This just looks depressing.
>>16957858Right is the Mun from KSP
>>16957858What'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.
>>16957858whyI think it looks cool
>>16957937Digital technology reveals the washed-out, tired reality we actually live in.
>>16957959you are looking at ISO 50000 image of the Earth illuminated only by the moonshine.
>>16957935Hello, 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 dollarbill under your pillow for losing your first tooth.
>>16958058Hello retard, I'm just stopping by to inform you of the following:>You will never go to space
>>16957935When 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 saganhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wupToqz1e2g
>>16958093You 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.
>>16958094obligatory Perlmanhttps://youtu.be/69C4ZL6uG_U?t=133
>>16957959film is closer to what our eyes actually seedigital is always blown out. It takes a lot to capture color actually
are we having a family album review?
this one here is the first photo from another celestial body, made by soviet luna 9 in february 1966
>>16958093I 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.
>>16958220earthrise from american lunar orbiter a couple of months later
>>16958077What an embarassingly childish retort
>>16958393not as embarrassing as a 30+ year old space "railfan"actual railfans are more respectable than you
>>16957858>This just looks depressing.oh yeah...>>16957935you really don't understand how going to the moon works. moron.
first ever view of the far side of the moon, made in 1959 by Luna 3
Bravo, NASA.
>>16958644Artemis 2 is equivalent to Apollo 8. Dumb fuck
>>16958621The far side of the moon is some shitty analog horror video from youtube?
>>16957959Bullshit, what I saw on our CRTs and films or digital cameras even in the 2000's felt a lot closer to what my eyes see than what we have now and I got the tech to prove it. For motor racing in particular it feels like I have a blurry piss filter hell, worse than wearing sunglasses or polarized lenses in real life.>>16957935It's fucking rocket science.
>>16958653They're using fucking Microsoft Outlook in SPACE.
>>16958644This mission was very fun. Lots of memes and everyone got home safe. No idea why they brought a Canadian, though. Pity?
>>16958609I'll reply with this image whenever issues like "trans genocide" or "rape" come up. Thanks.
>>16957935We always had the technology you fool.
Kubrick filmed the moon landings.
>>16957858>>16957959Photography truly is an art and a science
>>16958015damn, you know what camera they used?
>>16960543>nobody:>poltard: TRANNIES
Is the moon.....ghey?We already knew that space itself was ghey, but are the things that are in space...ghey also?Are we in the fruity Verse' bro (No Homo)?
>>16962323ywnbaw
>>16957935>Bro there's no need to test drive this new car we manufactured, we made a car 80 years ago and it worked fine!
>>16958157>digital is always blown outWe've long had modern techniques to counter that.
I think space is so cool, but it's so scary
>>16957935Why is it that even on a science board we can't escape these people?
>>16957959What's funny is that the digital image actually looks flatter, like we're looking at a disc.
>>16957935Beautiful levels of retardation on display your a perfect specimen we should cut you open and study your brain so we can know exactly how not to be like you
>>16957935>all these seething replies over the fake moon landing and fake trip to outer space
>>16958094reddit
>>16957858>>16957959Quite literally fake and gay.
>>16965161>NASA in the walls again
>>16965161Theorizing that we're going to come full circle and have another "moon is cheese" "moon-landing is fake" "earth is flat" revolution. I'm not sure how or when, but I'm ready for the idiocy.
they just keyed in ugly exposure settingsmind you they were at 6500km not 100km so its mega zoomed in so of course the ground detail is worse and that might have to do with exposure decisionsnot a photographer me
>>16965401Good, idgaf.
>>16957935Lovely bait. Delicious. Scrumptious even.
>>16967006you sound like a faggot
>>16958609That's just a category error. Small things can be very important.
>>16967007and I know you like it.
>>169586442 microsoft outlooks, 1 capsule.
>>16957959literally day and night
>>16958644Based. Microsoft BTFO for all eternity.
>>16958609>Every human being who ever was is in the dotFalse, you can see the outline of your mom below the dot
>>16957858Sad!
>>16957858All you had to do was say thank you
>>16957858No it doesn't. *You* are just depressed.Get help, it's available.
>>16957858Space is depressing
>>16961847When he was making it, was he aware of what was happening? Like did the CIA spooks tell him to make a potential documentary of what it should look like, or did they steal his shit while he was making space odyssey
>>16958644Apollo 11's computer completely shit the bed. They had to land by hand.
>>16957935>We haven't been on the flying rock in decades therefore we never landed on the rock and we forgot how to land on the rockDo you really want the United States to spend another $20 billion tax dollars to go walk around on the big rock again just so that you can deny it again anyway and say it didn't happen again? Lol.
>>16971450>$20 billionQuite literally nothing compared to the amount of tax dollars spent on Israel, niggers, and bombing brown people, walking around on the big rock at least looks cool.
If it was your yard then yeah. But you are on another planet, that;s inhabited, looking at another planet. The endorphins from that alone would be insane.
>>16971571>Israel, niggers, and bombing brown peopleI think you mean, protecting freedom across the globe
>>16972417protecting peace around the globe doesnt translate to giving all our tax money to Jews and Isreal, thats just what the elites want you to think so that they can stay in power and keep you brainwashed and under their control
>>16957858It's just exposure settings
>>16957858yeah the quality on that CGI does really look depressing
>>16957935The average person is retarded and believes whatever the rest of the world believes without question. They have no soul, they're basically animals.
Let's see the millennials perform a landline phone call from space.
>>16970683You're so relatable and youth-oriented. You seem very trustworthy and scholarly, as if I should spend multiple hours discussing this subject with you.
>>16962285>damn, you know what camera they used?Nikon D5 DSLR. NASA loves that camera.
>>16972919Autism?
>>16957935>why yes we built planes that broke the sound barrier and space shuttles for manned flight to other planets just a decade or so after pic related technology>oh uh moving electrons around super duper fast and doing quintillion trillions millions calculations with that we uh no we won't land on the moon again prease understand
>>16957858This is just an image. How you feel about it is on you.
>>16958094https://youtu.be/9_bPFmVVlFk?si=MaxQEUm_NMHQfcTX
>>16957935Glorious bait
>>16973426That's a cool machine shop.
>>16965401Where have you been? Anti intellectualism has been out in full force since 2020. A large chunk of the American public genuinely thinks the moon landing was faked and most of the people who believe that also believe the reason it was faked was to hide the "firmament"
>>16958015speaking of moonshine, it's interesting to think about how night on the moon is much brighter than night on earth because earthshine is brighter than moonshine comparatively.
>>16957935rather than technology, it's better to think of it as budget. we had the budget to go to the moon because the space race, then it ended. it's like how right now we have a gajillion dollars to burn on AI because the AI race, but if the AI race ends, then the whole thing collapses financially.
>>16958093>let me just gloss over the fact that we're apparently starting from zero in our attempt to repeat technological feats from half a century agoWhy exactly do we need>an incremental, methodical approachfor something we supposedly did repeatedly generations ago?It's telling that all of the replies to >>16957935 are just variations on>you're wrong because...you just are, ok?!?!>>16976822Any person with a shred of common sense could conclude it was faked based purely on the geopolitical realties of the time, specifically that Russia was handily beating the U.S. to every single space-related milestone. It might make a nice patriotic feel good story to imagine the U.S. being behind every step of the way only to surge ahead to win the biggest race but it's not very realistic, especially in light of all the nonsense that has happened in the years since.If you told someone in 1970 that the U.S., in 2025, would be working hard, following "an incremental, methodical approach" in order to develop the technology to land on the moon, they flat out wouldn't believe you. They would tell you, and rightfully so, that it's absurd to think that after 50 years of progress, the U.S. would be struggling to replicate technological feats from that era.
>>16976828And no other country has gone to the moon because...? You think a nation like China wouldn't love to have that on their resume, if it were possible? What, they can't afford it?
>>16976838the space race is over. china didn't get to the point they could even think of competing until 25 years afterwards. the only way you're ever going to see significant investment in space now is when it's economically viable to extract resources from asteroids.
>>16977411and to hammer home the point more, america has been neglecting and cutting NASA funding for decades now. and that's still more funding than any other space agency.
>>16973426you should unironically learn how to build a basic computer from scratch. it's so simple it was technologically feasible to do so in the mid-1800s using telegraph relays if someone just realized the applications of boolean algebra to circuits at the time.
>>16977412Wrong.
>>16977418space programs are one of the easiest things to cut funding to because there's no immediate public benefit or detriment to it other than more government money to be spent elsewhere. as a percentage of GDP, funding on lessens over time. number numerically get bigger only because inflation and gdp growth.
>>16977419Pure entitlement. They are receiving ~60% of their peak budget when they actually got to the moon for 60 years on average. Your fake measurement is fake.
>>16957935>wE LoSt The tEcHnOLoGyRetarded zoomer begone!
>>16958609we hate Carl Sagan around here
>>16958609The woes of complex lifeforms matter much more than rock and ice in a dark void. We give the latter meaning to begin with.
>>16957858I know, why is the earth a globe? I need some cheese grated to eat some flat earth.
>>16958058>>landing in a movie studiolmfao.
>>16957935Stfu
>>16979849While you're there, can you grab yourself some actual sense of humour?
>>16957935>And now we only have the technology to do a flybyA lot more tech has been lost, anon, the tooling was willfully destroyed.
>>16958077>you need to be spaced. Taken to the far side of the moon and dumped, the lot of you.
>>16973426bet this place is long gone, maybe its a Wal-Mart now
>>16977415yes i did that for my computer science degree, we took a class for digital logic, & we used a breadboard & IC chips to build a simple calculator that could add & subtract.
>>16957935Bait
>>16957935lol
>>16957935It's funny you retards used fact that we didn't go again for long time as argument against Moon Landing now goal post is moved
>>16957858>looks, feels, vibesTrash thread.
>>16976835We are basically starting from zero because we are using new launch vehicles, new crew modules and many new parts and systems in those modules. It's not like the Apollo era stuff is just sitting around in perfect condition for us to reuse, remaking them exactly would be a waste of time and research/innovation potential, and the new technologies used need to be tested thoroughly and carefully because any small change that gets assumed as inconsequential might end up being the cause of a disaster. Newer technologies are better, but they are also different, and those differences mean that you need to test and rebuild from the ground up, assuming any new thing is a straightforward drop-in replacement is lazy and potentially dangerous.
>>16957858
