Why do people call flat-earther who don't believe that man went to the moon?

I'm not an flat-earther .

Nor does it have anything to do with being the United States. Just like Russia didn't go there afterwards. It's been 50 years and has never "returned" since technology has boomed. Guys, it's 50 years! They stepped there 6 times, went and came back and never came back since. We could easily travel there.

Attachment image

10 Answers

  • 4 weeks ago

    Many people have given cogent reasons for the fact that humanity has not returned

    to the moon. But no one has mentioned what, in my opinion, is the most important

    reason. In the USA, the prime motivation for the effort to get to the moon was simply

    anti-communist hysteria. In the USSR, of course, it was anti-capitalist hysteria. In other words, the so-called "Space Race" was a prime manifestation of Cold War competition between the superpowers. 

    President John F. Kennedy is generally thought of as being some brilliant, far-seeing

    visionary for declaring in his so-called "moon speech" that the United States should,

    “commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to earth.” But that was hardly the case. The Soviet Union had accomplished a number of significant "firsts," from the first orbiting satellite (Sputnik 1) to the first man to orbit Earth (Col. Yuri Gagarin). Kennedy needed something that was flashy enough and had a long enough lead-time that the United States would have a chance to beat the Russians. He also wanted something that would distract the world from the appearance that the U.S. was losing the space race. That's why he changed the space race to the moon race. He was no visionary, no explorer, no advocate for humanity's expansion into the "Final Frontier." The speech was simply an act of political propaganda, carried out to the drumbeat of, "Gotta beat the commies, gotta beat the commies!" 

    So, by the time that the Apollo XI lunar module landed on the moon on July 20, 1969, even though NASA was planning a manned Mars mission for 1985 (the Space Shuttle was the last remaining remnant of that), there were already calls amoung the political class that, "Well, we beat the Russians. It's time to go on to other things now." And so it was. The last three Apollo mission were cancelled. The Shuttle was a mish-mash from the very beginning. Once the Mars program was cancelled, the Shuttle was left without a mission. The International Space Station (ISS) was an ad hoc attempt to give the Shuttle something to do. And, as far as other manned missions are concerned, NASA has been essentially aimless. 

    I hate to say it, but I have pretty much given up on NASA. One hopes that the private companies such as SpaceX, Blue Origin, Virgin Galactic, Bigelow Aerospace and others will eventually get humanity permanently into cis-lunar and interplanetary space in a big way.

  • D g
    Lv 7
    1 month ago

    Why didn't you climb Mount Everest the past 50 years it was there.  May it costs MONEY

    Gee there is a song from wizard of OZ 

    If I only had a brain

  • 1 month ago

    Because if you believe 250,000 scientists faked the Moon landing, without being called out by Russia at the time, you might as well be as dumb as a flat-earther.

  • Joseph
    Lv 7
    1 month ago

    Because the whole going to the Moon thing was done as a race to meet JFK's mandate to land men on the Moon "before this decade is out" NASA bypassed many important intermediate steps necessary to establish lunar outposts.  In 1969 NASA, or the USSR, for that matter, had no experience with building and operating large orbital habitats, to establish a permanent human presence in Low Earth Orbit.  Skylab, itself built from a re-purposed Saturn V third stage, and the Soviet Salyut space stations were still years in the future.

    As other answers pointed out, the reason for cancellation of Apollo program was cost.  James Webb, the NASA administrator in 1961 shocked President Kennedy when he presented him with a $20 Billion estimate for the Manned Lunar Program.  As it turned out Webb's estimate was reasonably accurate.  Each Apollo mission cost on average $445 million; that would be $2.3 Billion in today's dollars when adjusted for inflation.    

    To mount more ambitious lunar missions than the initial six would have required a lengthy and expensive development of a larger lunar lander, a larger crew capsule, and a even larger rocket than the Saturn V.  The cost to develop this new hardware would have been on the order of $60 Billion in 1980 dollars.   

    But the cost alone does not explain why we didn't go back.  Mired in an expensive war in Vietnam, and soon to be mired in the Watergate scandal, the Nixon administration had neither the political capital nor political will to embark on an expensive new program which wouldn't bear fruit until well after Nixon was out of the office.

    By the way, contrary to the previous answer, the US did not use up all the Saturn V rockets.  The Saturn V on display at the Johnson Space Center is 100% made up of flight hardware.  The second and third stages of a Saturn V at the Kennedy Space Center are also flight hardware, while its first stage is a test article.  The Skylab display at the National Air and Space Museum in Washington is a converted Saturn third stage originally built for the Apollo 20 mission.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 month ago

    Sure, we could travel back to the moon. But it is very expensive. We've been there 6 times, we have probes on the moon now, and we have orbiting satellites. So nasa has used it's money to explore the other planets. There is no need to send people back to the moon. When there is a need, people will go back to the moon  

  • 1 month ago

    There no Europeans visiting the Western Hemisphere from 1005 when Leif Ericsson and his people withdrew and 1492 when Columbus arrived.  Does this disprove the existence of North America?

  • 1 month ago

    Because flat-earthers also deny it happened.  It did happen of course.  Do you think maybe the fact that a lot of people who say it's a hoax also think Earth is flat might give you some perspective on how implausible it is?

  • 1 month ago

    >>Why do people call flat-earther who don't believe that man went to the moon?

    Usually, the two "impressions" go hand-in-hand; they're both considered conspiracy theories, and if a person believes in one, generally, they believe the other. 

    >>I'm not an flat-earther . 


    >>Nor does it have anything to do with being the United States. 

    >>Just like Russia didn't go there afterwards. It's been 50 years 

    >>and has never "returned" since technology has boomed. 

    Technology - especially microelectronics, certainly has boomed... Since 1969, personal computers are everywhere, iPods, mobile phones.... 

    But... what about rocket engines?  You still need to push tons of material into orbit, then on to the moon... That hasn't changed much in 50 years.  Couple that with the expense of a lunar program - $24 billion in 1969 dollars, and likely 20 times that to do a similar program today... but - why would you *want* to repeat that program?  

    A better idea (that I'm all for) is to return to the moon to *stay* a while... instead of 1, 2, or 3 day missions - establish a base (or a group of bases) to not only study and explore the moon, but to use them as templates for similar bases on Mars and beyond.  Find out what we need, how they can be powered, what issues there may be in a lunar base, and then use that knowledge to establish bases elsewhere.

    Until *that* program is established - I just don't know why you'd go back to the moon for quick stays... what would be the point? 

    >>Guys, it's 50 years! They stepped there 6 times, went and 

    >>came back and never came back since. We could easily travel there.

    How?  With what vehicles?   Congress canceled Apollo in 1970; The original plan was to go through Apollo 20;  The last mission was canceled, then Apollos 18 and 19... 

    It's up to Congress as to what programs NASA is allowed to work on;  The outcry at that time over the expense of Apollo led to it's cancellation;  after the first landing, public interest in the program fell off - and *that's* the reason we haven't been back... It's because there's not enough public support to create a program to return. 

    We *know* how to get there... but the support to make the mission happen is mediocre at best. And that makes Congress less likely to fund such an endeavor. 

  • 1 month ago

    Delusional. Self deceiving. Living in an alternate reality. 

    The U.S.S.R., not Russia,  DID get to the Moon first. 

    The main reasons Apollo missions 18 through 20 were cancelled by Nixon by executive order were the hot flip side of the Cold War was?escalating in southeast Asia (Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia) and solar activity was increasing. Apollo 16 had to take almost 3 hours early because of a solar flare. At the end of 1972 there?was a stronger solar flare. The civilian head of NASA told then VP Ford that NASA recommended Apollo missions 18 and 19 be cancelled. Nixon had already cancelled Apollo mission 20. Congress redirected the money to the Defense Department. 

    We used up all the Saturn 5 rockets. That technology is now almost 100 years old. 

    There ARE legitimate scientific  reasons to go back to the Moon. It's probably going to be much like Antarctica has been for 70 years or more. Same for Mars.  

  • There have been 6 occasions when men have landed on the moon.  The Apollo program landed men on the moon in July & November 1969, January and July 1971, and April and December 1972.  Why do you naive conspiracy theorists always talk rubbish about the first one?  Manned moon missions are very expensive and there hasn't been any particular reason to have any more.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.