Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Moon Landings: Apollo and associated hoaxes

    Share

    Vann7
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3221
    Points : 3345
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    Re: Moon Landings: Apollo and associated hoaxes

    Post  Vann7 on Fri Sep 26, 2014 7:12 am

    [quote="GarryB"]

    The race to put a man on the moon was won by the US...

    No it wasn't. anyone who study carefully the subject ,reports ,from Professionals including former NASA employeers, will reach the conclusion it was a hoax.. Neil Amstrong nearly die testing a Lander.. on earth.. and we are to believe that Americans sent 3 mens to the moon without first testing their hardware with robots or monkeys.. first  The believe that American the first try ,with first time hardware went to the moon and returned without a hitch ,and later landed 6 times later , without a problem and that overnight NASA decide for mysterious reasons cancel the so successful Saturn Rocket and choose to start something radically different from zero ,like the challenger.. such story can only be credible if you have absolutely no clue how engineering and science works.  In Science things that works and achieve great results are not dropped period..they continue to be developed.. you never start from zero or reinvent the wheel and take such huge risk designing something radically different and much more expensive ,like space challenger when a previous project was such a success.  Oh it was expensive.. Bla blah blah.. US never have stopped Spending 1 TRILLION US dollars per year in military ,never have stopped building military bases ,aircraft carriers and submarines.. yet the most important and most successful machine ever developed by Americans ,that helps raise their nation image worldwide is for mysterious reasons dropped/canceled and start something completely new?  Rolling Eyes

    Real Logic says you never drop something that is very successful and that works. Logic only happens with Russian Space program..that they still today use their RD-180 engines because works very well. And if that wasn't enough
    to proof you they never went to the moon. you have NASA today buying Russian engines. and they talking about reverse engineer them..  Why not revisit the saturn? easy.. because it was a haux. it never went to the moon.
    In the other Hand Russia is considering returning their Energia and Buran programs..  What all this show is that the only real space program was the Russian one.. the americans ones was holywood at least in the 60s and 70s.

    The only Race Americans won ,was making fiction movies . Because no man have landed in the moon and not even leave the earth orbit. You can believe in cool stories that absolutely have no logic  if you like ,but overwhelming evidence exist that it was a fake. Americans all they did is fake the landing with movies and years laters without the rush they updated their moon information/photos. You don't need a man in the moon to deploy reflectors ,unmanned missions with cheap probes is the only thing the moon have seen.

    This is why im skeptic of anything coming from NASA today.. you cannot longer trust in any photo or picture released by them. because they love a lot propaganda to raise their nation image ,specially in times they have very bad world image because of their illegal wars. ,and US presidents historically used NASA as a free public relations to lift the image of a bad presidents.    This is why im very interested to see Russia manned landing in the moon because it will show the real thing. And it will show how different things will look that the NASA  fabricated movies.


    Last edited by Vann7 on Fri Sep 26, 2014 7:56 am; edited 7 times in total

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: Moon Landings: Apollo and associated hoaxes

    Post  Mike E on Fri Sep 26, 2014 7:24 am

    Vann7 wrote:
    GarryB wrote:

    The race to put a man on the moon was won by the US...

    No it wasn't. anyone with a degree of intelligence who study carefully the subject ,from Professionals including former NASA employeers, will reach the conclusion it was a hoax.. Neil Amstrong nearly die testing a Lander.. on earth.. and we are to believe that Americans sent 3 mens to the moon without first testing their hardware with robots or monkeys.. first  The believe that American the first try ,with first time hardware went to the moon and returned without a hitch ,and later landed 6 times later , without a problem and that overnight NASA decide for mysterious reasons cancel the so successful Saturn Rocket and choose to start something radically different from zero ,like the challenger.. such story can only be credible if you have absolutely no clue how engineering and science works.  In Science things that works are not dropped ..they continue to be developed.. you never start from zero or reinvent the wheel and take such huge risk designing something radically different when a previous project was such a success.  Oh it was expensive.. Bla blah blah.. US never have stopped Spending 1 TRILLION US dollars per year in military ,never have stopped building military bases ,aircraft carriers and submarines.. yet the most important and most successful machine ever developed by Americans is for
    mysterious reasons dropped and start something completely new? lol1

    The only Race Americans won ,was Holywood one. Because no man have landed in the moon. You can believe in cool stories that absolutely have no logic  if you like ,but overwhelming evidence exist that it was a fake. Americans all they did is fake the landing with movies and years laters with the help of probes they updated their moon information/photos. You don't need a man in the moon to deploy reflectors ,unmanned missions is the only thing the moon have seen.

    This is why im skeptic of anything comming from NASA today.. you cannot longer trust in any photo or picture released by them. after the moon fake landing.   This is why im very interested to see Russia landing in the moon because it will show the real thing. And it will show how different is the motion and physics of things than the movies we saw before from NASA.  
    Let's not start this one up again, please?

    All I want to say, is that you can say all you want but as long as evidence points otherwise......

    Vann7
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3221
    Points : 3345
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    Re: Moon Landings: Apollo and associated hoaxes

    Post  Vann7 on Fri Sep 26, 2014 7:44 am

    Mike E wrote:
    Let's not start this one up again, please?

    All I want to say, is that you can say all you want but as long as evidence points otherwise......

    No..no evidence at all.. You have to believe in the moon landing based on Photos released by NASA that already have been debunked as staged . But anyway we will not return there .. anyone can believe whatever they please
    more. Surprised

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: Moon Landings: Apollo and associated hoaxes

    Post  Mike E on Fri Sep 26, 2014 8:15 am

    Vann7 wrote:
    Mike E wrote:
    Let's not start this one up again, please?

    All I want to say, is that you can say all you want but as long as evidence points otherwise......

    No..no evidence at all.. You have to believe in the moon landing based on Photos released by NASA that already have been debunked as staged . But anyway we will not return there .. anyone can believe whatever they please
    more. Surprised
    Soooooo, tell me, did they fake Apollo 13 too? - Or did it just *happen* to be real?




    Off Topic

    Vann7
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3221
    Points : 3345
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    Re: Moon Landings: Apollo and associated hoaxes

    Post  Vann7 on Fri Sep 26, 2014 9:44 am

    Mike E wrote:
    Vann7 wrote:
    Mike E wrote:
    Let's not start this one up again, please?

    All I want to say, is that you can say all you want but as long as evidence points otherwise......

    No..no evidence at all.. You have to believe in the moon landing based on Photos released by NASA that already have been debunked as staged . But anyway we will not return there .. anyone can believe whatever they please
    more. Surprised
    Soooooo, tell me, did they fake Apollo 13 too? - Or did it just *happen* to be real?

    Off Topic

    All faked.. holywood to man the moon and holywood to close the program . in both cases they promoted
    the same propaganda ,that US can travel and return alive no matter what. Now the exploding Columbia and challenger those were real. Very Happy

    Soyuz recent launch ..Roll out



    and soyus recent travel..docking to the ISS.  




    older launches now..

    The earth looks very nice at night. thumbsup





    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: Moon Landings: Apollo and associated hoaxes

    Post  Mike E on Fri Sep 26, 2014 4:07 pm

    Vann7 wrote:
    Mike E wrote:
    Vann7 wrote:
    Mike E wrote:
    Let's not start this one up again, please?

    All I want to say, is that you can say all you want but as long as evidence points otherwise......

    No..no evidence at all.. You have to believe in the moon landing based on Photos released by NASA that already have been debunked as staged . But anyway we will not return there .. anyone can believe whatever they please
    more. Surprised
    Soooooo, tell me, did they fake Apollo 13 too? - Or did it just *happen* to be real?

    Off Topic
    All faked.. holywood to man the moon and holywood to close the program . in both cases they promoted
    the same propaganda ,that US can travel and return alive no matter what. Now the exploding Columbia and challenger those were real. Very Happy
    Like I suspected.... Apollo 13 *just happens* to be the first mission huh? I'm afraid that itself proves that the landing were real, never mind the reflectors, pictures, videos, and audio recordings... (The pictures were never debunked, that was a 1/10 rating on the conspiracy rating system.....)

    Big_Gazza
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 504
    Points : 528
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Re: Moon Landings: Apollo and associated hoaxes

    Post  Big_Gazza on Fri Sep 26, 2014 5:34 pm

    Mike E wrote:
    Vann7 wrote:
    Mike E wrote:
    Vann7 wrote:
    Mike E wrote:
    Let's not start this one up again, please?

    All I want to say, is that you can say all you want but as long as evidence points otherwise......

    No..no evidence at all.. You have to believe in the moon landing based on Photos released by NASA that already have been debunked as staged . But anyway we will not return there .. anyone can believe whatever they please
    more. Surprised
    Soooooo, tell me, did they fake Apollo 13 too? - Or did it just *happen* to be real?

    Off Topic
    All faked.. holywood to man the moon and holywood to close the program . in both cases they promoted
    the same propaganda ,that US can travel and return alive no matter what. Now the exploding Columbia and challenger those were real. Very Happy
    Like I suspected.... Apollo 13 *just happens* to be the first mission huh? I'm afraid that itself proves that the landing were real, never mind the reflectors, pictures, videos, and audio recordings... (The pictures were never debunked, that was a 1/10 rating on the conspiracy rating system.....)

    The biggest proof of the Apollo landings being real is that fact that then Soviets never called the US on it. Landing on the moon was a propaganda victory, but if it was faked, and the truth discovered (as it eventually would be) it would be a propaganda disaster of the 1st magnitude. If it was faked, the USSR would have had great pleasure in exposing the lie.

    In any case, hi-res imagery from lunar orbiters can show the landing sites and tracks of the lunar rovers. Footprints cannot be resolved yet, but its just a matter of time.

    navyfield
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 211
    Points : 168
    Join date : 2013-05-27

    Re: Moon Landings: Apollo and associated hoaxes

    Post  navyfield on Fri Sep 26, 2014 6:22 pm

    dont worry i wont be coming here ,im not- know it all clown -like some persons here....

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: Moon Landings: Apollo and associated hoaxes

    Post  Mike E on Fri Sep 26, 2014 9:05 pm

    navyfield wrote:dont worry i wont be coming here  ,im not- know it all  clown -like some persons here....
    Hmm, so being intelligent is a bad thing, no wonder you are from MURICA'. - This thread isn't for spewing crap, but rather sharing information.

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: Moon Landings: Apollo and associated hoaxes

    Post  Mike E on Fri Sep 26, 2014 9:09 pm

    Big_Gazza wrote:
    Mike E wrote:
    Vann7 wrote:
    Mike E wrote:
    Vann7 wrote:
    Mike E wrote:
    Let's not start this one up again, please?

    All I want to say, is that you can say all you want but as long as evidence points otherwise......

    No..no evidence at all.. You have to believe in the moon landing based on Photos released by NASA that already have been debunked as staged . But anyway we will not return there .. anyone can believe whatever they please
    more. Surprised
    Soooooo, tell me, did they fake Apollo 13 too? - Or did it just *happen* to be real?

    Off Topic
    All faked.. holywood to man the moon and holywood to close the program . in both cases they promoted
    the same propaganda ,that US can travel and return alive no matter what. Now the exploding Columbia and challenger those were real. Very Happy
    Like I suspected.... Apollo 13 *just happens* to be the first mission huh? I'm afraid that itself proves that the landing were real, never mind the reflectors, pictures, videos, and audio recordings... (The pictures were never debunked, that was a 1/10 rating on the conspiracy rating system.....)

    The biggest proof of the Apollo landings being real is that fact that then Soviets never called the US on it.  Landing on the moon was a propaganda victory, but if it was faked, and the truth discovered (as it eventually would be) it would be a propaganda disaster of the 1st magnitude.  If it was faked, the USSR would have had great pleasure in exposing the lie.

    In any case, hi-res imagery from lunar orbiters can show the landing sites and tracks of the lunar rovers.  Footprints cannot be resolved yet, but its just a matter of time.
    It was (as we've said) the biggest PR stunt and propaganda "move" in the world as we know it... That doesn't imply that it was fake.

    I'm in 100% agreement on your "Soviets didn't call it point", They probably had hundreds of specialists looking for "evidence" in an attempt to prove it as a hoax... 

     - Lasers have found the reflectors, if that means anything to you...

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: Moon Landings: Apollo and associated hoaxes

    Post  Mike E on Sat Sep 27, 2014 6:10 pm

    Vann7 wrote:
    Mike E wrote:
     - Lasers have found the reflectors, if that means anything to you...

    I explained you already ,several times but you seem to totally ignore it.. one more time.
    you   dont  need astronauts in the moon to deposit  reflectors there.
    Russia have reflectors in the moon since 1971..they even have 3 land rovers there and other equipment and they never sent humans there. never claimed it.Russia even have soil samples of the moon and NEVER have sent men to the moon. You simply send ROVERS to the moon with reflectors and thats it. No need for humans to do it ,when a rover can do the same...

    Any proof of Apolo missions on the moon can be all unmanned. without humans.. you send reflectors and a rover
    and thats it.. you can claim you were there.. but can you see a human walking in the moon playing golf? no you cant. The only "Evidence" that Amstrong was in the moon was his word and NASA manipulated photos and nothing else. hopefully we can also finally put to end the Lazer-Reflectors argument.   About Russia not saying anything of the fake.. simply they were fooled first and/or they had a monetary agreement so they say nothing.  Is not the first time Russia keep silence of as scandal..  The Kursk disaster for example ,that was torpedo by an american submarine ,that happened unintentionally and that Putin covered it.. because of Many Billions $$ they received in change for the accident. Since Putin is very practical decided that it was better to keep silence since 1) the money 2) americans apologized for the incident. 3)To avoid major rage in Russia asking for a retaliation or declaration of war to US.  So in order to avoid a major war for an unintended accident Putin keep silence.. Same with the 9/11... Putin official version is that it was Alqaeda who did it.. but Russia Today Kremling funded media says the opposite.  I can go on and on.. Russia have also secrets that will not like US to reveal , like that GAGARIN was not who did the first flight..others Russians did it and got wounded and he took credit. etc..  The important thing.. is .. that Russia Did had a real space program..and never faked their achievements ,contrary to American Holywood.. and the way Russia beat americans in the moon ,mars ,venus ,Jupiter being first to visit it with a Probe was of sending waves after waves of space rockets non stop after they get it right.  

    But  you can ignore.. what i told you about the Reflectors  you can ignore the Camera film problems with radiation and extreme cold and heat of space.. you can even ignore how Amstrong nearly DIE while testing the moon lander and that they never got it working.. you can ignore tons of evidence of manipulatled photos.. and believe by faith is you like. but so far evidence says different.
    Vann7, I hate to say this, but this is what I don't want this thread to turn into. Please tell me why they would send a rover, which still costs a ton of money, when they clearly had the ability to send men... Or, why did they put billions into the Saturn V, CSM, and landing module etc. I know it feels nice to believe that the US didn't do it, but the so piracy is debunked friggin every other day. - That coming from a person the public would most likely call a conspiracy theorist....

    Vann7
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3221
    Points : 3345
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    Re: Moon Landings: Apollo and associated hoaxes

    Post  Vann7 on Sat Sep 27, 2014 9:48 pm

    [quote="Mike E"][quote="Vann7"]
    Mike E wrote: Please tell me why they would send a rover, which still costs a ton of money, when they clearly had the ability to send men... Or, why did they put billions into the Saturn V, CSM, and landing module etc. I know it feels nice to believe that the US didn't do it, but the so piracy is debunked friggin every other day. - That coming from a person the public would most likely call a conspiracy theorist....

    Sending machines to the moon was not hard for Russia or USA.. those things do not need food , do not need to breath , do not get sick and best of all do not need to return. Thats why , because sending humans is not safe and machines doesn't matter ,can be replaced. Smile

    IF you saw the videos i shared earlier you will see that the Apolo-moon mission was the most cheaper space mission of all.. they got that information ,those are facts they got, not opinions. and that clearly suggest also that they were doing a lot less in that mission of what was supposed to be the most expensive . Did i told you that the lander did not worked when tested in earth and Asmotrong nearly die? how in hell you expect NASA to fully cover astronauts to the moon on machines that do not work when tested? The major laugh of the world that will have been for decades if astronauts die in the moon..they took the risk?  No Sir.. Thats not the way science works.. No even Russia who was less careless according to the west of human life took the risk to the moon with human life..when they could do it.. The problem is not arriving to the moon.. the problem is doing it safely for humans and return.

    The Lander is the same vehicle that is supposed to take them away of the moon.. if it doesn't work on earth.. was incredibly hard to control ,very unstable it was..nearly kill Amstrong ,and was saved by a ejector seat with parachute ,what makes you believe it was going to be easier with a total different world with 1/6 of the gravity as is the moon? Vertical lander technology that could carry humans land smoothly and later take off only worked properly decades later in military planes. So it never happened the moon landing. No     Think   .  And if that wasn't enough evidence that something is not right..you have the fake photos manipulation ,and You have all 3 astronauts very quiet ,when return and with shameful face ,telling the world ,that they have nothing new to reveal from the moon other than what news papers was saying. when asked how amazing that was...simply they were not in the mood to talk, Sorry man.. i don't buy it.  This is just a few examples of holes of the moon story. Camera manipulated photos , Lander not working , the cost of the project was very small , and Astronauts face of shame when return. The incredibly complexity of trying to manually connect a lander with the Orbiter around the moon,all by hand.. when something like that was never done before ,not even tested.. and so and so.. a never ending list is flaws with the story.. it never happened.. No .  But you are free to believe in anything you want. just the evidence shows it was staged.

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: Moon Landings: Apollo and associated hoaxes

    Post  Mike E on Sat Sep 27, 2014 10:53 pm

    Vann7 wrote:
    Mike E wrote:
    Vann7 wrote:
    Mike E wrote: Please tell me why they would send a rover, which still costs a ton of money, when they clearly had the ability to send men... Or, why did they put billions into the Saturn V, CSM, and landing module etc. I know it feels nice to believe that the US didn't do it, but the so piracy is debunked friggin every other day. - That coming from a person the public would most likely call a conspiracy theorist....

    Sending machines to the moon was not hard for Russia or USA.. those things do not need food , do not need to breath , do not get sick and best of all do not need to return. Thats why , because sending humans is not safe and machines doesn't matter ,can be replaced. Smile

    IF you saw the videos i shared earlier you will see that the Apolo-moon mission was the most cheaper space mission of all.. they got that information ,those are facts they got, not opinions. and that clearly suggest also that they were doing a lot less in that mission of what was supposed to be the most expensive . Did i told you that the lander did not worked when tested in earth and Asmotrong nearly die? how in hell you expect NASA to fully cover astronauts to the moon on machines that do not work when tested? The major laugh of the world that will have been for decades if astronauts die in the moon..they took the risk?  No Sir.. Thats not the way science works.. No even Russia who was less careless according to the west of human life took the risk to the moon with human life..when they could do it.. The problem is not arriving to the moon.. the problem is doing it safely for humans and return.

    The Lander is the same vehicle that is supposed to take them away of the moon.. if it doesn't work on earth.. was incredibly hard to control ,very unstable it was..nearly kill Amstrong ,and was saved by a ejector seat with parachute ,what makes you believe it was going to be easier with a total different world with 1/6 of the gravity as is the moon? Vertical lander technology that could carry humans land smoothly and later take off only worked properly decades later in military planes. So it never happened the moon landing. No     Think   .  And if that wasn't enough evidence that something is not right..you have the fake photos manipulation ,and You have all 3 astronauts very quiet ,when return and with shameful face ,telling the world ,that they have nothing new to reveal from the moon other than what news papers was saying. when asked how amazing that was...simply they were not in the mood to talk, Sorry man.. i don't buy it.  This is just a few examples of holes of the moon story. Camera manipulated photos , Lander not working , the cost of the project was very small , and Astronauts face of shame when return. The incredibly complexity of trying to manually connect a lander with the Orbiter around the moon,all by hand.. when something like that was never done before ,not even tested.. and so and so.. a never ending list is flaws with the story.. it never happened..  No .  But you are free to believe in anything you want.  just the evidence shows it was staged.
     - If you want to continue this discussion, PM me instead...

    It "isn't" hard? It was hard for them to consistently rendezvous in orbit, never mind reaching reaching the Moon and *landing" there... - Let me ask you again, do you think that the Apollo mission before and after 11 were fake (namely 10&13)? - Just to let you know, the crew *almost* landed during Apollo 10, as they were using the Lunar Lander! Here, look at this picture of Apollo 10;


     - That enough proof for you? As I said before, there is proof that NASA spent billions of dollars on spacecraft which you call "movie props". - Another question, do you think 12 was a hoax too?

    There is no doubt that they landing on the Moon in the later mission, so why "couldn't" they land on 11? - Later missions were soon after, and they didn't need to "hoax it" as they knew the Soviets were a long way behind (in the race to land a man on the Moon). They testing the LM a bazillion times, do you honestly think they'd send up an untested product? After all, it worked great on Apollo 10 (and all the landings)! As 13 showed, NASA wasn't a perfect organization (far from it) and the equipment almost costed the astronauts their lives, yet more proof... Why doubt the landings, when there is an abundance of proof contradicting the conspiracy? Heck, they still can't get over the fact that the pictures were real! You might as well argue that Russia invaded Ukraine with millions of troops, there is no substance!

     - Side-note, this would make a great "debating" thread... I'm sure others all have opinions on the matter. Also Vann7, I *used to be* a believer that they were a hoax. (Notice how I said "used"?)

    kvs
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2500
    Points : 2633
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: Moon Landings: Apollo and associated hoaxes

    Post  kvs on Sun Sep 28, 2014 12:57 am

    That's some great cinematography Smile

    I dismissed the moon landing deniers completely until I picked up on the following inconsistency. None of the Moon astronauts reported
    seeing sparkles in their eyes when they left LEO. Shuttle astronauts reported seeing them when they orbited at 1000 km. This is
    predictable since there are huge electron fluxes in the Van Allen belts. The electrons circulate in shells extending out several thousand kilometers
    from the surface and the ones that leak out are what we see as aurora around the geomagnetic poles. There is a large fraction of highly
    energetic electrons with energies in the hundreds of keV and several MeV range. The quarter inch aluminum shell of the Apollo spacecraft
    would not stop these electrons (the range-energy relation for aluminum has them penetrating through 15 cm thickness if they are 10 MeV,
    if I recall correctly).

    The astronauts were also extremely fortunate they did not get blasted by a coronal mass ejection event during their trips to the Moon.
    Plans to send people to Mars with a one way flight time of at least six months need to seriously deal with this problem. A CME
    involves protons with energies in the range of 10 MeV to several hundred MeV. These would penetrate the shell of any spacecraft
    design that I have seen (i.e. there are no designs that have thick lead shielding or even a strong magnetic field generated for
    protection). We are talking about lethal doses of radiation.

    I don't know what to think. To me the whole endeavour was not such a spectacular technological challenge that it needed to be faked.
    I can see them failing to get really good video of their Moon trips and deciding to stage them (as in one of the old Mission Impossible
    episodes). But it wasn't as if Kennedy declared that the USA would have fusion reactors in 10 years' time. So my view is that the
    astronauts did not mention the sparkles because they were afraid of being ridiculed (recall that the test pilots who saw "sprites" for
    the first time above thunderstorm systems did not report them for fear of losing their jobs). That none of them died of cancer is
    also due to dumb luck. Luck that the Mars astronauts cannot bank on.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15439
    Points : 16146
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Moon Landings: Apollo and associated hoaxes

    Post  GarryB on Sun Sep 28, 2014 2:09 am

    Well sorry for off topic on your excellent thread about Russian launch vehicles and spacecraft...


    But Vann... if they faked the space landings with humans... why did they stop faking them?

    Why not have hundreds or thousands of missions to the moon... why not make it more interesting... have some aliens there or some lost alien technology or evidence of alien architecture on the far side where no human had seen before the moon launches... wouldn't be that hard to do, and would really spark interest in space exploration and get funding to really put people on the moon.

    Why didn't the Soviets just fake a landing first if they knew the US was faking it?

    That none of them died of cancer is
    also due to dumb luck. Luck that the Mars astronauts cannot bank on.

    On topic, a Russian spacecraft designed for long period flights could easily have a small compartment with radiation shielding that would allow the entire crew to take shelter in the event of a mass ejection... they could easily stay there for days if needed and then come out after the radiation has passed.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: Moon Landings: Apollo and associated hoaxes

    Post  Mike E on Sun Sep 28, 2014 5:54 am

    Thanks GarryB... Anyway, news has come that the Proton launch was successful, which isn't really all that surprising... However, media sources are getting confused with the launched satellite which that claim is of the good ole' Luch-type, and do not mention how that is just a "code name". - Can't blame them, this still doesn't make sense!

    kvs
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2500
    Points : 2633
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: Moon Landings: Apollo and associated hoaxes

    Post  kvs on Sun Sep 28, 2014 6:25 am

    GarryB wrote:Well sorry for off topic on your excellent thread about Russian launch vehicles and spacecraft...


    But Vann... if they faked the space landings with humans... why did they stop faking them?

    Why not have hundreds or thousands of missions to the moon... why not make it more interesting... have some aliens there or some lost alien technology or evidence of alien architecture on the far side where no human had seen before the moon launches... wouldn't be that hard to do, and would really spark interest in space exploration and get funding to really put people on the moon.

    Why didn't the Soviets just fake a landing first if they knew the US was faking it?

    That none of them died of cancer is
    also due to dumb luck. Luck that the Mars astronauts cannot bank on.

    On topic, a Russian spacecraft designed for long period flights could easily have a small compartment with radiation shielding that would allow the entire crew to take shelter in the event of a mass ejection... they could easily stay there for days if needed and then come out after the radiation has passed.

    Think of surrounding a space that can accommodate a crew of six with 5 cm of lead shielding. At just over 11 g/cm^3 we have for a 3x3 meter cube a mass of 30.6 tons. You can play with the geometry but the weight penalty is huge. I have not seen any proposed designs that even discuss this issue.
    They are all formulated like the vehicles used to reach the Moon.

    Any design or plan that does not deal with CMEs is a fail.

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: Moon Landings: Apollo and associated hoaxes

    Post  Mike E on Sun Sep 28, 2014 7:15 am

    kvs wrote:
    GarryB wrote:Well sorry for off topic on your excellent thread about Russian launch vehicles and spacecraft...


    But Vann... if they faked the space landings with humans... why did they stop faking them?

    Why not have hundreds or thousands of missions to the moon... why not make it more interesting... have some aliens there or some lost alien technology or evidence of alien architecture on the far side where no human had seen before the moon launches... wouldn't be that hard to do, and would really spark interest in space exploration and get funding to really put people on the moon.

    Why didn't the Soviets just fake a landing first if they knew the US was faking it?

    That none of them died of cancer is
    also due to dumb luck. Luck that the Mars astronauts cannot bank on.

    On topic, a Russian spacecraft designed for long period flights could easily have a small compartment with radiation shielding that would allow the entire crew to take shelter in the event of a mass ejection... they could easily stay there for days if needed and then come out after the radiation has passed.

    Think of surrounding a space that can accommodate a crew of six with 5 cm of lead shielding.   At just over 11 g/cm^3 we have for a 3x3 meter cube a mass of 30.6 tons.  You can play with the geometry but the weight penalty is huge.   I have not seen any proposed designs that even discuss this issue.
    They are all formulated like the vehicles used to reach the Moon.

    Any design or plan that does not deal with CMEs is a fail.
    Who said it has to be lead? I'm certain that there are other ways to fix that problem... (What if an artificial magnetosphere was created? - Might sound far-fetched, but it *could* work.) If the time it takes to reach Mars is shortened, this problem will cease to exist anyway.

    Vann7
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3221
    Points : 3345
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    Re: Moon Landings: Apollo and associated hoaxes

    Post  Vann7 on Sun Sep 28, 2014 7:53 am

    Mike E wrote:
    It "isn't" hard? It was hard for them to consistently rendezvous in orbit, never mind reaching reaching the Moon and *landing" there... - Let me ask you again, do you think that the Apollo mission before and after 11 were fake (namely 10&13)? - Just to let you know, the crew *almost* landed during Apollo 10, as they were using the Lunar Lander! Here, look at this picture of Apollo 10;


     - That enough proof for you? As I said before, there is proof that NASA spent billions of dollars on spacecraft which you call "movie props". - Another question, do you think 12 was a hoax too?

    There is no doubt that they landing on the Moon in the later mission, so why "couldn't" they land on 11? - Later missions were soon after, and they didn't need to "hoax it" as they knew the Soviets were a long way behind (in the race to land a man on the Moon). They testing the LM a bazillion times, do you honestly think they'd send up an untested product? After all, it worked great on Apollo 10 (and all the landings)! As 13 showed, NASA wasn't a perfect organization (far from it) and the equipment almost costed the astronauts their lives, yet more proof... Why doubt the landings, when there is an abundance of proof contradicting the conspiracy? Heck, they still can't get over the fact that the pictures were real! You might as well argue that Russia invaded Ukraine with millions of troops, there is no substance!

     - Side-note, this would make a great "debating" thread... I'm sure others all have opinions on the matter. Also Vann7, I *used to be* a believer that they were a hoax. (Notice how I said "used"?)


    It was hard to maintain the Lander leveled even .. it was technology from the 60's. and there was gravity in the moon.. so any slight deviation to the sides as like happened in earth will have collapse the entire thing.. fortunately in earth there was parachutes.. but in space that will have not worked well..  and A fake picture proof absolutely NOTHING , same with the staged movies already debunked by photographers experts who have lot of experience with the same camera used by the Apollo crew.... but as i told you mike.. you can believe in fantasies and faeries if you want is your problem.  Im really convinced you don't want to see the reality.. because repeated times you bring the "reflectors" thing as "proof" when it proof Nothing.. now when no longer can use the reflectors as proof comes with a photo, what will be next a movie?  No   Its alright if you want to believe it by faith is up to you.  but not me.. No

    Garry NASA did not continue to fake the moon landing because they knew it was a high risk ,that they could be caught or someone will talk.. Russia did not faked moon landing because they have no holywood expertise in cinematography ,and because they had a real program and had no reason to start faking moon landings. I Could not have done it either.. it will be an insult for the thousands of engineers who worked in the space program..but USA is USA.. they care nothing about principles or morals.

    None of you have given a valid reason for canceling a space rocket Saturn V that was so successful ,too expensive?
    BULLSHIT. the space shuttle was more costly. None of you have explained why the Astronauts were so depressed/ashamed and their body language was Obviously not of joy ..what was supposed to be the most amazing day of their lives after making History.. a bad day?  BUllshit.. they were never in the moon. as simple as that.. everything was unmanned and they faked the entire walking in the moon .

    Look at this tormented soul.. after was was supposed to be the most glorious day
    of his life.. and returning alive from the "moon"


    So many thing do not add.. not juts the manipulated photos ,not just the lander never working on earth, not just the guilt of neale..not just the CIVILIAN camera not prepared to survive radiation and -233 Celsius of space while the photos surviving. or the shut down of the program when was so successful. That never happens in science.. only in fantasy land.. that technology that cost billions and works so well is ditched and you start something radically different and most costly.... just to not get bored?  lol1  Obviously none of you understand how engineering or Business works. Im sorry but i don't eat that Shit.. Neale have the face of someone which its entire career was ruined ,head down almost to cry. Anyone who believe the moon manned landing was real after all the evidence against it..have to be very incredibly naive and short sighted.

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: Moon Landings: Apollo and associated hoaxes

    Post  Mike E on Sun Sep 28, 2014 10:22 am

    I'm over it Vann7.... Providing none-answers while mixing it with opinion isn't my kind of discussion, and it is off-topic regarding this thread. As such, this will be my final reply on the subject...


    That picture is anything by fake... No evidence, at all, even *suggests* that it is fake. In fact, I can call up a photographer I know to verify it. It looks to be a consistent resolution, contrast, you name it from what I can see... Now, let's see less talk and more proof... What "staged movies"? - *Spoken as a conspiracy theorist*, all "the videos are fake" claims have been debunked a hundred times. Lighting is correct, the shadows are correct, the apparent qualities of the Moon Dirt are accurate etc... The only people the suggest otherwise are some YT trolls who can't think for themselves. Chances are that, where there is proof, there is truth! Don't take this offensively, but *all* of your claims are backed up by, an abundance of, nothing! Reflectors that are left exactly where the astronauts left them are proof... If you are so naive to believe that it was a rover, than why can't the rover be seen today? - Soviet rovers can and have been seen, why not an American one that had to *lay multiple reflectors, something most rovers didn't do*. Nevermind that rover tracks can be spotted a bajillion miles away, but whatever you say! You seemed to have forgotten something, how on the name of the Moon could a rover recover 46 lb of Moon Dirt and Moon Rocks? Soviet rovers could only recover a few pounds max, and their recovery systems couldn't return any more!


    How convenient... They just "happen" to have a decade worth of research and billions of dollars invested, in a project whose rockets took years to build, in a few months time! Have you seen a Hollywood film of that era, cause I sure have and I don't any resemblance to the so-called "hoax" landing video. Not only that, but there is little to no difference in the quality of pictures and videos through each Apollo mission! - Why hoax it, just to actually land a few months later? It makes no sense! Besides, all the eyes were on 11 and not the later missions, so there (if anything) was more purpose in faking the later landings to make it appear like they could reach the Moon consistenly...


    Simple, it was too expensive, too hard to build, and no longer practical for NASA. - Quite literally the same reason Russia doesn't build the Energia! You have to keep in mind that at the time of its approvement, the Shuttle was suspected to be billions cheaper than what it turned out to be. Using body language is an absolutely terrible basis for an argument that is already fundamentally flawed... Armstrong acts almost like myself in that video, as in nervous. It isn't uncommon for someone as instantly popular as Armstrong to appear worried, nervous, and ackward.... No reason to doubt that! Don't forget that even though is was their most "successful week" of their lives, they were not only famous, but close to death as well. In their decent towards the Moon, they only had a few seconds of propellant going into manual operation via Armstrong. I would have wet my diaper and than some!
    Hmm, is that why I've hundreds of pictures of modules getting built, and have seen technical drawing  for the craft? If it was fake, why did Apollo 1&13 happen, you still haven't answered this (maybe because you can't)!


    Oh, look at this nervous person who almost died with his crew and became an overnight celebrity... He seems suspicious for sure, those just "aren't" average reactions....


    As for your other "points"....

    A) The Hasselbrad cameras used during 11 were specially built for NASA and had at least a little radiation protection... Never mind that the Moon is always protected by the Magnetosphere, even when outside of it! - Also, Hasselbrad's were used for years on space station missions, and the rest of the Apollo landings...

    B) Oh, you mean the pictures proven real by professional photographers (including ones I know personally) all around the globe?

    C) The lander did work on Earth, and if you didn't 't know... * THE MOON HAS ALMOST NO ATMOSPHERE AND VERY LITTLE GRAVITY, YOU CAN'T COMPARE EARTH TO THE MOON! Rovers landed there, why not the LM?

    D) The camera was modified and could take the cold...

    E) They had done what they wanted, why continue a money eating, time consuming project that has already served its purpose? I already explained why the Saturn V was cancelled, so don't mention that crap again... - I might as well ask why the CCCP cancelled their trip to the Moon.....

    F) You can keep your fairy tales, I'll stick with the proven truth instead, is that fair?

     - DO NOT REPLY! - PM me instead of wasting space on this thread...

    kvs
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2500
    Points : 2633
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: Moon Landings: Apollo and associated hoaxes

    Post  kvs on Sun Sep 28, 2014 3:48 pm

    Mike E wrote:
    Who said it has to be lead? I'm certain that there are other ways to fix that problem... (What if an artificial magnetosphere was created? - Might sound far-fetched, but it *could* work.) If the time it takes to reach Mars is shortened, this problem will cease to exist anyway.

    The above is an example of the facile thinking that afflicts all these rah-rah we'll go to space nice and easy delusions.

    It is obvious that you, and for that matter most of the proposers, were not even aware of this problem. It is funny to hear
    about how you will just set up and magnetic field sort of like a force field in some sci-fi space opera. Protons are heavy and
    when they have 100s of MeV going int the low GeV range they will not be significantly deflected by any teensy magnetic field
    you can generate. Sure, you can lug a along a 100 MW reactor to generate enough teslas but the weight penalty is
    still there.

    The reason for lead is based on physics and not fantasy engineering.

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: Moon Landings: Apollo and associated hoaxes

    Post  Mike E on Sun Sep 28, 2014 6:20 pm

    kvs wrote:
    Mike E wrote:
    Who said it has to be lead? I'm certain that there are other ways to fix that problem... (What if an artificial magnetosphere was created? - Might sound far-fetched, but it *could* work.) If the time it takes to reach Mars is shortened, this problem will cease to exist anyway.

    The above is an example of the facile thinking that afflicts all these rah-rah we'll go to space nice and easy delusions.  

    It is obvious that you, and for that matter most of the proposers, were not even aware of this problem.   It is funny to hear
    about how you will just set up and magnetic field sort of like a force field in some sci-fi space opera.    Protons are heavy and
    when they have 100s of MeV going int the low GeV range they will not be significantly deflected by any teensy magnetic field
    you can generate.   Sure, you can lug a along a 100 MW reactor to generate enough teslas but the weight penalty is
    still there.

    The reason for lead is based on physics and not fantasy engineering.    
    Yeah yeah yeah.... It most likely is just a dream but it still seems plausible. With the next tech "boom" coming within the decade, there is a chance that some kind of thick magnetic field could be generated, at least for short periods of time... That or, launches will have to be timed during a period of minimal incoming radiation... - It can be detected, so why not send crafts in a similar flight plan that could detect when it should be launched etc. I look at it this way, Musk, the US, and now Russia all have a mission to Mars in the works, so they must also have a solution to the problem of radiation...

    Never mind, turns out it is basically a none-problem.... According to Curiosity's suite of sensors and detectors, the astronauts will only experience 1.01 sieverts, which increases the chance of cancer by roughly 5%... (That includes a 180 day there and back trip, and a 500 day stay on Mars.)

    Big_Gazza
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 504
    Points : 528
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Re: Moon Landings: Apollo and associated hoaxes

    Post  Big_Gazza on Mon Sep 29, 2014 7:37 am

    Mike E wrote:Never mind, turns out it is basically a none-problem.... According to Curiosity's suite of sensors and detectors, the astronauts will only experience 1.01 sieverts, which increases the chance of cancer by roughly 5%... (That includes a 180 day there and back trip, and a 500 day stay on Mars.)

    I'm not convinced. The martian atmosphere may be thin by Earth standards, but it would still generate a sufficient bow shock to deflect the worst of a flare-induced surge on solar radiation, and that is the big killer for any interplanetary crew. Not much you can do about high-energy cosmic rays, but the flux of these supernova-powered atom-sized bullets is essentially constant. Flares generate huge surges in both density and energy of solar wind particles, and if one was unlucky enough to be caught in the path of a flare remnant without an adequate shelter, you wouldn't survive to reach your destination. I think that deep space vehicles will need to include an emergency radiation shelter, basically a capsule with a lead lining and enveloped by the vehicles water storage tanks, somewhere the crew can pile in and wait out the passing of the storm surge. It need not be particulary large - a set of individual tubes long enough to accomodate the tallest crew member and fitted with a sleeping bag and emergency food and water rations. Toilet facilities would be extremely basic and would be little more than blue bags and sachets of wipes (ughh!) or even adult diapers (double ughh!) but if that is what you need to stay alive and not have your chromosomes smashed into non-functional fragments then is a little discomfort really a problem?

    AFAIK a seperate life support system would not be required, and a series of fans to circulate the general cabin air would suffice. I'd also provide a pair of shielded anti-radiation suits in the event that crew members are required to leave the safe refuge in the event that solar radiation triggers any malfunctions that require crew intervention. The refuge could provide a small partially shielded vestibule for such a purpose, sufficient for limited exposure while donning protective gear.

    Anyway, these are just my thoughts, and I'm no nuclear physicist with any expertise in this area, but these minimalist measures would IMHO greatly enhance crew survive-ability.

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: Moon Landings: Apollo and associated hoaxes

    Post  Mike E on Mon Sep 29, 2014 7:48 am

    Big_Gazza wrote:
    Mike E wrote:Never mind, turns out it is basically a none-problem.... According to Curiosity's suite of sensors and detectors, the astronauts will only experience 1.01 sieverts, which increases the chance of cancer by roughly 5%... (That includes a 180 day there and back trip, and a 500 day stay on Mars.)

    I'm not convinced.  The martian atmosphere may be thin by Earth standards, but it would still generate a sufficient bow shock to deflect the worst of a flare-induced surge on solar radiation, and that is the big killer for any interplanetary crew.  Not much you can do about high-energy cosmic rays, but the flux of these supernova-powered atom-sized bullets is essentially constant.  Flares generate huge surges in both density and energy of solar wind particles, and if one was unlucky enough to be caught in the path of a flare remnant without an adequate shelter, you wouldn't survive to reach your destination.  I think that deep space vehicles will need to include an emergency radiation shelter, basically a capsule with a lead lining and enveloped by the vehicles water storage tanks, somewhere the crew can pile in and wait out the passing of the storm surge.  It need not be particulary large - a set of individual tubes long enough to accomodate the tallest crew member and fitted with a sleeping bag and emergency food and water rations.  Toilet facilities would be extremely basic and would be little more than blue bags and sachets of wipes (ughh!) or even adult diapers (double ughh!) but if that is what you need to stay alive and not have your chromosomes smashed into non-functional fragments then is a little discomfort really a problem?

    AFAIK a seperate life support system would not be required, and a series of fans to circulate the general cabin air would suffice. I'd also provide a pair of shielded anti-radiation suits in the event that crew members are required to leave the safe refuge in the event that solar radiation triggers any malfunctions that require crew intervention.  The refuge could provide a small partially shielded vestibule for such a purpose, sufficient for limited exposure while donning protective gear.

    Anyway, these are just my thoughts, and I'm no nuclear physicist with any expertise in this area, but these minimalist measures would IMHO greatly enhance crew survive-ability.
    *The magnetosphere is what really blocks the radiation, not the atmosphere.* I'm not going to doubt the levels recorded by Curiosity, as they are what I like to call "proven figures". That being said, the biggest threat is by far an unforeseen "blast" of radiation by either the cosmos or the Sun. - For that, active shielding, or shielding by external storage of water/hydrogen would be adequate. Maybe a section of the craft could have at least two of these methods incorporated... As you said, they could have a protected section plus suits etc. - Boeing will be using advanced, radiation absorbing plastic in its mars space-tug/craft, which I'm sure Russia could develop as well. 

    +1

    Guaranteed that the craft headed for Mars will have these kind of systems, even if they might not be needed.... - When on the surface of Mars, a underground "dugout" (which has been proposed for the Moon) would absorb even more radiation, possibly allowing for decade-long trips.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15439
    Points : 16146
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Moon Landings: Apollo and associated hoaxes

    Post  GarryB on Tue Sep 30, 2014 7:21 am


    Think of surrounding a space that can accommodate a crew of six with 5 cm of lead shielding. At just over 11 g/cm^3 we have for a 3x3 meter cube a mass of 30.6 tons. You can play with the geometry but the weight penalty is huge. I have not seen any proposed designs that even discuss this issue.

    The ship they are in can be designed to be oriented in one way or another... there is no need for 360 degree protection... just having the front compartment with shielding in the direction of the sun and perhaps even altering the air in the crew compartments behind the front compartment they are sheltering by filling them with Ozone to absorb the radiation would be fairly straight forward.

    Having nuclear powered engines would require some shielding anyway.

    It was hard to maintain the Lander leveled even ..

    What do you mean?

    the lander had manouvering rockets... stabilising its flight should be no problem.

    Garry NASA did not continue to fake the moon landing because they knew it was a high risk ,that they could be caught or someone will talk.. Russia did not faked moon landing because they have no holywood expertise in cinematography ,and because they had a real program and had no reason to start faking moon landings. I Could not have done it either.. it will be an insult for the thousands of engineers who worked in the space program..but USA is USA.. they care nothing about principles or morals.

    So why did the Soviets not call Americas bluff... there would need to be hundreds or thousands of people involved in this sort of bluff and the Soviets could have gotten to any one of them... yet you must be claiming all these people are taking their secrets to the grave...

    None of you have given a valid reason for canceling a space rocket Saturn V that was so successful ,too expensive?

    People got bored with the moon landings. Unless you are going to Mars then a Saturn IV is simply too much rocket.

    BULLSHIT. the space shuttle was more costly. None of you have explained why the Astronauts were so depressed/ashamed and their body language was Obviously not of joy ..what was supposed to be the most amazing day of their lives after making History.. a bad day?  BUllshit.. they were never in the moon. as simple as that.. everything was unmanned and they faked the entire walking in the moon .

    Body language?

    I have just spent two weeks off work in bed with a cold and when I went back to work yesterday it might come as a shock to you but I felt tired and worn out and lacked energy... do you think after a week in zero gravity and some days on a low gravity moon and then another week back to earth that they might find earths gravity... a bit heavy? how would that effect their body language?

    If you mean in interviews much later... how long will your excitement last after the 4,000th interview asking all the same dumb questions... but no, you have to smile and answer politely.

    Look at this tormented soul.. after was was supposed to be the most glorious day
    of his life.. and returning alive from the "moon"

    He must be hiding something... he couldn't possibly be tired...


    or the shut down of the program when was so successful.

    There was nothing left to do.

    No idea why the Proton-M was made with the Angara being so close to release... and already having
    different versions of Soyus.. anyway good video..

    Proton and Soyuz are proven effective rockets that are ready and tested now. Angara is the future and eventually will replace both, but not yet.

    thanks for the vid BTW.

    The reason for lead is based on physics and not fantasy engineering.

    Where is earths lead shield?

    Of all the problems of getting to Mars shielding from radiation is actually the least of their problems... micro gravity means by the time they get to Mars none of the crew would survive landing on the surface because the g forces would break their now brittle bones after 1-2 years in space, and their lack of muscle mass means they couldn't even stand up if they had intact bone structures.

    30 tons of lead isn't actually that big a problem... if we reduce it to just shielding the direction of the sun that means 5 of the walls you postulate are no longer needed, so 5 x 6 = 30, so we are actually talking about 5 tons... which is perfectly manageable.

    Rockets will likely be sent to Mars first to find frozen water sources... even if they are underground. Such resources could be mined by robots so by the time the humans are sent a large supply of water and also oxygen and rocket fuel could be on Mars ready to leave when you arrive if there is an emergency.

    The main ship that will get the crew from earth to mars orbit could be assembled in space in modules including shielded modules to protect the crew from solar radiation or from any nuclear propulsion fitted. In addition to the main ship will be a lander that can  land on mars do what needs to be done, refuel on the ground and then launch back up to the mother ship in orbit and everyone could go home...

    the best design for the mother ship would be a large orb that can be rotated to simulate artificial gravity so the negative effects are minimised. the central zero g core could be shielded as a food store and crew shelter.

    The martian atmosphere may be thin by Earth standards, but it would still generate a sufficient bow shock to deflect the worst of a flare-induced surge on solar radiation, and that is the big killer for any interplanetary crew.

    The Martian van allen belt is weak compared with earths.

    For all the efforts it could be a case that they pick a more mature crew that has already had children and don't want more and don't expect to live to be 70.

    Guaranteed that the craft headed for Mars will have these kind of systems, even if they might not be needed.... - When on the surface of Mars, a underground "dugout" (which has been proposed for the Moon) would absorb even more radiation, possibly allowing for decade-long trips.

    Indeed, there was talk of digging for permafrost to get frozen water out of the ground and into storage tanks on a robot mission preceeding the human launch to ensure whatever happens they can land and then will have fuel to take off again. the digging of permafrost should allow for building underground living areas or at least shelter areas that could be used when necessary.


    Last edited by GarryB on Fri Oct 03, 2014 9:30 am; edited 1 time in total


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Sponsored content

    Re: Moon Landings: Apollo and associated hoaxes

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 7:01 pm


      Current date/time is Fri Dec 02, 2016 7:01 pm