NASA targeting launch of giant moon rocket for late August

[SportsJunky]

Originally Posted by Tacopuck

I thinks its perfectly understandable that people were skeptical of the moon landings being real when they look at it from a technological standpoint, when their own baseline of technology is what is available today. What i think gets lost on alot of people is how much more risk was tolerated back then. All of the astronauts of the Apollo program where absolute cowboys.

They literally landed on the moon using manual controls, experienced many faults and errors from the craft they had to manually intervene to correct in the heat of landing. This is why Neil Armstrong was selected as the guy to first land on the moon. He experienced multiple occasions during the training program and Gemini where the spacecraft or test rig experienced a failure and he had to fix to get home safely.
When piloting Gemini 8, the craft experienced a stuck thruster that caused the craft to rotate at extreme speeds. He was able to perform an emergency de-orbit burn and get the craft back to ground. During testing of the Lunar module on earth it experienced a failure where he had to eject seconds before the rig exploded.

Lets also not forget that Apollo 10, the mission that brought the LM close to the moon surface but not land, was intentionally under fueled as NASA feared that Cernan and Stafford would just go for the landing if they had a normal fuel load.

The astronauts then were a different breed when compared to today's.

It is also understandable why people point to why we never went back. In order to get to the moon, the US directed nearly 10% of its total GDP to the project which is absolutely crazy to think about.

I think that's awesome. Buncha cowboys back then

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Matata

But what really messes me up about the moon is that it really shouldn't even exist. Out of every celestial body we've ever observed, the moon is by far the oddest: it's way too big, it's way too light, it has a perfect-circular orbit (every other moon observed has a wobbly, oblong orbit), the same side of the moon always faces the planet, it might be hollow (a NASA scientist that performed seismic tests on the moon famously remarked that it "rung like bell for 24 hours. The moon also has inexplicably shallow craters, implying a very hard structure beneath the dust). The moon also appears to be of identical size as the sun in the sky, as the sun is 400 times larger and 400 times further away (this one alone is so staggering improbable). The moon has a number of statistically impossible characteristics, and the summation of these characteristics is make it perfectly conducive to life on earth. I think the mere existence of the moon is the best evidence we have that life was seeded on earth by outside forces.

This is exactly the kind of unscientific anecdotal nonsense that is written for rednecks. "Rung like bell for 24 hours" is a vast simplification of seismology tests done over several years resulting in better understanding of lunar materials. The moon contains less moisture and as vibrations propagate, there is less material that can deaden those vibrations as compared to the relatively water filled earth. The size coincidence is like people saying "Jesus and Bible are both 5 letter words! That proves its true".

https://www.popsci.com/does-moon-sound-like-bell/

[Fuzz]

So, uh, Matata....mind changed?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Cappy

Why would we go back? more moon rocks? what is the practical purpose of going back other than the original dick measuring contest between two super powers?

Yeah, I think people over-estimate the importance of a physical presence on the Moon.

Its really a 'Been There, Done That' scenario.

There really isnt a whole lot of need or use to be there. It is more or less a desolate wasteland.

We could probably convince the US Military to place Nukes on the Moon. They might go for that.

But beyond that there are no resources or benefits. The only thing I could really think of is being able to use the Moon as a staging area for Mars missions. Having some method of launching from the Moon and thus eliminating the need to expend resources and fuel to get rockets out of Earth's Gravity and atmosphere.

But thats sounding like Sci-Fi kind of stuff. I doubt that would be all that practical.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Matata

But what really messes me up about the moon is that it really shouldn't even exist. Out of every celestial body we've ever observed, the moon is by far the oddest: it's way too big, it's way too light, it has a perfect-circular orbit (every other moon observed has a wobbly, oblong orbit), the same side of the moon always faces the planet, it might be hollow (a NASA scientist that performed seismic tests on the moon famously remarked that it "rung like bell for 24 hours. The moon also has inexplicably shallow craters, implying a very hard structure beneath the dust). The moon also appears to be of identical size as the sun in the sky, as the sun is 400 times larger and 400 times further away (this one alone is so staggering improbable). The moon has a number of statistically impossible characteristics, and the summation of these characteristics is make it perfectly conducive to life on earth. I think the mere existence of the moon is the best evidence we have that life was seeded on earth by outside forces.

How much time do you put into validating something before you repeat it like the stuff about the moon. I don’t want this to be insulting but I am curious to how you got to the point where you believe that the facts as presented above are factual rather than false or out of context. What level of scrutiny do you put on your acquisition of this type of information.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

So, uh, Matata....mind changed?

That's not how conspiracy minds work...

[Tacopuck]

Originally Posted by Cappy

Why would we go back? more moon rocks? what is the practical purpose of going back other than the original dick measuring contest between two super powers?

Technology, plain and simple. We need a closer testing ground on how to build bases / structures / living environments that are not earth. Moon is an easy testing ground when compared to Mars.

People will say well why do we need that kind of technology when we have "bigger" problems on earth. Reality is alot of the technology thats invented for space travel / exploration eventually makes it to the consumer market.

The accelerometer found in your phones was modernized because of the space program (they did exist before but sucked).

Space habitats especially when it comes to life support technology have huge practical applications for todays earth problems.

Few examples:
- Recycling water with low energy requirements, this will be super usefull for drought ridden areas.
- CO2 processing for Methane and O2 production (what SpaceX wants to do on Mars for insitu fuel production) can be scaled to remove CO2 from our atmosphere (see sabatier reaction).
- Asteroid mining will bring the costs of rare earth metals to fractions of what they are today. metals that are needed for EV and green technology

These are just a couple that are obvious. There will be plenty of technology applications that are not even fathomable at the moment that will come out of this.

Space exploration is worth every damn penny.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Tacopuck

Technology, plain and simple. We need a closer testing ground on how to build bases / structures / living environments that are not earth. Moon is an easy testing ground when compared to Mars.

People will say well why do we need that kind of technology when we have "bigger" problems on earth. Reality is alot of the technology thats invented for space travel / exploration eventually makes it to the consumer market.

The accelerometer found in your phones was modernized because of the space program (they did exist before but sucked).

Space habitats especially when it comes to life support technology have huge practical applications for todays earth problems.

Few examples:
- Recycling water with low energy requirements, this will be super usefull for drought ridden areas.
- CO2 processing for Methane and O2 production (what SpaceX wants to do on Mars for insitu fuel production) can be scaled to remove CO2 from our atmosphere (see sabatier reaction).
- Asteroid mining will bring the costs of rare earth metals to fractions of what they are today. metals that are needed for EV and green technology

These are just a couple that are obvious. There will be plenty of technology applications that are not even fathomable at the moment that will come out of this.

Space exploration is worth every damn penny.

Im assuming this isnt entirely directed at me since i am in agreement. The idea was why we didnt go back after '72 and it pretty simply didnt make economic or scientific sense at the time.

I imagine the new missions have some scientific use

[Party Elephant]

There's a great Folding Ideas video about conspiracy theorists (Calgary based btw!).

The TLR is that for these people it's not about making sense or standing up to scrutiny, it's about loyalty. That's why flat earth isn't as popular now as it was a few years ago, but most of those people have just moved on to the much more batsh*t Qanon. Here's the video, worth a watch if you have time

https://youtube.com/watch?v=JTfhYyTuT44

It's kind of chilling that this video came out several months before the Jan 6 riot and he pretty much predicted it.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Cappy

Im assuming this isnt entirely directed at me since i am in agreement. The idea was why we didnt go back after '72 and it pretty simply didnt make economic or scientific sense at the time.

I imagine the new missions have some scientific use

Ah! Yes...but!

The thing is almost any science experiment you want to run on the Moon can just as easily be performed on the ISS and its way cheaper, easier and safer.

Another big reason nobody has been champing at the bit to go Moon-ward.

[Tacopuck]

Originally Posted by Cappy

Im assuming this isnt entirely directed at me since i am in agreement. The idea was why we didnt go back after '72 and it pretty simply didnt make economic or scientific sense at the time.

I imagine the new missions have some scientific use

Not directly at you more the general sentiment held by some (not necessarily you) that space exploration has no value for humanity.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Tacopuck

Not directly at you more the general sentiment held by some (not necessarily you) that space exploration has no value for humanity.

Yeah, I dont think thats an opinion that holds water. I wouldnt hold to that.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Matata

The Van Allen belt is another tricky one, radiation experts are all over the place regarding what they think it would take to safely pass through it. Radiation is very hard on film, so it's also conceivable that they went to the moon AND faked the footage.

LOL, you realize that most of the footage from Apollo 11 was transmitted live, right? What would radiation's effect on film have to do with that?

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Raekwon

I mean I also don't understand how Voyager can be travelling for 45 years and still sending communications back but obviously it does.

[Tacopuck]

Originally Posted by Locke

Yeah, I dont think thats an opinion that holds water. I wouldnt hold to that.

Oh I agree, but some definitely hold this view. Perhaps instead of "no value for humanity" change that to "significantly less value to humanity than other endeavors" and its more representative of a broader sentiment and is at least an arguable position.

I still think its wrong but the argument could at least be made.

[D as in David]

Move Airdrie in its entirety to the Moon. The ability to maintain a twenty minute commute to downtown Calgary would make the area the most significant spaceport on the planet.

[btimbit]

The Chinese had an orbiter take pictures of the moons surface from orbit, and they have pictures of the moon landing site.

If anyone is gonna call out the US for faking it, China would absolutely. Or the Soviets would have been all over that at the time as well

[The Fonz]

Originally Posted by Matata

I've taken the plunge on moonlanding conspiracies and I'm 50/50 on the whole thing, it's certainly conceivable, but there are good reasons to doubt the legitimacy. Did you know that NASA destroyed all the original technology and footage from the first moon landing? For no good reason at all. It's also very odd how up to the moon landing, the USSR was leading the space race and had all the space "firsts", up until the US suddenly shot way past them and completed a flawless moon trip. The Van Allen belt is another tricky one, radiation experts are all over the place regarding what they think it would take to safely pass through it. Radiation is very hard on film, so it's also conceivable that they went to the moon AND faked the footage. I have no doubt that the purpose of NASA, to a degree, is funneling money into black operations. There's a ton of fake NASA footage out there (air bubbles on space walks, astronauts green-screening out, etc.)


Another fun one is the space challenger explosion and how nearly everyone on it has a living twin that is working in a similar field.



But what really messes me up about the moon is that it really shouldn't even exist. Out of every celestial body we've ever observed, the moon is by far the oddest: it's way too big, it's way too light, it has a perfect-circular orbit (every other moon observed has a wobbly, oblong orbit), the same side of the moon always faces the planet, it might be hollow (a NASA scientist that performed seismic tests on the moon famously remarked that it "rung like bell for 24 hours. The moon also has inexplicably shallow craters, implying a very hard structure beneath the dust). The moon also appears to be of identical size as the sun in the sky, as the sun is 400 times larger and 400 times further away (this one alone is so staggering improbable). The moon has a number of statistically impossible characteristics, and the summation of these characteristics is make it perfectly conducive to life on earth. I think the mere existence of the moon is the best evidence we have that life was seeded on earth by outside forces.

Sliver/DESS could only dream of trolling at this level

Well done.

[FormerPresJamesTaylor]

Originally Posted by Matata

I've taken the plunge on moonlanding conspiracies and I'm 50/50 on the whole thing, it's certainly conceivable, but there are good reasons to doubt the legitimacy. Did you know that NASA destroyed all the original technology and footage from the first moon landing? For no good reason at all. It's also very odd how up to the moon landing, the USSR was leading the space race and had all the space "firsts", up until the US suddenly shot way past them and completed a flawless moon trip. The Van Allen belt is another tricky one, radiation experts are all over the place regarding what they think it would take to safely pass through it. Radiation is very hard on film, so it's also conceivable that they went to the moon AND faked the footage. I have no doubt that the purpose of NASA, to a degree, is funneling money into black operations. There's a ton of fake NASA footage out there (air bubbles on space walks, astronauts green-screening out, etc.)


Another fun one is the space challenger explosion and how nearly everyone on it has a living twin that is working in a similar field.



But what really messes me up about the moon is that it really shouldn't even exist. Out of every celestial body we've ever observed, the moon is by far the oddest: it's way too big, it's way too light, it has a perfect-circular orbit (every other moon observed has a wobbly, oblong orbit), the same side of the moon always faces the planet, it might be hollow (a NASA scientist that performed seismic tests on the moon famously remarked that it "rung like bell for 24 hours. The moon also has inexplicably shallow craters, implying a very hard structure beneath the dust). The moon also appears to be of identical size as the sun in the sky, as the sun is 400 times larger and 400 times further away (this one alone is so staggering improbable). The moon has a number of statistically impossible characteristics, and the summation of these characteristics is make it perfectly conducive to life on earth. I think the mere existence of the moon is the best evidence we have that life was seeded on earth by outside forces.

Originally Posted by SportsJunky

"Another fun one is the space challenger explosion and how nearly everyone on it has a living twin that is working in a similar field."

You conspiracy folks are fun. I mean, come on. That took 5 minutes for me to debunk searching on the internet. From what I can tell, none had a twin. Check snopes on this to explain the rest.

So obvious he was just regurgitating some conspiracy page, in fact, it wouldn't surprise me if it largely plagiarized

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Matata

The moon also appears to be of identical size as the sun in the sky, as the sun is 400 times larger and 400 times further away (this one alone is so staggering improbable). The moon has a number of statistically impossible characteristics, and the summation of these characteristics is make it perfectly conducive to life on earth. I think the mere existence of the moon is the best evidence we have that life was seeded on earth by outside forces.

This is something that fascinates me, not just about the moon but earth as well: that a lot of the statistically improbable quirks may have played a significant role in the development and evolution of life... okay, not the ratio between moon/sun size/distance, but a lot of other ones: the stability of the moon's orbit and its size, it's effects on tides, the fact that our planet is large enough to retain its molten core and thus magnetic field and protection from solar radition, just the perfect distance from the sun, just the perfect amount of surface water, etc.

You take all these unlikely things and add them together and the odds of our planet being perfect for life is *pun intended* astronomically unlikely. It's easy to see how someone can add it up and come to the conclusion that it couldn't possibly come about by chance. But this is looking at the likelihood backwards; it's irrelevant that it's *our* planet that has all of these characteristics.

Taken across the scale of not only our galaxy (which isn't special among the countless number of galaxies we've detected), but the scale of our observable universe, which may only be a fragment of the full universe, the existence of planets like ours seems almost inevitable. Even if the odds of our planet's particular life-supporting configuration is one-in-a-billion*, when you've got an estimated 10^25 planets in the observable universe, those one-in-a-billion odds are going to come up a lot... in fact they would come up 10^16 times. And that's only our particular life-supporting configuration. There may be other similarly rare configurations, that massively increase the total number of life-supporting planets.

And on each of those planets that actually support intelligent life, inhabitants at some point are likely to look at their planetary conditions, and conclude that these are so unlikely that they couldn't have come about by chance. And yet those slim chances within this incredibly large scale would make their own planetary configuration not just possible but a near certainty.


*My one-in-a-billion is a spitballed number... we don't have useful information yet on just how rare our particular configuration is, which makes exoplanet study one of the most fascinating areas of science right now. However, whether it's one-in-a-thousand or one-in-a-quadrillion doesn't really change much. You'd have to determine that the odds of particular life-supporting planetary configuration occuring are greater than 1 in 10^26 for our planet's existance to actually be unlikely, and that's only within our observable universe, which may be only a sliver of the full universe.