Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

797

It is closer to Mars or the Sun, yet we have no satellites to study the Moon closer. We can put a rover on Mars, but never on the Moon. Strange, no?

It is closer to Mars or the Sun, yet we have no satellites to study the Moon closer. We can put a rover on Mars, but never on the Moon. Strange, no?

(post is archived)

[–] • 7 pts (edited )

Why haven't there been any satellites orbiting the Moon, or any rovers there?

Really? We send shit to the moon all the time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lunar_probes

Like right now we (the US) have two satellites around the moon (ARTEMIS 1 & 2) and China has one satellite and two rovers there right now... I just think you are not paying attention.

[–] • 2 pts

Yeah, you are right. I have not been paying attention.

But most of these have occurred in this century, not the last one. Now, I cannot trust what they say at all. As we live in an era of easily faking with CGI.

[–] • 0 pt

Cgi from the 60s? Bullshit.

Getting objects to other bodies is like throwing rocks. As long as you throw hard enough it will get to your target. And hard enough is a function of maths.

And we all know the maths.

The saturn v rocket was a rock thrown hard enough to reach the moon with a payload and that is a self evident fact

Go play kerbal space program and learn some physics and stop embarrasing yourself

[–] • 1 pt

Cgi from the 60s?

No, I am referring to CGI post 2000. GPUs today are very powerful and supercomputer farms can generate impressive fakes.

I would trust a satellite imagery from '60-'90 over anything post 2000.

[–] • 0 pt

I hear a rocket scientist talking.

[–] • 0 pt

Aaaaaa ha ha, (((Wikipedia))).
Not paying attention to what? Wikipedia ? NASA? MSM? Gee, I'll have to pay closer attention to those trusted sources.

[–] • 0 pt

The whole premise of the argument is based on a perceived oddity in what those sources say, so it doesn't matter their trustworthiness as their claim is self evident in that it is proof of having been claimed and thus there is no hole in the narrative.

[–] • 0 pt

It takes about 9km/s dV to get to orbit, another 3km/s dV to get to the moon, and about 800 m/s dV to get into orbit. It's relatively easy to do this and we have been.

[–] • 0 pt

Then why didn't they send many satellites and rovers back in the 70s, 80s?

[–] • 0 pt

That's such a subjective thing to say, I don't think they sent enough either.

[–] • 0 pt

we can put a Rover on Mars

I think not

[–] • 0 pt

It's in Mars Greenland or Mars Nevada.

[–] • 0 pt

I agree, it's actually footage of far north Canada, but the official narrative is that we did.

[–] • 1 pt

Also notice how you never see satellites transiting the moon from earth. Of course the Redditard excuse for this is that they are all concentrated in one localized “band” of satellites…. Which there are also no actual photos or videos of.

[–] • 2 pts

You can absolutely see satellites transiting the moon with a telescope. Of course you can’t see one with the naked eye, the average satellite is about six feet wide and over 200,000 miles away

[–] • 0 pt

It's been done. A few times around 2007. NASA sent the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter to make a 3D map. China and Japan also sent probes or satellites. Most recently Israel crashed a lander into the lunar surface.

[–] • 0 pt

Frankly I don't trust anything past 2000, as it would be more easily faked by computer graphics technology.

[–] • 1 pt

im not sure that jewish pride would allow them to fake a failed lunar landing, they already have a huge inferiority compkex as it is.

[–] • 0 pt

The Chinks had a couple of lunar rovers fairly recently as well. Last couple of years.

[–] • 0 pt (edited )

idk but if i had to make a guess it would have to be how gravity is calculated. the g in g=(Gxm1xm2)/r2 that is the acceleration due to gravity, the moon is tiny compared to earth or any planet. no the m1 m2 are the masses of said celestial bodies so in this case earth and the moon, so if you look at mass1(earth) vs mass2(moon) the amount of gravity will be larger on the earth vs the moon. to put it simply the earth has way to strong a magnetic gravitational field you cannot orbit the moon its gravity is corrupted by earth

[–] • 2 pts

This is a weird guess since the moon has over 500 satellites in orbit

[–] • 0 pt

based on the premise of no satellites orbiting the moon it is a good guess. also depends on the perceived definition of satellites. since any piece of rock orbiting a celestial body is technically a satellite

[–] • 1 pt

500 man-made satellites are in orbit around the moon

[–] • 1 pt

Fair enough, but what about a rover?

How long does it take to get there? We should have had many in the 70s and many more years later.

[–] • 3 pts (edited )

The thing is that we don’t really think that we have much more we can learn from the moon. It’s not about whether we can or can’t send a rover there, it’s about ‘why would we?’ We know what the atmosphere and surface are made up of and that there’s not anything of significant value or purpose to us.

Mars is consistently doing things that surprise us; changes in atmospheric composition, newfound geologic structures, etc.

The moon hasn’t done anything to surprise us in 70 years

[–] • 0 pt

mars has an atmosphere hence it has the capacity for teraforming. we can try all sorts of things with mars

[–] • 0 pt

There's invisible dinosaurs on the moon.

[–] • 0 pt

imo it comes down to value, the only value to going to the moon was to say we did it first. you cant mine the moon we use to many resources just to get into orbit let alone use it as a form of consumption. if we put things to crash to earth say a big block of iron it would cause huge amounts of pollution in the atmosphere aswell as destroy where ever it hit. there is no ecenomical venue to be gained from going to the moon except political power

[–] • 1 pt

Moon military base. We could drop those rods of god from there.

The space station would be outclassed by a moon base as far as a scientific laboratory.

We could open a casino for billionaires there as well casino de la Luna. Hot alien bartenders with 3 tits...