Quote:

---

Originally posted by piratenews:


Can't go where no man has gone before, without getting fried by gamma radiation.

---

Quote:

---

“A panel tasked by the White House with reviewing NASA's human space flight activities (New Scientist, 22 August, p 8) suggests sending astronauts to one of Mars's moons, Phobos or Deimos, among other possibilities raised in its report in 2010 But the insidious threat of space radiation in the form of galactic cosmic rays could keep astronauts confined much closer to home. The rays are actually speeding protons and heavier atomic nuclei that rain onto our solar system from all directions. They can slice through DNA molecules when they pass through living cells and the resulting damage can lead to cancer. People on the ground are protected by our planet's atmosphere and magnetic field, which also provide some protection to astronauts on the International Space Station. Lunar missions are short enough to keep radiation risks low, and the moon itself blocks half of the incoming particles. Crews on long journeys beyond low-Earth orbit would have no such protection. Relatively lightweight aluminium or plastic shielding can block charged particles from the sun. But it would take impractically thick and heavy shields to stop the higher-energy galactic cosmic rays. "Shielding is not a solution to the risk problem," says Frank Cucinotta, chief scientist for radiation studies at NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas. It would take impractically thick and heavy shields to stop high-energy galactic cosmic rays. Alternative technologies - which would generate bubbles of plasma that could protect spacecraft without adding much weight - are still at an early stage of development. So how dangerous would a trip to Mars orbit be? Estimates of how much a given dose of space radiation increases the risk of cancer are fraught with uncertainty. But calculations by Cucinotta and his colleagues suggest the trip would not meet NASA's existing rules, which aim to keep each astronaut's lifetime risk of fatal cancer from space radiation below 3 per cent. For journeys outside Earth's magnetic field, astronauts could reach that limit in less than 200 days in a spacecraft with aluminium walls nearly 4 centimetres thick , according to worst-case scenario estimates (Radiation Measurements, DOI:10.1016/j.radmeas.2006.03.011). But the White House panel expects a round-trip mission to a Martian moon would take four times as long, lasting 750 days. Since such trips would expose astronauts to more radiation than is currently allowed, the panel asked NASA if it would consider simply accepting higher risks for the missions.”
-Too much radiation for astronauts to make it to Mars, 16 September 2009 by David Shiga, New Scientist magazine
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327266.100

"Surprisingly, the Moon is a moderately bright gamma-ray source. The only part of the electromagnetic spectrum where the Moon is brighter than the Sun is gamma rays. The surface of the Moon is baldly exposed to cosmic rays and solar flares. When cosmic rays hit the ground, they produce a dangerous spray of secondary particles right at your feet, and trigger little nuclear reactions that release yet more radiation in the form of neutrons. The lunar surface itself is radioactive!"
-Dr Robert Naeye PhD, NASA GLAST Fermi Gamma Ray Space Telescope, Solar System: Sun, Moon, and Earth, 23 August 2007
www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/GLAST/science/solar_system.html

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:

Mythbusters already put the keebash on that whole fake Moon conspiracy thing

---

Quote:

---

"So I can hear what you're saying: 'But you guys replicated the moon shot on a set, and you're special effects artists. You're exactly the kind of guys that NASA would've hired to do this kind of thing in the first place!'"
-Adam Savage, Youtube 3:35

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by piratenews:

No rocket flame on LEM "blastoff" at 0:01. HA! Mythbusters BUSTED.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by piratenews:

No rocket flame on LEM "blastoff" at 0:01. HA! Mythbusters BUSTED.

---

No oxygen on the Moon's surface to produce visible flame. Ha! John Lee BUSTED!

Go take some science classes, yo.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by out2theblack:

The real reason for no visible flame is that the Moon has NO ATMOSPHERE

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by out2theblack:

Apollo LM used hypergolics , which ignite on contact with each other...MMH and NO4 . One of them functions as the oxidizer ; in essence , the oxygen is in the 'fuel'...

The real reason for no visible flame is that the Moon has NO ATMOSPHERE , and the Lunar surface is extremely bright and reflective due to being naked in the harsh light of the Sun...Many fuels burn with little or no visible flame , but the harsh lighting is sure to dim even 'visible' flames...

---

Quote:

---

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 uses hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide in its Orbital Maneuvering Subsystem and Reaction Control System.

In Entering Space, Allen describes the shuttle thrusters: "The forward primary thrusters sound like exploding cannons at thrust onset; and during their firing, jets of flame shoot out from the orbiter's nose. ...The orbiter reacts to the primaries' shove by shaking slightly and moving very noticeably. For the crew on board, a series of attitude changes using primaries resembles a World War I sea battle, with cannons and mortars firing, flashes of flame shooting in all directions, and the ship's shuddering and shaking in reaction to the salvos."

Images from a surface camera pan the lunar ascent module as it lifts off the surface. The background is a pitch black sky. In this image showing the Apollo 17 lunar ascent module "Challenger" supposedly lifting off from the Taurus-Littrow landing site there is no flame, exhaust, or even engine exhaust shroud visible from the bottom of the lunar ascent module.

The lunar ascent module engine had a 15000 N (3500 lb) thrust. The attitude control thrusters for the Apollo C/SM and LM (which had four sets of quadruple thrusters) had 490 N (110 lb) of thrust each. In comparison, the 38 thrusters for shuttle orbit control each have a nominal thrust of 3870 N (880 lb), with a range from 3114 N to 5338 N. Why is the exhaust visible from the 3870 N shuttle thruster but not from the 15000 N lunar ascent module engine?

I have been unable to find any images or video footage of any visible flame or exhaust coming from any of the four quadruple clusters used for attitude control of the lunar module, or from the main engines of the ascent and descent modules. However, official NASA artists' drawings do show a considerable amount of flame and exhaust emanating from the main engine.

In the films To The Edge And Back covering Apollo 13 and Apollo 13, animation shows the LM main engine emitting a bright flame for the various burns between the earth and the moon. In Apollo 13, animation shows visible flame from the LM thrusters during SM separation from the CM and LM.

http://www.ocii.com/~dpwozney/apollo1.htm

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by PirateCat:

Richard Hoagland is in shell shock.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by piratenews:

---

Quote:

---

"That's what the Owners count on, that Americans will probably remain willfully ignorant of the big Red White and Blue dick being jammed up their assholes every day. Because the Owners of this country know the Truth. It's called the American Dream, 'cause you have to be asleep to believe it."
-Funny Old Dead Guy

---

Quote:

---

November 13, 2007 Memorandum for the Chief of Staff

It is my considered judgment that China will have the technical and budgetary wherewithal to conduct a manned mission to the surface of the moon before the United States plans to return….The bare fact of this accomplishment will have an enormous, and not fully predictable, effect on global perceptions of U.S. leadership in the world…

The next decade will be a period in which U.S. primacy in space will already be in question. After shuttle retirement in 2010, and prior to deployment of Orion/Ares in 2015, we will be paying roughly $200 million per year, on average, to Russia to transport American astronauts and cargo to and from the International Space Station....

China clearly recognizes the value of space activities as a driver for innovation, a source of national pride, and an enhancement to its stature in the world. As such, they are likely to continue their robust space activities with or without cooperation with the U.S. and other nations.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/files/documents/2010/JW_NASA_spacetransit
ion.pdf#page=268

---