A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Moon

Okay Okay, you win that is proof positive that you have your head up somewhere where the sun don't shine.

The above link is standard propaganda. Believe it if you want. It's all been said before. Because of this, because of that, it will explain the obvious discrepancies. Bull pucky.

No one thing is proof. It was stated that not a single astronaut has ever denied being there. I only offer the story of Aldrin as evidence of someone faltering in their story.

And what of the 11 "accidental" deaths of would be astronauts? Were they not made of the right stuff?

@ Dinner  I looked at your birth year, you are a year younger than me. When you were 19 and watched it on the TV did you think it was a load of Horsesh#t? I doubt it.

Thank me for pumping your thread.

I had no idea what to make of it, the lunar landing. My parents generation sure got caught up in the whole patriotic thing. I was certainly not aware of the extent our government would, could lie to us. I have always looked at the moon and thought man walked there..hmmm really? We just found a 10 mile tunnel only feet underground, big enough for a train to drive through. It was under our border in Tijuana. Yet we sent man to the moon 45 years ago?

The biggest single problem rests with the radiation. Even today leading experts can not agree on the dangers and protection reguired to survive the journey with no ill effects to the astronauts. To this day, not a single astronaut has shown signs of cancer, no ill effects due to the heavy radiation that is known to exist. Technology in this field 45 years ago was almost non-existant. They were for the most part not even aware of the dangers involved.

Of course we did. We can bounce lasers off of reflectors we left there to measure the rate of the Moon's regression from the Earth. Anybody can do it and see for themselves.

As nerd on the related matters, I've studied the history of space exploration. I've had some questions about he lunar landings myself but they were mostly resolved after some research. Let me share a few points.

1) I'll start with radiation. Radiation has not been a big problem. The only big, potentially lethal dose of radiation that the astronauts could've received would be during a big solar flare. These don't happen very often, so NASA took a statistical chance. For longer trips, for instance trips to Mars, there are known techniques to shield astronauts from such events.

2) The flag. The flag was waiving not because of wind but because of lack of air. An astronaut touched it after and it was waving by inertia. Because there was no air, the vibrations were lasting longer.

3) The Stars. The stars were not visible on the Moon. This is because all landings occured during lunar days. The surface of the Moon was illuminated by the Sun and that's why neither cameras nor eyes of the astronauts were not able to pick them up. This is the same reason why we can't see the stars during the day and see them during the night. But if you live in a big city, you're unlikely to see many stars because of city lights.

4) The USSR was closely following the Apollo program. There's literally zero chance that the US could've pulled this off. Everything was being tracked - from rocket launches to communications to landings and returns.

5) The USSR had its own lunar program and the rocket. The Soviet N1 rocket was very similar to the American Saturn V. Moreover, the theoretical plans of lunar landing were also very similar. The theoretical work was done decades before - first by Soviet scientist Yuri Kondratyuk. American engineer John Hoboult insisted that NASA adapt that approach (called Lunar Orbit Randevous) to send people to the Moon. Both Soviet and American lunar effort had this idea in mind.

6) Why nobody has gone back to the Moon? Other than never been there "theory" some people suggested it had to do with aliens on the Moon. I'm not going to comment on that since I don't know too much about it and there's no way to have any evidence for or against; for now, it's just a speculation that may have some, albeit very small validity. A more reasonable explaination has to do with a dirty four letter word: COST. Missions to the Moon were and still are very expensive. There's very little benefit to send people exploring it - at least for now. Also, in terms of colonizaiton it offers little value since it's relatively poor of natural resources. When we understand that colonization requires a lot more effort than exploration, the picture becomes clear.

7) What's next? Well, after folding the Apollo program, NASA redirected some of the resources to the Skylab space station and the Apollo-Soyuz Test program. Space Stations were thought to be precoursors to Mars mission but these never became a reality. NASA developed & maintained the Space Shuttle fleet in order to make access to space cheaper thanks to Shuttle's reusability. However, in practice, this didn't work as well as planned. USSR/Russia had their projects, including ones to go to Mars (most notables were the Buran/Energia systems) but those projects folded when the USSR disintegrated. In the 90s, the US and Russia started to pull their resoruces together and the collaboration gave birth to the International Space Station. We're making some small steps forward but there are still major breakthroughs to be made. There's also hope coming from the private sector where some interesting ideas are becoming a reality. Let's keep our fingers crossed and hope that we'll break through to the stars. Better yet, if we can do something to speed up the process, let's do it! :)

P.S. Just realized my comment was #69. :)

Same age as Patti Smith.

Because we can bounce lasers off materials left on the moon, how does that prove Man walked there? We have sent and left spacecraft and probes all over the solar system, but man has never ventured beyond the space station.

So NASA took a "statistical chanch" with the lives of the astronauts on its missions? Give me a break. You made that up SpiritoftheVictory.

Technology today is developed to deal with the radiation, but not in 1969. NASA'S official explanation for protecting the cameras and film was they painted them with a thin layer of aluminum! There's high tech involved there!

You're nuts.

Yes, absolutely. If you educate yourself on those risks you'll see that I am right. A sudden solar flare occurs once, maybe twice a year. Missions to the Moon were of short duration so the risks were not high. Standard radiation in deep space (the solar and interstellar ones) are not enough to cause serious health issues because the cumulative effects are not going to be felt in such a short timespan. Interestingly, even if people go to Mars on a 900+ day mission, the effects of radiation are not a show stopper. You'll still have to find solutions (and there are and being used on the ISS) against solar flares though (which will send a huge dose of radiation in a rather short timespan towards you; and that's why they could be very dangerous - more so during a long mission). But, per se, radiation is not that big of a deal in terms of risks. Sending people to the Moon entailed a range of risks far more serious. An example is landing on and lifting off the Moon. If something goes bad on landings, you die. If something goes bad during the liftoff on the Moon, you stay there and die as there won't be enough time for a rescue mission. But, during the Space Race, risks were the name of the game. Perhaps that's the chief reason why the Space and the Moon was conquered so fast. Soviets didn't know if it's entirely safe to send a Human being into space but they did it because they didn't want an American be there first. Americans, on their own, took plenty of risks to send men there because they didn't want another Soviet first. And, the successes of both American and Soviet space programs were acknowledged by the other party. But if you wanna keep believing that nobody landed on the Moon, go ahead. :)

An instrument aboard the Curiosity Mars rover during its 253-day deep-space cruise revealed that the radiation dose received by an astronaut on even the shortest Earth-Mars round trip would be about 0.66 sievert. This amount is like receiving a whole-body CT scan every five or six days. - See more at: http://www.space.com/21353-space-radiation-mars-mission-threat.html#sthash.W5JEQE5N.dpuf

A dose of 1 sievert is associated with a 5.5 percent increase in the risk of fatal cancers. The normal daily radiation dose received by the average person living on Earth is 10 microsieverts (0.00001 sievert).

The moon has no atmosphere and a very weak magnetic field. Astronauts living there would have to provide their own protection, for example by burying their habitat underground.

- See more at: http://www.space.com/21353-space-radiation-mars-mission-threat.html#sthash.LBZApEYq.dpuf

Good job with the numbers. Now do you know that an average person having a healthy lifestyle has about 20% chance of getting a cancer at some point in their lifetime. If you're a smoker, that chance goes up by another 20%. That's 40%. And yet, a lot of people take that chance. With radiation exposure, the chance goes up by 5% (and some say that even that is an exaggerated number, but we'll take that). So, in conclusion, the radiation is not a show-stopper for long missions to Mars. And, for the Apollo program, which was much, much shorter, it wasn't a show stopper either - I think that much is obvious. Again, if a large solar flare erupted - sending a lot of radiation their way really fast, they'd be in trouble. In fact, if I remember this right, a solar flare did occur about 2 weeks after Apollo 16 mission. That scared some people at NASA since it really was a close call. Now, these events are guarded against by going into the "shelter" areas of ISS. These "shelter" areas are pretty much where most of your supplies are located. That barrier shields astronauts for the duration of the storm. Similarly the things will work on the journey to Mars. Remember that the ISS is pretty much the prototype of a Mars-bound ship. A range of techniques and technologies of spacefaring are being tested there to reduce risks of trip to Mars. And, radiation is a relatively minor concern there. If you'd like to continue the conversation in this direction we may. But, as for Apollo missions, rest assured - the US did send people to the Moon. As an American, I suggest you be proud of one of your country's finest achievements. :)

Fine and good. 2 things. In 1969 NASA had little idea about the potential radiation problems. Not a single astronaut has experianced any health issues. Could be a statistical lucky chanch. However, what of the cameras and film? A coating of aluminum paint accomplished nothing. The film was exposed to radiation and would have suffered some damage. The pictures brought back were all Perfect. No distortions, everything in perfect focus.

Background radiation, although less intense than solar flares, exists and subjected the film to hazardous conditions.

Also, it is NASA who claims no ill effects to the astronauts. No independent doctor has made any tests.

Is not the 11 "accidental" deaths of candidate astronauts somewhat disconcerting?

To my knowledge, cameras should not be affected by radiation. Most of the equipment that's designed is "space rated" - even back then. That means, that they are usually improved to handle harsh conditions of space. Sensitivity of cameras may become an issue for a longer duration but not for a short run. By the way, cameras were used to film nuclear disasters on Earth. Mind you that the radiation levels at those sites are much higher. As to the astronauts & NASA's knowledge of outter space back then... They've discovered Van Allen Radiation belts years before going to the Moon. Radiation levels were also measured both in orbit and deep space by both Soviets and Americans. As to how radiation affects Human health, this was known decades before. Experiments with radioactive materials started late in the 19th century. By the mid 20th century there was enough data available to know the full extent of radiation exposure. NASA simply didn't have to conduct additional experiments on Humans - the data was already available to use.

Let me also quote something for you from the Mars Society's FAQ page on radiation: http://www.marssociety.org/home/about/faq/

This should answer all your questions on the matter. Scroll down to the quesiton about radiation and read the answer. Not only radiation wasn't a big deal during the days of Apollo, it's not a big challenge for going to Mars either. Here's the text: