A Literal Take on Staging a Moon Landing

Description

The meme features white, sans-serif text on a black background. At the top, it poses the question: 'the moon landing was staged?'. In the center is a diagram showing a multi-stage orbital rocket, like the Saturn V, in an exploded view, with its different sections separated to illustrate its construction. At the bottom, the punchline reads: 'yeah thats how all orbital rockets fucking work dude'. The image leverages a pun on the word 'staged'. It contrasts the common conspiracy theory that the moon landing was faked (staged like a performance) with the literal aerospace engineering definition, where rockets are built in stages that detach as they ascend into orbit. This form of humor, which relies on a technically accurate and pedantic interpretation of a common phrase, is highly relatable to engineers and technically-minded individuals who appreciate precision in language

Common Tags

Devops BuildPipeline DeploymentPipeline ContinuousIntegration OverEngineering

Comments

113

Anonymous ★ Top Pick Of course the moon landing was staged; you can't just git push a 3,000-ton monolith into orbit on a single commit

Anonymous ★ Top Pick

Of course the moon landing was staged; you can't just git push a 3,000-ton monolith into orbit on a single commit
Anonymous

Our CI pipeline has fewer stages than Apollo - maybe that’s why it never achieves escape velocity past QA
Anonymous

Just like how we tell junior devs our staging environment is 'exactly like production' - technically true, but everyone who's been around knows there's always something different when you actually launch
Anonymous

When someone questions your microservices architecture, just remember: even NASA knew that monolithic designs don't scale to the moon. Stage separation isn't just for rockets - it's the original 'break it into smaller, independently deployable components' pattern. The Saturn V had better service boundaries than most enterprise applications, and it literally had to work in a vacuum
Anonymous

Every launch is a release pipeline - shed dead mass each stage until only the artifact reaches prod; Tsiolkovsky basically invented multi‑stage Docker builds
Anonymous

Every orbital rocket is “staged” the same way our releases are - Tsiolkovsky calls it mass ratio; we call it decoupling and throwing half the stack away before prod
Anonymous

Moon landing 'staged'? Nah dude, that's just a multi-stage Docker build shedding layers post-liftoff
@mr_sarsarabi 1y

there are people who are still fooled by the nasa about moon landing. it was not staged? they say that the knowledge to the moon is forgotten! they can't land a fucking robot on the moon right now. how should i Believe that they went there and landed without any atmospheric air and had enough fuel to successfully launch their ship again from the moon and they did it many times? the spacex succeeded in vertical landing of rockets in the year 2017. how could they have done that 60 years before that on moon with no atmosphere and with that low level of technology at that time? come on. the cold war is over and american supermacy is ending. tell the world the truth.
1. dev_meme 1y
  
  the cold war is over and american supermacy is ending. tell the world the truth. Sir, I'm telegram channel with memes
2. @mrYakov 1y
  
  In moon race NASA have almost unlimited fundings. just give NASA that level of funding back and see results, lol.
  
  @TERASKULL 1y
  
  and unlimited drugs too
  
  @RiedleroD 1y
  
  observe. the answer to that question also there's just very little reason to go to the moon rn. I mean what would you do there. it's of very little scientific and economic value. "colonize the moon" bruv we haven't even colonized the arctics yet
  
  @mr_sarsarabi 1y
  
  yeah. where is that knowledge now? i wrote logical observations and facts but people are calling me dumb just because I don't follow the crowd. we know little about space even right now. two astronauts were trapped beside the space station for six months and nobody could do anything. it took so much time to get them back safely. i just can't Believe that they went to moon 60 years ago and came back but they couldn't land a rocket vertically until 2017. the moon landing was obviously a marvel work of the Hollywood. nice work to those who made those footages. and those who made dumb people of that time believe this nonsense.
  
  @RiedleroD 1y
  
  uhm, you don't know much about space. I know why nasa 60 years ago went to the moon and I know why modern rockets fail too. It's harder to land in an atmosphere than in space btw, obviously the lack of air getting in the way makes it easier. And modern rockets (at least by corporations) are focused on profitability, plus there's been a lot of "go fast and break things" injected from the techspace into airspace. people are calling you dumb because you assume that just because you don't know about something means that other people don't know about it either.
  
  @mr_sarsarabi 1y
  
  i see that there is no need to visit the moon anymore but but observing from the point of view of an engineer they achieved a lot with so much little fail rate. even now spacex's starship explodes multiple times with all the perfect engineering put to work and still can't complete it's test runs. how should I believe that they did that 60 years ago when supercomputers had 16kb of RAM and a lot less processing power? I think maybe you might reconsider your beliefs and maybe consider for a second that you are the one who is fooled and dumb.
  
  @azizhakberdiev 1y
  
  How RAM size can affect precision?
  
  @Algoinde 1y
  
  it's more profitable to explode fast than to pay engineers for 10 years to launch 1 perfect mission
  
  @RiedleroD 1y
  
  allegedly at least. I'm not convinced "go fast and break things" is the best strategy everywhere and that companies using that mantra are just successful due to unrelated reasons.
  
  @Algoinde 1y
  
  it keeps shareholders satisfied with things happening
  
  @Algoinde 1y
  
  dead news = stock goes down
  
  @RiedleroD 1y
  
  I guess? that's only really a thing you have to think about if you've got shareholders tho, and we all know how terrible prioritizing short-term profits can be.
  
  @azizhakberdiev 1y
  
  they just need to hype some stuff, Musk is a famous business showman
  
  @RiedleroD 1y
  
  more importantly, musk is rich and he can just buy his way out of problems
  
  @ZgGPuo8dZef58K6hxxGVj3Z2 1y
  
  He cant buy love tho
  
  @RiedleroD 1y
  
  very true
  
  @ashit_axar 1y
  
  Time, i mean time. They don't sell time anywhere.
  
  @Algoinde 1y
  
  speaking of perfect missions: james webb
  
  @RiedleroD 1y
  
  three reasons: 1. nasa was trying to perfect a rocket with theoretical knowledge and then have a successful launch, while spacex and many others try to make many cheap rockets and see which ones work better in practice 2. spacex, as big as it is, still has only around 10% as much money as nasa does, not to mention the lack of existing talent, resources, connections and institutional knowledge. 3. they fundamentally try to achieve different things. nasa was about science, spacex is about making money. and as an aside, the board computers are actually quite inconsequential. I don't know what they have in modern rockets, but probably still something quite small to reduce weight. you just don't know that much RAM and processing power to steer a rocket, as weird as that sounds. remember that on a computer, math is quick and most other things are slow - a rocket control unit pretty much only does math. no complicated graphics, no audio processing, no complicated physics engine (in modern ones maybe they account for deformation in the rocket, but even that is quite inexpensive compared to modern games, especially when you make some effort of actually optimizing the damn thing)
  
  @ashit_axar 1y
  
  Processing power was bottle neck at the time. Nowadays a fraction of that budget lead you there if your will is true. Sensors and actuators on the shelf. They did it with a PotatoPi, you have a raspberry. 😉😂
  
  @TheFloofyFloof 1y
  
  It's still a bottleneck if you are boeing
  
  @ashit_axar 1y
  
  Olny if you sideload Bitcoin mining on it to fund the expenses 😂😂
  
  @Algoinde 1y
  
  all questions you might have are easily attributed to greed
  
  dev_meme 1y
  
  I know why nasa 60 years ago went to the moon and I know why modern rockets fail too But wait, it's because they had scientists from nazi germany! /s
  
  @RiedleroD 1y
  
  not even wrong tbh, germany was actually the leading country in science before the nazis took over and the smart scientists fled
  
  dev_meme 1y
  
  Most of leading ones who were working on nuclear stuff tho. Which is even pre-war were understood by scientists how powerful it will be, and even they actually had lower expectation -- all first in-field expirements provided results much above theoretical predictions For nazis: due to crazy spendings on military research they were leader in rocket science with lots of unique knowledge
  
  @callofvoid0 1y
  
  V1 rocket for example
  
  dev_meme 1y
  
  I have to understand that they were trapped because --> Boeing <--
  
  dev_meme 1y
  
  Just a little reminder that Boeing whistleblowsers were found dead shortly before discussions in court I mean, there was more than a single person to who it happened
  
  @ZgGPuo8dZef58K6hxxGVj3Z2 1y
  
  Uhmmmmm I would like you to look up why. There is various data that we can study on. Possibly even setting up some monitoring device on the moon for more shit. Currently what we are hoping is getting a better view how solar flares and the magnetic field of the earth interact. Not in a lab scale but in a real earth scale.
  
  @RiedleroD 1y
  
  yes yes but I mean landing on the moon specifically
  
  @RiedleroD 1y
  
  monitoring devices can be in orbit, landing not necessary
  
  @ZgGPuo8dZef58K6hxxGVj3Z2 1y
  
  More efficient and reliable
  
  @RiedleroD 1y
  
  doubt. but I'm not far enough into specifics to refute that
  
  @ZgGPuo8dZef58K6hxxGVj3Z2 1y
  
  Yes landing there would allow us to not worry about orbital and saving energy on monitoring and real time transmission
  
  @ashit_axar 1y
  
  Learnt knowledge cannot be forgotten. it'll be easy once the problem is solved. No hard funding is required now. The math is solved already, supercomputers in your pockets for a cent, what is left ?
  
  @mrYakov 1y
  
  Lol, moon programm is not about math. Its about building specialised factories that can manufacture rocket parts and test it. After moon programm a lot of that factories closed. Now you still need to rebuild it.
  
  @ashit_axar 1y
  
  All that is already present, even better ones and newer generations. Most advanced materials and
  
  @mrYakov 1y
  
  Thats the thing, you cant just make saturn 5 parts from newest materials, because new materials have different properties, so you have to redevelop each part and whole rocket to make sure that everything will works. I dont remember exact keywords, but there was a story when chemical technology was lost just because some of ingredients now manufactured in more clean form and that break reaction. So company was forced to develop contamination stage to reborn this tecnology. And there is question, who pay for that ? Space is expensive as hell, why we should redevelop 60 years old rocket and launch it again to the moon ? What profit we get ? Give another argument that the flight to the moon happened ? Well, if the existing arguments weren't enough, then these arguments won't be enough either.
  
  @lilfluffyears 1y
  
  As the other guy mentioned, parts and materials change. It's like with food. You can't make your grandmothers chocolate cake like how she made it long ago. We have different egg sizes and quality, All ingredients are made from a new factory AND even the oven is new tech! So to make sure the cake still tastes good, you have to reinvent it to work with what you have now
  
  @ashit_axar 1y
  
  Yes, but human tech today reached a point where no secret can be held anymore. You suddenly got alien materials? We have spectrometers to analyze the exact elements and quantities. Isn't that enough? We have microscopes capable of counting atoms. No excuses 😉👻
  
  @mrYakov 1y
  
  And all of this cost a lot of money, lol. So, again, who should pay for saturn 5 reborn and why ?
  
  @ashit_axar 1y
  
  I don't think it's due to cost if they are not doing it. Maybe there are other reasons, but it's not cost. Nowadays analysis instruments get so cheap that everyone can ask for a DNA inspection. There should be other reasons or i am too saturated with YouTube tech videos 😂😂
  
  @mrYakov 1y
  
  Bro, money is primary reason for almost everything, lol. NASA definitely want building big rockets, but nobody want to give them money for it.
  
  @lilfluffyears 1y
  
  Why don't people remake old recipes with technology then? 🤨
  
  @Algoinde 1y
  
  old recipes do get adjusted for new relative compositions if you foolishly follow the old recipe without a good context for how much egg is in the egg, you'll probably be off
  
  _ 1y
  
  It definitely can, especially if people that developped or discovered it are since retired or dead. For example France paused their nuclear programme for years (meaning mostly no new nuclear power plants), and they now have huge problems to bulid new ones, or even for the maintenance of existing ones
  
  @ashit_axar 1y
  
  Nuclear pps are not really worth it. Too expensive for the outcome.
  
  dev_meme 1y
  
  You will need to go deeper here, it's a shit hole Atom energy is among the cheapest ones (competes with location-dependent things like dams and gas-based plants)
  
  @ashit_axar 1y
  
  Pov: Fossil fuels are not really produced of fossils. Those are just long chains of Carbon atoms formed in pressure deep under the ground. Carbon is one of the most abundant elements on any planet. Just like hydrogen, helium...
  
  dev_meme 1y
  
  Even though requires massive initial investment, longer build times + risks
  
  @ashit_axar 1y
  
  Maintenance costs: am i a joke to you? 😂😂
  
  dev_meme 1y
  
  That's the thing With current amount of regulations, maintance cost of reactors and plant itself is not far from being neglectable
  
  dev_meme 1y
  
  If you mean utilization of radioactive waste and this kind of maintanance, then I would advice to check latest news (for prototypes from 20-40 years ago) of full-cycle plants where radioactive waste is fully reused and clean fuel is only being used to a small degree for start of reaction
  
  @RiedleroD 1y
  
  that's not how that works. remember that the romans had proper plumbing, and the following civilisations didn't or at most used the little plumbing that was set in stone (literally) and continued to be functional. remember that the greeks before them were completely fine with gay people and such (the romans fucked that one up) and remember that the people before them whose name I forgot had writing, and after a civilisational collapse just up and forgot how to do it, meaning the greeks had to reinvent writing (well, more like import it from someplace else, but yknow)
  
  dev_meme 1y
  
  We have easy way to explain it "know-how" - those are easily worth millions and more, often not even being patented to avoid being stolen
  
  @ashit_axar 1y
  
  So you mean NASA engineers don't know how to properly document and comment on their code?
  
  dev_meme 1y
  
  You really think "code" is that important for a space program?
  
  @ashit_axar 1y
  
  We already have the infrastructure, all left is to pick the parts off the shelf. You know what I mean We have full CAE (computer aided engineering) workflow
  
  dev_meme 1y
  
  We already have the infrastructure This is exactly what everyone is trying to say - we don't Just a reminder: before spacex almost all engines for serious rockets were using RD-180 or RD-181 bought from russia. Think about it
  
  @ashit_axar 1y
  
  This is like saying america has no CPU building knowledge, because all is produced in Taiwan and china now. Think twice... Bro, almost all the CPUs are designed in UK and US.
  
  dev_meme 1y
  
  Sir, you just implied RD-180/181 being designed in US, when it's smaller and weaker export version of RD-170/171 and fully designed in soviet era / russia. Fun fact: russia itself never used RD-180
  
  _ 1y
  
  Note that the design of a CPU layout is really different from the actual production of these layouts. So while the US may know how to design CPU, that doesn't means they're able to produce it, at least not for advanced technology nodes
  
  dev_meme 1y
  
  I like good comments from profiles like yours
  
  @ashit_axar 1y
  
  Nvidia is an American company and is producing new graghic chips in the US now
  
  dev_meme 1y
  
  > Nvidia producing chips in US False
  
  @ashit_axar 1y
  
  I think someone is not following the fresh news
  
  dev_meme 1y
  
  To plan to build a plant is not to start producing chips Modern plants are built on 3-8 years timescale
  
  @ashit_axar 1y
  
  Common, AMSL company is producing 15 EUV chip making instruments each year. The time scale you noted is for stone age
  
  dev_meme 1y
  
  ASML makes machines
  
  dev_meme 1y
  
  For lithography They do not produce chips itself
  
  @ashit_axar 1y
  
  EUV machines are the bottle neck. All left is playing with dust and mud
  
  dev_meme 1y
  
  wtf, are you serious? What are stupid company that ASML -- all those dozens years they might have justadded dust and mud to kill TSMC and Samsung but decided to just sell machines
  
  dev_meme 1y
  
  Even after message edit, it's not just playing with dust and mud It's not even just dust and mud, go check youtube video about CPU's design process, lection on grades of silicon purity, and how AMD totally failed with production lines so they had to work with TSMC and even then they failed many times before achieved somewhat production acceptable quality level
  
  @ashit_axar 1y
  
  TSMC is also an American company.
  
  dev_meme 1y
  
  No, this is entire point!
  
  dev_meme 1y
  
  It's literally T in their name! Ok, looks like I'm being trolled there
  
  @ashit_axar 1y
  
  So where do Chip dyes come from? Taiwan? No
  
  dev_meme 1y
  
  Look, you are really curious but probably just a little bit too early in career for that discussion Likely I shouldn't have joined the discussion when you brought writting code as key obstabcle to repeat of moon program but I'm just a human and got triggered Real life things are much more complicated than code and often do not have straightforward answers. To be honest, code, even in most complicated legacy systems, is one of most straightforward problems you can encounter in real life Due to my background, I couldn't right away give an advice with educational videos about CPU arch design process and how production lines to work on two-didgit nm and lower are being build and maintained. But even surface knowledge you can get on English would help to get better perspective. Pretty sure that there should be some great intro videos into the field on Arabic too But discussing dies production is not trade secret, it's kinda vice versa - fully public knowledge which doesn't make sense in "know-how" discussion
  
  dev_meme 1y
  
  and as somewhat of AMD hater in terms of QA: percentage of defective goods that reach consumer still was unacceptably high just few years ago
  
  dev_meme 1y
  
  This is news you're talking about? https://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/nvidia-manufacture-american-made-ai-supercomputers-us/
  
  _ 1y
  
  Then there's still a difference between theorically knowing how to do it, having the tools and processes to do it, and having a good enough yield (i.e. low failure rate) to be economically viable
  
  dev_meme 1y
  
  There WAS RS-25 which was terrible economically, and people who knew how to build it were quickly gone -- there's not too many space shuttles launched in the previous 30 years
3. @pooyabehravesh 1y
  
  داداش شرفمونو نبر الان همه دنیا فک میکنن ایرانیا اسگلن
  
  dev_meme 1y
  
  Please, use English around there 🙏
  
  @pooyabehravesh 1y
  
  Oh sorry about that, you are right I just warned him to not be dumb in his own language.
  
  dev_meme 1y
  
  It seems probable now, and I really hope that in our lifetime we will get relatively affordable way to travel to/through space as a mere mortals
  
  dev_meme 1y
  
  There are a lot of people who denies, etc Only stupid people would generalize statements of a few people to entire nation
  
  @ashit_axar 1y
  
  Dadash, stop making it table. Name no keshvar anywhere.
4. @djfs333 1y
  
  80 IQ take
5. @NitroChromium 1y
  
  Nobody cares that you're too dumb to understand how it worked, Akshit
  
  @RiedleroD 1y
  
  …akshit?
  
  @ashit_axar 1y
  
  Akshit
  
  @Daonifur 1mo
  
  Kick for troll or no? This is their only message
  
  @RiedleroD 1mo
  
  let them stay, whatever
  
  @Daonifur 1mo
  
  I mean, they don't use TG anymore so free kick potentially
  
  @RiedleroD 1mo
  
  yeah still don't do that
  
  @Daonifur 1mo
  
  Okay, fair I guess. Admins will handle the trolls then
  
  @RiedleroD 1mo
  
  I don't like to ban smalltime trolls. I only ban people when they become a problem
6. @ZgGPuo8dZef58K6hxxGVj3Z2 1y
  
  Fr they only faked it so they can claim "they have pictures" of a "spherical earth"
  
  @RiedleroD 1y
  
  something about flat earthers all around the globe
  
  @ZgGPuo8dZef58K6hxxGVj3Z2 1y
  
  LMFAO
7. @ashit_axar 1y
  
  That actually makes sense. I'm on your side on this.
@DerKnerd 1y

Sarcasm?

Use J and K for navigation

A Literal Take on Staging a Moon Landing

Description

Categories

Common Tags

Comments

More like this

Grandma Remembers Deploying Applications Without Containers

Anti-Establishment Devs: From Cypherpunks to Cloud Complainers

DevOps Generational Warfare: A Thousand Logos vs. FTP