No basis for doubt. All the "questions" I've seen have been simple scientific ignorance. Moreover, doubts don't prove anything except ignorance. The proper challenge is a proof of the contrary.
Nonsense. There's 50 years worth of basis for doubt. Science is supposed to be repeatable, yet we cannot return. In the meantime "Climate Science" has proven the science community is easily corrupted by money, politics, and lies. Everything must be scrutinized and re-evaluated.
What a ridiculous argument. The Apollo program was an immense political and economic commitment. "Going back" was not about science; it was about political will and popular support---which was lacking. And (to play devil's advocate) why go back? We have more surface sample material than has been examined. The current plan to return is cluttered with woke objectives (sending the first woman to the Moon, and maybe also the first black person) and visionary objectives (the search for water and helium-3). I have misgivings about the mission architecture, but that's NASA for you.
"Climate science" deserves always to be in quotation marks---but it is not travel to the Moon. It is refuted by facts, not by suspicion.
Ah, so you have misgivings about NASA. That's how it starts. You'll get there someday perhaps. Anyhow, since neither of us is putting forth anything resembling proof, this conversation is stuck. Let's just settle for I hope you're right and move on.
So the Apollo program is your sacred cow? No doubts allowed? Why?
No basis for doubt. All the "questions" I've seen have been simple scientific ignorance. Moreover, doubts don't prove anything except ignorance. The proper challenge is a proof of the contrary.
Nonsense. There's 50 years worth of basis for doubt. Science is supposed to be repeatable, yet we cannot return. In the meantime "Climate Science" has proven the science community is easily corrupted by money, politics, and lies. Everything must be scrutinized and re-evaluated.
What a ridiculous argument. The Apollo program was an immense political and economic commitment. "Going back" was not about science; it was about political will and popular support---which was lacking. And (to play devil's advocate) why go back? We have more surface sample material than has been examined. The current plan to return is cluttered with woke objectives (sending the first woman to the Moon, and maybe also the first black person) and visionary objectives (the search for water and helium-3). I have misgivings about the mission architecture, but that's NASA for you.
"Climate science" deserves always to be in quotation marks---but it is not travel to the Moon. It is refuted by facts, not by suspicion.
Ah, so you have misgivings about NASA. That's how it starts. You'll get there someday perhaps. Anyhow, since neither of us is putting forth anything resembling proof, this conversation is stuck. Let's just settle for I hope you're right and move on.