We Probably Never Made it to the Moon

originally posted by: cooperton
So why does the NASA engineer say its a problem at all if we can just do the same thing we did in 1969?

The problem exists because of the difference in the technology used.

In 1971, the transistors used on the first Intel microprocessor were 10,000 nanometres wide, today they are 5 nanometres wide. Besides that, today's electronics use much less power than before (as I'm sure you have noticed).

Both things make today's electronics lighter, cooler and less power hungry, but as a side effect they make them much more sensitive to radiation, as any particle hitting a transistor will affect a much larger percentage of the transistor than a particle of the same size would have done in 1969. Also, a charged particle hitting a transistor using much less power will create a bigger change in the transistor's charge than it would have done on a 1969 transistor.

Imagine a 1969 transistor being a 400 metres long cruise ship and today's transistor being an handball ball. Now imagine a bullet hitting each one of those objects and imagine how much it would affect each of them.

As they never sent a ship with such modern technology through the Van Allen belts with a human crew, they are worried about the possible problems they are going to find.

I like how these posts encourage debate and can sharpen those skills.

Because this is easily debunked by shinning a laser at one of the mirrors that were put in place during the Apollo missions on the surface of the moon.

a reply to: gpols

Again, you don't need manned missions to install equipment on the moon. This, despite several posters attempts, doesn't prove anything.

a reply to: Grenade

Okay.

So, we still need a way to put that stuff on the moon.

If you believe we are technologically advanced enough to put equipment on the moon, why wouldn't you believe the video and pictures of the people on the moon?

a reply to: gpols

You don't think there's additional challenges in not only sending living breathing people but also finding a way to bring them back alive?

There's no end of inconsistencies and anomalies in the photo and video evidence.

Example:



It's not like the Nixon Administration would ever lie.

The one piece of evidence that has always stuck out to me is the Apollo 16 astronaut getting up after falling over, and then when upright he scoots around 90° like there's no weight at all, almost like he's being pulled back a little bit.

a reply to: baggy7981

Did you miss the point that lunar gravity is 1/6 that of earth

Also the astronauts practiced in a lunar simulator on how to move on the moon

The simulator used a special harness to remove 5/6 of the astronaut weight to simulate lunar gravity conditions

Photograph at right shows how astronauts wore pressure suits that were supported by a system of slings, cables and a trolley that was controlled by the subjects as they performed maneuvers. Researchers at Langley Research Center studied astronauts' ability to walk, jump and run using this ingenious lunar-gravity simulator. The facility also studied astronaut fatigue limit and energy expenditure in the one-sixth Earth-gravity conditions.

In the Reduced Gravity Simulator, researchers investigated an astronaut's ability to walk, run and perform the other tasks required in lunar exploration activities. With this facility, NASA studied the effects of one-sixth gravity on self-locomotion by suspending the subject on his side so that he was free to walk on a plane inclined to about 80.5 degrees relative to the local horizons. Holding up the lunar walker so he would not fall was a network of slings and cables. This was attached to a lightweight trolley that traveled freely along an overhead track that was part of the larger Lunar Landing Research Facility.

A number of the Apollo astronauts practiced lunar walking in Langley's Reduced Gravity Simulator.

a reply to: Zaphod58

There are several ways chips are radiation hardened to resist various forms of radiation, ionizing versus particle


Chips are built on an insulated substrate as opposed to the usual MOS (Metal oxide semiconductors)

en.wikipedia.org...

My father , who was a electrical engineer, who worked on missile guidance systems has a silicon wafer, one of the first produced given to him He keep it in his desk as a memento

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

He's talking not just about the videos but the telemetry data. The one thing that could prove conclusively that they went to the moon doesn't exist.

a reply to: cooperton

This went to the Moon ... stop laughing ...

a reply to: xollo6

Even that photo begs the question, what light source is illuminating objects in the shadow of the LEM?

a reply to: Grenade

If I was to tell you, why the moon landing was faked...

You wouldnt belive me.

a reply to: xollo6

If you had evidence to backup your claims, that held up to scrutiny, chances are i would.

Try me.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: xollo6

Even that photo begs the question, what light source is illuminating objects in the shadow of the LEM?

The internal flash on the camera perhaps?

Not sure about the camera used for that particular image though. One or more of them had a flash.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Never realised those cameras had a flash function.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: xollo6

If you had evidence to backup your claims, that held up to scrutiny, chances are i would.

Try me.

Okay

The fake moon landing, was to over shadow and announce, the birth of "Jesus"

Told you, you wont belive me.

a reply to: xollo6

You're going to need to offer a little more depth and detail on this theory before i make up my mind on its credibility.

a reply to: Grenade

What do you want me to do?

Walk on water...

a reply to: xollo6

Wait, you're Jesus?

I'd like you to explain your theory on the moon landings in more than one sentence and with some substance.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: xollo6

Wait, you're Jesus?

I'd like you to explain your theory on the moon landings in more than one sentence and with some substance.

look at her hair ... she is in space, zero gravity.


She is A troll Doll.




Stop laughing

a reply to: xollo6

Well we've gone on another wild tangent here, assuming it's drug induced so i'll be kind.

To be fair you raise a good point, why the hell have they done that to her hair? No-way is that natural movement of hair in zero gravity.

Also what is the noise in all of these ISS videos that sounds mysteriously like a jet engine?