24
Debate: Did the moon landing really take 8 years or was it faked faster?
I was reading about the Apollo program the other day and it got me thinking about how long things actually take versus what we're told. The official story says it took about 8 years from Kennedy's speech to landing on the moon in 1969. But here's the thing I keep coming back to: we haven't been back since 1972 and the tech we had back then seems almost impossible to pull off with 1960s computers. My uncle worked at NASA in Houston as a janitor in the 60s and he always said the timeline felt too tight for what they claimed to accomplish. Then again I look at stuff like my pressure washer rebuild last month that took me 3 weekends instead of the 1 I planned and I wonder if I'm just underestimating how fast motivated people can work. What's your take on this? Do you think the 8 year timeline is realistic or is there something fishy about how fast it all came together?
2 comments
Log in to join the discussion
Log In2 Comments
roberts.jordan24d ago
Oh wait, I think there's a small mix-up in your timeline there. Kennedy gave his speech in May 1961 and Apollo 11 landed in July 1969, so that's actually more like 8 years and 2 months, not exactly 8 years. Also, we did go back after 1972! Apollo 17 was December 1972, but Apollo 18, 19, and 20 were all canceled due to budget cuts and shifting priorities, so it's not like we just stopped because the tech was fake or anything. The jump from Mercury to Apollo really was that fast because they had a clear goal and threw tons of money and smart people at it, which is way different than rebuilding a pressure washer on your weekends. Your uncle being a janitor at NASA is cool, but he probably wasn't in the rooms where the engineers were crunching numbers and testing everything, so his gut feeling might just be that.
1
daniel55224d ago
But doesn't all that government money just mean they had incentive to fake it?
2