Moon landing hoax

Capt'n Midnight

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121814042#Comment_121814042

It helps when the people involved know they are effectively on the font line in a cold war and have a 'can do' and 'not on my watch' attitude. They stopped gambling with lives when they reached diminishing PR returns on later flights.

There was a paradigm shift in quality control, which paid huge dividends when the project ended and people took their skills into industry.

Throwing 4% of GDP at the wall helped too.

00sully

Love the arguments that surround why we can't do this easily today. Just because 50 years has gone by, it should be a snap now.

The average age of a nasa engineer in 1960 was 28. Twenty eight. Imagine that today 😆

We instinctively think each generation gets smarter and smarter. It's becoming clear this is not the case.

A lot of the ingenuity in engineering fields (software and hardware) is "on the shoulders of giants" stuff. Ask a software developer to do something extremely basic from first principles and you'll get a blank stare.

We mostly adopted advances in technology for leisure activities not for anything that might advance the human race unfortunately.

Not saying we can't do it today, it's just still very hard and not a lot of money in it. Look at space x relanding a rocket. On a platform on water. But they did this for profit. Not because it was hard. Amazing nonetheless.

And now private companies can land on the moon and people are scoffing at the achievement 🙄 🤣

Hoboo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121814042#Comment_121814042

Fact and question remain. They have successfully landed men 6 times. Since then landing a box on its side is a step closer to landing man on the moon. So why not use the old but proven methods?

BTW I don’t care whether or not they landed 50 years ago, I’m taking the view they did.

o1s1n

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121815198#Comment_121815198

New planes are slower than Concorde. Why not use old but proven methods to build faster planes?

There are many reasons for falling behind with progression like this, particularly when funding is down and there's far less interest in specialised technology.

Have they the same people available? The same resources? The same funding? There's a huge difference between a space programme being backed by the largest economy in the world and privately run venture.

The private ones will get there, it's just a matter of time really.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121815198#Comment_121815198

But again, you're deciding that the question has no answer after doing zero to actually discover the answer yourself.

Likewise, you've already rejected all of the reasonable answers you've already gotten and dismissed with a similar level of effort.

Meanwhile you are accepting the ridiculous and impossible notion that the moon landings are faked even though there's a huge long list of unanswered questions about that idea. You will not answer those questions either.

Your position isn't honest or very rational.

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121815198#Comment_121815198

You are cherry-picking successful manned missions from the past (whilst ignoring the failed ones) and then cherry-picking a partially-failed unmanned mission now (whilst ignoring the successful landings)

All in order to create a "success" bias in order to attack one partially failed landing. Bad reasoning.

Hoboo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121815304#Comment_121815304

WTF you going on about 😂

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121816359#Comment_121816359

No I’m asking a very simple question you and others are refusing or unable to answer.

We already had the technology, ergo we have the technology, we so why not use it?

If you don’t know it’s ok to say, I doubt very much someone on boards does. It’s not me trying to create a success bias or any form of success, it’s a genuine question:

It seems to me there’s a whole group of defenders of the moon landing narrative that are afraid to face a logical question: Either you have an answer or just admit you have no idea.

robinph

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121817707#Comment_121817707

The old technology is old, too expensive, unreliable, too much effort to build again from scratch, dangerous, not efficient enough, was actually just proving ballistic missiles and sitting a box with people on top, etc, etc.

Take your pick, but there are plenty of reasons for not using old technology and to instead develop new ways to do things, cheaper and more reliably and with more actual functional science. The technology used in the original space race was just a willy waving contest for the most part.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121817707#Comment_121817707

My point is very clear.

You are declaring that there is no answer to your question even though you haven't tried to find any answer and you'd been provided with answers.

You then conclude from this that historical fact is a "narrative" that might not be true.

This is an irrational position to hold.

Noone is afraid of a silly question like "are the moon landings real?".

sydthebeat

It's very simple.

The Apollo programme cost $20.6 billion dollars between 1960 and 1973.

That is the equivalent of $204 billion dollars today. That's similar to the GNP of new zealand

No private enterprise is going to pump that money into a lunar programme these days.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121818201#Comment_121818201

But we've already been told that this isn't an acceptable answer for some reason. Apparently the discrepancy between a massive government agency with hundreds of billions of dollars and a small private company with only hundreds of millions isn't a factor.

This can't be a reasonable explanation, but the idea that the moon landings were faked (and by extension all other space missions) is reasonable.

sydthebeat

poster cant understand why something "done on the cheap" doesn't work ???

what if we described these lunar mission as the "Temu" version of the apollo missions ?

Hoboo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121818035#Comment_121818035

That’s not the question though, so clear as mud.

o1s1n

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121817707#Comment_121817707

I (and others) have already answered you, what else do you need answering that hasn't been answered?

Very simple reply to you if you just want a one word response to you question - 'money'.

Deep Thought

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121813821#Comment_121813821

As an engineer you should also know this **** is not easy

Deep Thought

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121814419#Comment_121814419

Good point.. they are ok with failures but are not ok with success

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121817707#Comment_121817707

No I’m asking a very simple question

The question isn't coming from a logical place.

There's no conspiracy so no idea why you are bringing it up here. Perhaps try the space forum, but you'll receive exactly the same replies there.

eightieschewbaccy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121819083#Comment_121819083

The technology we currently use for space travel is more reliable than the sixties... Seems weirdly hard for you to grasp.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121819083#Comment_121819083

It's the point you're trying to get at. You don't want to state it directly for some reason. But it's the logic behind your position.

It's also moot as your question has been answered many times now. You are either rejecting this answer or you are pretending not to see it. Again you won't address it directly for some reason.

Hoboo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121819098#Comment_121819098

So it’s less expensive to build modern technology that doesn’t work.

Got it.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121819163#Comment_121819163

Poor attempt at strawmanning here in place of an actual point.

Having access to 1000s of times more money and resources result in different outcomes.

You are declaring that this wouldn't be a factor for some reason.

What technology from the Apollo era specifically would have lead to this mission's success?

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121819122#Comment_121819122

The conspiracy is that since a modern company with a much much lower budget wasn't able to land a probe correctly, it means that such a thing is impossible, therefore the moon landings couldn't have happened. (Or it's valid to ask if they did.)

o1s1n

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121819163#Comment_121819163

You're just being facetious now.

It's not just about the technology. It's about the support behind the technology (aka, Money).

How many engineers and how much money had NASA per every piece of technology they sent into space versus a private organisation now?

An old piece of technology that's meticulously built, tested and retested by hundreds (if not thousands) of people is going to cost a lot more than what a modern private outfit can afford.

If these modern companies had the budget NASA had during the original moon landing days it would all be very different.

snowcat

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121819210#Comment_121819210

Ah come on now. You dont think current NASA or any other billionaire are competing with ancient tech. We only got off the ground 100 years ago. We got to Mach1 plus in the sixties for passenger aircraft. We could double or trible that now if we had regs that supported same. The demand or price to seat ratio is not there.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121843527#Comment_121843527

We were just told that economics was not a valid excuse. So therefore you have to conclude that concorde was also a hoax.

Also notice how the people who entertain the notion of faked moon landings aren't actually dealing with any points. It's just defaulting back to the same "I don't understand therefore it's a conspiracy" argument.

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121844142#Comment_121844142

Indeed it's always either "I don't get it, therefore conspiracy" or "I don't believe it, therefore conspiracy"

In this case "I can't believe some modern missions weren't fully successful, therefore the moon landings were hoaxes"

snowcat

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121844575#Comment_121844575

When are we hoping for a moon walk? Its 55 years since the last one. Science usually progresses not digresses. It was 50 years between biplanes and jet engines yet we have gone backwards on moon walking.

o1s1n

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121999351#Comment_121999351

Not this again.

If you go back a few pages we went through this already.

To sum it up, massive part of US GDP versus private enterprise.

snowcat

So its only a question of putting enough money in..and no one can do it.
(And the hard work and gdp was invested 50 years ago and we are struggling to replicate it now)
My question was When if ever will we see a Moon Walk again? The posters on here reckon never as you will never have the %GDP input that was available 50 years ago.

sydthebeat

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121999386#Comment_121999386

To do something we've already done?