar constant. 1.95 langleys Ly per minute. one langley is 41840.00 J/m². 41840 joules per meter squares or 41840 joules per kilogram = 4184000 rads. Forget about the photo and video evidence. Hard facts and numbers tell the story. We never left low earth orbit and we can't go to the moon now for the same reason they didn't go then. Radiation. Do the conversion yourself. Anyone can post numbers and claim them to be accurate.
@Daddyo930 "Anyone can post numbers and claim them to be accurate. .." Which is all you do, except when you take time out to make an utterly ridiculous statement like "every element in the periodic table" figures into the solar constant.
Oh god, you're here too!? Jesus Chirst, I don't think there's hope for any of us. Goddammit, what is it gonna take to get through that thick skull o' yours? I told you like a million times now, the radiation of the VABs is not difficult to shield against. The fiberous insulation was enough to protect the astronauts. I refuted your claim, over and over again. Face it, you know shit about what you're talking about, so STFU!
True, the radiation of the VAB is deadly, but that does not mean it's isn't easy to shield against. In fact, alpha radiation, which is the type of radiation in the VAB, can be blocked by air, as the particles react with hydrogen molecules in the air and become helium.
You have been proved wrong time and time again, yet you can't seem to understand that. So, if you have nothing else to say, STFU already!
I told you they did have protection. Either you can't read, or you don't want to. In any case, just shut it already. You're accomplishing nothing. You're not gonna prove that the Apollo moon mission were faked, because they happened. You can shout and insult me all you want, it's not gonna change that fact. All it will do, is make you look like an idiot.
And you obviously can't read, because I told you like a million times that they did have protection against radiation, And yet, you constantly deny it, despite the fact that you've been proven wrong time and time again. Just goes to show that you have no arguments left to defend your position and thus you resort to petty insults any kid can come up with and denying what I've already said a bunch of times. How sad, I pity you.
Sicko? That's new, but just as chilish as all your other insults. Oh well, you've got some variety at least. But you're still just as stupid and pathetic. You didn't notice that you said "What protects the MOON from radiation?" The moon? Why does the moon need prtection from radiation. Epic lulz! You're getting more moronic by the second.
But anyways, the types of radiation in space are not difficult to shield against. The astronauts had plenty of protection from the radiation. Do you listen? No, you'd rather just go in circles over and over again no matter how many times you've been proven wrong.
Face it kid, you've lost, I won. I pwned you, hard. Now swallow your pride and go do something constructive with your life for once.
What What kind of radiation What kind of radiation
Oh flaccid one? What kind of radiation What kind of radiation What kind of radiation What kind of radiation What kind of radiation What kind of radiation What kind of radiation What kind of radiation What kind of radiation Limp-dicklessness?
What kind of radiation What kind of radiation What kind of radiation
@occhamite Is the conversion correct or not? 1.95 langleys Ly per minute. one langley is 41840.00 J/m². 41840 joules per meter squares or 41840 joules per kilogram = 4184000 rads. The solar constant is 1.95 langleys per minute which is 41840.00 J/m² = 8.70482104 × 10^16 MeV's. You can go ask NASA how many elements on the periodic table can be found in our sun. They will tell you every element on the periodic table can be found in our sun. Your lack of basic knowledge is stunning.
(2of2) YOU DON'T GET IT, NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES IT'S EXPLAINED.
And if you ACTUALLY had any knowledge in the matter, you would not be so fascinated by trivial unit conversions, or suppose other people would be. You throw a few numbers around, and expect the audience to ooohhh and aaahhhh. Well, for that you'll have to find an audience as uneducated as yourself.
@Daddyo930 What is "stunning" is your inability to read and understand a simple one-paragraph comment. NOWHERE did I deny "every element on(sic) the periodic table can be found in our sun" YOU opened this exchange by asking if anybody knew what the SOLAR CONSTANT was, getting it all wrong yourself I might add. "Elements in the periodic table" HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.
@Daddyo930 NONE. Only atomic nuclei can be "radioactive". The Solar Constant is a measure of EMR flux. But there are other things going on which might be called "radioactivity". Nobody can answer a question like that. Here's an example as to why:
news. stanford. edu/news/2010/august/sun-082310. html
@occhamite The solar constant, a measure of flux density, is the amount of incoming solar electromagnetic radiation per unit area. The solar constant includes all types of solar radiation, not just the visible light. So your saying that high frequency UV, gamma rays and Xrays are not part of the solar constant?
@Daddyo930 no, that's Not what I'm saying. The fact that one product of radioactivity is ionizing (UV & shorter) EMR does not enable one the prove the occurrence of radioactivity by the showing ionizing EMR is present. If it's raining, the streets are wet; if the streets are wet, it may not be due to rain.
@Daddyo930 That depends on a number of factors. For some purposes "ionizing" radiation is considered to be far UV & shorter, for others, it begins with X-rays - 10 nm & shorter. The spectrum is different on the surface of the Earth than it is in space, esp w/re to UV & up. Solar activity affects the spectrum - UV varies by ~1.5%, while solar constant variation is more like 0.1%. Improved measurement techniques are changing the numbers as well - short EMR is the most difficult to measure.
@occhamite How about a number? Is it 1 percent? Less than 1 percent? If less than 1 percent, give a number then. You seem to be running away from the numbers and speaking in generalities.
This posing member named above on this video has no education.
Thermodynamic laws and the nature of adiabatic environments are well understood. These laws are thoroughly tested and have been reproduced independently countless times.
@centurion180ad Can you show us your napkin calculations that says the PLLS cooling system wont work? How did the molten Earth in the vacuum of space cool without mass ejection? how does the suns heat reach us without mass ejection, why is a desert hot during the day and freezing at night, where does the heat go? If a astro died in space would his body freeze? if so how without mass ejection? Why do you claim there are 3 laws of thermodynamics when ther are 4? come on educate me!
@centurion180ad "These laws are thoroughly tested and have been reproduced independently countless times.' Yeah, and if we could only figure a way to "reproduce them" ONCE, IN YOUR HEAD, this debate would finally end.
Anyone of you true believers in the manned missions to the moon ever heard of the solar constant? 1300 kilowats per square meter per second. Lets agree that all of that is not radiation. Even 400 kw/m2 per second converted to rads is 400 rads per second. I don't think the apollo craft was designed to handle even the solar constant. That's why they had to fake it.
@Daddyo930 Yeah, everybody''s "heard of the solar constant" EXCEPT YOU. As always in your case, both the magnitude and the dimensions are WRONG: The correct average value is 1.361 kW/(m^2) - that's pronounced "one point three six one kilowatts per square meter". So, in your fantasy, it's 1,000-times greater than in reality, and rather than a measure of emr flux density, it's the nonsensical "kilowats per square meter per second". Stop trying to fake knowledge. You don't fool anyone
@occhamite 1.361 kW/m², is equivalent to 1.95 calories per minute per square centimeter 1.95 langleys (Ly) per minute. 1.95 langleys = 81587.9 joules/m2. 1.361 kw/m2 = 1361 joules/second/m2. My mistake. A dose of 1 gray means the absorption of 1 joule of radiation energy per kilogram of absorbing material. The apollo craft clearly couldn't even handle the solar constant.
@Daddyo930 well, you certainly do like to throw numbers around! But you'd have to supply something MUCH better than an unsupported "The apollo craft clearly couldn't even handle the solar constant" What do you base this claim upon? How does any spacecraft "handle the solar constant"? You forget the craft was at all times half (at least) in darkness, more if the nose or tail was aimed at the sun, and had a circular cross-section; only a small part of the sunlit side got 1.361kW/(m^2)
@occhamite 1.361 kW/m², is equivalent to 1.95 calories per minute per square centimeter 1.95 langleys (Ly) per minute. 1.95 langleys = 81587.9 joules/m2. 1.361 kw/m2 = 1361 joules/second/m2. You have your proof right there. 1.95 langleys per minute is a lot of energy. The solar constant includes all types of radiation, not just visible light, that means gamma radiation and every radioactive element in the periodic table. Mission impossible.
@Daddyo930 "1.361 kW/m², is equivalent to ..." ????? !!!!! Are you joking? Gamma? The MOON emits more gamma than the sun. "every radioactive element in the periodic table..." ??? Man, this is weird... Do you know the difference between matter and electromagnetic radiation?
@occhamite natural sources of gamma rays are high-energy sub-atomic particle interactions resulting from cosmic rays. Such high-energy reactions are also the common artificial source of gamma rays. Gamma rays are also produced by astronomical processes in which very high-energy electrons are produced. Such electrons produce secondary gamma rays by the mechanisms of bremsstrahlung, inverse Compton scattering and synchrotron radiation. Do you even have a clue about gamma radiation?
@Daddyo930 "natural sources of gamma rays are high-energy sub-atomic particle interactions resulting from cosmic rays." Yeeesh. Polly want a cracker? Do You even have a clue, about ANYTHING? Did you read my last comment? Remember the part where it says " The moon emits more gamma than the Sun"? GCR-induced nuclear fission is the reason. Good enough? Great NOW - lets hear YOU explain what "every element in the periodic table" has to do with the solar constant.
@occhamite That's simple. Every element on the periodic table can be found in our sun, therefore every element on the periodic table can be found in the solar constant.
Also there is alot of difference between piloting to the moon, uncupling from the command module, landing SAFELY on the moon, launching back from the moon, recupling with the command module and then flying back to earth through nothing but rotational gravity and aid of on board propulsion systems. Its argueable that the calculations had been made from earth, but why instantly send people to the moon without testing the system first? it was like a shot in the dark and just doesn't feel SAFE.
@nolielhaven Apollo 8 was on a return orbit - it was designed so even if there was a failure of the RCS or main engine, the craft would swing around the moon and head back to Earth. However it worked fine and Apollo 8 braked into lunar orbit for a few passes.
Apollo 9 tested LEM docking and engine in Earth orbit.
Apollo 10 did all these steps and the LEM descended to 50 miles from the lunar surface before testing the ascent module and re-docking.
Id also like to hear the reasonable explanation for the visibility of objects in complete shadows. Its not like the reflected from the surface of the moon was enough to clearly illuminate an object directly facing away from the source of light on an environment without atmosphere.
@nolielhaven The light reflected from the surface of the moon is enough to illuminate the Earth at night to see by. On a full moon, it's quite bright.
@nolielhaven Light rays from the sun are not diffused due to the lack of atmosphere on the moon. Therefore a lot of light is bouncing off the surface in all directions due to the uneven surface. Some back into outer space and some will even illuminate objects in shadows. Neil Armstrong reported he had no difficulty seeing in shadow.
Another thing that came to my attention and i would like an explanation for. The films used in the cameras where supposedly standard filming material in cameras without any shielding. Is it believable that the material filmed did not suffer under the extreme temperature and that the material did not suffer any damage during the filming process? Or is there a reasonable explanation for that? What about the weird shadow angles on some of the pictures? What is the explanation for those?
@nolielhaven Shadows display the properties of vanishing point perspective, leading them to converge to a point on the horizon. Shadows are also complicated by reflected light, uneven ground, lunar dust and wide angle distortion.
In a vaccum there is no surrounding material to conduct heat away. Thnk of a coffee thermos. So an astronaut will not freeze to death instantly and not at all if he has insulation. This is not Hollywood. By the same way it won't be 200 degrees in the sunlight, it is actually about the same as on earth. The surface of the moon does eventually warm up and become hot but not blisteringly so.
@Spindry96 You have no idea of what you are talking about.
Our atmosphere shields us from the worst of the sun's blistering rays, but think on your rolled up automobile windows on a hot summer day when you go into a shop for a few minuets. When you return the inside is blistering hot. That is the effect of the sun's rays on a pressure suit. With no asmosphere to conduct away heat, the temperature inside a suit would be boiling inside a few minuets.
@centurion180ad What l wrote is 100% correct and verifiable on the net. The astronaut's suit is heavily insulated. Temperature is regulated by a Liquid cooling garment in contact with the skin as well as air temperature maintained by the Primary life support. Please do research before telling people they are wrong, you just look stupid.
@Spindry96 What I am telling you is that those suits would have heated up very-very quickly and the only way to radiate away the heat is in a liquit-to-vapor heat exchanger. What we MUST see for those suits to function, is an ejected spray of super-heated vapor carrying away the bodyheat. We don't see that, so no heat is leaving the astronauts' suits. It is all accumulating inside. What they ought to have been doing is refilling their suits life support from cool fuel of the lander's tanks.
@centurion180ad The astronaut produces heat from his/her body If this heat is not removed, the sweat produced by the astronaut will fog up the helmet and cause the astronaut to become severely dehydrated. To remove this excess heat, space suits have used either fans/heat exchangers to blow cool air, as in the Mercury and Gemini programs, or water-cooled garments, which have been used from the Apollo program to the present.
@centurion180ad "What I am telling you is that ..." Why don't you LEARN a little something about it before you go shooting-off that big, stupid mouth? You talk as if you knew something, when obviously you've done no research at all(unless you're extremely bad at research).
The A7L EVA suit was cooled with an ICE SUBLIMATOR:
en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Apollo/Skylab_A7L "Water was supplied to the LCG from the PLSS backpack, where the circulating water was chilled by an ice sublimator."
The sun supplies a blistering amount of heat that will accumulate into the astronaut's suit, plus the astronaut's own body heat. A couple pounds of water frozen into ice will be boiling at super heated temperature in less than an hour.
Insulated by vaccume, the only way to dump the heat is to vent water vapor which ought to have been obvious. That we don't see that, gives away the hoax.
@centurion180ad "Insulated by vaccume, the only way to dump the heat is to vent water vapor..." This is just utter hogwash, and shows nicely how little you actually know. Ever heard of "RADIATIVE COOLING"? How do you suppose the planets got from their initial molten state to the current solid one?
By "venting steam into space'? Get yourself a physics book, and READ it.
@occhamite An astronaut does not have an atmosphere gravitationally bound, hovering over the surface of his suit to shield him. Nor does an astronaut have an enormous amount of TIME necessary for Black Body radiation to carry away his waste heat given his relatively small surface area to do so. In any event if his thermodynamic state came to a point where he’d be a net supplier of energy, he’d already be dead.
@centurion180ad Are you an actor? That's not a bad ATTEMPT to portray yourself as having known what you were saying all along. BULL. Don't think for a second it will work. Actually, it wasn't a very good attempt: "An atmosphere" would INTERFERE with radiative heat loss - ever heard of the "Greenhouse Effect"? And, a sphere has the lowest surface area to volume ratio of any shape - it's the worst possible for cooling, so you blew that one too. Get that physics book back out and READ!
@centurion180ad no, it is anything but "nonsense". "The sun supplies a 'blistering amount of heat"? What is that, a scientific argument? And most of that heat is REFLECTED by the suit. None of you claims is supported by any math or other evidence. You just pick convenient numbers from thin air.
An ice sublimator DOES "vent water vapor". Why would you think it would be "obvious"? In a VACUUM there is no air to cool the vapor, or cause the usual cloud of steam by containing it.
@occhamite I am attempting to explan the Third Law of Thermodynamics to someone that does not have a clue.
How do I know you have no clue? I know you have no clue because an actual engineer or scientist would agree with me. It is IMPOSSIBLE for net heat flow, to move TOWARD or through a source of higher temperature, in this case the surface of a space suit heated by the sun.
Coefficient of Reflection off white fabric is very mild. It is sunlight in steam that makes it visible.
@centurion180ad The only place you have a clue is in your dreams. Nobody said "net heat flow, to move TOWARD or through a source of higher temperature,.." You can't even read a comment a couple of paragraphs long without getting it all wrong. And you STILL haven't figured out that an ice sublimator is a perfectly good way to provide cooling! Ever heard of "evaporative cooling"? Funny how a wet cloth hung up on a hot day will get cooler than its surroundings.
@occhamite Go to a university, and attend Thermodynamics class.
Evaporative cooling is not possible without an atmosphere to carry away water vapor, which is a form of mass ejection. A suit would have to have a working fluid and a heat exchanger, and then a high pressure relief valve to vent super heated coolant into the vaccume of the moon.
It is the only way if you don't have a radiator at the temperature of molten iron.
@centurion180ad ...curioser and curioser.... Where did you "attend Thermodynamics class" - Alice in Wonderland U.? "An atmosphere" has nothing to do with it, and in any case, what do you suppose ice sublimation is? The same thing, only the the phase change is from ice to vapor, rather than from liquid to vapor - so the efficiency is even GREATER. If you'd bother to ACTUALLY EXAMINNE THE A7-L cooling system, you find all the "workingfluid", "heat exchangers" etc needed.
@centurion180ad Bull, open a bottle of water in a vacuum and it will instanly turn into water vapour, it evapororates more easily than on earth, you do not have a clue what you are talking about and nobody is buying your B******t
@musicbruv In a vacuum water lowers its boiling point which means it carries away LESS heat per unit of mass. That is why a release of super heated steam from a life support system using water for a heat sink would have to be at high pressure so that a maximum of waste heat will be ejected.
@centurion180ad And you cant even bullshit," it carries away less heat" so all the heat in the water in the bottle will be lost, you even admitted it carries away heat as all evaporation does I accept your surrender.
@Spindry96 Does it //look// heavily insulated? It looks flaccid, to me.
Videos of suits look like to me that suits and background are at pressure equilibrium, meaning both at 1 atmosphere. The first space walk almost KILLED the cosmonaut because when he vacated his Soyuz his suit was swelled up and he could barely move. He could not work the hatch to reseal it, for quite some time.
@centurion180ad Heavily insulated does not require bulky insulation, they use advanced fibres such as Mylar and multiple layers instead. The suits maintain a stable internal pressure which is less than the earths atmosphere allowing for greater mobility. Mobility is also achieved by joint design. There is a layer consisting of a bladder containing temperature and pressure controlled oxygen. Outside this the next layer holds the bladder layer to the correct shape around the body.
@Spindry96 In the 1970s these things were still in the pipeline, full of bugs & problems & unknowns.
In any event even if all of these things operated just as you desire to //believe// that they did, it does NOTHING to prevent the functioning of the 3 laws of Thermodynamics.
They would have accumulated body & sun heat in short order (not to mention CO2 scrubber heat), and would have begun to boil as a lobster in a steamer. Inhaling that air would have burned their lungs as fire.
@centurion180ad No they were very real in the 60's. The Apollo/Skylab suit consisted of 11 layers, modern 14 l believe. Why would they boil? The suits have a liquid cooled innermost layer and the oxygen layer is temperature contoled. You forget space is a vaccum, the rays of the sun take hours to heat anything up including the surface of the moon since there is no matter to conduct heat. Remember the thermos example.
@centurion180ad "...does NOTHING to prevent the functioning of the 3 laws of Thermodynamics." No, and "the 3 laws..." do NOTHING to prevent the functioning" of an ice sublimator - not that you have any understanding of the "3 laws" despite the pretense to the contrary.... By the way, you are wrong again! There are 4 laws of thermodynamics, NOT 3, as YOU stupidly say. Tell us what the other is, let's see how long it takes you to find it.
@centurion180ad@centurion180ad "There is not a 4th law, because there cannot be...." HAH!! Gotcha. There are 4 laws: Notice I said "4 Laws". I did NOT say "a Fourth Law".
@centurion180ad Rubbish,the astronauts suits are not made of glass so your comparison is flawed, the suits are white and anything white reflect light and therefore heat, and the car is full of air which gets heated up. suck out the air and create a vacuum and it will not get hot inside, the cooling system was more about removing the astros body heat than the suns heat, ask your self why does the ISS not get heated up and astonauts on space walks dont get heated up? please think before posting
Outer skin of an automobile heats just as the air inside does, but the outside heat of the car is distributed across the entire body because the skin is metal, and the outside air takes away all surface heat above a certain temperature. On the moon there is no atmosphere to COOL or remove absorbed surface energy, so the entire suit heats drastically. ISS uses its FUEL as a heat sink to aircondition internal atmosphere.
@centurion180ad There is no atmosphere to transfer heat so the skin on a car on the moon would get hot but as there is no air inside then nothing to heat up, you cannot heat or cool a vacuum, the suit is white to reflect heat and the suit does not easily transfer heat, ISS is cooled by water, ammonia and heat exchangers, plus aluminized mylar to REFLECT heat just as the space suits do, suits also use sublimation, surface heat on the moon is lost though radiation. please learn before posting.
@musicbruv There is not air inside then how the Hell does the astronaut breath? Ofcourse inside the suit is full of air and the astronaut's body, BOTH will accumulate heat. The white reflection helps, but a small amount. A MIRROR would do quite a bit better, but a metal surface does not flex properly.
That water-amonia working fluid exchanges to fuel, which is then ejected or is itself burned. The point is that MASS must carry away excess heat. In a vaccume it is the ONLY way.
@centurion180ad Wrong, heat in a mass in a vacuum can be lost by radiation as in the ISS, the ISS cooling system loses heat by radiation as the coolant is passed through heat exchangers, heat is not "ejected" and mass does not carry heat away, what mass carries heat from the sun? The air in the suit is insulated by layers of materail and a reflective outer skin, excess heat is lost via sublimation. "water-amonia working fluid exchanges to fuel" please explain this process!
@musicbruv Net heat flow in a system without a power cycle, flows only toward a lower temperature source. For an astronaut’s suit or the ISS to be a net supplier of heat, it would have to be at a higher temperature than the irradiative temperature of the sun at its location. For a cooling radiator to be efficient it must be at a //vastly// higher temperature, so that its Black Body radiation will carry away sufficient power.
ISS or a suit would require the molten temperature of iron.
@centurion180ad Rubbish, on a hot summers day ice will form on a propane bottle when it is being used, How? Humans on Earth every day cope with air temperatures far higher than body temperature, How? What is the temperature of a vacuum? Subliminaters actually form ice in a vacuum and that takes heat away from the astro's body, and are you saying that the ISS is fake as it cannot be at the temperature of molton iron can it!
@musicbruv What has this to do with a suit on the moon?
ISS //must// use mass ejection system for its cooling, and that is possible because each rocket sent up to it may bring coolant with them and its outer shell is a reflective metal. A suit on the moon baking in the sun would be overwealmed.
From my back of a napkin calculation, those suit PLSS were only good enough to keep those bogus crook astronauts cool on earth on the sound stage they used to fake the landings.
@centurion180ad Well you may say it must use "mass ejection" but you are wrong, you also said heat moves towards cool or something like that, my point was it does not always do so, the fact ice can form on a propane tank on a hot day proves that statement wrong. As for the PLSS I dont think they work in an atmosphere, do you know what sublimation is? Please show me your "back of a napkin" calculations. The suns heat was never a problem as they went in the Lunar morning when it is a lot cooler.
@musicbruv So let me get this str8,NASA starts its program in `58, the same year the VanAllen is verified,is in 'deep space' by `69 and then they spend the next 40 yrs. studying radiation and gamma in 'low Earth orbit'??? Should`nt it be the other way around,study 1st then attempt lunar landing?? lol. Silly NASA. Funny how they make a perfect landing on the moon but need to crash thru Earths` atmosphere into the sea,lol. Silly NASA
"crash thru" You're ADMITTING to being that clueless about the engineering? Never bothered to look at the design? Just cut and pasted "CRASH" and then naively wondered why you were laughed at? LOL
NEWSflash, Earth's gravity is 6 times stronger, making water landing safer
NEWSflash, Moon doesnt have air, so they couldnt use parachutes, making a rocket landing the only way. Earth does have air. Any more obvious points I can laugh at you for? ;)
@PAULOcbi No, numerous probes were launched before 69 to do research into the problems of space flight, also the Gemini and Mercury space flights were carried out from 62-66, then Apollo flights started, Apollo 11 was the first moon landing launch, ever wondered what the previous 10 were used for? and the moon does not have a atmosphere or a oceon so no problems with re entry problems Silly PAULocbi. LOL
Clumsy joker Obama clearly implies the supposed authenticity of the moonlanding is an issue that doesn't matter..which is understandable since he knows it was a hoax. You may ask "Is this another B.Clinton like attempt of play down the significance of the Moon Hoax of 1969-1972 and try soften the impact ,the International embarrassment ,and the crimes associated with it?"
also the apollo 11 was equipped with a board computer with as much memory as a pocket calculator. Do you believe a pocket calculator is enough for astronomical navigation?
@nolielhaven Yes, why not? Number crunching was done on Earth by mainframe computers. Results were sent via radio to the spacecraft. There was no need for graphic, sound or word processing. The ROM was enough for the single task of guidance.
@nolielhaven The guidance system was derived from the computers in minuteman nuclear missiles, capable of travelling halfway across the world and hitting a city, so yeah, I guess the moon is slightly larger than Moscow.
the problem with the moonlandings is effectively the radiation present not only in the van allen belt but also on the atmosphere lacking moon. Shielding for spacecraft was aluminium and spacesuits required to protect from that kind of radiation required at least several inches of led to protect a human being. If it wouldn't kill you on the spot you would get cancer at best. Well what a surprise that all astronauts from apollo 11 are still alive and well.
@nolielhaven Your science is false. The principle danger of the Van Allen belts is high energy protons, not difficult to shield against. By flying between the belts, through their thinnest parts they limited their exposure. The nature of the belts and space is entirely different to a nuclear explosion and thick metal shielding would be counterproductive because of the Bremsstrahlung that would be induced. In fact Polyethylene is favoured over metal for shielding.
"Now I have scientific evidence that apollo 12 took off during a solar flare. Total solar flare activity in the M6 class and the X4 class, 23 hours. No one survives that. Manned mission to the moon, BUSTED, FAKE! Disproved by science."
BUSTED because he didn't read it properly.
"God Particle...One second exposure from anything like that and you die quickly. End of story. Manned mission to the moon: BUSTED! FAKE!"
You do know that you are now saying that NASA are fakers, but NASA tell the truth on science.
You do know that you have now been busted on 2 science defeats for Apollo that you said were sure things, because you didn't read beyond what you wanted to see.
You do know that you now look pretty f*cking ridiculous! LOL!
Hydrogen bombs? I thought you were working from the LDE catalogue, non-lying, sure thing, can't miss numbers?
Wrestling is real, Jedis are real, Ninjas are real and Apollo was faked six times.
We know this because when the God Particle (irrefutable physical proof, if you read the post) blew up in his face, Buck Rogers here conveniently found the next 'sure thing' explanation: a flare that no-one else spotted in almost 40 years.
I blame breast milk, mate. Half of you fucking idiots are still on it!
@timpovikings Are you just another parrot who laughs at anything you weren't told officially?
You should withdraw your membership to the Cult of Corporate Media after believing in wars based on the WMD lie. Not until it was obvious did they report that mistake they helped by not doing their jobs.
But you still expect them to tell you if Apollo was true. How funny is that, mate?
Anyone want to talk about the "OH MY GOD" particle discovered in 1991? Galactic cosmic ray detectors measured a 50 joule burst. Does anyone know how many rads 50 joules is? 5,000,000,000 rads. We detect gamma burst coming at us from all directions in space all the time. Most of the bursts average 5 to 10 joules. Does anyone know how many rads 5 joules is?500,000,000 rads. One second exposure from anything like that and you die quickly. End of story. Manned mission to the moon: BUSTED! FAKE!
And with an estimated arrival rate of 1 per square kilometer per century, why would that present any more difficulty than a solar flare or VAB exposure?
Vegetables deny Apollo.
To suggest NASA could get 3000 ton Saturns into orbit without loss and not land 12 tons in one sixth, is laughable. There isn't one crumb of evidence that any of the landings were faked.
Deniers don't even have a faint smell of one faked landing.
@timpovikings Catalogue of LDE flares (January 1969 - March 1986) differential rotation of the Sun during the period 1921-1971. page 82 for explanation of chart. page 87 for apollo 12 November 14, 1969. According to this information. apollo 12 mission time, 89 hours. Total exposure to M3 and X5 class solar flares, 13 hours. Heliocentric and heliographic longitude data indicate that apollo 12 flew through solar flares. Can astronauts fly through solar flares in the M3 and X5 class?
@timpovikings Well, that's what the data says, not me. Numbers are what they are. If you can understand the heliocentric positions and the heliographic longitude, then you would not make that statement. It's almost like your trying to dismiss the data offhand. The positional data of the solar flares puts apollo 12 right in the middle of a solar flare. Is this correct or not?
You already presented 'data'. I thought the big revelation was with the God Particle!
I know 16 was loosely associated with flare activity, but until you have a source which does a little more than indicate something, you have zip. Who says 12 was in a flare? I mean, apart from you?
How do you put a Saturn into orbit and then prevent schools and unis from seeing it leave for the moon?
APOLLO ZERO
ZERO MOON LANDINGS
DISNEY TV
DeadJesus100 8 hours ago
I want to believe that the moon landing was real. But if it was a lie then it's shameful for humanity.
ulaghchi 2 weeks ago
This is from 1997? looks more like 1977
WheredaKFCat 2 weeks ago
@BadBunnyRides hmm gamma radiation hmm solar winds to name but a few hense the reason we have a magnetic field that stops upwards of 99% entering earth itself, even the hottest part of our earth only recieves up too 0.2% of the suns power and heat ...
MrNewyork1975 3 weeks ago
@MrNewyork1975 Hope you don't mean that that the magnetic field "stops" any gamma or heat radiation, because it doesn't. It only stops charged particles.
YDDES 2 weeks ago
@YDDES ... An intelligent informed response.
Informed (Real) reality says there were at-least 4 fatal attempts at landing on the moon using Nazi anti-grav in 1947-9 1951 1967 & again in 1973 (Germans lost the war but Nazis & Illuminati financiers won with nuclear devices developed at Tunguska used as blackmail) & the fatality was due to 'HIGH ENERGY PARTICLES' our magnetic field largely protects us from & the last two attempts successfully brought back 400,000+ y\o scientific archaeology.
spacelizardlaw 1 week ago
I have seen on other videos that show wind blowing the U.S. flag. Didn't know there was wind or oxygen up there.
havocmia 3 weeks ago
@havocmia You're not seriously going to be that guy, are you?
krazykhrisya 1 week ago
Very good documentary. I bought Bennett and Percy's book after watching this.
benthejrporter 4 weeks ago
The one thing that has always stuck out in my head about the lunar missions, hoax or not, is the lack of jumping. Imagine buying a trampoline for your kid and he or she leaps up and down a mere 1 or 2 feet over and over again... If you told your kid...any kid, they could jump 10 feet, wouldn't they? Now imagine you are on the moon, and weigh 30 lbs.On earth, weighing 200, you could jump 3 ft. On the moon, wouldn't you go 6 times as high? If you could jump 15-20 ft, wouldn't you? Just once?
epiphanyswr 1 month ago
@epiphanyswr Jumping 15-20 ft??? First: The astronauts had very heavy, stiff and clumsy spacesuits that restricted their movements a lot. Check "Apollo/Skylab A7L" on wikipedia. How high would YOU jump in such a suit on Earth?
Second: Jumping high, if they could, would have risked them to fall when they landed, damaging the suits or life support system.
YDDES 2 weeks ago
@YDDES
Exactly, but, their suits are stiff, they tested them in the planes right? So if they jumped 10 feet, no harm? Please dont be offended
awey271 1 week ago
@awey271 Loosing balance is always very easy when one jumps and one can never be sure not to fall at the landing.
I'm convinced that the suits restricted their leg momvements enough to make it impossible to jump 10 feet. They would have had to bend their knees more than the suits allowed. It's only in science fictions films astronauts can run and jump as if they had jogging dresses.
YDDES 1 week ago
@YDDES
I see what u mean, if they would want to have balance, they would have to wear suits with no shields, so that wont work
awey271 1 week ago
FAKING IT
TO
THE
FUCKING MOON
NasaCriminals 1 month ago
APOLLO MICKEY MOUSE
1968-1972
Nasa had to murder Guss Grissom before they could Fake the Moon Landings
DeadJesus100 1 month ago
@DeadJesus100 What kind of radiation What kind of radiation What kind of radiation What kind of radiation What kind of radiation What kind of radiation What kind of radiation What kind of radiation What kind of radiation What kind of radiation What kind of radiation What kind of radiation What kind of radiation What kind of radiation What
I gotta know....What kind of radiation What kind of radiation I gotta gotta gotta know!!!!.
.
What kind of radiation What kind of radiation
staIkervisions 1 month ago
@DeadJesus100 Sideways...Snap crackle ......POP...!
OH MY GAWD MY ARM MY ARM OH MY GAWD NOOOOO NNOOOOOOO NNNOOO WAAAAAITTTTT NNNOOO MY ARM
staIkervisions 1 day ago
@staIkervisions the apollo troll is a mental retard. Change your medication monkey
DeadJesus100 8 hours ago
Always be worried when someone says 'I used to believe in...'
ScienceWars 1 month ago
to the dude who said the radiation is not that difficult to shield against, solar winds gamma radiation that could kill ya in minutes micro metoerites, the sceptics offered NASA the challenge of taking some of the spacesuits and clean up chanobyl but they rufused saying it wouldnt be enough protection for the person inside
MrNewyork1975 1 month ago
@MrNewyork1975 Where is the belt of radiation, what depth and distance is it? What was the flight path of the Apollo Missions?
BadBunnyRides 1 month ago
APOLLO BULLSHIT
1968-1972
DeadJesus100 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@zambi007i
Nasa scientist astronaut Brian Oleary said he did not believe men walked on the moon
DeadJesus100 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
APOLLO BULLSHIT
Disney moon landings
filmed on planet earth
DeadJesus100 2 months ago
APOLLO
DISNEY
MOON
LANDINGS
DeadJesus100 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
APOLLO
F
R
A
U
D
DeadJesus100 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
MOON LANDINGS
FILMED ON PLANET EARTH
1969-1972
NAZI NASA IS A DISNEY JOKE
DeadJesus100 2 months ago
@DeadJesus100
Oh joy, it's the Disney Nazis again.
Crapcarp555 2 months ago
As far as anything left or placed on the surface of the moon, all could have been done by unmanned spacecraft or probes flying over the moon and dropping it to the surface. Even by a roving probe dropped to the surface and then driven off into a crater or to the darkside.
When NASA admitted several years ago that all plans no longer exsisted for all Apollo missions, that's when flags went up for many people. They said it was all destroyed because they had no room to store it????!!!! Huh?
thexrayman50 2 months ago
Holy crap!! There is some arguing going on in this comment page huh? If someone has an opinion, it gets criticized if it differs from theirs. Good stuff. Makes me feel hopeful that we will not kill ourselves.
What ever happened to respectfully disagreeing, then moving on not calling eachother idiots?
Joeysnamehere 2 months ago
@Joeysnamehere
This debate here is much more civilised than other comment sections 'round these parts.
Crapcarp555 2 months ago
@Crapcarp555 kind of sad isn't it?
Joeysnamehere 2 months ago
@Joeysnamehere
I know. ALthough I'll try my hardest to at least get some people to debate civily(I'm not sure that's even a word) or just shut up.
Crapcarp555 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I like the part where Buzz Aldrin punches out Bart Sibrel.
boringsermonify 2 months ago
one page news d com has the scoop on this.
drtyrell969 2 months ago in playlist More videos from tonlitt
The motto of NASA is:
IF YOU CAN NOT MAKE IT, FAKE IT!
centurion180ad 3 months ago
@centurion180ad The mottle of centurion180ad is: Lets steal others comments because I can not think of anything original to say myself. It is idiots like you who make actually questioners sound like crazy assholes. All you truthers out there...be sure to thank him for his services in making you all look like morons.
Joeysnamehere 2 months ago
OCCHAMITE is an ignorant, uneducated jackass.
Nobody take this idiot seriously.
centurion180ad 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NASA'S MOTTO
IF WE CANT MAKE IT
WE FAKE IT
DeadJesus100 3 months ago
The solar constant. 1.95 langleys Ly per minute. one langley is 41840.00 J/m². 41840 joules per meter squares or 41840 joules per kilogram = 4184000 rads. Forget about the photo and video evidence. Hard facts and numbers tell the story. We never left low earth orbit and we can't go to the moon now for the same reason they didn't go then. Radiation. Do the conversion yourself. Anyone can post numbers and claim them to be accurate.
Daddyo930 3 months ago
@Daddyo930 "Anyone can post numbers and claim them to be accurate. .." Which is all you do, except when you take time out to make an utterly ridiculous statement like "every element in the periodic table" figures into the solar constant.
occhamite 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@occhamite Tell us what shielding did Apollo have against radiation?
DeadJesus100 3 months ago
@DeadJesus100
Oh god, you're here too!? Jesus Chirst, I don't think there's hope for any of us. Goddammit, what is it gonna take to get through that thick skull o' yours? I told you like a million times now, the radiation of the VABs is not difficult to shield against. The fiberous insulation was enough to protect the astronauts. I refuted your claim, over and over again. Face it, you know shit about what you're talking about, so STFU!
Crapcarp555 2 months ago
@Crapcarp555 the mental retard TROLL
VAB is deadly fuckwit and that is why no astronaut has ever been within 100 miles of it
NASA FAKED THE MOON LANDINGS
Get over your retardation
DeadJesus100 2 months ago
@DeadJesus100
True, the radiation of the VAB is deadly, but that does not mean it's isn't easy to shield against. In fact, alpha radiation, which is the type of radiation in the VAB, can be blocked by air, as the particles react with hydrogen molecules in the air and become helium.
You have been proved wrong time and time again, yet you can't seem to understand that. So, if you have nothing else to say, STFU already!
Crapcarp555 2 months ago
@Crapcarp555 lol this dude has brain damage
What protection did the apollo craft and space suits have against radiation fuckwit?
ZERO
APOLLO ZERO
DeadJesus100 2 months ago
@DeadJesus100
I told you they did have protection. Either you can't read, or you don't want to. In any case, just shut it already. You're accomplishing nothing. You're not gonna prove that the Apollo moon mission were faked, because they happened. You can shout and insult me all you want, it's not gonna change that fact. All it will do, is make you look like an idiot.
Crapcarp555 2 months ago
@Crapcarp555 the mental retard trolling youtube
Nasa said the apollo craft had no protection against radiation
and yet you the looney tune say they did.
Are you retarded troll?
DeadJesus100 2 months ago
@DeadJesus100
Since when did NASA ever say that they didn't have protection against the radiation of the VAB or any other kind of radiation?
Crapcarp555 2 months ago
@Crapcrap555 is full of CRAP
What protection did the apollo craft have retard?
You have no clue yet you troll youtube scumbag
DeadJesus100 2 months ago
@DeadJesus100
And you obviously can't read, because I told you like a million times that they did have protection against radiation, And yet, you constantly deny it, despite the fact that you've been proven wrong time and time again. Just goes to show that you have no arguments left to defend your position and thus you resort to petty insults any kid can come up with and denying what I've already said a bunch of times. How sad, I pity you.
Crapcarp555 2 months ago
@Crapcarp555 the mental retard
What protects the moon from radiation?
Come on troll have a guess sicko
DeadJesus100 2 months ago
@DeadJesus100
Sicko? That's new, but just as chilish as all your other insults. Oh well, you've got some variety at least. But you're still just as stupid and pathetic. You didn't notice that you said "What protects the MOON from radiation?" The moon? Why does the moon need prtection from radiation. Epic lulz! You're getting more moronic by the second.
Crapcarp555 2 months ago
@CrapcrAp555 Is full of crap, your name suits you
I asked you what protects the mon from radiation because i wanted to then ask
what protection did the astronaut fakers on the moon since it has no magnetic field.
Get over your retardation TROLL
DeadJesus100 2 months ago
@DeadJesus100
Oh how original.
But anyways, the types of radiation in space are not difficult to shield against. The astronauts had plenty of protection from the radiation. Do you listen? No, you'd rather just go in circles over and over again no matter how many times you've been proven wrong.
Face it kid, you've lost, I won. I pwned you, hard. Now swallow your pride and go do something constructive with your life for once.
Crapcarp555 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Crapcarp555 the Bullshitter
2008 : Space Shuttle Astronaut James van Hoften NASA
" Cosmic rays are so dangerous and so poorly understood that people
are unlikely to get to Mars or even back to the Moon until better ways are found to protect astronauts"
LOL but in 1969 it was no problem for Fake Apollo
The only thing you own is your brothers asshole retard
DeadJesus100 1 month ago
@DeadJesus100 Tell us what kind of radiation is out past LEO and the Van Allen Belts?
staIkervisions 1 month ago
@staIkervisions Nasa has no idea what the radiation ,levels are 500 miles from earth troll
DeadJesus100 1 month ago
@DeadJesus100 What kind of radiation small-dick?
Beta...Alpha...neutron like Fukushima??
What kind of radiation limp-dick?
What What kind of radiation What kind of radiation
Oh flaccid one? What kind of radiation What kind of radiation What kind of radiation What kind of radiation What kind of radiation What kind of radiation What kind of radiation What kind of radiation What kind of radiation Limp-dicklessness?
What kind of radiation What kind of radiation What kind of radiation
staIkervisions 1 month ago
@occhamite Is the conversion correct or not? 1.95 langleys Ly per minute. one langley is 41840.00 J/m². 41840 joules per meter squares or 41840 joules per kilogram = 4184000 rads. The solar constant is 1.95 langleys per minute which is 41840.00 J/m² = 8.70482104 × 10^16 MeV's. You can go ask NASA how many elements on the periodic table can be found in our sun. They will tell you every element on the periodic table can be found in our sun. Your lack of basic knowledge is stunning.
Daddyo930 3 months ago
(2of2) YOU DON'T GET IT, NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES IT'S EXPLAINED.
And if you ACTUALLY had any knowledge in the matter, you would not be so fascinated by trivial unit conversions, or suppose other people would be. You throw a few numbers around, and expect the audience to ooohhh and aaahhhh. Well, for that you'll have to find an audience as uneducated as yourself.
occhamite 3 months ago
Comment removed
occhamite 3 months ago
@Daddyo930 What is "stunning" is your inability to read and understand a simple one-paragraph comment. NOWHERE did I deny "every element on(sic) the periodic table can be found in our sun" YOU opened this exchange by asking if anybody knew what the SOLAR CONSTANT was, getting it all wrong yourself I might add. "Elements in the periodic table" HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.
THAT IS WHAT IS "STUNNING"; (cont'd)
occhamite 3 months ago
@occhamite The mr knowitall, what percentage of the solar constant is radioactive?
Daddyo930 3 months ago
@Daddyo930 NONE. Only atomic nuclei can be "radioactive". The Solar Constant is a measure of EMR flux. But there are other things going on which might be called "radioactivity". Nobody can answer a question like that. Here's an example as to why:
news. stanford. edu/news/2010/august/sun-082310. html
But what has any of this to do with Apollo?
occhamite 3 months ago
@occhamite The solar constant, a measure of flux density, is the amount of incoming solar electromagnetic radiation per unit area. The solar constant includes all types of solar radiation, not just the visible light. So your saying that high frequency UV, gamma rays and Xrays are not part of the solar constant?
Daddyo930 3 months ago
@Daddyo930 no, that's Not what I'm saying. The fact that one product of radioactivity is ionizing (UV & shorter) EMR does not enable one the prove the occurrence of radioactivity by the showing ionizing EMR is present. If it's raining, the streets are wet; if the streets are wet, it may not be due to rain.
occhamite 3 months ago
@occhamite So what percentage of the solar constant is ionizing radiation?
Daddyo930 3 months ago
@Daddyo930 That depends on a number of factors. For some purposes "ionizing" radiation is considered to be far UV & shorter, for others, it begins with X-rays - 10 nm & shorter. The spectrum is different on the surface of the Earth than it is in space, esp w/re to UV & up. Solar activity affects the spectrum - UV varies by ~1.5%, while solar constant variation is more like 0.1%. Improved measurement techniques are changing the numbers as well - short EMR is the most difficult to measure.
occhamite 3 months ago
@occhamite How about a number? Is it 1 percent? Less than 1 percent? If less than 1 percent, give a number then. You seem to be running away from the numbers and speaking in generalities.
Daddyo930 3 months ago
1.15 theres more than enough evidence, you only have to ask.
PETE4REALITY 3 months ago
musicbruv
This posing member named above on this video has no education.
Thermodynamic laws and the nature of adiabatic environments are well understood. These laws are thoroughly tested and have been reproduced independently countless times.
centurion180ad 3 months ago
@centurion180ad Can you show us your napkin calculations that says the PLLS cooling system wont work? How did the molten Earth in the vacuum of space cool without mass ejection? how does the suns heat reach us without mass ejection, why is a desert hot during the day and freezing at night, where does the heat go? If a astro died in space would his body freeze? if so how without mass ejection? Why do you claim there are 3 laws of thermodynamics when ther are 4? come on educate me!
musicbruv 3 months ago
@centurion180ad "These laws are thoroughly tested and have been reproduced independently countless times.' Yeah, and if we could only figure a way to "reproduce them" ONCE, IN YOUR HEAD, this debate would finally end.
occhamite 3 months ago
Anyone of you true believers in the manned missions to the moon ever heard of the solar constant? 1300 kilowats per square meter per second. Lets agree that all of that is not radiation. Even 400 kw/m2 per second converted to rads is 400 rads per second. I don't think the apollo craft was designed to handle even the solar constant. That's why they had to fake it.
Daddyo930 3 months ago
@Daddyo930 Yeah, everybody''s "heard of the solar constant" EXCEPT YOU. As always in your case, both the magnitude and the dimensions are WRONG: The correct average value is 1.361 kW/(m^2) - that's pronounced "one point three six one kilowatts per square meter". So, in your fantasy, it's 1,000-times greater than in reality, and rather than a measure of emr flux density, it's the nonsensical "kilowats per square meter per second". Stop trying to fake knowledge. You don't fool anyone
occhamite 3 months ago
@occhamite 1.361 kW/m², is equivalent to 1.95 calories per minute per square centimeter 1.95 langleys (Ly) per minute. 1.95 langleys = 81587.9 joules/m2. 1.361 kw/m2 = 1361 joules/second/m2. My mistake. A dose of 1 gray means the absorption of 1 joule of radiation energy per kilogram of absorbing material. The apollo craft clearly couldn't even handle the solar constant.
Daddyo930 3 months ago
@Daddyo930 well, you certainly do like to throw numbers around! But you'd have to supply something MUCH better than an unsupported "The apollo craft clearly couldn't even handle the solar constant" What do you base this claim upon? How does any spacecraft "handle the solar constant"? You forget the craft was at all times half (at least) in darkness, more if the nose or tail was aimed at the sun, and had a circular cross-section; only a small part of the sunlit side got 1.361kW/(m^2)
occhamite 3 months ago
@occhamite 1.361 kW/m², is equivalent to 1.95 calories per minute per square centimeter 1.95 langleys (Ly) per minute. 1.95 langleys = 81587.9 joules/m2. 1.361 kw/m2 = 1361 joules/second/m2. You have your proof right there. 1.95 langleys per minute is a lot of energy. The solar constant includes all types of radiation, not just visible light, that means gamma radiation and every radioactive element in the periodic table. Mission impossible.
Daddyo930 3 months ago
@Daddyo930 "1.361 kW/m², is equivalent to ..." ????? !!!!! Are you joking? Gamma? The MOON emits more gamma than the sun. "every radioactive element in the periodic table..." ??? Man, this is weird... Do you know the difference between matter and electromagnetic radiation?
occhamite 3 months ago
@occhamite natural sources of gamma rays are high-energy sub-atomic particle interactions resulting from cosmic rays. Such high-energy reactions are also the common artificial source of gamma rays. Gamma rays are also produced by astronomical processes in which very high-energy electrons are produced. Such electrons produce secondary gamma rays by the mechanisms of bremsstrahlung, inverse Compton scattering and synchrotron radiation. Do you even have a clue about gamma radiation?
Daddyo930 3 months ago
@Daddyo930 "natural sources of gamma rays are high-energy sub-atomic particle interactions resulting from cosmic rays." Yeeesh. Polly want a cracker? Do You even have a clue, about ANYTHING? Did you read my last comment? Remember the part where it says " The moon emits more gamma than the Sun"? GCR-induced nuclear fission is the reason. Good enough? Great NOW - lets hear YOU explain what "every element in the periodic table" has to do with the solar constant.
occhamite 3 months ago
@occhamite That's simple. Every element on the periodic table can be found in our sun, therefore every element on the periodic table can be found in the solar constant.
Daddyo930 3 months ago
@Daddyo930 Simple but WRONG: The solar Constant is a measure of EMR ONLY. Heavy element emission by the sun makes up part of the GCR.
occhamite 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Daddyo930 Our periodic table is a drop in the universal ocean
DeadJesus100 3 months ago
Also there is alot of difference between piloting to the moon, uncupling from the command module, landing SAFELY on the moon, launching back from the moon, recupling with the command module and then flying back to earth through nothing but rotational gravity and aid of on board propulsion systems. Its argueable that the calculations had been made from earth, but why instantly send people to the moon without testing the system first? it was like a shot in the dark and just doesn't feel SAFE.
nolielhaven 4 months ago
@nolielhaven Apollo 8 was on a return orbit - it was designed so even if there was a failure of the RCS or main engine, the craft would swing around the moon and head back to Earth. However it worked fine and Apollo 8 braked into lunar orbit for a few passes.
Apollo 9 tested LEM docking and engine in Earth orbit.
Apollo 10 did all these steps and the LEM descended to 50 miles from the lunar surface before testing the ascent module and re-docking.
So yes, it was tested before Apollo 11.
krisdevalle 4 months ago
Id also like to hear the reasonable explanation for the visibility of objects in complete shadows. Its not like the reflected from the surface of the moon was enough to clearly illuminate an object directly facing away from the source of light on an environment without atmosphere.
nolielhaven 4 months ago
@nolielhaven The light reflected from the surface of the moon is enough to illuminate the Earth at night to see by. On a full moon, it's quite bright.
krisdevalle 4 months ago
@nolielhaven Light rays from the sun are not diffused due to the lack of atmosphere on the moon. Therefore a lot of light is bouncing off the surface in all directions due to the uneven surface. Some back into outer space and some will even illuminate objects in shadows. Neil Armstrong reported he had no difficulty seeing in shadow.
Spindry96 4 months ago
@Spindry96 Neil Armstron had and has no difficulty being a LIAR and a CRIMINAL.
centurion180ad 3 months ago
Comment removed
Spindry96 3 months ago
Another thing that came to my attention and i would like an explanation for. The films used in the cameras where supposedly standard filming material in cameras without any shielding. Is it believable that the material filmed did not suffer under the extreme temperature and that the material did not suffer any damage during the filming process? Or is there a reasonable explanation for that? What about the weird shadow angles on some of the pictures? What is the explanation for those?
nolielhaven 4 months ago
@nolielhaven Shadows display the properties of vanishing point perspective, leading them to converge to a point on the horizon. Shadows are also complicated by reflected light, uneven ground, lunar dust and wide angle distortion.
Spindry96 4 months ago
In a vaccum there is no surrounding material to conduct heat away. Thnk of a coffee thermos. So an astronaut will not freeze to death instantly and not at all if he has insulation. This is not Hollywood. By the same way it won't be 200 degrees in the sunlight, it is actually about the same as on earth. The surface of the moon does eventually warm up and become hot but not blisteringly so.
Spindry96 4 months ago
@Spindry96 You have no idea of what you are talking about.
Our atmosphere shields us from the worst of the sun's blistering rays, but think on your rolled up automobile windows on a hot summer day when you go into a shop for a few minuets. When you return the inside is blistering hot. That is the effect of the sun's rays on a pressure suit. With no asmosphere to conduct away heat, the temperature inside a suit would be boiling inside a few minuets.
centurion180ad 4 months ago
@centurion180ad What l wrote is 100% correct and verifiable on the net. The astronaut's suit is heavily insulated. Temperature is regulated by a Liquid cooling garment in contact with the skin as well as air temperature maintained by the Primary life support. Please do research before telling people they are wrong, you just look stupid.
Spindry96 4 months ago
@Spindry96 What I am telling you is that those suits would have heated up very-very quickly and the only way to radiate away the heat is in a liquit-to-vapor heat exchanger. What we MUST see for those suits to function, is an ejected spray of super-heated vapor carrying away the bodyheat. We don't see that, so no heat is leaving the astronauts' suits. It is all accumulating inside. What they ought to have been doing is refilling their suits life support from cool fuel of the lander's tanks.
centurion180ad 3 months ago
@centurion180ad Why is heat accumulating inside the suit when it is regulated and PREVENTED from accumulating. It's not difficult to comprehend...
Spindry96 3 months ago
@Spindry96 Regulation in an adiabatic environment is impossible, without mass ejection.
centurion180ad 3 months ago
@centurion180ad The astronaut produces heat from his/her body If this heat is not removed, the sweat produced by the astronaut will fog up the helmet and cause the astronaut to become severely dehydrated. To remove this excess heat, space suits have used either fans/heat exchangers to blow cool air, as in the Mercury and Gemini programs, or water-cooled garments, which have been used from the Apollo program to the present.
.
Spindry96 3 months ago
@centurion180ad "What I am telling you is that ..." Why don't you LEARN a little something about it before you go shooting-off that big, stupid mouth? You talk as if you knew something, when obviously you've done no research at all(unless you're extremely bad at research).
The A7L EVA suit was cooled with an ICE SUBLIMATOR:
en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Apollo/Skylab_A7L "Water was supplied to the LCG from the PLSS backpack, where the circulating water was chilled by an ice sublimator."
occhamite 3 months ago
@occhamite That is nonsense.
The sun supplies a blistering amount of heat that will accumulate into the astronaut's suit, plus the astronaut's own body heat. A couple pounds of water frozen into ice will be boiling at super heated temperature in less than an hour.
Insulated by vaccume, the only way to dump the heat is to vent water vapor which ought to have been obvious. That we don't see that, gives away the hoax.
centurion180ad 3 months ago
Comment removed
occhamite 3 months ago
@centurion180ad "Insulated by vaccume, the only way to dump the heat is to vent water vapor..." This is just utter hogwash, and shows nicely how little you actually know. Ever heard of "RADIATIVE COOLING"? How do you suppose the planets got from their initial molten state to the current solid one?
By "venting steam into space'? Get yourself a physics book, and READ it.
occhamite 3 months ago
@occhamite Well said mate, clearly this idiot does not have a clue what he is talking about.
musicbruv 3 months ago
@occhamite An astronaut does not have an atmosphere gravitationally bound, hovering over the surface of his suit to shield him. Nor does an astronaut have an enormous amount of TIME necessary for Black Body radiation to carry away his waste heat given his relatively small surface area to do so. In any event if his thermodynamic state came to a point where he’d be a net supplier of energy, he’d already be dead.
centurion180ad 3 months ago
@centurion180ad Are you an actor? That's not a bad ATTEMPT to portray yourself as having known what you were saying all along. BULL. Don't think for a second it will work. Actually, it wasn't a very good attempt: "An atmosphere" would INTERFERE with radiative heat loss - ever heard of the "Greenhouse Effect"? And, a sphere has the lowest surface area to volume ratio of any shape - it's the worst possible for cooling, so you blew that one too. Get that physics book back out and READ!
occhamite 3 months ago
@centurion180ad no, it is anything but "nonsense". "The sun supplies a 'blistering amount of heat"? What is that, a scientific argument? And most of that heat is REFLECTED by the suit. None of you claims is supported by any math or other evidence. You just pick convenient numbers from thin air.
An ice sublimator DOES "vent water vapor". Why would you think it would be "obvious"? In a VACUUM there is no air to cool the vapor, or cause the usual cloud of steam by containing it.
occhamite 3 months ago
@occhamite I am attempting to explan the Third Law of Thermodynamics to someone that does not have a clue.
How do I know you have no clue? I know you have no clue because an actual engineer or scientist would agree with me. It is IMPOSSIBLE for net heat flow, to move TOWARD or through a source of higher temperature, in this case the surface of a space suit heated by the sun.
Coefficient of Reflection off white fabric is very mild. It is sunlight in steam that makes it visible.
centurion180ad 3 months ago
@centurion180ad The only place you have a clue is in your dreams. Nobody said "net heat flow, to move TOWARD or through a source of higher temperature,.." You can't even read a comment a couple of paragraphs long without getting it all wrong. And you STILL haven't figured out that an ice sublimator is a perfectly good way to provide cooling! Ever heard of "evaporative cooling"? Funny how a wet cloth hung up on a hot day will get cooler than its surroundings.
occhamite 3 months ago
@occhamite Go to a university, and attend Thermodynamics class.
Evaporative cooling is not possible without an atmosphere to carry away water vapor, which is a form of mass ejection. A suit would have to have a working fluid and a heat exchanger, and then a high pressure relief valve to vent super heated coolant into the vaccume of the moon.
It is the only way if you don't have a radiator at the temperature of molten iron.
centurion180ad 3 months ago
@centurion180ad ...curioser and curioser.... Where did you "attend Thermodynamics class" - Alice in Wonderland U.? "An atmosphere" has nothing to do with it, and in any case, what do you suppose ice sublimation is? The same thing, only the the phase change is from ice to vapor, rather than from liquid to vapor - so the efficiency is even GREATER. If you'd bother to ACTUALLY EXAMINNE THE A7-L cooling system, you find all the "workingfluid", "heat exchangers" etc needed.
occhamite 3 months ago
@occhamite You are a neurotic.
centurion180ad 3 months ago
@centurion180ad Bull, open a bottle of water in a vacuum and it will instanly turn into water vapour, it evapororates more easily than on earth, you do not have a clue what you are talking about and nobody is buying your B******t
musicbruv 3 months ago
@musicbruv In a vacuum water lowers its boiling point which means it carries away LESS heat per unit of mass. That is why a release of super heated steam from a life support system using water for a heat sink would have to be at high pressure so that a maximum of waste heat will be ejected.
You don't know thermodynamics, at all.
centurion180ad 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@centurion180ad “You don't know thermodynamics, at all.....”
Look! Old "3-Laws" is back! So you idea of "knowing thermodynamics is:
“Evaporative cooling is not possible without an atmosphere...”
Guess you never heard of “freeze-drying”. It's usually done in a VACUUM – to SPEED-UP the process. Take a look at a phase diagram for water someday.
occhamite 3 months ago
@centurion180ad And you cant even bullshit," it carries away less heat" so all the heat in the water in the bottle will be lost, you even admitted it carries away heat as all evaporation does I accept your surrender.
musicbruv 3 months ago
@musicbruv Nobody ought to pay any attention to you because you have no science education.
Good by mister ignorance.
centurion180ad 3 months ago
@Spindry96 Does it //look// heavily insulated? It looks flaccid, to me.
Videos of suits look like to me that suits and background are at pressure equilibrium, meaning both at 1 atmosphere. The first space walk almost KILLED the cosmonaut because when he vacated his Soyuz his suit was swelled up and he could barely move. He could not work the hatch to reseal it, for quite some time.
centurion180ad 3 months ago
@centurion180ad Heavily insulated does not require bulky insulation, they use advanced fibres such as Mylar and multiple layers instead. The suits maintain a stable internal pressure which is less than the earths atmosphere allowing for greater mobility. Mobility is also achieved by joint design. There is a layer consisting of a bladder containing temperature and pressure controlled oxygen. Outside this the next layer holds the bladder layer to the correct shape around the body.
Spindry96 3 months ago
@Spindry96 In the 1970s these things were still in the pipeline, full of bugs & problems & unknowns.
In any event even if all of these things operated just as you desire to //believe// that they did, it does NOTHING to prevent the functioning of the 3 laws of Thermodynamics.
They would have accumulated body & sun heat in short order (not to mention CO2 scrubber heat), and would have begun to boil as a lobster in a steamer. Inhaling that air would have burned their lungs as fire.
centurion180ad 3 months ago
Comment removed
Spindry96 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@centurion180ad No they were very real in the 60's. The Apollo/Skylab suit consisted of 11 layers, modern 14 l believe. Why would they boil? The suits have a liquid cooled innermost layer and the oxygen layer is temperature contoled. You forget space is a vaccum, the rays of the sun take hours to heat anything up including the surface of the moon since there is no matter to conduct heat. Remember the thermos example.
Spindry96 3 months ago
@centurion180ad "...does NOTHING to prevent the functioning of the 3 laws of Thermodynamics." No, and "the 3 laws..." do NOTHING to prevent the functioning" of an ice sublimator - not that you have any understanding of the "3 laws" despite the pretense to the contrary.... By the way, you are wrong again! There are 4 laws of thermodynamics, NOT 3, as YOU stupidly say. Tell us what the other is, let's see how long it takes you to find it.
occhamite 3 months ago
@occhamite There is not a 4th law, because there cannot be. You are a neurotic.
centurion180ad 3 months ago
Comment removed
occhamite 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@centurion180ad @centurion180ad "There is not a 4th law, because there cannot be...." HAH!! Gotcha. There are 4 laws: Notice I said "4 Laws". I did NOT say "a Fourth Law".
en. wikipedia. org/wiki/0th_Law_of_Thermodynamics
Being the pretentious know-nothing you are, it was easy to predict you'd fall for this one.You're a know-nothing.
You've been run over by a train, about 6 times in a row now. Give it up . You don't fool anybody.
occhamite 3 months ago
@centurion180ad Rubbish,the astronauts suits are not made of glass so your comparison is flawed, the suits are white and anything white reflect light and therefore heat, and the car is full of air which gets heated up. suck out the air and create a vacuum and it will not get hot inside, the cooling system was more about removing the astros body heat than the suns heat, ask your self why does the ISS not get heated up and astonauts on space walks dont get heated up? please think before posting
musicbruv 3 months ago
@musicbruv Your comparison is flawed.
Outer skin of an automobile heats just as the air inside does, but the outside heat of the car is distributed across the entire body because the skin is metal, and the outside air takes away all surface heat above a certain temperature. On the moon there is no atmosphere to COOL or remove absorbed surface energy, so the entire suit heats drastically. ISS uses its FUEL as a heat sink to aircondition internal atmosphere.
Please think before posting.
centurion180ad 3 months ago
@centurion180ad There is no atmosphere to transfer heat so the skin on a car on the moon would get hot but as there is no air inside then nothing to heat up, you cannot heat or cool a vacuum, the suit is white to reflect heat and the suit does not easily transfer heat, ISS is cooled by water, ammonia and heat exchangers, plus aluminized mylar to REFLECT heat just as the space suits do, suits also use sublimation, surface heat on the moon is lost though radiation. please learn before posting.
musicbruv 3 months ago
@musicbruv There is not air inside then how the Hell does the astronaut breath? Ofcourse inside the suit is full of air and the astronaut's body, BOTH will accumulate heat. The white reflection helps, but a small amount. A MIRROR would do quite a bit better, but a metal surface does not flex properly.
That water-amonia working fluid exchanges to fuel, which is then ejected or is itself burned. The point is that MASS must carry away excess heat. In a vaccume it is the ONLY way.
centurion180ad 3 months ago
@centurion180ad Wrong, heat in a mass in a vacuum can be lost by radiation as in the ISS, the ISS cooling system loses heat by radiation as the coolant is passed through heat exchangers, heat is not "ejected" and mass does not carry heat away, what mass carries heat from the sun? The air in the suit is insulated by layers of materail and a reflective outer skin, excess heat is lost via sublimation. "water-amonia working fluid exchanges to fuel" please explain this process!
musicbruv 3 months ago
@musicbruv Net heat flow in a system without a power cycle, flows only toward a lower temperature source. For an astronaut’s suit or the ISS to be a net supplier of heat, it would have to be at a higher temperature than the irradiative temperature of the sun at its location. For a cooling radiator to be efficient it must be at a //vastly// higher temperature, so that its Black Body radiation will carry away sufficient power.
ISS or a suit would require the molten temperature of iron.
centurion180ad 3 months ago
@centurion180ad Rubbish, on a hot summers day ice will form on a propane bottle when it is being used, How? Humans on Earth every day cope with air temperatures far higher than body temperature, How? What is the temperature of a vacuum? Subliminaters actually form ice in a vacuum and that takes heat away from the astro's body, and are you saying that the ISS is fake as it cannot be at the temperature of molton iron can it!
musicbruv 3 months ago
@musicbruv What has this to do with a suit on the moon?
ISS //must// use mass ejection system for its cooling, and that is possible because each rocket sent up to it may bring coolant with them and its outer shell is a reflective metal. A suit on the moon baking in the sun would be overwealmed.
From my back of a napkin calculation, those suit PLSS were only good enough to keep those bogus crook astronauts cool on earth on the sound stage they used to fake the landings.
Capricorn One.
centurion180ad 3 months ago
@centurion180ad Well you may say it must use "mass ejection" but you are wrong, you also said heat moves towards cool or something like that, my point was it does not always do so, the fact ice can form on a propane tank on a hot day proves that statement wrong. As for the PLSS I dont think they work in an atmosphere, do you know what sublimation is? Please show me your "back of a napkin" calculations. The suns heat was never a problem as they went in the Lunar morning when it is a lot cooler.
musicbruv 3 months ago
@musicbruv "As for the PLSS I dont think they work in an atmosphere, .."
Right you are. Sublimation only occurs at pressure/temperature combinations which are below the Triple Point - ~ 273k and 0.006 atm..
occhamite 3 months ago
@musicbruv So let me get this str8,NASA starts its program in `58, the same year the VanAllen is verified,is in 'deep space' by `69 and then they spend the next 40 yrs. studying radiation and gamma in 'low Earth orbit'??? Should`nt it be the other way around,study 1st then attempt lunar landing?? lol. Silly NASA. Funny how they make a perfect landing on the moon but need to crash thru Earths` atmosphere into the sea,lol. Silly NASA
PAULOcbi 3 months ago
@PAULOcbi
"crash thru" You're ADMITTING to being that clueless about the engineering? Never bothered to look at the design? Just cut and pasted "CRASH" and then naively wondered why you were laughed at? LOL
NEWSflash, Earth's gravity is 6 times stronger, making water landing safer
NEWSflash, Moon doesnt have air, so they couldnt use parachutes, making a rocket landing the only way. Earth does have air. Any more obvious points I can laugh at you for? ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 3 months ago
@PAULOcbi No, numerous probes were launched before 69 to do research into the problems of space flight, also the Gemini and Mercury space flights were carried out from 62-66, then Apollo flights started, Apollo 11 was the first moon landing launch, ever wondered what the previous 10 were used for? and the moon does not have a atmosphere or a oceon so no problems with re entry problems Silly PAULocbi. LOL
musicbruv 3 months ago
@musicbruv You don't know thermodynamics, at all. Bye bye.
centurion180ad 3 months ago
@nolielhaven What extreme temperature was the film exposed to?
musicbruv 3 months ago
watch?v=CsNe4pTs-eo
Clumsy joker Obama clearly implies the supposed authenticity of the moonlanding is an issue that doesn't matter..which is understandable since he knows it was a hoax. You may ask "Is this another B.Clinton like attempt of play down the significance of the Moon Hoax of 1969-1972 and try soften the impact ,the International embarrassment ,and the crimes associated with it?"
The answer is yes!
potrodsas 5 months ago
@daddyo
Help me out a little.
Given 100% will exist at t0, with a Half life of 2 days, what % will be left after 2 days?
snakehipsohoolihan 5 months ago
also the apollo 11 was equipped with a board computer with as much memory as a pocket calculator. Do you believe a pocket calculator is enough for astronomical navigation?
nolielhaven 5 months ago
@nolielhaven Yes, why not? Number crunching was done on Earth by mainframe computers. Results were sent via radio to the spacecraft. There was no need for graphic, sound or word processing. The ROM was enough for the single task of guidance.
CHSarahBs 5 months ago
@nolielhaven The guidance system was derived from the computers in minuteman nuclear missiles, capable of travelling halfway across the world and hitting a city, so yeah, I guess the moon is slightly larger than Moscow.
Remember to put it in context, you fool.
krisdevalle 5 months ago
Comment removed
Spindry96 4 months ago
@nolielhaven John Glenn piloted a space ship into eaths atmosphere in 1962 without any computer.
Spindry96 4 months ago
the problem with the moonlandings is effectively the radiation present not only in the van allen belt but also on the atmosphere lacking moon. Shielding for spacecraft was aluminium and spacesuits required to protect from that kind of radiation required at least several inches of led to protect a human being. If it wouldn't kill you on the spot you would get cancer at best. Well what a surprise that all astronauts from apollo 11 are still alive and well.
nolielhaven 5 months ago
@nolielhaven Your science is false. The principle danger of the Van Allen belts is high energy protons, not difficult to shield against. By flying between the belts, through their thinnest parts they limited their exposure. The nature of the belts and space is entirely different to a nuclear explosion and thick metal shielding would be counterproductive because of the Bremsstrahlung that would be induced. In fact Polyethylene is favoured over metal for shielding.
Spindry96 4 months ago
armstrongs wife doesnt even believe it! thats gotta say something
guineapiggyman 5 months ago
"Now I have scientific evidence that apollo 12 took off during a solar flare. Total solar flare activity in the M6 class and the X4 class, 23 hours. No one survives that. Manned mission to the moon, BUSTED, FAKE! Disproved by science."
BUSTED because he didn't read it properly.
"God Particle...One second exposure from anything like that and you die quickly. End of story. Manned mission to the moon: BUSTED! FAKE!"
BUSTED because he didn't read it properly.
timpovikings 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Daddyo930
You do know that you are now saying that NASA are fakers, but NASA tell the truth on science.
You do know that you have now been busted on 2 science defeats for Apollo that you said were sure things, because you didn't read beyond what you wanted to see.
You do know that you now look pretty f*cking ridiculous! LOL!
Hydrogen bombs? I thought you were working from the LDE catalogue, non-lying, sure thing, can't miss numbers?
timpovikings 5 months ago
Comment removed
timpovikings 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Daddyo930
But isn't an event broken down into hard and soft X-Rays and SPEs?
timpovikings 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bpbiv31
Yeah, I get the picture.
Wrestling is real, Jedis are real, Ninjas are real and Apollo was faked six times.
We know this because when the God Particle (irrefutable physical proof, if you read the post) blew up in his face, Buck Rogers here conveniently found the next 'sure thing' explanation: a flare that no-one else spotted in almost 40 years.
I blame breast milk, mate. Half of you fucking idiots are still on it!
You have nada.
timpovikings 5 months ago
watch my vid "NEW WORLD ORDER - How to scape" everybody is denouncing the shit but dont say the exit (the scape). I tell the scape
carolcamboriu 5 months ago
@timpovikings Are you just another parrot who laughs at anything you weren't told officially?
You should withdraw your membership to the Cult of Corporate Media after believing in wars based on the WMD lie. Not until it was obvious did they report that mistake they helped by not doing their jobs.
But you still expect them to tell you if Apollo was true. How funny is that, mate?
bpbiv31 5 months ago
Comment removed
timpovikings 5 months ago
Anyone want to talk about the "OH MY GOD" particle discovered in 1991? Galactic cosmic ray detectors measured a 50 joule burst. Does anyone know how many rads 50 joules is? 5,000,000,000 rads. We detect gamma burst coming at us from all directions in space all the time. Most of the bursts average 5 to 10 joules. Does anyone know how many rads 5 joules is?500,000,000 rads. One second exposure from anything like that and you die quickly. End of story. Manned mission to the moon: BUSTED! FAKE!
Daddyo930 5 months ago
@Daddyo930
And with an estimated arrival rate of 1 per square kilometer per century, why would that present any more difficulty than a solar flare or VAB exposure?
Vegetables deny Apollo.
To suggest NASA could get 3000 ton Saturns into orbit without loss and not land 12 tons in one sixth, is laughable. There isn't one crumb of evidence that any of the landings were faked.
Deniers don't even have a faint smell of one faked landing.
timpovikings 5 months ago
@timpovikings Catalogue of LDE flares (January 1969 - March 1986) differential rotation of the Sun during the period 1921-1971. page 82 for explanation of chart. page 87 for apollo 12 November 14, 1969. According to this information. apollo 12 mission time, 89 hours. Total exposure to M3 and X5 class solar flares, 13 hours. Heliocentric and heliographic longitude data indicate that apollo 12 flew through solar flares. Can astronauts fly through solar flares in the M3 and X5 class?
Daddyo930 5 months ago
@Daddyo930
"Indicates" isn't a category of proof I'm familiar with.
6 missions landed on the moon to the satisfaction of the wider academic communities internationally.
You'd need something stronger than "indicates".
timpovikings 5 months ago
@timpovikings Well, that's what the data says, not me. Numbers are what they are. If you can understand the heliocentric positions and the heliographic longitude, then you would not make that statement. It's almost like your trying to dismiss the data offhand. The positional data of the solar flares puts apollo 12 right in the middle of a solar flare. Is this correct or not?
Daddyo930 5 months ago
@Daddyo930
You already presented 'data'. I thought the big revelation was with the God Particle!
I know 16 was loosely associated with flare activity, but until you have a source which does a little more than indicate something, you have zip. Who says 12 was in a flare? I mean, apart from you?
How do you put a Saturn into orbit and then prevent schools and unis from seeing it leave for the moon?
timpovikings 5 months ago