>>16957858
Right is the Mun from KSP

File: 1776048293753892.jpg (112 KB, 817x840)

112 KB JPG

>>16957858
What's really depressing is how many fools believe this garbage: Supposedly, 53 years ago, we landed on the moon. And now we only have the technology to do a flyby and have to wait 2-3 more years for them to figure out how to land on the moon.

>>16957858
why
I think it looks cool

File: blue marble.png (1.75 MB, 1284x779)

1.75 MB PNG

>>16957937
Digital technology reveals the washed-out, tired reality we actually live in.

>>16957959
you are looking at ISO 50000 image of the Earth illuminated only by the moonshine.

>>16957935
Hello, retard. I'm just stopping by to inform you of the following:
>Apollo 8 was a lunar flyby
>Apollo 11 was the landing
>Artemis II is a flyby
>Artemis IV is scheduled to be a landing

Mommy will put a hundred dollar
bill under your pillow for losing your first tooth.

>>16958058
Hello retard, I'm just stopping by to inform you of the following:
>You will never go to space

>>16957935
When they did it before, they also went with an incremental, methodical approach building up to it with test flights, rather than jumping all the way to a landing right away. Which is why Apollo 11 was the first landing, rather than Apollo 7 or 8. I’m sure there was plenty of childish impatience over the test flights back then too.
It would be stupid to try and rush through it and jump straight to a landing this time. Just because the 50 years newer Artemis spacecraft has the same general objectives, doesn’t mean it all works the same

obligatory sagan
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wupToqz1e2g

>>16958093
You have to understand that these posters are actually retarded and have no attention spans left due to years of irradiating their brains with TikTok and porn. The fact that it hasn't happened yet means it never will. This is what they believe.

>>16958094
obligatory Perlman
https://youtu.be/69C4ZL6uG_U?t=133

>>16957959
film is closer to what our eyes actually see
digital is always blown out. It takes a lot to capture color actually

File: The first photograph of E(...).jpg (455 KB, 1536x1214)

455 KB JPG

are we having a family album review?

File: First_Photo_from_the_Surf(...).jpg (159 KB, 789x550)

159 KB JPG

this one here is the first photo from another celestial body, made by soviet luna 9 in february 1966

>>16958093
I would argue in a sense that Artemis is more rushed than Apollo since the design is immature as they keep fucking with the SLS blocks and overall mission architecture, so we don't get as much useful test data on each flight as the Apollo engineers did and we end up taking unnecessary risk.

File: First photo of Earth from(...).jpg (2.28 MB, 3856x1489)

2.28 MB JPG

>>16958220
earthrise from american lunar orbiter a couple of months later

>>16958077
What an embarassingly childish retort

>>16958393
not as embarrassing as a 30+ year old space "railfan"
actual railfans are more respectable than you

File: You don't have real problems.jpg (75 KB, 1024x1024)

75 KB JPG

>>16957858
>This just looks depressing.
oh yeah...

>>16957935
you really don't understand how going to the moon works. moron.

File: Luna_3_moon[1].jpg (1.25 MB, 1502x1156)

1.25 MB JPG

first ever view of the far side of the moon, made in 1959 by Luna 3

File: 1776167385433.jpg (92 KB, 1080x1272)

92 KB JPG

Bravo, NASA.

>>16958644
Artemis 2 is equivalent to Apollo 8. Dumb fuck

>>16958621
The far side of the moon is some shitty analog horror video from youtube?