NASA Moon Landing Videos: Fake or Real?

a reply to: misterz

The first test flight was sent up to see if humans can survive passage through the Van Allen Belt and re-entry in the vessel over a year ago.

No, the test was to see if Orion's electronics could survive the Van Allen Belts. The Apollo electronics were more robust because they used transistors instead of microchips.

originally posted by: misterz
a reply to: Box of Rain

I probably will not watch them, but I am following the current space program.

I can almost guarantee those documentaries will not only add to your knowledge base about Apollo, but will give you insight as to how complex systems in general are engineered.

I thought it was not only a great series about Apollo, but a testament to all engineers and technicians who design, test, and build complex equipment -- and engineering in general. I'm sure similar engineering principles are being used today on NASA's Orion crew vehicle and SLS-family launch vehicles, SpaceX's Falcon and Dragon, Boeing's CST-100, and the other pieces of space hardware being designed and built today.

I thought I knew quite a bit about Apollo (having been a kid growing up with the Moon landings, and following space exploration closely thereafter) until I heard the first-hand accounts from the people in these documentaries who actually built and tested those things.

originally posted by: misterz
a reply to: Box of Rain
Orion is the new kid on the block.

The first test flight was sent up to see if humans can survive passage through the Van Allen Belt and re-entry in the vessel over a year ago.

I want whatever you're smoking.

a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

...like, did you seriously just use "what are you smoking?" Are you aware that it is the year 2016? Gay marriage was legalized. We have a black president.

Are you seriously not familiar with the Orion EFT-1?

That's funny because it just happened.

And if you google you can actually find test results from the on-board radiation device (BIRD).

You can read about it, in fact.
ston.jsc.nasa.gov...

The Orion's sensors experienced radiation 20x higher than the alarm levels for the ISS, with shielding that NASA got from a high school student's idea... new shielding that they just developed, you know... because the awesome shielding they had from Apollo wasn't available.

The kind of radiation you will experience on board the Orion, passing through the first Van Allen Belt is sort of like getting a full body x-ray for a couple of hours.

This says nothing for what you will experience once you're out there.

High level, short exposure... o.k.

Low level, long exposure... you're screwed.

We are talking about high level radiation with a long duration of exposure...

I know this stuff is hard to understand, but I believe in every one of you.

originally posted by: misterz
a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

...like, did you seriously just use "what are you smoking?" Are you aware that it is the year 2016? Gay marriage was legalized. We have a black president.

Are you seriously not familiar with the Orion EFT-1?

I'm quite familiar with it, thank you. You, however, may want to research it a bit more, as it had nothing to do with 'seeing if humans can survive the passage through the Van Allen Belt'. That was proven decades ago.

a reply to: sublik

If only it were that simple. This page explains why we can't see any evidence of the moon landing from earth. Basically, there aren't any telescopes that are large enough to resolve those objects. From the link:

Yes, the flag is still on the moon, but you can't see it using a telescope. I found some statistics on the size of lunar equipment in a Press Kit for the Apollo 16 mission. The flag is 125 cm (4 feet) long, and you would need an optical wavelength telescope around 200 meters (~650 feet) in diameter to see it. The largest optical wavelength telescope that we have now is the Keck Telescope in Hawaii which is 10 meters in diameter. The Hubble Space Telescope is only 2.4 meters in diameter - much too small!

Resolving the larger lunar rover (which has a length of 3.1 meters) would still require a telescope 75 meters in diameter.

Even barely resolving the lunar lander base, which is 9.5 meters across (including landing gear), would require a telescope about 25 meters across. And in reality you would want a couple (or a few) resolution elements across the object so that it's possible to identify it. (Otherwise it'll look like a one pixel detection, not an image, and I don't think people would be convinced by a couple pixels!) In addition, with a ground based telescope, you have to deal with distortion by the atmosphere as well, so you'll probably want something considerably larger than 25 meters if you want a good, believable, image of the lander. We don't have anything that big built yet! So there's really no way to image equipment left behind by the astronauts with current telescope technology.

Here is a different page with pictures taken of the landing site from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter. But again, some might say these images are also fake.

originally posted by: misterz
a reply to: DJW001

I believe that virtually every aspect of the moon landings was legitimate, carried out in good faith by honest people. We built the rocket. We went to space.

However, I think it was too difficult to actually go to the moon with the technology we had at that time. So, rather than risk billions of dollars they took a small handful of people and faked it, a decisive tactical move to moralize the American people and win the space race.

that doesnt make any sense logically..

good honest people built real working rockets that have proven themselves to work in LEO.. but going to the moon was too difficult so they faked it after spending all that money?

They knew nobody would ever be able to actually reach the moon, since they had the science that proved it was impossible. So, there was no risk of ever being caught.

this makes even less sense, unless you are implying that the entire world, each and every country around the globe is being paid or silenced by NASA.. because the russians landed a rover on the moon about the same time Apollo 11 landed on the moon..

so if scientifically it was proven as impossible to land men on the moon, the soviets would have known right away, so they must have been paid..
the japanese few decades later sends a probe to image the moon, so they must have been paid also..
the Indians also images the moon, they were paid..
the chinese images the moon, they were paid..

and this is going to go on forever because NASA knew that no one would be able to get anything close to the moon to prove them wrong because spaceflight manned/unmanned is complete BS.

all this is completely logical to you?

This isn't about evidence or science. Because if it were, we would easily defeat the moon landing hoax. There is a mountain of unanswered questions and evidence against the landing.

it actually is.. but you see the hoax believers cant actually comprehend the science behind the moon landing..
its like teaching a newborn algebra.. they dont understand it so they ignore it and keep playing.

which is why the hoax theories dont actually die they just get regurgitated every few months..

This is about politics, and it always was. We have no need to enter the laboratory, because we can use more tried and true methods to convince people. Politics, dark age fear mongering, witch trials and, of course, pitting people against each other... that's right, divide and conquer.

you are trying to make it about politics from your hatred of the establishment.. that is your own issue..

but the moon landing reality is about science/engineering.. just because you dont fully comprehend it doesnt mean others wont.

scientists and engineers who are trained and know what they are looking at will understand that the Apollo missions were very much possible..
and these scientists and engineers are global not just american, every single nation around the world learning the science behind space flight and alot of the basic principals were founded long before the idea of Apollo missions were conceived.

a reply to: misterz

One of Orion's possible missions is servicing satellites in synchronous orbit. These satellites are in the Van Allen Belt.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: centarix

Apollo went through the thinnest part of the belts.

If Apollo really did go through the 'thinnest' part of the Van Allen radiation belts someone should have told astronaut Alan Bean.

He doesn't seem to know they even exist (edit: doesn't know where they are) Seems a little underprepared for an Apollo astronaut don't you think? (good bit starts at 36 seconds in)

In all honesty I think the videos were faked and broadcast but they did goto the moon, they would have never allowed the chance of Americans being filmed and dying on the moon they would have lost the cold war If we saw Armstrong exploding on the moon live.

originally posted by: Monkeyguns
In all honesty I think the videos were faked and broadcast but they did goto the moon, they would have never allowed the chance of Americans being filmed and dying on the moon they would have lost the cold war If we saw Armstrong exploding on the moon live.

Richard Nixon had a speech written to cover that eventuality. The astronauts would have become martyrs, and martyrs can be a useful distraction if you are fighting an unpopular war and the economy is tanking. In fact, had they died there and a day of mourning celebrated every year there would be people claiming they never existed in the first place. In any event, we have since seen about a dozen astronauts die on live TV. The Cold War dragged on another decade and a half, so that isn't really relevant.

a reply to: ppk55

Dishonest editing when asking him about his Skylab mission.

I think we have been there. I think its real and if you think about it a hologram or artificial construct is easier to comprehend than an ancient chunk of earth that holds orbit like clockwork amid cosmic forces.

That reality is mind boggling and fascinating.

It would be depressing and typical if the moon and or landings were some conspiracy. Something deceitful humans or other beings would be capable of. Not surprising. The assembly of the solar system?! That stuff is beyond petty ego driven stuff.

Its been up there our entire existence and what we have been taught shows it is not eternal. Its crazy to think how fragile and uncertain our future is. And that really, nobody has all the answers.

it had nothing to do with 'seeing if humans can survive the passage through the Van Allen Belt'. That was proven decades ago

Then why does the Nasa scientist say that they had to do this test before they can send humans through the belts?!

One astronaut, I think it's Michael Collins, stated that we only sent probes to the moon.

Apollo was completely fake. You wouldn't be running and cavorting on a space body where one rip of your suit or cracked helmet would cause instant death and oxygen is limited. It was just theatrics.

a reply to: CB328

Apollo was completely fake. You wouldn't be running and cavorting on a space body where one rip of your suit or cracked helmet would cause instant death and oxygen is limited. It was just theatrics.

www.pinterest.com...



en.wikipedia.org...

Did you think the helmet was made out of thin glass? Did you think the suit was made out of white muslin?

originally posted by: CB328

it had nothing to do with 'seeing if humans can survive the passage through the Van Allen Belt'. That was proven decades ago

Then why does the Nasa scientist say that they had to do this test before they can send humans through the belts?!

as has been told to you many times already.. its because in order for Orion to be human rated, as in safe enough for human use, it needs physical trials to prove that its computer hardware can stand up to traversing through the van allen belts.

originally posted by: CB328
...Apollo was completely fake. You wouldn't be running and cavorting on a space body where one rip of your suit or cracked helmet would cause instant death and oxygen is limited. It was just theatrics.

Space suits were made tough enough that it wasn't easy to cause a fatal tear or crack a helmet.

Most of these guys were test pilots, and many of the things they did as test pilots were far more dangerous than the likelihood of a fatal loss of suit integrity caused by "cavorting" -- but that doesn't mean the stuff they did as test pilots was a hoax.

a reply to: Box of Rain

Indeed - I think he is probably envisaging someone careering around like a balloon letting out air.

This video goes over the suit, and some of the testing - including a demonstration of how tough the visor was.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: Box of Rain

Indeed - I think he is probably envisaging someone careering around like a balloon letting out air.

Well, I'm sure it is possible (within the realm of possibility) for a spacesuit to fail due to "cavorting about". I bet someday in the future there may very well be a fatal suit tear or helmet breach. However, as you said, it is designed not to do so -- and well designed at that.

I mean, a skydiving parachute is designed not to fail, but it is still possible that it could fail. However, skydiving parachute systems are so robustly designed and failures happen so rarely, that people still feel parachuting is a safe enough pastime. Just because parachutes can (and do) fail doesn't mean that skydiving is a hoax because no body would ever dare take the risk.

a reply to: misterz

You mention specific readings from Orion. I emailed project Orion but they have not gotten back to me about what their data shows would be the radiation levels on the Apollo trajectory. I'm quite certain they do have that data. There are two probes in elliptical orbits that collected extensive radiation data of every part of the Van Allen belt. That data is there, and I really want to know what its saying the radiation levels are on the Apollo trajectory. So far, no luck. I'm surprised nobody has already done this given its by a very far margin the most powerful argument for the moon landings having been a hoax. It wouldn't end my study thought because they still may have faked the data.

I'm on the fence on whether they landed on the moon and believe the video may have been faked for the purpose of keeping any secrets, especially about any space aliens or associated structures discovered, in the hands of the US government. So its quite within the realm of my opinion that the Apollo 11 happened as in the video, but it was faked in case there was another outcome. So its high on my scenario list that Apollo 11 footage was faked and yet the actual mission looked essentially the same as in the video.