The Moon Landing

Um, where to start?

Gamma radiation is photons, dopey drawers.

Alpha and beta don't come from the sun, but from the particles the photons hit, such as the moon you're standing on while basking in naked sunlight with linen and (possibly) sunscreen. When asked which kind of radiation is worse for you, the physicists answer, "both are worse".

Also, the radiation is especially high in the van allen bands in the magnetic field of the earth, through which you have to pass twice in an alluminium can (with windows). Get stuck in this during a solar flare and death is instant. Apollo 12 flew through this in peak solar flare season and was inside the band for over six hours (purportedly).

The calculations of required shielding were done by chinese physicists in 1953, as I recall. But then I only read through the crackpot article once, (ie, once more than you did).

 

Time to play Devil's Devil's advocate: So what if it was a fake? There are way scarier things that governments can (and probably do) lie to their citizens about.

Aren't there more important things we should be worrying about? I feel the same way about Canine Cancer charity foundations.

 

Probably, but let's not tackle the entire iceberg.

Just the tip, Philes.

 

I was pretty sure we landed on the Moon, but then I saw Xyle thinks so too and I've started doubting.

 

Wait, the devil's devil's advocate?

Well, I guess I'll play the devil's devil's devil's advocate...

Why stomach bullshit? To make us feel better about america or capitalism? To avoid social unrest when people realise they were fed science fiction for political gain? To feel just a bit bigger in an infinite universe?

This is more and more like arguing against a religious myth and there's the answer: Hey, if it helps you make it through the day, believe it. I don't.

 

"Although the Sun produces Gamma rays as a result of the nuclear fusion process, these super high energy photons are converted to lower energy photons before they reach the Sun's surface and are emitted out into space. As a result, the Sun doesn't give off any gamma rays. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight

"Solar wind, flux of particles, chiefly protons and electrons together with nuclei of heavier elements in smaller numbers, that are accelerated by the high temperatures of the solar corona, or outer region of the Sun, to velocities large enough to allow them to escape from the Sun’s gravitational field."
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/top ... solar-wind

I have no idea where you got the idea that the charged particles are a result of collisions with electromagnetic radiation.

Do you believe everything you read? I tend to avoid lies and deception because I believe others too easily, and I want to avoid direct contact with the article's persuasiveness. But the crux of my position is the question of how well does the protection that they had worked. And all I hear suppositions and not facts as to how poor they work. If the article doesn't report how well or how poorly the suits worked by quoting actual figures and studies, the whole thing is nothing more than conjecture.

 

:monkey2:

I'm going to sleep.

I bid you all good day.

 

________AUSTRALIA

 

That's what I'm saying! There are a bunch of puppets arguing for or against something that they have not experienced firsthand and cannot prove.

This might be a mite easier to prove one way or another when compared to religion, but it is still probably well beyond anybody who hangs around here.

At least this is fun.

 

I actually have nothing valuable to this discussion to add - I used to be all for "Yes, we went to the moon."

Now I'm much less for it and kinda against it. It looks pretty dangerous to do it, especially when you consider any magnetic field generated by the electronics of a spacecraft made with our technology wouldn't have been strong enough to do anything remotely like the magnetosphere of earth does. Now, supposing a powerful electromagnetic field generator was placed in the craft and it utilized solar energy to power it, then there might be a way to get this done. But I'm unsure of the energy requirements to make such a field.

 

Soo, when everyone is stating something the proves we didn't go to the moon, are the "facts" all coming from the "crackpot article"?

 

Wikipedia said the light shielding was plenty on such a short journey, giving the astronauts a little more radiation in a day than you'd get during a regular X-ray, but in deep space it wouldn't work so well. Oddly enough, the same entry says it's too dangerous to do it now, but also say liquid hydrogen is pretty good as a rad shield.

However, it's wikipedia.

 

All my skepticism on page one was ignorant of the article.

What I learned from the article was that the historical facts fit the simplest explanation much better than I thought, and so do the inconsistencies in the video.

Simplest Explanation: Despite the science, Kennedy decided America only needed eight years to get to the moon, making it a political imperative and, as the actual facts asserted themselves in the form of more time and money and technology, it was clear that the only way to reach the deadline was to orbit inside the magnetosphere while a satellite beamed a pre-recorded mission film through mission control.

Actual Explanation: America in the sixties was a pinnacle civilisation and they used technology indistinguishable from magic, presumably by using the power of capitalism.

 

Nobody? Seriously? Begins with 'B', ends with 'e'...

 

The technology of blasting rockets into space isn't that complicated - as long as you can do the calculations for orbital insertion and extraction, and have enough fine-grained control over the propulsion systems. Far from "magic" in my opinion. The main obstacles are in providing life support, and operating without any safety net. If you get it wrong - people die. But with the political climate of the time, that was deemed a necessary risk. These days, it no longer is, which is why it has become too dangerous to try again.

Another reason I find it easier to believe the moon landings were not faked is that - if they were faked, then it was a pretty stupid way to do it.

If I were going to fake a moon landing, I would do it once. And then make up a reason why there couldn't be any more attempts. I certainly wouldn't do it another five times afterwards just for fun - that only increases the risk that the hoax is exposed. Also, I would pretend that the camera broke halfway through the mission - so maybe showing them landing on the moon and starting to jump about, and then the camera breaks. Oh no! But don't worry folks, we safely returned those astronauts and now here they are to tell you all about it. I'd also pretend that only one reel of photo film survived, and that cosmic rays had blatted most of the detail off them, so they all looked blurry and difficult to make out. Oh, and the "moon rock" samples had to be abandoned at the last minute because someone realised the weight calculations were wrong or the oxygen nearly ran out or something, and it was touch and go whether the men would make it back off the surface of the moon at all. Thank goodness they did! Take that, Ruskies!

I also wouldn't pretend that one time we sent them with a little car to drive around in. Honestly - who is going to believe that?

Simplest explanation: NASA employed 400,000 people over ten years to go to the moon on six separate occasions, and they brought back lots of evidence.

Alternative explanation: NASA employed 400,000 people over ten years to fake moon landings on six separate occasions with unnecessarily extravagant detail, and successfully fooled everyone for decades, covering their tracks so well that the only evidence anyone has of the hoax is that some shadows don't look right on the photos, and that estimated radiation levels may be too large.

 

B...i...

 

What Xyle read Bi-Curious No More too? Finally I'm not alone! But no I wouldn't believe much of what was in that book either; it's just filthy saucy fiction that titilates the senses. My favourite story was "Pantied Pleaser" - a traveling salesman meets a petite, sexy woman in the hotel lounge and finds that she brings “something extra” to their encounter :wink:

 

We believe it not because of its extravagent detail but because to question it was treasonable.

And the magic of the tech was all about life support. The newtonian physics is basic, and the rocket engineering is extremely difficult but the ability of the astronauts and their equipment to withstand the actual conditions was simply miraculous.

Look, I don't feel the need to follow the crowd but I do feel a real need for the maths to add up. It doesn't.

 

There is also the issue of the billions of dollars that went into NASAs budget. If this was a hoax, where did the money go? If the answer is "it went into researching long distance rockets", which pretty much equals "we used your money to research weapons without you knowing it", then we've got a problem.

 

Did humans go to the moon? I think so. Scientists sometimes have a habit of harping on worst-case scenarios. "If x is attempted, CATASTROPHEEEEE!!!" Fortunately, there are those who downplay the dangers and forge ahead into new realms of scientific exploration, and those who say it can't be done are left in the dust of those who are doing it. For example, it sometimes blows my mind that there have been so few nuclear disasters, especially given the rather crude tech and limited safety features of early reactors. Yes, people were exposed to radiation, meltdowns happened, some things were learned the hard way and people died. But now it's 2012 and we have nuclear power in spite of the naysayers who predicted catastrophe.

Would it be insanely dangerous to blast into outer space in a tin can and attempt to land it on the moon? Absolutely. Does that mean it didn't happen? No. People predict catastrophe all the time and are frequently wrong. Consider the following: The earth is not covered in water from melted polar ice caps, nor has it been sucked into a black hole created by the Large Hadron Collider.

Now, I read your crackpot article. You can return the favor by reading these:
Conspiracists and their main proposals
Third party evidence for Apollo moon landings

EDIT: I would also like to mention that, being something of an amateur photographer myself, I have seen plenty of photos turn out with strange results. It would take more than a few photos with odd shadows and irregular exposure to convince me that the moon landings were a fabrication.