/sci/ - Science and Mathematics

Yes.

Yes, multiple times.

Yes damnit.

>>2729

If it didn't happen, why wouldn't the Soviets have called bullshit?

>>2735

Because the cold war was fake jewish invenvtion. Well, at least that's what the folks over on /pol/ told me.

>>2739

Your first mistake was taking anothing said on pol seriously.

What about the Van Allen belts?

>>2745

Sorry for lazy Wikipedia copypaste.

>The Apollo missions marked the first event where humans traveled through the Van Allen belts, which was one of several radiation hazards known by mission planners.[30] The astronauts had low exposure in the Van Allen belts due to the short period of time spent flying through them. Apollo flight trajectories bypassed the inner belts completely to send spacecraft though only the thinner areas of the outer belts.[31][32] The command module's inner structure was an aluminum "sandwich" consisting of a welded aluminium inner skin, a thermally bonded honeycomb core, and a thin aluminium "face sheet". The steel honeycomb core and outer face sheets were thermally bonded to the inner skin.

>Astronauts' overall exposure was actually dominated by solar particles once outside Earth's magnetic field. The total radiation received by the astronauts varied from mission to mission but was measured to be between 0.16 and 1.14 rads (1.6 and 11.4 mGy), much less than the standard of 5 rem (50 mSv) per year set by the United States Atomic Energy Commission for people who work with radioactivity.[30]

>2745

Because the Van Allen belts are protons and electrons instead of gamma rays.

So they're actually fairly easy to stop. A beta particle like an electron can be stopped by a few millimeters of aluminum foil.

>>2729

Well, you can't fake gravity in a studio.

>>3317

The main factor in apparent power loss for laser beams at moon-earth distance scales is beam spread. Even for precision lasers, it will never be the case that the beam stays the the same width forever. Even given a minute beam spread angle, the light from a laser on Earth would be spread out over a large area on the moon. With a retroreflector on the moon, the effective area of the reflected light on earth would quadruple, with a corresponding drop in observed brightness.

With that in mind, the main factors to consider to calculate necessary wattage would be beam spread angle, beam wavelength, minimum detectable photon count, and round-trip distance to the moon.

I doubt it

In my opinion the entire space race was a cover to gain the capabilities of putting weapons or weaponized satalites into space.

A u2 was shot down by russia in 1960 which pretty much killed the idea that planes can be used for covert recon against a developed nation, so satalites are the answer. Since new tech always brings a race to see who can gain dominance. It makes sense that the space race was just a cover for an arms race.

Since a few people here seem to believe we did land on the moon ill ask. Has there ever been an explanation for the photographs where crosses that were etched into the lens of the camera were covered by what was being photographed?

>>3327

But it's not a secret that there are spy satellites in orbit, and it's never been. Ever heard of the Molniya orbit?

>Has there ever been an explanation for the photographs where crosses that were etched into the lens of the camera were covered by what was being photographed?

The crosshairs on camera for angular size reference or whatever? Let me ask you, if photos were made on Earth, wouldn't the crosshairs cover the image too? How does that change anything?

>>3327

>A u2 was shot down by russia in 1960 which pretty much killed the idea that planes can be used for covert recon against a developed nation

And then the SR-71 came along and proved it was entirely still possible and useful.

Get a load of this video. It explains how it was cheaper to go to the moon than fake it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_loUDS4c3Cs

>Welcome to sci, not stupid ass discussion.

>Stupid ass discussion ensues.

what i do kmow it that those pictures and videos can definitely be faked easily, and that it would cost less than an actual moon landing. so the question is, why do an actual moon landing if you could just fake it for less money, with the same propaganda effect?

>>3550

>>3542

Kindly refer to the fucking video I posted, anon. It explains why it was easier to go to the moon than to fake it. Doesn't say anything about cheaper.

Given how I have seen satellites with a telescope and they seem to be pretty far out there so if they can get up there than going to the moon shouldn't be infeasible

>>3553

Did you watch the video I posted? Also, here is more evidence about the moon landing being real:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drSqtw0Qywk Machio Kaku motherfucker.

>>3553

I think I responded to the wrong anon. sorry about that.