Description

Square image with a dark background, with an illustration of a multi-stage rocket depicted horizontally in the center. Above the rocket, white text reads, “the moon landing was staged?” Below the rocket, more white text reads “yeah that’s how all orbital rockets fucking work dude”

    • dactylotheca@suppo.fiOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      You mean single stage to orbit fans?

      Honestly I’m surprised at the amount of people making SSTO jokes in the comments without knowing what that initialism stands for

  • EmperorHenry@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    42
    ·
    4 days ago

    I looked into this a long time ago, it would’ve been more expensive to fake it than it was to just do it.

    We would’ve needed to somehow convince Russia to lie on our behalf. We would’ve needed to convince the dictatorship of australia to also lie on our behalf.

    The rooskies came out and said we beat them to it, and the aussies claimed they recived the camera feed and the audio feed from space and then echoed it to their TV network

    • neidu2@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      4 days ago

      That Mitchell and Webb sketch where they discuss faking the moonlanding to save money, and the only real savings was on catering…

      • MisterFrog@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 days ago

        I too feel like I’m missing context on a joke here.

        This was before the fateful Whitlam dismissal by the monarchy / potentially the CIA.

        • psud@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          By vice regal, not regal. It was the governor general that dismissed the Whitlam government, not the monarchy

          • MisterFrog@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            The palace papers revealed the royals knew and had discussed the possibility on a handful of occasions well before the sacking, even going so far as to discuss preemptively that the monarch would not wish to take the advice of the prime minister in replacing the governor general “If such an approach was made you may be sure that The Queen would take most unkindly to it” as written by her personal secretary.

            Further, the vice regal is an extension of the regal. Nek minnit you’re gonna say, oh the US president only ordered drone strikes, it was actually the drone operators who did the killing!

            Monarchy being non-political my arse. And this isn’t the only time the royals have been seen to favour the conservatives. No surprise there of course, there is no struggle other than the class struggle.

            Fuck the Queen, fuck the monarchy, fuck the conservatives for withholding supply, and fuck the governor general.

            (Not fuck you, though, even if you do like the royals)

            • psud@aussie.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 days ago

              I’m all for making Australia a republic, and thanks for that, I hadn’t heard that the dismissal was discussed by the Queen, but of course the GG could and can consult with the crown if they’re unsure of the correct path and the regent of the day is willing to take their call

        • psud@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          Australia has free speech. Encryption is not banned. In what way do you think Australians have no bodily autonomy

          A dictatorship requires a dictator. We definitely don’t have one of those.

    • dactylotheca@suppo.fiOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Yes, exactly. In general the whole notion and everything they claim is fucking idiotic from start to finish. Outright lies, misunderstandings, misrepresented partial truths, etc.

      Those two friends of mine aren’t “gunpowder inventors” as we Finns tend to express it, ie. they’re… well, calling them stupid would be a bit too harsh, but they’re definitely not smart. I’m not surprised in the least that they fell down that rabbit hole, but fuck does it get tiring.

    • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      3 days ago

      Plus you still need to launch a bunch of massive Saturn V rockets since so many people saw them launch. Unless they paid off everyone who said they were there? Building a moon rocket that doesn’t go to the moon isn’t that much cheaper than building one that does.

    • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      Right? It was the Cold fucking War, why would the Czar of Russia or whoever was in charge work with the US on the US’ propaganda against Russia?

  • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    4 days ago

    I still prescribe to the theory that we tried to fake the moon landing, but Stanley Kubrick being a perfectionist kept insisting they shoot on location prompting us to do it for real anyway.

    • leftzero@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      edit-2
      4 days ago

      How many times are people going to post this nonsense?

      Kubrick notoriously hated filming on location.

      He of course did have NASA send astronauts to the moon to shoot background and reference pictures, he was a perfectionist, after all, but the official landing was filmed in Shepperton, England.

      Also, no one’s going to believe this unless you tell them about the practically unique Carl Zeiss Planar 50mm f/0.7 lens NASA gave him as payment, which allowed him to shoot the candlelit scenes in Barry Lyndon.

      • Venator@lemmy.nz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        Nah the landing Kubrick filmed was just a backup in case they didn’t make it or in case they had technical issues with the video stream, it was never actually broadcast.

        • leftzero@lemmynsfw.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 days ago

          It’s one of the largest relative aperture lenses in the history of photography, which means it can allow cameras to shoot in very low light. It was designed and made specifically for the NASA Apollo lunar program to photograph areas of the moon not lit by the sun.

          I suppose other manufacturers could make it (though Zeiss sort of is the lens company), and some have made similar or even faster lenses, but it probably would be very expensive and there’s not much of a market for it.

    • chaogomu@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      4 days ago

      The lander did have a stage separation though, It left the landing gear and motor on the moon, and the accent stage took it back into lunar orbit.

  • agentshags@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    4 days ago

    I had two middle aged coworkers the other day talking about how it was staged. I should have showed them both this today. But I didn’t want to engage lol.

    • dactylotheca@suppo.fiOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      Yeah it’d be a waste of your time and energy.

      I had two friends recently suddenly drop into the conspiracist nutball rabbit hole, and I really don’t have much enthusiasm to see them anymore. Last time I saw them they grilled me on the moon landings, and absolutely nothing I said meant anything to them. If I hesitated even for a second when answering one of their “accusations” they took it as proof that I’m the one who doesn’t know what they’re talking about – couldn’t be that I was trying to think of a way of explaining something to people who clearly aren’t familiar with the subject at all beyond whatever idiotic conspiracy garbage they’ve consumed.

      • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        4 days ago

        The ability of god damn morons to gaslight the intelligent… ahh… I am sadly familiar with it.

  • Ziglin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    3 days ago

    Nuh uh. They snuck the astronauts into the Star Trek sets at night and used the transporters obviously. They knew the props wouldn’t have been convincing enough…

  • Rose Thorne@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    4 days ago

    You could also have staging in model rocketry. The largest we ever had was a 3-stage running on G-size engines. The “Red, White, and Clusterfuck”. If all three stages ignited and properly, you got a solid boom outta her. The frame outlived several nosecones from the friction they had to endure.

  • mlg@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    4 days ago

    Oh yeah uh… what about SSTOs huh? I bet we’ll have some sick aerospike powered vehicles any day now!

    spoiler

    RIP Rocketdyne XRS-220

  • Bassman1805@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    4 days ago

    The Atlas rocket was single stage to orbit.

    But yeah, every Gemini and Apollo rocket was staged, as was the space shuttle.