Actually, Saturn-5 rocket was planned and used to launch Skylab to the low Earth orbit. Please, can you tell me how Moon missions and Skylab used similar rockets. If we consider the energy requirements, escaping from Earth's orbit requires many times more energy than entering the low orbit as Skylab did. Wernher von Braun wrote in his book just 2 yrs before Apollo program, that if man will be sent to the Moon, the rocket should be bigger than Empire State Bld. The Mars satellites are very small and light things.

PS. Why there is not a signle astronaut, who could have sweared that he has been on the Moon. When the journalist Sibrel tried to ask them to state that, they were threatening even to kill him and send CIA to stop him publishing about that. Why the video on the distant view to Earth was fake as clearly shown (weather satellite picture fixed to the window of the dark capsule flying in low orbit) - and why the astronauts were very angry when this was revealed..

How did I miss this gem ?
I'd call you a complete idiot, but that's against the forum rules.

__________________
"Say not, 'When I have free time I shall study'; for you may perhaps never have any free time"
Hillel the Elder

Are you still going on about those belts ? I provided you with a scientific account of them in post: The moon landing
You have apparently not read it or choose to ignore it.
Let me summarize it then :

First, neutrons are harmless in this context (the sun is not a neutron bomb).
The theoretically harmful ones are electrons and protons, but then only those that carry high energy (respectively 1MeV and 10 MeV if you want to know).

Now, a single particle won't harm you either, so we need to know how many there are. This is called the flux. The National Space Sciences Data Center at NASA's Goddard Spaceflight Center issues these figures (for reference to those that build commercial satellites) The flux for electrons turns out to be > 1 million/cm²/s and for protons >100K/cm²/s in the relevant regions of space.

If you were to walk around in your T-shirt over there, that's the amount of potentially harmful radiation you would be exposed to. But the lucky astronauts were within a vehicle and then within a spacesuit. The link gave a table giving the range these particles have before they are stopped, with respect to aluminium. It clearly shows that for electrons the flux becomes all but negligible above an energy level of about 7 MeV. (If you're wondering why more energetic particles have less chance of penetrating, you should read up on particle physics). So we can ignore electrons.

For protons, I refer you to the calculation in the paper. The end result is about 20000 protons/cm²/s of > 100MeV, giving 50 mSv (milliSievert) in 300 seconds. Now, this is high, it's true. It is in fact the maximum allowed for radiation workers in the US (In other countries it's as low as 15 mSv).

Thus, the astronauts received in 5 minutes the dose of radiation a person working in the nuclear industry is allowed to have in a year.
Yet, for them, that's it. They were not further exposed to radiation so that's the total amount they received. The consequence is: Thus , the astronauts received, with each passage an increased chance of cancer in later life of less than 5 in a thousand. Unhealthy, yes, but very far from lethal and totally inadequate to hamper space travel.

__________________
"Say not, 'When I have free time I shall study'; for you may perhaps never have any free time"
Hillel the Elder

WarOnIgnorance - you keep referring this non-scientific source (debugging propaganda site).

The fact is that the scientific research insitutes and universities developing protection against cosmic radiation in space flights have never mentioned that somebody have been on the Moon - other way round. Earth orbit measurements, doses for humans, have been collected for a long time. As you can see e.g. from this scientific papers written by highest radiation scientists of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory working also for NASA-funded Specialized Center of Research and Training for Radiation Health, they say:

Quote:
Until now human space travel has been confined to the proximity of Earth. Within this domain, astronauts are exposed to radiation from the trapped radiation belts but are largely protected by the Earth's magnetic field from galactic cosmic rays emanating from outside the solar system.
As currently envisioned, an interplanetary spacecraft would weigh some 300 tons and include 30 tons of shielding material. According to Tom Ward, scientific and technical advisor to the Department of Energy's Office of Space, "With research, it may be possible to redesign more effective, lighter-weight shielding using new composite materials.
Astronauts in low Earth orbit typically receive less than 1/1000th of the dose of a Mars voyage during their seven to 10-day missions.

1991 Lawrence Berkeley National LaboratoryÕs Research Review Article: COSMIC-RAY QUESTIONS

I estimated that an astronaut on Moon would receive maybe 50 Sv cosmic radiation - this means sudden death. Your own paper says the following:

"10 Sv - Risk of death within days or weeks"

NASA has announced that the astronauts received only 0.4 - 3 mSv radiation - this much less what the airplane staff can receive ... and it is a fraction what the Skylab & Shuttle astronauts receive on the well protected low Earth orbit. This is a firm evidence that they never went to the Moon - or they lie the figures (they cannot change them anymore from that announced long time ago):
Apollo 14 (Highest Skin Dose) 1,400 mrem*/mission
Skylab 4 (Highest Skin Dose) 17,800 mrem*/mission

Quote:
The FAA recommends the limit for an aircrew member of a 5-year average
effective dose of 20mSv per year, with no more than 50mSv in a single year

http://www.iaasm.org/Cosmic%20Radiation.pdf

...a gigantic solar flare erupts, spewing lethal radiation directly at the spacecraft

The Space Review: Magnetic shielding for spacecraft

"The sun is basically a big nuclear reactor,"
"These are very obscure kinds of radiation that on Earth we would only see in the event of a nuclear disaster,"

EVMS News: Mars Mission Risk 29: Scientists Research Ways to Reduce Radiation-Induced Brain Damage

And if the radiation scientists do not believe that there has been somebody on the Moon, why should we???? Do you find scientific papers where they say something on the Moon landing???

Analyst, you have gone far beyond pointing out anomalies in the material documenting the Apollo project: you have countered every argument posted on this thread that offered reasonable explanations for said anomalies; dismissed the testimonies of even the most eminent scientists and other experts; and glossed over any questions related to the credibility of the conspiracy theory claims.

There would have been nothing wrong in pointing out any anomalies in the material related to the mission. But, to assert that anomalies in the material equals fabrication of the material, is already highly speculative. To further extrapolate on this speculation by asserting that the uncovering of any fabricated material proves the moon landings were a hoax, is just plain absurd.

That’s beside the point.

Dr James Van Allen was a member of the Space Science Board and a member of NASA’s Lunar and Planetary Missions Board (1967-1970).

He makes only oblique reference to the Apollo mission in his papers, but other references I have already cited in previous posts indicate he does not at all question the fact that the Moon landings took place, or expresses any qualms about the scientific practicability of the mission. His reservations about manned space flights are based on economic and political considerations.

His papers reflect the focus of his interest in robotic missions to other planets.

For those who wish to learn more about Dr James Van Allen’s life and these papers:

Finding Aid to the James A. Van Allen Papers,
University of Iowa Archives.
Compiled by the American Institute of Physics.
Center for History of Physics.
Published in 2000
Finding Aid to the James A. Van Allen Papers, 1938-1990

Tethys

__________________
-- Harry S. Truman

It's only the second time I mentioned it, and the first time you ignored it. It may not look professional, but the content is sound. I notice that you seem to have no arguments against it ?

The 'proximity of Earth' includes the moon in a solar system scale context. This is no denial of Moon voyages. The text is about trips to Mars and such, which would take years instead of days or weeks. And the calculations in the paper for a trip of that scale, do not amount to more than 1000 mSv over that period. An unhealthy lot indeed, but not even lethal. The trip to Mars is roughly 1000 times longer than the one to the moon.

You estimated 50 Sv ? Based on what ? Do you realize what a gargantuan amount of radiation that is ? Did the astronauts take the Chernobyl reactor with them ? Would you mind awfully substantiating that amount.

So ? 1400 mrem is only 14 mSv, that's negligible and 17800 mrem is 178 mSv. Quite unhealthy but far from lethal. Note that the time during which this radiation is received is important also. The figures of Apollo14 are consistent with the calculations made earlier.

Aircrews do not wear protective clothing as the astronauts did. In the table in the earlier linked paper, it is shown that the flux of ions is all but stopped by it.

What's all this got to do with anything ? Yes, there are risks to space travel. They are studied, quantified and measures are presented just as it should be. None of these items lead to the conclusion that space travel is impossible.

But none of your links and papers concur in what you say. Do you even read them ? They're studies on how to provide for safety in manned missions to Mars. Again, Mars is 1000 times further away from the Earth than the moon is. The duration of exposure to radiation is orders of magnitude larger. None of it even presents as much as a problem for the missions to the moon. You just want to read that into it, but it isn't there.

__________________
"Say not, 'When I have free time I shall study'; for you may perhaps never have any free time"
Hillel the Elder

largest ufo
This is the largest ufo and it was filmed by nasa while experimenting on a tether that was many miles long.. Their best excuse was debris in the lens but there are known objects in space that the huge ufos pass behind during the failed experiment which light up the sky..

Quote from the scientific paper (see below)
Until now human space travel has been confined to the proximity of Earth. Within this domain, astronauts are exposed to radiation from the trapped radiation belts but are largely protected by the Earth's magnetic field from galactic cosmic rays emanating from outside the solar system.

This means that man has not been outside of the Van Allen belts which surround the Earth - not the Moon. And a big number of highly scientific radiation research paper do the same - they don't consider the possibility of having manned flight experience from outside the earth orbit. The data I provided from these papers show, that a man cannot stay alive on the Moon more than few hours max. There was no protection with the Apollo astronauts. As the paper said, huge thicknesses of lead shielding would have been necessary.

WarOn.. you did not explain why the dose of the "moon astronauts" was smaller than the Skylab astronauts. The former should have received at least 1000 times bigger dose. Skylab was well beyond the protective Van Allen belts and only 0.1 % of killing radiation can penetrate it.

Have you seen the raw material video in the net, where Neil Armstrong is filming the window of the capsule in darkness and saying that it is the earth from distance. In the window there is a transparent of earth taken from a weather satellite. They speak to Houston that they are 130.000 miles away from earth. After filming they switch lights on and you can see the trick - they remove the transparent and from two windows you can see the earth from a low orbit. Next day the astronaut "landed to the moon" - which cannot be true. Why they made this lie? When one journalist asked about this, the astronauths admitted but threatened him with killing and CIA, etc.

Now I understand why you're so far off the deep end. You've got it even more wrong than I thought:

The Van Allen belts are the hazard, not the protection, at least for space travelers. It's for Earth they are a protection. It's the passage through them that poses the highest risk. Outside the belts, like where Skylab is, it is (much) safer.

The particles from the sun get electrically charged (ionized) and trapped (increasing the flux) there due to the Earth's magnetic field. Outside them, this occurs to a much lesser degree (that's why a Mars voyage is still in the range of acceptable radiation). It's also why in a previous post only the passage through them was calculated. Outside of them, the risk is much lower, quite negligible in fact for this discussion.
And in my previous posts I've shown that even the plasma conditions within the belts are not detrimental enough to hamper space travel.

(I also note you have not substantiated your 50 Sv number, nor addressed any of the points brought forward in previous posts.)

Oh, come on, what value have videos or pictures in this day and age. They could be anything from a student prank to a montage of some B-movie shootings with the voices of the astronauts edited into. I must admit, the one with the crashing ladder was hilarious. Yet, don't ask me to take it seriously.

__________________
"Say not, 'When I have free time I shall study'; for you may perhaps never have any free time"
Hillel the Elder

Since you don't have the answer, why make an excuse? In fact, in this day and age, maybe it's easier to make a technical hoax than it was in the past. Pictures and videos are proof.

If your dad cheated on your mom wouldn't want to know about it? If your dad cheated on your mom, had another kid, and was giving him/her your college money, wouldn't that infuriate you? In the works your family struggles to get by and you have this great image of your dad unknowing the truth of it all. Maybe there's pictures. Maybe there's other eyewitness related to his mistress. Maybe you just don't want to know if this is true because the facts would be humiliating. I witnessed something.. You want to know what people do in this country? They laughed at me.. They didn't take me seriously. My reputation went into the toilet. I'm an intelligent young kid and that's what happened before I got to live my bright future. Coning is a confidence game. If there's is good evidence let it come to light. I'm not 100% convinced about the moon landing but if it is a farce I want to know about it and to hell with national pride or embarassment. Hiding facts of this scale is for adulterers.

If Analyst evidence is true then the radiation he is refering to would have to come from a source because radiation is not stored in black particles of empty matterless space that I know of. I would think that the radiation rays would have to come from the Van Allen Belt itself or would come from the sun.

Chandra :: Field Guide to X-ray Astronomy :: X-Ray Sources

NASA REALLY MOONED US Faked Apollo Landing: You Decide!

Quote:

CHAPTER 15: SUNSTROKE [I chose this chapter to review because ~ if this information is 100% true, then all the other lies and misdemeanors of NASA - fall neatly into place.] Rene's premise is that NASA could not have gone to the Moon - PERIOD! This chapter (one of 18, plus 8 revealing addendum,) along with the Radiation Addendum, expose the truth of the NASA LIES, lies that incorporate the details about the Van Allen Belt & solar flares, and their deadly radiation. This data reflects the reason why Rene calls any astronaut who ventured into the Van Allen Belt and beyond ~ an 'astro-not!' [The author, though seemingly being flippant, is deadly realistic as the following data will soon reveal.] To prove his thesis, Rene tries to get certain solar data from NATIONAL OCEANIC & ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, (NOAA) using clever techniques to disguise his true intentions, [i.e. to get true data on solar flares.] NOAA, unfortunately, proved to be as cagey as Rene in dodging the giving out of any really good DETAILS on this matter, [you know, where the devil resides.] Rene, seeing games being played, deduced that there must be two sets of data, one which is sent to scientists on the preferred list, and one sent to the likes of Rene as casual strangers. (p.125) On page 126 of his manuscript, he actually secured 'MONTHLY COUNTS OF GROUPED SOLAR FLARES' (1967-1991) for reference. He notes that during 1968-1969, Apollo mission 8,9,10,11 & 12 "allegedly left the protection provided by the Van Allen Belt (shield) and entered lunar space.(p.126) On the same page, the author emphasizes that extremely powerful flares can randomly occur at any portion of the cycle.... FOR INSTANCE, from 1969 to 1972 there were 27,019 flares or 19 storms a day. Doing some calculations (p.127) ~ Rene concluded that Apollo 15 would have been bathed in 268 flares (an average of over 22 per day,( from July 26 through August 7 of 1971.

Space & Planaets

Quote:

In June of 2001 British television aired a program on channels 4 and 5 expressing doubt about whether the Americans ever went to the moon. The programs were viewed by millions of Britons. Experts in their fields expressed their conviction that the NASA moon landing in 1969 was actually a clever hoax, a sort of American Cold War public relations stunt of huge proportions filmed, according to those on the show, somewhere in a remote desert in the United States. < NASA Composite AS11-5863-5, notice the absence of a crater or dust on the rock A section of the program was dedicated to analyzing NASA photographs, which curiously depict shadows that are inconsistent with the direction of the sunlight. The program clearly proved that shadows in the photographs fall at different angles and at different lengths in the same pictures, as though illuminated by more than one light source close to the scene. Had they actually been on the moon, of course, this would have been impossible as there was no other light source other than the sun. Some photographs taken of the astronauts facing in the shadows are illuminated as if by fill-in lighting. Experts quoted on the show pointed out that the moon pictures were perfectly framed and exposed even though the cameras used had no viewfinder or exposure meter and were strapped to the astronauts' chests.

Along time ago we had this agruement.. I'm not sure which forum I was in but this was the arguement that stuck with me the most..