all 68 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 117 points 7 months ago (4 children)
  • [+] 97 points 7 months ago* (4 children)
  • [–] 30 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    Yeah, usually the Lizard people select world leaders from different clutches of eggs to ensure maximum competition and division among the human nations under them. Due to a malfunction in one of the incubators, Nixon's egg hatched about seven years after Brezhnevs. During that time the same incubator hatched a separate clutch, among which Nixon was counted, which is why he was allowed to become the US president. Having not grown up together, they were still competitive, but little moments like the moon landing concession still occurred from time to time. Now that might sound unconvincing, but that's only because I'm not an actual conspiracy theorist. I don't have access to the deep lore and twisted logic therein.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 36 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    Dude the flat earth people sent one of their leaders up into low orbit. When he came back and said the earth is round cuz he saw it, instead of believing him they just kicked him out. Some people are just beyond reason.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    You do not understand how disbelief works if you think this is effective or even relative.

    Yes, that does mean conspiracy theorists are fucking brainless morons.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago

    Flat Earthers and anti-vaxxers really put into perspective the sorts of people the Scriptures talk about who are the same equivalent morons.

    That being, people who are often dumb enough to get themselves annihilated despite ALL the evidence and warnings sent.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 22 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    And of course even in this meme the ESA logo was omitted.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 22 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    The only way is to tie them to helium balloons and let them go uppie.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 14 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    They always had to build the massive rocket, hoax or not. And the catering costs...

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    Don't even get me started. The worst part is that if the writers call for a disaster episode, they have to actually kill the actors, like in Apollo one. In all seriousness, the hoax conspiracy is especially unhinged, even as conspiracy theories go.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    The Moon landing was staged, but Stanley Kubrick wanted to film on location.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago

    Okay, here is what I believe:

    I believe landing on the moon and a live video broadcast from the moon are two extremely different things.

    I think they did have actors on a soundstage pantomime to the live audio being piped from the moon. Just cuts down on so many variables, and the stakes were too high for the broadcast to be a technical disaster.

    I think that even despite that, the moon landing is still one of the greatest achievements of humanity.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    One of the funniest conspiracy theories I've seen is that "flat earth" is a CIA psyop to make other conspiracies look bad by association. (This came from a moon landing truther)

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago

    yes flat earthers are used by the social engineers to 'poison the well'. What's so funny? it would be strange if they didn't exploit (and cultivate) the immense stupidity of the median person. It makes the job of lying to them easier (and cheaper)

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 16 points 7 months ago (8 children)

    I watched the launch.

    America

    Why the fuck does your space agency shoot worse video of a historic event then a YouTube channel celebrating 100K subscribers.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    Cutting to the crowd at the moment of booster separation was peak live event directing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago

    My understanding was that it was a risky moment, they didn't want to risk showing astronautes dying... But that doesn't make sense since the same logic applies to most of the launch!

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 7 months ago

    I can't get into details but I worked at a company that does video broadcast equipment and worked with NASA helping them update some systems. It was mostly garbage equipment. The company I worked for is the harley davidson of broadcasting equipment; was good in the past but modern competitors are objectively better but the brand recognition is still there from the old days.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 7 months ago* (3 children)

    You try getting video from something that, within 30 minutes, accelerates to 18000 MPH. Literally, it will change what frequencies you even have to listen to, let alone the crazy amount of interference experienced during the process of exiting thr atmosphere.

    Literally, the air compressing and ignighting against the shell of the space craft itself will produce crazy signals, let alone every other effect.

    There is a reason it took even SpaceX over a decade to keep signals remotely intelligable with their booster recoveries, let alone launches aimed directly at the moon.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    That's true but it doesn't explain the black screen at liftoff and cutting to spectators during the booster separation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 7 months ago (4 children)

    Bleh, whether the trip is a success or not, do they at least have two functioning toilets?

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    well, one. and it clogged for a while today

    but they do have two nonfunctioning instances of outlook, if that makes it better

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    For April 1 I almost made a Flat Moon Society but I ended up playing Starfield and forgot about it. I wanted to see how far I could go with it.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    I get the sentiment but they are not landing on the moon

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    Does anyone know why the rocket needed to be "the most powerful" when it only got them out of Earths atmosphere? Is the crew module just that heavy that it needed it?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 7 months ago

    Getting anything to the moon takes a lot of thrust.

    Also because of having less stages than Apollo, the core stage needed to be quite powerful to get the stack all the way from the surface to the outer edges of the atmosphere.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

    Partially, yeah. Crewed spacecraft by necessity weigh significantly more than uncrewed, because life support is very heavy. But they also want to take that very heavy spacecraft further away from Earth than any crewed spacecraft has ever been before, which means they need to take a lot of fuel; yes, it's a gravity-assisted free-return trajectory, but it still needs fuel for course corrections and other orbital dynamics. Plus, it's a two-stage spacecraft, while the Saturn V was three-stage, so it's got to carry a lot more dead weight a lot further than before.

    All of that together means they needed the most powerful rocket ever. The lander mission will almost certainly be even more powerful than that, because while it won't need to go as far, it'll be carrying another spacecraft.

    EDIT: Actually, to correct my last statement, potentially not! Turns out the current plan for Artemis IV is to send the lander on ahead and have it waiting in lunar orbit for the astronauts to get there. So potentially all of the Artemis missions could be launched on this same configuration of rocket.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 7 months ago (10 children)

    Meh, I'll skip this Trump admin propaganda show.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 7 months ago (5 children)

    He'll definitely take credit, but he also tried to cut the budget for NASA. Congress insisted.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 7 months ago

    Have you seen the fucking 'Murica ads before launch? They literally justified and propagated US Exceptionalism by name and talked about how all of this (which they were at least nice enough to mention was a collab with ~50 other countries) creates jobs in America.

    It was a god damn propaganda show.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (3 children)

    He, and the GOP controlled congress, successfully cut budget for NASA an laid of tons of its staff, and he also insisted on launching new moon missions which currently isn't even viable and Artemis II is nothing but a little airshow as they make a loop around in a big circle before returning.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    https://www.commerce.senate.gov/press/dem/release/science-survives-existential-threat-from-trump-budget-as-senate-rejects-gutting-nasa-nsf-nist/

    https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R43419

    https://ourplnt.com/budget-of-nasa-year-by-year/

    Don't get me wrong. I still haven't found a more wretched hive of scum and villainy than the GOP. It's more likely that Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon, General Dynamics, Airbus, et. al. reminded then who's writing the checks to PACs.

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

    The Artemis program infrastructure is mostly stuff advanced by Obama and Biden era Congresses and Administrations.

    The loop is a well precedented procedure for testing components that have not been used for a mission before. They did the same for the Apollo program.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    Pretty sure it takes a whole lot longer than a year to build a rocket.

    This is a Biden rocket if anything.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago*

    This moon program is supposed to be a step of the future manned Mars program and started during Obama. So I guess this is an Obama rocket.

    Then IIRC Trump wanted to skip to Mars, despite reducing NASA funding and causing leadership issues in the agency during his first term.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago

    First of all, Trump's been talking about a return to the moon since his first term almost a decade ago.

    Second, the rocket is one thing, the stated goals of the agency are another. They're declaring the plan is a permanent human presence on the moon.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    Yeah but Trump said these astronauts are going "farther from earth than anyone ever has before," tacitly admitting that we never sent astronauts to the moon in the 60's and 70's

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (2 children)

    I assume they're aware that rockets get launched on a regular basis

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments