The Moon Landing was a Hoax... or was it?

[90 50]

How did NASA reach the moon surface without catastrophic incidents using primitive technology yet with the technology of today it can barely send equipment and men into orbit without making fireworks (Columbia, Challenger, etc)?

Also the total mass of the rocket is almost entirely fuel. This means you can take very little 'up there'. A trip to the moon means more equipment to tag along which translates to less fuel. How do you reach escape velocity with less fuel? Can a patient sherbro crunch the numbers and report back?

Challenger was shot down, it was in the live broadcast and the broadcast was stopped.

When it was rebroadcast later in the recording the projectiles that shot it down were edited out.

This happened before vcr’s so people weren’t recording it at home.

I was home sick from school that day and remeber it vividly because it was so shocking.

 

[EyeOfNewt]

Challenger was shot down, it was in the live broadcast and the broadcast was stopped.

When it was rebroadcast later in the recording the projectiles that shot it down were edited out.

This happened before vcr’s so people weren’t recording it at home.

I was home sick from school that day and remeber it vividly because it was so shocking.

Home sick from school huh. Did you have a doctor's note? I have no problem believing Challenger was shot down, but i sure as hell don't believe you were sick that day

 

[MWB1982]

Can anyone explain this? The Challenger crew supposedly died, yet here they all are.. Alive and well..

 

[Stargazer Rex]

Home sick from school huh. Did you have a doctor's note? I have no problem believing Challenger was shot down, but i sure as hell don't believe you were sick that day

This is the real conspiracy here. Was @90 50 really sick that day? WE WANT THE TRUTH YOU LITTLE BASTARD!

 

[90 50]

Home sick from school huh. Did you have a doctor's note? I have no problem believing Challenger was shot down, but i sure as hell don't believe you were sick that day

We didn’t go to the Dr back then, moms left kids home sick with their atari’s And said.

 

[fordman7795]

Can anyone explain this? The Challenger crew supposedly died, yet here they all are.. Alive and well..View attachment 624779

Lmao just like Obi Wan right? Trying to hide from the public but used the same name. THEYLL NEVER FIGURE IT OUT

 

[Philo-Publius]

Challenger and Columbia had in both cases the entire crew killed. That's 14 astronauts. Has something of this magnitude occured during and before the moon missions? Come on doug, straws

"Real payload fractions from real rockets are rather disappointing. The Saturn V payload to Earth orbit was about 4% of its total mass at liftoff. The Space Shuttle was only about 1%. Both the Saturn V and Space Shuttle placed about 120 metric tons into Earth orbit. However, the reusable part of the Space Shuttle was 100 metric tons, so its deliverable payload was reduced to about 20 tons. "

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/expeditions/expedition30/tryanny.html

How do you go to the moon and back in such poor conditions lol

The number of people that were on the Challenger and Columbia shuttles is irrelevant to yours or my point.

I'm not sure what your point with the plane comparison is supposed to mean

The very clear point of that statement (to a person with at least average cognition) was that just because you personally cannot explain the physics of an airplane flying across the globe does not mean an airplane cannot fly across the globe...

 

[Philo-Publius]

Totally justified.

 

[Headkicktoleg]

China literally flew over the landing site and took pictures

 

[Headkicktoleg]

How did NASA reach the moon surface without catastrophic incidents using primitive technology yet with the technology of today it can barely send equipment and men into orbit without making fireworks (Columbia, Challenger, etc)?

Also the total mass of the rocket is almost entirely fuel. This means you can take very little 'up there'. A trip to the moon means more equipment to tag along which translates to less fuel. How do you reach escape velocity with less fuel? Can a patient sherbro crunch the numbers and report back?

Those were two of thousands of missions into space. In fact we are reaching a point where orbit is cluttered with satellites

 

[Death By Samson]

They very clear point of that statement (to a person with at least average cognition) was that just because you personally cannot explain the physics of an airplane flying across the globe does not mean an airplane cannot fly across the globe...

It can only fly across the globe because the Earth is flat.

 

[EyeOfNewt]

The number of people that were on the Challenger and Columbia shuttles is irrelevant to yours or my point.


The very clear point of that statement (to a person with at least average cognition) was that just because you personally cannot explain the physics of an airplane flying across the globe does not mean an airplane cannot fly across the globe...

Wat

No one was debating physical laws, you're confused. Between 30 and 40% of the total mass of airplanes is fuel. That leaves a lot of room for passengers, luggage, entertainment system, food, safety devices, etc. Space vehicles are typically between 85 (usually lower earth orbit) to 96% fuel and what little is left is mission equipment. A round trip to the moon requires more equipment (lunar lander, more propellant, etc)

My point was how do you make more room for extra stuff when you've already peaked the maximum allowable mass that's not fuel

 

[heavyarms21]

2013 thread , impressive

 

[Philo-Publius]

It can only fly across the globe because the Earth is flat.

I know, right?

Wat

No one was debating physical laws, you're confused. Between 30 and 40% of the total mass of airplanes is fuel. That leaves a lot of room for passengers, luggage, entertainment system, food, safety devices, etc. Space vehicles are typically between 85 (usually lower earth orbit) to 96% fuel and what little is left is mission equipment. A round trip to the moon requires more equipment (lunar lander, more propellant, etc)

My point was how do you make more room for extra stuff when you've already peaked the maximum allowable mass that's not fuel

You didn't bother to source your data. I am pretty sure the majority of the fuel used for the mission was in the Saturn rocket (not the Apollo spacecraft). The rocket launch is basically just an explosion that propels the Apollo craft into Space. The rocket doesn't follow them to the moon. And, you are aware that there is no drag in space due to the lack of an atmosphere, right? So, a single burst could be enough to carry the Apollo spacecraft back to Earth. It's not a continual process of burning fuel.

You are clearly the one who is confused. You watch too many you tube videos.

 

[IloveTHIS]

What you're really, really simple logic is missing is that there was a market for all of the other things on the right, which is why private companies focused their time and resources on improving those areas of technology. There has been no market for going to to the moon in decades. In your brain, do you believe that when one area of technology improves all areas of technology must improve simultaneously? Or, do you believe that only the areas of technology on which we focus our time and resources will improve? There is a clear answer to that question.

why did you bump this old thread and not mine?

"In your brain, do you believe that when one area of technology improves all areas of technology must improve simultaneously"

listen bud, rocketry, navigation, fuel research, material science, computing, etc all has improved since then. it should be easy as fuck to do now(other than expensive) if we were able to do it in the 1960s.

I at no point ever said it would have been impossible to accomplish in the 1960s. all I'm saying is there is shit that didnt add up. like, a LOT of question marks.

bump my own thread if you want to continue this

 

[JbModest]

I thought the movie Capricorn One was about this, but that was a landing on Mars not the moon.

 

[EyeOfNewt]

I know, right?

You didn't bother to source your data. I am pretty sure the majority of the fuel used for the mission was in the Saturn rocket (not the Apollo spacecraft). The rocket launch is basically just an explosion that propels the Apollo craft into Space. The rocket doesn't follow them to the moon. And, you are aware that there is no drag in space due to the lack of an atmosphere, right? So, a single burst could be enough to carry the Apollo spacecraft back to Earth. It's not a continual process of burning fuel.

You are clearly the one who is confused. You watch too many you tube videos.

No shit Sherlock. That doesn't change anything of what i wrote

It still requires the space vehicle to reach Mach 33 which puts a serious contraint on the amount of stuff you may take with you for a round trip.

A single burst is not sufficient. That's why saturn v for example has several stages of which the 4th i believe is engaged 2 hours after launch!

 

[dc007]

I’m amazed that people think this was fake

 

[Deleted member 220895]

I'll update the OP

 

[Philo-Publius]

why did you bump this old thread and not mine?

Obviously because your thread was redundant and unnecessary.

"In your brain, do you believe that when one area of technology improves all areas of technology must improve simultaneously"

listen bud, rocketry, navigation, fuel research, material science, computing, etc all has improved since then. it should be easy as fuck to do now(other than expensive) if we were able to do it in the 1960s.

I at no point ever said it would have been impossible to accomplish in the 1960s. all I'm saying is there is shit that didnt add up. like, a LOT of question marks.

bump my own thread if you want to continue this

We have improved where ever we have focused our resources. The science and math of sending people to the moon is pretty unique, and we haven't done it in several decades. It will probably take some research and re-learning of old lessons to accomplish it safely.