I don't believe we've been to the moon and SpaceXs failure further convinces me.

[MrsRobinsonsHandprints]

I know I've posted this before and the majority of you think I'm batty, but I don't think we've landed on the moon.

3 billion USD, a giant leap in technological advances and yet it can't even launch.

Also, the International Space Station is 400 km from Earth but the moon is a whopping 384,000 km from Earth. So clearly it is much easier to get to the International Space Station.

But, in all honesty, with climate change, perhaps it’s not such a great idea to be using all that fuel in an effort to get to the moon. How much pollution is created by launching powerful rockets?

Part of me doesn’t really care if we’ve been to the moon or if we can do it again. I’d rather we focused on saving our own beautiful planet.

I agree but MN posters hate ANYTHING like this

Not like the open-minded free thinkers on Flatearth.com

https://news.wttw.com/2020/04/22/earthrise-photo-propelled-environmental-movement-and-led-earth-day

@ImustLearn2Cook

the International Space Station is 400 km from Earth but the moon is a whopping 384,000 km from Earth. So clearly it is much easier to get to the International Space Station.

Those numbers have been quoted a few times so is it perhaps worth pointing out that there is not a linear relationship between distance travelled and energy/velocity needed to do so.

To get into Low Earth orbit to go to ISS you need to reach roughly 18,000 MPH,

To set off for the Moon you need roughly 25,000 MPH.

Basically from an energy/velocity/propulsion POV once you've got into Low Earth Orbit at 18,000 MPH you're well over half way to the Moon, you just 🙄need to find another 7000 MPH.

Not sure how the equipment that I saw would survive 200 degrees to
-200 degrees, so many factors like this that make it questionable?! Not to mention the very hazardous radiation levels!

I think SpaceX's failure is more likely to be a symptom of falling IQs. People in the 60s were smarter and more technologically innovative than we are now.

Like what? Ignorant batshit?

My oven gets to temperatures of > 220 degrees celsius whilst the surrounding worktop remains at room temperature. Cryogenics uses incredibly cold storage that is insulated and remains cold whilst sat in labs. What is it that you find questionable insulating equipment to survive wide temperature ranges?

I haven't read the answers except the opening post....

OP, I have doubts as well. For many years I believed men landed in the moon, except the older I get, the more I question it. We are talking 1969 when technology was in the infancy period, and frankly I doubt it was possible to do it. We were in the middle of a cold war with Americans selling their own propaganda how great they were.

I think we were sold a con with manipulated images.

Translation - I haven't bothered to read the thread or any of the science or history but I know best.

Translation - I don't believe it was possible then.

On the basis of zero consideration.

As @RoseslnTheHospital says plenty of equipment is spec'd to work at extreme temperatures.

As for " Not to mention the very hazardous radiation levels!" that's another bogey phrase much along the lines of "they didn't have the technology.".

The simple answer is the radiation levels were not as hazardous as some people like to make out.

It might be worth you having a look at some of the physics etc to see the actual radiation numbers that were predicted/expected on the flights and also have a look at the measures taken by NASA to mitigate against the possibility of high exposure.

Lots of materials can handle much bigger operational temperature ranges than 400K.

What effect do you think radiation would have on the equipment?

On the basis of common sense. If it was possible to land on the moon almost 60 years ago, more landings would have happened since by other countries.. None have.

Dunno about IQs but some of the innovations required to make the moon landings were amazing - necessity was the mother of invention as we didn't have the luxury of microprocessors - but scientists and engineers developed some amazing technology - some of which was used in contemporary aircraft, military and civilian.

Why would common sense dictate regular moon landings? Once we went there (6 times) there wasn't a lot of point in going back - common sense is the reverse of your representation.

PMSL at those claiming "we didn't have the technology then" when the poster hasn't a scobie about the technology needed then or now!😂

Exactly - non of the batshit doubters has evinced a single proper argument - it's just "obvious" lol.

Because common sense is part of critical thinking. I don't believe Americans landed 6 times in the moon like taking a trip to their next suburb, while the whole program was cancelled a year later in 1970.

Just like I don't believe that despite money and huge advanced technology, no other country has made it to the moon even for their own "look how good we are".

SpaceX didn’t bother to do the rigorous testing that NASA usually do. The thing was pretty much guaranteed to blow up.

The actual common sense answer is money.

Once the States performed the first landing, done for mostly political reasons, there was no compelling motive for anybody else to spend vast amounts of money simply to come second.

FWIW the main reason the Apollo Moon landing programme ran on as long as late '72 was the hardware had already been ordered and paid for. Many in Washington were keen to shut it all down in '69, as soon as the 11 crew got back.

If genuine, I am staggered at the people asserting that the moon landings couldn’t happen as the technology wasn’t advanced enough at the time. It shows a complete lack of knowledge and curiosity about historical events.

what about other great achievements of the ages, such as the construction of the great pyramids, or St Pauls cathedral, or Roman under floor heating, or inventions of the telegraph or discovery of germs and germ theory or the studying of the constellations and the mathematics that allowed for navigation and exploration and European discovery of Australasia and the Americas? Even as far back as Vikings invading Britain and Iceland after weeks at sea on wooden boats. Do we deny they happened to because we can’t understand how they did it without modern technology?

This. ^