Radiation would kill the Apollo astronauts.
Many conspiracists believe that NASA never left the Earth’s atmosphere, because of the amount of radiation in The Van Allen radiation belt would kill an astronaut. But with help from other sources (thanks clavius moon base) We can determine if this is true. The American legal radiation limit below are a helpful.
If a worker must deal with radioactive materials in the course of his job, his legal limit is higher: 5 rem (50 millisieverts, mSv) per year. If a worker is in the vicinity of radioactive materials but does not work with them, the limit is 0.1 rem (1 mSv). For persons younger than 18 and pregnant women, the occupational exposure is 0.5 (5 mSv) per year. These are measurements above the natural background radiation limits, and are measured by dosimeters and other equipment in the area where the exposure takes place. (Standards for Protection Against Radiation. 10 CFR § 20.)
People usually get about 0.24 rem (2.4 mSv) in background radiation per year. (Jawororwski, Zbigniew. “Radiation Risks in the 20th Century: Reality, Illusions, and Risks” Presented 17 Sept. 1998 at the International Curie Conference, Warsaw, Poland.)
The standard for a lethal dose is designated LD 50/30, defined as the short-term exposure (i.e. over a period of a few hours or less) which would kill 50% of the humans exposed within 30 days. It’s around 350-400 rems (3.5-4.0 Sv). (Radiation Safety Office. Radiation Safety Handbook. Columbia University, s.d.)
As shown above the legal limit is 700 times less than a harmful dose. The reason for this strictness is that there is no such thing as ‘safe’ radiation, it’s just the body heals the DNA damage etc… more efficiently if less damage is sustained.
By looking at other sources and the official NASA info, the amount of radiation that the astronauts were subjected to, was 2 rems, for each time the astronaut went into space. See The Van Allen Belts and Travel to the Moon and radiation and the van allen belts for two of many sources I used.
See our Apollo Moon Landing Forum.
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Photographic Evidence
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – More Photographic Evidence
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Camera Problems
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Video Evidence
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Scientific Evidence
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Why Fake a Moon Landing?
107 responses to Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Scientific Evidence
What would it have taken to launch an unmanned sample return mission?
Given that this was during the height of the cold war, it’s virtually certain that those were all spy satellites, not unmanned lunar missions.
However, let’s be generous and assume 10 of those launches (over 20%) were supar-sekrit unmanned lunar sample return missions (we only managed to send 8 manned missions, 6 of which landed on the Moon). Each of those had to be capable of returning roughly 84 lbs of material (38 kg) to account for the 840 lbs retrieved. From there, we can work backwards to spec out the kind of rocket needed to launch it.
We need a sample return vehicle large enough to hold ~40 kg of lunar regolith. We’ll use a WAG of 1 m^3 for the volume required (which is probably generous). That’s about 1/6 the interior volume for the Apollo CM. We don’t need air, food, or water, so we’ll ballpark the mass at 1/10 the CM, or around 600 kg (the return vehicle needs to be able to survive re-entry and splashdown, meaning it needs a heat shield, parachutes, thrusters, guidance equipment, etc.).
We need enough propellant to launch the sample return vehicle from the lunar surface and get it back to Earth. Delta-V from lunar surface to lunar orbit is roughly 1600 m/s, then from lunar orbit to low Earth orbit requires roughly 3900 m/s (we’ll assume re-entry at that point, although I’m not sure if we’d need another burn or not to commence re-entry -- IANARS).
The Tsiolkovsky rocket equation can give us a rough idea of the amount of propellant necessary to get our vehicle back from the Moon:
delta-V = Ve * ln (m0 / m1)
where
Ve is the effective exhaust velocity of the rocket
m1 is the final mass (payload + dry mass (engines, tanks)), and
m0 is the total mass (payload + dry mass + propellant)
In this case, we know our delta-V (4500 m/s) and m1 (640 kg, not counting dry rocket mass), and we want to find m0 (payload + propellant mass). Doing a little algebra, we get
m0 = m1 * e(delta-V / Ve)
Figure 3500 m/s for Ve (a reasonable estimate for most chemical rockets), and we get m0 ~ 2315 kg. Since we didn’t count dry mass in m1, it’s actually going to be a bit higher than that, but we’ll ignore that for now.
So the sample return component of our mission masses around 2315 kg. We need to get this system from lunar orbit to the lunar surface. Again, the delta-V required is 1600 m/s, so going by Tsiolkovsky, we’d need around 3656 kg of propellant to deorbit and touch down. Again, we didn’t count dry mass (engines, tanks) in that equation, so the real value would be a bit higher than that. This also doesn’t account for the equipment to scrape material off the surface and into the sample container.
So the sample return component and the descent stage component of our mission combine to be around 5971 kg. We need to get these components from low Earth orbit (LEO) to lunar orbit, and the required delta-V for that is 3900 m/s. Crunching numbers again, that requires roughly 11143 kg of propellant, again not counting dry mass.
So the total mass we need to launch from the Earth’s surface to LEO is, very conservatively, around 17115 kg; accounting for dry mass, it’s easily over 20000 kg and probably closer to 25000 kg.
That requires a heavy lifter -- Saturn 1B or equivalent. These aren’t small rockets and can’t be launched from just anywhere.
Then there’s also the issue with launching at the right inclination for a trans-lunar injection, which further limits available launch sites (unless you do an orbital plane change, which takes a boatload more propellant, meaning an even bigger booster up front).
If we assume that 20 launches were supar-sekrit sample return missions, then we can cut the payload requirements in half, which brings us down to the 8500 kg range, which is still heavy but would have been within the capability of the Titan IIIC or similar launchers.
If 40 of those launches were devoted to sample returns, then we could potentially get the launch mass down into the range of the old Titan II variants.
I’ll bet real money those were all spy sat launches, though.
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
5 
1 (+4)
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Scientific Evidence
No, I *can't* add
m0 is propellant + payload, not propellant alone, so I made a mistake in adding the payload mass over again. Awesome. So the real numbers for 10 sample return missions are:
Sample return vehicle + samples: 640 kg
Return stage + sample return vehicle: 2315 kg
Descent stage + return stage: 3656 kg
Booster + descent stage + return stage: 11143 kg
So we’re really looking at between 12000 kg and 13000 kg. Still needs a heavy lifter, but not quite as dire as my original estimate.
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
0 
0 (0)
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Scientific Evidence
LIFT OFF WITHOUT DUST AND FLAME
Apollo 15,16,17 Lift off: Lack of blowing dust and lack of flame. NASA believers claim that there should not have been a flame, dust etc…
For the Apollo lunar ascent and descent module single main engine and sixteen attitude control thrusters, the fuel and oxidizer were, respectively, hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide. The space shuttle orbiter also used hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide in its Orbital Maneuvering Subsystem and Reaction Control System. Some of us are old enough to remember that the flame was visible on some NASA videos during the 1970s and 1980s (ask some older people). These videos however were rear cause NASA needed a camera from outside to show the flame.
U can see the flame on the image:
http://ocii.com/~dpwozney/apollo1.htm
The same fuel was used by the LEM, therefore the flame should have been visible during lift offs. Notice that the exhaust DOES NOT dissipate immediately, unlike NASA believers claim. Therefore the exhaust should have created a crater under the landed LEM.
NASA believers call us (skeptics) Conspiracy Theorists to associate us with many others who do not believe in just about anything that the main stream believes. This is a game of semantics they play and we have every right to point that out.
WE ARE SKEPTICS OR NONE-BELIEVERS.
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
2 
2 (0)
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Scientific Evidence
Flame in rocket exhuast varies depending on ambient pressure and fuel type.
Go to SpaceX’s web site (http://www.spacex.com) and check out the launch videos for the Falcon 9. As the booster ascends into the upper atmosphere, the ambient pressure drops and the exhause plume expands dramatically and becomes much less flamey; by the time the first stage shuts down, the exhaust plume is several times wider than the stage and there’s almost no visible flame. When the second stage lights, you see very little flame at the edges of the engine bell. Both of those stages use RP-1 (kerosene) for fuel and liquid oxygen for the oxidizer, so they burn a little “dirty” and there are a lot of particulates in the exhaust (the smoke).
The engines on the LM used aerozine 50 as the fuel and nitrogen tetroxide as the oxidizer, which burn relatively clean, which can sort of be seen in the image below:
http://www.flightglobal.com/assets/getAsset.aspx?ItemID=24404
And again, since the engine is burning in a vacuum, the exhaust plume expands immediately, so you don’t get any visible flame. I don’t remember offhand if its the video for 15 or 16, but one of them shows plenty of dust and debris being kicked up when the ascent stage clears the descent stage platform.
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
1 
0 (+1)
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Scientific Evidence
how i know the moon landing was fake
NASA think that the American public is stupid. Now let me prove to NASA how stupid they are. There’s only one way to prove to me that man actually landed on the moon. Remember the flag that they planted on the moon? Remember the Lunar Rover they was driving around in on the moon? If they went to the moon and back then these two objects should still be on the moon right? If scientist can show me the flag and the Rover which they didn’t bring back to earth, then I would be convinced. The most powerful telescope on earth can’t show you these objects. Why? Because they don”t exist. Show me the flag and I’ll be convinced along with the other idiots that actually believe that this moon landing happen. And furthermore, The technology that was available then wouldn’t have allowed man to travel to the moon. Remember this was 1969, not 2009.
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
1 
0 (+1)
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Scientific Evidence
Yes jfb (above) I looked at http://www.spacex.com (Falcon 9) and also on Youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/spacexchannel
http://www.youtube.com/spacexchannel#p/c/F0D3A9748DC5E42D/1/UTwRxtmQ9IY
This is not very good evidence because the most important video is animation. However, they show flame even from a large distance. The NASA videos show no flame from a close distance, see the Lift-offs for yourself:
Apollo 15
Apollo 16
Apollo 17
NO FLAME.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. We do not even have a shred of evidence of any Man on the Moon, much less extraordinary evidence.
Neil Armstrong summed it well up on the 25th Anniversary of Apollo 11:
-“The only bird that can talk is the parrot, but, he cant fly very well”
It is time to correct our encyclopaedias: “NASA Apollo Moon landing claims have no scientific evidence. All the Moon landing evidence could have been fabricated on Earth.”
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
2 
3 (-1)
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Scientific Evidence
What do you mean by “large distance” and “close distance”? Are you talking about altitude?
My point with the Falcon rocket videos was that as the surrounding atmospheric pressure decreases, the amount of flame in the exhaust plume also decreases. By the time the second stage ignites there’s almost no flame because there’s almost no atmospheric pressure. I’m not talking about the animations, I’m talking about the live video from the launches themselves.
Same principle applies with the engines on the LM: no atmospheric pressure = no visible flame.
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
1 
0 (+1)
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Scientific Evidence
When you watch the videos of the lift-offs one thing is clear: “This is not an acceptable evidence of Lunar landing.”. Why? The quality is so poor that anybody could have created these videos on Earth. No proof, not even a shred of evidence in them.
Lift offs, Apollo 15, 16, 17:
All other discussion ultimately is superfluous about these videos.
However, from a single engine starting from cold looking it from a very close distance the flame should be visible.
no atmospheric pressure, visible flame:
http://ocii.com/~dpwozney/apollo1.htm
The case of the Apollo Program should be decided looking at all the evidence or rather the complete lack of evidence. The first analysis of lunar rocks should have been a comparison of the Apollo rocks with lunar rocks originating from the Antarctica. Such a study has never been carried out, even though no scientist is that stupid as to miss that one. The decision not to carry out this comparison/analysis must have come from NASA management and not from the scientists.
I.e.: We come short handed again, not a shred of evidence.
Presently there is enough information to compare the Russian, Apollo and Antarctic lunar material. Many is on the internet but you have to pay for some of them.
Analysis of the Apollo lunar material indicate that it is very “Earth like”, that is why the present theory of the Moon’s creation is that the Moon comes from a collision of the Earth with an other Planet/object. Almost all other evidence than the Apollo lunar material indicate other scenarios for the creation of the Moon.
No matter where we look: THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE FOR MEN LANDING ON THE MOON.
And that is where the discussion should start. Then we can discuss whether NASA Astronauts landed on the Moon, even though the pictures look like composite and manipulated images, the videos are poor quality and the claimed lunar rocks are or aren’t from the Moon. There are legitimate excuses for most of these, but is there enough reason for all of that?
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
3 
2 (+1)
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Scientific Evidence
What about the film inside a simple alluminium camera?
What about the film inside a simple alluminium camera?
Would it turned black as being tested many times?
Why radiations on the YOUR Moon act differently then the one in labs?
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
2 
0 (+2)
Which tests? Citations, please.
The following report has been discussed elsewhere in the thread: http://ston.jsc.nasa.gov/collections/TRS/_techrep/CR188427.pdf
Here was the conclusion:
The film didn’t turn black. Some loss of contrast and shadow detail is about the extent of it. Total radiation exposure for this test was 313-363 mrad over something like 130 hours. And this was for high-speed (ASA/ISO 400 or higher) film.
I found the following paper
http://pcams01.mib.infn.it/ICATPP10th_2007/Software%20Applications/HayatsuK.pdf
estimating the average lunar surface radiation dose during quiet solar periods being in the neighborhood of 225-250 mSv/yr. Converting Sv to rad isn’t straightforward, since Sv takes biological effects into account: 1 rad (or 1 mGy) of X-rays results in 1 mSv equivalent dose, while 1 rad of alpha particles results in 20 mSv equivalent dose.
Given that the equivalent dose value (Sv) will always be equal to or greater than the absorbed dose value (rad or Gy), however, we can at least place an upper limit on rads of 225 to 250 rad/yr (685 mrad/day) on average during quiet solar periods. Given that the bulk of the radiation is in the form of cosmic rays and fast neutrons, which have a 20 to 1 and 30 to 1 dose equivalent, the actual number is going to be smaller than that. My estimate (for what it’s worth, which isn’t much) is roughly 100 rad/yr, or 270 mrad/day. That’s about 4 times higher than the dose received on STS-48.
Depending on the film type and speed, you would see some degradation in the final images. The film wouldn’t turn black, it wouldn’t melt, it wouldn’t disintegrate.
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
0 
0 (0)
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Scientific Evidence
Leave a reply to Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Scientific Evidence