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