We Probably Never Made it to the Moon

a reply to: cooperton

Anyway…

Dust has nothing to do with Third Party verification like the USSR tracking the moon missions by radar. Or other countries tracking by radio transmissions/telemetry.

Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings
en.m.wikipedia.org...

The only thing you can do in the face of actual evidence is create unrelated bs arguments and misconceptions.

originally posted by: firerescue

The cooling of the circulating oxygen and water is accomplished by leading it past a sublimator: a device consisting out of porous plates through which water is being forced. Upon contact with the vacuum of space, the water freezes into ice, after which it sublimates from this solid phase into gas. This endothermic process causes the sintered nickel plates of the sublimator to become very cold, cooling any oxygen and water that is led over it.

The sublimating process is self-regulating, in that the rate of vapor formation depends on the amount of heat that is applied to the device. The pressure that forces the feed water into the sublimator’s plates is provided by the squeezing of the feed water bladder that’s placed between the PLLS and the user’s back. Though fairly compact, this sublimator can dissipate over 2 MJ (2,000 BTU) peak, making it the equivalent of an air conditioning unit sized for a bedroom. This allows a human in the full heat of a Moon day to stay nice and cool.

Each spacesuit had a supply of water which was refilled after each trip out on the lunar surface

Curious as to where this steady supply of water came from for cooling these suits? I'm guessing that the water was on the craft and there would be enough to provide the refills necessary to keep them cool. How much does water weigh per gallon (maybe 8.3 pounds)?

So between the water they needed to live on the moon and fill there spacesuits to keep cool, they either took a lot of water or used another method to extract water out of the air/atmosphere (?) with the aid of fuel cells/batteries? I couldn't find much on how they created their own water using electricity to bond hydrogen and oxygen.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: cooperton
I see what you're saying but the background is in the exact frame, they are perfectly overlappable, which would be a hallmark of a green screen in a movie studio

They are not, you can see that the areas closer to the camera change, as expected.

Also, photos taken 200 metres of a hill 7 km away would not show much parallax.

Actually, if you look at the very bottom of the frame, the rocks never change. In fact, the larger rock in the bottom left-hand side by the + sign looks to have its top cropped off. I was with you until I saw those rocks and soil stay the same.

a reply to: cooperton

If you're going to lie about what Don Pettit said, it's probably a bad idea to link to the original source so everyone can see you're lying. He never said it was lost, he said it was destroyed. Why do moon hoaxers always chose lies over evidence when trying to make their point?

originally posted by: lambros56
I can`t believe people still believe in the Apollo moon landings.
I watched it as a kid and believed everything but you`ve only got to google images of the Apollo moon lander to see that there`s no way that thing flew 238,000 miles and back at thousands of miles an hour.
It couldn`t fly on earth yet it could land on the moon and take off.
" A funny thing happened on the way to the Moon " shows they faked it.
So gullible ....

Your ignorance is showing.
1) The lunar landers didn't fly back, they were all jettisoned and later crashed on the lunar surface
2) It was designed to fly in 1/6g and near vaccum, it was physically incapable of flying on earth, what you're saying is akin to "submarines are fake because they can't drive down a highway"
3) "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon" is a heavily debunked pack of lies by a mentally unstable cab driver named Bart Sibrel, don't go calling people gullible if you believe that nonsense.

a reply to: captainpudding

Pot, meet the kettle.

a reply to: Grenade

I'm sorry that reality offends you

a reply to: captainpudding

Rather than a constructive discussion you enter this thread with insults.

If you want to debate the science then make some valid points, if you’re incapable of that, then button it.

The moon videos are clearly faked, but that doesn't mean NASA didn't in some way, go to the moon. It simply means they didn't share real video evidence of the trip. We almost certainly left things there, but with no real evidence showing HOW we did it...

In addition to the "lost mission info," there's a well-known video of another NASA scientist talking about one of the big problems they're tackling in the mission to Mars - navigating the Van Allen Radiation Belts. The scientist says, in the video, that they haven't perfected a way to traverse the belts without killing the astronauts and frying all the electronics.

Is that part of the "lost technology?" Really? The ships that went to the Moon in the 1960s and 70s were basically soup cans with people and gear inside. Yet a bunch of the astronauts are still alive, all these years later, and the equipment didn't fry.

That's the big question for me, and I think the answer is far more complicated that "yes, we did" or "no, we didn't" go to the Moon.

a reply to: Patriotsurge

As pointed out, Apollo went through the thinnest portions of the Belts, in a non-computerized capsule. To get to Mars, they'll have to go through the thicker portions of the Belts, in a highly computerized capsule. They have to find a way to shield them enough to get through without problems. Apollo didn't.

of course no modern human went on modern human tech.

uf0s, maybe.

nasa refuses to let anyone see the actual official footage ever, even live.
nasa 'erases' the official footage by 'accident.'
all of the 'moon rocks' given away as gifts by biiggov turn out fakes.

so many scams, too few truths.

a reply to: cooperton

I know this has probably been answered already but can anyone explain why we don't see any stars in the background of the moon photos? They would be even brighter than from Earth, right?

a reply to: chris_stibrany

Shutter speed, exposure settings etc could easily explain that one.

a reply to: Zaphod58

If it was solely about the protection of electronics how have modern rovers managed to pass through unharmed? They are computerised along with all the flight instruments and landers etc. Perseverance travelled through the belts on way to Mars less than 2 years ago without any issues.

a reply to: Grenade

They're not operational when they traverse the belts, they're only activated once they land

Thanks; I know fukall about cameras

a reply to: Grenade

a reply to: captainpudding

Other than life support you can do the same thing with a manned mission.

a reply to: Grenade

Thanks, that way I don't have to look for it again.

a reply to: ArMaP

As I said pal I have no agenda here. I’m willing to bend should people highlight relevant information.

a reply to: Grenade

Life support is computerized too. Pretty much everything on the new capsule is computerized, so it has to be tested to make sure it can stand up to going through the radiation.