Horizon: Jupiter Revealed

[ArMaP]

Now if that was the case... then the electronics used back then... would not have seemed to have been up to it...

BUT since then... we have appeared to have sent probes to further away planets than the moon .. which seems to be with more updated electronics..

As I said in several occasions, it was the opposite, older electronics are less affected by radiation than modern electronics.

One of the reasons is size. Look at the photo below, showing one IC (Integrated Circuit) used in the Apollo missions.


(Source)

Judging by the scale at the bottom right, the smallest features of the transistors on that IC was something like 20 micron (20 / 1,000,000 of a metre). Considering that a proton has a diameter of around 1.6 femtometres (1.6 / 1,000,000,000,000,000 of a metre) you can see that it would be needed a large bombardment of protons to affect those electronics.

Today's electronics are made with the smallest feature measuring 10 nanometres (2000 times smaller), the probability of particles interfering with the normal functioning of the IC is much higher.

PS: I hope I didn't make any mistake on the my post, as I'm half asleep I can't really know.

[astr0144]

Thanks to all that have posted their comments.

As I mentioned... I am sure there are many a previous similar discussion that has occurred before on PRC...

But It may also be of interest to see if any views may have changed...as we all obtain new or varied information and our opinions can alter..

In ref to the Apollo Moon Missions and the Van Allen Radiation belt..and did Apollo go to the Moon..

I would be content to know if any of the Missions did actually land there and if Man did walk on the Moon....

But I could see possibilities that such issues suggested could have occurred on Apollo 11.

But its also of interest to see Sgts views on How they may have got around the Van Allen Radiation Belt.. as I think the Moon Missions are one of Sgts main areas of interest.

I was not sure if during past disputes about such topics if maybe most of the members had come to one main conclusion on it...

So its good to read some of the differing comments to get some further idea..what members may now consider about it today..

I may make some further more detailed replies to some posts later..

This also relates to the other recent thread that I posted on that is of the same sort of topic.. that I note has also had some further related updated comments posted on it..

Buzz Aldrin says we didn't go to the moon.

http://www.thelivingmoon.com/forum/index.php?topic=11034.msg145058#msg145058

[Pimander]

You maybe right Pim but I think differently. Until.... lol

I very rarely make statements like, "Apollo 11 is a hoax," without proof but on this one it is more than a hunch.  There is a distinctive smell about Bullshit (I should know I grew up near several farms).

Do you have any tangible proof from a source OTHER that NASA?

on Monday, November 4, 2002, the eve of the national elections, ABC's World News Tonight anchor Peter Jennings chose the subject for his closing story: "Finally this evening, we're not quite sure what we think about this," he intoned. "But the space agency is going to spend a few thousand dollars trying to prove to some people that the United States did indeed land men on the moon."

Jennings described how "NASA had been so rattled" it "hired" somebody "to write a book refuting the conspiracy theorists." He closed with a misquotation: "A professor of astronomy in California said he thought it was beneath NASA's dignity to give these Twinkies the time of day. Now, that was his phrase, by the way. We simply wonder about NASA."

Jennings was referring to Philip Plait, an educator (not a professor) in California who runs the Bad Astronomy Web site that discusses many mythical aspects of outer space. What Plait actually had said was that he felt it was proper for NASA to respond, but that it did seem "beneath their dignity" to be forced to do it. Contrary to Jennings's account, Plait fully supported the monograph contract.

But that TV insult did it as far as NASA management was concerned. Their dignity called into question, and fearing angry telephone calls from congressmen returning to Washington after the election, they decided to revoke the contract. They paid for work done to date and washed their hands of the project.

http://www.jamesoberg.com/042003lessonsfake_his.html

So they hired someone to refute the Apollo hoax theorists.  What happened next?  They chickened out!

To be fair to Jim O he thinks they should have gone ahead (see link).

[Sgt.Rocknroll]

This may or may not be the place to post this, but here goes.

I have access to a website (which most of you probably know about) called Academia.edu
There are scientific papers posted there from Oxford, Berkley, MIT and NYU.
I scan this from time to time to see if there are any interesting items to read about.

I came across one in particular, mostly because of the title.

Lunar Lies: The Impact of Informational Framing and Individual Differences in
Shaping Conspiracist Beliefs About the Moon Landings

Here is the summary:

Summary: Two studies examined the role of informational framing and individual differences on acceptance of the moon landings
conspiracy theory (CT). In Study 1, participants were randomly assigned to one of three experimental groups in which they were
exposed to different forms of information about the moon landings CT. Results showed that information critical of the moon
landings CT resulted in attenuated conspiracist beliefs and that information supportive of the CT resulted in stronger conspiracist
beliefs. In addition, stronger belief in the moon landings CT was associated with participants' belief in other CTs and openness to
experience. In Study 2, participants completed a survey measuring their belief in the moon landings CT and a range of individual
difference factors. Results showed that acceptance of the moon landings CT was associated with the adoption of a conspiracist
worldview and schizotypal tendencies. Possibilities for conceptualizing the functional roles played by CTs are discussed. Copyright
© 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

It goes on to discuss the different studies and their outcome.

I just thought it interesting that there was an effort to quantify the belief in Conspiracy Theories and that the author's would use the belief/non-belief in the Apollo Landings as model.

Note: if this has been posted before or is common knowledge, please excuse my ignorance.

(if you can't access the site and would like a copy of the study, PM me and I'll email you a pdf file.)

[zorgon]

I very rarely make statements like, "Apollo 11 is a hoax," without proof but on this one it is more than a hunch.  There is a distinctive smell about Bullshit (I should know I grew up near several farms).
http://www.jamesoberg.com/042003lessonsfake_his.html

So they hired someone to refute the Apollo hoax theorists.  What happened next?  They chickened out!

To be fair to Jim O he thinks they should have gone ahead (see link).

Phil Plait... the failed astronomer that makes more money getting PAID to debunk stuff...

Jim Oberg... the PAID NASA spokesperson they always put on TV news to debunk stuff...

I like Jim actually he really wants to believe in UFO's  LOL But even the news people toss him in as a token debunker and have cut him short on occasions

So  still waiting for that PROOF 

[Pimander]

So  still waiting for that PROOF 

That will take an act of God unless you are lucky.

It was Ben Rich's opinion that the public should not be told [about UFOs and extraterrestrials] . He believed they could not handle the truth — ever. Only in the last months of his decline did he begin to feel that the "international corporate board of directors" dealing with the "Subject" could represent a bigger problem to citizens' personal freedoms under the United States Constitution than the presence of off-world visitors themselves. http://wpas.worldpeacefull.com/2017/09/lockheed-skunk-works-director-on-deathbed-ufos-are-real/

[robomont]

It has also been suggested that the craft could travel through the belts but the dose of radiation would effect the health of astronauts adversely.  The Russians had already successfully landed unmanned probes on the Moon before Apollo 11....

The amount of solar radiation the Apollo astronauts would be exposed to should also be considered.  If NASA don't think that is an issue then why did they publish material such as below.

Above: Artist's concept of an electrostatic radiation shield, consisting of positively charged inner spheres and negatively charged outer spheres. The screen net is connected to ground. Image courtesy ASRC Aerospace.
https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2005/24jun_electrostatics

NASA claim the Apollo boys were just lucky that Solar radiation levels were low when they went.  As usual this is a convenient answer.
John Lane, an applications scientist with ASRC Aerospace Corp. at Kennedy Space Center (KSC). https://www.space.com/658-lunar-shields-radiation-protection-moon-based-astronauts.html

So they wouldn't want to risk it now without protection.  That is why I contend that they did not risk it for Apollo 11.  The mission COULD NOT fail.  They pretended to go and just did a few orbits of the Earth before splashing back down and having the dodgy press conference when Aldrin and Armstrong were clearly scared/shocked etc.  A human intelligence specialist informed me that in his expert opinion they were hiding something (probably under duress) in that conference.



Yeah right guys.  You went to the Moon and can't agree on that!  Fuc4 off! 

Apollo 11 was a huge act of fraud.

i may be wrong but all hv charges put off xrays above say 10,000vdc,at a right angle.so if a particle shorts out the ball,a spike of xrays will be created or gamma etc.depending on voltage used.so the astronauts may get no relief from the overhead high voltage balls.or they may ,as all the interaction is on the top side of balls.im just putting that out there to think about.

[astr0144]

Water clouds discovered deep inside Jupiter's Great Red Spot.

http://www.thelivingmoon.com/forum/index.php?topic=11075.msg145438#msg145438