That would be appropriate if anyone had ever gone to the moon.

/bunch of schmucks.

Getting to the moon is the easy part. returning to Earth.......Priceless!

Good. Apollo 11 represents a distinct moment in human evolution.

Whalers: We're whalers on the moon,
We carry a harpoon.
But there ain't no whales
So we tell tall tales
And sing our whaling tune.

We get to kill the vampires that live int moon, right?

phrawgh: That would be appropriate if anyone had ever gone to the moon.

/bunch of schmucks.

.
.
NASA wants people to stay out because there is nothing to see.

ALL THESE WORLDS ARE YOURS-EXCEPT EUROPA. ATTEMPT NO LANDINGS THERE

Hahaha, Nasa thinks it owns moon. You don't own moon! I do what I want!

John Varley covered this in Steel Beach. People visited the Apollo 11 site and messed up all the footprints. Later, preservationists went back and painstakingly restored the footprints as they were.

Hopefully no one will figure out the "translinear vector principle"

Don't need all those tourists spoiling their buzz

david_gaithersburg: phrawgh: That would be appropriate if anyone had ever gone to the moon.

/bunch of schmucks.

.
.
NASA wants people to stay out because there is nothing to see.

They're only making Apollo 11 and 17 off limits because they're the first and last landing sites. Visiting Apollo 12, 14, 15, and 16 are OK as long as nothing is touched. You can get as close to them as you can to the space shuttle in the Smithsonian.

herrDrFarkenstein: Good. Apollo 11 represents a distinct moment in human evolution.

FARK em.
If anyone cared, we would have sent astronauts back to install the velvet ropes.

/The moon, and everything on it, belongs to whomever can enforce their claim.

I understand that the moon-hoax people say that the recent pictures we have of the stuff on the moon are photoshopped perpetuations of the hoax.

OK, so some other country sends robot cameras up there, take pictures up close of stuff and even footprints.

What will the moon-hoaxers say then? And, no, many won't admit they're wrong.

Earguy: I understand that the moon-hoax people say that the recent pictures we have of the stuff on the moon are photoshopped perpetuations of the hoax.

OK, so some other country sends robot cameras up there, take pictures up close of stuff and even footprints.

What will the moon-hoaxers say then? And, no, many won't admit they're wrong.

Don't you understand what a conspiracy is?
This just means more people are in on it now!

phrawgh: That would be appropriate if anyone had ever gone to the moon.

/bunch of schmucks.

^--BUZZPUNCH!

I would be more worried about upsetting any Inhumans that may still be living there.

i love how the US made it to the moon and then just said 'fark it it's more fun blowing people up here.'

BlippityBleep: i love how the US made it to the moon and then just said 'fark it it's more fun blowing people up here.'

Yeah imagine if we'd taken all the money spent on unnecessary military action since 1969 and put it into the space program.

It's worse than that. The locations for Apollos 12, 14-17 have a SNAP-27 mini nuclear reactor on site. Astronauts who have deployed those things have reported feeling the heat right through their insulated gloves.

Google up Alan Sheppard and find out what he died from.

The one truly excellent thing about our moon is that it is a big, ugly, empty, dead rock that we can't wreck because it's already cold, empty, ugly and dead. Anyone worried about 'preserving' it is retarded.

TV's Vinnie: It's worse than that. The locations for Apollos 12, 14-17 have a SNAP-27 mini nuclear reactor on site. Astronauts who have deployed those things have reported feeling the heat right through their insulated gloves.

Google up Alan Sheppard and find out what he died from.

Heat alone doesn't tell you what kind of radiation dose you are getting, especially with a metal object being baked by direct sunlight on the surface of the moon, where the average surface temp in direct sun is around 225 degrees F.

Also he was 74, so he wasn't exactly a spring chicken. If his leukemia was caused by radiation exposure, it certainly took its own sweet time in manifesting itself. If he received a really dangerous dose from the reactor, he would have likely had health issues at a much younger age. Chances are he probably received more harmful ionizing radiation from the sun and cosmic rays while he was outside Earth's atmosphere and magnetic field while on the lunar mission.

TV's Vinnie: It's worse than that. The locations for Apollos 12, 14-17 have a SNAP-27 mini nuclear reactor on site. Astronauts who have deployed those things have reported feeling the heat right through their insulated gloves.

Google up Alan Sheppard and find out what he died from.

SNAP-27 is a radiothermal generator - NOT a nuclear reactor. There is no fission taking place. RTG's work on the principal of converting heat into electricity. The heat is created by the radioactive decay of plutonium-238 oxide that is encased in a ceramic mixture. The only radiation would be natural alpha emissions from the P-238, which can be stopped by a sheet of paper, much less the ceramic, then the very sturdy metal case (designed to survive accidental re-entry) and the astronaut's suit and skin.

RTG's have almost nothing in common with nuclear reactors.

Seems like a good time to share this.

I challenge anyone who believes NASA landed humans on the moon to turn the derp off for 90 minutes and quietly watch that. There's also lots of interesting historical tidbits.

What just might happen, is other countries trying to do what NASA said they did, only to find it impossible due to radiation. Then what?

Experiment packages left on the lunar surface are still producing scientific data as are the samples returned. This is wise and any country or company that doesn't respect this is going to look like a bunch of dbags.

I was quite impressed with the first episodes of Futurama, but I fell in love with the series when I saw this shot:



TheDirtyNacho: RTG's have almost nothing in common with nuclear reactors.

True. Other points to consider:
- The Apollo 13 mission also carried an RTG, and that one didn't make it to the moon for obvious reasons. It landed somewhere in one of our oceans and is now quietly biding its time on the sea bed, waiting...
- Although no true reactors have ever been used on moon or planetary missions, they have been used in a number of earth-orbiting satellites (e.g. Soviet RORSATs)
- Some of these Soviet reactors have also come back to earth. Northern Canada got one in the late 70s.
- A bunch more are still up there, playing dodge-ball with the rest of the ever-growing crowd of orbital debris.

Sleep well tonight, kids.

J. Frank Parnell: Seems like a good time to share this.

I challenge anyone who believes NASA landed humans on the moon to turn the derp off for 90 minutes and quietly watch that. There's also lots of interesting historical tidbits.

What just might happen, is other countries trying to do what NASA said they did, only to find it impossible due to radiation. Then what?


Why would the radiation on the moon be any higher than in orbit, where humans have lived for months at a time?

The problem with moon hoaxers is that it would require a conspiracy challenge orders of magnitude greater to create and perpetuate the hoax, than to actually land on the moon.

The soviets would've had to been on it as well.

J. Frank Parnell: What just might happen, is other countries trying to do what NASA said they did, only to find it impossible due to radiation. Then what?

The truth is that it was Bigfoot who landed on the moon. The superior sasquatch physique is much more radiation-resistant than a puny human, so NASA enlisted a few specimens of their noble race to go to the moon, place scientific instruments, and return samples while Armstrong et al. played along in real time on the sound stage.

TheDirtyNacho: Why would the radiation on the moon be any higher than in orbit, where humans have lived for months at a time?

I don't believe any of the Apollo moon landing conspiracies, but the moon is outside of the earth's magnetic field, which catches a lot of nasty radiation coming from the sun and from elsewhere in the universe. The ISS is well within the magnetic field of the Earth, so it doesn't feel the full brunt of the radiation that is out in deep space. Outside of a big solar flare, however, the radiation levels on the moon shouldn't be dangerous for short term visits.

TheDirtyNacho: Why would the radiation on the moon be any higher than in orbit, where humans have lived for months at a time?

In low Earth orbit you still enjoy all the shielding the planet's atmosphere and magnetosphere offer from solar and cosmic radiation, and the Van Allen radiation belt is still much further out.

I believe NASA sent probes to the moon, and set down instruments there using them, but the story of them sending humans there without any radiation shielding at all is just preposterous.

J. Frank Parnell: TheDirtyNacho: Why would the radiation on the moon be any higher than in orbit, where humans have lived for months at a time?

In low Earth orbit you still enjoy all the shielding the planet's atmosphere and magnetosphere offer from solar and cosmic radiation, and the Van Allen radiation belt is still much further out.

I believe NASA sent probes to the moon, and set down instruments there using them, but the story of them sending humans there without any radiation shielding at all is just preposterous.

Such a claim would be elementary to investigate - the Soviets sent probes and landers measuring just such things. Yet they had no dispute. Neither has any other actual scientist with in-depth knowledge of the environment.

In order for the moon hoax to exist, it would require the continuing participation of thousands upon thousands of people - contrarian scientists at that - and also rival nations. This is far more preposterous.

J. Frank Parnell: TheDirtyNacho: Why would the radiation on the moon be any higher than in orbit, where humans have lived for months at a time?

In low Earth orbit you still enjoy all the shielding the planet's atmosphere and magnetosphere offer from solar and cosmic radiation, and the Van Allen radiation belt is still much further out.

I believe NASA sent probes to the moon, and set down instruments there using them, but the story of them sending humans there without any radiation shielding at all is just preposterous.

1. The astronauts could not have survived the trip because of exposure to radiation from the Van Allen radiation belt and galactic ambient radiation (see radiation poisoning and health threat from cosmic rays). Some conspiracists have suggested that Starfish Prime (high altitude nuclear testing in 1962) was a failed attempt to disrupt the Van Allen belts.

The spacecraft moved through the belts in about four hours, and the astronauts were protected from the ionizing radiation by the aluminium hulls of the spacecraft. Furthermore, the orbital transfer trajectory from Earth to the Moon through the belts was chosen to lessen radiation exposure. Even Dr James Van Allen, the discoverer of the Van Allen radiation belts, rebutted the claims that radiation levels were too dangerous for the Apollo missions.[71] Plait cited an average dose of less than 1 rem (10 mSv), which is equivalent to the ambient radiation received by living at sea level for three years.[72] The spacecraft passed through the intense inner belt and the low-energy outer belt. The total radiation received on the trip was about the same as allowed for workers in the nuclear energy field for a year.[73]

The radiation is actually evidence that the astronauts went to the Moon. Irene Schneider reports that 33 of the 36 Apollo astronauts involved in the nine Apollo missions to leave Earth orbit have developed early stage cataracts that have been shown to be caused by radiation exposure to cosmic rays during their trip.[74] At least 39 former astronauts have developed cataracts; 36 of those were involved in high-radiation missions such as the Apollo missions.[75]

There's a whole wiki page with sources that debunks every claim made about the Moon landing being faked. A lot of the objections being made display how ignorant people are of how different the environment of the moon is from the earth, and how the physics of things like rocket engine exhaust and dust blowing about is very different in a vacuum. In fact, most of the "errors" in the Apollo footage are the best proof that they actually WERE on the moon, since it is hard as hell to fake some of the effects of being in a vacuum or in low gravity on Earth.

TheDirtyNacho: Such a claim would be elementary to investigate - the Soviets sent probes and landers measuring just such things. Yet they had no dispute. Neither has any other actual scientist with in-depth knowledge of the environment.

You didn't watch the documentary, evidently. If you're truly interested in this subject it's worth your time.

/Or, just continue to believe whatever you prefer to.

Mad_Radhu: There's a whole wiki page with sources that debunks every claim made about the Moon landing being faked

They cherry pick things and create strawmen. You have to realize if it is a hoax there will be considerable effort put into backing it up.

Here's one thing they never bring up: how was the film they recorded with not affected by radiation? Even small amounts would have left traces.

J. Frank Parnell: TheDirtyNacho: Such a claim would be elementary to investigate - the Soviets sent probes and landers measuring just such things. Yet they had no dispute. Neither has any other actual scientist with in-depth knowledge of the environment.

You didn't watch the documentary, evidently. If you're truly interested in this subject it's worth your time.

/Or, just continue to believe whatever you prefer to.

Unless it somehow goes into detail about how exactly hundreds of thousands of scientists and engineers were co-opted into the conspiracy (a far bigger accomplishment than a moon landing!)...I think I'll save my 90 minutes of time for something more valuable.

TheDirtyNacho: J. Frank Parnell: TheDirtyNacho: Such a claim would be elementary to investigate - the Soviets sent probes and landers measuring just such things. Yet they had no dispute. Neither has any other actual scientist with in-depth knowledge of the environment.

You didn't watch the documentary, evidently. If you're truly interested in this subject it's worth your time.

/Or, just continue to believe whatever you prefer to.

Unless it somehow goes into detail about how exactly hundreds of thousands of scientists and engineers were co-opted into the conspiracy (a far bigger accomplishment than a moon landing!)...I think I'll save my 90 minutes of time for something more valuable.

I peeked at his profile, it looks like he has a thing for radiation conspiracies.

J. Frank Parnell: Mad_Radhu: There's a whole wiki page with sources that debunks every claim made about the Moon landing being faked

They cherry pick things and create strawmen. You have to realize if it is a hoax there will be considerable effort put into backing it up.

Here's one thing they never bring up: how was the film they recorded with not affected by radiation? Even small amounts would have left traces.

You are assuming there are high enough levels on the moon to cause fogging. And no, small amounts will not necessarily leave 'traces'. Film fogging mainly occurs with sensitive high ISO film. The film of that era was not very sensitive. The unfiltered sun on the moon also meant they would want to use fairly low speed film for its enhanced detail.

J. Frank Parnell: Here's one thing they never bring up: how was the film they recorded with not affected by radiation? Even small amounts would have left traces.

They kept the film in protective metal canisters when not loaded into the cameras. I'd also assume the cameras were made of metal as well, which would have protected the film from radiation fogging them. It's not like they took the pics with cardboard disposables.

Also, you can run most low-ISO film through an airport x-ray machine without fogging it, anyway, and they really didn't need high speed film for daylight lunar surface excursions. The background radiation level on the moon isn't anywhere near as high as what an x-ray machine puts out, at least not during normal solar activity.

It's funny how some people believe that NASA could have pulled off the largest most complex conspiracy in human history, but they couldn't have the forsight to shield their film against radiation.

Hoaxer idiots will never believe we landed on the moon. Even if Iran (or another enemy of the States) flew to the moon and took pictures, they would just believe more people were in on it.

NASA worried that future lunar visitors may destroy historical sites on the moon, issues guidelines telling them to stay on the outside of the imaginary rope. Fry and Leela unavailable for comment

NASA doesn't want people to see all the trash they threw out of the ascent stage before leaving.

One of these days Alice......
The man was a visionary.

Imaginary line for an imaginary moon landing

The Russians discovered that the radiation on the moon would require astronauts to be clothed in four feet of lead to avoid being killed.

Deep Contact: The Russians discovered that the radiation on the moon would require astronauts to be clothed in four feet of lead to avoid being killed.

The Russians discovered that if you walked on the moon, you'd sink in because it's made of cheese.

genner: One of these days Alice......
The man was a visionary.

[t2.gstatic.com image 272x185]

That was just a euphemism for beating his wife.