Was the moon landing real or a hoax?
Real
Side Score: 2
|
Hoax
Side Score: 0
|
|
|
|
with no atmosphere on the moon, stars should be in the pictures. Atmosphere is irrelevant. A basic photography course could answer this one. It's all about dynamic range. In order to take a photo exposed for the moon itself, the relatively dim light from distant stars won't show. As an example as to how bright the moon actually is, if I were to photograph the moon, I would use the exact same settings as I would if I was taking a photograph on a bright sunny day at noon (search Sunny 16 rule). What about the Van Allen Belt and all that radiation? The astronauts didn't spend much time in the belt and their ship was designed to provide some protection. It's estimated they were exposed to about 2 rems. This is a fair amount, but consider radiation workers (x-ray technicians, nuclear power workers) on average are exposed to .4 rems/year but the max allowed is 5 rems or 25 rems in an emergency exposure. About 25-100 rems would increase chance of developing cancer. I forget who said it, but once you add up the costs of faking the moon landing, you may as well just go to the moon. Side: Real
1
point
Actually atmosphere isn't irrelevant, it's important, that's why the Hubble Telescope was placed out of our atmosphere (I understand, you're saying with or without atmosphere the same lighting rules apply). I do appreciate your input. Thank you for an articulate, fact based perspective, on a conspiracy theory that keeps a lot of people wondering about the moon landing. Now do you having any input on JFK? Just kidding, that's another topic for another debate. Side: Real
|
No arguments found. Add one!
|