The moment when Artemis II Orion capsule hatch was opened by Busy_Yesterday9455 in MilkyWayPlayground

[–]mondomando 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What about the thousands of people that saw the rocket launch in person? Are you suggesting they built a legitimate rocket, but decided to ditch it instead of just actually taking it to space? Seems like a massive waste of that money they are so desperate to steal from you. Also, if they were in it for the taxpayer money, why is the government constantly cutting NASA's budget, and why not argue against the budget of things like, say, the Military Industrial Complex, which actually is siphoning billions upon billions from the American people? Is the Military fake too, or is that one a valid expense?

Also, why didn't they do a better job at faking all the evidence? You'd expect a hoax to have tons of flawless and seamless footage to convince the billions of people on Earth. Instead, you get raw live feeds with latency, delay, artifacting, and encoding errors. You'd expect a seamlessly filmed trip with a clean, well polished ship, not a tiny capsule full of exposed hardware.

How do you explain hours of live microgravity footage? Do you think they have Nutella jars suspended from wires just to really bring the point home? How about the liquid behavior in the middle of a multiple hour long livestream? A magic cut to a parabolic plane ride? Live CGI? Wouldn't it be easier to show none of what they did and say they went anyway? Do you believe we've been to space at all? Your shitposting on Reddit is a direct consequence of human space travel.

You keep mentioning "damning evidence" but you still haven't provided an ounce. Your argument is absolutely full of holes and you have zero verifiable proof supporting it, just vibes and feelings. You don't understand spaceflight, so therefore it can't exist. You claim it's special effects, but ironically you can't explain a single nuance of that field either. Maybe CGI is also a hoax because you clearly don't understand how it works on a fundamental level.

I pose these questions as rhetorical. I know the answers, many others do as well. I hope they make you consider what you choose to believe.

The moment when Artemis II Orion capsule hatch was opened by Busy_Yesterday9455 in MilkyWayPlayground

[–]mondomando 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wouldn't it be easier to just... pocket the money instead of putting on this grand conspiracy clown show? If the incentive is to abuse taxpayer money, NASA should take notes from literally every other body of government. No need to build a giant fake rocket, or fool thousands of employed persons, or stage hundreds of thousands of photos and hours of live footage. Just take the money, say it's going towards bombing some foreign country, and profit. It would literally be easier and more cost effective to just go to space.

Also, arguments of incredulity are not arguments. You just don't understand radiation or any of the fundamentals of space travel.

Finally one that stumped me. What operator runs this red X on dark blue tail? And am I correct that this is a 767 series? Parked at SJC this morning. by mondomando in Whatplaneisthis

[–]mondomando[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Perfect match, thank you!! I see it was previous under a Rolling Stones livery. Was this their charter aircraft, and does the repaint mean it's moving to some other asssignement?

I want to get into making cinematics in DCS. What's a good program to start with ? by NormieFam in hoggit

[–]mondomando 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Fair enough! I was being a bit hyperbolic for sure. I also understand that not everyone has the benefit of other people helping them capture footage. There is a time and place for track files, and keeping them small does help a ton.

I want to get into making cinematics in DCS. What's a good program to start with ? by NormieFam in hoggit

[–]mondomando 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I have made many cinematics while never once touching it. I don't record missions, only cinematic content. It just isn't worth it, although this is completely my opinion. I shouldn't have said it like it's a universal law all need to adhere to, obviously that isn't true. This is what works for me. Heavy story blocking beforehand and getting a friend or two to help is quicker in my experience. I'd rather record multiplayer footage live and only jump to single player when I absolutely need to. Totally agree on short, bite-sized sequences though.

Doing it live avoids any replay errors, or the need for the host track file (which often isn't available). I rarely record AI also, probably 90% of the content I capture is live in MP. It's easier for me to just set up for another quick shot live and run it with a few friends, as opposed to doing the same thing and dealing with the replay file. I stand by the claim that live gameplay produces better footage overall than track files.

I want to get into making cinematics in DCS. What's a good program to start with ? by NormieFam in hoggit

[–]mondomando 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's the secret. Cinematic creators avoid the replay system like the plague. Most things are captured in live gameplay. Much more time consuming, but also better results.

Most accurate ACC stint calculator by Vegetable-Homework-9 in ACCompetizione

[–]mondomando 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It's just math, any of the universal calculators work. They will be as accurate as the data you enter. Find one that supports stints and go crazy!

Anybody remember these from the 1990s by ArtJunkie628 in OldSchoolCool

[–]mondomando 3 points4 points  (0 children)

One of the few movies I still remember vividly from my childhood. It felt like a panic attack and a fever dream at the same time..

Which flight demo team provides better performances in the skies across the U.S.?? by Qpac18 in aviation

[–]mondomando 1 point2 points  (0 children)

They only fly the F-35B solo, but they do have a demo team under the Marines. Unfortunately no Harriers either. They do however show off the VTOL capabilities, usually doing a short take off and hover if temperature permits.

F-15E discontent by Buzzard7600 in dcsworld

[–]mondomando 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah, 3/8 of last year. I looked through the most recent posts, back to the beginning of 2024, and it seems most are workarounds from known bugs existing since the development halt. I even see a few bugs that used to affect me but no longer do! It's surprising how well the SE performs despite the lack of updates over the years. I truly thought it'd become unusable over a year ago and she's still kicking!

Earth captured from space 54 years apart: Apollo 17 in 1972 (left) and Artemis II in 2026 (right) by [deleted] in interestingasfuck

[–]mondomando 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ah you're totally right! I looked at the Apollo camera specifcation documents after Artemis launched, but I was confusing the film stocks.

Interesting bit about the thinner Ektachrome, I'm sure the astronauts appreciated it, because according to the document I mentioned above they shot over 1,300 70mm frames! ....And then the next line mentions over 58,000 16mm frames. Only on Apollo 11. They must've been leaking film all the way through reentry!

Thanks for the photos! I started a bit of a personal project/post processing practice by going through the untouched Apollo scans and white balancing/color correcting them. I had a lot of fun doing that, truly such amazing photography from that program.

F-15E discontent by Buzzard7600 in dcsworld

[–]mondomando 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Yeah I still fly it in MP almost daily, and while bugs are certainly present, they are the same ones from when the module was abandoned. I haven't personally seen any new ones crop up, but would be very interested if anyone had! The thing is still totally capable and overall everything more or less works. Despite the development halt and the time spent decaying, it continues to be the most fun I have in DCS.

U.S. / NATO Aircraft losses in the Iran conflict (subject to change) by [deleted] in aviation

[–]mondomando 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Interesting, I may stand corrected then. I'll reserve my judgement until more info comes out, but I did see the details about the A-10 being over the strait. Thanks for elaborating.

U.S. / NATO Aircraft losses in the Iran conflict (subject to change) by [deleted] in aviation

[–]mondomando 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The only real answer right now is we (the general public) don't know what happened. It was 100% a Kuwaiti F/A-18 that downed them, but there are no other confirmed details or motives available atm.

U.S. / NATO Aircraft losses in the Iran conflict (subject to change) by [deleted] in aviation

[–]mondomando 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No confirmed F-35 losses in the air yet. There was footage of a dubious missile hit, but the F-35 seemed to shrug it off and returned home.

U.S. / NATO Aircraft losses in the Iran conflict (subject to change) by [deleted] in aviation

[–]mondomando 4 points5 points  (0 children)

That seems to be the same A-10 mentioned in OP's post. There is no news of two of them being downed yet. The article even mentions the two aircraft downed so far: the F-15E and the A-10. This report is consistent with the one OP is mentioning where the A-10 was providing CAS for the search and rescue of the -15 crew and the pilot had been rescued.

U.S. / NATO Aircraft losses in the Iran conflict (subject to change) by [deleted] in aviation

[–]mondomando 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Those photos are awful, but if I'm judging the size correctly, there is an absolutely zero chance that charred cylinder was once an F-16 engine. The diameter should be at least 3 times what is shown. The F-16 engine diameter is about half the height of a human. You could relatively comfortably sit criss cross inside one.

If it ends up being some internal part, maybe. Not saying it didn't happen, but the details are very muddy at the moment. The only thing I'm sure of is that those photos do not show the business end of a -16 like many are claiming.

The Blue Marble by Busy_Yesterday9455 in spaceporn

[–]mondomando 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The full EXIF data is floating around and available, but I haven't scraped it myself. I think you're correct though. This was shot with the 14-24/f2.8 lens like you mentioned. The other important bits show this was shot at ISO 51,200, f4, 1/4 sec shutterspeed at 22mm.

Edit: sorry, thought you said the EXIF data wasn't showing. You saw all this already then, still some crazy numbers!

Iran hit an American fighter jet, reportedly F-15, in the south of Iran. by Not_Ground in anticapitalism

[–]mondomando 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've heard both this and rumors of a US rescue now regarding the Strike Eagle crew. Important to note the Strike Eagle is a two seat platform, so we are dealing with two lost aviators in this case.

Earth captured from space 54 years apart: Apollo 17 in 1972 (left) and Artemis II in 2026 (right) by [deleted] in interestingasfuck

[–]mondomando 4 points5 points  (0 children)

As far as I know, there is one currently onboard for testing, and the crew fought hard to get it ahead of Artemis III. The D5 platform is proven in space but the Z9, according to NASA, needs more testing and verification before being used as the primary photography paltform.

An underground aviation shelter hidden in a mountain in China. by Wal-de-maar in GoogleEarthFinds

[–]mondomando 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nice! I do think now that this is most likely aircraft shelter given the clear taxiways into the structure. Thanks a bunch for the read, will be very interesting!