Did nasa really send astronauts to the moon?

page: 1
12
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 07:27 PM
link   
Hi there people
I have just one question if some body could enlighten me as to how nasa managed to send astronauts through the Van Allen radiation belt without them becoming fatally radiated ? I ask this question as its quoted in several documentaries as a significant hurdle in manned space travel outside a 1000miles radius of earth. thanks fa ya time



+6 more 
posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by krs678
Hi there people
I have just one question if some body could enlighten me as to how nasa managed to send astronauts through the Van Allen radiation belt without them becoming fatally radiated ? I ask this question as its quoted in several documentaries as a significant hurdle in manned space travel outside a 1000miles radius of earth. thanks fa ya time



In fact, the Van Allen radiation belts extend from about 600 miles up to more than 40,000 miles from Earth with the region of highest radiation intensity being between around 2,000 miles and 12,000 miles above Earth. The astronauts exposure to those radiation belts is brief (less than 4 hours total - they begin their time in this region while traveling at 25,000 MPH! And they pass through it twice, once outbound, and again on their return. They spend less than an hour in the densest part of the belt.) and they are well protected in their spacecraft.

Also, the belt is toroidal in shape (like a donut) and the trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft were designed to avoid the worst part of the Van Allen belts. Even the discoverer of the Van Allen belts, Professor James A. Van Allen, has noted that the belts would not have been dangerous to the Apollo astronauts given their trajectories and their spacecraft.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 07:33 PM
link   
There are numerous threads about the whole moon landing thing.. I don't buy into any of the hoax theories, especially considering the site of the moon landing has been imaged by russia and china.. they would have nothing to gain by propagating hoax for the united states


The hoax theories tend to ignore those basic facts...



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by miniatus
 


Why can we not see the giant flag, they planted, through our telescopes?



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by miniatus
 


Thanks for your view ,Im on the fence regarding whether the moon landings really happened ,It seems strange to me that with very small amounts of protection man would be able to survive even short a exposure to radiation without long term problems like cancer or other radiation side effects



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Turkenstein
reply to post by miniatus
 


Why can we not see the giant flag, they planted, through our telescopes?



Assuming a consumer scope wouldnt be powerful enough to see it. If its a standard sized flag anyhow. Would be a needle in a haystack.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by miniatus
There are numerous threads about the whole moon landing thing.. I don't buy into any of the hoax theories, especially considering the site of the moon landing has been imaged by russia and china.. they would have nothing to gain by propagating hoax for the united states


The hoax theories tend to ignore those basic facts...


All that , and not one picture ever released to the public, no need with full on believers protecting the coverups i guess !!



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Turkenstein
reply to post by miniatus
 


Why can we not see the giant flag, they planted, through our telescopes?



Giant flag?


www.hq.nasa.gov...

You can't see the landing site through a telescope... It's been imaged from russian and chinese space missions, satellites that image the lunar surface.. And the "giant" flag is hardly giant at all ..

Keep in mind that Russia and the US were both competing to get to space at the same time.. it would have been quite easy for Russia to see this was a hoax because you can bet they were observing the launch and subsequent missions.. Russia would not sit by and go along with the hoax ... they were embarrassed by their failed mission and would have absolutely flaunted it in our faces if it hadn't truly happened..

There's zero logic used in the moon hoax stuff..



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by krs678
reply to post by miniatus
 


Thanks for your view ,Im on the fence regarding whether the moon landings really happened ,It seems strange to me that with very small amounts of protection man would be able to survive even short a exposure to radiation without long term problems like cancer or other radiation side effects


Well Van Allen himself would have disagreed with that sentiment... the trajectory of the craft was designed to minimize the exposure, the suits and craft were designed to offer protection.. and they were exposed only for a brief time.

Aside from all of that, there's plenty of irrefutable evidence for the moon landing.. several of those things I've already mentioned..



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by miniatus
There are numerous threads about the whole moon landing thing.. I don't buy into any of the hoax theories, especially considering the site of the moon landing has been imaged by russia and china.. they would have nothing to gain by propagating hoax for the united states


The hoax theories tend to ignore those basic facts...


There are no clear images of the landing sites, sorry. Even the Russians managed to put unmanned landers on the moon, and return them carrying samples. No one doubts the US has done so too.

The radiation hazard is much greater ON THE MOON where we supposedly had men for days (with no protection (lol).
Only a childs mind could still swallow the Apollo hoax story.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Spruk

Originally posted by Turkenstein
reply to post by miniatus
 


Why can we not see the giant flag, they planted, through our telescopes?



Assuming a consumer scope wouldnt be powerful enough to see it. If its a standard sized flag anyhow. Would be a needle in a haystack.


An optical telescope wouldn't be able to see it.. not even the hubble space telescope would be able to do that .. This site does an excellent job of explaining why this is ..

www.rocketroberts.com...


As powerful as Hubble is (above the limits of the Earth's atmosphere), it has no chance of seeing the Flag on the Moon. What could it see? Well, Hubble has a mirror that is 94.5 inches in diameter. That gives it a resolution of 4.56/94.5 or about 0.0483 arc seconds. If one does the math, this translates to a resolution of about 295 feet at the distance of the Moon. So, Hubble could just detect an object that was 295 feet across on the Moon. To see any detail on an object, it would have to be somewhat larger. To put this in perspective, if a typical pro football stadium was located on the Moon Hubble could make out some basic details (the field could just barely be made out as a dot in the center of a very small oval).



The landing site has been imaged by satellites .. Russia and China have both sent missions to image the moon, China did this a few years ago and produced some really great images of the surface...

Here's a satellite image.. and by the way this would also put into perspective why a telescope wouldn't be able to see it .. even directly over-head via satellite, the site is small .. but the tracks from the rover are very clear to see.

www.cumberlandspaceman.co.uk...


+3 more 
posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 08:02 PM
link   
When you run through rain do you get less wet? No.
If you travel fast through the van allen belt do you get less radiated? No.
Niether their suits or their craft provided protection against radiation.

Personaly I think something went up there, but I doubt it was those people we saw on our tv screens.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by sprtpilot

Originally posted by miniatus
There are numerous threads about the whole moon landing thing.. I don't buy into any of the hoax theories, especially considering the site of the moon landing has been imaged by russia and china.. they would have nothing to gain by propagating hoax for the united states


The hoax theories tend to ignore those basic facts...


There are no clear images of the landing sites, sorry. Even the Russians managed to put unmanned landers on the moon, and return them carrying samples. No one doubts the US has done so too.


"No clear images" .. so because the images are fuzzy, that means they don't exist? that's kind of silly isn't it? .. the rover tracks are VERY clear and obvious to see .. the details of the actual left behind equipment isn't easy to see.. As for the radiation on the surface, we're talking direct solar radiation.. or even just heat since the surface gets to about 300 degrees.. however, the moon walks were conducted when the sun was low in the sky which minimized radiation ( and heat ) .. the surface at the time of the walks was actually pretty mild.. the suits also offer a lot of protection against radiation.. and they were designed specifically for that... a "child's mind" wouldn't understand the technical aspects or planning behind it


You can see there's no winning this =) there will be an argument every time... this is where logic comes in .. as I said, Russia would have known very clearly if this was hoaxed.. and would have nothing to gain to perpetuate that hoax... that simple fact, you would think, would end it...
edit on 8/26/2012 by miniatus because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by VoidHawk
When you run through rain do you get less wet? No.
If you travel fast through the van allen belt do you get less radiated? No.
Niether their suits or their craft provided protection against radiation.

Personaly I think something went up there, but I doubt it was those people we saw on our tv screens.


Radiation is not rain ... the faster you travel through it the less exposure you have, that's just fact... put a hamburger in the microwave for 5 seconds.. now do it again for 50 seconds.. you'll notice something
.. the longer the burger is exposed to the microwaves the hotter it gets... the power level didn't change, just exposure time..

You can also put that into perspective by thinking about tanning at the beach... you don't burn the instant you lay down.. it depends on how long you're exposed to that radiation.

And the van allen belt has areas that are less dense than others.. the trajectory, as I pointed out, was designed to put them through a relatively safer part of the belt.. less dense.. it was also designed to minimize exposure time, which exposure time as I hope I illustrated pretty straight forward, is very important.. that combined with the protection of the ship and the suits.. kept them safe.
edit on 8/26/2012 by miniatus because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by miniatus
 


Perhaps your right and nasa did go to the moon well at least sent astronauts, but why stop further missions after spending obscene amounts of money to set up a way to get there ?Also would their space suits offer enough protection against direct suns radiation once upon the lunar surface?One would think it would get quite hot in the shadeless environment of the moon ?



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by krs678
 


1000's ...

of threads on this already .. unless the mods are deleting them ..



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by krs678
reply to post by miniatus
 


Perhaps your right and nasa did go to the moon well at least sent astronauts, but why stop further missions after spending obscene amounts of money to set up a way to get there ?Also would their space suits offer enough protection against direct suns radiation once upon the lunar surface?One would think it would get quite hot in the shadeless environment of the moon ?


1. Cost, for sure...
2. A decline in public interest..the film Apollo 13 talks about that, people were really just getting bored with it.. that directly ties into the amount of money given to the NASA budget..
3. The space race was already won and a lot of data already collected

Aside from the cool factor, there's not a lot more we could really have done there at the time.. Which is a good argument for why we should re-visit the moon NOW .. I would love to see a mission to the moon that aims to generate power on the surface using Helum 3 ( which is VERY abundant on the surface )
edit on 8/26/2012 by miniatus because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Komodo
 


Your point?



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Komodo
reply to post by krs678
 


1000's ...

of threads on this already .. unless the mods are deleting them ..



That's true.. but many of those threads devolved into disrespect and aggressive arguments.. 50 million pages of uselessness.. it's nice when there can be civil discourse



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by miniatus
There are numerous threads about the whole moon landing thing.. I don't buy into any of the hoax theories, especially considering the site of the moon landing has been imaged by russia and china.. they would have nothing to gain by propagating hoax for the united states


The hoax theories tend to ignore those basic facts...


Lets say it's not a doctored image. Lets say it is "a site". They also sent robots to the moon prior to they're claim of sending astronauts. So how do you know for certain that it wasn't the site of a robot landing?

The moon landing is a hoax wake up.





new topics
top topics
 
12
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join