Was the moon landing a hoax

File: 1488590572841.gif (984KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

984KB, 500x281px

>>9051946
Suppose I don't believe human visited Moon. Let my argument be it is too far away (4 E8 meters) for that much weight (3 E6 kg). Current satellites of that time were 100x closer (3 to 4 E6 meters) and 100-1000x times lighter.

Distance from Earth to Moon (meter): 4 E8
Distance from Earth to satellites of that time (meter): 3 to 4 E6

Mass of rocket that is claimed to brought humans to Moon (integrale of kg per meter):
>3 E6 to 5 E4 from Earth to 2 E5 (at that point module was separated from carrier rocket)
>5 E4 to 5 E3 from 2 E5 to surface of Moon
>With 5 E3 from surface of Moon to Earth

Mass of satellites of that time (kg): order of magnitude E3 to E4

I accept that unmanned devices did land on Moon. Latest lunar orbiter had a mass of 4 E3, 10x lighter than manned spacecraft.

In anticipation to the most common counterarguments
>There is a reflective surface in Moon that the men installed. You can shine laser onto it
Unmanned device could've easily planted that. I accept that reflective surface of that kind couldn't have formed spontaneously.
>Why would they fake a moon landing?
Power display. USSR and USA were heavily influenced by competition that could've driven them to such acts.
>What difference does it make whether they were on the Moon or not?
Humans have unrealistic expectations on space transportation possibilities. I want to reinforce the concept that humanity will (1) never live on any other celestial body other than Earth (2) never be able to transport any instrument outside the Solar system (3) never find extraterrestrial life. These realistic expectations will possibly lead to better environmental policies.


In conclusion: I claim a human has never touched the surface of Moon and returned alive.

How would you attack my claim so that I myself could reproduce the results? Merit of science is that in principle anyone could verify what you say, and that for a claim to be true, it must also be verified by someone else (for example, not USA)

>>9051948
>Let my argument be it is too far away (4 E8 meters) for that much weight (3 E6 kg). Current satellites of that time were 100x closer (3 to 4 E6 meters) and 100-1000x times lighter.

Oh god not you again. As was pointed out last time, that is not how orbital mechanics work. Getting to orbit is the hard part, and from there it doesn't take a whole lot more energy to get to the Moon or even other planets like Mars or Venus. The Moon being 100x further away doesn't make it 100x hardrer to get to.

>>9051948
>How would you attack my claim
I'd ask you to actually provide some evidence, rather than waving around numbers without considering what they mean.

>>9051946
It was physically impossible for human technology of the time to fake having gone to the moon, that's for sure.
Do you know how shitty 60s special effects were?

>implying the USSR wouldn't immediately debunk moon landing if it were fake
The only proof I need really.

>>9051948
You're only taking into account the masses, not the energy that was stored and used

>>9051948
>How would you attack my claim
In real life, I wouldn't. Your question is like the colorful striping of poisonous animals, in your case advertising your toxic stupidity. I would allow others to see the same thing so as to avoid assigning any task of importance to you.

Why was the Saturn v trashed and its plans classified if it was such an amazing unique rocket? Cost? Come on, space shuttle wasn't exactly cheaper. Also it it isn't nearly as capable as the Saturn v. Yet it took much longer to develop. I think the NASA didn't have enough time to come up with a good enough rocket to go to the moon.

There is no point in answering your doubts because they are not concrete, you, by yourself, no calculations or any estimate, says that it is too far and it would be to heavy...

About technology: From the threat of nuclear war it was clear we could do rockets in the 60's, strong ones, than your problem just become:
"How big does the rocket to the moon has to be?"

I don't know if you are aware of how the Rocket Equation work, but stuff get exponentially heavy as you add weight, because for each Kilo you Need X amount of Fuel, but this X amount of fuel has weight and you need another amount of fuel to take this.

So it is quite reasonable that the further the mission, the heavier the rocket must be - given that is made of a Heavy FUEL EFFICIENT THING for most of it.

The problem is mainly energy and resources to do such a large rocket - But NASA had this, they were with the richiest country in the world!

File: 050_L.jpg (498KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

498KB, 1024x768px

>>9052941
>Why was the Saturn v trashed
What are you talking about? I've seen two. This one is at Michoud, where they built the liquid fuel tanks for the Shuttle. The other is at Kennedy Space Center in FL.

>>9052941
because ballistic missile technology.

>>9051946
there are retro-reflectors on the moon.

the soviets, chinese, and others have put robots on the moon.

File: Girls[1].png (490KB, 449x401px) Image search: [Google]

490KB, 449x401px

>>9051948
>trying this hard to look smart by needlessly using scientific notation on numbers

you're pathetic

>>9053005
I've seen the one at Canaveral and the one in Houston. They are amazingly huge.

>>9051946
To go and return yes. But to film?!?!?!?!

>>9051948
How do i play ksp?

File: lmschusa.gif (12KB, 557x467px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 557x467px

>>9052941
Overconfidence after Apollo. NASA thought they were going to have Shuttles flying up and down on a weekly basis, making access to space cheap and routine. Reusability turned out to be a much harder problem than they thought and the Shuttle was basically a massively overcosted failure but since it was lining various aerospace industry company's wallets, we were stuck with it.

It would have been a lot better to just keep using Saturn-derived technology, space stations on the scale of ISS could have been constructed with only a few Saturn V launches as early as the 1970s, and we probably would have had moon bases by now or at least more extensive manned exploration beyond Earth, all for cheaper than the Shuttle. But that's all hindsight. This is all very well documented and a very common topic of discussion amongst spaceflight enthusiasts, there's nothing in it to suggest anything suspicious.

>>9054274
Doesn't it come with instructions?

>>9054325
>It would have been a lot better to just keep using Saturn-derived technology

Yep

There's literally nothing you can't do with a traditional spacecraft on top of a rocket than with the space plane strapped to it. The former will be cheaper and more reliable no matter what.

It would have helped us get through the endless money sink that's the WoT too without needing Space-X and others filling in.

>>9052747
https://youtu.be/Z2UWOeBcsJI

Yes, but Stanley Kubrick filmed the hole thing on location.

>>9054162

tfw camera film of the day couldn't even pass through an airport xray machine without fear of spoilage.

>>9051948
Whatever responses are given to you, you will continue to believe the contrary. In essence, you have chosen not to believe man landed on the moon. My question to you is:
>What would convince you that man walked on the moon?
I suspect you would only be convinced if you walked there yourself. As a result, this discussion is entirely pointless.

>>9055758
Now for the interesting part -- the guys at NASA, who were really pretty clever, KNEW about what would fog the film, so they didn't just leave naked film flopping around in space, they made sure it was shielded adequately so that this would not be an issue.

Amazing isn't it, that guys who would dedicate their careers to accomplishing a goal would consider the fucking obvious when planning how to go about it?

>>9055815

>shielded

Never seen tin can redi whip spray rocket moon lander in person.

Thanks shill.

>>9051948

> Merit of science is that in principle anyone could verify what you say, and that for a claim to be true, it must also be verified by someone else (for example, not USA)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings

File: 134543534123566.jpg (44KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 600x400px

>>9056097

File: 20170331180200_1.jpg (234KB, 1680x1050px) Image search: [Google]

234KB, 1680x1050px

>>9054274
With great fun and then an encroaching sense of dread

File: Flat-Earth-Memres-366-15.jpg (59KB, 613x465px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 613x465px

>>9051946

>Was the moon landing a hoax

most definitely

File: flat-earth-memes-53-11.jpg (41KB, 480x475px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 480x475px

>>9051946

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11_missing_tapes

honestly if you haven't caught on to nasa's bullshit yet , good luck out there

>>9057502
That image is, indeed, fake.

If you look at the archives of NASA pics and find the one it is based on, you will see it does not have the Earth in it. Somebody added that later, for effect.

File: buzz-punch.gif (492KB, 250x187px) Image search: [Google]

492KB, 250x187px

>>9051946

File: 75815.jpg (180KB, 699x480px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 699x480px

>>9051946

>>9059438
So you're saying that you can't do basic trig let alone understand the basics of optics?

But then you really have to consider that there is absolutely no conceivable point to any of this
I suppose the alternate explanation is more fun though

>>9051946
>the moon landing

I always wonder how many of those people that don't believe in "the moon landing" know there has been 6 moon landings.

>>9059438
The answer to that question, by the way, is "No. No it would not."

>>9059482
>have been

Aeiou

File: 468dcbdfe9abbe5f85aafd79b0cb13be.png (145KB, 400x367px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 400x367px

>>9051948
>>Why would they fake a moon landing?
>Power display. USSR and USA were heavily influenced by competition that could've driven them to such acts.
If the US _didn't_ send people to the moon, Russia would have know and told the world.

>>9051948
Your argument relies on the hidden assumption that the hardness of sending something to space lineraly correlates with both the mass of the craft and the distance to your goal. It doesn't, so it can be discarded on that basis alone. You also assume that the satellites they sent to space were only so big and so far away because of technological limits, and not because of lack of demand for sending something bigger farther away. Finally, you assume that there is equal amount of incentive to send something to any orbit, when in reality, there is a ton of incentive for sending things to orbits below and up to geosynchronous, but after that, you only have useless empty space, so there is barely any reason to send something halfway to the Moon. So the launch patterns before the Moon landing would look the same in a universe where it happened and in a universe where it was faked, therefore you cannot use the launch patterns to tell whether the moon landing happened or not.

>>9059429
What is the argument there? That the people on the supposed set made sure to make it as unrealistic as possible by using a forklift to position the vehicle instead of fucking driving it to the correct position for the next shot?

>>9059438
You could literally take a photo of the Earth and the Sun where their apparent diameters have the same ratio as that of the Moon and the Earth on that pic, yet the Sun isn't a flaming ball of death covering the entire sky.