If you believed they put a man on the moon....

Markus Antonius

The latest mission to our nearest neighbour was called off today due to a suspected hydrogen leak and engine problems:

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-62715616

Despite it being 50 years since last we set foot on the lunar surface, NASA scientists appear confident that they can put man on the moon (again?) by the ambitious date of 2025

From 1969-1972 - 12 successful landings occurred. But do you, like 1 in 6 British people or 1 in 4 europeans believe it was all completely staged?

igCorcaigh

https://youtu.be/dLxpNiF0YKs

...

Ubbquittious

Someone landed on the moon. It wasn't "we" though.

The West has got lazy after decades of passing Chinese trinkets to each other for vastly inflated prices, only recently are they realising they need to do actual manufacturing and engineering again so yes they are a bit rusty

igCorcaigh

But, should we go there again, as with the Artemis project, or even to Mars. Personally, even though I love the spirit of space adventure, we should not. At least not now.

Markus Antonius

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119539461#Comment_119539461

Interesting, so you are saying that because we outsource technology to China (who create inferior products?) that this is the reason we haven't been there in 50 years?

Ubbquittious

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119539552#Comment_119539552

Pretty much. The drive for innovation is largely gone except for some big tech companies who also outsource their manufacturing, supply chains dismantled. The other big obvious reason was that the race with Russia was off and the cold war ended. The Chinese are ploughing ahead with their moon missions while the Yanks squabble amongst themselves about whether they should spend the money on "safe spaces" instead. De West (particularly the USA) has been rotting for decades but the chickens are coming home to roost now.

JupiterKid

Yes, humans landed and walked on the Moon in July 1969. What is sad is that only 65 per debt polled so far share my view.

It’s been over 50 years since Apollo, so Artemis does feel like reinventing the wheel - an expensive one. Commercial launch vehicles will play a more important role in orbital space operations.

Space exploration is very important to the future of humanity and its long-term survival. We humans are destined to explore. A new space race between the USA and China will propel the new drive to return to the Moon and then on to Mars.

Ubbquittious

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119539619#Comment_119539619

No part of the rocket reusable is crazy for such an expensive project. They really dropped the ball so they did, with the help of many a politician reducing their budget of course

rtron

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058260945/if-you-believed-they-put-a-man-on-the-moon

Well seen as they are having problems with the current launch. Probably best if they bring back the old proven tech that got them there the first time...

AllForIt

I believe what actually happened is they put a moon on a man

Greyfox

Of course it happened, if it was faked it would of came out by now. Only eejits think it was faked.

silliussoddius

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119539619#Comment_119539619

Yeah, the conspiracy theory cottage industry has spawned a new age of de-lightenment.

Markus Antonius

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119539655#Comment_119539655

According to NASA Astronaut Don Petit "I'd go to the moon in a nanosecond. The problem is we don't have the technology to do that anymore. We used to, but we destroyed that technology and it's a painful process to build it back"

Not entirely sure what this technology is exactly and why it can't be replicated or even improved since...

Markus Antonius

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119539619#Comment_119539619

If it's as important as you say then why has no private entity filled the gap in the last 50 years? The last successful landings didn't prove too worthwhile in any meaningful way - what is it that we need exactly - they seemed more interested in playing moon golf and whizzing around on their $65 million moon buggys.

Mr_Muffin

It is not actually possible to land on the moon due to the fine dust granules. The granules leak into the space suit and get everywhere, wreaking havoc on the person in the suit. Imagine walking around the moon with sand in your boot, but you can't take off the suit or you die. How would you stop yourself from trying to empty the sand from your boot?

Ubbquittious

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119539822#Comment_119539822

There is the famous anecdote of the apollo rocket plans being lost but its more complicated than that. Even if there was a big long shed somewhere with 10 brand new apollo rockets in it you'd still have a massive job to prep them for launch using oldschool ancillary equipment that doesn't exist anymore, the people who knew how to do it are long dead or retired. Then if you find one part in the rocket that isn't quite up to scratch or gets damaged in preparation the company that made it might not even exist anymore

Ubbquittious

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119539911#Comment_119539911

Ah I see. Is that why you had to come back the last time you went up? Did you tell Nasa/Elon because they might not read boards

Bit cynical

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119539822#Comment_119539822

Yes, the likes of manufacturing plants and tooling that could turn out Apollo rocket engines and other components of the moon landing programme. They might have been able to keep doing Apollo missions to the moon at a comparatively cheap marginal rate. Same with the Space Shuttle. Even while it was operating, I have read, it would not have been practical to build another shuttle for the fleet as tooling had been lost.

On the other hand, part of the point of the space programme in the US was to create new science and technology and churning out the same rockets year after year (like the Soyuz) would not fulfill this purpose. As you point out, the technology can be improved upon today and it is probably more beneficial to reinvent the process every few years.

Markus Antonius

The reason most people believe we landed on the moon is because the moon landings are not something that occupy their thoughts very often - people learn about it in school, then it's just stored away with all the other useless information. It's never scrutinized in any meaningful way by the average person.

There are many compelling exhibits that prove with much certainty that we never went:

Image discrepancies:

1. Camera crosshairs going behind props (proving it was added in to the image retrospectively):

2 Competing shadows (suggesting two different light sources, which is impossible)

3 Lettering spotted on rocks in some images (suggesting they are props in a studio):

There are also many video discrepancies - such as moonlanding footage showing clearly that astronauts are in normal gravity with the footage sped up. Footage was also provided (accidentally by NASA) to a journalist in the 90s showing Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins faking footage of the earth. This journalist then showed this footage to the astronauts, in which case they got highly aggressive (Buzz Aldrin punched him in the face) and another threatened to have him "waxed" by the CIA...

Wibbs

Anybody, and I do mean anybody who believes the Moon landings were faked is a not coming back from this level of retard, Grade A, 24 Karat, atomic powered, dribbling fúcking moron. Going by the current poll results; ten dribbling fúcking morons and six general dopes.

breezy1985

Why would the cross hair go behind the prop. The fake landing would have still used a real camera with real props. No need to edit anything in 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Strumms

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119539911#Comment_119539911

If dust gets in… air / oxygen gets out… if air oxygen is being expelled that would prevent granules of dust from entering the suit.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119539461#Comment_119539461

To quote Lev in that widely aclaimed movie about Space travel, Armageddon "American components, Russian components, all made in Taiwan".

I love a good conspiracy theory and it's fun to tease people and claim it was a hoax, but seriously though, the flag, why does it look like its flapping in the wind, when there is no wind? There is gravity. It should look like how a flag looks in doors. Or they could have used a solid plastic flag that would look permanently flat.

silliussoddius

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119540042#Comment_119540042

Thanks for just asking questions, you're really special.

Larbre34

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119540042#Comment_119540042

Mythbusters, among other mediums, addressed and dismissed each of these crank conspiracies.

The reason I'm satisfied we went to the moon, apart from the overwhelming contemporaneous evidence of course, is the technology we all have in our pockets today, that wouldn't exist without the mammoth effort to accelerate innovation, necessary to achieve the Apollo Programme.

Still, not long to wait now before it'll be demonstrated to all the World in glorious 4K and dolby digital audio, just what a spin to the Moon looks and sounds like.

Which will deal for once and for all with the moon landing conspiracists and their close cousins, the flat Earthers.

silliussoddius

You know what else was faked?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment#:~:text=The%20MoonLIGHT%20reflector%2C%20which%20was,MX%2D1E%20has%20been%20canceled.

Might change their tune if the boss of the sites they scrape this type of sh1te off, ever switches from plans for unmanned moon landings which was supposed to start in 2016, to manned moon landings.

bucketybuck

Of course people went to the moon, regardless of what some conspiracy theory moron says.

I don't see any reason why they should go back there though, outside of road testing the technology. There is nothing there worth seeing twice.

Notmything

Pretty sure there is a forum for this type of topic, the op knows it too.

Wonder why they choose to post here tho ???

Larbre34

Cos the Artemis programme is topical. It has a wider interest, just now, than just those into astronomy or space exploration.

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119539872#Comment_119539872

You have previously claimed man didn't land on the moon, now you are referring to "successful landings", which is it?

Markus Antonius

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119540061#Comment_119540061

Well you sound like you have a firm scientific foundation upon which your belief exists...

You sound like an old, die-hard patriotic Nixon fanatic "It happened because I saw it with my own two eyes on the television machine I did"

Speaking of Nixon - you'll have to forgive the retards and morons for having doubts about the phone conversation almost delay-free between Nixon in the White House and Armstrong in the 'Sea of Tranquility'

50 years on and I can barely scrape a single bar of network coverage to send a text to someone 2km away. But in 1969 - the technology they had back then, just incredible! Such regression in 50 years.

fran38

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119540061#Comment_119540061

Get off the fence anyway dude 😁. Look, every ones got an opinion. Yours is just the same, an opinion, ok?

bad2thebone

https://youtu.be/zPwMdZOlPo8

Giant steps are we what you taking, walking on the moon..... some may say... wishing my day's away...

Markus Antonius

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119540125#Comment_119540125

1. Mythbusters debunked nothing
2. What technology exactly? Are you saying mobile phones wouldn't exist without the moonlandings? I bet you don't have a single example of a technology that could back this up.
3. Unfortunately, we will never "go back" to the moon because we were never there to begin with. They will just keep cancelling like they did today and before long everyone will have forgotten about the 2025 target or they'll come up with some other spurious excuse for not going

sameoldname

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119540300#Comment_119540300

So, not only did we lack the technology to land on the moon in the 60's, we also lack it today? Even though we've sent probes all over the solar system, have a permanently manned space station in earth orbit and on a clear night you don't need to wait more than 5 minutes before you'll see a satellite pass overhead?

The_Kew_Tour

We landed on the moon and earth is not flat (seems be popular too) but Buzz Aldrin comes across as a right prick though.

Just saying.

Squeeonline

We didn't land on the moon, there's no way way we had the technology for that in the 60's. Instead, they landed on the otherside of the flat earth. That's why the signal was clear and fast. It didn't have so far to travel.

/s because it's 2022.

Wibbs

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119540284#Comment_119540284

At least I can grasp basic science.

In 1915 the first human speech was carried by radio across the Atlantic. Good old fashioned radio waves. And you can hear the delays in Apollo transmissions. They even had the beep after each transmission between them to allow for this delay(and save both sides from saying “over” after every sentence). And your phone doesn't have an aerial like this:

If it did you could send a text to Pluto.

And the "television machine" is a very good proof of the flights. Today we're used to incredible special effects in film and TV and very clear digital and analogue video, but even with today's tech it would be incredibly difficult to fake the landings, in 1969 it would quite simply have been impossible.

So you want to shoot the landings in a film studio. OK so how? Video? In 69 video camera and storage tech was stone aged compared to today. The theory that they showed the astronauts in slow motion makes this even more difficult. To shoot slow motion, you have to speed up the camera which requires more and faster recording and storage. Until the mid 1970's slow motion video was restricted to about a minute of storage and playback.

Maybe we'll shoot it on film instead. OK, that makes things easier as film tech was advanced by then, but now other problems come along. Film cans hold about ten minutes, or 300 metres of exposable film and then you have to change them out, five minutes or less if you're running slow motion effects. Bigger cans with more film stock? Then you have to invent new cameras and film stock, because lengths like that start to get delicate and prone to breakage especially if you're running at double speed to capture slow motion. Then you have to develop all that film stock and then cut and edit it together and then transfer it to TV output without any mistakes or evidence of cuts and splices and dust in the film stock.

And then you have to do that for hour after hour of footage and do it six times for each landing and produce better and clearer footage with each mission* which would risk exposure and fake all the visuals and audio going there and back and fake all the transmissions back and forth so the Soviets and others buy the hoax and on top of all that fake all the thousands of photographs and audio too. Never mind moon rocks and observable from Earth tech left up there.

*the conspiracy nuts usually point to Apollo 11 because that's the famous first one and the black and white video is crap, but by the sixth landing the quality had shot up and you have hour after hour of colour footage to look at in video and film.

Putting man on the moon was a dick waving contest with the USSR.

We didn't need to put a man on the moon then, it served no practical purpose. We didn't learn anything more than we would have with machines/robots. We had all the capable machines/robots back then, as we do now, to collect all the information we need about the moon.

This current 2025 aim is the next mickey waving contest as countries begin to assert their territorial claims for future exploitation of the moon's resources.

Wibbs

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119540320#Comment_119540320

Indeed.

These doors are nearly 2000 years old.

Today in the 21st century why isn't my front door made of bronze!! Fake!!

That's about the level of "thinking" involved. The all too common assumption by some that just because they don't understand something, or know how it can be done, they refuse to believe others can understand it and do it. The "How could they build the pyramids back then? Aliens!" principle.

Wibbs

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119540623#Comment_119540623

Kinda, though the robotic tech back then was massively inferior to the Mark 1 Human eyeball and hands. Just the first Apollo 11 landing found out more than all the probes they'd landed before and that was a get down quick, plant the flag, stay close, grab what we can and get the feck out of here mission. By Apollo 17 they were walking about for 22 hours on the surface over a few days and travelled far from the landing site.

Even today with far better remote tech having people on the ground as it were has many advantages. The disadvantages are huge though as the complexity and heavy lifting needed to get them there and back safely ramps up exponentially.

Mister Vain

As Neil Degrasse Tyson said, it would be a lot easier to go to the moon than it would be to fake it. There's no way everyone at NASA would keep quiet.

The real question is who has the better song, R.E.M or The Police? 🤣

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119540320#Comment_119540320

This poster doesn't believe we have satellites and that we haven't sent probes all over space

Cluedo Monopoly

We put 12 men on the moon.

Wibbs

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119540853#Comment_119540853

Please tell me you're joking. Though...

Leg End Reject

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119540733#Comment_119540733

R.E.M

bad2thebone

I love science fiction about the moon, the moon I think is so intriguing. I've powerful astronomical binoculars, looking at it from my platform near Poulnabrone Dolmen now and again. Especially during the lockdowns.

Do any of you realize how fast it goes, you get it in focus and you can actually see it move across your scope.

I love this kind of fiction

https://youtu.be/pKUVgIuQ4Nc

Markus Antonius

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119540594#Comment_119540594

That it would be easier to go to the moon than it would be to fake it has to be the most idiotic argument in favour of the moonlanding there is. Sets a desperately low scientific bar too. If it was easier to go there than to fake it then we would have been back on the moon countless times already. Why hasn't SpaceX done it? Why the 2025 date, if it's so easy why not right now?

How do you explain the Van Allen radiation belts? When the astronauts were asked about this, some hadn't a clue what they were being asked about and others appeared to think it was pot-luck that they managed to find their way through it alive...

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119540300#Comment_119540300

Oh Markus, do show us what the Earth looks like when you get a chance finally, you promised to show us a few years back.

Anyway, Markus mythbusters not debunked myth debunked by mythbusters (you can do this in your tin foil protected basement if you wish with your single fluorescent tube light source):

Wibbs

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119539911#Comment_119539911

Not really. Before they went there it was actually a concern that the surface of the moon was dust and that the rocket engine would blast a crater that the lander would end up in, or that the lander might sink down into it. Hence the big circular pads to distribute the weight and the procedure was to kill the rocket above the surface and fall the last few metres. Apollo 11 was the gentlest landing as Armstrong cut the engine the latest. In the later missions you can see them(onboard camera) fall more of a distance and with more of a thump. Some landings kicked up quite a bit of dust, some didn't.

As it turned out the surface was indeed covered with a fine dust but it was quite "solid" and in most places solid bedrock was very near the surface and the legs of the landers didn't compress to the degree they expected. This is why Armstrong and those following had to jump the last metre down from the ladder to the pad. The first words of Apollo 12 were Pete Conrad's "it might have been a small step for Neil but it's a big one for me!"(Pete was a shorter lad).

The dust did cause problems, but nothing to do with getting into the suits. The EVA suits were fully sealed and no way could any dust get into them on the moon's surface. The problem came after they got back into the lander where the fine dust was very irritating to the lungs and nose. Long term the dust is seen as a concern as because it was formed in a vacuum with no weathering it's extremely sharp and will wear down components like joints in spacesuits and you wouldn't want it getting into delicate equipment(never mind your airways). Ironically it was less of an issue back then compared to now as the engineering and techy stuff was mostly analogue and quite "big" and less delicate. Much more actual switches and wires, rather than the highly complex IT stuff of today. EG with Apollo 11, after they had walked on the moon and gotten back into the lander to leave, when they were taking off their bulky suits and backpacks one of them knocked against and broke off the switch for the main engine's circuit breaker. Without that they couldn't fire the return engine. Aldrin used his pen and jammed it into the empty hole to complete the circuit. If that had been an LCD touchscreen that failed the fix would have been a lot more complex, if even possible.