LOL this is my favorite “argument”
“Rocket science is easy”
No one has done it in 50 years but it’s totally easy! No one can even send an unmanned vessel to take a picture but it’s totally easy according to some dude on the internet who can use the phrase “thrust vectors.”
Actually when you think about the real challenges that would be posed in such a feat, it’s not easy at all. In fact it’s anything but easy; it’s incredibly complicated and could fail at any moment for a number of reasons. Only a dumbass would shrug it off and say it’s easy when no one has done it in 50 years. (Actually no one has ever done it and never will).
By the way “it’s easy” isn’t evidence.
Notice how these people all have dumbass justifications and excuses such as “it would have been too hard to fake it” (LOL) rather than actual, observable evidence that it happened.
They can’t point to the Apollo footage because it obviously looks so fucking absolutely fake.
It's not a matter of ability to do anything. It's expensive as fuck. Regulations are fucked as well. It doesn't take a small amount of explosive propellant to lift tons of metal. Hell, how many of Elon's rockets fucked up before finally getting it right? If you're willingly ignorant in the face of any opposing facts or evidence, you might as well put in a dress and go hang out with your faggy lefty friends because that's who you sound like. White men left Earth. Deal with it nigger.
White men left Earth.
There is nothing more terrifying to the jew than that. Nothing.
There is nothing more terrifying to the jew than that. Nothing.
Literally true in every way.
Said it better than I could. People ignoring the questions about it like that make me frustrated to the point of having trouble forming counter-points to their Kool-Aid stained regurgitation.
Next you'll tell me the titanic was fake because all that metal couldn't float.
Gotta love that strawman at the end though.
Next you'll tell me the titanic was fake because all that metal couldn't float.
Gotta love that strawman at the end though.
That's hyperbole, not a strawman. He exaggerated to emphasize the point. His point is spot on. That exact same broken logic is constantly used throughout here by people supporting your anti-science position.
I explain this for the casual reader, as I expect you don't care.
If you actually start to really think in depth about pulling off such a feat, timing the trajectory, entering orbit (how and when the fuck does that even happen?), landing a craft that had never been landed successfully on earth, it’s actually all extremely complicated and impossibly sensitive, which is yet another reason they couldn’t do it with 60s technology. But these people act like it would be “easy” or “simple, it’s really quite hilarious.
The biggest difference between 60s technology and today's is processing speed and memory. An orbital transfer window doesn't need to be precise down to the second. The burn needs to be somewhat precise, but adjustments can be made. As long as you're close enough to periapsis when you accelerate, you'll change your apoapsis. Do it long enough and you'll intercept. Decelerate when you're within the gravity of another body and you'll orbit. As far as landing, the moon has no atmosphere. There's no air resistance. The brightest pilots and engineers of a generation can keep a craft vertical while descending where acceleration is far less than 9.8m/s². The lunar lander was not designed to land on Earth. It probably wouldn't even be able to get off the ground.
As I said to another user, if you're willfully ignorant and obtuse, I can't do shit for ya but shake my head and move on the same as I do with tranny faggots.
It would be pretty hard to swallow if the entire flight depended on the accuracy of the launch and thereafter flew on momentum alone. But they had the ability to correct the path along the way.
(post is archived)