To give the African Americans actual reparations for slavery we the American people suggest to completely absolve any and every African American from military service of any and every kind in the US Armed Forces and prohibit African Americans from participation in warfare in regards to the US armed forces and any affiliate thereof. A gift to disbarr African Americans from soldiering and any involvement in such exception being civilian policing and security.
Tldr - give reparations to blacks by "gifting" them complete absolvement of military service
Perhaps someday your right brain cell will become aware of your left brain cell. It will be a day to remember in canada.
Levi Cook
I think NASA used the Metric System during the Apollo program. I'm not sure but it does depend on the sector or industry. There was a funny example where American scientist presented dimensions of a Intergral Fast Reactor to an international confrence where they used the metric system, however someone noted that the dimensions had awkward measurements which ended in decimals such as 7.62 cm and 12.7 cm which when converted over to Imperial came out to whole numbers such as 3 and 5 inches.
>watching Kitchen Nightmares UK edition >british chefs regularly use imperial units like inches and pounds
why do they deny it
Josiah Wilson
quoting from Ask an Astronomer " in a Press Kit for the Apollo 16 mission. The flag is 125 cm (4 feet) long, and you would need an optical wavelength telescope around 200 meters (~650 feet) in diameter to see it. The largest optical wavelength telescope that we have now is the Keck Telescope in Hawaii which is 10 meters in diameter. The Hubble Space Telescope is only 2.4 meters in diameter - much too small!
Resolving the larger lunar rover (which has a length of 3.1 meters) would still require a telescope 75 meters in diameter.
Even barely resolving the lunar lander base, which is 9.5 meters across (including landing gear), would require a telescope about 25 meters across"
>we can photograph millions of galaxies that are billions of light years apart from eachother >lmao you expect us to be able to see the closest object in space to us clearly?!
This is some advanced tier damage control
Colton Barnes
these
Adrian Baker
I see no problem with giving any nigger that was a slave reparations.
Grayson Nelson
Those objects are scale of galaxies while the objects on the moon a few meters. Remenber the satiles that give images of the Earth tend to be very close in orbit around the Earth. While the moon is quite far away. It is not surprising that you would need a very large telescope to see small objects on the moon considering its distance from the Earth.
Colton Peterson
Aviators had nothing to do with it, the entire program was built by subcontractors, who used imperial and standard, existing systems to design and build the components.
Aviator = pilot. Pilots didn't build the rocket stages and LEM, engineers did - and those engineers used US standards, which at the time weren't metric. The new SI standards had only been formalized for a few years when the work on the moon missions was started. It would have slowed them down completely to retool to a new standard with the amount of work they had to get done, and get done fast because Kennedy's ego was on the line.
Most of the components used off the shelf parts, like nuts, bolts, and connectors. It would have been idiotic to hand make everything they needed, back then, to a metric standard - and then fit each shop with hundreds if not thousands of tools that would work with metric sized parts.
Gavin Gonzalez
uh huh.
The flag pole is also not the only thing "supposedly" there. There are larger objects left behind and in the current year of 2010 + eight (8) I refuse to accept that photos are still unable to identify the site.
As the quote I used in the earlier post you would need a telescope of mininim of 25 meteres to see the landing site. It would take something like the Extremely Large telescope to see it. Which is underdevelopment. The laws of physics don't care what year it is. I would blame the lack of investment in basic research from goverments more consern with jobs programs and entitlements. Did you know that the US would have discorvered the Higgs Boson a decade sooner than the Europeans but the Super Conducting Super collider was canceled by Congress because they wanted more money to go some 90s era jobs program in the South. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremely_Large_Telescope
okok but maybe.. just maybe there has been a satellite in close enough proximity and based on said proximity had a lens capable of making a high definition mosiac of the moon exists today and has been made.. not from earth! not from earths orbit! from a respectable range to the moon.
Surely that had to have existed by now and happened.
Another quote from ask an astronomer "Yes, in theory, moons can have moons. The region of space around a satellite where a sub-satellite can exist is called the Hill sphere. Outside the Hill sphere, a sub-satellite would be lost from its orbit about the satellite.
An easy example is the Sun-Earth-Moon system. Earth is a satellite of the Sun and the Moon is a sub-satellite orbiting Earth. The Moon orbits the Earth because the Moon is about 380,000 km from Earth, well within Earth's Hill sphere, which has a radius of 1.5 million km (0.01 AU or 235 Earth radii). Loosely speaking, the Hill sphere defines the space where the Earth's gravity is more important than the Sun's gravity on another object. If the Moon somehow ended up outside Earth's Hill sphere, the Moon would orbit the Sun instead of the Earth just like all the other planets, asteroids, and comets. For comparison, Jupiter's Hill sphere has a radius of 0.36 AU, which is much much larger than the Earth's Hill sphere. This is because Jupiter is more massive than the Earth and has a stronger gravitational pull, but more importantly because it is further from the Sun than Earth so the Sun's gravity is weaker at Jupiter than at Earth. This gives Jupiter a lot of gravitational influence on the space around it. Having such a big Hill radius is one way of explaining why Jupiter has a lot of moons and can affect the orbits of passing comets so strongly....'can the moon have a moon' Yes, the Moon could have a sub-satellite. If we look at a system of the Earth, Moon, and a sub-satellite, the same idea as above applies. The Moon has its own Hill sphere with a radius of 60,000 km (about one sixth of the distance between the Earth and Moon) where a sub-satellite could exist. If an object lies outside the Moon's Hill sphere, it will orbit Earth instead of the Moon. The only problem is that the sub-satellite cannot stay in orbit around the Moon indefinitely because of tides.
Juan Adams
The Moon, like almost all other moons in the solar system, is in synchronous rotation about the Earth meaning it shows the same face to Earth at all times (its rotation period about its own axis is the same as its orbital period about the Earth), which is a result of tidal forces between the Earth and Moon. These are the same tidal forces that cause the high and low tides on Earth. In this configuration, any object within the Hill sphere of the Moon will have its orbit decay due to tides! That means the orbit of any sub-satellite of the Moon will shrink over time. In other words, the distance between the sub-satellite and the Moon will get smaller and smaller until the sub-satellite crashes into the Moon or the lunar tides rip the sub-satellite apart!"
Oliver Lewis
Basically no permanent satellites can be station by the moon due to the Hill Zone of the Earth-Moon-Sun orbit.
Jackson Jackson
Okay we are in agreement here. But this is a total deflection of the actual question. Satellites/probes get sent off to various locations all the time, so surely a probe has to have been sent off to the moon with the purpose of imaging the surface, even if it doesn't stay in some perfect orbit, I wasn't actually even implying that it was.
Like honestly you got a lot of detailed answers about why it cant happen, but it's ultimately contradictory due to alternative hypotheses that have easily been viable to do. I am sure that the tech used today would be more then capable of sending off a probe meant to pass the moon and while it does it takes ultra high resolution photos of the moons surface while it is near it and then trasmit the photos back. Thats why you telescope and hill zone answers are completely redundant
