Jump to content
The Education Forum

(Merged) Fetzer / Burton Apollo Hoax debate thread


Evan Burton
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest James H. Fetzer

Duane,

I'm glad you are here to resort some sanity to this exchange. Greer obviously has never studied logic and does not understand the nature of conditionals. He seems to think that the "if" sentences (or antecedents) of "if . . . then ___" sentences have to be true for the sentence to be true. So he is hung up on his question-begging presumption that the "rehearsal" footage cannot have been taken during the actual faking of the moon landing because of a difference in the suits the were wearing, which makes them DIFFERENT but does not prove they were not taken AT ABOUT THE SAME TIME AND PLACE AND SET. But it doesn't matter because, even if he were right, the second horn of the dilemma follows, namely, that that footage shows the landing could have been faked, a point that I have explained to him a half-dozen times.

His reference to In case the Soviet Zond flights strikes me as similarly misleading. Those flights were UNMANNED, where Zond 5 was launched in September 1968 and Zond 7 in August of 1969. It is therefore highly unlikely that NASA could have known any of the details about the Zond program in preparing for the Apollo missions. Greer remarks, "four Russian scientists who in the late 60s advised that flights along the lines of Zond-5 and Zond-7 were safe from a radiation point of view", but for whom? for small organisms? for animals or plants? for humans and, if so, how would they know? The article he links doesn't ex;plain, which suggests to me that he is trading on vagaries and ambiguities to carry the burden of his argument without bothering with proof. Logic and evidence are not his strong suits.

A 2003 article from pravda.com, http://english.pravda.ru/science/tech/15-05-2003/2809-moon-0/# , raises quite a few issues that undermine American claims to have traveled to the moon. Radiation was only one of the reasons the Soviets did not try to send a man to the moon, but there were many others. This article provides an inventory of excellent reasons for doubting that our own astronauts made it there, which may explain why President Obama has cancelled plans for a return to the moon, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8489097.stm He was probably appalled to discover that the whole moon landing business had been a hoax that was undertaken as a PR stunt to show we were keeping up with the Soviets! Some reasons from pravda.com for skepticism:

(1) Even people ignorant of space technologies understand that then-level of technological and electronic development wouldn't allow to perform complicated space maneuvers connected with docking and undocking of the Apollo carrier rocket that was separated from the module with people inside it. What is more, return back of the carrier rocket was also quite a problem. The Apollo onboard computers performed even poorer than present-day calculators.

(2) The possibility of human survival in open space was also called into question. Did a space suit made of rubber and cloth in the 1960s protect people on the Moon, the planet having no atmospheric layers and magnetic fields? Could it protect from high radiation? The temperature of 250 Fahrenheit degrees below zero would immediately kill humans in such suits. But it was reported that none of the astronauts was even affected with radiation sickness.

(3) Former NASA staffer Bill Kaysing, the author of the book "NASA Never Landed a Man on the Moon", confessed that even the Agency itself considered the possibility of man's landing on the Moon was 0.0017% at that period (which was practically nothing!). It is not ruled out that Americans did fly to the Moon, but didn't advance further than its orbit. Robots did the rest of the work.

(4) However, it is also unlikely that 382 kilograms of Moon soil could be delivered to the Earth after three expeditions (Soviet Moon research vehicles brought just 0.3 kg), because additional kilograms of burden are risky for a rocket. The rest of the Moon expedition simulation was just a political trick, shooting made in pavilions that at the same time allowed the USA to spare billions of dollars. This version resembles the movie Capricorn-1. Probably, the movie was made with a view to rehabilitate America for its big lies.

(5) When the Apollo-Moon module system was studied more carefully, it became clear that two astronauts in space suits couldn't find room in the module, not to mention the Moon robot that couldn't be placed there even non-assembled. What is more, astronauts couldn't squeeze through a narrow tunnel between the space ship and the module. In fact, an exit hatch opens inward, not outside as the legendary documentary demonstrates.

(6) The documentary was probably shot in a cargo bay of a swooping supersonic airplane to create an effect of weightlessness. It is strange but not a single star could be seen on the pictures of the Moon flight. Stars are even brighter in space than as seen from the Earth. Instead, there was blue light streaming into the illuminators of the space ship, at the time when it is known that open space is absolutely black.

(7) Apollo landing was also strange: running of the engine didn't move a single stone or a speck of dust on the Moon surface. After that, the module settled on a flat surface. Pressure of a jet engine would inevitably make a crater on the place of landing while braking. As is know, the Moon gravitation makes up 1/6 of the Earth gravitation. A cloud of dust thrown from under the Apollo wheels should have been six times higher than depicted on the photos.

(8) As for the shadows that astronauts and their apparatuses cast on the Moon, they were of different length and direction, at the time when it is known that the Sun is the only source of light on the Moon. It may also seem strange that not a single picture of the Earth as seen from the Moon was made during the expedition. Movements of the astronauts looked as if the film was slowly played. It was obvious that jumping and moving was very difficult for the astronauts, but the jumping amplitude was very small. Even school children know that a man weighing 160 kilograms on the Earth would weight only 27 kg on the Moon, which would made him jump like a grasshopper.

Some of the reasons adduced here may explain why the design plans for the moon lander and the moor rover no longer exist, not to mention why NASA would have had to erase its original footage lest anyone take a close look and discern the use of front-screen projection and other problems that have been noted in the course of this thread. The explanations given -- that NASA was trying to save money by reusing old tapes and that Grumann did not have room for the designs of these incredibly expensive space vehicles -- defy belief. Burton, Greer, and their cronies, of course, will come up with more rubbish in their ongoing attempts to deceive the unwary. But I suspect serious readers have long since grown weary of the nonsense they have been peddling.

Jim

Here's more evidence that the Apollo Moon Landings were faked... Colonel Philip Corso had top secret security clearance with the US military .. He claimed that NASA couldn't send humans into space, beyond the magnetosphere.

Question to NASA open e-mail. Colonel Philip Corso Part 5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xp5kyoNfRP8&feature=sub

NASA won't answer any questions about their lack of radiation shielding protection concerning their spacesuits, or their Apollo craft.. Nor will they reply to any e-mails sent by those who want to know the truth about how they allegedly sent 24 humans to the Moon and back over 40 years ago, when that can't even be technically accomplished today.

The Chinese promised to send humans to the Moon by 2020 but have had to put their manned lunar missions on hold because of their inability to protect their taikonauts against deep space radiation.. They have even gone so far as to admit that they don't know how the Americans protected their astronauts against radiation in the 1960's and 70's, during the Apollo Program.

If you combine this evidence with the obviously staged Apollo photography, it leaves little doubt that Apollo was the scam of the century.

Edited by James H. Fetzer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 752
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

As per normal, Jim ignores the answers that were provided to him in July:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16258&view=findpost&p=198224

Let's examine what the article say, and check the accuracy.

"Even people ignorant of space technologies understand that then-level of technological and electronic development wouldn't allow to perform complicated space maneuvers"

That statement shows a large degree of ignorance regarding science. The basics of manoeuvring in space were worked out by Sir Issac Newton and Johannes Kepler, further refined by people like Tsiolkovsky, Oberth and others (see here). The development of small rocket engines and thrusters allowed the provision of impulse. The four gimbal gyro allowed a spacecraft to maintain a stable reference platform in space. Radar could be used for accurate distance calculation. All were available well before the first manned flight into space.

"Right at that very time John Kennedy addressed the Congress and asked for $40 billion for realization of a Moon shuttle program."

That's not quite right. Kennedy set the task for the US to "...before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth...". The paragraph in the article also gives the incorrect impression that this occurred right after the USSR launched Sputnik; in fact it was after the US had placed it's first man in space. Also, he was asking for about $8 billion over the next five years. The total cost of the entire programme would not be known until much later. The total cost of the Apollo programme, including the Apollo-Soyuz Test Program and Skylab, was about $19.5 billion (source).

"Some of the pictures revealed unnatural shades and sometimes even disagreed with the fundamental physics laws. American engineer Ralph Rene was the first who notices these faults: he declared that there was no Moon landing at all and that all pictures and films about the flight to the unexplored planet were a fake. "

The "shades" have been explained and there was NO conflict with physics; in fact the appearance conformed with physics rather than what people "thought" they should see.

Ralph Rene (1933 - 2008) claimed to be an engineer but admits he is "self taught" and held no formal qualifications whatsoever. Some of his other claims were that Einstein's Theory of Relativity was wrong, that Newton's Law of Universal Graviation was wrong, and that Pi was in fact equal to 3.146264.

"What is interesting, only several tens of pictures about the Moon flight out of the total number of 13,000 pics held by the NASA were published in fact."

Completely wrong. There are multiple sites that have every single image taken during the missions. A recommended site is the Project Apollo Archive - Image Gallery. Images from the missions were available shortly after the astronauts returned from the missions. All images could be requested from NASA (this was in the days before the internet!).

"Scientists and engineers studied all information concerning America's Moon flight more carefully and passed a severe verdict: flight of American astronauts to the Moon is just a carefully considered leg-pull."

Lies. The scientific community, nor the aerospace engineering community, did no such thing nor ever gave any such 'verdict'. Notice the article does not give any reference regarding this. This would be exactly the same as my publishing an article regarding the JFK assassination and saying "all the experts have studied the evidence and concluded that JFK was killed by Lee Harvey Oswald, who acted alone".

"Even people ignorant of space technologies understand that then-level of technological and electronic development wouldn't allow to perform complicated space maneuvers connected with docking and undocking of the Apollo carrier rocket that was separated from the module with people inside it."

See my previous response. Also, transposition and docking in orbit was demonstrated with the Gemini spacecraft with the Agena and adapter spacecraft. Please also note that the LM was NOT manned when 'separated' from the S-IVB stage.

"What is more, return back of the carrier rocket was also quite a problem. The Apollo onboard computers performed even poorer than present-day calculators. "

Yes, the Apollo Guidance Computer (AGC) had less memory than a modern day digital watch, or calculator. The fact is, it didn't need to have a large memory like today. Firstly the majority of calculation were done on Earth prior to the mission or during the mission using the Mission Control computers (which were quite large and powerful, in terms of those days). Secondly, the onboard computers were sufficient for what was needed. The concept had been proven prior to Apollo, once again with the Gemini flights. Don't believe it? You can get the original specs for the Apollo AGC and build your own. You can programme it with the original programmes and see if it can handle them. Whats more, go see experts in digital computing and ask them if the whole thing is possible. You could read this book, but best if you go talk to experts yourself and get the details direct from the experts.

"Former NASA staffer Bill Kaysing, the author of the book "NASA Never Landed a Man on the Moon", confessed that even the Agency itself considered the possibility of man's landing on the Moon was 0.0017% at that period (which was practically nothing!)."

More blatant disinformation or poor research on the part of the author. Bill Kaysing was an employee of Rocketdyne, the company that built the F-1 engines for the first stage of the Saturn V rocket. He had nothing to do with the spacecraft, in either design nor construction, nor was an employee of NASA. Worse still was that he was a technical librarian, not a member of the design or construction staff of the engine. Note again there is no reference for the figure quoted.

"It is not ruled out that Americans did fly to the Moon, but didn't advance further than its orbit. Robots did the rest of the work. However, it is also unlikely that 382 kilograms of Moon soil could be delivered to the Earth after three expeditions (Soviet Moon research vehicles brought just 0.3 kg), because additional kilograms of burden are risky for a rocket."

So the samples were obtained by robotic means? Then how is it that the Soviets - who held the lead in robotic exploration - returned so little? "It was faked" I hear some cry.... but scientists can tell the difference.

"When the Apollo-Moon module system was studied more carefully, it became clear that two astronauts in space suits couldn't find room in the module, not to mention the Moon robot that couldn't be placed there even non-assembled. "

Strange. I'm not sure what they are talking about. Are they talking about not fitting inside the Lunar Module?

Resized to 67% (was 900 x 712) - Click image to enlargeap10-69-H-650.jpg

"What is more, astronauts couldn't squeeze through a narrow tunnel between the space ship and the module."

Wrong again. Remember, they didn't wear EVA suits when going through the tunnel.

Resized to 67% (was 904 x 897) - Click image to enlargeAS11-36-5385.jpg

"In fact, an exit hatch opens inward, not outside as the legendary documentary demonstrates. The documentary was probably shot in a cargo bay of a swooping supersonic airplane to create an effect of weightlessness."

Again strange. All the images and footage show an inward opening door for the LM. I'd like to see any mission images which show an outward opening hatch.

(more to come)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"It is strange but not a single star could be seen on the pictures of the Moon flight. Stars are even brighter in space than as seen from the Earth. Instead, there was blue light streaming into the illuminators of the space ship, at the time when it is known that open space is absolutely black."

Oh god, not this claim again. Does anyone with a modicum of intelligence and having checked reality believe this? Let me explain. If you can't be bothered, see here.

The eyes see things that are not recorded on photographic film, at times. It all depends on the sensitivity of the film to light (the ISO setting), the amount of light let in (the aperture) and the length of time that light is allowed to get in (the shutter speed). The film was optimised for the condition either inside the spacecraft or on the lunar surface, not for taking images of space. Here is an experiment you can try. Take your camera, and switch it from AUTO to say apature F8 at shutter setting of 500 (1/500th sec). This would be acceptable for a lot of daylight photography. Even try it in fairly low light, such as indoors under interior lighting. Go even more, trying a couple of fluros in small area like the command module. Then go outdoors at night. Let your eyes adjust (there's a clue) for about 15 minutes. How many stars can you see on a clear night? Now point your camera with the aforementioned settings at the sky and take a photo. Do you see any stars? Do you see all the stars you saw with your eyes? Congratulations - you are part of what some people call "the Apollo Conspiracy".

"Apollo landing was also strange: running of the engine didn't move a single stone or a speck of dust on the Moon surface."

Once more - wrong. Firstly, during the final stages of the landing the LM descent engine was running at about 10% of thrust, not maximum thrust. Secondly, there is evidence of the thrust from the LM descent engine on the lunar regolith.

http://www.hq.nasa.g...1-40-5921HR.jpg

"After that, the module settled on a flat surface. Pressure of a jet engine would inevitably make a crater on the place of landing while braking. As is know, the Moon gravitation makes up 1/6 of the Earth gravitation. A cloud of dust thrown from under the Apollo wheels should have been six times higher than depicted on the photos."

Apart from the fact that the throttle setting was at about 10% of thrust, the claim that thrust would have made six times "more" dust is ridiculous. F = M a. BTW - they were not wheels, but landing 'pads'.

"As for the shadows that astronauts and their apparatuses cast on the Moon, they were of different length and direction, at the time when it is known that the Sun is the only source of light on the Moon."

Another well disproven claim. I could do it here, but instead please look at these links:

http://www.clavius.org/shad15.html

http://www.clavius.org/trrnshdow.html

*sigh*

If you are not convinced at this stage that the Pravda article is anything but, then have a look here.

(continued)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It may also seem strange that not a single picture of the Earth as seen from the Moon was made during the expedition.

It may seem strange, but the author of this article has not done the most most basic of research before making / parroting claims:

Resized to 67% (was 904 x 899) - Click image to enlargeAS11-44-6551.jpg

Apollo 11 image during lunar orbit

Resized to 67% (was 904 x 907) - Click image to enlargeAS17-134-20384.jpg

Apollo 17 from lunar surface

(continued when I get a chance)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Raising of the American flag also revealed several faults. There is no atmosphere on the Moon, it consequently means that there can be no wind. As it was said, a flagpole had a horizontal slat on the top so that it could be possible to unfurl the flag wide. It looked rather strange that a corner of the flag fluttered and one of the astronauts even had to pull it down. Probably, some stupid worker in a film pavilion, where the documentary was shot, opened the door and let the wind inside. In a word, there were lots of strange things connected with the Mood landing expedition that produced such a sensation all over the world."

Another old chestnut that most Apollo Hoax Believers (HBs) don't event fall for. The flag was an ordinary nylon flag. When it was unpacked on the lunar surface, there was no strong gravity to "pull" down on the flag and straighten it out, and so it had a 'rippled' appearance. Additionally, when they set up the flag on Apollo 11, there was a problem with the support arm and it didn't fully extend. This enhanced the 'ripple' effect. Later crews thought it looked good, and did the same with their flags. Lastly, movement of the flag itself: it occurs when the astronauts touched the flagpole, trying to plant it into the lunar regolith. Quite normal.

"Future life of the astronauts was also a mystery. Within a year since the sensational expedition, 11 people connected with the Apollo program died. 7 people died in car accidents and 3 burnt down in test capsules although they were high-class pilots. Is it possible that the people were liquidated because they wouldn't keep the secret about the fake Moon expedition?"

More disinformation. Yes, astronauts were killed... over the life of the programme, not "within a year" of the Apollo 11 landing... and not all in car accidents. In fact, most died in aircraft accidents, quite understandable when you consider the risks associated with aviation, military aviation in particular and especially when you understand the majority of these people were test pilots. The Apollo 1 fire took the lives of Grissom, Chaffee and White in 1967 - two years prior to the lunar landing.

"As the Northrop Grumman corporation, the one that developed and constructed the Moon robot, told an American magazine that all negatives and records concerning the event were liquidated. It is rather strange, because we know that America treats its achievements and the history with trepidation."

Again, just plain wrong. Some detailed drawing were discarded when no longer required, but the vast majority were kept by Grumman and by the US government.

http://history.nasa....lsj-LMdocs.html

http://www.space1.co...ng_archive.html

******************

So, the article contains little factual information and is wildly wrong in several areas. If people ignorant of Apollo history read it, they can get the wrong impression. The fact that Prof Fetzer uses it demonstrates the Professor's ignorance regarding the Apollo space programme.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of the reasons adduced here may explain why the design plans for the moon lander and the moor rover no longer exist, not to mention why NASA would have had to erase its original footage lest anyone take a close look and discern the use of front-screen projection and other problems that have been noted in the course of this thread. The explanations given -- that NASA was trying to save money by reusing old tapes and that Grumann did not have room for the designs of these incredibly expensive space vehicles -- defy belief. Burton, Greer, and their cronies, of course, will come up with more rubbish in their ongoing attempts to deceive the unwary. But I suspect serious readers have long since grown weary of the nonsense they have been peddling.

I think it is YOU who are doing the peddling. Just what it is I don't know. Facts and accuracy, it is certainly not.

DETAILED plans for every nut and bolt don't exist, but the general construction plans are still there - even on the internet (see my previous posts). Should this be strange? No! For instance - let's see the plans for the Concorde. Are quite detailed plans available? Sure. Are plans for every section, every component, available? Nope. So was Concorde a fake?

The tapes were erased because they were backups, no longer required after the landings. There was already footage available. You should read the facts:

http://www.honeysucklecreek.net/Apollo_11/tapes/index.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, NASA doesn't like to reveal anything about the Apollo EMUs, do they?

materialsb.jpg

neilsuitb.jpg

Title: Apollo EMU garment program Author(s): NONE Abstract: No Abstract Available NASA Center: NASA (non Center Specific) Publication Date: Sep 1, 1968 Document Source: CASI No Digital Version Available: Go to Tips On Ordering Document ID: 19770075463 Accession ID: 77N76682 Publication Information: Number of Pages = 50 Report Number: NASA-CR-152764; REPT-8812700411-13 Contract-Grant-Task Number: NAS9-6100 Keywords: APOLLO PROJECT; EXTRAVEHICULAR MOBILITY UNITS; SPACE SUITS; DESIGN ANALYSIS; FLIGHT CLOTHING; HELMETS; PRESSURE SUITS; PROTECTIVE CLOTHING; Accessibility: Unclassified; No Copyright; Unlimited; Publicly available; Monthly Progress Report Updated/Added to NTRS: 2004-11-03

Title: Extravehicular mobility unit Author(s): Carson, M. A.; Rouen, M. N.; Lutz, C. C.; Mcbarron, J. W., II Abstract: The Apollo extravehicular mobility unit (EMU) consisted of a highly mobile, anthropomorphic pressure vessel and a portable life support system. The EMU used for the first lunar landing is described along with the changes made in the EMU design during the program to incorporate the results of experience and to provide new capabilities. The performance of the EMU is discussed. NASA Center: Johnson Space Center Publication Date: Jul 1, 1975 Document Source: CASI No Digital Version Available: Go to Tips On Ordering Document ID: 19760005607 Accession ID: 76N12695 Publication Information: Biomedical Results of Apollo, p 545-569, Number of Pages = 25 Keywords: APOLLO PROJECT; EXTRAVEHICULAR MOBILITY UNITS; PORTABLE LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEMS; PRESSURE SUITS; Notes: In its Biomedical Results of Apollo p 545-569 (SEE N76-12668 03-52) Accessibility: Unclassified; No Copyright; Unlimited; Publicly available; Updated/Added to NTRS: 2004-11-03

Title: Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU) Author(s): Bottomley, T. A., Jr. Abstract: No Abstract Available NASA Center: NASA (non Center Specific) Publication Date: Jan 19, 1967 Document Source: CASI Online Source: View PDF File Document ID: 19790073601 Accession ID: 79N73109 Publication Information: Number of Pages = 7 Report Number: NASA-CR-154442 Contract-Grant-Task Number: NASW-417 Keywords: ASTRONAUT MANEUVERING EQUIPMENT; EXTRAVEHICULAR ACTIVITY; EXTRAVEHICULAR MOBILITY UNITS; LUNAR LANDING MODULES; APOLLO PROJECT; ASTRONAUT LOCOMOTION; PRESSURE SUITS; SPACE SUITS; Accessibility: Unclassified; No Copyright; Unlimited; Publicly available; Updated/Added to NTRS: 2005-11-09

Title: Abrasion Testing of Candidate Outer Layer Fabrics for Lunar EVA Space Suits Author(s): Mitchell, Kathryn C. Abstract: During the Apollo program, the space suit outer layer fabrics were badly abraded after just a few Extravehicular Activities (EVAs). For example, the Apollo 12 commander reported abrasive wear on the boots, which penetrated the outer layer fabric into the thermal protection layers after less than eight hours of surface operations. Current plans for the Constellation Space Suit Element require the space suits to support hundreds of hours of EVA on the Lunar surface, creating a challenge for space suit designers to utilize materials advances made over the last forty years and improve upon the space suit fabrics used in the Apollo program. A test methodology has been developed by the NASA Johnson Space Center Crew and Thermal Systems Division for establishing comparative abrasion wear characteristics between various candidate space suit outer layer fabrics. The abrasion test method incorporates a large rotary drum tumbler with rocks and loose lunar simulant material to induce abrasion in fabric test cylinder elements, representative of what might occur during long term planetary surface EVAs. Preliminary materials screening activities were conducted to determine the degree of wear on representative space suit outer layer materials and the corresponding dust permeation encountered between subsequent sub -layers of thermal protective materials when exposed to a simulated worst case eight hour EVA. The test method was used to provide a preliminary evaluation of four candidate outer layer fabrics for future planetary surface space suit applications. This Paper provides a review of previous abrasion studies on space suit fabrics, details the methodologies used for abrasion testing in this particular study, and shares the results and conclusions of the testing. NASA Center: Johnson Space Center Publication Date: [2010] Document Source: CASI Online Source: View PDF File Document ID: 20100016326 Publication Information: Number of Pages = 14 Report Number: JSC-CN-20038 Contract-Grant-Task Number: 903184.04.01.01 Meeting Information: International Conference on Environmental Systems, 11-15 Jul. 2010, Barcelona, Spain Keywords: ABRASION; THERMAL PROTECTION; SPACE SUITS; FABRICS; SPACECREWS; LUNAR SURFACE; DUST; EXTRAVEHICULAR ACTIVITY; Accessibility: Unclassified; No Copyright; Unlimited; Publicly available; Updated/Added to NTRS: 2010-05-10

Title: Biomedical Support of U.S. Extravehicular Activity Author(s): Gernhardt, Michael L.; Dervay, J. P.; Gillis, D.; McMann, H. J.; Thomas, K. S. Abstract: The world's first extravehicular activity (EVA) was performed by A. A. Leonov on March 18, 1965 during the Russian Voskhod-2 mission. The first US EVA was executed by Gemini IV astronaut Ed White on June 3, 1965, with an umbilical tether that included communications and an oxygen supply. A hand-held maneuvering unit (HHMU) also was used to test maneuverability during the brief EVA; however the somewhat stiff umbilical limited controlled movement. That constraint, plus difficulty returning through the vehicle hatch, highlighted the need for increased thermal control and improved EVA ergonomics. Clearly, requirements for a useful EVA were interrelated with the vehicle design. The early Gemini EVAs generated requirements for suits providing micro-meteor protection, adequate visual field and eye protection from solar visual and infrared radiation, gloves optimized for dexterity while pressurized, and thermal systems capable of protecting the astronaut while rejecting metabolic heat during high workloads. Subsequent Gemini EVAs built upon this early experience and included development of a portable environmental control and life support systems (ECLSS) and an astronaut maneuvering unit. The ECLSS provided a pressure vessel and controller with functional control over suit pressure, oxygen flow, carbon dioxide removal, humidity, and temperature control. Gemini EVA experience also identified the usefulness of underwater neutral buoyancy and altitude chamber task training, and the importance of developing reliable task timelines. Improved thermal management and carbon dioxide control also were required for high workload tasks. With the Apollo project, EVA activity was primarily on the lunar surface; and suit durability, integrated liquid cooling garments, and low suit operating pressures (3.75 pounds per square inch absolute [psia] or 25.8 kilopascal [kPa],) were required to facilitate longer EVAs with ambulation and significant physical workloads with average metabolic rates of 1000 BTU/hr and peaks of up to 2200 BTU/hr. Mobility was further augmented with the Lunar Roving Vehicle. The Apollo extravehicular mobility unit (EMU) was made up of over 15 components, ranging from a biomedical belt for capturing and transmitting biomedical data, urine and fecal containment systems, a liquid cooling garment, communications cap, a modular portable life support system (PLSS), a boot system, thermal overgloves, and a bubble helmet with eye protection. Apollo lunar astronauts performed successful EVAs on the lunar surface from a 5 psia (34.4 kPa) 100 oxygen environment in the Lunar Lander. A maximum of three EVAs were performed on any mission. For Skylab a modified A7LB suit, used for Apollo 15, was selected. The Skylab astronaut life support assembly (ALSA) provided umbilical support through the life support umbilical (LSU) and used open loop oxygen flow, rather than closed-loop as in Apollo missions. Thermal control was provided by liquid water circulated by spacecraft pumps and electrical power also was provided from the spacecraft via the umbilical. The cabin atmosphere of 5 psia (34.4 kPa), 70 oxygen, provided a normoxic atmosphere and because of the very low nitrogen partial pressures, no special protocols were required to protect against decompression sickness (DCS) as was the case with the Apollo spacecraft with a 5 psi, 100 oxygen environment. NASA Center: Johnson Space Center Publication Date: [2007] Document Source: CASI No Digital Version Available: Go to Tips On Ordering Document ID: 20080000344 Publication Information: Number of Pages = 14 Related Information: To appear in Space Biology and Medicine; projected release date is January 2008 Keywords: ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL; EXTRAVEHICULAR ACTIVITY; EXTRAVEHICULAR MOBILITY UNITS; HUMAN FACTORS ENGINEERING; LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEMS; OXYGEN; TEMPERATURE CONTROL; BIOASTRONAUTICS; AEROSPACE ENVIRONMENTS; BIOMEDICAL DATA; CABIN ATMOSPHERES; MANEUVERABILITY; MANNED MANEUVERING UNITS; PORTABLE LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEMS; WORKLOADS (PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGY); DECOMPRESSION SICKNESS; ASTRONAUTS; Accessibility: Unclassified; Copyright; Unlimited; Publicly available; Updated/Added to NTRS: 2008-01-10

Title: Engineering and operational experiences related to lunar-surface thermal-vacuum qualification of the Apollo extravehicular mobility unit. Author(s): Maples, H. E.; Sanders, R. E.; Vincent, J. P. Abstract: Manned testing of EVA equipment in thermal-vacuum environment for qualification of Apollo extravehicular mobility unit, using lunar surface thermal simulator NASA Center: NASA (non Center Specific) Publication Date: Sep 1, 1969 Document Source: Other Sources No Digital Version Available: Go to Tips On Ordering Document ID: 19690062381 Accession ID: 69A40370 Publication Information: Number of Pages = 12 Report Number: AIAA PAPER 69-992 Meeting Information: AMERICAN INST. OF AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS, AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR TESTING AND MATERIALS, AND INST. OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES, SPACE SIMULATION CONFERENCE, 4TH, SEP. 8-10, 1969, LOS ANGELES, CALIF. Keywords: ENVIRONMENTAL TESTS; EXTRAVEHICULAR ACTIVITY; LUNAR ENVIRONMENT; SPACE SUITS; THERMAL VACUUM TESTS; APOLLO PROJECT; CONFERENCES; ENVIRONMENT SIMULATION; Notes: AMERICAN INST. OF AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS, AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR TESTING AND MATERIALS, AND INST. OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES, SPACE SIMULATION CONFERENCE, 4TH, LOS ANGELES, CALIF., SEP. 8-10, 1969. Accessibility: Unclassified; Copyright; Unlimited; Publicly available; Updated/Added to NTRS: 2004-11-03

Title: Guidelines for EVA development Author(s): NONE Abstract: Guidelines for Apollo and post-Apollo EVA NASA Center: Johnson Space Center Publication Date: Dec 14, 1967 Document Source: CASI No Digital Version Available: Go to Tips On Ordering Document ID: 19700003606 Accession ID: 70N12910 Publication Information: Number of Pages = 40 Report Number: NASA-TM-X-62554 Keywords: APOLLO FLIGHTS; EXTRAVEHICULAR ACTIVITY; SPACE EXPLORATION; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL; PORTABLE LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEMS; SPACE SUITS; Accessibility: Unclassified; No Copyright; Unlimited; Publicly available; Updated/Added to NTRS: 2004-11-03

Yep - they hide everything, don't they.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Duane,

I'm glad you are here to resort some sanity to this exchange. Greer obviously has never studied logic and does not understand the nature of conditionals. He seems to think that the "if" sentences (or antecedents) of "if . . . then ___" sentences have to be true for the sentence to be true. So he is hung up on his question-begging presumption that the "rehearsal" footage cannot have been taken during the actual faking of the moon landing because of a difference in the suits the were wearing, which makes them DIFFERENT but does not prove they were not taken AT ABOUT THE SAME TIME AND PLACE AND SET. But it doesn't matter because, even if he were right, the second horn of the dilemma follows, namely, that that footage shows the landing could have been faked, a point that I have explained to him a half-dozen times.

And I have pointed out to you that showing how something could be faked, does not mean that it was faked!

His reference to In case the Soviet Zond flights strikes me as similarly misleading. Those flights were UNMANNED, where Zond 5 was launched in September 1968 and Zond 7 in August of 1969. It is therefore highly unlikely that NASA could have known any of the details about the Zond program in preparing for the Apollo missions.

I never said NASA knew the details from these missions! You said the Van Allen belt appears to preclude manned travel to the moon. I presented that paper as direct evidence, from a non-NASA source, that contradicts your baseless claim. If you want to claim that the Van Allen belts are what you claim, then burdne of proof lies with you to prove it, given that the available data (not just this paper) appears to preclude you from being correct.

Greer remarks, "four Russian scientists who in the late 60s advised that flights along the lines of Zond-5 and Zond-7 were safe from a radiation point of view", but for whom? for small organisms? for animals or plants? for humans and, if so, how would they know? The article he links doesn't ex;plain, which suggests to me that he is trading on vagaries and ambiguities to carry the burden of his argument without bothering with proof. Logic and evidence are not his strong suits.

How would they know if it was safe for humans? Because they sent experiments up and analysed the data on its return to Earth. There's plenty of detail in that single paper if you want to read it. IIRC they calculated something like a 0.5 REM exposure for a nominal 7 day mission. That doesn't seem very ambiguos to me.

As you're making such a fuss about it though, I look forward to your proof that the Van Allen belts preclude a manned mission to the moon, without resource to vagaries and ambiguity. Throw in a good measure of logic and evidence as well please.

After all, you wouldn't want to be accused of trying to wriggle away from the burden of proof, would you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I have pointed out to you that showing how something could be faked, does not mean that it was faked!

But they didn't even show how it could be faked. The technology used to make this fake didn't exist in the 60s, and the single scene they filmed doesn't come close to covering all of the effects that would be needed. For example, it wasn't shot in a low-g vacuum like the actual Apollo footage clearly was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I have pointed out to you that showing how something could be faked, does not mean that it was faked!

But they didn't even show how it could be faked. The technology used to make this fake didn't exist in the 60s, and the single scene they filmed doesn't come close to covering all of the effects that would be needed. For example, it wasn't shot in a low-g vacuum* like the actual Apollo footage clearly was.

* excellent point imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I have pointed out to you that showing how something could be faked, does not mean that it was faked!

But they didn't even show how it could be faked. The technology used to make this fake didn't exist in the 60s, and the single scene they filmed doesn't come close to covering all of the effects that would be needed. For example, it wasn't shot in a low-g vacuum like the actual Apollo footage clearly was.

You're probably right, but I didn't want to get bogged down in those discussions. I'm sure I would have been accused of some kind of devious trick!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posting NASA propaganda as PROOF of authenticity of moon missions

is like using testimony of a criminal as proof of his innocence.

:)

Jack

You're getting it backwards. An accused person doesn't have to prove his or her innocence. It's up the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

This should be a question that is not difficult to resolve. I find some of this conflicting information extremely interesting. I am going to post more as I continue to study this.

Wikipedia, "Van Allen Radiation Belt":

The Van Allen radiation belt is a torus of energetic charged particles (plasma) around Earth, which is held in place by Earth's magnetic field. This field is not uniformly distributed around the Earth. On the sunward side, it is compressed because of the solar wind, while on the other side it is elongated to around three earth radii. This creates a cavity called the Chapman-Ferraro Cavity, in which the Van Allen radiation belt resides. It is split into two distinct belts, with energetic electrons forming the outer belt and a combination of protons and electrons creating the inner belt. In addition, the belts contain lesser amounts of other nuclei, such as alpha particles. The Van Allen belts are closely related to the polar aurora where particles strike the upper atmosphere and fluoresce.

Prior to the Space Age, the possibility of trapped charged particles had been investigated by Kristian Birkeland, Carl Stormer, and Nicholas Christofilos.[1] The existence of the belt was confirmed by the Explorer 1 and Explorer 3 missions in early 1958, under Dr James Van Allen at the University of Iowa. The trapped radiation was first mapped out by Explorer 4, Pioneer 3 and Luna 1.

The term Van Allen belts refers specifically to the radiation belts surrounding Earth; however, similar radiation belts have been discovered around other planets. The Sun does not support long-term radiation belts. The Earth's atmosphere limits the belts' particles to regions above 200–1,000 km,[2] while the belts do not extend past 7 Earth radii RE.[2] The belts are confined to an area which extends about 65°[2] from the celestial equator.

. . .

Impact on space travel

Solar cells, integrated circuits, and sensors can be damaged by radiation. Geomagnetic storms occasionally damage electronic components on spacecraft. Miniaturization and digitization of electronics and logic circuits have made satellites more vulnerable to radiation, as incoming ions may be as large as the circuit's charge. Electronics on satellites must be hardened against radiation to operate reliably. The Hubble Space Telescope, among other satellites, often has its sensors turned off when passing through regions of intense radiation.[9]

Missions beyond low earth orbit leave the protection of the geomagnetic field, and transit the Van Allen belts. Thus they may need to be shielded against exposure to cosmic rays, Van Allen radiation, or solar flares. The region between two to four earth radii lies between the two radiation belts and is sometimes referred to as the "safe zone".[10][11]

A satellite shielded by 3 mm of aluminium in an elliptic orbit (200 by 20,000 miles) passing through the radiation belts will receive about 2,500 rem (25 Sv) per year. Almost all radiation will be received while passing the inner belt. [12]

Notice how the issue is skillfully finessed by suggesting that, for missions beyond low earth orbit involving humans, "may need to be shielded against exposure to cosmic rays, Van Allen radiation, or solar flares."

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970228a.html

Ask an Astrophysicist

The Question

(Submitted February 28, 1997)

I wonder if you could tell me exactly what the VAN ALLEN BELT is and how much radiation does it contain, ie how many rems of radiation are there out there? Plus, what protection would organic life need to be protected from this radiation?

The Answer

David Stern, a researcher in another lab here at Goddard, has graciously supplied an answer to your question, given below:

"The radiation belts are regions of high-energy particles, mainly protons and electrons, held captive by the magnetic influence of the Earth. They have two main sources. A small but very intense "inner belt" (some call it "The Van Allen Belt" because it was discovered in 1958 by James Van Allen of the University of Iowa) is trapped within 4000 miles or or so of the Earth's surface. It consists mainly a high-energy protons (10-50 MeV) and is a by-product of the cosmic radiation, a thin drizzle of very fast protons and nuclei which apparently fill all our galaxy.

"In addition there exist electrons and protons (and also oxygen particles from the upper atmosphere) given moderate energies (say 1-100 keV; 1 MeV = 1000 keV) by processes inside the domain of the Earth's magnetic field. Some of these electrons produce the polar aurora ("northern lights") when they hit the upper atmosphere, but many get trapped, and among those, protons and positive particles have most of the energy .

"I looked up a typical satellite passing the radiation belts (elliptic orbit, 200 miles to 20000 miles) and the radiation dosage per year is about 2500 rem, assuming one is shielded by 1 gr/cm-square of aluminum (about 1/8" thick plate) almost all of it while passing the inner belt. But there is no danger. The way the particles move in the magnetic field prevents them from hitting the atmosphere, and even if they are scattered so their orbit does intersect the ground, the atmosphere absorbs them long before they get very far. Even the space station would be safe, because the orbits usually stop above it--any particles dipping deeper down are lost much faster than they can be replenished.

"If all this sounds too technical but you still want to find out-- what ions and magnetic fields and cosmic rays are, etc.--you will find a long detailed exposition (both without math) on the World Wide Web at: http://www.phy6.org/Education/Intro.html

Notice how this NASA "astrophysicist" does not answer the question about what protection would be necessary for organic life to transit the belt. He instead explains that it poses no threats to LIFE ON EARTH. But that, of course, was not the question.

CLAVIUS: radiation and the van allen belts

http://www.xmission.com/~jwindley/envrad.html

This site even quotes "The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense." -- Dr. James Van Allen Some of the most interesting passages here are these:

We know the space shuttle passes through the Southern Atlantic Magnetic Anomaly (SAMA), but since the shuttle astronauts have time in each orbit to recover, the effects are not felt as strongly. The Apollo astronauts spent around four hours at a single stretch in the Van Allen belts. [Mary Bennett]

This is exactly the opposite of the recovery principle. If the shuttle astronauts spend 30 minutes of each 90-minute orbit passing through the SAMA, that sums to an exposure of 8 hours per day. The human body does not recover from radiation in a matter of minutes but rather hours and days. The damaged tissue must be regenerated. If radiation exposure is more or less continuous over several days, such as in the shuttle scenario, the tissue never has time to regenerate before being damaged by continuing radiation.

Even though the outlying parts of the Van Allen belts contain more intense radiation than the SAMA, a four-hour passage followed by days of relatively little exposure offers a better recovery scenario than days of accumulated low-level exposure.

The four-hour figure is reasonable, but somewhat arbitrary. Since the Van Allen belts vary in flux and energy, it's not as if there's a clearly demarcated boundary. It's a bit like walking over a hill. If the slope gently increases from flat and level to 30° or so, where do you say the hill starts?

It would require six feet (two meters) of lead in order to shield from the Van Allen belts. The Apollo spacecraft had nowhere near this amount of shielding and so could not have provided the astronauts adequate protection.

The "six feet of lead" statistic appears in many conspiracist charges, but no one has yet owned up to being the definitive source of that figure. In fact, six feet (2 m) of lead would probably shield against a very large atomic explosion, far in excess of the normal radiation encountered in space or in the Van Allen belts.

While such drastic measures are needed to shield against intense, high-frequency electromagnetic radiation, that is not the nature of the radiation in the Van Allen belts. In fact, because the Van Allen belts are composed of high-energy protons and high-energy electrons, metal shielding is actually counterproductive because of the Bremsstrahlung that would be induced.

Metals can be used to shield against particle radiation, but they are not the ideal substance. Polyethylene is the choice of particle shielding today, and various substances were available to the Apollo engineers to absorb Van Allen radiation. The fibrous insulation between the inner and outer hulls of the command module was likely the most effective form of radiation shielding. When metals must be used in spacecraft (e.g., for structural strength) then a lighter metal such as aluminum is better than heavier metals such as steel or lead. The lower the atomic number, the less Bremsstrahlung.

The notion that only vast amounts of a very heavy metal could shield against Van Allen belt radiation is a good indicator of how poorly though out the conspiracist radiation case is. What the conspiracists say is the only way of shielding against the Van Allen belt radiation turns out to be the worst way to attempt to do it!

A four-hour transit through the van Allen belts sounds "reasonable" to CLAVIUS, which would not need six feet of lead for protection. In fact, "metal shielding is actually counterproductive because of the Bremsstrahlung that would be induced. . . . Polyethylene is the choice of particle shielding today, and various substances were available to the Apollo engineers to absorb Van Allen radiation. The fibrous insulation between the inner and outer hulls of the command module was likely the most effective form of radiation shielding. When metals must be used in spacecraft (e.g., for structural strength) then a lighter metal such as aluminum is better than heavier metals such as steel or lead. The lower the atomic number, the less Bremsstrahlung."

So CLAVIUS believes that "a four-hour passage followed by days of relatively little exposure offers a better recovery scenario than days of accumulated low-level exposure." Here's an interesting video that asserts the impossibility that organic life could pass through the van Allen belt:

Van Allen Radiation Belt

A field of radiation that surrounds the planet with 25,000 miles in width. No organic unit can go

through this field of radiation which as shown here, it was felt about 600 miles away from it. If the

ill effects of the Van Allen Radiation Belt were felt 600 miles away from it, what makes anyone think

that the Apollo astronauts could possibly withstand the effects of traveling 25,000 miles through it?

Lunarcy: NASA's Radiation Problem

Neil Armstrong,"I'm not sure we went far enough out to encounter the van Allen radiation belt --

maybe we did!" And, "I don't know the distance to the van Allen radiation belt. And, if we did, it

wasn't a problem. If we were going to encounter it, then we would have had to build the space craft

and the space suit to not give humans a problem." Well, I guess that settles it. He doesn't have a clue!

Moon Landing Hoax Proof Van Allen Belts

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nm-xLKIqp9Q&feature=related

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...