[Tom Bishop]

In 2009 NASA made a test launch of the Ares 1-X, which was the upper stage of the multi-stage Ares launch vehicle.



Loot at the paint job of the rocket when it is low to the ground:



Compared to what the rocket looks like when it is up in space around a round earth:

[Tom Bishop]

They can't even get their story straight.



Listen carefully at around 3:36 to where the one of their engineers says: "We must solve this problem before we send people through this region of space” (the Van Allen radiation belt).

Didn't they already send six manned crews through this region on the way to the moon in the Apollo missions?

If NASA is still working on testing the Van Allen radiation belt in order to solve that problem before they can send the astronauts through this region of space, than it is really amazing what the 1960’s engineers have done to solve that problem, who apparently created long lost and forgotten technologies, leading to the first lunar landing in 69'.

[Rama Set]

You may have noticed that this video was prone to hyperbole?  Dramatic music, bold language.  I submit that they overstate the problems or make them seem more sweeping than they actually are in order to make the video more exciting for a largely uneducated public.

In regards to your weird comment about the paint job, did you consider common photographic phenomena like (over)exposure?

[Tom Bishop]

You may have noticed that this video was prone to hyperbole?  Dramatic music, bold language.  I submit that they overstate the problems or make them seem more sweeping than they actually are in order to make the video more exciting for a largely uneducated public.

In regards to your weird comment about the paint job, did you consider common photographic phenomena like (over)exposure?

So now your position is that NASA is outright lying with fake science claims that are intended to deceive? That's rich.

I did consider it. But the white image is in shade, and overexposure from sun doesn't make sense. There are also some black scratches on the craft's white body in the lower left hand area of the image that are wiped off in the next scene.

[Rama Set]

So now your position is that NASA is outright lying with fake science claims that are intended to deceive? That's rich.

Wow you got that from what I said?  You continue to amaze Thomas.

I did consider it. But the white image is in shade, and overexposure from sun doesn't make sense. There are also some black scratches on the craft's white body in the lower left hand area of the image that are wiped off in the next scene.

Overexposure.  From.  The sun.  Doesn't.  Make.  Sense.  Ok!

[Tom Bishop]

So now your position is that NASA is outright lying with fake science claims that are intended to deceive? That's rich.

Wow you got that from what I said?  You continue to amaze Thomas.

I did consider it. But the white image is in shade, and overexposure from sun doesn't make sense. There are also some black scratches on the craft's white body in the lower left hand area of the image that are wiped off in the next scene.

Overexposure.  From.  The sun.  Doesn't.  Make.  Sense.  Ok!

The white rocket is in shade, not the sun. You're going to have to put a little more effort into this overexposure claim.

Claiming that NASA lies to the public for glory isn't going to do anything to help your position.

[Jura-Glenlivet]

As far as the radiation belts are concerned, back in the day they were a lot more blasé about safety of crew because of less understanding of the dangers maybe (they were still making and wearing radioactive glo'watches at this time), probably more to do with winning the "space race" over-riding individual welfare.

[Tom Bishop]

As far as the radiation belts are concerned, back in the day they were a lot more blasé about safety of crew because of less understanding of the dangers maybe (they were still making and wearing radioactive glo'watches at this time), probably more to do with winning the "space race" over-riding individual welfare.

They were claiming to send sensors to radiation belts for years prior to Apollo 11, considered it well studied, and declared it safe for human travel. NASA even maintains a page on clavius.org where they continuously claim that traversing the radiation belts is so trivial and survivable. What happened?

[markjo]

In 2009 NASA made a test launch of the Ares 1-X, which was the upper stage of the multi-stage Ares launch vehicle.

Loot at the paint job of the rocket when it is low to the ground:



Compared to what the rocket looks like when it is up in space around a round earth:

Are you referring to the reflection of the exhaust plume on the booster?

They can't even get their story straight.



Listen carefully at around 3:36 to where the one of their engineers says: "We must solve this problem before we send people through this region of space” (the Van Allen radiation belt).

Didn't they already send six manned crews through this region on the way to the moon in the Apollo missions?

Yes they did, but they didn't use the Orion capsule.  The Orion is a different design that must be debugged separately from the Apollo design.

[Rama Set]

So now your position is that NASA is outright lying with fake science claims that are intended to deceive? That's rich.

Wow you got that from what I said?  You continue to amaze Thomas.

I did consider it. But the white image is in shade, and overexposure from sun doesn't make sense. There are also some black scratches on the craft's white body in the lower left hand area of the image that are wiped off in the next scene.

Overexposure.  From.  The sun.  Doesn't.  Make.  Sense.  Ok!

The white rocket is in shade, not the sun. You're going to have to put a little more effort into this overexposure claim.

How can you tell it is in shade?  Rockets are launched when the sky is clear so your notion seems exceedingly unlikely.

Claiming that NASA lies to the public for glory isn't going to do anything to help your position.

Sorry are you not familiar with marketing?

[garygreen]

They can't even get their story straight.

Listen carefully at around 3:36 to where the one of their engineers says: "We must solve this problem before we send people through this region of space” (the Van Allen radiation belt).

Cheery-picking quotes is not the same as reading carefully.  What the video actually says:

"My name is Kelly Smith, and I work on navigation and guidance for Orion...Before we can send astronauts into space on Orion, we have to test all of its systems, and there’s only one way to know if we got it right; fly it in space.
[...]
As we get further away from Earth, we’ll pass through the Vann Allan Belts, an area of dangerous radiation. Radiation like this can harm the guidance systems, onboard computers, or other electronics on Orion. Naturally, we have to pass through this danger zone twice, once up and once back. But Orion has protection, shielding will be put to the test as the vehicle cuts through the waves of radiation. Sensors aboard will record radiation levels for scientists to study. We must solve these challenges before we send people through this region of Space."

The video is clearly describing a danger to the onboard electronics and not to the astronauts themselves.

Didn't they already send six manned crews through this region on the way to the moon in the Apollo missions?

If NASA is still working on testing the Van Allen radiation belt in order to solve that problem before they can send the astronauts through this region of space, than it is really amazing what the 1960’s engineers have done to solve that problem, who apparently created long lost and forgotten technologies, leading to the first lunar landing in 69'.

It would be suspicious if NASA didn't claim to rigorously and exhaustively test new components and designs before putting astronauts in them.  I'm sure you're aware that there have been drastic changes in computer electronics and miniaturization since the 1960s.

[markjo]

I did consider it. But the white image is in shade, and overexposure from sun doesn't make sense. There are also some black scratches on the craft's white body in the lower left hand area of the image that are wiped off in the next scene.

Do you mean the rivet heads that look black in shadow but white in the sun?

[Tom Bishop]

How can you tell it is in shade?  Rockets are launched when the sky is clear so your notion seems exceedingly unlikely.

Nearly the entirety of the rocket is in shade except for the far left side where the sun is coming in.

[Tom Bishop]

They can't even get their story straight.

Listen carefully at around 3:36 to where the one of their engineers says: "We must solve this problem before we send people through this region of space” (the Van Allen radiation belt).

Cheery-picking quotes is not the same as reading carefully.  What the video actually says:

"My name is Kelly Smith, and I work on navigation and guidance for Orion...Before we can send astronauts into space on Orion, we have to test all of its systems, and there’s only one way to know if we got it right; fly it in space.
[...]
As we get further away from Earth, we’ll pass through the Vann Allan Belts, an area of dangerous radiation. Radiation like this can harm the guidance systems, onboard computers, or other electronics on Orion. Naturally, we have to pass through this danger zone twice, once up and once back. But Orion has protection, shielding will be put to the test as the vehicle cuts through the waves of radiation. Sensors aboard will record radiation levels for scientists to study. We must solve these challenges before we send people through this region of Space."

The video is clearly describing a danger to the onboard electronics and not to the astronauts themselves.

The video calls the Van Allen Radiation Belts a place of dangerous high radiation, a thing that we shouldn't be sending people though right now, when this is contradictory to the official story. The Apollo astronauts allegedly received a very minimal amount of radiation exposure when traveling through the radiation belt.

From the Van Allen Belt Wiki page:

The Apollo missions marked the first event where humans traveled through the Van Allen belts, which was one of several radiation hazards known by mission planners.[29] The astronauts had low exposure in the Van Allen belts due to the short period of time spent flying through them.[30] The command module's inner structure was an aluminum "sandwich" consisting of a welded aluminium inner skin, a thermally bonded honeycomb core, and a thin aluminium "face sheet". The steel honeycomb core and outer face sheets were thermally bonded to the inner skin.

In fact, the astronauts' overall exposure was dominated by solar particles once outside Earth's magnetic field. The total radiation received by the astronauts varied from mission to mission but was measured to be between 0.16 and 1.14 rads (1.6 and 11.4 mGy), much less than the standard of 5 rem (50 mSv) per year set by the United States Atomic Energy Commission for people who work with radioactivity.

If NASA were keeping its story straight, it should be claiming that the radiation belts are safe for any man or machine.

Yes, claiming that electronics need "further testing" is contradictory too. Your idea that NASA knows the belts are safe for humans but thinks it is not safe for computer chips is in opposition to NASA's previous claims of having sent many unmanned ships through the belts when conducing exploration of the solar system. Did they forget about those? They have been claiming to have developed the electronics shielding technologies to handle that for many years now. Either way, whether the speaker is talking about man or machine, the segment goes against the official story.

[Rama Set]

The Apollo missions passed through the belts very quickly and through an area of low concentration. Maybe they want to test for prolonged exposure? 

[markjo]

If NASA were keeping its story straight, it should be claiming that the radiation belts are safe for any man or machine.

When did NASA claim that the Van Allen belts are "safe for any man or machine"?

Yes, claiming that electronics need "further testing" is contradictory too. Your idea that NASA knows the belts are safe for humans but thinks it is not safe for computer chips is in opposition to NASA's previous claims of having sent many unmanned ships through the belts when conducing exploration of the solar system. Did they forget about those?  They have been claiming to have developed the electronics shielding technologies to handle that for many years now. Either way, whether the speaker is talking about man or machine, the segment goes against the official story.

No, NASA did not "forget" about those other unmanned craft, it's just that those other unmanned craft are not Orion.  The Orion capsule has different mission objectives than those other unmanned craft and therefore must be tested separately.  If anything, Orion is probably being tested to a much higher safety standard than unmanned craft.

[Tom Bishop]

The Apollo missions passed through the belts very quickly and through an area of low concentration. Maybe they want to test for prolonged exposure?

Why would they put the astro-nots through more radiation than necessary?

If NASA were keeping its story straight, it should be claiming that the radiation belts are safe for any man or machine.

When did NASA claim that the Van Allen belts are "safe for any man or machine"?

Yes, claiming that electronics need "further testing" is contradictory too. Your idea that NASA knows the belts are safe for humans but thinks it is not safe for computer chips is in opposition to NASA's previous claims of having sent many unmanned ships through the belts when conducing exploration of the solar system. Did they forget about those?  They have been claiming to have developed the electronics shielding technologies to handle that for many years now. Either way, whether the speaker is talking about man or machine, the segment goes against the official story.

No, NASA did not "forget" about those other unmanned craft, it's just that those other unmanned craft are not Orion.  The Orion capsule has different mission objectives than those other unmanned craft and therefore must be tested separately.  If anything, Orion is probably being tested to a much higher safety standard than unmanned craft.

NASA has been hardening electronics from the Van Allen Radiation Belt and the general dangers of space for over 55 years. This segment hyping the dangers and the new technologies needed is hardly accurate, or consistent with the official story, considering that NASA has been claiming that the shielding to take computer chips and electronics into those areas has existed for a very long time.

[Tom Bishop]

Lets go back to the overexposure explanation. How is this rocket "overexposed" if much of it is in the shade:

How can you tell it is in shade?  Rockets are launched when the sky is clear so your notion seems exceedingly unlikely.

Nearly the entirety of the rocket is in shade except for the far left side where the sun is coming in.

[markjo]

Lets go back to the overexposure explanation. How is this rocket "overexposed" if much of it is in the shade:

How can you tell it is in shade?  Rockets are launched when the sky is clear so your notion seems exceedingly unlikely.

Nearly the entirety of the rocket is in shade except for the far left side where the sun is coming in.

Simple.  It's the rocket exhaust plume reflecting off of the booster.

[markjo]

NASA has been hardening electronics from the Van Allen Radiation Belt and the general dangers of space for over 55 years.

Perhaps, but NASA has not sent any humans through the Van Allen belts for over 40 years.  Unmanned space craft don't have life-support or any of a number of other systems that manned spacecraft need.

This segment hyping the dangers and the new technologies needed is hardly accurate, or consistent with the official story, considering that NASA has been claiming that the shielding to take computer chips and electronics into those areas has existed for a very long time.

Are you suggesting that NASA shouldn't bother testing the shielding for Orion?