- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: How did I miss the whole "moon landing was faked" black pill?
Posted on 12/19/23 at 1:12 pm to Heyes
Posted on 12/19/23 at 1:12 pm to Heyes
quote:
Around 3.40 NASA engineer Kelly Smith admits we can’t go through this dangerous region of space and we need to solve this before men can be sent through it’s a you tube video
You can type in nasa engineer admits we can’t go through van Allen belt or Orion:Trial by fire.
At about 3:00 he starts talking about the belts
Love it. I'd love for one of the people who made fun of the skeptics in this thread to address this.
2
Posted on 12/19/23 at 1:29 pm to SirWinston
Buzz Aldrin would kick your arse.
Posted on 12/19/23 at 1:32 pm to BayouBlitz
Posted on 12/19/23 at 1:58 pm to Earnest_P
quote:
Wait till he finds out Helen Keller wasn't real. I mean, she was a real person, but her story is bullshite.
Stevie Wonder wasn’t blind
Posted on 12/19/23 at 2:09 pm to Plx1776
Surely NASA would have thought to add fake stars to the photos they released to the public if they were trying to fool people. They aren’t dummies.
Posted on 12/19/23 at 2:57 pm to rmnldr
quote:
This man understands electromagnetic radiation
Yeah, he's an engineer if I recall correctly.
Posted on 12/19/23 at 3:03 pm to SirWinston
quote:
Love it. I'd love for one of the people who made fun of the skeptics in this thread to address this.
Did you watch the video, or just read the description?
Because the video doesn't say what the description claims.
The video doesn't contradict the landing or prove anything.
Posted on 12/19/23 at 3:33 pm to wackatimesthree
What he says is that the dangerous van Allen belt is tough on sensitive computer equipment and we need to test it without people on board …. But then he says quote “ we must solve these challenges before we send PEOPLE through this region of space “
So in 1969 we sent them through this region in a coke can and everything was fine but now we have to worry about PEOPLE going through this region ? With a vastly superior , much better constructed vehicle … but not safe for people yet.
Space was much safer back in the sixties when we could just walk to the studio .
One thing is sure. The closer Musk gets to having a craft in space we will get the truth. Sooner or later someone is either going to attempt to go through the belt or it will be abandoned because they will be told we can’t go through it
So in 1969 we sent them through this region in a coke can and everything was fine but now we have to worry about PEOPLE going through this region ? With a vastly superior , much better constructed vehicle … but not safe for people yet.
Space was much safer back in the sixties when we could just walk to the studio .
One thing is sure. The closer Musk gets to having a craft in space we will get the truth. Sooner or later someone is either going to attempt to go through the belt or it will be abandoned because they will be told we can’t go through it
This post was edited on 12/19/23 at 3:37 pm
Posted on 12/19/23 at 3:43 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Why would I try to convince you of something that no one even alleges happened?
The lunar module didn't come back to earth.
Oh so it was a one way ticket? You have to be completely retarded to believe we went to the moon. It's impossible for us to go there today 5 years later with infinite more tech. IMPOSSIBLE!!! And yet yall believe we went in tin cans and foil. Lmao. Man has never went 24000 miles in space. Not even half that. I don't want to hear about satellite photos and scrap metal on the moon.
We could barely drill an oil well at the time and we decided the moon has nothing to offer because of a few rocks which we know with 100 % certainty were fake. Trust the government when it comes to moon landings but otherwise don't trust it. Holy shite!!!
Posted on 12/19/23 at 3:56 pm to Boss13
quote:
The camera couldn't see the stars in the moon landing footage. The astronauts could, but the camera could not because they were too faint in contrast to the surface of the moon which was incredibly bright in relation.
The resolution on those portable cameras in 1969 was very low also. It's very difficult in video or film to have something very bright mixed with something pitch black. The iris has to adjust to the big brightness or it would blow out the image.
A group of friends and I watched it live on TV that night in 1969 and we weren't even stoned.
Posted on 12/19/23 at 4:04 pm to lsufanva
quote:
It's like arguing God and JFK. There's so much bullshite around it that even the truth is arguable. And none of us can prove one way or the other. The TV footage is fake as hell but that doesn't necessarily mean they didn't go.
As has been pointed out before, you can see satellite telescope pictures of the landers and the tracks still on the moon's surface.
quote:
Normally the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) orbits the Moon in a 50 km altitude, near-circular, polar orbit. The orbit is “near”-circular, as LRO’s altitude can vary between its lowest altitude (periapsis) of 35 km and its highest altitude (apoapsis) of 65-km over a twenty eight day period. If left unattended, the Moon’s lumpy gravity field would further perturb LRO’s orbit, driving the periapsis altitude lower and lower, eventually causing LRO to impact the surface in about seventy days. However, by design LRO has propellant to perform a pair of orbit maintenance (or station-keeping) maneuvers every twenty eight days to keep LRO safely in its 50±15 km near-circular orbit. Since its launch on 18 June 2009, LRO has performed twenty five pairs of station-keeping maneuvers to maintain its orbit.
https://www.planetary.org/articles/3172?gad_source=1
Posted on 12/19/23 at 4:11 pm to SirWinston
There's a chance we launched objects into space and successfully landed them on the moon. However, it's improbable that any of those objects involved a human being.
The issue of radiation remains a significant challenge. It's puzzling that, 55 years later, we're still labeling it a problem when a solution was achieved over half a century ago.
Perhaps my skepticism would lessen if the government hadn't been repeatedly caught in falsehoods. Considering the intense drive to win the space race, the motivation to deceive was exceptionally strong. With a limited number of people involved, the national reputation at stake, and potential lifelong benefits in terms of money and fame, maintaining the deception seemed more appealing. Logically, it appears there's a significant likelihood that this was a hoax.
The issue of radiation remains a significant challenge. It's puzzling that, 55 years later, we're still labeling it a problem when a solution was achieved over half a century ago.
Perhaps my skepticism would lessen if the government hadn't been repeatedly caught in falsehoods. Considering the intense drive to win the space race, the motivation to deceive was exceptionally strong. With a limited number of people involved, the national reputation at stake, and potential lifelong benefits in terms of money and fame, maintaining the deception seemed more appealing. Logically, it appears there's a significant likelihood that this was a hoax.
Posted on 12/19/23 at 4:15 pm to Heyes
quote:
I also like those powerful batteries that can get the temperature in the spacecraft down from 250 degrees to a comfortable 72 . Meanwhile , here on planet earth we don’t have batteries for an RV that can get an air conditioner down from 95 to 72
They used alpha emitting nuclear batteries with plutonium238 and a bunch of thermocouples. Curiosity on Mars also uses nuclear batteries.
quote:
The SNAP-27 power supply weighed about 20 kilograms, was 46 cm long and 40.6 cm in diameter. It consisted of a central fuel capsule surrounded by concentric rings of thermocouples. Outside of the thermocouples was a set of fins to provide for heat rejection from the cold side of the thermocouple.
Each of the SNAP devices produced approximately 75 W of electrical power at 30 VDC. The energy source for each device was a rod of plutonium-238 weighing approximately 2.5 kilograms and providing a thermal power of approximately 1250 W.
https://atomicinsights.com/nuclear-batteries-tools-for-space-science/
This post was edited on 12/19/23 at 4:29 pm
Posted on 12/19/23 at 4:24 pm to saintsfan1977
quote:
Oh so it was a one way ticket? You have to be completely retarded to believe we went to the moon. It's impossible for us to go there today 5 years later with infinite more tech. IMPOSSIBLE!!! And yet yall believe we went in tin cans and foil. Lmao. Man has never went 24000 miles in space. Not even half that. I don't want to hear about satellite photos and scrap metal on the moon.
We could barely drill an oil well at the time and we decided the moon has nothing to offer because of a few rocks which we know with 100 % certainty were fake. Trust the government when it comes to moon landings but otherwise don't trust it. Holy shite!!!
This is the problem with social media.
There are legions of trolls who intentionally say the most idiotic stuff, just to see if people will actually believe it.
Then there are legitimate idiots.
It's incredibly hard to tell the difference.
For the record, no, the LEM did not return to earth. It's only job was transport from and to the orbiting command module. The command module made the round trip.
Posted on 12/19/23 at 4:33 pm to Heyes
quote:
So in 1969 we sent them through this region in a coke can and everything was fine but now we have to worry about PEOPLE going through this region ? With a vastly superior , much better constructed vehicle … but not safe for people yet.
The entire premise with the Van Allen Belt is exposure to radiation. That means two variables: the amount of radiation and the time that the object or person will be exposed.
In 1969 the path through the VAB was basically a straight line, at 24,000 mph. The resultant rads were considered well inside acceptable ranges of exposure for the amount and time the radiation was going to be present.
Now the guy in the video doesn't say this, but every diagram and demonstration in this video shows the spacecraft orbiting the Earth in increasing circles. Which means he's not talking about being in the VAB for roughly 50 minutes one way (which was the amount of time in the moon shot) but basically orbiting for an extended period of time in the belt. He also mentioned the speed of 17,000 mph, which is significantly slower than the 1969 launch.
That alone could explain the difference. If the exposure in 1969 was 50 minutes and with this spacecraft the plan is to orbit within the belt for 12 hours, there's your conspiracy solved.
I don't think there's any "gotcha" moment there. i think the guy was just reading a fairly clumsily worded script.
This post was edited on 12/19/23 at 4:34 pm
Posted on 12/19/23 at 4:34 pm to cssamerican
The issue isn’t getting astronauts safely through the van allen belt. It’s not uniform thickness and objects traveling fast enough don’t receive even close to a lethal dose. The primary concern is the digital computer system which is far more sensitive than the old analog systems.
It’s been 50 years since the moon landings and almost all the institutional and experiential knowledge is gone. Sure NASA knows how it was done, but there was a ton of skill, experience, and good luck as well.
The primary radiation concern going forward will be long term exposure to solar radiation outside the safety of the earth’s magnetic field. Any moon bases and trips to Mars will have to solve long term radiation exposure. The Apollo missions weren’t outside the field long enough for it to be an issue.
It’s been 50 years since the moon landings and almost all the institutional and experiential knowledge is gone. Sure NASA knows how it was done, but there was a ton of skill, experience, and good luck as well.
The primary radiation concern going forward will be long term exposure to solar radiation outside the safety of the earth’s magnetic field. Any moon bases and trips to Mars will have to solve long term radiation exposure. The Apollo missions weren’t outside the field long enough for it to be an issue.
This post was edited on 12/19/23 at 6:44 pm
Posted on 12/19/23 at 4:47 pm to Heyes
quote:
What he says is that the dangerous van Allen belt is tough on sensitive computer equipment and we need to test it without people on board …. But then he says quote “ we must solve these challenges before we send PEOPLE through this region of space
Yes. Because you don’t put people needlessly at risk if a catastrophic computer failure could occur. Which is why you test without people onboard in order to figure out the problem.
It ain’t rocket scie…… well maybe in this case it is.
Posted on 12/19/23 at 4:50 pm to SirWinston
Listen to this narration of all 14 parts of Dave McGowan's "Waggin' the Moondoggie", then decide.
https://centerforaninformedamerica.com/moondoggie/
https://centerforaninformedamerica.com/moondoggie/
Posted on 12/19/23 at 4:56 pm to SirWinston
One of my favorite conspiracy theories revolves around NASA passing off photos from Earth as having been taken by Mars landers, even going so far as adding an orange filter to sell the lie. If you look closely in Martian lander photos, you’ll start to find all kinds of stuff that shouldn’t be there, but make sense to find in some of the remote earth locations where they publicly test these landers.
Posted on 12/19/23 at 5:01 pm to PillageUrVillage
Also, the the Orion ship was tested successfully last year. Manned missions are set to begin as early as next year.
Page 4 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News