Comments by "H. de Jong" (@h.dejong2531) on "Moon landing conspiracy theorists say this photo is new ‘hoax’ proof | New York Post" video.

  1. 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. Is that enough to launch 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.
    11
  2.  @anniehopkins8470  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. Making a radio connection over 230,000 miles with a battery-powered radio on one end is simple: have a massive antenna with a sensitive receiver on the other end.
    8
  3.  Cadillac Kadafi  No, that's not what he said. That assumption is absurd, because the quote appears in the middle of an interview where Aldrin talks about his experience on the moon.
    8
  4. That's incorrect. 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, it's an indication we never went back after Apollo. In the rest of the interview, he talks about his experiences on Apollo 11.
    6
  5.  Cadillac Kadafi  'A funny thing' is not a documentary, it's a pack of lies and misinformation.
    4
  6.  Cadillac Kadafi  No, that video where he says they have to verify the Orion capsule works as designed. We don't need to invent anything to survive the VA belts: we just need to limit the time we spend there.
    4
  7.  @Kenzo90-d5n  Nope. Drawings for every single one of the 5.5 million parts that make up the Saturn V and Apollo spacecraft are available.
    4
  8. That's a rock.
    3
  9.  Cadillac Kadafi  You're referring to a video of an engineer talking about the first Orion test flight (ETF-1 in 2014). 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 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". The Apollo program did these tests as well, during the Apollo 4 and 6 flights.
    3
  10. That is a screengrab from the video camera, which was set up on a stand so it could operate unattended.
    2
  11.  @Bibiisachildkiller  Nope, this is all well-documented facts. Federal budgets are public record, the decision to end Apollo is public record, leftover Apollo hardware can be seen in museums. Apollo and Saturn V drawings are archived at the Smithsonian.
    2
  12. 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
  13.  @factsoverfear9771  You're wrong, it's actually very simple to see only one side of the moon at all times: all it takes is to have the moon's orbital period (the time it takes to orbit Earth once) to be the same as its rotational period (i.e. the time it takes to spin on its axis once).
    2
  14. ​ @factsoverfear9771  Experiments show that at the impact speeds we see on the moon, craters remain circular for impacts at all angles greater than 15º.
    2
  15.  Cadillac Kadafi  Nope, that's not what he said.
    2
  16. 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. Is that enough to launch 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.
    2
  17. Incorrect. No such video was revealed, all you have are wild claims not supported by evidence.
    1
  18. At the end of the Apollo program, the manufacturing chains for Apollo and Saturn V were closed down: we didn't need them any more, or rather, couldn't afford them any more. 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). The Space Shuttle wasn't capable of lunar missions (not enough delta-V on that huge spacecraft). Does that mean NASA didn't have the technology to get to the moon? No. They just didn't have a suitable spacecraft in production. There, argument debinked.
    1
  19.  @Bibiisachildkiller  You're calling them liars but I don't see you offering any proof. The evidence provided by NASA would be accepted in any court of law. If you want to claim the evidence has been faked, that's up to you to prove.
    1
  20.  @Bibiisachildkiller  I see no proof, only wild claims that don't pass even the most basic tests. No, ending the Apollo program without a direct replacement is not proof that Apollo was fake.
    1
  21.  @Bibiisachildkiller  You keep repeating that as if it means something. It doesn't. We developed the technology in the 1960s. Then we stopped producing that hardware. That doesn't mean the technology was "lost".
    1
  22.  @Bibiisachildkiller  You keep claiming the Eiffel tower must be fake because we haven't built one since 1900. You claim the Jaguar E-type must be fake because we haven't built one since the 1970s. That's the quality (or rather, lack thereof) of your argument.
    1
  23.  @Bibiisachildkiller  You're the one making that incoherent argument: "we stopped making X, so X had to be fake".
    1
  24.  @Bibiisachildkiller  You continue to be wrong. We did build the Saturn V and Apollo hardware. Evidence of that is everywhere: half a million people saw Apollo 11 take off. Amateur astronomers saw Apollo 11 leave Earth orbit and on its way to the Moon. Hardware for Apollo 18-20 was built but never used, so complete rockets and spacecraft are on display in museums. Drawings for every single part of the Saturn V and Apollo are available in public archives. We have photos of Apollo hardware left on the moon, taken by later lunar missions.
    1
  25. ​ @Bibiisachildkiller  No proof, other than the 382 kg of moon rock, live TV, hours of film, thousands of photos, stacks of measurements and scientific results, and eyewitness accounts, you mean?
    1
  26. 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. That makes them none of those things.
    1
  27. 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
  28. 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. Was it mad to have a fixed deadline? Sure. Did they cut corners? Yes. Apollo 13 shows that. Did they succeed? Yes!
    1
  29.  @robertdanos805  If you think the moon landings were faked, you do not "understand everything". You've been duped by hacks: every single argument made by moon landing deniers falls apart when you look at it: they're all arguments from ignorance.
    1
  30. 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. 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. Your 'argument' is a case in point. 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.
    1
  32.  @narajuna  Perverted? No. We can see light from stars billions of lightyears away. We can receive radio from those distances too. Receiving signals from the moon is easy. The delay is given by the distance (380,000 km /300,000 km/s is 1.26 seconds).
    1
  33.  @Judaism_Terror  There is a mountain of evidence that shows the Apollo landings are real and no evidence, none at all, that they were faked.
    1
  34. 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
  35. Your'e wrong. 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.
    1
  36. 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
  37. 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. Is that enough to launch 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. There is no gravity in space, but the moon does have gravity. It's about 1.6 m/s^2, or 6 times weaker than Earth's gravity.
    1
  38.  @factsoverfear9771  You can't throw rocks at speeds of several km/s. I'm saying (and there are studies that back me up) that asteroids at that speed leave circular impact craters even when hitting at angles as low as 15º. Impacts at lower angles are rare because as an asteroid approaches the moon, its trajectory is deflected by the moon's gravity, which increases the impact angle.
    1
  39.  @factsoverfear9771  In order to send a manned mission to the moon, you need 2 things:  1. know how to do it  2. have hardware capable of doing it.  1. was figured out in the 1960s, and with that knowledge NASA built the Apollo and Saturn V so they had #2. After Apollo the knowledge was retained, but hardware capable of manned lunar missions was no longer in production, so #2 was lost.
    1
  40.  @ramonandrajo6348  Stanley Kubrick was incapable of faking an environment with 1/6 g gravity convincingly, just like everyone else. That means the lunar videos cannot have been made on Earth, which proves your ideas wrong.
    1
  41.  @patricksmith4424  No, there are training shots that are superficially similar to mission photos. It's pretty easy to tell them apart. The fact remains: in 50 years, no moon landing denier has brought up viable evidence for their claims.
    1
  42. 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
  43. Nope. No proof, not even convincing evidence. All the moon landing deniers ever seem capable of producing is wild claims.
    1
  44. ​ @hillbillytarzan  That's incorrect. 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. All of the footage is also available. 5 minutes of searching would have told you that.
    1
  45.  @ramonandrajo6348  All of the evidence says the moon landings are real. You deniers keep coming up with ridiculous nonsense that has no supporting evidence. You live in a fact-free world.
    1
  46. Ah, the "I don't understand geometry" argument.
    1
  47.  @ramonandrajo6348  In 1968 Kubrick created the most realistic space movie ever: 2001. It was unable to realistically portray people moving in zero gravity or on the moon. In contrast, the Apollo videos show perfect 0 gravity and 1/6 gravity. Even 30 years later, we couldn't do that convincingly on Earth.
    1
  48.  @tmo4330  That is incorrect. 9 crews have left Earth orbit entirely to go to the moon.
    1
  49.  @pootube2024  A fairy tale is a story for which there is no supporting evidence, often portraying things that are impossible. We have tons of evidence that shows Apollo is real, including confirmation from multiple independent third parties. In 50 years of trying, no denier has come up with a single piece of evidence that shows the landings were faked, or that any of the things NASA did were impossible. Quite the contrary: the Apollo videos show an environment with 1/6 g gravity, which is impossible to fake convincingly on Earth. So the deniers are the ones believing in a fairy tale.
    1
  50. 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
  51.  @Bibiisachildkiller  After the Apollo program, the Saturn and Apollo production lines were closed because NASA no longer had the budget to continue a manned lunar program. That is the only reason NASA hasn't run a manned lunar mission since 1972. Now, 5 decades later, NASA has a new manned lunar program, for which they're developing new hardware, because a. we can build better spacecraft than in 1968, and b. the Apollo hardware cannot do what NASA wants for Artemis (i.e. run much longer missions).
    1
  52.  @Bibiisachildkiller  Again, you're wrong. In order to send a manned mission to the moon, you need 2 things: 1. know how to do it 2. have hardware capable of doing it. 1. was figured out in the 1960s, and with that knowledge NASA built the Apollo and Saturn V so they had #2. After Apollo the knowledge was retained, but hardware capable of manned lunar missions was no longer in production.
    1
  53.  @Bibiisachildkiller  You continue to make an assumption that is not supported by facts. The last time we built an Eiffel Tower was in 1900. Does that mean we're incapable of it now? Worse, does that mean the Eiffel Tower has to be fake, as you claim? No. That's an absurd claim.
    1