>>16957858 What's really depressing is how many fools believe this garbage: Supposedly, 53 years ago, we landed on the moon. And now we only have the technology to do a flyby and have to wait 2-3 more years for them to figure out how to land on the moon.
>>16957935 Hello, retard. I'm just stopping by to inform you of the following: >Apollo 8 was a lunar flyby >Apollo 11 was the landing >Artemis II is a flyby >Artemis IV is scheduled to be a landing
>>16957935 When they did it before, they also went with an incremental, methodical approach building up to it with test flights, rather than jumping all the way to a landing right away. Which is why Apollo 11 was the first landing, rather than Apollo 7 or 8. I’m sure there was plenty of childish impatience over the test flights back then too. It would be stupid to try and rush through it and jump straight to a landing this time. Just because the 50 years newer Artemis spacecraft has the same general objectives, doesn’t mean it all works the same
>>16958093 You have to understand that these posters are actually retarded and have no attention spans left due to years of irradiating their brains with TikTok and porn. The fact that it hasn't happened yet means it never will. This is what they believe.
>>16958093 I would argue in a sense that Artemis is more rushed than Apollo since the design is immature as they keep fucking with the SLS blocks and overall mission architecture, so we don't get as much useful test data on each flight as the Apollo engineers did and we end up taking unnecessary risk.
>>16957959 Bullshit, what I saw on our CRTs and films or digital cameras even in the 2000's felt a lot closer to what my eyes see than what we have now and I got the tech to prove it. For motor racing in particular it feels like I have a blurry piss filter hell, worse than wearing sunglasses or polarized lenses in real life. >>16957935 It's fucking rocket science.
Is the moon.....ghey? We already knew that space itself was ghey, but are the things that are in space...ghey also? Are we in the fruity Verse' bro (No Homo)?
>>16957935 Beautiful levels of retardation on display your a perfect specimen we should cut you open and study your brain so we can know exactly how not to be like you
>>16965161 Theorizing that we're going to come full circle and have another "moon is cheese" "moon-landing is fake" "earth is flat" revolution. I'm not sure how or when, but I'm ready for the idiocy.
they just keyed in ugly exposure settings mind you they were at 6500km not 100km so its mega zoomed in so of course the ground detail is worse and that might have to do with exposure decisions not a photographer me
>>16961847 When he was making it, was he aware of what was happening? Like did the CIA spooks tell him to make a potential documentary of what it should look like, or did they steal his shit while he was making space odyssey
>>16957935 >We haven't been on the flying rock in decades therefore we never landed on the rock and we forgot how to land on the rock Do you really want the United States to spend another $20 billion tax dollars to go walk around on the big rock again just so that you can deny it again anyway and say it didn't happen again? Lol.
>>16971450 >$20 billion Quite literally nothing compared to the amount of tax dollars spent on Israel, niggers, and bombing brown people, walking around on the big rock at least looks cool.
If it was your yard then yeah. But you are on another planet, that;s inhabited, looking at another planet. The endorphins from that alone would be insane.
>>16972417 protecting peace around the globe doesnt translate to giving all our tax money to Jews and Isreal, thats just what the elites want you to think so that they can stay in power and keep you brainwashed and under their control
>>16957935 The average person is retarded and believes whatever the rest of the world believes without question. They have no soul, they're basically animals.
>>16970683 You're so relatable and youth-oriented. You seem very trustworthy and scholarly, as if I should spend multiple hours discussing this subject with you.
>>16957935 >why yes we built planes that broke the sound barrier and space shuttles for manned flight to other planets just a decade or so after pic related technology >oh uh moving electrons around super duper fast and doing quintillion trillions millions calculations with that we uh no we won't land on the moon again prease understand
>>16965401 Where have you been? Anti intellectualism has been out in full force since 2020. A large chunk of the American public genuinely thinks the moon landing was faked and most of the people who believe that also believe the reason it was faked was to hide the "firmament"
>>16958015 speaking of moonshine, it's interesting to think about how night on the moon is much brighter than night on earth because earthshine is brighter than moonshine comparatively.
>>16957935 rather than technology, it's better to think of it as budget. we had the budget to go to the moon because the space race, then it ended. it's like how right now we have a gajillion dollars to burn on AI because the AI race, but if the AI race ends, then the whole thing collapses financially.
>>16958093 >let me just gloss over the fact that we're apparently starting from zero in our attempt to repeat technological feats from half a century ago Why exactly do we need >an incremental, methodical approach for something we supposedly did repeatedly generations ago?
It's telling that all of the replies to >>16957935 are just variations on >you're wrong because...you just are, ok?!?!
>>16976822 Any person with a shred of common sense could conclude it was faked based purely on the geopolitical realties of the time, specifically that Russia was handily beating the U.S. to every single space-related milestone. It might make a nice patriotic feel good story to imagine the U.S. being behind every step of the way only to surge ahead to win the biggest race but it's not very realistic, especially in light of all the nonsense that has happened in the years since.
If you told someone in 1970 that the U.S., in 2025, would be working hard, following "an incremental, methodical approach" in order to develop the technology to land on the moon, they flat out wouldn't believe you. They would tell you, and rightfully so, that it's absurd to think that after 50 years of progress, the U.S. would be struggling to replicate technological feats from that era.
>>16976828 And no other country has gone to the moon because...? You think a nation like China wouldn't love to have that on their resume, if it were possible? What, they can't afford it?
>>16976838 the space race is over. china didn't get to the point they could even think of competing until 25 years afterwards. the only way you're ever going to see significant investment in space now is when it's economically viable to extract resources from asteroids.
>>16977411 and to hammer home the point more, america has been neglecting and cutting NASA funding for decades now. and that's still more funding than any other space agency.
>>16973426 you should unironically learn how to build a basic computer from scratch. it's so simple it was technologically feasible to do so in the mid-1800s using telegraph relays if someone just realized the applications of boolean algebra to circuits at the time.
>>16977418 space programs are one of the easiest things to cut funding to because there's no immediate public benefit or detriment to it other than more government money to be spent elsewhere. as a percentage of GDP, funding on lessens over time. number numerically get bigger only because inflation and gdp growth.
>>16977419 Pure entitlement. They are receiving ~60% of their peak budget when they actually got to the moon for 60 years on average. Your fake measurement is fake.
>>16977415 yes i did that for my computer science degree, we took a class for digital logic, & we used a breadboard & IC chips to build a simple calculator that could add & subtract.
>>16976835 We are basically starting from zero because we are using new launch vehicles, new crew modules and many new parts and systems in those modules. It's not like the Apollo era stuff is just sitting around in perfect condition for us to reuse, remaking them exactly would be a waste of time and research/innovation potential, and the new technologies used need to be tested thoroughly and carefully because any small change that gets assumed as inconsequential might end up being the cause of a disaster. Newer technologies are better, but they are also different, and those differences mean that you need to test and rebuild from the ground up, assuming any new thing is a straightforward drop-in replacement is lazy and potentially dangerous.
>>16976835 >it was faked based purely on the geopolitical realties of the time, specifically that Russia was handily beating the U.S. to every single space-related milestone well, based purely on the geopolitical realities of the time, I think Russia wouldn't have gone along with a fake US moon landing conspiracy it's not like it was made in secret and they weren't monitoring the thing