In the fifty years since the Apollo story NASA has had $ billions thrown at it and constant orders and promises to return to the moon. They've been unable for two primary reasons:
Quoting: Drone#6 Billions? Really? Various politicians have said they'd like to return but the funding never materialized.
1) They have no technology to go past the Van Allen belts with men on board.
Quoting: Drone#6 Wrong. They can take the path Apollo took for trips to the Moon but if they want to take interplanetary trips they have to go through the center.
2) They said they have already gone a few times, played golf and driven a weird EV around on the moon (with unreal levels grip for a dusty surface with 1/6 downforce). This kills the required R&D they need.
Quoting: Drone#6 Except it doesn't. They had spacecraft that could get 2 people to the Moon for a few days. That likely wouldn't meet current safety standards. And none of it is in production anymore.
Saturn V's that work,
Quoting: Drone#6 You've not shown they can't. Despite being asked to back up why they are "dreadful".
silent descent motors,
Quoting: Drone#6 You've not shown they should be noisy. Most of the noise from a rocket comes from the thrust interacting with atmosphere.
LEMs that were rushed into manufacture but worked faultlessly even after baking on the moon for 2 days,
Quoting: Drone#6 If you think they were faultless then it proves only that you haven't done any real research.
unfoggable file even when sitting in the solar wind itself,
Quoting: Drone#6 For how long? And what is the quantity of radiation it would have received?
[
link to www.clavius.org]
pictures of their own feet in vacuum dried dust from angles impossible to achieve in a pressure suit with a viewfinder free camera bolted to their chest packs that sticks out 12",
Quoting: Drone#6 You did know the camera was removable, right?
no exposure bracketing, perfect focussing, heights and shots inconsistent with chest mounted cameras,
Quoting: Drone#6 If you think they were perfect then you haven't looked at many of them. and the heights are fine. Again, the cameras were removable if needed.
[
link to www.clavius.org]
manufactured images with a tiny moon sized earth,
Quoting: Drone#6 That was the size it should be for the lens used. Check the field of view of the lens and you'll find the Earth takes up about 2 degrees just like it should.
shadows, lighting and reflections that don't work,
Quoting: Drone#6 Except they can all be explained with terrain and perspective. If there were multiple lights as hoaxies like to claim then there would be multiple shadows on each object which is never seen.
[
link to www.clavius.org]
[
link to www.clavius.org]
[
link to www.clavius.org]
[
link to www.clavius.org]
[
link to www.clavius.org]
[
link to www.clavius.org]
odd fill in lighting for flags and logos,
Quoting: Drone#6 OMG!! Reflective items are reflective!
[
link to www.clavius.org]
winches for LROs that should weigh almost nothing,
Quoting: Drone#6 almost is not nothing. How dare they have a way to lower the rover to the ground without dropping it!!
doors and hatches that are too small for PLSS equipped people to pass,
Quoting: Drone#6 Not according to those that actually measured it.
weird audio mistakes,
Quoting: Drone#6 Never heard any.
lost telemetry tapes, lost video tapes,
Quoting: Drone#6 That were backed up. they had to reuse tapes as the manufacturer, Memorex, couldn't get them new tapes due to a shortage of whale oil that was used for the binder. Reuse tapes that have been copied and backed up or don't record incoming info from multiple probes. I'd likely make the same decision.
lost technology that people on GLP know about but NASA doesn't,
Quoting: Drone#6 Do you see any Saturn V rockets lying around waiting to be used?
unpracticed docking procedures that take mere minutes, are unfilmed and never spoken of,
Quoting: Drone#6 why do you lie? The gemini program practiced docking as well as earlier Apollo missions.
landscapes shorter than most people's driveways,
Quoting: Drone#6 opinion.
they look bigger to me but I'm not expecting to see the same fading with distance that you see on Earth.
a sun that only lights up the ground next to the LEM etc. etc.
Quoting: Drone#6 [
link to www.clavius.org]
Invisible stars? You're in the vacuum of space so you just need some shade. If you took 12 super smart astronauts and stood them next to a giant LEM on the lunar surface, how many of them would be able to find some shade? You'd think the answer was obvious: 12. But no, here in NASA's fantasy land, even with 400,000 experts working at NASA over a period of years not ONE of them ever worked it out.
Quoting: Drone#6 Another lie. Some took the time to let their eyes adjust. Others did not. Apollo 16 took a camera specifically designed to photo stars.
In a space capsule full of cameras on the way to the moon, jammed in a tiny cone with two other adults? What's the one thing you'd NEVER thing of doing? That's right - you'd never take any pictures of the moon or earth on the way there or back. Even when on TV chatting to the entire planet, the last thing you'd ever do is say 'hey, look at the earth' or 'hey, look at the moon we're going to intercept!', you'd simply keep the TV camera pointed at your interesting face or some instrument panel, because in 7 trips not one of the 400,000 people at NASA would ever say 'hay - what's out the window?' would they? Just like they did in the cheap B-movies about space.
Quoting: Drone#6 Another lie. There are plenty of pics and video of both the Earth and the Moon on the way there and back.
