What conspiracy theories do you believe in? - Put your tinfoil hats on

[Meriasek]

So there was scientific interest in taking pictures of the Earth. So why wouldn't you do it in film? Hiding something?

They took specialised pictures in the far, far ultraviolet range (around 100 nm) to see things like the effect of the solar wind on the Earth' magnetosphere. It was a dedicated, highly specialised experiment, not some frivolity.
They famously took pictures of Earth with regular cameras, too. If you got the Moon and Earth above it to photograph, there's not much point in photographing the stars unless you're doing something specific like the Far UV Spectrographs.
/edit:
Oh, and one should account for the fact that it'd be pretty hard to both photograph the extremely bright Moon and everything there in sunlight, and stars with the same film and sensitivity. It'd have required something like a 20s exposure to make the stars visible, so they'd have to bring a tripod for it, and Neil Armstrong had his camera strapped to his chest, so he simply couldn't take any pictures of stars. Doing all that for pictures that wouldn't be much different than any picture taken on Earth? Every gram of payload counts. To make use of the Moon they'd have to have brought a camera with a tripod and a proper telescope lens like the Far UV Spectrograph (which weighed over 20 kg), and then they'd still only be able to take pictures marginally better than on Earth with less atmospheric distortion. Just not worth it.

 

[byron]

Animal came before man.

Sure, but that's not a significant milestone in my opinion.

They did a spacewalk and circumnavigation of Earth.

As I said, a spacewalk isn't a significant milestone on the way to the moon, because you can test your spacesuit on the ground. "Circumnavigation of Earth" - you mean orbital vs. suborbital. Yes, I granted that the first human in orbit (Yuri Gagarin) was significant. The first American in space was Shepard, in a suborbital flight. And Glenn was the first in orbit.

I already addressed those points. What points do you disagree on??

They accomplished all their goals before the US, who were still struggling to get a rocket to not go bang.

How many failed launches did the US have vs. the Soviets? You're making a comparison here without any data. In my view, the US program was close behind, but made continual improvements that the soviets couldn't keep up with.

A woman in space is a significant achievement

lol no. It's not. There is no argument that is a significant achievement. Space travel is not so taxing that there was a legitimate question about whether women could do it.

female Jet Pilots have greater G tolerances than males.

Men also have greater upper body strength. Women have more acute color vision. Men have better spacial reasoning.

I'm aware that men and women are different, but space travel is not so taxing that there is a legitimate question about whether women could do it. Therefore, none of those differences are relevant. Therefore, putting a woman into space isn't an achievement.

I disagree, and it's fine if you disagree with that. This has very little to do with the main point.

But you have no reason to disagree. Meanwhile, I explained exactly why orbital rendezvous and docking is critical to a moon mission. Thus demonstrating it is a significant milestone.

Retarded question as Concorde was invented the next decade.

The date of the invention is irrelevant. Concorde is an example of a technical achievement (a large, multi-passenger airliner that goes mach 2+) which we no longer have.

Many arguments that you make about apollo also apply to concorde. For example, (a) why did they do this and then not continue on to the next advancement? (b) why can't anyone do this today?

Those are the exact questions you're asking about Apollo.

A better comparison would be discovering the Galapagos' Islands and deciding it's not worth going back, ever.

No, that's not a better comparison. It's only a valid comparison if it involves having the capability to repeat the action. In the case of concorde we do not have the tech in existence right now ...just like apollo.

It's a perfect comparison and that's really irritating to you. lol!!

not because they couldn't but because they didn't want to?

Nope. Not what I said. You're so angry that you're not even thinking about what you're responding to.

The US demonstrated, after Apollo, that it is not capable of completing a long-term complicated project like that without military support.

We have tried many, many time, and the only success we've had is the space shuttle, and the only reason that was successful was because the military supported it.

That's my claim. If you're going to disagree with me, at least FUCKING UNDERSTAND what it is that you're disagreeing with. I did not say "we don't want to" - I said that we can't. I listed a half dozen attempts that all were canceled. I am 100% right about this.

the only answer to my question is always just a brush off about expense and politics of ONE country, ignoring the rest of the world.

No other country spends as much on a manned space program as the US. Do you have any idea how much apollo cost?

Do you know what the total budget of the european space agency is?

If you're going to ask, "why doesn't any other country do it" you should AT LEAST be able to quote those numbers before you open your mouth!

I wonder why you're in this thread at all.

Because I enjoy this. I enjoy sparing with people, and it fills me with great confidence when I see that nobody can present a valid argument against me. I mean look at what you just did. I very clearly stated that the US cannot complete a manned rocket development program (cannot. can-not. CAN NOT) and you twisted it around inside your own head and read it back to me as:

not because they couldn't but because they didn't want to?

When I say, "we can't do it" and you reply, "so you're saying we don't want to" I feel like I'm talking to Cathy Newman

what military use did the space shuttle have? Do you even know?

Of course I know it! I know a lot about every topic I'm discussing here. I've demonstrated that repeatedly. I am pummeling you guys!

 

[Meriasek]

The Soviet Union won the early parts of the space race not necessarily due to superior technology, but by the simple act of not giving many shits about human lives. They didn't have to care too much about optics and the public opinion. The first spacewalk almost ended in disaster because the suit ballooned up and the cosmonaut couldn't operate the door handle anymore.
On the other hand, the Soyuz spacecraft is still used, so gotta hand it to them, once they figured shit out, it worked.

 

[byron]

The Soviet Union won the early parts of the space race not necessarily due to superior technology, but by the simple act of not giving many shits about human lives.

Yeah, a willingness to throw lives into the meat grinder is certainly a part of how they got shit done back then. Worked against the Germans, I guess!

They had major funding and quality control issues with their moon rocket, the N1. It was a beast! 30 engines in the first stage, and they could only afford to lose two of them! The Soviets never built a test stand for the first stage. It was only ever tested by launching the thing. Four tries, and none of them made it to orbit.

...that's particularly funny because someone earlier in the thread mentioned the US "still trying to get their rockets to stop exploding" as if launch failures were unique to the US.

Anyway, even if they had successfully landed on the moon, their program allowed for only a single cosmonaut, and hardly any cargo. Basically, they were only ever planning it as a publicity stunt. It's really the same as a lot of their other stunts, like putting a woman into orbit.

They tried rushing ahead with a mission to orbit the moon before Apollo 8, but couldn't make that happen either.

The people are smart - it's a whole country of chess players. But the system was broken. Communism just doesn't work well.

The current US system is also broken, which is why we can't make complicated things work anymore either. But in the 1960s, we had missions of high IQ, educated white people, and a culture that let us work together on a project like this and be successful.

 

[Bonesjones]

They took specialised pictures in the far, far ultraviolet range (around 100 nm) to see things like the effect of the solar wind on the Earth' magnetosphere. It was a dedicated, highly specialised experiment, not some frivolity.

So doing the same thing in visible spectrum with zero light pollution is now frivolous? Funny how easily you move goal posts. Solar wind is easily observable on earth's surface, why not from space? Where is the lunar pictures of the Van Allan belt? Funny how it was a major concern until it wasn't. They lost all the telemetry data and the exact space paths they took to the moon. I guess that's info that just isn't worth having for future reference.

They famously took pictures of Earth with regular cameras, too. If you got the Moon and Earth above it to photograph, there's not much point in photographing the stars unless you're doing something specific like the Far UV Spectrographs.

Barely, if you look pretty much every space picture isn't a photograph at all but imagery, either through composites or just entirely made up with artistic license.

Oh, and one should account for the fact that it'd be pretty hard to both photograph the extremely bright Moon and everything there in sunlight, and stars with the same film and sensitivity.

Which is why you wouldn't do that unless you are attempting to build a strawman.

It'd have required something like a 20s exposure to make the stars visible, so they'd have to bring a tripod for it, and Neil Armstrong had his camera strapped to his chest, so he simply couldn't take any pictures of stars.

He had a camera strapped to his chest and yet not one out of focus picture, not one messed up exposure, not any evidence of radiation damage to the film despite there being zero protection for it. All the normal challenges you face on earth with photography just disappear on the moon.

Doing all that for pictures that wouldn't be much different than any picture taken on Earth?

How do you know until you do it on the moon exactly?

Every gram of payload counts. To make use of the Moon they'd have to have brought a camera with a tripod and a proper telescope lens like the Far UV Spectrograph (which weighed over 20 kg), and then they'd still only be able to take pictures marginally better than on Earth with less atmospheric distortion. Just not worth it.

What happened to the camera mounted on the lunar lander? Did it cease working? Also every gram counted except for the stuff they snuck on board surreptitiously. I guess that didn't count.

Sure, but that's not a significant milestone in my opinion.

As shown your option isn't worth the kilobytes it takes to send to anyone.

As I said, a spacewalk isn't a significant milestone on the way to the moon, because you can test your spacesuit on the ground.

Lmao, you'll do anything to protect your narrative no matter how retarded.

lol no. It's not. There is no argument that is a significant achievement. Space travel is not so taxing that there was a legitimate question about whether women could do it.

Said after it was tested and proved to be true, not before. Guys we just knew things before we could figure them out, it's that easy!

Many arguments that you make about apollo also apply to concorde. For example, (a) why did they do this and then not continue on to the next advancement? (b) why can't anyone do this today?

All that was answered you illiterate fuck.

No, that's not a better comparison. It's only a valid comparison if it involves having the capability to repeat the action. In the case of concorde we do not have the tech in existence right now ...just like apollo.

Your obsession with empty repetition is obvious since you can't understand things the first time.

Nope. Not what I said. You're so angry that you're not even thinking about what you're responding to.

You should sell ad space on the moon with all the projection you do.

Because I enjoy this. I enjoy sparing with people, and it fills me with great confidence when I see that nobody can present a valid argument against me.

You still haven't shown me the swing arm. Where is it? I thought you were a genius and master of debate.

Of course I know it! I know a lot about every topic I'm discussing here. I've demonstrated that repeatedly. I am pummeling you guys!

You can't even provide simple info you say obviously exists.

 

[Meriasek]

So doing the same thing in visible spectrum with zero light pollution is now frivolous? Funny how easily you move goal posts.

No goal posts moved. In the context of the Apollo missions, doing visible light photography of stars was simply not deemed a priority.

Solar wind is easily observable on earth's surface, why not from space?

What? I don't understand your point here. They explicitly took solar wind pictures during Apollo 16.

Where is the lunar pictures of the Van Allan belt?

How do you picture the Van Allen belt? It's an area of increased charged particles from the solar wind trapped in Earth's magnetic field. You can't just photograph it.

Barely, if you look pretty much every space picture isn't a photograph at all but imagery, either through composites or just entirely made up with artistic license.

That's because optical imagery of stars doesn't do much. You quickly run into hard physical limits, mainly diffraction. You need to increase your aperture to see further, and that becomes impossible with mirrors. Luckily, stars emit a lot more than just visible electromagnetic radiation, in fact most of the interesting physics happens more in the radio spectrum. And you can build nice large mirrors for that a lot easier.

He had a camera strapped to his chest and yet not one out of focus picture, not one messed up exposure, not any evidence of radiation damage to the film despite there being zero protection for it. All the normal challenges you face on earth with photography just disappear on the moon.

I don't know if there are no messed up pictures, if there were they simply wouldn't be released.
But the light on the moon is pretty consistent, so exposure isn't all that hard. Focus can be hit and miss, but when you see the pictures you can see they had pretty long depth of field. The astronauts were also trained to use the cameras beforehand. It had an explicitly accessible viewfinder and so on.
Radiation damage? Not in that short time they were on the moon. You can see some spots from probably secondary x rays exposing a grain or two in some pictures, though.

What happened to the camera mounted on the lunar lander? Did it cease working?

Eh? That's an entirely different thing, what are you on about?

How do you know until you do it on the moon exactly?

Because people are somewhat smart and know what atmospheric effects are and what simple visible spectrum photography of stars does?
Seriously, do you think something magic would have happened if they also took pictures of stars? If they had a reasonable telescope and the correct time window they could have taken some sweet pictures of Mars, Jupiter or Saturn, but they wouldn't have done anything really interesting.

You still haven't shown me the swing arm. Where is it? I thought you were a genius and master of debate.

There, it's that thing hanging down from the side of the lander.

Somewhat more visible in this one.

Buzz Aldrin took a bunch of terrible pictures. Here you can see Neil Armstrong taking something out of the MESA where the camera is mounted on.


Mildly better here.

/edit: Heh, looking through the Apollo pictures, I revise my earlier statement. They did also publish the bad pictures.

Here's a decent one from Apollo 12. There they used a different camera which broke (guess why they didn't wanna use that one for Apollo 11...), but the mounting was the same.

 

[Bonesjones]

No goal posts moved. In the context of the Apollo missions, doing visible light photography of stars was simply not deemed a priority.

Yeah the question is why not? Why wouldn't you do the easy accessible thing that's a huge PR win for no reason. The clear answer is to hide something.

What? I don't understand your point here. They explicitly took solar wind pictures during Apollo 16.

Not in the visible spectrum you dense moron.

How do you picture the Van Allen belt? It's an area of increased charged particles from the solar wind trapped in Earth's magnetic field. You can't just photograph it.

You can't see the aurora borealis? How do you know? Did they try?

Luckily, stars emit a lot more than just visible electromagnetic radiation, in fact most of the interesting physics happens more in the radio spectrum. And you can build nice large mirrors for that a lot easier.

Yeah and you can hide your nice black ops government organization for decades until you need to surprise everyone with spare parts for the hubble. Almost like space is a giant conspiracy full of lies and half truths.

I don't know if there are no messed up pictures, if there were they simply wouldn't be released.

Why wouldn't they? Why would accept hiding that?

The astronauts were also trained to use the cameras beforehand. It had an explicitly accessible viewfinder and so on.

A really easy to use camera with accessible viewfinder for certain.

Radiation damage? Not in that short time they were on the moon. You can see some spots from probably secondary x rays exposing a grain or two in some pictures, though.

8 days is a long time to fly with no protection from gamma rays which have no shielding.

Eh? That's an entirely different thing, what are you on about?

They had the equipment you talked about already installed, it's just a matter of pointing and shooting right? Or is that beyond their capability when you need it to be?

Because people are somewhat smart and know what atmospheric effects are and what simple visible spectrum photography of stars does?

On earth and in earth orbit, what about from the moon? You've got the Luna ones that are all garbage and easily faked. Why not ones from man's crowning achievement?

Seriously, do you think something magic would have happened if they also took pictures of stars? If they had a reasonable telescope and the correct time window they could have taken some sweet pictures of Mars, Jupiter or Saturn, but they wouldn't have done anything really interesting.

I don't think anything magic would happen, but I do know that you could triangulate their position from those stars, so it's an independently verifiable way of proving you did something. Why would you not want that?

Here you can see Neil Armstrong taking something out of the MESA where the camera is mounted on.

Doesn't show the camera though, which is the whole point

 

[Cave Fisher]

The easiest way to shut down pretty much any moon landing conspiracy is to just wonder how at no point did the Soviets realize something was up.

 

[The Foxtrot]

The easiest way to shut down pretty much any moon landing conspiracy is to just wonder how at no point did the Soviets realize something was up.

Or just ask them if all of the other events of the Space Race were faked, too.

 

[Meriasek]

Yeah the question is why not? Why wouldn't you do the easy accessible thing that's a huge PR win for no reason. The clear answer is to hide something.

Because it's not easily accessible as I explained. And what PR win would it be? A picture of the stars proves nothing.

Not in the visible spectrum you dense moron.

Yeah? Because the solar wind is charged particles you can't see? What the fuck are you smoking?

You can't see the aurora borealis? How do you know? Did they try?

I mean, they took pictures of Earth. But Aurora Borealis is a temporary phenomenon you can't always see, and certainly not from that distance with hand cameras.

A really easy to use camera with accessible viewfinder for certain.

It's all relative. Accessible with a space suit. Turns out there are quite a few botched shots, but well, they trained with these things to minimize wasted film.

8 days is a long time to fly with no protection from gamma rays which have no shielding.

Dosis is still not that high tho. Particularly gamma rays, which are a relatively small component of the spectrum.

They had the equipment you talked about already installed, it's just a matter of pointing and shooting right? Or is that beyond their capability when you need it to be?

The slow scan TV camera optimized for the same lighting conditions as the other cameras? You've seen the "Small Step" footage, you think they could just take some ultra grainy pictures of stars with it and suddenly you'd believe in the moon landing?

On earth and in earth orbit, what about from the moon? You've got the Luna ones that are all garbage and easily faked. Why not ones from man's crowning achievement?

And a still photo of stars can't be faked while all the other pictures from the moon can be easily faked? What?

I don't think anything magic would happen, but I do know that you could triangulate their position from those stars, so it's an independently verifiable way of proving you did something. Why would you not want that?

Could also be faked, though. Don't pretend that such pictures would make you a believer.

Doesn't show the camera though, which is the whole point

So now the camera didn't even exist?
Apollo 12 camera doesn't count? Of course not.

 

[teriyakiburns]

It's all relative. Accessible with a space suit. Turns out there are quite a few botched shots, but well, they trained with these things to minimize wasted film.

The camera, a heavily modified hasselblad 500EL, didn't have a viewfinder. They made up for this by having a wide-angle lens, which was more forgiving of badly framed shots, and using highly sensitive film stock to allow a shorter exposure time, for increased clarity and reduced motion blur. And as you say, they were trained to pay attention to what they were shooting.

 

[VeteranOfTheRetardWars]

The Soviet Union won the early parts of the space race not necessarily due to superior technology, but by the simple act of not giving many shits about human lives. They didn't have to care too much about optics and the public opinion. The first spacewalk almost ended in disaster because the suit ballooned up and the cosmonaut couldn't operate the door handle anymore.
On the other hand, the Soyuz spacecraft is still used, so gotta hand it to them, once they figured shit out, it worked.

When we talk about Space Race theories, the one I’m closest to believing is the Lost Cosmonaut theory.
I could absolutely buy that Russia covered up the death of an early cosmonaut, and Yuri was the first guy to make it back from space.

 

[Screamer_2]

I think the bigger false narrative about going to the moon is that there was a space race of the Soviet and the USA trying to get to the moon. Which is why people point to the Soviet's never going as proof the US didn't.

Going to the Moon was an amazing feat but ultimately nothing more than an expensive stunt. Which is why they haven't gone back. It was never a priority for the Soviets, it became more of a distraction in their space program. While the USA had a giant propaganda campaign about being in a race and beating them.

There was the competing development of space capabilities. The US focused on going to the Moon but that was never a main goal of the Soviets. They put some resources towards it, but not enough to get it done. Which is why they never followed through by going. The 70s roll around, the US is spending a bunch of money sending missions to the Moon while the Soviets are starting their space station projects, which were a much more reasonable goal and capability to be developing.

The US has wasted all of their times on something far less practically useful by going to the moon. It's an amazing and cool thing but the US then had to turn around and play catch up to the Soviets. They modified part of a Saturn V rocket booster into a space station which had a bunch of problems. Being too impressed by themselves they decided they'll easily beat the Soviets when it comes to space stations that they spent a ridiculous amount of money building the Space Shuttle for their own space stations. Which was a ridiculously complicated and expensive system and the space stations never came.

It was then used in the late 90s and early 2000s to build a space station, with the initial modules based on old Soviet hardware before being retired and having a decade of so with the US having no space capabilities while the Russia still chugged along with their capabilities developed in the 60s which they never lost.

The US space program is impressive, but it's endlessly full of retarded, pointless and expensive decisions.

 

[Meriasek]

When we talk about Space Race theories, the one I’m closest to believing is the Lost Cosmonaut theory.
I could absolutely buy that Russia covered up the death of an early cosmonaut, and Yuri was the first guy to make it back from space.

Yeah, definitely. The Soviets don't care about people and they had the means to bury stuff like that.

 

[VeteranOfTheRetardWars]

Yeah, definitely. The Soviets don't care about people and they had the means to bury stuff like that.

Not just that, space travel is a little hard and being the first human test subject is probably one of the riskiest things a person has ever done. I forgot all of what I’ve read on it, by shit just fucks up sometimes when you try launching a guy into space.

 

[12345]

I didn't know where else to put this but I had to put it somewhere and this seems like a good fit.

 

[Otterly]

ask, when the real question is "Why has no nation, including America, ever returned?

I’ve wondered this too.

Going to the Moon was an amazing feat but ultimately nothing more than an expensive stunt. Which is why they haven't gone back

It wasn’t a stunt though. If you control the moon you control everything earth does in space. You control what can be launched and you control what gets launched past the moon too. So the moon is a massive strategic pissing contest. You put your boys up there and the others can’t get past.

We have so many satellites now, and we knew satellites would be big back then too. Even if all the moon was was a ‘bunch of rocks’ it’s still a bunch of rocks you can prevent the other nations from leaving earth from. It makes no sense that we never went back. The abandonment of the space program past low earth orbit up to recently makes no sense either.

I have no answers for any of it

 

[Whoopsie Daisy]

Sure, but that's not a significant milestone in my opinion.

Your opinion is wrong. Sending a living organism into an unknown is a milestone because it allows us to see if the organism survives and what effects space has on it.

As I said, a spacewalk isn't a significant milestone on the way to the moon,

That's because you don't know what you're talking about.

You're making a comparison here without any data. In my view,

Your view is incorrect and your data is no presented.

lol no. It's not.

A woman in space is significant and you just saying "lol, it's not" shows your ignorance.

I'm aware that men and women are different, but space travel is not so taxing

Everything you say about this subject can now be discarded and ridiculed. You are a literal retard who has no idea what they're talking about.

Meanwhile, I explained exactly why orbital rendezvous and docking is critical to a moon mission. Thus demonstrating it is a significant milestone.

lol

The date of the invention is irrelevant. Concorde is an example of a technical achievement (a large, multi-passenger airliner that goes mach 2+) which we no longer have.

We do have this technology in existence today, and have done for decades.

No, that's not a better comparison. It's only a valid comparison if it involves having the capability to repeat the action. In the case of concorde we do not have the tech in existence right now ...just like apollo.

Yes, yes we do. We even have better tech than a concorde.

That's my claim. If you're going to disagree with me, at least FUCKING UNDERSTAND what it is that you're disagreeing with. I did not say "we don't want to" - I said that we can't. I listed a half dozen attempts that all were canceled. I am 100% right about this.

Read more, sniff fewer farts. Telling me I don't understand when you come out with the drivel you have. lol, lmao even.

Because I enjoy this. I enjoy sparing with people, and it fills me with great confidence when I see that nobody can present a valid argument against me.

Holy shit. How autistic are you?

 

[Meriasek]

It wasn’t a stunt though. If you control the moon you control everything earth does in space. You control what can be launched and you control what gets launched past the moon too. So the moon is a massive strategic pissing contest. You put your boys up there and the others can’t get past.

Hm, I don't know about that. The Moon is too far away to be efficient at controlling near Earth space. It takes several days to get there, and optical instruments can barely see shit at that range. You can't see the Apollo sites from Earth, and the other way around will have the same problem. So all the intel still comes from Earth, and it'd be much easier to just send up a jet with an anti-satellite missile to bring 'em down, or start an ICBM that brings up suborbital warheads or something. Strategic thinking post-lunar space race focused on space stations, spy satellites, orbital weapons platforms and such.
A Moon base would be great as a starting point to get to Mars, though.

 

[Kapros]

Hm, I don't know about that. The Moon is too far away to be efficient at controlling near Earth space. It takes several days to get there, and optical instruments can barely see shit at that range. You can't see the Apollo sites from Earth, and the other way around will have the same problem. So all the intel still comes from Earth, and it'd be much easier to just send up a jet with an anti-satellite missile to bring 'em down, or start an ICBM that brings up suborbital warheads or something. Strategic thinking post-lunar space race focused on space stations, spy satellites, orbital weapons platforms and such.
A Moon base would be great as a starting point to get to Mars, though.

Meanwhile LUNINT is a thing now and it's a big part of why the Space Force exists.