What gets me is the inability to repeat this. Not that they actually went there, but why we haven't successfully gone back with more advanced tech available to us as there is today? The original crew of travelers had a Radio Shack parts bin thrown together and wrapped it up in a layer of tin foil and they made it there.
Cost-prohibitive today? More capital available to us than ever. Motivation? More people today than ever would love to see a successful human re-visitation of a celestial body -- not just an unmanned probe or vehicle. Priorities? Wouldn't you as a nation love to demonstrate your grasp on the cosmos by going there again?
I guess Artemis is attempting a manned re-visitation of the moon's surface, but it's just staggering to me how it took this long to repeat something that came out of an exponentially more rudimentary period of time. Something doesn't add up. I'm the most curious what sort of tech is being hidden from us, tbh.
More than HALF A CENTURY after the 1969 moon landing, we haven't been back and even the rare UNMANNED landings on the moon sometimes have problems.
Fifty-five years of scientific and tech progress have taken us from primitive computers the size of a small room to wristwatches with far more computing power and memory (not to mention graphics capability) than could be bought for any price in 1969. We've gone from bulky low-res CRTs to "retina" resolution LCDs and other flatscreens; from smog-belching cars to gasoline vehicles whose exhaust is often cleaner than the surrounding air.
But we just can't seem to put humans on the moon again.
Yep, exactly. And, since I'm a skeptic of many things, it helps when I explain it this way to people. It usually makes them go "hmm, yeah you have a good point" instead of saying "TEH MUUN LANDINGZ R FAEK", which can result in normies going "sure thing, nut job!".
More people are open to considering that there's definitely some technological suppression fuckery afoot. It just doesn't add up when you think about it.
No, and also, Go back to the drawing board with your stupid bullshit. The only thing that you are worldview depends on is dipshit ignorance. Oh, look at that, they claim to have measured x y and z. But what scientific experiment could have ever resulted in that! Oh! Nobody could imagine that! Therefore they were lying! And so it goes .
Why did we NOT go to the moon in 1969? Because we didn't go to the moon in 1979, 1989, 1999, 2009, 2019, etc. Technology improved but we apparently decided that going to the moon was pointless when we went there, bounced around, and stuck a flag in the regolith.
That's not how space exploration works. You don't do the manned mission first and then send probes and rovers later! Humanity must get off of this planet for its survival and for its future. We have killed and are still killing the planet in ways nobody dares mention, and yet there are no serious plans to get out of here and use our innovative spirit for peaceful pursuits rather than genociding each other over words and ideas.
Anyone who thinks we went to the moon in 1969 and yet stays blissfully ignorant of the fact that we (and nobody else) has even tried to go back until Trump said it, is a lunatic who is self-gaslighting.
The big conspiracy theory is not that the moon landing was faked. The big conspiracy FACT is that we didn't go there at all but everyone convinced themselves that the moon landing was totally legit.
"But look at the moon with a telescope and you can see the landing site!" - Easily faked with a simple lander and an autonomous rover like Curiosity.
In every timeline where humanity was not ruled by satanic pedophiles, we would be a multiplanetary species, if not a multistellar one.
There is no reason why we should have self-driving cars before we have a permanent moon base, except that we live in one of the worst possible timelines.
Who wants to? Somebody has to cough up the dough and plan for mounting such an expedition. People seem to have more plans for their latest X-Box than for returning to the Moon.
I'm sorry but what is it you think is missing between a version of a manned mission to the moon and an unmanned mission to the moon? The only thing you need to provide for the astronauts is extra oxygen to be there to go out the door when it lands on the moon. This is not rocket science actually, the moon is actually really easy to reach. It's when you decide to send science experiments and other complex things to actually start analyzing the moon and determining which parts you want to claim and which parts have the highest levels of helium 3, do you even understand why we go to the moon in the first place?? This is why the mods here remove people that are retarded on site. Why would you go to the moon? Answer that question for me
One other point: You are either dramatically underselling the difficulty of putting HUMANS in space or are unaware of them.
Humans need more than oxygen (although that's a big damn deal, really: the tanks and the nearly bullet-proof containment required in space, along with designing with the fire danger in mind aren't trivial and add quite a bit of weight) -- humans also need bathroom facilities, they need food, they need radiation shielding, they need G-force consideration for launch and maneuvers, they need tools and suits and much more. And going to and from the moon, plus of course STAYING there for even a short but useful time, makes this all much more difficult than just lobbing someone up for a space ride or taking them to the space station.
Is it really "retarded" to wonder if we actually had the technology to go to the moon with the much cruder tech we had 55 years ago?
The highest G-Force in astronaut experiences is 7 G's during reentry which they do pretty easily no problems because they are lying down.
It's actually easier to send humans in space and they're in a lunar module. The module has to be completely sealed like a submarine so it's pretty easy to keep the astronauts alive. All systems have carbon dioxide scrubbers and oxygen emitters
I'm not retarded, catsfive. And I didn't say we didn't go to the moon, but there ARE details and other reasons that make me wonder . . . not that I'd expect the government to ever LIE to us, of course.
One reason I wonder about whether we've been getting the truth about the Apollo missions is that we DO send humans into space -- we had the whole Space Shuttle program and we've had at least two space stations (one of which came down in flames after a number of years), so there are reasons good enough (to some with the power and money to make it happen) to PUT people in space, but for MORE THAN HALF A CENTURY we haven't even attempted to put anyone on the Moon -- where a base would be exceptionally useful, according to many (and to common sense). Elon and others are working on going to Mars, for heaven's sake, but NOBODY has tried to put a human on the Moon in all the time since Apollo shut down?
Elon is working on going to the moon as well but he is letting that be the NASA Artemis mission which SpaceX will be a big participant in through secondary launches
Ever been to Craters of the Moon National Monument in Idaho? Very sobering terrain, from horizon to horizon. I visited it in the summer of 1969 or 1970 (hazy memory) and haven't returned for a second look. Gee, that is as long as we haven't returned to the Moon. Is it more important to return to the Moon, than it is to return to Craters of the Moon?
We did not stop going. It all became dark ops. This due to the results of the first landing and what was discovered "in the shadows" you might say. This will be revealed. We have in fact been to Mars as well. Time will show this to be true.
Of course you can consider this nothing more than my opinion since I can't prove it. But i you do a dive, you can find things that piece together.
This, it's all dark ops these days. Nasa are a public relations campaign.
I can't say with certainty we already went to Mars but with the technology they seem to have now in the black budget world, I do believe it's likely we also went to Mars.
What's really strange is that the lunar reconnaissance orbiter that is orbiting the Moon has imaged every inch of the lunar surface, we can see the Apollo 11 landing site for instance, the footage is publicly downloadable, and no one has seen any of these black sites
We're no longer in the Space Race with Russia. Being the first to do something space-wise doesn't really matter anymore. And going back surely doesn't mean anything now.
We still have plenty of moon dust and moon rocks from the first expedition for any research that anyone might want to do on it. Any further exploration can easily be done with robots.
So what are we going to do on the moon now? Take selfies? Go for a bouncy walk? There's just really no reason to send people to the moon now that we have things like rover robots. It's much cheaper and much more practical to send them than to send humans who waste time doing things like eating, sleeping, and scratching their asses.
What should actually be reversed as an argument is why we went to the moon first instead of conquering low earth orbit. We didn't have weather satellites at this time, communications satellites, internet in low Earth orbit, no space station, we weren't manufacturing anything in low Earth orbit. Why did we go to the moon first?
It's not about the tech, it's about the economics. The Whole reason the first moon landing happened was because there was huge value in the propaganda win of beating the Soviets.
There are questions surrounding the moon landings for sure but are we asking the right questions?
We were in a tit for tat battle with the Soviets. Once side would achieve a goal and the other would have to at least match it to prove to the world they were equally capable.
So why didnt the Soviets ever go to the moon?
And if we didnt, why didnt the Soviets broadcast our lies to the world?
Something happened and we never went back and the Soviets never even tried. What was it? Could have been as simple as political will and/or cash. But I find it difficult to believe the Soviets lacked either. They needed to save face.
I dont know what went down but I suspect when this movie is over we will get to find out.
Because JFK re-framed the space race as being first to the moon. When I was a baby people didn't call it "the space program" they called it "the moon race."
What gets me is the inability to repeat this. Not that they actually went there, but why we haven't successfully gone back with more advanced tech available to us as there is today? The original crew of travelers had a Radio Shack parts bin thrown together and wrapped it up in a layer of tin foil and they made it there.
Cost-prohibitive today? More capital available to us than ever. Motivation? More people today than ever would love to see a successful human re-visitation of a celestial body -- not just an unmanned probe or vehicle. Priorities? Wouldn't you as a nation love to demonstrate your grasp on the cosmos by going there again?
I guess Artemis is attempting a manned re-visitation of the moon's surface, but it's just staggering to me how it took this long to repeat something that came out of an exponentially more rudimentary period of time. Something doesn't add up. I'm the most curious what sort of tech is being hidden from us, tbh.
Great point, LordK.
More than HALF A CENTURY after the 1969 moon landing, we haven't been back and even the rare UNMANNED landings on the moon sometimes have problems.
Fifty-five years of scientific and tech progress have taken us from primitive computers the size of a small room to wristwatches with far more computing power and memory (not to mention graphics capability) than could be bought for any price in 1969. We've gone from bulky low-res CRTs to "retina" resolution LCDs and other flatscreens; from smog-belching cars to gasoline vehicles whose exhaust is often cleaner than the surrounding air.
But we just can't seem to put humans on the moon again.
Something is off here.
Yep, exactly. And, since I'm a skeptic of many things, it helps when I explain it this way to people. It usually makes them go "hmm, yeah you have a good point" instead of saying "TEH MUUN LANDINGZ R FAEK", which can result in normies going "sure thing, nut job!".
More people are open to considering that there's definitely some technological suppression fuckery afoot. It just doesn't add up when you think about it.
No, and also, Go back to the drawing board with your stupid bullshit. The only thing that you are worldview depends on is dipshit ignorance. Oh, look at that, they claim to have measured x y and z. But what scientific experiment could have ever resulted in that! Oh! Nobody could imagine that! Therefore they were lying! And so it goes .
Whatever
Oy vey! He does have a point!
Why did we NOT go to the moon in 1969? Because we didn't go to the moon in 1979, 1989, 1999, 2009, 2019, etc. Technology improved but we apparently decided that going to the moon was pointless when we went there, bounced around, and stuck a flag in the regolith.
That's not how space exploration works. You don't do the manned mission first and then send probes and rovers later! Humanity must get off of this planet for its survival and for its future. We have killed and are still killing the planet in ways nobody dares mention, and yet there are no serious plans to get out of here and use our innovative spirit for peaceful pursuits rather than genociding each other over words and ideas.
Anyone who thinks we went to the moon in 1969 and yet stays blissfully ignorant of the fact that we (and nobody else) has even tried to go back until Trump said it, is a lunatic who is self-gaslighting.
The big conspiracy theory is not that the moon landing was faked. The big conspiracy FACT is that we didn't go there at all but everyone convinced themselves that the moon landing was totally legit.
"But look at the moon with a telescope and you can see the landing site!" - Easily faked with a simple lander and an autonomous rover like Curiosity.
In every timeline where humanity was not ruled by satanic pedophiles, we would be a multiplanetary species, if not a multistellar one.
There is no reason why we should have self-driving cars before we have a permanent moon base, except that we live in one of the worst possible timelines.
Who wants to? Somebody has to cough up the dough and plan for mounting such an expedition. People seem to have more plans for their latest X-Box than for returning to the Moon.
I can tell by your updoots that you’re not alone in your beliefs.
I'm sorry but what is it you think is missing between a version of a manned mission to the moon and an unmanned mission to the moon? The only thing you need to provide for the astronauts is extra oxygen to be there to go out the door when it lands on the moon. This is not rocket science actually, the moon is actually really easy to reach. It's when you decide to send science experiments and other complex things to actually start analyzing the moon and determining which parts you want to claim and which parts have the highest levels of helium 3, do you even understand why we go to the moon in the first place?? This is why the mods here remove people that are retarded on site. Why would you go to the moon? Answer that question for me
One other point: You are either dramatically underselling the difficulty of putting HUMANS in space or are unaware of them.
Humans need more than oxygen (although that's a big damn deal, really: the tanks and the nearly bullet-proof containment required in space, along with designing with the fire danger in mind aren't trivial and add quite a bit of weight) -- humans also need bathroom facilities, they need food, they need radiation shielding, they need G-force consideration for launch and maneuvers, they need tools and suits and much more. And going to and from the moon, plus of course STAYING there for even a short but useful time, makes this all much more difficult than just lobbing someone up for a space ride or taking them to the space station.
Is it really "retarded" to wonder if we actually had the technology to go to the moon with the much cruder tech we had 55 years ago?
Maybe we did, but I'm not convinced.
The highest G-Force in astronaut experiences is 7 G's during reentry which they do pretty easily no problems because they are lying down.
It's actually easier to send humans in space and they're in a lunar module. The module has to be completely sealed like a submarine so it's pretty easy to keep the astronauts alive. All systems have carbon dioxide scrubbers and oxygen emitters
I'm not retarded, catsfive. And I didn't say we didn't go to the moon, but there ARE details and other reasons that make me wonder . . . not that I'd expect the government to ever LIE to us, of course.
One reason I wonder about whether we've been getting the truth about the Apollo missions is that we DO send humans into space -- we had the whole Space Shuttle program and we've had at least two space stations (one of which came down in flames after a number of years), so there are reasons good enough (to some with the power and money to make it happen) to PUT people in space, but for MORE THAN HALF A CENTURY we haven't even attempted to put anyone on the Moon -- where a base would be exceptionally useful, according to many (and to common sense). Elon and others are working on going to Mars, for heaven's sake, but NOBODY has tried to put a human on the Moon in all the time since Apollo shut down?
That's not proof, but it isn't nothing, either.
Elon is working on going to the moon as well but he is letting that be the NASA Artemis mission which SpaceX will be a big participant in through secondary launches
Ever been to Craters of the Moon National Monument in Idaho? Very sobering terrain, from horizon to horizon. I visited it in the summer of 1969 or 1970 (hazy memory) and haven't returned for a second look. Gee, that is as long as we haven't returned to the Moon. Is it more important to return to the Moon, than it is to return to Craters of the Moon?
We did not stop going. It all became dark ops. This due to the results of the first landing and what was discovered "in the shadows" you might say. This will be revealed. We have in fact been to Mars as well. Time will show this to be true. Of course you can consider this nothing more than my opinion since I can't prove it. But i you do a dive, you can find things that piece together.
This, it's all dark ops these days. Nasa are a public relations campaign.
I can't say with certainty we already went to Mars but with the technology they seem to have now in the black budget world, I do believe it's likely we also went to Mars.
What's really strange is that the lunar reconnaissance orbiter that is orbiting the Moon has imaged every inch of the lunar surface, we can see the Apollo 11 landing site for instance, the footage is publicly downloadable, and no one has seen any of these black sites
What would we go back for?
We're no longer in the Space Race with Russia. Being the first to do something space-wise doesn't really matter anymore. And going back surely doesn't mean anything now.
We still have plenty of moon dust and moon rocks from the first expedition for any research that anyone might want to do on it. Any further exploration can easily be done with robots.
So what are we going to do on the moon now? Take selfies? Go for a bouncy walk? There's just really no reason to send people to the moon now that we have things like rover robots. It's much cheaper and much more practical to send them than to send humans who waste time doing things like eating, sleeping, and scratching their asses.
What should actually be reversed as an argument is why we went to the moon first instead of conquering low earth orbit. We didn't have weather satellites at this time, communications satellites, internet in low Earth orbit, no space station, we weren't manufacturing anything in low Earth orbit. Why did we go to the moon first?
It's not about the tech, it's about the economics. The Whole reason the first moon landing happened was because there was huge value in the propaganda win of beating the Soviets.
There are questions surrounding the moon landings for sure but are we asking the right questions?
We were in a tit for tat battle with the Soviets. Once side would achieve a goal and the other would have to at least match it to prove to the world they were equally capable.
So why didnt the Soviets ever go to the moon?
And if we didnt, why didnt the Soviets broadcast our lies to the world?
Something happened and we never went back and the Soviets never even tried. What was it? Could have been as simple as political will and/or cash. But I find it difficult to believe the Soviets lacked either. They needed to save face.
I dont know what went down but I suspect when this movie is over we will get to find out.
Because JFK re-framed the space race as being first to the moon. When I was a baby people didn't call it "the space program" they called it "the moon race."