Was the moon landing faked? Poll

How can you travel to Mars if you never ever landed on the moon.
They must think we are all stupid.

Last Edited by TSPNS on 07/14/2021 12:51 AM

This is an incredibly disappointing result. For free thinkers, I'm surprised at this. You're being manipulated by these FE people and other nonsense that is easily disproven. Moon landings happened. The idea they didn't is a distraction.

Fuck karma, can't deal with backwoods luddites. Take your shit over to clavius.org and try and come back in one piece. Fucking bunch of amoebas.

Wasn't this about the same time LSD was popular and everyone was on a "fuck the establishment" binge?

The inner Van Allen belt consists largely of highly energetic protons, with energy exceeding 30,000,000 electron volts. The peak intensity of these protons is approximately 20,000 particles per second crossing a spherical area of one square cm in all directions.

Even in less severely concentrated part radiation is enough to kill in very short time. You have to cross the belt anyway.

Now with use of very high quality deep fakes they can simulate landing on Mars too and sheeple will buy it. Most superior AI wins the race.



Last Edited by TSPNS on 07/14/2021 01:03 AM

Reading is fundamental. [link to science.thewire.in (secure)]

One mis-identification or mistake negates the whole of geology? I think not.

This poll is a perfect example of the mental illness rampant on this site.

"The Van Allen belts are most intense over the Equator and are effectively absent above the poles. No real gap exists between the two zones; they actually merge gradually, with the flux of charged particles showing two regions of maximum density..."

It's interesting that you chose to leave out this paragraph which precedes the one you copied and pasted and details how these belts are "effectively absent above the poles."

That being said, I misspoke regarding wavelength. It has been years since I even thought about this aspect of the moon landing denying nonsense. The hull of the craft was designed specifically to reflect and/or absorb the high energy particles (depending on what layer you're talking about). Still, the width of certain of these layers is important because when, for example, high energy electrons hit certain materials the impact can give off high energy wavelengths (ionizing radiation) that would have been dangerous. So having very thin layers of such materials was an advantage.

Please answer simple layman's question. Now, imagine for a second that moon landing is piece of cake and the distance from Moon to Earth is actually driving distance. Sixty years passed since 1963. Wouldn't it be all over internet travel to Moon, multibillion businesses providing travel to Moon and we would see in daylight humans walking on the Moon etc. What is the problem?

Yes. Why yes it was.

i reckon, most if not all the missions were likely faked

The Moon Landing was real, the OP is fucking fake, TO the max..


.

keep on fakin it till u make it!

it was staged at an energy ministry test site in nevada

LOL, is that what makes a country great?

STFU...

You really are gullible, huh? and not much of a critical thinker, are you????

"go around" Haha! what a moran!!

Very good one!

'Nuff said
Thread: My Husband Directed The Fake Moon Landing Says Stanley Kubrick's Widow.

we still havn't gone back!
Look at every thing the 1960's and how it is today.

Sometimes the truth is right infront of our noses and yet we are blinded by advertising.

[link to abcnews.go.com (secure)]

Yes, the LM had a "thin skin", about the thickness of three layers of Reynold's Wrap.

It was pressurized to 4.8 PSI, pure oxygen internal atmosphere.

Why didn't it explode, when sitting on the Moon in a HARD VACUUM?

Yeah.

That's a problem...

Indeed.

Regardless of the fake/real debate, I would also like to
hear the answer. Valid, simple question.

What you’ve “been hearing” illustrates the problems that can arise from explaining complex topics to a lay audience through oversimplification—then repeating the oversimplification ad nauseum because it’s pithy.

First, the LEM only held a third of an atmosphere (of 100% oxygen), and it was only rated for a small number of pressurization cycles. For comparison, an ordinary soda can holds six times that pressure.

But the whole question is misleading, because the LM was not an aluminium can. Yes in some spots, its skin was as thin as 0.006 inches (1.524 mm). That’s 1.5 times the thickness of a modern soda can, or about the thickness of contemporary cans. However, the LM was not merely a paper-thin aluminium sheet.

[link to qph.fs.quoracdn.net (secure)]

The LM was made of grid-like trusses of metal skin with welded-on ribs to create strong, rigid bulkheads. The panels were also chemically etched so that the skin between the ribs tapered toward the middle (the space between ribs) so as not to contain more material than needed mechanically. This is where the thin stuff was—just a few strips and patches equidistant between ribs. This is the only place the skin was thin enough to puncture with a screwdriver, though even doing that by mistake would have taken a feat of bad luck.

And for the record, I’ve only ever seen documentation for parts of the descent stage being only 0.006 inches thick. The ascent stage bulkhead might well have been thicker, though I do know they were thin enough to “oil can” or pop as temperatures changed while the astronauts slept.

Regardless, that’s all misleading. The LM wasn’t made of the cheap, soft 3000-series aluminium alloy we are familiar with from our kitchens. The LM was made mostly from heat-treated 2219 and 7075 aluminium alloys. 2219 was used in areas where high strength and fracture resistance were required. 7075 (which was developed during WWII by Japan and used in naval aviation toward the end of the war), was used for its exceptional tensile strength—comparable to steel. Both were (and are) expensive and difficult to fabricate.

After the bulkheads were welded together, the LM was surrounded by a system of struts that further increased rigidity (much like the stiffening wires in a biplane) and provided attachments for the micrometeorite shields

[link to qph.fs.quoracdn.net (secure)]


Those shields were also aluminium (mostly), along with multi-layer blankets of aluminized plastic, and of course, certain high temperature or high strength components were made of magnesium alloy or titanium.

[link to www.quora.com (secure)]

Duhhh

Wall of copy-pasted text without clear meaning. Important one sentence explaining radiation shielding mechanism is missing.


Last Edited by TSPNS on 07/15/2021 05:09 PM