Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

Originally posted by choos
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

super sonic passenger jets no longer fly as well, so until super sonic passenger jets start flying again no aeronautical expert can say that supersonic passenger jets can/has ever possibly exist. the concorde was really just a hologram.

edit on 19-4-2013 by choos because: (no reason given)

And the Wright Brothers plane no longer flies, but that's hardly relevant to the point either!

You can take anything at all to such absurd lengths, then claim it's a victory!

So it's important to consider WHY something is not repeated again. The Wright Brothers plane isn't built anymore because it's obsolete. The Concorde isn't built anymore because it was found to be not profitable.

Nothing can excuse the so-called 'return' to the moon, however.

I think the moon landing was real, faking such a thing would be the lowest low humans have ever gone if such a thing were true. That's a tall order.

Originally posted by turbonium1

Originally posted by choos
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

super sonic passenger jets no longer fly as well, so until super sonic passenger jets start flying again no aeronautical expert can say that supersonic passenger jets can/has ever possibly exist. the concorde was really just a hologram.

edit on 19-4-2013 by choos because: (no reason given)

And the Wright Brothers plane no longer flies, but that's hardly relevant to the point either!

You can take anything at all to such absurd lengths, then claim it's a victory!

So it's important to consider WHY something is not repeated again. The Wright Brothers plane isn't built anymore because it's obsolete. The Concorde isn't built anymore because it was found to be not profitable.

Nothing can excuse the so-called 'return' to the moon, however.

but why do people use the excuse that we havent returned to the moon as evidence we never went yet discount the fact that the concordes/tu-144 no longer fly therefore they never took passengers as irrelevant?

how profitable is flying man to the moon? whereas robots can do similar things at much less of the costs and can adhere to todays OHS standards?

Apollo-ites try to say only long-term missions are a problem for us today, which is simply not the case. A long-term mission would obviously be more hazardous than short-term missions, but that doesn't mean a whole lot since BOTH missions are hazardous!!

what are the chances of a large solar event that results in a large amount of particles being released in the direction of the moon for a one week stay, and now what are the chances for an indefinite stay?

regarding the VA belts, a short term exposure to the VA belt will not be instantly deadly as the cells will be given time to heal after they pass the VA belts. did you know the ISS and shuttle pass through the SAMA cumulatively for several hours per day? you know much about risk management?

Originally posted by turbonium1

The Apollo spacecraft were primarily thin aluminum shells. It's a well-documented fact that aluminum is a very poor shield against the radiation within the VA Belts. While the same goes for radiation beyond the VA Belts (ie: solar flares), I focus on the radiation within the VA Belts alone, again because it cannot be excused.

As you see, they just ignore the problem, and hope nobody notices.

But it was noticed.

here have a quick read:
www.clavius.org...

Originally posted by choos

Originally posted by turbonium1

Originally posted by choos

but why do people use the excuse that we havent returned to the moon as evidence we never went yet discount the fact that the concordes/tu-144 no longer fly therefore they never took passengers as irrelevant?

how profitable is flying man to the moon? whereas robots can do similar things at much less of the costs and can adhere to todays OHS standards?

It's not profitable, nor is it meant to be. The Concorde wasn't profitable, but WAS meant to be.

For many years, the excuse for not going 'back' to the moon was that it'd already been done, and nothing more could be gained from doing it again. It was just a big, boring rock, anyway!

That excuse didn't work after they started a project to go 'back' to the moon. That proved they DID want to do it.

But it failed, and proved even more why we haven't gone 'back' since Apollo supposedly went.

Originally posted by turbonium1

It's not profitable, nor is it meant to be. The Concorde wasn't profitable, but WAS meant to be.

For many years, the excuse for not going 'back' to the moon was that it'd already been done, and nothing more could be gained from doing it again. It was just a big, boring rock, anyway!

That excuse didn't work after they started a project to go 'back' to the moon. That proved they DID want to do it.

But it failed, and proved even more why we haven't gone 'back' since Apollo supposedly went.

sure they wanted to go back. but do you even know why they didnt? do you even know who was saying its a waste to go back? NASA the GOV or the people of america? NASA wanted to go back, NASA just came up with too many plans and opted to go for a space station rather than a moon base thus wasting time and money. the people complained NASA was a waste of time and money the GOV cant just make the people give them money and spend it on NASA when the people are not even interested in a moon base.

NASA cant do much without support.

p.s. do you really think anyone will support NASA for wasting money? if landing on the moon was to be deemed unprofitable, do you honestly believe that people will support NASA returning to the moon? you sure people wont ask why NASA is wasting tax payers money on unprofitable ventures? or perhaps the profits will occur elsewhere? ever thought of that?

reply to post by XaniMatriX

But Apollo missions, from 1969 to 1972, were occurring during a solar maximum where the particles could have been charged instantly, there would have been no time to duck into safety, why risk something so dangerous?

Um. All of the particles from the Sun are charged. It's called plasma.

And the Van Allen Belt actually protects us from Solar and Cosmic radiation, it's like the atmosphere protecting this planet from meteors and such, i don't know where you got the idea that it doesn't?

No. The Van Allen belts do no protect us. As I said, the Van Allen belts are regions of captured high energy particles.

Wait wait, what contingency plans? i never heard of these,

Then read the link I provided.

reply to post by XaniMatriX

You need to watch Capricorn One, not to take into account as fact's but it does show how it can be done, just saying, if you didn't watch it it's a pretty good movie,

No. It's a horribly silly movie.

reply to post by turbonium1

The Apollo spacecraft were primarily thin aluminum shells. It's a well-documented fact that aluminum is a very poor shield against the radiation within the VA Belts.

Please provide such documentation. But you understand that the interior of the command module was lined with equipment right? Equipment which quite effectively absorbed radiation. The skin was not the only protection.




I went through six weeks of radiotherapy 26 years ago. On a daily basis I received a hell of a lot more radiation than the Apollo astronauts did.

Originally posted by choos
sure they wanted to go back. but do you even know why they didnt?

Same reason they didn't go over 40 years ago - a lack of required technology.

Originally posted by choos
do you even know who was saying its a waste to go back? NASA the GOV or the people of america?

Many people say that NASA itself is a waste of taxpayer's money, let alone a specific project.

And public apathy never stopped NASA's Space Shuttles from looping the Earth over and over again, for about 30 years! .

Originally posted by choos

NASA wanted to go back, NASA just came up with too many plans and opted to go for a space station rather than a moon base thus wasting time and money. the people complained NASA was a waste of time and money the GOV cant just make the people give them money and spend it on NASA when the people are not even interested in a moon base.

NASA cant do much without support.

Lack of support didn't stop the Shuttle program, as I said.

NASA can't put astronauts on the moon, that's why only LEO flights are done..

Originally posted by choos

p.s. do you really think anyone will support NASA for wasting money? if landing on the moon was to be deemed unprofitable, do you honestly believe that people will support NASA returning to the moon? you sure people wont ask why NASA is wasting tax payers money on unprofitable ventures? or perhaps the profits will occur elsewhere? ever thought of that?

edit on 20-4-2013 by choos because: (no reason given)

NASA's projects are never 'profitable', except to those involved in the project, like suplliers. The taxpaying public don't profit from it, but they certainly pay for it.

Originally posted by choos

Originally posted by turbonium1

The Apollo spacecraft were primarily thin aluminum shells. It's a well-documented fact that aluminum is a very poor shield against the radiation within the VA Belts. While the same goes for radiation beyond the VA Belts (ie: solar flares), I focus on the radiation within the VA Belts alone, again because it cannot be excused.

As you see, they just ignore the problem, and hope nobody notices.

But it was noticed.

here have a quick read:
www.clavius.org...

Don't see anything relevant to the issue of aluminum shielding. Can you be more specific?