Wonder how they tested and redesigned to pass through the Van Allen radiation belts twice on each trip......

That at least was straightforward, they calculated the likely exposure to higher radiation levels that would occur and judged it safe. In the (measured) event, each astronaut was exposed to extra radiation roughly equivalent to having a full body CAT scan while passing through the belts. Not great, but no biggie.

Hi Stan.

You need to explain how come you can see with your own eyes every single one of them there satellites from the list I gave you, given that they don't exist. You need to deal with this point before you can ever make another comment about satellites again, as they are there - loads of 'em - every night, identificable, viewable, and this must annoy you greatly as it bursts your "satellites don't exist bubble.

But you have ignored such a list twice now, and this shows you up, as it is a prime example of if you can't answer it or explain it, you just ignore it, and hope it goes away.

But it doesn't.

Sorry to shatter your illusions! Now, about those pesky satellites...?

I can't work out whether you are being deliberately stupid or you really are just stupid. You might even be a stupid person feigning even more stupidity.



Why are you "doing a Stanley", and neither making your actual point, or explaining what the fsck you are trying to say? You posed a question. I answered your question. Unless you are saying my answer is wrong (in which case, a reasonably polite "Actually FA here is your error..." would do. Your Mr. Angry bombast and playground insults are quite embarrassing. You have been known to be capable of debate without such insults. Am I supposed to be crushed, or intimidated, or something?

If so - it's not working, you ignorant meathead! Go take your insults and stick em where the sun don't shine.

[iGreat question. It can't be done yet according to some NASA boffins. Yet all the manned Apollo missions pi55ed through it. Apparently Eyeroll.. [/i

How do the Van Allen belts exist if the earth is flat?

And how does Mr Allen know they exist if he hasnt been there?

The Sun is not a relatively small light source, though. It is almost 1.4million km in diameter) compared to the Moon's tiny 3,476 km.

Due to the large distance between Sun and Moon, it is close enough for basic purposes to assume that the incoming light rays are parallel, although obviously the "speedlite" of the distant Sun is still actually far bigger than the object Moon, so even at sun-moon distance the rays from the "top" and "bottom" of the light source (the real Sun) are actually still slightly converging. Not a "small" light source.

So your basic premise is false, because you don't understand simple geometry. Your "experiment" confuses actual size with apparent size.

they dont look too depressed or upset of either of these.

=#800000@Starbug.
Do your own research. And you'll easily find out.

I have, no reference to a flat planet, so you havent an argument,

WRONG !!! you do know that in a full body CAT scan or any CAT scan for that matter the actual scanning is over and done in a couple of minuets max the rest of the time is spent checking and rechecking the images to make sure they are of the correct quality exposing you to minimum radiation.
Yet NASA claims it takes around 1 1/2 hours to pass through the belts each way that is 3 hours of high intensity radiation with no side effects to ANY astronaut that ever supposedly went on an Apollo mission.
OK



Nope, RIGHT !!! The cumulative dose was what it was. The total dose = level of radiation x time of exposure. Just like sunbathing, taking images, or grilling a pork chop.

Already gave the simple answer to that one, Stan. Do keep up. Now, what do you say about all them pesky satellites that you can see with your own eyes?

Hello again butcher alias. Please stop trying to derail the thread. Thanks.

Stan? Satellites? Cat got yer tongue?

Aslo on the subject of the images of the astronauts in the decontamination pod they do look happy to be back in those photos, so would i if i had been orbiting the earth for 3 days knowing i could die on reentry in the early days of space, still pretty dangerous now even with all the knowledge they now posses on the subject.
It is at the presser that i think it is obvious they never went to the moon with all the figiting twiddling of fingers and just looking very unconformable under the pressure of the world media.
I mean if you had been to the moon and came back alive surely you would be ecstatic and dying to tell of everything you saw and your experience but to me they seemed very muted and not really forthcoming with their answers.

[iWrong. Again why do you keep making habit of it. Here's [url=https://youtu.be/NlXG0REiVzEOne of your own.[/url explaining it can't be done.


If it can't be done that means nothing has ever gone past the Van Allen belt[/i.

Thanks for that. It's actually a fantastic example of a scientifically ignorant person such as you, trying to put scientific 2+2 together and not unexpectedly arriving at 47.

You obviously don't actually know anything at all about the Van Allen belts.

You obviosuly don't understand what the challenge was for the Apollo moon missions.

You obviously therefore don't understand that this is NOT at all the same as for the proposed Orion missions.

In short - you don't know what you're talking about. You've seized on a video presentation (which, btw, doesn't actually say any such thing as its sensationalist title risibly claims) and as usual, because you like the general drift, you link to it uncritically.

If you were to take a few minutes to at least research the basics, you would at least learn the general shape and layout of the Van Allen belts. Clue: It isn't a homogenous "shell" all around the Earth)

The issue for Apollo was that the direct route they had to take to the Moon passed through the Van Allen belts, but not through the most hazardous part. The part of the belt was a comparatively narrow section, and their trajectory was a steep curve as the craft accelerated away from Earth towards the Moon, so basically in and out of it.

The Orion missions are not slated to fly in and out in this very limited way, and so you're comparing chalk and cheese. Which you could have easily discovered, but you prefer to jump to asinine conclusions.



The guy is 100% on the money. No astronaut has ever been exposed to anything like the sort of potential Van Allen belts radiation and as ever scientists have done the numbers theorized what will likely happen and what they need, and planned to experiment and test the theories before sending astronauts up. Kind of what I'd expect, really.

So, the NASA guy made no such blooper as your hoax nut buddies claim - but you just did: the only way there could actually be Van Allen belts around the Earth is if the Earth is a globe. So you revel in the claim NASA "can't send a man through the Van Allen belts" - while elsewhere your position is that there ARE no fscking Van Allen belts, there can't be, as the Earth is flat!

Busted yet again Stan! You're too easy these days.

But perhaps we could reasonably leave the last word to the discoverer of said belts:


Now I have again shown up your ramblings for unscientific nonsense, are you ready to come up with your mad explanation why all those satellites you can see with your own eyes orbiting the globe aren't real?

[iCopy and paste from Rob Stuart in the you tube testimonies section of the video provided. take a look everybody



Seeing as though you've been caught plagiarising other peoples thoughts. We can now confirm you have Zero credibility.



As for the video It was clear as snow. They have Zero technology to overcome the VAB yet. From the horses mouth. Why the angst Why are you so abrasive. Because US stupid conspiracy theorist are ruining the world. This video that stimulated the conversation is by no means a smoking gun but yes I do remain sceptical because I know we are being lied to in so many other areas. Sure it's my opinion and im entitled to it as much as you are yours. You sling mud constantly at people. Your so identical to the people you look down your nose at. Show the science that supports your ideals but turn your back on the science that doesn't. Your as flawed as any. Please reply in your own words,. If you can manage it..Tut TutTut[/i

This is better than the Joynt's Voluntary Tackle thread.

When I copy and paste a quote, I mark it as .. guess what ... a QUOTE!

Novel, huh?

Now, i appreciate that with what passes for your thoughts, quoting seems to be "plagiarising", but as I did actually "QUOTE" the quote, I don't think it is much of a "caught"

Quote ="FLAT STANLEY"As for the video It was clear as snow. They have Zero technology to overcome the VAB yet. '"

Precisely the opposite, the video says they have built the craft to do exactly that, and the next step is to test to see if and how well it works. Only a moron or a troll would fail to understand such a simple point.

Quote ="FLAT STANLEY" Why the angst Why are you so abrasive. '"

On the contrary, you invent "angst" etc same as you invent anything else. If anything, I'm enjoying the posts today, as Mugwump has been quite entertaining, and your posts are a bit like the pins in a bowling alley at the moment, it can be good fun repeatedly demolishing them, and you just get right back up!

Quote ="FLAT STANLEY" Because US stupid conspiracy theorist are ruining the world. '"

You're not, you just aim to

Quote ="FLAT STANLEY" This video that stimulated the conversation is by no means a smoking gun '"

Well, quite. In fact it is a pefectly cogent and lucid summary of the Orion project, which makes perfect sense, despite the efforts of purveyors of pseudobabble who know nothing of the subject to use it as a smoking gun.

But, then, why did you link to it with finality, as a smoking gun, then?

Quote ="FLAT STANLEY"but yes I do remain sceptical because I know we are being lied to in so many other areas. Sure it's my opinion and im entitled to it as much as you are yours. '"

Let's analyse that. Was Conan Doyle as much entitled to his opinion that fairies at the bottom of the garden were real? Well, yes, in some sense. Was his belief wrong? Of course. Was it risible? Of course. Were the debunkers right to demolish his childish beliefs? Of course. Was it fair enough to respond to his claims with derision and ridicule? Bit harsh, but if you put your head above the parapet and propose patent bullcrap, then you have brought this on your own head.

Quote ="FLAT STANLEY"You sling mud constantly at people. Your so identical to the people you look down your nose at. '"

Not at all. I laugh at your gullibility and I deride your more ludicrous remarks and outlandish, ridiculous beliefs, abused on your scientific illiteracy and religious brainwashing. I can treat well-presented and well argued and coherent scientific arguments based on sound scientific evidence and principles with the respect they deserve. But not all claims and theories deserve the same respect, lunatic and misguided claims deserve to be dismissed summarily and I'm afraid you have a full house of them.

Quote ="FLAT STANLEY" Show the science that supports your ideals but turn your back on the science that doesn't. '"

But sadly for you, there is no sound science that "doesn't". I have looked at plenty of it, more's the pity, and it is all invariably bullcrap of varying degrees. That is a considered view and calling it like it is.

How could I provide the considerable number of scientifically based responses to all the rubbish that's been spouted recently on here, if I had "turned my back" on it? Wouldn't you say that i'm probably the only person on the boards who ISN'T turning his back on it, with one or two exceptions who make occasional comments? If I am "turning my back" then what do you actually want? A clear run to spout your drivel? The reason I am the only one for the most part is because when i respond, it entertains me, and I can at the same time post some genuine snippets of real science and facts which I know people will read even if they don't respond.


You only get my own words, Stan, and well you know it. I have challenged you before to demonstrate they are not my own words, but you are happier to repeat your LIE. that is not normal behaviour. And being yourself the king of cut'n'paste it really is ironic for you to make the claim.

And no, I have not forgotten that you keep swerving and swerving all the points I have put to you now in many posts, including your much-anticipated explanation of how come your own eyes can see a myriad satellites in the night sky, if satellites don't exist.

Your pathetic smokescreen doesn't mask your attempt to swerve the simple questions that you never answer. And not just mine.

That thread was a hoax.

A holographic projection onto the whole of the internet.

Sky TV is quite simple.

A cluster of satellites (yes, more than 1) are positions at 28.2 degrees. You point your dish in that direction (Sky dishes are quite forgiving). Provided your house doesn't fall down, there is no need to move your dish.

When a satellite comes to end of life, a planned flyby allows a controlled switch over. Usually at night when less people will notice. The new satellite is manoeuvred in, and in coordination with the old one, has its transponders turned on 1 at a time. The old satellite is then manoeuvred out of the way forever.

Satellites do fail. Google AMOS5 which died recently.

When Sky went 3D with Superleague they actually stopped using real players. I can prove it.

[iI know it is Ground-based Repeaters it's terrestrial It's really cable with a alternate frequency band to Freeview. [/i

Nonsense. 28 degrees is a very shallow pitch which ties in perfect to a Ground Based Transmission. It should be pitched higher for Satellites obviously.

[iAbsolute nonsense Flyby. Whats a flyby hahaha. A space shuttle launches a new satellite replacement just for lucky me. Hahaha. And how can the faulty malfunctioned Satellite be moved if its knackard. Don't tell me Tim Peake does a spacewalk.[/i



[iThis is why its Ground Based Repeaters. Its too cost effective to replace knackard Satellites there would be daily launchesd Flyby's hahaha to accommodate the problem. I've got Sky without them knowing PPV the lot. Satellite not needed. Broadband is what Sky dial into to give you your package if it was Satellite fed Broadband wouldn't be needed. Your talking what you've been spoon fed. Not your fault. Flyby's [/i



[iWhy Do We Never See Satellites From The ISS. Two Birds One Stone because they're both fallacies.[/i
=#BF0000All them Satellites and not ONE authentic picture can be taken of the Earth.Smells fishy to me...