Comments by "MRA" (@yassassin6425) on "What Happened After The Apollo 11 Lunar Landing | Trajectory | Spark" video.

Can you see stars during the day on earth?
1
@juanantonioalpirez2945 Personal incredulity is not "questioning". The idiots are the ones that ask questions when they aren't remotely interested in the answers or independently verifying them for themselves.
1
Fascinating - and not as others claim Area 51 Nevada, the Arizona desert, Death Valley, a Hollywood Studio or Shepperton Studios UK? You clowns can't even get your ridiculous stories straight. I guess it depends upon which crap conspiracy video that you've allowed yourself to be duped by. You chose Bart Sibrel. Clever lad.
1
@vincentvanwyk5522 "as if it matters where it was filmed?? Like they made it public?" Then how is it you claim to know? and why then are you sating is as a fact? Like I said you people can't even get your stories straight because the nonsense that you parrot is at the whim and behest of whichever conspiracy charlatan you elect to be duped by or succumb to. One thing that you all have in common however is complete ignorance of the history, science and technology of the Apollo Programme which is why you uncritically settle for such nonsense and attempt to regurgitate it as fact in the deluded belief that it makes you come across as superior, clever and informed. "The fact is we're not going anywhere for a long time. How's that for a prediction?" A pretty crap one - and Project Artemis would beg to differ.
1
@vincentvanwyk5522 A bet on what precisely? 'Wanna' take a bet on the fact that the Apollo moon landings were not in fact filmed at Cannon Air Force Base?
1
@vincentvanwyk5522 "I'll take a bet that your artemis projected moon landings will not happen." They are not mine. "Give me a date when you think we'll 'go back' the come back to this thread on that date." If you are claiming that they will not happen then surely it should be you coming back when they do? Artemis III originally pledged to return man to the surface of the moon by 2025. Clearly this is not viable, but I would expect that it will happen by the end of the decade. Of course, Bart Sibrel will tell you that is also faked, so it's a bit of a pointless discussion really. "It doesn't matter where it was filmed" It certainly does if you wish to state it as fact - which is precisely what you did. "but cannon air force base seems to be it." Seems to be it? Because that's what your dumb online conspiracy theory told you? - or because it's currently trending on Tik Tok? Clever lad. "It was filmed somewhere. Not knowing where doesn't detract from the truth of the statement." Of course it was filmed somewhere and the overwhelming consilience of scientific, independent and third party evidence demonstrates that it was the surface of the moon - on six occasions. The fact that you are completely oblivious to this evidence accounts for why you allow yourself to be so easily hoodwinked by junk online conspiracy theory about a subject that you clearly have no knowledge of whatsoever.
1
@vincentvanwyk5522 "Let me try" By all means. "Lol!!! In 1961 with 60s technology they supposedly sent a man to the moon in 1969 and were successful on the first attempt." What? In 1961 with 60s technology they supposedly sent a man to the moon in 1969? I suggest you try again. Regarding the 'first attempt' - the hardware had been thoroughly tested and Apollo 10 which you are doubtless completely ignorant of was a dress rehearsal. Moreover, the entire Gemini Programme had been predicated upon perfecting orbital rendezvous, spacewalking and longer duration missions. "You in 2023: to send a man now with 50 years plus better technology AND the success of 12 missions already in the 1960s and early 70s is now 'not viable'??" Pathetic attempt at a strawman. The issue is timescale and funding. Project Artemis has been drip-fed and piecemeal compared with the virtual blank cheque of Apollo which was time bound. It also involves different technology to Apollo which is obsolete. Better technology doesn't necessarily mean it is cheaper. It is still obscenely expensive to send a crewed mission to the surface of the moon. "Go on. Give me a date science boy. 2027? £50?" As I said scientifically illiterate boy - I would expect this to have been accomplished by the end of the decade. When we do return to the moon, which is inevitable, you will simply declare it to be fake because Tik Tok told you so, just as you claimed that the Apollo landing(s) were filmed at Cannon Airforce Base, which you hadn't even heard of until some conspiracy addled charlatan told you what to think.
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
@vincentvanwyk5522 Absolutely.
1
@XEONvE They Apollo astronauts were not in the VABs continuously for 30 hours - (note the plural, there are two, plus a third that is transitory). Also, the radiation exposure that they received from this was equivalent to a couple of chest X-rays, but not the same since the VABs contain particle radiation not X-rays. Your caps lock does not make your erroneous assertions any more credible.
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
@XEONvE Nothing to do with me. My replies to you are based upon known science and are all independently verifiable. Do however feel free to demonstrate why, and falsify any aspect of my response - I'm all ears. You can perhaps start by turning off your caps lock key and explaining what you mean by 'continual exposure' in cislunar space. As requested, if you could support your answers with measurement, data and sources, for the benefit of myself and anyone reading this, that would be great. Thanks.
1