- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 4/7/26 at 8:35 am to TigerGman
Posted on 4/7/26 at 8:36 am to ChatGPT of LA
quote:
On the moon trip, they didnt. At least not failures.
Sure they did. Look at what happened with Apollo 13 and to a lesser extent Apollo 12. Both of those were moon missions that had significant issues that could have cost lives. Apollo 12 was seconds away from a full abort seconds after liftoff. It was save thanks to the quick thinking of John Arron.
This post was edited on 4/7/26 at 8:38 am
Posted on 4/7/26 at 8:37 am to TigerGman
For some people, it matters less what you do to get attention, as long as you get it.
Posted on 4/7/26 at 8:38 am to Lonnie Utah
quote:and therefore he is CONDEMNED TO REPEAT IT
Just shows you don't know history
Posted on 4/7/26 at 8:53 am to Lonnie Utah
quote:
On the moon trip
quote:
Sure they did
No they didn't. They did those things on OTHER trips. Not on the successful moon landing trip we've been discussing.
But carry on with whatever makes your point
Posted on 4/7/26 at 9:01 am to ShoeBang
quote:you’re being dumb now. I think skeptics of the moon landing have some fair arguments. The best evidence I’ve ever been witness to is a pic I saw of the supposed lunar craft on the moon from the Indian space program hard stop. even though I believe the moon landing happened from the history I’ve been taught I’ve seen interviews from our own astronauts that make me skeptical. The one where Buzz tells a child we didn’t go to the moon is certainly one of them. The press interview they did after they returned from the mission where they all looked like they were in the principals office as opposed to achieving the greatest feat in the history of mankind was another.
Do you believe World War 2 was real or are you open minded about it because it didn’t happen in your specific lifetime?
To borrow a line from these types: I’m just asking questions.
the van allen radiation belt was another one of those arguments and I applaud Artemis mission for finally making a return trip for my generation and I accept it does prove a manned mission to the moon is possible but to OPs boasting that I replied to, I don’t think doing that today proves we got through it and also landed on the moon 60 years ago. I was wondering if I missed Artemis’ own photographs.
Posted on 4/7/26 at 9:04 am to Sam Quint
quote:
you are asking me to believe we landed on the moon by insisting that i now also believe that the Artemis II did a flyby on a free return trajectory?
No, no, no - you misunderstand me. You don't have to believe anything. The evidence is fairly clear, but I'm not twisting anyone's arm.
Don't believe if you don't want to.
Posted on 4/7/26 at 9:09 am to ChatGPT of LA
quote:
On the moon trip
Which one? There were 6 you know. (Or maybe you don't...)
Posted on 4/7/26 at 9:10 am to ChatGPT of LA
quote:That was because they had freezing temps the night before. Some warned that it might be an issue.
O rings failing in the 80s
Posted on 4/7/26 at 9:12 am to Lonnie Utah
11
Thanks for your input. Fantastic
Thanks for your input. Fantastic
Posted on 4/7/26 at 9:14 am to ChatGPT of LA
quote:
No they didn't. They did those things on OTHER trips. Not on the successful moon landing trip we've been discussing.
Apollo 12 was a moon landing and Apollo 13 was supposed to be a moon landing.
Posted on 4/7/26 at 9:14 am to nes2010
quote:
It was not once. Apollo 11-17.
Ok. Question still remains. 1972 was the last time we landed on the moon. Why is the result not replicatable today? Again, I'm not making an argument one way or the other, but from a logical aspect, we have advanced quite a bit since 1972. . . Why is getting back to the moon not routine procedure by now.
Posted on 4/7/26 at 9:15 am to ChatGPT of LA
So the fact that NASA extensively tested the equipment, ran thousands of simulations and rehearsed every contingency they could think of in advance of the most watched space mission of all time and it didn't have any failures while other missions did, that is your point?
Ok.
Ok.
This post was edited on 4/7/26 at 9:18 am
Posted on 4/7/26 at 9:17 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
No, no, no - you misunderstand me. You don't have to believe anything. The evidence is fairly clear, but I'm not twisting anyone's arm. Don't believe if you don't want to.
I'm kidding. I believe we landed on the moon. I just think it's funny that the premise of the thread is that the evidence of the moon landing is additional moon travel
Posted on 4/7/26 at 9:22 am to TigerGman
quote:
So how do all you moon landing deny imbeciles like your crow?
They'll never eat crow.
You could take them to the Moon, show them each of the six landing sites, and they'll just say NASA secretly landed all of that gear the previous week just to deceive them.
quote:
Ok. Question still remains. 1972 was the last time we landed on the moon. Why is the result not replicatable today? Again, I'm not making an argument one way or the other, but from a logical aspect, we have advanced quite a bit since 1972. . . Why is getting back to the moon not routine procedure by now.
Money. It's all about funding, and the will of the government and the people.
So Apollo is cancelled after 17. The shuttle is on the horizon. NASA's budget gets slashed. Contractors are dropped.
Then people say, "why did we have to design a new rocket? Just build more Saturn V's!"
We couldn't build more Saturn V's because the ability to do so was lost. All of the materials and equipment needed to construct a Saturn V was destroyed or repurposed. Why would a contractor undergo the expense of maintaining all of that "just in case" we decide to use it again?
It was all gone. We had to start from scratch.
So why did it take so long? Again, money. Again, the will (or need) to go. Different attitudes and culture today. Many factors.
Look at the show "For All Mankind." One thing that was kind of below the radar but mentioned was that the NASA in that show became more or less self-funded because the government allowed NASA to patent and profit off of the new technologies they developed. If we had done that and didn't depend totally on politicians to fund NASA we would have been running laps around Mars years ago.
This post was edited on 4/7/26 at 9:35 am
Posted on 4/7/26 at 9:23 am to RedPants
quote:
Most of these hard lined conspiracy theorists are easy to explain. Deeply insecure about their own capabilities, probably well aware they are a little slower than most, so they cling to ideas that make them feel smarter than everyone else, provide them with some superiority. At it’s core, holding so tightly to those ideas is a coping mechanism.
Have a buddy who is completely the opposite of this. one of the smartest guys I know. Good at his job, can rebuild a motor, good carpenter, just good at a lot of things. But the guy believes about every conspiracy theory that has ever existed. Blows my mind. Certainly not a coping mechanism for talentless insecurity as he's pretty cocky.
Posted on 4/7/26 at 9:31 am to iwyLSUiwy
quote:
But the guy believes about every conspiracy theory that has ever existed
I think there's a difference between believing every conspiracy theory and being skeptical of "accepted" history.
I look at it like this.... Think of how confusing and chaotic the world is today. All of the wars, the domestic news stories, Epstein, etc etc etc. A hundred years from now, history books will exist that say "this is what happened in 2026". What confidence do you have that these future history books will be able to say authoritatively what happened in 2026?
The world was just as confusing in the sixties.
This post was edited on 4/7/26 at 9:32 am
Posted on 4/7/26 at 9:34 am to TheFonz
quote:
We couldn't build more Saturn V's because the ability to do so was lost. All of the materials and equipment needed to construct a Saturn V was destroyed or repurposed. Why would a contractor undergo the expense of maintaining all of that "just in case" we decide to use it again?
I don't blame them, really, "regular folks", I mean. The average person just doesn't appreciate the logistics behind such an endeavor. A person might work in, say, Wal-Mart's supply chain and still not appreciate the "system of systems" that retail giant consists of.
Now consider half a million people working in dozens of states for hundreds of contractors and subcontractors to build the most sophisticated machines ever imagined. THEN, almost all of that goes away with the pivot to the Shuttle. The technology was not lost, but the capacity was.
Remember Rome? They didn't forget how to be the Roman Empire. They lost the capacity to maintain it.
Posted on 4/7/26 at 9:36 am to Sam Quint
quote:
The world was just as confusing in the sixties.
History repeats itself.
1968.
Political strife. Social strife. Crime. War. Assassinations. We send Apollo 8 around the Moon.
2026.
Political strife. Social strife. Crime. War. Assassinations. We send Artemis II around the Moon.
Page 3 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News