Sorry, I should have been more specific. There was no issues with men passing through the van allen belts.

Belial,they went to space but never reached the Van allen belts.They were on earth low orbit ,far from radiation exposure problems.Anyway,we can have this as an important achievement...But it is far , far away of landing a man on the moon.

You need to get the orbiter simulator. It's interesting to see that the difference in SIVB burn time between getting halfway out and out to lunar distance is but around 7 seconds of SIVB burn time. The orbit stretched rapidly at the end of the burn. Indeed, they were still "in" Earth orbit after TLi burn, just one that reached a bit beyond the Moon. At some point, the Moon's gravity became the dominant force. It's a patched conic three body problem I barely understand, but I have the textbooks here...
Once you've burned to the halfway point, it's not much to finish the burn that gets you all the way there.

Except you have no proof of that when there is plenty of evidence that they did go to the Moon. If they never left LEO as you say why wasn't the capsule seen in orbit as it would have been one of the brightest objects in the sky?

What precisely is the VAB radiation issue, and what sort of materials can be used to avoid the problem? This is not a hypothetical question. Remember, we have very many satellites that "live" in the belts, and the designers know the answers to these questions. Some of the materials may surprise you. In many cases, satellite electronics are more sensitive to radiation than are humans.

You are wrong again Frenat.Watch this - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lABKEZFazfo

Frenat,thanks for not being rude again on your answer.Perhaps the moderator (Lilly) didn´t notice your last behaviour.

Best hope we don't damage one of your super duper 'three' LM landing legs, because if we do then that bad boy is tumbling over on the lunar surface.



Absolutely absurd. "Weight was not a problem for NASA" is something you will never hear NASA say; ever! They actually suggested 5 legs (as this would have been more stable) but they decided on 4 for weight purposes.

This video was absolutely smashed beyond all repair about 20 pages ago. http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...t&p=2018098. The video above shows no evidence of it being Apollo 11, it simply shows evidence of something entering the atmosphere 5 hours before Apollo 11 was due to splashdown. This has now been shown to be Proton 4.

Any radiation in whatever form, will have some issues attatched to it surely. Scientists are now saying we are at risk from xrays here on earth and having xrays done on a regular basis will have medical issues later on in life, space as it's own radiation does it not, never mind the VHB's, thats another story. All i am saying is, there are risks and scienc took a big ganble back then, because they did not know all the facts a lot of what they did was guess work, and it is for this reason i feel they did not land a man on the moon.
So why would they want to try this out? BELTLESS

Does that look like a contradiction there in?

EDITED for personal reasons

Be careful depending on Jarrah for your evidence. When he zooms on on the newspaper clipping, you can see that the object observed 5 hrs before Apollo's reentry was travelling north to south. Apollo reentered west to east. The observed reentry has been firmly coorelated with a Russian satellite reentering that day, which was coming in from a polar orbit. It's on Astronautix.com...(I saw a thread on it yesterday, somewhere...)

Contradiction? In what way?

Your quote over the weight issue, the one you left out of my reply...the one you say nasa as never nor will ever comment on as being a problem? yet you then said it was better to go with four legs rather than five as it was better weight wise? thats a contradiction bud...

My quote "Weight was not a problem for NASA" is something you will never hear NASA say" means "Weight is not a problem" is something you would never hear NASA say. Weight is always an issue when it comes to space flight.

This means weight was ALWAYS an issue for NASA...and the LM design was extremely weight conscious.

Exactly? so whats TNT on about?

I'm not on about anything, you're just misunderstanding what I'm saying!

O h i understand bud, please don't turn this into your normal offerings.
ALSO:
"Current satellites are designed to survive long periods despite the space radiation environment. HiVOLT operations would permit spacecraft to last longer. They wouldn't be exposed to such an abusive environment," Hoyt said. Future satellites could potentially be designed with less expensive components and lower levels of redundancy, he said.

Hoyt and his fellow researchers point out that energetic particles will steadily degrade electronics, optics, solar panels and other critical systems by breaking chemical bonds, disrupting crystalline and molecular structures, and by causing localized charge effects.

Higher energy particles in solar events and cosmic rays cause single-event disruptions or damage to electronics. At present, spacecraft systems operating in Earth orbit must be hardened to withstand this radiation environment.

As for humans, radiation particles pose a significant threat, Hoyt said. Zipping through tissue, radiation particles can deposit their energy by ionizing water and proteins, causing cellular damage, modifying DNA, RNA, and proteins in ways that can lead to cancers, immune system disorders, and other maladies, he said.
text from here

If the LM was given 3 legs, the legs would need to be stronger, and heavier. The attach and support structure would need to be stronger and heavier. And the loss of 1 leg for whatever reason would be more serious than a 4 legged configuration.
They knew what they were doing...the LM program was under a microscope during the design and production phase, every ounce was examined and accounted for.

FANTASTIC ARTICLE !!! CONGRATULATIONS BELIAL !!!!

They used a trajectory that went through the thinner parts of the upper belt (higher Earth latitude).
The passed through the lower belt very quickly.
The aluminum CM skin, and other materials, absorbed the majority of the particle radiation.
The VAB isn't a place they wanted to "hang out", they were through the worst, lower parts in just a few minutes.

Spacecraft surface temperature rise and "braking radiation" are as much a problem in considering the types of shielding used. Lead shielding is often counterproductive in many situations, where polyethelyne is favorable...

I am sorry bus..You are a very polite guy,but it is a complete waste of time try to convince somebody that the LM went to the moon.It is a fake project since its conception until its appearance on NASA fake videos about apollo program.I would say to you that LM is a FOUR LEGGED JOKE.Your last consideration about - "The attach and support structure would need to be stronger and heavier" - in a 1/6 gravity environment is something that I will try to forget.

Yet here you are still unable to give scientific reasons for why it can't do its job. You might want to try to forget it, but what Bus says is true! How can this not make sense to you. If you have three legs, instead of four, the entire weight of the LM is distributed over three legs. If you distribute it over FOUR, each leg has to support less weight. Thus, if the LM was built with three, it would be necessary to have stronger and subsequently heavier materials to support the extra weight of the LM.

If I read this correctly, they would be displacing the energized particles, either out into space, or down towards Earth. The atmosphere destroys (deenergizes) the particles, and they're not a factor flung into deep space. And the Earth's magnetic field is still there to capture more energetic particles as they come in from the sun and elsewhere, protecting us down here.

From a relative layman's perspective, it looks plausable. Though it would take an awful lot of these things, I'll bet.

The LM weighed about 3000 pounds on the moon on landing...that's 1/6g, it's mass was some 18000 pounds with the DPS fuel used up on landing. The legs, however many you choose, need to support this 3000lb lunar weight, plus any stresses encountered on touchdown (like Pete Conrad's drop in...) (which involves 18000 pounds of inertia)

edit: so why do four legs make it a fake? If you designed the LM, how would you do it? This was the question they chewed on for a long time in the early 60's. If you don't accept their solution as the "best", that's your choice. To call the program fake based on your opinion vs their engineering expertise, that's just not adequate as "evidence".

Already answered well by others. Jarrah, as usual, proves he knows nothing about orbital mechanics.

I have not been rude. If you think I have perhaps you are too sensitive.

So why attempt it unless it could make space travel a little easier on those there space cadets, and don't forget the life span of all earth orbiting sats.

Does anybody know anything about Werner Von Braun saying it "would be impossible to go to the Moon the next 100 years"?
Because of the Van Allen belts?

BB

Yo bro

No...but I wouldn't doubt it was said by someone. Many didn't have the vision of Goddard, Von Braun ond other pioneers. They solved the problems they encountered, and didn't just say "it's impossible". As a matter of fact, I recollect a quote by von Braun to the effect of "one must use the word 'impossible' with great caution."
The VAB were discovered in Jan 58 (coming up on the Explorer1 50th anniverasry!) and were studied for 11 years before Apollo 8 left the Earth for the Moon.

could you explain please? i don't understand.

Not "all" Earth satellites have to deal with the VAB. At synchronous altitudes (~24k miles) they are very minimal. The ISS and other LEO sats only have to deal with the low hanging SAA section, which they are designed to mitigate. It's the satellites that hang out in between, some commsats, GPS and such that have to be "hardened" for long term operation in the variable VAB environment.

He doesn't like the LM. He thinks it would have done well on 3 legs. He's probably right, they likely could have built it and flown successfully as a "tripod".
But in the innumerable configuration design meetings, they chose a 4 legged design. They considered other options, but made a decision that they wanted 4. It was a careful decision, considering all the factors. And none of us were there to know what all these factors were.
You know, when they were working on the Boeing 777 configuration, they contemplated a 3 engine aircraft with a narrow 757 cross section atop a wider 767 fuselage...looked very strange as a model. The final config was a widebody with 2 huge engines.

System configuration is an interesting, long process, but at some point a final decision is locked in.

Oki-doki

But is there anyone here that feel they can offer "die-hard" arguments for "us" not having gone to the Moon?

I'm very interested.

BB

The "pro-Apollo" side tends to be folks that know something about space travel, the environment, the science. Some even do it for a living. Either way, it's interesting to us, and we have studied many sources of information on how it was done. Spaceflight isn't some dark "magic"...it's engineering.
The hoax proponents don't think we went. Their sources are the likes of Bill Kaysing, Bart Sibrel and such. These authors have written and videoed their arguments, which are clearly based on "it looks like" evidence, "space radiation is lethal and insurmountable", or their impressions of the existing video and written record. The arguments are based on ignorance of what they debate, or misinterpretation of the data. They don't understand thermodynamics or heat transfer or orbital mechanics. I'm retired USAF, have some space courses under my belt, and drive a schoolbus (don't think I could ever go back to a "real" job!). So it's not impossible to learn why Apollo was completely do-able, looking at the evidence and learning some of the science.
I've found a few things that have me scratching my head, but none are some all encompassing "magic bullet" that discounts the mountains of evidence that we went. Just the same old arguments, or some variations thereof...

Von Braun did a hell of alot in his time, but it was Dr. Aldrin who really fleshed out orbital rendezvous techniques.

What did I say?




Unbelievable...point proven.

You made that far too easy...

Catching up on the many past posts here...Turbonium on the European VLT project (whatever it's called, the new, big one) that has 2-5m resolution (probably similar to the SIM bay camera photos, also dismissed), a discussion of the Darkmoon movie (that one had me hook, line and sinker the first time, till I was told to watch the WHOLE THING...a perfect, classic example of how video can twist things). Then the Sunofone episode...wow. He don't think much of us older folks.

I suppose I was brought up in the dark ages...no PCs, even calculators, no video games (had to fly REAL airplanes for enjoyment, dad had a C182, the one before the -A), no antibiotics worth mentioning (lots of tetanus shots and alcohol), no CAD programs (they called it a drafting table, T squares, French curves and all, it's an old antiquated art form).
You did what ya needed to do with what you had. Used your imagination, and your friends and neighbors. Used your brain, maybe a slide rule.
We didn't need no "graphic interface", it was in our minds, as we took the data and interpreted it, making it as real as it could be.

I remember Shepard, the news about Apollo 1, and trying to stay awake at a local's house on the sleepy Outer Banks of NC on vacation (w/ poor reception from the Elizabeth City station), wondering why Walter and the "simulation" were showing they had landed when clearly the comm chatter was saying otherwise.

More catching up to do, but I think this thread is goodl...in great part to the polite moderation from above. I too look on the past, even 10 years ago, and it seems technologically distant. But ya do what ya gotta do, with what ya got. And, sometimes, it's absolutely incredible....thus threads like this.

Bless ya all, on both sides...
Dave

Dr Rendezvous? Still a busy guy, pops up a fair bit in the rocketry education community...

You were right, belial, it is dry.
The difference in coloring, which is rather difficult to describe since it changes depending upon the angle of the light cast upon it (from the viewer's perspective on the Moon, that is) is likely due to the surface itself being exposed to light, direct cosmic ray bombardment, and such things as that. Get a couple inches down and the soil is shielded by the surface above it.

I think it's an exposure issue.

You know the curious thing about the various shades that observers on the surface saw, which were varying from a tan color to a grey color is that once they got the dirt inside and back home, it's actually a dark charcoal grey, rather unlike what the pictures show! Wierd stuff, looking at dirt without an atmosphere!

Cheeze...
I'm a private pilot, couple hundred hours SEL. No aerospace industry experience, cept USAF training the CMAFB crews. Have been a space geek most of my life. Have a few space courses under my belt, plus a bunch of "self education" on Apollo, and space. I've seen the Hoax movies on the net, studied them. I'm a space geek, and I fly rockets as a hobby. I posess several videos and books on the manned missions.
Am I in-credible for this discussion? My NAR L-1 flight by chance was with the opportune assistance of Jay Apt himself. I like rockets and space stuff, I strive to learn more, even as an "old guy". (the kids on my bus still say I rock, and recently, I "pown", which I understand as a "cool" thing).

There's a future out there, and denigrating the huge accomplishments of a previous generation is pointless. The internet/instant news generation seems to have lost sight of history.

If NASA was faking it, why would they create such an obvious* fake to begin with?

Hoaxerspeak dictionary:
obvious = "I have not the slightest idea what's wrong"

I don't believe any such thing. I know it.

Further, you can certainly find out how meteors behave when they impact the Moon.


I addressed the strangeness of your comment...



I cannot fathom how a physical property of matter, which is in fact a fundamental principal of classical physics, doesn't exist on the Moon, when it exists everywhere else in the universe...



The rolling factor was one concerned with the uncertainty of the stability of the lunar surface. 25% more surface area touching the ground at 4 equidistant points from the center distributes the mass more equitably, providing less load per leg and greater stability overall.

( I think I am repeating myself, but sometime's it's necessary.)

"Our expectations," ours, certainly not yours, was that mass was a critical priority on the LM. In fact, it was. Further, if you knew anything about the storied history of LM R&D, you'd realize that it was a problem...one that was solved.

You might also realize that 4 legs doesn't necessarily mean 33% more mass, as each of the four gear could be lighter than each of those in the trike config, trading a minimal amount of additional mass for alot more stability and support, alingned directly on the Y and Z axes.


Your comments are not an indication that the LM never went to the Moon. They are a clear indication of your lack of understanding about the vehicle.


Further, when I spoke of trained eyeballs, I WAS REFERRING TO LANDING THE VEHICLE AND YOUR ISSUE REGARDING ROCKY TERRAIN.
You said this...



Completely unacceptible?
A vehicle with three gear would be much more suceptible to tipping, and settling in odd ways than one with 4 gear would be.

That's why I asked about your engineering degree. You draw definitive, and erroneous conclusions relying on fallacies and a lack of understanding of what was involved, and basic principals.

The information readily available to everyone today regarding the LM is voluminous. If you can use a computer, you can learn about this remarkable piece of flying machine.


It worked. Splendidly.

Yes, mrB...

I think some pages back on this very thread, this was completely fleshed out.
You are absolutely correct.

Oh, he sure does. He's all over the place....

Well said, MrB...well said!

Your right, Mr.Bus is a very polite guy, and articulate and intelligent as well.
There is also little doubt that he is older than you, and, as is generally the case, wiser.

I should point out that at least for my part, I am not trying to convince you that we landed on the Moon. It is pointless to attempt to persuade someone who is hell bent on the CT/HB mindset that we did something verifyable without supplying the resources to stimulate the HB to learn for him or herself.

That's what this is about; explain, provide the impetus to stimulate one to investigate, and teach that which the HB doesn't know...and all Apollo HBs are lacking in subject area knowedge.

That is not meant to be demeaning. It is simply a fact which is illustrated in every post they make...just about.


You here make another of those declarations as if it's a fact:




And you make it without one single shred of support. You say Apollo was a fake from its inception, that the videos were fake, and that the LM is a four legged joke...three absoluetly ridiculous and unsubstantiated declarations. They're comical in a way, but sad in another more profound way, as they're reflective of a deep-set societal problem that's been going on for several decades.


Further, you say this:



That you shall try and forget the logic in that statement is terribly boring, and another sad statement.
You should actually attempt to learn the relationship between mass and weight.

Mr. B hinted at that when he said:





Your comment indicates that you didn't understand what he told you, and that you don't want to.


If, as you say, "..it is a complete waste of time to try and convince somebody that the LM went to the Moon..." (meaning , you're not interested in learning something new to you), then why are you here?

To convince people who do understand the sciences and technologies that were involved in Apollo that the whole thing was a sham?

You're in a deep ditch if that's your position.
And, you'll be buried.

The better path would be to do what I've asked, and ask questions about those things you doubt. Then, use the information provided to research and learn for yourself.

It's alot more fun that way.

Yeah, the questions that get you "into the books" are enjoyable...

I stand by my posts as written. I think the photos I've posted pretty much speak for themselves, at least when looked at by an objective person. I posted only to help show you that there really were visible soil disturbances at the Apollo 15 landing site. The Clementine evidence, though, doesn't depend at all on anyone's interpretation of Apollo photographs.

It's as simple as this: If Apollo 15 happened as history records, then a rocket-powered spacecraft landed on the moon near Hadley Rille and two astronauts spent a total of about 18.5 hours walking and driving around on the surface. Some level of lunar soil disturbance would be unavoidable. Analysis of Clementine imagery taken 23 years later does indeed show geologically-recent soil disturbances exactly at the landing site and is therefore good supporting evidence for the authenticity of the Apollo 15 mission.

Now, why don't you show a bit of backbone and provide some actual evidence to defend your orginal post on this subject:




For the record, do you claim that Dr. Mikhail A. Kreslavsky of Kharkov National University, Kharkov, Ukraine, and Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, is just a NASA/media shill?

Do you claim that Prof. Yurij Grigorievich Shkuratov, Director of the Astronomical Observatory at Kharkov National University, Kharkov, Ukraine, is also just a NASA/media shill?

These are the authors of the paper in question. Before you respond to tell us just why the research of these two distinguished scientists is "completely ridiculous," you may want to review some of their other published work:

Dr. M.A. Kreslavsky (162 abstracts at Smithsonian/NASA Astrophysics Data System)

Prof. Yu. G. Shkuratov (336 abstracts at Smithsonian/NASA Astrophysics Data System)


Now go ahead, turbonium, please do show us exactly where Dr. Kreslavsky and Prof. Shkuratov have erred in their analysis. I expect to see data, not just handwaving.

I'm not quite sure what you're wanting me to discuss here, Trini. Whether or not the Earth bring fimed is a long distance away - or whether or not they are filming Earth from a point halfway to the moon - are the same basic argument, aren't they?

Perhaps you could clarify this for me?

Actually, I was referring to MID's posts, in which I cited two examples where he stated that the crew activity and the LM descent engine caused darkening of the lunar surface. I has pointed this out earlier to you and MID.

You replied to me...

"No, I think I'm in complete agreement with MID. He pointed out that the areas around the LM became darker because the soil was churned up by crew activity and provided photo evidence. I completely agree with this.."

And MID just replied to your post above, with "That summarizes the issue pretty well, Peri..."

Did you not read MID's posts, where he said (at least in two posts) that the crew activity and the LM descent engine caused darkening of the lunar surface?

You are (were) not in complete agreement with MID.

Even after I cited two specific examples, you and MID just sidestep the comments as if they didn't exist.

As I said earlier, it's not an issue worth belaboring. But it is a problem that should be addressed, because how am I (or anyone else) supposed to know where MID (or you, by extension) actually stand on this particular point? MID says the LM engine and crew activity noth caused darkening of the surface. You say the LM engine caused lightening of the surface, and the crew activity caused darkening of the surface. Then you say MID and yourself are in "complete agreement" on this issue. And MID approves your comments!

I hate to say it, but this is very childish, immature behavior. It's beyond me why MID couldn't have simply said something like "Yes, I did think the LM engine caused darkening of the surface, but I've since changed my viewpoint to that of Peri". And it puzzles me why you couldn't have just said something like "Yes, it seems MID believes the LM engine causes darkening of the surface, unlike myself".

That would have clarified the issue, and I would know where you and MID stand on it, and the entire matter would have been done with.

It's as if you guys are so afraid to admit to the smallest mistake, you'll do anything to keep from having to address it. Come on, we're all mature adults here.



You didn't answer my question about this matter. Is this your own claim (about crew activity), or did it originate from the source you cited?

It said nothing about crew activity in the paper you cited, it just mentioned the LM "lander jet".

Are you going to answer this, or not? It's not that difficult a question.



The paper you cited, and the article I cited earlier, have already provided the evidence for the first two points above. I've heard the third point claimed by many pro-Apollo people numerous times, which is why I said it. Obviously, some of you don't hold that viewpoint, which is fine with me.

See how easy it is to give a straight answer?



Nope.



Nope.



I never said their research is ridiculous. You just finished quoting what I said about this, above - that point 1 and point 2 are ridiculous when point 3 is taken into consideration. You've mistaken that to mean something else entirely.



As I said, the problem is that the paper does not jibe with what we see in the Apollo photographs.

And you still haven't addressed this issue, on several points.