I'm starting to get why the conspiracy theorists believe the original moon stuff was faked. My iphone has more than 100,000 times the processing power of the computers used for the Apollo mission and yet it came out yesterday that the latest attempt to simply land a box on the moon has failed.
When I was trying to think of a possible good explanation, I initially thought, "Well back in the day the best and the brightest worked for NASA, now they are all in Silicon Valley acting like ahol** and trying to get rich designing some app that's ultimately of little use. Maybe only the guys and gals who can't get private industry jobs go to NASA."
But then I saw this most recent failure was from some private company that we paid $108 million bucks to. Can the taxpayers at least get their money back?
Science experts of letsrun, let me hear your theories as to why we suck at space much more than 55 years ago.
I agree with the curiosity of this post. I bought a documentary-type book called Man On The Moon - Fact or Fiction? By Trevor Weaver. It's an impartial collection of interviews, articles about the moon landing. Both believer arguments and skeptic arguments are included.
As they are describing how the rocket carrying the lunar module was 5 different parts - that all needed to dispatch, disconnect, orbit the moon and then re-lift off of the moon and time it in such a way that the mothership had gone around the moon and would catch them right at the perfect moment.............I became quite skeptical.
Literally everything had to go right for it to have happened. We know for a fact that the rocket took off. And we know that a few days later, 3 astronauts landed in the ocean. In the middle however, there is a theory that they never went to space, they simply got in airplane and got inside the landing pod, they were rolled out of an airplane and parachuted down to the ocean.
Orbital mechanics is a solved science. Once you have the math and the inputs, you know exactly where your spacecraft is going to be at any point in time. Interesting that that part is the most suspicious to you.
I agree with the curiosity of this post. I bought a documentary-type book called Man On The Moon - Fact or Fiction? By Trevor Weaver. It's an impartial collection of interviews, articles about the moon landing. Both believer arguments and skeptic arguments are included.
As they are describing how the rocket carrying the lunar module was 5 different parts - that all needed to dispatch, disconnect, orbit the moon and then re-lift off of the moon and time it in such a way that the mothership had gone around the moon and would catch them right at the perfect moment.............I became quite skeptical.
Literally everything had to go right for it to have happened. We know for a fact that the rocket took off. And we know that a few days later, 3 astronauts landed in the ocean. In the middle however, there is a theory that they never went to space, they simply got in airplane and got inside the landing pod, they were rolled out of an airplane and parachuted down to the ocean.
Orbital mechanics is a solved science. Once you have the math and the inputs, you know exactly where your spacecraft is going to be at any point in time. Interesting that that part is the most suspicious to you.
solving a math problem on a piece of paper is quite different than the practical challenges of landing a spacecraft on the moon, then re-launching it back into space without modern day telemetry technology and without any comms with Earth.
I agree with the curiosity of this post. I bought a documentary-type book called Man On The Moon - Fact or Fiction? By Trevor Weaver. It's an impartial collection of interviews, articles about the moon landing. Both believer arguments and skeptic arguments are included.
As they are describing how the rocket carrying the lunar module was 5 different parts - that all needed to dispatch, disconnect, orbit the moon and then re-lift off of the moon and time it in such a way that the mothership had gone around the moon and would catch them right at the perfect moment.............I became quite skeptical.
Literally everything had to go right for it to have happened. We know for a fact that the rocket took off. And we know that a few days later, 3 astronauts landed in the ocean. In the middle however, there is a theory that they never went to space, they simply got in airplane and got inside the landing pod, they were rolled out of an airplane and parachuted down to the ocean.
They tested LM docking and rendezvous with the CSM first in Earth orbit on Apollo 9, then in lunar orbit on Apollo 10. They figured it all out and practiced it before Apollo 11 landed on the moon.
It's all pretty cool and amazing, but makes perfect sense if you know about how these systems were developed and how they all worked.
How did the actorNOTS fly through the Van Allen Belts in a virtual tin can without frying to death or seeing all their electronics ruined by the radiation?????
This would require manned capsules to be enclosed by thick amounts of lead - something NASA has never claimed they had.
The problem with these NASA believers is that they ignore the science.
The video of the "final take off" from the Moon seems way too precise (with the capsule within the frame despite the ever-changing acceleration). The would-be camera was supposedly remote-controlled from Earth - just the time delay for the relaying of signals would seem to make that impossible.
How did the actorNOTS fly through the Van Allen Belts in a virtual tin can without frying to death or seeing all their electronics ruined by the radiation?????
This would require manned capsules to be enclosed by thick amounts of lead - something NASA has never claimed they had.
The problem with these NASA believers is that they ignore the science.
Do the Van Allen Belts lay above or below the impenetrable firmament you mention before? C'mon man! I thought you were a real flat earther. Lol!
How did the actorNOTS fly through the Van Allen Belts in a virtual tin can without frying to death or seeing all their electronics ruined by the radiation?????
This would require manned capsules to be enclosed by thick amounts of lead - something NASA has never claimed they had.
The problem with these NASA believers is that they ignore the science.
Scary, scary Van Allen Belts.
"The total radiation received by the astronauts varied from mission-to-mission but was measured to be between 0.16 and 1.14 rads (1.6 and 11.4 mGy), much less than the standard of 5 rem (50 mSv)[c] per year set by the United States Atomic Energy Commission for people who work with radioactivity.[39]" - Wikipedia
How did the actorNOTS fly through the Van Allen Belts in a virtual tin can without frying to death or seeing all their electronics ruined by the radiation?????
This would require manned capsules to be enclosed by thick amounts of lead - something NASA has never claimed they had.
The problem with these NASA believers is that they ignore the science.
Do the Van Allen Belts lay above or below the impenetrable firmament you mention before? C'mon man! I thought you were a real flat earther. Lol!
Good point. That impenetrable firmament will really get you. It's IMPENETRABLE!
There is no crater underneath ANY of the Lunar Landers; to slow the descent to nearly zero, so as to land without harming ship or crew, they had to use powerful rockets - that HAD to have left a super-visible crater directly below the craft. Not one photo shows one.
No sand found on top of the pads either. The landing should have kicked up a huge sand/dust storm.
One last thing we’re going to need is a whole lot of batteries. Lots and lots of batteries. That’s going to be the only way to power the ship while we’re on the Moon, and we’ll definitely need to run the communications systems, and the oxygen supply system, and the heating and cooling system, and the cabin lights, and the television cameras and transmitters, and all the testing equipment, and our spacesuits, and that damn rover.
And we won’t be able to recharge any of the various batteries, so we’re going to need a lot of back-ups. Especially of the really big batteries that run the ship. We may need a separate ship just to carry all the batteries we’re going to need."
Orbital mechanics is a solved science. Once you have the math and the inputs, you know exactly where your spacecraft is going to be at any point in time. Interesting that that part is the most suspicious to you.
solving a math problem on a piece of paper is quite different than the practical challenges of landing a spacecraft on the moon, then re-launching it back into space without modern day telemetry technology and without any comms with Earth.
It's actually quite achievable because math works as expected. That Newton guy was pretty smart.
Just because it seems complex to layperson skeptics doesn't mean it's not easily solvable by highly trained engineers.
solving a math problem on a piece of paper is quite different than the practical challenges of landing a spacecraft on the moon, then re-launching it back into space without modern day telemetry technology and without any comms with Earth.
It's actually quite achievable because math works as expected. That Newton guy was pretty smart.
Just because it seems complex to layperson skeptics doesn't mean it's not easily solvable by highly trained engineers.
ok, mr. know-everything. "Math works as expected." Then, surely, math could solve a simpler problem: if a leaf falls from a tree, can math calculate where it will land?
There is no crater underneath ANY of the Lunar Landers; to slow the descent to nearly zero, so as to land without harming ship or crew, they had to use powerful rockets - that HAD to have left a super-visible crater directly below the craft. Not one photo shows one.
No sand found on top of the pads either. The landing should have kicked up a huge sand/dust storm.
One last thing we’re going to need is a whole lot of batteries. Lots and lots of batteries. That’s going to be the only way to power the ship while we’re on the Moon, and we’ll definitely need to run the communications systems, and the oxygen supply system, and the heating and cooling system, and the cabin lights, and the television cameras and transmitters, and all the testing equipment, and our spacesuits, and that damn rover.
And we won’t be able to recharge any of the various batteries, so we’re going to need a lot of back-ups. Especially of the really big batteries that run the ship. We may need a separate ship just to carry all the batteries we’re going to need."
Sure! "No problem" say the NASA believers. 🤦
Did you know that every single question you ask can be answered by using this really neat thing called Google?
I know, conspiracy theorists (of which you are one) don't like to actually learn anything. What's the fun in that - the whole conspiracy just sort of evaporates. Much more fun to just ask unending questions while thinking that you've really got 'em now!
There is no crater underneath ANY of the Lunar Landers; to slow the descent to nearly zero, so as to land without harming ship or crew, they had to use powerful rockets - that HAD to have left a super-visible crater directly below the craft. Not one photo shows one.
No sand found on top of the pads either. The landing should have kicked up a huge sand/dust storm.
One last thing we’re going to need is a whole lot of batteries. Lots and lots of batteries. That’s going to be the only way to power the ship while we’re on the Moon, and we’ll definitely need to run the communications systems, and the oxygen supply system, and the heating and cooling system, and the cabin lights, and the television cameras and transmitters, and all the testing equipment, and our spacesuits, and that damn rover.
And we won’t be able to recharge any of the various batteries, so we’re going to need a lot of back-ups. Especially of the really big batteries that run the ship. We may need a separate ship just to carry all the batteries we’re going to need."
Sure! "No problem" say the NASA believers. 🤦
Did you know that every single question you ask can be answered by using this really neat thing called Google?
I know, conspiracy theorists (of which you are one) don't like to actually learn anything. What's the fun in that - the whole conspiracy just sort of evaporates. Much more fun to just ask unending questions while thinking that you've really got 'em now!
It's actually quite achievable because math works as expected. That Newton guy was pretty smart.
Just because it seems complex to layperson skeptics doesn't mean it's not easily solvable by highly trained engineers.
ok, mr. know-everything. "Math works as expected." Then, surely, math could solve a simpler problem: if a leaf falls from a tree, can math calculate where it will land?
I mean, if it's so achievable, then by all means.
Why would you want to advertise your ignorance? What do you gain in doing so?
The path of a leaf falling from a tree is vastly more difficult to calculate than the motion of a spacecraft. Or did you think that the degree of difficulty of such problems is proportional to the distance traveled?
"Hey, the moon is much farther away from the surface of the Earth than is the top of a tree, so the motion and forces involved MUST be WAY more complicated."
But back to the original question: what is it that you find so appealing about advertising your own ignorance?
Did you know that every single question you ask can be answered by using this really neat thing called Google?
I know, conspiracy theorists (of which you are one) don't like to actually learn anything. What's the fun in that - the whole conspiracy just sort of evaporates. Much more fun to just ask unending questions while thinking that you've really got 'em now!
Google - look it up.
You have no answer.
There's this really neat, new-fangled thing called Google.
There were no "feats of strength" performed by the actorNOTS.
No high jumps over a bar nor long jump attempts.
Their muscles were just as big and strong, and though their PLSS back-packs doubled their weight, (compared to on Earth) they should have been able to jump THREE TIMES AS HIGH or AS LONG.
Yet we never saw even a single instance - such a simple, easy demonstration would have tended to clinch the case.
ok, mr. know-everything. "Math works as expected." Then, surely, math could solve a simpler problem: if a leaf falls from a tree, can math calculate where it will land?
I mean, if it's so achievable, then by all means.
Why would you want to advertise your ignorance? What do you gain in doing so?
The path of a leaf falling from a tree is vastly more difficult to calculate than the motion of a spacecraft. Or did you think that the degree of difficulty of such problems is proportional to the distance traveled?
"Hey, the moon is much farther away from the surface of the Earth than is the top of a tree, so the motion and forces involved MUST be WAY more complicated."
But back to the original question: what is it that you find so appealing about advertising your own ignorance?
You actually wrote it in a more eloquent way than I did: " The path of a leaf falling from a tree is vastly more difficult to calculate than the motion of a spacecraft"
The point I was trying to make is that science, math, calculations - on paper - has limits and cannot come close to solving monumental problems that humans want to solve.
Like terraforming mars, faster-than-speed-of-light travel, bending space time, travelling to the moon in the 1960s...
I'm disagreeing with the philosophy that we can solve anything with "highly trained engineers" and that science presents limitless opportunities for the human race.
My philosophy is a bit more grounded. Slower. And more realistic.
For example, if the Earth population becomes too large, and there is not enough resources, and we need to go to another planet like Mars, but we can't breathe the air, then according to the limitless science believers, we can just Terraform Mars. No problem! We could get highly trained engineers who specialize in atmospherics and chemistry to shoot a bunch of missiles at the mars surface and voila!
Or really fast space travel to other galaxies...all we need is 5% of GDP - like we had in the 1960s - to solve it!
It's the American way! We will find a way!
I'm being intentionally sarcastic to make my argument that modern day science, as well as the science and technology of the 1960s - is limited.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.