>2016 >most people still believe we've actually been

File: img_8169.jpg (234KB, 1000x750px) Image search: [Google]

234KB, 1000x750px

And why would america waste so much money on building new rovers just to parade them around and never send them into space?

File: ?u=http%3A%2F%2Fthinkprogress.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F11%2Fbarack-obama-re-elected-as-us-president-pg.jpg&f=1.jpg (67KB, 854x567px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 854x567px

>>7801602
>why would america waste so much money

>implying America is rational
>implying America is a single person

>>7801601
>What's the general consensus here on /sci/?
You and your ilk are morons.

>>7801610
>You and your ilk are morons.
Why are you saying these things to OP? He hasn't revealed his opinion yet. From the sound of it, he seems to be on the fence and desires the enlightened minds of 4chan, such as yourself.

Personally I don't believe a word of it. I don't believe a man could pilot a shaky ass vessel like the Apollo all the way to the moon while accounting for all the extraneous variables.

I'd love so much if any of these morons could do some little research before jumping into this sort to bolshet conclusions.
You know, physics is the thing that exists and works.

>>7801602
>waste so much money
Have you seen the defense budget?
compared to the NASA budget?

File: 1410412304164.jpg (29KB, 237x304px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 237x304px

>>7801621
>Personally I don't believe it, so it couldn't have happened.

>>7801601
https://youtu.be/sGXTF6bs1IU

You know there are laser-range finding mirrors that were left on the moon that you can still use today to measure the distance?

>>7801640
Look at the budget of the sixites, you retard.

>>7801656
NASA spending went from .5% of US Spending in 1960 to a peak of 4.41 in 1966 to 2.31
while the defense budget stayed at pretty much around 10% of us spending all through the 60%
so at no point did NASA's budget even get to half of what the defense budget was.
if you add up the numbers for the entire decade the defense budget would still be way higher
so do some research before you start calling people retarded, you waste of energy

>>7801602
>government agency dedicated to research and design/application of space technology
>LOL y they waste so much on research and design/application of space technology!!111

They had to build spacecraft using technology that hadn't been invented to go somewhere nobody had ever been. It's like you refuse to think critically about anything.

>>7801601
that we went to the moon and were greeted by little green men
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcIn9-iPb8Y

>>7801664
does huge defense budget deny the possibilty of of space exploration?

>>>/x/

>>7801679
I'm here for facts

>>7801601
I watched it on tv. And all the previous missions. it was a very very difficult enterprise. The US reputation was in tatters after indo-china and Gagarin. They had to do it and they did. However:-
It was a 'bootstrap' operation.
I am not too convinced by the quality of the video of the following missions.
But yes, YES they did. At least 3 times.

>>7801638
>I'd love so much if any of these morons could do some little research before jumping into this sort to bolshet conclusions.

Those that actually do research end up changing their minds. Therefore the only ones you hear from are the ones who don't know shit.

Rollinnnng

>>7801621
They were just touring around in orbit, where all the action was and still is. I think it was all done to perpetuate the cold war fraud and just got carried away with the TV moon shows, but after just one airing people were already tuning out. No one really cares about going to some place that's easier to look at with telescopes and what not.

Can someone even prove that they made it to the moon ?

>>7801640
This
The U.S has wasted trillions over the years on a single plane that has yet to work properly and has killed several pilots.

Why does people think that we didn`t went to the moon?

Realy,i want arguments please not opnions.

>>7802800
There's no gravity in space, moron. How are the astronauts staying on the surface of the "moon"?

>>7802800
>no man before or since apollo has been out of low earth orbit
>decades later and we cant send a man into lunar orbit let alone land on the moon

these are some facts

>>7802800
Because people would rather live in a world where the system is controlling them and lying to them, since it removes all responsibility from their own terrible actions and failures.

It's better if we haven't been to the moon, because that would explain why your life sucks, via international conspiracy to keep free americans in the dark.

>>7802887
Ther`s no need for this anymore.

What are we gonna do in the moon?
harvest some hellium-3?

Still not pay for the trip.

>>7802898
>what is first step towards planetery landings

>>7802898
Typical excuse

>>7802902
I understand but there`s really something that we can utilize from the moon other than training?

Like research facilities would be unique there?
other mineral resources or even space tourism?

>>7802887
>2016 and we can't do it

Well, we no longer use Saturn V rockets and actually care much more about moving resources and equipment to our orbiting laboratory than putting humans on a surface with nothing but dust.

>>7802912
The real reason the USA hasnt gone back to the moon is because there is no real reason to go back to the moon.

No geo-political threat, no fight for the ultimate highground = no insane funding to send men to other planets.

Just watch, if China starts gearing up for a manned moon landing NASA will be right there with them. Theres no way USA will let some gook bastards go back to the moon before they do.

>>7801621
You the typa nigga who woulda said columbus just sailed around the bay for months and then came back and lied

>>7802884
kys

>>7802923
we utilized moon dust which kept on sticking onto everything

we also took back some moon rocks and found it to be similar composition to earth rocks

>>7801601
We definitely landed. The tape could be a fake, but it likely isn't. Whether the tape is real or not, which it likely is, we landed on the moon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_retroreflectors_on_the_Moon

I'd really like to know what the arguments of moon landing hoax conspiracy theorists are against retroreflectors placed by astronauts on the moon.

>>7803029
They could have placed them there via unmanned missions. Also, the moon is a very reflective body with a high albedo. Any laser rangefinder capable of remaining coherent through the earth's atmosphere could easily deliver a clear reading. The reflectors would be massively redundant.

>>7802884
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation_of_the_Moon

File: tfwspace.jpg (179KB, 797x960px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 797x960px

>>7801601

>tfw the explanation for their heat exchange units was the lamest fucking thing imaginable
>tfw they couldn't come up with a way for the astronauts to not be cooked alive in space

>>7801614
The fact he's asking this question infers he's unsure about it, which is moronic or at least lazy.

>>7801665
He's asking the rhetorical question of why you'd spend so much time and money on R&D not to then use it.

>>7802887
*China* has been able to send rovers to the moon; what makes you think it's that much harder to send humans?

>>7802377
Besides the pictures
The videos.
The rocks they brought back.
The landing site is visible with a god damn telescope for God sakes.
The Russians confirming that USA landing on the moon with there own data.
All of that^
Then no there is no proof

>>7801614
"RC" manufactures toy cars and flying toys

NASA + RC = NASCAR

obviously ther are no cars on the moon so remove the "C"

We are left with nasa + r

Nasa takes us to the moon but in order to reach NASA we must remove R

Moron - R = moon

Anyone who thinks we landed on the moon using 60s tech and then somehow broadcast it live on TV is an absolute moron

File: lro_apollo14site.jpg (55KB, 540x342px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 540x342px

>>7803739
>The landing site is visible with a god damn telescope
Except it isnt
Even the japanese space probe that surveyed the moon was barely able to capture the sites

>>7801670
>does huge defense budget deny the possibilty of of space exploration?
To some extent, yes. Defence firms are usually in the defence and aerospace business so when money pours into defence there is less manpower to do space.

>>7801779
>The US reputation was in tatters after indo-china and Gagarin.
Add Sputnik to that one. The US was caught off balance and pants down. Next was Laika so it was clear this was no fluke. Launch a dog with life support into orbit and you know you can launch a major H-bomb to strike anywhere on Earth with impunity.

The US panicked and with very, very good reasons.

>>7802385
>The U.S has wasted trillions over the years on a single plane that has yet to work properly and has killed several pilots.
And more money will have to be burned to reach operational status. The life support in F-35 is the same as in F-22 and has killed several pilots. Problem is that dead pilots hammer into the ground and debugging the result is non-trivial. I haven't even see they know the root cause yet.

>>7803040
>Also, the moon is a very reflective body with a high albedo.
No. Not unless you consider asphalt as a "very reflecting body".

>>7802956
>Just watch, if China starts gearing up for a manned moon landing NASA will be right there with them.
If the Chinese claim the Peaks of Eternal Light (*) the US will have a problem. Sure, you cannot own the moon but like on the South Pole you can still occupy an area. And the PELs are strategically and militarily important. One is believed to be near Shackleton which it is believed to contain water ice which is also extremely important for life support and interplanetary journeys.

(*) The Wikipedia article on PELs is a bug ridden hive of scum and villainy.

>>7803564
Occam's Razor