| Here are the most popular reasons. Please do not attack me personally; I'm only trying to summarize the viewpoint for someone who asked: 1. The Van Allen belts are filled with lethal, impenetrable radiation. An attempt to "clear them out" using a bomb (called Starfish Prime) only made it worse. In 2021, there's still no fix for this nor a launch module that can carry the shielding that would protect people. 2. The computer technology required to plan and command a space module simply didn't exist at the time. Too much math is required too fast for realtime control, especially given the delays caused by the distance. 3. Werner von Braun, the primary proponent of the moon launch, did not believe that the moon could be reached directly because the necessary rocket would be too heavy to take off. There's no fuel that could do it and get there. From the beginning, he proposed a "build a base nearby" approach, not a direct moon landing. When that was rejected, he quit the program. 4. Video and photo evidence is highly suspect and contains many anomalies which, with contemporary computer-aided evaluation, can be shown to contain lighting and reflections which could not originate on the surface of the moon unless ancillary lighting was carried there, which NASA says it was not. 5. NASA has been historically obtuse on contemporary answers to many of these questions. If the landing took place, the answers should be public and obvious. 6. In 2021, there is no battery or air conditioning technology which would work for the times and temperatures required on the moon. Since it doesn't exist today, it probably didn't exist then. 7. Any developed technology gets easier and cheaper. Moon landings have not only not gotten cheaper, they've never been "repeated." No other country has made an attempt to send humans. Being as old as it is, space tech should be mature, cheap, and easy and it's not. 8. It's enormously difficult to send people even into Low Earth Orbit, as evidenced by the problems with contemporary private attempts and even with the ISS. There is no evidence other than the moon landing to show that people could leave earth's orbit and return to land safely. The most widespread contemporary viewpoint among moon deniers is that the project was originally intended to succeed but, when that was proven to be impossible (first by the Soviets), a PR plan based on movies and photos was delivered instead. It's not unreasonable given the era and general beliefs at the time. A moon PR program delivered many national benefits and changed the way we view tech, both of which are good things. Many moon deniers hope that some of these issues will come to light specifically so that real space exploration can move forward and free man from a sci-fi fantasy of the 50's.[0] [0] https://www.aulis.com/ |
What would be the counter-arguments to these points that seem very reasonable for someone who never really looked into the landings at all.