There are a lot of things that seem off about the Apollo missions.
You should know that things aren't always as they
seem. Besides, a lot of things "seem" off to nutjobs but that doesn't mean they
are off.
Could've NASA really had the technology back in the 60's to protect the astronauts from the radiation outside the Van Allen Belts, when even today they're still trying to come up with ways to do so?
NASA planned the course of the missions to speed through the thinnest part of the Van Allen radiation belts to minimize their exposure. Still, the time the astronauts spent in the belts accounted for a large amount of the radiation dose that they received.
The reason why radiation
outside the belts is a concern for future space travel, is because we are looking at
much longer missions (e.g. to Mars) which will significantly increase the exposure time of the astronauts.
Aren't temperatures in the moon extreme? Were the suits enough to protect the astronauts from it? What about meteoroids?
Temperatures in space, in general, are extreme... do you think that the suits used by astronauts servicing the Hubble or spacewalking outside the ISS have to contend with an envornment that is any less hostile?
How did the lunar modules land without creating a single crater or leaving a single mark on the moon's surface?
What makes you think they didn't? And what makes you think they should?
Couldn't have the so called reflectors be left there by robotic modules before or after the moon landings?
No. The retroreflectors were installed with a precision that a robotic module of the day (if one had existed) could not have possibly achieved. Look at the accuracy of installation of the Russian retroreflectors, and compare them to the accuracy of the Apollo retroreflectors.
I read that actually bouncing off of beams from the moon was being done before the apollo missions ever took place.
What does that have to do with the presence of retroreflectors?
Probably one of the most compelling questions of them all, if the Russians were kicking USA's ass in the space race back then, how come they never made it to the moon? Not once.
How is that a compelling question? It's like asking why a kid that was taller than his friend at age 8 ended up shorter at age 18... The facts are that the United States devoted massive amounts of money and resources to get to the moon and the USSR didn't. As to why they didn't? Who knows - there are plenty of possible reasons, but the most likely one seems to be that they didn't want to devote the resources required.
Plus, I've seen pics from the so called lunar modules, they're ridiculous, as if they were made from tin foil for an elementary school science project or something.
Oh... well... that changes
everything. If you've seen pictures of the "so called" lunar modules and they
look flimsy to you, then that really settles it... the moon landings were faked. Forget about all the independent evidence and ignore all the explanations that serious scientists have produced to explain away the theories of quacks. The lundar modules
look flimsy... that does it.
In all seriousness, what the
fuck is wrong with you people? Did you drop a barbell on your head or are you just naturally stupid?
