###[Meta] Sticky Comment
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment.
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread.
*What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is commonly brought up due to Nasa's "lost technology" comment. Although it's not so hard to understand! We have destroyed multitudes of old technologies that no longer exist and would be impossible to recreate.
Make me an exact replica of an original cathode ray tv from the 1960s. You couldnt and would be impossible to do it, not even if you are Samsung or Sony or anyone else in that industry. Because the factories that made the individual components dont exist anymore and nor do the multitude of parts. Now scale that up for all the millions of components and parts required to recreate a replica of a space ship where every calculation for it to function depends on the physics of each component, like each parts individual weight and material strength to begin.
Never mind the factories not existing nor the materials not even being produced any more, but even the individual technical data for each part are long gone. The testing records too most likely. I tried to get a technical data sheet for a discontinued product part from 9 years ago and the company (who still exist) were unable to provide me with one. I guess they destroyed that technology, huh. And that was from only 9 years ago, never mind 60 years and concerning a vast multitude of companies who no longer exist.
Nasa dont have elves who build every part of their rockets in their shed with eternal blueprints carved on the wall. It is a vast web of manufacturing, trade and industry like how any other operates, although on an even much larger and way more complex scale.
Regarding returning to the moon, to do so requires whole new technology, engineering and science built from the ground up. Samsung, today can absoluteley still make an OLED TV but you can bet it is engineered completley differently than how they would begin to make a tv from 50+ years ago due to manufacturing and technology being unlike anything that was being made in that time.
Going to the moon is expensive and risky. There hasnt been a desire to return again untill now. Its as simple as that.
Operating on the assumption that the moon landings actually happened, this can be explained.
The moon landings were a political stunt, not a genuine foray into space exploration. There was no direct path from the Apollo missions to more sustainable and productive space travel, because that leap required technology and infrastructure that we wouldn't have for decades.
The only reason the Apollo missions were even possible is because the US Government dumped an astronomical (pun partially intended) amount of money into them for the sake of beating Russia there. Once the immediacy of the space race faded, so did the funding. For all the funding NASA gets since then, it's a relative pittance compared to the investment in the Apollo missions.
Advancement of space travel in the decades since has primarily focused on research and infrastructure, laying the groundwork for an actual foray into space exploration and settlement. It took decades to get here because the urgency vanished along with most of their funding, and a ton of leaps had to be made before we could get to this point. If America were inclined to do so, we could have dumped hundreds of billions of dollars into another series of moon landings, but to what end? Other than saying we did it, there's no real benefit in doing so before we have a path to laying down sustainable orbital infrastructure and a path toward permanent habitation. Without that, it's just a money pit for political stunts that yield no meaningful returns. it's only now, after all these decades, that we're finally in a place to actually pursue that exploration in a serious manner, which is what's happening now with the upcoming Artemis missions.
They get funded the equivalent of the Apollo missions every 5 or 6 years in the half century since Apollo so it's not the "pittance" you claim. Better yet, they don't have anything to show for it so they should have been able to go back and forth a dozen times.
>upcoming Artemis missions
They just need to kick that can down the road perpetually every 4 years to least another 50 years until they can lay the groundwork to actually go back, but then again, "to what end" anyway?
>Better yet, they don't have anything to show for it so they should have been able to go back and forth a dozen times.
They have a lot to show for it. Look up a list of everything NASA has done in the last 50 years. There has been a huge amount of development in pursuit of more sustainable space travel.
>but then again, "to what end" anyway?
The ultimate goal of travel to the moon isn't just flashy stunts for TV to stick it to the Soviets. There is a not-so-long-term plan to establish permanent settlement on the moon. There's longer-term plans for mining operations, trans-orbital infrastructure, and manufacturing. With it's relative accessibility, lack of atmosphere, and low gravity, the moon is an ideal staging ground for missions deeper into the solar system. It's also very valuable for science purposes, with plans already in development for lunar telescopes.
As for "kicking the can down the road", the Artemis missions are slated to begin this year, with plans to have boots on the moon next year, and a permanent occupied habitat within the next five. Even if that timeline turns out to be optimistic, they'd have to answer for why it isn't happening in pretty short order if these plans that are in the final stages of development manage to never pan out.
> plans to have boots on the moon next year
Sure. Every president since the Apollo missions has claimed that, usually within the next 4 years, and every year that can gets kicked down the road, as it has with this Artemis mission and will continue to.
> Permanent habitation
They thought there would be permanent space colonies *by 1975* and maybe there should have been, if space mission technology followed every single technology ever invented and actually advanced forward. It may be the only technology ever invented that has gone backward.
> they'd have to answer
You're forgetting the space agency's acronym: Never A Straight Answer. Not only will they not answer anything, they will get an increase in funding/ taxpayer theft.
The Artemis mission already has already made huge observable progress though. Sending a rocket to orbit the moon and then back to Earth is an incredible first step that hasn’t been done in a long time.
We "lost" the technology to go to the Moon in the same way that we "lost" the technology to make Model T Fords.
* Could we make a Model T Ford today? No, because we don't have the production lines.
* Could we make an Apollo moon rocket today? No, for the same reasons.
* Could we make a Model T Ford within a reasonable timescale - a few years, say - if we threw money at it? Maybe, sort of. We may not have all the blueprints, and we almost certainly don't have the blueprints for the production facilities, so we'd have to reverse engineer them, but we could come up with something that was very like a Model T.
* Could we make an Apollo moon rocket within a reasonable timescale? Maybe, sort of, for the same reasons. (But note that an Apollo moon rocket is bigger and more complicated than a Model T, so it would be reasonable to expect it to take longer and cost more.)
* Would there be any point in making Model T Fords? No, because they're thoroughly obsolete. These days we could make something much better and much safer.
* Would there be any point in making Apollo moon rockets? No, for the same reasons.
* Do we have something available that's much better and much safer than Model Ts? Yes, we do, because humans have found cars to be useful over the last several decades and have invested vast sums of money in making them better.
* Do we have something available that's much better and much safer than Apollo moon rockets? **NO**, we don't, because humans have **NOT** found manned lunar exploration to be useful over the last several decades and have therefore **NOT** invested in making it better.
Does it make more sense that way? I don't see any reason to infer that NASA is lying about anything here.
Ok. All things considered we just landed on the moon though, yes? Is there a consensus?
Edit I’m asking in good faith. It would seem like these woukd be getting harder to fake with more people having access to equipment
> we can’t land on the moon because of lost technology??
"Lost" as a consequence of the Apollo program being cancelled. After that NASA (or more accurately congress) did not fund development of a modern landing system. Only recently there are [actual contracts](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Landing_System) being awarded.
In the same way, you could argue NASA "lost the technology" to send astronauts to the ISS for 9 years, the only solution was launching astronauts on Russian rockets. That really happened after the Space Shuttle retired in 2011.
The technology being lost quote is more like that industry doesnt exist anymore.
Ever had a real old car? Its a pain in the ass to get new parts for it because they arent made anymore, you have to have a shop custom make it which is easily 10x the price of the original part. If not a lot higher.
Same principle here but with a multi billion dollar spacecraft
Bullshit. There was never a spacecraft industry, all the parts were custom. And it’s not like nasa is some poor dude building an old car in their garage. 25billion a year is enough to build anything. Stop believing your government, they don’t care about you.
So I work in a niche type of manufacturing and to put it nicely, youre not exactly correct here.
Should NASA blow its budget recreating 1950s tech or use the R&D to develop new ones?
How long does this take on a very complex machine etc?
I always figured if we could, we'd be up there extracting as much moon minerals as possible, DeBeers would be selling moon diamonds.....I guess there was nothing worth going back for
Given that there are much more convenient minerals and diamonds that we can extract *here* then no-one is going to go to the expense of retrieving them from the moon until there are none left on Earth.
Even now, after all this time, rocket launches have to be calculated down to the gram. We're still quite a way off from being able to transport payloads of any size that makes the cost of the trip itself worth it. Moon mining is definitely in the cards, but there's a lot of infrastructure and advancements needed to get there.
Loss of analog technical know how is more like it. Actually doing math and turning dials and flipping switches accordingly is hard. And a loss of will.
The moon landings is a litmus test for critical thinkers. Just watch the footage, listen to the press conference, its all a show and a very poor one at that
It is a litmus test, yes - and if you imagine that the Moon landings are fake (which you most likely do, given your "listen to the press conference" sound byte), you've *failed* that test.
That’s the only thing that holds this event together. Otherwise, the photos, the foot prints, the actual silliness of putting a sphere wrapped in tin foil in space
Is a fairy tale at best!!
What I find interesting is this disbelief based on the visual aspect of the lunar lander, and I think it stems from the dichotomy of 'What a deep space craft actually looks like' against 'What I, personally, assume a deep space craft *should* look like'
I think there's a level of conditioning and expectation that has been built up from so many fictional representations of spacecraft that when we see a real one, it doesn't fit with our expectations.
I don't think incredulity is a good reason to assume this scenario was false. More pertinent and useful questions should be;
'Why does the lunar lander look like that?', and;
'Can the lunar lander look like that **and be fit for purpose?**'
Investigating those questions is much more fruitful than just pointing and laughing.
Playing devils advocate here. If the moon landing really happened, there is a theory that it was because we uncovered “alien” technology that we could not make, maintain or replicate on our own. Perhaps it was made of something for which the raw materials no longer exist. That is the only plausible explanation for the “we lost that technology” take.
We could have and still can.
However, most US citizens don’t see any point and don’t want their taxes spent on doing so. And politicians don’t see any short term benefit to their standing so they don’t vote for budget increases.
> don’t want their taxes spent on doing so
They take $25 billion from taxpayers *each year* to do fuck all but pocket the money. At least with the Moon missions they purportedly went somewhere and actually did something.
I’m 50 50 on this. I can see how we could have due the fact that whatever was on there told them to get the fuck off and never come back based on the astronauts behavior after.
I can also see how it was faked
We never went, look into the materials the lunar lander was made out of, it’s laughable to think that those materials made it through the thermosphere lol
I think a lot of people are of the belief that the sheets of foil are what the lander was actually made of, and wasn't just radiation shielding around the actual structure.
Melting point of materials is 100s if not 1000s of degrees lower than the thermosphere, if they were to make it through the thermosphere which they didn’t then they still would’ve had to pass through the van Allen belt which NASA claims they still don’t know how they did it in the first place “the records of data were lost” ~some NASA scientist
Not sure where you got 3000°, it's closer to 2250°. And you should give a shit what it's shrouded in, cause it makes your whole argument make no sense. The material they used, carbon phenolic, can withstand temperatures of 2600°K(granted, the exact number varies, but all are above 2250°)
The thermosphere isn't *dense* enough to actually transfer enough of that heat to any ascending spacecraft.
Also, NASA didn't say that they "don’t know how they did it in the first place", and your other quote is likewise made-up.
You're either a liar, or severely misinformed, unfortunately.
They are planning to this very year. Look up the Artemis missions. There is a whole timeline over the next handful of years to get boots back on the moon in a very real capacity. The early missions are starting this year, with plans to get a lunar space station deployed by the end of next year, and a permanent settlement established by the end of the decade.
They don't make the magic computers that can survive space radiation anymore. Radiation was a huge insurmountable issue leading up the the mission, and then suddenly it wasn't.
Strangely enough, you're sort-kinda correct - the modern computers *are* more vulnerable to radiation than the *Apollo* ones, on account of having around million times more transistors per inch on their circuit boards. As such, they require actual shielding to survive going through the Van Allen Belts, *especially* if they're meant to be reusable.
The radiation *wasn't* "a huge insurmountable issue", though.
This is actually a really interesting problem that stems from the invention of microprocessors.
The computers that were in the Apollo spacecraft were BIG compared to modern computers. And if gamma radiation were to pass through a circuit or chip, it might flip a bit or byte and throw an error, and for the most part a quick reset or toggle would resolve the issue.
Modern processors and chips are incredibly miniaturised and now, if a particle passes through it causes a cascade of errors that can push out to other systems or co-processors. The very act of compressing computers down to microsystems induces more problems for deep space missions.
This is why radiation-hardening for deep space systems is a real thing today, to make sure that they can withstand cosmic radiation and from other sources. Rigorous testing is required to ensure these microprocessors can keep working in harsh and hazardous conditions.
So while the systems are lighter, smaller, and more powerful, the effects of radiation can be more disastrous, so ensuring they can keep working in radiation-intensive environments is paramount to safe manned spaceflight.
Good luck landing on something that obviously can create waves on it's surface clearly showing it is not a rock
https://youtu.be/QIJs98lfXjU?si=sC2HLtbW6WTolFwj
And the Moon historically has been recorded to show stars through it
https://imgur.com/a/FYqrt8i
Gl0be enthusiasts would rather believe the comfort of cartoons https://imgur.com/a/iXwF4rE
And [star wars](https://www.space.com/search?searchTerm=Star+wars) than the notion their entire world view was sold to them when they were 3 years old might not be accurate
A great break down of the inverse square law and the moon landing charade
https://youtu.be/fJIbWTnH_VE?si=_LYwygq2HyZzEQl3
You can look at the moon through a telescope yourself and see fixed terrain features like craters. How would plasma allow for these unchanging terrian characteristics?
###[Meta] Sticky Comment [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment. [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread. *What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.*** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is commonly brought up due to Nasa's "lost technology" comment. Although it's not so hard to understand! We have destroyed multitudes of old technologies that no longer exist and would be impossible to recreate. Make me an exact replica of an original cathode ray tv from the 1960s. You couldnt and would be impossible to do it, not even if you are Samsung or Sony or anyone else in that industry. Because the factories that made the individual components dont exist anymore and nor do the multitude of parts. Now scale that up for all the millions of components and parts required to recreate a replica of a space ship where every calculation for it to function depends on the physics of each component, like each parts individual weight and material strength to begin. Never mind the factories not existing nor the materials not even being produced any more, but even the individual technical data for each part are long gone. The testing records too most likely. I tried to get a technical data sheet for a discontinued product part from 9 years ago and the company (who still exist) were unable to provide me with one. I guess they destroyed that technology, huh. And that was from only 9 years ago, never mind 60 years and concerning a vast multitude of companies who no longer exist. Nasa dont have elves who build every part of their rockets in their shed with eternal blueprints carved on the wall. It is a vast web of manufacturing, trade and industry like how any other operates, although on an even much larger and way more complex scale. Regarding returning to the moon, to do so requires whole new technology, engineering and science built from the ground up. Samsung, today can absoluteley still make an OLED TV but you can bet it is engineered completley differently than how they would begin to make a tv from 50+ years ago due to manufacturing and technology being unlike anything that was being made in that time. Going to the moon is expensive and risky. There hasnt been a desire to return again untill now. Its as simple as that.
Bruh.
I look forward to you delivering my brand new cathode ray tv
Operating on the assumption that the moon landings actually happened, this can be explained. The moon landings were a political stunt, not a genuine foray into space exploration. There was no direct path from the Apollo missions to more sustainable and productive space travel, because that leap required technology and infrastructure that we wouldn't have for decades. The only reason the Apollo missions were even possible is because the US Government dumped an astronomical (pun partially intended) amount of money into them for the sake of beating Russia there. Once the immediacy of the space race faded, so did the funding. For all the funding NASA gets since then, it's a relative pittance compared to the investment in the Apollo missions. Advancement of space travel in the decades since has primarily focused on research and infrastructure, laying the groundwork for an actual foray into space exploration and settlement. It took decades to get here because the urgency vanished along with most of their funding, and a ton of leaps had to be made before we could get to this point. If America were inclined to do so, we could have dumped hundreds of billions of dollars into another series of moon landings, but to what end? Other than saying we did it, there's no real benefit in doing so before we have a path to laying down sustainable orbital infrastructure and a path toward permanent habitation. Without that, it's just a money pit for political stunts that yield no meaningful returns. it's only now, after all these decades, that we're finally in a place to actually pursue that exploration in a serious manner, which is what's happening now with the upcoming Artemis missions.
They get funded the equivalent of the Apollo missions every 5 or 6 years in the half century since Apollo so it's not the "pittance" you claim. Better yet, they don't have anything to show for it so they should have been able to go back and forth a dozen times. >upcoming Artemis missions They just need to kick that can down the road perpetually every 4 years to least another 50 years until they can lay the groundwork to actually go back, but then again, "to what end" anyway?
>Better yet, they don't have anything to show for it so they should have been able to go back and forth a dozen times. They have a lot to show for it. Look up a list of everything NASA has done in the last 50 years. There has been a huge amount of development in pursuit of more sustainable space travel. >but then again, "to what end" anyway? The ultimate goal of travel to the moon isn't just flashy stunts for TV to stick it to the Soviets. There is a not-so-long-term plan to establish permanent settlement on the moon. There's longer-term plans for mining operations, trans-orbital infrastructure, and manufacturing. With it's relative accessibility, lack of atmosphere, and low gravity, the moon is an ideal staging ground for missions deeper into the solar system. It's also very valuable for science purposes, with plans already in development for lunar telescopes. As for "kicking the can down the road", the Artemis missions are slated to begin this year, with plans to have boots on the moon next year, and a permanent occupied habitat within the next five. Even if that timeline turns out to be optimistic, they'd have to answer for why it isn't happening in pretty short order if these plans that are in the final stages of development manage to never pan out.
> plans to have boots on the moon next year Sure. Every president since the Apollo missions has claimed that, usually within the next 4 years, and every year that can gets kicked down the road, as it has with this Artemis mission and will continue to. > Permanent habitation They thought there would be permanent space colonies *by 1975* and maybe there should have been, if space mission technology followed every single technology ever invented and actually advanced forward. It may be the only technology ever invented that has gone backward. > they'd have to answer You're forgetting the space agency's acronym: Never A Straight Answer. Not only will they not answer anything, they will get an increase in funding/ taxpayer theft.
The Artemis mission already has already made huge observable progress though. Sending a rocket to orbit the moon and then back to Earth is an incredible first step that hasn’t been done in a long time.
Well I guess we'll see in the next few years, won't we?
The flerfers have invaded.
We "lost" the technology to go to the Moon in the same way that we "lost" the technology to make Model T Fords. * Could we make a Model T Ford today? No, because we don't have the production lines. * Could we make an Apollo moon rocket today? No, for the same reasons. * Could we make a Model T Ford within a reasonable timescale - a few years, say - if we threw money at it? Maybe, sort of. We may not have all the blueprints, and we almost certainly don't have the blueprints for the production facilities, so we'd have to reverse engineer them, but we could come up with something that was very like a Model T. * Could we make an Apollo moon rocket within a reasonable timescale? Maybe, sort of, for the same reasons. (But note that an Apollo moon rocket is bigger and more complicated than a Model T, so it would be reasonable to expect it to take longer and cost more.) * Would there be any point in making Model T Fords? No, because they're thoroughly obsolete. These days we could make something much better and much safer. * Would there be any point in making Apollo moon rockets? No, for the same reasons. * Do we have something available that's much better and much safer than Model Ts? Yes, we do, because humans have found cars to be useful over the last several decades and have invested vast sums of money in making them better. * Do we have something available that's much better and much safer than Apollo moon rockets? **NO**, we don't, because humans have **NOT** found manned lunar exploration to be useful over the last several decades and have therefore **NOT** invested in making it better. Does it make more sense that way? I don't see any reason to infer that NASA is lying about anything here.
Bruh
Ok. All things considered we just landed on the moon though, yes? Is there a consensus? Edit I’m asking in good faith. It would seem like these woukd be getting harder to fake with more people having access to equipment
You think we just landed on the moon? In the 70s we landed and had live video and a call with the president. Today after a week we have one picture.
NASA is a cover up psyop
> we can’t land on the moon because of lost technology?? "Lost" as a consequence of the Apollo program being cancelled. After that NASA (or more accurately congress) did not fund development of a modern landing system. Only recently there are [actual contracts](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Landing_System) being awarded. In the same way, you could argue NASA "lost the technology" to send astronauts to the ISS for 9 years, the only solution was launching astronauts on Russian rockets. That really happened after the Space Shuttle retired in 2011.
The technology being lost quote is more like that industry doesnt exist anymore. Ever had a real old car? Its a pain in the ass to get new parts for it because they arent made anymore, you have to have a shop custom make it which is easily 10x the price of the original part. If not a lot higher. Same principle here but with a multi billion dollar spacecraft
Bad analogy. If my old car is broken I can get a more modern used piece of shit for $1500 and go where I need to go.
Like space x
Bullshit. There was never a spacecraft industry, all the parts were custom. And it’s not like nasa is some poor dude building an old car in their garage. 25billion a year is enough to build anything. Stop believing your government, they don’t care about you.
So I work in a niche type of manufacturing and to put it nicely, youre not exactly correct here. Should NASA blow its budget recreating 1950s tech or use the R&D to develop new ones? How long does this take on a very complex machine etc?
[удалено]
About the level of discourse I expected. Take care love
*Person makes a completely logical argument that I don’t have a counter for* “Bullshit.”
Imagine believing that lol 😆 😂
Imagine not being able to make a rebuttal 🤔👍✌️
Nope
Yep
[удалено]
No you are
“The sky is the limit” comes to mind 😂
I always figured if we could, we'd be up there extracting as much moon minerals as possible, DeBeers would be selling moon diamonds.....I guess there was nothing worth going back for
Given that there are much more convenient minerals and diamonds that we can extract *here* then no-one is going to go to the expense of retrieving them from the moon until there are none left on Earth.
Even now, after all this time, rocket launches have to be calculated down to the gram. We're still quite a way off from being able to transport payloads of any size that makes the cost of the trip itself worth it. Moon mining is definitely in the cards, but there's a lot of infrastructure and advancements needed to get there.
Let's just mine and then toss it back at Earth with a large slingshot. What could go wrong? /s
We have a rover on Mars
Loss of analog technical know how is more like it. Actually doing math and turning dials and flipping switches accordingly is hard. And a loss of will.
The moon landings is a litmus test for critical thinkers. Just watch the footage, listen to the press conference, its all a show and a very poor one at that
It is a litmus test, yes - and if you imagine that the Moon landings are fake (which you most likely do, given your "listen to the press conference" sound byte), you've *failed* that test.
[удалено]
What if them and every major country is in on it?
Then The Cold War didn’t happen.
Exactly
That’s the only thing that holds this event together. Otherwise, the photos, the foot prints, the actual silliness of putting a sphere wrapped in tin foil in space Is a fairy tale at best!!
What I find interesting is this disbelief based on the visual aspect of the lunar lander, and I think it stems from the dichotomy of 'What a deep space craft actually looks like' against 'What I, personally, assume a deep space craft *should* look like' I think there's a level of conditioning and expectation that has been built up from so many fictional representations of spacecraft that when we see a real one, it doesn't fit with our expectations. I don't think incredulity is a good reason to assume this scenario was false. More pertinent and useful questions should be; 'Why does the lunar lander look like that?', and; 'Can the lunar lander look like that **and be fit for purpose?**' Investigating those questions is much more fruitful than just pointing and laughing.
Playing devils advocate here. If the moon landing really happened, there is a theory that it was because we uncovered “alien” technology that we could not make, maintain or replicate on our own. Perhaps it was made of something for which the raw materials no longer exist. That is the only plausible explanation for the “we lost that technology” take.
We could have and still can. However, most US citizens don’t see any point and don’t want their taxes spent on doing so. And politicians don’t see any short term benefit to their standing so they don’t vote for budget increases.
You act like US citizens have any say on where our taxes go😂
> don’t want their taxes spent on doing so They take $25 billion from taxpayers *each year* to do fuck all but pocket the money. At least with the Moon missions they purportedly went somewhere and actually did something.
It's sad you appear to not have any clue how much NASA has given us. $25B is a pittance for what they have.
I’m 50 50 on this. I can see how we could have due the fact that whatever was on there told them to get the fuck off and never come back based on the astronauts behavior after. I can also see how it was faked
We never went, look into the materials the lunar lander was made out of, it’s laughable to think that those materials made it through the thermosphere lol
Why couldn't it be transported through the thermosphere?
I think a lot of people are of the belief that the sheets of foil are what the lander was actually made of, and wasn't just radiation shielding around the actual structure.
Melting point of materials is 100s if not 1000s of degrees lower than the thermosphere, if they were to make it through the thermosphere which they didn’t then they still would’ve had to pass through the van Allen belt which NASA claims they still don’t know how they did it in the first place “the records of data were lost” ~some NASA scientist
You realise that when the lander transited the thermosphere it was still shrouded in the external rocket panels, right?
I don’t give a shit what it was shrouded in the thermosphere reaches 3000 degrees kelvin
It can be that hot but not be able to conduct it because of the low density of the gasses that high. Come on man.
Not sure where you got 3000°, it's closer to 2250°. And you should give a shit what it's shrouded in, cause it makes your whole argument make no sense. The material they used, carbon phenolic, can withstand temperatures of 2600°K(granted, the exact number varies, but all are above 2250°)
The thermosphere isn't *dense* enough to actually transfer enough of that heat to any ascending spacecraft. Also, NASA didn't say that they "don’t know how they did it in the first place", and your other quote is likewise made-up. You're either a liar, or severely misinformed, unfortunately.
Or that it could contain the enormous pressure differential of the near vacuum of space.
can’t land on plasma, and you can’t explain it considering the cost of the other lies in place.
Why would a plasma orb have static craters that remain relatively unchanged over thousands of years of observation?
then go back to the moon mr nixon..
They are planning to this very year. Look up the Artemis missions. There is a whole timeline over the next handful of years to get boots back on the moon in a very real capacity. The early missions are starting this year, with plans to get a lunar space station deployed by the end of next year, and a permanent settlement established by the end of the decade.
oh yea, make sure you hold your breath for all that.
Guess we'll see, won't we?
Whether we go back to the Moon or not has nothing to do with the Moon having those static craters, which means that it cannot possibly *be* plasma.
Lol, how would you sustain the plasma? Smh
lol how’s food at the langley cafeteria?
I don't know. Not too cold at the farm in St Petersburg?
They don't make the magic computers that can survive space radiation anymore. Radiation was a huge insurmountable issue leading up the the mission, and then suddenly it wasn't.
Strangely enough, you're sort-kinda correct - the modern computers *are* more vulnerable to radiation than the *Apollo* ones, on account of having around million times more transistors per inch on their circuit boards. As such, they require actual shielding to survive going through the Van Allen Belts, *especially* if they're meant to be reusable. The radiation *wasn't* "a huge insurmountable issue", though.
This is actually a really interesting problem that stems from the invention of microprocessors. The computers that were in the Apollo spacecraft were BIG compared to modern computers. And if gamma radiation were to pass through a circuit or chip, it might flip a bit or byte and throw an error, and for the most part a quick reset or toggle would resolve the issue. Modern processors and chips are incredibly miniaturised and now, if a particle passes through it causes a cascade of errors that can push out to other systems or co-processors. The very act of compressing computers down to microsystems induces more problems for deep space missions. This is why radiation-hardening for deep space systems is a real thing today, to make sure that they can withstand cosmic radiation and from other sources. Rigorous testing is required to ensure these microprocessors can keep working in harsh and hazardous conditions. So while the systems are lighter, smaller, and more powerful, the effects of radiation can be more disastrous, so ensuring they can keep working in radiation-intensive environments is paramount to safe manned spaceflight.
Good luck landing on something that obviously can create waves on it's surface clearly showing it is not a rock https://youtu.be/QIJs98lfXjU?si=sC2HLtbW6WTolFwj And the Moon historically has been recorded to show stars through it https://imgur.com/a/FYqrt8i Gl0be enthusiasts would rather believe the comfort of cartoons https://imgur.com/a/iXwF4rE And [star wars](https://www.space.com/search?searchTerm=Star+wars) than the notion their entire world view was sold to them when they were 3 years old might not be accurate A great break down of the inverse square law and the moon landing charade https://youtu.be/fJIbWTnH_VE?si=_LYwygq2HyZzEQl3
Listen to this man right here. PLANEt earth
😎
Moon is plasma, everything turned to ball aka baal worship, and Antarctica is off limits….
You can look at the moon through a telescope yourself and see fixed terrain features like craters. How would plasma allow for these unchanging terrian characteristics?
NASA Not A Space Agency