all 47 comments

[–]SMCAB 8 insightful - 4 fun8 insightful - 3 fun9 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

I used to be a large NASAhead. Huge telescope, always wondering, contemplating, watching space television programs like they weren't filled with euphamisms and greatly exaggerated "what if's." Asking me to "imagine" everything, because that's what they do.

Then I grew up.

[–]iamonlyoneman 6 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 3 fun -  (20 children)

If you think aluminum foil is not strong enough to hold 5PSI in space but strong enough to hold 50PSI in your soda can, you are . . . probably a real truther and you may have some sort of disability

[–]pcpmasterrace 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (19 children)

>cans are made out of foil

[–]iamonlyoneman 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

https://aluminium-guide.com/en/alyuminievaya-pivnaya-banka-konstrukciya-i-materialy/

0.08mm is the current thinnest you'll find cans holding your frosty beverages of choice.

The moon lander had skin as thin as 0.3mm and was required to hold far less differential pressure . . . AND it had thicker sections for strength at intervals.

[–]raven9 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

A can of soda would explode in space.

[–]iamonlyoneman 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

Fortunately in that situation the design considerations are different and people smarter than you did the maths, and it worked out just fine.

[–]yelgy 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

math isn't real

[–]iamonlyoneman 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Sorry, I don't debate reality with bots

[–]iDontShift 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

are different

to create a vacuum requires twelve foot reinforced concrete

yeah, and the one time they put a guy into the vacuum chamber, with a 'space suit' .. they never made it to a perfect vacuum, the water on the man's tongue boiled.

he nearly died.

we have NEVER done that again.

there is no proof these suits work

fools are fools until they wake up

[–]iamonlyoneman 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I, personally myself, have created ultra-hard vacuum in a glass jar a centimeter thick. Concrete is porous and a stupid example to use for a vessel to hold vacuum.

[–]Clintron 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

No, not enough pressure in the can for it to explode. Needs to be pressurized something like 6 times as much.

[–]raven9 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Yes there is. We did it in a highschool experiment. A can of soda in the vaccum chamber. It exploded. I saw it with my own eyes.

Edit: Found someone doing it on youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Du0opEpGQtA

[–]Clintron 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Ah sorry for late reply, I understand now that the pressure the can of soda takes externally doesn't equate to the internal pressure on the can wall. The way the top of the can is made gives that pinch of steel the to ability to withstand 6x atmospheres down on it, but pushing out from inside, then the seam fails. My apologies, if you redesign the can to take internal pressure (i.e. roll the seam the other way, then the wall thickness will hold the pressure of the can against a vacuum.)

[–]CreditKnifeMan 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Who cares about the foil.

Who did they leave on the moon to film their lunar departure flight?

The camera man pans the camera, to follow the fakest looking launch of all time.

Who was already there on the moon with a camera ready to film Armstrong exit the Rover?
How did they know where the rover would land?

They called Nixon in the Whitehouse, and he had a space conversation with them on a land line.

[–][deleted]  (6 children)

[deleted]

    [–]CreditKnifeMan 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

    [–][deleted]  (4 children)

    [deleted]

      [–]CreditKnifeMan 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

      It's crazy.

      [–][deleted]  (2 children)

      [deleted]

        [–]CreditKnifeMan 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

        It's fake. They can't send 60's era remote signals 250000 miles to the moon.

        It's impossible to go to the moon and back with rockets.

        [–]iamonlyoneman 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        LOL

        [–]jet199 5 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

        The moon buggy didn't land men on the moon, no.

        [–]Oortcloud 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

        If you're going to question the landing then you'll have to have the same objection to the entire space program. Every step that was going to be needed to land on the moon and do EVAs was proven, step by step, in the previous programs.

        Get a man to the edge of space, orbit, maneuver while in orbit, spend as much time in orbit as a lunar mission would take, EVA, docking with another spacecraft.

        So even if you question the landing you would have to ask why NASA went to the trouble of all those test-flights.

        And even more to the point - if the landing, and indeed the entire space program was a sham then why would NASA present such flimsy and ugly spacecraft to the public? Wouldn't a better PR campaign be to give the public spacecraft that looked like Star Trek? The fact is that all of the spacecraft were built as light as possible while getting the job done. None of them was built with re-use in mind as all were disposable.

        [–]raven9 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

        If you're going to question the landing then you'll have to have the same objection to the entire space program.

        No you don't.

        [–]Oortcloud 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (10 children)

        Well then, where did reality end and a fraud begin? With the entire Apollo program? Earlier? How about the Russians? And how about those flimsy space probes that are currently exploring interstellar space?

        If the landings were faked you're talking about a conspiracy involving over a hundred thousand people.

        [–]Insider 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

        There isn't enough proof for the moon landing hoax yet, but it wouldn't involve over 100k people.

        It could be staged so that operators in front of computer screens believe what they're seeing and hearing. Engineers were actually working on a rocket ship, it doesn't mean that the ship actually landed on the moon.

        I think there are two indications of the moon landing hoax:

        • One is the deletion of technology and original video footage. Usually excuses like that present itself when the government is lying (see BBC accidentally "losing" their WTC7 report and then "finding" it again).

        • Second is that we can see all the Apollo moon flags except for Apollo 11 because apparently it got knocked over when the ship was taking off. Not only that, it's possible that the nylon got "melted down" in the heat of the blast. Very convenient. So not only do we not have evidence of the first flag planted on the moon, but it may no longer exist.

        There may be a couple other solid arguments, but most arguments don't really check out. The above two points aren't really solid enough to draw a conclusion.

        [–]Oortcloud 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        but it wouldn't involve over 100k people.

        Sure it would. All of the engineers working on the craft for instance. Then there are all of the people needed to fake the data for the screens. Then the actors, production crew, stage-hands and the like, as well as the astronauts themselves. 6 missions would have to be faked. That's an awful lot of witnesses to dispose of.

        [–]Winter_mute 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        That's actually pretty good point. A lot of people could do honest work and have no idea that there is anything wrong with it. Still, I believe they did land on the moon, honestly it was probably easier to do it than fake it.

        Also, to be honest... is it really that important? It's a giant rock, that much you can see with your own eyes and much more so with telescope. We ain't going anywhere much farther away anytime soon anyway.

        [–]raven9 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

        Fraud begins when they get to a point when they reach a wall. Getting into earth orbit was one thing, travelling to the moon and getting into orbit around it was conceivable. Creating a multipart space ship that could allow a lander to undock from an orbiting mothership, land on the moon, take off again, dock with the orbiting mothership, then return to earth. No fucking way. That is why the best they could do since then was the earth orbiting space shuttle. They never even equalled what they claimed to have done in the 1960s with just a modern day childs calculator as a computer never mind tried to surpass that and go further.

        [–]Oortcloud 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

        Before the landing Apollo 10 docked with the LEM and crew transferred to it. They then separated the craft and the LEM flew independently. The LEM upper stage then fired it's engine to rendezvous with the CM. The LEM met the CM in orbit just as they would around the moon. And, in Earth orbit those craft were travelling faster than in lunar orbit. So, the entire landing event was simulated and all the parts worked.

        Thhe moon program was a money pit. After the first landing the public knew the Russians were beaten and the cost of further missions was unpopular. Cutting of the NASA budget is the reason why nothing more ambitious than the shuttle and a crappy space station followed Apollo. The article below is a good read, and the Wik page below gives year to year spending.

        https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4012/vol4/ch1.htm

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA

        But besides all that we have the problem of over a hundred thousand insiders. Not one of those people leaked a conspiracy when doing so could net them $millions.

        [–]raven9 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        Just because 100,000 people worked on the space program would not mean 100,000 people would need to participate in faking it. All they would have to do is go onto orbit around earth or even around the moon and stay there while ground control played a pre recorded simulation of the landing made at a movie set.

        [–]raven9 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

        Just because 100,000 people worked on the space program would not mean 100,000 people would need to participate in faking it. All they would have to do is go onto orbit around earth or even around the moon and stay there while ground control played a pre recorded simulation of the landing made at a movie set. Only a handful of people would need to know.

        [–]Oortcloud 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

        So You're saying they would do that for all 6 missions. What would be the point then in going to the moon at all then. Just stay in high Earth orbit and no ones' the wiser. A handful of people? In my last reply I listed what amounts to thousands needed just to make it work.

        Someone might bring up the Manhattan project. Those people were assigned to a gulag but once the project was over they were free to talk. NOt one person has come forward about Apollo.

        [–]raven9 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

        "So You're saying they would do that for all 6 missions.”

        You said that not me. You're arguing with yourself.

        [–]Oortcloud 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        I'm not arguing with myself. You said that the landings have been faked. If you don't think there was a landing then all 6 missions would have to have been faked.

        [–]zyxzevn 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

        Those foils have a clear purpose. They still use it. It is very light and is to protect against heat. Like the "space blanket". It is used for heat management.
        They use a tent-like construction to keep everything light. Mass is the only real restriction for a spacecraft. The exhaust is close to interfering with the blanket, so it should be very heat resistant. You have to check the engineering details to see what that sheet is made of.

        The car is from a later mission. Do not know the details, but it does not need much strength, because the gravity is very low. Notice that the tires are full, which can be done with just a little bit of air. It would kick up a lot of dust, so I don't know how practical it really is. There should be some logs explaining what it was used for.

        [–]jet199 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

        Yep.

        I when to a satellite factory in the UK and they put together a whole modern state of the art piece of machinery and then cover it all in the same metallic blankets they put on marathon runners when they finish.

        Tech doesn't look like scifi films in real life because it needs to work.

        [–]zyxzevn 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

        Yes. It just needs to work with minimal weight, no need to look stylish.
        Here is hubble with foils around it (I think image is from the space shuttle)
        Shield for Webb telescope

        [–]IkeConn 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

        There are times I wish my keyboard had a "Smite" button. This is one of those times.

        [–]ID10T 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

        You should check out the Air and Space Museum in DC. They have a fantastic collection of our great achievements in flight and space exploration.

        [–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

        Too bad they destroyed the blueprints, the records, the videos, etc.

        [–]ID10T 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

        Everything is a lie. You’re the only one who knows the truth. The whole world is mad. Everyone is lying to you. The sleeper has awakened 😂😂🤣

        [–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

        As if the corporate media and politicians don't lie.
        I'm certainly not the only one who knows these truths.
        If you can't see the insanity of the world, then at least you won't see it coming. Lucky you.

        [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

        It's just how you design things for space, makes perfect sense to me. You can't stop micrometeoroids traveling at extreme velocities from punching right through just about anything that you can blast out of Earth's atmosphere reasonably.

        So you don't. You make it light as fuck and only as durable as necessary, which means foil and pvc pipe works pretty well in these situations.

        [–]Sensitivead 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

        Saidit getting edgy in a Tuesday night

        [–]fschmidt 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        Of course moronic modern scum are utterly incapable of imagining what non-morons are capable of.

        [–]Bridgeheadprod 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        Did you just copy and paste your abrasive Reddit post? Are you real or just a bot?

        [–]iDontShift 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        i personally love the curtain rods with duct tape

        [–]hfxB0oyAPirate Party 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        Happy to not be a real truther.

        [–]yelgy 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        if you think the moon is real you have a disablitiy.