- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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
re: You Moon landing deniers are all complete idiots...
Posted on 12/23/25 at 12:11 am to manwich
Posted on 12/23/25 at 12:11 am to manwich
quote:
you have the answer but feel free to revel in your willful ignorance. it can be tough to let go of fun beliefs
Look you smug frick. I've repeatedly given you links and answers throughout the thread. While you've only come in with cute little quips for your beloved 2 upvotes per post.
You have no substance. And you can find that information relatively easy.
The same way I told you on the first post a few pages back that you questioned me on. Then I provided links, and you pivoted, then I explained, and you pivoted, now you want me to jump through more hoops? This time you'll just attack the source, right?
GFY you're boring me now.
2
Posted on 12/23/25 at 12:17 am to Errerrerrwere
quote:
Correct. Because in your own hubris you mentioned Saturn V. Elon will be using his starship technology. Now, tell the class how you really have no fricking idea about this subject and should just bow out of it now.
Idiot.
A simple X search would have done you good. Idiot thinks we are going to the moon in a rocket meant to lift satellites
Frick off you clueless moron. You said:
quote:
But they did it with no refueling in a tin can with duct tape and electrical tape?
Saturn V was not designed to be refueled because it didn't need to be you moron. It was entirely expended in stages on a one trip and back, with only the Command Module left to splash down in the ocean.
YOU so cluelessly compared it to Musk needing to refuel his Starship just to make it to the moon and back. Look you dullard, the Musk Starship is designed to return to Earth fully intact and this REQUIRES multiple refueling...
Your own comparison example proves beyond a doubt you are severely mentally challenged.
Posted on 12/23/25 at 12:21 am to Errerrerrwere
the difference is that your links only referred to NASA's evaluations of the much different Musk mission, not the Apollo fuel needs.
They are completely different payload and landing scenarios and are irrelevant to proving whether a moon landing happened or not.
If that's your confusion, then congrats. We helped someone today
They are completely different payload and landing scenarios and are irrelevant to proving whether a moon landing happened or not.
If that's your confusion, then congrats. We helped someone today
Posted on 12/23/25 at 12:21 am to Crimson1st
quote:
you cannot make a single logical argument why we would lie about that.
I’m split on the subject but if you think being the first to the Moon and flexing like that was not HUGE on the Cold War scene, you’re fooling yourself. That’s ample motivation there easily.
? wtf? So if it was such a huge deal, why didn't the Russians call the US out for lying?
Riddle me that batman...
Posted on 12/23/25 at 12:24 am to TigerGman
quote:
Frick off you clueless moron. You said:
This has been the basis of your argument for hours now. You've brought nothing to the table.
quote:
You said: quote:But they did it with no refueling in a tin can with duct tape and electrical tape?
They say sarcasm is a trait of intelligence and creativity. You have neither. Which is why it went over your head.
quote:
Saturn V was not designed to be refueled because it didn't need to be you moron. It was entirely expended in stages on a one trip and back, with only the Command Module left to splash down in the ocean.
Exactly. That's wasn't the point of my argument. But then again, you spent the last four hours questioning my education and calling me a moron to even find out.
quote:
YOU so cluelessly compared it to Musk needing to refuel his Starship just to make it to the moon and back. Look you dullard, the Musk Starship is designed to return to Earth fully intact and this REQUIRES multiple refueling...
No. Musk is saying he needs multiple refueling to get to the moon. NASA SAID 20 (which is what I questioned)
Again, you had no clue what I was even talking about hours ago, and you still don't. You don't see how this is tiresome?
quote:
Your own comparison example proves beyond a doubt you are severely mentally challenged.
You keep saying that without bringing anything to the table. All you are is a "trust me bro cuz things"
I am absolutely certain your kids have never been on an Honor Roll and never will be. Their dad is lazy. That's a fact.
And they will be too.
Posted on 12/23/25 at 12:27 am to Errerrerrwere
quote:not if it's legit and relevant
now you want me to jump through more hoops? This time you'll just attack the source, right?
I'm not seeing the connection between Apollo and Musk's missions that you leaned on.
quote:guilty as charged
Look you smug frick
Posted on 12/23/25 at 12:27 am to STLDawg
quote:
The leadership of the Soviet Union was looking for a way out of the space race. It was bankrupting their nation. That’s why they didn’t call the US bluff with the fake landing.
So at the height of the ColdWar they let the United Sates lie about the most remarkable achievement in the history of Mankind? That's your argument? LMAO!
This post was edited on 12/23/25 at 12:28 am
Posted on 12/23/25 at 12:34 am to manwich
quote:
the difference is that your links only referred to NASA's evaluations of the much different Musk mission, not the Apollo fuel needs.
Right. The fact is that they need 20X more fuel. That threw up a flag to me. Knowing that technology is way more efficient today then it was then; it made me question if we ever went.
quote:
They are completely different payload and landing scenarios and are irrelevant to proving whether a moon landing happened or not.
I'm not so sure. Saturn was enormous. And again, you're going to expend it no matter what to get orbit. On the starship OR Saturn. Then you need 20 refuels once in orbit!
The Saturn rocket used 70-80% of its fuel overcoming escape velocity. btw.
Elon needs to figure out what they were doing 60 years ago. TWENTY refuels?
This post was edited on 12/23/25 at 12:35 am
Posted on 12/23/25 at 12:35 am to TigerGman
quote:
So at the height of the ColdWar they let the United Sates lie about the most remarkable achievement in the history of Mankind? That's your argument? LMAO!
I don't see you making any argument in this thread.
Posted on 12/23/25 at 12:36 am to Errerrerrwere
quote:do you realize you questioned the Apollo mission veracity because of musk and nasa's fuel estimations for a different mission with different scenarios multiple times?
Errerrerrwere
the constant insults and 'you're boring me' lines don't make you look superior btw
Posted on 12/23/25 at 12:38 am to manwich
quote:
do you realize you questioned the Apollo mission veracity because of musk and nasa's fuel estimations for a different mission with different scenarios multiple times?
Do you realize that you guys are saying the rocket needed 45k kg of fuel to get to the moon?
And you guys started with the insults.
And I'm still fascinated that we need 20 times the energy today to make it to the moon then we did SIXTY years ago.
We must be bringing NFL stadiums up in those payloads.
Posted on 12/23/25 at 12:39 am to Errerrerrwere
quote:
I am absolutely certain your kids have never been on an Honor Roll and never will be. Their dad is lazy. That's a fact.
WTF you talking about? I never once questioned your education. But after seeing your clueless comparison of a massively heavy full intact Starship, to a designed to expendable Saturn V, (which you STILL haven't defended), I'm pretty sure you should sue LSU for giving you a diploma...
And I'll never donate to the engineering dept again.
Posted on 12/23/25 at 12:40 am to TigerGman
quote:
WTF you talking about? I never once questioned your education. But after seeing your clueless comparison of a massively heavy full intact Starship, to a designed to expendable Saturn V, (which you STILL haven't defended), I'm pretty sure you should sue LSU for giving you a diploma... And I'll never donate to the engineering dept again.
I don't even read this tripe man.
Come with an argument or quit following me around like a lost puppy. It's fricking boring.
Posted on 12/23/25 at 12:43 am to Errerrerrwere
quote:2.8 million kg
Do you realize that you guys are saying the rocket needed 45k kg of fuel to get to the moon?
remember?
Posted on 12/23/25 at 12:50 am to manwich
Yeah. I got the payload mixed up with 45kg. But I'm still reading they used 4M gallons. Anyway, I hope we get back to the moon one day and then to Mars.
I believe Elon can do it.
I believe Elon can do it.
Posted on 12/23/25 at 12:54 am to TigerGman
February 1971, was part of USMC Security for Apollo 14 recovery and all I got was this coffee mug, and a long ride aboard the USS New Orleans, returning to our home base, Marine Barracks Pearl Harbor.
The three astronauts (a.k.a. actors to some) were choppered off a few days after recovery to American Samoa. The command module and quarantine trailer (looked like an Airstream) remained until offloaded in Pearl.
The three astronauts (a.k.a. actors to some) were choppered off a few days after recovery to American Samoa. The command module and quarantine trailer (looked like an Airstream) remained until offloaded in Pearl.
Posted on 12/23/25 at 12:55 am to Errerrerrwere
quote:
I don't even read this tripe man.
Come with an argument or quit following me around like a lost puppy. It's fricking boring.
ONCE AGAIN --defend this-- After seeing your clueless comparison of a massively heavy full intact Starship, to a designed to expendable Saturn V, (which you STILL haven't defended),
Oh , and you need to sue your 5th grade elementary school for socially promoting you out of basic reading comprehension 101
Posted on 12/23/25 at 12:59 am to Mr Breeze
quote:
February 1971, was part of USMC Security for Apollo 14 recovery and all I got was this coffee mug, and a long ride aboard the USS New Orleans, returning to our home base, M
Great lifetime memory huh?
Thanks for posting it
Posted on 12/23/25 at 1:02 am to TigerGman
I've only argued that we needed 20 times more fuel in orbit with twice the payload. To go the same distance. That is the only thing I questioned. I dont know that I'm convinced.
This is rich. Coming from the guy who typed this out.
quote:
Oh , and you need to sue your 5th grade elementary school for socially promoting you out of basic reading comprehension 101
This is rich. Coming from the guy who typed this out.
quote:
After seeing your clueless comparison of a massively heavy full intact Starship, to a designed to expendable Saturn V, (which you STILL haven't defended),
This post was edited on 12/23/25 at 1:03 am
Posted on 12/23/25 at 1:05 am to TigerGman
How massively heavy was it man?
Really really really really really heavy?
must have been sooooo heavy, dooooooood!
Really really really really really heavy?
must have been sooooo heavy, dooooooood!
Page 11 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News