/sci/ - Science & Math

The moon landing was not fake. There are mirrors placed on the moon by astronauts that you can bounce lasers off of and detect the returning signal here on earth, thus proving man was on the moon.

>>8348721
>Do you believe the moon landing was real or fake?
fake

>What is the evidence you use to support your claim?
1.) astronaut behavior in interviews as well as history of alcoholism in some Apollo astronauts.
2.) changed or retracted statements of Apollo astronauts
3.) photographic anomalies
4.) missing data
5.) historical fraud of donations to institutions, moon rocks.
6.) contradictions in physics
7.) fraternization of pilots in NASA, i.e all Apollo astronauts are Freemasons. Fraternization of government agencies have historically been part of fraudulence and crime.

>Do you think we will return to the Moon any time in the near future?
never.
>Why or why not?
because space is a fraud.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBhzRY6UuVA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2FTZhyuJy8

>>8348721
Not fake

>>8348753
Explain how we can bounce lasers off of the mirrors places on the moon by astronauts.

>>8348755
Lasers aren't real, dummy

Its fake, I mean come on. Any evidence supporting the moon landing has been fabricated by the government. Wake up you sheep.

>>8348721
It's fake man, for reals. You're not a goddamn sheep now, are you?

>>8348721

It's real. There was a great article or video somewhere on the web which refuted all the conspiracies with scientific fact.

We will not return to the moon anytime soon. Reason for this is there is not much there, but besides that, unfortunately the leaders of humanity do not put space exploration and travel too high on their priority list.

>>8348753

This guy has had an appropriate post, even though I don't personally agree with him.


I was asking for your own personal scientific opinions, and for you to back up your claims with the evidence you use to support them, not just "it's real, idiot" or "it's fake, sheeple"

Back up your claims.

>>8348755
the moons "surface" is naturally "reflective" to bounce sun light. you don't need mirrors.
you can bounce lasers off of it without mirrors

>>8348776
backing up my claims
>1.) astronaut behavior in interviews as well as history of alcoholism in some Apollo astronauts.
take a look, they are under duress:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BI_ZehPOMwI
>2.) changed or retracted statements of Apollo astronauts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SG7HjyuDP9w

>3.)photographic anomalies
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYyaeHYJaaw

>4.) missing data
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11_missing_tapes

>5.) historical fraud of donations to institutions, moon rocks.
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/apollo-moon-rocks-lost-space-lost-earth/story?id=8595858

>6.) contradictions in physics
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jq3dU2Ju_is

>7.) fraternization of pilots in NASA, i.e all Apollo astronauts are Freemasons. Fraternization of government agencies have historically been part of fraudulence and crime.
http://www.mintpressnews.com/senator-whose-family-was-caught-trafficking-cocaine-says-no-to-legalized-marijuana/206246/

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/mitch-mcconnell-painted-cat-the-majority-leader-sneezes

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=93046

>>8348782
lmao
why can't I do it without proper alignment then, just by pointing at some random point?

>>8348782
Then why does it only work when you line up your laser with the coordinates of the mirrors?

>>8348811

Checked.

I said at the beginning of my post that yours was the only post so far that was what I was actually asking for; someone that supported their claims with evidence of some sort.

Although I should have been clearer with my post, the second portion was referring to the others in this thread who choose not to support their claims with evidence.


Thank you, though, for providing even more information as to your beliefs. Although they do not coincide with my own beliefs, you are at least doing what I had asked.

I for one think it is fake, because JFK is a lying sack of shit, a pussy, and a pussy. And he had horse teeth. Good thing that amazing soul John Wilkes Broath made the the ulitimate sacrifice, killing that cunt.

>>8348832
I had an actual photo of one of the landing sites, does that not count as evidence?

>>8348832
I told you about the mirrors on the moon placed there by astronauts. How is that not evidence?

>>8348814
>>8348816
if the moon is "naturally reflective" in the observable spectrum of light, then it can reflect lasers.
Its just common sense.


........then again the light coming from the moon is very different and does not display the properties of reflected radiation.

>>8348848
You're not answering either objection.

>>8348837
>>8348841

You must understand, as men of science apparently, that a generalized statement does not apply to the individual or to the entirety of a population. I stated, further, that it was a statement to those who did not back up their claims with evidence.

Obviously, if you provided any form of evidence, you are exempt from the statement, as it excludes you.

>>8348853
You did specifically say the guy you were responding to was the only one who met your criteria. Hurt my feelings brah

>>8348848

Artificial light in the form of lasers directed at receivers/equipment placed on the moon will reflect in a slightly different wavelength than when directed at the lunar surface itself. Using the proper tools, you can pick up on those changes. By referencing the location of equipment left on the moon for this exact reason, which is available in definitive location information made available to the public, one can come to the conclusion reasonably that it is a successful ping of the moon.

>>8348859

Fair enough. Although, he was the only one who answered each question completely and thoroughly though. Other posts in the thread have either given one or maybe two points of evidence, didn't bother with the additional bonus question, or did neither of these things.

>>8348811
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jq3dU2Ju_is
This guy is retarded. Vacuum doesn't "suck". It just doesn't push back.
>he's an engineer
every fucking time
why is it the crackpots are always engineers?

Honestly when in the fuck is this board going to get some moderation. Why are shitpost threads (flat earth, fake moon landing, 9/11 conspiracies, global warming hoax eksdee) fucking allowed here.

>>8348868
>Other posts in the thread have either given one or maybe two points of evidence
Why would you need more? A hard empirical evidence like the mirrors (that you can test yourself with a bit of material) is enough. And certainly better than "oh they look like they are not feeling well" or "he said this and he said that".

>>8348851
you dont need mirrors to bounce lasers off of the moon.
"The first successful tests were carried out in 1962 when a team from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology succeeded in observing laser pulses reflected from moon's surface using a laser with a millisecond pulse length.[2] Similar measurements were obtained later the same year by a Soviet team at the Crimean Astrophysical Observatory using a Q-switched ruby laser.[3] "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment

but Here's also why i know that the mirrors on the moon are fraudulent.
"Successful lunar laser range measurements to the retroreflectors were first reported by the 3.1 m TELESCOPE at Lick Observatory, Air Force Cambridge Research Laboratories Lunar Ranging Observatory in Arizona, the Pic du Midi Observatory in France, the Tokyo Astronomical Observatory, and McDonald Observatory in Texas."

it says right here that its impossible to find the lunar landing site using a telescope on earth, how do you expect them to be accurate in bouncing lasers off of small mirrors with accuracy using a telescope on earth?
"As you're well aware, no telescope on Earth can see the leftover descent stages of the Apollo Lunar Modules or anything else Apollo-related. Not even the Hubble Space Telescope can discern evidence of the Apollo landings. The laws of optics define its limits."
http://www.skyandtelescope.com/observing/celestial-objects-to-watch/moon/how-to-see-all-six-apollo-moon-landing-sites/

" If you explore the Apollo landing sites with a small telescope, you won’t be able to see any of the objects left behind by the astronauts, as they are all too small to be resolved by even the largest telescopes. In fact, it's only in the last two years that we’ve been able to photograph the landing sites in detail from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter."
http://www.space.com/13485-moon-skywatching-craters-apollo-landing-sites.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpjbdH1y_ds

>>8348745
actually, the russians did that too

but they used a robot

and it reflects better

so you didn't prove shit

>>8348879
>At the Moon's surface, the beam is about 6.5 kilometers wide[9] and scientists liken the task of aiming the beam to using a rifle to hit a moving dime 3 kilometers away. The reflected light is too weak to be seen with the human eye: out of 1017 photons aimed at the reflector, only one will be received back on Earth every few seconds, even under good conditions. They can be identified as originating from the laser because the laser is highly monochromatic. This is one of the most precise distance measurements ever made, and is equivalent in accuracy to determining the distance between Los Angeles and New York to 0.25 mm.[6][10] As of 2002, work is progressing on increasing the accuracy of the Earth–Moon measurements to near millimeter accuracy, though the performance of the reflectors continues to degrade with age.[6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment

TL;DR: They use the mirrors because they can get much more accurate readings, not because it was impossible before they were put there.

>>8348884
Mhhh, you gotta be more precise in what we're trying to criticize then. Because for example >>8348811 claims that it's plainly impossible to get a rocket to the moon at all.

Daily reminder that if you believe in any of the following
>vaccines cause cancer
>moon landing was fake
>9/11 was an inside job
>Global warming is not real
>The earth is round

You do not belong on this board. Please leave.

>>8348878

Yes. Some evidence holds more weight than others, and yes sometimes one piece of evidence holds the weight of ten others. As much evidence as you have would be best, but I understand your claim and position.

Personally, I believe 100% that we landed on the moon, and that the imagery is not false. There may be some digital recreations or touchups in newer iterations of the images, but the fact stands that in '69, the images were as real as can be. Combine that with the countless number of hard proof evidences such as images from probes launched by the EU, China, Japan, India, Russia and the Soviet Union, while it existed, and satellite topography accurately recreates in a 3d environment the Lunar background present in the photographs, and it is hard not to see it as true.

(Also, the Soviet Union backed up the claim that America put a man on the Moon during the Cold War, and Russia still supports the claim. If it were false or even SEEMED like it scientifically could be false, they would dispute it at least).

>>8348814
>>8348816
none of you have actually done the experiment

it can only be detected by a computer, its very faint

but like I said the russians reflect even better, yet didn't need a manned mission to do so

>>8348891
>vaccines cause cancer
Check, they don't.
>moon landing was fake
Check, it was real for sure.
>9/11 was an inside job
Still belong on this board so far
>global warming is not real
Slippery slope wording, but I got you senpai.

>the Earth is round
...uhhh... Well, I mean I GUESS this is technically accurate... Because it's oblate slightly, and not perfect round. That's what you meant, right?

You didn't mean that it was flat, did you?

Im just a little confused on your wording I guess.

>>8348892
Well yeah man, you can't just laud someone for posting SOME reason he believes something. There's nothing easier than finding shitty reasons to believe in something, it's just rationalization. Making up bullshit really isn't hard work. And I find it in really bad taste to tell to someone "good job buddy, you made up/copypasted some bullshit!".

>>8348879
>you dont need mirrors to bounce lasers off of the moon.
You DO need mirrors to get the more accurate reading we use today, which you would have noticed if you read the next sentence of that article

>but Here's also why i know that the mirrors on the moon are fraudulent.
And what device would YOU use to detect small amounts of light from very far away?

>it says right here that its impossible to find the lunar landing site using a telescope on earth
Its easy to find them, you just cant resolve the details on the ground. For the laser ranging you just point the laser at established coordinates on the moon. You dont need to be able to see what you're aiming at

>>8348895
>>8348890

>>8348895
True, mirrors are no proof of a manned mission. They do prove its possible to fly to the moon and make a soft landing though. Not that massive a leap from sending robots there to sending people

>>8348903
Normally, I would agree with you 100%. But this thread wasn't meant to prove or disprove, it was just to get each posters theory and the evidence they use to back that theory up.

I do understand your reasoning though, and perhaps I should have been a bit more clear with my original intentions, especially when posting on a science board. I apologize for the misunderstanding.

But yes, in a traditional scientific forum or discussion, I would have taken the time to counter the points and cite why they are false, partially false or not proper forms of evidence.

Unfortunately, it is very difficult to take any form of evidence that comes form YouTube videos seriously, as anyone can post anything they want. Someone can post bunk science or math, fabricate what they want in the video or be severely misinformed and say its true.

Again, I do not agree with him, but this thread wasn't created for the purpose of proving or disproving anything, only to father information.

>>8348908
>>8348908
>True, mirrors are no proof of a manned mission.
how do you know there are mirrors there in the first place. the moon supposedly reflects light naturally.
you cant see the mirrors from ground level telescope or satellites.
only a few people can test it out and claim it.
the best proof they gave us of the apollo mission is small pixels representing the landing site from a fly by just a few years ago.

>>8348921
>how do you know there are mirrors there in the first place
Because you can point the rangefinder lasers at it and get results

>the moon supposedly reflects light naturally.
Of course it does, thats how you can see it

>you cant see the mirrors from ground level telescope or satellites.
So?

>only a few people can test it out and claim it.
Just like pretty much everything in science?

>the best proof they gave us of the apollo mission is small pixels representing the landing site from a fly by just a few years ago.
Not sure If I would call it the best proof, but sure

>>8348921

The most powerful land based telescope has a viewing area at the distance of the moon of roughly 80-100m per pixel presented. This is far too large of an area to pick up the Lunar Lander or any of the equipment left behind.

Also, the ability to test and find the mirrors can be done as long as you have the equipment (All colleges that have an observatory and most hobbyists with observatories at home have this equipment).

By directing the laser beam at mirrors placed in locations known as public information, and assuming you have a receiver or device capable of picking up information about and performing spectrometric calculations, you can see a direct difference when the laser is on one of the mirrors on the moon vs the lunar surface itself.

Go down to the nearest observatory or school with an observatory and ask them to do this for you, and ask them to teach you more about it.

They will be more than willing to do so, I guarantee you.

>>8348921

> What is diffuse reflection
> What is specular reflection
> What is a trireflector

every surface is "naturally reflective"

>>8348776
i also want to put this out there as a trivia.

there is no hollywood movie of the apollo missions LANDING on the moon.
There plenty of movies about terrorist attacks, real life heroes, fictional mars landings, holocaust events, civil wars, athlete, and act. But no movies from Hollywood about non fictional moon LANDINGS.

>>8348953
Well yeah, a successful moon mission is kinda boring

>>8348958
>tfw Hollywood makes a high octane moon landing blockbuster
>there's a love story between Armstrong and a busty bimbo
>they discover there is a hidden nuke onboard planted by the russians, which they have to defuse using a clever contraption
>near the end they discover the President was locked up and tied in the lander's, trunk
>they have to do a risky spacewalk to get him back safe and sound to the orbiter

>>8348953

I mean they did that Apollo 13 movie which is as close as you're going to get to a Moon Landing movie probably. The fact is though, that we have been to the moon. We landed there and we recorded it, and it was broadcast to every television in probably 90% of the civilized world.

We haven't put a man on Mars, so those are still exciting and unknown to us. Heroes are exciting, and movies about terror attacks instill a strong nationalist pride and unity.

I'm. Not exactly 100% sure what the point in this post is, but maybe I'm missing on it. Is it supposed to be in support of the Moon landing being real or fake, or just general information that's (slightly) off topic?

>>8348958
its not even touched on the fictional character genre with non fictional elements other than setting.

hold on, I take that back..........the only movie close is
superman, who is seen fixing the flag on the moon. he also fights some guy.

>>8348979
Im confused, are you trying to say the moon landings are never referenced in movies?

>>8348953
>>8348958
>>8348970
>>8348975
>>8348979
>>8348982

OP here. Thread derailed beyond repair.

This is now a thread about references to the Lunar Landings in cinema, or ways a film could theoretically embellish or exaggerate the landing to make it more appealing to a wide audience.

>>8348987
Well in that case I present pic related, actually a bretty gud movie

>>8348982
no they were referenced, but no movie about an event to event legit moon landing.
some examples of references:
In dumb and dumber, llyod looks in disbelief as he passes by an outdated newspaper on the moon landing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-f_DPrSEOEo

in Interstellar, the Murphy's principal explains that the moon landing was fake:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpKUBHz6MB4

In the movie Capicorn 1, they referenced the moon landing and planned to fake a mars mission. The entire movie is about NASA.

>>8348992

Is it because of aliens or alienlike monsters that inhabit the dark side of the moon? If so, I will go watch it.

Also
>Apollo 18
Made me Kek for some reason.

There would obviously have to be some sort of odd half hushed love triangle in the movie, and a scene of self sacrifice where the main male hero stays behind to save the rest of his crew.

>>8348995
I still have no clue what your point is

>>8348996
Its about moon monsters living in craters. Its pretty good horror

>>8348999
Those trips don't lie. I will watch it either tomorrow or later tonight, for sure.

>>8348999
my point being that there is no historical, based on testimony and science, hollywood movie about the moon landing. only references to it and mostly in fiction.

you figured how popular the moon landing is, there would be a lot of movies based on it.
the closest we got was Apollo 13.

>>8349012
>my point being that there is no historical, based on testimony and science, hollywood movie about the moon landing
I already said that this isnt surprising, since a movie where the main characters do almost nothing and nothing goes wrong would be boring

Moon landing wasnt dramatic, so no dramatic movies

>>8349014
they dont even touch on a future moon landing starring matt damon with actual science.

>>8349022
Why would they? They most realistic thing owuld be a moon mission where something goes wrong, which has been done, or another, future landing where something goes wrong on the ground, which has also been done

>>8349025
>>8349022
Or are you just complaining that "The Martian" wasnt set on the moon? It originally was by the way, but solving all the problems was too easy so the author moved it

>>8349028
The Martian was a fantastic movie. Im glad that it at least had a foothold in real science, and wasn't completely far fetched.

Definitely read the book too. I won't say either id better than the other, but the who in combination creates a much richer story.

A part of me was a little upset it didn't take place on the Moon, but in retrospect, The Martian sounds better than The Moonman.

>>8349038
>A part of me was a little upset it didn't take place on the Moon, but in retrospect
The moon doesnt work as well. The problems there are either too easy or too hard to solve. Mars is just hospitable enough for the plot to be plausible

>>8349040
Yes. For sure. If the movie progressed the same but on the moon, he would have just died instead of being knocked unconscious.

Granted, those problems wouldnt have arisen, considering no winds to generate storms like that, and at this point it might as well be an entirely different movie.

>>8348873
That's sucking. How else would you define it?

>>8348873
This guy thinks planes cant fly over a rotating surface kek

>>8349058
He thinks vacuum produces an external force that pulls things away. Like negative pressure would do, if it existed.

>>8349061
>>8349058
>>8348873

I feel like there is some innuendo based pun here.

>>8349061
I dont htink thats what his objection is, he seems to think conservation of momentum relies on having something to "push against" so it doesnt work in space.

So he's retarded

>>8349095
This is always slightly humorous to me. One of the things I love most about space is hoe much more pure the mathematics and physics of certain things are.

On Earth, you have to deal with things like friction and the excessive downward force of gravity. Those aren't as big of issues when dealing with space travel (I mean, aside from gravity of course, to a lesser degree. Sort of).

But either way, mathematics are just easier to do in a vacuum, in my opinion.

>>8349102
Indeed. You put something on path it will just follow it nice and predictably. For a while anyway

>>8349105
It's more pure. Feels better to do math like that.

Or maybe I'm just lazy and don't want to have to deal with friction in my math.

Maybe a combination of both.

>>8349111
Then again you get hit with the n-body problem which is literally unsolveable

>>8348811
>6.) contradictions in physics
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jq3dU2Ju_is [Embed]

He shoots himself in the foot when he holds up the bullet. If a bullet would work any burn rocket would then work, as there is an object (exhaust particles) being projected from a reaction (the burn) against the casing (the thruster body).

That's how all of our rockets work. The only thruster that operates the way he thinks thrusters operate in space (compressed gas being released from a tank) is the MMU unit used by NASA astronauts IN-ATMOSPHERE (~480km is the edge of the atmosphere, and the highest altitude they were EVER used was 468km) So, yeah. Also what >>8348873 said.

>>8349113
Fair enough. I think the purest form of mathematics in terms of freedom from the influence of outside factors not directly relating to the physics of the problem directly would take place in interstellar space or even intergalactic space, with a great enough distance from any gravitational force that any celestial bodies (with able to be calculated gravitational influence on one another or not) would be of negligible impact.

But I suppose at this point I'm getting into non practical or theoretical physics best suited for pen and paper where you can pretend these factors don't exist at all....

And also, this thread is so far off track at this point.

>>8348721
>12 successful moon landings were made between 1969 and 1972. Exactly which one of these missions was faked?

>>8349168
all of them, lord shillington

>>8349168

The conspiracy theories state that they collectively are faked, but most notably referenced as especially faked is the first landing.

I do not personally agree with the conspiracy theorists, but I am collecting information on what evidence people who claim either side of the argument use to support their claim.

>>8348721

It's true dood there are liek photos and mirrors n shieet

I don't get it.

>>8349168
It's actually 6, from 11-12 and 14-17. 8 and 10 were cislunar, plus 7 and 9 which were manned Earth oribters.

It was fake.

The phone call to the president from the moon? Is this a fucking joke?

Also the pod departure from the moon's surface to the orbiting shuttle above is SKETCH.

Not too mention that the moon would make a great place for a base. It is rich in lithium so there's that as well.


Essentially. It was faked because there isn't a reason why we shouldn't be there right now.

>>8349203
>Essentially. It was faked because there isn't a reason why we shouldn't be there right now
Do you know how much money the ISS has cost and continues to cost? A moon base is the same thing but 1000x worse, and its not even zero G

>>8349205
Calling the ISS zero-G isn't 100% accurate. I mean its not practically incorrect, but it is on a technical level. It's an artificially induced lack of gravity...

But I'm nitpicking at hat point anyway. You are right that a moon base would be much more expensive.

>>8349213
Its in free fall, things in orbit are not experiencing any g-forces, hence zero G. There is nowhere in the universe where you dont experience any gravity at all

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings

>>8349205
About as much as we gave to Israel between the 1970's and now.

Faggot.

>retard /sci/fags worried about cost

Is this a joke? The amount we spend on the space programs is a penny dropped into bank vault.

>>8349217
I know. That's why I said it was nitpicking. I've just been up for a long time and tend to argue semantics for no reason at that point.

>>8349224
Right, and you think we should pay 10 times that for a facility that is 1/10 as useful just so we can say we have a base on the moon?

>>8349227
Ok fair enough. Carry on

>>8349228
>implying having a facility on the moon wouldn't be useful as a refueling station as well as a research station for a massive telescope on the dark side of the moon

Also lithium kiddo. Ever heard of it?

You sciencetards have no imagination you know that? You live in a box full of rules that have been broken thousands of times but still stick to them.

It's sad.

>>8349225
>Is this a joke?
Its the entire reason the US space program was scaled down so much after the moon landings, so clearly it matters

>>8349228
A moon base has more potential to be more useful.

>>8349189
Honestly that's a pretty good way to learn, since an awful lot of this particular conspiracy theory stems from a lack of understanding. For example, the idea that the lunar lander would've dug out a crater during landing. Pic is Apollo 14, under the engine bell the ground is basically flat, and the only crater visible is just one that happened to be nearby.

Why is that idea incorrect? The people that assume the engine would dig out a crater have a very basic idea of rocket engines, likely stemming from footage of big launch vehicles commonly seen on TV/in movies because it looks good.

For the lunar lander though, it doesn't need an enormously powerful engine since the lander doesn't mass that much and the Moon gravity isn't high, but its still capable of chucking out up to 45kN of force (you can convert that yourself for other units), by comparison just one of the Saturn Vs 5 F-1 engines can do 7,770 kN in vacuum.

The way a rocket engine works is that it burns propellant to make it rapidly expand into a gas. Since we already know the force of the engine, and the size of the engine bell (since the force of the engine is being put through a circle of that size), we can figure out the pressure at the end of nozzle which turns out to be around 20 kPA. A human standing is ~55 kPa. Do you leave big craters in the dirt when you walk?

And the descent engines wouldn't have been at full throttle either, on Apollo 11 it was only around 1/3 throttle, which drops the pressure even further.

http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/LMcrater.htm goes into it a hell of a lot more, and there are plenty of other resources available on the subject.

>>8349230
>You sciencetards have no imagination you know that?
And you clearly have no concept of how difficult and expensive doing anything in space is

>>8349232
>implying budgets are static and don't change

I think the problem is you faggots don't have the technology to land on the actual moon. Nor do you have the tech to create a base there.

>>8349233
Only in the very long term

>>8349236
You obviously don't understand that we should be able to if we landed there fifty years ago.

>/sci/tard complaining about a budget again

Jesus fucking christ.

>>8349240
Thank you for proving my point.

>>8349235
>The way a rocket engine works is that it burns propellant to make it rapidly expand into a gas.
rockets work on thrust. your whole post is wrong.

>>8349238
>I think the problem is you faggots don't have the technology to land on the actual moon
Its been done 6 times by people and im not certain how many more times by robots

>Nor do you have the tech to create a base there
You may be correct but its really just a space station on the ground so I doubt it

>first men on the moon
>their parents saw the first plane take off
I don't know anymore

>>8349244
They get thrust by burning propellant which causes it to rapidly expand into a gas which they direct via a nozzle. From that, they get thrust (the gas goes one way, the rocket the other).

>>8349241
We are able to, its just pointless and expensive so nobody wants to

>>8349246
>Its been done 6 times by people
Not so sure about that kid.

>>8349244
*ding ding ding*
here is the most retarded post in the thread
congrats, you did it

>>8349254
You are entitled to deny very well established reality as much as you like

the whole budget argument is nonsense since the current budget of military spending is many times over the moon landing budget of 1969 technology.

Supposedly, cable companies and gps companies pay for sending satellites all the time since the satellites already up in space that were launched many years ago cannot handle the terabytes of data pushed around today. OR maybe all communication is used of landlines since it also gets the job done better and is easier to maintain.
point is, moon landing is fake.

>>8349251
>dude why do you want to cross the ocean that's pointless and stupid

Also lithium and the chance got a great refueling station. Also having the largest telescope ever created in or near a moonbase would be greatly beneficial.

Think of how easy it would be to do routine maintenance on it. Also if placed on the darkside of the moon the sun won't fuck with it.

Having a moonbase would be greatly beneficial because it could also be used as a place to breed.

Having humans being born into low gravity could get them ready for no gravity long term travels.

Literal race of space men could be birthed and trained.


You fucking guys in your little boxes. Sad!

>>8349264
i did read in a popular mechanics that a moon base would help in establishing a stepping stone for a mars mission.

the whole argument of not going back to the moon is weak. there are many advantages.

>>8349264
>Also if placed on the darkside of the moon the sun won't fuck with it.
It's called the darkside because it's the side we can't see, not because it's actually always dark. Think about it, the Moon goes around the Earth once a month, but the same side is always facing us, so the other side has to be visible to the sun roughly half the time.

>>8349263
Die hard moon landers don't want to admit it. They hide behind "muh budget" and petty insults to one's intelligence.

They don't have a real reason. The moon is uncharted territory. Sure it has been mapped but has it been conquered?

No.

It has not.

And that is what humans are made for. To see and challenge and conquer it.

>>8349263
>Supposedly, cable companies and gps companies pay for sending satellites all the time
They make money out of it.

>the whole budget argument is nonsense since the current budget of military spending is many times over the moon landing budget of 1969 technology.
Being the only geopolitical superpower is expensive.

>point is, moon landing is fake
This level of non sequitur has gone to fully disgusting now. Listen, nobody will cure you obviously, but could you try to have some decency?

>>8349264
>Also if placed on the darkside of the moon the sun won't fuck with it.
Oh God....

>>8349263
The military is worth the money spent on it, a moonbase is not

>>8349264
Sure, and none of that is currently worth the hundreds of billions of dollars it would cost to build and maintain

>>8349270
>once a month would be reason not to have the telescope there

Come on son.

If not that.

Why not have a telescope factory there. Or any factory there for large equipment?

Low grav means more maneuverability for higher masses which would make it easier to assemble and transfer.

Also you ignored the rest of my points. I'm guessing you couldn't nitpick those.

>>8349275
NASA is a government agency. they also are part of the military.

>>8349275
>Sure, and none of that is currently worth the hundreds of billions of dollars it would cost to build and maintain

muh budget argument

Hundreds of billions of dollars is nothing anymore.

>>8349278
Now you are just being retarded on purpose

>>8349278
They are not the one bombing ISIS, so it's pretty irrelevant.
And by the way no, they are not part of the US military.

>>8349282
>says the guy who says it is worth the billions spent on a new jet we will never use

Fuck off kid.

>>8349280
>Hundreds of billions of dollars is nothing anymore.
Yes it is. The money has to come from somewhere, if you spend that on a moonbase it means you cant spend it on something else

>>8349277
I never said that, merely pointed out the mistake.

I could nitpick and say things like "why go to the Moon for Lithium when we have a bunch down here" but that's exactly what it would be: nitpicking. Lunar manufacturing has a shitload of potential due to the near vacuum environment on the surface, so you could make things like solar panels using new processes that wouldn't work in atmosphere but still need gravity.

>>8349280
>Hundreds of billions of dollars is nothing anymore.
You've burned your last bridge with reality.

>>8348753
>>8348811

you should add that the US literally prints their money. so the budget argument of not going back is a weak one.

>>8349283
>They are not the one bombing ISIS, so it's pretty irrelevant.

You understand that regime change is coming right?

You retards better be voting trump because hillary is in bed with those military contractors that you hate so much.

>>8349291
Literally what does this post have to do with the rest of the thread? Can you stop the crazy from coming out of your mouth for a second?

>>8349290
>you should add that the US literally prints their money.
Every government on earth does this. It doesnt increase the amount of wealth you have, it dilutes it

>>8349289
>he hasn't looked at the united state's budget

Also why does this just have to be a united states venture?

Why can't it be a joint venture?

If trump gets elected a US/Rus venture would be more than viable.

Like I said.

You faggots have no imagination in a world that needs it.

>>8349264

>Also lithium and the chance got a great refueling station

Lunar refuelling won't work with the expenses from launching off Earth. You still have to get the mass off Earth, which is easily more expensive than anything else. You also have no atmosphere to slow down. Essentially, it would be a completely pointless exercise until we start launching massive colony ships with fusion engines.

>Think of how easy it would be to do routine maintenance on it. Also if placed on the darkside of the moon the sun won't fuck with it.

You'd have to get the materials to replace stuff, which drives the cost up. Unless you can do lunar mining, in which case you only need an entire industrial process... Others have pointed out the dark side issue, but it raises another problem: The lunar night is 14 Earth-days, meaning solar power+batteries are not worth it. Either it's built at a high-peak near the pole, or uses a nuclear reactor, meaning even more launch mass.

>Having a moonbase would be greatly beneficial because it could also be used as a place to breed.

Love me some humans who have completely fucked skeletons.

>Having humans being born into low gravity could get them ready for no gravity long term travels.

Yes, and when they get to anywhere with higher gravity, they can't fucking walk.

>Literal race of space men could be birthed and trained.

See above.

>>8349292
>says the guy complaining about the budget
>can't make a connection when it is front of him

Memorizing rules and equations doesn't make you smart kid.

>>8349280
When people argue for or against the budget concerns of NASA, they seem to forget that since the mid 80's, and culminating at a peak in the early 2010's, NASA funding was steadily cut to the point that they cant even afford to keep the space shuttle program going anymore. Yes, many people blow the budget concerns a bit out of proportion, but the fact is for the past 10 years, NASA really didn't have the funds to use the space shuttle, let alone attempt another mission to the Moon.

Plus, the only reason it was discussed at all originally was because the Soviets beat us at putting a man into space, and getting a satellite to orbit the Earth, and we really didn't want them to get to the moon first too.

>>8349294
Well how are we gonna build a base on the moon if rockets don't work in a vacuum?

>>8349299
>NASA funding was steadily cut to the point that they cant even afford to keep the space shuttle program going anymore.
You make it sound like the Shuttle wasn't an enormously huge expense

>>8348753
internet is fake too

>>8349295
>Lunar refuelling won't work with the expenses from launching off Earth. You still have to get the mass off Earth, which is easily more expensive than anything else.

Joint national effort to ease the costs.

>You also have no atmosphere to slow down.
Just do what armstrong did XDDDDDD

>Essentially, it would be a completely pointless exercise until we start launching massive colony ships with fusion engines.

That's fucking retarded. Why not spend the money to set up shop on the moon to create such a ship so launching it would be so much fucking easier.

>meaning solar power+batteries are not worth it.
Lithium deposits are everywhere on the moon. Coupled with nuclear power could form a almost perfect system.

>Love me some humans who have completely fucked skeletons.

It will be needed for space travel.

>Yes, and when they get to anywhere with higher gravity, they can't fucking walk.

So? How far away are we from exoskeletons? How far away are we from task performing robots?

Not that far brother.

>See above.

Stay mad.

>>8349300
Then how did the astronauts get off the surface?

>>8349313
>dude just have whole industries on the moon
Jesus fuck nigger you never set food in a production line that's painfully obvious.
You have no idea what you're asking.

>>8349315
I don't know man, I'm asking you. Since you posted a video explaining rockets don't work, why are you even planning colonies on the moon?

>>8349313
>Joint national effort to ease the costs
They already do that, its still expensive as fuck

>Just do what armstrong did XDDDDDD
Expensive as fuck

>Why not spend the money to set up shop on the moon to create such a ship so launching it would be so much fucking easier.
There are no plans to launch massive colony ships with fusion engines

>Lithium deposits are everywhere on the moon. Coupled with nuclear power could form a almost perfect system.
Perhaps, if it wasnt expensive as fuck

>It will be needed for space travel.
And maybe in 2 or 3 hundred years when we start thinking about sending humans on interstellar trips it might be it

>How far away are we from exoskeletons?
Batteries are the big issue, sop it depends how quickly materials science advances

>>8349318
>we are far away from automated production lines
>some faggot on the internet tries to act above someone else

Stay buttblasted pessimist dickboi.

>>8349301
I see in hindsight that it seems that way. In comparison to the Apollo missions or American funding to the ISS though, it wasn't nearly as expensive. Probably one of their cheapest endeavors when you put into consideration reusability of the crafts.

>>8349321
So what you're saying is.

The moonmen didn't go to the moon?

>>8349323
The technology does not yet exist, and even if it did, you would have to life the entire thing onto the moon and build it there. Beyond expensive as fuck

>>8349323
Notice how your deficient brain cannot hold an argument?
We're not talking about future tech, we're talking about shit you think would have already happened had we been on the moon.

>>8349325
It was about twice as expensive as doing all the work the shuttle did with conventional rockets would have been

>>8349326
Nah, I'm asking you how come you think moon bases happen without rockets.

The worst part here is that you unironically think you're being clever.

>>8349313
>Joint national effort to ease the costs.
The UN can make a resolution telling physics to kindly reduce the dV to LEO but I don't think it's going to do much. I think that's what that guy means at least, not sure.
>Lithium deposits are everywhere on the moon. Coupled with nuclear power could form a almost perfect system.
Orbital solar farms and beamed power might be a better option, and isn't reliant on fuel from Earth.
>Exoskeletons and robots
Low gravity fucks with humans far FAR more than just messing with bone density. Robots are useful but have their limitations.
>>8349325
>Probably one of their cheapest endeavors when you put into consideration reusability of the crafts.
Not really.
Shuttle program cost (adjusted for inflation): $196bn
Apollo program cost (adjusted for inflation): $110bn
ISS: $150bn

>>8349313

>Joint national effort to ease the costs.

Still massively expensive and worthless. Like I said, why do we need lunar refuelling now? Won't ease the costs of going to Mars, nor Venus nor the outer planets.

>Just do what armstrong did XDDDDDD

Yeah, no. You need 1.2 km/s to go from TLI to LLO. For the CSM-LM and other small ships, no problem. But when we start with high-efficiency, low-thrust drives, it gets less worth it when you can load 10x the delta-v.

>That's fucking retarded. Why not spend the money to set up shop on the moon to create such a ship so launching it would be so much fucking easier.

And where do we get the materials + the industrial process from producing an entire ship from? Oh, right, the Earth. Unless we figure out how to use the Moon (and the entire Moon) to produce worthwhile resources


>It will be needed for space travel.

Yes, let's colonize a microgravity with cripples, rather than Mars with actual human beings.

>So? How far away are we from exoskeletons? How far away are we from task performing robots?

Why is that necessary when you can train people with stronger skeletons from Earth, who can move around in a lower gravity with ease, instead of hiring a bunch of tech-needing cripples who can barely walk in Martian gravity.

The next few generations will then be stuck to their planets gravity, if we actually do colonization.

>>8349272
you don't really refute any points

>>8349336
The point is that those things are useful and a lunar base isn't as nearly useful.
And please can you stop pretending you're abiding by some sort of rules of debate here? You've been thoroughly assblasted on the matter of lunar mirrors as well as the fucking "hurr durr rockets can't work" video and now you're continuing the discussion by just pumping more and more and more bullshit in the thread.

Anything you can put your retarded schizo fingers on, you'll just copypaste in here en masse in the hope to impress some other idiot.
You're not worthwhile to debate. You're not a person who is interesting to talk to. The only reason people are still replying is in the hope impressionable teenagers won't be impressed by your dumpster-tier rethoric, because there are already enough cranks around who'll just believe anything they find fits their paranoid worldview.

I'm serious my man, you're trash. Human garbage of the worst kind. And if all you wanted was ruffle some feather, then congra-fucking-tulation, you did.

>>8349339
I strongly suspect it's bait anon. You're right about why some people are still replying to some questionable posts here, but pointing it out doesn't achieve much. Just leave posts like that alone and continue a discussion with someone else, there's more interesting things to talk about here.

In a sort of related post, this greeted me when I landed back in Cincinnati after traveling a couple of weeks ago.

>>8349349

Every goddamn time I upload a picture I've taken from my phone, it goes on sideways. Try to rotate it, no change. Every goddamn time.

>>8349290
Retard...
You dont need a degree in economics to understand why this is bullshit.

>Go to maps.google.co.uk
>Zoom out really far so you can see whole planet
>Swap to look at the moon
>Go to Sea of Tranquillity
>Look for the more HD looking photo near Rimae Hypatia
>Keep on zooming into the sections that look more HD than the ones around
>See original moon landing site

>>8349527
nice fake, stanley kubrick

>>8349527

Still waiting for Google Galaxy to let me zoom in and see high res images of our entire solar system.

>>8349060
Dude, this guy is a Structural Engineer and he doesn't know how to use geometry to figure out the shape of the earth. I would,'t even step a foot in whatever project he worked on.

>>8350305

Pretty much this. If an armchair hobbyist can have a better understanding of geometry than a college graduate, the Engineering grad isn't worth a shit.

>>8349330
Magnets are the answer

>>8349350
You fucked up your post anon. Now I have to turn my monitor sideways.

>>8350321

Yeah, it doesn't matter if I rotate it, or what. If I upload a vertical image I've taken with my phone, it always uploads sideways.

>>8348721
why couldn't it be possible. you can see taht people now got ISS into space. It ment about 150 takeoffs so why would't it be possible to reach moon.

>>8348874
This desu mod-chans

>>8348721
>Do you believe the moon landing was real or fake?

It was real, BECAUSE:

1. We had the technology to do it.

2. We had the money to do it

3. We had the WILL to do it.

Also, proof in pic related (Lunar retroreflector rangefinding experiment)

>>8348753
Literally every single item explained with proper reasoning and actual real life proof.
Eat a moon rock and die please.

>>8348934

>Go down to the nearest observatory or school with an observatory and ask them to do this for you, and ask them to teach you more about it.

Funny shit to do with common household items. Got it.

>>8348879
>"Successful lunar laser range measurements to the retroreflectors were first reported by the 3.1 m TELESCOPE at Lick Observatory, Air Force Cambridge Research Laboratories Lunar Ranging Observatory in Arizona, the Pic du Midi Observatory in France, the Tokyo Astronomical Observatory, and McDonald Observatory in Texas."
Because more area = more received photons. The laser spot is huge when it reaches the Moon, the retro reflectors merely need to be inside the light pool. You can't see the artifacts on the lunar surface because of resolution, it has nothing to do with finding them.

Congratulations on being retarded.

>>8351936

>Congratulations on being retarded.

Craving to pass-on your hard-earned trophy, aren't we ?

>>8349527
wtf why isn't flag waving???

FAKE

>>8348811
>1) and 2)
Just an organization under huge stress

>3) and 6)
Debunked/false

>4)
Only a back-up tape. Doesn't prove anything

>5) and 7)
Only proves fraternization and fraud, if it were true.

You do realize that the USSR was closely watching every move NASA made? And that any hint of fakery would have been a PR gold mine?

>>8349290
you really don't know a thing about how money works do you?

Some questions to ask would be:
1. If the moon landing was faked then why did the Soviet Union not question it?
2. If the moon landing was faked then why haven't we faked another one?

>>8348753
You're assuming a lot of things here.
If you're right, the American government was able to fool or pay off almost the entire world, including the Soviet Military at a time where they hated each other, AND their budgets were under close scrutiny from enemies.
You're assuming this silence has lasted up until TODAY, where no other governments have said a thing.
Now, let's say for levity that America pulled this off. What about the technology at the time? We'd been working on rockets for ages. I note you don't hear much debate about Sputnik or Yuri Gagarin, maybe because it's an easy target. But did we even have the technology to FAKE the footage?
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGXTF6bs1IU

>>8352151
this.

It was real because we couldn't have faked it.

>>8352560
more like real because faking it would have been harder than actually doing it

>>8352151
America is able to fool people into drinking fluoride and voting for elections.

Your argument is nothing

how do we know the moon is even real
looks fake as fuck

>>8352902
Only if you're an idiot

>>8352902
>>8352940
There has been quite a few people who can verify that stars do shine through the moon

>>8348721

The entire Apollo program cost about 25 billion, in 2016 dollars that would be 170 billion

For the duration of the program it cost every man, woman and child in the United States .50 a week, or in 2016 dollars about $3.50 each

>>8353043
No there are arent. There are photos with spots of light on them whihc happens with poor photographs sometimes. You can tell they arent stars because they dont line up properly with the stars that are actually behind the moon