Matt Walsh roasts the fake Apollo mission theories

31,197 Views | 375 Replies | Last: 1 mo ago by WestAustinAg
The Kraken
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to CSTXAg92 • 7:26a, 9/24/24
AG
CSTXAg92 said:
Documentary referenced by Rogan:

Ugh, Bart Siebrel's film. Same guy that got punched by Buzz Aldrin. Good rebuttal from Dave McKeegan, who is a professional photographer.

Reply Quote
3
$3 Sack of Groceries
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to atmtws • 7:54a, 9/24/24
AG
atmtws said:
The Kraken said:

If NASA had faked the landing, why wouldn't they have added a blast crater?



3) The reason there's no regolith on the struts and pads is because there is no atmosphere to suspend the dust. Any dust kicked up follows a ballistic path out and down. As soon as the engine was cut off, the last regolith that was kicked out fell to the surface well before the pads touched down.

4) The first moon landing is the most watched live event in the history of television. That's why Hollywood gave the crew a TV star.

You have any more questions? Go for it. I've seen them all.
Who was on the surface taking the photos and videos? Come on man. There's a video of Armstrong "opening the hatch". How the hell did the camera get way out there all by itself??

This was in the Utah desert.

There were cameras mounted on the outside of the lunar lander to film Armstrong's first step on the surface.
This is basic common knowledge.
You're making a complete fool of yourself.
Reply Quote
15
agracer
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to $3 Sack of Groceries • 7:55a, 9/24/24
AG
$3 Sack of Groceries said:
atmtws said:
The Kraken said:

If NASA had faked the landing, why wouldn't they have added a blast crater?



3) The reason there's no regolith on the struts and pads is because there is no atmosphere to suspend the dust. Any dust kicked up follows a ballistic path out and down. As soon as the engine was cut off, the last regolith that was kicked out fell to the surface well before the pads touched down.

4) The first moon landing is the most watched live event in the history of television. That's why Hollywood gave the crew a TV star.

You have any more questions? Go for it. I've seen them all.
Who was on the surface taking the photos and videos? Come on man. There's a video of Armstrong "opening the hatch". How the hell did the camera get way out there all by itself??

This was in the Utah desert.

There were cameras mounted on the outside of the lunar lander to film Armstrong's first step on the surface.
This is basic common knowledge.
You're making a complete fool of yourself.
They always do.
Reply Quote
7
CSTXAg92
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:25a, 9/24/24
AG
I must say, apparently we had some *outstanding* automated photography back in 1972... That camera kept Apollo 17 in frame - and even panned back *and up* and correctly zoomed at precisely the right time.



https://google.gprivate.com/search.php?images/search?q=what+cameras+were+used+in+1972&form=HDRSC3&first=1&cw=1695&ch=2648&q=what+cameras+were+used+in+1972
Reply Quote
2
2 edits
J. Walter Weatherman
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to CSTXAg92 • 8:37a, 9/24/24
CSTXAg92 said:
I must say, apparently we had some *outstanding* automated photography back in 1972... That camera kept Apollo 17 in frame - and even panned back *and up* and correctly zoomed at precisely the right time.



https://google.gprivate.com/search.php?images/search?q=what+cameras+were+used+in+1972&form=HDRSC3&first=1&cw=1695&ch=2648&q=what+cameras+were+used+in+1972


Quote:
Apollo 17
A camera was mounted on a lunar rover that was parked about 145 meters east of the spacecraft. The camera was controlled from Earth using an antenna on the rover. A NASA scientist calculated the trajectory and where the rover would be each second, and then scripted commands for the ascent.
Reply Quote
15
one safe place
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:41a, 9/24/24
After he has a chance to do some study and analysis, maybe he can roast flat earthers and bigfoot believers, more of this cutting edge, high importance stuff.
Reply Quote
1
CSTXAg92
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to J. Walter Weatherman • 8:45a, 9/24/24
AG
J. Walter Weatherman said:
CSTXAg92 said:
I must say, apparently we had some *outstanding* automated photography back in 1972... That camera kept Apollo 17 in frame - and even panned back *and up* and correctly zoomed at precisely the right time.



https://google.gprivate.com/search.php?images/search?q=what+cameras+were+used+in+1972&form=HDRSC3&first=1&cw=1695&ch=2648&q=what+cameras+were+used+in+1972


Quote:
Apollo 17
A camera was mounted on a lunar rover that was parked about 145 meters east of the spacecraft. The camera was controlled from Earth using an antenna on the rover. A NASA scientist calculated the trajectory and where the rover would be each second, and then scripted commands for the ascent.
And clearly the NASA scientist also correctly compensated for the time it took the scripted commands to travel 238,900 miles from earth to moon, based on the precise time of Apollo's liftoff.
Reply Quote
4
Furlock Bones
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to CanyonAg77 • 8:50a, 9/24/24
AG
CanyonAg77 said:
The fact that Russia, China, Vietnam, or none of our other enemies of the time "debunked" the moon landing is really all the proof you need that it was real
it is a 100% guarantee that the USSR did everything in their power to prove it was false. i would honestly not be shocked if the CIA dropped all of the data in their lap with a note that just said checkmate.
Reply Quote
6
Furlock Bones
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to CSTXAg92 • 9:00a, 9/24/24
AG
CSTXAg92 said:
J. Walter Weatherman said:
CSTXAg92 said:
I must say, apparently we had some *outstanding* automated photography back in 1972... That camera kept Apollo 17 in frame - and even panned back *and up* and correctly zoomed at precisely the right time.



https://google.gprivate.com/search.php?images/search?q=what+cameras+were+used+in+1972&form=HDRSC3&first=1&cw=1695&ch=2648&q=what+cameras+were+used+in+1972


Quote:
Apollo 17
A camera was mounted on a lunar rover that was parked about 145 meters east of the spacecraft. The camera was controlled from Earth using an antenna on the rover. A NASA scientist calculated the trajectory and where the rover would be each second, and then scripted commands for the ascent.
And clearly the NASA scientist also correctly compensated for the time it took the scripted commands to travel 238,900 miles from earth to moon, based on the precise time of Apollo's liftoff.
you do realize at the time, the greatest minds in math, physics, science etc were working either directly for NASA or as consultants.
Reply Quote
10
J. Walter Weatherman
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to CSTXAg92 • 9:00a, 9/24/24
CSTXAg92 said:
J. Walter Weatherman said:
CSTXAg92 said:
I must say, apparently we had some *outstanding* automated photography back in 1972... That camera kept Apollo 17 in frame - and even panned back *and up* and correctly zoomed at precisely the right time.



https://google.gprivate.com/search.php?images/search?q=what+cameras+were+used+in+1972&form=HDRSC3&first=1&cw=1695&ch=2648&q=what+cameras+were+used+in+1972


Quote:
Apollo 17
A camera was mounted on a lunar rover that was parked about 145 meters east of the spacecraft. The camera was controlled from Earth using an antenna on the rover. A NASA scientist calculated the trajectory and where the rover would be each second, and then scripted commands for the ascent.
And clearly the NASA scientist also correctly compensated for the time it took the scripted commands to travel 238,900 miles from earth to moon, based on the precise time of Apollo's liftoff.


I mean, yes. Not like that wouldn't be information they already knew based on the other missions. But maybe you're right and hundreds if not thousands of people are in on a grand conspiracy that hasn't been leaked in 50 years. Brilliant.
Reply Quote
6
torrid
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Furlock Bones • 9:02a, 9/24/24
AG
Furlock Bones said:
CSTXAg92 said:
J. Walter Weatherman said:
CSTXAg92 said:
I must say, apparently we had some *outstanding* automated photography back in 1972... That camera kept Apollo 17 in frame - and even panned back *and up* and correctly zoomed at precisely the right time.



https://google.gprivate.com/search.php?images/search?q=what+cameras+were+used+in+1972&form=HDRSC3&first=1&cw=1695&ch=2648&q=what+cameras+were+used+in+1972


Quote:
Apollo 17
A camera was mounted on a lunar rover that was parked about 145 meters east of the spacecraft. The camera was controlled from Earth using an antenna on the rover. A NASA scientist calculated the trajectory and where the rover would be each second, and then scripted commands for the ascent.
And clearly the NASA scientist also correctly compensated for the time it took the scripted commands to travel 238,900 miles from earth to moon, based on the precise time of Apollo's liftoff.
you do realize at the time, the greatest minds in math, physics, science etc were working either directly for NASA or as consultants.
So they undoubtedly were very good at covering their tracks.
Reply Quote
2
Furlock Bones
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to torrid • 9:04a, 9/24/24
AG
torrid said:
Furlock Bones said:
CSTXAg92 said:
J. Walter Weatherman said:
CSTXAg92 said:
I must say, apparently we had some *outstanding* automated photography back in 1972... That camera kept Apollo 17 in frame - and even panned back *and up* and correctly zoomed at precisely the right time.



https://google.gprivate.com/search.php?images/search?q=what+cameras+were+used+in+1972&form=HDRSC3&first=1&cw=1695&ch=2648&q=what+cameras+were+used+in+1972


Quote:
Apollo 17
A camera was mounted on a lunar rover that was parked about 145 meters east of the spacecraft. The camera was controlled from Earth using an antenna on the rover. A NASA scientist calculated the trajectory and where the rover would be each second, and then scripted commands for the ascent.
And clearly the NASA scientist also correctly compensated for the time it took the scripted commands to travel 238,900 miles from earth to moon, based on the precise time of Apollo's liftoff.
you do realize at the time, the greatest minds in math, physics, science etc were working either directly for NASA or as consultants.
So they undoubtedly were very good at covering their tracks.
Reply Quote
1
Just an Ag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to J. Walter Weatherman • 9:20a, 9/24/24
AG
J. Walter Weatherman said:
CSTXAg92 said:
J. Walter Weatherman said:
CSTXAg92 said:
I must say, apparently we had some *outstanding* automated photography back in 1972... That camera kept Apollo 17 in frame - and even panned back *and up* and correctly zoomed at precisely the right time.



https://google.gprivate.com/search.php?images/search?q=what+cameras+were+used+in+1972&form=HDRSC3&first=1&cw=1695&ch=2648&q=what+cameras+were+used+in+1972


Quote:
Apollo 17
A camera was mounted on a lunar rover that was parked about 145 meters east of the spacecraft. The camera was controlled from Earth using an antenna on the rover. A NASA scientist calculated the trajectory and where the rover would be each second, and then scripted commands for the ascent.
And clearly the NASA scientist also correctly compensated for the time it took the scripted commands to travel 238,900 miles from earth to moon, based on the precise time of Apollo's liftoff.


I mean, yes. Not like that wouldn't be information they already knew based on the other missions. But maybe you're right and hundreds if not thousands of people are in on a grand conspiracy that hasn't been leaked in 50 years. Brilliant.
All it takes is a small number of people to be in on the conspiracy. Everybody else is diligently working their tasks thinking it is really happening.

Disclosure: I think we really went to the moon and everything is legit. But if you think it takes "hundreds/thousands" to be in on a conspiracy, then you need to up your conspiracy game!
Reply Quote
4
1 edit
The Kraken
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to CSTXAg92 • 9:33a, 9/24/24
AG
CSTXAg92 said:
J. Walter Weatherman said:
CSTXAg92 said:
I must say, apparently we had some *outstanding* automated photography back in 1972... That camera kept Apollo 17 in frame - and even panned back *and up* and correctly zoomed at precisely the right time.



https://google.gprivate.com/search.php?images/search?q=what+cameras+were+used+in+1972&form=HDRSC3&first=1&cw=1695&ch=2648&q=what+cameras+were+used+in+1972


Quote:
Apollo 17
A camera was mounted on a lunar rover that was parked about 145 meters east of the spacecraft. The camera was controlled from Earth using an antenna on the rover. A NASA scientist calculated the trajectory and where the rover would be each second, and then scripted commands for the ascent.
And clearly the NASA scientist also correctly compensated for the time it took the scripted commands to travel 238,900 miles from earth to moon, based on the precise time of Apollo's liftoff.
Good video explaining how it was done.



Reply Quote
2
Furlock Bones
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Just an Ag • 9:34a, 9/24/24
AG
Einhorn is Finkle! Finkle is Einhorn! Einhorn is a man!
Reply Quote
BlueTaze
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:58p, 9/24/24
Comparing moon landing skepticism to Bigfoot, flat earthers, 9/11 hoaxers etc and calling for them to be disparaged doesn't really help your case.

That's exactly what happend to those who claimed COVID came from a lab, and not the wet market that the gov knew was a hoax for geopolitical purposes.
Reply Quote
3
Joes
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:11p, 9/24/24
It's just not possible to be remotely educated about science and physics and the history of the space program and still doubt the moon landings. It truly is flat-Earth level stuff and it's embarrassing to even read some of what I'm seeing. It happened, period. It's like questioning whether or not WW2 happened.
Reply Quote
11
The Kraken
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Joes • 1:19p, 9/24/24
AG
Joes said:
It's just not possible to be remotely educated about science and physics and the history of the space program and still doubt the moon landings. It truly is flat-Earth level stuff and it's embarrassing to even read some of what I'm seeing. It happened, period. It's like questioning whether or not WW2 happened.
This. Anyone who doubts it really hasn't read up on the history and/or is easily fooled by the grifters on YouTube
Reply Quote
12
BlueTaze
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:09p, 9/24/24
Hopefully within next couple decades Elon sends astronauts to moon to hop around and plant a flag.

At that point, the arguement about it being staged would certainly enter flat earther and 9/11 truther territory. At that point, the only observable difference should then be the evolution of camera tech.

Most of the moon landing denier arguements are conclusively debunked, at the same time many arguements on the other side are weak. For example, the idea that China and Russia would weigh in to expose a hoax isn't strong. We have seen many recent actual US gov hoaxes and lies come to fruition without other countries weighing in. We've seen Western inter gov agencies and gov staffers observe and participate in lies, without ever admitting it or testifying to it....and Russia/China don't call it out.
Reply Quote
YellowPot_97
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BlueTaze • 2:47p, 9/24/24
AG
BlueTaze said:

At that point, the arguement about it being staged would certainly enter flat earther and 9/11 truther territory.

It already is. The fact this is even being entertained on a message board of college educated people is ****ing embarrassing.
Reply Quote
11
Im Gipper
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BlueTaze • 2:55p, 9/24/24
You need to pick up a history book!'

If we didn't land on the moon, there's ZERO chance the USSR would keep that covered up! It was a monumental achievement the Soviets would LOVE to be able to discredit!

It already has entered flat earther territory. You just refuse to see the obvious!

I'm Gipper
Reply Quote
13
ME92
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to CSTXAg92 • 2:56p, 9/24/24
AG
CSTXAg92 said:
J. Walter Weatherman said:
CSTXAg92 said:
I must say, apparently we had some *outstanding* automated photography back in 1972... That camera kept Apollo 17 in frame - and even panned back *and up* and correctly zoomed at precisely the right time.



https://google.gprivate.com/search.php?images/search?q=what+cameras+were+used+in+1972&form=HDRSC3&first=1&cw=1695&ch=2648&q=what+cameras+were+used+in+1972


Quote:
Apollo 17
A camera was mounted on a lunar rover that was parked about 145 meters east of the spacecraft. The camera was controlled from Earth using an antenna on the rover. A NASA scientist calculated the trajectory and where the rover would be each second, and then scripted commands for the ascent.
And clearly the NASA scientist also correctly compensated for the time it took the scripted commands to travel 238,900 miles from earth to moon, based on the precise time of Apollo's liftoff.
I got to see The Last Man on the Moon and listen to Astronaut Cernan answer questions from the audience back in 2016.

He talked a little about how videos of the previous liftoffs were messed up precisely because the controllers weren't compensating correctly for the time delay between making the commands and the camera executing the commands. The controllers finally got it right on the last lift off.
Reply Quote
5
1 edit
BlueTaze
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to YellowPot_97 • 3:02p, 9/24/24
You think the probability that the moon landing was staged is the same as the earth being flat or the feds demolishing the twin towers?

I think it's more embarassing to be unable to recognize a discernable difference between them.
Reply Quote
1
BlueTaze
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Im Gipper • 3:12p, 9/24/24
Im Gipper said:
You need to pick up a history book!'

If we didn't land on the moon, there's ZERO chance the USSR would keep that covered up! It was a monumental achievement the Soviets would LOVE to be able to discredit!

It already has entered flat earther territory. You just refuse to see the obvious!


Not sure what you are talking about. With everything we have today, I accept we landed on the moon. I'm saying I'm open to new info and new mission data, and recognize many "debunk" arguements are weak. Especially the argument that the Soviets didn't disprove, therefore it's real. There are so many other stronger arguements, so it's confusing why that is the one that always comes up.
Reply Quote
Im Gipper
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BlueTaze • 3:13p, 9/24/24
Quote:
Not sure what you are talking about
See previous post about picking up a book!


I'm Gipper
Reply Quote
SociallyConditionedAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:15p, 9/24/24
AG
So, we went to the moon over 50 years ago, then destroyed everything, and now we can only go 1000th of the distance with all of our modern technology? How did they even get through the Van Allen belt? We didn't go to the moon.
Reply Quote
3
BlueTaze
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Im Gipper • 3:19p, 9/24/24
What is "obvious that I am refusing to see"? That was my question.

Are you saying it's obvious that a staged moon landing is the same unlikely probability as the earth being flat or feds demolishing twin towers?

Telling me to read a history book is worthless. I understand the cold war, and importance of the space race and it's mission to raise the US stature above Soviets. As well as the need to give hope to Americans demoralized on the heels of JFK assassination, that more likely than not, the CIA played a role in.
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
TexAgs91
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to SociallyConditionedAg • 3:26p, 9/24/24
AG
SociallyConditionedAg said:
So, we went to the moon over 50 years ago, then destroyed everything, and now we can only go 1000th of the distance with all of our modern technology? How did they even get through the Van Allen belt? We didn't go to the moon.
The Van Allen belt isn't an impenetrable wall.
"Freedom is never more than one election away from extinction"
Fight! Fight! Fight!
Reply Quote
8
TexAgs91
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to CSTXAg92 • 3:36p, 9/24/24
AG
CSTXAg92 said:

2) Why is there no sign of even a slight blast crater below or around the lander?
How much thrust did the lander produce during landing? How much loose regolith was there?

Quote:
3) The lunar lander pad surfaces are all shiny. Why was there no dust on those surfaces kicked up from the lander's thrusters?
Which surfaces are shiny? All those vertical surfaces and steep landing legs? How fast would the dust have to be traveling to only make it that high? Does that velocity correspond with the answer you gave for the velocity of the thrust?
"Freedom is never more than one election away from extinction"
Fight! Fight! Fight!
Reply Quote
1
William Foster
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:51p, 9/24/24
I used to think the people who thought the moon landing was faked ranged from shockingly stupid to psychotic just a few short years ago. Knowing what I know now, that we are basically peasant scum and the government, our supposed "servants", absolutely hate us and lie to us almost constantly, and try to keep the game as rigged as possible (even interfering in elections)...NOTHING would shock me anymore.

"Was it faked?"

2019 Me: "Hellno, you are out of your mind and should be banned for such stupidity".

2024 Me: "Maybe, they are constantly lying to us and faking everything and we basically live in a fake country/republic, and likely have for decades. Our government has done much more diabolical things than this."

The ONLY reason I lean towards it being real, is because our government is far too incompetent to successfully pull off such an elaborate widescale hoax. I'm 65/35, in favor of us really landing on the moon.
Reply Quote
4
2 edits
BlueTaze
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TexAgs91 • 4:12p, 9/24/24
TexAgs91 said:
SociallyConditionedAg said:
So, we went to the moon over 50 years ago, then destroyed everything, and now we can only go 1000th of the distance with all of our modern technology? How did they even get through the Van Allen belt? We didn't go to the moon.
The Van Allen belt isn't an impenetrable wall.


I believe the argument here is that since the Apollo missions, the risk to life has been too great for re-pentrating the VA belt and revisiting moon. Back then, the need to win space race, elevate geopolitical stature above all others, and give hope to a demoralized American citizenry, was worth executing a moon landing.

We now have the Artemis program with phase 3 putting man back on the moon, originally scheduled for 2024, then 2025, now likely won't happen until after 2027.
Reply Quote
1
Farmer_J
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Joes • 4:29p, 9/24/24
Joes said:
It's just not possible to be remotely educated about science and physics and the history of the space program and still doubt the moon landings. It truly is flat-Earth level stuff and it's embarrassing to even read some of what I'm seeing. It happened, period. It's like questioning whether or not WW2 happened.


Then why do people that defend the moon landing, never use actual facts or evidence? Did nasa really lose it?

How much fuel did it take to get to the moon? Where are the plans for the lunar rover? What battery technology did they use to power the a/c? You realize it can get up to 200 degrees on the moon, right?

And all this brand new equipment worked perfectly the first time. In 1969. Wow.

To put in perspective, if the moon was the size of a globe, the space station would be 3/8 of an inch away, the moon would be 30 feet.



Reply Quote
1
The Kraken
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to SociallyConditionedAg • 5:23p, 9/24/24
AG
SociallyConditionedAg said:
So, we went to the moon over 50 years ago, then destroyed everything, and now we can only go 1000th of the distance with all of our modern technology? How did they even get through the Van Allen belt? We didn't go to the moon.
Seriously?? Are you trolling or do you actually believe this drivel? You call yourself an Ag? Do you have a degree?

In summary:

The US won the race to the moon. Public support for further missions waned due to the extreme costs involved. Congress cancelled the already planned Apollos 18, 19 and 20.

NASA, under the direction of Nixon, moved on the Space Shuttle program. While is was under development the Apollo program ended with Skylab and its 3 crews and the Apollo-Soyuz mission.

Shuttle program and the ISS. Shuttle was retired. We have Space X and Boeing contracted to provide access to the ISS. ISS will be retired in about 10 years. Artemis program to return to the moon is ongoing but doesn't have the same funding Apollo had, so it's timeline is much longer, plus the SLS system is *******ized by Congress.

Nothing was "destroyed" outside of whatever tooling was used to make the Saturn Vs and Apollo spacecraft. The program ended. Same reason you can't build a brand new 707 or a 1968 Camaro.

Van Allen Belt isn't an issue based on the speed and direction of travel. Even Dr Van Allen said so.

I guess nothing about F16 will surprise me anymore.
Reply Quote
10
BlueTaze
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:29p, 9/24/24
If we don't put a man on the moon in 2027, 30, 35, or 40, do you think it would be time to be skeptical?
Reply Quote
1
The Kraken
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Farmer_J • 5:34p, 9/24/24
AG
Quote:
How much fuel did it take to get to the moon?
Enough fuel in the Saturn V. 1st stage to get it to altitude, 2nd stage to get it closer to orbit, 3rd stage was fired twice...once to get the Apollo spacecraft into orbit and then again to give it enough speed to extend it's orbit to where the Moon's gravity would catch it. TLI (trans lunar injection) burn was about 350 seconds to increase the speed from appx 17,500 mph to appx 24,000 mph. After that there was no need for more fuel to get to the moon, it was on it's way on a free return trajectory around the Moon. Only fuel needed was for small directional corrections and using the big service module engine to slow the craft down to get captured into lunar orbit

Not sure why the denier crowd has been fixated on that point lately....it's like they think the rocket has be be continuously firing all the way to the destination, like a car engine or a jet airplane.
Reply Quote
7
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.