Comments by "" (@maxfan1591) on "Apollo 17 - The Last Men on the Moon | Part 1 | Free Documentary History" video.

  1. Yeah, sorry, emojis aren't evidence.
    5
  2. "All the moon videos were shot in the Arizona desert." How? How do you film a night sky in daytime? How do you get the astronauts to move like they're in low gravity? How do you get kicked soil to behave like it's in a vacuum? How do you do all that in a 30 minute one-take video? "Also, where is the flag? The flag does not appear in any of the videos." LOL! 29:05 to 30:30 in this video.
    3
  3. The flag was made of nylon. It was light, it was connected to the flagpole on two edges, and the astronauts were waving it around. What do you expect it to do?
    3
  4. Why not tell us why you don't believe it happened?
    2
  5. Would you like to try again, and this time provide some evidence?
    1
  6. Much faster and less tiring to drive 5 kilometres than to walk it.
    1
  7. Ready and waiting for any claims you'd like to make.
    1
  8.  @keerthigakee1953  "What look at this again and again I cannot believe this no possible how that flag was flying on the side" The flag pole had a horizontal railing attach to the top. The flag was connected to the pole, but also hung from the railing.
    1
  9. No, public reality. Every aspect of Apollo was known to the Soviets, and they accepted it was real. And the Apollo rocks have been studied by thousands of scientists from around the world for the last 50 years, and shown to have characteristics impossible for Earth rocks.
    1
  10. Yes, the astronauts had radios.
    1
  11.  @dannyhendy  "Plenty of people have the critical thinking skills to realise nobody has ever been on the moon." Why would people think that? Can you tell us why you don't think it happened?
    1
  12.  @dannyhendy  "many many reasons. But simply the fact that putting a probe on the moon in the 2020s has normally failed." The Chinese have succeeded with two rover-landing missions and one sample-return mission and no failures, and another sample-return mission currently underway. India has successfully landed a spacecraft on the Moon too. "No need for return" Apart from the Chinese sample return mission. "(which makes a mission hundreds of times more difficult)," Yes, it's more difficult. "and with no need to consider life support" True, but that makes the mission cheaper, and not necessarily easier. "(coupled with the need to return now makes the mission thousands of times harder) and with tech that is literally millions of times more powerful." Manned missions have two big advantages over unmanned missions: first, the crew can steer the spacecraft away from a potentially disastrous landing site; second, the crew can fix or manage problems which might otherwise leave an unmanned mission stranded. The Apollo lunar module was designed to be able to land by itself, but it was also designed to be manually controllable. In the case of Apollo 11, an automated landing would almost certainly have resulted in disaster as the LM was aimed at land which had a lot of large boulders. And with Apollo 12 the LM was likely to land on the slope inside a crater. In each case the astronauts' manual control steered the LM away from disaster. In the case of Apollo 14, a piece of loose solder floating around inside the LM's circuits intermittently caused the Abort switch to set. If that had happened during powered descent, the LM would have automatically aborted its landing attempt. The crew on board were able to enter a series of commands to work around the problem, and allow the mission to continue. The unmanned missions which have failed are a couple of orders of magnitude cheaper than each Apollo mission. With that sort of discount, you end up with inherently less reliable vehicles. If you actually read what happened with the failures, a common factor seems to be that not enough software or integrated testing was done; and that seems to be simply a result of not enough money to employ enough programmers or engineers to test everything. Instead, they do what testing they can within the limits of their budgets, and hope for the best. By contrast, Apollo was hugely expensive because they did a lot more testing, and in the process found a bunch more problems that needed to be fixed.
    1