Any of you believe the Moon Landing was Fake?

[Mycroft]

Based on the science, we've only just created shielding to get humans past the Van Allen Belt;

Oh yeah, that old walnut. It's false logic, though: Radiation is bad + There is radiation in space = Space is bad.

People who say this sort of thing, however, basically don't understand radiation.

It'd be like saying fire burns, so fire is bad, so we must avoid all use of fire. And thus hail in a fireless world.



Now it's true that the radiation of the belt will kill you if you sit in it all day long. It's true that the MeV of the belt is destructive to human life (as well as other assorted things).

It's also true that from 1961 to 1968 the question of the Van Allen belt was a huge problem for the Apollo Mission. Nobody could figure out how to get pas it and even Van Allen himself said 'Don't do that, mkay?'

So it's all true. You can't cross the Van Allen belt in complete safety. But you can cross it with relative safety.

See, Apollo 11 was moving at about 24,791mph. And that's pretty damn quick. And so you're travelling through the Belt at such as speed that your exposure to the radiation is nominal at best. I believe tests on the astronaust on their return to earth (at this point having crossed the belt twice) revealed that they only received about 1REM of radiation damage in total. Pretty harmless.

As a relative example, going back to the fire: If you put your finger in the flame of a candle and keep it there it burns your finger pretty badly. Fire is bad, mkay? But if you move your finger through the fire very quickly, you don't feel a thing. And even if you move your hand across the flame quite slowly, you just feel a pleasant warmth at best.

This is why we live in a world with fire. And why astronauts were able to cross the van allen belt: sheer speed.

otherwise with the weight of the fuel, the weight of the original ship it is mathematically impossible.

The launching weight of Apollo 11 was 100,756lbs - that's factoring in every single part of the craft including fuel and crew. This is around 45 tonnes.

In that same year (1969) another piece of machinery was taking flight for the first time, the Boeing 747. It took it's first flight with a takeoff weight of around 735,000lbs (333) tonnes. And it took of using only around 120lbs of thrust.

So bear this in mind:

Apollo 11: 45 tonnes.
Boeing 747: 333 tonnes (including payload, passengers, etc)


Thrust of 747: (roughly) 120lbs
Thrust of apollo 11: 7, 500,000,000lbs.

High school mathematics shows us that Apollo 11 had more than enough thrust for its weight to get into space.

 

[Mycroft]

Sometimes I feel it's fake , why ?

because Now , inspite the very developped science , the mankind are not do it "again" .

Could the tools that used in that time to fly in space and landing and fly again then landing to reach that event ?

There's no real reason to do it anymore. The only reason we did it then was because of the Cold War. If there had been no cold war, the chances are that we'd never have gone to the moon at all.

 

[wizanda]

High school mathematics shows us that Apollo 11 had more than enough thrust for its weight to get into space.

Like you said, to get into space; not to get to the moon.

Like saying the maths doesn't add up; you can make believe what you wish.

 

[Mycroft]

Like you said, to get into space; not to get to the moon.

Like saying the maths doesn't add up; you can make believe what you wish.

Nothing in that video refutes what I said earlier.

He says: Radiation like this could harm the guidance systems, on-board computers or other electronics on Orion," Smith says. "Shielding will be put to the test as the vehicle cuts through the waves of radiation… We must solve these challenges before we send people through this region of space.

True.

And the Apollo astronauts did return to Earth having been exposed to significant radiation - but not more than is allowed by US law for workers at nuclear power stations, for instance.

Also, Orion is much, much more complex than Apollo 11 was. It has extremely sensitive equipment which can be disrupted by even fairly low amounts of radiation. Which is why the shielding has been a problem for it. Apollo 11 didn't have any of that. Orion uses digital systems and interfaces. Apollo 11 used analogue systems and interfaces.

If you fired Orion through the Van Allen belt as it is, with an astronaut Spacesuit hanging from it with a pocket calculator in his suit, Orion would fail catastrophically, but the astronaut and the calculator would be fine.

 

[Mycroft]

Like you said, to get into space; not to get to the moon.

Yes, because once you're in space you need barely any thrust to go anywhere fast. So the problem of thrust becomes a nonissue altogether. Once you're in space, you only need a maximum of 81lbs to move about quickly.

 

[Godobeyer]

There's no real reason to do it anymore. The only reason we did it then was because of the Cold War. If there had been no cold war, the chances are that we'd never have gone to the moon at all.

I don't talk just about reasons , I mentioned also to serious doubt about ability to reach to moon and back.

 

[Terese]

It would be disturbing if the Moon Landing never happened, and it was just fake.

 

[Mycroft]

I don't talk just about reasons , I mentioned also to serious doubt about ability to reach to moon and back.

Read all the stuff I put in the above posts...

 

[Mycroft]

It would be disturbing if the Moon Landing never happened, and it was just fake.

It was impossible to fake. The video technology simply didn't exist. And wouldn't exist until the 90's. And even today doesn't exist in anything except digital.

 

[wizanda]

It was impossible to fake. The video technology simply didn't exist. And wouldn't exist until the 90's. And even today doesn't exist in anything except digital.

LoL!!

Won't even go into all the faults with the footage....

If science and maths can't show you, and you can find a way to justify illogical improbability, you will be convinced everything else is real as well.

 

[Estro Felino]

Be honest! Reveal yourselves! Let's talk.

I had started a similar thread last year about Moon hoaxers.
http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/what-do-you-think-of-the-moon-hoaxers.173256/#post-4141024

Honestly, I have never believed in any of the several conspiracy theories about the moon landings (they are very different than one another)..they all sound absurd to me. What astonishes me is that moon hoaxers believe that the cold war had something to do with the Americans's desire to defy the Russians in a alleged "space race".
And that they would have faked the moon landings (the all 6) in order to beat them and win this "science competition".
I just think that both the Russians and the Americans were struggling to improve the scientific field of their countries. The only difference is that the Americans had much more money than the Russians. So they could use it to fulfill their goal, and to explore our natural satellite, unlike the Russians.

 

[Mycroft]

If science and maths can't show you, and you can find a way to justify illogical improbability, you will be convinced everything else is real as well.

The same could be said for you. Debating with you about it is pointless, it seems. You simply want to believe it's fake (for some reason).

I've given you very detailed, mathematical posts about why it is possible. And all you can do is regurgitate the same old rhetoric with nothing scientifically or mathematically substantial, resorting to ridicule instead. My opinion of you has been greatly lowered.

 

[Nietzsche]

LoL!!

Won't even go into all the faults with the footage....

If science and maths can't show you, and you can find a way to justify illogical improbability, you will be convinced everything else is real as well.

You have yet to explain why the Soviet Union would allow such a hoax to exist. The political coup they would have had if there were even the smallest chance of it being fake would've been utterly impossible to not use. It would cost the United States more to fake it and support the lie by buying out every other space agency on the planet than it would to just go to the moon.

 

[wizanda]

I've given you very detailed, mathematical posts about why it is possible. And all you can do is regurgitate the same old rhetoric with nothing scientifically or mathematically substantial, resorting to ridicule instead. My opinion of you has been greatly lowered.

Sorry you're right, wasn't really debating the facts...As it would take finding them online again....

Plus don't really debate conspiracies, either you're interested to look for evidence, when something doesn't make perfect sense or you're not.

There are countless documentaries questioning every aspect of the supposed moon landing, with enough evidence to make anyone question.

What made me question it, is including lead shielding need to stop the astronaut dying; radiation isn't like burning yourself, it can cause drastic sickness.

The amount of fuel needed to do the whole trip doesn't add up; even on landing the Eagle, it exhausted all its fuel, so how did it take off again.

There are just to many holes in the story, if you're that convinced go watch them, as I've seen enough to know it couldn't have happened with the technology we had back then....

Especially when NASA is saying, they're still working on getting humans past the Van Allen belt.

 

[wizanda]

You have yet to explain why the Soviet Union would allow such a hoax to exist.

Russia releases information about how 9/11 was an Inside Job, doesn't mean people are interested.

Plus like with any conspiracy, we mainly get to only hear one side of the story by design.

 

[Revoltingest]

Someone who paid attention during his physics degree. And someone whose father worked in the film industry for over 40 years (Ie: He was working on video in 1969).

That makes you part of the conspiracy.
Welcome to the club!

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

What made me question it, is including lead shielding need to stop the astronaut dying, radiation isn't like burning yourself, it can cause drastic sickness...

The amount of fuel needed to do the whole trip doesn't add up; even on landing the Eagle, it exhausted all its fuel, so how did it take off again.

The path from earth to moon was selected to avoid most of the radiation belts, and what it had to pass through, as was pointed out, was very brief. Once past the VA radiation belts, there is solar and galactic radiation to worry about. A 14-day mission resulted in a 1 REM (Roentgen Equivalent-Man) dose to each of the astronauts...it takes at least a couple hundred REM before there are any visible symptoms, and the lethal dose for 50 percent of those exposed is about 450 REM. Basically, the astronauts slightly increased their likelihood of cancer over the rest of their lives with the dose they received.

Radiation, even in the VA belts, is not a great concern for short missions; however, it is one of the major concerns about sending people to Mars, which will take many months, even years...Solar storms and flares, cosmic radiation and so on is of much greater concern than the VA belts, especially if you only plan to pass through them very quickly.

Eagle didn't exhaust all of the fuel of the descent stage, Armstrong simply went past the engineer's "line" where, if the mission were abandoned prior to landing, the lander would not have been able to get them back up to the Command Module. By a few seconds. The lander consisted of two stages: one for descent/landing, the other--where the astronauts were--had it's own separate rocket for boosting back into lunar orbit. The bottom stage was left on the moon, the upper stage with its separate rocket motor returned to orbit.

 

[Revoltingest]

Nobody truly knows anything.

Instead of this, I'd say that most people know little other than what they learn from media.
How many people actually work in aerospace or related fields?
It's easy to believe conspiracy theories when living in an entirely virtual world, ie, getting info not from persona experience, but from TV, movies, radio, newspapers, etc. If one's job is flipping burgers, selling extended warranties or sanitizing telephones, then space exploration is an entirely foreign thing.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Especially when NASA is saying, they're still working on getting humans past the Van Allen belt.

I don't know how many different ways it can be said - but the damage being done to the human isn't "life-threatening" for the amount of time they are exposed to the Van Allen Belt at the speed they are traveling. The video played up the danger for effect - you could tell that goofy Nasa kid was told to dramatize the whole thing in that video you posted. That's literally all I saw.

So there is no "problem" getting people through the Van Allen Belt at all. Getting them through with less exposure to radiation is the only "problem". It's just like going to the dentist's office. You think they always threw a lead vest on everyone before taking X-rays of your teeth? No - they didn't. Did anyone DIE from having their teeth X-rayed? No - but was anyone exposed to radiation? Yes. Once that was realized they worked toward minimizing the risks - not to save life from "imminent doom".

 

[Mycroft]

Sorry you're right, wasn't really debating the facts...As it would take finding them online again....

But you have to find them online. I simply calculated it using my head. Therein lies the difference.

Plus don't really debate conspiracies, either you're interested to look for evidence, when something doesn't make perfect sense or you're not.

You can search for evidence of something and not find it. Such was my search for evidence of the moon landing being faked. The technology to do it simply didn't exist at the time.

There are countless documentaries questioning every aspect of the supposed moon landing, with enough evidence to make anyone question.

But they're questioning it, not asserting it to be a fact.

What made me question it, is including lead shielding need to stop the astronaut dying; radiation isn't like burning yourself, it can cause drastic sickness.

Not at 1REM. 1REM is equal to 1RAD. To get radiation sickness, you need exposure to about 200REMs

The amount of fuel needed to do the whole trip doesn't add up; even on landing the Eagle, it exhausted all its fuel, so how did it take off again.

Once you're in space, you hardly NEED any fuel at all. You're already moving at escape velocity, which is more than enough to get you to the moon, and any manoeuvring is done with steam-based thrusters.

Escaping from the moons very minimal gravity also requires next to no fuel (or thrust). And once you're on your way home, you can switch everything off and let gravity to the rest for a while.

There are just to many holes in the story,

There are holes in anything if you don't understand it right.

Especially when NASA is saying, they're still working on getting humans past the Van Allen belt.

They haven't said that. There will be no humans on the Orion craft. It's the tech that they need the shielding for.