No one wants to pay for it and while technology in general has improved, rocket tech is largely the same. It is still extremely expensive to get to orbit. Computer advances only go so far. How many megabytes does it take to get to orbit?
Yes, in the summer of 69 the USA landed 2 men on the moon.
Moon landing deniers have fantasy, skip critical thinking. They can't do orbital mechanics.
Since you deny it happened, you will not comprehend how it was done, you don't to EOM and orbital mechanics.
First you have to have lots of math, tons. You have to love math and go all the way. Have you taken graduate level math? While you are taking math, you need to take physics, lots of physics. Next you have to do the equations of motions, and work on orbital mechanics. The EOM will fill a large class room filled with caulk boards (remember the USA did this in the 60, before that silly keyboard, or tablet you are working on and deny the moon landing were invented). Did you take physics, and math, can you formulate the EOM, or do differential equations?
I have no idea why you believe your computer or tablet is real, you can't explain how the chips are made, are you sure they are real?
Do you know how to build big rocket engines?
Moon landing deniers don't do science.
Astronomers tracked Apollo missions, why can't you (not born yet). How do you fall for the failed hoax? http://www.astr.ua.edu/keel/space/apollo.html
Do you understand astronomy?
LOL, explain in detail how the Internet works, and how the chips in your computer are made. They can't be real, can they? Who makes the chips for you? Can you make computer chips? Anything technical?
If you don't understand orbital mechanics, then you will be unarmed to prove the moon landings did not take place.
I did see men walk on the moon, guess deniers don't understand information theory, another college thing. They had to invent ways to do communication to ensure it worked, the comm part. Do you have any science or engineering background?
I saw them walk on the moon live. Do you understand electromagnetic waves, and communications? If not you will not comprehend or be able to prove your claim, your denial of reality. Good luck.
Can you do the equations, the orbital mechanics to go to the Moon? Are you prepared to do the hard stuff? Technology? You don't know how we got to the moon in the 60s, and you think you can harness technology today to anything; the best you come up with is denying reality.
Already best answer is $$$. As you gain maturity you will figure out you can only do so much - but gee whiz, run for president and inspire us to go back, or do better.
Three U.S. Presidents have proposed a return to the Moon since Apollo ended. Out of those, only one received funding but was then later defunded.
Manned space flight is not simply a matter of "technology." And yes, while some technical fields such as computers have advanced by leaps and bounds in the past few decades, others like spacefaring equipment have remained largely unchanged since the 1970s. Aside from a few new companies such as SpaceX, we have needed only incremental improvements.
But to conduct a series of manned space missions there needs to be an incentive to spend all that money toward that end. Beating the Soviets was incentive enough during the Cold War, but now space exploration is not a national priority. This is the reality of public science programs. If the public vision changes, so does the funding.
It's been kind of disappointing for people like me who remember the Apollo program. As a grade-school kid, I was CERTAIN that by my early 50's there would be colonies on the moon and Mars. If somebody would have said then that by 2013 not only would we not have any colonies on the Moon, but that we wouldn't have even gone back once to the moon since 1972, I'd have thought they were crazy.
The lackluster outlook after Apollo is why von Braun and so many prominent figures left NASA. Von Braun envisioned an ambitious space exploration infrastructure, but without strong political patrons and a public mandate, he saw it tragically eviscerated in Congress. Several historians pointed to Apollo as the "perfect storm" of political will, public interest, and technological capability.
Three U.S. Presidents have proposed a return to the Moon since Apollo ended. Out of those, only one received funding but was then later defunded.
Manned space flight is not simply a matter of "technology." And yes, while some technical fields such as computers have advanced by leaps and bounds in the past few decades, others like spacefaring equipment have remained largely unchanged since the 1970s. Aside from a few new companies such as SpaceX, we have needed only incremental improvements.
But to conduct a series of manned space missions there needs to be an incentive to spend all that money toward that end. Beating the Soviets was incentive enough during the Cold War, but now space exploration is not a national priority. This is the reality of public science programs. If the public vision changes, so does the funding.
In order for the private sector to do anything in space, there has to be some way of earning enough revenue to turn a profit to offset the enormous costs. I don't really see space tourism getting it done. I know there are a couple of companies that want to do mining on near-earth asteroids, but I'm not sure if that will actually prove profitable.
There are some manufacturing processes that would benefit from micro-gravity and high vacuum, but again, I don't know if these will prove profitable.
This is a tactic that pro-Apollo people use to mislead people. Scientist have to be careful of what they say publicly as their funding can be cut off.
---------------------------------------------
Q: Why do prominent astronomers like Sir Bernard Lovell and Patrick Moore support the Moon landings if they were faked?
A: Scientists and astronomers around the globe know full well that the Moon missions were faked, but rely on NASA to gain access to the vital data beamed back to Earth from the Hubble space telescope. They cannot slag off NASA otherwise NASA would deprive them of this essential information, which they so much require.
---------------------------------------------
Q: What about the vast number of people involved in Apollo, wouldn’t someone have spoken out.
A: Pan’s claim there were half a million people involved in the Apollo program, but that includes all the humble engineers working on machine parts in many companies around the globe. So if someone is making a part in some engineering factory in Seattle, and his boss tells him it’s for the Apollo spacecraft, is that engineer proof the landings took place? No of course it is not proof, and even if that engineer knew they never made it to the Moon, he would still brag to his friends that he made a part that went to the Moon just to make him feel proud in some way or other. Parts for the Apollo program were made at many different factories around the globe. For example the laser reflector supposedly left on the Moon was manufactured in France. NASA collected the unit from the French company, and that was the last they saw of it. It’s probably stashed away in some archive at Langley, but one things for certain it’s not on the Moon. Are those French engineers proof they landed on the Moon? No of course not, as very few, (probably less than 200 people), were actually involved in bringing the whole lot together, so as to minimize what was actually taking place. No need for any of them to speak out because (A) They are 100% patriotic to the USA, and would say nothing that would go against America, even if it were true. (B) They do not need millions of dollars to safeguard their future, as they have already received substantial amounts from NASA just to “keep mum”. Read comments from people who worked on the Apollo program in the APOLLO FEEDBACK section.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Also, the media and science journals won't report what they say if they say Apollo never happened..
Do a YouTube search on "Chomsky media" to see some analyses of the media.
I'd been pro Apollo regular story Fat Freddy until about a year ago. Then this dude drives down to Denver from Fort Collins to show our little astronomy club his dad's notebooks. The guy from Fort Collins father was an aerospace engineer. The dad had been tasked to determine whether Swigert was a viable political candidate. During Swigert's run for congress this fellow would attend the various political functions , ask Swigert questions and that kind of thing. As it turns out this guy's dad became suspicious of Swigert. the man was an environmental systems expert and apparently when he'd ask Swigert about how warm the spaceship should have been and how much energy it takes to heat a spaceship Swigert did not know jack squat. There's more to it that that, but that was a significant part of it. This guy concluded Swigert was a fraud and recommended to his company not to support the astronaut's run for congress. Swigert of course did win , but never worked really in congress because he got sick. The aerospace engineer investigating all of this never went public, but with his recent death, his son has been showing the notebooks around, fairly selectively, at our astronomy club meeting and that kind of thing. they are obviously authentic and the son is planning to publish this stuff I believe but is looking for guidance. The incriminating claims by Swigert from the interactions this guy had with the deceased astronaut are pretty compelling. At least I think so. Keep your eye out for this sort of thing now FatFreddy. Nationally you don't see or hear much but in the smaller anecdotal cosmos of Denver it's sort of heated up.
There of course is great precedent for American and Western sponsored underground activities(conspiracies) featuring numerous participants that are never exposed or well exposed and simply never acknowledged for what they are;
1) Allende assassination
2) Recent predatory lending
3) The installation of the pro-American Shah
4) The activities of NATOS SECRET ARMIES 1945-1990 and perhaps beyond
5) The Government/AT and T supercomputer eavesdropping on us all in strong violation of the then law
6) Manned Orbiting lab, to function not as advertised
7) Iran Contra
And on and on, zillions of them. Apollo will probably wind up being like the AT and T supercomputer thing. At first everyone flips out including politicians and then it is all viewed as semi-necessary and even the president helps to smooth the BS over.
So lacking any testable evidence for an Apollo conspiracy theory, you'll now allude in handwaving fashion to several other conspiracies and conspiracy theories.
Apollo will probably wind up being like the AT and T supercomputer thing.
Or more likely, your "secret notebooks at astronomy club" fib will die just as quick and natural a death as all the other faux insider claims that have been thrown around for the past 40 years.
How about producing some of this "environmental systems expertise" you say revealed Swigert to be a fraud? You know, evidence that isn't just a tall tale, but instead can be tested for correctness.
I'd been pro Apollo regular story Fat Freddy until about a year ago. Then this dude drives down to Denver from Fort Collins to show our little astronomy club his dad's notebooks. The guy from Fort Collins father was an aerospace engineer. The dad had been tasked to determine whether Swigert was a viable political candidate. During Swigert's run for congress this fellow would attend the various political functions , ask Swigert questions and that kind of thing. As it turns out this guy's dad became suspicious of Swigert. the man was an environmental systems expert and apparently when he'd ask Swigert about how warm the spaceship should have been and how much energy it takes to heat a spaceship Swigert did not know jack squat. There's more to it that that, but that was a significant part of it. This guy concluded Swigert was a fraud and recommended to his company not to support the astronaut's run for congress. Swigert of course did win , but never worked really in congress because he got sick. The aerospace engineer investigating all of this never went public, but with his recent death, his son has been showing the notebooks around, fairly selectively, at our astronomy club meeting and that kind of thing. they are obviously authentic and the son is planning to publish this stuff I believe but is looking for guidance. The incriminating claims by Swigert from the interactions this guy had with the deceased astronaut are pretty compelling. At least I think so. Keep your eye out for this sort of thing now FatFreddy. Nationally you don't see or hear much but in the smaller anecdotal cosmos of Denver it's sort of heated up.
There of course is great precedent for American and Western sponsored underground activities(conspiracies) featuring numerous participants that are never exposed or well exposed and simply never acknowledged for what they are;
1) Allende assassination
2) Recent predatory lending
3) The installation of the pro-American Shah
4) The activities of NATOS SECRET ARMIES 1945-1990 and perhaps beyond
5) The Government/AT and T supercomputer eavesdropping on us all in strong violation of the then law
6) Manned Orbiting lab, to function not as advertised
7) Iran Contra
And on and on, zillions of them. Apollo will probably wind up being like the AT and T supercomputer thing. At first everyone flips out including politicians and then it is all viewed as semi-necessary and even the president helps to smooth the BS over.
Your unverified anecdote about an unnamed man who asked Jack Swigert a question about one of many thousands of technical details regarding the Apollo Command module than he didn't know the answer to has convinced me that the whole thing was a fake.
It's been kind of disappointing for people like me who remember the Apollo program. As a grade-school kid, I was CERTAIN that by my early 50's there would be colonies on the moon and Mars. If somebody would have said then that by 2013 not only would we not have any colonies on the Moon, but that we wouldn't have even gone back once to the moon since 1972, I'd have thought they were crazy.
Oh yeah! I was kid during the 60s and was inspired by the National Geographic magazine images of space flight and the TV coverage. I firmly believed then that we'd were going to Mars by the 1980's and I would have visited there by now......yeah I know I was being unrealistic.
I'd been pro Apollo regular story Fat Freddy until about a year ago. Then this dude drives down to Denver from Fort Collins to show our little astronomy club his dad's notebooks. The guy from Fort Collins father was an aerospace engineer. The dad had been tasked to determine whether Swigert was a viable political candidate. During Swigert's run for congress this fellow would attend the various political functions , ask Swigert questions and that kind of thing. As it turns out this guy's dad became suspicious of Swigert. the man was an environmental systems expert and apparently when he'd ask Swigert about how warm the spaceship should have been and how much energy it takes to heat a spaceship Swigert did not know jack squat. There's more to it that that, but that was a significant part of it. This guy concluded Swigert was a fraud and recommended to his company not to support the astronaut's run for congress. Swigert of course did win , but never worked really in congress because he got sick. The aerospace engineer investigating all of this never went public, but with his recent death, his son has been showing the notebooks around, fairly selectively, at our astronomy club meeting and that kind of thing. they are obviously authentic and the son is planning to publish this stuff I believe but is looking for guidance. The incriminating claims by Swigert from the interactions this guy had with the deceased astronaut are pretty compelling. At least I think so. Keep your eye out for this sort of thing now FatFreddy. Nationally you don't see or hear much but in the smaller anecdotal cosmos of Denver it's sort of heated up.
To summarise, anonymous dude from denver drives a considerable distance to visit an insignificant club to show what anonymous dudes dad wrote in notebooks, anonymously. Anonymous dad's job was to ascertain if Swigert was suitable for congressional candidacy (and he obviously concluded 'Yes' since Swigert was elected) and Anonymous Dad was a paid shill, asking predetermined questions at Swigerts public engagements. Anonymous Dad became suspicious when Swigert could not answer technical questions, even though Swigert did not have technical references to hand (few could do so).
So lacking any testable evidence for an Apollo conspiracy theory, you'll now allude in handwaving fashion to several other conspiracies and conspiracy theories.
Or more likely, your "secret notebooks at astronomy club" fib will die just as quick and natural a death as all the other faux insider claims that have been thrown around for the past 40 years.
How about producing some of this "environmental systems expertise" you say revealed Swigert to be a fraud? You know, evidence that isn't just a tall tale, but instead can be tested for correctness.
More will be revealed. But I like the environmental arguments the Fort Collins guy trots out. The how can you keep a secret conspiracy angle is one that the in favor of Apollo side uses. I am just pointing out it is nonsensical. Of course western interests screw people in secret on a regular basis. Just ask Allende's wife, or the family's of the children blown up at the Bologna train station.
I really could not care less in my taking a look at Apollo about this sort of thing, if only your side said there never really were conspiracies perpetrated by our secret governmental arms.
So, in order to fake the moon landing, they had to build a Saturn V rocket. In order for the hoax not to be obvious, the rocket had to have engines big enough to launch the alledged payload to the moon, and the rocket had to be big enough to hold fuel enough to get to the moon. I suppose if it wasn't actually going to the moon, they didn't nave to put a full load of fuel on it.
The point's been made many times before, but it seems putting together a believable hoax would have been as difficult and expensive, if not more so, than actually going to the moon. So why bother?
Oh yeah! I was kid during the 60s and was inspired by the National Geographic magazine images of space flight and the TV coverage. I firmly believed then that we'd were going to Mars by the 1980's and I would have visited there by now......yeah I know I was being unrealistic.
Wasn't trying to convince you of anything. Was just a communication mostly directed to Fat Freddy letting him know how I bounced to this side and little note to your side reminding you our secret government engages on hidden activities ad lib. Conspiracies are common place and the secrets are very well kept.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
