The Apollo Moon Landing in 1969 - A Hoax?!?! (Earth, satellite, theory)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Does Clinton definitively know whether or not we were on the moon? I think there's some things not even the president knows.
I don't know, but it would be the first thing I'd ask about were I able to get him drunk enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by curiousgeorge5
I'm wondering what would happen if the space shuttle went through the radiation belts.
I'm not sure anything would happen to it. It's the people inside that are the problem. I heard that on one of those late 90's missions the crew could see specks of radiation hitting their retinas, and this was nowhere near the distance out that the belts are said to begin.
This is probably silly but could the truth about the landings be something other than yes or no? I think on here I mentioned may be the first one or two didn't happen but subsequent ones did. Maybe we landed on a big asteroid closer by than the moon. Maybe aliens helped with the mission on the condition we continue being the more ethical of the two countries during the Cold War.
The first three men who were supposed to land on the moon were killed in the capsule here on earth without even getting off the ground, IIRC. Then, there were multiple missions to the moon where no one was killed. Moving on in time, two space shuttle missions resulted their crew getting killed.
I don't specifically believe what I wrote in the first paragraph. I'm just trying to think outside the box, so to speak.
The first three men who were supposed to land on the moon were killed in the capsule here on earth without even getting off the ground, IIRC. Then, there were multiple missions to the moon where no one was killed. Moving on in time, two space shuttle missions resulted their crew getting killed.
You don't recall correctly.
The mission designated Apollo 204 (renamed Apollo 1 after the disaster) was scheduled for 02-21-67, to test launch operations and the performance of the spacecraft in LEO. As it was set to ride a Saturn 1B into space - a two-stage rocket that is not even capable of escaping Earth's orbit - they were hardly planning to go to the Moon.
None of the Apollo 11 astronauts (or Apollo 12 astronauts, for that matter) had flown a previous Apollo mission, so it is unlikely that any of the crew of Apollo 204 would have been on track to be part of the first lunar landing mission. None of the crew of Apollo 7, the mission that essentially replaced Apollo 1, ever went to the Moon. Also, only two astronauts on each mission landed on the Moon - the Command Module Pilot always remained in orbit. So the crew of Apollo 1 couldn't possibly have been the 'first three men who were supposed to land on the moon'.
Conspiracists would do themselves a favor by actually knowing the very basics of the subject about which they imagine wild conspiracies are at play.
The mission designated Apollo 204 (renamed Apollo 1 after the disaster) was scheduled for 02-21-67, to test launch operations and the performance of the spacecraft in LEO. As it was set to ride a Saturn 1B into space - a two-stage rocket that is not even capable of escaping Earth's orbit - they were hardly planning to go to the Moon.
None of the Apollo 11 astronauts (or Apollo 12 astronauts, for that matter) had flown a previous Apollo mission, so it is unlikely that any of the crew of Apollo 204 would have been on track to be part of the first lunar landing mission. None of the crew of Apollo 7, the mission that essentially replaced Apollo 1, ever went to the Moon. Also, only two astronauts on each mission landed on the Moon - the Command Module Pilot always remained in orbit. So the crew of Apollo 1 couldn't possibly have been the 'first three men who were supposed to land on the moon'.
Conspiracists would do themselves a favor by actually knowing the very basics of the subject about which they imagine wild conspiracies are at play.
Don’t know about the rest of the crew but it’s a good bet that Grissom, as the remaining flying Mercury astronaut would have been commander of the first lunar landing.
“His hard work, drive, persistence and skills as a top notch test pilot and engineer had landed him the title of commander for the first Apollo flight. Yet for Grissom, Apollo I was to be just the beginning. He had been told privately that if all went well, he would be the first American to walk on the moon.”
The first three men who were supposed to land on the moon were killed in the capsule here on earth without even getting off the ground, IIRC. Then, there were multiple missions to the moon where no one was killed. Moving on in time, two space shuttle missions resulted their crew getting killed.
They were not "supposed" to land on the Moon. The decision as to which crew would get that honor wasn't even made until 1969, so there's no way Grissom, Chaffee or White were "supposed" to land on the Moon in 1967.
The only reason Armstrong was chosen to be first, is because he sat next to the door of the lunar module. Aldrin, in the pilot's seat of the lunar module, would have had to climb over the top of Armstrong to get to the door, which didn't make any sense.
Their specific mission was to orbit Earth and test the functionality of the command module.
As it stands, an exposed wire generated a fire in the Oxygen atmosphere, and because the capsule was pressurized, it was almost impossible to open the hatch, which was already a complex time-consuming task to perform. The result was a re-design of the command module interior, with safer electronic components and using a Nitrogen-Oxygen atmosphere in the module, instead of pure Oxygen, along with a re-design of the hatch to make it easier to open, from both the interior and exterior, especially in emergencies.
The Apollo program was not without further incident, as catastrophic damage to Oxygen tanks on Apollo 13 almost led to the crew's death.
The two space shuttle incidents are unrelated to the Apollo program, and even to the space shuttle program itself.
Rubber o-rings on the fuel tanks froze, allowing fuel to vent, which led to the explosion of Challenger, and for Columbia, the issue was heat shielding tiles on the left wing, which were broken during launch. That altered the heat signature of the spacecraft upon re-entry into Earth's atmosphere and led to the catastrophic failure of the left wing and critical life-support systems.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NightBazaar
"Staged" is just another way of saying the Moon missions were a hoax and never happened because of the intense radiation of the Van Allen Belts.
The Van Allen Radiation Belts are not as intense as you have been misled to believe.
As the Curiosity Mars Rover demonstrated, it's only 0.6 sieverts for a trip to Mars and back.
A dose of 1 sievert only results in a 5% increase in the possibility of a fatal cancer. You can get that from flying frequently, or living in Denver, Colorado or southeastern India.
Rubber o-rings on the fuel tanks froze, allowing fuel to vent, which led to the explosion of Challenger, and for Columbia, the issue was heat shielding tiles on the left wing, which were broken during launch. That altered the heat signature of the spacecraft upon re-entry into Earth's atmosphere and led to the catastrophic failure of the left wing and critical life-support systems.
Close but not quite.
For Challenger, cold temperatures hardened the o-rings in the field joints in the solid rocket boosters, and while there are 2 o-rings there was enough hot gas “blow by” to cause a burn through which then impinged the external tank, causing a liquid hydrogen leak. The SRB internal pressure drop combined with intertank failure in the ET led to flight instability and vehicle breakup.
For Columbia, foam from the bipod ramp on the ET dislodged and damaged the reinforced-carbon-carbon leading edge of the left wing, allowing hot gases during re-entry to flow in and essentially melt the wing from within.
The two space shuttle incidents are unrelated to the Apollo program, and even to the space shuttle program itself.
I'd quibble that they were direct consequences of the program - the design of the spacecraft and the way the program manages known design issue is inherent in the Shuttle program. You can't separate the Shuttle losses from the Shuttle program.
Exactly. Otherwise what were the tens of thousands of NASA employees and contractors doing all those years?
If hoax believers would spent a few hours doing simple research and open their mind they would see how possible things are. What makes it a reality is a lot of resources.
To me the biggest shame is cutting NASA so far back starting in the 70’s and not giving them a clear mission. But I guess the various planetary probes and rovers are fake too as the electronics couldn’t survive the Van Allen Belts
I feel the Van Allen Belt issue is a Red Herring. It is not important as soon as we have advanced propulsion methods.
NASA is a front organisation for the governments publicity on space exploration. Nothing more. However much money is spent, it is just a way to allow us the population, to believe that rocket science is the most up-to-date method of getting into space. Which is rubbish of course.
==================
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
As the Curiosity Mars Rover demonstrated, it's only 0.6 sieverts for a trip to Mars and back.
I was not aware that any of the Mars rovers returned home to Earth, did they? I understood that Curiosity was still up there sending back images - or else they are being generated by NASA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
A dose of 1 sievert only results in a 5% increase in the possibility of a fatal cancer. You can get that from flying frequently, or living in Denver, Colorado or southeastern India.
Assuming people do not know or cannot be bothered to look it up is dangerous to your argument.
This The Guardian UK newspaper article suggests that a dose of 1Sv is not fatal but would cause radiation sickness. Measurements in Sv/1000 or mSv (1Sv = 1000mSv)
Quote:
Single dosage which would cause radiation sickness, including nausea, lower white blood cell count. Not fatal 1,000.00
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
