/sci/ - Science & Math

There's no way to make money in space.

Capitalism prefers laziness and stagnation.

>probably not return within the next 30 years?
https://www.space.com/39671-trump-nasa-budget-2019-funds-moon-over-iss.html

>>9912585
we won't, but they will. If we're smart we'll use them to build infrastructure so we can survive.
>>9912587
nope, the deep space gateway does not actually return us to the moon, just a funky orbit around the moon. Even then missions aren't going to be that long, like we're talking days and weeks, not months like the ISS was.

>>9912585
Never went there in the first place. If they were to try now with much greater technology, there's still a good chance they'd fail. And then everybody would 100% know for sure that the moon landing was a hoax.

>>9912585

We went six times, what more do you want?

There's no reason to go back there unless we're building a colony or doing testings for Mars voyage.

>>9912585
Because it costs a lot and there isn't a huge public backing to support sinking funds into it along side all the other science that NASA is funding.

>>9912585
Why should we return? The only reason we went was to wave our dick at the USSR. Science was such an afterthought we only ever sent one geologist, and it was on the last flight.

Also concerning present and future exploration, it's easier to just sent robots. If the LOP-G gets built astronauts could use it to remote control lunar rovers in near real-time.

>>9912585
Because the Cold War is over. This was the only reason.

>>9912585
Republicans killed Americas chance at controlling space.

>>9912586
Incorrect

>>9912586
Imagine being so retardedly communist that you actually believe this fantasy

>>9912585
>30 years
china is moving at a snail's pace, but they might make it in that time frame. spacex might make it too if someone pays for them to go to the moon. i'd laugh if china sends an apollo-style mission and the americans respond by sending a fleet of whatever spacex's future ship will be called.

>>9912585

it was cool but just a pointless stunt to be honest

the real space age will begin once launch costs decrease significantly, with SpaceX leading the way

>>9912585
Overtime the suns rays have bleached the flag white. I think it's quite poetic of the human spirit: At first we had ambition but it slowly faded until we just gave up.

Pic related.

>>9913176
Now future generations will believe it was France who was first on Moon

>>9912585
To be fair even in the 60s the actual motivation for moon flights was really flimsy and there was no long term plan. After it was done nobody really had any ideas for why to keep doing it.

>>9913237
That would also explain to them why we haven't been back.

>>9912963
Imagine being so retarded that you believe there is only communism vs capitalism.

>>9913264
>muh grey area
>classic communism tactic.
Good work comrade.

>>9912726

Reminder that not a single human being will touch the surface of another planet until we build a space elevator.

>>9912585
If you actually look at this photo carefully, you can tell its actually just a little figurine holding a toothpick flag.

You've been fucking duped, it's so funny.

>>9912963
yeah just look at all the novel antibiotics and disease cures america has created in the last fifty years

>>9912585
>actually believing the moon landing was real

>>9913449
reminder that a space elevator is an insanely demanding project and you don't want to start shit like that without experimenting and testing stuff beforehand (because in any big engineering project there WILL be details nobody can realistically forsee)
and the best place to build a working space elevator prototype (as a bonus - with current existing materials, no need for unobtanium) is... the moon.

>>9913595
This

>>9912726
<--- /x/

>>9913176
Possibly -- knowing how nylon handles UV exposure, I'd guess most of the flags have crumbled by now.

>>9913237

>>9913449
Then I have some bad news...

>>9913449
>space elevator
>when you can make an orbital ring instead
Brainlet

Has anyone ever wondered why the moon footage is in slow motion?

Why does being in 1/6 of earth's gravity mean that everything is in slow motion?

Reminder to report /x/tards
they've been spamming for years, and if they don't get banned, they'll continue for years more

>>9913449
We have to build railgun launchers first to make space construction affordable.

>>9913977
>Has anyone ever wondered why the moon footage is in slow motion?
Time dilation.

>>9914007
Reported you for off topic post.

>>9914021
>Time dilation.
Seriously?

>>9912585
>Why haven't we returned?
suddenly the Germans ran out of rockets and scientists to steal

>>9912585
again?

>>9913581
Aside from antibiotics, because they still work excellently, there have been huge advances in medical treatment from America, second to none. I say this as as a non-american.

because the US is no longer giving NASA a blank cheque to send people to the moon to prove how precise their rocket technology is. That's all there is to it; rocket technology hasn't got /that/ much better (it's still limited by the inefficiency of chemical propulsion which there is still no viable alternative to) and funding dropped off a cliff. Next question.

>>9914021
i think /sci/ must be the most retarded board on 4chan. seriously. as soon as there is a theory which explains the gaps in your worldview you accept it as truth. every time. absolute idiots.

>>9913925

How you gonna get all that shit up there to build the ring, fuckhead?

>>9914056
"Science" has turned into a cult.

America would definitely have kept up the missions. America spends its budget on far less worthwhile endeavors than maintaining the ability to fly to the fucking moon.

You may not like to consider it but the only logical explanation is there are fucking aliens on the moon. Hell, they're all over the solar system and have been for a very long time. Their ships use antigravity propulsion and they actually prefer to live in mother ships rather than dwell on planets because this offers greater survival advantage.

ayy lmao don't take my word for it, listen to Buzz Aldrin, Edgar Mitchell and Gordon Cooper. They all walked on the moon and are outspoken on their stance that aliens are visiting us. The truth is stranger than fiction.

With the advent of space tourism, we'll all know pretty soon anyway whether there is any truth to this. You can't stop people from taking cameras with them into space.

>>9914058
Asteroid/moon mining
Why bring the materials up when the materials are already there

>>9914100
>there's aliens on the moon
>supposedly went back 5 times

Very ironic when moon landing believers become bigger conspiracy theorists than the deniers.

>listen to Buzz Aldrin, Edgar Mitchell and Gordon Cooper. They all walked on the moon and are outspoken on their stance that aliens are visiting us.
Oh yeah, I'm sure they're allowed to spout their mouths off about supposedly classified information.

The moon landings were staged, and aliens don't exist. They want you to believe aliens exist for their agenda.

>>9914053
>they still work excellently
:-DD

>>9914115
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDIXvpjnRws
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNkmhY_ju8o

>>9912585
There's no political will to spend the money.

Maybe decades from now, when the boomers are gone and the money currently being spent on their Medicare and Social Security can be repurposed, there will be renewed interest in space flight.

>>9914134
Hehe he's such a bullshit artist. It's very cute you believe him.

It's so obvious they've come up with this ridiculous idea as damage control.

>>9914156
I'm sorry, but it's like you can't tell when somebody is either being sincere, fabricating a story or acting.

Maybe it's me though, but some of the people who go on the record should be working at Globe theater as they are more convincing than any Hollywood actor I've ever seen.

>>9914169
>I'm sorry, but it's like you can't tell when somebody is either being sincere, fabricating a story or acting.
Yeaaaahhh okay. For someone who thinks there's aliens near us, why does he want us to go to Mars? No aliens there?

At some point you need to snap out of it.

>>9913977
I wouldn't move much faster if my life depended on not springing a leak in my 1960s tech suit

>>9914256
But they played golf, drove a dune buggy, jumped around etc - they had a grand old time, not a care in the world.

They even fell over multiple times: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zcz0eL_bYsI

>>9912585

What would be the benefit of having a Lunar colony? Helium-3 mining to use for space propulsion engines?

>>9912585
>Why haven't we returned?

because we never went there

>>9914310

Helium-3 isn't actually more abundant on the Moon than on Earth.

Turns out the whole "Solar Winds" hypothesis was bunk.

>>9914434
I don't think that's true. The feasibility of mining it on the Moon is a whole other issue though. It would require processing large amounts of regolith. If fusion does become a reality, and we see use of he-3 as being something worthwhile, then Earth will not supply us forever. We will need to mine the Moon.

>>9914739

Please link me the study that says Helium-3 is more common on the Moon than it is on Earth.

>>9914863
Considering we've never prospected, how would be know the specific details of the volumes available
Spectroscopy is not perfect, there may be areas with a density worth mining that we cannot see yet/very well
Might not though, if there isn't, Saturn has a very nice amount of the stuff

>>9912586
Ape detected

>>9912914
>it’s _____ partys fault
Brainlet

>>9914280
How can anyone watch this and still think the landings weren't staged? Anyone?

>>9912586
people are making money in space right now.

>>9916376
Rude
Apes are far smarter than communists

>>9916476
Apes don't believe in the moon landings

>>9916383
Nixon belonged to which part?

>>9912585
We were never there. Stanley Kubrick left some shit in The Shining that can be taken as a subtle admission that his cinematographic brilliance was employed by NASA to prevent the Russians from goin out there.

cults, cults everywhere.

I'f I'm right, we're going to be back out in space properly in about a month. If everone starts questioning two things; why can't we take the king in chess. Why can't we question what we can't question. They're both just games after all

>>9912585
question is if we were there in the first place.
http://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/179314945

>>9912585
What is the point? It was only ever a pissing contest used as a front for missile development.

A lunar base? Who fucking cares, a completely designed orbital station would be absurdly better, easier, and cheaper.
A launching station for mars? Who fucking cares, any mars mission that isn't competent enough to do it in a single trip is doomed to failure.
Helium? Fusion is a meme and won't be viable for another 200 years. It's been '50 years away' for almost 100 years. Besides, power/momentum beaming is absurdly more viable.
Building resources? Asteroid capture is easier and it would be more sensible/efficient to do R&D for manufacturing using those resources first and then leverage that knowledge for lunar processing once (if) the asteroid belt has been depleted.

Every single mainstream space proposal is fucking retarded and only embraced be normies and useful idiots. Those who have an actual understanding of the processes and technologies required actively oppose those efforts. Stop trying to make soft scifi real, it's always been a stupid meme.

>>9918432
>completely designed
*competently designed

>>9918383
There is actually no question about that. But if you want to hang out with morons who think there is, go on over to /x/, they hang out there.

>>9918432
>Asteroid capture
Is hard. A lot more delta v. On the Moon you have solid ground on which to build infrastructure. Asteroids on the other hand as loose aggregates of matter that might fall apart. A few exceptions like Psyche being metallic and possibly the core of a disintegrated planetoid. You would still need a handy way to process it though.

>>9918383
>/pol/
You mean the same retards who thought they could band together and put something into orbit as a fuck you to whoever?

>>9918608
They didn't happen fantasist

>>9917950
Republican made Constellation and Democrat defended it.

>>9920106
*Defunded

>>9920106
If it works, don't fix it. In that case Saturn 5 was the logical choice for use and evolution. The space shuttle was a disaster (no pun.) Constellation was probably more of a pork barrel project to fund the faithful since there were no credible use projects.

Moonfags, you seriously think Nixon called up the astronauts 230,000+ miles away on landline? What a joke!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieGKIh3koAI

I'll probably get banned for this question (again) because it's an unpopular view.
Can anyone provide 3 party independent proof (not tacit 'suggestive' evidence ) but 'proof' that the Apollo missions landed on the moon.

>The Selene Japanese Orbiter took some photos of some landscapes that look like some landscapes in Apollo 15.
So what so NASA had already surveyed the moon with orbiters and had built scaled sized models.

>The Indian Chandrayaan Orbiter took some picture of lunar soil, literally lunar soil which they thought was a different color possibly indicative of something had disturbed it.
So what, doesnt prove anything

>The Chinese Chang'e 2 took amazing HD resolution photos of moon, with a resolution down to 1meter.
But they didnt take any of the Apollo sites, or if they did never released them to the public.

*None of these independent Orbiter provided proof of the Apollo missions.
Other than NASA's own LRO which they release encoded in jpg saved in Adobe photoshop instead of JFIF files (besides this isnt independent).

>Jodrell Observatory provided telemetry /tracking of Apollo mission
Reality this was not independent this was a USAF/SPL/ NASA collaboration with their own guys and equipment renting the place.

>Moon rocks
Rovers have taken rocks and samples.

The Chan'ge 5 Yutu rover could live stream footage of an Apollo site back to earth but NASA are no longer allowed to work with China in space and have set up a 2.5mile radius proximity exclusion and no fly zone around all the Apollo sites.
I want to believe the Apollo missions were successful, but Im still waiting for someone to independently establish this.
I welcome you to change my mind, please no BS unrational, unproven, non-sequiturs, straw men or ad homenems.
Im asking a simple question, which ultimately boils down to where's the 3rd party independent proof?

>>9920551
Yes Nixon's call was a little unusual the delayed seems to have been approximately 2secs.
Great job AT&T!

>>9920589
The miracles just didn't stop that day.

>>9920580
Please note, i am not disputing Rovers landing on the moon, there's mountains of 3rd party proof for rovers getting there.
I'm asking purely for 3rd party evidence for the success of the Apollo missions which claimed to have landed on the moon.

Now this may be an inadvertent rhetorical question, because I've spoken to scientists and people who have said there's no 3rd party independent proof of the moon landings because no one as yet has caught up the US in order to proof it.

I will accept this as an answer in good faith.
But maintain that the Apollo moon landing missions are only 'science-faith-based' hypothesis at best without such independent proof.

To illustrate, with an analogy, if China announce 10 years from now they've landed on Mars and have provided footage of the the feat for the world to see and telemetry data (possibly from one of their orbiting satellites) would you been so keen to take them on the body of their own evidence and purely their own evidence, like in NASA's case?

>>9920616
NASA actually lost the telemetry data as well.

>>9920624
And gave a fake moon rock made of petrified wood to Holland.

>>9920624
>NASA actually lost the telemetry data as well.
While this is pertinent, for the sake of the 'Apollo-believers', I dont consider that as evidence against the manned moon landings, it's all merely incidental and doesnt refute their claims.
As is everything else e.g van Allen, Nixon's call, the faking of 'long shots' of the earth Apollo 10 & 11, the fake moon rocks, the suspicions deaths of chief satefy officer Thomas Baron, Gus Grissom & his fellow co-pilots; the unexpected death of Pete Conrad 'who said we didnt go'; these are all peripheral and make no difference in my mind either way of NASA's claims, because then we are in the realm of apologetics instead of scientific methodology of proof.

What I consider really poor form in the name of science, is a complete lack of independent verification of the feat, landing man on the moon, by anyone else other than NASA.

Therefore the default position, is, that the Apollo landings are a hypothesis; that some yanks claimed to have done, but no one else have proved.
I mean that with the greatest of respect to the military industrial deepstate, NASA, and corrupt Nixon administration.

There's no doubt the Apollo missions inspired people the world over, and things do not have to be true, to be useful.

So anyway...3rd party independent proof of the Apollo missions landing on the moon?
I sincerely want to be BTFO!
Someone here please please prove me wrong.
Or give me the fucking truth!

>>9920651
What independent verification of the rovers landing on the moon is there, and how do you know it is independent?

>>9920671
Thanks anon.
We have the 'mirror reflector' on the Soviet's Lunokhod1 which is still in use today, because it's by far the most accurate.
It's used by both NASA and the new mexico observatory APOLLO.
None of the original Apollo 'reflectors' are used today.

>>9912586
>stagnation

No, it requires continual growth, which is why it is going to eat up civilization and spit it out. Stagnation should be the goal because in this respect it means stabilization.

>>9920580
Nothing short of flying you to the moon and pointing at the flag planted in the ground will convince you, and that's fine. But don't expect anyone to bend over backwards getting you to believe something that you've already decided is false. To be honest you're wasting your time on this board.

>>9920678
>None of the original Apollo 'reflectors' are used today.

What happened to them?

>>9920688
>flying you to the moon

That wouldn't work either since he'd just think you'd put him into some themepark-style simulation.

>>9920678
The independent verification being NASA and APOLLO?

Also, how do you know the laser is reflecting off of a "reflector"? People were bouncing light off of the "moon" before any supposed rovers put some there: https://www.nature.com/articles/1941267a0

>>9920688
>>9920697

No no no no anon.
Stop the ad homenem crap!
I dont want to be flown to the moon.
Dont be so surly or adversarial.
Let's be fair.
What is acceptable proof is simple,
a third party who is independent to confirm the veracity of the Apollo landings.
For example that could
the Chan'ge 5 in 2019 taking HD photos of the Apollo sites.
Do you think they could do that?
I mean it would be nice.
We've been waiting 50 years by that point.

>>9920709
The USSR. The number one enemy of the usa at the time comfirmed it

>>9920688
See >>9920709 what I mean >>9920697

>>9920709
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings

>>9920689
>What happened to them?
They broke according to NASA.
I will find the source.

>>9920706
Also, how do you know the laser is reflecting off of a "reflector"? People were bouncing light off of the "moon" before any supposed rovers put some there: https://www.nature.com/articles/1941267a0

True, true, but we know where the lunokhod is and it's bouncing off where it is, to put it simply.


>>9920688
> But don't expect anyone to bend over backwards getting you to believe something that you've already decided is false.
Karl Popper - does he mean anything to you?
It's always false until proven independently.


>>9920713
No they didnt.
$350million was spent by the US stopping the Russians from tracking the telemetry of the Apollo missions with the entire US navy 2nd fleet.
Also have you heard of the 'great grain robbery'.
In 1972, inexplicably the US gave the Poliburo 1/4 of their entire supply of wheat at next to nothing.
The next day the grain shot up by 50% causing hardship to the US.


>>9920719
Dear God man.
I'm aware of the wiki stub.
Look into each so called 3rd party proof.
None of them come even close.
The best of them are flawed, and do not constitute anything close to proof
see my refutation here.
Please: >>9920580

If you cannot admit that, you incredibly partisan.

>>9920728
>True, true, but we know where the lunokhod is and it's bouncing off where it is, to put it simply.

Any chance it could just be bouncing off the ionosphere?

>>9920719
you're being unfair and equating me to some flat earth believing loon, not a rational man, seeking rational answers.
Why is this so controversial.
Anybody else is expected to provide 3rd party proof of their scientific 'accomplishments'.
Why does this get people so angry?
It's not right, can we not ask dispassionately for proof?

Let me ask you, hypothetically, if 'Evil Corp' or China claim in 10 years to have put man on Mars and only they could prove the fact, and no else could prove it, why would you believe it?

What makes you think NASA deserves to be believed over and above that of CNSA or 'Evil Corp'?
Do you think it's ok, just to take NASA on it's word?
If so fine.
I have no truck with you, I know who to shill with my 'time machine' that I invented (lol).

>>9920735
>Any chance it could just be bouncing off the ionosphere?
Not the foggiest.
Apparently its accurate within 1m by 1m which seems exceptional, but i'm going from memory, so dont quote me.
I would suggest firing off an email to the APOLLO observatory in New Mexico, for answers.

>>9920742
Considering the supposed speed of the moon and earth's rotation, seems very hard to believe that they're not just bouncing off something stationary that isn't the moon.

>>9920728
>They broke according to NASA.
>I will find the source.

I take it they are not inert mirrors and we usually find mirrors to be? Or did they just fracture into pieces because of some unknown thermal stresses?

Does anybody, here want to 'throw their hat into the ring' ?
>why they believe 'x' constitutes the best 3rd party proof of the Apollo moon landing missions.

I'm willing and listening to all offers.
Thanks.

>>9920746
Considering the supposed speed of the moon and earth's rotation, seems very hard to believe that they're not just bouncing off something stationary that isn't the moon.
Just what are you suggesting? Come out with it, dont be shy.
You seems to want to make a point about libration -yes?
It takes 6.7picoseconds for the the laser burst to hit the target and return.

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_Point_Observatory_Lunar_Laser-ranging_Operation
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libration

you're all being trolled, dudes

>>9920004
>hard
Is it though? Put asteroid in bag. Put bag in bag. put bag in bag in bag. Pump fluid into outer bag, and let it freeze. pressurize outbag to vacuum seal the inner bag. Replace gas in outerbag with water and let it freeze. Pulverize asteroid and suspend it in alcohol, then process.
The way I see it the order will be:
Non-meme orbital R&D semi-self-sustaining space station.
Orbital fuel/supply depot.
Slightly larger in-space assembled test self-sustaining micro-colony space station.
L3 (or 2, whichever is ahead of our orbit) self-sustaining mini-colony.
First asteroid recovery project for the purposes of R&D.
Attempted construction of micro-colony using space processing/manufacturing techniques.
Colonize the asteroid belt.

We really only ever need to capture and return a handful of asteroids.

>Infrastructure
Building infrastructure without an atmosphere or surveillance swarm and laser defense system is stupid.

>You would still need a handy way to process it though.
That's the precise and only legitimate reason for a capture mission. The alternative and likely much better idea would to make efforts on spacecraft that are self-sustaining and then just send one to the asteroid belt. Since it's self-sustaining we can just use ion drives and fill the time with zero-G research like they're doing on the ISS.

>>9920765
>Just what are you suggesting? Come out with it, dont be shy.
>You seems to want to make a point about libration -yes?
>It takes 6.7picoseconds for the the laser burst to hit the target and return.

Since they were reflecting lasers off the moon in 1962 before any reflectors were supposedly put on the moon, either the the laser is bouncing off something in earth's atmosphere, like the ionosphere, or the moon's surface is actually reflective enough to bounce laser light, or the laser is going through the moon and bouncing off something else.

Either way, there's no proof there are reflectors on the moon and it just seems like a stupid thing to put there when it can supposedly be done without them.

I'm sure we can use ground based telescopes over the course of many hours of UHD video of a single landing site to be able to resolve images well enough to see trace evidence of there having been a landing. That sort of thing requires a good bit of software processing though. It is a type of astrophotography used for moon shots that we already do to help remove atmosphere shimmer, weather, etc. and get ultra clear photos of the moon. The only real problem is that 1, physics simply won't allow a telescope powerful enough on Earth to see it with enough resolution. 2, that you'd need to use the largest optical telescope on the planet for a rather long time at the highest altitude possible. However, I think it could be done. The best you can hope for is some glimmer of light and lines that would represent the rover tracks. Basically stuff with the brightest albedo or best contrasting albedo. We won't get detailed or remotely detailed images of any discernible object, but the tracks should be good enough.

To illustrate the challenge, here's part of Tampa, Florida, to scale as best I could get, overlayed on Werner crater. The moon photo was taken by myself with some epically shitty, small, and ultra cheap gear handheld. Imagine what could be resolved with some high end gear that has auto tracking. In order to get something like rover tracks or large debris left behind you'd probably need to take the video at certain phases of the moon where the shadows casted by those objects would best seen.

>>9920773
This thread occurs about once every few months. I even made one like it a couple years ago.

>>9920796
If you point a laser just off target and can't get a laser reading, but you can get a reading when on target of a reflector that means there's something up there that has changed at least. Which can also be excused away of course.

Well im just going to fugg off then.
No doubt, someone will fill in the blanks.
Call me all the names under the sun, for daring to ask for third party proof of the Apollo landings.
Without such 3rd party proof and it's mainstream acceptance Apollo has acquired an almost 'religious-faith-based' acceptance, defended by it's own zealots, who should know better, if they profess to understand what good science is.

Presumably those not willing to explain why 'x' provides 3rd party proof of the Apollo landings, are either:
>Unaware of scientific methodology by Popperian standards
>Think NASA is incapable of being untruthful accept the claims on their own merit.
>Or have come to the stark and sudden realization -there is no 3rd party proof, only shadows of something not quite there.

>But come anon, said one to me, do you think NASA would fake it's own LRO photos in 2009?
No, i dont see why a supposedly reputable orgainisation would to protect a previous $124billion project funded by the taxpayer.
>So why do you think NASA faked the manned moon landings?
I dont, I believe them, on their own merit, and accept it as an 'hypothesis',
Proof could have been provided by the Chan'ge - why wasnt it?
Why is NASA making it so bloody hard for every nation and private company to allow them to provide proof?

Science and life offers plenty of cautionary tales regarding hubris, lies, and accepting things without independent proof or validation.
>https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/feb/18/haruko-obokata-stap-cells-controversy-scientists-lie

>>9920797
>I'm sure we can use ground based telescopes
there's no telescopes capable of doing this.
The VLT spoke about trying to achieve this in 2002, it's so far not yield any results.
There's nothing discernable relating to Apollo, please, for the love of this thread, dont be so ignorant.

>>9920819
Read the rest of the post.

>>9920802
Yes that could still happen if it was bouncing off something like the ionosphere.

>>9920819
>VLT

That is the wrong type of telescope design for this type of rendering. You need a single big piece of ground glass to do this.

>>9920823
If the target is a dot and you make scan lines of the area and it is still a dot, I wouldn't think it'd be the ionosphere.

>>9920796
>Either way, there's no proof there are reflectors on the moon
If you want to post, here dont make facetious banal comments, that have no substance, beyond your own imagination.

>>9920821
>Read the rest of the post.
I did.
Then I read
>In order to get something like rover tracks or large debris left behind you'd probably need to take the video at certain phases of the moon where the shadows casted by those objects would best seen.
and laughed!
10/10 for imagination.
Are you an English lit major by chance?


>>9920828
>That is the wrong type of telescope design for this type of rendering.
Crikey!
You better inform the folk at VLT, they were the ones who suggested it -not me!

what's even the point of this thread? It's like arguing if Australia exists.

>>9920828
>If the target is a dot and you make scan lines of the area and it is still a dot, I wouldn't think it'd be the ionosphere.
Is the dot moving?

>>9920832
We have third party proof of Australia existing.
None of the Apollo landings.
We have some tacit suggestive evidence perhaps, very weak gravy, nothing hard.
Like say the Chinese Chan'ge Orbiter taking HD pictures of the sites.
That would be nice.

>>9920831
>If you want to post, here dont make facetious banal comments, that have no substance, beyond your own imagination.
Not an argument - had there, or had there not, been lasers bounced off the moon before any reflectors were supposedly put on the moon?

>>9920843
the third party evidence is that literally no one but retards like you are arguing over it.

can we just move every single hoaxer thread to /x/ from now on? the new report feature should make it easier...

>>9920846
>the third party evidence is that literally no one but retards like you are arguing over it.
Ok, fine, I'll take it as a back handed compliment.
>the new report feature should make it easier...
Report!
You want to report someone in a science thread, because they asked for independent proof?!
Please.

>>9920844
Yes you're correct.
But let's not split hairs.
There's a man mountain of 3rd party independent proof just for the unmanned Soviet lunar missions from the Americans.
Including telemetry data from Jodrell.
I'm hard pressed to disbelief that for the sake of disbelieving it.
It passes the threshold for me and most people.
Just Like NASA's claims which are unsupported with independent proof pass the threshold for most (not sure why). I think it's an American cultural thing.

>>9920831
Eh, ever take photos of the moon yourself? During a full moon you can't see much of anything when compared to the other phases. This is because the contrast of the moon's albedo and objects' shadows is far better during the other phases. See how you can better see the craters near the terminator, yet over to the left where more direct sunlight falls, you can't see the craters as well?

Well, things left behind on the moon and tracks left in lunar soil all make shadows. Is it better to view those objects when the shadows give you better contrast in photos. Hence, taking video of the moon, with a massive optical, ground-glass telescope of a single landing site will render better results than any other time. Actually, VLT was going to be looking for shadows too.

>You better inform the folk at VLT

They already know, well the people who once worked there at the time know now. It is unable to resolve proper light from the moon because the VLT's design is best used for points of light instead of a giant swath of lit up moonscape. Thus, they can only get photos that are nothing but white fuzzy haze.

>>9920864
Great post, you're correct.

>>9920863
>Yes you're correct.
>But let's not split hairs.
>There's a man mountain of 3rd party independent proof just for the unmanned Soviet lunar missions from the Americans.
>Including telemetry data from Jodrell.
>I'm hard pressed to disbelief that for the sake of disbelieving it.
This depends on whether you consider America and the USSR/Russia actual enemies or on the same team. If they are on the same team, they cannot be considered independent verifiers.

It seems fishy that while the USSR were supposedly ahead in the space race, making the most progress, when it came to landing on the moon, they fell apart, and the US triumphed, ending the cold war and triggering the end of the Soviet Union. Despite maintaining they are still enemies, they work together on the ISS and NASA even use Russian rockets to dock it.

Enemies on earth, friends in space? Something doesn't seem quite right. It's not really scientists calling the shots here, it is governments/military agencies who could be working together, so you can't trust anything has actually been independently verified.

This thread is flaming hot garbage.

Lunar tourism will be viable with the pricepoints SpaceX's BFR will hit, so we'll see tourists walk on the moon in 5-10 years.

>>9913595

>>9920897
>so we'll see tourists walk on the moon in 5-10 years.
What will your excuse be when that doesn't happen?

>>9920896
You may have a point, but supposition needs evidence to support your assertion, also your post is political, not science.
Take that to /pol/.

>>9920897
Google's SpaceX was dropped in 2018 wasnt it?
No one met the schedule.
99% certain on this.
So this wont happen.
Sorry.

>>9920728
>No they didnt.
>Followed by irrelevent garbage.

You tipped your hand there -- you are not looking for "proof" in good faith, you are just a conspiracy troll.

>>9920738
>Let me ask you, hypothetically, if 'Evil Corp' or China claim in 10 years to have put man on Mars and only they could prove the fact, and no else could prove it, why would you believe it?

If the whole world watched it happen, every step of the way, failures as well as successes, then yeah, I might have to accept the fact that they did it.

If they suddenly started making the claim ten years after the fact, and the whole fucking world didn't watch it happen at the time, I'd be more skeptical, especially if they are really called "Evil Corp." But that is not even close to an analogous case.

>>9920927
>No they didnt.
Im sorry anon, can you point me to a source where the Politburo congratulated NASA on the Apollo success.
Thanks

> you are not looking for "proof" in good faith, you are just a conspiracy troll.
No anon. Im asking for 3rd party proof that doesnt exist for the Apollo landings.
Anyone who is non-partisan and dispassionate about the subject knows 'proof' of the Apollo missions by a 3rd party doesnt exist.
We do however have things that might be considered evidence for the Apollo mission's success, but nothing short of proof.
*also the great grain robbery is not conspiracy -read it on bloomberg.


Proof is actually not hard to come (relatively speaking) by the Chang'e in 2019 could provide this.

>>9920917
>Climate change froze all space travel.

>>9920823
How does the ionosphere know which tiny section of itself corresponds to a line between the telescope/laser and where the reflectors are supposed to be on the moon? How does it then selectively make itself more reflective in just that spot? How is the ionosphere suddenly participating in NASA's conspiracy? Do you believe the ionosphere to be sentient?

>>9920924
Unfortunately you can't get away from politics when it comes to this. If you require independent verifiers, then you need to be sure that they actually are independent.

Space agencies are not lead by scientists, they are military wings of governments, who go on "missions".

The only independent verifiers you can use are people who do not work for any agency of the government and have no reason to lie, the best being ourselves.

>>9920844
Do, or do not, the reflectors reflect more of the laser light than the surrounding area? Are you denying the reflectors are there? That's retarded, they do what the physics require them to do -- they reflect the light back at its source more efficiently than the surrounding lunar dust and rocks. They are easily detectable.

Are yo saying something other than the Apollo crews put them there? You can try and make that case, but since the overwhelming evidence shows that they were put there by the crews, and there is zero evidence that they were not, I'm not sure on what you are basing your claim.

>>9920951
I assume you have to take into consideration where you are on earth, and where the moon is in the sky, using this calculation to create the target. The target could just be mapping the ionosphere (or whatever else it could be bouncing off), calculating the best angle to hit from that.

Does the target move?

>>9920958
>The only independent verifiers you can use are people who do not work for any agency of the government and have no reason to lie, the best being ourselves.

So you're saying that if the Chinese, Japanese, or Indian orbiters were able to take photos of the Apollo sites, you would disbelief them?
For me the threshold for 3rd party proof is very very low.
If China, Indian or Japan had took a photograph of said Apollo artefacts and published it, I would accept it with no further incredulity.

Simple as that.
I'm not alone in thinking this outside of the US.

>>9920896
<----- /x/ is the correct board for conspiracy theories

>It seems fishy that while the USSR were supposedly ahead in the space race, making the most progress, when it came to landing on the moon, they fell apart, and the US triumphed, ending the cold war and triggering the end of the Soviet Union.

For the first part of that, I'd suggest you read a history of the space race. How and why the Soviets scored their early triumphs in space while the US napped is well documented, as is why the Soviet lunar effort faltered.

For the later part, where you claim the Apollo landings somehow ended the cold war, I'd suggest you read a regular history book, you are off by some decades.

I also notice in your last paragraph you start moving the goalposts a bit about what you will accept as a third-party source.

You were trolling better earlier.

>>9920962
>Are yo saying something other than the Apollo crews put them there?
NASA doesnt use the reflectors, placed by the Apollo missions, as of the present.

>You can try and make that case, but since the overwhelming evidence shows that they were put there by the crews,
sorry where?
Rovers have left lots of reflectors, on many occasions.

>I'm not sure on what you are basing your claim.
Lunokhod 1 is the preferred 'goto reflector' for the Apache observatory and NASA.

>>9920926

You're referring to Google's lunar x prize. That was a small sub 50 million dollar prize to land a small robotic rover on the moon. Google withdrew it after deadlines had passed. Due to the low price payoff, a rover candidate would only have hitched a ride as a side payload on a SpaceX rocket flight.

BFR is SpaceX's next generation rocket. It is fully reusable, it can carry people, and it can also land on the moon and Mars. SpaceX will be building it to cement their competitive position in the space launch industry and also to fulfill their founds aim to land people on Mars.

Google's lunar prize failed to land a small rover on the moon because space launch is still too expensive with current generation rockets and you still had to build a specialized robotic lander that cost a lot to develop. Because BFR is fully reusable, SpaceX is hoping to drop the prices of reaching space and other planets with the next phase of rocketry. Since it is also a planetary lander and can carry people, it has crewed lunar lander functions built in. That's why it has a possibility of landing people on the moon when Google's lunar prize failed to get a small rover on the moon for similar prices. It is cheap per flight and it can do it, while a small rover today would need an expensive ride to space and an expensive lander and rover to build from scratch.

>>9920962
Unless you have proof the reflectors are there and on the moon, I have no reason to believe it could be bouncing off something else, particularly as you can bounce lasers without reflectors.

>>9912585
Money. It doesn't financially make sense to go to the moon again, not really.

(Unless you're a lame conspiracy theorist)

>>9920938
>an you point me to a source where the Politburo congratulated NASA on the Apollo success.
>Thanks

Have no idea if the Politboro sent such a message --but the landings were covered in the state controlled press in the Soviet Union, Alexei Leonov has since spoken openly about the "white envy" he felt toward the Apollo 11 crew as they followed the news about the American lunar mission, etc.

Since I do not read Russian, I am unable to show you definitively which scans of Pravda, etc. carried coverage. If you happen to speak Russian, you can Google them up.

I also Goggled up a conversation with Kruschav's son in which he mentions Soviet reaction tot he landing, and a congratulatory note being sent, but have yet to find an actual copy of that. I'll keep looking, but I suspect you'll have some reason to discount that, so before I put in a lot more time -- if such a note was sent, is that acceptable third-party proof to you? Otherwise I can skip wasting my time.

This link has a nice list of SOviet reactions to the landing -- if you are seeking proof for yourself instead of just trolling, you might look it over and follow up on some of the leads it has. Frustratingly, it is short on links.

https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/15023/what-was-the-internal-soviet-reaction-to-the-moon-landing

>>9920976
I dont think they're trolling, just short on science, plenty on supposition, politics and thinking he can score polemical points debating 'de Sitter relativistic precession'.
Poor lad.
Probably an arts major.

>>9920973
>Does the target move?

Right along with the moon, yes.

>>9921001
Delightful, I shall devour at once!
Thanks.

>>9920974
>So you're saying that if the Chinese, Japanese, or Indian orbiters were able to take photos of the Apollo sites, you would disbelief them?
Yes, they are part of the same "clubs", i.e. http://www.unoosa.org

>>9920992
>Unless you have proof the reflectors are there and on the moon
Yes there's proof on the reflectors on the moon.
You can find that yourself, easily enough.

Read here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_Point_Observatory_Lunar_Laser-ranging_Operation

>>9921010
Well that's not science.
You might as well say unless, a non-terrestial life form confirmed the Apollo landings then you wont believe it.
Come on.
What proof will you accept for the Apollo landings then?
Since everything to you has a political slant, unless im mistaken?

>>9920976
>For the first part of that, I'd suggest you read a history of the space race. How and why the Soviets scored their early triumphs in space while the US napped is well documented, as is why the Soviet lunar effort faltered.
I mean are you going to trust any information from that period regarding what happened?

>For the later part, where you claim the Apollo landings somehow ended the cold war, I'd suggest you read a regular history book, you are off by some decades.
You are correct, it ended the "space race", and the US and Soviets ended up doing some weird sexually symbolic docking of each other's crafts in "space".

One nice third party confirmation: https://www.honeysucklecreek.net/other_stations/bochum/index.html

>>9921021
Nice! Thanks for that.
Im aware of Honeysuckle and Jodrell and I count it along with a body of evidence for the success of the Apollo missions.
But it's not independent.

I rather miffed we dont have anything close yet to independent proof, we have somethings which contribute to a body of evidence but nothing short of proof.

I cant see why that's not a priority, given the 50 year annivesary.
I dont understand why US congress banned NASA from working with the CNSA.
It's disappointing.

Chang'e 5 could provide that!
Imagine the Chinese Yutu rover live streaming an Apollo site back to Youtube for the 'Zoomer' generation!
Imagine how inspiring that would be.

We live in a time when people honestly believe the world is flat, despite being able to disprove it with a stick a sunny day and simple arithmetic.

Somethings need to change.

>>9921012
Considering it is funded by NASA, it's not independent.

>>9921033
>Considering it is funded by NASA, it's not independent.
But it's pointing at the Soviet reflectors.

>>9921015
>What proof will you accept for the Apollo landings then?
It's impossible for there to be any proof, everything about them has proven they didn't happen.

>>9921036
NASA have to "prove" the reflectors are there because they never called bullshit when they were supposedly put there. They are part of the space race history and so have to be legitimised to avoid suspicion.

>>9921041
>everything about them has proven they didn't happen.

As someone who has complained vigorously about a lack of 3rd party independent proof, I disagree with you.
There's no 'proof' that they didnt go!
There suggestive evidence that leads one to question their claims.
But this is the wrong argument, you cannot disprove a negative.
We should first be looking for 3rd party independent proof from another Nation's Orbiter or Rover to confirm their claims.
If none are there, well then, that's a different story.

>>9921047
>They are part of the space race history and so have to be legitimised to avoid suspicion.
This is just 'hot air'.
Spurious supposition, not worthy of any consideration.
Throwing things about.

Look if you're going to try and prove the Apollo landings did not happen, do it with science, maths and engineering, but not baseless accusation around conspiracies - take that to /pol/.

>>9914113
And how do you get the infrastructure in space to build mining ships and space refinieries on a large enough scale to build an orbital ring

>>9921059
>There's no 'proof' that they didnt go!
Okay so why is the footage in slow motion? Less gravity doesn't mean you'll be in slow motion.

>>9921059
>This is just 'hot air'.
It's just logic. Everything in terms of the rovers or other moon landings must be legitimised, otherwise everything can be called into question.

>>9921080
>Okay so why is the footage in slow motion? Less gravity doesn't mean you'll be in slow motion.
The video footage on the moon looks 'fake' as hell, but this is a just 'perception', we have nothing to compare it to.
Unless you're an expert on video footage and can break it down, then this doesnt denote proof that it's fake.
Be careful throwing that word around, it works both ways.
You have no proof that they didnt go.
You may have a body of evidence indicative of something not being as it should -quite different.

>It's just logic. Everything in terms of the rovers or other moon landings must be legitimised, otherwise everything can be called into question.
The rovers landed on the moon, we have proof from 3rd parties, NASA can prove the Soviets landed rover and the Soviets can prove NASA landed rovers on the moon.
So it doesnt follow that it was all fake.

>>9921099
>Unless you're an expert on video footage and can break it down, then this doesnt denote proof that it's fake.
Does this suffice? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWJPMr2UteA

>The rovers landed on the moon, we have proof from 3rd parties
You consider APOLLO, funded by NASA, 3rd party?

>>9921117
>You consider APOLLO, funded by NASA, 3rd party?
The Apache APOLLO observatory funded by NASA, uses the Soviet Lunokhod1 rover's reflector.
So yes this would be 3rd party proof of the Soviet rover on the moon.

>Does this suffice? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWJPMr2UteA
No, with the greatest of respect it does not.
Have you got anything peer reviewed from arXiv?
In other words, this is not /x/ or /pol/
Things dont fly like that here cowboy.
But interesting nonetheless.

>>9921080
>Less gravity doesn't mean you'll be in slow motion.
It actually does with regards to how objects fall and the parabolic path of things being kicked up from the ground, etc.

>>9921061
first, we need to build the 'space elevator', this will be a crucial piece of infrastructure, for cost saving and to get what we need into low earth orbit.

>>9921132
>The Apache APOLLO observatory funded by NASA, uses the Soviet Lunokhod1 rover's reflector.
>So yes this would be 3rd party proof of the Soviet rover on the moon.
Why do you consider NASA a 3rd party to Russia when they work together in space?

>Have you got anything peer reviewed from arXiv?
But you asked for a video expert to break it down? What about this? https://youtu.be/EP2GdhmPWXo

>>9921135
Yes but everything is in slow motion.

>>9921151
No it isn't. That's why when you speed the footage up so that objects fall at 9.81 m/s/s the movement of the astronauts look unnaturally sped up.

>>9921155
Everything has been artificially slowed down.

>>9921173
No it hasn't.

>>9921178
H'okay.

>>9912726

>>9921150
>Why do you consider NASA a 3rd party to Russia when they work together in space?
Independently peer reviewed work etc.
It's not just a dichotomy of Russia and NASA (besides it's Soviet piece of equipment).

>But you asked for a video expert to break it down?
It's an interesting video, can you point me to any peer reviews of it from experts in those fields.
No?
Well if you cant, what makes you think I'm suitably qualified to understand whether what is being portrayed is accurate?

Common sense will only take you so far.
There's a big difference between what you may or may not belief and science.
Good science is blind to politics, beliefs, prejudice, and rarely deals in absolutes. It's one of the only aspects of modern thinking that strives to be proved wrong.
If a claim cannot be tested or falsified, then it has no basis on making such claim.

For me without 3rd party proof, the Apollo missions are a claim advanced by NASA, that have not yet been verified.
It's a sacred cow, and an unpopular opinion to have.
Im not saying the Apollo missions werent a success, there's a body of evidence from NASA which seems to wholly prove this.
Likewise some would claim evidence to the contrary both have merit and their zealots.

I for one, would like independent verification from a Orbiter flyby, not a NASA orbiter, but another space agency or even a private body.
Im not a crank, a loonie, a flat earther, a denier, or a skeptic, i'd just like man's lunar exploration to be subject to the same rigour and threshold of proof and independent testing as any other scientific field.

Im hoping NASA allows the CNSA to take photos of the Apollo sites, and i will be very happy.

>>9914032

/x does not belong on /sci, period

>>9921198
>/x does not belong on /sci, period
You might find yourself copying and pasting that a few times in replies.

The thing I don't get is why would they even bother faking it? It isn't actually all that hard to do the calculations to figure out what kind of engines, fuel loads etc they would need to do each stage of the mission, and the actual hardware they built matches it all exactly.

So, unless the Saturn V was some kind of hologram, they really did build and launch 7 rockets with their complementary payloads that were capable of getting to the moon, landing, and then coming home. So why not just... do the mission?

There was no air to breathe. We had to go back.

>>9913595
>>9914100
>>9912586
>>9920054
>>9920765
>>9920992

>>9921203
First this isnt a /sci/ question.
Second, there's lots of reasons that they may have chosen to fake it, these being political i.e imagine if the astronauts died.
You make it sound like going to the moon was a piece of cake.
Even on paper, it was bloody hard.


>>9921209
Im sorry did i offend your sensibilities?
I was asking for the best 3rd party proof of the Apollo landings, not insults.
You seem to be in the wrong place.

>>9921196
>Independently peer reviewed work
Such as?
>It's an interesting video, can you point me to any peer reviews of it from experts in those fields.
Why does "peer review" automatically mean something is correct? Peer review can be just as vulnerable to bias falsity.
>Good science is blind to politics, beliefs, prejudice, and rarely deals in absolutes.
Which is why government funded "science" is bad science, it is vulnerable to all those things.
>Im hoping NASA allows the CNSA to take photos of the Apollo sites, and i will be very happy.
Do you consider photos scientific proof? And do you think NASA would allow CNSA to take photos that would expose them as frauds? And do you think CNSA would release such photos if it exposed them as frauds?

>>9921211
>You make it sound like going to the moon was a piece of cake.
That's the thing though. It obviously was a huge undertaking but by far the hardest part was developing a launch vehicle capable of doing it. But that's the one thing we know they definitely DID do.

>>9921203
The rocket was real and the "astronauts" boarded it, but before it took off they slid down an escape route into a bunker: https://youtu.be/pLiAwSKkm6k

>>9913237
fukkin rekt

NASA, should co-opt CNSA, to use that Chang'e 5 and yutu rover due for landing 2019, on the 50th year anniversary to take footage of the Apollo sites.
Imagine how invigorated the world will be to see another space agency providing proof of humankind's greatest achievement.

It will spur on millions of new scientists, and nation states, and private enterprise to get us back into space!

>>9921218
lotta questions guy.
If you were the anon, who said nothing will convince you of the moon landings, I havent the patience for you and you sound straight out of /pol/ or x.
Otherwise you would know the basics.
Peer review for your benefit, means independent testing, proving wrong etc.

>>9921222
Anon, we know 100% they landed Rovers on the moon, and they put orbiters around the moon.
We have plenty of 3rd party proof of this.
What we dont have is 3rd party proof of the Apollo landings. No one is disputing this.

>>9921230
>The rocket was real and the "astronauts" boarded it, but before it took off they slid down an escape route into a bunke
This is ridiculous!
There's non-faked footage of the Apollo 11 astronauts in low earth orbit.

>>9921236
For someone who champions good science, I'm not sure why pictures will convince you of the moon landings when the footage doesn't. You have a bias that China will show true photos, therefore photos are all it takes as scientific proof.

>>9921241
>There's non-faked footage of the Apollo 11 astronauts in low earth orbit.
I'd love to see it.

>>9921230
>>9921249
>I'd love to see it.
the Apollo 11 astronauts definitely went into space, no doubt about that.
Here's a footage of them experimenting with longshots of the earth.
We can tell it's them because of their faces.

>For someone who champions good science, I'm not sure why pictures will convince you of the moon landings when the footage doesn't.
Because it's independent proof.
Im sorry did you just roll out of /x/?

>You have a bias that China will show true photos, therefore photos are all it takes as scientific proof.
I have an independent proof / validation bias.
Like every other field in science.
These statements, show me you've just fell over hit your head in /pol/ or /x/ and bounced in here.
Go, just go.

Sorry my bad, here's the video.
Please ignore the commentary, it's biased towards the Apollo missions being faked.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCHG6uJH5L8

>>9912726
Literally why are you on /sci/
You could be clicking banner ads to extend your penis, seems much more your speed

>>9912884
This
Don't burn dumptrucks of science money just to get an HD remaster of 1969

>>9921252
So they built a rocket capable of landing men on the moon, men got into that rocket and went into space, and then they faked the rest for .. some reason.

If you're going to fake something it doesn't make sense to actually do 95% of what's required to do the damn thing you're faking in the first place.

>>9921252
>Because it's independent proof.
Do you think there'd be any retaliation if China exposed the moon landings as being a fraud? What makes it independent proof?
>Im sorry did you just roll out of /x/?
Not sure what's /x/ about it, seems like a logical point.
>>9921254
>Please ignore the commentary, it's biased towards the Apollo missions being faked.
Have NASA denied this footage being staged?

>>9921267
>>9921269

Im sorry I dont know what either of you are talking about.
Im not claiming the Apollo missions were faked.
Im saying for the Apollo landings to be proven like in every other field of scientific accomplishment it needs to be proven validated independently.
If you dont understand this, you have no place on here.

For the 50th year anniversary,
the Chang'e 5 which just so happens to be there in 2019, can take photos of the Apollo sites!
This will provide independent proof of the Apollo landings.
Something we have hitherto before now, not had.

>>9921254
If you filmed a round window in low Earth orbit the clouds would not stay still like that, the view out the window would be flying past as you went around the Earth every 90 minutes. It's impossible for this shot to have been faked in the way she's talking about.

>>9921273
And if the landing sites aren't there, will China take the pictures and release them anyway?

>>9921274
They're held up by weather balloons.

>>9921211

>>9921277
>And if the landing sites aren't there, will China take the pictures and release them anyway?

My presumption is that the landing sites are there, since this is what NASA has claimed and shown the world with their evidence, we're just awaiting confirmation of this.

If they are not there, I suggest you evacuate to /pol/ or /x/.

>>9913977
here, stop it, you just need to accept we got to the moon

>>9921286
Actually Iied, and showed my own prejudices there.
If we're doing this by the Popperian paradigm correctly, we must devise an independent test to try to disprove their claim as vigorous as possible.
i.e let Chang'e 5 take photos of the Apollo sites.

>>9921292
Oh really and why's that?

>>9921293
>i.e let Chang'e 5 take photos of the Apollo sites.
Are they not capable of video? I mean it'll be 2019. Maybe land a rover next the site? Live stream? Why are we incapable of producing anything like the actual moon landings from the 60s? It's pathetic.

>>9921298
>Are they not capable of video? I mean it'll be 2019. Maybe land a rover next the site? Live stream? Why are we incapable of producing anything like the actual moon landings from the 60s?

I dont know.
Let me check the Chang'e 5 payload which is carrying the Yutu rover.
just check it's specs...
wait one....
>checking....
Yeah the Yutu rover could live stream.

The Yutu rover has a mass of 140 kg, with a payload capacity of 20 kg
and carries instruments:
>panoramic cameras,
>an infrared spectrometer
>an alpha particle X-ray spectrometer (APXS).
> equipped with a robotic arm to position its APXS, near a target sample.
> can transmit live video,
> has automatic sensors to prevent it from colliding with other objects. (phew!)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chang%27e_5
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yutu_%28rover%29

That will solve that argument then!
....There's just a little problem.

In 2017, US congress have banned NASA from working with CNSA because of national security.
Also NASA have imposed a no fly zone and 2.5 proximity ban around the Apollo sites, because they are concerned about dust and the site's long-term preservation, even though the flags are probably in 'tatters' -according to NASA.

So what how do we independently prove the the Apollo sites, for the 50 year anniversary?

>>9921310
>Let me check the Chang'e 5 payload which is carrying the Yutu rover.
Bullshit. The "Yutu rover" was the piece of shit that did nothing and died. China don't have Hollywood you see.

Why are you lying?

>>9921319
What are you talking about?
Im referring to the Yutu on the Chang'e 5, due to land in March 2019.
You're on about the previous Yutu rover on the Chang'e 3.
>https://www.space.com/23786-china-moon-rover-mission-photos-change3-lander.html

>Why are you lying?
Imbecile.
Please go back to /x/ or /pol/

>>9921325
>to the Yutu on the Chang'e 5
No such thing mooncuck. Provide proof.

>>9913326
>>9913748
>>9921194
>>9921259
There's not one single shred of proof that we went to the moon.

>>9921341
>There's not one single shred of proof that we went to the moon.
Yes there is.
And this is a fair assessment without stating sources.
There's evidence for orbiters and rovers that have been independently verified.
There's evidence for the manned Apollo missions from NASA.

What we are missing however is independent proof, (we have some 3rd party evidence) but nothing short of 3rd party proof.
This could be provided by the Chang'e 5 carrying the Yutu rover in 2019 in time for the 50th anniversary.
Then everybody including you will be happy either way.

>>9912585
>returned
Umm, ya about that

http://www.whale.to/c/Dave%20McGowan%20-%20Wagging%20The%20Moon%20Doggie.pdf

>>9921354
>This could be provided by the Chang'e 5 carrying the Yutu rover in 2019
Horse shit - back it up.

>>9921355
From the pdf, (which is rather prosaic and offers nothing in the way of falsification, of the moon landing, just assuaging the ego's of those who disbelief for the sake disbelieving).

>We will also require a sanitation/septic system of some kind.
>Or did those missions bring about another ‘first’ that NASA has been reluctant to brag about?
>Was Neil Armstrong, unbeknownst to the American people, the first man to take a dump on lunar soil?
>Or was it Buzz Aldrin? Which astronaut has the distinction of being the first to soil the lunar landscape?

I was given to belief they defecated in a bag.
Said bag is still on the lunar surface.
>https://www.popsci.com/brief-history-pooping-in-space#page-3

>>9921361
>Horse shit - back it up.
On you on a farm?
I think there's aboard for that.
If you can read here's the specs for the Yutu and Chang'e 5.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chang%27e_5
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yutu_%28rover%29

>>9912585
>Why haven't we returned?

For what reason? Why should "we"?

>>9921361
Not that I normally respond to trolls, but you seem to be incredulous of the ability of the Chang'e 5 and it's Yutu rover's ability, to be able to proof of the Apollo sites?
Why is that?

>>9921365
Oh dear, how very deceptive of you. Since you can't do it:

>Chang'e 5 is a Chinese National Space Administration (CNSA) lunar sample return mission has been rescheduled to launch in 2019. The mission goal is to land in the Mons Rumker region and return a 2 kg sample of lunar regolith, possibly from as deep as 2 meters. The mission is reported to consist of four modules. Two of the modules will land on the Moon, one designed to collect samples and transfer them to the second module, designed to ascend from the lunar surface into orbit, where it will dock with a third module. Finally the samples will be transferred to the fourth module, also in lunar orbit, which will return them to Earth. The spacecraft carries a Panoramic Camera (PCAM), Lunar Regolith Penetrating Radar (LRPR), and the Lunar Mineralogical Spectrometer (LMS).

No rover, no live stream. It sounds like the most pointless fucking "mission" ever. Get some rock and go back. Wow, 2019 has really stepped it up since the 60's. If you still take this bullshit seriously you deserve what you get.

>>9921379
Sweetie can you read?
See here from the wiki stub
Lander payload
The lander will carry landing cameras,
>CAMERAS!!!!!
>optical cameras,
>a mineral spectrometer,
>a soil gas analytical instrument,
>a soil composition analytical instrument,
>and a sampling sectional thermodetector.
> For acquiring samples, it will be equipped with a robotic arm, rotary-percussive drill, a scoop for sampling, and separation tubes to isolate individual samples.

We should go for scientific reasons. Learning about terraforming, seeing what could grow with minimal resources, etc.

>>9921386
I said can we do better than damn pictures? Video? Live stream? You said it can do those things, turns out it can't. You said it carried a Yutu rover, turns out it doesn't.

So the answer is, no, we can't do better than pictures. Absolutely pathetic.

>>9921379
>>9921398
I've answered this many times.
For your benefit again.
See pic YUTU on Chang'5 can live streaming as found here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yutu_%28rover%29

As a bonus, here's a video of the Yutu rover on the Chang'e 3.
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVnw-61Hb0Q


NOW STOP TROLLING.
PLEASE GO BACK TO /POL/
REPORTED

>>9921403

>>9921403
>announcing reports

>>9912726
Russia had the technology to verify that Americans went to the moon, seeing as how Russia was neck and neck with America and nearly beat them.

Explain to me why Russia would allow the Americans to lie about going to the moon and not call them out for lying. Russia was humiliated by USA getting their first, losing the space race was a total and complete failure for the Russians. So why did they just let Americans lie about it?

>>9921414
Imagine her biting you

>>9921442
Something something collusion
Something something illuminati
/x/tards don't do much thinking before they spam /sci/ with their bullshit

>>9921442
They even reported it to their own people in Pravda, which was an organ of the Soviet state.

>>9912585
This might be of interest: soviets tracking APollo missions as practice for tracking their own -- which were ultimately cancelled.

https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthread.php?20447-Soviet-tracking-of-Apollo-missions

Anyone reading Russian and willing to do a better translation would be cool.

Also of potential interest -- astronomers tracking APollo missions in space, which would not be possible if the craft were not following the orbits as announced by NASA: if astronomers had looked where the ships should have been as they moved to and from the moon, they would have seen nothing if nothing was there.

>>9921549
Hit the button too soon -- here's the link:

http://pages.astronomy.ua.edu/keel/space/apollo.html

SciAm interview with Sergei Kruschev. Short but interesting -- Nikolai's son, he worked in on of the two design bureaus trying to beat NASA to the moon.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/apollo-moon-khrushchev/

One more for fun:

http://www.arrl.org/eavesdropping-on-apollo-11

>>9921453
>>9921542
I've never seen any moon landing denier dispute this. Any time I ask them why the Soviets would allow the Americans to lie about it they just ignore my post. They never even try to rationalize it. They'll rationalize any scientific argument you throw at them but they will not even attempt to try to rationalize the Soviets covering up the lie for America.

It's hilarious honestly.

>>9921575
I've heard them claim pretty often that the Soviet Union was reliant on the US for grain at the time so they agreed to keep quiet about it or something. I never really bothered to look into whether there's any truth in that

>>9921624
Sounds like complete fucking bullshit and there is no way in hell they would have still kept quiet about it to this day.

>>9920683
Under rated post

USA never landed on the moon. It was a hoax from the start.

>>9920683

we can have "stagnation" when we live in a technological utopia spread across the galaxy you regressive fuck, but no sooner

stagnation is a failure and capitalism merely recognizes this reality

>>9912971

>i'd laugh if china sends an apollo-style mission and the americans respond by sending a fleet of whatever spacex's future ship will be called.


Kek'd hard at the thought of that, that would be based AF

>>9913237
kek'd

>>9914044
you mean the world ran put of German(nazi) rocket scientists to steal

>>9912586
professor goldberg is bullshitting you anon

>>9921772
Well, I always thought we had done it, but if some unknown goober on an anonymous Tibetan throat-singing board asserts the contrary, that's good enough for me. Off to the kitchen to make my hat, I am one of you now!

>>9921266
Beats burning dumptrucks of money on dishrag whore single-mothers sitting around all day shitting out career welfare receipients.

>>9923680
m8, fuck off. welfare in the US is actually hard to get on.

>>9914434
>>9914863
Point is it's much much easier to get stuff to space from moon than it is from earth.

>>9913237
ROASTED!

>>9916476