Radiation

[JayUtah]

Without something to compare it to how can you be sure it depicts reality?  They could show us anything that we have never seen and call it real and who are we to say it is or isn't?

Hoax believers claim they can tell it isn't real.  Sauce for the gander.

[timfinch]

Without something to compare it to how can you be sure it depicts reality?  They could show us anything that we have never seen and call it real and who are we to say it is or isn't?

Hoax believers claim they can tell it isn't real.  Sauce for the gander.

and Hoax deniers claim they can tell it is real.  More sauce?

[JayUtah]

I have a question for the group.

Or are you changing the subject?

Look at the planned path of the Orion on its scheduled moon mission.  Why do you believe this is not he same path all the Apollo missions took and if it isn't why isn't it?

Why do you think "all the Apollo missions" took the same path?  Can you explain the difference (in orbital mechanics terms) between a free-return trajectory and Apollo's so-called hybrid trajectory?

The "planned path" of Orion on its mission is not sufficiently spelled out in the video.  What are the orbital mechanics elements?  Declination, etc.?  I wouldn't expect Orion's translunar mission to follow the exact trajectory of any Apollo mission simply for the fact that no two translunar missions have ever followed the same planned trajectory.  Since this is an unmanned mission, crew radiation exposure is not a concern.  Hence where the video seems to show the mission traversing the Van Allen belts, I would say this is acceptable for this mission, but would not be for a manned mission.  It's common in videos for public consumption to simplify the arrangement among spacecraft, Earth, and Moon to render it all in one plane.  That's not necessarily how any of the missions will actually fly.

[JayUtah]

and Hoax deniers claim they can tell it is real.  More sauce?

Essentially yes.  Your point is moot.  You're telling us we wouldn't be able to tell just by looking whether video is real or fake.  If that's your story, then you have to dismiss the basis of the claims that it must be fake just by looking at it.  You told us that everything that wasn't about radiation wasn't your cup of tea.  You said others would cover those arguments.  And others have, but you're yanking the rug out from under them.  That makes it hard for you to rely on their conclusions as part of supporting your disbelief.

[raven]

I have a question for the group.  Look at the planned path of the Orion on its scheduled moon mission.  Why do you believe this is not he same path all the Apollo missions took and if it isn't why isn't it? 

We know what the Apollo spacecraft's trajectories were, because the Apollo spacecraft were tracked, not just by NASA installations but by numerous third party.
And it isn't the same because Apollo's trajectories, while great for skirting the outer edges of the Van Allen Belts, meant that every mission landed in the lunar tropical latitude or with 4 degrees of latitude. There is a lot of moon left to explore, and there's strong evidence that permanently shadowed craters in the lunar poles can be sources of water, and with water, wow, water is everything in space.
You can, among other things, drink it, you can grow plants with it, you can use it for cooling,  you can split it to breathe, you can split it for rocket fuel, you can use it for all sorts of wonderful chemical reactions.
 The ISS gets regular shipments of water and oxygen, and that would get even more expensive for a lunar base, so a lunar outpost that has its own supplies of water would be a lot less expensive to maintain. You could send that water, either cracked or as ice, to an orbital fuel station, because once you're in LEO, you're half-way to anywhere delta-v wise, and the delta-V to send water/hydrogen oxygen from the moon to LEO is less than sending from the Earth's surface to LEO. Plus, you can use the atmosphere to aerobrake, which cuts down the requirements even further. But Apollo couldn't get to the poles; it couldn't get anywhere near the poles, so that's why Orion's trajectory is different.

[timfinch]

I have a question for the group.

Or are you changing the subject?

Look at the planned path of the Orion on its scheduled moon mission.  Why do you believe this is not he same path all the Apollo missions took and if it isn't why isn't it?

Why do you think "all the Apollo missions" took the same path?  Can you explain the difference (in orbital mechanics terms) between a free-return trajectory and Apollo's so-called hybrid trajectory?

The "planned path" of Orion on its mission is not sufficiently spelled out in the video.  What are the orbital mechanics elements?  Declination, etc.?  I wouldn't expect Orion's translunar mission to follow the exact trajectory of any Apollo mission simply for the fact that no two translunar missions have ever followed the same planned trajectory.  Since this is an unmanned mission, crew radiation exposure is not a concern.  Hence where the video seems to show the mission traversing the Van Allen belts, I would say this is acceptable for this mission, but would not be for a manned mission.  It's common in videos for public consumption to simplify the arrangement among spacecraft, Earth, and Moon to render it all in one plane.  That's not necessarily how any of the missions will actually fly.

I guess you didn't get the memo.  It seems President Trump asked NASA to move the window up on a manned mission.  The next mission will be a manned flyby of the moon.

[smartcooky]

There are a couple of additional, not so often referenced, facts that those who argue Apollo never went to the moon, and that astronauts didn't land on the moon, have to account for.

1. The radio telescope at Jodrell Bank actually tracked the Apollo all the way to the Moon (along with Luna 15 that arrived at about the same time), and they were able to track the LM all the way to the surface at Mare Tranquilitatis. They did this by using their dish as a radar. They were even able to detect that Eagle stopped its descent and started hovering sideways as Neil Armstrong realised he was going to land in a field of boulders, and took manual control to overshoot the LZ. If the landings were faked, then the Astronomers and engineers at Jodrell Bank would have to have "been in on it".

2. The Amateur (HAM) Radio operators in the USA and Europe who eavesdropped on the lunar surface communications between Armstrong, Aldrin on the lunar surface, and Bruce McCandless at CAPCOM, using a very directional  8 × 12 foot “corner horn” antenna pointed at the moon. They were able to pick up the VHF signals transmitted between the astronauts and the LM direct from their suit radios. We know it was from their suit radios and not some other source because

a. the transmissions lacked quindar tones which they would have had if they were picking up local Earth broadcasts from say, a TV or radio station.

b. the signals came through approximately 5-10 seconds earlier than the broadcasts on TV, which would be impossible of it was faked, since the official broadcasts came through the S-Band link to the earth, via DSN.

c. the antenna had be be constantly re aimed because the rotation of the Earth caused the Moon to drift out of the antenna’s field and the signal to be lost... if the antenna was not kept aimed at the Moon, the signal disappeared.

If the landings were faked, then HAM radio operators all over the world would have to have "been in on it". Any HAM radio operator, with relatively simple, homebuilt equipment, could have picked up these transmissions

The second item above is particularly difficult for HBs to account for, so they merely hand-wave it away.

[timfinch]

There are a couple of additional, not so often referenced, facts that those who argue Apollo never went to the moon, and that astronauts didn't land on the moon, have to account for.

1. The radio telescope at Jodrell Bank actually tracked the Apollo all the way to the Moon (along with Luna 15 that arrived at about the same time), and they were able to track the LM all the way to the surface at Mare Tranquilitatis. They did this by using their dish as a radar. They were even able to detect that Eagle stopped its descent and started hovering sideways as Neil Armstrong realised he was going to land in a field of boulders, and took manual control to overshoot the LZ. If the landings were faked, then the Astronomers and engineers at Jodrell Bank would have to have "been in on it".

2. The Amateur (HAM) Radio operators in the USA and Europe who eavesdropped on the lunar surface communications between Armstrong, Aldrin on the lunar surface, and Bruce McCandless at CAPCOM, using a very directional  8 × 12 foot “corner horn” antenna pointed at the moon. They were able to pick up the VHF signals transmitted between the astronauts and the LM direct from their suit radios. We know it was from their suit radios and not some other source because

a. the transmissions lacked quindar tones which they would have had if they were picking up local Earth broadcasts from say, a TV or radio station.

b. the signals came through approximately 5-10 seconds earlier than the broadcasts on TV, which would be impossible of it was faked, since the official broadcasts came through the S-Band link to the earth, via DSN.

c. the antenna had be be constantly re aimed because the rotation of the Earth caused the Moon to drift out of the antenna’s field and the signal to be lost... if the antenna was not kept aimed at the Moon, the signal disappeared.

If the landings were faked, then HAM radio operators all over the world would have to have "been in on it". Any HAM radio operator, with relatively simple, homebuilt equipment, could have picked up these transmissions

The second item above is particularly difficult for HBs to account for, so they merely hand-wave it away.

How are we sure they were not tracking an unmanned craft?

[JayUtah]

I guess you didn't get the memo.  It seems President Trump asked NASA to move the window up on a manned mission.  The next mission will be a manned flyby of the moon.

https://www.nasa.gov/EXPERIENCE-EM1 , where your video comes from, still says the mission will be unmanned.  Trump also said Mexico would pay for his border wall.  If you believe anything that man says, you deserve what you get.

[timfinch]

I guess you didn't get the memo.  It seems President Trump asked NASA to move the window up on a manned mission.  The next mission will be a manned flyby of the moon.

https://www.nasa.gov/EXPERIENCE-EM1 , where your video comes from, still says the mission will be unmanned.  Trump also said Mexico would pay for his border wall.  If you believe anything that man says, you deserve what you get.

https://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Human_Spaceflight/Orion/Exploration_Mission_2

[JayUtah]

https://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Human_Spaceflight/Orion/Exploration_Mission_2

From the linked article:  "Following Orion’s Exploration Mission-1 (EM-1), during which the spacecraft will travel beyond the Moon, enter a distant retrograde orbit around the Moon and return to Earth unmanned, EM-2 will see a crewed spacecraft complete a slightly different flight path." (emphasis added)

The video you posted describes EM-1, and unmanned mission.  EM-2 will follow a different flight path.

[bknight]

I have a question for the group.  Look at the planned path of the Orion on its scheduled moon mission.  Why do you believe this is not he same path all the Apollo missions took and if it isn't why isn't it? 

This is not the best illustration of the generalized trajectory outbound, you will notice that the trajectory travelled through the VARB in the vicinity of the  North Pole, where the VARB is least dense.  I don't know the trajectory of Orion(EM-1), but as Jay mentioned it is an unmanned mission so radiation will only affect the electronic components.  The first Orion mission travelled through the denser part of the VARB, to check how the electronics performed.  Radiation received during this mission was higher than that of the Apollo missions, since Apollo traveled in a less dense portion.  Any comparisons to prove/disprove Apollo are simply not valid.
Why do you ask a simple question for which there are reports to read.

https://www.popsci.com/blog-network/vintage-space/apollo-rocketed-through-van-allen-belts#page-3

[bknight]

I have a question for the group.

Or are you changing the subject?

Look at the planned path of the Orion on its scheduled moon mission.  Why do you believe this is not he same path all the Apollo missions took and if it isn't why isn't it?

Why do you think "all the Apollo missions" took the same path?  Can you explain the difference (in orbital mechanics terms) between a free-return trajectory and Apollo's so-called hybrid trajectory?

The "planned path" of Orion on its mission is not sufficiently spelled out in the video.  What are the orbital mechanics elements?  Declination, etc.?  I wouldn't expect Orion's translunar mission to follow the exact trajectory of any Apollo mission simply for the fact that no two translunar missions have ever followed the same planned trajectory.  Since this is an unmanned mission, crew radiation exposure is not a concern.  Hence where the video seems to show the mission traversing the Van Allen belts, I would say this is acceptable for this mission, but would not be for a manned mission.  It's common in videos for public consumption to simplify the arrangement among spacecraft, Earth, and Moon to render it all in one plane.  That's not necessarily how any of the missions will actually fly.

I guess you didn't get the memo.  It seems President Trump asked NASA to move the window up on a manned mission.  The next mission will be a manned flyby of the moon.

You really should get the facts straight, NASA nixed EM-1 manned status and it remains unmanned.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-affirms-plan-for-first-mission-of-sls-oriion

[AtomicDog]

I have a question for the group.  Look at the planned path of the Orion on its scheduled moon mission.  Why do you believe this is not he same path all the Apollo missions took and if it isn't why isn't it? 

That's not a real orbit. At no point does it cross the equator. All orbits starting from Earth cross the equator at some point.

[timfinch]

Now this is the path of the trans-lunar injection orbit.  Examine closely the path in relation to the equator and the poles.  This path is deviated only slightly in inclination by all of the apollo missions.