Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment: 0  0 (0)

Note that we have sent a number of unmanned missions back to the moon since Apollo: Clementine, Lunar Prospector, Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter. LRO has sent back images of the Apollo landing sites with high enough resolution to make out the footpaths the astronauts left behind. Unmanned missions offer much better bang for the buck; they require far less mass, they can stay on site for years at a time, they can perform tests in situ, and they don’t have to come home. For the cost of one manned mission we could pepper the surface with MER-style rovers that could do pretty much the same job.

Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment: 1  0 (+1)

…Rock “C”…yeah…like everybody puts a giant letter on their props so that the camera can see it…

Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment: 1  0 (+1)

The effects of radiation for STS-48 are apparent in the final images produced by the high
speed (above 400 ASA) flight original films. The color films, 7296 and 5030, exhibited an
increase in minimum density and a decrease in contrast. When seen in the final image,
shadows would appear grainy and ambiguous in the darker detail. Flatness in the tonal range
is the effect of the lowered contrast. The black and white films, 5454 and 5453, and color
negative film, 6028, displayed identical effects only to a lesser degree. Reversal film 5020 was
not significantly affected by the radiation. All color films exhibited a shift in color balance. The
color shifts, increases in base exposure and decreases in contrast, are functions of the film’s
representative speed. While 6028 was the least affected of the negative films, it should be
noted that reversal film 5020 showed the least apparent damage (because the effected part of
reversal film is beyond the useful density).

This is after roughly 130 hours of radiation exposure, with total exposures in the range of 313-361 mrad, or roughly 62 to 72 mrad per day.

In short, the film was fogged a bit. Not burned up, not melted, not damaged.

I’ve found a couple of papers online that give estimates for radiation dose equivalents on the lunar surface of between 225 to 259 mSv/yr on average. Unfortunately, converting between rads and sieverts is not straightforward, so I don’t know how the numbers from STS-48 would translate. But, I strongly doubt that the radiation environment on the Moon would be so severe as to significantly damage photographic film over the period of a few days.

Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment: 1  2 (-1)

The time we did not go back to the moon makes me wonder why? And if Nasa says that there is a very small chance of making a moon landing a success because of technology, the whole moon landing, 40 years ago, is a big hoax, I believe…

Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment: 1  2 (-1)

Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment: 1  3 (-2)

-Marvin The Martian

Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment: 3  3 (0)

Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment: 1  5 (-4)

You moron. You should be held up as a glowing example of abject moon-hoax dimness. Talk about a little knowledge being a dangerous thing… the film test you are talking about is so far removed from your argument I’m left assuming you needed someone else to do your typing for you. Radiation has been found to effect modern high speed films, causing contrast loss, graininess, slight fogging. So, moving quickly past your “survive” hyperbole, how about we concentrate on the fact that radiation effects in high speed film have only been a concern since the days of Skylab (and that was after the Apollo missions, numbskull). Maybe your daddy showed you the famously crisp Skylab shots of Earth from space when you were widdle? Did you tell him Skylab was a hoax too? Next time, try READING your source material, then asking someone to explain the big words to you. I can’t even say this was a nice try at creating a new conspiracy factoid. You’re up, Shithead.

Hot Conspiracy Debate. What do you think? 7  5 (+2)

Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment: 5  2 (+3)