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.
I should point out that, for Apollo, they did send the probes and landers first. Lunar Orbiter. Ranger. Surveyor. If you don't know these important and simple facts, you may be undereducated on the history of what happened.
It's painful to watch so much paranoid delusion. The answer to the question is exceedingly simple, but you don't want to hear it. Nobody in power wanted to go back. After the first few landings, the public became bored and tuned it out. Congress cut the space budget to a fraction of the Apollo level (it was a national crash program) and decided to continue with a Space Shuttle, planetary probes, a Space Station, and orbital telescopes. The Moon was a political dead letter. Everyone was oohing and ahhing over stunning pictures from the Hubble telescope.
Meanwhile other rocket technology was being developed by private industry, just fine. But who had the money to return? No one. All the moaners and the groaners have been silent up to this point---but right on time to complain that somebody else is not providing them the entertainment they think they rightly deserve. Therefore, it must be an evil plot that is preventing it.
The only thing that has prevented it is people sitting on their collective asses, waiting for their entitlement. They should look in the mirror and ask "What have I ever done to return us to the Moon."
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.
What are you even talking about? We went to the moon dozens of times since:
Moon Landing Missions After 1985
China
Chang'e 3 (2013): The first Chinese mission to achieve a soft landing on the moon. It included a lander and the Yutu rover.
Chang'e 4 (2019): First mission to land on the far side of the moon, also included a lander and rover (Yutu-2).
Russia (Soviet Union)
Luna 24 (1976): Last successful Soviet lunar mission before the hiatus, included for context as there were no post-1985 Soviet/Russian landings until the Russian space program's recent activities aiming for lunar return.
United States
There have been no US missions that landed on the Moon after 1985 as of my last update. NASA's focus shifted towards Mars exploration and the International Space Station, though future Artemis missions aim to return humans to the Moon.
India
Chandrayaan-2 (2019): Included a lander (Vikram) and a rover (Pragyan); however, the lander crashed during the landing attempt, making it a partial success.
Israel
Beresheet (2019): A privately funded Israeli mission; it crashed during its landing attempt.
Note: As of my last update in April 2023, these are the notable missions post-1985 that aimed for or achieved a lunar landing. Future missions, such as those planned under NASA's Artemis program and by other countries, may soon expand this list.
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?
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.
I should point out that, for Apollo, they did send the probes and landers first. Lunar Orbiter. Ranger. Surveyor. If you don't know these important and simple facts, you may be undereducated on the history of what happened.
It's painful to watch so much paranoid delusion. The answer to the question is exceedingly simple, but you don't want to hear it. Nobody in power wanted to go back. After the first few landings, the public became bored and tuned it out. Congress cut the space budget to a fraction of the Apollo level (it was a national crash program) and decided to continue with a Space Shuttle, planetary probes, a Space Station, and orbital telescopes. The Moon was a political dead letter. Everyone was oohing and ahhing over stunning pictures from the Hubble telescope.
Meanwhile other rocket technology was being developed by private industry, just fine. But who had the money to return? No one. All the moaners and the groaners have been silent up to this point---but right on time to complain that somebody else is not providing them the entertainment they think they rightly deserve. Therefore, it must be an evil plot that is preventing it.
The only thing that has prevented it is people sitting on their collective asses, waiting for their entitlement. They should look in the mirror and ask "What have I ever done to return us to the Moon."
What are you even talking about? We went to the moon dozens of times since:
Moon Landing Missions After 1985
China
Russia (Soviet Union)
United States
India
Israel
Note: As of my last update in April 2023, these are the notable missions post-1985 that aimed for or achieved a lunar landing. Future missions, such as those planned under NASA's Artemis program and by other countries, may soon expand this list.
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?