Let me preface this post by saying I have always been 100% of the belief that in 1969, US astronauts landed on the moon, without any reservation or thought that this could be anything other than absolute fact. Additionally, I've always scoffed at the notion that the moon landing could be a hoax and really looked down on those who questioned the landing as fools, idiots, conspiracy theorists or worse.
However, recently, I've seen some things that have started to get me thinking...is it possible that the landing was staged and, in fact, never actually happened? In the video below, there is a discussion over recent statements made by Elon Musk about the quantity of rocket fuel it would take in order to get to the moon. These statements seem to be corroborated by NASA engineers. There is also some claim made that much of the data and technological hardware of the Apollo program was lost or purposefully destroyed by NASA ostensibly so that investigators could not prove that the trip was technologically impossible. I quickly fact checked this and some of the claim seems to be true, although the data loss does not seem to be nearly as pervasive or complete as alluded to in this video.
Still, this is the first I've seen the fuel argument raised, and it seems pretty compelling. If the landing did occur, how the hell did they do it, considering the unassailable requirement of an astonishing amount of rocket fuel requiring multiple rocket launches in near earth orbit before making the trip to the moon, down to the surface and back again?
Curious about your thoughts. And please keep in mind, this is just for discussion and fun, so lets keep it civil and friendly. :notworthy:
I though you can see some of the equipment left behind from Earth?
As for fuel quantity, the distance to the moon doesn't matter that much. Escaping Earth's gravity and atmosphere is what counts, once there you won't need much fuel to go places.
I've never seen anything making me doubt the landing, and Musk isn't likely to convince me of the opposite. He's not a rocket scientist and has repeatedly made nonsensical statements about SpaceX rockets, too.
Also, if we can get to Mars with a lander with basically the same rocket technology why not get to the moon?
Quote from: Redwolf on April 15, 2025, 09:39:46 AMI've never seen anything making me doubt the landing, and Musk isn't likely to convince me of the opposite. He's not a rocket scientist and has repeatedly made nonsensical statements about SpaceX rockets, too.
This is what I'm looking to avoid in this thread. To be clear, Musk did not directly challenge the legitimacy of the 1969 lunar landing. He simply noted the quantity of fuel that would be required to escape the earth's atmosphere and get back from a landing on the moon with technology today, and it requires several rockets larger than the Saturn V. This has been mathematically corroborated by NASA engineers, as noted in the OP. This also seems to have been noted by Wernher von Braun. So this really has nothing to do with Musk. His statement on this issue simply led to people wondering, wait a second, if it requires that much fuel today in 2025, how the hell did they do it in 1969?
Just for purposes of the record, although Musk may not be a "rocket scientist" he is no slouch when it comes to science and physics. He does hold a bachelor's degree in physics, and he was accepted into Stanford's PhD program in energy physics/material science (although he did drop out early in the program to go become a billionaire). :huh:
Quote from: Redwolf on April 15, 2025, 09:39:46 AMAs for fuel quantity, the distance to the moon doesn't matter that much. Escaping Earth's gravity and atmosphere is what counts, once there you won't need much fuel to go places.
Once you achieved a certain speed you maintain that speed in space (once you leave Earth's gravity).
You would only need fuel to slow you down once you reached the moon.
Escaping the Moon takes far less fuel because the Moon's lower gravity and the much smaller weight of the landing module.
There are also reflectors left on the moon that return a beam of light send from Earth.
One of them is left behind by Apollo 11 !
Some amateur astronomers have successfully conducted laser experiments with the Moon's retroreflectors but it requires advanced equipment, careful planning, and a good understanding of the necessary optics and timing (
see 2nd video below)
Most successful attempts have been carried out by well-equipped research institutions rather than individual amateurs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_retroreflectors_on_the_Moon
And now for real :
So what is to be made of the claim by actual NASA engineers (not just Musk) that several rocket launches are required for refueling in earth orbit? Is that, put simply, bull$hit? I'm aware generally how Newtonian physics work in a zero-g environment, but where is the mathematics and science to discredit that claim? I haven't looked.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on April 15, 2025, 11:01:24 AMSo what is to be made of the claim by actual NASA engineers (not just Musk) that several rocket launches are required for refueling in earth orbit? Is that, put simply, bull$hit? I'm aware generally how Newtonian physics work in a zero-g environment, but where is the mathematics and science to discredit that claim? I haven't looked.
Again, how do we get to Mars today if escaping the Earth needs that much fuel?
The rocket equation is reasonably simple but a differential equation, so it is a bit uncomfortable to work with. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation You could probably calculate if the Saturn's fuel load could escape Earth even without taking into account that the rocket gets lighter from burned fuel. But if it doesn't it won't answer the original question.
In any case, it is bogus to say that several launches with extra fuel would be needed. Almost all of the initial weight of the Saturn launches is fuel. So you wouldn't be able to launch a lot of fuel for refueling with secondary launches. If the Saturn's initial fuel wasn't sufficient then a refueling project would not help.
Quote from: Redwolf on April 15, 2025, 12:01:15 PMQuote from: Jarhead0331 on April 15, 2025, 11:01:24 AMSo what is to be made of the claim by actual NASA engineers (not just Musk) that several rocket launches are required for refueling in earth orbit? Is that, put simply, bull$hit? I'm aware generally how Newtonian physics work in a zero-g environment, but where is the mathematics and science to discredit that claim? I haven't looked.
Again, how do we get to Mars today if escaping the Earth needs that much fuel?
The rocket equation is reasonably simple but a differential equation, so it is a bit uncomfortable to work with. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation You could probably calculate if the Saturn's fuel load could escape Earth even without taking into account that the rocket gets lighter from burned fuel. But if it doesn't it won't answer the original question.
In any case, it is bogus to say that several launches with extra fuel would be needed. Almost all of the initial weight of the Saturn launches is fuel. So you wouldn't be able to launch a lot of fuel for refueling with secondary launches. If the Saturn's initial fuel wasn't sufficient then a refueling project would not help.
We don't get to Mars today. We probably won't get their until 2031.
I'm doing a little more research on it and I think Musk's conclusions about the number of launches required to adequately fuel his trip to the moon today is not necessarily mutually exclusive of NASA having reached the moon in 1969. Some may be taking what he said about the theoretical trip today and misapplying the science behind it to the events of 1969. It does seem clear and indisputable that a trip today would take several launches to adequately fuel a rocket in earth orbit so that it could reach the moon, turn around and return.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on April 15, 2025, 12:07:21 PMQuote from: Redwolf on April 15, 2025, 12:01:15 PMQuote from: Jarhead0331 on April 15, 2025, 11:01:24 AMSo what is to be made of the claim by actual NASA engineers (not just Musk) that several rocket launches are required for refueling in earth orbit? Is that, put simply, bull$hit? I'm aware generally how Newtonian physics work in a zero-g environment, but where is the mathematics and science to discredit that claim? I haven't looked.
Again, how do we get to Mars today if escaping the Earth needs that much fuel?
The rocket equation is reasonably simple but a differential equation, so it is a bit uncomfortable to work with. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation You could probably calculate if the Saturn's fuel load could escape Earth even without taking into account that the rocket gets lighter from burned fuel. But if it doesn't it won't answer the original question.
In any case, it is bogus to say that several launches with extra fuel would be needed. Almost all of the initial weight of the Saturn launches is fuel. So you wouldn't be able to launch a lot of fuel for refueling with secondary launches. If the Saturn's initial fuel wasn't sufficient then a refueling project would not help.
We don't get to Mars today. We probably won't get their until 2031.
We are flying pretty big rovers over there.
Quote from: Redwolf on April 15, 2025, 12:29:35 PMQuote from: Jarhead0331 on April 15, 2025, 12:07:21 PMQuote from: Redwolf on April 15, 2025, 12:01:15 PMQuote from: Jarhead0331 on April 15, 2025, 11:01:24 AMSo what is to be made of the claim by actual NASA engineers (not just Musk) that several rocket launches are required for refueling in earth orbit? Is that, put simply, bull$hit? I'm aware generally how Newtonian physics work in a zero-g environment, but where is the mathematics and science to discredit that claim? I haven't looked.
Again, how do we get to Mars today if escaping the Earth needs that much fuel?
The rocket equation is reasonably simple but a differential equation, so it is a bit uncomfortable to work with. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation You could probably calculate if the Saturn's fuel load could escape Earth even without taking into account that the rocket gets lighter from burned fuel. But if it doesn't it won't answer the original question.
In any case, it is bogus to say that several launches with extra fuel would be needed. Almost all of the initial weight of the Saturn launches is fuel. So you wouldn't be able to launch a lot of fuel for refueling with secondary launches. If the Saturn's initial fuel wasn't sufficient then a refueling project would not help.
We don't get to Mars today. We probably won't get their until 2031.
We are flying pretty big rovers over there.
There is a big difference from sending a rover and a manned vehicle. It's apples and oranges.
If the mission is not to just go the moon but build a base on the moon, the payload of a rocket (and size of the rocket) will increase. As a result more propellant will be needed to escape the gravity of Earth.
Unless you want to shorten the time for a trip by increasing the speed of the rocket I see no need for refueling (and relaunching).
Relaunching in space will require less fuel and gain more speed because of the lack of gravity.
But you will need more fuel to slow down when arriving at the moon if the rocket has a heavier payload and a higher speed.
As I listened to the video again I'm starting to think he is misunderstood (and I believe on purpose to fuel the conspiracy).
He also used a clip with Von Braun (claiming you will need refueling) but forget to mention this is from 1955 !
What Musk meant, according to me, is that it will require multiple launches to get everything to the Moon with different rockets.
Not one rocket with multiple relaunches in space.
The failure in their explanation (and they know it - check their expression around 4 min 20) is that when you can't get a single rocket to the moon than you also can't get a second or third refueling rocket to a place between Earth & Moon.
The term "NASA lost the technology" is very misleading. We still have the knowledge, but the technology we originally used to go to the moon does not exist anymore, as in it has been scrapped.
Why would you want to rebuild a rocket from 1969 today anyway ?
It is like saying that if you can't find a working Apple II computer today it means the technology can't exist.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on April 15, 2025, 12:30:20 PMQuote from: Redwolf on April 15, 2025, 12:29:35 PMWe are flying pretty big rovers over there.
There is a big difference from sending a rover and a manned vehicle. It's apples and oranges.
Not from a rocket fuel standpoint.
Quote from: Redwolf on April 15, 2025, 01:39:43 PMQuote from: Jarhead0331 on April 15, 2025, 12:30:20 PMQuote from: Redwolf on April 15, 2025, 12:29:35 PMWe are flying pretty big rovers over there.
There is a big difference from sending a rover and a manned vehicle. It's apples and oranges.
Not from a rocket fuel standpoint.
Disagreed. The payload for a manned mission to Mars will be much larger and therefore heavier than the payload for a single rover. It will therefore require more rocket fuel to escape earth orbit, no?
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on April 15, 2025, 03:41:51 PMQuote from: Redwolf on April 15, 2025, 01:39:43 PMQuote from: Jarhead0331 on April 15, 2025, 12:30:20 PMQuote from: Redwolf on April 15, 2025, 12:29:35 PMWe are flying pretty big rovers over there.
There is a big difference from sending a rover and a manned vehicle. It's apples and oranges.
Not from a rocket fuel standpoint.
Disagreed. The payload for a manned mission to Mars will be much larger and therefore heavier than the payload for a single rover. It will therefore require more rocket fuel to escape earth orbit, no?
It also has to work against the sun's gravity. That is why we have so few launch windows, we have to wait for the planets to be positioned the right way. Our current rockets could get nothing to Mars, not even a rice grain, if you wanted to go straight at it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploration_of_Mars#Launch_windows
I was comparing it to get people to the moon, though. I argue that if single rockets can get a rover to Mars they can get people to the moon. Especially on the rather large Saturn rocket.
To be honest, even after watching the original video, this all strikes me as more of Elon Musk's typical "just asking questions" concern trolling bullshit. On a much smaller level, he pulled the same shit with Wikipedia, riling up his conspiracy-loving followers by "just asking questions" about why the Wiki foundation needs so much money in donations when the entirety of the website is just text that can fit on your phone.
Like you pointed out, he's a smart guy -- he
knows that hosting fees are expensive, and
that's what the Wiki foundation needs money for... but he doesn't care, because Wikipedia is "the enemy" (liberal-leaning media) and he just wanted to sic his followers on them with the plausibile deniability of "just asking questions."
This strikes me as more of the same. Don't trust those lying goons over at NASA! Trust me, the only honest, trustworthy, and transparent billionaire on the planet!
It all reminds me of a recent holocaust denier post that "ran through the statistics" about oven capacity or whatever-the-fuck and claimed that there's no mathematical way 6 million Jews could have been killed in the holocaust, completely ignoring that the "holocaust" refers to a lot more than just Jews going into ovens. But as long as you couch it as "just asking questions" or "just looking at the stats" then you're all good!
I like the host's Blood Incantation shirt, though! :RockOn:
Quote from: Pete Dero on April 15, 2025, 01:07:29 PMThe failure in their explanation (and they know it - check their expression around 4 min 20
Basically what I'm saying. They know they're not giving the whole story, but that's not the point. The point is to cast doubts and make Musk seem like the only straight and narrow guy in a pit of vipers.
^You really disappoint me sometimes, Al. Thanks for the tirade that is totally off point, off topic and baseless. It's just more of your typical knee-jerk emotional rantings. Please keep it to yourself. You are capable of so much more.
It's not off topic. Your original post is about Elon Musk questioning the official, mainstream narrative of the moon landings. Do you really not see the connection between other conspiracy theories like holocaust denial? I only brought up Wikipedia because that's something I actually know a thing or two about, and it was a pretty blatant example of Musk's "just asking questions" that he already knows the answer to. It's 100% relevant to this thread because I'm positing he's doing the same thing.
But if you prefer, I'll just keep my mouth shut.
Quote from: al_infierno on April 15, 2025, 05:31:28 PMIt's not off topic. Your original post is about Elon Musk questioning the official, mainstream narrative of the moon landings. Do you really not see the connection between other conspiracy theories like holocaust denial? I only brought up Wikipedia because that's something I actually know a thing or two about, and it was a pretty blatant example of Musk's "just asking questions" that he already knows the answer to. It's 100% relevant to this thread because I'm positing he's doing the same thing.
But if you prefer, I'll just keep my mouth shut.
It is totally off topic. You've clearly neither read the posts in this thread nor Musk's actual statement, which has nothing to do with denying the lunar landing in 1969. This is not a political issue. Its about the quantity of fuel required to land on the god damn moon. That is all Musk was talking about and its not just him. There are also NASA engineers discussing the issue. Holocaust denial? WTF!? You're off your rocker.
In case I didn't make myself clear, yes. Keep your mouth shut.
I didn't watch the video you posted however I have watched other videos on YouTube about this very question.
While I'm no astro physicist I am interested in science and it's explanations of the universe. I'm also interested in crafty psy ops and the tactics used to deceive many. I'm not saying the moon landing was a hoax or a deception, but I'm also not convinced everything happened exactly as they say it did.
They say now that something like 7 other nations have made it to the moon? I definitely believe the US got there first and I definitely believe China is doing some experimentation up there now as well.
Supposedly, India, Japan, and some others made it to the moon. All of it believable IMHO.
Quote from: al_infierno on April 15, 2025, 05:07:47 PMTo be honest, even after watching the original video, this all strikes me as more of Elon Musk's typical "just asking questions" concern trolling bullshit.
After a bit more research I am still convinced they are abusing something Musk said to to support their position (moon trip was/is impossible - their words,
nothing Musk said).
The Saturn V was built for the specific task of getting astronauts to the Moon and back in one trip, with a payload capacity tailored to that mission. It could carry around 48,600 kg to the Moon, including all necessary fuel for the return journey. In contrast, Starship is designed for much more ambitious missions, including Mars colonization and other deep space endeavors. Its payload capacity is significantly higher, but
it requires multiple launches to refuel in orbit for longer missions.
The fact that Starship needs refueling doesn't invalidate that Saturn V went to the Moon.
SpaceX anticipates that Starship V.3 will be able to carry 200,000 kg fully reusable and 400,000 kg expendable (almost ten times the Saturn V payload).
In conclusion : we actually went to the moon :Nerd: !
Consider the cold war times.
If any Apollo moon landing was staged the Russians would have noticed it with all their spies, HUMINT, SIGINT all over the place to cover the Apollo program and had smeard the USA instantly in public with the evidence they had gethered.
They remaind silent, and are still today.
It was real.
Quote from: Pete Dero on April 16, 2025, 03:14:16 AMQuote from: al_infierno on April 15, 2025, 05:07:47 PMTo be honest, even after watching the original video, this all strikes me as more of Elon Musk's typical "just asking questions" concern trolling bullshit.
After a bit more research I am still convinced they are abusing something Musk said to to support their position (moon trip was/is impossible - their words, nothing Musk said).
The Saturn V was built for the specific task of getting astronauts to the Moon and back in one trip, with a payload capacity tailored to that mission. It could carry around 48,600 kg to the Moon, including all necessary fuel for the return journey. In contrast, Starship is designed for much more ambitious missions, including Mars colonization and other deep space endeavors. Its payload capacity is significantly higher, but it requires multiple launches to refuel in orbit for longer missions.
The fact that Starship needs refueling doesn't invalidate that Saturn V went to the Moon.
SpaceX anticipates that Starship V.3 will be able to carry 200,000 kg fully reusable and 400,000 kg expendable (almost ten times the Saturn V payload).
In conclusion : we actually went to the moon :Nerd: !
This is pretty much what I said above, that SpaceX needing to refuel is not mutually exclusive of Saturn V not needing to. Therefore, Musk's statement and the lunar landing in 69 can both be true, and yes, people are taking his statements out of context.
I also think that as a conspiracy this involves too many people, basically all of NASA and the contractors. That's pretty bad from a conspiracy management standpoint.
Here is an article comparing the Saturn V with Space X Starship. https://orbitaltoday.com/2022/09/05/starship-vs-saturn-v-choosing-a-winner/ (https://orbitaltoday.com/wp-content/webp-express/webp-images/doc-root/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/starship_vs_Saturn5_infographics-1.jpg.webp)
and from https://spaceflightnow.com/2023/04/17/how-spacexs-starship-stacks-up-to-other-rockets/#:~:text=Its%2033%20Raptor%20engines%20will%20generate%20more%20than,dwarfed%20by%20the%20capability%20being%20built%20into%20Starship. "Its 33 Raptor engines will generate more than 16 million pounds of thrust, roughly twice that of the Saturn 5." [7.5 million]
I didn't watch the film, sorry, but is it Starship and not Falcon 9 or Falcon Heavy that are being compared to the Saturn V?
Saturn V is very different from Starship, with a very different and much more limited mission.
The below quote is attributed to Musk. It actually just popped up in my Facebook feed, so who knows if it's authentic or complete.
Quote"Starship is gigantic compared to anything that's ever been done before. This is not like a tiny little thing lands on the moon. This is a giant-ass spaceship lands on the moon.
It's capable of putting 100 tons of payload on the moon, so a lot. We can go way beyond what was done with the Apollo program, where they just had a small lander, and they were on the surface of the moon for some number of hours, and then they got back in and took off.
The Apollo program was not capable of building a moon base. But the Starship system is capable of building a moon base. It's designed to be capable of building a city on the moon or Mars. That's what the system is designed to be able to do."
So? It doesn't say anything about Saturn V not being able to put a small lander on the moon.
Quote from: Redwolf on April 17, 2025, 09:37:25 AMSo? It doesn't say anything about Saturn V not being able to put a small lander on the moon.
Musk never said Saturn V couldn't do that.
He said that because Starship has a much bigger payload for a similar size rocket, it will need refueling.
The conspiracy guy in the video used that to say that Saturn V couldn't reach the Moon without refueling.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on April 17, 2025, 05:33:50 AMpopped up in my Facebook feed
I am not on any social media. I just have a YouTube subscription and, after watching that video a few times, I encountered the 'Social Media Rabbit Hole' :idiot2: :tickedoff:
Right now my suggestions contain
proof that :
- The Earth is flat
- The Moon landing was fake
- Reincarnation exists
- Time travel is already been used
- Alien artifacts are found on Mars
- Everything is fake because we live in a simulation
Now I have to watch a lot of interviews with Pornstars to make my suggestions make sense again :ROFL: .
Quote from: Pete Dero on April 17, 2025, 10:36:27 AMQuote from: Jarhead0331 on April 17, 2025, 05:33:50 AMpopped up in my Facebook feed
I am not on any social media. I just have a YouTube subscription and, after watching that video a few times, I encountered the 'Social Media Rabbit Hole' :idiot2: :tickedoff:
Right now my suggestions contain proof that :
- The Earth is flat
- The Moon landing was fake
- Reincarnation exists
- Time travel is already been used
- Alien artifacts are found on Mars
- Everything is fake because we live in a simulation
Now I have to watch a lot of interviews with Pornstars to make my suggestions make sense again :ROFL: .
Could you please post interviews that will advance my understanding of rocket science and biology simultaneously.
Quote from: Uberhaus on April 17, 2025, 11:44:22 AMQuote from: Pete Dero on April 17, 2025, 10:36:27 AMQuote from: Jarhead0331 on April 17, 2025, 05:33:50 AMpopped up in my Facebook feed
I am not on any social media. I just have a YouTube subscription and, after watching that video a few times, I encountered the 'Social Media Rabbit Hole' :idiot2: :tickedoff:
Right now my suggestions contain proof that :
- The Earth is flat
- The Moon landing was fake
- Reincarnation exists
- Time travel is already been used
- Alien artifacts are found on Mars
- Everything is fake because we live in a simulation
Now I have to watch a lot of interviews with Pornstars to make my suggestions make sense again :ROFL: .
Could you please post interviews that will advance my understanding of rocket science and biology simultaneously.
Sure...start here.
Quote from: Uberhaus on April 17, 2025, 11:44:22 AMCould you please post interviews that will advance my understanding of rocket science and biology simultaneously.
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/FZYd7OZFw08/maxresdefault.jpg)
what a surprise... a crayon eating lawyer pimping conspiracy theories. :ROFL: