Elon Musk Proves the Apollo 11 Mission was a Fraud
(www.youtube.com)
Comments (178)
sorted by:
I did not have fake moon landing on my bingo card.
Kek
So it was fake. What did they achieve by faking all this?
Flexing on the USSR. It was the Cold War and the Soviets had already put a man in orbit on Vostok 1 Apr. 12, 1961. They were beating our pants off with their space program. So we had to look like we were better than them.
they wanted people to believe in 'space' rather than the Biblical firmament.
to make us feel 'small'...one of billions, instead of made in the image of God.
That’s a stretch
Ummm no it's not.
flat earth enters the chat....
why?
The firmament separates the heavens and the Earth, correct? Does that not mean that the firmament is the boundary of the universe? Do we think that the moon and Mars and Jupiter are part of the heavens ? Serious question because I have not researched this topic of the firmament biblically.
yes, it's not mentioned much anymore, people aren't as literal with the Bible. it's the separation between the 'waters'...
it would be the 'end' of our inner space, and include the planets we know.
Genesis 1:6-8 KJV
6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
-some good examples if you search 'God's firmament images'
...
"The firmament in the Bible is the tremendous dome-shaped expanse of sky separating the upper atmosphere or “waters” from the lower waters of the earth. On the second day of the creation account, God created the firmament:"
https://www.learnreligions.com/firmament-in-the-bible-6541258
Technological dominance over the USSR.
But the russ had to know this stuff was bullshit. They had to have their own scientists look at this and say it is not possible, here is why.
Wag the Dog... it was on tv and radio so it happened... even if it didn't... the psyop works that way and a whole country of people feel like winners who are inclined to let their government spend whatever they want to maintain dominance...while a rival country of people get to feel defeated...
The USSR had to know one way or the other. I find it hard to believe that they would have kept quiet if it was faked.
You must be right based on this info. Elon would know for sure.
Not likely. The last Apollo mission was in 1972. Musk was born in 1971. He knows little about it.
Maybe you didn't notice that he has spent billions of dollars in his effort to get to mars. He knows at least as much as NASA does about space. He said that his rocket engines would require much more fuel and his rocket engines are VASTLY superior to what NASA used on the Saturn V.
The Moon rocks are not fake. The telephone conversations were in fact live, since the transmission delay to the Moon is about one second. The camera tilt (not pan) was accomplished by a spring-driven mechanism activated by a timer upon stage ignition. The Moon Buggy was designed to be folded into a compact form (developed at Boeing). The docking maneuver was practiced many times on simulators, and the astronauts were mostly former test pilots anyway. Did you wish them to fail? Photos with Hasselblad cameras with shutters adapted for gloves. There is no "etc., etc." Just a lot of people who don't care to learn how it was accomplished.
I'm starting to believe it was faked too.
They did know it was BS when they watched the Apollo 11 astronauts get out of the capsule and walk around like normal. USSR cosmonauts took time to recover their strength and balance after returning from relatively short missions.
That's a very noticable difference.
The Russians knew it was not bullshit and were working hard on their own lunar launch vehicle, the N1. It had systemic problems and they were far from solving them by the time the US had already made it. If it was fake, they would have scored a bit hit on the US by calling it out and proving it. But they didn't, because it wasn't.
Stealing billions of dollars. Think of all the blue state scams that suck money away from the US Treasury for no apparent gains to society. Why not spend a few million to make a huge rocket, send it up into the atmosphere and let it travel to the sun to get rid of the evidence. Next, the rest of the billions of dollars are just funneled into someone's personal bank accounts. Yea, its a money laundering operation.
The "huge rocket" cost far more than "a few million" dollars. And to send something to the Sun requires more rocket propulsion capability than sending something out of the Solar system. The money funded an entire constellation of work centers and contractors. You don't know what you are talking about.
Unlimited funding for a take space program to build underground dlDUMBS
I don't see Elon musk in the video, and I do see Warner Von Braun saying that it is possible.
Sssshhhhh. Didn't you read the headline?
"Elon proves the Apollo 11 mission was a fraud". That's all you need to know. Stop thinking. Ignoring sensationalist or misleading headlines is a sign that you're becoming a doomer, bro!
*Note: I guess these guys have never heard of black ops or the secret space programs, etc. Unrevealed technology.
Yep, everything public today is the absolute cutting edge! / sarc
Note to OP: Hey, I respect your beliefs, but was this really about Elon proving <thing>? Sounded more like the other guy in the lecture (according to the podcast bald guy: "he just proved")
Am I missing something here?
There seem to be about a gazillion videos on youtube with names starting like "Elon proved/proves" or "Elon discovered" or "Elon" this or that where Musk makes no appearance or is even quoted, or if he is it's some part of something out of context. Most "Elon" videos are just clickbait.
And there were about 400000 people working on the Apollo programs, for something like over a decade. There doesn't seem to be any whistleblowers who could prove they were part of those programs claiming they were actually fake, or at least some sort of fake. Nor any credible looking stuff disproving that 400000 number of workers. All those claims come from outsiders.
Most impressive record for a conspiracy, if it was just a conspiracy to fake them.
And yes, no claims from Soviet Union about anything at least suspicious concerning those landings? Not even afterwards? Like some scientists or some other people monitoring the whole thing back then having come forth after the Soviet Union collapsed to explain why they didn't say so after they maybe found out the landings didn't happen, or at least maybe found something suspicious was going on?
Frankly, to me the odds seem to point a lot more towards "they were real" than towards "they were fake". At most you could perhaps assume that something like some individual photos or some other similar stuff could perhaps have gotten faked or maybe at least a bit "improved" afterwards because the actual ones didn't look good enough for the history books, or press releases at the time.
He designed the Saturn V, so yes, he made it possible.
Aulis.com
At the very least, the photos were faked.
Nobody could have achieved a sequential ‘hit rate’ the way they did - impossible.
The Hasselblad cameras had no useable viewfinders. We are to believe manual exposures were set, manual focus set, framing a photo set. All with gloves on with their ‘special’ modified cameras. The most iconic photos in American history were all ‘perfect’ one after the other - perfect shots while just literally goofing off in 1/6 gravity like kids.
(edit to remove comment on sequencing data being ‘lost’ by nasa - it is still there).
I’d challenge anyone skilled at manual photography to cover up their viewfinder and frame 25 out of 100 shots of their car in their own driveway from 10’ to 30’ away, whilst manually exposing using a chest mount. And if you achieve that, the next level will be to do it while walking / moving at the same time. Hell, for starters, lets keep it simple: cover up your iphone screen and try it.
True, it is difficult. Now, practice it for 2 years straight, and then try again - I bet you'll do a fine job. Unless of course, you're a tard, or unwilling to succeed
Watch some of the film footage when they were taking some of the photos - no way it happened that way - bouncy - bouncy - smile - snap. Trust your eyes 😀.
As someone who spent the 1970s shooting wedding photography, I can tell you that operating a camera with a light meter in manual mode is not that difficult. Even without looking through a viewfinder. I learned on a Rolleiflex and while it had a viewfinder, it wasn't the same light path as what entered the aperture. You had to use a light meter or just be good at estimating your shutter speeds (comes with experience) to get a good exposure
Take a real good look at the video footage again, the parts when they are taking the photos, give it a bit of a critical eye from a photographers’ perspective - just might hit you like a ton o bricks - or maybe not.
Do you have a particular clip or photo you'd like me to examine? Send me some index numbers and I'd be happy to take a look. I've looked at a lot of them, but there's something like tens of thousands or maybe hundreds of thousands of photo and video frames from Apollo
I can't tell you if we went to the moon or not in the 60's. But I know that the Apollo program could have done it. And I know there's a lot of claims out there about the photography, but I still haven't seen anything that's a dealbreaker, except maybe the two mountains (appear exactly the same) that were taken on two different missions, thousands of clicks apart. I'll look that up again and link it here if I can find it. Haven't looked at that one in a while.
Google search ‘Apollo 11 magazine S’. It was a 130 cap mag w/ 125 exposures.
Examine the ‘hit rate’ achieved under such conditions.
Once you find the raw photos, note the Rousseau plate marks. Now note the compositions achieved, including the hit rate (aka - good useable photo) and you may start to notice nearly all of the photos are ‘perfectly’ artistically composed relative to the center center mark. I do not believe that is possible with any amount of training even amongst the best photographers in the world. Not chest mounted, no viewfinder no laser pointer.
They did throw a couple ‘misses’ in there for good measure though.
The sequence coming out of the LM is very telling. This is photography of an object in motion down the steps and each image is absolutely NAILED, in sequence (not possible I’d argue). Center mark and composition - Nailed. How much precise camera movement was required for that sequence? Could it have been done with a chest mount?
After that, go look at some of the lackadaisical ‘photo-taking’ that is captured via the video feeds of Apollo 11. They are basically joyously hopping around taking ‘snap-shots’ not doing work of a serious photographer.
I'm guessing you're referencing "Apollo 11 magazine 40/S" - yes ? If so, I looked through it and didn't see a single thing that stood out.
Have you ever heard of "point-shooting" ? IE shooting a pistol without looking down the sights. Even novice shooters can hit targets at 5-7 yards without even looking down the sights.
Nothing handy.
Just find some video footage that includes them snapping off photos, and see if you think the framing ‘composition’ they achieved on Apollo 11 is possible with chest mounted cameras just pointing and shooting.
Take note of the Rousseau plate marks so you can see if they did some cropping.
Then, cover up your iphone screen with some painter’s tape and take a few photos of your car or truck walking around to a few different spots Just a simple experiment. Nothing serious like duplicating focal lengths etc. Just an exercise in ‘framing’ a photo properly w/o working too hard at it and no viewfinder.
Well Hot Damn! I got my ass chewed out with a lot of cussing, basically told I was a moron simply for asking the question: Was the moon landing real of fake? I was booted off of here for complaining about the rude manner it was done. So I guess moon landing is back on the menu here. The moderator knows who he is.
Yea I'm surprised this thread hasn't been shitcanned. I've been given temporary bans for posting about this.
Over time, the moderators have figured out that lots of people have lots of questions about lots of things. And doubting isn't proof you're a shill.
When I had my college physics class, we calculated the thrust required to escape earths gravitational pull and enter into the moons gravitational pull. It was doable with the Saturn 5. Having to refuel 9 times is absurd. How were vehicles sent to Mars or are they claiming those are fake as well? How about Explorer 1 & 2, were those bogus also? BTW, Q said the moon ladings were real.
Refueling 9 times is the cost of the fully and rapidly reusable spacecraft and booster. When apollo launched it weighed like 10 million pounds or something like that. All that came back to earth was a 2 ton tin can with 3 astronauts in it. And that part wasn't even reusable.
Starship represents an entire ship and booster that are both fully and rapidly reusable (like an airplane)
Apollo was like taking a flight to pittsburgh, but dropping wings wheels etc on the way there and by the time you got back you had to parachute back down to the runway and for the next trip you need a whole new airliner.
Makes sense
Spot on. Except it was 6.5million pounds at liftoff (but close)
Sounds right. Ty
Q2225
"Did NASA fake the MOON landings? Have we been to the MOON since then? Are there secret space programs? Is this why the Space Force was created?"
Q
False, MOON landings are real.
Programs exist that are outside of public domain.
Maybe they landed using recovered Alien Tech and what was shown on TV was not the full truth.
This is not an apples to apples comparison. The Saturn 5 shed weight and was eventually two small crafts flying together on its way to the moon and down to only a smaller craft to head home. Elon’s Big Fucking Rocket (starship and super heavy) are designed to carry a shit ton of mass to get to mars. The ship has an enormous amount of cargo space and 6 fuel and lox hungry raptors to push it along. The ship uses all the propellant storage it has just to get that big bastard in orbit. The refuel part is a bit misleading as the ship will get refueled while in earth orbit by sending up starships designed to carry the liquid propellant like a big tanker truck to dock with and transfer propellant over. That will take 8-9 tanker ships to refuel completely. Elon wants to go to Mars…NASA wants to go to the moon. Mars has methane (fuel) and water ice (oxygen) needed for refueling and obviously breathing. It’s easier for starship to refuel on mars once the infrastructure is there. It takes a shitload more tanker ships to refuel the starship if it lands on the moon. Either way the first ships to go will be a one way trip. All the info for refueling is on SpaceX’s website or at least was
Also doesn't specify what was used to get there. I'm thinking anti-gravity craft.
Precisely.
We've had perfect fusion since at least the 60s, when they were fucking around with lithium and boron.
It's possible they used fusion to get there - and then destroyed what they had to when it was all declared TS under national security. (The tech would have been all out dated anyway)
Lockheed knows what's up, though. They have all the tech.
And look into Helion https://www.helionenergy.com/
Musk doesn't know shit about anything. What a loser.
Exactly, it's directly referenced in the Q drops. I don't know why discussion of this is banned on this site (dont make no sense)
It would be like being on a Bible forum but discussion of certain verses are banned
"You can't talk about Proverbs! Bring your ass to conspiracies.win!"
"Q said a lot of things."
Cool. Now I can say that whenever anything about Q is claimed.
"Q said a lot of things."
Like nothing can stop what's coming?
"Q said a lot of things."
Like the enemy going to receive their just deserts?
"Q said a lot of things."
Like the only way is the military?
"Q said a lot of things."
Well. Better give up all hope then.
No use waiting around, we've got to do it ourselves.
Because "Q said a lot of things."
One of the most eye-opening things I saw was the movie A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon which does seem to thoroughly debunk the space program of the 50s and 60s and shed light on how they faked it.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0446557/
Watch this with an open mind
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMHLvoWZfqQ
I certainly will!
fantastic video
Thank you for the link. I watched the whole thing and it helped restore some faith I had lost in humanity. At least, for the first half, he's got some good solid evidence and quality footage. Probably the best I've seen so far.
In the second half, he actually addresses the video I mentioned, but nit picks about whether it's been "secret" or "unreleased" or w/e and spends time proving they didn't hide it. He doesn't actually address the content they show. That's a red flag for me there.
Then he follows up with some math, but it seemed a little too simplistic to me. It did unlock some memories from university and studying Statics & Dynamics. I did find it odd that he didn't account for the number of thrusters used when specifying ISP values, but w/e, I'm not a rocket scientist.
Now, having looked at the footage from A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon with fresh eyes, I'm figuring it was just Fake-News-Being-Fake-News. They've been faking news for decades, and thinking about it now, they were probably just creating shots ahead of time for future airing to use as filler material when needed. And the "third party" she refers to, is the fucking Stage Director telling everybody what to do and staying on cue.
Thanks again for the video! I'll add it to my collection of documenaries. It's nice to have some faith restored.
Glad you enjoyed it, and I am certainly glad I found it. It did the same for me, restored some faith.
That video, the one he showed is actually in the Apollo records (proving it has not been secret) is a strange one I'll say for sure. That one clip - does it prove we did or didn't go to the moon? I have no effing clue. But it does prove that Bart Sibrel (I actually like the guy tbh) doesn't completely have his facts straight. I guess nobody does.
If Elon is so sure if this claim, seems like he would offer 1 billion dollars to anyone that could definitly prove we landed on moon.
He doesn't need to. Anyone with a brain can figure it out. The fuel problem is one I hadn't really given any thoughts. But the Van Allen Belts dilemma proved to me that we never came close. A friend and hunting buddy of mine originally from England is a nuclear engineer. Several times we've discussed the problem of contending with the Van Allen Belts while sitting in a duck blind.
All we can do is low earth orbit, about 250 miles altitude at most. The first Van Allen Belt starts at around 370 miles and is 7,500 miles wide. Then the second one starts at 1860 miles and is 36,000 miles wide. That's a lot of deadly radiation for a human to absorb. A man would last only a few seconds if that.
I saw one NASA scientist say that unless we can come up with some new technology to block radiation the walls of the capsule of the ship would have to be 8' thick lead.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wUKPlW0WDs
With utmost respect, I challenge you to test your claim that the moon landing was faked.
Some of the greatest Christian apologists were once staunch atheists who sought to disprove God’s existence, only to find their beliefs transformed by rigorous evidence. Similarly, if you’re confident in your stance, try to disprove it first.
Examine the strongest evidence for the moon landing’s authenticity and see if your position holds firm. If it does, your argument will stand on solid ground. If you avoid this challenge, you risk clinging to beliefs without seeking the truth.
"Who is not satisfied with himself will grow. Who is not sure of his own correctness will learn many things." - Some Chinese guy said this.
I challenge you to do the same thing with your theory. It's good that some atheists converted over their belief in the moon landing. God works in mysterious ways, He can use anything for His good.
I'd like to see this "rigorous evidence" you mentioned. If they do have any they'll be the first to ever produce provable evidence. So far all we have is tales and grainy TV footage. TV cameras were massive in those days. Of course there were handheld 8mm and 16mm cameras but those couldn't be broadcast live. And these people were sending live TV broadcasts back from the moon. Keep in mind we barely had color TV in 1969. I saw my first color TV in 1965.
You've been drilled and indoctrinated since childhood that the moon landing was simply a fact, we did it, end of story. It's hard to turn loose of something you've always believed. This is a problem a lot of people are having with government and are soon going to have with history itself.
I was in high school when the Apollo mission launched. I watched it all on TV. Luckily my dad, the Army Sergeant who told me when I was 11 that Oswald didn't kill JFK, the CIA did, also taught me to doubt everything. So later when I saw that landing "module" that was made out of Mylar too many red flags started popping up.
Search screwtube for Everyday Astronaut Apollo video. I'm still on the fence. But this video is the best I've ever seen.
Here you go, fellow space nerd https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMHLvoWZfqQ
The exterior walls of the lander cargo compartment were made of mylar. That's all they needed to be, as the structural loads were taken up by the body of the lander. Weight was at a premium for that mission. You would do better to read up on the mission instead of having a bull session in a duck blind.
So weight was an issue but not possible puncture from travelling through Rock debris?
The pressure hull of the LM was INCREDIBLY strong. Reinforced aluminum. Proofed at 3x the operational pressure. There was no way you could puncture it with a screwdriver. Travelling through rock debris, micrometeoroids, etc., all present a risk to any spacecraft.
What "rock debris"?
I'd accept your challenge but I am not wholly in any camp, do not make a claim to one side or the other.
Polaris Dawn flew to 850nm altitude in 2024, no issues. Highest altitude since Apollo. Also the particular radiation in the belt (I forgot) does not need lead shielding as lead would produce x rays (bad) but aluminum is a much better insulator. I posted the everyday astronaut video about this a few months back but got a temporary vacation for it. I'm actually amazed this thread has not been shitcanned.
Yes. Polaris Dawn flew through the radiation belts (intentionally)
Jared Issacman's crew did an interview discussing this
Also, humans in general seem to have a rather higher tolerance for radiation, any kind, than people generally assume. Especially if the exposure is relatively short. It can be a gamble, as some individuals react worse than others, but it is not a guaranteed death, or even guaranteed harm, for everybody.
The highest natural radioactive background radiation area on Earth where people live seems to be Ramsar, Iran, 250 mSv per year, when the highest allowed for nuclear facility workers and such seems to be 50 mSv per year, and yet people living in Ramsar, a lot of who have lived there their whole lives, actually seem to have lower number of lung cancer cases per year than people living elsewhere, and otherwise no higher number of anything you usually connect to radiation exposure.
He's going to prove it himself
Why do they need 8 rockets to refuel the spacecraft? Since there is no atmosphere in space, once it reaches 2000mph there is nothing to slow it down, thus why refuel until you get to the moon? Yea, maybe you need some fuel to get off the moons surface, but not as much as you need for getting off of Earth. Plus, once you are orbiting the moon, would you need a huge Saturn V rocket to fuel a return trip to the Earth? I don't think so. You just need enough fuel to get up to 2000mph again.
Also, you need exactly as much energy to get back to earth as you did to get to the moon. On the way up you need a booster to get above the atmosphere. Then on reentry, you use the atmosphere to bleed off all that energy (much smaller spacecraft on the return trip). Reentry does the same amout of delta-v, pound for pound, that the entire booster stack does on ascent to TLI (roughly).
Moon gravity is about 1/6 that of earth’s. So it’ll need less than 1/6 the force to escape moon’s gravity. Less because the diameter of the moon is smaller therefore less time under power to escape the smaller atmosphere.
The first part you said is true. But in orbital mechanics it's all about delta-v or change in velocity. So the second part is incorrect. You're still coming back to earth at 24,500 mph and need to bleed off that energy.
I was just talking of the escape from surface/gravity part. Hadn’t thought of the braking aspect.
True, sortof. Gravity is still pulling the craft towards the baricenter of the body of which it is trying to orbit. Which means even tho its going 2000mph, it would eventually hit ground again. Same if you threw a football 2000mph. It would eventually land. But if you throw it 17,500 mph it will orbit (not exactly but it's a decent analogy)
Thats not how spaceflight works. You can go endlessly in a circle, but to reach the moon you need to make it a really really big circle. that takes a lot of fuel.
Sorry to disappoint you, but gravity slows things down. Try throwing a baseball straight up and see whether it keeps on going (atmospheric drag may slow it slightly, but it can't cause it to fall back down).
Every bit of fuel you need on the Moon has to (1) be brought up from Earth, and (2) brought from Earth orbit and into orbit around the Moon. These are all fuel expensive maneuvers. From the Moon back to Earth is one long fall...but Elon's approach would involve returning a large vehicle.
As somewhat of an expert on the Apollo program and the physics and maths of orbital mechanics, I think Bart is either a limited hangout or he's chosen to be ignorant. Most of his claims he's been hanging on to for decades have been thoroughly debunked. He also picks out certain phrases that people have said and says "see that's proof!" I don't know if we went to the moon or not, but I know physically and mathematically the Apollo system was capable of it. Whether they did it or not is a different story.
u/#correct
Stanley Kubrick didn’t kill* himself.
Now dig deeper and you’ll learn that Kubrick was responsible for all of the moon landing footage.
C'mon. They did it all with 12 volt batteries like the one in my uncle's '69 Caddie.
Saturn V was single use and only a tiny capsule went to the moon. Starship is reusable and the whole thing goes there and back. Very dishonest. Never trust ugly people.
Yes. Starship will be able to put 200 tons in orbit cheaper than Rocket Lab can put 200 pounds in orbit. If you're a space company not working on a fully reusable design right now, NGMI.
Would you say we are better at going to the moon or lying, telling stories, and making space movies?
Tl;Dr for me, whats the proof?
No real proof either way. Until we go back.
We can prove it today. Just look at the Moon and see the remaining lander stages. They have been photographed by recent lunar probes. Or look through a telescope. Or send and receive a signal from the laser retroreflectors that were left behind for that purpose.
Why would going back change anything? If one is willing to declare the original astronauts were liars, it is just as easy to claim that any returning astronauts are liars. If one is unwilling to examine the remaining evidence (landers, retroreflectors), it is just as easy not to examine any confirmatory evidence (photos, souvenirs). Our problem is not about knowing. It is about not wiling to know.
There are no telescopes powerful enough to see the apollo lander stages. But thanks for weighing in u/DeathRayDesigner
I looked it up. You are right; I relent. But they can be seen and photographed by lunar orbiters and that has happened. Here is Apollo 11 as seen by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter in 2009: https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-news/apollo-landers-seen-on-the-moon/ You are welcome.
I think it's great that some space telescope or some moon orbiter can see the "landing sites" but at the end of the day, we're trusting the same people who said we went there
"This NASA picture proves that NASA is telling the truth"
😆😆
No, you are just denying evidence. There are plenty of confirmations from non-NASA sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings
What is happening here is questioning in bad faith. You are simply refusing to accept any evidence on grounds of distrusting the source (without giving reason) or discrediting the evidence as being fake (without giving proof). I would like to know at what point you would agree that we went to the Moon. What evidence would be indisputable to you?
I read they did a fake movie in case they did not achieve the landing. Read they did go there. WTFK?
You are reading fiction about fake movies. The real thing happened and there are more books about it than you can probably read in a lifetime.
Keep in mind, Vietnam was going on at the time.The people everyday saw the amount of deaths on TV. As they always do, they needed a distraction from all the bad news on TV. This was a feel good moment for the American people. Look here, not here!
Were you alive then? I was, and the public could indeed walk and chew gum at the same time. The Moon Landing was real...but so was the Vietnam War. No one was "distracted."
Stan Lee and Jack Kirby knew about the Van Allen Belts back in the early sixties. That's how the Fantastic Four got their powers.
Gotta get me some of them "Cosmic Rays", bro!
I believe Michelle Obama has a dick. I believe Joe Biden of the past 5 years was an actor wearing a rubber mask. I believe David Hogg is the same guy as a Sandy Hook shooter. But I'm still not ready to accept that the moon landing was fake. Maybe it's because it's when conspiracy I don't really want to believe. I Love The idea that we put a man on the moon in the primitive age of the 1960s.
I'm with you, Young_Patriot. Check this out https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMHLvoWZfqQ
To solve this issue, see if the Trump administration will release all the documents on Apollo 11. See the real truth instead of guessing.
The LRO ( Lunar reconnaissance orbiter ) has zoomed in on all the landing sites and captured all of the Apollo missions equipment left behind, also the distance arrays set up by Aldrin are still reflecting signals back to earth , as for rocket full not much is needed after entering orbit to place a craft on its trajectory there is no friction in space you are travelling in a void.
If you're willing to trust the same people who say we went to the moon in the first place
As an amateur radio operator, I can tell you that you don't even need "distance arrays" to bounce radio signals off the moon. It just works. And it worked before the 1960s as well - they've been doing it since at least the 1940s, maybe earlier
That would be true if you just forget about the little thing out there called gravity
If I recollect, there were time constraints on Elon in his position with DOGE.
Now outside of DOGE within his role at SpaceX, is he DOGE'ing NASA?
It's all a construct based upon compounding lies. If we're only going into lower orbit and not space, WTF is all that money being spent on?! Laundromat.
Why would they fake it? It's not their pattern. They like to cause despair, not excitekebt and happiness
One silly argument is that Russia would have called the bluff. Like they presented evidence for the bio labs in Ukraine. It’s ”if I didn’t hear about it, it didn’t happen” syndrome.
It has been a long time since I did the math for a Hohmann transfer, but the delta V is not that big. The Saturn V had an Isp that was 28% greater than the Space X engines. That difference could high enough to require more launches, but I would have to do the math. The way Space X does it, the structure fraction is probably quite a bit higher. Starship’s payload fraction is only 5-6% to give you an idea. It is supposed to grow with new versions.
And we have put stuff on the lunar surface.
All that said, I don’t think we got to the moon until Apollo 14. The Kennedy speech drove the fake timeline. I think part of the math was an extremely low safety margin.
The Saturn V F1 engines were so massively powerful but very lousy in terms of efficiency (a measly 265 seconds). The J2 (responsible for the last several hundred m/s of CSM-LM orbital insertion, and the TLI burn) was pretty solid at 421s (it is one of the kings of efficiency, even today). The hypergolic SPS engine was about 300s. Raptor is somewhere between 300s and 400s, depending on the generation, the variant, and other factors. It's a living breathing design, whereas the F1 and J2 were pretty much locked in by the time they started flying them. But to say that engine efficiency is what requires more launches is not really correct - it has way more to do with the engine's TWR, dry vehicle mass and TWR, and capability for delta-V. Delta-v is the most important metric. As more and more of your spacecraft/system becomes reusable (bringing it back to earth) your capability for delta-v decreases, because you need to use some of that delta-v to get your asses back on the ground safely.
Excellent, thank you. I just looked up LH2/LO2 engine Isp. I should have checked the actual engine. It has been a few decades. What is your opinion on the number of launches required to get to the moon?
Some quick pizza box math. Saturn 5 mass to LEO was about 130 ton. It could bring the entire CSM, LM, fully fueled, all the way to LEO and additionally to trans-lunar injection (free-return trajectory around the moon). Starship, although it has not demonstrated (yet) a heavy lift to LEO, is theoretically capable of 100 to 200 tons to LEO, and you get the booster and ship back to fly again with days, or hours. Starship block 3 dry mass is about 100 tons, so there is either your ENTIRE mass to orbit at the low end, or HALF at the high end. All of the LEO test flights to date have essentially arrived to a modified orbit with empty tanks. The first operational LEO flights of Starship will probably be closer to having somewhere between 20 to 50 tons usable payload to LEO with full re-usability (while they're dialing it in - Falcon 9 basically doubled it's mass to LEO from when it first started flying to now). Wet mass, or a fully fueled Starship is around 1,000 to 1,200 tons. Which means, if you want a fully fueled Starship in LEO, you have to bring 1,100 tons of propellant, at 20 to 50 tons per launch (eventually it will be 100 to 200 tons). Solve for how much delta-v you need to get Starship's extraordinarily big ass all the way to the moon (and back), and you can figure out how many propellant launches you need. SpaceX estimates this will be 8, or 20, or whatever, depending on which numbers they are using.
One other point on the cost of launches - The SLS system costs a staggering $4 billion to launch, and only the SRBs (sort of) and the capsule are "re-usable." Starship, in fully re-usable configuration, will cost $3 million per launch (per SpaceX). Let's give ourselves the benefit here and say it costs $100 million to launch a Starship (about twice what F9 costs today) - that is 40 times cheaper than an SLS launch. So even if it takes 20 propellant flights, that's still half the price of an SLS launch. More likely, it will be 100 times cheaper (tonnage to orbit) than the closest competitor anywhere in the world. In 10 years, high school kids will be launching satellites for science fair projects.
Thanks for the math! But now I am hungry for pizza.
No. Not convinced. These guys are completely ignorant of the problem and how to solve it. Musk is trying to find a way to get to the Moon with his spaceship concept, and it turns out not to be very efficient at that mission. For the Apollo program, Von Braun developed a multistage rocket system (4 stages to the Moon and 2 stages to get down and back from the Moon) in order to squeeze the most efficiency out of the rocket equation. Two of the major stages in the Saturn V were liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen, the most efficient propellant system known (more so than liquid oxygen and liquid methane powering Musk's vehicles). The technology is not "destroyed." All these items can be found in museums. The Apollo capsule had sufficient radiation shielding to survive a quick passage through the Van Allen belts, which they knew at the time. Only some portions of the Lander were thin foil sheets (covering the cargo compartment exteriors in the landing stage). We went there repeatedly. The lander stages can still be seen by astronomers. The laser retro-reflectors can be used to return signals.
I worked with the engineers who were involved with the S1-C first stage of the Saturn V. The launches were real and witnessed by hundreds in person. I have worked on launch vehicle system design. To take these ignoramuses at face value is ridiculous. And to think that Musk knows the best way to get to the Moon is the wrong answer. He is trying to make his system do the mission, when his system is not designed to do the mission. It has too few stages and does not use the most effective propellants. The effect of these inefficiencies cascades through the whole system in geometric proportion.
The clip of Von Braun was taken in the 50s from Walt Disney's TV program, when he had a far more grandiose expeditionary concept, involving low-performance propellants, massive cargo launchers, and Moon landers that were as tall as buildings. A decade later, he and others had come up with a plan to get there in a single shot...and it worked.
I have to disagree. Starship is designed to be a fully and rapidly reusable spacecraft and launch system to take humanity to Mars. Also it will eventually be 100 times cheaper (tonnage to orbit) than even the closest competitors. The fact that it doesn't use the "most effective propellants" or that it has "too few stages" are just trade-offs to achieve that goal. Methylox is much easier to store and work with than hydrolox although a little less efficient, and it's much more efficient than keralox. Methylox is also atmospheric-carbon-neutral (keralox is not). Two stages is plain simpler than 3, and long considered the best method for fully reusable launch system concepts. Remember that you have to include reentry hardware and a retrieval mechanism for every stage of a reusable system - 2 is easier than 3 or more. Booster and ship both land themselves back on their launch mounts. If you include a third stage, you have to recover your middle stage somewhere halfway around the world, and then somehow get it back to your launch site (which costs you time and money).
And you don't understand rockets. Reusability, in this case, comes at the cost of a huge number of tanking missions to get to the Moon. If you are up for that, groovy, but his inefficient system application is no argument against the proven Apollo approach.
Lox-hydrogen is greatly superior to lox-methane in regard to specific impulse, and that shows up in the rocket equation in terms of mass reduction to do the mission. It is also much easier to attain a final velocity goal with 3 stages than with 2. I approve of methane as a lower-stage and medium-stage fuel, but for severe mission requirements, it is not as good as hydrogen (as much as I dislike hydrogen from a routine operations standpoint). Whether it is "green" or not is entirely immaterial, since that concern is fraudulent anyway.
I will point out that this whole discussion arose from consideration of a Moon mission. The mission requirements for commercial traffic to low Earth orbit are far different and less demanding, so you cannot argue that what is good for the former is good for the latter. It is like saying a Greyhound bus is better than a Jaguar sports car if the mission requires high speed. Of course 2 stages is good for LEO. Going to the Moon is different. In that case, 2 stages is not so good and requires a lot of propellant.
This is not an exchange of internet opinions. I professionally was involved in launch vehicle design and know what I am talking about. You cannot understand why the missions are different and how that makes a difference in the vehicle requirements. And why the SpaceX approach cannot be as efficient as the Apollo approach.
You didn't read a single thing I wrote, did you ?
I'm guessing the whole "re-usability" concept is flying clear over the top of your head - you're still talking about expendable vehicles.
I am fully aware of Musk and SpaceX. I have been following him out of professional interest for 20 years. I am quite aware of his pathbreaking approach to reusability. I've been there myself with different system concepts.
The extremely ignorant video discussion was an attempt to "prove" the Apollo system could not have been done in a single shot, because Musk would need anywhere from 6 to 20 tanking flights to accomplish it his way. That's because his transportation system to low Earth orbit was not optimized to go to the Moon. If you are happy with all those tanking flights and encumbrances, be happy. But the Apollo system was rigorously designed to the Moon mission requirements and had no weight to spare for reusability features, in order to meet the requirements---to go there in one shot, which it did. Do you get the message this time?
A recreational vehicle is a great way to travel around, but would you enter it in the Indianapolis 500? That is the difference in requirements.
Two messages ago you didn't even grasp the concept of reusable rockets and now you're saying "you've been there yourself" ? I feel like I'm talking to a tree stump. Goodbye and goodday.
😆😆😆
Accurate
That's the trouble with people who don't understand a subject. The original post was trying to make SpaceX's system approach into a stupid "proof" that the Apollo approach couldn't have worked. I was showing that the reusability feature did not help the argument, because it led to the necessity of many tanking missions, which the stupid people were ascribing to Apollo, as being a bad system feature. Apollo was expendable, which was one of the ways that allowed it to work.
The interest in reusable launchers has a long history, as I mentioned. And I've been involved in them. I even gave you a system reference to look up (RASV). But no, you don't like being educated, don't understand what I am trying to tell you, deny my experience and expertise, insult me, and go off in a huff. I am really tempted to ask how old you are, to see when you first might have learned about any of this stuff. You certainly don't know anything about rocket ballistics.
I said nothing of the sort. You go ahead and continue thinking you're an expert, but based on the doot ratios of our conversation, I know the score.
Wow. Coming from the same guy who said you can just point your telescope at the moon and see the Apollo lander stages? Have fun with your life bud. Bye.
If fully and rapidly reusable, standardised booster and orbital craft, single company vertically integrated design and manufacturing, and orders of magnitude cheaper is "inefficient" then, what r u smokin bruh can I have a hit of that shit ?
Then get used to having a whole lot of tanking flights. Would you enter a Greyhound bus in the Indianapolis 500? It is really great for commercial transport and probably has good engines. The velocity requirement to go to the Moon is far greater than to reach low Earth Orbit, and the difficulty in meeting the requirement gets greater very quickly as the requirement gets larger. Increased specific impulse (exhaust velocity) and more staging are the only ways you can bring it down to one flight.
Why don't you do the numbers, if you think Musk has a better idea? Find the delta-v required. Find the specific impulse of his rocket engines. Find the mass ratio of his rocket. Solve the Tsiolkovsky equation. You will find you can't, by a large margin. Or, get ready for 6, 8, or 20 tanking flights to make it all happen, whatever the number works out to be. In the end, he will burn up a LOT of propellant getting propellant into space, and propellant use is the measure of efficiency when it comes to rockets. I admit, propellant is cheap. But can you afford all the time for the tanking? And take the risk that a tanking flight might go awry?
Look, I'm not saying Musk can't get to the Moon in that approach. I am just saying that just because his system is not optimally designed for the mission and needs to take an unknown number of tanking flights, is not any kind of proof that the Apollo mission was impossible. Apollo was designed from the beginning to be optimal for the mission without any thought of reusability, so it could be done in one flight. And it did, thanks to the genius of Von Braun and his team.
You simply aren't thinking big enough. Going to the moon and staying for a day or two - been there done that. Six times according to the historical record and its been what almost 60 years ago ? In order to build a moon base and eventually colonize Mars, you need BIG ships with massive heavy lift capability. And it has to be reusable or we're not gonna make it.
I don't mind reusable if (1) the total system is optimized for the mission, and (2) the mission complexity is not increased by the reusability. There can be a mix. Upper stages are smaller and may cost less to produce than to supply by tanker methods. You will notice that on Falcon 9, Musk does not re-use the second stage. Too troublesome to re-enter from orbital altitudes and speeds, and needful of carrying extra landing equipment and propellant...which competes for payload capability.
You aren't thinking of safety at all. Since we haven't done this for 60 years and all the mission activities must be re-learned from scratch, the wisest course of action is to make sure we CAN replicate the missions that we did. Then it is reasonable to expand the mission complexity. We nearly lost a crew on Apollo 13 because of a system failure mode that was unexpected. The proposed Artemis approach bypasses repeating what we knew how to do with an approach that is totally new, with the new (and not-yet built or tested) so-called Gateway station, involving more complex docking than in Apollo, and a Space X lander, totally unlike the lander of the past. To me, the Gateway is just one flashing neon sign saying "failure opportunity." Without it, we can't get to the lunar surface. The astronauts can get there, the lander can get there, but you can't transfer from the crewed ship to the lander. Then you need a new Gateway. Things aren't "reusable" when they fail. We could get to the Moon without Gateway, prove those elements of the architecture, then move to incorporate Gateway for use with missions to the South Pole.
I agree that one needs to go to the Moon in order to prove out the systems that will go to Mars. The Moon is only a day or so from Earth and emergencies have some prospect of being overcome or recovered from. Facing an emergency midway to Mars is a bad scene, because you are months away from anywhere with no tow truck or ambulance available. I'm afraid you are the one who is not thinking big enough. A trip to Mars is far more "alone" than any walking trip across Antarctica.
Have you ever heard of Boeing's Reusable Aerodynamic Space Vehicle (RASV)? It was a horizontal takeoff / horizontal landing single-stage-to-orbit spaceplane, totally reusable and operational like an airplane. It was proposed to the Air Force in the 1970s. We proposed an updated version again in 1997 (I was on the proposal team), but missed out on the study contract award due to competition rules. You really don't need to argue reusability with me, since I've been aware of it for---I don't know---maybe longer than you've been alive? Boeing even had designs for reusable "flyback" versions of the Saturn S1-C stage. It's an old ambition.
As for Mars, Musk is totally banking on finding Martian-derived propellants available when he gets there. If some fault occurred and they are not available quite as expected, he may be stranded. This is why my preferred approach is to develop a good nuclear thermal rocket engine and take all the propellant you need for a both-way trip.
This is dumb. The only creatures determined to convince mankind that leaving planet earth is impossible are the aliens who want to keep us trapped in our little planetary cage.
Rebel against the extraterrestrial authoritarian establishment (the lizard people, and those other types) and colonize all of the Sol system for human kind, today!
Elon never said moon landings were fake, that I know of. His system is fully and rapidly reusable and tjerfore needs a different approach from Apollo to reach the same goal. So I'm with you. And it's a shame we can't discuss this here. Kek.
Kek. Maybe. But the falcon heavy is certainly capable of doing it
that stripped down Tesla roadster probably weighed, idk, maybe 1,000 pounds at the most. So slingshotting it to Mars is nbfd. A Starship (DRY) weighs something like 120 tons and fueled it's like 50x that. We're talking mountains vs molehills here.