Honestly anytime someone uses "industry consensus" as an argument I am immediately suspicious that it's wrong

BlueTaze said:

---

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?

---

What benefit is there to putting a man on the moon again?

Other than to prove a bunch of conspiracy nuts wrong...

BlueTaze said:

---

Quote:

---

There is zero debate among professional scientists and historians

---

Lots of great arguements for moon landing. "Expert concensus" isn't one of them. Unless you believe climate change is a threat, bc all the climate scientists say so? How about all the medical experts and global authorities on COVID?

---

Again, zero debate among professionals who have studied the moon landings. Man influenced climate change? Yep, there is debate, there are climatologists who disagree. They may be way in the minority, but they exist.

*Not at all claiming these points disprove a moon landing. They are important to remember when consensus or authority is leveraged to make an argument....like Kraken likes to do.

BlueTaze said:

---

Approx 30,000 wet markets across China, 1 virus lab at epicenter of breakout. Emails showing officials knowingly lied about wet market to gaslight.

I get people's strong feelings on moon landing, but I think it's pretty well established Oswald had more connection with CIA than COVID had with any wet market.

---

Again, I said .0000001% probability. I think COVID was likely a lab leak.

And I think it's even less likely that anybody other than Oswald alone killed JFK and even LESS likely that we faked the moon landing.

Gotcha. Will be interesting to see if any of these confidential JFK files that have been teased ever get leaked. Probably more likely than China ever coming clean. But I still think we get some conclusive confirmation on Wuhan lab, similar to delay on details of Chernyobl.

Farmer_J said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

BlueTaze said:

---

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.

---

The claim that we didn't land on the moon is as demonstrably false as the claim that the earth is flat, yes.

---

Logic fail.

People who say it definitely happened are just as bad as the people say it definitely didn't happen.

None of us can verify one way or the other. There's some evidence that it happened, but then there's a lot of missing evidence that raises questions. Not to mention odd behavior from the astronauts afterwards. I suspect the truth is somewhere between the deniers and the official government story.

---

There's a **** ton of evidence. It definitely happened.

Farmer_J said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

BlueTaze said:

---

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.

---

The claim that we didn't land on the moon is as demonstrably false as the claim that the earth is flat, yes.

---

Logic fail.

People who say it definitely happened are just as bad as the people say it definitely didn't happen.

None of us can verify one way or the other. There's some a lot evidence that it happened, but then there's a lot of missing evidence that raises stupid questions that have been answered and debunked. Not to mention odd behavior from the astronauts afterwards. I suspect the truth is somewhere between the deniers and the official government story.

---

FIFY

BlueTaze said:

---

Why did everyone believe COVID came from a wet market if we had tons of evidence that was a hoax?

Why were lab leak folks called conspiracy morons in 2019-2022?

---

Everyone didn't believe it. In fact, many that did originally realized it was complete BS.

Stop trolling.

The Kraken said:

---

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.

---

I guess they don't understand:

a) Inertia
b) No drag in space

BlueTaze said:

---

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. New evidence or info could surface, therefore a 0% probability shouldn't be assigned to a moon landing hoax.

The COVID wet market example wasn't used to justify a fake moon landing. It was used to point out we have gone from believing covid came from bat soup, to having more evidence it was a gov hoax, than we do that the moon landing was a hoax. Unfortunately that nuanced point went over most people's head.

IF hypothetically, the Artemis mission or some new Apollo data surfaced suggesting NASA staged a moon landing, then those probabilities would change. Saying there is a 0% chance something happened rules out that possibility.

---

Fallacy of Appeal to Possibility
The core issue with this reasoning is that it commits the fallacy of appeal to possibility. Just because something is theoretically possible does not mean it has any meaningful probability of being true. While we should remain open to new evidence, the overwhelming existing evidence for the Moon landings means the probability of them being faked is effectively zero.

Misunderstanding of Scientific Certainty
Scientists rarely claim 100% certainty about anything, as there is always room for new discoveries. However, this does not mean all possibilities are equally likely or deserve equal consideration. The Moon landings are as close to certain as any historical event can be.

False Equivalence

Equating hypothetical future evidence with the massive existing body of proof for the Moon landings creates a false equivalence. The evidence supporting the reality of the Moon landings is extensive and multifaceted:

• Thousands of photos and hours of video footage
• Moon rocks and soil samples studied by scientists worldwide
• Retroreflectors left on the Moon still used for experiments today
• Corroboration from independent sources, including Soviet tracking
• Testimony from hundreds of thousands of NASA employees and contractors

Farmer_J said:

---

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.

---

None of my comments are personal, and I get that some well-meaning people just genuinely aren't knowledgeable about some things. But every doubting question I see on this thread, no matter how genuine and well-intended, only further reinforces the fact that there's a knowledge gulf that won't be crossed here. The questions alone reveal a childlike level of understanding. It's more than that, it almost has to be willful ignorance. And it doesn't make any of you seem smarter to have an attitude of "I refuse to believe it precisely because the government says it happened."

Never use facts or evidence??? What kind of laughable nonsense is this?

These questions are like saying "The history books tell me World War 2 happened, but I went to Europe last year and didn't see any evidence of it, can somebody prove to me that it actually happened?" Who in their right mind is even going to waste time with that?

So, do you guys also not think satellites were put into orbit in the 1950s? That humans didn't orbit the earth in the early 60s? Were all of the Apollo missions "faked"? Why in the flying **** would they risk fake after fake every 6 months for no reason? Or is the argument that "Oh sure, they could have gone in November of 1969 for 12 but no way in July of 1969!" Was landing the Viking on Mars in 1976 faked? Were the Voyager missions faked? What about the countless other probes and landers that have passed by and landed on everything in the solar system by now, even asteroids?

It's just so weird to see these questions like "How did they know how much fuel to use?" And your last sentence alone comes across like something that someone would see on a youtube video designed for 5-year-old consumption.

People keep challenging the technology but never seem to ask things like how people also split the atom in the 1940s or ever deny that that happened, that alone makes the moon landing 25 years later seem easy. But I guess maybe nuclear weapons and nuclear power are fake too. The government must have built those giant cooling towers to promote the illusion. My gosh, it's like there's a profitable industry out there intentionally counter-educating people on purpose or something.

Satellite of Love 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.

---

We didn't destroy everything. Saturn V rockets are on display. So are the remaining unused L.E.M.s. Recovered command modules exist. We only go 1000th the distance because that's what our tech is designed for and current mission. Our current tech is more sensitive than 55 years ago.

How did we get through the belt? Very fast and through the thinnest part. Though there was one mission, 14 I believe, they went through the thick of it and guess what? They turned out just fine.

Your personal incredulity doesn't mean the moon landings were fake. 'nuh unh' is not a proper debunk.

---

The current tech certainly is much more sensitive.

My first job out of A&M in 1992 was working on the SCOUT low earth orbit rocket. Basically, to determine the trajectory, we would run a program (Near Earth Mission Analysis Routine) numerous times to get the trajectory correct and then would use the data from the run to set timers on the rocket which would then turn the fins to control its attitude.

There were no computers on board to do the guidance. And I was told that a lot of Radio Shack parts went up into space because if they had an issue prior to launch, they'd generally fix it with parts from there.

agracer said:

---

BlueTaze said:

---

Why did everyone believe COVID came from a wet market if we had tons of evidence that was a hoax?

Why were lab leak folks called conspiracy morons in 2019-2022?

---

Everyone didn't believe it. In fact, many that did originally realized it was complete BS.

Stop trolling.

---

I clarified since that post. Timing is important. There was a very brief period when the term COVID first hit where almost all Americans were unaware of the sick lab workers, the Wahun lab and it's location relative to epicenter.

Many us, you me, and many others came around pretty quick while getting criticized by others. Well maybe not you of course, I'm sure you have Feb-March 2020 posts about lab leak here, right? You probably knew in 2019. I bet you shorted the S&P and went long right at the bottom.

You don't have to go full Cuomo to admit, there was a brief period where there was origin uncertainty. But the masses really didn't come around until their leader Jon Stewart mocked them years later, then Maher etc..

BlueTaze said:

---

Quote:

---

There is zero debate among professional scientists and historians

---

Lots of great arguements for moon landing. "Expert concensus" isn't one of them. Unless you believe climate change is a threat, bc all the climate scientists say so? How about all the medical experts and global authorities on COVID?

---

I have seen direct geological evidence with my own eyes.

Agglutinates are micro-impacts on lunar rocks from micrometeorites and cosmic rays impacting the rocks. It's impossible for micrometeorites and cosmic rays to reach terrestrial rocks because they can't survive the trip through the atmosphere. These rocks were definitely from an airless body. Yes, there were sample return missions, but they returned no more than 6 ounces of dust and tiny rocks (more like gravel). Luna sample return missions weren't capable of bringing back anything like the haul that the astronauts brought back - both in quantity and quality of the samples.

Of course, now you'll say I don't exist and tell us about the "dead internet theory" where everything online is fake.

Quote:

---

Just because something is theoretically possible does not mean it has any meaningful probability of being true.

---

Please post where I ever claimed there was any meaningful probability the moon landing was a hoax.

If you read thru this thread you will see countless times where someone acknowledging it's a non-zero probability is written off as a moon landing denier. That's really what I came here to point out. Your post is just another example. I guess it human nature to want to do that on an internet forum.

Your other post quotes me pointing out consensus is a weak argument, with your rebuttal making non-consensus arguements.

yea, my point is i think in this day and age where people think of the average government worker like the lady down at the post office that they forget or truly do not understand how much brain power was at work in the heyday of the space race.

the smartest people in the country and across our allied countries wanted to be involved with NASA. it was one of the most important things happening. national pride was on the line. we were alarmed at the USSR's scientific achievements. sputnik freaked everyone out. plus, NASA jobs were awesome jobs.

BlueTaze said:

---

Gotcha. Will be interesting to see if any of these confidential JFK files that have been teased ever get leaked. Probably more likely than China ever coming clean. But I still think we get some conclusive confirmation on Wuhan lab, similar to delay on details of Chernyobl.

---

I can't imagine a scenario where the JFK files are anything more than a nothing burger. If it was embarrassing one way or the other, than it would have been exposed by an opposing subsequent prez by now. More likely, the remaining classified stuff exposes sources and methods of how information was obtained, not damning information itself.

aTmAg said:

---

BlueTaze said:

---

Gotcha. Will be interesting to see if any of these confidential JFK files that have been teased ever get leaked. Probably more likely than China ever coming clean. But I still think we get some conclusive confirmation on Wuhan lab, similar to delay on details of Chernyobl.

---

I can't imagine a scenario where the JFK files are anything more than a nothing burger. If it was embarrassing one way or the other, than it would have been exposed by an opposing subsequent prez by now. More likely, the remaining classified stuff exposes sources and methods of how information was obtained, not damning information itself.

---

It's very possible it's a nothing burger. But I wouldn't just assume presidents would expose something like that. Maybe a 2nd term Trump or RFK type, but the others probably worry about how that might undermine the trust in our "sacred institutions".

Remember what Schumer said about 6 ways to Sunday. Look at how they have gone after Trump for much less. Clinton, Bush, Obama....these guys aren't the type to do that.

Quote:

---

All these questions I'm reading truly come across like "So I can put a tiny piece of metal in my bathtub and it immediately sinks but I'm supposed to believe they can get a metal ship weighing hundreds of thousands of tons to float? Yeah right!" and then demanding that the rest of us provide a fully detailed and documented chronology of shipbuilding going back thousands of years so we can "prove" you wrong.

---

Haha, well said

TexAgs91 said:

---

BlueTaze said:

---

Quote:

---

There is zero debate among professional scientists and historians

---

Lots of great arguements for moon landing. "Expert concensus" isn't one of them. Unless you believe climate change is a threat, bc all the climate scientists say so? How about all the medical experts and global authorities on COVID?

---

I have seen direct geological evidence with my own eyes.

Agglutinates are micro-impacts on lunar rocks from micrometeorites and cosmic rays impacting the rocks. It's impossible for micrometeorites and cosmic rays to reach terrestrial rocks because they can't survive the trip through the atmosphere. These rocks were definitely from an airless body. Yes, there were sample return missions, but they returned no more than 6 ounces of dust and tiny rocks (more like gravel). Luna sample return missions weren't capable of bringing back anything like the haul that the astronauts brought back - both in quantity and quality of the samples.

Of course, now you'll say I don't exist and tell us about the "dead internet theory" where everything online is fake.

---

Ultimately that's where everything is going unfortunately. The internet, AI, genuine government scandals, etc. and the ability for everyone to consume from personalized "information" sources that tell them what they already want to believe will mean that everything and nothing is believed going forward.

Photos and videos? Nope, all of that can be faked! Audio and actual quotes? Nope, all faked with AI. Documentation? Nope! all faked. Witness testimony? Nope, that person isn't even real.

We're supposed to be in the Information Age but in reality we're entering a new age where belief is everything, more so than in even our most primitive days. F'ing scary.

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.

---

I hope and pray this is someone trolling.

fc2112 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.

---

I hope and pray this is someone trolling.

---

Me too.

BlueTaze said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

BlueTaze said:

---

Gotcha. Will be interesting to see if any of these confidential JFK files that have been teased ever get leaked. Probably more likely than China ever coming clean. But I still think we get some conclusive confirmation on Wuhan lab, similar to delay on details of Chernyobl.

---

I can't imagine a scenario where the JFK files are anything more than a nothing burger. If it was embarrassing one way or the other, than it would have been exposed by an opposing subsequent prez by now. More likely, the remaining classified stuff exposes sources and methods of how information was obtained, not damning information itself.

---

It's very possible it's a nothing burger. But I wouldn't just assume presidents would expose something like that. Maybe a 2nd term Trump or RFK type, but the others probably worry about how that might undermine the trust in our "sacred institutions".

Remember what Schumer said about 6 ways to Sunday. Look at how they have gone after Trump for much less. Clinton, Bush, Obama....these guys aren't the type to do that.

---

If the government or LBJ had JFK killed then one of the republicans would have outed that long ago. They would have done so to expose corruption in the "sacred institutions". And same for democrats. They wouldn't cover for each other, especially in having a president keep a secret about agencies killing other presidents. They would want that crap blown wide as open as possible.

Joes said:

---

Farmer_J said:

---

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.

---

None of my comments are personal, and I get that some well-meaning people just genuinely aren't knowledgeable about some things. But every doubting question I see on this thread, no matter how genuine and well-intended, only further reinforces the fact that there's a knowledge gulf that won't be crossed here. The questions alone reveal a childlike level of understanding. It's more than that, it almost has to be willful ignorance. And it doesn't make any of you seem smarter to have an attitude of "I refuse to believe it precisely because the government says it happened."

Never use facts or evidence??? What kind of laughable nonsense is this?

These questions are like saying "The history books tell me World War 2 happened, but I went to Europe last year and didn't see any evidence of it, can somebody prove to me that it actually happened?" Who in their right mind is even going to waste time with that?

So, do you guys also not think satellites were put into orbit in the 1950s? That humans didn't orbit the earth in the early 60s? Were all of the Apollo missions "faked"? Why in the flying **** would they risk fake after fake every 6 months for no reason? Or is the argument that "Oh sure, they could have gone in November of 1969 for 12 but no way in July of 1969!" Was landing the Viking on Mars in 1976 faked? Were the Voyager missions faked? What about the countless other probes and landers that have passed by and landed on everything in the solar system by now, even asteroids?

It's just so weird to see these questions like "How did they know how much fuel to use?" And your last sentence alone comes across like something that someone would see on a youtube video designed for 5-year-old consumption.

People keep challenging the technology but never seem to ask things like how people also split the atom in the 1940s or ever deny that that happened, that alone makes the moon landing 25 years later seem easy. But I guess maybe nuclear weapons and nuclear power are fake too. The government must have built those giant cooling towers to promote the illusion. My gosh, it's like there's a profitable industry out there intentionally counter-educating people on purpose or something.

---

aTmAg said:

---

They would have done so to expose corruption in the "sacred institutions". And same for democrats. They wouldn't cover for each other, especially in having a president keep a secret about agencies killing other presidents. They would want that crap blown wide as open as possible.

---

Pretty wild that with all we have seen in Hoover days, and in last 8 years with Trump, you think that sitting presidents would leak a can of worms that would totally undermine the CIA and likely taint their own legacy. The one thing that unites the Bushes, Obamas, and Clintons is their resentment towards Trump for exposing DC corruption and saying things that undermine trust in the alphabet agencies.

IF (big IF) there was a leak of any reliable information that implicated the CIA in the assassination of JFK, there would be drastic negative consequences domestically and geopolitically. Especially on the heals of the PA attempt on Trump.

This idea that the overall response would be "thanks for coming clean, don't do it again, now I can trust you", is absurd.

Always believed in the landing

But like Rogan there are some things that make you doubt. Besides of course how much our govt has lied to us. Immensely

Best argument for it
Russia and everyone would scream bloody Murder you faked it. This has no #2.

Hard for someone not to talk. Then again no one's talked on JFK after all these years.

Best argument against it
Easy
It's been over 50 years, we have more technology in our watch from Apple that all the computers combined. Not only has the United States not gone back but not one other country. The rocket technology, the computers to solve the calculations and math,
The material technology, the radio and video technology.

So much greater. 10x better? Computers 10000x better.
Noones gone or tried.

Photos no stars in the background despite no atmosphere?


Here's a science question and I asked the guy at NASA when I took my kids there 7, or 8 years ago

It takes roughly 25,000 miles an hour to escape the Earth's gravitational force

What speed is required to escape the moons? Ive read it's roughly 20% so that's 5000 mph

Could that little lunar ship get to that speed? That's faster than a sr 71 and that plane has 2 huge engines and tons of fuel. I understand their gravity is much lower but you still got to get to that speed.

I've seen a lot of arguments about the "reasons" we couldn't have gone to the moon. But using the fact that there's disagreement over the source of COVID is an all-time example of whataboutism.

Quote:

---

It's been over 50 years, we have more technology in our watch from Apple that all the computers combined. Not only has the United States not gone back but not one other country. The rocket technology, the computers to solve the calculations and math,
The material technology, the radio and video technology.

---

The computers were comparatively primitive but were advanced for the time and just powerful enough to get the job done. Highly specialized for the tasks it was given, no graphics, a simple numbers display and simple input keypad. Look up the Apollo Guidance Computer and read up on how it was designed and used. Also keep in mind the big number crunching for course corrections was done by computers back on Earth, with the results read to the Astronauts to feed into their computer.

The idea of going back is one of commitment and money. Apollo was crazy expensive due to the technological and speed requirements.

Quote:

---

Photos no stars in the background despite no atmosphere?

---

The sun is bright. The light reflecting off Earth and the Moon is bright. Stars are dim. The astronauts could only see them when on the back side of the moon.

Quote:

---

Here's a science question and I asked the guy at NASA when I took my kids there 7, or 8 years ago

It takes roughly 25,000 miles an hour to escape the Earth's gravitational force

What speed is required to escape the moons? Ive read it's roughly 20% so that's 5000 mph

Could that little lunar ship get to that speed? That's faster than a sr 71 and that plane has 2 huge engines and tons of fuel. I understand their gravity is much lower but you still got to get to that speed.

---

You are not taking atmospheric drag into consideration. No air = no drag = ability to go much, much faster.

Always love the "no stars in the pictures" excuse. Take a picture of something at night without a long exposure time and see if there are any stars.

BlueTaze said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

They would have done so to expose corruption in the "sacred institutions". And same for democrats. They wouldn't cover for each other, especially in having a president keep a secret about agencies killing other presidents. They would want that crap blown wide as open as possible.

---

Pretty wild that with all we have seen in Hoover days, and in last 8 years with Trump, you think that sitting presidents would leak a can of worms that would totally undermine the CIA and likely taint their own legacy. The one thing that unites the Bushes, Obamas, and Clintons is their resentment towards Trump for exposing DC corruption and saying things that undermine trust in the alphabet agencies.

IF (big IF) there was a leak of any reliable information that implicated the CIA in the assassination of JFK, there would be drastic negative consequences domestically and geopolitically. Especially on the heals of the PA attempt on Trump.

This idea that the overall response would be "thanks for coming clean, don't do it again, now I can trust you", is absurd.

---

Trump couldn't give half a **** about CIA. In fact, during his tenure there was a mass exodus of CIA employees as he blew them off in favor of private intelligence instead. They had no career prospects.

And the notion that a president exposing CIA having KILLED ANOTHER AMERICAN PRESIDENT would somehow "taint his legacy" is absolutely ridiculous. He would become a freaking hero.

TXAG 05 said:

---

Always love the "no stars in the pictures" excuse. Take a picture of something at night without a long exposure time and see if there are any stars.

---

Not just night time but go outside during the day and try it. Deniers seem to forget the astronauts were working during the lunar day in full sun exposure.

Daddy said:

---

Hard for someone not to talk. Then again no one's talked on JFK after all these years.

---

Because those conspiracies are nonsense too.

Quote:

---

It's been over 50 years, we have more technology in our watch from Apple that all the computers combined. Not only has the United States not gone back but not one other country. The rocket technology, the computers to solve the calculations and math,

The material technology, the radio and video technology.

So much greater. 10x better? Computers 10000x better.
Noones gone or tried.

---

Apollo cost $320 billion which is the largest non-military expenditure in world history. Why in the hell would another country impose that on themselves? We shouldn't have imposed it on ourselves. It was a big reason we overprinted money, why foreign countries were redeeming their gold, why we had to get off the gold standard, and why we had high inflation in the 70s. Not to mention things cost a lot more to build nowadays thanks to government regulation and process. Just compare:

Quote:

---

Photos no stars in the background despite no atmosphere?

---

Light can go through the atmosphere. Have you not noticed? That has nothing to do with it. Go outside and take a picture of the full moon and you won't see stars either. You have to basically go where it's totally dark or do a long exposure to get stars.

Quote:

---

Here's a science question and I asked the guy at NASA when I took my kids there 7, or 8 years ago

It takes roughly 25,000 miles an hour to escape the Earth's gravitational force

What speed is required to escape the moons? Ive read it's roughly 20% so that's 5000 mph

Could that little lunar ship get to that speed? That's faster than a sr 71 and that plane has 2 huge engines and tons of fuel. I understand their gravity is much lower but you still got to get to that speed.

---

It could easily get to that speed. On the moon, the ascent stage of the lunar lander gross weight was 1,710 pounds full and 797 pounds dry, yet it's engine produced 3,500 pounds of thrust. And that's only needed to get it into lunar orbit not escape velocity. The command module had a 20,500 pound force engine. That was what was used to escape the moon. The math works out.

BTW, the SR-71 weighed 60,000 pounds and produced 34,000 pounds of thrust, and unlike the lunar modules, it had so much atmospheric friction that the skin reached 800 degrees despite the surrounding air being -60 degrees F.

I'm so torn here. The heat of re-entry IS enough to melt metal.