do you think we landed on the moon?

now im wondering if there even is a space station..

im sure we have landed on the moon, but definately not the first time. idk though. i havent watched any vids about it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AJ Camacho

This might be helpful.. or not. From the...

http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/S2ch3.htm
BIOMEDICAL RESULTS OF APOLLO
SECTION II
CHAPTER 3
RADIATION PROTECTION AND INSTRUMENTATION
by
J. Vernon Bailey
Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center

(relevant excerpts)
The solar and cosmic radiation found in space has long been recognized as a possible danger in space travel. Exposure to such radiation has the potential of causing serious medical problems. For example, radiation exposure can produce a number of significant changes in various elements of the blood, making an individual more susceptible to disease; also, ionizing radiations of the type found in space can produce significant damage to the lens of the eye. Radiation exposure can also cause temporary or lasting damage to the reproductive system ranging from reduced fertility to permanent sterility. The extent of damage depends upon the tissue involved, the duration of exposure, the dose received, and other factors.

...

Van Allen Belts

The problem of protecting astronauts against the radiation found within the Van Allen belts was recognized before the advent of manned space flight. These two bands of trapped radiation, discovered during the Explorer I flight in 1958, consist principally of protons and high-energy electrons, a significant part of which were, at that time, debris from high-altitude tests of nuclear weapons. The simple solution to protection is to remain under the belts [below an altitude of approximately 556 km (? 300 nautical miles)] when in Earth orbit, and to traverse the belts rapidly on the way to outer space. In reality, the problem is somewhat more complex. The radiation belts vary in altitude over various parts of the Earth and are absent over the north and south magnetic poles. A particularly significant portion of the Van Allen belts is a region known as the South Atlantic anomaly (figure 1). Over the South Atlantic region, the geomagnetic field draws particles closer to the Earth than in other regions of the globe. The orbit inclination of a spacecraft determines the number of passes made per day through this region and, thus, the radiation dose.

Particles within the Van Allen belts, in spiraling around the Earth’s magnetic lines of force, display directionality. This directionality varies continuously in angular relationship to the trajectory of the spacecraft. Therefore, dosimetry instrumentation for use in the Van Allen belts had relatively omnidirectional radiation sensors so that the radiation flux would be measured accurately. The Van Allen belt dosimeter (figure 2) was designed specifically for Apollo dosimetry within these radiation belts.


The rest of the document covers all other forms of possible radiation. Again, it comes down to whether or not you believe NASA. And keep in mind, this collective information about the function of radiation is known data that is used in order to plan satellite trajectories within safe margins of the belt.

---

Here is Alan Bean from Apollo 12 admitting that even though the Van Allen radiation belts were discovered before the Apollo flights NASA made no special preparations to protect the people from the radiation. In fact, this guy who 'went to the moon' didn't even know that he went through the belts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IM7EzTPxK2c&NR=1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tim Elliott

The rocks dont lie. We went to the moon. They quite possibly jazzed the video up a bit, but that doesnt mean they didnt go.

http://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/lunar/index.cfm

Also, radiation is less of a big deal than the cold war left people think it was. A excessive dose will make you sick. The same goes for, iron or even water. The world is a radioactive.

http://rerowland.com/BodyActivity.htm

---

If you are admitting the film may have been tampered with, what is to stop them from misrepresenting the rocks that 'came from the moon?'

The moon is 244,000 miles from earth. The Apollo rockets were not big enough to contain enough fuel to travel that far one way. They would have had to be at least as big as the Empire State Building.

This is a big enough problem until you stop to think about the lunar module. It is an impossiblility that the lunar module would have had enough fuel to travel 244,000 miles back to earth from the moon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOdzhQS_MMw

How exactly do you misrepresent a rock?

The answer is, you cant. To create fake rocks convincing enough to fool the hundreds and hundreds of scientists who have studied them would be a harder than going to the moon in the first place.

Look, you can request samples. Anyone can. Dont you think someone would have noticed if they were fake?

One of the marks moon rocks have is a distinctive signature left by their exposure to radiation in space. So which will it be, is your radiation real, or are the moon rocks real?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jason Mallory

This is a big enough problem until you stop to think about the lunar module. It is an impossiblility that the lunar module would have had enough fuel to travel 244,000 miles back to earth from the moon.

---

Of course the Lunar Module didnt have enough fuel to fly 244,000 miles back to Earth, thats why its still up there. Do you know what the Lunar Module was?

Also, you dont turn the key, put your foot on the gas and drive 244,000 miles. Thats not how it works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tim Elliott

How exactly do you misrepresent a rock?

The answer is, you cant. To create fake rocks convincing enough to fool the hundreds and hundreds of scientists who have studied them would be a harder than going to the moon in the first place.

Look, you can request samples. Anyone can. Dont you think someone would have noticed if they were fake?

One of the marks moon rocks have is a distinctive signature left by their exposure to radiation in space. So which will it be, is your radiation real, or are the moon rocks real?

---

The way you misrepresent a rock is to simply say that debris from a meteorite is from the moon. If you're going to lie about going to the moon, why wouldn't you lie about rocks ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tim Elliott

Of course the Lunar Module didnt have enough fuel to fly 244,000 miles back to Earth, thats why its still up there. Do you know what the Lunar Module was?

Also, you dont turn the key, put your foot on the gas and drive 244,000 miles. Thats not how it works.

---

The Command Service Module was approx. twice the size of the Lunar Module and still would not be big enough to contain the fuel needed to travel back to earth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jason Mallory

The way you misrepresent a rock is to simply say that debris from a meteorite is from the moon. If you're going to lie about going to the moon, why wouldn't you lie about rocks ?

---

Rocks from the moon are nothing like meteorites. There are meteorites that are similar to the composition of the moon as a whole, but moon rock more closely approximates the earths mantle, for a good reason too.

There are complex breccias that are the product of meteorite impact. They also sampled soil and dust. I guess you didnt read that NASA link I posted but they have 840lbs of lunar samples from the multiple trips comprising a diverse array of lithologies.

You cant just tell people some meteorite debris are from the moon. No one would fall for that.