US had a man walk on the moon in 1969, but now we can't even land a tiny box on the moon 55 years later?

arunnerinwa wrote:

Legit question wrote:

Where is the blast crater?

There is no crater underneath ANY of the Lunar Landers; to slow the descent to nearly zero, so as to land without harming ship or crew, they had to use powerful rockets - that HAD to have left a super-visible crater directly below the craft. Not one photo shows one.

No sand found on top of the pads either. The landing should have kicked up a huge sand/dust storm.

One last thing we’re going to need is a whole lot of batteries. Lots and lots of batteries. That’s going to be the only way to power the ship while we’re on the Moon, and we’ll definitely need to run the communications systems, and the oxygen supply system, and the heating and cooling system, and the cabin lights, and the television cameras and transmitters, and all the testing equipment, and our spacesuits, and that damn rover.

And we won’t be able to recharge any of the various batteries, so we’re going to need a lot of back-ups. Especially of the really big batteries that run the ship. We may need a separate ship just to carry all the batteries we’re going to need."

Sure! "No problem" say the NASA believers. 🤦

For anyone wondering about a "blast crater", just watch a Blue Origin crew capsule landing on earth. That vehicle uses retrorockets, just like the moon lander, and never leaves any kind of noticeable crater. Therefore, I don't see why we should expect to see one on the moon.

The Blue system uses parachutes but the moon deceleration is much slower (takes place over a long period of time). The actual impact on the surface is probably comparable. The capsules are relatively lightweight so the retrorockets aren't actually particularly powerful. It would take too much heavy propellant to make them powerful.

rojo wrote:

Link:news.sky.com/story/peregrine-mission-1...

Can someone explain how that is possible to me?

I'm starting to get why the conspiracy theorists believe the original moon stuff was faked. My iphone has more than 100,000 times the processing power of the computers used for the Apollo mission and yet it came out yesterday that the latest attempt to simply land a box on the moon has failed.

When I was trying to think of a possible good explanation, I initially thought, "Well back in the day the best and the brightest worked for NASA, now they are all in Silicon Valley acting like ahol** and trying to get rich designing some app that's ultimately of little use. Maybe only the guys and gals who can't get private industry jobs go to NASA."

But then I saw this most recent failure was from some private company that we paid $108 million bucks to. Can the taxpayers at least get their money back?

Science experts of letsrun, let me hear your theories as to why we suck at space much more than 55 years ago.

arunnerinwa wrote:

Legit question wrote:

Where is the blast crater?

There is no crater underneath ANY of the Lunar Landers; to slow the descent to nearly zero, so as to land without harming ship or crew, they had to use powerful rockets - that HAD to have left a super-visible crater directly below the craft. Not one photo shows one.

No sand found on top of the pads either. The landing should have kicked up a huge sand/dust storm.

One last thing we’re going to need is a whole lot of batteries. Lots and lots of batteries. That’s going to be the only way to power the ship while we’re on the Moon, and we’ll definitely need to run the communications systems, and the oxygen supply system, and the heating and cooling system, and the cabin lights, and the television cameras and transmitters, and all the testing equipment, and our spacesuits, and that damn rover.

And we won’t be able to recharge any of the various batteries, so we’re going to need a lot of back-ups. Especially of the really big batteries that run the ship. We may need a separate ship just to carry all the batteries we’re going to need."

Sure! "No problem" say the NASA believers. 🤦

For anyone wondering about a "blast crater", just watch a Blue Origin crew capsule landing on earth. That vehicle uses retrorockets, just like the moon lander, and never leaves any kind of noticeable crater. Therefore, I don't see why we should expect to see one on the moon.

The Blue system uses parachutes but the moon deceleration is much slower (takes place over a long period of time). The actual impact on the surface is probably comparable. The capsules are relatively lightweight so the retrorockets aren't actually particularly powerful. It would take too much heavy propellant to make them powerful.

cecevans wrote:

rojo wrote:

Link:news.sky.com/story/peregrine-mission-1...

Can someone explain how that is possible to me?

I'm starting to get why the conspiracy theorists believe the original moon stuff was faked. My iphone has more than 100,000 times the processing power of the computers used for the Apollo mission and yet it came out yesterday that the latest attempt to simply land a box on the moon has failed.

When I was trying to think of a possible good explanation, I initially thought, "Well back in the day the best and the brightest worked for NASA, now they are all in Silicon Valley acting like ahol** and trying to get rich designing some app that's ultimately of little use. Maybe only the guys and gals who can't get private industry jobs go to NASA."

But then I saw this most recent failure was from some private company that we paid $108 million bucks to. Can the taxpayers at least get their money back?

Science experts of letsrun, let me hear your theories as to why we suck at space much more than 55 years ago.

The best explanation to me as to why the moon landing might have been faked would be because it would be far easier and cheaper to win the space race, if we just faked it. That doesn't mean we did, but it wouldn't have been a terrible idea.

rojo wrote:

read and think before you "theorize" wrote:

wejo - "What would you like to see on letsrun in 2024?"
the community - "less political and conspiratorial insanity"
rojo - "hold my beer"

I can't believe people think my post is a sign I think we didn't go to the moon. As someone pointed out, if were didn't land on the moon, anyone with a decent telescope would be able to expose us.

I just think it's interesting we can't do things we were able to do a long time ago. But I think the "we made things much more complex" is a good answer. It kind of reminds me of the 1980s/90s in distance running. The US had good results in the 70s, rather than just do what worked then, we tried to make up a bunch of nonsense in the 80s about how to do it without mileage and tempos and we sucked.

Salvitore Stitchmo wrote:

AOL Lawyer wrote:

Money and a motivating factor.

The first time something like landing on the moon is done it is a huge deal, four landings later and it was already meh.

If there was a huge payoff that covered the costs of the missions then maybe you would be motivated to carry on, there isn't.

There is both now - NASA themselves are providing them. Are we really posting here without knowing this stuff? Jesus Christ.

Link:www.nasa.gov/humans-in-space/artemis/

2025: Money - check, Motivating factor - check.

Your post is so "America-is-the-center-of-the-universe" centric it's comical. May not have been a "huge deal" after 1972 for the mighty US - but it was a big deal for the Soviets (who btw were light years ahead of the US space program until in the space of like 3 weeks it was completely reversed), it was a big deal for the Chinese, the European Space Agency and the Indians - all who have been trying over the last 50 years and got nowhere. Anyone want to sit here and contend that these cultures/societies are intellectually/industriously inferior to this country? I'm laughing writing that.

But still, it seems the vast sentiment on this message board is that it is simply preposterous to imagine it didn't happen. That is fascinating to me, absolutely fascinating. It's surely only due to emotional, non-rational factors though. I think the best way I could theorize it is that as it is just something the majority of people here were simply told it happened since childhood, the thought that it may be false and we may have been misled for so long on what was sold as arguably the greatest human technological achievement is simply too frightening for the conscious mind to deal with. Like people who know their husband or wife is cheating on them but refuse to acknowledge and accept it - the thought that they invested years and years believing in the concept of love with this person and that it might have all been a facade is understandably terrifying and one they would rather not face.

Hey, some people believe in God, Allah, Flying dinosaurs that live in volcanoes - if it makes you sleep easy at night then all good, you do you.

rojo wrote:

read and think before you "theorize" wrote:

wejo - "What would you like to see on letsrun in 2024?"
the community - "less political and conspiratorial insanity"
rojo - "hold my beer"

I can't believe people think my post is a sign I think we didn't go to the moon. As someone pointed out, if were didn't land on the moon, anyone with a decent telescope would be able to expose us.

I just think it's interesting we can't do things we were able to do a long time ago. But I think the "we made things much more complex" is a good answer. It kind of reminds me of the 1980s/90s in distance running. The US had good results in the 70s, rather than just do what worked then, we tried to make up a bunch of nonsense in the 80s about how to do it without mileage and tempos and we sucked.

jdroche135 wrote:

Salvitore Stitchmo wrote:

There is both now - NASA themselves are providing them. Are we really posting here without knowing this stuff? Jesus Christ.

Link:www.nasa.gov/humans-in-space/artemis/

2025: Money - check, Motivating factor - check.

Your post is so "America-is-the-center-of-the-universe" centric it's comical. May not have been a "huge deal" after 1972 for the mighty US - but it was a big deal for the Soviets (who btw were light years ahead of the US space program until in the space of like 3 weeks it was completely reversed), it was a big deal for the Chinese, the European Space Agency and the Indians - all who have been trying over the last 50 years and got nowhere. Anyone want to sit here and contend that these cultures/societies are intellectually/industriously inferior to this country? I'm laughing writing that.

But still, it seems the vast sentiment on this message board is that it is simply preposterous to imagine it didn't happen. That is fascinating to me, absolutely fascinating. It's surely only due to emotional, non-rational factors though. I think the best way I could theorize it is that as it is just something the majority of people here were simply told it happened since childhood, the thought that it may be false and we may have been misled for so long on what was sold as arguably the greatest human technological achievement is simply too frightening for the conscious mind to deal with. Like people who know their husband or wife is cheating on them but refuse to acknowledge and accept it - the thought that they invested years and years believing in the concept of love with this person and that it might have all been a facade is understandably terrifying and one they would rather not face.

Hey, some people believe in God, Allah, Flying dinosaurs that live in volcanoes - if it makes you sleep easy at night then all good, you do you.

Have you read the accounts of both the US and Soviet efforts to get to the moon? Like actually poured over the details? Read both Russian and US accounts of the incidents? Were have you gotten most of your information from to come up with such conclusions?

Salvitore Stitchmo wrote:

AOL Lawyer wrote:

Money and a motivating factor.

The first time something like landing on the moon is done it is a huge deal, four landings later and it was already meh.

If there was a huge payoff that covered the costs of the missions then maybe you would be motivated to carry on, there isn't.

There is both now - NASA themselves are providing them. Are we really posting here without knowing this stuff? Jesus Christ.

Link:www.nasa.gov/humans-in-space/artemis/

2025: Money - check, Motivating factor - check.

Your post is so "America-is-the-center-of-the-universe" centric it's comical. May not have been a "huge deal" after 1972 for the mighty US - but it was a big deal for the Soviets (who btw were light years ahead of the US space program until in the space of like 3 weeks it was completely reversed), it was a big deal for the Chinese, the European Space Agency and the Indians - all who have been trying over the last 50 years and got nowhere. Anyone want to sit here and contend that these cultures/societies are intellectually/industriously inferior to this country? I'm laughing writing that.

But still, it seems the vast sentiment on this message board is that it is simply preposterous to imagine it didn't happen. That is fascinating to me, absolutely fascinating. It's surely only due to emotional, non-rational factors though. I think the best way I could theorize it is that as it is just something the majority of people here were simply told it happened since childhood, the thought that it may be false and we may have been misled for so long on what was sold as arguably the greatest human technological achievement is simply too frightening for the conscious mind to deal with. Like people who know their husband or wife is cheating on them but refuse to acknowledge and accept it - the thought that they invested years and years believing in the concept of love with this person and that it might have all been a facade is understandably terrifying and one they would rather not face.

Hey, some people believe in God, Allah, Flying dinosaurs that live in volcanoes - if it makes you sleep easy at night then all good, you do you.

MelRnr wrote:

cecevans wrote:

The best explanation to me as to why the moon landing might have been faked would be because it would be far easier and cheaper to win the space race, if we just faked it. That doesn't mean we did, but it wouldn't have been a terrible idea.

But it would be far harder to keep a fake moon landing secret for over 50 years. Don't people think the Russians would have figured it out? Wouldn't NASA, Kennedy, LBJ and Nixon have weighed the risk of an exposed fake moon landing as being worse than the risk of a failed moon landing?

So many people involved, and their successors would have to cover it up after them too. People on the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter project would have to agree to continue the "lie" and make fake pictures of the Apollo landing sites decades later. Other countries would be in on it too. All these years and all these people then and now keeping a secret? No way!

Besides there is tons of evidence that varifies the Apollo landings happened. Moon rocks, moon dust on space suits, photos, eyewitnesses, laser reflectors on the moon placed by the astronauts, pictures of the landing sites decades later from the LRO and other countries moon probes. So many engineers, geologists, astronomers, etc., etc. all lying about it then and now? No way!