- 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
re: You Moon landing deniers are all complete idiots...
Posted on 12/23/25 at 1:12 am to Errerrerrwere
Posted on 12/23/25 at 1:12 am to Errerrerrwere
Since you can't comprehend basic concepts in writing let me play show and tell it the simplest way possible:
This is a Saturn V rocket. See that tiny piece at the top, the Command module?,to avoid the massive fuel requirements to bring it back intact ( let alone how to land it intact), it was designed to only come back in smaller and smaller expendable stages along the way, thus so greatly lightening the fuel requirements to totally avoid the refueling problem.
Musk is bringing This whole massive thing back to earth intact -retard..
This is a Saturn V rocket. See that tiny piece at the top, the Command module?,to avoid the massive fuel requirements to bring it back intact ( let alone how to land it intact), it was designed to only come back in smaller and smaller expendable stages along the way, thus so greatly lightening the fuel requirements to totally avoid the refueling problem.
Musk is bringing This whole massive thing back to earth intact -retard..
This post was edited on 12/23/25 at 6:52 am
0
Posted on 12/23/25 at 1:17 am to Errerrerrwere
quote:
How massively heavy was it man?
Really really really really really heavy? must have been sooooo heavy, dooooooood!
Must have been, what do you mean MUST have been, I was clearly referring to Starship being massively heavy, not Saturn V, as it was designed to become lighter and lighter during its trip to the Moon and Back.
Stop embarrassing yourself..
This post was edited on 12/23/25 at 1:22 am
Posted on 12/23/25 at 1:17 am to Errerrerrwere
quote:3100 tons to starship's 5000 tons
How massively heavy was it man?
I guess the added weight at liftoff and escape plus low g landing plus low g liftoff plus return plus landing on earth needs that much more. The initial liftoff and escape would account for a significant increase but 20 refuelings does seem excessive, but I'm no rocket scientist
Posted on 12/23/25 at 1:17 am to Snipe
quote:Not trying to make you feel old but some of those 'kids' are pushing 60 now.
It's largely kids who weren't alive when the US made it's moon landings
Posted on 12/23/25 at 1:24 am to Errerrerrwere
quote:Let me tell you what Starship is packin' right here, all right. We got 4:11 Positrac outback, 750 double pumper, Edelbrock intake, bored over 30, 11 to 1 pop-up pistons, turbo-jet 390 horsepower. We're talkin' some frickin' muscle.
And I'm still fascinated that we need 20 times the energy today to make it to the moon
Posted on 12/23/25 at 1:29 am to CAD703X
quote:They used silver-zinc batteries, not car batteries. High energy density, one-time-use, heavily insulated, and thermally managed for a mission that lasted days.
Cameras and moon buggies with 1960s battery tech that could drive for miles on the lunar surface at -200 degrees. I need those batteries in my 4Runner. It can't handle a couple 15 degrees days
Your 4Runner uses lead-acid, sits cold-soaked overnight, and has constant parasitic draw. Both batteries, but completely different tech.
Posted on 12/23/25 at 1:41 am to CAD703X
quote:Not 75 bytes. About 2 KB RAM, 36 KB ROM, and nonstop ground support. Simple hardware, narrow tasks, no graphics, no OS, no multitasking. Purpose-built computers doing a narrowly defined job with minimal memory isn't magic.
Oh and 75 bytes of ram to write the code to blast off, separate modules, fly directly to moon, separate again, land on the moon, take off from the moon, reconnect to orbiter, fly a straight line back to Earth and land in the ocean.
That's hella efficient code.
Posted on 12/23/25 at 1:42 am to Errerrerrwere
quote:
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.
Well you are wrong.
quote:
Yes, NASA officials have indicated that a Starship Human Landing System (HLS) mission to the Moon for Artemis could require around 20 total Starship launches, with many being tanker flights to build up fuel in orbit for the lander, though SpaceX aims for fewer by optimizing fuel transfer and ship design, with estimates ranging from 8-12 tanker flights to potentially 20
20 more LAUNCHES to bring enough fuel to refill the moon Starship. It's not like they are needing 20 full Starships to get there.
Musk is looking to haul 150,000 tonnes to the moon. Apollo could handle 100,000 lbs.
Starship itself will land on, and take back off from, the moon...how much more fuel does it use than the tiny lander Apollo used?
This is really not that complicated.
Posted on 12/23/25 at 1:58 am to manwich
quote:
Let me tell you what Starship is packin' right here, all right. We got 4:11 Positrac outback, 750 double pumper, Edelbrock intake, bored over 30, 11 to 1 pop-up pistons, turbo-jet 390 horsepower. We're talkin' some frickin' muscle.
Posted on 12/23/25 at 2:01 am to tigerbait17
quote:
I'm not saying it didn't happen, but.... You are telling me that in 1969 we went to the moon and have never once gone back??? Why not???
Unaware we went back multiple times. Finds it deeply troubling.
Posted on 12/23/25 at 4:41 am to tigerbait17
quote:
You are telling me that in 1969 we went to the moon and have never once gone back??? Why not???
After the Apollo 11 landing in July 1969, we landed again on the Moon in the following months and years:
Apollo 12 - November 1969
Apollo 14 - February 1971
Apollo 15 - July 1971
Apollo 16 - April 1972
Apollo 17 - December 1972
Posted on 12/23/25 at 6:55 am to northshorebamaman
quote:The boundless ignorance of these clueless deniers is hilarious. Know NOTHING of what they are talking about, but will insist it didn't happen!
Unaware we went back multiple times. Finds it deeply troubling.
Posted on 12/23/25 at 6:58 am to DMAN1968
quote:
Apollo could handle 100,000 lbs.
Found the idiot
Posted on 12/23/25 at 6:59 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.
The Soviets spent Billions of Rubles per year through the 1970s & 1980s on their space program.
Way to “get out” of the space race.
PS: You are a moran.
Posted on 12/23/25 at 7:10 am to TigerGman
quote:
you cannot make a single logical argument why we would lie about that
Horrible logic.
It must be true because they would not lie about it?
Posted on 12/23/25 at 7:17 am to novabill
quote:
Horrible logic.
It must be true because they would not lie about it?
Make YOUR argument then numbnutts.
Why would we lie and risk being exposed by the Commies? All at the height of the propaganda driven Space race and the Cold War?
Why has no one involved in the greatest lie in the history of mankind not confessed, even on their death bed? From the thousands that had to know, from the President down to the maid that wiped the shite stains out of the toilets on the "Fake" Moon landing sets.
This post was edited on 12/23/25 at 7:19 am
Posted on 12/23/25 at 7:22 am to TigerGman
This thread is 12 pages long. Holy shite.
Time to get off this site.
Time to get off this site.
Posted on 12/23/25 at 7:26 am to soccerfüt
I wish I was a Moran….isn’t that one of those rich families that donate a shite ton to LSU?
Posted on 12/23/25 at 8:34 am to manwich
Again it ain't mathing my guy.
If we dumb it down to more weight equals more fuel and more fuel equals more weight, the...
Still doesn't get to 20X the amount of fuel needed opposed to the previous trip.
After you've reached exit velocity the decline in production would be exponential for the rest of the trip.
But we need 20X more fuel while in orbit to get us there and back.
To get there you would need fuel to decelerate and coming back you would be in earth's pull.
So. Where is the 20X the original trips coming from? The 20x is TO GET THERE btw.
If we dumb it down to more weight equals more fuel and more fuel equals more weight, the...
quote:
3100 tons to starship's 5000 tons
Still doesn't get to 20X the amount of fuel needed opposed to the previous trip.
After you've reached exit velocity the decline in production would be exponential for the rest of the trip.
But we need 20X more fuel while in orbit to get us there and back.
To get there you would need fuel to decelerate and coming back you would be in earth's pull.
So. Where is the 20X the original trips coming from? The 20x is TO GET THERE btw.
Posted on 12/23/25 at 10:24 am to Mr Breeze
One fundamental aspect overlooked by deniers is the highly qualified makeup of the original Mercury 7 astronauts, most who continued to Apollo.
Required to be military test pilots, most with engineering degrees, about half combat experienced pilots. These were serious men who understood the risks.
The question: who convinced them to "be in on the fraud" and stay silent the rest of their lives?
These men are not remotely likely to participate in a fraud for the ages.
The other element lacking in belief of "moon landing fraud" is the absence of basic engineering, physics and orbital mechanics explanations backing up their assertions. Recognize and can explain the implications of this image, in particular L2?
If not, then I'm not listening to you. Well, I'm not listening to you regardless because....
Required to be military test pilots, most with engineering degrees, about half combat experienced pilots. These were serious men who understood the risks.
The question: who convinced them to "be in on the fraud" and stay silent the rest of their lives?
These men are not remotely likely to participate in a fraud for the ages.
The other element lacking in belief of "moon landing fraud" is the absence of basic engineering, physics and orbital mechanics explanations backing up their assertions. Recognize and can explain the implications of this image, in particular L2?
If not, then I'm not listening to you. Well, I'm not listening to you regardless because....
Page 12 of 22
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News