It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


NASA to Take Photos of the Lunar Landing Sites to End Conspiracy Theories

page: 7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 11:06 PM

posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 11:31 PM
reply to post by jkrog08

LOL, the 'fake Moon landing people' will say it is CGI. LOL, the argument will be NASA has had enough time to perfect 'debunking proof CGI'. No really I think this is GREAT, put a rest to this RIDICULOUS theory once and for all.

thanks jkrog08,

yea i don't know, after seeing some of the replies in this thread i am starting to think nothing will convince everyone. i really don't see how NASA will ever put this behind them.

i believe we did land men on the Moon but i also believe some of the photos have been tampered with or altered for a few different reasons.

i have never seen an explanation as to why there is no dust on the LEM , lander feet that i am satisfied with. that to me doesn't add up. doesn't mean they didn't go to the moon though.


[edit on 10-7-2009 by easynow]

posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 11:33 PM

Originally posted by jkrog08
One rumor is the Cold War was front to create enough nuclear fissile/fusible elements to make the "Orion Starcruisers"................Of course this is just one of MANY theories...

So would the recently announced atomic weapons reduction treaty be a way for them to get more nuclear material from the decommsioned ICBMs for more "Orion Starcruisers"? (just kidding)

posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 11:46 PM
reply to post by easynow

Of course (IMO) many images were edited because what they found there. In reality though everything has been explained and there is really no issues. The old "Van Allen Radiation Belt" theory was dismissed when Dr. Van Allen himself stated that that would not stop ANYTHING from entering or leaving, nor would it affect negatives unless the people or hardware stayed there for a long time. I mean really this is basic fundamental particle physics/human anatomy and physiology 101 but whatever,lol....

On the Van Allen Belt fallacy.....

Now let's take a little more substantial look at my first answer. The idea is to outline the basic facts of the case, and give you the materials you need to verify my statements, to whatever level of detail you wish. This is the traditional scientific way of answering a question. There are three basic issues.

What is the actual amount and nature of radiation present in the Van Allen Belts?
How long would an astronaut be exposed to that radiation while passing through the belts on a lunar trajectory, and what dose of radiation would he receive?
What would be the likely health effects?
Regarding the Van Allen belts, and the nature of the radiation in them, they are doughnut-shaped regions where charged particles, both protons and electrons, are trapped in the Earth's magnetic field. The number of particles encountered (flux is the technical jargon, to impress your friends!) depends on the energy of the particles; in general, the flux of high-energy particles is less, and the flux of low-energy particles is more. Very low energy particles cannot penetrate the skin of a spacecraft, nor even the skin of an astronaut. Very roughly speaking, electrons below about 1 million electron volts (MeV) are unlikely to be dangerous, and protons below 10 MeV are also not sufficiently penetrating to be a concern. The actual fluxes encountered in the Van Allen belts is a matter of great commercial importance, as communications satellites operate in the outer region, and their electronics, and hence lifetimes, are strongly affected by the radiation environment. Thus billions of dollars are at stake, never mind the Moon! The standard database on the fluxes in the belt are the models for the trapped radiation environment, AP8 for protons, and AE8 for electrons, maintained by the National Space Sciences Data Center at NASA's Goddard Spaceflight Center. Barth (1999) gives a summary which indicates that electrons with energies over 1 MeV have a flux above a million per square centimeter per second from 1-6 earth radii (about 6,300 - 38,000 km), and protons over 10 MeV have a flux above one hundred thousand per square centimeter per second from about 1.5-2.5 Earth radii (9,500 km - 16,000 km).

Then what would be the radiation dose due to such fluxes, for the amount of time an astronaut crew would be exposed? This was in fact a serious concern at the time that the Apollo program was first proposed. Unfortunately I have not located quantitative information in the time available, but my recollection is that the dose was roughly 2 rem (= 20 mSv, milli-Sievert).

The time the astronauts would be exposed is fairly easy to calculate from basic orbital mechanics, though probably not something most students below college level could easily verify. You have perhaps heard that to escape from Earth requires a speed of about 7 miles per second, which is about 11.2 km per sec. At that speed, it would require less than an hour to pass outside the main part of the belts at around 38,000 km altitude. However it is a little more complicated than that, because as soon as the rocket motor stops burning, the spacecraft immediately begins to slow down due to the attraction of gravity. At 38,000 km altitude it would actually be moving only about 4.6 km per sec, not 11.2. If we just take the geometric average of these two, 7.2 km per sec, we will not be too far off, and get about 1.5 hours for the time to pass beyond 38,000 km.

Unfortunately calculating the average radiation dose received by an astronaut in the belts is quite intricate in practice, though not too hard in principle. One must add up the effects of all kinds of particles, of all energies. For each kind of particle (electrons and protons in this situation) you have to take account of the shielding due to the Apollo spacecraft and the astronaut space suits. Here are some approximate values for the ranges of protons and electrons in aluminum:

Range in Aluminum [cm] Energy
[MeV] electrons protons
1 0.15 ~ nil
3 0.56 ~ nil
10 1.85 0.06
30 no flux 0.37
100 no flux 3.7

For electrons, the AE8 electron data shows negligible flux (< 1 electron per square cm per sec) over E=7 MeV at any altitude. The AP8 proton compilations indicates peak fluxes outside the spacecraft up to about 20,000 protons per square cm per sec above 100 MeV in a region around 1.7 Earth radii, but because the region is narrow, passage takes only about 5 min. Nevertheless, these appear to be the principal hazard.

These numbers seem generally consistent with the ~2 rem doses I recall. If every gram of a person's body absorbed 600,000 protons with energy 100 MeV, completely stopping them, the dose would be about 50 mSv. Assuming a typical thickness of 10 cm for a human and no shielding by the spacecraft gives a dose of something like 50 mSv in 300 sec due to protons in the most intense part of the belt.

For comparison, the US recommended limit of exposure for radiation workers is 50 mSv per year, based on the danger of causing cancer. The corresponding recommended limits in Britain and Cern are 15 mSv. For acute doses, the whole-body exposure lethal within 30 days to 50% of untreated cases is about 2.5-3.0 Gy (Gray) or 250-300 rad; in such circumstances, 1 rad is equivalent to 1 rem.

So the effect of such a dose, in the end, would not be enough to make the astronauts even noticeably ill. The low-level exposure could possibly cause cancer in the long term. I do not know exactly what the odds on that would be, I believe on the order of 1 in 1000 per astronaut exposed, probably some years after the trip. Of course, with nine trips, and a total of 3 X 9 = 27 astronauts (except for a few, like Jim Lovell, who went more than once) you would expect probably 5 or 10 cancers eventually in any case, even without any exposure, so it is not possible to know which if any might have been caused by the trips.

Much of this material can be found in the 1999 "Review of Particle Properties", (see below) in the sections on "Atomic and nuclear properties of materials", on "Radioactivity and radiation protection", and on "Passage of particles through matter".

By this point I have no doubt told you more than you really wanted to know about the Van Allen belt and the Apollo radiation problem! Nevertheless, I have barely scratched the surface, and waved my hands a bit, to make it seem likely that I'm not full of baloney. But in the end you always have to either do it all yourself, or trust a stranger completely, or try to find some path in between: which means understanding a little science, so you can judge for yourself if my arguments make any sense at all, check a little, think about it, maybe do a bit of research on your own from the references if you are interested. The only alternative is to trust no one and do everything, which is simply impossible for anyone; or really give up all your judgements to other people, who may be saints or crooks, wise or insane. I hope you will try to find the possible but not perfect in-between path by learning some science. It is hard, but it is fun and interesting, and it gives you your own power to think and evaluate for yourself, albeit in a limited and imperfect way.

Refrencing Dr. Van Allens reubtal to this fallacy...

[edit] Ionizing radiation and heat
Challenges and responses

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). Some hoax theorists have suggested that Starfish Prime (high altitude nuclear testing in 1962) was a failed attempt to disrupt the Van Allen belts.

The Moon is ten times higher than the Van Allen radiation belts. The spacecraft moved through the belts in just 30 minutes, and the astronauts were protected from the ionizing radiation by the aluminium hulls of the spacecraft. In addition, the orbital transfer trajectory from the Earth to the Moon through the belts was selected to minimize radiation exposure. Even Dr. James Van Allen, the discoverer of the Van Allen radiation belts, rebutted the claims that radiation levels were too dangerous for the Apollo missions. Dosimeters carried by the crews showed they received about the same cumulative dosage as a chest X-ray or about 1 milligray.[54] Plait cited an average dose of less than 1 rem, which is equivalent to the ambient radiation received by living at sea level for three years.[45], pp. 160–162 The spacecraft passed through the intense inner belt in a matter of minutes and the low-energy outer belt in about an hour and half. The astronauts were mostly shielded from the radiation by the spacecraft. The total radiation received on the trip was about the same as allowed for workers in the nuclear energy field for a year.[55]
The radiation is actually evidence that the astronauts went to the Moon. Irene Schneider reports that thirty-three of the thirty-six 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 during their trip.

posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 11:47 PM
reply to post by bluestreak53

LOL, no because they now have ZPE and Tachyon based propulsion reportedly....

posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 11:53 PM

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
I don't really need convincing that they went, I think they did. What I want to know is who told them not to go back for 50 years...

The socio-political landscape of the 1970s and the malaise of the early 1980s.

Those two decades took the wind out of NASA's Moon program sails and it took 15 more years to get congress (the guys who decide how to spend the country's money) interested in the Moon again.
[edit on 7/8/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]

I remember back in the late 1960s, talking with my friends about our dreams about becoming astronauts and going to Mars. We all assumed that man would get to the moon before we got out of high school and that was the case. I was actually worried man would get to mars before I graduated. But after Apollo landed on the moon, it all became routine for the general public and it seemed noone really cared about space exploration anymore.

posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 11:56 PM

Originally posted by jkrog08
reply to post by bluestreak53

LOL, no because they now have ZPE and Tachyon based propulsion reportedly....

Dang! I knew I should have gone into Tachyon research!

posted on Jul, 10 2009 @ 12:15 AM
reply to post by bonekeeper

You know what would be nice to end the conspiracy theories (or fuel them even more) ? Live streaming video from the moon and mars, 24/7.

lol yea i doubt anything like that will ever happen, the PTB consider this secret information as theirs and we sheeple are not allowed to see any of that.

here is the only spacecam i ever found that is supposedly live.

not a good picture but you know there are many of these satellites that have cameras on them, but we sheeple will never get to see any of that. not to mention they have just recently stopped releasing some data on incoming fastwalkers

[edit on 10-7-2009 by easynow]

posted on Jul, 10 2009 @ 12:21 AM
reply to post by zorgon

Mine is better quality

haha, ....

this ones even better

How about that they pulled the book the day after announcing it Weird huh?

are there any copies of it ...anywhere ?

[edit on 10-7-2009 by easynow]

posted on Jul, 10 2009 @ 02:27 AM

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
The most obvious mining opportunities to me would not involve bringing material back to earth, but instead using the mined materials for space missions so we can avoid the hige expense of blasting materials into space.

Quite right... it's called ISRU In Situ Resource Utilization

What is mined on the moon stays on the moon. The regolith is full of siilcon oxide, titanium oxide, iron oxide and thorium oxide. A simple solar furnace and you can make glass for fiberglass structures (and glass on the moon is as strong as steel) Iron and titanium for structures and spacecraft and thorium is a nuclear fuel

The beauty is that this process releases the oxygen in the rocks (hence oxide) which can be used for breathing or combined with the free hydrogen on the Moon to make rocket fuel and water (you burn the hydrogen and oxygen as fuel and water is the exhaust)(water is actually dihydrogen oxide

Convenient huh?

Yes that's excellent, good info, star for your post. We might even see that happen in our lifetimes.

Originally posted by zorgon
The ONLY thing that would pay to bring back is Helium 3 HE3 to use in clean fusion reactors that leave no waste.

I'm not sure we'll see that happen in our lifetimes.

Practical nuclear fusion is nowadays projected to be five decades off--the same prediction that was made at the 1958 Atoms for Peace conference in Brussels. If fusion power's arrival date has remained constantly 50 years away since 1958, why would helium-3 suddenly make fusion power more feasible?

Following that is an interesting view of both sides of the debate.

But I think I'll have to file this one in the category of "I'll believe it when I see it"

The more I think about fusion reactors, the more it strikes me that we already have one...the sun. We can make a lot of progress by putting that one to better use I think.

Containing a fusion reaction really sounds pretty hard, I think that's why we are always 50 years away from a commercially viable process where not only is the energy output greater than the energy input, but the reactor materials aren't damaged or destroyed in a relatively short period of time.

[edit on 10-7-2009 by Arbitrageur]

posted on Jul, 10 2009 @ 02:48 AM

Originally posted by Phage
The LCROSS impact isn't until October.
[edit on 7/9/2009 by Phage]

Yeah well... I used my 'Looking Glass'

posted on Jul, 10 2009 @ 02:51 AM

Originally posted by hisshadow
mmm... suppose thats what the 'orion starcruisers' are for

No that would be the "Aquila Cargo Transports"
launched with Boeing Integrated Defense System Delta IV heavy lifters

[edit on 10-7-2009 by zorgon]

posted on Jul, 10 2009 @ 11:35 PM

Originally posted by AgentX09
Well one thing is for certain.A lunar landing module was built.I know because my grandfather worked on some of their components at Grummen Aerospace in Bethpage,N.Y.when i was a kid.I will be interesting to see how its surving on the moon.

It survived very well but its not on the moon

Its right here +39° 57' 27.87", -75° 10' 24.54"

Franklin Institute Philadelphia Pa

Street View

I found Surveyor on a Beach in CA, Viking in Death Valley and Pathfinder in the Nevada Desert They are all in good shape

posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 06:35 AM

Originally posted by easynow

i have never seen an explanation as to why there is no dust on the LEM , lander feet that i am satisfied with. that to me doesn't add up. doesn't mean they didn't go to the moon though.

The LEM was renamed LM about 1964, please keep up with NASA acronymese!

You're still earththinking. Most of the universe is ALIEN to what we've been imprinted with down here in our tiny corner.

Dust from the rocket blast doesn't hang around in suspension and then settle down and out afterwards. No air to hold it up.

It blows off and away, entrained in the engine exhaust plumes. When the engine stops, the dust quickly hits the ground at great distances, and stays there.

You can see the same 'no dust' on the footpads of the Surveyor robots, and the Soviet 'Luna' landers.

Get used to a whole new set of unearthly behaviors when you leave Earth.

Leave earththinking behind or you'll keep embarrassing yourself.

posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 06:38 AM

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by zorgon

How about that they pulled the book the day after announcing it Weird huh?

are there any copies of it ...anywhere ?

How about you stop automatically believing every rumor you hear in these discussions?

posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 07:00 AM

I beleive we landed there and such with all the missions,,,

if you think about it also,,,other countires know with there spy/space sattlelites know we were there,,,

I dont see any propraganda war saying we wernt??

NASA does need a tune up and more honesty though...

huggs everyone

posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 07:08 AM
reply to post by Phage

geewizzz,,,I always enjoyed hearing hoaglad talk on mars and stuff,,,,

he's gotta be loosing his mind!!!....

his credibility just shrunk ...

posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 12:57 AM
This means next to nothing. They have obviously been to the moon, there was no way to fake something like this nor to keep the amount of people quiet that would have been needed.

posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 01:31 AM

However, the Lunar Reconnoissance Orbiter will only be able to take photos of what is known as the Descent Stage, the bottom part of the LEM that housed the main propulsion system. This part was left on the Moon's surface, while the Ascent Stage launched after each mission to rendezvous with the Command Module orbiting around the Moon.

Im dying to see these pics but if all they are intending to provide is a fuzzy picture of the bottom half of each lunar lander then im calling these fakes right now. I want to see the flags , the footprints, car tracks, the camera they left.. you know all the stuff that would be difficult to fake. But more than likley NASA wont provide proof they will just give us more flimsy evidence to argue about for the next 20yrs.

posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 02:02 AM

Originally posted by amyfriend
I dont see any propraganda war saying we wernt??
NASA does need a tune up and more honesty though...

It's not a propaganda war, it's some fringe people illustrating their ignorance about everything from optics, photography, and cameras to physics to Van Allen belt radiation, etc. As Jim Oberg put it, they are embarrassing themselves, so if you haven't seen it, you're not missing anything, although the video Zorgon posted of the lights falling is pretty funny, I get a laugh every time I see it.

I'm not sure where the NASA honesty comment is coming from. I saw accusations like that in another thread where NASA is claiming ice and debris is actually ice and debris instead of intelligently controlled spacecraft. When I watched the video it looks like ice and debris to me. I think if NASA accidentally photographed a secret satellite, they might edit that out of the picture before releasing it, for reasons of national security, is that what you're talking about? I guess I'm not aware of why NASA has such a credibility problem.

new topics

top topics

<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in