If the newly announced Moon landing mission fails, what would that say about the 60"s moon landings.?

Question

Would this give conspiracy theorists the fuel they need to convince the public that the first moon landings newer took place.

Captain Bunkum does not think much, the technology is the point. If they fail now, then how the hell could they have made it then.

Answer 1

No, there is far too much evidence to prove that the 1960's and 1970's moon landings did happen. Anyone who believes these conspiracies is an idiot.

Answer 2

It would say absolutely nothing about the lunar landings.

If, during the early Cold War, the US had tried to test an advanced nuclear weapon and failed, would that mean that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were conspiracies? Of course not.

Contrary to what conspiracy theorists say, we don't have to take the government's word about the landings. Consider the following:
1) Apollo 11 left a reflector that professional astronomers have used thousands of times to measure the distance to the Moon.
2) Independent radio telescopes (including those in the Soviet Union) detected the Apollo transmissions from the Moon. This would not have been possible if there hadn't been a ship on the Moon.
3) The Moon rocks have been positively identified as being lunar in origin. There's no way that NASA could have faked them.
4) Not a single reputable scientist rejects the landings. Wouldn't scientists be the first to pick up on something fishy?

That evidence proves, to the highest scientific standard, that we went to the Moon. There isn't a shred of legitimate evidence to the contrary.

Answer 3

Of the hoax believers would say it supports their claims. But it wouldn't really. After all, if they could fake it with the primitive special effects available back in 1969, just think how much better they could fake it today. So if they could fake it then, why not do it again?

Similarly, the people who say they would believe the landing was real if we could just see a picture taken with the Hubble telescope showing the flag on the Moon are forgetting one simple fact. Why would they accept one new picture from NASA as real without questioning it when they reject all the thousands of pictures already released by NASA of the landings? They would just say the Hubble picture was faked. And it would be, since Hubble is too small to resolve such small things on the Moon. It just goes to show you how stupid the people are who steadfastly stick to the hoax claim.

Answer 4

I can't imagine a technical failure (i.e. a complete failure to produce technology capable of the mission). The only failure I can foresee is the lack of proper funding to accomplish the mission, and that would be a political failure, not a technical failure. I don't see the same enthusiasm among the public for such a mission as existed in the 60s, so the required funding might dry up when more pressing needs occur for our tax dollars.

Answer 5

Remember that one of the Apollo Moon Missions failed - Apollo 13. In spite of this the Apollo Missions continued to 17. Man and machines are not perfect and sometimes failures do happen but this should not take away the expectation of success. Of course man walked on the Moon in the late 60's and early 70's and it will happen again.

Answer 6

There are several ways something can fail. If it fails because there isn't enough money, or canceled because it unpopular that doesn't mean man didn't land on the moon.

Of course if we do go, and there is evidence that man has gone to the moon what will that do to conspiracy theories?

Answer 7

Not enough people today are as motivated about conquering space as those were who lived in the Cold War era. The populace today doesn't have anyone's memory to rally behind like they did then for JFK. So, as far as technology goes, today's is millions of times more capable. As far as the populace of today, a much smaller percentage are motivated to do much more beyond turning oxygen into carbon dioxide. But, those few who are motivated can accomplish so much.

Answer 8

It would say they worked harder at succeeding back then.

Vikings crossed the Atlantic in ships with sails and oars, yet the Titanic, the largest, most luxurious ship ever built at the time struck an iceberg and went to the bottom on its maiden voyage.

Technology ain't always the measure to go by.

Answer 9

Who would care if it added fuel to their fire? The question is, did we land on the Moon? The answer is yes, most certainly. So it doesn't matter what these wingnuts think -- it won't change the facts.

Answer 10

They might suspect it, but the fact of the matter is, it did take place and has been recorded in history.