Man never landed on the moon

What is asserted without science can be dismissed without science.

but are they landing on the moon these days?

>no problems here
>what is rapid exhaust dissipation in vacuum
>implying the Apollo spacecraft didn't take inclined trajectories specifically to loop up and over the Van Allen BELTS in order to get to the Moon, and implying they would've even gotten sick from the short term exposure they would've had if they passed right through them
>what are thermal radiators and reflective surfaces and how do they work

maybe do some research instead of being incredulous at things you don't understand, big nig

>implying the soviets wouldn't be tripping over their own erections on the way to expose a fake moon landing by the americans

good point, OP is a Russian shill

The Russians had a pretty badass moon rocket. After their second attempt at launching it, the rocket fell back onto the launch pad in something like the largest man-made nonnuclear explosion in history, destroying the entire complex. They tried it two more times but they had already pretty much given up hope.

He's right. The digits align almost perfectly.

I see this argument come up time and time again, the Soviets were receiving food aid from the U.S at the time, and bitching about a hoax would just make them look like sore losers. ow do you prove something like the moon landings didn't happen? Fucking brainlets.

...

>thinks climate change is man-made
>actually believes in the Apollo hoax
>fell for the college scam

And that, kids, is how you spot a brainlet. I bet you also think a bearded man living in a cave in Afghanistan made people fly planes into buildings.

you're a scientifically illiterate moron. back to /pol with your bullshit.

>ow do you prove something like the moon landings didn't happen?

Isn't that exactly what you're trying to do? You fucking retarded nigger?

Then your arguments can be dismissed without science.

Is it possible to see the remains on the space shuttle on the moon with a telescope or something?

No its not, contrary to moon nerd claims. This, together with muh soviets and muh but too many people would have to be silent! is one of favourite arguments of the NASA shills.

go away you fucking braindead conspiracy theory pandering shithead. This is /sci not /shitpostyourbullshit

Not with a ground based telescope (or at least I've never heard of it), but there are satellites orbiting the Moon that can get pretty great images of the landing sites.

>muh conspiracy theories!
>cheers his shitlib "comedians" when they accuse Trump of working for Russia like a typical left-wing Veeky Forums nerd

lmfao youre the only one pushing conspiracy theories in this thread you inbred piece of shit.

...

They're not computers. That's the mission control room. The consoles in there were connected to computers, communication systems, sensors, cameras, etc. elsewhere. Notice that they've all got desk space for papers, rather than conventional keyboards.
arstechnica.com/science/2012/10/apollo-flight-controller-101-every-console-explained/
youtube.com/watch?v=R_L68oHjgdQ

However, transistor computers were standard before the Apollo Program started, and minicomputers were available (appliance-computers the size of a fridge or a desk, rather than taking up a room).

NASA used five standard IBM System/360 mainframes in the Real Time Computing Complex for the Apollo 11 mission. I believe they were all the J75 model, 32-bit computers with 1 megabyte of core memory (like RAM) each, and capable of about 1 million instructions per second. ~30 mb hard drives were available, and ~40 mb reel-to-reel tapes (many of which could be simultaneously connected to a single computer and kept reading, writing, or seeking). These were new in 1966, so about the newest thing that was practical to have built a highly complex system on top of by 1969. One was used to receive, process, and dispatch all of the data from the spacecraft to the control room.

Teletype machines were a standard interactive interface for computers in the first half of the 1960s. That's basically an electric typewriter that can send your keypresses to the computer, and print responses on the paper for you to read. The technology for this was already old from telegraph systems even when vacuum tube computers were invented.

Off-the-shelf video terminals were brand new technology during the Apollo missions. In the control room, NASA used custom consoles based on more mature technology, like indicator lights and mechanical counters, rather than the typical modern approach of doing things in software. Their arrangements for video displays were complex, with lots of custom hardware.

>Is it possible to see the remains on the space shuttle on the moon
I should certainly hope not, as the space shuttle never went anywhere near the moon

How would the nazis have gotten on the dark side, then?

The space shuttle is the only man-made object on the moon visible from Earth with the naked eye.

>youtube.com/watch?v=R_L68oHjgdQ
As I watch this, I'm starting to realize how NASA can carry on spending so much money to do so little.

If you look back at this insanity (which at the bottom of things, let's remember, was all to manage a week-long trip for three men) as your starting point, it's hard to imagine ever trimming it down to some reasonable multiple of fuel costs. You have to start over from first principles, abandon what you've very expensively learned about "how to do it".

This is what it looks like when people really throw money at a problem.

Why are there photographs of tracks on the surface of the moon that can be identified as tracks from a rover space vehicle, photographs taken by the Chinese government?

Do you realise it would be easier for the US to actually go to the moon, that. To fake the moon landing and convince the entire world that they did it, including the Soviet union. And pay off 40000 scientists to keep this a secret?

I actually believe it's possible that the manned landings were faked even though NASA developed the capability of doing them with a reasonable probability of success, for the simple reason that a public failure and loss of crew would be unacceptable.

The missions had, after all, no practical purpose but to give the appearance of having done them. Many things could have gone wrong, which would have turned the propaganda exercise into a national humiliation. Even the majority of people working on the project could have been deceived. Only a small core of people, perhaps a few hundred, would have to know the truth.

thats why i dont own a microwave

or a radio and my house is 100mm of copper

OP is just another brainlet that exists to make everyone feel smarter than they are. Good guy OP

Have fun at your Mickey D's job tomorrow, don't forget to leave the pickles off my burger

this guy knows about film and photography technology. he says it would have been impossible to fake the moon landing at that time:

youtube.com/watch?v=sGXTF6bs1IU

Weird, I guess missions like apollo 13 were fake failures, just to keep people off the scent?

>/sci
>not Veeky Forums
Back to where you came from

Source

>The science just doesn't agree

It does, that's why we went to the Moon 6 times.

So where did all the Moon rocks come from?

>The missions had, after all, no practical purpose but to give the appearance of having done them

Some of the world's smartest people like Stephen Hawking and Neil Degrasse Tyson all agree that it was done.

Case closed.

What about Michio Kaku?

>Half a million engineers and contractors can keep a secret.

Even he agrees they landed, so you're just proving my point.

>it's easier to land humans safely on another celestial body, an endeavour requiring hundreds of thousands of people working on it and no room for error, and bring them back safely, than to film the moon 'landings' on a Hollywood sound stage.

It's like you brainlets don't even think before you speak and just mindlessly repeat the stupidest of 'arguments'. I've heard pretty much every stupid shit under the sun but this one takes the cake.

>it doesn't, that's why we had to fake it 6 times

FTFY

Were Stephen Hawking, Neil deGrasse Tyson and Michio Kaku there when it happened? The opinion of your pop scientist-actors is irrelevant.

You could try actually addressing the argument, rather than just calling it stupid.

I did address your argument in the greentext, moron.

If it were faked the Soviet Union would've uncovered it long time ago.

already debunked

>I guess missions like apollo 13 were fake failures, just to keep people off the scent?
Apollo 13 was a dramatic and impressive abort, not an abject failure, and it came after two successful moon landings. Yeah, it's exactly the kind of hiccup you'd throw in to make the whole thing seem more real without hurting the impressiveness of the program. Hollywood made a movie out of it later because it plays out like perfectly scripted drama.

Businesses fake this sort of screw-up with new clients sometimes to impress them with their (apparent) ability and eagerness to fix problems that arise.

Anyway, it's not that I believe the moon landings were faked, it's that I believe it's possible they were, without believing they didn't have the technology to actually do it. The motive is there (to ensure success), and it played out in a way consistent with how they'd do it.

You can't possibly believe that the Apollo missions had some practical purpose outside of having people believe that the USA had accomplished them.

Claims that the moon landings were faked resonate because on a deeper level it was all fake regardless of whether they actually did it: just a propaganda exercise / pork program. It wasn't about science, or exploration, or opening a new frontier. It was about embarassing the Russians and silencing the critics of capitalism. It was only about appearances and paychecks.

If it wasn't a big put-on in one way or another, they would have just shut it down and not gone back for half a century.

>If it wasn't a big put-on in one way or another, they would have just shut it down and not gone back for half a century.
err...
>If it wasn't a big put-on in one way or another, they wouldn't have just shut it down and not gone back for half a century.

Strawman arguments aren't arguments. Next.

>This "debate" again

/Thread.

Moon landing hoaxers are the equivalent of flat-earthtards.

>What is radio telemetry
>What is real-time radio telemetry
>What is continuous real-time radio telemetry
>What is triangulated real-time radio telemetry

Yet conspiratards are unable to grasp the applications Pythagorean theorem and radio waves.

>But muh moon rock shadows
>Muh Val Alien radiotard belt
>Muh Kubrick

To all disbelievers in this thread, please tell us, how exactly did the Americans fake unidirectional microwave data containing voice, video and bio-telemetry emanating from the surface of the moon in real time?

Microwaves were first bounced off the moon in 1946.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Diana

I always like the spin Mitchell and Webb put on it.... youtube.com/watch?v=P6MOnehCOUw

"They had to build a big rocket anyway, so..." is not much of an argument.

There was a lot more going on than the big rocket, which could have been developed as an extra large ICBM (in fact, that's what the stage one engines were designed for).

At a bandwidth sufficient to carry voice, video and other analog data? Also:

>What is unidirectional RF?

Weak argument. Next.

It is not the only argument.

>big-ass expensive rocket
>Soviet Union could detect the mission as well
>satellite and telescopes today can see the LM landing site
>thousands of NASA personnel can keep a secret as big as this
>actual moon rocks
>telemetry

taking each point individually, you might be able to make up some plausible excuse on how the Moon landings were faked, but together the evidence just too much in favor of an actual landing

>At a bandwidth sufficient to carry voice, video and other analog data?
Anything that can be broadcast can be bounced.

>>What is unidirectional RF?
Explain how you think this is relevant, so I can explain how you're wrong and laugh at you.

Do you even know what a strawman is, brainlet? That the Soviet Union had a motive to shut its trap is not a strawman.

>muh telemetry!

How do you know the data came from Apollo on the moon, and not a sallite secretly launched at night from Vandenberg? Mods, please change this board's name to /blt/ (condensed from 'brainlet').

This is Veeky Forums, not /tv/, moron.

If you're going to actually build a rocket powerful enough to push the required amount of payload to the moon, build actual LEMs and CSMs and put them on top of it, and then successfully launch 7 of them, there really isn't a whole lot left that would make faking it worthwhile. At that point it's just a bit of math to get your trajectories right, so you might as well, you know, just go to the moon.

Once that's established, there really is no reason to believe there was a hoax other than there being some other fundamental obstacle to getting there, like the Van Allen belts or solar radiation, but we know that no such obstacles exist. People who claim humans can't go into space because of radiation are simply misinformed.

>public failure and loss of crew would be unacceptable

Are you aware that the 3 man crew of Apollo 1 was killed on the ground in a fire during a test of the capsule?

Are you aware that Challenger exploded during ascent, killing the 6 astronauts and one civilian schoolteacher on board, while the scene was broadcast live to classrooms full of kids across America?

Are you aware that Columbia burned up during reentry because of damage of the heat shield, killing another 7 astronauts after their orbital mission had been completed?

fake

meth heads would've scrapped your house by now

>If you're going to actually build a rocket powerful enough to push the required amount of payload to the moon, build actual LEMs and CSMs and put them on top of it, and then successfully launch 7 of them, there really isn't a whole lot left that would make faking it worthwhile.
How about making it work?

Building a rocket that looks big enough is a different and far easier thing from building a rocket actually capable enough. Putting together a plausible spacecraft is a different and far easier thing from making one that actually works on the first try.

Imagine the humiliation for America if they tried and failed, as the Soviets did.

>Once that's established, there really is no reason to believe there was a hoax
...other than that they did it in the 60s, a mere dozen years after the first object ever launched into orbit, and then nobody's been able to do it again in half a century, including NASA, despite all of the technological advancement since.

>other than there being some other fundamental obstacle to getting there, like the Van Allen belts or solar radiation, but we know that no such obstacles exist.
We know solar radiation makes surviving the trip a crapshoot. The doses after a solar flare would be enough to cause acute radiation sickness, never mind cancer.

As for the Van Allen belts, they are certainly an obstacle and to flatly deny that they pose one is not putting yourself on the side of rational argument.

>like the Van Allen belts or solar radiation, but we know that no such obstacles exist

Space Shuttle crews had to avoid the Van Allen radiation belt in fucking low earth orbits, and moonfags want us to believe astronauts survived days in it.

>>public failure and loss of crew would be unacceptable
>Are you aware that the 3 man crew of Apollo 1 was killed on the ground in a fire during a test of the capsule?
Not the same as failing on an actual trip to the moon.

Furthermore, this sheds considerable doubt on the competence of NASA to have pulled off half a dozen moon landings without losing a single crew in space. This kind of accident would be quite likely in a hoax program: building a real fake capsule, doing real fake tests on the ground, so even most of the people working on it could believe it was real, but not being competent enough to even get through them without killing some people.

>Are you aware that Challenger exploded
>Columbia
Are you claiming that anyone who doubts the moon landings necessarily also denies that the shuttle flew? Because these are separate issues.

I know this is /x/ territory, but apparently most people on Veeky Forums never venture outside of their head-in-sand idealistic muh science litter box, so let me tell you that there is some good and bad news about Challenger: the good news is that the crew survived since they never flew onboard, the bad news is that it shows what a lying and deceitful organisation NASA is.

There was more to it than showing up Russia.... How else could we prove the Earth is a sphere? Or that space is infinite and you are nothing but a spec... ... Are you convinced by your coddling government-backed single source of information known as NASAH.

no.

kek

no what, faggot?

I don't know, therefore they must have been a hoax.

That's weird but then again, all the world's a stage.

>mfw it checks out

>nobody's been able to do it

Nobody's done it not for lack of ability to develop and build a large launch vehicle, but because it's extremely expensive unless you have a cheap means of putting things into space.

We did it the first time for two reasons; we were in a pissing contest with the Soviets, and we knew that the soviets wanted to actually colonize the Moon, at least in a limited sense. They wanted to use it as a strategic foothold in space. they ended up not doing it because we got there first and their economy was getting too strained as it was, plus the strategic element evaporated when the option of just launching so many nukes that they'd be impossible to stop became plausible.

We stopped going prematurely (several Apollo missions were scrapped, but the program would've been completed by the late 1970's) because the Soviets dropped out, meaning the threat aspect was gone, and Nixon hated the Apollo program. Nixon wanted his own legacy in space flight to outshine Kennedy's, so he tried to do the Space shuttle as a means of pleasing the public (who didn't like how much money Apollo was eating), as well as framing himself as a savvy business man who could bring space down to the common man rather than remain something lofty only the best of the best could possible hope to be involved with. Unfortunately the Space Shuttle we got was a clusterfuck of conflicting design requirements and accomplished none of those things.

Space Shuttle couldn't go any higher than low Earth orbit. The Van Allen belts start a few thousand km up, the Shuttle never went anywhere near them, because it didn't have enough deltaV.

Apollo didnt go through the belts by the way, it went around them. They're belt after all, not shells. A sufficiently inclined orbit will have you loop up and over as you increase in altitude, then come back underneath as you decrease in altitude towards periapsis. When the Apollo missions launched they went onto an inclined parking orbit for a short time then boosted onto a highly elliptical Moon-intercept trajectory, passing far outside the Van Allen belts on the way.

As for solar storms, the fact is that the astronauts were protected simply by a pair of firmly crossed fingers, because the spacecraft could not shield from something like that unless it was redesigned to be several times heavier (which was not an option), and predicting a solar storm is pretty much not possible.

>Building a rocket that looks big enough is a different and far easier thing from building a rocket actually capable enough.
Anyone with a basic knowledge of rocketry, the fuels involved, weight of the materials used, thrust generated by fuel being burned at the rates observed during the launches etc etc, can do the math for themselves, and the Saturn V's capabilities match exactly what they should be. If you don't have the ability to figure that kind of thing out yourself, fair enough, but then you should realise you're not in any position to comment on what the Saturn V could do.
>other than that they did it in the 60s, a mere dozen years after the first object ever launched into orbit, and then nobody's been able to do it again in half a century, including NASA, despite all of the technological advancement since.
One of the more tiresome examples of hoaxers simply not caring to learn anything about the history of spaceflight. We have been more than capable of going back to the moon the whole time, providing somebody decided to build a rocket big enough. We simply have decided not to, because it is absurdly expensive and is mostly pointless as the Moon is a barren rock.
>As for the Van Allen belts, they are certainly an obstacle and to flatly deny that they pose one is not putting yourself on the side of rational argument.
Yeah, there's increased radiation in the Van Allen belts and you probably don't want to hang out in them longer than you have to. But they're in no way an impassable obstacle on the way to the moon. The dosage is very well understood and is not more than getting an x-ray or something similar.

>Are you claiming that anyone who doubts the moon landings necessarily also denies that the shuttle flew?

No, I'm pointing out that your claim that public outcry due to a moon mission failure would be so bad as to make faking it a better option, is invalidated by the fact that NASA has already had 3 very public and very embarrassing mission failures that resulted in multiple loss of life. What would make the Moon mission somehow different in a significant enough way that would have NASA decide staging the events would be a better option?

The Saturn V, for all its power and complexity, is actually a rather simple vehicle when compared to the Shuttle, something that Shuttle proponents bizarrely tote as something good. The Saturn V and Apollo stack had no large, exposed, and extremely delicate thermal protection system, and no fragile insulating foam to break off and damage said thermal protection system. All of the Saturn V+Apollo engines were either pressure fed or used gas generators, two of the most simple rocket engine cycles we've built. By contrast, the Space Shuttle used the RS-25, one of the most complex and delicate fuel-rich staged combustion engines ever designed, and two 4 segment solid boosters which could not be shut down once fired and which produced violent vibrations. The Space Shuttle had to be carefully optimized to within a razors edge of materials technology in order to fly with enough margin to have any payload at all inside the orbiter, because of the demands of reusability.

Due to these and many other reasons I am more surprised hat we didn't see more Shuttle failures, not that we didn't see more Saturn V failures. That's not to say the Saturn V didn't have its own rocky start; One of the unmanned test flights shook so violently that there were concerns that the astronauts would be seriously injured during launch, and another had two of the second stage engines shut down because of a pump anomaly and a computer malfunction.

>Space Shuttle crews had to avoid the Van Allen radiation belt in fucking low earth orbits, and moonfags want us to believe astronauts survived days in it.
The Space Shuttle was not even capable of reaching orbits as high as the Van Allen belts. At least make a token effort to educate yourself about things before jumping to wild conclusions.

This is such a great example of the failing of conspiracist thinking. They literally cannot think about anything beyond face value, it's simply "these people look like those people, therefore conspiracy". They never get to the far more important step of considering all the implications of their claim.

Just think about the idea that all these astronauts are actually still alive, using the same names. Seriously, stop and consider all the implications of what that would entail. Is that reasonable thing to happen, considering all we known about human behaviour and how the world works? Jesus Christ, just try using your brain and thinking about something for more than 5 seconds.

If it's as simple as hopping over the belts then why is it giving NASA such a headache?

aulis.com/orion_vanallens.htm

You trying to tell me there's no way people can look like other people? Especially if you compare what would be aged people to a younger doppelganger?

Nigger, I...

>They literally cannot think about anything beyond face value

And NASA cheerleaders cannot think about anything beyond their preconceived notions that everything is as it appears, despite evidence to the contrary

>earlobes aren't the same

Bitch learn your alleles.
And don't start with the plastic surgery shit, you and I both know that if they're going to attach his earlobes to the sides of his head they're going to give him at least a nose job too.

If it was an isolated case you could dismiss it as a coincidence, but that so many of the astronauts that allegedly died have doppelgangers their age had their still been alive and with the same name, several times, is just too many coincidences for them to be mere coincidences.

My favourite "coincidence"

'Hopping over the belts' requires a highly inclined trajectory, which is fine for going to the Moon but can mess up interplanetary encounters. Going to Mars would require either taking an inclined trajectory over the belts, then performing an expensive course correction to get onto a Mars-transfer orbit, using an inclined trajectory to rendezvous with a spacecraft waiting in high Earth orbit or Lunar orbit which would then depart for Mars, or by saying fuck it, packing enough radiation shielding to make the belts a non-issue, then plow through them in an hour on a direct Mars transfer trajectory. The third option would actually be the cheapest and least expensive, as it would require the least mass (course corrections of a large spacecraft take lots of fuel, assembling things in space is expensive and requires multiple launches and rendezvous). Shielding astronauts from the belts would require their habitation module to have a radiation storm shelter, essentially a double walled closet, with the walls full of water, surrounded by their food/clothes/etc, and located in the center of the habitat, maximizing the amount of matter between themselves and outside. Outfit the shelter to be a sleeping area and the astronauts don't even need to be awake during their entire transit through the belts.

>the Space Shuttle we got was a clusterfuck of conflicting design requirements and accomplished none of those things.
The Apollo Program was a similar clusterfuck.

What was the problem with the shuttle? Above all else, it was too expensive. They didn't develop *practical* reusability. All they could do was reuse it to say they had reused it. They couldn't increase launch rates, reduce costs, or make spaceflight routine or available to more people.

What was the problem with Apollo? Same deal. Too expensive. They didn't develop *practical* transporation to the moon. All they could do was land men on the moon to say they had landed men on the moon. They couldn't set up a base, they couldn't mine resources, they couldn't use it as a staging area for more ambitious missions.

Space nerds today will talk like Apollo was great and the shuttle was a failure, and "Wow, why can't NASA be like it was in the Apollo era?", but back then, most adults recognized how hollow it was to strain the resources of the richest nation on Earth just to plant a flag on the moon.

It's been the same NASA all along.

Coincidences exist, wow spooky.

There are more than seven billion people, I imagine it wouldn't be hard to find someone who shares your name and looks enough like you to make others think something fishy was going on if you died in a plane crash or mall shootout.

>And NASA cheerleaders cannot think about anything beyond their preconceived notions that everything is as it appears
What? I just said the complete opposite

The difference is that no one thought the Saturn V was going to be cheap, they knew going in that it was just they best they could do at the time and it would get people on the Moon within the decade.

Everyone knew and were told that the Shuttle was going to revolutionize space travel, and all it did was make it more expensive and entrench the idea that space-planes must make sense. It also killed more people than any other launch system, which was nice, and it barely changed for the 30 years it was flying.

Before it was canceled, the Apollo program was looking into diversifying its rocket lineup in order to provide launch services to a broader range of payload masses, as well as redesign hardware to make it faster and cheaper to manufacture. They wanted the Saturn V family to get cheaper and for private industry to get a foothold in space activities, but Nixon canceled everything and essentially told them to make a space truck, and it didn't work.