>>17436658

Are you for real?

They both orbit around the Sun, so more often than once a year the Earth goes between Mars and Sun (because Mars goes slower around the Sun)

They don´t control the rovers with a live remote control feed, obviously, regardless of distance, the distance is alway to big far that. They send daily instructions to drive x meters in this or that direction, then send us pictures of surroundings so we can send you more instructions tomorrow. (basically)

Learn something before talking, pls.

>>17436862

Was I discrediting the orbital information? No.

You´re not grasping that it has little to do with what you are claiming. The distances are always too long for a direct live control.

The rovers are not controlled like a remote controlled toy car. Do you understand that? Read again what I said in the post.

>>17436903

Are you also a flat-earther?

>>17436933

I presume that´s just to simply things, and probably not for the intercontinental missiles.

I think they use Newtonian math for spacetravel-stuff in the solarsystem, but Einstein´s theory is still more correct (but don´t quote me on that).

If it´s not broke, don´t fix it.

>>17436956

The saturn rockets did launch and go into orbit, so why not to the Moon? You basically just have to increase speed at the right moment to go there from Earth´s orbit (google orbital mechanics).

I wondered alot about the Moon landings, but eventually came to the conclusion they did go there. Bring forth a technical reason to doubt it.

(and they didn´t go through the middle of the Van Allen belt, so not that).

>>17436966

Actually no, but check out what Webb is discovering and making scientists doubt the BigBang theory. Webb is seeing galaxies that shouldn´t be there, too old to be in a very young unverse.

>>17436996

I don´t know if the storms cut the connection to orbiting satellites, probably just hunker down and wait it out, see the surrounding area afterwards. The new big rovers don´t have to rely on sun for electricity, but storms can shut down the older ones.

>>17437028

Probably too short distances and small timeframe for that to properly effect the missiles, I guess.

>>17437055

Yes, the deep space pictures are altered/enhanced so we can see more clearly what is being photographed.

Nobody is claiming they are not, nobody.

For example different wavelengths of x-rays og infrared light, penetrading a nebula, shown in different colors. We would just see black with our eyes.

Nobody is claiming the photographs are not enhanced. Nobody. Ask an astronomer.

>>17437103

Well, if you could see x-rays and infrared light with your eyes, they wouldn´t have to be.

>>17437102

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/252093/pope-francis-instructs-vatican-entities-to-move-all-funds-to-vatican-bank-by-sept-30

>>17437101

Thanks, I will check later.

I like Anton. Daily videos.

https://www.youtube.com/c/whatdamath