Moon landing hoax

Fact and question remain. They have successfully landed men 6 times. Since then landing a box on its side is a step closer to landing man on the moon. So why not use the old but proven methods?

BTW I don’t care whether or not they landed 50 years ago, I’m taking the view they did.

But again, you're deciding that the question has no answer after doing zero to actually discover the answer yourself.

Likewise, you've already rejected all of the reasonable answers you've already gotten and dismissed with a similar level of effort.

Meanwhile you are accepting the ridiculous and impossible notion that the moon landings are faked even though there's a huge long list of unanswered questions about that idea. You will not answer those questions either.

Your position isn't honest or very rational.

WTF you going on about 😂

No I’m asking a very simple question you and others are refusing or unable to answer.

We already had the technology, ergo we have the technology, we so why not use it?

If you don’t know it’s ok to say, I doubt very much someone on boards does. It’s not me trying to create a success bias or any form of success, it’s a genuine question:

It seems to me there’s a whole group of defenders of the moon landing narrative that are afraid to face a logical question: Either you have an answer or just admit you have no idea.

My point is very clear.

You are declaring that there is no answer to your question even though you haven't tried to find any answer and you'd been provided with answers.

You then conclude from this that historical fact is a "narrative" that might not be true.

This is an irrational position to hold.

Noone is afraid of a silly question like "are the moon landings real?".

But we've already been told that this isn't an acceptable answer for some reason. Apparently the discrepancy between a massive government agency with hundreds of billions of dollars and a small private company with only hundreds of millions isn't a factor.

This can't be a reasonable explanation, but the idea that the moon landings were faked (and by extension all other space missions) is reasonable.

That’s not the question though, so clear as mud.

As an engineer you should also know this **** is not easy

The question isn't coming from a logical place.

There's no conspiracy so no idea why you are bringing it up here. Perhaps try the space forum, but you'll receive exactly the same replies there.

It's the point you're trying to get at. You don't want to state it directly for some reason. But it's the logic behind your position.

It's also moot as your question has been answered many times now. You are either rejecting this answer or you are pretending not to see it. Again you won't address it directly for some reason.

Poor attempt at strawmanning here in place of an actual point.

Having access to 1000s of times more money and resources result in different outcomes.

You are declaring that this wouldn't be a factor for some reason.

What technology from the Apollo era specifically would have lead to this mission's success?

You're just being facetious now.

It's not just about the technology. It's about the support behind the technology (aka, Money).

How many engineers and how much money had NASA per every piece of technology they sent into space versus a private organisation now?

An old piece of technology that's meticulously built, tested and retested by hundreds (if not thousands) of people is going to cost a lot more than what a modern private outfit can afford.

If these modern companies had the budget NASA had during the original moon landing days it would all be very different.

We were just told that economics was not a valid excuse. So therefore you have to conclude that concorde was also a hoax.

Also notice how the people who entertain the notion of faked moon landings aren't actually dealing with any points. It's just defaulting back to the same "I don't understand therefore it's a conspiracy" argument.

This Isn't what people were arguing. You're misrepresenting what people posted while ignoring the points actually made to you as well as many of the questions about your own position.

There are many programs with plans to return to the moon in the next few years, however budgets and delays are a reality.

There is no other reason for why people have not gone back to the moon since Apollo. You and your fellow conspiracy theorists refuse to provide one.

Musk is trying to re-invent the square wheel.

The why aren't we able to land today argument is a reminder how the Soviets also failed to achieve a manned landing during the moon race. It's hard. The hard part is actually delivering the spacecraft to the moon and the Soviets only began development of their N1 rocket four years after the Saturn V. With the US stating a public deadline and spending billions to make that deadline then even with the motivation for investment from a geopolitical enemy to compete then their rocket simply wasn't ready within that time frame.

The question for conspiracy theorists is why would 15 flight capable Saturn V rockets along with 3 for ground testing be designed, built, tested and successfully flown every time if the plan all along was to film it in a studio? If you're going to the bother of doing that then why not attempt landings? i.e. The public (and our enemy), when they see our staged footage, will want to know how we got to that moon set so lets go to the difficulty, complexity and expense of building rockets powerful enough to send what we need for a moon landing and tell everyone we used those. 🤦‍♂️

The retort is usually "all those people (the literally millions millions) who witnessed all the Saturn V launches with their own eyes were actors".

I've never actually seen this retort made. The problem is one that conspiracy theorists usually ignore entirely and refuse to address.

Some theorists insist that the launches were real, but were unmanned and/or were suborbital. But when they are asked how this was achieved and covered up, that point is also ignored and unanswered.

Theories like this are based on a lack of knowledge of the extent of the space program, or a completely different view of reality, like flat eartherism.