Did the Americans put a man on the moon?

Big Bag of Chips

Right everyone, back to discussing the topic rather than a poster.

Thanks

Markus Antonius

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120176132#Comment_120176132

What you saw was not the ISS. It is not possible to see something 100m long, 400km away travelling at 27,000km/hr with the naked eye.

You are asking me not to argue a fundamental point that is key to the topic of the thread, so I am out.

Good luck!

robinph

@Markus AntoniusSo what was it that we each saw then from various different locations, at different times, and all listed on websites which tell you when and where you will be able to see the thing?

If it isn't the ISS then how is it being faked that we can see it?

sydthebeat

very pertinent at this time

Big Bag of Chips

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120176753#Comment_120176753

You see a very bright easily visible light moving steadily across the sky from west to east. You can subscribe to be given updates about when it is passing over your area. I suggest you try looking up yourself to see it. That way you won't need video footage from unknown sources. You'll see it yourself.

Edit: I don't know where you are in the country, but here's the details for viewing it tonight and tomorrow in Dublin. Lucky you, it happens to be flying by Ireland this week!

Mon Jan 30 7:05PM - visible for 5min - Max height 31° - appears 10° above W - disappears 21° above SSE

Tue Jan 31 6:16PM - visible for 6min - Max height 39° - appears 10° above W - disappears 10° above SE

Tue Jan 31 7:54PM - visible for 2min - Max height 13° - appears 10° above WSW - disappears 12° above SSW

o1s1n

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120176753#Comment_120176753

So if I check the NASA website to see when the ISS is traveling overhead, go outside, look up and see corresponding lights in the sky going in the same direction, that is NOT actually the ISS?

What am I seeing then? Little green men?

bucketybuck

Do you lads go into hospitals in your spare time and argue with the patients about the voices they hear in their heads? Ask them for recordings and dissect the transcripts?

This thread says more about Boards than it does about the particular lad you are all encouraging.

TherapyBoy

If it’s all fake why are we wasting time flying rockets around this solar system.

If it’s all parabolic weightlessness shot in a plane & green screened CGI they should be showing us planets, stars & galaxies a million lightyears away. They’d have free rein to make up whatever they wanted & little Timmy whatshisname couldn’t disprove their lies with his telescope.

Lex Luthor

of course they did and they called Nixon on his land line without any delay in transmission.....

But they cant go back since, because they destroyed all the technology and its too difficult to build it back 😂

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120548392#Comment_120548392

They didnt call Nixon on his landline... transmission was relayed through mission control.

And there was a small delay of a few seconds which is obvious if you watch the recording of the call. There are pauses and delays. They are not having a quick responsive interacting conversation. Nixon says a long speech... pause... reply from Moon... pause... Nixon again... pause. Staccato.

Capt'n Midnight

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120176753#Comment_120176753

Psychology textbooks, for instance, routinely state that on a clear, dark night, a candle flame can be spotted from as far away as 48 kilometres.

When the ISS is being illuminated with 1,371 Watts per square meter it's brighter than a whole bunch of candles.

https://www.heavens-above.com/ for predictions and thingy for mobile phones.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120548392#Comment_120548392

They didn't destroy the technology. They just didn't upkeep it like the Russians did with their Soyuz.

It's not that it's too difficult to recreate, it's that Nasa are focused on building different systems that will be more modern, more efficient and better suited for continued use. And that they are doing this without the near bottomless funds they were being given during the Apollo program.

It's strange that on one thread you lambast people for believing something that is completely contrary to the mountains of evidence such as the notion of the flat Earth. But then you seem to suggest something about as equally as detected from reality.

robinph

How far can you see from the top of everest on a clear night?

OK, so I expect no one has spent the night up there because that would be stupid but even on the claimed flat word of Markus it must be possible to see light at night from a tall building or mountain?

Capt'n Midnight

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120548392#Comment_120548392

NASA was hitting close to 5% of the US budget back then. But the Vietnam war meant cost cutting because the military-industry complex wanted to be fed. NASA still has the plans for the Saturn V but choose to go with the Shuttle instead for PR reasons. Other kit from that era like the Centaur upper stage with it's RL-10 engines is still in use.

Russians were getting similar results to NASA for a tenth the budget. But it still costing them too much to try and catch up. The moonshot was picked because it was just beyond the capability of the Soyuz / Proton back then.

"If it works it's obsolete" - The recent SLS launch required something like $35Bn development to take Shuttle parts that had previously been used on orbital flights from the back of the warehouse and assemble them slightly differently (5 segments instead of 4, 4 engines instead of 3 which means you need a different fuel tank etc.) Life support and navigation were farmed out to Europeans because that stuff is hard.

Lex Luthor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120548746#Comment_120548746

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lm220Urp6SU

You're telling lies again, stop misleading people

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120555206#Comment_120555206

It's a quote taken out of context. The moon landing program was vast, employing 10's of thousands of people and had enormous infrastructure. After the 70's much of it was shelved in favour of other projects, e.g. the space shuttle. Do we have the know-how to go back to the moon? Sure. Do we have that original infrastructure and tech in place to do it? No, because it was shelved.

The video content is from a flat-earther by the way.

Lex Luthor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120555276#Comment_120555276

The words are from an astronaut by the way

Stop misleading

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120555291#Comment_120555291

I didn't dispute that. You are misunderstanding what he's saying, so I explained it.

To use another example: the UK used to build vast numbers of e.g. steam locomotives, they don't have the tech to do that now. It doesn't mean they can't, it just means the technology infrastructure (i.e. the tooling parts, the skilled machinists) are no longer around. It doesn't literally mean they "destroyed" the technology, blueprints, etc and can no longer build a steam locomotive.

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120555317#Comment_120555317

It is also a question of budget. Who is going to authorise the money required to recreate 1960s tech.

monkeybutter

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120555291#Comment_120555291

they have possibly 2 full saturn 5 rockets left spread across different displays like the kennedy space center

i'd be willing to reassemble them if you are willing to let me launch you in one

then we'd be down to one being left

Hannibal_Smith

@Lex Luthor Ridiculing posts by calling them misleading particularly without engaging in proper discussion completely misses the point of the Conspiracy Theories forum which is to provide a place for constructive open ended discussion between posters. If you've nothing constructive to add to the discussion move on to another thread.

HS

Capt'n Midnight

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120555328#Comment_120555328

NASA are spending $95Bn on Artemis. To put the second civilian on the moon. And get congressmen re-elected.

And that's after spending tens of billions reinventing the wheel. No major innovations. It's all off the shelf kit.

Meanwhile the Russians are still getting to orbit on an upgraded 1950's ICBM that runs on diesel.

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120556609#Comment_120556609

NASAs budget is a fraction of what it was when they put men on the moon.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120555206#Comment_120555206

Yes seen this silly video many times in place of an actual point.

It doesn't say what you claim.

Also AFAIR it's posted on a flat earther YouTube channel.

Capt'n Midnight

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120556759#Comment_120556759

In the 1960's NASA got cold war money. The hydrogen tech was amazing and they are still using it. But once they'd beaten the Soviets to the moon funds and patriotism dried up, and pork-barrelling started in earnest.

Russia, India and China still got to space for a fraction of the cost.

Before SpaceX , we Europeans were the leaders in commercial space launches.

monkeybutter

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120556782#Comment_120556782

the USA might have spent double the amount as the USSR in real terms, but in relative terms it was parity at best and they got more out of it as for the soviets it was ultimately a failure not just from a PR perspective but from a tech one also

Capt'n Midnight

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120571552#Comment_120571552

"If it works it's obsolete" The USA threw out most of their space kit when Apollo ended. One comment was "like a dog pissing on a parked car, once it's marked it's territory it's got no more interest in it"

NASA did have a final flourish with Skylab but other than that all the really long duration stays in space have depended on Russian know how and the kit they developed during the space race. Look at Salyut series, Mir and core modules of the ISS, I'm not sure how much the Chinese copied but their kit looks very similar.

The UK is the only country to have given up spaceflight capability. The US is the only country to give up manned spaceflight capability, and has done it multiple times. The Shuttle retired in 2011 and without SpaceX the US would have to rely on the direct descendants of a 1960's Soyuz spacecraft on a 1950's Soyuz rocket.

The US could have got to the moon two years earlier at half the cost with Gemini and Titan without needing to wait for Apollo and the Saturn V to be developed.

monkeybutter

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120571723#Comment_120571723

nasa provides the bulk of the international space station

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/facts-and-figures

they didn't throw out their space kit, they just moved on to other things

the saturn 5 is a masterpiece by very very pricey, the russians hit a ceiling trying to compete

gemini was a stepping stone to appollo, i think the great success that was vindicates what they did

nasa has always been well funded post the moon landing

Skylab lasted 15 years

russia is low cost, has plenty of rocket tech for obvious nefarious reasons, post cold war, it makes plenty of sense to farm out the simple part of space travel, either to russia, or privately and concentrate on the important stuff, hubble etc

although the ukraine etc has shown how farming things out can also be a terrible idea

humans on the moon is more of a pr thing than a science thing

humans on mars could mean more, but its way harder

corks finest

If so was it a man though 😉

monkeybutter

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120583664#Comment_120583664

was what a man?