-
-
Copy & paste this:
« Previous I Wish My Dad Was This Cool | Overkill 9000 I Hate Public Pools Next »
» See all 66 comments
Leave a Reply
-
WTF Are People Saying
ಠ_ಠ on I Want This In My Garden 2ollux on I Want This In My Garden at0mk222 on No Goomba Is Safe Epi on The Boys Are Back Scone on Chicks in a Hot Tub
One small step for a kitty…
It’s a hoax.
Indeed, man neven went to the moon. Kitties however, I’m not sure…
1. This is a good Photoshop job. Very creative. Too bad BP didn’t have this skill level when they created their fake “command post” photos.
2. If the moon landings were fake, how come we can see the landing sites and abandoned equipment with a telescope?
That only proves that some machines got sent up there, not machines that carried humans to and back from the moon.
Or it proves this guy doesn’t know what he is talking about. No telescopes on earth can see the objects left behind.
Just take a look at the pictures the Lunar Reconnaisance orbiter took of the landing sites to see. http://chattahbox.com/science/2009/07/18/lunar-reconnaissance-orbiter-sends-photos-of-apollo-moon-landing-sites/
That was something actually orbiting the moon. You would never even come close to seeing any equipment up there with a telescope. I think the poster is confused with the fact that we can still bounce a laser off reflectors left up there.
Decals
*never
iz on ur stage set, ruinin ur faek loonur landin pikshurz.
+10 internets for lolcatz reference
The flag is moving, and I can’t see stars!
which one? the photo or the landing? Maybe both… who knows.
Of course it’s a hoax. The cat isn’t pissing on anything valuable, shitting somewhere inappropriate, or clawing the crap out of the astronaut. Also, it’s somewhat noticeably *not* exploding in the vacuum of space.
exploding? Didn’t you learn anything in science class?
Look at the shadow !!! It’s real !!!!
Not pictured: four escaped penguins in a home-made rocket.
Lol, Madagascar reference
Very clever, except I think the shadow is a bit squashed given the comparative shadow of the astronaut.
Well if we want to get picky;
1 the astronaut’s shadow is cast over ground that is slopped downwards, so of course he’s casting a longer shadow.
2 The astronaut’s shadow is blurry near his head, with only the one light source, shouldn’t it be crisp and clear?
3 The shadow of the picker the astronaut is using as a cane? Look at how the shadow isn’t in his hand anymore.
4 The astronaut’s fly is down.
4a Made you look@!
5 The reason this guy’s helmet is still on is because the cat showed him up, proving first that there is an atmosphere.
He’s not holding the cane in his hand, hence it not being so in his shadow
6 There is no point six.
7 Neither the kitty nor its reflection is reflected in the astronaut’s helmet.
i can has moon rover?
thz iz fotoshopppd i kin tel frm som ov tha pikselz
Spelling….hurts too much…*explodes*
Just kidding. It’s obviously real and proves that the moon landing was a hoax!
The kitty is stalking the flute-playing squirrel that just scurried past.
Nah, kittehz was there first, we just couldn’t admit it.
Just goes to show the extremes a guy will go to to chase some pussy.
Get off my new litterbox. =# Planted mah flag, dammit … somewhere… buried it, actually …
Obvious photoshop is obvious.
NOOOOOOOOOOO
I’d put that breccia back if I were you.
Dizapointud Luna Kitteh iz dizapointud ta findz moons not madez of cheezeburger.
Then gain on a serous note, there is the theory and stories of the edited audios that indicate they where being watched by ‘somebody’ nearby… now we know what/who it was.
OMFG. This is photoshopped. You can tell because the cat’s shadow is too far to the right, and if you look at the rest, the shadows gradually move away, as the camera has a wide-ish lens and the direction of the sun’s light isn’t completely straight all over on such a small planetary object. The moon landing DID occur, and those who believe it didn’t are stupid and ignorant. Why would anyone make something like that up? I’m sure the people who HAVE visited the moon are extremely pissed off by those who are denying their glorious endeavour. Seriously guys, wake up. Just because you don’t like a truth, doesn’t mean it’s wrong.
Wow, really? I totally thought this was real!
Haha i live by a comic book shop called spacecat
lol edddsworlod sed space cats
kwaii kitteh tho x3
not pictured, sailor moon, sailor mini moon, Luna, and Artemis.
or for that matter ruins of the moon kingdom or muchi pounding rabbits
Pshh, have you ever heard of the moon kitty and its occurrence?
C’mon, Bastet was not the moon goddess and Selene was not a cat….
This looks shopped! I mean seriously, man on the moon? Yeah right!
I knew it! I just knew it!
you people are crazy, we did land on the moon, matter of fact some of the points you made were tested on mythbusters awhile ago, hereby making this arguement pointless. but the cat is definetely shopped.
This comment is dedicated to the people who believe Nasa landed on the moon in 1969:
Questions to ask yourself before defending Nasa:
1. Why has the US government been testing rockets to make it to the moon for the past 15 years, if we had flawless rockets in 1969?
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/091029-ares-1x-big-dent.html
We are testing failed moon rockets in the year 2010. How is this possible if we had perfect rockets in the 60′s?
2. Why has the US government been designing new space suits with nanotubing to block out radiation?
“Next Generation of NASA Spacesuits
NASA has just awarded its contract for future spacesuits to Oceaneering International, a company that now has the task of designing and manufacturing the new suits to be worn by our future astronauts as they explore the moon, Mars, and beyond. The suits are going to be ready for the first launch of the Orion Space Capsule in 2015, and it’s going to set back the government a whopping $745 million.”
http://trekmovie.com/2008/06/20/science-friday-summer-solstice-edition/
“As of 2007, NASA has been working on developing materials for use in making spacecrafts and spacesuits. Carbon nanotubes and boron nanotubes are two new molecular materials being developed”
http://www.ehow.com/how-does_4588347_how-nanotechnology-used-space.html
LOGICALLY, The astronauts that landed on the moon in 1969-1974, should be dead already from radiation poisoning (and should have never made it back to Earth). This technology didn’t exist and the Russians knew it, when they tested their rocket into the moon in the early 60′s. These nanotubing suits were only used in Star Trek back in 1969.
……….Read more on my blog here:
http://www.bialien.com
First of all, Saturn V rockets weren’t “perfect” as you put it. They were usable, but by no means perfect. There’s always room to improve on a design, which is what they’ve been trying to do.
Second of all, they’re creating suits for lunar/martian excursions that can last for months, not a handful of days. The old suits when fully pressurized were bulky and hard to move in. They’re trying to make new suits that will be more comfortable, more maneuverable and generally all around better.
The conspiracy theories surrounding the moon landings make me laugh. Every piece of evidence saying we didn’t go has a logical explanation that can be proved, and has been proved. The only reason we didn’t go back is because we didn’t go there for the right reasons to begin with. We did it as a publicity stunt, nothing more. The American people for the large part stopped caring about moon landings almost as quickly as they happened. Hell, we stopped caring about space in general when it was shown that going to it was “routine”. Even now it’s hard to drum up the same enthusiasm about going to the moon.
“We are testing failed moon rockets in the year 2010. How is this possible if we had perfect rockets in the 60′s?”
New car designs fail crash tests all the time. How is this possible when we had perfect cars in the 60′s?
“Why has the US government been designing new space suits with nanotubing to block out radiation?”
Presumably because they are more efficient and easier to manouver than the bulky relics from the 60′s? We can use another car example here: why would the F1 industry bother with developing cars made of carbon fibre and such materials instead of whatever they were using before that?
“LOGICALLY, The astronauts that landed on the moon in 1969-1974, should be dead already from radiation poisoning (and should have never made it back to Earth).”
Logically, such a claim should be accompanied by relevant sources. I’m assuming here that you haven’t done the actual research needed yourself, so where did you read about a) the severity of the radiation and b) its effect on the human body, once mitigated by the protective measures in place at the time of the lunar landing? In a well referenced and peer reviewed article, or “someone said it once and it catered to my beliefs so I chose to accept it as fact”?
@ Blarp, You comparing new cars to cars made in the 60′s, where we didn’t have airbags and different regulations as we have now. What kind of response is that? Perfect rockets in the 60′s to perfect cars in the 60′s with a fraction of the safety measures we have today in place? To make a statement like that, you’ll have to compare death rates in cars in the 60′s, to the cars in the 00′s.
Your second statement, you comparing an f1 car to space shuttle suits? F1 industry decided to go with carbon fibre to make the car lighter so they can win more races and have a lighter car. Everyone knows carbon fibre is stronger and the comptition with cars have always been lightening the weight of the car. What is your logical explanation to why the government is spending 800 million DEVELOPING new suits to specifically block out radiation. did you try the link?
My sources came from plenty of records from independent scientist to russian scientist in the 60′s, when the Russians slammed the rocket into the moon, the rocket had dozens of sensors detecting the radiation levels outside of the magnetosphere. I don’t know where you get your information from, but i can prove my information with links and facts. I’ve done my research buddy, or i wouldn’t be here talking about this subject.
Maybe you need to research cosmic radiation outside of the Earth’s magnetosphere. I’ve read articles from dozens of scientist saying that cosmic radiation outside of the magnetosphere would destroy non-leaded covered electronics, and would pass right through ordinary space suits. The russians know this, india knows this china knows this, and USA knows this. This is why the special suits are being created, to block out this radiation when an astronaut steps foot on the moon, not in a spaceship.
So you believe what you want to believe.
Yes, I am comparing cars to shuttles and space suits, to try to make you understand my point. Apparantly, to no avail. We didnt have perfect shuttles in the 60′s, just as we didnt have perfect cars.
And I still dont see any sources for your claims. Either provide links to the articles explaining how the astronauts should be dead, or shut up.
Also, last time I checked, humans aren’t electronic. You are pierced by radiation as you read these lines. The important question is how it affects the human body. The burden of proof here is on you buddy. Sources, or stfu.
@ Blarp. Your comparison didn’t have much merit. I think you aren’t comprehending how i’m referring the word “Perfect” as. When I use the word “perfect” i’m referring to the Rockets and the Apollo mission worked flawlessly and nothing went wrong. Perfect missions, meaning we scored A’s, because we went to the moon 6 times and nothing went wrong. To compare the shuttle to cars, you’ll have to agree that cars worked flawlessly and never broke down, or never had an accident in the 60′s.
We did NOT have perfect missions in 1986 and 2003. Where we had total disasters just going up into space and coming back down. I’m still waiting for your reply to why we are taking 15 years and spending billions of dollars testing new rockets, if the rockets in the 60′s were flawless; (Flawless meaning: they never failed and got the astronauts from Earth to the moon and back safely, so logically they are considered “perfect” in my category).
———————————————–
I have a business to run Blarp, but here are some of the links of all the research i’ve been doing for the moon landing. Below is from Scientist, staff at space.com and people who study the moon landing:
“I have researched the Space-Suits of the Period and of Today. Both DO NOT have Radiation Protection of Any Kind. When the Manufacturer of these NASA suits(the Goodrich Corporation en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good…orporation / en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_suit ) was asked if they would be safe to use in a Radio Active Area (A place were normal Radiation Suit would work fine), they explicitly said no, The Suits were not designed to stop that kind of radiation. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_radiation Cosmic Radiation Has Gamma and X-Ray as well as the Ultraviolet and other types of Particle Radiation.
Here are the Specs for a Modern Suit…
“Spacesuit requirements
A space suit must perform several functions to allow its occupant to work safely and comfortably. It must provide:
* A stable internal pressure. This can be less than earth’s atmosphere, as there is usually no need for the spacesuit to carry nitrogen (which comprises about 78% of earth’s atmosphere and is not used by the body). Lower pressure allows for greater mobility, but requires the suit occupant to breathe pure oxygen for a time before going into this lower pressure, to avoid decompression sickness.
* Mobility. Movement is typically opposed by the pressure of the suit; mobility is achieved by careful joint design. See the Theories of spacesuit design section.
* Breathable oxygen. Circulation of cooled and purified oxygen is controlled by the Primary Life Support System.
* Temperature regulation. Unlike on Earth, where heat can be transferred by convection to the atmosphere, in space heat can be lost only by thermal radiation or by conduction to objects in physical contact with the space suit. Since the temperature on the outside of the suit varies greatly between sunlight and shadow, the suit is heavily insulated, and the temperature inside the suit is regulated by a Liquid Cooling Garment in contact with the astronaut’s skin, as well as air temperature maintained by the Primary Life Support System.
* Shielding against ultraviolet radiation
* Limited shielding against particle radiation
* Protection against small micrometeoroids, provided by a Thermal Micrometeoroid Garment, which is the outermost layer of the suit
* A communication system
* Means to recharge and discharge gases and liquids
* Means to maneuver, dock, release, and/or tether onto spacecraft
* Means of collecting and containing solid and liquid waste (such as a Maximum Absorbency Garment)”
Shielding Against UltraViolet Radiation is NOT Enough…
Nor is Limited Shielding Against Particle Radiation…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_ray
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-ray
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_ray
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extr…cosmic_ray
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gala…cosmic_ray
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heal…osmic_rays
In Other Words…
“The radiation environment of deep space is very different from that on the earth’s surface or in low earth orbit, due to the much larger flux of high-energy galactic cosmic rays (GCRs), along with radiation from solar proton events and the radiation belts.
Life on the earth’s surface is protected from galactic cosmic rays by a number of factors:
1. The earth’s atmosphere is opaque to primary cosmic rays with energies below about 1 GeV, so only secondary radiation can reach the surface. The secondary radiation is also attentuated by absorption in the atmosphere, as well as by radioactive decay in flight of some particles, such as muons. Particles entering from a direction close to the horizon are especially attenuated.
2. Shielding by the bulk of the planet itself cuts the flux by a factor of two.
3. Except for the very highest energy galactic cosmic rays, the radius of gyration in the earth’s magnetic field is small enough to ensure that they are deflected away from Earth (“geomagnetic shielding”);
4. The sun’s magnetic field has a similar effect, tending to exclude galactic cosmic rays from the plane of the ecliptic in the inner solar system.
As a result the energy input of GCRs to the atmosphere is negligible — about 10−9 of solar radiation – roughly the same as starlight.[2]
Of the above four factors, all but the first one apply to low earth orbit craft, such as the International Space Station. Therefore, the only astronauts who have ever been exposed to a significant radiation flux from galactic cosmic rays are those in the Apollo program. Since the durations of the Apollo missions were days rather than years, the doses involved were small compared to what would occur, for example, on a crewed mission to Mars.”
“Crews aboard the space station receive an average of 80 mSv
for a six-month stay at solar maximum (the time period with the
maximum number of sunspots and a maximum solar magnetic
field to deflect the particles) and an average of 160 mSv for a
six-month stay at solar minimum (the period with the minimum
number of sunspots and a minimum solar magnetic field).
Although the type of radiation is different, one mSv of space
radiation is approximately equivalent to receiving three chest
x rays. On Earth, we receive an average of two mSv every year
from background radiation alone.
Crew members could receive higher doses of space radiation
during space walks while outside the protective confines of the
space station; however, NASA plans space walks to avoid the
trapped radiation belts around the Earth, and doses on previous
space walks have been kept very small.”
spaceflight.nasa.gov/spacene…tion.pdf
“The Mars Radiation Environment Experiment (MARIE) was launched in 2001 in order to collect more data. Estimates are that humans unshielded in interplanetary space would receive annually roughly 400 to 900 milli-Sieverts (mSv) (compared to 2.4 mSv on Earth) and that a Mars mission (12 months in flight and 18 months on Mars) might expose shielded astronauts to ~500 to 1000 mSv.[4] These doses approach the 1 to 4 Sv career limits advised by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements for Low Earth orbit activities.”
UltraViolet Radiation is NOT the main Problem here…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultr…_radiation
Well, to those that do not know. We are constantly being bombarded with Cosmic Radiation, this Radiation collects in a Area Known as the Van Allen Belt.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_…ation_belt
BTW to Travel to the Moon you must travel through Both The Van Allen Belts. Not to mention the Artificial Radiation Belts, caused by nuclear tests… Yeah that’s right… Ever Hear of it? Of course not…
“There have been nuclear tests in space that have caused artificial radiation belts. Starfish Prime, a high altitude nuclear test, created an artificial radiation belt that damaged or destroyed as many as one third of the satellites in low earth orbit at the time. ”
NASA is currently brain-storming on ways to remove it.. and STS-75 AKA “The Tether Incident” may have been an early test to that means, though they claimed it was for towing craft in near earth orbit. Note The Number of Craft Come to Check this Out. http://www.youtube.com/watch
“Removal
The belts are a hazard for artificial satellites and moderately dangerous for human beings, difficult and expensive to shield against.
There is a proposal by the late Robert L. Forward called HiVolt which may be a way to drain at least the inner belt to 1% of its natural level within a year. The proposal involves deploying highly electrically charged tethers in orbit. The idea is that the electrons would be deflected by the large electrostatic fields and intersect the atmosphere and harmlessly dissipate.[13]”
“Impact on space travel
Solar cells, integrated circuits, and sensors can be damaged by radiation. Geomagnetic storms occasionally damage electronic components on spacecraft. Miniaturization and digitization of electronics and logic circuits have made satellites more vulnerable to radiation, as incoming ions may be as large as the circuit’s charge. Electronics on satellites must be hardened against radiation to operate reliably. The Hubble Space Telescope, among other satellites, often has its sensors turned off when passing through regions of intense radiation.[9]
Missions beyond low earth orbit leave the protection of the geomagnetic field, and transit the Van Allen belts. Thus they may need to be shielded against exposure to cosmic rays, Van Allen radiation, or solar flares. The region between two to three earth radii lies between the two radiation belts and is sometimes referred to as the “safe zone”.[10][11]
A satellite shielded by 3 mm of aluminum in an elliptic orbit passing through the radiation belt will receive about 2,500 rem (25 Sv) per year. Almost all radiation will be received while passing the inner belt. [12]”
Here they say “Safe” with 3mm of Aluminum, for the Satellites… Not for Man… Here 2,500 rem is extreme amounts…
link source:
http://people.tribe.net/32c89a58-96ee-40f0-9fc1-654e4eb8f785/blog/a6d75c57-4e04-401e-990d-51184ef992f3”
——————————————————————
Here are some more links to entertain your time:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/19/russians-still-skeptical-_n_239982.html
————————————————————
Radiation plays a big part in space travel. Solar flares could have affected the astronauts at any time. The Apollo leaving Earth would travel through 2 specific areas of very high radiation called the Van Allen Belt. The first field is 272 miles out from Earth. The amount of radiation in the belts actually varies from year to year, but every 11 years its at its worst when the sunspot cycle is at its highest. And guess what? 1969 to 1970 was one of the worst times to go, as this was the time where the radiation was at its peak. I have had numerous internet chats with sceptics who say that the radiation would not play a part in the missions because Man would have not been in the radiation belt for too long. My answer to that is, when Dentists or Doctors take X ray pictures they either leave the room or stand behind a sheet of thick lead to shelter from the radiation. Why did NASA only use a small sheet of aluminium to protect the astronauts when they knew that the radiation levels in Space and on the Moon’s surface would be many hundreds of times more deadly? And why would they risk their astronauts to such conditions? In 1959 Bill Kaysing was privy to a study made by the Russians. The Russians discovered that the radiation on the moon would require astronauts to be clothed in four feet of lead to avoid being killed. Why didn’t NASA heed their warnings?
Did you know that the US Government tried to blast a hole in the belt 248 miles above Earth in 1962? During Operation Starfish Prime a Megaton Nuclear Bomb was used to try and force an unnatural corridor through the Van Allen Belt… Unfortunately, the radiation levels actually got worse, not better. What they created was a third belt that was 100 times more intense than the natural belts, and as estimated by Mary Bennett in ‘Dark Moon – Apollo and the Whistle-Blowers, by 2002 this artificial zone will still have 25 times more radiation than the other 2 belts. There is no agreement to how wide these radiation belts actually are. Dr James Van Allen, the discoverer of the belts estimated that they were at least 64,000 miles deep, but NASA say they are only 24,000 miles deep. Each Apollo craft spent approximately 4 hours within the belts.
So to what lengths did NASA take to shield the astronauts against the radiation? Its accepted that a minimum of 10 cm width of aluminium would be needed at the very least to keep out radiation. However the walls of the Apollo craft and capsule were made as thin and as light as possible and as a result the craft initially could not carry enough air inside to withstand the equivalent to sea level air pressure. NASA had to reduce air pressure inside the cabin to cope. Here are the official stats from a NASA website: (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/frame.html)
souce information:
http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html
MORE:
One of the worst sun flares ever recorded happened in August 1972, which was between the Apollo 16 and 17 missions. This single flare would have delivered 960 rem of virtually instant death to any astronaut who was up in Space, and yet all of the Apollo astronauts were carrying out their missions in what amounts to nothing more than a thick linen suit. These pressure suits may have helped protect the astronauts against heat or micro meteorites, but certainly would not have given any radiation protection. By the way, there is no known method of registering when and how strong Solar flare activity will be. So, I guess NASA just struck lucky!
The radiation would have greatly affected the film that was shot on the Moon. Physicist Dr David Groves Ph.D., has carried out radiation tests on similar film and found that the lowest radiation level (25 rem) applied to a portion of the film after exposure made the image on the film almost entirely obliterated. Why didn’t that happen to the Apollo films?
Readers will be interested to hear that the biggest Solar Flare for 25 years was recorded in April, 2001. So sceptics who are claiming that NASA know when the Solar Flares are going to appear are talking rubbish – as usual. If this were the case, why didn’t they bring down the astronauts from the Shuttle and ISS if they knew this gigantic Solar Flare was about to erupt?
Probably the most convincing argument however about the dangers of radiation to astronauts comes from NASA themselves. Read this report made on 8th September, 2005. It makes very interesting reading, especially when you have a number of sceptics like I have breathing down my neck trying to claim otherwise!
———————————————————————
If you need more, Blarp, let me know.
————————————————————————-
O go away for chrissake.
so that proves there’s life on the moon… it just happens to be kittehs.
Excellent idea…love the picture…photoshopped or not
Alright! A challenger to defend Nasa! How are you Bru? Saturn V rockets weren’t perfect?? Did they explode like the “Ares I-X rocket” during test? Weren’t the Saturn V rockets, already perfected dude? Nasa said we went to the moon 6 times from 1969-1974, and nothing went wrong once. In 1986 a shuttle blew up going up in orbit. 2003 another shuttle blew up coming down. Our science got worst?
That sounds like an A in calculus to me. Are you telling me 50 years later, we are getting F’s in basic math?
look at this link:
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/091029-ares-1x-big-dent.html
You’re telling me it takes 15 years to build a better rocket than what they made in the 60′s?
About your second point. Did you actually click on the link to see how the new nanotubing suits were specifically made to block out radiation? Did you get that part, or did you skip over it?
Do you understand the Russians knew there was no suits that can protect a human being outside of Earth’s magnetosphere?
Are you aware of these FACTS, not theories?
Dude, i’m not about theories, or conspiracies. I’m about LOGIC. The logic we humans have in our brain to figure out things. The logic that distinguishes us from primates or animals.
My question to you is, why are we spending billions to prepare for a moon launch in 2020? is it because we want to beat China and india to the moon, so we don’t go down in history for being the best movie makers?
Why aren’t we planning a straight mission to Mars, 50 years after landing on the moon instead?
Yeah, laugh at my logic questions.
1) NASA isn’t getting the same funding that it used to. We were making a giant space push, then we made the push, and now nobody cares.
2) Saturn-V carried 90,000 pounds. This is intended to carry ~150,000. It’s a lot harder to get that much weight up there.
3) We used to be morons about radiation. We’re smarter now.
4) Then again, the radiation thing is BS anyway. The Van Allen belts, with the aluminum shielding a spacecraft uses, would cause a human within it to incur 25 SV… after a year of total exposure. In other words, you’d need to be in the belts for a couple of weeks to get radiation sickness, and longer than that to get radiation poisoning.
5) Do you have any idea how much harder it is to get to Mars than it is to get to the Moon? Give you a hint – at the closest, Mars is in the range of 50 gm (54.6 million km) away. The moon is under 400 Mm (400,000 km) away. Your question is the equivalent of asking someone why someone who just ran a mile isn’t going on to run 100 miles.
Nothing went wrong once? Dude you need to refresh your memory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Apollo#Summary_of_missions
Also, you are making a statistical fallacy by taking a few current failures and comparing them to some previous successes. I don’t think that there has been done enough progress to eliminate human error during the years.
And also for your information going again to the moon was the idea of George W. Bush, and luckily Nasa took another direction when Obama came around: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon#Current_era:_1990.E2.80.93present
You only need to look around you, see Wikipedia or other things that debunk pretty much every one of your ridiculous claims. I’m not likely to see your reply and I don’t really care about your delusions either, so don’t bother replying me.
Anybody else think this looks like something from a Diane Duane novel?
@ Tepi, Dude, what planet are you on? Did a mission to the moon fail, from 1969-1974? Did the apollo rockets fail, to the moon and back? Did something go wrong going to the moon once? Did the apollo blow up like the columbia and 2003 shuttle?? I’m talking about the moon missions and you are talking about other failures in our history. Typical republican talk. I’m sure you’re a republican, talking in riddles and quoting facts that have nothing to do with anything.
Taking a few current failures? Those are very BIG 1986 and 2003 failures. They were basic launches compared to perfect moon missions. Maybe your logic and my logic are on different pages. Our technology became worst over time is what you are saying and agreeing on.
For my information, Bush and Obama are on the same plan. We are going to the moon in 2020 or 2025, regardless of what any president is saying. We have to beat India and China to the moon, so we can cover our tracks.
Why aren’t we landing on Mars, Tepi? Why go back on something we already accomplished in the early 70′s?
Why are we using specially made nanotubing suits to block out radiation? Why not just smaller suits made out of what the astronauts used in 1969-1974?
When you can answer my logical questions with some logical answers and something that makes sense, then you can reply to me.
IF not, have a good day.
Moon missions, perfect?
Clearly you are a troll.
OR you know nothing about what you’re talking.
“Nasa said we went to the moon 6 times from 1969-1974, and nothing went wrong once.”
Oh yeah, and apollo 13? When was it? 1970.
There were hundred of problems during moon missions, even the one of 1969, they could have never come back.
Before leaving the moon, Aldrin broke a button which was used to fire the module. He used a pen to push the button.
Why on earth (or on moon) would he invent that?
Moon mission was successful despite using “duct taped” rockets. They were just very very lucky. Don’t forget there were dead, before and after…
If the moon mission was fake, Russians would have been the first to react. And why are you people so pleased to think it was fake? Jesus does that make you smarter? Is it really so incredible to believe that a man succeed in walking on the moon? What’s so impossible in that?
Perhaps you like to think differently to think you are different from the other, but you are the real sheeps.
The ones that believe all they can see on the net, without good sources, just things wrote by people who just “ask”.
“Why this? Why that?”
But that proves absolutely nothing. And all the stupid affirmation like “We can’t see stars on the picture”…
Of course, Nasa is so stupid, they forgot to put stars on their fake photo. Thank god you were here to tell us.
there’s always an explanation.
So no, i’m not telling “YES the man went on the moon”.
I can’t tell, i was not there.
But I believe it.
Some don’t.
But those who say “That was fake”, trying to prove their point, are the stupid ones. That’s all folks.
Clearly you are someone with intelligence just above an evolved chimp. When I used the words “Nothing went wrong” I’m referring to nothing blew up and completely failed in the moon missions. I clearly compared the 1986 and 2003 Nasa disasters as something that went WRONG. Those were complete FAILED missions. Did we have COMPLETELY failed missions from 1969-1974? NO, so “Nothing went completely wrong”.
Understanding my terminology?
Minor things going wrong, is not what i’m talking about. Catastrophic is what i’m talking about.
Yes, the Russians did complain and most of Europe did. In the 70′s, 70% of Europe didn’t believe we landed on the moon and the numbers are higher with the Russians.
You still failed to answer my simple questions above.
Why are we spending trillions in 2010, to build new rockets to make it to the moon, if the rockets in the 60′s did flawless missions without completely failing or exploding?
Why are we building special spacesuits to go back to the moon, if the spacesuits in the 60′s worked fine?
Before you answer, here are some facts you can read through. The russians did have a problem with the USA landing on the moon. Here are some more my sources also:
“I have researched the Space-Suits of the Period and of Today. Both DO NOT have Radiation Protection of Any Kind. When the Manufacturer of these NASA suits(the Goodrich Corporation en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good…orporation / en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_suit ) was asked if they would be safe to use in a Radio Active Area (A place were normal Radiation Suit would work fine), they explicitly said no, The Suits were not designed to stop that kind of radiation. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_radiation Cosmic Radiation Has Gamma and X-Ray as well as the Ultraviolet and other types of Particle Radiation.
Here are the Specs for a Modern Suit…
“Spacesuit requirements
A space suit must perform several functions to allow its occupant to work safely and comfortably. It must provide:
* A stable internal pressure. This can be less than earth’s atmosphere, as there is usually no need for the spacesuit to carry nitrogen (which comprises about 78% of earth’s atmosphere and is not used by the body). Lower pressure allows for greater mobility, but requires the suit occupant to breathe pure oxygen for a time before going into this lower pressure, to avoid decompression sickness.
* Mobility. Movement is typically opposed by the pressure of the suit; mobility is achieved by careful joint design. See the Theories of spacesuit design section.
* Breathable oxygen. Circulation of cooled and purified oxygen is controlled by the Primary Life Support System.
* Temperature regulation. Unlike on Earth, where heat can be transferred by convection to the atmosphere, in space heat can be lost only by thermal radiation or by conduction to objects in physical contact with the space suit. Since the temperature on the outside of the suit varies greatly between sunlight and shadow, the suit is heavily insulated, and the temperature inside the suit is regulated by a Liquid Cooling Garment in contact with the astronaut’s skin, as well as air temperature maintained by the Primary Life Support System.
* Shielding against ultraviolet radiation
* Limited shielding against particle radiation
* Protection against small micrometeoroids, provided by a Thermal Micrometeoroid Garment, which is the outermost layer of the suit
* A communication system
* Means to recharge and discharge gases and liquids
* Means to maneuver, dock, release, and/or tether onto spacecraft
* Means of collecting and containing solid and liquid waste (such as a Maximum Absorbency Garment)”
Shielding Against UltraViolet Radiation is NOT Enough…
Nor is Limited Shielding Against Particle Radiation…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_ray
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-ray
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_ray
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extr…cosmic_ray
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gala…cosmic_ray
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heal…osmic_rays
In Other Words…
“The radiation environment of deep space is very different from that on the earth’s surface or in low earth orbit, due to the much larger flux of high-energy galactic cosmic rays (GCRs), along with radiation from solar proton events and the radiation belts.
Life on the earth’s surface is protected from galactic cosmic rays by a number of factors:
1. The earth’s atmosphere is opaque to primary cosmic rays with energies below about 1 GeV, so only secondary radiation can reach the surface. The secondary radiation is also attentuated by absorption in the atmosphere, as well as by radioactive decay in flight of some particles, such as muons. Particles entering from a direction close to the horizon are especially attenuated.
2. Shielding by the bulk of the planet itself cuts the flux by a factor of two.
3. Except for the very highest energy galactic cosmic rays, the radius of gyration in the earth’s magnetic field is small enough to ensure that they are deflected away from Earth (“geomagnetic shielding”);
4. The sun’s magnetic field has a similar effect, tending to exclude galactic cosmic rays from the plane of the ecliptic in the inner solar system.
As a result the energy input of GCRs to the atmosphere is negligible — about 10−9 of solar radiation – roughly the same as starlight.[2]
Of the above four factors, all but the first one apply to low earth orbit craft, such as the International Space Station. Therefore, the only astronauts who have ever been exposed to a significant radiation flux from galactic cosmic rays are those in the Apollo program. Since the durations of the Apollo missions were days rather than years, the doses involved were small compared to what would occur, for example, on a crewed mission to Mars.”
“Crews aboard the space station receive an average of 80 mSv
for a six-month stay at solar maximum (the time period with the
maximum number of sunspots and a maximum solar magnetic
field to deflect the particles) and an average of 160 mSv for a
six-month stay at solar minimum (the period with the minimum
number of sunspots and a minimum solar magnetic field).
Although the type of radiation is different, one mSv of space
radiation is approximately equivalent to receiving three chest
x rays. On Earth, we receive an average of two mSv every year
from background radiation alone.
Crew members could receive higher doses of space radiation
during space walks while outside the protective confines of the
space station; however, NASA plans space walks to avoid the
trapped radiation belts around the Earth, and doses on previous
space walks have been kept very small.”
spaceflight.nasa.gov/spacene…tion.pdf
“The Mars Radiation Environment Experiment (MARIE) was launched in 2001 in order to collect more data. Estimates are that humans unshielded in interplanetary space would receive annually roughly 400 to 900 milli-Sieverts (mSv) (compared to 2.4 mSv on Earth) and that a Mars mission (12 months in flight and 18 months on Mars) might expose shielded astronauts to ~500 to 1000 mSv.[4] These doses approach the 1 to 4 Sv career limits advised by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements for Low Earth orbit activities.”
UltraViolet Radiation is NOT the main Problem here…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultr…_radiation
Well, to those that do not know. We are constantly being bombarded with Cosmic Radiation, this Radiation collects in a Area Known as the Van Allen Belt.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_…ation_belt
BTW to Travel to the Moon you must travel through Both The Van Allen Belts. Not to mention the Artificial Radiation Belts, caused by nuclear tests… Yeah that’s right… Ever Hear of it? Of course not…
“There have been nuclear tests in space that have caused artificial radiation belts. Starfish Prime, a high altitude nuclear test, created an artificial radiation belt that damaged or destroyed as many as one third of the satellites in low earth orbit at the time. ”
NASA is currently brain-storming on ways to remove it.. and STS-75 AKA “The Tether Incident” may have been an early test to that means, though they claimed it was for towing craft in near earth orbit. Note The Number of Craft Come to Check this Out. http://www.youtube.com/watch
“Removal
The belts are a hazard for artificial satellites and moderately dangerous for human beings, difficult and expensive to shield against.
There is a proposal by the late Robert L. Forward called HiVolt which may be a way to drain at least the inner belt to 1% of its natural level within a year. The proposal involves deploying highly electrically charged tethers in orbit. The idea is that the electrons would be deflected by the large electrostatic fields and intersect the atmosphere and harmlessly dissipate.[13]”
“Impact on space travel
Solar cells, integrated circuits, and sensors can be damaged by radiation. Geomagnetic storms occasionally damage electronic components on spacecraft. Miniaturization and digitization of electronics and logic circuits have made satellites more vulnerable to radiation, as incoming ions may be as large as the circuit’s charge. Electronics on satellites must be hardened against radiation to operate reliably. The Hubble Space Telescope, among other satellites, often has its sensors turned off when passing through regions of intense radiation.[9]
Missions beyond low earth orbit leave the protection of the geomagnetic field, and transit the Van Allen belts. Thus they may need to be shielded against exposure to cosmic rays, Van Allen radiation, or solar flares. The region between two to three earth radii lies between the two radiation belts and is sometimes referred to as the “safe zone”.[10][11]
A satellite shielded by 3 mm of aluminum in an elliptic orbit passing through the radiation belt will receive about 2,500 rem (25 Sv) per year. Almost all radiation will be received while passing the inner belt. [12]”
Here they say “Safe” with 3mm of Aluminum, for the Satellites… Not for Man… Here 2,500 rem is extreme amounts…
link source:
http://people.tribe.net/32c89a58-96ee-40f0-9fc1-654e4eb8f785/blog/a6d75c57-4e04-401e-990d-51184ef992f3”
——————————————————————
Here are some more links to entertain your time:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/19/russians-still-skeptical-_n_239982.html
————————————————————
Radiation plays a big part in space travel. Solar flares could have affected the astronauts at any time. The Apollo leaving Earth would travel through 2 specific areas of very high radiation called the Van Allen Belt. The first field is 272 miles out from Earth. The amount of radiation in the belts actually varies from year to year, but every 11 years its at its worst when the sunspot cycle is at its highest. And guess what? 1969 to 1970 was one of the worst times to go, as this was the time where the radiation was at its peak. I have had numerous internet chats with sceptics who say that the radiation would not play a part in the missions because Man would have not been in the radiation belt for too long. My answer to that is, when Dentists or Doctors take X ray pictures they either leave the room or stand behind a sheet of thick lead to shelter from the radiation. Why did NASA only use a small sheet of aluminium to protect the astronauts when they knew that the radiation levels in Space and on the Moon’s surface would be many hundreds of times more deadly? And why would they risk their astronauts to such conditions? In 1959 Bill Kaysing was privy to a study made by the Russians. The Russians discovered that the radiation on the moon would require astronauts to be clothed in four feet of lead to avoid being killed. Why didn’t NASA heed their warnings?
Did you know that the US Government tried to blast a hole in the belt 248 miles above Earth in 1962? During Operation Starfish Prime a Megaton Nuclear Bomb was used to try and force an unnatural corridor through the Van Allen Belt… Unfortunately, the radiation levels actually got worse, not better. What they created was a third belt that was 100 times more intense than the natural belts, and as estimated by Mary Bennett in ‘Dark Moon – Apollo and the Whistle-Blowers, by 2002 this artificial zone will still have 25 times more radiation than the other 2 belts. There is no agreement to how wide these radiation belts actually are. Dr James Van Allen, the discoverer of the belts estimated that they were at least 64,000 miles deep, but NASA say they are only 24,000 miles deep. Each Apollo craft spent approximately 4 hours within the belts.
So to what lengths did NASA take to shield the astronauts against the radiation? Its accepted that a minimum of 10 cm width of aluminium would be needed at the very least to keep out radiation. However the walls of the Apollo craft and capsule were made as thin and as light as possible and as a result the craft initially could not carry enough air inside to withstand the equivalent to sea level air pressure. NASA had to reduce air pressure inside the cabin to cope. Here are the official stats from a NASA website: (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/frame.html)
souce information:
http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html
MORE:
One of the worst sun flares ever recorded happened in August 1972, which was between the Apollo 16 and 17 missions. This single flare would have delivered 960 rem of virtually instant death to any astronaut who was up in Space, and yet all of the Apollo astronauts were carrying out their missions in what amounts to nothing more than a thick linen suit. These pressure suits may have helped protect the astronauts against heat or micro meteorites, but certainly would not have given any radiation protection. By the way, there is no known method of registering when and how strong Solar flare activity will be. So, I guess NASA just struck lucky!
The radiation would have greatly affected the film that was shot on the Moon. Physicist Dr David Groves Ph.D., has carried out radiation tests on similar film and found that the lowest radiation level (25 rem) applied to a portion of the film after exposure made the image on the film almost entirely obliterated. Why didn’t that happen to the Apollo films?
Readers will be interested to hear that the biggest Solar Flare for 25 years was recorded in April, 2001. So sceptics who are claiming that NASA know when the Solar Flares are going to appear are talking rubbish – as usual. If this were the case, why didn’t they bring down the astronauts from the Shuttle and ISS if they knew this gigantic Solar Flare was about to erupt?
Probably the most convincing argument however about the dangers of radiation to astronauts comes from NASA themselves. Read this report made on 8th September, 2005. It makes very interesting reading, especially when you have a number of sceptics like I have breathing down my neck trying to claim otherwise!
———————————————————————
Epic troll. \o/
LOL
So let’s address some key points here: Your evidence on the radiations also proves the Russians complained. So then, because the Soviets said the Space Suits didn’t work, they don’t? Neither of these points are now admissable as anyone not biased against NASA would realize that Soviets had a vested interest in us not having won the space race. Hmmm… I wonder if maybe, like kids playing a game, they might accuse us of cheating? Nah… governments are always formal and never stoop to underhanded tactics to get the better of their enemies right? (Yes I know this also could be used to say that maybe the US cheated, but it also refutes your “evidence”)
Now let’s apply your logic to other things: Upgrading technology? CONSPIRACY! By the way, we did actually continue using those space suits for quite a while if I recall. Yeah, they didn’t work very well but it’s not the same as, say, scifi fiction (like on your blog) where the shields have to block an immediate threat. You can use light radiation shielding for a very short time without becoming highly irradiated. Who’s to say they stood out there for hours on fucking end while they were blasted by the sun? And the rockets: Most of them blew up before they left the atmosphere. Logically, in this day in age when we have better technology, we would try to fix this by upgrading. I mean, that’s just logic man. Your argument about rockets has literally meant nothing… I have no clue what the fuck you’re trying to say but I have to assume you had a hard time hooking your Commodore 64 up to the Internet. I mean, if it worked so well, why wouldn’t you upgrade?
And your final point that was complete bullshit (not to say that the others aren’t any less accurate…), accidents that happen today. Oh boy, you’ve got no clue. Space programs have to work with increasingly difficult challenges. Hell, we’ve started to see problems from space trash. It’s nuts up there. Plus, NASA has become a little incompetent. People stopped paying attention to them and they started half-assing it with half-assed goals and half-assed structures. It happens to bureaucracies all the time. They go down hill.
Now let’s talk about you. You’ve dodged around a bunch. Someone raises a good comment about what you’re saying and you break off the reply chain to respond to them. You’re clearly trying very hard to get attention for yourself. Well, you got me. I clicked the link to your blog where I was surprised to find you hocking your book instead of raising intelligent debate on a conspiracy theory.
So then, now we know the truth about you, you’re an attention whore trying to get your name out so people will by your crap. And that’s no conspiracy.
You’re a retarded moron. That’s the only logical response you merit.
Ahh… so THAT’S where my cat goes when he isn’t around days at a time, nice to finally know
Since the moon is amde of cheese, this is logical…
The ratio of the astronaut is disturbingly 1:4:9…..and the cat’s name is probably Jupiter…