Comments by "MRA" (@yassassin6425) on "Spark"
channel.
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
"how we were to first to land men on the moon yet 50 years later we are totally dependent on the Soviet Union to transport our personnel to the space shuttle?"
I think you mean the ISS. And that statement is false.
"how did we penetrate the Van Allen belt without even the film getting damaged?"
They are 'belts', the plural not the singular, because there are two, with a third that is transitory. They are toroidal bands created through the trapping of charged particles by the Earth's magnetosphere. Since they vary in intensity and can be effectively shielded against, they posed no barrier to the Apollo mission trajectories that passed through the sparsest regions at high velocity in a short space of time. This had no implications for camera film.
"The supposed cameras on the astronauts suits were not even insulated to stop radiation let alone the heat for ASA200 to withstand 200+ degrees temperature."
Incorrect. Firstly, Hasselblad adapted their 500EL camera for the Apollo missions by removing the viewfinder, modifying the shutter, replacing the usual plastic black outer surface with reflective bare metal, and using special lubricants resistant to vacuum and high temperatures. Levels of radiation encountered during the Apollo missions did not have had a significant effect on the moderate speed and low sensitivity film types they used. The film for the cameras, was well protected. In fact, the camera films were doubly protected as they were in custom built aluminium and steel magazines that were a lot thicker than the standard Hasselblad ones. Secondly, since there is no atmosphere on the moon, there is no air temperature or convection in the absence of this medium. Heat in a vacuum is through either radiative transfer or to a lesser extent, conduction and so you are referring to surface temperature. All of the Apollo missions were timed to coincide with the lunar dawn, meaning that the angle of insolation was low and the lunar surface was still relatively cool. There was sufficient insulation from conduction, whilst incoming heat from the sun was passively radiated and reflected away. 200°F may be the temperature of the lunar surface material at equilibrium in full sunlight, but it's not necessarily the temperature of any object in a similar situation. Objects will be heated to that temperature only if they absorb the same amount of sunlight as lunar surface material, and also radiate it at the same rate. More reflective objects absorb less light and are heated less. Less reflective items may be heated even hotter. The temperature of the lunar surface (i.e., rocks and dust) as quoted by NASA has nothing to do with the equilibrium temperature reached by other objects exposed to sunlight in the lunar environment. Objects will slowly approach this from emission and absorption of radiation. Clearly, this had no bearing upon the film used in the cameras or their operation.
Just out of curiosity, why why do you people think that making ill-informed and ignorant statements in any way supports your contention that the moon landings were faked? Wouldn't it be better to actually first learn about that which you claim to be a hoax? How do you expect to be taken seriously when you demonstrably don't even understand the basic science?
5
-
5
-
5
-
So your proof of the moon landing conspiracy theory, is a series of videos about the moon landing conspiracy theory made by perpetrators of the moon landing conspiracy theory promoting the moon landing conspiracy theory? And you then have the temerity to mention 'an open mind'?
At what stage have you objectively critically appraised any of these nonsensical claims yourself? And at what stage have you attempted to learn about the science, technology and history of the Apollo programme instead of gullibly relying upon what these charlatans tell you to believe.
"we didnt go, no one has gone, and no one may never go to the moon."
Nothing like an "open mind" is there?
"Why go find out, compare the facts with the b.s. from nasa.....good hunting"
"Facts" - from the 'Apollo Detectives'. Is this actually serious?
And of course online conspiracy theory is entirely honest, accurate, informed and consistent, not in the least bit deceptive, misleading, fallacious, exploitative, opportunistic or manipulative and with your best interests at heart is entirely free of vested interest and agenda. Righto then.
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
"We never landed on the moon."
Incorrect. There were six landings in total. Would have ten were it not for the cancellation of the Apollo programme and the failure of Apollo 13.
"And that has been really proven now when we are actually trying to do it and sending first probes, then dummy vehicles to test radiation very carefully and maybe after all of that we can land a human there."
What on earth are you talking about? The first probe was sent to the moon in 1959. If you are referring to the 'dummys' in the Orion capsule, that is not the sole purpose of the mannequins. They are wearing the first-generation Orion Crew Survival System suit – a spacesuit astronauts will wear during launch, entry, and other dynamic phases of their missions. These are fitted with sensors to record gs and acceleration. Engineers will compare Artemis I flight data with previous ground-based vibration tests with the same manikin, and human subjects, to correlate performance. Accelerometers inside Orion will provide data for comparing vibration and acceleration between the upper and lower seats. It also evaluates the integration of the newly designed systems with an energy dampening system that the seats are mounted on.
In terms of radiation, Orion is a completely different craft to Apollo designed for longer duration and distance The longest Apollo mission was Apollo 17 at 12 days - Artemis 1 is 42 days in comparison and unlike Apollo reaches an apogee around the moon of 40,000 miles. One of the mannequins is testing a new radiation shielding vest, called the astrorad. Also the mission coincides with peak solar activity which is a tremendous opportunity to gain more data in respect of the crew cabin and its systems.
"Come on, we still gonna talk about this fantasy?"
Tens of thousands of academic publications have done; discussing and analysing the science, the technology, the history and the findings of the Apollo missions. Why don't you falsify them instead of wasting your time on the comments section You Tube? You clearly think you know better.
"I don't know if we can even do it now in 2022, apparently not based on all precaution and not being there for 50 years"
The main barrier has actually been the funding - not the science and technology.
"Moonlanding is joke stop it."
Nothing gets past you does it?
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Bibiisachildkiller
Nope. Wrong again.
The burden of proof in this case is incumbent upon you because you are attempting to falsify something that is a given. I did not make the claim. Nothing to do with me. You are questioning known and independently verifiable technology that I referred to, not me. The Ground-Commanded Television Assembly was operated remotely from Houston. To clarify, the Lunar Rover was equipped with a video camera specially designed and purpose built by RCA. Once attached to the lunar rovers, these television cameras could transmit footage directly to Earth via the Lunar Communications Relay Unit (an antenna) and using the power sources aboard the rovers. Researchers and scientists back on Earth could remotely-control the television cameras to examine the lunar surface for themselves and track the astronauts as they explored areas around where they stopped the rovers. To reiterate, you can find the technical details in the following paper that I am again referring you to: Soltof B, Journal of the SMPTE (Volume: 81, Issue: 12, December 1972). You will also find schematics, technical specifications and the details of the operation of this television camera and the remote control unit arc described and block diagrams provided.
To remind you, this is what you said:
"That "remote controlled" scene was IMPOSSIBLE, zero (0) chance, therefore fake."
Therefore you need to demonstrate why through falsification. The onus does not lie with me to establish a negative/absent based upon your arguments from ignorance and personal incredulity. Basically, what's happened here is that you've made a statement that you are incapable of backing up.
So very simply - there was a remote controlled camera developed for the lunar rover with a motorised pivot mount which was used to film the ascent stage of Apollo 17 departing the moon. I have furnished you with a source of the technical details, please explain precisely why this is, quote, "IMPOSSIBLE"? Surely you can back up your contentions with a basis for that claim?
Again, in your own time.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
"You are not able to go now."
Project Artemis sends its regards. We are simply awaiting the development of the HLS from Space X.
"Never mind that 1969 was all bullshit to scare Russians in the Cold War."
The Soviet Union tracked all the Apollo missions to the moon. They were even able to detect the experimental packages left there by astronauts.
"The temperature in the moon surf, according to scientists like yourself, is 120 degrees celsius, which means you would have to have extremely cold suits"
Actually, shedding heat from within was the main challenge. You are getting confused with surface temperature and these are equilibrium figures which take time to reach. A day on the moon is equivalent to 29.5 days on Earth. All of the Apollo missions were timed to arrive at the lunar dawn. In addition to this, in a vacuum there is no convection and therefore, obviously, no air temperature.
"They look like a goldfish aquarium upside down. With this protection, you could cook your brain in 5 minutes"
"I don't understand something therefore it must be fake"
"stop the bullshit computer processor on the Apollo missions, which was as efficient as a 5-dollar calculator today"
Incorrect. The AGC was very compact and a brilliant piece of kit. What you people fail to understand is the fact that it was purpose-built, and did what was required incredibly well. It also could handle overloads by resetting itself without losing the instruction stack it had which was prewritten onto rope core memory, and would re prioritise those commands on the fly. IBM engineers also developed the mini integrated circuits that meant computers could be small enough to fit inside a rocket or spacecraft. It was a brilliant piece of technology for the time. You also likely had no idea that this was supported on the ground by the Real-Time Computer Complex (RTCC) which was an IBM computing and data processing system at NASA's Manned Spacecraft Center in Houston. It collected, processed and sent to Mission Control the information needed to direct every phase of an Apollo/Saturn mission. It computed what the space vehicle was doing and compared that with what it should be doing. RTCC worked in real-time -- so fast, there was virtually no time between receiving and solving a computing problem. IBM 7094-11 computers were used in the RTCC during NASA's Gemini program and on the first three Apollo/Saturn missions. Later, IBM System/360 Model 75J mainframes, plus peripheral storage and processing equipment, were employed. Two computers were used during a mission: one was primary; the other operated identically but as standby. Why are you making what you assume to be authoritative comments about subjects that you have no knowledge of whatsoever?
The spacecraft computers had a performance comparable to the first generation of personal computers like the Apple 2 and Commodore 64 (the guidance computer had RAM of 4KB, and a 32KB hard disk). They were only required to take large amounts of numerical data and organise it into a more useful format. That original data was calculated by the main frames at NASA, and then beamed up to the spacecraft by radio telescope at the rate of 1,200 bits per second. They did not need the power for touch screens or to hold graphics etc like today’s smartphones.
"and with that, you could correct the route and avoid thousands of km of sun radiation."
There were no CMEs/SPEs in the direction of Apollo during any of the nine voyages to the moon. What on Earth are you talking about "correct the route"?
"God knows where you got the information about the radiation spots."
What do you mean. "radiation spots" - what the hell are you going on about? What does this even mean?
"Remember, there were non-existent satellites at that time that traveled 360 000 km to the moon and circulated at 4000 km per hour around the moon orbit?"
Again, what are you talking about? The first unmanned probe placed into lunar orbit was Luna 10 by the Soviets in 1966.
"Detach the moon lander, land"
Yes, it undocked from the CSM and descended to the surface, that was the general idea.
"assemble the moon rover"
The lunar rover was taken by the later J missions, Apollo 15, 16 and 17. It was folded and stowed in quadrant 1 of the descent stage equipment bay. What's your point?
"under 120 degrees Celsius"
Again, your incredulity concerning heat and temperature in a vacuum is irrelevant.
"and play around
What?
"The flag looks like it is made of nilon, so it resists pretty much at those temperatures."
I think you mean 'nylon'. And to reiterate, there is no air temperature/convection in a vacuum. Eventually they would have been bleached by the radiative heating from the sun and those that toppled over, conduction from the surface of the moon.
"right them after taking photos and collecting samples of the moon jump on the moonlander. take off and catch the moon orbit module at 4000 km/h, attach with great precision one another, turn back to earth"
What do you mean "turn back to Earth"? Are you really that dim?
The GNC (Guidance Navigation and Control) systems required very good accelerometers and gyroscopes, some of the very best that could be made. Fortunately, there’d been a lot of research and development on these devices for ballistic missile applications. On-board radar units provided very accurate measurements of the relative positions and velocities LM (Lunar Module) and CSM (Command and Service Module stack). All of these devices were state of the art for the day, and very expensive, but that wasn’t a big problem for the Apollo program.Both the Lunar Module’s AGC and AGS were connected to the gyroscope for inertial navigation and to the rendez-vous and docking radar and were part of the Primary Guidance and Navigation System (PGNS). After the LM returned from the surface, it entered a highly elliptical orbit at slightly less than 10 nautical miles and just over 5,500 FPS. This orbit would have carried it out to 48 nautical miles, but was adjusted by RCS thrust a few minutes later to roughly 62 x 44 nm at about 5,400 FPS. The LM then gained on the CSM, not just because it was going a little faster, but because it was climbing from a lower orbit, and lower orbits have shorter periods.
A little over three hours after liftoff, the LM’s orbit intersected the CSM’s at about 60 nm, and RCS thrust brought it into a nearly identical orbit of 63 x 56 nm, closing on the CSM by about 10 fps. Finally, a series of short braking burns brought the two ships into hard dock. The ascent stage of the LEM, having lifted off and docked with the CM, was subsequently jettisoned. Apollo did not "turn back to Earth". The SPS performed the TEI burn which lasted approximately 150 seconds, providing a posigrade velocity increase of 1,000 m/s (3,300 ft/s) sufficient to overcome the gravitational influence of the moon and send Apollo on its three day fall back to earth.
"pass the Van Alle belts again"
At high velocity, through the sparsest regions in a very small space of time. So what?
"avoiding concentration spots of solar radiation"
Again, what the hell are you talking about? The VABs consist of diffuse toroidal volumes around the Earth's equator within which radiation levels are elevated by the planet's magnetic field trapping charged particles from the sun. The inner torus is populated by energetic protons which they passed through in mere minutes and against which the hull of the CM was an effective shield. The hull of an Apollo command module rated 7 to 8 g/cm2. The craft took an hour and a half to traverse the more extensive outer torus but this region has mainly low energy electrons and so was less of a concern to mission planners. Also the inclination of the trajectory being in the plane of the Moon's orbit avoided the strongest regions of the belts near the equator. the energies and the distribution of the charged particles within the Van Allen Belts, (alpha and beta radiation, which is easy to shield against in such concentrations), were well understood. That is why mission planners were able to calculate safe trajectories through them exposing the astronauts to as little as1 - 1.5 rems.
"and enter the earth's atmosphere, perfectly landing on the Pacific."
The command module performed a controlled double dip reentry using and ablative heat shield to withstand and protect the craft form the 5,000 °F temperatures generated by reentry. After entering the atmosphere, the acceleration built, peaking at 6 g (59 m/s²). This dropped as they slowed down due to aerobraking, and emerged from radio blackout. Passing through 7,300 metres (24,000 ft), the apex cover was blown by a pyrotechnic charge. This exposed the two sets of parachutes. First the two drogue parachutes were released, which slowed and stabilized the capsule from 310mph to 170mph. They pulled out the three large main parachutes some twenty seconds later which slowed the CM to around 22mph for the targeted splashdown zone in the Pacific Ocean.
"All this is done with a 5-dollar calculator computer from Apollo, right???"
No, wrong.
Seriously, why are you doing this to yourself?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@NigarButterfly
"just a lie! It the take off was not thought over,it would have been arraised from the video"
You are actually attempting to suggest that a global hoax staged by the US government and NASA overlooked the fact that in reality there would be no one on the surface to film the lift off of the LM ascent stage? Your stupidity is indeed genuine then. The footage was captured by Ed Fendall in Houston using the remote control on the Lunar Rover camera and beamed by to earth via S Band. It was first attempted during Apollo 15, then 16, and they finally compensated for the delay and timed it perfectly during the lift of of Apollo 17's LM upper stage. Incidentally, I think you meant 'erased'.
"and yes, all the original footage is lost, wow, they keep hours and hours of useless footage,and the most important one was lost?"
No it wasn't. The Apollo 11 "missing tapes" were those that were recorded from Apollo 11's slow-scan television (SSTV) telecast in its raw format on telemetry data tape at the time of the first Moon landing in 1969.. The data tapes were used to record all transmitted data (video as well as telemetry) and were backed up, therefore the originals were erased. You are aware that there were five further landings after Apollo 11? Of course you weren't.
"If it was thought over to be put in the "evidence" then its for people who dont think for themselves, and believe everything hey were told by media. And in that case they are straight laughing at our faces. Not mine, though."
Because of course the online conspiracy theory that you mindlessly parrot is unfailingly accurate, not in the least bit deceptive, exploitative, manipulative and opportunistic, and with your best interests at heart, completely free of agenda and ulterior motive? Ok then.
The known science of Apollo is nothing to do with mainstream media perpetuation. It is quite clear that you have zero knowledge about the history, the science and the technology of the programme. The junk online conspiracy theory that you consume and regurgitate online that substitutes for this, targets the gullible, the dim and the scientifically illiterate such as yourself - it harvests stupidity such as your own and as the low hanging fruit, you are ripe for their plucking. And yes, they are the ones "laughing in your face".
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
Massively inaccurate statement there.
von Braun was indeed a member of the Nazi party, but he joined simply though expedience to get support and funding for his work. He despised Hitler and all that he ideologically stood for.
He did not directly murder anyone. He had sleep-walked into a Faustian bargain—that he had worked with this regime without considering the darker implications of the Third Reich and the Nazi regime. As Technical Director at the Army Rocket Center at Peenemünde his work attracted more and more attention in higher levels. His refusal to join the party would have meant that he would have had to abandon his life's work. Of course he bears some responsibility for his own actions but in the case of concentration camp labor, there wasn’t much he could do to help. Yes, he still bears some moral responsibility for being in the middle of that situation, seeing the concentration camp labor personally, face to face but powerless to effect change. Von Braun admitted visiting the plant at Mittelwerk on many occasions, and later referred to conditions at the plant as "repulsive", but he maintained throughout his life that he never personally witnessed any deaths or beatings. By 1944 he was certainly privy to the atrocities but he denied ever having visited the Mittelbau-Dora concentration camp itself - and there is no evidence that he did, where 20,000 died from illness, beatings, hangings, and appalling working conditions. Yes the slave labour was being used - more people died though this that the actual V2 itself, but contrary to your claim, he never murdered anyone. The slave labour you refer to was not at his behest or choosing and he certainly didn't preside over it as you imply.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@trendynow1369
Your comment is shadow banned, which is a shame because such stupidity on show may actually deter others from similarly entertaining such nonsense. I will summarise here:
"Yet there's no real photo of the earth from space. All the ones that were claimed to be real are obviously fraudulent."
Because again, you are the self-proclaimed expert, you know better? There are something in the region of 18,000 pictures taken of the earth by the Apollo missions alone that you would have had to sift through. 'Earthrise' captured by Apollo 8 and 'The Blue Marble' taken by the crew of Apollo 17 are not simply famous photos, but are amongst the most widely distributed pictures of all time. And since then, while some of the autonomous spacecraft destined for other worlds turned their sensors around for a parting shot, their cameras weren’t designed for the job, producing inferior images. In contrast, as the Apollo astronauts travelled out towards the Moon, they reached the perfect distances for planetary portraiture and were provided with some of the world’s best equipment for photographing Earth: Hasselblad 500 EL cameras, Zeiss lenses and 70mm Kodak Ektachrome film. They were thus able to faithfully record Earth’s true colours as they appeared to the human eye.
The last image of the whole Earth taken by a human being, during Apollo 17, on the 17th December 1972. However, sitting in geosynchronous oribit, 22,000 miles from out planet Himawari-8 captures a full-disk image of Earth every 10 minutes.
"Keep believing the lies instead of trusting your own eyes"
As I said,, I am irrelevant to this exchange and at no stage have I mentioned any 'belief' - far less my own The known science that you detest is not about that. That would be the junk online conspiracy theory that you gullibly consume and regurgitate in a lame attempt to sound informed, discerning and clever.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This is hugely inaccurate. Yes, there were clearly design flaws with Mercury and most of the danger lay in a problem called dual authority control where it was possible for an astronaut to switch to fly-by-wire without turning off his manual system, drawing fuel from both tanks. During the the flight of Aurora 7, Carpenter didn’t realise his horizon scanner, the instrument that optically fed pitch attitude information to his onboard computer, was off by about 20 degrees - which he should have done. He also didn’t appreciate that in switching between fly-by-wire and manual control as prescribed by his flight plan he’d engaged dual authority control six times during his first orbit. Arguably not his fault. However, he wasn't concerned by the low fuel levels and despite a stream of advisories from Houston, which he ignored, he even covered the low fuel warning light with duct tape so it wouldn't distract him. He was so absorbed by changing the film in a camera for a last round of pictures and investigating the “fireflies” that had perplexed Glenn on his flight that he was late beginning his pre-retrofire checklist. It was at this point, when he needed to move quickly through vital steps, that he finally noticed the flaw with his horizon scanner. The automatic stabilisation system couldn’t maintain the 34-degree pitch and zero-degree yaw attitude he needed for reentry. Trouble shooting this new problem put him further behind, and when he engaged his fly-by-wire control mode, he forgot to switch off the manual system meaning for 10 minutes, both systems were burning fuel.
Although Aurora 7 aligned for retrofire, it consequently was a sub-optimal orientation and it was late meaning the capsule canted about 25 degrees to the right and the burn began three seconds late. And it was only after retrofire that Carpenter noticed both control systems were drawing fuel; at which point, the manual system was empty and the automatic system had just 10 percent left. Using fly-by-wire sparingly to keep the horizon in sight, Carpenter managed to hold Aurora 7’s attitude. The remaining fuel was consumed by the auxiliary damping mode that minimized oscillations as the spacecraft fell through the atmosphere...it was a very close call.
Chris Kraft vowed that Carpenter would never fly again - and he didn't. Although unquestionably a very talented electrical engineer and pilot. Max Faget who designed the Mercury capsule called Carpenter a better poet than astronaut. The Mercury capsule was a learning experience for all, but for all its flaws, there was a flight plan and Carpenter ' ' chose to disregard it. Witness the following 'Sigma 7' flight - (Carpenter's by then had become known as 'Stigma 7) - in which Wally Schirra performed to near perfection. Ironically he was also later 'grounded' due to his objection to the excessively detailed flight plan and work load placed on Apollo 7.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kalleklovvn9262
"Yes, it is"
Right - so that 321 foot 70 ton rocket sitting on launch pad 38a at Cape Canaveral primed for launch this month - is a hoax? ...simply because it is contrary to your claim that "we don't have the technology right now." Ok genius. Nothing gets past you.
"Science has become a religion designed for the tax cattle. Its our belief and it has endless integrity so we will follow it and believe it."
And yet here you are using a device that lets you instantly share this moronic claim with people all over the world. You live in a world that has been shaped by the effectiveness of the scientific method.
Known science is not a 'religion' - religion implies 'belief' and science is not about that.
Known science is governed by physical laws and mathematical axioms and so these need to be established and discovered. Having done so these are by nature irrefutable and ineluctable.
Science is open to all. When you boil a kettle or stir sugar in your tea, what happens? That's science. Are you denying that? When you switch on your laptop...it's science. How can that be a "religion"? Science is always open to questioning and falsification - religion is not.
In the absence of education and understanding, it's a lot easier to hide behind a conspiracy theory than it is to learn the mathematics and applied science involved. Your opinion is worthless.
That's because you have no understanding of those disciplines - rocketry, aerospace and propulsion engineering, astrophysics - specialist fields that support the validity of the Apollo Programme.
The reason you've chosen that conclusion is because you like to imagine that you are among the few people who are smart enough to see through a huge secret that has fooled the vast masses of your "inferiors". Through sheer gullibility and a large helping of illusory superiority, you get off on deluding yourself that you're one of the small minority too clever to be fooled. But you can't even demonstrate this supposed intellectual prowess when challenged to do so, which make it transparently obvious that your claims amount to nothing more than empty ego masturbation and resentment of qualities such as accomplishment, achievement, knowledge and expertise that has eluded you throughout your life. Precisely why, the engineers responsible for Project Artemis have dedicated their lives to their respective specialisms whilst you waste yours mindlessly trolling comments sections and gorging on junk conspiracy videos.
You people brand yourself 'truthers' yet remain abject strangers to the 'truth'. In fact, in the post-truth era that we inhabit that has enabled such ignorance to thrive within your internet bubble and social media, nothing could be more diametrically the opposite than the believer and perpetrator in online conspiracy theory.
That's not just a 'religion', it's a cult.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Actually, during reentry and splashdown of the Apollo-Soyuz mission, the crew of the CM were accidentally exposed to toxic hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide fumes, caused by unignited reaction control system (RCS) hypergolic propellants venting from the spacecraft and reentering a cabin air intake. The RCS was inadvertently left on during descent due to an error by Vance Brand, and the toxic fumes were sucked into the spacecraft as it drew in outside air. Brand briefly lost consciousness, while Stafford retrieved emergency oxygen masks, put one on Brand, and gave one to Slayton. The three astronauts were hospitalized for two weeks in Honolulu.
Toxic monomethyl hydrazine fuel from the plumbing in one of the space shuttle's orbital maneuvering system pods or APUs was quite common. During STS-9, two of the three APUs caught fire in the APU compartment in the rear of the Shuttle. The APUs provide hydraulic pressure to operate the orbiter’s flight controls and landing gear. Unaware of the fire, John Young landed the orbiter without difficulty. The fire continued after the wheels stopped, eventually burning itself out, causing major damage to the compartment. The fact that there had been a fire was not discovered, however, until the APU compartment was opened during post-flight inspections.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
No, it took Operation Paperclip and some German rocket engineers working alongside and in tandem with thousands of engineers to "get us to the moon".
von Braun was indeed a member of the Nazi party, but he joined simply though expedience to get support and funding for his work. He despised Hitler and all that he ideologically stood for.
He did not directly murder anyone. He had sleep-walked into a Faustian bargain—that he had worked with this regime without considering the darker implications of the Third Reich and the Nazi regime. As Technical Director at the Army Rocket Center at Peenemünde his work attracted more and more attention in higher levels. His refusal to join the party would have meant that he would have had to abandon his life's work. Of course he bears some responsibility for his own actions but in the case of concentration camp labor, there wasn’t much he could do to help. Yes, he still bears some moral responsibility for being in the middle of that situation, seeing the concentration camp labor personally, face to face but powerless to effect change. Von Braun admitted visiting the plant at Mittelwerk on many occasions, and later referred to conditions at the plant as "repulsive", but he maintained throughout his life that he never personally witnessed any deaths or beatings. By 1944 he was certainly privy to the atrocities but he denied ever having visited the Mittelbau-Dora concentration camp itself - and there is no evidence that he did, where 20,000 died from illness, beatings, hangings, and appalling working conditions. Yes the slave labour was being used - more people died though this that the actual V2 itself, but contrary to your claim, he is not directly responsible for thousands of dead civilians, no more so than those that lead the RAF bombing campaigns of Berlin, Dresden and Cologne, or Robert Oppenheimer was for Nagasaki and Hiroshima. The world was at war.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tittyrino
NASA said no such thing, With the cancellation of Apollo the capability to go to the moon was lost together with the funding, not the technology. Don Pettit phrased it very badly when he termed it as "destroyed", but he was referring to the loss of a heavy lift rocket, and the closure of the plants, the retirement of the expertise and tooling, the cessation of the production processes all associated with Apollo as the direction switched to the shuttle programme and the construction of the ISS. Building it all back has been a protracted and painful process which has been hampered by piecemeal and drip-fed funding from Congress. Artemis has superseded the old obsolete technology of Apollo but it still physically survives, as do all the schematics, mission data and reports as testament to the Apollo era.
Appreciating that "research" does not involve self-proclaimed overnight armchair 'expertise' following a squandered evening consuming junk You Tube videos, cherry picked click bait confirmation bias, quote mining, false equivalence and circular self-referencing pseudoscientific conspiracy websites, about subjects you demonstrably have no knowledge of whatsoever, do feel free to share - how precisely did you do yours?
Incidentally, your caps lock key appears to be intermittently malfunctioning.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@vincentvanwyk5522
"OK deal believer boy."
OK conspiracy believer boy.
"2030 we're on the moon. Save this space and by march 2030 I'll bet you £50 nobody goes anywhere."
Like I said - Bart Sibrel will insist that it was faked and that will be all it takes to satisfy you. Remember, "It was 1968 and filmed at the cannon Air force bass (sic)" 🤣
"Throwing money at something doesn't mean success."
No indeed it doesn't - and at what point did I suggest that it did? However if you have sporadic and trickle funding then a highly complex and very expensive project will take longer to come to fruition.
"Why not sell the moon landing and walking technology to China and right off some national debt??"
Is this serious?
"No, I'm right."
That settles it then.
You are an online conspiracy believer - of course you are 'right'.
"our favourite actors landed the lem module on a foreign surface on 1969 first attempt and then reconnected with the orbiter first attempt and then all survived."
As explained, orbital rendezvous was perfected during Gemini and practised by Apollo 9 and 10. Apollo 10 (Stafford and Cernan) flew within 47,500 feet of the lunar surface.
"Only people who died (murdered) were guss grissom and crew as their loyalty to faking and lying was dubious"
Grissom, Chaffee and White exposed nothing of the sort. Yet again, you haven't got the remotest clue what you are on about. Grissom criticised many aspects of the design of the Command Module in addition to the management of the programme. He wasn't alone. There were many, many critics and dissenters within the ranks at that time saying precisely the same thing. Gus Grissom, Ed White and Roger Chaffee were killed during a ground test when a stray spark from damaged wiring ignited the pure oxygen environment in the capsule which was filled with combustible material. Because at that time the hatch was inward opening and the CM was pressurised, the ground crew was unable to get the astronauts out in time. This not only prompted fundamental design changes to the Command Module, but also a raft of safety measures and quality procedures without which it's generally accepted that Apollo 11 would never have landed on the moon before the end of the decade. If someone (you don't specify who) really wanted them dead, the Apollo fire would have been the absolute last choice of method - not least given the damage that it did to PR and the programme.
"2030? £50 bet??"
How will you then honour it?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@XEONvE
Your caps lock appears to be intermittently malfunctioning.
Something doesn't make sense to you? Surely not. there must be some mistake. Continuous exposure to what precisely?
Firstly, regarding the VABs; the trajectories taken by the Apollo missions meant that they posed no danger to the astronauts passing through them as your original post erroneously claims. Each mission flew a slightly different trajectory in order to access its landing site, but the exception of Apollo 14, the orbital inclination of the translunar coast trajectory was always around the vicinity of 30°. Stated another way, the geometric plane containing the translunar trajectory was inclined to the earth's equator by about 30°. A spacecraft following that trajectory would bypass all but the sparse edges of the Van Allen belts. The VABs trap high energy particles from the sun, but they are not uniform in intensity and are subject to flux.
Contrary to your claim, when NASA commenced its lunar spaceflight program, its scientists already knew about the belts and their spatial and energy distribution. Measurements showed that electrons below about 1 MeV were unlikely to be dangerous, as were protons below 10 MeV. For example, a proton with an energy of 3 MeV could penetrate about 6 mm of aluminium (a typical spacecraft material) whereas one of 100 MeV could penetrate up to 40 mm. NASA actually overestimated the levels in the inner belt meaning that many craft have been overprotected. Based upon the data, engineers designed shielding that consisted of a spacecraft hull and all the instrumentation lining the walls. Further, knowing the belts’ absence above the poles, the altitude of the lower edge of the inner belt being ~600 km (well above the LEO) and the location of the South Atlantic anomaly, where doses are at a high 40 mrads/day at an altitude of 210 km allowed NASA to design the Apollo translunar injection (TLI) orbit in a way that the spacecraft would avoid the belts’ most dangerous parts.
The hull of an Apollo command module rated 7 to 8 g/cm2. What this means that the even the SPE of August 1972 which occurred between Apollo 16 and 17, had it occurred during wither of these missions would have been attenuated by the capsule from 400 rem to less than 35 rem at the astronaut's blood-forming organs. Fortunately there were no such storms during the Apollo missions. There were solar flares, but since these are directional, they avoided and posed no danger to the crews of Apollo.
What 'continuous exposure' in cislunar space are you referring to? Measurements and source please. Thanks.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@hermanschweizer9717
"it strikes me odd that NASA has last all the technology and blue prints from the Apollo program"
They haven't though.
"And when asked, they can’t build it back up again."
They haven't been asked though. Apollo was cancelled, which means the tooling, the r&d, the production plants and processes abandoned, the technology left to lie fallow and the expertise retired whilst funding was diverted to LEO, the development of the Space Shuttle, the construction of the ISS and at the time, Nixon continuing to wage an expensive foreign war. That technology has been rendered obsolete and is now superseded by modern design and production, composites, materials and systems utilised by the Artemis programme.
"The pictures from the mission’s have showed studio lighting"
No they haven't - they are entirely consistent with the sunlight, the angle and the reflectivity and albedo of the moon's surface at the time of the landings.
"and shadows coming from different directions."
All landings coincided with the lunar dawn. Low sun and uneven surface can distort the angles of shadows in images. You can see the same effect on earth. And if there are multiple light sources, why does each object only cast one shadow?
"that doesn’t confirm they did not land on the moon, maybe they had problems with the film , and they had to recreate the pictures on earth."
All the original prints were released immediately following each mission.
"And then there is the van Allen belt"
No, that would be 'belts' there are two of them.
"dangerous space radiation"
The belts have different intensity and what do you mean about "dangerous space radiation". You understand that this is not homogeneous or uniform and that there are different types yes? The VABs consist of highly charged alpha and beta particles that is actually not difficult to shield against in the regions and the time periods that the Apollo missions flew. Each mission flew a slightly different trajectory in order to access its landing site, but the orbital inclination of the translunar coast trajectory was always around the vicinity of 30°. Stated another way, the geometric plane containing the translunar trajectory was inclined to the earth's equator by about 30°. A spacecraft following that trajectory would bypass all but the sparse edges of the Van Allen belts.
To quote James Van Allen himself:
"the outbound and inbound trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft cut through the outer portions of the inner belt and because of their high speed spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. The resulting radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal dosage – a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such flights. I made such estimates in the early 1960s and so informed NASA engineers who were planning the Apollo flights. These estimates are still reliable.
"that NASA just claimed it is a challenge right now to find protection for the astronauts"
Wrong, you are simply regurgitating dishonestly quote mined statements removed from their original context by dishonest conspiracy theorists. We know how to protect the astronauts passing through the VABs, however, Orion is a new vehicle designed for a different mission to Apollo. It will spend weeks, months, even years outside the protection of Earth's magnetic field. By way of comparison Apollo spent only a few days outside of this protection. In addition, Orion's onboard systems use modern electronics that are far more vulnerable to particle radiation than their Apollo-era counterparts. When high-energy protons and other ions hit orbiting spacecraft, they often leave ionization tracks in electronic chips. These tracks can upset spacecraft computer memories and otherwise disrupt sensitive electronics that are more susceptible to damage than the core rope memory of Apollo.
"I did my own research"
Then why are you simply regurgitating the same tedious and ill-informed conspiracy theory that I warned you against doing? If you had truly conducted "your own research" then demonstrably you wouldn't be parroting these claims and you would have learnt about the science, history and technology of Apollo and be able to dispel them yourself.
"And if NASA has the luna orbiter, ,why can’t we get some detail pictures from the Apollo landing sites, would like to see how it looks after 50 years, or maybe they are all gone."
Nope all still there - as evidenced by tracks, the descent stages of each LM, and above all the experiments such as EASEP, multiple ALSEP installations and LLRR which by their very design were intended to be and could only be configured and assembled manually.
1
-
1
-
1