Moon Landing

Things that don't belong anywhere else. (Check first).

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

Was the 1969 moon landing faked?

Yes!
16
6%
No!
188
74%
What moon landing?
13
5%
WHO SENT YOU?!
37
15%
 
Total votes: 254

User avatar
Gelsamel
Lame and emo
Posts: 8237
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:49 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Postby Gelsamel » Mon Dec 18, 2006 5:39 am UTC

I hope you're joking Pesh.

User avatar
fjafjan
THE fjafjan
Posts: 4766
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:22 pm UTC
Location: Down south up north in the west of eastern west.
Contact:

Postby fjafjan » Mon Dec 18, 2006 10:28 am UTC

Peshmerga wrote:I think Occam's Razor would take sides with the faked movie crowd simply because of how fucking complicated it is to jettison something into space, let alone land it on the god damn moon.


But certainly it's also very complicated to fake the landing, with amateur astronomers etc being able to see the shuttle etc etc.
//Yepp, THE fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
Liza wrote:Fjafjan, your hair is so lovely that I want to go to Sweden, collect the bit you cut off in your latest haircut and keep it in my room, and smell it. And eventually use it to complete my shrine dedicated to you.

User avatar
Gelsamel
Lame and emo
Posts: 8237
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:49 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Postby Gelsamel » Mon Dec 18, 2006 10:41 am UTC

Occam's razor deals with complexities in theories. Moon Hoax posits the existence of unobserved sound stages etc. etc. ad infinitum. Therefore the Moon Hoax theory is cut by Occam's Razor.

User avatar
fjafjan
THE fjafjan
Posts: 4766
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:22 pm UTC
Location: Down south up north in the west of eastern west.
Contact:

Postby fjafjan » Mon Dec 18, 2006 10:44 am UTC

Gelsamel wrote:Occam's razor deals with complexities in theories. Moon Hoax posits the existence of unobserved sound stages etc. etc. ad infinitum. Therefore the Moon Hoax theory is cut by Occam's Razor.


That is pretty much what i said :P

Going to the moon is not incredibly likely for a human being, but there is alot of proof to say that some did. And to disprove all that evidence they use even less probable stuffs (aliens, etc)
//Yepp, THE fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
Liza wrote:Fjafjan, your hair is so lovely that I want to go to Sweden, collect the bit you cut off in your latest haircut and keep it in my room, and smell it. And eventually use it to complete my shrine dedicated to you.

Meagen
Posts: 31
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 2:26 pm UTC

Postby Meagen » Wed Dec 27, 2006 2:33 pm UTC

Quick and easy proof that the moon landings were real:

In Poland (and other USSR-influenced states) at the time, newspaper titles read "MAN LANDS ON MOON" instead of "US MOON LANDING HOAX".

It was the Cold War, people. The Russians and the Americans were watching each other all the damn time. Ther *had* to have been spies in NASA, and if there was any *shadow* of a doubt that the landings were real, the press in Communist countries would make a giant propaganda case out of it.

I can imagine NASA faking moon landings, but I can't imagine the USSR going along with them.

User avatar
william
Not a Raptor. Honest.
Posts: 2418
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2006 5:02 pm UTC
Location: Chapel Hill, NC
Contact:

Postby william » Wed Dec 27, 2006 5:51 pm UTC

It was a sound stage.

On Mars.
SecondTalon wrote:A pile of shit can call itself a delicious pie, but that doesn't make it true.

mwace
Posts: 64
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 8:28 pm UTC
Contact:

Postby mwace » Wed Dec 27, 2006 6:35 pm UTC


User avatar
wisnij
Posts: 426
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 5:03 pm UTC
Location: a planet called Erp
Contact:

Re: Moon Landing

Postby wisnij » Wed Dec 27, 2006 6:47 pm UTC

Twasbrillig wrote:A few years ago, a man (whose name fails to come to me) backed by a group of filmographers approached Buzz Aldrin and asked him to swear on the Bible that he had landed on the moon. Aldrin's response? He punched the man in the face.

Because Buzz Aldrin is a badass. Hell, his legal first name is "Buzz". And that's why we sent him to the moon. If any aliens tried to give us lip, POW! right in the visual sensory apparatus. Eat that, the universe.
I burn the cheese. It does not burn me.

User avatar
SpitValve
Not a mod.
Posts: 5130
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 9:51 am UTC
Location: Lower pork village

Postby SpitValve » Wed Dec 27, 2006 8:59 pm UTC

Gelsamel wrote:Occam's razor deals with complexities in theories. Moon Hoax posits the existence of unobserved sound stages etc. etc. ad infinitum. Therefore the Moon Hoax theory is cut by Occam's Razor.


Was never really fond of Occam's razor... because sometimes forget that it only works with two theories that give exactly the same results... there's not always a good reason to choosing a simpler theory over a more complex one if the simpler one is less consistent with reality, or just plain makes less sense...

Anyway, this conversation reminds me of the old 0.9999...=1 conversation :)

Yay for cranks!

User avatar
Aoeniac
Posts: 656
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 5:55 am UTC
Location: RIGHT HERE IN THIS VERY SPOT→•

Postby Aoeniac » Wed Dec 27, 2006 9:25 pm UTC

Everybody knows that vikings were the first people on the moon, way back in the 10th century.
Class: 12th level Epiphenomenalist Alignment: Rational

User avatar
fjafjan
THE fjafjan
Posts: 4766
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:22 pm UTC
Location: Down south up north in the west of eastern west.
Contact:

Postby fjafjan » Wed Dec 27, 2006 9:36 pm UTC

Aoeniac wrote:Everybody knows that vikings were the first people on the moon, way back in the 10th century.


:lol:
//Yepp, THE fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
Liza wrote:Fjafjan, your hair is so lovely that I want to go to Sweden, collect the bit you cut off in your latest haircut and keep it in my room, and smell it. And eventually use it to complete my shrine dedicated to you.

User avatar
SpitValve
Not a mod.
Posts: 5130
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 9:51 am UTC
Location: Lower pork village

Postby SpitValve » Wed Dec 27, 2006 10:22 pm UTC

Aoeniac wrote:Everybody knows that vikings were the first people on the moon, way back in the 10th century.


That's why they have red hair.

User avatar
Pathway
Leon Sumbitches...?
Posts: 647
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 5:59 pm UTC

Re: Moon Landing

Postby Pathway » Wed Dec 27, 2006 11:12 pm UTC

Fluff wrote:
Notch wrote:
Fluff wrote:How do you know for sure that evolution happened?


WormFactory canOfWorms = WormFactory.getInstance();
canOfWorms.open();


Tin of worms closed, was just using it to prove a point. :P


canOfWorms.close(); // this works better

mwace
Posts: 64
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 8:28 pm UTC
Contact:

Postby mwace » Thu Dec 28, 2006 3:12 am UTC

mwace wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQKxAqpjroo


It would appear nobody really followed the link in this post. Let me clarify that this is actual video footage of Buzz Aldrin punching the conspiracy guy right in the face. Let me also say that Bruce Schneier checks under his bed every night for Buzz Aldrin.

User avatar
Verysillyman
"Do me! Do me!"
Posts: 1442
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2006 11:25 am UTC
Location: Drinks Cabinet.
Contact:

Postby Verysillyman » Thu Dec 28, 2006 6:37 am UTC

Harrods got here first.

User avatar
rockintom99
Posts: 215
Joined: Sun Jul 23, 2006 4:28 am UTC
Location: Washingtonland!
Contact:

Postby rockintom99 » Thu Dec 28, 2006 8:29 am UTC

mwace wrote:
mwace wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQKxAqpjroo


It would appear nobody really followed the link in this post. Let me clarify that this is actual video footage of Buzz Aldrin punching the conspiracy guy right in the face. Let me also say that Bruce Schneier checks under his bed every night for Buzz Aldrin.


Yeah, but the thing is, that was already linked, in page one I believe.
THIS IS A SIGNATURE.

bag
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2006 9:04 am UTC

Postby bag » Thu Dec 28, 2006 9:45 am UTC

Twasbrillig wrote:
Fluff wrote:
Twasbrillig wrote:
We have good shielding now. Back then, they had a few centimetres of metal, no more.


So you are saying that ALL of the moon missions were fakes then? ALL of them took place 'back then.'


NASA isn't the only space organization. Or whatever.

As for the metals, they weren't substantial enough to prevent cancer and the photographic damage, I don't care what you say.

The launch dates were actually scheduled specifically so that the astronauts would pass threw the belt at its weakest. Even without that the short trip threw the belt would have very little effect other than a slightly higher risk of cancer in later life "/
( Reference: http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/waw/mad/mad19.html )

Twasbrillig wrote:Yeah, cause I went to Paris last year on business, and I didn't so much as glance at the Eiffel Tower.

Did you even take any photos of it?? because if not, your analogy doesn't even work, if we ignore the fact its flaws to start with "/

milkyway2heaven wrote:True. I don't think we landed on the moon. I really don't. I mean, the government had to do something to cheer up all the people.. and a dream to go to the moon was a good idea. But could they pull it off that quickly and easily? It just seems probable that they faked it. I mean, look at our government now. What would they do to get Americans together? Seriously. If going to Saturn and surfing on the rings would cheer us all up, I bet they'd find a way to do it. Even if they have to fake it.

Easily? its not like they just plonked the first ship they built on the moon, remember the first 10 apollo's? or all the unmanned test missions?

On another note im starting to wonder if everyone whos telling people about astronauts jumping 10 feet are taking in to account the Space suits weigh around a 180 pounds with all the gear and that this tends to have a slight weighing down effect "/
Also when a flag poll is being jiggled around, although theres no atmosphere, the laws of physics do still apply to flags when they are on the moon. Hence the movement?

User avatar
digitrev
Posts: 124
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 10:22 pm UTC
Location: Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Postby digitrev » Thu Dec 28, 2006 4:29 pm UTC

Meagen wrote:Quick and easy proof that the moon landings were real:

In Poland (and other USSR-influenced states) at the time, newspaper titles read "MAN LANDS ON MOON" instead of "US MOON LANDING HOAX".

It was the Cold War, people. The Russians and the Americans were watching each other all the damn time. Ther *had* to have been spies in NASA, and if there was any *shadow* of a doubt that the landings were real, the press in Communist countries would make a giant propaganda case out of it.

I can imagine NASA faking moon landings, but I can't imagine the USSR going along with them.


Thank you, Meag. This is what I said earlier.
Together we will make the octopus nervous.
Image

User avatar
Peshmerga
Mad Hatter
Posts: 2061
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 1:56 am UTC
Contact:

Postby Peshmerga » Thu Dec 28, 2006 9:02 pm UTC

i hurd u liek mudkips???

User avatar
Lani
Has Boobs (Probably)
Posts: 3148
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 1:07 am UTC
Location: The People's Republic of Austin
Contact:

Postby Lani » Thu Dec 28, 2006 9:08 pm UTC

Please tell me that site is satire.
- Lani

"They think they're so high and mighty, just because they never got caught driving without pants."

User avatar
fjafjan
THE fjafjan
Posts: 4766
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:22 pm UTC
Location: Down south up north in the west of eastern west.
Contact:

Postby fjafjan » Thu Dec 28, 2006 10:46 pm UTC

That is not nearly as crazy as other stuff out there.
//Yepp, THE fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
Liza wrote:Fjafjan, your hair is so lovely that I want to go to Sweden, collect the bit you cut off in your latest haircut and keep it in my room, and smell it. And eventually use it to complete my shrine dedicated to you.

User avatar
thomasjmaccoll
Posts: 541
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2006 11:27 pm UTC
Location: cupar, fife, scotland
Contact:

Postby thomasjmaccoll » Fri Dec 29, 2006 1:02 am UTC

something of interest;

human face found in the moon:
Image

further proof:
Image

a nasa spokesperson said "there has been talk among the common man for hundreds years of a supposed 'man in the moon', but we never felt we could comment until this conclusive evidence came to light.'"
slow down, you move too fast

User avatar
Birdman
Posts: 208
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2006 4:28 am UTC
Location: Sydney, Australia

Postby Birdman » Fri Dec 29, 2006 8:53 pm UTC

Twasbrillig wrote:NASA isn't the only space organization. Or whatever.



Interestingly, China has recently (last 18 months) become the third country capable of building man-rated space vehicles. The other two are the USA and Russia. So, who did land on the moon? Where are the photos from those trips? Particularly the photos of the stars (which apparently must be taken by any moon expedition)?

I'd like to know why it is that people prefer to believe impossible things rather than improbable ones. For instance: "It is unlikely that Egyptian people spent years moving large stone blocks long distances and assembled them very precisely into pyramids. Therefore it is clear that aliens travelled light years to get here and built them instead." Of course -- I see it so clearly now. Sheesh.

Really, how do the moon-landing-hoax people see the world? How do they interact with other people? Are their delusions (for I call them such) isolated, or do they reflect a fundamental approach to the things they see?

Air Gear
Posts: 227
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 6:36 pm UTC

Postby Air Gear » Fri Dec 29, 2006 10:06 pm UTC

Birdman wrote:Really, how do the moon-landing-hoax people see the world? How do they interact with other people? Are their delusions (for I call them such) isolated, or do they reflect a fundamental approach to the things they see?


Well, keep in mind that there are gobs and gobs of people who are far, far, far more delusional than that. Listen to talk radio over here and you'll get the idea.

User avatar
digitrev
Posts: 124
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 10:22 pm UTC
Location: Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Postby digitrev » Sun Dec 31, 2006 3:07 pm UTC

Bah. Conspiracy nuts generally believe anything except the likely truth. I once was accosted by such a man while I was collecting donations for the local Air Cadet Squadron. He proceeded to tell me many a thing, such as how the Canadians were vicious killers during WWII, who ground up their POWs into dog meat and sold it to the Americans. That's why the American Bull Dog is so vicious. He kept up with stuff like that for at least 15 minutes.
Together we will make the octopus nervous.

Image

User avatar
Peshmerga
Mad Hatter
Posts: 2061
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 1:56 am UTC
Contact:

Postby Peshmerga » Sun Dec 31, 2006 3:15 pm UTC

This only fuels the anti-Canadian in me.

Those cruel bastards.
i hurd u liek mudkips???

Air Gear
Posts: 227
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 6:36 pm UTC

Postby Air Gear » Sun Dec 31, 2006 7:18 pm UTC

digitrev wrote:Bah. Conspiracy nuts generally believe anything except the likely truth. I once was accosted by such a man while I was collecting donations for the local Air Cadet Squadron. He proceeded to tell me many a thing, such as how the Canadians were vicious killers during WWII, who ground up their POWs into dog meat and sold it to the Americans. That's why the American Bull Dog is so vicious. He kept up with stuff like that for at least 15 minutes.


Isn't it just wrong how things like his conspiracy theory aren't considered delusions of the highest degree? Seriously, people get nailed as insane for far less than that, but conspiracy theories of that kind? That's perfectly fine! No, these people aren't the slightest bit clinically insane! Unlike people who'll have far less absurd thoughts going on...

User avatar
fredxor
Posts: 13
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 11:39 pm UTC

Re: Moon Landing

Postby fredxor » Mon Jan 01, 2007 11:45 pm UTC

Twasbrillig wrote:Need more proof? A few years ago, a man (whose name fails to come to me) backed by a group of filmographers approached Buzz Aldrin and asked him to swear on the Bible that he had landed on the moon. Aldrin's response? He punched the man in the face.


Dude, if I went through all the stress and training of going to the Moon and back, and someone asked me to say on the Bible that I landed on the Moon, I'd punch them in the face too. It has nothing to do with Buzz not wanting to lie about landing on the Moon. It's insulting that someone would come up to him and ask him to do that.

User avatar
fredxor
Posts: 13
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 11:39 pm UTC

Holy crap! - he was right!

Postby fredxor » Tue Jan 02, 2007 12:28 am UTC

I stumbled upon this image on the intertubes:
Image

I have marked the obvious signs showing that this photograph was taken at a stage:
Image
1. You can see the wires used to suspend the actor when he is jumping 10s of feet into the air!
2. You can see the flag blowing in the wind generated by a fan on stage. (This would not happen on the Moon as there is no atmosphere!)
3. You can see stars in the background! (In a real moon picture, you would not see stars because of what exposure the camera is set for)

SPOILER: I am being sarcastic and I photoshopped these images

User avatar
digitrev
Posts: 124
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 10:22 pm UTC
Location: Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Re: Holy crap! - he was right!

Postby digitrev » Tue Jan 02, 2007 7:01 am UTC

fredxor wrote:I stumbled upon this image on the intertubes:
Image

I have marked the obvious signs showing that this photograph was taken at a stage:
Image
1. You can see the wires used to suspend the actor when he is jumping 10s of feet into the air!
2. You can see the flag blowing in the wind generated by a fan on stage. (This would not happen on the Moon as there is no atmosphere!)
3. You can see stars in the background! (In a real moon picture, you would not see stars because of what exposure the camera is set for)

SPOILER: I am being sarcastic and I photoshopped these images


Heh. I was about to call you on the site it was hosted on, not to mention the picture name, before I saw the spoiler warning at the bottom.
Together we will make the octopus nervous.

Image

User avatar
LE4dGOLEM
is unique......wait, no!!!!
Posts: 5972
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:10 pm UTC
Location: :uoıʇɐɔol

Postby LE4dGOLEM » Tue Jan 02, 2007 12:17 pm UTC

Peshmerga wrote:Something of interest

http://www.alienvideo.net/human-skull-on-mars.php


That looks much more like

a) A Viking/Roman/Greek -style helmet
b) A Cthulhoid (Ilithid/Psionic Danger/...SQUID THINGY!*) skull

than a human skull.

*bonus points for catching the reference.
Image Une See Fights - crayon super-ish hero webcomic!
doogly wrote:It would just be much better if it were not shitty.

User avatar
mikekearn
Posts: 128
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2007 9:34 am UTC
Location: El Cajon, CA, USA
Contact:

Postby mikekearn » Sat Mar 17, 2007 3:19 am UTC

digitrev wrote:Bah. Conspiracy nuts generally believe anything except the likely truth. I once was accosted by such a man while I was collecting donations for the local Air Cadet Squadron. He proceeded to tell me many a thing, such as how the Canadians were vicious killers during WWII, who ground up their POWs into dog meat and sold it to the Americans. That's why the American Bull Dog is so vicious. He kept up with stuff like that for at least 15 minutes.


That reminds me of a fellow I saw at work the other day. He was wearing a foil-lined pan on his head, and was dressed in combat fatigues. After a coworker asked him why he was dressed as such, he told us that he used to be a soldier, until he found out the US government scans peoples' brains with lasers and only foil-lined hats can keep them out. He also told us the pan can double as a weapon, which is why he chose that over a normal hat.

Later that same day, he tried to prove to us that taxes were unconstitutional, and actually had a reprint of the Constitution with him. It was very hard to not laugh.
"I will not succumb to temptation. Unless she's cute."

This is a haiku.
It has correct number of
Syllables. I think.

Visit the orphateria.

User avatar
Swordfish
Weathermaaaaaaan!
Posts: 954
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 10:39 pm UTC
Location: Philadelphia
Contact:

Re: Moon Landing

Postby Swordfish » Sat Mar 17, 2007 6:22 am UTC

wisnij wrote:Because Buzz Aldrin is a badass. Hell, his legal first name is "Buzz". And that's why we sent him to the moon. If any aliens tried to give us lip, POW! right in the visual sensory apparatus. Eat that, the universe.


That might be the single best post I've seen on any forum ever.

Now I'm going to (try to) calmly address the issue of this post.

Why are there no pictures of the sky?

First of all, this may have actually been a near impossibility. I believe the cameras the astronauts used were mounted on the front of their suits, so, in order to get a picture of the sky, they may have had to lay down on their backs to get it. Being on anything other then your feet while in those suits was something to be avoided.

With my not too bad understanding of biology and my better understanding of radiation, I would think that, on the surface of the moon,
you would probably not see any stars whatsoever. The lack of atmosphere on the moon actually makes the sunlight more intense than it is on Earth which means the surface is much much brighter than Earth's. Because of all of this, I'd think that a person would not see any stars in the lunar sky, barring the case that they are on the side of the moon facing away from the sun. If you could see the stars on the side of the moon facing the sun, you'd probably have to be looking up without the surface, the Earth, or the Sun in your view, and you'd have to stand like that for probably about 20 minutes for your eyes to adjust to see the much dimmer stars. Since they couldn't see any stars in the sky, then they wouldn't have bothered to take any pictures.

Even if they could see the stars from the sunlit surface, and wanted to take a picture of just the stars, then they would have had to adjust the camera for a much longer exposure. First of all, fine tuning the camera in such a way was probably something they could not do in their suits. This means that they would have to have a camera set up just for taking pictures of the sky. This would more or less waste the camera for the particular walk on the surface, because it would only be good for one or two shots (they'd all start to look the same after that). Secondly, the exposure time needed to take a good picture of the stars from the surface of the moon (once again, if it were even possible) would most likely be longer than practically possible. A lot of the pretty pictures you see taken from telescopes can have heiniously long exposure times. I think I've even read about one picture that was exposed over the course of a week.

Why is everything brightly lit?

As I explained earlier, sunlight is much more intense on the moon then it is on Earth. Combine that with the fact that the dust on the moon's surface is extremely reflective (the moon is the second brightest object in Earth's sky, remember), and it's fairly easy to see why everything would be so bright. People like to use the argument that since there's no air to scatter light, then shadows should be brighter, but neglect to realize that the surface itself scatters light.

"That's why the bottoms of the rocks are shaded. If the moon reflected that much sunlight, the rocks (check out some of the pictures) would be lit by that reflection, which they are not."

The backs of the rocks in any of the pictures you see are lit up. The reason they still appear shaded in the pictures is because the shaded side is being lit by light scattered from the surface of the moon. No matter how well the surface reflects light, the back sides of the rocks will not be as bright as what is in direct sunlight. Since the cameras are adjusted for what is in direct sunlight, it makes the shaded parts of the surface appear much darker then they actually are.

Why couldn't they jump higher?

In fact, they could jump higher. In the footage you don't see them jumping high because they didn't want to jump that high. Neil Armstrong reported that he could jump from the lunar surface to the third rung on the ladder to the lunar lander. That's a height of about six feet. Armstrong said he tested jumping several times, but found that he would start to tip backwards during high jumps. After a jump where he nearly fell, he decided not to do any more.

Note that their ability to jump higher is more directly related to gravity then atmosphereic pressure.

If you speed up the video, it looks like they're walking normally.

I forget who it was, but someone once described that walking was simply a series of "controlled falls." Think about the process of walking. You put a foot out in front of you, fall onto it, pick up your next foot and move it forward, then fall onto it; repeat until destination is reached. The rate you walk is directly related to how fast your foot can fall to the ground, and a big factor in determining how fast your foot falls to the ground is gravity. Since gravity is weaker on the moon, it hampers how fast your foot can fall to the ground and, thus, it looks like your walking in slow motion. So if you speed up the video, it should look like they're walking normally.

The Van Allen Belts should have caused all sorts of problems.

With no intention to offend, people who make this claim do not fully understand the concept of radiation or the Van Allen belts. The Van Allen belts are not composed of wave radiation, but of particle radiation. The process of shielding from one of those types of radiation is much different from the other. Shielding against wave radiation is what people normally think of with plates of steel that are inches thick. Shielding against particle radiation (if it's even needed) can be done with as little as a centimeter of water. Water is rather impractical to use as shielding for space crafts since it's quite bulky, so a thin coating of high desnity polyethylene is used instead.

So you don't need six feet of lead to shield against the Van Allen Belts. In fact, that is probably the worst possible thing you could do to shield against particle radiation. Certain types of particle radiation can actually induce an object to emit x-rays (a type of wave radiation) when coming into contact with it. So if you use a lead wall to protect against particle radiation, you could very well end up with a bigger problem, because now you've got a lead wall that's radioactive.

In any case, there's a much easier way to deal with the Van Allen belts, which is to move though them quickly. In fact, the Apollo spacecraft was barely even in the Van Allen belts at all. The belts only really exist in any form for 20 degrees above and below the magnetic equator, the Apollo spacecraft traveled through the very edge of the Van Allen belts, just about the thinnest part of them.

In addition to Phil Plait's site which yy2bggggs posted earlier, you might wanna give this place a look. That's actually where a lot of the information for this post came from. In my opinion, if you take the time to read through that site and still have measurable belief that the moon landings were hoaxed, then you, sir, are stubborn as a mule.
"If I had a nickel for every time I was wrong, I'd be broke." Stephen Colbert

User avatar
niko7865
Posts: 536
Joined: Sun Jan 21, 2007 11:47 am UTC
Location: All over washington state, USA
Contact:

Postby niko7865 » Sat Mar 17, 2007 7:23 am UTC

"If you watch the clip, you will see dust thrown up by the wheels of the rover. The dust goes up in a perfect parabolic arc and falls back down to the surface. Again, the Moon isn't the Earth! If this were filmed on the Earth, which has air, the dust would have billowed up around the wheel and floated over the surface. This clearly does not happen in the video clips; the dust goes up and right back down. It's actually a beautiful demonstration of ballistic flight in a vacuum. Had NASA faked this shot, they would have had to have a whole set (which would have been very large) with all the air removed. We don't have this technology today!"

That little paragraph removed all doubt about the slightest possibility of the landing being faked from my conspiracy friends mind. Explain that Moon landing nay-sayers.
21/m/athletic/white&nerdy/washington/straight/???
Image

User avatar
warriorness
Huge Fucking-Lazer
Posts: 1610
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2006 10:33 am UTC
Location: CMU, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Contact:

Postby warriorness » Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:57 am UTC

bag wrote:
milkyway2heaven wrote:True. I don't think we landed on the moon. I really don't. I mean, the government had to do something to cheer up all the people.. and a dream to go to the moon was a good idea. But could they pull it off that quickly and easily? It just seems probable that they faked it. I mean, look at our government now. What would they do to get Americans together? Seriously. If going to Saturn and surfing on the rings would cheer us all up, I bet they'd find a way to do it. Even if they have to fake it.

Easily? its not like they just plonked the first ship they built on the moon, remember the first 10 apollo's? or all the unmanned test missions?


Sure we did. We had a giant supercomputer in the sky guide helping us. After seeing what other people had done in the field of space travel, we managed to build our first spaceship in a year. Then we went up, saw what was out there, and built some bombs.

Holy crap I never noticed the parallel before (between where this reference comes from and the cold war).

niko7865 wrote:"If you watch the clip, you will see dust thrown up by the wheels of the rover. The dust goes up in a perfect parabolic arc and falls back down to the surface. Again, the Moon isn't the Earth! If this were filmed on the Earth, which has air, the dust would have billowed up around the wheel and floated over the surface. This clearly does not happen in the video clips; the dust goes up and right back down. It's actually a beautiful demonstration of ballistic flight in a vacuum. Had NASA faked this shot, they would have had to have a whole set (which would have been very large) with all the air removed. We don't have this technology today!"

That little paragraph removed all doubt about the slightest possibility of the landing being faked from my conspiracy friends mind. Explain that Moon landing nay-sayers.


Playing devil's advocate here: All that'd have to be done is building a giant airtight chamber and sucking the air out of it. Is that so much less feasible than constructing a giant missile and shooting it into space?

EDIT: A further argument against conspiracy theory. The gravitational acceleration of the moon is 1.6 m/s^2 - about 1/6th of that on earth (source: 1 2 3). Now, if you sped up the videos 2x faster to make the walking appear like it is on Earth (so the conspiracy theorists claim), the dust appears to fall at 3.2 m/s^2 - still far too slow to have occurred on Earth.
Iluvatar wrote:Love: Gimme the frickin' API.
yy2bggggs, on Fischer Random chess wrote:Hmmm.... I wonder how how a hypermodern approach would work

User avatar
Toeofdoom
The (Male) Skeleton Guitarist
Posts: 3446
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 10:06 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Postby Toeofdoom » Sat Mar 17, 2007 10:02 am UTC

warriorness wrote:Playing devil's advocate here: All that'd have to be done is building a giant airtight chamber and sucking the air out of it. Is that so much less feasible than constructing a giant missile and shooting it into space?


Hell yes?

I mean... vaccums are insanely hard to create on earth on that scale... Sure, you can make a pressure chamber that would work, but pumping atleast what, 90% of the air out and probably more would be almost impossible. Vaccums are created in smaller chambers using some special pumps and such, but I doubt they would transfer to such a big thing...
Hawknc wrote:Gotta love our political choices here - you can pick the unionised socially conservative party, or the free-market even more socially conservative party. Oh who to vote for…I don't know, I think I'll just flip a coin and hope it explodes and kills me.

Website

User avatar
warriorness
Huge Fucking-Lazer
Posts: 1610
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2006 10:33 am UTC
Location: CMU, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Contact:

Postby warriorness » Sat Mar 17, 2007 10:33 am UTC

I guess you're right. So much for the Devil's Advocate.
Iluvatar wrote:Love: Gimme the frickin' API.
yy2bggggs, on Fischer Random chess wrote:Hmmm.... I wonder how how a hypermodern approach would work

User avatar
LE4dGOLEM
is unique......wait, no!!!!
Posts: 5972
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:10 pm UTC
Location: :uoıʇɐɔol

Postby LE4dGOLEM » Sat Mar 17, 2007 12:06 pm UTC

warriorness wrote:I guess you're right. So much for the Devil's Advocate.


And by extension, the Devil. Haha, loser!
Image Une See Fights - crayon super-ish hero webcomic!
doogly wrote:It would just be much better if it were not shitty.

User avatar
damienthebloody
the most metal thing EVER
Posts: 2370
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 2:25 pm UTC
Location: under a rock

Postby damienthebloody » Sat Mar 17, 2007 12:50 pm UTC

this is the single most retarded thing ever discussed here. and we've discussed some pretty fucking retarded things.
German Sausage wrote:Is that an EMP in your pants, or are you just outraged by my sexist behaviour?
liza wrote:When life gives you a wife made of salt, make margaritas?
Dance like you're stamping on a human face forever.

User avatar
Traisenau
Posts: 838
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 1:38 am UTC
Location: The Thrill
Contact:

Postby Traisenau » Sat Mar 17, 2007 9:04 pm UTC

Grumble grumble mumble (Warning, some swearing)
<Will> Drew is the only woman for me


Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests