/sci/ - Science & Math

saged, reported, hidden

>>3525419
why? Because you don't like to follow the facts?

>>3525422
No, because he's involved in the conspiracy.

>>3525427
Point being? This is /sci/ Isn't it? Why not prove him wrong?

>>3525427

8/10
almost had me there OP, next time don't mention aliens.

My dubs prove OP correct.

>>3525501
Re-roll to prove OP correct.

OP: ummm how do lunar gases could leak into a spacecraft with positive internal pressure, one that has survived traveling through the vacuum between the earth and moon without loss of internal atmosphere?

answer: if there are lunar gases, they don't get into a lunar lander.

>>3525509
i rolled 2d20. lunar landing never occurred but somehow the OP is still wrong.

Sure is South Park in here.

>>3525716
You are only proving me right.

>>3525764
no, you're still partially wrong. your conclusion about the lunar landing never happening is correct, but your reasons are wrong.
here's why the lunar landing never happened:
>you can see the strings suspended from the studio ceiling used to make the astronaut jump higher.
>the film speed changes when they jump, making it seem like they're in off the ground longer, suggesting lower gravity
>we've never gone back, when it makes WAY more sense to put the ISS on the moon.
>flags don't ripple when there is no atmosphere.

>>3525803
I love you.

>>3525803
>we've never gone back, when it makes WAY more sense to put the ISS on the moon.
I want to cry when moon-landing-hoaxers suggest this as an actual reason.

>>3525817
i love you too. go grab yourself a cookie, you deserve it :-)

>>3525803
You sir, are wrong.
>you can see the strings suspended from the studio ceiling used to make the astronaut jump higher.
No you can't, you are seeing things. If you want to see something that badly, you will see it.
>the film speed changes when they jump, making it seem like they're in off the ground longer, suggesting lower gravity
I can't comment on this but I've seen some convincing evidence to the contrary, and none for it.
>we've never gone back, when it makes WAY more sense to put the ISS on the moon.
We have gone back to the moon several times, and putting the ISS on the moon is silly, a major reason being moon dust, which is incredibly fine and plagued the original moon landings
>flags don't ripple when there is no atmosphere.
The flag is rippled because the telescopic arm suspending it is not fully extended, it was left that way because the astronauts thought it looked better, and any ripples you see in videos are because the flag pole is moving.

Do people really expect NASA to make such rookie mistakes?

>>3525803

Also
>the moon is made of cheese, but astronauts were only able to bring back rocks

Hey look, it's a moon-landing troll with some originality instead of just posting the same copypasta again!

>The moon causes huge tides all the way on Earth. If you were to actually get close to it, the tidal forces would rip you apart.

>>3525830

okay :D
>>3525832
i lol'ed so hard

>The gravity on the moon is so strong it would prevent the spacecraft from leaving the moon.

No, it isn't that strong.
The gravitational acceleration on the surface of the Moon is 1.63 m/s2,[1] about 16.7% that on Earth's surface. Because weight is directly dependent upon gravitational acceleration, things on the Moon will weigh only 16.7% of what they weigh on the Earth.

>>3525826
you don't think it's a little weird that we only went to the only accessible extraterrestrial location a few times? how come we only collected a few rocks? they STILL send scientists into antarctica looking for fossils, taking core samples, whatever... and we've been there for ages. hell we have weather stations there.
>we fly to the damn moon, collect some dust, and leave forever?
>how come no other country has gone there? russia had the capability and the motivation.
>militarily, how come we never flew nuclear missiles up there (in pieces, of course)? the moon would have been the ideal location for a missile base.
>how come the russians were able to make such good lunar footage, to prove that ours is fake?

>>3525838
>Standing on the moon would cause unbalance in your digestive system, this could cause you to vomit it to death.
So no, you're wrong.

>>3525860
This.

>>3525860
Well you see son, that money we spent on exploration and expansion of human civilization out into this galaxy had to be used to put those damned sandniggers in their place. Mortars aren't gonna pay for themselves you know!

>>3525877

Dude I'm back now!

>>3525860
>we fly to the damn moon, collect some dust, and leave forever?
The cost of flying to the moon is astronomically (hehe) higher than going to the Antarctic, use some logic.
The dust can tell us a lot about how the planets were formed and the composition of the moon.
>how come no other country has gone there? russia had the capability and the motivation.
Russia was a joke when it came to space flight, yes they managed to get the first man and satellite into space, but they didn't make their spacecraft well at all
>militarily, how come we never flew nuclear missiles up there (in pieces, of course)? the moon would have been the ideal location for a missile base.
A missile base that when needed might be on the entire wrong side of the planet, with tens of thousand miles (even when pointing directly at the target) extra to travel to reach said target?
>how come the russians were able to make such good lunar footage, to prove that ours is fake?
I have never seen any russian lunar footage, considering they never went.

>>3525888
>I have never seen any russian lunar footage, considering they never went.
Sputnik recall anything for you?

>>3525838

>No you can't, you are seeing things. If you want to see something that badly, you will see it.
Kind of like people who want to believe we went to the moon believe it happened?

>I can't comment on this but I've seen some convincing evidence to the contrary, and none for it.
Terrible rebuttal.

>We have gone back to the moon several times, and putting the ISS on the moon is silly, a major reason being moon dust, which is incredibly fine and plagued the original moon landings
Plagued them 50 years ago. You really think we haven't figured out a way to deal with dust since? What about interstellar dust? And isn't the ISS at risk of being bombarded with all of our space junk hanging out in orbit? The moon seems safer, from a cost perspective. There are screws and bolts flying around the earth at mind-blowing speeds.

>The flag is rippled because the telescopic arm suspending it is not fully extended, it was left that way because the astronauts thought it looked better
Possibly.

>any ripples you see in videos are because the flag pole is moving.
again, a flag won't ripple if there is no air flowing over it.

>Do people really expect NASA to make such rookie mistakes?
hoaxes aren't mistakes. they're very intentional.

>>3525896
>sputnik went to the moon

>>3525896
sputnik didn't go to the moon... *facepalm*

>>3525899
>sputnik went to the moon
>>I have never seen any russian lunar footage, considering they never went.
I believe i never said moon

>>3525897
Why don't you go to the sites where people are still receiving data from experiments left there? No one ever asks these people. A flag doesn't need wind to ripple, it is shaking because the flag pole is shaking, and there is no wind resistance to stop it.

Take a read: http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

>>3525905
>lunar
>I never said moon

>>3525910
>lunar
>moon
*facepalm* I'm not even going to explain this one.

>>3525860

There have been six manned missions to the Moon, and about 40 unmanned missions. We went back lots of times. We don't send manned missions anymore because they are not worth the massive expense for the science gained. The main reason for going in the first place was just to prove that we could.

>the moon would have been the ideal location for a missile base.

1) No it wouldn't.
2) There are active treaties against it.

>how come the russians were able to make such good lunar footage, to prove that ours is fake?

What?

>>3525916
If you mean photographs of the moon, compared to the astronauts photographs on the moon, then you need to think about it.

Pictures from a satellite that is moving at a much smaller angle of parallax and much more stable will get better picture quality than astronauts in bulky suits with a much smaller angle of parallax equipped with inferior cameras attached to their chests.

>>3525924
>bulky suits with a much smaller angle
larger* I might have got it the wrong way round, but whatever

>>3525888

>The cost of flying to the moon is astronomically (hehe) higher than going to the Antarctic, use some logic. The dust can tell us a lot about how the planets were formed and the composition of the moon.
Yes, it is more expensive, but think of how much we could learn about earth from the perspective of its only accessible neighbor. We're not interested in that, apparently.

>Russia was a joke when it came to space flight, yes they managed to get the first man and satellite into space, but they didn't make their spacecraft well at all.
We didn't make ours very well either. Apollo 1, Challenger and Columbia are fine examples of that. Also, the Russians were trouncing us in the space race. They got a man up before we did.


>A missile base that when needed might be on the entire wrong side of the planet, with tens of thousand miles (even when pointing directly at the target) extra to travel to reach said target?
Saving money on fuel for the missile since it never has to break earth's gravity is a huge benefit. Hell you might be able to glide the thing to target. Also, we don't need to the moon to be able to hit all locations, just some. It would be called a military asset, like when we have an ac carrier near a theater of war.

>I have never seen any russian lunar footage, considering they never went.
They never went, but they made fake photos to disprove our film.

>>3525935
Money is the main stopping point of going to the moon, the ones that were supposed to happen were just cancelled by the president.

The missiles would still take a day or more to reach Earth

Fake photographs produced by professionals are a better quality than those taken in the actual environment, again by those in bulky suits with only a limited training in photography? You don't say...

>>3525914
treaties that were signed later... and the U.S never ratified it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_Treaty

>>3525949
yeah... and when lunar return comes up again, i bet the funding once again disappears.

agreed about the missile time, i think- since there is no lunar atmosphere, shouldn't the missile be able to accelerate to high speeds quickly, and reduce that transit time?

>>3525935
>Yes, it is more expensive, but think of how much we could learn about earth from the perspective of its only accessible neighbor. We're not interested in that, apparently.

Not as much as we can learn from orbit. And again, we went six times, and there have been dozens of unmanned missions. That doesn't sound like "not interested."

>Saving money on fuel for the missile since it never has to break earth's gravity is a huge benefit.

Saving money on fuel by landing it on the moon? notsureiftroll.jpg

>They never went, but they made fake photos to disprove our film.

What are you talking about? The Soviets never disputed the moon landings.

>>3525860
>question feasibility of even landing on the moon at all
>"why didn't they build a nuclear missile facility there?"

notsureifserious.pdf

If it's impossible to launch things into space, then HOW THE FUCK ARE YOU ACCESSING 4CHAN WITHOUT THE USE OF SATELLITES???

>>3526024
who said we don't have the ability to launch into space? learnhowtoread.com

>>3526024
Silly, the ancient aliens established the extraterrestrial communication arrays that we use today.

>>3526031
The OP, dumbass. YOU learn to read.

>Earth's own gravity would prevent the craft from leaving.

So many trolls. Yes great idea, put a missle base on the moon, then watch as your missle burns up after trying to re-enter the atmosphere. Faggots need to read a few books.

>>3526040
Reentry is an insurmountable problem. However, the week-long time-to-target is an issue with a lunar missile base.

>>3526024
I'm sorry to tell you, but the vast majority of internet traffic is transmitted via fibre optic cables (e.g. massive cables running under the oceans) these days :P

Implying that the moon landing wasn't actually a suicide mission and the men sent to the moon actually came back. While the people who we currently think are the original astronauts are nothing but actors.

The fact that this has even got 1 reply is astounding. If /sci/ keeps on getting trolled like this, Im fucking right off, I mean c'mon guys! You know you are only satisfying the trolls by responding!

What do you mean the moon releases toxins?
Also sending men there is expensive. Despite that it was done 6 times thereafter.

>>3526057
but how do we know when they're trolls, and when they're simply asking a question? isn't science about learning? if we are interested in science enough to be on /sci/, should we not be interested in teach those who want to learn?

>>3526129
I would like to quote the original text: "YOU'RE ALL WRONG ABOUT THE MOONLANDING"

No questions asked. No desire to learn. Also the question is so retarded it is like respecting someone for saying that the sun is actually a fire god because "it like, moves across the sky like a car"

>>3526158
good point, he was just ranting!

Troll post.

>mfw you all fell for this troll

OP here, went like 45 minutes ago to go eat, come back. My troll thread is still going. mfw

>>3526212
Curse you OP, curse you

>>3526255

You are all wrong.

>>3525935
we have satelites which can look down on the Earth for a lot cheaper than a moon base, fuck I know 3 guys who work on the Navy's own observation satellites.

Also, ICBMs are already cheap as hell, and submarines already provide the threat of instant annihilation for low low prices, and the non expensive cost of making a missile space resistant (going from the moon to Earth is a pain on modern electronics don't you know

>>3526299
boomer subs are a new thing.

>uncreative, unoriginal troll post.
>/sci/ discusses it.

>>3526331
SSGs have been around since the 1950s, SSBNs were made in the late half of the 1950s, and then mass produced from 1960 onwards.