You are mixing a controversy salad. I will comment on NASA. The space program is legit. We went to the Moon as advertised. After that, the German influence was fired out of the organization and the visionary leadership was replaced by bureaucratic survival, leading us to dead-end programs like the Shuttle and International Space Station (and the search for extraterrestrial life). Stay tuned for the ignominious demise of the Space Launch System, as SpaceX takes the lead.
If one is going to debate, it is folly not to be fully prepared to win. Sometimes, the official narrative is correct, and one has to be able to know when that happens. Murky suspicion is just a recipe for conspicuous failure.
I question the legitimacy of NASA. Went to the moon? Yes. Faked most of what was shown to the public? Yes Any idea why all of a sudden there was a big race to get to the moon? What was suddenly so urgent that we had to go get rocks and set up seismographs? For a very long time the scientific community considered nova events to be the death of a star. Now we suspect a star may well nova many times in it's live, cyclical. It was long a mystery why we found short half-life radio active material on earths surface. Astronomers spent thousands of hours searching for the remnant's of a very near by super nova (had to be very close) to no avail. Turns out it wasn't a super nova at all. Rather, a reoccurring micro-nova...and the star doing it was way closer than we had hoped to discover. Apollo confirmed this.
Wasn't there a video called something like: "How to Create a Mind Slave Using a Stun Gun" produced by NASA in Jon Benet Ramsey's father's office? Yeah, I question the legitimacy too.
You just need to read your history. 1961 and Gagarin is the first man in space, when the world seemed to be balanced between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. Kennedy threw down the gauntlet and it was an honest-to-God race that we won. And what are you going to do when you get there? Just walk around and take selfies? There were legitimate scientific questions to answer, some of them necessary before the landing in order to provide information about the stability of the surface.
Read history. Hmmm... A few years before Gagarin. Do you remember "The International Geophysical Year"? 18 month period from mid '57 to 12/31/58. Interesting piece of history there. Prolly by dumb luck we were perfectly positioned to observe the "The Storm". February 9-12, 1958, the Sun-Earth system was seized by an extraordinary event of "space weather" (pretty much where the term came from) It didn't start as competition. Started as cooperation, and with a sense of urgency. Russia launched Sputnik. Second launce was Latka the dog. Third launch,...well, it went to the moon, and all the way around the moon photographing the front and photographing the back. Stark difference that raised many hairs. The race was on, and more urgent than ever. We didn't retrieve rocks because we were tired of selfies and cruising the dune buggy. It's what we went for. We also sent missions to map the gravitational anomalies. (the moon doesn't have a gravitational "center") We also set up seismometers (had planned a nuke detonation but ended up just jettisoning landers) as well as attempting, unsuccessfully, to get a sample of the "lunar shell" below the surface debris. We haven't been back because we found what we went to find.
I don't know where you go off the rails, but I think it is near the third Soviet launch, of Sputnik 3, which went nowhere near the Moon. You are probably confusing it with Luna 1, which was only two months ahead of Pioneer 4. Of course we didn't retrieve rocks for trivial reasons---which was my point. You want to know about geology, you need rocks. As for the lack of a "gravitational center," that would come as news to all the trajectories that were developed on the basis of the Moon having a center of mass (which it does).
You must live an interesting life, but what you think you know about the Moon---is imaginary.
You are mixing a controversy salad. I will comment on NASA. The space program is legit. We went to the Moon as advertised. After that, the German influence was fired out of the organization and the visionary leadership was replaced by bureaucratic survival, leading us to dead-end programs like the Shuttle and International Space Station (and the search for extraterrestrial life). Stay tuned for the ignominious demise of the Space Launch System, as SpaceX takes the lead.
If one is going to debate, it is folly not to be fully prepared to win. Sometimes, the official narrative is correct, and one has to be able to know when that happens. Murky suspicion is just a recipe for conspicuous failure.
I question the legitimacy of NASA. Went to the moon? Yes. Faked most of what was shown to the public? Yes Any idea why all of a sudden there was a big race to get to the moon? What was suddenly so urgent that we had to go get rocks and set up seismographs? For a very long time the scientific community considered nova events to be the death of a star. Now we suspect a star may well nova many times in it's live, cyclical. It was long a mystery why we found short half-life radio active material on earths surface. Astronomers spent thousands of hours searching for the remnant's of a very near by super nova (had to be very close) to no avail. Turns out it wasn't a super nova at all. Rather, a reoccurring micro-nova...and the star doing it was way closer than we had hoped to discover. Apollo confirmed this.
Wasn't there a video called something like: "How to Create a Mind Slave Using a Stun Gun" produced by NASA in Jon Benet Ramsey's father's office? Yeah, I question the legitimacy too.
You just need to read your history. 1961 and Gagarin is the first man in space, when the world seemed to be balanced between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. Kennedy threw down the gauntlet and it was an honest-to-God race that we won. And what are you going to do when you get there? Just walk around and take selfies? There were legitimate scientific questions to answer, some of them necessary before the landing in order to provide information about the stability of the surface.
Read history. Hmmm... A few years before Gagarin. Do you remember "The International Geophysical Year"? 18 month period from mid '57 to 12/31/58. Interesting piece of history there. Prolly by dumb luck we were perfectly positioned to observe the "The Storm". February 9-12, 1958, the Sun-Earth system was seized by an extraordinary event of "space weather" (pretty much where the term came from) It didn't start as competition. Started as cooperation, and with a sense of urgency. Russia launched Sputnik. Second launce was Latka the dog. Third launch,...well, it went to the moon, and all the way around the moon photographing the front and photographing the back. Stark difference that raised many hairs. The race was on, and more urgent than ever. We didn't retrieve rocks because we were tired of selfies and cruising the dune buggy. It's what we went for. We also sent missions to map the gravitational anomalies. (the moon doesn't have a gravitational "center") We also set up seismometers (had planned a nuke detonation but ended up just jettisoning landers) as well as attempting, unsuccessfully, to get a sample of the "lunar shell" below the surface debris. We haven't been back because we found what we went to find.
I don't know where you go off the rails, but I think it is near the third Soviet launch, of Sputnik 3, which went nowhere near the Moon. You are probably confusing it with Luna 1, which was only two months ahead of Pioneer 4. Of course we didn't retrieve rocks for trivial reasons---which was my point. You want to know about geology, you need rocks. As for the lack of a "gravitational center," that would come as news to all the trajectories that were developed on the basis of the Moon having a center of mass (which it does).
You must live an interesting life, but what you think you know about the Moon---is imaginary.