I remember when I was a kid I did a science project on the different amounts of trace radiation from kinds of fruit. Nobody could believe that anything they’d ever ate could be radioactive and I got a bad grade.
People just cannot accept that anything associated with the word “radiation” isn’t deadly, and its directly related to scientific illiteracy, which is celebrated in our society. A radiator “radiates” heat into the air. My body “radiates” heat onto my bed at night, and I wake up sweaty. The Earth is constantly radiating radioactive radon and we all soak it up. Flying at altitude in a commercial jet or living in Denver also exposes people to cosmic radiation, all day every day. Bananas, nuts....anything high in potassium, including red meat and beer.....also radioactive. I think I read that if you eat two bananas per day for a year, its equivalent to about one chest x-ray.
The sad thing is, if NASA took a prominent moon/space/flat earth conspritard to the moon, let them walk around on it, and take all of the pictures and samples they want, they would most likely still claim it was all fake.
Most people don't realize they're getting radiation all the time... every day. They don't understand the dose aspect of radiation and poison. They just think... radiation! I'm gonna die! Or get super powers!
I work in the nuclear pharmacy industry, and of course it's highly regulated. Any emerging superpowers need to be reported to Quality & Regulatory. You wouldn't believe the paperwork!
Actually everything on the planet has some degree of radiation in it including humans, furniture, food etc.. In some cases it may be a barely detectable amount, in other cases more. That rate at which something looses it’s radiation is one method used to determine the age of artifacts...
*@shents aceve* Yes, manned Moon landings were cancelled because of ignorant idiots like you. Fortunately, we are going again in 2024. If you think Pettit believes the Moon landings were a hoax, then you're probably beyond help. That's so stupid.... it's hard to know where to begin. Do you really think he _literally_ meant the tech was destroyed? Like, with hammers? There's a Saturn V sitting in Kennedy right now, so... I guess they missed that one???
@@shentsaceve5642 _DON'T LIE!!_ Pettit _never_ said we don't have the "information"! He said we don't have the Apollo technology anymore - and he is right! It was retired decades ago.
I work with a guy who believes we didn't go to the moon because of the Van Allen radiation belts. I was going to show him this video, but after reading through the comments I realize I'd be wasting my time.
Nasa's own spokes people say that we don't know if we can safely get people these belts. It's Nasa's own spokespeople that say we had the technology 50 years ago but "lost" it. Don't criticize the skeptics for listening to nasa's spokespeople.
Wow, Way to misinterpret the first video, "it passes through Van Allen Belts, an area of dangerous radiation"......" Radiation like this can harm the GUIDANCE SYSTEMS, onboard COMPUTERS, or other ELECTRONICS on Orion"....that's the challenge they must solve BEFORE sending people through this region of Space. And that second one was laughable. The tech is 50 years old, that's way it isn't around anymore. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-bLtgS2_qxJk.html
Quote-mining bullshit. Orion was *a new spaceship,* and had to overcome the problems, the same as Apollo did. They did, and flew through the belts in 2014, twice. Petit was saying we cannot go past LEO *today* - because we don't have a spaceship that can do it. Seriously, how fucking hard is that to understand? And why do you choose to believe those few seconds, and not the rest of the videos, or the thousands of others?
Zem Zem Did this guy look at the actual lander?! It looks like it was made from kraft paper and aluminum rods!! The moon landings have huge issues with it no matter how much explaining you try to do! All the data tapes 1000s of feet of it went "missing"!! Also there is a contradiction here!! NASA said in the Orion video that they had to test the Orion shielding to go trough the Van Allen belts. Now this guy is saying they just go around the Van Allen belts?!?! So which one is it?!
Remember that the lunar lander was unoccupied during the entire trip to the moon, and was left behind on the return trip. The crew were safely in the command module for the entire trip through the radiation belts.
rAdiant Jet some people will believe the news and other agencies regardless what they tell you. I'm simply asking NASA to send a orbit around the moon, show us clear pictures of the lander, rover and flag. Then I will say I was a conspiracy theorist. It's only a conspiracy if it doesn't match what your local agencies are telling you.
ALEXANDER VILLA Fake facts?! These are known facts or are you just that indoctrinated?! Also look at those Chinese moon photos and then look at the Apollo ones! There are huge issues with the photos! But whatever I say to you won't matter! Your going to have to come to self-realization to see the truth! Once you know the truth you cannot un-see the truth.
You can shine a laser on the reflector they put on the Moon when they went there and you'll get a return reflection. All by itself that proves they went there.
I tried to explain to a Moon Denier that his "Impenetrable Van Allen Belt" was actually 2 belts in a Toroidal field. But of course when you challenge their claims with logic and science they get triggered, and reply with Insults, Lol's, and Emoji's to deflect from their insecurities and ignorance....
@@jeffmaraman8149 Wrong on both counts. Netwons third law still applies in a vacuum: Throw some mass one way, and you will move into the opposite direction. And a flame, being the chemical reaction of some substance with oxygen, CAN burn in a vacuum. The only difference to a regular flame is that you have to bring the oxygen along with you. The combination of those two gives you a rocket engine: Mix oxygen and fuel, light it in a rocket nozzle, let it hurl itself out the back end, and you'll move in the opposite direction.
@@rockyblacksmith lets say your little theory is correct which it is not. you still need an environment with oxygen to push off against to manuever as well as speed up and slow down.. this has been tested in a vacuum hundreds if not thousands of times at this point. with oxygen boosted igniters and drones etc etc etc..cant fly in an oxygen less environment
@@jeffmaraman8149 "this has been tested in a vacuum hundreds if not thousands of times at this point" Care to name a source? Because I'm willing to bet money on the fact that if those engines didn't work in a vacuum, they weren't rocket engines.
Yes they seem to never be able to just talk about the topic at hand period. I've given up trying to convince people that the moon landings happened. All I do is try to get them to stay on topic and realize that the point they made is bad.That's it.
I really liked this explanation. Before watching this, I did not fully understand, how the Astronauts, tolerated the radiation from the Van Allen Belt. I knew the limited exposure part, but did not realize that even the limited insulation in the command module helped. I also did not realize that the path taken was important.
I’ve always wondered about this particular (pun intended!) issue. This is the first time I’ve heard a comprehensive explanation. Great video, well done 👍
Killumination - I suspect you’re one of those people who just chooses to believe in pointless conspiracy theories rather than accept the more prosaic reality of life. I also suspect that you’re either misreading press releases or else reading bogus reports. NASA does not deny that they flew to the moon. Nor have they said it’s impossible to fly through space, say to Mars, but as the video points out, the longer the flight the more the crew is exposed to radiation which is cumulatively harmful. No lies, just a genuine technical difficulty that has to be overcome through the application of science.
@@rap1df1r3 At no point has NASA claimed they can no longer *pass through* the Van Allen belts. The truth (as if you want to know it) is that we no longer _need_ to send men so far into space. All current manned space craft (ISS and the supply ships) are confined, by choice, to low orbital space. Even geostationary satellites avoid it as the hard particulate radiation is injurious to the relatively sensative electronics inside them.
@@rap1df1r3 Who and when did NASA say that???We had no trouble from the exposure during Apollo..after all Apollo was just passing through the belts and not taking up residence...
Great video my friend! I don't know what did you do with the audio, your voice is delightful a good improvement of the video format too. Congratulations are in order my friend, keep going!
Agree; one of the best voices of RU-vid, and with the proper English pronunciation. Curious Droid, you might want to consider adding a little bit more information on yourself to your RU-vid channel description. Not necessary anything super personal, maybe things like how you have got interested in science-related matters in the first place, and whether this curiosity is your hobby or your job, et cetera. Thanks anyway.
Curious Droid i really enjoyed this. But the Earth is flat! Heheh just kidding just kidding:) but yes great video, and nice and calm voice. All the best wishes from Denmark
It is refreshing to have somebody explain simply the physics of the Van Allen Belt radiation and how it was not such a major issue for the Apollo missions. It is so annoying to see so many people believe the moonwalk hoax conspiracy and great to see an explanation for one of their counter claims.
The only problem with this guy's space theory is that the magnetic poles of the planet would pull you into the Van Allen belt, there by, killing you completely
Actually, no - it's really very tragic to see this _Britshill_ repeatedly sucking on that MIC disinfo teat. Maybe he's going to form some kind of auto erotica burlesque act with that disgusting traitor Richard Hitchens.
+ThrummerOfLove Somehow I missed his obituary notices so your post caught me a little bit by surprise. Cernan was always forthright in his observations. I think his was the concluding comment in Ron Howard's "In The Shadow Of The Moon" and it went something like : "Truth needs no defense. Nobody, nobody can ever take those footsteps I made on the surface of the Moon away from me.” Still a very salient comment in view of an apparent ocean of moon hoax propaganda on YT and other whacko websites that peddle the latest or recycle the usual absurd contentions!
He never made any footprints on the Moon none whatsoever. His footprints were made on Earth in a studio. Sorry but you are wrong. His job was to defend the lie for his entire life and that is what he did. He's likely nothing but a soul in agony burning eternally in Hell now.
Ignorance is not a virtue, yet you seem to hold massive amounts of it in abundance. The Man never went to the Moon and he took that lie to his grave, I see no honor in that!
M773 don't put all of us in the same boat I've never meet a conspiracy theorist that thought the earth was flat flat earthers are just internet nutjobs
I've worked in the nuclear field for years and was aware of the difference penetrating abilities of different forms of radiation. I am so glad that you've made this video to explain the differences and how it impacted the Apollo program. So many folks equate radiation with lead shielding and nothing more.
I can understand why there would be some confusion. If you've ever gone for an x-ray, technicians make you wear a lead apron over your naughty bits to protect them. So some people probably equate all radiation with X-rays.
@@Americansikkunt Can you actually link this video instead of quoting it ad nauseam? I can't find any evidence of it online. The closest I got was someone claiming that the Orion vehicle couldn't make it safely through the belt YET due to it being untested. In other words you are taking someone's quote wildly out of context
Sadly, most of the deniers won't accept this very well done explanation. The only answer they will entertain is we didn't go. All the facts that point to us going fall on deaf ears. Well done, none the less.
They used this principle in the Juno mission to Jupiter as well. They tried to avoid the most severe part of Jupiter's radiation belts during most of the spacecraft's perijoves.
shaan choudhury the Gemini X crew were expected to receive a decent dose, but were pleasantly surprised to find the dosimeters detecting less than they worried there might be.
Felton Mitchell Allan Bean was CAPCOM for Gemini XI and discussed the Van Allen belts and radiation with the crew when they were taking dosimeter readings. He was well aware of them.
Why does NASA refuse to prove that the earth is round to silence those flat earthers? Why does NASA destroy the footage of a man allegedly walking on the moon after it was recorded in HD video by a camera ALLEGEDLY mounted to his chest? Why does NASA refuse to mount a Go-Pro camera to an astronauts helmet to record while standing on earth to record the travel of him or her with 0 cuts entering the rocket to launch and mount to the ISS to then allow the Astronaut to view the ALLEGED round earth from a porthole or window looking upon our planet from within the International Space Station? The obvious answer: Because they cant. As it does not exist. Yet NASA charges the US taxpayer at least 53 million dollars a day $53.000.000.00 to provide its citizens with CGI phony Stanley Kubrick inspired HOAX material. Since they send and retrieve astronauts several times a year to and from the ISS, why would they continuously refuse to provide us with an answer as to whether the earth truly is round or flat? IMO the writing is on the wall. They would easily have filmed this travel on a GoPro by now if it were not a HOAX. If someone could prove that we landed on the moon I would be happy. SMH!
The flight path is the most important of this. It was designed to avoid 99% of the belt. And this flight path is still standard for all launches headed away from earth, even unmanned.
@@Agarwaen ya the problem is there is quite alot of evidence. It's people like you who blieves anything their governments say. Fact. NASA astronauts said they can't leave the low earth orbit. Fact. NASA astronauts said they "destroyed " the technology to go to the moon. Fact. CIA made sure you got the lowest resolution video from the highest quality video camera they took to the moon. Fact. The president at that time talks to astronauts from his oval office with a "land line" telephone. Fact. You can clearly see flag of USA waving in a no atmosphere zone on moon. That's quite lot of evidence if you ask me
Time. Distance. And shielding. Shorten the time in the radiation the smaller the dose. The more you Distance yourself from the radiation the smaller the dose. The more shielding between you and the radiation the smaller the dose
There's another RU-vid video "Nvidia" with this Chinese bloke showing Neil and Buzz at the landing site in HD doing a 360 degrees sweep in full colour and 3d effect. Great camera work.
rubbish letter not sent by Dr James at all. He would have had plenty of opportunity to say it publicly, on video. Letssee it, otherwise we know it wasnt written by him.
@@jameshungelmann8129 James Van Allen was evidently in on the moon landing hoax deception, confirmed by a video from a whistle blower. It was recently posted on Bart Sibrels youtube channel
Curious Droid - thank you for being such an informed and eloquent spokesman for science and reason. In this current age, in which opinion speaks louder than facts, it is so mentally and intellectually stimulating to listen to your videos. Love the manner in which you pronounce the word "aluminum"!
Agree with you completely - but Curious Droid is quite correct in his pronunciation of the word ALUMINIUM. ;-) (That's the word used in England and in many other countries).
@@eventcone While you are completely correct that in UK and many other countries, the correct spelling and pronunciation is aluminium, is also needs to be said that in USA and possibly other countries, the correct spelling and pronunciation is aluminum. And this spelling is actually the older of the two options. So this is possibly the only case where UK and US spelling differs, and the US spelling is the older one.
@Mike O I don't think you read your own link. Let me quote from the wiki page you are linking: British chemist Humphry Davy ... is credited as the person who named the element. In 1808, he suggested the metal be named alumium. In 1812, Davy ... settled on the name aluminum, thus producing the modern name. In 1812, British scientist Thomas Young ... objected to aluminum and proposed the name aluminium.
@@ann_onn Quite, sorry to miss them, I was in a rush and they were the first to come to mind. Cernan, Bean, Young and Armstrong have only really gone recently to be fair.
@@wildchameleon7 Really? , that’s why my text was dated in the first place. 90 is a great age, humans don’t last forever, Plus There’s no evidence for any correlation. But thanks for the update. Do you really feel the need to trawl and scour through comments in an attempt to correct people, because you’ve just failed miserably.
@@sphericalempirical9359 I didn't mean any of that in a bad way, it was barely just an update. I'm sorry if you felt like I was correcting you. Of course he wasn't going to live forever, and as time passes by, just like other big events from the last century, there will be less and less people to have lived those times, maybe reinforcing doubters in their beliefs.
Nitpick: "...the second type of radiation is charged particles ... electrons, protons and neutrons". Neutrons are NOT charged particles (which is pretty easy to remember by the name, neutrons are neutral). However, once a neutron leaves a nucleus it will start to decay into a proton and an electron, half of the neutrons will have decayed this way after about 10 minutes. As the neutrons from the solar wind take about a day to reach earth nearly all neutrons have had time to be converted to protons and electrons and therefore trapable by the Van Allen belt.
Your right, and now anything he says is not believable. I'm very suspicious of anything I read but a few seconds of research on your comment makes this guy a liar. Thanks
@@michaelbradley3061 You completely miss the point. My comment just pointed out minor nitpick. Everything he says in the video about the Van Allen belts and how the Apollo dealt with them is true. If you read my comment you'll also note that despite the sun spewing out tons of neutrons in the solar wind, nearly all of them will have converted to protons and electrons before arrival to earth.
@@andersbackman3977 I'll go out on a limb and guess that Michael didn't even understand what you said about neutrons. (Which was an interesting point, thank you.)
Yes it's a big conspiracy...involving a half a million employees of Nasa, over the last 60 years of it's space program. And elaborately designed vehicles that almost bankrupted America. And nobody spilled the beans that it was all fake!...only intrepid outsiders like you have the courage and technical knowledge from your years of studying theoretical physics at MIT to expose it all!!! LOL!
Aerin Lena Its called "Metacognitive Incompetence'. But i have seen the footage on Funny Thing Haapened on Way to Moon and why are they faking distance from earth when are clearly in low orbit?
Sibrel fooled you and anyone else that believes anything in that bogus film. He edited out parts that showed they were filming out of a rectangular window, which clearly shows they were 133k miles out and not in LEO.
I wonder how many people saying "We didn't land on the moon" actually watched the video to the end and/or actually understood anything of it. Oh, and I wonder how many "deniers" just write to anoy people. Well explained and actually founded on science and engineering.
@@effigy42 The girl was asking Buzz Aldrin why no one went to the moon after 1972. This video of his answer is truncated and completely out of context.
I think its people that are either dumb or corrupt tend to think most everyone else must be.......maybe. Yes they are annoying and depressing to listen to and we have to live in the same world as they do unfortunately.
Why so long to answer this simple question? The explanation here is a none answer and raises more questions than it answeres. The astronauts admitted that they were seeing flashes of light. These flashes was radiation penetrating and hitting directly the optical receptors in the eye. Therefore they were subject to very high levels of radiation in space contrary to what the gentleman is saying
@@alanstein3704 Lets go through what you just said.... The astronauts admitted to seeing flashes of light... The same astronauts that successfully made it through the Van Allen belts with light doses of radiation on the way to the moon saw flashes of light in their eyes due to said radiation... Now which is it? Did the astronauts go through the Van Allen belts and see low level radiation particles? Or did they not go and lie about seeing this radiation. You cant have it both ways. Either they went and survived to tell everyone what they saw or they lied about it. You cant use evidence that they did in fact travel through the belts as the evidence that they cant do it. Jesus! Are you reading what you write before you post it?
*@Human Being* Bart Sibrel is well known to be a fraud. In that video, he asked Bean about Skylab, and Bean said they'd not been high enough to worry about the Van Allen belts. Sibrel edited it to make it seem he asked about Apollo. He claims to have obtained "secret footage", but the video was never secret; it was publicly available before his move. He removed the sound from that video, because they explained exactly what they're doing - ie closing the blind on the window. Not putting a template on it. He claims they were in low Earth orbit, but the picture is utterly unlike what you'd see from LEO - compare it to pictures from the ISS. He claims they show a small portion of Earth, using a template - yet you can see the cloud patterns of the entire Earth, and they match the weather for that day. Sibrel constantly harassed the astronauts and their families - famously resulting in Buzz punching him. Sibrel no longer works in movies. He's a taxi driver. He occasionally posts evangelical Christian videos, which hardly anyone watches.
Mostly, they flew around the most intense parts. This is possible because the Earth (and its magnetic field which traps the Belts) is tipped ~23.5 degrees relative to the orbit of the Moon.
I finally have no questions left in my mind about the moon landings. I loved the video, it explains everything so well and answered all of my questions about the radiation belts. Thank you
NASA had a very useful advisor, the same James Van Allen (1914-2006) who discovered those belts thanks to NASA spaceflights. I'd bet he knew more about them than any internet troll on YT.
But the Soviets back than wehre sending animals in the Orbit at hights of the Van Allen Belt and surprisingly the most famous Dog Laika was coming back dead...Back than it seems not very likely that Apollo could manuvre trugh the Van Ellen Belt which all the "debunkers" are arguing against the sceptics.
@@Joda5212 Not correct. Laika was never "coming back", there was no method of recovering the Sputnik capsule. "Engineers had not designed the environmental control system for a lengthy mission and it is likely that Laika only survived for a few hours after reaching orbit. On November 10, the satellite’s batteries expired, and receipt of data from the science experiments also ceased. Sputnik 2 burned up on re-entry on April 14, 1958". The Sputnik was orbiting at about 1000 km but the Van Allen Belts are from 13,000 to 60,000 km above the earth, so Laika was nowhere near them.
@@karhukivi Why NASA needs the Artemis Program to monitor radiation ? - They should have already a lot of data from the Apollo "moon -landings" Or are all that infos are lost ? Mostpropably they have never left the Orbit above 400k back than.
I work with a guy who is convinced that the Apollo missions were faked because he beleives that nobody can survive travelling through the Van Allen belts. He also says that Stanley Kubric made the lunar videos. Hmmmm. Kind of sad that these people exist.
@@Tim22222 No, he tends to gloss over things that he disagrees with. He's one of those people who are totally convinced in their own superiority and everyone else is beneath them. Not a friend. He's just a guy who I work with. Generally, I try to avoid any in depth conversations with him. It only gets frustrating. He believes there is no reason whatsoever for mankind to explore space.
@Mike O I know for a fact that we put men on the moon. My co-worker though; well, let's just say that you can't fix stupid. I was in Benidorm Spain at the time. Tv sucked but I knew it was real. I've been a huge fan of the space program since John Glenn. I always wanted to be an astronaut but, well, I never tried hard enough. I fell in love with music and became a musician instead. For a while anyway.
There was another video putting the amount of radiation the astronauts were subjected to into context, and the amount they were subjected to was around the same as what you would get during a CT scan. Wikipedia says this: 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.
Great vid. I've always wondered about the radiation issue. They went around the worst of it. As fast as they could. And the nature of the van Allen belts radiation was/is less dangerous than was implied. Even microwaves can be blocked by a flimsy microwave oven door. This is the first time I've heard an in depth explanation of how NASA dealt with radiation exposure. Good work.👍
@@DaveHammondDublin probably NASA is working to improve equipment and procedures. I would guess what was good enough then, isn't good enough now. The rush rush of sixty just isn't there anymore. Not without cold war.
@@DaveHammondDublin Modern electronics are far more vulnerable to radiation as the smaller the parts the more chance a stray particle could do enough damage to one to either change a value or even damage the individual transistor in an IC. As are they also planning for far longer duration flights than merely to the moon (so continual low dosage radiation would accumulate more).
Interesting. But why in the video "a strange thing happened on the way to the moon" when asked about the radiation belts, some of the astronauts didn't know about them or how they got through them. Also, a few NASA people, including some on the ISS, and even Obama have said the Orion project will let them get past lower earth orbit?
it's quite possible that the dangers of the VAB weren't completely explained in detail to the astronauts. right now we can't get higher than LEO because we don't have any Saturn V rockets left working, the dangers Orion will face going to Mars is alot different than going to the moon.
+daveash123 I wouldn't have explained it to the astronauts either, was I running NASA. Most of these men were pilots, not scientists. The last thing I need is for my astronauts getting cold feet before or after launch. These men were ex-Air Force, and thus trained to obey the chain of command and not ask questions. I would have concluded that they simply didn't need to know. That's what I imagine NASA top brass would have concluded. Getting to the moon and completing experiments is a bigger priority than telling them the truth of the risks. That's NASA's priorities and mine. They reported flashes from radiation hitting their eyes, NASA wisely told them to stop worrying about them and focus on the mission. Being well trained by the Air Force, they followed these orders and silenced their doubts.
How about an even simpler problem? Why didn't they cook like steaks on the moon? Explain to me how the cooled them in a hot vacuum. Meanwhile the orbiter is supposedly flying around the moon with 400+ degree Fahrenheit shifts with crew onboard twice each orbit?
Thanks for explaining all of that. I remember the TV program, "Lost In Space" and on a few occasions they talked about the Van Allen Radiation belt. I never knew much about. I was always curious. Now I know You've got some really good videos and explanations of our world, space travel and all the scientific achievements. I grew up with all of this stuff and never had any good explanations. Keep up the good work. I like watching these videos and how you explain them away. You're my favorite. :)
mj. rock your skepticism doesn’t make you right though. Science is about proving things through trials and experimentation not just assuming things because your brains too inferior and lacks the capacity to comprehend it.
@@zombieepx1933 There are plenty of facts that support the skepticism. You'd have to be a complete idiot not to be skeptical, 50 years after the first time we (flawlessly on the first attempt) placed a man on the moon (allegedly) and then haven't done it since. For how many other firsts can this be said? ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-as0fxeNkW5s.htmlm32s Lets see, we allegedly landed a craft on the moon with people on board then allegedly let those people get out and jumped up and down for 3 days on the moon then allegedly ushered them back to earth to cheering fan fanfare all the while without a single fatality nor even a case of vomit inducing radiation sickness (which certainly appears odd considering that the surface of the moon itself is a gamma ray source from all the cosmic ray particles constantly striking it at near light speeds, 30 per second from distant supernovas exploding from random directions, not even to mention the Van Allen belt radiation, which in itself is deadly), milestones that have never been duplicated after the Apollo missions by any organization on the earth, not even NASA; Yes, I'd definitely call that grounds for skepticism.
Stoney Sauce *There are plenty of facts that support skepticism* merely pointing out things you believe without bringing any supporting evidence of why it’s impossible isn’t facts. Evidence requires rigorous testing and observations, how do you have evidence with no data on your claims, how do you acquire data only being a skeptic. Being a skeptic means you’ve only created a hypothesis, there’s much more to the scientific method. There’s no point in debating with people who refuse listen to scientists explain how astronauts survive the almighty Van Allen belt. Why is it always the skeptics who bring up the impossibilities and not any actual experts on the subject lol.
I find it interesting that, of the 24 men who flew through the VARB, eleven are still alive (mean age 88, five are in their 90s), and seven died in their 80s. Of the other six, one died in a motorcycle accident, and two from heart attacks. The last three could, I suppose, possibly be blamed on radiation exposure (2 cancer, and one pancreatitis - although, one of the cancer deaths was age 74), but considering the longevity of their fellows it seems almost like this specific type of radiation is good for you.
Bear in mind they were all extremely fit, healthy and active men - that goes some way to explain their unusual longevity. They lived relatively healthy lifestyles too. It's also worth noting that Irwin, who died young from a heart attack, had a pre-existing heart condition which was identified duing their training. There's abaolutely no reason at all to think radiation affected them in any way at all. They received an utterly trivial dose, similar to a routine medical scan. They'd have had to spend weeks in the Van Allen belts to get sick.
@@ann_onn - Agreed. They were thoroughly screened for physical fitness and overall health, so as a group, whether they had left the planet or not, they would most likely outlive the average. My comment about the radiation being good for you was tongue-in-cheek.
@@finaoo1167 There is absolutely no evidence that the Moon landings were fake. The conspiracy claims are nonsense - check the facts, and their silly ideas fall apart. There are basically three types of claim. 1. Misunderstandings of basic science. For example, they say a rocket wouldn't work because it has nothing to push against in space. Rockets don't push against anything. If you fire a gun, you go backwards - whether or not the bullet hits anything. The same thing happens in space. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Squirt gas in one direction, and you go the other way. 2. Lies. For example, they show edited footage of Nixon's phone call, where the delay has been edited out. 3. Quote-mining. For example, they show a 2-second clip of Buzz Aldrin saying "we didn't go." They do not show the rest of the interview, where he talked extensively about Apollo. All he meant was, we didn't go after 1974. If you have any doubt about the Moon landings, tell me why - and I'll explain why it's nonsense.
You then are certainly not a physicist. A lot of the radiation will go straight through the thin skinned space craft. Why have we never been back? because we do not have the technical ability or we would have.
@@alanstein3704 lol. Yeah... But you wear a tinfoil hat to prevent EMR from penetrating your skull. So which is it? Does it shield your brain as well as protect the salmon I just put on my charcoal grill from getting charred or doesnt it? Lol... Omg. I'm snorting from laughing so hard. You, good sir, are either a comedic genius or a complete moron. Either way, I was entertained.
@Mark Smileer Dude. All I got out of what you wrote was you think something is being swept under the rug. Then you post a link to a video that is some of the most contrived bullshit I've ever come across. So, you're saying what? That the Saturn V/Apollo never existed as a working full size model? Good grief... This is why I cant ever take this crap all y'all are spewing seriously. The O.P. made a logical comparison and the opposition (flat earthers like yourself) presents a bunch of crap for me to "consider". Well, my ridiculous fellow, I know why it would be damn near impossible to repeat the Saturn V/Apollo missions " exactly" the way they happened in the past. The video you posted suggests something ridiculous as an alternative. Seriously, if flat earthers are nothing more than trolls attempting to get reactions, cut it out, no seriously, stop it. The more misinformation you spread, it's more of an indictment of the education system rather than just annoying... Unless you dont do it to be annoying, then, in that case, well done. But I digress...
@Big gut Ed thank you for your comment. Why does NASA refuse to prove that the earth is round to silence those flat earthers? Why does NASA destroy the footage of a man allegedly walking on the moon after it was recorded in HD video by a camera ALLEGEDLY mounted to his chest? Why does NASA refuse to mount a Go-Pro camera to an astronauts helmet to record while standing on earth to record the travel of him or her with 0 cuts entering the rocket to launch and mount to the ISS to then allow the Astronaut to view the ALLEGED round earth from a porthole or window looking upon our planet from within the International Space Station? The obvious answer: Because they cant. As it does not exist. Yet NASA charges the US taxpayer at least 53 million dollars a day $53.000.000.00 to provide its citizens with CGI phony Stanley Kubrick inspired HOAX material. Since they send and retrieve astronauts several times a year to and from the ISS, why would they continuously refuse to provide us with an answer as to whether the earth truly is round or flat? IMO the writing is on the wall. They would easily have filmed this travel on a GoPro by now if it were not a HOAX. If someone could prove that we landed on the moon I would be happy. SMH!
As always, it's been a pleasure watching a video presented by you. Not only the information, I really like the way you present it. As far as people who have doubts about landing on the moon etc., I do understand the fact that the achievement has been so significant that it's beyond the comprehension of people who are not positive in life. So, I'm not surprised that there are people who actually believe that Van Allen Belt exists (because NASA said so) but won't accept the fact that astronauts landed on the mood. Just shows how massive that achievement is to mankind and once again thank you so much for the lovely video.
As Dr James van Allen has publicly stated, only if astronauts orbited in the highest-flux regions of the outer belt for ONE WEEK would they receive a potentially lethal dose. Tissue damage depends on several factors including type, intensity and duration of radiation.
Riki Hearts_Trotsky well said. These anti-science people are against Everything intelligent. IMHO. They need conspiracy theories to make a complex world make sense to them. They also tested a small nuke above 4 or 5 guys and they all lived well into their 80's. Though they did get cancer. A tactical nuke a mile over someone Fucking head is a bit more dangerous than the Van Allen belt. My brother in-law said we didn't go to the moon because of the Kuiper belt!? LMFAO 😂 I said I bet you a million bucks that neither of us have that it's not true in so many ways and the Kuiper belt is on the outskirts of the solar system. Pluto... I said "I bet you think we didn't send a ship there either". Yea and NASA is fake the government Sucks except when republicans are in charge. We live in scary times. The war on intelligence and Science is far more concerning than terrorism. They if they don't get their way! will become terrorist. I didn't like Hillary... but the threat of open rebellion if Trump lost was and is disconcerting
@@bradwooldidge6979 it's worse than that: looking at sources like the FE wiki, it seems that they will attempt to use science to justify themselves (usually incorrectly) when it suits them but will deny and dismiss it when it clearly contradicts their worldview.
Hydrochloride Acid Yep. That’s because FE is a religion. They have all of the “answers”, so they have to mold all of their questions (beliefs) to fit! Exactly like every stupid religion on the globe!
just an FYI, Nasa being caught lying doesnt instantly = belief in flat earth models. However they sure have done a great job making anyone who asks logical questions that present themselves from their own contradicting information appear to be bat shit crazy.
Have you heard of Cherenkov radiation ? That's fun too, and you can see it here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-pLBcp3nJlFQ.html Not directly related - I just thought, if you found that interesting, you'd like that as well.
This was a well made video. factually concise and easily understood. Thank you! By the way the closing statement "Why go through it, when you can just go around it?" is a statement I often say when watching sci-fi movies involving the traversing of an unrealistic depiction of an asteroid belt. 😅
Very interesting! I worked a Radiation Tech in nuclear power plants, (US Navy as well as civilian/industrial), from 1977 to 1997. My total dose was less than 0.4 mRad. The majority of this dose was high energy nuclear from fission and fission decay. If we figured out how to limit dose to that degree, protecting & limiting dose from large fields of charged particles seems relatively simple.
you had a low dose because the radiation was shielded by several metres of steel reinforced concrete. If you mdont know that your a sandwich short of a picnic! No concrete sheilding on the apollo craft, in fact no shielding whatsoever because the LEM walls were the same thickness as a can of coke. If it was that safe they'd store radioactive isotopes in old coke cans!!
@@kelduck8851 MORON!! Alpha and Beta ARE charged particles. Gamma and x-ray are electromagnetic waves. Folma7 obviously doesn't understand the basics of nuclear physics and neither do you. The fission reaction in a nuclear reactor creates massive amounts of alpha, beta and gamma radiation. that' s why I said (And you obviously chose to ignore it to validate you pathetic argument) that the reactor core is SHIELDED by several metres of steel reinforced concrete which absorbs the radiation to reduce the amount of exposure. Even then there are strict time limits imposed in most areas to ensure the exposure to the radiation that does get through is kept within acceptable levels. FYI charged particles passing through a material like aluminium produce x-rays. Medical x rays use exposure times of less than a second so its fairly safe. you try going into an xray booth and staying there for 30 minutes and see how that fucks you up. That's what the apollo fakers would have had X 4. (2 belts on the way out and 2 on the way back. TOAST!!!
@@stevemurphy9205 Since you seem defeated by a basic question I will help you out, try high energy electrons and protons. So disregard having a reactor core as the body of the capsule, there is no need and a waste of weight. You can easily find out what stops these particles with a few minutes research.
@@kelduck8851 Your a NASA shill and a moron! Your pathertic attempts to debunk actual physics is laughable. Hope the NASA paycheck is worthwhile and enjoy your irrelevant life as an obese, lonely virgin. Go pull yourself off to some of the real apollo photos (Yes they bare real...just not taken on the moon). End of conversation, You have been exposed. SHILL!!
Mabey you should tell Kelly Smith of NASA,s Orion project this fact. He seems to think they need to punch right through the belt.Also feels that the first Orion mission should be un-manned so they can test the effectiveness of the shielding against the radiation. Phone him and say, " hey Kelly, no need to waste taxpayers money, we already did this in 1969, and no issues at all. Just use same design as they did"
They didn't use the miniaturized electronics of today in 1969. Just because of the small size, they are much more vulnerable to particle radiation, than the old stuff. So, they had to test it. And, they successfully did it in December of 2014, after that video was recorded.
@graham graham graham... this is an argument like "then why are there still monkeys?" It's been beaten down so many times that by trotting it out, you only expose your level of denial. It's like when a creationist brings up the moon dust argument for a young Earth. Even the most bat-shit crazy creationists at Answers in Genesis tell people not to use it because it's so thoroughly dumb.
@Becky Lawler Sure, that's right. Like, I made bicycles in the 1970s, but I can't do it today. I've lost the tools, the machines are broken, and I've forgotten how. But the *reason* we haven't gone back is, really, just money. Budgets. The public lost a lot of interest after the first landings (can you remember who was the last man on the Moon?) - and the Cold War ended, there was no more race, just not enough incentive and justification to spend so much on going back.
Thankyou for this explantion. It was prety much what I had already figured. I just wish some people would go back to school and learn a little physics before they start denying everything because they don't have the brain power to understand it.
This was a world-wide peer-reviewed event, none of it is theoretical. Proof that we can travel through the Van Allen belts is that we did. You want to know why, watch videos like this.
Just a quick question how many people think the Space Station is out of earth's orbit n in actual outer space. No it's in low earth orbit because they csnt make it in space. Why would the SPACE STATION B IN EARTH INSTEAD OF IN OUTER SPACE WHERE IT SHOULD B.
@@leogarcia1761 the purpose of the ISS is to conduct experiments in zero-G, vacuum, etc. Its orbit allows that. Moving it further only adds complication and addition fuel for crew/resupply missions. Why would you do that?
though the Van Allen belts are turning more into a problem as the technology evolve because the computers that run the spacecraft are getting more and more sensitive to radiation. but the Orion proved that we can shield the space craft enough to survive the Van Allen belts, now if its enough to be safe for a crew to stay health in a extremely long mission outside earth magnetic field is another story
the argument that computers are too sensitive doesn't add up. We send satellites and probes thru-out the solar system, and they have computers far more complicated and sensitive than Apollo. Many into high radiation areas, so that problem is solved.
Apollo wasn't more sensitive than your pocket calculator. it wasn't much of a problem compared to modern miniaturized computers. though most satellites can just turn off before passing though the belts to help protecting the components
+Graham Sanders Other probes normally shutdown their systems during a transit. Also Orion features far more delicate electrical systems like a glass cockpit. Also that you test a spacecraft that is intended for manned flights should be obvious.
Cgi/0g plane/mars is here on earth/staged moon landing/go pro needed to make the earth round/baloon satalites/a great swimming pool needed to film space walks/snorkels in space/no real pictures of the earth/we can't see the curve. wher not Hi enough but ships go over the curve/use a flat earth logo for ur company and more/teleport things to the iss screen live feed. need More?
@ DenCo 303 , but they don't even know what facts are. They are used to facts proven with theories. That's how they can make their world what ever they want. Make up the right theories and anything can be fact
Red Baron273 I only picked your reply to respond to, because you only have seven comments. But, as for flat earth knowers, all of the back and forth is painful to watch and hear. Both sides use whatever they can to prove the other wrong. I thought the flat earth was non-sense until I watched just one video on it. The very next video I watched was a desperate attempt to convince myself otherwise. As for the Apollo B.S. one question. How is it that every communication between the Apollo crew and mission control was immediate. Meaning no lag at all. ZERO time laps whatsoever. Hmmm 🤔 238,900 mi away and no lag at all? We can't watch satellite TV without lag, or watch a news anchor from across seas communicate with another anchor here in the states without a lag in the transmission, so why haven't we raised an eyebrow to this obvious blunder in the Apollo performance? I mean, they were on the moon. 238,900 mi away and no gap in transmission? They don’t even try to play it off. Yet, just 12,000 mi or so and major lag of about 6 seconds or so with any communication from across sea transmission. The moon is suppose to be nearly 20 times that distance. That would mean 2 minutes will have passed before mission control should hear what has been said is happening on the moon. How could any issue be corrected in time if this was the case? So, in other words, something as simple as ”T-minus 10 seconds til the moon module touch down on the moon’s surface would take 2 minutes to reach earth. If any corrections had to be transmitted back to Apollo, from mission control, it would be 4 minutes too late. 2 minutes for the original transmitted issue to get to earth, and another 2 minutes of waiting for the response. 😕 😒not buying it. The world is definitely something other than what we are lead to believe. What, that I don’t know, but it isn’t what we are told. And videos like this is a desperate attempt to cover it up. Most want take the time to question. And those that may, will be crucified for it. Smh I say believe what you wish. But then there comes a time when you must know...
@Nim Chimpsky The video you are actually commenting literally explains why you're wrong and fucking stupid. Did you even bother watching it, you utterly moronic cretin?
@Nim Chimpsky Even NASA claims we somehow lost the technology; and more than one person in speeches refer to "if we could figure out how to get through the Van Allan Radiation belt"; including Bush #2 ; this video doesn't make sense anyway; how do you " go around" a belt that circles the Earth; so you are correct !
@Nim Chimpsky They did not spent 2 days in the belts, but only a couple hours in a shielded capsule. That amount of radiation is found only in the parts of the belts closer to the magnetic equator that they avoided since the spacecraft was in an inclined orbit. If you want a proper calculation of the amount of radiation absorbed by the astronauts, done using an accurate model of the belts and the actual characteristics of the Apollo capsule, you can find it here: web.archive.org/web/20160301115931/www.braeunig.us:80/apollo/VABraddose.htm Van Allen himself confirmed that the effects of the passage through the belt as done by the Apollo capsule were negligible.
@@timklein3962 By going above them in a 3D space. The worst part of the belts is only 15 degrees above and below the magnetic equator and the radiation density decreases very fast as you move away from that region.
This way above my education but am able to follow. Very very cool to be exposed to this information. I could not form a question but i do learn things about space. People are so smart to figure this stuff out. Thanks for explaining this so well.
@Got Kowal Who says previous solutions were lost? There is different circuitry today (solid state microelectronics vs. rope memory), hence it needs different types of protection. Try putting a 1940s flathead V8 in a modern car and see how that works. Same thing that you're flippantly denying out of worship of ignorance.
I too find this video interesting and informative. I liked the video. Looking forward to see such informative videos. Gentleman, keep the journey, your fans are with you.
Jonathan ......ya fer ser. i find it interesting that the astronauts who were asked to swear on a bible that they actualy did walk on the moon were often angerd or violent and one even punched the guy.( except for mitchel i think did swear on a bible)
I don't blame them. I might react the same way when my quota of conspiracy nuts was exceeded. How does the bible prove anything? A dedicated nut will then just claim he committed a sin and lied or was an atheist.
There was never any controversy, except in the mind of crazy conspiracy theorists. There's radiation everywhere in the universe. It's normal. Like... bananas are radioactive. It might hurt if you ate a few million of them. The VAB is radioactive. It might hurt if you stayed in the most active parts for a few weeks. I have no idea why anyone would do that. The VAB protects Earth from solar radiation. If we want to live in space for months or years, we need to work out ways to avoid it. NASA are working on that... which is why, 5 years ago, they deliberately flew Orion through the most active part of the belts. Not because they were worried about the belts, but because it's a good way to test the shielding on a new spaceship. Somehow, conspiracy theorists see that as evidence that Apollo couldn't make a short trip... but Orion isn't planning short trips; it's planning to spend 6 months going to Mars. The Moon is just a stopping-off point.
@@Tim22222 On two fronts: it amplifies particle radiation and it's too heavy to lift en masse into space. Kind of fortunate, otherwise we'd have to mine an asteroid and then build our space shields on the ISS.
I predict that if you get a "mini me" to help you present your wonderful information your videos will go viral and you will end up with many millions of subscribers.
However if you present a technical subject like this in a calm and unhurried way with good quality graphics then you will be able to bebunk some fantasies at the drop if a hat as he has quite clearly achieved here An excellent example of presenting a technical subject
Okay, we got one vote to keep Uncle Fester. And we got one vote to replace him with Mini Me. Fester did clean up and got a new shirt for the ordeal. And I'm pretty sure I heard that Mini Me died a while back. And he did shit taking over the world. He couldn't even obtain a sum of ONE MILLION DOLLARS. Then why Fester? And who should be the judge of such a thing. Who would be trusted. How many licks to the center of tootsie roll pop? Everyone knows the answer to that one
These videos present valuable and scientifically accurate information for education purposes. What would make you think dumb stunts for laughs would be helpful in any way?
This video by curious droid is science, yes. Because it's factual and proven. That link you posted is used (abused) as "proof" that Apollo 'wasn't possible' at the time. And it has a misleading title. For that reason alone it's not science, and not factual, but instead, like 95% of the content on the open asylum called the internet, total utter and useless crap. Utterly depressing.
@@ann_onn yes they do. Why do you think Orion isnt flying up there. It's not just radiation. Its 20000k temperatures. That's 35000 f. The twin towers imploded at less than 2000f.
*@Randy Wagner* Hello. I'd like to assume you are not stupid, So... I assume you know that the boiling point of things depends on the pressure. Right? Water boils at about 100 C, 212 F... at sea level. Climb a mountain, and it boils at about 70 C. 160 F. So... what is the boiling point of water in a vacuum?
People questioning everything is a very good thing. But, when the evidence is overwhelming that we indeed went to the moon, which is the conclusion any rational and unbiased person would come to, you have to move on to the next thing.
@@Jan_Strzelecki Most would agree with you. However, it wouldn't just be the government lying, it would be every government in the world, every space agency, countless private companies who deal in everything from satellites to gps equipment, communications, map making, all militaries and the private companies that contract to them, airline pilots, and many others that I can't think of off the top of my head. And all these millions of people can keep this huge and elaborate secret? It's beyond impossible for that fact alone.
nah, the question everything mentality is pretty bad. I mean, you have people that won't believe the Earth is globular simply because they haven't witnessed it................
