Proof they faked the moon landing?

I am disinterested in the petty squabbling. I'm not familiar enough with all of the photography claims to comment.

However, one I am familiar with is the 'cant see stars claim'. This is because the photos were taken during daylight on the moon, and the ambient light of stars is washed out by the light of the sun.

 

Keep in mind, on most of the moon during the day, you can see stars.

 

ISS (International Space Station), is about 199 to 215 miles above the surface of the Earth.

the Earth to the center of the Moon is 384,403 km (238,857 miles)

The Solid Rocket Boosters each burn 1,100,000 lbs of fuel. The main tank which contains essentially a liquid oxygen/hydrogen mix burns a little less than 1,200,000 lbs. A little is reserved for maneouvring in space.

All Apollo missions carried and used around 5,625,000 pounds of propellant in all three modules and the Saturn V launch vehicle. This is for the whole trip, with the greatest amounts being used in the first minutes [to achieve orbital velocity] by the Saturn V rocket.

Pretty daunting numbers

 

not really.

The enigma cipher machine (three rotor, one plug\steckerboard variant) Could produce 10^141'st iterations of the latin alphabet (give or take a couple)

the turing bombe could decipher it because the simple critical error that no letter could encode as itself

there are believed to be only around 10^81st atoms in the universe.


your numbers aren't even a trifle daunting.

 

for today, yea they are....for 1969 yea, they're really fuckin daunting

 

I know you all wont believe this, but Neil Armstrong is actually a close friend of my grandfather. I have heard the story from his mouth personally. Sure that is no proof but I will believe the word of my grandfather and his friend over some senseless ramblings on the internet any day. He attributes the missions success to Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collins, saying that they did all the hard work! haha

 

the enigma cipher machine was invented in

wait for it

(drum roll)

THE 1920'S

 

we had plenty of tritium at Savannah River...plus we already had plenty of hydrogen bombs we we landed on the moon.

 

as he pointed out, we were embroiled in the arms race.

why waste precious hydrogen (the specific type of hydrogen, because I know some pedant is going to read this and think you can just split water and make an H bomb) on something so trivial?

 

well we had plenty of hydrogen bombs in 1969 enough to destroy the whole world a couple of times over and we had surplus of tritium being produced at Savannah river.

We can produce tritium easy enough with out having to go to the moon..

 

thing is.

there are too many things that ARE in regolith, that we couldn't have known before, but we can easily check now with a telescope, and a spectrometer, which, people do.

this was a fun game, but, come on.

 

we went to the moon because the soviets were first in space

we had to be first in the next step.

 

Which is why we wasted so god damned much money on it.

do you really think there was a single general who thought it was a good idea to be wasting the money on that instead of spending it on supersonic fighter research?

 

Tough one to answer if you weren't even around.

we had the F4 Phantom ... a real workhouse and the F-111 whose terrain following radar was a POS when first deployed but it could carry 4 times as many bombs as a F4

so we had some pretty shit hot airplanes

The country was behind it .. we had to out do the soviets.... based on national pride

Was it a bad or good idea?.. burned up a lot of money ...but it did spawn a bunch of new technology

pretty sure we spent more in Vietnam ... bad or good idea there????

But NASA is now a waste .. way top heavy and unable to move under it's own power....not like the Nasa of the late 60's...... time to deep six Nasa and turn more over to the private sector.

 

no more than the armed forces need to be deep sixed.

we need to dismantle what we've got and start over.

 

the military doesn't need to be deep sixed.... maybe some restructuring... and stay the fuck out of other countries bullshit feuds.

But Nasa is a fucking joke and has been for quite sometime now even with as small as the real Nasa is ... discounting the sub-contractors

 

you look at how much the military wastes on some kit that never even sees the field (not research, but promises of finished product)

and you tell me that the way the military is functioning right now is okay.

 

There's a lot of questions, like apparently humans wouldn't be able to survive the solar radiation that exists between the earth and the moon. and there was a safety inspector, or progress inspector, who wrote a report that nasa would never send a man to the moon at the rate they were going, and then he dies a week later - his car got hit by a train.... and the russians were way ahead of the americans, they had sent man up into space when nasa could barely get a rocket off the ground without it exploding.

then there's the fact that the moon landing site is almost geologically identical to an area of the arizona desert in area 51, same distinctive markings. Just some things that make you think twice.

 

The military and NASA are not really fair comparisons.

part of the military problems like you said are waste, but there is a lot of waste going on in NASA and it's a much smaller fish... little easier to fix.

While we do need a military.. we really don't need a space program anymore.. we have pegged out.... so what go back to the moon again???... what idiot came up with that idea...oh yeah Bush... when he was down real low in the polls.

We sure as hell aren't going to make a manned flight to Mars, not in our lifetime.

 

The moon is worth it for mining, and colonization, also for a low grav launch platform.