I answer even better than your stupid comparison.

Go watch Stanley Kubrick Space Odyssey movie, released in the year 1968.

Those movie are in color format, much better than your black & white potato cameras used by NASA from 1969 to 1972.

This post has been edited by smsid: May 16 2025, 09:19 AM

I'm curious about which black and white NASA video you used for your comparison.

The original footage, not remastered version.

Most in youtube are remastered version.


This post has been edited by smsid: May 16 2025, 12:37 PM

Did you know that there are 300 hours of video footage from Apollo 11 to Apollo 17?
Yet, you only examined a 26-second clip and concluded that the missions were fake.
Perhaps you only watched 1-2 hours of the total footage, which is less than 1% of it.

So now want to land small craft also fail, but 69 can land people??


• Resilience, a lander built by Japan-based company Ispace, attempted to touch down on the moon around 3:17 p.m. ET. But mission failed to land safely, Ispace officials confirmed hours later.

• The exact reasons for the mission’s failure are currently unclear.

• If fully successful, Resilience would have been only the second private-sector lunar lander to make an upright landing on the moon, and the first built outside of the US to do so. It was the second attempt at a soft landing by Ispace, which is headquartered in Tokyo.

• Resilience was one of several robotic landers developed by companies and governments across the world as part of a renewed race to explore the lunar surface.

• Earlier this year, two NASA-backed, Texas-based companies — Firefly and Intuitive Machines — each made moon-landing attempts. Firefly’s was the first fully successful effort by a commercial outfit, while Intuitive Machines’ lander tipped on its side.

• NASA was not directly backing this attempt, but Ispace is working with the US space agency on a future lunar mission.

https://edition.cnn.com/science/live-news/m...ispace-06-05-25

This post has been edited by Starbucki: Jun 6 2025, 09:28 AM

Still arguing about this? Let me give the answer again about why US can’t send man to the moon today

1) Cost

NASA gets about 5% of national budget in the 60’s because US was in a space race with Soviet Union. The American public was supporting the government to spend so much. Today, NASA budget has been cut to so low until they can’t rescue their astronauts and had to rely on Elon Musk. The whole Apollo program if US going to repeat it today will cost US $250 billion. US today can’t afford such spending.

2) Support

The space race was extremely popular in the 50’s and 60’s and the American people was 100% behind it. However, as soon as the Apollo program ends, the support reduces in the 1970s especially when US was facing all sorts of problems with Vietnam wars and civil rights movements. The support for space program rejuvenated in early 80s with their space shuttles but after Challenger explosions, American people don’t really care about their space programs anymore

3) Risk

The 50s and 60s were different era because US was competing with Soviet Union for world dominance. That is why the government and even the public was more tolerant on failure and loss of lives. The whole program was a high risk gamble by NASA. Today after the 2 space shuttle explosions especially after the Challenger disaster, American people are no longer so tolerant about risks. That is why if they want to go back to the moon today, the risk factor has to be a lot lower that the 60s which mean they need to start from scratch

4) Manufacturing capability

Today everyone knows US has lost a lot of their manufacturing capabilities. It’s the same with their space program too. After the Apollo program, a lot of the factories and engineers were changed to the space shuttle program and when the space shut program ended, all the people and factories building rockets and everything needed for the Apollo program is gone. The blueprints might still be available but the capability is gone for decades

5) Technology advancement

There is no way NASA going to use back the same technology as the 1960s if they go back to the moon. So it means, everything starts from the scratch. A lot of clueless people think you can just rebuild the Saturn rockets and just put in current tech.

6) Targets

US going back to the moon program today is called Artemis. The mission today is not simply going back to the moon and stay a shorty while like the Apollo missions. Today the objective is to go to moon and live there for a few weeks or months. It’s not just building new rockets but to build capabilities for humans to live on the moon. This is crucial for future missions to mars programs. That is why, every thing starts from the scratch

"Earlier this year, two NASA-backed, Texas-based companies — Firefly and Intuitive Machines — each made moon-landing attempts. Firefly’s was the first fully successful effort by a commercial outfit, while Intuitive Machines’ lander tipped on its side."

NASA couldnt even get a small craft to land properly.

PRC and Russia would be first to debunk it if it is fake.

nasa budget already cut badly for the last few decades lah

thats why they are mostly sending probes

us space program now mostly initiated by private sectors

nasa capabilities already crippled since space shuttle program ends