Comments by "H. de Jong" (@h.dejong2531) on "" video.

if it were made of plasma, it'd be as bright as the Sun and our nights would be as bright as our days. So no, the Moon is just made of rock.
6
OK, here is the truth: You have been lied to. 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.
3
Not the 'looks like tin foil' argument again? What you're looking at is multilayer insulation (MLI). This consists of thin sheets of kapton with a layer of aluminium vapor-deposited onto it. A stack of these layers provides excellent insulation against extremes of temperature. MLI is applied to the outside of the spacecraft, it covers the spacecraft structure. What you're doing is the equivalent of looking at a house with clapboard sidings and assuming the house is built from clapboard only.
3
We know exactly where Cassini and the Mars rovers are. So all we have to do to communicate is point the antenna in the right direction and start sending. We didn't keep track of the LM. Once it lost the ability to transmit (batteries empty) there was no point in doing so. So we don't know exactly where it is, and we'd have to do a search. Worse, because it doesn't transmit, we have to send a much stronger signal (radar) to get a measurable return. Signal strength for radar is proportional to 1/r^4 where radio is 1/r^2. There is only one device on Earth that has a radar powerful enough to find the LM: the planetary radar at Goldstone. Then you get the next problem: how do you separate the radar signal from the LM from the echoes you get off the terrain below it? The LM is in a low orbit, so the difference in distance between the two returns is tiny. IDK if Goldstone can differentiate between the two.
3
Your 'fact' 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 why the Soviets accepted the Moon landing as real. NASA and its contractors were prime targets for Soviet espionage. The Soviets also had the means to track spacecraft on their way to the Moon. The only way to fool them was to actually go to the Moon.
3
@JPerry-jw9ik They didn't, obviously.
3
@JPerry-jw9ik he did no such thing. Moon landing deniers are fond of putting words into the astronaut's mouths.
3
@JPerry-jw9ik Have you tracked that story back to its source? It was a spoof from , a web site that offers users the ability to “Create your own news prank and trick your friends by sharing it” and has a history of publishing fabricated news stories.
3
"I don't understand this" is not a good reason to call something fake.
3
we have only one radar powerful enough to detect the LM in orbit around the Moon: the Goldstone radio telescope. Observation time on that is limited, so it becomes a matter of priority: how important is is to find the LM? At the moment, it's just a historical curiosity
2
@chrislantos 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.
2
@chrislantos Every single 'moon hoax' argument I've come across is a house of cards built on a lack of understanding of basic physics and engineering. All those arguments fall apart when you look at them closely. There isn't one piece of evidence that supports your argument.
2
@JPerry-jw9ik Yes, that's possible.
2
@psyopcombatant375 The data you need to calculate this is available all over the internet. Tsiolkovsky rocket equation, engine specs, fuel data. Calculate first before spouting opinions.
2
Jimmy Ray The Apollo LM was built in aluminium. The entire lander was then covered in multilayer insulation, which looks a bit like "construction paper and tin foil". It was designed to function on the Moon only, in 1/6G, so it could be built much lighter than a spacecraft that has to land on Earth. Five minutes of research would have shown you this. Other arguments made by moon landing deniers are also easily proven wrong with a bit of research.
2
Jimmy Ray When those 'rational, discerning, intelligent minds' keep coming up with arguments that can be disproven with 5 seconds of Googling, I'm not going to give their opinion much weight.
2
Why no later mission has seen it: have a look at the map of the landing sites. None of them are under the orbital path of the Apollo 11 LM.
1
@JohnDeCarteretElvis From the paper that was the source for Scott's video: "Eagle was jettisoned into a retrograde, near-equatorial lunar orbit after the historic landing in July, 1969. The Eagle was last tracked in a nearly circular orbit 99 by 117 km above the mean lunar radius." They were running experiments on Eagle after separation, and the result of one of those was that the guidance platform failed about 3.45 hours after separation. That may have put a stop to the plan to fire the RCS and send the Eagle into a crash trajectory.
1
@JohnDeCarteretElvis it's always a pleasure getting to the bottom of things.
1
Even the most powerful radars we have will have trouble finding an object only a few meters wide at 380,000 km distance.
1