[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Plasma Snake[D] As you all know, there are several conspiracy theories surrounding the moon landing. I never took them seriously until now. I thought about what it would realistically take in order to land on the moon, and it got me thinkning that perhaps the technology available in 1969 wasnt capable of succesfully landing humans on the moon.

It was, but barely, as it turns out. They almost crashed on the Moon's surface when the lander's shitty little computer gave out.

For one thing, how would they take off from the moon? I know that the moon isnt as large as the Earth, so it would take less force to escape its gravity, but the implications of it are conflicting. In order to take off from the Earth we need these huge towers to help the spaceship along, but landing on the moon and then succesfully taking of in the FIRST attempt seems impossible to me.

The Saturn V had to lift a LOT more than what landed on the Moon. The lander was a flimsy thing and didn't have the mass of the Command and Service modules (there were a total of THREE modules that went to the moon). And don't forget, the Saturn had to lift the three modules AND all three of it's stages as well. And, although it may seem odd, the rocket needs to lift all of its own fuel too. And all of this from a standing start with Earth gravity, which is a LOT more than the Moon.

I mean think about it. We barely even got into space before we supposedly landed on the moon. And why is it that we havent gone back ever since then? Im sure if it was that easy we would have gone back many times with our new and improved technology.

We don't go back because we've been there and done that. The Moon isn't that interesting and it costs a ton of money to put stuff in space. The shuttle costs $450 Million just to launch it so you can figure a Moon shot would need to be around the same.