Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Do some people seriously believe that the Moon Landing was a hoax?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
 
proteus_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-25-10 01:04 AM
Original message
Do some people seriously believe that the Moon Landing was a hoax?
I mean, really?


Really?
Refresh | 0 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-25-10 01:08 AM
Response to Original message
1. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
proteus_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-25-10 02:30 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Well, I expect her to believe.
Anyone else?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Ohio Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-25-10 09:45 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Search the forum
There are at least a few here that believe it was a hoax.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-25-10 10:21 AM
Response to Original message
4. A good handful believe that.
Astounding, huh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-25-10 10:23 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. I wouldn't exactly call it astounding...
more like embarrassing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-25-10 01:19 PM
Response to Original message
6. Very unlikely that this bit of tinfoil went to the Moon ....

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-25-10 01:20 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. there are certain topics that attract the CTers more than others
like flies to shit, they come out for "faked moon landing" and "chemtrails" every time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-25-10 01:23 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. I understand that...
the astronauts reported seeing the chemtrails on earth from the moon, but someone "got to them".
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-25-10 06:08 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. Ah, Dude

Remember "there were no chemtrails prior to 1979" or something like that....
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-25-10 06:24 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. Well, we actually went to the moon, but...
it wasn't until 1996.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-25-10 06:25 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. And the bastards covered THAT up too!

Tricky.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
proteus_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-25-10 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. Wow, really?
Do you really think man never went to the Moon?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-25-10 07:25 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. Really ... ? You think that bit of tinfoil landed on the moon -- Wow -- !!!
Edited on Mon Oct-25-10 07:28 PM by defendandprotect
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
proteus_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-25-10 09:15 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. So you don't believe in the Moon Landing.
This might be the saddest thing I've ever read on DU.

Oh, I feel bad for you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-25-10 09:20 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. So you do believe that bit of tinfoil landed on the moon?
Edited on Mon Oct-25-10 09:21 PM by defendandprotect
And, maybe you should read some of the war statistics -- casualties and wounds --

if that's the "saddest" thing you've ever read on DU!!

In fact, I feel badly for you --



Let us know when you think you're ready to actually debate something here --





Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
proteus_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-25-10 09:27 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. Dp, you lived in Spain in the 1500s, you'd be claiming the New World was a hoax.
And no, not sad in the sense of the world, saddest poster.

Simple fact: Mankind has landed on the moon. The burden of disproving this known fact is on you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-25-10 09:34 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. Attempts at personal attacks aren't debate ...
Wish Spain had believed that the new world was a hoax --

some of the Native Americans alive then might have survived!!

I see you have confidence in the tinfoil -- why?

Why don't you begin by telling us what you know about the issue --

other than your "fact" --



Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
proteus_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-25-10 11:07 PM
Response to Reply #20
23. I have confidence in scientific fact.
And the mountains of evidence that shows the story.

Like I said, the burden of proof is on you. Please provide evidence that no one has ever landed on the Moon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-25-10 11:30 PM
Response to Reply #23
25. All you're saying is that you believe what government is telling you .....
You have no personal experience with the information -- like most of us --

Like I said .... if you have some information to debate, present it -

let's hear what you think you know.

Meanwhile, what we do know is that Gus Grissom and others training for the

first flights made the public aware that most of what was going on was "lemon"-ville.

Gus almost lost his life when a capsule's hatch door opened suddenly nearly drowing him.

Gus didn't die there, but he and others did die under suspicious circumstances.

It is likely that the missions took place in near outer space -- but not outer space

and NOT the moon.


Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
proteus_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-25-10 11:42 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. What's your "personal experience"?
All I'm seeing more CT bullshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-26-10 12:19 AM
Response to Reply #26
28. Slow down, read, begin again ---

THIS IS WHAT I ACTUALLY SAID ....

You have no personal experience with the information --

like most of us --



I'll explain that for you ... it means neither you nor I have any personal experience with

the moon landing info, nor investigations which challenge it.









Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-26-10 12:33 AM
Response to Reply #28
30. Now D&P has the word...
"some" confused with "all".

Too funny.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
immune Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-26-10 05:25 PM
Response to Reply #20
55. Let me second that post!!!
"Wish Spain had believed that the new world was a hoax --

some of the Native Americans alive then might have survived!!"


That bears repeating!

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
snooper2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-01-10 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #16
83. Still waiting to hear what you do (or did) for a living..
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
immune Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-25-10 09:22 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. It makes you sad
when people you don't even know don't believe the same things you do?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
proteus_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-25-10 09:28 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. No, it's sad like how Creationists are sad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-25-10 09:35 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. I imagine most Creationists believe in the moon landing ....
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
immune Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-25-10 09:40 PM
Response to Reply #19
22. With all this sadness you have to bear
over what other people do or don't believe, how in the heck do you make it through the day?

Seems to me about the only place you could go to find people who believe the exact same things would be like secluded in a monastery ... oops, that surely wouldn't work for you, though, huh? I'm sure your rejection of that belief makes other people sad.

All I can say is thank G .... oops, thank the moonlings that we don't all believe the same damn things as everybody else!! Now THAT would be sad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
proteus_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-25-10 11:08 PM
Response to Reply #22
24. Somehow I do.
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-25-10 11:51 PM
Response to Reply #6
27. Partial list of human-made objects on the surface of the Moon:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-26-10 12:21 AM
Response to Reply #27
29. Reflectors ... isn't there some discussion of French having placed them ...???
Edited on Tue Oct-26-10 12:23 AM by defendandprotect
How much of the stuff on this "list" is visible from earth?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-26-10 12:39 AM
Response to Reply #29
31. Yours is an outstandingly less than complete rebuttal of the facts presented. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-26-10 12:57 AM
Response to Reply #31
32. #1 ... how much of this debris are you claiming is visible from earth ...????
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-26-10 12:59 AM
Response to Reply #31
33. That's an outstandingly non-response to my question .... however...
Edited on Tue Oct-26-10 01:22 AM by defendandprotect
see more info below on reflectors --


EDITED ... Just began to post some info on Reflectors/Lasers and realized can't because

it's in quote form - and has to be paraphrased.



Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-26-10 01:06 AM
Response to Reply #33
34. I think it's clear by now that the...
moon landing was real and D&P is a hoax.

No one could possibly be that misinformed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
NYMdaveNYI Donating Member (497 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-27-10 05:03 PM
Response to Reply #34
60. NO, YOU HAVE IT WRONG
WE NEVER EVER LANDED ON THE MOON.

LOOK AT ALL THE EVEDINCE.

YOUR JUST BUYING INTO WHAT NASA AND THE GOVERNMENT WANTS YOU TO THINK.

C'MON! OPEN YOU'RE EYES!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-26-10 11:20 PM
Response to Reply #33
57. My goal isn't to answer your questions.
It is to persuade you to ask yourself better ones.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-22-10 10:11 PM
Response to Reply #57
104. Who said it was?
Meanwhile, reflectors could have been placed by anyone -- and they

were pretty much meaningless in the new calculations for distance re moon --

thin kthe figure changed by 1/16th of an inch!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-26-10 01:18 AM
Response to Reply #29
35. REFLECTORS AND LASERS ON MOON .....
Edited on Tue Oct-26-10 01:23 AM by defendandprotect
Working on paraphrasing this info --
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-26-10 02:52 AM
Response to Reply #35
36. misplaced --
Edited on Tue Oct-26-10 02:56 AM by defendandprotect
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
sofa king Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-28-10 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #6
61. Heh. That "tinfoil" is one of the miracles of modern invention.
The Lunar Module is covered in miraculously thin and light sheets of biaxially-oriented polyethylene terephthalate, better known to most of us as Mylar.

It was developed in the 1950s and became one of the dozens of "miracle materials" that NASA identified as necessary for a moon shot. Most of those materials were already in existence, but it was NASA's backing that perfected mass-production techniques and improved their properties to the level NASA required. Also included on the list are Kevlar, Tyvek, cyanoacrylate adhesives, PTFE, and so on.

Mylar is highly reflective through a huge proportion of the electromagnetic spectrum. It can also act as a gas barrier and an electrical insulator. On the LEM, Mylar was used in both directions, a layer facing out to reflect sunlight and solar wind away from the interior of the LEM, and also facing in to prevent heat loss on the shaded side of the craft. It was so thin, light, and durable that it was practically the only material NASA could use in lavish amounts. They actually used a fancy version of Scotch tape to hold it in place, and it can still clearly be seen on the LEM in the Air and Space Museum in Washington, DC.

Today Mylar is everywhere, from shiny party balloons to gift wrap to snack food bags to emergency blankets to reflective wall surfaces for indoor marijuana grow-rooms. But prior to the moon shot, the stuff was worth far more than its weight in gold and wasn't produced in amounts that were useful to anyone.

But as long as there are people who can't tell the difference between Mylar and tinfoil, there will be people who can't understand how humans actually got to the Moon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
immune Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-28-10 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #61
62. Ah yes, the scotch tape ...
Wagging the Moondoggie, Part VIII
November 22, 2009
by David McGowan

Whenever I saw a model of the lunar module, it had these rigid sides and really looked strong. Turns out that external portions of the lunar module are made up of Mylar and cellophane and its put together with Scotch tape and staples. We had to have pads on the floor cause if you dropped a screwdriver, it would go right through the floor.

Jim Lovell, Astronaut (Gemini 7, Gemini 12, Apollo 8, Apollo 13)

Fascinating read. http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/Apollo8.html



Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-28-10 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #62
63. I should have known that...
"immune" would turn out to be a moon landing deniers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-28-10 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #63
64. Duh
Why were you surprised?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-28-10 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #64
65. It's hard to believe that anyone could possibly believe...
hundreds of thousands of people were involved in a hoax. My uncle worked on the Apollo project.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-28-10 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #65
66. You mean your uncle
participated in one of the biggest hoaxes ever!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
immune Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-28-10 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #63
67. Oh My God, they lost THOSE tapes, too!!!!
'Lost' Apollo 11 Moonwalk tapes restored
Tuesday, 26 October 2010by Andrew Letten

Cosmos Online
Credit: NASA
Related articles
New Australian Moon walk footage revealed
NASA loses Moon landing tapes

Space Week: Moon landing footage restored
Space Week: Lost Moon landing tapes discovered
Apollo 13: Australia's untold story

SYDNEY: After a three-year search for the lost Apollo 11 tapes and an exhaustive six-year restoration project, digitally remastered footage of the historic Moonwalk is almost ready to be broadcast.

Thanks to the efforts of a dedicated tape restoration team, the enhanced footage surpasses the quality of the live broadcast that stunned an international TV audience on the day of the historic event in 1969.

A five-minute highlights reel (see below) exhibits a number of the Moonwalk's most remarkable moments including Neil Armstrong's descent onto the lunar surface; the raising of the 'Stars and Stripes'; and the famed phone-call between astronauts Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin and President Nixon.

Clear record of the Moonwalk

"What we have now is the clearest record of the Apollo 11 Moonwalk TV for future generations," said Colin Mackeller, an Apollo 11 historian who edited the footage and was a member of the restoration team.

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/3827/lost-apollo-tap...

I sure hope they also restored the photos of that bridge on the moon they're trying to sell.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-28-10 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #67
68. LOL
You are funny!
Thank God you aren't serious!
It would be scary to think there were real people like that in the world!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-22-10 10:20 PM
Response to Reply #67
107. To be fair, they might not have actually lost them...maybe they just recorded over them -- ??!!!
Amazing stories they tell!!


:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
sofa king Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-28-10 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #62
69. Wow, that is a fascinating read.
I'm not sure I've ever seen an article with such a strong command of the technical facts combined with total skepticism. The guy is actually doing a really good job of explaining how it was done, while denying it was done!

Normally the moon-loons are doubters because they lack the patience to understand the details of the project, but not that guy! But I still haven't exactly found out why he doubts it.

In point of fact, though, the guy's description of the ascent and descent stages is a little off. A great number of rockets before and since had throttles, but almost all of them were some variant of the low-thrust LOX rockets, which use chemicals that are in a largely inert until combined and ignited. Both stages of the LEM used a hypergolic reaction (chemicals that spontaneously react on contact with each other) of some real bastard chemicals like UDMH and nitrogen tetroxide. The trick to throttling came in part from using chemically inert helium to change the pressure of the system. Though each rocket was a one-off, the entire system had sensors that gave everyone a very good idea whether it was going to work or not. Once the chemicals met each other, they did the rest of the work themselves.

But most importantly, even though the rockets couldn't be tested, they were semi-redundant. If the ascent stage failed, it was possible to keep the module together, divert the fuel from the ascent stage to the descent stage, and fire it in an emergency maneuver that at least had a chance of meeting the CSM. That capability was a basic requirement, even though it is rarely discussed.

I guess one reason why some people doubt the utility of the contraption is because it's designed to work in a gravity field that is either nonexistent (in transit), or so light that a whale could dance on its tail in it. The clumsy humans banging around inside the LEM were actually some of the larger stresses the spacecraft was ever expected to endure.

Another famous hypergolic rocket was used in the Me-163 Komet, a German rocket-powered combat aircraft used in World War II, and it was from the horror stories that emerged from that program which forever sealed the dangerous reputation of hypergolic rockets. One lab technician reputedly killed himself by pouring one fuel into an unwashed beaker that had once held the other fuel. Planes occasionally exploded on landing just by having both empty fuel tanks rupture, allowing remnant fumes to intermingle. But the Komet was a combat aircraft using massive thrust, in an atmosphere, and doing it in a gravity field 600% stronger than the one the LEM was designed for.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-28-10 02:02 PM
Response to Reply #69
70. "moon-loons"?
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
immune Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-28-10 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #69
71. Going back to the mylar ...
I think he asks a fair question:

"Since weight was an issue, heavy heat shields could not be used. Luckily though, Dupont had developed this new material it was aluminized Mylar. It was a gold color, and they found if you built it up to perhaps twenty-five layers, its an excellent insulator. Duponts space-age material, as we all know, can be obtained pretty inexpensively these days. And its still a very lightweight material. I wonder why it is then that you rarely see spaceships wrapped in it anymore?"

They've certainly had enough problems with the foam currently used being knocked off to make one wonder, if the "old" tech was proof even against van allen belt radiation, why not stick with technology that worked?

And no, I don't think he's explaining how it was done, it seems to me he's talking about how it would have been done IF it could have been done, using their explanations.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-28-10 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #71
72. since you have demonstrated an inability to understand ANYTHING
I thought I'd stay one step ahead of you.
So, before you ask, here is why the sun comes up...

The Sun doesn't "come up." The Earth rotates on its axis, so that the Sun (along with the planets and stars) _appears_ to rise and set. It has nothing to do with the Earth revolving around the Sun; it's the Earth's rotation on its own axis that makes the Sun appear to rise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
immune Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-28-10 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #72
73. You want to stay one step ahead of me
on the inability to understand anything?

Easy competition for you, zap. You're already a giant leap ahead of me in that department. Matter of fact, you're so out in front that its getting hard to see your inanities.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-28-10 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #73
74. here is why the ocean is salty
Ocean water is salty because it contains high concentrations of dissolved minerals known collectively as salts. Around 3.5% of ocean water is comprised of salts, depending on where in the world one is; equatorial waters tend to be saltier, while northern waters are slowly becoming more fresh. There are a number of factors which make the ocean salty, and scientists are very interested in the salt content of the ocean, because it contributes to the flow of currents through the ocean, in a process known as thermohaline circulation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
sofa king Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-28-10 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #71
75. The answer:
We do see spaceships wrapped in it. The color of course changes depending on what coating the Mylar uses.

SPOT 1 through 5, launched from 1986 to 2002

Intelsat 16, launched in February. See the shiny stuff?

COSMO 1, launched in 2007. COSMO-Skymed 4 was due to launch in two days, but has been postponed. Still using the gold stuff.

Progress M-08M, launched today. Note that the heat-reflective material is now sewn into a rip-stop type of covering, in much the same way that mylar and similar materials are used in spacesuits.

BSAT-3b, launching tonight.

The foam to which you refer is probably the spray-on foam coating on the main fuel tank of the Space Shuttle. That foam has nothing to do with actually being in space; the tank is disposable and dropped off during the launch. The foam is to prevent condensation from freezing onto the tank, causing it to gain weight before launch. A chunk of that foam is presumed to have knocked away some of the critical carbon-carbon heat tiles on the leading edge of the Columbia's wing during launch, leading to its destruction on reentry.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
immune Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-28-10 04:49 PM
Response to Reply #75
77. Please correct me if I'm wrong,
but aren't these unmanned space vehicles (satellites)? And isn't that comparing apples and oranges?

I will certainly defer to your knowledge of how the vehicles are built, and thank you for the civil answers to an obvious layman. But my interest in this topic concerns a manned trip to the moon in 1969 and dangers it would have presented to the astronauts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
sofa king Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-28-10 06:32 PM
Response to Reply #77
80. Yes, most are unmanned.
The Progress M-08M is functionally similar to the Soyuz manned vehicles, but as far as I know it does not have a reentry shield and cannot be used as a lifeboat for reentry. It's also worth noting that even if mylar-type materials are not visible, that doesn't mean they aren't just under the surface.

However, there are post-Apollo examples of Mylar being used in manned missions, probably most famously on Skylab:



The Skylab space station was launched just after the Apollo project ended. It was inserted into low earth orbit by one of the Saturn V launchers left over from the Apollo program. It weighed over 100 tons, easily one of the largest and heaviest objects ever orbited in one throw (along with the upper stages of Apollo).

Unfortunately, there was a problem in the final phase of deployment and the micrometeoroid shield and a solar panel were torn off, exposing some of the internal wiring of the station to potential overheating. A rather critical repair mission was sent, which needed to succeed before the wiring melted, released poison gas, and made the station uninhabitable. If humans weren't already prepared to visit (using command modules very similar to those used in the Apollo missions), the mission would have failed.

The solution? A big, ugly, wrinkled sheet of gold Mylar, clearly visible in most photographs.

Now, to doubt the authenticity of the moon landings also pretty much requires one to doubt the existence of Skylab, too, because Skylab was launched with the same kind of rocket and was visited by some of the same people who went to the moon. Its weight alone shows that the Saturn V had more than enough ass to haul up everything a moon expedition would need (the total weight of the CSM-LM system that went to the moon was around 47000 Kg, or 50 tons, but that does not include the SV-III stage).

And of course, Skylab came back to earth, because nobody had taken into account the fact that electromagnetic fields were decaying its orbit faster than predicted, and there was a huge gap between the end of the Apollo program and the launch of the first Space Shuttle, so humans couldn't save it a second time. Many people, including me, watched it go by overhead (actually, in the southern sky) in the days before it came down, and then I subsequently saw some of the debris which was recovered in Australia.

So either it's all bullshit, or a big, big part of it is quite clearly true and entirely feasible: that we had a skyscraper-sized rocket capable of lifting enormous payloads, that we had the life support systems (built with the same 1960s-era technology and practically no computing power) which were capable of sustaining human life for at least seven times longer than the longest Apollo mission, that we had the capability to make emergency repairs and adjust mission profiles on the fly, that because of the comparatively low technology, humans were critical to the success of the mission... and that Mylar was an important contributor to both missions!

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
immune Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-28-10 07:14 PM
Response to Reply #80
81. low earth orbit
Someone pointed out earlier that all recent manned missions are limited to low earth orbit and do not penetrate the van allen belt. Is this not correct?

But, yes, it would be beyond crazy to think we haven't made huge strides in space travel since the 1960's. Certainly no one is disputing that fact.

Beautiful picture!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-22-10 10:27 PM
Response to Reply #80
108. This is Mylar in "low earth orbit" ... not a moon landing ....
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-06-10 11:26 PM
Response to Reply #71
88. Use of mylar on spacecraft.
We do, in fact, still wrap space vehicles in mylar. But we only do it with satellites that are never going to come back to the ground. The reason for that is because on any kind of reentry vehicle, the mylar would burn off almost instantly on hitting the Earth's atmosphere. Compared to completely re-building a mylar skin for the Space Shuttle every time, the use of heat resistant ceramic tile is much more efficient. But a satellite never has to deal with that problem, so mylar is a cost effective option.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
sofa king Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-28-10 05:27 PM
Response to Reply #69
78. Eh, I take it all back now.
Okay, that first page linked is interesting when it's taken out of context, but when I started at the beginning I had to give up by the second page. Among his more egregious claims:

* We never went to the moon because we can't go back now.

* We never went to the moon because nobody wants to go back now (Chinese and Americans excepted, I guess).

* We never went to the moon because Wehrner von Braun's 1947 plan to go to the moon differs from the finalized 1963 plan to go to the moon.

* We never went to the moon because chronically underfunded NASA neglected to take care of its records and taped over its moon broadcasts (because it couldn't afford new tapes).

* We never went to the moon because the LEM, designed to work in 0.16 G maximum, doesn't look sturdy.

* We never went to the moon because it's too difficult to put oxygen and temperature control systems into a small spacecraft (though two-man combat aircraft all have them).

* We never went to the moon because a spacecraft can't carry enough fuel to get there and back, according to von Braun's 1947 calculations (which did not take into account "space age" materials).

* We never went to the moon because there wasn't enough computing capacity to make it possible. (Of course, there wasn't enough computing capacity to land an airplane or a helicopter in those days, either.)

* We never went to the moon because an early boilerplate version of the LEM failed an inspection.

And on and on and on. Just a bunch of crap. Yet amazingly, the further the fellow goes, the more he begins to focus on the solutions to all of these "problems," dismissing them all in favor of his original preconceptions. I think it might be a form of comedy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
immune Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-28-10 07:16 PM
Response to Reply #78
82. Respectfully,
I think you are misrepresenting his points. Fortunately the link is still up for anybody who wants it directly from the horse's mouth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-22-10 10:18 PM
Response to Reply #62
106. Fantastic quote by Jim Lovell --
Thanks for the link -- added it to my file --

And wasn't Gus Grishom also something -- very courageous the way these

men tried to tell us --

Grishom hung a lemon on the capsule --

And one of many truthtellers to lose his life!!

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-22-10 10:13 PM
Response to Reply #61
105. Mylar is still tin foil -- and, of course, mylar could withstand
Edited on Mon Nov-22-10 10:32 PM by defendandprotect
radiation in outer space -- !!

Enlarge that photo and take a good look at that hunk of junk --

People who have seen it at the Smithsonian say you can even see a very poor job

of rivets!!!


:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
immune Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-25-10 08:15 PM
Response to Original message
14. Oh, absolutely not!!!
After all, Mrs. Russell is already selling land there from her middle school classroom.

Land for Sale - On the Moon!



An Internet WebQuest on Moon Colonization
Created by Mrs. Russell
Merrick Ave Middle School

http://www.bellmore-merrick.k12.ny.us/webquest/science/...

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-26-10 05:52 AM
Response to Original message
37. You can now purchase scratch and sniff art of how the moon smells
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-26-10 06:16 AM
Response to Original message
38. Yes, really
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-26-10 09:37 AM
Response to Reply #38
39. It should be pointed out that...
Spooked "knows" that we couldn't have gone to the moon because "E.T.'s have got us quarantined on earth and will not permit us to travel in space".

Did I get that right, Spooked?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-26-10 04:03 PM
Response to Reply #38
44. Yes, really .... and just read the first link - obviously no evidence left of anything!!
U.S. astronauts today travel no further into space than the distance between the San Fernando Valley and Fresno. The Apollo astronauts, on the other hand, traveled a distance equivalent to circumnavigating the planet around the equator nine-and-a-half times! And they did it with roughly the same amount of fuel that it now takes to make that 200 mile journey, which is why I want NASA to build my next car for me. I figure Ill only have to fill up the tank once and it should last me for the rest of my life.

Most of our "news" seem to be handled in this same way . . .

acceptance of anything the government says!


Thanks, Spooked911 --

Back later to check out the other two links --

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-26-10 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #44
46. Jesus...
D&P apparently does not understand the difference gravity makes in space travel.

Again, how can ANYONE possibly be this misinformed/uninformed? What's worse is that she appears to revel in it!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-26-10 04:06 PM
Response to Reply #38
45. No, really
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
immune Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-26-10 12:25 PM
Response to Original message
40. Reknowned scientist Van Allen
recants his own scientific findings. Says he got "sloppy".

(excerpts)

In order to penetrate Van Allen's belt, in l965 NASA requested the two regulatory groups modify the existing standards for space flight. It was simply a matter of "risk over gain" and NASA convinced them to change the standards and allow them to take the risk. Whether or not future astronauts would be advised of these dramatically lowered standards and substantial risk is unknown at this time.

The next problem NASA faced was the shielding of the spacecraft. It was solved in a report NASA issued in Aerospace Medicine Magazine in 1965 and 1969. The report was written prior to the first Apollo mission to the moon.

NASA announced that a simple aluminum skin on the command module was enough to protect astronauts from lethal doses of radiation. This conclusion was based on studies NASA had conducted. Now NASA had ingeniously solved their two basic problems, protection and weight. They had eliminated the danger of radiation penetration, along with the problem of radiation shielding and spacecraft weight.

......

If you don't believe we went to the moon, then you will say that NASA created the perfect cover story. It allowed them to continue receiving funding for a spacecraft they could not build, to enter a region of space they could not penetrate.

http://www.buzzcreek.com/grade-a/MOON/articles1.htm

Regulatory groups changing standards for g.r.e.e.d. over safety? Uh, what recent event does that remind you of? Hint: maybe start with the initials B and P?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-26-10 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #40
41. Amazing -- NASA turns Van Allen, Radiation upside down ... !!
Edited on Tue Oct-26-10 02:43 PM by defendandprotect
Thank you -- handn't see this website before -- saved!

:)

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-26-10 03:48 PM
Response to Reply #40
42. Did you know how to read?
From your link...
"Two years later, Van Allen updated his report in Space World Magazine, December, 1961. In brief, he reported that everything he had found in 1959 was still valid."

Here's some real info about Van Allen belts-
"The belts are a hazard for artificial satellites and are moderately dangerous for human beings, but are difficult and expensive to shield against."

As for the claims we never went to the moon?
"According to James Longuski, Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics Engineering at Purdue University, the size and complexity of the alleged conspiracy theory scenarios make their veracity an impossibility. More than 400,000 people worked on the Apollo project for nearly ten years, and a dozen men who walked on the Moon returned to Earth to recount their experiences. Hundreds of thousands of people, including astronauts, scientists, engineers, technicians, and skilled laborers, would have had to keep the secret. Longuski also contends that it would have been significantly easier to actually land on the Moon than to generate such a massive conspiracy to fake such a landing."

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/gen01/gen01278.ht...
Get back to us when you have read and understood this link.


Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
immune Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-26-10 04:22 PM
Response to Reply #42
47. Yeah, he said everything was valid
but you left out the most interesting part:

"Are you refuting your findings?" we asked.

"Absolutely not," he answered, "I stand by them." In the next breath, Van Allen again acquiesced to NASA's point of view. He became positively mercurial in his answers. Basically he defended NASA's position that any material, even aluminum without shielding, was adequate to protect the astronauts from the radiation he once called deadly. When we asked him the point of his original warning about rushing through the Belt, he said, "It must have been a sloppy statement." So there we were, down the rabbit hole, chasing Van Allen through halls of mirrors. Was he taking the line of least resistance to government pressure? Was he trashing his own report in order not to be labeled a whistle blower? Could this renowned scientist actually be capable of a "sloppy statement" and blatant hyperbole published in a scientific journal?"

......

... but you CAN'T fly through there ... but we MUST fly through there .... but you CAN'T fly through there .... WE WILL FLY THROUGH THERE .... :spank: :spank: ooookkkkaaayyyy sirrrrr.






Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-26-10 04:24 PM
Response to Reply #47
48. do you understand English?
"The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense." -- Dr. James Van Allen
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
immune Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-26-10 04:58 PM
Response to Reply #48
49. You watch FOX?
That explains a lot. That kind of "radiation" is more destructive to your brain than the x-rays you'd catch passing through the van allen belt without your tinfoil hat.

Why is it that so often extremely credible and highly acclaimed people later refute their own scientific findings and deny things they previously claimed to have witnessed with their own eyes when those findings and witnessed events become political dynamite? And why do so many Fox type viewers find those refutations and denials totally believable, without any reservations, just jump on that politically correct bandwagon and ride, baby, ride. All the way to the moon.

Incidentally, for a hoax to work, somebody has to buy into it. If nobody did it would just be yesterday's news.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-26-10 05:02 PM
Response to Reply #49
50. Do I watch Fox?
Did I say I did?
Again, do you understand English?

"The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense." -- Dr. James Van Allen
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
immune Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-26-10 05:06 PM
Response to Reply #50
51. Oh, okay
so HE watched it on Fox news. Different brains being x-rayed, same basic theory.

So where's the link showing where YOU got the quote?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
salvorhardin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-27-10 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #42
58. A surprising bit of info I didn't know before about the Van Allen belts
Back then, a good bit of the radiation trapped in them was human caused!

The problem of protecting astronauts against the radiation found within the Van Allen belts was recognized before the advent of manned space flight. These two bands of trapped radiation, discovered during the Explorer I flight in 1958, consist principally of protons and high-energy electrons, a significant part of which were, at that time, debris from high-altitude tests of nuclear weapons. The simple solution to protection is to remain under the belts when in Earth orbit, and to traverse the belts rapidly on the way to outer space. In reality, the problem is somewhat more complex. The radiation belts vary in altitude over various parts of the Earth and are absent over the north and south magnetic poles. A particularly significant portion of the Van Allen belts is a region known as the South Atlantic anomaly (figure 1). Over the South Atlantic region, the geomagnetic field draws particles closer to the Earth than in other regions of the globe. The orbit inclination of a spacecraft determines the number of passes made per day through this region and, thus, the radiation dose.
http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/S2ch3.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-27-10 01:55 PM
Response to Reply #58
59. I see that you just blindly believe...
what the government tells you.

Sorry, for a moment I was temporarily "channeling" a "truther".
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-10-10 10:30 PM
Response to Reply #58
92. Actually, I think they've since discovered that the Radiation Belts are even more extensive.....
Edited on Wed Nov-10-10 10:32 PM by defendandprotect
However, it is also thought that they exploded nuclear weapons in outer space

trying to knock out the Van Allen Radiation Belts!!

"Americans are really smart about really stupid things!"



Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-26-10 04:00 PM
Response to Reply #40
43. a great James Van Allen quote
for all the deep thinkers who believe the moon landing was faked...
"The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense." -- Dr. James Van Allen
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-26-10 05:09 PM
Response to Reply #43
52. start here...

http://www.xmission.com/~jwindley/envrad.html

take your time and read slowly since you seem to have difficulty in comprehending the written word.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
immune Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-26-10 05:23 PM
Response to Reply #52
53. Just like the
911 myths site. Debunking debunkers with bunk.

Van Allen stood by his original scientific observations.

So when's the next manned moon shot scheduled, zap. Looking forward to the second step for man? Its been what now, only 40 some odd years since that first giant leap.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-26-10 05:25 PM
Response to Reply #53
54. *sigh*
Being both logically and scientifically challenged must make it tough to get thru the day, eh?
I'll stick with scientists, you stick with DefendandProtect.
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
immune Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-26-10 05:29 PM
Response to Reply #54
56. Well, are you
are aren't you on the passenger list for the next manned moon flight? I'll bring the champagne. Oh, and I'll try to be gentle when I smash the bottle against the hull of that fancy aluminum can.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
smiley Donating Member (602 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-28-10 04:47 PM
Response to Original message
76. I'm a fairly big believer in many CTs....
but a fake moon landing...? naw.... it happened. Mythbusters proved it so. http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/mythbusters-moon-hoax /

IMO the whole fake moon landing BS was created and only exists to discredit anyone who may question our Gov't's motives on a wide range of topics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
immune Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-28-10 05:50 PM
Response to Reply #76
79. A wide range of topics
such as .....???

Can we have a few examples?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
smiley Donating Member (602 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-03-10 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #79
87. a few examples...
how bout just a couple.

I'm of the opionion 9/11 was an inside job and I definitely don't believe oswald acted alone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
immune Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-07-10 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #87
89. That's a fine start.
When people say science doesn't back up the official stories of JFK and 911, remember, the moon landing was an official story, too, and the science doesn't back that one up, either. Otherwise we'd have men traveling back and forth from the moon today. But for whatever reason, humans are still limited to low earth orbit, well inside the Van Allen Belt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-07-10 02:20 PM
Response to Reply #89
90. "science doesn't back up" the moon landing
Are you really that moronic?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-10-10 10:44 PM
Response to Reply #76
96. So what you're saying ... I say 9/11 is farce/someone else says you say moon is hoax?
Edited on Wed Nov-10-10 10:46 PM by defendandprotect
Is that it?

But Moon Hoax existed BEFORE 9/11 .... way before.

Meanwhile, if you have time, can you say what one bit of info in "discovery" link most

convinced you that Moon landing was real?



Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
mrarundale Donating Member (281 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-03-10 01:05 AM
Response to Original message
84. Do "some people" seriously believe that it was real?
I can't believe that people don't at least question it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-03-10 07:40 AM
Response to Reply #84
85. Dude...
thousands of people worked on it, including my uncle. Your post is, to say the least, monumentally stupid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-03-10 10:49 AM
Response to Reply #84
86. "I can't believe that people don't at least question it."
uh huh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-10-10 10:33 PM
Response to Reply #84
93. "Only fools never doubt" .... Shakespeare
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
montanto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-10-10 03:01 PM
Response to Original message
91. ". . .you can't go out into space . . ."
"One through nine, no maybes, no supposes, no fractions. You can't travel in space, you can't go out into space, you know, without, like, you know, uh, with fractions, okay? What are you going to land on one-quarter, three-eighths? What are you going to do when you go from here to Venus or something? That's dialectic physics." --Photo Journalist. Apocalypse Now.

It's all right there in Apocalypse Now, the movie that has all the answers to everything. I mean, Kilgore said: "some day this war's gonna end" and it did, right? Chef said: "never get outta the boat." And that's still a good idea today, right? 'Cuz you could get eaten by a tiger.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-10-10 10:40 PM
Response to Reply #91
94. Agree ... humans are unfit for space ....
Even short trips have shown "ruts" in helmets of astronauts --

Satellites sent up pre-hoax days came back mangled -- they knew.

Unmanned flights, OK. Manned, No.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-10-10 10:41 PM
Response to Reply #94
95. This is...
downright embarrassing to DU.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-10-10 11:02 PM
Response to Reply #95
97. it's embarrassing to mankind.n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
proteus_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-19-10 06:13 AM
Response to Reply #95
101. I just came back to this thread and I completely agree with you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Old Troop Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-12-10 05:31 PM
Response to Original message
98. Some believe life on earth is a hoax!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
immune Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-12-10 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #98
99. LOL
Jeez, maybe I shouldn't be laughing.



:think:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
mrarundale Donating Member (281 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-18-10 02:50 AM
Response to Original message
100. radiation outside the earth's atmosphere is volatile and
unpredictable.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKB5u_VTt6M

In NASA's own words:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Up7GQM2P8ss

if they don't know now, they wouldn't have known then!





..."I watched it for a little while I love to watch things on tv..."


Satellite of Love - Lou Reed
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-10 10:25 PM
Response to Reply #100
102. Other than Van Allen's own predictions, think they first knew from satellites .....
which came back to earth mangled --

Cosmonauts hint at some comrades who volunteered to go to the moon --

no one returning, of course. Communications with them made clear they were

dying.

Also, in just some near missions the astronatuts helmets were filled with ruts --

and other types of body/rocket penetrating energy was present --

Some say that even our commercial air pilots who have had long careers in the skies

seem to have problems now which they think has come from radiation.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-21-10 04:19 AM
Response to Reply #102
103. Maybe D&P has...
"had a long career in the skies" herself.

That certainly would explain a lot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Jul 25th 2014, 09:32 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC