The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Community => Topic started by: Pcam1 on December 12, 2017, 03:17:21 PM
-
Did anyone else see in the news today that Trump has signed a bill for NASA so they can supposedly send humans to the moon for long term exploration and begin human exploration to mars! First of all, that’s major tax money for nothing, and secondly that tells me the government is worried that people are catching on. Why has it been so long since the United States has been to the moon? Since then, for years there have only been low earth orbit missions. Interesting..
-
I don't think we have ever been to the moon. It's probably impossible.
-
Did anyone else see in the news today that Trump has signed a bill for NASA so they can supposedly send humans to the moon for long term exploration and begin human exploration to mars! First of all, that’s major tax money for nothing, and secondly that tells me the government is worried that people are catching on. Why has it been so long since the United States has been to the moon? Since then, for years there have only been low earth orbit missions. Interesting..
The reason we haven't gone to the moon again is that there is nothing else to be learned there. Why spend billions of $$ for no reason?
-
With today's technology we will be able to do it for millions instead of billions. Time to go back.
A good reason for space travel investment is to help us develop technology that will make each community self-sustaining. If we can pull off a community on Mars that recycles, renews and becomes self-sustaining with no carbon resources, we can then turn around and do the same thing here on Earth.
Said another way, a civilization that can survive on Mars is a civilization that will not destroy Earth. I say we go there.
-
A good reason for space travel investment is to help us develop technology that will make each community self-sustaining. If we can pull off a community on Mars that recycles, renews and becomes self-sustaining with no carbon resources, we can then turn around and do the same thing here on Earth.
I feel like it might make sense to perfect such technology first, here on Earth, before depending on it working blindly on another planet millions of miles away. But maybe that's just me.
-
Did anyone else see in the news today that Trump has signed a bill for NASA so they can supposedly send humans to the moon for long term exploration and begin human exploration to mars! First of all, that’s major tax money for nothing, and secondly that tells me the government is worried that people are catching on. Why has it been so long since the United States has been to the moon? Since then, for years there have only been low earth orbit missions. Interesting..
We quit sending men to the moon because of public apathy. Like they said in "The Right Stuff"... "No bucks, No Buck Rogers". It was a crazy expensive program and unmanned missions are much cheaper. We have been back to the moon with probes.
-
With today's technology we will be able to do it for millions instead of billions. Time to go back.
The cost of getting things (mass) into orbit is the problem. Add people to the equation and you have to take a lot of oxygen, food, and water. Not to mention shielding, pressurized compartments, life support systems, waste disposal, entertainment, medical, etc to name a few. The other huge cost is the return trip. Rovers and probes just die in place. People tend to want to come back. That adds the fuel, engines, and re-entry shielding to the mass.
I did some quick googling and estimated cost per pound to low Earth orbit is at minimum $2,500.00 and that seems optimistic. NASA (yes them) said $10,000 on the shuttle.
Unmanned is the way to go.
-
I don't think we have ever been to the moon. It's probably impossible.
It's probably impossible that you will ever get laid
-
I don't think we have ever been to the moon. It's probably impossible.
It's probably impossible that you will ever get laid
Refrain from low-content posts and personal attacks in the upper fora. Warned.
-
I don't think we have ever been to the moon. It's probably impossible.
I kinda agree:
(...) And to me it's obvious what this means: the moon is not solid rock, it's something like a plasma-hologram!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mi0w8bLtUM
And don't dismiss the whole video just because you didn't like one of the footages in it!
my reply to "What are stars?" topic (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=7585.msg132174#msg132174)
"Is THIS the sun/moon/stars/planets?" topic (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6625.0)
I don't think we have ever been to the moon. It's probably impossible.
It's probably impossible that you will ever get laid
REandconfused, why do you use sex and 'reputation of male primate' tactics? Are you a shill? :) :(
-
I don't think we have ever been to the moon. It's probably impossible.
I kinda agree:
(...) And to me it's obvious what this means: the moon is not solid rock, it's something like a plasma-hologram!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mi0w8bLtUM
And don't dismiss the whole video just because you didn't like one of the footages in it!
my reply to "What are stars?" topic (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=7585.msg132174#msg132174)
"Is THIS the sun/moon/stars/planets?" topic (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6625.0)
I don't think we have ever been to the moon. It's probably impossible.
It's probably impossible that you will ever get laid
REandconfused, why do you use sex and 'reputation of male primate' tactics? Are you a shill? :) :(
Why are you reposting this video from another thread where it was completely and utterly debunked???
Roger
-
Roger G, to you it may be "debunked". But i still believe that 'lunar wave' phenomenon just can't be happening because of refractions of light in Earth's atmosphere.
I just feel that it is different than that!
And if you think i only observe the sky through computer screen and youtube videos, then you're both right and wrong.
I do mostly use internet to find weird sky-related phenomena. But whenever i'm having some spare time from my normal work and researching, i would be going skywatching.
..And the moon does give me a weird feeling of "fakeness", when i loot at it...
So my answer in-short is: i just know that there is more to that video than you might think! I just feel it kinda intuitively (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=7132.msg128177#msg128177).
(And don't ever underestimate the power of (human) intuition!
If you train it in yourself enough, it will be very powerful!!)
IT'S A FUCKING ROUND BABY BALL. WE AREN'T A PENNY FLOATING IN SPACE. YOU ARE ALL RETARDED. WE HAVE FUCKING PHOTOGRAPHIC PROOF FOR GOD'S SAKE.
TheEarthIsRound143, a templateful question: how do you know if the photos from space agencies, space observatories are not fabricated as whole?
What if space-related organizations are giving out some microscopic objects as space photos, the same way cinematographer Stanley Kubrick does in "2001: A Space Odyssey" by using "large miniatures and realistic lighting" VFX technique?
Just how do you know?
...Their technology of faking stuff could potentially be very advanced even without help of CGI...But now when i see a development towards Augmented Reality technologies like "Diminished Reality (https://arpost.co/2017/12/13/the-amazing-power-of-diminished-reality/)", i'm starting to think that space agencies might have always used something similar!! :o...
I felt so many 'silent deja vu`s ' right now!!...
-
Roger G, to you it may be "debunked". But i still believe that 'lunar wave' phenomenon just can't be happening because of refractions of light in Earth's atmosphere.
I just feel that it is different than that!
And if you think i only observe the sky through computer screen and youtube videos, then you're both right and wrong.
I do mostly use internet to find weird sky-related phenomena. But whenever i'm having some spare time from my normal work and researching, i would be going skywatching.
..And the moon does give me a weird feeling of "fakeness", when i loot at it...
So my answer in-short is: i just know that there is more to that video than you might think! I just feel it kinda intuitively (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=7132.msg128177#msg128177).
(And don't ever underestimate the power of (human) intuition!
If you train it in yourself enough, it will be very powerful!!)
If you don't want to accept the facts of what you are seeing as something that I can recreate very easily and explain carefully to you, then there is really no point in trying to answer any of your queries. The world is a very baffling place if you don't have the knowledge to understand it. If I show you a video of fairys at bottom of my garden, if you desperately want to believe it's real then you will.
Roger
-
One idea I heard was that it was theoretically possible to place solar panels on the moon to harvest the sun's rays and then this electricity could actually be "sent" to a receiving station on earth!
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2016/04/22/moon-lunar-solar-power-plants/#.Wjj7CYQgWM8 (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2016/04/22/moon-lunar-solar-power-plants/#.Wjj7CYQgWM8)
Similar to the idea of having phones that charge without being plugged directly in, https://www.howtogeek.com/162483/no-more-cables-how-wireless-charging-works-and-how-you-can-use-it-today/ (https://www.howtogeek.com/162483/no-more-cables-how-wireless-charging-works-and-how-you-can-use-it-today/)
Stick that up your hoop fossil fuels! >o<
-
One idea I heard was that it was theoretically possible to place solar panels on the moon to harvest the sun's rays and then this electricity could actually be "sent" to a receiving station on earth!
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2016/04/22/moon-lunar-solar-power-plants/#.Wjj7CYQgWM8 (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2016/04/22/moon-lunar-solar-power-plants/#.Wjj7CYQgWM8)
Similar to the idea of having phones that charge without being plugged directly in, https://www.howtogeek.com/162483/no-more-cables-how-wireless-charging-works-and-how-you-can-use-it-today/ (https://www.howtogeek.com/162483/no-more-cables-how-wireless-charging-works-and-how-you-can-use-it-today/)
Stick that up your hoop fossil fuels! >o<
I broke the usb charging input on my phone and now have a wireless charger for it. I think it uses bendy light or magic perspective :D
Roger
-
I broke the usb charging input on my phone and now have a wireless charger for it. I think it uses bendy light or magic perspective :D
Roger
Please refrain from low-content posting in the upper fora. Warned.
EDIT - Actually you are on three warnings already. Have a few days off for repeatedly breaking the rules.
-
I don't think we have ever been to the moon. It's probably impossible.
I have no doubt in my mind that we went to the moon. Why would they fake it?? It would be harder to fake the moon landing in the 1960s then actually go there.
-
It would be harder to fake the moon landing in the 1960s then actually go there.
What a ridiculously silly thing to say. Are you simply parroting NASA or can you back that statement up with facts and figures?
-
Almost out of context:
People should experiment with capturing weird sun/moon phenomena using Infrared/Ultraviolet/X-ray/nightvision/thermal imaging camera filters!....
What if those people who talk about reptilian shapeshifters being 'low-frequency vibrational beings' are right?
What if "They Live glasses" could literally be based on 'light spectrum' tweaks + combination? Infrared glasses? Microwave glasses??
-
I don't think we have ever been to the moon. It's probably impossible.
I have no doubt in my mind that we went to the moon. Why would they fake it?? It would be harder to fake the moon landing in the 1960s then actually go there.
More to the point, I haven't heard Russia (who were in the space race in the 60s) calling America out for faking it. Or Australia, who relayed the signals.
Not to mention the literally thousands of people who would have to have been "in on it", many of whom are still alive.
-
Did anyone else see in the news today that Trump has signed a bill for NASA so they can supposedly send humans to the moon for long term exploration and begin human exploration to mars! First of all, that’s major tax money for nothing, and secondly that tells me the government is worried that people are catching on. Why has it been so long since the United States has been to the moon? Since then, for years there have only been low earth orbit missions. Interesting..
The reason we haven't gone to the moon again is that there is nothing else to be learned there. Why spend billions of $$ for no reason?
More to do with the funding dryiing up. The space race in the 60s was politically motivated. Russia had some initial successes, first satellite, first man in space. The US were desperate to catch up and overtake them, which they did. But it wasn't cheap. After they'd done it a few times the public appetite for it was on the wane hence the later missions being scrapped.
-
Did anyone else see in the news today that Trump has signed a bill for NASA so they can supposedly send humans to the moon for long term exploration and begin human exploration to mars! First of all, that’s major tax money for nothing, and secondly that tells me the government is worried that people are catching on. Why has it been so long since the United States has been to the moon? Since then, for years there have only been low earth orbit missions. Interesting..
The reason we haven't gone to the moon again is that there is nothing else to be learned there. Why spend billions of $$ for no reason?
More to do with the funding dryiing up. The space race in the 60s was politically motivated. Russia had some initial successes, first satellite, first man in space. The US were desperate to catch up and overtake them, which they did. But it wasn't cheap. After they'd done it a few times the public appetite for it was on the wane hence the later missions being scrapped.
Here are the two favorite RE-tard responses as to why we never went back to the moon:
1) Nothing more to learn; and,
2) Public appetite wanes...
Well, the first is so freaking silly, I do not believe it even merits a response...
And the second? Public appetite for high taxes also wanes...has not stopped the government...
Can you fellas at least come up with something novel?
-
Did anyone else see in the news today that Trump has signed a bill for NASA so they can supposedly send humans to the moon for long term exploration and begin human exploration to mars! First of all, that’s major tax money for nothing, and secondly that tells me the government is worried that people are catching on. Why has it been so long since the United States has been to the moon? Since then, for years there have only been low earth orbit missions. Interesting..
The reason we haven't gone to the moon again is that there is nothing else to be learned there. Why spend billions of $$ for no reason?
More to do with the funding dryiing up. The space race in the 60s was politically motivated. Russia had some initial successes, first satellite, first man in space. The US were desperate to catch up and overtake them, which they did. But it wasn't cheap. After they'd done it a few times the public appetite for it was on the wane hence the later missions being scrapped.
Here are the two favorite RE-tard responses as to why we never went back to the moon:
1) Nothing more to learn; and,
2) Public appetite wanes...
Well, the first is so freaking silly, I do not believe it even merits a response...
And the second? Public appetite for high taxes also wanes...has not stopped the government...
Can you fellas at least come up with something novel?
1) There is almost no reason to risk someones life to study the moon. Given small budgets versus the actual cost of doing science in space, every project needs to make financial sense. The moon just doesn't rank that high. You may not think that is the truth, but that doesn't make it any less true.
2) Not sure where you live, but in the US they keep cutting taxes. (which is ridiculous given our debt, but that is a topic for another day)
-
Did anyone else see in the news today that Trump has signed a bill for NASA so they can supposedly send humans to the moon for long term exploration and begin human exploration to mars! First of all, that’s major tax money for nothing, and secondly that tells me the government is worried that people are catching on. Why has it been so long since the United States has been to the moon? Since then, for years there have only been low earth orbit missions. Interesting..
The reason we haven't gone to the moon again is that there is nothing else to be learned there. Why spend billions of $$ for no reason?
More to do with the funding dryiing up. The space race in the 60s was politically motivated. Russia had some initial successes, first satellite, first man in space. The US were desperate to catch up and overtake them, which they did. But it wasn't cheap. After they'd done it a few times the public appetite for it was on the wane hence the later missions being scrapped.
Here are the two favorite RE-tard responses as to why we never went back to the moon:
1) Nothing more to learn; and,
2) Public appetite wanes...
Well, the first is so freaking silly, I do not believe it even merits a response...
And the second? Public appetite for high taxes also wanes...has not stopped the government...
Can you fellas at least come up with something novel?
1) There is almost no reason to risk someones life to study the moon. Given small budgets versus the actual cost of doing science in space, every project needs to make financial sense. The moon just doesn't rank that high. You may not think that is the truth, but that doesn't make it any less true.
2) Not sure where you live, but in the US they keep cutting taxes. (which is ridiculous given our debt, but that is a topic for another day)
Sorry...
You do not make "one small step/one giant leap," and then essentially retract.
Humanity has never done this.
Just goes against the grain.
Bridges = always longer.
Buildings = always taller.
Outer space = "We need to go to Mars."
If nothing else, the building of a base on the Moon (much like a base camp on the slopes of Everest) could have been accomplished by now, given the cost of the Shuttle program, et.al.
You are joking if you actually think the US has been cutting taxes.
Reshuffling, playing three card monte is more like it.
Fuel taxes, who pays what taxes, collections of lottery revenue, etc...
The government collects more of your money now on the back end. They just do not advertise it as much.
-
Did anyone else see in the news today that Trump has signed a bill for NASA so they can supposedly send humans to the moon for long term exploration and begin human exploration to mars! First of all, that’s major tax money for nothing, and secondly that tells me the government is worried that people are catching on. Why has it been so long since the United States has been to the moon? Since then, for years there have only been low earth orbit missions. Interesting..
The reason we haven't gone to the moon again is that there is nothing else to be learned there. Why spend billions of $$ for no reason?
More to do with the funding dryiing up. The space race in the 60s was politically motivated. Russia had some initial successes, first satellite, first man in space. The US were desperate to catch up and overtake them, which they did. But it wasn't cheap. After they'd done it a few times the public appetite for it was on the wane hence the later missions being scrapped.
Here are the two favorite RE-tard responses as to why we never went back to the moon:
1) Nothing more to learn; and,
2) Public appetite wanes...
Well, the first is so freaking silly, I do not believe it even merits a response...
And the second? Public appetite for high taxes also wanes...has not stopped the government...
Can you fellas at least come up with something novel?
1) There is almost no reason to risk someones life to study the moon. Given small budgets versus the actual cost of doing science in space, every project needs to make financial sense. The moon just doesn't rank that high. You may not think that is the truth, but that doesn't make it any less true.
2) Not sure where you live, but in the US they keep cutting taxes. (which is ridiculous given our debt, but that is a topic for another day)
Sorry...
You do not make "one small step/one giant leap," and then essentially retract.
Humanity has never done this.
Just goes against the grain.
Bridges = always longer.
Buildings = always taller.
Outer space = "We need to go to Mars."
If nothing else, the building of a base on the Moon (much like a base camp on the slopes of Everest) could have been accomplished by now, given the cost of the Shuttle program, et.al.
You are joking if you actually think the US has been cutting taxes.
Reshuffling, playing three card monte is more like it.
Fuel taxes, who pays what taxes, collections of lottery revenue, etc...
The government collects more of your money now on the back end. They just do not advertise it as much.
You're just wrong. The first thing that comes to mind is aviation. Concord - gone, SR-71 - gone, the fastest "plane" we ever built, the X-15, was built in the 1960s. Then there is the xb-70, a bomber that could travel mach 3.1 - cancelled. These are just some items off the top of my head where humanity has reached a point and then backtracked.
A moon base isn't really feasible. We've tried doing self-sustaining domes on Earth and they fail miserably. Constantly sending supplies to the moon would be very expensive and would soak up vast sums of money that could be spent elsewhere. It's called prioritization.
I can't cover every single state/county/local tax rate. Federal tax rates have dropped. My spending on taxes as a percent of income has dropped. This isn't really on topic though.
-
You're just wrong. The first thing that comes to mind is aviation. Concord - gone, SR-71 - gone, the fastest "plane" we ever built, the X-15, was built in the 1960s. Then there is the xb-70, a bomber that could travel mach 3.1 - cancelled. These are just some items off the top of my head where humanity has reached a point and then backtracked.
Faster =/= more efficient.
More passengers does.
Hence the survival and modifications/upgrades of the 747, the introduction of the Airbus 380, more powerful and more efficient jet engines, allowing a longer range of flight.
Cruise missiles took the place of long range bombers.
So, we did not backtrack.
We went forward, WAY FORWARD!!!
For crying out loud, you are wrong.
A moon base isn't really feasible. We've tried doing self-sustaining domes on Earth and they fail miserably. Constantly sending supplies to the moon would be very expensive and would soak up vast sums of money that could be spent elsewhere. It's called prioritization.
Horse hockey.
There have been plenty of projects here on Earth that have not "failed miserably," and the money spent POST APOLLO could have just as easily been spent on establishing such a base.
I can't cover every single state/county/local tax rate. Federal tax rates have dropped. My spending on taxes as a percent of income has dropped. This isn't really on topic though.
Bull cookies...given your butt is being kicked on the initial argument I cannot blame you for wanting to avoid another butt kicking on this slightly tangential argument, especially since you introduced the tangent.
-
You're just wrong. The first thing that comes to mind is aviation. Concord - gone, SR-71 - gone, the fastest "plane" we ever built, the X-15, was built in the 1960s. Then there is the xb-70, a bomber that could travel mach 3.1 - cancelled. These are just some items off the top of my head where humanity has reached a point and then backtracked.
Faster =/= more efficient.
More passengers does.
Hence the survival and modifications/upgrades of the 747, the introduction of the Airbus 380, more powerful and more efficient jet engines, allowing a longer range of flight.
Cruise missiles took the place of long range bombers.
So, we did not backtrack.
We went forward, WAY FORWARD!!!
For crying out loud, you are wrong.
A moon base isn't really feasible. We've tried doing self-sustaining domes on Earth and they fail miserably. Constantly sending supplies to the moon would be very expensive and would soak up vast sums of money that could be spent elsewhere. It's called prioritization.
Horse hockey.
There have been plenty of projects here on Earth that have not "failed miserably," and the money spent POST APOLLO could have just as easily been spent on establishing such a base.
I can't cover every single state/county/local tax rate. Federal tax rates have dropped. My spending on taxes as a percent of income has dropped. This isn't really on topic though.
Bull cookies...given your butt is being kicked on the initial argument I cannot blame you for wanting to avoid another butt kicking on this slightly tangential argument, especially since you introduced the tangent.
Thank you for blindly walking into the point I was making. We give up some things (travel speed, exceedingly fast bombers) because they are not economically feasible/not needed. The same thing happens in the space program. It is NOT economically feasible to have a base on the moon and do the other projects that yield more science. You seem to think having a base on the moon would be worth the expense. People who actually know better don't. You think the Earth is flat - you probably should steer clear of the science discussions. Who, exactly, is getting their butt kicked here???
Taxes - as I said, I can't comment on all localities. Federal rates are comparatively low. I'm guessing that you had no idea the top tax rate in the US used to be over 90%.
http://federal-tax-rates.insidegov.com/ (http://federal-tax-rates.insidegov.com/)
Google Biosphere 2 for an example of the difficulties of running self sustaining communities on Earth. Now try to imagine a small community trying to survive on the freaking moon.
-
Thank you for blindly walking into the point I was making. We give up some things (travel speed, exceedingly fast bombers) because they are not economically feasible/not needed. The same thing happens in the space program. It is NOT economically feasible to have a base on the moon and do the other projects that yield more science. You seem to think having a base on the moon would be worth the expense. People who actually know better don't. You think the Earth is flat - you probably should steer clear of the science discussions. Who, exactly, is getting their butt kicked here???
You are.
Every other "long range" "difficult" "insert adjective for arduous" venture made by man has invariably established outposts in the pursuit of the final goal.
Name one that has not.
"blindly walking into the point..." my ass.
Taxes - as I said, I can't comment on all localities. Federal rates are comparatively low. I'm guessing that you had no idea the top tax rate in the US used to be over 90%.
http://federal-tax-rates.insidegov.com/ (http://federal-tax-rates.insidegov.com/)
Yes.
I did.
Pre-Kennedy, until he came into office.
And those rates were essentially never paid because of shelters, actual fraud, off-shore accounts, maintenance of dual citizenship, etc...
So my point about government effectively collecting more tax per dollar still stands.
Google Biosphere 2 for an example of the difficulties of running self sustaining communities on Earth. Now try to imagine a small community trying to survive on the freaking moon.
Establishment of self-sustaining colonies with that (the establishment) as the final objective is nothing like establishing outposts to reach a far greater objective.
All prior experience required such steps.
Nope.
You lost.
First, we never went.
The fact we have not gone back despite the "increase in tech," is the primary reason I believe we did not go in the first place.
You really need to speak to your handlers and tell them to come up with some better talking points that are not so easily thrashed and trashed.
-
LMAO - I think you've forgotten the original point. It wasn't worth the cost to keep going to the moon. History and science is on my side. If you think winning an debate is running your mouth, not providing any evidence, and forgetting the point, you win. Congrats.
-
Did anyone else see in the news today that Trump has signed a bill for NASA so they can supposedly send humans to the moon for long term exploration and begin human exploration to mars! First of all, that’s major tax money for nothing, and secondly that tells me the government is worried that people are catching on. Why has it been so long since the United States has been to the moon? Since then, for years there have only been low earth orbit missions. Interesting..
The reason we haven't gone to the moon again is that there is nothing else to be learned there. Why spend billions of $$ for no reason?
This question as a rebuttal in reference to the United States government?? ::)
-
LMAO - I think you've forgotten the original point. It wasn't worth the cost to keep going to the moon. History and science is on my side. If you think winning an debate is running your mouth, not providing any evidence, and forgetting the point, you win. Congrats.
The answer to "why have we not been back to the moon" is informed by the answer to the question "why did we go to the moon in the first place"?
And that wasn't just in the spirit of discovery, it was largely motivated by the cold war. Basically it came down to beating the Russians.
I'll be honest, I'm disappointed we haven't been back in my lifetime, I'm disappointed we don't have a lunar base. But the fact is those things would be crazy expensive and exploration of space has moved on - the ISS, putting Curiosity on Mars. But NASA's budget isn't what it was in the 60s when the space race was in full swing.
http://www.spaceflightinsider.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/NASA-Budget-Federal.svg_.png
Technology does always move on but as you say that doesn't mean everything gets faster. Concorde was developed in the late 60s and we still don't have any other commercial airliners going at over Mach 1. Going faster is expensive. Basically, F=ma. And you have something to provide that F. So airline technology has moved on in different ways, more comfort, better entertainment systems and so on.
It's unclear why us having not returned to the moon is in some way a smoking gun for flat earth theory. If the claim is that all the missions were faked then they could have just faked more. Actually would be much easier these days with the CGI available. Is the theory that NASA are instead pumping money into faking the ISS instead? Ludicrous really.