Landing on Moon: was that true?????? ( Archived) (947)

The landing module was only flight tested once at Nasa.
It reached an altitude of a few hundred feet and was completely incontrollable. Neil Armstrong had to eject before if fell to the ground to save his life.
Yet less than a year later the LEM made a perfect moon landing and took off again to dock with the main spacecraft.

Every airman in the worl stil falls around the place laughing at such arrogance.
I have never found it a laughing matter.

We were lied to and are waiting for the truth !!
Good news: it is on the way.

Explain the lazer reflectors on the moon then..... Did the Martians do it?

You should brush up on your knowledge of the nature of that very real danger u speak of...

The VA belts... there are two of them. An inner and an outer. Combined, they are but a tiny fraction of the entire trip time.... The trip exposes the astronaut to less than 2% of the 300 Rads per hour considered to be "dangerous. I'll grant u that its not an area you'd want to build a summer space home, especially if you make it out of a material that doesn't dramatically reduce the high charge protons in the inner, and in the outer both high charge electrons and protons. Why are you convinced that VA radiation is more deadly than the cosmic radiation that is the true danger in long term space flight? Oh that's right, I forgot, we knew about that too... Thin shielding is all that's necessary if the trip in space is short lived.

Let's relate this arguement to my dinner last nite... When I cook with aluminum foil, the foil stays remarkably cool while the yummy food inside is slowly cooked, being subject to a very small fraction of infrared heat of the entire spectrum of the "deadly" radiation from my charcoal grill.

All y'all need to stop posting stuff like this when I'm trying to eat, my pc won't last long if I keep spitting half chewed food on it....

There are none !!!

It was proven and done in 1962 that lazers can be bounced off the moon.
So can radio waves.

You need to do some reading !

Yes it has.

Not in it long.

Not very bad.

Sufficient protection.

One of the ausing things about people's brains is they are more likely to believe something with numbers attached to it like above.

Often people can't or won't consider a claim that has numbers in it.

But often the numbers are completely bogus.

For example, in the quotation above we read that the radiation is caused by the earth turning 1000 miles an hour every hour.

Now, ignoring the part of the claim that says the rotation causes the radiation, let's simply attack the number.

1000 miles per hour.

We could ask for a REFERENCE for this statistic, but I guarantee you that we will not get one. Why not? Because it doesn't exist.

The claim that the Earth spins at 1000 miles per hour CANNOT be true. Due to the shape of the Earth.

The rate of spin VARIES depending on location.

People on the equator move MUCH faster than those in the Arctic. The actual North and South Pole technically do not rotate at all.

ONE place at a particular latitude might rotate at a specific speed... but the Earth itself does not.

Now, someone making a silly claim like the 1000 miles per hour could suddenly declare that this is just one example at one place and how obvious was this it didn't need to be mentioned...

I on the other hand take the approach that if a part of an argument is so poorly laid out, the whole thing becomes suspect.

---

How about the lovely contradiction in that post that says the radiation starts at 1000 miles and astronauts were contaminated at 400 miles... before it even starts?

Sigh.

The earth is 25,000 miles in circumference at the equator.
The earth rotates once every 24 hours os that works out at just over 1000 miles an hour.
These are all simple known facts.

Just google it !!!

See I told you he would give a specific location.

The Earth still doesn't rotate at all at the poles.


The POINT of my post was pointing out YOUR sloppy argument. A useless number floating around.