Comments by "H. de Jong" (@h.dejong2531) on "I Was SCARED To Say This To NASA... (But I said it anyway) - Smarter Every Day 293" video.

  1. These are the active satellites orbiting the moon right now: LRO, Chandrayaan-2 and 3, Chang'e 5 and 4, Themis. Many more have been operational since the 1960s.
    4
  2.  @BensMiniToons  SLS and Orion were designed for a different mission than what they're being used for now. And instead of modifying Orion to give it enough performance to get in to low lunar orbit, a choice was made to leave the design as was. So political choices drove the design of Artemis more than engineering optimization.
    4
  3. They did. Artemis is not a repeat of Apollo: it's a much more ambitious set of missions, which requires a much larger payload to be transported to the moon than Apollo ever could.
    4
  4. We don't have to believe, we can verify that it is real. Right now, I'm receiving TV signals from a satellite 36,000 km above the equator. On a clear night, I can look up and see satellites pass overhead.
    4
  5. NASA spent $250 billion getting to the moon. Then they were told to stop spending so much money, and their budget was reduced by 90%.
    3
  6. Anyone can look up at night, see satellites in the night sky, proving that space is real. Outer space is not magical, it's a natural consequence of the laws of physics.
    3
  7. Yup, it had to do with Russia: the USA had to beat the USSR in the space race. The USSR had its own space program, including lunar missions, and they would be in an excellent position to detect any fakery. So the only way to beat them was to do it for real. So the USA started spending 20 times more on spaceflight than the USSR could manage, and won the space race by doing something the USSR could not manage. While doing so, the USA presented a ton of evidence that shows the Apollo landings are real. In the 50 years since, we've only added to that evidence: later lunar orbiters have photographed the Apollo landing sites, and found they look exactly as claimed by NASA. In those 50 years, nobody has been able to present any evidence that the landings were faked. _Nobody_.
    3
  8. Nope, that's not what he is saying or implying.
    3
  9. No, at no point has Destin claimed that the Apollo landings were faked. We have a ton of evidence that proves the landings are real.
    3
  10. Starship and N-1 have two things in common: 1. a large number of engines. 2. a decision to test the stages by flying them, instead of lots of full-duration ground tests. They also have major differences: 1. SpaceX has demonstrated it can solve the problems caused by having many engines. The Falcon 9 has 9 engines. Falcon Heavy has 27 of them. These routinely launch successfully. 2. 50 years of advance in computers mean that SpaceX has vastly better telemetry and control during each launch. Several N-1 failures were caused by the flight control system doing stupid things. 3. 50 years of advance in CAD means that many of the problems in the N-1 can be found by simulation. 4. the N-1 engines could not be restarted. They needed a rebuild after one run, so they could not be tested. SpaceX tests each individual engine, then does a full-stage test fire before each launch. The N-1 program was designed to have up to 14 test launches before moving on to operational launches. They fully expected to have a bunch of failed launches. They never got beyond test launch 4 due to a combination of losing the space race (Apollo 11 happened around the time of the second N-1 test launch) and political infighting (the leader of the Soviet space program was not a fan of the N-1). Like N-1, the Starship program is expected to have a bunch of failed launches before getting to orbit. The failures we have seen so far are not an indication of a failed program.
    3
  11. Refueling would make the mission more complicated, adding rendezvous points to the mission, having to coordinate two or more launches etc.
    3
  12.  @longgolf5530  Apollo was limited to putting 2 men on the moon with minimal resources, for a stay of up to 3 days. For Artemis, we want to stay for a month or more, with a larger crew, and far more capable tools. So, way more stuff to carry to the lunar surface. And Artemis is only partially about the moon. We're preparing to go to Mars, and that is impossible without refueling.
    3
  13. The evidence proves you wrong.
    3
  14. Anyone studying the moon landings objectively will find that they are real. All of the denier arguments are full of holes, they're just hoping you won't notice those holes.
    3
  15. That's the wrong conclusion to draw from this talk.
    3
  16.  @MorrowProduction  Apollo landed 2 people on the moon for up to 3 days. This is the limit of what a single Saturn V sized rocket can carry to the moon. Artemis wants to send crews of 4 to the moon for months at a time. We want to build a moon base. This requires far more supplies than a Saturn V can carry.
    3
  17. The evidence (*all* of the evidence) says we did. 6 times.
    3
  18. No, the moon is up there, not down here. Duh.
    3
  19. In the 41 years of your life NASA has explored the entire solar system, from the Sun to Pluto and beyond. And they've laid the groundwork for manned missions deep into the solar system with the ISS.
    3
  20. No, Grissom, White and Chaffee died in an accident. The Apollo 1 fire would have been the dumbest possible way to silence Grissom: the fire drew massive attention to Grissom's words, and basically proved him correct.
    3
  21. They figured that out in 1962.
    3
  22. The evidence proves that we did.
    3
  23.  @itemushmush  In 2023, SpaceX launched 99 Falcon 9 missions, putting more than 1200 tons into orbit. They're also progressing well with Starship development. Their timelines are useless, but they have a track record of doing what they set out to do.
    3
  24. Apollo landed 2 men on the moon for a 3-day stay. Artemis wants to land a 4-man crew for missions of a month or more. That means 15 times more payload has to be put on the moon. And the political choices made (SLS, Orion, not modifying Orion when its mission changed, which dictates the use of a very inefficient orbit) don't help either.
    3
  25. No, that's not what happened. NASA retained a mountain of information on the Apollo landings. All of the photos, all of the video, all of the science data, 6 million drawings, tens of thousands of technical reports are sitting in public archives. The only data that was erased was engineering telemetry for the Saturn V. That data was essential during the mission, but became obsolete the moment the last Saturn V mission ended.
    3
  26. Sea level is a spherical surface.
    3
  27. "space is full of deadly radiation" is a massive exaggeration. Here are the facts, based on our measurements of the radiation levels in space. 1. Earth is partially surrounded by the van Allen radiation belts, which trap mostly electrons. The radiation level at the center of the inner belt is high enough to kill a human after 1 week of exposure. The level reduces as you get away from the center. The Apollo crews spent only 3 hours in these belts, and avoided the center entirely. 2. Outside the VA belts, the radiation level is several times higher than on Earth. You can spend more than 6 months on the surface of the moon before you get a dangerous radiation dose.
    2
  28. We need 15 rockets to put a lander on the moon with a payload of more than 10 tons. The LM payload was 250 kg.
    2
  29.  @Brandon-nr8fn  The evidence says we did.
    2
  30.  @Brandon-nr8fn  I've looked at what passes for "evidence" against the moon landings. It's all worthless, no more than wishful thinking.
    2
  31. The computer you're typing on is a side effect of NASA's investment in integrated circuits for Apollo. You're welcome.
    2
  32. Suuuuure. Tell me, which fantasy allows me to watch TV by pointing an antenna at a point 36,000 km above the equator? Which fantasy allows me to navigate accurately while out of reach of any mobile phone network? Look up at the sky tonight: you can see satellites pass overhead, proving that space is real.
    2
  33. Nope. The evidence is clear: the Apollo landings are real.
    2
  34. That's certainly part of the problem. Artemis has about 1/25 the budget that Apollo had. This means things take longer to design and develop, and you can't afford to do everything at once. You also get decisions like not modifying Orion so it can reach low lunar orbit.
    2
  35. A "fraudster" who launched more rockets last year than the rest of the world combined.
    2
  36. Your simple logic has missed a few essential points. 1. the launch from Earth had to carry everything for the whole mission. The launch from the moon only had to get two astronauts into lunar orbit, where it would rendezvous with the Command Module. 2. The launch from Earth had to accelerate 50 tons (command module, service module and lunar module) to a speed of 11.2 km/s. The launch from the moon had to accelerate two tons to 1.6 km/s. So that's 1/25 the weight and 1/7 the speed, or 1/49 the kinetic energy. 3. the launch from Earth was in Earth's gravitational field, the launch from the Moon was in 1/6 g. So instead of requiring 3000 tons, the launch from the moon requires roughly 1/25 * 1/49 * 1/6 is ~1/7000 of 3000 tons. The real figure is about 2 tons, so this very rough estimate is in the ballpark.
    2
  37. Anyone who believes the landings were faked does so based on invalid arguments.
    2
  38. Because it's pretty simple for anyone to prove that space is real.
    2
  39. We have photos of Earth going all the way back to the Gemini missions, when astronauts started taking cameras with them. Every Apollo mission took hundreds of photos of Earth, including the famous Earthrise photo that shows Earth from lunar orbit. In the 1970s, NASA started to systematically photograph Earth with the Landsat program. This has been joined by many governmental and commercial Earth observation programs. Also in the 1970s, several space agencies started launching weather satellites, which photograph Earth from higher altitudes. Current geostationary weather satellites capture the whole hemisphere in one shot, and do this 144 times per day. The total number of photos of Earth is in the millions now.
    2
  40. I can look up and see satellites in the night sky, proving you wrong.
    2
  41. Anyone who's capable of looking at the evidence knows we did go to the moon. The ones who believe we didn't have been fooled by charlatans.
    2
  42. By the 1930s, we had figured out how to connect a landline to a radio. Millions of Americans were listening to people phone in to radio talk shows.
    2
  43.  @Tracy-Inches  No, that is here on the spherical Earth. High-frequency radio (FM as used by radio stations) is line of sight, which is why you have to change stations when you drive a long distance. The transmitter drops below the horizon. At lower frequencies, radio waves bounce off the ionosphere, which is how Marconi could send radio signals across the Atlantic ocean in the early 20th century. You'll notice that there's always part of our planet that has a line of sight to the moon. NASA operated a series of radio transmission/reception stations around the world, and those were used to contact the Apollo missions on the moon. It's easy to verify that this is possible: radio amateurs routinely bounce radio signals off the moon, confirming that radio signals can travel that far.
    2
  44. On Gemini, super alloys such as Rene 41 and L-605 were used for the outer skin and skin attachments, which were thermally isolated from the inner structure by Johns-Manville MIN-K, Fiberglas and Thermoflex RF insulation. The basic load- carrying shell was titanium. None of these would ignite at low temperatures.
    2
  45. SpaceX is developing a rocket more ambitious than the SLS for far less money and in less time. Their testing method is unusual in the West: they use test flights instead of lots of ground tests. This means we can expect a few fireballs on early launches. Fireballs at this stage don't mean the project is a failure, it means they are progressing normally. The Russians did this for several of their rockets. The Proton had 14 failures before the first successful test flight.
    2
  46. Artemis is being funded at 1/25 the level that Apollo had. Less money = it takes longer. It's that simple.
    2
  47. No, Aldrin didn't say that. That's just moon landing deniers taking a quote out of context. The question was 'why didn't we go back', and Aldrin answered 'because we didn't'. That's not an admission he didn't go to the moon. In the rest of the interview, he talks about his experiences on Apollo 11. This is from the same interview: Zoey: Were you a little scared about, about, um going to the moon or coming home again 'cause nobody has been there before? Aldrin: Well people had gone up and down without staying in orbit, people, dogs, and monkeys. People, Russian, Yuri Gagarin. Then we'd done a lot of things, we hadn't really sent people to the moon. So we did send people and they went around the moon. Then we sent people, another crew, to go around the moon and then practice everything but landing. And then a very fortunate person, the many things going right in my life, gave Neil Armstrong, Mike Collins, and Buzz Aldrin the opportunity to make an attempt to make the first landing. And all of us wanted to succeed, and we did, and that's why I'm here. Those are not the words of someone who hasn't been to the moon.
    2
  48. Congratulations. You have demonstrated you have not thought about the Moon's gravity at all. - gravity depends on mass and radius. - the moon is 1/4 the diameter. Mass depends on volume, which scales with the third power of diameter. So 1/4 the diameter is 1/(4^3) the volume, i.e 1/64. The moon's density is a bit lower than Earth, so it only has 1/100 the mass of Earth. Because the radius is 1/4 and gravity depends on the square of the radius, this increases the gravity by a factor 16, so we end up with 16/100 of Earth's gravity, which is 1/6. About the WTC, you are wrong again. The WTC was built to withstand the impact of from an airliner that was in service when the WTC was designed (Boeing 707). The designers did not fully consider what the fuel load of the airliner would do (analysis tools at that time were insufficient to predict the effects of such an event), nor could they foresee the much larger aircraft that would come into service decades later.
    2
  49. That was not the topic of this video. As evidence for the moon landings, we have: - 382 kg of lunar rock samples, - hours of live TV and film footage, - more than 8000 photos, - scientific results from all of the experiments, - tens of thousands of technical documents that show how they did it. In addition, we have confirmation from multiple independent sources: - during the Apollo missions, amateur astronomers could see the CSM/LM on its way to the Moon. - in several countries including the USSR, people monitored Apollo spacecraft radio transmissions.  - Radio astronomers used their telescopes to monitor transmissions, confirming they were transmitting from the moon. - in the 50 years since the landings, thousands of geologists all over the world have examined lunar rock samples and found they don't look like the rocks we find on Earth. - India's Chandrayaan-2 orbiter has photographed the Apollo 11 and 12 landing sites, with enough resolution to show the foot tracks of the astronauts. - Japan's Selene lunar orbiter has mapped the Apollo landing sites and found the topography matches that seen in Apollo photos. - laser reflectors left on the moon by the Apollo missions, that can be pinged from Earth by anyone with a powerful laser.
    2
  50. it's the other way round: SpaceX was already going to make Starship and its booster reusable, which made the Artemis architecture viable.
    2
  51. Why are you assuming "they can't do it" with more modern tech? They're in the middle of designing and developing everything they need to get to the moon.
    2
  52. In reality, Starship is progressing well, with no indication that what they're doing is impossible.
    2
  53. You can look up tonight and see satellites and the ISS pass overhead, proving that space is real.
    2
  54. Yes, this was done in the 1960s, by throwing unlimited resources at the problem. At the height of Apollo, 450,000 people were involved.
    2
  55. Stanley Kubrik didn't say anything of the sort. Don't get your news from trolls.
    2
  56. It's complex in that those 15 launches have to be done within a few days, followed by 15 dockings between stages and the tanker. That has never been done before.
    2
  57. The LM could put ~500 kg of payload on the moon. Now we want to put 10 tons or more of payload onto the moon.
    2
  58. Every day, you profit from data and services provided by satellites. The phone you're viewing this on is a side effect of NASA's investment in the first generation of integrated circuits during Apollo.
    2
  59. In 1970, Boeing was building the 707. Why did they design the 787, when the 707 design was readily available in their own archive? Answer: the 787 takes advantage of 50 years of advance in airliner design, so it can do things the 707 can't. Similarly, Artemis is a lot more ambitious than Apollo. We don't want to put 2 people on the moon for max 3 days, we want to build a moon base.
    2
  60.  @1USACitizen192  NASA has just sent its Orion spacecraft on a flight around the moon. On its next flight, it will be manned. The only reason there were no manned flights out of LEO since 1972 is that the Space Shuttle (the only manned spacecraft NASA had from 1981 to 2010) was optimized to carry large loads to low Earth orbit.
    2
  61. No, he meant to go BACK to the moon. Forgotten about Apollo?
    2
  62. No, the extra launches are not about money. We're talking about the company that wants to make a launch 1000 times cheaper than it is today by reusing the rocket.
    2
  63.  @BensMiniToons  No, we can't make it a lot lighter. Electronics took up a few hundred kg in Apollo, out of a launch mass of ~ 3000 tons, so replacing those has only a minimal effect.  A clean-sheet design for a rocket can be a bit lighter than the Saturn V, but the SLS is not a clean-sheet design. It uses solid boosters, which are heavy and have low performance, so the SLS does not perform any better than the Saturn V in this regard.
    2
  64. all of the evidence says the Apollo missions did go to the moon.
    2
  65. Javelins are antitank weapons. Civilians generally don't drive tanks.
    2
  66. Anyone with binoculars and a ruler can disprove Oakley's claims.
    2
  67. No, he's right. Those Starship launches are all for fuel delivery. The Starship HLS lander will have an empty weight on the order of 100 tons, so it's going to need a lot of fuel to get to the moon and to land on it.
    2
  68.  @Tracy-Inches  The only lies on this subject are told by moon landing deniers. We have a ton of evidence that shows the Apollo landings are real. This includes stuff anyone can verify. For example, you can measure how objects move in the Apollo videos. You will find that they all fall at the same rate: 1.6 m/s2, which indicates those videos were not recorded on Earth but on the moon.
    2
  69. Not just the orbit, the payload. The Apollo LM had a payload of 500 kg, enough for 2 people and supplies for 3 days. For Artemis, they want to land tens of tons on the moon, for missions that spend months on the moon.
    2
  70. The ISS weighs 400 tons, which means it takes an enormous amount of energy to move it. It's also not designed for the lunar environment. So we're building a new space station, the Lunar Gateway, that is optimized for the lunar environment.
    2
  71. Look at the Sun. See how bright it is? THAT is a plasma. The moon produces no light, so it is not a plasma.
    2
  72. Those 15 missions for Artemis? those are Starship missions. SpaceX provides a lunar lander for Artemis, in the form of the Starship HLS. THIS needs ~ 15 tankers to get to the moon.
    2
  73. Nope. They run actual missions, not cons.
    2
  74. Your opinion is not based on evidence, so it's useless.
    2
  75. We have multiple independent lines of evidence that shows the Apollo landings are real. We can see the ISS from the ground, even with the naked eye. We have millions of actual non-CGI photos of Earth from space, and we make more every day. This started with Gemini: astronauts had cameras with them and took photos of the planet. Apollo missions took photos of the whole Earth in one shot. Every ISS astronaut has a camera and snaps thousands of photos (see NASA's Flickr page). These days, geostationary weather satellites take photos of the whole hemisphere every 10 minutes.
    2
  76. 240 Falcon 9 launches are not the result of a con.
    2
  77.  @chengong388  What con artist spends billions of his own money, instead of trying to get someone else to pay for his scheme?
    2
  78. Two things were in Apollo's favor: 1. it was seen as a national emergency, with an almost unlimited budget. 2. there was no political interference: the engineers were free to find the best solution, instead of having a mandate from Congress to use the SLS. 3. Apollo was far less complex: just get boots on the moon. Artemis wants to put larger crews on the moon for months, instead of 1-3 days. It includes a space station in lunar orbit.
    2
  79. We can go beyond LEO, and we have. Apollo remains real. There's a ton of evidence that proves this beyond doubt, and no evidence that they were faked. This is reality.
    2
  80. Yes, it's a budget thing, along with the US government mandating 'you must use SLS and Orion'. Stuck using them, and without the money to fix them.
    2
  81. The only technology we need to get past the van Allen belts is radiation-hardened electronics, and you can order those from a catalog because thousands of satellites use the same electronics. Humans can pass through the VA belts without any technology beyond the aluminium hull you need anyway. None of the technology from Apollo was lost. All of the information remains available in public archives. And no, nobody at NASA claims they've never been past the van Allen belts.
    2
  82. SpaceX launches actual missions to space. Scammers just take your money.
    2
  83. Incorrect. Rational people around the world know the moon landings are real, while suckers fell for the bad arguments and lies told by the deniers.
    2
  84. The evidence says we did go to the moon, and landed 6 times.
    2
  85. Look up tonight: you can see satellites in the night sky, proving that space travel is possible.
    2
  86. All of the useful telemetry is available in NASA's NRTS archive, which is open to the public.
    2
  87. Because Apollo could only put 2 men on the moon for a maximum of 3 days. We want to do much longer missions with a larger crew, which means we need to land a lot more mass on the moon.
    2
  88. Look up tonight. You can see satellites in the night sky, proving that spaceflight is real.
    2
  89. We aren't using the Saturn V for several reasons: 1. the Saturn V is not big enough for what we want. Artemis plans to have 4-man crews on the moon for a month or longer. Saturn V could only support 2 men on the mon for 3 days. 2. Reusing a 50 year-old design is not easy. We have the drawings, but we'd have to redo all of them in CAD to support modern manufacturing. We'd have to redesign thousands of parts because they relied on components that are no longer available. You wouldn't want to reuse any of the electronics, for example, so that means redesigning all of them. 3. there was political pressure to support the companies that built Shuttle components, NASA was forced to build the SLS instead of anything else.
    2
  90.  @vacuumandgaspressurecoexisting  Does your denial of reality never end?
    2
  91. In a conflict, both sides need weapons. The Javelin was instrumental in derailing the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
    2
  92. Yes, we did. There's a mountain of evidence that proves it beyond any doubt.
    2
  93. Actual scientists have long debunked electrogravitics.
    1
  94. He has advanced space exploration by decades with the Falcon 9. He's in the middle of doing that again with Starship. It's taking longer than his initial optimistic estimate, but there's no sign of Starship being a failure.
    1
  95. Incorrect. We have abundant evidence that proves the Apollo landings are real.
    1
  96. His Starship will be used as the lunar lander.
    1
  97. The evidence proves you wrong.
    1
  98. Those 15 rocket launches will be cheaper than 1 SLS launch. that's the huge advantage of using a reusable rocket.
    1
  99. No, that is not a fact at all. Look at the sky tonight: you can see satellites pass overhead. they are in orbit, which proves that chemical propulsion work just fine in a vacuum. Newton predicted this: rockets work according to Newton's third law of motion.
    1
  100. Reality is that we went to the moon 9 times, landed 6 times. Nixon's phone call uses technology from the 1930s: by then we knew how to connect a telephone to a radio.
    1
  101. The goal of Apollo was to beat the Russians to the moon. Once that goal was met, we started to look at how much those missions cost. NASA's budget was cut by 90%, making further manned lunar missions unaffordable.
    1
  102. 1. the Saturn V was limited to putting 2 people on the moon for up to 3 days. Now we want a 4-man crew to stay on the moon for a month. That would require a dozen Saturn V launches. 2. rebuilding a 50 year-old design is not that simple. Components are no longer available. you'd have to do all the drawings in CAD for modern manufacturing, etc.
    1
  103.  @JimboJuice  They actually do have drawings for every part of the Saturn V. 6 million of them. As I said, you'd have to redesign many parts for modern manufacturing. e.g. the F-1 engines had miles of hand-brazing in the nozzles, these days we use a completely different method (electroplating, then CNC milling).
    1
  104.  @JimboJuice  I disagree with your claim that 'converting the 50 year old rockets into CAD would be pitifully easy'. You end up having to make major changes to individual parts, which affects how they're assembled, etc.
    1
  105. The "we no longer have the technology" is being abused by the deniers. It does not mean what they think it means. This is reality: By 1970, NASA's budget was being reduced by 90% from its peak. The goal of beating the Russians to the moon had been achieved, the space race was over and won, so the government was no longer willing to spend 5% of the Federal budget on spaceflight. That made Apollo missions after Apollo 17 unaffordable. After Apollo, NASA proceeded to design the first reusable spacecraft: the Shuttle. This was an attempt to make spaceflight cheaper. It did not live up to that promise, mostly because NASA did not get enough money to fix the flaws of the first Shuttle design. The Shuttle was a big improvement over Apollo in all aspects except one: the Shuttle could not carry enough fuel to get to the moon. During the Shuttle program, there was never enough money to build another huge rocket for a manned moon mission. That is the technology we "lost": the production line for the Saturn V and Apollo spacecraft was shut down and dismantled, so we no longer had a vehicle that could get to the moon.
    1
  106. SpaceX launched 100 rockets this year, more than the rest of the world combined.
    1
  107. Apollo could only put 2 men on the moon for up to 3 days. We want to do much longer missions, so we have to land a lot more mass on the moon than the Apollo stack was capable of.
    1
  108. He died in a fire that served as a wakeup call. After that accidental fire, NASA and its contractors spent a year going over every design and systematically stamping out all of the bugs. That fire was a big part of the success of the Apollo program.
    1
  109. The evidence says otherwise.
    1
  110. No, it does not. That is an unsupported assumption.
    1
  111.  @KarasCyborg  Basic optics: the reflection of the sun is on a section of the helmet that is not facing us, it's at an angle. The sun is at twice that angle.
    1
  112.  @KarasCyborg  You are underestimating the distance to the horizon. Here on Earth, the farther away we look, the more atmospheric blurring we get. Humans use this to gauge distances. There's no atmosphere on the moon, so your brain is assuming the entire scene is nearby, when in fact you're looking at terrain that can be up to 2 km away (the distance to the horizon on the moon).
    1
  113. The evidence says we did go to the moon.
    1
  114. "we never went to the moon" is a lie. 6 Apollo missions landed on the moon. We have a ton of evidence that supports this, and no evidence that says otherwise.
    1
  115. Look up tonight. You can see satellites in the night sky, proving that we have been to space over and over again.
    1
  116.  @vacuumandgaspressurecoexisting  It's pretty simple to measure the speed and altitude of those satellites. An altitude of 400 km and more, and a speed of 28,000 km/h proves that these objects are orbiting Earth, and are not in our atmosphere. Another proof: I can aim a radio dish at a position 36,000 km above the equator, and find that there's a satellite at that location. Meanwhile, here you are, denying reality.
    1
  117. We don't know yet how many rockets are needed because the rocket in question is still in development, so its payload is unknown.
    1
  118. the centrifugal force due to Earth's rotation is tiny compared to gravity. We can measure this: we can weigh an object at the equator, then go to the pole and weigh it again. The weight changes by 0.3%: at the equator, the measured weight is 0.3% lower due to Earth's rotation.
    1
  119. Going to the moon remains complicated and dangerous.
    1
  120. The Space Shuttle is so heavy (80 tons) that it can't carry enough fuel to accelerate from low Earth orbit to a translunar injection orbit.
    1
  121. TLDR: Don't be afraid to give negative feedback. Artemis is overcomplicated.
    1
  122. It's pretty obvious that the moon is not made of plasma. A plasma is a gas that's hot enough for the atoms to lose electrons. A gas that hot glows brightly. The moon does not produce light, as is obvious when you look at a moon that's not full. Why go on about "telling the truth" when you propagate such easily-disproven nonsense?
    1
  123. Artemis was a mess from the beginning. The SpaceX-supplied lander is the most sane part of the project.
    1
  124.  @FrankyPi  I agree there's risk involved with HLS. I was referring to the decision to use Orion and SLS, but not optimize them for the lunar mission so they end up with a lunar orbit that is way too big.
    1
  125. Nope. 450,000 people worked on Apollo and made it a success. Kubrick was off to the side directing 2001: A Space Odyssey.
    1
  126. In 50 years, nobody has presented a single shred of evidence for the claim that the moon landings were faked. The only people who have been caught lying are the moon landing deniers.
    1
  127. NASA is shackled by Congress, who mandated the use of Shuttle components for SLS. BTW, Apollo cost $250 billion in today's dollars, dwarfing that $44B number.
    1
  128. In the 1960s, it took the combined efforts of 450,000 people for a decade to go to the moon. They had countless problems, but solved them all by throwing tons of manpower at them. The van Allen belts was not one of those problems. By 1962, we had measured the radiation levels in the belts, and it was clear that humans in an unshielded spacecraft could go through the belts safely. The only thing you shouldn't do was orbit in the center of the belts for long periods: then the radiation dose builds up to lethal levels over time. We did not lose the Apollo technology in any meaningful sense: we know exactly how they did everything. All of that information is preserved and easily available. The only thing we 'lost' (better: allow to be discarded) is the production lines for the Apollo hardware. Artemis is far more ambitious than Apollo. Instead of having 2 people on the moon for 3 days, we want to build a base on the moon, and have 4-man crews spend months on the moon.
    1
  129.  @coreyr.1012  With a telescope, I can see details. The ISS is recognizable even through an amateur telescope. I can see that no satellite is attached to a balloon. With a simple photo camera, I can measure the speed and altitude, and find values that are impossible to achieve for a balloon: satellites move at 28,000 km/h, or 100 times faster than any balloon has ever been. With a radio antenna, I can find the location of satellites, even in geostationary orbit, at 36,000 km, that's 1000 times higher than any balloon has ever been. In addition to the 10,000 satellites we have in orbit, NASA launches a handful of balloons per year to conduct atmospheric research. Those travel at an altitude of up to 30 km, and operate for about a month. Then the balloon pops and the payload falls back to Earth.
    1
  130.  @coreyr.1012  Whether you believe me or not is irrelevant. Instructions for doing all of these things are easy to find, so you can try this yourself. From the 1980s, hundreds of millions of people have done #3, aiming satellite dishes at a point 36,000 km above the equator.  Finding the altitude of a satellite requires a buddy: you need to take two photos of the same satellite at the same time, from different angles. Finding the speed of a satellite is easy when you've found the altitude: a few more photos will give you the speed.
    1
  131. Musk is building all those rockets primarily because he wants to go to Mars. That's what Starship was designed for. Meanwhile, they've added a secondary goal of launching Starlink satellites (and they have to launch thousands of them. The Moon project is a nice bonus.
    1
  132.  @waynewells4885  "he isn't doing ANY Mars stuff" except for developing the giant rocket that can make a Mars colony even remotely affordable.
    1
  133.  @waynewells4885  You'll notice that I did not say anything about Musk being a 'hero'. I just answered your question of 'why is SpaceX building a fleet of Starships'.
    1
  134. NASA goes everywhere. I can see the ISS in orbit, even with the naked eye. Radio amateurs have received signals from NASA missions on Mars.
    1
  135. We've done hundreds of those. Getting humans through the belts is easy. By 1962, we knew that the radiation levels in the belts are low enough that they pose no threat to the astronauts passing through the belts. Manned missions that orbit in the belts have to take precautions. For electronics it's a bit more difficult: modern electronics are far more susceptible to radiation than humans (older electronics are less susceptible than new designs: the smaller the features on an IC, the more susceptible to radiation). So we learned how to radiation-harden our electronics. These days, you can get radiation-hardened microprocessors from commercial sources. Every year, new satellites using these processors are launched to geostationary orbit, which is inside the outer VA belt. These satellites routinely operate for 15 years without issue.
    1
  136. We have been to the moon. The evidence is conclusive.
    1
  137.  @lostmymarbles9151  Evidence for the moon landings includes: - 382 kg of lunar rock samples which have been examined by geologists all over the world, who found that those samples have a structure that is unlike any rock found on Earth, caused by those rocks forming in 1/6 g gravity.  - hours of live TV, all of which show they are in 1/6 g gravity and in a vacuum  - more than 8000 photos.  - tons of measurements and scientific results.  - during the Apollo missions, amateur astronomers could see the CSM/LM on its way to the Moon.  - in several countries including the USSR, people monitored Apollo spacecraft radio transmissions. Radio astronomers used their telescopes to monitor transmissions, confirming they were transmitting from the moon. Radio amateurs were able to listen to transmissions from the moon.  - India's Chandrayaan-2 orbiter has photographed the Apollo 11 and 12 landing sites, and found they match the Apollo data, down to the foot tracks left by the astronauts. Japan's Selene lunar orbiter has mapped the Apollo landing sites and found the topography matches that seen in Apollo photos.  - the Apollo missions left laser reflectors on the moon, and anyone with a powerful laser can confirm those reflectors are there.  - tens of thousands of technical reports on every aspect of Apollo remain available in public archives, so we can see how they did everything.  All of this proves beyond reasonable doubt that the moon landings are real. The deniers, on the other hand, have come up with nothing. 50 years, and not a single shred of evidence has surfaced that shows the Apollo landings were faked.
    1
  138.  @lostmymarbles9151  The "petrified wood" story is just that, a story. In 1969, the American ambassador presented a gift to a Dutch citizen to conmemorate the Apollo 11 landing. This gift was a piece of petrified wood. The gift did not claim to be a moon rock. That gift ended up in a museum's collection. In 2006 someone found it in the museum stores and incorrectly assumed that this was a lunar rock sample. In 2009, this was examined and found to be wood. NASA keeps extensive records on its lunar samples. Two samples were supplied to the Netherlands, the petrified wood is not one of them.
    1
  139. no, he does not.
    1
  140. Many people influenced the Apollo mission design. Two key figures were Werner von Braun, who was the director of the facility that designed the Saturn V, and John Houbolt, who came up with the idea of lunar orbit rendezvous, which enabled the Apollo missions to be done using only one Saturn V.
    1
  141. Anyone can figure out that space is real by looking up at night. Every day, you profit from data and services supplied by satellites.
    1
  142.  @matrixresetinprogress  I can use a telescope to look at satellites, and I can see enough detail to see they are not suspended from balloons. I can measure the speed and altitude of satellites from the ground: I find speeds of 28,000 km/s a hundred times faster than any balloon has ever been, and an altitude of 400 km and more, when no balloon has been higher than 50 km. With a radio antenna, I can find satellites at altitudes of up to 36,000 km. So, anyone can prove that satellites are real, and not suspended from balloons.
    1
  143. Because that is a baseless accusation.
    1
  144. Artemis missions involve a crew of 4 staying on the moon for months, not the 2 men for 3 days that Apollo was limited to. Food, oxygen and other supplies have not gotten any smaller since Apollo.
    1
  145. We can, in fact. We've known how since 1962.
    1
  146. Apollo did get to the moon, 6 times. The evidence is overwhelming.
    1
  147. NASA discarded only the engineering telemetry. That data was essential for troubleshooting during the mission, but became useless at the end of the program. All of the useful data was preserved, and continues to be available in public archives. The scientific hardware from each mission is sitting on the moon. The data from those experiments continues to be available in public archives.
    1
  148.  @lancecullen77  It's the other way round. 100% oxygen at low pressure is cheaper for two reasons: 1. the pressure hull can be made thinner, because of the lower pressure. 2. you don't have to carry a system to supply nitrogen (after every EVA, the cabin had to be filled again).
    1
  149. We actually did go to the moon, 6 times. There is a mountain of evidence that proves this.
    1
  150. That's not honest, it's blatant disregard of all the evidence that says we did do this in the 60's.
    1
  151. The evidence says otherwise.
    1
  152. Fuel: we can verify that the spacecraft had more than enough fuel for every stage of the mission. Vacuum: a vacuum is only lethal if you expose a human to vacuum. The astronauts were in a pressurized environment during the whole mission. The only lunacy can be found in the claims made by the moon landing deniers.
    1
  153. We can't just reuse the Apollo hardware: it is limited to putting 2 men on the moon for a max of 3 days. Artemis wants larger crews to spend months on the moon, which means scaling everything up.
    1
  154. Evidence for SLIM's moon landing: - the launch was easily visible from hundreds of km around Taganeshima - telemetry from SLIM was received independently by a group of radio amateurs in Bochum, DE - the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter has photographed SLIM on the moon. - photos from SLIM and its rovers have been received and published - and there is no evidence at all that points to these missions having been faked.
    1
  155.  @LordDeBahs  I've already listed the empirical evidence that proves definitively that SLIM is on the moon.
    1
  156. Yes, they did, 6 times.
    1
  157.  @Algoritmik  No, Destin is not claiming the Apollo missions were faked. He did several videos that discuss Apollo in detail, and at no point during those hour-long videos does he claim that the missions were faked.
    1
  158. 10,000 satellites in orbit prove there is no dome.
    1
  159.  @paumang4811  No argument, then.
    1
  160.  @antondavidoff150  You're one of those people who believes the moon landings were faked, despite there being no evidence to support that claim?
    1
  161. The environmental impact from spaceflight is about 1/1,000,000 that of airline travel.
    1
  162. This is what he told NASA: Don't be afraid to speak up when you see something going wrong.
    1
  163. We spent $250 billion on Apollo. After Apollo, NASA's budget was cut by 90%, making further manned lunar missions unaffordable. There is abundant evidence from many different sources that proves the Apollo landings are real.
    1
  164. ​ @rogerledwell5776  The second law of thermodynamics says that heat always flows from hot places to colder places. Flerfs like to use complicated-sounding terms like "second law of thermodynamics" in an effort to bamboozle you. But their argument is groundless: there's nothing about our atmosphere and space that violates this law.
    1
  165.  @rogerledwell5776  Gravity has been proven over and over again. Cavendish first demonstrated that any two objects will attract each other with a force that depends only on their mass. Newton and Einstein's equations make numerous predictions (from simple things like the orbits of the planets, behavior of objects on Earth, to more complex predictions like the warping of spacetime by mass), which we can verify through observation and experimentation. Every time, we find that those predictions are adequate, confirming that these theories are an accurate description of reality.
    1
  166.  @rogerledwell5776  The effect of gravity is clear: it produces a force that pulls objects closer together. We can measure this force. Newton's equations correctly predict this force. We know this force is caused by mass warping spacetime. Ever since Einstein first proposed this, we have examined his equations, used them to predict how this warping of spacetime would manifest itself, and then dit observations and experiments to see if those predictions are accurate. Time and time again we found that they ARE accurate, which means Einstein's proposal was correct. There are unanswered questions in this, but the basics are solid.
    1
  167. The only Apollo telemetry that was discarded is the engineering telemetry from the Saturn V. This was essential for troubleshooting if a failure happened during the mission, but became useless the moment the last Saturn V mission ended. All of the important data on the Apollo missions is retained and remains available. The data on the physical effects of the van Allen belts can be found in van Allen's papers, in Apollo experience reports etc, all of which remain available in public archives.
    1
  168. The US went to the moon 6 times. We've analyzed the Apollo photos and video, and found they cannot be replicated in a studio on Earth.
    1
  169. We've had that since 1968.
    1
  170. It was an accident. The whole "NASA killed Grissom" story is nonsense. Supposedly, NASA killed him to cover up his criticism of the Apollo program. But the fire proved that that criticism was correct. It drew attention to that criticism far more than when he was alive. This was easily foreseeable. Anyone with a brain would have concluded that a capsule fire would be the dumbest possible way to assassinate Grissom. So we can discard that whole claim, and stick to the facts: Grissom, White and Chaffee died in an accident.
    1
  171. it's the only way to do what we want: put a 4-man crew on the moon for a month or more. If you wanted to do that with a single launch, the rocket you need would dwarf the Saturn V.
    1
  172. Apollo was capable of putting 2 men on the moon for a maximum of 3 days. Anything more requires a bigger rocket to get the crew, their food, their instruments etc to the moon. You can't use a reactor to split water to feed a rocket engine. You need a reactor that weighs thousands of tons to provide enough power to keep up with the kind of fuel consumption you have in a rocket engine.
    1
  173. That plan depends on two quantities that are unknown: the payload of Starship (which remains unknown until development has finished), and the boiloff rate of the propellants in Starship tanks (which remains unknown until it's been tested in space).
    1
  174. No, that was an engineering-led decision. LOR allowed each Apollo mission to be launched on a single rocket. All other mission designs needed multiple launches.
    1
  175. It's embarrassing that you post that days after SpaceX demonstrated cryogenic refueling in space on IFT-3.
    1
  176.  @Dailydose13  They moved fuel from one tank to another, in 0 G. That may have caused the ship to go out of control so they have problems to solve.
    1
  177. A "fraud" who has successfully launched 100 rockets last year, and is well on track for finishing Starship development a lot faster than the SLS was done.
    1
  178. Imagine believing NASA does not go to space, when all of the evidence tells you it does.
    1
  179. The Apollo missions landed 0.5 tons of payload on the moon, enabling 2 people to stay for 3 days. Artemis wants to land tens of tons on the moon, to allow a larger crew to stay for months. That's what the 15 rockets enable.
    1
  180. See the link in the description.
    1
  181. That is all nonsense.
    1
  182. I can see satellites pass overhead in the night sky, proving you wrong.
    1
  183.  @somedude1313  1. With a telescope I can see enough detail to recognize them. 2. Satellite tracking services predict when I'll be able to see them. 3. by aiming a radio antenna at my observation I can receive radio signals from them, that's often enough to positively identify them. 4. my observations rule out airplanes and balloons: these satellites move at 28,000 km/h and orbit at altitudes of 400 km and more.
    1
  184.  @somedude1313  When a satellite passes over my house at the exact same time every day, I know it's not in the atmosphere where wind can accelerate or delay it.
    1
  185. Anyone with common sense and logic will follow the evidence, and the evidence is clear: we landed on the moon 6 times. Anyone with common sense and logic can tell you that yes, the LM was capable of doing the tasks it had to do. We have a paper trail a mile wide that allows us to verify this. We know the Apollo photos and videos were not made on Earth. They show an environment we cannot replicate on Earth: 1/6 g gravity, no atmosphere, and lighting that cannot be replicated in a studio.
    1
  186. those 16 launches will land about 16 times more mass on the moon than Apollo did. The goal is not to put 2 men on the moon for 3 days, it's to put a larger crew on the moon for months. So we need to transfer a lot more mass to the moon.
    1
  187. No, the Challenger astronauts are dead. Space deniers found some people who look a bit like the Challenger crew, then falsely claimed these were the Challenger crew. If you put photos of the crewmembers and these people side by side, you will notice major differences that cannot be explained by plastic surgery. The deniers also cannot explain why these people have the same name as the dead crewmembers. Rule one of witness protection is that you get an entirely different name.
    1
  188. In the 1960s, NASA put 450,000 people to work for a decade to get to the moon. Now they're going to the moon with 1/25 that workforce, so inevitably it's taking a bit longer.
    1
  189. That is just a bunch of drivel. The physics of space are real. 10,000 satellites in orbit prove this beyond any doubt.
    1
  190. The big difference is that Apollo had 25 times the annual budget that Artemis has. Of course it's going to take longer that way. And Apollo cannot support the kind of missions we want for Artemis, where 4-man crews stay on the Moon for months.
    1
  191. Actual science tells us space travel is possible. Anyone claiming space travel is impossible is not using science to come to that conclusion.
    1
  192. We could, but Apollo was limited to putting 2 men on the moon for 3 days. We want to have larger crews that can stay on the moon for months, which requires landing a lot more payload on the moon than a Saturn V can carry.
    1
  193. You know anything to do with NASA is reality.
    1
  194.  @Tracy-Inches  Anyone doing actual research will conclude the Apollo landings are real. There is no evidence for any fakery.
    1
  195. We could, but the Apollo architecture still puts an upper limit on the mass it can ferry to the moon: enough to put 2 people on the moon for a few days, not enough to support a larger crew for 3-6 months.
    1
  196. Sad that you think the moon landings were faked, when we have a ton of evidence says that they're real.
    1
  197. He told you what happened already.
    1
  198. Back to, yes. We landed humans on the moon 6 times form 1969 to 1972. In the 50 years since, nobody has presented any evidence that says otherwise. All we get from the deniers is hot air and nonsense.
    1
  199. von Braun found a new way to explore the heavens: by going there.
    1
  200. It's sad that someone that close to the program cannot distinguish between truth and lies.
    1
  201. Like all perpetual motion machines, your idea won't work.
    1
  202. No, he did not claim that at all. Apollo put 2 men on the moon for up to 3 days. They built the largest rocket that was feasible at that time so they could fit everything into a single launch, and they cut corners to do it. The low-pressure pure-oxygen atmosphere was done to save weight, for instance. The LM was on the edge of what was physically possible. Artemis is designed to put larger crews on the moon for a month or more, which means they need far more supplies than can fit in an Apollo LM. They're also using far more robust spacecraft, with more living space, more redundancy and safety features, etc.
    1
  203. No 'bleeding edge satellites' were transferred from the US to China or the CIS. Anything advanced or sensitive is launched by a US company from US soil. This is what ULA was created for.
    1
  204. The evidence says otherwise.
    1
  205. Going to space since 1958, as anyone can confirm by looking up at the night sky.
    1
  206. No, NASA does not say that.
    1
  207.  @kazimierzsokolowski7810  No. You are misquoting a 2010 interview from Don Pettit, where he says he'd like to go to the moon but he can't. He was correct: in 2010, NASA did not have a moon-capable spacecraft in production.  Note that this does not mean NASA did not have such a spacecraft in 1969. As of now, that is changing: Artemis 1 has shown we can deliver a manned mission to the moon. The accompanying lander is still in development.
    1
  208.  @kazimierzsokolowski7810  No. Pettit wasn't quoting anyone when he said that. He made an off-the-cuff remark that the deniers have latched onto, pretending that it is the "ultimate gospel" and proof that the Apollo missions were faked. It is neither.
    1
  209. All of the evidence says we went to the moon. Smart people follow the evidence, not the empty claims that the landings were faked.
    1
  210. All of the available evidence shows that Apollo went down exactly as how it was told.
    1
  211. The Apollo LM could put 2 men on the moon for at most 3 days. Now we want a larger crew to stay on the moon for a month. That makes the lander a lot larger, in order to carry all the supplies they'll need. SpaceX proposed a version of Starship to be used as the lander. This is much bigger than needed for just that goal (it was built to carry a payload of 100 tons, enough to support an even larger crew for 6 months). The many launches are used to get that very large ship to the moon. They optimized not for minimum weight, but for minimum cost. With a reusable rocket, those 15 launches per mission may turn out to be cheaper than developing a weight-optimized lander.
    1
  212. Not for 'the same effect'. 50 years ago, we built a rocket that could put 2 men on the moon with enough supplies for 3 days. Now we want to build a base on the moon, which requires a lot more material to be transported to the moon. This obviously means the rocket has to be bigger.
    1
  213.  @dinkokolic4386  For the first mission, they still want to use the same, much larger lander as the later missions.
    1
  214.  @dinkokolic4386  The lander is Starship, a SpaceX vehicle that is still in development. This is a huge vehicle designed to carry 100 tons of payload. It is not a mass-optimized lunar lander. Because it is still in development, along with its booster rocket, the amount of fuel that one Starship can carry to orbit (to refuel the lunar lander) is unknown, which explains the large variation we see in number of tanker missions required.
    1
  215. They figured out how to get through the belts in 1962. The radiation levels are low enough that humans can safely pass through the belts without shielding.
    1
  216.  @jstagzsr  Yes, Google was wrong when it says satellites orbit at 160 km. 160 km is on the lower edge of viable orbits: at that altitude, satellites quickly lose speed and reenter the atmosphere. In practice, very few satellites orbit below 400 km altitude. The ISS is at about 400 km. Most satellites are between 400 and 2000 km, and hundreds are in higher orbits (36,000 km is common: that's the geostationary orbit, where many communications satellites are).
    1
  217.  @jstagzsr  Your 'decades of research' have left big gaps in your knowledge. The radiation levels in the van Allen belts are low enough that humans in an unshielded spacecraft can traverse the belts without risk to their health. The Apollo crews got a dose on the order of 0.2 Rad from one belt crossing. A lethal dose is 300 Rad. The belts are more of a problem for modern electronics: the features in integrated circuits are so small that a single particle passing through the IC can carry enough charge to flip a bit. Because we've been building satellites for this environment for decades, we've gotten really good at building electronics that can handle this. Several companies will sell you radiation-hardened ICs for use in space. Again, no shielding is necessary when you use these electronics.
    1
  218.  @jstagzsr  NASA does not claim they can't get through the VA belts. Everything I've said is based directly on dr. van Allen's research papers published in 1958-1962. Here's a direct quote from van Allen himself: “The radiation belts of the Earth do, indeed, pose important constraints on the safety of human space flight. The very energetic (tens to hundreds of MeV) protons in the inner radiation belt are the most dangerous and most difficult to shield against. Specifically, prolonged flights (i.e., ones of many months’ duration) of humans or other animals in orbits about the Earth must be conducted at altitudes less than about 250 miles in order to avoid significant radiation exposure. A person in the cabin of a space shuttle in a circular equatorial orbit in the most intense region of the inner radiation belt, at an altitude of about 1000 miles, would be subjected to a fatal dosage of radiation in about one week. However, 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 Ed 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.”
    1
  219. Incorrect. 12 people have walked on the moon.
    1
  220. Apollo was the opposite of a compartmentalized program. It was run in full public view.
    1
  221. We have research on gravity going back all the way to Newton's publication of Principia. Cavendish proved that any two masses attract each other, and measured the gravitational constant. We knew Earth is a globe 2500 years ago, and since then, we've used a dozen different methods to confirm this. The rest of your claims is as unsupported as the first two.
    1
  222. Yes, Apollo was a success. We have multiple independent lines of evidence that shows the Apollo landings are real.
    1
  223. India and Japan are landing 100 kg on the moon. Artemis wants to land tens of tons on the moon. Of course you're going to need more rockets to do that.
    1
  224. 1. They don't, they just accept that it happens. It's nothing more than a brief flash. 2. In a rocket, propellant is burned. This creates a high-pressure gas that wants to expand in all directions, exerting a force on any walls it comes across. The combustion chamber and nozzle are open at the rear, so no force in that direction. The forces on the sides cancel each other out, and the force on the front of the nozzle and chamber is not cancelled out. This is the force that drives the rocket forward.
    1
  225. No, nobody has "proven" we never left Earth with humans. In 50 years, nobody has presented actual evidence that the Apollo landings were faked.
    1
  226. No, they didn't. We didn't need any "technology" to get through those belts. Humans can pass through the belts without a problem.
    1
  227. The truth is that the Apollo landings are real.
    1
  228. Apollo landed 2 men on the moon for up to 3 days. Now we want to send larger crews to the moon to spend months on the surface. We could do this with a few dozen Saturn V missions, or we can find a better architecture. Artemis isn't optimal (the long orbit they're stuck in because Orion doesn't have the performance), but it's better than launching dozens of non-reusable rockets.
    1
  229. Anyone who uses actual common sense and research will realize that the Apollo missions are real. There is no data to suggest otherwise.
    1
  230. I can see the ISS in orbit, even with the naked eye. NASA's doing this for real instead of faking it.
    1
  231. The evidence says otherwise.
    1
  232. Apollo was a fine vehicle for putting 2 men on the moon for a maximum of 3 days. Now we want to put more people on the moon and have them stay for months, which would require dozens of Saturn Vs per mission.
    1
  233.  @DonnieDarko727  all of the footage of every Apollo mission remains available today. ONE recording was lost, of the Apollo 11 EVA. We have other recordings of that same broadcast, the lost recording was of slightly better quality as it missed one conversion step. The only perpendicular shadows are cast by perpendicular objects.
    1
  234.  @DonnieDarko727  Sibrel's claims that the astronauts were faking being halfway to the moon have been thoroughly debunked by Dave McKeegan (see his recent video). As usual, Sibrel was lying when he made that claim.
    1
  235.  @DonnieDarko727  Evidence that shows the Apollo landings are real includes: - the photos and videos made by the Apollo crews. They show an environment we can't replicate on Earth.The lighting shows these photos and videos were not recorded in a studio: there is one light source very far away. The videos show they are operating in 1/6 g, which we cannot replicate at all on Earth, and in a vacuum, which would require recording in a vacuum chamber, and we already know from the lighting they are not indoors. - 382 kg of lunar rock samples that have been examined by thousands of geologists all over the world. They found that the structure of those samples is different from anything found on Earth. - eyewitness reports from people who observed the Apollo spacecraft to its way to the moon, and from people who received radio comms from the spacecraft again from the moon - lunar orbiters from 4 different countries have photographed the Apollo landing sites and saw they were exactly as described in the Apollo data - the Apollo missions left laser reflectors behind, which anyone with a decent laser can still use today. Meanwhile, there is no evidence that the landings were faked. None. All you have is arguments that rely on you not finding the holes in those arguments (as I did with your claims).
    1
  236. Hyatt is a charlatan. The evidence proves him wrong.
    1
  237. There is no reason to doubt the reality of the Apollo landings. There is abundant evidence that shows the Apollo landings are real.
    1
  238. Everyone knows the real score is Apollo 6 - Artemis 0.
    1
  239. That complexity will be required if we want to go to Mars or any other destination in the solar system.
    1
  240. Because those technological advances did not lead to cheaper spaceflight.
    1
  241. Orion was designed for a different mission than what it's being used for now, and was not modified to have enough d-V. Apollo did not have that problem.
    1
  242. No, they didn't.
    1
  243. No, space does not violate any laws of physics. The second law of thermodynamics says that heat always flows from hot places to colder places. Look up tonight: you can see satellites in space, proving that space is real.
    1
  244.  @spakeface9752  Yes, Earth is obviously an open system: heat comes in from the Sun, and heat is lost to space through IR radiation.
    1
  245. They keep working on this because that's what the US government has ordered them to do. Artemis is not non-viable, it's just not the most efficient way of doing things.
    1
  246. No, that's not what we are saying at all. We know exactly how Apollo got to the moon. But Artemis is not intended to be a repeat of Apollo. They want to put larger crews on the moon for months, which requires a lot more mass to be transported to the moon than what an Apollo LM could ever handle.
    1
  247. No, that is not a reason. The radiation levels in the van Allen belts are low enough that humans can safely travel through them. The only problem is that electronics have to be radiation-hardened, and after launching hundreds of missions (mainly geostationary satellites) through the belts, we've gotten very good at that.
    1
  248. We did, and we landed 6 manned missions.
    1
  249.  @powersww1reset  Dave McKeegan has done a video on observing the ISS from the ground. Scott Manley has done a video on measuring the speed and latitude of satellites.
    1
  250.  @lazarus2691  The radiation levels in the VA belts are lower than that. At the center, where the level is highest, it takes one week to get a lethal dose of radiation. The astronauts traversed the belts in 3 hours, while avoiding the center of the belts completely.
    1
  251. Those 'repeated attempts and failures' each provided a lesson to NASA and its contractors. Each failure resulted in improvements to the next rocket they launched. So all those failures led to rapid improvement in reliability. This is obvious from the launch statistics from the late 1950s to 1970. The number of failures dropped precipitously. NASA prepared for the Apollo missions with a ton of tests. Saturn V stages were tested on huge test stands before a rocket was assembled and flown. Then there were unmanned tests of the Saturn V and the Apollo spacecraft. They managed to do all this quickly because they were given a blank check and they could put 450,000 people to work to solve tons of problems in parallel.
    1
  252. The very first NASA satellites were designed to measure the radiation levels in space. So by 1962, we had a map of the van Allen belts. That data told us that humans can pass through the belts safely without needing any shielding beyond what was provided by the pressure hull of the CM. The research people are doing today is not about the VA belts. It's about the radiation in interplanetary space, and e.g. on the surface of the moon. Again, the levels here are low enough that humans can operate in them safely for short missions like the Apollo missions, but with Artemis we want to spend months on the moon, and 6 months is long enough for the radiation to become a concern. This is also why we can't use the Apollo tech. It was only good for short missions: 2 people on the moon for up to 3 days. Now we want to build a base on the moon, so larger crews can do 3-6 month long missions on the surface.
    1
  253. The evidence proves you wrong. We landed on the moon 6 times.
    1
  254.  @MarkYesno-nv7hp  The radiation level in the VA belts is low enough that humans can pass through them safely without any shielding other than the pressure hull of the spacecraft. The only potential issue is with the radiation affecting electronics, and radiation-hardening electronics is not that difficult either. From 1958 to 1962, some of the first satellites launched by the USA were used to measure the radiation levels in space. By 1962 we knew the VA belts would not be a problem for Apollo.
    1
  255.  @rogerledwell5776  Grissom, White and Chaffee died in an accident. His criticism of the Apollo project was proven correct by that fire, and NASA spent the next year doing a complete review of the design of every part of Apollo. In that fire, the 'failure is not an option' mentality was born, and this led to the success of the Apollo missions.
    1
  256.  @rogerledwell5776  Already answered. You are going to claim Grissom, White and Chaffee were murdered. The problem with that claim is that killing these people in a capsule fire has the exact opposite effect of shutting them up. The Apollo 11 fire demonstrated the reality of Grissom's concerns, and NASA spent a year addressing those concerns. So the only rational conclusion is that the Apollo 1 fire was an accident and not murder.
    1
  257. Simple experiments that anyone can do prove that we live on a rotating sphere. We've known this for hundreds of years, and don't need spaceflight to prove this. Photos of Earth from space just confirm what we already know.
    1
  258. Neither of those is true. all of the footage is still available. We have a mountain of documentation on every aspect of Apollo. The only know-how that was lost was the practical knowledge you build up when you build and assemble a device from drawings: things like order of operations, little adjustments etc.
    1
  259. Computers are only a tiny fraction of what it takes to get to the moon. Designing and building a 100 meter tall rocket has not gotten any cheaper since 1960, just like designing and building an airliner has not gotten cheaper since then.
    1
  260. Sibrel hasn't made a valid point in his entire career. He's a grifter, nothing more.
    1
  261. That is not as big a problem as you think. Starship development is progressing at high speed, and part of that is testing the hardware until it breaks.
    1
  262. You failed the grasp the lesson of this video then.
    1
  263.  @JohnsonFE  We have abundant proof that the Apollo landings are real.
    1
  264. The only fakers are the people who claim "green screens and wires" when no wires or green screens are visible in the video.
    1
  265. I can see the ISS pass overhead from my back yard, proving you wrong.
    1
  266. Anyone can set up a pendulum and see it precess, demonstrating that Earth does rotate. Navigation with gyroscopes just becomes a bit more complicated due to Earth's rotation.
    1
  267. Musk is on track to provide a rocket as large as the SLS for 1/10 the cost of the SLS.
    1
  268. The complexity is not in the number of launches. It’s: - launch 16 tanker missions in a timeframe of a few days. It’s one thing to launch two missions from two launch pads on the same day, it’s quite another to launch 16 missions from two launch pads in 2 days. - dock each tanker with the ship that will take all that fuel to the moon - transfer tens of tons of fuel in zero G. At the moment, most missions take a day from launch to docking, that would have to be sped up drastically. Fuel transfer of cryogenic fuels has never been demonstrated.
    1
  269.  @CausticLemons7  No, this is not speculation, this is knowledge. I've been following Artemis closely. - they need a short timeframe because the propellants are cryogenic, which means they boil off quickly. The longer the interval between tankers, the more flights you need. - only one launchpad for Starship is available now. Work is ongoing for a second. Those are the only pads available in the next few years.
    1
  270. We're developing new technology because instead of putting 2 men on the moon for 3 days, we want to put larger crews on the moon for months. We want to build a base on the moon, and a space station in lunar orbit.
    1
  271. Apollo cost $250 billion in today's money. That's why nobody has been back to the moon yet. The cost of developing and building 100 meter tall rockets has not come down yet - SpaceX is the first to attempt to do that with Starship. In the 1960s, the US was willing to spend this much in order to win the Space Race and beat the USSR. For science missions, that level of funding is unattainable. To see the stuff we left there, we have the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter. This is 10,000 times closer to the Moon than e.g. Hubble or JWST, so it has a much better view. LRO has photographed all of the Apollo sites, with enough resolution that we can see the foot tracks left by the astronauts.
    1
  272. Professionals do actually appreciate to hear the truth. Managers, less so.
    1
  273. The Saturn V rocket could put a few hundred kg of payload on the moon, enough for 2 men on a 3-day mission. Now we want to put a larger crew on the moon for months.
    1
  274. We don't know yet how many rockets are needed for refueling because the rocket that will do the refueling is still being designed. They have a target payload, but history shows that such a target is rarely met. More so when the design is so ambitious (this will be the first fully reusable rocket).
    1