Damn dude! You got me all excited. I started thinking, "I wonder how much they would charge. I'd pay a hundie for that." Then I clicked the link. Boom, back to reality. It's not gonna happen. Great.
States have sent rovers to the moon (China in 2013), but it's been public projects. Space-X could do it, I suppose, but they've invested in other more potentially commercial ventures.
I think the idea underestimates the decade of R&D a private company would have to invest to potentially pull in maybe a billion USD on one pay-per-view. Every pay-per-view afterwards would have diminishing returns.
I mean, it's absurd to think no company or investment entity has considered it and done the math. It's easy to speculate from the cheap seats.
So a government funded institution would take your tax money and issue pay per view tickets so your taxes go into a private show for people who paid a second time and not you?
The Apollo program cost $25 billion to supposedly complete six return trips
There's thing thing called inflation. The Apollo program cost in today's money 110 billion dollars. So you're doing one trip, which is about 6 billion saved in the actual rockets and materials. You still have to do the R&D, you still have to build the new design, you still have to test the shit out of it, and you still have to launch it.
And don't delude yourself that we could get away with using a Saturn V again. Space safety guidelines have been increased so much in the last half-century that you'd be laughed out of the boardroom for even suggesting it. The cost of the the program would still be 100 Billion easily, provided that number didn't increase exponentially due to the higher need for safety tests.
And while I'm on the topic of money, let's do some math.
There are approximately 7.241 billion people on earth.
Every person on earth would need to pay 13 US dollars to equal 100 billion in US currency. (I'm doing ll of this in US money, to save time).
However, not every person would be in a position to pay, either economically or socially, so lets subtract them:
Take off roughly half of the Asian/Middle eastern region, due to simple lack of money, lack of ability, or lack of interest. That's around-a-bout 2.5 billion less.
Less 2/3rds of Africa (I'm being very conservative here) so that's another 800 million gone.
Then take off half of south america, again due to lack of interest or ability, which is another 210-or-so million.
Bearing in mind that there are other areas where people would have to be subtracted, such as Oceania and Europe, that totals up to basically 3.4 billion people who wouldn't be paying. That is, of course, if the Chinese government and the Russian governments allow their citizens to pay, because if they don't, that fucks the whole system much much further.
That leaves us with roughly 3.85 billion people. Ideally, they'd all pay, but let's knock off a third for people who just wont. (Again, this number would be far far higher in reality, probably closer to 2/3).
That leaves us with very roughly 2.7 billion people. This brings each persons total to about 40 US dollars, which would turn even more people off, increasing the total, which would turn more people off..... e.t.c.
You see where I'm going with this? With a government paying half, it's still be too needlessly economically complicated to organize, and you'd basically be adding the equivalent of shareholders to the project, getting angry when delays occur, and god forbid there's an accident, or everyone leaves and you're fucked.
The reason no one has organised this is the same as no one has gone back to the moon. It's too complicated for basically no gain but to prove a bunch of people who repeat the same debunked crap over and over again wrong. We'll go back eventually, we just need to be able to make it worthwhile.
Sorry for the wall, but It looked painfull as a block.
TL;DR Too complicated to open source the money, cost of program would be basically the same.
When Americans can involuntarily have $1.5 trillion of their tax dollars spent on a war they didn't want, the entire population of planet Earth could certainly afford a few billion for a trip to the moon.
This comparison doesn't even make sense. Because the government can spend tax money on war, everyone should donate to launch a rocket?
I highly doubt it would cost anywhere near that much anyway considering we're talking about 60s technology
Not in your wildest dreams would the Apollo program's vehicles be acceptable by modern standards. That's the problem. You have to redesign everything, which pulls the costs way the fuck up.
Did you see the video I posted in my edit?
You mean the video showing the lunar soil being flung in a way that is only possible in a vacuum, which would imply that it's either in a 100+ x 100+ vacuum chamber, or on the Moon? Yeah, saw it. Seen it before actually, it's quite breathtaking.
And for the record, the line you're talking about is a valley.
Love the personal attack. Mature. The "Obvious" flat backdrop you see is most likely the result of the camera, not the actual environment. It's funny, you conveniently forget to mention the dust effect, which clearly debunks anything you're going to say.
If you're sincerely telling me that you don't believe the entire population of the Earth would collectively pay a small fraction of that amount to see an HD manned trip to the moon and back, I have to respectfully acknowledge and disregard your opinion.
If NASA does this, then we in America have paid for it. As we have paid for everything else they've done.
"faked" evidence that has been analyzed by thousands of scientists from around the world for the last 60 years. And none of them have raised an alarm that it might be faked?
Mass deception is as easy as pie when you control the mainstream media.
They don't "control" all the scientists in the world who would have been monitoring the launches or the data that was brought back. Scientists who would have said something in the past 60 years. Instead, all you've got is a single non peer-reviewed "paper" analyzing a single image out of the 14,000 that NASA took over the various missions.
You clearly have not done any research into this topic if that's all you think the argument is based on. Sounds to me like you are putting way too much emotion into your argument.
I read that link, and there's nothing in there that I haven't heard before.
Nobody has conclusively demonstrated that merely changing the tape speed would have produced the behavior seen on the videos.
His claim about how high people might have jumped ignores the simple fact that the astronauts were wearing 200 lbs in extra gear - even with the lower gravity, I'd like to see anyone jump very high with that much extra gear on them.
Oh, and like many of the "apollo was a hoax" folks, this author completely ignores the 14,000 pictures that were taken on the various missions. Funny how that doesn't weigh in to any of his considerations.
To sum up, a lot of handwaving, a lot of "What if" or "Why this", but no actual scientific analysis or real evidence to challenge what was done.
I appreciate you taking the time to read this and respond. For the record, that link was just part 1 of 13 (just click next at the bottom of the page). The rest of the parts are extremely informative, and covered many points that I had never heard before (including your question about the pictures taken). The author does a great job at explaining his theories, the debunker's arguments, and why they don't hold water.
Please keep reading, because there is a ton of scientific analysis to challenge what was done.
So part two has more handwaving, including "How can something that looks like this actually land on the moon and take off again?" - which, last I checked, it not a real scientific analysis. It also has the standard claim about "untested" technology - never mind the fact that all portions of the lander were tested in various ways - including apollo 10, which tested every phase of the process except landing on the moon itself. They orbited to within 60 miles of the surface, and tested the full process that would be needed to ascend from the moon back to the command module. And despite the author's claims that "Despite the completely foreign environment, they worked perfectly the very first time and every time thereafter!", there were various incidents on almost every mission to show that not everything worked perfectly. Again, on Apollo 10 they had a malfunction with the thrusters that nearly doomed the mission.
Upon separation of the descent stage and ascent engine ignition, the Lunar Module began to roll violently due to the crew accidentally duplicating commands into the flight computer which took the LM out of abort mode, the correct configuration for this maneuver.[15] The live network broadcasts caught Cernan and Stafford uttering several expletives before regaining control of the LM. Cernan has said he observed the horizon spinning eight times over, indicating eight rolls of the spacecraft under ascent engine power. While the incident was downplayed by NASA, the roll was just several revolutions from being unrecoverable, which would have resulted in the LM crashing into the lunar surface.
So once again, this "scientific" analysis of the moon landings is anything but, missing incidents that it took me less than five minutes to research. I'll continue reading through at least the next part or two, but so far I can say that I am less than impressed with this "analysis".
You're cherry picking. What about the Van Allen Belts? Or the extreme changes in temperature? Or the micro space dust? Or the pictures that have the exact same background as pictures taken from different Apollo missions? Or the absence of a crater underneath the landing module? Or the fact that they were able to bring a transforming rover without making any significant changes to the spaceship they used?
I get that a lot of this is speculative, but at the same time, so is the "true" story as told by NASA. They claim to have evidence to back up the claims, but where is all of the flight data from all of the Apollo missions? Pictures can easily be photoshopped, I'd like to see some actual data.
I'm cherry picking? I'm only going through the pages in order, and calling out the issues I find with each one.
I'm glad you mentioned the Van Allen Belts. Here is a very good takedown of the rampant fear mongering with regards to them. It includes a very detailed analysis of the actual radiation exposure that the Apollo astronauts encountered, and found that it was well within normal limits.
Or the pictures that have the exact same background as pictures taken from different apollo missions?
I have not yet gotten to that part of the authors "debunking" of the Apollo program - I'll respond when I get to there.
Or the fact that they were able to bring a transforming Rover without making any significant changes to the spaceship they used?
Some simple research shows that they used one of the existing storage compartments on the lander module. Here is an article about it including links to official NASA documentation.
I am at work now so I can't go through any of the additional portions of the author's article at the moment, but I will go through at least one or two more and comment on them as I have time.
Okay, I've had a chance to look through part 3. First half of this section is on the timing of the launches. There was a lot going on during the late 60s and early 70s and it's almost inevitable that some of the launches would be timed "conveniently" for some part of the government, at least if you are of a particularly paranoid mindset.
The second half of this section covers the van allen belt and radiation, and is almost entirely devoid of any hard, specific details on how much radiation the astronauts could expect to encounter. The link in my previous post contains a very detailed debunking of this tired argument. As far as radiation that they could encounter on the surface, that's a different matter entirely and is something that will have to be planned around, as astronauts will (hopefully!) eventually be on the surface for much longer periods of time than just a day or two.
There are a lot of things we are told about space that do not make sense. But we are soaked in an environment where it is beyond questioning. The largest shock to my world view was when I saw the space fraud for what it was. It was like a spell was broken. It really is so thinly veiled once you allow yourself to look at it.
When I was younger, I knew that the space 'photos' taken by telescopes were not actual photos, but colorized representations. The explanation was that they had to be in order to see anything, but still I wondered why all the images were like this. I was blocked from thinking further in this line because every person around me and every media I could access never suggested the possibility of it being fraudulent. How could a thought be considered if every influence around me dismissed it as nonsense?
Most people have viewed very little of the material from NASA that is supposed to constitute proof of their achievements. We get our ideas and images of space from tv and movies. The amount of fraud in the area of 'space' is so large that I consider it an obfuscation of information pertinent to the meaning of our existence. The generally accepted cosmology is full of holes plugged by circular reasoning. Concepts are invented and presumed to exist because without them previous assumptions made no longer work. An example is "dark matter", pure pseudo-science nonsense, doubling down on previous dogma.
Well said, and to add to it, the Newtonian/Heliocentric sciences/math/physics/space/etc are all steeped in secret societies/the occult/ancient mystery schools. We claim to say they are evil and have alternative motives/agendas in one sense, yet at the very same time support them in other narratives. Either knowingly, or more likely, unknowingly. This is why I question (after, as you've said, woken from the trance).
This has been my exact thought for years now. They want to give people who don't believe in a higher power a false hope that maybe someday we will leave earth and move on. It's not going to happen.
Because it's really expensive and risky. The upfront costs alone are enormous and what would happen if the rocket exploded on the launch pad and you end up live streaming the death of all the crew on board? But hey, maybe you're on to something. Why don't you try to get investors?
You're calling it "extremely lucrative", but I don't see any financial proposals on your end to prove it. As a potential investor you're currently not even passing the sniff test before I send lawyers out for due diligence.
I'm not saying it it was okay to do anything, but people are more likely to risk money and lives for the possible scientific benefit and the glory of being first.
The fact is why go back? We already learned a lot about the moon. We already won the glory. Why go back when we could go forward to Mars instead.
Sure I'd watch it, but I'd much rather the space agencies of the world focus on taking man to Mars or other places rather than go back to the moon and discover nothing new.
Why go back? That's like people in Europe saying not to explore the new world when Columbus travelled. Except it's literally a new world. The amount of Tech and knowledge that we would develop in the process of actually colonizing the moon is worth it. To think they figured it out 40 years ago, did it 6 times with no problem, while we still have trouble getting to low earth orbit... Right
Except there is nothing but dust on the moon. The new world had people and plants and animals that had never been seen. Not to mention gold and silver.
Sailing to the new world was hard, but ultimately just required building homes somewhere else that already humans were already adapted for. Colonizing the moon requires building a home in a place entirely alien to us. There is no food. No water. No air. The technology required to colonize it is far more advanced than what was required to simply visit.
If we are going to colonize anywhere, it's probably going to be a place like Mars. Where there is at least an atmosphere and a possible source of water. We may colonize the moon eventually, but until we have the technology there isn't much reason to visit.
Well even if we did, I'm sure you wouldn't believe it. Hell I bet the only way you'd believe we were capable of space travel is if you were personally blasted to the moon and thrown out the air lock.
To deny the moon landing and space travel requires denying a tremendous amount of evidence. I can't even comprehend the mental gymnastics you must go through to justify your position.
You can see an obvious line that divides the ground and the flat 2D mountain backdrop.
Not so obvious to me. Looks like they're on a hill.
The effect is most pronounced and blatantly obvious from 1:15 until the end of the video. You can clearly see that the stone is flat and is simply a part of the 2D mountain backdrop image.
Again, not obvious to me. I'm not even sure what you're talking about.
Every single person I've shown this footage in real life has gasped at how extremely obvious it is
I kind of doubt that.
Now I'm asking you to give me an honest answer... Do you notice this extremely obvious effect?
No I don't.
This link is an academic analysis
Uhm... That doesn't look like it's been peer reviewed. I don't care if you give a paper a sciencey sounding name. That doesn't make it good science.
You can see an obvious line that divides the ground and the flat 2D mountain backdrop.
Do tell.
The conclusion:
"These pictures were, without doubt, taken in a studio set – up to 300 metres in size. A complex panorama mimicking the lunarscape shows degrees of movement, such as horizontal and vertical changes to give an impression of imaginary distance to the objects and perspective."
Well, now that it's clearly without a doubt I guess you have a point!
How many people would honestly buy it? I'm thinking not much, shuttles go up all the time and you never hear about them because the general public doesn't really care anymore.
It'd be a roughly 8 day long event, you're vastly overestimating the general publics attention span. people would be bored 30 minutes after launch. We'd get some cool photos of the earth, some more video of people walking on the moon and then the return trip.
People wouldn't buy it, and we'd gain nothing scientifically from it. But hey, of you think there is interest why not shop the idea around to people like Elon Musk and whoever else is pioneering private space travel.
I know what you meant, but again I reiterate: 8 days.
Are you going to watch all 8 days? Probably not, I'd be willing to bet you and a majority of people would watch the launch, the lunar approach and landing, lunar launch and the atmospheric reentery.
The fuck are you talking about? People watch seasons of reality tv shows, and other series (spanning weeks/months). The whole SCIENCE FTW crowd, would love this and would pay for it. Hell, I'm skeptic of NASA, but even I, would pay to see it.
You don't understand how boring that would be to watch. 80% of the journey would be a black screen or stars if you're lucky and the camera doesn't get contrasted to fuck by the sunlight hitting something on the ship. The landing would get views, but you would have alot of time to fill.
Oh I do wish I was being paid. I could use the help covering rent. I'm just pointing out flaws in a series of incredibly overused and easily debunked arguments that state the complete opposite to what we're told by basically all of science.
You are so wrong. There are people who would take the entire week off to make time to watch it. Lots of the everyday crowd would watch bits and parts of it. You are dishonestly playing it down.
And to make up for the 95% of the world who would simply watch the highlights on the news every night (And don't pretend it wouldn't be plastered over every news network on earth) They'd have to pay many thousands. Doesn't sound inviting.
You know I point this out to people all the time. The damn Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter cost us $583 million. When I look up top end video camera's I am hard pressed to find one for over $1000...
WE are paying for this shit, why can't we just get a camera dedicated to viewing the earth on every single satellite. The battery on the Mars Opportunity Rover has lasted since 2003 and is still kicking so it is not like we don't have the ability to maintain a constant stream.
When I saw your post I (naively) thought to myself "Alright! ask and you shall receive!"
Well done.
The fact that the technology is so obviously there and yet we don't have it should piss people off.
We throw billions of dollars at it already. I am not talking about a manned trip, I am talking about a camera that sees like you and I see.
The lunar orbiter sees and analyzes the moon in six different ways none of which actually give us an idea of what the human eye would see.
I am not suggesting that we have some startup build their own space program, I am suggesting that we start putting actual video equipment on the orbiters and satellites that we already send.
The cost of a camera and perhaps some sort of gyroscopic system that keeps it pointed in the right direction would interest enough people to pay for itself if properly marketed, and I am surely not the first guy to come up with this idea.
The problem is that it's expensive. You can't just run down to best buy, grab and camera and duct tape it to a rocket. You need specialized equipment that can function in space. You need people to design that equipment. It has to go all the way to space. That's expensive. And for what purpose? To prove to conspiracy theorists that we really went to the moon? No offense, but it's just not that important.
Richard Nixon cancelled Apollo/Saturn and approved the Shuttle, keeping NASA/USA in low earth orbit for 43+ years.
Circumlunar mission is about as easy as it gets... but Russians won't risk it - even with female cosmonauts!
My best guess is that space has already been militarized and divided up between humans & aliens, and, humans have gotten the worst of the deal.
Since we can't reveal aliens explicitly (total meltdown) we have to reveal them subtly, with "disclosure" conferences and Hollywood movies.
And I do think that the flat earth/concave earth theories have already tapped into the idea that outer space is a "protected" space - no civvies allowed.
To deny the moon landing and space travel requires denying a tremendous amount of evidence. I can't even comprehend the mental gymnastics you must go through to justify your position.
If you're sincerely telling me that you don't believe the entire population of the Earth would collectively pay a small fraction of that amount to see an HD manned trip to the moon and back, I have to respectfully acknowledge and disregard your opinion.
If NASA does this, then we in America have paid for it. As we have paid for everything else they've done.
The Apollo program cost $25 billion to supposedly complete six return trips
There's thing thing called inflation. The Apollo program cost in today's money 110 billion dollars. So you're doing one trip, which is about 6 billion saved in the actual rockets and materials. You still have to do the R&D, you still have to build the new design, you still have to test the shit out of it, and you still have to launch it.
And don't delude yourself that we could get away with using a Saturn V again. Space safety guidelines have been increased so much in the last half-century that you'd be laughed out of the boardroom for even suggesting it. The cost of the the program would still be 100 Billion easily, provided that number didn't increase exponentially due to the higher need for safety tests.
And while I'm on the topic of money, let's do some math.
There are approximately 7.241 billion people on earth.
Every person on earth would need to pay 13 US dollars to equal 100 billion in US currency. (I'm doing ll of this in US money, to save time).
However, not every person would be in a position to pay, either economically or socially, so lets subtract them:
Take off roughly half of the Asian/Middle eastern region, due to simple lack of money, lack of ability, or lack of interest. That's around-a-bout 2.5 billion less.
Less 2/3rds of Africa (I'm being very conservative here) so that's another 800 million gone.
Then take off half of south america, again due to lack of interest or ability, which is another 210-or-so million.
Bearing in mind that there are other areas where people would have to be subtracted, such as Oceania and Europe, that totals up to basically 3.4 billion people who wouldn't be paying. That is, of course, if the Chinese government and the Russian governments allow their citizens to pay, because if they don't, that fucks the whole system much much further.
That leaves us with roughly 3.85 billion people. Ideally, they'd all pay, but let's knock off a third for people who just wont. (Again, this number would be far far higher in reality, probably closer to 2/3).
That leaves us with very roughly 2.7 billion people. This brings each persons total to about 40 US dollars, which would turn even more people off, increasing the total, which would turn more people off..... e.t.c.
You see where I'm going with this? With a government paying half, it's still be too needlessly economically complicated to organize, and you'd basically be adding the equivalent of shareholders to the project, getting angry when delays occur, and god forbid there's an accident, or everyone leaves and you're fucked.
The reason no one has organised this is the same as no one has gone back to the moon. It's too complicated for basically no gain but to prove a bunch of people who repeat the same debunked crap over and over again wrong. We'll go back eventually, we just need to be able to make it worthwhile.
Sorry for the wall, but It looked painfull as a block.
TL;DR Too complicated to open source the money, cost of program would be basically the same.
81 comments
6 EyesClosedInMirror 2016-01-25
Damn dude! You got me all excited. I started thinking, "I wonder how much they would charge. I'd pay a hundie for that." Then I clicked the link. Boom, back to reality. It's not gonna happen. Great.
6 subroc77 2016-01-25
From "here's an idea" to "now the world owes me this idea" faster than the speed of sound.
1 DirtyBird9889 2016-01-25
It's not that anyone is demanding it, it's that it is peculiar that it hasn't already happened.
4 subroc77 2016-01-25
States have sent rovers to the moon (China in 2013), but it's been public projects. Space-X could do it, I suppose, but they've invested in other more potentially commercial ventures.
I think the idea underestimates the decade of R&D a private company would have to invest to potentially pull in maybe a billion USD on one pay-per-view. Every pay-per-view afterwards would have diminishing returns.
I mean, it's absurd to think no company or investment entity has considered it and done the math. It's easy to speculate from the cheap seats.
0 metabolix 2016-01-25
Space is fake. Get with the times.
6 subroc77 2016-01-25
I didn't realize flat earth was so trendy!
-1 [deleted] 2016-01-25
[deleted]
4 subroc77 2016-01-25
That's your fight, not mine. I know they're stupid.
-1 [deleted] 2016-01-25
[deleted]
4 subroc77 2016-01-25
I was referring to metabolix, who is a flat earther.
3 DontTreadOnMe16 2016-01-25
Someone should let B.O.B know that.
-1 [deleted] 2016-01-25
[deleted]
2 subroc77 2016-01-25
When did I do that?
5 Y_Sam 2016-01-25
So a government funded institution would take your tax money and issue pay per view tickets so your taxes go into a private show for people who paid a second time and not you?
0 [deleted] 2016-01-25
[deleted]
2 Y_Sam 2016-01-25
I'm not familiar with pay per view, but from my understanding, if you don't pay then you don't view isn't it?
You paid with your taxes, you're entitled to look at the results.
Robbing you of that right to rack up some more money would be frowned upon, if not illegal i assume?
But even without being all technical, i doubt such an initiative would get as much money as you think.
1 [deleted] 2016-01-25
[deleted]
8 Cptcutter81 2016-01-25
There's thing thing called inflation. The Apollo program cost in today's money 110 billion dollars. So you're doing one trip, which is about 6 billion saved in the actual rockets and materials. You still have to do the R&D, you still have to build the new design, you still have to test the shit out of it, and you still have to launch it.
And don't delude yourself that we could get away with using a Saturn V again. Space safety guidelines have been increased so much in the last half-century that you'd be laughed out of the boardroom for even suggesting it. The cost of the the program would still be 100 Billion easily, provided that number didn't increase exponentially due to the higher need for safety tests.
And while I'm on the topic of money, let's do some math.
There are approximately 7.241 billion people on earth.
Every person on earth would need to pay 13 US dollars to equal 100 billion in US currency. (I'm doing ll of this in US money, to save time).
However, not every person would be in a position to pay, either economically or socially, so lets subtract them:
Take off roughly half of the Asian/Middle eastern region, due to simple lack of money, lack of ability, or lack of interest. That's around-a-bout 2.5 billion less.
Less 2/3rds of Africa (I'm being very conservative here) so that's another 800 million gone.
Then take off half of south america, again due to lack of interest or ability, which is another 210-or-so million.
Bearing in mind that there are other areas where people would have to be subtracted, such as Oceania and Europe, that totals up to basically 3.4 billion people who wouldn't be paying. That is, of course, if the Chinese government and the Russian governments allow their citizens to pay, because if they don't, that fucks the whole system much much further.
That leaves us with roughly 3.85 billion people. Ideally, they'd all pay, but let's knock off a third for people who just wont. (Again, this number would be far far higher in reality, probably closer to 2/3).
That leaves us with very roughly 2.7 billion people. This brings each persons total to about 40 US dollars, which would turn even more people off, increasing the total, which would turn more people off..... e.t.c.
You see where I'm going with this? With a government paying half, it's still be too needlessly economically complicated to organize, and you'd basically be adding the equivalent of shareholders to the project, getting angry when delays occur, and god forbid there's an accident, or everyone leaves and you're fucked.
The reason no one has organised this is the same as no one has gone back to the moon. It's too complicated for basically no gain but to prove a bunch of people who repeat the same debunked crap over and over again wrong. We'll go back eventually, we just need to be able to make it worthwhile.
Sorry for the wall, but It looked painfull as a block.
TL;DR Too complicated to open source the money, cost of program would be basically the same.
0 [deleted] 2016-01-25
[deleted]
3 Cptcutter81 2016-01-25
This comparison doesn't even make sense. Because the government can spend tax money on war, everyone should donate to launch a rocket?
Not in your wildest dreams would the Apollo program's vehicles be acceptable by modern standards. That's the problem. You have to redesign everything, which pulls the costs way the fuck up.
You mean the video showing the lunar soil being flung in a way that is only possible in a vacuum, which would imply that it's either in a 100+ x 100+ vacuum chamber, or on the Moon? Yeah, saw it. Seen it before actually, it's quite breathtaking.
And for the record, the line you're talking about is a valley.
-1 [deleted] 2016-01-25
[deleted]
3 Cptcutter81 2016-01-25
Love the personal attack. Mature. The "Obvious" flat backdrop you see is most likely the result of the camera, not the actual environment. It's funny, you conveniently forget to mention the dust effect, which clearly debunks anything you're going to say.
3 subroc77 2016-01-25
If NASA does this, then we in America have paid for it. As we have paid for everything else they've done.
-2 Y_Sam 2016-01-25
The iraq war brought money, granted the general population didn't get a penny.
But yeah i don't trust much the people to donate money for a scientific achievement, especially if it's just going back to the moon again.
I'd find more likely that some billionaire will fund his own trip with SpaceX or whatever.
4 areyouhungryforapple 2016-01-25
Baseless assumptions.
Baseless assumptions everywhere
1 DontTreadOnMe16 2016-01-25
You could argue that believing we actually did go to the moon is founded on baseless assumptions... baseless assumptions everywhere.
7 Dreadpirate3 2016-01-25
You could, but you'd be wrong.
0 [deleted] 2016-01-25
[deleted]
2 Dreadpirate3 2016-01-25
"faked" evidence that has been analyzed by thousands of scientists from around the world for the last 60 years. And none of them have raised an alarm that it might be faked?
They don't "control" all the scientists in the world who would have been monitoring the launches or the data that was brought back. Scientists who would have said something in the past 60 years. Instead, all you've got is a single non peer-reviewed "paper" analyzing a single image out of the 14,000 that NASA took over the various missions.
The only deception here is your self-deception.
-1 DontTreadOnMe16 2016-01-25
You clearly have not done any research into this topic if that's all you think the argument is based on. Sounds to me like you are putting way too much emotion into your argument.
If you are actually interested in having a civil conversation about this, give this a read. It's long, but worth it. http://davesweb.cnchost.com/Apollo1.html
Edit: Or just downvote me... that works too.
3 Dreadpirate3 2016-01-25
I read that link, and there's nothing in there that I haven't heard before.
Nobody has conclusively demonstrated that merely changing the tape speed would have produced the behavior seen on the videos.
His claim about how high people might have jumped ignores the simple fact that the astronauts were wearing 200 lbs in extra gear - even with the lower gravity, I'd like to see anyone jump very high with that much extra gear on them.
Oh, and like many of the "apollo was a hoax" folks, this author completely ignores the 14,000 pictures that were taken on the various missions. Funny how that doesn't weigh in to any of his considerations.
To sum up, a lot of handwaving, a lot of "What if" or "Why this", but no actual scientific analysis or real evidence to challenge what was done.
0 DontTreadOnMe16 2016-01-25
I appreciate you taking the time to read this and respond. For the record, that link was just part 1 of 13 (just click next at the bottom of the page). The rest of the parts are extremely informative, and covered many points that I had never heard before (including your question about the pictures taken). The author does a great job at explaining his theories, the debunker's arguments, and why they don't hold water.
Please keep reading, because there is a ton of scientific analysis to challenge what was done.
2 Dreadpirate3 2016-01-25
So part two has more handwaving, including "How can something that looks like this actually land on the moon and take off again?" - which, last I checked, it not a real scientific analysis. It also has the standard claim about "untested" technology - never mind the fact that all portions of the lander were tested in various ways - including apollo 10, which tested every phase of the process except landing on the moon itself. They orbited to within 60 miles of the surface, and tested the full process that would be needed to ascend from the moon back to the command module. And despite the author's claims that "Despite the completely foreign environment, they worked perfectly the very first time and every time thereafter!", there were various incidents on almost every mission to show that not everything worked perfectly. Again, on Apollo 10 they had a malfunction with the thrusters that nearly doomed the mission.
So once again, this "scientific" analysis of the moon landings is anything but, missing incidents that it took me less than five minutes to research. I'll continue reading through at least the next part or two, but so far I can say that I am less than impressed with this "analysis".
0 DontTreadOnMe16 2016-01-25
You're cherry picking. What about the Van Allen Belts? Or the extreme changes in temperature? Or the micro space dust? Or the pictures that have the exact same background as pictures taken from different Apollo missions? Or the absence of a crater underneath the landing module? Or the fact that they were able to bring a transforming rover without making any significant changes to the spaceship they used?
I get that a lot of this is speculative, but at the same time, so is the "true" story as told by NASA. They claim to have evidence to back up the claims, but where is all of the flight data from all of the Apollo missions? Pictures can easily be photoshopped, I'd like to see some actual data.
1 Dreadpirate3 2016-01-25
I'm cherry picking? I'm only going through the pages in order, and calling out the issues I find with each one.
I'm glad you mentioned the Van Allen Belts. Here is a very good takedown of the rampant fear mongering with regards to them. It includes a very detailed analysis of the actual radiation exposure that the Apollo astronauts encountered, and found that it was well within normal limits.
I have not yet gotten to that part of the authors "debunking" of the Apollo program - I'll respond when I get to there.
Some simple research shows that they used one of the existing storage compartments on the lander module. Here is an article about it including links to official NASA documentation.
I am at work now so I can't go through any of the additional portions of the author's article at the moment, but I will go through at least one or two more and comment on them as I have time.
1 DontTreadOnMe16 2016-01-25
Greatly appreciated! I'm still completely on the fence about this whole thing, so it's nice to hear some logic from either side.
1 Dreadpirate3 2016-01-25
While I go through the next couple parts, have you any direct comments on the points I have raised?
1 DontTreadOnMe16 2016-01-25
I am also at work. Will respond later, otherwise my entire day will be shot.
1 Dreadpirate3 2016-01-25
Okay, I've had a chance to look through part 3. First half of this section is on the timing of the launches. There was a lot going on during the late 60s and early 70s and it's almost inevitable that some of the launches would be timed "conveniently" for some part of the government, at least if you are of a particularly paranoid mindset.
The second half of this section covers the van allen belt and radiation, and is almost entirely devoid of any hard, specific details on how much radiation the astronauts could expect to encounter. The link in my previous post contains a very detailed debunking of this tired argument. As far as radiation that they could encounter on the surface, that's a different matter entirely and is something that will have to be planned around, as astronauts will (hopefully!) eventually be on the surface for much longer periods of time than just a day or two.
2 Cptcutter81 2016-01-25
Except we have actual verifiable evidence that we did go to the Moon.
0 DontTreadOnMe16 2016-01-25
You mean all of the data that NASA "lost" in the 70's? Yea, totally verifiable.
Or what about the "moon rocks" that we brought back? When Holland tried to verify them, they found out it was nothing more than petrified wood.
Where is this "verifiable evidence" that you speak of? Not trying to be a dick, genuinely interested.
3 ChangeThroughTruth 2016-01-25
There are a lot of things we are told about space that do not make sense. But we are soaked in an environment where it is beyond questioning. The largest shock to my world view was when I saw the space fraud for what it was. It was like a spell was broken. It really is so thinly veiled once you allow yourself to look at it.
When I was younger, I knew that the space 'photos' taken by telescopes were not actual photos, but colorized representations. The explanation was that they had to be in order to see anything, but still I wondered why all the images were like this. I was blocked from thinking further in this line because every person around me and every media I could access never suggested the possibility of it being fraudulent. How could a thought be considered if every influence around me dismissed it as nonsense?
Most people have viewed very little of the material from NASA that is supposed to constitute proof of their achievements. We get our ideas and images of space from tv and movies. The amount of fraud in the area of 'space' is so large that I consider it an obfuscation of information pertinent to the meaning of our existence. The generally accepted cosmology is full of holes plugged by circular reasoning. Concepts are invented and presumed to exist because without them previous assumptions made no longer work. An example is "dark matter", pure pseudo-science nonsense, doubling down on previous dogma.
7 subroc77 2016-01-25
Such as?
-9 metabolix 2016-01-25
Lol
6 subroc77 2016-01-25
So nothing, gotcha.
1 Putin_loves_cats 2016-01-25
Well said, and to add to it, the Newtonian/Heliocentric sciences/math/physics/space/etc are all steeped in secret societies/the occult/ancient mystery schools. We claim to say they are evil and have alternative motives/agendas in one sense, yet at the very same time support them in other narratives. Either knowingly, or more likely, unknowingly. This is why I question (after, as you've said, woken from the trance).
0 metabolix 2016-01-25
Way to sum it up. I concur.
-2 [deleted] 2016-01-25
[deleted]
-1 GraftonVoter 2016-01-25
This has been my exact thought for years now. They want to give people who don't believe in a higher power a false hope that maybe someday we will leave earth and move on. It's not going to happen.
-1 [deleted] 2016-01-25
[deleted]
1 SilentShills 2016-01-25
Why don't you do that?
1 [deleted] 2016-01-25
[deleted]
5 SilentShills 2016-01-25
Because it's really expensive and risky. The upfront costs alone are enormous and what would happen if the rocket exploded on the launch pad and you end up live streaming the death of all the crew on board? But hey, maybe you're on to something. Why don't you try to get investors?
0 [deleted] 2016-01-25
[deleted]
6 subroc77 2016-01-25
You're calling it "extremely lucrative", but I don't see any financial proposals on your end to prove it. As a potential investor you're currently not even passing the sniff test before I send lawyers out for due diligence.
1 SilentShills 2016-01-25
I'm not saying it it was okay to do anything, but people are more likely to risk money and lives for the possible scientific benefit and the glory of being first.
The fact is why go back? We already learned a lot about the moon. We already won the glory. Why go back when we could go forward to Mars instead.
Sure I'd watch it, but I'd much rather the space agencies of the world focus on taking man to Mars or other places rather than go back to the moon and discover nothing new.
1 nmora3142 2016-01-25
Why go back? That's like people in Europe saying not to explore the new world when Columbus travelled. Except it's literally a new world. The amount of Tech and knowledge that we would develop in the process of actually colonizing the moon is worth it. To think they figured it out 40 years ago, did it 6 times with no problem, while we still have trouble getting to low earth orbit... Right
4 SilentShills 2016-01-25
Except there is nothing but dust on the moon. The new world had people and plants and animals that had never been seen. Not to mention gold and silver.
Sailing to the new world was hard, but ultimately just required building homes somewhere else that already humans were already adapted for. Colonizing the moon requires building a home in a place entirely alien to us. There is no food. No water. No air. The technology required to colonize it is far more advanced than what was required to simply visit.
If we are going to colonize anywhere, it's probably going to be a place like Mars. Where there is at least an atmosphere and a possible source of water. We may colonize the moon eventually, but until we have the technology there isn't much reason to visit.
-5 [deleted] 2016-01-25
[deleted]
5 SilentShills 2016-01-25
Well even if we did, I'm sure you wouldn't believe it. Hell I bet the only way you'd believe we were capable of space travel is if you were personally blasted to the moon and thrown out the air lock.
-2 [deleted] 2016-01-25
[deleted]
2 SilentShills 2016-01-25
To deny the moon landing and space travel requires denying a tremendous amount of evidence. I can't even comprehend the mental gymnastics you must go through to justify your position.
-3 [deleted] 2016-01-25
[deleted]
3 SilentShills 2016-01-25
Not so obvious to me. Looks like they're on a hill.
Again, not obvious to me. I'm not even sure what you're talking about.
I kind of doubt that.
No I don't.
Uhm... That doesn't look like it's been peer reviewed. I don't care if you give a paper a sciencey sounding name. That doesn't make it good science.
-1 [deleted] 2016-01-25
[deleted]
3 SilentShills 2016-01-25
Has anyone ever told you that you're really good at dealing with criticism?
1 subroc77 2016-01-25
Do tell.
Well, now that it's clearly without a doubt I guess you have a point!
LOL.
Anything approaching actual evidence?
3 subroc77 2016-01-25
Well, Europe and Columbus were talking about a new land full of resources to exploit and people to enslave.
-3 [deleted] 2016-01-25
[deleted]
3 SilentShills 2016-01-25
Ya you got me. Unfortunately my script doesn't tell me what to say when they accuse me of reading from a script.
-5 [deleted] 2016-01-25
[deleted]
1 SilentShills 2016-01-25
Edgy
1 twowayfishstick 2016-01-25
How many people would honestly buy it? I'm thinking not much, shuttles go up all the time and you never hear about them because the general public doesn't really care anymore.
-3 [deleted] 2016-01-25
[deleted]
2 twowayfishstick 2016-01-25
It'd be a roughly 8 day long event, you're vastly overestimating the general publics attention span. people would be bored 30 minutes after launch. We'd get some cool photos of the earth, some more video of people walking on the moon and then the return trip.
People wouldn't buy it, and we'd gain nothing scientifically from it. But hey, of you think there is interest why not shop the idea around to people like Elon Musk and whoever else is pioneering private space travel.
-2 [deleted] 2016-01-25
[deleted]
1 twowayfishstick 2016-01-25
I know what you meant, but again I reiterate: 8 days.
Are you going to watch all 8 days? Probably not, I'd be willing to bet you and a majority of people would watch the launch, the lunar approach and landing, lunar launch and the atmospheric reentery.
5 Putin_loves_cats 2016-01-25
The fuck are you talking about? People watch seasons of reality tv shows, and other series (spanning weeks/months). The whole SCIENCE FTW crowd, would love this and would pay for it. Hell, I'm skeptic of NASA, but even I, would pay to see it.
2 Cptcutter81 2016-01-25
They live-streamed the shuttle launches for free. Did we get the entire population of the world to watch?
No. People just don't care as much as they used to.
1 Putin_loves_cats 2016-01-25
Live stream a journey to to the moon? Didn't think so.. Back to the drawing board...
2 Cptcutter81 2016-01-25
You don't understand how boring that would be to watch. 80% of the journey would be a black screen or stars if you're lucky and the camera doesn't get contrasted to fuck by the sunlight hitting something on the ship. The landing would get views, but you would have alot of time to fill.
0 Putin_loves_cats 2016-01-25
Keep telling yourself that.
0 hologram_master 2016-01-25
How much are they paying you?
1 Cptcutter81 2016-01-25
Oh I do wish I was being paid. I could use the help covering rent. I'm just pointing out flaws in a series of incredibly overused and easily debunked arguments that state the complete opposite to what we're told by basically all of science.
2 metabolix 2016-01-25
You are so wrong. There are people who would take the entire week off to make time to watch it. Lots of the everyday crowd would watch bits and parts of it. You are dishonestly playing it down.
3 subroc77 2016-01-25
Um, I love space as much as the next guy, but get a life! Some of us like to work.
2 Cptcutter81 2016-01-25
And to make up for the 95% of the world who would simply watch the highlights on the news every night (And don't pretend it wouldn't be plastered over every news network on earth) They'd have to pay many thousands. Doesn't sound inviting.
0 halfcoop 2016-01-25
Enough to payback a trip to the moon?
1 halfcoop 2016-01-25
Yea, most would wait for the good parts to end up on the Internet anyway, their would be such a loss of profit it's not even funny
0 DirtyBird9889 2016-01-25
You know I point this out to people all the time. The damn Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter cost us $583 million. When I look up top end video camera's I am hard pressed to find one for over $1000...
WE are paying for this shit, why can't we just get a camera dedicated to viewing the earth on every single satellite. The battery on the Mars Opportunity Rover has lasted since 2003 and is still kicking so it is not like we don't have the ability to maintain a constant stream.
When I saw your post I (naively) thought to myself "Alright! ask and you shall receive!"
Well done.
The fact that the technology is so obviously there and yet we don't have it should piss people off.
1 SilentShills 2016-01-25
But what's the benefit? People aren't going to throw money at an idea like this without good reason.
-1 DirtyBird9889 2016-01-25
We throw billions of dollars at it already. I am not talking about a manned trip, I am talking about a camera that sees like you and I see.
The lunar orbiter sees and analyzes the moon in six different ways none of which actually give us an idea of what the human eye would see.
I am not suggesting that we have some startup build their own space program, I am suggesting that we start putting actual video equipment on the orbiters and satellites that we already send.
The cost of a camera and perhaps some sort of gyroscopic system that keeps it pointed in the right direction would interest enough people to pay for itself if properly marketed, and I am surely not the first guy to come up with this idea.
2 SilentShills 2016-01-25
The problem is that it's expensive. You can't just run down to best buy, grab and camera and duct tape it to a rocket. You need specialized equipment that can function in space. You need people to design that equipment. It has to go all the way to space. That's expensive. And for what purpose? To prove to conspiracy theorists that we really went to the moon? No offense, but it's just not that important.
1 Shivadxb 2016-01-25
You're not looking very hard then. It's ridiculously easy to find cameras ten times your $1000 limit.
Top tip: Best Buy don't sell many broadcast quality cameras
1 DirtyBird9889 2016-01-25
Even if its a hundred times more expensive, a $100,000 camera still fits into a $583 million budget.
If it doesn't then surely it could garner enough interest to pay for itself.
0 Romek_himself 2016-01-25
pay for itself? we have 2016 ... who the fuck care for the moon? we dont have the coldwar anymore
-1 LuketheDiggerJr 2016-01-25
Things that make you go hmmmmmmmmmmm.
Russians have never been higher in space than 475km which they accomplished in 1965! http://www.astronautix.com/articles/aststics.htm
Richard Nixon cancelled Apollo/Saturn and approved the Shuttle, keeping NASA/USA in low earth orbit for 43+ years.
Circumlunar mission is about as easy as it gets... but Russians won't risk it - even with female cosmonauts!
My best guess is that space has already been militarized and divided up between humans & aliens, and, humans have gotten the worst of the deal.
Since we can't reveal aliens explicitly (total meltdown) we have to reveal them subtly, with "disclosure" conferences and Hollywood movies.
And I do think that the flat earth/concave earth theories have already tapped into the idea that outer space is a "protected" space - no civvies allowed.
1 metabolix 2016-01-25
Disinfo aliens.
-7 subroc77 2016-01-25
Why would using 1970s technology be cheaper than a rover?
-1 [deleted] 2016-01-25
[deleted]
-1 subroc77 2016-01-25
Is anybody stopping you?
-1 [deleted] 2016-01-25
[deleted]
1 subroc77 2016-01-25
Why is it up to someone else? It's your idea, get off your couch!
-2 Y_Sam 2016-01-25
The iraq war brought money, granted the general population didn't get a penny.
But yeah i don't trust much the people to donate money for a scientific achievement, especially if it's just going back to the moon again.
I'd find more likely that some billionaire will fund his own trip with SpaceX or whatever.
2 SilentShills 2016-01-25
To deny the moon landing and space travel requires denying a tremendous amount of evidence. I can't even comprehend the mental gymnastics you must go through to justify your position.
3 subroc77 2016-01-25
If NASA does this, then we in America have paid for it. As we have paid for everything else they've done.
8 Cptcutter81 2016-01-25
There's thing thing called inflation. The Apollo program cost in today's money 110 billion dollars. So you're doing one trip, which is about 6 billion saved in the actual rockets and materials. You still have to do the R&D, you still have to build the new design, you still have to test the shit out of it, and you still have to launch it.
And don't delude yourself that we could get away with using a Saturn V again. Space safety guidelines have been increased so much in the last half-century that you'd be laughed out of the boardroom for even suggesting it. The cost of the the program would still be 100 Billion easily, provided that number didn't increase exponentially due to the higher need for safety tests.
And while I'm on the topic of money, let's do some math.
There are approximately 7.241 billion people on earth.
Every person on earth would need to pay 13 US dollars to equal 100 billion in US currency. (I'm doing ll of this in US money, to save time).
However, not every person would be in a position to pay, either economically or socially, so lets subtract them:
Take off roughly half of the Asian/Middle eastern region, due to simple lack of money, lack of ability, or lack of interest. That's around-a-bout 2.5 billion less.
Less 2/3rds of Africa (I'm being very conservative here) so that's another 800 million gone.
Then take off half of south america, again due to lack of interest or ability, which is another 210-or-so million.
Bearing in mind that there are other areas where people would have to be subtracted, such as Oceania and Europe, that totals up to basically 3.4 billion people who wouldn't be paying. That is, of course, if the Chinese government and the Russian governments allow their citizens to pay, because if they don't, that fucks the whole system much much further.
That leaves us with roughly 3.85 billion people. Ideally, they'd all pay, but let's knock off a third for people who just wont. (Again, this number would be far far higher in reality, probably closer to 2/3).
That leaves us with very roughly 2.7 billion people. This brings each persons total to about 40 US dollars, which would turn even more people off, increasing the total, which would turn more people off..... e.t.c.
You see where I'm going with this? With a government paying half, it's still be too needlessly economically complicated to organize, and you'd basically be adding the equivalent of shareholders to the project, getting angry when delays occur, and god forbid there's an accident, or everyone leaves and you're fucked.
The reason no one has organised this is the same as no one has gone back to the moon. It's too complicated for basically no gain but to prove a bunch of people who repeat the same debunked crap over and over again wrong. We'll go back eventually, we just need to be able to make it worthwhile.
Sorry for the wall, but It looked painfull as a block.
TL;DR Too complicated to open source the money, cost of program would be basically the same.