The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Investigations => Topic started by: AATW on April 07, 2021, 03:12:29 PM
-
I think this is the right place for this.
As per the title. Interesting video of a few guys who work in the VFX industry watching footage from the moon landings and commenting on how authentic it looks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ML2ZYYFOnI
Few points of interest, they comment on the length of some of the shots which they say would have been incredibly difficult to do in miniature or slow mo. The way the dust moves doesn't make sense in an atmosphere where you'd get turbulence.
The reflections in the visors would have been problematic - you'd expect to see lights or of the camera.
They compare it to the film 2001 which would have been state of the art VFX of the time and note how different it looks and how clear the effects are in it are.
I thought it was interesting because most of the "moon landing is fake" arguments which focus on how the footage is fake come from people with no expertise in the field.
-
You only have to look at the Apollo 11 conference to see that not one of the team had been to the moon. https://youtu.be/Xd1yBWsLsyQ
-
You only have to look at the Apollo 11 conference to see that not one of the team had been to the moon.
Or it could just be that they did not like speaking to the press.
-
Or it could just be that they did not like speaking to the press.
So you begin a rigorous recruitment process from the air force to find the absolute best of the best ... and you pick 3 guys who don't like communicating?
Have another go.
-
Or it could just be that they did not like speaking to the press.
So you begin a rigorous recruitment process from the air force to find the absolute best of the best ... and you pick 3 guys who don't like communicating?
Have another go.
Why would liking to speak to the press be one of the skills needed to become an astronaut?
In any case, saying that looking at their faces is enough to determine that they did not go to the moon is not exactly the best argument against the Moon landings.
-
Why would liking to speak to the press be one of the skills needed to become an astronaut?
They literally hired Stanley Kubric to do the filming. Adjusted for inflation they spent $300bn. Putting a man on the moon was the promise of JFK himself. The single greatest scientific achievement in the history of mankind. And you are going to pick not one, but 3 people who can't talk about the experience convincingly to the camera?
-
Why would liking to speak to the press be one of the skills needed to become an astronaut?
They literally hired Stanley Kubric to do the filming.
Source? What was Stanley's cut of the $300 billion?
Adjusted for inflation they spent $300bn. Putting a man on the moon was the promise of JFK himself. The single greatest scientific achievement in the history of mankind. And you are going to pick not one, but 3 people who can't talk about the experience convincingly to the camera?
Here's the full press conference, not some biased, made up narrative over a series of short out of context edited clips.
https://youtu.be/BI_ZehPOMwI
-
They literally hired Stanley Kubric to do the filming. Adjusted for inflation they spent $300bn. Putting a man on the moon was the promise of JFK himself. The single greatest scientific achievement in the history of mankind. And you are going to pick not one, but 3 people who can't talk about the experience convincingly to the camera?
No they didnt.
What's the original number of dollars spent?
Yes it sure was!
I sincerely hope that prospective astronauts arent evaluated based on their ability to appear likeable in front of a camera.
...but then again, it would have been pretty awesome to see someone like Robin Williams in space
-
Why would liking to speak to the press be one of the skills needed to become an astronaut?
They literally hired Stanley Kubric to do the filming.
Well, no "they" didn't. And if they had then what's your hot take, that he worked with people who can't act for some reason?
Cypher9's post reminds me of a meme I saw recently which was along the lines of:
Spends 3 years getting a degree.
Spends another 2 years researching to get a Ph. D.
Goes to work doing research.
Runs some experiments and trials.
Writes scientific paper.
Gets paper published.
Has paper peer reviewed.
Bloke on the internet: "Bullshit!"
Which is pretty much what Cypher9 has done. 3 dudes who literally work in VFX look at the footage and explain how that would have been impossible to fake using 1960's technology, Cypher9 doesn't bother to refute any of what they say, he just offers an argument from incredulity. Convincing.
There's plenty of 3rd party evidence for the moon landings. The Australians were relaying signals for NASA, Jodrell Bank in the UK was monitoring the mission - and a rival one from the USSR which was unmanned but attempting a soft landing before Apollo 11 to steal their thunder. I believe it's the Chinese who not too long ago released photos from one of their craft in orbit around the moon which is high enough resolution to see the landing sites. Then there's the laser reflectors which are still used.
And the entire counter argument from people who think it was all a hoax is "nah".
-
They literally hired Stanley Kubric to do the filming.
Well, no "they" didn't. And if they had then what's your hot take, that he worked with people who can't act for some reason?
I said they made a movie. I didn't say it was a good movie. No one won an Oscar for Best Actor.
-
They literally hired Stanley Kubric to do the filming.
Well, no "they" didn't. And if they had then what's your hot take, that he worked with people who can't act for some reason?
I said they made a movie. I didn't say it was a good movie. No one won an Oscar for Best Actor.
What's your source as evidence that Stanley made the Apollo "movie"?
And to AATW's point, you question why we would select astronauts who aren't the best at press conferences for the most advanced technological endeavor known to man at the time - Why would Stanley hire actors who aren't the best at press conferences for the most advanced hoax of a technological endeavor known to man at the time?
And Stanley was a perfectionist. Known for massive on-set re-writes and shooting dozens and dozens of takes for any given scene. He would have demanded far better, more convincing actors, I'm sure.
-
going to the moon and filming the dark side is very easy, just ask Elon or Pink Floyd.
Deer in the headlight look...happens briefly
-
Did the people who claim Kubrick doctored the moon landings actually watch 2001 A Space Odyssey?
Watch this moon scene from 2001, this is Kubricks work from a year before the moon landing. It looks LIKE SHIT! compared to the raw footage from the Apollo missions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b75EpoF1W88
How do you possibly expect people to believe that the same people who came up with the above, were somehow also capable of manufacturing hours and hours and hours of footage below?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GakAd6epHko
-
How do you possibly expect people to believe that the same people who came up with the above, were somehow also capable of manufacturing hours and hours and hours of footage below?
Which is basically how this thread started. Some VFX artists, y'know, people whose literal job it is to do this stuff, had a look and basically said it's not possible, or wasn't at the time.
But I'm sure some "people on the internet" being incredulous is a better argument.
-
We already know the cameras/film couldn't survive the supposed temps, let alone stay centered and in focus. Fake as a $3 bill
-
We already know the cameras/film couldn't survive the supposed temps, let alone stay centered and in focus. Fake as a $3 bill
Evidence?
-
Why would liking to speak to the press be one of the skills needed to become an astronaut?
They literally hired Stanley Kubric to do the filming.
Well, no "they" didn't. And if they had then what's your hot take, that he worked with people who can't act for some reason?
Cypher9's post reminds me of a meme I saw recently which was along the lines of:
Spends 3 years getting a degree.
Spends another 2 years researching to get a Ph. D.
Goes to work doing research.
Runs some experiments and trials.
Writes scientific paper.
Gets paper published.
Has paper peer reviewed.
Bloke on the internet: "Bullshit!"
Which is pretty much what Cypher9 has done. 3 dudes who literally work in VFX look at the footage and explain how that would have been impossible to fake using 1960's technology, Cypher9 doesn't bother to refute any of what they say, he just offers an argument from incredulity. Convincing.
There's plenty of 3rd party evidence for the moon landings. The Australians were relaying signals for NASA, Jodrell Bank in the UK was monitoring the mission - and a rival one from the USSR which was unmanned but attempting a soft landing before Apollo 11 to steal their thunder. I believe it's the Chinese who not too long ago released photos from one of their craft in orbit around the moon which is high enough resolution to see the landing sites. Then there's the laser reflectors which are still used.
And the entire counter argument from people who think it was all a hoax is "nah".
They didn't mention the VABs even once during the conference when the belts are the No.1 NASA given reason why we can't get into deep space today. Why? One of the astronauts Alan Bean, didn't even know where the belts were when asked. To my mind, it's irrational to just ignore these gaping holes in the story and says more about a person's desperation to believe the moon landings actually happened than anything else. Allaroundtheworld should examine his beliefs and stop ignoring uncomfortable truths.
-
They didn't mention the VABs even once during the conference when the belts are the No.1 NASA given reason why we can't get into deep space today.
Can you provide a source for that assertion? It's certainly a consideration and if you watch Apollo 11 - the recent film about the mission - you can clearly hear at one point mission control reading off the radiation exposure of the 3 astronauts. They were monitoring it. But they went through the belts fast and while they were exposed to some radiation it was well below the lethal dose.
They were exposed to around 14 rads/hour, a lethal dose is 300.
To my mind, it's irrational to just ignore these gaping holes in the story
But it's not a gaping hole is it? Yes, the Van Allen belts are a thing. Yes it was of concern to NASA during the Apollo program and would be a consideration for future programs.
But if you don't dwell in them too long it's perfectly possible to go through them without too much damage.
EDIT: One thing worth noting. The Van Allen belts were discovered by instruments on NASA missions, so...
-
You only have to look at the Apollo 11 conference to see that not one of the team had been to the moon. https://youtu.be/Xd1yBWsLsyQ
I agree with Kokorikos that maybe they just didn't like talking to the press, at that particular moment anyway. I saw clips from the whole interview and they seemed quite animated about certain topics they were discussing.
Generally speaking, selling new and exciting ideas to people isn't always easy. Anything paranormal or extraordinary like the moon walks can make people feel uneasy at times. Its a craft itself and the people need to be willing to accept it.
-
You only have to look at the Apollo 11 conference to see that not one of the team had been to the moon.
... or, more likely, to see that they had just emerged from a three-week quarantine, and had not yet been with their families since leaving for the start of the mission.
They didn't mention the VABs even once during the conference when the belts are the No.1 NASA given reason why we can't get into deep space today.
Van Allen's instrumentation went into space on NASA rockets. The only reason you know the VABs are there is because of NASA, yet you cite them as if they prove some fakery on NASA's part.
Also, I think you're misquoting the "reason why we can't get into deep space" ... NASA has said that the Orion craft will need testing to ensure that its instrumentation will survive longer exposure than the Apollo craft had, but that's it.
Moore asks ; "could you see stars IN THE SOLAR CORONA"
The video author appears to miss the joke in Collins' response. ("I didn't see any") He was the only one not on the surface, and not doing the experiment concerned.
EDIT footnote
The astronauts said farewell to their families prior to mission start.
Mission start July 16, 1969, 13:32:00 UTC
Splashed down July 24, 1969, 16:50:35 UTC, transfer to quarantine trailer
Return to land, transfer to quarantine suite at NASA to begin three weeks of quarantine, until August 10
The press conference took place on August 12, long after the initial euphoria would have worn off
I think we can excuse them a little fatigue and weariness with the whole thing...
-
Orion can't get into space because of the belts yes or no? But in '69 it wasn't a problem...hmmm. So, the belts are more dangerous today than 50 years ago, has the radiation become more intense or something? It just seems odd that it was seen as such an insignificant issue 50 years ago that no one even mentioned it.
-
Orion can't get into space because of the belts yes or no?
No. But they have put shielding in which will need testing
https://www.nasa.gov/content/five-things-we-ll-learn-from-orion-s-first-flight-test
But in '69 it wasn't a problem...hmmm. So, the belts are more dangerous today than 50 years ago, has the radiation become more intense or something?
No, it was a problem in '69. But the Apollo missions went through the belts quickly and they were monitoring the level of radiation the astronauts were exposed to. If you watch the recent Apollo 11 film you can clearly hear at one point mission control reading off the radiation levels. And there were some health consequences for those astronauts
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/heart-health/deep-space-radiation-caused-heart-problems-apollo-astronauts-n618116
It just seems odd that it was seen as such an insignificant issue 50 years ago that no one even mentioned it.
It was mentioned, it was monitored. And, while we're here, the Van Allen belts were discovered in an early NASA mission so it's quite funny how people who distrust everything NASA says suddenly believe them about that.
-
When I say it wasn't mentioned, I meant in later interviews and also during that conference. This is strange seeing as it is what is preventing space flight today. The radiation in the belts is so intense it can't even be measured by geiger counters but we're supposed to believe that the metal of the command module was sufficiently thick enough to shield the astronauts inside - I'm sorry but it's patently ridiculous. You would need 10 inches of steel to protect yourself from that amount of radiation and the walls of the command module were only an inch thick in places. And they were in the belts for long enough to get wet, that is for sure.
-
Which conference? The Apollo 11 post-mission?
The VABs are not "preventing space flight", nobody has said this.
Since Orion is projected to spend longer in the belts than Apollo, and because the electronics are of a totally different design, a testing regime is required to ensure that all behaves as it should.
And, as was said, the only reason you actually know about the VABs in the first place is because NASA sent up Van Allen's monitoring equipment on one of their missions. So ... you trust them when they say they are there, but distrust them on other stuff?
EDIT - further reading as to how Apollo avoided the dense regions - https://science.thewire.in/the-sciences/apollo-11-van-allen-radiation-belts-translunar-injection/
-
When I say it wasn't mentioned, I meant in later interviews and also during that conference. This is strange seeing as it is what is preventing space flight today. The radiation in the belts is so intense it can't even be measured by geiger counters but we're supposed to believe that the metal of the command module was sufficiently thick enough to shield the astronauts inside - I'm sorry but it's patently ridiculous. You would need 10 inches of steel to protect yourself from that amount of radiation and the walls of the command module were only an inch thick in places. And they were in the belts for long enough to get wet, that is for sure.
Where are you getting this knowledge you have of the existence of the VAB, its intensity, 10 inches of steel shielding is required, etc?
-
When I say it wasn't mentioned, I meant in later interviews and also during that conference. This is strange seeing as it is what is preventing space flight today. The radiation in the belts is so intense it can't even be measured by geiger counters but we're supposed to believe that the metal of the command module was sufficiently thick enough to shield the astronauts inside - I'm sorry but it's patently ridiculous. You would need 10 inches of steel to protect yourself from that amount of radiation and the walls of the command module were only an inch thick in places. And they were in the belts for long enough to get wet, that is for sure.
Where are you getting this knowledge you have of the existence of the VAB, its intensity, 10 inches of steel shielding is required, etc?
I'm just making it up as I go along.
-
When I say it wasn't mentioned, I meant in later interviews and also during that conference. This is strange seeing as it is what is preventing space flight today. The radiation in the belts is so intense it can't even be measured by geiger counters but we're supposed to believe that the metal of the command module was sufficiently thick enough to shield the astronauts inside - I'm sorry but it's patently ridiculous. You would need 10 inches of steel to protect yourself from that amount of radiation and the walls of the command module were only an inch thick in places. And they were in the belts for long enough to get wet, that is for sure.
Where are you getting this knowledge you have of the existence of the VAB, its intensity, 10 inches of steel shielding is required, etc?
I'm just making it up as I go along.
Good to know.
-
When I say it wasn't mentioned, I meant in later interviews and also during that conference. This is strange seeing as it is what is preventing space flight today. The radiation in the belts is so intense it can't even be measured by geiger counters but we're supposed to believe that the metal of the command module was sufficiently thick enough to shield the astronauts inside - I'm sorry but it's patently ridiculous. You would need 10 inches of steel to protect yourself from that amount of radiation and the walls of the command module were only an inch thick in places. And they were in the belts for long enough to get wet, that is for sure.
Just joshing. The information regarding the geiger measuring of radiation in the belts is recorded knowledge which I can fish out for you if you need it. The amount of steel you'd need to shield you from excessive amounts of radiation such as in a nuclear incident is to be found in the 'NATO Handbook On The Medical Aspects Of NBC Defensive Operations'. The thickness of the command module steel is also documented but I'm hoping you're not going to want me to go looking for it for you.
Where are you getting this knowledge you have of the existence of the VAB, its intensity, 10 inches of steel shielding is required, etc?
I'm just making it up as I go along.
Good to know.
-
When I say it wasn't mentioned, I meant in later interviews and also during that conference. This is strange seeing as it is what is preventing space flight today. The radiation in the belts is so intense it can't even be measured by geiger counters but we're supposed to believe that the metal of the command module was sufficiently thick enough to shield the astronauts inside - I'm sorry but it's patently ridiculous. You would need 10 inches of steel to protect yourself from that amount of radiation and the walls of the command module were only an inch thick in places. And they were in the belts for long enough to get wet, that is for sure.
Where are you getting this knowledge you have of the existence of the VAB, its intensity, 10 inches of steel shielding is required, etc?
I'm just making it up as I go along.
Good to know.
Just joshing. The information regarding the geiger measuring of radiation in the belts is recorded knowledge which I can fish out for you if you need it. The amount of steel you'd need to shield you from excessive amounts of radiation such as in a nuclear incident is to be found in the 'NATO Handbook On The Medical Aspects Of NBC Defensive Operations'. The thickness of the command module steel is also documented but I'm hoping you're not going to want me to go looking for it for you.
First off, work on your quoting. I kinda fixed it for you, it's a mess.
Secondly, you are making it up as you go along.
Thirdly, you say, "The radiation in the belts is so intense it can't even be measured by geiger counters..." Well it was, NASA's Explorer I had a Geiger counter at Van Allen's request and it recorded something they didn't expect, a lot of radiation we didn't know was there. In other words, it was measured, that's how they knew it was there. You're statement is completely illogical.
As well, as AATW pointed out, what's with even bringing up the VAB's when it's creepy NASA that supposedly discovered them, with a rocket no less, 900 miles above Earth? Isn't NASA not at all to be trusted in your eyes? It's always funny when conspiracists say that NASA is just a bunch of lies, but then cherrypick something and say, "Except for this..."
And as for you somehow divining the amount of VAB radiation, though you claim it can't be measured, and somehow applying info from the 'NATO Handbook On The Medical Aspects Of NBC Defensive Operations', found here, https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm8-9.pdf, to calculate the necessary protective thickness, 10" of steel, needed for the Apollo command module's skin, when there is no mention of anything regarding Apollo in the document. And again, you claim to not know the intensity of the VAB's. Umm, all of which makes little to no sense at.
So no, you're not just joshing. You are actually making it up as you go along.
-
Quote: Thirdly, you say, "The radiation in the belts is so intense it can't even be measured by geiger counters..." Well it was, NASA's Explorer I had a Geiger counter at Van Allen's request and it recorded something they didn't expect, a lot of radiation we didn't know was there. In other words, it was measured, that's how they knew it was there. You're statement is completely illogical.
I meant it was so intense it overloaded the geiger counters. So much that it couldn't be measured.
-
Quote: Thirdly, you say, "The radiation in the belts is so intense it can't even be measured by geiger counters..." Well it was, NASA's Explorer I had a Geiger counter at Van Allen's request and it recorded something they didn't expect, a lot of radiation we didn't know was there. In other words, it was measured, that's how they knew it was there. You're statement is completely illogical.
I meant it was so intense it overloaded the geiger counters. So much that it couldn't be measured.
Again, why do you even believe in the VAB's regardless of whether a geiger counter strapped to a rocket 900 miles above the earth showed the measurements of radiation suddenly drop off, according to you know who, NASA?
Refresher: As well, as AATW pointed out, what's with even bringing up the VAB's when it's creepy NASA that supposedly discovered them, with a rocket no less, 900 miles above Earth? Isn't NASA not at all to be trusted in your eyes? It's always funny when conspiracists say that NASA is just a bunch of lies, but then cherrypick something and say, "Except for this..."
And how exactly did you come up with your 10" thick steel shielding necessary for the command module?
-
Again, why do you even believe in the VAB's regardless of whether a geiger counter strapped to a rocket 900 miles above the earth showed the measurements of radiation suddenly drop off, according to you know who, NASA?
It's a valid question. Why do I believe Dr. Van Allen and what he says? In his writings, he seems legit but on thinking about it how can anyone know the world is surrounded by rings of radiation? I was very impressed by this video from 1959 which explains the problems to spaceflight because of the belts and explains how Van Allen discovered them.
https://youtu.be/szh5cuzfiN4
Refresher: As well, as AATW pointed out, what's with even bringing up the VAB's when it's creepy NASA that supposedly discovered them, with a rocket no less, 900 miles above Earth?
It was Dr. Van Allen who discovered them not NASA.
Isn't NASA not at all to be trusted in your eyes?
I trust them when they say they can't get into space because of the radiation.
-
It was Dr. Van Allen who discovered them not NASA.
How did he send instruments up to measure them, if not on NASA rocketry?
(EDIT - https://ir.uiowa.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1579&context=annals-of-iowa)
I trust them (NASA) when they say they can't get into space because of the radiation.
... but you're misquoting them. They did not say this.
-
How did he send instruments up to measure them, if not on NASA rocketry?
It explains in the video
... but you're misquoting them. They did not say this.
They said Orion couldn't get through the belts. Didn't they?
-
They said Orion couldn't get through the belts. Didn't they?
Don't think so.
You can show us a verbatim quote, can't you?
-
They said Orion couldn't get through the belts. Didn't they?
Don't think so.
You can show us a verbatim quote, can't you?
NASA engineer admits they can’t get past the Van Allen Belts
https://youtu.be/4O5dPsu66Kw
(3:00 mins in)
'...we must solve these challenges before we send people through this region of space'
Let me know if they've been solved, this video is quite old now.
-
NASA engineer admits they can’t get past the Van Allen Belts
In that video he is literally talking about an unmanned mission which goes through them.
He notes that the radiation could affect the electronics but they have shielding and monitors which will check the levels of radiation. And as I’ve noted, if you watch some of the Apollo 11 footage you can hear them talking about the radiation levels the astronauts were exposed to.
-
NASA engineer admits they can’t get past the Van Allen Belts
In that video he is literally talking about an unmanned mission which goes through them.
He notes that the radiation could affect the electronics but they have shielding and monitors which will check the levels of radiation. And as I’ve noted, if you watch some of the Apollo 11 footage you can hear them talking about the radiation levels the astronauts were exposed to.
'...we must solve these challenges before we send people through this region of space'
-
'...we must solve these challenges before we send people through this region of space'
Yes. They need to test the shielding and measure the radiation levels with unmanned missions before they send any people, which is exactly what they did with previous programmes.
-
'...we must solve these challenges before we send people through this region of space'
Yes. They need to test the shielding and measure the radiation levels with unmanned missions before they send any people, which is exactly what they did with previous programmes.
Orion is a spaceship designed to carry astronauts but as yet is unable to because of the dangerous radiation in the belts that we're told may affect the electronics on board. These are the facts. For some strange reason though, it wasn't a problem 50 years ago when the astronauts had hardly any shielding and still felt no ill effects from that radiation. Why don't they just employ whatever it was they employed back then when apparently just about every trip went without a hitch?
-
Orion is a spaceship designed to carry astronauts but as yet is unable to because of the dangerous radiation in the belts that we're told may affect the electronics on board. These are the facts.
They aren’t facts. There haven’t been any Orion missions yet so we don’t know how effective the radiation shielding will be. What the guy is saying is that they need to test it with unmanned missions before they do manned missions. As I’ve said, this is fairly common practice. And electronics are very different how to they were in the Apollo area.
For some strange reason though, it wasn't a problem 50 years ago when the astronauts had hardly any shielding and still felt no ill effects from that radiation.
Except none of that is true. It was a problem which was considered. There was shielding to mitigate it. They were monitoring the radiation dose the astronauts received and while the dosages were not enough to do immediate noticeable damage, there is evidence that it had a long term effect. I have provided a link to an article about that. And one factor here is that they are a lot more risk adverse now. In the space race there was huge political pressure to get the job done. That isn’t the case now. You are not comparing like for like.
-
NASA engineer admits they can’t get past the Van Allen Belts
That's the title of the video, not a verbatim quote from what the guy said. I did ask for a verbatim quote from NASA, not from the YouTuber titling the video.
...we must solve these challenges before we send people through this region of space
The challenges referred to are engineering challenges. For the crew to travel safely, they must rely on the engineering of their craft, and it's this which is being tested.
From the YouTube transcript of his speech; I added punctuation for clarity, and omitted non-relevant sections (...) but have not changed any words, so it's essentially verbatim;
my name is Kelly Smith ... 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. For Orion's first flight no astronauts will be aboard; the spacecraft is loaded with sensors to record and measure all aspects of the flight in every detail. It all begins with launch
... as we get further away from Earth, we'll pass through the Van Allen 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
Again, he's referring to the engineering challenges of making sure the systems work OK - for the astronauts have to depend on them. If the systems go awry, astronauts could die.
There is nothing here which even hints that Orion flights are being prevented by adverse effects on the astronauts.
-
For some strange reason though, it wasn't a problem 50 years ago
Different systems. Rope-core memory in the computers. Not the same degree of miniaturisation that we have today.
Again, Apollo took a trajectory which avoided the dense areas of the belts, and this is not/may not be optimum for Orion's projected missions, and Orion is expected to spend longer in the belts than Apollo did.
Again, the Apollo astronauts' dose was recorded, and was far below dangerous levels. Why would they feel ill-effects? (See AATW's comment about effects later in life, though)
Why don't they rebuild the Apollo systems? Because they want the systems on Orion to do more than they did then, and do things differently, surely?
-
Orion is a spaceship designed to carry astronauts but as yet is unable to because of the dangerous radiation in the belts that we're told may affect the electronics on board. These are the facts.
They aren’t facts. There haven’t been any Orion missions yet so we don’t know how effective the radiation shielding will be. What the guy is saying is that they need to test it with unmanned missions before they do manned missions. As I’ve said, this is fairly common practice. And electronics are very different how to they were in the Apollo area.
For some strange reason though, it wasn't a problem 50 years ago when the astronauts had hardly any shielding and still felt no ill effects from that radiation.
Except none of that is true. It was a problem which was considered. There was shielding to mitigate it. They were monitoring the radiation dose the astronauts received and while the dosages were not enough to do immediate noticeable damage, there is evidence that it had a long term effect. I have provided a link to an article about that. And one factor here is that they are a lot more risk adverse now. In the space race there was huge political pressure to get the job done. That isn’t the case now. You are not comparing like for like.
What we do know though is the command module shielding was nowhere near sufficient enough to protect the astronauts from the amount of radiation in the belts so all your shill-spiel about monitoring radiation doses and the astronauts not being in the belts for very long etc. is palpable poop that although likely makes you chuckle while typing it isn't fooling anyone. Least of all me. You and I know very well, no one's been to the moon. The only question is when will you come clean about it?
-
What we do know though is the command module shielding was nowhere near sufficient enough to protect the astronauts from the amount of radiation in the belts ...
Citation and detail, please.
What was the "amount of radiation"
Why was the CM shielding insufficient?
no one's been to the moon
Third-party confirmations;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings
First-hand evidence includes data, film, photo, live broadcasts, lunar samples retrieved from the surface, anecdotal evidence from participants, etc, etc.
-
What we do know though is the command module shielding was nowhere near sufficient enough to protect the astronauts from the amount of radiation in the belts
Can you provide a source for that claim?
I’m confused what you’re arguing here. Previously you seemed to be saying that whatever worked for the Apollo missions would work now, so why don’t they just do that. Now you seem to be claiming that the shielding didn’t work?
But as I and others are trying to explain, you are not comparing like for like for several reasons.
- Due to the political pressure in the Space Race they were less risk risk adverse than they are now. Plus there is evidence, which I have presented, that the Apollo astronauts did suffer long term consequences from their exposure. Obviously they would seek to do things better this time.
- The electronics are very different these days and the miniaturisation means they could be more susceptible to the effects. That obviously needs testing.
- The missions are very different. The Apollo astronauts went through the belts fast and there was an element of luck in that they didn’t get hit by any big solar activity. It was a calculated risk given that they weren’t hanging around long. The Orion missions are planned to be much longer so obviously a different approach is needed this time.
so all your shill-spiel about monitoring radiation doses and the astronauts not being in the belts for very long etc. is palpable poop
Except I am providing sources and evidence, you are not. The “Aha! What about the Van Allen belts?” argument is weak for several reasons.
- People who argue that, especially those who claim that NASA are big fat liars are strangely credulous about the existence of these belts, given that they were discovered on a NASA mission.
- The belts WERE considered when planning the Apollo missions, there was some shielding, the radiation levels were being monitored and there is some evidence that the Apollo astronauts did suffer some long term effects
- The Orion missions are not comparable. They are longer and more ambitious. And the electronics are not comparable either.
You and I know very well, no one's been to the moon. The only question is when will you come clean about it?
Read “A Man on The Moon” by Andrew Chaikin. A well researched book about the Apollo missions and the Mercury and Gemini programmes which preceded them. Then we can talk about whether all that could have been faked. Which is how this thread started - 3 VFX experts, people who actually work in the field, reviewing the Apollo footage and saying how that could not have been faked before the advent of CGI. Even with CGI you can generally tell although it is getting harder to.
-
What was the "amount of radiation"
Enough to stop a geiger counter from working. [see vid above]
Why was the CM shielding insufficient?
An inch or so of steel wouldn't be enough which is all it had according to NASA.
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/CSM06_Command_Module_Overview_pp39-52.pdf
We're talking nuclear explosion levels of radiation, the sort of amount you'd need 10 inches of steel to protect you according to NATO's Handbook On The Medical Aspects Of NBC Defensive Operations.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/doctrine/dod/fm8-9/1toc.htm
No one would enter such a dangerous area unless they were sure they'd be shielded sufficiently. The likes of Armstrong would have known about the belts and the danger they posed. They wouldn't have gone unless they knew for certain the shielding was going to be sufficient. These guys had families, there was no reason for them to go off on a suicide mission.
-
Again, why do you even believe in the VAB's regardless of whether a geiger counter strapped to a rocket 900 miles above the earth showed the measurements of radiation suddenly drop off, according to you know who, NASA?
It's a valid question. Why do I believe Dr. Van Allen and what he says? In his writings, he seems legit but on thinking about it how can anyone know the world is surrounded by rings of radiation? I was very impressed by this video from 1959 which explains the problems to spaceflight because of the belts and explains how Van Allen discovered them.
https://youtu.be/szh5cuzfiN4
Refresher: As well, as AATW pointed out, what's with even bringing up the VAB's when it's creepy NASA that supposedly discovered them, with a rocket no less, 900 miles above Earth?
It was Dr. Van Allen who discovered them not NASA.
It says right in the transcript of the video:
"03:09
the chance came in 1958 when explorer 1
03:12
went into orbit
03:13
and it carried cosmic ray detectors and
03:15
a transmitter designed by dr van allen's
03:17
group"
What is Explorer 1?
Isn't NASA not at all to be trusted in your eyes?
I trust them when they say they can't get into space because of the radiation.
Why would you trust NASA with only that information? That seems very odd and, well, exceedingly hypocritical.
-
What was the "amount of radiation"
We're talking nuclear explosion levels of radiation, the sort of amount you'd need 10 inches of steel to protect you according to NATO's Handbook On The Medical Aspects Of NBC Defensive Operations.
No, we are not talking about nuclear explosion levels of radiation...
SP-368 Biomedical Results of Apollo
CHAPTER 3
RADIATION PROTECTION AND INSTRUMENTATION
by J. Vernon Bailey
Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center
"Results and Discussion
Average radiation doses were computed for each mission (table 2). Individual readings varied approximately 20 percent from the average because of differences in the shielding effectiveness of various parts of the Apollo spacecraft as well as differences in duties, movements, and locations of crewmen. Doses to blood-forming organs were approximately 40 percent lower than the values measured at the body surface. In comparison with the doses actually received, the maximum operational dose (MOD) limit for each of the Apollo missions was set at 400 rads (X-ray equivalent) to skin and 50 rads to the blood-forming organs.
Radiation doses measured during Apollo were significantly lower than the yearly average of 5 rem*** set by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission for workers who use [112] radioactive materials in factories and institutions across the United States. Thus, radiation was not an operational problem during the Apollo Program. Doses received by the crewmen of Apollo missions 7 through 17 were small because no major solar-particle events occurred during those missions. One small event was detected by a radiation sensor outside the Apollo 12 spacecraft, but no increase in radiation dose to the crewmen inside the spacecraft was detected."
https://history.nasa.gov/SP-368/s2ch3.htm
Everything you want to know about how to safely transverse the belts: https://science.thewire.in/the-sciences/apollo-11-van-allen-radiation-belts-translunar-injection/
Excerpt:
"Further, knowing the belts’ absence above the poles, the altitude of the lower edge of the inner belt being ~600 km (well above the LEO) and the location of the South Atlantic anomaly, where doses are at a high 40 mrads/day at an altitude of 210 km allowed NASA to design the Apollo translunar injection (TLI) orbit in a way that the spacecraft would avoid the belts’ most dangerous parts."
-
https://flatearth.ws/james-van-allen
"The radiation belts of the Earth do, indeed, pose important constraints on the safety of human space flight.
The very energetic (tens to hundreds of MeV) protons in the inner radiation belt are the most dangerous and most difficult to shield against. Specifically, prolonged flights (i.e., ones of many months’ duration) of humans or other animals in orbits about the Earth must be conducted at altitudes less than about 250 miles in order to avoid significant radiation exposure.
A person in the cabin of a space shuttle in a circular equatorial orbit in the most intense region of the inner radiation belt, at an altitude of about 1000 miles, would be subjected to a fatal dosage of radiation in about one week.
However, the outbound and inbound trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft cut through the outer portions of the inner belt and because of their high speed spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. The resulting radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal dosage – a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such flights. I made such estimates in the early 1960s and so informed NASA engineers who were planning the Apollo flights. These estimates are still reliable."
- James A. Van Allen
-
What was the "amount of radiation"
We're talking nuclear explosion levels of radiation, the sort of amount you'd need 10 inches of steel to protect you according to NATO's Handbook On The Medical Aspects Of NBC Defensive Operations.
No, we are not talking about nuclear explosion levels of radiation...
SP-368 Biomedical Results of Apollo
CHAPTER 3
RADIATION PROTECTION AND INSTRUMENTATION
by J. Vernon Bailey
Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center
"Results and Discussion
Average radiation doses were computed for each mission (table 2). Individual readings varied approximately 20 percent from the average because of differences in the shielding effectiveness of various parts of the Apollo spacecraft as well as differences in duties, movements, and locations of crewmen. Doses to blood-forming organs were approximately 40 percent lower than the values measured at the body surface. In comparison with the doses actually received, the maximum operational dose (MOD) limit for each of the Apollo missions was set at 400 rads (X-ray equivalent) to skin and 50 rads to the blood-forming organs.
Radiation doses measured during Apollo were significantly lower than the yearly average of 5 rem*** set by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission for workers who use [112] radioactive materials in factories and institutions across the United States. Thus, radiation was not an operational problem during the Apollo Program. Doses received by the crewmen of Apollo missions 7 through 17 were small because no major solar-particle events occurred during those missions. One small event was detected by a radiation sensor outside the Apollo 12 spacecraft, but no increase in radiation dose to the crewmen inside the spacecraft was detected."
https://history.nasa.gov/SP-368/s2ch3.htm
Everything you want to know about how to safely transverse the belts: https://science.thewire.in/the-sciences/apollo-11-van-allen-radiation-belts-translunar-injection/
Excerpt:
"Further, knowing the belts’ absence above the poles, the altitude of the lower edge of the inner belt being ~600 km (well above the LEO) and the location of the South Atlantic anomaly, where doses are at a high 40 mrads/day at an altitude of 210 km allowed NASA to design the Apollo translunar injection (TLI) orbit in a way that the spacecraft would avoid the belts’ most dangerous parts."
We're talking the sort of radiation that at the very least would have you spewing all over the controls in the CM. Certainly enough that would fry you very quickly.
'Our measurements show that the maximum radiation level as of 1958 is equivalent to between 10 and 100 roentgens per hour, depending on the still undetermined proportion of protons to electrons. Since a human being exposed for two days to even 10 roentgens would have only an even chance of survival, the radiation belts obviously present an obstacle to space flight' James Van Allen
-
We're talking the sort of radiation that at the very least would have you spewing all over the controls in the CM. Certainly enough that would fry you very quickly.
'Our measurements show that the maximum radiation level as of 1958 is equivalent to between 10 and 100 roentgens per hour, depending on the still undetermined proportion of protons to electrons. Since a human being exposed for two days to even 10 roentgens would have only an even chance of survival, the radiation belts obviously present an obstacle to space flight' James Van Allen
OK, you accept that NASA sent up the Explorer rockets with Van Allen's equipment in the first place, but disbelieve them when they state what was actually measured during the Apollo missions.
And then you quote from Van Allen's preliminary work, from 11 years before Apollo 11; as if things weren't further quantified after that.... you quoted him from 1958, and
"The resulting radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal dosage – a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such flights. I made such estimates in the early 1960s and so informed NASA engineers who were planning the Apollo flights. These estimates are still reliable.""
-
OK, you accept that NASA sent up the Explorer rockets with Van Allen's equipment in the first place, but disbelieve them when they state what was actually measured during the Apollo missions.
No, I don't believe I do. I thought Dr. Van Allen was working independently.
-
OK, you accept that NASA sent up the Explorer rockets with Van Allen's equipment in the first place, but disbelieve them when they state what was actually measured during the Apollo missions.
No, I don't believe I do. I thought Dr. Van Allen was working independently.
He didn't send his own rockets up.
How do you think the equipment got into the belts, other than by sending rockets into them?
You said the geiger counter overloaded. What do you think was carrying the geiger counter into that region of the belts?
-
He didn't send his own rockets up.
How do you think the equipment got into the belts, other than by sending rockets into them?
He was working with a university I thought.
-
He didn't send his own rockets up.
How do you think the equipment got into the belts, other than by sending rockets into them?
He was working with a university I thought.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_3
-
He didn't send his own rockets up.
How do you think the equipment got into the belts, other than by sending rockets into them?
He was working with a university I thought.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_3
I believe he sent up balloon rockets called 'rockoons'. I'm not sure what the point your making is, what does it matter if NASA was involved or not? NASA appears to have taken no notice of his findings.
-
I believe he sent up balloon rockets called 'rockoons'.
In the early 1950s, which were reaching a height of around 122km. This was the initial phase of his work.
The inner VAB starts around 1,000km. So he had to place his equipment aboard military, at first, and later NASA rocketry to achieve these heights, in the later phase of his work. You're quoting stuff from the early phases as if it were final and conclusive. It wasn't.
His findings as provided to NASA were quoted above, and as you can see, he was of the opinion that the risks from VAB exposure were minimal.
-
Again, why do you even believe in the VAB's regardless of whether a geiger counter strapped to a rocket 900 miles above the earth showed the measurements of radiation suddenly drop off, according to you know who, NASA?
It's a valid question. Why do I believe Dr. Van Allen and what he says? In his writings, he seems legit but on thinking about it how can anyone know the world is surrounded by rings of radiation? I was very impressed by this video from 1959 which explains the problems to spaceflight because of the belts and explains how Van Allen discovered them.
https://youtu.be/szh5cuzfiN4
Refresher: As well, as AATW pointed out, what's with even bringing up the VAB's when it's creepy NASA that supposedly discovered them, with a rocket no less, 900 miles above Earth?
It was Dr. Van Allen who discovered them not NASA.
It says right in the transcript of the video:
"03:09
the chance came in 1958 when explorer 1
03:12
went into orbit
03:13
and it carried cosmic ray detectors and
03:15
a transmitter designed by dr van allen's
03:17
group"
What is Explorer 1?
Isn't NASA not at all to be trusted in your eyes?
I trust them when they say they can't get into space because of the radiation.
Why would you trust NASA with only that information? That seems very odd and, well, exceedingly hypocritical.
exceedingly hypocritical
That's very hurtful and a stain on my good character.
I don't trust anything they say. Whatever it is they've said, I don't trust it. I think they lie about everything in order to keep us paying them billions of dollars. They're a demonic bunch of grifters if you ask me.
-
I don't trust anything they say. Whatever it is they've said, I don't trust it. I think they lie about everything in order to keep us paying them billions of dollars. They're a demonic bunch of grifters if you ask me.
This is just same old, same old unsubstantiated mud-slinging. "FE Nouveaux" as Pete called it.
NASA is the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Is it just the "space" part you disbelieve, or do you reckon they're pulling the wool over your eyes in aeronautics too?
-
I don't trust anything they say. Whatever it is they've said, I don't trust it. I think they lie about everything in order to keep us paying them billions of dollars. They're a demonic bunch of grifters if you ask me.
This is just same old, same old unsubstantiated mud-slinging. "FE Nouveaux" as Pete called it.
NASA is the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Is it just the "space" part you disbelieve, or do you reckon they're pulling the wool over your eyes in aeronautics too?
I have no problem with the 'space' part.
-
I have no problem with the 'space' part.
Hmmm.
Just yesterday, you said "I don't trust anything they say. ", so ... unless this is some attempt at humour ("There's space between their ears"), you don't seem able to make up your mind.
-
Just a note- this thread seems to have very quickly deviated from the intended point. Upon browsing through, there was perhaps one response to the actual observations in the original video, and that was (forgive me if I make a mistake) an RE response.. Everything else seems to focus on the secondary video of the Apollo 11 astronauts, and myriad other offshoots of that. I certainly believe that Corridor Crew made some valid points.
-
So you begin a rigorous recruitment process from the air force to find the absolute best of the best ... and you pick 3 guys who don't like communicating?
Michael Collins covers this in his biography; in the main, they were recruited from a pool of test pilots.
we weren't trained to emote, we were trained to repress our emotions, lest they interfere with our duties. If they wanted an emotional press conference, they should have assembled an Apollo 11 crew from a philosopher, Priest and a poet - not three test pilots.