Signs of the incoming dark ages: lost technology
(twitter.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (22)
sorted by:
Well, I guess what value do you suppose there is in sending humans to the moon? I don't mean to avoid the question, I am being serious. I suppose if you build a moon base so people can actually live there, you could at least stay awhile and not just fly back and forth. What you do there, I'm not exactly sure.
Going forward, maybe there is some military or industrial use to being there. But that would have been totally impractical in the 1970s. So what exactly could NASA do on the moon that was important? Did they go to the moon to play golf? Or maybe to verify a conjecture of Galileo? LMAO! This is totally ridiculous. We have vacuum chambers in laboratories.
Moon hoax theories aside, the actual valuable science from the moon is not an argument for sending people. The constant reply against the theories "there are mirrors on the moon and we bounce lasers off of them" and "we have rocks from the moon that geologists study" may be an argument against "space is fake" but not against the moon hoax. Other countries have put mirrors on the moon and collected rocks that were returned to earth without sending people on this ludicrous trip to drop hammers and feathers. So this means we did not need to do the moon landing for laser reflecting mirrors or rock collecting.
People say after 1972 NASA stagnated and even went backwards. This is not true. Most honest scientists will say that everything of real scientific value from NASA came after Apollo was over. None of it was manned. The scientists who promote moon trips, and other manned missions, are people like Neil Degrass Tyson. He says it is important because it inspires the public or whatever. This is basically an admission that it has no real scientific value. If it did, he would be appealing to that rather than something intangible like "inspiring muh children."
I am actually saying that nowadays it is the opposite, but yes after Apollo there was no longer any value to the politicians. It is completely unsurprising to me that after 50 years it looks sort of likely that we are going back to the moon now, and would you know it, the Chinese are going too. So in the 1960s, the moonshot was a proxy propaganda war between the USA and USSR, and nowadays it is a proxy propaganda war between the USA and China. The more things change, as they say.
As long as there is no geopolitical foe to project dominance over, there is little reason to do the moonshot, which is why governments don't care to go during those times.
I mean, that isn't just "the official statement" it is reality. I know some people deny all of the space program, and that is a separate issue. But NASA claims to have been very active since 1972, and that activity has been extremely valuable. By any objective metric, it has been more valuable.
A short and incomplete list would be (1) Robotic exploration: Voyager (1 and 2), Mariner, Galileo, Cassini, Juno, Curiosity, Opportunity, MRO, New Horizons, etc. (2) Space based telescopes: Hubble, Chandra, Kepler, Webb, Roman, etc.. (3) Earth surveys: all the low satellites mapping and studying every square inch of the earth. (4) Heliophysics and space weather: all the satellites monitoring the sun and its output in the local interplanetary medium. (5) Long term manned missions: the ISS and the shuttle (many people consider this to not have much scientific value compared to the other 4, however it is worth noting that it was a (LEO) manned mission that fixed Hubble after it went up dysfunctional and manned missions have done maintenance and dragged it out of orbital decay for 35 years).
Maybe you propose that all of this is fake too, that's fine. But the claim that space stopped after 1972 is just wrong. The issue is exactly what you asked me evidence for. The public was interested (initially) in the moon landing. They are not interested in the dynamics of the Saturn system, whether there is water on Mars, the minor rings of the other giants, or the glacial activity of Pluto, let alone deep telescopic imagery. So most people, apparently you too, don't seem to understand that NASA has been very active for the past 50 years. And by any honest metric their output has been much more important and valuable to humanity than Alan Shepard golfing on the moon.