How much of space exploration is real?

[qualia]

There are things which are obviously fake (the moon landing) and obviously real (satellites in Earth's orbit, the ISS). But where is the line? Are unmanned Moon missions real? Are Mars rovers real? Is Voyager real?

[digdeeper]

I did wonder about it. But in the end decided it's not important enough for me to delve into.
Voyager when I came across it looooooooong ago I thought was fake. Like, I just didn't think something can fly for so long and still have fuel and way of communication and not hit something, etc. This is just my amateur speculation though. I can't find anyone that questions the mission on the internet, I guess no one really cares.

[LoadingXML]

There are things which are obviously fake (the moon landing) and obviously real (satellites in Earth's orbit, the ISS). But where is the line? Are unmanned Moon missions real? Are Mars rovers real? Is Voyager real?

Consider me mechanical engineer here.

So, simply put: nothing in the math/physics indicates its impossible, and I have not seen anyone providing valid math or physics as to why moon landing or any space operation is impossible.

At best you get some hypothesis like van allen belt would burn/break the spaceship or whatever, but when you dig deeper (heh) you basically see there is nothing impossible about it.

Assuming you got an argument, trust me, the argument has already been answered, you just either arrogant and don't want to accept that, or you are geniunly brainless and you can't understand.

Thank you.

Signing out.

[moeloli]

There are things which are obviously fake (the moon landing) and obviously real (satellites in Earth's orbit, the ISS). But where is the line? Are unmanned Moon missions real? Are Mars rovers real? Is Voyager real?

Consider me mechanical engineer here.

So, simply put: nothing in the math/physics indicates its impossible, and I have not seen anyone providing valid math or physics as to why moon landing or any space operation is impossible.

At best you get some hypothesis like van allen belt would burn/break the spaceship or whatever, but when you dig deeper (heh) you basically see there is nothing impossible about it.

Assuming you got an argument, trust me, the argument has already been answered, you just either arrogant and don't want to accept that, or you are geniunly brainless and you can't understand.

Thank you.

Signing out.

No one says that moon landings are absolutely physically impossible, it's not a physical problem, but rather a social (or whatever would be the right word here) one, specifically, the fact that no one capitalized on moon trips and no one went to the moon again in almost a century.

[LoadingXML]

No one says that moon landings are absolutely physically impossible, it's not a physical problem, but rather a social (or whatever would be the right word here) one, specifically, the fact that no one capitalized on moon trips and no one went to the moon again in almost a century.

I assume you are american, thus this becomes rather ironic, but in summory, its just because of budget.

I quote [1] [2]:

The United States spent $25.8 billion on Project Apollo between 1960 and 1973, or approximately $257 billion when adjusted for inflation to 2020 dollars.

NASA's budget peaked in 1964–66 when it consumed roughly 4% of all federal spending. The agency was building up to the first Moon landing and the Apollo program was a top national priority, consuming more than half of NASA's budget and driving NASA's workforce to more than 34,000 employees and 375,000 contractors from industry and academia.

I am no american, but I doubt there is anyone wanting to spend 257$ billion and 4% of entire federal spending to take a walk on the moon, and guess what? that americans back in 1979 thought, I quote [3]:

77 percent of people in 1989 thought the moon landing was worth it; only 47 percent felt that way in 1979.

Wouldn't be better for mankind if NASA money went to fixing the house crisis? or maybe create some jobs for the people who lost their jobs due to A.I? some food for thought.

So that's in short, you could easily go to the moon if you have 200 billion dollar, want an easy shortcut? give me that money and I will send you, however returning isn't guaranteed

1-https://www.planetary.org/space-policy/cost-of-apollo
2-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA
3-https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/ ... am/262254/

[moeloli]

Actually being able to go to the moon would be a huge advancement for humanity, it's not just some cartoonish "taking a walk on the moon" thing like you're presenting. The government and countless corporations (and hey, that crazy Musk who owns "SpaceX") have more than enough money to fund moon trips going by your provided figures.

[LoadingXML]

Actually being able to go to the moon would be a huge advancement for humanity,

Assume for the sake of argument the moon landing happened exactly as NASA describe it, how did that advanced humanity?

The time between last mission to the moon and today showed impressive advancement in rocket science, espically when it comes to optimizing for effeciency (I am still waiting for that detonation engine), and all happened without needing to send anyone to the moon, simply because that's not how R&D work.



Historically and even today, advancement in technology has only been triggered by advancement in material science, discovery and development of new materials allowed for newer or better technologies.

The government and countless corporations (and hey, that crazy Musk who owns "SpaceX") have more than enough money to fund moon trips going by your provided figures.

H̶e̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶b̶u̶s̶y̶ ̶f̶u̶n̶d̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶a̶n̶ ̶a̶c̶t̶u̶a̶l̶ ̶p̶o̶s̶s̶i̶b̶l̶y̶ ̶u̶s̶e̶f̶u̶l̶ things like earth to earth through space travel, altho many have pointed out it is useless because, if you want to safely go to space you would need to slow down the rocket (Assuming you have a super fast rocket, you can't go full speed because THERE ARE HUMANS INSIDE , so you have to take into account human ability to resist high acceleration), the go back slowly to earth.

In other words, going from US to China using a spaceship is SLOWER then using commercial airplane, let alone the costs and risks.

So even that idea is just on paper, and I doubt Musk went with it.

So neither Musk nor his engineers are crazy enough to do earth to earth travel, let alone earth to moon, it simply not worth it.

also while at it, virgin galactic was strictly aiming on space travel for commerical purposes, guess what, they aimed for earth orbit and not the moon.

why? because even if you would want to make money from space travels, then its enough to send someone just little over 100 km above earth for him to pay you few 1,000,000$
now go and convince some CEO that there is someone willing to pay billions to be sent to the moon.

[equilibria]

.

[digdeeper]

i would say it's all fake, achieving 3 purposes:
>1. circus (all the "space" movies)
>2. "linear progress" psyop for the goyim
>3. infinite budget glitch.
maybe there are some more.

this guy (https://mileswmathis.com) has some good image analysis about all kinds of "space" nonsense, though do keep in mind i suspect this one could be deeper level of controp, to get such people be obsessed with something as retarded as "moon landing" which they cannot affect and have no effect on them anyways, and waste their time / life force "decoding the ancestry of crypto-Jews" forever, first because the churn is too high for a single person to write nonstop (all those pdfs every few days), et.c..

also there is some theory about Concave Earth (like a lightbulb), being such that "round/oblong earth" and "flat earth" being ze thesis/antithesis controlled opposition, "flat earth" being the easy target to bash.

ex) the UN logo, azimuthal equidistant projection, Antarctica treaty that almost all supposedly "at war" states signed / Antarctica being way too guarded almost like a "border" (which you see it is, with azimuthal equidistant top down projection) for such a mere "resource," admiral Byrd, etc. the list goes on.

the whole "globe" model is such distorted precisely because it is a psyop (size distortions of continents, etc). do you ever see how every "class-room" from age 5 has such? to indoctrinate by osmosis to children the idea of the "globe" as being unquestionable "truth". much more stuff here - stars relative position invariance which is inexplicable with "globe" model or you need much mental gymnastics compared to the concave model (Ockham razor and all that - it does not follow at all that "oblong" earth is the "default" model, because there is no such prior if you discard all govern-ment propaganda and only observe with your two eyes, not any distorted propaganda on the screens, but what you observe in realite), etc.

also then the "iono-sphere" (supposedly "spherical layer of highly charged ions" or whatever, hence that name, but names are almost always deliberate plant to mislead you, like all those corporate brands being their inversion, etc) being the "glass" layer, hence all the nonsense about "only being able to go up to the ionosphere" and such nonsense apologetic excuses. i couldnt find the link, but its somewhere on-line... someone let me know if you find this

99% of "govern-ment" (control the mind) in-doctrin-ation (to instill/insert a doctrine/dogma) is just that, to insert such silly ideas as "unshakable truths" in the gullible fluoridated minds of the goyim. it's a prison matrix.

Mathis denied PizzaGate, but without any explanation except "it must be fake because...well, it became popular". One reason I don't follow him anymore.

[LoadingXML]

ex) the UN logo, azimuthal equidistant projection, Antarctica treaty that almost all supposedly "at war" states signed / Antarctica being way too guarded almost like a "border" (which you see it is, with azimuthal equidistant top down projection) for such a mere "resource," admiral Byrd, etc. the list goes on.

so much word salad in one go, are you high?

the whole "globe" model is such distorted precisely because it is a psyop (size distortions of continents, etc).

Are you talking about the projections? if yes, then make yourself useful and make a projection for the sphere that isn't distorted.

do you ever see how every "class-room" from age 5 has such?

No, not everyone went to a fancy US like classroom, only times I see a globe model might be at some administrator office, never have I seen it in a classroom (as I recall).

stars relative position invariance which is inexplicable with "globe" model or you need much mental gymnastics compared to the concave model (Ockham razor and all that - it does not follow at all that "oblong" earth is the "default" model, because there is no such prior if you discard all govern-ment propaganda and only observe with your two eyes, not any distorted propaganda on the screens, but what you observe in realite), etc.

Assuming for the sake of argument that there is a "stars relative position invariance" problem (whatever that is) in globe earth that doesn't exist in concave model, don't you know that mathematical models are exchangeable?

in other words, I could make a model that makes earth like a cup and all my math will be 100% correct and accurate, just 100x more complicated, and thus doesn't fit Ockham razor.

so what you said is straight up none-sense.

also then the "iono-sphere" (supposedly "spherical layer of highly charged ions" or whatever, hence that name, but names are almost always deliberate plant to mislead you, like all those corporate brands being their inversion, etc)

The name is good, the Iono (charged particle) sphere (because its on a spherical shape).

being the "glass" layer, hence all the nonsense about "only being able to go up to the ionosphere" and such nonsense apologetic excuses. i couldnt find the link, but its somewhere on-line... someone let me know if you find this

Never did I see a flat earther argues for the "Dome" to be the iono-sphere, at best I heard one claiming the reason satellites works is simply by refelcting radio signals from the iono-sphere, in other words, no satellites exists.

99% of "govern-ment" (control the mind) in-doctrin-ation (to instill/insert a doctrine/dogma) is just that, to insert such silly ideas as "unshakable truths" in the gullible fluoridated minds of the goyim. it's a prison matrix.

Globe earth is known thing since the greeks, and it is was considered the correct answer by many civilizations, so there is no point in using the "goverinment mind control" card here.

----------------------------------------------------


so much none-sense, if I had control over the west I would require a brain scan to give you citizenship.

[equilibria]

.

[y0t64af0b44]

Space isn't real