Comments by "H. de Jong" (@h.dejong2531) on "I Asked An Actual Apollo Engineer to Explain the Saturn 5 Rocket - Smarter Every Day 280" video.

  1.  @DemonDrummer  Yep. The Saturn V was a 1960s design. To build new ones you'd have to - redo all the drawings in CAD - replace most of the off-the-shelf components with new ones - replace obsolete metallurgy with new - redesign parts for modern production methods. The F-1 engine nozzles were hand-brazed from kilometers of tubing. These days we design nozzles so they can be machined. - replace obsolete parts, like the guidance computers.
    5
  2.  @rickreid8572  That is incorrect. We still have every single drawing used to create the Saturn V and Apollo spacecraft. All 6 million of them. We still have thousands of technical reports on every aspect of the program. The only thing that was destroyed, was the production line.
    5
  3. There has been plenty of progress "since the V2". The Saturn V would have been impossible with V2-level technology: the materials science simply wasn't there yet. A Saturn V made with V2-level tech would have melted its engines. After the Saturn V, the next big leap forward was the Space Shuttle, with its staged-combustion engines. The next generation is the Falcon 9, where they figured out commercially-viable reusability. The next generation after that is Starship.
    5
  4. Nope.
    5
  5.  @MaciusSzwed  None of those present evidence, just empty claims.
    5
  6.  @rickreid8572  No, there is no quote from NASA that says "everything was destroyed" anywhere to be found. All you have is empty claims made by moon landing deniers. This is the actual situation: 1. We still have every single drawing used to create the Saturn V and Apollo spacecraft. All 6 million of them are archived by the Smithsonian. 2. We still have thousands of technical reports on every aspect of the program, easily found in a public NASA archive. 3. We have actual NASA quotes that list what was "destroyed": 700,000 magnetic tapes containing raw downloads of engineering telemetry were reused when those recordings became obsolete. The important data was transcribed before the tapes were reused for Landsat data in the 1980s.
    4
  7. Yes, the second stage was similar to the first, the outer engines were gimbaled and had hydraulic actuators. The documents describe the hydraulic system as a closed system, but don't mention what type of fluid is used.
    3
  8. Nowadays NASA works in metric, and usually translates those to Imperial for press releases etc. During Apollo, they worked in US units.
    3
  9.  @MaciusSzwed  Why would I listen to someone with no qualifications, who presents no evidence for his claims?
    3
  10. All of the evidence says it isn't. Don't be ridiculous.
    1
  11. You're wrong. The Saturn V brought humans to the moon. There's tons of evidence to support this. The deniers, on the other hand, never present evidence. All they have is half-baked 'arguments' that fall apart on examination.
    1
  12.  @themoonlandinghoax  That's not going to happen. We already have independent confirmation that the Apollo landings are real. You believe in a fairy tale.
    1
  13. No, they didn't throw away the data. All of the drawings, thousands of technical reports etc. still exist. Don Pettit was wrong about that.
    1
  14.  @boriskaragiannis.7735  I have no idea what that means.
    1
  15.  @boriskaragiannis.7735  I'm not going to view all of the videos on a channel.
    1
  16.  @boriskaragiannis.7735  The first video I opened was unwatchable. His arguments are incoherent. Not going to waste time on that.
    1
  17.  @boriskaragiannis.7735  If you think that pile of drivel should be more believable than the thousands of photos, hours of film and thousands of technical reports provided by the Apollo missions, you need to learn what evidence is.
    1
  18. yes. The instrument unit ran the Saturn V. Once the command module separated from the Saturn, it had to do its own navigation.
    1
  19. No, they didn't throw away the data. All of the drawings, thousands of technical reports etc. still exist. Apollo cost 5% of the US Federal budget for a decade. After Apollo, NASA's budget was cut by 80%. That's why we haven't been back.
    1
  20. We can see satellites pass overhead, even with the naked eye. This proves you wrong.
    1
  21. Whichever liquid you use, you can design the cooling system so that the stuff stays liquid throughout. Oxygen is generally not used for cooling because it's more difficult to work with than most fuels (oxygen tends to oxidise most materials, which limits what you can use to build the rocket nozzle and cooling system).
    1
  22. Metals are really strong in compression, and the thrust frame is built so the loads are entirely in compression.
    1
  23.  @romanm.3529  Body language says he's getting a bit old. No lies in this video.
    1
  24. We're well on our way to proving that we can land on the moon again.
    1
  25. They did. We have independent confirmation.
    1
  26.  @domenicozagari2443  That is incorrect. All of the data we have on the van Allen belts says we can safely traverse them.
    1
  27.  @domenicozagari2443  All easily verifiable from multiple sources.
    1