It was a big problem, but it was solved. Your lack of understanding doesn’t make it so. This is classic argument from incredulity.
I don’t understand how I can sit in my office and type a message that everyone in the whole world can read instantly. That just seems “too hard a problem” to solve. Therefore, I am not really typing this.
That’s really funny.
Even with Kubrick 's perfectionism (is that even a word?) virtually all of his films contain continuity errors that are fairly obvious. Perhaps those who say the “moon landing is a hoax” folks are wrong are just picking up on Stan’s mistakes.
Stanley Kubrick wasn’t quite the super-ultra-perfectionist people make him put to be. In the battle scenes in Barry Lyndon, for example, most of the soldiers are carrying converted Springfield rifles (a US civil war firearm), while the ones closest to the camera have a proper Brown Bess or Potsdam musket. Even in a movie vastly praised for its accuracy and depiction of the 18th century things like this show up.
Actually, no. It is not.
The main difference is that you would tend to insist on having the human return, whereas one normally just abandons a probe once its done its job.
But comparing a human mission to a sample-return mission, the two missions are 99.9% similar.
The hard part of getting to the moon is figuring out the rocket itself, as one needs a ludicrous amount of energy to do so. Many magnitudes greater than any previous long voyage required.
Once you have a device capable of going to the moon and returning, scaling that up to accommodate a human is merely a matter of economics, and risk management.
Sure the human crew and his survival environment and consumables tends to mass more, but on the flip side you now have a much more versatile, self-programmable and adaptable control system. These factors kinda balance out against east other.
In the end, the only real problem of sending a human crew to the moon is the bad publicity if it fails.
The US solved this by designing in huge safety margins.
The Soviets solved this by making their missions secret, until after success. No problem killing off a crew, if no-one ever finds out about it.
Reminds me of this sketch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6MOnehCOUw 
(SFW!)
One of my cousins is of the ‘the moon landings were faked’ ilk, and he’s an engineer. He doesn’t believe they had the technology back in the 60’s to do it.
Its pointless trying to debate it with him because he just reverts to the “Who’s the engineer here? Me or you?” line and thinks he knows better.
Just tell him it’s a good thing that engineers in the 60’s were smarter than him.
For the two posters wondering how a denier explains the reflectors wee left on the moon, my work friend oh so rationally explains that we have definitely sent equipment up into space, but people have never gotten past the Van Allen belts because of the radiation. I had vaguely heard of moon landing C T’s before, but never tried talking to one before him. I find it completely fascinating to try to figure out how his mind works and why he believes this one and the Sandy Hook one. I appreciate the posters who gave me the idea to ask him why the government would perpetuate such an idea in the first place, and why they would continue after the first one.
Weeee’re sailors on the Moon
We carry a harpoon
But there ain’t no whales
so we tell tall tales
and sing our whaling tune.
I know I expressed skepticism above, but here I can provide a link
which harpoons the Van Allen Belt objection. See, they are highly variable. The Apollo astronauts might have just gotten lucky with the Belt configuration at that time. But it would be foolhardy to just ignore it knowing what we know now. A future moon mission is off the table until we can predict the dynamics well enough to have a high enough safety margin.
Reminds me of a cartoon I saw back then. Two postal workers are looking at a three-foot long, rocket shaped package labeled, From NASA / To THE MOON Caption is, “That’s what I call passing the buck!”
How about a cinematic expert? I’ve posted it before, but this less than scintillating guy says that with the special effects technology available then, it would have been cheaper and easier to just go.
I have to agree that most of these folks are trolling and playing. “Owning” and “triggering” people has become a hobby, and CT’s like this are a sure bet for this aim, as I think is obvious by reading this thread.
As for the rest of the true believers, it is like arguing with religionists, you are not going to change their minds. Doing so just reinforces the belief system the are espousing.
Part of me wants to treat folks like this like the bullies they are and confront them.
The old guy in me just uses what I call a dumbass stare: listen politely, say nothing, look them up and down, shake your head and walk away.
See this thread about Veronica Lake’s age for a conspiracy theory aborning. As I note in that thread, I suspect a lot of conspiracy theories, maybe most, start exactly like this.
Someone notices a minor detail that seems intuitively wrong to them (Veronica Lake’s appearance in later interviews, no stars in the background of photos from the Moon, the way the Twin Towers fell, etc.). They come up with a bit of idle speculation about that detail, asking a perfectly reasonable question or advancing a perfectly reasonable hypothesis. Someone else points out evidence directly countering their speculation. They then go one level deeper, advancing a less plausible hypothesis to explain away contrary evidence and preserve their original intuition, while not actually committing to a full-fledged Conspiracy Theory. Eventually, by steps, they convince themselves that their original intuition was correct and all of the contrary evidence is a lie, requiring an increasingly baroque conspiracy to sustain.
Seeking order in a chaotic world, or wanting to counter feelings of powerlessness, or wanting to feel like a special, insightful genius may be part of it, but I suspect a lot of it is people who are simply unable to let go of what feels like a powerful intuition in the face of contrary evidence.
The subject hasn’t come up in some time but if I’m feeling argumentative next time I meet him I’ll have another go, thanks 
It brings meaning to life. Once you were nothing, just an aimless organism, but now you know, and you’ve become part of something that is bigger than yourself, and you are part of a community that supports this idea. I don’t think “smartness” is the key issue, but *meaning *is. Whether you subscribe to an ism (“They are conspiring against us!”), join a cult (“This is the truth, man!”), realize how the world works (“They are conspiring against us!”, again), find yourself getting emotional about a football club (“Go Packers!”, am I right?), work with Novell’s solutions (“Damn evil Mikkkro$oft!”), “realise” the earth is flat (“Conspiring against us!” [popular one]), and so on and so forth indefinitely – you are part of something that is bigger than yourself, and you have a sacred challenge, and that brings meaning. Carl Jung said: “Man can’t stand a meaningless life”. So we invent a meaning, a “religious” intention. Whatever will do, as the catastrophes 20th century made clear after Nietzsche’s observeration that God is dead. So, Go Packers, the earth is flat, no moon landing, I’ve realised that I’m a victim of a world conspiracy, and so on and so forth, indefinitely. Whatever will do as long as it brings meaning to my life, victim or hero.
So, whatever you stumble upon, sooner or later, that works with your character, education, background, sex, interests, etc. – you’ll find it, because you can’t stand the alternative. You’re great, and there *must *be a meaning. I say that that’s psychologically speaking a fact. But where’s the recepient of that, what can harbour this psychological fact? Moon landing conspiracy? Why the hell not? Is it worse than God or Manchester United, or the ism of the day?
If you’re really that alienated, I’m as willing to exploit it as the next guy, church, army, or Olympic gymnastics trainer.
I’m not sure I get your point, but obviously people who are “alienated” are more prone to get “sucked up” by a community (or person, to follow your tought) that they can or want to identify with, but I don’t think that being “really that alienated” is a condition for picking up a world view that gives meaning to life. I think that is very human, and I would contend that that is very very common today, and not super good.
When I read Leaffan’s OP, I understood it as if he wanted to understand, how ordinary people, if you will, can go for such obviously unrealistic ideas. And I offered my thoughts about it, because I think those are true. And I think that it is important to understand “the other”, or try to understand the other point of view, however much it differs from your’s. Because most blokes are good folk, and we have a mutual interest. To understand a point of view is not to agree with it.
I’m not clicking arbitrary links. Use words, please, to convey your thoughts.
Your loss. I’m out.