SpaceX rocket completes first full test flight after surviving re-entry
16 million pounds of thrust
The combined Starship and Super Heavy together stand at as towering 394 feet tall (120 meters) compared to the Saturn V rocket which was 363 feet (111 meters). Its 33 Raptor engines will generate more than 16 million pounds of thrust, roughly twice that of the Saturn 5.
Starship blasted off from the company’s Starbase in Boca Chica, Texas, at 7.50am (12:50 GMT), before soaring to space and coasting halfway across the globe.
It reached an altitude of nearly 211 kilometres (130 miles), travelling at more than 26,000km/h (16,000mph) before beginning its descent. A live broadcast showed parts of the spacecraft breaking off during the intense heat of reentry, and a chunk of flying debris even cracked the camera lens.
The spacecraft remained sufficiently intact to transmit data to its targeted splashdown site in the Indian Ocean.
The head of the Russian space agency has weighed in on the decades-long conspiracy debate, noting that there are no doubts that soil samples retrieved by Americans during their Apollo missions actually came from the Moon.
The Roscosmos chief was questioned about whether American astronauts had actually landed on the Moon during a parliamentary session on Wednesday. The key piece of evidence that the Apollo missions were real, according to Borisov, is the fact that back then NASA shared soil samples from several manned flights with its Soviet colleagues.
“According to the expertise of our Academy of Sciences, the lunar soil turned out to be lunar indeed,” Borisov reassured lawmakers, insisting that the samples were studied in labs of many countries, not just the USSR, and it’s definitely not from this planet.
This is still my biggest gripe (apart from NASA faking hundreds of hours of footage so well that you still can't tell it's fake, fifty years later) about the moon hoax theory: if there was anything off about the Apollo missions the Soviet Union would have been screaming bloody murder, but for some mysterious reason they didn't.
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
. With the qualifier that I have zero interest in perpetuating this discussion further -- and therefore will not be replying further -- as it's clear by now that you will hold to your positions (essentially: "climate alarm" as conveyed by uber-wealthy 'philanthropists', hi-profile politicians and heavily-funded bureaucracies is a real threat, exactly as described!; 'net zero' is a viable solution with no underlying agendas in play; we actually landed on the moon as described!; and other positions that largely subscribe to most dominant narrative talking points with little discernment', etc.), and I will hold to mine, which are generally less "popular" than those found in mainstream or even so-called alternative discourse (Re: "alternative" talking points: during the last few years of particularly egregious and more brazenly overt affronts, a variety of limited hangouts have cropped up that have poisoned wells in the 'alternative' sphere [more so than in years prior], and social media plays a key role in amplifying the preferred "alternative" voices. Of course many of these alternative viewpoints -- whatever their merits -- are largely coded as "right wing", which in turn elicits predictable programmed/conditioned responses from the dutiful consumers, etc. Rinse and Repeat.), it's been clear for some time now that we will agree to disagree on a number of topics du jour.
And that's fine. But it's also why it's futile to persist in back and forth. As mentioned a few times before, the passage of time tends to be a more reliable arbiter of an approximation of truth, eventually. That aside, specific to your strawman arguments above:
you still can't tell it's fake, fifty years later
Wrong. There have been plenty of valid refutations of the Apollo photos/videos. By way of an example, the following documentary -- which was initially shared in this very thread back on page 22 -- goes into some detail on the photos/videos presented during the Apolllo missions, and incorporates interpretations from professional photographers (photographers that may or may not subscribe to the Moon landing narratives) that were asked for their technical interpretations of official NASA photos. Starting at around the ~2:30:00 (2hrs and 30 minutes) mark:
As far as whatever narratives are sourced from Russia, it is no surprise those subscribing to historical front-facing narratives Re: the antagonism between Russia and the U.S.* will generally be agreeable to the facile storyline that Russia would want nothing more than to expose the Moon hoax.
(*indeed -- it may be that many politicians/govt employees believe this 'antagonism' to be true as well, and within certain perspectives, it is/has been true and real. Very few are aware of or need to know the underlying drivers [core objectives] for any given scenario, especially with respect to politics/political events. This applies in spades to the plebes.)
Unless, of course, there were back-door/undisclosed deals made behind the scenes.
How else can one explain the FACT that NO OTHER NATION has ventured to the Moon (or beyond Low Earth Orbit) since 1972, ESPECIALLY RUSSIA, which -- prior to the reported Moon landings by the U.S. -- was HANDILY surpassing NASA in every achievement related to space travel. Why did they suddenly STOP their attempts to reach the Moon, especially since they reportedly observed the U.S. succeed?
Doesn't make much sense, does it? Russia suddenly lost interest, for some reason that was never articulated.
I will once again cite from the late great Dave McGowan here. I needn't agree with all his positions, necessarily, but many of his takes have only aged like fine wine since his premature demise.
...the Soviet Union, right up until the time that we allegedly landed the first Apollo spacecraft on the Moon, was solidly kicking our ass in the space race. It wasn’t even close. [...] The Soviets launched the first orbiting satellite, sent the first animal into space, sent the first man into space, performed the first space walk, sent the first three-man crew into space, was the first nation to have two spacecraft in orbit simultaneously, performed the first unmanned docking maneuver in space, and landed the first unmanned probe on the Moon.
Everything the U.S. did, prior to actually sending a manned spacecraft to the Moon, had already been done by the Soviets, who clearly were staying at least a step or two ahead of our top-notch team of imported Nazi scientists. The smart money was clearly on the Soviets to make it to the Moon first, if anyone was to do so. Their astronauts had logged five times as many hours in space as had ours. And they had a considerable amount of time, money, scientific talent and, perhaps most of all, national pride riding on that goal.
And yet, amazingly enough, despite the incredibly long odds, the underdog Americans made it first. And not only did we make it first, but after a full forty years, the Soviets apparently still haven’t quite figured out how we did it. The question that is clearly begged here is a simple one: Why is it that the nation that was leading the world in the field of space travel not only didn’t make it to the Moon back in the 1960s, but still to this day have never made it there? Could it be that they were just really poor losers? I am imagining that perhaps the conversation over in Moscow’s equivalent of NASA went something like this:
Boris: Comrade Ivan, there is terrible news today: the Yankee imperialists have beaten us to the Moon. What should we do? Ivan: Let’s just shit-can our entire space program. Boris: But comrade, we are so close to success! And we have so much invested in the effort! Ivan: Fuck it! If we can’t be first, we aren’t going at all. Boris: But I beg of you comrade! The moon has so much to teach us, and the Americans will surely not share with us the knowledge they have gained. Ivan: Nyet!
In truth, the entire space program has largely been, from its inception, little more than an elaborate cover for the research, development and deployment of space-based weaponry and surveillance systems. The media never talk about such things, of course, but government documents make clear that the goals being pursued through space research are largely military in nature. For this reason alone, it is inconceivable that the Soviets would not have followed the Americans onto the Moon for the sake of their own national defense.
It is not just the Soviets, of course, who have never made it to the Moon. The Chinese haven’t either. Nor has any other industrialized nation, despite the rather obvious fact that every such nation on the planet now possesses technology that is light-years beyond what was available to NASA scientists in the 1960s.
Edit to add this relatively recent news item. This may be nothing more than standard low-grade red herring/disinfo, or perhaps an early signal/foreshadowing of planned shifts in narratives (planting seeds), or nothing of particular substance. This news item was blared across several sources at the time.
Former head of Roscosmos now thinks NASA did not land on the Moon
…
During his four-year tenure at Roscosmos, Rogozin wrote, he asked his leadership team to look into whether NASA had actually landed a dozen astronauts on the Moon in the late 1960s and early 1970s. After all, Rogozin reasoned, "It was not clear to me how the United States, at that level of technological development of the '60s of the last century, did what they still cannot do now?"
In response to these queries, Rogozin wrote, he received angry responses from academicians and "fans" of NASA at Roscosmos who did not want to undermine cooperation with the US space agency on the International Space Station. As evidence for the landing, Rogozin claims he only received a copy of a book by cosmonaut Alexei Leonov. …
Also a note on the "documentary" BS posted: it's trash, don't waste your time. If you have to deliberately misrepresent what's being said, or deceptively cut footage to make your case, you're a liar and not worth listening to.
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
NASA faking hundreds of hours of footage so well that you still can't tell it's fake, fifty years later)
m, m, m, you know, believing msm or cr instead of your eyes is a commitment, a worldview, throwing good money after bad. or a job. i'm not sure which. the sad part is, both sides are going to get slaughtered by this monster.
But take heart, because I have overcome the world.” John 16:33
For what it's worth, I've been open to the idea that they faked the first landing to win the space race. I don't think they did, but I'm not entirely ruling it out. But if they did, the next several landings were either also fake, which would have been incredibly risky because every repeat increased the odds of being found out (if you watch a magic trick more than once you start paying attention to what the other hand is doing), or they were real and they really walked on the moon.
@BS:
about the Soviet Union:
Why did they suddenly STOP their attempts to reach the Moon, especially since they reportedly observed the U.S. succeed?
Their version of Wernher von Braun died during surgery, and their rocket kept blowing up. They could probably have done it if they kept at it, but what would be the point? After that it was probably the same reasons the US program was wound down: the US already did it, it was insanely expensive for diminishing returns, and there were better things to spend the money on. No point pouring all that money into a PR stunt the US already pulled off when there's ballistic missiles and Earth observation satellites to be had.
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
For what it's worth, I've been open to the idea that they faked the first landing to win the space race. I don't think they did, but I'm not entirely ruling it out. But if they did, the next several landings were either also fake, which would have been incredibly risky because every repeat increased the odds of being found out ...Their version of Wernher von Braun died during surgery, and their rocket kept blowing up. They could probably have done it if they kept at it, but what would be the point? After that it was probably the same reasons the US program was wound down: the US already did it, it was insanely expensive for diminishing returns, and there were better things to spend the money on. No point pouring all that money into a PR stunt the US already pulled off
your powers of deduction are formidable indeed. i like your air of conclusiveness
But take heart, because I have overcome the world.” John 16:33
I can be very conclusive, but I do find the whole moon hoax theory fascinating, like a lot of other more out there theories, I just don't think any of the arguments in favor are very compelling. I think most people here agree that we at least have sent stuff to the moon, so why is it so hard to accept that we could have added a small space with life support to one or more of those launches?
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
C'mon, you can do better than that. Remember the LRO spacecraft images of Apollo landing sites...
NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, LRO, has captured the sharpest images ever taken from space of where three Apollo missions were conducted on the moon's surface. The pictures of the Apollo 17, Apollo 14, and Apollo 12 landing sites were taken while LRO was in what's referred to as a "dipping orbit," where the spacecraft was roughly 15 miles above the surface. They reveal the twists and turns of the paths made when the missions' six astronauts explored these areas.
If people think the moon landings were faked everything proving the opposite can also be dismissed as fake. Pictures? Fake. Astronauts landing there and taking pictures? They're lying and the pictures are fake, etc. There's really no point in arguing with that, because right now there is nothing that will change people's minds.
Maybe when they can go there themselves and see Armstrong's footprints in person, but even then they will probably just say "these were made two years ago right before the Lunar Ritz opened. Look how crisp they are, and Armstrong was a size 9. Those are way too big!" Then they'll go home and post a three hour video about their "SHOCKING EVIDENCE".
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
It's amazing, how relatively easy it is for humans to convince themselves of certain storylines, especially when presented by 'Authority', at scale. The events from 2020 - 2022 are one of numerous (though perhaps most egregious) clear-cut Exhibits of such mass delusions.
Every time I read the following passage and look at the images, I laugh out loud. (of course, the below is merely an excerpt of one small aspect of the broad narrative. There are many, many flaws in the 'official' storylines.)
... Has anyone, by the way, ever really taken a good look at one of those contraptions? I mean a detailed, up-close look? I’m guessing that the vast majority of people have not, but luckily we can quickly remedy that situation because I happen to have some really good, high-resolution images that come directly from the good people at NASA.
While what is depicted in the images may initially appear, to the untrained eye, to be some kind of mock-up that someone cobbled together in their backyard to make fun of NASA, I can assure you that it is actually an extremely high-tech manned spacecraft capable of landing on the surface of the Moon. And incredibly enough, it was also capable of blasting off from the Moon and flying 69 miles back up into lunar orbit! Though not immediately apparent, it is actually a two-stage craft, the lower half (the part that looks like a tubular aluminum framework covered with Mylar and old Christmas wrapping paper) being the descent stage, and the upper half(the part that looks as though it was cobbled together from old air conditioning ductwork and is primarily held together, as can be seen in the close-up, with zippers and gold tape) being the ascent stage. The upper half, of course, is the more sophisticated portion, being capable of lifting off and flying with enough power to break free of the Moon’s gravity and reach lunar orbit. It also, of course, possessed sophisticated enough navigational capabilities for it to locate, literally out in the middle of fucking nowhere, the command module that it had to dock with in order to get the astronauts safely back to Earth. It also had to catch that command module, which was orbiting the Moon at a leisurely 4,000 miles per hour.
But we’ll get to all that a little later. I think we can all agree for now that such a sleek, stylish, well-designed craft would have no problem flying with that kind of power, precision and stability. ...
For those with spare time to plunge into a rabbit hole, see below breadcrumbs -- caveat lector*, as should be standard with any source material:
*I may not subscribe to all content written within these sources, but there are bits of noteworthy info to be gleaned, regardless.
The controversy over Grissom's death is so hot that one ubiquitous media "skeptic" (and tireless defender of government orthodoxy) went so far as to shut down debate on the Apollo 1 murder theories on his message board.
One "Apollo hoax" conspiracy site boils the basic narrative amongst Grissom partisans to its essence.
In January 1967, Virgil 'Gus' Grissom, an American astronaut, held an unauthorized press conference in which he told reporters that the United States was "at least a decade away" from even contemplating a lunar mission. He was severely rebuked for giving that interview without permission. Following this reprimand, Gus Grissom later came out of a water tank reduced gravity simulation of the supposed lunar landing module, and attached a lemon to a coat-hanger, which he then hung in front of a NASA emblem to indicate to the cameras, without speaking, what he and his fellow crew members, Roger Chaffee and Edward White, thought of the Apollo programme. Clearly Mr. Grissom did not fit NASA's requirement of an easily-controlled, brain-dead military man. A few days after this, on 27 January 1967, Grissom, Chaffee and White were murdered, via a horrific pressurized oxygen fire, while locked in the capsule at the top of a Saturn V rocket.
But it's not just conspiracy theorists who believe Grissom was murdered for his whistle-blowing, it's also the Grissom family.
"My father’s death was no accident. He was murdered,” Grissom, a commercial pilot, told Star.
Grissom said he recently was granted access to the charred capsule and discovered a "fabricated” metal plate located behind a control panel switch. The switch controlled the capsules’ electrical power source from an outside source to the ship’s batteries. Grissom argues that the placement of the metal plate was an act of sabotage...
...Grissom’s widow, Betty, now 71, told Star she agrees with her son’s claim that her husband had been murdered. "I believe Scott has found the key piece of evidence to prove NASA knew all along what really happened but covered up to protect funding for the race to the moon.”
Grissom's death capped a tense period when the astronaut had been the target of death threats:
The Grissom family had reason to doubt the official NASA ruling from the beginning. Even before Apollo I, Grissom had received death threats which his family believed emanated from within the space program.
The threats were serious enough that he was put under Secret Service protection and had been moved from his home to a secure safehouse. According to his wife, Grissom had warned her that "if there is ever a serious accident in the space program, it’s likely to be me.”
Betty Grissom, left widowed with two sons, filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the Apollo program's prime contractor, North American Rockwell. She won a $350,000 settlement in 1972 that would be worth nearly $3 million today if adjusted for inflation, said Ronald D. Krist, the Houston attorney who handled that case.
THE FIRE At 6:31:03 P.M., one of the astronauts smelled smoke and yelled fire. The capsule had suddenly turned into a Calorimeter Bomb. They tried their best to open the hatch. Without panic the triple hatch that sealed them in usually took about nine minutes to open. They didn't have nine minutes. In fact, they barely had ninety seconds before their suits burned through and the deadly poisonous gasses released from the plastics silenced them forever.
The capsule's internal pressure soared from the great quantity of hot gasses created by the quasi-explosive burning of all the combustible material. This short term fire was so intense that it melted a silver soldered joint on the oxygen feed pipe pouring even more oxygen into the conflagration.
At 6:31:17, fourteen seconds from the first smell of smoke, the pressure reached 29 pounds and the capsule ruptured, effectively releasing the heat and damping the fire. But it was too late. They were already dead.
Let me put in some additional questions here. If this was not murder and just an example of extreme stupidity in governmental slow motion why did government agents in rapid action, raid Grissom's home before anyone knew about the fire? Why did they remove all his personal papers and his diary? Why didn't they bring his diary, or any other paper with the word "Apollo" on it back, when they returned some of his personal papers to his widow? And if it really took 29 psi to blow the cabin why didn't they use regular air at higher pressure?
Also was it really the vicissitudes of life that the outward opening hatch was coincidentally changed that very morning to one that opened inward? An inward opening hatch meant that any inside pressure, acting outward, would prevent it from being opened—even if someone was standing by, which they weren't.
It was also boiled up from the outside and lacked explosive bolts. 20
THE AFTERMATH NASA should have known better. And they did! You have read earlier of the men injured in flash explosive fires in their own tests. NASA had even commissioned a report by Dr. Emanuel M. Roth which was published in 1964. Dr. Roth cited difficulties with 100 percent oxygen atmospheres even under low pressures. Any competent engineer should have known the dangers of oxygen at 16.7 or 20.2 psi.
This is why I cannot believe that this was "standard operating procedure," or that Grissom and his crew knew that about it. NASA not only ignored their own tests on pure low pressure oxygen but upped the ante by increasing the pressure above atmospheric.
Kennan and Harvey had this to say,
"Most U.S. scientists could not believe their ears when they learned that fact. Oxygen at such pressure comes in the category of an 'oxygen bomb.'" 21
A Board of Inquiry termed "The Apollo 204 Review Board" was quickly convened to investigate the fatal fire by appointing astronaut Frank Borman as the chairman. In effect, NASA sent the fox into the chicken house to investigate mysterious disappearances of the occupants.
The board's final report was about what you might expect when an in-house investigation investigates itself:
"One key to the caution which reveals itself on every page of the Board's report is that it was written by government employees. Thompson himself was director of the space agency's Langley Research center, and no fewer than six of the eight Board members were NASA officials." 22
The pressure of 16.7 psi is quoted from Journey to Tranquility where the authors wrote that they learned the pressure of the pure oxygen in the capsule was 2 psi over atmospheric. Collins reported it as nearly 16 psi. It seems strange that NASA told two insiders, Borman and Collins, plus the authors of Tranquility three different capsule pressures? Apparently NASA, like the rest of us find it almost impossible to keep all the little white lies straight. And if it's a group lie we get the results shown in this book.
Borman writes that,
"We brought in every learned mind we could enlist—including a chemistry expert from Cornell..." 23
Didn't this expert know that oxygen has a deep and forceful desire to breed little oxides by passionately mating with hydrocarbons and carbohydrates? Didn't this "so-called" expert tell them that?
Borman, played dumb when he was called before Congress. In testifying under oath he said,
"None of us were fully aware of the hazard that existed when you combine a pure-oxygen atmosphere with the extensive distribution of combustible materials and a likely source of ignition... and so this test... was not classified as hazardous."24
And if Borman was as unaware of all the dangerous fires that erupted during NASA's own safety tests over the years why did he later write about 20.2 psi oxygen in this manner,
"That is an extremely dangerous environment, the equivalent of sitting on a live bomb, waiting for someone to light the fuse. " 25
Aldrin in his 1989 book, Men From Earth written twenty-two years after the cremation has this to say,
"As every high school chemistry student learns, when a smoldering match is put into a beaker of oxygen, it blazes into a spectacular flame." 26
He (Aldrin) continues by telling us how there was a multitude of switches and miles of electrical wiring all of which were easy to short and could act as a match.
"But the risk was considered acceptable because, in space, the astronauts could instantly depressurize their cabin..." 27
Hey Buzz, didn't you claim that the reason your EVA [extravehicular activity] on the Moon was late in starting because it took so long to vent the last of the oxygen from the LEM?
Borman, who held a Masters in engineering and taught thermodynamics at West Point claims nobody was aware of the danger! After all these years Aldrin now claims he knew. Obviously, either Borman is lying or Aldrin didn't have the guts to open his mouth.
When Deke Slayton was asked about the pressure test he reportedly blurted out,
"Man, we've just been lucky. We've used the same test on everything we've done with the Mercury and the Gemini up to this point, and we've just been lucky as hell." 28
Why do I doubt that? I suspect that everything about the pressurization test is a lie. I think that it was a one time only occurrence specially configured to suit the job at hand.
Borman contended that Ed White and his wife Pat were friends of his and that he listened to the audio tapes of the fire over and over again.
Then he states,
"The only comfort derived from listening to the tapes was the knowledge that the agony hadn't lasted long; that death had come from noxious fumes before the flames reached them." 29
Borman's acumen might be judged by the fact that Eastern Airlines played submarine when he was at the helm as CEO. Nobody dies in 14 seconds from noxious fumes. Ed White died inhaling super heated oxygen which set fire to his lungs, throat and skin the same way that technician's hand burned in the test years before. The chances are that they survived for minutes and were conscious for a good part of that time. However, death was definite after the first breath.
A former Apollo quality control inspector who told congressional investigators of numerous shortcomings in America's moonship program has been killed with his wife and stepdaughter, in a car-train collision. Thomas R. Baron, 29, died when his car was struck by a, Florida East Coast railway switch engine at a road crossing north of here Friday night - a week after he testified for more than an hour before a House subcommittee inquiring into the Apollo 1 tragedy. Baron, discharged by North American Aviation before the Jan. 27 fire that killed three astronauts, accused the company of poor management and sloppy workmanship.
North American builds the Apollo spacecraft. He wrote a 55-page report before the accident occurred listing his charges and after the moonship disaster he expanded the document to more than 500 pages. Both were submitted to the House Space Subcommittee investigating the spacecraft fire. Baron testified before the committee at a special session at the nearby Kennedy Space Center for more than an hour April 21. He fielded numerous critical questions and even ridicule.
At the close. of the hearing, Chairman E. Teague, D- Tex., on of the he committee told Baron that the Apollo 1 board of review and North American had found that at least some of the charges in his report were true. "It has caused North American to really search its procedures," Teague said. Baron had been unemployed since leaving North American.
