Where do you think Tang came from?
Dude, you can literally shoot a laser at a reflector left there and have it bounce back…guess what, the time it takes to come back is the exact time it takes light to travel the distance to the moon and back.
That and you can still see the stuff left there with a decently powerful telescope…
Don’t engage the troll.
1 Like
Just because a laser bounces back doesn’t prove humans put it there. Unmanned missions existed before Apollo, and reflectors could have been placed by a probe.
Ignorance must truly be bliss.
The rest of us have to deal with your depressing stupidity.
1 Like
the ‘ignorance is bliss’ defense—how original. It’s almost cute how you’re trying to act superor while offering zero actual insight. Crticizing others for having different views while hiding behind empty insults doesn’t exactly scream intelligence. Mr engineer
Troll.
Calling me a troll? At least trolls have a purpose. You, on the other hand, are just here to fill space and make everyone else look better.
“Different views”…LOL
Ignorance of reality is not “different views”.
Lets agree to disagree
It seems to me that you relinquished the argument when you admit to the technology to get to the moon and “robotically” place a reflector that pointed toward earth. Your only remaining argument is that the USA would not ethically risk a human life to take the trip to the moon.
These are a few points i have,…
While I acknolege the historical context of the Cold War, its hard to ignore the posibility that the Apollo missions may have been more about politcal propaganda than real scientific explorasen. The U.S. govrnment had so much pressure to ‘win’ the space race with the Soviets, and there was so much motivation to deliver a latge achievment. Could it be that the government made up the landings to serve a strategic purpose, as there were big benefits to being first to claim the Moon? The stakes were huge, for national pride and military advantage.
It seems hard to belive that the technology of the 1960s was good enough for such a huge mission. The computing power of the Apollo spacecraft was way less advanced than what we carry around in our phones today. How could the guidnace systems, with so much less computing power, possibly have made the precise calculations for a Moon landing and return? Makes me wonder if the technology was really up to the task, or if they just exagerated it for the public.
It’s also interesting that after all the effort and money put into the Apollo missions, no one has gone back to the Moon in more than 50 years. If they had the ability to land astronauts on the Moon in 1969, why hasn’t it been a priority to go back? We’ve made so much progress since then, yet theres been almost no effort to return humans, or at least put a long-term presence there. Makes me think the original landings might’ve been faked, and maybe the reason no ones gone back is because they cant do it without showing the earlier hoax.
Yeah, a reflector coulda been placed by a unmanned mission, and thats a good point. But why wasn’t that a bigger focus? Why risk sending humans just to plant a reflector, when we could’ve done the same thing with technology we already had? The idea that the U.S. government sent humans to the Moon just for science—when a probe coulda done the job safer and easier—seems like an unneeded gamble. Could it be that the ‘man on the Moon’ thing was just a big dramatic story to win the space race, not really about science?
It was geometry, physics, and great engineering coupled with talented pilots…it really doesn’t need all that much computing power. Again, this just shows how little you understand of physics, mathematics and orbital mechanics.
But, why didnt it happen again.
Almost 70 years.
China and russia could have done it
There was/is no need. Russia’s program was woefully plagued with problems by the time the last Apollo mission went to the moon.
China was quite a bit behind, but they just landed a probe on the moon in preparation for a manned mission there.
Why haven’t any more nuclear weapons been dropped despite the technology being available? It’s the same argument that doesn’t hold water.
NASA did make 6 trips to the moon.
1 Like
So you’re saying there was no need to keep going to the moon because Russia’s program was failing? That’s convenient. The reality is, if the U.S. had really landed on the moon, they wouldn’t have just stopped. Why abandon something so groundbreaking? Why let all that “technology” go to waste? Space exploration should have advanced rapidly after Apollo, but instead, we never went back. That doesn’t add up.
And comparing it to nuclear weapons doesn’t work. Nukes are a deterrent—their power comes from not using them. But the moon landings? If they were real, there’d be every reason to keep going, setting up bases, and pushing further. Instead, after Apollo, NASA suddenly lost the ability to go? Sounds more like the illusion was no longer needed once the U.S. had “won” the Cold War propaganda battle.
Exactly—and that’s one of the biggest red flags. If NASA really landed on the moon 6 times between 1969 and 1972, why did they suddenly stop and never go back? You don’t just master a groundbreaking technology, use it a few times, and then just abandon it completly. That’s not how technological progress work.
Look at every other major achievement in history—once something is done successfully, it get’s refined, improved and expanded. But with the moon landings? After Apollo 17, NASA suddenly couldn’t do it no more. They claim they “lost” the technology, which makes no sense. Imagine if we flew across the Atlantic 6 times and then suddenly forgot how too build airplanes.
The reality is, the Apollo missions served there purpose: Cold War propaganda. Once the U.S. “won” the space race, there was no reason to keep up the illusion. That’s why we haven’t been back in over 50 years, despite massive advancements in technology.
Keep digging the hole.
The technology didn’t go to waste - it went into products you use everyday, including that powerful phone in your pocket.
The ability to go didn’t get lost, but is insanely expensive to go to the moon…
Come on, that’s just another excuse. If we really landed on the moon six times with 1960s tech, why is it suddenly “too expensive” now? Technology gets cheaper and better, yet somehow, we went backward? That makes no sense.
And NASA’s so-called “spinoff” tech has nothing to do with actually landing on the moon. That’s just a way to justify billions spent on Cold War propaganda. If Apollo was real, we’d have moon bases by now. Instead, all we get are excuses—because they never went in the first place.