Do you really think man walked on the moon/???

From where? The Industrial Revolution? The Mesolithic? Rocketry goes back WELL before the Kennedy speech. The leap was from simple orbital flights to sufficient staging to land on the Moon and return. Still significant, but not like they had to invent spacecraft during the first year!



And? The computational power jammed into an iPhone is driven by market forces. It is sold to the consumer as being important, inventive, and necessary. But for a vast majority of business tasks (or even daily tasks), it doesn't do much but get you a few percent improved efficiency -- wrapped up in a really fancy looking package.

Are you saying you can't build a steel mill, perform surgery, detect new subatomic particles, design an aircraft, win at Indianapolis without this year's computer? All of this is done more better with, but was done readily enough without. And it doesn't need a computer of some arbitrary quality. It isn't like someone comes along and says, "You can't do this computation; your video card isn't fast enough."

This is not saying computing wasn't necessary. It is saying you can't draw some arbitrary line. I mean; why not draw the line five years further, and say you couldn't do anything that we take for granted TODAY because we don't yet own the computers they will be making in 2025!



Yes. It is a significant problem. Because nobody is interested in a reply. They are interested in long-duration missions, Mars missions, and the like, and solar radiation becomes more significant on that time frame.



You don't know, yet you claim to know the missions weren't possible? I don't know what kind of tires they use at Indianapolis, so should I go around claiming F1's are impossible?

Incidentally, the lunar surface isn't significant. Yes, there is both naturally occurring nucleotides, and some short-lived isotopes from interaction with high-energy cosmic rays. But this background is well below what you'd see from the exposed rocks around a typical village in the Urals.

The primary danger is the Sun, and the danger there is the active Sun, aka solar flares. The typical spectrum from the quiet Sun has too little at significant energies to be that interesting. But a flare that hit you without proper warning and protection could ruin your day.



That is incorrect. You may want to read up.

But you are also committing a prior error of assumption. The suit is not the equivalent of a man in shirtsleeves toting around an umbrella or whatever to protect himself from conditions. It is a thermos bottle.

Your typical cheap (but glass, mind you, not those fake plastic ones) thermos bottle can keep coffee hot through a twelve-hour shift. I've used them plenty of times for just that. Are you saying that NASA can't build something at LEAST as good as the thermos bottle workers used to pack in their lunch?

Point being, the temperature of the local rocks wasn't as important as the temperature of the man inside the suit -- and the electronics, as well. Plus the not inconsiderable issue that their breathing gas was compressed.

So the suit wasn't dealing with dramatic changes. It was dealing with a constant influx of heat that it had to get rid of. Heat in the ballpark of 100 watts, in fact. Which makes the math pretty simple, by the by.



Lines seen on video (never photograph) are inconsistent. They don't show up in the same places, at the same kinds of times, and they don't show up in the RIGHT places. They don't pass through the center of gravity, they aren't placed where they would need to be to suspend.

Nor is there any movement of the handful the hoax believers like to talk about that is consistent with a pickup. There is always rotation in more than one plane. You just have to look properly to see it.

Nor are the moves "impossible." Just unexpected -- especially for people who haven't studied the suits and know nothing about their internal construction (no; it isn't just a bag filled with air, and it doesn't behave like a costume. It reacts significantly to movement, and in complex ways...there are both expansion joints and springs involved).





No. I can't tell which you are referring to, but I can name the two most likely specifics (or, rather, one specific and one generalized group) and they can both be demonstrated at length to be incorrect.

But you'd have to make the effort to be specific before anyone would chase down which of these old claims you were referring to (the third-party mislabeled video segment, that is, or Jack White's infamous inability to do a simple overlay correctly).



Not seen, not standard to any motion picture or television standard of lighting practice, not plausible by any practice in ANY lighting field I know of, not evident by ANY of the usual signs. In short; entirely the function of people with poor perceptual skills, strong pre-opinions, and a lack of any applicable experience that leads them to think they know how movies are lit (and prevents them from any knowledge of how light behaves in the real world).



D'uh. Different application.

First off, you'd sweat yourself to death. The coolant system wasn't designed to work in atmosphere.

In other news, those new sharkskin suits that were all the rage a couple Olympics back are totally useless for ice diving. And no America's Cup yacht yet has proven to be any good at off-road driving.

Up until recently, I thought anyone who said we never went to the moon was crazy. But I finally decided to look into some of the claims that were said to be evidence we were not really on the moon and now my way of thinking is completely different.

I realized that my scorning of those who claimed it was a hoax was a prescribed reaction.

Where do we even start as good indications we never really went to the moon? The Soviets beat us into space and were equal to the US in space technology. Why did they never go to the moon or hardly even try? They knew it could not be done.

Look how the lunar lander failed in tests run here on earth but somehow managed to have a perfect landing every time on the moon? Seriously?

This is one that really sticks out. There is no sign at all of any propulsion coming from the craft pushing it upward. This looks like something from an old amateur super 8 movie or something.



And being that the delay for the speed of radio transmissions is at least a couple seconds, how was the camera on the moon so accurately able to follow the thing as it took off?

Up until recently, I thought anyone who said we never went to the moon was crazy. But I finally decided to look into some of the claims that were said to be evidence we were not really on the moon and now my way of thinking is completely different.

I realized that my scorning of those who claimed it was a hoax was a prescribed reaction.

Where do we even start as good indications we never really went to the moon? The Soviets beat us into space and were equal to the US in space technology. Why did they never go to the moon or hardly even try? They knew it could not be done.

Look how the lunar lander failed in tests run here on earth but somehow managed to have a perfect landing every time on the moon? Seriously?

This is one that really sticks out. There is no sign at all of any propulsion coming from the craft pushing it upward. This looks like something from an old amateur super 8 movie or something.



And being that the delay for the speed of radio transmissions is at least a couple seconds, how was the camera on the moon so accurately able to follow the thing as it took off?

The Van Allen Belts (there are 3 of them, now) PROTECT Earth from radiation.

Once beyond the belts, spacecraft are subject to GCRs and other bad shit, in free space.

Of course, as we all now know, 1/4 inch of aloominum, and some plastic liner, totally protects human bodies from all that!

No.......the van allen radiation belts would have made them leaving our atmosphere impossible.

No.......the van allen radiation belts would have made them leaving our atmosphere impossible.

The NRO, CIA, and NSA would love for you to believe that we can read a digital watch from orbit but we can't. Resolution is based on the Dawes limit which is directly related to the size of the main lens. We know the max size of the satellites that are up there based on the launch vehicles used. Simple math shows that the ability to read a digital watch from orbit is still a fantasy.

OP, one of the best researchers I have come across on the subject is Dave McGowan.

[link to davesweb.cnchost.com]

"I agree but can anyone show me proof of why we didnt?"

No. You can't prove a negative fact. The burden of proof is on the person who introduces a positive fact.

we can't do it now because its too expensive????

never happened. i can't believe it. i won't believe it.

my number #1 question is how could they communicate that far. especially back then.

I'm thinking BadHairDay's comment was a bit exaggerated. However, I've just visited a few places on, oh, Google maps. Gateway Arch, etc. and, it zooms in pretty darn well - especially given its higher resolution/closer pictures are viewable only by the US government and/or its allies.

Wrist watch then? Maybe not, albeit, I wouldn't then UNDERestimate its strength.

No doubt went the moon so many times and partied hard up there. Wish I had some footage of them loading and unloading the lunar rover... that would be kick ass to see.

The Soviets beat us into space and were equal to the US in space technology.

Why did they never go to the moon or hardly even try?

They knew it could not be done.

Look how the lunar lander failed in tests run here on earth

This is one that really sticks out. There is no sign at all of any propulsion coming from the craft pushing it upward. This looks like something from an old amateur super 8 movie or something.

And being that the delay for the speed of radio transmissions is at least a couple seconds, how was the camera on the moon so accurately able to follow the thing as it took off?