Apollo 16 floodlight failure?

You break it down.

I am not responsible for your education.

All you need do is type types of radiation in space.

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/tnD7080RadProtect.pdf

The highest on skin dose (rads) found in this document is 1.14. And elsewhere in this thread it read Apollo 16 crew members got 0.51 rads. Those amounts are not lethal.

Hence, again, what numbers do you have to show the astronauts should have died? You make the claim, you back it up. Walk the walk.

Although it is the most common defense of a conspiracy theorist to play the "the information is there, but I will not show it to your sheeple ass" card. Not surprised you resort to that as you have precious little else.

Quote from: totallackey on March 22, 2018, 02:37:22 AM

The LM was never flight tested on on Earth, if your playing ignorant on meaning.

That's because the LM was never designed to fly in an earth-like environment, so flight testing it on earth would have been a waste of time.  It was designed to operate in  the vacuum of space, so that's where they flight tested it three times (Apollo 5, 9 and 10).

A flight test = takeoff, maneuvering, and landing (and, in this case docking) in an environment for which the craft is developed.

Thus, the LM was never flight tested.

Quote from: totallackey on March 22, 2018, 04:40:48 AM

You break it down.

I am not responsible for your education.

All you need do is type types of radiation in space.

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/tnD7080RadProtect.pdf

The highest on skin dose (rads) found in this document is 1.14. And elsewhere in this thread it read Apollo 16 crew members got 0.51 rads. Those amounts are not lethal.

Hence, again, what numbers do you have to show the astronauts should have died? You make the claim, you back it up. Walk the walk.

Although it is the most common defense of a conspiracy theorist to play the "the information is there, but I will not show it to your sheeple ass" card. Not surprised you resort to that as you have precious little else.

The information is fuquing there.

Your failure to realize the truth of the matter and follow the rote fuqing BS line is not my problem.

You choose what you want to fuqing believe.

That was a fuqing given from the first letter of the sentence of this thread and will remain a fuqing given until the day you draw your last breath...

Quoting me fuquing NASA BS numbers that do not possibly match the other written information regarding the scientific realities of space ain't gonna work.

Quote from: markjo on March 22, 2018, 04:53:09 AM

Quote from: totallackey on March 22, 2018, 02:37:22 AM

The LM was never flight tested on on Earth, if your playing ignorant on meaning.

That's because the LM was never designed to fly in an earth-like environment, so flight testing it on earth would have been a waste of time.  It was designed to operate in  the vacuum of space, so that's where they flight tested it three times (Apollo 5, 9 and 10).

A flight test = takeoff, maneuvering, and landing (and, in this case docking) in an environment for which the craft is developed.

Thus, the LM was never flight tested.

But the posters here ( like rabinoz) are often the same ones who believe a muslim who could barely fly a Cessna could stear a Boeing into the WTC, because the guy practiced in a computer simulator a few times + autopilot on  the day.
Real pilots went almost desperate by such display of total ignorance , so they gathered worldwide to proof only an extremely well trained pilot could hit the target ..... if at all , because even the really well trained pilots had great problems to hit the WTC in the professional simulators with several attempts under their belts.

And now the ignorant Apollo supporters think Neil & Co could land and dock the LM, because they practiced in a sixties simulator that could hardly mimick the circomstances like a modern Boeing flight simulator.

Despite Neil’s request, they continue to cover up the truth, with no intention whatsoever to remove the truth’s  protective layers. Truth about space discovery’s that is, because that is what Neil Armstrong adressed !

Quote from: markjo on March 22, 2018, 04:53:09 AM

Quote from: totallackey on March 22, 2018, 02:37:22 AM

The LM was never flight tested on on Earth, if your playing ignorant on meaning.

That's because the LM was never designed to fly in an earth-like environment, so flight testing it on earth would have been a waste of time.  It was designed to operate in  the vacuum of space, so that's where they flight tested it three times (Apollo 5, 9 and 10).

A flight test = takeoff, maneuvering, and landing (and, in this case docking) in an environment for which the craft is developed.

Thus, the LM was never flight tested.

Incorrect!

Apollo 9
Apollo 9 was the third manned mission in the Apollo program, a ten day Earth-orbital mission launched 3 March 1969. It was the second manned flight of the Saturn V launch vehicle and the first manned flight of the Apollo Lunar Module (LM).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
LM - CSM docking

• Undocked: March 7, 1969 - 12:39:36 UTC
• Re-docked: March 7, 1969 - 19:02:26 UTC

EVA

• Schweickart - EVA - LM forward hatch
  
  • Start: March 6, 1969, 16:45:00 UTC
  • End: March 6, 1969, 17:52:00 UTC
  • Duration: 1 hour, 07 minutes

So the LM was flight tested in lunar orbit!

The only thing not done was to actually land on the moon.

But the posters here ( like rabinoz) are often the same ones who believe a muslim who could barely fly a Cessna could stear a Boeing into the WTC, because the guy practiced in a computer simulator a few times + autopilot on  the day.

As far as I can find only two people on this site used the words "muslim" and "Cessna" is any post. One was Heiwa (please don't associate me with that idiot) and the other YOU!

I did not say that and can find no-one that I can find except you that even suggested that!

Justify you claim immediately, or we'll all know that we can't trust a word that you say!

Good pilots (Muslim or not) can and do fly new types of flying machine with only flight simulator training and in the early days with no training on that craft.

Quote from: totallackey on March 22, 2018, 05:37:29 AM

Quote from: markjo on March 22, 2018, 04:53:09 AM

Quote from: totallackey on March 22, 2018, 02:37:22 AM

The LM was never flight tested on on Earth, if your playing ignorant on meaning.

That's because the LM was never designed to fly in an earth-like environment, so flight testing it on earth would have been a waste of time.  It was designed to operate in  the vacuum of space, so that's where they flight tested it three times (Apollo 5, 9 and 10).

A flight test = takeoff, maneuvering, and landing (and, in this case docking) in an environment for which the craft is developed.

Thus, the LM was never flight tested.

But the posters here ( like rabinoz) are often the same ones who believe a muslim who could barely fly a Cessna could stear a Boeing into the WTC, because the guy practiced in a computer simulator a few times + autopilot on  the day.
Real pilots went almost desperate by such display of total ignorance , so they gathered worldwide to proof only an extremely well trained pilot could hit the target ..... if at all , because even the really well trained pilots had great problems to hit the WTC in the professional simulators with several attempts under their belts.

And now the ignorant Apollo supporters think Neil & Co could land and dock the LM, because they practiced in a sixties simulator that could hardly mimick the circomstances like a modern Boeing flight simulator.

Despite Neil’s request, they continue to cover up the truth, with no intention whatsoever to remove the truth’s  protective layers. Truth about space discovery’s that is, because that is what Neil Armstrong adressed !

We keep coming back to the same argument.  You don't understand how it could be done so it must be fake.

The information is fuquing there.

Your failure to realize the truth of the matter and follow the rote fuqing BS line is not my problem.

You choose what you want to fuqing believe.

That was a fuqing given from the first letter of the sentence of this thread and will remain a fuqing given until the day you draw your last breath...

Quoting me fuquing NASA BS numbers that do not possibly match the other written information regarding the scientific realities of space ain't gonna work.

"You know the astronauts they say flew to space?"
"Yeah."
"It's a lie, the radiation would have killed them."
"Oh wow! Really? How do you know?"
"Look it up -- I will not educate you!"
"...I see."

Only a complete dolt will believe you. You just continue the normal conspiracy theorist attack method I mentioned in my previous post.

How much can a human body take? How much were they subjected to? Should not be difficult for you to give me the numbers, as you seem quite adamant they got lethal amounts.

Here is yet another chance to show us wrong, yet you shy away. The only reason for this is you got fuck all.

And now the ignorant Apollo supporters think Neil & Co could land and dock the LM, because they practiced(sic) in a sixties simulator that could hardly mimick(sic) the circomstances(sic) like a modern Boeing flight simulator.

You are proving you total ignorance again dutchy!

Neil Armstrong was an experienced test pilot before Apollo - he even flew the X-15 "rocket plane".
The "simulator" on earth was an actual flying machine built to mimic the way the LM would handle on the moon.

Lunar Landing Research Vehicle:

The Bell Aerosystems Lunar Landing Research Vehicle (LLRV) was an Apollo Project era program to build a simulator for the Moon landings. The LLRVs were used by the FRC, now known as the NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, at Edwards Air Force Base, California, to study and analyze piloting techniques needed to fly and land the Apollo Lunar Module in the moon's low gravity environment.

The research vehicles were vertical take-off vehicles that used a single jet engine mounted on a gimbal so that it always pointed vertically. It was adjusted to cancel 5/6 of the vehicle's weight, and the vehicle used hydrogen peroxide rockets which could fairly accurately simulate the behaviour of a lunar lander.

Success of the two LLRVs led to the building of three Lunar Landing Training Vehicles (LLTVs) an improved version of the LLRV, for use by Apollo astronauts at the Manned Spacecraft Center in Houston, Texas, predecessor of NASA's Johnson Space Center. One LLRV and two LLTVs were destroyed in crashes, but the rocket ejection seat system recovered the pilot safely in all cases.

In any case, an experienced test pilot can (and has to) fly in untested flying machines - that is his job. I can't do it and you can't do it!

Please stop wasting everybody's time demonstrating your total ignorance.

The information is fuquing there.

Your failure to realize the truth of the matter and follow the rote fuqing BS line is not my problem.

You choose what you want to fuqing believe.

That was a fuqing given from the first letter of the sentence of this thread and will remain a fuqing given until the day you draw your last breath...

Quoting me fuquing NASA BS numbers that do not possibly match the other written information regarding the scientific realities of space ain't gonna work.

Look, you total idiot!

Al that you know about the VABs came from NASA and other space agency's space missions.

The first knowledge of the Van Allen Belts can from the rocket used to launch USA's first satellite and James Van Allen took on the task of researching this further.

So NASA knew far more about the radiation hazards of the VABs that you ever will.

By even continuing this silly pointless argument, you are admitting that space flights are real.

If you do not admit space flights are real, then you cannot know anything about the VABs, so stop advertising your total ignorance.

Your choice!
Is space exploration real? If so NASA obviously knows far more than you about the topic.
Is space exploration all a fake? If it is then you are admitting that you cannot possibly know diddly squat about the VABs.

Read!

Would Dr. James Van Allen possibly know a little about the Van Allen Belts? ( he might even know how to spell his own name!  )

Quote

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

You might read CLAVIUS, ENVIRONMENT, radiation and the van allen belts.

And read, with a note by

Who better to explain the Van Allen belt issue than James Van Allen himself?

Quote from: SpitfireIX, Cosmoquest Forum

Statement from James Van Allen on radiation effects
SpitfireIX
Hello, all.

I recently received the following e-mail from James Van Allen in response to a request for his comments on the radiation effects of the Van Allen belts. I post it here as a possible aid to other debunkers. I have edited out sections of my original e-mail for length; Professor Van Allen's response is reprinted in its entirety.

My request:

My question to you, Professor Van Allen, is this. I have read that you have "denounced" the conspiracy theorists' claims that radiation in the Van Allen belts would have killed the astronauts. I have also seen a quote from you about what utter nonsense the Fox special was. Could you please, if possible, point me to any sources in print or on the web where you have been extensively quoted? If there are none that you know of, and it wouldn't be too much trouble, I would appreciate it if you could reply with a brief statement on the subject. In all my recent studies about the moon-conspiracy theories, the cornerstone of most arguments appears to be that radiation is what makes interplanetary space travel impossible. I feel that there is no person better qualified to debunk this absurd claim (and no one more likely to be taken seriously) than you. Of course, some conspiracists will say that you are in on the conspiracy yourself, but we can never hope actually to convince them.

Professor Van Allen's response:

Dear Mr. Lambert, In reply to your e-mail, I send you the following copy of a response that I wrote to another inquiry about 2 months ago -- The radiation belts of the Earth do, indeed, pose important constraints on the safety of human space flight. The very energetic (tens to hundreds of MeV) protons in the inner radiation belt are the most dangerous and most difficult to shield against. Specifically, prolonged flights (i.e., ones of many months' duration) of humans or other animals in orbits about the Earth must be conducted at altitudes less than about 250 miles in order to avoid significant radiation exposure. A person in the cabin of a space shuttle in a circular equatorial orbit in the most intense region of the inner radiation belt, at an altitude of about 1000 miles, would be subjected to a fatal dosage of radiation in about one week. However, the outbound and inbound trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft cut through the outer portions of the inner belt and because of their high speed spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. The resulting radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal dosage - a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such flights. I made such estimates in the early 1960s and so informed NASA engineers who were planning the Apollo flights. These estimates are still reliable. 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. James A. Van Allen

--Doug

See: Cosmoquest Forum > The Proving Grounds > Conspiracy Theories > Statement from James Van Allen on radiation effects

It is just possible that James Van Allen knows a lot more about the Van Allen Belts than you do.

If you are convinced that you know more than James Van Allen, please carry on and make a bigger fool of youself! Join dutchy in the fools corner!

But the posters here ( like rabinoz) are often the same ones who believe a muslim who could barely fly a Cessna could stear a Boeing into the WTC, because the guy practiced in a computer simulator a few times + autopilot on  the day.

Those ones who flew into WTC and Pentagon weren't the same ones who could barely fly a Cessna.
Anyone who thinks in "conspiracy theory" terms can't be sure they were even Muslims.

Real pilots went almost desperate by such display of total ignorance , so they gathered worldwide to proof only an extremely well trained pilot could hit the target ..... if at all , because even the really well trained pilots had great problems to hit the WTC in the professional simulators with several attempts under their belts.

So, when landing they can perfectly hit the beginning of the runway, matching direction, altitude, angle and speed,
and when trying to hit WTC, matching direction, altitude, angle and speed, they can't do the same thing?
WTC 1 and WTC 2 were 63.5 meters wide (and tall enough to not miss them vertically).

Runway dimensions vary from as small as 245 m (804 ft) long and 8 m (26 ft) wide in smaller general aviation airports,
to 5,500 m (18,045 ft) long and 80 m (262 ft) wide at large international airports built to accommodate the largest jets,
to the huge 11,917 m × 274 m (39,098 ft × 899 ft) landing site for the retired Space Shuttle.

"Any pilot can put the nose on the center line and always land on the center of the runway."
(from: https://www.quora.com/How-do-pilots-always-land-in-the-center-of-the-runway)

And now the ignorant Apollo supporters think Neil & Co could land and dock the LM, because they practiced in a sixties simulator that could hardly mimick the circomstances like a modern Boeing flight simulator.

Their way of training obviously didn't match your imagination about it, since they did land the thing.
And dock it after.

Despite Neil’s request, they continue to cover up the truth, with no intention whatsoever to remove the truth’s  protective layers. Truth about space discovery’s that is, because that is what Neil Armstrong adressed !

So, please tell us what was really discovered in Space?

Quote from: totallackey on March 22, 2018, 05:37:29 AM

Quote from: markjo on March 22, 2018, 04:53:09 AM

Quote from: totallackey on March 22, 2018, 02:37:22 AM

The LM was never flight tested on on Earth, if your playing ignorant on meaning.

That's because the LM was never designed to fly in an earth-like environment, so flight testing it on earth would have been a waste of time.  It was designed to operate in  the vacuum of space, so that's where they flight tested it three times (Apollo 5, 9 and 10).

A flight test = takeoff, maneuvering, and landing (and, in this case docking) in an environment for which the craft is developed.

Thus, the LM was never flight tested.

Incorrect!

Sorry, but I am correct.

Every aspect of the way the LM was to fulfill its mission requirements was not flight tested.

In truth, none of it was.

All a big fuquing fairy tale more unbelievable than anything ever written by Aesop or the Brother's Grimm.

A feeble attempt to limit the discussion to a particular area...

Aside from the VAB, it is simply OUTER SCHPAYZZE!!!

With ZERO INTERFERENCE for alpha, beta, gamma, and cosmic.

Ionizing radiation has no known protecting barriers.

Apollo never happened...

So how long does it take to die from said radiation?




https://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-quake-radiation/factbox-how-much-radiation-is-dangerous-idUSTRE72E14R20110315

- Exposure to 100 mSv a year is the lowest level at which any increase in cancer risk is clearly evident. A cumulative 1,000 mSv (1 sievert) would probably cause a fatal cancer many years later in five out of every 100 persons exposed to it.

- For example, a single one sievert (1,000 mSv) dose causes radiation sickness such as nausea, vomiting, hemorrhaging, but not death. A single dose of 5 sieverts would kill about half of those exposed to it within a month.

I say you are, again, talking pure and utter nonsense. But you can prove me wrong with numbers and data.

Quote from: markjo on March 22, 2018, 04:53:09 AM

Quote from: totallackey on March 22, 2018, 02:37:22 AM

The LM was never flight tested on on Earth, if your playing ignorant on meaning.

That's because the LM was never designed to fly in an earth-like environment, so flight testing it on earth would have been a waste of time.  It was designed to operate in  the vacuum of space, so that's where they flight tested it three times (Apollo 5, 9 and 10).

A flight test = takeoff, maneuvering, and landing (and, in this case docking) in an environment for which the craft is developed.

Thus, the LM was never flight tested.

For conventional aircraft and spacecraft, perhaps.  However, the LM was a highly specialized spacecraft designed to work in a specific environment.  That environment does not exist on earth, so it was flight tested in space (the environment for which it was designed.

Thus, the LM was flight tested.  Seriously, it really isn't (or shouldn't be) that hard to understand.

So how long does it take to die from said radiation?




https://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-quake-radiation/factbox-how-much-radiation-is-dangerous-idUSTRE72E14R20110315

- Exposure to 100 mSv a year is the lowest level at which any increase in cancer risk is clearly evident. A cumulative 1,000 mSv (1 sievert) would probably cause a fatal cancer many years later in five out of every 100 persons exposed to it.

- For example, a single one sievert (1,000 mSv) dose causes radiation sickness such as nausea, vomiting, hemorrhaging, but not death. A single dose of 5 sieverts would kill about half of those exposed to it within a month.

I say you are, again, talking pure and utter nonsense. But you can prove me wrong with numbers and data.

Your chart gives the numbers.

There is NO PROTECTION OR BARRIER ABLE TO PREVENT COSMIC (i.e.,IONIZING) RADIATION, PERIOD!!! END OF FUQUING SENTENCE...DROP MIC!!!

Those measurements listed in that chart of yours is CLEARLY BS!

There is NO BARRIER OF ATMOPLANE IN OUTER SCHPAYZZE!!! Therefore, cosmic radiation bombards you on a daily basis at much higher levels than that of sea level.

In short, your sources SUCK!

Quote from: rabinoz on March 22, 2018, 06:07:31 AM

Quote from: totallackey on March 22, 2018, 05:37:29 AM

Quote from: markjo on March 22, 2018, 04:53:09 AM

Quote from: totallackey on March 22, 2018, 02:37:22 AM

The LM was never flight tested on on Earth, if your playing ignorant on meaning.

That's because the LM was never designed to fly in an earth-like environment, so flight testing it on earth would have been a waste of time.  It was designed to operate in  the vacuum of space, so that's where they flight tested it three times (Apollo 5, 9 and 10).

A flight test = takeoff, maneuvering, and landing (and, in this case docking) in an environment for which the craft is developed.

Thus, the LM was never flight tested.

Incorrect!

Sorry, but I am correct.

Every aspect of the way the LM was to fulfill its mission requirements was not flight tested.

In truth, none of it was.

All a big fuquing fairy tale more unbelievable than anything ever written by Aesop or the Brother's Grimm.

If you really want to get nit picky about it, the last bit of flight testing on the LEM was done on Apollo 11.  You have to remember that before the space shuttle, no parts of any spacecraft were ever reused, so it was impossible to properly flight test any spacecraft before its first flight.  That doesn't mean that you can't design a test regimen that proves the design of the various components of the spacecraft.

Quote from: totallackey on March 22, 2018, 05:37:29 AM

Quote from: markjo on March 22, 2018, 04:53:09 AM

Quote from: totallackey on March 22, 2018, 02:37:22 AM

The LM was never flight tested on on Earth, if your playing ignorant on meaning.

That's because the LM was never designed to fly in an earth-like environment, so flight testing it on earth would have been a waste of time.  It was designed to operate in  the vacuum of space, so that's where they flight tested it three times (Apollo 5, 9 and 10).

A flight test = takeoff, maneuvering, and landing (and, in this case docking) in an environment for which the craft is developed.

Thus, the LM was never flight tested.

For conventional aircraft and spacecraft, perhaps.  However, the LM was a highly specialized spacecraft designed to work in a specific environment.  That environment does not exist on earth, so it was flight tested in space (the environment for which it was designed.

Thus, the LM was flight tested.  Seriously, it really isn't (or shouldn't be) that hard to understand.

The LM was never placed in a test flight designed to perform the entirety of its designed mission.

Thus, the LM was never truly flight tested. Seriously, it really isn't (or shouldn't be) that hard to understand.

Quote from: dutchy on March 22, 2018, 05:56:48 AM

And now the ignorant Apollo supporters think Neil & Co could land and dock the LM, because they practiced(sic) in a sixties simulator that could hardly mimick(sic) the circomstances(sic) like a modern Boeing flight simulator.

You are proving you total ignorance again dutchy!

Time for some  different qualifications for ‘moi’ ?

Neil Armstrong was an experienced test pilot before Apollo - he even flew the X-15 "rocket plane".

And ? Did he ever land on the moon in a vehicle like the LM ?
I drive a car every day, all my life...... but i am not sure i could park a truck in reverse with the first attempt.
And the simularities are much greater than between a yet fighter pilot and landing a fragile device such as the LM on the lunar surface.

The "simulator" on earth was an actual flying machine built to mimic the way the LM would handle on the moon.

Did the simulators include an engine shut down moments before they fall on the lunar surface, but magically the most fragile structure in the history of flight in general remained it’s sturdiness, no leg broke away, no crater, no dust on the pads, while bomb diving towards the lunar surface from an angle......and no the LM didn’t fall over either.

Lunar Landing Research Vehicle:

The Bell Aerosystems Lunar Landing Research Vehicle (LLRV) was an Apollo Project era program to build a simulator for the Moon landings. The LLRVs were used by the FRC, now known as the NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, at Edwards Air Force Base, California, to study and analyze piloting techniques needed to fly and land the Apollo Lunar Module in the moon's low gravity environment.
[ quote]
Please stop wasting everybody's time demonstrating your total ignorance.

The internet totally screwed your mind.
You are inable to make one single coherent thought all by yourself.
As long as something is an online source you refuse to think for yourself, which happens to be all the time.

I don’t believe your copy paste nonsense, because i can think for myself !
An ability you  have handed over to others long ago...... sad....
And landing a device such fragile as the LM , after days crammed into a tincan,a trip of 300.000 +km, unknown psychological and physical status, last minute corrections ( avoid a crater), engine shut down, coming in at an angle, unknown touch down speed and impact implications......

.... could not have been simulated on earth !

Your chart gives the numbers.

There is NO PROTECTION OR BARRIER ABLE TO PREVENT COSMIC (i.e.,IONIZING) RADIATION, PERIOD!!! END OF FUQUING SENTENCE...DROP MIC!!!

Those measurements listed in that chart of yours is CLEARLY BS!

There is NO BARRIER OF ATMOPLANE IN OUTER SCHPAYZZE!!! Therefore, cosmic radiation bombards you on a daily basis at much higher levels than that of sea level.

In short, your sources SUCK!

What the hell are you on about? It says there how much radiation you would be subjected to if you transit to Mars, for example. Does it say something about protection somewhere? I might have missed it. If so, I do apologize.

The LM was never placed in a test flight designed to perform the entirety of its designed mission.

Thus, the LM was never truly flight tested. Seriously, it really isn't (or shouldn't be) that hard to understand.

Are you saying that Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17 never placed the LEM in an environment to test the entirety of its mission?

Quote from: totallackey on March 22, 2018, 08:12:23 AM

The LM was never placed in a test flight designed to perform the entirety of its designed mission.

Thus, the LM was never truly flight tested. Seriously, it really isn't (or shouldn't be) that hard to understand.

Are you saying that Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17 never placed the LEM in an environment to test the entirety of its mission?

I do not believe they did.

But for those choosing to believe the fable of Apollo, those flights were not test flights.

Quote from: totallackey on March 22, 2018, 08:04:43 AM

Your chart gives the numbers.

There is NO PROTECTION OR BARRIER ABLE TO PREVENT COSMIC (i.e.,IONIZING) RADIATION, PERIOD!!! END OF FUQUING SENTENCE...DROP MIC!!!

Those measurements listed in that chart of yours is CLEARLY BS!

There is NO BARRIER OF ATMOPLANE IN OUTER SCHPAYZZE!!! Therefore, cosmic radiation bombards you on a daily basis at much higher levels than that of sea level.

In short, your sources SUCK!

What the hell are you on about? It says there how much radiation you would be subjected to if you transit to Mars, for example. Does it say something about protection somewhere? I might have missed it. If so, I do apologize.

Any source that states you will only receive a total of 800 mSv dose of cosmic radiation in flight to and on the Martian surface is full of crap.

No known material utilized in vehicle construction and nothing at the Martian surface offering any sort of protection from ionizing radiation.

Okay. So, if the numbers I provided are false, what is the correct amount the astronauts face? You know you can't call bullshit without providing proof otherwise.

Okay. So, if the numbers I provided are false, what is the correct amount the astronauts face? You know you can't call bullshit without providing proof otherwise.

Fuq your use of the word "proof."

It would not matter if I was to somehow make it clearer than I already have.

There are two choices here.

Outer schpayzze is understood and the science presented about it is accurate or:

... it is not.

Any person with a modicum of intelligence can clearly understand what I have written and how what I have written clearly indicates any claimed schpayzze mission outside of Earth's atmoplane would subject the people performing that mission to deadly and lethal amounts of radiation if the science is correct.

Again, you simply choose not to understand and that is fine.

But I am going to waste no more time on you or your fairy tale imagination.

Quote from: rvlvr on March 22, 2018, 08:45:56 AM

Okay. So, if the numbers I provided are false, what is the correct amount the astronauts face? You know you can't call bullshit without providing proof otherwise.

Fuq your use of the word "proof."

It would not matter if I was to somehow make it clearer than I already have.

There are two choices here.

Outer schpayzze is understood and the science presented about it is accurate or:

... it is not.

Any person with a modicum of intelligence can clearly understand what I have written and how what I have written clearly indicates any claimed schpayzze mission outside of Earth's atmoplane would subject the people performing that mission to deadly and lethal amounts of radiation if the science is correct.

Again, you simply choose not to understand and that is fine.

But I am going to waste no more time on you or your fairy tale imagination.

But you have not made anything clear. You spew things like ”cosmic radiation” with nothing else. So what there is cosmic radiation? How much of it is there on a trip to Mars? You say there is enough for the trip to be impossible. What do you base that claim on?

I base my argument on numbers I have seen, you choose to not show me anything that’d make those numbers false. So you have nothing except your blind belief.

I know you can copy-paste. So why not take the clip you refer to and attach it to your next reply?

Why deep-space travel may be more dangerous than expected
The researchers think this elevated cancer risk comes down to how damaged DNA spreads throughout the body.

When a cell is struck by a cosmic ray, it doesn’t simply keep the change to itself. It can give off chemical signals to other cells, which might trigger nearby healthy cells to also mutate into cancer.

Previous models hadn’t really accounted for this domino effect. Even more worrisome, the type of radiation responsible for causing the effect was “only modestly decreased by radiation shielding,” Cucinotta and Cacao wrote in their study.

Luckily they didn’t have this insight in the late sixties and early seventies.
Therefor the ‘cosmos’ let those brave Americans pass safely.
The ‘what you don’t know cannot harm you’ logic so many astronauts possess !

I shared a link to an article in Nature a while back. It is true the astronauts were damaged, no denying that. But you will not fry the instant you get to ”shpayze”.

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep29901

I shared a link to an article in Nature a while back. It is true the astronauts were damaged, no denying that. But you will not fry the instant you get to ”shpayze”.

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep29901

Don’t you see a certain pattern ?

Not one single Apollo astronaut suffered from cosmic deseases while solar activity was extremely high in the early seventies and nobody thought it to be a lasting problem, because they bypassed the belts swiftly, proper shielding and Alan Bean wasn’t even aware about crossing the belts in order to get to the moon.

Now we hear more and more details about the radiation hazards of deep space.
They still have to figure out how to get humans through the belts during the Orion project.
( apologists claim you cannot bypass the belts like Apollo...for deepspace travel such as going back to the moon ,..... moronic logic )
And as the article fragment i posted about infectious DNA once cosmic radiation has effected a single cell......we learn new and dangerous side effects about cosmic radiation we didn’t know before. The result is that we seem to have underestimated the dangers everytime we discover new aspects.

The whole ‘moonlanding’ nonsense is going to backfire more and more and i like it very much.
In 2019 it will be 50 years ago and i hope someone will see it as a great anniversary date to reveal the truth and free humanity from this deceitfull episode at last.
My hope lies with the Russians who feel less and less sympathy towards the fictional Apollo fairytale.

The article states the Apollo lunar astronauts got hit the worst. The ones who only flew in low Earth orbit were less damaged. So doesn't that mean there were some who flew "higher" than the others?

I guess I did not quite understand what it is you meant.

The following has some stuff regarding Orion and Van Allen radiation belt:
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/12/04/nasa-orion-apollo-hoax-va_n_6268704.html

"The Apollo astronauts did return to Earth having been exposed to significant radiation - but not more than is allowed by US law for workers at nuclear power stations, for instance."

Some more stuff from someone else:
http://www.wwheaton.com/waw/mad/mad19.html