But then again, whose to say they didn’t drop an unmanned lunar lander on the moon and then bring in Kubrick to fake the rest of it
the point of the space race (especially from the US side as Sputnik was launched on a whim by some soviet scientists just trying shit) was to show off missile technology without the overt aggression of nuclear tests. An unmanned mission would be just as good for the actual purpose
The first unmanned landing on the moon was in 1966 by the Soviet Luna 9 probe, in order for there to be anything for the Americans to claim as groundbreaking they would have had to fake their unmanned landing actually being a manned landing.
spoiler
for the record i don't actually believe Apollo 11 was faked, i'm doing as bit
Yeah the folks at unrealoops it was Nvidia actually did a pretty convincing demonstration that the lighting in the footage could only have come from the sun at the precise distance of the moon from earth in an environment without an atmosphere.
But even after the light was modeled [...] the image still did not look right.
Part of the challenge was---we got the surface reflection of the Moon dust, we got the reflection off of the lunar module, we got all of that in place and properly modeled---we thought---but the image still didn't look quite right. There was some additional light source that was just missing...
They said that their computer model perplexingly didn't work until they found a solution in changing the albedo value of Armstrong's suit. But unless they experimentally derived that value themselves using instrumentation, then how can they be sure that they weren't simply moving a slider until it fixed their simulation, i.e. working backwards from a solution?
The same goes, to some extent, for the values of the lunar dust. It's impossible to experimentally confirm this stuff unless we go back to the Moon. That's the problem I have with using the photographic evidence as proof. It's the same reason I never really found the conspiracists' claims of photo trickery very convincing either.
In order to prove that the footage "could only have come from" the Moon's conditions, it's also necessary to prove the negative on Earth. The Nvidia rep says at 8:52 that they never attempted to prove the negative. They only attempted to prove that it can be done on the Moon. They didn't model the conditions with an atmosphere for comparison.
lighting [...] at the precise distance of the moon from earth
I'm confused. I didn't hear them say anything about using reflective light from the Earth in their model. Did you mean to say "the precise distance of the Moon from the Sun"? Is that significantly different than the distance from Earth to the Sun? Sometimes the Moon is farther away from the Sun than the Earth, and sometimes it's closer.
Not really, it just shows you can lift a bigger payload of return fuel and life support. Doing 2 orbital maneuvers is not substantially harder than doing 1, it just means you need more fuel. Obviously, having life support for a longer time is more complex, but it's not a mastery thing, it's mostly just a budget thing. Both weight and money.
This is the primary hurdle. The Soviets failed to put a man on the moon because they couldn't create an engine with enough thrust. To this day, the thrust on the Saturn V has not been matched or surpassed, and its engines are a lost art.
the point of the space race (especially from the US side as Sputnik was launched on a whim by some soviet scientists just trying shit) was to show off missile technology without the overt aggression of nuclear tests. An unmanned mission would be just as good for the actual purpose
The first unmanned landing on the moon was in 1966 by the Soviet Luna 9 probe, in order for there to be anything for the Americans to claim as groundbreaking they would have had to fake their unmanned landing actually being a manned landing.
spoiler
for the record i don't actually believe Apollo 11 was faked, i'm doing as bit
Yeah the folks at
unrealoops it was Nvidia actually did a pretty convincing demonstration that the lighting in the footage could only have come from the sun at the precise distance of the moon from earth in an environment without an atmosphere.They said that their computer model perplexingly didn't work until they found a solution in changing the albedo value of Armstrong's suit. But unless they experimentally derived that value themselves using instrumentation, then how can they be sure that they weren't simply moving a slider until it fixed their simulation, i.e. working backwards from a solution?
The same goes, to some extent, for the values of the lunar dust. It's impossible to experimentally confirm this stuff unless we go back to the Moon. That's the problem I have with using the photographic evidence as proof. It's the same reason I never really found the conspiracists' claims of photo trickery very convincing either.
In order to prove that the footage "could only have come from" the Moon's conditions, it's also necessary to prove the negative on Earth. The Nvidia rep says at 8:52 that they never attempted to prove the negative. They only attempted to prove that it can be done on the Moon. They didn't model the conditions with an atmosphere for comparison.
I'm confused. I didn't hear them say anything about using reflective light from the Earth in their model. Did you mean to say "the precise distance of the Moon from the Sun"? Is that significantly different than the distance from Earth to the Sun? Sometimes the Moon is farther away from the Sun than the Earth, and sometimes it's closer.
Yes poor wording on my part.
Nah manned mission is 2-way and involves life support systems. It’s much harder and shows much more mastery of rocketry and all that
Not really, it just shows you can lift a bigger payload of return fuel and life support. Doing 2 orbital maneuvers is not substantially harder than doing 1, it just means you need more fuel. Obviously, having life support for a longer time is more complex, but it's not a mastery thing, it's mostly just a budget thing. Both weight and money.
This is the primary hurdle. The Soviets failed to put a man on the moon because they couldn't create an engine with enough thrust. To this day, the thrust on the Saturn V has not been matched or surpassed, and its engines are a lost art.
Carl Sagan and Gerard Kuiper should have just nuked the moon. :posadist-nuke:
Fun fact: Gerard Kuiper was a student of Antonie Pannekoek.