There's nothing around the moon yet that has enough resolution to image the hardware left at the site directly
Various bible thumpers who can't handle reality will say that's fake too, oh well.
You're losing the plot, literally.
Accepting that it may not be viable to go back for economic reasons, although that's ridiculous given NASA's budget increases over the decades since 1969, the simple fact that NASA itself has claimed they coupled with our own recent advances in commercial tech like the cell phone your holding being ought to at least give you a more questioning attitude toward the event.
TIL: iPhones are magical devices that are capable of space travel. Macfags: "if muh iPhone can't get me to the moon, how could anything else get there?"
Flawless logic, faggot.
Wow. I guess you got me. You irrevocably refuted my point.
How much computing power do you require when you fall? According to you, gravity doesn't exist unless you have a powerful computer in your pocket.
Holy shit, that's funny.
Get your PC and jump off a tall building. According to you it will keep you completely safe (at least safer than a calculator).
This should be fun...
I don't see an argument anywhere in your rambling. Just conflation of what I said to the point of it being nonsensical.
I said nothing about gravity, or thrust, or breaking from orbit, nor did I say anything about any of those concepts having anything to do with computing power.
When NASA was asked why we didn't go back to the moon, they didn't say "lol already did it." They said they CAN'T because the technology was lost or destroyed. That doesn't make any sense. And then looking at the advances in tech since then, not having the tech to do it doesn't make any sense when we can land rockets here on earth under a much stronger gravitational pull.
Cope harder. You fucking troglodyte.
Accepting that it may not be viable to go back for economic reasons, although that's ridiculous given NASA's budget increases over the decades since 1969
So we should go back to the moon just because we can afford it?
NASA itself has claimed they lost or destroyed the technology
So? We'd do much better to start from scratch now anyway, but why bother? "Been there, done that" The politicians seem to think it's much better to spend money on gibs rather than gee-whiz tech now anyway.
our own recent advances in commercial tech like the cell phone your holding being thousands of times more powerful than the lunar lander
And that has what to do with anything?
>So we should go back to the moon just because we can afford it? <
Yes.
our own recent advances in commercial tech like the cell phone your holding being thousands of times more powerful than the lunar lander
And that has what to do with anything?
They can't see outside their consumer product worship
So we should go back to the moon just because we can afford it?
No. I said, "Accepting that it may not be viable for economic reasons..." And then proceeded to make a separate pont. I concede in the very sentence you quoted that economically going back for the clout of saying we did it again doesn't jive with current governmental spending habits.
So? We'd do much better to start from scratch now anyway, but why bother? "Been there, done that" The politicians seem to think it's much better to spend money on gibs rather than gee-whiz tech now anyway.
I agree. The point isn't that we did it already, just dust off the lander and an old Apollo rocket and let's do that shit again. The point is that NASA said, when asked why we hadn't gone back, that they had lost the tech or destroyed it and that's the reason why we won't go back. That point is rendered moot by my second point...
our own recent advances in commercial tech like the cell phone your holding being thousands of times more powerful than the lunar lander
And that has what to do with anything?
The fact that we have better tech now and could do it again with half or less than half the R&D they did in the 60's bolsters my point that NASA claiming "we can't do it again cuz Jimbo shredded the blueprints" is horseshit.
I love when people link the shitty LRO images like it’s some kind of mic drop, like you just did.
They show absolutely nothing and come from NASA itself.
They look like shitty pixels and come from the government organization that is suspected of taking the landings in the first place.
In other worlds only an actual retarded person would be satisfied with that as evidence in the face of all the evidence that it’s bullshit.
in the face of all the evidence that it’s bullshit.
Aahhh-haa-haa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! Check your premise.
(post is archived)