Comments by "MRA" (@yassassin6425) on "Joe Rogan on Why he changed his stance on the Moon landing conspiracy" video.
-
Jeez - it doesn't take much to persuade you does it? And what legitimate learning have you actually done about the moon landings themselves, as opposed to allowing a con artist and fake documentary maker to tell you what to think?
If you have no knowledge about the Apollo programme or the science, technology and history of spaceflight whatsoever then I can see why it seems superficially plausible. If however you do, it's immediately obvious that it is full of ridiculous assumption, inference, deception, scientific and historical inaccuracies and tenuous correlation. The producers of this know exactly what they are doing, because it is their stock in trade and there is a market for it. I knew it was farcical, but I hadn't appreciated quite how bad it actually is until watching it again recently. It's an appalling supposed 'documentary', one sided, dishonest, deceptively edited, badly researched and aims to bombard the lay audience with a farrago of falsities, erroneous claims and supposition so as to bamboozle and misinform. I was astonished by the level of inaccuracy and intentional misrepresentation. Amazingly, it even incorporates the David Percy scam.
It's made by Massimo Mazzucco, a particularly vile breed of professional charlatan/grifter and a cheat. After all, nothing says trustworthy like a man that killed people for money shilling fake medical treatments.
Seriously, why don't you independently and objectively learn about the actual science, technology and history of the Apollo programme, then you won't allow yourself to fall victim to these ridiculous conspiracy theorist's claims?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Yes you are missing a great deal and yes your assumptions are incorrect.
Firstly, astronauts on the lunar surface absorbed a measured average of 60 microsieverts of radiation per hour. Radiation doses measured during Apollo were significantly lower than the yearly average of 5 rem set by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission for workers who use radioactive materials in factories and institutions across the United States. So, radiation was not an operational problem during the Apollo Program. 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. the main danger beyond the protection of the earth's magnetosphere comes from CMEs and solar particle events. 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. That's the difference between needing a bone marrow transplant, or having a headache.
No, the Japanese did not contact NASA about using their spacesuits to shield against the radiation of the Fukushima plant - this is complete conspiratorial nonsense. Radiation is a catch-all term that for historical reasons includes both electromagnetic radiation (light, radio waves, X-rays, gamma rays) and energetic particles (beta rays - electrons, alpha rays - helium nuclei, neutrons, positrons, “cosmic rays” - another catch-all). No space suit will protect from the levels of penetrating radiation within Fukushima or Chernobyl which as explained, astronauts during the Apollo missions were not exposed to.
You are also very confused about the differences between heat and temperature. 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 and 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. The surface of the moon is virtually a vacuum. There are very few particles, and what particles are present are spaced far apart. This is why temperature is meaningless. In the absence of an atmosphere there is no convection whilst conduction is limited. Therefore the main source of thermal energy transfer is radiative heating from the sun. The temperature extremes that you mention are surface temperatures - extremes. Objects take time to build up to their equilibrium temperature and the length of the lunar daytime is 15 earth days. This is why all of the Apollo moon landings were timed to coincide with the lunar dawn. The temperatures that you mention were never experienced.
The main issue with the PLSS was indeed as you correctly say, shedding heat. Body heat of the astronauts was carried away from the water-cooled undergarment and in waste air, both of which passed through the PLSS (Personal Life Support System) backpack, where they were cooled by a water ice sublimator. Several gallons of water was contained in a pair of flexible reservoirs inside the backpack for this purpose. Astronauts could control the operation of the sublimator, and so the amount of cooling. No heat was ever needed, as the human body cranks out as much heat as an incandescent light bulb.
Finally, the spacesuits maintained an internal pressure of 4.2 psi. I have no idea where you are getting 15 psi from? The International Space Station is pressurised to 14.7psi, the same average pressure on Earth at sea level.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Is this serious? So "I don't understand something so it must therefore be fake"
"How did the rocket return to earth?"
The moon has one sixth of the gravity of the earth, to lift off from the moon, the ascent stage of the lunar module still needed to overcome this. 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. The Tsiolkovsky rocket equation tells us that the 2 tons of fuel in the LM ascent stage could propel the ~2 tons of empty mass to a speed of more than 2000 m/s, when they only needed 1600 m/s to get into lunar orbit and dock with the CM. 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.
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, take it out of orbit and send Apollo on its three day fall back to earth.
"Was there a launch pad?"
The lunar module was a two-stage craft. The ascent stage was launched from the descent stage.
"How can we have the ability to send a rock to the moon without a map?"
I assume you mean a 'rocket'?
Newtonian physics and mathematics. Angular momentum.
"How was it able to steer the rocket with precision when our gps signals aren’t so accurate?"
Cislunar navigation requires data about current position and velocity with respect to an external frame of reference from Earth. The AGC provided computation and electronic interfaces for guidance, navigation, and control of the spacecraft. The Apollo primary guidance, navigation, and control system was a self-contained inertial guidance system that allowed Apollo spacecraft to carry out their missions when communications with Earth were interrupted, either as expected, when the spacecraft were behind the Moon, or in case of a communications failure. The Apollo command module (CM) and lunar module (LM), were each equipped with a version of this and specifically its computer, were also the command center for all system inputs from the LM, including the alignment optical telescope, the radar system, the manual translation and rotation device inputs by the astronauts as well as other inputs from the LM systems.
2
-
"Go and have a little chat with BART SIBREL"
Yes, why not? Because after all, nothing says informed, honest and accurate like a former cab driver and convicted felon, ex stalker and religious cult member, one time advertisement maker that managed to get himself ostracised by the entire industry and a proven liar and fraud with absolutely no specialist knowledge of scientific expertise whatsoever.
"Nasa has had 50 yrs to think up excuses and questionable MODERN, scientific 'explanation's. YET STILL, huge and import factors are never lodgically explained."
No one, including NASA "thinks up" scientific explanations. In order for something to have explanative scientific power and logical reasoning it needs to be substantive, demonstrable, axiomatic and independently verifiable. Incidentally, it's 'logically' - and why have you apostrophised 'explanations'?
"MY favourite?"
Do tell.
"WHATCHA DO WITH ALL THE MILLIONS OF RECORDED STATS GUYS ? ere ere, OH YEAH WE LOST EM'---NO, WE BURNT 'EM; yeah, that was it. DAM, now we can't go to the moon, again.?"
Said no NASA representative ever. It's possible that you are referring to some raw archival magnetic back up data tapes pertaining to Apollo 11 that was never needed or intended for archival use and so were subsequently erased. Surely you can't be that confused?
"Don't mention Van Allens Radiation Belt"
Why? They posed no barrier to the manned Apollo flights that traversed them. Incidentally, they are belts, since there are two, with a third that is transitory. Perhaps you should listen to what James Van Allen himself had to say about the subject as opposed to Bart Sibrel?
"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."
James Van Allen (2003).
"OH, A NASA TV PROG for schools said as much, Confirming that ''one day we will be able to go through the radiation belt. ???????????"
Er no, they said nothing of the sort. Speaking in a 2014 video called 'Orion: Trail by Fire" NASA engineer Kelly Smith was commenting purely on the (then) new Orion capsule. Because the computers onboard Orion are much more powerful than those of the Apollo moon missions during the 1960s and 1970s, such advanced electronics are more susceptible to the levels of radiation found in the Van Allen belts and beyond. Core rope memory is radiation hard. In contrast, radiation ionising the underlying semiconductor material - for instance when an electron tunnels into a transistor, can cause adverse effects. Look up single event upset and the more destructive single event effects/latch-up for more information. The large bipolar (NPN and PNP) transistors in the Apollo AGC were not very sensitive to radiation. Modern MOSFETs are much more radiation sensitive and this has obvious ramifications for the electronics on board and life support systems. Later that year, Orion was sent into the densest regions of the VABs where it performed flawlessly and following last year's unmanned Artemis 1 test it is now scheduled for a crewed mission to the moon and transit through the VABs for the first time since Apollo 17 in 1972.
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jeffkugel4912
"So...who was waiting for them to arrive to make the film?"
No one. Are you actually attempting to suggest that NASA/the US government staged a global hoax of this complexity and scale, but managed to overlook this? Seriously? As you say, it was simply animation, created by TV networks in the interest of continuity given that for obvious reasons it was impossible to film the arrival of the LM on the moon. Why are we even having this conversation?
"Last time I checked you couldn't call earth from space on a wired telephone. So...the president couldn't have been talking to them."
So the last time you checked you weren't able to verify that it was possible to patch a telephone to a radio which has been done since the early twentieth century? Yes, that's right...radio transmission. Newsflash...bloke called Marconi, 1895. Landline + existing microwave network + extremely large f**k off antenna = conversation with astronauts on the moon. Why is it even necessary to explain this?
"We may have been to the moon but what you saw on t.v. all those years ago was done on a soundstage. Sorry."
A "soundstage". And to think, no one noticed...nine times, six landings and one inexplicably hoaxed failure. And where was this supposed "soundstage"? Hollywood? And what about Cannon AFB New Mexico? Area 51 Nevada? The Utah or Arizona deserts? Devon Island Canada? Shepperton UK? You goons can't even get your stories straight. I guess it depends upon which conspiracy theorist you allow yourself to be duped by.
Got to say though, that must be some "soundstage" 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.
1
-
"Ask the basic questions."
Whilst not being remotely interested in the answers?
"Why no photographs from ISS,spaceShuttles. All we have are these weird fake globe composites."
There are hundreds of thousands of photographs from the shuttle programme and the ISS - what on Earth are you talking about? Composites are used to combine multiple images together in order to show things that cannot be seen with a single photograph.
"Would you put it past our 1960's Gov/democrats to fake it?"
It simply was not technically possible to do so. Also, although the Apollo Programme was conceived and developed under Democrat terms, it actually took place during Republican administration.
"Me, i don't care. i don't trust or care about anything that requires GOV trust."
Should we trust our governments? No. Patriotism, as far as I am concerned, involves distrusting the government. Keep them in check. They are our employees...they are to represent us, yet they are frequently self-serving. But that distrust is pointless if we're fooled into thinking that our government is always up to something and yet we can't discern when it is, and when it isn't - or detracts from genuine corruption or duplicity. Of course governments lie, deceive and conspire. No one in their right mind would suggest otherwise. But simply because they do that does not then logically follow that the alleged moon landing hoax or any random conspiracy theory of one's arbitrary choosing, devising or consequence of personal bias/agenda should automatically be assumed to be true.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@michaelsworld6292
"Becasue NASA themselves say their a problem you fool"
The Van Allen Belts are indeed "a problem" and certainly "dangerous" particularly the densest parts at the centre of the belts which NASA intentionally flew Orion capsule into, which as he correctly said, "we have never sent humans into". The unmanned test that he is referring to in the video was conducted on December 5, 2014 and was an unprecedented success. Question for you; why do you think Professor James Van Allen use the word 'belts' to describe the regions of trapped radiation he discovered?
Incidentally, if you must insist on anonymously branding people as a "fool" from behind your keyboard, perhaps ensure first that you comprehend the basic rudiments of English grammar and can at least differentiate between a determiner and a contraction.
"You didn’t bother to watch the video"
If irony was a material that could be refined into a pure form, you’d have quite the stash. Hilarious, since you didn't bother to get past the mindless confirmation bias of the sensationalist strapline.
Well given that I quoted from it and placed it in the correct context for you I can assure that I did - having been familiar with the original before it was misappropriated by you conspiracy nutjobs.
Once again, It is a video about the then upcoming first unmanned test flight of the new Orion spacecraft acknowledging the challenges of the space radiation environment which had to be solved for the new design. Like I said, Orion completed that flight shortly after that video was made and the mission was an overwhelming success.
Orion is being designed for a different mission to Apollo. It will spend weeks, months, even years outside the protection of Earth's magnetic field. By way of comparison Apollo spent only a few days outside of this protection. In addition, Orion's onboard systems use modern electronics and a glass cockpit - architecture that is far more vulnerable to high energy particle radiation than the solid state electronics of the Apollo era.
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/pgam3y/orion-radiation-survival
The "challenge" to be solved for NASA in respect of Orion and its purpose was therefore completely different to the Apollo mission hardware.
Let's remind you of your comment again...
"Then you have the Van Allen belts to contend with, something NASA scientist use to talk about why there hasn’t been a trip back, but we’re suppose to believe the original technology got them there and back?"
No NASA scientist has ever said, as you incorrectly allege, that the VAB have prevented us from going to the moon .
My question again:
Given the composition, inclination and orientation of the belts, why do you think that they posed a problem to the Apollo mission trajectories? And how would you venture that problem was solved?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Except the level of X Rays encountered during the Apollo missions was not comparable.
Hasselblad significantly adapted and modify their 500EL cameras for the Apollo missions by removing the viewfinder, modifying the shutter, replacing the usual plastic black outer surface with reflective silver body, the internal plastics were removed and using special lubricants resistant to vacuum and high temperatures. They also collaborated with Zeiss to produce a custom lens for the lunar cameras. The lens couldn't be used on a regular camera because Hasselblad removed the mirror mechanism and the viewfinder, The moderate speed and low sensitivity film types that were used were well protected. In fact, the camera films were doubly protected as they were in custom built aluminium and steel magazines that were a lot thicker than the standard Hasselblad ones. Regarding the film itself in more detail - firstly Apollo used ektachrome EF (S0168) and ektachrome MS (S0368) both of which were developed expressly for use in space utilising different emulsions due to higher UV and eliminate blue haze radiation. X rays, can indeed be destructive to film vary in their energy. By way of example, a CT scanner will be 60KV, and airport baggage scanner 80KV - where in comparison the radiation produced by the sun is less than 5KV. Anything less than 10KV can't penetrate anything greater than 1mm of aluminium. 5KV can be stopped by a piece of paper. Kept within a metal container, the X rays from the sun simply weren't strong enough to damage the film. The only time that they would present a risk to film is during a solar flare/CME/SPE - and in that scenario, the main concern would have been the safety of the astronauts. The radiation dosage for a year on the moon is between 110 mSv and 380 mSv and was a measured average of 60mSv per hour at skin level during all of the Apollo landings. On Earth, that dosage is 2.4 mSv, or higher, depending on where you are exactly. Bottom line, the few days in Lunar orbit and on the surface would have aged the film due to radiation between 50-150 days/ day in orbit maximum, thus it would be the equivalent of film that was aged a few years at most. The environment at the Moon is more likely to have high energy effects, and there actually are signs of radiation in some of the images, if you look carefully.
1
-
1