It seems that you are not the first to ask this question: Pasted from Earth & Sky website: DB: This is Earth and Sky for Tuesday, December 11. On this date in 1972, the last of NASA's Apollo spacecraft landed on the moon. JB: Larry Scrivener of Earth and Sky's hometown, here in Austin, Texas, asks, "Can we still see the flags that astronauts placed on the moon?"
DB: Larry, Earth's distorting atmosphere prevents earthly telescopes from seeing objects on the moon smaller than about 400 meters -- about quarter-mile -- across. The Hubble Space Telescope is designed to look at dim, distant objects. Aiming it at our bright, nearby moon is out of the question -- the moonlight would ruin its instruments. Even recent spacecraft orbiting the moon -- Clementine and Lunar Prospector -- lacked the resolving power to see objects as small as a flag on the moon.
JB: And it's possible there's not much to see anymore. The flags were made of nylon, which decays when exposed to ultraviolet radiation. The moon lacks an ozone layer, so the flags might have crumbled to dust by now. If they're still intact after 30 years, they've got holes in them from the rain of meteorites constantly striking the moon's surface. We won't know the flags' status unless someone makes a deliberate effort to check. A satellite orbiting low over the landing sites might someday snap pictures.
DB: For information on our moon calendars for 2002, come to earthsky.com. With thanks to the National Science Foundation, we're Block and Byrd for Earth and Sky.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE: An error was made in today's show. Apparently, the Hubble Space Telescope CAN be used to study the moon. It can't pick out anything as small as a flag, but it can resolve features as small as 600 feet -- or approximately 200 meters -- across. We regret any confusion this has caused.
If it was a hoax it would have been the biggest money scandal in all of earth's history. to answer the original question. NASA had shown a film shot of the lander taking off and the flag waved madly but it still stood. its kinda like the song. I don't think that the flag would have deteriorated that bad since there is practically no atmosphere, low gravity, no rain, and basically a vacuum. unless the radiation belt burned it up. wonder why we can't put a spy satellite in orbit around the moon. if aliens were looking in at us you think they would be based on the moon. who knows maybe the Russians are building a base there.
[This message has been edited by atarian (edited 08-09-2002).]
IP: Logged
02:27 AM
LZeitgeist Member
Posts: 5662 From: Raleigh, NC, U.S.A. Registered: Dec 2000
With all of our satellites orbiting the Earth, do you *really* think ANYBODY on the planet could have launched anything larger than a grapefruit and the US Government wouldn't have known about it?
"JB: And it's possible there's not much to see anymore. The flags were made of nylon, which decays when exposed to ultraviolet radiation. The moon lacks an ozone layer, so the flags might have crumbled to dust by now. If they're still intact after 30 years, they've got holes in them from the rain of meteorites constantly striking the moon's surface. We won't know the flags' status unless someone makes a deliberate effort to check. A satellite orbiting low over the landing sites might someday snap pictures."
This is the best explanation I've seen yet. Sounds plausable to me, although it hurts my heart for some reason to picture that flag up there rotted away to nothing...
[This message has been edited by LZeitgeist (edited 08-09-2002).]
IP: Logged
06:49 AM
PFF
System Bot
White88cpe No longer registered
Report this Post08-09-2002 07:54 AM
White88cpe
posts Member since
quote
Originally posted by CoryFiero: Yep, it was on fox Tv and we all know that if it was on TV that is has to be true.
The landing was on TV as well. So it must be true as well, in your line of thinking.
I have to say at the risk of sounding lie Rayb, this was a hoax. Despite all the evidence such as the flag blowing with no wind in space, no dust on the lander,the designer of the chest mounted camera saying that there is no way the perfect photos were taken with his camera, the exact same crater is in 5 scenes but they are suppose to be miles apart (also this crater matches one in area 51), the film when played at normal 30fps is just normal running not wieghtless hoping, there is the one abosolute proof: there is no way in hell that little les then inch thick capsule could have protected them from the radiation belt. That last one absolutely convinces me %100. Nothing we have even today short of a 10 ft thick lead sheild could do it. The effect of the belt would also make that little capsule in washington D.C. still way to radioactive to have on display.
Originally posted by falconhulk: I have to say at the risk of sounding lie Rayb, this was a hoax. there is no way in hell that little les then inch thick capsule could have protected them from the radiation belt. That last one absolutely convinces me %100. Nothing we have even today short of a 10 ft thick lead sheild could do it. The effect of the belt would also make that little capsule in washington D.C. still way to radioactive to have on display.
I thought you were a teacher Falconhulk??Sorry, radiation doesn't work that way. For instance, Radium 226/228. Alpha & Beta can be stopped very easily-a sheet of notebook paper will stop an alpha particle. Gamma is different, not a particle, but rather a very narrow 'beam', much like the protons from solar wind. (Protons sent screaming away from the sun) Gamma goes right thru the human body as do neutrinos(neutrinos go right thru the earth & continue on their merry way). The biggest source of damaging ionizing radiation is from solar flares, which are usually predictable. Unless an astronaut breathes in or ingests radioative particles, the radiation just goes thru them, does it's chromasomal damage & continues on. The key is the amt of time they are exposed to radiation. If you expose most metals to radiation, the metals themselves do NOT become radioative permanatly. The protons pass thru the metal, the humans and most everything else. The alpha & beta can simply be washed off. Now if you use a dense form of sheilding such as lead, which is nothing more than uranium that has gone thru the decay process, then the gamma will be trapped inside and could be detected. Weight is, of course critical in being able to escape the Earth's gravitational pull, and later, the moon's lesser gravity, so sheilding is kept to a bare minumum. The guys & girls that have spent months on end on the MIR space station have their radioactive levels checked not by scintilators (geiger counters) or scanners, but by measuring their chromasomal damage after a space flight as compared to chromasome samples measured before a flight. They do NOT glow in the dark or set off even the most sensitive radiation detection devices. In nuclear blasts, the radiation is primarily from the dust that is created, carrying alpha & beta with it, which is then breathed in by the humans. The initial blast does emit gamma in large quanities, but goes right thru skin, bone & tissue, with most of the damage being caused in the blood related organs such as the spleen, liver & heart by the ionizing radiation. The eyes are another vulenarable organ. I believe the limits set by OSHA are 300 rems/lifetime(they use a unit of measurment called a 'gray' nowdays). They calculate a possible 100 rems/year on the surface of Mars,(solar flares not included) so any long term stay will include maybe living under the soil of the planet, which is an excellent sheild. I worked for years in radiation remidiation: processing & deconaminating equipment and sites that were radioactive from Radium 226,228, bismuth, & strontium-90. Other than a Tyvex disposable suit, full face respirator with applicable NIOSH filters to filter out the Alpha & Beta, ear protection to keep the dust from our ear canals, & rubber gloves, we required no special protection. Any spacecraft can easily be decontaminated, just as all the ships & equipment used in nuclear tests were decontaminated. ALL of our equipment & vehicles had to be deconned before we left the sites.
IP: Logged
10:34 AM
falconhulk Member
Posts: 966 From: Harpers Ferry WV. Registered: Aug 2001
Nope not a teacher. I am a network analyst but I do have an IQ of 153. When presented with what I now know 1 year ago I was convinced. We could not have done it then and we cannot do it now. You are correct about radiation from solar flare being a primary risk. They had no way of know if any would occur. Our technology was really not as good then as a lot of people think. Read this: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4201/ch2-7.htm "The radiation hazards of space flight also include solar radiation. Solar heat, ultraviolet rays, and x-rays all become much more intense beyond the diffusive atmosphere of Earth, but they can be adequately counteracted by space cabin insulation, shielding, refractive paint, and other techniques. Advanced space missions may subject astronauts to dangers from other kinds of radiation, such as the radiation belts surrounding other planets or the radioactivity produced by a spacecraft with a nuclear powerplant.68 "
I also agree that according to calculations that the dose of radiation they would have received would be minimal. I just don't trust that we knew enough then to justify endangering lives. I also don't really believe we know how much radiation is out there. Also I don't think that we are aware of all types of radiation. You are absolutely right in everything you say, I have doubt. Reasonable doubt. I have no other thoughts of an governmental conspiracy. This is the one thing I doubt
[This message has been edited by falconhulk (edited 08-09-2002).]
Forgot to mention the radiation belts you mentioned. Assuming you are speaking of the Van Allen upper & lower belts. They are both closely held in place around the equator of the Earth by the magnetic field. Now the electron activity in the belts can be dangerous to both electronics & humans, but if you will look at the flight paths of exploration vehicles, especially manned vehicles, you will see that they tend to avoid these areas. Even if they do pass thru them, their stay in the active zones is minimal, and with exposure time being the critical factor in radiation, the effects and damage is kept at a minumum. I meant no affront to your intelligence, (tho you DID sell the GBCT!?! ), just offering a little info on radiation in general. I've read all the stuff on the hoax theory, and it is compelling, but untill I see absolute proof, I will believe the moon landings did take place, especially considering none of the other nations have seriously contested this. I really find it strange that our Russian & Chinese adversaries don't(didn't) jump on this bandwagon of doubt.
IP: Logged
11:21 AM
falconhulk Member
Posts: 966 From: Harpers Ferry WV. Registered: Aug 2001
1.5 hours is the exact time of travel through the belts. Want the calculations? What about the ones used to calculate the does of radiation they would be exposed to? I have those also.
IP: Logged
11:23 AM
falconhulk Member
Posts: 966 From: Harpers Ferry WV. Registered: Aug 2001
Originally posted by Mach10: HAHAHAHAHA!!! So, your ability to lump "Giraffe, Lion, Tiger, and Cauliflower" into catagories immediately qualifies you as an expert on space travel?
I won't profess to be as smart as you... I only have an IQ of 147
I'm SO stupid!
I agree I dont feel overly smart. My point is that I am not some dufus that saw a Fox TV sho and thinks he is a master of all things space travel.
IP: Logged
11:46 AM
PFF
System Bot
Synthesis Member
Posts: 12207 From: Jordan, MN Registered: Feb 2002
Well I have an IQ that measures off the charts. Only I choose not to use it sometimes. LOL
(In all seriousness though, they can't chart me) Space travel is nice and all. Moon landings are nice and all. When I wanna travel in space, I do it the safe way and crack open a Arthur C Clarke or Harry Heinlein book.
IP: Logged
11:54 AM
Flamberge Member
Posts: 4268 From: Terra Sancta, TX Registered: Oct 2001
The thing I don't understand about it all being a hoax is this: People had to make the "movie" of them going to the moon. It would have had to come from a tight-lipped movie production-trained crew (even if they were military) and would need to be shot "on location" somewhere. You mentioned a crater at Area 51... Where is this crater?
Also, it is an incredible thing to try to hoax the world with a moon landing. Over and over. How many times did they go up there? Three or four? Any magician will tell you that you only show a trick to an audience once, lest they discover the card was up your sleave the whole time. If it was a hoax, then Apollo 12/3/4 would merely multiply the chances of being discovered. The chances of mistakes creeping into production would also multiply. I don't see the reason to need to go back, if it was fake. If I had faked a moon landing, I would say "we don't need to go back, we already learned everything yadda yadda yadda." Also, I am interested in your other reasons why it was faked. (Conspiracy theories interest me greatly, some I am skeptical of, some I believe 100%. So please don't be offended by my rhetorical questions.)
Now if you *really* wanna talk a good conspiracy theory, let's talk Cydonia.
- Flamberge
IP: Logged
11:59 AM
falconhulk Member
Posts: 966 From: Harpers Ferry WV. Registered: Aug 2001
By the way, let me state that for the most part, I feel Maryjane and Ken Witlief are the 2 most intelligent people on this board. maryjane is 100% correct in all statements, if you go by the released information that is available. I just feel there is more to consider then what has reached the general public. I am not arguing or insisting I am right. This is my personal belief. I thought that this hoax theory was crap until 1 year ago. After listening, thinking and doing a little research, I just can't say its complete bullsh!t.
IP: Logged
12:01 PM
falconhulk Member
Posts: 966 From: Harpers Ferry WV. Registered: Aug 2001
The cameras were all chest mounted and extremely hard to aim. The photos were all perfect focus and centered on the subject. The creator of this camera says its impossible to do that. These camera's also had center crosshairs. Ina few photos, the crosshare appears partially behind the subject.
The flag actually is blowing in the wind.
The photos have multiple light sources. You might say well the second one comes from the reflection off the earth? Well in some photos there are three! Also the shadows dont lay properly in relation to the sun.
I have seen aerial photos of this crater. it matches up perfectly with the moon shots. Do a seach on the internet, you are bound to find it.
The lander has NO dust on it in the photos.
They were talking during the the approach and landing. None of the thruster noise appears on the tapes.
Those are mistakes. I just added this in response to your question. This is not intended to mean that these are facts. Look for the information yourself and make your own choice.
If I remember right the flag was a plastic material held square by a metal frame.
no matter what plastic it was, by now its probabally dust - with direct exposure to the sunlite it would not last 30 years.
As for the hoax stuff - thats nonsense - the flag was waving when the lander took off from the engine gasses blasting out - would you like to stand anywhere near the business end of a rocket engine when it was being fired? atmosphere or not, that gas has to go somewhere.
The quality of the photos from the Hasselbad cameras was TOO GOOD?! give me a break! do you know how much a Hasselbad camera costs?!
BTW - the world trade center towers in manhatten never existed - I know this for a fact cause when you look at photos of manhatten taken from just about any angle, you can see the towers in almost everyone of them - how can the same towers be in all those photos taken from so many differnt angles?
And those thousands and thousands of people who worked on the space craft, and the lunar lander at Rockwell - they were all paid to keep quite - and all those people who live in florida who saw 10 Saturn rocket launches - those launches never happened.
Besides, we know for a fact that the moon is made out of cheese - how can men walk on cheese?!
Originally posted by Mach10: HAHAHAHAHA!!! So, your ability to lump "Giraffe, Lion, Tiger, and Cauliflower" into catagories immediately qualifies you as an expert on space travel?
I won't profess to be as smart as you... I only have an IQ of 147
I'm SO stupid!
I don't consider myself intelligent, but thank you for the compliment Falconhulk.I also don't think any of us here are experts on space travel, I know I'm not, but it's a good discussion. No need to get personal, Mach10. I'm always open to alternative thoughts & ideas. I think other countries weighed the benefits against costs & decided there were more important places to spend the money. Except for pride & scientific research, there really isn't much to be gotten from space travel at the present time. The USSR of course, was spending vast sums of money on their military, with little coming in because of a stagnant (understatement) economy, & really couldn't afford both budgets, even tho they excelled in heavy lift capabilities. (they still do) Back a decade ago, when the Japanese economy was thundering along, they were planning a trip to the moon, but canned it when the economy took a nosedive, tho I believe they still do participate in a consortium with some European nations, the French in particular, tho I haven't heard of any recent launches from the Pacific island they had used. Flamberge-what is Cydonia?
Edit: never mind- I know the face, but the name didn't strike a chord.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 08-09-2002).]
IP: Logged
12:29 PM
jesterfox' Member
Posts: 660 From: Midwest, USA Registered: Apr 2002
I was forced to take all sorts of tests for a couple psychologists when I was in high school. (LONG story) One of them was an IQ test, and they ABSOLUTELY would not tell me what I scored. They said that it would not benefit me in life to know it.
To make the long story short as to why I was there, I am still this way. I told the doctor that delivered my son that she needed to go back to school and learn that humans DONT have tympanic membranes. She got red in the face trying to tell me how to test an infant for deafness. She said you vibrate the tympanic membrane. She finally left and wouldnt talk to me anymore.
And if anyone wants to pick that arguement up I am ready. I dont care what book you are reading, my boy aint a damn reptile. In mammals it is refered to as an Eardrum, even tho it does the same thing.
So, the teachers got sick of me bringing documentation to class everyday disproving the BS that they pumped out the day before. And when *I* asked questions the responce would be. "For our purposes.. yadda yadda, if you want to know the truth, ask me after class.
So tell me, HOW do you know the number? Or was this a test on the internet? I took one of those last year, but I wouldnt share the results.. Even if I said it out loud 90% of people wouldn't believe it anyhow.
Also, IQ doesnt test things like attention to detail, musical ability, rational thinking, and common sense. It only really tests the ability to understand a problem in multiple deminsions. The real point eaners on the IQ Test are the Algebra/Geometry questions.. this is a test of mathematical ability.
you know what this reminds me of? The record of Moses says the Hebrew people were freed from Egypt after God brought a string of plauges on the nation, the last one killing the first born of every man and animial that was not inside a house with the blood of a lamb smeared on its doorpost (passover)
then the army of Egypt chased them down, they escaped through the parted Red Sea, which closed in behind them, killing the Egytian army
and when they got to Mount Sini, GOD HIMSELF spoke to ALL OF THEM - they all heard His voice, saying He will be their God and they will be His people, if they will follow His commandments.
Hearing the voice of God coming from the mountain un-nerved them so much, they cried out for Moses to go up the mountain, and talk to God on their behalf - they were afraid they might say something wrong and all be killed.
OK so far? alright, so Moses goes up the mountain, and hes up there for 40 days
and what do the hebrew people do? they start whining and complaining, and they assume God has killed Moses
so whats their plan? Lets go back to Egypt!
?!?!
after all they had been through in the last two months, how could they be so stupid.
This moon landing hoax is exactly like that - the US spend ten years and a small fortune putting men on the moon
and a few years later people are running around saying it never happened.
The only thing we learn from history is that we never learn - people are the same today as they were 5,000 years ago. A dog will puke on the carpet, and then 10 seconds later think "hey, where did this food come from? looks yummy!"
we are almost as bad :c(
IP: Logged
12:31 PM
GodSend Member
Posts: 892 From: Hamilton, Ontario, Canada Registered: Aug 2000
IQ is of course, a relative thing. It doesn't take into consideration a lot of things, but it is a general benchmark test. You have to start with something I suppose, so it's as good as any. I have never had one done, but suspect that I would do very poorly on it, due to short term memory problems which are essential in mathematics computations, and the fact that I have a limited education. The term "Einstein IQ" is bandied about a lot, but most references put it @ about 160-170. Good, but many have a much higher rating, and few people would claim that he was not intelligent.
IP: Logged
12:58 PM
PFF
System Bot
Hartz Member
Posts: 1511 From: Plymouth, MI USA Registered: Jul 99
So, has anyone here besides me actually worked for NASA? (NASAReeves?) Been there. Done that. Bought the soundtrack.
The beauty of all of these conspiracy theories is they are irrefutable. You can't prove them right or wrong. Ask any scientist on the planet and he will tell you any irrefutable theory is garbage. If there's no way to prove it wrong, you can't prove it right.
FYI. The Shuttle operates in Low Earth Orbit so it stays under the radiation belts. The Apollo missions were designed to accelerate them through the belts in the smallest possible time. Did we know all the risks? No. Was it too risky? Apparently not. We knew there were likely risks we couldn't comprehend until we actually attempted it. We did it anyway. Because that's what we decided to do. We accept the fact that space flight is dangerous. We do everything we can to minimize the risk. Then we do it anyway.
If anyone has documentation or mathematical equations proving otherwise, please send them to me. I'd love to see them. It'd be a shame to think everything I've worked on was all my imagination.
IP: Logged
01:56 PM
LZeitgeist Member
Posts: 5662 From: Raleigh, NC, U.S.A. Registered: Dec 2000
Ken, there is a picture, I am sure you have seen it, that has an astronaut standing a few feet from the flag. Its straight out and flaping like there is wind. Most people always thought this was becasue of the lack of gravity. Most scientists now say that is not so and the flag would hang straight out if it were.
The astronauts DID get radiation sickness for a bit.. The flag was plastic, held in place by a frame..
IP: Logged
03:15 PM
White88cpe No longer registered
Report this Post08-09-2002 03:17 PM
White88cpe
posts Member since
Ken actually saying something I dont disagree with, i must say that this has to be a hoax. Theres just no way Ken could say something that I beleive. hehe
wow! I wish I knew how to take photos in which you can see things move! :c)
I think you are referring to the liftoff of the lander - which was broadcast live from the moon by a camera left behind, which panned up as the spacecraft ascended.
That is the one where the flag is almost blown over by the rocket exhaust. If the flag DIDNT move, then I would be worried.
Originally posted by falconhulk: Most people always thought this was becasue of the lack of gravity. Most scientists now say that is not so and the flag would hang straight out if it were.
The moon does have gravity. Since the moon has less mass than the earth the gravity is, I think, about 1/7 that of earth's. The flag wouldn't stand straight out without the frame.
