Buzz Aldrin says we didn't go to the moon

[astr0144]

Why does the ascent stage of Apollo 11's lunar module look like it's made of paper?


HAS ANYONE CONSIDERED THAT THEY MAY HAVE ALSO TOOK PHOTOS ON THE LUNAR MODULE IN A STAGE SETTING ON EARTH TO LOOK LIKE THE MOON..and they could this also prior to going to the Moon...if they also did go  !

or they could have had TWO... one on a stage at NASA that mayhave been a flimsy model..and the other in the Apollo Saturn V Rocket..

So that also could explain such questionable  images...

Upon close inspection one might notice that the Lunar Lander, a supposed six billion dollar hallmark of American engineering, is in truth made out of cardboard paper, a few old curtain rods, a roll of roofing paper, some floodlight holders, gold foil, and lots and lots of scotch tape to hold it all together on the hostile environment of the moon's surface.

This give some possible further explanations to what the buckled material may have been if it is some sort of heat shield or insulation material..

Like everything else, the ascent and descent stages were built to be as light as possible. But because they knew they would operate only in a vacuum, many things really didn't need to be sturdy, nor did the shape of it matter. It would never have to deal with aerodynamic drag. In fact, the descent stage was designed to buckle in the right places upon landing, that was how it absorbed the impact. It was only going to be used once, this was the most weight-efficient method of handling the shock of landing.

Also, the complex insulation blankets covering the module had many layers, and contact points between the layers needed to be minimized so that heat wouldn't be passed through them by conduction. The black material is where thin Inconel sheets formed the outer layer of the insulation blanket, and they were painted matte black with Pyromark paint to improve their heat emission properties, so they would cool off quickly. (Black material both absorbs and emits heat better than material of other colors.) Beneath the black layer were reflective layers to prevent the heat of the black layer penetrating into the module. This treatment was done where the exhaust of the reaction control thrusters heated the lunar modules. It had a tendency to crinkle, and on this particular module, that may have been accentuated by the fact it was in fact installed at the last minute, as were the chutes under the thrusters. From the Lunar Module Coatings Page:

A few months before flight, shock tunnel tests using a new thruster duty cycle revealed that the Pyromark painted Inconel lay-ups on the upper sides of the Descent Stage quads would not be sufficient protection against the hot plumes. A crash program to design a fix resulted in "coal chute" plume deflectors mounted below the down-firing jets. These were installed on LM 5 while it was on the pad, just before launch.

Another last minute thermal fix added 39 pounds of Kapton and Pyromark painted Inconel to the landing gear, pads and probe. One of the reasons for this added weight was a crew request(!) that they be allowed to keep the engine on past probe contact to pad touchdown. This would result in greater heating from the engine plume as it reflected off the lunar surface past the gear.
Considering the vast ambition of going to the Moon for the first time, it isn't surprising some fixes were last-minute.

The foil is Kapton MLI (multi-layer insulation) blankets, and it is actually pretty complex. In the places on the lunar modules that only needed to be a heat barrier to sunlight, high reflectivity was the most efffective approach, and those places are the shiny amber color of the Kapton. As there is no air in space to pass heat by convection, if you lower absorption of heat radiation by making surfaces that are highly reflective or emissive, and there are few contact points to pass heat by conduction, insulation can be highly effective. With the Kapton foil blankets, the contact points were reduced by hand-crinkling an inner layer of the blanket. From the Apollo News Reference:

To make an even more effective insulation, the polymide sheets are hand crinkled before blanket fabrication. This crinkling provides a path for venting, and minimizes contact conductance between the layers.
So, this is bound to make the outer layer rather uneven.

All the other covering material you see is also just there to protect whatever is underneath from the effects of sunlight. Perhaps they were also thinking a bit about keeping dust out. That is all it has to do, and it was made merely sufficient for that job. Weight savings were more important than looks. The fancy stuff is underneath all those bare-bones panels.

I found a different photo of the lander that gives a better sense of the complexity of it. The photo shows the Ascent Stage in the process of assembly, before the heat shielding had been put on it:

These are some more images of the LM but they look different to the one on question..
maybe some imagess are of later versions..








https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/5899/why-does-the-ascent-stage-of-apollo-11s-lunar-module-look-like-its-made-of-pap

https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/5899/why-does-the-ascent-stage-of-apollo-11s-lunar-module-look-like-its-made-of-paper







You can see the Engine underneath the Ascent Lunar Module on this photo..

and what seems like similar flexy or buckled materials



This shows a slightly different but similar photo to the Bucked Ascent LM..that does not seem quite as buckled as the other one in question !

but it does look like carboard or some sort of  paper.

and this seems a side view not an underbelly view as you can see the engine thrust  booster sticking out below...





I am not sure about  this photo.... its suggested its a LM for Apollo 9...

it looks like a similar image above but inversed..



http://www.armaghplanet.com/blog/nasas-lunar-module-everything-you-need-to-know.html



check this link out.... Its show some further questionable similar LM  buckled photos..

and how model makers are relating to them...need to scroll down a bit to see them

Have Model makers made  some of the questionable Images  I wonder ?



and used photo shop for the moons background ?

It seems that that there are various options that maybe difficult to prove !







https://www.therpf.com/showthread.php?page=13&t=171614

[astr0144]

Van Allen radiation belt. (V.A.R.B)




I believe that there have been many a post about the Van Allen radiation belt. and did it stop Astronauts going to the moon in the Apollo days in the late 1960s early 1970s.

I found a video posted below that gives some suggestions and information and details of the theory.. and what types of radiation are involved and how they may have got around the problem..

Its suggested that they could avoid the worst parts of it by going around the most regions.. and they claim the would have only been in it for upto 6 hrs and claim that as short term and it suggests that it would not have harmed them too much..It also suggests that there was certain protections on the Craft against it..

The radiation is said to be mainly a combination of Electro magnetic and charged particles.   The Worst radiation I assume would have been from Gamma like rays..that would normally require quite thick  lead shielding..that would make the Spacecraft very heavy.

But most other forms of radiation and charged particles could have been protected by other forms of shielding.

I am not too sure how the electonics may have been effected or protected...back then..

I dont doubt there is a lot of theory on P.R.C to challenge all this !

but I think the video does offer some good background and theory to it..and maybe some parts are valid..

Maybe they can now go around or avoid a large main part of the V.A.R.B today...

but they may not have known how to back in the Apollo days in the 1970s..

A Van Allen radiation belt is a zone of energetic charged particles, most of which originate from the solar wind, that are captured by and held around a planet by that planet's magnetic field. The Earth has two such belts and sometimes others may be temporarily created. The discovery of the belts is credited to James Van Allen, and as a result the Earth's belts are known as the Van Allen belts. Earth's two main belts extend from an altitude of about 500 to 58,000 kilometers[1] above the surface in which region radiation levels vary. Most of the particles that form the belts are thought to come from solar wind and other particles by cosmic rays.[2] By trapping the solar wind, the magnetic field deflects those energetic particles and protects the Earth's atmosphere from destruction.
The belts are located in the inner region of the Earth's magnetosphere. The belts trap energetic electrons and protons. Other nuclei, such as alpha particles, are less prevalent. The belts endanger satellites, which must have their sensitive components protected with adequate shielding if they spend significant time in that zone. In 2013, NASA reported that the Van Allen Probes had discovered a transient, third radiation belt, which was observed for four weeks until it was destroyed by a powerful, interplanetary shock wave from the Sun.[3]

Implications for space travel

Spacecraft travelling beyond low Earth orbit enter the zone of radiation of the Van Allen belts. Beyond the belts, they face additional hazards from cosmic rays and solar particle events. A region between the inner and outer Van Allen belts lies at two to four Earth radii and is sometimes referred to as the "safe zone".[28][29]
Solar cells, integrated circuits, and sensors can be damaged by radiation. Geomagnetic storms occasionally damage electronic components on spacecraft. Miniaturization and digitization of electronics and logic circuits have made satellites more vulnerable to radiation, as the total electric charge in these circuits is now small enough so as to be comparable with the charge of incoming ions. Electronics on satellites must be hardened against radiation to operate reliably. The Hubble Space Telescope, among other satellites, often has its sensors turned off when passing through regions of intense radiation.[30] A satellite shielded by 3 mm of aluminium in an elliptic orbit (200 by 20,000 miles (320 by 32,190 km)) passing the radiation belts will receive about 2,500 rem (25 Sv) per year (for comparison, a full-body dose of 5 Sv is deadly). Almost all radiation will be received while passing the inner belt.[31]
The Apollo missions marked the first event where humans traveled through the Van Allen belts, which was one of several radiation hazards known by mission planners.[32] The astronauts had low exposure in the Van Allen belts due to the short period of time spent flying through them. Apollo flight trajectories bypassed the inner belts completely, and only passed through the thinner areas of the outer belts.[25][33]
Astronauts' overall exposure was actually dominated by solar particles once outside Earth's magnetic field. The total radiation received by the astronauts varied from mission to mission but was measured to be between 0.16 and 1.14 rads (1.6 and 11.4 mGy), much less than the standard of 5 rem (50 mSv) per year set by the United States Atomic Energy Commission for people who work with radioactivity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_radiation_belt

[fansongecho]

HHHHmmmmm...  it looks like the NASA Scientist in the YT video below, didn't attend the NASA Lecture about how to penetrate and survive the Van Allen Radiation Belts with the Apollo Missions, it may save a lot of time and public money if he gets stuck with his experiments for the Orion Space Program ..  say whuut Kelly ?? 


at 3:20;ish..   


https://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/october/nasa-premieres-trial-by-fire-video-on-orion-s-flight-test   

cheers! 

[ArMaP]

HHHHmmmmm...  it looks like the NASA Scientist in the YT video below, didn't attend the NASA Lecture about how to penetrate and survive the Van Allen Radiation Belts with the Apollo Missions, it may save a lot of time and public money if he gets stuck with his experiments for the Orion Space Program ..  say whuut Kelly ?? 

That's why I ignore that "public relations" side of science so popular in the US, as they present things as if they were more interested in making things impressive than on truth and reality. First, they present the problem as if it was impossible to solve, making it worse than it is, then they present the solution as if it was some kind of great discovery.

That video looks made by the History Channel, and that's not a good thing.

[Sgt.Rocknroll]

The Apollo missions marked the first event where humans traveled through the Van Allen belts, which was one of several radiation hazards known by mission planners.[32] The astronauts had low exposure in the Van Allen belts due to the short period of time spent flying through them. Apollo flight trajectories bypassed the inner belts completely, and only passed through the thinner areas of the outer belts.

Astronauts' overall exposure was actually dominated by solar particles once outside Earth's magnetic field. The total radiation received by the astronauts varied from mission to mission but was measured to be between 0.16 and 1.14 rads (1.6 and 11.4 mGy), much less than the standard of 5 rem (50 mSv) per year set by the United States Atomic Energy Commission for people who work with radioactivity.

Hmm so I guess that wasn't a big deal after all?

Or maybe that was just info from NASA I guess and I should ignore it?   

[fansongecho]

@Sgt Rocknroll,  sure they posted that information?..  I don't know if they did or did not, because when it comes to finding hard data about the Apollo missions and technology off NASA it is at best misleading and at worse, missing. 

So as I promised a few weeks ago I would look into the Lunar Rover and its Colour Camera and Video down link to Planet Earth, and the technology that supported the Camera - so I have created the following document, that I have pinged out to a very large group of engineers who have worked directly with for years and decades 60s, 70's, 80's, 90's and 2000 - specifically military Satellite Secure Earth-2-Satellite-Earth Real-Time data/video/voice communications.   

Using the scant data I can glean from NASA, Wiki and Google searches as relate to the Moon Missions that the Lunar Rover was deployed and operated on. 

I pinged this out today and I am awaiting the response from that group. 

"SNIP"

Hi Folks, are there any Sat Comms tech/gurus on here who can help me with a few questions I have about Video Down-Links and Data Uplinks for a very, (very) long distance Point-2-Point Solution please?

I am researching the Apollo Lunar Landing, and Lunar Rover history, and several questions have reared their heads, and I am hoping that folks with a background in Satellite Communications will be able to help me on my quest if possible. 

The Engineering requirements are detailed below.

There is an engineering requirement to provide a robust technical solution for a Real-time Colour Video (NTSC Video Standard) transmission down-link, with a Real-time Data Command, and Control UP-Link between Point-2-Point Sites A and B.

Site A will be providing the Real-Time Colour Video Link, and Site B will be providing the Real-Time Command and Control Data Uplinks for Pan/Tilt and Slew Commands to the Colour Camera at Site A.

The Colour Camera is located on a mobile vehicle that has a maximum speed of 8 Mile per hour and when moving will be travelling at an average speed of 5 Miles per hour. Although there will be periods when the vehicle is stationary.

This solution will be using solid state technology from the late 1960s and early 1970's.

Site A distance from Site B is on average 238, 855 miles –

Although Site A will be at a minimum of 223,034 miles from Site B, and a Maximum of 252,504 miles during the scheduled period of Video Transmission / Data Uplink.

Full Duplex transmissions between site A and site B are required and will be LOS.{Line Od Sight}

Project Constraints –

Budget – There are no budget constraints, for example the mobile vehicle will eventually cost $38,000,000 USD in design/development and deployment.{Lunar Rover}

Environment Constraints at Site A –
(All Site A equipment will be operated in a vacuum)

(Radio Transmissions delay period is between 1.2 seconds and 1.5 depending on the distance between Sites A and B during the expected operational period)

Temperature Constraints - Site A Electronic Hardware.

Electronic equipment cooling and heating:
All electronic units will be expected to function robustly, and consistently in an ambient temperature environment, ranging from + 250 F in daylight to -251 F in the dark/shade and will be expected to operate correctly when exposed to instantaneous differentials in temperature, ranging from seconds to minutes.

Temperature Constraints at Site A - Colour Camera
The camera has to be designed to survive extreme temperature differences on the lunar surface, ranging from 121 °C (250 °F) in daylight to −157 °C (−251 °F) in the shade.[10] Another requirement is to be able to keep the power to approximately 7 watts, and fit the signal into the narrow bandwidth on the mobile unit S-band antenna, which will be much smaller and less powerful than the Service Module's antenna."

Technical Constraints Site A – Electrical Power for the Satellite, and associated S Band Transmitter and Receiver will be provided by battery packs that must be able to operate for a maximum of 60 minutes when fully operational.

Operational Constraints at Site A = There will be periods where the Up and Down links are not available, due to Site B's periodic rotation which will create a blind area for an extended period 6 – 8 hours.

Technical Constraints at Site A and B = We will implement the solution(s) using late 1960's and early 1970's solid state electronics.

There are no other Project Operational, Technical, or Financial Constraints at Site B.

Request for Comments -

RFC 1.0 Solution recommendations – Site A, Uplink TX Frequency is S Band.
What is the minimum effective radiated power output required to broadcast over a S band Frequency Satellite solution a Colour NTSC Video Standard Signal in real time, to Site B, and to ensure robust, effective and consistent Video & Data streaming, with the knowledge that Site A and Site B will have a maximum distance apart of 252,504 miles.

RFC 1.1 - Solution recommendations - What would the effective minimum Beamwidth for a S Band Satellite Transmission of a NTSC Standard Colour TV Broadcast, from the A Site to the B site?

RFC 1.2 - What size radiated footprint would be required to ensure that the A site to B site, full duplex uplink/downlinks were robust & effective, at both A and B sites?

RFC 1.3 - What would be the effective maximum Beam width for a S Band Satellite, for the Site A Colour Video real-time down-link?

RFC 1.4 - What would be the minimum S Band Satellite Receiver sensitivity at the A Site, for receiving data commands to pan/tilt/slew the Camera on the mobile unit?

RFC 1.5 - What would be the minimum S Band Satellite Channel Separation be for the, FULL-Duplex A Site Video Down-link, and B site Command and Control Uplinks?

RFC 1.6 - What is the minimum effective radiated power output required to broadcast a S band frequency Satellite solution of the Colour NTSC Video Standard Signal in real time to Site B?

RFC 1.7 - What would be the minimum S Band Satellite Transmission bandwidth for the real-time live NTSC colour TV broadcast from Site A to Site B?

RFC 1.8 - What encoding would be required at the A side of the Colour Video transmission?

RFC 1.9 - What decoding would be required at the A side of the for the real time command and control signals, pan, tilt and slew remote camera commands?

RFC 2.0 - What TX and RX signal polarisation would be employed at the A Site?

RFC 2.1 - What is the minimum sized S band Parabolic dish antenna size required to support the Video transmission from site A, and receive data command and control signals in real time from Site B?

RFC 2.2 - Using late 60's, early 70's technology, what would be the Power Supply requirements for the S band transmitter / receiver at site A, with only batteries with a life of 1 hour will supply all the equipment's electrical requirements?

RFC 2.3 - What glass technology will be employed in the colour camera that withstand temperature ranges defined below –
Quote" The camera had to be designed to survive extreme temperature differences on the lunar surface, ranging from 121 °C (250 °F) in daylight to −157 °C (−251 °F) in the shade.[10] Another requirement was to be able to keep the power to approximately 7 watts, and fit the signal into the narrow bandwidth on the LM's S-band antenna, which was much smaller and less powerful than the Service Module's antenna."

RFC 2.4 - How would you cool, and heat the S Band Satellite, Transmitter, Receiver, the associated electronics, and the colour camera assembly and electronics, and associated power supply units, to operate and maintain a stable, effective and robust Video downlink and data command and control uplink,  in an ambient temperature environment ranging from + 250 F in daylight to -251 F in the shade, when the mobile unit is moving across a very uneven landscape, and be expected to manoeuvre in and out of full sunlight, shaded and fully dark areas with instantaneous changes in ambient temperatures?
If anyone can ping me a private message if they would like to help me out I would be maaaahooosivly appreciative.

Cheers! 
XXXXXXXXXXX


My background is Military RADAR / SAM's and Electronic Warfare, and I have no working knowledge of SAT COMMS, but I think I understand the principles involved, and I know some of the above RFC may not be strictly correct in their format. 
SNIP"

I really do look forward to any input folks have on the forum in relation to the above - 

[ArMaP]

Nice work, fansongecho, I hope you get some answers, but I have a couple of doubts about some of the requirements.

1 - Temperature Constraints
As far as I understand it, exposed surfaces to sunlight reach the highest temperature, but vacuum is not a heat conductor, so any thing inside a box with vacuum inside would not be affected by the external temperature, only the parts in contact with the external box.

2 - Operational Constraints at Site A
Again, as far as I understand it, the communications were between a fixed point on Earth but to three different places, to avoid those down times in communications.

[fansongecho]

Thanks for the feedback ArMaP - I will check those two points out later on. 

This just in from two of the guys, I have yet to read any of them as its 5;40 am UK time but I will post them and come back to them later, as there is a LOT of information to go through.

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/NASA-SP-87.pdf    (Page 6 onwards details all the Earth Ground Stations ArMaP)

http://www.parkes.atnf.csiro.au/news_events/apollo11/

https://www.popsci.com/how-nasa-broadcast-neil-armstrong-live-from-moon#page-3


Cheers!

Fans' 

[astr0144]

Thanks for the comments made so far..

I think I recall seeing that Video Fans...and ArMaPs thoughts on it.

It becomes awkward to compare the opposing views between the Two videos posted.
That seems you have some top contacts to ask their opinions on certain related topics...

and as I say... Its good to see Sgts thoughts on the Van Allen Radiation Belt for the Apollo missions..

[Sgt.Rocknroll]

and as I say... Its good to see Sgts thoughts on the Van Allen Radiation Belt for the Appolo missions..

thanks, and no, the info wasn't from Nasa... (just Wikipedia) (but hey now that I think about it, it may have come from Nasa after all)   

[astr0144]

I thought that Sgt RR was PRCs  more indepth  NASA / Apollo Mission / Lunar Moon specialist ...

and did not purely reply on Wikipedia articles !, like many of us lesser mortals may do !   

But I was never really sure on your Views on say the Van Allen Radiation  Belt theory
or your view on whether the Apollo mission went to the moon or not.

I say part of this because you are older and would have experinced the Apollo Missions being older at the time... and you were not a youngster at the time they occurred.

and you have also been in connections of the likes of John Lear and Zorgon, and other longer term members for some years.  as well have having been on several past related forums over some time...

But I dont really how you may view say John Lears views on the Apollo Missions. if say John had thought that they had been a Hoax.. as to had you agreed with him on that ?

I dont think that you fully agree with some of his comments on UFOs for eg on the Bob Lazar story in which John had become a main part to it...and yet my impression used to be that I thought that John, Zorgon and yourself all had similar views after you may have known each other for some time..

thanks, and no, the info wasn't from Nasa... (just Wikipedia) (but hey now that I think about it, it may have come from Nasa after all)   

[Sgt.Rocknroll]

Well we do.....sometimes....

I've heard John say he believes something until he doesn't.

Zorgon and John have been at this longer than most and they have a hell of a lot more info than I do.....

BTW...I NOT an expert on anything. But sometimes people think I am. 
My videos on finding anomalies on the Lunar surface was just something I think I saw and not 'proof' of anything. (There is something definitely up there that we're not being told about.)

I've said many times that I think we did go to the moon, just not the way it was portrayed. Does that mean somethings were faked to hide certain things? Sure, with all that money and prestige involved, there couldn't be failure.
Keith Laney has done some really great research on Apollo 17 and why they went to that particular place.

I believe there is a very good reason why we haven't been back, besides money and prestige.

As far as Bob Lazar goes...well I've had some questions and the answers I've seen to those questions, in my opinion doesn't make sense.
But as I said I'm not an expert at anything, except shooting my mouth off when it's better I just keep it shut.

But having said all that, I would trust Zorgon and John.

[fansongecho]

So the heat on the moon bothered me a lot, I did some basic research on the subject -

Back to the temperature differentials on the surface of the moon, looking into this and on Earth we get heat transferred via, conduction, convection, and radiation -

In a vacuum conduction and convection do not factor due to the vacuum.

Heat from the Sun is transferred across the vacuum of space via Radiation as described below.

Here are some useful links on Radiation propagation and the implications for heat transfer on a airless body, IE the Moon.

simple explanation -

more advanced, and the Proffessor reminds me of someone 



More maths based explanation -

 

A more visual explanation if you are a visual learner.

And if you learn by reading - https://www.scienceabc.com/nature/universe/if-heat-cannot-travel-through-a-vacuum-why-does-the-sun-feel-hot.html

Cheers,

Fansongecho 

[astr0144]

Thanks for your reply and answers to those questions Sgt.

I just wanted to recheck on your thoughts on some things, that I was unsure about in mainly ref to John...

I know or  sometimes you have held back on certain topics with your views..maybe more in  later times on the forum..

But I always though that you may have more validity on some of the Moon related  topics..

But few if any of us are experts on anything... but maybe so more in some peoples views.. I suppose Its all relative !

sometimes we may also partially be kidding !   

BTW...I NOT an expert on anything. But sometimes people think I am. 
My videos on finding anomalies on the Lunar surface was just something I think I saw and not 'proof' of anything. (There is something definitely up there that we're not being told about.)

[Pimander]

My background is Military RADAR / SAM's and Electronic Warfare, and I have no working knowledge of SAT COMMS, but I think I understand the principles involved, and I know some of the above RFC may not be strictly correct in their format. 

I'm into brain/consciousness and related stuff.

Could you share what you know on Microwave non-lethal weapons.  Perhaps in another thread.

Also what about the effects of high powered directed radar on pilots and how this might be used in spoofing.  I suspect spoofing technology might be behind a lot of UFO reports (especially if radar/microwaves can also influence what a pilot "sees" visually" and "hears".

Like I say perhaps a new thread?  What ya got?