please explain.

>>16724854 (OP)
Wild guess without actually looking into it is that they didn't spend 22 hours in a row prancing around the surface and that there was extra air in the lunar lander. Also different environments requiring different equipment since the pressure difference on the Moon is 1ATM but scuba tanks are designed for greater pressure.
But those are guesses that you should have come up with yourself with a few seconds of thinking. Then you should have gone off an done some research to check if those guesses were correct.

>>16724854 (OP)
It's a glorified rebreather.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_life_support_system

>>16724854 (OP)
>diving tanks need to be bulky to be properly pressurized against water pressure
>diving is more physically demanding becayse the divier is moving under water pressure
>breathing rate increases with depth because of pressure
Look we could go on but it boils down to pressure.

>>16724854 (OP)
Air consumption increases with pressure on your lungs. Diver experiences increased consumption while an astronaut in a low pressure suit experiences decreased consumption, the difference is easily order of magnitude just off that fact alone. Scuba air is also typically just compressed air or slightly elevevated oxygen mix, astronauts use pure or very high oxygen mix. Astronauts also have a re breather that purgers the CO2 and returns the oxygen back into the suit while the pictured diver is clearly wasting his air out on the exhale as form of bubbles.

>>16724854 (OP)
I'm not really a conspiracy theorist but it just seems logical to me that the moon landings were faked. The odds of 1960s tech sending people to the moon AND successfully returning them alive is just too low and there were very good geopolitical reasons to fake it. The fact that most people still believe it was real is kind of sad. I can't prove it was fake anyway, I just follow Occam's razor.

>>16724913
this is the exact opposite of occam's razor you retard
>>16724854 (OP)
If a diver goes to 30m depth he is using 4x as much air as he would on the surface. On the moon you would use only 0.4x the air you would use on the surface of the earth. So that diver is going through the same amount of air literally 10 times as fast as the moon guy.

And if I wanted to pedantic I could say that the diver in that pic is using enriched air (nitrox) which would last as long as 1.5 hours per canister so that diver actually carries 3 hours worth of air with him.

>>16724854 (OP)
Pure liquid oxygen vs 8% gaseous oxygen.
Suit maintained below 1 bar vs 2-5 bar depending on your dive depth.

>>16724913
One of those geopolitical reasons
>put the first object into space
>put the first animal into space
>put the first man into space
>put the first woman into space
>performed the first space walk
>was the first to orbit the moon
>first to photograph the back of the moon
>first to land an object on the moon
>took photos of the moon after the American landing to make sure they weren't fake

So the commies were in on it... or the Yanks really did manage to launch a massive rocket that didn't explode in a Middle Eastern village just once.

Look at the radiation dosimiters if you want to understand the extent of the fraud

>>16724913
I can't wait for us to start doubting that airplanes flew in the 1910s.

>>16724955
Why wouldn't that have already happened, it was before the Apollo missions

>>16724913
People 50 years ago were genetically superior than those today. Dysgenics has been eroding our genes for 150 years.
Eugenics is required to prevent civilizational collapse.

If you don't solve the genetic problems now, nature will once civilization dissolves. Leftist "everyone should be made equal" ideology is objectively wrong and anti-human.

>>16724955
People living after great civilizations doubted the vestiges of civil infrastructure were made by anything other than gods.

It would take a genuine set of brass rollers to , get outside of the space capsule and take a look around.


I'm just not sure you have what it takes to be an astronaut. I don't believe everyone could do it.

>>16724913
the people who would have been hired to hand-build analog flight computers are hand-building turing machines in Minecraft today, for fun
the people who work at NASA now would have worked at cafeteria in the 60s

>>16724854 (OP)
1) divers (typically) use compressed air with 79% nitrogen
Apollo suits used pure oxygen
that alone means you carry 5 times more oxygen in the same tank

2) Apollo spacesuits are re-breathers.
It has hydroxide tank that absorbs CO2, so you can keep reusing the same air over and over until all is actually spent.
Divers typically just dump exhaled air with CO2 outside because it's generally safer option

3) The deeper you dive, the higher pressure you need to inhale and exhale overcome the water pushing in
meaning you use up even more air.
1 bar every 10 meters.
And at high pressure, oxygen becomes toxic, so you need to mix in extra nitrogen or helium to get the same partial pressure, which means it will run out of air even faster
deep divers have to use re-breathers and exotic mixes (like 5% oxygen and 95% helium)

>>16725158
So who is doing all of the welding and the outdoor, dangerous work in the weather and environment if all of the women now have all of the indoor office jobs.....ooohhhhh....ohh...

>expecting science to explain something with accuracy and reliability in 2025
not going to make it.

>Look its complicated ok, there are like variables and stuff
>you just need to trust us

Just don't ask why you never see them doing anything productive.

>>16724854 (OP)
The scuba diver has compressed air. Lunar life support is a rebreather with oxygen tanks.

Scuba gear must provide air at pressure of depth. Lunar suit supplies air at < 1 atm.

>>16724854 (OP)
The top shows he is using compressed air, so only 20% oxygen. The astronauts used pure oxygen and probably a rebreather with CO2 absorption.

>>16724859
this

>>16724862
and this

>>16724948
and also this. scuba gives the full air mix.

lots of flat earth and moonhoax threads on /sci/ at the moment

The Lunar Lander air pressure was only 4.8psi. Compared that to sea level 14.7psi. The astronauts were breathing 4x less volume than you currently, and it was pure oxygen.

A diver breathes in vastly most volumes of air because the pressure exerted on them by the water is immense.

>>16724913
>The odds [...] is just too low
What's your model?
>there were very good geopolitical reasons to fake it
Why did the USSR congratulate the USA for the landing instead of claiming it was fake? Also how did the retroreflectors on the Moon get there if people didn't go and place them? You know people are doing experiments with them *today*, right?

>>16726115
>Why did the USSR congratulate the USA for the landing instead of claiming it was fake?
they think its all fake and that the russians were paid off or something
> the retroreflectors
to be fair the russians placed a couple using these big funky remote controlled probe things. they weren't very well placed however and so they were kind of lost until pretty recently. the US placed items were done by hand and have worked perfectly for decades.

The radiation dose meters showed that for the apollo 11 mission they had only been exposed o a level of radiation consistent with being in earth orbit.
How can this be explained?

>>16726125
proof? both of your claim and the rad exposure that should be expected in cislunar space, on the surface etc?

>>16724913
the filmmaking technology alone required to fake it wasn't available until the 1990s. based on what was possible in the late 60s, it was cheaper and more technologically feasible to actually do it than to fake it.
remember, "Computer" used to be a job; NASA had entire office buildings of women crunching numbers and validating calculations to get the launch details correct.

>>16726143
The film and camera used on the moon should have shown clear evidence of radiation and vacuum exposure

>>16724854 (OP)
Pure oxygen at low pressure.

>>16726146
why is that? can you think of reasons why it wouldnt?
perhaps there is a material that you can coat a camera with that would make it resist radiation.
perhaps there is a way to protect a camera from any complications of being in a low-pressure environment.
perhaps people smarter than (You) consider these things.

>>16726153
These were questions posed by professional photo engineers in light of the lack of any such apparent protective equipment.

>>16726146
prove that. look at the film used. quantify the radiation with actual data instead of vague claims of a searing radiation hell.

>>16726161
who posed those questions? did they show understanding of the radiation environment and what materials are required to provide a good level of protection?

do you know?

>>16726166
Decide for yourself.
https://www.aulis.com/vacuum.htm

>>16724955
I mean... have you ever actually *flown* on an airplane? I haven't, and I don't know anyone who has.

>>16726173
*comes with a video too
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDXE7eOj7cg

>>16726173
typical aulis bullshit anon. its the same everytime i take a look at one of their stupid experiments. did you notice this bit?

>UV lamp cycling at twenty-minute intervals in order to keep the ambient temperature at 130ºC
they
why? when did the film get raised to that temperature and kept there? the hottest temp measured during apollo 11, and perhaps any mission, was about 100c, and then only late in the mission as the sun rose in the lunar sky.

and things dont heat up or cool down very quickly in vacuum, especially when coated with reflective material.

there are several other problems with their set up. we dont know it was the same special thing film used on apollo. it was quite different and developed for satellite use. much thinner than what you get just off the shelf, so much less material to off gas.

also, what about the pressure they exposed the film to? did they expose it to 14.7psi then pump it right down and then back up again? thats not what the films were exposed to at all. the cabin pressure was 4.7psi. thats a much lower cycling range of pressure which definitely relates to this statement from the conclusion:

>He concluded that it was not entirely due to the vacuum per se, but attributes the results to the cycling in and out of the vacuum chamber.


They dont seem to have checked for using the same development process, nor accounting for the color correction charts that were photoed for each film roll and magazine. those were done for an important reason related to color.....

>>16726211
If you take a metal camera out onto the moon's surface what will happen to it?

>>16726217
*not related to the aulis claims It's just a thought that came to me.

>>16724955
air doesn't exist and neither do planes or airplanes or the 1910s

>>16726217
it will begin to cool ONLY through radiative heat loss...it will also receive incoming heat through the same way, depending on if its in full sun, full shade, or some combination. remember that it was bright silver in color too, so quite reflective.

temp changes through only radiation are pretty slow. theres absolutely no evidence that anything, let alone the film inside the camera, ever reached such a high temp as they decided on. all the evidence we have from instruments placed on the lunar surface is that the absolute maximum temp reached in full sun light was about 7c, while they were there.
picrel is from the Lunar Surface Temperatures From Apollo 11 Data document.

>>16726217
also, if you're thinking about the cold welding that was mentioned in the aulis video, that very much depends on the material similarity and if its got any kind of coating on, since the effect really needs clean metals to work. any kind of plating, painting, anodizing or even a thin layer of grease (obviously something that wont gas off in vacuum itself) will isolate the parts from each other.

>>16724858
>But those are guesses that you should have come up with yourself with a few seconds of thinking.
I think it's all an elaborate fib, honestly.

>>16726388
but the stupid point raised about the tank capacity is obviously wrong. you do see that right?

>>16724913
There was a massive geopol motive to lie, there was no reason at all for the USSR to congratulate the US on doing it.

>>16728922
unless they were both pullling off fakery in which case their might be conflicting motives

>>16728922
an at least equal motive to expose a lie too.

>>16728922
5D chess. USSR forces the US to continue funding this lie indefinitely to the point that we are now on a 20 year project that will never see the moon.

>>16724854 (OP)
Maybe advanced recyclable air tek.
Also, just curious where the 22hours is coming from.

because divers don't have suits that cost the price of a jet to keep high pressure air in cylinders?

>>16726045
>lots of flat earth and moonhoax threads on /sci/ at the moment
"at the moment"? It was full of them last time I was on here like 3 months ago.

>>16730623
deep sea diving?

>>16731243
they come in waves in seems

>>16724913
I evaluate things like this with one simple question: Do America's enemies all agree it happened or don't they?
>Assad used white phosphorus against his own citizens
America says yes, Russia says no, so this claim requires scrutiny
>America landed on the moon
America says yes, Russia says yes, so it almost certainly happened

>>16726166
The photos taken on the moon by the Chinese rover show radiation artifacts, there are none on the photos supposedly taken on the moon by Apollo astronauts

>>16731643
and is everything exactly the same in terms of the equipment used, the developing procedure, the film, the amount of time that the the whole thing is out on the surface etc etc etc?
No, its not. Come back when you've got an argument instead of some kind of vague question.

>>16731643
The simple fact is that digital sensors are more sensitive to different kinds of radiation that the fairly slow (less sensitive) film used during Apollo. The speed on the film was chosen deliberately to minimize radiation effects, plus the film itself was protected inside metal cases.

see how this makes modern radiography easier

https://goyaldentistry.com/digital-radiography-less-radiation/

Its similar to how modern microprocessor computers are more likely to affected by radiation than the old woven copper computers that were used on the apollo spacecraft. With the vastly smaller pathways used in todays devices, the chances of a high speed particle causing a bit flip is much higher.

>>16731643
This is also relevant.

https://www.universetoday.com/articles/seeing-cosmic-rays-in-space

>"Free from the protection offered by the atmosphere, cosmic rays bombard us within Space Station, penetrating the hull almost as if it was not there. They zap everything inside, causing such mischief as locking up our laptop computers and knocking pixels out of whack in our cameras. The computers recover with a reboot; the cameras suffer permanent damage. After about a year, the images they produce look like they are covered with electronic snow. Cosmic rays contribute most of the radiation dose received by Space Station crews. We have defined lifetime limits, after which you fly a desk for the rest of your career. No one has reached that dose level yet."

>>16731643
aaand finally this

https://ston.jsc.nasa.gov/collections/trs/_techrep/CR188427.pdf

>>16731535
>America says yes, Russia says yes, so it almost certainly happened
they are both owned by the same financial interests, have been since the russian revolution

>>16731878
Ok, well how about China? Their schools straight up teach children that America is controlled by jews and they have all of their own parallel institutions. Their own banks, tech companies, secret scientific research that the West can't access. China and the US don't cooperate on anything and they tariff each other heavily. They don't even let their citizens access the western internet. They don't even fully believe in the Holocaust. There's no possible way they are both controlled by the same financial interests. Yet China agree that the moon landing happened. How can you explain that?

>>16724867
NO! That answer is way too boring and grounded in actual physics for /sci/, sorry. The REAL explanation is obviously that NASA used Hollywood oxygen. Definitely not because they used a low-pressure pure O2 rebreather system that doesn’t waste half the tank blowing bubbles.

>>16725430
>>16725432
wtf are you even trying to say

>>16732030
I only see one credible answer to that: it was all in fact a Chinese machination from the very beginning.

>>16732491
that space is fake and gay, come on man, it's like you don't even get bait threads.

>>16725158

Where are the black people?

>>16724913
>the fact that most people believe this thing I can’t prove is fake
>I can’t prove
lmao, I guess you have you work cut out for you then

Serious question. Why do people waste their time engaging with the Moon hoaxer and flat earth idiots? Surely it must be clear that these morons are incapable of rational thought, and are motivated by attention seeking. They can not be educated or reasoned with.

>>16732594
for me its just a chance to post about one of my favorite subjects and the many areas of science and engineering it involves. you're right that nearly all of the people who think its fake can't really be reasoned with, the occasional one seems to be at least willing to question their own doubts, and in general i dont like leaving so many lies and misrepresentations of fact unopposed when i see them.

With videos around like American Moon (a fairly high quality production covering all the classic moonhoax ideas) its too easy for such groos ignorance to spread so a little bit of push back doesn't hurt.

>>16732594
>>16732615
I think it's impossible to convince them the moon landing happened by just addressing their questions, because as soon as you answer one, more pop up like a hydra. "How did the oxygen tank have so much air" "What about the rock that has words written on it" "why aren't there any stars" "how did the film survive space" "how did the humans survive the radiation belt" ad infinitum.. I've seen lists of debunkings of like hundreds of these, but you'll never debunk them all because they can just invent more on the fly.

I do however think there's a way to teach them that their approach to epistemology is flawed. I think that these dumb conspiracy theories are convincing to people who evaluate truth by counting the number of different arguments, rather than evaluating truth by assuming that the simpler explanation is usually better. Like there are a ton of arguments for why the moon landing must've been a hoax (like I mentioned, hundreds) and only a few arguments for why it must've been true (how could so many people keep a secret, why does China think it's true, where did they get the special effects to fake it, and basically that's it). So if you're just counting which side has more arguments you'll think the moon landing is fake. But if you're counting which series of events requires less moving parts, and which requires the least convoluted explanation, you'll think the moon landing happened. And a smart or a dumb person can probably be convinced to adopt the correct epistemological style.

Why has no one gone back?

I would like a moon landing denier to let me know what they think about my new theory: Homeless people don't really exist and they are just Chinese spies.

>They only live in major cities where there's a lot of people and infrastructure to spy on, and are underrepresented in rural communities and small towns
>They mostly live near the coasts where extraction by boat is easy
>Experts and academics spend millions of dollars studying homelessness but they can't explain why it happens or how to solve it
>Homelessness doesn't correlate with the incidence of drug addiction or mental illness in different states
>It doesn't correlate with increases in drug addiction or mental illness over time
>It doesn't correlate with the unemployment rate
>Governments spend billions on homeless shelters and free housing but they refuse to live there. And if you force them into a free house, they will destroy it and escape. This makes no sense if homeless are just regular people who can't afford housing, and debunks the theory that homelessness has anything to do with the price of housing
>Homelessness basically didn't exist for most of American history. It only started exploding around the late 1970s when China started making reforms to become a technological market economy and instituted its global spy network
>The homeless have large piles of objects covered by blankets but nobody knows what's underneath
>We're expected to believe that homeless people have no families or friends who could let them sleep on their couch
>If you offer a homeless person food they turn it away. This is not the behavior of traditional beggars such as street urchins or buddhist travelers. Someone powerful is feeding them.
>The homeless coordinate somehow to congregate in the same places despite allegedly not having phones
>Homeless people constantly ask for money but you never see them spending it
>China is known to run human trafficking operations through shipping containers in Newark and San Francisco

>>16732706
you're right and if you actually get into a conversation with someone you can bring it around to that way of thinking. its also still useful to quickly dismiss their list of points by showing them that they simply dont understand the issues and are making it sounds more complicated that it actually is, which is half of the problem a lot of the time

take the temperature on the moon thing. they bring this up in several different points, but it all comes down to the fact that they simply lack a few vital bits of information - that they were not on the moon when it was super hot.

what happens though is that for a lot of hoaxies, they are into this stuff because it makes them feel smarter than other people for having 'seen the truth', for having not been taken in by all the obvious fakery etc, and very little can get around pride issues like that.

>>16732719
cost, competence and overall large scale political support.