Comments by "H. de Jong" (@h.dejong2531) on "The Problem with the Next Moon Mission" video.

  1. In 1958, James van Allen and his team at the University of Iowa discovered the belts that were later named after him, using measurements from the NASA missions Explorer 1. With Explorer 3 and 4 and Pioneer 3 he measured the radiation intensity. By 1962, we had a good map of the van Allen belt, and this is what it told us: in the part of the belt where the intensity is highest, if you stay there for about a week (inside an Apollo command module), you receive a lethal dose. So for the Apollo missions, the trajectory was designed to minimize the amount of time spent there. The Apollo astronauts flew through the belts in about 3 hours, while avoiding the part with the highest levels entirely. The hull thickness of the CSM was more than enough to reduce the radiation level inside to manageable levels. Astronauts' overall exposure was actually dominated by solar particles once outside Earth's magnetic field. The total radiation received by the astronauts varied from mission-to-mission but was measured to be between 0.16 and 1.14 rads (1.6 and 11.4 mGy). More details in this video from Scott Manley: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9YN50xXFJY
    5
  2. 10,000 satellites we can use prove that space is real.
    5
  3. The lunar module was pressurized except during the EVAs.
    5
  4. What kind of idiot doesn't know about reflexes? Trying to blow dust off is an instinctive reaction; instincts like that are almost impossible to shut off.
    5
  5. That footprint shows compressed dust. No moisture necessary.
    5
  6.  @petervankas1352  Hundreds of manned space missions prove you wrong.
    5
  7.  @petervankas1352  The ISS is visible from the ground: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_ADBlrIRsM Despite 50 years of trying, no space flight denier has ever been able to make an argument that sticks.
    5
  8. None of that is correct. 1. On Apollo 11, Neil had to switch to manual control because the planned landing site was in a boulder field. Other landings set down on crater edges and slopes, one landing ended with only 3 of the legs touching the surface. 2. Neil made about 60 landings in the LLTV. One of them failed because the LLTV ran out of helium without warning (no level indication in the helium tank). So your "math" doesn't work out because you've ignored important information.
    5
  9. That's one of the Gemini missions. The Gemini spacesuit had its helmet attached to a ring with rotating bearings, allowing the astronaut to turn his head from side to side. The Apollo missions switched to a fixed helmet. Before spouting off about cartoons, look up what really happened.
    5
  10. All the data you could ever want is available in public archives. The raw telemetry tapes were discarded when they were no longer useful, after the useful data was processed and archived.
    5
  11.  @Roxasamico  All of the Apollo science data is publicly accessible in the Planetary Data System archive. All of the technical data is available on the NASA Technical Report Server, another public archive.
    5
  12. As evidence for the moon landings, we have 382 kg of moon rock, hours of live TV, hours of film, thousands of photos, stacks of measurements and scientific results, eyewitness accounts, and photos of the landing sites made by later lunar orbiters. Detailed analysis of the physics and engineering required shows that it is possible to land on the moon with 1960s technology. Despite 50 years of trying, no moon landing denier has ever produced convincing evidence of his claims.
    5
  13. False. There were 9 missions that traveled to the moon, 6 of which landed there. We have a ton of evidence for the moon landings. Despite 50 years of trying, no moon landing denier has ever produced convincing evidence of his claims.
    5
  14. That's not history, that's fantasy.
    4
  15. Any 'thinking' person coming to that conclusion has made an error in his reasoning.
    4
  16. We figured out how to get through the van Allen belts in 1958. For radiation, there are 2 important variables: 1. the radiation intensity 2. the amount of time you are exposed to this intensity. You can multiply these two and get the total radiation dose. Humans die if they receive a dose of about 300 Rad. In 1958, James van Allen and his team discovered the belts that were later named after him. He also measured the radiation intensity. This is what he found: in the part of the belt where the intensity is highest, it is high enough that if you stay for about a week (inside an Apollo command module), you receive a lethal dose. So for the Apollo missions, the trajectory was designed to minimize the amount of time spent there. The Apollo astronauts flew through the belts in about 3 hours, while avoiding the part with the highest levels entirely. The hull thickness of the CSM was more than enough to reduce the radiation level inside to manageable levels. Astronauts' overall exposure was actually dominated by solar particles once outside Earth's magnetic field. The total radiation received by the astronauts varied from mission-to-mission but was measured to be between 0.16 and 1.14 rads (1.6 and 11.4 mGy). More details in this video from Scott Manley: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9YN50xXFJY
    4
  17.  @davidsheckler4450  1. Look at the sky tonight. You can see satellites pass overhead. With simple tools, you can measure their speed and altitude https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zApGNHOi0s You'll find an altitude of more than 200 km and a speed of 8 km/s. Proof that those satellites are in space. 2. When you point a dish antenna at a point 36000 km above the equator, you can receive TV signals broadcast by a communications satellite in geostationary orbit. I can do this from any point on the planet. Again, proving that there are satellites at 36,000 km. 3. Open the navigation app on your phone. This works by receiving signals from satellites. This works anywhere in the world, including in the middle of the ocean and in warzones. This cannot be faked by transmitters on the ground or in airplanes. From the data sent by the satellites, you can calculate the position of the transmitter: at an altitude of 20,000 km. Every day, you benefit from data generated in space, proving space is real.
    4
  18.  @SilverEye91  Sure. But your first, instinctive reaction will be to try and blow the dust off. Same as wearing a helmet here on Earth. Anyone who rides a motorcycle knows this: when your nose itches, you'll reach up to scratch it and bang into your helmet.
    4
  19. We don't have to remember it, it's all documented. The question is, why would you want to reuse a 50 year-old design instead of designing something that takes advantage of 50 years of progress?
    4
  20. We figured out how to get through the van Allen belts in 1958. For radiation, there are 2 important variables: 1. the radiation intensity 2. the amount of time you are exposed to this intensity. You can multiply these two and get the total radiation dose. Humans die if they receive a dose of about 300 Rad. In 1958, James van Allen and his team discovered the belts that were later named after him. He also measured the radiation intensity. This is what he found: in the part of the belt where the intensity is highest, it is high enough that if you stay for about a week (inside an Apollo command module), you receive a lethal dose. So for the Apollo missions, the trajectory was designed to minimize the amount of time spent there. When the Apollo astronauts flew through the van Allen belts (which took about 3 hours), they received a dose of radiation of between 0.16 and 1.14 rads, or less than 1% of a lethal dose. More details in this video from Scott Manley: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9YN50xXFJY
    4
  21. There were plans for a Surveyor mission with a rover, but they were shelved early on. Russia operated 2 rovers on the moon (Lunokhod 1 and 2).
    4
  22. As evidence for the moon landings, we have 382 kg of moon rock, hours of live TV, hours of film, thousands of photos, stacks of measurements and scientific results, eyewitness accounts, and photos of the landing sites made by later lunar orbiters. Detailed analysis of the physics and engineering required shows that it is possible to land on the moon with 1960s technology. Despite 50 years of trying, no moon landing denier has ever produced convincing evidence of his claims.
    4
  23. In every landing video, at about 1 minute before touchdown you can see the dust being blown away. Because there's no air, all the dust moves in a straight line, instead of billowing into big clouds as it would on Earth.
    4
  24. That is incorrect. I've measured how long it takes that astronaut to fall, and it's 2.5 times longer than on Earth, which means his acceleration is 1.6 m/s2, i.e. lunar gravity and not Earth's 9.8 m/s2. That fall confirms he was on the moon.
    4
  25. Incorrect. It falls back at 1.6 m/s2. This is easily measurable in the videos.
    4
  26. 8 Apollo command modules orbited the moon and observed lots of sunsets and sunrises.
    4
  27. Will you wake up one day and realized you've been conned, and space is actually real? Every day, you benefit from space-based systems.
    4
  28. They livestreamed the moon landings in 1969, using TV broadcasts.
    4
  29.  @jameskeith7608  I know, the 'lost the technology' quote. He was wrong. The technology wasn't lost: all of the information we need to build a new Saturn V and Apollo spacecraft are available. What was lost at the end of Apollo was the production facilities for Saturn V and Apollo. Those were dismantled to make room for the next project. NASA switched to the Space Shuttle, which is built for operations in Earth orbit. It's a lot more capable than Apollo (18 tons of cargo, instead of 300 kg) but its size meant it's too heavy to escape Earth's gravity and get to the moon. So when that interview was given 10 years ago, the USA had no lunar spacecraft in production, ready to go. That's why he could not go back to the moon. That is changing: Artemis is in development right now.
    4
  30. Those Apollo suits were developing problems in only 3 days on the moon, so we need something better.
    4
  31.  @pokie6087  Every day, you benefit from services provided by satellites. Services that cannot be provided by ground-based or airborne systems. Satellites in low orbit are visible. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_ADBlrIRsM
    4
  32. Correct, they were there in 1969.
    4
  33. Yes, of course dropped objects fall to the ground. The Moon has gravity. It's weaker than on Earth, at 1/6 G. That translates to objects taking about 2.4 times longer to reach the ground compared to Earth.
    4
  34. In every landing video, at about 1 minute before touchdown you can see the dust being blown away. Because there's no air, all the dust moves in a straight line, instead of billowing into big clouds as it would on Earth. That also means the dust uniformly moves at high speed - far too fast to settle on the lander feet.
    4
  35. 1. All of the original reels of film are in a well-known archive. They've been scanned several times, and the scans are available on several websites. 2. All of the samples are known, cataloged and well-published. Thousands are loaned to geologists all over the word every year. 3. Five minutes of research will tell you that the LM was not 'scaffolding wrapped in tin foil'. 4. We practiced landing on the moon with the Surveyor probes. We practiced landing the LM using training systems on Earth, We tested the LM in Earth orbit and in lunar orbit. There's a lot of preparation before that "first attempt". 5. Many of the photos weren't perfect at all. We have incorrect framing (people's heads cut off), over/underexposed images. All have been scanned and published so you can verify this for yourself. So as usual, every single one of your objections is based on a lack of knowledge.
    4
  36.  @marelizemeier  False. The only footage NASA has lost is one TV recording of the Apollo 11 landing and first steps, recorded at Honeysuckle Creek, where the TV signal was received. We still have other recordings of that broadcast. The Honeysuckle Creek recording was at a higher quality (it avoided one step of conversion and quality loss) so it would have been nice to have. None of the photo negatives were lost. None of the 16mm film footage is lost. Honeysuckle Creek recordings of all TV transmissions from the other missions are also retained.
    4
  37.  @onepalproductions  NASA is not, and has never been, a military agency, and the Moon missions were not military missions: they were science missions, and flagwaving, for both of which publicity is beneficial.
    4
  38. Dust 'flies' when there is a pressure difference: air flows from a high-pressure area to a lower-pressure area. On the Moon, there is no pressure difference.
    4
  39.  @IvanMectin  When there's something you don't understand, there are 2 options. 1: study until you understand it, or 2. argue from your lack of knowledge. You chose option 2. Had you chosen option 1, you'd have learned this: The Apollo spacesuit backpack contained 3 oxygen tanks. The main tank was pressurized to 95 bar and contained about 0.75 kg of oxygen. Two auxiliary tanks hold another 0.1 kg. In addition, there's a rebreathing system using LiOH scrubbers. At the maximum leak rate, EVA duration is reduced by one hour.
    4
  40. The information to go to the Moon wasn't lost. Drawings for every part of the Saturn V and Apollo are still available. The software still exists, not that we'd want to reuse that. etc. The only part "lost" is the production chain for Saturn V and Apollo. That's not a surprise: you don't keep a production line around when it's no longer needed.
    4
  41.  @enochvaldorian2029  that's not even close. A standard 12 V car battery has a capacity of about 0.5 kWh, and can deliver up to 1 kW for short periods. The Apollo fuel cells ran at 27-31 V, with an output of 2.3 kW peak (the CSM required an average of 600 W). Each of the 3 fuel cells on board could supply 160 kWh, i.e. as much energy as 320 car batteries.
    4
  42. You don't need to push against anything. The rocket throws mass one way (out the exhaust), and in reaction, the vehicle itself moves the other way. That's what Newton's third law refers to. It doesn't rely on interaction with anything outside.
    3
  43. I've analyzed Apollo video. This is what I found: 1. falling objects fall at an acceleration of 1.6 m/s2. So it can't have been made on Earth. 2. thrown objects don't slow down. So there's no atmosphere. 3. there is only one light source, far away. So it can't have been made in a studio. These 3 observations confirm that the videos were not made on Earth, disproving the denier claims.
    3
  44. It's not a matter of technology. It took 4.5% of the US Federal budget to get to the moon, and rockets (esp large ones) have remained expensive.
    3
  45. In every landing video, at about 1 minute before touchdown you can see the dust being blown away. Because there's no air, all the dust moves in a straight line, instead of billowing into big clouds as it would on Earth. That also means the dust uniformly moves at high speed - far too fast to settle on the lander feet. The lunar surface consists of compact, interlocking rocks with a thin layer of dust on top. A small engine like the LM descent engine isn't going to dislodge those rocks. At touchdown, the LM descent engine produces only 1300 kg of thrust, spread over a large area. The pressure from this thrust is below 1 psi at ground level, i.e. the LM exerts less pressure on the ground than a hovercraft. You don't see hovercraft making craters when driving over sandy beaches, much less when they operate on rocky ground.
    3
  46. As evidence for the moon landings, we have 382 kg of moon rock, hours of live TV, hours of film, thousands of photos, stacks of measurements and scientific results, eyewitness accounts, and photos of the landing sites made by later lunar orbiters. No denier has ever been able to disprove any of this.
    3
  47. While technically true, that atmosphere has a density on the order of 1 atom per cm3, i.e. close enough to 0 as makes no difference for the purposes of this discussion. Time for you to hit the books again.
    3
  48. 4 sentences, and only one of them is correct (the first one).
    3
  49. In every landing video, at about 1 minute before touchdown you can see the dust being blown away. Because there's no air, all the dust moves in a straight line, instead of billowing into big clouds as it would on Earth. That also means the dust uniformly moves at high speed - far too fast to settle on the lander feet. The lunar surface consists of compact, interlocking rocks with a thin layer of dust on top. A small engine like the LM descent engine isn't going to dislodge those rocks.
    3
  50.  @stoneyestevan1513  You assume I must be an atheist because I know the lunar landings are real.
    3
  51.  @stoneyestevan1513  I'm saying I don't have to be an atheist to know the moon landings are real.
    3
  52. It is laughable that anybody believes the landings were faked: all of the arguments made my moon landing deniers are full of holes and easily disproven. The blueprints for the Saturn V and Apollo spacecraft are stored at the Smithsonian. All of them.
    3
  53. No, that's not the truth.
    3
  54. The LM was built perfectly for its task: to descend to the moon from lunar orbit, and ascend from the moon to lunar orbit. Its entire design was dictated by that one task. So they didn't spend time and resources on nonsense like 'making it look pretty' or streamlining it becaust that was pointless.
    3
  55.  @brianoden1798  Don Pettit was being insufficiently pedantic when he said that. We have all the data from the Apollo program. Is that enough to start building a new Saturn V tomorrow? No. That's what he was getting at. You'd have to build a factory large enough to assemble a Saturn V. You'd have to build new jigs (because they didn't keep the jigs around, some of those are as large as the first stage). You'd have to replace some of the 1960s era components with new ones: it'd be ridiculous to build new AGCs. So you have to develop new software. The drawings have to be redone in CAD so you can use modern manufacturing processes. All in all, it takes a few years to start up a Saturn V production line, and in that time you could also design a new rocket. This applies to all complex, old projects by the way. B-52, SR-71, the Eiffel tower they would take a long time to replicate, and with today's knowledge we can do better anyway so there's no point.
    3
  56.  @brianoden1798  We're figuring out how to protect the astronauts from radiation *on long missions*. For radiation, there are 2 important variables: 1. the radiation intensity 2. the amount of time you are exposed to this intensity. You can multiply these two and get the total radiation dose. Humans die if they receive a dose of about 300 Rad. In 1958, James van Allen and his team discovered the belts that were later named after him. He also measured the radiation intensity. This is what he found: in the part of the belt where the intensity is highest, it is high enough that if you stay for about a week (inside an Apollo command module), you receive a lethal dose. So for the Apollo missions, the trajectory was designed to minimize the amount of time spent there. When the Apollo astronauts flew through the van Allen belts (which took about 3 hours), they received a dose of radiation of between 0.16 and 1.14 rads, or less than 1% of a lethal dose. More details in this video from Scott Manley: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9YN50xXFJY So with Apollo level equipment, you're fine for the short missions of the Apollo program, but if you want to spend 6 months on the Moon you need to do more. That's what we're working on right now.
    3
  57. None of that is correct.  1. Reflections in the helmet visor show the other astronaut, and equipment on the lunar surface. 2. That museum curator was sadly lying, or you are. Apollo 11 did not carry a rover. Only Apollo 15, 16 and 17 did. Those rovers were left on the lunar surface. What that museum has is a replica. 3. Another instance where I don't believe you. In 1999, the first components of the ISS had been launched, but no crew had visited the station yet. So it's possible you saw actual ISS hardware being prepared for launch. In 1999, you did not see astronauts on TV inside the ISS.  Adding modules to the ISS is done by launching them on a rocket, then maneuvering them into place. 4. That answer was insufficiently precise. NASA did not lose the technology. Drawings for every part of the Saturn V and Apollo spacecraft exist. We have a bunch of versions of the software for the AGC. We have loads of info on every aspect of the design. Is that enough to launch a new Saturn V tomorrow? No. That's what he was getting at. We don't have a production line cranking out moon rockets today. We're getting close to having one with the Artemis program. Note that Artemis will use new designs instead of "just" copying the Saturn V. It'd be insane to put a 60 year old design back into production: we've advanced a lot in those 60 years. We have new manufacturing methods, new materials, much better design tools etc. If you wanted to copy the Saturn V today, you'd have to replace some of the 1960s era components with new ones: it'd be ridiculous to build new Apollo Guidance Computers to their 1960s design. So you have to develop new software. The drawings have to be redone in CAD so you can use modern manufacturing processes. All in all, it takes a few years to start up a Saturn V production line, and in that time you could also design a new rocket. This applies to all complex, old projects by the way. B-52, SR-71, the Eiffel tower they would take a long time to replicate, and with today's knowledge we can do better anyway so there's no point.
    3
  58. In every landing video, at about 1 minute before touchdown you can see the dust being blown away. Because there's no air, all the dust moves in a straight line, instead of billowing into big clouds as it would on Earth. That also means the dust uniformly moves at high speed - far too fast to settle on the lander feet. I.e. you're arguing from ignorance, forgetting basic facts like the lack of an atmosphere on the moon. The lunar surface consists of compact, interlocking rocks with a thin layer of dust on top. A small engine like the LM descent engine isn't going to dislodge those rocks. At touchdown, the LM descent engine produces only 1300 kg of thrust. That's less than most jet engines, and you don't see jet engines ripping up the tarmac on airports. The landline from Nixon's office was connected to the worldwide phone network. This phone call was routed to one of NASA's Deep Space Network stations, where all communications with the Apollo missions were done via radio. The phone audio was linked to this radio system, and sent to the moon.
    3
  59. ​ @morrisonathome  The astronauts were talking into noise-cancelling microphones, inside a closed helmet. And every astronaut going back to the Mercury astronauts noticed that the noise level during launch (i.e. using much larger engines than in the LM) quickly dropped off as they got out of the atmosphere. In every landing video, from about 1 minute before landing you can see dust (which is a thin layer on the surface) being blown away by the rocket exhaust. This looks different from what you're used to because there's no atmosphere. So instead of billowing clouds that could settle back on the lander, each dust grain is launched at 2.5 km/s, basically in a straight line. None of that dust would end up on top of the feet in those circumstances. This is typical for moon landing denier arguments: someone comes up with a halfbaked argument, and does no research at all to see if it's plausible. The first time the argument sees the light of day, someone with a working knowledge of physics shoots that halfbaked argument full of holes. Anyone sane would start to question the source of all those halfbaked arguments, but some people just keep dragging them out, holes and all, time and time again.
    3
  60. 1. We can measure the composition of the moon from Earth, by analyzing its light via spectroscopy. That tells us the moon consists of rock. 2. We have landed on the Moon 29 times now. None of those landings reported anything other than solid rock. 3. 8 missions brought back samples (more than 380 kg), all rock. 4. We can measure the weight of the moon by measuring its orbit. This tells us the moon's density is consistent with it being a ball of solid rock.
    3
  61. The Moon missions ended because they were expensive. It took 5% of the Federal budget for a decade to get to the Moon. After Apollo, NASA's budget was slashed to 1/5 of what it was. So NASA concentrated on cheaper efforts: a reusable spacecraft (Space Shuttle), and learning how to live in space for longer periods (via the ISS).
    3
  62. That's not odd, thats' basic physics. In every landing video, at about 1 minute before touchdown you can see the dust being blown away. Because there's no air, all the dust moves at high speed in a very flat trajectory, instead of billowing into big clouds as it would on Earth. That also means the dust moves at a high speed - far too fast to settle on the lander feet.
    3
  63. New data is always good.
    3
  64.  @davidchase9424  The fuel to leave Earth orbit and set them on a trajectory to the Moon was carried in the Saturn V third stage. This was jettisoned after the TLI burn. The highest acceleration of the mission was just before burnout of the first stage, this was about 4 G. That meant the structure had to be strong enough to carry 4 times its weight. When you design a structure intelligently, you can built it pretty light and still be strong enough. The fuel to get off the lunar surface is stored in the ascent module. This only requires about 2000 kg of fuel to get into lunar orbit.
    3
  65.  @davidchase9424  For gamma radiation the same principle applies: it's deadly of the product of intensity and exposure time is large enough.
    3
  66. You're arguing from ignorance. We measured the radiation in the VA belts and found we can travel through them without endangering the astronauts. They didn't need huge amounts of computing power on the spacecraft, most of the computation was done on the ground and uploaded.
    3
  67.  @dontmatter1424  In the part of the VA belts where the radiation intensity is highest, it is high enough that if you stay for about a week (inside an Apollo command module), you receive a lethal dose. The Apollo astronauts flew through the belts in about 3 hours, while avoiding the part with the highest levels entirely. None of the missions received more than 1.2 Rad. A lethal dose is 300 Rad.
    3
  68. I've never seen a YT video with more lies than that one.
    3
  69. Another argument from ignorance. For radiation, there are 2 important variables: 1. the radiation intensity 2. the amount of time you are exposed to this intensity. You can multiply these two and get the total radiation dose. Humans die if they receive a dose of about 300 Rad. In 1958, James van Allen and his team discovered the belts that were later named after him. He also measured the radiation intensity. This is what he found: in the part of the belt where the intensity is highest, it is high enough that if you stay for about a week, you receive a lethal dose. So for the Apollo missions, the trajectory was designed to minimize the amount of time spent there. When the Apollo astronauts flew through the van Allen belts (which took about an hour), they received a dose of radiation of between 0.16 and 1.14 rads, or less than 1% of a lethal dose.
    3
  70.  @maurow6r  'we destroyed the technology' was an offhand quote from a single person speaking in 2010. Since then, he's been proved wrong by Artemis. What actually happened was that NASA did not 'destroy the technology'. All of the knowledge is still there. At the end of Apollo, the production facilities for Saturn V and Apollo were dismantled, as is SOP in aerospace, to make room for the next project, i.e. the Space Shuttle.
    3
  71. Incorrect. On each mission, at the start of the first EVA they test what the best way to walk is, discuss methods and compare notes. The temperature shifts are far smaller than you think. When they landed, the surface temperature was about +20 ºC, rising slowly to +30ºC in the course of the day. All missions were planned to be during the lunar morning, with the sun at an angle of about 45º above the horizon. That meant the surface hadn't gotten to high temperatures yet. The backpack wasn't "magical": thanks to an absence of atmosphere the amount of energy flowing into the suit is limited, and a careful choice of materials can reflect the incoming sun pretty well. So, no bullshit, just you not bothering to look up how things work.
    3
  72.  @aceventura5398  Watching videos is not enough. Details like the temperature during the missions don't generally show up in YT videos.
    3
  73.  @aceventura5398  You forgot to read the fine print. The difference between the highest and lowest temperatures is 250 ºC, but that's over the entire surface and over the course of a lunar day/night cycle. for Earth, those temperatures are something like -70ºC and +50ºC, one in Vladiwostok, Russia, the other in Death Valley. It doesn't mean you can expect those extremes during the spring in e.g. New York.
    3
  74. We know it was all real. Every argument made by the people calling it fake falls apart when you look at it. They can't be taken seriously.
    3
  75. Fiction. Single atoms in the dust are radioactive, but the activity levels are unmeasurably low.
    3
  76. Can you say "I don't understand how radio works"? All you need to transmit data over long distances is a large antenna. NASA used dish antennas with a diameter of 70 meters. You can't get a picture from Dayton, OH because Earth's curvature gets in the way, along with assorted obstacles on the surface. You'll notice no obstacles between us and the Moon.
    3
  77. While technically the moon is in our atmosphere, we're talking about 0.2 atoms per cm3, i.e. negligible. We figured out how to get through the van Allen belts in 1958. For radiation, there are 2 important variables: 1. the radiation intensity 2. the amount of time you are exposed to this intensity. You can multiply these two and get the total radiation dose. Humans die if they receive a dose of about 300 Rad. In 1958, James van Allen and his team discovered the belts that were later named after him. He also measured the radiation intensity. This is what he found: in the part of the belt where the intensity is highest, it is high enough that if you stay for about a week (inside an Apollo command module), you receive a lethal dose. So for the Apollo missions, the trajectory was designed to minimize the amount of time spent there. The Apollo astronauts flew through the belts in about 3 hours, while avoiding the part with the highest levels entirely. The hull thickness of the CSM was more than enough to reduce the radiation level inside to manageable levels. Astronauts' overall exposure was actually dominated by solar particles once outside Earth's magnetic field. The total radiation received by the astronauts varied from mission-to-mission but was measured to be between 0.16 and 1.14 rads (1.6 and 11.4 mGy). More details in this video from Scott Manley: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9YN50xXFJY And 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.
    3
  78. Try jumping high with a backpack that weighs as much as you do.
    3
  79.  @scrufybitnflufykitn  He's not trying to set a world record, he's trying to move from point A to point B.
    3
  80.  @scrufybitnflufykitn  Again, the astronauts were not trying to set records. They were not going to take more risk than necessary.
    3
  81. Having the formula isn't enough. You have to build big, complicated machines to get there. We still have the designs for the Saturn V and Apollo spacecraft, but they're 50 years old by now. That means in order to reuse those we'd have to spend a lot of effort updating those designs. And for Artemis, we want to do things the Apollo spacecraft aren't suited for: long missions (months instead of days). So we ended up designing new rockets and spacecraft, which takes time.
    3
  82. The radiation levels are low enough that no shielding was required. You get the occasional streak across a photo, that's all. Exposure times were set manually, the old-fashioned way with a separate device for measuring the light level.
    3
  83. NASA spent a lot of time and effort investigating possible solutions. In all cases, it turned out to be less weight and less risk to increase the size of the solar panels than to add mechanisms to clean them. All Mars missions to date have proven them right: they all lasted much longer than their mission design called for.
    3
  84. For radiation, there are 2 important variables: 1. the radiation intensity 2. the amount of time you are exposed to this intensity. You can multiply these two and get the total radiation dose. Humans die if they receive a dose of about 300 Rad. In 1958, James van Allen and his team discovered the belts that were later named after him. He also measured the radiation intensity. This is what he found: in the part of the belt where the intensity is highest, it is high enough that if you stay for about a week (inside an Apollo command module), you receive a lethal dose. So for the Apollo missions, the trajectory was designed to minimize the amount of time spent there. When the Apollo astronauts flew through the van Allen belts (which took about 3 hours), they received a dose of radiation of between 0.16 and 1.14 rads, or less than 1% of a lethal dose. More details in this video from Scott Manley: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9YN50xXFJY
    3
  85.  @moali68  We don't have to remember it, it's all documented. If you watched the video, you'd know why the Apollo space suits are not usable for Artemis: they would wear out long before the end of the mission.
    3
  86. No, they were all very real.
    3
  87. The 0.004% refers to an initial version of the design, which used a 'direct ascent' trajectory: the entire stack of command module, service module and lander would land on the moon and take off again. This led to a design that was too heavy to be feasible. But pretty soon, an engineer realized that you don't need to land that entire stack on the moon: you can leave it in orbit. This is called the lunar orbit rendezvous trajectory. This makes the landing and ascent much easier because the vehicle doing it is much lighter, which reduces the weight of the rocket as it lifts off from Earth by huge amounts. Again, you're showing off your ignorance.
    3
  88. static charging by the solar wind, mostly.
    3
  89. The objective of the DART mission was to see how a high-speed asteroid impact works, to help us prepare for when we have to redirect an asteroid for real.
    3
  90. There are 2 factors at work: 1. lower gravity, 2. no air resistance. The only way to reliable compare is by measuring the images.
    3
  91. And many that were over/underexposed, blurry etc. What's your point?
    3
  92. False. The delay is there, everywhere it needs to be.
    3
  93. As evidence for the moon landings, we have 382 kg of moon rock, hours of live TV, hours of film, thousands of photos, stacks of measurements and scientific results, eyewitness accounts, and photos of the landing sites made by later lunar orbiters. Detailed analysis of the physics and engineering required shows that it is possible to land on the moon with 1960s technology. Despite 50 years of trying, no moon landing denier has ever produced convincing evidence of his claims. So the question is, why do people believe the moon landings were faked when they have no evidence to support that claim?
    3
  94. You assume dust on the moon (where there is no atmosphere) would behave the same way it does in Earth's atmosphere. That assumption is incorrect. In every landing video, at about 1 minute before touchdown you can see the dust being blown away. Because there's no air, all the dust moves in a straight line, instead of billowing into big clouds as it would on Earth. That also means the dust uniformly moves at high speed - far too fast to settle on the lander feet.
    3
  95. Duke is not held up by wires: his movements are consistent with a gravity of 1/6 G. The photo and film cameras were painted silver to reflect sunlight as much as possible. The surface temperature of 350 ºF you quote is the maximum temperature in the middle of the lunar day. Surface temperature at the start of the Apollo 11 EVA was around 70 ºF (20 ºC). Surface temperatures are not a good predictor for film temperatures: the camera was not in continuous sunlight, and would cool off every time it was shaded by the astronaut. NASA asked Kodak to supply them with heat-resistant photographic film. The result was that each film remained within its allowable temperature range throughout the flight. This is typical for moon landing denier arguments: they don't hold up to scrutiny.
    3
  96. We figured out how to get through the van Allen belts in 1958. For radiation, there are 2 important variables: 1. the radiation intensity 2. the amount of time you are exposed to this intensity. You can multiply these two and get the total radiation dose. Humans die if they receive a dose of about 300 Rad. In 1958, James van Allen and his team discovered the belts that were later named after him. He also measured the radiation intensity. This is what he found: in the part of the belt where the intensity is highest, it is high enough that if you stay for about a week (inside an Apollo command module), you receive a lethal dose. So for the Apollo missions, the trajectory was designed to minimize the amount of time spent there. When the Apollo astronauts flew through the van Allen belts (which took about 3 hours), they received a dose of radiation of between 0.16 and 1.14 rads, or less than 1% of a lethal dose. More details in this video from Scott Manley: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9YN50xXFJY
    3
  97. That is incorrect. The lunar dust has irregular shapes so the particles tend to interlock when compressed.
    3
  98. For radiation, there are 2 important variables: 1. the radiation intensity 2. the amount of time you are exposed to this intensity. You can multiply these two and get the total radiation dose. Humans die if they receive a dose of about 300 Rad. In 1958, James van Allen and his team discovered the belts that were later named after him. He also measured the radiation intensity. This is what he found: in the part of the belt where the intensity is highest, it is high enough that if you stay for about a week (inside an Apollo command module), you receive a lethal dose. So for the Apollo missions, the trajectory was designed to minimize the amount of time spent there. The Apollo astronauts flew through the belts in about 3 hours, while avoiding the part with the highest levels entirely. The hull thickness of the CSM was more than enough to reduce the radiation level inside to manageable levels. Astronauts' overall exposure was actually dominated by solar particles once outside Earth's magnetic field. The total radiation received by the astronauts varied from mission-to-mission but was measured to be between 0.16 and 1.14 rads (1.6 and 11.4 mGy). More details in this video from Scott Manley: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9YN50xXFJY
    3
  99.  @123davepreston  That's incorrect. You're misquoting an engineer talking about testing the Orion spacecraft: that's the Exploration Flight Test-1, which took place in 2014. NASA wanted to test the spacecraft systems in orbit, to make absolutely sure everything works as designed. The engineer said that testing the performance of the computers in the van Allen belts is part of this flight. This is verification, not "figuring out". Similar test flights were done for Apollo: the Apollo 4 and 6 unmanned missions tested the spacecraft systems in an orbit that took the spacecraft through the van Allen belts. Those tests were successful, and Apollo 8 was the first manned mission to leave Earth orbit, crossing the VA belts on its way to the moon.
    3
  100. In every landing video, at about 1 minute before touchdown you can see the dust being blown away. Because there's no air, all the dust moves in a straight line, instead of billowing into big clouds as it would on Earth. That also means the dust uniformly moves at high speed - far too fast to settle on the lander feet. Physics beats incredulity every day.
    3
  101. NASA did not destroy the technology. Drawings for every part of the Saturn V and Apollo spacecraft exist. We have a bunch of versions of the software for the AGC. We have loads of info on every aspect of the design. Is that enough to start building a new Saturn V tomorrow? No. You'd have to build a factory large enough to assemble a Saturn V. You'd have to build new jigs (because they didn't keep the jigs around, some of those are as large as the first stage). You'd have to replace some of the 1960s era components with new ones: it'd be ridiculous to build new AGCs. So you have to develop new software. The drawings have to be redone in CAD so you can use modern manufacturing processes. All in all, it takes a few years to start up a Saturn V production line, and in that time you could also design a new rocket. This applies to all complex, old projects by the way. B-52, SR-71, the Eiffel tower they would take a long time to replicate, and with today's knowledge we can do better anyway so there's no point.
    3
  102. NASA was transparent on the Apollo program. Reporters had access everywhere, astronauts gave presentations all around the country, Entire missions were broadcast on live TV, images and film were made available after each mission, etc.
    3
  103. Like the previous time, all of the photos and video will be real because like the previous time, they'll actually be on the moon.
    3
  104.  @Texas240  The dust directly under the LEM was blown away. The dust around the LEM mostly wasn't: every rise in the terrain shields the dust behind it. You're making assumptions based on how dust behaves *in Earth's atmosphere*. With no atmosphere, dust behavior on the Moon is very different.
    3
  105. it was possible in 1969 to spend up to 3 days on the moon. What we haven't figured out yet is how to build a suit that stays intact for months.
    3
  106. It wasn't easy back then. It required the most expensive engineering project in history to put 12 men on the Moon for missions that didn't last longer than 3 days. Now we want to not just make that trip again, but have much longer missions. Which means problems that were merely annoying for Apollo (like the lunar dust) now get much worse.
    3
  107. We figured out how to get through the van Allen belts in 1958. For radiation, there are 2 important variables: 1. the radiation intensity 2. the amount of time you are exposed to this intensity. You can multiply these two and get the total radiation dose. Humans die if they receive a dose of about 300 Rad. In 1958, James van Allen and his team at the University of Iowa discovered the belts that were later named after him, using measurements from the NASA missions Explorer 1. With Explorer 3 and 4 and Pioneer 3 he measured the radiation intensity. This is what he found: in the part of the belt where the intensity is highest, it is high enough that if you stay for about a week (inside an Apollo command module), you receive a lethal dose. So for the Apollo missions, the trajectory was designed to minimize the amount of time spent there. The Apollo astronauts flew through the belts in about 3 hours, while avoiding the part with the highest levels entirely. The hull thickness of the CSM was more than enough to reduce the radiation level inside to manageable levels. Astronauts' overall exposure was actually dominated by solar particles once outside Earth's magnetic field. The total radiation received by the astronauts varied from mission-to-mission but was measured to be between 0.16 and 1.14 rads (1.6 and 11.4 mGy). More details in this video from Scott Manley: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9YN50xXFJY And no, NASA isn't saying they can't get through the van Allen belts. You're referring to a video published in 2014, which has an engineer talking about the first Orion test flight, saying 'we have to do this to make sure it's safe for humans'. This test flight was done to make sure the Orion capsule works correctly in the VA belt: electronics can malfunction in high-radiation environments. Orion's electronics are designed to deal with this, but a practical test is required as part of due diligence. All of the hardware on Orion is new, so it has to be tested in operational circumstances before being considered human-rated. The Apollo program did these tests as well, during the Apollo 4 and 6 flights.
    3
  108. We figured how to get through the van Allen belts in 1958. For radiation, there are 2 important variables: 1. the radiation intensity 2. the amount of time you are exposed to this intensity. You can multiply these two and get the total radiation dose. Humans die if they receive a dose of about 300 Rad. In 1958, James van Allen and his team discovered the belts that were later named after him. He also measured the radiation intensity. This is what he found: in the part of the belt where the intensity is highest, it is high enough that *if you stay for about a week*, you receive a lethal dose. So for the Apollo missions, the trajectory was designed to minimize the amount of time spent there. When the Apollo astronauts flew through the van Allen belts (which took about an hour), they received a dose of radiation of between 0.16 and 1.14 rads, or less than 1% of a lethal dose.
    3
  109. That's incorrect. That is an effect caused by OUR atmosphere, not the moon's.
    3
  110. Incorrect, it will be the 7th one.
    3
  111. We figured out how to get through the van Allen belts in 1958. For radiation, there are 2 important variables: 1. the radiation intensity 2. the amount of time you are exposed to this intensity. You can multiply these two and get the total radiation dose. Humans die if they receive a dose of about 300 Rad. In 1958, James van Allen and his team discovered the belts that were later named after him. He also measured the radiation intensity. This is what he found: in the part of the belt where the intensity is highest, it is high enough that if you stay for about a week (inside an Apollo command module), you receive a lethal dose. So for the Apollo missions, the trajectory was designed to minimize the amount of time spent there. The Apollo astronauts flew through the belts in about 3 hours, while avoiding the part with the highest levels entirely. The hull thickness of the CSM was more than enough to reduce the radiation level inside to manageable levels. Astronauts' overall exposure was actually dominated by solar particles once outside Earth's magnetic field. The total radiation received by the astronauts varied from mission-to-mission but was measured to be between 0.16 and 1.14 rads (1.6 and 11.4 mGy). More details in this video from Scott Manley: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9YN50xXFJY
    3
  112. People claim we "lost the technology", but that's not an accurate representation of what happened. We still know how to design and build rockets with the complexity level of the Saturn V. In fact, we've advanced: the engines we can build today are superior to the F-1, with better Isp, lower construction cost, reusability and reliability. It took 5% of the Federal budget for a decade to get to the Moon. In the early 1970s, NASA's budget was slashed to 1/5 of what it was. That meant continuing the Apollo program was not viable. The Saturn V and Apollo production lines were dismantled, and NASA concentrated on cheaper efforts: a reusable spacecraft (Space Shuttle), and learning how to live in space for longer periods (via the ISS). That meant there was no lunar-capable spacecraft in production and ready to go - until now, with Artemis getting ready for its first launch.
    3
  113.  @pokie6087  The only thing that has been to space is about 10,000 unmanned and several hundred manned missions.
    3
  114. The Moon missions ended because they were expensive. It took 5% of the Federal budget for a decade to get to the Moon. After Apollo, NASA's budget was slashed to 1/5 of what it was. So NASA concentrated on cheaper efforts: a reusable spacecraft (Space Shuttle), and learning how to live in space for longer periods (via the ISS). Computers were only a tiny part of this cost, so faster computers don't make moon missions cheaper.
    3
  115. Every day, the Lunar Reconnaissance orbiter provides new pictures of the moon.
    3
  116.  @bursebladesbits  That video is a load of crap, taking quotes out of context. In the early 2000s, NASA had one human-rated-spacecraft: the Space Shuttle. It could not leave Earth orbit. That does not mean Apollo was unable to leave Earth orbit. The van Allen belts are not a problem. In the part of the belt where the radiation intensity is highest, it is high enough that if you stay for about a week (inside an Apollo command module), you receive a lethal dose. The Apollo astronauts flew through the belts in about 3 hours, while avoiding the part with the highest levels entirely. The total radiation received by the astronauts varied from mission-to-mission but was measured to be between 0.16 and 1.14 rads (1.6 and 11.4 mGy).
    3
  117. As evidence for the moon landings, we have 382 kg of moon rock, hours of live TV, hours of film, thousands of photos, stacks of measurements and scientific results, eyewitness accounts, and photos of the landing sites made by later lunar orbiters. Detailed analysis of the physics and engineering required shows that it is possible to land on the moon with 1960s technology. Despite 50 years of trying, no moon landing denier has ever produced convincing evidence of his claims.
    3
  118. That's incorrect. We figured out how to get through the van Allen belts in 1958. For radiation, there are 2 important variables: 1. the radiation intensity 2. the amount of time you are exposed to this intensity. You can multiply these two and get the total radiation dose. Humans die if they receive a dose of about 300 Rad. In 1958, James van Allen and his team discovered the belts that were later named after him. He also measured the radiation intensity. This is what he found: in the part of the belt where the intensity is highest, it is high enough that if you stay for about a week (inside an Apollo command module), you receive a lethal dose. So for the Apollo missions, the trajectory was designed to minimize the amount of time spent there. The Apollo astronauts flew through the belts in about 3 hours, while avoiding the part with the highest levels entirely. The hull thickness of the CSM was more than enough to reduce the radiation level inside to manageable levels. Astronauts' overall exposure was actually dominated by solar particles once outside Earth's magnetic field. The total radiation received by the astronauts varied from mission-to-mission but was measured to be between 0.16 and 1.14 rads (1.6 and 11.4 mGy). More details in this video from Scott Manley: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9YN50xXFJY
    3
  119. Thinking critically leads us to believe the moon landings are real. Every single argument made by moon landing deniers turns out to be full of holes.
    3
  120. The flagpole consists of a vertical pole, with a horizontal bar attached to the top. The flag is attached to both. There are two scenes where the flag moves: 1. when the astronauts are planting the flag. They have to push the flagpole into the soil. These vibrations move the flag. When the astronaut twists the flagpole, this horizontal bar rotates and pulls the flag along. 2. during liftoff of the LM. The exhaust gases move the flag. During the rest of the mission, the flag stays stationary.
    3
  121. Amazing how you didn't consider that the Moon doesn't have an atmosphere, and therefore dust behaves differently. In every landing video, at about 1 minute before touchdown you can see the dust being blown away. Because there's no air, all the dust moves in a straight line, instead of billowing into big clouds as it would on Earth. That also means the dust uniformly moves at high speed - far too fast to settle on the lander feet.
    3
  122.  @Topgun5t  You're wrong on all counts. 1. No, the photos don't look fake. They just look different to what you're used to, because the moon is smaller (=the horizon is closer), there's no atmosphere (so faraway objects are sharp instead of blurred) and because you have no size reference (no objects of known size in many photos). 2. The only reason NASA hasn't been back is that the US government didn't give them the budget to do it. 3. Don Pettit said that, and he was wrong. NASA did not lose the technology. Drawings for every part of the Saturn V and Apollo spacecraft exist. We have loads of info on every aspect of the design. Is that enough to launch a new Saturn V tomorrow? No. That's what he was getting at: when he gave that interview about 10 years ago, there was no factory cranking out rockets capable of manned moon missions.
    3
  123. No, NASA has never claimed that, because it's not true. Complete TV recordings are available for every mission, in addition to all the film footage they took and thousands of photos. The only video recording lost was ONE tape of the Apollo 11 landing and first steps, recorded at Honeysuckle Creek, where the TV signal was received. We still have other recordings of that broadcast, the HC recording was at a higher quality (it avoided one step of conversion and quality loss). In addition, some telemetry tapes were not archived, because they were no longer relevant after the end of the Apollo program. All of the drawings, specifications etc. are still available and in public archives. The rest of your post is full of nonsense as well. Temperature differences for instance: the missions were all planned at a specific point of the lunar day, when ambient temperatures were around 20 ºC. They had to contend with heating from the sun; that was mostly taken care of by putting a white outer layer over the spacesuit, and by internal insulation layers. The backpack removed excess heat. The risk of metorite impact was low: the entire area covered by each mission gets hit once every 1000 years. And yes, the 16 layers of the space suit provide protection against micrometeoroids. The outer layer breaks up the meteoroid and issipates its energy so it can't penetrate inner layers. The "petrified rock" story is bullshit. In 2006, a Dutch museum hosted an art exhibit that showcased forgeries. One of the exhibits ended up in the museum's collection afterwards; its paperwork was lost. In 2009, this was examined and found to be wood. Meanwhile, we have 380 kg of actual moon rock, samples of which have been examined and authenticated by mineralogists all over the world. So, you've been lied to, by moon landing deniers. They make up shit instead of providing real arguments, because there aren't any real arguments to be made.
    3
  124. The "skin on the crew cabin" refers to the outer cladding, which was a very thin micrometeoroid shield. It was thin because it didn't have to be thicker than that for its function. Inside of that, you had the pressure hull of the ascent module, which has a thickness of about 2 mm - more than enough, because the atmosphere inside was only at 0.25 bar pressure.
    3
  125. So your argument is "despite not doing any measurements, I'm going to decide the LM was too small". Instead, you should have studied the LM, equipment stowage etc. which woudl have given you answers to every question you raise.
    3
  126. When you claim you want footage to a certain specification as proof, and at the same time claim Earth is flat despite there being multiple lines of proof that say it isn't, you're being dishonest. You'll just turn around and claim whatever footage is made by Artemis as fake, no matter what.
    3
  127. That's ridiculous.
    3
  128. The answer is, they didn't. Drawings for every single part are available in the Smithsonian archive.
    3
  129. False. The landings are real, we have independent confirmation.
    3
  130. It's falling at 1/6 the speed it would on Earth.
    3
  131.  @kerrygrant8483  There's no atmosphere, so the dust isn't slowed down by that. You also don't get billowing clouds - the dust moves in a parabolic arc.
    3
  132. That depends on the intensity.
    3
  133. Nope. The videos show an environment with 1/6 G gravity, which is impossible to fake.
    3
  134. That's nonsense. The moon is a physical object, made of rock. We can measure the composition of the moon from Earth, by analyzing its light via spectroscopy. That tells us the moon consists of rock. It's eminently possible to land on it, as has been shown by 29 successful landings including 6 manned ones.
    3
  135. The lander had no airlock. So before each EVA, they donned their space suits, depressurized the lander and went out. When coming back in, they'd bring in all of the dust that had covered their suits.
    3
  136. The bombardment is 'constant' on a geological timescale. The area covered by any of the Apollo missions, gets hit once every 1000 years. The van Allen belts are a solved problem: choose your trajectory correctly so you miss the center of the belts. The pressure hull provides enough protection to get through safely.
    3
  137. They didn't. All of the drawings, all of the photos and video, all of the science data is still available. They discarded the engineering telemetry: that became useless when the Apollo program ended.
    3
  138. On, that's not obvious at all. The lunar footage shows an environment with 1/6 g gravity and no atmosphere, a combination that is impossible to replicate on Earth.
    3
  139. We figured how to get through the van Allen belts in 1958. For radiation, there are 2 important variables: 1. the radiation intensity 2. the amount of time you are exposed to this intensity. You can multiply these two and get the total radiation dose. Humans die if they receive a dose of about 300 Rad. In 1958, James van Allen and his team discovered the belts that were later named after him. He also measured the radiation intensity. This is what he found: in the part of the belt where the intensity is highest, it is high enough that *if you stay for about a week*, you receive a lethal dose. So for the Apollo missions, the trajectory was designed to minimize the amount of time spent there. When the Apollo astronauts flew through the van Allen belts (which took about an hour), they received a dose of radiation of between 0.16 and 1.14 rads, or less than 1% of a lethal dose. The "evidence" we never landed on the moon is shoddy and falls apart on examination. Stop clinging to delusions.
    3
  140. 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.
    3
  141. Apollo didn't rely on car batteries. It used fuel cells and siver-zinc batteries. If you get even basic information like that wrong, how accurate can your opinion possibly be?
    3
  142. The Apollo landings are real. It's been confirmed by independent third parties multiple times.
    3
  143. The sunlit surface of an object in Earth orbit heats up to 120 ºC. But the other side of that same object can radiate heat away efficiently, which is how JWST's sunshield can get to 30 K, -243ºC. So to make a spacecraft survive the heat, you have to do a few things: 1. provide insulation between the surface and the interior, to keep the interior at a nice temperature. 2. balance the incoming and outgoing thermal flows. 3. if possible, reduce the amount of solar heating, e.g. by using reflective materials. Apollo did all 3. The command module was coated in a reflective foil that reflected 90% of the incoming sunlight, reducing the heat flux from 1300 to 130 W/m2. The interior was insulated. They continuously rolled the spacecraft to distribute the heat evenly. This worked so well, the interior of the CM and LM was at a nice temperature without any heating or cooling.
    3
  144.  @stanley1554  You're wrong. The temperature of the moon varies because the moon has day/night cycles. The 20ºC value is from surface temperature measurements made by Apollo crews.
    3
  145.  @stanley1554  Nope. This is from in-situ measurements, backed up by the basic physics of how rock behaves under sunlight.
    3
  146. Every NASA photo I've seen that has high enough resolution to show dust, shows a dusty surface, not a metallic surface.
    3
  147. That's easy, and we figured it out before Apollo even started. For radiation, there are 2 important variables: 1. the radiation intensity 2. the amount of time you are exposed to this intensity. You can multiply these two and get the total radiation dose. Humans die if they receive a dose of about 300 Rad. In 1958, James van Allen and his team discovered the belts that were later named after him. He also measured the radiation intensity. This is what he found: in the part of the belt where the intensity is highest, it is high enough that if you stay for about a week (inside an Apollo command module), you receive a lethal dose. So for the Apollo missions, the trajectory was designed to minimize the amount of time spent there. When the Apollo astronauts flew through the van Allen belts (which took about 3 hours), they received a dose of radiation of between 0.16 and 1.14 rads, or less than 1% of a lethal dose. More details in this video from Scott Manley: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9YN50xXFJY
    3
  148. Dust on Mars causes different problems. It's not as sharp (thanks to Mars' atmosphere) but you get lots of really small particles (comparable to cigarette smoke).
    2
  149. The pressure difference is 0.25 bar, which is 0.25 kg/cm2. A few mm of plexiglass is strong enough to withstand that. In every landing video, at about 1 minute before touchdown you can see the dust being blown away. Because there's no air, all the dust moves in a straight line, instead of billowing into big clouds as it would on Earth. That also means the dust uniformly moves at high speed - far too fast to settle on the lander feet.
    2
  150. It doesn't have to be liveable to be interesting.
    2
  151. No, NASA didn't say that. Don Pettit said that, and he was being insufficiently precise. NASA did not lose the technology. Drawings for every part of the Saturn V and Apollo spacecraft exist. We have a bunch of versions of the software for the AGC. We have loads of info on every aspect of the design. Is that enough to launch a new Saturn V tomorrow? No. That's what he was getting at: when he gave that interview, there was no factory cranking out rockets capable of manned moon missions. Could we build one if we wanted? Yes. In fact, one is sitting on the launch pad right now for its test flight. There is no footage of Kubrick filming the moon landing. There is footage of Kubrick filming 2001: A space odyssey, which is being misrepresented.
    2
  152. Micrometeorites are taken care of by the outer layers of the suit, larger ones impact the area of a lunar landing once every 1000 years so they played the odds.
    2
  153. You're arguing from ignorance. In every landing video, at about 1 minute before touchdown you can see the dust being blown away. Because there's no air, all the dust moves in a straight line, instead of billowing into big clouds as it would on Earth. That also means the dust uniformly moves at high speed - far too fast to settle on the lander feet. The surface of the Moon consists of interlocking, compact rocks with a thin layer of loose dust on top. The LM descent engine doesn't produce enough thrust to dislodge the larger rocks and create a crater.
    2
  154. No, we don't need to develop any radiation shielding to do manned lunar missions. We figured that out by 1962. For radiation, there are 2 important variables: 1. the radiation intensity 2. the amount of time you are exposed to this intensity. You can multiply these two and get the total radiation dose. Humans die if they receive a dose of about 300 Rad. In 1958, James van Allen and his team at the University of Iowa discovered the belts that were later named after him, using measurements from the NASA missions Explorer 1. With Explorer 3 and 4 and Pioneer 3 he measured the radiation intensity. By 1962, we had a good map of the van Allen belt, and this is what it told us: in the part of the belt where the intensity is highest, it is high enough that if you stay for about a week (inside an Apollo command module), you receive a lethal dose. So for the Apollo missions, the trajectory was designed to minimize the amount of time spent there. The Apollo astronauts flew through the belts in about 3 hours, while avoiding the part with the highest levels entirely. The hull thickness of the CSM was more than enough to reduce the radiation level inside to manageable levels. Astronauts' overall exposure was actually dominated by solar particles once outside Earth's magnetic field. The total radiation received by the astronauts varied from mission-to-mission but was measured to be between 0.16 and 1.14 rads (1.6 and 11.4 mGy). More details in this video from Scott Manley: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9YN50xXFJY
    2
  155.  @1967MLP  India has no rocket capable of launching a manned spacecraft to the moon. China is planning to do a manned lunar landing within 10 years. Russia tried in the 1960s with the N-1 rocket. When Armstrong set foot on the moon, the Russians had just launched the first unmanned test of the N-1, which ended in failure. So they lost the space race, and lost interest. The N-1 program was basically unaffordable for them, and yes, ever since then a manned lunar program has been more expensive than they could afford. Ever since the early 1990s, most of the Russian space program has been subsidized by the Americans. Now that that's gone, you can see their efforts implode.
    2
  156. It doesn't, it actually falls 2.45 times slower, i.e. gravity must be 1/6 G. Thrown dust doesn't slow down because there's no atmosphere.
    2
  157. You're blindly repeating a bad argument. 1. In every landing video, at about 1 minute before touchdown you can see the dust being blown away. Because there's no air, all the dust moves in a straight line, instead of billowing into big clouds as it would on Earth. That also means the dust uniformly moves at high speed - far too fast to settle on the lander feet. 2. The lunar surface consists of compact, interlocking rocks with a thin layer of dust on top. A small engine like the LM descent engine isn't going to dislodge those rocks. At touchdown, the LM descent engine produces only 1300 kg of thrust. The thrust of that engine is comparable to what a hovercraft generates, and you don't see hovercraft making big craters in sandy beaches, let alone rocky ground.
    2
  158. That's an urban legend. Both the US and USSR started out with pencils, but quickly realized that you don't want tiny splinters of graphite floating through your 0 G cabin. The Fisher pen company then spent its own money developing the space pen, and sold them to NASA for $10 each.
    2
  159. As evidence for the moon landings, we have 382 kg of moon rock, hours of live TV, hours of film, thousands of photos, stacks of measurements and scientific results, eyewitness accounts, and photos of the landing sites made by later lunar orbiters. Detailed analysis of the physics and engineering required shows that it is possible to land on the moon with 1960s technology. Despite 50 years of trying, no moon landing denier has ever produced convincing evidence of his claims.
    2
  160. To take off from Earth, the Saturn V had to push the command module, service module and lunar module (about 50 tons in total) to a speed of 10.6 km/s, in Earth's gravity field. To take off from the moon, the ascent module had to push 2 tons to a speed of 1.6 km/s, in lunar gravity (1/6 of Earth's). So 0.02 of the weight, to 0.15 of the speed (0.0225 because kinetic energy goes up with the square of the speed), in 0.16 of the gravity. That's 0.000007 times the kinetic energy. That's why the LM could be so much smaller than the Saturn V. Tsiolkovsky worked out the equation that governs how big your spacecraft has to be to launch payload x to speed y. This is exponential. The LM was able to land on the moon because of the same phenomenon. When coming back to Earth, the CM and SM arrived at Earth with a speed of about 10.4 km/s. Braking from that speed to 0 would have required another Saturn V full of fuel, so they didn't do that. Instead, they used our atmosphere to provide most of the braking, and used parachutes for the last 100 m/s. Elon was the first to be able to land an entire rocket stage back on Earth (Falcon 9). His plan for a lunar lander is very unlike the LM. Instead of a lightweight lander that has two stages (descent stage that stays on the moon, and ascent stage to get back up into lunar orbit), he wants to use a huge Starship that lands and takes off in one piece. This is possible only because he's working on a booster that is even bigger than the Saturn V.
    2
  161.  @alfern8918  The ascent module did contain fuel and a motor, obviously. You don't need a mobile phone to communicate, you just need radio. A device invented in the early 1900s. The phone in the president's office was connected via the phone network to a NASA ground station, where it was hooked up to the transmitter and receiver.
    2
  162.  @WilsonFox123  If Earth were flat, I'd be able to see the Eiffel tower from where I live. I can't, so Earth is not flat.
    2
  163.  @WilsonFox123  1. there are plenty of times with no fog. 2. Perspective doesn't make objects invisible, it just makes them smaller. A telescope will compensate for that. but no telescope on Earth will reveal objects behind the horizon, again proving that Earth is not flat.
    2
  164.  @WilsonFox123  No. You see two walls getting closer together, and you see the end of the hallway. Even if the hallway so long that your eyes can no longer resolve the end of the hallway, you can use a telescope and see the end. There is no situation where the end disappears.
    2
  165.  @WilsonFox123  1. "we can see further than we are told" that is incorrect, and easy to verify that it's incorrect. 2. "there are limits to the vision" yes, and those limits are well-understood. Those limitations include atmospheric refraction. Our atmosphere bends light in a known, predictable way. When we apply that knowledge to our observations of the horizon it turns out the horizon is real, objects really are lower the farther away they are. 3. we do see planes go over the curve of the Earth. I regularly visit an area of the Netherlands that's really flat, with on obstructions between me and the horizon. I can follow aircraft as they fly away from me, and they do get lower until they disappear over the horizon.
    2
  166. Duh, it's called a reflex.
    2
  167. Nope. SLS and Orion are new, so they have to be tested before being used for real missions. This is done for pretty much every new manned rocket. Apollo had 2 unmanned tests (Apollo 4 and 6), plus manned tests in Earth orbit, and 2 missions that sent humans to the moon but didn't land (Apollo 8 and 10). Then there's the logistics: in 2024, the lander won't be ready yet.
    2
  168. It is, and anyone can measure this for themselves: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPrEihdRcEU
    2
  169.  @jonathansmith7065  I didn't see a link. But I'll save some time: anyone who claims the moon is less than 200,000 miles away is making basic errors in his measurement, like assuming Earth is flat. In addition to measuring the moon's parallax, we can ping the moon with radio signals and with laser light, both confirm 238,000 miles (on average). And we've been there 30 times already, again confirming the distance of 238 k miles.
    2
  170.  @Damidas  What part of "anyone can measure this for themselves" do you not understand?
    2
  171.  @Damidas  No, I'm not taking anybody's word. I have done this measurement myself. And so can you, because this video shows you how it's done.
    2
  172.  @Damidas  "no physical proof" does not apply to the distance to the moon, or the shape of the Earth. Not only do we have physical proof of both, there are simple methods anyone can use to establish these so you don't have to rely on what others are telling you. You keep claiming we're being lied to about these things, but it is impossible to maintain a lie when anybody can check for themselves. So your argument falls apart.
    2
  173. 10,000 successful space launches prove that whatever the word 'raki'a' means, it's not a solid structure.
    2
  174. Incorrect. The Apollo crews had lots of trouble with the dust. Because their missions were short, the problem never got catastrophic.
    2
  175. False. In all landing videos you can see the surface getting completely obscured by flying dust.
    2
  176. The astronauts were covered in dust because after each moonwalk, they'd go back into the LEM (taking all the dust on the outside of their suit with them), pressurize the LEM and take off their helmets.
    2
  177.  @formertenant9276  As evidence for the moon landings, we have 382 kg of moon rock, hours of live TV, hours of film, thousands of photos, stacks of measurements and scientific results, eyewitness accounts, and photos of the landing sites made by later lunar orbiters. Detailed analysis of the physics and engineering required shows that it is possible to land on the moon with 1960s technology. Despite 50 years of trying, no moon landing denier has ever produced convincing evidence of his claims. Artemis 1's trajectory was exactly as planned. They didn't want to hit the moon, they want to orbit it, i.e. you have to miss the moon to do that.
    2
  178. In 1958, James van Allen and his team at the University of Iowa discovered the belts that were later named after him, using measurements from the NASA missions Explorer 1. With Explorer 3 and 4 and Pioneer 3 he measured the radiation intensity. By 1962, we had a good map of the van Allen belt, and this is what it told us: in the part of the belt where the intensity is highest, it is high enough that if you stay for about a week (inside an Apollo command module), you receive a lethal dose. So for the Apollo missions, the trajectory was designed to minimize the amount of time spent there. The Apollo astronauts flew through the belts in about 3 hours, while avoiding the part with the highest levels entirely. The hull thickness of the CSM was more than enough to reduce the radiation level inside to manageable levels. Astronauts' overall exposure was actually dominated by solar particles once outside Earth's magnetic field. The total radiation received by the astronauts varied from mission-to-mission but was measured to be between 0.16 and 1.14 rads (1.6 and 11.4 mGy). More details in this video from Scott Manley: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9YN50xXFJY
    2
  179. As evidence for the moon landings, we have 382 kg of moon rock, hours of live TV, hours of film, thousands of photos, stacks of measurements and scientific results, eyewitness accounts, and photos of the landing sites made by later lunar orbiters. Detailed analysis of the physics and engineering required shows that it is possible to land on the moon with 1960s technology. Despite 50 years of trying, no moon landing denier has ever produced convincing evidence of his claims.
    2
  180. False, Apollo 11-17 are real.
    2
  181.  @dbryant4042  We have tons of evidence the Apollo landings are real, and no evidence at all that they were faked.
    2
  182.  @ScoriloOfficial  We have multiple lines of evidence including independent sources that show the Apollo landings are real. The deniers, on the other hand, have not been able to show a single piece of evidence that supports their claims.
    2
  183. False. The requested schedule was not feasible given the funding level. NASA's current position is that they'll land on the moon again in a few years.
    2
  184. Well, yes. Apollo 11 landed in 1969, not in 1968.
    2
  185. 1.the 'microparticles' we're talking about are single atoms. You can't see those. Their cumulative effect is to produce a tiny static charge that can lift the smallest dust particles. This was observed by Apollo and later missions as a faint halo just above the surface. It's best seen from lunar orbit.
    2
  186. False, we have proof that the landings are real.
    2
  187. They were careful to not get dust on the camera lenses. Duh.
    2
  188. No, it wasn't. Every Apollo mission had problems with dust. The missions were short enough that none of those problems were life-threatening.
    2
  189. @Directtruth False. 9 missions have traveled to the moon. There is no barrier at 360 mi
    2
  190. @Directtruth Apollo 8, 10-17.
    2
  191.  @JohmScriv  I have examined that evidence and found no holes. What's more, I found unmistakable signs that e.g. the videos were made in an environment with 1/6 G gravity and no atmosphere. This is a combination that does not exist on Earth, and cannot be faked.
    2
  192. We figured out how to get through the van Allen belts in 1958. For radiation, there are 2 important variables: 1. the radiation intensity 2. the amount of time you are exposed to this intensity. You can multiply these two and get the total radiation dose. Humans die if they receive a dose of about 300 Rad. In 1958, James van Allen and his team discovered the belts that were later named after him. He also measured the radiation intensity. This is what he found: in the part of the belt where the intensity is highest, it is high enough that if you stay for about a week (inside an Apollo command module), you receive a lethal dose. So for the Apollo missions, the trajectory was designed to minimize the amount of time spent there. The Apollo astronauts flew through the belts in about 3 hours, while avoiding the part with the highest levels entirely. The hull thickness of the CSM was more than enough to reduce the radiation level inside to manageable levels. Astronauts' overall exposure was actually dominated by solar particles once outside Earth's magnetic field. The total radiation received by the astronauts varied from mission-to-mission but was measured to be between 0.16 and 1.14 rads (1.6 and 11.4 mGy). More details in this video from Scott Manley: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9YN50xXFJY
    2
  193. Let's be real here, the only thing those things show is your lack of comprehension. Shadows converge when the surface they're projected on is not flat but curved. Celluloid works normally in cameras that were engineered to minimize temperature differences. Dust rises when disturbed.
    2
  194. We figured out how to get through the van Allen belts in 1958. For radiation, there are 2 important variables: 1. the radiation intensity 2. the amount of time you are exposed to this intensity. You can multiply these two and get the total radiation dose. Humans die if they receive a dose of about 300 Rad. In 1958, James van Allen and his team discovered the belts that were later named after him. He also measured the radiation intensity. This is what he found: in the part of the belt where the intensity is highest, it is high enough that if you stay for about a week (inside an Apollo command module), you receive a lethal dose. So for the Apollo missions, the trajectory was designed to minimize the amount of time spent there. The Apollo astronauts flew through the belts in about 3 hours, while avoiding the part with the highest levels entirely. The hull thickness of the CSM was more than enough to reduce the radiation level inside to manageable levels. Astronauts' overall exposure was actually dominated by solar particles once outside Earth's magnetic field. The total radiation received by the astronauts varied from mission-to-mission but was measured to be between 0.16 and 1.14 rads (1.6 and 11.4 mGy). More details in this video from Scott Manley: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9YN50xXFJY They won't be landing on "light". We can measure the composition of the moon from Earth, by analyzing its light via spectroscopy. That tells us the moon consists of rock. And we have landed on the Moon 29 times now. None of those landings reported anything other than solid rock.
    2
  195. For radiation, there are 2 important variables: 1. the radiation intensity 2. the amount of time you are exposed to this intensity. You can multiply these two and get the total radiation dose. Humans die if they receive a dose of about 300 Rad. In 1958, James van Allen and his team discovered the belts that were later named after him. He also measured the radiation intensity. This is what he found: in the part of the belt where the intensity is highest, it is high enough that if you stay for about a week (inside an Apollo command module), you receive a lethal dose. So for the Apollo missions, the trajectory was designed to minimize the amount of time spent there. The Apollo astronauts flew through the belts in about 3 hours, while avoiding the part with the highest levels entirely. The hull thickness of the CSM was more than enough to reduce the radiation level inside to manageable levels. Astronauts' overall exposure was actually dominated by solar particles once outside Earth's magnetic field. The total radiation received by the astronauts varied from mission-to-mission but was measured to be between 0.16 and 1.14 rads (1.6 and 11.4 mGy). More details in this video from Scott Manley: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9YN50xXFJY
    2
  196.  @davidchase9424  They'll confirm what I said: it's all about the intensity and exposure time.
    2
  197.  @davidchase9424  To get into lunar orbit, the engine on the Service Module was used. Not much was required for this: after TLI, the speed of the spacecraft dropped as it climbed out of Earth's gravity well. To get the LEM from lunar orbit to the lunar surface, the LM descent stage was used.
    2
  198.  @davidchase9424  Don Pettit was being insufficiently precise when he said that. NASA did not lose the technology. Drawings for every part of the Saturn V and Apollo spacecraft exist. We have a bunch of versions of the software for the AGC. We have loads of info on every aspect of the design. Is that enough to launch a new Saturn V tomorrow? No. That's what he was getting at: until very recently, NASA didn't have a production line cranking out rockets with enough payload for manned lunar missions. With Artemis 1 sitting on the launch pad, that has changed.
    2
  199. As evidence for the moon landings, we have 382 kg of moon rock, hours of live TV, hours of film, thousands of photos, stacks of measurements and scientific results, eyewitness accounts, and photos of the landing sites made by later lunar orbiters. Detailed analysis of the physics and engineering required shows that it is possible to land on the moon with 1960s technology. Despite 50 years of trying, no moon landing denier has ever produced convincing evidence of his claims. Those books are full of nonsense and drivel.
    2
  200. Real engineers know that gases, like our atmosphere are subject to gravity. This is easily demonstrated: grab a barometer, go to the nearest tall building and take two pressure readings: one at ground level, one at the top, outside. The pressure reading at the top will be lower than the ground level one, proving that it is possible to have regions of different air pressure without them being separated by a wall. Real engineers can receive signals from space and verify through simple radiolocation that those sources are at hundreds to thousands of km above the ground, and traveling at 8 km/s.
    2
  201.  @BOBANDVEG  That is incorrect. The radiation level is far too low to ruin film in 1/2 second, it takes weeks to months of exposure at the level found on the moon to ruin film.
    2
  202.  @BOBANDVEG  Sure, the level is higher than on Earth. But not high enough to damage film. Actual damage to film occurs at radiation levels far higher than we measured on the moon.
    2
  203.  @BOBANDVEG  1400 microSievert per day is about 66 times worse than on Earth: a film that's on the Moon for a week gets about the same dose as it would on Earth if stored in the same conditions for a year and three months. You can store film on Earth for that long, and in fact much longer.
    2
  204.  @BOBANDVEG  Like 19960007133, The Effects of Space Radiation on Flight Film, you mean? That studies far more sensitive films than used on Apollo, and finds that the films stay usable, although there's a reduction in e.g. contrast. The damage caused is easily compensated for in the developing process. Kodak found similar results when they prepared the films that would be used for Apollo.
    2
  205.  @BOBANDVEG  Read the document. At the start of the test, they remove the films from the shielded container. Also read the film specs: they're all 400 ASA and up, i.e. way more sensitive than the films used for Apollo. And read the conclusion. "Select lower speed films (Speed below 400 films) and use reversal films for missions that have a predicted radiation dose of above 300 mrads. High speed reversal or positive films (Kodachrome, Ektachrome, Fujichrome, etc.) will have little image degradation due to radiation,"
    2
  206. We have proof the moon landings were not faked.
    2
  207. False. In every landing video, at about 1 minute before touchdown you can see the dust being blown away. Because there's no air, all the dust moves in a straight line, instead of billowing into big clouds as it would on Earth. That also means the dust uniformly moves at high speed - far too fast to settle on the lander feet.
    2
  208. Those only had to last 3 days - and they were severely worn by the end of the mission, which is why we're studying the problem now.
    2
  209. Your 'theory' falls apart at the first hurdle. They used a camera with a resolution equivalent to 100 MP: the Hasselblad medium-format camera blows away just about every digital camera ever made.
    2
  210. You heard about it back in the 1960s. It was a problem for the Apollo missions, just not a catastrophic one. For the much longer missions being planned for Artemis, the problem is going to be worse, so a better solution is required.
    2
  211. In every landing video, at about 1 minute before touchdown you can see the dust being blown away. The big difference is that because there's no air, all the dust moves in a straight line instead of billowing. That also means the dust uniformly moves at high speed - far too fast to settle on the lander feet. Almost as if you haven't considered the physics involved.
    2
  212.  @philosophyweb  Unlike you, I've measured this, and the astronaut's movement is consistent with 1/6G.
    2
  213. We figured out how to get through the van Allen belts in 1958. For radiation, there are 2 important variables: 1. the radiation intensity 2. the amount of time you are exposed to this intensity. You can multiply these two and get the total radiation dose. Humans die if they receive a dose of about 300 Rad. In 1958, James van Allen and his team discovered the belts that were later named after him. He also measured the radiation intensity. This is what he found: in the part of the belt where the intensity is highest, it is high enough that if you stay for about a week (inside an Apollo command module), you receive a lethal dose. So for the Apollo missions, the trajectory was designed to minimize the amount of time spent there. When the Apollo astronauts flew through the van Allen belts (which took about 3 hours), they received a dose of radiation of between 0.16 and 1.14 rads, or less than 1% of a lethal dose. More details in this video from Scott Manley: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9YN50xXFJY
    2
  214. False. Instead of being exposed, we'll see more and more confirmation. The deniers will be exposed.
    2
  215. No, it was an actual event.
    2
  216. There IS gravity on the Moon, it's about 1/6 G.
    2
  217. Proof for the heliocentric model: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khIzr6610cQ one key point is that Venus has phases (i.e. you can see from which direction the sun lights it up), and the geocentric model has no way to explain that. These days, we can measure the distance from Earth to the other planets very accurately (down to 1 km), so we can plot the orbits exactly. The result is conclusive: the heliocentric model is correct.
    2
  218.  @DiamondGuitarist  In 50 years, none of the deniers have been able to disprove any of the evidence for the Apollo missions. Their arguments turn out to be junk.
    2
  219. Apollo 1, and 7-17, plus ASTP and 3x Skylab. 14 manned Apollo missions, plus a few unmanned test launches.
    2
  220. The dust got everywhere: photos of the astronauts inside the lander after the EVA show them covered in it. There wasn't much opportunity for dust to settle on the lander (most of the visible panels are vertical), and many of the materials on the outside are electrically conducting so static dust doesn't cling to it.
    2
  221. We didn't get it right the first time: we got lucky. The suits they had then were okay for a 3-day mission. Now we want to have much longer missions, for which the old suits aren't good enough. The Apollo spacecraft didn't need shielding. For radiation, there are 2 important variables: 1. the radiation intensity 2. the amount of time you are exposed to this intensity. You can multiply these two and get the total radiation dose. Humans die if they receive a dose of about 300 Rad. In 1958, James van Allen and his team discovered the belts that were later named after him. He also measured the radiation intensity. This is what he found: in the part of the belt where the intensity is highest, it is high enough that if you stay for about a week, you receive a lethal dose. So for the Apollo missions, the trajectory was designed to minimize the amount of time spent there. When the Apollo astronauts flew through the van Allen belts (which took about an hour), they received a dose of radiation of between 0.16 and 1.14 rads, or less than 1% of a lethal dose. The camera used to film the launch and ascent from the moon's surface was controlled remotely by someone in mission control. You can find this information within minutes, why didn't you do that before spouting nonsense here?
    2
  222. In every landing video, at about 1 minute before touchdown you can see the dust being blown away. The big difference is that because there's no air, all the dust moves in a straight line instead of billowing. That also means the dust uniformly moves at high speed - far too fast to settle on the lander feet.
    2
  223. Radiation shielding using electromagnets is possible, but uses a fair amount of power. IDK if a useful shield can be made small enough to protect one man in his spacesuit.
    2
  224. The Apollo lander and space suit worked - for missions of up to 3 days. For Artemis, they want to be able to spend months on the moon. You need far more consumables (oxygen, food) to do that, so you need a bigger lander. The Apollo space suits were showing damage by the end of the mission, so we need better suits.
    2
  225.  @danyg7251  Sure, you can scale up the Apollo spacecraft, but how much 'Apollo' will be left? Orion is conceptually similar (cone-shaped crew module with heat shield, service module with engines). For the lander we've gone an entirely different route (Starship). This was a commercial competition, so it's up to the companies to choose what type of lander they offered.
    2
  226. Rockets bring their own oxygen. That's how they can be used outside our atmosphere.
    2
  227. The radiation levels are low enough that short missions like the Apollo missions were far from "deadly". For radiation, there are 2 important variables: 1. the radiation intensity 2. the amount of time you are exposed to this intensity. You can multiply these two and get the total radiation dose. Humans die if they receive a dose of about 300 Rad. In 1958, James van Allen and his team discovered the belts that were later named after him. He also measured the radiation intensity. This is what he found: in the part of the belt where the intensity is highest, it is high enough that if you stay for about a week (inside an Apollo command module), you receive a lethal dose. So for the Apollo missions, the trajectory was designed to minimize the amount of time spent there. When the Apollo astronauts flew through the van Allen belts (which took about 3 hours), they received a dose of radiation of between 0.16 and 1.14 rads, or less than 1% of a lethal dose. More details in this video from Scott Manley: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9YN50xXFJY
    2
  228. It's funny how you make a claim without checking if it's valid. It's easy to calculate how curved the horizon is for a given size planet/moon. To nobody's surprise (except yours, maybe), that number matches what we see in the Apollo photos.
    2
  229.  @heybacchus6899  I haven't been involved in the Apollo missions, I've just examined the results and the engineering involved.
    2
  230.  @heybacchus6899  The beauty of physics is that anyone can use it. I don't need to be part of the Apollo program to use physics to calculate what the horizon on the moon looks like.
    2
  231. Ah, the "I don't know how photography works" argument. The Apollo missions all landed in bright daylight. So the exposure time for photos and film was far too short for stars to be visible. Similarly, the human eye pupil contracts, again limiting the amount of light that enters so stars are not visible.
    2
  232.  @single1pop  Photography and video have exactly the same constraints: the amount of light gathered is determined by the exposure time. Video has the additional constraint that the exposure time cannot exceed 41 ms due to the frame rate.
    2
  233. You're wrong. The lander was repressurized using oxygen from a tank carried by the lander. This is pretty simple.
    2
  234. NASA didn't solve it in the 1960. Every Apollo mission had problems with dust. They were fortunate the missions were short enough that none of those problems became catastrophic. For Artemis, NASA wants to spend far more time on the moon than the longest Apollo mission (months instead of 3 days). That requires better solutions than they had in the 1960s.
    2
  235.  @mohammadsattar5488  There are 2 effects at work: 1. no atmosphere, so the dust doesn't slow down from drag. 2. 1/6 G so the dust is pulled down less than on Earth. When you measure the time it takes for dust to fall back to the ground, it's consistent with this combination.
    2
  236.  @kryptoniterocks8245  Bart Sibrel is a charlatan who has been caught lying and who fabricates evidence. None of his arguments are valid.
    2
  237. The Apollo space suits were just about good enough for the short Apollo missions. Now we want to do lunar missions that spend months on the surface, so we need better suits.
    2
  238.  @kingkezz9188  Your suspicion is based on a lack of information.
    2
  239.  @kingkezz9188  No, I was correct. Anyone claiming '100x better technology' as if the progress we've made since the 1960s applies equally to all fields of engineering does not have all the information he needs.
    2
  240. False. The Apollo videos show an environment with 1/6 G gravity and no atmosphere. It also shows a single light source very far away. This combination is impossible to fake on Earth.
    2
  241. That's a reflex action. Obviously it doesn't work when you're in a helmet.
    2
  242.  @baaldiablo8459  Moon landing deniers are no better than flat earthers.
    2
  243. The dust was not bad enough to cause catastrophic problems for the Apollo missions: the longest mission spent just 3 days on the surface. The had a host of minor problems, from equipment malfunctions to irritation. These problems will get worse for longer missions, which is what this video is about.
    2
  244. It's real. That's a spacewalk during one of the Gemini missions.
    2
  245.  @liftmasterdavid1  American Moon doesn't contain a single fact.
    2
  246. We did it again. 6 times.
    2
  247. Some of the dust contains metals. On the moon there's no oxygen so these metals are in their pure form. When you bring lunar samples to Earth and expose them to the oxygen in our atmosphere, the metals will react with that oxygen and corrode.
    2
  248. Incorrect. The moon landings were real .
    2
  249.  @kongmik  False. The videos show an environment that cannot be recreated on Earth.
    2
  250. Wrong. This is based on actual experience, and tests with actual moon dust.
    2
  251. As evidence for the moon landings, we have 382 kg of moon rock, hours of live TV, hours of film, thousands of photos, stacks of measurements and scientific results, eyewitness accounts, and photos of the landing sites made by later lunar orbiters. No moon landing denier has ever produced convincing evidence of his claims.
    2
  252.  @chuckppyro3137  The LM had room for samples because they left everything on the moon that they could, including two PLSS backpacks that weighed more than the samples brought back by any mission.
    2
  253. In every landing video, at about 1 minute before touchdown you can see the dust being blown away. Because there's no air, all the dust moves in a straight line, instead of billowing into big clouds as it would on Earth. That also means the dust uniformly moves at high speed - far too fast to settle on the lander feet.
    2
  254. As evidence for the moon landings, we have 382 kg of moon rock, hours of live TV, hours of film, thousands of photos, stacks of measurements and scientific results, eyewitness accounts, and photos of the landing sites made by later lunar orbiters. Detailed analysis of the physics and engineering required shows that it is possible to land on the moon with 1960s technology. Despite 50 years of trying, no moon landing denier has ever produced convincing evidence of his claims.
    2
  255. False. It has requested that the landing sites not be disturbed by activity on the ground, but spacecraft have already flown over the Apollo landing sites.
    2
  256.  @rdaws73  Look up the actual guidelines (not laws, because NASA cannot dictate anything). You can orbit over the Apollo landing sites at any altitude. The only restrictions for spacecraft are to avoid landing closer than 2 km to the site, to avoid contaminating the site with rocket exhaust, and to make sure no crash happens near the site.
    2
  257. In every landing video, at about 1 minute before touchdown you can see the dust being blown away. Because there's no air, all the dust moves in a straight line, instead of billowing into big clouds as it would on Earth. The landing of Apollo 12 sandblasted the Surveyor 3 probe which was about 1 km from the landing site.
    2
  258. Wrong, Apollo was real.
    2
  259. Bullshit. The money was spent on actual hardware and real missions.
    2
  260.  @petethewrist  The lunar surface consists of compact, interlocking rocks (often fused together by impacts) with a thin layer of dust on top. A small engine like the LM descent engine isn't going to dislodge those rocks.
    2
  261.  @petethewrist  No. Each impact fuses together the dust and rocks underneath.
    2
  262. No, that's incorrect. The abandoned the PLSS and boots, not the entire suit. What this video tells us about lunar dust is true and well-known.
    2
  263. As evidence for the moon landings, we have 382 kg of moon rock, hours of live TV, hours of film, thousands of photos, stacks of measurements and scientific results, eyewitness accounts, and photos of the landing sites made by later lunar orbiters. Detailed analysis of the physics and engineering required shows that it is possible to land on the moon with 1960s technology. Despite 50 years of trying, no moon landing denier has ever produced convincing evidence of his claims.
    2
  264. The evidence says otherwise.
    2
  265. In every landing video, at about 1 minute before touchdown you can see the dust being blown away. Because there's no air, all the dust moves in a straight line, instead of billowing into big clouds as it would on Earth. That also means the dust uniformly moves at high speed - far too fast to settle on the lander feet.
    2
  266.  @klaslindstein2252  Read what I wrote. The exhaust velocity is over 1 km/s. All of the dust that gets dislodged by the exhaust is thrown out at a speed of several hundred meters per second, in a ballistic arc that's hundreds of meters long. None of the dust will land on the pads in those circumstances.
    2
  267. Both astronauts had their hands full getting the boxes into the lander, and 'stowing the lunar samples' didn't make for riveting live TV.
    2
  268.  @dukromeo  In every landing video, at about 1 minute before touchdown you can see the dust being blown away. Because there's no air, all the dust moves in a straight line, instead of billowing into big clouds as it would on Earth. That also means the dust uniformly moves at high speed - far too fast to settle on the lander feet. The rocket engine wasn't large enough to create a big crater. The lunar soil was found to be very hard under a thin layer of dust, with everything interlocking. Not loose rubble that's easily blown away.
    2
  269. You have been misled.
    2
  270. Yes and no. The Apollo missions had problems with dust, but the missions were short enough that those problems weren't catastrophic (they had some damage to the spacesuits, but no catastrophic leaks, for instance).
    2
  271.  @JerryMungo  For the space suits, the problem is dust getting into folds and then abrading through the material. That's determined mostly by the amount of time they spend using the suits. Because the dust clings to the suit via electrostatic interaction, there'll only be a thin layer on the suit at any time. There's no contradiction here, just a reminder that the Apollo missions were finding this all out as they went along, so they did things that with hindsight we might have done differently. "Jumping up and down and falling" was an essential part of discovering how to move in 1/6G.
    2
  272. False. 9 Apollo missions have gone through the VA belts, and 2 Gemini missions have been inside. The radiation levels in the belts are low enough that this is not a problem.
    2
  273.  @Xernive  Based on the fact that every claim I've come across has been easily debunked.
    2
  274. False. The radiation level on the surface of the moon is about 1.3 mSv/day. Nuclear plant personnel have an annual dose limit of 50 mSv. At 100 mSv the risk of getting cancer starts to increase. So for a mission of up to a month, you don't need any shielding. For longer missions, shielding is necessary. Instead of lead shielding, we'll just pack a layer of lunar soil around the habitat. The maximum surface temperature in the middle of the day is 250 ºF. But because the moon has no atmosphere, it's pretty easy to regulate temperature by reflecting most of the incoming sunlight, as was done by the Apollo lander and space suits. That was so efficient that the active cooling system only had to remove the body heat produced by the astronauts.
    2
  275.  @nakiaboyr6196  Easily verifiable facts trump your incredulity every time.
    2
  276. The suits used for Apollo where showing problems after only 3 days. Now we want to spend months on the moon, so we need something better.
    2
  277. For radiation, there are 2 important variables: 1. the radiation intensity 2. the amount of time you are exposed to this intensity. You can multiply these two and get the total radiation dose. Humans die if they receive a dose of about 300 Rad. In 1958, James van Allen and his team discovered the belts that were later named after him. He also measured the radiation intensity. This is what he found: in the part of the belt where the intensity is highest, it is high enough that if you stay for about *a week*, you receive a lethal dose. So for the Apollo missions, the trajectory was designed to minimize the amount of time spent there. When the Apollo astronauts flew through the van Allen belts (which took about an hour), they received a dose of radiation of between 0.16 and 1.14 rads, or less than 1% of a lethal dose.
    2
  278.  @loucifer8009  The Nixon phone call was recorded at Nixon's office. So Nixon's words have a delay of 0. His words are sent to the moon (1.2 seconds) via a geostationary satellite relay (0.2 seconds). The response comes back with another 1.4 seconds of flight time on the same route. The video shows a delay of about 5 seconds. Other lunar videos follow the same pattern: the audio is recorded at Mission Control, so no delay for Capcom's voice. Astronaut responses have a delay of min. 3 seconds. In some cases you can hear the end of Capcom's statement echoing back from the moon before the astronauts answer.
    2
  279. The Moon consists of rock. This can easily be verified using spectroscopic analysis of the light reflected by the Moon, proving you wrong.
    2
  280. The Moon missions ended because they were expensive. It took 5% of the Federal budget for a decade to get to the Moon. After Apollo, NASA's budget was slashed to 1/5 of what it was. So NASA concentrated on cheaper efforts: a reusable spacecraft (Space Shuttle), and learning how to live in space for longer periods (via the ISS). In 1970, we were not close to ready for long-term missions to the moon; the ISS helped us develop the tech we need for that. The "rare earths" are not exactly rare: we have billions of tons of most of them on Earth, they're called 'rare' because they're found in low concentrations, so you have to process a lot of ore to get your material. When a lunar mission costs as much as the Apollo missions did, mining is not cost-effective even if you had piles of diamonds lying on the surface ready to be scooped up.
    2
  281. The longest Apollo mission spent 3 days on the moon, not "months". Radiation wasn't an issue: the total radiation received by the astronauts varied from mission-to-mission but was measured to be between 0.16 and 1.14 rads (1.6 and 11.4 mGy).
    2
  282. He was wrong. Drawings for every part of the Saturn V and Apollo spacecraft exist. We have loads of info on every aspect of the design. Is that enough to launch a new Saturn V tomorrow? No. That's what he was getting at: when he gave that interview about 10 years ago, there was no factory cranking out rockets capable of manned moon missions.
    2
  283. At the top of a building, the outside air pressure is lower than at the foot of that same building. There is no container between those 2 locations, proving that a pressure differential exists in our atmosphere without a physical object acting as a container. All you need is a force acting on the atmosphere, that force is gravity. The second law of thermodynamics says that heat flows from hot to cold. It says nothing about the behavior of gases, and there's nothing about this law that contradicts the existence of space. You have been fooled by space deniers that use expensive words like "second law of thermodynamics violation" without understanding what those words mean. It's a variation of the gish gallop: they bury you with nonsense and hope you don't notice it's nothing more than nonsense.
    2
  284. Unlike you, I've actually measured some of the moon videos. The dust behaves in a way that's consistent with 1/6 G and no atmosphere, and inconsistent with 1 G. The lower gravity means it takes longer for dust to fall back down. The lack of air means the dust isn't slowed down as much.
    2
  285. In every landing video, at about 1 minute before touchdown you can see the dust being blown away. Because there's no air, all the dust moves in a straight line, instead of billowing into big clouds as it would on Earth. That also means the dust uniformly moves at high speed - far too fast to settle on the lander feet.
    2
  286. The "petrified wood" story is bullshit. In 2006, a Dutch museum hosted an art exhibit that showcased forgeries. One of the exhibits, claiming to be a moon rock, ended up in the museum's collection afterwards; its paperwork was lost. In 2009, this was examined and found to be wood. i.e. an artist took a piece of petrified wood, labeled it "moon rock" and put it on exhibit. NASA keeps extensive records on its lunar samples. Two samples were supplied to the Netherlands, the petrified wood sample is not one of them. So we have 382 kg of actual moon rock, samples of which have been examined and authenticated by mineralogists all over the world.
    2
  287. Dust was an issue 60 years ago, but the missions were short enough that the problem never became catastrophic. For the longer missions they want to do now, a better solution is needed. Apollo also was a much higher-risk endeavor than we wold accept today. And we didn't forget how to go there. We have piles of information on how we did it back then.
    2
  288. Incorrect. Nobody has said we can't get to the moon due to the van Allen belts. In 1958, James van Allen and his team at the University of Iowa discovered the belts that were later named after him, using measurements from the NASA missions Explorer 1. With Explorer 3 and 4 and Pioneer 3 he measured the radiation intensity. By 1962, we had a good map of the van Allen belt, and this is what it told us: in the part of the belt where the intensity is highest, it is high enough that if you stay for about a week (inside an Apollo command module), you receive a lethal dose. So for the Apollo missions, the trajectory was designed to minimize the amount of time spent there. The Apollo astronauts flew through the belts in about 3 hours, while avoiding the part with the highest levels entirely. The hull thickness of the CSM was more than enough to reduce the radiation level inside to manageable levels. Astronauts' overall exposure was actually dominated by solar particles once outside Earth's magnetic field. The total radiation received by the astronauts varied from mission-to-mission but was measured to be between 0.16 and 1.14 rads (1.6 and 11.4 mGy).
    2
  289. There's plenty of proof, you just stick your fingers in your ears and go 'lalalalalala I can't hear you'.
    2
  290. You're arguing from ignorance. The only way to explore the ocean at high resolution is by driving a ship across the entire surface, about 510 million km2. At the speed of a ship, this takes forever. To explore our landmasses, we can build a satellite that gives us images of the entire planet in a few days.
    2
  291. There was no "alleged" about the Apollo landings. Dust was a problem for every Apollo landing; the missions were just short enough (the longest Apollo mission spent just 3 days on the lunar surface) that the problems didn't become catastrophic.
    2
  292. At no point around 49s is Earth visible behind the astronaut.
    2
  293. False. In every landing video you can see that the rocket exhaust throws up lots of dust. What you're missing is that there's no atmosphere, so all of the dust is accelerated to hundreds of meters per second, moving in a very shallow ballistic arc. None of the dust moves slow enough to end up falling into the top of the pads.
    2
  294.  @Tim22222  Yep, For the area covered by any of the landings, it's one impact per 1000 years.
    2
  295.  @AWikkedMoon  Gravity is caused by mass. The moon has mass, a lot of it: it's a sphere with a radius of 1700 km, all of it solid rock. Learn how gravity works.
    2
  296. For radiation, there are 2 important variables: 1. the radiation intensity 2. the amount of time you are exposed to this intensity. You can multiply these two and get the total radiation dose. Humans die if they receive a dose of about 300 Rad. In 1958, James van Allen and his team discovered the belts that were later named after him. He also measured the radiation intensity. This is what he found: in the part of the belt where the intensity is highest, it is high enough that if you stay for about a week, you receive a lethal dose. So for the Apollo missions, the trajectory was designed to minimize the amount of time spent there. When the Apollo astronauts flew through the van Allen belts (which took about an hour), they received a dose of radiation of between 0.16 and 1.14 rads, or less than 1% of a lethal dose.
    2
  297. The only 'big lie' is the one that states the moon landings were fake. 10,000 successful launches into orbit prove there is no firmament. Every measurement we make says Earth is a sphere. You are clinging to a false image, based on a mistranslation of a single word in the Bible. The word that was translated as 'firmament' is actually no more specific than our 'sky'. I.e. not a solid dome.
    2
  298.  @69jdwalt  You're arguing from ignorance. Combustion works fine in a vacuum when you bring your own oxidiser. That's what a rocket engine does: instead of pulling ambient air in, it draws an oxidizer from a tank, mixes it with fuel and combusts the mixture. In every landing video, at about 1 minute before touchdown you can see the dust being blown away. Because there's no air, all the dust moves in a straight line, instead of billowing into big clouds as it would on Earth. That also means the dust uniformly moves at high speed - far too fast to settle on the lander feet. The engine was too small to create a big crater.
    2
  299. Abrasion takes time. They're not saying any dust touching the suit would puncture it: they're saying that dust in a fold of the suit would, over the course of a few days, abrade through one or more layers. The Apollo missions were too short for that to happen, but it will be a problem new, longer missions will have to deal with.
    2
  300.  @69jdwalt  You're making incorrect assumptions. The radiation levels are far too low to "cook" astronauts on a 2 week trip to the Moon and back. Space suits consist of about 16 layers, with the airtight layers protected by several outer layers. A hole in an outer layer is not a mission-ending event.
    2
  301.  @AWikkedMoon  "I'm not reading that, I'd rather stay dumb" - you.
    2
  302.  @UniversalSouls  A thin layer of dust covers a surface that consists of larger rock fragments that have the exact same color. You can't distinguish between a disturbed surface and an undisturbed one.
    2
  303.  @pauldelphos4924  1. Earth rotates on its axis in 24 hours. 2. the Moon orbits Earth in 28 days. 3. The Moon rotates on its axis in 28 days. 1. is why the moon rises and sets every day from our perspective. 2 and 3 are in sync, this means we always see the same side of the moon. 3 means that every spot on the moon has 14 x 24 hours of daylight, followed by 14x24 hours of night.
    2
  304. Spaceflight has a huge ROI. Stopping spaceflight would be counterproductive.
    2
  305. They didn't have this all worked out in 1969. The dust was far more abrasive than they expected then, and every mission had problems with it. The missions were short enough that none of those problems were catastrophic.
    2
  306.  @garygagnon5057  Apollo 11 was the first landing, after that 6 more were planned, not 14. After Apollo 11 it was clear that lunar dust was a problem. They kept using the A7L space suit because developing a new suit would take years, and Apollo would be over by then. They had small leaks in the suits. They had equipment that jammed due to dust. At the end of Apollo, a report was compiled that lists every problem with dust. It's 74 pages long, with several issues per page.
    2
  307.  @garygagnon5057  Yes, there were 14 missions. Apollo 7, 8, 9, 10 didn't land on the moon, so they had no way of knowing what the dust would be like. Apollo 11 was the first opportunity to learn that.
    2
  308.  @garygagnon5057  No. The Apollo space suit consists of 16 layers. The innermost layer is the airtight one. Duct tape applied to the outer layer of the suit would do nothing to stop a leak.
    2
  309.  @garygagnon5057  1 layer that is airtight. Layer 2 keeps the airtight layer from expanding. 3-4 is a cooling garment. Then there's a bunch of thermal insulation, and the outer layers are tough materials to protect the astronaut during a fall. Again, no pressure suit is airtight. Your imagination is unrealistic.
    2
  310. They would take off their helmets once inside the LEM.
    2
  311. In every landing video, at about 1 minute before touchdown you can see the dust being blown away. Because there's no air, all the dust moves in a straight line, instead of billowing into big clouds as it would on Earth. That also means the dust uniformly moves at high speed - far too fast to settle on the lander feet. The lunar surface consists of compact, interlocking rocks with a thin layer of dust on top. A small engine like the LM descent engine isn't going to dislodge those rocks, so there's no big crater.
    2
  312.  @dineshreddy4208  The first lunar project consumed 5% of the Federal budget. It was made a national priority, so you had 455,000 people working overtime to get this thing off the ground. That urgency is now missing, along with the massive funding.  In its place is a program that takes things slower and takes fewer risks. Apollo had 16 unmanned test missions including two full-stack missions (Apollo 4 and 6) before its first manned flight, Apollo 7.
    2
  313.  @yoskarokuto3553  For radiation, there are 2 important variables: 1. the radiation intensity 2. the amount of time you are exposed to this intensity. You can multiply these two and get the total radiation dose. Humans die if they receive a dose of about 300 Rad. In 1958, James van Allen and his team at the University of Iowa discovered the belts that were later named after him, using measurements from the NASA missions Explorer 1. With Explorer 3 and 4 and Pioneer 3 he measured the radiation intensity. By 1962, we had a good map of the van Allen belt, and this is what it told us: in the part of the belt where the intensity is highest, it is high enough that if you stay for about a week (inside an Apollo command module), you receive a lethal dose. So for the Apollo missions, the trajectory was designed to minimize the amount of time spent there. The Apollo astronauts flew through the belts in about 3 hours, while avoiding the part with the highest levels entirely. The hull thickness of the CSM was more than enough to reduce the radiation level inside to manageable levels. Astronauts' overall exposure was actually dominated by solar particles once outside Earth's magnetic field. The total radiation received by the astronauts varied from mission-to-mission but was measured to be between 0.16 and 1.14 rads (1.6 and 11.4 mGy). More details in this video from Scott Manley: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9YN50xXFJY
    2
  314. It still takes years to design a large rocket and all the hardware you need for a manned lunar mission. Until recently, that hasn't been a priority.
    2
  315. In every landing video, at about 1 minute before touchdown you can see the dust being blown away. Because there's no air, all the dust moves in a straight line, instead of billowing into big clouds as it would on Earth. That also means the dust uniformly moves at high speed - far too fast to settle on the lander feet.
    2
  316.  @mikewnith9294  You're arguing from ignorance. We invented radio in the early 1900s. Marconi was able to send signals from the UK to the USA. Cell service is short-range radio, with a tiny antenna and a $3 receiver in your phone. The cell system is built deliberately to have short range, because the shorter the range, the more cell towers you can install without them interfering with each other, and the more users you can serve. NASA used giant dish antennas to receive Apollo's signals. For the photos, you're missing the fact that these were taken on the Moon. That means the horizon is closer because the moon is smaller than Earth. There's no atmosphere so faraway objects don't look as blurry. And because the entire landscape consists of rocks, our brain has no reference to judge sizes and distances from. Any attempt at using photos to prove something without understanding these basics is doomed to failure. The "wires" argument is more nonsense in the same vein.
    2
  317. As evidence for the moon landings, we have 382 kg of moon rock, hours of live TV, hours of film, thousands of photos, stacks of measurements and scientific results, eyewitness accounts, and photos of the landing sites made by later lunar orbiters. Detailed analysis of the physics and engineering required shows that it is possible to land on the moon with 1960s technology. Despite 50 years of trying, no moon landing denier has ever produced convincing evidence of his claims.
    2
  318. They threw out all kinds of things: overboots, PLSS, waste, etc. Anything to reduce the weight of the ascent module, so they could take more lunar samples back. Nothing "alleged" about that: it happened.
    2
  319.  @mikhugh4326  The belt consists of several regions. The Apollo missions avoided the region with the highest radiation flux entirely. The van Allen belts are rings around the equator: the radiation flux decreases rapidly towards the poles. So they were able to go around the central region by doing the TLI burn at a higher latitude. At TLI, the CSM was traveling at 10 km/s, or 36,000 km/h. The outer region of the van Allen belts extends to 60,000 km, that's 2 hours of travel time, mostly through the outer regions of the belt, which have a radiation flux 100 times lower than the center.
    2
  320. In every landing video, at about 1 minute before touchdown you can see the dust being blown away. Because there's no air, all the dust moves in a straight line, instead of billowing into big clouds as it would on Earth. That also means the dust uniformly moves at high speed - far too fast to settle on the lander feet. The lunar surface consists of compact, interlocking rocks with a thin layer of dust on top. A small engine like the LM descent engine isn't going to dislodge those rocks.
    2
  321. There have been 29 successful moon missions, 6 of which were manned.
    2
  322.  @benitoherrero3895  Incorrect, there is a fourth: I am right, the moon landings are real. Despite 50 years of trying, no moon landing denier has ever produced convincing evidence of his claims.
    2
  323. We've launched 10,000 satellites into orbit, far above where the Bible locates the firmament. Airliners fly above the firmament. That means we know with absolute certainty the firmament is not a solid structure. Similarly, we know Earth moves: it rotates on its axis, and it orbits the sun. This means we cannot take phrases like 'the pillars of the Earth' literally, and we cannot translate the word 'raki'a' to mean a solid structure.
    2
  324. This is the real reason we haven't been back to the Moon: The Apollo program was too expensive. It took 5% of the Federal budget for a decade to get to the Moon. After Apollo, NASA's budget was slashed to 1/5 of what it was. So NASA concentrated on cheaper efforts: a reusable spacecraft (Space Shuttle), and learning how to live in space for longer periods (via the ISS).
    2
  325. That's a load of nonsense.
    2
  326.  @godthunder4732  Yes, it's possible, but inefficient. It takes 55 kWh of electricity to separate water for 1 kg of hydrogen. A car with a hydrogen fuel cell (Toyota Mirai) can drive 100 km on 1 kg of H2. If you use that 55 kWh to charge a battery, an electric car will get 250-300 km of range. Hydrogen power is useful in circumstances where a battery would be too heavy (e.g. on ships that have to cross the ocean), but hydrogen still takes up a lot of storage space, so you may want to go one step further and use the Fischer-Tropsch process to synthesize a hydrocarbon fuel. Creating petrol this way takes about 120 kWh/kg.
    2
  327. What I believe is stuff that can be verified. Despite 50 years of trying, no moon landing denier has ever produced convincing evidence of his claims.
    2
  328.  @shawnnorris3410  I don't believe you, because basic physics tells me you can't throw a rock that fast. NASA demonstrated to the entire world they were able to send a heavy spacecraft to the moon. Independent observers followed the Apollo spacecraft on their way to the moon. Independent geologists all over the world have been analyzing lunar rock samples ever since. None of them found irregularities.
    2
  329.  @shawnnorris3410  That is incorrect. I can verify the claims made by NASA just like I can verify your claims. The scientific method is accessible to anyone. I can easily look up what a human is capable of, and throwing a rock at a speed of 10.4 km/s is beyond any human by a factor 1000.
    2
  330.  @shawnnorris3410  Science. It works.
    2
  331. 'unbelievable' is the right word for the quality of your arguments. Had you bothered to look any of this up, you'd have seen that - we know what the thermal environment of the moon is, no need to guess - we can design for this environment: using the right insulation materials, it's not that hard to keep the interior of a spacecraft comfortable. - the temperature does not make "maneuvering the space ship" any harder - yes, there were two spacecraft: the lunar module, which descended to the lunar surface, and the Command Module, which stayed in lunar orbit.
    2
  332. The photos of the moon show mostly grayscales because most rock is gray. The Apollo missions carried calibration targets: this is an object that has been painted in known colors. They placed this on the lunar surface and took photos. These calibration images allow us to make sure that the colors we see in photos are correct. The "no stars in the background" complaint shows you don't know how photography works. The Apollo missions all took place during the lunar day. The exposure settings they used were settings for daylight, with an exposure time of 1/60 to 1/125 seconds. That is about 100 times too short for stars to show up. IOW you've seen Star Trek and you think that's what space should look like.
    2
  333. The EVA suits are selfcontained. They contain air for more than 8 hours, a cooling system, scrubbers etc.
    2
  334.  @jaysongilbertson101  We figured out how to get through the van Allen belts in 1958. For radiation, there are 2 important variables: 1. the radiation intensity 2. the amount of time you are exposed to this intensity. You can multiply these two and get the total radiation dose. Humans die if they receive a dose of about 300 Rad. In 1958, James van Allen and his team discovered the belts that were later named after him. He also measured the radiation intensity. This is what he found: in the part of the belt where the intensity is highest, it is high enough that if you stay for about a week (inside an Apollo command module), you receive a lethal dose. So for the Apollo missions, the trajectory was designed to minimize the amount of time spent there. The Apollo astronauts flew through the belts in about 3 hours, while avoiding the part with the highest levels entirely. The hull thickness of the CSM was more than enough to reduce the radiation level inside to manageable levels. Astronauts' overall exposure was actually dominated by solar particles once outside Earth's magnetic field. The total radiation received by the astronauts varied from mission-to-mission but was measured to be between 0.16 and 1.14 rads (1.6 and 11.4 mGy). More details in this video from Scott Manley: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9YN50xXFJY
    2
  335.  @jaysongilbertson101  If you're a ham radio operator, you'll be familiar with radio link budgets. There are 2 easy ways to increase the range of your radio: 1. use a bigger antenna. They don't come bigger than the 70 m diameter dishes used by NASA. 2. use a more sensitive receiver. NASA built receivers that operate at 4 K, which reduces their thermal noise to nothing. That combination can receive signals from 18 billion km (Voyager, with its 12 W transmitter), so the 380,000 km for the Moon was a piece of cake.
    2
  336.  @5-Minutegeography  The LM consisted of two parts: the descent module, which had the engine and fuel for the landing, and the ascent module, with its own engine and fuel tanks, which were still full after the landing.
    2
  337. In every landing video, at about 1 minute before touchdown you can see the dust being blown away. Because there's no air, all the dust moves in a straight line, instead of billowing into big clouds as it would on Earth. That also means the dust uniformly moves at high speed - far too fast to settle on the lander feet.
    2
  338. The pressure difference between the inside and outside of the suit is 0.25 bar, or 0.25 kg/cm2. One of the layers of the suit is designed to have minimal expansion. Here on Earth, we have hydraulic hoses that are flexible, yet are able to withstand a pressure of 200 bar, or 800 times the pressure difference the Apollo suits were subjected to.
    2
  339.  @chadsimerson2291  we can see satellites with the naked eye. We can't resolve them, but satellites tend to be reflective enough that LEO satellites can be easily seen at dusk and dawn.  We can also see them with a telescope, and that's enough to see details. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waxqSCEFkBo Note the absence of the absolutely ginormous balloon you'd need to keep a structure this large aloft. With simple tools, you can measure their speed and altitude https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zApGNHOi0s You'll find an altitude of more than 200 km and a speed of 8 km/s. That's 6 times higher than a balloon has ever been, and 100 times faster.
    2
  340. It's a high voltage, but very little power. It'd be a lot cheaper to set up some solar panels.
    2
  341. At ground level on Earth, the horizon is about 3 km away. On the Moon, that's reduced to about 2 km. What makes the Moon look so different is the lack of structures. Here on Earth, there's lots of trees and buildings, which means you can see structures farther away than the horizon (because they rise above the horizon). On the Moon, all you have is changes in terrain elevation. Another problem is that because the moon's surface is so uniform in color (and again the lack of color), your eyes have no reliable references to estimate distance. This was a real problem for the astronauts, especially when driving the rover. Boulders and ravines could turn out to be a lot closer (or farther away) than they thought.
    2
  342.  @Topgun5t  No. On Earth, you have 1 G gravity, so objects fall faster. The videos show they were recorded in an environment with 1/6 G.
    2
  343.  @Topgun5t  Incorrect. In the same scene, you see the astronauts moving at normal speed, and the dust they throw up fall down at 1/6 G.
    2
  344.  @Topgun5t  While shadows run parallel, we don't see them as parallel due to perspective. That applies to photography just as much as to the naked eye. Every argument made by the deniers turns out to be based on a lack of knowledge.
    2
  345. You mean, the actual answers based on solid science that show why not all of the dust was removed?
    2
  346. There are several effects going on: 1. They're in 1/6 G gravity, so everything is 6 times lighter. 2. The astronauts are wearing a backpack that weighs ~90 kg on Earth. 3. They're in a pressurized suit, which is stiff and makes movement more difficult.
    2
  347.  @oxcart4172  The curse of modern times: the internet gave us access to all kinds of information, but also exposes us to a lot of disinformation.
    2
  348. 1/6 G. Most of the movement you see is the astronaut flailing around trying to stay upright, not the fall itself. And there's clearly dust flying everywhere as he falls. It's best visible on the right, from his feet.
    2
  349.  @123davepreston  The LM is bigger than you think, and people can do more in cramped quarters than you think. There is enough space in the LM to get in and out of the space suits. They were even able to sleep in the LM, using hammocks.
    2
  350.  @WilsonFox123  This is typical denier behavior: make unrealistic demands, and when someone gives you evidence that meets those demands, move the goalposts.
    2
  351. The moon has no atmosphere, so water would evaporate immediately.
    2
  352.  @longtesticles8442  No, it doesn't. It means 'to lift up'.
    2
  353. @Christopher From the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Act of 1958 (the law that established NASA): "The Congress declares that the general welfare and security of the United States require that adequate provision be made for aeronautical and space activities. The Congress further declares that such activities shall be the responsibility of, and shall be directed by, a civilian agency..."
    2
  354. Apollo took 5% of the US Federal budget for 10 years. It was unsustainably expensive. After Apollo, NASA's budget has never been above 1% of the Federal budget, and they always had higher-priority projects than a return to the moon. Artemis is changing that now.
    2
  355. The sunrises and sunsets were observed by astronauts in orbit around the moon.
    2
  356.  @nopeno6514  A few examples: 1. During the Apollo missions, amateur astronomers could see the CSM/LM on their way to the Moon. 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. India's Chandrayaan-2 orbiter has photographed Apollo 11 and 12 landing sites: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1YDQtR6fwY 5. Japan's Selene lunar orbiter has mapped the Apollo landing sites and found that the terrain matches that seen in Apollo photos.
    2
  357.  @cerealkiller8999  Yep, the dust falls back slowly. This is especially visible in the videos that show the lunar rover.
    2
  358. Yes, they did.
    2
  359. We have proof the Apollo landings are real.
    2
  360. Apollo 9 didn't land. For the Apollo 11 and subsequent missions that did land: In every landing video, at about 1 minute before touchdown you can see the dust being blown away. Because there's no air, all the dust moves in a straight line, instead of billowing into big clouds as it would on Earth. That also means the dust uniformly moves at high speed - far too fast to settle on the lander feet.
    2
  361. We do have the technology to communicate over much longer distances than 380,000 km. We use radio, and the solution is simple, really: use a large antenna. NASA uses dish antennas with a diameter of op to 70 meters to communicate with spacecraft at a distance of 150 AU. Those same antennas enabled high-speed communications including video to be sent from the moon. "The president calling from a landline" has to be the dumbest argument I've seen so far. That landline was linked, via the worldwide telephone system, to one of the Deep Space Network sites, where the signal was picked up, converted to a radio signal and sent out through the aforementioned dish.
    2
  362. Ah, the "I don't understand physics" argument. In every landing video, at about 1 minute before touchdown you can see the dust being blown away. Because there's no air, all the dust moves in a straight line, instead of billowing into big clouds as it would on Earth. That also means the dust uniformly moves at high speed - far too fast to settle on the lander feet.
    2
  363. 1. Yes. The calculations required to get to the Moon are not complicated , and can be made to fit in a 1960s computer. 2. Radiation is a problem for the months-long missions to Mars and beyond. It's not a problem for Moon missions that last a few days. 3. Incorrect. You just need a large rocket to get to the Moon. Look up how large the Saturn V was, and compare it to the rockets we now use to get to low Earth orbit. 4. The moon isn't 'fast'. Its rotation is very slow, its orbital speed is slow. More importantly, the speed of objects in orbit around the moon is slow, because of the low gravity. That means you can use a small rocket to brake from orbital velocity to 0. In short, you need to learn more before claiming that landing on the moon is impossible.
    2
  364. Technically there were 4 more: Apollo-Soyuz and the 3 Skylab missions.
    2
  365. As evidence for the moon landings, we have 382 kg of moon rock, hours of live TV, hours of film, thousands of photos, stacks of measurements and scientific results, eyewitness accounts, and photos of the landing sites made by later lunar orbiters. Detailed analysis of the physics and engineering required shows that it is possible to land on the moon with 1960s technology.  We have independent verification of the moon landings: The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter photographed all of the Apollo landing sites: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pnhnx95LkCc India's Chandrayaan-2 orbiter has photographed the Apollo 11 and 12 landing sites: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1YDQtR6fwY Despite 50 years of trying, no moon landing denier has ever produced convincing evidence of his claims.
    2
  366. Yes, but the amount of energy you can capture that way is tiny. It's much easier just to install solar panels.
    2
  367. No, their boots were just that, ordinary boots, weighing 1-2 kg. Their body weight plus the PLSS backpack weighs around 160 kg.
    2
  368. "NASA lost the data" is a myth. They have tons of data on every aspect of the Apollo program. Drawings for every single part of the Saturn V, CSM and LM. Telemetry. Test reports on everything. The only thing they "lost" was the giant tools and jigs that were used to fabricate the Saturn V, because those are thousands of tons of material that's worthless at the end of the program. So now that we want to go back, we're going to design and build a new rocket and spacecraft, for these reasons: 1. the Saturn V was designed in the 1960s. We can do much better these days, so why reuse an old design? 2. Politics favoring current aerospace contractors (which means the SLS will use solid boosters derived from Shuttle hardware, for example). 3. We want to do more than the Apollo program did: longer missions, maybe a permanent presence, a station in lunar orbit. You can't do that with Apollo hardware, so again a new design is needed.
    2
  369. Simplifications are common in physics. Infinite frictionless planes, perfectly elastic or inelastic collisions etc. We do this because by simplifying the environment, we can eliminate distractions and make difficult problems tractable. "assuming a flat, non-rotating Earth" is one of those simplifications. "a rigid aircraft of constant mass" are two more simplifications. They ignore the forces working on the aircraft that e.g. twist the wing, and they ignore the effect of fuel being burned which changes the aircraft's mass. This invariably introduces inaccuracies, but there are cases when those are outweighed by the advantages of the simplification, mainly in fundamental studies and in education. For real-world applications, we have to use a more accurate model. Nobody designs fly-by-wire or aircraft navigation systems that assume Earth is flat, because that doesn't work.
    2
  370. In every landing video, at about 1 minute before touchdown you can see the dust being blown away. Because there's no air, all the dust moves in a straight line, instead of billowing into big clouds as it would on Earth. That also means the dust uniformly moves at high speed - far too fast to settle on the lander feet.
    2
  371. The LRV was built so it could be folded into a small package. This was stowed in one of the compartments of the lunar module, This video shows the astronauts unpacking the lunar rover: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpqhVKwByZY The LRV had electric motors, no oxygen necessary. No, the batteries didn't melt, the designers obviously knew what the temperature was going to be so they built the LRV to be usable in those circumstances. The temperature-sensitive parts of the LRV were packed in insulation.
    2
  372.  @jmatasomo2660  you mean why is dust a problem? The Apollo missions spent up to 3 days on the surface. In that time, the abrasive dust would damage the suits they had, get into equipment etc. The missions were short enough that none of those problems became catastrophic, but it showed that especially the suits were not good enough for the long missions that are planned for Artemis (spending months on the lunar surface instead of 3 days).
    2
  373.  @jmatasomo2660  Read my answer again. I did not say dust isn't a problem. I said the problems caused by dust were not catastrophic for the short Apollo missions. Some of the Apollo spacesuits were damaged by the abrasive dust, with tears appearing in the outer layers. If the mission had been a few days longer, the dust could have cut a hole in the inner pressure layer, causing a loss of pressure. That would have been catastrophic.
    2
  374. You're arguing from ignorance. We have millions of images of Earth from dozens of sources. The Himawari and GOES images (and Meteosat, which uses a similar imaging system) provide full-disk images in 10k x 10k resolution, in 16 spectral bands. There are other Earth observation satellites in GEO: NASA's Terra satellite makes full-disk images. A little farther out at the L1 point, we have DSCOVR, with another excellent camera on board. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPM2kITNtTs For more detailed images, we have lower-altitude satellites like Landsat, SPOT, the Maxar constellation etc. These are in low orbit, so they can't take full-hemisphere images. Still, several of these image the entire Earth on a regular basis. We have photos from several interplanetary missions, e.g. Voyager and Galileo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AR5c9w0T3k), which made full-disk images on their way out. Pretty much every Apollo missions made photos of Earth from the moon's surface and from orbit, along with video.
    2
  375. That's nonsense.
    2
  376. That's incorrect. The surface temperature varies between -120 ºC late at night and +120ºC late in the day. All Apollo missions were done in the early lunar morning, with the sun at about 45º above the horizon and a surface temperature of about +20ºC.
    2
  377. 250ºF is the maximum temperature, at noon, for a surface that has been in continuous sunlight for 7 days. The Apollo landings were planned when the sun was 10º above the horizon, and the surface temperature was about 20 ºC. Then the cameras were painted silver to reflect most of the incoming sunlight, keeping the camera temperature well within the limits of the film. As usual, you haven't done your research.
    2
  378. Dust was a problem on each mission. But Apollo 11 spent only 3 hours on the surface, Apollo 17 spent 24 hours over 3 days, which made their problems with dust much worse than Apollo 11's.
    2
  379. That's a load of nonsense.
    2
  380. Dust would get between them.
    1
  381. Yes, of course we did. Decades later, we can still see the landing sites: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pnhnx95LkCc
    1
  382. There is no firmament. That whole concept is based on a translation error. In the original text, the Hebrew word raki'a is used. This word means simply "expansion." It denotes the space or expanse like an arch appearing immediately above us. In the Vulgate this was translated as 'firmamentum'. The original text does not describe a dome: that was added by the translators who created the Vulgate. God's cosmology is closer to what we know today than that of the Latin scholars of 380 AD who created the Vulgate. So there's no reason to diminish His creation by considering the heavens above a dome with lights instead of actual space with actual stars.
    1
  383. As evidence for the moon landings, we have 382 kg of moon rock, hours of live TV, hours of film, thousands of photos, stacks of measurements and scientific results, eyewitness accounts, and photos of the landing sites made by later lunar orbiters. Detailed analysis of the physics and engineering required shows that it is possible to land on the moon with 1960s technology. Despite 50 years of trying, no moon landing denier has ever produced convincing evidence of his claims.That includes you.
    1
  384.  @luizotavio5241  That's incorrect. I can check for myself if the claims made by NASA have merit. I can do the same with the claims made by the deniers. I've got an enormous pile of information at my fingertips, and I've got the scientific method to examine the evidence. On NASA's side, all of the evidence I've examined stands up. To give you one simple example: in the videos taken on the lunar surface, you can see various objects falling. The astronauts drop stuff, you can see dust being thrown up etc. When you measure how long it takes for objects to fall, it always indicates the gravity level is 1/6 G. Not the 1 G you'd measure if that video had been faked on Earth. That means the video cannot have been made on Earth. I've also examined claims made by the deniers. Those claims invariably fall apart. Take the same video footage for example: if those video were taken on Earth, the falling objects would have behaved differently: they'd fall 2.45 times faster due to the higher gravity. So, one side has evidence that would satisfy any court of law, the other side is full of shit. I know who I'll believe.
    1
  385. Look at the sky tonight. You can see satellites pass overhead. With simple tools, you can measure their speed and altitude https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zApGNHOi0s You'll find an altitude of more than 200 km and a speed of 8 km/s. Every day, you benefit from data generated in space, proving space is real and Earth is not flat.
    1
  386. Look at the sky tonight. You can see satellites pass overhead. With simple tools, you can measure their speed and altitude https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zApGNHOi0s You'll find an altitude of more than 200 km and a speed of 8 km/s. Every day, you benefit from data generated in space, proving space is real. There is no firmament. That whole concept is based on a translation error. In the original text, the Hebrew word raki'a is used. This word means simply "expansion." It denotes the space or expanse like an arch appearing immediately above us. In the Vulgate this was translated as 'firmamentum'. The original text does not describe a dome: that was added by the translators who created the Vulgate. God's cosmology is closer to what we know today than that of the Latin scholars of 380 AD who created the Vulgate. So there's no reason to diminish His creation by considering the heavens above a dome with lights instead of actual space with actual stars.
    1
  387. That doesn't work, the water would evaporate immediately.
    1
  388. Why yes, he was treading very carefully for that specific step, knowing he was going to take a photo of that impression.
    1
  389. Most of the dust thrown up by the astronaut is too large/heavy to be lifted by the electrostatic force.
    1
  390.  @user-nu3um2yq2d  They're on the moon, so they're not in zero gravity. The moon has about 1/6 the gravity of Earth.
    1
  391.  @gazmartinpadiham.lancs.3435  "constantly" is an exaggeration. Most impacts in Earth orbit or on the moon are by fragments that weigh on the order of micrograms, and yes, a microgram impact at several km/s is what the suit is capable of handling.
    1
  392.  @gazmartinpadiham.lancs.3435  so am I.
    1
  393. The Apollo missions mostly didn't: the mission was short enough that the radiation level didn't pose a problem.
    1
  394. The Moon landings are real. Every single argument made by moon landing deniers falls apart when you look at it: they're all arguments from ignorance.
    1
  395.  @MS-ib8xu  Collins's job was to look at the Moon, so that's what he spent his time doing. There were only brief periods during his lunar orbits when the stars would be visible at all. Have you measured the videos to see how the dust travels? I don't think so. The flags waving can have several causes: thermal stress, dust impacts, local vibrations, static, to name a few. The astronauts occasionally started answering before Houston was finished speaking. It happens. The Astronauts were aware of the van Allen belts. We figured out how to get through those in 1958. For radiation, there are 2 important variables: 1. the radiation intensity 2. the amount of time you are exposed to this intensity. You can multiply these two and get the total radiation dose. Humans die if they receive a dose of about 300 Rad. In 1958, James van Allen and his team discovered the belts that were later named after him. He also measured the radiation intensity. This is what he found: in the part of the belt where the intensity is highest, it is high enough that if you stay for about a week (inside an Apollo command module), you receive a lethal dose. So for the Apollo missions, the trajectory was designed to minimize the amount of time spent there. When the Apollo astronauts flew through the van Allen belts (which took about 3 hours), they received a dose of radiation of between 0.16 and 1.14 rads, or less than 1% of a lethal dose. More details in this video from Scott Manley: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9YN50xXFJY i.e. the van Allen belts were a non-issue. The wording of Aldrin’s answer may have been confusing to children and adults alike, but he was talking about “why something (i.e., going to the moon) stopped in the past,” not about how it never happened in the first place. The video also cut off Aldrin’s full answer. In the complete version of Aldrin’s interview with this child (identified as Zoey), the astronaut went on to state the primary reason we didn’t return to the moon: money. Here's another Aldrin quote: "Whenever I gaze up at the moon, I feel like I'm on a time machine. I am back to that precious pinpoint of time, standing on the foreboding - yet beautiful - Sea of Tranquility. I could see our shining blue planet Earth poised in the darkness of space." If a moron came up to me ranting about how he didn't believe the biggest job I did in my life was real, I'd punch him too.
    1
  396. No moon landing denier has ever produced convincing evidence of his claims. Every single argument they make turns out to be based on a basic lack of understanding of physics, misinterpretation of words, pareidoilia or flat-out lies. Don Pettit was being insufficiently precise when he said they 'destroyed the technology'. NASA did not lose the technology. Drawings for every part of the Saturn V and Apollo spacecraft exist. We have a bunch of versions of the software for the AGC. We have loads of info on every aspect of the design. Is that enough to launch a new Saturn V tomorrow? No. That's what he was getting at: when he gave that interview, there was no factory cranking out rockets capable of manned moon missions. Could we build one if we wanted? Yes. In fact, one is sitting on the launch pad right now for its test flight at the end of this month.
    1
  397. The LEM consists of two parts. The ascent module left the Moon, the descent module stayed in place. The ascent engine exhaust hit the top surface of the descent module, i.e. it didn't hit the ground. That's why you see insulation fragments flying around instead of dust.
    1
  398. Why can I see satellites pass overhead at an altitude of 400 km, i.e. bar above the 'firmament'?
    1
  399. Rockets don't need a medium. A rocket engine pushes against its own exhaust gases.
    1
  400.  @shots-shots-shotseverybody2707  This isn't pseudoscience, it's actual science. Just because you don't understand how it works, doesn't mean it's fake. Newton's third law: for every action, there's an equal and opposite reaction. When you fire a gun, the powder charge pushes the bullet out the barrel, and at the same time, it pushes the pistol in the other direction. In a rocket engine, you ignite a fuel mixture in the combustion chamber. This pushes the combustion products out the exhaust nozzle, and pushes the top of the combustion chamber in the other direction. We've launched 10,000 spacecraft using this principle. It works.
    1
  401.  @shots-shots-shotseverybody2707  I've already explained it, but I'll give you another way to look at it. The combustion chamber of a rocket is a cylinder with a hole in the bottom, that leads to the exhaust nozzle.  You bring fuel and oxygen into the combustion chamber, and ignite it. This expands the gases and creates a high pressure in the chamber. That pressure pushes on the sides of the cylinder: these force vectors cancel each other out. It also pushes on the front and back of the cylinder - but the back of the cylinder has a hole. Those forces don't balance out: the gas pushes on the front of the cylinder, but not on the back. That's the force that pushes the rocket forward. It doesn't need anything aft of the nozzle to push back; in fact it works better when the pressure aft of the nozzle is as low as possible. A vacuum is ideal.
    1
  402. Not only is it possible, we did it 9 times between 1968 and 1972.
    1
  403. We have a dozen different ways to establish the shape of the Earth. All of those agree with each other: Earth is a sphere. These methods are available to everybody. Anyone can also confirm that spaceflight is real: satellites are visible to the naked eye. God made a universe.
    1
  404.  @jermarionfrancois  We've launched spacecraft that have visited all of the planets in the solar system. We have encountered no 'firmament'. That whole word is nothing but a translation error: the original Hebrew refers to nothing more specific than our word 'sky'.
    1
  405.  @jermarionfrancois  That's incorrect. As I've said, anyone can use simple methods to see Earth's shape. I've done this myself.
    1
  406. Real engineers know that it's perfectly possible to land on the Moon with hastily-developed (on a blank-check budget), barely-tried systems. It's even possible to do that 7 times, with only 1 non-fatal failure.
    1
  407.  @emery5581  You've been misled by charlatans who are out to profit from the gullible. The moon landings are real. Every single argument made by moon landing deniers falls apart when you look at it: they're all arguments from ignorance.
    1
  408.  @erikhaack4123  False. We have video showing the astronauts moving at normal speed, while the dust they throw up with their boots moves without slowing down due to air resistance (=they're in a vacuum) and it falls at 1/6 G (=they're not on Earth).
    1
  409. Look at the sky tonight. You can see satellites pass overhead. With simple tools, you can measure their speed and altitude https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zApGNHOi0s You'll find an altitude of more than 200 km and a speed of 8 km/s. Every day, you benefit from data generated in space, proving space is real and Earth is not flat. There is no firmament. That whole concept is based on a translation error. In the original text, the Hebrew word raki'a is used. This word means simply "expansion." It denotes the space or expanse like an arch appearing immediately above us. In the Vulgate this was translated as 'firmamentum'. The original text does not describe a dome: that was added by the translators who created the Vulgate. God's cosmology is closer to what we know today than that of the Latin scholars of 380 AD who created the Vulgate. So there's no reason to diminish His creation by considering the heavens above a dome with lights instead of actual space with actual stars.
    1
  410. Before spouting nonsense, do some research. That's not a "GoPro", it's a visor.
    1
  411. Well, yeah. Space suits are designed to work in space, i.e. in a place with no atmosphere. That changes the thermal behavior drastically.
    1
  412.  @gulfy09  -100ºC at the end of the lunar night. All Apollo missions were early in the lunar morning, with a surface temperature of 0ºC. They never encountered those low temperatures. They did have to deal with solar heating, but in a vacuum that becomes easier than it is on Earth.
    1
  413. Sharp dust quickly cuts through thin film bags.
    1
  414. Yes.
    1
  415. They were used to working in cramped spaces. Apollo was roomy after an F-104 Starfighter cockpit.
    1
  416.  @OutlawzOP  When I travel to something I've looked forward to, I don't care that the journey is stressful, I'm going to enjoy myself at the destination.
    1
  417.  @1967MLP  The pace of the Chinese space program is dictated by how much money they're willing to throw at it. Apollo took 8 years from start to Apollo 11 because it was treated as a national emergency, with funding at 5% of the US Federal budget. China isn't willing to spend that much on their lunar program, so they are taking a bit more time.
    1
  418.  @1967MLP  That is incorrect. The van Allen belts are not a problem: the Chinese space agency can just pick up van Allen's papers from 1962 from their library and use what worked for Apollo. They're in the middle of building their lunar-capable spacecraft right now. For China, the manned space program is a minor item on their agenda, nothing like the national emergency that led to Apollo.
    1
  419. Using a liquid won't work: any liquid instantly evaporates in the Moon's vacuum.
    1
  420. Look at the sky tonight. You can see satellites pass overhead. With simple tools, you can measure their speed and altitude https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zApGNHOi0s You'll find an altitude of more than 200 km and a speed of 8 km/s. Every day, you benefit from data generated in space, proving space is real and Earth is not flat.
    1
  421.  @PhilMilkenson  Proving you wrong: The ISS isn't just visible, you can see details: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_ADBlrIRsM This is a series of Starlink satellites just after launch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVyMtlkcbvc This is a timelapse showing dozens of satellites: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2QqaBzLti4 Satellites are best visible at dawn and dusk, when the sun's below the horizon for the observer, but satellites are still sunlit. Elon's convertible is not in Earth orbit, it's too far away to be visible to the naked eye.
    1
  422.  @PhilMilkenson  The title of that video is misleading. That rocket didn't hit the "firmament", it dropped a couple of weights on cables to rapidly slow its spin rate (a yoyo despin system).
    1
  423.  @PhilMilkenson  Remember those dish antennas that used to be everywhere between 1980 and 2010? Those were used to receive TV broadcasts from satellites. Those satellites are at an altitude of 36,000 km, above the equator. The shape of the dish means it can only receive signals from one direction. So the dish has to be aimed at the satellite. All over the continent, you can find those dishes pointed at the same location, 36,000 km above the equator. The only way to explain that is that there really is a satellite at that altitude, far above any claimed 'firmament'.
    1
  424.  @PhilMilkenson  I'm saying there is no other way this specific thing can work. The satellite TV company didn't secretly dig up the street to bring a TV cable to your house. It didn't put up TV towers (we'd have noticed, and those dishes wouldn't all be pointed at the same location across the continent), it didn't use aircraft or balloons because when you run the numbers on those any satellite TV company would be bankrupt in 3 months and again, we'd have noticed. I've examined every option, and found only one that works: a satellite. And yes, I used the same method to work out the moon landings are real. Every argument made by the deniers turns out to be not based on reality.
    1
  425. Nope. The movie is not slowed down, as shown by other movements. They're using a hammer while inside a space suit that restricts their movement, and while taking care not to whack anything life-threatening.
    1
  426. The Apollo missions already did that. They left laser reflectors. Anyone with a laser, a telescope and a camera can use these to measure the distance to the Moon, proving that the Apollo missions were real.
    1
  427. Every dollar spent on Apollo grew the US economy by $7. One of its spinoffs was making computer chips affordable.
    1
  428. 'Buzz' is Edwin Aldrin's nickname.
    1
  429. What you're forgetting is that the centrifugal force due to earth's rotation is small compared to gravity. The effect of this force is measurable: Earth's equatorial diameter is 36 km larger than its polar diameter. I.e. not just the oceans, but Earth's entire mass bulges slightly towards the equator. This is visible in satellite photos with sufficient resolution: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjx0KcDH7pQ
    1
  430. There's nothing about a vacuum that makes moving in a pressurized suit inside a vacuum impossible. We've tested this on Earth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KO8L9tKR4CY Physics-wise, it's no different from having a suit pressurized to 1.25 bar in an ambient atmosphere at 1 bar.
    1
  431. That's incorrect. We can, and we already have, 9 times.
    1
  432.  @bizzjoe  Read and learn: We figured out how to get through the van Allen belts in 1958. In the part of the belt where the intensity is highest, it is high enough that if you stay for about a week (inside an Apollo command module), you receive a lethal dose. So for the Apollo missions, the trajectory was designed to minimize the amount of time spent there. The Apollo astronauts flew through the belts in about 3 hours, while avoiding the part with the highest levels entirely. The hull thickness of the CSM was more than enough to reduce the radiation level inside to manageable levels. Astronauts' overall exposure was actually dominated by solar particles once outside Earth's magnetic field. The total radiation received by the astronauts varied from mission-to-mission but was measured to be between 0.16 and 1.14 rads (1.6 and 11.4 mGy). More details in this video from Scott Manley: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9YN50xXFJY
    1
  433. The surface temperatures on the moon vary between -100ºC (in the middle of the lunar night) and +120ºC (in the middle of the lunar day). The Apollo missions all touched down early in the lunar morning, with the sun 10º above the horizon and a surface temperature of 0ºC, slowly rising over the next 3 days. This meant that the LM and space suits could rely mostly on reflecting sunlight, and insulation to reduce heat transfer, with the cooling systems only having to remove small amounts of heat.
    1
  434. That has to be the dumbest argument so far. Ever heard of remote control? The camera left on the moon was installed on the lunar rover. It was controlled from Earth, by Ed Fendell in Mission Control. He worked out when to send the commands, to compensate for the time delay in sending the commands to the moon. It took 3 tries to get this right: on Apollo 15 and 16, the LM soon left the filed of view of the camera. On Apollo 17, he got the timing right and we have a splendid view of the ascent.
    1
  435.  @itsme....4956  No moon landing denier has ever produced convincing evidence of his claims. Every single argument they make turns out to be based on a basic lack of understanding of physics, misinterpretation of words, pareidoilia or flat-out lies.
    1
  436.  @itsme....4956  Wake up: you're not doing even the most basic factchecking. The phone line from Nixon's office was connected to the worldwide phone network. This phone call was routed to one of NASA's Deep Space Network stations, where all communications with the Apollo missions were done via radio. The phone audio was linked to this radio system, and sent to the moon.
    1
  437.  @itsme....4956  No, NASA doesn't tell us that. We figured out how to get through the van Allen belts in 1958. For radiation, there are 2 important variables: 1. the radiation intensity 2. the amount of time you are exposed to this intensity. You can multiply these two and get the total radiation dose. Humans die if they receive a dose of about 300 Rad. In 1958, James van Allen and his team discovered the belts that were later named after him, using measurements from the NASA missions Explorer 1. With Explorer 3 and 4 and Pioneer 3 he measured the radiation intensity. This is what he found: in the part of the belt where the intensity is highest, it is high enough that if you stay for about a week (inside an Apollo command module), you receive a lethal dose. So for the Apollo missions, the trajectory was designed to minimize the amount of time spent there. The Apollo astronauts flew through the belts in about 3 hours, while avoiding the part with the highest levels entirely. The hull thickness of the CSM was more than enough to reduce the radiation level inside to manageable levels. Astronauts' overall exposure was actually dominated by solar particles once outside Earth's magnetic field. The total radiation received by the astronauts varied from mission-to-mission but was measured to be between 0.16 and 1.14 rads (1.6 and 11.4 mGy). More details in this video from Scott Manley: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9YN50xXFJY
    1
  438. ​ @itsme....4956  I don't have to believe anything, everything can be checked (and I have done that for several things including the video of the LM ascent).  This is one of the things I checked: Aldrin didn't say that the moon landings were faked. 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.
    1
  439.  @itsme....4956  Nope. He said it could have been scary if something had gone wrong, but Apollo 11 did not have anything major go wrong, so no reason to be scared. You're grasping at straws, deliberately distorting the words of the astronauts in a vain attempt to make them support your baseless claims.
    1
  440.  @itsme....4956  No, they've never said that. Every single space mission, 10,000 unmanned and several hundred manned missions so far, are outside Earth's atmosphere.
    1
  441.  @itsme....4956  What that quote means is that from 1975 to this year, NASA didn't have a manned spacecraft capable of getting out of Earth orbit. The Shuttle didn't carry enough fuel to get to the moon. The Moon missions ended because they were expensive. It took 5% of the Federal budget for a decade to get to the Moon. After Apollo, NASA's budget was slashed to 1/5 of what it was. So NASA concentrated on cheaper efforts: a reusable spacecraft (Space Shuttle), and learning how to live in space for longer periods (via the ISS).
    1
  442.  @itsme....4956  I'm awake. I've examined the evidence, and I've examined the arguments made by moon landing deniers. The evidence in favor of the Apollo program is solid. Every single argument the deniers make turns out to be based on a basic lack of understanding of physics, misinterpretation of words, pareidoilia or flat-out lies.
    1
  443.  @itsme....4956  Nope. I've investigated by calculating things from first principles, using physics that far predates NASA. You' on the other hand are sceptical of NASA, but incredibly gullible when told nonsense by moon landing deniers.
    1
  444. In every landing video, at about 1 minute before touchdown you can see the dust being blown away. Because there's no air, all the dust moves in a straight line, instead of billowing into big clouds as it would on Earth. That also means the dust uniformly moves at high speed - far too fast to settle on the lander feet.
    1
  445. We can measure the composition of the moon from Earth, by analyzing its light via spectroscopy. That tells us the moon consists of rock. 'Barely out of our atmosphere' solar intensity is about 1.3 kW/m2, it's not difficult to build a spacecraft to withstand that. The lunar lander had thin sheets of aluminium as its outer shell. This was a micrometeoroid shield. It was thin because a thin sheet is all you need for this. Inside that is the pressure hull, which is a lot thicker. If you'd done "some real research" you'd have known this.
    1
  446. The heat and kinetic energy from asteroid strikes fuses dust together.
    1
  447. Not so surprising when you consider the mechanics of the soil dislodged by the impact: most lands back in the crater, filling it back in.
    1
  448. the chance of a hit are really low though.
    1
  449. False. The zipper is not there to provide a pressure seal. There are flaps on either side of the zipper that overlap the zipper. When the suit is pressurized, these flaps are pressed together, forming the seal. Diving suits use the same design.
    1
  450.  @meanstavrakas1044  Apollo A7L spacesuits used an airtight zipper developed by B.F. Goodrich for military high altitude suits. On top of the zipper there was a two-piece rubber gasket. The zipper held the gasket halves together, the pressure on the inside of the suit pressed the gasket firmly against the zipper. Again, this is a common design, proven by thousands of flight hours at high altitude, by vacuum chamber tests and by the Apollo flights themselves.
    1
  451.  @meanstavrakas1044  You bandy about that 10E-12 Torr value as if it means something. In fact, it doesn't. The force exerted on that zipper is determined by the difference between the air pressure inside and out. High-altitude pilot suits generally work at a pressure of 1 bar, while the pressure outside is 0.2 bar at 10 km altitude. That's a difference of 0.8 bar, or a force of 0.8 kg/cm2. The Apollo suits work at a pressure of 0.25 bar, the outside pressure is 0, difference is 0.25 bar for a force of 0.25 kg/cm2. Whoops, the demands on a space suit are lower than on a high-altitude pilot suit.
    1
  452.  @happywrenching33  No, NASA has never claimed they 'don't have the ability to get through the dangerous radiation belts.'. We figured out how to get through the van Allen belts by 1962. In the part of the belt where the radiation intensity is highest, it is high enough that if you stay for about a week (inside an Apollo command module), you receive a lethal dose. The Apollo astronauts flew through the belts in about 3 hours, while avoiding the part with the highest levels entirely. None of the astronauts got a radiation dose of more than 1.2 Rad, i.e. 0.3% of a lethal dose.
    1
  453.  @Chewbizzness  It's taking 15 years from the start of SLS to the first Artemis manned landing for one reason: money. They're developing a new rocket (SLS) on a budget that is tiny compared to Apollo. They want to be able to spend months on the moon, instead of the 3 days the Apollo missions were limited to. This means a much larger lander, infrastructure in orbit around the moon etc.
    1
  454. That 'confession' has been shown to be fake.
    1
  455. mostly, no.
    1
  456. If you spend about 6 months in deep space, your chance of developing cancer starts to increase. This is an issue for long-term missions, yes. Solutions are being studied, they include building habitats that are covered in a layer of soil (about 1 meter is enough), and electromagnetic shielding.
    1
  457. That is incorrect. Genesis 1:20: 'and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.' If birds can fly IN the firmament, that makes it unlikely a solid structure is meant.  Every day, thousands of airplanes fly higher than where the Bible locates the firmament. Since the 1960s, we have launched thousands of satellites that operate above the firmament. If there was a solid structure, we'd have noticed by now. In the original text, the Hebrew word raki'a is used. This word is no more specific than our word 'sky'. In the Vulgate this was translated as 'firmamentum'. The original text does not describe a dome: that was added by the translators who created the Vulgate.
    1
  458. As evidence for the moon landings, we have 382 kg of moon rock, hours of live TV, hours of film, thousands of photos, stacks of measurements and scientific results, eyewitness accounts, and photos of the landing sites made by later lunar orbiters. Detailed analysis of the physics and engineering required shows that it is possible to land on the moon with 1960s technology. Despite 50 years of trying, no moon landing denier has ever produced convincing evidence of his claims.
    1
  459. In every landing video, at about 1 minute before touchdown you can see dust being blown away. Because there's no air, all the dust moves in a straight line, instead of billowing into big clouds as it would on Earth. That also means the dust uniformly moves at high speed - far too fast to settle on the lander feet.
    1
  460. In every landing video, at about 1 minute before touchdown you can see the dust being blown away. Because there's no air, all the dust moves in a straight line, instead of billowing into big clouds as it would on Earth.
    1
  461.  @pauldelphos4924  It's not floating away because there is no wind that can carry it. So all of the dust moves in a ballistic trajectory.
    1
  462. For the first steps, a TV camera was installed on the LM. This was on the inside of a cover panel, and the mounting was designed that when the cover was open, the camera would be aimed at the ladder. The astronauts could open the cover panel, and operate the camera from inside the LM. Next time, research before making dumb claims.
    1
  463. That only works inside a room with air. Ideally, the dust never gets inside.
    1
  464. They did. There's a 70-page Apollo Experience Report that lists all of the problems they had with dust.
    1
  465. The Apollo missions spent only up to 3 days on the lunar surface. and the space suits were showing damage by the end of the mission. For Artemis, they want to be able to spend months on the moon.
    1
  466. In every landing video, at about 1 minute before touchdown you can see the dust being blown away. Because there's no air, all the dust moves in a straight line, instead of billowing into big clouds as it would on Earth. That also means the dust uniformly moves at high speed - far too fast to settle on the lander feet. Apollo 11 landed on level terrain, several of the other missions landed on slopes, and made harder landings; this meant the feet came down faster, and dragged a bit, scooping up lunar soil.
    1
  467.  @ohfft  The lunar surface consists of compact, interlocking rocks with a thin layer of dust on top. A small engine like the LM descent engine isn't going to dislodge those rocks. At touchdown, the LM descent engine produces only 1300 kg of thrust. That's less than most jet engines, and you don't see jet engines ripping up the tarmac on airports.
    1
  468.  @ohfft  The dust has the same color as the rocks. It's almost impossible to tell in the photos where one ends and the other begins.
    1
  469. No. This electrostatic charge produces a tiny torque, compared to the graviational effect that caused the phase lock.
    1
  470. The 'moon hoax' story was created by a failed author in an attempt to make money by selling books. He didn't do any research: every single one of his arguments falls apart when you start looking at them closely. He didn't provide any evidence for his arguments. He failed to explain how we ended up possessing 380 kg of material from the Moon, he failed to explain why the Soviets accepted the Moon landing as real. etc. IOW, he was a charlatan trying to make a quick buck off the gullible.
    1
  471.  @Damidas  No. The only shapes you see on the moon are hundreds of kilometers across.
    1
  472.  @Damidas  Nope. Actual measurements of the size and distance, as well as actual measurements of the limits of what we can see, trump your guesswork.
    1
  473.  @jonathansmith7065  And? The smallest features a Nikon P1000 can resolve on the moon are 10 km across. You can verify that by comparing those photos to a map of hte moon.
    1
  474.  @jonathansmith7065  You are trying to compare a P1000 photo that shows an area the size of the USA to an Artemis photo that shows a much smaller area. So your claim is false: the details shown in the Artemis photo are much smaller than the finest detail in the P1000 photo.
    1
  475.  @jonathansmith7065  The only way to judge how close the moon is, is by measuring surface features in the photo and comparing those to a map. I've already done half the work for you: the smallest detail you can see is 10 km across. You seem to equate "the moon fills the whole field of view" to "close", which is incorrect. You can only say that when you know how large the field of view is, which you don't.
    1
  476.  @jonathansmith7065  The Artemis video was taken by an old GoPro with a tiny lens. It still shows detail not visible in your P1000 video.
    1
  477.  @Damidas  False. Anyone can use simple tools to measure the shape of the Earth. Private people have invested a few thousand dollars and made high-altitude rockets and balloons to photograph the curvature for themselves. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAYVyXZHC2w and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QsEPEhq5yk
    1
  478.  @Damidas  We have tons of video showing what Earth looks like from the ISS. We have tons of video made during every phase of the launch of just about every modern spacecraft. You're just making overly specific demands in an effort to be able to say 'see, they're not doing exactly what I want (even though this particular demand serves no purpose) so I can keep claiming it's all fake'.
    1
  479.  @Damidas  You have to be at an altitude of 12,000 km to photograph an entire hemisphere. We've launched hundreds of spacecraft to altitudes higher than that. We have weather satellites at 36,000 km (GOES, Meteosat, Himawari) that take images of the entire hemisphere every 10 minutes, see for example https://youtu.be/zoMRwyNhqJ4 At aout 1.5 million km, we have DSCOVR, which can capture Earth and the Moon in a single shot https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPM2kITNtTs
    1
  480.  @Damidas  And no, NASA doesn't composite every image. They said that about ONE SINGLE image that showed Earth without cloud cover. Every day, satellites from multiple countries take photos of Earth.
    1
  481. That's incorrect. We have left Earth's orbit, 9 times with manned missions, several hundred unmanned spacecraft.
    1
  482. The Apollo spacesuits only had to last for 3 days. And they had problems even on those short flights. Now, we want to have spacesuits that last for months or years, which is much harder to do.
    1
  483. Every argument the moon landing deniers make falls apart when you investigate. That's no proof, it's just bluster. The evidence in favor of the moon landings is overwhelming.
    1
  484. They were used for only 3 days. That's not long.
    1
  485. Of course we believe it's possible: it was demonstrated 6 times. Despite thorough investigation on return, no life was ever found. The moon is dead. Your idea is not based on facts.
    1
  486. I haven't seen any report on it being an issue for orbiting spacecraft.
    1
  487. As evidence for the moon landings, we have 382 kg of moon rock, hours of live TV, hours of film, thousands of photos, stacks of measurements and scientific results, eyewitness accounts, and photos of the landing sites made by later lunar orbiters. Detailed analysis of the physics and engineering required shows that it is possible to land on the moon with 1960s technology. Despite 50 years of trying, no moon landing denier has ever produced convincing evidence of his claims.
    1
  488. The moon does have gravity: it's just weaker than Earth's at 1/6 G.
    1
  489. You're wrong. 1. We can measure the composition of the moon from Earth, by analyzing its light via spectroscopy. That tells us the moon consists of rock. 2. We know how plasma behaves. A plasma is a gas so hot that its atoms lose electrons. That means a plasma glows brightly. The moon doesn't do this. Want to know what a ball of plasma look like? Look at the sun. 3. We have landed on the Moon 29 times now. None of those landings reported anything other than solid rock. 4. 8 missions brought back samples (more than 380 kg), all rock. Every single 'moon hoax' argument falls apart on examination.
    1
  490. In every landing video, at about 1 minute before touchdown you can see the dust being blown away. Because there's no air, all the dust moves in a straight line, instead of billowing into big clouds as it would on Earth. That also means the dust uniformly moves at high speed - far too fast to settle on the lander feet.
    1
  491. "inside Earth's atmosphere" means that around the Moon, you can find the occasional molecule from Earth's atmosphere. Pressure is around 10E-20 bar, i.e. lower than the best vacuum we can create on Earth.
    1
  492. @ya ma That's incorrect. Earth's atmospheric pressure goes asymptotically to 0 the higher you go. At 6214 miles, the pressure is negligible for almost any purpose, but you can still find some molecules from Earth's atmosphere at that point.
    1
  493. As evidence for the moon landings, we have 382 kg of moon rock, hours of live TV, hours of film, thousands of photos, stacks of measurements and scientific results, eyewitness accounts, and photos of the landing sites made by later lunar orbiters. No moon landing denier has ever produced convincing evidence of his claims. Every single argument they make turns out to be based on a basic lack of understanding of physics, misinterpretation of words, pareidoilia or flat-out lies.
    1
  494. Radio communications in space are easy: unlike here on Earth, there are no obstacles to cause interference. NASA also used multiple receiving sites on Earth so they could switch from one to the other if there was a problem. And they had multiple radio links in use at the same time: a wideband link for all data, plus a separate link for audio only. In every mission, you can hear the astronauts discussing the radio link, switching between links, adjusting their antennas to improve reception etc. So your belief is based on a lack of information.
    1
  495.  @shawnnorris3410  The van Allen belts are not magical. They are a region of space we mapped and measured in the early 1960s. The results of those measurements are unambiguous: we can take manned spacecraft through these belts without risk to the astronauts. A spacecraft on its way to the moon spends about 3 hours crossing the belts, giving a radiation exposure level that is safe for humans. What we can't do is put a spacecraft in a stable orbit inside the belts: If you'd stay there for a week, you'd develop health issues.
    1
  496.  @shawnnorris3410  Don Pettit said "we lost the technology", and he was being insufficiently precise. NASA did not lose the technology. Drawings for every part of the Saturn V and Apollo spacecraft exist. We have a bunch of versions of the software for the AGC. We have loads of info on every aspect of the design. Is that enough to launch a new Saturn V tomorrow? No. That's what he was getting at: when he gave that interview (about 10 years ago), there was no factory cranking out rockets capable of manned moon missions. Could we build one if we wanted? Yes. In fact, not long after that interview we started building the SLS which will take us back to the moon.
    1
  497.  @shawnnorris3410  Still incorrect. We're designing a new spacecraft because the Apollo hardware is 50 years old and you'd be insane to reuse that old technology. And because Apollo was designed for short missions (up to 3 days on the lunar surface). Now we want to spend up to 3 months on the surface, and the Apollo hardware can't do that.
    1
  498.  @warot359  No, I haven't. Read my comment again, especially the sentence "The lunar surface consists of compact, interlocking rocks with a thin layer of dust on top.". Armstrong's footprint was made in that thin layer of dust. Hundreds of photos show footprints, rover tracks etc. in the dust. Hundreds more show dust all over the space suits. The Apollo Experience Reports describe what they had to do to handle the dust, and the problems it caused, including cameras that got stuck etc.
    1
  499.  @Axis.Mundis.  Space is a vacuum. We can prove that it is a vacuum because satellites keep flying for years without any means of propulsion. You can confirm this by looking at the sky at night. You can see satellites pass overhead. With simple tools, you can measure their speed and altitude https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zApGNHOi0s You'll find an altitude of more than 200 km and a speed of 8 km/s.
    1
  500. No, the Apollo mission were short enough that it wasn't a problem.
    1
  501. You mistyped "seventh moon mission".
    1
  502.  @formertenant9276  Example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLXHrQ1Keac
    1
  503.  @formertenant9276  Despite 50 years of flailing, no moon landing denier has ever been able to form a single argument that can't be debunked.
    1
  504.  @formertenant9276  False. Nobody has "admitted" that the moon landings were faked. In fact, despite 50 years of trying, no moon landing denier has come up with any evidence at all. Zero. There are thousands of photos, hours of video, and not a single frame of it has been proven false. All we find when we analyze the photos and film is that they cannot have been made on Earth.
    1
  505.  @formertenant9276  I believe stories that are supported by solid science and engineering.
    1
  506.  @formertenant9276  Yeah, that's not "critical thinking". you're looking at the insulation covering the LM's structure, and instead of learning how the LM was built and why it looks the way it does, you think it looks "flimsy". That's like looking at a car and saying "this can't possibly drive at 120 km/h because paint isn't structurally strong enough to stay in that shape at speed".
    1
  507.  @formertenant9276  Genesis 1:20: 'and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.' If birds can fly IN the firmament, that makes it unlikely a solid structure is meant. Genesis describes the world in terms the people of that time could understand. Every day, thousands of airplanes fly higher than the firmament. Since the 1960s, we have launched thousands of satellites that operate above the firmament. If there was a solid structure, we'd have noticed by now. In the original text, the Hebrew word raki'a is used. This word is no more specific than our word 'sky'. In the Vulgate this was translated as 'firmamentum'. The original text does not describe a dome: that was added by the translators who created the Vulgate.
    1
  508.  @formertenant9276  For Neil's first steps, a TV camera was installed on the descent stage of the LM. The descent stage has an octagonal shape, with legs on 4 corners and panels that cover storage compartments on the 4 sides between the legs. On one of the sides adjacent to the ladder, there's a storage compartment (MESA) with a cover that is hinged at the bottom. The TV camera was placed on the inside of a cover panel, and when the cover was open, the camera was aimed at the ladder. The astronauts could open the cover panel from inside, and operate the camera from inside the LM. This video shows where the camera was: https://youtu.be/oX8-IXdABuc?t=264 So, no need for a camera to be there before the Apollo 11 landing. Again, you're arguing from ignorance instead of looking up how they did it.
    1
  509.  @formertenant9276  The ascent of the lunar module was filmed by a camera installed on the lunar rover. The rover had its own TV transmitter and antenna. The camera was controlled from Earth, by Ed Fendell in Mission Control. He worked out when to send the commands, to compensate for the time delay in sending the commands to the moon. It took 3 tries to get this right: on Apollo 15 and 16, the LM soon left the filed of view of the camera. On Apollo 17, he got the timing right and we have a splendid view of the ascent. Your idea that they'd leave someone behind to operate the camera is idiotic.
    1
  510.  @formertenant9276  Again, everything you say is incorrect. Artemis has reached the moon and is orbiting it right now. Artemis 1 was never planned to land on the moon: this is a test flight for the Orion capsule, which has no landing capability.
    1
  511.  @formertenant9276  Look at the sky tonight. You can see satellites pass overhead. With simple tools, you can measure their speed and altitude https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zApGNHOi0s You'll find an altitude of more than 200 km and a speed of 8 km/s. This already disproves your ridiculous notion that we'd spend billions of dollars shooting expensive hardware into the ocean. When you point a dish antenna at a point 36000 km above the equator, you can receive TV signals broadcast by a communications satellite in geostationary orbit. I can do this from any point on the planet. This cannot be faked by transmitters on the ground or in airplanes. Again, this disproves your ridiculous claim. Open the navigation app on your phone. This works by receiving signals from satellites. This works anywhere in the world, including in the middle of the ocean and in warzones. This cannot be faked by transmitters on the ground or in airplanes. Again, this disproves your ridiculous claim. Every day, you benefit from data generated in space, proving space is real. As for "nothing you say will ever change that", sure, if you want to live your life with your head in the sand, listening to charlatans, go ahead. But why would you prefer ignorance?
    1
  512.  @formertenant9276  You have been misled by charlatans.
    1
  513.  @rodgangloff8540  And yet you've fallen for shoddy propaganda. Every single argument made by moon landing deniers falls apart when you look at it: they're based on logical errors, a basic lack of understanding or physics or outright lies. We figured out how to get through the van Allen belts in 1958. For radiation, there are 2 important variables: 1. the radiation intensity 2. the amount of time you are exposed to this intensity. You can multiply these two and get the total radiation dose. Humans die if they receive a dose of about 300 Rad. In 1958, James van Allen and his team discovered the belts that were later named after him. He also measured the radiation intensity. This is what he found: in the part of the belt where the intensity is highest, it is high enough that if you stay for about a week (inside an Apollo command module), you receive a lethal dose. So for the Apollo missions, the trajectory was designed to minimize the amount of time spent there. The Apollo astronauts flew through the belts in about 3 hours, while avoiding the part with the highest levels entirely. The hull thickness of the CSM was more than enough to reduce the radiation level inside to manageable levels. Astronauts' overall exposure was actually dominated by solar particles once outside Earth's magnetic field. The total radiation received by the astronauts varied from mission-to-mission but was measured to be between 0.16 and 1.14 rads (1.6 and 11.4 mGy). More details in this video from Scott Manley: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9YN50xXFJY
    1
  514.  @simonscofield8825  The engine was producing 1300 kg of thrust at landing, spread over an area of more than 2 m2. That's a ground pressure of only 0.06 bar, worst case. Also, the lunar surface consists of a thin layer of rock dust over progressively larger fragments. Removing the dust layer reveals a very similar-looking surface below it. In photos, the difference is not very visible.  We have photos made by later lunar orbiters, with the right lighting they show the dust that was moved by the LM in a wide radial pattern around the lander.
    1
  515. Look at the sky tonight. You can see satellites pass overhead. With simple tools, you can measure their speed and altitude https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zApGNHOi0s You'll find an altitude of more than 200 km and a speed of 8 km/s. Every day, you benefit from data generated in space, proving space is real and Earth is not flat. We can measure the composition of the moon from Earth, by analyzing its light via spectroscopy. That tells us the moon consists of rock.
    1
  516. The speed of his fall is masked by his limbs flailing. The speed of his arm movements doesn't change in lower gravity. The actual fall is not faster than you'd expect in 1/6G.
    1
  517. False. The Apollo missions are real.
    1
  518. Lung problems are usually caused by long-term exposure, not the max. 6 days the Apollo astronauts were exposed to the dust.
    1
  519. The rocket engine wasn't large enough to create a big crater. The lunar soil was found to be very hard under a thin layer of dust, with everything interlocking. Not loose rubble that's easily blown away.
    1
  520. The atmosphere stops most meteors before they become meteorites.
    1
  521.  @igordrakulovic6857  We have lots of evidence that the Apollo landings are real, and no evidence at all that they were faked.
    1
  522. 10,000 successful satellite launches prove that whatever the Bible means by the word 'raki'a', it's not a solid object, i.e. there is no firmament.
    1
  523. The science ignorance is all yours. The physics of signal travel say that signals up to the HF band can be refracted by the ionosphere, signals at higher frequencies pass through the ionosphere. Physics (Newton's third law, Tsiolkovsky rocket equation) tells us that not only does a rocket work in a vacuum, it works better in a vacuum, as demonstrated daily by 10,000 operational satellites.
    1
  524.  @godbluffvdgg  If your claimed employment is true, you would know GPS was designed to give the USA the ability to accurately navigate over enemy territory, i.e. in places where they can't place ground stations. It's pretty easy to locate GPS transmitters with radio direction finding equipment. This shows they're always overhead, not on the ground. You can even measure their speed that way. Similarly, satellite TV antennas in the entire USA point to the same location: a point 36,000 km above the equator, with no antenna array in the line of sight.  IOW, your claims are demonstrably false.
    1
  525. No, it'll be made out of aluminium sheet and tubing, like the old one.
    1
  526. Look closer. Some of the dust (e.g. from under the boots) is launched with a lower velocity than the astronaut, so obviously it's going to hit the ground sooner. Dust that starts out on top of the boot is launched at a higher velocity so it tales longer to come back down. "I don't understand" is not a good reason to call something fake.
    1
  527. JWST's resolution is about 100 meters/pixel at that distance. Btu we have spacecraft much closer (orbiting the moon) that have taken photos of the landing sites. The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter photographed all of the Apollo landing sites at a resolution of 0.5 m/px: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pnhnx95LkCc India's Chandrayaan-2 orbiter has photographed the Apollo 11 and 12 landing sites at 0.25 m/px: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1YDQtR6fwY
    1
  528. The space suits were not designed to protect against radiation because they didn't need to be. For radiation, there are 2 important variables: 1. the radiation intensity 2. the amount of time you are exposed to this intensity. You can multiply these two and get the total radiation dose. Humans die if they receive a dose of about 300 Rad. In 1958, James van Allen and his team discovered the belts that were later named after him. He also measured the radiation intensity. This is what he found: in the part of the belt where the intensity is highest, it is high enough that if you stay for about a week, you receive a lethal dose. So for the Apollo missions, the trajectory was designed to minimize the amount of time spent there. When the Apollo astronauts flew through the van Allen belts (which took about an hour), they received a dose of radiation of between 0.16 and 1.14 rads, or less than 1% of a lethal dose. This information is easy to find. So is information that disproves any of the "glaring things all wrong" - they're all based on a lack of knowledge.
    1
  529. It's a problem that was noticed during the first mission. Various things were tried to mitigate the problem on later missions.
    1
  530. In every landing video, at about 1 minute before touchdown you can see the dust being blown away. Because there's no air, all the dust moves in a straight line, instead of billowing into big clouds as it would on Earth. That also means the dust uniformly moves at high speed - far too fast to settle on the lander feet.
    1
  531. Use your common sense: at the speed of the Apollo spacecraft, 226000 miles takes only 3 days of travel.
    1
  532. No, the astronauts have never said that. If you stay in orbit around Earth, using a low orbit is the safest for the astronauts, due to the radiation higher up. For radiation, there are 2 important variables: 1. the radiation intensity 2. the amount of time you are exposed to this intensity. You can multiply these two and get the total radiation dose. Humans die if they receive a dose of about 300 Rad. In 1958, James van Allen and his team discovered the belts that were later named after him. He also measured the radiation intensity. This is what he found: in the part of the belt where the intensity is highest, it is high enough that if you stay for about a week, you receive a lethal dose. So for the Apollo missions, the trajectory was designed to minimize the amount of time spent there. When the Apollo astronauts flew through the van Allen belts (which took about an hour), they received a dose of radiation of between 0.16 and 1.14 rads, or less than 1% of a lethal dose. What you're missing about our upper atmosphere is the density: it may be hot, but there are so few molecules that they can't transfer enough heat to your spaceship to cause problems.
    1
  533. It is laughable that anybody believes the landings were faked: all of the arguments made my moon landing deniers are full of holes and easily disproven. It's almost funny, how gullible these people are.
    1
  534. There is no seal. Our atmosphere is kept in place by gravity. The atmosphere gradually gets thinner the higher you go. At 400 km altitude, there's still enough air that satellites slowly lose altitude through drag. Above about 1000 this drag becomes negligible, but you still encounter the occasional atom. Our atmosphere loses 90,000 tons of mostly hydrogen to space, every year.
    1
  535. As evidence for the moon landings, we have 382 kg of moon rock, hours of live TV, hours of film, thousands of photos, stacks of measurements and scientific results, eyewitness accounts, and photos of the landing sites made by later lunar orbiters. Detailed analysis of the physics and engineering required shows that it is possible to land on the moon with 1960s technology. Despite 50 years of trying, no moon landing denier has ever produced convincing evidence of his claims.
    1
  536. The 'moon hoax' story was created by a failed author in an attempt to make money by selling books. He didn't do any research: every single one of his arguments falls apart when you start looking at them closely. He didn't provide any evidence for his arguments. He failed to explain how we ended up possessing 380 kg of material from the Moon, he failed to explain why the Soviets accepted the Moon landing as real. etc. IOW, he was a charlatan trying to make a quick buck off the gullible. Look at the sky tonight. You can see satellites pass overhead. With simple tools, you can measure their speed and altitude https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zApGNHOi0s You'll find an altitude of more than 200 km and a speed of 8 km/s. Every day, you benefit from data generated in space, proving space is real and Earth is not flat.
    1
  537. The 'moon hoax' story was created by a failed author in an attempt to make money by selling books. He didn't do any research: every single one of his arguments falls apart when you start looking at them closely. He didn't provide any evidence for his arguments. He failed to explain how we ended up possessing 380 kg of material from the Moon, he failed to explain why the Soviets accepted the Moon landing as real. etc. IOW, he was a charlatan trying to make a quick buck off the gullible.
    1
  538. They don't need to. We already have multiple spacecraft doing that from many different vantage points. A few examples: DSCOVR https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPM2kITNtTs and geostationary weather satellites (GOES, Meteosat, Himawari) that take images of the entire hemisphere every 10 minutes, see for example https://youtu.be/zoMRwyNhqJ4
    1
  539. God gave us the cognitive abilities to inspect our environment and learn about it. So we found out that the 'lesser light' consists of rock, and reflects sunlight. We found out how it stays in orbit around our planet. And we went there to learn more.
    1
  540. Proving you wrong: this is video of an Apollo space suit test. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KO8L9tKR4CY I found this in about 30 seconds, which means you didn't do any research before posting your claim. That's unscientific.
    1
  541. False. Thermodynamics laws pose no barrier for lunar landings.
    1
  542.  @myndzi8125  Gravity provides the container for our atmosphere.
    1
  543. That's not a problem: The Apollo footage is real, so the only difference will be the higher resolution of the new video. We have millions of real images of Earth, starting with the famous Earthrise picture taken by Apollo 8: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsShNeDvccc. We have geostationary weather satellites (GOES, Meteosat, Himawari) that take images of the entire hemisphere every 10 minutes, see for example https://youtu.be/zoMRwyNhqJ4 A little farther out at the L1 point, we have DSCOVR, with another excellent camera on board. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPM2kITNtTs For more detailed images, we have lower-altitude satellites like Landsat, SPOT, the Maxar constellation etc. These are in low orbit, so they can't take full-hemisphere images. Still, several of these image the entire Earth on a regular basis. We have photos from several interplanetary missions, e.g. Voyager and Galileo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AR5c9w0T3k), which made full-disk images on their way out. And of course the photos and film made by the Apollo missions.
    1
  544. Incorrect. At least one camera jammed and became unusable due to dust ingress. They were able to free up the mechanism in time for the next EVA. Dust ended up in the magazines and was found by the film processing team.
    1
  545. The Moon landings are real. Every single argument made by moon landing deniers falls apart when you look at it: they're all arguments from ignorance. That includes yours. They're moving in 1/6 G, making it much easier to push off the surface in a fall.
    1
  546. You're arguing from ignorance. There are no blast craters because the Moon's surface consists of interlocking rocks, with a thin layer of dust on top. A small rocket engine is not enough to dislodge those rocks and create a crater.
    1
  547.  @morrisonathome  I'm going to believe the people with actual experience.
    1
  548.  @morrisonathome  Again, you're arguing from ignorance. Challenger, Columbia, Soyuz 11. 17 astronauts died on missions. For docking, the speed of the objects is irrelevant: only the difference in speed matters. Even so, there have been docking mishaps: read up on the first dockings in the Gemini program, and the first Salyut space station. In 1961, it was impossible. Then NASA put 450,000 people to work on solving every problem, and they succeeded. They invented, designed and built everything we needed to get to the Moon, land there, and get back to Earth. We can still see the landing sites, astronaut tracks etc.
    1
  549.  @morrisonathome  I don't have to do a docking at 17,500 mph: I know the physics involved. We also have extensive records on the hundreds of dockings that have been done in space already. I've reviewed video of those dockings, which confirm what I've said. The LRO images of the Moon landing sites show the LM, the experiments around the LM, the rovers, and tracks made by the astronauts and rovers. Here's another video showing that with more labeling. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTeM4ZqEKR4
    1
  550. In 1958, James van Allen and his team at the University of Iowa discovered the belts that were later named after him, using measurements from the NASA missions Explorer 1. With Explorer 3 and 4 and Pioneer 3 he measured the radiation intensity. By 1962, we had a good map of the van Allen belt, and this is what it told us: in the part of the belt where the intensity is highest, it is high enough that if you stay for about a week (inside an Apollo command module), you receive a lethal dose. So for the Apollo missions, the trajectory was designed to minimize the amount of time spent there. The Apollo astronauts flew through the belts in about 3 hours, while avoiding the part with the highest levels entirely. The hull thickness of the CSM was more than enough to reduce the radiation level inside to manageable levels. Astronauts' overall exposure was actually dominated by solar particles once outside Earth's magnetic field. The total radiation received by the astronauts varied from mission-to-mission but was measured to be between 0.16 and 1.14 rads (1.6 and 11.4 mGy). More details in this video from Scott Manley: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9YN50xXFJY
    1
  551. The Moon landings are real. There is no evidence that the moon landings were faked. Every single argument made by moon landing deniers falls apart when you look at it: they're all arguments from ignorance.
    1
  552. Look at the sky tonight. You can see satellites pass overhead. With simple tools, you can measure their speed and altitude https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zApGNHOi0s You'll find an altitude of more than 200 km and a speed of 8 km/s. Every day, you benefit from data generated in space, proving space is real and Earth is not flat.
    1
  553. Incorrect. The dust is not radioactive, just like ground-up rock on Earth is not radioactive.
    1
  554.  @windyblown2383  That page says there's cosmic radiation that strikes the surface and reflects up. Not that the lunar soil itself is radioactive. We have pretty good data on radiation levels on the moon. It's a lot higher than on Earth, but no unsurvivably high. You could spend 3-6 months on the moon before the radiation dose gets high enough to pose a risk. None of the Apollo missions spent more than 3 days on the surface, and their radiation dose for the entire mission was not higher than 1% of a lethal dose.
    1
  555. Troll.
    1
  556. Dust was a problem during the Apollo missions. Fortunately the missions were short enough that there were no catastrophic issues, so it's not mentioned in the press. But there are technical reports discussing the issues they had.
    1
  557. Nixon's phone call was routed through the telephone system to a NASA ground station, where the voice signal was fed into a radio. This was sent to the Moon, and the astronauts' answers were relayed in the other direction. You talk about "dumb", and this is the quality of argument you come up with? We can measure the composition of the moon from Earth, by analyzing its light via spectroscopy. That tells us the moon consists of rock. We know how plasma behaves. A plasma is a gas so hot that its atoms lose electrons. That means a plasma glows brightly. The moon doesn't do this. Want to know what a ball of plasma look like? Look at the sun. We have landed on the Moon 29 times now. None of those landings reported anything other than solid rock. We brought back samples. All rock. Bill Nye was talking about our current ability to colonize other planets. That's something we can't do: any settlement will depend on supplies from Earth for a long time. Bill acknowledges that the Apollo missions are real, and so should you.
    1
  558. As evidence for the moon landings, we have 382 kg of moon rock, hours of live TV, hours of film, thousands of photos, stacks of measurements and scientific results, eyewitness accounts, and photos of the landing sites made by later lunar orbiters. Detailed analysis of the physics and engineering required shows that it is possible to land on the moon with 1960s technology. No moon landing denier has ever produced convincing evidence of his claims. Every single argument they make turns out to be based on a basic lack of understanding of physics, misinterpretation of words, pareidoilia or flat-out lies.
    1
  559. Small punctures are not a problem. People think (thanks to films like 'Mission Impossible') that a small leak in a pressure vessel (be it a space suit or an airliner) is catastrophic. That's not accurate. For a small leak, all you have to do is increase the air supply a bit to make up for the loss.
    1
  560.  @narajuna  All of that assumes a catastrophic leak: a hole so large the life support system can't supply enough air to keep up. The leaks that occurred during the Apollo missions were all tiny, and easily within the LSS capacity to keep up. The Apollo suits were designed for a maximum leak rate of 180 scc/min.
    1
  561.  @flat-earther  Look at the sky tonight. You can see satellites pass overhead. With simple tools, you can measure their speed and altitude https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zApGNHOi0s You'll find an altitude of more than 200 km and a speed of 8 km/s. Every day, you benefit from data generated in space. GPS, accurate weather forecasts, TV broadcasts. That means space is real, disproving your claim.
    1
  562. Since 2005, over 300 impacts have been seen and recorded by the Lunar Impact Monitoring Program.
    1
  563. False. Lunar craters are round, not hexagonal. We have found hundreds of thousands of objects in the solar system capable of making craters of all sizes, and no electric fields that could create a discharge large enough to excavate a million tons of lunar soil.
    1
  564.  @FFE-js2zp  I'll concede that there are more polygonal craters than I thought. However, your idea for how there were formed is incorrect. Hexagonal craters are created by asteroid impacts, which fracture the underlying terrain in polygonal patterns. And no, impacts can occur at very low angles and still create a symmetrical crater. This is settled science. It's also settled science that we have found no electromagnetic fields with sufficient field strength tot produce craters on the moon.
    1
  565.  @FFE-js2zp  The descent engine has a bell diameter of 1.5 m, which means the exhaust pressure at the exit is only 73 mbar. The exhaust expands further when it exits the nozzle, so the pressure at ground level is even lower. So the rocket exhaust blew away the small dust particles, but not the larger, interlocking rocks found immediately below the surface. So, no crater is formed, just the thin top layer is blown away, as is evident in the photos and videos of the Apollo missions.
    1
  566.  @FFE-js2zp  Again you're ignoring important factors. 1. No, a T-38 engine will not blow over a truck at 500 ft. It takes a lot more than 2000 lbf to topple a truck. 2. The lunar surface consists of a thin layer of dust (1-3 inch) on top of larger, interlocking rocks, with rock size rapidly increasing the deeper you get. When you direct a low-pressure gas stream onto that, you'll blow away the small fragments, but the rocks will stay in place.
    1
  567.  @FFE-js2zp  EU is pseudoscience. Every claim made by EU proponents has been disproven. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9q-v4lBGuw
    1
  568.  @FFE-js2zp  What expert claims the T-38 has 2000 lbs thrust when the T-38 has TWO engines with 2000 lbf EACH?
    1
  569.  @FFE-js2zp  You must have a very loose definition of 'square' then.
    1
  570. 1. We can measure the composition of the moon from Earth, by analyzing its light via spectroscopy. That tells us the moon consists of rock. 2. We know how plasma behaves. A plasma is a gas so hot that its atoms lose electrons. That means a plasma glows brightly. The moon doesn't do this. Want to know what a ball of plasma look like? Look at the sun. 3. We have landed on the Moon 29 times now. None of those landings reported anything other than solid rock. 4. 8 missions brought back samples (more than 380 kg), all rock.
    1
  571.  @trueleo7893  Earth is a sphere, anyone can see that. A few examples: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAYVyXZHC2w and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QsEPEhq5yk and: https://youtu.be/jSx7ZzPOtVw
    1
  572.  @trueleo7893  You'll enjoy this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2EJ42awPOA
    1
  573. The lunar dust/rock is not radioactive.
    1
  574. For radiation, there are 2 important variables: 1. the radiation intensity 2. the amount of time you are exposed to this intensity. You can multiply these two and get the total radiation dose. Humans die if they receive a dose of about 300 Rad. In 1958, James van Allen and his team discovered the belts that were later named after him. He also measured the radiation intensity. This is what he found: in the part of the belt where the intensity is highest, it is high enough that if you stay for about a week, you receive a lethal dose. So for the Apollo missions, the trajectory was designed to minimize the amount of time spent there. When the Apollo astronauts flew through the van Allen belts (which took about an hour), they received a dose of radiation of between 0.16 and 1.14 rads, or less than 1% of a lethal dose.
    1
  575. ​ @MegaTreeRat  Funny you should say that. We applied the scientific method to the electric universe hypothesis. Every experiment we did showed that the hypothesis is incorrect. So the hypothesis has been disproven: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9q-v4lBGuw
    1
  576. The space suits they used in 1969 were damaged by the abrasive dust: they reported tears and holes in the outer layer of the suit. That wasn't an immediate problem, the suits were built to take some damage. But the suits wouldn't have lasted much longer than the 3 days spent on the lunar surface by e.g. Apollo 17.
    1
  577. That's what happens when you're in a place that has no atmosphere to slow down the dust.
    1
  578.  @major_kukri2430  It's 1/6 g, not 1/3.
    1
  579.  @rockroll3983  Incorrect. The gravity on the moon is 1/6 that of Earth. That means it takes 2.45 times longer for a dropped object to fall to the ground than it would on Earth. Because the moon has no atmosphere, the dust isn't slowed down by air drag. The combination of these two effects is evident in every lunar video. The bunny hop was found to be the most efficient method of moving in lunar gravity, with a heavy (90 kg) and stiff spacesuit. They were not jumping 7 ft high for the same reason that people walking on Earth don't have their feet leave the ground: they're not trying to set altitude records, they're trying to move efficiently.
    1
  580.  @rockroll3983  Unlike you, I've actually measured falling objects in several Apollo videos, including dust. They all fall towards the lunar surface at an acceleration of 1.6 m/s2, consistent with 1/6 g gravity.
    1
  581.  @rockroll3983  yes, I just said that.
    1
  582.  @rockroll3983  No, it is not freefalling at 9.8 m/s2. It is freefalling at 1.6 m/s2 in every video I've measured.
    1
  583.  @rockroll3983  False. All lunar videos remain unaltered.
    1
  584. Anyone can use simple measurements to see we live on a sphere that orbits the Sun. Anyone can see satellites overhead, and receive radio signals from them. Dinosaur bones can be seen in many museums. Simple experiments show that evolution and gravity exist. All of these are verifiable for anyone.
    1
  585. False. We have proof that the Apollo missions are real. And we have proof that the photos and videos cannot be faked on Earth.
    1
  586. Look at the sky tonight. You can see satellites pass overhead. With simple tools, you can measure their speed and altitude https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zApGNHOi0s You'll find an altitude of more than 200 km and a speed of 8 km/s. Every day, you benefit from data generated in space. GPS, accurate weather forecasts, TV broadcasts. The computer you're watching this video on is a side effect of the space race.
    1
  587. The moon gets a lot of meteorite impacts on geologic timescales. The area covered by e.g. Apollo 17 is hit by one meteorite in 1000 years.
    1
  588. Bart Sibrel is a charlatan who makes money off the gullible. This documentaries prove nothing: the arguments in them are full of holes. But that's par for the course for moon landing deniers.
    1
  589. We know there are 0 bases on the Moon. We have photos of the entire surface at 0.5 m resolution.
    1
  590. We have independent verification of the moon landings already: India's Chandrayaan-2 orbiter has photographed the Apollo 11 and 12 landing sites: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1YDQtR6fwY
    1
  591. The Moon missions ended because they were expensive. It took 5% of the Federal budget for a decade to get to the Moon. After Apollo, NASA's budget was slashed to 1/5 of what it was. So NASA concentrated on cheaper efforts: a reusable spacecraft (Space Shuttle), and learning how to live in space for longer periods (via the ISS). Don Pettit was being insufficiently precise when he said they 'lost the technology'. NASA did not lose the technology. Drawings for every part of the Saturn V and Apollo spacecraft exist. We have a bunch of versions of the software for the AGC. We have loads of info on every aspect of the design. Is that enough to launch a new Saturn V tomorrow? No. That's what he was getting at: when he gave that interview, there was no factory cranking out rockets capable of manned moon missions. Could we build one if we wanted? Yes. In fact, one is sitting on the launch pad right now for its test flight at the end of this month.
    1
  592. That's incorrect. You're referring to a video of an engineer talking about the first Orion test flight. This was done to make sure the Orion capsule works correctly in the VA belt: electronics can malfunction in high-radiation environments. Orion's electronics are designed to deal with this, but a practical test is required as part of due diligence. The Apollo program did these tests as well, during the Apollo 4 and 6 flights.
    1
  593.  @441rider  For high-res images of the Moon, we have the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter. LRO images of Apollo landing sites: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pnhnx95LkCc
    1
  594.  @441rider  That's incorrect. We figured out how to get through the van Allen belts in 1958. For radiation, there are 2 important variables: 1. the radiation intensity 2. the amount of time you are exposed to this intensity. You can multiply these two and get the total radiation dose. Humans die if they receive a dose of about 300 Rad. In 1958, James van Allen and his team discovered the belts that were later named after him. He also measured the radiation intensity. This is what he found: in the part of the belt where the intensity is highest, it is high enough that if you stay for about a week (inside an Apollo command module), you receive a lethal dose. So for the Apollo missions, the trajectory was designed to minimize the amount of time spent there. The Apollo astronauts flew through the belts in about 3 hours, while avoiding the part with the highest levels entirely. The hull thickness of the CSM was more than enough to reduce the radiation level inside to manageable levels. Astronauts' overall exposure was actually dominated by solar particles once outside Earth's magnetic field. The total radiation received by the astronauts varied from mission-to-mission but was measured to be between 0.16 and 1.14 rads (1.6 and 11.4 mGy). More details in this video from Scott Manley: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9YN50xXFJY
    1
  595.  @441rider  We figured out how to get through the van Allen belts in 1958. For radiation, there are 2 important variables: 1. the radiation intensity 2. the amount of time you are exposed to this intensity. You can multiply these two and get the total radiation dose. Humans die if they receive a dose of about 300 Rad. In 1958, James van Allen and his team discovered the belts that were later named after him. He also measured the radiation intensity. This is what he found: in the part of the belt where the intensity is highest, it is high enough that if you stay for about a week (inside an Apollo command module), you receive a lethal dose. So for the Apollo missions, the trajectory was designed to minimize the amount of time spent there. The Apollo astronauts flew through the belts in about 3 hours, while avoiding the part with the highest levels entirely. The hull thickness of the CSM was more than enough to reduce the radiation level inside to manageable levels. Astronauts' overall exposure was actually dominated by solar particles once outside Earth's magnetic field. The total radiation received by the astronauts varied from mission-to-mission but was measured to be between 0.16 and 1.14 rads (1.6 and 11.4 mGy). More details in this video from Scott Manley: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9YN50xXFJY
    1
  596.  @441rider  For high-res images of the Moon, we have the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter. LRO images of Apollo landing sites: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pnhnx95LkCc
    1
  597. Because they have to last for months, instead of days.
    1
  598. Nope. He's pivoting around his center of gravity. His CoG moves at 1/6G, but his head and arms move much faster because of that pivot,
    1
  599.  @philosophyweb  The astonishing thing is that you're comfortable claiming that without any verification. Anyone serious would measure the astronaut's movement.
    1
  600.  @philosophyweb  Earth's gravity is 9.8 m/s^2. The astronaut's center of gravity travels 1 meter. On Earth, that takes 0.45 seconds, on the Moon it takes 1.1 seconds. I stepped through the video one frame at a time, and that fall takes 1 second, proving that this video was shot in 1/6 G, i.e. ont te moon.
    1
  601. Are you one of those "the moon is plasma" loons? Tell me this: Why is this giant ball of plasma (i.e. a gas so hot that electrons dissociate) glowing brightly? If your claim were true, the Moon would be brighter than the Sun.
    1
  602. Troll.
    1
  603.  @FFE-js2zp  You fail to consider that the spacecraft is on a ballistic trajectory during its Earth-Moon cruise. That's why they're weightless. The interior of the CSM and LM is at a constant, livable temperature due to these factors: 1. Half the spacecraft is in shadow at all times. This radiates out a lot of heat, giving a pretty decent balance between energy coming in and energy going out to start with. 2. Insulation is used to improve the balance from item 1. MLI prevents heat radiating into or out of the spacecraft. The CM was coated in a reflective coating to reduce the amount of sunlight getting converted to heat. 3. During the Earth-Moon cruise, the spacecraft was in a constant, slow roll to improve the distribution of incoming heat. Cold welding is a problem, but not as big as you imagine. It doesn't occur instantly, for example: it's a problem for objects that are in contact for long periods. Generally far longer than the Apollo missions lasted. So, your "NASA has never explained" claim is incorrect.
    1
  604.  @FFE-js2zp  You're calling others 'science deniers' while making arguments that show you are unaware of the science involved. 1. sound transmission occurs through objects as well as through air. In this case, the sound was transmitted from the hammer to the astronaut's suit, which contains an atmosphere. 2. The adhesion force of a cold-welded joint is small: on the order of 1 N, easily breakable for the astronaut. 3. No, the LM is designed so that the radiation of heat energy is balanced with the incoming solar energy at 1 AU from the sun. As you get closer to the sun, the amount of incoming heat increases faster than the M's ability to reradiate the heat. This is why e.g. Mercury is much hotter than the Moon. 4. After the TLI burn, the spacecraft IS in freefall. Not back to Earth, but in a freefall trajectory around the Sun. All forces working on the spacecraft are inequilibrium just as they would be in Earth orbit, and the result is weightlessness.
    1
  605.  @FFE-js2zp  You continue to argue from a lack of understanding. No, there will not be an "infinitely acute heat gradient". The incoming solar radiation will heat up the lens by putting a certain amount of energy into it. This energy is then distributed through the camera via conduction, and out of the camera by radiation. The balance between incoming energy and outgoing energy determines how fast the temperature will rise and what the final temperature will be. An "infinite" gradient would require an infinite energy input, and that is clearly not the case here.
    1
  606.  @FFE-js2zp  Good thing that no film has been exposed to the solar wind, then. The solar wind does not penetrate solids like the camera body and lenses. You continue to not understand physics.
    1
  607.  @FFE-js2zp  I never claimed that everything in the universe is 72F. I claim that spacecraft can be designed to maintain a certain temperature when placed at a certain distance to the sun. And no, putting a lens from the freezer into an oven is not a good analogy for moving a lens from shadow to sunlight in a vacuum. The amount of energy transferred is different.
    1
  608.  @FFE-js2zp  You continue to wave around "250F" without considering where and when that temperature is measured. 250 ºF is the temperature of the lunar surface at lunar noon, after 7 days of continuous exposure to sunlight. The Apollo landings took place when the sun was 10º above the horizon, and the local surface temperature was around 0ºC.
    1
  609.  @FFE-js2zp  you continue to ignore that objects radiate heat energy away. And as I've already said, no, the lunar surface temperature was not 250ºF at the time of any of the lunar landings. And no, radiation does not lead to "instant" changes in temperature.
    1
  610.  @FFE-js2zp  Incorrect. An object in an oven on Earth heats up via 2 mechanisms: radiation and convection. An object on the Moon heats up via 1 mechanism: radiation. An object in an oven cannot cool down, because its surroundings are at the same temperature as the object. An object on the Moon is free to radiate heat in all directions. You should study Physics, because you're making pretty basic mistakes here.
    1
  611. You haven't looked at the footage then. Every landing, from about 1 minute before touchdown you can see lots of dust being blown away. On takeoff there are no dust clouds because the ascent engine plume hits the descent stage, not the ground.
    1
  612. There's no point in doing that: we already have satellites that provide 24h coverage of Earth. We have geostationary weather satellites (GOES, Meteosat, Himawari) that take images of the entire hemisphere every 10 minutes, see for example https://youtu.be/zoMRwyNhqJ4 Then there's DISCOVR, which sits at the L1 Lagrange point so it can take images of Earth and the Moon in one shot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPM2kITNtTs These images are available on public websites.
    1
  613. 1. We can measure the composition of the moon from Earth, by analyzing its light via spectroscopy. That tells us the moon consists of rock. 2. We have landed on the Moon 29 times now. None of those landings reported anything other than solid rock. 3. 8 missions brought back samples (more than 380 kg), all rock.
    1
  614.  @michaelmardian1652  Wow, that's a lot of nonsense in one post. We can measure the composition of the Earth, there's an entire field of science dedicated to it (geology). Methods include chemical analysis and spectroscopy. The "petrified rock" story is bullshit. In 2006, a Dutch museum hosted an art exhibit that showcased forgeries. One of the exhibits ended up in the museum's collection afterwards; its paperwork was lost. In 2009, this was examined and found to be wood. Meanwhile, we have 380 kg of actual moon rock, samples of which have been examined and authenticated by mineralogists all over the world. Gravity pulls the water on Earth into a sphere: the "level" it seeks is always perpendicular to the line pointing to Earth's center of gravity. Look at the sky tonight. You can see satellites pass overhead. With simple tools, you can measure their speed and altitude https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zApGNHOi0s You'll find an altitude of more than 200 km and a speed of 8 km/s. Every day, you benefit from data generated in space, proving space is real and Earth is not flat.
    1
  615. @Blobba Fetta Pure unvarnished truth, and easily verifiable.
    1
  616. @Blobba Fetta Nope, pure unvarnished truth, and easily verifiable.
    1
  617. The problem with that claim is that we have multiple independent lines of evidence that show the lunar landings are real, and no evidence at all that they were faked.
    1
  618. As evidence for the moon landings, we have 382 kg of moon rock, hours of live TV, hours of film, thousands of photos, stacks of measurements and scientific results, eyewitness accounts, and photos of the landing sites made by later lunar orbiters. No moon landing denier has ever produced convincing evidence of his claims. Every single argument they make turns out to be based on a basic lack of understanding of physics, misinterpretation of words, pareidoilia or flat-out lies.
    1
  619.  @sandy-sx5zr  You haven't done your homework.  Don Pettit was being insufficiently precise when he said that. NASA did not lose the technology. Drawings for every part of the Saturn V and Apollo spacecraft exist. We have a bunch of versions of the software for the AGC. We have loads of info on every aspect of the design. All of this is publicly available.  They discarded the rocket telemetry because at the end of Apollo, that info was obsolete.  The "petrified rock" story is bullshit. In 2006, a Dutch museum hosted an art exhibit that showcased forgeries. One of the exhibits ended up in the museum's collection afterwards; its paperwork was lost. In 2009, this was examined and found to be wood. Meanwhile, we have 380 kg of actual moon rock, samples of which have been examined and authenticated by mineralogists all over the world. We figured out how to get through the van Allen belts in 1958. For radiation, there are 2 important variables: 1. the radiation intensity 2. the amount of time you are exposed to this intensity. You can multiply these two and get the total radiation dose. Humans die if they receive a dose of about 300 Rad. In 1958, James van Allen and his team discovered the belts that were later named after him. He also measured the radiation intensity. This is what he found: in the part of the belt where the intensity is highest, it is high enough that if you stay for about a week (inside an Apollo command module), you receive a lethal dose. So for the Apollo missions, the trajectory was designed to minimize the amount of time spent there. The Apollo astronauts flew through the belts in about 3 hours, while avoiding the part with the highest levels entirely. The hull thickness of the CSM was more than enough to reduce the radiation level inside to manageable levels. Astronauts' overall exposure was actually dominated by solar particles once outside Earth's magnetic field. The total radiation received by the astronauts varied from mission-to-mission but was measured to be between 0.16 and 1.14 rads (1.6 and 11.4 mGy). More details in this video from Scott Manley: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9YN50xXFJY
    1
  620. The USA was the only country to put men on the moon because they're the richest country in the world. No other could afford to spend 5% of the US federal budget for 10 years.
    1
  621. Probably not. Static electricity usually doesn't contain much usable power.
    1
  622.  @alllivesmatter8581  I have doublechecked. I read the 1958 paper in which van Allen described his discovery, and I looked up radiation maps of these belts. Scott Manley went into more detail in his video, you should watch it. It's funny: moon landing deniers all accept van Allen's discovery of the radiation belts, but they ignore his measurements and his conclusions. That's cherrypicking.
    1
  623. We didn't need CGI in 1969, and we won't need it now.
    1
  624.  @mantasfrombfd  So we can prove.
    1
  625. It's not buoyant, it's levitated electrostatically.
    1
  626. In every landing video, at about 1 minute before touchdown you can see the dust being blown away. Because there's no air, all the dust moves in a straight line, instead of billowing into big clouds as it would on Earth. That also means the dust uniformly moves at high speed - far too fast to settle on the lander feet.
    1
  627. To everybody who thinks moon dust was not a problem for the Apollo missions: the NASA Technical Reports Server has a document: 20050160460, title 'the effects of lunar dust on EVA systems during the Apollo missions'. This is a 74-page report that lists every problem they had with lunar dust.
    1
  628.  @Roxasamico  All of the evidence says we're right and you're not. 50 years, and not a single shred of evidence has surfaced for your claims. Not one.
    1
  629. Look at the sky tonight. You can see satellites pass overhead. With simple tools, you can measure their speed and altitude https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zApGNHOi0s You'll find an altitude of more than 200 km and a speed of 8 km/s. Every day, you benefit from data generated in space, proving space is real and Earth is not flat. Trying to blow dust away while in a helmet is a reflex. Have you ever tried to suppress a reflex? It's damn near impossible.
    1
  630.  @JabroniBear  That's just uninformed ranting. 1. Airplanes at operational altitude are visible to the naked eye. 2. We can photograph satellites from the ground using a small telescope, and see that they are not airplanes or balloons, and we can measure their altitude. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zApGNHOi0s 3. There are other ways to verify satellite locations, e.g. using radio direction finding. For TV broadcast satellites that's pretty easy: your TV dish is pointed at the satellite. All over the country, those dishes are pointed at the same location, 36,000 km above the equator. 3. Unlike you, I've thought about what it would take to fake the information from just one satellite. Let's take a weather satellite for instance. Every 10 minutes, these take whole-hemisphere images, i.e. they photograph an area of 510 million km2. To cover that area with aircraft, you'd need more aircraft than are registered in the entire world. For just one satellite. TV broadcast satellites have a money trail. It takes about $300 M to launch one, and the user fees cover that cost. The fees don't cover what it would cost to fake those signals.
    1
  631. We have independent verification of the moon landings: The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter photographed all of the Apollo landing sites: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pnhnx95LkCc India's Chandrayaan-2 orbiter has photographed the Apollo 11 and 12 landing sites: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1YDQtR6fwY
    1
  632. The Apollo missions left laser reflectors. Anyone with a laser, a telescope and a camera can use these to measure the distance to the Moon, proving that the Apollo missions were real.
    1
  633.  @SzymczykProductions  Just because you don't understand how they did it, doesn't mean it was fake. In 1961, it was impossible. Then NASA put 450,000 people to work on solving every problem, and they succeeded. They invented, designed and built everything we needed to get to the Moon, land there, and get back to Earth. We can still see the landing sites, astronaut tracks etc. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pnhnx95LkCc
    1
  634.  @brianphillips179  For radiation, there are 2 important variables: 1. the radiation intensity 2. the amount of time you are exposed to this intensity. You can multiply these two and get the total radiation dose. Humans die if they receive a dose of about 300 Rad. In 1958, James van Allen and his team discovered the belts that were later named after him. He also measured the radiation intensity. This is what he found: in the part of the belt where the intensity is highest, it is high enough that if you stay for about a week, you receive a lethal dose. So for the Apollo missions, the trajectory was designed to minimize the amount of time spent there. When the Apollo astronauts flew through the van Allen belts (which took about an hour), they received a dose of radiation of between 0.16 and 1.14 rads, or less than 1% of a lethal dose.
    1
  635.  @brianphillips179  Yes, that's what I'm saying. What gets you on the beach us UV. The astronauts didn't expose their skin to direct sunlight at all during the mission, so UV was not an issue. Gamma radiation from the Sun is an issue for the months-long trip to Mars, not so much for the 3 days to the Moon. Compare it to lying on the beach all day, vs. walking from your home to your car on a sunny day.
    1
  636.  @brianphillips179  Read again what I wrote about radiation: its effect depends on intensity and exposure time. The intensity of the radiation in space between Earth and the Moon is low enough that 2 weeks of exposure does not create a problem: the dose is too low. So the Apollo CM and LM did not carry shielding: they didn't need it.
    1
  637. In every landing video, at about 1 minute before touchdown you can see the dust being blown away. Because there's no air, all the dust moves in a straight line, instead of billowing into big clouds as it would on Earth. That dust got accelerated to about 1.5 km/s and wasn't deposited anywhere near the lander. Apollo 12 landed a few hundred meters from Surveyor 3 and brought back a few parts for examination. The side facing the Apollo lander got sandblasted by the dust thrown up by the LM.
    1
  638.  @trj1442  It does make sense, though. The rooster tails show that there is no air resistance (the dust slows down less than it would on land, and it doesn't billow into clouds). But those same rooster tails show the dust falls about 2.4 times slower than on Earth, which is consistent with 1/6 G gravity.
    1
  639.  @trj1442  No. In the same film segment, we see dust falling at 2.4 times slower than on Earth, while e.g. the astronauts move their hands and feet at normal speed.
    1
  640. The USA landed on the Moon 6 times between 1969 and 1972. The Moon missions ended because they were expensive. It took 5% of the Federal budget for a decade to get to the Moon. After Apollo, NASA's budget was slashed to 1/5 of what it was, and for decades, the Space Shuttle and ISS ate the entire human spaceflight budget. Only recently as that changed, and NASA's preparing right now to go back to the Moon.
    1
  641.  @DiamondGuitarist  Sibrel has been caught fabricating 'evidence' on more than one occasion. He has no credibility.
    1
  642. That's easy, IF you have an abundant source of water at your disposal. The Artemis missions don't have that: no mass budget to carry large amounts of water. And flushing the suits only tackles one problem: tracking dust into interior spaces. It doesn't address abrasion of the suits during use.
    1
  643. The Apollo missions were short. They had various problems with dust, but no catastrophic failures. In longer missions, the chance of a failure increases.
    1
  644. It was witnessed. Not just by the billion people who saw the live TV broadcasts: amateur astronomers could see the Apollo spacecraft on their way to the moon. Radio amateurs could receive the transmissions from the spacecraft.
    1
  645.  @lorichet  I talked to people who did this.
    1
  646.  @eyeseeyou913  In every landing video, at about 1 minute before touchdown you can see the dust being blown away. The big difference is that because there's no air, all the dust moves in a straight line instead of billowing. That also means the dust uniformly moves at high speed - far too fast to settle on the lander feet.
    1
  647. No, NASA is a civilian agency and independent of the DOD.
    1
  648. @Directtruth The DOD runs its own space program, but some facilities are shared, e.g. launch sites. That does not mean the DOD "runs NASA".
    1
  649. Apollo 4 and 6 were unmanned missions, like Artemis 1. It's common for the first launch of a new rocket to be considered a test flight, with no humans on board and no valuable cargo.
    1
  650. The camera left on the moon was installed on the lunar rover. It was controlled from Earth, by Ed Fendell in Mission Control. He worked out when to send the commands, to compensate for the time delay in sending the commands to the moon. It took 3 tries to get this right: on Apollo 15 and 16, the LM soon left the filed of view of the camera. On Apollo 17, he got the timing right and we have a splendid view of the ascent. The LEM consists of two parts. The ascent module left the Moon, the descent module stayed in place. The ascent engine exhaust hit the top surface of the descent module, i.e. it didn't hit the ground. That's why you see insulation fragments flying around instead of dust. Anyone with half a brain can find this information in 5 minutes. You take your ignorance as "evidence" for a conspiracy.
    1
  651. We figured out how to get through the van Allen belts in 1958. For radiation, there are 2 important variables: 1. the radiation intensity 2. the amount of time you are exposed to this intensity. You can multiply these two and get the total radiation dose. Humans die if they receive a dose of about 300 Rad. In 1958, James van Allen and his team discovered the belts that were later named after him. He also measured the radiation intensity. This is what he found: in the part of the belt where the intensity is highest, it is high enough that if you stay for about a week (inside an Apollo command module), you receive a lethal dose. So for the Apollo missions, the trajectory was designed to minimize the amount of time spent there. When the Apollo astronauts flew through the van Allen belts (which took about 3 hours), they received a dose of radiation of between 0.16 and 1.14 rads, or less than 1% of a lethal dose.  The hull thickness of the CSM was more than enough to reduce the radiation level inside to manageable levels. More details in this video from Scott Manley: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9YN50xXFJY
    1
  652.  @TalkingToLeedskalnin  It was the 1960s. The astronauts were mostly former test pilots, and that community had to deal with regular fatal accidents. The willingness to accept risk was a lot higher in the Apollo program than in modern-day average society. So yes, they accepted the risk of a solar flare during each mission. And as I said, during a normal mission, the radiation was acceptable. The Russians never had a manned mission go inside van Allen belts.
    1
  653.  @TalkingToLeedskalnin  That's incorrect. There have been no Russian missions through the van Allen belts. The "dying cosmonaut" audio has been proven to be fake. After the fall of the USSR, space historians got access to the Russian space program archives. They were able to prove that all of the 'dead cosmonaut' stories incl that audio recording were fakes.
    1
  654.  @TalkingToLeedskalnin  We haven't been back to the Moon because the Moon program was unsustainably expensive. In the 1960s, NASA spent 5% of the Federal budget. By the early 1970s, that dropped to 1% (thanks to e.g. the Vietnam war), making the Apollo program too expensive to continue.
    1
  655. I wish you would. Common sense is to follow the evidence, and we have lots of evidence that says 6 Apollo missions landed on the moon. We have no evidence that says they didn't. What you want is not common sense, but an argument from incredulity, which is a logical fallacy.
    1
  656. None of the Apollo missions spent more than 3 days on the lunar surface. One mission had one of its cameras malfunction due to dust. At the end of each mission, the cameras were left on the surface: only the film was brought back to Earth.
    1
  657.  @XeiDaMoKaFE  Any channel that advertises itself as 'flat Earth' has lost all credibility.
    1
  658.  @XeiDaMoKaFE  I'm not going to sift through half an hour of drivel to find whichever argument you wanted me to look at. Give me a timestamp, and I'll take a look.
    1
  659.  @XeiDaMoKaFE  Yes, the moon has an atmosphere, technically. But this has a density of about 1 atom per cm3, or 10E-17 bar. For all practical purposes, that's a vacuum. Air resistance is too small to notice.
    1
  660.  @Gozne  Space suits are pressurized, so they're at a higher pressure than the vacuum of space that surrounds them. If the space suit were badly constructed, it would explode, not implode. But it turns out to be pretty easy to build a suit that withstands a pressure difference of 0.25 bar. You use an inner layer that is airtight and flexible, e.g. rubber. Then put a layer around that that keeps the rubber from expanding. A strong fabric will do this.
    1
  661.  @Gozne  Sure, the vacuum of deep space is at a lower pressure than what we recreate on Earth. But you overestimate the difference that creates. The lowest pressure we can create on Earth is about 10E-7 Pa, space is about 10E-12 Pa. For a space suit that's pressurized to 25 kPa, that means the force acting on it is 0.25 kg/cm2 on Earth, and 0.2500001 kg/cm2 on the moon. That is negligible.
    1
  662.  @Gozne  We have launched about 10,000 spacecraft so far. About 6000 satellites are operational today. Many of them are visible with either the naked eye or a simple camera. You can communicate directly with hundreds of them. That means space is real, and you are holding on to a fantasy.
    1
  663.  @Gozne  As of 15 august 2022, SpaceX has launched 3055 Starlink satellites, very publicly. Most are launched from Cape Canaveral, the rest from Vandenberg AFB. The 40,000 number is the planned final size of the constellation, not the number that has been launched so far. Amateurs track each launch and can count how many satellites have been launched. Only an idiot would think Starlink isn't real. It provides internet connectivity in places where no land-based service exists, including the middle of the oceans, and warzones.
    1
  664. No, of the first 7 we had one failure (Apollo 13).
    1
  665. There is no evidence that the moon landings were faked, and mountains of evidence that it is real. You believe in fairy tales.
    1
  666. That's incorrect. Newton's third law doesn't need anything. Try a simple thought experiment: take a rock, split it down the middle, put a spring between them. Compress the spring, then let go. Both halves of the rock will accelerate, independent of whatever surrounds it. A rocket does the same: it throws some mass (usually the combustion products) out the back, and in reaction, the rocket itself is pushed forwards.
    1
  667. False. The radiation levels in the van Allen belts is low enough that you can traverse them in a simple spacecraft like the Apollo Command Module without any additional protection, and get less than 1% of a lethal dose of radiation.
    1
  668.  @alexcoch6606  That's true. They went anyway, and took that risk.
    1
  669. The second law of thermodynamics says nothing about the existence of a vacuum. You fell for pseudoscientific babble not based on facts. Look at the sky tonight. You can see satellites pass overhead. With simple tools, you can measure their speed and altitude https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zApGNHOi0s You'll find an altitude of more than 200 km and a speed of 8 km/s. Every day, you benefit from data generated in space, proving space is real and Earth is not flat.
    1
  670. The suit is at 0.25 bar. A leak caused by dust would be a tiny hole, so you'd get a slow venting of the air in the suit. Possibly problematic, but not immediately catastrophic. The suits leaked a little anyway: that's basically unavoidable in a complex structure like that. So the air supply was sized to handle leaks.
    1
  671.  @hydraman007  I don't think you realize how the effect of a pressure difference scales. "18 billion times" is irrelevant: the force scales with the difference between pressures. That difference is 0.25 bar, or 0.25 kg/cm2. That's the force acting on the air going through any leaks.
    1
  672.  @realbounty5221  It's called a death zone because humans can't survive there without supplemental oxygen or a pressurized cabin. All airliners have pressurized cabins: compressed air is tapped off the intake side of the engines, and fed into the cabin. The cabin inevitably leaks a bit, and there's an air exhaust, so air has to be pumped in constantly.  What happens if there's a leak depends on 2 variables: 1. the size of the hole, and 2. the difference between pressures inside and outside.  For small leaks like a bullet hole, not much will happen: the pressurization system will detect the leak and increase the inflow to compensate. Space suits do the same.  Only when the hole is so large that more air flow out than the system can pump in do you get a real problem.
    1
  673. No moon landing denier has ever produced convincing evidence of his claims. Every single argument they make turns out to be based on a basic lack of understanding of physics, misinterpretation of words, pareidoilia or flat-out lies.
    1
  674.  @realeyes2458  1. That footage has no scientific purpose, so why spend time on it? 2. They didn't have enough payload to bring film for 3 days of recording with a 16mm film camera.
    1
  675.  @realeyes2458  During the flight, the CM was in broad daylight, which means the interior was brightly lit - too bright to see the stars. The only time they could see the stars, was in lunar orbit, for the portion of that orbit that was in the shadow of the moon. I just read Mike Collins' book 'Carrying the fire'. He confirms this.
    1
  676.  @realeyes2458  The Apollo missions did brief video segments, plus a bunch of photos. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTNTfSxP0HQ Again, there's no point in having 3 days of video of the moon very slowly getting bigger, so nobody has done that.
    1
  677. There is gravity on the moon, the gravitational force is 1/6 that of Earth. The Moon is an object that has mass, so it inevitably has gravity.
    1
  678. As evidence for the moon landings, we have 382 kg of moon rock, hours of live TV, hours of film, thousands of photos, stacks of measurements and scientific results, eyewitness accounts, and photos of the landing sites made by later lunar orbiters. Detailed analysis of the physics and engineering required shows that it is possible to land on the moon with 1960s technology. Despite 50 years of trying, no moon landing denier has ever produced convincing evidence of his claims.
    1
  679. In 1958, James van Allen and his team at the University of Iowa discovered the belts that were later named after him, using measurements from the NASA missions Explorer 1. With Explorer 3 and 4 and Pioneer 3 he measured the radiation intensity. By 1962, we had a good map of the van Allen belt, and this is what it told us: in the part of the belt where the intensity is highest, it is high enough that if you stay for about a week (inside an Apollo command module), you receive a lethal dose. So for the Apollo missions, the trajectory was designed to minimize the amount of time spent there. The Apollo astronauts flew through the belts in about 3 hours, while avoiding the part with the highest levels entirely. The hull thickness of the CSM was more than enough to reduce the radiation level inside to manageable levels. Astronauts' overall exposure was actually dominated by solar particles once outside Earth's magnetic field. The total radiation received by the astronauts varied from mission-to-mission but was measured to be between 0.16 and 1.14 rads (1.6 and 11.4 mGy). More details in this video from Scott Manley: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9YN50xXFJY
    1
  680.  @kryptoniterocks8245  Nope. I've examined the evidence. None of the claims made by the deniers hold up.
    1
  681.  @kryptoniterocks8245  You're arguing from ignorance.
    1
  682. Every single argument in 'a funny thing happened on the way to the moon' has been debunked. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aP_z8F10oQ Its maker has been caught fabricating 'evidence'.
    1
  683. This is the only reason we haven't been back to the Moon: The Apollo program was too expensive. It took 5% of the Federal budget for a decade to get to the Moon. After Apollo, NASA's budget was slashed to 1/5 of what it was. So NASA concentrated on cheaper efforts: a reusable spacecraft (Space Shuttle), and learning how to live in space for longer periods (via the ISS). Making the Space Shuttle reusable meant it became a large, heavy spacecraft, which couldn't carry enough fuel to escape from Earth orbit for lunar missions. Now that the Shuttle has been retired, some room has become available in the budget, and that's being used for Artemis. Still on a much smaller budget than Apollo, so it's taking a bit longer.
    1
  684. The money spent on spaceflight is a tiny fraction of that spent on fixing Earth. Better yet: spaceflight has turned out to be essential for fixing Earth: Earth observation satellites provide much of the data we need. "The moon cannot be reached" is bullshit. It can be reached, we've done it 29 times so far, including 6 manned missions. Every single argument the moon landing deniers make turns out to be based on a basic lack of understanding of physics, misinterpretation of words, pareidoilia or flat-out lies. So you've been misled.
    1
  685. Look at the sky tonight. You can see satellites pass overhead. With simple tools, you can measure their speed and altitude https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zApGNHOi0s You'll find an altitude of more than 200 km and a speed of 8 km/s. There is no way to fake that. Every day, you benefit from data generated in space. GPS, accurate weather forecasts, TV broadcasts. There's no way to fake all that data.
    1
  686. The only propaganda is made by moon landing deniers. They can't produce actual arguments, so propaganda is all that's left to them.
    1
  687. "I don't understand how this works so I'm going to call it fake" is not a good argument. Dust on the moon is caused my meteorite impacts. What happens when you hit a rock with another rock? Pieces break off, including small fragments.
    1
  688. You haven't watched the video. Electrostatic forces can levitate small dust particles. The effect is visible when you're in lunar orbit, but here on Earth we're too far away to see it.
    1
  689. The flag doesn't move, so there's no abrasion from dust.It's likely the UV has removed all the paint, so the flags are white by now.
    1
  690. Rockets don't need a medium. A rocket engine pushes against its own exhaust gases.
    1
  691. The Apollo crews put laser reflectors on the moon. No need to build a structure 100 meters wide (to make it visible through the largest telescopes).
    1
  692. Bullshit. Those backpack airconditioning units were real, and used commonly available technology (sublimation cooling). And you vastly overestimate the amount of radiation. You get the occasional trail on unexposed film, the intensity would have toe be much higher to ruin film in a few days.
    1
  693. That's nonsense.
    1
  694. Troll.
    1
  695. Every dollar NASA spent on the lunar program grew the US economy by $7. It's one of the best investments the USA has ever done.
    1
  696.  @ampstaak100  The Apollo program was one of the first to use integrated circuits. The personal computer revolution started right there.
    1
  697.  @ampstaak100  The only time NASA got signals from Pluto, was during the New Horizons flyby in 2015.
    1
  698. Impacts generate a lot of heat, which turns the dust underneath to glass.
    1
  699. For Neil's first steps, a TV camera was installed on the descent stage of the LM. The descent stage has an octagonal shape, with legs on 4 corners and panels that cover storage compartments on the 4 sides between the legs. On one of the sides adjacent to the ladder, there's a storage compartment (MESA) with a cover that is hinged at the bottom. The TV camera was placed on the inside of a cover panel, and when the cover was open, the camera was aimed at the ladder. The astronauts could open the cover panel from inside, and operate the camera from inside the LM. This video shows where the camera was: https://youtu.be/oX8-IXdABuc?t=264
    1
  700.  @AlfonseGambino  They ARE doing it now, with the Artemis program. The Apollo missions ended because they were expensive. It took 5% of the Federal budget for a decade to get to the Moon. After Apollo, NASA's budget was slashed to 1/5 of what it was. So NASA concentrated on cheaper efforts: a reusable spacecraft (Space Shuttle), and learning how to live in space for longer periods (via the ISS). Making the Space Shuttle reusable meant it became a large, heavy spacecraft, which couldn't carry enough fuel to escape from Earth orbit for lunar missions. Only at the end of the Shuttle program did budget become available for a new moon mission, with SLS, Orion and the Artemis program. Because these are financed at 0.1% of the Federal budget instead of 5%, it'll take a bit longer to get back to the moon.
    1
  701.  @AlfonseGambino  It does make sense. Spaceflight remains expensive, and NASA does a lot, so that money has to be split over many different projects. For the past few decades, its human spaceflight budget was split between ISS and Space Shuttle. When the Shuttle was phased out, that slice of the budget was divided between SLS, Artemis and the commercial cargo/crew contracts.
    1
  702. Look at the sky tonight. You can see satellites pass overhead. With simple tools, you can measure their speed and altitude https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zApGNHOi0s You'll find an altitude of more than 200 km and a speed of 8 km/s. Every day, you benefit from data generated in space, proving space is real and there is no dome.
    1
  703. Look at the sky tonight. You can see satellites pass overhead. With simple tools, you can measure their speed and altitude https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zApGNHOi0s You'll find an altitude of more than 200 km and a speed of 8 km/s. Every day, you benefit from data generated in space, proving space is real and Earth is not flat.
    1
  704. ​ @chuckp3131  You really haven't thought this through. 1. we don't have enough helium to do that. 30,000 balloons times 1.7 million m3 of helium per balloon is 51 billion m3. The known total world reserve of He is around 30 billion m3. It gets worse: high-altitude balloons don't live very long: they break in less than a month. So you'd run out of helium in short order. 2. we can see satellites with the naked eye. With simple tools, you can measure their speed and altitude https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zApGNHOi0s You'll find an altitude of more than 200 km and a speed of 8 km/s. That's 6 times higher than a balloon has ever been, and 100 times faster. 3. Have you ever looked at the satellite dishes installed on many homes? All across the country, they point in the same direction: a stationary point 36,000 km above the equator. You can't fake that with balloons. 4. GPS satellites broadcast signals that allow you to work out where you are, but they can also be used to calculate the position of the satellite. That position is at an altitude of about 20,000 km, again with a speed of about 8 km/s. That's 4 pieces of evidence, any one of which proves that your idea is incorrect. Face it: space is real, satellites are real.
    1
  705.  @chuckp3131  I've done my research. I've seen satellites. I've shown you that what you claim is impossible.
    1
  706. No moon landing denier has ever produced convincing evidence of his claims. Every single argument they make turns out to be based on a basic lack of understanding of physics, misinterpretation of words, pareidoilia or flat-out lies.
    1
  707.  @threemileteacher  There is no "BBC documentary" that claims the moon landings are fake. There are videos that claim to be BBC documentaries, but none of those were actually produced by the BBC. Every single 'documentary' that tries to claim the landings are fake is the work of cranks who come up with arguments so shoddy they fall apart when you examine them closer.
    1
  708. Troll.
    1
  709.  @newking70  There is no firmament. That whole concept is based on a translation error. In the original text, the Hebrew word raki'a is used. This word means simply "expansion." It denotes the space or expanse like an arch appearing immediately above us. In the Vulgate this was translated as 'firmamentum'. The original text does not describe a dome: that was added by the translators who created the Vulgate. God's cosmology is closer to what we know today than that of the Latin scholars of 380 AD who created the Vulgate. So there's no reason to diminish His creation by considering the heavens above a dome with lights instead of actual space with actual stars.
    1
  710. Zippers were used in the outer layers, not in the pressure bladder. You're arguing from ignorance.
    1
  711. Every single argument in 'a funny thing happened on the way to the moon' has been debunked. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aP_z8F10oQ
    1
  712. No moon landing denier has ever produced convincing evidence of his claims. Every single argument they make turns out to be based on a basic lack of understanding of physics, misinterpretation of words, pareidoilia or flat-out lies.
    1
  713.  @TM-tw1py  This will get you started: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=debunk+moon+hoax
    1
  714.  @benz500r  Russia has never had the money. In the 1960s, they attempted a manned lunar program using the N-1 rocket; this was hamstrung by a tiny budget, so they were too late: the first N-1 launch was in 1969, just in time to lose the space race. The Russians lost interest after Apollo 11.
    1
  715.  @benz500r  They had finished designs for all of the equipment they needed. The big obstacle was testing the N-1, a rocket as large as the Saturn V. They estimated they would need 14 test launches before it was ready for the first manned mission. The first of those tests was done in 1969, and ended in a giant explosion. 3 more tests failed as well. The Soviets lost several years due to infighting between design bureaus, so they didn't get started properly until 1965 or so. The Soviets lacked a central agency like NASA that coordinated efforts. Then Korolev (the only person who could lead the Russian efforts) died, causing more chaos.
    1
  716. We figured that out in 1958. For radiation, there are 2 important variables: 1. the radiation intensity 2. the amount of time you are exposed to this intensity. You can multiply these two and get the total radiation dose. Humans die if they receive a dose of about 300 Rad. In 1958, James van Allen and his team discovered the belts that were later named after him. He also measured the radiation intensity. This is what he found: in the part of the belt where the intensity is highest, it is high enough that if you stay for about a week, you receive a lethal dose. So for the Apollo missions, the trajectory was designed to minimize the amount of time spent there. When the Apollo astronauts flew through the van Allen belts (which took about an hour), they received a dose of radiation of between 0.16 and 1.14 rads, or less than 1% of a lethal dose.
    1
  717. The reason we haven't gone back is simple: money. It took 5% of the Federal budget for a decade to get to the Moon. After Apollo, NASA's budget was slashed to 1/5 of what it was.
    1
  718. The Apollo missions left laser reflectors. Anyone with a laser, a telescope and a camera can use these to measure the distance to the Moon, proving that the Apollo missions were real.
    1
  719. What you're seeing is not contradictions, but a lack of information on your part. Let's take the dust. 1. Was the dust a problem for the Apollo missions? Yes. There's a list of all the problems caused by dust in the Apollo missions, that list is 74 pages long. They had malfunctions in equipment, damage to their space suits etc. Fortunately, none of those problems turned out to be catastrophic. 2. Why worry about dust now? Well, the Artemis missions are going to be a lot longer than the Apollo missions. Apollo 17 spent only 3 days on the lunar surface. Now we have to build equipment that is reliable for missions that take 3-6 months. If the dust is abrasive enough that it could put holes in the outer layer of a space suit in 3 days, we need much better materials to get a space suit that won't fail in 3 months.
    1
  720. In every landing video, at about 1 minute before touchdown you can see the dust being blown away. Because there's no air, all the dust takes off in a straight line, instead of billowing into big clouds as it would on Earth. Instead, the dust uniformly moves at high speed in a very shallow parabola.
    1
  721. They didn't. Several visors were scratched before the end of the mission.
    1
  722. That's incorrect. We can, and we already have, 29 times.
    1
  723. In every landing video, at about 1 minute before touchdown you can see the dust being blown away. Because there's no air, all the dust moves in a straight line, instead of billowing into big clouds as it would on Earth. That also means the dust uniformly moves at high speed - far too fast to settle on the lander feet. The lunar surface consists of compact, interlocking rocks with a thin layer of dust on top. A small engine like the LM descent engine isn't going to dislodge those rocks.
    1
  724. Nope, that's not it. You don't know they faked the moon landings, you just assume based on "evidence" that turns out to be worthless. All of the actual evidence, including independent observations, says the moon landings are real.
    1
  725.  @gasnxt6805  Any dust pushed up by the foot pads gets caught in the exhaust stream, which pushes it outwards. That means no dust travels from one pad to another.
    1
  726.  @gasnxt6805  "I don't understand how it works, so I'm going to call it fake" is not a good argument.
    1
  727. Those would evaporate quickly.
    1
  728. As evidence for the moon landings, we have 382 kg of moon rock, hours of live TV, hours of film, thousands of photos, stacks of measurements and scientific results, eyewitness accounts, and photos of the landing sites made by later lunar orbiters. No moon landing denier has ever produced convincing evidence of his claims. Every single argument they make turns out to be based on a basic lack of understanding of physics, misinterpretation of words, pareidoilia or flat-out lies.
    1
  729. 1. The 'first step' shows compressed dust, just as you'd expect. Dust is 'sticky' on foreign substances due to a difference in static charges. Dust doesn't stick to itself, because when both items have the same charge there's a repelling force instead. 2. In every landing video, at about 1 minute before touchdown you can see the dust being blown away. Because there's no air, all the dust moves in a straight line, instead of billowing into big clouds as it would on Earth. The ascent doesn't throw up dust because the ascent engine exhaust hits the descent stage, not the ground underneath the descent stage. 3. False. The measurements done by van Allen (not van Halen) in 1958 show that the belts are lethal if you stay inside the densest part of them for a week. The Apollo missions spent only 3 hours there, and got less than 1% of a lethal dose of radiation. This was predicted by van Allen, and confirmed by the dosimeters carried by each Apollo astronaut. So all of your 'arguments' are born from ignorance, and not bothering to look up basic facts.
    1
  730.  @vishoek69  That is incorrect. Not only did the Apollo astronauts report these flashes, Apollo 16 and 17 carried an experiment (ALFMED) to measure cosmic rays around the astronaut's head in the hope of correlating what astronauts saw with measurements.
    1
  731.  @vishoek69  American Moon is full of nonsense. Here is some actual information on the van Allen belts: In 1958, James van Allen and his team at the University of Iowa discovered the belts that were later named after him, using measurements from the NASA missions Explorer 1. With Explorer 3 and 4 and Pioneer 3 he measured the radiation intensity. This is what he found: in the part of the belt where the intensity is highest, it is high enough that if you stay for about a week (inside an Apollo command module), you receive a lethal dose. So for the Apollo missions, the trajectory was designed to minimize the amount of time spent there. The Apollo astronauts flew through the belts in about 3 hours, while avoiding the part with the highest levels entirely. The hull thickness of the CSM was more than enough to reduce the radiation level inside to manageable levels. Astronauts' overall exposure was actually dominated by solar particles once outside Earth's magnetic field. The total radiation received by the astronauts varied from mission-to-mission but was measured to be between 0.16 and 1.14 rads (1.6 and 11.4 mGy). More details in this video from Scott Manley: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9YN50xXFJY
    1
  732. The photos and particularly the video show an environment with no atmosphere and 1/6 G gravity. This is impossible to fake on Earth. And we have independent verification of the moon landings: The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter photographed all of the Apollo landing sites: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pnhnx95LkCc India's Chandrayaan-2 orbiter has photographed the Apollo 11 and 12 landing sites: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1YDQtR6fwY
    1
  733.  @SophisticatedDogCat  The scientific results are published in science journals, and available in NASA's science archives, along with the original measurement data. The engineering telemetry was discarded at the end of the Apollo program because it was no longer useful. Drawings for every single part of the Apollo and Saturn V are available at the Smithsonian. Thousands of technical reports on the design, development and execution of the moon landings are available at the NTRS.
    1
  734. No, radiation is not hydrogen, and it's not rocks melting either. Fission can deliver enough energy to melt rocks. Volcanoes on Earth don't release large amounts of radiation.
    1
  735. Nope. There are no wires. He's pushing himself off the ground, which is hard on Earth but easy in 1/6 g.
    1
  736. As evidence for the moon landings, we have 382 kg of moon rock, hours of live TV, hours of film, thousands of photos, stacks of measurements and scientific results, eyewitness accounts, and photos of the landing sites made by later lunar orbiters. Detailed analysis of the physics and engineering required shows that it is possible to land on the moon with 1960s technology. No moon landing denier has ever produced convincing evidence of his claims. Every single argument they make turns out to be based on a basic lack of understanding of physics, misinterpretation of words, pareidoilia or flat-out lies.
    1
  737. Look at the sky tonight. You can see satellites pass overhead. With simple tools, you can measure their speed and altitude https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zApGNHOi0s You'll find an altitude of more than 200 km and a speed of 8 km/s. Every day, you benefit from data generated in space. GPS, accurate weather forecasts, TV broadcasts, etc. Doesn't it hurt, all that cognitive dissonance?
    1
  738. In every landing video, at about 1 minute before touchdown you can see the dust being blown away.
    1
  739. New impacts compress and melt underlying dust, so you're left with a thin layer of dust on top of layers of glass and rocks.
    1
  740. Not necessarily.
    1
  741. No. We know all this about moon dust because the Apollo landings (all 6 of them) were real and experienced it, and brought back samples.
    1
  742. The Moon landings are real. Every single argument made by moon landing deniers falls apart when you look at it: they're all arguments from ignorance.
    1
  743. Every single argument made by moon landing deniers falls apart when you examine it. So we have a pile of evidence that says we went to the moon, and no evidence at all that says we didn't.
    1
  744.  @ChristianWhiteGuy  I have investigated many claims made by the moon landing deniers. None of them have stood up to scrutiny. What I did find was a basic lack of understanding of physics, mixed with lies and nonsense.
    1
  745.  @Roxasamico  We have independent verification that the lunar landings are real.
    1
  746. The Apollo program cost $25 billion. It caused the US economy to grow by $175 billion. That's an excellent return on investment.
    1
  747. People who believe the moon landings are fake are making wild claims without evidence.
    1
  748. The Moon landings are real. Every single argument made by moon landing deniers falls apart when you look at it: they're all arguments from ignorance.
    1
  749.  @T._Matthew_Phillips  Sure I can. With a laser and a telescope, I can ping laser reflectors left by the Apollo crews. I can request moon rocks from NASA, and they'll send them to me for examination. Geologists all over the world have done this since 1969, and none have ever found results that indicate these rocks are not from the moon. During the Apollo missions, amateurs could see the Apollo spacecraft on their way to the moon. Independent parties could receive radio communications from the spacecraft. Experts have pored over the photos and video, and found that they're consistent with being filmed in 1/6 G and a vacuum, which is impossible on Earth. Experts have found no indication any of the footage is fake. So I'm going to follow the evidence, not baseless rantings.
    1
  750.  @T._Matthew_Phillips  Of those 3 arguments, 2 are based on you misreading what I wrote. You need to study more and argue less.
    1
  751. In every landing video, at about 1 minute before touchdown you can see the dust being blown away. Because there's no air, all the dust moves in a straight line, instead of billowing into big clouds as it would on Earth. That also means the dust uniformly moves at high speed - far too fast to settle on the lander feet.
    1
  752.  @astralpx  Each crew took one set of images of the lander, generally just after landing, to show the condition of the lander. So any dust tracked onto the lander feet would have been deposited after those photos were taken.
    1
  753. We can see satellites with the naked eye. You can measure their speed and altitude https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zApGNHOi0s which proves satellites are real, and not balloons.
    1
  754.  @Tim22222  All except Neil Armstrong on Apollo 11, he kept the engine running to touchdown.
    1
  755.  @klaslindstein2252  You can't tell how much dust was removed from the photographs, as the dust has the same color as the rocks below it. The engine exhaust moves at high speed, but very low pressure, so it doesn't remove all the dust instantly. It just picks up the smallest particles.
    1
  756.  @neilarmstrongsson795  False. Both Armstrong and Aldrin were filmed coming down the ladder, by the TV camera on the MESA cover.
    1
  757.  @neilarmstrongsson795  You think that indicates something, when it doesn't.
    1
  758. No, it'd be the seventh manned moon landing.
    1
  759. If the moon is a luminary, why is it dark half the time? We know what the moon consists of: ordinary rock. We've been there.
    1
  760. There are 2 factors: 1. the reduced gravity, and 2. no air resistance. Reduced gravity means it takes longer for a particle to fall back down, no air resistance means it takes less time to get to its destination. The video is consistent with 1/6 G and no air.
    1
  761. The arguments in that "documentary" are full of holes. But that's par for the course for moon landing deniers.
    1
  762. We figured out how to get through the van Allen belts in 1958. For radiation, there are 2 important variables: 1. the radiation intensity 2. the amount of time you are exposed to this intensity. You can multiply these two and get the total radiation dose. Humans die if they receive a dose of about 300 Rad. In 1958, James van Allen and his team discovered the belts that were later named after him. He also measured the radiation intensity. This is what he found: in the part of the belt where the intensity is highest, it is high enough that if you stay for about a week (inside an Apollo command module), you receive a lethal dose. So for the Apollo missions, the trajectory was designed to minimize the amount of time spent there. The Apollo astronauts flew through the belts in about 3 hours, while avoiding the part with the highest levels entirely. The hull thickness of the CSM was more than enough to reduce the radiation level inside to manageable levels. Astronauts' overall exposure was actually dominated by solar particles once outside Earth's magnetic field. The total radiation received by the astronauts varied from mission-to-mission but was measured to be between 0.16 and 1.14 rads (1.6 and 11.4 mGy). More details in this video from Scott Manley: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9YN50xXFJY
    1
  763. As evidence for the moon landings, we have 382 kg of moon rock, hours of live TV, hours of film, thousands of photos, stacks of measurements and scientific results, eyewitness accounts, and photos of the landing sites made by later lunar orbiters. Detailed analysis of the physics and engineering required shows that it is possible to land on the moon with 1960s technology. No moon landing denier has ever produced convincing evidence of his claims.
    1
  764.  @Xernive  I haven't been picky. There are several arguments that took me a couple hours to find the correct information, or do the calculations. I found 0 instances of people using scientific data or research other than to cherrypick (people using the 1958 van Allen paper while ignoring the higher-quality measurements made between 1958 and 1962, for example).
    1
  765. The evidence proves you wrong.
    1
  766.  @Roxasamico  As evidence for the moon landings, we have 382 kg of moon rock, hours of live TV, hours of film, thousands of photos, stacks of measurements and scientific results, eyewitness accounts, and photos of the landing sites made by later lunar orbiters. We have independent confirmation that the moon landings are real. What you don't have is any evidence at all that the Apollo landings were faked.
    1
  767. The Apollo missions had issues with dust, but the missions were short enough that none of the issues were catastrophic. That doesn't make it a non-issue.
    1
  768. The naive people are the ones who believe the moon hoax arguments (which have more holes than a colander), while being skeptical of the mountain of solid evidence we have that the moon landings were real.
    1
  769. As evidence for the moon landings, we have 382 kg of moon rock, hours of live TV, hours of film, thousands of photos, stacks of measurements and scientific results, eyewitness accounts, and photos of the landing sites made by later lunar orbiters. Detailed analysis of the physics and engineering required shows that it is possible to land on the moon with 1960s technology. Despite 50 years of trying, no moon landing denier has ever produced convincing evidence of his claims.
    1
  770. The photos and particularly the video show an environment with no atmosphere and 1/6 G gravity. This is impossible to fake on Earth. And we have independent verification of the moon landings: The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter photographed all of the Apollo landing sites: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pnhnx95LkCc India's Chandrayaan-2 orbiter has photographed the Apollo 11 and 12 landing sites: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1YDQtR6fwY
    1
  771. The dust didn't float. It was kicked up by mechanical action (astronaut boots or LRV wheels hitting the dust) or engine exhaust (during the landing). in all cases, the dust then follows a ballistic path that shows it falls at a speed consistent with 1/6 G.
    1
  772. The actual number is about 6 months.
    1
  773.  @PhilosopherNewport  False. On one side we have actual data, collected by people who have been there, and on the other side we have someone who thinks you can see radiation effects through an optical telescope.
    1
  774.  @PhilosopherNewport  False. I've examined the evidence presented by NASA, trying to verify or disprove their claims. I found no indications their claims were false. The moon landing denier claims on the other hand, turned out to be full of holes. One of those claims is the one you're repeating, about the lunar surface being so radioactive you'd be killed immediately.
    1
  775.  @PhilosopherNewport  I've reviewed claims made by many deniers. I have found exactly 0 claims that can't be debunked easily.
    1
  776. As evidence for the moon landings, we have 382 kg of moon rock, hours of live TV, hours of film, thousands of photos, stacks of measurements and scientific results, eyewitness accounts, and photos of the landing sites made by later lunar orbiters. Detailed analysis of the physics and engineering required shows that it is possible to land on the moon with 1960s technology. Despite 50 years of trying, no moon landing denier has ever produced convincing evidence of his claims. Anyone believing the moon landings were faked bases their belief on nothing.
    1
  777. The Apollo missions left laser reflectors. Anyone with a laser, a telescope and a camera can use these to measure the distance to the Moon, proving that the Apollo missions were real.
    1
  778.  @peckop1793  Proving you wrong: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwxrNurAuu8 We use these every day.
    1
  779. None of that is correct. 1. The radiation levels are not high enough to pose a problem for short missions like the Apollo missions. It only gets dangerous if you want to do missions longer than 6 months. 2. When Bill Nye said "Earth is a closed system" he was referring to our ability to live on other planets with our current technology. We can't build self-sustaining colonies on Mars yet. We can, however, explore them. 3. We do know what the moon is. We can measure the composition of the moon from Earth, by analyzing its light via spectroscopy. That tells us the moon consists of rock. We sent unmanned probes to the Moon (Ranger, Surveyor) to prepare for manned landings. The Surveyors made soft landings, proving the surface will support a lander. 4. We didn't lose the technology. We still know how to design and built rockets with the complexity level of the Saturn V. In fact, we've advanced: the engines we can built today are superior to the F-1, with better Isp, lower construction cost, reusability and reliability. The "we lost the technology" quote is from a few years ago. Don Pettit was asked if he'd like to go to the moon, and his answer was "we can't", in the sense that at that time, the US didn't have a rocket capable of manned lunar missions in production. That has changed: Artemis 1 will be launched this month.
    1
  780. No, there is not a 5 second delay in city to city broadcast. A delay is inserted by US broadcast studios because Americans don't want to hear swearing on the radio, and the delay gives the studio the chance to bleep out offending words. Radio signals propagate at the speed of light, 300,000 km/s. I can have phone calls from my country to New Zealand, a distance of 20,000 km, with no noticeable delay. Radio transmission delay starts to be noticeable if you have a link via geostationary satellite, which adds 72000 km, or 0.2 seconds of delay.
    1
  781. The 'moon hoax' story was created by a failed author in an attempt to make money by selling books. He didn't do any research: every single one of his arguments falls apart when you start looking at them closely. He didn't provide any evidence for his arguments. He failed to explain how we ended up possessing 380 kg of material from the Moon, he failed to explain why the Soviets accepted the Moon landing as real. etc. IOW, he was a charlatan trying to make a quick buck off the gullible.
    1
  782. The sun does not experience micronovas. That's just the latest nonsense from the apocalypse trolls; they had to find something new after the 2012 "end of the Mayan calendar = end of the world" predictions didn't come true.
    1
  783. Apollo 18 is a work of fiction.
    1
  784. If you're intelligent, you follow the evidence, which says the moon landings are real. In 50 years, nobody's been able to come up with evidence that says otherwise. Every single argument the moon landing deniers make turns out to be based on a basic lack of understanding of physics, misinterpretation of words, pareidoilia or flat-out lies.
    1
  785. As evidence for the moon landings, we have 382 kg of moon rock, hours of live TV, hours of film, thousands of photos, stacks of measurements and scientific results, eyewitness accounts, and photos of the landing sites made by later lunar orbiters. Detailed analysis of the physics and engineering required shows that it is possible to land on the moon with 1960s technology. Despite 50 years of trying, no moon landing denier has ever produced convincing evidence of his claims.
    1
  786. In every landing video, at about 1 minute before touchdown you can see the dust being blown away. Because there's no air, all the dust moves in a straight line, instead of billowing into big clouds as it would on Earth. That also means the dust uniformly moves at high speed - far too fast to settle on the lander feet. The LEM consists of two parts. The ascent module left the Moon, the descent module stayed in place. The ascent engine exhaust hit the top surface of the descent module, i.e. it didn't hit the ground. That's why you see insulation fragments flying around instead of dust.
    1
  787. The dust problem was annoying but not catastrophic for the short Apollo missions. For the much longer missions planned for Artemis, the problem gets a lot bigger.
    1
  788. 1. No, NASA has said no such thing. They figured out how to get through the van Allen belts in 1958. For radiation, there are 2 important variables: 1. the radiation intensity 2. the amount of time you are exposed to this intensity. You can multiply these two and get the total radiation dose. Humans die if they receive a dose of about 300 Rad. In 1958, James van Allen and his team discovered the belts that were later named after him. He also measured the radiation intensity. This is what he found: in the part of the belt where the intensity is highest, it is high enough that if you stay for about a week (inside an Apollo command module), you receive a lethal dose. So for the Apollo missions, the trajectory was designed to minimize the amount of time spent there. When the Apollo astronauts flew through the van Allen belts (which took about 3 hours), they received a dose of radiation of between 0.16 and 1.14 rads, or less than 1% of a lethal dose. More details in this video from Scott Manley: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9YN50xXFJY 2. That interview quote is taken 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. 3. Again, taken out of context. NASA did not lose the technology. Drawings for every part of the Saturn V and Apollo spacecraft exist. We have a bunch of versions of the software for the AGC. We have loads of info on every aspect of the design. Is that enough to start building a new Saturn V tomorrow? No. That's what he was getting at. You'd have to build a factory large enough to assemble a Saturn V. You'd have to build new jigs (because they didn't keep the jigs around, some of those are as large as the first stage). You'd have to replace some of the 1960s era components with new ones: it'd be ridiculous to build new AGCs. So you have to develop new software. The drawings have to be redone in CAD so you can use modern manufacturing processes. All in all, it takes a few years to start up a Saturn V production line, and in that time you could also design a new rocket. This applies to all complex, old projects by the way. B-52, SR-71, the Eiffel tower they would take a long time to replicate, and with today's knowledge we can do better anyway so there's no point. We're building hardware for new moon missions today. 4. That's nonsense. "5th density" is not a radiation measurement. Humans don't disintegrate when exposed to radiation, they get cell damage.
    1
  789.  @loucifer8009  That is incorrect. This video shows the phone call. At 1:50 Nixon stops talking, note how long it takes for the astronauts to answer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLyJ9FHDO-c
    1
  790. False. Dust is clearly visible in the landing videos, from about 1 minute before each landing. Armstrong's words, "picking up some dust".
    1
  791.  @michael.forkert  You're missing some crucial information. 1. The ascent module sits on top of the descent module. I.e. the ascent engine exhaust hits the descent module, not the ground. This is clearly visible in the takeoff videos made by Apollo 15-17. 2. All landing videos show huge amounts of dust being moved. This looks different than it would on Earth, because there is no atmosphere. So no billowing clouds, all of the dust moves away from the landing site at high speed. 3. This is how a rocket works: you burn some propellant in a combustion chamber. The propellant expands, exerting a force on the combustion chamber walls - except in the one place at the back of the chamber where there is no wall but an exhaust nozzle. Those forces cancel out, except for the force on the front of the chamber that is not balanced by a force on the back of the chamber. This is what propels the rocket. In Newton's terms: the rocket throws mass out the back, pushing that mass away. This in turn has an equal and opposite reaction on the rocket, pushing it forward. This does not require anything outside the rocket. We have definitive proof that rockets do work in a vacuum: we've successfully launched 10,000 satellites into orbit.
    1
  792.  @michael.forkert  Read what I wrote. The mass has already pushed the rocket before hitting anything outside. There is no requirement for the rocket exhaust to hit anything to do its work: the act of throwing that mass out the back of the rocket is sufficient. As Newton predicted. As has since been proven conclusively.
    1
  793.  @michael.forkert  No, Newton's third law does not specify that A and B have to start out as separate objects. A is the rocket, B is the propellant being thrown from the rocket. The atmosphere outside is a third object, which does not show up in Newton's equation because it is irrelevant. This is easily demonstrated: take a skateboard, a bowling ball and an inflatable beach ball the same size as the bowling ball. Stand on the skateboard, and throw the bowling ball as hard as you can. This will propel you in the opposite direction. Measure how far you travel. Repeat with the beach ball. You will travel a far shorter distance. This shows that the distance you travel does not depend on the air resistance of the thrown object (i.e. on any force exerted on the object by the air), but on its mass.
    1
  794.  @michael.forkert  Done. We can observe satellites in space from the ground, and measure their speed and altitude. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zApGNHOi0s The speeds we measure prove that these satellites are in orbit, which proves that rockets work in a vacuum.
    1
  795.  @michael.forkert  More drivel, then. Call me when you have evidence that calls Newton's third law into question. The fact that it still stands after 400 years of experimentation tells me you have nothing.
    1
  796.  @michael.forkert  No Michael, your nonsense does not fly. Auto-propulsion does exist, as is conclusively proven by 10,000 successful satellite launches. Again, despite your claims, Newton's third law does not require anything external. Your preconceived idea 'space is fake' is proven wrong.
    1
  797. Look at the sky tonight. You can see satellites pass overhead. With simple tools, you can measure their speed and altitude https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zApGNHOi0s You'll find an altitude of more than 200 km and a speed of 8 km/s. Every day, you benefit from data generated in space, proving space is real and Earth is not flat.
    1
  798. Look at the sky tonight. You can see satellites pass overhead. With simple tools, you can measure their speed and altitude https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zApGNHOi0s You'll find an altitude of more than 200 km and a speed of 8 km/s. Every day, you benefit from data generated in space, proving space is real and Earth is not flat. There is no firmament either. That whole concept is based on a translation error. In the original text, the Hebrew word raki'a is used. This word means simply "expansion." It denotes the space or expanse like an arch appearing immediately above us. In the Vulgate this was translated as 'firmamentum'. The original text does not describe a dome: that was added by the translators who created the Vulgate. God's cosmology is closer to what we know today than that of the Latin scholars of 380 AD who created the Vulgate. So there's no reason to diminish His creation by considering the heavens above a dome with lights instead of actual space with actual stars.
    1
  799. In the next few years.
    1
  800. The Moon landings are real. Every single argument made by moon landing deniers falls apart when you look at it: they're all arguments from ignorance.I've seen Sibrel's arguments: they fall apart.
    1
  801. Nope, basic photography. The size of an object depends on its distance, and on the focal length of the lens you use. The cameras used by Apollo had short focal lengths, so faraway objects look small.
    1
  802.  @quentinquogamoddy1999  That's bullshit.
    1
  803.  @lewispeaks1518  round trip is about 7 days.
    1
  804.  @james5780  You are incorrect. The drawings for every single Saturn V part (6 million) are held at the Smithsonian. The engineering telemetry was discarded because after the end of the Apollo program, it was no longer useful.
    1
  805.  @james5780  That's nonsense. The engineering telemetry is data like the temperature and pressure in specific places of the F1 engine. It is not "how to get to the moon", it is "how this specific Saturn V got to the moon". We know how to get to the moon: trajectory, delta-V, etc. are all well-known. We don't need the Saturn V telemetry for that.
    1
  806. ​ @james5780  I don't have to believe we went to the moon: I know we did. The evidence that shows we did this is overwhelming. Despite 50 years of trying, no denier has ever been able to produce one bit of actual evidence. All they come up with is nonsense like your "they slowed down the footage". When you look at the footage, you see an astronaut moving his arms and legs at normal speed while he is falling at an acceleration consistent with 1/6 G. You cannot slow down parts of the frame selectively.
    1
  807. ​ @james5780  Yes, the telemetry contained all that data. But we don't need it. We know exactly how to get to the moon because that's basic orbital mechanics. We have the math we need to reproduce the Saturn V trajectory, and we have the freedom to choose other trajectories. Artemis 1 followed a very different trajectory to the Saturn missions, for example. We have saved the important information from the telemetry: we know exactly where each mission landed, for example.
    1
  808.  @james5780  You're wrong again. The Apollo missions took a direct trajectory that's fast but takes a lot of fuel. Unmanned missions take a month because that allows them to be launched on a smaller rocket: they take a more energy-efficient trajectory that takes a lot longer. You don't want to stick 3 astronauts in a small capsule for 3 months, but you don't care how long it takes an unmanned mission to get there. These are actual facts, unlike your claims that are based on ignorance.
    1
  809.  @markdalton3834  No, here on Earth most dust is rounded off. And there's a lot less of it in most places (depending on humidity).
    1
  810. The "troubles" with Artemis are normal for the first launch of a new rocket. The first Shuttle mission was delayed by 2 years, the first Apollo flight by more than a year.
    1
  811. Dust is solid matter, it has no problem existing in a vacuum. The BS is all yours.
    1
  812. There's a tiny amount of gold in the suits. Heck, I can get goldplated connectors for $5 at my local electronics store. That's not what made the suits expensive.
    1
  813. That's incorrect. Lunar dust issues were extensively documented. The Moon landings are real. Every single argument made by moon landing deniers falls apart when you look at it: they're all arguments from ignorance.
    1
  814.  @abcall-timesboxingchanneln7076  Here are the facts about the van Allen belts: We figured out how to get through the van Allen belts in 1958. For radiation, there are 2 important variables: 1. the radiation intensity 2. the amount of time you are exposed to this intensity. You can multiply these two and get the total radiation dose. Humans die if they receive a dose of about 300 Rad. In 1958, James van Allen and his team discovered the belts that were later named after him. He also measured the radiation intensity. This is what he found: in the part of the belt where the intensity is highest, it is high enough that if you stay for about a week (inside an Apollo command module), you receive a lethal dose. So for the Apollo missions, the trajectory was designed to minimize the amount of time spent there. When the Apollo astronauts flew through the van Allen belts (which took about 3 hours), they received a dose of radiation of between 0.16 and 1.14 rads, or less than 1% of a lethal dose. More details in this video from Scott Manley: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9YN50xXFJY
    1
  815.  @abcall-timesboxingchanneln7076  You should get your news from a better source. The 2012 Van Allen gave us a lot more detail about the structure of the belts, and their fluctuations over time. They did not find higher radiation levels than earlier missions. Flashes have been reported by astronauts during the Apollo missions, and basically every mission since. They are caused by single high-energy particles. They are expected, and "shaken" is unlikely.
    1
  816. The 'moon hoax' story was created by a failed author in an attempt to make money by selling books. He didn't do any research: every single one of his arguments falls apart when you start looking at them closely. He didn't provide any evidence for his arguments. He failed to explain how we ended up possessing 380 kg of material from the Moon, he failed to explain why the Soviets accepted the Moon landing as real. etc. IOW, he was a charlatan trying to make a quick buck off the gullible. Look at the sky tonight. You can see satellites pass overhead. With simple tools, you can measure their speed and altitude https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zApGNHOi0s You'll find an altitude of more than 200 km and a speed of 8 km/s. Every day, you benefit from data generated in space, proving space is real and Earth is not flat.
    1
  817. All video was either broadcast directly (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3DfWR3CVlc), or it was recorded on an analog film camera.
    1
  818. False. Every mission has a different background.
    1
  819. The moon does rotate on its axis: its rotation period is the same time it orbits Earth (28 days), so we always see the same side. On the Moon's surface, you get 14 days of sunlight followed by 14 days of darkness.
    1
  820. No moon landing denier has ever produced convincing evidence of his claims. Every single argument they make turns out to be based on a basic lack of understanding of physics, misinterpretation of words, pareidoilia or flat-out lies.
    1
  821. Have you ever tried to suppress reflexes? You can't. Trying to blow dust through a helmet as a typical human reaction. Getting up was a lot easier in 1/6G than here on Earth.
    1
  822. It has been observed from Earth. NASA runs the Automated Lunar and Meteor Observatory, which has observed about 300 impacts so far.
    1
  823. Every argument the moon landing deniers make falls apart when you investigate. That's no proof, it's just bluster. The evidence in favor of the moon landings is overwhelming.
    1
  824. That's an airplane in Earth's atmosphere, not an UFO.
    1
  825. For radiation, there are 2 important variables: 1. the radiation intensity 2. the amount of time you are exposed to this intensity. You can multiply these two and get the total radiation dose. Humans die if they receive a dose of about 300 Rad. In 1958, James van Allen and his team discovered the belts that were later named after him. He also measured the radiation intensity. This is what he found: in the part of the belt where the intensity is highest, it is high enough that if you stay for about a week, you receive a lethal dose. So for the Apollo missions, the trajectory was designed to minimize the amount of time spent there. When the Apollo astronauts flew through the van Allen belts (which took about an hour), they received a dose of radiation of between 0.16 and 1.14 rads, or less than 1% of a lethal dose. for some reason, the Apollo deniers all cherrypick from this report: they acknowledge that NASA discovered the van Allen belts, but they refuse to accept the radiation values found by the same project.
    1
  826. That NASA engineer was being insufficiently accurate. Some of the Apollo telemetry was lost, but we don't need it to get back to the Moon. Who cares about pressure readings from the Saturn V engines when we will be using a different rocket to get to the Moon.  What we don't have at the moment, is a rocket sitting on the pad ready to go the Moon. We're getting pretty close to the first SLS launch, though. NASA's also working on the other pieces we need: lunar lander, command module etc. It's all in production right now.
    1
  827. We figured out how to get through the van Allen belts in 1958. For radiation, there are 2 important variables: 1. the radiation intensity 2. the amount of time you are exposed to this intensity. You can multiply these two and get the total radiation dose. Humans die if they receive a dose of about 300 Rad. In 1958, James van Allen and his team discovered the belts that were later named after him. He also measured the radiation intensity. This is what he found: in the part of the belt where the intensity is highest, it is high enough that if you stay for about a week (inside an Apollo command module), you receive a lethal dose. So for the Apollo missions, the trajectory was designed to minimize the amount of time spent there. The Apollo astronauts flew through the belts in about 3 hours, while avoiding the part with the highest levels entirely. The hull thickness of the CSM was more than enough to reduce the radiation level inside to manageable levels. Astronauts' overall exposure was actually dominated by solar particles once outside Earth's magnetic field. The total radiation received by the astronauts varied from mission-to-mission but was measured to be between 0.16 and 1.14 rads (1.6 and 11.4 mGy). More details in this video from Scott Manley: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9YN50xXFJY
    1
  828. You're wrong. They brought 380 kg of rock and dust samples back, plus e.g. parts from the Surveyor 3 unmanned lander that had been on the Moon for 2 years.
    1
  829.  @samueljenkis6253  You only have half the story on that. It was the Netherlands, not one of the Nordic countries. The gift was made by a private individual, not NASA, and that person chose to lie about his gift: he knew he wasn't giving a moon rock. So, "random piece of crap passed off as moon rock" isn't quite as sensational, is it? Furthermore, 380 kg of moon rock was brought back, thousands of samples from that cache have been analyzed and all were found to be rock.
    1
  830.  @samueljenkis6253  The problem is that you've made up your mind based on misinformation and outright lies.
    1
  831. Earth is an oblate spheroid, not a flat plane. That's not propaganda, its an easily verifiable fact. Hibeller is a charlatan preying on the gullible. Debunking flat earth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbaz2MUGf2Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLPPE3_DVCw
    1
  832. False. Every mission had problems. Ignoring those leads to unrealistic conclusions.
    1
  833. Anyone who isn't braindead and examines the evidence, will conclude the moon landings are real. Every denier has fallen for lies and fabrications.
    1
  834. It is sticky because it has an electrostatic charge. That charge can also levitate the dust.
    1
  835.  @varum2011  When an astronaut steps on the lunar surface, he compresses the loose dust, and equalizes any static charges. So there's no longer a repelling force to push the dust particles apart. The electrostatic charge comes from the solar wind, which bombards the lunar surface with charged atoms (ions).
    1
  836.  @varum2011  For example, Surveyor 6 image 328141526.354
    1
  837. This is how the Apollo missions got through the van Allen belts, and how any new mission is going to do it: For radiation, there are 2 important variables: 1. the radiation intensity 2. the amount of time you are exposed to this intensity. You can multiply these two and get the total radiation dose. Humans die if they receive a dose of about 300 Rad. In 1958, James van Allen and his team discovered the belts that were later named after him. He also measured the radiation intensity. This is what he found: in the part of the belt where the intensity is highest, it is high enough that if you stay for about a week, you receive a lethal dose. So for the Apollo missions, the trajectory was designed to minimize the amount of time spent there. When the Apollo astronauts flew through the van Allen belts (which took about an hour), they received a dose of radiation of between 0.16 and 1.14 rads, or less than 1% of a lethal dose.
    1
  838.  @davidjolliffe9622  No, there isn't proof of the contrary. There are lots of arguments, but every single one of them falls apart when examined closely. NASA hasn't lost any of the documentation of the Moon landings. Photos, video, moon rocks: it's all present and accessible. After Apollo there's been exactly one Moon program: Artemis. This hasn't been cancelled, it's steadily progressing. It's not a "pull out all the stops" program like Apollo so it's taking a bit longer.
    1
  839. The Moon landings are real. Every single argument made by moon landing deniers falls apart when you look at it: they're all arguments from ignorance.
    1
  840. We figured out how to get through the VA belts in 1962. We measured the radiation in the belts and found that the levels are low enough you can fly through the belts without endangering your health.
    1
  841. Only a fool believes the easily-disproven "arguments" the moon landing deniers come up with, while not believing the mountains of evidence that say the moon landings are real.
    1
  842. False. 12 people have.
    1
  843.  @lexxel01  We have a ton of evidence, including independent observations, that show 12 people have walked on the moon. All the deniers ever bring is incredulity and bad arguments.
    1
  844.  @christuff9881  You are assuming turbulence exists when there's no atmosphere. That assumption is wrong, as is visible in lunar landing videos. You are assuming the lunar surface consists of a deep layer of dust, when it actually consists of a thin layer of dust over larger, compacted and interlocking rocks. You are assuming the descent engine is running at full power near the end of the descent, when in fact it was throttled down to about 1300 kg of thrust. You are assuming the thrust comes out of a small nozzle, when in fact the nozzle diameter is more than 1 meter.
    1
  845.  @christuff9881  You're comparing apples and oranges.
    1
  846.  @christuff9881  Apples and oranges. When a basketball is dropped vertically onto a smooth, level basketball court it will keep moving vertically. 1. The ground isn't smooth. Most particles will not be on a level surface, so they will move at an angle. 2. Unlike a human dropping a baseball, there isn't a single impulse being delivered to the dust. The engine is still running, so any dust particles moving straight up will have a headwind at several kilometers per second.
    1
  847.  @christuff9881  It's not 10k, but 2600 pounds at landing, spread over an area about 1 meter in diameter. The exhaust pressure is about 0.15 bar. No, the debris sent flying will not travel back up into the exhaust, into a 1 km/s headwind.
    1
  848. Incorrect. The lunar videos show an environment with lower gravity than Earth, and no atmosphere. That combination is impossible to fake. The landings are real.
    1
  849. Video of the astronauts unpacking the lunar rover: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpqhVKwByZY
    1
  850. Atmospheric pressure on the Moon is 0.3 nPa, or 10E-15 bar. Not a perfect vacuum, but a better vacuum than we can create in a lab on Earth.
    1
  851. There was no Apollo 20. You can't launch a Saturn V without a million people all over Florida noticing it.
    1
  852. Meteor impacts.
    1
  853.  @royalbloodedledgend  No. Meteors are a natural phenomenon.
    1
  854. Of course there's no dust on ascent. The ascent stage engine exhaust fires downward and hits the descent stage. The exhaust stream doesn't hit the ground until they're at higher altitude, and then the exhaust stream has expanded so much it won't disturb the remaining dust any more. In every landing video, at about 1 minute before touchdown you can see the dust being blown away. Because there's no air, all the dust moves in a straight line, instead of billowing into big clouds as it would on Earth.
    1
  855.  @findkip  Those lines move around because the lander isn't coming down vertically, it has a horizontal velocity. So the origin of the exhaust gases moves. Small rocks on the surface create shadows: the gases don't reach the dust behind those rocks. As the lander moves horizontally, those shadows will move.
    1
  856.  @findkip  Read what I wrote earlier. Because there's no atmosphere, the dust doesn't behave the way it would on Earth. I.e. you get a thin layer of dust moving almost horizontally, instead of big clouds. I don't know what you mean by lines disturbing the lunar surface. The dust is above the surface, obviously. Pausing the video just shows a still image of that dust layer.
    1
  857. You're wrong, we have plenty of proof. 1. 380 kg of rock samples 2. laser reflectors left by the Apollo missions 3. photos of the landing sites taken by later lunar orbiters. I could go on...
    1
  858. The Moon landings are real. Every single argument made by moon landing deniers falls apart when you look at it: they're all arguments from ignorance.
    1
  859. The moon does have gravity: it's about 1/6 that of Earth.
    1
  860.  @AWikkedMoon  Humans are not magnetic, as can easily be demonstrated. Yet we are attracted by Earth. That means a force other than electromagnetism is attracting us.
    1
  861. People who believe the moon landings are fake are making wild claims without evidence.
    1
  862. Look at the sky tonight. You can see satellites pass overhead. With simple tools, you can measure their speed and altitude https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zApGNHOi0s You'll find an altitude of more than 200 km and a speed of 8 km/s. Every day, you benefit from data generated in space, proving space is real and Earth is not flat.
    1
  863. Their tracks are still visible: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pnhnx95LkCc
    1
  864. The Apollo videos show an environment with lower gravity than Earth. That is impossible to fake. The landings are real.
    1
  865. The space suits from the 1960s were damaged after 3 days. Now they need a space suit that will work for missions that are months long.
    1
  866. The engine was throttled down quite a bit by the time they touched down, to 2600 lbf. And that force is spread over quite a large area due to the large diameter of the nozzle. Below the thin layer of surface dust, the lunar soil is quite compact, with interlocking rocks. Once you look into the physics of the landing, it's not surprising it didn't leave a large crater.
    1
  867.  @petervankas1352  And? We can also easily establish that geostationary satellites are real, and orbit at 36,000 km. This can be done by pointing an antenna at one and receiving signals from it. The direction of the antenna shows us where the satellite is. Amateurs can even receive radio signals from spacecraft orbiting Mars. I.e. we have absolute proof space is real.
    1
  868. The CMP saw sunsets and sunrises from the command module as it orbited the moon.
    1
  869. Nope. 1. The radiation level is a lot lower than you think. 2. Even at high levels, radiation attacks materials very slowly. This is an issue in nuclear reactors that operate for decades, with a radiation level millions of times higher than you find on the surface of the moon.
    1
  870. Well, the problem isn't removing the dust, it's damage caused by the dust during the EVA.
    1
  871. 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.
    1
  872.  @Gozne  If you used your brain, you wouldn't have fallen for the ignorant 'arguments' used by the deniers.
    1
  873. The "Apollo detectives" never produced any proof. They come up with arguments based on them not understanding the technology, and with outright fabrications.
    1
  874. That's incorrect. Anyone can use simple tools to measure Earth's curvature and see this matched published data. The ancient Greeks were able to figure this out. They were able to measure Earth's diameter with decent accuracy in 250 BC.
    1
  875. Incorrect. The movement of the dust is consistent with a gravity of 1/6 G and no atmosphere.
    1
  876. When come nutter comes up to you and starts ranting that your life is a lie, how calm would you be? The astronauts did the right thing by not indulging that charlatan.
    1
  877.  @LJ...69.  Then provide a link to that video.
    1
  878.  @Texas240  The surface of the Moon consists of a thin layer of fine dust (which you can see being blown away in every landing video), with larger, interlocking rocks underneath. This is a very compact structure, which won't be dislodged by a small rocket.
    1
  879. We figured out how to get through the van Allen belts in 1958. It turns out, you don't need 6 feet of metal. 6 mm will do just fine. For radiation, there are 2 important variables: 1. the radiation intensity 2. the amount of time you are exposed to this intensity. You can multiply these two and get the total radiation dose. Humans die if they receive a dose of about 300 Rad. In 1958, James van Allen and his team discovered the belts that were later named after him. He also measured the radiation intensity. This is what he found: in the part of the belt where the intensity is highest, it is high enough that if you stay for about a week (inside an Apollo command module), you receive a lethal dose. So for the Apollo missions, the trajectory was designed to minimize the amount of time spent there. When the Apollo astronauts flew through the van Allen belts (which took about 3 hours), they received a dose of radiation of between 0.16 and 1.14 rads, or less than 1% of a lethal dose. More details in this video from Scott Manley: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9YN50xXFJY
    1
  880.  @AWikkedMoon  If that's true, why do you talk about "6 feet of metal" when there are no measurements that support that number?
    1
  881. As evidence for the moon landings, we have 382 kg of moon rock, hours of live TV, hours of film, thousands of photos, stacks of measurements and scientific results, eyewitness accounts, and photos of the landing sites made by later lunar orbiters. No moon landing denier has ever produced convincing evidence of his claims. Every single argument they make turns out to be based on a basic lack of understanding of physics, misinterpretation of words, pareidoilia or flat-out lies.
    1
  882. @Blobba Fetta The only people lying are the moon landing deniers. All they can come up with is preposterous nonsense, not a single argument that holds up.
    1
  883.  @uahoeandabeeetch  Every single one of those documentaries is a pile of nonsense. Debunking 'a funny thing happened on the way to the moon', for instance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aP_z8F10oQ We figured out how to get through the van Allen belts in 1958. For radiation, there are 2 important variables: 1. the radiation intensity 2. the amount of time you are exposed to this intensity. You can multiply these two and get the total radiation dose. Humans die if they receive a dose of about 300 Rad. In 1958, James van Allen and his team discovered the belts that were later named after him. He also measured the radiation intensity. This is what he found: in the part of the belt where the intensity is highest, it is high enough that if you stay for about a week (inside an Apollo command module), you receive a lethal dose. So for the Apollo missions, the trajectory was designed to minimize the amount of time spent there. The Apollo astronauts flew through the belts in about 3 hours, while avoiding the part with the highest levels entirely. The hull thickness of the CSM was more than enough to reduce the radiation level inside to manageable levels. Astronauts' overall exposure was actually dominated by solar particles once outside Earth's magnetic field. The total radiation received by the astronauts varied from mission-to-mission but was measured to be between 0.16 and 1.14 rads (1.6 and 11.4 mGy). More details in this video from Scott Manley: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9YN50xXFJY So, all you have is arguments from ignorance.
    1
  884. 1-3 inch.
    1
  885. In every landing video, at about 1 minute before touchdown you can see the dust being blown away. Because there's no air, all the dust moves at high speed in a shallow ballistic trajectory, instead of billowing into big clouds as it would on Earth. The dust moves at hundreds of km/h, and lands far away from the lander. When Apollo 12 landed a few hundred meters from Surveyor 3, the dust thrown up by the descent engine sandblasted Surveyor 3. All of the paint was removed on the side facing the LM.
    1
  886. In every landing video, at about 1 minute before touchdown you can see the dust being blown away. Because there's no air, all the dust moves in a straight line, instead of billowing into big clouds as it would on Earth. That also means the dust uniformly moves at high speed - far too fast to settle on the lander feet.
    1
  887.  @The.ARCHIT3CT  I don't need to go to space to understand the basic physics of space or the lunar surface. That's the nice thing about physics: simple rules govern everything, allowing us to make accurate predictions about a wide variety of events.
    1
  888. The Hasselblads only had to work for 3 days. They still had problems with dust, with mechanisms getting stuck on at least one occasion.
    1
  889.  @BobK5  Your information is incorrect, then.
    1
  890.  @pauldelphos4924  Incorrect. 250º is the _maximum surface temperature_, reached after noon, when the surface has been in constant sunlight for more than 7 days. The camera never reached this temperature. The landings took place early in the lunar morning, with the sun 10º above the horizon. This was chosen because the surface temperature would then be around 0ºC. The cameras were coated in a silver paint, to reflect most of the incoming sunlight, which reduced the heat load by 90%. They were carried by the astronauts, and spent 50% of the time in the shadow of the astronaut, reducing the heat load further. The films used for Apollo were developed for high-altitude reconnaissance flights, and were designed to work in a wide range of temperatures.
    1
  891.  @pauldelphos4924  The Moon rotates on its axis once in 28 days. So for every Earth day, the moon rotates 360/28 is 12 degrees. The longest lunar mission spent 3 days on the surface, so for Apollo 17, the sun rose from 10º to 46º.
    1
  892. Nope. We have abundant proof the landings are real.
    1
  893. No moon landing denier has ever produced convincing evidence of his claims. Every single argument they make turns out to be based on a basic lack of understanding of physics, misinterpretation of words, pareidoilia or flat-out lies.
    1
  894. it's a reflex action.
    1
  895. The only lying has been done by moon landing deniers. The Apollo missions were real.
    1
  896. The Moon landings are real. Every single argument made by moon landing deniers falls apart when you look at it: they're all arguments from ignorance.
    1
  897. The Moon landings are real. There is no evidence that the moon landings were faked. Every single argument made by moon landing deniers falls apart when you look at it: they're all arguments from ignorance.
    1
  898. An electrostatic charge builds up on non-conductive materials. Degaussing works on magnetic materials, which are conductive.
    1
  899.  @glenliesegang8935  return on investment. Every dollar spent on spaceflight adds $7 to the economy.
    1
  900.  @garygagnon5057  No pressure suit is perfect. So in practice, they are designed to tolerate a small amount of leakage, by supplying extra air to keep the air pressure constant even if air leaks out.
    1
  901. Just because you don't understand the scientific process, doesn't make it invalid.
    1
  902. We have.
    1
  903. In every landing video, at about 1 minute before touchdown you can see the dust being blown away. Because there's no air, all the dust moves in a straight line, instead of billowing into big clouds as it would on Earth. That also means the dust uniformly moves at high speed - far too fast to settle on the lander feet.
    1
  904. the only people lying to you are the moon landing deniers.
    1
  905.  @dineshreddy4208  As evidence for the moon landings, we have 382 kg of moon rock, hours of live TV, hours of film, thousands of photos, stacks of measurements and scientific results, eyewitness accounts, and photos of the landing sites made by later lunar orbiters. No moon landing denier has ever produced convincing evidence of his claims. Every single argument they make turns out to be based on a basic lack of understanding of physics, misinterpretation of words, pareidoilia or flat-out lies.
    1
  906.  @dineshreddy4208  It's obvious that tests of Apollo hardware and systems are useless when you build an entirely new rocket and spacecraft. They are not reusing e.g. the Apollo guidance compute, so they have to test the new guidance computer design.
    1
  907.  @flat-earther  Those stories aren't imaginary, they're true. The scam is that you disbelieve actual science and facts, and believe nonsense fed to you by scammers.
    1
  908. That's a load of nonsense.
    1
  909. The radiation levels were not high enough to be a problem for the short Apollo missions. Neither was the dust exposure.
    1
  910.  @jackking9394  Ah, you don't know what the van Allen belts are or how radiation works. For radiation, there are 2 important variables: 1. the radiation intensity 2. the amount of time you are exposed to this intensity. You can multiply these two and get the total radiation dose. Humans die if they receive a dose of about 300 Rad. In 1958, James van Allen and his team discovered the belts that were later named after him. He also measured the radiation intensity. This is what he found: in the part of the belt where the intensity is highest, it is high enough that if you stay for about a week (inside an Apollo command module), you receive a lethal dose. So for the Apollo missions, the trajectory was designed to minimize the amount of time spent there. When the Apollo astronauts flew through the van Allen belts (which took about 3 hours), they received a dose of radiation of between 0.16 and 1.14 rads, or less than 1% of a lethal dose. More details in this video from Scott Manley: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9YN50xXFJY
    1
  911.  @FabioQuadrana  You're wrong, again. Studying the van Allen belts was the first thing NASA did: Explorer 1, 3 and 4, and Pioneer 3 all measured the radiation in the belts. It's funny that you acknowledge NASA discovered the van Allen belts, but continue to dismiss their measurements. The SAA is an area with higher radiation levels, and was avoided by the Apollo missions. And they did take into account the radiation levels outside the VA belts, which are much lower than you think. Again, total radiation exposure for any of the Apollo astronauts over their entire mission was around 1 Rad. The NRC is talking about long missions (e.g. to Mars).
    1
  912.  @FabioQuadrana  In the SAA, the radiation level at altitude X is higher than at the same altitude in other places. Radiation effects on vision were reported by the Apollo astronauts, so whatever source told you NASA was "surprised" wasn't accurate. The sad thing is, you claim NASA fabricated radiation data, but you fail to show measurements that prove your claim. Your opinion is based on "ZOMG radiation is DEADLY" fearmongering, not facts.
    1
  913.  @FabioQuadrana  You're still wrong. Several Apollo astronauts reported seeing flashes. Since then, astronauts on Skylab, Mir, and the Shuttle have all reported them. You didn't read the Augustine Commission report. It is talking about long term missions, and recommends missions be limited to 3-6 months to ensure safe levels of radiation exposure. Clearly the Apollo missions were shorter than that. You're misrepresenting that video. All the video actually says is that they're going to do an unmanned test, and that the van Allen belts is a good place to do that because it provides the highest radiation levels manned missions will encounter. This test makes sure the onboard system function well in that environment. The Apollo spacecraft were tested in the same way, during the Apollo 4 and 6 flights. The comments overlaid on that video are unfounded scaremongering.
    1
  914.  @FabioQuadrana  The Apollo 4 and 6 trajectories took them through the VA belts, so they inevitably provided a test for the onboard systems.  This is a quote from the Artemis 1 press kit that confirms my reading of that video, and disproves yours: "Operating Orion in space will give engineers further confidence the spacecraft can tolerate the extreme thermal environment of deep space and successfully pass through the Van Allen Radiation Belt, that Orion's main engine and solar array wings work as designed, and the flight operations teams can successfully manage and execute the mission, as well as demonstrate the performance of support systems for NASA facilities needed during the flight. " I.e. this flight will test if the spacecraft systems will keep working correctly (which is required to keep the crew safe).
    1
  915.  @Aaron_Bleu  Read what I wrote. For Artemis, they are planning missions that will spend months on the lunar surface. The Apollo suits cannot do that, they wore out in days. Because we haven't been back, we haven't had to advance our space suit technology (what we already had was fine for use in space). For all our advances in technology, building large rockets has not gotten any cheaper. NASA tried to build a cheaper rocket with the Space Shuttle, that wasn't successful. It's not until the last decade that SpaceX has been able to reduce the cost of access to space, and even for them, building a moon-capable rocket is turning out to be a 10 billion dollar project.
    1
  916.  @Aaron_Bleu  False. NASA's budget is around $25 billion per year, of which $8 billion is for manned spaceflight. That was enough to run the Space Shuttle and ISS programs, but not to run a lunar program in parallel with those. So the end of the Space Shuttle program was the first opportunity for NASA to start working on a return to the moon.
    1
  917.  @Aaron_Bleu  The USSR attempted to go to the moon in the 1960s (Space Race, remember?). They failed (look up the N-1 project) due to lack of money. China is working on manned missions to the moon right now, with a goal of being there by 2030.
    1
  918.  @Aaron_Bleu  "everything that has come out" turns out to be nonsense. All moon landing denier arguments fall apart when examined.
    1
  919.  @Aaron_Bleu  Read what I wrote. Ever since the end of Apollo (which was shut down early because NASA's budget was slashed by 80% to pay for the Vietnam war), NASA has had to divide its attention between manned spaceflight (currently at $8 bn/year), unmanned missions (Mars rovers, space telescopes, and everything else ($8 bn/year), space operations ($4B) and R&D. Those 'incredible technological advancements' gave us the Space Shuttle and the ISS. Between 1972 and 2010, no money was spent on specific technology needed for a manned landing on the moon (better space suits, lander, etc.) or on a heavy lift rocket. Since 2010, the heavy-lift rocket has been developed (SLS). Technological advancement has not meant it takes less time to develop new, complex systems. Airplanes take 5-10 years and billions of dollars to develop, by companies that are currently making previous-generation airplanes. Cars take 3 years and a billion dollars to develop, by companies that are currently making previous-generation cars. It's unrealistic to expect NASA to develop a new heavy rocket and spacecraft in less than that, especially when the industry has been in maintenance mode for so long (last Shuttle was built decades ago).
    1
  920. The Apollo missions did have problems with dust, including damage to the outer layers of the spacesuits. Fortunately, the missions were short enough that those problems never became catastrophic, so not much was said about it in the popular press.
    1
  921. After Apollo, we didn't go back because it was too expensive. In the 1960s, NASA's budget was 5 times larger than in the 1970s: After Apollo, they never had the money to run manned missions to the Moon.
    1
  922. Baloney. Everyone benefits immensely from the space program. Satellites provide vital information for navigation, weather prediction, land management, they provide communication in remote regions, etc. Time travel does not exist.
    1
  923. It's called a reflex action. Ever tried to suppress a reflex?
    1
  924. That's nonsense.
    1
  925. The Apollo missions left laser reflectors. Anyone with a laser, a telescope and a camera can use these to measure the distance to the Moon, proving that the Apollo missions were real. The LEM was a vacuum proof pressure vessel - with a door to allow the astronauts in and out. They took the dust along with them.
    1
  926.  @disillusionedanglophile7680  The films were not exposed to cold. The radiation is visible here and there, but was never intense enough to destroy film. They weren't operating inside a nuclear reactor. Lots of pictures of Earth, taken with the lenses they had available (i.e. all optimized for working at close range on the Moon's surface, no massive telelenses). They regularly brushed off camera lenses. Even then, there's video where the image gets blurry because dust got on the lens. There's also video of the astronauts brushing dust off a lens. The LM was too small to have an airlock, so they vented the cabin instead. After the moon walk, they'd go back in, close the door and add oxygen from their storage tank. Every "inconsistency" pointed out by the moon hoaxers turns out to be based on a flawed understanding on their part. A bit of research and rigorous application of physics blows away any argument they've ever made.
    1
  927. The solar wind consists of atoms that escape the Sun. The vacuum of space is not a perfect vacuum: around the Moon, its density is about 1 atom per cm3, with many of those atoms coming from the Sun. We still call it a vacuum because for all practical purposes, the pressure is zero.
    1
  928. All of the evidence says otherwise.
    1
  929. Humanity IS doing it in 2022: preparations for a new Moon program (Artemis) are underway.
    1
  930. Helium can be trapped in rock. And it can exist on the surface: the solar wind tries to push it away, but the moon's gravity tries to hold it down. There's a balance. So, your "fact" turns out to be based on not understanding the physics involved.
    1
  931. The Moon landings are real. Every single argument made by moon landing deniers falls apart when you look at it: they're all arguments from ignorance.
    1
  932.  @maxwellbruce4747  The lunar surface consists of compact, interlocking rocks with a thin layer of dust on top. A small engine like the LM descent engine isn't going to dislodge those rocks. At touchdown, the LM descent engine produces only 1300 kg of thrust. That's less than most jet engines, and you don't see jet engines ripping up the tarmac on airports.
    1
  933.  @maxwellbruce4747  A few hiccups on the first launch of a new rocket are not unusual. They don't indicate failure.
    1
  934. People who believe the moon landings are fake are making wild claims without evidence.
    1
  935.  @mikewnith9294  I've examined NASA's evidence extensively and found no indication any of it is fake. This is how it works in a court of law: each side is free to provide evidence, with a chain of custody that shows how they made it. If the other side wants to dispute that evidence, they have to show evidence of their own that proves their position. Moon landing deniers never do that: they just bluster, but every single argument they make falls apart under examination. So, on one hand we have NASA providing evidence, on the other hand we have deniers offering no evidence of their own. I know which side is more reliable.
    1
  936. The Moon missions ended because they were expensive. It took 5% of the Federal budget for a decade to get to the Moon. After Apollo, NASA's budget was slashed to 1/5 of what it was. So NASA concentrated on cheaper efforts: a reusable spacecraft (Space Shuttle), and learning how to live in space for longer periods (via the ISS). That took most of the budget until recently, and now NASA is preparing to return to the Moon, with the Artemis program.
    1
  937.  @kaloogarele  It's easy to be efficient when you're a. given a blank check, and b. not hobbled by Congress dictating how you're to build your rocket. The budget for Artemis is small compared to Apollo, so things take longer.
    1
  938.  @kaloogarele  Congress: "We want to go to the moon". Also Congress: "find a way to do it that reuses Space Shuttle engines and SRBs, even though those are not the optimal engineering choices for this purpose"
    1
  939. Troll.
    1
  940. For radiation, there are 2 important variables: 1. the radiation intensity 2. the amount of time you are exposed to this intensity. You can multiply these two and get the total radiation dose. Humans die if they receive a dose of about 300 Rad. In 1958, James van Allen and his team discovered the belts that were later named after him. He also measured the radiation intensity. This is what he found: in the part of the belt where the intensity is highest, it is high enough that if you stay for about a week, you receive a lethal dose. So for the Apollo missions, the trajectory was designed to minimize the amount of time spent there. When the Apollo astronauts flew through the van Allen belts (which took about an hour), they received a dose of radiation of between 0.16 and 1.14 rads, or less than 1% of a lethal dose.
    1
  941. Scientists in the early 1960s used an incomplete model to estimate how much dust there would be. These days we know that meteor impacts fuse lots of dust together, so on average, the dust layer never gets very thick.
    1
  942. Look up what happens to steel when heated. At only 500 ºC it starts to lose tensile strength. The collapse of the WTC towers is exactly what you'd expect to happen when an airliner crashes into them.
    1
  943.  @Righteous628  Read what I wrote. Far below its melting point, steel starts to weaken. The impact took out part of the structure, the fire (office furniture mixed with jet fuel) did the rest. The plane that crashed into the Empire State Building was a B-25, which carries at most 3700 litres of fuel. The WTC attacks were done with Boeing 767s, which carry 50-75 tons of fuel, i.e. 15-20 times as much. They also weigh 10 times as much as a Mitchell, and they fly twice as fast, so they carried 200 times as much kinetic energy. The WTC buildings were designed to take an impact from a small aircraft, they were not designed to survive a hit from an aircraft this large.
    1
  944.  @Righteous628  You're still arguing from ignorance. Read up on what happens to steel when exposed to temperatures of 500 ºC, well within the range of burning jet fuel.
    1
  945.  @Righteous628  Bringing easily verifiable facts into the discussion is now 'gaslighting'?
    1
  946.  @lorichet  You're welcome to read van Allen's paper on the subject. His conclusion was that the radiation intensity is low enough that it's not necessary to block the radiation completely: the spacecraft's hull reduces the exposure by enough that for short missions (like the Apollo missions) the risk to astronauts is negligible. Radiation blocking will become necessary for missions that are longer than 3 months, e.g. some of the lunar missions being planned now for Artemis, or a manned mission to Mars. That's what the NASA site is referring to.
    1
  947.  @lorichet  I've read several of his papers, including that one. I've also read some of his letters, including one that says this: "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 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." This is consistent with the radiation data he published in his papers. There is no reason to doubt this data.
    1
  948.  @lorichet  I don't have to. The radiation dose of one X-ray is tiny: I can get 2500 X-rays in one year before I hit the legal radiation dose limit (50 mSv/year). The X-ray operator gets protection because his total yearly dose could exceed this. This is in line with what I said before: the total dose is intensity multiplied by exposure time. That's how the Apollo crews could get through the VA belts without needing heavy shielding.
    1
  949. As evidence for the moon landings, we have 382 kg of moon rock, hours of live TV, hours of film, thousands of photos, stacks of measurements and scientific results, eyewitness accounts, and photos of the landing sites made by later lunar orbiters. Detailed analysis of the physics and engineering required shows that it is possible to land on the moon with 1960s technology. No moon landing denier has ever produced convincing evidence of his claims. Every single argument they make turns out to be based on a basic lack of understanding of physics, misinterpretation of words, pareidoilia or flat-out lies. The Moon missions ended because they were expensive. It took 5% of the Federal budget for a decade to get to the Moon. After Apollo, NASA's budget was slashed to 1/5 of what it was. So NASA concentrated on cheaper efforts: a reusable spacecraft (Space Shuttle), and learning how to live in space for longer periods (via the ISS). Making the Space Shuttle reusable meant it became a large, heavy spacecraft, which couldn't carry enough fuel to escape from Earth orbit for lunar missions. That doesn't mean we "lost the technology" to do manned lunar missions, it just means we chose not to do manned lunar missions for a while.
    1
  950.  @donaldgodin3491  Unlike Santa Claus, we have lots of evidence that says the moon missions are real, and no evidence that says they're fake.
    1
  951.  @donaldgodin3491  Rockets work on Newton's third law: the action of throwing mass out the back pushes the rocket forward. No atmosphere necessary. About 30,000 launches since 1957 demonstrate that this works. Nobody was on the moon to see the LEM coming down, so we have no video of that. On Apollo 15, 16 and 17, a TV camera was placed on the lunar rover, which had a TV transmitter so it could transmit directly to Earth, and receive commands from Earth. This camera was controlled from Earth, by Ed Fendell in Mission Control. He worked out when to send the commands, to compensate for the time delay in sending the commands to the moon. It took 3 tries to get this right: on Apollo 15 and 16, the LM soon left the field of view of the camera. On Apollo 17, he got the timing right and we have a splendid view of the ascent. No cameraman necessary.
    1
  952.  @dariusz078  False, false, false and false. 1. No, NASA did not lose any data on the lunar rock samples. Complete information on where they were found, and where they've been since is still available. 2. No, they did not lose a single photograph out of the thousands taken by the Apollo crews. The original film is still kept at JSC. Scans of every single frame at the highest possible resolution are publicly available via the March to the Moon website. That vault also holds all of the 16mm film recorded by the astronauts. Again, high-res digital transfers are publicly available. NASA retains complete recordings of all TV broadcasts, and all of the audio recorded during the mission: not just the radio communications, but recordings made in the CM and LM, and all of the audio from Mission control. There's 19,000 hours of audio for Apollo 11 alone. All publicly available.  3. No, they did not lose transcripts. All of them remain in NASA archives and are available via the Apollo Surface Journal website. 4. The only 'sensor readings' they 'lost' was engineering telemetry that was vital for troubleshooting during the program, but became useless when the Apollo program ended. All of the science data was transcribed and kept, along with medical data, and anything else that continued to have value post-Apollo. 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. We still have every single science result from every experiment done by Apollo. We still have all of the lunar rock samples.
    1
  953. No, it doesn't. An electrostatic charge will do it.
    1
  954.  @shannonjaensch3705  The truth is that every time we measure the surface of our planet, we find curvature.
    1
  955.  @shannonjaensch3705  Yep. Here's how you can do it too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYz_Hs35YrQ
    1
  956. Look at the sky tonight. You can see satellites pass overhead. With simple tools, you can measure their speed and altitude https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zApGNHOi0s You'll find an altitude of more than 200 km and a speed of 8 km/s. Every day, you benefit from data generated in space, proving space is real and Earth is not flat.
    1
  957.  @conradmbugua9098  Yes, there's a difference: satelloons don't exist. Satellites are at an altitude of 200 km and more (about 6 times higher than any balloon has ever been) and move at a speed of 28,000 km/h, about 280 times faster than any balloon has ever been. If you've never seen a satellite, you haven't looked very hard or you're living in the middle of a large city with too much light pollution.These images were made by an amateur astronomer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waxqSCEFkBo
    1
  958. The Apollo missions were on the Moon during the lunar day, i.e. they were working in bright sunlight. They took photos with the correct exposure for bright sunlight. That exposure time is far too short to see the stars.
    1
  959. No, NASA didn't say that. In every landing video, at about 1 minute before touchdown you can see the dust being blown away. Because there's no air, all the dust moves in a straight line, instead of billowing into big clouds as it would on Earth. That also means the dust uniformly moves at high speed - far too fast to settle on the lander feet. The lunar surface consists of compact, interlocking rocks with a thin layer of dust on top. This is obvious in all of the photos and video.
    1
  960.  @edwardevans4100  Armstrong's jump off the ladder landed on the footpad, not on lunar soil. His next word were 'I'm going to step off the LM now', and he made one careful step off the footpad and onto the soil.
    1
  961.  @edwardevans4100  What's on video, and in the transcript, and is obvious from the design of the LM is that an astronaut who descends from the ladder will end up on the footpad. The footpads of the LM are 92 cm in diameter. In the video, you see Armstrong jumping down from the last rung of the ladder. Then he says, "I'm at the foot of the ladder. The LM footpads are only depressed in the surface about 1 or 2 inches, although the surface appears to be very, very fine grained, as you get close to it. It's almost like a powder. (The) ground mass is very fine. (Pause) Okay. I'm going to step off the LM now." Then he takes the step off the footpad (with one foot, still holding onto the ladder), and he says, "That's one small step for (a) man; one giant leap for mankind". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XL_SrBMBRCc
    1
  962. The internal pressure was kept as low as possible, and the suit layers were not stretchy enough to balloon up.
    1
  963. Look at the sky tonight. You can see satellites pass overhead. With simple tools, you can measure their speed and altitude https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zApGNHOi0s You'll find an altitude of more than 200 km and a speed of 8 km/s. Every day, you benefit from data generated in space, proving space is real and Earth is not flat.
    1
  964. That's baloney. We figured out how to get through the van Allen belts in 1958. For radiation, there are 2 important variables: 1. the radiation intensity 2. the amount of time you are exposed to this intensity. You can multiply these two and get the total radiation dose. Humans die if they receive a dose of about 300 Rad. In 1958, James van Allen and his team discovered the belts that were later named after him. He also measured the radiation intensity. This is what he found: in the part of the belt where the intensity is highest, it is high enough that if you stay for about a week (inside an Apollo command module), you receive a lethal dose. So for the Apollo missions, the trajectory was designed to minimize the amount of time spent there. The Apollo astronauts flew through the belts in about 3 hours, while avoiding the part with the highest levels entirely. The hull thickness of the CSM was more than enough to reduce the radiation level inside to manageable levels. Astronauts' overall exposure was actually dominated by solar particles once outside Earth's magnetic field. The total radiation received by the astronauts varied from mission-to-mission but was measured to be between 0.16 and 1.14 rads (1.6 and 11.4 mGy). More details in this video from Scott Manley: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9YN50xXFJY
    1
  965.  @martiansurgery  Outside the belts, the radiation level is lower, and the same principle (dose is intensity times duration). Trips outside the VA belts of up to 6 months pose no risk to crew.
    1
  966.  @martiansurgery  The Moon missions ended because they were expensive. It took 5% of the Federal budget for a decade to get to the Moon. After Apollo, NASA's budget was slashed to 1/5 of what it was. So NASA concentrated on cheaper efforts: a reusable spacecraft (Space Shuttle), and learning how to live in space for longer periods (via the ISS). That's why we haven't been back.
    1
  967. You're wrong. There's lots of evidence the moon landings are real, and none that they were faked. In 1969, there was no CGI.
    1
  968. The actual science says that missions of up to 6 months don't pose a radiation risk. Longer than that, and we'll need radiation shielding.
    1
  969. None of that is true.
    1
  970. A hydrogen-powered jet engine burns hydrogen, i.e. it combines hydrogen with oxygen from the atmosphere, creating water.
    1
  971.  @shawnnorris3410  False. We have independent verification of the moon landings.
    1
  972. False. There are dozens of stamps of Armstrong.
    1
  973.  @SJSUPhilosopher  The 10-cent First Man On The Moon air mail stamp from 1969 is not enough for you?
    1
  974.  @SJSUPhilosopher  Apollo was a joint effort by 450,000 people, not a one-man project.
    1
  975.  Chippanapatchi  For radiation, there are 2 important variables: 1. the radiation intensity 2. the amount of time you are exposed to this intensity. You can multiply these two and get the total radiation dose. Humans die if they receive a dose of about 300 Rad. In 1958, James van Allen and his team discovered the belts that were later named after him. He also measured the radiation intensity. This is what he found: in the part of the belt where the intensity is highest, it is high enough that if you stay for about a week (inside an Apollo command module), you receive a lethal dose. So for the Apollo missions, the trajectory was designed to minimize the amount of time spent there. When the Apollo astronauts flew through the van Allen belts (which took about 3 hours), they received a dose of radiation of between 0.16 and 1.14 rads, or less than 1% of a lethal dose. More details in this video from Scott Manley: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9YN50xXFJY
    1
  976. While technically true, the density of the geocorona at the moon's distance is 0.2 atoms per cm3, i.e. a vacuum for all practical purposes.
    1
  977. No, it'll be the 7th manned moon mission.
    1
  978. Look at the sky tonight. You can see satellites pass overhead. With simple tools, you can measure their speed and altitude https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zApGNHOi0s You'll find an altitude of more than 200 km and a speed of 8 km/s. There is no way to fake that. During the Apollo missions, amateur astronomers could see the CSM/LM on its way to the Moon. Every day, you benefit from data generated in space. GPS, accurate weather forecasts, TV broadcasts. There's no way to fake all that data.
    1
  979. Nope. We have photos of that haze.
    1
  980.  @enanoh8971  We do have photos of some exoplanets. They all show tiny dots right next to a star. Unfortunately, we also have YT channels producing fake photos of exoplanets. The fakes show details. We know those are fake because no telescope in operation today has the resolution to show exoplanets as more than a tiny dot.
    1
  981.  @anuardelcastillo2627  That story is full of holes, based on no research whatsoever.
    1
  982. You mean the Van Allen belts. NASA figured out how to get past those in 1958. For radiation, there are 2 important variables: 1. the radiation intensity 2. the amount of time you are exposed to this intensity. You can multiply these two and get the total radiation dose. Humans die if they receive a dose of about 300 Rad. In 1958, James van Allen and his team discovered the belts that were later named after him. He also measured the radiation intensity. This is what he found: in the part of the belt where the intensity is highest, it is high enough that if you stay for about a week, you receive a lethal dose. So for the Apollo missions, the trajectory was designed to minimize the amount of time spent there. When the Apollo astronauts flew through the van Allen belts (which took about an hour), they received a dose of radiation of between 0.16 and 1.14 rads, or less than 1% of a lethal dose.
    1
  983.  @bursebladesbits  This is all easily-verifiable fact. The only misinformation around here is produced by moon landing deniers. They haven't been able to find any evidence that supports their claims, so they resort to lies.
    1
  984. You're arguing from ignorance.
    1
  985. Look at the sky tonight. You can see satellites pass overhead. With simple tools, you can measure their speed and altitude https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zApGNHOi0s You'll find an altitude of more than 200 km and a speed of 8 km/s. Every day, you benefit from data generated in space, proving space is real and Earth is not flat.
    1
  986.  @catguy2304  We figured out how to get through the van Allen belts in 1958. For radiation, there are 2 important variables: 1. the radiation intensity 2. the amount of time you are exposed to this intensity. You can multiply these two and get the total radiation dose. Humans die if they receive a dose of about 300 Rad. In 1958, James van Allen and his team discovered the belts that were later named after him. He also measured the radiation intensity. This is what he found: in the part of the belt where the intensity is highest, it is high enough that if you stay for about a week (inside an Apollo command module), you receive a lethal dose. So for the Apollo missions, the trajectory was designed to minimize the amount of time spent there. The Apollo astronauts flew through the belts in about 3 hours, while avoiding the part with the highest levels entirely. The hull thickness of the CSM was more than enough to reduce the radiation level inside to manageable levels. Astronauts' overall exposure was actually dominated by solar particles once outside Earth's magnetic field. The total radiation received by the astronauts varied from mission-to-mission but was measured to be between 0.16 and 1.14 rads (1.6 and 11.4 mGy). More details in this video from Scott Manley: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9YN50xXFJY
    1
  987. Yo re "convinced" based on no data at all.
    1
  988. For the first steps, a TV camera was installed on the LM. This was on the inside of a cover panel, and the mounting was designed that when the cover was open, the camera would be aimed at the ladder. The astronauts could open the cover panel, and operate the camera from inside the LM. No "cameraman" needed. Look at the sky tonight. You can see satellites pass overhead. With simple tools, you can measure their speed and altitude https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zApGNHOi0s You'll find an altitude of more than 200 km and a speed of 8 km/s. Every day, you benefit from data generated in space, proving space is real and Earth is not flat. There is no firmament. That whole concept is based on a translation error. In the original text, the Hebrew word raki'a is used. This word means simply "expansion", and is no more specific than our "sky". In the Vulgate this was translated as 'firmamentum', in line with what scholars of that day believed the sky consisted of. The original text does not describe a dome: that was added by the translators who created the Vulgate. God's cosmology is closer to what we know today than that of the Latin scholars of 380 AD who created the Vulgate. So there's no reason to diminish His creation by considering the heavens above a dome with lights instead of actual space with actual stars.
    1
  989. Aldrin actually didn't say that. That's just a lie made up by moon landing deniers, and typical for the quality of their arguments.
    1
  990. As evidence for the moon landings, we have 382 kg of moon rock, hours of live TV, hours of film, thousands of photos, stacks of measurements and scientific results, eyewitness accounts, and photos of the landing sites made by later lunar orbiters. Detailed analysis of the physics and engineering required shows that it is possible to land on the moon with 1960s technology. No moon landing denier has ever produced convincing evidence of his claims.
    1
  991.  @5-Minutegeography  The "petrified wood" story is bullshit. In 2006, a Dutch museum hosted an art exhibit that showcased forgeries. One of the exhibits, claiming to be a moon rock, ended up in the museum's collection afterwards; its paperwork was lost. 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 sample is not one of them. So we have 382 kg of actual moon rock, samples of which have been examined and authenticated by mineralogists all over the world.
    1
  992.  @5-Minutegeography  4. False. The tracks and objects visible on the moon show patterns consistent with someone walking. India's Chandrayaan-2 orbiter has photographed the Apollo 11 and 12 landing sites, and the LM descent module is recognizable: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1YDQtR6fwY
    1
  993.  @5-Minutegeography  5. No. All we have is bullshit claims by people who argue from ignorance. None of their claims hold up.
    1
  994.  @5-Minutegeography  6. False. In 1958, James van Allen and his team at the University of Iowa discovered the belts that were later named after him, using measurements from the NASA missions Explorer 1. With Explorer 3 and 4 and Pioneer 3 he measured the radiation intensity. This is what he found: in the part of the belt where the intensity is highest, it is high enough that if you stay for about a week (inside an Apollo command module), you receive a lethal dose. So for the Apollo missions, the trajectory was designed to minimize the amount of time spent there. The Apollo astronauts flew through the belts in about 3 hours, while avoiding the part with the highest levels entirely. The hull thickness of the CSM was more than enough to reduce the radiation level inside to manageable levels. Astronauts' overall exposure was actually dominated by solar particles once outside Earth's magnetic field. The total radiation received by the astronauts varied from mission-to-mission but was measured to be between 0.16 and 1.14 rads (1.6 and 11.4 mGy). More details in this video from Scott Manley: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9YN50xXFJY
    1
  995.  @5-Minutegeography  2. In all of the TV and film, all movement is consistent with a gravity level of 1/6 G, and no atmosphere. This is impossible to fake here on Earth to the level you'd require.
    1
  996.  @5-Minutegeography  7. Every argument made by the deniers is based on ignorance.
    1
  997.  @5-Minutegeography  Yes, books full of nonsense and halfbaked 'arguments' that themselves have been debunked using actual science.
    1
  998.  @5-Minutegeography  Those temperature extremes do exist. But the Apollo missions were all planned to start at the same point in the lunar day: with the sun 10º above the horizon, and a surface temperature of about 0ºC. That meant you don't have to design for extreme cold. The cameras were coated in a reflective paint that reduced the heat load by 90%. The result is that the films (designed for high-altitude reconnaissance missions) never exceeded their temperature range.
    1
  999.  @5-Minutegeography  In addition to websites that contain the superficial detail, NASA has technical reports with a lot more detail. that's where I got my information.
    1
  1000.  @5-Minutegeography  You're incorrect again. That video doesn't say NASA doesn't know how to get through the VA belt. That engineer is talking about the first Orion test flight. This was done to make sure the Orion capsule works correctly in the VA belt: electronics can malfunction in high-radiation environments. Orion's electronics are designed to deal with this, but a practical test is required as part of due diligence. All of the hardware on Orion is new, so it has to be tested in operational circumstances before being considered human-rated. The Apollo program did these tests as well, during the Apollo 4 and 6 flights.
    1
  1001.  @5-Minutegeography  As I've already told you, yes we figured out how to get through the van Allen belts. By 1962, we knew that the radiation levels are low enough that any manned spacecraft can pass through them without harming its crew. No shielding is necessary.
    1
  1002.  @5-Minutegeography  Radiation levels on the moon are not a problem either. The levels are low enough that you'd have to stay on the lunar surface for 6 months before you get a dangerously high dose of radiation.
    1
  1003.  @5-Minutegeography  You're wrong on both counts. NASA, and the world, figured out how to get through the van Allen belts in 1962. The solution was obvious once we had mapped the radiation levels. Since then, the facts haven't changed, and neither has the "narrative". And 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.
    1
  1004.  @5-Minutegeography  That's because there is a bright object in the foreground (the LM) which reflects a lot of extra light on the nearby ground.
    1
  1005.  @5-Minutegeography  American Moon is full of crappy arguments that have been debunked. Not one of their claims stands up to examination. Their claims about the van Allen belts in particular are worthless. The warnings Van Allen gave in the articles highlighted in American Moon were based on an initial estimate of radiation intensity which was out by a factor of a thousand. After writing the articles Van Allen co-authored a paper in 1962 where he admitted “our 1959 assumptions... are seen to be invalid”. Rather than 10¹¹ electrons per cm²/sec, there were only 10⁸. The radiation was much less dangerous than Van Allen had thought. In fact, as NASA knew perfectly well, "The shielding provided by the Apollo space capsule walls was more than enough to shield the astronauts from all but the most energetic, and rare, particles". So American Moon cherrypicked its information. The van Allen belts were discovered in 1958, and half a dozen missions between 1958 and 1962 contributed information. AM uses the incomplete information known in 1958 as its argument.
    1
  1006.  @5-Minutegeography  No, the lie is believing "we can't get through the van Allen belts" despite all of the evidence to the contrary. In 1958 our understanding of the VA belts was incomplete. then the US and Russia launched a series of missions dedicated to mapping the van Allen belts. The conclusion from the data produced by those missions is unequivocal: 1. we can't have long manned missions orbiting inside the VA belts. If you stay there for a week, the crew gets a lethal dose of radiation. 2. when you fly to the moon, you can plan a trajectory that avoids the highest radiation zones entirely, and takes 3 hours to cross the lower-radiation regions of the VA belts. This results in a radiation exposure of less than 1 Rad, or 0.3% of a lethal dose.
    1
  1007.  @5-Minutegeography  And again you're arguing from ignorance. The LM consisted of two parts: the descent module, which nearly ran out of fuel on Apollo 11, and the ascent module, with its own engine and fuel tanks, which were still full after the landing.
    1
  1008.  @5-Minutegeography  Yes, that's what I'm telling you. The radiation intensity in an airport scanning machine is higher than that on the moon.
    1
  1009. How can anyone believe it was faked?
    1
  1010. That video is a load of crap, made by a charlatan who makes money from selling books on the "moon hoax".
    1
  1011.  @allanb52  No, they are testing the Orion capsule to make sure it is safe. Its modern electronics are far more susceptible to radiation damage than Apollo-era electronics, or humans.
    1
  1012. False. Plenty of words were said on the subject during Apollo. I have a 74-page summary of all the problems caused by dust, written in 1972.
    1
  1013.  @allanb52  Published in science journals, and still available in NASA's technical document library.
    1
  1014.  @chadsimerson2291  That's incorrect. Rockets work by pushing against their own exhaust gases. Look at the sky tonight. You can see satellites pass overhead. With simple tools, you can measure their speed and altitude https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zApGNHOi0s You'll find an altitude of more than 200 km and a speed of 8 km/s. Every day, you benefit from data generated in space, proving space is real and rockets work in a vacuum.
    1
  1015.  @chadsimerson2291  The first video proves you can see details on satellites with a small telescope. The second video applies solid scientific principles to measure speed and altitude. Just because you don't like the results, doesn't mean they're fake. As for your balloon idea: we don't have enough helium to do that. 30,000 balloons times 1.7 million m3 of helium per balloon is 51 billion m3. The known total world reserve of He is around 30 billion m3. It gets worse: high-altitude balloons don't live very long: they break in less than a month. So you'd run out of helium in short order. 2. Have you ever looked at the satellite dishes installed on many homes? All across the country, they point in the same direction: a stationary point 36,000 km above the equator. You can't fake that with balloons. 3. GPS satellites broadcast signals that allow you to work out where you are, but they can also be used to calculate the position of the satellite. That position is at an altitude of about 20,000 km, again with a speed of about 8 km/s. That's 4 pieces of evidence, any one of which proves that your idea is incorrect. Face it: space is real, satellites are real.
    1
  1016.  @chadsimerson2291  Funny, you're talking about "no evidence" but you're the one offering no evidence for your wild claim about the second video. Proving Earth is not flat: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBdcG5IQOVo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDy95_eNPzM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbaz2MUGf2Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLPPE3_DVCw
    1
  1017.  @chadsimerson2291  That's incorrect. Rocket engines push off their own exhaust gases. Newton's third law predicts this correctly. And the atmosphere is not "the aether". Aether is a failed theory that is disproven. A vacuum is an absence of matter. It can't push back. We've successfully launched about 10,000 spacecraft using this principle.
    1
  1018.  @chadsimerson2291  Our atmosphere consists of air, not aether. In medieval science, aether was the hypothesized material that fills the region of the universe beyond the terrestrial sphere, i.e. outside our atmosphere. The concept of aether was used in several theories to explain several natural phenomena, such as the traveling of light and gravity. In the late 19th century, physicists postulated that aether permeated all throughout space, providing a medium through which light could travel in a vacuum. Tesla was a proponent of this idea. The Michelson–Morley experiment proved this hypothesis incorrect. On Earth, a vacuum does not occur because our planet has an atmosphere. Air will rush into any cavity open to the atmosphere. Earth's gravity exerts a force on the atmosphere, keeping the atmosphere together and preventing it from escaping. This is what creates the vacuum of space: all matter gravitates toward planets or stars, leaving the space between them empty. Your reference to an "infinite" vacuum indicates you don't understand the physics involved. A vacuum doesn't exert a force. The only force is exerted by a gas under pressure. On Earth's surface, the air exerts a force of 10E5 N/m2 (or a pressure of 10E5 Pascal - the definition is a pressure of 1 Pa is equal to a force of 1 N/m2)). We don't notice that because there's an equilibrium. When you create a pressure difference, the net force can be calculated by taking the difference in pressure. Let's take a vacuum chamber. A really good one, that can create a perfect vacuum. If the walls of this chamber have a total area of 1 m2, the force exerted is 10E5 Pa minus 0 = 10E5 Pa is 10E5 N/m2. That's the total force acting on the walls of the chamber. The same applies in reverse, in a spaceship in space. Here the pressure inside the pressure hull is 10E5 Pa, and the pressure outside is 0. Again the force on the pressure hull is is 10E5 N/m2. An aluminium cylinder with a wall thickness of 4.8 mm (as used on the ISS) can withstand this force indefinitely. This principle is demonstrated every day by thousands of airliners. The cabin is pressurized to 75 kPa, while the pressure at an altitude of 10 km is 30 kPa. so the difference is 45 kPa. The hull thickness is around 2 mm. Heck, a can of Coke has a bigger pressure difference than the ISS, and that can is so thin you can crush it in you hands once it's empty.
    1
  1019.  @chadsimerson2291  You're ignoring gravity again. A gas expands to fill its container only in the absence of external forces. Gravity is that external force, pulling the atmosphere down to Earth's surface. This is easy to demonstrate: make an accurate pressure measurement at ground level, go to the top of the nearest tall building and measure again. The atmospheric pressure at the top will be lower than at the bottom, demonstrating that pressure differences exist without a physical barrier between the two places. That difference is caused by gravity.
    1
  1020.  @chadsimerson2291  There you go again, arguing from ignorance. Buoyancy is caused by gravity, and density only has an effect in a gravitational field. Gravity may be a weak force, but there's 10E24 kg of Earth mass generating it. We can measure this force, by the way. 1 m3 of air weighs 1.3 grams. That's the gravitational force acting on that air: 0.13 mN.
    1
  1021.  @chadsimerson2291  More ignorance. As I already said, buoyancy is a derivative force: it only exists because of gravity. Experiments done in freefall show that in the absence of gravity, there's no buoyancy.
    1
  1022. There was a first, and a second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth. They produced a mountain of evidence that all shows the lunar landings are real. We have definitive proof the Apollo videos were not recorded on Earth. We have multiple independent confirmations from third parties that the landings are real. Meanwhile, all the moon landing deniers have is bad arguments like "we've never been back therefore we never went".
    1
  1023. You're arguing from ignorance. 1. The lunar rover didn't appear out of nowhere. It was folded up and stowed in one of the compartments of the LEM descent stage. There is video of the astronauts unfolding it. 2. The original audio clearly has delays. Some documentaries edit those out. 3. The camera that filmed the ascent was installed on the lunar rover. It was controlled remotely by a technician in Houston. See, what you think are arguments fall apart when you look up how they did it.
    1
  1024. No, that's not logical at all. During Apollo, NASA could spend 5% of the US Federal budget. After Apollo that figure dropped to 1%. Unlike computers, rockets remained very expensive until about 10 years ago, so no, lunar tourism was never affordable.
    1
  1025. The 'moon hoax' story was created by a failed author in an attempt to make money by selling books. He didn't do any research: every single one of his arguments falls apart when you start looking at them closely. He didn't provide any evidence for his arguments. He failed to explain how we ended up possessing 380 kg of material from the Moon, he failed to explain why the Soviets accepted the Moon landing as real. etc. IOW, he was a charlatan trying to make a quick buck off the gullible.
    1
  1026. You haven't bothered to think it through. The filed only has to be strong enough to repel small particles of dust. The astronauts are much heavier than that and won'd be lifted by such a weak field.
    1
  1027. We figured out how to get through the van Allen belts in 1958. For radiation, there are 2 important variables: 1. the radiation intensity 2. the amount of time you are exposed to this intensity. You can multiply these two and get the total radiation dose. Humans die if they receive a dose of about 300 Rad. In 1958, James van Allen and his team discovered the belts that were later named after him. He also measured the radiation intensity. This is what he found: in the part of the belt where the intensity is highest, it is high enough that if you stay for about a week (inside an Apollo command module), you receive a lethal dose. So for the Apollo missions, the trajectory was designed to minimize the amount of time spent there. The Apollo astronauts flew through the belts in about 3 hours, while avoiding the part with the highest levels entirely. The hull thickness of the CSM was more than enough to reduce the radiation level inside to manageable levels. Astronauts' overall exposure was actually dominated by solar particles once outside Earth's magnetic field. The total radiation received by the astronauts varied from mission-to-mission but was measured to be between 0.16 and 1.14 rads (1.6 and 11.4 mGy). More details in this video from Scott Manley: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9YN50xXFJY
    1
  1028. The Apollo missions left laser reflectors. Anyone with a laser, a telescope and a camera can use these to measure the distance to the Moon, proving that the Apollo missions were real.
    1
  1029. Every single argument in 'a funny thing happened on the way to the moon' has been debunked. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aP_z8F10oQ And Bart Sibrel has been exposed as a liar.
    1
  1030. As evidence for the moon landings, we have 382 kg of moon rock, hours of live TV, hours of film, thousands of photos, stacks of measurements and scientific results, eyewitness accounts, and photos of the landing sites made by later lunar orbiters. Detailed analysis of the physics and engineering required shows that it is possible to land on the moon with 1960s technology. Analysis of the photos and video shows they were not made on Earth, but in an environment with 1/6 G and no atmosphere. Despite 50 years of trying, no moon landing denier has ever produced convincing evidence of his claims.
    1
  1031.  @georgeszilva1223  I have examined photos, video and science papers from Apollo and found no inconsistencies. I've also examined the claims made by moon landing deniers and found they're full of basic lack of understanding of physics, along with outright lies. None of their claims are valid.
    1
  1032.  @123davepreston  Video of astronaut exiting the hatch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fIHLXrugLc and a 3D scan of the LM and spacesuit shows that the suit fits in the hatch opening: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hYIJbfS80Q Unlike you, the Apollo designers actually did their homework, and made sure everything fit before launching the first mission.
    1
  1033.  @123davepreston  So you're going to just ignore the measurements that show the astronauts fit through the hatch?
    1
  1034.  @123davepreston  Unlike you, I've actually tried this. The PLSS is 10" thick and 20" wide. I can easily crawl through a hatch 22" high. The PLSS had a frame which protected the equipment inside, and it's not like they were going to run up to the hatch and bang into it at high speed. Being careful was necessary in each part of the mission, so it wasn't necessary to make this procedure idiotproof. The 3D scan of the hatch and spacesuit confirms that fitting through the hatch is not a problem.
    1
  1035. In every landing video, at about 1 minute before touchdown you can see the dust being blown away. Because there's no air, all the dust moves in a straight line, instead of billowing into big clouds as it would on Earth. That also means the dust uniformly moves at high speed - far too fast to settle anywhere on the lander.
    1
  1036. The 'moon hoax' story was created by a failed author in an attempt to make money by selling books. He didn't do any research: every single one of his arguments falls apart when you start looking at them closely. He didn't provide any evidence for his arguments. He failed to explain how we ended up possessing 380 kg of material from the Moon, he failed to explain why the Soviets accepted the Moon landing as real. etc. IOW, he was a charlatan trying to make a quick buck off the gullible.
    1
  1037.  @marelizemeier  All of the photo and film originals are and remain available at the Film Archive (Building 8) at Johnson Space Center (JSC). March To the Moon allows you to view high-resolution scans of all of them.
    1
  1038. Same as on Earth: dirt doesn't stick as well on smooth surfaces.
    1
  1039. In every landing video, at about 1 minute before touchdown you can see the dust being blown away. Because there's no air, all the dust moves in a straight line, instead of billowing into big clouds as it would on Earth. That also means the dust uniformly moves at high speed - far too fast to settle on the lander feet. Dust did cause problems on the Apollo missions: punctures in suits, for example. Every claim made by moon landing deniers falls apart when you apply critical thinking and actual physics.
    1
  1040. That's nonsense.
    1
  1041. ​ @emilylee6018  And? Confidential information includes for example employee records and medical information. That doesn't make NASA a military organization: every company has this type of rule.
    1
  1042. We figured out how to get through the van Allen belts in 1958. For radiation, there are 2 important variables: 1. the radiation intensity 2. the amount of time you are exposed to this intensity. You can multiply these two and get the total radiation dose. Humans die if they receive a dose of about 300 Rad. In 1958, James van Allen and his team discovered the belts that were later named after him. He also measured the radiation intensity. This is what he found: in the part of the belt where the intensity is highest, it is high enough that if you stay for about a week (inside an Apollo command module), you receive a lethal dose. So for the Apollo missions, the trajectory was designed to minimize the amount of time spent there. The Apollo astronauts flew through the belts in about 3 hours, while avoiding the part with the highest levels entirely. The hull thickness of the CSM was more than enough to reduce the radiation level inside to manageable levels. Astronauts' overall exposure was actually dominated by solar particles once outside Earth's magnetic field. The total radiation received by the astronauts varied from mission-to-mission but was measured to be between 0.16 and 1.14 rads (1.6 and 11.4 mGy). More details in this video from Scott Manley: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9YN50xXFJY
    1
  1043. SLS was designed to do that, and pretty soon we'll have Starship too.
    1
  1044. Yes, those sunrises were from the orbiting spacecraft. But the moon is tidally locked to Earth, so one side always faces Earth. One lunar day is 28 Earth days long.
    1
  1045. The moon landings are real.
    1
  1046. it doesn't corrode them, it abrades them.
    1
  1047. You're wrong. The radiation exposure data was not lost, I was able to look it up quite easily this year. No Apollo astronaut was exposed to more than 1.14 Rad, about 1% of a lethal dose. All 382 kg of lunar soil samples are present and accounted for, and samples are being examined daily by scientists all over the world. The Artemis 1 mission carries radiation sensors because they want to collect more data, not because they lost the old data.
    1
  1048.  @FFE-js2zp  You're wrong, NASA has admitted no such thing. 9 Apollo missions sent humans through the van Allen belts. Since then, there's been 50 years of progress in e.g. radiation measurement, so NASA's taking advantage of that to get supplemental data.
    1
  1049.  @FFE-js2zp  Some of your posts have been shadowbanned, so I haven't seen any link. But if it's anything like this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aISLUFprVAA that's not an admission of any kind.
    1
  1050.  @FFE-js2zp  Shadowbanning is what happens when you're trying to sell lies.
    1
  1051.  @FFE-js2zp  You'll find that the actual percentage is a lot higher than that.
    1
  1052.  @FFE-js2zp  More nonsense from you, I see. There's no "ferocious devastation". Astronauts traveling through the VA belts receive less than 1% of a lethal dose of radiation.
    1
  1053.  @FFE-js2zp  You continue to be wrong. The risk mitigation is for the *Artemis spacecraft*, and while it's out there we might as well get some new data on radiation exposure for humans. Bean was wrong, by the way. It's not surprising: they had a mountain of information to digest and little time to do it in. Since radiation wasn't something the crew could do anything about (radiation exposure was entirely determined by their trajectory and the design of the CM), they wouldn't have spent much time on it. Go read van Allen's papers from the 1958-1962 era, detailing his findings and the solution he proposed, which was used for the Apollo missions.
    1
  1054. The problem with that theory is that in 50 years, nobody has been able to prove any of the evidence for the Apollo landings was faked. Quite the contrary.
    1
  1055. The Apollo missions left laser reflectors. Anyone with a laser, a telescope and a camera can use these to measure the distance to the Moon, proving that the Apollo missions were real.
    1
  1056. Believing we didn't go to the moon isn't science: there is no evidence that we didn't go there, and lots of evidence that we did.
    1
  1057. Earth does case a shadow onto the Moon: lunar eclipses are caused by Earth's shadow. And the Moon does revolve, it's just that its revolution speed matches its orbital speed, so we always see the same side of the Moon.
    1
  1058.  @IvanMectin  Any pressure suit leaks a bit. So they had a specification for the maximum leakage rate (180 cm3/min, if I remember correctly), and they built the air supply to keep up with that.
    1
  1059. The Apollo missions did have problems with dust, including damage to the outer layers of the spacesuits. Fortunately, the missions were short enough that those problems never became catastrophic, so not much was said about it in the popular press.
    1
  1060. The ascent stage weighed 2 tons empty, and carried 2 tons of fuel. This is plenty to accelerate to 1600 m/s in lunar gravity.
    1
  1061. False. Each mission arrived during the lunar morning, and stayed for up to 3 Earth days. They had no sunrise/sunset.
    1
  1062. Amazing how there are no stars when you're in bright daylight. Learn how photography works.
    1
  1063. As evidence for the moon landings, we have 382 kg of moon rock, hours of live TV, hours of film, thousands of photos, stacks of measurements and scientific results, eyewitness accounts, and photos of the landing sites made by later lunar orbiters. Detailed analysis of the physics and engineering required shows that it is possible to land on the moon with 1960s technology. Despite 50 years of trying, no moon landing denier has ever produced convincing evidence of his claims.
    1
  1064.  @sheepherding101  False. I've examined both the evidence for the moon landings and the arguments made by the deniers. Everything NASA says checks out. Everything the deniers say falls apart: contains logical fallacies, fake science etc.
    1
  1065. False. Every single "deathbed confession" has been shown to be a fake. For 50 years, no denier has ever been able to produce evidence that the landings were fake, so they resort to making things up.
    1
  1066.  @SON-of-a-TrueKING  No, none of the astronauts have ever said any of that. Those are the facts.
    1
  1067.  @SON-of-a-TrueKING  I've done my homework. And unlike you, I haven't fallen for the drivel dished up by the deniers.
    1
  1068. We have independent verification. For example, India's Chandrayaan-2 orbiter has photographed the Apollo 11 and 12 landing sites: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1YDQtR6fwY
    1
  1069.  @SON-of-a-TrueKING  No, they haven't. Anyone telling you that is lying.
    1
  1070. Eric Dubay is a charlatan who sells lies for money. Wake up.
    1
  1071.  @ezradaiquiri11311  All photos and film taken by the Apollo missions are available for free on NASA websites, along with piles of science results. Dubay promotes flat Earth, says the Holocaust doesn't exist, and thinks Santa Claus is Satan. He's a crank.
    1
  1072. As evidence for the moon landings, we have 382 kg of moon rock, hours of live TV, hours of film, thousands of photos, stacks of measurements and scientific results, eyewitness accounts, and photos of the landing sites made by later lunar orbiters. No moon landing denier has ever produced convincing evidence of his claims. Every single argument they make turns out to be based on a basic lack of understanding of physics, misinterpretation of words, pareidoilia or flat-out lies.
    1
  1073. James van Allen says, 'stop misquoting me'. In 1958, James van Allen and his team at the University of Iowa discovered the belts that were later named after him, using measurements from the NASA missions Explorer 1. With Explorer 3 and 4 and Pioneer 3 he measured the radiation intensity. By 1962, we had a good map of the van Allen belt, and this is what it told us: in the part of the belt where the intensity is highest, it is high enough that if you stay for about a week (inside an Apollo command module), you receive a lethal dose. So for the Apollo missions, the trajectory was designed to minimize the amount of time spent there. The Apollo astronauts flew through the belts in about 3 hours, while avoiding the part with the highest levels entirely. The hull thickness of the CSM was more than enough to reduce the radiation level inside to manageable levels. Astronauts' overall exposure was actually dominated by solar particles once outside Earth's magnetic field. The total radiation received by the astronauts varied from mission-to-mission but was measured to be between 0.16 and 1.14 rads (1.6 and 11.4 mGy). More details in this video from Scott Manley: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9YN50xXFJY
    1
  1074.  @litterbug1483  The thermosphere is hot. Its density is extremely low, so the amount of heat that can be transferred is also extremely low. In practice, you design for the amount of heat coming in in the form of direct sunlight (1300 W/m2). The contribution from the thermosphere is negligible in comparison.
    1
  1075. No moon landing denier has ever produced convincing evidence of his claims. Every single argument they make turns out to be based on a basic lack of understanding of physics, misinterpretation of words, pareidoilia or flat-out lies.
    1
  1076. The radiation levels in the VA belts are much lower than you think, and are no threat for missions like Apollo. If you stay inside the center of the VA belt for about a week (inside an Apollo command module), you receive a lethal dose. So for the Apollo missions, the trajectory was designed to minimize the amount of time spent there. The Apollo astronauts flew through the belts in about 3 hours, while avoiding the part with the highest levels entirely. The hull thickness of the CSM was more than enough to reduce the radiation level inside to manageable levels. Astronauts' overall exposure was actually dominated by solar particles once outside Earth's magnetic field. The total radiation received by the astronauts varied from mission-to-mission but was measured to be between 0.16 and 1.14 rads (1.6 and 11.4 mGy). More details in this video from Scott Manley: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9YN50xXFJY
    1
  1077. The "constant" rain of meteorites works out to 1 meteorite per 1000 years for the area covered by any of the Apollo missions.
    1
  1078. Regolith is rock. I assume you mean the dust layer on top, this was shown to be not 30 ft, but 3 inch. So that's 3 out of 3 of your arguments debunked. And this is typical: all the deniers can come up with is half-baked ideas not based on reality.
    1
  1079. We've known since 1962 that the radiation levels in the van Allen belts are not an issue for missions like Apollo, which spend only a few hours there.
    1
  1080. You're arguing from ignorance. The dust was a problem on each Apollo mission. The missions were just short enough that none of those problems were catastrophic.
    1
  1081. You'd have to give the moon an atmosphere first. Lakes would evaporate immediately in a vacuum.
    1
  1082. The Apollo lunar suits consisted of 16 layers, using a wide variety of materials including plastics.
    1
  1083. You're wrong. All the astronauts wore dosimeters.
    1
  1084. Dust was a problem for the Apollo missions, just not a catastrophic one. For the much longer missions being planned for Artemis, the problem is going to be worse, so a better solution is required.
    1
  1085. The ascent engine is a rocket, i.e. it doesn't suck in vast amounts of air. You could fly a rocket engine through a volcanic eruption without having problems.
    1
  1086. 9:05 is Ed White during a Gemini spacewalk. The Gemini spacesuit had a rotating helmet, the Apollo suit didn't.
    1
  1087.  @igordrakulovic6857  Everything I said is easily verifiable.
    1
  1088. That, or vibrations in the ground made the flagpole and flag move.
    1
  1089.  @robertrust9223  I've reviewed a lot of footage of the Apollo missions. I found 2 instances where the flag was moving: one is when the astronauts are inserting the flagpole into the soil (obviously, vibrations are causing the flag to wave). The other turns out to be a camera artefact. The TV cameras they used would shift part of the image if the brightness of the image changed. There are 0 cases where the flag moves in a way that's consistent with it being in an atmosphere.
    1
  1090. I hate to break it to you, but the moon landings are real. The only lies you hear about them are produced by moon landing deniers.
    1
  1091. Look at the sky tonight. You can see satellites pass overhead. With simple tools, you can measure their speed and altitude https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zApGNHOi0s You'll find an altitude of more than 200 km and a speed of 8 km/s. Every day, you benefit from data generated in space, proving space is real and Earth is not flat.
    1
  1092. As evidence for the moon landings, we have 382 kg of moon rock, hours of live TV, hours of film, thousands of photos, stacks of measurements and scientific results, eyewitness accounts, and photos of the landing sites made by later lunar orbiters. No moon landing denier has ever produced convincing evidence of his claims. Every single argument they make turns out to be based on a basic lack of understanding of physics, misinterpretation of words, pareidoilia or flat-out lies.
    1
  1093.  @physicalivan  Of course we can. All of the photos and video are consistent with an environment of 1/6 G and no atmosphere, a combination that cannot be faked on Earth. Any geologist can examine the lunar rock samples and see they're not from Earth. Amateurs were able to see the Apollo spacecraft on its way to the moon. I could go on, but you get the idea. The deniers are the ones who can't prove their claims.
    1
  1094.  @physicalivan  You continue to be wrong. In addition to TV cameras (whose quality isn't great, but enough to measure things like acceleration) the astronauts carried 16mm film cameras with excellent image quality. And I'm saying amateurs watched the Apollo spacecraft during and after the TLI burn, escaping Earth orbit and on the way to the moon.
    1
  1095. Sadly you are the one that has fallen for the psychosis. On one hand, we have piles of evidence that show the Apollo missions are real. In 50 years, none of the deniers have been able to disprove any of it. Their arguments turn out to be junk.
    1
  1096. If you were a skeptic, you'd see that every claim made by moon landing deniers falls apart.
    1
  1097. We've known about the lunar dust and how much of it was kicked up since 1969. In every landing video, at about 1 minute before touchdown you can see the dust being blown away. Because there's no air, all the dust moves in a straight line. Apollo 12 landed a few hundred meters from Surveyor 3 and went over to inspect it. They found that the side facing Apollo 12 had been sandblasted. They removed a few parts from Surveyor 3 (including one of its cameras) and took them back to Earth. One side of that camera has all of the paint stripped by the dust kicked up by Apollo 12.
    1
  1098.  @Alex-bz7re  I'm saying the total of bodyweight plus backpack is 160 kg, i.e. the backpack alone is 80 kg. In lunar gravity, that weight is divided by 6, and a 13 kg backpack isn't exactly a heavy burden.
    1
  1099.  @Alex-bz7re  I've actually measured the fall at the start of this video, it's 2.4 times slower than a fall on Earth. As you'd expect in 1/6 G.
    1
  1100.  @Alex-bz7re  I'm serious, and this is easily verifiable.
    1
  1101. The only dumb people are the ones who believe the landings were faked, when all of the evidence says they were real.
    1
  1102. Nope. The Apollo spacesuit and PLSS were built to tolerate small leaks. The air supply had enough capacity to keep the suit at normal pressure up to a specified leak rate. A large leak would have been a problem, but none of the missions had large leaks in their spacesuits.
    1
  1103.  @trevortrueman  We have a dozen different ways to establish the shape of the Earth. All of those agree with each other: Earth is an oblate spheroid. These methods are available to everybody: there are no "gatekeepers to the truth", anyone can use simple tools to measure the shape of our planet. 1. Earth's curvature can be measured directly, using simple tools. Every surveyor in the world sees Earth's curvature on a daily basis. With cheap binoculars and a ruler you can do this too. 2. Eratosthenes was able to measure Earth's circumference in 250 BC, coming within 10% of the actual value. The ancient Greeks all knew Earth was not flat. 3. Anyone can take photos at high altitude and see the curvature of the horizon. That means anyone claiming Earth is flat is tying to deceive you. The Bible does not claim Earth is flat. Charlatans claim it does, based on flawed translations and misinterpretations. Those are profane and vain babblings.
    1
  1104. As evidence for the moon landings, we have 382 kg of moon rock, hours of live TV, hours of film, thousands of photos, stacks of measurements and scientific results, eyewitness accounts, and photos of the landing sites made by later lunar orbiters. Detailed analysis of the physics and engineering required shows that it is possible to land on the moon with 1960s technology. Despite 50 years of trying, no moon landing denier has ever produced convincing evidence of his claims.
    1
  1105. As evidence for the moon landings, we have 382 kg of moon rock, hours of live TV, hours of film, thousands of photos, stacks of measurements and scientific results, eyewitness accounts, and photos of the landing sites made by later lunar orbiters. No moon landing denier has ever produced convincing evidence of his claims. Every single argument they make turns out to be based on a basic lack of understanding of physics, misinterpretation of words, pareidoilia or flat-out lies.
    1
  1106.  @FFE-js2zp  That's incorrect. All 382 kg is present, accounted for, and accessible to anyone who presents a coherent research proposal. The "petrified rock" story is bullshit. In 2006, a Dutch museum hosted an art exhibit that showcased forgeries. One of the exhibits ended up in the museum's collection afterwards; its paperwork was lost. In 2009, this was examined and found to be wood. None of your other claims come close to the truth either. That's just misinformation dreamed up by moon landing deniers.
    1
  1107.  @FFE-js2zp  You're wrong. Video of the laboratory where the samples are kept: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxZ_iPldGtI
    1
  1108. No, not in enough detail to be useful.
    1
  1109. Bart Sibrel is a scammer who sells lies for money. The "deathbed confession" has been shown to be fake. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6LpuuOx6kk
    1
  1110. As evidence for the moon landings, we have 382 kg of moon rock, hours of live TV, hours of film, thousands of photos, stacks of measurements and scientific results, eyewitness accounts, and photos of the landing sites made by later lunar orbiters. No moon landing denier has ever produced convincing evidence of his claims. Every single argument they make turns out to be based on a basic lack of understanding of physics, misinterpretation of words, pareidoilia or flat-out lies.
    1
  1111. Of course they can. It's the same principle used on airliners: when you fly at high altitude the cabin is pressurized. Nothing impossible about that.
    1
  1112. As evidence for the moon landings, we have 382 kg of moon rock, hours of live TV, hours of film, thousands of photos, stacks of measurements and scientific results, eyewitness accounts, and photos of the landing sites made by later lunar orbiters. No moon landing denier has ever produced convincing evidence of his claims. Every single argument they make turns out to be based on a basic lack of understanding of physics, misinterpretation of words, pareidoilia or flat-out lies.
    1
  1113. That's nonsense. We figured how to get through the van Allen belts in 1958. For radiation, there are 2 important variables: 1. the radiation intensity 2. the amount of time you are exposed to this intensity. You can multiply these two and get the total radiation dose. Humans die if they receive a dose of about 300 Rad. In 1958, James van Allen and his team discovered the belts that were later named after him. He also measured the radiation intensity. This is what he found: in the part of the belt where the intensity is highest, it is high enough that *if you stay for about a week*, you receive a lethal dose. So for the Apollo missions, the trajectory was designed to minimize the amount of time spent there. When the Apollo astronauts flew through the van Allen belts (which took about an hour), they received a dose of radiation of between 0.16 and 1.14 rads, or less than 1% of a lethal dose. That 90% failure rate is cherrypicking. A lot of early unmanned landings failed. The moon was our first target for missions beyond Earth orbit, so there was a lot to figure out. What you're missing is that the success rate climbed rapidly through the 1960s. By 1966, we were making soft landings on the Moon with the Surveyor missions. The Soviets had a lot more failures than the US - they were falling behind in the race to the Moon. these are the simple facts: between 1957 and 1969, we figured how to get to the Moon and return astronauts safely to Earth. Then we did that, with one failure out of 7 missions. The scientific method does not support your view: you're cherrypicking instead of looking at all the data.
    1
  1114. Nope. That interview was faked, not the moon landings.
    1
  1115.  @RhythmicEye  As evidence for the moon landings, we have 382 kg of moon rock, hours of live TV, hours of film, thousands of photos, stacks of measurements and scientific results, eyewitness accounts, and photos of the landing sites made by later lunar orbiters. No moon landing denier has ever produced convincing evidence of his claims. Every single argument they make turns out to be based on a basic lack of understanding of physics, misinterpretation of words, pareidoilia or flat-out lies.
    1
  1116. It's about 12 litres/hour.
    1
  1117. The photos and particularly the video show an environment with no atmosphere and 1/6 G gravity. This is impossible to fake on Earth. And we have independent verification of the moon landings: The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter photographed all of the Apollo landing sites: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pnhnx95LkCc India's Chandrayaan-2 orbiter has photographed the Apollo 11 and 12 landing sites: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1YDQtR6fwY
    1
  1118.  @visionentertainment8006  Have you ever seen a 1960s movie? The special effects are laughably obvious. When an object falls on Earth, it accelerates at 9.8 m/s2. On the Moon, it accelerates at 1.6 m/s2. When we measure falling objects in any of the lunar videos, they fall at 1.6 m/s2. Even today, we can't fake that convincingly. Modern CGI gets close, but is still in the 'uncanny valley' where the movement of objects is not quite realistic.
    1
  1119.  @visionentertainment8006  No amount of props, studio models etc. can make e.g. the dust thrown up by the astronauts' boots fall at 1/6 G. 1960s props, studio models etc. were obvious. Even the highest-budget productions from that era look unrealistic. The lunar videos don't have that problem, i.e. they didn't use special effects.
    1
  1120.  @visionentertainment8006  We have independent verification of the moon landings: 1. During the Apollo missions, amateur astronomers could see the CSM/LM on its way to the Moon. 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. India's Chandrayaan-2 orbiter has photographed the Apollo 11 and 12 landing sites: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1YDQtR6fwY 5. Japan's Selene lunar orbiter has mapped the Apollo landing sites and found the topography matches that seen in Apollo photos.
    1
  1121. Don't be ridiculous. The first TV transmissions in the 1930s were live. We had technology before the invention of the internet, you know.
    1
  1122.  @jkuang  There are several ways to create long-distance radio links. 1. Use a powerful transmitter, so the receivers can be simple equipment. 2. Use a sensitive receiver, so the transmitter can be small. 3. Use antennas that collect a lot of signal, so both transmitter and receiver can be small. NASA used a combination of 2 and 3. They built giant dish antennas (with a diameter of 70 meters) to receive Apollo's signals, with the best receiver electronics money can buy (the receiver is cooled to 4 K to reduce noise). These antennas are sensitive enough to receive data from Voyager 1 at a distance of 18 billion km from Earth. The sorter the distance, the more bandwidth you get for the same amount of transmitter power. Receiving a signal that contains audio, telemetry and video from the moon is simple with these antennas.
    1
  1123.  @jkuang  Mars missions are constrained by the amount of data they can send to Earth, a distance 100 times larger than the distance to the moon. In most cases, there's no scientific benefit to sending video instead of photos, so they're not going to make the rover and the relay spacecraft larger and heavier to send all that data.  Apollo was PR as well as science, so they made different tradeoffs. And being a lot closer, transmitting analog, low-res video was feasible.
    1
  1124.  @jkuang  Billions of transistors don't change the basic facts of transmission system design. More bits to transmit means you need more transmitter power or a larger antenna. Both power and weight are in short supply for Mars rovers. The moon is 100 times closer which changes that equation drastically.
    1
  1125. Nope. The exhaust of the rockets is a rounding error compared to that from aircraft.
    1
  1126.  @michaelgecale7076  No moon landing denier has ever produced convincing evidence of his claims. Every single argument they make turns out to be based on a basic lack of understanding of physics, misinterpretation of words, pareidoilia or flat-out lies.
    1
  1127. The size of objects in a photo depends on the focal length of the lens. Take a photo of the Moon from Earth with the same lens, and it will appear 4 times smaller.
    1
  1128. You're arguing from ignorance. That "moon rock NASA sent to the Netherlands" was not sent by NASA. It was a gift from a private individual (who knew he didn't have a Moon rock) to a Dutch museum. All of your other arguments fall apart if we examine them closely as well. You've been duped by charlatans who make money selling you moon hoax stories.
    1
  1129.  @reneverstraeten  That rock was not given by anyone connected to NASA. The museum acquired the rock after the death of former Prime Minister Willem Drees in 1988. Drees received it as a private gift on Oct. 9, 1969, from then-U.S. ambassador J. William Middendorf. NASA has never authenticated the “rock” (there are no documents tracing its origins), and it’s far too big to be a donated lunar sample. Scientists have examined thousands of actual lunar rock samples, the only sample that turned out to be not from the Moon is this one rock whose provenance is unclear. That's evidence for fraud on Middendorf's part, not evidence that the moon landings were faked.
    1
  1130. As evidence for the Apollo moon landings, we have 382 kg of moon rock, hours of live TV, hours of film, thousands of photos, stacks of measurements and scientific results, eyewitness accounts, and photos of the landing sites made by later lunar orbiters. Despite 50 years of trying, no moon landing denier has ever produced convincing evidence of his claims.
    1