We Probably Never Made it to the Moon

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo

Not sure how many times this needs explaining: it's new equipment with new technologies. It needs working out, just like they did with Apollo. Landing on the moon was not just Apollo 11, it was Mercury and Gemini and countless hours of testing.

How did we get technology to Mars then recently? It just seems like a lie that begs more questions than it answers.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo

Not sure how many times this needs explaining: it's new equipment with new technologies. It needs working out, just like they did with Apollo. Landing on the moon was not just Apollo 11, it was Mercury and Gemini and countless hours of testing.

How did we get technology to Mars then recently? It just seems like a lie that begs more questions than it answers.

With countless hours of testing.

Again, we didn't suddenly just get there - we have been going to Mars since the mid-60s and there were many failed attempts before it happened.

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: cooperton

The NASA IG has estimated that they will spend $93B on Artemis/SLS from 2012-2025, and each SLS launch will be $4.1B. NASA is pushing back against that, but hasn’t given any figures to counter it.

www.cnbc.com...

originally posted by: iskyguy

The claim they make, and my don't you have to sit through a lot of sales pitch to get to it, is not true:

www.theblackvault.com...

Since this record was first posted in the Wikileaks database and discovered by those who peruse the site, much speculation has circulated about what it truly meant. However, now that it is revealed, it shows that it was simply a response letter to a 1979 inquiry by the then, House of Representatives member Samuel Devine.

From the actual letter:

...Mr Arbogast's query about Soviet destruction of a secret US moon base is one of the most unique we have received in some time. Please assure him that the United States has never had a secret base on the moon, the Soviet Union has not attacked that celestial body, and there was no battle of the Harvest Moon.

2+2 = purple again.

a reply to: firerescue

Hang in there. You can’t fix stupid. Only provide logic and facts.

a reply to: cooperton

The specifically radiation-hardened SoC BAE RAD750 single board systems used in both Curiosity and Perseverance were invented in 2001.

It's not that new, and went through extensive testing before the decision was made to use them for the rovers. They aren't currently certified for human transport craft. Hence the need for development and testing for the Artemis program.

Something to do when you have time!

www.thehenryford.org... =dsfb_boostedpost_video_v1&fbclid=IwAR2DssZNIiSb2_Hf1nQVRLEQEvj11Nex6K309HO_rulWPXlvczmqEkP1HDA

a reply to: mikell

That would be very interesting!

Important point there though. In addition to the many Apollo exhibits you can see for yourself (one guy took a lidar scanner in to a lunar module exhibit to prove they could get through the hatch), a number of Apollo astronauts are still around that you go listen to and judge for yourself (the amount of technical detail they still know is remarkable).

A number of the technical staff (including Sy Liebergot, EECOM in Apollo 13 and Ed Fendell, who controlled the rover camera) are still around too and also appear publicly. Many of them cobtribute to numerous social media groups.

Add to that the wealth of technical documents, data and reports (no, they didn't erase it all) available in hard copy (not everything is online, doesn't mean it doesn't exist) and you have one of the most recorded and publicly transparent projects ever carried out.

The isolated, insular bubble the conspiracy theorists live in is largely unaware of this. You only have to read their dribblings on social media to realise how little they know, how little the want to know, and how little effort they are prepared to put in to find out.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
The isolated, insular bubble the conspiracy theorists live in is largely unaware of this. You only have to read their dribblings on social media to realise how little they know, how little the want to know, and how little effort they are prepared to put in to find out.

Some years ago I made a list of suspicious Moon images, and what I found was that most of them were only suspicious on the sites talking abuot how suspicious they were, the NASA versions did not have anything suspicious.
One of the problems with conspiracy theories is that they are an easy target for fakers, so many people exploit those targets for whichever reason they have.

Follow the logistics, nothing matches up for survival in airless environment. WAY to many eorrs based on Engineering analysis. Just saying.

originally posted by: Komodo
Follow the logistics,

Yep. Done that. Checks out fine.

nothing matches up for survival in airless environment.

Everythng works just fine, as designed and tested.

WAY to many eorrs based on Engineering analysis.

By all means post the actual engineering analysis ahowing the errors.

Just saying.

Got anything to back up what you're saying?

originally posted by: Komodo
nothing matches up for survival in airless environment.

Submarines?

Perhaps he edits his own page LOL a reply to: Akaspeedy

a reply to: cooperton
This is a interesting explanation of the Van Allen belt and Apollo.

www.popularmechanics.com...

originally posted by: jjkenobi
If you believe we made it the moon in 1969, and that all the new technology and break through's that resulted from the "race" to the moon and outer space were a positive for society... then what is the reasoning that we can't even reproduce what happened in 1969, let alone expanded exponentially on that progress?

Our ability to make mechanical stuff really hasn't improved much in all that time.

Electronics of today are a total miracle compared to then, but an automobile built today isn't substantially better than automobiles they built in the 60's and 70's.

We really haven't come all that far.

The SR-71 blackbird still holds the record for the fastest jet propelled plane in all of history, and it was built in 1964.

airandspace.si.edu...

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People
Good luck firing a submarine into space.

Or maybe, just maybe?

a reply to: Grenade

But a submarine operates in a harsher environment than space. It works in extreme pressure, and an airless environment.

a reply to: cooperton
Big Old ToyS, is repeat posting his pictures again. Be careful engaging as they will be shown over and over again.

My question is simple I would like for someone to post something that they government has told us since WW1 that can beyond a shadow of a doubt be considered truthful?

Round earth, flat earth, plasma moon, yadacyada frickin yada. Check the levels of water generating molecules outside of our atmosphere (troposphere etc) from our own "Space Agency's" website.
it's water outer space is water


The Earth and the moon are hollow c'mon people (earth's hum easily explained this way) and the moon rang

a reply to: Zaphod58

Indeed, just showing that we investigated the idea of using nuclear propelled heavy space vehicles with thick hulls.