It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Nightwalker
the Ozone Layer of our atmosphere protects us from harmful UV rays from the Sun. What protects the astronout in the space station with no Ozone in between the Earth and the Moon??? Didn't read the whole forum so dont kno if this has come up yet orn ot reply with your thoughts please.
Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
The earth is orbiting the sun at about 400,000 mph. on the way back from the moon, they would have to perfectly align their re-entry into earths orbit. I would believe that would take more computations then a computer with that low of memory could provide.
The comment about technology makes perfect sense. Read it again.
As of right now the US does not posses the techonogly to go to the moon.
Had it costed 50 billion back then it would now cost 5 billion or less. Just
as VCR'S costed $1000+ when they first came out and now they cost $30. get it?
Originally posted by William R.C Fennder
The only thing protecting us from the Deadly radiation of the sun is the ozone layer. Go outside of the layer, and wham, about a day later you'll be feeling the effects of the severe radiation exposure by throwing up, getting all sort of nasty headaches and general complaints, and eventually loose your hair.
Posted: November 19, 2002
The United States and Russia have had bases on the moon since 1957. The radiation belt around the earth is not a problem when you have the proper insulation and technology. There's a lot of disinformation, even in conspiracy theories. We have a craft called The Aurora, which has been able to travel anywhere in this solar system without a problem. Since the 1970's "Stargate" technology facilitates travel for individuals. But vehicles are still used.
Originally posted by rfoshaug
Originally posted by Savonarola
NASA is insisting that a manned mission to Mars may be futile due to the intense solar radiation the astronauts would be exposed to. I can't imagine that Mars, having an atmosphere and being farther away from the Sun, can be any less dangerous (due to radiation) than going to the moon.
The problem is not that Mars is a more harsh environment than the Moon. The problem is total exposure due to the longer duration of a Mars mission. An Apollo mission lasted a week. A Mars mission might last for more than a year. That is the problem.
Have you ever had X-rays of your teeth at the dentist? You sit there and get exposed to the rays while the dentist and assistants leave the room and close a lead-plated door. Same thing. You can take it because it's only a short exposure. Dentists and assistants don't want this type of exposure several times a day, each day, year after year. Total amount of exposure.
William, if you have a video of the moon landings try speeding them up. You might notice that the astronauts and the space jeep seem a lot less bouncy - and a whole lot more earthy.
Speed it up, slow it down, do whatever you like. Can you get up like that in 1G, even without a bulky suit? That would require some MAJOR push-ups skills!
Besides, have you seen the way those 'moon jeeps' move? Without gasoline? Considering the sucky nature of present-day battery-powered vehicles, I highly doubt they were electric...
According to Wikipedia the rover on Apollo 17 was the one that travelled farthest. It went 22.30 miles (35.89 km). Max speed was about 8 mph (13 km/h).
If this had been a battery-powered car of today, it would indeed be classed as "sucky". But for excursions on the moon it was enough.
Man has not been to the moon.
Yes, 12 men have walked on the lunar surface.
[edit on 17-12-2009 by rfoshaug]
Originally posted by regfenster
Agreed, Apollo 17 according to Richard Hoagland and his book Dark mission(with photographic evidence(suppressed)) show many non natural accuring artifacts
Originally posted by William
These concepts have been debunked before. There's even a "bad science" website easily refuting all these points. (Can anyone remember the URL?)
One thing to remember about Apollo 11 (first landing)... they installed a laser reflection experiment (forget the actual name of the project) that involved the installation of a special mirror on the moon's surface. The experiment wasn't accomplished previously with automated landers because it required on-the-spot human intervention with final adjustments of the reflector.
Universities around the world are still using the reflector today.
[Edited on 1-4-2003 by William]
Originally posted by Pervius
You don't need mirrors on the moon to use a laser range finder to see how far away it is. It will work without a mirror.
Imagine trying to hit a 12 inch by 12 inch mirror on the moon from 239,000 miles away which you can't see and have no idea where it is.
Go outside of the layer, and wham, about a day later you'll be feeling the effects of the severe radiation exposure by throwing up, getting all sort of nasty headaches and general complaints, and eventually loose your hair.
Originally posted by Mary Rose
In the archives of Stewart Swerdlow's Q & A is this:
I also recall reading in his archives that the moon landing was filmed in studios and outside at Area 51, but I can't find it again in the archives.