re: So how do all you moon landing deny imbeciles like your crow?

I agree that what we do today has nothing to do with whether we walked on the moon or not.

I have no doubt we, Russia, and China have landed unmanned probes on the moon. You can see the junk everyone left behind.

But to land astronauts on the moon, have them get out and and drive a Moon buggy around, then successfully take off and mate with the orbiting craft and successfully return to Earth is harder to wrap one’s mind around. If you watch the videos of the astronauts on the moon, half the time they are acting like 6 year olds giggling and playing grabass. That seems strange for what we were told were some of the most buttoned down men in the world in a terrifying environment where failure of just one component meant certain death. That also seems strange to me.

It doesn’t help that the video of them on the rover looks like something filmed on a hand me down camcorder from the early 80s. It is like watching a homemade “movie” filmed by 11 year olds. I kept waiting for one of them to drop a Mentos into a crater filled with Coca Cola so we could see a volcano erupt.

The last two US missions to land an unmanned probe on the moon, in 2024 and 2025, were both failures. But they nailed it in the late 60s and early 70s.

But the government would never lie. And there were not a whole lot of other “conspiracies” from the 60s that people question - JFK, RFK, MLK and Malcolm X assassinations, MKULTRA, Tuskegee Experiment, Cuba, Bay of Pigs, Operations Northwoods, and Operation Mockingbird. No, the US government was on it’s best behavior in the 1960’s and would have never lied to the American people.

Do one of you moon landing experts know how much fuel and oxygen the lunar lander needed to carry in order to take off from the moon?

quote:

---

They tested the lunar module in Earth orbit (Apollo 9) and a full dress rehearsal without landing (Apollo 10).

---

So they never fully tested the lunar module until they actually used it on the surface of the moon.

NASA had numerous issues with taking off from the earth. Despite launch facilities and thousands of ground support. A crew was killed on the launch pad. Numerous launches were scrubbed because of mechanical issues. But we went 6 for 6 on takeoffs from the moon with no launch facilities or ground support on the moon.

NASA had catastrophic failures in almost every facet of the moon landing missions but one - landing and taking off from the moon. The one facet we couldn’t really test or practice they nailed 100% of the time. That is very fortunate.

quote:

---

I want to know how the flat earthers are feeling

---

Same as every day. They'll just put on those velcro strap shoes and safety helmet to go spread the good word of flat earth at their local walmark.

quote:

---

Do one of you moon landing experts know how much fuel and oxygen the lunar lander needed to carry in order to take off from the moon?

---

Well for one, the engine didn’t use oxygen.

quote:

---

So all the telemetry data just disappeared on its own? It just went “poof” and ceased to exist? Strange indeed.

---

What are you talking about?

Are you referring to the original magnetic telemetry tapes? They were erased and reused as part of standard practice.

But the actual data was captured on other mediums first. It wasn’t lost. The one exception is a slow scan which could have been cleaned up with modern technology but the same footage still exists.

quote:

---

So they never fully tested the lunar module until they actually used it on the surface of the moon.

---

What are you calling “fully tested?”


The whole point of Apollo 10 was to test everything on it but actually landing. A total of 4 missions had elements of LM testing in it.

No, they didn’t land on the moon to prepare for landing on the moon.

quote:

---

Well for one, the engine didn’t use oxygen.

---

The engine used Aerozine 50 fuel and N2O4.

Guess what the O in N2O4 stands for?

So yeah, they did use oxygen. And they had to bring it with them.

are there a lot of moon landing deniers on TD?

quote:

---

What are you calling “fully tested?”

---

Actually using it in a full dress rehearsal. We couldn’t test the two most delicate manuevers, landing and taking back off, here on earth because of the vastly different atmospheres and gravity.

They got lucky. NASA had problems and had to go back to the drawing board for many of their components and modules. And they still had accidents, sometimes fatal, on components they had tested and refined repeatedly. But the lunar module, which couldn’t be fully tested, worked perfectly every time. That is very fortuitous.

quote:

---

But the lunar module, which couldn’t be fully tested, worked perfectly every time. That is very fortuitous.

---

Apollo 11 had numerous errors and faults on landing. A minute or two before touchdown the guidance computer failed due to not being able to interpret radar input properly.

Lunar module was over engineered to serve a single and temporary purpose. The design parameters allowed them to pick more reliable but less functional elements. Don’t need fuel cells, we’ll take single use batteries. Don’t need to use the ascent engine multiple times, so just make it click on and go.

The CM/SM couldn’t be.

quote:

---

But I do find it odd that we were able to land on the moon once, and with all the advancement in technology, we have not been able to do it again.

---

Why would doing it again be more of scientific feat than the multitudes of probes NASA subsequently launched into space for purposes of mapping distant celestial bodies? We have a space vehicle rolling around Mars. Making the argument that we should have continued to do the same thing over and over isn't a good one.

quote:

---

You actually believe it’s odd they didn’t practice landing on the moon……by landing on the moon.

---

No, I find it odd that the most successful facet of these missions was the facet that couldn’t be tested and refined. They just made their best guesses and rolled with it.

They got very lucky.