Comments by "MRA" (@yassassin6425) on "Exposed: Apollo 11 Moon landing conspiracy theories | Just The FAQs" video.

  1. So you didn't know that Apollo 13 was the only mission in 1970 and the only one that actually failed to land? Furthermore that it was only four months after Apollo 12? What tapes are you referring to? If you mean the magnetic tapes of the Apollo 11 EVA that were reused, they were simply back ups that were never intended for archival use. Since this medium is now defunct and obsolete many of them from all six missions have been sold in auction.
    6
  2. Then you'll have no issue presenting one then. I thought you people didn't believe a word that the government says?
    5
  3.  @neilarmstrongsson795  "There's nothing particular "clever" about science, it's not infallible nor is it exacting in many areas." And yet here you are using a device that lets you instantly share this asinine claim with people all over the world. You live in a world that has been shaped by the effectiveness of the scientific method. It's a lot easier to hide behind a conspiracy theory than it is to learn the mathematics and applied science involved. Of course it isn't "infallible" - that's precisely how the scientific method advances. And naturally, the junk conspiracy theory that you defer to is completely infallible, accurate, informed, reliable and dependable? Righto then. Perhaps visit a department of aerospace engineering, or an astrophysics academic conference - tell them that there's nothing 'clever' about their science, tell them you know better because Bart Sibrel said so - and don't forget to let them know that the University of You Tube sent you. "In fact there is so much that we don't know or that has any explanation, and likely never will." Absolutely, but science is committed to pushing those boundaries, expanding the frontiers of our knowledge and there is much that we will continue to discover as a species. "But you bought into all that 'clever stuff' didn't you, they made you believe it." Science is not a question of belief - it must be evidenced, testable, reproducible, and ultimately, falsifiable. I am irrelevant to this exchange. The known science that you are in contention with is governed by physical laws and mathematical axioms, it thereby is demonstrable and has a voice of its own. But you bought into all this dumb conspiracy stuff didn't you? They made you believe it.
    4
  4. Cost. It is obscenely expensive to send crewed missions to the moon. Apollo was cancelled in 1972 because the funding was retracted and due to a lack of public and political will and with the premature cancellation of the programme the production plants, the tooling, the specific expertise to mount such a huge project was all abandoned or left to lie fallow. Most significantly, - the heavy lift capability which was also forsaken in favour of the Space Shuttle Programme and the construction of the ISS. Deep space exploration became the preserve of unmanned probes and landers which are far cheaper and do not carry the risk of manned missions.
    4
  5. "Oops ..the hoaxers didnt realize Time disparity of tech would show them up in 50yrs time" But it hasn't. Unless you have something original to say instead of the same old predictable junk conspiracy theory that has been consumed and regurgitated over and over and over and over again and debunked innumerable times for decades. Go ahead then. "wait til 80 yrs elapses with US still unable to land on moonšŸ˜‚" Well firstly, you would have to be a child now to be around in 80 years time. Given your puerile post, I concede that is a possibility. Secondly, when the US does return a crewed mission to the lunar surface, you will simply declare that to be faked too, which is the defense mechanism and default coping strategy that you cretinous conspiracy believers employ when confronted with anything that challenges your dumb rote learned narrative.
    3
  6. "How can anyone believe that people went to the moon?" That'll be entire branches of science, related specialist fields, archives, data, samples, tracking, hardware, footage and the overwhelming and irrefutable consilience of evidence saying that we did. Of course, 'Infinite User' knows better. 'Infinite User' is special. 'Infinite User' has an internet connection that allows conspiracy videos to compensate for education and knowledge. 'Infinite User' then feels clever and informed. Incidentally, known science is not a question of belief. "Like Nixon talking to Neil Armstrong from a landline" Or could it just have been that your crap online conspiracy theory neglected to tell you that the call between Washington and Houston was then sent out via microwave link to the Deep Space Network station and transmitted to the moon as an S-band signal? Surely not? "One of the top bullshit story ever told." Sid the gullible conspiracy believer. "NASA (NOT A SPACE AGENCY)" Original then. You'll find it is actually - your caps lock doesn't change that.
    3
  7. No one in the real world gives two shits about anything that a random, insignificant, gullible believer in dumb online conspiracy over the comments section of a video entertainment platform chooses to 'call'. Thanks for playing though.
    3
  8.  @DeputyNordburg  Bet you didn't know that Apollo 17 also left a cameraman behind on the surface of the moon! Radio control pan and pivot? In 1972?
    3
  9.  @DeputyNordburg  I know that - so do you. Now explain that to our cerebrally challenged, conspiratorially addled friends.
    3
  10. @Andre They absolutely are. Filmed in Area 51, the Nevada desert.
    3
  11.  @hannacarter1352  Said the fool of a conspiracy believer.
    2
  12. Odd then that we can measure its geology using spectroscopy, return rock and soil samples,observe its phases and you can see its surface topographical features and relief using a cheap pair of binoculars from your effin' backyard. You haven't really thought this through have you genius?
    2
  13.  @Mitchell-lc5kj  So you completely ignored my response. If the moon is made of a gaseous state, tell me why it doesn't behave that way and how we can determine the geology of the moon using spectrometry? How is it that rock and soil samples have been not only returned to Earth but validated by an entire branch of science called geology and through independent petrological analysis. Explain the cyclic phases of the moon and how you can discern its surface features yourself using a cheap backyard telescope or a cheap pair of binoclulars? To answer your question, the surface of the moon is largely composed of igneous rock . It has no light of its own and the reason we see it is that it reflects the Sun's light. The Moon revolves around the Earth approximately once every 28 days orbiting on a plane that is almost aligned with the orbital plane of the Earth around the Sun. The lunar orbit just means that the relative position of the Moon and Sun in the sky changes over the course of approximately a month. They are completely independent of one another. Sometimes they appear close to one another in the sky; sometimes they are at opposite sides of the Earth. While the moon is out in the daytime the sun is generally too bright, or the unlit side of the moon is towards earth, for the moon to be visible. The moon orbits the earth, while the earth orbits the sun. It is inevitable, given that both motions are very roughly in the same plane (very roughly in mathematical terms), that sometimes the moon will be inside the earth's orbit, (daylight visible) and sometimes out (night visible). Based on the orbital geometry of the Moon, there will certainly be times where the Sun will partially illuminate the Moon, during the day and at night. During the new moon, the moon is between the sun and the Earth, the side of the moon that is lit by the sun is facing away from our planet. This means that the moon is still up there, but we canā€™t see it in the daytime, because all of the sunā€™s light is getting reflected away from us. As the moon continues in its orbit around the Earth, away from the sun, increasingly more of its sunlit surface is visible. This is why the moon sometimes appears as a crescent or half-moon. When itā€™s farther from the sun and visible above the horizon, itā€™s easier to spot during the day. This isn't even high school science.
    2
  14. What?
    2
  15. Do you people ever even occasionally have anything remotely resembling an original thought, observation or idea ever even occasionally entering your vacuous craniums?
    2
  16. Six lunar module descent stages for one.
    2
  17. Your birth certificate, your education, your passport, your chest or your last orgasm?
    2
  18. Which one? There were hundreds. You mean the official post mission press conference? You only find it 'weird' because online conspiracy theory has told you what to think. You obviously haven't watched the entire footage from start to finish, rather appropriated excerpts from junk conspiracy videos and supposed documentaries that have omitted them laughing and joking. Having undertaken a rigorous and exhausting programme of training consisting of six day weeks for six months, the mental and physical demands and intensity of the eight day mission, immediate quarantine for three weeks directly before - not to mention the prospect of an exhaustive and exhausting programme of P/R press conferences during a gruelling world tour consisting of 29 cities in 24 countries in 38 days...you really expect them to be bouncing off the walls with enthusiasm? Neil Armstrong in particular was a particularly introverted, private, shy and modest individual. A demonstrably brave test pilot and astronaut, but the thought of being paraded around the world must have filled him with utter dread. However,, characters such as Pete Conrad, Al Shepard, Charlie Duke, Eugene Cernan and Ron Evans all had far more ebullient personalities. Perhaps you should also watch the post mission press conferences for Apollo 12, 14, 15, 16, 17 and even the aborted Apollo 13 landing that your conspiracy theory never mentions? Whilst at it, find footage and images of them beaming after recovery in the Mobile Quarantine Trailer or on the deck of the USS Hornet Frankly if that's all it takes to convince you, it's hardly surprising that people of your ilk are the target market for these conmen and frauds that perpetrate crap online conspiracy theory.
    2
  19. Precisely what technology was lacking? They are not having an issue putting men back on the moon - it is obscenely expensive and new technologies need to be tested and validated. The main delay will be Space X who are contracted to develop the HLS. "For those that believe they put a man on the moon keep dinking that NASA Kool Aid !" Ironic coming from a gullible believer in dumb online conspiracy theory. Always amuses me when you people parrot this, given that the Rev Jim Jones would have seen you and your ilk coming a mile away.
    2
  20. That's online conspiracy theory for you I'm afraid.
    2
  21. Numbskull - Never Actually Says Anything original.
    2
  22. That's online conspiracy theory for you I'm afraid - and yet people are still duped by it.
    2
  23. Seriously. Why are you attempting to make authoritative statements from ignorance and incredulity and in the complete absence of knowledge about the science, technology and history of the Apollo Programme? Why are you under the illusion that you, a random, insignificant gullible conspiracy theory believer on the comments section of You Tube know better than entire branches of science and specialist fields of expertise such as aerospace engineering, computer science and rocketry worldwide? "SpaceX's self-landing rockets are exceptional in the 2020's." This is much harder to accomplish than in 1/6thg and in the absence of an atmosphere. "Yet, we believe "The Eagle" pulled it off in '69 using a computer with >0.00001% of the compute with >0.00001% of the processing." What does this even mean? Nothing to do with what anyone 'believes'. Learn about it. 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 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. Retro-landing The Eagle was suicidal; never done before" What do you mean, "retro landing the Eagle? The approach radar antenna was mounted on the lower exterior surface of the Lunar Module. The signal from the antenna was fed to a continuous wave doppler radar set that controlled the powered landing. This instrument provided velocity, slant and altitude measurement data to the guidance computer used to manage the retrorockets that slowed the descent of the LM. The LMā€™s descent to the lunar surface was broken up into three phases: braking, approach, and landing. Each phase was handled by a separate program in the computer: P63, P64, and P66. The Commander took over ā€œmanualā€ control during the landing phase, however, this was a misnomer. The ā€œmanualā€ mode during the landing phase was actually known as ā€œattitude holdā€ because the computer was still responsible for the highly challenging task of maintaining the LMā€™s attitude. The Commanderā€™s job was to tell the computer how fast to descend and which direction to move via stick inputs. The computer adjusted the engine throttle and fired the maneuvering thrusters to make it happen, all while balancing the LM on its engine output and making adjustments for the changing mass/weight of the LM as it burned fuel. Both Commander and computer were instrumental in the final landing phase. "impossible to train" Absolutely false. The LLRV and the LLTV were built precisely for this purpose, whilst the crews racked up hundreds of hours in the lander simulator at Johnson Space Centre. Also the LM was tested during Apollo 5, a manned test as part of Apollo 9 and flown to within 47,000 feet of the lunar surface by Apollo 10's Eugene Cernan and Tom Stafford. You simply haven't got the remotest idea what you are talking about. "NASA may claim Armstrong did it first-time and was able to take off again without any checks/maintenance to the mechanism." Of course they ran checks before the ascent engine was primed. Specifically, what maintenance are you referring to? Seriously, you are embarrassing yourself. Why do you feel the need to comment?
    2
  24. Fascinating. But which one and how have you determined this? - and what about the fact that Kubrick's whereabouts and projects were fully accountable during all six of the Apollo landings. Was he also commissioned to film the aborted Apollo 13 mission? A soundstage in London? Righto then. Surely it was Shepperton? That's what they say...no wait, some suggest it was Pinewood or Elstree. Actually, can't we agree on Twickenham? Hold on a minute, I'm sure it was supposed to have been Hollywood. No, no, what about the hangar at Cannon AFB, New Mexico? Nope, it was definitely Area 51, Groom Lake Nevada. Hang on, wasn't it supposed to have been shot in the Utah outback? No, no, it was without doubt the Arizona desert...or was that Death Valley California? And what of Devon Island? You absolute goons can't even get your stories straight. I guess it depends upon which dumb conspiracy theorist that you allow yourselves to be duped by. Got to say though, that must be some 'Soundstage in London" to convincingly replicate, uncut, the 1/6th gravity and the vacuum of the lunar surface - not to mention the precise reconstruction of Theophilus in The Sea of Tranquility; the Head Crater vicinity, Ocean of Storms; the Fra Mauro Formation near Cone Crater; the eastern edge of Mare Imbrium, Hadley Rille; The Descartes Highlands; and the eastern edge of Mare Serenitati in the Taurus Littrow Valley. Shout out to the props department too, that managed to fashion fake moonrock consistent which each of those six landing sites and collectively dupe an entire branch of science called geology for over half a century in the process.
    2
  25. Your belief and personal incredulity have zero bearing on reality.
    2
  26. Yes - entire branches of science, cognate disciplines and related specialist fields worldwide comprising those infinitely cleverer and more qualified than yourself.
    2
  27. Context...it's your friend. Try it.
    2
  28. Fascinating..400,000 people, engineers, contractors, cognate disciplines where cross communication was essential - only told what they anted them to know" And they "watched a film in the control room" - Not once, but on six occasions. How do you people even coordinate getting dressed in the morning?
    1
  29. All of the Apollo photographs are genuine.
    1
  30. "Why does no one talk about at the moon taking a picture from our Earth !?" They do. There are plenty of photographs taken of the Earth from the moon. "I don't see any picture of Earth." Then you haven't been looking. "And I don't believe the US lands in the moon. Because until now, with this technology we have, which is better than that time, still we can't send humans to any planes even closest to us the moon." Project Artemis sends its regards.
    1
  31.  @vafaighani  What your 'believe' has no bearing upon the ratio of focal length of a wide angle lens compared to the film size which determines the field of view
    1
  32.  @hannacarter1352  "Just saying." And therein lies the problem. In the real world you people are ignored, but the internet gives a voice to your stupidity whilst conspiracy theory sells deluded fools such as yourself the illusion that you are somehow relevant or special. Here's a suggestion. Assuming that you have anything vaguely resembling a shred of humility or integrity then I'd like you to honestly ask yourself the following questions: 1/ How much do I genuinely know about the Van Allen Belts? - their shape extent and distribution? Energies and intensity? Type of radiation? 2/ What do I actually understand by alpha and beta particle radiation and shielding against it? 3/ What have I understood about the actual structure of the Command Module and the materials that it was fashioned from? 4/ What have I learnt about the trajectories flown by each of the Apollo missions and their passage through the belts? 5/ What do I know about what James Van Allen himself have to say about the belts and the Apollo missions? 6/ What have I done to challenge my preconceptions and the claims made by online conspiracy theorists in relation to the VABs? If the answer to these questions is nothing, then obtaining the answers will prevent you from humiliating yourself in the future and avoid making such a dumb and ignorant statement on a public comments section with no actual prior knowledge about the subject in the belief that consuming and regurgitating the same old crap online conspiracy theory makes you sound informed and clever. Fool.
    1
  33.  @Mitchell-lc5kj  "You probably didnā€™t graduate high school. You are very gullible and naĆÆve." To clarify...you think that the moon is "made of gaseous state", that the moon landings were shot at a London soundstage by Stanley Kubrick because social media told you so, and you don't understand why you can see "the sun and half the moon in the same sky." And I'm the "gullible and naive one that probably didn't graduate high school"? Righto then. You realise that everything that I am telling you is taught in high school? Kind of contradicted yourself there didn't you champ! "The moon rocks were fake" Fascinating. I repeat, despite being examined by an entire branch of science called geology and independently tested in analytical laboratories worldwide and rocks gifted to 135 countries...yes, I'll say that again, 135 countries, some random dumb conspiracy believer on the comments section of You Tube that thinks the moon is a ball of gas, now claims that the moon rocks were faked. Sigh, since - and only because - I find you goons so unintentionally amusing, go ahead then genius, demonstrate how that you have established that the Apollo moon rocks were "faked". Surely, surely, you can't be about to parrot the supposed Dutch moon rock/petrified wood again?
    1
  34.  @marksprague1280  To be honest, I think that got lost too in the process.
    1
  35. On the contrary, it certainly did as did Intrepid, Antares, Falcon, Orion and Challenger.
    1
  36. Absolutely - so long as they are legitimate ones. The problem with conspiracy theorists and the dumb believers in their nonsense is that they aren't remotely interested in the answers.
    1
  37. What about it?
    1
  38. "No one ever landed on the moon." On the contrary, there were six landings and twelve astronauts that walked on its surface. "It is literally impossible for human beings. Period." Fascinating. Entire branches of science and technology disagree with you and demonstrate otherwise. Could you, a random conspiracy believer on the comments of You Tube detail why? In so doing, you will naturally wish to avoid parroting the same old predictable junk conspiracy theory and scientific illiteracy that has been consumed and regurgitated over and over and over and over and over and over again and similarly debunked innumerable times. Do you have anything vaguely resembling your own ideas or observations or some actual legitimate independently verifiable sources in support of your claim, as opposed to a meme on FB or Tik Tok that told you what to think?
    1
  39. What unanswered questions about Apollo are you referring to? Naturally, you will be eager to avoid the same old predictable junk conspiracy theory that has been addressed and routinely dismissed over and over and over and over again? The problem with you cretins is that you aren't remotely interested in listening to any answers.
    1
  40.  Awoken777  Grow up.
    1
  41. No, on the Apollo programme, which is correct irrespective of your childish internet speak and dumb emojis.
    1
  42. Nothing gets past you genius. "Astro-nots". Never heard that before then. Do you people ever even occasionally have anything remotely resembling an original thought, observation or idea ever even occasionally entering your vacuous craniums?
    1
  43.  @RealidadeDaTerra  So a heap of puerile emojis, a childish abbreviation, personal incredulity, ad hominem logical fallacy and more conspiratorially addled nonsense. To be expected. "OMG you are so gullible" The irony - was it intentional? "your conspiracy theory and psyop does not work anymore" Nothing to do with me. You mean objectivity, logic and reason? Of course it doesn't register with you. "Nixon via Houston via What???" The call was placed from the Oval Office in Washington D.C. to Houston - clear so far? The conversion from radio system to landline system was relayed via a DSN station, in the case of Apollo one of the radio telescopes through the point-to-point microwave links across country that were also commonplace in that decade. International satellite communication was in place by 1965 - presumably you understand that much? So it's two way radio transmitters that you don't understand then?
    1
  44.  @RealidadeDaTerra  Your comment is shadow banned. 384,400 km to be more precise - and yes, there was a delay. Like I suggested, you really need to stop mindlessly consuming and regurgitating junk online conspiracy theory about subjects that you have no comprehension of. The communication signal speed is the same as the speed of light. The moon is 384,400 km away. The speed of light is 299,792 km/s. This means, even considering additional time delays through relays and equipment that would equate to a fraction over 3 seconds. However, this was only in one direction. Since the recording of the conversation took place on Earth, and Nixon was also on Earth, as soon as the astronautā€™s voice is heard, Nixon can and does answer immediately and we hear it immediately and without delay. The time delay is only apparent when Nixon finishes a sentenceā€¦ we donā€™t hear a reply from the astronauts for about three secondsā€¦ about 1.5 seconds for Nixonā€™s voice to get to the moon, and another 1.5 second for the astronauts reply to return to the Earth. There are also edited versions of the exchange on some documentaries that have removed this lag. Why is it even necessary to explain this? "Your science, your science." It's not "my science" - it's nothing to do with me since it can be objectively verified and if you had the slightest understanding of it you wouldn't have posted such nonsense in the first place. "Wake up" Never ceases to amuse, that ones that still insist on parroting this dumb clichĆ© are the ones that slept through science classes. "you are just a child." Said the naive believer in puerile online conspiracy theory.
    1
  45.  @RealidadeDaTerra  "OMG you are so naive šŸ¤£šŸ¤£šŸ¤£" Three more emojis and the same puerile populist abbreviation used by adolescents on social media. And again, coming from a gullible believer in online conspiracy theory. Again, nothing to do with me and no use saying it, go ahead and falsify the information in the response to you. Start with your own fallacious claim that there was no lag/delay. Go ahead, in your own time.
    1
  46.  @RealidadeDaTerra  "You must God" Come again? "I am really sorry for you" I would worry more about yourself not me.
    1
  47.  @RealidadeDaTerra  Why do think that You Tube supplants for an education? I went to yours and the first thing I encountered was a flat earth video.
    1
  48.  @neilarmstrongsson795  "An American myth that's all." Just one of many conspiracy theories that America seems so fond of inventing. "It's harmless" It's anything but - it's symptomatic of the rampant growth of populism, the decline in education and the emergence of opinion 'trumping' fact. "just leave it in the history books." I'd hardly term the likes of Kaysing as 'history' - fiction for sure.
    1
  49. Conspiracy horseshit. No moisture, no clear footprints. "LMFAO".
    1
  50. "There is enough catholics and freemasons with Mormons who we know are targeted for recruitment and o yeah there is enough scientist for lie of evolution and climate change!" What? "Backyard telescopes with digital cameras can definitely see a rocket of China, America or Like this week from Russia circling to land if it's being done today but we have nothing!" No they can't. What on Earth are you talking about?
    1
  51.  @franklidgad  Marcus Allen? Is this actually serious? This is as gullible as it gets.
    1
  52. @@attilahunnenkonig8528 Oh Jeez. You are seeing a camera artefact called image lag, typical of certain television pickup tubes of the era, including the Vidicon tube used in the Apollo TV Camera. This type of camera tube projects a scene onto a photoconductive target, creating a charge-density pattern which is then scanned to create the electric TV signal. As a result the electrical charge remains present on the target until it is re-scanned or the charge dissipates. Therefore image lag can cause a characteristic smear or tail following rapidly moving objects in a scene, and prolonged exposure of a bright stationary object results in a slow decaying after-image that creates a transparency or ghosting effect. This is then exacerbated by the fact that once the signal reached Earth, the image was then displayed on a bright CRT screen which was also afflicted by lag and re-captured using standard TV cameras using various image standards from TV systems around the world, all of which were subject to image latency too. This collectively resulted in a large residue of image artefacts, which were all completely normal and expected to TV viewers of the time. The same can be observed in TV footage on Earth. Why is it even necessary to explain this? "I don't understand something therefore it must be fake"
    1
  53. What are you referring to?
    1
  54. Because rebuilding and reconstructing a programme of such complexity as Apollo on a fraction of the budget has been a long and painstaking process. Modern technology that has usurped and replaced the old and obsolete still needs to be tested and validated. Project Artemis was only approved as recently as 2018. Artemis 3 pledges to return a crewed mission to the moon this decade, however, Space X needs to complete the HLS and ensure that is thoroughly tested.
    1
  55.  @ShanborSyngkli  Ah, some childish/puerile emojis from a conspiracy believer, what a refreshing change. There were nine manned missions to the moon and six landings, meaning that twelve men in total have walked on the lunar surface. It would have been at least twenty had it not been for the near catastrophe and aborted landing of Apollo 13 and the premature cancellation of the programme and with it, Apollo 18, 19 and 20. And no, known science is not a question of belief.
    1
  56. Said the believer in dumb online conspiracy theory.
    1
  57.  @RANGERtunes  Some more emojis...clever lad!
    1
  58. Why? I should imagine that would be terribly dull. There are no more than you'd encounter on a day to day basis or any other organisation - and so what if there are?
    1
  59. No one has officially said that "aliens exist" and there is no evidence that they do. It's almost a certainty that the universe harbours extraterrestrial life from single celled organisms to sentient beings, but very doubtful that the latter are even aware of us, far less visited the planet.
    1
  60.  @oskiewaskieshow3632  "Bet" what?
    1
  61. Speaking back in 2004, he was correct - since it was abandoned with the cancellation of Apollo.
    1
  62. Your birth certificate, education or your partner's sole orgasm?
    1
  63. This again? Seriously, how many times? Don Petit never said anything of the sort you complete clown. Pettit, speaking in 2017 used an unfortunate turn of phrase - "destroyed". Since then, conspiracy theorists and those that parrot their nonsense have obsessively fixated upon it because that's what they do. However, if you have a modicum of intelligence, critical faculty, integrity and the will to objectively appraise the information that you receive and you place his sentence within it's full and intended context, then it's abundantly clear what he is referring to. The premature cancellation of Apollo in 1972 due to the retraction of funding from congress and the lack of political and public will, resulted in the abandonment of the specific expertise, the tooling, the production processes, the plants and most significantly, the heavy lift capability that sent crewed missions to the moon. Emphasis was placed instead on low Earth orbit, primarily, the development of the Space Shuttle which promised much, but failed to deliver in terms of it's commercial and financial returns and launch cadence. The other huge project was obviously the construction of the ISS. Neither of which send man to the surface of the moon. Deep space exploration became the preserve of unmanned missions - robotic landers and probes, far cheaper and without the risk. Pettit was speaking prior to the approval of Project Artemis that will return man to the surface of the moon. The technology of Apollo is old and obsolete but since much of the hardware remains, you can understand that his use of the word 'destroyed' was metaphorical. Rebuilding a manned programme to the moon using modern technology that has superseded that of Apollo has been a protracted and painstaking process on a budget that is a fraction of that of Apollo. Why is it even necessary to explain this?...over and over and over again?
    1
  64. Precisely what 'technology' are you claiming has been lost?
    1
  65. Wait this isn't satire or a joke, you actually believe this don't you.
    1
  66. There are three methods of heat transfer: Radiative, in this case from the sun, conductive through contact and convective through a medium. Since the moon has no atmosphere, there is no air temperature so the latter can be disregarded in a vacuum. 250Ā° F is the peak equilibrium surface temperature of the moon at the equator. Conduction is irrelevant here, so that leaves the sun's radiative warmth. All of the Apollo missions were timed to coincide with the lunar dawn. Objects and surfaces on the moon take time to build up to that equilibrium temperature and the lunar daytime is equivalent to 15 Earth days.
    1
  67.  @MichaelJwolf1984  What on Earth are you talking about? Are you actually being serious? This has nothing to do with political affiliation, or opinion and it's nothing to do with me. This is basic high school science. Stay on topic. Read my reply. Your claimed 250Ā° F is peak equilibrium surface temperature. The lunar surface is essentially a vacuum. As explained the lunar daytime is equivalent to 15 days on Earth. All of the Apollo missions were timed to land at dawn which meant surface temperatures had not had time to build up. To clarify again, since there is no atmosphere on the moon, there is no air temperature and in the absence of convection, radiative heat transfer is the main source of heat. Conduction is limited. Heat and temperature are two different things. Heat is concerned with thermal energy, whereas temperature describes molecular kinetic energy. Heat is the transfer of thermal energy, whereas temperature is a property the object exhibits and describes the motion of molecules. Since the moon is essentially a vacuum there are very few of these to be excited. Temperature is essentially a measurement of how excited air molecules are. The higher the temperature, the more frenzied molecules become and the more they bounce off each other-and this interaction between particles is what creates heat. As explained, the surface of the moon is virtually a vacuum. There are very few particles, and what particles are present are spaced far apart. The main source of thermal energy transfer is radiative heating from the sun and this takes time to heat objects on the surface so it had no bearing upon the adhesion of a few strips of duct tape in the makeshift repair of the lunar rover fender. The temperature extremes that you mention are surface temperatures - extremes. The lunar surface and items on it take time to build up to their equilibrium temperature and the length of the lunar daytime is 15 earth days. Why is it even necessary to explain this?
    1
  68. You mean it doesn't tell you what you want to hear? Because the crap online conspiracy theory that you think you "learn truth" from is entirely and unfailingly honest, unwaveringly accurate and consistent, not in the least bit intentionally deceptive, misleading, fallacious, exploitative, opportunistic monetised or manipulative and with your best interests at heart is completely free of vested interest and agenda? Righto then.
    1
  69.  @fozzgate1120  Odd then that in over half a century, entire branches of science & technology, related specialist disciplines such as aerospace engineering the world over and the planets 76 other space agencies seem to have completely missed this supposed 'gotcha' "evidence". Meanwhile, nothing gets past a random, insignificant, gullible believer in dumb online conspiracy theory over the comments section of a video entertainment platform, that allows online con artists and grifters to tell them what to think about a subject they demonstrably have absolutely no knowledge of whatsoever, Who to give credence to? Tough one that.
    1
  70. What excessive insistence? If you mean debunking, the incessant dumb conspiracy theory that is consumed and regurgitated provokes responses. Why should it even be necessary to explain and defend this in the 21st century?
    1
  71. Project Artemis sends its regards. Incidentally - if you press the caps lock key a second time, you can turn it off.
    1
  72. It's 'GPT' you can't even get that right ffs!
    1
  73. "You Tube removed it". Or more accurately, the hoaxter that originally posted it. How is it possible to be this gullible?
    1