You must log in or register to comment.
Still the biggest proof that it was real, the Soviets would’ve called out on the bluff
I typically use this line but I don’t know that the Soviets had the technology to track the flight completely at the time or to verify the landing.
The Russians kicked our* asses all through the Space Race. I’m sure they could at least intercept comms and look through their telescopes.
It was the nicest thing the USSR ever did for us. Borrowing from a blog piece I did, Eisenhower freaked out over the successful launch and orbit of Sputnik 1. Ike passed the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 [… and secured] a grant extended to Fairchild Semiconductor to further its development on the transistor… in the fecund economy of California.
Hence the US is now the big tech capitol of the world (though depending more and more on patents rather than innovation since the 2010s, so maybe not for long.)
While it’s definitely true they could’ve intercepted comms, I don’t know that they did do that. And telescopes would only get them to confirming things up to orbit probably.
I still think it’s likely they knew it was real, I’ve just never been able to confirm that they did for myself and so the argument I’m using it much weaker without that piece of evidence. Not to mention that Russia has had state actors promoting the conspiracy theory in recent years which makes things confusing
Well it’s certainly not proof per se*, but considering all the bugs and spies the USSR planted it seems like a no brainer that they would be listening in on any and all unencrypted over the air communications.
Just FYI, the phrase is “per se”, not “per say”. It’s Latin for “by itself”.
Just FYI, Not according to my android keyboard’s autocorrect.
Maybe it has learned from previous occasions. Mine doesn’t suggest either option.
If I remember correctly, it was pretty easy to intercept the communications. The Americans also dropped a few mirrors on the moon and the Soviets used them to fire lasers at the moon.
Not only intercept, but they could easily check if the signal was coming from the Moon.
What they couldn’t do was get a photo of the ship.
Pretty sure they had the radio technology to intercept the radio communications and validate that they actually went far enough to reach the moon.
They absolutely had the tech to point a big antenna at the moon and listen in on communications and watch the video broadcasts.
It is impossible to fake something has thousands of people that are “in on it” and even today thousands of scientists (and maybe everybody with a slightly better telescope/laser? Unsure) would somehow need to be part of it because you can just use a telescope to see the stuff that was left behind and the laser reflectors are being used today. There’s absolutely no chance it’s not real.
That’s quite a dangerous way to judge if something is true or not. Basically saying that if most people go along with it then it’s true. That it not always the case…
Haha! But jokes aside, that’s not a proof that people have been on the moon. There could be many reasons why the Soviets did not call it out.
Name one.
Why is it when someone says “many reasons” it usually means “I can’t think of a specific reason, but I’m sure there are bunches of them”.
deleted by creator
I thought it was racism
Its racists in tinfoil hats.
deleted by creator
England seems to have you guys beat if the past couple of days are anything to go by.
like little hershey’s kisses filled with turd nuggets
deleted by creator
I know someone working in a pharmaceutical lab that believed climate change was fake because the atmosphere on Mars was mostly CO2 and it wasn’t hot there.
God save us from the kakistocracy.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
You’d be surprised how conspiratorial scientists are - especially if it’s outside their domain.
You’d think more deference to experts would be the default mode… just because I took one physics class does not make me an expert on climatology or the green house effect
Well, someone who believes it was faked is crediting his side with that 13%. You’re gonna trust the numbers of someone who thinks the moon landing was faked?
deleted by creator
Couldnt he percentage just be false?
Also, where did you get the 4.2 million US citizens from? Im pretty sure 13% is much higher
deleted by creator
did you know that 74% of statistics are made up on the spot?
Iirc that’s also the percentage of Americans who are functionally illiterateLooked it up, it’s worse.
I think it doesn’t actually matter whether it happened, but whether the technology to do it existed at that time. And they surely did.
To build on this: The technology to fake it didn’t exist back then.
Did you know that you can take a telescope and LOOK AT THE LANDING SITES ON THE MOON?
If you can afford the simple equipment necessary, you can literally send and receive a ping to a device left at one of the landing sites that proves without a doubt we have been there.
I’m not a radio engineer, but my understanding is you’re just bouncing signals off the moon itself, there isn’t a device that echos the signal back or anything. There are mirrors on the moon to reflect lasers back though.
They left a couple retro reflectors on the moon during the moon landings so we can bounce lasers off them to accurately measure the distance to the moon.
I think that’s what they meant, cuz a ping to a radio device wouldn’t prove much, just that you are getting signals from up there. A laser would prove definitively.
Couldn’t such device be delivered without people, like a remotely controlled rover? How does that prove that people made an actual landing on the Moon?
Because there’s like 6 of em, and we know exactly which mission launched each one.
You are correct, it proves nothing. None of these things prove that people have been on the moon. Unless you want it to. Then anything is proof 😅
Yea shure you guys think that nasa was able to land something on the moon with either remote control or fully automated and then after a sucessfull landing of a unmanned craft deploy a mirror angled so you can bounce back laser but you also say that PEOPLE were never up there? What is even needed as proof for you people?
deleted by creator
You’d need either the biggest space telescope ever that doesn’t yet exist, or a lunar orbiter. The latter is how other space agencies have taken pictures of the landing sites.
Now I’m curious, what’s the resolution (like in meters) of a good home pro telescope watching the moon at say the best of times?
I’m no astronomer or astrophotographer, but this picture of the moon clocks in at around 320 meter angular resolution. That being said, a lot of post-processing goes into a shot like that, so some detail may be lost due to that. The atmosphere of the Earth is pretty difficult to deal with as its disturbances cause fuzziness and shimmering. Stacking multiple frames can help, but it’s still never perfect. Earth based telescopes sometimes shoot a laser up along their line of sight to get an idea of how the atmosphere is messing with them.
For comparison, The Hubble space telescope gets around 90 m angular resolution for objects at the distance of the Moon.
Thanks! So waay too big to see a moon lander.
deleted by creator
Isn’t this because Hubble is actually made to look deep into space and not under its nose? I’m sorry, but I’m not watching a 14 minutes video for that.
deleted by creator
don’t trust everything on the internet.
They’re right on this one. This picture here is pretty illuminating about the sizes of the views that Hubble captures:
Image source with additional reading. Zooming into an object a couple of meters in size on the surface of the Moon is in a completely different ballpark.
deleted by creator
I did a two minute internet search and every result says that the Hubble doesn’t have the angular resolution for this. It could resolve a football field on the moon, but not anything smaller.
It was made to look at nebulae and galaxies, and those are a lot bigger, even in apparent size.
Focal distance doesn’t matter when the aperture is so infinitesimally small compared to the distances. All space telescopes are focused to infinity no matter what they’re observing up there.
The greatest proof we have that the United States was the First Nation to land a man on the moon and did so in July of 1969 is that their primary geopolitical enemy had beaten them at every previous step in the space race and didn’t contest it. If there was a chance that any aspect of it was faked the USSR would’ve used it as propaganda and a cudgel. Instead they confirmed the moon landing. It may be hard for some people to believe we set foot on the moon, but it’s much harder to believe the ussr covered America’s ass on this one.
It’s actually the same basic evidence that we have that Yuri Gagarin was the first human to go into outer space alive and return alive. If it hadn’t happened the United States would’ve contested it.
imo, that’s why flat earth stuff usually doesn’t make sense at its core. how do you explain that all those governments from around the world that hate each other all collectively agreed to lie to you
Okay, just to go full conspiracy theorist on you for a second:
The USSR could’ve covered USA’s ass on this because their own achievements were fake too, and they didn’t want it to come out
I don’t have any evidence for this, nor do I believe it myself, but just playing devil’s advocate here
That doesnt work in the long term unless you kill everyone that knows about it. Its a weak plan at best.
Oh that’s definitely true, but that could be said for literally every conspiracy theory, ever.
My comment was working on the assumption that you already believe in conspiracy theories, and was meant to explain how one could then rationalize this particular one
Well assume I do and that was my response. I’m sure thats not all it takes to convince someone a conspiracy isn’t true.
How do conspiracy folk answer that counterpoint?
But instead they both lie about the roundness of the world because reasons. Something something firmament
That was a cool read
did you try wikipedia dark mode? or we’re you already using the Wikipedia app?
Did you know, that all Panda bears 🐼 worldwide are all owned by the Chinese government? Pandas outside of China are only on loan.
Just some useless information because of the username…
Not quite true, there is one single panda they don’t own, Xin Xin at the Chapultepec Zoo in Mexico City.
Yeah, that Panda is a leftover from better times when China gave them as diplomatic gifts. Its the offspring of 2 Pandas that were originally given to mexico before the 1980’s when China stopped gifting and started the lending thing.
There are 2 more, that are not considered a loan, in Taiwan. But they are more a “F*ck your independence, you belong to us anyways”-gifts with the Chinese arguing that it was an inner country transfer and not a gesture to a foreign nation.
Nevertheless, all Pandas outside of China have been political pawns for the Chinese government including Xin Xin in Mexico.
I’ve seen some recent news about China gifting Brazil a panda in a diplomatic move. So, they don’t own all pandas, or wasn’t it really a gift?
It might have been on loan, but described as a gift as there’s limited numbers they loan out.
Part of the reasoning for the loan system is that there’s a limited number, and the terms of the loan allows China to take them back in the event the zoo fails to care for them appropriately, which happens with depressing regularity.
They are given as a loan. The Wikipedia page about Panda diplomacy someone else linked is quite interesting and explains it all.
Gifting the temporary use of the panda
The issue with this Is that it implies the moon is even real in the first place
Fuck, one of my sisters coworkers said some crazy shit like that. Saying space is a hologram.
Space hologram is just idiot speak for collective hallucination. We can’t properly perceive the great old ones. Wake up before the moon dose or its over for humanity.
I’ve seen it blink
The moon has seen all past, present, and future. All realities are know by the old moon.
…and the USA, and the USSR ! So many assumptions make for a very feeble theory imho
wholesome
Some real toast to a couple sons of bitches energy.
How can a rocket and thrusters work in space when there is no atmosphere to push against? The space ship/rocket would stay still and all the thrust matter would just be ejected. - For example, If the rocket wants to turn left, it is always shown as firing a thruster from the right side that turns the rocket/ship to the left. But in a vacuum all that would happen is the matter that came out of the thruster would be sucked into the vacuum and spread out evenly. The ship would not move. 🤔 Nothing to push against.
Edit: I see now (from the more helpful replies) That it is not the rocket pushing back, but rather the combusting expanding fuel that is pushing the rocket forward. Which makes sense to me now.
Google says thrusters are similar, in that it is expanding steam etc.
I think you missed a /s
Given how many people think that railguns have no recoil because “there is no explosion” they might actually seriously believe what they just wrote.
Scientific illiteracy is through the roof.
Or maybe it’s the same as it it’s always been it’s just that people that are scientifically illiterate are given platforms to speak their illiteracy as truth.
I remember when Falkon 9 was doing its first landings, the whole YouTube comments section was filled with flat earthers claiming it’s a CGI. Now you can take a car and go watch landings in person, I wonder where all those people went.
Are you saying that I am scientifically illiterate? For asking a question about how a rocket that uses thrust could work in an environment with nothing to thrust against? I don’t think it’s a dumb question. Sure there may be an answer that I am yet to learn, but that is why I am asking the question and seeing what answers I get. Maybe you were born with all the knowledge of the human race, but the rest of us have to learn it. And some of it is true, and some of it is BS.
Am I saying you are scientifically illiterate?
Based on the previous statements, yes. However, as a matter of fact, not necessarily insult.
The good news is you’re following up with questions and want to learn more, instead of doubling down. With curiosity you will become more literate.
Maybe you were born with all the knowledge of the human race, but the rest of us have to learn it.
The education system in the country you are from has failed you. Assuming you are in your mid-late teens, or older, scientific topics should have already been taught in what North America would call “middle school” (11-14 years old). That teaches you things like conservation of momentum.
There is a reason why it’s called illiteracy, because there is an expectation that the baseline level of education everyone in developed countries receives teaches them the fundamentals of how the world around them works. Without this fundamental understanding it’s not possible to understand more complex topics that build upon it, stunting growth.
I agree with you. Good comment. I am an interesting case, I was born in the west, and I’m back home now, but my parents traveled during my school years, and my education has holes. (One of which being how rockets work apparently! lol)
To answer your last comment, i think it must be the internet that makes the literate annoyed with the less literate, and the illiterate frustrated with the perceived arrogance of the literate. Back in time I would imagine that both parties would mix in separate circles and not share in conversations like this.
Thanks for your comments
You are scientifically illiterate if you are asking questions that have easily discoverable answers (as in this example, centuries of confirmed results)
The burn from the thrusters doesn’t push against space, it pushes against the rocket.
For more easily discoverable answers to basic physics questions, perhaps take a physics 101 course. Or just Google your question.
Or do it the way you just did it… Cunningham’s law and all that. But be aware that people will consider you scientifically illiterate if you do it the way you just did it.
Idk what you mean thrust against, but there’s always equal and opposite forces. Say you were floating in space and were holding a hammer. You throw the hammer away from you. You will also move away from the hammer as it moves away from you (albeit at different speeds relative to each object’s mass). The conservation of momentum.
Here’s an Eli5 video on how rockets work.
https://youtu.be/jI-HeXhsUIg?si=UvtAkVdbPDYimitYChemical/liquid rockets and compressed gas thrusters are two different things with different functions. You’re right that lighting a fire in space won’t do much but make a cool firework. A thruster doesn’t so much push against space as it does nudge the ship in the other direction. Newton’s 3rd law and all that except the second “body” in this case isn’t something physical outside the ship but rather the force of the the gas leaving the thruster nozzle causing a recoil.
Aren’t Railguns works of fiction?
Really thought these things were a work of fiction. I guess it’s because in the movies they pretend it’s a laser instead of a high velocity missile of some kind.
I think they missed grade school.
What do you mean by a /s?
deleted by creator
Equal and opposite reaction.
There’s a law for this. The matter is “pushing” against the ship, it doesn’t have to push against anything else.
In fact having an atmosphere to push against actually reduces the effectiveness of thrust due to atmospheric pressure, which must be overcome. Which is why different engines are designed to run in atmosphere versus out of atmosphere.
If you throw a baseball in space you have transferred momentum to that baseball, pushing you back. You will move in the opposite direction (likely spin because you just imparted angular momentum onto yourself since you didn’t throw from center of mass)
Yes this is the conservation of momentum.
A rocket does not work because there is “something to push against”. Your initial assumption is flawed, so it’s normal and expected that you cannot reason about this right now. A rocket works because there are gases that are ignited, looking to expand. This expanding force is applied to the nozzle, hence to the entire body of the rocket, and pushes it in the opposite direction : up
Imagine yourself floating in space with a heavy object held in your hands. Say an anvil. You push the anvil away. This gesture is going to push you back by some amount as well, since the anvil is so heavy. Well the rocket is you, and the burning fuel is the anvil. A rocket is just an object continually jettisoning weight behind it so it can move forward
The ignited fuel expands and pushes the rocket. Makes perfect sense to me now. Correct, my initial assumption is where the train of thought went off track! Thanks for the explanation!
Nice 👌🏼
A lot of people are offering explanations, but I think I’m going to give one too.
Think of recoil in a gun. If you don’t have a mental image of it, watch a few youtube videos of people firing handguns. Look for videos of big, high-recoil handguns, like the Desert Eagle or the Magnum (or the Super Ruger Redhawk according to chat-GPT).
You need to get a good look at handguns pushed backwards as they are fired.
Now think about this: those bullets aren’t pushing against an atmosphere. They are pushing only against the inside of a gun.
But when this tiny, tiny bullet pushes super-fast against the gun, using the gun to accelerate to incredibly high speeds very quickly… it pushes the gun really hard in the other direction.
Get that mental image into your head. Small object can push large object with a lot of force by kicking off of large object with insane speed.
Now: Take away the person holding the gun. Take away the planet. Take away the atmosphere. Put that gun in space and pull the trigger again. (Just make sure to use a gun that has modern ammunition that doesn’t require oxygen to fire).
What happens to all that recoil? What does the recoil do to the gun now? The bullet still goes flying out of the chamber. Still does this by pushing against the gun.
Hopefully it should now be easy to imagine that the gun will start moving.
Rocket fuel is basically a tank full of bullets.
The main function of rocket fuel is “heavy stuff that is shoved out of the spaceship to make it move.”
The reason we use highly explosive fuel is because “shoving heavy stuff away from you at the speed of a bullet” is going to move you more than “shoving heavy stuff away from you at normal speed.”
Does this make any sense?
Helpful to picture it yeah thanks. I had assumed rockets “push” out the back. But I see now that it is the ignited fuel that pushes the rocket forward instead. Which would work in a vacuum. All makes sense to me now thanks 👍🏻
You’re welcome. I’m glad I was able to help.
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction
Think of it like this, imagine you are in space and you throw a baseball in front of you, this action will cause an opposite reaction, moving you backwards
The same law which makes gun recoil happen. If you fire a pistol in vacuum you would still get the same recoil or even stronger. The rocket engine fires a lot of gas molecules instead of bullets at much higher velocity than a bullet, which gives it the constant push/recoil
You’re on to something, I suppose, but the conservation of momentum does allow for travel in a vacuum. The matter ejected by the thruster pushes against the rocket.
They’re not on to anything here. As further stated by your comment.
Yes I agree with you in that it would have the undisturbed momentum from pushing off from earth. But no way to slow down, or change course. I’m not sure mater ejected could push back. Surly the vacuum of space would just suck the rocket or thruster empty as fast as possible. . It just bugs me. Lol
But no way to slow down, or change course.
It’s very simple actually. If you want to change course or slow down you just eject mass in another direction. To slow down you just spin the rocket around and burn in the opposite direction (or you could have two engines in both directions if you wanted, but I don’t think any rocket has that.)
I’m not sure mater ejected could push back.
Ejected in this case usually means very violently pushing fuel/gas in one direction. There isn’t a small gnome sitting on the engine throwing blocks of fuel into space, even if they technically could have worked. Instead we use very powerful engines.
The ejection itself provides the push back, not the matter. Once the matter has been ejected it doesn’t do jack shit.
Surly the vacuum of space would just suck the rocket or thruster empty as fast as possible. . It just bugs me. Lol
I’m sure they close the valves when they aren’t actively using the engine. It’s not like fuel injectors in cars just constantly spray out fuel, even when parked.
It could be tested to a degree with a vacuum chamber here on earth. Put a little rocket inside horizontally and see if it moves when fired in a partial vacuum.
It might surprise you, but there have been numerous tests in vacuums on earth.
Also numerous tests in space.
Yup. You’d also have to discount satellites as fake if you choose to not believe in rockets. And also everything that satellites provide for us.
Plus, you know… basic physics.
Pff gps is a hoax, in reality there is a little goblin with a perfect sense of direction in your phone.
GPS: Goblin’s Perfect Sense (but in the phone)
Apparently they say they did it with a super computer in 1969 that had less processing power than a watch today. Those old computers that used spools of tape. And now in 2024 we don’t have the technology to get “back” to the moon. Work that one out.
We have gone back, both China and India have recently landed on the moon and NASA has a manned mission going back next year I think.
We can’t go back today because we don’t have a fucking rocket.
If we had the rocket of course we could go back but we don’t. Rebuilding the original rocket is very hard or impossible due to how it was contracted and the fact that many of the suppliers don’t exist any more and much of the knowledge is lost.
Of course the actual technology we have is sufficient. Rockets are extremely simple when it comes to computers. Most calculations needed for actual burns could be done on paper or a video game nowadays.
We could of course build a new rocket but that is really expensive and the budgets for these things are far lower nowadays compared to the cold war. Still we are actually planning on going there soon-ish.
Well the “super computer” argument is just not good because this wasnt an all purpose computer. This was specially build for this task. There are tons of special purpose chips today that wont be able to do general purpuse computing but crush a beefy pc in special tasks. Video encoding for example or tons of other tasks.
If you are actually arguing that our accomplishments in space aren’t real, in good faith, you are very uneducated on the topic.
If the US made up the moon landing, we have many nations that have the technology to call out the lie. Yet none have, not even supposed ‘enemies’ of the US.
That one seems harder to ‘work out’, than your assumption that we couldn’t go to space with the technology at the time.
People have even simulated the first moon landing using the same Apollo guidance code used in 1969. So there is a lot of evidence for anyone to work that one out.
deleted by creator
