40 Years on, why haven't we been back?
Discussion
- sigh*
morons said:
An important factor to take into consideration is the great variations in temperature that the film would have had to endure whilst on the lunar surface. The temperature during the Apollo missions were recorded as being between -180F in the shade to an incredible +200F in full Sunshine. How could the film emulsion have withstood such temperature differences? The astronauts can be seen to move between the shadows of the rocks and then into full sunlight in some shots. Surely the film would have perished under such conditions? If the film used during the Apollo missions had such qualities as to withstand such differences in temperature, why are Kodak not publicly selling them in today's market?
Physics Fail.How did the film survive high temperatures. Simple. It never got that hot.
Heat travels through space as radiative heating. It's the only way for heat to travel in space where no medium exists to facilitate conductive heating.
The film would not have got that hot since the heat would be radiative through space, then conductive transfer through the connected parts of the camera. The film would have remained at a pretty static temperature well within the operating range.
Edited by him_over_there on Wednesday 15th July 12:09
dips
ts said:
ts said: Radiation plays a big part in space travel. Solar flares could have affected the astronauts at any time. The Apollo leaving Earth would travel through 2 specific areas of very high radiation called the Van Allen Belt. The first field is 272 miles out from Earth. The amount of radiation in the belts actually varies from year to year, but every 11 years its at its worst when the sunspot cycle is at its highest. And guess what? 1969 to 1970 was one of the worst times to go, as this was the time where the radiation was at its peak. I have had numerous internet chats with sceptics who say that the radiation would not play a part in the missions because Man would have not been in the radiation belt for too long. My answer to that is, when Dentists or Doctors take X ray pictures they either leave the room or stand behind a sheet of thick lead to shelter from the radiation. Why did NASA only use a small sheet of aluminium to protect the astronauts when they knew that the radiation levels in Space and on the Moon's surface would be many hundreds of times more deadly? And why would they risk their astronauts to such conditions? In 1959 Bill Kaysing was privy to a study made by the Russians. The Russians discovered that the radiation on the moon would require astronauts to be clothed in four feet of lead to avoid being killed. Why didn't NASA heed their warnings?
>facepalm<The Russians were wrong. FFS Even Mr van Allen himself acknowledges that the effect of the astronauts passing through the radiation belt would not be that significant. Your probably at more risk from spending a fortnight on a beach without sun screen.
Some people believed when nuclear weapons were being developed that they would blow the world in two. Does that mean nuclear weapons are a hoax. Some times some people are just wrong, luckily for the astronauts the Russians were wrong.
Adding fuel to the fire:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/07/14/moon_landi...
Mine's the one with the tin foil hat.
Muzzer said:
Ah, the weekly "Did we actually go to the Moon" thread 
Yes we did. We haven't been back due to cost and different priorities in Space.
Anyone who, with any modicum of seriousness, thinks we didn't land on the Moon is a cretin of the highest order.
Yes we did. We haven't been back due to cost and different priorities in Space.
Anyone who, with any modicum of seriousness, thinks we didn't land on the Moon is a cretin of the highest order.
Whoever wrote that website has a woeful understanding of physics, radiation, cameras or optics and that's only from the few paragraphs I could be bothered to read.
You would have to have an IQ comparable with your shoe size to take that site seriously.
Muzzer said:
Ah, the weekly "Did we actually go to the Moon" thread
Yes we did. We haven't been back due to cost and different priorities in Space.
Anyone who, with any modicum of seriousness, thinks we didn't land on the Moon is a cretin of the highest order.
Well said, I've recently watched 'For All Mankind' again on BBC4 and I'm still in awe of those guys and what they did. Unfortunately there are quite a few numpties out there who think mankind can't even tie his own shoelaces without it being a Zionist/Reptilian/IndustrialMilitaryComplex-type conspiracy.Yes we did. We haven't been back due to cost and different priorities in Space.
Anyone who, with any modicum of seriousness, thinks we didn't land on the Moon is a cretin of the highest order.
interloper said:
BAHN-STORMA said:
According to NASA, 'we' went back 5 times.
HTH
which is plenty, because if we are being honest, there's bugger all their! The achievement was fantastic but the moon itself is a bit of an anti climax (it wasn't even made of cheese!). HTH
The probes currently being sent to the Moon will analyse in more detail.
The astronauts who went to the Moon only got surface rock and samples from a metre or so down.
I saw one of the brilliant documentaries on BBC4 last weekend where one of the NASA team working on the new Moon project said that they don't even know at the moment whether the Moon's core is liquid or solid.
We were never there it was filmed in Arizona as part of a Fishman/UFO/Illuminati/Free Mason plot to over throw Pseudo Communism and replace it with Neo Feudalism under which every man would be cross bred with a chickenhamstercow beast to produce meat, eggs, milk and labour for the energy producing treadmills that are really under all the worlds power stations as a replacement for Molemen who escaped into the Lost World under the Earths crust where the Dinosaurs still rule.
Muzzer said:
I saw one of the brilliant documentaries on BBC4 last weekend where one of the NASA team working on the new Moon project said that they don't even know at the moment whether the Moon's core is liquid or solid.
That's interesting, I had just assumed that it was a solid lump of rock. I never considered whether it had a core. even more proof (if any were needed) that we didn't go...
http://stuffucanuse.com/fake_moon_landings/moon_la...
http://stuffucanuse.com/fake_moon_landings/moon_la...
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff