Re: If the moon landing was faked...

The best materials to shield against beta particles have lots of
hydrogen atoms in them. The material of choice for particle shielding
today is Polyethylene, not lead !!!
Aluminum is a better choice than lead because it generates fewer X-rays
than lead due to less Bremsstrahlung.
Secret237,
I totally agree (as I always have), whereas it takes considerably
greater volume with the likes of utilizing UHMW/Polyethalene or
somewhat better is H2O that results in even less secondary/recoil
dosage of hard-X-rays. 160 meters worth of SL atmosphere is certainly
much better off than 18 mm of lead per obtaining a given half dosage
(obviously the task of moderating gamma down to a dull roar takes more
distance or depth of atmosphere than attenuating the kick out of
hard-X-rays).

If you're going for a 1024:1 reduction of otherwise lethal TBI dosage,
just multiply whartever you're using for accomplishing each 50%
reduction by a factor of 10. That's actually pretty much simple math.

This tells us the Apollo CM spacecraft was perfectly capable of
traveling through the Van Allen belts and beyond, especially if you go
around the majority of, rather than going through the belts, like the
Apollo missions did.
Now we get the usual wag-thy-dog worth of your incest buttology that's
telling us those lies again. Aluminum is nearly transparent to gamma,
whereas even if given quiet a few mm worth of it isn't hardly worth
squat against the lunar gauntlet of such nasty gamma and hard-X-rays,
nor against whatever the Van Allen zone has to offer, and it's
especially true if in fact it takes the likes of 18 mm worth of good
old lead in order to effectively accomplish each 50% reduction in TBI
dosage.

Our naked moon is clearly an orb of what's more than sufficiently
radioactive and otherwise it's rather reactive (as it should be). The
harsh lunar surface environment is not only being IR and
secondary/recoil IR roasted to death by day and otherwise getting
seriously sub-frozen by night, whereas Rn becomes LRn if not frozen
into a glowing solid, and as I'd said that it's having been well
documented as being absolutely chuck full of nasty gamma and
hard-X-rays (especially nasty by day). In addition to and so unlike
yourself, Kodak film (B&W or color) simply doesn't lie.

The standard laws of physics and of multiple hard-science that's easily
replicated is exactly what more than proves that we haven't walked on
that dark and nasty moon, not to mention that you folks had no such
stinking fly-by-rocket lander that was usable for the task at hand, of
certainly not way back then and lo and behold, not even as of today.

What I mean by you only perpetuating you own cause is you only want to
make money off all your naysaying (if that's even a word ).
Now you're into calling hard-science that's easily replicated as being
bogus, as well as you're calling the regular laws of physics as
"naysaying"?

Your Dr. Van Allen is part of the hoax, just like Einstein has been
made into a part of the Jewish hoax. The TRW/Raytheon Space Data
Report has the GSO dosage as situated behind a 2 g/cm2 worth of
aluminum at 2e3 Sv/year. Do the Math.

BTW; NASA's Apollo did not take a sufficiently polar exit/return
route. Although, it doesn't matter since the moon itself represents
such a downright lethal gamma/x-ray environment that's way more than
nasty enough just for surviving the task of having to orbit that
physically dark and TBI nasty sucker.
-
Brad Guth

.

Quantcast