Russians say they can't get to the moon because of Van Allen radiation belt, is that to be true?
411459
its true that the Van Allen radiation belt circles the earth. some believe that the radiation present is enough to damage astronaughts travelling through it. this leads to the question of how american astronaughts got to the moon. this is the main reason people believe the moon landing was a hoax, however, the effects of the Van Allen radiation belt have not been studied enough to provide any conclusive evidence on just how much damage it will inflict on an individual. nontheless, many scientists have com to the conclusion the it is just too powerful for any human to survive travelling through.
960677
Yeah, I was born just in time to see the last apollo mission fly there.\n\nWill they go back? I sure hope so.  Just because there's no oil doesn't mean it's a worthless rock.  That worthless rock can be built into electronics, and solar panels.  A band of bottom line quality solar panels of a kilometer in width made to span the equator of the moon would put out a third of the energy needs for the world today.  There's a lot of lunar surface out there, and microwave relay stations can send that power anywhere you want.\n\nThere's also the whole helium three thing, but I dunno if that's really going to work or not.\n\nAnd of course, there's space tourism.  The old folks are sure to love spending some time on the moon, what with the romance of a full earth in view, and one sixth gravity to help them get around (and get it on!)\n\nPlus, the earth is so close, that you could use remote controlled robots operated by people on earth to do the construction work, so lunar colonies could make for more jobs down here.
1036865
Still human being cannot determine simpler and safer way to get to the local orbit, let alone Mars together with long haul voyages, nowadays human's intellect is only good to sell the Moon's 'lands' for the future-based villas and finding idiotic 'smiles' on the Martian surface, unfortunately.   \ncheers
68690
During the 60's, we spent a lot of money to get to the moon ahead of the Soviets. It was more political and less science.\n\nOnce we got there, we confirmed that it was just a giant hunk of rock.\n\nNow, it's more of a "been there, done that" attitude. It's expensive to get there, and there's no real reason to go back. It's like paying money to take a second vacation to the middle of a desert.
18249
Those deeds aren't recognized by any country. That came about because in some UN resolution they decided that no COUNTRY could claim the moon as it's own, or any territory on it. But, they didn't mention individuals or companies... so theoreticaly, a person can claim a peice of the moon, but no court or anything would defend that claim. It's been done before too, but lots of people.
467695
Actually it was the service module of the Apollo 13 that contained the oxygen tank that malfunctioned.  \n\nThe astronauts used the lunar module still attached to the command module to stay alive until they were ready to use the command module to get back to earth.  NASA.gov is the straight facts and wikipedia.org gives a nice review.\n\n"Relics\nThe command module is currently displayed at the Kansas Cosmosphere and Space Center, Hutchinson, Kansas. It was formerly at the Musée de l'Air et de l'Espace, Paris. The lunar module burned up in Earth's atmosphere 17 April 1970, having been targeted to enter over the Pacific Ocean to reduce the possibility of contamination from a radioisotope thermoelectric generator (RTG) on board (had the mission proceeded as planned, the RTG would have been used to power the Apollo Lunar Surface Experiment Package, and then remained on the Moon). The RTG survived reentry (as designed) and landed in the Tonga Trench. While it will remain radioactive for approximately 2000 years, it does not appear to be releasing any of its 3.9 kg of radioactive plutonium. [2] NASA has expressed a wish that the RTG be recovered." (wikipedia.org)\n\nThe Tonga Trench is off the coast of New Zealand.
1182229
I think they did it. A friend of mine directed me to lunaranomalies.com and they had some interesting theories, yet each of these amateur theories were disproved. Look at it this way. In 1969 the americans and the russians were locked in a desperate bid to get into orbit and ultimately the moon. "Journey beyond selene" by Jeffery Kluger brilliantly documented this. The russian premier publicly mocked the americans and their various failures at even hitting the moon with a basic rocket. Enter 1969 and the pictures of Aldrin and Armstrong on the moon. No comment from Russia. They didn't even televise it. If there was even a hint of evidence that it was faked, the russians would have been all over it like a rash. If it was faked they did a really good job. A secret like that could never be kept, and not one reputable scientist has challenged it. All we have are diehard and paranoid lay people looking for attention. If you look up Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin on the net you might find some hilarious footage of the day he left a conference to be accosted by one such person. He knocked him flat with one punch! Hilarious. Selene is the greek word for moon.
355606
The found moon rocks, they spoke in code because the cold war was still on and we didn't want the Russians getting valuable information for their space program.  No reports of other crafts, but on an earlier mission one astronaut thought he might be witnessing tiny craft, but it was actually the sun reflecting off the icy urine his own capsule had just discharged
665358
Yes, probably. The real problem is cosmic rays. They cannot be stopped or even slowed down, and can cause DNA damage. Until we can solve this problem, space travel will continue to be hazardous.
957156
Both planes came from Moscow, and Fox News is reporting that another one is grounded in Moscow with suspected Radiation on board. It would appear that someone has purchased some polonium for use as a terrorist tool. this could easily turn int a major issue between Russia and the rest of the world especially the US.
477
Yes. I believe the original idea was to build a rocket base from which to explore the solar system. But somebody realised the same thing could be done from Earth via an orbiting space station for a fraction of the cost.\nThe only other reasons for going to the moon were - \n1. To stop the Russians setting up a military base there.\n2. To collect moon rocks.\nWhen the US realised that a Russian moon base wasn't practical, and they had souvenired as many moon rocks as they were ever likely to need, they never bothered to go back.
272840
They got about as much radiation as you would from a couple of chest x-rays. That´s alot but not enough to cause radiation sickness. They got the biggest dose while travelling through the Van Allen belt but they only spent a total of 4 hours there per trip. \n\n(Several astronauts went to the moon and through the Van Allen belt more than once. John Watts Young not only flew to the moon twice, he was also a Gemini pilot and a space shuttle pilot. Despite all that radiation he is alive and well today. He retired from NASA in 2004 having flown 4 different space vehicles in his 42 year career.)\n\nWhile en route to the moon the astronauts reported seeing bright flashes on occasion, even while keeping their eyes shut. This was later explained by high energy particles slamming into their eyeballs. Naturally their entire bodies would have gotten exposed to radiation, as the lunarmodules didn´t offer much protection, but none of them suffered any direct ill effects from radiation while in space. (They weren´t exposed directly to the radiation from the sun however. That radiation is just composed mainly out of photons (light) for which the lunarmodule and the astronauts spacesuits provided ample protection. High energy particles (cosmic radiation) are composed mainly out of protons (83%) and helium nucleii (12%)).\n\nThe early astronauts were selected through alot of testing and health criteria. They weren´t called "the right stuff" for nothing (Pete Conrad died at the age of 69 in a bike accident!). They were able to cope better under difficult conditions than most of us. Still some of them have gotten cancer and died.\n\nAlan Shephard (Apollo 13 and 14) died in 1998 from leukemia\nJack Swigert (Apollo 13) died 1982 from bone cancer
751219
A russian dog called Laika.\n\nThe dog Laika, the first living creature to orbit the Earth, did not live nearly as long as Soviet officials led the world to believe. \nThe animal, launched on a one-way trip on board Sputnik 2 in November 1957, was said to have died painlessly in orbit about a week after blast-off. \n\nNow, it has been revealed she died from overheating and panic just a few hours after the mission started. \n\nThe new evidence was presented at the recent World Space Congress in Houston, Texas, US, by Dimitri Malashenkov of the Institute for Biological Problems in Moscow. \n\nNoted space historian Sven Grahn told BBC News Online that the new information was surprising and significant as it ended more than 40 years of speculation about Laika's fate. \n\nSpace pioneer \n\nLaika's mission on board Sputnik 2 stunned the world. Sputnik 1, the world's first satellite, had been launched less than one month before. \n\n \nLaika had been a stray\n \nIt was a metal sphere weighing about 18 kg (40 lbs) and was far heavier than anything the United States was contemplating launching. \n\nAn astonished world witnessed the launch of Sputnik 2 weighing 113 kg (250 lbs) and carrying the first living thing to go into orbit - the dog Laika. \n\nThe animal had been a stray wandering the streets of Moscow when she was captured and prepared for a space mission. \n\nShortly after launch the Soviets said that Laika was not destined to return alive and would die in space. The statement caused outrage to many observers. \n\nRacing pulse \n\nDr Malashenkov has now revealed several new details about Laika's mission, such as her food being in jelly form and that she was chained to prevent her turning around. \n\nThere was a carbon dioxide absorbing device in the cabin to prevent the accumulation of this toxic gas, as well as an oxygen generator. \n\nA fan was automatically activated to keep the dog cool when the capsule's temperature exceeded 15 deg Celsius. \n\nAccording to Dr Malashenkov, a great deal of work had to be done to adapt a group of dogs to the conditions in the tight cabin of Sputnik 2. They were kept in gradually smaller cages for periods up to 15-20 days. \n\nThree dogs were trained for the Sputnik 2 flight: Albina, Laika and Mushka. Albina was the first "backup", having flown twice on a high-altitude rocket. Mushka was used to test instrumentation and life support. \n\nDeath in space \n\nMedical sensors placed on Laika indicated that during launch her pulse rate went up by a factor of three above its resting level. \n\nAt the start of weightlessness, her pulse rate decreased. It took three times longer than after a centrifuge ride on the ground to return Laika's heartbeat to pre-launch values, an indication of the stress she was suffering. \n\nDr Malashenkov also revealed how Laika died. Telemetry from the Sputnik 2 capsule showed that the temperature and humidity increased after the start of the mission. \n\nAfter five to seven hours into the flight, no lifesigns were being received from Laika. By the fourth orbit it was apparent that Laika had died from overheating and stress. \n\nPreviously, it has been thought that Laika survived at least four days in space and perhaps even a week when Sputnik's transmitters failed. \n\nDespite surviving for just a few hours, Laika's place in space history is assured and the information she provided proved that a living organism could tolerate a long time in weightlessness and paved the way for humans in space. \n\nLaika's "coffin" circled the Earth 2,570 times and burned up in the Earth's atmosphere on 4 April 1958.
1100183
No, it is soooooooo far out of our atmosphere not a chance.  Even with a really big Microscope no.  For real?  By now that thing is gone been like 40 some years since it was put in, no cement on the moon, can't hold up.
1099240
I admit I have been wondering the same thing myself--espicially after seeing a documentary posing doubts we landed on the moon.  The photographic evidence posed on the show did give me some thought, being I do have experience in professional photography.\n\nThe LEM photos: That thing purportedly landed on the moon, firing retro rockets with enough blast power to burn the moon surface under it to shiny black glass.....yet the area looks undistrubed!  All that violent firepower had to have raised moon dust all over the place.....yet look how shiny and dirt free the LEM landing pads looked.  Espically take note of NO moon dust collected inside the landing foot pods themselves.\n\nThe Apollo mission cameras were state of the art of their time, with perfectly etched "crosses" on the lenses to assist with picture composition.  I still see the astronaut photo where one of those crosses IS BLOCKED OUT by the guy's shoulder--where it should've been OVERLAPPED to appear onto his arm/shoulder!!\n\nThe sun light / angle theory gets complicated.....but it clearly made sense to me....and gave rise to suspicions.  \n\nThe video of a golf ball getting shot out into space was good PR, but take note how the fine moon dust stirred up by the lunar rover merely falls back to the surface....when it should fly off into the air.\n\nThen there's the Van Allen belt explanation: stuff we learned back in fifth grade: a deadly belt of radiation, stretching hundreds of miles between us and the Moon.  You'd have to travel in a ship with walls of at least five feet thick of lead to safely shoot through it....the Apollo space vehicle walls were....what....maybe two inches (if that) thick???  And our guys never cooked like chicken in a microwave???? The Van Allen belt emits enough deadly radiation to singe fry the Apollo capsule electronics in about 2 minutes and cook the astronauts in about another minute past that.  So how did our guys do it?\n\nThe Space Shuttle: purportedly capable of travel to the Moon and back....yet it's NEVER been done.  Why? The thing can carry enough fuel, food / supplies and other life support for such safe travel.  In fact, it was one of the Shuttle program objectives...that got put on the back burner....and not likely due to "budget" or "safety" concerns.\n\nHowever, all this "evidence" is of conjecture; you have to be your own judge on if we faked the Moon landings, until we get a deathbed confession by one of the surviving astronauts to confirm we DID fake the landings.  Until then, it makes for great coffee-cafe debate amongst good friends.
345173
Here is an answer to you question about the flag.\n\nSome of the Apollo video shows the American flag fluttering. How can the flag flutter when there is no wind on the airless Moon? \nThis I find to be one of the more ridiculous observations. It is readily apparent that all the video showing a fluttering flag is one in which an astronaut is grasping the flagpole. He is obviously twisting or jostling the pole, which is making the flag move. In fact, in some video the motion of the flag is unlike anything we would see on Earth. In an atmosphere the motion of the flag would quickly dampen out due to air resistance. In some of the Apollo video we see the twisting motion of the pole resulting in a violent flapping motion in the flag with little dampening effect. \nI've heard many hoax advocates claim that some of the Apollo photos show a fluttering flag. (How one can see a flag flutter in a still photograph is a mystery to me!) I can only guess that ripples and wrinkles in the flags are being perceived as wave motion. The flags where attached vertically at the pole and horizontally from a rod across the top. On some flights the astronauts did not fully extend the horizontal rod, so the flags had ripples in them. There is much video footage in which these rippled flags can be seen and, in all cases, they are motionless.\n\nHere some more information on any radiation they may have encountered:\n\nTo reach the Moon astronauts would have to travel through the Van Allen Radiation Belts, resulting in lethal doses of radiation. \n\nThis is a claim the hoax advocates often make, but it is a gross exaggeration and simply not supported by the data. Radiation was a definite concern for NASA before the first space flights, but they invested a great deal of research into it and determined the hazard was minimal. It took Apollo about an hour to pass through the radiation belts - once on the outbound trip and once again on the return trip. The total radiation dose received by the astronauts was about one rem. A person will experience radiation sickness with a dose of 100-200 rem, and death with a dose of 300+ rem. Clearly the doses received fall well below anything that could be considered a significant risk. Despite claims that "lead shielding meters thick would have been needed", NASA found it unnecessary to provide any special radiation shielding. \n\nThe hoax advocates also make the mistake of limiting themselves to two-dimensional thinking. The Van Allen Radiation Belts consist of a doughnut-shaped region centered around the Earth's magnetic equator, and spanning about 40 degrees of latitude - 20 degrees above and below the magnetic equator. The translunar trajectories followed by the Apollo spacecraft were typically inclined about 30 degrees to the Earth's equator, therefore Apollo bypassed all but the edges of the radiation belts. \n\nRacerman: In question about Neil Armstrong being first man on the moon, then how was his picture taken?\n\nIf Neil Armstrong was the first man on the Moon, then who shot the video of him descending the ladder and taking his initial steps on the lunar surface? \n\nThe TV camera was stowed in an instrument pallet in the LM descent stage. When Armstrong was at the top of the ladder, he pulled a lanyard to swing open the pallet, which was hinged at the bottom. The TV camera, which was attached to it, also swung down. Buzz Aldrin then switched on the camera from the LM cabin. The camera was pointing at the ladder of the LM so that TV pictures of Armstrong's initial steps on the Moon could be relayed to the world. The camera was later removed from its mounting and placed on a tripod some 30 feet from the LM, where it was left unattended to cover the remainder of the moonwalk. \n\n\nFor more information, please see the website below
1016626
Because of it's remote location, it's quite possible that military testing of some sort that has the potential to harm people is or has been conducted there.\n\nIt's also possible that experimental military aircraft have been or are being tested there.\n\nWhile it's possible that some kind of space debris (either of terrestial or otherworldly origin) has been taken there, I don't think there are any bodies or spacecraft or any huge cover-ups.  I don't think that level of security could be maintained for this long a time.  SOMEBODY would have produced some kind of REAL evidence by now.\n\nBut it's such a fun fantasy to believe, and I believe our government does take advantage of the mysterious, mythical nature of the site to do real top-secret things there.  After all, what better way to hide the more mundane truth than with an elaborate and fanciful lie?