Slackercrumbs said:
I'm all for the conspiracy theory but the reason for no stars is because you have to do something with your camera to make it take in just a little bit of light so the sun doesn't overexpose the film so they don't appear since they are but mere dots.
Anyone with a
basic knowledge of photography can understand this.
Slackercrumbs said:
has anyone considered the van allen belt? it's a belt of radiation around the earth that protectc us from certain types of radiation from the sun. A human would have to be surrounded by like a 2 foot thick wall of lead to pass through it without getting microwaved.
Radiation and the Van Allen belts
Yes, there is deadly radiation in the Van Allen belts, but the nature of that radiation was known to the Apollo engineers and they were able to make suitable preparations. The principle danger of the Van Allen belts is high-energy protons, which are not that difficult to shield against. And the Apollo navigators plotted a course through the thinnest parts of the belts and arranged for the spacecraft to pass through them quickly, limiting the exposure.
The Van Allen belts span only about forty degrees of earth's latitude -- twenty degrees above and below the magnetic equator. The diagrams of Apollo's translunar trajectory printed in various press releases are not entirely accurate. They tend to show only a two-dimensional version of the actual trajectory. The actual trajectory was three-dimensional. The highly technical reports of Apollo, accessible to but not generally understood by the public, give the three-dimensional details of the translunar trajectory.
Each mission flew a slightly different trajectory in order to access its landing site, but the orbital inclination of the translunar coast trajectory was always in the neighborhood of 30°. Stated another way, the geometric plane containing the translunar trajectory was inclined to the earth's equator by about 30°. A spacecraft following that trajectory would bypass all but the edges of the Van Allen belts.
Slackercrumbs said:
also I heard the computer program the lunar module was using had about the same power as today's graphic calculators...interesting
So? Speciallized computers (ones that don't have to be able to run bloated operating systems, spreadsheets and games) can be extremely small and low powered. You'd be amazed at what you TI-85 calculator can do.
Slackercrumbs said:
and some scientists now put the probability figures into a computer using exact data from the day we "landed on the moon" and it alculated the probability of it happening at .0014%
This deserves no comment since it is utterly baseless.
Slackercrumbs said:
our government says that they will be ready to send more astronauts to the moon in like 2006 or something crazy like that...don't they already know how to do it? just use one of those old rickety tin cans like they did in 69.
Do we have current technology to go to the moon avaliable? No.
Do we have any left over Apollo hardware avaliable? No.
We can't manufacture this stuff overnight. Especially since the corners that were cut in safety during the Cold War would in no way be compromised today. It takes over 10 years to bring a prototype military aircraft up to operational standards, and those don't even leave the atmosphere.
Slackercrumbs said:
I don't believe we landed on the moon
Believe whatever you want, but when you start trusting statements like "some scientists said..." and "also I heard..." instead of factual, documented statements, you tend to look ignorant.