Just because the USSR kept their space race secrets for many decades does not prove that man didn't land on the moon,the USSR kept tight border controls,their testing took place in barren territory,plus,the government had full control of the press,only letting people know what they wanted them to know,if their public knew about the failures then so would the rest of the world,its only since the collapse of the soviet union that some these tales have come to light.
On Yuri Gagarin,USA has a too big ego and cannot accept that it's a soviet and not an american who was the first in space. Get over it! Gagarin was the first PERIOD!
@LeGermQC Gagarin was only the first succesfull cosmonaut,a cosmonaut named sergei illyushin was the first in space but ended up in a coma on his return to earth,rumor has it that there were a few more before illyushin,but i dont know.
LOL Copyright infringement is nothing more than big companies to pick on the little guy. Who ever has the most money wins these battles. But it is okay for the big company to steal from the little guy. People need to wake up to this!
Question. How the hell the Russians get the lunar cabins on the orbit so secretively? Main Baikonour kosmodrome was kinda public place these times (foreign astronauts, NASA sharing, etc), so... it is remotely possible that they used the N1 rockets they claim now failed miserably all the there times? It is outside of the realm of possibility to think that the N1 rocket worked, yet the radiation was the final barrier they cannot breach and hence they shut the lunar program down?
so they expect the people building the rockets and the woman sewing the suits the canteen staff etc etc to have been in on the secret only a handfull including the astronots know the truth even ground control only did what they had been doing on hundreds of sims ugean krantz himself said we could'nt tell the real thing from a sim.
Well, Russians could reach the Moon. The question is - will be the astronaut served with fries of bacon? :))) Certainly it will be kinda too much eradieted to be safe for eating, I quess. But I willing to let the Apollo propagandists do the Moon shoot using Russian technology. We never see them again alive, witch is somewhat sad, because they are hillarious to begin with.
Boulderdash and piffle: The American and the Soviet public were unaware of the N1 programme but the CIA and the US intelligence community sure as hell weren't unaware.
The first N1 pad was completed in 1967. An N1 mock-up was rolled out on 25th November 1967. On 11th December the mock-up was photographed by an American Corona surveillance satellite. The N1's shadow was observed to be a quarter of a mile long - some secret programme!
I know that the fact that the Russians didn't have an operational booster to get their landers to the Moon was the driving factor in abandoning the Moon effort. Their big booster failed every time it flew. That and the fact that we did make the landing.
When have the Russians claimed the radiation was to much a hazard to overcome? When have they called Apollo a hoax? Name a Russian scientist or cosmonaut makeing this claim.
NASA doesn't debate the HBs, it's not worth the effort.
Lovell visited in the Summer of '63. They spoke THEN of protecting their cosmonauts from solar radiation. What were the other two insuperable difficulties? And what further knowledge did they learn in the ensuing years?
If the radiation was indeed "insuperable", why were they designing an N-1 based Moon landing program in the later 1960s?
And why have they not cried "hoax", or even hinted at it?
BTW, the R7 and modern Soyuz models are not comparable in capability.
"What were the other two insuperable difficulties?"
'First, the Russians could see no immediate way of protecting cosmonauts from the lethal effects of solar radiation. Second, no "economically practical" method could be found of putting enough material on the moon for useful manned work there, with the guarantee of a safe return. Third, the Academy was convinced that the scientific problems answerable by lunar exploration could be solved more cheaply and quickly by unmanned probes.'
"And what further knowledge did they learn in the ensuing years?"
In 1983, E.E. Kovalev submitted an article about the difficulties of shielding manned spacecraft. Said that the Van Allen belts was 312.5-11,666rem/hr. I show this article in Part 2.
"why were they designing an N-1 based Moon landing program in the later 1960s?"
Probably to fake their own moon flight, they were in a propaganda war.
Also, "32 tons into lunar orbit" (as you narrated) is not the same as "32 tons to lunar transfer" (as the picture showed).
Tranfer is getting the payload on it's way to the Moon, it does not include mid course corrections nor the braking energy necessary to attain lunar orbit.
"Tranfer is getting the payload on it's way to the Moon, it does not include mid course corrections nor the braking energy necessary to attain lunar orbit."
If the vehicle is capable of sending 32tons towards the moon, one would think that among those 32tons are the rockets and fuel required to attain orbit and perform the various mid course corrections.
"Is there any indication that the Kliper will have lead shielding or meters of water to protect against cosmic, solar, or Van Allen belt radiation?"
They have an interactive cutaway model of the Kliper on the Russian spaceweb. The hull only looks about a few inches or so thick. And besides, the required mass is 500tons. The Soyuz launcher can only lift about 7tons. Even the Proton rocket can only lift 24tons.
Please define "unshielded". A cm of aluminum, or it's equivilant, is quite effective in attenuating particle radiation.
Might I suggest a space systems design textbook? Space Mission Analysis and Design (3rd ed) is my source, I'm certain there are others.
Space radiation is an understood challenge, and protection, for both human organisms and circuitry is a priority. The fact we have satellites and people being protected in the environment proves it's not "insuperable".
"A cm of aluminum, or it's equivilant, is quite effective in attenuating particle radiation."
Aluminum is a poor choice of material to shield from radiation, because it increases the risk of particle fragmentation.
Before they switched to polyethylene, the ISS used aluminum as their radiation shield. It increased the daily dose from 0.027rem/day to 0.1rem/day. This is about 3.7 times the normal daily dose rate. Now suppose it was used in regions with a minimum dose rates of 312.5rem/hr.
The ISS did not "switch" to poly , they used it to augment the aluminum. Aluminum is routinely used to protect the electronics unmanned satellites.
The secondary radiation is a factor of the shielding's thickness. This has been explained to you elsewhere. Aluminum is far from a "poor choice", it's a mainstay in the world's satellite fleet.
Dosage rates vary greatly in the belts, from zero to lethal...the 312 rem/hr is not necessarily accurate, and, again, is "unshielded".
"How will Kliper get through the VABelts and the storm of deadly solar radiation, with TOURISTS aboard, "unshielded"?"
The tourists offer sounds like another gimmick to me, like the claims from the late 60s that the shuttle would be used to replace international air travel.
You're an idiot michaelstmark. Have you ever heard of a budget? NASA might want to go to mars, but they didn't get the funds that they got in the 60s. At that time, the Budget was 5% of the national budget, now it is about .6%... a huge drop.
God, the level of TARD on the internet these days is astounding.
Why has not one scientific expert ever backed your claims, hoaxtard? Since you have no backing everythin you say is just YOUR OPINION. We went to the moon, it wasn't easy and we overcame alot, but everything is accepted by the scientific community. Why can't you wrap your peabrain around those facts?
Thats right, deflect back to the moon when you lose out on your Mars SF.
All the "scientific experts" and pundits in the 90s were not only backing an imminent new Ice Age, but men to Mars by 2010 irrespective of budgets.
You're the peabrain for having blind faith in scientists. Half the time they're actually quite dull jobsworths of average IQ, with no minds of their own & merely adept in towing official lines for sake of their own personal career prospects.
The vehicle may weigh 32 tons on gaining it's trans lunar trajectory, but it will weigh significanty less on attaining lunar orbit. Just as with the airlines, every pound of fuel required is a pound of payload you cannot take to your destination.
Grissom did hang a lemon on something, but it wasn't his CM...do you know what it was, and why he did it?
What is a solar storm ray? Perhaps you are speaking of particles? Can you (or Jarrah) explain the flux necessary to be hazardous? There is a discussion ongoing elsewhere, and it seems Jarrah is missing some important knowledge.
The rockets they built were real, and they flew, the spacecraft were fully functional...that's where the money went. The spy guys had their own budget.
How much is "10yrs of wheat"? I know we sold them some in the "detente" era, well after Apollo, but I doubt it was 10 years worth, and I don't see it as adequate "payoff" for keeping silent on some hoax.
Besides, why hoax something that can actually be done, with real people and real hardware?
Russians ever going to check out the moon ? Their landers crashed like comet into surface. Yet Buzz overshot landing with only 15 seconds of fuel left and makes perfect landing ?
Perhaps if you were Russian you would see the incentives to stay quite.
Your arguments lack coherence. Do you have any evidence pointing towards the grain payoff or the deadly radiation? Jarrah doesn't understand radiation in it's many forms, and takes an early Van Allen statement completely out of context.
Dr Van Allen himself said men went to the Moon, and that the radiation was not an insurmountable problem. Why doesn't Jarrah mention this? None of his experts express doubts about Apollo, and Jarrah NEVER asks them.
Dems had photos in Watergate DNC headquarters of Dealy Plaza Tramps, George Bush, James Brady, Hunt, Sturgis, and Nixon. The Nixon plumbers were getting their GOP party blackmailed by Dems, they came for their own photos ! Why release photo to press, when you can blackmail Nixon regime over and over ?
ONE SINGLE 10GeV particle is safe... Probably... But when you are bombarded constantly by a steady stream of millions of these 10GeV particles ever single second in each cubic inch of your surface skin area, the accumulated dosage is very deadly!
That is the point of radiation dosage, it is accumulation over time. And the belts are a massive pool of these high electron voltage particles that would penetrate a thin aluminum hull with impunity. Therefore, Zakabog, your argument falls apart.
Jarrah argues that since 5cm water shielding is proposed for LONG TERM missions such as interstellar or 2-4 year Mars shots, it would also be necessary for 2 week trips to the moon, which is a false claim and should be withdrawn. The energy of a particle isn't the only factor that determines absorbed dose, there's also the Q factor, the number of particles per cm^3, and the time of exposure.
"ONE SINGLE 10GeV particle is safe... Probably... But when you are bombarded constantly by a steady stream of millions of these 10GeV particles ever single second in each cubic inch of your surface skin area, the accumulated dosage is very deadly!"
That doesn't even make the slightest bit of sense. eV are a measurement of energy, not radiation. It has nothing to do with how radioactive the particle is. 1,000,000,000 10GeV particles hitting you can be perfectly safe.
That's not even relevant, I was trying to explain it as simply as I could to him. The point is that a particle can have an incredibly high eV level without doing any damage to a person, whether your bombarded by one particle or a billion. The 10GeV figure is irrelevant unless you know what kind of particles you're talking about.
No, particle radiation in space is dangerous. It includes strongly interactive ionizing particles. You can't go to space and have only receive weakly interactive non-ionizing radiation! Therefore you need shielding.
The higher energy a particle has, the deeper it can penetrate and the more atoms it can ionize. Thus a 10GeV particle is more dangerous than 1GeV one, which again is more dangerous than a 100keV one. So there is a valid point mentioning the particle's energy.
"The higher energy a particle has, the deeper it can penetrate and the more atoms it can ionize. Thus a 10GeV particle is more dangerous than 1GeV one, which again is more dangerous than a 100keV one. So there is a valid point mentioning the particle's energy."
Yes but the energy a particle has by itself is useless in determining how deadly it is, that was my point. There are more factors to consider.
Definately not safe! Most Apollo manned landing defenders and NASA scientists admit that solar flares can fry people that are on the Moon at the same time. But in the next breath they dismiss those major flares being harmles, that occured during Apollo flights. And why were they harmless flares? Because astronauts came back alive and didn't get high doses. Isn't this incredible?
Aurin, if the space environment is so deadly, why has no scientist, anywhere, anytime, come forward calling Apollo faked and "impossible" due to radiation? Perhaps they understand something about the space radiation environment that hoax proponents don't?
Radiation is complex, like so much about spaceflight. And Jarrah's videos show that he doesn't understand much of anything about Apollo or space science.
Where are the Cosmonauts when the debunkers need one?
Not one steps up and pats our astronauts on the back for beating them to moon? Not just beating them, but rubbing it in their face that they never been every chance we Americans get.
Why so tight lipped ? Why don't Russians & Euro's support NASA when skeptics say moon walk is fake ?
Politics or healthy skepticism holding them back ?
zakabog, you are definitely reaching for something that isnt there. Is there not anything better for you to do, other than try to slander, slur, misquote, or try to launch silly personal assaults against other commentators?
I guess not... That is why I have always said, you are a very poor propagandist indeed!
In other words, get a real life, and stop trying to attack messengers, rather than concentrate on the messages. People are getting tired of your endless twisted games.
"In other words, get a real life, and stop trying to attack messengers, rather than concentrate on the messages."
Fine, I'll attack the message.
There are particles that are not deadly with energies far greater than 1GeV (look at the "oh my god" particle.) 10GeV is meaningless unless you know what kind of particles you're talking about.
"Oh my God" particle was probably a proton, and similar protons have been observed afterwards. Protons however are strongly interactive particles, and thus very much so dangerous.
Now, if you have a weakly interactive particle, that would most probably be harmless to you, as it has a low chance of interaction.
The existence of weakly interactive particles doesn't by any means undo the danger of high energy particles! So, where's the point of your statement?
"And as I told you in all those threads, his shield is to block GeV particles. The cislunar radiation is as high as 10GeV, both Van Allen and Mauldin agree a brief exposure to that kind of radiation is lethal."
I was replying to that, the 10GeV figures are meaningless because it's a measure of energy not radiation (which Jarrah didn't seem to understand at first.)
I was replying this statement of yours: "there are particles that are not deadly with energies far greater than 1GeV (look at the "oh my god" particle.) 10GeV is meaningless unless you know what kind of particles you're talking about."
So what has the existence of weakly interactive particles to do with the issue? Their existence doesn't undo the effect of strongly interactive ionizing radiation danger. So, I fail to see the point of your statement.
"Their existence doesn't undo the effect of strongly interactive ionizing radiation danger. So, I fail to see the point of your statement."
The point of my statement is that saying 1GeV is deadly is wrong. Plus 10GeV is even more meaningless. Jarrah was trying to say that since there exists particles with energies up to 10GeV they couldn't have made it to the moon, that's completely meaningless since there are perfectly safe 10GeV particles.
And Jarrah is not confused on this issue, but it is your vain attempts to cloud this issue. Cosmic rays and UNPREDICTABLE SPEs generate multi-GeV powered rays that easily penetrate a thin aluminum hull. It is the accumulative effect of this absorption by the body that is the danger factor here.
It is also amazing how the propagandists are not directly challenging the 11700rem/hour levels in the VA barrier, as shown in the 1983 report by the Nuclear Whistleblower..Trying to avoid that issue?
Therefore I still stand behind my comments about the lunacy of exposing these fools to 11700 rem/hour radiation levels.
Though some think the following statement is laughable, it was and is still meant to poke fun at the Propagandists arguments, and to make people THINK about the real dangers of the VA barrier and how NASA was indeed putting their men at great suicidal risk:
How do you like your Astro-NOTs? Deep fried? Or Extra Crispy?
Based on projections of interplanetary radiation, exposure for theoretical Mars travelers would be about 1.32 mili-Sieverts (mSv) per day, meaning an 11 day Apollo mission would have netted the astronauts a total of about 15mSv worth of radiation. This is roughly equivalent to a head or chest CT Scan.
NASA's career radiation guideline for astronauts is forced retirement after exposure to 1000mSv of radiation. US DOE Sec. 835.202 specifies a limit of 50 mSv per year for workers.
Who's projections? NASA's? These levels are not in line with those shown in the 1983 report by the Nuclear Whistleblower, or by his sources out of the Soviet Union. I therefore do not have faith in the levels that NASA says are present.
Think about it.. If NASA faked Apollo, they would definitely put false figures in these reports....
Can you provide more accurate figures then? Which "Nuclear Whistleblower" are you talking about? Can you provide soviet reports (or Chinese or European for that matter) which validate higher interplanetary radiation levels?
Any Astro-Nots would have been exposed to a mixture of all types of radiation particles captured within the belts of the VA barrier. The point has always been that the lack of proper shielding would especially have expose them to the debilitating effect of high energy X-rays, Cosmic Rays, UV, and higher energy solar particles.
The accumulative dosage (11700rem/hour) over time should have had them dead within the hour time frame of their supposed traverse.
Based on projections of interplanetary radiation, exposure for theoretical Mars travelers would be about 1.32 mili-Sieverts (mSv) per day, meaning an 11 day Apollo mission would have netted the astronauts a total of about 15mSv worth of radiation. This is roughly equivalent to a head or chest CT Scan.
NASA's career radiation guideline for astronauts is forced retirement after exposure to 1000mSv of radiation. US DOE Sec. 835.202 specifies a limit of 50 mSv per year for workers.
Jarrah, you were close. They are not misquoting, but arguing about the semantics, which to me is absolutely silly, and a waste of time.
Further to the rem measurement. Most Scientific journals list the Rem value as the amount of particles absorbed within a set space over a period of time. It is difficult to equate this directly to power as each particle has its own electron volt energy level.. Alpha particles of much lower energy, while Cosmic rays have values within the GeV energy range.
Electron volts are indeed tied to the radiation! It is still a measurement of the power of the particles themselves... The raiation dosage level is the accumulative power of these particles over time in a particular space (usually 1cm^3)...
Therefore, Jarrah is right... And the 10GeV level is the typical power level range of cosmic rays, and x-rays.
The electron volt still deals with the power level, so why are you arguing semantics? Is this a vain attempt to deflect the issues again?
"Jarrah is right... And the 10GeV level is the typical power level range of cosmic rays"
I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that you don't need 5cm water shielding for a trip to the moon which lasts <2 weeks. This is proposed for long term missions (2-4 years) to Mars, when exposure to GCRs could increase cancer risk within 10 years from returning back to Earth.
Jarrah's confusion arises when he tries to equate the similar energy level of GCRs with solar flares. You seem to understand that the radiation dose is also dependent on the number of these energetic particles per cm^3. For a very large flare, this would be far greater than for GCRs, even though the energy level of individual particles might be of the same order. He might believe it if you explain it to him.
"Jarrah's confusion arises when he tries to equate the similar energy level of INDIVIDUAL GCR PARTICLES and INDIVIDUAL solar flare PARTICLES, TO MEAN THAT GCR FLUX AND VERY LARGE SOLAR FLARES YIELD THE SAME AMOUNT OF ABSORBED RADIATION DOSE RECEIVED BY AN ASTRONAUT"
The concern with the VA barrier is still the high level of radiation (11700 rem/hour) that the Astro-NOTs would have absorbed in their traverse for several hours to and from the moon. NASA should have their heads examined for even thinking about sending these fools out in thin skinned unshielded aluminum craft!
"NASA should have their heads examined for even thinking about sending these fools out in thin skinned unshielded aluminum craft!"
What about the rest of the world and scientific community that thought the event happened? Should everyone except you have their head examined? Or is it in any way possible that the worldwide scientific community disagrees with your views because you're actually wrong?
Remember...HEAT itself is a form of kinetic energy. For HLAR to talk about the difference between an iceberg (frozen, or non-molecular motion H20), and boiling water (kinetic energy charged H20 from molecular friction) is to muddle the comments. An iceberg would melt over TIME if exposed to multi-Terra level electron volt power....
"Remember...HEAT itself is a form of kinetic energy. For HLAR to talk about the difference between an iceberg (frozen, or non-molecular motion H20), and boiling water (kinetic energy charged H20 from molecular friction) is to muddle the comments."
What?
He was trying to point out the counter intuitive fact that an iceberg has more heat energy than a cup of boiling water even though you would consider it colder.
"That should clear up the confusion between an electron volt, and a volt... "
Who mentioned volts? Jarrah brought up the electron volt measurements of radiation, I mentioned that electron volts measure energy. You're the only person to bring up volts.
The actual factors that we should be concerned about is the REM/RAD/Roentgen levels of radiation absorbed by the Astro-NOTs... This scale is measured in micro-coulombs, and for layman terms is the amount of radiation absorbed in one cubic centimeter of space.
Actually a volt IS the kinetic energy gained as an electron passes through the potential difference of one volt!
It is an energy POWER measurement. Unlike a volt which is Potential only!
Therefore, Jarrah is right that it is an energy level measurement!
Its energy level is very tiny... about 1.6 x 10^-19 exponential joules. But when you get up to, and beyond the Gigavolt range, the power becomes very noticable indeed!
"Therefore, Jarrah is right that it is an energy level measurement!"
He only said that after I pointed that out, and he still seems to think electron volts are tied to radiation. It's just an energy measurement, it isn't related to radiation.
Yeah I heard they SAID they didn't want to go to the Moon, because of this problem.
However, they were preparing for it. SO that kind of a leaves hanging the question, if the radiation problem was just a cover, or was it the real reason why they didn't engage the mission?
The USSR may have kept their moon-landing efforts secret, but they didn't falsify those efforts. Secret yes, fraudulent no.
They continued with their secret efforts in the hope of finding a fix to the radiation problem, when they couldn't find one they eventually abandoned their manned moon-mission effort. Meanwhile, they concentrated on the genuine and brilliantly successful unmanned Lunokhods 1&2.
As Apollo was a Fraud, the USSR won the Space Race technically and scientifically.
As was pointed out to you on other threads, Eugene Parker does NOT propose 5m water shielding for a short trip to the moon. That was to protect against cosmic rays on a round trip to Mars of 2 years or more.
Interested parties can read the article online here.
preview tinyurl com/6a7qwp
And another article about radiation shielding by the same author.
preview tinyurl com/655vha
Repeating claims you KNOW to be false does not help your credibilty.
"As was pointed out to you on other threads, Eugene Parker does NOT propose 5m water shielding for a short trip to the moon."
And as I told you in all those threads, his shield is to block GeV particles. The cislunar radiation is as high as 10GeV, both Van Allen and Mauldin agree a brief exposure to that kind of radiation is lethal.
Until you understand the difference between the energy of a particle, and levels of radiation, you'll keep on struggling to understand why your argument is incorrect.
Question 1: which contains more heat energy, an iceberg or a cup of boiling water?
Question 2: which is hotter, an ieberg or a cup of boiling water?
If you can accept the correct answer to THOSE questions, you should be capable of figuring out the difference between the energy of a particle, and the dose equivalent.
"Any space traveler far removed from the protective magnetic field that enshrouds Earth is subject to acontinuing low dose of galactic cosmic radiation. The best available estimates predict that exposure to such radiation for as little as a year may be sufficient to increase the incidence of cancer a decade or two later. That is bad news for a potential Mars explorer, who would be vulnerable to the harsh realities of space for 2--4 years"
Said they do: Van Allen explicitly stated that even a brief passage through the Van Belts (which have energies at 100MeV) would be lethal, and Mauldin clearly states that GeV protons can penetrate meters of material and cause death within hours.
Re Mauldin: not referring to GCRs he didn't! Very powerful solar flares maybe, but NOT GCRs.
Eugene Parker states EXPLICITLY that GCRs aren't an issue with short duration missions (week - month), but will increase cancer risk in a 2-4 year mission. Your confusion over units cannot obfuscate that.
Have you even read Mauldin's book? He states that cosmic rays in are in the same energy range as GeV solar flare protons and thus they also require meters of shielding to be blocked.
That shielding was required for very long term INSTERSTELLAR TRAVEL! GCRs need to be completely eliminated in that particular situation because they increase cancer risk and damage retinas etc when the exposure level is measured in years or decades, NOT days or weeks.
They energy level of GCRs means they can penetrate quite a bit of material, hence the requirement for LONG TERM missions. Short term, the minimal increased cancer risk is deemed acceptable.
In other words, some cosmic rays may have the same ENERGY as particles emitted in solar flares, (i.e. each individual particle has the same energy), but in a life-threatening solar flare there are FAR more particles per cubic centimetre compared to GCRs, hence the ABSORBED DOSE is much greater over a short period of time.
The Soviets never lost the space race to the moon, because the US has yet to get there themselves!
The Russians were way ahead of the US in rocket technology even beyond the time of Apollo. The American administration needed the lie of Apollo just to create the illusion of winning the cold war due to superior technology.
The Saturn V used five F1 engines to produce 7.65 million lb thrust- 1530k per engine. The Soviet N-1 used 30 NK33 engines to produce 10 million lb thrust- 333k per engine.
This means that the combustion pressures on the metal wall of the F1 engine was 4.6 times greater than the NK33. And this means that the F1 had metal 4.6 times stronger than what the Soviet metallurgists could produce for their NK33 combustion chambers.
Max Faget hehe
daylightdisk 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Jarrah White have you ever seen this?
>>> watch?v=m2K6HHUbUe0
This is a stellar documentary.
Ammo for your arguments when debating with the NASA Nazi stooges about the quality of images being sold to the public.
Compare this 1960s technology to the LRO fiasco low res pixel bullshit we must accept today from NASA, as proof of their claims?
enjoy
The same technology used in the 1960s was so good, they use essentially the same technology today.
We have astroNOTs, cosmoNOTs, and the astroSPIES.
islandbuoy4 1 week ago
Comment removed
islandbuoy4 1 week ago
Just because the USSR kept their space race secrets for many decades does not prove that man didn't land on the moon,the USSR kept tight border controls,their testing took place in barren territory,plus,the government had full control of the press,only letting people know what they wanted them to know,if their public knew about the failures then so would the rest of the world,its only since the collapse of the soviet union that some these tales have come to light.
arobekie 4 months ago
On Yuri Gagarin,USA has a too big ego and cannot accept that it's a soviet and not an american who was the first in space. Get over it! Gagarin was the first PERIOD!
LeGermQC 4 months ago
@LeGermQC Gagarin was only the first succesfull cosmonaut,a cosmonaut named sergei illyushin was the first in space but ended up in a coma on his return to earth,rumor has it that there were a few more before illyushin,but i dont know.
arobekie 4 months ago
LOL Copyright infringement is nothing more than big companies to pick on the little guy. Who ever has the most money wins these battles. But it is okay for the big company to steal from the little guy. People need to wake up to this!
dragnet53 1 year ago
Question. How the hell the Russians get the lunar cabins on the orbit so secretively? Main Baikonour kosmodrome was kinda public place these times (foreign astronauts, NASA sharing, etc), so... it is remotely possible that they used the N1 rockets they claim now failed miserably all the there times? It is outside of the realm of possibility to think that the N1 rocket worked, yet the radiation was the final barrier they cannot breach and hence they shut the lunar program down?
trodas 2 years ago
so they expect the people building the rockets and the woman sewing the suits the canteen staff etc etc to have been in on the secret only a handfull including the astronots know the truth even ground control only did what they had been doing on hundreds of sims ugean krantz himself said we could'nt tell the real thing from a sim.
bigfist255 2 years ago
Fuck this video and fuck the people who made it.
TheJomogogo 2 years ago
yeah, that's right... fuck anyone who says something you disagree with. fuck free speech. fuck democracy.
shanehoustein 2 years ago 2
NO!
URProductions 2 years ago
YES
URProductions 2 years ago
Well, Russians could reach the Moon. The question is - will be the astronaut served with fries of bacon? :))) Certainly it will be kinda too much eradieted to be safe for eating, I quess. But I willing to let the Apollo propagandists do the Moon shoot using Russian technology. We never see them again alive, witch is somewhat sad, because they are hillarious to begin with.
trodas 2 years ago
Boulderdash and piffle: The American and the Soviet public were unaware of the N1 programme but the CIA and the US intelligence community sure as hell weren't unaware.
The first N1 pad was completed in 1967. An N1 mock-up was rolled out on 25th November 1967. On 11th December the mock-up was photographed by an American Corona surveillance satellite. The N1's shadow was observed to be a quarter of a mile long - some secret programme!
CharmingLordSausage 2 years ago
Why did the CIA blab that all over the world?
WhiteJarrah 2 years ago
I know that the fact that the Russians didn't have an operational booster to get their landers to the Moon was the driving factor in abandoning the Moon effort. Their big booster failed every time it flew. That and the fact that we did make the landing.
When have the Russians claimed the radiation was to much a hazard to overcome? When have they called Apollo a hoax? Name a Russian scientist or cosmonaut makeing this claim.
NASA doesn't debate the HBs, it's not worth the effort.
sc0qter 2 years ago
"When have the Russians claimed the radiation was to much a hazard to overcome?"
Did you not see Part 2 of "MoonFaker: Why Not Go Back?"?
WhiteJarrah 2 years ago
I did watch part 2.
Lovell visited in the Summer of '63. They spoke THEN of protecting their cosmonauts from solar radiation. What were the other two insuperable difficulties? And what further knowledge did they learn in the ensuing years?
If the radiation was indeed "insuperable", why were they designing an N-1 based Moon landing program in the later 1960s?
And why have they not cried "hoax", or even hinted at it?
BTW, the R7 and modern Soyuz models are not comparable in capability.
sc0qter 2 years ago
"What were the other two insuperable difficulties?"
'First, the Russians could see no immediate way of protecting cosmonauts from the lethal effects of solar radiation. Second, no "economically practical" method could be found of putting enough material on the moon for useful manned work there, with the guarantee of a safe return. Third, the Academy was convinced that the scientific problems answerable by lunar exploration could be solved more cheaply and quickly by unmanned probes.'
WhiteJarrah 2 years ago
"And what further knowledge did they learn in the ensuing years?"
In 1983, E.E. Kovalev submitted an article about the difficulties of shielding manned spacecraft. Said that the Van Allen belts was 312.5-11,666rem/hr. I show this article in Part 2.
"why were they designing an N-1 based Moon landing program in the later 1960s?"
Probably to fake their own moon flight, they were in a propaganda war.
WhiteJarrah 2 years ago
"And why have they not cried "hoax", or even hinted at it?"
If you want to see just how quick the would have blown the whistle, I offer this video: watch?v=ma4-pqng8ZM
"the R7 and modern Soyuz models are not comparable in capability."
The Soyuz launcher is derived from R7 technology.
WhiteJarrah 2 years ago
Also, "32 tons into lunar orbit" (as you narrated) is not the same as "32 tons to lunar transfer" (as the picture showed).
Tranfer is getting the payload on it's way to the Moon, it does not include mid course corrections nor the braking energy necessary to attain lunar orbit.
They are very different values.
sc0qter 2 years ago
"Tranfer is getting the payload on it's way to the Moon, it does not include mid course corrections nor the braking energy necessary to attain lunar orbit."
If the vehicle is capable of sending 32tons towards the moon, one would think that among those 32tons are the rockets and fuel required to attain orbit and perform the various mid course corrections.
WhiteJarrah 2 years ago
Is there any indication that the Kliper will have lead shielding or meters of water to protect against cosmic, solar, or Van Allen belt radiation?
The Atlas V is derived from Atlas ICBM technology, and the latter version is vastly superior in capability.
Koralev's figures are raw, unshielded numbers. what would a cm or two Al equivilant shielding do to those values?
The Earth ranges from -100F to 140F, yet is livible even in it's harshest regions. Shielding against the conditions.
sc0qter 2 years ago
"Is there any indication that the Kliper will have lead shielding or meters of water to protect against cosmic, solar, or Van Allen belt radiation?"
They have an interactive cutaway model of the Kliper on the Russian spaceweb. The hull only looks about a few inches or so thick. And besides, the required mass is 500tons. The Soyuz launcher can only lift about 7tons. Even the Proton rocket can only lift 24tons.
"Koralev's figures are raw, unshielded numbers."
And Apollo was unshielded.
WhiteJarrah 2 years ago
Please define "unshielded". A cm of aluminum, or it's equivilant, is quite effective in attenuating particle radiation.
Might I suggest a space systems design textbook? Space Mission Analysis and Design (3rd ed) is my source, I'm certain there are others.
Space radiation is an understood challenge, and protection, for both human organisms and circuitry is a priority. The fact we have satellites and people being protected in the environment proves it's not "insuperable".
sc0qter 2 years ago 2
"A cm of aluminum, or it's equivilant, is quite effective in attenuating particle radiation."
Aluminum is a poor choice of material to shield from radiation, because it increases the risk of particle fragmentation.
Before they switched to polyethylene, the ISS used aluminum as their radiation shield. It increased the daily dose from 0.027rem/day to 0.1rem/day. This is about 3.7 times the normal daily dose rate. Now suppose it was used in regions with a minimum dose rates of 312.5rem/hr.
WhiteJarrah 2 years ago
The ISS did not "switch" to poly , they used it to augment the aluminum. Aluminum is routinely used to protect the electronics unmanned satellites.
The secondary radiation is a factor of the shielding's thickness. This has been explained to you elsewhere. Aluminum is far from a "poor choice", it's a mainstay in the world's satellite fleet.
Dosage rates vary greatly in the belts, from zero to lethal...the 312 rem/hr is not necessarily accurate, and, again, is "unshielded".
sc0qter 2 years ago 2
How will Kliper get through the VABelts and the storm of deadly solar radiation, with TOURISTS aboard, "unshielded"? Or is this yet another hoax?
sc0qter 2 years ago
"How will Kliper get through the VABelts and the storm of deadly solar radiation, with TOURISTS aboard, "unshielded"?"
The tourists offer sounds like another gimmick to me, like the claims from the late 60s that the shuttle would be used to replace international air travel.
WhiteJarrah 2 years ago
... or NASA's "realistic expectations" in the 1980s to have manned missions to Mars before 2010.
LOL
But hey, impossible pipedreams backed by phony propaganda sure gets the old funding rollin' in!
michaelstmark 2 years ago
"... or NASA's "realistic expectations" in the 1980s to have manned missions to Mars before 2010.
LOL"
Quite. In 1969 they were talking about getting men to Mars by 1982. Come 1982 the Mars date was moved to 2010, now they're talking 2030 or so.
WhiteJarrah 2 years ago
You're an idiot michaelstmark. Have you ever heard of a budget? NASA might want to go to mars, but they didn't get the funds that they got in the 60s. At that time, the Budget was 5% of the national budget, now it is about .6%... a huge drop.
God, the level of TARD on the internet these days is astounding.
jpommers87 2 years ago 2
Well I'll just comment-mark that in the spirit in which it was written, jpommers.
Ahem.
Go play with yourself, troll.
michaelstmark 2 years ago
I think your tinfoil hat is on a little tight.
jpommers87 2 years ago
...says the naive geek who thinks budget is the only obstacle to putting a men on Mars and returning them to earth.
Short of a startling new nuclear propulsion system breakthrough you're living proof of science fiction psychosis.
Beam us up "jpommers" the super Treckie !
L O L
michaelstmark 2 years ago
Why has not one scientific expert ever backed your claims, hoaxtard? Since you have no backing everythin you say is just YOUR OPINION. We went to the moon, it wasn't easy and we overcame alot, but everything is accepted by the scientific community. Why can't you wrap your peabrain around those facts?
jpommers87 2 years ago
Thats right, deflect back to the moon when you lose out on your Mars SF.
All the "scientific experts" and pundits in the 90s were not only backing an imminent new Ice Age, but men to Mars by 2010 irrespective of budgets.
You're the peabrain for having blind faith in scientists. Half the time they're actually quite dull jobsworths of average IQ, with no minds of their own & merely adept in towing official lines for sake of their own personal career prospects.
What a poor naive sucker you are.
michaelstmark 2 years ago
Apollo was NOT unshielded.
Fatal radiation dose in space = 300 rem or more.
The Aluminium hull of the Apollo CM (7 to 8 g/cm2.)would cut an astronauts radiation dose from a solar flare from 400 rem to less than 35 rem.
Radiation dose from 7.2kph VA belt transit = 2 rem - within acceptable tolerance.
CharmingLordSausage 2 years ago
The vehicle may weigh 32 tons on gaining it's trans lunar trajectory, but it will weigh significanty less on attaining lunar orbit. Just as with the airlines, every pound of fuel required is a pound of payload you cannot take to your destination.
sc0qter 2 years ago 2
Gus Grisom hung a LEMON on the capsule he burned up in , thanks to Nazi Von Braun crossing the wires suspects his widow.
How do you keep a secret bewtween 3 people ?
Kill 2 of them. Everyone else will get the message.
euro944t 2 years ago
Grissom did hang a lemon on something, but it wasn't his CM...do you know what it was, and why he did it?
What is a solar storm ray? Perhaps you are speaking of particles? Can you (or Jarrah) explain the flux necessary to be hazardous? There is a discussion ongoing elsewhere, and it seems Jarrah is missing some important knowledge.
The rockets they built were real, and they flew, the spacecraft were fully functional...that's where the money went. The spy guys had their own budget.
sc0qter 2 years ago
hanging a lemon on the Apollo simulators has been widely interpretted as Gus Grisom's disatisfaction with the entire Apollo program.
euro944t 2 years ago
Russian received 10yrs of wheat below cost during cold war. Can you explain why ?
euro944t 2 years ago
How much is "10yrs of wheat"? I know we sold them some in the "detente" era, well after Apollo, but I doubt it was 10 years worth, and I don't see it as adequate "payoff" for keeping silent on some hoax.
Besides, why hoax something that can actually be done, with real people and real hardware?
sc0qter 2 years ago
Russians ever going to check out the moon ? Their landers crashed like comet into surface. Yet Buzz overshot landing with only 15 seconds of fuel left and makes perfect landing ?
Perhaps if you were Russian you would see the incentives to stay quite.
euro944t 2 years ago
NASA would like pilots to return alive, so they hoaxed it and pocket the tax funding and rest went to black budget.
Is that coherent ?
euro944t 2 years ago
Penn-Teller are both Zionist Jews.........who knew ?
B.S. Masters of deception is how those illussionists make a well paid living on Showtime, which is owned by guess who ?
euro944t 3 years ago
Your arguments lack coherence. Do you have any evidence pointing towards the grain payoff or the deadly radiation? Jarrah doesn't understand radiation in it's many forms, and takes an early Van Allen statement completely out of context.
Dr Van Allen himself said men went to the Moon, and that the radiation was not an insurmountable problem. Why doesn't Jarrah mention this? None of his experts express doubts about Apollo, and Jarrah NEVER asks them.
sc0qter 2 years ago
When NASA going back to moon ?
euro944t 2 years ago
When they are really given a mandate to do that. That means serious public support and lots of funding.
sc0qter 2 years ago
I don't remember public support needed and mandates for Russians to steal nuke plans from Manhatten Project and build atomic weapons.
euro944t 2 years ago
The Russia payoff was 10yrs of grain below cost which they stored below ground.
euro944t 3 years ago
Dems had photos in Watergate DNC headquarters of Dealy Plaza Tramps, George Bush, James Brady, Hunt, Sturgis, and Nixon. The Nixon plumbers were getting their GOP party blackmailed by Dems, they came for their own photos ! Why release photo to press, when you can blackmail Nixon regime over and over ?
euro944t 3 years ago
NASA delay 2020 moon walk, due to strong Sun Flares of deadly radiation. Yet Apollo was flown during the most deadly of these.
NASA now admits this is deadly concern enough to delay mission in 2020.
euro944t 3 years ago
Something that everybody ought to keep in mind is that our friend HeadLikeARock also says that the Chinese space walk was real.
s1 (dot) zetaboards (dot) com/LooseChangeForums/topic/51 606/26/
/watch?v=NVbBFwdmldA
"Proof China Faked Their Spacewalk"
He's just a NASA shill who knows that Apollo was faked as well as the rest of us do.
Cosmored 3 years ago
ONE SINGLE 10GeV particle is safe... Probably... But when you are bombarded constantly by a steady stream of millions of these 10GeV particles ever single second in each cubic inch of your surface skin area, the accumulated dosage is very deadly!
That is the point of radiation dosage, it is accumulation over time. And the belts are a massive pool of these high electron voltage particles that would penetrate a thin aluminum hull with impunity. Therefore, Zakabog, your argument falls apart.
northerntruthseeker 3 years ago
Jarrah argues that since 5cm water shielding is proposed for LONG TERM missions such as interstellar or 2-4 year Mars shots, it would also be necessary for 2 week trips to the moon, which is a false claim and should be withdrawn. The energy of a particle isn't the only factor that determines absorbed dose, there's also the Q factor, the number of particles per cm^3, and the time of exposure.
HeadLikeARock 3 years ago
"ONE SINGLE 10GeV particle is safe... Probably... But when you are bombarded constantly by a steady stream of millions of these 10GeV particles ever single second in each cubic inch of your surface skin area, the accumulated dosage is very deadly!"
That doesn't even make the slightest bit of sense. eV are a measurement of energy, not radiation. It has nothing to do with how radioactive the particle is. 1,000,000,000 10GeV particles hitting you can be perfectly safe.
zakabog 3 years ago
zakabog said: "It has nothing to do with how radioactive the particle is."
Particles aren't radioactive.
Aurinkohirvi 3 years ago
"Particles aren't radioactive."
That's not even relevant, I was trying to explain it as simply as I could to him. The point is that a particle can have an incredibly high eV level without doing any damage to a person, whether your bombarded by one particle or a billion. The 10GeV figure is irrelevant unless you know what kind of particles you're talking about.
zakabog 3 years ago
zakabog: "The 10GeV figure is irrelevant unless you know what kind of particles you're talking about."
That's as smart thing to say, as that there is no need to be afraid of a nuclear war, because fusion plants can have a rather low radiation level.
Aurinkohirvi 3 years ago
"That's as smart thing to say, as that there is no need to be afraid of a nuclear war, because fusion plants can have a rather low radiation level."
No, it's like saying 240V can be completely safe. It can be, it can also be deadly, it depends on other factors not just the voltage.
zakabog 3 years ago
No, particle radiation in space is dangerous. It includes strongly interactive ionizing particles. You can't go to space and have only receive weakly interactive non-ionizing radiation! Therefore you need shielding.
The higher energy a particle has, the deeper it can penetrate and the more atoms it can ionize. Thus a 10GeV particle is more dangerous than 1GeV one, which again is more dangerous than a 100keV one. So there is a valid point mentioning the particle's energy.
Aurinkohirvi 3 years ago
"The higher energy a particle has, the deeper it can penetrate and the more atoms it can ionize. Thus a 10GeV particle is more dangerous than 1GeV one, which again is more dangerous than a 100keV one. So there is a valid point mentioning the particle's energy."
Yes but the energy a particle has by itself is useless in determining how deadly it is, that was my point. There are more factors to consider.
zakabog 3 years ago
How about gamma and solar storm rays ?
Perfectly safe ?
euro944t 2 years ago
Definately not safe! Most Apollo manned landing defenders and NASA scientists admit that solar flares can fry people that are on the Moon at the same time. But in the next breath they dismiss those major flares being harmles, that occured during Apollo flights. And why were they harmless flares? Because astronauts came back alive and didn't get high doses. Isn't this incredible?
Aurinkohirvi 2 years ago
Aurin, if the space environment is so deadly, why has no scientist, anywhere, anytime, come forward calling Apollo faked and "impossible" due to radiation? Perhaps they understand something about the space radiation environment that hoax proponents don't?
Radiation is complex, like so much about spaceflight. And Jarrah's videos show that he doesn't understand much of anything about Apollo or space science.
sc0qter 2 years ago
Where are the Cosmonauts when the debunkers need one?
Not one steps up and pats our astronauts on the back for beating them to moon? Not just beating them, but rubbing it in their face that they never been every chance we Americans get.
Why so tight lipped ? Why don't Russians & Euro's support NASA when skeptics say moon walk is fake ?
Politics or healthy skepticism holding them back ?
Maybe they are just stupid foreigners ?
euro944t 2 years ago
zakabog, you are definitely reaching for something that isnt there. Is there not anything better for you to do, other than try to slander, slur, misquote, or try to launch silly personal assaults against other commentators?
I guess not... That is why I have always said, you are a very poor propagandist indeed!
In other words, get a real life, and stop trying to attack messengers, rather than concentrate on the messages. People are getting tired of your endless twisted games.
northerntruthseeker 3 years ago
"In other words, get a real life, and stop trying to attack messengers, rather than concentrate on the messages."
Fine, I'll attack the message.
There are particles that are not deadly with energies far greater than 1GeV (look at the "oh my god" particle.) 10GeV is meaningless unless you know what kind of particles you're talking about.
zakabog 3 years ago
"Oh my God" particle was probably a proton, and similar protons have been observed afterwards. Protons however are strongly interactive particles, and thus very much so dangerous.
Now, if you have a weakly interactive particle, that would most probably be harmless to you, as it has a low chance of interaction.
The existence of weakly interactive particles doesn't by any means undo the danger of high energy particles! So, where's the point of your statement?
Aurinkohirvi 3 years ago
"So, where's the point of your statement?"
The point is that astronauts in LEO are bombarded with these high energy particles daily but they're fine.
zakabog 3 years ago
What? I wasn't discussing of sunch issue. Can't you see what post I replied to?
Aurinkohirvi 3 years ago
It shouldn't be too hard to figure it out, since I'm quoting you.
Aurinkohirvi 3 years ago
Here's Jarrah's original comment -
"And as I told you in all those threads, his shield is to block GeV particles. The cislunar radiation is as high as 10GeV, both Van Allen and Mauldin agree a brief exposure to that kind of radiation is lethal."
I was replying to that, the 10GeV figures are meaningless because it's a measure of energy not radiation (which Jarrah didn't seem to understand at first.)
zakabog 3 years ago
I was replying this statement of yours: "there are particles that are not deadly with energies far greater than 1GeV (look at the "oh my god" particle.) 10GeV is meaningless unless you know what kind of particles you're talking about."
So what has the existence of weakly interactive particles to do with the issue? Their existence doesn't undo the effect of strongly interactive ionizing radiation danger. So, I fail to see the point of your statement.
Aurinkohirvi 3 years ago
"Their existence doesn't undo the effect of strongly interactive ionizing radiation danger. So, I fail to see the point of your statement."
The point of my statement is that saying 1GeV is deadly is wrong. Plus 10GeV is even more meaningless. Jarrah was trying to say that since there exists particles with energies up to 10GeV they couldn't have made it to the moon, that's completely meaningless since there are perfectly safe 10GeV particles.
zakabog 3 years ago
greylurk... Here is a hint, as I stated before... Look at part II of this video for your answers...
northerntruthseeker 3 years ago
And Jarrah is not confused on this issue, but it is your vain attempts to cloud this issue. Cosmic rays and UNPREDICTABLE SPEs generate multi-GeV powered rays that easily penetrate a thin aluminum hull. It is the accumulative effect of this absorption by the body that is the danger factor here.
It is also amazing how the propagandists are not directly challenging the 11700rem/hour levels in the VA barrier, as shown in the 1983 report by the Nuclear Whistleblower..Trying to avoid that issue?
northerntruthseeker 3 years ago
"Trying to avoid that issue?"
No, it's just that none of us have a copy of that report handy for us to point out why the figures are wrong/misleading.
zakabog 3 years ago
Thanks for the heads up on the qualitive factor... 1plus8....
northerntruthseeker 3 years ago
Therefore I still stand behind my comments about the lunacy of exposing these fools to 11700 rem/hour radiation levels.
Though some think the following statement is laughable, it was and is still meant to poke fun at the Propagandists arguments, and to make people THINK about the real dangers of the VA barrier and how NASA was indeed putting their men at great suicidal risk:
How do you like your Astro-NOTs? Deep fried? Or Extra Crispy?
northerntruthseeker 3 years ago
Based on projections of interplanetary radiation, exposure for theoretical Mars travelers would be about 1.32 mili-Sieverts (mSv) per day, meaning an 11 day Apollo mission would have netted the astronauts a total of about 15mSv worth of radiation. This is roughly equivalent to a head or chest CT Scan.
NASA's career radiation guideline for astronauts is forced retirement after exposure to 1000mSv of radiation. US DOE Sec. 835.202 specifies a limit of 50 mSv per year for workers.
greylurk 3 years ago
Who's projections? NASA's? These levels are not in line with those shown in the 1983 report by the Nuclear Whistleblower, or by his sources out of the Soviet Union. I therefore do not have faith in the levels that NASA says are present.
Think about it.. If NASA faked Apollo, they would definitely put false figures in these reports....
northerntruthseeker 3 years ago
Can you provide more accurate figures then? Which "Nuclear Whistleblower" are you talking about? Can you provide soviet reports (or Chinese or European for that matter) which validate higher interplanetary radiation levels?
greylurk 3 years ago
Any Astro-Nots would have been exposed to a mixture of all types of radiation particles captured within the belts of the VA barrier. The point has always been that the lack of proper shielding would especially have expose them to the debilitating effect of high energy X-rays, Cosmic Rays, UV, and higher energy solar particles.
The accumulative dosage (11700rem/hour) over time should have had them dead within the hour time frame of their supposed traverse.
northerntruthseeker 3 years ago
Based on projections of interplanetary radiation, exposure for theoretical Mars travelers would be about 1.32 mili-Sieverts (mSv) per day, meaning an 11 day Apollo mission would have netted the astronauts a total of about 15mSv worth of radiation. This is roughly equivalent to a head or chest CT Scan.
NASA's career radiation guideline for astronauts is forced retirement after exposure to 1000mSv of radiation. US DOE Sec. 835.202 specifies a limit of 50 mSv per year for workers.
greylurk 3 years ago
Jarrah, you were close. They are not misquoting, but arguing about the semantics, which to me is absolutely silly, and a waste of time.
Further to the rem measurement. Most Scientific journals list the Rem value as the amount of particles absorbed within a set space over a period of time. It is difficult to equate this directly to power as each particle has its own electron volt energy level.. Alpha particles of much lower energy, while Cosmic rays have values within the GeV energy range.
northerntruthseeker 3 years ago
"Jarrah, you were close. They are not misquoting, but arguing about the semantics, which to me is absolutely silly, and a waste of time."
Actually I was pointing out you were having an imaginary debate with yourself over the difference between a volt and an electron volt.
"Alpha particles of much lower energy, while Cosmic rays have values within the GeV energy range."
There are also ultra-high-energy-particles with values far higher than 10GeV that aren't deadly at all, what's your point?
zakabog 3 years ago
Electron volts are indeed tied to the radiation! It is still a measurement of the power of the particles themselves... The raiation dosage level is the accumulative power of these particles over time in a particular space (usually 1cm^3)...
Therefore, Jarrah is right... And the 10GeV level is the typical power level range of cosmic rays, and x-rays.
The electron volt still deals with the power level, so why are you arguing semantics? Is this a vain attempt to deflect the issues again?
northerntruthseeker 3 years ago
"Jarrah is right... And the 10GeV level is the typical power level range of cosmic rays"
I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that you don't need 5cm water shielding for a trip to the moon which lasts <2 weeks. This is proposed for long term missions (2-4 years) to Mars, when exposure to GCRs could increase cancer risk within 10 years from returning back to Earth.
HeadLikeARock 3 years ago
Jarrah's confusion arises when he tries to equate the similar energy level of GCRs with solar flares. You seem to understand that the radiation dose is also dependent on the number of these energetic particles per cm^3. For a very large flare, this would be far greater than for GCRs, even though the energy level of individual particles might be of the same order. He might believe it if you explain it to him.
HeadLikeARock 3 years ago
EDIT to previous comment to make it clearer.
"Jarrah's confusion arises when he tries to equate the similar energy level of INDIVIDUAL GCR PARTICLES and INDIVIDUAL solar flare PARTICLES, TO MEAN THAT GCR FLUX AND VERY LARGE SOLAR FLARES YIELD THE SAME AMOUNT OF ABSORBED RADIATION DOSE RECEIVED BY AN ASTRONAUT"
HeadLikeARock 3 years ago
The concern with the VA barrier is still the high level of radiation (11700 rem/hour) that the Astro-NOTs would have absorbed in their traverse for several hours to and from the moon. NASA should have their heads examined for even thinking about sending these fools out in thin skinned unshielded aluminum craft!
northerntruthseeker 3 years ago
"NASA should have their heads examined for even thinking about sending these fools out in thin skinned unshielded aluminum craft!"
What about the rest of the world and scientific community that thought the event happened? Should everyone except you have their head examined? Or is it in any way possible that the worldwide scientific community disagrees with your views because you're actually wrong?
zakabog 3 years ago
Remember...HEAT itself is a form of kinetic energy. For HLAR to talk about the difference between an iceberg (frozen, or non-molecular motion H20), and boiling water (kinetic energy charged H20 from molecular friction) is to muddle the comments. An iceberg would melt over TIME if exposed to multi-Terra level electron volt power....
northerntruthseeker 3 years ago
"Remember...HEAT itself is a form of kinetic energy. For HLAR to talk about the difference between an iceberg (frozen, or non-molecular motion H20), and boiling water (kinetic energy charged H20 from molecular friction) is to muddle the comments."
What?
He was trying to point out the counter intuitive fact that an iceberg has more heat energy than a cup of boiling water even though you would consider it colder.
zakabog 3 years ago
Damn spelling mistakes... My second last comment should have said the "electron volt" is the measurement of potential...
That should clear up the confusion between an electron volt, and a volt...
northerntruthseeker 3 years ago
"That should clear up the confusion between an electron volt, and a volt..."
I doubt that will stop the propagandists from misquoting you though.
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
"That should clear up the confusion between an electron volt, and a volt... "
Who mentioned volts? Jarrah brought up the electron volt measurements of radiation, I mentioned that electron volts measure energy. You're the only person to bring up volts.
zakabog 3 years ago
The actual factors that we should be concerned about is the REM/RAD/Roentgen levels of radiation absorbed by the Astro-NOTs... This scale is measured in micro-coulombs, and for layman terms is the amount of radiation absorbed in one cubic centimeter of space.
northerntruthseeker 3 years ago
"The actual factors that we should be concerned about is the REM/RAD/Roentgen levels of radiation absorbed by the Astro-NOTs... "
So then why did Jarrah mention the 10 GeV figure?
zakabog 3 years ago
Actually a volt IS the kinetic energy gained as an electron passes through the potential difference of one volt!
It is an energy POWER measurement. Unlike a volt which is Potential only!
Therefore, Jarrah is right that it is an energy level measurement!
Its energy level is very tiny... about 1.6 x 10^-19 exponential joules. But when you get up to, and beyond the Gigavolt range, the power becomes very noticable indeed!
northerntruthseeker 3 years ago
"Therefore, Jarrah is right that it is an energy level measurement!"
He only said that after I pointed that out, and he still seems to think electron volts are tied to radiation. It's just an energy measurement, it isn't related to radiation.
zakabog 3 years ago
Yeah I heard they SAID they didn't want to go to the Moon, because of this problem.
However, they were preparing for it. SO that kind of a leaves hanging the question, if the radiation problem was just a cover, or was it the real reason why they didn't engage the mission?
Aurinkohirvi 3 years ago
The USSR may have kept their moon-landing efforts secret, but they didn't falsify those efforts. Secret yes, fraudulent no.
They continued with their secret efforts in the hope of finding a fix to the radiation problem, when they couldn't find one they eventually abandoned their manned moon-mission effort. Meanwhile, they concentrated on the genuine and brilliantly successful unmanned Lunokhods 1&2.
As Apollo was a Fraud, the USSR won the Space Race technically and scientifically.
sergemck 3 years ago
As was pointed out to you on other threads, Eugene Parker does NOT propose 5m water shielding for a short trip to the moon. That was to protect against cosmic rays on a round trip to Mars of 2 years or more.
Interested parties can read the article online here.
preview tinyurl com/6a7qwp
And another article about radiation shielding by the same author.
preview tinyurl com/655vha
Repeating claims you KNOW to be false does not help your credibilty.
HeadLikeARock 3 years ago
"As was pointed out to you on other threads, Eugene Parker does NOT propose 5m water shielding for a short trip to the moon."
And as I told you in all those threads, his shield is to block GeV particles. The cislunar radiation is as high as 10GeV, both Van Allen and Mauldin agree a brief exposure to that kind of radiation is lethal.
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
"The cislunar radiation is as high as 10GeV"
Isn't an electron volt is a measurement of energy and not radiation?
zakabog 3 years ago
"Isn't an electron volt is a measurement of energy and not radiation?"
It's used to measure the energy levels of radiation.
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
Until you understand the difference between the energy of a particle, and levels of radiation, you'll keep on struggling to understand why your argument is incorrect.
Question 1: which contains more heat energy, an iceberg or a cup of boiling water?
Question 2: which is hotter, an ieberg or a cup of boiling water?
If you can accept the correct answer to THOSE questions, you should be capable of figuring out the difference between the energy of a particle, and the dose equivalent.
HeadLikeARock 3 years ago
No they don't! Take Parker's words, not mine.
"Any space traveler far removed from the protective magnetic field that enshrouds Earth is subject to acontinuing low dose of galactic cosmic radiation. The best available estimates predict that exposure to such radiation for as little as a year may be sufficient to increase the incidence of cancer a decade or two later. That is bad news for a potential Mars explorer, who would be vulnerable to the harsh realities of space for 2--4 years"
HeadLikeARock 3 years ago
"No they don't!"
Said they do: Van Allen explicitly stated that even a brief passage through the Van Belts (which have energies at 100MeV) would be lethal, and Mauldin clearly states that GeV protons can penetrate meters of material and cause death within hours.
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
Re Mauldin: not referring to GCRs he didn't! Very powerful solar flares maybe, but NOT GCRs.
Eugene Parker states EXPLICITLY that GCRs aren't an issue with short duration missions (week - month), but will increase cancer risk in a 2-4 year mission. Your confusion over units cannot obfuscate that.
HeadLikeARock 3 years ago
"Re Mauldin: not referring to GCRs he didn't!"
Have you even read Mauldin's book? He states that cosmic rays in are in the same energy range as GeV solar flare protons and thus they also require meters of shielding to be blocked.
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
That shielding was required for very long term INSTERSTELLAR TRAVEL! GCRs need to be completely eliminated in that particular situation because they increase cancer risk and damage retinas etc when the exposure level is measured in years or decades, NOT days or weeks.
They energy level of GCRs means they can penetrate quite a bit of material, hence the requirement for LONG TERM missions. Short term, the minimal increased cancer risk is deemed acceptable.
HeadLikeARock 3 years ago
In other words, some cosmic rays may have the same ENERGY as particles emitted in solar flares, (i.e. each individual particle has the same energy), but in a life-threatening solar flare there are FAR more particles per cubic centimetre compared to GCRs, hence the ABSORBED DOSE is much greater over a short period of time.
HeadLikeARock 3 years ago
11700 rems per hour..... How do you like your Astro-NOT.... regular cooked, or extra crispy?
northerntruthseeker 3 years ago
The Soviets never lost the space race to the moon, because the US has yet to get there themselves!
The Russians were way ahead of the US in rocket technology even beyond the time of Apollo. The American administration needed the lie of Apollo just to create the illusion of winning the cold war due to superior technology.
northerntruthseeker 3 years ago
The Saturn V used five F1 engines to produce 7.65 million lb thrust- 1530k per engine. The Soviet N-1 used 30 NK33 engines to produce 10 million lb thrust- 333k per engine.
This means that the combustion pressures on the metal wall of the F1 engine was 4.6 times greater than the NK33. And this means that the F1 had metal 4.6 times stronger than what the Soviet metallurgists could produce for their NK33 combustion chambers.
Super-metal for the F1?
No! The F1's performance specs are faked.
sergemck 3 years ago
Thanks for the heads up on the Saturn 5 F1 engines.
Yes it is interesting how NASA was able to get "7.2 million lbs" of thrust safely out of only 5 engines in the Saturn 5!
northerntruthseeker 3 years ago
So, the radiation problem was an excuse not to send cosmonauts to the Moon, while in secrecy they were preparing just that?
Aurinkohirvi 3 years ago