/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.14806825]

is there a way I can personally verify we went to the moon without spending millions?
Like the laser thing, how does it work? Can I do it?
Otherwise is there a telescope strong enough to see the landing site?

[Anonymous No.14806949]

>>14806825
Yes there are telescopes you can buy which could probably resolve enough detail but they are probably pretty expensive, my guess a couple grand or more at least, but then again it's a great investment, the pictures you can take with a good telescope are amazing

[Anonymous No.14807003]

>>14806825
>>14806949
>is there a telescope strong enough to see the landing site?
Not ground-based, no. Atmospheric seeing (turbulence in the atmosphere) sets a minimum level of resolution you can get without using shit like adaptive optics - and even then the resolution you need to see a ~4 m object from ~400,000,000 m away is fucking absurd; for visible light you’d need a lens aperture if like 100 m

[Anonymous No.14807017]

>>14807003
Nevermind guess I'm retarded then

[Anonymous No.14807018]

>>14807017
Nah. With all the pics that we see from missions like LRO or MRO it’s easy to think that we should be able to resolve stuff with telescopes no problem - it’s just that the distinction here is that those kinds of missions are usually only a couple hundred or even a couple dozen km above the surface.

[Anonymous No.14807081]

>>14806825
>Like the laser thing, how does it work? Can I do it?
Sort of. The entire lunar surface is highly reflective, so no matter where you aimed it you'd get a response like you were hitting a mirror.

[Anonymous No.14807282]

so, basically I need to trust the same governments and experts who lied about corona on the moon landing. This is a huge issue for me. I never doubted, but if there is no way I can verify it, I can't trust it.

[Anonymous No.14807302]

>>14807282
>so, basically I need to trust the same governments and experts who lied about corona on the moon landing.
Why? Truth is probable. In case of corona it is a clear lie and so dumb that this is probable too. In case of moon landing there are pics and vids unable to made on earth at that time.

[Anonymous No.14807323]

>>14807302
I'm not gonna become a moon landing denier, but I'm not gonna believe it fully either.

[frenanon No.14807528]

>>14806825
Well, I mean, when you consider the First country to "Go to Mars".....
You might be inclined to question the legitimacy of the "Space Programs".

[frenanon No.14807530]

>>14807282
>so, basically I need to trust
I think they prefer the term "Have Faith"

[frenanon No.14807532]

>>14807323
>I'm not gonna become a moon landing denier, but I'm not gonna believe it fully either.
The real redpill is that "Satellites" like we traditionally think of floating in space flying around Earth for things like GPS are actually just Ground-Based Cell Towers.

[Anonymous No.14807540]

>>14806825
Start with a smaller question, like "did they actually build those rockets?"

The amount of documentation about the rockets is immense. Hours upon hours of video and photographs beyond the commonly shown videos. Books containing details of insanely autistic details of how even minor systems on the rockets worked. The depth and breadth of this lore is such that no matter which way you turn, there is more you can learn about it. It far exceeds the lore of any sci-fi. Trek and starwars nerds, with all their fanfic and official media, can't hold a candle to the lore of the Saturn V. But don't take my word for it, actually dig into the autism yourself.

Once you've convinced yourself that they actually did build these rockets, ask whether they could have really reached the Moon. Learn some basic rocket science, plug in the numbers, and see if it's in the right ballpark. It all is, but do it yourself to convince yourself.

Then ask yourself, if they went through all the trouble of actually building these rockets, the landers, the space suits and rovers, why wouldn't they use them? If they went as far as to build all that hardware for real, why would they stop then and hand the project over to a movie director instead of actually doing it? Making the hardware was the hard part. Using it was gutsy, but not actually hard. All using it took was finding some men willing to risk their lives in experimental hardware on an experimental mission, but such men are not exactly in short supply.

[Anonymous No.14807554]

>>14807018
>With all the pics that we see from missions like LRO [...] it’s easy to think that we should be able to resolve stuff with telescopes no problem
LRO has imaged the Moon landing sites. The problem is, the LRO only gets half meter resolution at best, so you only see a few pixels at best.

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/apollosites.html

[Anonymous No.14807572]

>>14806825
>Like the laser thing, how does it work? Can I do it?
If you know how to build electronics and optical systems you could do it for a couple grand. If you're just an equipment consoomer it will be prohibitively expensive. You could probably get enough detector area with a reflective Mylar blanket and an old C-band dish, since you're just looking for a signal rather than an image.

[Anonymous No.14808846]

>>14806825
Do you mean visiting the moon when they said they did? If so, seeing a landing site wouldn't be enough, because that could have been created later.