Rocket fuel and raw materials didn’t get cheaper…
The computers were always a very small portion of the cost.
ROI comes into play at some time. I cannot answer what lies ahead. What does your country spend its money doing?
I don’t pretend to know the space vision that the USA has in place. Even you can see that it is most important to have supreme military power in the orbital space around Earth. That far out paces the need to control the moon. Where would you invest the money?
1 Like
Yeah, but that’s just it. Rocket fuel and raw materials didn’t get cheaper because they were never the problem. The cost is all about the illusion—if we had the tech to get to the moon in the 60s, we’d have been back a dozen times by now. The reason they haven’t gone is simple: they never did.
Dude, just stop.
1 Like
Fair point, ROI does matter. But here’s the thing—if the U.S. could land on the moon with 1960s technology, then the cost should’ve gone down, not disappeared. Instead, we stopped. That’s what raises questions.
As for military power, sure, orbital control is important, but if we really went to the moon, wouldn’t it be a strategic advantage? The moon isn’t just about exploration—it’s a valuable outpost for military and future missions. The fact that we don’t have a permanent presence there after all these years shows it was never real to begin with. If the landings were genuine, that’s where the money should’ve gone.
Why stop? What did i say, that was wrong?
I respect you for actually having a conversation rather than calling me a troll like zecarlo.
Here your youth has left you uninformed about a peril of technological advancement.
I started work in an electric power generation plant that had three boiler-turbine-generators in 1971. I was in a department that was in charge of instrumentation and controls. All of our instrumentation was analog and the signals were pneumatic (3-27 psi). I got very good at tuning the boiler controls.
If the plant were shut down and preserved to run, and you tried to repower it for revenue 25 years later, you would have no one who had any experience with the pneumatic controls. That technology would have been “lost.” It would likely be less expensive to bulldoze the plant to the ground and start with all new.
1 Like
I see what you’re saying, but this analogy doesn’t quite work for the moon landings. The technology used for Apollo missions wasn’t something like old analog controls that could just fade out of use—it was the pinnacle of a highly advanced program. If it was real, the knowledge would have been passed down, and we’d have more than just a few “old-timers” with expertise. If Apollo missions were truly successful, there would be a continuous effort to improve, expand, and reuse that technology, not abandon it completely.
Your analogy works for things like old industrial tech, but space exploration isn’t like a forgotten power plant. It’s a global priority, and the U.S. wouldn’t have just lost the ability to go to the moon. No one lost the ability to build airplanes or rockets, but we did lose the drive to continue the moon missions—because they were based on a story that didn’t hold up.
Nonetheless, the technology is not interchangeable, any more than your car’s points and plugs (if you had an older car) are interchangeable with electronic ignition.
I get your point—older tech isn’t always directly interchangeable with newer systems, like how points and plugs aren’t the same as electronic ignition. But the key difference is that the knowledge from Apollo, even if the specific tech is outdated, would still be valuable. Just like how the skills from using typewriters helped create modern computers, the lessons from Apollo could have been built on for future space missions.
And much of the technology of getting to the moon and back, is kept sharp launching and docking to the space station and returning astronauts back to Earth.
A little questioning and doubt is healthy, but a full-blown dogmatic statement that “man has never walked on the moon” is most closely related to an 80-year-old, uneducated geezer. (And I am a 76 year old geezer)
I get what you’re saying, and questioning is always healthy. But just because some tech is still used doesn’t mean it proves the moon landings. You’re right that launching and docking keep certain skills sharp, but that’s far different from landing on the moon and coming back with rocks, and no one’s been back in over 50 years.
As for the “80-year-old geezer” comment, I respect the wisdom that comes with age. But I don’t need to be old or uneducated to see that there’s too much that doesn’t add up with the moon landings. When the evidence doesn’t make sense, it’s okay to question it—no matter your age.
I am okay with this philosophy, but this is not what you have stated. You are taking the position that you claim no man has walked on the moon. You are no questioning that. You are stating that it didn’t happen.
That i what i belive. I havent seen proof that convinces me otherwize.
I knew the guy who made the mold and poured the aluminum that its made of. He was the son in a local family run foundry that made it for Fisher Scientific.
He was in my welding course cuz he felt silly, having poured thousands of tons of metal, but not knowing how to weld it. Neat guy! 
1 Like
You’ve convinced me that you’re a troll.
You are rage baiting me, i think you are the troll. The next time you annoy me. I will send you extreme amounts of gay porn,
And have you convinced in the power of baby oil. Any you will probably like it
I already said I was convinced. Further proof is not necessary.
Thanks, i hope this is the last time i see you.
You wanna call bullshit on a nefarious cabal?
Baby oil. Not even made with real babies.