If evidence proved Moon landing was fake...

[Obviousman]

1 hour ago, openozy said:

Not proud,just can't understand why the majority of these space nerds will lap up anything the gov tells them while totally dismissing anything paranormal that comes from genuine people with nothing to gain.

No, you just don't understand how science and skepticism works... and yes, you are proud of it (as your posts in this thread demonstrate).

[Saru]

Thread cleaned

@openozy Enough with the trolling/insults please.

[The_Phantom_Stranger]

On 3/14/2020 at 10:28 PM, v03qxz said:

What would happen if, someday, evidence (rather photographs or other means), showed beyond reasonable doubt that the Moon landing was fake?

Beyond the world being shocked, what would happen afterward? Undoubtedly, there would be a lot of angry people out there. A lot of people are fans of NASA, and to find out one of their biggest accomplishments was a hoax, would not be pretty.

Some people believe there's evidence it was a hoax. You can find all sorts of these alleged 'evidences' with a Google search. Other people believe any hoax claims have been debunked. But if visible evidence beyond doubt was found of fakery, what would happen? Obviously, NASA would lose all credibility and most supporters. I'm not sure if a hoax is illegal or not, or if anyone would go to jail, but lying would most certainly be immoral. So what would happen?

Here is an interesting video:

 

NASA is already losing credibility to SpaceX. I think NASA looks afraid to use its muscle to explore space, while SpaceX just goes there like a man.

I personally think the moon landing was probably real.

Edited March 22, 2020 by Green Wasp

[Waspie_Dwarf]

10 minutes ago, Green Wasp said:

NASA is already losing credibility to SpaceX. I think NASA looks afraid to use its muscle to explore space, while SpaceX just goes there like a man.

I personally think the moon landing was probably real.

How exactly is NASA losing credibility to SpaceX?

SpaceX is a commercial launch company, NASA is in the field of scientific research and exploration. SpaceX operates exactly zero scientific satellites, zero space telescopes and has explored zero planets. What it does do very well is launch satellites.

It should also not be forgotten that SpaceX was on the point of bankruptcy and survived mainly because it was bailed out by NASA when NASA contracted it as one of the companies to launch cargo to the space station under the Commercial Resupply Services Program.

SpaceX's Falcon Heavy entered service 5 years late. In May, when it launches astronauts to the ISS for the first time (as a result of NASA Commercial Crew Program) it will be five years late. It's first crew rated vehicle exploded after it's test flight due to a design fault in the launch escape system and the first two prototypes of it's new Starship vehicle both exploded during pressure tests.

Since SpaceX only survived because of NASA, please point out how NASA is losing credibility.

[openozy]

I love the moon 

Edited March 22, 2020 by openozy

[openozy]

54 minutes ago, Saru said:

@openozy Enough with the trolling/insults please.

No worries 

[The_Phantom_Stranger]

19 minutes ago, Waspie_Dwarf said:

How exactly is NASA losing credibility to SpaceX?

SpaceX is a commercial launch company, NASA is in the field of scientific research and exploration. SpaceX operates exactly zero scientific satellites, zero space telescopes and has explored zero planets. What it does do very well is launch satellites.

It should also not be forgotten that SpaceX was on the point of bankruptcy and survived mainly because it was bailed out by NASA when NASA contracted it as one of the companies to launch cargo to the space station under the Commercial Resupply Services Program.

SpaceX's Falcon Heavy entered service 5 years late. In May, when it launches astronauts to the ISS for the first time (as a result of NASA Commercial Crew Program) it will be five years late. It's first crew rated vehicle exploded after it's test flight due to a design fault in the launch escape system and the first two prototypes of it's new Starship vehicle both exploded during pressure tests.

Since SpaceX only survived because of NASA, please point out how NASA is losing credibility.

It is a common consensus among people that NASA has been some sort of a coward about sending people to space. I'm not trying to offend, but NASA has always looked fretful about stretching out it's arm because an astronaut might die. Many people have felt this way whether they have said it or not, that the need to move into space takes precedence over the threat of risking your life. This is a common consensus of how it sounds to some portion of the public when it hears about how slow NASA appears to want to move into space travel. SpaceX is portraid as being more brave than a cowardly NASA.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

1 hour ago, Green Wasp said:

It is a common consensus among people that NASA has been some sort of a coward about sending people to space. I'm not trying to offend, but NASA has always looked fretful about stretching out it's arm because an astronaut might die. Many people have felt this way whether they have said it or not, that the need to move into space takes precedence over the threat of risking your life. This is a common consensus of how it sounds to some portion of the public when it hears about how slow NASA appears to want to move into space travel. SpaceX is portraid as being more brave than a cowardly NASA.

NASA scared to send people into space? Who do the US astronauts currently on board the ISS work for. Is it NASA or SpaceX?

When SpaceX launch astronauts to the ISS on Crew Dragon in May who will they work for NASA or SpaceX?

When American astronauts return to the Moon as a result of the Artemis program who will they work for NASA or SpaceX.

The answer to all those questions is NASA.

[The_Phantom_Stranger]

8 minutes ago, Waspie_Dwarf said:

NASA scared to send people into space? Who do the US astronauts currently on board the ISS work for. Is it NASA or SpaceX?

When SpaceX launch astronauts to the ISS on Crew Dragon in May who will they work for NASA or SpaceX?

When American astronauts return to the Moon as a result of the Artemis program who will they work for NASA or SpaceX.

The answer to all those questions is NASA.

Yeah, that is most likely true. If NASA keeps giving to SpaceX and SpaceX does things NASA won't do, then in time NASA is bound to be replaced by SpaceX and other corporations that are willing. This is how it is portrayed to us.

It is an ideaology that's not new that NASA and its space missions are too cowardly. That it is deadly afraid of losing an astronaut, so it won't stretch its boundaries fast enough. The space missions aren't mandatory. If an astronaut is so scared of dying, they can refuse the job. This is the image that is conjured to mind, that NASA has been delaying progress due to fretfulness and might be replaced by corporations that are more willing.

[Grey Area]

Space exploration is a slow process.  People don’t understand that if a mission to another planet is proposed and that planet is on the other side of the sun to the earth then we wait, months or years.

NASA is awesome, and should be praised for catalysing the private space industry and taking much of the risk away from the public purse.

[stereologist]

There has been a move to have private companies take over the non-scientific work that NASA does. For example, if a company wants to launch a communications satellite it was NASA that did that work. In the future a company will contract with a private firm to get their business satellite into orbit.

[flyingswan]

1 hour ago, stereologist said:

There has been a move to have private companies take over the non-scientific work that NASA does. For example, if a company wants to launch a communications satellite it was NASA that did that work. In the future a company will contract with a private firm to get their business satellite into orbit.

You're a bit behind the times.  Commercial launches have been taking place since the 1980s.

 

[stereologist]

9 hours ago, flyingswan said:

You're a bit behind the times.  Commercial launches have been taking place since the 1980s.

 

I didn't say that no private companies had done launches. If we do take a look at the history we see that although there have been a few such launches no company has done regular launches. until recent times.

How many launches were commercial launches before 2000? Very few. They often used rockets built for the government.

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

12 hours ago, Green Wasp said:

Yeah, that is most likely true. If NASA keeps giving to SpaceX and SpaceX does things NASA won't do, then in time NASA is bound to be replaced by SpaceX and other corporations that are willing. This is how it is portrayed to us.

Like others have explained SpaceX does launch services, not science. Most NASA satellites are launched by private companies, most notably SpaceX and United Launch Alliance. NASA have no problem with letting others do the launches, just like ESA often uses the private Arianespace for their launches.

12 hours ago, Green Wasp said:

It is an ideaology that's not new that NASA and its space missions are too cowardly. That it is deadly afraid of losing an astronaut, so it won't stretch its boundaries fast enough.

NASA is constrained by its budget. If Congress was willing to fund more ambitious projects I'm sure NASA would go along with it. So its really a political decision.

12 hours ago, Green Wasp said:

The space missions aren't mandatory. If an astronaut is so scared of dying, they can refuse the job.

Have any astronaut/cosmonaut ever refused a mission ?

12 hours ago, Green Wasp said:

This is the image that is conjured to mind, that NASA has been delaying progress due to fretfulness and might be replaced by corporations that are more willing.

There is a say that goes like this: "No bucks, no Buck Rogers" 

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/no_bucks,_no_Buck_Rogers

Anyway I don't really see why its a problem if private investors are willing to pay for space exploration ?

[Golden Duck]

On 3/17/2020 at 7:21 PM, psyche101 said:

I know right.....

 

Dude. Image that 

I wonder all the time about it. I drink CC and dry now. 

What if fruit bats were a form of vitamin C?

[InconceivableThoughts]

33 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

What if fruit bats were a form of vitamin C?

And instead of reindeers pterodactyls actually flew santa clause around??? Also why post on here guys if your not going to answer the OPs question? What would happen to the world if we found out that the moon landing was faked? Well we would probably just move the date of the moon landing to whenever we actually landed there. Imo

Edited March 23, 2020 by InconceivableThoughts

[psyche101]

46 minutes ago, InconceivableThoughts said:

And instead of reindeers pterodactyls actually flew santa clause around??? Also why post on here guys if your not going to answer the OPs question?

We are illustrating how unlikely the proposal is. Did that go over your head or do you think Santa actually exists?

Quote

What would happen to the world if we found out that the moon landing was faked? Well we would probably just move the date of the moon landing to whenever we actually landed there. Imo

It can't happen. That's the point don't you see? So how is your answer any more sensible than ours?

[flyingswan]

9 hours ago, stereologist said:

I didn't say that no private companies had done launches. If we do take a look at the history we see that although there have been a few such launches no company has done regular launches. until recent times.

How many launches were commercial launches before 2000? Very few. They often used rockets built for the government.

While the first commercial launches were indeed on vehicles initially built for governments, the commercial companies developed and improved them.  The first commercially developed from scratch launch vehicle was Pegasus in 1990.

Most US civilian launches apart from the Shuttle have been commercial since the late 1980s.  Delta and Atlas went commercial, even a few of the Titan launches, though that was mostly used for military launches.  Arianespace has had a large portion of the international launch market since that time, with some Russian launches also under the commercial ILS company and Mitsubishi taking over the Japanese programme.

Edited March 23, 2020 by flyingswan

[InconceivableThoughts]

 Edit

Edited March 25, 2020 by InconceivableThoughts

[InconceivableThoughts]

On 3/23/2020 at 4:09 AM, psyche101 said:

We are illustrating how unlikely the proposal is. Did that go over your head or do you think Santa actually exists?

It can't happen. That's the point don't you see? So how is your answer any more sensible than ours?

 Because my answer was to the OPs question. Its didnt need to be sensible. It just had to answer the OPs question. Which is why I dont understand people replying with hateful replys.

All I see on this site is people demeaning others (as you just did with your over my head statement) because I guess they see themselves as more intelligent . It was a "what if" question. Why not just play along? Why just join in a conversation just to shut it down? Seems a bit childish to me is all. Several people on this site just go about these forums to belittle people and its sad.

Edited March 25, 2020 by InconceivableThoughts

[psyche101]

5 minutes ago, InconceivableThoughts said:

 Because my answer was to the OPs question. Its didnt need to be sensible. It just had to answer the OPs question. Which is why I dont understand people replying with hateful replys.

All I see on this site is people demeaning others (as you just did with your over my head statement) because I guess they see themselves as more intelligent . It was a "what if" question. Why not just play along? Why just join in a conversation just to shut it down? Seems a bit childish to me is all. Several people on this site just go about these forums to belittle people and its sad.

You don't think that the concept is belittling those who risked lives to bring us knowledge? What do you feel it achieves?

[InconceivableThoughts]

1 minute ago, psyche101 said:

You don't think that the concept is belittling those who risked lives to bring us knowledge? What do you feel it achieves?

I hardly feel anyone posting hateful comments are thinking of the people that risked their lives to bring us the knowledge so dont even and it dosent achieve anything nor does it hurt anything.

[ChrLzs]

10 hours ago, InconceivableThoughts said:

I hardly feel anyone posting hateful comments are thinking of the people that risked their lives to bring us the knowledge so dont even and it dosent achieve anything nor does it hurt anything.

Yeah, right, encourage the hatred - if there's anything the Internet needs, it's that.  The world is made a much better place that way, right?

[InconceivableThoughts]

10 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Yeah, right, encourage the hatred - if there's anything the Internet needs, it's that.  The world is made a much better place that way, right?

I dont understand what you mean by encouraging the hatred. Because i was doing nothing of the sort. Please rephrase if you can.

[ChrLzs]

YOU said, and I'll bold the important bits:

On 3/25/2020 at 8:26 PM, InconceivableThoughts said:

I hardly feel anyone posting hateful comments are thinking of the people that risked their lives to bring us the knowledge so dont even and it dosent achieve anything nor does it hurt anything.

Let me rephrase that - YOU think that people posting hateful comments don't hurt anything.  How the hell is that not encouraging the practice?

Sheesh.  Goodbye.