Comments by "MRA" (@yassassin6425) on "FACT CHECK: Former Russian Space Chief Repeats False Moon Landing Conspiracy Theory | VOANews" video.
-
18
-
"It just doesn’t make sense to me that we haven’t gone back ONCE?!?"
They did though - on five more occasions. It would have been nine or more, had it not been for the aborted Apollo 13 landing and the premature cancellation of the Apollo Programme and with it Apollo 18, 19 and 20.
"It doesn’t make sense."
It makes perfect sense when you understand the reasons why the Apollo Programme was cancelled and the emphasis that was placed elsewhere. Project Artemis that will return crewed missions to the surface of the moon was only approved as recently as 2018.
"Also all the evidence could have been planted there via shuttles & robots etc"
Could it? And how have you established this when you clearly know nothing about the science and technology of Apollo? How do you account for the ALSEP packages and in particular, The SW, SEP, PSE, ASE, HFE, CPLEE and the LPME? Also, the lunar rovers were designed to be unfolded and deployed by hand. Additionally, there is the third of a ton of moon rock returned within the space of three years which is utterly impossible by robotic means in such a time span. To date, there has been a total of 301 grams of lunar soil returned by robotic missions - the USSR's Luna 16, 20 and 24. Moreover, the Apollo 12 astronauts landed only 600ft from Surveyor 3 and brought the camera back to Earth with them which is now exhibited in the National Air and Space Museum. The astronauts also collected a scoop from the probe's soil mechanics-surface sampler.
11
-
9
-
8
-
7
-
5
-
"Biggest human feat in human history but yet no calendar day to celebrate"
There is though. July 20th, it's called 'National Moon Day'.
"face timing from the moon with no delay"
Facetime? I do hope you're joking. Nope. Radio transmission, it's a thing - newsflash, bloke called Marconi, 1895. And what on Earth are you talking about, there was a delay.
"riding dune buggies"
No, using purpose built lunar rovers during the later J missions, Apollo 15, 16 and 17, in order to extend the areas covered during EVA.
"playing golf on the moon in the 60s"
Wrong again - Apollo 14 1971. Al Shepherd, a keen golfer, smuggled a six iron head that was affixed to the shaft of his sampling tool and hit three balls. He scuffed the first two shots owing to the fact that there was obviously no tee, was restricted in movement due to his spacesuit and had to use on hand. So what?
"brainwashed people believe that crap"
Said the gullible junk online conspiracy believer with demonstrably no knowledge of the subject whatsoever.
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
"It's a shame that all world leaders are in cahoots."
Are they? Tell that to Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Vladimir Putin, or Benjamin Netanyahu and Ali Khamenei.
"The people with critical thinking know full well we've never been to the moon."
Whilst entire scientific disciplines; physics, mathematics, geology, branches of science such as astrophysics, astronomy, related specialist fields including rocketry, aerospace engineering, orbital mechanics and petrology - in short, all comprising highly skilled expertise, knowledge and individuals substantially more informed, accomplished and clever than a random conspiracy believer on the comments section of You Tube, do not? Ok then.
Incidentally, watching crap online conspiracy videos is the diametric opposite of 'critical thinking'.
"I've not mentioned this before"
Do you really think that you're that important or that the rational world gives two shits about your personal incredulity? You're nothing more that an insignificant self-aggrandising nobody on the comments section of a video entertainment platform afflicted by gross illusory superiority and a chronic case of Dunning Kruger syndrome.
"but that moon dust must be super heavy, while the astro nots were falling around and jumping and bouncing around they kicked up dust or sand that was not affected by the lower gravitation, it fell like sand at the beach while the astro nots were 'seemingly' relatively weightless"
Of course it was affected by the lunar gravitation, which is why it fell back to the surface. On the moon, the dust is just like a projectile motion. It goes up and it comes right down which is why there are no dust trails left by the lunar rover. It fell at the same rate of any other object but not necessarily at the same trajectory of the astronauts. Apollo 15's Dave Scott demonstrated that in the absence of air resistance a feather fell at the same rate as his geology hammer, as Galileo had concluded hundreds of years before - all objects released together fall at the same rate regardless of mass. This is precisely what we observe in the footage.
"what is probably the funniest part of this whole thing is people still believing anyone ever went to the moon"
Incorrect. What is "the funniest part of this whole thing" is people with zero knowledge about the topic gullibly consuming and regurgitating junk online conspiracy theory in the belief that they are informed and clever whilst deriding experts that are infinitely more accomplished than themselves.
Stick to making your crap comedy skits son.
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
@HexagonFL
The lunar sample building at Johnson Space Center is the chief repository for all the Apollo samples. This is where pristine lunar samples are prepared for shipment to scientists and educators. Nearly 400 samples are distributed each year for research and teaching projects - so this is ongoing and you can look into this yourself.
There are hundreds of peer reviewed publications over the last half a century that you could search for yourself. More recently, "Fresh look at Apollo Moon rocks reveals Solar System secrets" Witze, A (2019) Published in 'Nature' - a four star paper published in a Q1 journal which has an impact of 100. There's a very innovative project pioneered by researchers at the University of Chicago using atom probe tomography to analyse grains of sample 71501 from Apollo 17. The PI is geophysicist Jennika Greer, the paper is titled 'Atom probe tomography of space-weathered lunar ilmenite grain surfaces' and was published in 2020. To this day, Apollo samples are continuing to be analysed by geologists to provide important clues into the origin and evolution of the Moon. Planetary scientists at The Open University in the UK are at the forefront of much of the current work, and have been producing a microscope collection of over 550 rocks collected during the Apollo missions. You may also wish to look into the work of planetary scientist Erica Jarin who has specialised in the understanding of explosive volcanic deposits on the lunar surface which is why her work was based upon samples returned from Apollo 15 and 17.
As explained, after lunar rocks arrived on Earth, geochemists the world over analysed them for isotopes that decay over well-understood timescales and found that the moon samples were far older than most terrestrial rocks—between three billion and 4.5 billion years old. One of the first to receive these was the BRGM laboratory in France, the geoscience initiative affiliated with the French Geological Survery and one of the independent institutions selected across the world to take part in studying the components of various lunar samples. One of the world's authorities is Andrew Tindle a British geochemist who has conducted studies of the lunar mineralogy and petrology of Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15 and 16 Rocks.
All such sample studies are authenticated by the field of geology. So what are you going to suggest next, that NASA has managed to dupe or collectively co opted and coerced an entire branch of science for over half a century?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
So you declare something to be fake but then have questions? Sounds to me as though you aren't remotely interested in the answers.
1/ Cost. Manned missions to the moon are exorbitantly and to some, prohibitively expensive. This is precisely why the Apollo Programme was terminated prematurely in 1972. Nixon never liked it, it wasn't his brainchild and due to the lack of public and political will the unsustainable funding necessary to continue to send crewed missions to the moon was immediately cut and with it, the heavy lift capability abandoned. Nixon's baby was the commercial promise of the space shuttle, which in the event never delivered in terms of costing/returns or launch cadence. After which, the emphasis shifted to the construction of the ISS. Neither place a man on the moon. Similarly other space faring nations have favoured unmanned deep space exploration which is far, far cheaper and entails less risk. Crewed missions have also focussed upon low Earth orbit and duration over exploration.
2/ What on Earth are you talking about? Space X have conducted multiple missions delivering crews and payloads to space utilising the reusable Falcon boosters on the Falcon 9 and the Falcon Heavy. Are you confusing this with Starship?
Lading a craft with substantially less mass in the absence of an atmosphere and in 1/6th gravity is a completely different proposition to landing a rocket booster on Earth. Yes, the LM was tested prior to Apollo 11 - both the ascent and the descent stages. Apollo 5 carried out the first validation, Apollo 9 was crewed whilst as part of Apollo 10 - the dress rehearsal - Stafford and Cernan descended to within 60,000ft of the lunar surface. The LLTV was also instrumental in the training of the astronauts as was the simulator in which crews amasses hundreds of hours.
the USSR's Luna 16 was the first robotic mission to land on the Moon, collect samples of dust and rock, and return those samples to Earth. This was followed by Luna 20, Luna 23, Luna 24. This amounts to 226.1 grams (0.5 lbs)whilst the Chinese have returned almost 4 lbs. This is the entirety of samples brought back by unmanned missions throughout the history of space travel. In contrast, Apollo returned 382 kgs (a third of a ton) of moon rock in the space of three and a half years - something that could only have been accomplished in such a short space of time by manned landings. Incidentally, seven rovers have been historically successfully placed on the moon.
'Belief' and personal incredulity has no bearing upon demonstrable reality.
1
-
@pvn2474
We can talk now. Perhaps you we can commence with precisely how the SW, SEP, PSE, ASE, HFE, CPLEE and in particular, the LPME got on the lunar surface? In your own time, when you're ready.
Appreciating that "doing your homework" 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, do feel free to share - how precisely did you do yours?
1
-
@highcard3027
"I'm still curious how they got through the Van Allen Radiation Belt."
They are belts since there are two, with a third that is transitory. Why are you "curious" about something that you clearly know absolutely nothing about and have only heard of by virtue of crap online conspiracy theory?
How about you 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 perhaps obtaining the answers will sate your supposed curiosity? But let's be honest here - you aren't curious at all, otherwise you would have done so yourself instead of relying upon what dumb online conspiracy theory tells you to think.
"Then there is Buzz, and Armstrongs comments."
What comments? Can I suggest that you contextualise them instead of consuming online quote mined nonsense like a gullible moron? Incidentally, you mean "there are" not "there is" and 'Armstrong's needed apostrophising as such.
"2 died from "Accidents" after criticizing NASA"
No, wrong again. The Apollo 1 crew (Grissom, White and Chaffee), perished in a ground test due to the 100% oxygen rich atmosphere being ignited by a stray spark and the new capsule being full of flammables and an internal opening hatch which they were unable to escape through due to the cabin pressure. Hundreds of employees criticised the programme, Grissom was not alone - and many were far more vocal that he was. Indeed, a major redesign of the spacecraft was already in progress and NASA’s post-accident report stated openly that “deficiencies in design, manufacture, installation, rework and quality control existed in the electrical wiring... No design features for fire protection were incorporated... Non-certified equipment items were installed in the Command Module at time of test.”
"In Hebrew, Nasa means To Decieve"
No it doesn't. The Hebrew letter shin ש (the "s" in nasa) represents two different phonemes: 's' and 'sh' . The two are distinguished by a dot above the left-hand side of the letter for 's' (rendering the letter as "sin") and above the right-hand side for 'sh' (rendering the letter as "shin"). The letter shin has a dot on the right side indicating that the letter is pronounced "sh" and therefore rendering the word "nasha", not "nasa." Therefore, it is "nä·shä'. The letter s in nasa (dot above the left side of the letter) is pronounced like the s in side and means to "lift up". There is a rare verb in the Bible - “השׁיא” which means to deceive, but it’s pronounced HEY-SHEE. The verb ”נשׁא” as it appears in the dictionary does not appear even once in the Bible, and anyway as explained, it is pronounced NASHAA. It is completely not in use in modern Hebrew, and it is so rare that 99% of Hebrew speakers won’t even this verb exists.
Incidentally - it's 'deceive' not 'decieve'.
"Do your Own Digging. Or,,,Just believe the MSM Fake News lol"
Because the dumb online conspiracy horseshit that you have just moronically and naively parroted 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 entirely free of vested interest and agenda? Righto then. Clever lad!
1
-
1
-
@romeolarenzo3929
"It cost india a mere 75 million dollars to recently land on the moon. Are you seriously suggesting we can’t afford it"
No it cost India 75 million to place an unmanned lander on the moon, which is not what we are discussing here. Furthermore, the entire programme cost in the region of of $2.6 billion. And no, that was simply a strawman fallacy on your part - I did not say anything of the sort. To reiterate, Apollo was cancelled in 1972 due to the retraction of funding because Congress wasn't willing to pay for it anymore. The allocation of budget was diverted to low Earth orbit, the shuttle programme and the construction of the ISS, whilst deep space exploration became the preserve of unmanned probes and landers that are substantially cheaper and carry far less risk. Crewed missions to the moon are far, far more expensive in part because they require a heavy lift capability. Although the Constellation Programme produced Orion, Project Artemis was only approved in 2018 at a fraction of the funding of Apollo.
"Apparently we accidentally destroyed the tech , but how do you accidentally destroy 25 billion worth of research and development."
Actually most of the technology still survives. This stems from one astronaut, Don Pettit, who speaking in 2017 used an unfortunate turn of phrase. 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. Again, the premature cancellation of Apollo in 1972 due to the cessation 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, and as I mentioned, 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. 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 piecemeal budget compared to Apollo.
"I’m saying this all respectfully"
I understand and you have my appreciation for that.
"it just doesn’t add up at all."
It really does if you learn about the science, technology and history of spaceflight/Apollo as opposed to listening to junk online conspiracy theory.
"I’m sure there’s a reason to why we are known as the empire of lies."
All governments conspire and have a history of deception. No one in their right mind would suggest otherwise. But simply because they do that does not then logically follow that suggestions of a faked moon landing or any random conspiracy theory of one's arbitrary choosing, devising or consequence of personal bias/agenda should automatically be assumed to be true. A syllogistic logical fallacy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bigfist255
No it is not 'bull'. The deployment of the Apollo retroreflectors enabled far more precise measurements to be undertaken. Also, if you are claiming that they were placed there by unmanned landers, you then need to explain the ALSEP experimental packages that by design were conceived to exploit the benefits of manned deployment and thus could only be assembled, cabled and configured an astronaut. Go ahead explain the presence of the SW, SEP, PSE, ASE, HFE, CPLEE and in particular, the LPME.
"the Greek mathemation measured the distance in 270bc"
Aristarchus of Samos (310-230 B.C) devised a novel method of finding the moon's distance, by careful observation of a lunar eclipse. However these and subsequent measurements were approximate and have nothing to do with the increased accuracy yielded by the Apollo retroreflectors. Why is it even necessary to explain this?
What's a 'Mathamation'? Oh, you mean mathematician you utter dimwit.
"but you keep believing the propaganda."
Because of course the online conspiracy theory that you mindlessly regurgitate 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 entirely free of vested interest and agenda? Righto then. Carry on.
1
-
You Tube was facing imminent brand damage for propping up and nurturing online conspiracy theory. If you hadn't noticed, this is a profiteering racket attracting unscrupulous grifters and con artists. When you have sick people exploiting and making money out of the Sandy Hook shootings and the eventual serious ramifications that unfolded through QAnon then there is a serious problem and the lame argument that this stuff is "a bit of fun" or "harmless" is complete nonsense. Wait - you regard Alex Jones/Infowars as "in-depth"? Is this actually serious? If justification was ever needed for your 'choice' to be taken away from you.
I actually don't believe that it should. The issue is with the advent of the internet, not only do we have exploitative agenda driven opportunistic individuals harvesting the gullible and stupid, because that is their target market. We also have extremely dumb people availed with online access that don't know how to us it responsibly and have zero will or capability to independently verify the disinformation that they are fed, which the becomes misinformation where people would rather believe what they read on social media or regard Reddit as 'research', as opposed to actually learning about the topic itself. The internet has given every radical, extremist, nutjob and imbecile that would ordinarily be condemned and dismissed in the real world a platform and a voice - and idiots tend to shout the loudest. Free speech is the noose by which these fools eventually hang themselves, and I live in a forlorn hope that we have reached, or at least are approaching “peak bullshit”, when younger generations, who have grown up with the internet, can see through the twisted morass of nonsense they see online, having been inoculated against it through early exposure. The internet should be edifying and illuminating but where it can support and education, it certainly doesn't substitute or supplant for one.
If you wish to cherry pick and prop-up your preconceptions, a search engine will do that in seconds. All of the material that you mention can be found though a cursory search on Google - and guess who owns You Tube genius?
If you are missing your confirmation bias that much, then you always have alt-right conspiracy sites such as 'Rumble; and 'Odysee' or DuckDuckGo to reinforce your agenda and beliefs.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Photos prove nothing"
Actually, they prove a lot, particularly when they would have been impossible to fake.
"equipment can be placed with un manned craft."
It depends upon the equipment. The retroreflectors for example allow for greater accuracy than those placed by the Soviet Union, since they were deployed and aligned manually. Please feel free how the SW, SEP, PSE, ASE, HFE, CPLEE and in particular, the LPME were "placed with an unmanned craft" and provide the details of the latter.
"Just because someone says there's lots of proof means nothing, talk is cheap"
It isn't about what "someone says". The scientific, technical, historical, independent and third party evidence in support of the Apollo moon landings that you are clearly oblivious to, is manifest, axiomatic and has a voice of its own.
The Apollo Programme is the most detailed and documented engineering projects of such scale and complexity in history. It was completely transparent - which is why it was infiltrated by the Soviets. For over half a century entire branches of science, specialist disciplines and fields of expertise worldwide have forensically scrutinised every mission profile, every schematic, specification down to sensors, rivets, nuts, bolts, switches and circuit breakers and the history and technology of the Programme has been exhaustively examined through thousands of books, journal publications/academic papers, technical authorships and each of the 76 other space agencies on the planet.
Today, we have dumb online grifters selling horseshit to gullible conspiracy theory believers with zero knowledge of the subject that think a social media meme substitutes for the education that eluded them. Just because "they say" it was fake, that does not mean that it is. Talk is cheap.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"What about that moon rock given to holland and turnes out to be wood"
What about it? The supposed rock was a private gift to former prime minister Willem Drees Jr in 1969. Drees had been out of office for 11 years, but was considered an elder statesman. When Drees died in 1988, the 'rock' was donated by his family to the Rijksmuseum without verification, and having been briefly exhibited was kept in storage for two decades until it was later discovered to the curator's great embarrassment to have been petrified wood. It had nothing to do with NASA or the US government. The Goodwill rocks given by NASA to the Dutch government are accounted for in other Dutch museums throughout the Netherlands and encased in Lucite as were all moon rocks officially distributed around the world as gifts. You could have established this for yourself but I guess it's easier to parrot the same old dumb conspiracy theory off junk social media.
"no crater off jet engines"
Jet engines? On the moon? Is this actually serious? The rocket descent engine on the Lunar Module was throttleable and was only producing around 2,700lbs of thrust at the point of touchdown. This was sufficient to pick up dust and blast it laterally, but the surface of the moon is solid rock beneath. The nozzle had a diameter of 59 inches which meant that equates to 11 psi chamber pressure and having an area of 2,700 square inches even at full power, the pressure of gas leaving the engine bell was only 0.037 PSI. Moreover, if you do want to mention jet engines, in comparison the 24,000 lb thrust of a Harrier jump-jet, does not make a crater when it lands - even on grass!
"no stars"
There are no stars visible in the footage and photographs on the surface of the moon due to aperture and exposure settings and the fact that it was the lunar daytime.
"astronauts on wires jumping to there feet from face down position"
Nope - wrong again. Propelling themselves upwards in 1/6th gravity. Incidentally, you needed to employ the determiner their as opposed to the adverb, there.
"in all the missions not one astronaut thought to take a picture of earth not one"
Another demonstrable falsehood. There are multiple images of the Earth captured in the Apollo footage and film, from cislunar space, lunar orbit and the surface of the moon.
"all photos of space are cgi nasa admits"
CGI in the 1950s, 60s and 70s? Why are you lying? NASA have 'admitted not such thing. They use composites and colour enhancement which is completely different.
"it goes on and on"
No, let me help you here. What goes on and on are imbecilic gullible conspiracy believers simply because you fools are ignored in the real world whilst the internet gives you a platform to air your lack of education, ill-informed stupidity and scientific illiteracy.
Mate, you are absolutely clueless. If you think that your naively consumed and regurgitated conspiracy theory about subjects that you demonstrably know nothing whatsoever about makes you sound informed and clever, you need to understand that all you are accomplishing is your own humiliation. It may make you feel relevant and special but since you can barely compose a coherent cogent sentence, I suggest that you have more pressing concerns to attend to.
1
-
Sigh.
"OK lets start the journey from earth to moon........started from a gigantic rocket, then many parts of the rocket separated through out the journey and at the end become a small lunar module that landed on the moon."
The Saturn V was a three stage heavy lift rocket capable of placing 130 tons into earth orbit. The first stage (SI-C) was powered by a cluster of five F1 engines collectively producing 7.5 million lbs of thrust at lift off. These burned for 2 minutes and 41 seconds, lifting the rocket to an altitude of 42 miles and a speed of 6,164 miles per hour. The second stage (S-II) contained five J-2 engines. After the first stage was discarded, these burned for approximately 6 minutes at 1.2 million lbs of thrust, taking the vehicle and payload to 115 miles altitude and 15,500 mph. The Third stage (SIV-B) then placed Apollo in a circular parking orbit 1,640 miles downrange at an altitude of 118.8 miles (191.2 km) with an orbital velocity of 17,432 mph. Trans lunar injection was performed by the restartable J-2 engine in the S-IVB third stage of the Saturn V rocket. Apollo 11′s S-IVB burned for 5 minutes, 41.01 seconds achieving a velocity of 24,994.656 mph to send it to the moon - it was then a coast. The third stage was abandoned once the lunar module had been extracted by the CSM. It was this stack that journeyed to the moon. Since the Earth's gravity continually exerts a force on the vehicle, Apollo was steadily losing speed until it fell into the lunar sphere of gravitational influence at which point it began to accelerate again. So they coasted away from earth, they slowed gradually to just under 3,292mph before the gravitational influence of the moon allowed them to pick up speed again. Lunar orbit insertion was then achieved through a burn of the SPS engine which lasted 6 minutes and placed the craft in an initial elliptical lunar orbit and a second burn lasting just 17 seconds and eased Apollo 11 into a circular orbit of 69 miles at 3,600mph.
"Ironically that lunar module though small, was able to carry a moon rover the size of a normal car (how they fitted the moon rover in the lunar module, nobody knows)."
Yes they do - this is all accessible knowledge. The lunar rovers were taken as part of the later J Class missions - Apollo 15, 16 and 17. These were folded and stowed in quadrant 1 of the equipment bay. You can readily find the full schematics detailing this in addition to the photos and footage of their stowage and deployment on Earth and the surface of the moon. Even if you claim that the Apollo Programme is faked, your statement is irrespective of this demonstrably false. Why do you people do this to yourselves?
"Now the return journey.......this supposed to be complicated. No more big rocket. The lunar module can surpassed the moon gravity (although moon gravity is 1/6 of earth)......but you still need a tremendous force to do that. Lunar module cannot afford to do that."
The force you exert on a surface due to gravity pulling you down is measured in Newtons (N) - this depends on the strength of gravity at a given location - in this case 0.17g. The ascent rocket expelled exhaust gases at Ve = 3.0 x 103 m/s. Its initial mass, including fuel, was 4800 kg. With no atmosphere, they could accelerate constantly, get up to speed very quickly and could reach orbit at very low altitude. That's a lot less fuel required. In 100 sec, the ascent stage was travelling over 600 mph. In under seven minutes, they had reached orbital velocity. The LM ascent stage weighed just about 1700 lb on the moon and had a 3500 lbf engine, so it had easily enough thrust. Ignition was hypergolic and the lunar lander's ascent engine used Aerozine 50, a half-and-half mixture of hydrazine and unsymmetric dimethylhydrazine (UDMH) developed for the Titan 2 and witnessed during the Gemini programme.
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 rendezvous 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. 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. This was again a coast and Apollo progressively increased velocity due to the influence of the Earth's gravity.
"NASA wants us to believe the lunar module was using RE/solar energy in 1969"
What on Earth are you talking about now? The lunar module didn't use solar energy, it was powered by storage batteries whilst the CSM relied on fuel cells to generate electricity. 1969? - the first solar device to produce electricity from sunlight was installed on a rooftop in New York in 1883 by American inventor Charles Fritts.
"It is just a BS story created by the American."
You'll find in life that before you write something off as a "BS story", it's advisable to familiarise yourself with at the very least, some basic knowledge of the topic concerned.
Or, you could make a complete tit of yourself through arguments from ignorance and incredulity and a deferral to junk online conspiracy theory about a subject that you clearly have no knowledge of whatsoever.
1
-
@BadAtTeaDude
"Wasn't too expensive or dangerous with never before created or used tech."
Are you pissed? The Apollo project was obscenely expensive which is why it was prematurely canceeled.
"Now it's too dangerous and costly and nobody else has come close to the fraud landings nasa did 53 years ago with technology that "exists"."
It's always been expensive and dangerous - what the hell are you talking about? Bye the way, Project Artemis says hi.
"That time they did something with technology then couldn't repeat it."
They repeated it five times. It would have been nine more times had it not been for the aborted landing of Apollo 13 and the cancellation of Apollo 18, 19 and 20.
"Like the model T."
What?
"Or crossing the Atlantic in a wooden ship in a few months..."
Are you ok? Seriously?
"How about those Wright brothers? Or pennacylin.. Heart surgery."
What about it?
Don Pettit in 2014 was discussing the cancellation of the Apollo Programme. And he didn't say "lost", that is false, he used an equally unfortunate choice of wording in saying 'destroyed' which hoax nuts have obsessively fixated upon since. You don't, 'lose' technology in the sense that it is forgotten, mislaid or mysteriously disappears. All the technology remained but rapidly became obsolete. You lose the capability 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, Pettit was referring to the heavy lift capability which was also forsaken in favour of the Space Shuttle Programme and the construction of the ISS. It is a given in engineering that it's far faster, easier, better, and cheaper to simply take the lessons learned by older programmes rather than trying recreate old equipment. There is no longer the capability to fly passengers at supersonic speeds. When civil aviation eventually returns to supersonic flight (it's been nearly half a century since the demise of Concorde), it isn't about to roll a 1960s design, featuring 1960s hardware out of the hangar. Rebuilding such a complex project as Apollo on a similarly massive scale and utilising contemporary technology on a fraction of the budget of the Apollo Programme has been a long and protracted, painstaking process. Project Artemis was only approved in 2018.
Why is it that this has to be explained to you freaks over and over and over again?
1
-
1
-
1
-
Why should he? Particularly since he was an atheist.
Sigh, this again? How many times? Why should anyone after years of harassment be forced to swear on a magic book brandished in front of them by that deranged stalker and conspiracy nutjob Bart Sibrel?
Imagine that you did something truly revolutionary, at unimaginable risk to yourself. You did it on national TV, with the whole world watching. Hundreds of thousands of people can personally attest to what you did…Then some shameless grifter with a camera crew comes up to you and demands that you go through some pseudo-formal rigmarole to “prove” that you actually did it. Now, not only is this charlatan insinuating that you faked your great accomplishment, based on half-baked theories and zero hard evidence, but he’s also arrogantly proclaiming himself to be the supreme arbiter of truth (i.e., “If you don’t pass my test, then that proves you faked it”). When Neil Armstrong was approached he retorted, “Mr. Sibrel, knowing you, that’s probably a fake Bible.” And to reiterate, why should he have sworn on it? he wasn’t Christian. His NASA paperwork marks his religious preference as “none.”
However, Jim Lovell, Al Bean and Eugene Cernan all did. You therefore have no choice but to accept that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@YAHsdaughter7
"oh they say they went to the moon but they just happen to destroy the ability to go to the moon"
One astronaut, Don 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.
"and now they say they meed new technology to go again"
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?
"Sounds pretty fishy to me"
So because you know nothing about it and lack the intelligence to comprehend it you instead conclude that NASA are lying.
"Wheres the real proof ???"
The scientific, independent and third party evidence in support of the moon landings that you are completely oblivious to is manifest, demonstrable and has a voice of its own.
"Wheres the real proof the earth is not a globe ???"
What the hell are you talking about now? There is none whatsoever. We have known that the Earth is spherical since Eratosthenes measured it in 240BC. Why are you changing the subject?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@alexledezma6811
".... fine...that's all on You"
Nothing to do with me - I am irrelevant to this exchange.
"I do have one question..., why is it that the globalists worry so much about theories that confront the status quo in science...?"
What do you mean by 'globalists'? A Globalist is an individual who supports the belief that economic and foreign policy should be planned internationally, rather than serving the interests of individual countries.
You get debunked because anti-science and misinformation are highly damaging. You are challenged to evidence your claims which none of you are able to do. Flat earthers conspiracy theorists are all crooks, not just idiots. petty crooks, true, but part of their business model is to create an environment of distrust of science and rational thought, and refusal to ever measure anything. and that is a serious problem for society. besides which, they spread so much malice that it's a good idea to pound them flat while they are small.
"P S ..the flat earth movement belief has been around since ancient times"
Same with dragons, pixies, faeries, ghosts and ghouls - so what? Known science is not a question of "belief".
"But after Galileo and his peers the Geo centric idea has been imposed."
Nope, wrong again. We have known that the Earth is a globe since antiquity.
"only until about 10 years ago has the flat earth movement is taken impulse"
And when you say "impulse" what bearing does any of this nonsense have on reality? You mean the grifters behind it make crap videos, host ridiculous conferences and profiteer out of the idiocy of others.
"and according to studies, about 30 to 40 % of people in the american continent question the Geo centric idea."
What "studies" would they be? The highest that I've seen is range between 9-12%, which is still shocking, but is simply a consequence of granting online access to exceedingly dim people that think that watching an Eric Dubay video makes them sound informed and clever and substitutes for the education that eluded them.
I went through school in the 1970s and 1980s. There would invariably be a couple of students who couldn’t quite grasp certain concepts in science. They were insignificant irrelevant and they'd live their lives in obscurity but live off the spoils of those that shaped the world through science and education. Today they find each other on the internet which they think compensates for their failings. They find validation for their lack of understanding, and then they embrace it. They’re fed the hook “you’re one of the smart ones, you always knew they were lying to you.” Facts don’t matter at that point, and yet another conspiracy believer is born. Throw in that special feeling conferred by adherence to conspiracy theory and an ample helping of illusory superiority/Dunning Kruger effect, and we have what we have. Adherents to these belief systems are impervious to evidence to the contrary, and prefer the company of like minded simpletons to that of people who try to educate them. The embracing of a conspiratorial narrative often helps loners to find a tribe in which they are welcomed. That social, tribal belonging is a very strong driver, and the fear of rejection or estrangement from a group that welcomed and accepted them is incredibly powerful.This is all just an unfortunate, yet understandable side effect of the internet. This is something we’re always going to have to battle in the interest of edification.
"To belive that almost half the population are idiots would qualify as being dumber than the actual issue..."
Contrary to your claim, half of the American population do not subscribe to a flat earth belief. That 40% of the American population are idiots is probably reasonably accurate as the next US election will doubtless demonstrate. Half the world is composed of idiots, the other half of people clever enough to take indecent advantage of them.
"The thing about smart people is that they seem like crazy to dumb people"
Those that perpetrate flat Earth theory are not crazy - they are simply extortionists that harvest stupidity for profit - and as such, you are the target market.
A wise man can play a fool, but a fool can't play wise.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dalton-jon-f5791
"We are talking about motive means and opportunity to fake it and we don't know if the actual means for the descent existed for that mission but we do know there was a huge motive to do it and to do it before the Russians, which leaves the door open for fraud. There was a strong motive for fraud and that's undeniable."
No, there wasn't - there was a strong motivation to actually place a man on the moon. Faking it would have been impossible, not to mention keeping it a secret for over half a century.
"I don't mind discussing this with anyone except those blinded by pride and in a form of intellectual exclusivity which confines their rationale to points which support their world view. whilst we are all somewhat guilty of this as human beings we can refrain from insult or snark in an effort to come to the truth."
You just described online conspiracy believers to a tee.
"Also this,, The Russian space administration subjected the Apollo 11 photos to an AI analysis this past year and found them to be fraudulent. If you are of a mind that discounts this as Putin propaganda then perhaps link me to a stateside AI analysis which confirms them as real."
This again - really? No they didn't, that was a Russian conspiracy theorist.
AI is not intelligent, it cannot reliably distinguish true from false. for example, if you feed low-resolution, compressed scans of Apollo photos to Google AI together with flawed instructions as one grifter in Russia did, it will find the compression artefacts. It's the old computing adage of garbage in garbage out. It then got seized upon by other conspiracy theorists, circulated on social media memes and lapped up and regurgitated by the gullible believers in this nonsense always eager to parrot confirmation bias without having any understanding whatsoever of the subject that they wish to brand as fake. I have never, repeat never, encountered a moon landing conspiracy believer that is knowledgeable about the science and technology of space exploration or the history of the Apollo Programme. It's all the same old obligatory, prescriptive rote learned conspiracy theory that tells them what to think and say.
Last December AI provided Meteo-France with a forecast of 28° for Strasbourg as it was opening its Christmas market. This is just on example of some of the aberrations that are being thrown up by its reliance upon its new automated AI system. In fact disquiet over the replacement of meteorologists by artificial intelligence and the demonstrable decline in accuracy have resulted in industrial action and a legal case.
The scientific/technological and third party evidence in support of the moon landings however is incontrovertible.
What's your point?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@syedrabeeh
"Cut the crap / 1969 —- they said it was shot on a Leica and there is no way that camera could have been operated unman at that time , also how did you take the footage back without recovering the camera or the film."
I've read this several times - and I think you meant 'unmanned' yes? Could you explain precisely why remote control technology was impossible in 1971/1972? Since you haven't the first idea what you are talking about it's necessary to explain to you that the GCTA that captured the departure of Apollo 15, 16 and 17 was not used in any landings prior to this due to the fact that it was only the later J Missions that took the lunar rovers.
"also how did you take the footage back without recovering the camera or the film."
This comment is so breathtakingly stupid - even for you - I'll leave you to work out why.
"Bro take a deep breath and look at our atmosphere, no human have ever left exosphere"
Actually 24 human beings have journeyed beyond the boundary of the exposphere, which extends to approximately 6,200 miles from our planet.
Perhaps you are referring to the geocorona. A recent discovery based on observations by the ESA/NASA Solar and Heliospheric Observatory, SOHO, shows that the gaseous layer that wraps around Earth reaches up to 630 000 km away, or 50 times the diameter of our planet, far further than previously postulated. One of the spacecraft instruments, SWAN, used its sensitive sensors to trace the hydrogen signature and precisely detect how far the very outskirts of the geocorona are. These observations that have not been made before could be done only at certain times of the year, when the Earth and its geocorona came into view for SWAN.
You realise that by "atmosphere", this means 0.5 atoms per cc on the lunar surface? Of course you didn't.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Last time you checked? You mean the last crap conspiracy theory video you watched or junk social media meme that told you what to think? A studio is it? Where? Hollywood? or was it Shepperton or Pinewood perhaps? But wait, what of Area 51 Nevada? Hang on, wasn't it supposed to be the Arizona desert? Death Valley? or surely Devon Island Canada? No, no, surely it was Cannon AFB New Mexico? You goons can't even get your stories straight. I guess it depends on which conspiracy theorist you allow yourself to be duped by.
Got to say though, that must be some 'studio" 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 fool an entire branch of science called geology for over half a century in the process.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
No - the Apollo moon landings were all fraught with danger and plagued by technical issues which is why no one claimed anything of the sort.
I'm assuming you mean the covid vaccinations? Actually, they prevented 14·4 million 95% credible interval deaths from COVID-19 in 185 countries and territories between Dec 8, 2020, and Dec 8 2021. Of these, 0.053% had an adverse reaction. In the EU alone, those that suffered a fatal reaction to vaccination represents 0.52% of the 2,169,191that died of coronavirus.
Death has occurred at a rate of approximately 5 cases per one million vaccine doses administered. This includes cases of anaphylaxis, a severe type of allergic reaction that can occur after any kind of vaccination. To put this into perspective, there are 120 deaths per million from road accidents per year on all those "safe and effective" highways in the USA. Presumably, you don't drive or allow yourself to be driven then?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"I think their problem is they can’t figure out how we went through the van Allen belt"
Firstly, there are two belts, with a third that is transitory. You need to understand that these are toroidal diffuse 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 Apollo 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.
When NASA commenced its lunar spaceflight program, its scientists already knew about the belts and their spatial and energy distribution. 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. So engineers fashioned 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. This was all understood in the early 1960s. To quote James Van Allen directly:
"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."
"nasa’s space station astronauts keep saying they are trying to figure out how to get through the dangerous radiation without damaging equipment or killing them but will have the answer soon."
No 'space station astronaut' has said anything of the sort. Terry Virts and Don Pettit discussed the loss of a heavy lift capability following the cancellation of Apollo. Also, in 2014, prior to the test flight of the (then) new Orion capsule, engineer Kelly Smith in a video called 'Orion: Trial by Fire" discussed the challenges posed by radiation to the sensitive electronics and systems that are used in spacecraft today in comparison to the radiation hard Apollo spacecraft.
Stop listening to junk online conspiracy theorists and
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@avestaone-lo3de
"And I suggest you familiarize yourself with the Van Allen belt"
Which one? There are two, with a third that is transitory.
What about them? Let's face it, the only reason that you've actually heard of the belts in the first place is because some online con artist grifting junk conspiracy theory told you what to think about them. if you have a shred of 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, (and his soviet counterpart Sergei Vernov) had 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 on a public comments section with no actual prior knowledge about the subject whatsoever.
"and the footage of your heroes FAKING distance from Earth from inside your beloved Apollo 11."
'A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon'? Is this serious? You mean footage that had long been publicly and commercially available years before that renowned con artist, liar and grifter Bart Sibrel tampered with it? How gullible does it get? Can I recommend you watch the entire TV transmission rather than the 2 minutes that Sibrel allows the viewer to see. Also listen to the astronauts radio communication during this time, something again Sibrel doesn't allow the viewer to hear. Interestingly, if you can be bothered to view the entire footage (remember, this was available on DVD via Spacecraft films in the late 1990's well before Sibrel release of his claimed "never seen before" footage) you will see the image of earth was filmed through a rectangular window and not the circular window Sibrel claims. You will also note that we can see the entire west coast of America and much of the Pacific Ocean - something not possible for a spacecraft in low earth orbit. And finally, Apollo was easily the brightest object in the sky (bar the Sun and Moon) and if it had remained in low earth orbit for the duration of the mission it would have been observed by thousands - and yet it wasn't. However, what we do have is observations of the spacecraft in cislunar space. The whole low earth orbit claim is demonstrably false. Sibrel harvests stupidity for profit, and you are the target market.
1
-
1
-
1