Moon landings---a partial 'hoax'?

[BenDhyan]

https://www.military.com/nasa-lays-out- ... f-the-list
NASA Lays Out Moon Base Plans with Landers, Buggies and Drones at the Top of the List

NASA is already ordering landers, rovers and drones for a sprawling moon base, less than two months after the Artemis II's record-breaking lunar flyaround.

The space agency outlined the first phase of its moon base plans on Tuesday, awarding hundreds of millions of dollars in contracts to four U.S. companies.

Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin will provide a pair of landers to deliver moon buggies to the lunar surface, at a spot near the moon’s south pole. These so-called lunar terrain vehicles will be built by Astrolab and Lunar Outpost. Firefly Aerospace, which landed successfully on the moon last year, will deliver the first drones to the moon.

All this hardware is ideally supposed to arrive before the first Artemis astronauts land on the moon, planned for as early as 2028.

During April's Artemis II mission, four astronauts flew around the moon, traveling deeper into space than the Apollo moon crews did during the late 1960s and early 1970s. For next year's Artemis III, another team of astronauts will practice docking NASA's Orion capsule in orbit around Earth with the lunar landers being developed for crews by Blue Origin and Elon Musk's SpaceX.

NASA is targeting Artemis III for mid-2027, with a landing by two astronauts following as soon as 2028. The moon base's second phase, from 2029 into the early 2030s, will start building up the permanent infrastructure, including a power grid. As for when the base will be ready to support astronauts for extended periods in specialized permanent habitats, that's expected sometime in the 2030s, during the third phase.

“Then we'll be able to say, 'Hey, we're permanently here and we're not giving it up,'” said NASA's moon base program executive Carlos Garcia-Galan.

Garcia-Galan envisions a moon base sprawling over hundreds of square miles, with a perimeter marked by drones, dubbed MoonFall, stationed at the corners.

NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman said these territory markers are meant to be respectful of other countries' spacecraft and equipment that might be nearby. He expects reciprocity in the matter.

The goal of the moon base is to encourage a lunar economy while conducting scientific research and laying the foundation for a Mars expedition, Isaacman stressed.

“For those waiting patiently, the grand return is close at hand and we will not slow down,” Isaacman said. “We are really just getting started.”

[Belligerent Savant]

.
I maintain that we have never been to the moon as depicted in mainstream narratives. This includes any recent fanciful tales and/or claimed expositions by NASA, et al.

Anything beyond Low Earth Orbit is/has been fictionalized.

I can't speak to what may actually be occurring out there. I can only speculate. Though it remains that the vast majority of humans (essentially all those outside of a very tiny subset) can only rely on information provided to them by compromised and captured entities, Re: 'Space travel'.

Sleight of hand tricks, smoke & mirrors and various forms of deception abound.

[DrEvil]

So you have no fucking clue, you just know it ain't so? Compelling!

[Belligerent Savant]

.
You can interpret what I type however you deem fit.

I stand by all the historical content I presented in this forum, specific to this topic -- indeed, my skepticism of all narratives presented by NASA/SpaceX/govt space agencies has only expanded over the years. The masses have been deeply misled from the onset Re: 'Space travel'.

Feel free to use the search function for a refresher of my positions. Or not.

[DrEvil]

It's hard to know what your position is when you refuse to say (other than Van Allen = death, and space isn't what we think, or something). I've asked you several times what you think is really going - why are they lying about it - and you never have a good answer, only that it's not what it seems. It's pretty thin.

[BenDhyan]

Anything beyond Low Earth Orbit is/has been fictionalized.

Dear Belligerent Savant, please do yourself a favor and ask any AI to, using scientific authority other than NASA, comment on the lethality to human life of the Van Allen radiation belts.

This from Copilot Chat....

The Van Allen belts are dangerous, but they are not a “death zone.”

This isn’t based on NASA claims — it comes from independent space agencies and scientific organizations all over the world.

Here’s the simple truth:

The belts are not uniform. Some areas have intense radiation, others have much less.

Radiation becomes deadly only if you stay in the worst parts for a long time.

Spacecraft that pass through quickly — like Apollo — get small doses, similar to a medical scan.

Independent agencies like ESA (Europe), JAXA (Japan), Roscosmos (Russia), NOAA (USA but not NASA), and even commercial satellite companies all measure the same thing:

The belts are hazardous but survivable with planning and shielding.

If the belts were uniformly lethal, then:

ESA satellites would die instantly

Japanese satellites would die instantly

Russian satellites would die instantly

Commercial satellites would die instantly

But they don’t. They operate for years.

This is why scientists worldwide agree:

The belts are dangerous, but not instantly deadly, and not uniformly lethal.

“If NASA were lying, ESA, JAXA, CERN, Roscosmos, NOAA, and every commercial satellite manufacturer on Earth would also have to be lying — because they all independently measure the same radiation environment.”

[Elihu]

It's hard to know what your position is

that's pretty funny

do yourself a favor and ask any AI

that's pretty funny too

[BenDhyan]

Nice video for trying to debunk a claim that I have never made.

Now, where are the scientific papers comparing the radiation shielding strategies and measurements used in the Artemis I mission to the radiation shielding strategies and measurements used in the Apollo missions?

they're nowhere cuz there ain't any

Since you were unaware of any, I put the question to AI Copilot and here is the reply. If you need other data, just ask AI Copilot.
Can you provide links to the scientific papers comparing the radiation shielding strategies and measurements used in the Artemis I mission to the radiation shielding strategies and measurements used in the Apollo missions?

The short answer:
There is no single paper that directly compares Apollo and Artemis I radiation‑shielding strategies side‑by‑side, but you can assemble a full comparison using primary scientific sources. The key is to combine:

Apollo-era radiation measurement papers (limited but essential)

Artemis I radiation measurement papers (modern, high‑resolution, peer‑reviewed)

NASA engineering documentation on shielding design for both programs

Below is a curated list of direct links to the scientific papers you asked for, plus guidance on how to use them to build a rigorous comparison.

Primary Scientific Papers — Artemis I Radiation Measurements
These papers contain the actual shielding performance data and dose measurements inside Orion during Artemis I.

1. Nature (2024): Space radiation measurements during the Artemis I lunar mission
This is the definitive scientific paper with full dose‑rate maps, shielding‑location comparisons, and Van Allen belt transit data.
Link: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07927-7

2. OSTI.GOV version of the same Nature paper
Useful if you want author affiliations, metadata, or alternate access.
Link: https://www.osti.gov/pages/biblio/2447574 (osti.gov in Bing)

3. OA.mg Open‑Access PDF mirror
Direct PDF access to the same Nature paper.
Link: https://oa.mg/work/10.1038/s41586-024-07927-7 (oa.mg in Bing)

4. NASA summary of the Artemis I radiation findings
Not a scientific paper, but an authoritative engineering summary of shielding strategy and sensor payloads.
Link: https://www.nasa.gov/humans-in-space/ar ... stronauts/ (nasa.gov in Bing)

Primary Scientific Papers — Apollo Radiation Measurements
Apollo-era radiation data is sparse but essential. These papers are cited inside the Artemis I Nature paper.

Apollo radiation measurement papers referenced in Artemis I
The Nature paper cites Apollo radiation data as references 11–13. These include:

Apollo 7–17 dosimetry reports

NASA Technical Note D‑7080: Apollo Experience Report – Protection Against Radiation

NASA MSC internal dosimetry summaries

These are not modern journal articles, but primary engineering documents containing the actual dosimeter readings from Apollo missions.

You can access them through NASA’s technical archive:

NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS):
https://ntrs.nasa.gov
(Search: Apollo radiation dosimetry, TN D‑7080, Apollo Experience Report Radiation)

How to Compare Apollo vs Artemis I Shielding Scientifically
Because no single paper performs the comparison directly, here is the method used by space‑radiation researchers:

1. Extract Apollo dose measurements
Apollo missions typically recorded 0.18–1.14 rad total mission dose (depending on mission duration and solar activity).
These values come from Apollo dosimeter reports (TN D‑7080 and related documents).

2. Extract Artemis I dose measurements
The Nature paper provides:

Dose‑rate maps inside Orion

Shielding‑location comparisons (up to 4× variation)

Orientation‑dependent dose reduction (~50%)

Cosmic‑ray dose equivalent rates 60% lower than previous interplanetary probes due to Orion’s heavy shielding

3. Compare shielding strategies
Program Shielding Strategy Measurement Method Key Findings
Apollo Minimal aluminum hull; no dedicated storm shelter Film badges + passive dosimeters Short transit through belts kept dose low; total mission dose < 1.2 rad
Artemis I (Orion) Multi‑layer composite shielding; localized heavy shielding; AstroRad vest testing 5600 passive sensors + 34 active detectors + manikin torsos Up to 4× shielding variation inside cabin; orientation reduces dose by ~50%; cosmic‑ray dose significantly reduced


Direct Links You Can Use for Your Comparison
Here are the exact links you asked for, consolidated:

Artemis I Nature paper (primary scientific source)
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07927-7

OSTI scientific archive version
https://www.osti.gov/pages/biblio/2447574 (osti.gov in Bing)

OA.mg PDF mirror
https://oa.mg/work/10.1038/s41586-024-07927-7 (oa.mg in Bing)

NASA engineering summary of Artemis I radiation measurements
https://www.nasa.gov/humans-in-space/ar ... stronauts/ (nasa.gov in Bing)

Apollo radiation reports (search portal)
https://ntrs.nasa.gov
(Search: Apollo radiation dosimetry, TN D‑7080)

If you want, I can produce a full side‑by‑side scientific comparison
Would you like me to generate a:

Detailed Apollo vs Artemis radiation comparison

Plain‑language summary for skeptics

Technical briefing document

Just choose one.

[Elihu]

you can assemble a full comparison using primary scientific sources

skepticism of all narratives presented by NASA/SpaceX/govt space agencies

two ships, passing in the night

[Elihu]

skepticism of all narratives presented by NASA/SpaceX/govt space agencies

and entertainment and education and ...

[Belligerent Savant]

^^^^^

Yes, indeed.

Mass media/Entertainment/pop culture (movies/sci fi) and public school education have helped program passive consumers for generations. Part of the reason Boomers (and more recent generations as well) have great difficulty merely considering the prospect of deception, Re: "space travel" and/or the nature of "outer space".

Star Trek, Star Wars, War of the Worlds (et al. -- including the more recent NASA-promoting features) have greatly influenced sentiment/concepts of shared reality.

This applies to other topics/issues outside of the Space Programs as well, of course (particularly with regards to pop culture representations of our history, "climate change", politically-motivated events, etc.)

[BenDhyan]

and entertainment and education and ...

...and understanding not understanding, Elihai.

[BenDhyan]

^^^^^

Yes, indeed.

Mass media/Entertainment/pop culture (movies/sci fi) and public school education have helped program passive consumers for generations. Part of the reason Boomers (and more recent generations as well) have great difficulty merely considering the prospect of deception, Re: "space travel" and/or the nature of "outer space".

Star Trek, Star Wars, War of the Worlds (et al. -- including the more recent NASA-promoting features) have greatly influenced sentiment/concepts of shared reality.

This applies to other topics/issues outside of the Space Programs as well, of course (particularly with regards to pop culture representations of our history, "climate change", politically-motivated events, etc.)

And let's not forget education/science wrt the origins of existence itself, big bang universe from nothing, existence arising from non-existence...