"For the first time in the entire history of the world, technology was greater in the past than in the future. Considering this as an impossibly, it only means one thing: that the 1969 moon landing was a fraud."
No.
Technology wasn't "greater in the past," but the public will certainly was. The entire MSM/left-wing/hippie party line in the Seventies was that "We need to stop giving money to the space program and Spend It Right Here On Earth." Meaning, taking money from NASA and handing it to environmentalism and bailing out Da Ghettoes.
Thanks to this anti-space-program publicity campaign, it would be another generation and a private space-exploration company before it was even considered morally acceptable for the US to start prioritizing manned space exploration once more
As a note, this is not my writing and quote, but from the investigative reporter Bart Sibrel's book "Moon Man: The True Story of a Filmmaker on the CIA Hit List", who received a confession from Cyrus Eugene Akers of the Apollo fraud. The book is an interesting read and I'm always open in the sense for discerning.
On a semi-related topic, I have no doubt advanced technology in the field of gravitics is already known and is classified beyond top secret. Many inventors, past and present, have reported on their gravitic-related technology that always ends up with a very public campaign of debunking while the technology itself is censored at the same time. There certainly appears to be a definite dichotomy between what is publicly permitted and what is not. This is especially the case in energy technology. Some of the 'not permitted' technology is capable of taking us to the stars and beyond. This technology is capable of folding space (ergo, distance) and time.
Contrary to this is the permitted technology (ergo, rocketry), which has some very formidable hurdles to overcome starting with gravity itself. This brute force method of propelling humans in to space has to contend with limiting G-forces, not that its too great for astronauts to overcome, (it’s not), but to maintain a manageable acceleration within material design parameters. Considering this in rocketry, there are several factors at play. Some of them are: weight versus acceleration versus strength of material design and human safety. All of these factors have to be balanced. It turns out the typical G-force for Gemini and Apollo launches was up to about 4G, which is well-within the parameters of humans, especially astronauts to overcome.
Then, there is another hurdle in dealing with the radiation of the Van Allen belt, which consist of highly charged electrons and protons. These particles would penetrate the spacecraft, spacesuits and skin and cause radiation sickness or even death. Despite this, some type of safeguard had to be present during the Apollo missions for protecting equipment and the astronauts themselves. The time and intensity of exposure had to be determined. In the 1960s, very little was known about the Van Allen belt, it’s size, purpose, or intensity. Some 60 years later, scientists are still working to understand the peculiar and puzzling nature of the Van Allen Belts. In 2012, NASA launched the twin Van Allen Probes to study particle behavior in the dynamic region. This goes far beyond the 1960’s Explorer 1’s Geiger counter to observe particles, waves and fields in the radiation belts. A newly discovered barrier recently discovered show that the inner edge of the outer belt is highly pronounced and consists of the fastest, highest-energy electrons. The Apollo missions relied on limited Geiger counter readings for guidance. In the Van Allen belts, the average radiation dose rate for a satellite is about 50 Gray (Gy) per year. A single Gray (Gy) for x-ray, gamma ray, and electron equals one Sievert (Sv). 1 Gy = 2 Sv for charged proton exposure. On Earth, we receive the average background radiation of about 4 milliSv in 1 year. Thus for one hour Van Allen belt exposure in the spacecraft, this equals a total dose of 6 milliSv. So the astronaut in the Van Allen belt would accumulate a full year’s normal dose in less than 1 hour. Additional shielding would reduce this considerably. However, weight is always a critical factor for space flight. The Apollo astronauts were exposed to the Van Allen belt going to and from the moon. Evidently, they fully survived the radiation exposure without any short or long term health issues.
While astronauts have stayed on the International Space Station for a year, the ISS sits just within Earth’s protective magnetic field. This means that while astronauts are exposed to radiation levels 10 times higher than on Earth, it’s a smaller dose than what deep space has in store. Beyond the Van Allen belt in open space is another concern for exposure.
On the moon for example, astronauts face radiation levels 200 times higher than on Earth. While Apollo mission astronauts carried dosimeters to the moon to measure radiation, the data was never reported. I wonder why? The first systematically documented measurements of radiation on the moon were undertaken in January 2019 when China’s Chang’e 4 robotic spacecraft mission landed on the far side of the Moon, according to a new study in the journal Science Advances. Astronauts on moon missions would experience an average daily radiation dose equivalent to 1.4 milliSv per day – about 2.6 times higher than the International Space Station crew’s daily dose, the study said. “The radiation levels we measured on the Moon are about 200 times higher than on the surface of the Earth and 5 to 10 times higher than on a flight from New York to Frankfurt,” said Robert Wimmer-Schweingruber, a professor of physics at the University of Kiel in Germany and the corresponding author of the study that published Friday, in a statement.
Radiation exposure is one of the major risks for astronauts’ health as the chronic exposure to galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) may induce cataracts, cancer or degenerative diseases of the central nervous system or other organ systems, the study said.
To get to the moon and safely back home, the Apollo astronauts not only had to cross the Van Allen belts, but also the quarter of a million miles between the Earth and the moon – a flight that typically took around 3 days each way. They also needed to operate safely while in orbit around the moon and on the lunar surface. During the Apollo missions, the spacecraft were outside the Earth’s protective magnetosphere for most of their flight. The crewed Apollo flights actually coincided with the height of a solar cycle. This is akin to setting sail out to sea with ominous clouds on the horizon. Given that solar flares and solar energetic particle events are more common during times of heightened solar activity, this might seem like a cavalier approach to astronaut safety. On August 4, 1972 – mid-way between the safe return to Earth of the Apollo 16 crew and the launch of Apollo 17 – a solar energetic particle event was indeed detected. Had this struck a crew en route to the moon, or working on the lunar surface, it is likely that the astronauts would have needed to make an emergency return to Earth for prompt and potentially life-saving medical treatment, all while suffering from acute radiation sickness.
Even now, forecasting “space weather” is a challenge.
So how did NASA solve the problem of crossing the Van Allen belts? The short answer is they didn’t. They got lucky and essentially all won the lottery with their lives in tact.
"For the first time in the entire history of the world, technology was greater in the past than in the future. Considering this as an impossibly, it only means one thing: that the 1969 moon landing was a fraud."
No.
Technology wasn't "greater in the past," but the public will certainly was. The entire MSM/left-wing/hippie party line in the Seventies was that "We need to stop giving money to the space program and Spend It Right Here On Earth." Meaning, taking money from NASA and handing it to environmentalism and bailing out Da Ghettoes.
Thanks to this anti-space-program publicity campaign, it would be another generation and a private space-exploration company before it was even considered morally acceptable for the US to start prioritizing manned space exploration once more
As a note, this is not my writing and quote, but from the investigative reporter Bart Sibrel's book "Moon Man: The True Story of a Filmmaker on the CIA Hit List", who received a confession from Cyrus Eugene Akers of the Apollo fraud. The book is an interesting read and I'm always open in the sense for discerning.
On a semi-related topic, I have no doubt advanced technology in the field of gravitics is already known and is classified beyond top secret. Many inventors, past and present, have reported on their gravitic-related technology that always ends up with a very public campaign of debunking while the technology itself is censored at the same time. There certainly appears to be a definite dichotomy between what is publicly permitted and what is not. This is especially the case in energy technology. Some of the 'not permitted' technology is capable of taking us to the stars and beyond. This technology is capable of folding space (ergo, distance) and time.
Contrary to this is the permitted technology (ergo, rocketry), which has some very formidable hurdles to overcome starting with gravity itself. This brute force method of propelling humans in to space has to contend with limiting G-forces, not that its too great for astronauts to overcome, (it’s not), but to maintain a manageable acceleration within material design parameters. Considering this in rocketry, there are several factors at play. Some of them are: weight versus acceleration versus strength of material design and human safety. All of these factors have to be balanced. It turns out the typical G-force for Gemini and Apollo launches was up to about 4G, which is well-within the parameters of humans, especially astronauts to overcome.
Then, there is another hurdle in dealing with the radiation of the Van Allen belt, which consist of highly charged electrons and protons. These particles would penetrate the spacecraft, spacesuits and skin and cause radiation sickness or even death. Despite this, some type of safeguard had to be present during the Apollo missions for protecting equipment and the astronauts themselves. The time and intensity of exposure had to be determined. In the 1960s, very little was known about the Van Allen belt, it’s size, purpose, or intensity. Some 60 years later, scientists are still working to understand the peculiar and puzzling nature of the Van Allen Belts. In 2012, NASA launched the twin Van Allen Probes to study particle behavior in the dynamic region. This goes far beyond the 1960’s Explorer 1’s Geiger counter to observe particles, waves and fields in the radiation belts. A newly discovered barrier recently discovered show that the inner edge of the outer belt is highly pronounced and consists of the fastest, highest-energy electrons. The Apollo missions relied on limited Geiger counter readings for guidance. In the Van Allen belts, the average radiation dose rate for a satellite is about 50 Gray (Gy) per year. A single Gray (Gy) for x-ray, gamma ray, and electron equals one Sievert (Sv). 1 Gy = 2 Sv for charged proton exposure. On Earth, we receive the average background radiation of about 4 milliSv in 1 year. Thus for one hour Van Allen belt exposure in the spacecraft, this equals a total dose of 6 milliSv. So the astronaut in the Van Allen belt would accumulate a full year’s normal dose in less than 1 hour. Additional shielding would reduce this considerably. However, weight is always a critical factor for space flight. The Apollo astronauts were exposed to the Van Allen belt going to and from the moon. Evidently, they fully survived the radiation exposure without any short or long term health issues.
While astronauts have stayed on the International Space Station for a year, the ISS sits just within Earth’s protective magnetic field. This means that while astronauts are exposed to radiation levels 10 times higher than on Earth, it’s a smaller dose than what deep space has in store. Beyond the Van Allen belt in open space is another concern for exposure.
On the moon for example, astronauts face radiation levels 200 times higher than on Earth. While Apollo mission astronauts carried dosimeters to the moon to measure radiation, the data was never reported. I wonder why? The first systematically documented measurements of radiation on the moon were undertaken in January 2019 when China’s Chang’e 4 robotic spacecraft mission landed on the far side of the Moon, according to a new study in the journal Science Advances. Astronauts on moon missions would experience an average daily radiation dose equivalent to 1.4 milliSv per day – about 2.6 times higher than the International Space Station crew’s daily dose, the study said. “The radiation levels we measured on the Moon are about 200 times higher than on the surface of the Earth and 5 to 10 times higher than on a flight from New York to Frankfurt,” said Robert Wimmer-Schweingruber, a professor of physics at the University of Kiel in Germany and the corresponding author of the study that published Friday, in a statement.
Radiation exposure is one of the major risks for astronauts’ health as the chronic exposure to galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) may induce cataracts, cancer or degenerative diseases of the central nervous system or other organ systems, the study said.
To get to the moon and safely back home, the Apollo astronauts not only had to cross the Van Allen belts, but also the quarter of a million miles between the Earth and the moon – a flight that typically took around 3 days each way. They also needed to operate safely while in orbit around the moon and on the lunar surface. During the Apollo missions, the spacecraft were outside the Earth’s protective magnetosphere for most of their flight. The crewed Apollo flights actually coincided with the height of a solar cycle. This is akin to setting sail out to sea with ominous clouds on the horizon. Given that solar flares and solar energetic particle events are more common during times of heightened solar activity, this might seem like a cavalier approach to astronaut safety. On August 4, 1972 – mid-way between the safe return to Earth of the Apollo 16 crew and the launch of Apollo 17 – a solar energetic particle event was indeed detected. Had this struck a crew en route to the moon, or working on the lunar surface, it is likely that the astronauts would have needed to make an emergency return to Earth for prompt and potentially life-saving medical treatment, all while suffering from acute radiation sickness.
Even now, forecasting “space weather” is a challenge.
So how did NASA solve the problem of crossing the Van Allen belts? The short answer is they didn’t. They got lucky and essentially all won the lottery with their lives in tact.