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

The best satellite images of Earth have a resolution of about 30 cm per pixel. When you use Google Earth to zoom in on a city, it will switch from satellite photos to photos taken by airplanes. The Chandrayaan-2 orbiter has a camera with a resolution of about 30 cm per pixel. So the images we have of the lander are the best possible at the moment.
8
During the Apollo program, every dollar invested in it grew the US economy by $7. Similarly, India's space program benefits its economy.
5
@RustedFaith Those are not live. When you can take a day to send 3 minutes of video, you can afford to send more data. When it has to be done in real time, the amount of data is limited.
3
During the Apollo program, every dollar invested in it grew the US economy by $7. Similarly, India's space program grows its economy.
3
The development of indigenous spaceflight capability has plowed money into the Indian economy. Both directly (spaceflight has a high ROI), and by enabling ISRO to earn money by launching satellites for other nations.
2
There is a photo camera on the rover.They've published some photos of the lander taken by the rover, for example.
2
Look up tonight. You can see satellites pass overhead, proving that spaceflight is real.
2
We figured out how to get through the van Allen belts by 1962. 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 satellite 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. In the center of the belts, the radiation intensity is high enough that if you stay there for 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 center entirely. The astronauts were exposed to less than 1/300 of a lethal radiation dose.
2
@bobbybansal During the lunar night, the temperature drops to -100ºC. It's difficult to keep the spacecraft warm through the night: insulation is not enough, electric heaters need more power than is available. The only way we've done it is using radioisotope heaters that use radioactive decay to produce lots of heat. But these are expensive and complicated to make, so most missions don't use them.
2
The rocket exhaust that pushes the dust away has a very high speed (more than 1 km/s). So the dust that gets picked up is accelerated to a high speed and flung away in a ballistic trajectory that can be kilometers long. It doesn't hang around the landing site the way it would in Earth's atmosphere.
2
@LeftyRighty123 There is plenty of evidence we've been to the moon. 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 (astronomers who observed the Apollo craft on their way to the moon), 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
@doctorpex6862 This depends on the local terrain. An astronaut in a white spacesuit reflects a lot of light, filling in the shadows. Apollo astronauts used analog film cameras with an enormous dynamic range (much better than digital cameras even today), which allows more detail to be preserved in shadowed areas.
1
At the end of Apollo, NASA's budget was cut by 90%, making further manned lunar missions unaffordable. Then the Shuttle and ISS programs consumed the entire available human spaceflight budget until 2010. In 2010, the Shuttle program ended and its budget was used for the return to the moon (Artemis). The low budget means Artemis is taking longer than Apollo.
1
Mankind has visited the moon dozens of time. Chandrayaan-3 is the latest in a long line going back to the 1960s. We have a ton of evidence that proves this conclusively. You, on the other hand, have not a single shred of evidence for your claims.
1
@colinlee9678 The US and USSR didn't use solid rockets, they used much larger liquid-fueled rockets than India has available right now. For a manned mission, you want to get to the moon ASAP. For an unmanned spacecraft it doesn't matter, so you can use a smaller rocket and spend a month on a more energy-efficient but slower trajectory to the moon.
1
The quality of the images is limited by the data rate: sending data across 380,000 km requires a large antenna or lots of transmitter power. When you don't have that, you have to reduce the amount of data you send, as was done here. So the quality of the images is an indication that it's all real.
1
The surface looks different depending on the angle of the sun.
1
@oo0Spyder0oo What will feed the masses is a thriving industry. Setting up such an industry takes money initially, but pays for itself handsomely.
1
@oo0Spyder0oo Investment in this type of project grows the economy, which has an effect on everyone. This type of project employs thousands, which has knock-on effects too.
1
We know exactly how bright the surface is. The moon's albedo is 0.12, ie it reflects 12% of the incoming light.
1
@anamorph They have in face published photos that show the horizon, both from the lander and the rover. There will be differences because they landed very far away from any of the Apollo sites, and they landed in a crater, which none of the Apollo missions did.
1
@valifl The horizon in the Apollo pictures is at about 2 km, which is what you would expect for a spherical body the size of the moon.
1
@LeftyRighty123 The cameras used by the Apollo program were modified to handle the actual temperatures they would encounter. Temperatures below 0ºC can be ignored because those occur during the lunar night, and all Apollo missions happened during the lunar day. The photo cameras were coated with a highly reflective paint to reduce the amount of solar energy coming in, which kept the temperature in the camera within the limits of the film. The TV cameras were wrapped in insulation to get the same result.
1
Yes, that's in sunlight. The lunar surface reaches 120ºC maximum during the day.
1
@Timmy51m When you're in space, how hot it gets depends on your distance to the sun. Near Earth, you get the same amount of sunlight that hits Earth, ie 1300 W/m2. Enough to make things pretty warm. Spacecraft are insulated: they reflect most of the sunlight to keep the temperature inside habitable.
1