NationStates Jolt Archive

Now, I know what you're saying, and I'm prepared to prove to you that all Earth/Space travel is impossible, at least into deeper space (a.k.a., the moon and beyond).

The Van Allen Radiation Belts, a rarely-known phenomenon that exists about 500 miles above the Earth, are bands of thousand-mile-thick intense radation that surround our planet. Anyone passing through these in a spacecraft would be subjected to the effects of extreme radiation poisoning and burns, which would be fatal about 95% of the time, and would cause intense sickness in those who survived, which would probably kill them off, too. Even NASA's website admits that these belts are deadly to astronauts.

Not that it matters for our purpose here, but there are actually TWO radiation belts, an inner intense belt around the equator, and a larger belt that covers all but the poles. Technically, that means that any shuttle launching off of the north or south pole is free, but to my knowledge no one has any spaceports set up there.

The belts are charged by residual energy from solar flares and other assorted radiation in space. If Sol flares up, the radiation level can double, or even triple.

Time for some real-life facts:
- Every manned mission to space in HISTORY has been below the radiation belts, with the exception of going to the moon. This is why many people call the moon missions a hoax.
- The radiation belts degrade satellite components, particularly semiconductor and optical devices, and also cause errors in digital circuits. This means that not even machines are safe from the belts.
- In order for a human to safely pass through the belts, he or she would have to be encased within six feet of solid lead, which is kind of hard to get off the ground.

And the links!
http://www.oulu.fi/~spaceweb/textbook/radbelts.html
www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/wradbelt.html
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/sci/A0850404.html

Now, discuss.

OOC: Yes but this is NS, alot of BS is accepted here =P

But... Star Wars did it... That must mean it's possible...

But... Star Wars did it... That must mean it's possible...
Naw, Star Wars was never on Earth. ;)

OOC: Yes but this is NS, alot of BS is accepted here =P
True. But elves are one thing, and massive killer radiation belts are another.

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970630a.html
http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Van%20Allen%20belts.htm

True. But elves are one thing, and massive killer radiation belts are another.

Not if they were wearing uber radiation suits :p

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970630a.html
http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Van%20Allen%20belts.htm
The first one just states that radiation is bad, and that NASA developed a miracle sheild that stops it. There is no technical data on anything but the belt.

I would talk about the second one, but ProtoWall (an anti-hacking program on my computer) says that it is unsafe, and blocks a packet of data the site needs from me to function. In other words, I can't see the site.

Not if they were wearing uber radiation suits :p
Uber radiation suits filled with 6-feet-thick of lead? Ouch...

Now, I know what you're saying, and I'm prepared to prove to you that all Earth/Space travel is impossible, at least into deeper space (a.k.a., the moon and beyond).


but we have sent men to the moon and one object that we has launched has left are solar system.

Heh heh heh. Sure shut his ass up. Thanks, Weyr.

Uber radiation suits filled with 6-feet-thick of lead? Ouch...

Nah, there's no weight in space (>")>

but we have sent men to the moon and one object that we has launched has left are solar system.
No, we haven't sent men to the moon. That was a hoax, and NASA did a hack job of making it look real. Doctored photos, radiation belts, no blast craters, faulty suits, solar flares...
There was so much wrong with the Apolo missions, that I'm surprised that anyone still believes in them.

Oh, and as for Voyager? It went out of the Solar System, but it isn't manned now, is it?

1Van Allen Radiation

Taken from http://www.clavius.org/envrad.html An excellent debunking site well worth a visit.



"The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense." -- Dr. James Van Allen



There is too much radiation in outer space for manned space travel.

This general charge is usually made by people who don't understand very much at all about radiation. After witnessing the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the tragedy of Chernobyl it is not surprising that the idea of radiation should elicit an intuitively fearful reaction. But when you understand the different types of radiation and what can be done about them, it becomes a manageable problem to avoid radiation exposure.



It doesn't matter how difficult or expensive it might have been to falsify the lunar landings. Since it was absolutely impossible to solve the radiation problem, the landings had to have been faked.

This is a common method of argument that attempts to prove something that can't be proven, by disproving something else. In this case the reader is compelled to accept the conspiracy theory and all its attendant problems and improbabilities, simply on the basis that no matter how difficult, absurd, or far-fetched a particular proposition may be, if it's the only alternative to something clearly impossible then it must -- somehow -- have come to pass. This false dilemma is aimed at pushing the reader past healthy skepticism and into a frame of mind where the absurd seems plausible.

The false dilemma is only convincing if the supposedly impossible alternative is made to seem truly impossible. And so conspiracists argue very strenuously that the radiation from various sources spelled absolute doom for the Apollo missions. They quote frightening statistics and cite various highly technical sources to try to establish to the reader that the radiation poses a deadly threat.

But in fact most conspiracists know only slightly more about radiation than the average reader. This means only a very few people in the world can dispute their allegations, and the conspiracists can simply dismiss them as part of the conspiracy.



The Van Allen belts are full of deadly radiation, and anyone passing through them would be fried.

Needless to say this is a very simplistic statement. Yes, there is deadly radiation in the Van Allen belts, but the nature of that radiation was known to the Apollo engineers and they were able to make suitable preparations. The principle danger of the Van Allen belts is high-energy protons, which are not that difficult to shield against. And the Apollo navigators plotted a course through the thinnest parts of the belts and arranged for the spacecraft to pass through them quickly, limiting the exposure.

The Van Allen belts span only about forty degrees of earth's latitude -- twenty degrees above and below the magnetic equator. The diagrams of Apollo's translunar trajectory printed in various press releases are not entirely accurate. They tend to show only a two-dimensional version of the actual trajectory. The actual trajectory was three-dimensional. The highly technical reports of Apollo, accessible to but not generally understood by the public, give the three-dimensional details of the translunar trajectory.

Each mission flew a slightly different trajectory in order to access its landing site, but the orbital inclination of the translunar coast trajectory was always in the neighborhood of 30°. Stated another way, the geometric plane containing the translunar trajectory was inclined to the earth's equator by about 30°. A spacecraft following that trajectory would bypass all but the edges of the Van Allen belts.

This is not to dispute that passage through the Van Allen belts would be dangerous. But NASA conducted a series of experiments designed to investigate the nature of the Van Allen belts, culminating in the repeated traversal of the Southern Atlantic Magnetic Anomaly (an intense, low-hanging patch of Van Allen belt) by the Gemini 10 astronauts.



NASA defenders make a big deal about the Southern Atlantic Magnetic Anomaly, but the Apollo spacecraft ventured into the more intense parts of the belts.

True, but the point was to validate the scientific models using hard data, and to ascertain that a spacecraft hull would indeed attenuate the radiation as predicted.



We know the space shuttle passes through the Southern Atlantic Magnetic Anomaly (SAMA), but since the shuttle astronauts have time in each orbit to recover, the effects are not felt as strongly. The Apollo astronauts spent around four hours at a single stretch in the Van Allen belts. [Mary Bennett]

This is exactly the opposite of the recovery principle. If the shuttle astronauts spend 30 minutes of each 90-minute orbit passing through the SAMA, that sums to an exposure of 8 hours per day. The human body does not recover from radiation in a matter of minutes but rather hours and days. The damaged tissue must be regenerated. If radiation exposure is more or less continuous over several days, such as in the shuttle scenario, the tissue never has time to regenerate before being damaged by continuing radiation.

A short, intense exposure is safer than continuous or periodic exposure at lower intensity. Even though the outlying parts of the Van Allen belts contain more intense radiation than the SAMA, a four-hour passage followed by days of relatively little exposure offers a better recovery scenario than days of accumulated low-level exposure.

The four-hour figure is reasonable, but somewhat arbitrary. Since the Van Allen belts vary in flux and energy, it's not as if there's a clearly demarcated boundary. It's a bit like walking over a hill. If the slope gently increases from flat and level to 30° or so, where do you say the hill starts?



It would require six feet (two meters) of lead in order to shield from the Van Allen belts. The Apollo spacecraft had nowhere near this amount of shielding and so could not have provided the astronauts adequate protection.

The "six feet of lead" statistic appears in many conspiracist charges, but no one has yet owned up to being the definitive source of that figure. In fact, six feet (2 m) of lead would probably shield against a very large atomic explosion, far in excess of the normal radiation encountered in space or in the Van Allen belts.

While such drastic measures are needed to shield against intense, high-frequency electromagnetic radiation, that is not the nature of the radiation in the Van Allen belts. In fact, because the Van Allen belts are composed of high-energy protons and high-energy electrons, metal shielding is actually counterproductive because of the Bremsstrahlung that would be induced.

Metals can be used to shield against particle radiation, but they are not the ideal substance. Polyethylene is the choice of particle shielding today, and various substances were available to the Apollo engineers to absorb Van Allen radiation. The fibrous insulation between the inner and outer hulls of the command module was likely the most effective form of radiation shielding. When metals must be used in spacecraft (e.g., for structural strength) then a lighter metal such as aluminum is better than heavier metals such as steel or lead. The lower the atomic number, the less Bremsstrahlung.

The notion that only vast amounts of a very heavy metal could shield against Van Allen belt radiation is a good indicator of how poorly though out the conspiracist radiation case is. What the conspiracists say is the only way of shielding against the Van Allen belt radiation turns out to be the worst way to attempt to do it!



Official NASA documents describing the pre-Apollo studies of the Van Allen belts clearly state that shielding was recommended for the Apollo spacecraft, yet no shielding was provided. [David Percy]

"Shielding" does not always mean thick slabs of dense material. Commensurate with the common perception of radiation as an inescapably deadly force is the notion of radiation shielding as universally heavy and dense. Percy and others seem to rely on the notion that radiation shielding, if present, would have been very conspicuous -- or prohibitively bulky.

As discussed in the previous question, shielding against particles is not the same as shielding against rays. To say that the Apollo spacecraft did not provide adequate shielding is to ignore both the construction of the Apollo command module and the principles of radiation shielding.

And it must be kept in mind that shielding was only one element of a multi-pronged solution for safely traversing the Van Allen belts. It was never intended that the shielding in the command module would provide the only protection for the astronauts. The shielding was adequate to protect the astronauts against the circumstances of the trajectory and exposure duration worked out by the mission planners.



NASA apologists come up with different numbers for estimates of the exposure in the Van Allen belts. This suggests they really don't know what they're talking about. [David Percy]

All the estimates we've seen lie within the same order of magnitude and generally outline a plausible method of computation. This stands in contrast to the conspiracist estimates which generally have no quantitative support.

Computing the precise exposure for Apollo astronauts is very difficult. That's why the astronauts wore dosimeters to measure the actual exposure. The factors involved in computing expected exposure analytically include:



Exact trajectory. The Van Allen belts are not uniformly shaped. They have thick and thin spots. And the level of radiation is not constant at all points. Toward the center of the belt cross sections there is more radiation than at the edges. Most Apollo enthusiasts do not know the exact trajectory or how it relates to the location of the Van Allen belts. But they know that they don't know this, and so they frequently do their computations assuming the astronauts passed through the densest parts, and therefore err on the side of overestimating the exposure.

Exact velocity. Exposure time is very important to a correct computation of radiation dosage. Because the velocity of the spacecraft is constantly changing, the same ambiguity which governs the geometry of the trajectory also governs the rate at which it is followed. And most enthusiasts (and all conspiracists) lack the information and skill to precisely determine the velocity of the spacecraft during the Van Allen belt traversal, and therefore the exposure time.

Exact energy and flux. In any given cubic meter of the Van Allen belts there will be a soup of particles at various energy levels and fluences. Energy describes the velocity of the particle, how far it will penetrate, and how much damage it will do if it hits something. Flux is the density of particles, how many of them pass through a given area in a second. Generally, the higher the energy the lower the flux. Low-energy particles (i.e., protons 30 MeV and below) can be ignored because they do not penetrate the spacecraft outer hull. But at each point along the trajectory through the Van Allen belts there is a different continuum of flux and energy. It requires a lot of mathematics to fully solve this system. And since some of the variables are hard to determine, they're typically approximated.

Probabilistic factors. Even should a high-energy particle penetrate the spacecraft hull to the interior, it will only cause problems in the human organism if it is absorbed in tissue. It is possible for the particles to pass through the body without colliding, in which case they are harmless. The human body varies in density. Particles are more likely to collide with dense tissue like bone. The amount of absorbed radiation is a statistical probability based on how much radiation is detected by dosimeters.

To summarize then, a fully accurate analytical solution must first determine the exact trajectory of the spacecraft through the Van Allen belts. This will give a continuous function describing particle flux and energy at each point along the trajectory.

At each point in the trajectory we will have a function giving flux per given energy level. So a 100 MeV proton will have, say, a flux of 20,000 particles per square centimeter per second at that point in space. But for other energy levels the flux will be different at the same point. The total irradiation inside a spacecraft will be the sum of all the fluences at energies capable of penetrating the hull and shielding.

And at each point along the trajectory the velocity of the spacecraft must be determined so it can be known how much time the spacecraft spends at that point. This is mutliplied by the conglomeration of fluences to arrive at a dose.

This dose is simply the amount of radiation present. It must be converted to a meaningful value that describes its likely effect on human tissue. Again, energy and fluence come into play, because low-energy particles (but still high enough to penetrate the shield) are likely to accumulated in the outer layers of the skin and cause damage which is sloughed off harmlessly. High-energy particles are absorbed in the bones and internal organs, causing much greater injury.

The procedure for analytically computing a radiation dose is simple enough in principle as outlined above, but of course is very difficult to actually carry out. This is why engineers generally don't try to compute the dosage to any great degree of accuracy ahead of time. They are happy simply to arrive at an order of magnitude which provides adequate design criteria. The actual radiation exposure is always measured, not computed.



So then was it measured on Apollo?

Yes. Each astronaut wore a personal dosimeter. The accumulated dose for each astronaut was regularly reported to Mission Control over the radio.



New evidence has shown that the Van Allen belts are indeed stronger and more dangerous than NASA says. [Bart Sibrel]

Sibrel misinterprets the source article published by CNN. It was reported only that the Van Allen belts were slightly larger in places and slightly denser than previously understood. This is not a new reality, merely a refinement of existing figures. We are still studying the Van Allen belts and must occasionally revise our numerical models. The new findings have implications for the astronauts in the Alpha space station. Since these astronauts will be exposed to the fringes of the Van Allen belts for an extended period, it is prudent now to provide a bit of extra polyethylene shielding to the sleeping quarters. For transitory exposure such as in Apollo missions, the new findings add only a negligible hazard.

Sibrel and others argue that NASA has under-reported the intensity of the Van Allen belts for many years as part of a cover-up. They argue that the real magnitude of the radiation is now being made known, and that it's strong enough to have precluded a successful Apollo mission.

Unfortunately that's a very naive argument. The United States has never been the only spacefaring nation, nor the only nation ever to study the Van Allen belts. Canada provide valuable data to the Apollo project, and the USSR duplicated all the U.S. research, and may even have conducted more. For thirty years the same body of engineering data used to produce the Apollo spacecraft has been used by all nations in designing communication satellites, probes, and other devices intended to operate in and beyond the Van Allen belts. If this data had seriously under-reported the actual radiation present, the spacecraft engineered to those standards would all have failed prematurely due to radiation damage.

This is a very important point since it involves the financial interests (to the tune of billions of dollars!) of countries with no special desire to protect the reputation of the United States. Had this data been seriously wrong, someone surely would have complained by now. Satellites are insured against premature loss, and the insurers want to make sure the spacecraft are engineered to the best possible standards. There is immense worldwide economic incentive to having the best available data on the Van Allen belts, so it's highly improbable the the U.S. has been intentionally providing erroneous data to the entire world for thirty years.



A secret study done by the Soviet Union and obtained by the CIA determined that a meter of lead would be required to shield against deep space radiation.

Many conspiracists allude to this alleged report, but none of them can attest to actually having seen it. Since they can argue the alleged report is closely held by the CIA and therefore still top secret, the conspiracists are protected from refutation. No one can prove the non-existence of any document, much less one that is allegedly classified by an intelligence agency. Unfortunately it's more straightforward to note that the conspiracists cannot expect the world to accept an argument based on evidence which they cannot produce. If it's so top secret, how do they know about it?

It's fairly easy to show that such a document likely does not exist. We know that great thicknesses of lead are not required to shield against particle radiation. We know that Soviet science and engineering were excellent. We note with no small amusement and no small suspicion that the conclusion of the alleged report contradicts the commonly accepted principles of physics, and that it instead bears a striking resemblance to the naive assertions of inexpert conspiracy theorists who claim that only thick sheets of lead are suitable for radiation shielding. The alleged report is plausible to the lay reader but utterly unconvincing to the scientist.

The Soviet lunar spacecraft design demonstrates they did not believe a meter or two of lead was required to shield against radiation. History provides the final proof. Had the Soviets actually believed that great thicknesses of material were required to shield against radiation, they would have questioned the design of the Apollo spacecraft. The spacecraft clearly did not provide a meter of lead shielding, yet NASA claims it successfully traversed the Van Allen belts. Yet the Soviets acknowledged then and continue to acknowledge today that the Apollo program was a clear success.

In recent years the Western world has been able to examine the Soviet spacecraft design which was to have carried cosmonauts to the moon. They did not provide a meter of lead for their spacecraft either.



Soviet cosmonauts have been quoted as saying radiation was a very grave concern.

And NASA officials have been quoted as saying essentially the same thing. Radiation is a very great concern, but there's a vast difference between a "concern" and an insurmountable obstacle. The conspiracist argument relies on the radiation problem being insurmountable, and nothing said by either NASA or cosmonauts conveys the notion that these problems couldn't have been solved.



Back to Did we land on the Moon?

Heh heh heh. Sure shut his ass up. Thanks, Weyr.
Um... no. It didn't.

Nice first post by the way. :rolleyes:

Why should I care anyway? I'm modern tech and the farthest I'll ever go is orbit. Heh, but it's nice to watch fights

Um... no. It didn't.

Nice first post by the way. :rolleyes:

I want to see someone counter my quote...especially the last parts...

Um... no. It didn't.

Nice first post by the way. :rolleyes:

And here's my second: You're a nutter who has near-zero knowledge of radiation and space travel. I'm not exactly a rocket scientist, but I know enough to see that you're one of those folks who picks up a few buzzwords and thinks they've got it all figured out.

A tip for you: go to the library, read up on Van Allen belts and other Apollo-related material before pulling an opinion out of your ass.

No, we haven't sent men to the moon. That was a hoax, and NASA did a hack job of making it look real. Doctored photos, radiation belts, no blast craters, faulty suits, solar flares...

there were tons of blast carters. And there was no radiation belts because the moon is well with in the protection of Terra's magnetic and gravitational fields. and solar flares only hit Terra once every few years.

Oh, and as for Voyager? It went out of the Solar System, but it isn't manned now, is it?
Oh, and as for Voyager? I didn't say it was manned now, did I?

I find it funny that throughout all that they allude to how expensive and hard it would be to fake the lunar landing, but they avoid contrasting it to actually landing on the moon.

They addressed the sheilding issue, true, but the layer of sheilding that was used was much akin to aluminium foil in its thickness and texture, as was most of the insulation on the craft. Not very ideal for sheilding a craft from immense ammounts of radiation, even if it is an easily-overcome type.

And here's my second: You're a nutter who has near-zero knowledge of radiation and space travel. I'm not exactly a rocket scientist, but I know enough to see that you're one of those folks who picks up a few buzzwords and thinks they've got it all figured out.

A tip for you: go to the library, read up on Van Allen belts and other Apollo-related material before pulling an opinion out of your ass.
Nice flame, there.

I have an opinion, rebuke or accept. Do not flame or jump on a rebuker's back, lauding his comments. This is a serious discussion that has no room at all for you.

there were tons of blast carters. And there was no radiation belts because the moon is well with in the protection of Terra's magnetic and gravitational fields. and solar flares only hit Terra once every few years.Van Allen Belts =/= gravitational feilds.

And I ment Blast Craters from the landers, not from asteroids and such. Check your facts, please.

Nice flame, there.

I have an opinion, rebuke or accept. Do not flame or jump on a rebuker's back, lauding his comments. This is a serious discussion that has no room at all for you.

I'm pointing out the extreme lack of knowledge you have, as demonstrated by your arguments. I call that a rebuttal. Not to mention the bit of advice, since I'm such a nice guy. ;)

I missed the part about Soviet tech at the end of Weyr's giant quote, so I'll address that now.

Everyone knows a meter of lead can't get off the ground, I stated that earlier. That's why they didn't have it in their design. The Soviets did make a fuss about some technical details of the west winning, but wrote most of it off as "they know how to do something that we don't", and applied themselves to figuring out what that something was.

Simple. Concrete. Rebuke.

I have a common sense statement --

For decades, the USSR has tried to find a way to diminish the standing iof the US. Why in the world would it go along with the idea that the US had landed ion the moon if such a thing is impossible. The USSR was the only rival to the US, and had made its own landings...

Considering that we got a whole lot more nations out there now...you' seriously think that no-one besides you had ever considered this before?

what about people who aren't based on earth, but other planets?

And I ment Blast Craters from the landers, not from asteroids and such.
there wouldn't be craters for the lander (well not very big ones anyway). all the jets would have done is blow away most the dust, and the actully lander toughed down very sotfy , the craft was very weak and could not have sirived a hard landing in any right.
Check your facts, please.
i've been watching documentaries on space travel and the apollo missions on discovery channel ,TLC, space channel and History channel for as long as i can remeber. I have my facts straight, maybe you should check yours.

I'm pointing out the extreme lack of knowledge you have, as demonstrated by your arguments. I call that a rebuttal. Not to mention the bit of advice, since I'm such a nice guy. ;)
Um... not really. I argue my point, he argues his point, and so on and so forth. You're coming in from the peanut gallery and insulting my opinion and my right to have it, as well as my intelligence for thinking something different than most people do. I respect Weyr because he actually tries to make an argument and to convince me, and I admit that he has made me think twice about what I have brought up. However, all you are doing is trying to turn this from a civil discussion into a flame war.

Please stop posting here. This is my thread, you should kindly be leaving now before I call in the mods to intervene.

Here's a simple thought for you folks hell-bent on pwning Resi:

http://www.janbrett.com/images/mobile_troll.jpg

DO NOT FEED THE TROLL

there wouldn't be craters for the lander (well not very big ones anyway). all the jets would have done is blow away most the dust, and the actully lander toughed down very sotfy , the craft was very weak and could not have sirived a hard landing in any right.Waitaminute, first you say there'd be plenty of blast craters, then you say there'd be none? :confused:

Craters, especially visible ones, are made by -big- things. A lander making a long-lasting crater is like a tear drop making an ocean.

Waitaminute, first you say there'd be plenty of blast craters, then you say there'd be none? :confused:
from the lander , not for the lander. sorry about typo.

I said there would be none from the lander.

DO NOT FEED THE TROLL
Nathi, please. Give me some credit. I'm not trolling here, I'm distinctly trying NOT to be flamed (read my charming conversation with Vaikutin), I'm just bringing up what I think to be a fact, and other people are rebuking it, and I'm attempting to rebuke a rebuke. I'm not being a troll, and neither is anyone except for Vaikutin on this thread.

Please, Nathi, see that I'm running an honest thread before you jump the gun. Oh, and if it's the title that gets you off on that trolling bit, then you should know I just did that to draw attention and logical discussion to the thread, rather than flamers.

I find it amusing that Resi fails to rebut Weyr's post, which pretty much covers it from this aerospace engineer's viewpoint.

Anyone interested in a complete rebuttal of all points of the "Moon Shot Hoax" conspiracy theory should peruse BadAstronomy.com (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html), which is quite thorough on the matter.

For my own contribution of coppers, here is my explanation--very simple, and no science whatsoever.

Now, in the 1960s, there was a big race between the two major nuclear superpowers of the world. Seeing how before the bomb powers would compensate and compare each other at the stall via colonialism and yearly wars, new forms of conflict were required that would not end in the destruction of life on the planet. These forms of conflict were wars by proxy, diploeconomic war by proxy, and, most notably, the space race. Only the USA and the USSR were rich enough to essentially shoot money into orbit without harm; note how lacking the space programs of the British Empire and France (now in the European Space Agency) were in comparison.

Both sides have radar, and it is perfectly possible to track objects in translunar space with radar. We do it now; they did it back then.

Now, the Soviets (nowadmittedly) failed with their moonshots because their superrockets had a very bad tendency to blow up. Even they admitted we won. Now, if we had faked it, why would they do that?

Let's assume the Apollo moonshots were faked. The Soviets would immediately come out with reams upon reams of radar sensor data saying that Apollo was not where it was supposed to be. The French could as well, as could any nation with powerful enough radars to follow NASA's math and check the proper translunar trajectories necessary. The USA would be discredited in the international community and Russia would be even more powerful entering into the 1970s. It was not in the Soviet Union's best interests to cede the space race (and the appearance of technological superiority it entailed) to the United States.

And yet they did. Why? Because even if it wasn't best politically, they scientifically verified it with their own radar, as did anyone else who had the capability. If they had denounced it, then tons of people would come out with evidence for it, and the Soviet Union would be discredited internationally.

Now if you are suggesting that the moonshot was a hoax requiring a global conspiracy between the bitterest of rivals, that enters the sort of Illuminati or MAJESTIC-12esque sorts of fairytales that simply deny the existence of causality in reality.

http://www.weirdozone.0catch.com/projects/nationstates/scolopendra/hapc-scolo.gif Hearty Aerospace Pirate Cap'n Scolo

I find it funny that throughout all that they allude to how expensive and hard it would be to fake the lunar landing, but they avoid contrasting it to actually landing on the moon.

They addressed the sheilding issue, true, but the layer of sheilding that was used was much akin to aluminium foil in its thickness and texture, as was most of the insulation on the craft. Not very ideal for sheilding a craft from immense ammounts of radiation, even if it is an easily-overcome type.
Eh... that rather long post Weyr made sort of categorically disproves your assessment of the Apollo capsules' shielding as inadequate.

Craters, especially visible ones, are made by -big- things. A lander making a long-lasting crater is like a tear drop making an ocean.
On the moon, where there is no wind, any impression is long-lasting. Also, the craters would be visible in the video footage from the moon, not from Earth. But y'see, they aren't visible from either.

This, the fishy stick I gave to Resi.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/attachment.php?attachmentid=55949

Nathi, please. Give me some credit. I'm not trolling here, I'm distinctly trying NOT to be flamed (read my charming conversation with Vaikutin), I'm just bringing up what I think to be a fact, and other people are rebuking it, and I'm attempting to rebuke a rebuke. I'm not being a troll, and neither is anyone except for Vaikutin on this thread.

Please, Nathi, see that I'm running an honest thread before you jump the gun. Oh, and if it's the title that gets you off on that trolling bit, then you should know I just did that to draw attention and logical discussion to the thread, rather than flamers.


Then prove it by actually offering some hard rebuttal rather than continuing to escalate the *gasp* value of it, boy. It's clear by your phrases and reactions you're in this for the attention, no more. Were you serious, we'd actually be seeing some solid debate from you.

Come back and try again when you're real about it.

On the moon, where there is no wind, any impression is long-lasting. Also, the craters would be visible in the video footage from the moon, not from Earth. But y'see, they aren't visible from either.

How would you make a crater?

It takes force, and a concentrated jet of propellant wouldn't make much of an impression, now would it?

Resi, we don't question your intelligence because you have a different opinion than others, that's your right. We question your intelligence because said opinion happens to be very, very poorly informed.

On the moon, where there is no wind, any impression is long-lasting.

there wouldn't be crater to begin with. please see my last post on page 2

Eh... that rather long post Weyr made sort of categorically disproves your assessment of the Apollo capsules' shielding as inadequate.
Indeed, but sense I do not have the time nor the patience to systematically address each point on his list, I just chose the most relivant point to what I was saying (space travel off Earth in NS is impossible) and addressed it. That being the sheilding issue, I didn't quite rebuke it (which I can't, because my technical knowledge in this area is limited), but I threw my two cents at it.

Scolo, I responded to his massive quote in two posts, one about the sheilding, and another about the Soviets. He has yet to reply to either.

In conclusion, space travel probably isn't impossible, in the strictest sense of the word, but the radiation belts do bring up a whole new dimension that must be considered when traveling in space.

How would you make a crater?

It takes force, and a concentrated jet of propellant wouldn't make much of an impression, now would it?
It'd make enough force to stir up some dust and make at least SOME impression. I'm using the term "crater" here losely.

Well, regardless of whether we went to the moon or not, manned deep space travel is only a godmod if it's unacceptable in the context of a given RP, to all or some of the involved roleplayers.

Indeed, but sense I do not have the time nor the patience to systematically address each point on his list, I just chose the most relivant point to what I was saying (space travel off Earth in NS is impossible) and addressed it. That being the sheilding issue, I didn't quite rebuke it (which I can't, because my technical knowledge in this area is limited), but I threw my two cents at it.

Scolo, I responded to his massive quote in two posts, one about the sheilding, and another about the Soviets. He has yet to reply to either.

In conclusion, space travel probably isn't impossible, in the strictest sense of the word, but the radiation belts do bring up a whole new dimension that must be considered when traveling in space.
Sooo... you're simply confirming that you reject datasets simply because you don't like them?

If that is the way you conduct debate, then of course you can never be convinced--your prejudicial treatment of fact puts you in the same boat as creationists. ACCEPT all that agrees, IGNORE all that disproves.

J'accuse.

http://www.weirdozone.0catch.com/projects/nationstates/scolopendra/hapc-scolo.gif Hearty Aerospace Pirate Cap'n Scolo

It'd make enough force to stir up some dust and make at least SOME impression. I'm using the term "crater" here losely.
the effect of the lander on the luna's surface problay wasn't that much greater that a hellicopter lander in the desert.

Then prove it by actually offering some hard rebuttal rather than continuing to escalate the *gasp* value of it, boy. It's clear by your phrases and reactions you're in this for the attention, no more. Were you serious, we'd actually be seeing some solid debate from you.

Come back and try again when you're real about it.
I try to give some solid debate, but when I get so many posts like this, it's a little hard to respond to them and give debate. I give what debate I can, as you see, but I'm the only one on my side here. I'm being unilaterally attacked, and I have to defend against each and every one of your posts, lest someone gets pissed and critiques me for not responding to them. If you want to see more debate, then quit posting insubstantial remarks.

Oh wow, how the hell'd we get to page 4 already?
Sooo... you're simply confirming that you reject datasets simply because you don't like them?
Now, when did I ever say that?

It'd make enough force to stir up some dust and make at least SOME impression. I'm using the term "crater" here losely.

So you believe that the supposed inability to find some stirred up some dust and a depression a few feet across is reason to accept the existance of a world-wide conspiracy to create fake space program (a conspiracy that doesn't seem to care enough to make all the people claiming its a fake disappear, apparrently)?

the effect of the lander on the luna's surface problay wasn't that much greater that a hellicopter lander in the desert.
Yes, but helicopters kick up all KINDS of dust, if you've seen them. And, in an environment with no wind, the kicked up dust would stay in a distinctly crater-esque pattern.

So you believe that the supposed inability to find some stirred up some dust and a depression a few feet across is reason to accept the existance of a world-wide conspiracy to create fake space program (a conspiracy that doesn't seem to care enough to make all the people claiming its a fake disappear, apparrently)?
5% of the people in the US believe the lunar landing was a fake, as of 1995. That'd be a lot of disappearances.

Also, I didn't say the crater was the only reason, but it is A reason. There are other reasons, too.

how about we all just stop saying bad-things-of-sorts about each other and just argue any relivante points we feel we are able to effectively argue against.

Yes, but helicopters kick up all KINDS of dust, if you've seen them. And, in an environment with no wind, the kicked up dust would stay in a distinctly crater-esque pattern.
Taken from http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html#crater

When someone driving a car pulls into a parking spot, do they do it at 100 kilometers per hour? Of course not. They slow down first, easing off the accelerator. The astronauts did the same thing. Sure, the rocket on the lander was capable of 10,000 pounds of thrust, but they had a throttle. They fired the rocket hard to deorbit and slow enough to land on the Moon, but they didn't need to thrust that hard as they approached the lunar surface; they throttled down to about 3000 pounds of thrust.

Now here comes a little bit of math: the engine nozzle was about 54 inches across (from the Encyclopaedia Astronautica), which means it had an area of 2300 square inches. That in turn means that the thrust generated a pressure of only about 1.5 pounds per square inch! That's not a lot of pressure. Moreover, in a vacuum, the exhaust from a rocket spreads out very rapidly. On Earth, the air in our atmosphere constrains the thrust of a rocket into a narrow column, which is why you get long flames and columns of smoke from the back of a rocket. In a vacuum, no air means the exhaust spreads out even more, lowering the pressure. That's why there's no blast crater! Three thousand pounds of thrust sounds like a lot, but it was so spread out it was actually rather gentle.

I try to give some solid debate, but when I get so many posts like this, it's a little hard to respond to them and give debate. I give what debate I can, as you see, but I'm the only one on my side here. I'm being unilaterally attacked, and I have to defend against each and every one of your posts, lest someone gets pissed and critiques me for not responding to them. If you want to see more debate, then quit posting insubstantial remarks.


Poor dear. In the not so immortal words of Wil Smith: "Don't start nothin', won't be nothin'."

You opened this can of worms, boy. Don't be whining that you are 'forced' to deal with it now, especially after admitting you wanted to draw the most attention possible. I'll leave the substantial debate to those who have more knowledge than I in such things as belts and space travel, and merely call it as I see it, laughing merrily all the while at your weak attempts.

Enjoy!

[/Pester Mode]

Indeed, but sense I do not have the time nor the patience to systematically address each point on his list, I just chose the most relivant point to what I was saying (space travel off Earth in NS is impossible) and addressed it. That being the sheilding issue, I didn't quite rebuke it (which I can't, because my technical knowledge in this area is limited), but I threw my two cents at it.Translation: Either you can't or you won't.

I also have a somewhat shorter post concerning political realities of the situation. Perhaps attempting to rebut that would be more appropriate for your attention span... ?

I find myself unhappily surprised that you did not expect this reaction from your attitude and your decision to post inflammatory conspiracy theory material.

Seeing how I severely doubt that any real thought went into it, I refuse to let it take up any more of my time. My duty is to live in reality, not enlighten the heathen who prefer their fairy tales to fact.

http://www.weirdozone.0catch.com/projects/nationstates/scolopendra/hapc-scolo.gif Hearty Aerospace Pirate Cap'n Scolo

Has no one noticed that most of the Space Tech nations use massive ships built in orbital shipyards? Almost every long range ship has high powered magnetic shields (the same effect that keeps radiation off of Earth's surface, for those who might care about realism). They are large enough to also have thick anti-radiation plating in their hulls. And for those that say that those technologies don't exist yet, I have never seen a modern tech space nation. Anyone who seems to use an interstellar space fleet is many centuries more advanced than NASA tech.

Also, when a space tech nation posts info about their space ships, they rarely post boring things like how it repels radiation. I think that things like radiation sheilding in the hull falls into the same category as toilets and wires. I mean, you know it's there, but it is too minute a detail to be worth discussing.

Yes, but helicopters kick up all KINDS of dust, if you've seen them. And, in an environment with no wind, the kicked up dust would stay in a distinctly crater-esque pattern.
yes but a very small one. won't even kick-up a quater foot of dust. and in any case th incline would be very shallow. You problay couldn't find it even if you went looking for it.

No, we haven't sent men to the moon.

Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. The evidence that we went to the moon with Apollo is extraordinary, while the claims that we did not fall far short.

Regardless of what anyone says about real lunar landings, or radiation belts around the real life Earth:

This is the NS earth, not real life.

Translation: Either you can't or you won't.

I also have a somewhat shorter post concerning political realities of the situation. Perhaps attempting to rebut that would be more appropriate for your attention span... ?

I find myself unhappily surprised that you did not expect this reaction from your attitude and your decision to post inflammatory conspiracy theory material.Yeash, I deliberately tried to AVOID the moon landing. If that's what I wanted, this would have been put in General in the first place.

Look, Scolo, the guy who he quoted was an astrophysicist. I can't rebuke most of what he said simply because I don't have enough knowledge of the situation to do so. I'm just making by on what knowledge I have, and rebuking what I can. Like I said, I already admit that I didn't know enough to make that statement, and that I was wrong, but the radiation belts still make space travel a bit more difficult than otherwise noted.

yes but a very small one. won't even kick-up a quater foot of dust. and in any case th incline would be very shallow. You problay couldn't find it even if you went looking for it.
There's a reason helicopters don't land in the desert, you know. The sand is too easily blown about, plus it makes for an unsecure landing surface. I'm not sure about the surface of the moon, but judging by your example, the blast crater would be deeper than you say here.

Yeash, I deliberately tried to AVOID the moon landing. If that's what I wanted, this would have been put in General in the first place.


That's not true.

<snip>

Time for some real-life facts:
- Every manned mission to space in HISTORY has been below the radiation belts, with the exception of going to the moon. This is why many people call the moon missions a hoax.
- The radiation belts degrade satellite components, particularly semiconductor and optical devices, and also cause errors in digital circuits. This means that not even machines are safe from the belts.
- In order for a human to safely pass through the belts, he or she would have to be encased within six feet of solid lead, which is kind of hard to get off the ground.

That's not true.
That's the only place I mentioned it, my friend. I used it as a passing point, not even anything major. I did not center my argument around it, I just mentioned it.

Here's a simple thought for you folks hell-bent on pwning Resi:

<snip>

DO NOT FEED THE TROLL
how does posting a big picture help anything?

Yeash, I deliberately tried to AVOID the moon landing. If that's what I wanted, this would have been put in General in the first place.

Look, Scolo, the guy who he quoted was an astrophysicist. I can't rebuke most of what he said simply because I don't have enough knowledge of the situation to do so. I'm just making by on what knowledge I have, and rebuking what I can. Like I said, I already admit that I didn't know enough to make that statement, and that I was wrong, but the radiation belts still make space travel a bit more difficult than otherwise noted.
Not really, because a good deal of us already knew that they were there. Furthermore, they really aren't that much of a pain to deal with. Sure it requires basic sheilding, (Note that sheilding doesn't mean lead. Depending on the type of radiation, it can be blocked by as little as a piece paper.) but any 2-bit hack could make sheilding in their garage.

how does posting a big picture help anything?
Yeah, I was honestly wondering about that, too.

The word "SPAM" comes to mind...

That's the only place I mentioned it, my friend. I used it as a passing point, not even anything major. I did not center my argument around it, I just mentioned it.
But you did include it in your list of points, and thusly opened yourself to debate on that issue.

That's the only place I mentioned it, my friend. I used it as a passing point, not even anything major. I did not center my argument around it, I just mentioned it.

You based your argument against space travel on the supposed impassibility of the Van Allen belts, and used that as 'evidence.' You can't complain when other people call it into quesiton and present actual research and facts to contradict it.

Not really, because a good deal of us already knew that they were there. Furthermore, they really aren't that much of a pain to deal with. Sure it requires basic sheilding, (Note that sheilding doesn't mean lead. Depending on the type of radiation, it can be blocked by as little as a piece paper.) but any 2-bit hack could make sheilding in their garage.
Any 2-bit hack with the proper materials, that is. ;)

Two words- Artificial Magnetosphere

http://www.firstscience.com/SITE/ARTICLES/bubble.asp

You based your argument against space travel on the supposed impassibility of the Van Allen belts, and used that as 'evidence.' You can't complain when other people call it into quesiton and present actual research and facts to contradict it.
No, I can't.

I can, however, complain when the whole stinkin' thread barrels towards that point, rather than having the conversation behind the moon landings be as fleeting as my mention of it in the first post. :mad:

But you did include it in your list of points, and thusly opened yourself to debate on that issue.
True, but why then do none of the other points get as much attention as that little two-sentence bullet I put in there?

There's a reason helicopters don't land in the desert, you know. The sand is too easily blown about, plus it makes for an unsecure landing surface. I'm not sure about the surface of the moon, but judging by your example, the blast crater would be deeper than you say here.

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/gallery/2001/09/24/helicopter.gif

http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://www.usmc.mil/marinelink/image1.nsf/Lookup/200212615330/%24file/RaidHidden53Low.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.usmc.mil/marinelink/mcn2000.nsf/0/29550A48AFAF5A9285256C8700238A16%3Fopendocument&h=360&w=243&sz=21&tbnid=-YOnri6OMroJ:&tbnh=115&tbnw=78&start=19&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dhelicopter%2Bdesert%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8

http://www.simpsondesert.fl.net.au/images/scans/dd2212.jpg

http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/pages/data/%5B(1028)-20-06-2003%5Ddesert.jpg

I don't know about you guys but those look like deserts to me.

Two words- Artificial Magnetosphere

http://www.firstscience.com/SITE/ARTICLES/bubble.asp
Whoa. Now that was unexpected.

I suggest that everyone check out LRR's link there. That is some awesome stuff, with some very real implications. :)

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/gallery/2001/09/24/helicopter.gif

http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://www.usmc.mil/marinelink/image1.nsf/Lookup/200212615330/%24file/RaidHidden53Low.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.usmc.mil/marinelink/mcn2000.nsf/0/29550A48AFAF5A9285256C8700238A16%3Fopendocument&h=360&w=243&sz=21&tbnid=-YOnri6OMroJ:&tbnh=115&tbnw=78&start=19&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dhelicopter%2Bdesert%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8

http://www.simpsondesert.fl.net.au/images/scans/dd2212.jpg

http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/pages/data/%5B(1028)-20-06-2003%5Ddesert.jpg

I don't know about you guys but those look like deserts to me.Look at the second picture. Look at all that dust.

The only reason there isn't a crater at any of the helecopter sites is that, first, we have more gravity than the moon, and second, wind.

Look at the second picture. Look at all that dust.

The only reason there isn't a crater at any of the helecopter sites is that, first, we have more gravity than the moon, and second, wind.
what does the wind have to do with anything. if anything it would help make a crater by blowing stuff way. and it not making a hole more the a few inchs deep anyway.

and what about the third one. is there a hole there? no there it's.

And now, sense my point has had any bit of credibility beaten out of it, could some mod lock the thread? Or at least change the title that Jolt desplays on the forum so people dont think this is still active?

what does the wind have to do with anything. if anything it would help make a crater by blowing stuff way. and it not making a hole more the a few inchs deep anyway.

and what about the third one. is there a hole there? no there it's.
Over a short period of time, wind can change the face of a desert. It can easily knock down a little crater.

@Resi:

(1) The fact remains that if there was a way for the USSR to somehow prove that the lunar landings were fake, they would have done it. After thirty years, I think the whole point is moot. If a nation that drowned itself in competition with the US couldn't poke a hole in the lunar landings, then I doubt anyone else will.

(2) The lunar landings are the only currently-known case of humans passing beyond the Van Allen belts. That is why they are a major point -- because they happened.

(3) You have thus far not contradicted the fact that the Van Allen belts are passable, and that it does not require 'six feet of lead' to cross them. NASA has both the materials and the know-how to make decent shielding...

(4) I'm a High School student whose physics teacher did not teach him friction coefficients.

Any 2-bit hack with the proper materials, that is. ;)
Materials as rare and expensive as:
Aluminum (and other metals)
Plastics
Water
Infact, the kind of radiation found in the belts (mostly energized particles like protons and electrons) is easily sheilded by metals and plastics (as previously stated).

Things such as cosmic rays (yes, they are real) do require heavier sheilding, which is why any extended trips (say a Mars landing), will require a radiation shelter, that the astronauts can jump in, incase a solar flare decides to occur.

Space travel, hazardous? Absolutely.
Impossible? Hardly.


Another note, the 'six feet of lead' estimate is for a surface shelter in close proximity to a nuclear blast (to sheild against high energy gamma rays).
Radiation comes in three flavors.
Alpha: Large particles, free floating atoms. Not too hard to sheild, but don't ingest them.

Beta: Subatomic particles; electrons, etc. Harder to sheild than alpha, but no biggie.

Gamma: Energy. You'll need some heavy sheilding.

I find it funny that throughout all that they allude to how expensive and hard it would be to fake the lunar landing, but they avoid contrasting it to actually landing on the moon.

They addressed the sheilding issue, true, but the layer of sheilding that was used was much akin to aluminium foil in its thickness and texture, as was most of the insulation on the craft. Not very ideal for sheilding a craft from immense ammounts of radiation, even if it is an easily-overcome type.High energy protons would be larger than electrons right? And electron emission (beta radiation) is stopped by a thin sheet of aluminium, isn't it?

(4) I'm a High School student whose physics teacher did not teach him friction coefficients.
As am I.

People, I already conceded the point. What else is there?

P.S.: Alright, I ask for a lock, and I get a move to General? Doesn't that, I dunno, open up the thread for a whole new brand of crap? >__O

Let's assume the Apollo moonshots were faked. The Soviets would immediately come out with reams upon reams of radar sensor data saying that Apollo was not where it was supposed to be. The French could as well, as could any nation with powerful enough radars to follow NASA's math and check the proper translunar trajectories necessary. The USA would be discredited in the international community and Russia would be even more powerful entering into the 1970s. It was not in the Soviet Union's best interests to cede the space race (and the appearance of technological superiority it entailed) to the United States.
I think you're right, but your arguement doesn't account for the possibility of sending an unmanned probe to the moon, and faking the photos of the astronauts.

High energy protons would be larger than electrons right? And electron emission (beta radiation) is stopped by a thin sheet of aluminium, isn't it?
Point: conceded.

What, do you people LIKE beating a dead horse here?

P.S.: Alright, I ask for a lock, and I get a move to General? Doesn't that, I dunno, open up the thread for a whole new brand of crap? >__O
Yeah. It's fun

Two words- Artificial Magnetosphere

http://www.firstscience.com/SITE/ARTICLES/bubble.asp
But wouldn't that only help you go outwards, as in away from the sun? Handy for launching probes way out there, but not so cool if you wanted to come back (either turn off the field or it'll be like you're walking against pretty fierce wind carrying a pretty big umbrella all the way home)

But wouldn't that only help you go outwards, as in away from the sun? Handy for launching probes way out there, but not so cool if you wanted to come back (either turn off the field or it'll be like you're walking against pretty fierce wind carrying a pretty big umbrella all the way home)
That's when you stow the sail and get out the motor. I can't really see such a sheild as anything but a handy device for movement away from the sun, as to move back towards Sol you'd have to have a different type of sheilding, or an engine powerful enough to force the ship back against the solar wind, in which case it would be best to use the engine and not the sail for movement in any direction.

No, we haven't sent men to the moon. That was a hoax, and NASA did a hack job of making it look real. Doctored photos, radiation belts, no blast craters, faulty suits, solar flares...
There was so much wrong with the Apolo missions, that I'm surprised that anyone still believes in them.

The Earth is flat, too, and in the center of the universe. The sun and everything else revolves around it. And if you sail off the edge of the Earth, you will be devoured by the strange, fell beasts.

"Here there be Draggonnes."

In reply to this thread, all that is needed is an ALOD from Something Awful (http://www.somethingawful.com/index.htm)
Hour of the Time - MAJESTYTWELVE (http://www.hourofthetime.com/majestyt.htm) (thanks me) - We all know that NASA was created by the freemasons to create the illusion that space travel is possible when it really isn't. What we didn't know was how boring some conspiracy theories can be. About halfway down this particular page, while trying to explain exactly why humans can't possibly travel through space due to temperatures that our primitive technology can't possibly overcome, this guy goes into nearly a dozen paragraphs about Thermoses. I'm not sure what fake space travel has to do with a Thermos, but if it my hot cocoa stays hot then I'm all for it.

In addition most, if not all, of the photos, films, and videotape of the Apollo Moon Missions are easily proven to be fake. Anyone with the slightest knowledge of photography, lighting, and physics can easily prove that NASA faked the visual records of the Apollo Space Program. Some are so obviously fake that when the discrepancies are pointed out to unsuspecting viewers an audible gasp has been heard. Some have actually gone into a mild state of shock. Some People break down and cry. I have seen others become so angry that they have ripped the offending photos to shreds while screaming incoherently.

He fails to mention that the "unsuspecting viewers" are babies.

Could one of you conspiracists pls explain to me where they got the 800lbs of Moonrock from? You know, the moonrock that's been tested thousands of times by thousands of scientists from all points in the world and which is different from Earth rock - so much so it could only had come from the Moon (due to it's age and radiation content).
It's just that I always notice that the conspiracy theories never seem to cover this.
Also how were NASA able to delay the signal from the Moonlander to be exactly the time it would take for a transmission to travel from the Moon to Earth - and remember everyone was listening in, including the Soviets who had everything to gain from uncovering a fake, but instead have always supported the landings as real.

Hmm...

okay, did we go to the moon?

Well, here's the thing: The base of the Apollo 11 lunar module had a reflector mounted on it. Since then, scientists both professional and amateur have been bouncing laser beams off of it to precisely measure the distance between the Earth and the Moon. It has even been used to measure the continental drift between North America and Europe.

Now, here's my question: If WE DIDN'T go to the moon, who put the reflector there? :D

The Earth is flat, too, and in the center of the universe. The sun and everything else revolves around it. And if you sail off the edge of the Earth, you will be devoured by the strange, fell beasts.

"Here there be Draggonnes."

You forgot to mention about the 4 elephants that are carrying the Earth on their back while standing on a Turtle that swims in an endless sea. And the thing about the Sun being a Chariot.

Now, here's my question: If WE DIDN'T go to the moon, who put the reflector there? :D
Could've been a probe. :P

Could've been a probe. :P

Ah, one of those high-tech 1960's space probes made a soft landing on the Moon? After the Van ALlen Belts scrambled it's circuitry? Or was it encased in six feet of lead? ;)

Ok...there's a hell of a lot of radiation everywhere. Light, sound, microwaves, radiowaves, it's all radiation.

The radiation they're most likely talking about are alpha, beta, and gamma rays.

Alpha rays can be stopped by a sheet of paper. No chance of it doin' squat to a ship covered in sheet metal.

Beta rays can be stopped with thick clothing. Again, not doin' much.

Gamma rays, however, can only be stopped with lead. So, it's easy enough to cover the ship with lead, though it'll weigh a ton. Also, if you can RP easy, cheap space travel, you can RP magnetic fields to push the stuff away. If you can RP that, you can RP full-on force shields that stop anything from penetrating.

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaall that being said:
It comes down to a definition of godmodding. Try taking a look in the "Fight Club". Everything there would be considered godmodding, but within the rules of that thread, they aren't. You must define the rules first, then decide if it's godmodding or not.

I believe that you guys have overlooked one MAJOR thing in these debates.

The American Flag and American equipment like rovers on the Moon.

Get a real-time view of them.


Need I say more?

I believe that you guys have overlooked one MAJOR thing in these debates.

The American Flag and American equipment like rovers on the Moon.

Get a real-time view of them.


Need I say more?
I suppose you are implying that, as we cannot see this equipment, that the moon trips were faked?

The moon's diameter is 2162 miles, or 11415360 feet. The moon rover is perhaps 10 feet long. As the rover is thus 1/1141536th of the size of the moon, is it not probable that it is difficult to see? This isn't even addressing the possibility that the rover be on the other side of the moon, or at such an angle that it is hard to see.

I was just implying the end to the entire discussion about the Moon Landings being an hoax.

If someone independent of the Government could actually acquire a real-time view of the Rover and American Flag on the Moon, then it WILL lay to rest 99% of the hoax debates and convince the supporters of the hoax theory that there was and is no hoax going on.

Unfortunately, it wouldn't. Even if they did get a pic of the lander/rover/flag whatever (and Hubble can't, as the best definition it could do is approx. details no smaller than a football field on the moon - I got that from Badastronomy.com), since it's from NASA, the conspiracy nuts would still claim it was part of the cover-up.
sigh. :(
One of them has even used the fact NASA hasn't sent a probe to take photos as proof. Yes, NASA is going to spend hundreds of Millions of $$$ just to silence some crackpots.
sigh. :(
I think the only way to sort this out once and for all is to send ever one of these conspiracy theorists to the Moon so they can see for themselves.
Notice I don't say anything about bringing them back again. :p
You know the funny thing about these ppl is they're usually also the same ones harping on about aliens visiting us. How can they explain them coming thru the 'Deadly' Van Allen belt? Anyway if anyone's ever read Fantastic Four, you'll know they not deadly. They give you Super Powers. It's Clobberin' time!

I don't know if it's already been brought up in this thread, I'm just too tired to go through looking for it, especially when it's about an arguement that is so stupid to be having. To all the Hoax Folks out there: You're stories don't even add up. First you expect poeple to believe that the most concrete evidence we have of going to the moon is false. You tell me that the moon rocks are fake. Only that's not true, because any person with a Ph.D. in Geology can tell you those rocks could not have been made on Earth. The materials, the process at work on the rocks are just so entirely different than what goes on on the Earth, that they must be from a foreign source. Most of the time I even see this Hoax argument come up, the cospiracy theorist don't even touch the moon rocks issue. You know why? Cause they can't win.

Even if the Hoax-nicks could argue away all of the overwhelming scientific data, there remains one simple problem with the argument: There were litterally thousands of people working directly with Apollo; Do you really think that NASA or the Government could keep all of them silent? I have a hard enough time keeping a secret among 5 people. And then to think that the guys at NASA even would consider creating a conspiracy to keep something secret shows how ignorant you are of what kind of people work at NASA. Those guys couldn't keep something secret even if they wanted to.

I think we've gone to the moon, but I don't think we did it in the initial runs. It was too convenient and the jump in technology between simple orbit and actually leaving earth to go to the moon is quite a chasm. If you look at the political situation in the sixties, it would make sense for the government to stage a show for everyone. Most of the 'hoax' claims stem from photos and films made during the first moon mission (i.e. photographed items overlapping the cross marks, the near perfection of the photos in the face of the akward camera systems they had rigged on their suits, the videos of people walking in low gravity that when sped up are perfect videos of people running in earth gravity, the lack of dust on the lander after they landed, NASA's inexperience with the van allen radiation belt, lack of adequate shielding in the spacecraft, ect)

We most assuredly have been to the moon as some point though, as the section of the lander used for calculating distances in space is indeed there. Nasa probably learned enough in the time between the first 'moon mission' and the second one to do it for real. I think that I'll probably never believe the first mission was real. It was too damn perfect.

I think we've gone to the moon, but I don't think we did it in the initial runs. It was too convenient and the jump in technology between simple orbit and actually leaving earth to go to the moon is quite a chasm. If you look at the political situation in the sixties, it would make sense for the government to stage a show for everyone. Most of the 'hoax' claims stem from photos and films made during the first moon mission (i.e. photographed items overlapping the cross marks, the near perfection of the photos in the face of the akward camera systems they had rigged on their suits, the videos of people walking in low gravity that when sped up are perfect videos of people running in earth gravity, the lack of dust on the lander after they landed, NASA's inexperience with the van allen radiation belt, lack of adequate shielding in the spacecraft, ect)

We most assuredly have been to the moon as some point though, as the section of the lander used for calculating distances in space is indeed there. Nasa probably learned enough in the time between the first 'moon mission' and the second one to do it for real. I think that I'll probably never believe the first mission was real. It was too damn perfect.

So is near perfection a sign of a hoax? MER-A Spirit, and MER-B Opportunity Landed perfectly on target. In fact Opportunity landed in a small crater with exposed bedrock, which when thoroughly investigate revealed conclusive evidence of the existance of liquid water on Mars at some point in time. Cassini entered Saturn Orbit perfectly. Pathfinder touched down without incident. Both Viking Probes landed perfectly on Mars. Voyager 1 fufilled it's mission objectives and Voyager 2 surpassed them by going to Uranus and Neptune. Or does the perfection limitation only matter on manned flights? In which case John Glen's flight went near perfect. Nearly all of the Gemini mission occured without incident, with a few exceptions. Apollo 8, 9, and 10 performed their missions perfectly. Apollo 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17 all landed on the Moon in the exact same way as Apollo 11. Are we to believe that because these missions have operated near flawlessly that they too are hoaxes?

As for the convienence and chasm factor, when you really think about it, once in Earth orbit the distance to the Moon is not really that far. The toughest part of the mission is already done. After breaking from Earth orbit it becomes a game of gravity wells and inertia. And the ability to reach lunar orbit had already been proven by the Soviets prior to the Apollo 8 manned orbit of the Moon. Then when you bring in the practice with such missions as Apollo 8 (where men orbited the Moon), Apollo 9 (Where the LM was tested in Earth orbit.) and Apollo 10 (which took the LM within 50 miles, I believe, of the Lunar surface) NASA already had sufficent training to actually land on the Moon.

As for the pictures and video: have you actually checked that out? The video of men walking on the Moon, when played at twice speed looks NOTHING like men walking or running in Earth gravity. I know, I've seen people run on Earth and they do no balance themselves like the Lunar Astronauts do in the video. And then comes into play the dust they kick up, which when exaimed, falls in perfect parabollic arcs, something that dust does not do in Earth Atmosphere. The reason Lander didn't have dust on it is again because of the lack of an atmosphere. There are no votecies that pull dust back on to the lander, instead the dust is blasted away by the decent stage engine and falls agian in perfect parabolas away from the lander. The reason for no blast crater at liftoff from the surface of the Moon is that the accent stage engine blasts fromt he decent stage, not the actual surface of the Moon.

The last thing I have agianst your argument is that all of the Apollo craft were exactly identical. If it was impossible for Apollo 11 to land, than how could Apollo 17?

i cant believe this thread has gone to 102 posts

how bout we just send BIGFOOT into space then? he can colonize other worlds for us.

i cant believe this thread has gone to 102 posts

how bout we just send BIGFOOT into space then? he can colonize other worlds for us.
I can believe it. I politely ask for a lock after the thread has no more usefullness, and instead some mod does the worst possible thing ever: moves it to general. :mad:

i cant believe this thread has gone to 102 posts

how bout we just send BIGFOOT into space then? he can colonize other worlds for us.

HAHA Good one! :p