Page 21 | I don't believe we've been to the moon and SpaceXs failure further convinces me.

MuffinToSeeHere · 21/04/2023 20:21

wentworthinmate · 21/04/2023 20:13

I am not in agreement with OP but to all of you using the ISS as some sort of justification for space travel, the ISS is ONLY 250 miles above the earth!!! Hardly a reason to say yes we’ve been to the moon which is 238,000 miles away. Completely different.

How is the distance an issue? Once you've launched the rocket and it's made its way to space the distance it will be traveling is negligible. There's little to no difference in travelling 250 miles and approximately 250,000 miles.

Greentree1 · 21/04/2023 20:26

So all the American and Russian space probes were false?

Vynalbob · 21/04/2023 20:27

Oh dear loads will be calling you bonkers for this.....but I get where you're coming from...space transportation got better & better then the shuttles were retired and now in some ways we've gone backwards when clearly technology hasn't.
Years ago a drone was sent off and left our universe still sending info and in working order with the total processing power about the same as a ten page word processing document now....but now we can't take off but the costs are phenomenal......
Makes you skeptical, me I'm in the 'Burk n Hare' mentality ie if we do a sxit job we can stretch more $s.
An old aunty (the non real type) never believed in the moon landings....coz only god's up there....in all other ways she was perfect but this made me smile.

(re Burke n Hare stopped bothering grave robbing cause knocking people on the head saved time n money)

IamSuperTired · 21/04/2023 20:29

MrsRobinsonsHandprints · 20/04/2023 17:30

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.

Years ago I'd have said you were mad! But I actually agree with you!!

Sturnip · 21/04/2023 21:05

wentworthinmate · 21/04/2023 20:13

I am not in agreement with OP but to all of you using the ISS as some sort of justification for space travel, the ISS is ONLY 250 miles above the earth!!! Hardly a reason to say yes we’ve been to the moon which is 238,000 miles away. Completely different.

The most difficult, and fuel intensive part of space travel is leaving the Earth’s atmosphere.

Once you’re in space, it’s relatively plain sailing, as you don’t have any meaningful amount of gravity (or even friction) to contend with.

Even taking off from the moon is relatively easy (due to weaker gravity and a lack of atmosphere, the escape velocity is a fraction of the Earth’s).

The main issue with larger distances is the time the journey takes, and that’s what has limited our ability to have manned missions beyond the moon.

It takes about 3 days for a spacecraft to get to the moon but to get to next visitable body (Mars), it would take around 7 months each way (which presents a lot of challenges, in terms of the food and equipment required to keep the crew alive and in good health).

If you believe in the ISS, there is no good reason at all to think the journey to the moon would be a particular challenge.

Inwiththenew · 21/04/2023 21:13

There’s a huge amount of evidence that the moon landings were fake and c’mon take a close look at that explorer thing that they landed in it looks like bog rolls and tin foil definitely not something that has been blasted through the atmosphere and into space. A good reason for the fakery was the space race the US couldn’t let the Russians get there first. They also didn’t have the technology to take photos or film in space. Obviously you can’t use a normal camera.

Sturnip · 21/04/2023 21:14

Vynalbob · 21/04/2023 20:27

Oh dear loads will be calling you bonkers for this.....but I get where you're coming from...space transportation got better & better then the shuttles were retired and now in some ways we've gone backwards when clearly technology hasn't.
Years ago a drone was sent off and left our universe still sending info and in working order with the total processing power about the same as a ten page word processing document now....but now we can't take off but the costs are phenomenal......
Makes you skeptical, me I'm in the 'Burk n Hare' mentality ie if we do a sxit job we can stretch more $s.
An old aunty (the non real type) never believed in the moon landings....coz only god's up there....in all other ways she was perfect but this made me smile.

(re Burke n Hare stopped bothering grave robbing cause knocking people on the head saved time n money)

The US spent $25 billion in the 1960s on the Apollo program. Adjusted for inflation, that’s about $250 billion today. Space-X has cost around 1% of that. It’s relative peanuts.

In the 1960s, against the backdrop of the Cold War, there was the political will for the US to beat Russia to the moon. It was a massive investment with a cost so prohibitive that public support (which was only ever lukewarm at best, given the money involved) evaporated after the first few landings.

Which countries do you think, over the past half century, have had both (a) the financial resources, and (b) public support to expend tens of billions of pounds, in order to also send a manned spacecraft to the moon (for no particularly obvious purpose)?

Sturnip · 21/04/2023 21:21

Inwiththenew · 21/04/2023 21:13

There’s a huge amount of evidence that the moon landings were fake and c’mon take a close look at that explorer thing that they landed in it looks like bog rolls and tin foil definitely not something that has been blasted through the atmosphere and into space. A good reason for the fakery was the space race the US couldn’t let the Russians get there first. They also didn’t have the technology to take photos or film in space. Obviously you can’t use a normal camera.

Care to share any of this evidence?

Or explain why the Russians would go along with the supposed pretence that they were beaten by the Americans?

And what do you mean they didn’t have the technology to take photos or film in space? The first hand-held photo in space was taken (with a basic, store-bought camera) in 1962 and the first photo taken from a rocket was in the 1940s.

Are you saying that all of those earlier photos are fake too?

And why wouldn’t an ordinary camera work in space?

RoseslnTheHospital · 21/04/2023 21:23

Inwiththenew · 21/04/2023 21:13

There’s a huge amount of evidence that the moon landings were fake and c’mon take a close look at that explorer thing that they landed in it looks like bog rolls and tin foil definitely not something that has been blasted through the atmosphere and into space. A good reason for the fakery was the space race the US couldn’t let the Russians get there first. They also didn’t have the technology to take photos or film in space. Obviously you can’t use a normal camera.

You know that the lander was inside a module on take off from earth, not strapped to the outside on a luggage rack, right??

Please also do explain why it was impossible to use a camera in space? Thanks!

Sturnip · 21/04/2023 21:30

I was just looking at the film taken from the rocket launched in 1946 in New Mexico, from the camera strapped to the ship, which shows it’s (purported) ascent to space.

Amazing special effects, far beyond what I would have though possible prior to the invention of CGI.

If Professor Inwiththenew wasn’t available to explain that cameras don’t work in space for some reason (I’m sure they’ll expand on the science of that shortly) I would have assumed that it must be real, as it doesn’t seem possible that they’d have had anything like the technology to take the footage for many decades thereafter.

KimberleyClark · 21/04/2023 21:34

Do those who think we never landed on the moon think all subsequent Apollo missions were also faked?

Candymay · 21/04/2023 22:37

It would be great if man really could go to the moon though. So exciting to think about it.

Vynalbob · 21/04/2023 23:04

Sturnip · 21/04/2023 21:14

The US spent $25 billion in the 1960s on the Apollo program. Adjusted for inflation, that’s about $250 billion today. Space-X has cost around 1% of that. It’s relative peanuts.

In the 1960s, against the backdrop of the Cold War, there was the political will for the US to beat Russia to the moon. It was a massive investment with a cost so prohibitive that public support (which was only ever lukewarm at best, given the money involved) evaporated after the first few landings.

Which countries do you think, over the past half century, have had both (a) the financial resources, and (b) public support to expend tens of billions of pounds, in order to also send a manned spacecraft to the moon (for no particularly obvious purpose)?

Show quote history

Two points....what was the purpose then and what is the purpose now.

In any other field technology gets cheaper and better.

I'm just agreeing with OP that it's odd....I do think it happened though.

woketwatism · 21/04/2023 23:25

Of course it’s fake - look at the footage , it’s so obvious.
While you’re at it look at the videos of 9/11 - there were no planes, cgi. People took videos with recorders the explosions came from inside. Eye witnesses said no planes , explosions from inside.

climate change - we have less co2 than we had millions of years ago. If it gets lower plant life will die.

As for the gene therapy https://www.theflstandard.com/top-insurance-analyst-600-000-americans-per-year-are-dying-from-covid-shots/

switch off your TVs. I wear my tinfoil hat proudly

600,000 Americans Per Year Are Dying From COVID Shots Says Top Insurance Analyst

Former Bernstein senior analyst Josh Stirling draws a shocking conclusion from UK government health data.

https://www.theflstandard.com/top-insurance-analyst-600-000-americans-per-year-are-dying-from-covid-shots/

Jourdain11 · 21/04/2023 23:27

woketwatism · 21/04/2023 23:25

Of course it’s fake - look at the footage , it’s so obvious.
While you’re at it look at the videos of 9/11 - there were no planes, cgi. People took videos with recorders the explosions came from inside. Eye witnesses said no planes , explosions from inside.

climate change - we have less co2 than we had millions of years ago. If it gets lower plant life will die.

As for the gene therapy https://www.theflstandard.com/top-insurance-analyst-600-000-americans-per-year-are-dying-from-covid-shots/

switch off your TVs. I wear my tinfoil hat proudly

Whaaaaaat? Of course there were bloody planes!

Candymay · 21/04/2023 23:34

woketwatism · 21/04/2023 23:25

Of course it’s fake - look at the footage , it’s so obvious.
While you’re at it look at the videos of 9/11 - there were no planes, cgi. People took videos with recorders the explosions came from inside. Eye witnesses said no planes , explosions from inside.

climate change - we have less co2 than we had millions of years ago. If it gets lower plant life will die.

As for the gene therapy https://www.theflstandard.com/top-insurance-analyst-600-000-americans-per-year-are-dying-from-covid-shots/

switch off your TVs. I wear my tinfoil hat proudly

Looooooorrrrrrrddddd have mercy

Jourdain11 · 21/04/2023 23:37

Although on 9/11, I was a 12 year old in a Geography class and my teacher was trying to flip the classroom TV from TV channels to DVD and kept coming back to the same image (the plane hitting the second tower). She did definitely say, "why are they all showing a silly disaster film at this time of the day?"

Oakbeam · 21/04/2023 23:42

@Inwiththenew

They also didn’t have the technology to take photos or film in space. Obviously you can’t use a normal camera.

It’s not obvious to me. Please explain why they couldn’t have used a normal camera and film.

brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr · 21/04/2023 23:47

There are some spectacularly dumb takes on this thread. The Super Heavy launch is not a retrograde step, it’s a first test of a vehicle with a bunch of very new technologies on board.

Reusable 1st AND 2nd stages
Methane powered engines with full flow combustion
Fucking HUGE payload capacity
On-orbit refuelling capability

This monster is a game changer and with so much pioneering technology it will take a few goes to get right. In ten years time hundreds of these will have launched thousands of tonnes of kit to the lunar surface.

And there are well documented and clear reasons the US didn’t return humans to the moon after Apollo 17, and why we concentrated on LEO missions. The OP is so completely uninformed it’s mind boggling.

BMW6 · 22/04/2023 00:13

Candymay · 21/04/2023 22:37

It would be great if man really could go to the moon though. So exciting to think about it.

It WAS really exciting. In July 1969.

ImustLearn2Cook · 22/04/2023 00:27

notimagain · 21/04/2023 10:35

@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.

Ok then. Why don’t you let NASA know just easy it is then?

Quote:

Proper Propulsion
The farther into space a vehicle ventures, the more capable its propulsion systems need to be to maintain its course on the journey with precision and ensure its crew can get home.
Orion has a highly capable service module that serves as the powerhouse for the spacecraft, providing propulsion capabilities that enable Orion to go around the Moon and back on its exploration missions. The service module has 33 engines of various sizes. The main engine will provide major in-space maneuvering capabilities throughout the mission, including inserting Orion into lunar orbit and also firing powerfully enough to get out of the Moon’s orbit to return to Earth. The other 32 engines are used to steer and control Orion on orbit.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/top-five-technologies-needed-for-a-spacecraft-to-survive-deep-space

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/orion_smonline.pdf

ImustLearn2Cook · 22/04/2023 01:00

TruthsAndALie · 21/04/2023 19:04

Why is anyone trying to go there (again or for the first time)? Don’t get the point, what’s the benefit?

I don’t think SpaceX et al should be allowed; waste of natural resource and HUGE pollution issue that is undoing some of the regeneration of the ozone layer.

Ground it I say.

I get where you are coming from and I agree that we need to put our energy and resources into preserving our planet and reducing our carbon emissions.

The reason why they want to build a rocket to take people to the moon (these days) is not just about creating firsts eg. the first woman to the moon and the first person of colour to the moon (that is one of their objectives) but to eventually be able to travel to Mars.

Why do we want to go to Mars? To colonise it. What is so great about colonising Mars when Earth has such an abundance of life and resources? Because we may have fucked up the climate here on earth and it would be great to have a back up planet to go live on.

Let’s say we can create an ecosystem that enables us to live on Mars, how amazing would that be. If we can do that, then surely we can preserve the ecosystem here.

Sturnip · 22/04/2023 01:10

Vynalbob · 21/04/2023 23:04

Two points....what was the purpose then and what is the purpose now.

In any other field technology gets cheaper and better.

I'm just agreeing with OP that it's odd....I do think it happened though.

Show quote history

The purpose then was that the capitalist USA and communist USSR were in a technological arms race, to bolster their hard and soft power. Putting a man on the moon had never been done before and was perceived to be a huge PR victory.

There was, of course, some interesting scientific research to be conducted but that was really secondary to the achievement itself.

The aim of Space-X (Musk’s endeavour) is to get to Mars and begin colonizing. This is also the same reason why NASA plans to return to the moon in the coming years, in preparation for a Mars trip, something which would have been unthinkable a decade or two ago.

EveryWitchWaybutLoose · 22/04/2023 01:10

BMW6 · 22/04/2023 00:13

It WAS really exciting. In July 1969.

Show quote history

Yes! I remember getting up early and then watching on and off all day on the live television feed.

In those days, schools didn’t have televisions - a local hi fi and television shop lent us one for the day.

The OP is an example of the stupidity of a half-education. They’ve grasped the concept of asking sceptical questions, but not the concept of actually having any knowledge about the topic.

Unless they can give me a reference to their peer-reviewed publications in reputable scientific research journals.

But I guess pigs might fly, as well.

GoldenAye · 22/04/2023 02:41

woketwatism · 21/04/2023 23:25

Of course it’s fake - look at the footage , it’s so obvious.
While you’re at it look at the videos of 9/11 - there were no planes, cgi. People took videos with recorders the explosions came from inside. Eye witnesses said no planes , explosions from inside.

climate change - we have less co2 than we had millions of years ago. If it gets lower plant life will die.

As for the gene therapy https://www.theflstandard.com/top-insurance-analyst-600-000-americans-per-year-are-dying-from-covid-shots/

switch off your TVs. I wear my tinfoil hat proudly

So much idiocy crammed in just a few sentences. I'm almost proud of you!