Will we be able to actually physically see Artemis circling the moon? I'm not talking unaided vision but strong backyard telescopes, or ever the stronger ones? Will this finally put to rest that firmament and Van Allen nonsense?
>>42193950i think that be like getting all of texas and a elephant in the same photo.
>>42193950Do you know how to work out things like arclength and apparent size?How much magnification would you need to make something a little bigger than a motor home that is 200,000 miles away appear to be just 1 deg in angular size?
>>42193950Will OP ever be able to physically see his micropenis?
>>42193950Bro, I saw that guy holding the mic in a movie somewhere
>>42193950No, just watch the animated depiction of whats definitely actually happening and clap your hands at science
>>42193950No but I can see it in my mind's eye so I know it's real.
Flerfers will say CGIGlobers will say "I like to suck NASA's dick and be sheeple".
>>42193950They're going to try to land on the moon again in like 2027/2028 and if that happens then they'll already know about all of the major moon landing hoax conspiracies, so they'll have to go out of their way to either fake the same things in basically the same way they did in 1969 for 2028 (so that it looks consistent), or they'll have to really go crazy with the CGI while trying not to make it look hyperreal. If they don't have the money/capability to pull off a AAA fake then they'll have to come up with a bunch of technical issues and glitches to explain away why everything looks like shit.
Also, stanley Kubrick is dead now, so if the moon looks like a grey version of the dune films then we'll know they went with Denis Villeneuve this time.
>>42193950In the age of AI, NEVER trust anything you see coming from NASA (or really the government).
