With all due respect, that's an incredibly ignorant take. The only reason to go into space is to get into orbit. Putting something into orbit is only possible or useful or feasible once you are fully outside of the Earth's atmosphere. That's it. That happens to be about 220 MI hi, just a few hours drive if you could drive straight up. That's it. There's no reason to be at 250 miles or 300 miles. The further you go, the less useful your satellite is because it's farther and farther away from earth. You're just wasting fuel. It doesn't really matter if the moon is $238,000 MI away, once you get out of Earth's orbit, you can float for as long as you've got food and water in the capsule, basically. There's no such thing as distance in space, there's only duration in terms of floating to your next objective.
It is absurd to accept that we went from having no manned space program at all in 1959, to putting men on the Moon a scant ten years later, when you consider that that we have done nothing but occupy low earth orbit for the last fifty years.
The whole manned space program from Mercury to Gemini to Skylab and the Space Shuttle right up to current times makes perfect sense as a timeline of technological progress if you eliminate that magical Walt Disney-esque episode where we supposedly went to the moon.
It is also absurd that the astronauts who allegedly walked on the moon took a dune buggy and even a golf ball and club but never a telescope.
Personal Incredulity. That's the logical fallacy you have. What, it couldn't be done in 10 years, with billions of dollars and the weight of the largest program since the Manhattan Project? That's absurd. The march of the space program is so incredibly well documented that you literally have to be an ignorant moron to think it was all fake. The Manhattan Project lasted from 1942 to 1945, taking approximately 3 years from start to finish. They SPLIT THE ATOM that fast??!? It's absurd to believe they made TWO atomic bombs, when in 1935 they had NO NUCLEAR PROGRAM!
Your logic, not mine. The bombs were CGI! Fake! Right?
You don't understand rockets. It's not about going to the moon, then colonizing the moon, or whatever. Every project has to have a payoff. For NASA and the USA, it was beating the USSR to the moon. Think of it this way: Once we got there, what else is there to do on the moon but golf?
You have to view the Apollo missions in terms of these phases:
Apollo 11 was primarily focused on landing on the moon and demonstrating the capabilities of the spacecraft and the crew, with limited scientific experiments.
By the time of Apollo 17, the focus had shifted towards more comprehensive scientific study of the moon, with the mission being heavily focused on geology. The crew was equipped with a suite of instruments and tools for conducting experiments and collecting samples.
In addition to geology, the later missions also expanded the scope of scientific study to include areas such as geophysics, geochemistry, and solar wind. The Apollo missions provided valuable data and samples that helped expand our understanding of the moon and the solar system.
In some ways, the science was just getting started when they cancelled the program, but by then, the public was bored and the missions weren't getting headlines.
Economics took over. That's why they focused on low earth orbit. Why? Because the black budgets took over and space became about spying. And that's why space is resurging. ECONOMICS have finally taken over where space can be commercialized. That's what Starlink is, for instance.. We're no longer being driven and controlled by your supposed space Communists at NASA.
With all due respect, that's an incredibly ignorant take. The only reason to go into space is to get into orbit. Putting something into orbit is only possible or useful or feasible once you are fully outside of the Earth's atmosphere. That's it. That happens to be about 220 MI hi, just a few hours drive if you could drive straight up. That's it. There's no reason to be at 250 miles or 300 miles. The further you go, the less useful your satellite is because it's farther and farther away from earth. You're just wasting fuel. It doesn't really matter if the moon is $238,000 MI away, once you get out of Earth's orbit, you can float for as long as you've got food and water in the capsule, basically. There's no such thing as distance in space, there's only duration in terms of floating to your next objective.
It is absurd to accept that we went from having no manned space program at all in 1959, to putting men on the Moon a scant ten years later, when you consider that that we have done nothing but occupy low earth orbit for the last fifty years.
The whole manned space program from Mercury to Gemini to Skylab and the Space Shuttle right up to current times makes perfect sense as a timeline of technological progress if you eliminate that magical Walt Disney-esque episode where we supposedly went to the moon.
It is also absurd that the astronauts who allegedly walked on the moon took a dune buggy and even a golf ball and club but never a telescope.
Personal Incredulity. That's the logical fallacy you have. What, it couldn't be done in 10 years, with billions of dollars and the weight of the largest program since the Manhattan Project? That's absurd. The march of the space program is so incredibly well documented that you literally have to be an ignorant moron to think it was all fake. The Manhattan Project lasted from 1942 to 1945, taking approximately 3 years from start to finish. They SPLIT THE ATOM that fast??!? It's absurd to believe they made TWO atomic bombs, when in 1935 they had NO NUCLEAR PROGRAM!
Your logic, not mine. The bombs were CGI! Fake! Right?
You don't understand rockets. It's not about going to the moon, then colonizing the moon, or whatever. Every project has to have a payoff. For NASA and the USA, it was beating the USSR to the moon. Think of it this way: Once we got there, what else is there to do on the moon but golf?
You have to view the Apollo missions in terms of these phases:
Apollo 11 was primarily focused on landing on the moon and demonstrating the capabilities of the spacecraft and the crew, with limited scientific experiments.
By the time of Apollo 17, the focus had shifted towards more comprehensive scientific study of the moon, with the mission being heavily focused on geology. The crew was equipped with a suite of instruments and tools for conducting experiments and collecting samples.
In addition to geology, the later missions also expanded the scope of scientific study to include areas such as geophysics, geochemistry, and solar wind. The Apollo missions provided valuable data and samples that helped expand our understanding of the moon and the solar system.
In some ways, the science was just getting started when they cancelled the program, but by then, the public was bored and the missions weren't getting headlines.
Economics took over. That's why they focused on low earth orbit. Why? Because the black budgets took over and space became about spying. And that's why space is resurging. ECONOMICS have finally taken over where space can be commercialized. That's what Starlink is, for instance.. We're no longer being driven and controlled by your supposed space Communists at NASA.
why is wind blowing the flag on the moon?