Mr. Nice

Oh, that's from....don't tell me.....it will come to me.....conspiracy for beginners. Yep. that's it. All hidden, but where every one can see, but ONLY the really smart conspiracy theorists can work it out. I'll have to look harder - you guys are just amazing.

You're raring are you

I love the way you take your claim and conflate it with other conspiracy claims. Good effort. The wing is a wing not a forked tongue. The name is NASA not with a silly made up T, or a silly made up anagram. I believe that every single symbol ever has some conspiracy nerd , somewhere, someplace making some "connection". Any symbol on a dollar bill would have the same crowd making the same claims.

Off topic noise.

Nope. You see part of the problem is that you have no clue about the subject so you aren't qualified to offer an opinion on what is obvious. I just wrote a reasonably detailed reply to you and of course you have nothing in response. That is correct, I have no proof that there are dead astronauts on the Moon. Faceplant time. Nope. You have no evidence for any of your claims (well none that I can't tear to pieces) and once again you aren't qualified to pronounce, with your clear ignorance of any of this, that you know "the truth". And I can see that you have no evidence or knowledge of any of the subject matter. Off topic shit, none of your business. Sars2 is not non-existent. The appeal to incredulity, a pathetic attempt at poisoning the well and off topic bare assertion. NASA is not a government - it is predominantly a large bunch of scientists and engineers. Here we are on page 2 and nobody has offered any tangible reason to mistrust NASA - just noise.

The only deception I am seeing is from you doctoring a logo and providing to justification for it.

Time. T is for time. Duh. They flaunt it in the world's face do they? This fruitcake "satan" guff

Okay, well thank you for sharing your opinion. I too feel strangely comforted in the knowledge that I would not need to share any space mission with you. I dismiss nothing. You massively conflate it with no understanding. You are like every single conspiracy theorist. You think that YOU know things based on reports from the very people who you claim are lying! You clearly know zilch about this subject. Righto. Got any proof? So they got humans to the surface then

Nope. The NASA logo is a wonderful example of a timeless, traditional logo. While the sphere evidently signifies a planet, the stars in the meatball represent the space. The red chevron, on the other hand, forms the alternate shape of the constellation Andromeda. It is supposed to be a wing that exemplifies aeronautics. It's not a tongue and it makes TNASA or Santa That's also gobbleydegook. Go on, start. We already covered that in the Moon Hoax nonsense thread, so you might like to read that before posting crap about operation paperclip. So your distrust lies in nonsense about a snake tongue and employing experienced rocket engineers from Germany (most of whom were forced to work for the Nazis). Try again.

You are lying! That was in reference to an idiotic claim about UV radiation and nowhere did I coin the phrase about any buckets or hats. The astronauts wore a series of dosimeters and were exposed to small levels of radiation. This was indicative of the shielding rating of the vessel they were in. Another lie. I said they saw a charged particle. And as we can see from the Aurora, the magnetosphere will not stop every single charged particle or stop them from being deflected. Again this ignorance about buckets and hats. If they are in the craft they don't wear a helmet and if they are wearing a helmet they aren't in the craft. Instances where charged particles entered through either are not unusual. No system will stop every particle. Exposure to lethal or dangerous levels of radiation involve particles with very high flux and trillions and trillions of them for a significant period. Particles already entered through the hull will have largely been attenuated. Haha, gotta laugh it this. They see 1 flash of light in their eyeball from a single charged particle and suddenly they are dosed in radiation levels akin to Chernobyl! Dangerous in that one of us would have no understanding at all of a single thing occurring. That would be you btw. Are we done with the silly claim about pictures and video?

Waited all weekend to reply to this total crap. Here's the thing. Not one peace of that above is accurate, so it keeps making me wonder how much of this whole NASA are the antichrist is just down to ignorance and rubbish research. NONE of the original photographs are missing, lost, deleted or in any jeopardy at all. They are all kept safely stored in chilled storage facilities. Every one of them was copied numerous times and every one of them is online and freely available. None of the video tape used on the mission vanished. The telemetry and slow scan TV BACKUP tapes were overwritten from Apollo 11. All the telemetry was copied onto other media and all the TV was recorded as it was transmitted. These tapes were in short supply and nobody had the presence of mind to keep them, because it wasn't deemed important to keep backups when the data was already stored on other media.

Andy, that is someone else's quote parroted. Give me some instances where they haven't given a straight answer, because as an agency they pretty much provide every aspect of every mission. Ok. So within that paragraph I noticed your opinions which you are free to have of course. But I didn't notice any examples as to why you think this.

I asked specifically for evidence and you dump your bare assertion appeal to incredulity on this thread? I find it almost impossible to contemplate anyone being dumb enough to watch that and think is is fake. The film Gravity took months and months to assemble just short sequences and to map them together. It used actual space footage as a model. This stuff comes out every other day when they are busy and there was a 24/7 feed running that only somebody who knows zero about the process could claim it was CGI.

What "historical information" has been overwritten and how do you know? What old technology was lost that should have been kept and what does that have to do with trust? What incompetence do you mean?

You keep making these statements and fail every time to back them up. It says the solar wind is visible. Not what it is!

Failure to back up your claims noted. Though it may be a waste of time in that I've read quite a lot of it! Charged particles striking the retina. And?

Noise again, no citations just you huffing and puffing. https://news.uchicago.edu/explainer/what-is-solar-wind First proposed in the 1950s by University of Chicago physicist Eugene Parker, the solar wind is visible in the halo around the sun during an eclipse and sometimes when the particles hit the Earth's atmosphere—as the aurora borealis, or northern lights.

It's ignorance of the highest order. Now once again, quote me a source for your made up crap. UV light does not penetrate aluminium or triple layer helmets.

Noise. Prove your crap. NASA didn't name anything. Duh. https://news.uchicago.edu/explainer/what-is-solar-wind

Sigh. Details please, explain why you think it would penetrate aluminium(sniffles guffaw).

Details please and then explain why the CSM or LM would not attenuate the solar wind. Try not to cite studies about long term exposure in space!

Go fetch. Unlike you I already read it all and understand it. That is not tin are you really THAT clueless? Your noise continues, even though I gave you a good answer that you ignored. Here's a more detailed one: https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/5899/why-does-the-ascent-stage-of-apollo-11s-lunar-module-look-like-its-made-of-pap Like everything else, the ascent and descent stages were built to be as light as possible. But because they knew they would operate only in a vacuum, many things really didn't need to be sturdy, nor did the shape of it matter. It would never have to deal with aerodynamic drag. In fact, the descent stage was designed to buckle in the right places upon landing, that was how it absorbed the impact. It was only going to be used once, this was the most weight-efficient method of handling the shock of landing. Also, the complex insulation blankets covering the module had many layers, and contact points between the layers needed to be minimized so that heat wouldn't be passed through them by conduction. The black material is where thin Inconel sheets formed the outer layer of the insulation blanket, and they were painted matte black with Pyromark paint to improve their heat emission properties, so they would cool off quickly. (Black material both absorbs and emits heat better than material of other colors.) Beneath the black layer were reflective layers to prevent the heat of the black layer penetrating into the module. This treatment was done where the exhaust of the reaction control thrusters heated the lunar modules. It had a tendency to crinkle, and on this particular module, that may have been accentuated by the fact it was in fact installed at the last minute, as were the chutes under the thrusters. From the Lunar Module Coatings Page: Considering the vast ambition of going to the Moon for the first time, it isn't surprising some fixes were last-minute. The foil is Kapton MLI (multi-layer insulation) blankets, and it is actually pretty complex. In the places on the lunar modules that only needed to be a heat barrier to sunlight, high reflectivity was the most efffective approach, and those places are the shiny amber color of the Kapton. As there is no air in space to pass heat by convection, if you lower absorption of heat radiation by making surfaces that are highly reflective or emissive, and there are few contact points to pass heat by conduction, insulation can be highly effective. With the Kapton foil blankets, the contact points were reduced by hand-crinkling an inner layer of the blanket. From the Apollo News Reference: So, this is bound to make the outer layer rather uneven. All the other covering material you see is also just there to protect whatever is underneath from the effects of sunlight. Perhaps they were also thinking a bit about keeping dust out. That is all it has to do, and it was made merely sufficient for that job. Weight savings were more important than looks. The fancy stuff is underneath all those bare-bones panels. I found a different photo of the lander that gives a better sense of the complexity of it. The photo shows the Ascent Stage in the process of assembly, before the heat shielding had been put on it: This photo of an LM test article shows the sturdy underlying aluminum and titanium structure pretty clearly: And a quote from the book Chariots of Apollo available on the NASA website's History section: 'Scrape' and 'SWIP' were both programs Grumman, the company that fabricated the Lunar Module, instituted specifically to reduce the weight of the LM. I found both things on a great thread on the topic at CosmoQuest You can pore over the LM Apollo Operations Handbook for a great deal of technical information on the spacecraft, for more evidence.

So what does that tell you? We Earthlings are getting hit by it on a daily basis and for our entire lives. Those in the arctics, who have far less protection from the magnetosphere don't appear to be dropping dead. The atmosphere attenuates gamma to a certain extent but for the most part it hits us. This is where you explain why you think it would be so deadly over the course of two weeks in space compared to 70 years on Earth living in Alaska for example. Listen, just stop with the UV crap ok? It isn't dangerous with a helmet on. It isn't dangerous through the hull. That's bullshit. They were in an 8 gm^2 rated Command Module with a Service module running the entire length of their backs. This is where you quantify your appeal to incredulity and explain exactly what the levels they faced and how the machinery used didn't attenuate any of it. Otherwise you are just blowing air out of your bottom. Made up crap. I already explained that the craft took a wide elliptical orbit through weaker areas. Did you understand that? We don't need to imagine it. The doses were calculated based on dozens of unmanned probes. Conspiracy theorists like to think they know what they are talking about and conflate the danger through sheer ignorance.

Your attention to detail and attempt at responding to the question posed in the OP is a little, how do I put it.....vague.