Closer to Mars

[Karmamatterz]

That's not how it works. If you have any evidence whatsoever that the landing didn't happen then share it.

Does this photo prove that American astronauts landed and walked on the moon?

[DrEvil]

No. Does you posting here prove that you're human? Maybe you're an alien or a rogue AI. Anything is possible!

Do you accept that we have sent unmanned probes to the Moon? If yes, why is it so hard to accept that you could stick some humans on one of those rockets and fly them there? The principle is the same, you just need some extra fuel for the return flight and a life support system, none of which are very hard to add when you already have the means to get there.

[DrEvil]

.

There's no clear evidence either way, though i'll much more readily accept the landing of an un-manned rover than any landing involving humans stepping foot on non-Earth soil.

So you find it easier to believe they did the harder of the two things?

[Karmamatterz]

If yes, why is it so hard to accept that you could stick some humans on one of those rockets and fly them there?

My imagination, probably like yours, is very vivid and I have no problems imagining what you suggest. Imagination isn't the issue though.

You used the image to represent what you consider to be a factual and true representation of what the folks at spaceflight now published.
https://spaceflightnow.com/2021/05/25/c ... e-of-mars/

The simple comparison is to use another image and keep the analogy as close as possible. Apple to apples?

In other words, the photos mean almost nothing. In fact, the photo I chose of the astronaut walking down the steps has been so debunked and picked apart it's nearly hysterically funny to use the image. I picked that photo deliberately because as a former photographer I understand clearly how light work how the balance of highlights and shadows is basic photography 101. The photo looks staged as ever. Rather than go into the Moon Doggie debates lets just be honest and accept that photographs can easily be faked, doctored and photoshopped.

You can stick a human in a rocket and shoot them to the moon, doesn't mean they will survive. Why so hard? Well, it is rocket science.

[Belligerent Savant]

.

There's no clear evidence either way, though i'll much more readily accept the landing of an un-manned rover than any landing involving humans stepping foot on non-Earth soil.

So you find it easier to believe they did the harder of the two things?

Explain to me how landing a contraption with no sentient being(s) onboard is the harder option.

Also, remind me again the last time humans reportedly traversed the van allen belts.

[BenDhyan]

How did NASA deal with the Van Allen radiation belts, fly around the high radiation part!

[DrEvil]

.

There's no clear evidence either way, though i'll much more readily accept the landing of an un-manned rover than any landing involving humans stepping foot on non-Earth soil.

So you find it easier to believe they did the harder of the two things?

Explain to me how landing a contraption with no sentient being(s) onboard is the harder option.

Also, remind me again the last time humans reportedly traversed the van allen belts.

1972. You could have just looked it up you know.

As for the difficulty:

1) The lack of a sentient being going to Mars. No one around to fix unexpected issues.
2) The Moon, unlike Mars, has no atmosphere, no turbulence, no sandstorms. Smooth sailing all the way, and the mission does have a sentient being on board to fix unexpected issues.
3) Distance. The Moon has real-time(ish) communications. You can update software on the fly and talk to the crew to work out solutions. With Mars the communications delay is so long (5 to 20 minutes) you just have to pray that everything worked perfectly on the first try because there's nothing you can do if it didn't. There's a reason so many Mars missions failed.

[Belligerent Savant]

.

Yes, 1972: reportedly. Why haven't humans traversed the belts since?

And it's absolutely far more complex and risky attempting to transport and safely land a contraption with humans onboard vs one without. This should be exceedingly self-evident.

For starters:

If transporting and safely landing humans on mars -- or the moon -- is easier, why have we only thus far observed reports of unmmaned missions and landings? Because clearly, unmanned missions are markedly easier to carry out for myriad reasons; principally, there is the need to ensure the capsule is properly equipped to shield humans onboard from exposure to lethal environmental factors outside of earth's atmosphere (among many other critical requiirements: building a capsule to minimize radiation exposure so that the humans onboard can travel to and fro without near-term death [and ideally, without dying shortly thereafter from excessive exposure]; ensuring the capsule is sealed from any potential breach/exposure to the vacuum of space; equipping the capsule with enough vital supplies for sustenance/elimination of waste, and likewise, ensuring enough oxygen supply for the entire duration of the mission, for each human onboard - to Mars, while on Mars, and the return from Mars; of course, this capsule needs to be markedly larger -- which isn't ideal -- than an unmanned craft in order to house the humans and their life-sustaining equipment, etc etc).

There is a reason this hasn't occurred since (reportedly) the early 70s (if it ever occurred at all). Your response gives the impression you haven't considered these factors at all.
You're essentially starting with the assumption that a human would simply 'arrive' at Mars without any acknowledgment of the many critical technical hurdles involved before a safe landing can ever occur (let alone a safe departure and return).

None of the above requirements need to be considered for unmanned missions, needless to say.

Also, revisiting KarmaM's earlier point for a moment:

Let's entertain a mental exercise. Let's assume that the photo KarmaM shared is indeed fake. What then?
Why would NASA fake such a photo? Is there any plausible explanation other than cover-up for a fictional event?

Can anyone here explain the lighting anomalies -- known to any trained photographer -- in a way that can lend credibility to its authenticity?

It MUST be real, because if it's not, the entire 'moon landings' house of cards falls apart.

[stickdog99]

All I know is that the Moon is so damn close to us that it makes no sense to me that humans were able to get there successfully 6 out of 6 times roughly 50 years ago but never once since. And we haven't even sent humans into orbit more than 300 miles away from Earth since.

And it is interesting to me that the problems of space radiation have not yet been solved to this day. Thank God the Apollo astronauts were so lucky!

https://www.space.com/658-lunar-shields ... nauts.html

A lot of people think about the Apollo astronauts, and that they didn't have much protection and were fine," Lane told SPACE.com. "But in Apollo, it was a very short mission and a lot of it was basically luck. I'm not sure how they managed to be so lucky, but I don't think you can count on luck on short missions for the future or trips to the planets."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gJ0DfULLGU#t=16m0s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P03vvRW5EIg#t=8m40s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpXEpJAb8ZY#t=3m0s

[DrEvil]

.

Yes, 1972: reportedly. Why haven't humans traversed the belts since?

Money. Diminishing returns. Nixon. Earth orbit more strategically important.

And it's absolutely far more complex and risky attempting to transport and safely land a contraption with humans onboard vs one without. This should be exceedingly self-evident.

For starters:

If transporting and safely landing humans on mars -- or the moon -- is easier, why have we only thus far observed reports of unmmaned missions and landings? Because clearly, unmanned missions are markedly easier to carry out for myriad reasons; principally, there is the need to ensure the capsule is properly equipped to shield humans onboard from exposure to lethal environmental factors outside of earth's atmosphere (among many other critical requiirements: building a capsule to minimize radiation exposure so that the humans onboard can travel to and fro without near-term death [and ideally, without dying shortly thereafter from excessive exposure]; ensuring the capsule is sealed from any potential breach/exposure to the vacuum of space; equipping the capsule with enough vital supplies for sustenance/elimination of waste, and likewise, ensuring enough oxygen supply for the entire duration of the mission, for each human onboard - to Mars, while on Mars, and the return from Mars; of course, this capsule needs to be markedly larger -- which isn't ideal -- than an unmanned craft in order to house the humans and their life-sustaining equipment, etc etc).

All valid concerns. Good thing I wasn't talking about a human mission to Mars. I was comparing humans to the Moon with rovers to Mars. Humans to Mars is obviously much harder.

There is a reason this hasn't occurred since (reportedly) the early 70s (if it ever occurred at all). Your response gives the impression you haven't considered these factors at all.
You're essentially starting with the assumption that a human would simply 'arrive' at Mars without any acknowledgment of the many critical technical hurdles involved before a safe landing can ever occur (let alone a safe departure and return).

Again, nothing in my post concerned humans to Mars. Stop moving the goalposts.

None of the above requirements need to be considered for unmanned missions, needless to say.

Also, revisiting KarmaM's earlier point for a moment:

Let's entertain a mental exercise. Let's assume that the photo KarmaM shared is indeed fake. What then?
Why would NASA fake such a photo? Is there any plausible explanation other than cover-up for a fictional event?

Can anyone here explain the lighting anomalies -- known to any trained photographer -- in a way that can lend credibility to its authenticity?

It MUST be real, because if it's not, the entire 'moon landings' house of cards falls apart.

Last time we argued about the lighting on here I posted an image from someone who took one of the 'anomalous' images and recreated the scene with computer graphics and the most accurate light simulation for the surface of the Moon they could manage. It was a perfect match to the photograph, recreating all the 'anomalous' bits, and it was dismissed out of hand with "but computer graphics aren't real hurrdurr", completely missing the point of the exercise, so I'm not getting into that again.

[DrEvil]

All I know is that the Moon is so damn close to us that it makes no sense to me that humans were able to get there successfully 6 out of 6 times roughly 50 years ago but never once since. And we haven't even sent humans into orbit more than 300 miles away from Earth since.

Pretty self-evident really: something didn't happen because no one did it. And what's the point of sending humans beyond 300 miles? After Earth orbit the next stop is the Moon, and unless you're going for a permanent base there really isn't much point in continuing to send people for short stays, especially as robotics, computers and sensors kept getting better and better.

And it is interesting to me that the problems of space radiation have not yet been solved to this day. Thank God the Apollo astronauts were so lucky!

https://www.space.com/658-lunar-shields ... nauts.html

A lot of people think about the Apollo astronauts, and that they didn't have much protection and were fine," Lane told SPACE.com. "But in Apollo, it was a very short mission and a lot of it was basically luck. I'm not sure how they managed to be so lucky, but I don't think you can count on luck on short missions for the future or trips to the planets."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gJ0DfULLGU#t=16m0s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P03vvRW5EIg#t=8m40s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpXEpJAb8ZY#t=3m0s

The article ( https://theconversation.com/space-radia ... cky-120339 ) you link explains the non-issue of the Van Allen belts. The exposure going through at high speed was about the same as a CT scan. The luck part was that they didn't run into severe space weather on the way, something that definitely will be an issue for longer term missions like a permanent base.

[Belligerent Savant]

.

I didn't move the goalposts. I specifically raised manned vs unmanned travel to Mars/Moon in a prior comment. Perhaps you misread my commentary.

There can be no discussion Re: human travel to Mars without first addressing the many hurdles inherent to such a feat.

"Money" is no longer a viable excuse with Musk and Bezos investments in space. This is no longer a 'lack of govt funding' conversation. In any event, this was always a BS excuse. Money can be generated -- has been generated -- to fund all manner of ventures.

The entire argument hinges entirely on the assumption that the moon landings occurred as depicted, and that the van allen belts are not as harmful as otherwise indicated.

You can live another 100 years without observing a human on mars or the moon, and still you will hold on to the narrative that we've been there, 150 years ago.


On Edit: rather than continued to and fro, as I anticipate we've long-since reached an impasse, i'll offer a gentleman's wager:

If a human is convincingly depicted to step foot on the Moon or Mars (i.e., no fancy CGI or deepfakes, which unfortunately will become increasingly challenging to confirm/identify with each passing year) in the not-too-distant future, i will happily ship to your attention a bottle of your preferred libation (or a case of your preferred beer). I'll cover all international shipping charges!

Hopefully it'll happen while we still maintain a presence here on this forum... or here on Earth.

[stickdog99]

All I know is that the Moon is so damn close to us that it makes no sense to me that humans were able to get there successfully 6 out of 6 times roughly 50 years ago but never once since. And we haven't even sent humans into orbit more than 300 miles away from Earth since.

Pretty self-evident really: something didn't happen because no one did it. And what's the point of sending humans beyond 300 miles? After Earth orbit the next stop is the Moon, and unless you're going for a permanent base there really isn't much point in continuing to send people for short stays, especially as robotics, computers and sensors kept getting better and better.

And it is interesting to me that the problems of space radiation have not yet been solved to this day. Thank God the Apollo astronauts were so lucky!

https://www.space.com/658-lunar-shields ... nauts.html

A lot of people think about the Apollo astronauts, and that they didn't have much protection and were fine," Lane told SPACE.com. "But in Apollo, it was a very short mission and a lot of it was basically luck. I'm not sure how they managed to be so lucky, but I don't think you can count on luck on short missions for the future or trips to the planets."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gJ0DfULLGU#t=16m0s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P03vvRW5EIg#t=8m40s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpXEpJAb8ZY#t=3m0s

The article ( https://theconversation.com/space-radia ... cky-120339 ) you link explains the non-issue of the Van Allen belts. The exposure going through at high speed was about the same as a CT scan. The luck part was that they didn't run into severe space weather on the way, something that definitely will be an issue for longer term missions like a permanent base.

Whole Lotta Luck

[BenDhyan]

.

I didn't move the goalposts. I specifically raised manned vs unmanned travel to Mars/Moon in a prior comment. Perhaps you misread my commentary.

There can be no discussion Re: human travel to Mars without first addressing the many hurdles inherent to such a feat.

"Money" is no longer a viable excuse with Musk and Bezos investments in space. This is no longer a 'lack of govt funding' conversation. In any event, this was always a BS excuse. Money can be generated -- has been generated -- to fund all manner of ventures.

The entire argument hinges entirely on the assumption that the moon landings occurred as depicted, and that the van allen belts are not as harmful as otherwise indicated.

You can live another 100 years without observing a human on mars or the moon, and still you will hold on to the narrative that we've been there, 150 years ago.


On Edit: rather than continued to and fro, as I anticipate we've long-since reached an impasse, i'll offer a gentleman's wager:

If a human is convincingly depicted to step foot on the Moon or Mars (i.e., no fancy CGI or deepfakes, which unfortunately will become increasingly challenging to confirm/identify with each passing year) in the not-too-distant future, i will happily ship to your attention a bottle of your preferred libation (or a case of your preferred beer). I'll cover all international shipping charges!

Hopefully it'll happen while we still maintain a presence here on this forum... or here on Earth.

BS, the NASA Artemis program intends to have humans back on the moon in 2024. Unlike the Apollo program which was to learn about the moon, place experiments on the surface, returning regolith and rocks, technological application, etc., was completed successfully such that additional trips were not necessary until now, the Artemis program is about the establishment of a permanent colony. TPTB want to spend money wisely, you don't go to the moon for the sake of it, you go there for a good reason, the moon has a lot minerals that can be exploited, as well as a place for launching space missions further into the solar system. Understand that the know how to have a permanent presence there which was not present in the Apollo days is only now becoming available, so per ardua ad astra, away we go!

[Belligerent Savant]

.

Ben - i'll extend my offer to you as well. Name your preferred drink of choice (non-alcoholic, if preferred), i'll ship it to you, all expenses paid, if humans actually traverse lunar soil by 2024.

It'd be a marvel to observe, assuming modern-day magick tricks won't be in play.

I'm sure a moon landing would go a long way to ameliorate the many ills here on Earth, eh.