Moon Landing A Fake?

You're telling me those cheap, crappy space suits could hold up against the Van Allen belt radiation? If that is so, they should clean up three mile island in them.

The metal on the vehicle was not thick enough to sustain that kind of radiation.

The solar wind was recording some of its highest values in years, it would have scorched the ship.

I'm not doubting we never went to space, just the moon. Besides, the Soviets aren't big babies like America and don't whine when we make a lie. I'm currently reading
The Presidents' Secret Wars. You wouldn't believe the crap the CIA does and covers up.

Owen -

You need to do a little more reseach...
We have suits that you can wear into three mile island... just not for very long (because of the strain on the operator, something you don't have to worry about in space).

As for the Radiation - Your suggesting that the landings never took place, then show me some PROFESSIONAL opinions that say that the lander or the Suits couldn't have stood up to cosmic radiation. I am a Weapons of Mass Destruction Profesional, with a speciality in Radataion, and from my personal training and observations it is my opinion that they could block the cosmic radiation...

I am always willing to be proved wrong however...

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by hot_ice
And what if in 50 years time, NASA come out and say, "yes, we are sorry, we faked it - forgive us"?? Then you'll all be fools!!! FOOLS I tells ya!!

---

Yeah, but until then, you're a fool. Which is better, to look like a fool for thirty years (I'm 20 now, assuming I live to 100), or for fifty? ;)

Quote:

---

Ahhh, I dunno, with all the valid points you people are bringing up, especially jcmcb talking about how many people would have to be involved in a hoax, I realise that most probably they went up.

---

I, like KorpDeath, am amazed that such a thread is still going. Going to the moon is the most spectacular demonstration of human potential that I know of. There is no other thing that we can point to and say "Humans did that," which has the same scope. For me it is a signpost pointing to what the future holds for us.
The only thing that is starting to compare is the construction of the ISS. More countries are cooperating in its construction than anything ever before. It is a signature of what we humans can do when we decide to work together. For me, one of the saddest things of Bush's presidency is the cutting of funding to the space program. His government is trying to stop progress on the station and cut down on the number of people living there.
I hope he does not succeed. I keep holding on to the thought that I can get off this rock before I die......

As Astra Per Aspera
To the Stars Through Hardship

We have suits NOW, but did we have them then? If we did land on the moon, how come we haven't built crap on it for research. I know there is a supposed treaty that won't allow military structures. Also, if the Russians had the technology on 1/10 the budget, why did they never go to the moon? They were far ahead of us in the game. There is footage of Armstrong piloting the lander on Earth a week before the "landing" and he had no control over it. You expect me to believe he landed it perfectly on the moon without any problems in an environment with little to no room for error?

I cannot believe the astounding idiocy that some people freely exhibit.

Owen: The shots of Armstrong having trouble with the lander were in EARTH gravity, NOT in space. There is very little gravity on the moon compared to here on Earth, so it's a LOT easier to set down on the moon. Not to mention the fact that what you interpret was 'barely landing it' was actually 'doing really well'. There is lots of room for error in a 0G environment. It is not that difficult to hit a relatively stationary target here on earth, and we have gravity to deal with.

As for why we haven't built things on the moon, there is one basic reason: COST. It would cost WAY too much to put a structure on the moon now, and you're looking at 30 years ago. They're contemplating a project that would put a stationary observatory on the dark side of the moon something like 20 years from now.

Buildings on the moon are much more expensive too, because you would have to lead line them, and it would cost a lot to cart the building materials up there. Shuttles aren't big enough to take something prefabbed up, so you would have to either build it on the ISS, or build it on the moon. Either way it's an expensive proposition, as you'd have to rotate your relatively small work crew (no more than say, 6 people) out every six months. That doesn't even consider the fact that you're looking at the cost of finding and training the personell to launch to put on the moon.

All in all it's a VERY VERY costly proposition, and for what? What would your ROI be? Very very little compared to what you spent, even for an observatory.

Owen -

Its good to question authority, but sometimes they tell the truth...

A) We have been working with Radiation since the turn of the century, so we have had suits for a long time (all you need is lead, to paraphrase from the beatles)

B) NASA has found that unmmaned research is cheaper and safer now than with manned mnissions, hence we haven't gone back (see the Voyager Series as an example)

C) The Russians actually got there first, just with un-manned probes. They sent em after we did, and even brought back dirt (I think)

D) chsh covered the landing footage pretty well, but he left out the atmospheric differnce between the Earth and the Moon....