This comes up every couple of years or so. Gotten so tired of it I've lost the links to the hoax debunking video. I havent watched it for at least four years, maybe I'll dig it out again for old time's sake. Carry on!
In that era there was absolutely no way the Russians would have allowed the Americans to do a hoax like that.
you seem to have not included that fact that there was a world war between these dates, and nothing drives technological development like a conflict. look as the Uk forces equipment for example, prior to 2003 we were still using Bedford 4ton trucks, and look at the equipment they have now.. its worlds apart. i think that they did land and some of the footage was damaged by radiation/ badly developed, and this is why some pictures are a little suspect. it would be too big a secret to hod for this long.
Flying at 24,791mph, and the astronauts inside a shielded rocket were exposed to less radiation than two PET scans. There are/ were too many people involved for it to have been faked, imagine the temptation to leak or give an exposee to the press? Why if having achieved the "fake mission Apollo 11" did they keep repeating it; increasing the likelyhood of the secret being revealed until the public were so bored the interviews were not even televised? Each to their own, but the Apollo landings were as genuine as Aldrins right hand jab.
As the originator of the post, I was keeping the question neutral so as not to deter people voting one way or another. As you can see the ratio is 2:1 in favour of it being real. It surprises me how many people think it’s fake. Nothing like a war to drive development or a space program for that matter. Post Hiroshima we can’t have world wars anymore. However the rate of change in technology is far faster now than it was between 1927 and 1969. 1980 or even 1990 to 2010 was arguably far greater. My question was for two reasons 1) to find out how many people think it’s a fake - it has surprised me at times the number and types of people that think it’s fake 2) to consider why we haven’t built upon it and gone to Mars.
I love how people say that we didn't have the technology in the 1960s to successfully send men to the Moon ... when the fact is, we didn't then have the technology to successfully fake it back then. Heh. You kids.
I think people forget that’s the point of challenges like the space program and Concord : that they present challenges that need to be addressed. Didn’t Teflon come out of one of those ?
Sending men to the Moon was a scientific, political, economic, engineering and manufacturing challenge that people were willing to solve and and capable of solving. Travel to Mars involves all of the above plus physiological, psychological and biological elements that are not easily solved, due to the vastly longer timescales involved in the actual journey through Space. Couple that with the changed political and economic climate, with people generally less willing to invest that much public money into such a project ... and we won't see travel to Mars before we see some form of game-changing technology that makes the trip cheaper and safer for humans.
Last week I watched the BBCs program about the moon landing and last night had a quick look at channel 4s. Channel 4 had a section about protest against the billions of dollars spent on Apollo and not on poverty. NASA has certainly been under budget pressures but then it wasn’t NASA that drove the moon landings, it was JFK. The only way to solve the technical problems of Mars is to go there. I think there is an ethical issue with Mars: it’s a one way trip. maybe it’s because we have not needed a space program in recent decades to drive development that there hasn’t been the appetite to fund one?
I remember listening to the landing on a small radio as if it was yesterday, I don't think mankind will ever travel to mars we may colonise the moon
I think Apollo 14 or more likely 15 is my earliest memory. I watched it on a TV you had to put 50p in the slot if you wanted to watch it
Bit late to the party but the reason the Yanks developed a pen was because there was a slim chance the graphite dust from pencil use floating about could short electrical curcuits
Very funny! And educational too! But I have taken a delve into the Van Allen belt part of the conspiracy theory. I don’t know anything of the conspiracy theories because I never took them seriously. The fella who took the close up photos from a helicopter of the Chernobyl accident received a lot more radiation than the Apollo crews and he died aged 78 in a car crash. I can’t say the “keeping it a secret “ is persuasive since D Day was kept a secret. That’s just info on a need to know basis.
Strictly speaking, it was Sputnik and Yuri Gagarin that drove the Moon landings. Very close. The "Race to the Moon" was about putting a human on the Moon and bringing him back safely. For a Christian nation (as the USA was, back then), sending humans on a one-way trip was a non-starter. The technical issues of getting a human being to Mars is not simply a question of degree of difficulty. It really is a different kind of challenge to the Moon landings. Plus - one-way trip, until and unless we have a HUGE leap forward in technology. Partially correct. People don't differentiate between the difficulties involved sending someone safely to the Moon and to Mars (this thread is evidence of that) and so they think, "Mars? We already did that with the Moon. Why bother?". Also, there isn't the USA/USSR tension that drove the Space Projects back then. Maybe China's interest in this subject will spark another Space Race - I am sceptical but it's possible. *** I watched the first Moon landing live on TV. It is my first (and last) memory of the family all sitting together in the living room and no one was yelling at anyone else.
