Landing on the Moon - It Never Happened.

[The Masked Tulip]

Ed Stralker has no zip on his white trousers in the UFO opening credits - like a lot of cycling tights he would need some circus gymnastics to have a wee. Ditto for most of the SHADOW male and female uniforms in the underground base.

[Riedquat]

10 hours ago, Stateless said:

Actually your numbers work out to be quite high.

We'll just have to disagree on the penetration a proton with a velocity of 400km per second can achieve.

"It's a high number" is meaningless. There's a very high number of oxygen molecules in each breath you breath in at the top of Mount Everest, but it's still a low oxygen level, too low to survive for all that long. Just because the number is big doesn't mean it's a dangerously high level, for some things much, much higher numbers are harmless (e.g. neutrinos), for others far lower very unhealthy.

I can't see how we can disagree on the penetration of a proton with a velocity of 400 km per second when no-one here has said what it actually is. The closest we've come is me stating that protons don't penetrate that far to my knowledge, and I'd assume it's more than alpha particles but less than beta radiation and nowhere near as much as gamma.

A bit more Googling (of things I should be able to work out) gives solar wind proton energies of between 1.5 and 10 keV (rather less than a particle accelerator will usually deliver). More Googling of proton penetration depth found a graph with the lowest line being for 60 meV protons (rather more than the solar wind), and about 35 mm of water being enough to completely stop those (the highest line, for 110 meV, was nearly 100 mm of water). So not a lot of water is sufficient to stop solar wind protons, so I wouldn't be surprised if the aluminium shell of the spacecraft was sufficient (assuming my Googling is at all reliable).

[Gigantic Purple Slug]

50 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

"It's a high number" is meaningless. There's a very high number of oxygen molecules in each breath you breath in at the top of Mount Everest, but it's still a low oxygen level, too low to survive for all that long. Just because the number is big doesn't mean it's a dangerously high level, for some things much, much higher numbers are harmless (e.g. neutrinos), for others far lower very unhealthy.

I can't see how we can disagree on the penetration of a proton with a velocity of 400 km per second when no-one here has said what it actually is. The closest we've come is me stating that protons don't penetrate that far to my knowledge, and I'd assume it's more than alpha particles but less than beta radiation and nowhere near as much as gamma.

A bit more Googling (of things I should be able to work out) gives solar wind proton energies of between 1.5 and 10 keV (rather less than a particle accelerator will usually deliver). More Googling of proton penetration depth found a graph with the lowest line being for 60 meV protons (rather more than the solar wind), and about 35 mm of water being enough to completely stop those (the highest line, for 110 meV, was nearly 100 mm of water). So not a lot of water is sufficient to stop solar wind protons, so I wouldn't be surprised if the aluminium shell of the spacecraft was sufficient (assuming my Googling is at all reliable).

Your estimates are pretty much right.

The thing most familiar to most people is that GSCE Physics experiment where you put a sheet of paper between the alpha source and the detector, and it stops all the alpha radiation. Alpha particles are normally ejected in the range of a few % of the speed of light (much more energetic than solar wind particles). Of course they are 4x as massive as protons, but there is enough commonly available information to allow you to guesstimate that the penetration depth of solar wind protons would be pretty low.

In PBT in which you are trying to deposit the energy of a proton beam in tissue you are using energies of around 100 MeV (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_therapy), a mere 10000x the energy in the highest solar wind protons (I like your use of the word rather). Then you've got the fact that they were wearing protective suits (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo/Skylab_A7L) made up of multiple layers and designed to protect against micrometeorites (which were probably a far more significant and immediate threat than the radiation).

As for the beta radiation, I haven't looked into it but my guess is that the suits would stop a significant amount of it. With beta you also get secondary gamma production. I don't know whether the particles in the solar wind are energetic enough to cause this, but you can mitigate it with the suit materials. The skin of the Apollo landing module was made of aluminum and less than 1mm thick (really). My guess is the suits with the multiple layers gave more beta protection than the lander spacecraft skin.

The thing that is most annoying about this sort of stuff is that it is all schoolboy physics and accessible to physicists the world over. 

 

 

 

[Stateless]

On 1/27/2017 at 11:04 AM, Gigantic Purple Slug said:

Your estimates are pretty much right.

The thing most familiar to most people is that GSCE Physics experiment where you put a sheet of paper between the alpha source and the detector, and it stops all the alpha radiation. Alpha particles are normally ejected in the range of a few % of the speed of light (much more energetic than solar wind particles). Of course they are 4x as massive as protons, but there is enough commonly available information to allow you to guesstimate that the penetration depth of solar wind protons would be pretty low.

In PBT in which you are trying to deposit the energy of a proton beam in tissue you are using energies of around 100 MeV (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_therapy), a mere 10000x the energy in the highest solar wind protons (I like your use of the word rather). Then you've got the fact that they were wearing protective suits (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo/Skylab_A7L) made up of multiple layers and designed to protect against micrometeorites (which were probably a far more significant and immediate threat than the radiation).

As for the beta radiation, I haven't looked into it but my guess is that the suits would stop a significant amount of it. With beta you also get secondary gamma production. I don't know whether the particles in the solar wind are energetic enough to cause this, but you can mitigate it with the suit materials. The skin of the Apollo landing module was made of aluminum and less than 1mm thick (really). My guess is the suits with the multiple layers gave more beta protection than the lander spacecraft skin.

The thing that is most annoying about this sort of stuff is that it is all schoolboy physics and accessible to physicists the world over. 

 

 

 

I think you are probably both right, the velocity just isn't high enough to penetrate very much at all.

And I think It is unlikely the beta radiation is energetic enough to generate some X-rays/Gamma.

 

 

 

[Riedquat]

16 hours ago, Stateless said:

I think you are probably both right, the velocity just isn't high enough to penetrate very much at all.

And I think It is unlikely the beta radiation is energetic enough to generate some X-rays/Gamma.

There are certainly some cosmic rays that you don't want to be on the receiving end of - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oh-My-God_particle

[rollover]

 

Quote

 

Donald Trump wants astronauts on mission to MOON next year

The Trump administration has ordered a NASA study into whether it is possible to fly astronauts on the debut flight of the agency's heavy-lift rocket, a mission currently planned to be unmanned and targeted to launch in late 2018. If given the green light, the astronauts would fly aboard an Orion capsule, under development by Lockheed Martin Corp, and swing around the moon during an eight- to nine-day mission, similar to what the Apollo 8 crew accomplished in 1968.

NASA officials said they do not feel compelled to fly the test mission with crew aboard but are “encouraged” by the president’s request.  A NASA safety oversight panel on Thursday cautioned that the agency should have compelling reasons for adding crew to justify the extra cost, risk to human life and schedule delays. Express

 

No one told him that it never happened before.

[billybong]

They're preparing the set and the overhead gantries as we speak.

If they do do it again for real it would of course be extremely interesting and they must be able to do a 100% convincing effort this time with all the computing power, communications advances and so on etc since the first moon landing - at least you would think so.  They might even be able to do it in High Definition.

If they have time maybe they could send some High Definition pics of the bits of the surface that have been apparently erased in earlier photos taken from moon orbit - maybe some snaps of the towers and derelict alien space ships and so on. 

[The Masked Tulip]

SPACE-X are not going to send two paying astronaunts on a journey to the Moon, around it and back next year.

[Lurkst]

6 hours ago, The Masked Tulip said:

SPACE-X are not going to send two paying astronaunts on a journey to the Moon, around it and back next year.

Given their inability to adhere to deadlines that's probably correct...

 

[sPinwheel]

6 hours ago, The Masked Tulip said:

SPACE-X are not going to send two paying astronaunts on a journey to the Moon, around it and back next year.

Yeah, seems pretty pointless.

[sPinwheel]

23 hours ago, rollover said:

 

No one told him that it never happened before.

We can go back to prove it never happened....

[GloomMonger]

Trump out to reveal the mothership of fake news!

[long time lurking]

On 1/29/2017 at 11:11 AM, Riedquat said:

There are certainly some cosmic rays that you don't want to be on the receiving end of - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oh-My-God_particle

I have personal experience of the god molecule  it definitely exists and i`m in no hurry to be on the receiving end again  

[ChewingGrass]

I remember a very large book in the school library about 1980, it was stuffed full of full page high definition photos including ones with machines/structure etc. Curiosity has occasionally piqued my interest since but I've never seen anything with as good images as those.

[The Masked Tulip]

On 28/02/2017 at 7:57 PM, long time lurking said:

I have personal experience of the god molecule  it definitely exists and i`m in no hurry to be on the receiving end again  

What?

[The Masked Tulip]

43 minutes ago, ChewingGrass said:

I remember a very large book in the school library about 1980, it was stuffed full of full page high definition photos including ones with machines/structure etc. Curiosity has occasionally piqued my interest since but I've never seen anything with as good images as those.

 

What? Photos fo structures on the Moon?

[ChewingGrass]

42 minutes ago, The Masked Tulip said:

 

What? Photos fo structures on the Moon?

The ones that were in the book! I was only 16 so didn't realise the significance or not of them, but they were there, honest.

[long time lurking]

1 hour ago, The Masked Tulip said:

What?

 5-MeO-DMT  = God molecule   (my attempt at sarcasm )

[nome]

One thing I'm not sure about...

 

Weightlessness - When the shuttle or ISS is orbiting the earth the reason the occupants experience zero gravity is because they're actually constantly falling back to earth whilst following the curvature of the earth. When the Apollo rockets were on their way to the moon on a linear journey away from the earth they should surely have still been subject to earths gravitational pull and therefor the occupants would not be entirely weightless and floating around inside the capsule as they were?

 

 

[Gigantic Purple Slug]

4 hours ago, nome said:

One thing I'm not sure about...

 

Weightlessness - When the shuttle or ISS is orbiting the earth the reason the occupants experience zero gravity is because they're actually constantly falling back to earth whilst following the curvature of the earth. When the Apollo rockets were on their way to the moon on a linear journey away from the earth they should surely have still been subject to earths gravitational pull and therefor the occupants would not be entirely weightless and floating around inside the capsule as they were?

 

 

This should give you everything you need :

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceleration_due_to_gravity

The moon is about 400000 km away from the earth. Of course the astronauts didn't go on a straight path from the earth to the moon, but fired out of orbit, but it gives you some idea.

From the graph, g (9.8 ms-2 at the earths surface) is reduced to less than 6 at 2000 km above the earth (less than  0.05% of the way to the moon).

[Riedquat]

In any case other than at the times the spacecraft's engines were firing, which wasn't much of the time (it just isn't practical to carry enough fuel and propellant to keep thrust going for more than brief periods) both the spacecraft and the astronauts within it would be affected in the same way by the same gravitational forces, so fall in the same way, so to the astronauts within it would have all the appearance of zero G, just the same as in orbit.

For a linear journey relative to the Earth, not that the trip to the Moon was linear, consider flying up in a straight line and then turning the engines off. You'll keep going up, but slowing all the time as the Earth's gravity decelerates you. But it does the same to you and your spaceship, so you're unaware of it until you crash back down (assuming you started at less than escape velocity) or end up close enough to something else (e.g. the Moon). You're still experiencing the effects of gravity - slowing and eventually falling back to the Earth, it's just impossible to tell if the only thing you've got to measure against is the spaceship you're in.

[Sledgehead]

Here is some learned research, just in case you are not aware of what this thread is about:

Quote

Our conclusion is that political extremism and conspiracy beliefs are strongly associated - Political Extremism Predicts Belief in Conspiracy Theories

We, who know the moon landing to be fact, should not have to put up with this kind of thread or supply counter-evidence to refute the fake "evidence" educed by the deniers. The only questions that need answering are:

 - what is the purpose of calling the landing into question?

- who stands to gain by the posting of fake evidence?

The paper above - an academic research paper - not my words, so please don't censor - tells us we should expect the answers to the above questions to be:

 - to weaken the centrist, moderate position;

- extremists.

And who could deny that moon landing denial is anything but right out there on the furthest most distant fringes of belief?