Did nasa really send astronauts to the moon?

Originally posted by r2d246

Originally posted by miniatus
There are numerous threads about the whole moon landing thing.. I don't buy into any of the hoax theories, especially considering the site of the moon landing has been imaged by russia and china.. they would have nothing to gain by propagating hoax for the united states

The hoax theories tend to ignore those basic facts...

Lets say it's not a doctored image. Lets say it is "a site". They also sent robots to the moon prior to they're claim of sending astronauts. So how do you know for certain that it wasn't the site of a robot landing?

The moon landing is a hoax wake up.

You're suggesting that Russia and China doctored their satellite imaging since they ( as well as the US of course ) have all imaged the sites .. That makes no sense whatsoever given the fact that Russia was our direct adversary in the space race.. they monitored these missions closely.. Russia, and indeed the world.. watched the astronauts get into the launch vehicle and blast off.. the world also saw them splash back down... Russia also had satellites orbiting earth .. they would absolutely have seen the rocket's trajectory and been able to track it ..

The hoax stuff is just silly... for many reasons.. but the simplest being what I keep going back to ... Russia and China would have NO reason to perpetuate the moon landing hoax.. in fact they'd have every reason to expose it because if that were true and it didn't happen.. it would be a huge embarrassment... you can bet your bottom dollar they would jump at the chance to expose it..

"Wake up" indeed... apply a little common sense ( even politically ) and you see that it happened.. no hoax

reply to post by miniatus


Didnt the usa detonate a nuclear missle or two in space which made the radiation problems worst? Why do you suppose they did that ? Was it to stop anyone else going there? Also thanks for taking time to share your views with me

Double post error

Originally posted by miniatus

Originally posted by krs678
reply to post by miniatus

 

Perhaps your right and nasa did go to the moon well at least sent astronauts, but why stop further missions after spending obscene amounts of money to set up a way to get there ?Also would their space suits offer enough protection against direct suns radiation once upon the lunar surface?One would think it would get quite hot in the shadeless environment of the moon ?

1. Cost, for sure...
2. A decline in public interest..the film Apollo 13 talks about that, people were really just getting bored with it.
3. The space race was already won and a lot of data already collected

Aside from the cool factor, there's not a lot more we could really have done there at the time.. Which is a good argument for why we should re-visit the moon NOW .. I would love to see a mission to the moon that aims to generate power on the surface using Helum 3 ( which is VERY abundant on the surface )

edit on 8/26/2012 by miniatus because: (no reason given)

Richard C Hoagland's site talks about the reasons we did go and the reasons data are being held back, but I think we can all see a possible encounter with an alien species would precipitate caution in sharing any data about a mission to anywhere, "IF" they did encounter evidence.of a Star Wars C3PO head as is seen in NASA photos on the jacket of "Dark Missions,,," By Mr. Hoagland, then the line by Jack Nicholson in "A Few Good Men" about not being able to handle the truth would hold water.

I am inclined to take the photo's Hoagland and company found in the NASA archives with the details of the conversations the public was allowed to hear live in 1968 between the astronauts and Houston, that suggested an encounter of some kind was happening. Sounds kooky, I agree, but there also used to be a tape floating around that was of a Russian probe sending data back to Earth live that was silenced just before entering Mars by an unknown object shooting at it. I don't know where that is but I remember it as if it were yesterday (and that would have been in the 70's sometime).It just makes more sense with all the planets we can see with Hubble that there are aliens, some of them do have technology to fly here, they would meet leaders of our world and perhaps agree to wait before making themselves real to the average person. Doesn't have to make sense to the average man for it to be happening..

Originally posted by krs678
reply to post by miniatus

 

Didnt the usa detonate a nuclear missle or two in space which made the radiation problems worst? Why do you suppose they did that ? Was it to stop anyone else going there? Also thanks for taking time to share your views with me

Nuclear detonation in space happened for testing purposes but I would say my personal opinion is that it's a show of muscle more than anything else.. there's an interesting interactive map I saw that shows the number of nuclear tests globally .. you see as one nation does it, others start doing it.. the testing isn't necessary most of the time.. but it delivers a very strong message to your potential enemies.. I think that is more likely the motivation for the space nuke tests... that's just my thought.

At any rate.. the amount of radiation from a nuclear blast would be dispersed quickly in all directions.. and the amount of radiation added perhaps to the van allen belt would be infinitesimal because a nuke is sort of like the head of a needle to something the size of the belt.

And no problem.. I think it's all interesting

reply to post by miniatus

they are well protected in their spacecraft

Care to produce any documentation beyond NASA to that effect. I've seen an expert state just the contrary (in regards to the aluminum used in the moon missions)...

Originally posted by miniatus

Originally posted by VoidHawk
When you run through rain do you get less wet? No.
If you travel fast through the van allen belt do you get less radiated? No.
Niether their suits or their craft provided protection against radiation.

Personaly I think something went up there, but I doubt it was those people we saw on our tv screens.

Radiation is not rain ... the faster you travel through it the less exposure you have, that's just fact... put a hamburger in the microwave for 5 seconds.. now do it again for 50 seconds.. you'll notice something

.. the longer the burger is exposed to the microwaves the hotter it gets... the power level didn't change, just exposure time..

You can also put that into perspective by thinking about tanning at the beach... you don't burn the instant you lay down.. it depends on how long you're exposed to that radiation.

And the van allen belt has areas that are less dense than others.. the trajectory, as I pointed out, was designed to put them through a relatively safer part of the belt.. less dense.. it was also designed to minimize exposure time, which exposure time as I hope I illustrated pretty straight forward, is very important.. that combined with the protection of the ship and the suits.. kept them safe.

edit on 8/26/2012 by miniatus because: (no reason given)

I think the microwave analogy is poor, the food is stationary and so is the microwave.

The space suits.
NASA and the company who made them both state they DID NOT protect against radiation. So, they were NOT protected. The craft was little more than tin foil and provided no real protection either.

Another oddity is the lack off a large purple stain AND the lack of a large purple cloud, both should have occured when the lander fired its engines and started burning the fuel. To date I've not seen one picture/movie showing the purple fumes that should have been produced by the fuel.

Originally posted by Panic2k11
reply to post by miniatus

 

they are well protected in their spacecraft

Care to produce any documentation beyond NASA to that effect. I've seen an expert state just the contrary (in regards to the aluminum used in the moon missions)...

Well NASA and any of the companies involved in the production/engineering and design of the Apollo capsule would be the only source you have.. it's kind of unfair to say find a source that isn't THE source .. =) but nevertheless..

The amount of protection the shuttle offered against the radiation is probably not that much honestly .. if the craft offered great protection then there wouldn't have been such a need to design the trajectory to minimize the time they were exposed as well as passing through a less dense section of the belt.. when it comes to radiation it's not just the strength of the radiation that matters, it's how long you're exposed .. protection ( their suits, and the craft ) are measures to take that a little further.

Even on the ISS, the astronauts are exposed to radiation .. the ISS doesn't offer total protection.

Originally posted by VoidHawk
I think the microwave analogy is poor, the food is stationary and so is the microwave.

The space suits.
NASA and the company who made them both state they DID NOT protect against radiation. So, they were NOT protected. The craft was little more than tin foil and provided no real protection either.

Another oddity is the lack off a large purple stain AND the lack of a large purple cloud, both should have occured when the lander fired its engines and started burning the fuel. To date I've not seen one picture/movie showing the purple fumes that should have been produced by the fuel.

The microwave analogy is absolutely a great one because it deals with exactly what matters.. the exposure time.. I don't care if you're traveling 0 miles per hour or 6,000 miles per hour.. it's how long you're exposed to that radiation that is going to be the key factor aside from the obvious strength of it..

The suits do indeed offer protection but it's minimal, as is the protection offered from the craft itself.. to say it offers NO protection is false.. nevertheless, as I've been pointing out .. the key to how the astronauts survived has almost everything to do with the length of exposure .. the longer you're exposed, the higher the dose and the higher the dose, the more chances of it being fatal ..

So yes.. the microwave and tanning analogies are 100% valid.

Originally posted by Turkenstein
reply to post by miniatus

 

Why can we not see the giant flag, they planted, through our telescopes?

I'm wondering the same thing. Have you all seen the resolution of the Mars photo we're getting back recently? Amazing. If we can send photos of that resolution from a rover on Mars, surely we can see many many times more detail of the moon's surface from earth or from satellites than the photos the public has been shown. Instead we get these crappy photos of "tracks" from the lunar rovers. Seriously? We should be able to count the stars on those flags with the technology we now have.

reply to post by miniatus

they would have nothing to gain by propagating hoax for the united states

I can easily see some gains to be had and if I believed half of the things a majority of people defend on ATS I would easily see them collaborating into the hoax.

My view on the subject is disbelief on the facts as reported and lack of information regarding some of the technical minutia. I can easily see issues with the technical capability at the time, the lack of real advances in that capability and general knowledge about the moon. But my main issue with the general program is in regard to the economical context (the US was at war) and logic behind the spending of money in the project, the time line it was done in. I would logically see some political benefits, technologically it was mostly a spin off the ICBMs projects but had I to foot the bill and engage the resources if I could have successfully faked it I would, especially considering than a failure would undermine all positive political gains...

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

Originally posted by Turkenstein
reply to post by miniatus

 

Why can we not see the giant flag, they planted, through our telescopes?

I'm wondering the same thing. Have you all seen the resolution of the Mars photo we're getting back recently? Amazing. If we can send photos of that resolution from a rover on Mars, surely we can see many many times more detail of the moon's surface from earth or from satellites than the photos the public has been shown. Instead we get these crappy photos of "tracks" from the lunar rovers. Seriously? We should be able to count the stars on those flags with the technology we now have.

I'm not sure I follow completely with what you're saying? ..

Curiosity's photos? .. the ones being sent directly from the surface? .. or are you talking about the images taken from the satellites that show the landing site? .. I'm going to assume the latter..

I've seen the photos of the curiosity landing site and they aren't very detailed at all .. in fact they are about as detailed if you ask me.. but Curiosity is a huge vehicle .. it's considerably larger than the nasa rover that the astronauts rode in .. and it's considerably larger than the small flag they left on the moon.. Curiosity is about the size of an SUV .. the most detailed images from the satellites were as curiosity was descending.. it was still VERY high in the martian atmosphere when the chute deployed.. it had a long descent to go before the sky crane fired and it made its way to the surface.. those images aren't very detailed ( surface images ) .. even considering the huge size of Curiosity, it's a spec in the satellite photos of the landing zone.

reply to post by miniatus


We are not talking about the shuttle or the ISS. But on the maned missions to the moon. NASA is not the only one that can produce data on that regard, even if we could accept that there are contradictory information regarding the radiation belt the material used in the capsule would not protect the astronauts, these has been stated by an expert on camera and I haven't seen anyone refute it, that is why I was asking you for any source that did...

I was really upset to hear about Mr Armstrong's death. As a fellow and truly respected test pilot he inspired me to be the best pilot I could be. Any death is a sad one. Blue skies my friend.

But changing the topic back to the Moon..................

Anyhow, here's a nice shot of him in the studio, complete with Photoshop flag and NO SHADOW.



Shame on you NASA.

It's been fun ATS'ers ... but it's time for this man to get to bed.. work comes early ..

night, and thanks for the engaging conversation!

I can't believe ATS is full of moon landing "believers". off all places! haven't you all seen the myriad of facts and figures that just don't add up? what about the photographic evidence? if we landed so easily then, why haven't we gone back(supposedly)?

someone give me a link to the new website that is what ATS was in the past?

The only serious question I have is this:

Why is space pitch black? Why doesn't the SUN light it up? Why isn't there photos of the SUN in space?

Why are all videos and photos from our space station showing a pitch black space with no sunlight?

Originally posted by Panic2k11
reply to post by miniatus

 

We are not talking about the shuttle or the ISS. But on the maned missions to the moon. NASA is not the only one that can produce data on that regard, even if we could accept that there are contradictory information regarding the radiation belt the material used in the capsule would not protect the astronauts, these has been stated by an expert on camera and I haven't seen anyone refute it, that is why I was asking you for any source that did...

I was merely mentioning those to highlight the fact that here we are many years later and the vehicle/suits do not protect 100% .. =) I wasn't trying to divert .. just adding those in for mention.. and ofcourse only NASA can produce data because NASA conducted the mission.. I'm just pointing out that the main thing is the trajectory, that offered the most "protection" of anything because it minimized exposure and took them through the least dense portion of the belt.

Anyway - I do need to hit the sack or I never will

reply to post by miniatus


Wouldnt assembling a moon bound shuttle in orbit mean that a smaller ship would be needed thus ultimately making the whole project cheaper and safer?(because less fuel would be needed to escape earth gravity) do you think that would be a viable option? a moon shuttle needent ever have to land on earth? Take a shuttle like ship up to the iss n "pimp it up" with added radiation protection and such ,take reuseable rovers and interconnectable habitational pods in the cargo bays every journey would increase the moonbases size and lead to a full time moon colony? It could be a jump off point for a manned mars mission with helium 5 as a fuel source?

Originally posted by misfitofscience
The only serious question I have is this:

Why is space pitch black? Why doesn't the SUN light it up? Why isn't there photos of the SUN in space?

Why are all videos and photos from our space station showing a pitch black space with no sunlight?

Ok one last answer then I'm really going ..

Space is pitch black due to the lack of atmosphere.. it's our atmosphere on earth that causes light to scatter and look the way it does.. so since there's no atmosphere in space, it's pitch black.. it's also why direct sunlight in space causes temperatures to soar up to 300 degrees on the surface when the sun is high .. that's why the missions were done when the sun was low on the horizon ..

Night!