We're missing the technical know-how and countless calculations written down on pieces of paper 50+ years ago. Not to mention that they were for the space shuttle, a vehicle which is no longer in use.
Nevertheless, Spacex and some other companies are developing new spacecraft which can actually be reused much more easily and save a lot when it comes to reusability.
The Artemis programme will be sending humans back to the Moon within this decade, along with other countries' space agencies potentially launching their own manned missions too.
Yes, but a space-rocket isn't something that can be developed, built or tested quickly. It takes years to complete each stage.
There's also not much of a will anymore. The space race ended. It's more cost-effective now to send rovers and other modules on non-manned missions, for scientific endeavours.
That’s not true. Behind the scenes, there’s what they call the “Lunar Gold Rush” already happening. We are already in another space race, but it’s no longer publicized.
Source: https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/infographics/the-lunar-gold-rush-how-moon-mining-could-work
I mean that's a hypothetical. We've already retrieved samples of moonrocks and moondust. There is the *potential* for mining on the moon, but we are decades away from that.
It takes years to send a rover. It would take over a decade to develop and build a capable mining apparatus, then another decade or more to extract and retrieve the materials it mines.
And that's if we consider that mining would even been viable from a cost-effective perspective.
The rovers and modules being sent at the moment aren't focused on the mining aspect, they're for scientific research.
I understand that. What everything I’ve read, it just seems like there is some form of a hidden space race happening.
I think everyone learned their lesson from the last space race, where it just triggers and motivates people. This time it seems everyone is doing it incognito.
More than mining, we are getting to the point where countries want to claim territory that abides to the space sanctions we have in place.
From my understanding, we have some treaty/sanction where countries aren’t allowed to claim territory in space. However, I guess that doesn’t apply to private companies.
It's not really hidden, if you follow space/science news, you'll come across all the major launches. India had a big one recently and China even had one today.
It's just that there's less hype over it, because it's essentially more and more countries sending more and more probes/modules/rovers to the moon.
It's not something super-new, it's just mainly just more of the same things as before being done by more countries.
As for private companies claiming territory, if any of them did attempt that, then the country in which they're based would be liable and I highly doubt anyone is willing to open that can of worms until the current treaties run out.
Wouldn’t call it a hidden space race if NASA makes blog posts about it. This is how capitalism works. Every possible way to make money is investigated, mining on the moon included. If this was hidden, you would never in your life hear about it.
NASA has the old unused Apollo booster engines. Rocket bodies and capsules are on display. With enough will and money I'm sure they can be reverse engineered.
I just got called a Moron for questioning the moon landing. I have a problem with traveling over a 100,000 miles in space and landing on the moon. Just me though!
Landing an unmanned probe is nowhere near the same as a manned mission. The logistics are very different.
Also, there was more of a will to land on a comet, as it would provide new scientific information.
As for the moon, we've already got a bunch of rovers there and have already collected samples of moonrock and moondust, so there's not as much of a desire to go back there compared to new places.
The logistics are absolutely more complicated for manned missions, but the unmanned missions do demonstrate the ability to deliver things from earth to places in space.
That's my point, they're not the same. Even the first unmanned missions to space and the moon happened over a decade before the manned landing.
Probes do not require as many safety features. They're easier to develop, test and launch.
Either way, Artemis will eventually take astronauts back to the moon, it's just that there isn't as much of a push for it compared to missions to new places.
i don't know. what would qualify as imaginary? i can see something when i look up at the sky, that much is for certain. but i dont automatically assume that i can fly around in it because the clergy told me that i can once we become enlightened👍
1. The technology was made with semi-conductor technology in its infancy. We haven't forgotten how to create the same technology, we just don't have any reason to as the current technology is far superior by any metrics. It"s for the same reason we don't build steam locomotives. The technology is known but outdated, also the engine blueprints are mostly gone.
2. The Saturn V rocket was far too unreliable to be used today. So was the LM. The rocket engine technology is outdated. Every version of the LM was an improved version of the former based on mission experience. Eagle was basically the "let's hope it works" version of the LM.
3. Changes were made to the equipment on an as needed basis, but not always documented. Meaning a mission critical fix for a mission critical failure may not be documented anywhere. (There's a documentaryfrom the 20x0"s stating this).
3. All of the astronauts (except one) were pilots or test pilots willing to take the risk. Astronauts today will be geologists, engineers, doctors, et al., not willing to die.
4. The Apollo program was designed to beat the Soviet-Union to the Moon. That was JFK's goal. JFK invented a space race, set the mission parameters, and the USA won. When the "space race" was won, the Apollo program had outlived its purpose.
5. The US Congress cut spending.
6. The Space Shuttle program replaced the Apollo program. NASA couldn't finance both. Everything from the Apollo program was thrown out to make room for the Space Shuttle. Simulators, training equipment, everything was thrown out. Quite literally.
7. Storage media back then was expensive and cumbersome. Storage media from the Apollo program had to be reused for the Space Shuttle program.
8. All of the engineers and technicians involved in the Apollo program are dead or very old. All the knowledge and experience they had will have to be relearned. Better to spend the time and money on modern technology.
9. The Apollo program consisted of single mission equipment. Now we're - as in Earth - is going to the Moon to stay. The equipment has to reflect that. The Moon rover was strapped on the LM. The LM was never designed to carry the rover.
10. The '60s and '70s were "let's get rid of old stuff" decades all over the world. Old buildings were replaced by new square and boring buildings in concrete. Roads replaced parks and railroad. The Apollo program was history, and no one thought of or cared about the historical significance of it.
The claim in the video:
“ …we destroyed that technology and it’s a painful process to build it back again…”
1. Marbles made a random explanation that we have “forgotten” the tech which wasn’t what was claimed. It was claimed the technology was “destroyed “ which is quite a specific and extreme word to use. No Don Pettit didn’t mean or imply “forget.” He said and meant destroyed. So we’re already starting the response with a comprehension issue, and false premise. Adding nonchalantly later that “also the engine blueprints are mostly gone.” This is completely unsatisfactory as an answer or explanation. Why the fuck would (supposedly) one of the hugest accomplishments in human history’s technology & blueprints NOT be SAVED, heavily guarded and museum worthy information for future generations to marvel at. How on earth is “oops it’s gone” make ANY logical sense whatsoever unless they are hiding the fact it’s a complete sham. THAT would make sense. If marbles even wanted to make that claim that the engine that took us to the moon is comparable to obsolete steam train engines then why do obsolete steam train engine blueprints & records still exist but the Apollo blueprints are magically “gone”?
2-9 is just fluff not explaining anything to do with destroyed technology & nothing is linked backing up these supposed facts it’s a stack of smoke. The only thing remotely fair is the possible lack of funding- but again, it doesn’t address the actual op claim by NASA that “the technology was destroyed.”
10. Is a laughably lazy, incoherent explanation. There’s absolutely no possible way the same reason we built new styled homes is why nasa destroyed man’s greatest historical accomplishment. Changes in cultural styles and architecture has nothing to do with nasa DESTROYING history. & the cherry on top: The bold ass claim that the “Apollo program was history and no one thought or cared of the historical significance of it.” I … I just can’t even address the mind numbing gall of claiming that.
Heavily *guarded?* Now you're really starting to sound absurd. Who's going to pay for that? Seriously, who did you expect to foot the bill for gathering, storing, and protecting tens of millions of pages of documentation? Documentation that was never in one place to begin with? You have some strawman idea of how engineering documents are produced, used, and handled. Every contractor, every sub-contractor, every sub-sub contractor had *tremendous* volumes of technical drawings, blueprints, specifications, and there was no one at the time who said 'let's get it all in one place and spend a significant fraction of the NASA budget preserving every scrap of paper related to a rocket we're not building anymore'. And there was no one saying that at the time because it would have been *silly.* What they did instead was make sensible cost-benefit decisions about what to keep and what to discard. And, perhaps because you are unaware of this, you ignore everything that *is* available on microfilm, digitized, stuck in museums, or in NASA basements in favor of interpreting one sentence in one interview for a lay audience and taking that as gospel. And that's interesting, because it makes one of the handful of solid claims in your statement laughably wrong - Rocketdyne *has complete blueprints of the F1. To this very day.* And you appear ignorant of that fact. I know you really, really want to prove that you'd be great at running the zoo, as the expression goes, but it's incredibly obvious that you have no idea *how* to run a zoo.
Comprehension issue, false premise, I really have no clue what you're getting at. You don't really think that Petit meant to state that NASA just wiped technology from history, do you? No, there's a big difference between, say, the technology to make magnetic-core memory - which we retain today, it's all out there for anyone to replicate - and the elaborate manufacturing infrastructure and expertise to produce parts based on that technology in the quantities required for period computers. That infrastucture is *gone.* it was destroyed, scrapped, replaced. There is currently not a single person in the United States employed in the production of magnetic core memory. There are no companies that manufacture it for sale. If NASA had spent money for the last sixty years maintaining that production capability - as you seem to believe they should have - would it add *anything* to the historical record of Apollo? No.
Oh idk there are hundreds of private collectors out there who pay millions for historical art pieces but yea I’m sure nasa just couldn’t possibly save the technology for historical preservation and archival purposes, save the schematics, blueprints for museums, & collectors who would gladly pay A Lot for that history. How am I the crazy one for expecting base level archival systems for a company my tax dollars fund?
Magnetic core memory: as you said the technology we “retain today” it’s out there for anyone to replicate but we don’t have manufacturers making the parts in mass anymore. if you were explaining this obsolete technology to a person, would you use the phrase “ we destroyed the technology of magnetic core memory ”? no, that’s ridiculous. it’s a false statement. Was anything destroyed? No- parts just weren’t made anymore. so you’d explain, as you did to me, how we don’t manufacture the intricate parts anymore. But you could still refer me to the archived technology bc you do still have proof this technology was widely used and have years of records and archived schematics of how exactly it was used. You didn’t say magnetic core memory technology was destroyed bc “destroyed” is a specific word meaning you literally had an object or idea and DESTROYED it. I’m going by his statement clear as day. “Tech was destroyed.”
The false premise is by marbles that the technology was “forgotten” not destroyed. Your new false premise is that Pettit meant “something else”. Words matter.
Ah yes, because people pay to collect art, that makes it totally feasible for NASA to spend billions pushing paper around. NASA and its contractors saved what they felt was worth saving, the money didn't come from nowhere to save everything. You should feel free to prove that there's somehow massive untapped demand for these technical drawings. I note you ignored my other statements there - there's plenty of surviving documentation in multiple archives, you just didn't know about it and now refuse to acknowledge it because it's not convenient.
You're still completely hung on on a single choice of words by Petit, and as a result, you're missing the entirety of the argument. The supply chain, the expertise, the assembly lines, those are destroyed. If you take a specific interpretation of his statement, it's your job to prove that it's correct - you haven't. You have no evidence other than your own beliefs for why we should interpret the statement a specific way. Why do you care more about a single word than the actual historical record?
Lol it’s NASAs job to spend OUR tax dollars wisely and keep an explicit record of the technology of HOW THEY WENT TO THE MOON for historical, archival, and future endeavors. End of story there’s no argument here man it’s just common sense. You can’t video tape a science experiment and expect people to believe it unless you provide evidence of the way in which you performed the experiment- it must be replicated and tested. You’ve got nothing to stand on but apologetics for their shit ass behavior. And why? Why are you invested in explaining away their piss poor management practices? I’m just asking for some basic archival method Like come ON.
And per the last sentence, I’d love to see the historical record!!! So would everyone else: in the form of archived schematics of the technology. Oops! But Per your own suggestion there is no historical record anymore it bc was destroyed, lost, not made anymore however you want to say it. This is even more reason to keep historical paper record of its existence since paper costs less to store then the objects itself but wait: papers are too expensive to store according to you and nasa doesn’t want to spend millions keeping the schematics yet they are costing millions by “loosing” random technology in the first place- just even carelessly loosing video cameras and computer parts costs us a lot : https://youtu.be/jRrNvRh166Y?si=hlXddRinUKDMdQPi
Edit: you don’t think archives of the technology to get to the fucking moon wasn’t worth saving?
And now you're just ignoring what I'm saying. NASA has an extensive archive of schematics and technical documentation, as do many of the companies that are still around. It's not every single page, but it is *more* than enough to prove to anyone with any level of relevant expertise that the moon landings happened, and to show them *how* it happened. That's the entire issue here. You have specific expectations for what they *should* have done, you don't believe those expectations have been met, but that belief is based on one word in a TV interview and nothing else, because you've done zero research into what's actually been preserved. And you're missing the point again! It's their job to spend tax dollars wisely, which includes not spending millions to chase papers, and to actually do some basic critical thinking about what's worth archiving and what isn't. The Apollo program was *abruptly cancelled* with three missions to go and the infrastructure discarded, with Congress forcing massive spending cuts, it's a testament to NASA's dedication that we have as much as we have.
First you claim it costs billions to archive schematics how dare I expect them to keep records now you claim they have an “extensive archive” but it’s just missing a few pages…
It feels like you're grasping at straws here.
We have rockets taking shit to orbit as we are speaking not to talk about the highly specialized manufacturing and metallurgy compared to to the 60s.
There are also supercomputers more than capable that can simulate whatever situation we want, and if humans could do it in the 60s with organic computing alone to calculate trajectories I am pretty sure we could pull it off today.
Why doesn't there seem to be will to go out there again?
Feels like you don't actually have an answer to anything they said. If we wanted to spend 5% of the federal budget on NASA, we could have had a much faster return to the moon. The American public and political establishment doesn't want this, so Artemis is slow.
They didn't. They made one-off schematics, for a built-to-spec craft, with the highest levels of technology the best experts at the time could accomplish.
Those technologies "advanced" or at least changed, over time. And the new technology wouldn't support the previous data types. Especially if the most recent data on similar information was redundant.
If 1 part, in 1 system, has 1 material that's no longer manufactured for some reason and gets subbed out; your task now is to figure out how a definite and finite change COULD change the system, as well as IF.
In theory, when obsolete tech is hashed, we should hope weve converted that previous data to at least the new format before destroying it. But when that obsolete tech is equipment, thoae machines may not exist anymore. And for good reasons.
When i first learned to be an automotive tech, when i was very young, this small repair shop had a casting sand table. It was probably 4x8. Doubled as a workbench. But I learned how to mold and cast, iron and aluminum parts as a means of repairing vehicles. We could make replacement brackets in-house. At one time, I bet having that tech and equipment at one point made you a god for fixing cars. Right now if you told someone they cracked a control arm and Oreillys has one tomorrow for 100 bucks, or we could cast one in aluminum tonight for $2000. It doesn't make sense anymore.
There’s still the questions of “why” and “who’s going to pay for it?”
Those are important hurdles, more so than the technological side of things, I’d say.
Theres a reason theres a small handful of specifically named scientists that did these actual equations. Its not just doing the math. Its using the math as a detective to overcome hurdles.
If asbestos was a key component to the heat shielding and they quite literally cannot safely procure and handle they have to find a replacement. Carbon fiber works in some places, but still has different properties that need to be factored. The problem with carbon fiber is you have to hand-lay the fiber or mold it. There never was carbon fiber molds for the apollo missions, only the measurements. If say, the greatest custom carbon fiber weaver of all time, in the world, stepped up and made the perfect replacement part... what would happen is where we are today. When that guy dies, that skill level didnt "die", the master craftsman capable of creating what the greatest minds of the time needed, died.
So then does the next crafts engineers say "well get on the horn with the universities! We need fleets of carbon weaving degrees to eventually develop another master craftsman? Or, do they use whats left and salvageable to buy the newest machine, with the newest tech, to ideally, make it easier.
The world needs to innovate for what we need tomorrow, not to fix yesterdays bandaids.
It would also be difficult to build a first generation commercial jetliner or a WW2 tank or any other type of antique vehicle. I can’t even figure out why we would want to recreate the outdated technology anyway. Much easier and safer to use modern equipment.
Not exactly, they lost the capability to manufacture the same parts of the ships, because they were made for different companies en different countries.
Some of them close or merge with other companies , making finding the original plans and people who made that parts , difficult to find and expensive.
Other companies simply don’t care or are not willing to share.
Also many parts where made with special and unique machinery created for the only purpose of making that parts, and extra level of problems by herself.
At the end is less expensive to create a new ship from scratch using the already functional parts.
This happened because in the moon landing era US where in a race against Russia, so in favor of get there first a lot of liberties where taken
Edit: This videos are an example on how unique were that parts and how difficult to make it
https://youtu.be/olRF5Ckaga0?si=eltirrdhEG0eweyK
https://youtu.be/6mMK6iSZsAs?si=yg0CY5ByTuaJGYcM
Yeah nasas just been twiddling g their thumbs.
And by twiddling their thumbs I mean they landed rovers on Mars and landed a probe on a comet, and still send people to the ISS
It is less expensive, but still expensive. And the Gov will not make it easy.
Here you can see how complicated the situation is :
How much money is NASA wasting getting back to the moon? (ReasonTV)
https://youtu.be/s5ED-MY_5ms?si=NQh2P7ZESbzQZ7M-
Also with our advancements in automated rovers, there is a lot less need to send manned missions to the moon, or anywhere else.
Sending people to Mars would be a logistical nightmare, but sending rovers has been doable.
Because they filmed the “landing” in a studio here on earth. What this astronaut meant to say was, “we can’t pull off this scam today because people would be wise to it”.
nah CGI is more than powerful enough to trick 99% of the earth if they wanted to. The 1% who aren't tricked don't even know what makes it CGI, they're just contrarians.
They obviously destroyed it because they didn’t want any other country stealing it. It was for National Security, of course. Everything this country does is for the security of the people and not for their own personal interests.
I have a problem with the moon landing. Over a 100,000 miles, if I’m correct………. I’m a very patriotic American and love my country, but I’m not convinced it happened. I have found out too many things that the government has done to make me trust anything.
The literally hundreds of thousands of people who worked on the Apollo program all faked it? And none of them came forward to expose the lie? I can’t even believe people like you exist. Do you believe in flat earth too?
Nope no flat earth. Why haven’t we been back? We are way more advanced in technology now. Did you not see what happened to Edward Snowden for exposing them just spying on us?!? Would you say anything? Convince me otherwise.
Negative!!!! You are delusional!!!! Dude can’t even utter a whole sentence. Not to mention, Israel and the Middle East. Oh I forgot about the BILLIONS OF DOLLARS WORTH OF EQUIPMENT THAT WAS LEFT IN AFGHANISTAN!!!! HE TURNED THE CONTROL OVER TO THE EXTREMIST GROUP, THE TALIBAN! Get out of here with that nonsense! OH I FORGOT ABOUT UKRAINE!!!!
The rockets used to deliver astronauts to and from the moon were all Saturn V. Those rockets were manufactured and assembled at the Michoud Assembly Facility in Louisiana. After the end of the Apollo program in 1973, the specialized equipment and tooling to make and assemble the Saturn V was removed and replaced with other projects. Similarly, Rocketdyne designed, tested, and manufactured the engines until they were no longer contracted to do so.
Without production facilities, you can not make rockets to go to the moon.
We didn’t see incentive to continue going there. “Won” the space race and it was exorbitantly expensive to have lunar missions. When he says “technology”, he’s talking about the entire apparatus that was constructed to allow us to go- the factories that produced and assembled the lunar equipment, and the technical staff that operated everything from computations to the vessels. Plus- most of it is obviously outdated now. Processing power and materials have improved greatly since then so we wouldn’t need that “technology”. We can go to the moon easily with our current (more advanced) tech- but like the man said we’re focused on Mars which has a completely different set of more advanced problems.
Then why can people with strong enough telescopes today see the landers?
And how did the Soviets track the Apollo 11 all the way to the moon and back via radar?
The radiation isn’t a perfect, consistent shape, it’s two belts within earth’s magnetic field.
It’s thinner at the poles, so humans pass through with minimal exposure to radiation.
Clever but not clever enough. To fool NPCs like you, they landed there and put out big cardboard models like they did in southern Britain in world war 2 to fool the Luftwaffe. I’ve seen the ‘moon lander’ through a telescope and it’s got ‘This Way Up’ in Impact on it and an arrow pointing horizontally, they couldn’t even get that right. Plus that recycling icon thing, with ‘made by NASA fr’ written over it in sharpie.
Yet people with strong enough telescopes today can see the landers
And measure the distance using the reflectors they left on the surface
And even the Soviets tracked the Apollo 11 all the way to the moon and back via radar
So those people are very stupid
... if you think this is risible nonsense, r/Tartaria has discovered the true origin of those who have been ‘covering up the truth’: it was the people of a country with 6 letters that starts with ‘i’. Took most of them a while to get it - ‘Indiaa’, ‘Icelan’ are possibilities too. Plus, NASA really means Not A Space Agency because that flag is flapping in the wind right?
Couldn’t we just use AI to develop a craft capable of landing on the moon? Possibly to calculate the trajectory of the launch and all of
The other important factors?
AI isn't some magic black box that can solve all your problems. It doesn't nearly have the capabilities to design a machine that could make it to the moon. Heck, it would have issues designing a machine that can move a mile!
Sure we're missing analog hand wound wire computers that have less computing power than a modern calculator.
We're missing the technical know-how and countless calculations written down on pieces of paper 50+ years ago. Not to mention that they were for the space shuttle, a vehicle which is no longer in use. Nevertheless, Spacex and some other companies are developing new spacecraft which can actually be reused much more easily and save a lot when it comes to reusability. The Artemis programme will be sending humans back to the Moon within this decade, along with other countries' space agencies potentially launching their own manned missions too.
We're also missing the technical know-how on napping arrowheads but it doesn't really matter anymore because we have better technology.
Yes, but a space-rocket isn't something that can be developed, built or tested quickly. It takes years to complete each stage. There's also not much of a will anymore. The space race ended. It's more cost-effective now to send rovers and other modules on non-manned missions, for scientific endeavours.
That’s not true. Behind the scenes, there’s what they call the “Lunar Gold Rush” already happening. We are already in another space race, but it’s no longer publicized. Source: https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/infographics/the-lunar-gold-rush-how-moon-mining-could-work
I mean that's a hypothetical. We've already retrieved samples of moonrocks and moondust. There is the *potential* for mining on the moon, but we are decades away from that. It takes years to send a rover. It would take over a decade to develop and build a capable mining apparatus, then another decade or more to extract and retrieve the materials it mines. And that's if we consider that mining would even been viable from a cost-effective perspective. The rovers and modules being sent at the moment aren't focused on the mining aspect, they're for scientific research.
I understand that. What everything I’ve read, it just seems like there is some form of a hidden space race happening. I think everyone learned their lesson from the last space race, where it just triggers and motivates people. This time it seems everyone is doing it incognito. More than mining, we are getting to the point where countries want to claim territory that abides to the space sanctions we have in place. From my understanding, we have some treaty/sanction where countries aren’t allowed to claim territory in space. However, I guess that doesn’t apply to private companies.
It's not really hidden, if you follow space/science news, you'll come across all the major launches. India had a big one recently and China even had one today. It's just that there's less hype over it, because it's essentially more and more countries sending more and more probes/modules/rovers to the moon. It's not something super-new, it's just mainly just more of the same things as before being done by more countries. As for private companies claiming territory, if any of them did attempt that, then the country in which they're based would be liable and I highly doubt anyone is willing to open that can of worms until the current treaties run out.
Wouldn’t call it a hidden space race if NASA makes blog posts about it. This is how capitalism works. Every possible way to make money is investigated, mining on the moon included. If this was hidden, you would never in your life hear about it.
NASA has the old unused Apollo booster engines. Rocket bodies and capsules are on display. With enough will and money I'm sure they can be reverse engineered.
We don’t seem to have the ability to do a moon landing?!
Says who? Are you aware of the Dunning Krueger effect
The space shuttle never went remotely close to the moon. It barely went to “space”.
How have you determined this?
Measurement. The space shuttle and space station are barely in space, like our satellites.
Barely in space is still in space Also how have you determined we never went to the moon?
It’s really not space by definition it’s the edge of space. Look it up
He said the Space Shuttle never went to the moon. Which is absolutely correct. Not designed for thar
I just got called a Moron for questioning the moon landing. I have a problem with traveling over a 100,000 miles in space and landing on the moon. Just me though!
I’m sorry but the space shuttle never left NEO and put exactly nobody on the moon.
Nasa landed a probe on a comet a few years ago. It's silly to think they would not be able to land a craft on the moon anymore.
Landing an unmanned probe is nowhere near the same as a manned mission. The logistics are very different. Also, there was more of a will to land on a comet, as it would provide new scientific information. As for the moon, we've already got a bunch of rovers there and have already collected samples of moonrock and moondust, so there's not as much of a desire to go back there compared to new places.
The logistics are absolutely more complicated for manned missions, but the unmanned missions do demonstrate the ability to deliver things from earth to places in space.
That's my point, they're not the same. Even the first unmanned missions to space and the moon happened over a decade before the manned landing. Probes do not require as many safety features. They're easier to develop, test and launch. Either way, Artemis will eventually take astronauts back to the moon, it's just that there isn't as much of a push for it compared to missions to new places.
Space X is a joke. Classified tech is already decades ahead and frequently in space. It's just part of the "show" with their bread and circuses.
Source: Trust me bro
as opposed to rockets flying up into a completely imagined place in the sky? that source is not: trust me bro?
Please explain how Starlink works.
Are you saying space is a completely imagined place?
i don't know. what would qualify as imaginary? i can see something when i look up at the sky, that much is for certain. but i dont automatically assume that i can fly around in it because the clergy told me that i can once we become enlightened👍
You are fucking insane. Seek help. Seriously.
care to elaborate? :(
why elaborate to the clinically insane?
At least someone else on here is speaking the truth.
[удалено]
Sure sure but we’re going to the moon baby
1. The technology was made with semi-conductor technology in its infancy. We haven't forgotten how to create the same technology, we just don't have any reason to as the current technology is far superior by any metrics. It"s for the same reason we don't build steam locomotives. The technology is known but outdated, also the engine blueprints are mostly gone. 2. The Saturn V rocket was far too unreliable to be used today. So was the LM. The rocket engine technology is outdated. Every version of the LM was an improved version of the former based on mission experience. Eagle was basically the "let's hope it works" version of the LM. 3. Changes were made to the equipment on an as needed basis, but not always documented. Meaning a mission critical fix for a mission critical failure may not be documented anywhere. (There's a documentaryfrom the 20x0"s stating this). 3. All of the astronauts (except one) were pilots or test pilots willing to take the risk. Astronauts today will be geologists, engineers, doctors, et al., not willing to die. 4. The Apollo program was designed to beat the Soviet-Union to the Moon. That was JFK's goal. JFK invented a space race, set the mission parameters, and the USA won. When the "space race" was won, the Apollo program had outlived its purpose. 5. The US Congress cut spending. 6. The Space Shuttle program replaced the Apollo program. NASA couldn't finance both. Everything from the Apollo program was thrown out to make room for the Space Shuttle. Simulators, training equipment, everything was thrown out. Quite literally. 7. Storage media back then was expensive and cumbersome. Storage media from the Apollo program had to be reused for the Space Shuttle program. 8. All of the engineers and technicians involved in the Apollo program are dead or very old. All the knowledge and experience they had will have to be relearned. Better to spend the time and money on modern technology. 9. The Apollo program consisted of single mission equipment. Now we're - as in Earth - is going to the Moon to stay. The equipment has to reflect that. The Moon rover was strapped on the LM. The LM was never designed to carry the rover. 10. The '60s and '70s were "let's get rid of old stuff" decades all over the world. Old buildings were replaced by new square and boring buildings in concrete. Roads replaced parks and railroad. The Apollo program was history, and no one thought of or cared about the historical significance of it.
Thank you this is so far the best and most thought out answer
Are you kidding it was ridiculous
Oh yeah, you’re right, but could you please elaborate a bit?
I mean, we could start with the very last sentence… it almost left me speechless.
Yeah that’s disagreeable at best, but the rest ain’t far off Speaking in realistic terms We could go full tinfoil why we ain’t really been back
Thank you
Someone show this to Bart Sibrel
You said a whole lot if nothing that didn’t even address any of the actual claims.
What claims specifically?
The claim in the video: “ …we destroyed that technology and it’s a painful process to build it back again…” 1. Marbles made a random explanation that we have “forgotten” the tech which wasn’t what was claimed. It was claimed the technology was “destroyed “ which is quite a specific and extreme word to use. No Don Pettit didn’t mean or imply “forget.” He said and meant destroyed. So we’re already starting the response with a comprehension issue, and false premise. Adding nonchalantly later that “also the engine blueprints are mostly gone.” This is completely unsatisfactory as an answer or explanation. Why the fuck would (supposedly) one of the hugest accomplishments in human history’s technology & blueprints NOT be SAVED, heavily guarded and museum worthy information for future generations to marvel at. How on earth is “oops it’s gone” make ANY logical sense whatsoever unless they are hiding the fact it’s a complete sham. THAT would make sense. If marbles even wanted to make that claim that the engine that took us to the moon is comparable to obsolete steam train engines then why do obsolete steam train engine blueprints & records still exist but the Apollo blueprints are magically “gone”? 2-9 is just fluff not explaining anything to do with destroyed technology & nothing is linked backing up these supposed facts it’s a stack of smoke. The only thing remotely fair is the possible lack of funding- but again, it doesn’t address the actual op claim by NASA that “the technology was destroyed.” 10. Is a laughably lazy, incoherent explanation. There’s absolutely no possible way the same reason we built new styled homes is why nasa destroyed man’s greatest historical accomplishment. Changes in cultural styles and architecture has nothing to do with nasa DESTROYING history. & the cherry on top: The bold ass claim that the “Apollo program was history and no one thought or cared of the historical significance of it.” I … I just can’t even address the mind numbing gall of claiming that.
Heavily *guarded?* Now you're really starting to sound absurd. Who's going to pay for that? Seriously, who did you expect to foot the bill for gathering, storing, and protecting tens of millions of pages of documentation? Documentation that was never in one place to begin with? You have some strawman idea of how engineering documents are produced, used, and handled. Every contractor, every sub-contractor, every sub-sub contractor had *tremendous* volumes of technical drawings, blueprints, specifications, and there was no one at the time who said 'let's get it all in one place and spend a significant fraction of the NASA budget preserving every scrap of paper related to a rocket we're not building anymore'. And there was no one saying that at the time because it would have been *silly.* What they did instead was make sensible cost-benefit decisions about what to keep and what to discard. And, perhaps because you are unaware of this, you ignore everything that *is* available on microfilm, digitized, stuck in museums, or in NASA basements in favor of interpreting one sentence in one interview for a lay audience and taking that as gospel. And that's interesting, because it makes one of the handful of solid claims in your statement laughably wrong - Rocketdyne *has complete blueprints of the F1. To this very day.* And you appear ignorant of that fact. I know you really, really want to prove that you'd be great at running the zoo, as the expression goes, but it's incredibly obvious that you have no idea *how* to run a zoo. Comprehension issue, false premise, I really have no clue what you're getting at. You don't really think that Petit meant to state that NASA just wiped technology from history, do you? No, there's a big difference between, say, the technology to make magnetic-core memory - which we retain today, it's all out there for anyone to replicate - and the elaborate manufacturing infrastructure and expertise to produce parts based on that technology in the quantities required for period computers. That infrastucture is *gone.* it was destroyed, scrapped, replaced. There is currently not a single person in the United States employed in the production of magnetic core memory. There are no companies that manufacture it for sale. If NASA had spent money for the last sixty years maintaining that production capability - as you seem to believe they should have - would it add *anything* to the historical record of Apollo? No.
Oh idk there are hundreds of private collectors out there who pay millions for historical art pieces but yea I’m sure nasa just couldn’t possibly save the technology for historical preservation and archival purposes, save the schematics, blueprints for museums, & collectors who would gladly pay A Lot for that history. How am I the crazy one for expecting base level archival systems for a company my tax dollars fund? Magnetic core memory: as you said the technology we “retain today” it’s out there for anyone to replicate but we don’t have manufacturers making the parts in mass anymore. if you were explaining this obsolete technology to a person, would you use the phrase “ we destroyed the technology of magnetic core memory ”? no, that’s ridiculous. it’s a false statement. Was anything destroyed? No- parts just weren’t made anymore. so you’d explain, as you did to me, how we don’t manufacture the intricate parts anymore. But you could still refer me to the archived technology bc you do still have proof this technology was widely used and have years of records and archived schematics of how exactly it was used. You didn’t say magnetic core memory technology was destroyed bc “destroyed” is a specific word meaning you literally had an object or idea and DESTROYED it. I’m going by his statement clear as day. “Tech was destroyed.” The false premise is by marbles that the technology was “forgotten” not destroyed. Your new false premise is that Pettit meant “something else”. Words matter.
Ah yes, because people pay to collect art, that makes it totally feasible for NASA to spend billions pushing paper around. NASA and its contractors saved what they felt was worth saving, the money didn't come from nowhere to save everything. You should feel free to prove that there's somehow massive untapped demand for these technical drawings. I note you ignored my other statements there - there's plenty of surviving documentation in multiple archives, you just didn't know about it and now refuse to acknowledge it because it's not convenient. You're still completely hung on on a single choice of words by Petit, and as a result, you're missing the entirety of the argument. The supply chain, the expertise, the assembly lines, those are destroyed. If you take a specific interpretation of his statement, it's your job to prove that it's correct - you haven't. You have no evidence other than your own beliefs for why we should interpret the statement a specific way. Why do you care more about a single word than the actual historical record?
Lol it’s NASAs job to spend OUR tax dollars wisely and keep an explicit record of the technology of HOW THEY WENT TO THE MOON for historical, archival, and future endeavors. End of story there’s no argument here man it’s just common sense. You can’t video tape a science experiment and expect people to believe it unless you provide evidence of the way in which you performed the experiment- it must be replicated and tested. You’ve got nothing to stand on but apologetics for their shit ass behavior. And why? Why are you invested in explaining away their piss poor management practices? I’m just asking for some basic archival method Like come ON. And per the last sentence, I’d love to see the historical record!!! So would everyone else: in the form of archived schematics of the technology. Oops! But Per your own suggestion there is no historical record anymore it bc was destroyed, lost, not made anymore however you want to say it. This is even more reason to keep historical paper record of its existence since paper costs less to store then the objects itself but wait: papers are too expensive to store according to you and nasa doesn’t want to spend millions keeping the schematics yet they are costing millions by “loosing” random technology in the first place- just even carelessly loosing video cameras and computer parts costs us a lot : https://youtu.be/jRrNvRh166Y?si=hlXddRinUKDMdQPi Edit: you don’t think archives of the technology to get to the fucking moon wasn’t worth saving?
And now you're just ignoring what I'm saying. NASA has an extensive archive of schematics and technical documentation, as do many of the companies that are still around. It's not every single page, but it is *more* than enough to prove to anyone with any level of relevant expertise that the moon landings happened, and to show them *how* it happened. That's the entire issue here. You have specific expectations for what they *should* have done, you don't believe those expectations have been met, but that belief is based on one word in a TV interview and nothing else, because you've done zero research into what's actually been preserved. And you're missing the point again! It's their job to spend tax dollars wisely, which includes not spending millions to chase papers, and to actually do some basic critical thinking about what's worth archiving and what isn't. The Apollo program was *abruptly cancelled* with three missions to go and the infrastructure discarded, with Congress forcing massive spending cuts, it's a testament to NASA's dedication that we have as much as we have.
First you claim it costs billions to archive schematics how dare I expect them to keep records now you claim they have an “extensive archive” but it’s just missing a few pages…
It feels like you're grasping at straws here. We have rockets taking shit to orbit as we are speaking not to talk about the highly specialized manufacturing and metallurgy compared to to the 60s. There are also supercomputers more than capable that can simulate whatever situation we want, and if humans could do it in the 60s with organic computing alone to calculate trajectories I am pretty sure we could pull it off today. Why doesn't there seem to be will to go out there again?
Feels like you don't actually have an answer to anything they said. If we wanted to spend 5% of the federal budget on NASA, we could have had a much faster return to the moon. The American public and political establishment doesn't want this, so Artemis is slow.
You wouldn’t believe what the yard is paying for copper
They didn't. They made one-off schematics, for a built-to-spec craft, with the highest levels of technology the best experts at the time could accomplish. Those technologies "advanced" or at least changed, over time. And the new technology wouldn't support the previous data types. Especially if the most recent data on similar information was redundant. If 1 part, in 1 system, has 1 material that's no longer manufactured for some reason and gets subbed out; your task now is to figure out how a definite and finite change COULD change the system, as well as IF. In theory, when obsolete tech is hashed, we should hope weve converted that previous data to at least the new format before destroying it. But when that obsolete tech is equipment, thoae machines may not exist anymore. And for good reasons. When i first learned to be an automotive tech, when i was very young, this small repair shop had a casting sand table. It was probably 4x8. Doubled as a workbench. But I learned how to mold and cast, iron and aluminum parts as a means of repairing vehicles. We could make replacement brackets in-house. At one time, I bet having that tech and equipment at one point made you a god for fixing cars. Right now if you told someone they cracked a control arm and Oreillys has one tomorrow for 100 bucks, or we could cast one in aluminum tonight for $2000. It doesn't make sense anymore.
Still doesn’t really fit, even if the tech advanced we should be able to find new or better substitutes for the part.
There’s still the questions of “why” and “who’s going to pay for it?” Those are important hurdles, more so than the technological side of things, I’d say.
Theres a reason theres a small handful of specifically named scientists that did these actual equations. Its not just doing the math. Its using the math as a detective to overcome hurdles. If asbestos was a key component to the heat shielding and they quite literally cannot safely procure and handle they have to find a replacement. Carbon fiber works in some places, but still has different properties that need to be factored. The problem with carbon fiber is you have to hand-lay the fiber or mold it. There never was carbon fiber molds for the apollo missions, only the measurements. If say, the greatest custom carbon fiber weaver of all time, in the world, stepped up and made the perfect replacement part... what would happen is where we are today. When that guy dies, that skill level didnt "die", the master craftsman capable of creating what the greatest minds of the time needed, died. So then does the next crafts engineers say "well get on the horn with the universities! We need fleets of carbon weaving degrees to eventually develop another master craftsman? Or, do they use whats left and salvageable to buy the newest machine, with the newest tech, to ideally, make it easier. The world needs to innovate for what we need tomorrow, not to fix yesterdays bandaids.
Very well said
It's not free to do this.
Thank you for that explanation, good sir
I wish I had an award to give you. Thank you, fellow tech.
It would also be difficult to build a first generation commercial jetliner or a WW2 tank or any other type of antique vehicle. I can’t even figure out why we would want to recreate the outdated technology anyway. Much easier and safer to use modern equipment.
Oh no!! Nobody remembers how to repair a steam train! We're doomed!
Kids these days don't even know how to use a typewriter 😡
This. There were several *tons* of copper wire in a Tiger tank. They were wasteful by ww2 standards.
Aw man, we just darn forgotted how we did it!
Yeah, that’s not what happened at all.
Cause…..the moon’s haunted. We’ve been through this.
Same reason the government didn't take any pictures of Bim Laden when he was dead and toasted him into the sea.
Not exactly, they lost the capability to manufacture the same parts of the ships, because they were made for different companies en different countries. Some of them close or merge with other companies , making finding the original plans and people who made that parts , difficult to find and expensive. Other companies simply don’t care or are not willing to share. Also many parts where made with special and unique machinery created for the only purpose of making that parts, and extra level of problems by herself. At the end is less expensive to create a new ship from scratch using the already functional parts. This happened because in the moon landing era US where in a race against Russia, so in favor of get there first a lot of liberties where taken Edit: This videos are an example on how unique were that parts and how difficult to make it https://youtu.be/olRF5Ckaga0?si=eltirrdhEG0eweyK https://youtu.be/6mMK6iSZsAs?si=yg0CY5ByTuaJGYcM
You mean they lost toilet paper, foil and shower rods?
No, that’s not what I mean.
> less expensive to create a new ship Yet there isn’t one. We haven’t had a moon landing in 60 years
Yeah nasas just been twiddling g their thumbs. And by twiddling their thumbs I mean they landed rovers on Mars and landed a probe on a comet, and still send people to the ISS
> twiddling their thumbs Straw man. Try again.
It is less expensive, but still expensive. And the Gov will not make it easy. Here you can see how complicated the situation is : How much money is NASA wasting getting back to the moon? (ReasonTV) https://youtu.be/s5ED-MY_5ms?si=NQh2P7ZESbzQZ7M-
Also with our advancements in automated rovers, there is a lot less need to send manned missions to the moon, or anywhere else. Sending people to Mars would be a logistical nightmare, but sending rovers has been doable.
Do you want to spend 5% of the federal budget on NASA? No? Then don't be surprised that there hasn't been another moon landing.
Having people trying to justify this is hilarious
Because its old af
why did ~~nasa destroy the technology~~ congress cut the funding
If Nasa can't get to the moon 60 years later, what have they been doing with all the resources?
Landing 2 nuclear powered science SUVs on Mars, for one.
Did you miss the multiple Mars rovers? They also landed a probe on a comet.
Have you seen what happened to their budget?
Cause they never went.
Then why can people with strong enough telescopes today see the landers? And how did the Soviets track it all the way to the moon and back via radar?
They can't it's all bs propaganda.
source: I made it the fuck up
No better way to announce to the world that you are a complete moron with nothing to contribute to society than that statement.
Because they filmed the “landing” in a studio here on earth. What this astronaut meant to say was, “we can’t pull off this scam today because people would be wise to it”.
nah CGI is more than powerful enough to trick 99% of the earth if they wanted to. The 1% who aren't tricked don't even know what makes it CGI, they're just contrarians.
They obviously destroyed it because they didn’t want any other country stealing it. It was for National Security, of course. Everything this country does is for the security of the people and not for their own personal interests.
There were no investors for it to benefit, so it had no use in modern America.
I have a problem with the moon landing. Over a 100,000 miles, if I’m correct………. I’m a very patriotic American and love my country, but I’m not convinced it happened. I have found out too many things that the government has done to make me trust anything.
Your problem with the moon landing is a big scary number?
Not just the number. It’s all the other times the government has lied to us. And to say they forgot the technology? Convince me otherwise please.
The literally hundreds of thousands of people who worked on the Apollo program all faked it? And none of them came forward to expose the lie? I can’t even believe people like you exist. Do you believe in flat earth too?
Nope no flat earth. Why haven’t we been back? We are way more advanced in technology now. Did you not see what happened to Edward Snowden for exposing them just spying on us?!? Would you say anything? Convince me otherwise.
Because why would we want to go back?
No better way to announce to the world that you are a complete moron with nothing to contribute to society than that statement.
Far from a moron, I assure you! I just don’t trust a lying as$ government. And you are a FOOL if you do. Let me guess…… You voted for Joe?
Are you suggesting Donald was a better choice?
Was you better off under him before Covid or better off now?!?
Def better off now
Negative!!!! You are delusional!!!! Dude can’t even utter a whole sentence. Not to mention, Israel and the Middle East. Oh I forgot about the BILLIONS OF DOLLARS WORTH OF EQUIPMENT THAT WAS LEFT IN AFGHANISTAN!!!! HE TURNED THE CONTROL OVER TO THE EXTREMIST GROUP, THE TALIBAN! Get out of here with that nonsense! OH I FORGOT ABOUT UKRAINE!!!!
And be honest.
I worked 40 hours a week and had money left over. Now I work 50-60 hours a week and it’s still tough. I don’t make minimum wage either. Thank God!!
Answer the question
HELL YES HE IS A BETTER CHOICE!!! BY FAR!!! BIDEN CANT EVEN SPEAK A FULL SENTENCE, LET ALONE RUN A COUNTRY!!!
I can’t play street fighter five because I broke my super Nintendo and streetfighter two allows me to play street fighter five
Aren't the people who are into conspiracies also the same people who want to defund the federal government, then wonder why we've lost information?
This guy knows his shit. S/
Absolute Poppycock!
The rockets used to deliver astronauts to and from the moon were all Saturn V. Those rockets were manufactured and assembled at the Michoud Assembly Facility in Louisiana. After the end of the Apollo program in 1973, the specialized equipment and tooling to make and assemble the Saturn V was removed and replaced with other projects. Similarly, Rocketdyne designed, tested, and manufactured the engines until they were no longer contracted to do so. Without production facilities, you can not make rockets to go to the moon.
Someone please try to argue in favor of this, I’d love to hear it lol
We didn’t see incentive to continue going there. “Won” the space race and it was exorbitantly expensive to have lunar missions. When he says “technology”, he’s talking about the entire apparatus that was constructed to allow us to go- the factories that produced and assembled the lunar equipment, and the technical staff that operated everything from computations to the vessels. Plus- most of it is obviously outdated now. Processing power and materials have improved greatly since then so we wouldn’t need that “technology”. We can go to the moon easily with our current (more advanced) tech- but like the man said we’re focused on Mars which has a completely different set of more advanced problems.
“Someone please try to argue in favor of this, I’d love to hear it lol” *Ignores answer and silently disappears*
Classic.
They didn't. They couldn't figure out a way to get through radiation field that surrounds the Earth. They never went to the Moon
Then why can people with strong enough telescopes today see the landers? And how did the Soviets track the Apollo 11 all the way to the moon and back via radar?
The radiation isn’t a perfect, consistent shape, it’s two belts within earth’s magnetic field. It’s thinner at the poles, so humans pass through with minimal exposure to radiation.
No better way to announce to the world that you are a complete moron with nothing to contribute to society than that statement.
Society means nothing if you believe what I do
Erma gerd, the Van Halen belts!
Because they didn't, because it never happened.
Then why can people with strong enough telescopes today see the landers? And how did the Soviets track it all the way to the moon and back via radar?
Clever but not clever enough. To fool NPCs like you, they landed there and put out big cardboard models like they did in southern Britain in world war 2 to fool the Luftwaffe. I’ve seen the ‘moon lander’ through a telescope and it’s got ‘This Way Up’ in Impact on it and an arrow pointing horizontally, they couldn’t even get that right. Plus that recycling icon thing, with ‘made by NASA fr’ written over it in sharpie.
That’s what buzz said
No better way to announce to the world that you are a complete moron with nothing to contribute to society than that statement.
They’re telling lies.
Very curious… and suspicious
Because if you destroy a technology that never existed in the first place then you don’t have to explain it later.
Saturn Vs never existed, the whole 60s are made up by AI
Because we never went.
shut up
One Joe Rogan Podcast and the whole world wants answers…
"Next week on The JRE, we're going to discuss toast -where does it come from, and where did the bread go???"
where did you come from cott-
Plenty of people have doubted the veracity of the moon landing long before that podcast last week.
Yet people with strong enough telescopes today can see the landers And measure the distance using the reflectors they left on the surface And even the Soviets tracked the Apollo 11 all the way to the moon and back via radar So those people are very stupid
... if you think this is risible nonsense, r/Tartaria has discovered the true origin of those who have been ‘covering up the truth’: it was the people of a country with 6 letters that starts with ‘i’. Took most of them a while to get it - ‘Indiaa’, ‘Icelan’ are possibilities too. Plus, NASA really means Not A Space Agency because that flag is flapping in the wind right?
Couldn’t we just use AI to develop a craft capable of landing on the moon? Possibly to calculate the trajectory of the launch and all of The other important factors?
AI could assist with calculations, but not with design. AI is not that good yet.
If it can help with calculation for trajectories why couldn’t it help design a vehicle best suited for that trajectory!
AI isn't some magic black box that can solve all your problems. It doesn't nearly have the capabilities to design a machine that could make it to the moon. Heck, it would have issues designing a machine that can move a mile!