We beat the Soviets to the moon. Period. The single greatest setback for the Russians was their giant booster failure. They could not perfect their multi-stage rocket to leave the earth with its lunar mission payload. The U.S. was able to lift their 7 million pound package over and over again and succeeded in eventually taking 9 trips to the moon with 6 succesful landings. The launch of these behemoths was witnessed time and again by millions up to several hundred miles away!
Who are these stupid fucks, what about the huge amount of radiation and the astronauts shit radiation protection. This video sucks balls. Hang your brains out to dry, they've been washed.
More bullshit videos that the government put out that doesn't prove shit about this big ass lie. Those fucking actors in Area 51 were hopping around on wires and you can SEE the fucking wires, LMAO!! That is why it looks different from their bullshit comparison videos. You could actually see one of the guys help another guy up and he actually, "FELL UP" WTF? They purposely made the video distorted to hide shit. The lunar rocks were examined, FAKE. We cannot get pass the Van Allen belts. LIARS...
Cameras don't record stars, not old ones at least. Just get over it and look to the sky, you americans went there. All of us other countrys would like to but its not worth it. Wait, do you americans even know that there are other countrys researching the outer space??? OMG!? HAVE YOU EVEN CONSIDERED THAT!? O_O Uh oh... big bang for you guys, no pun intended.
@Baboonaiih Cameras do record stars, old and new. On the moon there is no fucking atmosphere, so the shit should've been clearer. Moreover, NASA supposed to have advance technology to even venture to the moon, why use bullshit cameras to record with to even bother to go? I know why, they wanted the shit to be distorted in AREA 51 STUDIO SET to hide the imperfections of a fake ass lunar landing. It's all bullshit, the Van Allen belts will kill anything that goes near it, Apollo not excluded...
lol, the CT's wont give up on their silly theories. YES, there ARE some images and film taken during the Apollo mission which prompt us to ask questions, and one of the solutions is that "it must be faked", but we now have solid scientific evidence that NASA did land men on the moon(well, we now we have more); LROC and Chandrayaan-1 images.
suck on my balls CT's. how does it feel knowing that the vast amount of time that you have been preaching your silly theories has been a total waste?
@amor987654321 First of all, the "conspiracy theory" thing you people conjure up is bullshit, because the truth is no theory. It is evident that you cannot defy the laws of science and this stupid fake ass moon hoax did it all. What are pictures now with photoshop technology? Where are the videos and space travels of other countries like China? Not to mention you cannot pass through the Van Allen belts that the astronauts knew nothing about when interviewed. What a fucking joke you people are.
@GUARDIANtrooper Umm they were on a different celestial body where conditions are different to that of Earth, so obviously things are not going to be what YOU expect them to be. PLease, show me where the laws of science are defied, id love to see. And FYI, the Van Allen belts are areas of concentrated PARTICLE radiation, which can be easily shielded by light metals such as aluminium (abundant on the apollo spacecraft).
@amor987654321 Now why would you say that the Van Allen belts can be shielded by light metals and then you say they tried to avoid the intense areas? First of all, the belts are unpredictable in its intensity and the intensity is quit deadly, which is the reason why no other country conjure up a story to put a flag on the moon. Plus when you look at the trajectory of the rocket, it's not aimed at the moon. And when they interviewed the astronauts, they didn't know shit about the belts, hummmm...
@GUARDIANtrooper -- And yes, the trajectory of the rocket most definitely is aimed at the moon. That is one of the easiest things to verify if you want to bother to spend the time on it.
I've been looking at all the "evidence" of a so-called "hoax" that I can find for quite a while now. All it takes is a basic understanding of physics and math to prove that basically all of it is just nonsense.
@GUARDIANtrooper 2: the apollo spacecraft had a 3 dimensional course, their flight path from the earth to the moon avoided the most intense areas of the belts. 3:when they passed through the belts they were travelling at 25,000 mph spending <2 hours in them. Do you honestly think that NASA would just try fly shit through the belts? They knew it would be a problem and they solved it. they took the belts into account when designing the craft and trajectory. But i guess you know more than them.
@GUARDIANtrooper 4: Wether or not China or other countries have "videos and space travel", as you put it, is irrelevant. The problem that travelling to other planets poses today is the fact that we want to stay for longer periods of time, and as you probably know, when talking about radiation exposure duration is important...the apollo astronauts had a mission of 7 days i think. they were easily able to avoid EM radiation (x rays, gamma rays) on the moon with their spacecraft and suits
@amor987654321 I don't believe they went to the moon for many reason and most are experimental. But the one that I'm studying now is the Van Allen Belts and how strong they are and what is feeding them. I have reason to believe we are, life's energy on earth is making it impossible to get pass them. We are now at about 7-8 billion people, a big jump since the so-called moon landing in the late 60s. The more people, the more energy being produced on earth. Maybe we are feeding the belts...
@GUARDIANtrooper -- how would people feed the Van Allen belts? No. They are charged particles trapped in the Earth's magnetic field. The Earth is a huge magnet. It always has been. The sun puts out massive amounts of particles.
And why would you think avoiding the biggest part of the radiation in the belts is inconsistent with also being shielded? That question indicates you aren't really looking at the subject logically.
@CHSarahBs The flag was moving when it wasn't touch by the astronauts and it flipped upwards. The shit is fake... No air, no winds, be still... No blast craters from their aircraft, and the camera moved slightly upward when they liftoff from the moon? No indication of heat or fire from a blastoff? Clear audio over the sound of loud high powered rockets? Evidence of wires and dangling people, one of the guys even FELL UP? Movie mistakes com would take this fake ass movie apart like crazy, LMAO!!
@GUARDIANtrooper The touching is the releasing factor of the swinging. A blast crater would be an evidence for a fake, exhaust expands much more rapid, then in atmosphere. To know more about the camera which filmed the launched LM you should read the ASJ. The clear audio is not really a mystery. The microphones were at the bodies or in the helmets of the astronauts. The sound of the engines was not loud, because it was transported by the material of the capsule.
@GUARDIANtrooper You see evidences for wires? So you can not explain the effects of low gravity like David Percy, who has no idea about it? So it is no wonder, that you can only think, this would be a movie.
@CHSarahBs When you feed yourself, make sure it gets in your mouth and not in your ass... I'm not talking about this videos, I'm talking about the whole fake ass moon hoax. Professional filmmakers dissected all the video and concluded fabrication, (DECLASSIFIED INFORMATION), research. You can see wires, cursors indicator behind objects, which indicates video overlaying. Why would they do that? And science is a mystery, that is why we experiment, idiot. Stick to playing dumb, it's easier 4U...
@GUARDIANtrooper Try to play smart, it seems to be difficult for you. No argument = insults. Sad but normal. It would be convincing, if you were able so provide some proofs for your claims. But I only see the usual assumptions (wires, how laughable). Science is not a mystery, it is a fact. Theories could be mysterious because they are not proofed. You have to learn many many things. Go ahead.
@CHSarahBs Science is a theory, because what you see and experiment on can be seen and experimented on in a different way, correct or incorrect. Plus, science has no boundaries. What you discovered today could change tomorrow and be rediscovered. If science was a fact, we would know all the answers, but instead we make new discoveries and mistakes everyday. And... I am SORRY for insulting you, I really am... I get a little carried away at times. That last comment was really ignorant of me...
@GUARDIANtrooper I am pleased to see your excuse. Insults are really the level of people without arguments, so we can start new now.
I see it a bit different, maybe it is the language barriere. English is not my first language, it is German. But I try to explain you my point of view. The scientific method is to prove theories wrong with the laws of science. So in this way science is really a fact, because the results are facts. Hope you understand, what I want to say.
@CHSarahBs It all good, even if no one can see my face, I believe a person's thoughts is their soul. I'm a good person, but I don't agree with what is told to me about the moon landings and if it's seems to be a lie to me, I will contest it. Opinions are the reasons for the comment section, but we can still respect and reason with one another. There is a real person on the other side of those words, sometimes it gets out of hand. But I'm glad we fixed out problem...
@GUARDIANtrooper I am really glad, too. I can say that I respect you as the person you are. And I respect your point of view. You have got your reasons to think so, so I have my reasons to think the opposite. But how boring would the world be, when there is only one way to think. So let us change our arguments pro and contra the landings. I will see your arguments and I would be glad to see the reason why you think it is an argument. And I hope you will do the same favour to my arguments.
So how do all the hoaxtards explain the LRO images of the Apollo landing sites, especially now that the Indian Chandrayaan-1 mission has provided independent verification of their existence?
@THREESIXNINE100 If you are not here to strengthen your position then why are you here? The truth is the most important and you clearly don't get it. You questioned if Apollo missions took pictures of stars. I gave you the proof that you were looking for. Apollo 16 not only took photos of stars, they did it from the surface of the Moon using a speciial UV camera with longer exposure times. Look it up and you will see that I am right. Proof positive that man walked on the Moon.
@THREESIXNINE100 If you're going to act like you understand the truth, and you're smarter than the multitude of scientists who have confirmed that the moon landings happened, then at least type coherently! It's like looking at a 5 year old typing :/
FEB 4, 2011 - Using two high-resolution LROC images taken from two separate orbits, scientists have formed a stereo image pair for 3D measurements at the Apollo 14 landing site. Among the visible objects are the descent stage of the Apollo 14 lunar module Antares, the ALSEP, a rock nicknamed Turtle Rock, & multiple astronaut traverse footpaths clearly indicated by disturbed soils. Data processing methods can be used to identify the objects and measure their sizes and shapes. Game over hoaxtards!
@THREESIXNINE100 You can delude yourself and shout lie lie lie all you want. But it won't win the argument or strengthen your position. Satellites have since taken photographs of the Earth and the starfields around it and have verified that the pictures taken on the lunar surface during the Apollo 16 mission match.
Hey there people, if you are looking for some hard core evidence why man never made it to the moon, type in on You Tube:
Apollo 11 Moon Landing - A Hoax ?!
It's a 5 part video that examines the loose threads and lies about the lunar landing. Very compelling evidence offered by industry professionals who provide irrefutable evidence including the inventor of the astronaut’s cameras pinned to their chests admitting they won't work in space. Tough one for the propagandists to explain away :-)
@THREESIXNINE100 Yes, Apollo 16 took a special UV camera with them and set it up in the shadow of the LM. They took many long exposure pictures of not only the Earth, but the starfields and the Earth. Scientists and astronomers have looked at the photographs and have matched up the stars and have come to the conclusion that they were taken from the surface of the Moon.
I really don't know what the purpose the moon landing serve ...But if i go some place where i never been before .I would want to know a lot about that place...wouldn't you ...C'MON,MAN!.....
@ Monkeyboysdontknow.....I can't believe say what purpose would it serve , stuff like this should be on .. to- do list # studied the star and other planet
In 2005 NASA released an offical statement that was as follows "In the year 2005 we do not have the technology to land any man or woman on the lunar surface and safely bring them back to Earth."
What makes all this so much a conspiracy is that NASA is so secretive about the APOLLO missions and the odd behavior of the Astronauts when asked certain questions. Why did Armstrong state that he could see a bunch of space ships lined up on the rim of a crater, that's an increadable statement to make yet no one talks about it why. Or when asked what it was like to walk on the moon he says ( I really cant remember ).
This a truely laughable production........like NASA , we need to erase the fantasy from our head.......and ask the question WHY WOULD YOU GO TO THE MOON AND DON'T POINT THE CAMERA TO SKY ONE TIME AND FILM THE STARS AND EVERYTHINGS AROUND YOU WHY WHY WHY .
Why can't YOU figure this out for yourself? What purpose would it serve? Do you REALLY think they would waste precious time and film on something (the stars) that are better (by MANY magnitudes) photographed and studied using Earth telescopes? They weren't on a vacaction. I mean - C'MON, MAN!
@THREESIXNINE100 You mean other than the Apollo 16 photographs of the Earth and stars that you're hearing about for the first time just now, right? Because those totally invalidate your notion that stars weren't photographed from the moon.
@THREESIXNINE100 Because Apolle was a Moon-mission? Because the first missions had no cameras for the stars? Because Apollo 16 filmed the stars with UV? So were is your special problem?
@THREESIXNINE100 because if you point one of the hassleblad cameras (such as the ones used on the moon) at the sky, where the sun is, you will destroy the SEC tube thus ruining the camera. read up about what happened to the hand held camera on Apollo 12 when they pointed it near the sun.
Get ya facts straight before you ask silly questions.
@THREESIXNINE100 -- Looks like nobody has bothered to answer your question in 3 months. Probably because it's so stupid. But I'll go ahead:
You would not go to the moon and point the camera at the sky because you don't want to waste the film.
The sky looks the same on the moon as it does in low earth orbit. And it is much more expensive to go to the moon. You are there to photograph the moon, not the sky. There is no point in simply photographing the sky from the moon.
i find it amusing that we can get pics of the mars rovers wheel tracks from almost 300 miles up and through the martian atmosphere. but all we see of the lunar landers is a dark dot from only 30 miles away. and the camera orbiting the moon was supposed to be the most advanced camera we've ever put into space. HD and all that... google it! the rovers wheels are only 4 inches wide and you can even see its camera mast. mars rover is about 3ft wide. lunar landers were about 15ft wide... hummmmm
@spacehopperballs Because between those two points - LEO and the Moon - there is NOTHING. There is no point in sending people to that region. The world isn't just black and white you know, if you think carefully about the whole conspiracy, there is no real basis at all for it.
This is ridiculous if we can go to the moon 6 times in the 70's LOL by the way...And we can not afford it now...BULLSHIT! NASA and scientists waste millions building these bullshit building size machines, just to test how the bang theory came about...But we can not go to the moon to expensive...Come on its bullshit. Just the new generation of NASA are probably disgusted to find out the truth so they just don't even bring it up...Going to the moon would set this generation into a frenzy!
@UgLyKoerner, can you give a compelling reason to start a lunar program using taxpayer dollars during this current economic crisis? If you can, I'm all for it. But why go? If it's to repeat what Apollo did--3 days on the surface at max--why? If it's to stay for months at a time, well, that's exponentially more dangerous, complex and expensive. It's all about risk/reward. It's just not compelling. It has nothing to do with our technological know-how & the first 9 trips were not a hoax.
The Lunar Landing was a technological Jesus. People will blindly beleive in it weather it is true or not, but answer me this: Have we not gone back or even left the earth's orbit because it is too expensive or because it is impossible with today's technology. Look at all of the other technological advancements we have made in 40 years. You have more processing power in your iPhone nowadays than any supercomputer available in the late 60's. Why hasn't space travel done the same?
@RockN311 -- Space travel has not advanced in the same way computer technology has because there is nothing to be that much more advanced.
Look at the rest of aerospace as well. The 747 was first flown before Apollo 11. Boeing is still building them. Nobody has come up with anything other than relatively minor improvements over its technology.
The SR71 was flown years before Apollo but still nothing can catch it in the sky.
@RockN311 -- There is no fundamenatal thing to be more advanced about putting a tank of kerosene on top of a tank of LOX and making a big fire to launch it into space. The Atlas booster of the Mercury program that was first tested in 1957 is not that much different from the booster of the same name that is STILL being used today. It has some more refined plumbing and control of the nozzle, that is all.
@RockN311 -- Understanding how the moon landing was accomplished is NOT a "technological Jesus." It has NOTHING to do with taking anything by faith or merely "believing" anything.
On the one hand, all of the basics of the physics and engineering of the project are fairly easy to understand. It was not a huge leap in science. It was a huge engineering project.
On the other hand, it is VERY easy with just a little math & physics to show that many of the moon-hoax theory advocates are frauds.
In fact, it is completely wrong that it was not that difficult.
It was difficult.
Landing the LM on the moon has nothing to do with landing a plane on earth, it is much much more difficult.
A plane benefits of forces created by air, a horizontal force which slows it down, and a vertical forces which lifts it; these forces considerably help a plane to fly.
The LM was not benefitting of these forces and had to control everything with the push of its engine distributed on the two axes by the latitude controlled with the RCS.
It had to maneuver to arrive on the moon with both horizontal (initially 6000 km/h) and vertical speeds nullified, and, if it could not make it, it was the crash guaranteed with no possibility of avoiding it.
@hunchbacked -- No. I have never said or implied that it was not difficult.
What I HAVE said is that there is no piece of technology that would be needed for such a project that did not exist in 1969.
And I have said that there is nothing about it that is difficult to understand now that we can look back on it.
And I have said that it did not take any fundamental scientific breakthrough like, for instance, the invention of the atomic bomb or laser did, which both require quantum physics.
@hunchbacked -- Why have doubts? People have made physical models of the Apollo guidance computer and they work. (No, I'm not talking about modern computer model simulations. I'm talking about the actual electronics of the physical computer.)
And the main guidance wasn't even done on Apollo. You aren't going to claim that the mainframe computers on Earth were incapable of doing the calculations.
No. There is no actual reason to doubt the guidance.
@hunchbacked As you are the only one doubting the documentation, it's much more likely that you have misunderstood it, than it to be wrong.
Obviously many unmanned probes managed to get to the moon before Apollo did, so either none of them worked, or all of them did.
Why couldn't Apollo craft get there, and Surveyor did? Your logic is utterly broken. After 5 successful probe landings, suddenly they became retarded and couldn't do it again?
@hunchbacked Everything is wrong? Get a recognised expert to back your claims and I might believe you.
And also, you moron, stars are extremely difficult to see from the lunar surface. We can see other examples simply by doing a google image search. Pick a planet - any planet. And see if there are stars in the photo.
No, it's absolutely ot an amateur's view to say that, when you raise your head, you can see the stars which are very brilliant when seen from the moon.
The amateurs are those who think they can't be seen, that they are as dim as seen from the earth.
@hunchbacked So why did non-amateurs like Dr. Chawla on STS-107 state, that she could see stars only when Columbia had the Earth under the body of the spacecraft and the astronauts were looking through the windows which were on the other side (with other words: the lightsource Earth was blocked)?
@hunchbacked I can agree only partially. Here in Switzerland it is actually half past one in the night. The sky is nearly cloudless, I can see the Moon but no stars. I agree with you, that you can not see stars, when the Earth is in sight.
If the Earth is not visible, there is still the reflecting lunar surface. Looking into the sky will not avoid to notice the reflection of the surface. Try it on Earth at night, when there is no Moon and you are at a bright place.
@hunchbacked So let us go to the pictures taken from Shuttles, MIR, ISS or satellites. There is no atmospherical filter-effect. There is no picture with stars with the normal camera setup of 1/250 sec exposure, neither one with Earth, Sun or Moon nor one without them. Only if the exposure time is long enough (or UV-filter were used) you can see stars on the photos. Similar to statements of astronauts (remember Dr. Chawla). When the reflection of Earth is blocked, you can see stars.
Anyway, it is not because of the stars that I believe in moon hoax, I have much more solid and convincing reasons to believe in it; among them many technical reasons.
@hunchbacked I have watched some of your clips and I disagree with you. But anyway it is really nice to meet an opponent, who is very civil. Thank you for this. I have made experiences with several persons from your side (DeadJesus, deadlyradiation, wengsky, p1guard and others). They all thought ad-hominem attacks would help them.
So I hope we both can agree to disagree ;) You have your reasons to believe in a hoax, I have mine to believe the landings happened.
@hunchbacked I would be interested, but the problem is, that I can not play this clip. It contents material of SME and it is not allowed in Switzerland, Austria and Germany (btw. I am from Switzerland).
@hunchbacked I have visited your channel. You are French? Although I am from Switzerland, my French skills are not good enough to have a conversation ;) Can you understand German?
@hunchbacked I will take a closer look at your clips in the next days. I think we both have a good basis for a discussion about your evidences. We read us. Hope you have a nice day. Greetings from Basel.
It's not just the photos and videos which convince me of the hoax.
I have examined in detail the computer and the electronic interfaces, and everything is wrong and makes no sense; not because of the incompetence of the engineers, but because they intentionally stuffed the project with errors; it is the clear sign that they have been forced to fake the project against their consent and ethics.
@hunchbacked riiiight...All the PHDs who have studied the data from the Apollo program for decades have missed out on this, but you in your infinite wisdom see the truth. Good luck with that Wile E. Coyote, Super Dip Shit!
@hunchbacked Prove that statement bub. Because there are plenty of PHD's in several fields of science, including physics, chemistry, geology, engineering, geo-chemistry, history, astronomy, etc that would prove you wrong. Lol.
@hunchbacked Stuart Olof Agrell (University Cambridge), PhD in Mineralogy, made mineralogic studies. Elso Sterrenberg Baarghorn (Harvard), PhD in paleontology, studied Lunar organic samples. Alma Burlingame (University Berkeley), PhD in chemical biology, did studies with the Organic Mass Spectrometer.
These are only three PhDs. And there are many more, do I have to continue?
There are lunar meteorites which fall on antarctica and which have exactly the same characteristics as the "moon rocks".
Two years before Apollo 11, in 1967, Von Braun made a trip to Antarctica; of course the official reason was not to pick "moon rocks", but some other fallacious reason, but I am not dupe.
Nobody has ever been on the moon and brought back rocks from it, no there is no solid base of comparison.
They have brought back from antacrtica just enough "moon rocks" for the analyses.
The other ones, those which were not intended to be analyzed, didn't need to be genuine, they just had to "look" genuine...like this piece of petrified wood which has been analyzed by the dutch museum, recently; have you heard about it, this special gift from the astronauts to the dutch museum?
@hunchbacked What do you think is enough? This small amount full of erosion effects? These rocks, which first sample was found in 1979 by a japanese expedition?
No it is not an interesting story, it is a fantasy full of speculations without any base. And yes I have heard the story. It was not a gift from the astronauts, it was not a gift to a head-of-states. It was a gift from a former US ambassador to a former minister. The original gift was much smaller, given to the right time.... cont.
@hunchbacked There are too many scientists involved, and they are also from independant countries (especially Switzerland). Sorry, but I have shown you that your message, there would not be a PhD studying the Apollo data, is definitively wrong.
@hunchbacked What the fuck are you talking about now? Scientists who desperately want to believe in something? Like ghosts? Or the Loch Ness monster? You're an idiot. That's not how science works. It is objective, and data based. You raise a hypothesis then provide as much proof as possible, then present your work for others to review. It's got fuck all to do with desperation.
@spacehopperballs I have only seen one image from lunar orbit that shows a hint of the disturbed dust. And that was from the CSM during the Apollo 15 mission. Other later images taken by ESA and Japanese probes have seen either lit up craters and or produced false colored images that would not reveal the scattered dust to the naked eye.
@spacehopperballs -- Yes, Plait had an answer. You would know that if you had understood his answer. And he should have stuck with it instead of getting flustered because it was a perfectly good answer.
He suspected (and he was proabably right) that the photograph being refered to was not a true-color photo, but was an image in other than true-color visible light. It is difficult to tell the difference with pictures on the moon because most of it is shades of grey anyway.
@spacehopperballs -- Plait's only problem in that session was NOT that he didn't have an answer, but that he got flustered. (Many people (especially engineering types) are not very good public speakers. And it doesn't help when you are being confronted over radio by a person you cannot see who is talking about a thing that you cannot see.)
Very often an image from above can show a pattern on a surface that you cannot see as well if you are standing on the surface.
There are satellites many thousands of miles away from Earth so there would be obvious operational reasons for having a space station above low orbit. -
yet in 40 odd years we have never been above low orbit of/300 odd miles - even for 5 minutes.
Are you actually admitting it would be too dangerous to have one?
The contradictions of space travel as told by NASA defy logic.
You are the one who in effect claims to not know the differrence between one hour and six months. So I'll take any attempted insult by you as a compliment.
@spacehopperballs -- Now: Just in case you might be able to comprehend an explanation:
You ARE, in fact, NOT making any sense with your claim about a potential space station in high orbit.
A space station there would expose occupants to Van Allen belt radiation for months at a time. There IS a difference between that and going through in a matter of an hour or so.
Would you like to explain WHY you don't see the difference?
@spacehopperballs -- Oh my god. I just listened to your Phil Plait recording.
I guess you didn't even attempt to understand either the photo that they were talking about or Plait's explanation.
All of the photos of the surface under the landers clearly show the distinct difference between where the dust was blown away and the surrounding area.
And there should be no "blast crater."
.
... but I'm still laughing about your space station.
@spacehopperballs - No. No' "blast crater" was seen in the photo that was being described in the radio interview that you are refering to. What the guy was claiming looked like a "blast crater" was a disturbance in the dust. It would be IMPOSSIBLE for him to tell the difference between a "blast crater" and a disturbance in the dust because the photo is TWO DIMENSIONAL.
If you don't know what "two dimensional" means, just let me know. The term may be too technical for you.
(person B): Yes, of course it's dangerous there. Everybody knows it's dangerous there. But no need to get excited. It's not too bad if you go through real quick and get to the other side.
(person A): Well, nobody goes there, builds a station, and stays for months and months at a time so that proves you can't go through it at all.
.
You are "person A" (in case you couldn't figure it out)
"If" a Rocket could go to the moon and back it doesn't mean man walked on the moon although that is what is normally suggested - (by slight of of hand) the Phil Plaits of this world then try and make it a discussion about rocket technology........
Sorry doesn't work
Man not being above low orbit in 40 odd years is just way too much of an absurdity. - Then of course this is turned into there's no point in going back to the moon when the real issue is why never above 300 miles in 40 odd years.
Are we talking about going to the moon or doing work in space?
The main work in space for the past several decades has been long-term space-station kinds of work. Of course if you are going to send someone up there for up to 6 months at a time you orbit below the lower Van Allen belt.
That they orbit below the Van Allen belt has nothing whatsoever to do with the feasability of or the radiation exposure on a trip to the moon.
@spacehopperballs -- Of course you are right that just because a rocket can go to the moon does not prove that man has walked on the moon. But I have never seen anyone make that argument.
I HAVE seen people objecting to the reality of the moon landings say that such rocket technology didn't exist in 1969.
They are wrong.
And all arguments specifically about rocket technology that I have seen have been to counter that specific objection.
@spacehopperballs -- The thing is, there is a lot to be gained by doing things in space. But if you are going to be "in space" you might as well do it as efficiently as possible. It takes a LOT of energy to climb out of Earth's gravity well. And if you are going to be in orbit doing experiments there is no particular benefit to orbiting at 800 miles or 12000 miles or half way to the moon. You might as well stay in a low, easy-to-reach orbit.
I am doing exacly what I have said all along that I am doing.
I am NOT even attempting to "prove" that Apollo went to the moon.
I am showing that you do not understand even the basics about many of the subjects that you try to bring up. And I am wondering why you are so comfortable with your ignorance.
You quote statements of your selected Authority Figures, apparently without even attempting to understand what they are saying.
@spacehopperballs -- I am not so much interested in the conclusions people come to as that they are capable of independent thought.
I would be satisfied if i could get a hoax-cult member to even just question some of their own so-called "facts."
But no -- Everyone I have seen promoting the hoax-theory is a sheep. They select some set of Authoritative Statements or make up things in their imagination and follow blindly without even trying to see if what they are saying makes sense.
I attempt to get someone to think for himself and he absolutely flat-out refuses.
I don't know if it's because thinking is too hard or if it's because some people are so fearful of challenging dearly held beliefs or what but it always happens.
.
For the record: You have, in fact, NOT provided ONE SINGLE PIECE of "evidence" that Apollo was a hoax. You are the one who is thereby proving that you base your beliefs on faith and imagination
@spacehopperballs -- You say "The Apollo myth is gone - its absurd" without ANY evidence whatsoever that actually makes sense. When your von Braun quote was explained (although I still doubt that you actually took time to understand the explanation) you dismiss it and go past it to ... what? ... to nothing.
Over and over again it happens.
People have a particular mindset and don't like their beliefs challenged no matter what.
@spacehopperballs -- I am not a "gate keeper" to anything. I particularly have an extreme loathing for the U.S. government. I think they are a bunch of lying, power-hungry scum bags. But this is not about politics. It is about science and enginnering ... and the ability and willingness of people to think logically.
@spacehopperballs -- I do not regard myself as a "smart one" above everyone else.
All it takes is a basic understanding of astronomy and just a little math.
Anyone with that basic knowledge and skill-set can determine for himself that much of the so-called "hoax evidence" is fraudulent. But they need to be willing to THINK and not just follow their feelings and their chosen Authority Figures.
@spacehopperballs - It is not my intention to be "patronizing." I am merely challenging assumptions and things that are presented as supposed "facts."
For just one example: I have heard people say that the computer technology of 1969 could not possibly have supported a trip to the moon and therefore Apollo could not have gone to the moon.
But is this actually a valid statement?
Is it based on anything other than someone's imagination about 1969 computer technology and what would be required?
@spacehopperballs -- The "science" was there in 1969. Most of it is relatively simple Newtonian physics.
Rocket technology has not changed very much since then. We are STILL using only a slight modification of a booster that was first launched in 1957. Shuttle is 1960's technology. Heck -- ALL launch vehicles that are in use today are basically 1960's technology. They've refined the plumbing a little bit. But nothing basic has changed about putting a fuel tank on top of an oxidizer tank.
@nesokretep -- Modern computers do not change anything at all about the basic calculations needed to plot a trajectory for travel to and landing on the moon. You can do those calculations on paper without a computer.
You use a computer to do quick, real-time calculations on small course changes.
But people have been landing aircraft entirely without computers for over a century.
What, exactly, do you think there is about 1969 computers that would make it "impossible?"
"It is commonly believed that man will fly directly to the Moon, but to do this we would require a vehicle of such gigantic proportions that it would prove an economic impossibility. Calculations have been carefully worked out on the type of vehicle we would need for the non-stop flight from the Earth to the Moon and to return. The figures speak for themselves:
@spacehopperballs -- All of the basic engineering of the Apollo program is independently verifyable. There would be no way whatsoever for NASA to "fake" the capability of the Saturn V & Apollo system without every engineer in the entire rest of the world calling them on it.
One thing is 100% certain: The Saturn V rocket system DID have the capability of launching a manned mission to the moon.
@spacehopperballs - If you are going to quote von Braun, do it IN the complete context of what he was talking about in his original calculations.
He was correct.
If someone were to attempt to build a single, consolidated rocket ship that could launch from Earth to the moon and come back intact, it would need to be taller than the Empire State building.
That is why they didn't do it that way.
You are saying things I've known since the mid-1960's.
@spacehopperballs -- In that long section where you have lots of words surrounded by quote marks you may be quoting NASA's web site.
But where you simply say that he said it was "not viable" you are NOT. There you are either quoting out of context or you are applying your own interpretation to the previously quoted words.
But then you didn't even attempt to understand either von Braun or what I wrote, so ... oh well.
You can base conclusions on your imagination if you want to.
@spacehopperballs -- MAJOR HINT (in my attempt to get you to think for yourself) ...:
Did you catch the part where I said that your quote was CORRECT about the huge, impossible rocket?
Did you see me say von Braun was RIGHT about the thing having to be taller than the empire state building?
Did you even think about attempting to understand what I said, or did you just jump right back in to make some silly-assed response that you think "proves" your point?
bullshit.lame
iichingg 2 months ago
We beat the Soviets to the moon. Period. The single greatest setback for the Russians was their giant booster failure. They could not perfect their multi-stage rocket to leave the earth with its lunar mission payload. The U.S. was able to lift their 7 million pound package over and over again and succeeded in eventually taking 9 trips to the moon with 6 succesful landings. The launch of these behemoths was witnessed time and again by millions up to several hundred miles away!
charliegoodboy 3 months ago
Who are these stupid fucks, what about the huge amount of radiation and the astronauts shit radiation protection. This video sucks balls. Hang your brains out to dry, they've been washed.
SpraYeRS77 6 months ago
The stars are very bright seen from the moon because they are not dimmed by atmosphere.
hunchbacked 7 months ago
@TheDiddlysquat ....no it's not an illusion it's really there
TJ5897 7 months ago
!!!!!!disinformation
HillyHyena 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
there were no stars????
TheProlematic7 8 months ago
Not on the moon
watch?v=0ST3Z3apM1A
McShill 9 months ago
More bullshit videos that the government put out that doesn't prove shit about this big ass lie. Those fucking actors in Area 51 were hopping around on wires and you can SEE the fucking wires, LMAO!! That is why it looks different from their bullshit comparison videos. You could actually see one of the guys help another guy up and he actually, "FELL UP" WTF? They purposely made the video distorted to hide shit. The lunar rocks were examined, FAKE. We cannot get pass the Van Allen belts. LIARS...
GUARDIANtrooper 10 months ago
Cameras don't record stars, not old ones at least. Just get over it and look to the sky, you americans went there. All of us other countrys would like to but its not worth it. Wait, do you americans even know that there are other countrys researching the outer space??? OMG!? HAVE YOU EVEN CONSIDERED THAT!? O_O Uh oh... big bang for you guys, no pun intended.
Baboonaiih 10 months ago
@Baboonaiih Cameras do record stars, old and new. On the moon there is no fucking atmosphere, so the shit should've been clearer. Moreover, NASA supposed to have advance technology to even venture to the moon, why use bullshit cameras to record with to even bother to go? I know why, they wanted the shit to be distorted in AREA 51 STUDIO SET to hide the imperfections of a fake ass lunar landing. It's all bullshit, the Van Allen belts will kill anything that goes near it, Apollo not excluded...
GUARDIANtrooper 10 months ago
lol, the CT's wont give up on their silly theories. YES, there ARE some images and film taken during the Apollo mission which prompt us to ask questions, and one of the solutions is that "it must be faked", but we now have solid scientific evidence that NASA did land men on the moon(well, we now we have more); LROC and Chandrayaan-1 images.
suck on my balls CT's. how does it feel knowing that the vast amount of time that you have been preaching your silly theories has been a total waste?
amor987654321 10 months ago
@amor987654321 First of all, the "conspiracy theory" thing you people conjure up is bullshit, because the truth is no theory. It is evident that you cannot defy the laws of science and this stupid fake ass moon hoax did it all. What are pictures now with photoshop technology? Where are the videos and space travels of other countries like China? Not to mention you cannot pass through the Van Allen belts that the astronauts knew nothing about when interviewed. What a fucking joke you people are.
GUARDIANtrooper 10 months ago
@GUARDIANtrooper Umm they were on a different celestial body where conditions are different to that of Earth, so obviously things are not going to be what YOU expect them to be. PLease, show me where the laws of science are defied, id love to see. And FYI, the Van Allen belts are areas of concentrated PARTICLE radiation, which can be easily shielded by light metals such as aluminium (abundant on the apollo spacecraft).
amor987654321 10 months ago
@amor987654321 Now why would you say that the Van Allen belts can be shielded by light metals and then you say they tried to avoid the intense areas? First of all, the belts are unpredictable in its intensity and the intensity is quit deadly, which is the reason why no other country conjure up a story to put a flag on the moon. Plus when you look at the trajectory of the rocket, it's not aimed at the moon. And when they interviewed the astronauts, they didn't know shit about the belts, hummmm...
GUARDIANtrooper 10 months ago
@GUARDIANtrooper -- And yes, the trajectory of the rocket most definitely is aimed at the moon. That is one of the easiest things to verify if you want to bother to spend the time on it.
I've been looking at all the "evidence" of a so-called "hoax" that I can find for quite a while now. All it takes is a basic understanding of physics and math to prove that basically all of it is just nonsense.
nesokretep 10 months ago
@GUARDIANtrooper Are you looking at the 3 dimensional trajectory or the 2D one...?
amor987654321 10 months ago
@GUARDIANtrooper 2: the apollo spacecraft had a 3 dimensional course, their flight path from the earth to the moon avoided the most intense areas of the belts. 3:when they passed through the belts they were travelling at 25,000 mph spending <2 hours in them. Do you honestly think that NASA would just try fly shit through the belts? They knew it would be a problem and they solved it. they took the belts into account when designing the craft and trajectory. But i guess you know more than them.
amor987654321 10 months ago
@GUARDIANtrooper 4: Wether or not China or other countries have "videos and space travel", as you put it, is irrelevant. The problem that travelling to other planets poses today is the fact that we want to stay for longer periods of time, and as you probably know, when talking about radiation exposure duration is important...the apollo astronauts had a mission of 7 days i think. they were easily able to avoid EM radiation (x rays, gamma rays) on the moon with their spacecraft and suits
amor987654321 10 months ago
@amor987654321 I don't believe they went to the moon for many reason and most are experimental. But the one that I'm studying now is the Van Allen Belts and how strong they are and what is feeding them. I have reason to believe we are, life's energy on earth is making it impossible to get pass them. We are now at about 7-8 billion people, a big jump since the so-called moon landing in the late 60s. The more people, the more energy being produced on earth. Maybe we are feeding the belts...
GUARDIANtrooper 10 months ago
@GUARDIANtrooper -- how would people feed the Van Allen belts? No. They are charged particles trapped in the Earth's magnetic field. The Earth is a huge magnet. It always has been. The sun puts out massive amounts of particles.
And why would you think avoiding the biggest part of the radiation in the belts is inconsistent with also being shielded? That question indicates you aren't really looking at the subject logically.
nesokretep 10 months ago
ANd nobdy explaind to me why flag waves while no wind blows on moon.....
I never thougt about it but when i heard this i was all like WTF? okay dake and gay :-]
kjah11 10 months ago
@kjah11 The flag moved because it was touched by the astronauts. Without any air-friction to slow down it was swinging longer due to the inertia.
CHSarahBs 10 months ago
@CHSarahBs The flag was moving when it wasn't touch by the astronauts and it flipped upwards. The shit is fake... No air, no winds, be still... No blast craters from their aircraft, and the camera moved slightly upward when they liftoff from the moon? No indication of heat or fire from a blastoff? Clear audio over the sound of loud high powered rockets? Evidence of wires and dangling people, one of the guys even FELL UP? Movie mistakes com would take this fake ass movie apart like crazy, LMAO!!
GUARDIANtrooper 10 months ago
@GUARDIANtrooper The touching is the releasing factor of the swinging. A blast crater would be an evidence for a fake, exhaust expands much more rapid, then in atmosphere. To know more about the camera which filmed the launched LM you should read the ASJ. The clear audio is not really a mystery. The microphones were at the bodies or in the helmets of the astronauts. The sound of the engines was not loud, because it was transported by the material of the capsule.
CHSarahBs 10 months ago
@GUARDIANtrooper You see evidences for wires? So you can not explain the effects of low gravity like David Percy, who has no idea about it? So it is no wonder, that you can only think, this would be a movie.
Science and logic is not really a mystery.
CHSarahBs 10 months ago
@CHSarahBs When you feed yourself, make sure it gets in your mouth and not in your ass... I'm not talking about this videos, I'm talking about the whole fake ass moon hoax. Professional filmmakers dissected all the video and concluded fabrication, (DECLASSIFIED INFORMATION), research. You can see wires, cursors indicator behind objects, which indicates video overlaying. Why would they do that? And science is a mystery, that is why we experiment, idiot. Stick to playing dumb, it's easier 4U...
GUARDIANtrooper 10 months ago
@GUARDIANtrooper Try to play smart, it seems to be difficult for you. No argument = insults. Sad but normal. It would be convincing, if you were able so provide some proofs for your claims. But I only see the usual assumptions (wires, how laughable). Science is not a mystery, it is a fact. Theories could be mysterious because they are not proofed. You have to learn many many things. Go ahead.
CHSarahBs 10 months ago
@CHSarahBs Science is a theory, because what you see and experiment on can be seen and experimented on in a different way, correct or incorrect. Plus, science has no boundaries. What you discovered today could change tomorrow and be rediscovered. If science was a fact, we would know all the answers, but instead we make new discoveries and mistakes everyday. And... I am SORRY for insulting you, I really am... I get a little carried away at times. That last comment was really ignorant of me...
GUARDIANtrooper 10 months ago
@GUARDIANtrooper I am pleased to see your excuse. Insults are really the level of people without arguments, so we can start new now.
I see it a bit different, maybe it is the language barriere. English is not my first language, it is German. But I try to explain you my point of view. The scientific method is to prove theories wrong with the laws of science. So in this way science is really a fact, because the results are facts. Hope you understand, what I want to say.
CHSarahBs 10 months ago
@GUARDIANtrooper Sorry, I missed a very important sentence:
If I used insults, too, I would be glad to apologize for them. I am not better, then anyone else, but I try to avoid insults.
CHSarahBs 10 months ago
@CHSarahBs It all good, even if no one can see my face, I believe a person's thoughts is their soul. I'm a good person, but I don't agree with what is told to me about the moon landings and if it's seems to be a lie to me, I will contest it. Opinions are the reasons for the comment section, but we can still respect and reason with one another. There is a real person on the other side of those words, sometimes it gets out of hand. But I'm glad we fixed out problem...
GUARDIANtrooper 10 months ago
@GUARDIANtrooper I am really glad, too. I can say that I respect you as the person you are. And I respect your point of view. You have got your reasons to think so, so I have my reasons to think the opposite. But how boring would the world be, when there is only one way to think. So let us change our arguments pro and contra the landings. I will see your arguments and I would be glad to see the reason why you think it is an argument. And I hope you will do the same favour to my arguments.
CHSarahBs 10 months ago
@CHSarahBs LOL, WILL DO...
GUARDIANtrooper 10 months ago
1 - the flag only moved when they touched it.
2 - why should there be a "blast crater" from a pressure of only 1.5 psi? (do the math. seriously)
3 - why should the camera not move up? That objection is just plain ignorant. (well... all of them are, really)
4 - of course there is "indication of heat & fire" from the blast off.
5- how much noise would you expect the rocket to make with no atmosphere and heavy insulation around the astronauts?
6- no evidence of wires and nobody "fell up"
nesokretep 10 months ago
ANd nobdy explaind to me why flag waves while no wind blows on moon.....
I never thougt about but when i heard this i was all like WTF? okay dake and gay :-]
kjah11 10 months ago
So how do all the hoaxtards explain the LRO images of the Apollo landing sites, especially now that the Indian Chandrayaan-1 mission has provided independent verification of their existence?
GlowWorm1962 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
visit w w w.clavius.org for everything you need to know about why the hoax conspiraloons are WRONG!!!
GlowWorm1962 11 months ago
NASA = FAKE
In 2011 nasa are still faking it
fuckutube74 1 year ago
Comment removed
THREESIXNINE100 1 year ago
@THREESIXNINE100 If you are not here to strengthen your position then why are you here? The truth is the most important and you clearly don't get it. You questioned if Apollo missions took pictures of stars. I gave you the proof that you were looking for. Apollo 16 not only took photos of stars, they did it from the surface of the Moon using a speciial UV camera with longer exposure times. Look it up and you will see that I am right. Proof positive that man walked on the Moon.
CusterApollo 1 year ago
@THREESIXNINE100 If you're going to act like you understand the truth, and you're smarter than the multitude of scientists who have confirmed that the moon landings happened, then at least type coherently! It's like looking at a 5 year old typing :/
matt6517 1 year ago
@matt6517 the moron
You wouldnt know the truth if it hit you on your retarded head propaganda scum.
Lol matt is 12 years old and he accuses others of being 5
fuckutube74 1 year ago
FEB 4, 2011 - Using two high-resolution LROC images taken from two separate orbits, scientists have formed a stereo image pair for 3D measurements at the Apollo 14 landing site. Among the visible objects are the descent stage of the Apollo 14 lunar module Antares, the ALSEP, a rock nicknamed Turtle Rock, & multiple astronaut traverse footpaths clearly indicated by disturbed soils. Data processing methods can be used to identify the objects and measure their sizes and shapes. Game over hoaxtards!
Synthetrix 1 year ago
Comment removed
THREESIXNINE100 1 year ago
@THREESIXNINE100 You can delude yourself and shout lie lie lie all you want. But it won't win the argument or strengthen your position. Satellites have since taken photographs of the Earth and the starfields around it and have verified that the pictures taken on the lunar surface during the Apollo 16 mission match.
CusterApollo 1 year ago
@THREESIXNINE100 The LRO is an independent source. And it took photos of all 6 landing sites. Look it up and you will see what I am talking about.
CusterApollo 1 year ago
Hey there people, if you are looking for some hard core evidence why man never made it to the moon, type in on You Tube:
Apollo 11 Moon Landing - A Hoax ?!
It's a 5 part video that examines the loose threads and lies about the lunar landing. Very compelling evidence offered by industry professionals who provide irrefutable evidence including the inventor of the astronaut’s cameras pinned to their chests admitting they won't work in space. Tough one for the propagandists to explain away :-)
mercuryman74 1 year ago
@roamingcroat Are you saying apollo 16 take photo of the stars ?
THREESIXNINE100 1 year ago
@THREESIXNINE100 Yes, Apollo 16 took a special UV camera with them and set it up in the shadow of the LM. They took many long exposure pictures of not only the Earth, but the starfields and the Earth. Scientists and astronomers have looked at the photographs and have matched up the stars and have come to the conclusion that they were taken from the surface of the Moon.
CusterApollo 1 year ago
@THREESIXNINE100 Apollo 16 did not take photos of stars becauce it was FAKED
Nasa edited in the photos 40 years later
fuckutube74 1 year ago 2
This video is for you astronomy class? What grade are you in? Kindergarten? Your grade is a BIG ASS F!
shizukesa65 1 year ago
I really don't know what the purpose the moon landing serve ...But if i go some place where i never been before .I would want to know a lot about that place...wouldn't you ...C'MON,MAN!.....
@ Monkeyboysdontknow.....I can't believe say what purpose would it serve , stuff like this should be on .. to- do list # studied the star and other planet
THREESIXNINE100 1 year ago 2
In 2005 NASA released an offical statement that was as follows "In the year 2005 we do not have the technology to land any man or woman on the lunar surface and safely bring them back to Earth."
yesiamawizardjonny 1 year ago
What makes all this so much a conspiracy is that NASA is so secretive about the APOLLO missions and the odd behavior of the Astronauts when asked certain questions. Why did Armstrong state that he could see a bunch of space ships lined up on the rim of a crater, that's an increadable statement to make yet no one talks about it why. Or when asked what it was like to walk on the moon he says ( I really cant remember ).
gary6599 1 year ago
This a truely laughable production........like NASA , we need to erase the fantasy from our head.......and ask the question WHY WOULD YOU GO TO THE MOON AND DON'T POINT THE CAMERA TO SKY ONE TIME AND FILM THE STARS AND EVERYTHINGS AROUND YOU WHY WHY WHY .
THREESIXNINE100 1 year ago 13
@THREESIXNINE100
'WHY WHY WHY'
Why can't YOU figure this out for yourself? What purpose would it serve? Do you REALLY think they would waste precious time and film on something (the stars) that are better (by MANY magnitudes) photographed and studied using Earth telescopes? They weren't on a vacaction. I mean - C'MON, MAN!
Monkeyboysdontknow 1 year ago
@THREESIXNINE100 You mean other than the Apollo 16 photographs of the Earth and stars that you're hearing about for the first time just now, right? Because those totally invalidate your notion that stars weren't photographed from the moon.
roamingcroat 1 year ago
@THREESIXNINE100 great comment
Nasa is a sick Nazi joke
fuckutube74 1 year ago
@THREESIXNINE100 Because Apolle was a Moon-mission? Because the first missions had no cameras for the stars? Because Apollo 16 filmed the stars with UV? So were is your special problem?
CHSarahBs 11 months ago 2
@THREESIXNINE100 because if you point one of the hassleblad cameras (such as the ones used on the moon) at the sky, where the sun is, you will destroy the SEC tube thus ruining the camera. read up about what happened to the hand held camera on Apollo 12 when they pointed it near the sun.
Get ya facts straight before you ask silly questions.
amor987654321 10 months ago
@THREESIXNINE100 I second that...
GUARDIANtrooper 10 months ago
@THREESIXNINE100 -- Looks like nobody has bothered to answer your question in 3 months. Probably because it's so stupid. But I'll go ahead:
You would not go to the moon and point the camera at the sky because you don't want to waste the film.
The sky looks the same on the moon as it does in low earth orbit. And it is much more expensive to go to the moon. You are there to photograph the moon, not the sky. There is no point in simply photographing the sky from the moon.
nesokretep 10 months ago
@THREESIXNINE100 Because they had to adjust the camera to accommodate for the sun's brightness shining on the moon, so you couldn't see them anyway.
86THECRITIC 9 months ago
i find it amusing that we can get pics of the mars rovers wheel tracks from almost 300 miles up and through the martian atmosphere. but all we see of the lunar landers is a dark dot from only 30 miles away. and the camera orbiting the moon was supposed to be the most advanced camera we've ever put into space. HD and all that... google it! the rovers wheels are only 4 inches wide and you can even see its camera mast. mars rover is about 3ft wide. lunar landers were about 15ft wide... hummmmm
governmentcheese411 1 year ago
Apollo is the only time man has claimed to be more than a few hundred miles away from earth in all them years...
this fact is glaringly obvious - why not even a 1000 miles or 2000 miles in all those years - its quite absurd.
spacehopperballs 1 year ago
@spacehopperballs Because between those two points - LEO and the Moon - there is NOTHING. There is no point in sending people to that region. The world isn't just black and white you know, if you think carefully about the whole conspiracy, there is no real basis at all for it.
matt6517 1 year ago
This is ridiculous if we can go to the moon 6 times in the 70's LOL by the way...And we can not afford it now...BULLSHIT! NASA and scientists waste millions building these bullshit building size machines, just to test how the bang theory came about...But we can not go to the moon to expensive...Come on its bullshit. Just the new generation of NASA are probably disgusted to find out the truth so they just don't even bring it up...Going to the moon would set this generation into a frenzy!
UgLyKoerner 1 year ago
@UgLyKoerner, can you give a compelling reason to start a lunar program using taxpayer dollars during this current economic crisis? If you can, I'm all for it. But why go? If it's to repeat what Apollo did--3 days on the surface at max--why? If it's to stay for months at a time, well, that's exponentially more dangerous, complex and expensive. It's all about risk/reward. It's just not compelling. It has nothing to do with our technological know-how & the first 9 trips were not a hoax.
LunarTuner 1 year ago
The Lunar Landing was a technological Jesus. People will blindly beleive in it weather it is true or not, but answer me this: Have we not gone back or even left the earth's orbit because it is too expensive or because it is impossible with today's technology. Look at all of the other technological advancements we have made in 40 years. You have more processing power in your iPhone nowadays than any supercomputer available in the late 60's. Why hasn't space travel done the same?
RockN311 1 year ago
@RockN311 -- Space travel has not advanced in the same way computer technology has because there is nothing to be that much more advanced.
Look at the rest of aerospace as well. The 747 was first flown before Apollo 11. Boeing is still building them. Nobody has come up with anything other than relatively minor improvements over its technology.
The SR71 was flown years before Apollo but still nothing can catch it in the sky.
We had a super sonic transport -- but no longer.
nesokretep 1 year ago
@RockN311 -- There is no fundamenatal thing to be more advanced about putting a tank of kerosene on top of a tank of LOX and making a big fire to launch it into space. The Atlas booster of the Mercury program that was first tested in 1957 is not that much different from the booster of the same name that is STILL being used today. It has some more refined plumbing and control of the nozzle, that is all.
nesokretep 1 year ago
@RockN311 -- Understanding how the moon landing was accomplished is NOT a "technological Jesus." It has NOTHING to do with taking anything by faith or merely "believing" anything.
On the one hand, all of the basics of the physics and engineering of the project are fairly easy to understand. It was not a huge leap in science. It was a huge engineering project.
On the other hand, it is VERY easy with just a little math & physics to show that many of the moon-hoax theory advocates are frauds.
nesokretep 1 year ago 10
@nesokretep
In fact, it is completely wrong that it was not that difficult.
It was difficult.
Landing the LM on the moon has nothing to do with landing a plane on earth, it is much much more difficult.
A plane benefits of forces created by air, a horizontal force which slows it down, and a vertical forces which lifts it; these forces considerably help a plane to fly.
hunchbacked 7 months ago
@nesokretep
The LM was not benefitting of these forces and had to control everything with the push of its engine distributed on the two axes by the latitude controlled with the RCS.
It had to maneuver to arrive on the moon with both horizontal (initially 6000 km/h) and vertical speeds nullified, and, if it could not make it, it was the crash guaranteed with no possibility of avoiding it.
hunchbacked 7 months ago
@nesokretep
So, it was a very difficult technological challenge, and all the technological experience of planes could not help, it was very different conditions.
It was not just a huge project, but also a project with extraordinary difficulties.
hunchbacked 7 months ago
@hunchbacked -- Nobody ever said it was not difficult.
Can you point to anyone saying that landing on the moon was not difficult?
No. Of course you can't.
Sometimes people do things that are difficult.
It's silly to pretend to argue against someone who said it was not difficult when nobody ever said that.
But then, all of your arguments are silly.
nesokretep 7 months ago
@nesokretep
The way that you said it, you meant that it was just a huge project, but not technologically very difficult.
hunchbacked 7 months ago
@hunchbacked -- No. I have never said or implied that it was not difficult.
What I HAVE said is that there is no piece of technology that would be needed for such a project that did not exist in 1969.
And I have said that there is nothing about it that is difficult to understand now that we can look back on it.
And I have said that it did not take any fundamental scientific breakthrough like, for instance, the invention of the atomic bomb or laser did, which both require quantum physics.
nesokretep 7 months ago
@nesokretep
The problem is to know if the technology of this time was sufficient to efficiently guide the LM!
If we read the documentation of Apollo, we may have doubts!
hunchbacked 7 months ago
@hunchbacked -- Why have doubts? People have made physical models of the Apollo guidance computer and they work. (No, I'm not talking about modern computer model simulations. I'm talking about the actual electronics of the physical computer.)
And the main guidance wasn't even done on Apollo. You aren't going to claim that the mainframe computers on Earth were incapable of doing the calculations.
No. There is no actual reason to doubt the guidance.
nesokretep 7 months ago
@hunchbacked As you are the only one doubting the documentation, it's much more likely that you have misunderstood it, than it to be wrong.
Obviously many unmanned probes managed to get to the moon before Apollo did, so either none of them worked, or all of them did.
Why couldn't Apollo craft get there, and Surveyor did? Your logic is utterly broken. After 5 successful probe landings, suddenly they became retarded and couldn't do it again?
krisdevalle 7 months ago
@krisdevalle
I might have misunderstood one point, but not so many points.
Everything is wrong in the documentation, and it is wrong because it is wrong and not because I misunderstand it.
hunchbacked 7 months ago
@hunchbacked Everything is wrong? Get a recognised expert to back your claims and I might believe you.
And also, you moron, stars are extremely difficult to see from the lunar surface. We can see other examples simply by doing a google image search. Pick a planet - any planet. And see if there are stars in the photo.
Go on. Prove me wrong.
krisdevalle 7 months ago
@krisdevalle
Sooner or later I'll get one, when I can find one courageous enough not to hide the truth.
hunchbacked 7 months ago
@hunchbacked You know, when you get an amateur one like the visibility of stars wrong, it does not lead me to believe in your expertise very much.
krisdevalle 7 months ago
@krisdevalle
No, it's absolutely ot an amateur's view to say that, when you raise your head, you can see the stars which are very brilliant when seen from the moon.
The amateurs are those who think they can't be seen, that they are as dim as seen from the earth.
hunchbacked 7 months ago
@hunchbacked How do you know this, and if it's so easy to understand, why were the astronauts told to say it was very hard to see stars?
Why do you think you are right when everyone else says you are wrong?
krisdevalle 7 months ago
@hunchbacked So why did non-amateurs like Dr. Chawla on STS-107 state, that she could see stars only when Columbia had the Earth under the body of the spacecraft and the astronauts were looking through the windows which were on the other side (with other words: the lightsource Earth was blocked)?
CHSarahBs 7 months ago
@CHSarahBs
When the astronauts raise their heads over the lunar surface, they should be able to see stars.
And the stars are not on the side of the earth, they are on the side of the universe.
If they look on the side the earth is, no wonder that can see no stars.
hunchbacked 7 months ago
@hunchbacked I can agree only partially. Here in Switzerland it is actually half past one in the night. The sky is nearly cloudless, I can see the Moon but no stars. I agree with you, that you can not see stars, when the Earth is in sight.
If the Earth is not visible, there is still the reflecting lunar surface. Looking into the sky will not avoid to notice the reflection of the surface. Try it on Earth at night, when there is no Moon and you are at a bright place.
CHSarahBs 7 months ago
@CHSarahBs
It means nothing that the sky appears cloudless; you still see the stars through the atmosphere.
And the sky may appear cloudless, but there may be a thick layer you don't see which filters the stars.
hunchbacked 7 months ago
@hunchbacked So let us go to the pictures taken from Shuttles, MIR, ISS or satellites. There is no atmospherical filter-effect. There is no picture with stars with the normal camera setup of 1/250 sec exposure, neither one with Earth, Sun or Moon nor one without them. Only if the exposure time is long enough (or UV-filter were used) you can see stars on the photos. Similar to statements of astronauts (remember Dr. Chawla). When the reflection of Earth is blocked, you can see stars.
CHSarahBs 7 months ago
@CHSarahBs
It all depends where they are shooting at.
Anyway, it is not because of the stars that I believe in moon hoax, I have much more solid and convincing reasons to believe in it; among them many technical reasons.
hunchbacked 7 months ago
@hunchbacked I have watched some of your clips and I disagree with you. But anyway it is really nice to meet an opponent, who is very civil. Thank you for this. I have made experiences with several persons from your side (DeadJesus, deadlyradiation, wengsky, p1guard and others). They all thought ad-hominem attacks would help them.
So I hope we both can agree to disagree ;) You have your reasons to believe in a hoax, I have mine to believe the landings happened.
CHSarahBs 7 months ago
@CHSarahBs
You might be interested by this video, Sarah:
watch?v=tRwZixCwLHM
hunchbacked 7 months ago
@hunchbacked I would be interested, but the problem is, that I can not play this clip. It contents material of SME and it is not allowed in Switzerland, Austria and Germany (btw. I am from Switzerland).
CHSarahBs 7 months ago
@hunchbacked So I have only one wish (desire? I am not sure, English is not my first language): to have a civil discussion with substance.
CHSarahBs 7 months ago
@CHSarahBs
It is not my first language either.
hunchbacked 7 months ago
@hunchbacked I have visited your channel. You are French? Although I am from Switzerland, my French skills are not good enough to have a conversation ;) Can you understand German?
CHSarahBs 7 months ago
@CHSarahBs
I understand German a little, but not enough to have a normal conversation.
The only languages I master are French (my native language) and English.
hunchbacked 7 months ago
@hunchbacked So it is better to remain in English ;)
CHSarahBs 7 months ago
@CHSarahBs
I think it better too.
hunchbacked 7 months ago
@hunchbacked I will take a closer look at your clips in the next days. I think we both have a good basis for a discussion about your evidences. We read us. Hope you have a nice day. Greetings from Basel.
CHSarahBs 7 months ago
@CHSarahBs
It's not just the photos and videos which convince me of the hoax.
I have examined in detail the computer and the electronic interfaces, and everything is wrong and makes no sense; not because of the incompetence of the engineers, but because they intentionally stuffed the project with errors; it is the clear sign that they have been forced to fake the project against their consent and ethics.
hunchbacked 7 months ago
@hunchbacked riiiight...All the PHDs who have studied the data from the Apollo program for decades have missed out on this, but you in your infinite wisdom see the truth. Good luck with that Wile E. Coyote, Super Dip Shit!
TheFACTSRUS 7 months ago
@TheFACTSRUS
No PHD has seriously studied the DATA of Apollo.
hunchbacked 7 months ago
@hunchbacked Prove that statement bub. Because there are plenty of PHD's in several fields of science, including physics, chemistry, geology, engineering, geo-chemistry, history, astronomy, etc that would prove you wrong. Lol.
CusterApollo 7 months ago
@hunchbacked Yeah, that's a lie. Prove it's not.
krisdevalle 7 months ago
@hunchbacked Stuart Olof Agrell (University Cambridge), PhD in Mineralogy, made mineralogic studies. Elso Sterrenberg Baarghorn (Harvard), PhD in paleontology, studied Lunar organic samples. Alma Burlingame (University Berkeley), PhD in chemical biology, did studies with the Organic Mass Spectrometer.
These are only three PhDs. And there are many more, do I have to continue?
CHSarahBs 7 months ago
@CHSarahBs
There are lunar meteorites which fall on antarctica and which have exactly the same characteristics as the "moon rocks".
Two years before Apollo 11, in 1967, Von Braun made a trip to Antarctica; of course the official reason was not to pick "moon rocks", but some other fallacious reason, but I am not dupe.
Nobody has ever been on the moon and brought back rocks from it, no there is no solid base of comparison.
hunchbacked 7 months ago
@CHSarahBs
They have brought back from antacrtica just enough "moon rocks" for the analyses.
The other ones, those which were not intended to be analyzed, didn't need to be genuine, they just had to "look" genuine...like this piece of petrified wood which has been analyzed by the dutch museum, recently; have you heard about it, this special gift from the astronauts to the dutch museum?
An interesting story!
hunchbacked 7 months ago
@hunchbacked What do you think is enough? This small amount full of erosion effects? These rocks, which first sample was found in 1979 by a japanese expedition?
No it is not an interesting story, it is a fantasy full of speculations without any base. And yes I have heard the story. It was not a gift from the astronauts, it was not a gift to a head-of-states. It was a gift from a former US ambassador to a former minister. The original gift was much smaller, given to the right time.... cont.
CHSarahBs 7 months ago
@hunchbacked ... and provided with a special plaque including the Dutch flag. It was given to Queen Juliana.
CHSarahBs 7 months ago
@CHSarahBs
Scientists who desperately want to believe in something can lose their objectivity.
Didn't nobel prizes blindly follow Hitler?
hunchbacked 7 months ago
@hunchbacked There are too many scientists involved, and they are also from independant countries (especially Switzerland). Sorry, but I have shown you that your message, there would not be a PhD studying the Apollo data, is definitively wrong.
CHSarahBs 7 months ago
@hunchbacked What the fuck are you talking about now? Scientists who desperately want to believe in something? Like ghosts? Or the Loch Ness monster? You're an idiot. That's not how science works. It is objective, and data based. You raise a hypothesis then provide as much proof as possible, then present your work for others to review. It's got fuck all to do with desperation.
krisdevalle 7 months ago
it was a quite light hearted discussion and not such a big deal but at least it shows you are clearly delusional
spacehopperballs 1 year ago
Plait had an answer?... that was Michael Goudeau you idiot..... not only do you not know what is being said - you don't even know who is saying it.
why not show me a picture of the lander like you describe........ with the "Dust" blown out enough that you can see photograph it from space
At the end Plait at least had the humility to admit he could not rebut Rogan
.... just copy and paste - Phil Plait Gets Owned By Joe Rogan - in the search box
spacehopperballs 1 year ago
@spacehopperballs I have only seen one image from lunar orbit that shows a hint of the disturbed dust. And that was from the CSM during the Apollo 15 mission. Other later images taken by ESA and Japanese probes have seen either lit up craters and or produced false colored images that would not reveal the scattered dust to the naked eye.
CusterApollo 1 year ago
@spacehopperballs -- Yes, Plait had an answer. You would know that if you had understood his answer. And he should have stuck with it instead of getting flustered because it was a perfectly good answer.
He suspected (and he was proabably right) that the photograph being refered to was not a true-color photo, but was an image in other than true-color visible light. It is difficult to tell the difference with pictures on the moon because most of it is shades of grey anyway.
nesokretep 1 year ago
@spacehopperballs -- Plait's only problem in that session was NOT that he didn't have an answer, but that he got flustered. (Many people (especially engineering types) are not very good public speakers. And it doesn't help when you are being confronted over radio by a person you cannot see who is talking about a thing that you cannot see.)
Very often an image from above can show a pattern on a surface that you cannot see as well if you are standing on the surface.
nesokretep 1 year ago
There are satellites many thousands of miles away from Earth so there would be obvious operational reasons for having a space station above low orbit. -
yet in 40 odd years we have never been above low orbit of/300 odd miles - even for 5 minutes.
Are you actually admitting it would be too dangerous to have one?
The contradictions of space travel as told by NASA defy logic.
spacehopperballs 1 year ago
@spacehopperballs -- You are not making any sense with whatever you are trying to say about a space station above low orbit.
Do you honestly not know the difference between one hour and six months?
Because that, in effect, is what you are currently claiming.
nesokretep 1 year ago
@nesokretep you sound like that idiot Phil Plait getting owned by Joe Rogan
spacehopperballs 1 year ago
@spacehopperballs -- thank you.
You are the one who in effect claims to not know the differrence between one hour and six months. So I'll take any attempted insult by you as a compliment.
nesokretep 1 year ago
@spacehopperballs -- Now: Just in case you might be able to comprehend an explanation:
You ARE, in fact, NOT making any sense with your claim about a potential space station in high orbit.
A space station there would expose occupants to Van Allen belt radiation for months at a time. There IS a difference between that and going through in a matter of an hour or so.
Would you like to explain WHY you don't see the difference?
Or, perhaps simply try again.
nesokretep 1 year ago
@spacehopperballs -- Oh my god. I just listened to your Phil Plait recording.
I guess you didn't even attempt to understand either the photo that they were talking about or Plait's explanation.
All of the photos of the surface under the landers clearly show the distinct difference between where the dust was blown away and the surrounding area.
And there should be no "blast crater."
.
... but I'm still laughing about your space station.
You're funny.
nesokretep 1 year ago
@nesokretep Joe Rogan wiped the floor with Plait and only someone as sad as you try to pretend otherwise.
Basically NASA say
there was no blast craters - which is why you can't see them in any of the photos of any of the landing sites..
Yet they then claim photos taken from space show the landing site
The absurd contradiction of this duel claim is clear to anyone with even basic acumen.
spacehopperballs 1 year ago
@spacehopperballs - No. No' "blast crater" was seen in the photo that was being described in the radio interview that you are refering to. What the guy was claiming looked like a "blast crater" was a disturbance in the dust. It would be IMPOSSIBLE for him to tell the difference between a "blast crater" and a disturbance in the dust because the photo is TWO DIMENSIONAL.
If you don't know what "two dimensional" means, just let me know. The term may be too technical for you.
nesokretep 1 year ago
@nesokretep your inability for a plausible reason for not going above 300 miles in 40 odd years is noted
spacehopperballs 1 year ago
@spacehopperballs -- I told you exactly why they don't go into high orbit.
Your inability to read is noted.
I am moving on to something more challenging than having a discussion with you ... like cleaning out the cat box.
nesokretep 1 year ago
@nesokretep Your inability to differentiate between a logical reason and a fable has been noted.
As there were no blast craters in any of the photos I have seen maybe you can supply a link or search info
for some... Also a crater is a pit or a hollow - dust or rock - something either makes a crate or it doesn't.
Phil Plait talked nonsense because he had no answer to Rogan - both he and Jillette agreed "Joe certainly knows his stuff"
Rogan was merely thinking logically
spacehopperballs 1 year ago
@spacehopperballs -- Plait HAD an answer. You just didn't understand it.
.
There WAS NO BLAST CRATER.
So why are you asking me for a "link" in a sentence refering to a "blast crater?"
.
The force of the exhaust was ONE and ONE HALF pounds per square inch of that nozzle's exit area (do the math).
That does NOT make a "blast crater" in hard ground. It blows dust.
You can see in ANY of the photos of the landers that dust was cleared from under the lander and was sprayed in a radial pattern.
nesokretep 1 year ago
@spacehopperballs -- but, then you're logic goes:
(person A): But ... OMG ... it's dangerous there.
(person B): Yes, of course it's dangerous there. Everybody knows it's dangerous there. But no need to get excited. It's not too bad if you go through real quick and get to the other side.
(person A): Well, nobody goes there, builds a station, and stays for months and months at a time so that proves you can't go through it at all.
.
You are "person A" (in case you couldn't figure it out)
nesokretep 1 year ago
"If" a Rocket could go to the moon and back it doesn't mean man walked on the moon although that is what is normally suggested - (by slight of of hand) the Phil Plaits of this world then try and make it a discussion about rocket technology........
Sorry doesn't work
Man not being above low orbit in 40 odd years is just way too much of an absurdity. - Then of course this is turned into there's no point in going back to the moon when the real issue is why never above 300 miles in 40 odd years.
spacehopperballs 1 year ago
@spacehopperballs -- Where does your argument make sense?
Are we talking about going to the moon or doing work in space?
The main work in space for the past several decades has been long-term space-station kinds of work. Of course if you are going to send someone up there for up to 6 months at a time you orbit below the lower Van Allen belt.
That they orbit below the Van Allen belt has nothing whatsoever to do with the feasability of or the radiation exposure on a trip to the moon.
nesokretep 1 year ago
@spacehopperballs -- Of course you are right that just because a rocket can go to the moon does not prove that man has walked on the moon. But I have never seen anyone make that argument.
I HAVE seen people objecting to the reality of the moon landings say that such rocket technology didn't exist in 1969.
They are wrong.
And all arguments specifically about rocket technology that I have seen have been to counter that specific objection.
nesokretep 1 year ago
@spacehopperballs -- The thing is, there is a lot to be gained by doing things in space. But if you are going to be "in space" you might as well do it as efficiently as possible. It takes a LOT of energy to climb out of Earth's gravity well. And if you are going to be in orbit doing experiments there is no particular benefit to orbiting at 800 miles or 12000 miles or half way to the moon. You might as well stay in a low, easy-to-reach orbit.
nesokretep 1 year ago
I assume you are trying to divert from the real issue which is man in space.
I don't think man can survive in space
Even Phil plait has agreed certain solar flares would have killed the apollo crews
Please stop ranting about rockets or it is clear you are trying to mislead
spacehopperballs 1 year ago
@spacehopperballs -- Why would you "assume" such a thing?
I am doing exacly what I have said all along that I am doing.
I am NOT even attempting to "prove" that Apollo went to the moon.
I am showing that you do not understand even the basics about many of the subjects that you try to bring up. And I am wondering why you are so comfortable with your ignorance.
You quote statements of your selected Authority Figures, apparently without even attempting to understand what they are saying.
Why?
nesokretep 1 year ago
@spacehopperballs -- I am not so much interested in the conclusions people come to as that they are capable of independent thought.
I would be satisfied if i could get a hoax-cult member to even just question some of their own so-called "facts."
But no -- Everyone I have seen promoting the hoax-theory is a sheep. They select some set of Authoritative Statements or make up things in their imagination and follow blindly without even trying to see if what they are saying makes sense.
nesokretep 1 year ago
@nesokretep
Look Smart guy
The Apollo myth is gone - its absurd
anyone of even average intellect with know this from a little research...
Gatekeepers like yourself will always present yourselves as the smart ones
When in reality you are the "Conned ones"
spacehopperballs 1 year ago
@spacehopperballs -- Yup. That's where it always goes.
I attempt to get someone to think for himself and he absolutely flat-out refuses.
I don't know if it's because thinking is too hard or if it's because some people are so fearful of challenging dearly held beliefs or what but it always happens.
.
For the record: You have, in fact, NOT provided ONE SINGLE PIECE of "evidence" that Apollo was a hoax. You are the one who is thereby proving that you base your beliefs on faith and imagination
nesokretep 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@spacehopperballs -- You say "The Apollo myth is gone - its absurd" without ANY evidence whatsoever that actually makes sense. When your von Braun quote was explained (although I still doubt that you actually took time to understand the explanation) you dismiss it and go past it to ... what? ... to nothing.
Over and over again it happens.
People have a particular mindset and don't like their beliefs challenged no matter what.
nesokretep 1 year ago
@spacehopperballs -- I am not a "gate keeper" to anything. I particularly have an extreme loathing for the U.S. government. I think they are a bunch of lying, power-hungry scum bags. But this is not about politics. It is about science and enginnering ... and the ability and willingness of people to think logically.
nesokretep 1 year ago
@spacehopperballs -- I do not regard myself as a "smart one" above everyone else.
All it takes is a basic understanding of astronomy and just a little math.
Anyone with that basic knowledge and skill-set can determine for himself that much of the so-called "hoax evidence" is fraudulent. But they need to be willing to THINK and not just follow their feelings and their chosen Authority Figures.
nesokretep 1 year ago
@nesokretep Well then stop talking in a patronizing manner - with sweeping generalizations and opinions.
All Generalizations are dangerous (including this one :-))
spacehopperballs 1 year ago
@spacehopperballs - It is not my intention to be "patronizing." I am merely challenging assumptions and things that are presented as supposed "facts."
For just one example: I have heard people say that the computer technology of 1969 could not possibly have supported a trip to the moon and therefore Apollo could not have gone to the moon.
But is this actually a valid statement?
Is it based on anything other than someone's imagination about 1969 computer technology and what would be required?
nesokretep 1 year ago
The Science is there now - so the fact they first say it will take 20 years to plan before canceling it just feeds the skeptics.
IMO apollo was used as a cover for the weaponization of space (Sat nav etc)
spacehopperballs 1 year ago
@spacehopperballs -- The "science" was there in 1969. Most of it is relatively simple Newtonian physics.
Rocket technology has not changed very much since then. We are STILL using only a slight modification of a booster that was first launched in 1957. Shuttle is 1960's technology. Heck -- ALL launch vehicles that are in use today are basically 1960's technology. They've refined the plumbing a little bit. But nothing basic has changed about putting a fuel tank on top of an oxidizer tank.
nesokretep 1 year ago
@nesokretep -- Modern computers do not change anything at all about the basic calculations needed to plot a trajectory for travel to and landing on the moon. You can do those calculations on paper without a computer.
You use a computer to do quick, real-time calculations on small course changes.
But people have been landing aircraft entirely without computers for over a century.
What, exactly, do you think there is about 1969 computers that would make it "impossible?"
Please be specific.
nesokretep 1 year ago
Werner Von Braun…
"It is commonly believed that man will fly directly to the Moon, but to do this we would require a vehicle of such gigantic proportions that it would prove an economic impossibility. Calculations have been carefully worked out on the type of vehicle we would need for the non-stop flight from the Earth to the Moon and to return. The figures speak for themselves:
spacehopperballs 1 year ago
@spacehopperballs -- All of the basic engineering of the Apollo program is independently verifyable. There would be no way whatsoever for NASA to "fake" the capability of the Saturn V & Apollo system without every engineer in the entire rest of the world calling them on it.
One thing is 100% certain: The Saturn V rocket system DID have the capability of launching a manned mission to the moon.
nesokretep 1 year ago
@spacehopperballs - If you are going to quote von Braun, do it IN the complete context of what he was talking about in his original calculations.
He was correct.
If someone were to attempt to build a single, consolidated rocket ship that could launch from Earth to the moon and come back intact, it would need to be taller than the Empire State building.
That is why they didn't do it that way.
You are saying things I've known since the mid-1960's.
It is NOT "evidence" of your point.
nesokretep 1 year ago
@nesokretep Context?
Hold on the so called Father of the NASA Space project said that - putting a man on and the moon and getting him back safely was "Not Viable"
What has that got to do with context?
spacehopperballs 1 year ago
@spacehopperballs -- Nope. He never said that.
But like I said, HE WAS CORRECT about what he DID say.
That has been obvious to me since the mid-1960's when I first looked into the different methods being described.
Please re-read and attempt to understand what I said. Ask if you have questions.
Von Braun designed the Saturn V rocket.
It worked.
Every engineer in the ENTIRE world has the ability to verify whether it would work or not.
I don't hear any of them debunking it.
nesokretep 1 year ago
@nesokretep "Nope He never said that"?
Im quoting off NASA's own website hehe!!
take it up with them
spacehopperballs 1 year ago
@spacehopperballs -- In that long section where you have lots of words surrounded by quote marks you may be quoting NASA's web site.
But where you simply say that he said it was "not viable" you are NOT. There you are either quoting out of context or you are applying your own interpretation to the previously quoted words.
But then you didn't even attempt to understand either von Braun or what I wrote, so ... oh well.
You can base conclusions on your imagination if you want to.
nesokretep 1 year ago
@spacehopperballs -- MAJOR HINT (in my attempt to get you to think for yourself) ...:
Did you catch the part where I said that your quote was CORRECT about the huge, impossible rocket?
Did you see me say von Braun was RIGHT about the thing having to be taller than the empire state building?
Did you even think about attempting to understand what I said, or did you just jump right back in to make some silly-assed response that you think "proves" your point?
nesokretep 1 year ago