Originally Posted by
.:neuko:.
According to the official story, back in '69, NASA were confident that their Apollo space craft would pass through the Van Allen belts provided it targeted the regions where the radiation was negligibly low and travelled fast enough. Back then NASA's knowledge of the belts was less than what it is today so the extent of their research then suggested that a Moon landing was possible. The basic idea was, the less time the space craft spent in the belts, the less susceptible it (and the crew) would be to radiation and so the less protection it needed. Other factors like solar energy having less of an effect on the belts than today might have also contributed to the success of the Moon landing. Still even under the official story, the Moon landing sounds like it had more chance of failure than success in my opinion, but that's not to say there wasn't a chance. Yes, it's true that our technology is more advanced now than it was back in '69, but ironically the instruments on modern space craft are much smaller and so more susceptible to the accelerated particles comprising the Van Allen belts. Moreover, today's research suggests that the belts can change depending on the sun's solar activity, making space travel more risky. Then, like Deathblade said, there's the higher cost of space missions in general.
To be honest I don't completely buy the official story of the Moon landing (it just doesn't add up); however, at the same time I don't accept any story from an entity whom claims that the Moon landing is fake either. If I had to choose I'd say, all things considered, it is more likely that the Moon landing did happen albeit with the help of some good timing and fortune, but it's nothing like the way it has been presented on TV or in the papers. If the Moon landing had been presented as honestly as possible I doubt the public would had believed in the event anyway. That's just the problem with humanity: we easily believe what we fear and desire and tend to believe according to our expectations and presumptions, which in turn prevents us from accepting any truth that challenges what we think we know. Just saying.
Bookmarks