JohnnyCrash said:

Sorry but....

1. The astronauts could not have survived the trip because of exposure to radiation from the Van Allen radiation belt and galactic ambient radiation (see radiation poisoning and health threat from cosmic rays). Some conspiracists have suggested that Starfish Prime (high altitude nuclear testing in 1962) was a failed attempt to disrupt the Van Allen belts.

The spacecraft moved through the belts in about four hours, and the astronauts were shielded from the ionizing radiation by the aluminium hulls of the spacecraft. Furthermore, the orbital transfer trajectory from Earth to the Moon through the belts was chosen to lessen radiation exposure. Even Dr. James Van Allen, the discoverer of the Van Allen radiation belts, rebutted the claims that radiation levels were too harmful for the Apollo missions.[77] Plait cited an average dose of less than 1 rem (10 mSv), which is equivalent to the ambient radiation received by living at sea level for three years.[78] The spacecraft passed through the intense inner belt and the low-energy outer belt. The total radiation received on the trip was about the same as allowed for workers in the nuclear energy field for a year.[79]
The radiation is actually evidence that the astronauts went to the Moon. Irene Schneider reports that 33 of the 36 Apollo astronauts involved in the nine Apollo missions to leave Earth orbit have developed early stage cataracts that have been shown to be caused by radiation exposure to cosmic rays.[80] At least 39 former astronauts have developed cataracts; 36 of those were involved in high-radiation missions such as the Apollo missions.[81]

Click to expand...

JohnnyCrash said:

2. Film in the cameras would have been fogged by this radiation.

Click to expand...

JohnnyCrash said:

3. The Moon's surface during the daytime is so hot that camera film would have melted.

Click to expand...

JohnnyCrash said:

4. The Apollo 16 crew could not have survived a big solar flare firing out when they were on their way to the Moon. They would have been fried.

Click to expand...

Bromsgrove Defender said:

Hmm aluminium for reflecting radiation....?? OK lets assume it does. Why didn't the Russians go?



Did I say anything about that?
?

Click to expand...

did we / didn't we go to the moon is never ever going to be answered as me or you ain't going anytime soon!!! plus would I want to?? nar no atmosphere

Bromsgrove Defender said:

Hmm aluminium for reflecting radiation....?? OK lets assume it does. Why didn't the Russians go?

Click to expand...

JohnnyCrash said:

No sorry - it was a cut n paste from another website

did we / didn't we go to the moon is never ever going to be answered as me or you ain't going anytime soon!!! plus would I want to?? nar no atmosphere

Click to expand...

MING!!

timtheenchanteruk said:

lol, good reading there, for what was a relatively simple question!!!
now then ,bio rocket fuel.
liquid oxygen and kerosene is used, so dont see why not, aint there an airline running bio fuelled jets about these days?

Click to expand...

timtheenchanteruk said:

lol, good reading there, for what was a relatively simple question!!!
now then ,bio rocket fuel.
liquid oxygen and kerosene is used, so dont see why not, aint there an airline running bio fuelled jets about these days?

Click to expand...

chunkymunky said:

Ain't many diesel rockets though :0

Click to expand...

Bromsgrove Defender said:

I wonder why?

Click to expand...

JohnnyCrash said:

Because diesel stinks?

becuase Diesel is now more expensive than Petrol?

Click to expand...

Steviecops said:

No solids in there, so looks good so far. Car started no worse than it does on regular diesel in the cold. Just stuttered for a second after firing, then was fine. The car actually seems to pull better on bio.

Click to expand...

Steviecops said:

I started running my 300 tdi on bio yesterday. I was a bit concerned about the cold weather so I added cold flow 350. It might be an expensive option, I don't know. It adds less than 5p a litre on the cost of making your bio and I'm a beginner, so happy to pay that if it works. I kept a jar of pee outside near the car last night. - 6 here this morning and this is how it looked in the jar.

View attachment 38957

View attachment 38958

No solids in there, so looks good so far. Car started no worse than it does on regular diesel in the cold. Just stuttered for a second after firing, then was fine. The car actually seems to pull better on bio.

Click to expand...

Bromsgrove Defender said:

Edited cos It amused me

Click to expand...

Turboman said:

When I used to do forestry work up North and in Scotland we always added anti-wax or a gallon of petrol to every tankful.Stops waxing and makes starting easier.Cleans injectors too! I woud think it is a good idea to do similar wit bio or dino fuel if you tthink it will get very far below freezing, although I am not sure if modern engines like petrol?

Click to expand...

JohnnyCrash said:

you need to drink more!!

Click to expand...

Bromsgrove Defender said:

I'll drink to that :tea:

Click to expand...