<p>While "was the Moon landing a hoax?" is starting to be a tiresome genre, the points you make is somewhat legitimate. I am not going to address the issue in general, (Best to go <a href="https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/1128/has-man-walked-on-the-moon">here</a> if you want that) as others have done that better before. But here you go for your issues specifically:</p>

<ol>
<li>"Van Allen Radiation Belt"</li>
</ol>

<p>Yes, it exists, and the radiation is about 10000 times more intense than on Earth. But in a transfer orbit towards the Moon, they where only inside it for a few hours. Sure, that still corresponds to a few years of radiation on Earth, but as you may be aware of, that is not enough to kill you.</p>

<ol start="2">
<li>Not enough time?</li>
</ol>

<p>The decision in 1961 to send humans to the Moon did not come all of a sudden. It is not like all the technology required had to be invented after that. For instance, the Soviet <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luna_3" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Luna 3</a> probe had already performed a flyby of the Moon, taking the first images of the far side. From there, it is pretty much just scaling things up, and make a suitable landing craft. (That is still expensive, though.)</p>

<ol start="3">
<li>Risk</li>
</ol>

<p>Who said there was no risk involved? Out of the seven missions intended to land on the Moon, one of them, the Apollo 13, barely managed to return after an explosion on board. That is a (although the sample size is small) 14% risk of failure, much higher than any of the missions to the ISS. Also, the space station has operated for years, in contrast to the just over a week Apollo missions.</p>

<ol start="4">
<li>Distance</li>
</ol>

<p>In space, there is nothing to stop you if you have velocity in one direction. Therefore, you can literary travel for ever, with only a modest amount of speed. Therefore, distance is not a good way to measure difficulty. What really matters is how much <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta-v" rel="nofollow noreferrer">change in velocity</a> you need. The ISS travels at about 7800 m/s, and a transfer orbit towards the Moon is only 40% more than that.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-05-05T09:48:16.003Z
2016-05-05T10:04:56.933Z
2017-04-13T12:46:44.910Z
SE - stop firing the good guys
<p>As @Hohmannfan pointed out, but in addition, there is solid proof that humans have landed on the moon, with several major incidents with the various Apollo missions.</p>

<p>One of the missions put a reasonably large retro-reflector array on the surface of the moon to reflect back lasers with the purpose of measuring the moon's distance to the earth, accurate to within millimetres. That alone I consider to be the biggest most undeniable piece of evidence.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-05-05T10:54:14.540Z
That's actually poor evidence... because the (then) Soviet Union landed their own reflector array, it's attached to one of the completely un-crewed Lunokhod rovers. I'm not disagreeing, I'm just warning you that this is one of the arguments the conspiracist types will use against you if you ever meet one :)
Andy
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-05-05T10:56:12.627Z
@Andy *shakes head* of course they would, ruining all of the good science and man hours of effort! Too bad Neil Armstrong isn't around any more to beat the sense into people.
Tanenthor
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-05-05T11:52:09.930Z
Neil was probably far too calm and level headed to get into a fist fight. Buzz, on the other hand... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2272321.stm
Andy
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-05-05T12:01:39.003Z
Huh, I must have remembered incorrectly, I always thought that was Neil, but there you go
Tanenthor
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-05-05T21:48:02.660Z
@Tanenthor I don;t think Neil Armstrong was quite the type - I had the thrill of a lifetime to meet him 5 years ago. Buzz Aldrin on the other hand https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wptn5RE2I-k
ProfRob
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-05-05T22:28:44.550Z
Whoops, just saw @Andy thought exactly along the same lines!
ProfRob
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-05-05T10:48:58.310Z
2016-05-05T10:48:58.310Z
Tanenthor
<p>I really want to know whether NASA's Moon mission really was a hoax, or if it is a fact. Since there are many points and scenarios which proves it as being filmed in a film studio with controlled conditions and not exactly on from moon's surface.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>I also personally believe that we can not send human beyond "Van Allen Radiation Belt".</p></li>
<li><p>Also mission was announced in 1961 and in just 8-9 years we were able to send humans to the Moon.(really, I think is not possible with today's technology as well. It will at least take 10-15 years to actually do it today).</p></li>
<li><p>The ISS is orbiting at a few hundred km, and still it has lot of risk factors involved. Crew members are really had near death <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Space_Station_maintenance" rel="nofollow">experiences</a>
while carrying out maintenance.</p></li>
<li><p>And we are able to go to 370,300 km away from earth and safely return back (what ! ! ! really not possible considering today's technology as well-at least for humans).
So are these Moon missions a hoax, or a forced lie ? 
I don't want to consider any political aspect here (like between the US and Russia etc.) I just want to know whether humans were on the Moon or not ?</p></li>
</ol>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-05-05T09:54:32.453Z
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it's clearly a hoax.
Andy
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-05-05T09:57:21.450Z
@Andy I am not sure what that is supposed to mean, but I join you.
SE - stop firing the good guys
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-05-05T09:59:24.933Z
Anyone who actually wants to know the answer just look at: http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/1128/has-man-walked-on-the-moon  (or any number of other places on the internet or in print)
Andy
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-05-05T10:01:21.677Z
@Hohmannfan yes you are right, I meant the question itself is probably an attention grabbing hoax (while the moon landings were an attention grabbing reality). Probably best answered by sending the questioner to one of many answers that already address all of the points raised.
Andy
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-05-05T10:04:59.413Z
I do not live in the US - but your statement assuming that I do is political, despite your claims that you don't want to involve politics. Also it has been investigated very thoroughly, but I will not provide the answer you require, you should be able to find it yourself by following the link I provided above.
Andy
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-05-05T10:22:00.103Z
That's fine! Google has lots of **good** info but it's usually somewhere underneath the more "entertaining" writings by Conspiracists. These people often start by asking questions quite similar to yours, then as each question is answered they invent more questions and continue until people are too bored to respond. That's why my (rude) default answer is always to point them to somewhere the questions have already been answered before :)
Andy
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-05-05T13:19:53.213Z
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it is not about astronomy but space exploration.
called2voyage
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-05-05T15:32:56.533Z
First off, closing this as off-topic was the right thing to do. This question does not belong here. Secondly, the US truly did land men on the Moon, multiple times. To think otherwise is just stupid. Thirdly, the best evidence that we did so comes from the Soviet Union. At that time, the Soviet Union and the US were essentially at war, and both had spies everywhere. Those Soviet spies would have found signs that the Apollo program was not real. They didn't. The Soviet Union monitored the communications from the Apollo vehicles. Those communications could not be hoaxes; they were real.
David Hammen
<earth><space-travel>
Was NASA's moon mission completely fake?
HOAX
# Was NASA's moon mission completely fake?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2016-05-05)

I really want to know whether NASA's Moon mission really was a hoax, or if it is a fact. Since there are many points and scenarios which proves it as being filmed in a film studio with controlled conditions and not exactly on from moon's surface.

1. I also personally believe that we can not send human beyond "Van Allen Radiation Belt".
2. Also mission was announced in 1961 and in just 8-9 years we were able to send humans to the Moon.(really, I think is not possible with today's technology as well. It will at least take 10-15 years to actually do it today).
3. The ISS is orbiting at a few hundred km, and still it has lot of risk factors involved. Crew members are really had near death [experiences](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Space_Station_maintenance)
   while carrying out maintenance.
4. And we are able to go to 370,300 km away from earth and safely return back (what ! ! ! really not possible considering today's technology as well-at least for humans).
   So are these Moon missions a hoax, or a forced lie ?
   I don't want to consider any political aspect here (like between the US and Russia etc.) I just want to know whether humans were on the Moon or not ?

**Tags:** earth, space-travel

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it's clearly a hoax.  
> **username_2**: @username_1 I am not sure what that is supposed to mean, but I join you.  
> **username_1**: Anyone who actually wants to know the answer just look at: http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/1128/has-man-walked-on-the-moon  (or any number of other places on the internet or in print)  
> **username_1**: @Hohmannfan yes you are right, I meant the question itself is probably an attention grabbing hoax (while the moon landings were an attention grabbing reality). Probably best answered by sending the questioner to one of many answers that already address all of the points raised.  
> **username_1**: I do not live in the US - but your statement assuming that I do is political, despite your claims that you don't want to involve politics. Also it has been investigated very thoroughly, but I will not provide the answer you require, you should be able to find it yourself by following the link I provided above.  
> **username_1**: That's fine! Google has lots of **good** info but it's usually somewhere underneath the more "entertaining" writings by Conspiracists. These people often start by asking questions quite similar to yours, then as each question is answered they invent more questions and continue until people are too bored to respond. That's why my (rude) default answer is always to point them to somewhere the questions have already been answered before :)  
> **username_3**: I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it is not about astronomy but space exploration.  
> **username_4**: First off, closing this as off-topic was the right thing to do. This question does not belong here. Secondly, the US truly did land men on the Moon, multiple times. To think otherwise is just stupid. Thirdly, the best evidence that we did so comes from the Soviet Union. At that time, the Soviet Union and the US were essentially at war, and both had spies everywhere. Those Soviet spies would have found signs that the Apollo program was not real. They didn't. The Soviet Union monitored the communications from the Apollo vehicles. Those communications could not be hoaxes; they were real.  

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2016-05-05. Score: 3

While "was the Moon landing a hoax?" is starting to be a tiresome genre, the points you make is somewhat legitimate. I am not going to address the issue in general, (Best to go [here](https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/1128/has-man-walked-on-the-moon) if you want that) as others have done that better before. But here you go for your issues specifically:

1. "Van Allen Radiation Belt"

Yes, it exists, and the radiation is about 10000 times more intense than on Earth. But in a transfer orbit towards the Moon, they where only inside it for a few hours. Sure, that still corresponds to a few years of radiation on Earth, but as you may be aware of, that is not enough to kill you.

2. Not enough time?

The decision in 1961 to send humans to the Moon did not come all of a sudden. It is not like all the technology required had to be invented after that. For instance, the Soviet [Luna 3](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luna_3) probe had already performed a flyby of the Moon, taking the first images of the far side. From there, it is pretty much just scaling things up, and make a suitable landing craft. (That is still expensive, though.)

3. Risk

Who said there was no risk involved? Out of the seven missions intended to land on the Moon, one of them, the Apollo 13, barely managed to return after an explosion on board. That is a (although the sample size is small) 14% risk of failure, much higher than any of the missions to the ISS. Also, the space station has operated for years, in contrast to the just over a week Apollo missions.

4. Distance

In space, there is nothing to stop you if you have velocity in one direction. Therefore, you can literary travel for ever, with only a modest amount of speed. Therefore, distance is not a good way to measure difficulty. What really matters is how much [change in velocity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta-v) you need. The ISS travels at about 7800 m/s, and a transfer orbit towards the Moon is only 40% more than that.


---

### Answer by username_5 on 2016-05-05. Score: 0

As @Hohmannfan pointed out, but in addition, there is solid proof that humans have landed on the moon, with several major incidents with the various Apollo missions.

One of the missions put a reasonably large retro-reflector array on the surface of the moon to reflect back lasers with the purpose of measuring the moon's distance to the earth, accurate to within millimetres. That alone I consider to be the biggest most undeniable piece of evidence.

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: That's actually poor evidence... because the (then) Soviet Union landed their own reflector array, it's attached to one of the completely un-crewed Lunokhod rovers. I'm not disagreeing, I'm just warning you that this is one of the arguments the conspiracist types will use against you if you ever meet one :)  
> **username_5**: @username_1 *shakes head* of course they would, ruining all of the good science and man hours of effort! Too bad Neil Armstrong isn't around any more to beat the sense into people.  
> **username_1**: Neil was probably far too calm and level headed to get into a fist fight. Buzz, on the other hand... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2272321.stm  
> **username_5**: Huh, I must have remembered incorrectly, I always thought that was Neil, but there you go  
> **username_6**: @username_5 I don;t think Neil Armstrong was quite the type - I had the thrill of a lifetime to meet him 5 years ago. Buzz Aldrin on the other hand https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wptn5RE2I-k  
> **username_6**: Whoops, just saw @username_1 thought exactly along the same lines!  

---

