why do we send robots to the moon, because we want to analyze rocks or know if there is water on this planet and maybe life but each time, there is nothing concrete and scientists send new satellites or robots to analyze the planets. what is the point if it is only to disprove their theory that they have not found anything concrete. can you tell me why, /sci/?
why they don't build a gigantic robot with a huge drill and send it in a planet and make a hole and see what's underground but they make robots that carry one rock and that is all, I don't understand!?

>>16727488 (OP)
They study for way more than just water and life.
Even just analysing rocks has a whole wealth of study within it. We'll be sending probes to these planets for centuries assuming we don't just go there ourselves to study.

We've studied the earth extensively, what makes you think we won't study other planets extensively?

>>16727503
because there's nothing to discover worth it maybe?

>>16727488 (OP)
They don’t send anything to the moon because that would be a waste of resources and money. Anything launched in space has a military or economic purpose. Everything else is a bunch of sci fi fantasy stories. We can’t send satellites to other planets space is frictionless. Meaning there’s nothing we can use to control the craft in space. Newtons laws don’t work.

>>16727488 (OP)
why: reason, just dont have any or not worth, ... maybe this.

>>16727488 (OP)
my take: so the elites (exactly, not you), have somewhere to fuck off when we have some kind of nuclear war shitstorm

>>16727537
There’s no where to run. That’s why nuclear war will never happen. The elites won’t kill themselves. They will just sit and collect dust.