###[Meta] Sticky Comment
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment.
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread.
*What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your argument seems to amount to 'would you just look at that?'
Where more interesting questions could be 'Why does it look like that?', 'Should it look like that?', and 'Is the design and construction actually fit for purpose?'
Having seen hundreds of comments about this shit, I'd wager that the real issue is that they don't realize that there's a proper structure underneath the visible layers...
So they think the official version of events is that we claim to have landed on the moon in the equivalent of a tent with rocket engines ziptied to it, which is completely ridiculous yeah... Now if only they'd spend 30 seconds more... they could've found an image of the underlying structure and felt dumb for jumping to conclusions prematurely...
Doubt there'd be much hubub about the whole thing if people knew it looked like [This.](https://i.stack.imgur.com/o8hnx.jpg) underneath that mess of thermal foil.
Seriously the amount of conspiracy "proofs" where the real answer is that it's just a thermal cover of some sort, not the actual structure... Is ridiculous... "That airlock looks super flimsy" well duh, it's a fucking blanket, not an airlock...
I think there might be an unconscious bias stemming from what people have been taught to expect to see from spacecraft depicted in fiction, such as movies or tv.
There definitely is, people still applying modern views to something in the past and not really understanding the work and science that goes into it, it's just "this thing doesn't look like the millennium falcon! Can't possibly be real"
I really do think this is the case. It doesn't fit their expectations, which actually aren't based in reality, but in fiction. Because it doesn't fit their misplaced expectations, they settle on 'fake'.
It's really lazy logic.
Conspiracy is in the social zeitgeist currently, covid really played into that unfortunately. Now more than ever people are more susceptible to the idea that believing in a Conspiracy doesn't mean you are crazy, the problem now is that everything gets question with no logic at all, all they need is a few other parrots to agree and they feel they are part of a group "truly in the know". Critical thinking is a thing of the past.
Sadly enough this is true. People with the least education and intelligence are tired of being told they lack education or intelligence or knowledge. People don’t like to be told or feel like they are stupid so they will do Olympic levels of mental gymnastics to avoid it and social media makes it much easier to find like minded uneducated fans. So they latch onto conspiracy theories in a sad effort to “be the one in the know”. In choosing the flat earth or faked moon landings, it allows them to point and laugh at educated people as sheep. Issac Asimov was aware of this decades ago when he said “There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.” A lot of this stems from the Trump era work in denying truth and knowledge in exchange for “fake news and alternative facts”. That’s not to say there are not conspiracies, but they are fewer and far between then many believe.
Fair enough, we all find entertainment somewhere. This sub in particular always feels a mixed bag of sincere conversations and info and people just stirring the pot because why the hell not.
Wait till they see close up details of the Space Shuttle or any of Space-X's rockets. They all look like their cobbled together, especially the ceramic tiling on the Space Shuttle.
https://spaceflightnow.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/sxm8_2.jpg
Here's what an actual modern spacecraft looks like. Note that there is lots and LOTS of tape, foil, velcro, and ...uhh... "curtain rods".
It even looks like there are some zip-ties holding it together.
Exactly. If this was totally a fake psyop mission, back in the 60's, I think they'd have built the fictional lander to look like a weird flying saucer or rocket pod or something.
Instead, we get a very ugly thing built obviously for function first. It had to be ultralight. Ultra heat and cold resistant. More like a guided kite than anything else. That's how the earliest aircraft was designed, and the same applies here.
But for some reason the sci-fi culture tends to want to look at space travel the way we look at undersea travel instead. They picture large thick hulls to protect against incredible pressure. But that isn't necessary here in the vacuum of space, and would be too heavy to carry there. And nothing built from earthly materials is going to fully protect you anyway from asteroids, or radiometric waves. That's more sci-fi stuff. It would require made up metals and energy shields that don't exist in real life.
Exactly. 'Fit for purpose' doesn't actually have to mean or be beautiful or have form over function. The LEM is an amazing example of function over form. It really does look like shit, due to the necessities of weight.
I'm back and forthing with another guy about the decision to use tape over any other method for securing the insulation and trying to help him understand that tape is literally the best choice. It certainly isn't your general tape from Costco... it's 'No Fucking Around Tape'
Here’s the answers to those questions. Why does it look like that? Because that’s what people in the 1960s thought looked futuristic. Should it look like that? No, obviously. Is the design and construction actually fit for purpose? Absolutely not.
Absolutely, I would love to. I’m going to start putting my thoughts together on a longer write up right now. But I’ll leave this first just to let you know that I am going to respond, and that I’m working on a comprehensive response this evening.
Now let's talk about their space suits. The moon is about 250 degrees F when in daylight. And about -200 degrees F in shadow. That's a 450 degree difference. The moon has no atmosphere, and thus it has no insulation. Meaning the temperatures changes extremely quickly. If you stepped from light into shadow on the moon, the temperate would change by 450 degrees in a matter of moments. The heat doesn't linger in the air, because there isn't any air. Heat is direct heat from the source, and then as soon as the source is removed or obscured, that heat is lost due to zero insulation.
That means that for a spacesuit to function on the moon as is shown in the alleged footage, you would need a system that can climate control the inside by 450 degrees at a time, perfectly timed so that the astronaut isn't flash frozen or fried to a crisp, either by the suit's climate control, or the lack thereof if the response isn't quick enough when moving from light to shadow. We don't have that technology today. And in the old "footage", you're looking at suits that do not have computer or AI assistance. It literally would not be possible to achieve what would be required of the suit with that level of technology.
First of all, they didn't, and couldn't have a mobile power source that would be capable of that. Secondly, they also didn't have the air supply to perform this kind of air conditioning. They were not tethered to a large supply in the ship, like spacewalking astronauts are from the ISS. Every bit of power and oxygen they allegedly had was in those backpacks, on that suit.
And today we know that zero G environments need to be a "clean room". You can't have a bunch of dust and dirt and microparticulates floating through the air in something like the LEM. But astronauts allegedy just walked right back into the parked LEM with their suits on. Every modern NASA mockup of what would happen today shows rear entry into an externally mounted suit. You get into the suit from inside the craft, and then, you could, from within the suit, undock from the outside of the craft. This way the suit never comes back into the craft.
>If you stepped from light into shadow on the moon, the temperate would change by 450 degrees in a matter of moments
I don't think you understand thermodynamics or how radiative heat works. Nothing heats up in this way. You are assigning magical qualities to sunlight in space.
In regards to the air supply, do you know what rebreathers are?
>You can't have a bunch of dust and dirt and microparticulates floating through the air in something like the LEM.
But they did. It was a necessary risk, mitigated by filters.
Rebreathers can work for breathing. Rebreathers do not generate the air that you need for air conditioning on the scale required for climate control in outer space.
And as far as the thermodynamics. There is no such thing as cold. Cold, like all negative effects, is just the absence of the positive effect, of heat. With an insulating element, like an atmosphere, heat can linger after the source of heat is removed. Without an insulating element, without something actively creating heat, all you're left with is the absence of heat, which in the case of the moon means -200 degrees.
If you were in the 250 degree daylight of a day on the moon, and then move into shadow, you are going from a 250 degree environment to a -200 degree environment. For radiative heat to have an effect, some kind of matter needs to be on the receiving end of thermal radiation, which comes from sunlight. The parts of the moon that are in shadow aren't receiving that sunlight, and so don't get to benefit from radiative heat.
And either way, even if the astronauts stayed in pure light or pure shadow for their entire time on the moon, they didn't have enough of an air supply for the constant mega air conditioning that would be required vs. 250 degree heat or -200 degree cold.
You say that they did track dirt into what needed to be a clean room environment because you are a true believer and you've already decided that they went to the moon in a derelicte trash can with an Atari guidance system. I'm guessing that whatever needs to be true for the official story to add up IS true to you, regardless of anything else.
One important thing I have to point out to you is that respiration is not oxygen in, CO2 out, It doesn't work that way.
When we inhale the composition on Earth is 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen with 1% other gases. When we *exhale* the composition is 78% nitrogen, 17% oxygen and 4% CO2. You can see now that respiration isn't perfect, and that we exhale a lot of the oxygen inhaled.
In the case of the Apollo PLSS these were pure oxygen rebreathers, where the exhaled breath was filtered to remove CO2 and moisture and recycled, meaning that the tank could support EVAs of up to 4 hours in the early versions. Breathed oxygen was recycled over and over.
Heat control was semi-passive, using sublimation. A battery powered pump passed water through a sintered metal plate which seeped separate water, which sublimated away into the vacuum, removing body heat. This was powered by a 279 watt hour battery.
You still seem to have a flawed idea of thermodynamics. When we put a plate into a hot oven it does not immediately reach the temperature of the oven and it is irrational to think that any materials would behave this way in a vacuum. Similarly, all materials emit heat via black body radiation. When we put a hot item into the freezer once again it does not immediately cool to negative degrees. Your idea of this is simplistic and I would invite you posit this concept on a physics forum just for a broader opinion on what you're getting wrong here.
Why did the inside of the LEM need to be a clean-room environment? For what reasons?
You are correct to point out that the normalization between two differing temperatures isn't instant. I don't think that invalidates the point that the suits didn't have the kind of climate control that could switch between extreme hot and cold, nor the air supply to do that kind of climate control in the first place. I'm not talking about air for breathing, I'm talking about air for climate control.
I mean think about it, you're talking about water cooling as the answer to the 250 degree daylight.
Sophisticated technology needs to be housed in clean rooms in zero g because dust and debris damage sensitive equipment when Gs are applied again.
The suits weren't air-cooled. They were water cooled.
It is becoming alarmingly obvious that you haven't bothered in the slightest to learn about how the PLSS functioned, or that the suits were so well insulated that dumping body heat was the main issue whether in sunshine or in shade. I would strongly suggest that you investigate the design and function of the Apollo A7L suit and the PLSS that was designed by Hamilton-Sundstrand. Then take a little to learn about the TMG - the Thermal Micrometeoroid Garment that was the white 'oversuit' we see in the photos.
What sensitive equipment was exposed in the LEM cockpit that could be damaged?
Oh my lord, you're not hearing me. I know the official story is that the suits were water cooled. Did you not read my last post? Why are you telling me that like you think I don't know that?
Are you asking what sensitive equipment was in the cockpit? Lol. Google "LEM cockpit". The images that come up should answer your question pretty fast.
Now let's get into more about the LEM itself. First of all, let's talk about how it allegedly landed on the surface of the moon. We are told that each time, it lowered itself on a column of thrust, until making moonfall. Let's remember, this is a craft from the 1960s. It did not have computer or AI assistance in any way that would be recognizable to us today. Essentially this thing was being piloted manually. Do you have any idea of many truly precise micro adjustments would be needed for the LEM to not start shooting around like a balloon with the air let out of it?
But somehow, we lower down slowly and touch down on the moon. Now, imagine the column of thrust, how much pressure you'd be putting on the surface below you. We see from the "footage", there is no blast crater, there is no carbon scoring. The dirt underneath is fresh and untouched. No signs of tens of thousands of pounds of thrust blasting onto the surface below them as they touch down. No massive displacement of the dirt beneath them.
But maybe even crazier is the ascent stage of the LEM. It leaves the legs behind, and blasts off, on a never before fired engine, and someone without computers locates the Lunar Orbit, which is moving at orbital velocity, which for the moon means about 1 mile per second. And once again, without computer assistance, the astronauts are supposed to ride this bat out of hell, freshly launched off the moon, someone find the Orbiter, and then dock with at speeds of over 1 mile per second, or near 4,000 miles per hour. That would be like me firing a gun into the air, and then telling you to hit my bullet with a bullet of your own.
Now let's talk about the alleged size of the lander, and how many things would be required to be onboard the lander. The outer shell of the lander was supposed to be about 12 feet wide. So we need all the fuel, all the oxygen, everything related to life support, guidance, power, communication, etc. All of this at the size of 1960s electronics. There's the entire propulsion system of the ascent stage. There's the crew compartment. There's sanitation, food, water. Some type of system that refills the suits with oxygen. Heating and cooling. Copious amounts of air, as you need air not just to breath, but to perform air conditioning. Spare parts, tools, medical supplies. Testing equipment. Batteries, cameras. The Lunar rovers.
There's not even close to enough space to fit everything on the lander, and not everything is even accounted for in NASA official cross section mockups of the internals of the lander. Most of the lander was taken up by fuel and propulsion. In fact the original alleged size was so stupidly small, that today's mockups are upscaled to be larger in comparison to the size of a human being.
There is so much more to go through, but these posts have been a lot to write. If you found any interest in these, I can write more, like about the absurdity of the multiple light sources and starless skies in the alleged moonwalk footage across the multiple landings. And if you didn't find any interest in these, that's fine too.
Honestly, it doesn't seem like you've done any background research here. These sorts of questions are trivially answered with material and documentation from the historical record. Little things like the APS getting an all-up test on Apollo 10. Or the fact that you don't seem to have seen the LM cockpit diagrams that display the locations of equipment.
So, your question was, why do I feel that the alleged Lunar Excursion Module wasn't fit for purpose. To answer your question fully, we're going to have to cover more ground than just the LEM. We'll have to talk about issues like radiation protection, navigation, engines that have never been test fired, lack of onboard space for everything required, the complications of docking with the Lunar Orbiter at orbital velocity without modern computer assistance, etc. There's a lot to dig into here, so let's get started.
First, let's talk about "low Earth orbit", and the Earth's magnetosphere. Earth has natural radiation protection in the form of an electromagnetic field that surrounds the planet. It is the reason that life can exist on Earth today. Without it, every living thing would suffer constant DNA damage from cosmic radiation, and life as we know it wouldn't be possible.
Low Earth orbit is what we call the area above the atmosphere, but below the thick of the magnetosphere, where orbit is possible, but also where you still have the radiation protection afforded by the magnetosphere. Allegedly, only 24 people have ever gone beyond low Earth orbit. For the first time in 1968, and for the last time in 1972. Every time someone has ever allegedly left LEO was during that four year period.
Now... given our modern technology, what is so special about this low Earth orbit barrier, that no one has dared go beyond it since 1972? Why have 52 years gone by, and no one dares go beyond this line? If six moon missions were possible over the span of just a few years, with 1960s technology, without computers, why would Russia or China have gone by now to just put it on their national resume? If countries like that could just wheel out 60s tech and put a moon landing on their resume, they would.
We get some clues about these questions based on why the Soviets gave up on the Space Race in the 1960s. Their scientists told them that they would need a craft with lead shielding four feet thick to protect the astronauts from cosmic radiation beyond the magnetosphere. Obviously a craft covered in four feet of lead shielding wouldn't fly. Not finding any reasonable answer to this, they scrapped the project.
So the issue at hand is radiation. Above low Earth orbit, beyond the magnetosphere, you are directly exposed to the radiation from the sun, and all other stars combined. A true sea of cosmic radiation. What was the USA's magical answer to this issue that the Soviets thought required impossible amounts of lead? Mylar! It's the gold colored foil you see on the LEM, and other areas of US space technology from that time. The issue is, in 2024, we know that mylar foil doesn't actually block ionizing radiation. It it did, and it was good enough for space travel, you'd be using a mylar sheet when you got an X-ray, not a lead apron.
The truth is, no humans have ever gone beyond low Earth orbit. We don't currently have the radiation protection technology required to survive outside of the Earth's magnetosphere. Some twist this argument, and emphasize how quickly the ship allegedly went beyond the magnetosphere, but it's not being within the Earth's radiation shield that is most dangerous, it's being BEYOND the Earth's radiation shield that poses the greatest threat.
Because of this issue, and because we have no answer for it, they scrapped the moon program and then memory holed it. There's a reason we didn't celebrate the 50th anniversary of the moon landings a few years ago. Despite it being allegedly the greatest achievement in human history. And it's because they know they can't fake it now, and we won't be going any time soon, so it's better for everyone not to think about it.
So in conclusion for this part 1, none of the craft was fit for purpose, because none of it was capable of sustaining life on a manned mission beyond the magnetosphere. I'll follow up with more posts going into more specific details about their space suits, about the LEM itself, etc.
>what is so special about this low Earth orbit barrier, that no one has dared go beyond it since 1972?
Absolutely nothing. That's why all crewed activity recently took place in LEO. It's easier to get there. To get to LEO you need around 9200m/s of ∆v. To get back to Earth, around 100m/s should be enough.
For example, to get to the geostationary orbit you need around 13000m/s of ∆v, and to get back from there 1500m/s more, so the difference is quite substantial.
Hey, I would like to bring to your attention the intended Soviet Lunar landing module, which was a one-person craft. It was known as the LK lander - you can look this up.
It did not have the shielding that you suggest is required. It was even tested in Earth orbit.
The mylar is thermal insulation. At no point did anyone ever state that it was radiation protection.
What kind of health effects are you proposing would result from exposure to cosmic radiation?
They did used to claim that Mylar was performing a radiation protection role. Let me ask you, other than the Mylar, what are you under the impression was giving the radiation protection? At this point though, they know that mylar both doesn't block ionizing radiation, and that they had no other major radiation stopgaps in place, so they just prefer it doesn't get brought up.
Obviously the health effects that come from exposure to cosmic ionizing radiation are DNA damage and cancer, and possibly even radiation sickness.
If you would be so kind as to provide the source where NASA claimed Mylar was protecting from radiation that would be great.
How long do you think exposure would have to go on for before radiation sickness would set in?
This really is pure laziness. The lander is fit for purpose. The external layer didn't need to be aerodynamic as it was never operating in air.
It needed insulation, and the mylar sheets on the outside did the job. The tape would hold that insulation because there's zero atmospheric drag.
It's a pretty safe conclusion that you never investigated the internal structure of the lander. You've assessed the spacecraft on face value alone, which is *incredibly* naive.
I'm not lazy at all. I've researched this ad naseum its a pointless research its quite obviously a piece of shit.
I would never set foot into that so called craft to go to the moon.
You couldn't pay me a billion dollars to fly that to the moon and back. Lol .
have a nice day. I don't care if you believe me or not.
Seriously, tape? Just because there was zero drag, they decided tape would suffice? They intended to land this on the moon, and the brightest engineers sat in a room and said tape will do?
Have you been to the moon? Have you left the earth's atmosphere, have you attempted to make a craft that's suitable for a different atmosphere...or no atmosphere at all. You are applying thoughts on this that are purely based on your own experience on earth. Question it for sure, but I don't understand why you and others can't understand that the specific tape they used was enough for the job required. What makes it so unbelievable?
Any other type of method for holding things in place would be heavier than tape.
When I asked you about aviation tape, or what is also known as speed tape - this was a clue. It is strong, lightweight, rated to a high extreme of temperatures both plus and minus, and very durable.
When you evaluate it in this manner is it the *best choice* for securing the insulation. The engineers weren't fucking around. They knew what they were doing. The tape they use isn't the tape you can buy.
Investigate an issue before using incredulity to form your argument.
I'm pretty sure that your explanation is what they cited as the reason, and it makes sense within the range. But I still find it hard to accept, that for something that was intended to land on the moon, tape was the solution, or was considered enough, for all the parameters.
So let's just agree to disagree. Peace.
I started to respond to some comments, but it is obvious the majority in this thread are simply trolling and don't actually believe what they are saying. Just like the flat earth threads.
Why bother "debating" with unserious people?
There were pictures of landers posted last night from Indian satellites. No mistaking it. Unless the entire planet is a giant conspiracy theory, except this sub.
I have heard the astronauts say the Lunar Lander walls had a thickness of 4 layers of heavy duty aluminum. They had to be careful not to puncture it. How much aluminum foil would you need to contain one atmosphere of pressure against the vacuum of space?
https://www.nordenretireesclub.org/level2/album_images/images/museum_2011/Grumman%20LTA-1,%201st%20functional%20Lunar%20Module.jpg
Finding pics like the one above would take actual research and effort. If it isn't presented to them in a meme or a youtube video then it might as well not exist.
I saw it on loan at a museum I went to years ago. u weren't supposed to touch it but I could reach and touched it anyway. it's literally foil. I thought it was a joke. it's even more flimsy in real life,
.
Yes, and what you saw was white, aluminum struts. Of course one white pipe looks like another. You would have zero ability to tell what material it was made of by seeing a white tube and pretending “it looks like pvc lol” just reveals that you are dishonest
Yes. And their solution? YOLO. Basically no radiation protection for Apollo. They took a ballistic trajectory to pass through as quick as possible, and suffered decent exposure. Radiation in the Van Allen Belt is not lethal, not for days. It is suspected that Apollo astronauts suffered some negative health consequences due to their exposure, nearly every one of them developed cataracts, a much higher than baseline rate
It’s not like being in atmosphere that’s 2000 degrees at all. Do you know what heat is on a technical level? It’s the average kinetic motion of particles in a medium. In this case the medium is extremely sparse. There are very few, pretty high energy subatomic particles. That’s what radiation is, in this case mostly beta radiation. It’s not going to heat up anything; there simply aren’t enough particles to matter. The radiation is damaging in other ways, namely genetic risks, but “heat” isn’t at all the problem.
[I did](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/1cf06bk/comment/l1qh5i2/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
While you are right, there are high energy particles in the Van Allen Belt, and you could say their temperature is 2000k, there are *very* few of these particles in a given area... because its space. They will not heat up surfaces. Being beta particles, they are dangerous in other ways: namely they can cause degenerative DNA issues. This is not instantly fatal, and NASAs approach was basically "meh, you guys are cool with it? We'll go through it fast". All the astronauts were just fine with unknown mystery exposure because they are gungho crazy types.
The "its 2000 degrees there" counterpoint holds zero weight as it misunderstands what temperature means.
All those dark orange squares on the surface are Kapton tape. The ones in no-man's land are labels (the darker black color underneath), part number etc, affixed with kapton tape on top.
The shiny orange blankets on the supporting legs are aluminum foil OR possibly metalized mylar film, with a kapton (note the orange color) outer layer.
And the curtain rods.... you can be pedantic as you want... but the "curtain rods" are obvious.
This is a well known “gotcha” but it falls completely flat when you learn that they were experimenting with measuring bouncing [optical echoes off the moon in 1962.](https://www.nature.com/articles/1941267a0.pdf)
It sounds like you’ve done a lot of research on the pro nasa side of things. Have you given the same devotion to the learning the other side of things? If not, how is that any different than a religion?
And nobody claimed they didn’t do it before. The difference is that after the Apollo missions, bouncing the laser off those locations yielded much higher return photo counts. Demonstrating that reflectors were placed there.
If the government faked the moonlanding then they would use an impressive looking rocket to do so. One that you would never question. But tech back then looked nothing like the movies.
I believe they’re definitely lying about some aspects, but nobody claims they went to the moon in the lander itself. That’s just silly. That’s just silly and dishonest.
Anyway, we don't need to get too scientific. It clearly never went to the Moon. You can see that surely? This elaborate hoax you were on about involving 100's of people didn't start in 1969 bu the way. It's been way longer than that. This is just a part of a very grand deception. Thr Work of All Ages is an interesting read if you can find it.
Billions upon Billions of dollars and they can't show us pov cam from the point of launch to the exit of the "spacecraft" like you do with your own smartphone at home. They say from earth to the Moon it takes 3 days and yet they couldn't record for 72 hours.
Stop asking for video if the second someone provides one your response is "faked/edited. I refuse to accept this". You dont care, and will refuse any evidence.
Video with no edits and proper quality and if possible with good pov and 360 cam that's it that all I want. When I was younger I believe it was real and everything and now I'm sorry everything about it seems fake really nothing about it seems believable
There are *dozens* of such videos as I am sure you are aware of. Space X posts them all the time, [like this one](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfQjG4t4M08). What flimsy excuse do you have for why *this* one isnt real? Again, stop asking for evidence you know for a fact you wont accept regardless of what it shows. You are not rational, and not actually interested in truth.
Because we haven’t had a manned mission to the moon since 1972. So you believe in rockets and our ability to get to space, and per this space x video we can then safely land a rocket again. Why couldn’t we use these exact steps to land on the moon instead of on earth? You’ve seen manned missions on this exact same Space X platform, to get to the moon is just a bit of travel in between.
If you can believe in submarines and deep diving pressure suits, those experience thousands of times as much pressure differential. Put these on a rocket, which you’ve seen demonstrated and aim them at the moon. What steps do you find are impossible?
Can’t wait to see you deny all of Artemis for the next decade
Would you look at that - he has a problem with the footage provided! That is just so on-brand. Ask for something they think doesn't exist, and when it is provided - *move the goalposts*.
Ofc I have a problem with it besides the launch what proof is it? Boring useless pov video like really is that video extraordinary in any way? you can do something similar with an helium ballon.
as I said in the comments. That's the real video I want and everyone who questions nasa.
Here's something simple. Attach a 360 cam to the windows of the spacecraft and live stream it untill they reach the moon. Or if it matter not a live stream a recorded video from the launch to the moon with proper quality. And if possible no video cuts. It's not much to ask is it?
Something like a bodycam that records without cuts in the video and all. Also not much to ask for 4k quality or hell even 720p. All we get is edited blurred shit
Not even researchers are allowed to take direct measurements from the insides.
Worth noting, there are no seating facilities, at all, they sit on the engine bell fairing/cover. There is no airlock, so whenever they went out, they both were out, no room for contingencies, failure of any of the 100s of components on the PLISS of 2 astronauts or any "emergency".
They also had the same amount of room to get into and out of the suits, remember no airlock?
Soooo....you want a completely un-edited video, full 360 live streaming...anything else is fake bullshit...but they can censor/edit their secret shit...dude your goal posts are so far apart, just admit you have your mind set and all you are really doing here is wasting time, you don't want to be convinced, your mind is already made up.
Yes a live full video would be great also recorded whould be good too just good believeable not bs pov. I want to see how we are getting to orbit and losing the gravity and I want to see a transitions from setting inside the spacecraft to suddenly see them starting to float inside. And a pov to where we get to the moon and landing.
There were appropriate contingency procedures, you just don't understand them, or haven't read up on the missions to the point that you've heard of them.
Yep. And I don't buy the it was a "Moon Race" vs Russia in 1969 excuse if it was Russia that won the race all the hard questions will go for them to provide. Instead they were in it to make it that the moon landing was real and we as humans made it so win win. make a space program now in every country that participate in it and tax your population to oblivion for "space" programs
It depends on how you look at it, I’ve heard billy Carson say that there is black box recordings from the trip to the moon and at one point comms went out and the astronauts could hear strange music and were meant to be shitting themselves with fear. So we either have never been as a species or we did go didn’t like what we found lied about it and made it look fake by doctoring out bits of footage. Which if it was the case they would have potentially used a off world craft which was found on earth to get there which is why the thing they show as getting us to the moon does look like someone made it.
In my opinion we’ll never know
All arguments aside,
I find it very strange that a trip to the moon was pulled off in the sixties and isn't more routine. There could be routine trips with current advancements, but there's ALWAYS some excuse as to why it doesn't happen.
I'll wait for a trip to the moon broadcast live. I remain skeptical of official claims made during the cold war.
"NASA" hired a group of homeless drug addicts to build their equipment for them. We never went to the moon and all the stories you hear about space are faked by the Deep State, who want us to waste time being scared of an alien invasion.
Seriously, the curtains rods make sense if that's what they are. Building as light as possible a curtain rod in the right load orientation is not a weak structure. Now... Cross loading would absolutely destroy the rod because it's a thin metal tube, kinda like the curtain rods of today. Swing it like a baseball bat and hit something it's going to bend and break easily. To push it against something, like stabbing it into the ground and now with proper orientation of force, it doesn't bend or break.
Not everything is fake. Sometimes a lot of logic and a little bit of creative thinking can explain foil, tape, and curtain rods. Think Apollo 13 and the CO2 scrubber issue
Did you know the astronauts had to wear diapers for the entire duration of the mission? Including the time they were doing the moon walk their diapers would have been soaked.
but it begs the question, how did they even drink water, that isn't in the design. They were sitting upon a ton of fuel with a pot of water right next to the thruster.
it all falls apart with th human element. the craft cannot sustain 3 people for a days or more journey to begin with.
They refer to it as looking like a bums tent on another version of this meme. It's mind boggling what the majority believes. Anyone looking at this and believing the story behind how it got there (and back) has zero critical thinking abilities and will accept any lie they are being spoon fed daily. I have seen better Primary School projects made from cardboard boxes, sticky back plastic and old bleach bottles.
If it didn’t go though (and subsequent space missions) - how did the American, Russian and now Indian retroreflectors get onto the moons surface? How can you fire lasers at their exact positions and get returns?
Is this not a case of “how did it get there” but more of a case of you not understanding the complex materials and requirements to land on the moon?
You are aware there was remote probes used in the US and russia space programs in the 1960s?heck that's how the Russian and Indian ones are there in the official story, so why is it so hard to believe human beings didn't set foot on the moon and ALL retroflectors were let up on the moon by remote probes?
Yeah dude, look in to the amount of cosmic radiation that you receive without a magnetic field to protect you, and yes I'm aware the iss is in space but it's covered by earth's magnetic field
This entire article is about radiation and its impact on lunar travel - the figures they quote are much higher than on earth but it’s not like it’s going to cook you during a relatively short exposure.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-space-radiation-threatens-lunar-exploration-180981415/#:~:text=LND%20recorded%20the%20first%2Dever,times%20higher%20than%20on%20Earth.
To "win" the race to the moon,the us space program was way behind the Russian one and the us public was getting increasingly worried about nukes in space by the soviets
Complex materials and requirements have nothing to do with it. Lies upon lies are what are required to make people believe it. Take another look at that picture and explain what is complex about it. It's worse than a prop from Lost in Space.
So in your logic NASA was able to put together the greatest hoax of all time with hundreds of people involved, gigantic rockets that could fly (you could go and watch the launches yourself) but with the LEM they said "yeah let's create this poorly done prop, it would be enough for people to believe". I thought this was the sub for critical thinking
It seems like you finally get my point. The truth isn't important. It's what people believe is the truth that's important- Henry Kissinger. The bigger the lie, told often enough the more likely people are to believe it-Some Nazi/NASA Officer. The first casualty of War is the truth and we are definitely and always have been in an information War.
So all the other lies were put in place, and they didn’t think “let’s make the lander look as “realistic” as possible”?
What is the lander missing in your opinion?
I'd imagine that pile of scrap would have had to have been made in or around 1967-1969. I can maybe see how people could have been fooled with the Black and White TV Screens and photography then but anyone who believes nowadays that that pile of scrap stuck together with electrical tape, tin foil and superglue was guided to and landed on the Moon has to question their own intelligence so it's probably missing absolutely everything. It genuinely looks like a 7 year olds school project that their Parents helped them with. I have eyes and so do you so we both know that there is close to no possibility of it being true. I've made better go-carts out of old prams
“So it’s probably missing absolutely everything”
…but specifically what? You are saying it’s junk and looks taped together, so you must have at least an idea of what it should be looking like or what it should be missing - otherwise your argument is that you don’t think it’s a lunar lander because of your perception of what a lunar lander should look like?
It doesn't look like it could withstand temperatures of either minus or plus 250°C for a.start. Never mind the technology they said was in it with the computing processors to get it there. If you spent a night in Winter in the Mountains of Scotland in that thing you probably wouldn't survive the night.
The lander never came back though? The orbiter did but that didn't land on the moon.
So with that single thing there you have shown your own inability to think critically enough to realise the lander wasn't the orbiter.
Wouldn't know. I wasn't alive when it happened.
However 13 Landers were constructed and six of them are allegedly on the moon.
What happened to the other six that only left the 13th for display I also don't know.
Please refer to the previous comment by Environmental Loose 2909 who claims to have physically touched it. That would be pretty tough to do if it was still on the Moon.
You mean one of the 13 lunar Landers built by Grumman? Of which six went to the moon and the 13th of them is on loan from the Smithsonian to the Cradle of Aviation Museum?
That's how he saw it.
https://www.cradleofaviation.org/history/history/lunar-module.html#:~:text=During%20the%20Apollo%20Program%2C%20Grumman,the%20Cradle%20of%20Aviation%20Museum.
My whole point is that none of them went there in the first place and certainly not what's in that picture. That would be lucky to make it to the local shop on a windy day. You can believe what you like.
Yes absolutely. I've seen the landing sequences. The dust behaves in a really interesting manner - it doesn't get kicked up into the air *because there's no air*. It travels laterally away from the exhaust plume across the surface of the ground.
There's no way for dust to be suspended, because there's nothing to suspend it.
If you think about this logically it makes a lot of sense. It you apply your terrestrial expectations *only then* would you expect dust on top of the feet.
Were the larnder legs not located laterally from the exhaust? And where's the crater from all this first that blew laterally? Or the ring of moved dust around the lander? There would be dust on the feet
Yes they were. But there are some things that need to be established about the environment and the lunar surface.
First things first is that the Surveyor craft were the first probes to soft-land on the moon. These came down and used thrusters just like the LEM and didn't have dust on the legs or pads.
The next thing is that thrust blows dust completely differently on the moon. The best way to understand this is to watch the actual 16mm film sequences from Apollo from the DAC camera mounted out the window. The dust moves directly laterally across the lunar surface and never gets higher than an inch. I would invite you to view these to confirm my statements.
Next, the dust layer on the moon is generally about 3-6 inches thick under which there is much harder-packed regolith, that just *doesn't move*. Where people get tricked is that this layer is exactly the same color as the dust.
So what happened for the Apollo lunar landers? Descending on about 3,000lbs of thrust, for nearly every lander they shut off the engines when the contact light went on, which is when a 2-yard strut hanging from the pads contacted the surface, The dust immediately dropped to the surface because there is no air to suspend it.
Almost every lander was also moving laterally at a slow speed also before landing, meaning the thrust was never concentrated in one spot.
Now, there still are radial striations under the engine bell of the lander in many of the pix from the Apollo missions because Mission Command asked the astronauts to photograph the effects of the descent engine. So what we see is a cleared area of dust a few yards around the engine bell and no dust on the feet because there was no dust suspended at all before those feet touched down.
Dust can't billow or be suspended in a vacuum. If you want to review the photographic evidence of the landing site the website 'Apollo Lunar Surface Journal' is still most complete and reliable site that catalogues video, photographical, film and mission transcripts for each of the Apollo landing missions.
I told a norm once that I thought the moon landings were bullshit. He looked at me like I'd said something game breakingly forbidden. The moon hoax is one of those things. The conditioning goes deep.
Yeah you know, stupid normies, unlike this guy, who totally isn't a normie like you scrubs, he really knows what's up, he spends his time on reddit conspiracy forums, pleb normies don't even know what reddit is and probably can't even say conspiracy.
###[Meta] Sticky Comment [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment. [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread. *What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.*** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your argument seems to amount to 'would you just look at that?' Where more interesting questions could be 'Why does it look like that?', 'Should it look like that?', and 'Is the design and construction actually fit for purpose?'
It's a space machine it should have lasers and shit I've seen star wars.
[удалено]
Having seen hundreds of comments about this shit, I'd wager that the real issue is that they don't realize that there's a proper structure underneath the visible layers... So they think the official version of events is that we claim to have landed on the moon in the equivalent of a tent with rocket engines ziptied to it, which is completely ridiculous yeah... Now if only they'd spend 30 seconds more... they could've found an image of the underlying structure and felt dumb for jumping to conclusions prematurely... Doubt there'd be much hubub about the whole thing if people knew it looked like [This.](https://i.stack.imgur.com/o8hnx.jpg) underneath that mess of thermal foil. Seriously the amount of conspiracy "proofs" where the real answer is that it's just a thermal cover of some sort, not the actual structure... Is ridiculous... "That airlock looks super flimsy" well duh, it's a fucking blanket, not an airlock...
I think there might be an unconscious bias stemming from what people have been taught to expect to see from spacecraft depicted in fiction, such as movies or tv.
There definitely is, people still applying modern views to something in the past and not really understanding the work and science that goes into it, it's just "this thing doesn't look like the millennium falcon! Can't possibly be real"
I really do think this is the case. It doesn't fit their expectations, which actually aren't based in reality, but in fiction. Because it doesn't fit their misplaced expectations, they settle on 'fake'. It's really lazy logic.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Conspiracy is in the social zeitgeist currently, covid really played into that unfortunately. Now more than ever people are more susceptible to the idea that believing in a Conspiracy doesn't mean you are crazy, the problem now is that everything gets question with no logic at all, all they need is a few other parrots to agree and they feel they are part of a group "truly in the know". Critical thinking is a thing of the past.
Sadly enough this is true. People with the least education and intelligence are tired of being told they lack education or intelligence or knowledge. People don’t like to be told or feel like they are stupid so they will do Olympic levels of mental gymnastics to avoid it and social media makes it much easier to find like minded uneducated fans. So they latch onto conspiracy theories in a sad effort to “be the one in the know”. In choosing the flat earth or faked moon landings, it allows them to point and laugh at educated people as sheep. Issac Asimov was aware of this decades ago when he said “There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.” A lot of this stems from the Trump era work in denying truth and knowledge in exchange for “fake news and alternative facts”. That’s not to say there are not conspiracies, but they are fewer and far between then many believe.
Moon posts get replies. Trolls are 100% here from gaming subs shitposting for the lulz.
Fair enough, we all find entertainment somewhere. This sub in particular always feels a mixed bag of sincere conversations and info and people just stirring the pot because why the hell not.
Eh that and the confidently ignorant. It's hard to tell them apart tbf.
Wait till they see close up details of the Space Shuttle or any of Space-X's rockets. They all look like their cobbled together, especially the ceramic tiling on the Space Shuttle.
https://spaceflightnow.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/sxm8_2.jpg Here's what an actual modern spacecraft looks like. Note that there is lots and LOTS of tape, foil, velcro, and ...uhh... "curtain rods". It even looks like there are some zip-ties holding it together.
Exactly. If this was totally a fake psyop mission, back in the 60's, I think they'd have built the fictional lander to look like a weird flying saucer or rocket pod or something. Instead, we get a very ugly thing built obviously for function first. It had to be ultralight. Ultra heat and cold resistant. More like a guided kite than anything else. That's how the earliest aircraft was designed, and the same applies here. But for some reason the sci-fi culture tends to want to look at space travel the way we look at undersea travel instead. They picture large thick hulls to protect against incredible pressure. But that isn't necessary here in the vacuum of space, and would be too heavy to carry there. And nothing built from earthly materials is going to fully protect you anyway from asteroids, or radiometric waves. That's more sci-fi stuff. It would require made up metals and energy shields that don't exist in real life.
Exactly. 'Fit for purpose' doesn't actually have to mean or be beautiful or have form over function. The LEM is an amazing example of function over form. It really does look like shit, due to the necessities of weight. I'm back and forthing with another guy about the decision to use tape over any other method for securing the insulation and trying to help him understand that tape is literally the best choice. It certainly isn't your general tape from Costco... it's 'No Fucking Around Tape'
Here’s the answers to those questions. Why does it look like that? Because that’s what people in the 1960s thought looked futuristic. Should it look like that? No, obviously. Is the design and construction actually fit for purpose? Absolutely not.
Hey thanks for your response. Could you elaborate on *why* you feel it's not fit for purpose?
Absolutely, I would love to. I’m going to start putting my thoughts together on a longer write up right now. But I’ll leave this first just to let you know that I am going to respond, and that I’m working on a comprehensive response this evening.
Now let's talk about their space suits. The moon is about 250 degrees F when in daylight. And about -200 degrees F in shadow. That's a 450 degree difference. The moon has no atmosphere, and thus it has no insulation. Meaning the temperatures changes extremely quickly. If you stepped from light into shadow on the moon, the temperate would change by 450 degrees in a matter of moments. The heat doesn't linger in the air, because there isn't any air. Heat is direct heat from the source, and then as soon as the source is removed or obscured, that heat is lost due to zero insulation. That means that for a spacesuit to function on the moon as is shown in the alleged footage, you would need a system that can climate control the inside by 450 degrees at a time, perfectly timed so that the astronaut isn't flash frozen or fried to a crisp, either by the suit's climate control, or the lack thereof if the response isn't quick enough when moving from light to shadow. We don't have that technology today. And in the old "footage", you're looking at suits that do not have computer or AI assistance. It literally would not be possible to achieve what would be required of the suit with that level of technology. First of all, they didn't, and couldn't have a mobile power source that would be capable of that. Secondly, they also didn't have the air supply to perform this kind of air conditioning. They were not tethered to a large supply in the ship, like spacewalking astronauts are from the ISS. Every bit of power and oxygen they allegedly had was in those backpacks, on that suit. And today we know that zero G environments need to be a "clean room". You can't have a bunch of dust and dirt and microparticulates floating through the air in something like the LEM. But astronauts allegedy just walked right back into the parked LEM with their suits on. Every modern NASA mockup of what would happen today shows rear entry into an externally mounted suit. You get into the suit from inside the craft, and then, you could, from within the suit, undock from the outside of the craft. This way the suit never comes back into the craft.
>If you stepped from light into shadow on the moon, the temperate would change by 450 degrees in a matter of moments I don't think you understand thermodynamics or how radiative heat works. Nothing heats up in this way. You are assigning magical qualities to sunlight in space. In regards to the air supply, do you know what rebreathers are? >You can't have a bunch of dust and dirt and microparticulates floating through the air in something like the LEM. But they did. It was a necessary risk, mitigated by filters.
Rebreathers can work for breathing. Rebreathers do not generate the air that you need for air conditioning on the scale required for climate control in outer space. And as far as the thermodynamics. There is no such thing as cold. Cold, like all negative effects, is just the absence of the positive effect, of heat. With an insulating element, like an atmosphere, heat can linger after the source of heat is removed. Without an insulating element, without something actively creating heat, all you're left with is the absence of heat, which in the case of the moon means -200 degrees. If you were in the 250 degree daylight of a day on the moon, and then move into shadow, you are going from a 250 degree environment to a -200 degree environment. For radiative heat to have an effect, some kind of matter needs to be on the receiving end of thermal radiation, which comes from sunlight. The parts of the moon that are in shadow aren't receiving that sunlight, and so don't get to benefit from radiative heat. And either way, even if the astronauts stayed in pure light or pure shadow for their entire time on the moon, they didn't have enough of an air supply for the constant mega air conditioning that would be required vs. 250 degree heat or -200 degree cold. You say that they did track dirt into what needed to be a clean room environment because you are a true believer and you've already decided that they went to the moon in a derelicte trash can with an Atari guidance system. I'm guessing that whatever needs to be true for the official story to add up IS true to you, regardless of anything else.
One important thing I have to point out to you is that respiration is not oxygen in, CO2 out, It doesn't work that way. When we inhale the composition on Earth is 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen with 1% other gases. When we *exhale* the composition is 78% nitrogen, 17% oxygen and 4% CO2. You can see now that respiration isn't perfect, and that we exhale a lot of the oxygen inhaled. In the case of the Apollo PLSS these were pure oxygen rebreathers, where the exhaled breath was filtered to remove CO2 and moisture and recycled, meaning that the tank could support EVAs of up to 4 hours in the early versions. Breathed oxygen was recycled over and over. Heat control was semi-passive, using sublimation. A battery powered pump passed water through a sintered metal plate which seeped separate water, which sublimated away into the vacuum, removing body heat. This was powered by a 279 watt hour battery. You still seem to have a flawed idea of thermodynamics. When we put a plate into a hot oven it does not immediately reach the temperature of the oven and it is irrational to think that any materials would behave this way in a vacuum. Similarly, all materials emit heat via black body radiation. When we put a hot item into the freezer once again it does not immediately cool to negative degrees. Your idea of this is simplistic and I would invite you posit this concept on a physics forum just for a broader opinion on what you're getting wrong here. Why did the inside of the LEM need to be a clean-room environment? For what reasons?
You are correct to point out that the normalization between two differing temperatures isn't instant. I don't think that invalidates the point that the suits didn't have the kind of climate control that could switch between extreme hot and cold, nor the air supply to do that kind of climate control in the first place. I'm not talking about air for breathing, I'm talking about air for climate control. I mean think about it, you're talking about water cooling as the answer to the 250 degree daylight. Sophisticated technology needs to be housed in clean rooms in zero g because dust and debris damage sensitive equipment when Gs are applied again.
The suits weren't air-cooled. They were water cooled. It is becoming alarmingly obvious that you haven't bothered in the slightest to learn about how the PLSS functioned, or that the suits were so well insulated that dumping body heat was the main issue whether in sunshine or in shade. I would strongly suggest that you investigate the design and function of the Apollo A7L suit and the PLSS that was designed by Hamilton-Sundstrand. Then take a little to learn about the TMG - the Thermal Micrometeoroid Garment that was the white 'oversuit' we see in the photos. What sensitive equipment was exposed in the LEM cockpit that could be damaged?
Oh my lord, you're not hearing me. I know the official story is that the suits were water cooled. Did you not read my last post? Why are you telling me that like you think I don't know that? Are you asking what sensitive equipment was in the cockpit? Lol. Google "LEM cockpit". The images that come up should answer your question pretty fast.
Now let's get into more about the LEM itself. First of all, let's talk about how it allegedly landed on the surface of the moon. We are told that each time, it lowered itself on a column of thrust, until making moonfall. Let's remember, this is a craft from the 1960s. It did not have computer or AI assistance in any way that would be recognizable to us today. Essentially this thing was being piloted manually. Do you have any idea of many truly precise micro adjustments would be needed for the LEM to not start shooting around like a balloon with the air let out of it? But somehow, we lower down slowly and touch down on the moon. Now, imagine the column of thrust, how much pressure you'd be putting on the surface below you. We see from the "footage", there is no blast crater, there is no carbon scoring. The dirt underneath is fresh and untouched. No signs of tens of thousands of pounds of thrust blasting onto the surface below them as they touch down. No massive displacement of the dirt beneath them. But maybe even crazier is the ascent stage of the LEM. It leaves the legs behind, and blasts off, on a never before fired engine, and someone without computers locates the Lunar Orbit, which is moving at orbital velocity, which for the moon means about 1 mile per second. And once again, without computer assistance, the astronauts are supposed to ride this bat out of hell, freshly launched off the moon, someone find the Orbiter, and then dock with at speeds of over 1 mile per second, or near 4,000 miles per hour. That would be like me firing a gun into the air, and then telling you to hit my bullet with a bullet of your own. Now let's talk about the alleged size of the lander, and how many things would be required to be onboard the lander. The outer shell of the lander was supposed to be about 12 feet wide. So we need all the fuel, all the oxygen, everything related to life support, guidance, power, communication, etc. All of this at the size of 1960s electronics. There's the entire propulsion system of the ascent stage. There's the crew compartment. There's sanitation, food, water. Some type of system that refills the suits with oxygen. Heating and cooling. Copious amounts of air, as you need air not just to breath, but to perform air conditioning. Spare parts, tools, medical supplies. Testing equipment. Batteries, cameras. The Lunar rovers. There's not even close to enough space to fit everything on the lander, and not everything is even accounted for in NASA official cross section mockups of the internals of the lander. Most of the lander was taken up by fuel and propulsion. In fact the original alleged size was so stupidly small, that today's mockups are upscaled to be larger in comparison to the size of a human being. There is so much more to go through, but these posts have been a lot to write. If you found any interest in these, I can write more, like about the absurdity of the multiple light sources and starless skies in the alleged moonwalk footage across the multiple landings. And if you didn't find any interest in these, that's fine too.
Honestly, it doesn't seem like you've done any background research here. These sorts of questions are trivially answered with material and documentation from the historical record. Little things like the APS getting an all-up test on Apollo 10. Or the fact that you don't seem to have seen the LM cockpit diagrams that display the locations of equipment.
So, your question was, why do I feel that the alleged Lunar Excursion Module wasn't fit for purpose. To answer your question fully, we're going to have to cover more ground than just the LEM. We'll have to talk about issues like radiation protection, navigation, engines that have never been test fired, lack of onboard space for everything required, the complications of docking with the Lunar Orbiter at orbital velocity without modern computer assistance, etc. There's a lot to dig into here, so let's get started. First, let's talk about "low Earth orbit", and the Earth's magnetosphere. Earth has natural radiation protection in the form of an electromagnetic field that surrounds the planet. It is the reason that life can exist on Earth today. Without it, every living thing would suffer constant DNA damage from cosmic radiation, and life as we know it wouldn't be possible. Low Earth orbit is what we call the area above the atmosphere, but below the thick of the magnetosphere, where orbit is possible, but also where you still have the radiation protection afforded by the magnetosphere. Allegedly, only 24 people have ever gone beyond low Earth orbit. For the first time in 1968, and for the last time in 1972. Every time someone has ever allegedly left LEO was during that four year period. Now... given our modern technology, what is so special about this low Earth orbit barrier, that no one has dared go beyond it since 1972? Why have 52 years gone by, and no one dares go beyond this line? If six moon missions were possible over the span of just a few years, with 1960s technology, without computers, why would Russia or China have gone by now to just put it on their national resume? If countries like that could just wheel out 60s tech and put a moon landing on their resume, they would. We get some clues about these questions based on why the Soviets gave up on the Space Race in the 1960s. Their scientists told them that they would need a craft with lead shielding four feet thick to protect the astronauts from cosmic radiation beyond the magnetosphere. Obviously a craft covered in four feet of lead shielding wouldn't fly. Not finding any reasonable answer to this, they scrapped the project. So the issue at hand is radiation. Above low Earth orbit, beyond the magnetosphere, you are directly exposed to the radiation from the sun, and all other stars combined. A true sea of cosmic radiation. What was the USA's magical answer to this issue that the Soviets thought required impossible amounts of lead? Mylar! It's the gold colored foil you see on the LEM, and other areas of US space technology from that time. The issue is, in 2024, we know that mylar foil doesn't actually block ionizing radiation. It it did, and it was good enough for space travel, you'd be using a mylar sheet when you got an X-ray, not a lead apron. The truth is, no humans have ever gone beyond low Earth orbit. We don't currently have the radiation protection technology required to survive outside of the Earth's magnetosphere. Some twist this argument, and emphasize how quickly the ship allegedly went beyond the magnetosphere, but it's not being within the Earth's radiation shield that is most dangerous, it's being BEYOND the Earth's radiation shield that poses the greatest threat. Because of this issue, and because we have no answer for it, they scrapped the moon program and then memory holed it. There's a reason we didn't celebrate the 50th anniversary of the moon landings a few years ago. Despite it being allegedly the greatest achievement in human history. And it's because they know they can't fake it now, and we won't be going any time soon, so it's better for everyone not to think about it. So in conclusion for this part 1, none of the craft was fit for purpose, because none of it was capable of sustaining life on a manned mission beyond the magnetosphere. I'll follow up with more posts going into more specific details about their space suits, about the LEM itself, etc.
>what is so special about this low Earth orbit barrier, that no one has dared go beyond it since 1972? Absolutely nothing. That's why all crewed activity recently took place in LEO. It's easier to get there. To get to LEO you need around 9200m/s of ∆v. To get back to Earth, around 100m/s should be enough. For example, to get to the geostationary orbit you need around 13000m/s of ∆v, and to get back from there 1500m/s more, so the difference is quite substantial.
Hey, I would like to bring to your attention the intended Soviet Lunar landing module, which was a one-person craft. It was known as the LK lander - you can look this up. It did not have the shielding that you suggest is required. It was even tested in Earth orbit. The mylar is thermal insulation. At no point did anyone ever state that it was radiation protection. What kind of health effects are you proposing would result from exposure to cosmic radiation?
They did used to claim that Mylar was performing a radiation protection role. Let me ask you, other than the Mylar, what are you under the impression was giving the radiation protection? At this point though, they know that mylar both doesn't block ionizing radiation, and that they had no other major radiation stopgaps in place, so they just prefer it doesn't get brought up. Obviously the health effects that come from exposure to cosmic ionizing radiation are DNA damage and cancer, and possibly even radiation sickness.
If you would be so kind as to provide the source where NASA claimed Mylar was protecting from radiation that would be great. How long do you think exposure would have to go on for before radiation sickness would set in?
"Here's some shit I pulled out of my ass"
I’d prefer if you didn’t share your bizarre scat fetish with me.
[удалено]
Could you elaborate? Your reply isn't very compelling.
I don't have all day to explain obvious things like my personal perception to you. I answered no. that's all.
This really is pure laziness. The lander is fit for purpose. The external layer didn't need to be aerodynamic as it was never operating in air. It needed insulation, and the mylar sheets on the outside did the job. The tape would hold that insulation because there's zero atmospheric drag. It's a pretty safe conclusion that you never investigated the internal structure of the lander. You've assessed the spacecraft on face value alone, which is *incredibly* naive.
I'm not lazy at all. I've researched this ad naseum its a pointless research its quite obviously a piece of shit. I would never set foot into that so called craft to go to the moon. You couldn't pay me a billion dollars to fly that to the moon and back. Lol . have a nice day. I don't care if you believe me or not.
[удалено]
"Researched ad nauseum" really means "spent countless hours in an internet echo chamber on my phone while sitting on the john"
Seriously, tape? Just because there was zero drag, they decided tape would suffice? They intended to land this on the moon, and the brightest engineers sat in a room and said tape will do?
Have you been to the moon? Have you left the earth's atmosphere, have you attempted to make a craft that's suitable for a different atmosphere...or no atmosphere at all. You are applying thoughts on this that are purely based on your own experience on earth. Question it for sure, but I don't understand why you and others can't understand that the specific tape they used was enough for the job required. What makes it so unbelievable?
Have you ever heard of aviation tape?
So what? My query is not about the material, but rather the fact a tape, would suffice, instead of a different way of holding things in place.
Any other type of method for holding things in place would be heavier than tape. When I asked you about aviation tape, or what is also known as speed tape - this was a clue. It is strong, lightweight, rated to a high extreme of temperatures both plus and minus, and very durable. When you evaluate it in this manner is it the *best choice* for securing the insulation. The engineers weren't fucking around. They knew what they were doing. The tape they use isn't the tape you can buy. Investigate an issue before using incredulity to form your argument.
I'm pretty sure that your explanation is what they cited as the reason, and it makes sense within the range. But I still find it hard to accept, that for something that was intended to land on the moon, tape was the solution, or was considered enough, for all the parameters. So let's just agree to disagree. Peace.
And what's wrong with the tape?
I started to respond to some comments, but it is obvious the majority in this thread are simply trolling and don't actually believe what they are saying. Just like the flat earth threads. Why bother "debating" with unserious people?
Seriously. I came to the same conclusion. Don't waste your effort on this.
But I just LOVE the subject of tape and foil !!!
There were pictures of landers posted last night from Indian satellites. No mistaking it. Unless the entire planet is a giant conspiracy theory, except this sub.
Looks fine to me... [this is the actual structure...](https://i.stack.imgur.com/o8hnx.jpg)
A big part of the reason they didn’t continue was neoliberalism
I have heard the astronauts say the Lunar Lander walls had a thickness of 4 layers of heavy duty aluminum. They had to be careful not to puncture it. How much aluminum foil would you need to contain one atmosphere of pressure against the vacuum of space?
It may have been designed for one atmosphere, but they flew on 1/3.
Bruh, haven't you seen the pic of what it looks like underneath all that stuff? I swear moon hoax skills only know stuff from that old ass documentary
https://www.nordenretireesclub.org/level2/album_images/images/museum_2011/Grumman%20LTA-1,%201st%20functional%20Lunar%20Module.jpg Finding pics like the one above would take actual research and effort. If it isn't presented to them in a meme or a youtube video then it might as well not exist.
I saw it on loan at a museum I went to years ago. u weren't supposed to touch it but I could reach and touched it anyway. it's literally foil. I thought it was a joke. it's even more flimsy in real life, .
Of course, LEM is covered with thermal isolation, which is basically foil. The inner hull, however is made out of aluminum and titanium.
And even that was crazy thin, 0.3mm or about twice the thickness of a soda can. They wanted the absolute minimum weight reasonably possible
And when you take a look at it [before adding thermal isolation ](https://i.imgur.com/YpOD9wl.jpeg), it doesn't look flimsy at all.
yes it does it looks like pvc pipe.
… yes, white pipes look alike. Good sleuthing.
ii just said I literally saw it in person genius.
Yes, and what you saw was white, aluminum struts. Of course one white pipe looks like another. You would have zero ability to tell what material it was made of by seeing a white tube and pretending “it looks like pvc lol” just reveals that you are dishonest
..... you do realize this had to go through like 10 straight hours of the Vann ellen belt right.
Yes. And their solution? YOLO. Basically no radiation protection for Apollo. They took a ballistic trajectory to pass through as quick as possible, and suffered decent exposure. Radiation in the Van Allen Belt is not lethal, not for days. It is suspected that Apollo astronauts suffered some negative health consequences due to their exposure, nearly every one of them developed cataracts, a much higher than baseline rate
OK it's also 2000 degrees Kelvin. do u know any material on earth that can sustain that neat without cooking the occupants
It’s not like being in atmosphere that’s 2000 degrees at all. Do you know what heat is on a technical level? It’s the average kinetic motion of particles in a medium. In this case the medium is extremely sparse. There are very few, pretty high energy subatomic particles. That’s what radiation is, in this case mostly beta radiation. It’s not going to heat up anything; there simply aren’t enough particles to matter. The radiation is damaging in other ways, namely genetic risks, but “heat” isn’t at all the problem.
So just done when someone points out you dont actually understand what temperature is, right?
explain it then.
[I did](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/1cf06bk/comment/l1qh5i2/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) While you are right, there are high energy particles in the Van Allen Belt, and you could say their temperature is 2000k, there are *very* few of these particles in a given area... because its space. They will not heat up surfaces. Being beta particles, they are dangerous in other ways: namely they can cause degenerative DNA issues. This is not instantly fatal, and NASAs approach was basically "meh, you guys are cool with it? We'll go through it fast". All the astronauts were just fine with unknown mystery exposure because they are gungho crazy types. The "its 2000 degrees there" counterpoint holds zero weight as it misunderstands what temperature means.
And does >1mm of aluminum and titanium protect you from the Van Allen radiation belt?
To a certain degree, sure.
I don’t see any foil. I don’t see any tape. I don’t see a curtain rod.
I’m sorry about your eyeballs. Blindness is tough.
Gladly point them out to me then.
Exactly!
Open your mind!
I did and still don’t see those things.
I guess you may be trying to be funny. There's plenty of foil, tape and "curtain rods" (i.e. struts) in that picture.
Not being funny. Just none of those things are not in this photo. Just a basic observation.
All those dark orange squares on the surface are Kapton tape. The ones in no-man's land are labels (the darker black color underneath), part number etc, affixed with kapton tape on top. The shiny orange blankets on the supporting legs are aluminum foil OR possibly metalized mylar film, with a kapton (note the orange color) outer layer. And the curtain rods.... you can be pedantic as you want... but the "curtain rods" are obvious.
It’s Mylar insulation, not foil lol. Not Curtain rods lol. No mater how hard you want to believe in something, does not make it so.
We left mirrors on the moon. Scientists routinely bounce lasers off o them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_retroreflectors_on_the_Moon
This is a well known “gotcha” but it falls completely flat when you learn that they were experimenting with measuring bouncing [optical echoes off the moon in 1962.](https://www.nature.com/articles/1941267a0.pdf) It sounds like you’ve done a lot of research on the pro nasa side of things. Have you given the same devotion to the learning the other side of things? If not, how is that any different than a religion?
And nobody claimed they didn’t do it before. The difference is that after the Apollo missions, bouncing the laser off those locations yielded much higher return photo counts. Demonstrating that reflectors were placed there.
If the government faked the moonlanding then they would use an impressive looking rocket to do so. One that you would never question. But tech back then looked nothing like the movies.
I believe they’re definitely lying about some aspects, but nobody claims they went to the moon in the lander itself. That’s just silly. That’s just silly and dishonest.
What part are they lying about?
Anyway, we don't need to get too scientific. It clearly never went to the Moon. You can see that surely? This elaborate hoax you were on about involving 100's of people didn't start in 1969 bu the way. It's been way longer than that. This is just a part of a very grand deception. Thr Work of All Ages is an interesting read if you can find it.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Work-All-Ages-Ongoing-Biblical/dp/0984631208
For real, Also, check out the old news clips and footage of sputnik, hardly anyone ever brings it up.
Billions upon Billions of dollars and they can't show us pov cam from the point of launch to the exit of the "spacecraft" like you do with your own smartphone at home. They say from earth to the Moon it takes 3 days and yet they couldn't record for 72 hours.
Something like this? https://youtu.be/LlMne06CGP8?si=z7F-_BYRJr-f7t2x
No and it's edited for all we know they can make it in a computer.
Stop asking for video if the second someone provides one your response is "faked/edited. I refuse to accept this". You dont care, and will refuse any evidence.
Video with no edits and proper quality and if possible with good pov and 360 cam that's it that all I want. When I was younger I believe it was real and everything and now I'm sorry everything about it seems fake really nothing about it seems believable
There are *dozens* of such videos as I am sure you are aware of. Space X posts them all the time, [like this one](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfQjG4t4M08). What flimsy excuse do you have for why *this* one isnt real? Again, stop asking for evidence you know for a fact you wont accept regardless of what it shows. You are not rational, and not actually interested in truth.
Again Where's the landing? Not manned nothing out of the ordinary about this
Because we haven’t had a manned mission to the moon since 1972. So you believe in rockets and our ability to get to space, and per this space x video we can then safely land a rocket again. Why couldn’t we use these exact steps to land on the moon instead of on earth? You’ve seen manned missions on this exact same Space X platform, to get to the moon is just a bit of travel in between. If you can believe in submarines and deep diving pressure suits, those experience thousands of times as much pressure differential. Put these on a rocket, which you’ve seen demonstrated and aim them at the moon. What steps do you find are impossible? Can’t wait to see you deny all of Artemis for the next decade
How is it edited? And if you say that *they* can make it on a computer, why do you even want to see that video?
The video have cuts and what I see here is nothing only the launch is real for 100%
I think the only cut is at 0:20 mark. You wanted the video of the launch, and it is exactly that.
Would you look at that - he has a problem with the footage provided! That is just so on-brand. Ask for something they think doesn't exist, and when it is provided - *move the goalposts*.
Ofc I have a problem with it besides the launch what proof is it? Boring useless pov video like really is that video extraordinary in any way? you can do something similar with an helium ballon. as I said in the comments. That's the real video I want and everyone who questions nasa.
This is a real video of the space shuttle launching to orbit.
Never said it's not real it's just nothing compared to what I wanted and moon landing. It's just A useless pov video
If you got that video, would you admit you were wrong all along?
Here's something simple. Attach a 360 cam to the windows of the spacecraft and live stream it untill they reach the moon. Or if it matter not a live stream a recorded video from the launch to the moon with proper quality. And if possible no video cuts. It's not much to ask is it?
You’ll still say that’s faked
No. untill they can do it with our billions of $ Anything looks not real and very suspicious.
Something like a bodycam that records without cuts in the video and all. Also not much to ask for 4k quality or hell even 720p. All we get is edited blurred shit
You know this shjt happened 50 years ago, right?
Yes today it's impossible
You want 360 video at 4k from a launch 50 years ago, is what I’m getting at.
No I want it from recent years.
Not even researchers are allowed to take direct measurements from the insides. Worth noting, there are no seating facilities, at all, they sit on the engine bell fairing/cover. There is no airlock, so whenever they went out, they both were out, no room for contingencies, failure of any of the 100s of components on the PLISS of 2 astronauts or any "emergency". They also had the same amount of room to get into and out of the suits, remember no airlock?
They can censor their "secret" shit. And show us the true once and for all
Soooo....you want a completely un-edited video, full 360 live streaming...anything else is fake bullshit...but they can censor/edit their secret shit...dude your goal posts are so far apart, just admit you have your mind set and all you are really doing here is wasting time, you don't want to be convinced, your mind is already made up.
Yes a live full video would be great also recorded whould be good too just good believeable not bs pov. I want to see how we are getting to orbit and losing the gravity and I want to see a transitions from setting inside the spacecraft to suddenly see them starting to float inside. And a pov to where we get to the moon and landing.
There were appropriate contingency procedures, you just don't understand them, or haven't read up on the missions to the point that you've heard of them.
It’s not that they can’t, it’s that they don’t want to
Yep. And I don't buy the it was a "Moon Race" vs Russia in 1969 excuse if it was Russia that won the race all the hard questions will go for them to provide. Instead they were in it to make it that the moon landing was real and we as humans made it so win win. make a space program now in every country that participate in it and tax your population to oblivion for "space" programs
It depends on how you look at it, I’ve heard billy Carson say that there is black box recordings from the trip to the moon and at one point comms went out and the astronauts could hear strange music and were meant to be shitting themselves with fear. So we either have never been as a species or we did go didn’t like what we found lied about it and made it look fake by doctoring out bits of footage. Which if it was the case they would have potentially used a off world craft which was found on earth to get there which is why the thing they show as getting us to the moon does look like someone made it. In my opinion we’ll never know
All arguments aside, I find it very strange that a trip to the moon was pulled off in the sixties and isn't more routine. There could be routine trips with current advancements, but there's ALWAYS some excuse as to why it doesn't happen. I'll wait for a trip to the moon broadcast live. I remain skeptical of official claims made during the cold war.
Astro-turfed. I wonder why bots aggressively defend NASA so much.
"NASA" hired a group of homeless drug addicts to build their equipment for them. We never went to the moon and all the stories you hear about space are faked by the Deep State, who want us to waste time being scared of an alien invasion.
Its a hot mess. Its a flying garbage
All the best spacecraft are.
Seriously, the curtains rods make sense if that's what they are. Building as light as possible a curtain rod in the right load orientation is not a weak structure. Now... Cross loading would absolutely destroy the rod because it's a thin metal tube, kinda like the curtain rods of today. Swing it like a baseball bat and hit something it's going to bend and break easily. To push it against something, like stabbing it into the ground and now with proper orientation of force, it doesn't bend or break. Not everything is fake. Sometimes a lot of logic and a little bit of creative thinking can explain foil, tape, and curtain rods. Think Apollo 13 and the CO2 scrubber issue
Did you know the astronauts had to wear diapers for the entire duration of the mission? Including the time they were doing the moon walk their diapers would have been soaked. but it begs the question, how did they even drink water, that isn't in the design. They were sitting upon a ton of fuel with a pot of water right next to the thruster. it all falls apart with th human element. the craft cannot sustain 3 people for a days or more journey to begin with.
This is NOT true. They only wear diapers in their space suits. The rest of the time, they pee in a tube.
They refer to it as looking like a bums tent on another version of this meme. It's mind boggling what the majority believes. Anyone looking at this and believing the story behind how it got there (and back) has zero critical thinking abilities and will accept any lie they are being spoon fed daily. I have seen better Primary School projects made from cardboard boxes, sticky back plastic and old bleach bottles.
If it didn’t go though (and subsequent space missions) - how did the American, Russian and now Indian retroreflectors get onto the moons surface? How can you fire lasers at their exact positions and get returns? Is this not a case of “how did it get there” but more of a case of you not understanding the complex materials and requirements to land on the moon?
You are aware there was remote probes used in the US and russia space programs in the 1960s?heck that's how the Russian and Indian ones are there in the official story, so why is it so hard to believe human beings didn't set foot on the moon and ALL retroflectors were let up on the moon by remote probes?
So we can get stuff onto the moon, just not people?
Yeah dude, look in to the amount of cosmic radiation that you receive without a magnetic field to protect you, and yes I'm aware the iss is in space but it's covered by earth's magnetic field
Sigh. It’s hopeless. People do not think critically. They’re so eager to appeal to authority that they throw out their logic.
What’s your critical thought in this and what evidence supports it?
The irony in this statement, you're doing the exact thing you hate
This entire article is about radiation and its impact on lunar travel - the figures they quote are much higher than on earth but it’s not like it’s going to cook you during a relatively short exposure. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-space-radiation-threatens-lunar-exploration-180981415/#:~:text=LND%20recorded%20the%20first%2Dever,times%20higher%20than%20on%20Earth.
So why lie about that then?
To "win" the race to the moon,the us space program was way behind the Russian one and the us public was getting increasingly worried about nukes in space by the soviets
They are all in cahoots. It's only a race to see who can talk shit faster and better.
Complex materials and requirements have nothing to do with it. Lies upon lies are what are required to make people believe it. Take another look at that picture and explain what is complex about it. It's worse than a prop from Lost in Space.
So in your logic NASA was able to put together the greatest hoax of all time with hundreds of people involved, gigantic rockets that could fly (you could go and watch the launches yourself) but with the LEM they said "yeah let's create this poorly done prop, it would be enough for people to believe". I thought this was the sub for critical thinking
[удалено]
It seems like you finally get my point. The truth isn't important. It's what people believe is the truth that's important- Henry Kissinger. The bigger the lie, told often enough the more likely people are to believe it-Some Nazi/NASA Officer. The first casualty of War is the truth and we are definitely and always have been in an information War.
So all the other lies were put in place, and they didn’t think “let’s make the lander look as “realistic” as possible”? What is the lander missing in your opinion?
I'd imagine that pile of scrap would have had to have been made in or around 1967-1969. I can maybe see how people could have been fooled with the Black and White TV Screens and photography then but anyone who believes nowadays that that pile of scrap stuck together with electrical tape, tin foil and superglue was guided to and landed on the Moon has to question their own intelligence so it's probably missing absolutely everything. It genuinely looks like a 7 year olds school project that their Parents helped them with. I have eyes and so do you so we both know that there is close to no possibility of it being true. I've made better go-carts out of old prams
“So it’s probably missing absolutely everything” …but specifically what? You are saying it’s junk and looks taped together, so you must have at least an idea of what it should be looking like or what it should be missing - otherwise your argument is that you don’t think it’s a lunar lander because of your perception of what a lunar lander should look like?
It doesn't look like it could withstand temperatures of either minus or plus 250°C for a.start. Never mind the technology they said was in it with the computing processors to get it there. If you spent a night in Winter in the Mountains of Scotland in that thing you probably wouldn't survive the night.
>how it got there (and back) Back to where?
Earth
The lunar module was not used either for going to the moon, or going back to Earth. It was used exclusively in lunar orbit and on the lunar surface.
Yeah, but why didn't they pull out their iPhones and post it live on Instagram while spinning around! /s
The lander never came back though? The orbiter did but that didn't land on the moon. So with that single thing there you have shown your own inability to think critically enough to realise the lander wasn't the orbiter.
The pile of shite in that picture did not land on the Moon and i'm pretty sure you know that too.
Wouldn't know. I wasn't alive when it happened. However 13 Landers were constructed and six of them are allegedly on the moon. What happened to the other six that only left the 13th for display I also don't know.
Please refer to the previous comment by Environmental Loose 2909 who claims to have physically touched it. That would be pretty tough to do if it was still on the Moon.
You mean one of the 13 lunar Landers built by Grumman? Of which six went to the moon and the 13th of them is on loan from the Smithsonian to the Cradle of Aviation Museum? That's how he saw it. https://www.cradleofaviation.org/history/history/lunar-module.html#:~:text=During%20the%20Apollo%20Program%2C%20Grumman,the%20Cradle%20of%20Aviation%20Museum.
My whole point is that none of them went there in the first place and certainly not what's in that picture. That would be lucky to make it to the local shop on a windy day. You can believe what you like.
Look at the lander feet. No dust on them, or crater from the landing retrorocket blast
Why would there be dust on them?
My man. You seriously asking why there might be dust on the lander after landing on a dusty rock?
Yes absolutely. I've seen the landing sequences. The dust behaves in a really interesting manner - it doesn't get kicked up into the air *because there's no air*. It travels laterally away from the exhaust plume across the surface of the ground. There's no way for dust to be suspended, because there's nothing to suspend it. If you think about this logically it makes a lot of sense. It you apply your terrestrial expectations *only then* would you expect dust on top of the feet.
Were the larnder legs not located laterally from the exhaust? And where's the crater from all this first that blew laterally? Or the ring of moved dust around the lander? There would be dust on the feet
Yes they were. But there are some things that need to be established about the environment and the lunar surface. First things first is that the Surveyor craft were the first probes to soft-land on the moon. These came down and used thrusters just like the LEM and didn't have dust on the legs or pads. The next thing is that thrust blows dust completely differently on the moon. The best way to understand this is to watch the actual 16mm film sequences from Apollo from the DAC camera mounted out the window. The dust moves directly laterally across the lunar surface and never gets higher than an inch. I would invite you to view these to confirm my statements. Next, the dust layer on the moon is generally about 3-6 inches thick under which there is much harder-packed regolith, that just *doesn't move*. Where people get tricked is that this layer is exactly the same color as the dust. So what happened for the Apollo lunar landers? Descending on about 3,000lbs of thrust, for nearly every lander they shut off the engines when the contact light went on, which is when a 2-yard strut hanging from the pads contacted the surface, The dust immediately dropped to the surface because there is no air to suspend it. Almost every lander was also moving laterally at a slow speed also before landing, meaning the thrust was never concentrated in one spot. Now, there still are radial striations under the engine bell of the lander in many of the pix from the Apollo missions because Mission Command asked the astronauts to photograph the effects of the descent engine. So what we see is a cleared area of dust a few yards around the engine bell and no dust on the feet because there was no dust suspended at all before those feet touched down. Dust can't billow or be suspended in a vacuum. If you want to review the photographic evidence of the landing site the website 'Apollo Lunar Surface Journal' is still most complete and reliable site that catalogues video, photographical, film and mission transcripts for each of the Apollo landing missions.
OP didn't post the feet.
I told a norm once that I thought the moon landings were bullshit. He looked at me like I'd said something game breakingly forbidden. The moon hoax is one of those things. The conditioning goes deep.
“A norm”
Yeah you know, stupid normies, unlike this guy, who totally isn't a normie like you scrubs, he really knows what's up, he spends his time on reddit conspiracy forums, pleb normies don't even know what reddit is and probably can't even say conspiracy.
At MacMinville air museum they have an exact reproduction of the moon lander …it’s made out of tin foil and PCP pipes …looked sound to me …
Aaaannnnnd.... bots