NASA engineer admits they can't get past the Van Allen Belts
About | Information | History | Online | Facts | Discovery
This video released by NASA about the upcoming Orion space exploration craft, shows a NASA Engineer admitting that they still haven't worked out how to properly shield the spacecraft from the radiation emitted from the Van Allen belts.
Comments
-
I went to the movies in April 1968 with my dad to watch Stanley Kubrick's 2001 Space Odyssey film, lost my dog the same night so I will never forget. Our US government was under great pressure to beat the USSR to the moon. Then President Nixon gave the okay to get New York born Kubrick in England to direct the moon landing. Lets say Kubrick was politely forced to do the job. On July 20th 1969 over 500 million people watched the actors in space suits walk on the moon, amazing. This is only one of many ego, money, power grab lies. Oh my. http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/nixon-watches-first-lunar-landing
-
So, launch started at 1:11. At 1:27 the Rocket is going past the moon. So "16" seconds later the rocket is in space? 100% proof the moon is not 252,000/237,000 miles away..the moon is just a few thousand miles away. Truth in plain sight. The moon is not in space..flat earth. The moon and the sun are extremely close to us.
-
the person who found about the van allen belts said himself that if humans started going into space the belts wont a be a threat at all.
-
Why they wants to go to moon 🌑 more time go a nether place
-
Santa and the easter bunny broke my heart. Then 911 made me sick to my stomach when I was wisely informed that it couldn't have possibly happened the way it did. It would have been one quadrillion times easier to fake the moon landing back in 69 than to make it happen. If you don't like that fact folks then go watch the Cosby show alright? Stop calling us nut jobs because things aren't always as they seem....
-
ha ha NASA is really clever that idiot do accept as the title say believe it or not it is up to u this is video is edited around 3:05 to 3:22 [scenes are deleted]. when van Allen topic starts in the previous video he explains a lot more than this about this ..its height from earth and lot more .. and that is about 10 or 13 days earlier
-
I noticed people are trying to give NASA the excuse of the new equipment going through the Van Alan belts , but he said people going through the belts safely. These new NASA people forgot about the lies of the older generation.
-
if it's true that we haven't gone to the moon, instead of talking about how NASA lied to us, I think we should try solving the problem of getting past the Allen belt. :/
-
where do all of nasa rockets go to ? THE INDIAN OCEAN @ 2:08 AND AFTER THAT IT'S FAKE DATA FOR YOU SHEEPLES
-
the radiation belt also known as the Van Allen belt is actually the molten glass dome of the firmament
-
FUCK YOU KELLY
-
There is no plausible explanation for the first "loss of signal" more likely it is a transfer to a private non foia'able server
-
sry am i the only one who wonders how their rockets are gonna work out in the vacume of space?> things dont burn in a vacume,, so how are they propelling themselves forwards? no by fucking rockets like on earth,,no sir
-
Distorting scientific information like this is very unethical. From Fox "News", I take it? The engineer says that they need to evaluate the needs for adequate shielding at the Van Allen belts -- and you turn it into "admits they can't get past"!
What lousy, self-interested reporting. -
Acceleration from 3000 mile REENTRY is fixed at 20000 miles/hour.
So, what was the acceleration from the moon which is 238,900 miles from earth? it must have been about, oh let me guess, some exponents in there, per meter per meter....about million miles per hour. How you going to slow down? Sling shot out around mars? Some clever non-jet acrobatics? Moon landing was fake. Earth is four times bigger than the moon. So, they would need four times more rocket fuel to get back than to get to the moon. So, getting to the moon was not the problem. Getting back was the impossible. -
This thread is a great example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
-
REENTRY: "This must be the most dangerous part of the flight" - But fifty years ago, before even the pocket-calculator existed, it was a piece of cake for all the Apollo guys coming back huh?
-
"four times as hot as molten lava" - What material would guard them from burning up?
-
1) They do have the test results from the Apollo missions, and the earlier missions right back to Explorer One that show the depth and intensity of the VARB. So does every other nation as the results would all have been published. That doesn't mean you can't learn something from seeing how a brand new space craft is affected.
2) Who says they aren't using the same shielding? Or even better shielding based off what they learned from Apollo.
3) I see. 'We must solve these challenges' = we haven't solved them for any spacecraft = Apollo is fake. Oh dear, your whole thesis rests on quote mining this one sentence out of context.
They're talking about solving the challenges for this brand new spacecraft. Modern computer technology is far more susceptible to radiation, but capable of far more. Creating versions that are hardened enough to last for months or years in space is a challenge. Also by saying the challenges can be solved, they're saying it is possible to pass through the radiation belts. So Apollo could have done it.
Now I'll quote from the video 'This may be the most dangerous part of the flight', referring to the reentry. Not passing through the radiation belts, re-entry. If the radiation belts were the show stopper, wouldn't you think that would be called the most dangerous part of the flight?
7m 2sLenght
6053Rating