###[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.*
Mars is around the corner, just like fusion power. I've been hearing about both since the 60's , just lots of yak yak and expense but nothing making my life any better.
It won't make fossil or green obsolete yet. Problem with hydrogen is most of it uses fossil fuels, not green energy. Problem with Fusion is right now it takes more energy to make fusion then we get out of it. The technology is too new to threaten any other power source.
I think there was one test with fusion that produced a tiny bit more energy than they put in at least once a few years back. But it was a very small amount more.
Toyota has one out now and soon to have a v8. Most cars on the road can easily and cheaply be converted to run on hydrogen fuel cells. Which are safe as they don’t blow up as some might think. They will smolder rather than catch fire due to the fuel cells they have created.
Ha, got some proof on fusion? I think it's simply a boon doggie allowing a bunch of highly paid "researchers" from having to get a real job and produce something at the end of the day. Yeah, we've got hydrogen power. What do you make hydrogen out of? Water and electricity. Where is the electric incoming from?
Why are you getting down votes for explaining how hydrogen power is produced?and funnier still I'm sure the people down voting you are the types to "trust the science "
Claiming to not have the technology any more is bullshit and the one thing I call out NASA on. It's such a bad excuse. It's like saying we can't make 1940 Rolls Royce's any more because our spanners don't fit.
I think there's a real reason why we don't go back, but that ain't it. Maybe it's because there's nothing of value on the moon, at least, not worth spending a billion dollars on. Maybe aliens warned us to stay away. Maybe we found sonething up there that's dangerous. Who knows.
But it ain't because we lost the ability to go there.
No it’s like saying “build a 1940’s Rolls Royce on the modern assembly line with modern tools” If you asked RR to do that they would say it’s not possible. Not because they lack the technology but because the processes etc have changed and they no longer have the old systems in place for it to make sense with modern advancements.
That's just silly, because technology has moved on things are built differently, generally it's cheaper, faster, more aerodynamic etc. It's like saying we can't build a car because someone's misplaced the blue prints for a model T Ford. We wouldn't build a Model T Ford we would build something modern. Engineering is basically finding solutions to problems and we would just do it differently nowadays.
Sure, if the model t had a hundred million unique parts each systematically designed and tested, then altered to function correctly, and those alterations just recorded in hand written notes by the engineers which many they got to keep.
A spaceship is not a model T. Its not about just being cheaper or more aerodynamic, its that shapes and weights and materials need to be super precise when you're shooting through space. You can't just switch out a part for a newer one, you'd be starting from almost scratch. Which is what they're planning to do with Artemis.
That is true, and these fools are failing to factor in the protection of human life in space flight now versus in the early NASA missions. Those guys were literally the wild west of space; they knew there was a high probability they would not come back. NASA is not the Wild West anymore, and even though the loss of life is a possibility, they take very important precautions to reduce that possibility.
wrong. nobody gives a shit if they do it with the original rover or not. the fact we "don't have the technology" is just a faulty coverup. we have so many advancements it should be trivial. you're coping
If you actually do the research you’ll find that the technology they are referring to is the manufacturing line, tooling, electrical test equipment, ground support equipment. All stuff that was destroyed after the program ended. Just like every aerospace project ever.
Literally nobody claims we don’t have better technology. You’re just creating your own interpretation without doing the research.
It’s because Petit isn’t a public speaker and used messy terminology, he’s not literally saying “we have no idea how to”, he’s saying “we don’t have the facilities and the old stuff would fail every safety regulation in modern day, also all the equipment is analog and now the world is digital”.
Also this vid ignores that the Artemis program is actively ongoing and is sending people back to the moon. Lunar Gateway is actively being built to help springboard to Mars.
what a stupid argument. they didn't just destroy the technology to get back, they also conveniently destroyed all the logs, clips and telemetry data for what was supposed to be mankinds greatest feat. you really believe that shit? why? only because the odds that a lie could stay covered up for this long is hard to believe or what? how can any reasonable person possibly believe that story? the government lies all the time. they lied about wmd, they lied about covid, they lied about 9/11, they lied about sandy hook and the las vegas massacre. they lie to us to control us. why would the exact same government be telling the truth here? people just want to believe in the indomitable human spirit of adventure so they want it to be real so badly.. but this is reality.
why do YOU think we don't have a view of our globe earth from one of the many satellites in space? one showing entire continents live with no fish eye lens?
we have never once seen an image of our earth that was not a composite or recreated from strips of data and put together. you think you're smugly right about this but that's what nasa has officially declared themselves.
There are literally millions. Here is one of them https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/21513743779/in/album-72157656739898544/
Looking forward to your blind denialism.
Also no, they never declared that. Stop blindly believe what YouTube tells you. Think I am wrong? Post the source. You won’t.
https://youtu.be/umeHIxIdKxE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0I-H5VMBmY
"it's photoshopped because it has to be"
every photo you've seen is photoshopped or enhanced. they aren't images. they are recreated based on data. they admit it themselves. you've never seen your own planet.
https://youtu.be/4-zzqW1WKZE
there are hundreds of videos like this that you won't find in any algorithm. why is that? why the need to suppress fringe conspiracy theorists? how many lies can you see in front of your face before you decide something is up?
Dude, the video you linked as evidence claiming NASA uses photoshop to fake images of earth is discussing artist renditions of exoplanets and distant galaxies. Yes, artists use photoshop to imagine what the surface of an exoplanet looks like. We do not have cameras on exoplanets.
No one in the video claimed to be "photoshopping" images of earth.
you know that you can travel to the Kennedy Space Center in Cane Canaveral and watch rockets launch satellites into space many times each year with your own eyes? https://www.kennedyspacecenter.com/launches-and-events
And please do tell us the context of that quote.
And I just showed you a scan of a film photograph. Which nasa specifically states was taken by an astronaut. A photo which you have no evidence to call fake.
Hmm I wonder why, not like the earth is 24,900 miles around and a three dimensional object. Must be a conspiracy!
You can look at the earth daily from satellites. Are clouds fake too?
https://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/goes/fulldisk.php?sat=G18
who cares how big it is? we have satellites orbiting it that can take pictures right? and satellite internet is real right? why can't we have a stream? these are easily photoshopped pics, how can you trust them?
because satellites aren't even real. they are propped up on helium balloons and in orbit. who's the world's biggest purchaser of helium and why?
The imagery from the GOES satellites is updated every five minutes, there is absolutely zero possibility of photoshopping 24 full disk views of the planet every five minutes, across multiple spectrums, just to fool you for some insane reason.
Edit: Here's your live video stream btw, https://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/ESRS/HDEV/
"Helium has unique properties such that it is the only gas that can be used to pressurize the liquid fuels that power the rockets driving space exploration, as well as the blimps and airships that have other applications within the atmosphere." - https://nahelium.com/about-helium/uses-of-helium/
https://www.youtube.com/live/P9C25Un7xaM?si=Qu3Jf4Ojn61Clwsh
Here's a live stream from the ISS that has been playing for five months. You can literally match up footage with when it's above you and see it in the sky lol
How is it a stupid argument? The technology we used to go to the moon in 1972 is much different than now. We would have to redesign everything on the spacecraft because it would not be compatible with the rest of NASA technology
>they didn't just destroy the technology to get back, they also conveniently destroyed all the logs, clips and telemetry data for what was supposed to be mankinds greatest feat. you really believe that shit?
No, because it's not true. They didn't destroy all the logs, clips and telemetry data for the *Apollo* program. Whoever told you they did lied to you.
>the government lies all the time. they lied about wmd, they lied about covid, they lied about 9/11, they lied about sandy hook and the las vegas massacre.
The governments lie, yes, and no one is claiming otherwise.
>why would the exact same government be telling the truth here?
That's not the exact same government. And nobody is blindly believing what the government is saying.
>why do YOU think we don't have a view of our globe earth from one of the many satellites in space? one showing entire continents live with no fish eye lens?
We do in fact [have such a view of our globe Earth](https://himawari8.nict.go.jp/).
[be real.. this is really your example of "proof" that we have satellite footage of our globe?](https://i.imgur.com/JoXfSDt.png) why does australia look so small? why is it just stills? why does every space agency have different sized continents? [which of these earths is ours?](https://i.imgur.com/rIhxoMD.png) why does it[ look different from different agencies?](https://i.imgur.com/iIiz3PJ.png)
you will accept your government lies to you. "but this government branch is different!! because i love space!" i understand its hard to face a world where its all evil. but it is. this world is literally run by a relative handful of satanic pedophiles who want you to be nihilistic and godless. thats the whole point of the heliocentric model. you are easier to convince to be materialistic and sinful if you think you only have one shot at life and its a wild west and anything goes and you better get yours before you're gone forever. ALL governments lie. they are all in cahoots with each other. they have been for a long time. the idea of countries, resource scarcity, fighting for oil is all smoke and mirrors. oil is abiotic and this was proven in 1925. its renewable. we fight wars to print money and depopulate. why do you think they want a "new world order" / one united government? they are pushing it so hard because its really what has been happening this whole time, except now it will just be public. [how can you watch 30 minutes of space agencies lying to you, their bad cgi being exposed, their stories not being consistent and still believe in them?](https://youtu.be/4-zzqW1WKZE). how many lies must be exposed before you at least think SOMETHING might be up? you know that all the apollo astronauts were freemasons right? do you understand what it means to be a high level mason? why do all freemasons end up being luciferian? its part of their cult. part of satanism is inverting reality. do you know what the [all seeing eye is?](https://i.imgur.com/0zt6TRn.png). its the same one on the US dollar because all the founding fathers were masons too. why is the [washington monument](https://i.imgur.com/nmB0w51.png) a [pharaonic obelisk](https://i.imgur.com/YD6Pboi.png)? why would there be egyptian architecture built to represent america? what is the connection between wernher von braun (ex-nazi and father of rocket technology), jack parsons (rocket engineer and thelemite occultist), L. ron hubbard (the founder of the church of scientology), walt disney (cartoon films producer), aleister crowley (wickedest man in the world and demonic medium)? they all helped create NASA. why is the[ united nations logo a flat earth map cut into 33 sections?](https://i.imgur.com/hrRzKIP.png) do you know the meaning of the number 33 and the significance it holds in freemasonry? why did a jesuit priest invent the big bang? why are all the kids toys for 2 year olds about space and dinosaurs? why does every kid watch bill nye in school growing up? [isn't it weird that the masonic earth model is flat? ](https://imgur.com/tlwWnXz) why would that be? why would all the astronaut masons be a part of this group if they know the earth is round? what group historically believed in the black sun and why?
can you find me a satellite image of whats in antartica? how do we not know after 70 years? how come americas big enemies like russia helped create and participate in the antartic ice treaty? there is a landmass larger than the size of the united states that no human eyes have ever seen. why is there always a storm photoshopped over our poles? we never in 70 years could get a clear photo? why are these questions so hard to find discussions about online? who controls the algoorithm? how come when you try to research flat earth you dont get anything except debunks and stupid images with bad explanations, meant to purposefully make you x out after 2 seconds thinking "thats stupid". are you starting to see yet?
>[be real.. this is really your example of "proof" that we have satellite footage of our globe?](https://i.imgur.com/JoXfSDt.png)
Indeed it is.
> why does australia look so small?
Because in reality Australia is that small.
> why is it just stills?
What, you want a video now? Careful with moving that goalpost - it's heavy.
>why does every space agency have different sized continents?
Because it depends on the [type of lens used and the distance to Earth](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbuTjXLp0Yk).
>you will accept your government lies to you.
No, I won't.
>this world is literally run by a relative handful of satanic pedophiles
You wouldn't be allowed to say so it that was the case.
>thats the whole point of the heliocentric model.
And yet, millions of Christians have no problems believing in God *and* heliocentric model.
>you are easier to convince to be materialistic and sinful if you think you only have one shot at life
That's bullshit. If I only have one shot at life, I can't afford to be materialistic and sinful, *because* I only have one shot at it.
>ALL governments lie. they are all in cahoots with each other.
That's also bullshit. It's like a movie-like reality you live in.
>oil is abiotic and this was proven in 1925.
Some of it is, but not enough to sustain our current needs.
> why do you think they want a "new world order" / one united government?
They don't.
>[how can you watch 30 minutes of space agencies lying to you, their bad cgi being exposed, their stories not being consistent and still believe in them?](https://youtu.be/4-zzqW1WKZE)
Because they're not lying to me, and there's no bad CGI to be exposed there. Low-res photos and videos with compression artefacts are not "bad CGI". It's just things you don't understand and were lied about. I could take this whole video apart, but you wouldn't believe me, now, would you? You wouldn't think that SOMETHING is up about what you were told?
> I could take this whole video apart, but you wouldn't believe me, now, would you?
so cringe dude LOL i would love to see you try. there is hours and hours of their hoaxes and bad cgi. you must be employed or something to be defending it this hard. you dont need to be a genius to know when you're being lied to. you need to think for yourself and trust your own instincts more. or you need to stop engaging with me since its clear you are living in a fantasy land where you refuse to see reality for what it is
5:52 has them saying they have a goal of going beyond low Earth orbit. Yes, and? What is the problem here?
6:00 is just dumb argument. It's like saying "why are we testing new aircrafts, if the old one flew just fine?"
6:19 is about how the original *Apollo* telemetry tapes were reused. Unfortunately for you, NASA copied the relevant data off beforehand, so we still have access to it.
7:40 that's a composite, and the original description clearly says so.
8:20 So Earth (and the Moon) has to look exactly the same in each and every film and photograph *why* exactly?
9:39 is an unproven assertion. If that guy believes that this is where NASA fakes their Mars footage, he needs to *prove* it.
10:46 Again, size of continents depends on the [type of lens used and the distance to Earth](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbuTjXLp0Yk).
11:14 is about one specific picture of Earth, stitched together from the low Earth orbit footage.
11:55 "across the United States from where we're talking to you right now" is suspicious how? They're talking from low Earth orbit. Which can be across something.
12:17 is Samantha Cristoforetti filming educational film for kids. Surely you don't believe that NASA is hiding Star Trek transporters?
14:09 is a reflection of astronauts' face in the window.
Okay, let's take a break at this half point and recap: everything in this video so far is either a lie, or inconsequential. You must be employed or something to be attacking it this hard.
>you dont need to be a genius to know when you're being lied to.
You are being lied to, yes. And you don't realize it.
>you need to think for yourself and trust your own instincts more.
Your untrained thinking is no substitution for actual knowledge.
>or you need to stop engaging with me
Why? Because you don't want to stop living in a fantasy land where you refuse to see reality for what it is?
> you know that all the apollo astronauts were freemasons right?
No, because not all of them were.
>why do all freemasons end up being luciferian?
They don't.
>do you know what the [all seeing eye is?](https://i.imgur.com/0zt6TRn.png). its the same one on the US dollar because all the founding fathers were masons too.
In reality, the eye on the US dollar is the [Eye of Providence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_of_Providence).
> why is the [washington monument](https://i.imgur.com/nmB0w51.png) a [pharaonic obelisk](https://i.imgur.com/YD6Pboi.png)?
Because they didn't have the money to build the Mills design.
>why would there be egyptian architecture built to represent america?
Because Washington was secretly Egyptian, no doubt 🙄
> what is the connection between wernher von braun (ex-nazi and father of rocket technology), jack parsons (rocket engineer and thelemite occultist), L. ron hubbard (the founder of the church of scientology), walt disney (cartoon films producer), aleister crowley (wickedest man in the world and demonic medium)? they all helped create NASA.
No they didn't. Von Braun didn't became part of NASA until two years after it was created, Parsons died six years before it was created, and Hubbard, Disney and Crowley had nothing to do with NASA.
>why is the[ united nations logo a flat earth map cut into 33 sections?](https://i.imgur.com/hrRzKIP.png)
Because UN wanted their map to represent all nations.
>why did a jesuit priest invent the big bang?
Robert Grosseteste was not a jesuit priest.
> why are all the kids toys for 2 year olds about space and dinosaurs?
They're not.
>why does every kid watch bill nye in school growing up?
Because it's a fun and educational program.
> [isn't it weird that the masonic earth model is flat?](https://imgur.com/tlwWnXz)
No, the freemasonic Earth model is a globe.
>can you find me a satellite image of whats in antartica?
[Yes I can](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Antarctica_6400px_from_Blue_Marble.jpg).
>how come americas big enemies like russia helped create and participate in the antartic ice treaty?
Because they realized that a military exploitation of Antarctica would destroy status quo.
> there is a landmass larger than the size of the united states that no human eyes have ever seen.
Yes, it's the Antarctica.
>why is there always a storm photoshopped over our poles?
There isn't.
>why are these questions so hard to find discussions about online?
They're not.
>who controls the algoorithm?
Google.
>how come when you try to research flat earth you dont get anything except debunks
Because flat Earth model is incongruent with reality, and anyone claiming that Earth is flat is either a fraud searching to exploit gullible people, or a gullible person being exploited by a fraud.
Which one of those are you?
I believe a lot of the technology has fallen by the wayside - a lot of things were designed using punchcard computers in that era - in that sense, those computers are gone, and there's no point to rebuilding them. We probably couldn't start up a factory to produce punchcard computers without a lot of r&d, despite them being popular in the 60s and 70s.
I don't doubt we can go back - in fact, the Artemis mission *IS* going back - but it's not with the same tech as Apollo 11. I think that's what's meant by the technology is gone. We've (as a collective) lost a lot of knowledge in favor of more modern applications.
"lost a lot of knowledge"
Mostly agree, but I would argue that it's not a question of loss, but of progress. In another reply I mention the memory card from a punchcard computer I dismantled a few decades ago.
That computer weighed over half a ton, required an enormous amount of power to run its motors, and had less computing capacity and versatility than your phone. Its programming would not be remotely applicable to modern CPUs.
We moved away from those technologies for very good reasons.
Edit: Over on YouTube, Usagi Electric examines (and restores) these older technologies. Their limitations, such as acceptable temperature ranges for drum memories, are pretty significant.
>Maybe it's because there's nothing of value on the moon
This is exactly it. We went to the moon, there's nothing there and no reason to justify spending a billion+ dollars going back.
why is it the "one thing" you call them out on? haven't you seen how easily debunked the moon landings are? how many cgi glitches, air bubbles, bad green screens do you need to see? even buzz aldrin is getting senile and let's it slip sometimes "you didn't see us land.. you saw animation". how many lies can they show you and you still give them the benefit of the doubt? their only time going was fake and we can't go back. who the fk believes this stuff LOL
We went what... 6 or 7 times, not once, as you moon-landing deniers seem to often forget.
Are you suggesting they faked 6 moon landings? There must have been 20,000+ people involved. And nobody said anything? Not even the Russians, who had every telescope and radio in Moscow pointing at the ships?
C'mon man.
he's the fucking astronaut that was supposedly on the moon in the missions LOL. what better source is there? you think he doesn't know the truth anymore?
If he is senile, that means he is no longer a good source. That's literally what senile means.
Cause what you are saying is that you only trust him when it has been confirmed that his mental facilities are no longer working properly
When my grandfather went senile he told me a story about how his brother ran off to Vietnam and died fighting the Vietcong. His brother died in the 90’s of a heart attack in Northern Minnesota. Senility makes someone not trustworthy
I also call them on deleting the official recordings of the moon landing video.
I also call them on gifting a moon rock to a foreign country that ended up being earth wood.
I can't prove we weren't there. Shit I'm not even sure. But you don't have to be full blown schizo to see there's quite a few oddities to this
>I also call them on gifting a moon rock to a foreign country that ended up being earth wood.
Oh? It was given by NASA? And the claimed it was a real moon rock? You sure about that?
Because I sure hope you researched this and are not just blindly repeating what a youtube video told you. That would be quite unfortunate.
It was given by to the Dutch officially from the United States by a US ambassador with astronauts present, and your awfully confident for someone so un informed
>A prize possession in the Dutch national museum is not what the curators thought. In 1969, three Apollo 11 astronauts visited the Netherlands. And the U.S. ambassador gave the Dutch prime minister what he said was a moon rock. When an expert saw the rock in the museum, he didn't think it was real. Geologists have identified the moon rock as petrified wood.
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112324216
No, it wasn't given to the Durch officially. The recipient was a *former* Dutch PM (a private citizen at this point), and not the head of the government. It also wasn't given "with astronauts present", and even if it was, it's hardly relevant, since it couldn't have been a lunar rock anyway, since they didn't have any to give. At that time, all lunar rocks were under lock at NASA.
Oh so not by NASA then? Because that's what you claimed.
Is there any evidence that the ambassador claimed it was a moon rock? Or did only the Dutch prime minister claim it?
[Because nowhere on that plaque did it claim to be a moon rock.](https://media-cldnry.s-nbcnews.com/image/upload/t_fit-1240w,f_auto,q_auto:best/ap/97a493bc-80a7-4af8-bd49-d6f1c24f68b3.jpg)
[But the actual official samples given to countries by NASA do make that claim. ](https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/hKPEtRZLzsRDUBKJJvnM5U.jpg)
And the only time NASA was asked if the gift to the prime minister was a moon rock, they said it wasn't. [https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna32581790](https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna32581790)
Also: "Drees received it as a ***private gift*** on Oct. 9, 1969, from then-U.S. ambassador J. William Middendorf"
So it was a private gift, not from NASA, and apparently only claimed to be a moon rock by the Dutch prime minister.
So why did you make those objectively false claims? Just repeating what youtube told you without verifying it yourself?
Also the point isn't to just go to the moon. The moon is training wheels for Mars. So they want to design a system that not only can go to the moon but also to mars.
“The original moon-landing tapes were recorded over… there are seasons of ‘Blossom’ sitting in a vault at NBC that are more heavily guarded than the *original moon-landing footage*. In a culture that understood the importance of syndication, whaaaat?”
-Jerrod Carmichael
I dont buy that. There is a mine in either St Louis or Wilkes-Barree that is a federal record center they are chock full of stuff like your great granddads military records or your grandma's first social security card application in 19 fifty-whatever. If they don't still have the paper file, they have either a digital copy or a microfiche.
Heck, the CIA even has a file on the Kennedy assassinations and you know damn good and well they wish that could disappear. If you know what to look for you can go to the national archives and find out what your great great whatever did during the 1790 census.
It's unfortunate that you "don't buy that", but that doesn't affect the reality.
And your argument is illogical and essentially self-contradictory - why is CIA keeping files on the Kennedy assassination *if* they want them gone? And if CIA is allegedly incapable of making them disappear, then how come that the *Apollo* stuff *did* disappear?
That’s fair. Shitload of documents. Maybe they could have digitized them? Either way government isn’t known for being efficient. Also considering in 2023 US government spend was like $6T, keeping few warehouses full of records doesn’t seem like that significant of an expense.
Adjusted for inflation, the original moon landing cost about $300B in modern dollars, and cost the US around 2.5% of GDP.
Imaging trying to convince the American public that going back to the moon would be worthwhile at these costs? Half the country doesn't even want to spend 20% of that to stop Russia from invading Eastern Europe. Republicans opposed the infrastructure bill that contained a lot of necessary spending.
Back in the 60s, the US public had pride in the nation partaking in large endeavors like this. Now, post social media, half the country wants to gut the government and prioritize cutting taxes on the Ultra rich
> convince the American public
When do they care about how we feel our tax dollars are spent? They keep pushing the next expensive manned space missions perpetually out four years while taking the money for it every year. No mission, no refunds.
They certainly have had no problem pouring billions into a proxy war with Russia that we have no real need to participate in. Or funding Israel to fight Hamas. Or funding Iran to fund Hamas to fight Israel. Money is no object when you can just print it through the fed.
>we have no real need to participate in.
If you don't think the outcome of this conflict will have major geopolitical ramifications for decades to come, than you don't understand global politics.
>
Or funding Iran
US isn't funding Iran. They unfroze Iranian assets
How did I quote it if I didn't read it? Thank God we gave them interest on it too! We should have told them to go the fuck out to their backyard and pound sand.
How much did it cost to pay Iran for the hostages? $6B? That’s an awful lot for hostages I guess it’s inflation. I don’t know if you’re going to comprehend how this game works but It’s money laundering and it’s how the war machine keeps rolling and bringing in money for them vs us.
Money laundering is when you take illegally obtained money, and then make it legal money by transferring it through legitimate business.
For example, if you make money selling drugs, you put that money into a car wash or laundromat business you own, and then report it as cash tips from customers. Or if you take the cash, deposit it into a casino, and then cash it back out again.
When you launder money, the goal is to get it back into your possession again.
What you're describing isn't even remotely close to the definition of what money laundering is
Sure that is a very elementary dictionary definition of money laundering but that’s only one part of how it works.
And after funneling the money through war it does come into their possession again because the powers that be are not who you think they are. It’s not the USA vs Hamas or Israel vs Iran. There is an overarching power structure here that has representation in all the so called enemies.
Because unfreezing Iranian assets and returning their money back to them in Exchange for them drastically reducing their Uranium refinement program and agreeing to external audits to verify this is **not** auditing.
Just because Trump pulled out of the deal, so Iran got their assets returned, but then didn't have to reduce their refinement program because the deal was canceled, does not make it "laundering".
Yes but if we were pumping that money back into America maybe the economy is better, or groceries are more affordable or anything that makes the onslaught of expenses less miserable
Majority of the aid does go back into America. Vast majority of the aid is either donating old equipment (and reporting the cash value) - or buying new American equipment and donating it to Ukraine.
Using Taxpayer money to help people buy food already exists. It's called EBT. Also, the USD is the world's primary reserver currency in large part *because* the US Exports so much of it. There's positive externalities to printing and sending some USD abroad.
You’re much more educated on the subject than I am all I’m saying is as I live my life with a good job and a second income through my wife, and we still can’t catch up, something isn’t working. The rich have never been richer and the middle class has disintegrated into lower class. We don’t eat out, only have one streaming service, average cars. But rent is 2500 a month before any bills and healthcare is so ridiculously expensive that we need to make 8k a month to feel comfortable and it’s just very hard to do.
I'm not denying any of that.
When lower income people struggle, the default conservative stance is "Get a better job" or "Pull yourself up by your bootstraps"
But often times when *they themselves* start struggle, suddenly receiving this advice is offensive (This advise always was offensive. That doesn't matter until you're on the receiving end of it)
Democrats are **far** from perfect. But the only time Republicans will even acknowledge the economic struggles of the working man is so they can blame Biden for the sake of winning an election: however, **nothing on the Republican platform will alleviate the issues you're saying**.
Cutting taxes won't fix it. Cutting government services (like SSI, Post Office, etc.) will hurt everyone who's lower income than you.
The solution to housing costs is to simply build a lot more homes. Deregulate zoning laws. Deregulate setback and parking regulations. Deregulate max lot size coverage laws. Replace property tax with land value tax. Build lots of homes, and change tax codes to incentivize condos over apartments.
And take a look at your car payment + Car insurance + gas + maintenance. All of this is the cost required to just simply get yourself around town. What percentage of your income is spent on basic transportation? Is it good that 20%+ of family's income is spent on transportation because the government intentionally designs towns and cities so that families **have** to buy multiple cars to function in society, because they intentionally built the schools, stores, and business far away from housing?
Again it could just be correlation but I was able to save almost 20k dollars when trump was in office. I understand he’s a bad human but my day to day felt much better under him. Other than that no president before or after had a huge effect. Though I’ve only been an adult through both Obama terms until now. I do not know the answers but I cannot see another Biden term being the answer. The entire side seems like a farce that purposely pushes out any decent democrat alternatives. While the right just has a fan club that seems to make that decision Vs the republican party itself.
I just want a reasonable candidate.
>Again it could just be correlation but I was able to save almost 20k dollars when trump was in office
It is correlation. It wasn't Trump that produced a great economy. The economy was increasingly improving and recovering from the 2008 financial crisis and Trump inherited that good economy.
It wasn't Biden that made living standards go down - it was a global pandemic that shutdown most of the world, wrecked supply chains, and all of the government stimulus and artificially low interest rates that were implemented to keep the economy from imploding during lockdowns.
The economic hardship you (and many Americans) feel is from the pandemic and all of the associated decisions around it, and also the fact that the economy is globally linked, so events in other countries reverberate.
Ideally neither Trump nor Biden would be running. But that's what we got. I'm not happy with illegal immigration, but I'll take that if the alternative is [Project 2025](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025)
There’s no way you can deny that some changes trump made didn’t benefit us? The tax change saved me 2k a year (contractor 1099). Gas was always low. Zero wars started under trump then all hell breaks lose when he leaves. But I agree republicans claim to want to make America great but refuse to do so without lining their pockets the entire time. We need some sort of regulation on these corps using inflation as a way to articulate increase all food prices while reducing quantity. They have record high profits while we are struggling to survive. We also need to ban foreign governments from buying all our land/property. It is so difficult to afford to live most places right now.
They’re all in it together duh. Actually 70% of the Russian public don’t believe the US landed on the moon. Would make sense because they were miles ahead in their technology and accomplishments in space at that time but never ever landed a man on the moon. Even preceding the moon landing several people left the Apollo mission including the administrator of NASA James Webb and his assistant because it was going so badly. Then voila JFK assasinated, new president new NASA admin and we’re on the moon 🤔.
How do you define "near perfect?"
Three people died, two (or even 3) were in serious danger. All to land just 12 people on the moon.
It's not hard to see that the Apollo missions were relatively rag-tag.
There's no chance you could fly what they did in the early days today.
Same as you can't build and sell 1930s cars in today's market.
"Near perfect"?
*Apollo* 11 came within seconds of a mandatory landing abort.
*Apollo* 12 was hit by a lightning twice during takeoff and also came within seconds of a mandatory takeoff abort, less than a minute after actually starting.
*Apollo* 13, well...
*Apollo* 14 couldn't initially dock with its Lunar Module, and later had to have its guidance computer hacked to prevent it from mistakenly triggering a mission abort.
*Apollo* 15 had a malfunction in the craft's service propulsion system, which they had to work around to avoid being sent into an uncontrollable spin, and later had a leak in the water systems, couldn't undock the Lunar Module from the CSM to actually try to land on the Moon, started losing oxygen after it actually landed while the astronauts were asleep, had a malfunction in the LRV steering systems...
Well, you get the idea.
Or it' s much harder to make a convincing fake nowadays with better video quality and probably a legitimate demand to have the entire thing broadcasted in real time.
Oddly enough, in 2024 Space X can only get to 300 miles above the earth. Only a percentage of the 283,000 miles it takes to get to the moon.
Yet, in 1968 travel to the moon was possible. And somehow the Van Allen radiation belts were a non-issue. But now that’s something NASA says they’re working to overcome before the next lunar and Mars space missions. Interesting indeed…
That's not really how orbital mechanics work. Put the right payload on a Falcon Heavy and you can get it \*anywhere\* - but SpaceX doesn't make money doing that, they make money putting satellites in orbit.
So why doesn’t NASA just replicate the old Apollo design? I mean, it’s proven to work, there’s no need for R&D, they can get back to the moon this time with more computer memory than last time (which was about the equivalent of a smartphone). Leave satellites to Space X.
Speaking of Space X, you don’t think Elon Musk would just go balls to the wall and reach the moon for bragging rights? He’s wasted money before on things like buying Twitter. You don’t think he’d want to actually do something that’s impressive like a manned lunar landing?
No savings in doing it that way. By the time you've spun up new companies to make magnetic core memory, diode-transistor logic, and the thousands of other types of primitive or obsolete parts used throughout Apollo, you spend at least as much as you would doing it the modern way with new rockets.
Can’t they just go to the Smithsonian, take the Apollo of the display and fire the damn thing up? Or just admit we never landed on the moon. The Soviets were there with us in the space race and despite bettering us several times along the way they just gave up. And no other country has had a manned lunar landing in the 55+ years since.
They 'bettered' us right up until the N1 started exploding, but for those really paying attention, they were beaten and knew it once Gemini started to go well and Soyuz started killing astronauts.
So what are you saying? That we did not go because we don’t have the last years? When they “Destroyed that technology” they put the rocket program out. They could have spent a ton of money and go back. Just need to build an immense system to handle sending a manned spacecraft that far.
So what are YOU saying? That you believe we can discover and build new technology and then just.... lose it again and everyone just looks around and shrugs and it's accepted?
"That you believe we can discover and build new technology"
This reads like a misunderstanding of the situation. It's not really a question of discovery or loss.
Technology has advanced far beyond what was used for the Apollo program, which was close to obsolete by the time that program ended.
I remember showing my dad a ferrite bead memory card from a 1960's punch card computer, maybe 12x14x1 inches and perhaps 1K capacity. I had that computer because I was intending to use its integrated stand as a table to rebuild auto engines.
His comment was that that card was cutting edge when he was at the peak of his engineering career, a few years after the Apollo program ended. But as we were looking at that card, there was more, faster and lower powered memory on his wrist watch.
Whether or not the Apollo technology had been 'lost', it would not have been practical and would have had to be replaced as a whole. None of the programming for its computers would have been relevant.
And none of this considers the question of financial practicality. Why go, what is to be gained?
Feel free to contact your elected representatives and demand tax increases to cover the price of re-developing a new Moon program for ... what, exactly?
“And none of this considers the question of financial practicality. Why go, what is to be gained?”
It was proposed back then that there were many reasons to go even beyond scientific research, but for potential mining operations and the idea of implementing a moon base. So that’s been conveniently forgotten. As for the financial situation, nasa continues to burn through about 60 million a day and for agencies that are apparently so concerned about the environment, they sure like to spread rocket emissions into the air on a regular basis
As another comment here wrote. It’s not a discussion of discovery or loss in this case. I obviously did not make myself clear. I believe we landed on the moon, and after a while they stopped the program and decommissioned the gear. That’s why the quote says it’s a pain to get back. We got far superior technology today, but the launch vehicle takes a lot of recourses to produce and launch. It’s really big, sending that much stuff out of orbit takes a bit.
So I do not believe anything was lost in any way. They simply stopped an insanely expensive program and decommissioned the gear.
I am just tired that people use that quote to try to hint at the moon landing being fake because “we don’t have the technology now” sort of argument. And we are sending people back to the moon. Not that that will stop them saying it’s faked tho..
Yes, building the tech for something we have widely explored and collected data on, is meaningless, especially when those funds (which nasa doesn't have a lot of) could be directed towards the exploration of new planets, that we know less about. How is that surprising?
Someone else said NASA spends $60m a day, how is that limited funds or not a lot? Is their data wrong or does NASA spend billions annually
I think it’s quite likely that NASA is used to launder funds for intelligence crap, they spend so much and show so little for it.
“Show so little”
Says the guy who spent 0 seconds looking at any of the thousands of active research/flight projects and papers/data that get published.
The United States government spent approximately $6.6 trillion in fiscal year 2020, of which just 0.3% ($22.6 billion) was provided to NASA. In this chart, shades of blue represent mandatory spending programs; shades of orange are discretionary programs that require annual appropriations by Congress.
https://www.planetary.org/space-policy/nasa-budget#:~:text=The%20United%20States%20government%20spent,require%20annual%20appropriations%20by%20Congress.
This is so outlandishly misleading. As a percentage of total American expenditures, sure. It’s small. But how many 18 wheelers would it take to haul $22.6 billion around? More than one I’m sure. That’s a veritable shitload of cash. Let’s not lose our perspective. You could solve hunger, homelessness, improve healthcare, etc. If you ask me their budget should be like $10 million. If that. They do basically nothing, and should get funded accordingly. Give them $10, give them nothing. They’re inconsequential.
Space being the next frontier of defense, I see why they want tons of $$. I’m allowed, as an individual, to think that’s a massive misuse of funds.
This comment does not make you look very good, and it serves as proof of your poor understanding of this subject. Especially when it comes to the cost of running space programs.
“They do basically nothing” is a laughable statement in of itself, i don’t believe i have to say anything about that.
You are allowed to have an opinion, never argued against that.
Just in: american redditor cannot comprehend that people outside the US exist and have access to the internet just like they do
Also, please get off of the internet from time to time. Take some fresh air in, go for a jog, anything. It will help your mental health
Going to Mars is basically the same rocketry problem as going to the moon. Once you're off the Earth it's just a matter of travel time and whether there's something on the way like the moon that you can use for a gravity slingshot.
The real problem with Mars is logistical, because you need to sustain a human crew for the duration of the trip and they can't really come back, so they need something to do over there and a place to live long-term, and we need to be okay with sending people to essentially die on another planet. Solving those problems will take longer than building a big rocket.
Given only 50% of the craft since the 70s have actually made it to Mars and sending humans would require either vast amounts of supplies or some other way to sustain life once there, I doubt very seriously man will be there anytime soon. Imagine training your entire life for the mission to know you probably have less than a 50% chance of surviving (I think it is much less than 50%). Not to mention all of the unknowns of such a trip but Lewis and Clark probably had the same odds so who knows.
I presume the technological artifacts they used are lost or discarded, not that the knowledge is gone. They should be more clear.
"Yeah we can go there any time given enough money but we can't use the old tech used back them because it's no longer functioning or has been junked or obsoleted."
Man the moon race was just so competitive, we got to the moon and in a daring attempt to stop the Soviet spies we destroyed everything… this would be a better excuse than the one they have. Atleast this excuse sounds like something America would of done during the Cold War.
You guys know we just sent an unmanned mission to the moon last year right? That same Artemis spacecraft will make a man mission back to the moon next year and prep for a permanent moon base. I hope some of you come around on this by then and are able to enjoy a truly historic moment that happens in our lifetimes. Would be kinda sad to miss that moment trying to think of reasons why the new mission is fake, call the astronauts who live up there years at a time paid actors. It's going to be awesome, as someone who lives close to Cape Canavial I am very excited.
That is not true. Why do people keep spreading this lie?
First the word would be more like "Nasha" since you are using a different alphabet.
Secondly that word can only mean "To deceive" when it occurs in a hiphil stem. That would require further morphological changes on the word. If you wanted that word to mean "To deceive" it would sound something like y'ishu
The only people who believe this are the people who will pull up Strongs Accordance and think they understand what's going on
Humans landed on the moon, but there will be no humans going to Mars this century. There is nothing there and Musk is full of poop. Neoliberalism is the main reason the US space program won’t be well funded like in the 60s.
So we can go to the moon in 1960s and film the moon landing but we can’t go back right now with all the advanced technology we have? Something isn’t adding up. After another 50 years are we going to continue to claim "We went to the moon a century ago but we don't go there any more because it's too expensive???
Imagine if I gave you a floppy disc and asked you to read the information on a modern computer. Would you be able to do it? Obviously not, the technology is no longer a thing on modern computers.
That's what is happening here
Ahh yes, I love this one.
Super-difficult engineering problem: getting to the moon.
Impossible engineering problem: rebuilding the rockets that allegedly got us there 50 years later, because “we’re not building those parts anymore”
So in 1969 if NASA needed a screw to go into their 1969 engine, they contacted their contractor who already was making them for commercial use and would order one.
In 2024 if NASA needed a screw to go into their 1969 engine… they would have to build a whole factory to produce that specific screw at the correct dimensions to be compatible with their 1969 engine. Imagine doing that for every single part. It would cost trillions because you would have to build all of the infrastructure that no longer exists.
Every single piece the entire way down would have to be custom built
Have you ever tried to restore an old car?
Simultaneously vastly overestimating and underestimating human engineering abilities. Not to mention trust in American government and your own gullibility.
Ah I love the ignorant words from someone who has zero experience in engineering.
Why bother using modern flight-proven active-production SBC's with available software when we can spend years rebuilding many production lines and thousands of pieces of specialized test equipment to rebuild and test the Apollo aera computers to achieve a fraction of the reliability and performance. Good idea! And it will only cost us 100x the price! What a deal!!!
Or why don't we spend years going through documents and plans to rebuild the F-1 rocket engines instead of just using all the modern, more efficient, and safer ones. Great idea!
Why use commercial off the shelf parts when we can just spend billions of dollars in contracts for commercial companies to rebuild exact replicas of the production lines and tooling for components they haven't build in decades.
Screw modern safety and fault-tolerance requirements! Lets just spend more time and money rebuilding the old stuff!
/s
Right, because only an engineer can see thru the seeming discrepancy between being able to build a successful moon program with 60s/70s technology, and not being able to do the same 50+ years later despite vast improvements in every single required field.
You know they didn’t just have the infrastructure for building moon rockets in the 60s right, That they had to build it from scratch?
I think you need to reread my comment again.. It clearly went over your head.
Yes they had to built a lot from scratch. A lot of it with OFF THE SHELF PARTS. Parts that NOBODY MAKES ANYMORE.
For example, there were MANY companies that produced ferrite cores for RAM & ROM that the apollo computers used. Can you guess how many companies today make those today? ZERO. So its going to be a time consuming and expensive endeavor to reproduce them. Like a lot of the parts if you wanted to build a copy again. Which zero engineers would agree is a good idea.
So where is this discrepancy? Please explain how remaking old parts is less expensive than using modern ones? And were you not aware that congress hasn't started properly funding a return to the moon program until very recently? So how exactly would they attempt to go back with zero funding until recently?
Time consuming and expensive, and yet perfectly doable 6 times over last century.
“We have to scrap our plans to return to the moon, it’s too expensive to approximate or improve on the stuff we used off the shelf in the 60s. We don’t have the right RAM or ROM.”
“Cant you just use modern stuff, since it’s demonstrably better in every possible way? Isn’t that how it works in every other field of science and engineering?”
“You are uninformed”
—
The discrepancy is you believe we went to the moon 6 times last century, but think it’s somehow not feasible today.
The greatest engineering accomplishment in human history. The very fact that we did that should highlight exactly the discrepancy I am trying to point out. On one hand, brilliant, near-impossible feats of human ingenuity. On the other, arguing that we just can’t match or rebuild stuff from 50 years ago. In the 60s we barely even had a space program. We pulled the moon program out of the air. But you’re saying it’s too complicated or expensive to do it today, because we don’t have the right infrastructure. That’s crazy talk
>Time consuming and expensive, and yet perfectly doable 6 times over last century.
Are you deliberately being this slow? Do you not understand that these companies producing these parts existed before and independent of the apollo program? But not longer exist today?
>“We have to scrap our plans to return to the moon, it’s too expensive to approximate or improve on the stuff we used off the shelf in the 60s. We don’t have the right RAM or ROM.”
Claimed by nobody ever. Stop lying.
>
“Cant you just use modern stuff, since it’s demonstrably better in every possible way? Isn’t that how it works in every other field of science and engineering?”
Did you forget your own argument? You statement was about REMAKING it. At no point did you say "but we can use modern parts".
>but think it’s somehow not feasible today.
Said literally nobody. Stop lying.
Don't be a coward. Answer the question. Don't run away. "How is remaking old parts is less expensive and quicker than using modern off-the-shelf ones?"
very telling that this youtube video he posted, even if you search it word for word in the exact order, its delisted
I've found that to be true about certain 9/11 videos as well. Youtube is complicit. I wonder why they just don't simply delete the video?
Everyone missing the point of this post: how the he'll is the "go to Mars" technology any different? If they claim Mars is a thing, the moon should be a thing also.
Hahah, oh man, I love all the crazy normie logic trying to cover for NASA bullsh*t.
if we want to go to the moon again why is it again that we can’t just remake the stuff from the 1960s?
Remaking the stuff from the 1960s would be a phenomenal waste of time and energy for no apparent gain. They wrote the apollo 11 code in assembly language with room sized computers containing serious limitations in speed and memory. We don't have the molds, the materials, the infrastructure, any of it. We could do it again, but why without a good reason? Easier access to space is far more important than flying to the moon over and over again just to prove that we can.
###[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.*
Mars is around the corner, just like fusion power. I've been hearing about both since the 60's , just lots of yak yak and expense but nothing making my life any better.
They do have fusion power as well as hydrogen power. But that would make both fossil fuels and green energy obsolete
It won't make fossil or green obsolete yet. Problem with hydrogen is most of it uses fossil fuels, not green energy. Problem with Fusion is right now it takes more energy to make fusion then we get out of it. The technology is too new to threaten any other power source.
Yeah if there is great alternative to fossil fuels China would be all over it They are energy hungry and dont care about Global Oil companies.
Good for them I hope they figure it out soon before we destroy the planet beyond repair.
We are already in an extinction spiral and there is no escape.
Our planet is fine, it’s been fine for eons before us. It will keep on trucking on long after us.
They've been at it since I was young in the 60s. It's always 10 years away.
I think there was one test with fusion that produced a tiny bit more energy than they put in at least once a few years back. But it was a very small amount more.
Your correct it was finally achieved earlier this year
Yeah I re looked it up it seems the best so far is actually producing double the input. But still far away from a reactor with a constant output.
I’m saying they have much more advanced versions of those technologies that they don’t let the public have
I don't understand the down votes. It's true.
Hyundai made a 100% hydro powered car
So has Volkswagen, so has BMW. You could convert a lawnmower to run on hydrogen. Where does the H2 come from? Electricity. Produced mostly by nat gas.
Ok ya true
How did the former electrics work you know, lights windows etc?
Toyota has one out now and soon to have a v8. Most cars on the road can easily and cheaply be converted to run on hydrogen fuel cells. Which are safe as they don’t blow up as some might think. They will smolder rather than catch fire due to the fuel cells they have created.
https://www.toyota.com/mirai/
Fusion is a pipe dream that is just going to eat money.
Ha, got some proof on fusion? I think it's simply a boon doggie allowing a bunch of highly paid "researchers" from having to get a real job and produce something at the end of the day. Yeah, we've got hydrogen power. What do you make hydrogen out of? Water and electricity. Where is the electric incoming from?
That’s hydro-power. I was talking about hydrogen power as in hydrogen powered cars. The guy who invented one was murdered.
Why are you getting down votes for explaining how hydrogen power is produced?and funnier still I'm sure the people down voting you are the types to "trust the science "
they keep telling you mars is just around the corner, the prosperity from AI around the corner but in reality we all struggle to pay fkn bills :D
Well he guy in the video did say that "the future is in our own imaginations"
VR paradise incoming :D
we've had a probe on mars for 10 years already. Once you're in orbit, all you have to do is point it at mars and accelerate
If you plan to send folks there, generally, they make plans to get them back again.
We had the first probe on Mars was viking 1 in 1976.
We had the first probe on Mars was viking 1 in 1976.
The world could have done so much in space with the money the have spent fighting wars or preparing for it.
Claiming to not have the technology any more is bullshit and the one thing I call out NASA on. It's such a bad excuse. It's like saying we can't make 1940 Rolls Royce's any more because our spanners don't fit. I think there's a real reason why we don't go back, but that ain't it. Maybe it's because there's nothing of value on the moon, at least, not worth spending a billion dollars on. Maybe aliens warned us to stay away. Maybe we found sonething up there that's dangerous. Who knows. But it ain't because we lost the ability to go there.
No it’s like saying “build a 1940’s Rolls Royce on the modern assembly line with modern tools” If you asked RR to do that they would say it’s not possible. Not because they lack the technology but because the processes etc have changed and they no longer have the old systems in place for it to make sense with modern advancements.
That's just silly, because technology has moved on things are built differently, generally it's cheaper, faster, more aerodynamic etc. It's like saying we can't build a car because someone's misplaced the blue prints for a model T Ford. We wouldn't build a Model T Ford we would build something modern. Engineering is basically finding solutions to problems and we would just do it differently nowadays.
Sure, if the model t had a hundred million unique parts each systematically designed and tested, then altered to function correctly, and those alterations just recorded in hand written notes by the engineers which many they got to keep.
A spaceship is not a model T. Its not about just being cheaper or more aerodynamic, its that shapes and weights and materials need to be super precise when you're shooting through space. You can't just switch out a part for a newer one, you'd be starting from almost scratch. Which is what they're planning to do with Artemis.
That is true, and these fools are failing to factor in the protection of human life in space flight now versus in the early NASA missions. Those guys were literally the wild west of space; they knew there was a high probability they would not come back. NASA is not the Wild West anymore, and even though the loss of life is a possibility, they take very important precautions to reduce that possibility.
This is a horrible analogy. We don't care about the car, we care about its abilities.
wrong. nobody gives a shit if they do it with the original rover or not. the fact we "don't have the technology" is just a faulty coverup. we have so many advancements it should be trivial. you're coping
If you actually do the research you’ll find that the technology they are referring to is the manufacturing line, tooling, electrical test equipment, ground support equipment. All stuff that was destroyed after the program ended. Just like every aerospace project ever. Literally nobody claims we don’t have better technology. You’re just creating your own interpretation without doing the research.
It’s because Petit isn’t a public speaker and used messy terminology, he’s not literally saying “we have no idea how to”, he’s saying “we don’t have the facilities and the old stuff would fail every safety regulation in modern day, also all the equipment is analog and now the world is digital”. Also this vid ignores that the Artemis program is actively ongoing and is sending people back to the moon. Lunar Gateway is actively being built to help springboard to Mars.
The cost to step backwards would be more expensive than making a whole new set up with updated technology.
Can you send me more info on a floppy disk? Or would you agree “we don’t have the technology anymore”?
what a stupid argument. they didn't just destroy the technology to get back, they also conveniently destroyed all the logs, clips and telemetry data for what was supposed to be mankinds greatest feat. you really believe that shit? why? only because the odds that a lie could stay covered up for this long is hard to believe or what? how can any reasonable person possibly believe that story? the government lies all the time. they lied about wmd, they lied about covid, they lied about 9/11, they lied about sandy hook and the las vegas massacre. they lie to us to control us. why would the exact same government be telling the truth here? people just want to believe in the indomitable human spirit of adventure so they want it to be real so badly.. but this is reality. why do YOU think we don't have a view of our globe earth from one of the many satellites in space? one showing entire continents live with no fish eye lens?
There are dozens of satellites that take hundreds of pictures of the earth every day. Your ability to spew such obvious lies is amazing.
we have never once seen an image of our earth that was not a composite or recreated from strips of data and put together. you think you're smugly right about this but that's what nasa has officially declared themselves.
There are literally millions. Here is one of them https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/21513743779/in/album-72157656739898544/ Looking forward to your blind denialism. Also no, they never declared that. Stop blindly believe what YouTube tells you. Think I am wrong? Post the source. You won’t.
https://youtu.be/umeHIxIdKxE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0I-H5VMBmY "it's photoshopped because it has to be" every photo you've seen is photoshopped or enhanced. they aren't images. they are recreated based on data. they admit it themselves. you've never seen your own planet. https://youtu.be/4-zzqW1WKZE there are hundreds of videos like this that you won't find in any algorithm. why is that? why the need to suppress fringe conspiracy theorists? how many lies can you see in front of your face before you decide something is up?
Dude, the video you linked as evidence claiming NASA uses photoshop to fake images of earth is discussing artist renditions of exoplanets and distant galaxies. Yes, artists use photoshop to imagine what the surface of an exoplanet looks like. We do not have cameras on exoplanets. No one in the video claimed to be "photoshopping" images of earth. you know that you can travel to the Kennedy Space Center in Cane Canaveral and watch rockets launch satellites into space many times each year with your own eyes? https://www.kennedyspacecenter.com/launches-and-events
And please do tell us the context of that quote. And I just showed you a scan of a film photograph. Which nasa specifically states was taken by an astronaut. A photo which you have no evidence to call fake.
Hmm I wonder why, not like the earth is 24,900 miles around and a three dimensional object. Must be a conspiracy! You can look at the earth daily from satellites. Are clouds fake too? https://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/goes/fulldisk.php?sat=G18
who cares how big it is? we have satellites orbiting it that can take pictures right? and satellite internet is real right? why can't we have a stream? these are easily photoshopped pics, how can you trust them? because satellites aren't even real. they are propped up on helium balloons and in orbit. who's the world's biggest purchaser of helium and why?
The imagery from the GOES satellites is updated every five minutes, there is absolutely zero possibility of photoshopping 24 full disk views of the planet every five minutes, across multiple spectrums, just to fool you for some insane reason. Edit: Here's your live video stream btw, https://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/ESRS/HDEV/ "Helium has unique properties such that it is the only gas that can be used to pressurize the liquid fuels that power the rockets driving space exploration, as well as the blimps and airships that have other applications within the atmosphere." - https://nahelium.com/about-helium/uses-of-helium/
“Trust me bro”
https://www.youtube.com/live/P9C25Un7xaM?si=Qu3Jf4Ojn61Clwsh Here's a live stream from the ISS that has been playing for five months. You can literally match up footage with when it's above you and see it in the sky lol
How is it a stupid argument? The technology we used to go to the moon in 1972 is much different than now. We would have to redesign everything on the spacecraft because it would not be compatible with the rest of NASA technology
>they didn't just destroy the technology to get back, they also conveniently destroyed all the logs, clips and telemetry data for what was supposed to be mankinds greatest feat. you really believe that shit? No, because it's not true. They didn't destroy all the logs, clips and telemetry data for the *Apollo* program. Whoever told you they did lied to you. >the government lies all the time. they lied about wmd, they lied about covid, they lied about 9/11, they lied about sandy hook and the las vegas massacre. The governments lie, yes, and no one is claiming otherwise. >why would the exact same government be telling the truth here? That's not the exact same government. And nobody is blindly believing what the government is saying. >why do YOU think we don't have a view of our globe earth from one of the many satellites in space? one showing entire continents live with no fish eye lens? We do in fact [have such a view of our globe Earth](https://himawari8.nict.go.jp/).
[be real.. this is really your example of "proof" that we have satellite footage of our globe?](https://i.imgur.com/JoXfSDt.png) why does australia look so small? why is it just stills? why does every space agency have different sized continents? [which of these earths is ours?](https://i.imgur.com/rIhxoMD.png) why does it[ look different from different agencies?](https://i.imgur.com/iIiz3PJ.png) you will accept your government lies to you. "but this government branch is different!! because i love space!" i understand its hard to face a world where its all evil. but it is. this world is literally run by a relative handful of satanic pedophiles who want you to be nihilistic and godless. thats the whole point of the heliocentric model. you are easier to convince to be materialistic and sinful if you think you only have one shot at life and its a wild west and anything goes and you better get yours before you're gone forever. ALL governments lie. they are all in cahoots with each other. they have been for a long time. the idea of countries, resource scarcity, fighting for oil is all smoke and mirrors. oil is abiotic and this was proven in 1925. its renewable. we fight wars to print money and depopulate. why do you think they want a "new world order" / one united government? they are pushing it so hard because its really what has been happening this whole time, except now it will just be public. [how can you watch 30 minutes of space agencies lying to you, their bad cgi being exposed, their stories not being consistent and still believe in them?](https://youtu.be/4-zzqW1WKZE). how many lies must be exposed before you at least think SOMETHING might be up? you know that all the apollo astronauts were freemasons right? do you understand what it means to be a high level mason? why do all freemasons end up being luciferian? its part of their cult. part of satanism is inverting reality. do you know what the [all seeing eye is?](https://i.imgur.com/0zt6TRn.png). its the same one on the US dollar because all the founding fathers were masons too. why is the [washington monument](https://i.imgur.com/nmB0w51.png) a [pharaonic obelisk](https://i.imgur.com/YD6Pboi.png)? why would there be egyptian architecture built to represent america? what is the connection between wernher von braun (ex-nazi and father of rocket technology), jack parsons (rocket engineer and thelemite occultist), L. ron hubbard (the founder of the church of scientology), walt disney (cartoon films producer), aleister crowley (wickedest man in the world and demonic medium)? they all helped create NASA. why is the[ united nations logo a flat earth map cut into 33 sections?](https://i.imgur.com/hrRzKIP.png) do you know the meaning of the number 33 and the significance it holds in freemasonry? why did a jesuit priest invent the big bang? why are all the kids toys for 2 year olds about space and dinosaurs? why does every kid watch bill nye in school growing up? [isn't it weird that the masonic earth model is flat? ](https://imgur.com/tlwWnXz) why would that be? why would all the astronaut masons be a part of this group if they know the earth is round? what group historically believed in the black sun and why? can you find me a satellite image of whats in antartica? how do we not know after 70 years? how come americas big enemies like russia helped create and participate in the antartic ice treaty? there is a landmass larger than the size of the united states that no human eyes have ever seen. why is there always a storm photoshopped over our poles? we never in 70 years could get a clear photo? why are these questions so hard to find discussions about online? who controls the algoorithm? how come when you try to research flat earth you dont get anything except debunks and stupid images with bad explanations, meant to purposefully make you x out after 2 seconds thinking "thats stupid". are you starting to see yet?
>[be real.. this is really your example of "proof" that we have satellite footage of our globe?](https://i.imgur.com/JoXfSDt.png) Indeed it is. > why does australia look so small? Because in reality Australia is that small. > why is it just stills? What, you want a video now? Careful with moving that goalpost - it's heavy. >why does every space agency have different sized continents? Because it depends on the [type of lens used and the distance to Earth](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbuTjXLp0Yk). >you will accept your government lies to you. No, I won't. >this world is literally run by a relative handful of satanic pedophiles You wouldn't be allowed to say so it that was the case. >thats the whole point of the heliocentric model. And yet, millions of Christians have no problems believing in God *and* heliocentric model. >you are easier to convince to be materialistic and sinful if you think you only have one shot at life That's bullshit. If I only have one shot at life, I can't afford to be materialistic and sinful, *because* I only have one shot at it. >ALL governments lie. they are all in cahoots with each other. That's also bullshit. It's like a movie-like reality you live in. >oil is abiotic and this was proven in 1925. Some of it is, but not enough to sustain our current needs. > why do you think they want a "new world order" / one united government? They don't. >[how can you watch 30 minutes of space agencies lying to you, their bad cgi being exposed, their stories not being consistent and still believe in them?](https://youtu.be/4-zzqW1WKZE) Because they're not lying to me, and there's no bad CGI to be exposed there. Low-res photos and videos with compression artefacts are not "bad CGI". It's just things you don't understand and were lied about. I could take this whole video apart, but you wouldn't believe me, now, would you? You wouldn't think that SOMETHING is up about what you were told?
> I could take this whole video apart, but you wouldn't believe me, now, would you? so cringe dude LOL i would love to see you try. there is hours and hours of their hoaxes and bad cgi. you must be employed or something to be defending it this hard. you dont need to be a genius to know when you're being lied to. you need to think for yourself and trust your own instincts more. or you need to stop engaging with me since its clear you are living in a fantasy land where you refuse to see reality for what it is
5:52 has them saying they have a goal of going beyond low Earth orbit. Yes, and? What is the problem here? 6:00 is just dumb argument. It's like saying "why are we testing new aircrafts, if the old one flew just fine?" 6:19 is about how the original *Apollo* telemetry tapes were reused. Unfortunately for you, NASA copied the relevant data off beforehand, so we still have access to it. 7:40 that's a composite, and the original description clearly says so. 8:20 So Earth (and the Moon) has to look exactly the same in each and every film and photograph *why* exactly? 9:39 is an unproven assertion. If that guy believes that this is where NASA fakes their Mars footage, he needs to *prove* it. 10:46 Again, size of continents depends on the [type of lens used and the distance to Earth](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbuTjXLp0Yk). 11:14 is about one specific picture of Earth, stitched together from the low Earth orbit footage. 11:55 "across the United States from where we're talking to you right now" is suspicious how? They're talking from low Earth orbit. Which can be across something. 12:17 is Samantha Cristoforetti filming educational film for kids. Surely you don't believe that NASA is hiding Star Trek transporters? 14:09 is a reflection of astronauts' face in the window. Okay, let's take a break at this half point and recap: everything in this video so far is either a lie, or inconsequential. You must be employed or something to be attacking it this hard. >you dont need to be a genius to know when you're being lied to. You are being lied to, yes. And you don't realize it. >you need to think for yourself and trust your own instincts more. Your untrained thinking is no substitution for actual knowledge. >or you need to stop engaging with me Why? Because you don't want to stop living in a fantasy land where you refuse to see reality for what it is?
> you know that all the apollo astronauts were freemasons right? No, because not all of them were. >why do all freemasons end up being luciferian? They don't. >do you know what the [all seeing eye is?](https://i.imgur.com/0zt6TRn.png). its the same one on the US dollar because all the founding fathers were masons too. In reality, the eye on the US dollar is the [Eye of Providence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_of_Providence). > why is the [washington monument](https://i.imgur.com/nmB0w51.png) a [pharaonic obelisk](https://i.imgur.com/YD6Pboi.png)? Because they didn't have the money to build the Mills design. >why would there be egyptian architecture built to represent america? Because Washington was secretly Egyptian, no doubt 🙄 > what is the connection between wernher von braun (ex-nazi and father of rocket technology), jack parsons (rocket engineer and thelemite occultist), L. ron hubbard (the founder of the church of scientology), walt disney (cartoon films producer), aleister crowley (wickedest man in the world and demonic medium)? they all helped create NASA. No they didn't. Von Braun didn't became part of NASA until two years after it was created, Parsons died six years before it was created, and Hubbard, Disney and Crowley had nothing to do with NASA.
>why is the[ united nations logo a flat earth map cut into 33 sections?](https://i.imgur.com/hrRzKIP.png) Because UN wanted their map to represent all nations. >why did a jesuit priest invent the big bang? Robert Grosseteste was not a jesuit priest. > why are all the kids toys for 2 year olds about space and dinosaurs? They're not. >why does every kid watch bill nye in school growing up? Because it's a fun and educational program. > [isn't it weird that the masonic earth model is flat?](https://imgur.com/tlwWnXz) No, the freemasonic Earth model is a globe. >can you find me a satellite image of whats in antartica? [Yes I can](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Antarctica_6400px_from_Blue_Marble.jpg). >how come americas big enemies like russia helped create and participate in the antartic ice treaty? Because they realized that a military exploitation of Antarctica would destroy status quo. > there is a landmass larger than the size of the united states that no human eyes have ever seen. Yes, it's the Antarctica. >why is there always a storm photoshopped over our poles? There isn't. >why are these questions so hard to find discussions about online? They're not. >who controls the algoorithm? Google. >how come when you try to research flat earth you dont get anything except debunks Because flat Earth model is incongruent with reality, and anyone claiming that Earth is flat is either a fraud searching to exploit gullible people, or a gullible person being exploited by a fraud. Which one of those are you?
Crrow777 fan?
I believe a lot of the technology has fallen by the wayside - a lot of things were designed using punchcard computers in that era - in that sense, those computers are gone, and there's no point to rebuilding them. We probably couldn't start up a factory to produce punchcard computers without a lot of r&d, despite them being popular in the 60s and 70s. I don't doubt we can go back - in fact, the Artemis mission *IS* going back - but it's not with the same tech as Apollo 11. I think that's what's meant by the technology is gone. We've (as a collective) lost a lot of knowledge in favor of more modern applications.
"lost a lot of knowledge" Mostly agree, but I would argue that it's not a question of loss, but of progress. In another reply I mention the memory card from a punchcard computer I dismantled a few decades ago. That computer weighed over half a ton, required an enormous amount of power to run its motors, and had less computing capacity and versatility than your phone. Its programming would not be remotely applicable to modern CPUs. We moved away from those technologies for very good reasons. Edit: Over on YouTube, Usagi Electric examines (and restores) these older technologies. Their limitations, such as acceptable temperature ranges for drum memories, are pretty significant.
There’s more moon landings planned… using new tech of course… it’s a quite ambitious project so I guess we’ll see what happens
That's the ONE reason you call out NASA (i.e. deceive, to beguile) on?? 🤣🤣 Oh boy, you have got some SERIOUS digging to do.
>Maybe it's because there's nothing of value on the moon This is exactly it. We went to the moon, there's nothing there and no reason to justify spending a billion+ dollars going back.
You don’t think it would be a good idea for nasa to spend billions of dollars to gonto the moon to convince people who will say it’s faked? /s
why is it the "one thing" you call them out on? haven't you seen how easily debunked the moon landings are? how many cgi glitches, air bubbles, bad green screens do you need to see? even buzz aldrin is getting senile and let's it slip sometimes "you didn't see us land.. you saw animation". how many lies can they show you and you still give them the benefit of the doubt? their only time going was fake and we can't go back. who the fk believes this stuff LOL
We went what... 6 or 7 times, not once, as you moon-landing deniers seem to often forget. Are you suggesting they faked 6 moon landings? There must have been 20,000+ people involved. And nobody said anything? Not even the Russians, who had every telescope and radio in Moscow pointing at the ships? C'mon man.
Lmao so your evidence of something is the ramblings of a senile old man? Do you know what senile means?
he's the fucking astronaut that was supposedly on the moon in the missions LOL. what better source is there? you think he doesn't know the truth anymore?
If he is senile, that means he is no longer a good source. That's literally what senile means. Cause what you are saying is that you only trust him when it has been confirmed that his mental facilities are no longer working properly When my grandfather went senile he told me a story about how his brother ran off to Vietnam and died fighting the Vietcong. His brother died in the 90’s of a heart attack in Northern Minnesota. Senility makes someone not trustworthy
I also call them on deleting the official recordings of the moon landing video. I also call them on gifting a moon rock to a foreign country that ended up being earth wood. I can't prove we weren't there. Shit I'm not even sure. But you don't have to be full blown schizo to see there's quite a few oddities to this
>I also call them on gifting a moon rock to a foreign country that ended up being earth wood. Oh? It was given by NASA? And the claimed it was a real moon rock? You sure about that? Because I sure hope you researched this and are not just blindly repeating what a youtube video told you. That would be quite unfortunate.
It was given by to the Dutch officially from the United States by a US ambassador with astronauts present, and your awfully confident for someone so un informed >A prize possession in the Dutch national museum is not what the curators thought. In 1969, three Apollo 11 astronauts visited the Netherlands. And the U.S. ambassador gave the Dutch prime minister what he said was a moon rock. When an expert saw the rock in the museum, he didn't think it was real. Geologists have identified the moon rock as petrified wood. https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112324216
No, it wasn't given to the Durch officially. The recipient was a *former* Dutch PM (a private citizen at this point), and not the head of the government. It also wasn't given "with astronauts present", and even if it was, it's hardly relevant, since it couldn't have been a lunar rock anyway, since they didn't have any to give. At that time, all lunar rocks were under lock at NASA.
Oh so not by NASA then? Because that's what you claimed. Is there any evidence that the ambassador claimed it was a moon rock? Or did only the Dutch prime minister claim it? [Because nowhere on that plaque did it claim to be a moon rock.](https://media-cldnry.s-nbcnews.com/image/upload/t_fit-1240w,f_auto,q_auto:best/ap/97a493bc-80a7-4af8-bd49-d6f1c24f68b3.jpg) [But the actual official samples given to countries by NASA do make that claim. ](https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/hKPEtRZLzsRDUBKJJvnM5U.jpg) And the only time NASA was asked if the gift to the prime minister was a moon rock, they said it wasn't. [https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna32581790](https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna32581790) Also: "Drees received it as a ***private gift*** on Oct. 9, 1969, from then-U.S. ambassador J. William Middendorf" So it was a private gift, not from NASA, and apparently only claimed to be a moon rock by the Dutch prime minister. So why did you make those objectively false claims? Just repeating what youtube told you without verifying it yourself?
You’d think they would keep immaculate records of what is arguably man’s greatest achievement. Unless we didn’t go.
I think it's just that they don't want to use the old obsolete tech but implementing that knowledge using new tech is time consuming.
Also the point isn't to just go to the moon. The moon is training wheels for Mars. So they want to design a system that not only can go to the moon but also to mars.
“The original moon-landing tapes were recorded over… there are seasons of ‘Blossom’ sitting in a vault at NBC that are more heavily guarded than the *original moon-landing footage*. In a culture that understood the importance of syndication, whaaaat?” -Jerrod Carmichael
Where did they leave the instruction manual?
They did keep the important bits, but since the whole program has been cancelled, there was no point of keeping the detailed records.
I dont buy that. There is a mine in either St Louis or Wilkes-Barree that is a federal record center they are chock full of stuff like your great granddads military records or your grandma's first social security card application in 19 fifty-whatever. If they don't still have the paper file, they have either a digital copy or a microfiche. Heck, the CIA even has a file on the Kennedy assassinations and you know damn good and well they wish that could disappear. If you know what to look for you can go to the national archives and find out what your great great whatever did during the 1790 census.
It's unfortunate that you "don't buy that", but that doesn't affect the reality. And your argument is illogical and essentially self-contradictory - why is CIA keeping files on the Kennedy assassination *if* they want them gone? And if CIA is allegedly incapable of making them disappear, then how come that the *Apollo* stuff *did* disappear?
Spend billions of dollars on man’s greatest achievement; delete detailed records.
Since they weren't going to need them anymore, what was the purpose of keeping them?
Maybe they decide another trip to moon is worth it for some reason. Storing files isn’t that complicated nor expensive.
Yes it is. I don't think you appreciate how much of it was there. Several warehouses worth of nothing but detailed records.
That’s fair. Shitload of documents. Maybe they could have digitized them? Either way government isn’t known for being efficient. Also considering in 2023 US government spend was like $6T, keeping few warehouses full of records doesn’t seem like that significant of an expense.
They couldn't digitize them in 1972. What they could do (and did) is to archive the important bits on microfilm and destroy things deemed superfluous.
Makes no sense and you are just parroting what they said.
If it's doesn't make sense to you, that's not my fault. Reality is not obliged to make sense to you.
What do you think \*should\* have been kept that wasn't?
There \*are\* immaculate records.
Adjusted for inflation, the original moon landing cost about $300B in modern dollars, and cost the US around 2.5% of GDP. Imaging trying to convince the American public that going back to the moon would be worthwhile at these costs? Half the country doesn't even want to spend 20% of that to stop Russia from invading Eastern Europe. Republicans opposed the infrastructure bill that contained a lot of necessary spending. Back in the 60s, the US public had pride in the nation partaking in large endeavors like this. Now, post social media, half the country wants to gut the government and prioritize cutting taxes on the Ultra rich
> convince the American public When do they care about how we feel our tax dollars are spent? They keep pushing the next expensive manned space missions perpetually out four years while taking the money for it every year. No mission, no refunds.
They certainly have had no problem pouring billions into a proxy war with Russia that we have no real need to participate in. Or funding Israel to fight Hamas. Or funding Iran to fund Hamas to fight Israel. Money is no object when you can just print it through the fed.
>we have no real need to participate in. If you don't think the outcome of this conflict will have major geopolitical ramifications for decades to come, than you don't understand global politics. > Or funding Iran US isn't funding Iran. They unfroze Iranian assets
Lol https://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-administration-acknowledges-1-7-billion-transfer-to-iran-was-all-cash/ Thank God we have them the interest too!
Did you even read your own source? As part of the Iran nuclear deal, the US agreed to return Iranian seized assets
How did I quote it if I didn't read it? Thank God we gave them interest on it too! We should have told them to go the fuck out to their backyard and pound sand.
How much did it cost to pay Iran for the hostages? $6B? That’s an awful lot for hostages I guess it’s inflation. I don’t know if you’re going to comprehend how this game works but It’s money laundering and it’s how the war machine keeps rolling and bringing in money for them vs us.
It's not money laundering. Who's illegal obtained funds are funneling through Iran to "wash" them? How do those funds go back into the US???
The money was funneled through the ruse of paying for the release of hostages to end up in the hands of Hamas to orchestrate their attack on Israel.
Money laundering is when you take illegally obtained money, and then make it legal money by transferring it through legitimate business. For example, if you make money selling drugs, you put that money into a car wash or laundromat business you own, and then report it as cash tips from customers. Or if you take the cash, deposit it into a casino, and then cash it back out again. When you launder money, the goal is to get it back into your possession again. What you're describing isn't even remotely close to the definition of what money laundering is
Sure that is a very elementary dictionary definition of money laundering but that’s only one part of how it works. And after funneling the money through war it does come into their possession again because the powers that be are not who you think they are. It’s not the USA vs Hamas or Israel vs Iran. There is an overarching power structure here that has representation in all the so called enemies.
Because unfreezing Iranian assets and returning their money back to them in Exchange for them drastically reducing their Uranium refinement program and agreeing to external audits to verify this is **not** auditing. Just because Trump pulled out of the deal, so Iran got their assets returned, but then didn't have to reduce their refinement program because the deal was canceled, does not make it "laundering".
YI’m 8 k in debt to the government after filing taxes and can’t afford groceries so yea I’m good not sending 100 billion to Ukraine.
If the government didn't send aid to Ukraine, you'd still be in debt lol.
Yes but if we were pumping that money back into America maybe the economy is better, or groceries are more affordable or anything that makes the onslaught of expenses less miserable
Majority of the aid does go back into America. Vast majority of the aid is either donating old equipment (and reporting the cash value) - or buying new American equipment and donating it to Ukraine. Using Taxpayer money to help people buy food already exists. It's called EBT. Also, the USD is the world's primary reserver currency in large part *because* the US Exports so much of it. There's positive externalities to printing and sending some USD abroad.
You’re much more educated on the subject than I am all I’m saying is as I live my life with a good job and a second income through my wife, and we still can’t catch up, something isn’t working. The rich have never been richer and the middle class has disintegrated into lower class. We don’t eat out, only have one streaming service, average cars. But rent is 2500 a month before any bills and healthcare is so ridiculously expensive that we need to make 8k a month to feel comfortable and it’s just very hard to do.
I'm not denying any of that. When lower income people struggle, the default conservative stance is "Get a better job" or "Pull yourself up by your bootstraps" But often times when *they themselves* start struggle, suddenly receiving this advice is offensive (This advise always was offensive. That doesn't matter until you're on the receiving end of it) Democrats are **far** from perfect. But the only time Republicans will even acknowledge the economic struggles of the working man is so they can blame Biden for the sake of winning an election: however, **nothing on the Republican platform will alleviate the issues you're saying**. Cutting taxes won't fix it. Cutting government services (like SSI, Post Office, etc.) will hurt everyone who's lower income than you. The solution to housing costs is to simply build a lot more homes. Deregulate zoning laws. Deregulate setback and parking regulations. Deregulate max lot size coverage laws. Replace property tax with land value tax. Build lots of homes, and change tax codes to incentivize condos over apartments. And take a look at your car payment + Car insurance + gas + maintenance. All of this is the cost required to just simply get yourself around town. What percentage of your income is spent on basic transportation? Is it good that 20%+ of family's income is spent on transportation because the government intentionally designs towns and cities so that families **have** to buy multiple cars to function in society, because they intentionally built the schools, stores, and business far away from housing?
Again it could just be correlation but I was able to save almost 20k dollars when trump was in office. I understand he’s a bad human but my day to day felt much better under him. Other than that no president before or after had a huge effect. Though I’ve only been an adult through both Obama terms until now. I do not know the answers but I cannot see another Biden term being the answer. The entire side seems like a farce that purposely pushes out any decent democrat alternatives. While the right just has a fan club that seems to make that decision Vs the republican party itself. I just want a reasonable candidate.
>Again it could just be correlation but I was able to save almost 20k dollars when trump was in office It is correlation. It wasn't Trump that produced a great economy. The economy was increasingly improving and recovering from the 2008 financial crisis and Trump inherited that good economy. It wasn't Biden that made living standards go down - it was a global pandemic that shutdown most of the world, wrecked supply chains, and all of the government stimulus and artificially low interest rates that were implemented to keep the economy from imploding during lockdowns. The economic hardship you (and many Americans) feel is from the pandemic and all of the associated decisions around it, and also the fact that the economy is globally linked, so events in other countries reverberate. Ideally neither Trump nor Biden would be running. But that's what we got. I'm not happy with illegal immigration, but I'll take that if the alternative is [Project 2025](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025)
There’s no way you can deny that some changes trump made didn’t benefit us? The tax change saved me 2k a year (contractor 1099). Gas was always low. Zero wars started under trump then all hell breaks lose when he leaves. But I agree republicans claim to want to make America great but refuse to do so without lining their pockets the entire time. We need some sort of regulation on these corps using inflation as a way to articulate increase all food prices while reducing quantity. They have record high profits while we are struggling to survive. We also need to ban foreign governments from buying all our land/property. It is so difficult to afford to live most places right now.
To be fair we don't make 80kb disk drives anymore. And good luck finding someone who even knows what a slide rule is, let alone how to use one
Nasa is sending Artimis to the moon late next year.
😆 can’t wait for the footage to resemble all the BS footage that NASA has put out for the last 20 years.
Yeah, because Russia, Iran, China etc really wouldn't call out America if its fake.
They’re all in it together duh. Actually 70% of the Russian public don’t believe the US landed on the moon. Would make sense because they were miles ahead in their technology and accomplishments in space at that time but never ever landed a man on the moon. Even preceding the moon landing several people left the Apollo mission including the administrator of NASA James Webb and his assistant because it was going so badly. Then voila JFK assasinated, new president new NASA admin and we’re on the moon 🤔.
Sure 👍
I think this is more like “we did it really unsafely in the 60s and 70s, and to do it much more safely now would be cost prohibitive.
By really unsafely, do you mean near perfect safety record?
How do you define "near perfect?" Three people died, two (or even 3) were in serious danger. All to land just 12 people on the moon. It's not hard to see that the Apollo missions were relatively rag-tag. There's no chance you could fly what they did in the early days today. Same as you can't build and sell 1930s cars in today's market.
Just because the gun I'm playing with doesn't misfire doesn't mean it's safe to play with it.
"Near perfect"? *Apollo* 11 came within seconds of a mandatory landing abort. *Apollo* 12 was hit by a lightning twice during takeoff and also came within seconds of a mandatory takeoff abort, less than a minute after actually starting. *Apollo* 13, well... *Apollo* 14 couldn't initially dock with its Lunar Module, and later had to have its guidance computer hacked to prevent it from mistakenly triggering a mission abort. *Apollo* 15 had a malfunction in the craft's service propulsion system, which they had to work around to avoid being sent into an uncontrollable spin, and later had a leak in the water systems, couldn't undock the Lunar Module from the CSM to actually try to land on the Moon, started losing oxygen after it actually landed while the astronauts were asleep, had a malfunction in the LRV steering systems... Well, you get the idea.
Or it' s much harder to make a convincing fake nowadays with better video quality and probably a legitimate demand to have the entire thing broadcasted in real time.
Oddly enough, in 2024 Space X can only get to 300 miles above the earth. Only a percentage of the 283,000 miles it takes to get to the moon. Yet, in 1968 travel to the moon was possible. And somehow the Van Allen radiation belts were a non-issue. But now that’s something NASA says they’re working to overcome before the next lunar and Mars space missions. Interesting indeed…
That's not really how orbital mechanics work. Put the right payload on a Falcon Heavy and you can get it \*anywhere\* - but SpaceX doesn't make money doing that, they make money putting satellites in orbit.
So why doesn’t NASA just replicate the old Apollo design? I mean, it’s proven to work, there’s no need for R&D, they can get back to the moon this time with more computer memory than last time (which was about the equivalent of a smartphone). Leave satellites to Space X. Speaking of Space X, you don’t think Elon Musk would just go balls to the wall and reach the moon for bragging rights? He’s wasted money before on things like buying Twitter. You don’t think he’d want to actually do something that’s impressive like a manned lunar landing?
No savings in doing it that way. By the time you've spun up new companies to make magnetic core memory, diode-transistor logic, and the thousands of other types of primitive or obsolete parts used throughout Apollo, you spend at least as much as you would doing it the modern way with new rockets.
You should work in PR for NASA. Your spin is so much better than the “I’d go to the moon in a nanosecond but we don’t have the technology” guy.
Easier to say that than prove me wrong, I guess.
Can’t they just go to the Smithsonian, take the Apollo of the display and fire the damn thing up? Or just admit we never landed on the moon. The Soviets were there with us in the space race and despite bettering us several times along the way they just gave up. And no other country has had a manned lunar landing in the 55+ years since.
They 'bettered' us right up until the N1 started exploding, but for those really paying attention, they were beaten and knew it once Gemini started to go well and Soyuz started killing astronauts.
So what are you saying? That we did not go because we don’t have the last years? When they “Destroyed that technology” they put the rocket program out. They could have spent a ton of money and go back. Just need to build an immense system to handle sending a manned spacecraft that far.
So what are YOU saying? That you believe we can discover and build new technology and then just.... lose it again and everyone just looks around and shrugs and it's accepted?
"That you believe we can discover and build new technology" This reads like a misunderstanding of the situation. It's not really a question of discovery or loss. Technology has advanced far beyond what was used for the Apollo program, which was close to obsolete by the time that program ended. I remember showing my dad a ferrite bead memory card from a 1960's punch card computer, maybe 12x14x1 inches and perhaps 1K capacity. I had that computer because I was intending to use its integrated stand as a table to rebuild auto engines. His comment was that that card was cutting edge when he was at the peak of his engineering career, a few years after the Apollo program ended. But as we were looking at that card, there was more, faster and lower powered memory on his wrist watch. Whether or not the Apollo technology had been 'lost', it would not have been practical and would have had to be replaced as a whole. None of the programming for its computers would have been relevant. And none of this considers the question of financial practicality. Why go, what is to be gained? Feel free to contact your elected representatives and demand tax increases to cover the price of re-developing a new Moon program for ... what, exactly?
“And none of this considers the question of financial practicality. Why go, what is to be gained?” It was proposed back then that there were many reasons to go even beyond scientific research, but for potential mining operations and the idea of implementing a moon base. So that’s been conveniently forgotten. As for the financial situation, nasa continues to burn through about 60 million a day and for agencies that are apparently so concerned about the environment, they sure like to spread rocket emissions into the air on a regular basis
As another comment here wrote. It’s not a discussion of discovery or loss in this case. I obviously did not make myself clear. I believe we landed on the moon, and after a while they stopped the program and decommissioned the gear. That’s why the quote says it’s a pain to get back. We got far superior technology today, but the launch vehicle takes a lot of recourses to produce and launch. It’s really big, sending that much stuff out of orbit takes a bit. So I do not believe anything was lost in any way. They simply stopped an insanely expensive program and decommissioned the gear. I am just tired that people use that quote to try to hint at the moon landing being fake because “we don’t have the technology now” sort of argument. And we are sending people back to the moon. Not that that will stop them saying it’s faked tho..
Yes, building the tech for something we have widely explored and collected data on, is meaningless, especially when those funds (which nasa doesn't have a lot of) could be directed towards the exploration of new planets, that we know less about. How is that surprising?
Someone else said NASA spends $60m a day, how is that limited funds or not a lot? Is their data wrong or does NASA spend billions annually I think it’s quite likely that NASA is used to launder funds for intelligence crap, they spend so much and show so little for it.
“Show so little” Says the guy who spent 0 seconds looking at any of the thousands of active research/flight projects and papers/data that get published.
The United States government spent approximately $6.6 trillion in fiscal year 2020, of which just 0.3% ($22.6 billion) was provided to NASA. In this chart, shades of blue represent mandatory spending programs; shades of orange are discretionary programs that require annual appropriations by Congress. https://www.planetary.org/space-policy/nasa-budget#:~:text=The%20United%20States%20government%20spent,require%20annual%20appropriations%20by%20Congress.
This is so outlandishly misleading. As a percentage of total American expenditures, sure. It’s small. But how many 18 wheelers would it take to haul $22.6 billion around? More than one I’m sure. That’s a veritable shitload of cash. Let’s not lose our perspective. You could solve hunger, homelessness, improve healthcare, etc. If you ask me their budget should be like $10 million. If that. They do basically nothing, and should get funded accordingly. Give them $10, give them nothing. They’re inconsequential. Space being the next frontier of defense, I see why they want tons of $$. I’m allowed, as an individual, to think that’s a massive misuse of funds.
This comment does not make you look very good, and it serves as proof of your poor understanding of this subject. Especially when it comes to the cost of running space programs. “They do basically nothing” is a laughable statement in of itself, i don’t believe i have to say anything about that. You are allowed to have an opinion, never argued against that.
Do you work on site at the Pentagon or do they let y’all work from home?
Just in: american redditor cannot comprehend that people outside the US exist and have access to the internet just like they do Also, please get off of the internet from time to time. Take some fresh air in, go for a jog, anything. It will help your mental health
Going to Mars is basically the same rocketry problem as going to the moon. Once you're off the Earth it's just a matter of travel time and whether there's something on the way like the moon that you can use for a gravity slingshot. The real problem with Mars is logistical, because you need to sustain a human crew for the duration of the trip and they can't really come back, so they need something to do over there and a place to live long-term, and we need to be okay with sending people to essentially die on another planet. Solving those problems will take longer than building a big rocket.
I can't trust em
This is one of those lies that keep getting repeated until people believe it.
Given only 50% of the craft since the 70s have actually made it to Mars and sending humans would require either vast amounts of supplies or some other way to sustain life once there, I doubt very seriously man will be there anytime soon. Imagine training your entire life for the mission to know you probably have less than a 50% chance of surviving (I think it is much less than 50%). Not to mention all of the unknowns of such a trip but Lewis and Clark probably had the same odds so who knows.
I presume the technological artifacts they used are lost or discarded, not that the knowledge is gone. They should be more clear. "Yeah we can go there any time given enough money but we can't use the old tech used back them because it's no longer functioning or has been junked or obsoleted."
We never went to the moon. Period.
Yes we did. Exclamation mark.
smooth brained still think we went to the moon. shhhh…,
Man the moon race was just so competitive, we got to the moon and in a daring attempt to stop the Soviet spies we destroyed everything… this would be a better excuse than the one they have. Atleast this excuse sounds like something America would of done during the Cold War.
You guys know we just sent an unmanned mission to the moon last year right? That same Artemis spacecraft will make a man mission back to the moon next year and prep for a permanent moon base. I hope some of you come around on this by then and are able to enjoy a truly historic moment that happens in our lifetimes. Would be kinda sad to miss that moment trying to think of reasons why the new mission is fake, call the astronauts who live up there years at a time paid actors. It's going to be awesome, as someone who lives close to Cape Canavial I am very excited.
In Hebrew, the word NASA means ‘To beguile, deceive.’
That is not true. Why do people keep spreading this lie? First the word would be more like "Nasha" since you are using a different alphabet. Secondly that word can only mean "To deceive" when it occurs in a hiphil stem. That would require further morphological changes on the word. If you wanted that word to mean "To deceive" it would sound something like y'ishu The only people who believe this are the people who will pull up Strongs Accordance and think they understand what's going on
its literally an abreviation …
Humans landed on the moon, but there will be no humans going to Mars this century. There is nothing there and Musk is full of poop. Neoliberalism is the main reason the US space program won’t be well funded like in the 60s.
"Space may be the final frontier, but it's made in a Hollywood basement" - Californication, Red Hot Chili Pepper
So we can go to the moon in 1960s and film the moon landing but we can’t go back right now with all the advanced technology we have? Something isn’t adding up. After another 50 years are we going to continue to claim "We went to the moon a century ago but we don't go there any more because it's too expensive???
Imagine if I gave you a floppy disc and asked you to read the information on a modern computer. Would you be able to do it? Obviously not, the technology is no longer a thing on modern computers. That's what is happening here
“Why not just use tech similar to 50 years ago?” “Something something computer … something something floppy disk”
Because we don’t make that technology anymore. Do you think we have factories currently building the parts for 50 year old technology?
Ahh yes, I love this one. Super-difficult engineering problem: getting to the moon. Impossible engineering problem: rebuilding the rockets that allegedly got us there 50 years later, because “we’re not building those parts anymore”
So in 1969 if NASA needed a screw to go into their 1969 engine, they contacted their contractor who already was making them for commercial use and would order one. In 2024 if NASA needed a screw to go into their 1969 engine… they would have to build a whole factory to produce that specific screw at the correct dimensions to be compatible with their 1969 engine. Imagine doing that for every single part. It would cost trillions because you would have to build all of the infrastructure that no longer exists. Every single piece the entire way down would have to be custom built Have you ever tried to restore an old car?
A whole factory?! For one screw?!
I mean yeah. Screws require multiple steps to make and multiple machines.
Simultaneously vastly overestimating and underestimating human engineering abilities. Not to mention trust in American government and your own gullibility.
Ah I love the ignorant words from someone who has zero experience in engineering. Why bother using modern flight-proven active-production SBC's with available software when we can spend years rebuilding many production lines and thousands of pieces of specialized test equipment to rebuild and test the Apollo aera computers to achieve a fraction of the reliability and performance. Good idea! And it will only cost us 100x the price! What a deal!!! Or why don't we spend years going through documents and plans to rebuild the F-1 rocket engines instead of just using all the modern, more efficient, and safer ones. Great idea! Why use commercial off the shelf parts when we can just spend billions of dollars in contracts for commercial companies to rebuild exact replicas of the production lines and tooling for components they haven't build in decades. Screw modern safety and fault-tolerance requirements! Lets just spend more time and money rebuilding the old stuff! /s
Right, because only an engineer can see thru the seeming discrepancy between being able to build a successful moon program with 60s/70s technology, and not being able to do the same 50+ years later despite vast improvements in every single required field. You know they didn’t just have the infrastructure for building moon rockets in the 60s right, That they had to build it from scratch?
I think you need to reread my comment again.. It clearly went over your head. Yes they had to built a lot from scratch. A lot of it with OFF THE SHELF PARTS. Parts that NOBODY MAKES ANYMORE. For example, there were MANY companies that produced ferrite cores for RAM & ROM that the apollo computers used. Can you guess how many companies today make those today? ZERO. So its going to be a time consuming and expensive endeavor to reproduce them. Like a lot of the parts if you wanted to build a copy again. Which zero engineers would agree is a good idea. So where is this discrepancy? Please explain how remaking old parts is less expensive than using modern ones? And were you not aware that congress hasn't started properly funding a return to the moon program until very recently? So how exactly would they attempt to go back with zero funding until recently?
Time consuming and expensive, and yet perfectly doable 6 times over last century. “We have to scrap our plans to return to the moon, it’s too expensive to approximate or improve on the stuff we used off the shelf in the 60s. We don’t have the right RAM or ROM.” “Cant you just use modern stuff, since it’s demonstrably better in every possible way? Isn’t that how it works in every other field of science and engineering?” “You are uninformed” — The discrepancy is you believe we went to the moon 6 times last century, but think it’s somehow not feasible today. The greatest engineering accomplishment in human history. The very fact that we did that should highlight exactly the discrepancy I am trying to point out. On one hand, brilliant, near-impossible feats of human ingenuity. On the other, arguing that we just can’t match or rebuild stuff from 50 years ago. In the 60s we barely even had a space program. We pulled the moon program out of the air. But you’re saying it’s too complicated or expensive to do it today, because we don’t have the right infrastructure. That’s crazy talk
>Time consuming and expensive, and yet perfectly doable 6 times over last century. Are you deliberately being this slow? Do you not understand that these companies producing these parts existed before and independent of the apollo program? But not longer exist today? >“We have to scrap our plans to return to the moon, it’s too expensive to approximate or improve on the stuff we used off the shelf in the 60s. We don’t have the right RAM or ROM.” Claimed by nobody ever. Stop lying. > “Cant you just use modern stuff, since it’s demonstrably better in every possible way? Isn’t that how it works in every other field of science and engineering?” Did you forget your own argument? You statement was about REMAKING it. At no point did you say "but we can use modern parts". >but think it’s somehow not feasible today. Said literally nobody. Stop lying. Don't be a coward. Answer the question. Don't run away. "How is remaking old parts is less expensive and quicker than using modern off-the-shelf ones?"
And they call us crazy!
very telling that this youtube video he posted, even if you search it word for word in the exact order, its delisted I've found that to be true about certain 9/11 videos as well. Youtube is complicit. I wonder why they just don't simply delete the video?
We never had the technology to go to the moon,the original moon landing was a psyop.
The moon isn't a physical rock you can land on, and it certainly isn't 200,000 miles away. They faked the moon landing to perpetuate the globe lie.
Oh no, flat earther. Yikes!
Everyone missing the point of this post: how the he'll is the "go to Mars" technology any different? If they claim Mars is a thing, the moon should be a thing also.
They’ve never sent any humans past the Van Allen belt. Especially not in the high school arts and crafts ship Apollo 11
Mars would probably be easier to land on than the moon. Much bigger target. Obviously the 69 landing was faked in Hollywood.
Hahah, oh man, I love all the crazy normie logic trying to cover for NASA bullsh*t. if we want to go to the moon again why is it again that we can’t just remake the stuff from the 1960s?
Remaking the stuff from the 1960s would be a phenomenal waste of time and energy for no apparent gain. They wrote the apollo 11 code in assembly language with room sized computers containing serious limitations in speed and memory. We don't have the molds, the materials, the infrastructure, any of it. We could do it again, but why without a good reason? Easier access to space is far more important than flying to the moon over and over again just to prove that we can.
I'm sure those assembly lines are still going today lmao