why didn't we go back to the moon.?

page: 1
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 09:29 AM
link   
Did NASA fake the Moon missions on a sound stage? At area 51. The Van Allen radiation belts are doughnut shaped regions of space in the Earth's magnetic field that trap very high energy protons and electrons. As a result, i wonder how astronauts could have passed through the belts without being killed by the radiation. We had the technology to send a rocket to the moon. But what about the radiation.? Once going through And passed the Van Allen belt the belt how did the Astronaut's survive the radiation.? No maned spacecraft has ever since gone through the belt.? The space shuttle orbit height. Is well under the belt's and protect from the harmful radiation. Ok people will say why go back. What's on the moon. Same as the north poll. We still did and set up a base there. Fact if man wanted to passed the Van Allen and into real space. The craft would need 6 tp 12 feet of led around it to stop the radiation. that would make the craft very heavy. And launching into space from the Earth would be very hard. Could NASA have made some kind of special light material that know no one still know's about what could of stoped the radiation.?




posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by donniered
 


This has been done to death on ATS, the interwebs is full with answers, but to save you the effort here it is in nice, easy to understand language:


The Apollo missions marked the first event where humans traveled through the Van Allen belts, which was one of several radiation hazards known by mission planners. The astronauts had low exposure in the Van Allen belts due to the short period of time spent flying through them. The command module's inner structure was an aluminum "sandwich" consisting of a welded aluminium inner skin, a thermally bonded honeycomb core, and a thin aluminium "face sheet". The steel honeycomb core and outer face sheets were thermally bonded to the inner skin.

In fact, the astronauts' overall exposure was dominated by solar particles once outside the earth's magnetic field. The total radiation received by the astronauts varied from mission to mission but was measured to be between 0.16 and 1.14 rads (1.6 and 11.4 mGy), much less than the standard of 5 rem (50 mSv) per year set by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission for people who work with radioactivity

The Van Allen belts and Space travel

In



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 09:49 AM
link   
reply to post by donniered
 


In addition to seconding the above brief explanation as to why the Van Allen Belts were no obstacle, I would like to point out that no-one has a base at the North Pole. There are several scientific stations on Antarctica, but they are relatively sparsely populated and expensive to maintain.



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 09:55 AM
link   
'they' go back to the moon all the time ,
we're just not invited.



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 10:04 AM
link   
NASA officially stated that they LOST the original moon landing video. Most people dont know that. The video was in fact a recreation unless NASA lied about losing the vid and making a new one. Anyone with a brain cell could see the actual landing of the craft was studio perfect as well as the craft departing, who would have been filming them leave ? ..........



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by jazztrance
 


Your just ever so slightly wrong on your point, NASA may have lost the original tapes, but real time conversion for the TV broadcast was done and those tapes exist and were never lost and it was only for Apollo 11, not the other missions.


The Apollo 11 missing tapes are missing slow-scan television (SSTV) recordings of the lunar transmissions roadcast during the Apollo 11 moonwalk, which was the first time human beings walked on the Moon. The tapes carried SSTV and telemetry data recorded onto analog data recording tape. The SSTV data was recorded as a backup against any failure of the live television broadcasts.[1] To allow broadcast of the SSTV transmission on standard television, a real-time conversion from SSTV format was done. The converted video of the moonwalk was broadcast live around the world on July 21, 1969 (UTC). Many videotapes and kinescopes were made of this broadcast as it happened, and these have never been missing.[2] Meanwhile, the missing tapes which carried recordings of the SSTV signal as transmitted from the Moon, but before undergoing scan conversion, are believed to have been erased and reused by NASA, along with many thousands of other tapes. (NASA was faced with a shortage of quality data tapes in the early 1980s due to a change in the manufacturing process in the mid 1970s. This caused tapes that were no longer needed to be reused.)[1] If the original SSTV format tapes were found, modern technology could be easily and cheaply used to make a higher-quality conversion, yielding better images than those originally seen. There are several still photographs, along with a few short segments of super 8 movie film taken of a video monitor in Australia, which show the SSTV transmission before it was converted.

Apollo 11 missing tapes


And to elaborate on your second point, anyone with half a brain cell and a basic understanding of radio range finding can see that had they faked the landings, the Soviets would have been all over it like a rash...
edit on 26/12/12 by stumason because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by donniered
 


If you used lead shielding in space, you'd kill the astronauts faster than if they stood naked in space directly in front of a massive solar flare.


The type of particle determines the type of shielding. In space you have high energy particles. High energy particles and dense shielding creates "spalling" of radiation on the other side of the shielding. The denser the shielding, the more particles shoot off from the other side of the shielding. When you have high energy particles, you want something that's not dense, like aluminum, so you don't get that "spalling" of particles.

On earth, you have low energy particles. That's why lead shielding works so well here. The particles are moving so slowly that when it hits the lead, you only have a tiny bit of secondary radiation thrown off from it on the other side. The more lead, the less that happens.
edit on 12/26/2012 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 11:06 AM
link   
Also why did it take 10 years from the Kennedy announcement.
And the whole problem was solved under Nixon.

And what problem or problems were solved.

I'm under the opinion that only a Tesla ship might make a good space ship with
a steel hull of a foot thick perhaps as the WRL (William R. Lyne) theories go
any weight might be propelled as Tesla once said in 1915 that his ship could go
300 miles per second.

That leaves the people walking on the Moon quite unprotected.
If lies were involved in space adventures you can now see the shying away from
space rhetoric has it implications. But what about the Russian Mars planning,
supported by who would think of such a thing, have enclosed rovers and will
not let walkers tread so far away in outer space.

The Earth is our space probe and we need no other and Tesla spoke the truth
about the radiation involved as other must hide the truth to impress us to do
their will of foolish planning for something that can't be done.

edit on 12/26/2012 by TeslaandLyne because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


On a total tangent here, but that is exactly how SABOT rounds penetrate armour, by creating a spalling effect which turns the armour into the very thing that cooks the crew, rather than the round itself...

Anyhoo, back to our regularly scheduled debunking....



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by TeslaandLyne
 


I'm sorry, none of what you wrote there made any sense to me...

(I know I am running a risk here, but hey...)

Care to elaborate?



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by TeslaandLyne
 


I'm sorry, none of what you wrote there made any sense to me...

(I know I am running a risk here, but hey...)

Care to elaborate?


What would you like to know that is within the range of this topic?
I hate to hold up the others so sorry in advance.
ED: You hold the chair 8min ago did it look like I left?
Ed+: So no elaborations for you.
Going back to NASA affiliated agents for more data?
Ed++: Fill in the blanks yourself.
edit on 12/26/2012 by TeslaandLyne because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 11:25 AM
link   
Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin acting out their mission on a secret film set, located (depending on the theory) either high in the Hollywood Hills or deep within Area 51.
Stanley Kubrick may have helped NASA fake the first lunar landing, given that his 1968 film 2001: A Space Odessey proves that the technology existed back then to artificially create a spacelike set. Stanley left the u.s to live in England and never went back.

bizarre are the pictures with identical backgrounds that are supposed to have been taken at different locations on different days. In two sequences from the Apollo 16 mission, this irregularity is clearly depicted. Oppss. There are allso oddities in the pictures what were taking. Shadow's were in the wrong place is. Oppss.



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by donniered
 


The high speed particles are in outer space.
The Earth atmosphere is the loose radiation shield calculated by Tesla
to be good as 3 feet of lead. This would mean Moon or Mars or ship
travel needs the same protection.

The particle speeds were 5 and 500 and even greater than the speed of
light as related by Tesla.
edit on 12/26/2012 by TeslaandLyne because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by donniered
Oppss. There are allso oddities in the pictures what were taking. Shadow's were in the wrong place is. Oppss.


You're not even reading the responses to this thread are you?

Please take the time to make your posts coherent. All of these theories are long debunked, the backgrounds change slightly as they are many kilometres away, and nobody has found a truly anomalous shadow although many think they have.
edit on 26/12/12 by exponent because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 05:03 PM
link   
No i'm not Cause you UAS gov.



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 01:22 AM
link   
The LEV ascension was filmed by the rover camera, on a programmed pivot.



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 01:45 AM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


I don't think you are correct Stu . my son really wanted this starry night Apollo mission s software. so we got it for him for Xmas. at least as far as the lunar orbit data goes the text accompanying the software says nasa data available on the orbits is not all that accurate. in fact the nasa data they say is a "best estimate". how can that be if they were tracking the craft so carefully. I think I'll let my boy decide on his own but this point did get to him a little and me a lot. right there you know the thing can't be real. wish they'd give it up already. one of my girlfriends went a little crazy studying Lockerbie and Apollo and this other conspiracy history. we deserve the truth without risking our sanity.



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 01:57 AM
link   
reply to post by TeslaandLyne
 


I always thought the whole do it in a decade business made the thing suspicious. sort of like saying you are going to cure cancer in 10 years. but of course they couldn't fake that.



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 02:42 AM
link   
reply to post by gingerlee
 


I'm sorry, anecdotal tales of a 3rd party piece of software saying something is not evidence.

Thing is, every one of these silly conspiracies is totally American-centric and none of them take into account the USA is not the only nation on Earth with such technology. It's not only stupid, but highly arrogant. Europe, Japan, China and India have all sent spacecraft to the Moon not to mention that the Soviets would have been able to tell if the landing was faked using radio telemetry and would have cried foul..

Until someone can come up with a credible reason how NASA could have faked the landings and got away with it, these theories are just fanciful dreams of the deluded with little understanding of the very thing they are trying to disprove.



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 03:05 AM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


it is not an anecdote. I am looking at the text now. it is not starry nights claim it is nasa' s statement or explanation if you will that these are best estimates. the starry night people are not making this up. they are about as pro nasa as one can get. unfortunately for nasa's credibility starry night tells it as it is . I would suggest you check the software out yourself and write to nasa about it. should be beyond enlightening.






top topics



 
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join