Moon Landing Hoax - The Space Suit

page: 7
63
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by toocoolnc
 



People believe that we didnt go to the moon due to the fact that its been 40-50 years since we last went. with the increase of technology and innovation, it would much much easier and cheaper to travel there today.


Other than advances in electronics and AI, not much has been developed in terms of space technology in the past 50 years. The engineering problem is still the same, and therefore has the same answer. It is not "easier," and, if anything, it is more expensive.


The effect upon the people of the world was, that if we could go to the moon other creatures from other worlds could travel to our Earth. The escalation of the artificial alien threat scenario since that time is obvious.


Only to people who take UFO and "exopolitic" websites seriously.




posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by GrinchNoMore
 




We do ?? Show us these mirrors, oh and please keep explaining to us how we cannot get an even REMOTELY clear picture of the landing sites and all the rest of the supposed junk ...why the most amazing event done by man is basically ignored entirely by NASA...what happened to the entire event...


There are laser reflectors on the moon and they are still used to measure the distance from the Earth to the Moon

en.wikipedia.org...

NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) captured the sharpest images ever taken from space of the Apollo 12, 14 and 17 landing sites.

www.nasa.gov...

Why has NASA failed ? The shuttle program was supposed to be the next step by creating a reusable craft to take astronauts in low space orbits where a permanent space station could be assembled and it was envisioned that eventually long range spacecraft could be assembled in space to reduce the weight of all the fuel that earth born launches needed.

Unfortunately the shuttle program was somewhat disappointing, the cost per launch never got close to what NASA had told congress, the entire fleet of shuttles was never built due to cost and the american public quickly lost interest in space after the Apollo program.



edit on 6-4-2012 by CynicalWabbit because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by warpcrafter
The evidence that the Moon landings were faked continues to build, and yet it is one of the fake truths, like 9/11 and the Kennedy assassination that most people stubbornly cling to. It's like what Morpheus told Neo in the first Matrix movie, that most people who were in the system are so dependent on it that they would actually fight against anyone who tried to free them from it.


Excellent point. They get angry then they start ridiculing leading straight to insults directed to the people who are bringing them the truth. People often say they want truth but would fight tooth and nail to keep the lie going even when it don't serve them to keep it going.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder

Originally posted by CynicalWabbit

What temp is space then if it's not cold ?

Space has no temperature. It's empty SPACE. The reason objects are hot is because the particles inside those things are vibrating extremely quickly, or very slowly if the object is cold. When you come into contact with those things the excited particles transfer some of their energy into the particles which make up our body, and when your nerves detect excited particles in your body that will register as a hot feeling. Conversely, if you touch a cold object the energy in your own particles are absorbed by the cool object which has relaxed particles. Space is not a tangible substance which can be excited. It is simply space, the area in which tangible substance occupy and exist. The only known force thought to exert an influence on the "fabric" of space is gravity, but even then I wouldn't say that theory is absolutely confirmed, because we fail to completely understand and explain how gravity works.
edit on 6-4-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)


errrr............and the SUN has nothing to do in space but, keep blowing up over and over..

so the earth gets warmed by .......................................????

keep trying you'll get there



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 03:35 PM
link   
If nothing else amuses me, it's the amount of effort people put into the utterly ludicrous and hilarious "we didn't visit the moon" theories. So much misguided research and deluded conclusions.

We were on the moon - get over it.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


Before people can really debate the funding cost of NASA program being too expensive to repeat the supposed Moon Landing they must take into consideration this country had tens of trillions of dollars disappear and no one to answer for it. So the argument the country lacked money for newer space craft and return trips to the moon is not accurate.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chai_An
reply to post by DJW001
 


So the argument the country lacked money for newer space craft and return trips to the moon is not accurate.


It's not so much the lack of money per se, as it is the misplaced spending priorities.
With priorities in other areas, NASA funding is miniscule.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Chai_An
 


That is true but we also have a national debt of $15,623,556,736,341.30

And according to NASA: the final cost of project Apollo was reported to Congress as $25.4 billion in 1973.[37] It took up the majority of NASA's budget while it was being developed. For example, in 1966 it accounted for about 60 percent of NASA's total $5.2 billion budget.[38]

In 2009, NASA held a symposium on project costs which presented an estimate of the Apollo program costs in 2005 dollars as roughly $170 billion. This included all research and development costs; the procurement of 15 Saturn V rockets, 16 Command/Service Modules, 12 Lunar Modules, plus program support and management costs; construction expenses for facilities and their upgrading, and costs for flight operations. This was based on a Congressional Budget Office report, A Budgetary Analysis of NASA’s New Vision for Space, September 2004. The Space Review estimated in 2010 the cost of Apollo from 1959 to 1973 as $20.4 billion, or $109 billion in 2010 dollars. Each lunar landing thus cost $18 billion in 2010 dollars.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Chai_An
 


Yes, governments will spend money - even if they don't have it - on whatever they want to, whatever they think is "worthwhile" for their definition of that word.

The government does not want to spend money on manned moon missions. There is nothing "worthwhile" in it for them.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Komodo
 


Are you kidding me? Do you really not understand? Lemme lay this out for you.
Sun puts off UV rays.
UV rays heat the earth by making air, earth and water particles heat up or move faster.
Space does not have particles in it.
Therefore it can not have a temperature because there is no way to measure it.

BUT

If you had a thermometer in space you would get a measure of temperature because the UV rays of the sun are making the thermometer hot. So, space has no temperature, but the Sun's UV rays in it do.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Saint Exupery
reply to post by Chai_An
 


Yes, governments will spend money - even if they don't have it - on whatever they want to, whatever they think is "worthwhile" for their definition of that word.

The government does not want to spend money on manned moon missions. There is nothing "worthwhile" in it for them.


Lets say for the sake of argument they have the technology to get there, it would most certainly be a worthwhile venture to undertake. Think rare resources, strategic location to reach other heavenly bodies, and expansion of national territory. Oh no I have to disagree with you if they could get to the moon they would be there spending untold amount of money on black projects alone. It would go without saying that mainstream science would benefit greatly from having direct access to the moon.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 04:13 PM
link   
the inside of the suits was cooled not the outside the inside of the suit is not a vacuum



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chai_An
reply to post by DJW001
 


Before people can really debate the funding cost of NASA program being too expensive to repeat the supposed Moon Landing they must take into consideration this country had tens of trillions of dollars disappear and no one to answer for it. So the argument the country lacked money for newer space craft and return trips to the moon is not accurate.


this is absurd
the money could be pocketed or spent on black budget projects.....definitely not by nasa who is able to be audited that would be extraordinarily retarded
blah blah blah this thread sucks nards



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 04:17 PM
link   
"No man has ever ascended higher than 300 miles, if that high, above the Earth's surface. No man has ever orbited, landed on, or walked upon the moon in any publicly known space program. If man has ever truly been to the moon it has been done in secret and with a far different technology."

There was a great flap by the no--mooners, (incuding documentary) about the small earth picture being faked on film by the apollo 11 team. The Nimbus-3 satellite picture taken at around the same time matches up exactly with the apollo 11 film earth image, including the hurricane, 'Camille' I think it was. The no-mooners shot themselves in the foot, utterly and completely with that. Far from proving no moon landing, the film did prove that apollo 11 was many thousands of miles away from earth when they made the film, never mind the ridiculous 300 miles.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 04:26 PM
link   
a space suit isn't a vacuum.

using the reasoning in the article, the astronauts on the international space station should be roasted a 1000x over because its in the vacuum of space, therefore impossible to cool.

a space suit is just a mini international space station, applying the same concepts used to regulate it's temperature but on a much scaled down version.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by randomname
a space suit isn't a vacuum.

using the reasoning in the article, the astronauts on the international space station should be roasted a 1000x over because its in the vacuum of space, therefore impossible to cool.

a space suit is just a mini international space station, applying the same concepts used to regulate it's temperature but on a much scaled down version.


Or any EVA for that matter.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anon77
Oh dear... ANOTHER moon hoax thread. These would be more interesting if the moon hoaxers actually bothered to even slightly research the science they are (poorly) attempting to disprove with their 'conclusive' evidence. Don't you think that if the Russians (during communism and the cold war) ever thought they had even the slightest chance at proving it was a fake they wouldn't have taken full political advantage of that to embarrass the Americans? COME ON! They will have been using all the technology they possibly could to monitor the moon landings, photo's, videos, etc to look for any way to prove it was all crap. To all you 'moon landing hoaxers' out there, you really REALLY need to find something better to do with your time...


Wow...you sure showed us didn't you. Now there's some proof. You got me convinced now with that brilliant piece of debunking. I'll never question it again after reading your post. Thank god your here to set everything straight. NOT!!!!!



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 05:04 PM
link   
I don't usually chime in on threads that get this long but I couldn't help myself. I've read over the many pages of the thread and noticed a few different references to people saying the space suits aren't real or couldn't work....but that the Oxygen supply could never be maintained or work for the duration of the missions anyway.


It's just a small, quick thing here..and I honestly wouldn't know where the chicken and egg line lies on this. That might be a thread all it's own for someone who knows better...but NASA didn't necessarily even come up with the solution to THAT one. Men were in long duration situations, totally cut off from outside air and oxygen for extended periods of time LONG before man stepped foot on the moon. Not generations, perhaps..but even a few years is enough difference to matter.

Where was this "impossible" feat solved? The U.S. Navy and for the submarine fleet. Yeah..they surfaced to snorkle back in those days, but if one has read about the subject or...if we're actually lucky enough to have a member who served in the 'Silent Service' back then, they could tell MUCH more I'm sure...the snorkeling was more for the Battery and engines than for any man on board. They solved the air circulation and generation problem there...and so did NASA for the Moon. Yeah..air was limited..and not like today where a Boomer stays down for 6 months at a time...but all those men in a cigar tube would have died in a flash without air treatment and generation solutions.

Next hoax claim?



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 05:22 PM
link   
So....what, you think no energy can pass through the vacuum of space?

How does the energy from the Sun get here to the Earth then?

It's called Radiant Energy. Its the electromagnetic spectrum, which consists of--among other things--the visible light spectrum, ultraviolet, gamma and x-rays, and on the lower end of the spectrum, infrared.

Infrared may ring a bell or two if you remember it is commonly used for night-vision equipment in the form of thermal imaging....meaning using infrared sensors to detect heat signatures radiating from stuff that is warm(like human and animal bodies) and stuff that is hot(like the engine block of a running motor).


All matter with a temperature greater than absolute zero emits thermal radiation. The mechanism is that bodies with a temperature above absolute zero have atoms or molecules with kinetic energies which are changing, and these changes result in charge-acceleration and/or dipole oscillation of the charges that compose the atoms.


This is called Thermal Radiation, and is addressed in grade school physics classes, usually in conjunction with the Laws of Thermodynamics.

I have a hard time believing all of you Moon Hoaxers actually do not know about thermal radiation as a means of radiating heat away from a ship/suit in space...and even more of a hard time believing that if you really didn't know it, and this question occurred to you legitimately, that you could not perform a simple google search like "how can excess heat be disgarded when in space?" and effing find out about it.

It seems more likely that your google search strings are along the lines of "what are the best arguments for the moon landing being a hoax?"
edit on 4/6/2012 by Tsurugi because: Added a bit of rant. Moment of weakness.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by OccamAssassin
 


Objects cool via infrared radiation which does not require molecular transfer.
A vaccuum is not a perfect insulator, it merely slows down the temperature change.

Physics guys. It's called physics.

I have no idea why Bill Cooper couldn't figure this out. The real conspiracy here is whether BC knew what he was saying was false or whether he is just ignorant of physics.
edit on 6-4-2012 by pirhanna because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
63
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join