The moon. Have we been?
#1
Professional Waffler
Thread Starter
The moon. Have we been?
What do you reckon? I just logged on wikipedia and the moon is todays featured article, and it got me thinking about my mate who really believes it was all a con. I think, like the twin towers, it would be too big to cover up and we have definatley been there.
#2
Fucking superstar........
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Argyll.... It's lonely...
Posts: 13,240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some of the photos are very very iffy......
But surely you can see the landing site with a telescope? Has anyone thought to have a look and see?
But surely you can see the landing site with a telescope? Has anyone thought to have a look and see?
#3
PassionFord Post Whore!!
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Exeter
Posts: 3,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its a conspiracy!!!!!!!!! Dont believe it
And whilst we are at it, you should also be aware that there is in fact no such place as Australia - it is just a propaganda exercise that the british use every time they lose at sport.
Also - the Sierra cosworth really is the best car that was ever created.
JJ
And whilst we are at it, you should also be aware that there is in fact no such place as Australia - it is just a propaganda exercise that the british use every time they lose at sport.
Also - the Sierra cosworth really is the best car that was ever created.
JJ
#6
Fucking superstar........
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Argyll.... It's lonely...
Posts: 13,240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Lee Reynolds
Rab
Ive only got a magnifying glass will that do?
Ive only got a magnifying glass will that do?
Lee, just cos you're a smurf, doesn't mean the same principle can be applied to astronomy mate. You'll need something 'bigger'
'bigger' is what everything is, compared to you.
#7
Professional Waffler
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by Rab
Originally Posted by Lee Reynolds
Rab
Ive only got a magnifying glass will that do?
Ive only got a magnifying glass will that do?
Lee, just cos you're a smurf, doesn't mean the same principle can be applied to astronomy mate. You'll need something 'bigger'
'bigger' is what everything is, compared to you.
Thats why i have the magnifying glass to hand, so i can find myself when getting dressed etc
Ill go try it out now......
Trending Topics
#8
Fucking superstar........
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Argyll.... It's lonely...
Posts: 13,240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Lee Reynolds
Originally Posted by Rab
Originally Posted by Lee Reynolds
Rab
Ive only got a magnifying glass will that do?
Ive only got a magnifying glass will that do?
Lee, just cos you're a smurf, doesn't mean the same principle can be applied to astronomy mate. You'll need something 'bigger'
'bigger' is what everything is, compared to you.
Thats why i have the magnifying glass to hand, so i can find myself when getting dressed etc
Ill go try it out now......
Lee Reynolds is..............
THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING MAN
#9
Professional Waffler
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by Rab
Originally Posted by Lee Reynolds
Originally Posted by Rab
Originally Posted by Lee Reynolds
Rab
Ive only got a magnifying glass will that do?
Ive only got a magnifying glass will that do?
Lee, just cos you're a smurf, doesn't mean the same principle can be applied to astronomy mate. You'll need something 'bigger'
'bigger' is what everything is, compared to you.
Thats why i have the magnifying glass to hand, so i can find myself when getting dressed etc
Ill go try it out now......
Lee Reynolds is..............
THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING MAN
#12
Professional Waffler
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by Mitsy FQ
the moon is radioactive so any one that did land there did not make it back in a form we would recognize it's a scam always has been
fook me the lunar module looks like something they made on blue peter
fook me the lunar module looks like something they made on blue peter
#13
PassionFord Post Troll
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Essex!
Posts: 3,115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is one piece of footage that, for me atleast, proves we went.
Filming earth inside the capsule through 2 seperate windows whilst moving about. Incredible footage.
They did go, it was a huge step, but people always critisize the 1st moon landing, why?
They landed more than once people!
Apollo 11
Apollo 12
Apollo 14
Apollo 15
Apollo 16
Apollo 17
The answer, Yes I do believe we went to the moon, on more than one occasion
Filming earth inside the capsule through 2 seperate windows whilst moving about. Incredible footage.
They did go, it was a huge step, but people always critisize the 1st moon landing, why?
They landed more than once people!
Apollo 11
Apollo 12
Apollo 14
Apollo 15
Apollo 16
Apollo 17
The answer, Yes I do believe we went to the moon, on more than one occasion
#14
Super Moderator
iTrader: (5)
Originally Posted by Lee Reynolds
Originally Posted by Mitsy FQ
the moon is radioactive so any one that did land there did not make it back in a form we would recognize it's a scam always has been
fook me the lunar module looks like something they made on blue peter
fook me the lunar module looks like something they made on blue peter
you would get more protection from a nodder on your dick in a microwave
strange how despite current technology we aren't living there, and you can book a 2 week holiday for 2 all expenses paid through thomas cook
#15
Super Moderator
iTrader: (5)
Originally Posted by Terry Tibbs
There is one piece of footage that, for me atleast, proves we went.
Filming earth inside the capsule through 2 seperate windows whilst moving about. Incredible footage.
They did go, it was a huge step, but people always critisize the 1st moon landing, why?
They landed more than once people!
Apollo 11
Apollo 12
Apollo 14
Apollo 15
Apollo 16
Apollo 17
The answer, Yes I do believe we went to the moon, on more than one occasion
Filming earth inside the capsule through 2 seperate windows whilst moving about. Incredible footage.
They did go, it was a huge step, but people always critisize the 1st moon landing, why?
They landed more than once people!
Apollo 11
Apollo 12
Apollo 14
Apollo 15
Apollo 16
Apollo 17
The answer, Yes I do believe we went to the moon, on more than one occasion
seen more realistic pics on blake 7 and red dwarf
looks like martins back garden before the marco make over roflol
#16
PassionFord Post Troll
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Essex!
Posts: 3,115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Mitsy FQ
Originally Posted by Lee Reynolds
Originally Posted by Mitsy FQ
the moon is radioactive so any one that did land there did not make it back in a form we would recognize it's a scam always has been
fook me the lunar module looks like something they made on blue peter
fook me the lunar module looks like something they made on blue peter
you would get more protection from a nodder on your dick in a microwave
strange how despite current technology we aren't living there, and you can book a 2 week holiday for 2 all expenses paid through thomas cook
Moon Radiation:
"We really need to know more about the radiation environment on the Moon, especially if people will be staying there for more than just a few days, as the equipment will only last 2-3 days" says Harlan Spence, a professor of astronomy at Boston University.
Van Allen belts, were said to have been no problem for the space capsule as they were travelling at super speeds
Regarding the Van Allen belts, and the nature of the radiation in them, they are doughnut-shaped regions where charged particles, both protons and electrons, are trapped in the Earth's magnetic field. The number of particles encountered (flux is the technical jargon, to impress your friends!) depends on the energy of the particles; in general, the flux of high-energy particles is less, and the flux of low-energy particles is more. Very low energy particles cannot penetrate the skin of a spacecraft, nor even the skin of an astronaut. Very roughly speaking, electrons below about 1 million electron volts (MeV) are unlikely to be dangerous, and protons below 10 MeV are also not sufficiently penetrating to be a concern. The actual fluxes encountered in the Van Allen belts is a matter of great commercial importance, as communications satellites operate in the outer region, and their electronics, and hence lifetimes, are strongly affected by the radiation environment. Thus billions of dollars are at stake, never mind the Moon! The standard database on the fluxes in the belt are the models for the trapped radiation environment, AP8 for protons, and AE8 for electrons, maintained by the National Space Sciences Data Center at NASA's Goddard Spaceflight Center. Barth (1999) gives a summary which indicates that electrons with energies over 1 MeV have a flux above a million per square centimeter per second from 1-6 earth radii (about 6,300 - 38,000 km), and protons over 10 MeV have a flux above one hundred thousand per square centimeter per second from about 1.5-2.5 Earth radii (9,500 km - 16,000 km).
Then what would be the radiation dose due to such fluxes, for the amount of time an astronaut crew would be exposed? This was in fact a serious concern at the time that the Apollo program was first proposed. Unfortunately I have not located quantitative information in the time available, but my recollection is that the dose was roughly 2 rem (= 20 mSv, milli-Sievert).
The time the astronauts would be exposed is fairly easy to calculate from basic orbital mechanics, though probably not something most students below college level could easily verify. You have perhaps heard that to escape from Earth requires a speed of about 7 miles per second, which is about 11.2 km per sec. At that speed, it would require less than an hour to pass outside the main part of the belts at around 38,000 km altitude. However it is a little more complicated than that, because as soon as the rocket motor stops burning, the spacecraft immediately begins to slow down due to the attraction of gravity. At 38,000 km altitude it would actually be moving only about 4.6 km per sec, not 11.2. If we just take the geometric average of these two, 7.2 km per sec, we will not be too far off, and get about 1.5 hours for the time to pass beyond 38,000 km.
Unfortunately calculating the average radiation dose received by an astronaut in the belts is quite intricate in practice, though not too hard in principle. One must add up the effects of all kinds of particles, of all energies. For each kind of particle (electrons and protons in this situation) you have to take account of the shielding due to the Apollo spacecraft and the astronaut space suits. Here are some approximate values for the ranges of protons and electrons in aluminum:
Range in Aluminum [cm]Energy
[MeV] electrons protons
1 0.15 ~ nil
3 0.56 ~ nil
10 1.85 0.06
30 no flux 0.37
100 no flux 3.7
For electrons, the AE8 electron data shows negligible flux (< 1 electron per square cm per sec) over E=7 MeV at any altitude. The AP8 proton compilations indicates peak fluxes outside the spacecraft up to about 20,000 protons per square cm per sec above 100 MeV in a region around 1.7 Earth radii, but because the region is narrow, passage takes only about 5 min. Nevertheless, these appear to be the principal hazard.
These numbers seem generally consistent with the ~2 rem doses I recall. If every gram of a person's body absorbed 600,000 protons with energy 100 MeV, completely stopping them, the dose would be about 50 mSv. Assuming a typical thickness of 10 cm for a human and no shielding by the spacecraft gives a dose of something like 50 mSv in 300 sec due to protons in the most intense part of the belt.
For comparison, the US recommended limit of exposure for radiation workers is 50 mSv per year, based on the danger of causing cancer. The corresponding recommended limits in Britain and Cern are 15 mSv. For acute doses, the whole-body exposure lethal within 30 days to 50% of untreated cases is about 2.5-3.0 Gy (Gray) or 250-300 rad; in such circumstances, 1 rad is equivalent to 1 rem.
So the effect of such a dose, in the end, would not be enough to make the astronauts even noticeably ill. The low-level exposure could possibly cause cancer in the long term. I do not know exactly what the odds on that would be, I believe on the order of 1 in 1000 per astronaut exposed, probably some years after the trip. Of course, with nine trips, and a total of 3 X 9 = 27 astronauts (except for a few, like Jim Lovell, who went more than once) you would expect probably 5 or 10 cancers eventually in any case, even without any exposure, so it is not possible to know which if any might have been caused by the trips.
Then what would be the radiation dose due to such fluxes, for the amount of time an astronaut crew would be exposed? This was in fact a serious concern at the time that the Apollo program was first proposed. Unfortunately I have not located quantitative information in the time available, but my recollection is that the dose was roughly 2 rem (= 20 mSv, milli-Sievert).
The time the astronauts would be exposed is fairly easy to calculate from basic orbital mechanics, though probably not something most students below college level could easily verify. You have perhaps heard that to escape from Earth requires a speed of about 7 miles per second, which is about 11.2 km per sec. At that speed, it would require less than an hour to pass outside the main part of the belts at around 38,000 km altitude. However it is a little more complicated than that, because as soon as the rocket motor stops burning, the spacecraft immediately begins to slow down due to the attraction of gravity. At 38,000 km altitude it would actually be moving only about 4.6 km per sec, not 11.2. If we just take the geometric average of these two, 7.2 km per sec, we will not be too far off, and get about 1.5 hours for the time to pass beyond 38,000 km.
Unfortunately calculating the average radiation dose received by an astronaut in the belts is quite intricate in practice, though not too hard in principle. One must add up the effects of all kinds of particles, of all energies. For each kind of particle (electrons and protons in this situation) you have to take account of the shielding due to the Apollo spacecraft and the astronaut space suits. Here are some approximate values for the ranges of protons and electrons in aluminum:
Range in Aluminum [cm]Energy
[MeV] electrons protons
1 0.15 ~ nil
3 0.56 ~ nil
10 1.85 0.06
30 no flux 0.37
100 no flux 3.7
For electrons, the AE8 electron data shows negligible flux (< 1 electron per square cm per sec) over E=7 MeV at any altitude. The AP8 proton compilations indicates peak fluxes outside the spacecraft up to about 20,000 protons per square cm per sec above 100 MeV in a region around 1.7 Earth radii, but because the region is narrow, passage takes only about 5 min. Nevertheless, these appear to be the principal hazard.
These numbers seem generally consistent with the ~2 rem doses I recall. If every gram of a person's body absorbed 600,000 protons with energy 100 MeV, completely stopping them, the dose would be about 50 mSv. Assuming a typical thickness of 10 cm for a human and no shielding by the spacecraft gives a dose of something like 50 mSv in 300 sec due to protons in the most intense part of the belt.
For comparison, the US recommended limit of exposure for radiation workers is 50 mSv per year, based on the danger of causing cancer. The corresponding recommended limits in Britain and Cern are 15 mSv. For acute doses, the whole-body exposure lethal within 30 days to 50% of untreated cases is about 2.5-3.0 Gy (Gray) or 250-300 rad; in such circumstances, 1 rad is equivalent to 1 rem.
So the effect of such a dose, in the end, would not be enough to make the astronauts even noticeably ill. The low-level exposure could possibly cause cancer in the long term. I do not know exactly what the odds on that would be, I believe on the order of 1 in 1000 per astronaut exposed, probably some years after the trip. Of course, with nine trips, and a total of 3 X 9 = 27 astronauts (except for a few, like Jim Lovell, who went more than once) you would expect probably 5 or 10 cancers eventually in any case, even without any exposure, so it is not possible to know which if any might have been caused by the trips.
#18
PassionFord Post Troll
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Essex!
Posts: 3,115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Mitsy FQ
if they had been they would know not just have a theory
it has been proven that the lunar landing shots are area 51
they daren't go today as it would unveil the cover up
it has been proven that the lunar landing shots are area 51
they daren't go today as it would unveil the cover up
#20
PassionFord Post Troll
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Essex!
Posts: 3,115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tbh if you disbelieve it.. watch the 2 documentaries about it. They both give the most rediculous ideas as of why it could be fake ever.
One reason the moon landings aren't fake.
Videos - show the dust moving. their argument is that it was because they shot it in slow motion and with hoists for the 'actors'. Ok so speed the movie up, unless they can create a weightless atmosphere on earth or hoist millions of pieces of select dust in the air to create the weightlessness I severely doubt they are fake.
The dust moves in an airless and low gravity way, not like anything on earth.
Seriously, research it. I was the same before I did.
One reason the moon landings aren't fake.
Videos - show the dust moving. their argument is that it was because they shot it in slow motion and with hoists for the 'actors'. Ok so speed the movie up, unless they can create a weightless atmosphere on earth or hoist millions of pieces of select dust in the air to create the weightlessness I severely doubt they are fake.
The dust moves in an airless and low gravity way, not like anything on earth.
Seriously, research it. I was the same before I did.
#23
PassionFord Post Troll
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Essex!
Posts: 3,115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I take it Area 51 is covered in talcum powder with stretegically placed 'craters' large and small then?
Aswell as the fact that Area 51's actual secure compound is completely flat and is majorly a runway
The area which has the 'luna' look is where they tested weapons, and is actually called area 61
http://www.tellmewhereonearth.com/We...ge_July_03.jpg
But fuck it, who cares!
Aswell as the fact that Area 51's actual secure compound is completely flat and is majorly a runway
The area which has the 'luna' look is where they tested weapons, and is actually called area 61
http://www.tellmewhereonearth.com/We...ge_July_03.jpg
But fuck it, who cares!
#26
PassionFord Post Whore!!
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Deep in the underground
Posts: 5,489
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Spend some time on the nasa site, its mindblowing some of the stuff on there!
There are literally thousands of awesome photos on there too.
A couple of examples...
As for going to the moon, yes they did, and as already said, they are going back too.
There are literally thousands of awesome photos on there too.
A couple of examples...
As for going to the moon, yes they did, and as already said, they are going back too.
#28
PassionFord Post Troll
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Essex!
Posts: 3,115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#31
Fake, the yanks are just pissed the UMPA LUMPA's got there first.
I also firmly beleive it is a fake, not just because I don't see thier craft/evidence on BUTTON MOON(is this the same moon ?) but I don't beleive they had enough technology then.
If they did go what scared the shit out of them enough NOT to go back in a hurry, did they in fact find evidence a vastly superior race ?
tabetha
ps I 100% beleive in GHOSTS and UFO's, but not this
I also firmly beleive it is a fake, not just because I don't see thier craft/evidence on BUTTON MOON(is this the same moon ?) but I don't beleive they had enough technology then.
If they did go what scared the shit out of them enough NOT to go back in a hurry, did they in fact find evidence a vastly superior race ?
tabetha
ps I 100% beleive in GHOSTS and UFO's, but not this
#35
PassionFord Post Troll
Originally Posted by jb fletch
Also where's the star's in the moon pic's ?
Can see space, but no stars ! Hmmm...... ?
Jb
Can see space, but no stars ! Hmmm...... ?
Jb
Personally I think they went.. and I hope the plans to put a man on Mars go ahead too
#36
PassionFord Post Troll
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Essex!
Posts: 3,115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by R5FORD
Funny how space has no air/wind and the flag in the picture above is blowing about
#37
10K+ Poster!!
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: wolverhampton/ australia
Posts: 10,753
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Originally Posted by Terry Tibbs
Originally Posted by R5FORD
Funny how space has no air/wind and the flag in the picture above is blowing about
its all bullsh*t
the flag wouldnt move like that even when they put it in..
#40
Resident Wrestling Legend
iTrader: (3)
i'm sure we've got the combined 5 million hp it's going to take to break the earths gravitation force and amke it all teh way to the moon
just don't use the bb to work out the maths in case you get a critical error, out there in no air lan, it might be a bit more than just critical
just don't use the bb to work out the maths in case you get a critical error, out there in no air lan, it might be a bit more than just critical