Radiation! Even today, NASA spends millions of dollars every year trying to solve the radiation shielding problems for future Moon and Mars missions. If it's so much of a problem today, with our advanced technology, how are we expected to believe in the Apollo rubbish. :shrug:
The #1 reason you believe we did or did not land a man on the moon.
- Thread starter Un4g1v3n1
- Start date
Humanity used to have pilots->astronaut's with balls/guts. Going through the Van Allen belts is like getting a couple pictures taken with 1950s Xray equipment. Today we can't even travel to the moon unless we can guarantee the trip is 100% safe. Behold the last man..won't even leave his house because of the danger.
Today we can measure the distance to the moon by laser, thanks to a small reflecting device placed there by the Apollo missions.
He's just going to say a robot put it there.
"Humanity used to have pilots->astronaut's with balls/guts. Going through the Van Allen belts is like getting a couple pictures taken with 1950s Xray equipment."
I disagree with your Van Allen belt assessment...Mostly because of the fact the Van Allen belts are made up of high energy protons immensely more powerful than 1950's Xray equipment. Or if I may quote Van Allen himself..."Radiation levels as of 1958 is equivalent to between 10 to 100 roentgens per hour..."
Now, add hundred plus to hundreds of solar flares which they would have been subjected to during each mission, including at least one MAJOR solar flare every mission...8 during the mission dates for Apollo 12. Interesting side-note: Alan Bean didn't even know they went far enough out to encounter the VAB's, when asked about the effects of travelling through them.
NASA's Apollo documents state that no major solar flares occured during any mission...Now go to the NGDC and see the CFI index for major solar flares. Amazingly enough, you'll find that NASA lied.
After that, realize there is no magnetic field around the moon, meaning it has been irradiated for billions of years by everything from solar wind, solar flares, coronal mass ejections, to constant background GCR radiation, and gamma ray bursts. The moon is one very highly radioactive bit of rock...
Now go back and watch the anots bouncing around, singing songs, laughing, and obviously not concerned by the deadly levels of radiation on the moon. I mean they are picking up rocks with their non-inflated gloves for pete's sake. Doesn't look too convincing with the new knowledge about lunar radiation does it?
We are not merely asked to believe these guys had balls/guts...We are asked to believe they are supermen with powers making them completely radiation-proof. That's just a bit too much isn't it?
I disagree with your Van Allen belt assessment...Mostly because of the fact the Van Allen belts are made up of high energy protons immensely more powerful than 1950's Xray equipment. Or if I may quote Van Allen himself..."Radiation levels as of 1958 is equivalent to between 10 to 100 roentgens per hour..."
Now, add hundred plus to hundreds of solar flares which they would have been subjected to during each mission, including at least one MAJOR solar flare every mission...8 during the mission dates for Apollo 12. Interesting side-note: Alan Bean didn't even know they went far enough out to encounter the VAB's, when asked about the effects of travelling through them.
NASA's Apollo documents state that no major solar flares occured during any mission...Now go to the NGDC and see the CFI index for major solar flares. Amazingly enough, you'll find that NASA lied.
After that, realize there is no magnetic field around the moon, meaning it has been irradiated for billions of years by everything from solar wind, solar flares, coronal mass ejections, to constant background GCR radiation, and gamma ray bursts. The moon is one very highly radioactive bit of rock...
Now go back and watch the anots bouncing around, singing songs, laughing, and obviously not concerned by the deadly levels of radiation on the moon. I mean they are picking up rocks with their non-inflated gloves for pete's sake. Doesn't look too convincing with the new knowledge about lunar radiation does it?
We are not merely asked to believe these guys had balls/guts...We are asked to believe they are supermen with powers making them completely radiation-proof. That's just a bit too much isn't it?
Wow, they put a robot on the moon? That's amazing!
An unmanned mission...Robotic missions were done by the Russians well before the Apollo 'moonshots'. So one cannot deny that it could have been done...
Trying to make it sound silly like you are attempting to do here, is a lame excuse for debate. How about a real response? Like the thread question I posed.
If you believe the reflectors are the #1 reason you believe they went to the moon, so be it. I posed the idea that an unmanned mission could have accomplished it. Nietzschefan was the one who mentioned robots. I merely, sarcastically replied to his response, since he wanted to take the opportunity to predict my response. I didn't know that he was so prophetic...
They went to the moon to stick it to the commies.
I'm all for a man on the moon. Sure it happened. I like to think so, but I have no evidence. A reflector on the moon doesn't prove much, considering the laser technology of the time was in it's infancy.
"We do this not because it is easy, but because it is hawd!"
JFK
JFK
It would not be easy to land a robot on the moon. To orbit, sure, but to land is tricky, especially with the technology of the time. This proves that a person landed there and placed the reflector.
Do you realize what you are saying? Russians were able to get an unmanned mission there well before Apollo. Yet you still believe putting a man there is easier? Completely ludicrous and your statement that it proves that a person landed there is completely false. Reflectors which were undoubtedly placed there unmanned is no proof at all. At least not to me...
I cannot take you seriously when you make outlandish comments like that. I don't see how anyone else could either...
They faked the moon landings to stick it to the commies...So, you are half correct!
There's a bit of a difference between a 3 day trip and a 6 month trip.
Not to be mean or anything...but they within and beyond the VAB's for much longer than three days...
Out of curiousity, can you tell me how radiactive the moon must be after billions of years of irradiation from the sun and GCR's?
It must make three mile island or chernobyl look like a radiation kiddy park!
More like a 2 year trip to go to Mars and explore then return.
When they went to the moon they were gone for less that 2 weeks, so little exposure to the radiation was happening to them. Also the sun was very calm and no solar flares developed while they were going to the moon and returning. That is why they weren't harmed by the radiation as much as those who go to Mars will be.
Challenger78
Valued Senior Member
The no.1 reason man didn't land on the moon ? Simple: marijuana.