Comments by "MRA" (@yassassin6425) on "" video.
-
12
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
_"What mixed bag of misunderstanding the issues, strawman arguments, untruths and dismissive analysis by the astronomer."
Well he is after all dealing with the same old obligatory junk conspiracy theory which specialises in strawman arguments, untruths and dismissal.
But then, online conspiracy theory is of course entirely and unfailingly honest, unwaveringly accurate and consistent, not in the least bit intentionally deceptive, disingenuous, misleading, fallacious, exploitative, opportunistic, profiteering or manipulative and with your best interests at heart is entirely free of vested interest and agenda? Righto then.
The sole problem here is that he isn't saying what you want to hear.
1/ No it doesn't. It moves when disturbed either by contact with an astronaut or venting from the PLSS. And yes, the rod has everything to do with it.
2/ Incorrect. It was not possible to see the stars from the lunar surface due to the glare of the sun and the moon's albedo - just as is the case here on Earth during the daytime. And there are many accounts of the Apollo astronauts being awestruck by the stars, particularly around the far side of the moon during the lunar night time.
3. The moon does have a low albedo, but it was still bright enough to cast shadows, just as it can here on Earth. The shadows are entirely consistent with a single light source.
4. Absolute utter nonsense and highly ironic since conspiracy theorists and their gullible believers obsess over 'several feet of lead' not realising that this will actually produce secondary radiation when hit by charged alpha and beta particles in the VABs due to bremsstrahlung. In cislunar space the main danger beyond the protection of the earth's magnetosphere as you say, comes from CMEs and solar particle events. The hull of an Apollo command module rated 7 to 8 g/cm2. The Apollo programme coincided with a solar maximum and the programme took a calculated risk. They were very fortunate, because between Apollos 16 and 17 there was an SPE. a moonwalker caught in the August 1972 storm might have absorbed 400 rem. Although serious they would have returned to earth with sufficient time to be treated. The key is time and intensity. Furthermore, with notice, the aluminum hull of the lunar module would have attenuated the 1972 storm from 400 rem to less than 35 rem at the astronaut's blood-forming organs.
Astronauts on the lunar surface absorb about 60 microsieverts of radiation per hour. That's 5 to 10 times higher than the rate experienced on a trans-Atlantic passenger flight and about 200 times what we get on Earth's surface. Charged particles such as galactic cosmic rays (GCRs), which are accelerated to tremendous speeds by faraway supernova explosions, contribute about 75% to this total lunar-surface dose rate of 60 microsieverts per hour. So it wasn't an issue for the Apollo astronauts but any prolonged habitation would necessitate shielding because this can spike massively. Doses received by the crewmen of Apollo missions 7 - 17 were small because no major solar-particle events occurred during those missions. The highest total dose recorded at skin level was the crew of Apollo 14 at 1.14 rads (due to the path taken through a denser region of the VABs). The Alpha and Beta particles within are easy to shield against. Total mission doses would have been in the region of 1 - 1.5 rems.
5. Yes there was a camera mounted upon the MESA bay - but the amount of people in these comments sections that are unable to comprehend this is staggering. It's absurdly one of the most commonly raised objections to the moon landings.
Ah, the compartmentalisation chestnut - again - and yet you hilariously refer to his rebuttal as a "trope". The US government couldn't even keep a burglary on a hotel secret or a b*** job from a summer intern quiet. "Compartmentalisation" is just a magic spell hand-wave favoured by conspiracy theorists. You can't compartmentalise a project of such complexity and consisting of so many interwoven parts and reciprocity. Any alteration/revision in any part of the production process or system affected all the other parts. NASA actually had to do the complete opposite of compartmentalisation and engender a culture of communication and openness. An entire department was charged with the task of nothing except version-keeping and distributing materials to all the contractors involved. Contractors forced engineers from different departments working for NASA to interact and talk - for example, separate canteens were discouraged and closed to encourage greater cooperation Had it have been attempted any other way (not that it could have been) such clandestine working would have meant that Kennedy's goal of placing man on the moon by the end of the decade would have been unachievable. Even defence contracts operate like that, and NASA was not a military organisation. Plenty of personnel were dismissed during and since the Apollo Programme and its employees were mostly civilians, free to move about, have beers with strangers and go on vacations. Yet no one talked or smuggled a bunch of smoking-gun documentation out, and the entire scam would have been blown wide open by investigative journalism - not to mention the resident/participatory press and journalists. The Apollo Programme was scrutinised by the entire world and was under a global lens. It was then and has been in the half a century since. Yet a community of online conspiracy believers with zero knowledge of the science, technology and history of spaceflight/the Apollo Programme claim to know better that entire branches of science, specialist fields and cognate disciplines such as aerospace engineering, Noble Prize winning physicists and Pulitzer awarded journalists that have collectively failed to notice these supposed 'gotchas' collectively consumed and regurgitated over comments sections and social media.
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@carlhawkins-tu9yl
On the contrary, lunar resources encompass solar power potential, oxygen, and abundant elements including, among others, hydrogen , oxygen, silicon, iron, magnesium, calcium, aluminium, manganese and titanium. Also, non-radioactive helium-3 from the moon may one day power nuclear fusion reactors. Water can also be found in the poles. Beyond our near neighbour, measurements by rovers and satellites at Mars have also indicated massive amounts of water in the form of ice beneath and within the regolith. Mineral resources are in abundance as well, including iron, titanium, nickel, aluminum, sulfur, chlorine and calcium.
When the technology is put in place to extract this in an economically viable way, there will be a race to lay claim to different regions of the moon and later Mars and the scramble to exploit their resources will commence...in the case of the moon, likely in the latter half of this century as the lunar economy opens up.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
When NASA commenced its lunar spaceflight program, its scientists already knew about the Van Allen Belts and their spatial and energy distribution. The energies: 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. That is why mission planners were able to calculate safe trajectories through them exposing the astronauts to as little as1 - 1.5 rems.
They also knew that GCRs both in cislunar space and on the surface of the moon would not present a challenge given the short duration of the Apollo missions. On the lunar surface astronauts were subject to a measured average of 60 microsieverts of radiation per hour from GCRs. That's only 5 to 10 times higher than the rate experienced on a trans-Atlantic passenger flight.
The main hazard was the possibility of a CME/SPE during one of the missions. The Apollo programme coincided with a solar maximum and NASA took a calculated risk. They were very fortunate, because between Apollos 16 and 17 there was an SPE. a moonwalker caught in the August 1972 storm might have absorbed 400 rem. Although serious they would have returned to earth with sufficient time to be treated. The key is time and intensity. Furthermore, with notice, the aluminum hull of the lunar module would have attenuated the 1972 storm from 400 rem to less than 35 rem at the astronaut's blood-forming organs. That's the difference between needing a bone marrow transplant, or having a headache.
There were plans in place to deal with a large scale CME. These storms would not have been instantly deadly, but could have caused a serious case of acute radiation syndrome. The plan was if such an event happened was to get home ASAP, and treat the ARS on Earth.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
@hoanglinhle4468
"Which exactly "third party evidence" told you so?"
By the time of The Apollo missions, and actually, by Shepherd's first Mercury flight, NASA had already established at least 30 ground stations on five continents; several islands; and aboard ships sailing the Atlantic, Indian and Pacific oceans. This required the complicity of foreign nations and governments. However, countries such as Australia were eager to directly participate and the U.S. encouraged them to take the helm of the DSN communications stations. NASA selected the Parkes Observatory in New South Wales, Australia, to receive the remote Apollo 11 moonwalk readings, or telemetry, whilst the 85-foot antenna at Honeysuckle Creek to the south tracked the LEM and the moonwalks. If the USA was going to fake the videos, it would take the cooperation of those other countries to do it. Spain for example, offered Robledo and Fresnedillas. There were also independent institutions and facilities most famously Jodrell Bank Observatory in the UK, which was used to observe the mission, as it was used years previously for Sputnik. At the same time as Apollo 11, Jodrell Bank scientists were tracking the uncrewed Soviet spacecraft Luna 15 which was trying to land on the Moon. In July 2009, Jodrell released some recordings that Sir Bernard Lovell's team had made. But there are also many, many others, such as Pic du Midi Observatory (in the French Pyrenees), The Arcetri Observatory near Florence, Italy and the Catalina Station of the Lunar and Planetary Laboratory. The Bochum Observatory director (Professor Heinz Kaminski) was able to provide confirmation of events and data independent of both the Russian and U.S. space agencies. This in addition to thousands of amateur radio operators/technicians and astronomers across the globe. NASA released information to the public explaining where third party observers could expect to see the various craft at specific times according to scheduled launch times and planned trajectories. The TLI burn was visible in the sky from the Apollo 15 mission. There was even a group at Kettering Grammar School who using simple radio equipment, monitored Soviet and U.S. spacecraft and calculated their orbits. In addition to this, academics in the Soviet Union published a paper in 1978 measuring coordinates with the various sectors of the RATAN-600 telescope. The selenographic coordinates of the ALSEP transmitters deployed on the lunar surface by the Apollo 12 and 14-17 crews were measured to an accuracy of 1.0 to 1.5 deg of arc (or 12-15 arcsec in alpha and delta) with a 1.5-arcmin x 1-deg beam. ALSEP was designed to be assembled and configured by hand and could only have been placed there by manned landings. Also, independent geologists and mineralogists worldwide have examined the Apollo moon rocks using petrological analysis. Planetary scientists at The Open University in the UK are spearheading a microscope collection of over 550 rocks collected during the Apollo missions. BRGM in France were one of the first independent laboratories to analyse a moon rock from Apollo 11,. The Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) SELENE lunar probe has imaged the landing sites which have also been captured by India's Chadrayaan-2 orbiter which photographed the Apollo 11 Lunar Module Eagle descent stage (the orbiter's image of the Apollo landing site was released to the public on September 3, 2021). They were also confirmed by China's second lunar probe, Chang'e 2.
These are just some of the examples of the top of my head.
"All I have seen so far are "trace of Apollo", not anything solid yet."
Then stop looking solely at dumb online conspiracy theory to tell you what to think.
"People can discover water on the mood, collect moon dusk, scan the surface. But sending 1 robot to a specific location for high res pictures is too complicated?"
Three rovers have been sent to the moon. Future missions plan to explore the far side, whilst two are destined for the lunar polar regions.
Do you actually think that missions to the moon are predicated upon satisfying the demands of, and at the insistence and behest of a community of credulous cretins and scientifically illiterate conspiracy believers that can't be arsed to actually learn about the Apollo Programme, as opposed to science and exploration? NASA are neither obliged nor duty bound to respond to arrant stupidity.
2
-
@hoanglinhle4468
"Really? It's so well recorded to the point that the Soviets at their peak fail to understand and un-able to re-create in their space race?"
What? Firstly, clearly there was a degree of secrecy during the 1960s and the development of Apollo. However, it wasn't military grade and although the Soviets had information about this they were committed to their own moon landing programme and the N1 rocket/Zond which was very different to the Saturn V. What you need to understand it that the Soviet bid to land man on the moon was doomed to failure for the start. This was in part due to intrinsic, irreversible design flaws in the N1. Its clustered engine design. At the root of this was the deep personal conflict between Valentin Glushko chief rocket engine designer, and Sergei Korolev who originally lead Soviet Lunar program before his death.Glushko refused to work on powerful LOX/PR engines for lunar rocket. To avoid the spinning detonation or combustion instability associated with a larger more powerful engine (that the Apollo scientists solved with the F1s), clustered configurations of smaller engines were favoured. In spite of this, the Soviets couldn't solve the flow separation problem for large nozzle sizes. The Soviets never trusted themselves to build a thrust chamber beyond 500,000 lbf. That’s the rumor, at least. So trusting only smaller engines, meant clustering and that it a completely different paradigm. The complex plumbing necessary to feed fuel and oxidizer into the clustered arrangement of rocket engines was fragile and a major factor in its continual failure in addition to unsophisticated flight computers and software. The untimely death of Korolev in addition to the fact that the Soviet moon programme was operating on a fraction of the budget of Apollo meant that it was never going to be successful.
"The first step of learning is by copying. If you fail to copy a "well document" program, how can you take any lesson from it?"
Of course there are lessons taken from it. There is a huge amount of information and data yielded from the Apollo programme, but that does not mean duplicating the technology. Why should we build a vehicle that used 1960s technology when we could build far more capable, safer spacecraft today? Many principles remain the same and the J2X engines used for Project Artemis are essentially a derivation of the Apollo J2s. The SLS itself utilises much of the technology from the shuttle programme such as upgraded SRBs whilst Artemis 1 reused three of the Atlantis RS-25 engines.
"How can you be sure that the old program was even really worked or not?"
Because scientific, independent and third party evidence tells us so, in addition to the huge quantity of data and experimentation yielded from the nine missions to the moon.
"Copy => Study => Modify" is the key process for engineering as a whole. Unless you are a super genius who creates everything from zero."
Not when the technology is outmoded, together with the processed, plants, tooling and manufacturing all purposed for the 1960s it isn't. When we eventually resume a supersonic passenger service, (and it's approaching a quarter of a century now), they aren't about to dust off Concorde, or a duplicate and roll it out of retirement from a museum or hangar.
2
-
"But for some reason, nobody go back to moon."
Given that no one was paying for it, no, they didn't.
"Everybody who worked in the project completely forget how to go back there."
No one 'forgot how to go back there'. The plants, processes, tooling, specialist expertise was all retired or moved on, whilst the technology was left to lie fallow and become obsolete.
"Accidently nobody care enough to write down all the step to go to the moon."
What on Earth are you going on about now? The Apollo programme was fully documented. All of the technical details, the schematics, the mission planning, the technology is recorded and can be detailed in full. We fully understand how Apollo landed men on the moon.
"Also nobody know who actually work on the project that brought human to the moon, except some specific famous person."
What? NASA is a civilian organisation. The personnel involved in the Apollo programme was huge, but fully transparent. There have been books written and documentaries made about the astronauts, the engineers, the management, the computer scientists, the contractors, the consultants - right from the top tier upper echelons of the project down to those that stitched the flags or ran the catering. Where are you getting this nonsense from?
"50 years later, with all the technology advantage, yet nobody able to copy the technology that bring human to the moon, including the people that claim "We went to the moon"
That technology is largely defunct. You don't copy technology. 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. To reiterate, it is fully understood how to send crewed missions to the moon. Project Artemis was only finally approved as recently as 2018.
2
-
2
-
2
-
"Can we go to the moon today?"
Yes, Artemis 1 returned last month.
"No, so htf did we go in 1969"
The Apollo Programme.
"anyone who believes this rubbish, is either stupid, deluded or in denial"
So that'll be entire branches of scientific disciplines such as mathematics, physics and geology, associated branches including astrophysics, orbital mechanics and petrology and such related specialist fields as aerospace engineering, rocketry and computing that collectively verify the authenticity and validity of the moon landings. All comprising acute expertise, knowledge and individuals far more informed and clever than yourself, a random nobody on the comments section of You Tube.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@hoanglinhle4468
"So NASA claimed they were on the moon and confirmed it with their own station? Do you have any idea what "Third Party" mean?"
Did you not read my reply to you? You seem to ignore 99% of content of responses and just blithely plough on. No, these stations were provided by different governments and countries and staffed by their own nationals. Have you any idea what Independent Nations means?
"Do you have any idea what "Third Party" mean?"
Yep. Read my reply again in which I have provided multiple examples that you chose to disregard.
"Also copying Wiki doesn't help man."
No copying from Wiki, but you'll no doubt find that the same information is available since it is independently verifiable.
"They always "We confirm this and that" but fail to give evidence."
There is a an abundance of verifiable objective scientific and independent evidence that the moon landings are real. You requested the third party proof, I gave it to you and you chose to ignore most of it.
"If you think NASA can't lie just because it requires some high authority, remember Iraq's bottle of salt."
NASA are fully accountable. Regarding your Iraq non-sequitur, although no WMD production was discovered, in the Halabja massacre, Saddam Hussein orchestrated the biggest chemical attack on a civilian population in history - even exceeding the crimes of Assad.
And meanwhile, the online conspiracy theory that you mindlessly defer to is of course is entirely and unfailingly honest, unwaveringly accurate and consistent, not in the least bit intentionally deceptive, misleading, fallacious, exploitative, opportunistic or manipulative and with your best interests at heart is entirely free of vested interest and agenda? Righto then. The words metric, ton and salt immediately spring to mind.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1