4 ms·
6 landing attempts, all successful, late 60s technology: mission launch land days since last
by eternalban 3y ago
6 landing attempts, all successful, late 60s technology:
mission launch land days since last
successful landing
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo 11 July 16, 1969 July 20, 1969 -
Apollo 12 November 14, 1969 November 24, 1969 126
Apollo 14 January 31, 1971 February 9, 1971 431
Apollo 15 July 26, 1971 August 7, 1971 272
Apollo 16 April 16, 1972 April 27, 1972 347
Apollo 17 December 7, 1972 December 19, 1972 316
- propogandist 3y agohas any of the recent attempts to the moon given us footage of the lunar lander and other machinery that was left behind from the prior missions? this would easily put the conspiracy theories to bed
- infradig 3y agoYes
- hgsgm 3y agoAnd No to the second question.
- mensetmanusman 3y agoYou can see the stuff left behind from earth, especially the retro reflectors.
- Silverback_VII 3y agoThe whole thing is not as clear-cut as you are portraying it here. Furthermore, not even the best-equipped amateur astronomer can verify it. And also: "Therefore either all retroreflectors have degraded such that their return signals fit to the scattered return from the lunar soil or the measurements were indeed taken to the lunar surface only." https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.05863 https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.05863
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- st_goliath 3y ago> has any of the recent attempts to the moon given us footage of the lunar lander and other machinery that was left behind from the prior missions? Yes, e.g. LRO launched in 2009 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Reconnaissance_Orbiter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Reconnaissance_Orbiter) > this would easily put the conspiracy theories to bed no, you are dealing with people who nit pick data, rejecting anything that does not support their position as falsified. Attempts at reasoning are in my experience often met with emotion and ad hominem responses (e.g. the classic comparison to species of Ovis). Logic does not apply here.
- freddie_mercury 3y agoThe Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter from 2009 sent back pictures, yes. It clearly didn't put the conspiracy theories to bed.
- dgrin91 3y agoAll with a much bigger budget & many more people working on it. Oh and it wasn't all success. Apollo 13 was a near miss. Apollo 1 had fatalities. Several other apollo missions has near misses. It was a very high risk operation.
- joshuahedlund 3y agoYeah but 1) that ignores the failed unmanned attempts that came before these, 2) these were all manned. I could see it being “easier” to land when you are manually adjusting your descent than when you are entirely relying on sensors and preprogrammed behavior. (Apollo 11 literally would have crashed if Armstrong hadn’t veered off course to find a smoother landing site)
- Silverback_VII 3y agothe big elephant in the room.
- eternalban 3y ago.
- Dah00n 3y agoWhich? Apollo 13?
- elteto 3y agoThose were supported by a 400k people workforce, a basically unlimited budget, and the political and moral support of the most powerful nation on Earth. I'm not trying to discount Apollo here, I myself can barely comprehend their achievement at their time. But the magnitude of the effort was much much larger than this one mission. And let's not forget Grissom, White and Chaffee. NASA was _not_ on a successful path pre Apollo 1, as shown by the post-disaster analysis reports. Speculating here, but most likely we would not have gone to the Moon had Apollo 1 not happened. Space is _incredibly_ hard.
- messe 3y agoIt seems a bit disingenuous to omit Apollo 13, which failed on the way to the moon. The fact that it failed well before the landing attempt, speaks to the difficulty of even getting to the point where you can consider a landing.
- eternalban 3y agoThat's your opinion. I don't consider it "disingenuous", rather focusing on the act of getting a manned lander from orbit down to the surface of the moon. 6 tries, 6 successes.
- messe 3y agoThat's completely fair, it's definitely just opinion as to what to include. Getting to lunar orbit can reasonably be considered a separate challenge to landing, so it might make sense to separate them. In that case though, I think Apollo 10 should at least be mentioned in some capacity, as it was a dress rehearsal that came within 16km of the lunar surface, and tested much of the lander's systems. Not listed as a failure or success, just mentioned, as it's a very relevant test.