Cash: The Embodiment of Liberty
Russia suggests America has NEVER landed on the moon and calls for 'an investigation into what really happened'
Download 118.74 Kb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Moscow Times
- Implications for space travel
Russia suggests America has NEVER landed on the moon and calls for 'an investigation into what really happened'A Russian official has has cast doubt on the first moon landings and demanded an investigation into what really happened after original Nasa footage of the event disappeared. Vladimir Markin, a spokesman for the Russian government's Investigative Committee, says he wants an inquiry after the video from 1969 and a piece of lunar rock, which was brought back to earth, went missing. In an opinion piece in the Russian newspaper Izvestia, Mr Markin says that such an inquiry is vital to reveal new insights into the historical space journey. According to the translation in the Moscow Times, Mr Markin claimed Russia were ‘not contending that they did not fly (to the moon) and simply made a film about it.' But his comments are certain to be seen as a deliberate attempt to suggest there is reason to doubt the lunar landing was real – especially as he also attacked the US investigation into FIFA corruption. It also comes despite Nasa admitting six years ago that the footage no longer existed after accidentally being erased. Mr Markin said: 'All of these scientific - or perhaps cultural - artifacts are part of the legacy of humanity, and their disappearance without a trace is our common loss. 'An investigation will reveal what happened.' In 2009, Nasa said that it probably erased its only high resolution images of the first moonwalk to make room for electronic data from a satellite. It means the only original pictures that remain from the mission are the snowy, grainy images of Neil Armstrong's 'giant leap for mankind'. Speaking at the time, Dick Nafzger, a video engineer at Nasa said: 'The inescapable conclusion is that the recordings are no longer. 'I don’t think anyone in the Nasa organization did anything wrong. It slipped through the cracks, and nobody’s happy about it.' His findings follow an exhaustive four-year search through archives and tens of thousands of boxes stored in dusty basements for 45 so-called 'lost tapes' from the Apollo 11 mission. The ultra-competitive space race culminated in a contest between the Soviet Union and the United States, to see which nation would be first to put a man on the moon. Leaving aside the obvious political leverage of the American success, it was a seminal moment in human history. Men had long dreamed of reaching the moon, and it represented the culmination of years of research, technological innovation and the spirit of adventure. While at the time it captured the hearts and minds of the millions of people who watched the live footage, it was, in a way, inevitable that people would seek to diminish the glory of the achievement, perhaps to discredit a government they were disillusioned by. Is it a coincidence that the first book claiming the moon landings were faked was released in 1974, the same year that the Watergate scandal did untold damage to the integrity of the Presidential office? It is far easier to present the facts as they were and to offer a few of the major arguments that prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the moon landings were genuine, that Neil Armstrong and Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin did, in fact, make the journey of a lifetime and set foot upon the moon. #5At the height of the Cold War, winning the space race represented a massive feather in the ideological cap of the anti-Communists. As such, if there had been any way to discredit the United States, you can be sure the Soviet Union would have found it. The political damage they could have wrought would have been enormous had they been able to discredit the moon landings. Given that the Soviets were still suffering from the embarrassing climb-down of the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, any opportunity that would have allowed them to embarrass the United States would surely have been grasped with both hands. The fact that in the 40 years since that momentous occasion in human history, not one person from the Soviet camp has produced evidence to dispute the veracity of the moon landings, is as telling as any other evidence you care to name. It has been suggested that the Soviets were in on the hoax; this is too ludicrous for words, especially in an era when tensions between the two countries were so high. It is suggesting complicity in something which would be immensely damaging to their own regime, and that's simply absurd. Forget the arguments; the deafening silence from the Soviet camp is as incontrovertible as any other evidence. #4 It seems obvious to the point of absurdity, but the sheer number of photographs -- none of which show anything terrestrial -- is pretty compelling evidence. Much has been said about light sources, errant shadows and so forth, but this is all based on how light behaves in Earth’s atmosphere. The moon has no atmosphere to speak of, and so refraction and reflection will be slightly different. The Lunar Module was covered in reflective paneling, and so would have had a major effect on the way light was reflected onto the surface. Undulations in the moon’s surface would also have an effect on shading. The lack of stars has also been cited as proof, but the cameras were set to daylight exposure and would not have picked up the stars anyway. We should also consider the fact that the astronauts -- who were extremely well trained photographers by the time of the mission -- were there to photograph the moon, not the view of the stars from the moon’s surface. The sheer number of photographs which were taken, and the absence of anything more than weak circumstantial evidence, is a strong argument. #3 The Apollo Program, between missions 11 and 17, collected some 382 kilograms of moon rocks, which were brought back to Earth for analysis. Every scientist who has studied these rocks has accepted that they are of non-terrestrial origin and there is no peer-reviewed article that contradicts the claim they are from the moon. Moon rocks have a very specific geological composition which is distinct from both rocks on Earth and other celestial bodies, such as meteorites. Accusations that these samples could have come from lunar meteorites are specious; the first lunar meteorite was not discovered until the 1980s, and up until now, only 30 kilograms of lunar meteorite rock have been discovered -- less than ten percent of the mass that was brought back from the moon. Added to this is the fact that lunar rocks are not subjected to the same geological processes as those on Earth, and the rocks brought home were found to be in excess of 600,000,000 years older than the oldest known rocks on Earth. If you need any more evidence, the composition of those lunar rocks is identical to Soviet samples. Had there actually been a difference, you can be sure the Soviets would have pointed it out. #2 It is interesting to note that out of all the people who have claimed the moon landings were faked, not one of them had any direct involvement with the program. As Dr. James Longuski, a professor of Aeronautics and Astronautic Engineering has pointed out, the sheer scale of the project would have made it impossible to keep everybody quiet. Over the course of the Apollo project, he estimates that over 400,000 people, or the equivalent of a small city, were involved in working on the project. The odds of every single one of them choosing to keep silent for over forty years, and not producing any evidence, or a memoir, or an overheard conversation suggesting the landings were faked, is another hugely compelling argument. There is so much money to be made by the person who definitively proves the Moon landings were faked, that someone would surely by now have tried to capitalize on that. The fact that no one has suggests that there is no hoax. #1 As Charlie Duke, an astronaut on the Apollo 16 mission said, “We have been to the Moon nine times. Why would we fake it nine times, if we faked it?" It is a pertinent question and it does seem that if you are going to tell a lie, it is far easier to do it once and then stop, than to keep exaggerating the lie over the course of the next few years. Sooner or later somebody would have made a mistake to give the game away. The fact that nobody did, again, illustrates the fact that indeed, these astronauts did make it to the moon. With six separate Apollo missions actually reaching the Moon, and each time making multiple moonwalks, it seems a ridiculously elaborate hoax, at a cost of millions, if not billions of dollars to perpetrate. While the moon landings were incredibly difficult and dangerous, the evidence we have presented here offers a convincing argument of the truth behind the matter. While ridiculously elaborate and misguided conspiracy theories add a frisson of mystery, they should never be allowed to diminish what was an incredible achievement. Fast forward 45 years to a much more technologically advanced and interconnected age, where ideas spread like wildfire, and questions that have gone unanswered for generations are easily put to millions of people. One person’s ideas and understanding of our world can swiftly be supplemented by the knowledge of many others, dots are easier to connect, and truth is more freely revealed. Were the Apollo moon landings faked by the government to gain political advantage at a time when it was not technologically possible to land a man on the moon then bring him home safely? Many alternative researchers and skeptics of government and cultural narratives have put together a substantial and rather captivating case that the moon landings were faked with the help of emerging television and film technologies. They posit that the government hired acclaimed film director Stanley Kubrick to stage the landings by creating a convincing movie set in a secret location. Evidence to the support the idea that the video is indeed an elaborate forgery includes anomalies such as the appearance of multiple sources of light in the footage, the flag planted by Armstrong seems to be waving in an environment with no wind, there does not appear to be an impact crater from the lunar landing module, unexplainable objects appear in reflection on helmet visors, the unusual slow-motion effect of the astronauts walking on the lunar surface, the lack of visible stars in the background, and more.
“The Van Allen radiation belts are a torus (doughnut shape) of energetic charged particles circling Earth around its magnetic equator and held in place by Earth’s magnetic field. The main belts extend from an altitude of about 1,000 to 60,000 kilometers 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.” –Robert A. Braeunig 
In order for the Apollo, or any lunar mission, to be successful, the equipment and crew aboard the spacecraft would have to be adequately shielded from exposure from the intense radiation surrounding planet earth.  Robert A. Braeunig, author of Rocket & Space Technology has put together a compelling scientific refutation of the Apollo hoax theory, making the scientific case that the trajectory of the Apollo spacecraft allowed the vessel to avoid the highest concentrations of energy in the torus shaped Van Allen belts which do not fully encircle the earth. With the right trajectory, he purports, it would only be necessary to shield against the possibility of an unexpected increase in solar activity, something Apollo was indeed prepared for.
This makes sense and would seem to close the case, but for many the question still remains, especially so in light of the fact that there have since been no more lunar missions, and almost 50 years later NASA’s Orion mission is apparently just now trying to solve the challenge of the Van Allen belts. In the following video clip a NASA engineer working on the Orion project explains the challenge of bringing a ship and crew into space well above low earth orbit, and beyond the radiation belts. Speaking about their effort he remarks, “we must solve these challenges before we send people through this region of space,” implying that this question had not already been solved by the research and accomplishments of Apollo. LINK
Only now, do we know that the space flights as advertised could not have been survivable. The outer belt consists mainly of high energy (0.1–10 MeV) electrons trapped by the Earth's magnetosphere. It is almost toroidal in shape, extending from an altitude of about three to ten Earth radii (RE) or 13,000 to 60,000 kilometres (8,100 to 37,300 mi) above the Earth's surface. Its greatest intensity is usually around 4–5 RE. The outer electron radiation belt is mostly produced by the inward radial diffusion[8][9] and local acceleration[10] due to transfer of energy from whistler-mode plasma waves to radiation belt electrons. Radiation belt electrons are also constantly removed by collisions with atmospheric neutrals,[10] losses to magnetopause, and the outward radial diffusion. The gyroradii for energetic protons would be large enough to bring them into contact with the Earth's atmosphere. The electrons here have a high flux and at the outer edge (close to the magnetopause), where geomagnetic field lines open into the geomagnetic "tail", fluxes of energetic electrons can drop to the low interplanetary levels within about 100 km (62 mi), a decrease by a factor of 1,000. In 2014 it was discovered that the inner edge of the outer belt is characterized by a very sharp edge, below which highly relativistic electrons (> 5MeV) cannot penetrate.[11] The reason for this shield-like behavior is not well understood. The trapped particle population of the outer belt is varied, containing electrons and various ions. Most of the ions are in the form of energetic protons, but a certain percentage are alpha particles and O+ oxygen ions, similar to those in the ionosphere but much more energetic. This mixture of ions suggests that ring current particles probably come from more than one source. The outer belt is larger than the inner belt and its particle population fluctuates widely. Energetic (radiation) particle fluxes can increase and decrease dramatically as a consequence of geomagnetic storms, which are themselves triggered by magnetic field and plasma disturbances produced by the Sun. The increases are due to storm-related injections and acceleration of particles from the tail of the magnetosphere. On February 28, 2013, a third radiation belt, consisting of high-energy ultrarelativistic charged particles, was reported to be discovered. In a news conference by NASA's Van Allen Probe team, it was stated that this third belt is generated when a mass coronal ejection is created by the Sun. It has been represented as a separate creation which splits the Outer Belt, like a knife, on its outer side, and exists separately as a storage container for a month's time, before merging once again with the Outer Belt.[12] The unusual stability of this third, transient belt has been explained as due to a 'trapping' by the Earth's magnetic field of ultrarelativistic particles as they are lost from the second, traditional outer belt. While the outer zone, which forms and disappears over a day, is highly variable owing to interactions with the atmosphere, the ultrarelativistic particles of the third belt are thought to not scatter into the atmosphere, as they are too energetic to interact with atmospheric waves at low latitudes.[13] This absence of scattering and the trapping allows them to persist for a long time, finally only being destroyed by an unusual event, such as the shock wave from the sun which eventually destroyed it. Inner belt 
Cutaway drawing of two radiation belts around Earth: the inner belt (red) dominated by protons and the outer one (blue) by electrons. Image Credit: NASA While electrons (of different energy levels) inhabit both the outer and inner belts, high-energy protons characterize the inner belt. The inner Van Allen Belt extends typically from an altitude of 0.2 to 2 Earth radii (L values of 1 to 3) or 600 miles (1,000 km) to 3,700 miles (6,000 km) above the Earth.[1][14] In certain cases when solar activity is stronger or in geographical areas such as the South Atlantic Anomaly (SAA), the inner boundary may go down to roughly 200 kilometers[15] above the Earth's surface. The inner belt contains high concentrations of electrons in the range of hundreds of keV and energetic protons with energies exceeding 100 MeV, trapped by the strong (relative to the outer belts) magnetic fields in the region.[16] It is believed that proton energies exceeding 50 MeV in the lower belts at lower altitudes are the result of the beta decay of neutrons created by cosmic ray collisions with nuclei of the upper atmosphere. The source of lower energy protons is believed to be proton diffusion due to changes in the magnetic field during geomagnetic storms.[17] Due to the slight offset of the belts from Earth's geometric center, the inner Van Allen belt makes its closest approach to the surface at the South Atlantic Anomaly.[18] [19] On March 2014, a pattern resembling 'zebra stripes' was discovered in the radiation belts by NASA in their energetic particle experiment, RBSPICE. The reason reported was that due to the tilt in Earth's magnetic field axis, the planet’s rotation generated an oscillating, weak electric field that permeates through the entire inner radiation belt. The field affects the electrons as if they behave like fluids.[20] The global oscillations slowly stretch and fold the fluid resulting in the striped pattern observed across the entire inner belt, extending from above Earth’s atmosphere, about 800 km above the planet’s surface up to roughly 13,000 km.[21] Implications for space travel Missions beyond low Earth orbit leave the protection of the geomagnetic field, and transit the Van Allen belts. Thus they may need to be shielded against exposure to cosmic rays, Van Allen radiation, or solar flares. The region between two to four Earth radii lies between the two radiation belts and is sometimes referred to as the "safe zone".[25][26] 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.[27] 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. Almost all radiation will be received while passing the inner belt.[28] 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.[29] The astronauts had low exposure in the Van Allen belts due to the short period of time spent flying through them.[30] The command module's inner structure was an aluminum "sandwich" consisting of a welded aluminum inner skin, a thermally bonded honeycomb core, and a thin aluminum "face sheet". The steel honeycomb core and outer face sheets were thermally bonded to the inner skin. In fact, the astronauts' overall exposure was 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.[29]
Simulated Van Allen Belts generated by a plasma thruster in tank #5 at the Electric Propulsion Laboratory located at the then-called Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio It is generally understood that the inner and outer Van Allen belts result from different processes. The inner belt, consisting mainly of energetic protons, is the product of the decay of so-called "albedo" neutrons which are themselves the result of cosmic ray collisions in the upper atmosphere. The outer belt consists mainly of electrons. They are injected from the geomagnetic tail following geomagnetic storms, and are subsequently energized through wave-particle interactions. In the inner belt, particles are trapped in the Earth's nonlinear magnetic field, that originate from the sun. Particles gyrate and move along field lines. As particles encounter regions of larger density of magnetic field lines, their "longitudinal" velocity is slowed and can be reversed, reflecting the particle. This causes the particles to bounce back and forth between the Earth's poles.[31] Globally, the motion of these trapped particles is chaotic.[32] A gap between the inner and outer Van Allen belts, sometimes called safe zone or safe slot, is caused by the Very Low Frequency (VLF) waves which scatter particles in pitch angle which results in the gain of particles to the atmosphere. Solar outbursts can pump particles into the gap but they drain again in a matter of days. The radio waves were originally thought to be generated by turbulence in the radiation belts, but recent work by James L. Green of the Goddard Space Flight Center comparing maps of lightning activity collected by the Microlab 1 spacecraft with data on radio waves in the radiation-belt gap from the IMAGE spacecraft suggests that they are actually generated by lightning within Earth's atmosphere. The radio waves they generate strike the ionosphere at the right angle to pass through it only at high latitudes, where the lower ends of the gap approach the upper atmosphere. These results are still under scientific debate. There have been nuclear tests in space that have caused artificial radiation belts. Starfish Prime, a high altitude nuclear test, created an artificial radiation belt that damaged or destroyed as many as one third of the satellites in low Earth orbit at the time. So, how did they do it?
The Van Allen belts, and Explorer 1. NASA
Directory: Notes -> 2015 Notes -> Notes ch. 31Part 1 (text) 32 Part 1 de to “The Advent of the Gasoline Age” Notes -> Fatigue failure: de havelland comet Notes -> Comet Aircraft – The Worlds First Jet Airliner Fatigue Failure Background Notes -> Review of Chapters 1-3, 8, and the appendix Notes -> University of Iceland, Department of Geology and Geography Introduction to the Geology and Geography of Iceland Notes -> It is no surprise that ambush marketing techniques are at their utmost when the stakes are highest Notes -> Contact info Notes -> Problem Set 2 International Finance Shrikhande Fall 2006 suggested solutions to chapter 4 problems 2015 -> Interacts with our slice of the ordinary universe through gravity Download 118.74 Kb. Share with your friends:
|
The footage is one thing, but many point to the existence of a dangerous concentration of solar and cosmic radiation that surrounds the earth as proof that Apollo never made it to the moon. Between the earth and the moon lie what is known as the Van Allen radiation belts.
