Comments by "MRA" (@yassassin6425) on "Free Documentary - History" channel.

  1. 9
  2. 8
  3. 7
  4. 6
  5. 5
  6. 5
  7. "I’m going to have to call BS!" Entire branches of science and the specialist field must currently be devastated at the news. "So we’re supposed to believe these guys spent 3 full days on the moon in cramped quarters" The submersible Alvin can dive to a depth of 14,700 feet and remain submerged for 72 hours. Presumably that's fake too? I'm guessing that you are also completely unaware that the Apollo 17 EVA totalled 22 hours? - So, no, they did not actually spend "3 full days on the moon in cramped quarters". "in temps of 250F" The temperature was not 205°F though. That is the surface equilibrium temperature that takes time to build up to. I'm confident that you have no idea that the length of a day on the moon is equivalent to 29.5 Earth days. That all the Apollo missions were timed to coincide their landings with the lunar dawn, that in a vacuum, there is no air temperature and therefore no convection, or the dual purpose of MLI. "with life support run completely off batteries?? " Because of the fuel-cell complexity, the development costs, and the schedule problems, the prime contractor was directed to convert to an all-battery system. In the dc system, five descent-stage batteries, rated at 400 ampere-hours each and two ascent-stage batteries, rated at 300 ampere-hours each, were used. Two electrical-control assembly (ECA) units were placed in the descent stage for the control and protection of all descent-stage batteries. One ECA was used for each ascent stage battery. The silver Zinc batteries made by Eagle Pitcher who have collectively amassed 2.6 billion cell hours in space without a mission failure. Would you like to discuss this in greater detail or are you happy to concede for the benefit of anyone reading this that you haven't got the remotest idea what you are talking about? "They also seemed to have a never ending supply of oxygen!!" The Lunar Module descent stage contained two oxygen tanks, each of which contained 48 pounds of gaseous oxygen at 2,690 psia. This supply provided the oxygen that they used during descent, and during their stay on the Moon, including filling their backpacks and re-pressurising the cabin after their EVA (“moonwalk”). The ascent stage contained two tanks, each of which contained 2.43 pounds of oxygen at 840 psia. This supply provided the breathing oxygen during liftoff from the Moon and rendezvous with the Command Module. This was later expanded for the J Missions. Again, we can discuss this further if you wish to learn more. Personal incredulity is not a valid argument.
    5
  8. 5
  9. 4
  10. 4
  11. 4
  12. 4
  13. 4
  14. 4
  15. 3
  16.  @prasadsahu3044  "Ask NASA, what I want to say." What precisely do you want to say? You haven't typed anything of worth yet/ "NASA never went to the moon." On the contrary, there were nine manned missions to the moon and six landings. It would have been at least ten had it not been for the near catastrophe and aborted landing of Apollo 13 and the premature cancellation of the programme and with it, Apollo 18, 19 and 20. There have also been a multitude of unmanned landings. Six nation's space agencies, Interkosmos, NASA, CNSA, ISRO, JAXA and ESA, have reached the Moon with un-crewed missions. "Now they say they destroyed everything of the Moon landings of the 1970s." No they don't. If that were true you wouldn't be able to view everything from a Saturn V, an unused LM to an A7L suit for example. One astronaut, Don Pettit, speaking in 2017 used an unfortunate turn of phrase. Since then, conspiracy theorists and those dimwits that parrot their quote mined 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 - the rest of the interview, 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 its 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. 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?
    3
  17. 3
  18. 3
  19. 3
  20. 3
  21. 3
  22. 3
  23. 3
  24. 3
  25. 2
  26. 2
  27. 2
  28. 2
  29. 2
  30. 2
  31. 2
  32. 2
  33. 2
  34. 2
  35. 2
  36. 2
  37. 2
  38. 2
  39. 2
  40. 2
  41. 2
  42. 1
  43. 1
  44. 1
  45. 1
  46. 1
  47. 1
  48.  @seanbeukman9563  "Firstly its not known science" The specialist disciplines of aerospace engineering and radiobiology would disagree in addition to an entire branch of it called physics. "and there is very little evidence other than what you have been fed." Said the gullible believer in dumb online conspiracy theory. What on Earth are you talking about? I am irrelevant. Evidence and empirically based science is ineluctable and axiomatic, thereby having a voice of its own. That you have neither the will or the capability to understand that is entirely a product of your incredulity. "My incredulity is entirely relevant, thats what the comments are for" If you wish to advertise your ignorance and humiliate yourself, then more fool you. "I comment because I am free to do so even if I have zero knowledge." And in a nutshell, you encapsulate much that is wrong with the populist world in which we inhabit and freely granting internet access to village idiots. "If that offends you, that is your problem not mine." If you feel the need to pass comment on a subject that you freely admit and demonstrably have zero knowledge of then the "problem" is entirely yours mate. Don't react with indignation when challenged. And no, it doesn't "offend me". I rather pity you. "Why do YOU bother if my opinions are so misguided?" Opinions are irrelevant to this exchange - as are you. "I dont mind if you believe in lies" Known science is not a question of beliefs anymore than it is in the province of opinion and if you wish to suggest that I am lying then demonstrate where and how by substantiating your accusation. No use simply saying it. "doesnt bother me at all" It clearly does, since you wouldn't have bothered replying otherwise. To address the subject and as explained, contrary to your claim a CME directed at Apollo would likely not have been fatal. If you wish to suggest otherwise then by all means do presenting your sources and through objective substantiation.
    1
  49. 1
  50. 1