Favourite conspiracy theories!

[Dylan]

I dont know enough of the science behind it to really justify anything I say about it to be honest, but I do know that the Russians would not cross it at the time as they said the level of exposure for the time it would take to cross it was too high for a human.

Besides its not just that, there is so much evidence for a faked landing plus the motive. And if you think just how far technolgy and our understanding of space has come since the first supposed landing then we havent done a great deal since then, getting there and back is still just as difficult and most of our exploration is done via photography rather then manned missions.

In the 1940's we fought a war with propeller aircraft, in the 1960's we've landed on the moon and by the 2010's we've not got much further.

I think the Russians said that because they had no clue. We are talking about the Soviets who think nothing of expending a few bodies to further the progress of the motherland (look at all the radiation incidents from intentionally poor shielding to save money on all their Nuke subs)

I honestly think we have been to the moon. We landed there. If the shots are faked, then great, but it doesn't take away from the fact that the Commies knew we did it and they had no answer to it. The Soviets made lots of brilliant things, but when it came to pioneering technologies, they were a bit behind us, often taking the result at all costs method to try to get even.

 

[Vim Fuego]

UFO is on today at 3pm on ITV4,splendid and tremendous !

 

[TX Bill]

Speaking of faked moon landings...one of my alltime favorite movies was one done back in 1978 called Capricorn One.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077294/

I highly recommend it.

 

[Sim]

I think the Russians said that because they had no clue. We are talking about the Soviets who think nothing of expending a few bodies to further the progress of the motherland (look at all the radiation incidents from intentionally poor shielding to save money on all their Nuke subs)

I honestly think we have been to the moon. We landed there. If the shots are faked, then great, but it doesn't take away from the fact that the Commies knew we did it and they had no answer to it. The Soviets made lots of brilliant things, but when it came to pioneering technologies, they were a bit behind us, often taking the result at all costs method to try to get even.

I would say the opposite myself, I think a communist country such as the soviet union would have been more likely to send astronauts through the van allen belt knowing they would die for the good of the country.

While the American people would not have stood for intentional poisoning of astronauts just to win the space race, but yet we knew of the van allen belt before supposedly landing on the moon.

How do you explain then why there has been so little manned exploration of the moon given the technology we had back then to what we have now?

 

[Chris]

People insist sock gnomes don't exist. That's just crap. Where else would my 'other' socks go.

 

[Chris]

How do you explain then why there has been so little manned exploration of the moon given the technology we had back then to what we have now?

Because everyone knows what Cheese looks and tastes like. Why keep going to a planet made of it. You are so silly Sim.

 

[Dylan]

I would say the opposite myself, I think a communist country such as the soviet union would have been more likely to send astronauts through the van allen belt knowing they would die for the good of the country.

While the American people would not have stood for intentional poisoning of astronauts just to win the space race, but yet we knew of the van allen belt before supposedly landing on the moon.

How do you explain then why there has been so little manned exploration of the moon given the technology we had back then to what we have now?

Thats my point! If the Soviets could have, they would have! So the fact they couldn't do it, means they concoct the story that it is fatal for humans. Fact is, based on lots of research, if you transit through you should be fine, it would be lingering in the radiation that would do you in.

Pointless fact, you are exposed to more radiation walking down the high street in the middle of summer, than you would get after spending 1 year on a United States Nuclear powered Submarine.

 

[gordonjblair]

To put it into perspective, a Satellite in orbit with just 3mm of Aluminium Shielding will receive a 'dose' of 25000 Rems in a full year.

NASA's current safe level per shuttle mission for Astronauts is 25 Rems per mission although the guidelines for Nuclear workers are 5 Rems / year. Findings following Hiroshima suggest that 600 Rems exposure in one event guarrantees death, with a 50% survival rate at 450 Rems

That might make you think that the 2 Van Allen belts (inner, consisting of Protons with energies of up to 100MeV and outer consisting mainly of electrons with energies of up to 10MeV) would prohibit space travel and they probably would, barring a few points:

In order to survive re-entry, a manned capsule will have a damn site more shielding than 3mm of Aluminium

The key word is transiting, the V A Belts extend up to around 60,000 km.

the short time in the Belts (particularly allowing for the gap in the middle), and the considerable shielding inherent in a manned Space vehicle, would make the dose more than acceptable, particularly in such a competitive climate.


On a side note, when it comes to the darned Ruski's ruthlessness pursuing technological supremacy:

The US spent an awful lot of time trying to develop a Nuclear Powered Bomber, but they had immense difficulty getting the engines clean enough and powerful enough to get the thing up in the air (what with all the neccessary shielding for the crew etc).
On hearing that the US were developing this (the US having only got into it after hearing a hoax rumour that the Russians had done it), Moscow decided to have a punt.
They flew a Nuclear Bomber successfully on over 50 sorties (a converted Tu95M).
They succeeded where the USAF failed for 2 main reasons: They used 'dirty' direct cycle engines, which were more powerful, but spewed radiation as they went, and they had less shielding which meant that all but 3 of the crew members who ever flew in them were dead within 15 years.

 

[Dylan]

Translation from a Russian page:

http://www.translate.ru/url/tran_ur...estpilot.ru/russia/tupolev/95/lal/tu95lal.htm

And some more good reading on nuke powered planes:

http://www.aviation-history.com/articles/nuke-bombers.htm

 

[Dylan]

NASA's current safe level per shuttle mission for Astronauts is 25 Rems per mission although the guidelines for Nuclear workers are 5 Rems / year. Findings following Hiroshima suggest that 600 Rems exposure in one event guarrantees death, with a 50% survival rate at 450 Rems

To put it in perspective, after 5 year stationed aboard a US Nuclear powered submarine, along with the several extra jaunts out on other US nuke boats with our ASDS, my total exposure on the submarine is 4 mrem That is mili-rem (0.004 rem) The key is in the shielding, and ours is excellent. There is no way you could get adequate shielding on a reactor in a plane, as the weight of the lead and water needed (The primary and secondary shields) would just be too great for practical use. As the soviets proved, the only way to do i is without the required shielding.