Comments by "H. de Jong" (@h.dejong2531) on "Mark Felton Productions" channel.

  1. So, instead of looking up a drawing of the LM you just jump to a conclusion. That's how all moon landing denier arguments are made, by the way: no research. This video shows that the LM looked like. As you can see, the engines are smaller than you think. And it's a myth that rocket engines must cause huge vibrations. The Shuttle solid rocket boosters did, but liquid-propellant engines are much smoother.
    5
  2. You forgot to look more than skin-deep. The "tin foil" is multilayer foil insulation, which was used on the outside of the structure. Inside there's a pressure hull.
    4
  3. 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.
    4
  4. 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.
    4
  5.  @macjoe4448  If you believe we couldn't build a moon mission in the 1960s, you don't understand the technology they used.
    4
  6. That's baloney. The Americans and several other nations were able to track the Russian missions on their way to the moon, and receive their transmission (incl. the first photos of the far side of the moon, for instance). The Luna missions were real.
    3
  7. There's a third big nuance: Their moon rocket wasn't ready . The first stage of the Saturn V was first tested on a test stand in 1965. The Russians started working on the N-1 in 1965, then decided not to build a test stand because that would take too long. They decided to do all-up testing instead: launching rockets without payload to test them. They planned up to 14 test launches. In 1969, the N-1 flew for the first time. It failed. A second launch later that year failed a few seconds after liftoff. This saw the N-1 crashing back down onto the launch pad, and exploding there with a force estimated at 2 kilotons - one of the largest non-nuclear explosions in history. This destroyed the launch pad, and caused a delay of 2 years before the third N-1 could be launched. The Russians lost interest after Apollo 11. Inertia kept the program going until a fourth launch in 1972. The four launches showed progress, but all 4 failed during operation of the first stage.
    3
  8. 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
  9. 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.
    2
  10.  @allpraisetothemosthigh7770  The moon is list by the sun. We know that because we can observe the motions of the sun and moon, and the pattern of lighting on the moon is consistent with that. If the moon somehow produced light itself, it wouldn't have phases.
    2
  11.  @WerZel  No, they don't have to 'figure it out again'. They're building new hardware, because reusing a 60 year old design would be dumb. So that new design has to be tested, to see if the new design is safe. 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 meant no hotels on the moon.
    2
  12.  @WerZel  When you look at the moon with your binoculars, the smallest details you can see are 10 km across.
    2
  13. No. The Russians had an extensive Mars program in the 1960s and 1970s, but it was a string of failures. No rovers were carried. You maybe thinking of the Lunokhod lunar rovers?
    2
  14. Astronauts got accosted by a lunatic who started ranting at them that their life's work must be a lie, and make unreasonable demands. I'd run from such a nutter too.
    1
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. We have 10,000 space missions that say otherwise. There is no dome.
    1
  19. 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
  20. Thos "secret documents" are fabrications. 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
  21. Of the 455,000 people who worked on Apollo, 200 were of German descent. So 0.05% German.
    1
  22. That's incorrect. We knew the distance to the moon with an accuracy of a few meters because of radar ranging long before anyone put laser reflectors on the moon. The Soviet laser reflectors were placed by the Lunokhod missions in 1970 and 1973.
    1
  23.  @southerneruk  Incorrect. In 1958, the Royal Radar Establishment in England measured the distance to the moon with an accuracy of 1.2 km. The amount of fuel needed is determined by gravity, not distance: the Apollo spacecraft required a single engine burn to get out of Earth's gravity and on the way to the moon (TLI), after which it could coast indefinitely.
    1
  24.  @southerneruk  I'm saying an accuracy of 1.2 km is plenty to plan a moon mission. Thanks to the retroreflectors left on the moon by Apollo and the Lunokhod missions, we can now do more accurate measurements. Radar distance measurements didn't use civilian ATC passive radar. The Americans used the AN/APS-20 military radar with a custom antenna. The British Royal Radar Establishment used a custom 2 MW radar transmitter.
    1
  25.  @southerneruk  Again, the amount of fuel they needed did not depend on the distance. It depended on the gravity of Earth and the moon, which was known very accurately by then. Of the 380,000 km between Earth and Moon, 376,500 km is spent coasting.
    1
  26.  @southerneruk  That's true, but irrelevant. To get to the moon, only one parameter is important: the strength of Earth's gravitational field. That alone determines how much fuel you need: you accelerate the ship to overcome Earth's gravity, then you coast the rest of the way. At some point. the Moon's gravity becomes stronger than Earth's and you start accelerating towards the moon. A small burn puts you in orbit around the moon. The distance between Earth and Moon determines how long you'll coast.
    1
  27.  @southerneruk  No!. Fuel is used to accelerate the spacecraft, which is determined entirely by the gravitational force it has to work against. Once the spacecraft has been accelerated to 10.4 km/s, you can switch off the engines and coast indefinitely, because you've escaped Earth's gravity. Then it doesn't matter if it's 384,000 or 384,001 or 3,000,000 km to the moon, because all you do for that entire stretch is coast with the engines switched off.
    1
  28.  @southerneruk  Yes, Earth's gravity will slow you down. The key is to accelerate once to Earth escape velocity (10.4 km/s), then you can coast until you cross into the Moon's Hill sphere (the area where the moon's gravity is dominant). You'll slow down along the way, but that doesn't matter - it's easy to account for that in your calculations.
    1
  29. 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. 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
  30. 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
  31. Every single drawing for the Saturn V and Apollo has been archived at the Smithsonian.
    1
  32. Delays are par for the course for the first launch of a new rocket.
    1
  33. 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
  34.  @ronaldford8527  Shadows going in different directions is easily done with one light source and uneven terrain, such as the moon has. The "petrified wood" 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. All of your arguments fall apart when you research them.
    1
  35.  @stoneysauce  That's idiotic nonsense. The radiation levels are low enough that we could run missions to the moon that are 3 months long without any health problems
    1
  36.  @ronaldford8527  False. The direction of a shadow is dictated by 3 items: 1. the direction of the light source, 2. the shape of the object, and 3. the shape of the surface the shadow is projected onto.
    1
  37.  @ronaldford8527  Because for a show like Mythbusters, shooting in a studio is easier than shooting outside. Less schlepping with cameras, no changing lighting to deal with, no delays due to weather.
    1
  38. 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. As it turns out, you don't need much computing power to get to the moon.
    1
  39. 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.
    1
  40. 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