For reference, I have already told them why the sky has no stars (it’s because of camera exposure, the moon surface is very reflective so lower exposure is used to not overexpose the image) and why the flag wasn’t drooping down (there was an extending arm in the stand to hold it upright, as a flag drooping down is a sad flag). I have also explained that the videos of the moon landing were upscaled/remastered when they asked why the video quality of the clips were so good.
Currently, their main argument is the fact that the U.S. were able to do the moon landing in the mid 20th century while are experiencing delays for the current moon mission. They argue that, if the moon landing could be done way back then, with modern technology, it should be possible to quickly get back to the moon. They also argue NASA could have just reused the same designs as the Apollo missions if they actually went to the moon.
I have argued that NASA’s budget is a fraction of what is used to be, and that the addition of new modern technologies introduces additional parts that could break and thus need to be tested. I have also mentioned that the Soviet Union would immediately call out the US if they faked the moon landing, and that samples of moon rocks were sent to Soviet scientists to study and verify. They insist that the Soviets were scared of what the US would do if they spoke out against a fake moon landing, which I didn’t agree with (given they were both nuclear superpowers)
They then argued that it’s impossible to tell whether the moon rocks are actually from the moon landing, they could be samples collected by rovers. I responded that no rovers had successfully collected moon rocks at the time, and then they switched to arguing that it’s impossible to verify the rocks are from the moon. I followed up by saying there are methods of doing that (through the composition of the rocks and such). They then asked how anybody knows what moon rocks look like if nobody else has been to the moon, and I got kind of stumped. I tried to explain that there are models to how the moon formed, how we know the rocks aren’t from Earth, satellites that map out the surface, etc., but they reiterated that no one can “prove” that they were from the moon without going there in the first place.
One interesting thing they also mentioned is that, if the US really did do a moon landing, why the Soviets (during cold war era) or Chinese (in modern era) didn’t do what they do best and copied their designs to land on the moon. Given that the US and China are having a new space race with the goal of being the first to establish a lunar base, they argue that China could just copy the Apollo program designs if the US really did do a moon landing.
To summarise, their main points/questions right now are: a) Explain why the US hasn’t gone back in so long, and why with modern technology it seems so difficult? (especially given that NASA has been experiencing numerous delays in the Artemis missions, that certainly hasn’t given them a good impression…) b) How do you verify moon rocks without having actually been on the moon? How did scientists figure out what a moon rock looks like? c) Why aren’t the old Apollo designs being reused for a moon landing? (by either the Americans or the Chinese)
They say that there isn’t strong evidence either side (but believes that it is false, saying that “we will see” once someone else lands on the moon)
And what other points can I bring up to definitively say, yes, the moon landing wasn’t faked?
edit:
Another thing, they also can’t believe that astronauts could bring and ride the little moon buggies. I am also partially interested in how that was achieved to be honest!
The Apollo missions were staged, that’s 100% a fact.
Jokes aside, yeah Soviets are the answer. If there was the slightest inkling that we faked it, they wouldn’t have come out to congratulate us.
My go-to is to just beg them to play Kerbal Space Program
They argue that, if the moon landing could be done way back then, with modern technology, it should be possible to quickly get back to the moon.
In the 1960s, getting to the moon was the most important thing in the solar system. The Soviet Union and the US spent ungodly amounts of money and risked uncountable lives in this endeavor. We did the thing, and now we’ve done the thing. We aren’t willing to risk those lives or spend that money anymore. New missions have to be much, much cheaper and much, much safer.
Technology has definitely improved, but there is a physical limit to the amount of energy that you can pull out of a given mass of kerosene and liquid oxygen. Getting to space hasn’t gotten any lighter, and fuel mass has always been the biggest hurdle. Again, play KSP. It will brand the tyranny of the rocket equation into your soul.
They also argue NASA could have just reused the same designs as the Apollo missions if they actually went to the moon.
They could, in the same way that we could start sending children underground to mine for coal again
To summarise,
a) Been there, done that. Anything new will involve sending more mass than the Apollo missions had to deal with. Tyranny of the rocket equation: more mass means more fuel means more thrusters means more mass means more fuel…
b) I could do some research and come back, but there is no answer to this that will satisfy a moon landing denier, because any explanation would require a baseline understanding of chemistry and also trust in the institutions that examine these moon rocks.
c) The answer to a also applies here
Wait, y’all believe in the moon?
Not only do some conspiracy theorists not believe in the Moon, there are so many of them that there’s a variety of these beliefs.
- Lunar Hologram Theory: The most popular term. It suggests the Moon is a projection onto the “firmament” or a cloaking device used by advanced civilizations or governments.
- The Hollow Moon / Spaceship Moon: While these versions allow for a physical object, they argue the Moon is an artificial structure (essentially a giant satellite or base) rather than a natural celestial body.
- Plasma Moon: A subset of the Flat Earth community often argues the Moon is a localized “cold light” or a plasma phenomenon, rather than a solid mass reflecting the Sun.
So yeah. Poe’s Law, there’s nothing so dumb that you won’t find someone actually believing it.
You missed cheese moon
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
I don’t even believe in myself.
The Russians admitted it.
That would be my main argument as well - if it had been faked, the Soviets would have known and cried foul.
a) Explain why the US hasn’t gone back in so long, and why with modern technology it seems so difficult?
Going to the moon is expensive and has essentially no direct revenue. There are no resources to be had on the moon that provide worthwhile efficiency over what we already have on earth, and most of the basic science was done by the Apollo missions.
How do you verify moon rocks without having actually been on the moon? How did scientists figure out what a moon rock looks like?
Getting moon rocks, which have a unique microscopic texture due to no water erosion, was one of those “basic science” bits I mentioned before. They don’t really prove the moon landing except that “they’re from the moon” is the simplest answer for why these rocks have that unique texture.
Why aren’t the old Apollo designs being reused for a moon landing? (by either the Americans or the Chinese)
Because thre 1960s were fifty years ago.
The industrial base to build an Apollo rocket isn’t there anymore than the industrial base to build a 1965 Buick skylark or an Atati 2600. You could throw money and rebuild all those factories, but it’d dramatically balloon the cost even before you start to recon with correcting the inevitable mismatch between the original spec and what your rebuilt factory can make.
(And even if we did just rebuild Apollo, we’d wind up with a rocket that didn’t have the advantage of 50 years of advancement.)
That was really helpful, thanks! I will try bring up some of those points in the future. Makes sense that going to the moon is expensive especially given that NASA’s budget is so much smaller now.
The Saturn V rocket was also massive overkill on power. It had about 50% more thrust than a falcon heavy that is currently being used for planned moon missions.
theres retroreflectors on the moon that were intentionally. imstalled so that precise aiming of a laser would signify someone installed it on the moon if you saw the reflection back
theyre used to measure the moon earth distance but the fact that installation is there in that time period shows man was on the moon
Okay that is actually kind of cool. I never knew this was done! I am anticipating that they would ask whether they were placed by humans or rovers/landers/non-human methods, so was it possible (at the time) to put these retroreflectors on the moon without human intervention? I’m assuming, like the collection of moon rocks, it was not (otherwise why would they bother with having humans doing it with all that human error?)
To be fair (basically the only time I’ll say that in reference to Moon landing deniers) there are also retroreflectors like those mounted on some of the unmanned landers and rovers that have been sent to the Moon as well. So this alone isn’t going to “convince” him. It does indicate that the Americans were able to launch something to the Moon and land it at the same time that the Apollo missions were underway, so if you were dealing with a rational person who could be convinced by reason this would still count for something.
Unfortunately, I doubt that’s what’s going on here.
Without the ability of a private person to verify that, though, it’s no more persuasive than explaining all the other things we did up there.
And if the person is capable enough to actually use a laser to accurately target and measure the reflection of these retroreflectors, they’re not a moon landing denier.
you cant win everyone. similar to flat earthers who refuse to go on a paid trip to see 24 hour sun is up day, they will believe the shit till the end
Explain why the US hasn’t gone back in so long, and why with modern technology it seems so difficult?
The Apollo program took 4.5% of the US budget. NASA’s entire budget now—including space telescopes, earth satellites, and interplanetary probes—is less than half of one percent.
If traveling to the Moon is so expensive, why were six crewed missions sent? Wouldn’t one have been enough?
Why build one when you can build two at twice the price!
/s Contact quote
Seriously though, the cost was largely in the preparation. At some point you want to get more out of all that work. Yes, it was expensive for each actual launch. I wonder what the cost of stopping at the first one would have been. I’m WAGing that half the cost was getting there the first time. The other half was 5 more. That would be an interesting stat to know.
Woah that is kind of insane, I did not know that the modern budget was that much lower! :0
The reason we can’t build the same thing as before is because the tooling is all gone, the set up of tools used to make those parts no longer exists. Half of designing a large complex thing is setting up all the machinery to actually produce what you want, testing and checking and dialing everything in, verifying that what you’re getting out is with in tolerances and will fit together properly. Building test segments and measuring how the behave and then going back and readjusting all the tools to account for differences and altering the design to match what you can actually make. Also all the people who knew the ins and outs of the old designs and manufacturing processes to make them are retired (and probably have forgotten some stuff) or dead. Recreating those production lines, manufacturing methods, retesting and dialing it all in, it would be expensive and time consuming, more so than just building something new based on modern manufacturing techniques and using already produced parts.
And we have been doing that… but it’s not getting nearly the same level of funding the Apollo program had, nor the same level of political commitment. Between 1963 and 1971, nasa’s budget was on average double what it is today (accounting for inflation) and they were allowed to focus most of that on a single project for that whole 8 year period. Compare that to today where nasa has hundreds of different projects ( ISS, near earth science satellites, mars rovers, probes to asteroids and outer planets, Artemis) and their goals and plans get whiplashed about every 4 years each time the administration changes. Not to mention Boeing routinely running over budget and over time and forcing nasa to foot the bill for their fuck ups. Blue origin and space X are also behind schedule on their lander projects as well.
So why were we able to do it back then and can’t now? NASA got the funding they needed, got to focus most of it on a single project and got to make a long term plan and stick with it, and private companies were much less willing to screw them over for a quick buck.
Velco them to a stiff board, tilt it so their head is reclined, cover their face with a rag, and pour Tang onto them until they acquiesce.
Ask them what type of evidence would convince them and go from there. If what they say is reasonable, present it. If not, then there’s nothing that will convince them
Tell them the landing was real, because if it wasn’t then how would the aliens on the dark side of the moon have told us not to come back?
(This is something my co worker unironically believes)
Ya’ll believe in the moon?
Apollo 11 landing site taken by ISRO’s Chandrayaan-2 Orbiter:
Never accept the premise of assholes.
They’ve made the dumbass claim that the earth is flat, so it’s their job to prove it. All you have to do is reject every idiotic piece of faulty logic they cough up as stupid.
They made the claim, make them do all the lifting, then just be dismissive, and give them nothing that resembles frustration.
Point out that their theory can be completely ignored without consequences.
a) Explain why the US hasn’t gone back in so long,
Why would they? Nothing of value came from any of those missions and the risk is enormous.
and why with modern technology it seems so difficult? (especially given that NASA has been experiencing numerous delays in the Artemis missions, that certainly hasn’t given them a good impression…)
Because transistors are a lot more sensitive to EM than valves. Our current technology miniaturized lots of things, but that also means that a single piece of conductive material (like moon dust) or a single electron (from an em pulse) in the wrong place can wreak havok to it. Old computers required lots more electrons and space for their actual function so they were a lot more resistent to random variations. And we can’t make old computers anymore because we don’t have the factories for them, and you’re not going to create an entire factory just to produce a couple pieces for one mission, so they have to focus on isolating and making things more resistent.
b) How do you verify moon rocks without having actually been on the moon? How did scientists figure out what a moon rock looks like?
The moon is constantly being bombarded by unfiltered radiation because of its lack of atmosphere. This makes it so they’re composed of minerals that rarely occur on earth (they usually bind with oxygen or nitrogen in the atmosphere), have different isotopes (because of the radiation) and are much older (because no interference from tectonic movement/rain/wind/etc)
c) Why aren’t the old Apollo designs being reused for a moon landing? (by either the Americans or the Chinese)
Because they can’t for the same reason the US can’t, they don’t work with modern electronics, and no one can produce old electronics.
They say that there isn’t strong evidence either side (but believes that it is false, saying that “we will see” once someone else lands on the moon)
There is very strong evidence, your friend can corroborate for himself by spending a few thousand dollars (or he can understand that if anyone wanted to they could). First you need to buy a very powerful laser, then a very sensitive sensor, you hook them so they very close together and fire at the moon, you will never get a reading back, because the moon surface is a difuse reflector with a rough surface the light will scatter and go everywhere. However, when the astronauts went to the moon they left retroreflectors in specific locations, so if you pointed at one of those you would get the signal back approximately 2.5 second later.
And what other points can I bring up to definitively say, yes, the moon landing wasn’t faked?
I guess it’s easier to ask them “what evidence would convince you” because the answer will be none, of there was any evidence that would convince them they would have been convinced already.
Another thing, they also can’t believe that astronauts could bring and ride the little moon buggies. I am also partially interested in how that was achieved to be honest!
Not sure what’s there to not understand about this, so I’ll just say same way cars get to a dealership and you ride them afterwards.
