Why do so many doubt the moon landing?

now we shall find out how easy it is to land on the moon soon.
[link to www.bbc.co.uk]

That isn't a manned mission to land

The ones that kill me are the one's that say the landings were fake then talk about how Apollo 20 was real

Better yet, the ones that insist that the Germans got to the moon in WWII...

They are a hoot!

To cope with the radiation in VAB.
To have space suits cope with temperature differences on lunar surface.
To land the lunar module balancing on thruster jets.
To have the cameras and the film undamaged. According to Hasselblad they were no special cameras at all.
To take a huge amount of near perfect photos without a finder.
The lunar rover is a dead giveaway in my opinion. Even long before I was convinced it was a hoax, I was very disturbed by the fact they brough a car on 3 trips. It's just an awful in you face insult to thinking persons.

No really like Wernher von Braun was able to do it for the Nazis and couldn't do it for us for like 30 years later.

Last Edited by Nikki_LaVey on 10/01/2010 11:09 AM

You really think its just an empty rock? Dont forget about the water fount there recently. Why not have a mission to conduct experiments with this new discovery?

That was probably not my best statement.

Are you doubting the Moon landings yet?

No...kind of why I started this thread....

So, in detail, do tell us just what technology was lacking. I'm looking forward to your "educated" answer.


To cope with the radiation in VAB.
Unless you deliberately caused your spaceship to hover within this layer, for many hours or days, the radiation exposure is well below dangerous levels. The Apollo astronauts passed through the Belts in less than four hours total for the trip. It's not much more serious than getting a chest x-ray

To have space suits cope with temperature differences on lunar surface.
The same technology is used my NASCAR Drivers today.

To land the lunar module balancing on thruster jets.
Why? You are only dealing with 1/6g and no atmosphere.

To have the cameras and the film undamaged. According to Hasselblad they were no special cameras at all.
No one was leaving bare film out on the hot lunar surface. All material was contained in protective canisters. In addition, at the time the Apollo missions landed, they were either at lunar dawn or dusk. As a result, the temperature was more easily manageable.

To take a huge amount of near perfect photos without a finder.
Exposure was a constant!

The lunar rover is a dead giveaway in my opinion. Even long before I was convinced it was a hoax, I was very disturbed by the fact they brough a car on 3 trips. It's just an awful in you face insult to thinking persons.
The rover was very cleverly constructed to be made out of very light materials, and designed to fold up to about the size of a large suitcase. Oh and did you know the tires were made out of piano wire .... I thought that was way kool.

Deniers don't like facts...hurts their brains.

Well now you understand that the Moon is not just an empty rock and there is always new things to learn. Explain to me why there hasnt been any manned missions to the Moon since the 60s. You know how much we have advanced in technology over the last 50 years. Why not use this technology to discover new things on the Moon?

Like the amount of radiation you get in a 5 hour airplane flight? C'mon, you seriously believe that its the same thing??

First off we need to put together a program, build the specific vehicles for the mission, train the personal and most importantly get the funding!

Just because I said something dumb doesn't make the moon landings fake....typical denier action.

You are backtracking, lets try to progress over your past statements. The reason I have a hard time to believe we landed on the Moon is because we havent gone back in 50 years, when there is so much more to learn about this "rock". So I am trying to get an answer from you. You know how much we have advanced in technology over the last 50 years. Why not use this technology to discover new things on the Moon?

I'm sure there are many good reasons...If I was in the know I would know them

In practice, Apollo astronauts who travelled to the moon spent very little time in the belts and received a harmless dose. Nevertheless NASA deliberately timed Apollo launches, and used lunar transfer orbits that only skirted the edge of the belt over the equator to minimise the radiation. Astronauts who visited the moon probably have a slightly higher risk of cancer during their lifetimes, but still remain unlikely to become ill because of it.

It doesnt take 50 years to put together a program, build the vehicles or train the personal. NASA has had plenty of fundings to put another Moon trip together in half a century.

The expected radiation dose is nowhere near problematic, even considering an object with half the radiation shielding that ISS has, even under solar max and stormy geomagnetic conditions:
[link to i319.photobucket.com]

Astronauts performing spacewalks while climbing all over the international space station must deal with the same temperature differences. It wasn't a problem then, it isn't a problem now. Vacuum acts as an excellent insulator. If you're saying apollo was a hoax for that reason, you're really saying ISS and the shuttle are a hoax too for the same reason.

Why would that be a problem? It's no more difficult than launching a rocket while balancing on thrust gimbaling (which is really the main way the lunar module "balanced" itself) and is actually less difficult than manuevering the shuttle's off-centered OMS engine thrust (also controlled with gimbaling).

Why wouldn't that have equally been a problem for the 70mm film cameras used in the early shuttle missions during spacewalks? So you're saying the shuttle is a hoax, right? Of course the reality of the situation is that the camera was in a vacuum and used reflective properties to keep its temperature in a reasonable range.

Anyone can do that with a little practice and a wide angle lens, and not all their photos were perfect.
[link to www.lpi.usra.edu]
[link to www.lpi.usra.edu]
[link to www.lpi.usra.edu]
[link to www.lpi.usra.edu]
[link to www.lpi.usra.edu]
[link to www.lpi.usra.edu]
[link to www.lpi.usra.edu]
Just a few examples...

What the hell are you talking about? Why is a rover an "insult" to "thinking" persons? Do you have a better idea for getting around large areas with diverse geology such as Hadley Rille or Taurus-Littrow?

One word .... FUNDING!

You do know know the finial missions were canceled because people thought the money was better spend here on earth.

The technology used to get to the moon

has been around for a very very long time.

That being said, the US flag isn't the only thing on the moon.

I'll leave it at that.

Astronauts reported it being unbearable near the Van Allen Belt. They could see the lights of radiation with their eyes closed. If it was unbearable how could they manage to travel 4 hours through the belt?

They spent their funding on other things like th space shuttle.

Link ... proof