General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

H. de Jong
comments

Youtube comments of H. de Jong (@h.dejong2531).

These images were made in January, the team has published more since then. This video is 4 months late.
327
We didn't lose contact. Every day, we kept receiving data from Voyager 2. The only thing we couldn't do was send new commands to Voyager 2 because the transmitter was being replaced. 3:38 Currently, tape recorder playback is done at 1400 bits/s. This occurs once every 6 months. Playback at this speed requires the use of an array of a 70 m antenna with 3 34 m antennas, i.e. all of the large antennas at a DSN complex. 9:50 Each of the three DSN complexes has one 70 m antenna, not just Goldstone. 10:38 Voyager 2 is visible only from the Canberra DSN complex, because the spacecraft is South of the ecliptic plane. The transmitter on the 70 m antenna (DSS 43) at Canberra had to be replaced. And why are you showing random clipart instead of a photo of the actual antenna?
122
The shorter the wavelength, the more difficult it gets to do VLBI. For radio astronomy, you can use harddrives to transport the data. The only optical interferometer we've built has two telescopes next to each other so we can combine the light directly: there's no way to record phasing information accurately enough to transport it as data.
20
@The1stDukeDroklar I've done orbital calculations myself, by hand. The variables you're talking about are obtained through observation, and each time we observe the asteroid, we get more accurate data, which is why the probability of an impact keeps getting smaller over time.
18
The launch pad sits on a hill, because that part of the coastline is a swamp and building things like the flame trenches into the ground is difficult. The hill means you can't use rails (incline is too steep). To make a rail system possible, they'd have to build the VAB at the same elevation as the launch pad, and build a dike between the VAB and pad. That may have been more expensive than building the crawler. Rails also need more groundwork to spread the load.
17
That's not faith, it's knowledge it won't hit us. We've been observing the asteroid for years, and every observation improves our knowledge of its trajectory, which allows us to reduce the margin of error on calculations of its future trajectory.
17
@JoshuaBerner It takes a special kind of hubris to make a claim that obviously nonsensical.
17
Yes, they're shutting down instruments to stay within the available power.
13
We knew where the target was. We know what our galaxy looks like because we've plotted the position and movement of millions of stars. They all orbit the center of the galaxy, so that gave us a general region. VLT observations of that region show a bunch of stars orbiting an invisible object, which gave us the position of the black hole.
12
@walkinmn Very Long Baseline Inteferometry: the technique used to link all these telescopes around the world.
12
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
hyper-paranoid Cold Warrior has no choice but to do it for real, because the Other Guys could monitor what they were doing and would have known if we were faking it. NASA succeeded by throwing huge amounts of money and manpower at the problem, and by persevering. Before Apollo 11, NASA ran these missions to the moon: 8 Pioneer missions, all of which failed 9 Ranger missions, 6 of which failed 7 Surveyor missions, 2 of which failed 5 Lunar Orbiters, 1 of which failed. They also ran the entire Gemini program to test procedures for Apollo, then 6 unmanned Apollo missions to test the spacecraft Apollo 8-10 were manned missions to test the spacecraft and procedures again
10
All video consists of a series of photos strung together. For movies and TV, the frame rate (=number of images per second) is between 24 and 60; 24 frames per second is the minimum the human eye needs to perceive smooth motion. These weather satellites take one photo every 10 minutes. When you string these together (as Scott did for this video), you get a time lapse video, not an animation.
10
That's incorrect. Anyone who does objective research finds out that none of the moon landing deniers' claims hold up.
9
Nobody at NASA has ever claimed it's more difficult now than in the 1960s. Artemis has 1/25 the budget that Apollo had, which mean things take longer. Artemis is a lot more ambitious than Apollo: the goal for Artemis is to have 4 astronauts on the moon for a month or more, instead of 2 astronauts for 3 days. This means a much larger lander is required. Artemis also includes a space station in lunar orbit.
9
We've done something better than that: most of the planets in our solar system have been visited by spacecraft, which orbited those planets for years. We have photos showing far more detail than Hubble is capable of, of Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. What Hubble brings in this case is that Saturn's orbiter Cassini is no longer in service.
9
Have a look at the APL Interstellar Mission proposal.
9
The telemetry records that NASA didn't archive were not of any scientific or engineering interest. They were engineering telemetry records that were used for troubleshooting during the mission. Those records became obsolete when the Apollo program ended. So NASA reviewed the tapes, copied any scientifically useful information from them and reused the tapes.
8
@DeanStephen All of the data is in public archives. Moon landing deniers like to make up lies like "the data was lost" despite the data being easy to find.
8
Let's be real , all of the evidence says 12 people have walked on the moon. You have no evidence for your claims.
8
Micrometeoroid hits were expected. The L2 environment is much more benign than low Earth orbit (where you can expect daily hits).
8
All of those videos are intelligent only in the sense that they are clever at misleading you. There is no actual evidence that shows Earth is anything other than an oblate sphere.
8
@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
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
Proof that Earth is not flat is trivial to find. Every time the sun sets, it does something that would be impossible on a flat plane. Every time a ship goes over the horizon and disappears from the bottom up, it does something that would be impossible on a flat plane. Every time we measure Earth's surface, we find that it is curved, not flat. Every year, there's a sailing race around Antarctica. The distance they have to sail proves they are sailing around a continent on a sphere, not around an ice wall that's 80,000 km ling.
8
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
Actually, it doesn't. Fong didn't do his homework, and every question he asks has a factual answer that makes it clear none of his arguments hold water. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLXHrQ1Keac
8
This volcano has had at least 5 eruptions in the last 10 years. It doesn't need our help.
8
All of the debris shown in this video came from Perseverance itself.
8
0:23 no, there weren't 344 ways in which orbital insertion could have failed, there were 344 mechanical devices on the spacecraft that were single points of failure. Nothing to do with orbital insertion. 2:12 no, the Sun, Earth and Moon are kept behind the sunshield because their heat would interfere with observations. 4:09 the current estimate is that JWST has enough fuel for 20 years of operations.
8
Incorrect. Despite 50 years of trying, no denier has ever been able to debunk any of the Apollo photos.
7
@poppawolf8777 Every time we measure Earth's surface, we find that it is curved, not flat. This is the truth.
7
@americanknow8232 If I dig up rocks from two sites 100 km from each other, I get different rock types. That doesn't mean one of them is fake. Thousands of geologists have been studying Apollo samples for 50 years, and found that they were not from Earth. The lunar samples show structures not seen on Earth
7
@mobilityscooter7587 Physics is physics. Without drag to complicate things, orbital calculation is just a lot of iterations of the same formula.
7
They aren't high priests of anything. They are science *communicators*, people who are good at explaining things in simple terms. Their sources are freely available to anyone.
7
The US Government, not NASA, brought manned lunar missions to a stop because Apollo was far too expensive to be sustainable. After Apollo, NASA's budget was cut by 90%.
7
Resolution on these images is 0.5 km/pixel, and the images are 10 minutes apart. Those are clouds, from a smaller eruption before the main one.
7
@Stellaria2025 That's not a missile entering the water, that's a cloud exiting the water from smaller-scale volcanic activity before the main eruption.
7
The evaporation rate of the film they used was low enough that the film wasn't damaged during the short Apollo missions.
7
That's not a projectile. Resolution on these images is 0.5 km/pixel. Those are clouds, from a smaller eruption before the main one.
7
That is incorrect. Every video where a flerf claims that zooming in can "bring a ship back into view", shows a ship that hasn't gone over the horizon yet. This is easy to see, because the horizon will be behind the ship. They do this by focusing on a small boat that is far enough away to be difficult to see in the zoomed-out view. This is the correct way to do the experiment: 1. follow a large container carrier. The larger the better. 2. Watch as it goes over the horizon. Notice how the lowest part of the ship is hidden first. 3. When the ship has fully disappeared, zoom in. Zoom in as much as you want. Bring a telescope. Nothing you do will bring the ship back into view.
7
Those specific and exact laws lead us straight to the big bang. We can measure the movement of galaxies. Trace their paths into the past and you inevitably end up at a point where all matter was at the same location. That's the Big Bang.
7
DISCOVR images of Earth, incl Moon and Earth in one shot: @ and Earth from the moon: @ Face it, these are all true images. We don't need CGI to make these images, we have satellites. Every 10 minutes, this satellite takes an image of the entire hemisphere, with all of the clouds shown correctly (the only way to get an accurate weather forecast). There is no way to get all this data without satellites.
7
The part of Calais that is visible from Dover is consistent with Earth being a sphere with a diameter of 12000 km. It is inconsistent with Earth being flat.
7
A water drop disagrees with you. A water balloon disagrees with you. The planet itself, and its curvature that we can both see and measure, disagrees with you.
7
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.
7
this video does not show details smaller than 500 meters. No missile is that large. All we have is one frame showing a cloud that's 1-2 km wide.
7
No, they'll be the second country to do so.
7
Anyone can use simple tools to find Earth's shape. And every time we do that, we find that it is curved, not flat.
7
That's not entering the water, that's a cloud exiting the water from smaller-scale volcanic activity before the main eruption.
7
Bill Nye may not have a doctorate, he has been practicing science for decades. That makes him a scientist.
7
Your Nikon can do no such thing. Every single video that claims to bring a boat back into view after it's gone over the horizon, actually shows a small boat in front of the horizon. Take your Nikon to the coast, watch a large ship (not a small boat) go over the horizon, wait until the hull is hidden from view but the superstructure remains visible. Then use your camera to zoom in. No amount of zooming in will bring the hull back into view. This will bring the hull back into view: move to a higher elevation.
7
That is incorrect. All of the arguments used by the deniers fall apart when you examine them. There are exactly 0 photos that have been 'debunked'.
7
We've analyzed the photos and video, and proved conclusively that they can't be made on Earth. Example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLXHrQ1Keac
7
No, it won't. The size of Earth or the moon, or any object in a photo depends on the lens you useThe Apollo crew carried lenses with a short focal length because they were mostly taking photos of nearby objects. So Earth appears small in these photos. If you would take a photo of the moon from Earth with the same lens, the diameter of the moon would be 4 times smaller than that of Earth.
7
@petethewrist You still don't understand. Using the zoom lens on my camera (i.e. a lens with a variable focal length), I can make the same object appear large or small in my photos. So the only comparison you can make is between photos made of Earth, while standing on the moon using the Hasselblad with 60 mm Biogon lens, and photos made of the moon while standing on Earth with a Hasselblad with 60 mm Biogon lens. You don't have that comparison, so any opinion you have on how large Earth should appear is based on nothing.
7
@petethewrist The curvature of the horizon shown in lunar photos is consistent with the known size of the moon. It's also consistent with the apparent size of Earth. You should be measuring instead of making baseless claims.
7
Bill Nye called Apollo humanity's greatest achievement. He is the CEO of an organization that advocates for space exploration. In a Big Think Q&A, Bill Nye gave his opinion on why we cannot throw our trash into space. Flat-Earthers took Bill’s words out of context and used it to “disprove” space flight. “Why we don’t throw trash into space? Because it’s too expensive. Lifting a ton of material into space takes an extraordinary amount of rocket fuel. And, by the way, when people want to send this much plutonium-238 which is not even the weapon’s plutonium, a baseball size, a grapefruit size, people freak out because the rockets sometimes blow up.” “Now, one thing I really want your generation to embrace is that the Earth is a closed system. We cannot leave the Earth. There’s no place to go. There’s no place to throw your trash. And I wouldn’t be surprised if maybe not you but your kids develop ways to mine our landfills.” He's saying we can't remove our trash from Earth, he is not saying manned missions to the Moon or Mars are impossible.
7
Actually, you can. When the ISS is on the night side of Earth and you're looking away from Earth, the stars are visible.
7
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.
7
9 successful manned missions past the VA belts prove you wrong.
7
That's not entering the water, that's a cloud exiting the water from smaller-scale volcanic activity before the main eruption.
7
@FreddyKrueger-kc1sx You can imagine all you want, but Earth is not such a plane. We can measure the surface directly and find that it is curved, not flat.
7
@FreddyKrueger-kc1sx All maps are projections of a spherical surface on a flat plane. This inevitably introduces distortions, what you are describing is those distortions. The Gleason map distorts distances: the distance from the pole to the equator is 37% too short, for instance. It distorts the angles between the longitude and latitude lines. Feet and inches do not change with distance. 1 foot in Australia is the same size as 1 ft in the UK.
7
@FreddyKrueger-kc1sx Youtube deletes comments with links, so any video link is not visible to us. Despite that, I can tell you that that video is lying. They are zooming in on a small boat that is in front of the horizon, not a ship that has gone over the horizon. A valid test would follow a large ship as it goes over the horizon. Wait until the hull of the ship is hidden but the superstructure remains visible, then zoom in. You will be unable to make the hull visible.
7
@FreddyKrueger-kc1sx Geometry 101: when you stand on a sphere, most of the surface of that sphere is not visible to you. Only a small circular area centered on you is visible to you, that area has a boundary we call the horizon.
7
Every time we measure Earth's surface, we find that it is curved, not flat. In 2500 years, nobody has presented any evidence that shows Earth is anything other than a spheroid.
6
Anyone can do simple experiments to verify the shape of our planet. Every time we do that, we find that Earth is a sphere.
6
@americanknow8232 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.
6
@The1stDukeDroklar The math can be done by hand, if necessary. The calculations are pretty simple.
6
"why NASA wouldn’t, or couldn’t, even undertake to repeat these accomplishments " is nonsense. NASA is in the middle of preparing for new manned lunar missions with Artemis. Because Artemis has 1/25 the budget that Apollo had, it's taking a bit longer.
6
@metalicminer6231 No, it's not 'suicide', it was just more risky than a walk in the park. The people who did this were used to taking calculated risks: most astronauts were test pilots, and that community had fatalities every year. The LRV trips were all done within walking distance of the LM, i.e. if there was a catastrophic failure of the LRV they had enough time and oxygen to walk back.
6
1. Satellites in polar orbits are common, and those can see Antarctica. They may not be in a high enough orbit to see the entire continent at once. 2. We have tons of photos of the far side of the Moon, starting with photos taken by Luna 3 in 1959. The Lunar Orbiter missions gave us a full map of the far side of the moon. 9 Apollo missions have orbited the moon, so those astronauts saw the far side. 3. Summer and winter are caused by the tilt of Earth's axis.
6
Earth is a sphere. It has a curvature of 8 cm per km. This can easily be verified through many different methods. You need to stop trolling and face the truth.
6
Anyone can determine what shape our planet is, with tools as simple as binoculars and a ruler. So nobody is in a position to lie: Earth's shape is not arcane knowledge in the hands of a select view, this knowledge is available to anyone.
6
With binoculars, the smallest detail you can see on the moon is about 25 km in diameter. The LM is 4 meters in diameter.
6
I object to the use of the word 'theory'. In science, a fact is a simple, basic observation. A law is a statement (often a mathematical equation) about a relationship between facts and/or other laws. A theory explains "why" or "how" these facts and laws occur. Science starts with observations. These can yield facts. Scientists try to find an explanation for those observations, this becomes a model which includes laws. The model is tested using more observations or experiments. When the model holds up and makes accurate predictions, it becomes a theory. There are no observations that show Earth is flat. All of our observations show that Earth is a sphere. So anyone using the scientific method will not arrive at the conclusion that Earth is flat. Flat Earth is a model not supported by facts, therefore undeserving of the honorific 'theory'.
6
The original image is monochrome. You could use grayscale, but it turns out our eyes are better at seeing details in a colored image than in a grayscale image. The red/orange is a common choice for representing data at longer wavelengths than visible light.
6
Yes, every flat-Earth claim has been debunked 2500 years ago.
6
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
@papalegba6796 His work is reporting on how space agencies do this. There's no need for Scott to build a test stand himself.
6
There was a TV camera on the lunar rover. This could be remotely controlled from Mission Control, AND it could send its video signal directly to Earth.
6
Actual scientists have studied the optical properties of the human eye, and found nothing to support the flat-Earther claims. And we have several lines of evidence that demonstrate Earth is a sphere while ruling out any distortion introduced by the human eye. The simplest of these is a direct measurement of Earth's surface (geodetic survey).
6
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. In 50 years, no moon landing denier has ever produced convincing evidence of the contrary.
6
All of the evidence shows that Earth is not flat. All of the evidence shows that gender is more complex than M/F.
6
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.
6
There's an overlay on the images that makes it easier to recognize regions. That's an optional addition, if you go to the GOES site you can also get them without. Protip: when you don't understand what you're looking at, "it's fake" is unlikely to be the correct response.
6
Flat-Earthers are either trolls, or people who have difficulty discerning the value of information they're given (i.e. can't distinguish between truth and lies). The second category unfortunately tends to cling to the lies while dismissing all of the evidence of the truth. This spills over from areas that don't directly influence daily lives to areas that do. Covid is a prime example. The people who didn't take solid-science-based information seriously ended up clogging our hospitals and morgues.
6
That is incorrect. All bodies of water on Earth display convexity. From a cup of tea to the oceans. If the body of water is large enough, this is easily visible: watch a ship go over the horizon, and be gradually hidden from the bottom up. The obstacle that hides the ship is the curvature of the water.
6
@Dmgolfer22 When a ship goes over the horizon, zooming in does not bring it back into view. Flerfs like to claim this, but when you look at those videos, you will see that the ship they zoom in on is always in front of the horizon. So: every single video that claims this, is trying to mislead you. There is only one method that will bring the ship back into view: go to a higher elevation. This demonstrates that the horizon is a physical obstacle, just like a hill can hide objects on its far side.
6
@Dmgolfer22 The nature of water is to conform to the forces acting on it. One of those forces is gravity, which pulls all of the water on Earth into the same spherical shape as the planet itself. We can see this, even with the naked eye. We can measure this curvature.
6
@Dmgolfer22 No, the horizon does not stay at eye level. That is another lie. At an altitude of 1 km, the horizon is already at 1º below eye level. Again, a simple measurement will confirm this.
6
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
What you're doing is not freeing people's minds. You are presenting a narrative and saying 'believe us, don't look at the evidence shat shows our claims are false'. Every time you watch a sunset, you are looking at something that is impossible on a flat Earth. Every time you measure Earth's surface, you will find that it is curved.
6
Every geodetic survey proves that Earth is round. Everyone can do a simple survey and confirm this. Millions of photos of Earth from space prove that Earth is round.
6
@mynameis.5480 Digging a tunnel in Europe doesn't cause volcanic eruptions in Tonga.
6
@edellis2960 We take the rotating Earth seriously because we have a ton of evidence that proves Earth rotates. This includes experiments that are simple enough anyone can repeat them.
6
Oxygen toxicity happens when the partial pressure of oxygen is about 2 bar. In orbit, the partial pressure never gets above 0.3 bar.
6
@tecbreakthru6892 Bill Nye gave his opinion on why we cannot throw our trash into space. This is what he said: “Why we don’t throw trash into space? Because it’s too expensive. Lifting a ton of material into space takes an extraordinary amount of rocket fuel. And, by the way, when people want to send this much plutonium-238 which is not even the weapon’s plutonium, a baseball size, a grapefruit size, people freak out because the rockets sometimes blow up.” “Now, one thing I really want your generation to embrace is that the Earth is a closed system. We cannot leave the Earth. There’s no place to go. There’s no place to throw your trash. And I wouldn’t be surprised if maybe not you but your kids develop ways to mine our landfills.” He's saying we can't remove our trash from Earth, he is not saying manned missions to the Moon or Mars are impossible. Nye is the CEO of the Planetary Society, an organization that advocates for spaceflight. He called the Apollo missions one of mankind's greatest accomplishments.
6
Using a telescope does not bring a ship that has gone over the horizon back into view. All it can do is show more details on the parts of the ship that were visible already. Every video that claims you can bring a ship that has gone over the horizon back into view is misleading you: they are actually zooming in on small boats that have not gone over the horizon yet.
6
We'e known Earth is a sphere for 2500 years. Any confirmation from NASA is just icing on the cake.
6
@mostwanted2000 As evidence for the moon landings, we have: - 382 kg of moon rock, - hours of live TV and film, - more than 8000 photos, - scientific results from every experiment they did, - thousands of technical documents that show how they did it. We can analyze this evidence, and have been doing that for 50 years now, In all that time, not one of these items has been found to be falsified. The Apollo videos show they're in 1/6 g gravity, which we cannot replicate on Earth today, which proves those videos were not recorded on Earth, but on the moon. In addition, we have confirmation from multiple independent sources: - amateur astronomers could see the CSM/LM on their way to the Moon. - 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. - 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. We don't need Hubble to see the landing sites: - The NASA Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter and India's Chandrayaan-2 orbiter has photographed the Apollo landing sites, with enough resolution to show the foot tracks of the astronauts. - Japan's Selene lunar orbiter has mapped the Apollo landing sites and found the topography matches that seen in Apollo photos. - laser reflectors were left on the moon by the Apollo missions, and can be pinged from Earth by anyone with a powerful laser.
6
The earth looks a bit different than you're used to because the imaging system uses 2 color channels instead of 3 (RGB). And some of the footage uses an additional infrared channel).
6
@stefanaldea Yes, mostly. Most countries don't have an industry that can create the nuclear material for radioisotope heaters. You need to have nuclear research reactors, to irradiate material to create the Pu-238 used in RTGs. Then you need a processing facility that can separate the Pu-238 from other materials. The US and Russia have these facilities as a side effect of their nuclear weapons program. The RTGs used for e.g. the Perseverance rover on Mars cost around $100 million each, and even the US only does a few missions per decade that uses RTGs.
6
@luizotavio5241 I can prove that the moon landing videos show movement consistent with 1/6 G and no atmosphere. That combination cannot be faked convincingly on Earth
6
@luizotavio5241 I can prove that the lunar photos are lit by a single source very far away: the sun. I can also prove there is no infill from Earth's atmosphere. This combination means the photos cannot be taken in a studio, and they cannot be taken outdoors on Earth.
6
What you were seeing is an optical illusion. The reseau plate contains very thin lines, and is suspended in front of the film. It can't touch the film, because that would damage the film. So light can bleed into the areas covered by the cross markings, making them even thinner. In very dark areas, the marking is no longer distinguishable from the photographed subject. So no, you didn't see reseau markings going behind the photographed subject.
6
Nope. He is an engineer who has been practicing science and teaching science for decades.
6
@petethewrist Again, focal length matters. A lens with a short focal length will capture the view over a wider angle than a telescopic lens. I.e. with a short focal length, a. you see more of the horizon, so a larger amount of curvature is apparent, and b. faraway objects will look smaller.
6
Tyson: doctorate in astrophysics. Thaller: doctorate in astrophysics. Nye: has been practicing and teaching science for decades. That makes him a scientist, no doctorate needed.
6
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. On JWST, the structural material underneath the MLI is often carbon fibre composite. What you're doing is the equivalent of looking at a house with clapboard sidings and assuming the house is built from clapboard only.
6
The simple truth is that tiny errors in orbit calculations stack up which makes the simulation break down in the long term. That does not mean the solar system is not driven by gravity.
6
this video does not show details smaller than 500 meters. No missile is that large. All we have is one frame showing a cloud that's 1-2 km wide.
6
@FreddyKrueger-kc1sx Incorrect. Zooming in does not change what the sun looks like. In reality, the sun crosses the horizon, the only optical effect visible is that the sun gets squashed a bit. If the sun did not set, it would not get dark.
6
@FreddyKrueger-kc1sx Maps are not based on a Cartesian coordinate plane. We store the source data for maps as coordinates in a 3D space, not 2D.
6
@FreddyKrueger-kc1sx Maps are a projection of Earth's 3D surface onto a 2d piece of paper. This means all paper maps are inaccurate.
6
All photos are available in public archives, and you'll see dozens of misaligned shots, some 'I accidentally clicked while moving' shots, exposure bracketing, etc. They chose film and exposure settings that would provide decent shots most of the time, with the option to correct underexposure during development.
5
Wanna know the real shape of our planet? Measure it. Anyone can do a simple survey and find Earth's curvature. Earth has no corners.
5
@daibo0ne Spacecraft like that lander don't have to be aerodynamic because they never operate in an atmosphere. So you can have thin foil insulation on the outside instead of solid panels. This not "cheap", just optimized for its use case.
5
No. 1. NASA is an acronym, not a word. 2. the Hebrew word 'nasa' means 'to lift up'. 3. the Hebrew word 'nasha' means 'to deceive'. The 'sh' is the Hebrew letter shin, which is not the same as the letter s used in nasa.
5
@ohfft That information is incorrect. The only recording unavailable today is one videotape 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. All the original Apollo film can be found in the Film Archive (Building 8) at Johnson Space Center (JSC). Look for 'March to the moon'.
5
Modern photos (as taken by geostationary weather satellites like GOES and Himawari) have enough resolution that you can measure the difference between the polar and equatorial diameter (it's 30 km, in those photos that's about 30 pixels).
5
False. On Earth you can't convincingly simulate an environment with 1/6 G and no atmosphere.
5
False. None of the photos used spotlights. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ix1WofdJ2uw
5
@americanknow8232 False. Unedited originals remain available in public archives. And NASA recently published a complete set of new scans with much higher resolution, again unedited.
5
@americanknow8232 You want me to go through all of the books published on the Apollo project between 1970 and 1990 to find one photo? Just give me the image number.
5
@americanknow8232 False. We're getting real images from Artemis 1 regularly. We also have independent parties tracking Artemis 1.
5
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
Earth is oblate by 0.3%. Your eye cannot distinguish between a perfect sphere and one that is oblate by 0.3%. You can measure those photos where Earth looks spherical, and find that yes, the equatorial diameter really is 0.3% larger than the polar diameter.
5
That is incorrect. There are a dozen lines of evidence that all prove Earth is not flat, but spherical. Behavior of the horizon and objects going over it. The changing elevation of stars depending on latitude. The shape of Earth's shadow. Geodetic surveys (ie direct measurement of Earth's surface). Photos from high altitude and from space. Observation of the planets. etc.
5
 @DeanStephen NASA's budget is set by the executive branch. They cut NASA's budget by 90% after Apollo. No bucks, no Buck Rogers.
5
10,000 satellites we can use prove that space is real.
5
The essential information you're missing is that the radiation level at Chernobyl is orders of magnitude higher than even in the center of the van Allen belts. In the VA belts, you get a lethal radiation dose in 1 week. At Chernobyl standing next to the reactor, it takes a few seconds.
5
this video does not show details smaller than 500 meters. No missile is that large. All we have is one frame showing a cloud that's 1-2 km wide.
5
They are engineers, accustomed to giving exact information and serious, unemotional flight reviews.
5
@m0uz Sure you can verify this. One method: On a piece of level ground (a salt lake is good for this), set up a scope with crosshairs, make sure it's level. Measure the height of the crosshairs above ground. Get an assistant to stand 500 meters from the scope with a measuring tape. Through the scope, read the measuring tape. Repeat this at 1000 meters. The reading at the 500 meter point will be lower than the reading at 0 and 1000 meters. Another method: we have a horizon. When you get farther away from an object, it will disappear below the horizon. This is correctly predicted by the 'Earth is a sphere' hypothesis, and it disproves the 'Earth is flat' hypothesis. The 'Earth is flat' hypothesis is full of holes and cannot be maintained by anyone who applies scientific rigor and logic.
5
@papalegba6796 You're still thinking the pressure inside a rocket engine is zero?
5
That is incorrect. There are a dozen different methods by which we have proven that Earth is not flat, but spherical. Starting with the measurement of Earth's curvature via geodetic surveys.
5
this video does not show details smaller than 500 meters. No missile is that large. All we have is one frame showing a cloud that's 1-2 km wide.
5
@nataliealice05 Sure, Earth has been hit before. But that doesn't matter. We can observe the asteroid, find out its trajectory, calculate where it will be the next time it comes near Earth and find out if it will hit us or not.
5
Then why do we find curvature every time we measure Earth's surface?
5
Those 2 satellites have been in that position for years, and they cover the entire hemisphere.
5
@papalegba6796 It does. Not my problem if you can't recognize a free body diagram when you see one.
5
The Apollo crew exposure over the whole mission was in the region of 1 Rad (1.14 R).
5
8" per mile squared is an approximation that was used by surveyors. They deal with Earth's curvature every day: they measure the 3D position of a series of points on Earth's surface, and they have to separate Earth's curvature from the elevation of each point. Water is curved: every time a ship goes over the horizon, you see Earth's curvature hiding the ship. Salt flats are curved: we can measure this, there are places where you can see this (Bonneville salt flats, from the top of Wendover blvd, for instance). Salt flats, like everywhere else, have a horizon at 5 km. Anyone can see Earth's curvature: with the naked eye, it's visible from the cruising altitude of an airliner.
5
That's a load of nonsense, and you know it. We have several thousand spacecraft in operation today, many of them inside the thermosphere. The thermosphere has a high temperature. It also has a very low density, which means it can transfer very little heat into a spacecraft.
5
@kpec3 The Google Earth app consists of satellite photos made in low orbit. These have to be tiled together on a spherical surface , otherwise they won't fit together. Google Earth represents reality.
5
@kpec3 We have ten different ways to prove Earth is a spheroid, most of which are accessible to anyone. The truth is that Earth is a sphere. If Earth is a sphere, then spaceflight is real, which means these photos of Earth from space show reality.
5
Coarse sand tends to settle out more quickly than small grains, so using coarse sand helps reduce clouding.
5
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
This is a documentary, not propaganda.
5
Anyone can do simple experiments that prove Earth is a sphere, not a flat plane. Wake up!
5
The lunar module was pressurized except during the EVAs.
5
@James-zp5po Those people I mentioned flew around the world over both poles. This is about 40,000 km. Every year, thousands of people visit the South Pole. Not just the continent of Antarctica, but the actual pole, where we have a research station. Anyone who lives south of the equator can confirm we have a south pole: when you make a timelapse of the stars at night, they seem to rotate around our pole. In the southern hemisphere, they do this in the opposite direction of what we see in the northern hemisphere. This is one of many natural phenomena that can only happen if Earth is a sphere.
5
They were professionals.
5
Every time we measure Earth's surface, we find that it's curved, not flat. Have you ever seen a ship go over the horizon, and gradually disappear from view? That's impossible on a flat plane.
5
@BoBwikCruz All photos of Earth show this. As I said, the difference is only 0.3%, too small to distinguish with the naked eye.
5
@FlattyMcTruth All of the water on the surface of our planet is *curved*, not flat. You can see this with the naked eye: the horizon is the curvature of the water/land hiding the stuff behind it. We can also measure this curvature.
5
Sure, that's how I would start a war. Nuke an uninhabited island near the big important, dangerous country of... Tonga. :facepalm
5
Nope, the human eye does not have a distance limit. It's easy to prove this too: watch a ship go over the horizon and disappear. Now move to a higher elevation: the ship will come back into view. The distance to the ship has not decreased, but the ship that was hidden by the horizon is now visible. Definitive proof that our horizon is not caused by a limit to the human eye. Instead, it is a physical obstacle: you are seeing Earth's curvature.
5
No, you can't. When a ship has gone over the horizon, no amount of zooming in will bring it back. Sailors used telescopes because when you're in the crow's nest (i.e. at the highest point of the ship), the horizon is farther away and the unaided eye has trouble seeing small objects at long distances.
5
The problem with ideas like "Earth is flat" is that it breeds an attitude of not trusting the government in other areas, and being unable or unwilling to distinguish between actual information and nonsense. This was demonstrated in the past few years by Covid, around which all sorts of claims as nonsensical as "Earth is flat" sprung up, and were gobbled up by people already conditioned by FE to gobble up nonsense.
5
Water is pulled into a sphere by gravity. Evidence that Earth is a sphere includes: - observation of the horizon - measurement of Earth's surface (geodetic surveys) - observation of how the elevation of the stars changes with latitude - observation of Earth's curvature from high altitude - observation of Earth's curvature from space. The ancient Greeks were able to work out that Earth is a sphere 2500 years ago. In all that time, nobody has presented a single shred of evidence that indicates otherwise.
5
and yet I can see satellites pass overhead, even with the naked eye. I can receive signals from satellites that are at an altitude of 36,000 km over the equator. Simple observations that prove you wrong.
5
False. 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). Now that the Shuttle program has ended, part of that budget has been reserved for SLS and Artemis. So we're now going back, on a lower budget (though still more than any other country spends on their entire space program), and it's taking a bit longer than Apollo.
5
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
@sheshanamahmood3073 These videos are made from individual photos that were taken 10 minutes apart. A missile would be visible in 1 frame only, making it impossible to see the missile move. Combine that with the resolution, and the conclusion must be that you're seeing something much larger than any missile. The volcano was active for several hours before the big explosion, so it's likely you'r'e seeing some venting from the volcano.
5
Even if Aristarchus could only observe from Greece, that gave him access to 180º of Earth's rotation because a lunar eclipse can occur at any time during the night.
5
@DemonDrummer Yep. The Saturn V was a 1960s design. To build new ones you'd have to - redo all the drawings in CAD - replace most of the off-the-shelf components with new ones - replace obsolete metallurgy with new - redesign parts for modern production methods. The F-1 engine nozzles were hand-brazed from kilometers of tubing. These days we design nozzles so they can be machined. - replace obsolete parts, like the guidance computers.
5
Tyson is correct. Earth is technically an oblate spheroid: its diameter along the equator is 30 km larger than its polar diameter. This is a difference of 0.3%. Too small to see with the naked eye, but it can be measured. In 1687, Newton (in his Principia book) proposed that if Earth rotates, this rotation will change its shape: it will not be a perfect sphere, but be slightly wider along the equator due to the centrifugal force produced by Earth's rotation. In 1735, the French decided to find out if this was true. They organized the French Geodesic Missions to the Equator and to Lapland. These measured sections of Earth's surface that were 1º of latitude and compared their length. The difference between the two measurements showed that Earth is oblate. These days, high-resolution photos of Earth from space confirm this in a way anyone can see.
5
Anyone can rig up a pendulum and watch it precess, which demonstrates that Earth rotates. The ancient Greeks were able to figure out that Earth is a sphere, just from naked-eye observations of the horizon, and of Earth's shadow during a lunar eclipse. By 250 BC, Eratosthenes was the first to measure Earth's diameter.
5
@Nehner Earth still isn't flat.
5
Pay attention: a telescope will not bring a ship that has gone over the horizon back into view. Flat-Earthers like to mislead you by filming a small boat that has not gone over the horizon yet, and zooming in on that.
5
No, it's not Photoshop. the actual images are in infrared. So we have to apply a transformation to make the image visible at all. For a color image, they take 3 images, using different filters (different wavelength bands, the same way a photo consists of R, G and B channels). After downloading, the imaging team assigns colors to each image and stacks them to make a color image. There is some artistic freedom in choosing which colors to use, but generally the longest wavelengths are mapped to red, medium to green and short to blue. for redshifted objects, the team can choose filters that match (more or less) the redshifted red, green and blue, so the image you get back out is an accurate representation of what the object would look like in visible light for a nearby observer.
5
if Earth is flat, why can I go out right now and see its curvature? Why can we sail around Antarctica in only 22,000 km, when flerf maps claim it would take more than 60,000 km? Why do ships going over the horizon disappear from the bottom up, instead of just getting smaller and smaller as they go farther away?
5
You can see Earth's curvature: watch a ship going over the horizon: it follows a path with a vertical curve. That's Earth's curvature. From high altitude, you can see the curvature directly. Our eyes cannot distinguish between Earth moving or the heavens above moving. Just like when you're sitting in a stationary train, and the train next to you starts to move - you can't tell which is moving. Simple experiments like Foucault's pendulum break this dilemma by demonstrating that Earth moves.
5
No. There are technical constraints. There's only one facility in the US that can machine Beryllium, for instance, and it's not in Florida. There's only one facility that can polish the mirror, and it's not next door to the Be machining company. There's only one vacuum chamber large enough to test the JWST, and etc. The cost of transporting components is much smaller than building a new facility to create the component.
5
That footprint shows compressed dust. No moisture necessary.
5
The evidence proves you wrong. NASA successfully landed 17 unmanned missions and 6 manned missions on the moon.
5
During the Apollo program, every dollar invested in it grew the US economy by $7. Similarly, India's space program benefits its economy.
5
That footage was captured by a camera on the lunar rover. That camera could be controlled remotely from Mission Control. The LRV also carried a transmitter that could send the video signal straight to Earth.
5
@James-zp5po We can see satellites in the night sky, even with the naked eye. We can measure their speed and altitude. When we do that, we find a speed that is impossible to maintain in our atmosphere (the satellite would glow brightly and leave a trail like a meteor due to atmospheric friction), so we can see they are not in our atmosphere, which proves that rockets do work in a vacuum.
5
@James-zp5po The only possible explanation for our observations is an actual space station in actual space. Every day, millions of people receive radio signals from satellites in space. Every day, your weather forecast is made possible by data from satellites. Every day, billions of people use GPS, a satellite system, to navigate. This stands true and is solid: space is real, and we have launched more than 10,000 satellites into space.
5
@James-zp5po In reality, they are stars. We can measure their distances, and find they are all at different distances, instead of being light projected on a dome. We can use spectroscopy to find they are of different sizes and different compositions. We can detect planets orbiting those stars.
5
These satellites image the entire hemisphere every 10 minutes. You'd need 500,000 radar stations spread over the entire world to replicate that with ground-based photos. Show me where the 350,000 radar ships were built.
5
@petervankas1352 Hundreds of manned space missions prove you wrong.
5
@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
@VigilantX-TikTok Perspective is real: when I stand on a set of railroad tracks they seem to get closer together in the distance. This is perspective: when an object is farther away, it appears smaller. But the sun does not do that: when it's at zenith, it is the same size as when it's just above the horizon. If Dubay were right, the sun would get smaller as it got closer to the horizon. In all of history, nobody has recorded the sun getting smaller and smaller as it nears sunset.
5
JHUAPL is working on an interstellar mission concept at the moment. The highest speed they've been able to get to using current technology is about twice as high as the Voyagers. It would take decades to catch up to the Voyagers at that speed.
5
@rickreid8572 That is incorrect. 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. The only thing that was destroyed, was the production line.
5
There has been plenty of progress "since the V2". The Saturn V would have been impossible with V2-level technology: the materials science simply wasn't there yet. A Saturn V made with V2-level tech would have melted its engines. After the Saturn V, the next big leap forward was the Space Shuttle, with its staged-combustion engines. The next generation is the Falcon 9, where they figured out commercially-viable reusability. The next generation after that is Starship.
5
@daussamp8054 That is a baseless claim. We have millions of actual photos of Earth from space. - every astronaut brings a camera to space, mostly normal consumer cameras. Photos taken by astronauts from the ISS clearly show Earth's curvature. - the Apollo missions carried consumer cameras to the moon, and made hundreds of analog photos of Earth from the moon. - Geostationary weather satellites carry cameras that take photos of the whole hemisphere every 10 minutes. We also have tons of photos made from high altitude, which again show Earth's curvature. Anyone can take a photo of the horizon, downscale its horizontal axis and demonstrate that the horizon is curved.
5
I can see satellites pass overhead with the naked eye, proving space is real. I can use simple experiments to prove Earth is a moving sphere.
5
The ISS orbits Earth once every 90 minutes, not 90 seconds. Earth rotates with a surface speed of 1000 mph at the equator. We know this because we have measured it, using several different methods. This rotation causes an upward acceleration (centrifugal force) of 0.03 m/s2 at the equator. Gravity produces a downward force of 9.81 m/s2 at the equator so the sum of the two is 9.78 m/s2, downward. At the equator, you are 0.3% lighter than near Earth's poles. We can measure this difference. So, the facts, our observations and measurements justify saying this.
5
@edellis2960 Our senses cannot feel speed at all. Our inner ear can only detect acceleration, not speed. The only way we experience speed is by seeing objects move past us. In an airplane, the sensation of speed is huge when you're on the runway or at very low altitude and nearby stuff is whizzing by. Once you are at high altitude and there are no clouds, you can't tell if you're moving or not. If you're in a stopped train, next to another train and one of the two starts moving, you can't tell which one is moving.
5
@edellis2960 Pay attention: our senses can only detect acceleration, not speed. The examples I provided confirm that. Lots of experimentation has proven this beyond doubt. The centrifugal force, even on the equator where it is highest, is only 1/300 of gravity. This is far too little to cause an upset stomach. That happens when the centrifugal force is as large as gravity, or larger. This is science. Claiming that Earth is flat is pseudoscience.
5
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
55 years later and we're finding out why Apollo and the unmanned projects that preceded it were so expensive.
5
@ben-yi3nh No, it's pretty easy to prove that Earth is spherical. A geodetic survey is definitive proof that Earth's surface is curved. And we've done thousands of these all over the world, so we know the surface is curved everywhere. Photos from space are definitive proof that Earth is a sphere. We can circumnavigate the world both along the equator and via the poles, which again proves that Earth is a sphere.
5
Tsunami all over the world, Tonga inundated and covered in ash, people dead, and you have the gall to call this fake?
5
Pilots don't fly "horizontal", they fly at a constant altitude. And the line of constant altitude is a curve that follows Earth's surface, so every airplane flies in a curved trajectory.
5
We have a mountain of evidence that proves the Apollo landings were real. We can examine this evidence, and have been doing that for 50 years, and have never found any indication of fakery. The only people who claim the Apollo landings were faked are trying to mislead you. None of their claims stand up to scrutiny.
5
Two of them hold doctorates, so they are scientists by profession. The third has been teaching the scientific method for decades, which makes him a scientist.
5
@robertpetch5182 one of the definitions for 'scientist': "A person versed in or devoted to science". Note the lack of requiring a doctorate.
5
for the ancient Egyptians, the star Thuban was the North Star. Back then, it was closer to Earth's axis of rotation than Polaris. In a few thousand years, we need another North Star again. The fastest-moving star we can see has moved 1º since it was discovered 100 years ago.
5
Nope.
5
@MaciusSzwed None of those present evidence, just empty claims.
5
@mostwanted2000 yes, of course that was real.
5
@g.g.hochstetler2286 I disagree. Building a model is a lot more difficult if you don't have data to go on.
5
Earth's shape is easily verifiable for anyone. Simple experiments and observations demonstrate that Earth is a sphere.
5
No, that's accurate. We can't see this with the naked eye, Andromeda is too dim for that, but yeah, it is that large.
5
Would not have helped IM-1: it was trying to land with too much horizontal velocity.
5
@MrBucidart Basic photography: when you take a photo, you first set the exposure time and the lens aperture, to get enough light to capture the scene without overexposing it. The Apollo photos show the brightly lit lunar surface, and they used an exposure time of 1/250 seconds. To take photos of the stars, you need an exposure time of several seconds. Every Apollo mission took hundreds of photos of Earth. Mostly from lunar orbit and during the Moon-Earth transit, but several missions took photos of Earth from the lunar surface as well.
5
Every day, geostationary weather satellites like GOES and Himawari take dozens such photos. NOAA publishes all of them. And they have enough resolution that you can actually measure Earth's oblateness from them.
5
They didn't disappear. We measured them, and found that humans can pass through them safely. The radiation level in the van Allen belts is only problematic if you decide to place your spacecraft in the center of the belts: if you stay there for a week, the radiation dose becomes dangerous. The Apollo crews passed through the belts in 3 hours.
5
10,000 successful satellite launches demonstrate that propulsion does work in a vacuum.
5
For the eclipse: you are probably referring to a selenelion: for a luner eclipse, there is a narrow band on Earth's terminator where you can see the sun and the moon and the same time. This again confirms that Earth is a sphere.
5
Yes, flat Earth is a textbook example of bad science. Scratch that: flat Earth is not science at all, it's pseudoscience. People make arguments that sound scientific, but don't follow the scientific method, are not repeatable, or are just plain lies.
5
@petethewrist You don't know how large or how far away the landmarks on the lunar horizon are, so they are not usable to judge the size of Earth.
5
we've known for 2500 years that it isn't. We continue to prove it every day.
5
We have millions of actual photos of Earth from space, and from high altitude. "that guy that creates the images" did not say there are no photos. He was talking about ONE specific image: Blue Marble 2002, which was created by tiling thousands of satellite photos together. This was done to get a high-resolution image of the entire planet. Photos from 10 km altitude show Earth's curvature. This is reachable for amateurs, using either balloons (see MAGE II) or rockets (e.g. Kip Daugirdas). Observations from the ISS show Earth's curvature. The ISS is too low to see the entire planet, but it is high enough to see the curvature. Astronauts on the ISS have taken millions of photos, all freely available. A few more sources of photos of Earth from space: - Geostationary weather satellites (GOES, Meteosat, Himawari) take images of the entire hemisphere. - DSCOVR is at a distance of 1.5 million km and takes photos of Earth and the Moon. - Low-orbit satellites take photos of smaller areas in high resolution.
5
False. The photos and video show an environment with 1/6 g gravity. This remains impossible to fake convincingly to this day. The Apollo crews took thousands of photos and hours of film, none of which has been proven fake. Lunar orbiters launched by India and China have photographed the Apollo landing sites on the moon. During the Apollo missions, the Soviets closely monitored them, and would have exposed any fakery.
5
@huntergatherer7796 No. I've seen many claims of that, but every single one of those turns out to be false. Moon landing deniers have never come up with actual evidence, just bad claims. This ranges from plainly ridiculous nonsense (claiming that a photo shows a lighting gantry, when zooming in on the photo clearly shows nothing of the sort) to more subtle disinformation (e.g. using the 1958 initial estimates of the radiation level of the van Allen belts to claim that this region of space was too dangerous to fly through, when data gathered from 1959 to 1962 shows that those initial measurements were a factor 1000 too high).
5
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
Close to aborting: Yes. The descent module had about 45 seconds worth of fuel left. The ascent module is entirely separate: separate engine, separate fuel tanks. The fuel state of the descent module has no influence on the ascent module. The lunar rover was driving at less than 10 km/h, so that's the maximum speed imparted on the dust by the wheels. In 0.16 G, reaching an altitude of 2 ft is about what you'd expect. No atmosphere necessary. They didn't bring a baseball. They did do some experiments, one with a golf ball and another with a javelin. Several astronauts reported seeing stars. They had to be in the right place to do that: in the shadow of the LM, or in the CM on the shadow side of the Moon. Most of the time, Collins was in bright daylight, so it's no surprise he didn't see stars. The focus of the Apollo missions was the Moon. So everything they did was focused on that. Taking photos of the stars wasn't a priority. Remember they had to use photographic film, which severely limited the number of photos they could take.
5
@michaellyne8773 Every moon hoaxer argument falls apart with 5 minutes of examination. "shadows going the wrong way": shadows are only parallel if both shadows fall on the same surface. The photo used by hoaxers shows one shadow on a flat surface, and the other going through a crater. That argument fails. Moon dust doesn't need moisture to clump together. It consists of irregular shapes that can interlock under pressure. That argument fails as well. I could go on, but you'd just stick your finger in your ears and go 'lalalalala I can't hear you'. You've fallen for nonsense thought up by charlatans who wanted to make money selling books.
5
Neil walked on the moon. He was an engineer, not an entertainer.
5
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
@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
@marxman00 Those NASA photos (and JAXA, and NOAA, and Meteosat, etc.) show that Earth is oblate: you can measure the equatorial and polar diameters in those photos and find that they differ by 0.3%.
5
He didn't mention that because it's not true. Flat Earthers like to lie about that, and the 'evidence' they present consists of videos that zoom in on small boats that have *not yet gone over the horizon*. Try zooming in on a large ship. Or on the sun, after sunset. No amount of zooming in will bring it back into view.
5
Basic observations that show we live on a sphere. 1. the existence of a horizon. 2. when we measure the surface (geodetic survey) we always find that it is curved, not flat. 3. Earth's shadow is a circle, this is visible during lunar eclipses. 4. the way the elevation of the stars changes with latitude.
5
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
Well, that's what NASA did, within the confines of what they can do. SLS has been mandated so they can't get rid of that, but one of the landers will be a Starship supplied by SpaceX.
5
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
None of those are actual arguments.
5
We have observed this region in IR for 20 years. These observations show stars orbiting an object that's mostly invisible. From those orbits we can calculate how much mass there must be: 4 million solar masses in a tiny amount of space. The only theory that can explain those observations is a black hole.
5
Here's some proof: 1. we can measure the 3D position of points on Earth's surface (geodetic survey). When we do that, we always find those points are on a spherical surface, not a flat surface. 2. we can take a photo of the horizon, and downscale it on the horizontal axis. This shows that the horizon is not a straight line but a curve. 3. From high altitude, this curvature becomes visible to the naked eye. 4. We can fly around the world in any direction, including over the poles, and end up where we started. This is only possible on a sphere.
5
the human eye cannot see Earth's curvature directly when standing at sea level: you don't see any curve in the horizon, because the horizon curves by a smaller amount than you ca ndetect. That doesn't mean there is no curvature.
5
They were "autonomous" for a very limited definition of "autonomous" only. The Surveyors landed blind, in a location that could be anywhere within a large area. No obstacle avoidance at all. The million lines of code are there to avoid landing in a ravine, or with one foot on a boulder, or on the edge of a cliff, etc.
4
Outer space has one thing in common with being underwater: you can float (i.e. be neutrally buoyant) in both environments. That makes this pool hugely useful for training complex tasks like spacewalks. By acclimating the astronauts to how weightlessness feels, and how they can do tasks in weightlessness BEFORE the mission, they make those spacewalks during the mission a lot more efficient as the astronaut isn't wasting time doing these tasks for the first time. Training in a vacuum is mostly pointless, as that's very similar to just being in our atmosphere.
4
Yes, it can be +83ºC in space. When you're in sunlight, you're exposed to higher intensity light than on the hottest day on Earth, so the sun-facing side gets hot. The other side of the spacecraft will radiate heat so it'll cool down, it's tricky to get a decent temperature inside the spacecraft: you have to insulate the spacecraft, and many spacecraft have cooling radiators.
4
No, that term is used by people who follow the evidence, to categorize people who fall for nonsense, believing in ideas for which there is no evidence.
4
@elvispresley5921 There are no flat spots on Earth, and neither are there concave spots. Earth is convex everywhere, and has the same radius of curvature everywhere.
4
No, that difference is negligible compared to the distance to the object.
4
There is nothing "supposedly" about the Apollo missions. And Exide is still around.
4
That's not history, that's fantasy.
4
@16sputnik7 Those 1369 uSv was the total exposure for the mission, most of which was spent with the film inside the pressurized CM or LM. The radiation dose the film was actually exposed to is low enough that you can count the particle hits by counting the bright streaks in the photos. The number of hits is small enough that no photo was ruined by radiation.
4
The Voyagers don't have instruments that are useful for that. The cameras were fine for the planetary encounters, but not suitable for finding very faint objects. The camera platforms were switched off in 1989, and these days, there's not enough power left to operate them.
4
You should test that hypothesis. Earth's radius translates to a curvature of 8 cm per km. This can be easily measured with basic tools (measuring tape, gunsight with crosshairs). Even better if you do this alongside a canal. What you're not accounting for is gravity. On a sphere's surface, the force of gravity is a vector that points towards the center of the sphere. This force acts on water (as you way, it has weight), so water will distribute itself until every point of its surface is at an equal distance from earth's center.
4
Any 'thinking' person coming to that conclusion has made an error in his reasoning.
4
Nope. Space videos are shot in space, not under water. This is immediately obvious: no space video shows the huge drag that is obvious when filming underwater.
4
There is no reason to believe otherwise.
4
To usefully monitor deployments they'd have to install a lot of cameras, and add a lot of cabling going through hinge points. Cabling from the hot side to the cold side is a risk of heat leakage. Cameras would have to be heated to function on the cold side. You end up adding a lot of complexity, it was easier to rely on other sensors for monitoring deployments.
4
So instead of following the evidence, you decided that your feelings about one person are more important?
4
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
@KaitlynAmick A difference of only 0.3% is NOT VISIBLE to the naked eye. You can, however, verify that the difference is there by measuring the photo.
4
@fred24715 convincingly to anyone who can measure distances. Every falling object across hours of video, from the hammer and feather to clods of dust, falls at a speed consistent with 1/6 G.
4
What time stamp are you referring to? I just reviewed that section of the video and all I found was glint off of the PLSS radio antenna.
4
@VigilantX-TikTok No, NASA has created a few images (e.g. Blue Marble 2004), which are thousands of satellite photos pieced together. This does not make them CGI images, any more than a panorama you shoot with your phone is CGI. In addition to Blue Marble, we have literally millions of single-frame photos of Earth, starting with the photos made by the Apollo crews. Since then, every manned mission has carried cameras to orbit. Weather satellites take photos of the whole hemisphere every 10 minutes. Low-altitude satellites like Landsat, SPOT and Maxar take photos of the whole surface every few weeks.
4
@VigilantX-TikTok We know satellites are not carried by balloons, they are in space. We know this because we can measure the speed and altitude of a satellite from the ground, and we find values that are completely impossible to achieve for a balloon: 8 km/s and more than 400 km, all the way up to 36,000 km for geostationary satellites.
4
It doesn't. We rely on the fact that space is really empty: it's emptier than the best vacuum we can create on Earth.
4
Every time we measure the surface of our planet, we find that it is curved, not flat. The first to realize Earth is a sphere were the ancient Greeks, who predate NASA by 2500 years. The evidence is inescapable: Earth is a sphere. That means the texts in the Bible that seem to say Earth is flat cannot be taken literally, but must be poetry.
4
Balloons have a maximum altitude of about 50 km. This footage was taken from 36,000 km. How many balloons does it take to photograph Earth's entire surface every 10 minutes?
4
not quite. They moved the mirrors all the way to an end stop, in a position where the mirrors are supported. This helps prevent damage during launch. After launch, they had to move the mirrors about 12 mm from their end stops to get to their operational location.
4
@papalegba6796 The pressure inside the combustion chamber is tens to hundreds of bars, not zero, obviously.
4
@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
This was all easily verifiable truth. Stop calling events 'lies' because they don't agree with your warped worldview.
4
@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
@rphb5870 Proofs that Earth rotates: 1. Foucault's pendulum. The pendulum precesses, due to Earth's rotation. 2. The weight of an object changes with latitude: it weighs less on the equator than at higher latitudes. 3. Observation of Earth from a fixed reference point (the L1 Lagrange point) confirms that Earth rotates.
4
@rphb5870 Proof that Earth orbits the Sun: 1. The nearby stars seem to move relative to the background stars, and this movement repeats in sync with our year. This indicates that Earth moves around the Sun. 2. Venus has a full set of phases, which indicates it orbits the Sun instead of orbiting us. 3. Doppler shift in the light of nearby stars also changes in sync with our year.
4
Speech is free, but spreading nonsense has a cost to society. Luckily, because speech is free, we can counter that nonsense.
4
I can look up at night and see satellites in the night sky, proving that space is real, and NASA's projects are real.
4
@papalegba6796 "rockets don't work in a vacuum" is a lie, yes.
4
@papalegba6796 As you have been told before: Both free-body diagrams and work calculations demonstrate that rockets work in a vacuum. Your assumption that the pressure in the combustion chamber is zero is incorrect. Look up at night, see satellites pass overhead in the vacuum of space, and know your claims have been disproven again.
4
@SelwynRewes The Apollo missions are real. This is proven by a mountain of evidence.
4
On a 5 mile long suspension bridge, the tops of the towers are farther apart than the bottom. Lakes have a horizon at 5 km, just like the ocean, showing that lakes, like oceans, are curved.
4
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
The CGI is just a way to answer the question without having to book a flight and taking photos at various altitudes. Actually getting to altitude is left as an exercise for the reader.
4
the 1960s. It was built for the Apollo program.
4
@vykintasmorkvenas6839 Yes, they'll use sensor data for troubleshooting. This is quite common on spacecraft.
4
@papalegba6796 And yet thousands of rockets have been launched to a vacuum after being tested in these vacuum test chambers.
4
@Nehner You never get tired being wrong, do you?
4
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
@NinjaGaiden-z7t The only "evidence" is misleading flat-Earther videos zooming in on a boat in front of the horizon. In reality, on a flat Earth there would not be a horizon at all. Simple experiments anyone can do confirm Earth is not flat, but curved.
4
The Apollo 11 mission took 1400 photos in total. At 732 photos per minute, that means you think they spent 2 minutes on the surface. In fact Apollo 11 spent 8 hours on the surface.
4
IR sensors are rather different from visible-light sensors. You're comparing apples and oranges.
4
Yep, that (like all Apollo TV broadcasts) was live. Delay from sending from the Moon to Earth: about 1.2 seconds. Then the receiving station converted the slow-scan TV to NTSC. Some broadcasts were done while the USA had no line of sight to the moon, so they were received in e.g. Australia. They had to convert to NTSC (1 frame of delay, about 1/30 s) and send the signal via a geostationary satellite to the US (0.2 s delay). From a central location in the US the signal was forwarded to TV networks (either through satellite, cable or microwave links) where it was broadcast.
4
This is your lucky day. Fran Blanche published a video showing exactly what you want.
4
@papalegba6796 imagine being on Youtube and not recognizing a video ID (last part of the video URL).
4
Once you're conned into the false idea that Earth is flat, the concept of the globe becomes so absurd that you'll chuckle at the thought of ever having believed in it. This despite all of the evidence that proves Earth is a sphere.
4
@papalegba6796 Again, your ignorance is showing. There are 3 mechanisms for transferring heat: conduction, convection and radiation. Conduction requires contact with a second object. Convection requires an atmosphere. Radiation works fine in a vacuum. Radiation is the reason the lunar surface cools down during the lunar night.
4
These are the active satellites orbiting the moon right now: LRO, Chandrayaan-2 and 3, Chang'e 5 and 4, Themis. Many more have been operational since the 1960s.
4
Nope, contrails are curved, just like the surface.
4
No, that's not true. Earth's rotation makes things a bit more complicated, but it's not impossible. When we send data to Voyager, we aim an antenna at Voyager, start sending the data, and we keep the antenna aimed at Voyager. This can be done for up to 8 hours, then Earth's rotation puts the spacecraft below the horizon. So we have to make sure our transmissions take less than 8 hours. The Voyagers send science data continuously. We listen for up to 8 hours per session (and generally, each Voyager gets one 8-hour downlink session per day). If we want to receive engineering data, we have to tell the Voyager to send it at a specific time so we can schedule a downlink session.
4
Space is really empty. Those Star Trek scenes with the Enterprise picking its way through a boulder field are very unrealistic. At Voyager's location, the average density is 1 atom per cm3.
4
@jackyjax5513 The Bible is not a scientific treatise, it explains the world in words understandable by its audience. We've known for 2500 years Earth isn't flat.
4
Anyone can measure Earth's surface. You will find that it is curved, not flat. Anyone can see satellites in the sky, and measure their speed and altitude. You will see that they are in space, not in our atmosphere. This proves space is real.
4
dolimi jotoo That's not entering the water, that's a cloud exiting the water from smaller-scale volcanic activity before the main eruption.
4
Much better evidence than is given in this video is easily available. People who think Earth is flat don't look at any evidence.
4
@kpec3 'Earth is a spheroid' firmly remains a fact. We have proven the shape of Earth again and again. The evidence is incontrovertible. This evidence is accessible to anyone: simple experiments prove that Earth is a spheroid. Every bit of "evidence" presented by flat-Earthers turns out to be misleading. Videos that claim you can bring a ship that's gone over the horizon back into view, for instance: every single video that claims this, does not bring a ship that's gone over the horizon back into view, it zooms in on small boats that are (clearly visible in the video) in front of the horizon.
4
Go for it, programming is fun.
4
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
When that ship actually goes over the horizon, it is gradually hidden from the bottom up. Binoculars or a telescope fail to bring the hidden part back into view. What flat-Earthers like to do is look at a small boat that has not gone over the horizon yet, but is small enough not to be easily visible to the naked eye or the zoomed-out camera view. Then they zoom in "bringing it back into view".
4
False. 10,000 successful launches prove you wrong.
4
@kordelas2514 Space is generally accepted to start at an altitude of 100 km. We've launched 10,000 satellites to altitudes greater than that, and their ability to stay up there for years to decades without propulsion indicates that they really are in space. The fact that you can find the occasional atom at higher altitudes doesn't change that.
4
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
We know Earth is not flat. A flat plane does not have a horizon.
4
Spectroscopy requires there to be a spectrum. These images were taken at a single frequency.
4
this video has a resolution of 500 meters/pixel, and it consists of images taken 10 minutes apart. So you're looking at a cloud that's 1-2 km wide.
4
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
Go to a sea shore, and watch a large ship move away from you. Watch as it goes over the horizon, and is progressively hidden from the bottom up. The obstacle that's getting in between you and the ship is Earth's curvature.
4
anyone can use simple experiments to find Earth's shape. All those have the same result: Earth is spherical, not flat. Nobody is in a position to gatekeep this.
4
Every time we measure the surface of our planet, the result is that it is curved, not flat.
4
 @Digdeepstill Simple measurements show Earth's surface is curved. Everything else follows from that data.
4
Neil was right: Earth is pear-shaped. But his choice of words is poor: Earth does not look like a pear. Earth is a sphere that has been slightly squashed: the diameter at the equator is 0.3% larger than the diameter over the poles. And below the equator, there's a slightly larger bulge than above it. This is visible in high-resolution photos. Satellites like GOES and Himawari take photos with enough resolution that you can measure this difference. 0.3% is too small a difference to see with the naked eye.
4
@BoBwikCruz it won't make a difference whether you look at a high-res photo or at the original: the human eye and brain are not good enough at measuring distances to see Earth's deviation from being spherical. Jupiter is 20 times as oblate as Earth, and this is on the lower edge of what we can see with naked eye.
4
The ancient Greeks proved that Earth is a sphere, 2500 years ago. Observation of a ship going over the horizon proves that Earth's surface is curved. The shadow of Earth (as seen during a lunar eclipse) is a circle, which is only possible if Earth is a sphere. The change in the zenith angle of the sun between places at different latitudes allows you to calculate Earth's diameter.
4
Rockets ARE used in zero gravity and zero atmosphere all the time. Every orbital rocket launch ends in zero gravity and zero atmosphere.
4
Yes, note the soil thrown up by the wheels. - notice that it all moves in ballistic arcs, instead of forming dust clouds, as it would in Earth's atmosphere - measure how the dust moves: it accelerates downward at 1.6 m/s2, instead of the 9.8 m/s2 we see on Earth.
4
Retarded is believing Earth is flat when all of the evidence says it isn't.
4
Anyone can do a geodetic survey and prove that Earth's surface is curved, not flat. Collectively, we've done enough surveys to know that the curvature is the same everywhere, and the only shape that has the same curvature everywhere is a sphere. NASA's photos of Earth from space confirm what we've known for 2500 years.
4
The practical limit is set by the diameter of the mirror. This is called the diffraction limit, and there's a formula that calculates the best possible resolution based on mirror size and wavelength. If I remember correctly, Hubble's current cameras are already pretty close to that limit. Adding more pixels won't improve the image.
4
The Apollo suits could not be used for the long missions planned for Artemis: they were wearing out after 3 days. Also, for Artemis they want to be able to have more-or-less universal suits, instead of having to custom-fit each suit for one person. And that's just one of the major differences between Apollo and Artemis.
4
Anyone can do simple experiments to find the shape of our planet. All those experiments have the same result: Earth's surface is curved, not flat.
4
@BensMiniToons SLS and Orion were designed for a different mission than what they're being used for now. And instead of modifying Orion to give it enough performance to get in to low lunar orbit, a choice was made to leave the design as was. So political choices drove the design of Artemis more than engineering optimization.
4
We have no indication that the edge of the observable universe is the end of the universe.
4
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
you need better glasses, then.
4
All for a better understanding of the universe.
4
Would not have saved IM-1. It tried to land while moving horizontally with so much speed it broke one of the legs.
4
We aren't measuring infiinity. We're measuring long, but finite, distances.
4
Anyone can do a simple geodetic survey and see Earth's curvature for themselves. all of the evidence shows that Earth is a sphere.
4
Nope. 1. No, the moon is not in a perfectly circular orbit, the Earth-Moon distance changes by ~10%. 2. The Moon was created in a collision, which aligned the Moon's orbit with Earth's spin axis. 3. Nope, because both Earth and the Moon are in elliptical orbits the apparent sizes change, which is why some solar eclipses are annular (moon does not cover the sun completely). 4. Tidal locking happens for any moon, given enough time. Earth's oceans sped this up. 5. Crater depth/size ratio is no different from what we see on Earth. Soil mechanics during and after an impact explain why large craters are shallow.
4
Every flat Earth argument can and has been debunked. There is no actual science that leads to the conclusion that Earth is flat.
4
Anyone can measure a section of Earth's surface, and find that it is not flat, but curved. "Perspective, Density, Flight paths and simple Mathematics" - every flat-Earth claim that uses these terms is committing pseudoscience. They use scientific-sounding words in an effort to fool you into thinking the speaker is smart and knows what he's talking about, but the claims they make never hold up. Density, for instance, does not do anything on its own. Only when you place objects of different density in a gravitational field does that difference in density produce a force. Flerfs claim that 'density' can replace gravity as the explanation for why objects have weight, but in reality it can't.
4
Every single 'point' made by Fong is based on a lack of knowledge, and has already been debunked. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLXHrQ1Keac
4
Number of lies NASA has told us since its inception: 0.
4
10,000 successful satellite launches prove you wrong.
4
This is easier than exploring the ocean. One telescope can view the entire sky. To view our entire ocean floor, you need 300 survey ships working for 10 years; and that's just a sonar survey.
4
You're arguing from ignorance. There's a lot more space debris in low Earth orbit than at L2. Despite that, we manage to operate thousands of satellites for decades. How can we do this? It's pretty simple: most space debris is tiny. So we build spacecraft with an outer shell that consists of two layers ( a Whipple shield). Anything that hits the outer shell disintegrates on impact. It might punch through the outer shell, but the fragments won't have enough energy to penetrate the second layer. We build in lots of redundancy.
4
'nothing up there' refers to space, not the surface of the moon.
4
Anyone can do simple experiments that demonstrate that Earth is a rotating sphere.
4
The spacecraft are identical, their missions were different: Voyager 1 visited Jupiter and Saturn, and did a flyby of Titan which meant it couldn't continue on to Uranus. Voyager 2 visited all 4 gas giants.
4
People still think the landings were faked, when all of the evidence says the landings are real?
4
Yep. Space is empty.
4
Neil Armstrong has always been uncomfortable being in the public eye. I suspect he's not neurotypical, like many people with extreme intelligence.
4
God created the Earth to work in accordance with physical laws we can discern. He did not make a magical realm that lies to us at every turn. When we measure Earth's surface, we find that it is curved, not flat. We can measure Earth's rotation as well. This is not some vague assumption, this is hard data anyone can gather.
4
The camera is a Vidicon tube (analog TV camera). Its output is digitized. Voyager's transmitter produces 12 W of RF. This is sent through an antenna with 48 dBi gain. NASA uses the Deep Space Network to receive these signals. This has large dish antennas (34 m diameter, 74 dB gain) in 3 stations: Goldstone, USA, Madrid and Canberra. These antennas are equipped with receivers that are cooled to around 4 K, to reduce their noise to the absolute minimum. Signal power at the end of the chain is around -150 dBm, with a receiver that can pick up signals down to -170 dBm. Voyager has a star tracker: this tracks the position of the Sun and a bright star, that gives the attitude of the probe. It uses thrusters to change the attitude: these can aim the probe to an accuracy of less than 1 degree.
4
We regularly observe Apophis, and every observation improves our knowledge of its orbit, reducing the margin of error in calculations of its future path. The 2032 impact possibility was based on earlier calculations with a larger margin of error. New observations have allowed us to rule out an impact in 2032.
4
The current estimate is that the 2 Voyagers will no longer produce enough power to run a single instrument by ~2025. The team wants to try and keep the mission going to the 50-year mark, with the spacecraft just sending telemetry after 2025. If the Voyagers had more power, our current Deep Space Network setup could keep in contact with them until 2057, with a bit rate of 40 bits/s.
4
They weren't tense, they were tired after quarantine and debriefings.
4
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
It's not necessary for the Voyagers (if they didn't run out of power, we'd still be able to reach them in 2050). For new missions at much larger distances, a relay might be useful, but it'd be expensive: you'd need to launch a giant antenna with a large power source. The DSN uses 70 m antennas and up to 20 kW of transmitter power (that's 50 x more power than the Voyagers had at launch). The relay would have to be in deep space itself, so you're launching a multi-ton spacecraft on a Voyager-like trajectory (compared to the Voyagers which weighed ~800 kg at launch). You'd also need a relay for each mission. It's easier and cheaper to just build better antennas on Earth.
4
Every single one of Newton's laws of motion and gravitation has been extensively tested and found to be valid, i.e. we know he wasn't lying about any of those.
4
No, there is no evidence that shows Earth is flat. All of the data shows Earth is a sphere. A ship going over the horizon follows a curved path. From an airliner you can see the curvature with the naked eye.
4
Incorrect. It falls back at 1.6 m/s2. This is easily measurable in the videos.
4
8 Apollo command modules orbited the moon and observed lots of sunsets and sunrises.
4
Why would we imagine that? the landings are real.
4
@user-pf5xq3lq8i no, correlation is not a link. That's what "correlation is not causation" means. You can't just take two events that happen at the same time and assume they must be related.
4
Why would you believe that, when we have a ton of evidence that proves the Apollo missions did land on the moon, 6 times?
4
No, that's not what happens. Watch a large ship move away from you, and you will see that at a distance of 5 km the lower part of its hull starts to be hidden by the water. As it moves away, more of the ship gets hidden by the water. Switching to binoculars or a telescope will not bring the hidden part of the ship back into view. Every video that claims you can bring boats back into view using binoculars tricks you by looking at a small boat in front of the horizon. What can bring the ship back into view is moving to a higher elevation. This does not reduce your distance to the ship, proving that the ship going out of view is not due to any "limited resolution" of the human eye.
4
Earth's deviation from round is 23 km, on a radius of 6370 km. That's too small to be visible with the naked eye on the downscaled image on most monitors. If you download a full-resolution image (10k x 10k pixels) and measure the image in an image editor, the oblateness will show up.
4
@James-zp5po Using a telescope does not bring a ship that has gone over the horizon back into view. All it can do is show more details on the parts of the ship that were visible already. Every video that claims you can bring a ship that has gone over the horizon back into view is misinformation: they are actually zooming in on small boats that have not gone over the horizon yet.
4
@James-zp5po No, the stars do not stay in the same place. For the ancient Egyptians, the star Thuban was the North Star. Back then, it was closer to Earth's axis of rotation than Polaris. In 2 thousand years, we will use Errai as the North Star. The fastest-moving star we can see has moved 1º since it was discovered 100 years ago.
4
Cadillac Kadafi 'A funny thing' is not a documentary, it's a pack of lies and misinformation.
4
Our current antennas are capable of communicating with the Voyagers until 2050 at least, so that's not a limiting factor. It's much easier and cheaper to build a large antenna here on Earth (we use 70-meter dish antennas) than to launch such a large antenna into space.
4
Adults follow the evidence that shows Voyager is a real project. Nobody has presented any evidence that these missions were faked.
4
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
We have a dozen different methods for determining what shape our planet is. This includes direct measurement of the shape of Earth's surface (geodetic surveying), simple observations (if Earth were flat, the horizon would not look like it does on our planet), photos from high altitude (taking care to use a lens that does not distort the image), photos from space, spaceflight itself, etc. All of these tell us the same thing: Earth is a sphere with a diameter of about 12700 km. There is no evidence that Earth is any other shape. Anyone who claims Earth is any other shape does this based on either bad data (flawed experiments like your claims that a P900 will allow you to view objects beyond the horizon) or based on no data at all.
4
We don't believe, we know we actually went to the moon. There's so much evidence that proves this that there's no room for doubt.
4
the smallest details visible in the video are 500x500 meters. What you're looking at is clouds, not a missile.
4
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
this video does not show details smaller than 500 meters. No missile is that large. All we have is one frame showing a cloud that's 1-2 km wide.
4
In any engineering project, the cost of the materials is just a small part of the total cost. Most of the money goes into paying people to invent, design, develop and test every part that goes into the project. In a project like JSWT that requires new development in a lot of areas, this fraction is even higher. JWST is not unique in this: it happens everywhere. When a car company develops a new car, they spend $1 billion on R&D. During that time, they build a few hundred cars for testing, cars with a sale value of maybe $50 million total. And that's just to advance the state of the art by a small amount (reduce fuel consumption by 5% over the previous model, improve crash survivability by 5%, etc.). For JWST entirely new technology had to be developed. So they spent time thinking about designs, building prototypes, testing them (and not just testing them for an afternoon, some of these tests go on for months or years), changing the design, testing again etc.
4
@anchorpoint5871 Of course it's a valid explanation. The moon missions were the most expensive project in history.
4
The earliest satellites didn't use cameras; they used various scientific instruments to measure the environment. That may have set up a legacy of not wanting to use cameras.
4
They livestreamed the moon landings in 1969, using TV broadcasts.
4
@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
It takes 22.5 hours for a radio signal to reach Voyager 1, just as long as it takes a photon of light to reach Voyager 1. Radio signals (like everything in the electromagnetic spectrum) travel at the speed of light.
4
The pool had to be large enough to fit the ISS mockup and be able to work around the outside of the ISS.
4
@rickreid8572 No, there is no quote from NASA that says "everything was destroyed" anywhere to be found. All you have is empty claims made by moon landing deniers. This is the actual situation: 1. We still have every single drawing used to create the Saturn V and Apollo spacecraft. All 6 million of them are archived by the Smithsonian. 2. We still have thousands of technical reports on every aspect of the program, easily found in a public NASA archive. 3. We have actual NASA quotes that list what was "destroyed": 700,000 magnetic tapes containing raw downloads of engineering telemetry were reused when those recordings became obsolete. The important data was transcribed before the tapes were reused for Landsat data in the 1980s.
4
No. One side produces actual arguments supported by evidence, that can be verified by simple experiments. The other side produces arguments that are based on them hoping you won't notice the holes in those arguments, i.e. disinformation. These arguments are not supported by evidence. Every time we test these claims, the test shows the claim is false.
4
I can see the moon, at 380,000 km. I can see Saturn, at more than a billion km. As long as the object you're looking at it large enough, there is no distance limit to your vision. Mountains are big enough to be visible at more than 56 miles.
4
Experiments like Cavenish's torsion balance prove that any two masses attract each other.
4
The evidence says otherwise, grow up.
4
Any large explosion causes a mushroom cloud. Volcanic eruptions have been recorded thousands of years back, long before we developed nuclear weapons.
4
Every time a ship goes over the horizon, you are witnessing Earth's curvature.
4
The only 'editing' they did was basic stuff that doesn't change the content of the image: color calibration, removing reseau marks and dust marks.
4
An asteroid hit would be bad, but it's very unlikely.
4
@thebuzz2010 The sunshield has been built to deal with the dust-sized particles that can be expected. E.g. they made sure a small tear can't easily expand.
4
The evidence says otherwise.
4
Those Apollo suits were developing problems in only 3 days on the moon, so we need something better.
4
Wrong. There's nothing about the LRV that's impossible or not feasible with the technology of the time.
4
The location of the horizon depends on the size of the planet you're standing on. On Earth, the horizon is about 4 km away from us. On the Moon, it's half that. Secondly, your perception of distance is unreliable on the moon: you are used to our atmosphere which makes faraway objects blurry. The moon has no atmosphere. The moon also has no landmarks of known size you can use to judge distances. So "my town doesn't do that" is a clear indication that those photos cannot have been taken on Earth. Thanks for helping prove the moon landings are real.
4
We have been proving Earth is a sphere for 2500 years. In all that time, not a single piece of evidence has been found that shows Earth is any shape other than an oblate sphere. Every day we measure Earth's surface using geodetic survey. Every survey we've ever done shows that Earth's surface is curved.
4
@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
No. For the heliosphere, the Voyagers provided the first data - anything before that was theoretical; Voyager was the first chance we had to validate and refine the model. For our climate, we have enormous amounts of data, with more being added every day. And we have the option to validate these models against e.g. historical data. So the uncertainty in climate models is a lot smaller than that of our heliopause models before Voyager.
4
Correct, they were there in 1969.
4
Look at a ship going over the horizon. It follows a curved path: that's Earth's curvature.
4
That is nonsense. We have a ton of proof that the Apollo missions are real, and no evidence that says they were faked. All you have is bad arguments that fall apart on examination.
4
There's no mechanism for removing dust. The estimate is that JWST will encounter micrograms per year of dust. These will be high-velocity impacts that make tiny craters in the mirrors. This is noticeable as a tiny reduction in the amount of light the mirrors collect.
4
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
No, objects disappearing behind the horizon has nothing to do with perspective. Perspective (or rather, the resolution limit of the human eye) causes objects to disappear from view when their angular size becomes too small for the eye to resolve. For small objects, this is much closer than the horizon. A mouse is invisible at 100 meters. A large ship remains easily visible at 5 km (the distance to the horizon). Even with the naked eye we can see that when such a ship goes over the horizon, it gets progressively hidden from the bottom up. The fact that the top of the ship remains visible proves that the ship is not disappearing due to a lack of resolution of the eye. We can aim a telescope at the ship, and see that the lower part of the ship remains hidden. We can reveal the lower part by moving to a higher elevation, again proving that that part was not hidden due to any limitation of our eyesight, but it was hidden behind a physical obstacle: a 'hill' of water between us and the ship. That hill is Earth's curvature.
4
@VigilantX-TikTok We know what's beneath the surface because we invented a method for learning about the ground below us that does not require digging: it's called seismology.
4
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
@papalegba6796 The laws of physics, like Newton's third law, which says rockets work in a vacuum? Or Einstein's general relativity, which describes gravity?
4
@hannesswart4827 Flat-Earthers like to make misleading videos where they zoom in on a small boat that is in front of the horizon. This is easy to see in those videos: you can see water behind the boat. This is what a real test of the horizon looks like: 1. follow a large ship. The bigger, the better. 2. once it starts going over the horizon, you will see that it gets hidden from the bottom up. 3. When the ship is at the point where the hull is hidden, but the superstructure remains visible, zoom in. You will not be able to make the hull visible, no matter how much you zoom in. This demonstrates that the horizon is a real, physical obstacle in front of the ship.
4
@hannesswart4827 That is incorrect. Many videos are available that show what I described. The one video that shows a ship 'floating' demonstrates a mirage.
4
A quote that has been misinterpreted by moon landing deniers. They falsely assume it means "we no longer know how to get to the moon", which is nonsense. It means "we dismantled the production line and if we want to go back to the moon, we'd have to start by building new rockets and spacecraft".
4
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
@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
@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
@petethewrist Because there are few objects of known size on the moon, it's hard to estimate distances in photos. But it's still pretty obvious they were using lenses with a short focal length: every photo shows a wide scene of nearby objects.
4
It's no kind of wifi. It's a custom-built system that uses huge antennas to receive those very weak signals.
4
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
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
They did. Artemis is not a repeat of Apollo: it's a much more ambitious set of missions, which requires a much larger payload to be transported to the moon than Apollo ever could.
4
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
@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
Water does curve. we can measure this by doing a geodetic survey along the bank of e.g. a canal. The canal curves, just like the ground next to it. Once a ship has gone over the horizon, no amount of zooming in will bring it back into view. Every video that claims to show this, actually zooms in on small boats in front of the horizon, i.e. those videos deliberately mislead you.
4
We don't have to believe, we can verify that it is real. Right now, I'm receiving TV signals from a satellite 36,000 km above the equator. On a clear night, I can look up and see satellites pass overhead.
4
Their statements can be verified through simple experiments. We've known Earth was a sphere for milennia before the Freemason organization was founded.
4
JWST is a joint project between NASA, ESA and CSA. The launch was part of ESA's contribution to the project.
4
@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
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
Neil deGrasse Tyson has a doctorate in astrophysics. Nye has a bachelor's degree and has practiced and taught science for decades. That makes them scientists.
4
Actual scientists. Tyson and Thaller have doctorates, Nye is an engineer who has been a practicioner of science for decades. And attacking their credentials isn't going to help: their claims can be, and have been, verified by thousands through the ages. Anyone can use simple experiments to find out Earth's shape.
4
@michaellyne8773 The astronauts were used to small spaces. Look up the Mercury and Gemini capsules: the astronauts had a seat, and a tiny bit of elbow room. Yet they spent up to 12 days in those tiny spacecraft. None of them would let that get in the way of a chance of walking on the moon. Many astronauts were Air Force test pilots, well used to danger (in the 1960s, there were test pilot fatalities every year). That didn't stop them from doing their job either. You may be claustrophobic and risk-averse, that does not say anything about the astronauts.
4
@michaellyne8773 From 1958, 5 missions studied the van Allen belts. Explorer 1 and Explorer 3 confirmed the existence of the belt. The trapped radiation was first mapped by Explorer 4, Pioneer 3, and Luna 1. So you're contradicting yourself. Either these missions failed and we have no idea there's a radiation belt, or they succeeded and we have a map that shows the radiation intensity for each location, allowing us to plot a safe trajectory. You still don't understand how radiation works. The total dose is intensity times duration. And you have no idea how fast the Apollo spacecraft was. After the translunar injection burn, it was traveling at 10 km/s. The van Allen belts stretch out over 30,000 km, with the high-intensity areas limited to 30% of that. That leads to 1 hour spent in high-intensity areas, and 2 hours in lower intensity areas, (1-10% of maximum intensity). This leads to a total exposure of 1% of a lethal dose. In summary: on one hand we have science: we measured the van Allen belts, and we found a way to get through them without killing the astronauts. On the other hand we have your bluster and handwaving that isn't based on data.
4
Apollo 11 was not the "first attempt". Before Apollo 11, we had: 8 Pioneer missions, all of which failed, 9 Ranger missions, 7 of which failed. 7 Surveyor missions, 2 of which failed. 5 Lunar Orbiter missions, all successful. 12 Gemini missions, which tested essential concepts like EVA and rendezvous. ~22 Apollo unmanned test launches. Apollo 7-10, which tested every aspect of the moon landing except for the final approach and landing. The only reason we have not been back since 1972 is money. Manned lunar missions were unaffordable in NASA's post-1972 budget.
4
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
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).
4
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 enough data to figure out how to deal with them: 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
Budget cuts ended the Voyager program. But the successor to the Voyagers were missions that would spend years orbiting one planet: Galileo and Juno at Jupiter, Cassini at Saturn.
4
@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
The link to Voyager isn't wifi, obviously. Wifi and cellular phone systems are radio systems designed to work at short distances. The smaller a cell, the more subscribers you can service in a certain area. Radio is not magic. Radio waves do not travel through solid obstacles. Between Voyager and Earth, there are no solid obstacles. The radio link is exclusive: only Voyager and its ground station talk to each other. The ground station for Voyager uses the same technology as radio telescopes: giant dish antennas, and cryogenically cooled receivers that can receiver Voyager's very weak signals. We can calculate the maximum distance at which this radio link should be able to contact the Voyagers. That distance is around 200 AU. Voyager 1 is at a distance of 150 AU now, so they're good for another 25 years.
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
@macjoe4448 If you believe we couldn't build a moon mission in the 1960s, you don't understand the technology they used.
4
That is nonsense. 9 Apollo missions have gone to the moon. We have a ton of evidence that proves this. We have millions of actual photos, not CGI, of Earth from space.
4
Nope. We have film footage of Armstrong on the moon, and one still photo.
4
Anyone who looks at the moon through a telescope will conclude it's a sphere. Craters in the center are round, craters near the limb are distorted in a way that suggests we're looking at them side-on, which means they are on a spherical surface.
4
To see the Apollo landers from Earth, you need a telescope with a mirror diameter of 100 m. A telescope's resolution is limited by diffraction. We have detailed images of the entire Moon with a resolution of ~30 cm, made by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter. It photographed all of the Apollo landing sites: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pnhnx95LkCc
4
We have ten different ways to prove Earth is a sphere, and none of them require a fisheye lens. We can measure Earth's surface directly, and we always find that it is curved.
4
Because L2 is the only one where you can use one sunshield to cover the Sun, Earth and the Moon. And the distance to L4/L5 is a lot bigger, which means a lower data transmission speed.
4
@dandobrowolski5818 A scientist doesn't have to break new ground or make any discoveries. All that matters is that you follow the scientific method. Even if that's in the form of repeating old, well-known experiments for a TV show.
4
@dandobrowolski5818 The Science Council defines a scientist as “someone who systematically gathers and uses research and evidence, to make hypotheses and test them, to gain and share understanding and knowledge.” Note the word 'share'. Sharing knowledge is part of being a scientist. Nye didn't just read a script others wrote. He was involved in designing the experiments he showed on TV.
4
this video does not show details smaller than 500 meters. No missile is that large. All we have is one frame showing a cloud that's 1-2 km wide.
4
Present your evidence that they are lying.
4
Yes. Nuclear explosions look very different, and have a different seismic signature.
4
They did look at Apollo. The Apollo solution has drawbacks, as does the solution now used at the ISS, so they're experimenting to find a solution that's better than both.
4
Look up tonight: you'll see satellites pass overhead. With simple tools, you can measure their altitude and speed. This confirms that they are in space and in orbit, proving that space is real.
3
That is incorrect. Problem #1 with your idea: they took video as well as still photos. That video clearly shows humans moving in the suits. #2: there are photos where the visor on the suit is raised, and you can see there's a person inside, not a dummy. This is the problem with all of the 'evidence' brought up by moon landing deniers: it's all crap that falls apart when you examine it.
3
Every year, thousands of people visit the South Pole.
3
Take a look at the moon, through a telescope. In the middle, the craters are all round. Near the edges, they appear distorted because we are looking at them from the side. This demonstrates that the Moon is a sphere. A little farther away, look at Jupiter. It's large enough that you can see stripes along its surface. Its big red spot is also visible through a decent telescope. Observe Jupiter for a few hours, and you can see it rotate. Observe it for a few days, and you can see the same features rotate past every 16 hours, demonstrating that it is a sphere. Look at Saturn. Its rings are a circle around the planet.
3
JWST observes in the infrared, parts of that spectrum are blocked by the atmosphere so we can't build this telescope on Earth.
3
That won't help. the Voyager mission will end when it no longer has enough power to run one instrument (which will happen in the next 5 years), not because it's going out of transmission range. That won't happen for another 30 years.
3
An area the size of this telescope is hit by one object less than 1 cm3 in size once every 1000 years.
3
False. There are thousands of photos and hours of film showing a total of 12 people on the moon.
3
@kid8605 Water around the South Pole isn't upside down. Up and down are directions set by gravity: Down is always towards the center of the planet. Every time you look at a ship going over the horizon, you are witnessing Earth's curvature. Anyone can measure Earth's curvature. Anyone can measure Earth's rotation using e.g. a Foucault pendulum.
3
That's incorrect. The Voyagers used programmable computers.
3
That generator costs $100 million and runs on Plutonium. That's why it's not available at Home Depot.
3
That's nonsense. They didn't lie, they didn't have to: their mission was real.
3
Every time you let go of an object, it drops to the ground. This is a demonstration of gravity in action.
3
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
We can easily confirm satellites are real: you can see them in the night sky, even with the naked eye. We can triangulate their altitude, and fin they're at 400 km and higher. We can measure their speed, we find they're at 8 km/s which means they are in orbit. We can confirm the same satellites stay in space for decades, which means they do not need engines to stay there. We can also easily confirm Earth is not a plane. Wherever we go, the horizon is at the same distance, which proves the surface is curved at a constant radius. A geodetic survey allows us to measure this radius, and we always find the same values: 6370 km.
3
Everybody for the last 2500 years has known the shape of the Earth.
3
@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
This is an average. The originals are the individual observations used to create this average.
3
NASA spent $250 billion getting to the moon. Then they were told to stop spending so much money, and their budget was reduced by 90%.
3
@timg6176 There is nothing to hide. Actual Hebrew dictionaries, and sources like Strong's concordance, agree with what I wrote before.
3
Every single argument they make has been debunked. It's a collection of 'I don't know how they did it, so instead of figuring that out I'm going to call it fake', mixed with cherrypicking data (use the 1958 measurements of the van Allen belts that were proven 1000 times too high by missions carried out in 1959-1962) and plain old lies.
3
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
None of the "arguments" made in that piece of rubbish are valid. He presents no actual evidence that the landings were faked.
3
Let's look at one of those manuals you claim state the Earth is flat. "In this summary, we want to describe the flight dynamics with equations. This is, however, very difficult. To simplify it a bit, we have to make some simplifying assumptions. We assume that . . . • There is a flat Earth. (The Earth’s curvature is zero.) • There is a non-rotating Earth. (No Coriolis accelerations and such are present.) • The aircraft has constant mass. • The aircraft is a rigid body. • The aircraft is symmetric. • There are no rotating masses, like turbines. (Gyroscopic effects can be ignored.) • There is constant wind. (So we ignore turbulence and gusts.)" The document tells you why this assumption is made: to simplify the math involved. This introduces inaccuracies, and the text describes some of them. For the purposes of this document, it's close enough to be usable. For other purposes, ignoring these inaccuracies will cause you to crash. Let's look at some of those inaccuracies in more detail: There is a flat Earth. - this allows you to model a flight path as a straight line, instead of a curved path. It removes variables from the math. The aircraft has constant mass. - again, simplifying the math by removing a variable. This is unrealistic, because every aircraft with an engine has a mass that changes during the flight as fuel is used up. The aircraft is a rigid body. - again, simplifying the math by removing variables. Real aircraft aren't rigid. The control surfaces move, and the entire wing flexes in flight. There's a whole category of accidents that happen due to unwanted movement of the wing ('flutter' - rapid oscillations of part of the wing that can cause parts of the wing to break off). There are no rotating masses: again, this implies that the aircraft has no engines. This approach is common in physics. A realistic model is very complicated, and that complication can get in the way of teaching how things work. So we model one variable at a time. In high-school physics, for instance, we study how objects move by ignoring variables like wind resistance and friction. We model collisions as "perfectly elastic" or "perfectly inelastic" when all real-world collisions are in between those two extremes.
3
We have detected the CMB using several different spacecraft, demonstrating that those measurements are not a measurement error.
3
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
1. that's incorrect. They used a film developed for high-altitude reconnaissance photography, which has a wider temperature range than consumer film. 2. Radiation damage is present in many images. Some examples: AS11-40-5866, AS11-40-5867, AS11-40-5874, AS12-46-6742. 3. NASA feels it is necessary how the Orion capsule handles radiation before allowing it to be used for manned flights.
3
To give you an example of the 'quality' of American Moon: it asks the question, "Can you explain why NASA – despite everything van Allen had written on the dangers of radiation – has sent the first astronauts through the radioactive belts without any specific protection, and without even a monkey first, in order to evaluate the effects of radiation on a biological organism as complex as the human being?" Answer: 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.
3
That's incorrect. All of the photo negatives and 16mm film is still stored in a NASA lab. Several recent books got access to that lab to make new high-resolution scans directly from the originals.
3
Anyone who does objective research finds out that none of the moon landing deniers' claims hold up.
3
@qed100 AIUI, there was a layer of fabric around the neoprene that provided most of the resistance to expansion.
3
@marxman00 That is incorrect. Vacuum chambers on Earth get close enough to 0 pressure to do a realistic test. And yes, space suits are tested in vacuum chambers. In fact, every astronaut has to do a vacuum test with the space suit made for him. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KO8L9tKR4CY For Apollo, NASA did vacuum tests with the entire spacecraft (both CM and LM), with crews spending days in the spacecraft inside a huge vacuum chamber.
3
It wasn't easy at all in the 1960s. It took 5% of the US Federal budget for a decade to get to the Moon. After Apollo, NASA's budget was slashed to 1/5 of what it was, which is why we haven't been back yet.
3
What the astronauts see when they look out the window is easy to find. NASA has a Flickr channel with hundreds of thousands of photos taken by astronauts.
3
@AutismusMaximus1 Anyone can verify that the Apollo landings are real. For example: All of the Apollo photos show a single light source, very far away. This proves they were not made in a studio. The photos show shadows with a hard edge, which indicates they're not in our atmosphere, but in a vacuum. This proves they were not made in an open-air studio on Earth. All of the Apollo videos show objects falling at an acceleration of 1.6 m/s2, not the 9.8 m/s2 you get here on Earth. This indicates they're not in Earth's gravitational field, but on the moon.
3
About 450,000 Americans and 200 Germans worked on the Apollo program. The German contribution to Apollo was about 0.05%.
3
No. They're moving at a speed of 17 km/s. To brake from that speed to 0 and head back into the inner solar system would take thousands of tons of fuel .
3
Volcanos don't produce that much CO2 (1% of human emissions in an average year). There'll be a small effect on this year's average temperature (-0.1 ºC).
3
Among those single-frame photos, the latest GOES and Himawari images show the whole hemisphere with a resolution of 12000x12000 pixels, more than enough to measure Earth's oblateness. You can do a visual comparison too: Take a GOES image. Duplicate it. Cut one image along the equator and one along the line from pole to pole. Fit the two half-images together, and you'll see that the equator is longer than the pole-to-pole line.
3
That is incorrect. Rockets work fine in a vacuum, as is demonstrated by the satellites I can see in the sky.
3
New Horizons took thousands of photos of Pluto. Hubble can't resolve Pluto very well: Pluto's size occupies only 10 pixels on Hubble's camera sensors.
3
Seemingly-flat land actually follows Earth's curvature. Those flat areas still have a horizon (which is caused by Earth's curvature). 'Flat' in this context means that the elevation (i.e. the height above the geoid) does not change.
3
In 2010, when Pettit gave that interview, he was right. NASA did not have a moon-capable spacecraft in production. However, moon landing deniers always claim this must mean the Apollo landings were faked. That conclusion is not supported by facts.
3
@narajuna It's not a matter of "no technology". From 1972 to 2017, there was no money for manned moon landings, so no spacecraft were built for manned moon landings. These are facts. What you have is an overactive imagination.
3
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
Anyone can do simple experiments that show Earth's surface is curved, not flat. It's pretty sad that you fell so hard for a con that you're now clinging to it for dear life.
3
@papalegba6796 There is nothing in the laws of thermodynamics that says rockets can't work in a vacuum. There is nothing in the laws of thermodynamics that says our atmosphere cannot exist next to a vacuum.
3
@papalegba6796 The temperature in the combustion chamber is thousands of degrees, so Q is not zero. The pressure in the combustion chamber is hundreds of bars, so P is not zero, which means W is not zero.
3
What the Voyagers did is produce actual science.
3
Radio signals travel at the speed of light, 300,000 km/s. Both New Horizons and the receiving station here on Earth use dish antennas to focus the signal in a narrow cone. The antenna here on Earth has a diameter of 70 m, and its receiver is cyrogenically cooled to reduce the noise it produces (making it more sensitive). The data rate is very low (1 kbit/s) at that distance.
3
Hubble had the advantage that it could be serviced. This meant they could replace defective parts. Especially mechanical parts like reaction wheels will wear out over time. Hubble was in Earth's magnetic field, so it didn't need fuel to desaturate the reaction wheels, fuel is the limiting factor for JWST.
3
About 450,000 Americans and 200 Germans worked on the Apollo program. The German contribution to Apollo was about 0.05%.
3
We can prove Earth is not flat, but spherical. We can prove it moves around the sun. We can prove there is no dome anywhere.
3
@rphb5870 Proofs the Earth is not flat, but curved: 1. We can measure the surface directly using a geodetic survey. Every survey we've ever done (and we do thousands every year, all over the world) shows that Earth's surface is curve. Anyone can do this using simple tools. 2. Observation of a ship going over the horizon proves that Earth cannot be flat. As a ship goes over the horizon, it is progressively hidden from the bottom up. This cannot happen on a flat Earth, but can happen if the surface is curved. There's more where that came from, but these are easy to understand, and can be verified by anyone.
3
@rphb5870 Unfortunately, there are people who seriously think Earth is flat. Your joke is indistinguishable from their belief.
3
Dubay is incapable of obliterating anything. His arguments are not based on solid reasoning or observable evidence. He remains incapable of producing one single piece of evidence that shows Earth is flat. That's because no such evidence exists: every time we examine the shape of our planet, we find that it is curved, not flat.
3
Anyone can look up at night, see satellites in the night sky, proving that space is real. Outer space is not magical, it's a natural consequence of the laws of physics.
3
That's a dumb conclusion, and the wrong one.
3
@evidece4divine Because all of the evidence on this shows that the Apollo missions are real. There is no evidence any of those missions were faked. This video shows they're doing experiments to optimize spacewalks (reducing the time it takes to prepare for a spacewalk). There's nothing in it to indicate the solution they used in the Apollo program was unworkable.
3
Every time we measure Earth's surface, we find curvature. We've known Earth is a sphere for 2500 years.
3
You fell for a con. Some flatearther grifters claim that the astronauts are still alive, and their "evidence" consists of them finding people who have similar names. The photos they presented show people who look very different from the actual astronauts.
3
Plenty of evidence that says we have been on the moon, 6 times.
3
The nice thing about science is that it's verifiable, which makes NASA's claims not propaganda, but reality.
3
Yup, it had to do with Russia: the USA had to beat the USSR in the space race. The USSR had its own space program, including lunar missions, and they would be in an excellent position to detect any fakery. So the only way to beat them was to do it for real. So the USA started spending 20 times more on spaceflight than the USSR could manage, and won the space race by doing something the USSR could not manage. While doing so, the USA presented a ton of evidence that shows the Apollo landings are real. In the 50 years since, we've only added to that evidence: later lunar orbiters have photographed the Apollo landing sites, and found they look exactly as claimed by NASA. In those 50 years, nobody has been able to present any evidence that the landings were faked. _Nobody_.
3
We have millions of images of Earth. The Himawari and GOES images (and Meteosat, which uses a similar imaging system) provide images in 10k x 10k resolution, in 16 spectral bands. The spectral bands are optimized for meteorology, so you won't get an RGB image. They do have red and blue channels, not green IIRC. 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, which made full-disk images on their way out. And of course the photos and film made by the Apollo missions.
3
Running oxygen rich allows them to go to a really low pressure. 5 psi at 80/20 would kill you. 5 psi at 100% oxygen is fine.
3
No, they didn't. NASA found that lunar impacts reverberate for longer than similar impacts on Earth. This is caused by differences in geology. Earth's crust is a thin layer on a molten mantle. The mantle absorbs energy, damping the seismic waves. Earth's crust contains liquids: water, oil. These also absorb energy, damping the seismic waves. The Moon has a very thick, dry crust, which means less attenuation of seismic waves.
3
It's surprisingly difficult to build anything faster. APL is working on an interstellar mission proposal, and they have trouble coming up with a design that's twice as fast as the Voyagers. We have some ideas on how to improve the longevity, but the main limit remains RTG lifetime.
3
The laws of physics include GRAVITY, which causes water to curve along with everything else. Water is never flat, it's always curved.
3
Yes. Much sooner than that, actually. Polaris won't be the North Star in a few thousand years. The constellations are visibly different now compared to the first decently accurate star catalog from 2000 years ago.
3
1. No, the human eye is not limited in scope. When we observe the horizon, it is easy to prove that the horizon is not caused by any 'limit in scope' of the human eye. Follow a large ship as it approaches the horizon. The larger the better. When it goes over the horizon, the ship starts to disappear from the bottom up. There will be a point at which the hull is hidden, but the superstructure remains visible. This observation proves that the hull is not hidden by a 'limit to our vision', but by a physical obstacle in between you and the ship. You can bring the hull back into view by going to a higher elevation, again confirming that the hull was hidden by a physical obstacle. What you cannot do, is bring the hull back into view by zooming in. Flerf videos that claim to do this always cheat by looking at a small boat that has not gone over the horizon yet.
3
. Countless people have photographed Earth's curvature using lenses that do not have barrel distortion
3
@BlueDragonAkira There is one person who claims the technology was destroyed. He is _wrong_. Tons of design data remains available in public archives.
3
@BlueDragonAkira I have looked through the lens of a telescope and found that it did not make the part of the ship that is hidden by the horizon visible, as I've already explained to you. Every single flat-Earth video that claims to do this is lying to you.
3
Every single one of those "proofs" have been debunked. Earth remains a sphere. The simplest proof of Earth's shape is just measuring how the elevation of a flat piece of land changes: every time we do this (using a geodetic survey) we find that the land is curved, not flat.
3
There is no limit to how far we can see. The only limit is angular resolution: the smallest angle between two objects at which we can still see them as two objects. Anything closer together than that angle appears to us as a single object. So the larger an object is, the farther away it can be and still be visible.
3
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
@Stellaria2025 Again, this video does not show details smaller than 500 meters. No missile is that large. All we have is one frame showing a cloud that's 1-2 km wide.
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 denier has ever been able to disprove any of this.
3
Every dollar spent on the space program grows the economy by $7. You're welcome.
3
They're test pilots. They're calm and focused.
3
@DouglasUrantia They carried enough oxygen to walk more than 5 miles. This proves that it did happen.
3
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
as far as I know, it doesn't have surveillance cameras.
3
Everything goes over a curve. When a ship is at a distance of 5 km, it starts to be hidden from view, from the bottom up. There is a point at which the hull is completely hidden, but the superstructure remains visible. This demonstrates that there is a physical obstacle between the observer and the ship, and that obstacle is Earth's curvature. If you went outside and looked at the horizon, you'd know this.
3
Everything Scott said is verifiable reality. You are living in denial.
3
The images from GOES and Himawari are publicly available.
3
4 sentences, and only one of them is correct (the first one).
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. 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
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
@stoneyestevan1513 You assume I must be an atheist because I know the lunar landings are real.
3
@stoneyestevan1513 I'm saying I don't have to be an atheist to know the moon landings are real.
3
Time dilation for the Voyagers is less than a second over the whole mission.
3
Clearly you have been listening to professional liars, or you would not think that space is fake.
3
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
What you got was probably one of the training vehicles. These looked like the LRV but were built for use on Earth.
3
That is nonsense.
3
No, that's not the truth.
3
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
@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
@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
It doesn't. I measured the dirt getting kicked up in one of the Apollo videos. 1. it doesn't slow down as it travels, which means they must be in a vacuum. 2. The dirt takes 2.5 times longer to get to the ground than it would on Earth, which means they are in 1/6 g instead of 1 g.
3
You didn't just hear it on the radio. We have tons of evidence for the Apollo missions from multiple independent sources.
3
Every Apollo mission has segments where Houston and the astronauts are working to improve the radio link, switching between antennas, manually aiming the high-gain antenna etc.
3
After the Voyagers, we switched to missions that explore one planet in more detail, like Galileo at Jupiter and Cassini at Saturn. The only recent flyby mission is New Horizons (Pluto and Akkoroth).
3
For Apollo, this is how they handled that: once the astronauts were in the cabin, a few hours before launch, they were on 100% oxygen at slightly over 1 bar pressure, while the cabin was at 1 bar pressure of normal air. So they had several hours of prebreathing pure oxygen, which meant they no longer could get the bends in the event of rapid decompression. During launch, the cabin atmosphere was vented to ~0.3 bar, and supplied with 100% oxygen. The suit pressure was lowered at the same rate (it took only a few minutes to get to the target pressure).
3
Nope, that's not what he is saying or implying.
3
@NinjaGaiden-z7t I'm telling the truth, plain and simple. I did the experiment myself, and I've examined videos that claim they can zoom in on a ship beyond the horizon. Every single video that claims this, shows a small boat that clearly has not gone over the horizon yet. i.e. it makes a false claim. This is the correct way to do the experiment: 1. Choose a large ship as your target. The bigger, the better. 2. Follow it as it goes over the horizon. The ship will be progressively hidden, from the bottom up. 3. When the hull is hidden, but the superstructure is visible, zoom in as much as you want. See if the hull comes back into view. Alternatively, you can try watching a sunset, and then try to zoom in on the sun after it has set. See if you can bring it back into view. Use a solar filter so you won't damage your camera.
3
The ancient Greeks found out Earth is not flat. NASA is not in a position to lie about this.
3
@jamessheppard4372 Apollo 11 spent 8 hours on the moon, the EVA was 150 minutes. They took a number of photos from the LM, driving down the average further.
3
no, the gold is there because it reflects IR better than any other material. The rest of your low opinion will similarly be caused by lack of knowledge.
3
Orbital spacecraft are an order of magnitude more expensive than a flyby. There are proposals to do an Uranus orbiter mission, but with the way NASA's planetary science budget is going, it will take a while for such a mission to get approved.
3
@carlbarnard1671 That is incorrect. All true tests show curvature. Geodetic surveys measure Earth's curvature directly. Ships go over the horizon and are progressively hidden, which would be impossible on a flat plane. Dubay and his fellow flerfs give you dishonest "tests" that ignore things like atmospheric refraction, which causes light to bend along Earth's surface.
3
Current estimate is VEI 5.
3
kAZMBAVRsCo
3
@DANTHETUBEMAN 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
3
Space is really empty. The average density is 1 atom per cm3. Even in the asteroid belt, the chance of hitting an asteroid when you cross the belt is less than 1 in a billion.
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. 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
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
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
Sky "scholar" is a crackpot. His experiments do not prove what he thinks they prove.
3
JWST orbits the L2 point at a distance of 300,000 km, so it's not in Earth's shadow. It has to be in sunlight for the solar panels to work. Otherwise we'd have had to use an RTG, which would have made the mission more complicated.
3
Yes, both Voyagers are still active.
3
We don't need shielding for humans to travel safely through the van Allen belts. All we need to do is use radiation-hardened electronics. Those are available off the shelf, because we have built hundreds of satellites that operate in or above the van Allen belts already.
3
@jamaldeep13 Your "the two guys above me" comment was probably meant for two comments that have now disappeared, and Mark's first comment in the thread is now the comment above yours.
3
We have not one or two, but more than ten independent lines of evidence that all lead to the same conclusion: Earth is a sphere. This is science: we have observed Earth is a sphere. We have done experiments that demonstrate Earth is a sphere. Claims that Earth is any other shape are never backed up with evidence, just bad arguments, THAT is pseudoscience.
3
The command module and lunar module used reflective surfaces to reduce the amount of heat coming in from sunlight. They used insulation to avoid losing lots of heat to space (thermal radiation). These two were balanced to keep the interior of the craft at habitable temperatures with minimal need for heating or cooling. This worked well for most missions, but became a problem on Apollo 13: most of the electronics in the CM were shut down, which meant less heat was coming into the cabin than planned, and the interior got cold. The LM used sublimation cooling to reject waste heat: a closed cooling loop led to a radiator in an unpressurized compartment. Water was sprayed onto this radiator. This would freeze, then sublimate and carry away heat. The LM thermal design was good enough that they only needed a few litres of water per day. The space suits used a similar system. The heat of the LM descent engine was directed downwards as much as possible, using a heat shield. This was enough during descent. After landing, the remaining heat would warm up the surroundings of the engine. They vented the remaining propellant, which carried away that heat. The ascent engine used a similar approach, with heat shielding around the engine.
3
@papalegba6796 We can test how heat transfer works in a vacuum: scientists worked this all out centuries before we could go to space, by doing heat transfer experiments in a vacuum chamber. I can see the ISS with the naked eye, and I can prove it is in space and not in our atmosphere. This disproves your claim that "nobody has been there".
3
The difference is that there are buildings between your cell phone and the base station, and no obstacles between Earth and Voyager. Progress cannot change the laws of physics: radio waves cannot travel through solid structures.
3
@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
it's too warm to reach its final performance, but this early work can be done at a higher temperature.
3
That is incorrect. There 's no proof that the landings were faked. There's not even evidence that suggests they were faked. All you have is low-quality arguments that have all been debunked.
3
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
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
@trendynow1369 Only the highest mountains are visible from 40+ miles away. Smaller objects are hidden by Earth's curvature at shorter distances. You can verify this e.g. in a sea port: as a ship moves out of the port, less and less of the vessel is visible as it gets farther away.
3
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
You're yelling 'checkmate' when you have one pawn on the board, in a position that cannot reach the opponent's king, and the opponent has a full set pieces on the board ready to wipe you out.
3
@dyavorchid Yes, you misunderstood his words. He did not claim that spaceflight is impossible. And as I said, it's simple to prove that spaceflight is real, which collapses your whole argument.
3
@dyavorchid A vacuum can exist adjacent to a pressurized system. The gases in our atmosphere are subject to gravity, just like all other matter. Gravity exerts a force on every molecule in our atmosphere. That force is enough to keep our atmosphere bound to the planet instead of escaping into space. Again, we can observe spacecraft in orbit. We can measure their altitude and find they are at altitudes of 400 km and more. We can measure their speed: at 28,000 km, if they were in an atmosphere they'd be glowing brightly from atmospheric friction. We se no such glow, so even from the ground we can confirm those satellites are not in our atmosphere.
3
nuclear explosions do not provide 9-hour ash fountains, the updraft stops within 15 minutes.
3
New data is always good.
3
The new title is as bad as the old one. Nobody has "ignored the crashed ship". We know exactly what crashed and why, and it'd be pretty dumb to waste Perseverance's valuable time by driving to the backshell crash site.
3
@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
@davidchase9424 For gamma radiation the same principle applies: it's deadly of the product of intensity and exposure time is large enough.
3
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
None of the recent landers failed due to "too advanced" technology.
3
That's a load of nonsense.
3
Every year, people do just that, by sailing around Antarctica. Dozens of people have flown around the world via both poles as well. But all you need to prove the Earth is round is a camera and a measuring stick: you can measure Earth's curvature directly.
3
about $10B spread over 25 years, or less than $500M per year. A small price to pay for a major leap in our knowledge of the universe.
3
@kpec3 No, they are not. I've examined all of the flat Earth claims, and none of them turn out to be valid.
3
@kpec3 And you're wrong again. Lasers, like all light, are subject to atmospheric refraction. It's not difficult to prove this either.
3
@kpec3 I know laser light is curved, because we have done extensive experiments that prove it does curve, just like all light.
3
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
Earth is a sphere, just like all the other planets.
3
No, at no point has Destin claimed that the Apollo landings were faked. We have a ton of evidence that proves the landings are real.
3
@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
I've never seen a YT video with more lies than that one.
3
1:39 the takeoff of the LM was filmed on 3 missions: Apollo 15-17. The LRV carried a TV camera that could be controlled remotely from Houston, and a TV transmitter. The astronauts parked the LRV in a position where it had a view of the LM. During takeoff, Ed Fendell controlled the camera (having to account for the delay in sending the signal to the moon, so he started tilting the camera up 3 seconds before liftoff).
3
They send a different signal every time. The car and fob both generate a number based on a shared cryprographic system. This is done to prevent people from recording the signal and then rebroadcasting it to break into your car.
3
We have multiple independent confirmations that they did.
3
Things changing due to new evidence is a prime example of science behaving as it should. When we had found only 9 planets, it made sense to classify Pluto as a planet. Now that we have found thousands of objects in Pluto's region, we decided to improve classification of solar system objects again
3
Starship and N-1 have two things in common: 1. a large number of engines. 2. a decision to test the stages by flying them, instead of lots of full-duration ground tests. They also have major differences: 1. SpaceX has demonstrated it can solve the problems caused by having many engines. The Falcon 9 has 9 engines. Falcon Heavy has 27 of them. These routinely launch successfully. 2. 50 years of advance in computers mean that SpaceX has vastly better telemetry and control during each launch. Several N-1 failures were caused by the flight control system doing stupid things. 3. 50 years of advance in CAD means that many of the problems in the N-1 can be found by simulation. 4. the N-1 engines could not be restarted. They needed a rebuild after one run, so they could not be tested. SpaceX tests each individual engine, then does a full-stage test fire before each launch. The N-1 program was designed to have up to 14 test launches before moving on to operational launches. They fully expected to have a bunch of failed launches. They never got beyond test launch 4 due to a combination of losing the space race (Apollo 11 happened around the time of the second N-1 test launch) and political infighting (the leader of the Soviet space program was not a fan of the N-1). Like N-1, the Starship program is expected to have a bunch of failed launches before getting to orbit. The failures we have seen so far are not an indication of a failed program.
3
The impact caused a lot of gas from the lower atmosphere to mix with the upper atmospheric layers. The different colors of those gases cause the crater-like appearance.
3
Incorrect. Farther is the correct word to use when talking about distances.
3
Apollo space suits: assembled by women. Software for the guidance computer: made by a group of programmers led by a woman. Hardware for the guidance computers: made by women. Calculations for navigation: made by women.
3
You have been conned. Flat-earth grifters claim that the astronauts are still alive, and they show people who have similar names and who look somewhat similar. When you examine the photos more closely, you'll see big differences though: entirely different bone structure, for instance. These grifters assume you've never heard of witness protection: if someone has to disappear, there is a system in place for hiding these people. They get a different identity, with a new name. Witnesses go off the grid: no posting their photos on social media. What witness protection does not do is kill one twin so the other can take his place (as these grifters claim happen with Ron McNair).
3
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
He may not have a doctorate, but he has been practicing and teaching science for decades.
3
@thatsnice99 An engineer who practices science.
3
The telescope isn't run by the government, but by a university. Astronomers from all over the world can request observations. The whole process is far too public to hide anything.
3
The evidence proves you wrong: the Apollo landings are real.
3
To give you an idea, let's do a Fermi estimate. The moon weighs 1E20 kg. To change its orbit by 1%, we need to change its mass by 1%. Every year, Earth is hit by 5000 tons of meteorites, that's 5E7 kg. Assuming the moon is hit by the same amount, changing its mass by 1% takes 18-7 is 1E11 years.
3
Yes, the second stage was similar to the first, the outer engines were gimbaled and had hydraulic actuators. The documents describe the hydraulic system as a closed system, but don't mention what type of fluid is used.
3
NASA is given money to advance our knowledge. You many not be curious, but enough of us are.
3
@brettdalling5702 I've seen Earth's curvature. I've measured its diameter.
3
@brettdalling5702 The horizon is at 5 km. That's the distance at which ships start being hidden from the bottom up. I regularly take a ferry across the English Channel, and it's really cool to see ships and e.g. the cliffs of Dover disappear this way. But we can also see Earth's curvature more directly than that. Straight roads over salt flats, and dikes across lakes are noticeably curved. Check out "Causeway Ijsselmeer The Netherlands - Earth's Curvature".
3
The "they" you're talking about is a new company that seems determined not to learn from NASA's history, making dumb mistakes like forgetting to switch the altimeter to the correct mode before launch.
3
Dozens of people have flown aircraft over the South Pole, crossing the entire continent of Antarctica. None found any ice wall. All were able to land at their destination, after they planned their flight using the globe model. If Earth were not a sphere, they'd have run out of fuel and crashed.
3
@James-zp5po That's the nice thing about science: it's all verifiable. Simple experiments anyone can do prove that Earth is a sphere with a diameter of 12700 km. Simple experiments prove that Earth rotates. Proving that the stars move takes a telescope, a camera and some patience.
3
@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
In space, they're probably going to use 100% oxygen. They can't do that in the pool: in the pool the suit pressure is above 2 bar, and 100% oxygen at more than 2 bar is toxic. In space, the suit is at 0.3 bar, and 100% oxygen at that pressure is safe.
3
@DK-vx5co Read my first message again. Not even light can escape once it gets inside the Schwarzschild radius of a black hole. As long as you're outside of that radius, escape is possible.
3
It's a combination of careful design (choosing the best components, adding redundancy) and luck (both Voyagers have been running on their backup transmitters for decades now, as their primary transmitters failed early in the mission).
3
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
False. We have figured that out. The only thing preventing us from going to the moon is money.
3
Eric Dubay has no actual evidence. All he has is fraudulent claims that are easily debunked. People have done this, e.g. for every single one of his "200 proofs that Earth is flat".
3
You should read up on the history of the Apollo program. There was a lot of trial and error involved. They started with the Ranger program. These were unmanned spacecraft that were designed to take photos of the lunar surface as they got closer to the moon, before crashlanding. 5 out of 9 Ranger missions failed, some missing the moon entirely. Then we had the Surveyor missions, which made soft landings. 2 out of 7 missions failed. Gemini was a series of manned missions to learn about docking two spacecraft together in space. They had no fatalities, but several mission failures. Every aspect of the Apollo program was tested: there was an unmanned test of the CSM. The LEM was tried out in Earth orbit (Apollo 9). Apollo 8 orbited the Moon, Apollo 10 tested the LM in orbit of the moon. By Apollo 11 they had confidence a safe landing and return was possible because every facet of the mission had been tested to satisfaction.
3
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
The success of the moon landings is thanks to the US shoveling almost unlimited resources into the program.
3
There is one sensor more advanced than the H2RG: the H4RG. But it's not a straight swap (IIRC it's larger, which would have required a redesign of the instruments). Also, replacing the detectors would mean repeating loads of tests, adding years to the build process. At some point you have to freeze the design.
3
There's a big difference between the heliosphere model (for which the Voyagers were the first to provide data) and climate models (for which we have mountains of data).
3
A telescope more advanced than this one will have to be invented and developed first. JWST is the state of the art at the moment.
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
it's called tension. Mindblowing concept, I know.
3
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
@aceventura5398 Watching videos is not enough. Details like the temperature during the missions don't generally show up in YT videos.
3
@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
A fast lens is one that gathers a lot of light in a short time, so you can use short exposure times. This is known as the aperture (opening) of the lens. The aperture is adjustable. On a fast lens, the opening is adjustable to a large size to let in a lot of light. In lens specifications, this is indicated as f=..., and counterintuitively, the lower the number, the larger the opening. f=0.7 is quite extraordinary.
3
The first people who concluded Earth is a sphere are the ancient Greeks. They figured this out in 500 BC, using nothing more than observations you can do with the naked eye. In 250 BC, they did an experiment that allowed them to figure out how large Earth is, and came within 10% of the correct value. Since then, we have proven Earth is a sphere thousands of time, with simple measurements made here on Earth. NASA giving us a view of Earth from space is just icing on the cake, confirming what we've known for 2500 years.
3
It's more complicated than that. 1. survivorship bias. Many of those devices failed, we remember the few that lasted a long time. 2. consumers voted with their wallets: they overwhelmingly chose to buy cheaper appliances, i.e. lower quality.
3
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
Refueling would make the mission more complicated, adding rendezvous points to the mission, having to coordinate two or more launches etc.
3
@longgolf5530 Apollo was limited to putting 2 men on the moon with minimal resources, for a stay of up to 3 days. For Artemis, we want to stay for a month or more, with a larger crew, and far more capable tools. So, way more stuff to carry to the lunar surface. And Artemis is only partially about the moon. We're preparing to go to Mars, and that is impossible without refueling.
3
No, it won't. Once a ship has gone over the horizon, no amount of zooming in will bring it back into view. Flerfs like to lie about this by making videos that zoom in on small boats that have not gone over the horizon yet.
3
@jaroslavpesek6642 When Genesis crashed, they didn't do that. In fact, there are 0 instances where NASA has faked footage of anything.
3
@ItzzNoobmaster No, in the 5th century BC, scientists in ancient Greece realized that Earth cannot be flat: the behavior of the horizon shows that Earth's surface had to be curved, and the shape of Earth's shadow (as seen during a lunar eclipse) shows that Earth has to be a sphere. By 250 BC, Eratosthenes had found a way to measure Earth's diameter, and he got a value that's within 10% of the currently known value. Since then, we found a dozen different methods to check their work. And we get the same result every time: Earth is an oblate spheroid. Anyone who claims Earth is flat is doing so despite having no evidence that shows Earth is flat.
3
@ItzzNoobmaster Earth is an oblate spheroid. All of the evidence shows this. Between the 5th century BC and about 1700 AD, we thought Earth was a sphere. Newton was the first to hypothesize that Earth should be an oblate spheroid: its rotation creates a centrifugal force that makes the equatorial diameter larger than its polar diameter. For centuries, we've been able to measure Earth's curvature directly using a geodetic survey. By the 1800s, those measurements were accurate enough to measure not just Earth's diameter, but also its oblateness (i.e. the difference between Earth's equatorial diameter and its polar diameter, which is about 30 km), confirming Newton's hypothesis.
3
@paulkersey9857 No, that's not a smoking gun. That is a fake argument. In reality, there is a ton of evidence that proves the Apollo landings are real, and no evidence at all that they were faked.
3
No, NASA does not claim that all photos of Earth are fake. We have millions of actual, real, photos of Earth from space, from many different sources. They all show the same: Earth is a sphere.
3
Congress only wanted a limited mission, so Voyager was sold as a Jupiter-Saturn mission first. The engineers kept in mind they'd also like to visit Uranus and Neptune so they built the spacecraft to last. After the Saturn encounters, the value of the mission was evident enough that mission extensions were granted.
3
Male and female are more complicated than you think. Earth's shape is not: simple observations and experiments allow anyone to find out what the shape of our planet is.
3
it's much easier to build a large telescope on Earth, than to launch one to Pluto's orbit. The Vera Rubin telescope is large enough to find Planet X quickly when it comes on line in 2023.
3
The evidence proves you wrong.
3
Fiction. Single atoms in the dust are radioactive, but the activity levels are unmeasurably low.
3
They take photos every 10 minutes, with clouds in the correct place. How many aircraft does it take to photograph the entire globe at 10-minute intervals?
3
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
this video does not show details smaller than 500 meters. So you can see clouds, geography, but not small items like ships or missiles.
3
Anyone studying the moon landings objectively will find that they are real. All of the denier arguments are full of holes, they're just hoping you won't notice those holes.
3
You'd need about 75 times Jupiter's mass before ignition occurs.
3
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
In all those hours of footage, not a single cable can be seen. What we can see is that everything in those videos, from the astronauts to the smallest grains of dust, falls with an acceleration of 1.6 m/s2, instead of the 9.8 m/s2 we get on Earth. This is impossible to reproduce on Earth. Which means those videos are proof (one of many) that the Apollo landings are real.
3
Try jumping high with a backpack that weighs as much as you do.
3
@scrufybitnflufykitn He's not trying to set a world record, he's trying to move from point A to point B.
3
@scrufybitnflufykitn Again, the astronauts were not trying to set records. They were not going to take more risk than necessary.
3
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
Cellphones don't work in mid-IR. The far longer wavelength means the pixels have to be larger.
3
That's the wrong conclusion to draw from this talk.
3
@MorrowProduction Apollo landed 2 people on the moon for up to 3 days. This is the limit of what a single Saturn V sized rocket can carry to the moon. Artemis wants to send crews of 4 to the moon for months at a time. We want to build a moon base. This requires far more supplies than a Saturn V can carry.
3
Oxygen toxicity depends on pressure. Anything over 2 bar at 100% oxygen gets toxic. Apollo ran at 0.3 bar, 0.25 for the space suits.
3
Gatekeeping the shape of our planet is impossible. Anyone can do simple experiments that show what shape our planet is. Every time we do this, we get the same result: Earth is a sphere.
3
Look up tonight, you can see the ISS pass overhead, proving that NASA runs real projects. The computer you're shitposting on was made possible by the huge advance in computer technology that started with NASA's investment in ICs for Apollo.
3
This is a geostationary satellite, at an altitude of 36,000 km. Its resolution is 0.5 km/pixel, so cities will show up but you can't see individual buildings. On a sphere's surface, the force of gravity is a vector that points towards the center of the sphere. So yes, those people really are upside down compared to folks in the Northern hemisphere.
3
@the_flat_earth_warriorz Science gives us a complete and consistent explanation of how people can live on a globe. Every argument in favor of a flat Earth falls apart if you start examining it.
3
Indians have proven that the US did land on the Moon in the 1960s. Chandrayaan-2 has photographed the Apollo landing sites.
3
You're assuming nobody is working on that? Or that the JWST team is the only group capable of doing anything about our climate crisis?
3
@bluesky6985 We know the Apollo landings were not faked. Those videos show they were in 1/6 g gravity. Kubrick could not fake this: in 2001: A Space Odyssey, the moonwalks are in 1 g, and the difference is clearly visible. Even today, there is no method to convincingly fake 1/6 g here on Earth. In recent years, lunar orbiters from India and China have taken photos of the Apollo landing sites, with enough detail that you can see the foot tracks left by the astronauts.
3
As far as we know, there's no way to create a black hole that small.
3
The evidence (*all* of the evidence) says we did. 6 times.
3
He did a good job, along with the others involved in designing the Voyagers.
3
No, the moon is up there, not down here. Duh.
3
It's hard to build an accurate model if you have no data. For the heliosphere, the Voyagers were the first to give us measurements at all.
3
Our eyes can't measure distances. However, we can use visual cues to determine the shape of an object. Take the moon for instance: the craters in the middle are circles, but the ones near the edge are distorted in a way that indicates we're looking at them side-on. So we can see that the moon is a sphere. Venus doesn't offer enough visual cues to do this. Jupiter does, if we use a decent telescope: we can see it rotate, we can see cloud bands. So does Saturn (its rings).
3
@matthewbarker4109 Are you going to address what I told you, or are you going to ignore that information and continue to claim we have to "trust the government"?
3
Your phone loses signal because there are walls between you and the cell tower. No walls in space.
3
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
We have tons of footage of Earth from hundreds of spacecraft. In fact, during this launch, a camera on the second stage showed Webb's separation with Earth in the background. Webb will not image Earth because aiming it at Earth means exposing the cold side of the spacecraft to the sun, overheating it to the point where it can't observe anything (Infrared telescope, remember).
3
The Bible speaks of the "four corners of the Earth". Does that mean Earth is a rectangle? No. It means that that phrase is a metaphor. Simple experiments anyone can do show that Earth is not flat, and not stationary. God gave us the intelligence to examine our world and learn how it works.
3
Fisher developed that pen with its own money, NASA buys them for $10 ea. The Russians quickly found out why you shouldn't use pencils in zero gravity: all of the graphite that comes off the pencil floats around the cabin and becomes a menace, causing shorts, getting into people's eyes etc.
3
@jameseves9209 Just from what you're telling me, I can see you are using an incorrect method for calculating how far below Earth's curvature those people should be. Standing on the shore, only 4 ft is hidden. When your head is 15 ft above the waterline, those swimmers are visible in average atmospheric conditions.
3
@jameseves9209 I live near a place that has a long- straight dike crossing large lake. When I stand next to that dike, I can see it has a vertical curve. If Earth were flat, that dike would be flat too. For centuries, sailors navigated by measuring the elevation angle of the stars, This only works on a spherical Earth. When a ship goes over the horizon, it is progressively hidden from the bottom up. When that happens, I can bring the ship back into view by moving to a higher elevation. I cannot bring it back into view by zooming in. This proves that the horizon is a physical obstacle between the observer and the ship. Photos from high altitude show Earth's curvature. Photos from space show that Earth is a sphere. We can circumnavigate the globe along the equator and over the poles, proving again that Earth is a sphere. So we have many different methods to determine Earth's shape, and they all tell us the same: Earth is a sphere.
3
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
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
Tyson and Thaller have doctorates (not honorary) in astrophysics. Nye has been practicing and teaching science and the scientific method for decades. That's what makes him a scientist.
3
this video does not show details smaller than 500 meters. No missile is that large. All we have is one frame showing a cloud that's 1-2 km wide.
3
False. 9 Apollo missions went to the Moon. one Gemini mission orbited Earth at 1200 km. Several Shuttle missions went to an altitude of 600 km (Hubble launch and servicing).
3
Craters on Earth are just as shallow. We know why this happens: after an impact, tons of material falls back in the crater.
3
I can see satellites pass overhead even with the naked eye.
3
That's a rock.
3
What military uses would there be for a telescope that cannot look at Earth?
3
In the 41 years of your life NASA has explored the entire solar system, from the Sun to Pluto and beyond. And they've laid the groundwork for manned missions deep into the solar system with the ISS.
3
Experiments that support Earth's curvature and rotation: 1. The ancient Greeks were able to work out that Earth cannot be flat, by observing the horizon. Ships moving away disappear over the horizon and are progressively hidden from the bottom up. When you look at the same ship from two places, one at sea level, the other on top of a tower or cliff, the person at sea level will see the ship disappear first. This can only happen if there is a physical obstacle between the observer and the ship. The only explanation that works is that Earth is a sphere. 2. They observed the shape of Earth's shadow during an eclipse: it's a circle segment. This happens for all lunar eclipses, no matter which part of Earth is in daylight. The only shape that produces a circular shadow in any orientation is a sphere. 3. In 250 BC, Eratosthenes calculated the diameter of Earth, by measuring the elevation of the sun at noon in two cities a known distance apart. His value is within 2% of the currently known value. 4. When more accurate instruments became available for measuring elevation angles, we started using them for navigation, We found that those elevation angles accurately predicted where on Earth you are (latitude). This only works on a sphere. 5. Photos from high altitude show Earth's curvature. 6. Our weight varies with latitude, which indicates our planet rotates. 7. A pendulum precesses, which again indicates our planet rotates. 8. Anyone can verify that the horizon is curved. 9. We can measure the curvature directly using a geodetic survey. 10. Spherical excess: when we measure a triangle on Earth's surface, the sum of the angles is greater than 180º, which shows the triangle is not on a flat plane but on a spherical surface.
3
he Apollo CM has an aluminium pressure hull, with a phenolic resin on the outside of that. As Scott said, that works out to an equivalent of 7 mm of aluminium.
3
No. Most of the Milky Way just orbits the black hole.
3
@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
'bendy oceans' are real. On a sphere's surface, the force of gravity is a vector that points towards the center of the sphere. This force acts on water, so water will distribute itself until every point of its surface is at an equal distance from earth's center. The thermosphere is hot, but its density is very low. So it can only transfer a small amount of energy, not enough to heat up a rocket. I could go on, but these two should give you some food for thought.
3
@danielorourke2677 Earth is not flat. It has a curvature of about 8 cm per km. You can easily measure this for yourself.
3
@danielorourke2677 Let's use some data from this eruption to prove the Earth is not flat. The pressure wave from the explosion traveled around the world, twice. On a flat Earth, you can't do that.
3
Our current antennas are capable of communicating with the Voyagers until 2050 at least, so that's not a limiting factor. It's much easier and cheaper to build a large antenna here on Earth (we use 70-meter dish antennas) than to launch such a large antenna into space.
3
Because that will be more complex and expensive, and it loses the advantage of having a telescope that never faces Earth and its radio transmissions.
3
@jayrajdani The largest antenna we've deployed in space has a diameter of 50-100 m (this is on a classified satellite, so very little is known about this). The LCRT is proposed to have a diameter of 350 meters. JWST has a mirror only 6.5 m in diameter.
3
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
3
No, they were all very real.
3
Well, they didn't have to pretend, they did walk on the moon.
3
@robertmooney1971 Just because you don't like what the evidence is telling you, doesn't make that evidence a lie or fake.
3
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
Each Venera mission consisted of a single spacecraft, with cameras inside looking out. So there are no photos of the craft in space or during the descent from outside. Illustrations are useful to explain those parts of the mission. After landing, the Veneras could only take photos in a few directions. The long distance meant low data rates, so we got only a small number of images before the lander broke down. For the moon landings, the BS is all on your side. Each mission was documented extensively, with television coverage for large chunks of each mission, plus high-quality film and thousands of photos. Illustrations are still used to e.g. show the mission profile, because illustrations are superior to photos for that.
3
Because then it'd be really stiff: the higher the pressure, the more force you have to exert to e.g. bend your elbow or close your hand. This is fatiguing enough at 4.7 psi, at 13.7 psi you'd be exhausted after 3 hours.
3
static charging by the solar wind, mostly.
3
No, Grissom, White and Chaffee died in an accident. The Apollo 1 fire would have been the dumbest possible way to silence Grissom: the fire drew massive attention to Grissom's words, and basically proved him correct.
3
The moon landings are real. There's a ton of evidence that proves this beyond doubt.
3
There are 2 definitions for the extent of our solar system: 1. the region in which our sun's gravity is dominant. This stretches halfway to the next star, and includes the Oort cloud. 2. The region in which our sun's electromagnetic and particle radiation is dominant. This ends at the heliopause.
3
JWST will start doing science in 6 months. They have started taking images for mirror calibration this week.
3
@DonnyBrisco These are the facts: 1. moonlight is no different from sunlight. The moon reflects light from the sun. 2. at night, everything cools off by radiating heat away. When you block that radiation, the object cools down more slowly than its surroundings. This is why an object in the shade is warmer than an object that has not been shaded. I can prove that the temperature difference you see is not caused by moonlight: you can do this experiment at a time when the moon is not visible. Use a flashlight to illuminate a wall, and place an object to shade part of that wall. You will again see that the shaded part of the wall is warmer than the non-shaded surroundings.
3
Four elephants standing on the back of a giant turtle.
3
There's a bunch of stars orbiting the black hole (seen at 1:52).
3
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). Learning how to live in space for long period is the key to manned exploration of the rest of the solar system. I count 6 unmanned lunar missions from the USA since 1972.
3
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
That astronaut wasn't well-informed. 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
3
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
@fromnorway643 They're really bright in the IR though (2 kW power source). A radio telescope can see Voyager's 20W transmission. It'll be close to the edge of what JWST can see, but I think it's possible.
3
When a ship goes over the horizon and I can't see any more, I can go to the top of a nearby tower and bring the ship back into view. The distance to the ship has gotten larger, and yet I am able to see it. This experiment proves that the horizon is not a limit to our vision, but a physical obstacle between us and the ship.
3
The info is about 20 hours old. That's the travel time for the signal. Space is really empty. Those Star Trek scenes with the Enterprise picking its way through a boulder field are very unrealistic. At JWST's destination, the average density is 1 atom per cm3.
3
1. the ozone layer has nothing to do with global warming. 2. rockets don't poke holes in the ozone layer. 3. The space industry is tiny compared to e.g. aviation. You'd have to increase the number of launches by a factor of 1 million to make a noticeable contribution to global warming.
3
NASA has published photos. Thank the clown who made this video for not using them.
3
They figured that out in 1962.
3
Space is very empty: JWST will encounter micrograms of dust per year, on average. Asteroids are a potential problem: we haven't found all of them yet. But the chance of being hit by an asteroid is very low. Since the beginning of spaceflight, we haven't lost a spacecraft to an asteroid impact yet.
3
Our atmosphere blocks the infared wavelengths we're trying to observe. And we can't place the telescope in low Earth orbit because the heat radiating from Earth and the Moon has to be blocked out. At L2, a single sunshield blocks Sun, Earth and Moon.
3
Nice real footage, you mean.
3
His pronunciation is correct. The original Greek has the accent on the first syllable.
3
@davidguy7335 No, Earth does not "spin at 66,000 mph". It orbits the sun at roughly that speed. But that speed is completely irrelevant: the entire Earth-Moon system moves at that speed, and do do any spacecraft you launch. The only things you have to account for is the difference in speed and direction between Earth and the moon. And that difference is easily measured (just look where the moon is in the sky) and completely predictable (because the moon is in a fixed orbit around the Earth).
3
@davidguy7335 Wrong again. Roads and bridges are not flat. They follow Earth's curvature. Buildings are built on a foundation for which a reference plane is established. The ground outside curves along the edges of the building.
3
And many that were over/underexposed, blurry etc. What's your point?
3
Making the legs shorter won't help when you forget to switch on the altimeter, as IM-1 did.
3
@James-zp5po People have been flying around the world for decades. The first to do a flight around the world via both poles was the Rockwell Polar Flight in the 1960s. They found no ice wall. Every year, thousands of people visit the actual South Pole. None ever find an ice wall. Every year, there's a sailing race around Antarctica. They have to do a full lap around the continent, and none of them ever have to sail for 60 thousand miles.
3
@James-zp5po Go to the nearest large body of water and watch ships go over the horizon. This only happens on a sphere. Find a nearby surveyor and ask him to show you how he does a geodetic survey. He'll show you how to measure the curvature of Earth's surface. These are experiments anyone can do.
3
@James-zp5po So it's not just the shape of our planet you deny, you deny all sorts of reality. I have given you experiments that anyone can do that prove Earth is a sphere. No trip to the South Pole necessary.
3
@James-zp5po Einstein "proved" no such thing. Einstein, like all scientists since Foucault, accepted the evidence that proves Earth rotates and orbits the Sun.
3
@James-zp5po In 1851, Foucault's pendulum was the first to demonstrate that Earth rotates. A gyroscope shows this as well: Both stay in the same invariant plane while Earth rotates underneath them. You can weigh an object at different latitudes: the weight will be different, because the centrifugal force due to Earth's rotation pulls the object away from Earth, this centrifugal force changes with latitude. You are lying about Einstein: at no point did Einstein claim Earth is motionless. Simple measurements prove that the Sun is at 150 million km, the Moon at 380,000 km, not 3000 miles. Again, we have several different methods to prove this beyond any doubt.
3
@James-zp5po The centrifugal acceleration due to Earth's rotation is 0.03 m/s2, compared to the 9.81 m/s2 downward acceleration of gravity. I'e' the centrifugal force is 1/300 the gravitational force.
3
@James-zp5po Everything I've said can be confirmed by simple experiments. And has been confirmed over and over again by people doing those experiments and many others. We have a dozen different ways to determine Earth's shape, for instance.
3
False. The delay is there, everywhere it needs to be.
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. 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
47 years in a radiation level much lower than it was designed for (it was designed to survive Jupiter), moving fast through empty space. The only stuff hitting the spacecraft has been particles smaller than a dust grain - we know this because the Voyagers can measure those impacts. The Voyagers use *radio*, not wifi. Wifi is specifically designed for short distances. In 1900, Marconi was sending radio messages across the Atlantic. The only thing you need to receive data across those distances is a very large antenna. The Voyager signals are received by 70-meter antennas, with a receiver cooled to 4 K. There's nothing magical about, this, just solid science and engineering.
3
@user-pf5xq3lq8i Interesting, and I stand corrected. However, that paper shows the frequency of earthquakes increases when the proton flux is high. You're talking about a solar minimum, and the proton flux is low during a minimum.
3
Spacecraft generally don't sit at Lagrange points. e.g. JWST orbits its Lagrange point in an ellipse that's 800,000 x 250,000 km. i.e. you have a billion times the volume that's available in LEO, and 1/10,000 the number of satellites.
3
False. The radiation level in the belts is low enough that humans can pass through the belts safely.
3
Radio waves move at the speed of light.
3
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
People are kept uneducated so they'll believe Earth is flat? Who would benefit from that?
3
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
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
Anyone who practices science is a scientist. Nye has been practicing science for decades.
3
The evidence proves that we did.
3
You can try it yourself: tonight, take photos of the sky with an exposure time of 1/60 second. No stars will show up. You underestimate how dim the stars are: you need an exposure time of more than 1 second to get them to show up in photos. The scale of the Earth in a photo depends on two things: 1. the distance and 2. the focal length of the lens. If you took a photo of the moon from Earth with the same lens used for the Earthrise photos, you'd find that the moon is 1/4 the size of Earth.
3
4 nations have already done that. LRO, Chandrayaan-2, SELENE and one of the Chang'e missions did it, LRO and Chandrayaan with enough resolution to see the foot tracks of the astronauts.
3
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
About 450,000 Americans and 200 Germans worked on the Apollo program. The German contribution to Apollo was about 0.05%.
3
To learn more about the planet, obviously.
3
False. Before Apollo, NASA ran 29 unmanned missions of which more than half failed. Each failure improved subsequent missions. Then every aspect of Apollo was tested extensively, first with tests here on Earth, then tests in Earth orbit, both unmanned and manned, and then more tests in lunar orbit. And out of the 7 planned lunar landings, they had one major failure that nearly killed the crew of Apollo 13.
3
It's pretty easy to confirm Earth is exactly the size we are told. We can fly around the world over the equator and get back where we started after 40,000 km. Measuring the change in elevation of the stars with latitude gives us the same result: Earth's circumference is 40,000 km. We know Antarctica is not larger than we are told: there's an annual sailing race around Antarctica, and those ships travel the distance that is predicted by a 40,000 km sphere.
3
That is incorrect. The lunar dust has irregular shapes so the particles tend to interlock when compressed.
3
Anyone can prove that space is real by looking up at night. You can see satellites pass overhead.
3
BTC is down 50% from its peak. And it's so energy-inefficient you can do 1,000,000 credit card transaction for the cost of one Bitcoin transfer. Lovely currency you have there.
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" is not a good reason to call something fake.
3
It was the only possible move. The camera system uses a lot of power, power the Voyagers no longer have available. In addition, the camera system was made for photographing bright planets, and is useless for the interstellar mission.
3
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
@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
Not at the moment. The Voyagers are moving away from the sun at a speed of about 15 km/s. You'd need about 3000 toms of fuel to stop them. That means launching 3000 tons to a distance of 150 AU, at a speed high enough to overtake the Voyagers. The best we can do today is launch 500 kg at a speed twice as high as the Voyagers, so that 500 kg would catch up with them in 25 years. Then that fuel would have to be slowed down to match the speed of the Voyagers, which uses 90% of that 500 kg. You'd need thousands of Starship launches to do this.
3
When you look at the planets, you can see they are spheres. No water anywhere in sight. Look at Jupiter: you can see its cloud bands. Look at it for a few hours, and you can see it rotate. Look at Saturn: its rings are clearly circles around the planet. There is no firmament anywhere above us: anyone can measure the distance to the moon, the sun and the nearby planets, and find they are all at different distances, which means they are not projected on any sphere, but real objects in real space.
3
@VigilantX-TikTok Go to the Planetary Data System, and look at the millions of images made by spacecraft at every planet. Go find amateur astronomers who have photographed every planet in the solar system. There is no water anywhere above us other than the clouds in the sky.
3
Don't be ridiculous. Picture and image are synonyms. The telescope is in space, anyone with a backyard telescope can verify JWST is where NASA says it is. Hubble was launched in 1990, SOFIA in 2007. SOFIA doesn't cover the same wavelengths as Hubble and it has to work inside the atmosphere so its image quality is worse. SOFIA's resolution is about 50 times lower than that of Hubble. Then there's the volume of observations. SOFIA is operated ~2 nights per month while Hubble works 24/7. You'd need a fleet of about 100 SOFIA aircraft to generate the same number of observations, NASA only has one. Really, why do you repeat talking points so shoddy they fall apart with 5 minutes of investigation?
3
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
The risk of an Ariane launch is not higher than of a SpaceX launch.
3
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
it's +83 ºC.
3
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
@VigilantX-TikTok Dubay claims a sunset is caused by "perspective" as the sun moves farther away. It's easy to see that this claim is false. If the Sun were moving away from us until we could not see it any more, it would get smaller as it got closer to the horizon. In the real world, the sun stays the same size. "perspective" also cannot explain why the sun crosses the horizon. If the sun were moving away from us until we could not see it any more, we'd be able to bring it back into view by observing it with a telescope after sunset. In reality, we can zoom all we want, but the sun does not come back into view.
3
More and more people are being deceived by charlatans, you mean. I've looked at the "evidence" they present, and it's all worthless. There is no viable evidence that shows the landings were faked, while we have a mountain of evidence that shows the landings are real. I've discussed this with moon landing deniers, and they have their head firmly in the sand. They're not interested in evidence.
3
No, real images. Get your head out of the sand.
3
The electronics and fuel in the Voyagers are kept warm by heaters. The spacecraft bus is covered in insulation, so little heat is lost to space. The Voyagers do get hit on occasion by micrometeoroids. The electronics are well-protected inside, so these hits mostly punch tiny holes in the large antenna.
3
That's not going to happen, because the fact is that the moon missions were real.
3
this video does not show details smaller than 500 meters. No missile is that large. And the video shows photos taken at 10-minute intervals.
3
There have been vehicles with an electric motor in each wheel going back to the Lohner–Porsche in 1900.
3
Their onboard transmitter produces 12 W of RF power. We continue to be able to receive this by having giant dish antennas to receive Voyager's signals, with the best receiver electronics money can buy ($100 million each, the receiver is cooled to cryogenic temperatures to reduce noise). At these distances, communication is slow: Voyager sends data at 160 bits/s.
3
@alexbrewer3675 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 lunar rover had a direct radio link to Earth (using the large dish antenna on the rover) which carried the TV signal in one direction, and remote control signals in the other.
3
JWST will start doing science in 6 months. They have started taking images for mirror calibration this week.
3
We figured out how to get through the van Allen belts in 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
3
Let me guess, you think Earth is flat?
3
The planetary science community just recommended a Uranus orbiter as the next large mission, so you may get your wish.
3
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
@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
Fong's arguments have been debunked: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLXHrQ1Keac
3
@itemushmush In 2023, SpaceX launched 99 Falcon 9 missions, putting more than 1200 tons into orbit. They're also progressing well with Starship development. Their timelines are useless, but they have a track record of doing what they set out to do.
3
@GigaBit-i2j Humankind is perfectly capable of working on more than one issue at a time. Biology and psychology are independent enough of physics and astrophysics that we can proceed with one without having all the answers in the other area.
3
@GigaBit-i2j That answer does not fit in a YT comment. As I said, it's more complicated than you think. - can give birth? There are infertile women, so that criteria is not usable. - XX chromosome? there are women who have XY. Can't use that either. - external appearance? Many variations exist. and that's just the biology. Add psychology (gender dysphoria, etc.) and it gets more complex still.
3
@GigaBit-i2j I know several women who don't menstruate. Does that make them not-women? You're just demonstrating my point.
3
The Soviets had a pretty extensive moon program. They retrieved lunar soil samples, and they operated 2 rovers. Their manned lunar program was hamstrung by indecision (they didn't get started properly until about 1965), infighting between design bureaus (no central agency like NASA to coordinate their efforts), the death of Korolev, and lack of money - with an economy only 1/10 the size of the USA they couldn't spend enough to keep up with the Apollo program. So in 1969, they launched the first N-1 moon rocket on an unmanned test (about 14 of those were planned). The launch failed. Then Apollo 11 happened and the Soviets lost interest.
3
Right, people dead, explosion heard thousands of km away, shockwave measurable on the other side of the planet, must be fake. Think before you post.
3
Radiation: won't affect the exposed mirror in the lifetime of the telescope. Dust: on average, JWST will encounter micrograms of dust per year. This will reduce the reflective area of the mirror by a tiny amount, the mirror was designed to still work well enough at the end of JWST's life.
3
Elon Musk says he needs the equivalent of 8 rockets of fuel to land his Starship, which weighs 100 tons empty and carries 100 tons of payload. The Apollo LM weighed only 8 tons by the time it landed. The less weight you land, the less fuel you need.
3
SpaceX has no problem launching Falcons. They took a gamble with the Starship launch: they were working on launch pad improvements, but they didn't want to wait for those to be installed. A sample size of 1 doesn't justify the use of 'every'.
3
@ScienceBusted The low density gas causes a tiny amount of drag. We can see this: satellites in orbits below ~1000 km slowly lose altitude due to this drag. The ISS loses about 25-50 km of altitude per year, so it regularly uses thrusters to boost itself back to its target altitude.
3
the moon is a lot farther away than 1875 feet.
3
We have a dozen different ways to establish Earth's sphere, most of which do not rely on how far we can see. The simplest method is a geodetic survey, which measures Earth's surface directly.
3
"I don't understand this" is not a good reason to call something fake.
3
You continue to be wrong. No, the photos of Earth from the moon are not composites. None of those photos show any sign they have been tampered with. In addition to photos, we have 16mm film showing Earth from the Moon. If the images were a composite, you'd have to answer the next question: how did they get an accurate closeup of the Moon? They'd have to go there and take photos, that's how. And once you're there, you can snap an actual Earthrise, no need to make composites. So your argument is logically unsound.
3
@horyzengaming3935 The truth is that the Apollo missions are real.
3
@horyzengaming3935 No, you haven't educated anyone. You haven't told us why you think the photos are fake, haven't presented any evidence. We're just supposed to believe you, when countless others have examined the photos and found them to be real.
3
@horyzengaming3935 No, you have claimed the photos are fake, without presenting evidence for your claims. Explaining how photos could be faked is not evidence that this photo was faked.
3
12 people have walked on the moon.
3
It's possible the drogue stayed inside, on top of the main. Then the action of ejecting the main parachute would have shoved the drogue out as well.
3
Everything they said is easily verifiable truth.
3
@wynand988 No, it doesn't. For example, all of the Apollo photos and videos have been analyzed extensively, and we found it's impossible to replicate them on Earth. The Apollo videos show they were in 1/6 g gravity, not the 1 g you get here on Earth. The Apollo photos and videos show lighting that is impossible to recreate in a studio.
3
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
Nobody does that. When an astronAut leaves their spaceship, they'll always wear a space suit which is designed to handle the temperature and the vacuum. Only INSIDE the spaceship, where the temperature is maintained at 20ºC and there's plenty of air, do they wear normal clothes. So, you are making baseless claims.
3
@MythsandReality4 how can Earth be flat when every measurement and observation we do says it isn't?
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
2001's special effects are laughably bad. He was unable to recreate the 1/6 g gravity of the moon, just like every filmmaker even today. The Apollo videos show perfect 1/6 g gravity, along with other indications that prove those videos were made on the moon, not on Earth.
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. 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
I feel so bad for people who think this is fake.
3
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
Hubble produces some great photos, you mean. It's a camera. Not a guy drawing stuff.
3
The secret to that is the antennas we have here on Earth. The Voyagers use an ordinary radio transmitter. It's not very powerful either. But when you have an antenna with a diameter of 70 meters, and a received cooled to 4 K (to minimise noise), you can receive very faint signals - even the Voyagers are not near the limits of what we can receive.
3
Have you ever had satellite TV, or known anyone that has/had satellite TV? That's made possible by satellites orbiting at 36,000 km, ie far higher than 500 miles. Those satellites were put there by rockets, proving there is no dome.
3
He was referring to the fact that we're not able to create a self-sufficient colony on another planet yet. He did not say it's impossible for a spacecraft to leave Earth: hundreds have done that.
3
@lakebreeze9016 We have independent confirmation that spacecraft have left Earth. Amateur astronomers were able to follow the Apollo spacecraft on their way to the moon. Radio amateurs could receive Apollo transmissions, confirming that those transmissions came from the Moon. Recently, radio amateurs have done the same with transmissions from spacecraft orbiting Mars. With a laser and a telescope, I can ping the laser reflectors left on the Moon. Every day, meteoroids from space enter Earth's atmosphere. Most burn up in the atmosphere, some make it to the ground. This proves that stuff comes in, as well.
3
the images were taken 10 minutes apart, each image is about 5 frames of the video.
3
The camera system is not optimized for faint objects: it has too much noise, so it's unlikely it'd be useful for finding planets.
3
Look at the moon. The craters in the middle are all circular. The ones near the edge are ovals, which indicates we're not looking at those at the same angle: we're looking at them side-on. Look at the terminator (the day/night line on the moon) and how it changes with the moon's phase: it matches the terminator on a sphere, and not the terminator on a flat plane. In al the years since NASA's inception, nobody has presented actual evidence that NASA has lied about anything. Sure, flerfs claim that NASA lies, but none of their arguments hold up to examination. We can measure the surface of our planet, and every time we do that, we find that it is curved, not flat.
3
NASA does put humans in space suits into vacuum chambers, so your claim is without merit.
3
They use radioisotope thermal generators: Pu-238 decays and produces heat, Peltier elements convert this to electricity.
3
Nowadays NASA works in metric, and usually translates those to Imperial for press releases etc. During Apollo, they worked in US units.
3
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
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
That's incorrect. That is an effect caused by OUR atmosphere, not the moon's.
3
Stop relying on the simplified second-hand accounts written by Youtubers and journalists then. Read the original scientific papers, and you'll see scientists doing just that. Every scientist knows the hypothesis he's working from can be disproved by the next bit of data that comes along. On the other hand, when we have mountains of data pointing in one direction, it becomes more and more unlikely that the hypothesis is incorrect.
3
@turbot8er672 Raw data isn't on the main NASA site, it's spread around various project sites. Planet missions are in the Planetary Data System. The Voyager data has separate websites for each instrument. JWST data will end up at the Space Telescope Science Institute along with Hubble data.
3
Incorrect, it will be the 7th one.
3
They were filmed by a guy in Mission Control, who controlled the camera on the LRV remotely.
3
When Genesis' landing failed, NASA didn't cover it up. They published the crash. There's no point in covering up anything. Those samples are going to be distributed to researchers all over the world, and they would notice if they were handed fakes instead of actual samples.
3
@MaciusSzwed Why would I listen to someone with no qualifications, who presents no evidence for his claims?
3
The weights all over the body are used to adjust the CG with better resolution than just putting on boots would provide.
3
Oort cloud objects are small, with enormous gaps between them - you could fit Pluto's orbit in those gaps. The average density is estimated at 1 atom per cm3.
3
You have been lied to. A telescope will not bring a ship that has gone over the horizon back into view. Flat-Earthers like to mislead you by filming a small boat that has not gone over the horizon yet, and zooming in on that.
3
Radiation damages a single atom at a time, or it breaks up a complex molecule (like the DNA in our cells). Magnetic tape uses iron oxide (simple molecules). Each one or zero consists of billions of molecules, so a particle hitting the tape damages a tiny fraction of one bit. This makes magnetic tape very tolerant to radiation damage.
3
@4windz803 Read again. The important part of this test is that they need to figure out how to work in 0 g or in this case, 1/6 g. The suit is also tested in a vacuum chamber: that's done to see how the suit behaves in a vacuum. But in the vacuum chamber, the astronaut is at 1 g, so that test is useless for preparing the astronaut to walk on the moon.
3
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
Generally, the faster, the better (less energy loss on the way up). For human launches, you want a slower rocket, to keep the G-loading on the astronauts tolerable.
3
That is incorrect. Your P900 does not allow you to see things that are hidden by curvature. Aim your camera at a large ship going over the horizon, and watch the ship gradually disappear from the bottom up. You can zoom in all you want, but you will not bring the hidden part of the ship back into view, which indicates that the ship is hidden by a physical obstacle: Earth's curvature. Your overlords like to lie to you by making videos where they take their P900 and zoom in on a small boat in front of the horizon.
3
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
@pokie6087 The only thing that has been to space is about 10,000 unmanned and several hundred manned missions.
3
Depends. The Voyagers got to Jupiter much quicker, but a high approach speed makes it difficult to insert a spacecraft into orbit: you have to slow down by a lot, which takes a lot of fuel, which makes the mission more expensive to launch (not so much the fuel cost, but you need a bigger launcher to get all that fuel to Jupiter). So Juno was launched at a lower speed so they wouldn't have to brake as much on arrival.
3
She's talking about the actual ISS you can see in the sky. There is no ISS footage that has bubbles. Flerfs like to claim this, but all they present is video that NASA says is recorded at the underwater training facility, which flerfs then claim "NASA says this video was recorded at the ISS"..
3
@VigilantX-TikTok We can't resolve the ISS with the naked eye, but we can see it because it reflects a lot of sunlight. Similarly, I can see the light from a lighthouse at distances where the lighthouse itself is not visible.
3
@VigilantX-TikTok With a telescope, we can see the ISS in enough detail to see that there is no balloon attached to it.
3
@VigilantX-TikTok Dave McKeegan has done a video where he photographs the ISS through a telescope. There are hours of ISS construction video right here on YT, from every Shuttle mission that carried parts for the ISS. These are not hard to find.
3
@VigilantX-TikTok In reality, the ISS is in space, not attached to a balloon. Go look up the many videos made by people who have photographed the ISS.
3
JWST can be refueled, we just need to build a spacecraft that can do this.
3
In reality, NASA has never told us a lie. We have abundant evidence that proves the Apollo landings are real.
3
That won't solve anything. The Voyager mission will end because the power supply will nog longer be able to power even one science instrument. The antennas we have here on Earth could stay in touch with the Voyagers for the next 40 years if the Voyager power supply lasted that long.
3
There is no "info" coming out about flat Earth. There's just disinformation and nonsense. Earth remains a sphere.
3
False. We have video of the actual sampling event.
3
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
Every day, the Lunar Reconnaissance orbiter provides new pictures of the moon.
3
The astronauts use rovers because moving in the suit takes a lot of energy. A pedal-powered rover would negate that advantage.
3
The Moon orbits Earth. For half of every orbit, the Moon and Sun are on the same side of Earth. The Moon's phases are not caused by Earth. The moon is a sphere, so the half of that sphere that faces the sun is lit, while the other half is in the shadow created by the moon itself.
3
@nocturnallust4145 The world's greatest achievement was not "destroyed". The Apollo missions remain real. All of the data they produced are still available. When Apollo 11 achieved the goal of the program (beat the Soviets in the space race), the US reduced NASA funding by 90%, making lunar missions after Apollo 17 impossible. That stayed the case until 2010, when the Space Shuttle program ended and the funding that freed up became available for a new lunar program. At the end of Apollo, the contractors "destroyed" (dismantled and reused) the production facilities for the Saturn V and Apollo spacecraft. That was the moment we could no longer easily get to the moon: we'd ahve to restart Saturn V production or design a new rocket. These are both hugely expensive projects.
3
@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
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
@timhochstetler3440 The position of those moons relative to the planet dictated the paths they would take. Those paths were known beforehand: they had to aim the spacecraft precisely before the encounter, so that the planet's gravity would bend the trajectory by just the right amount to do a flyby of the moon they were aiming for. So even before the encounter they had a pretty good idea in which direction the spacecraft would go, and immediately after they confirmed that by measuring the trajectory precisely.
3
To have the hands at a lower pressure, you'd need a collar around the wrist that seals that area of the suit, and then you'd have the pressure difference pressing against your wrist. I think that would be uncomfortable.
3
And yet every time we measure Earth's surface, we find that it is curved, not flat.
3
JWST can't image Earth or the Moon, they would have to expose the cold side of the telescope to direct sunlight, which would overheat the telescope. Luckily we don't need JWST to get high-res images of Earth and Moon. For the Earth, we have geostationary weather satellites that take images of the entire hemisphere every 10 minutes, see for example https://youtu.be/zoMRwyNhqJ4 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
3
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
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
Navigation is very different on a sphere than on a flat plane. Look up Great Circles: the shortest route between two points on a sphere.
3
That's not how science works.
3
Nobody working for NASA has said that.
3
The Lunokhod rovers used radioisotope heaters to keep the interior warm during the lunar night.
3
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
Before the Voyager missions, we had no idea where the heliopause was. Some estimates put it at 40 AU. And we were lucky that the Grand Tour trajectory pointed more or less towards the bow of the heliosphere.
3
No. One of the panels on top of the pole is a solar panel.
3
We have photos of stars orbiting an object that's mostly invisible. From those orbits we can calculate how much mass there must be: 4 million solar masses in a tiny amount of space. The only theory that can explain those observations is a black hole. Now we've imaged that invisible object, and our observations match the theory. That means black holes are real, not theoretical, not imaginary. Welcome to science.
3
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
New observation of a different black hole.
3
Yes. Voyager 1 would be the first to arrive at Jupiter (it was launched on a faster trajectory).
3
@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
Yes and no. The space around Earth receives more sunlight than the hottest place on Earth. So if you place an object in space, its sunlit side will reach a temperature of about 100 ºC. But space is empty, there's nothing in space that can warm up and transfer heat. On Earth, the atmosphere warms up and transfers heat, so when you move from direct sunlight to the shadow the temperature drops a bit, but not a huge amount. In space, when you're in shadow, there's no atmosphere that can transfer its heat to you. But you can start radiating heat, and reach really low temperatures. That's what JWST is doing.
3
@stanleyhampton7185 NASA is studying radiation as part of Artemis because the goal is to have humans spend months on the moon or orbiting the moon, and at those time scales radiation becomes an issue. None of the Apollo missions were longer than 2 weeks. James van Allen concluded that if you put a human in the center of the inner belt (where the radiation level is highest), he'd get a lethal dose of radiation after one week. None of the Apollo crews spent more than 3 hours traversing the belts.
3
Bill Nye is a science teacher: the taught the scientific method. That he did it in the form of a TV show is irrelevant. Anyone who uses the scientific method, or who teaches the scientific method, is a scientist: someone who practices science.
3
There's a proposal to do that, IIRC you have to be at 540 AU to use our Sun as a gravitational lens. It has the potential to provide much higher magnification than we can achieve with normal telescopes. The drawback is that it takes forever to aim it.
3
@andrewfischer8564 You should read that article more carefully. The only video that was erased is 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 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. For all other landings, higher-quality footage remains available as can easily be verified in various archives. None of the 16mm film footage was lost. None of the photos were lost. None of the TV broadcasts are lost.
3
Every video we get from the space station is real. Hundreds of people have been in space since the last Apollo mission. You have been misled by grifters who take space station videos and claim they are fake. None of their arguments hold up to scrutiny.
3
They spent 4 years testing to reduce the risk. So it's complicated but with a very high chance of success. If they'd kept it simple, the telescope would have been about the same size as Hubble, which is not large enough to answer the questions JWST was designed to answer.
3
0:39 JWST isn't operational quite yet. It'll become operational after instrument commissioning.
3
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
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
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
@hannesswart4827 This is geometry: during a lunar eclipse, you have 3 spheres sitting on one line. The sphere in the middle (Earth) has one narrow band where you can see both the Sun and Moon. You can try this yourself with a lamp and two balls.
3
Anyone can do simple experiments that show Earth's surface is curved, not flat. God created a world that works on physics we can detect, examine and learn about.
3
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
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
That's ridiculous.
3
Space is empty. Very empty: the average density is 1 atom per cm3. Even in the densest part of the solar system (the asteroid belt), the chance of colliding with an object large enough to end the mission is only 1E-9.
3
The answer is, they didn't. Drawings for every single part are available in the Smithsonian archive.
3
JWST will be in an elliptical orbit, about 300,000 x 800,000 km. This orbit was chosen to avoid the Moon's shadow.
3
False. The landings are real, we have independent confirmation.
3
They didn't "lose the technology", certainly not in the sense you're thinking of. You are quoting someone who was wrong about that.
3
@omarlondon That quote is from an interview with Don Pettit, in 2010. The problem is that 'technology' has more than one meaning. The most common one is "know how to do things". We didn't lose that. Drawings for every part of the Saturn V and Apollo spacecraft exist. We have loads of info on every aspect of the design. We could rebuild those if we wanted. When he gave that interview, there was no factory cranking out rockets capable of manned moon missions. We know how to do that, but actually gearing up and building one would take close to a decade.
3
No, it won't be too far away to send a signal back until 2057. The power supply will run out long before that.
3
It's falling at 1/6 the speed it would on Earth.
3
@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
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
What proves propulsion is possible in space is the 10,000 satellites we've launched successfully.
3
That depends on the intensity.
3
They did add a refueling point. What we don't have yet is a spacecraft that can approach JWST without destroying the sunshield. We've got 10 years to develop that though.
3
The evidence says otherwise.
3
there's very little space debris at L2. If a small piece of debris hits, it'll punch a tiny hole in the mirror.
3
Nope. The videos show an environment with 1/6 G gravity, which is impossible to fake.
3
The consumer 8-track system was a mess: the tape cartridge held a single spool, and the tape was pulled from the hub of the spool for playback. That, combined with low-quality parts in the cartridge was responsible for the mess. The Voyager tape recorder is more comparable to the open-reel tape recorders we have. The tape is stored on two spools, so it's never under any strain.
3
Private individuals can fly over the South Pole, and confirm there are no ice walls. 10,000 satellites in orbit prove there is no firmament. Simple experiments anyone can de prove that Earth is a rotating sphere.
3
The term "infinite" vacuum is meaningless. A vacuum chamber on Earth can get the pressure down to 10E-6 Pa, which is similar to the pressure found at 400 km altitude. Rocket tests on Earth are done at a pressure of about 0.1 Pa. The difference between that and a vacuum is 0.1 Pa, i.e. very small. Drawing down to a lower pressure than 0.1 Pa does not change the test result noticeably.
3
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
If power weren't a problem, the current DSN could stay in contact with them until 2057. Longer if they'd use radio telescopes (like the VLA, which was used to support the Neptune encounter).
3
@narajuna Sibrel has been proven to lie over and over again. His word is worthless.
3
No, Google's AI does not do that. It found some structures in one Apollo photo that are also seen in some faked photos. It turns out, the AI was triggered by compression artefacts in the low-res copy photos they used. The actual evidence shows that the Apollo photos are real.
3
@narajuna Bart Sibrel's lies have long been uncovered. In a Funny Thing he makes many false claims. For instance, the footage he claims is "newly discovered behind-the-scenes out-takes" was actually freely available from NASA to anyone who asked for it. It was public record. That footage also does not show what Bart claims it does. The footage clearly shows a view of the entire planet, and not a small section viewed through a cutout as Bart claims. So the only awards Bart has earned are the Pinocchio award for telling blatant lies, and the black eye he got from Buzz Aldrin.
3
Apollo landed 2 men on the moon for a 3-day stay. Artemis wants to land a 4-man crew for missions of a month or more. That means 15 times more payload has to be put on the moon. And the political choices made (SLS, Orion, not modifying Orion when its mission changed, which dictates the use of a very inefficient orbit) don't help either.
3
You're not accounting for gravity. On a sphere's surface, the force of gravity is a vector that points towards the center of the sphere. This force acts on water, so water will distribute itself until every point of its surface is at an equal distance from earth's center. That's the level it finds.
3
Anyone can do simple experiments that prove Earth is not flat. So we can easily verify that they are speaking the truth.
3
Most of that is done passively: anything in space that's not in direct sunlight, will radiate heat with very little resistance. If you take care to block incoming sunlight, this will get you close to 30K.
3
@s.muller8688 it's true. Only one instrument (MIRI) has an active cooling system: MIRI will be cooled down to 6 K. The other instruments and the mirrors rely on the sunshade only.
3
Look at the sky tonight. You can see "ideas" passing overhead. You can measure their altitude, and find they're above 200 km. Look at the horizon at sea. The sun sets, disappearing behind the horizon. If Earth were flat, it'd stay in sight, because there would be no horizon. Simple experiments, anyone can do these. And they prove that Earth is not flat.
3
That's not what they're doing. They're switching off instruments to stay within the available power.
3
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
Polar circumnavigation on the surface was first done by Ranulph Fiennes in 1980. The first aircraft to fly around the world via both poles was the Rockwell Polar Flight in 1965, using a Boeing 707. In recent years it's been done in small single- and twin-engined aircraft, business jets etc.
3
@michaellyne8773 It'd be difficult, but not impossible. I don't get people like you: you read a detailed account of how it was done, and you blithely dismiss that with "derp, must be fake" without having any evidence to support your claim.
3
@michaellyne8773 Those aren't anomalies, they are your lack of understanding. Moon hoaxers argue from ignorance: "I don't understand this, so it must be fake". Russia had a number of 'firsts' in the space race. What you're ignoring is that the Americans were only months behind in many cases. After Sputnik, the USA started investing massively in spaceflight. Within years, they had overtaken the Russians, by outspending them: in 1970, the US space budget was 7 times higher than that of the USSR.
3
@michaellyne8773 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 used the Explorer 1 satellite to discover 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 _one hour_), they received a dose of radiation of between 0.16 and 1.14 rads, or less than 1% of a lethal dose. You can see why other missions stay below the van Allen belts: most missions are too long to be survivable without shielding. Again, you're arguing from ignorance instead of reading up on the van Allen belts.
3
The distances between objects in the Oort cloud is expected to be huge.
3
@narajuna Yes, use your brain. Examine the evidence. You will find that the evidence is clear-cut: there is no doubt that the moon landings are real. As I've shown, Apollo 11 only did very few things that had never been done before. As Apollo 12 and 13 showed, the missions were far from perfect. NASA took risks in trying to get to the moon before the Russians, but they succeeded through proper planning and preparation.
3
That's nightfall.
3
@ajmittendorf You should look up the meaning of the word 'scientist'. Anyone who practices science is a scientist. Teaching and demonstrating the scientific method is part of that. History is littered with examples of people who had no university degree, but practiced science and made scientific breakthroughs. Everything Nye says can be verified. That's the nice thing about science: it's open to anyone and verifiable. "I don't like what he says" does not mean he is a fraud or a charlatan.
3
We already spend hundreds of billions every year solving every problem we encounter. We can afford to simultaneously spend a few billion learning more about the universe.
3
We have tons of photos of the moon landings. JWST won't be able to add to that. Its resolution is not high enough to resolve details that small on the moon.
3
It's unfortunate you believe that, when there is no evidence that the landings were faked.
3
No, that's not what happened. NASA retained a mountain of information on the Apollo landings. All of the photos, all of the video, all of the science data, 6 million drawings, tens of thousands of technical reports are sitting in public archives. The only data that was erased was engineering telemetry for the Saturn V. That data was essential during the mission, but became obsolete the moment the last Saturn V mission ended.
3
When the pressure in the suit is at 1 bar, that's 1 kgf of force on every cm2. At that pressure, it becomes very difficult to e.g. close your hand to grip an object. You can try this with a bicycle tire: at 0.3 bar, it's easy to pinch the tire with your fingers. At 1 bar, it's almost impossible.
3
@marxman00 You can measure the difference between Earth's polar and equatorial diameters in those photos.
3
@marxman00 you are probably referring to Earthrise. That photo was taken from lunar orbit, not from the surface.
3
@marxman00 That is incorrect. Robert Simmon was talking about one specific image: Blue Marble 2002. This was created by tiling thousands of LEO satellite images together, to get an image of the whole world (not just one hemisphere, as a single frame would limit you to) in far higher resolution than is possible with a camera in geostationary orbit. We have weather satellites in geostationary orbit continuously taking photos of Earth. These are single-frame photos. We've been doing that for decades, and those photos are freely available via NOAA and others.
3
Rock that falls to the ground for free is thoroughly cooked by the entry process, changing its structure and composition. We want a sample that's not been cooked.
3
it'll be several hours of observation time. Multiple planets could be observed at once if the stars are close enough that they fit into the field of view of the instrument. There are about 5000 known exoplanets, and only the closest ones can be surveyed this way.
3
It's a two-stage process: heat is removed from the equipment using a liquid cooling circuit. The hot liquid goes to a radiator panel on the outside of the spacecraft, and runs through the panel. The panel radiates the heat away.
3
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
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
10,000 successful satellites operating in space prove that Newton's laws do work in a vacuum.
3
The truth is that Earth's surface is curved, not flat.
3
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
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
They didn't have the technology in 1960. Then they put 450,000 people to work for a decade, to invent, design and build everything they needed to get to the moon. And they were successful. After 6 landings on the moon, the Apollo program ended. The production lines were dismantled. Some people call that "we lost the technology". That is a misleading phrase: we did not lose the knowledge, just the production line. From that moment on, any new lunar mission would have to start by building a new production line. We have all of the information we need to do that, but such projects cost money: tens of billions. And after Apollo, the appetite was never there to spend that much money.
3
That is incorrect. We have millions of non-photoshopped photos of Earth, including hundreds made by every Apollo mission. When a ship goes over the horizon, zooming in does not bring it back into view. Flerfs like to claim this, but when you look at those videos, you will see that the ship they zoom in on is in front of the horizon. There is one method that will bring the ship back into view: go to a higher elevation. This demonstrates that the horizon is a physical obstacle, just like a hill can hide objects on its far side.
3
They are telling the truth. This is proven by tons of evidence.
3
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
During the approach to the moon, the Lunar Module could transmit either telemetry or a TV signal, but not both. The decision was taken to transmit telemetry. The only TV camera on the LM was in a compartment on the descent stage, where it would be in position to view the ladder, so they could show the astronauts coming down the ladder. So during the descent, no TV coverage was possible. After the landing, the astronauts took a while to organize themselves for the EVA, and TV coverage started with the start of the EVA.
3
1. None. The rocket that launched New Horizons also pushed it on its way to Jupiter. It's been coasting ever since. Electric power is provided by a nuclear battery (RTG). 2. No. 3. No. It's headed straight out of the solar system.
3
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
The Apollo landings are real. It's been confirmed by independent third parties multiple times.
3
1. relay sats are far more expensive (will cost billions per relay) than just building a few more antennas here on Earth ($100M). 2. the range we have with our current antennas on Earth is 200 AU. Voyager 1 is at 150 AU today, so even the farthest mission would not benefit from a relay. 3. relays are inefficient. A relay sent in the direction of Voyager 1 can only be used for Voyager 1. Other spacecraft are closer to Earth than to that relay.
3
No, MESSENGER did not create the first "real images" of Mercury. Mariner 10's photos were no less real than MESSENGER's, they just had a lower resolution.
3
Sea level is a spherical surface.
3
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
No.
3
Nonsense is believing the Voyager missions were faked, with no evidence to back up those absurd claims.
3
@antontsoai9138 Voyager observations of the planets have since been confirmed by terrestrial telescopes. Radio telescopes occasionally track the Voyagers. So, sources independent from the organization that runs the Voyagers confirm the reality of this mission. Again, you are presenting no evidence that these missions are faked. Without evidence, your claims are worthless.
3
The Apollo project was not 'free money' in any way, shape or form. There's an extensive audit trail that shows where the money went: it was exchanged for actual goods and services. Rockets were designed and built. People walked on the moon.
3
The video is incorrect: neither Voyager will pass Proxima Centauri.
3
Apollo was unsustainably expensive. It consumed 5% of the US Federal budget. Since 1972, NASA's budget has never been above 1% of the Federal budget, so they had to choose a less expensive target: a permanently-manned station in Earth orbit (the ISS). Once the Space Shuttle was retired, some budget became available, which is being used to return to the Moon (Artemis). Because Artemis is being funded at a much lower level than Apollo, it's taking longer.
3
No. Flat-Earthers found people who look a bit like the Challenger astronauts, and who have similar names, and then falsely claim these are the dead astronauts. We know this is a lie: - while the photos show similarities, they also show big differences in e.g. bone structure, eye color, voice etc. - one of the claims is that Ron McNair has taken the place of his twin. Are we to believe the government assassinated one citizen so another could take his place? - in reality, anyone who gets hidden by the government via the Witness Protection program gets a new name. They don't get to keep their old name. - in reality, anyone who gets hidden by the government via the Witness Protection program has to stay off the grid. No social media, no getting your name and photo in the newspaper.
3
@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
@stanley1554 Nope. This is from in-situ measurements, backed up by the basic physics of how rock behaves under sunlight.
3
don't be ridiculous. There would be radiation alarms going off everywhere. This volcano has had 5 eruptions in the last 10 years, and it's been active in the week before this big eruption.
3
You're comparing apples and oranges. For the heliosphere, the Voyagers were the first to give us measurements at all. For diseases we don't have that problem: we have enormous amounts of data going back centuries. So when a new disease appears, we have models that have been tested already on other diseases, which can be adapted to provide accurate predictions in a short time, which is what happened for Covid.
3
He may not have a doctorate (other than the honor degrees), but he has been practicing science for decades. That is the main requirement for a scientist, the degree is just one of several ways to pay for people to practice science.
3
Every NASA photo I've seen that has high enough resolution to show dust, shows a dusty surface, not a metallic surface.
3
1. by training on Earth. If you've done it a few times, it gets easier. 2. by taking their time. 3. by assisting each other.
3
Radio telescopes can't do what JWST was built for, which is look at the earliest galaxies and derive spectroscopic data from their visible (redshifted to IR) light.
3
The only radioactivity on the moon is from subatomic particles striking the surface, creating the occasional unstable isotope of a single atom. The level of radioactivity is low enough that these rocks are not dangerous.
3
The Apollo missions did not defy the laws of thermodynamics, they took advantage of them. In a vacuum, heat transfer is done only through radiation, which means making the suit white already reflects away most of the sunlight and reduced the thermal load to manageable levels. The cooling system in the suit only had to deal with the body heat of the astronauts. They used sublimation cooling. Simply looking things up defeats every single one of your objections.
3
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
Nothing you describe indicates the moon is anything other than a ball of rock orbiting Earth.
3
@WolfeTone17-98 No, the moon is not transparent. This is obvious when you watch a solar eclipse. So what you saw were clouds in front of the moon.
3
@WolfeTone17-98 What you saw was an optical illusion, nothing more. Your observation does not trump the entire history of science.
3
@WolfeTone17-98 Again, any solar eclipse proves that the moon is not transparent. So what you saw cannot possibly have been behind the moon, it was in front of it. You cling to the impossible, stubbornly ignoring all of the evidence we have that proves you wrong.
3
@looneytoons2878 We figured out how to get through the van Allen belts in 1962. 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
@looneytoons2878 Most of the radiation in the VA belts is alpha and beta particles. Alphas are stopped by a sheet of paper. Beta particles are stopped by a few mm of aluminium.
3
@looneytoons2878 Those shooting stars are individual cosmic particles. The radiation exposure is determined by how many of those there are. Our measurements of the radiation environment on the moon tell us humans can live on the moon's surface safely for about 6 months before they run into the (conservative) radiation limits set to make sure they don't get cancer.
3
@looneytoons2878 Incorrect. Read again what I wrote. The hull protects against alpha and beta radiation - and most of the radiation in the VA belts is alpha and beta. Higher-energy particles get through, but the number of high-energy particles in the VA belts or on the lunar surface is small enough that they don't pose a danger for missions of up to 6 months.
3
@looneytoons2878 Radiation damage is visible in some photos as bright streaks. General fogging and quality degradation also occurred. This manifests as a reduction in color range. This could mostly be compensated for in the development process.
3
A nuclear explosion has a distinctive seismic signature that can be detected on the other side of the world. That signature has not been found in this event.
3
Actual history made by NASA, one of the best engineering firms in the world.
3
There's no such thing as a 'heat molecule'.
2
@GINMOONLIGHT Yes. Watch the video.
2
The aviation industry uses about 100,000 times more fuel than the rocket industry.
2
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
It starts out as a sphere. Collisions in the sphere tend to collapse it into a disk. This happens in the formation of planetary systems as well.
2
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
It doesn't have to be liveable to be interesting.
2
Satellites are in orbits that are mostly parallel to Earth's surface. So instead of going straight up, the trajectory curves from vertical at launch to horizontal at orbit insertion. Animations are used during launch to give move views of the rocket. On recent launches there may be a camera or two on the rocket itself: Falcon 9 launches usually have video from the rocket. On older launchers, it'd difficult to retrofit cameras, because that would mean replacing the telemetry system (to accommodate a huge increase in data). For satellites, realtime video is pointless: the changes they're observing are slow enough that bandwidth-intensive video is not necessary, photos provide all the information we need.
2
@stevekanyon5765 Tracking: once every 5 minutes, the tracker sends its coordinates, 12 bytes of data. Video: 8 Mbyte/s. Do you see the difference?
2
@luckylarrysinsurancepolicy3310 A sextant doesn't need a base *line*, it needs one point on the horizon.
2
"space is full of deadly radiation" is a massive exaggeration. Here are the facts, based on our measurements of the radiation levels in space. 1. Earth is partially surrounded by the van Allen radiation belts, which trap mostly electrons. The radiation level at the center of the inner belt is high enough to kill a human after 1 week of exposure. The level reduces as you get away from the center. The Apollo crews spent only 3 hours in these belts, and avoided the center entirely. 2. Outside the VA belts, the radiation level is several times higher than on Earth. You can spend more than 6 months on the surface of the moon before you get a dangerous radiation dose.
2
There are two ways to look at this. 1. the electromagnetic influence of the sun is limited to the heliosphere. The Voyagers have exited the heliosphere, and are now able to examine the electromagnetic/particle content of interstellar space. 2. the gravitational influence of the sun reaches much farther. The Voyagers are still inside the Sun's Hill sphere.
2
We need 15 rockets to put a lander on the moon with a payload of more than 10 tons. The LM payload was 250 kg.
2
@Brandon-nr8fn The evidence says we did.
2
@Brandon-nr8fn I've looked at what passes for "evidence" against the moon landings. It's all worthless, no more than wishful thinking.
2
Astrophysicists. I.e. the people whose field of expertise this is.
2
JWST includes a momentum flap, which does exactly this: balance the pressure to stabilize the telescope. AIU this doesn't provide enough thrust to spin the telescope or keep it in orbit around L2.
2
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
That's not a viable concept. A relay halfway between us and Pluto would orbit the Sun, so the relay would be out of place most of the time. It's much easier and cheaper just to build a larger antenna on Earth. The next step is probably laser communications, which would require a receiver satellite in Earth orbit.
2
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
None of those documents say that Earth is flat. In physics, it is common to simplify a problem by removing variables. This is what the "flat, nonrotating Earth" assumption does. Those same documents will also assume that the airplane is rigid and has a constant mass. Real airplanes are not rigid: their control surfaces move, the wings flex. They don't have a constant mass: the mass changes because fuel is consumed.
2
@kid8605 The vaccines ARE safe and effective, as demonstrated by the health of vaccinated people vs the unvaccinated. Scientists don't make empty claims. They make claims based on information. In this case, 20 years of testing mRNA vaccines followed by their use in an actual pandemic. We don't claim Earth is a sphere based on nothing, we base this on observations and measurements that have been checked and verified over and over again. Better yet: several of the methods used to find Earth's shape are available to anyone and require either no tools at all, or stuff most of us already have available. So, what you're doing is not smart. Looking in the opposite direction just based on 'I don't like what they are telling me' instead of looking at the data is, frankly, dumb.
2
1. Careful design, with lots of redundancy. There have been failures, both Voyagers are using their backup transmitters now. 2. Luck: we're only one failure away from end of mission. They're not sending the information quickly though. NASA uses a giant dish to receive Voyager's signals, with the best receiver electronics money can buy ($100 million each, the receiver is cooled to cryogenic temperatures to reduce noise). At these distances, Voyager sends data at 160 bits/s. Luckily that's enough for the instruments that are still operating.
2
What evidence do you have to back up your claim?
2
Wrong, they didn't switch either of the Voyagers off. They're still working, and we receive data from them every day.
2
NASA uses a giant dish (34 m or 70 m diameter) to receive Voyager's signals, builds the best receiver electronics money can buy (cooled to near absolute 0 to reduce noise), and they have a clear line of sight without obstacles between transmitter and receiver. The data rate is very low at these distances: 160 bits/s.
2
@16sputnik7 I've seen several tests where the film type used by Apollo was subjected to the conditions you find on the moon, with minimal film damage as a result.
2
@16sputnik7 The film magazine was attached to the back of the camera, with an (obviously) light-tight connection. I.e. the film was surrounded on all sides by metal.
2
They use thermal vacuum chambers for that, where both the vacuum and the temperature can be tested.
2
@artistart55 Here on Earth, there are 3 mechanisms for heat transfer: conduction, convection and radiation. In space, two of those mechanisms don't work: conduction and convection don't work in a vacuum. So you only have to deal with radiation, and we have developed multilayer foil insulation that is very effective at reducing heat transfer through radiation.
2
Well, they're saved by bringing them back into the pressurized spacecraft. That's similar for the treatment divers get when they get the bends: those are put in a hyperbaric chamber. The higher pressure forces the nitrogen back into solution, removing the bubbles which usually solves the problem.
2
@baik-jinn Gravity is essential to describe the behavior of rivers: gravity pulls the water down. In a closed container, water settles at the bottom. In a container with a hole at one end (like a river), water flows out the hole. Your 'proofs' are poorly thought-out figments of your imagination, done without scientific rigor or any understanding of the underlying concepts. Far from deceiving the world, gravity is a concept that has been tested again and again and we have not found any circumstances where it breaks down.
2
Vacuum testing is not necessary for the experiment they did in this video.
2
@MattyEngland You don't know your history, I see. From 1962-1967 NASA spent millions on failed contracts, with 6 different suit designs that all failed in testing. The Apollo EVA suit became known as A7L because it was the 7th design they tried. That's how things work when you're on the cutting edge of technology: you try a bunch of different approaches until you find one that works, learning from every mistake you make. For the Artemis suits, the requirements are far more stringent than for Apollo. For example, the suits have to last for months, instead for 3 days. With the abrasive dust on the moon, that is a problem. And finally, your lack of knowledge includes the problems the Apollo astronauts had with their suits, which included tears and leaks. They were lucky none of those problems were catastrophic.
2
Cell service is short-range radio, with a tiny antenna and a $30 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. Radio waves don't travel well through solid obstacles, so each wall between you and the cell tower reduces your signal. NASA uses a giant dish to receive Voyager's signals, builds the best receiver electronics money can buy ($100 million each), and they have a clear line of sight without obstacles between transmitter and receiver. At these distances, communication is slow: Voyager sends data at 160 bits/s.
2
+83 is the correct value.
2
The computer you're typing on is a side effect of NASA's investment in integrated circuits for Apollo. You're welcome.
2
Suuuuure. Tell me, which fantasy allows me to watch TV by pointing an antenna at a point 36,000 km above the equator? Which fantasy allows me to navigate accurately while out of reach of any mobile phone network? Look up at the sky tonight: you can see satellites pass overhead, proving that space is real.
2
For it to be useful, you need to cruise at 10km altitude. Not many UAVs can do that.
2
@TheJ0RD1E Yeas, sorry I didn't make that more clear. It spins on its vertical axis, and pitches to/from the sun by 45º. So at any time, it can view a cylinder section of the sky.
2
Spirit and Opportunity functioned for 10 years without needing a wiper.
2
CGI is the best way to explain how the telescope deployments work.
2
which part of the video are you referring to?
2
Deimos, with a radius of 6.2 km, has an escape velocity of ~25 km/h (xkcd comic 681). When you jump, your initial vertical speed is 2.45 m/s or 8.8 km/h. Playing with an escape velocity calculator a bit, an object with a mass of 1E14 kg and a radius of 5 km is small enough to escape by jumping.
2
Going to the moon is not more difficult than it was in the 1960s. The big difference is that in the 1960s, both the US and the USSR were willing to spend huge amounts of money to get to the moon. NASA ran these missions to the moon: 8 Pioneer missions, all of which failed 9 Ranger missions, 6 of which failed 7 Surveyor missions, 2 of which failed 5 Lunar Orbiters, 1 of which failed. They spent billions on each of these programs, compared to the $100 M that was spent on IM-1.
2
All large explosions have similarities (they all produce a mushroom cloud, for example).
2
There were a few requirements for the star used for calibration: 1. the star must be isolated, with no bright stars nearby. 2. the star must be visible from JWST's position (it can see only 30% of the sky at any given time). 3. the star must not be too bright. Interesting targets will be looked at later, when calibration is complete.
2
Parkes was used back then (and is still used these days occasionally) to provide more coverage for important events. When Buzz Aldrin switched on the TV camera on the Lunar Module, three antennas received the signals simultaneously: the 64-metre Goldstone antenna in California, the 26-metre antenna at DSN Canberra, and the 64-metre dish at Parkes. Since they started the spacewalk early, the Moon was only just above the horizon and below the visibility of the main Parkes receiver. Although they were able to pick up a quality signal from the off axis receiver, the international broadcast alternated between signals from Goldstone and Honeysuckle Creek, the latter of which ultimately broadcast Neil Armstrong's first steps on the Moon worldwide.
2
The optics are similar, but the instruments are very different: KH is optimized for looking at the very bright daylit Earth, Hubble looks at very faint starlight. And Hubble has spectrocopic instruments, which the KHs don't need.
2
@bbt305 You're wrong. Destin presents science, not propaganda.
2
@bbt305 He has access to those because he has a history of making documentaries that are both informative and entertaining, and he's built a large audience. That makes it attractive for these organizations to work with him.
2
Yes, we get data from Both Voyagers every day.
2
No, it didn't ring 'for a month'. The Apollo missions did seismic experiments on the moon, which included crashing spent S-IVB stages and ascent modules into the moon. Those experiments showed that the impacts had a long reverb time (a few hours), described by one of the scientists involved as "almost like a bell". Geologists looked at the data and realized what it really meant: the moon has no molten core, it's all solid rock. On Earth, the shock waves from seismic events are damped by the transition from solid to molten rock, and by water inside the rock.
2
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
@LordDeBahs False. From the beginning, NASA has been completely transparent. During the Apollo missions, they gave us hours of live TV which showed the astronauts were in 1/6 g, which is impossible to fake here on Earth. They published all of the 8000 photos they took on the moon. They publish tens of thousands of technical reports that show how they did it. And we have third-party confirmation from many sources: astronomers who observed the Apollo spacecraft on their way to the moon, radio amateurs who received Apollo radio transmissions, lunar orbiters form several countries have photographed the Apollo landing sites, etc. You, on the other hand have nothing. The photos of Earth taken by IM-1 demonstrate that how much of the planet you can see, and the relative sizes, depends on your distance to Earth and the viewing angle of the lens. This is not news.
2
@KaitlynAmick That "we can't see curvature from 125 kft" video is misleading. They have distorted the image to make the horizon look like a straight line. Others have done the experiment correctly, making sure not to introduce distortion (and proving it by aiming the lens at actually-straight lines). They have demonstrated that Earth's curvature is visible from 10 km altitude.
2
@KaitlynAmick Every geodetic survey in history has found that Earth's surface is curved, not flat.
2
around June.
2
NIRCam has been switched on, it's being used to align the mirrors. So it's taking pictures, just not scientifically usable ones.
2
The radiation level outside the atmosphere is low enough that film is okay if the mission isn't too long, i.e. for missions of up to two weeks you're fine, for a 6-month mission you might have problems.
2
The radiation levels in space are lower than in an X-ray machine. You see radiation damage on some of the Apollo photos as bright streaks as a single high-energy particle went through the film.
2
The inner layer of the suit is an airtight bladder. A separate layer on top of that restrains this bladder and keeps it from expanding too much.
2
@marxman00 Look up the Space Power Facility. Largest vacuum chamber in the world, large enough to hold an Apollo CM or LM. Still used today to test satellites.
2
Nope. The evidence is clear: the Apollo landings are real.
2
The evidence says otherwise.
2
There were a few requirements for the star used for calibration: 1. the star must be isolated, with no bright stars nearby. 2. the star must be visible from JWST's position (it can see only 30% of the sky at any given time). 3. the star must not be too bright.
2
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
@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
That's because the contents have not been seen yet.
2
You approve of having people starve in the streets?
2
Nope. We've been collecting data on exactly that for decades. Look up the LDEF mission, for example.
2
Construction on the launch pad was not finished, they just didn't want to wait for that.
2
Nope. You imagine space is filled with far more matter than is there in reality. i.e. light travels farther than you think.
2
@petethewrist Space is not filled with slits either.
2
As you said, there's a limit to the speed of light. It would take an infinite amount of energy to make light go faster.
2
The black hole is "massive" as in heavy, but it only takes up a tiny area: the supermassive black hole at the center of our solar system fits within Mercury's orbit. And there are millions of stars all around the black hole, so the black hole won't show up in ordinary photos. Only a system like the Event Horizon Telescope has enough resolution to show the black hole.
2
The farther away from the sun you get, the larger solar panels have to be to provide enough power. At Voyager's distance, you'd need several tons of solar panels to replace an RTG that weighs 50 kg.
2
That's certainly part of the problem. Artemis has about 1/25 the budget that Apollo had. This means things take longer to design and develop, and you can't afford to do everything at once. You also get decisions like not modifying Orion so it can reach low lunar orbit.
2
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
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
A "fraudster" who launched more rockets last year than the rest of the world combined.
2
Under water, you can train for weightlessness. Being in a vacuum requires no special training. During underwater training, they have the suit pressure at ambient pressure plus 4 psi, which makes the suit feel exactly the same as when they're in space with the suit at 4 psi. Vacuum testing is done for every space suit: someone wears the suit in a vacuum chamber, and the leak rate of the suit is measured. Occasionally they'll do tests where the astronaut has to run on a treadmill, to test the thermal performance of the suit (has to be done in a vacuum, or your result will be skewed by the suit exchanging heat with the ambient air).
2
The launch platform sits on top of the crawler. When it arrives at the pad, the crawler lowers the launch platform onto a set of pillars, and then drives away. They're parked next to the VAB.
2
@billshiff2060 The Apollo 11 press kit says the MSS is moved back to its parking spot 11 hours before launch. It doesn't say where the crawler goes after that, but it makes sense it stays with the MSS. When the Apollo program ended and pad 39A was repurposed for the Space Shuttle, the MSS was replaced with a rotating service structure that stays at the launch pad.
2
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
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
Messages to the Voyagers are sent at the speed of light. New technology does not improve that.
2
Yes, 36,000 km. Why would you not consider that to be in space?
2
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
@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
it's the EHT team, not ESA. And Mohammad didn't record scientific data.
2
No. The Voyagers don't have the tools to detect faint objects.
2
I can look up at the sky and see satellites, proving that space is real.
2
No, this is what happens naturally with a volcano.
2
Gravity pulls water into a sphere. This is what 'level' means: a surface on which every point is at the same distance to the center of the planet, i.e. a spherical surface.
2
No, it doesn't. Photoshop is not a camera.
2
No, moonlight is not cooler than shade. You can repeat that measurement on a moonless night, and get the same result. What that experiment actually shows is that objects that are shaded (by obstacles in front of them) cannot radiate heat away as efficiently as unshaded objects.
2
From the Mirror Segment Deployment Tracker: Segment A3 and A6 will be moved separately at the end of the process because their position sensors are read out in a different way. So they're not stuck.
2
Hubble was launched in 1990, SOFIA in 2007. If that's the quality of the information you're getting, you need a new source of information.
2
All space travel is real, and you benefit from its products every day.
2
@papalegba6796 Of course internal pressure is relevant. The work done by the gas is proportional to its pressure.
2
@papalegba6796 The work is done in the combustion chamber, so we have to use the pressure in the combustion chamber for the calculation. Basic physics, but that's far beyond a parrot like you.
2
@papalegba6796 No, the Work formula does NOT specify that the pressure has to be external. In fact, we use the pressure at the point where the work is done, i.e. in the combustion chamber of the rocket. I predict you will ignore this and keep lying, instead of conceding that you were wrong.
2
@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
@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
@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
@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
No. A simpler design would have to be much smaller, which means it's not sensitive enough to do the observations JWST was designed for.
2
Your simple logic has missed a few essential points. 1. the launch from Earth had to carry everything for the whole mission. The launch from the moon only had to get two astronauts into lunar orbit, where it would rendezvous with the Command Module. 2. The launch from Earth had to accelerate 50 tons (command module, service module and lunar module) to a speed of 11.2 km/s. The launch from the moon had to accelerate two tons to 1.6 km/s. So that's 1/25 the weight and 1/7 the speed, or 1/49 the kinetic energy. 3. the launch from Earth was in Earth's gravitational field, the launch from the Moon was in 1/6 g. So instead of requiring 3000 tons, the launch from the moon requires roughly 1/25 * 1/49 * 1/6 is ~1/7000 of 3000 tons. The real figure is about 2 tons, so this very rough estimate is in the ballpark.
2
Anyone who believes the landings were faked does so based on invalid arguments.
2
That galaxy is closer than the rest, so we can see individual stars in it.
2
@mikeybonilla2268 A nuclear explosion has a distinctive seismic signature that can be detected on the other side of the world. That signature has not been found in this event.
2
Duh, it's called a reflex.
2
Because it's pretty simple for anyone to prove that space is real.
2
We have no photos of Neil coming down the ladder. We only have a TV broadcast. The TV camera was in a compartment on the descent stage of the LM. Armstrong crawled out the hatch, then pulled a lanyard that opened the lid of this compartment, which aimed the camera at the ladder. Aldrin started the camera from inside the LM.
2
Yes, flat-Earthers are liars. All of the evidence shows that Earth is a sphere.
2
this video has a resolution of 500 meters/pixel, and it consists of images taken 10 minutes apart. So you're looking at a cloud that's 1-2 km wide.
2
Apollo was the biggest engineering program in history. NASA was able to get to the moon so quickly because it was seen as a national priority, with huge funding allocated to it. They could employ 450,000 people to build everything at once. The budget for Artemis is tiny by comparison, and its goals are more ambitious: instead of putting two humans on the lunar surface for 3 days, they want 4-man crews to spend weeks on the surface, plus a manned station in orbit of the moon. Artemis also can't get away with a design that has a 50% chance of failure (as Apollo 11 had).
2
The current estimate is that this year's average temperature will drop by 0.011 ºC because of this eruption. We'd need a far larger eruption to counter the warming effect of our CO2 emissions.
2
You need a telescope about 10 km in diameter to see a donut-sized object on the moon in the visible spectrum.
2
2 were used before, 3 after.
2
Getting fuel to the engines in 0 g: there are a few methods. One is to do an ullage burn: run some small thrusters to provide enough acceleration to settle the propellants at the bottom of the tanks. This is usually done for large engines. Another is to have fuel in a bladder under tension, or to have a structure in the tank that the fuel will tend to adhere to, which can wick the fuel into the engines. These can be used for small thrusters.
2
Webb will be in sunlight (otherwise the solar panels wouldn't work). It's in a large orbit around the L2 point (distance to L2 is about 300,000 km).
2
We have photos of Earth going all the way back to the Gemini missions, when astronauts started taking cameras with them. Every Apollo mission took hundreds of photos of Earth, including the famous Earthrise photo that shows Earth from lunar orbit. In the 1970s, NASA started to systematically photograph Earth with the Landsat program. This has been joined by many governmental and commercial Earth observation programs. Also in the 1970s, several space agencies started launching weather satellites, which photograph Earth from higher altitudes. Current geostationary weather satellites capture the whole hemisphere in one shot, and do this 144 times per day. The total number of photos of Earth is in the millions now.
2
We have found all starlike objects in our vicinity. None of them are close enough to orbit our sun.
2
No. Its magnetic field is not strong enough to do that.
2
about 1000. Current estimate is 10 megatons.
2
Number of instances where NASA has not told the truth: 0.
2
this video has a resolution of 500 meters/pixel, and it consists of images taken 10 minutes apart. So you're looking at a cloud that's 1-2 km wide. That's not a missile entering the water, that's small-scale volcanic activity producing steam before the main explosion.
2
The image projected by the mirrors (the focal plane) is much larger than the detectors. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzWfUK0yvdY The detectors are spread across the field of view. If you made the field of view smaller, you'd reduce the resolution.
2
For the purpose of image sharpness, the mirrors act as one. The diffraction spikes are a telltale sign that it's not one physical mirror (the spikes are caused by light reflecting off the edges of the segments).
2
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
Observations are essential to science: science starts with observations. Scientists try to find an explanation for those observations, this becomes a model. The model is tested using more observations or experiments. When the model holds up and makes accurate predictions, it becomes a theory. The word 'theory' has a specific meaning here: it's not the colloquial opposite of 'practice'; a scientific theory is a model that has been shown to be accurate in a wide range of circumstances, and the best way we currently have to explain how things work. Models and theories are always subject to improvement.
2
a few problems with that: - the worst part of space is LEO. That's where the space debris is. - the ISS orbits Earth in about 90 minutes, so every 45 minutes you go from day to night, with huge swings in temperature. That's not good for the spacecraft (it's designed to be in constant sunlight). - the environment of the ISS is dirty. gases from thrusters, exhaust from the environmental system etc. This can all condense on the telescope and you don't want that.
2
I can look up and see satellites in the night sky, proving you wrong.
2
It is, and anyone can measure this for themselves: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPrEihdRcEU
2
@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
@Damidas What part of "anyone can measure this for themselves" do you not understand?
2
@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
@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
We have photos of stars orbiting an object that's mostly invisible. From those orbits we can calculate how much mass there must be: 4 million solar masses in a tiny amount of space. The only theory that can explain those observations is a black hole. Now we've imaged that invisible object, and our observations match the theory. That means black holes are real, not theoretical, not imaginary. Welcome to science.
2
You're misremembering. They could still communicate, and they still had people from the original team operating the computers. They were looking for young programmers who could be added to the team to learn from the original team.
2
1. develop the first reusable spacecraft, the Space Shuttle 2. send spacecraft on a tour of the outer planets (Voyager, still operational today) 3. send spacecraft to Mars to prepare for an eventual manned mission 4. build the first large space station plus dozens of other missions. After Apollo, NASA's budget was slashed. Without an Apollo-level budget, manned Mars missions were not feasible so NASA had to scale back their programs.
2
That's nonsense.
2
10,000 successful space launches prove that whatever the word 'raki'a' means, it's not a solid structure.
2
What we're seeing in the last few years is many new companies each failing on their first mission, something NASA did in the early 1960s.
2
The Voyagers don't use solar panels. It's far too dark in the outer solar system. They use radioisotope thermal generators: Pu-238 decays and produces heat, Peltier elements convert this to electricity. Pu-238 has a half-life of 87.7 years, so the output of the RTG reduces a bit every year. The Voyagers started out with 470 W, they're at about half of that now. APL is working on a new interstellar mission concept: twice the speed of Voyager, aimed at exploring the solar system out to several hundred AU.
2
@stevef.8708 A brush attachment that can be proven to not be a risk for damaging the solar panel is going to cost a hell of a lot more than $3. And Spirit, Opportunity ran for ~10 years without needing one.
2
Look at the sky tonight. You can see satellites pass overhead, proving that spaceflight is real.
2
@SurfingFLA The LM was tested in Earth orbit (Apollo 5, unmanned, then Apollo 9, a manned flight) and in lunar orbit (Apollo 10). On Apollo 10, there was a brief loss of control after the descent module was jetissoned. However, unlike an aeroplane on Earth, where aerodynamic forces can make recovery difficult, recovering a spin in the LM was a matter of applying thrust in the opposite direction.
2
@SurfingFLA There's nothing 'hard to believe' about the LM's ascent from the lunar surface. This was well within our capabilities by the late 1960s, using well-understood science and technology.
2
@rfisher79 For missions to the moon, we don't need any tech. The hull of the spacecraft gives more than enough protection to safely pass through the van Allen belts.
2
@SurfingFLA Yes, those tests were the equivalent to landing on and taking off from the moon. Every system on the LM was tested, performance of all engines was checked (i.e. measured that the engines would have sufficient performance to land on the moon and take off again).
2
The camera system has heaters: these were switched off along with the cameras themselves in 1989. They've been exposed to -200 ºC for 30 years, but were designed for operation near 0 ºC. They're probably broken.
2
Cost. NASA had seen its budget cut by 75% in the early 1970s, and the Voyager mission was scaled back from the original plan (which included 4 spacecraft with more payload than the Voyages).
2
On the inside of the zipper, there are two overlapping flaps of fabric that are covered in an adhesive. These provide the actual seal, the zipper holds the fabric together mechanically. The air pressure presses these flaps onto each other and against the zipper.
2
in about 5 months.
2
When a Falcon 9 launches, it starts out with a mass of 550 tons. The first stage pushes 395 tons of propellant out the back at a speed of 3 km/s, accelerating the remaining 155 tons to a speed of 1.6 to 2.2 km/s (depending on flight profile and payload). The second stage repeats this, pushing 92 tons of propellant out the back at a speed of slightly over 3 km/s. We don't have to prove propulsion in a vacuum chamber, you can just look up to see the results of a rocket launch.
2
The serial number of the moon rovers doesn't emit mm wave radio signals. That's a useless "test".
2
@pathfinder7914 To make a useful image, you need contrast. In mm wave radio, the entire moon and everything on it looks the same. Try reading a book in an unlit room. You can't, because there's no contrast. Same principle. What you're doing is a strawman argument: you think up some ridiculous "test", and you think the fact they haven't done this "test" is evidence of anything. It isn't.
2
@pathfinder7914 You repeat those numbers a lot as if they mean anything. 1. the number is incorrect: the black hole in our galaxy is 27,000 lightyears away, not 55 million. 2. We have no trouble seeing galaxies 12 billion lightyears away. We have detectors sensitive enough they can count single photons. We just need a large telescope to gather enough photons: at visible light, 2.4 meters and a few days of observation time is enough. The EHT is very large, with more collection area than any telescope we've ever built.
2
About 450,000 Americans and 200 Germans worked on the Apollo program. The German contribution to Apollo was about 0.05%.
2
That wouldn't help. The total collection area is what counts, the shape is less important.
2
Why? Why would you have to mention such tangentia in a 10-minute documentary on a single aspect of the space program? That's what Wikipedia is for.
2
There isn't a thick layer of dust, because new impacts compact the dust underneath.
2
@thestoneworks The moon is 380,000 km away from Earth. That means when you stand on the moon, most of the sky is not filled with Earth. Earth is only 2º across, so it only covers 1/32000 of the moon's sky, which means only 1/32000 of the meteors flying to the moon will be intercepted by Earth.
2
@thestoneworks comets etc. have elements common on Earth because the entire universe is made from the same building blocks: hydrogen, and its fusion products (all of the other elements).
2
@thestoneworks Read what I wrote. When you stand on the moon, only 1/32000 of the sky is covered by the Earth, which means that blocked path is tiny. It gets smaller still when you realize impacts happen at any angle, i.e. the patch of moon directly facing Earth can be hit from the side. Whether something coming past Earth would be captured by Earth depends on its speed. Most meteors are traveling at far above Earth escape speed, so they just get a course change from flying by Earth.
2
@thestoneworks Impacts produce a shockwave that radiates from the point of impact. That shockwave compacts everything around the impact point. Sure, at the surface you get ejecta, but those will impact eventually and do some more compacting.
2
Thermal and radiation insulation are different properties, and the 'bury the base in regolith' idea is mainly designed to reduce radiation exposure. So based on the data we have now, I'd say this doesn't mean we need a thinner layer of regolith to shield a lunar base.
2
There's a refueling port. What we don't have yet is a spacecraft that can approach JWST without damaging the sunshield and without contaminating the mirrors with thruster exhaust.
2
What does science tell you to do before believing anything? Review the data. We found that space is empty. Space debris is a problem in low Earth orbit, not so much in interplanetary space. The average density is 1 atom per cm3.
2
Because there's no point in doing that.
2
We have tons of evidence that says the landings are real, and no evidence that says they're faked. Nothing crazy about following the evidence.
2
They did that 50 years ago.
2
No, this is Mercury. It should not be a surprise that they look similar: both are rocky bodies with no atmosphere and a similar composition.
2
Incorrect. The Apollo crews had lots of trouble with the dust. Because their missions were short, the problem never got catastrophic.
2
They had a large Mars program as well, unfortunately that had a string of failures.
2
@GerardHammond This video shows the launch pad sitting on pillars in the VAB, ready to be picked up by the crawler: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdCs2wNGXJE
2
Anyone who's capable of looking at the evidence knows we did go to the moon. The ones who believe we didn't have been fooled by charlatans.
2
False. In all landing videos you can see the surface getting completely obscured by flying dust.
2
@Forbidden33 If you build bridges, you should be familiar with geodetic surveys. Every geodetic survey in history finds that Earth's surface is curved, not flat.
2
The L2 point itself is in partial shadow. They wanted JWST to be in full sunlight with no eclipses (=smaller solar panel, and no changes in temperature).
2
Those are diffraction spikes. They're mostly an issue for bright objects (and I suspect they intentionally overexposed this image to get the spikes to be as large as possible, because the spikes carry information on how well the telescope has been focused).
2
Because their primary mission was to visit the same planets. That dictated their trajectory afterwards.
2
NASA uses a giant dish (34 m or 70 m diameter) to receive Voyager's signals, with the best receiver electronics money can buy (cooled to near absolute 0 to reduce noise), and they have a clear line of sight without obstacles between transmitter and receiver. The data rate is very low at these distances: 160 bits/s.
2
By the 1930s, we had figured out how to connect a landline to a radio. Millions of Americans were listening to people phone in to radio talk shows.
2
@Tracy-Inches No, that is here on the spherical Earth. High-frequency radio (FM as used by radio stations) is line of sight, which is why you have to change stations when you drive a long distance. The transmitter drops below the horizon. At lower frequencies, radio waves bounce off the ionosphere, which is how Marconi could send radio signals across the Atlantic ocean in the early 20th century. You'll notice that there's always part of our planet that has a line of sight to the moon. NASA operated a series of radio transmission/reception stations around the world, and those were used to contact the Apollo missions on the moon. It's easy to verify that this is possible: radio amateurs routinely bounce radio signals off the moon, confirming that radio signals can travel that far.
2
@freefreepalestine360 Farts can be used to propel you in space, yes.
2
You haven't looked, then. We have hours of TV recordings for every single Apollo mission, along with thousands of photos made by Ranger, Surveyor, Lunar Orbiter, Apollo, Lunar Reconnaissance C=Orbiter, Chandrayaan, Chang'e and Selene missions.
2
We have millions of photos of Earth from space. Ever since the first Gemini mission, astronauts have been taking photo cameras to space. Apollo 8 was the first to take photos where the whole Earth is in view. Since then, hundreds of Earth observation satellites have been launched. These days, geostationary weather satellites take photos of the entire hemisphere every 10 minutes. And these are available in public archives. This is better than taking photos form the moon: geostationary orbit is closer, so you see more detail.
2
SpaceX would have to add atomic clocks to each satellite, adding millions to the cost per satellite. It's unlikely they would do this for a service that does not provide revenue.
2
That lid never made it out of our atmosphere: the air resistance on the way up burned it up.
2
@iluminumfalcon8619 No, Earth has gravity because it has mass. Every object that has mass has gravity.
2
The Voyager cameras did not use a CCD (the element in digital cameras that records the image as digital data). they used a Vidicon tube (as was used in TV cameras back then), and ran its analog output through an AD converter to get the digital data.
2
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
Diesel. 2 generators on board, these power the electric motors on each set of tracks.
2
The Apollo program enabled development of the computer you're watching Youtube on. You're welcome.
2
@papalegba6796 Yes, they have. We can verify this by looking up: satellites in low orbits can be visible to the naked eye. We can measure their speed and altitude from the ground. When I aim a dish antenna at a point 36,000 km above the equator, I can receive TV signals from geostationary satellites.
2
In orbit, they're using100% oxygen at 0.3 bar pressure. In the pool, the pressure has to be a lot higher because they're in 1 bar atmosphere, plus 1.3 bar from the water pressure, so the pressure in the suit has to be at least 2.3 bar, and at that pressure 100% oxygen is toxic.
2
@merkridge8780 Those are reasons, not excuses.
2
@merkridge8780 You've clearly never been involved in a complex project. Every complex machine requires commissioning; even at a much simpler level than JWST it can take months to commission a machine. The JWST team has spent years retiring every possible risk. But there are things you can't do before launching the telescope into orbit, and one of those tasks is aligning the mirrors. This will take time. Those are just the facts of life.
2
@merkridge8780 I'm saying (again) they are not excuses, they are reasons. You should read up on the difference between the two.
2
We have known Earth is a sphere for 2500 years. 2250 years ago, Eratosthenes figured out how to measure Earth's diameter. A ship going over the horizon demonstrates that Earth is curved. We can measure this curvature directly with a geodetic survey. From 10 km altitude, you can see Earth's curvature with the naked eye. From the ISS, it's even more obvious. From 36,000 km (where we have many geostationary satellites) you can see the entire planet. Evidence tells us Earth is a sphere. "Earth is flat" is the lie.
2
We don't need to beg. Every aspect of Apollo is documented in public archives.
2
We've got tons of whole-globe images from all kinds of spacecraft going back to Apollo 8.
2
@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
The photos at the start of the video are all real.
2
They really do have cameras: 3 of the 4 instruments are imaging devices. They may not be visible-light cameras, but they are cameras.
2
@phillipbrown2896 He's right in that the images won't look like Hubble's. They're closer to the thermal imaging systems we use on Earth: these use colors to indicate temperature. There are a few different ways to map IR images to visible-light images, depending on what information you want to emphasize. These are the JWST instruments: Near-Infrared Camera, or NIRCam. Near-Infrared Spectrograph, or NIRSpec. Mid-Infrared Instrument, or MIRI, a combination camera and spectrograph Fine Guidance Sensor/Near InfraRed Imager and Slitless Spectrograph , or FGS/NIRISS, a combination camera and spectrograph
2
All large explosions look like that: the mushroom shape is caused by hot air rising in the middle, which causes the colder air around it to rush into the middle.
2
That was recorded from an aircraft flying at an altitude of a few km. Look at the telemetry; it's not at an altitude yet that can only be reached by rockets.
2
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
@Amberlynn_Reid The AD have made lots of claims. When we try to verify those claims, we never can. Which means their arguments are invalid.
2
On Gemini, super alloys such as Rene 41 and L-605 were used for the outer skin and skin attachments, which were thermally isolated from the inner structure by Johns-Manville MIN-K, Fiberglas and Thermoflex RF insulation. The basic load- carrying shell was titanium. None of these would ignite at low temperatures.
2
New Horizons won't overtake the Voyagers. As you travel outwards in the solar system, you speed drops as you get farther from the sun. New Horizons' speed when it flew by Pluto is lower than the Voyagers' speed when they passed Plutos' orbit.
2
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
50 years of triumph. Actual evidence shows that the moon landings are real.
2
No. Anything we can build today is far too small to have a measurable effect on the magnetic fields of the Sun or Earth.
2
There is very little debris around the L2 point. Space is empty.
2
There are a dozen different ways to prove Earth is a sphere. Many of these methods can be used by anyone. Several don't require any tools, just naked-eye observations. People who think Earth is flat don't do this because of a lack of evidence that Earth is not flat.
2
That is a screengrab from the video camera, which was set up on a stand so it could operate unattended.
2
SpaceX is developing a rocket more ambitious than the SLS for far less money and in less time. Their testing method is unusual in the West: they use test flights instead of lots of ground tests. This means we can expect a few fireballs on early launches. Fireballs at this stage don't mean the project is a failure, it means they are progressing normally. The Russians did this for several of their rockets. The Proton had 14 failures before the first successful test flight.
2
The calibration images will be released when calibration has finished.
2
False, Apollo 11-17 are real.
2
@dbryant4042 We have tons of evidence the Apollo landings are real, and no evidence at all that they were faked.
2
The visor is down in most shots because they're in very bright, direct sunlight. That's what the visor is for. There is no TV from the LM in flight because it could not transmit TV in flight. Limitations of the hardware. The film camera was used during the flight, it was on a bracket and aimed out the window because the view out the window was more important than what was happening inside the LM. So many questions that actually do have answers if you spend some time finding them.
2
@DeanTalboys NTRS document 19720012253 shows why the TV camera could not be used during descent or ascent. 1. The S-band antenna on the LM had large blackout regions where the antenna could not be pointed. During landing and takeoff, the LM orientation went through those regions, so you'd get interruptions in the TV signal. 2. The LM could not send high-rate telemetry (which was required during the landing) and TV simultaneously. In addition, the camera was not in the right place to film inside the cabin: 3. During descent, the TV camera was on the inside of the MESA compartment door so it could be used to film the first steps, not in the cabin. 4. The TV camera was left on the moon instead of being carried back to Earth.
2
@DeanTalboys There is absolutely a reason why the 16mm film camera was not used handheld during the landing or ascent. The astronauts were too busy flying the spacecraft to be faffing around with a TV camera.
2
@DeanTalboys When you're walking in the summer sun, you don't take off your sunglasses every time you turn away from the sun. Similarly, the astronauts had better things to do than adjust their visor. The photography was a science tool first and foremost, so we set photos of the astronauts working on something, and only rarely a posed photo (mostly flag salutes).
2
@DeanTalboys I've given you the reasons already.
2
The Voyagers don't have solar panels.
2
Nope. We've been to the moon 6 times with manned missions, and over 30 successful unmanned landings.
2
@truckloadoftruth4772 The Voyagers contain digital clocks. They work just like the ones on Earth. The time we measure does not depend on sunrise: we measure the number of oscillations in a cesium atom, and have defined time from that.
2
@truckloadoftruth4772 A sundial measures solar time. It does so very inaccurately, as it is limited by the physical objects you use. We have stopped using sundials for anything accurate centuries ago.
2
The actual space suit weighs around 90 kg. When the astronaut weighs 80 kg, the suit is trimmed for 1/6 kg by adding weights until the net weight (measured under water) is (80+90)/6 is 28.3 kg.
2
@duarteconchinhas The process is shown at the start of the video. The weighing system is put in the pool, and the astronaut is weighed with his suit. The weights are distributed to put the center of gravity in the same place as the center of buoyancy. So the weight of one arm may not exactly correspond to the buoyancy of that arm, but the sum total is made to match.
2
A dozen private pilots have flown around the world via both poles in recent years. This demonstrates that Earth is a sphere. Anyone can measure the 3D position of a series of points on a seemingly-flat surface. We always find that surface is curved, not flat. Anyone can watch a ship go over the horizon, and disappear from the bottom up. The obstacle behind which the ship disappears is Earth's curvature.
2
No. The Voyagers are too small for JWST to see.
2
The biggest space project of the past 30 years was the ISS. Its goal: to learn how to live and work in space. This is essential knowledge for becoming a space*faring* species.
2
@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
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
Well, yes. Apollo 11 landed in 1969, not in 1968.
2
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
Yes, it's rather creepy that flat-Earthers will stoop so low as to find pictures of people who resemble the Challenger crew, and claim that the crew is still alive. In a population of 300 million, it's not that hard to find someone who resembles you.
2
False, we have proof that the landings are real.
2
That is not commutative. Just because an opinion is ridiculed, does not mean it has to be truth.
2
They were careful to not get dust on the camera lenses. Duh.
2
Artemis is being funded at 1/25 the level that Apollo had. Less money = it takes longer. It's that simple.
2
@stevewalker412 I'm looking at the specifications of the Voyager communications system right now; the loss due to the atmosphere is less than 1 dB, that's almost negligible. That's in clear weather: when it rains, losses are higher. On Earth, we can build a 34 meter antenna for about $50M. The largest antenna ever sent to space is about 10 meters across, and a spacecraft that can run it costs several hundred million dollars.
2
the moon is tidally locked. This means that Earth's tides apply a torque to the Moon, and over time this forces the moon's rotation to sync up with its orbit: the same side of the moon always faces Earth. This is called the near side of the moon. The far side is sometimes called the "dark side". This phrase was used because before spaceflight, we'd never seen that side of the moon, so we knew little about it. This term has nothing to do with light levels. The day and night on Earth are determined by Earth's rotation: at any time of Earth's day, half the planet is in sunlight, the other faces away from the sun. Similarly, the light level on the moon is determined by the Moon's rotation. One rotation takes 28 days, so each part of the moon gets sunlight for 14 Earth days, then 14 days of darkness.
2
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. This is from the same interview: Zoey: Were you a little scared about, about, um going to the moon or coming home again 'cause nobody has been there before? Aldrin: Well people had gone up and down without staying in orbit, people, dogs, and monkeys. People, Russian, Yuri Gagarin. Then we'd done a lot of things, we hadn't really sent people to the moon. So we did send people and they went around the moon. Then we sent people, another crew, to go around the moon and then practice everything but landing. And then a very fortunate person, the many things going right in my life, gave Neil Armstrong, Mike Collins, and Buzz Aldrin the opportunity to make an attempt to make the first landing. And all of us wanted to succeed, and we did, and that's why I'm here. Those are not the words of someone who hasn't been to the moon.
2
Yes.
2
About 450,000 Americans and 200 Germans worked on the Apollo program. The German contribution to Apollo was about 0.05%.
2
@arclightredux6088 I just told you how many.
2
We can observe the convexity of the water everywhere. When a ship goes over the horizon, it follows a convex path. When looking down at Earth from high altitude, it gets even more obvious. A geodetic survey of a path along a canal also shows that the path, and the canal along with it, is curved. So, we arrived at the conclusion that Earth is a sphere because our observations tell us that it is a sphere. We also know why Earth is a sphere. Gravity pulls all matter into spheres, at large scales: any object larger than 1000 km in diameter will get pulled into a sphere. This makes a flat planet a physical impossibility.
2
It starts out as a sphere. Collisions in the sphere tend to collapse it into a disk. This happens in the formation of planetary systems as well.
2
no, the definition of a planet hasn't changed. Alan Stern wants to change it based on the arguments you mention.
2
Some humans are curious about the world around them. Others just want to vegetate. If it were up to them, we wouldn't have internal combustion engines, the telephone or the internet.
2
Congratulations. You have demonstrated you have not thought about the Moon's gravity at all. - gravity depends on mass and radius. - the moon is 1/4 the diameter. Mass depends on volume, which scales with the third power of diameter. So 1/4 the diameter is 1/(4^3) the volume, i.e 1/64. The moon's density is a bit lower than Earth, so it only has 1/100 the mass of Earth. Because the radius is 1/4 and gravity depends on the square of the radius, this increases the gravity by a factor 16, so we end up with 16/100 of Earth's gravity, which is 1/6. About the WTC, you are wrong again. The WTC was built to withstand the impact of from an airliner that was in service when the WTC was designed (Boeing 707). The designers did not fully consider what the fuel load of the airliner would do (analysis tools at that time were insufficient to predict the effects of such an event), nor could they foresee the much larger aircraft that would come into service decades later.
2
Simple experiments anyone can do prove that Earth is a rotating sphere. When you take a cup of water and hold it upside down, the water falls DOWN, because water is subject to gravity. The gravitational force is about 300 times larger than the outward force due to Earth's spin.
2
It's the other way round: They're switching off instruments to stay within the available power of the RTG.
2
@NinjaGaiden-z7t That is incorrect, again. When a ship goes over the horizon and disappears, I can make it visible again by moving to a higher elevation. This proves that perspective is not a factor in the disappearance of the ship, there is a physical obstacle that can be cleared by moving up.
2
@NinjaGaiden-z7t There are no photos of 'buildings that should not be seeing'. Videos that claim this, invariably turn out to use incorrect calculations for how much should be hidden or visible. Again, it is the flat-Earthers that have been caught lying, not the scientists.
2
@NinjaGaiden-z7t The oceans are curved, just like Earth's landmasses.
2
That was not the topic of this video. As evidence for the moon landings, we have: - 382 kg of lunar rock samples, - hours of live TV and film footage, - more than 8000 photos, - scientific results from all of the experiments, - tens of thousands of technical documents that show how they did it. In addition, we have confirmation from multiple independent sources: - during the Apollo missions, amateur astronomers could see the CSM/LM on its way to the Moon. - 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. - 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. - India's Chandrayaan-2 orbiter has photographed the Apollo 11 and 12 landing sites, with enough resolution to show the foot tracks of the astronauts. - Japan's Selene lunar orbiter has mapped the Apollo landing sites and found the topography matches that seen in Apollo photos. - laser reflectors left on the moon by the Apollo missions, that can be pinged from Earth by anyone with a powerful laser.
2
The LRVs have been sitting on the lunar surface, being heated during the lunar day and cooling down during the lunar night. These thermal cycles have caused the components of the rover (especially the electronics) to expand and contract at different rates. It's unlikely the electronics will work.
2
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. Not one. So you have fallen for the nonsensical claims made by the deniers, none of which are supported by evidence.
2
@Blamejames78 about 1 in 40 years on average, the last one was Mt Pinatubo in 1991.
2
@Blamejames78 No worries, volcanoes are a big and complicated subject, we're all learning as we go along.
2
No. A meteorite would punch a small hole in the reflector, making it a tiny bit less effective.
2
NASA does not hide anything. Raw photos for every mission are easily found. JWST cannot take photos of the moon because that would expose the primary mirror to sunlight and ruin the telescope by overheating it.
2
Yes. Voyager 1 would be the first one to arrive at Jupiter.
2
it's the other way round: SpaceX was already going to make Starship and its booster reusable, which made the Artemis architecture viable.
2
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
The drogue chute didn't open, so for a while it looked like the capsule was going to crash.
2
@Directtruth False. 9 missions have traveled to the moon. There is no barrier at 360 mi
2
@Directtruth Apollo 8, 10-17.
2
try this one about MIRI: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_JhKI6Z7CI
2
Better video: https://youtu.be/AOI4vDWsRhE?t=2364
2
about 17 km/s, or 61,000 km/h.
2
The Soviets cooperated with the USA on their last Venus missions (the Vega project). If they hadn't been able to deliver, it'd have come out then.
2
There is no CGI in NASA space videos, obviously. You fell for a con.
2
it is refuelable. The only thing we don't have yet is a spacecraft that can approach JWST without damaging the sunshield.
2
@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
LEO: tens of thousands of objects in a shell 1000 km thick above Earth's surface. Lagrange points: single-digit number of satellites spread over a volume of 1000000 x 1000000 x a few hundred km.
2
Aerogel relies on the air in the cells to provide insulation. This works well on Earth, not so much in the vacuum of space.
2
The problem with that is that the exhaust of the thrusters would contaminate the mirrors. And there's the risk of a collision.
2
Why are you assuming "they can't do it" with more modern tech? They're in the middle of designing and developing everything they need to get to the moon.
2
To get you started: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEAVirFERU4 This is about the Deep Space Network, used by NASA to communicate with faraway spacecraft. The Soviets did something similar.
2
That depends on the size of the planet. Everything with a diameter of about 1000 km and up has enough gravity that it pulls itself into a sphere. Anything smaller has random shapes.
2
In reality, Starship is progressing well, with no indication that what they're doing is impossible.
2
We have photos of stars orbiting an object that's mostly invisible. From those orbits we can calculate how much mass there must be: 4 million solar masses in a tiny amount of space. The only theory that can explain those observations is a black hole. Now we've imaged that invisible object, and our observations match the theory. That means black holes are real, not theoretical, not imaginary. Welcome to science.
2
People claim we "lost the technology", but that's not an accurate representation of what happened. 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. What's lost is some of the details of manufacturing (order of assembly, for instance). We have drawings, software etc. for everything.
2
@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
At that time? The civilian IC market basically didn't exist. NASA built the first computer using ICs.
2
False. This project is far too public to hide anything.
2
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
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
no, the CO2 output from this volcano is about what we produce in 1 day. This eruption is not large enough to affect our climate.
2
All of the evidence says it isn't.
2
@alalesc3796 This is reality: every time we measure Earth's surface, we find that it is curved, not flat. Every time a ship goes over the horizon, you see Earth's curvature in action. all of our observations and measurements over 2500 years show that Earth is a sphere, not a flat plane.
2
There's an excellent graph (made by Randall Munro of xkcd) called 'possible undiscovered planets'. This shows there's an area of our solar systems where our telescopes, including NEOWISE (the survey you're talking about) don't have enough resolution yet to see a planet.
2
Aldrin trained with the camera. Since there were no problems during their EVA, taking the photos was left to Armstrong.
2
It's not a theory at all. Science starts with observations. Scientists try to find an explanation for those observations, this becomes a model. The model is tested using more observations or experiments. When the model holds up and makes accurate predictions, it becomes a theory. The word 'theory' has a specific meaning here: it's not the colloquial opposite of 'practice'; a scientific theory is a model that has been shown to be accurate in a wide range of circumstances, and the best way we currently have to explain how things work. There are no observations or experiments that confirm the moon is hollow. That means 'the moon is hollow' is no more than a hypothesis, with no supporting evidence.
2
Scientists are not allowed to use metaphors when explaining things to laymen? That's not an improvement.
2
There are many ways to demonstrate Earth is a sphere. Here are a few methods anyone can use. 1. Look at Earth's shadow during a lunar eclipse. This is always a circle, no matter which part of Earth is facing the moon. The only shape that always casts a circular shadow in any orientation, is a sphere. 2. Watch a ship going over the horizon: it gradually disappears from the bottom up. If you go to a higher elevation, the ship comes back into view, demonstrating that the ship does not disappear because it's too far for us to see it, it disappears because there's a physical obstacle (a hill of water) between you and the ship. We can do this observation anywhere on Earth, and the point at which a ship starts to disappear is always at the same distance. This demonstrates that Earth's has the same curvature everywhere, which only happens on a sphere. 3. The Greek obelisk shadow (Eratosthenes' measurement of earth's diameter) is another experiment you can repeat. 4. We can measure Earth's curvature directly, by measuring the 3D position of a series of points on Earth's surface. This is done with a geodetic survey. Professionals use a theodolite for this work, but it's possible to do a simple survey with binoculars or a camera with zoom lens, and a measuring stick.
2
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
Voyager's transmitter produces 12 W of RF (or 18, but it's usually set to 12 W). This is sent through a 3.6 m dish antenna with 48 dBi gain. To compensate for the weak signal, NASA uses a giant dish (34 m diameter) to receive Voyager's signals, with the best receiver electronics money can buy (cooled to near absolute 0 to reduce noise), and they have a clear line of sight without obstacles between transmitter and receiver. The data rate is very low at these distances: 160 bits/s.
2
@bastawa The beam width of the antenna is 0.5º. That's pretty narrow, but the distance is so huge that by the time the signal reaches Earth, that beam is about 300 million km wide. i.e. at the beginning of the mission, Voyager had to be aimed at Earth regularly, to follow it in its orbit. These days, Voyager can stay in the same orientation for months, if not the whole year because our entire orbit fits in that beam.
2
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
Earth is a sphere. It has a curvature of 8 cm per km. This can easily be verified in many ways.
2
To make it comfortable for the divers.
2
The moon is moving away from us. Not so long ago its apparent size was larger than the Sun's. In a few million years its apparent size will always be smaller than the Sun's and we won't have total solar eclipses any more. Over the lifetime of the moon, it's statistically inevitable that at some point its apparent size would be the same as the Sun's. No, the Moon is not composed of titanium. It rang like a bell because that's how dry, solid rock behaves. Earth's crust is not dry (lots of water and other liquids in the rock) and it sits on top of molten rock. Both dampen vibrations more than dry rock does.
2
14.7 psi/1 bar.
2
I think those were made by SOHO.
2
Yes, we can do that, depending on the distance of the object (with a limited number of filters available, not all distances can be mapped exactly).
2
Apophis weighs 60 million tons. Our entire nuclear arsenal would be needed to split it up into smaller chunks. Even then, most of those chunks would still hit Earth and cause massive damage. You'd have to make sure every chunk is diverted into an orbit that will miss Earth indefinitely, which is not something we can do today.
2
I feel bad for you for misunderstanding Nye's words to such an extent. He did not say we can't launch satellites. He wasn't talking about satellites or space exploration at all. He was answering a question: "can we send our trash into space?". This is the whole answer: "Why we don’t throw trash into space? Because it’s too expensive. Lifting a ton of material into space takes an extraordinary amount of rocket fuel. And, by the way, when people want to send this much plutonium-238 which is not even the weapon’s plutonium, a baseball size, a grapefruit size, people freak out because the rockets sometimes blow up.” “Now, one thing I really want your generation to embrace is that the Earth is a closed system. We cannot leave the Earth. There’s no place to go. There’s no place to throw your trash. And I wouldn’t be surprised if maybe not you but your kids develop ways to mine our landfills.” Nye is the CEO of the Planetary Society, an organization that promotes spaceflight, advocates for it and has even run its own satellite. Nye is not a space denier. It's pretty simple to verify this yourself, too: you can look up at night and see satellites, even with the naked eye. With simple tools, you can measure their speed and altitude, and confirm they really are in space and not in our atmosphere.
2
This volcano has erupted 5 times in the last 10 years, and it was active in the days before the explosion.
2
Ejecta falling back into the crater, mostly. This happens on Earth as well.
2
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
@davidchase9424 They'll confirm what I said: it's all about the intensity and exposure time.
2
@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
@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
We have absolute proof that there is no edge. It is literally impossible for an edge to exist.
2
Yes, the thrusters were used for attitude control. It's the best method we have for really long missions. We can use electricity (to power reaction wheels), but reaction wheels tend to wear out. Hydrazine is a monopropellant: pass it over a catalyst, and it decomposes, creating lots of hot gas.
2
We 'can't' in the sense that we don't have hardware sitting on the launch pad ready to fly a manned mission to the moon. The rocket and spacecraft we need for that are in development at the moment.
2
You can look up tonight and see satellites and the ISS pass overhead, proving that space is real.
2
Yes, we can prove it wasn't faked.
2
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
False. The moon rang like a bell because that's what dry rock does. The moon has no molten core, it's all solid rock. There's also no water to speak of. On Earth, the shock waves from seismic events are dampened by the transition from solid to molten rock, and by water inside the rock.
2
It's pretty ignorant to believe the Apollo landings were faked. Even 50 years later, nobody has presented any evidence that shows the landings were faked. We know they were on the moon: for example, the Apollo photos and videos show an environment with 1/6 g gravity, which we cannot replicate on Earth. The only reason we haven't been back yet is money. Apollo was unsustainably expensive.
2
1. They used film designed for low-pressure environments. This reduced the outgassing by a lot. 2. The Apollo flight films were exposed to vacuum for no more than 24 hours. 3. The films were tested beforehand, and the quality reduction by outgassing and radiation was measured and mitigations found. The quality reduction was mostly in the form of a reduction in dynamic range. The film they used had so much dynamic range that this reduction was tolerable.
2
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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
Volcanic eruptions produce far more SO2 than CO2. SO2 produces a cooling effect; the Pinatubo eruption lowered the average temperature by 0.6 ºC for 2 years. This eruption is much smaller, so the current estimate is a temperature change of -0.01 ºC for this year.
2
@TheHaughtyOsprey You claim there is no 'clear footage of a rocket launch'. I provided a magnificent example and disproved your claim.
2
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
@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
It starts out as a sphere. Collisions tend to cancel out momentum in most directions, so over time the cloud becomes a disk.
2
The Voyagers use radioisotope thermal generators: Pu-238 decays and produces heat, Peltier elements convert this to electricity. Pu-238 has a half-life of 87.7 years, so the output of the RTG reduces a bit every year. The Voyagers started out with 470 W, they're at about half of that now. You can receive a signal from so far away with careful design of the transmitter and receiver. Dish antennas concentrate the signal into a narrow cone, providing an enormous amount of gain over omnidirectional antennas. You can also build very sensitive receivers by cooling them to cryogenic temperatures (which reduces noise). NASA uses a 34 m dish to receive Voyager's signals. Transmission speed is 160 bits per second. Voyager's transmissions are sent out in a cone 0.5º wide. That isn't much, but by the time it gets to Earth, Earth's entire orbit fits inside that cone. Beyond Earth, you could still receive the signal with ever more elaborate transmitters. At some point, the signal loses coherence and becomes unintelligible, but that takes a long time.
2
We don't know if there's an edge: In all directions, we can see galaxies to the edge of our detection ability (about 13 billion lightyears).
2
we already have a bunch of those. Landsat etc. are designed to monitor crops.
2
If only people would look at the evidence to decide if they're being lied to. The evidence is clear: the Apollo landings are real, and the only people lying are the moon landing deniers.
2
Volcanoes produce about 1% of the CO2 emissions caused by humans. This isn't a guess, we can measure it.
2
it depends on where in their orbits Earth and Mars are. When they're closest to each other, signals take 3 min. When they're on opposite sides of the sun, it takes 22. 15 min was during one of the recent Mars rover landings.
2
No, it's not hollow. There is ONE event that was misinterpreted by laymen as 'this must mean the moon is hollow': after an impact, seismic waves reverberate for a long time. This happens because the entire moon is solid rock, with no liquid mantle and no liquids embedded in the rock to dampen the vibrations.
2
Aldrin provably went to the moon.
2
@Flatasatack I've watched several of his interviews. I've also looked at the evidence. The Apollo videos are impossible to recreate on Earth. The Apollo lunar rock samples are unlike any rock found on Earth. The laser reflectors left by several Apollo missions can be used by anyone. etc. etc. In 50 years, nobody has presented a single shred of evidence that shows any of the Apollo landings were faked.
2
What on Earth are you talking about? In 1969, NASA installed the first computer using integrated circuits in the Apollo CM and LM. It cost millions. In 1981, we (literally, anyone) could buy computers with about the same processing speed and memory capacity for $400. NASA and the DOD made that possible by investing in computer technology when it was expensive. The didn't keep anything away from us; quite the contrary.
2
We can see stars at a distance of 1000 lightyears. The only limit to our eyesight is resolution: the farther away something is, the larger it has to be to be visible. It's easy to prove that the horizon is not caused by any limitation of our eyes: Watch a large ship go over the horizon. There's a point where the hull is hidden, but the superstructure remains visible, proving that we can see that far, and proving that the hull is not hidden by any limitation to our eyesight.
2
@tallcedars2310 It depends. On this occasion, a large volume of magma was exposed to ocean water at once. This created a steam explosion. Other volcanoes build up so much pressure that when the magma breaks through the rock plug on top of it, it's with explosive force. The Krakatoa eruption could be heard from thousands of km away.
2
@tallcedars2310 Krakatoa erupted in 1883, it's one of the biggest eruptions in history. So not news that you missed :) When you have a large volume of water that abruptly gets converted to steam, it's considered an explosion and will create a shockwave.
2
We have proof the moon landings were not faked.
2
@flashgordon6670 There is nothing "plausible" about your claim that the Apollo missions were unmanned. There is a huge amount of evidence that shows the Apollo missions are real. You, on the other hand, have 0 evidence that shows these missions were faked. Among the evidence for the Apollo missions, we have hours of video that shows the astronauts working in an environment with 1/6g gravity and no atmosphere. This was impossible to fake on Earth in the 1960s, and even today, movies that are set on the moon cannot show this convincingly.
2
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: there are no "gatekeepers to the truth", anyone can use simple tools to measure the shape of our planet. A few examples: 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. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYz_Hs35YrQ 2. Eratosthenes was able to measure Earth's circumference in 250 BC, coming within 10% of the actual value. He did this by measuring the length of shadows in two places at the same time. The ancient Greeks all knew Earth was not flat. 3. Anyone can take photos at high altitude and see the curvature of the horizon. https://youtu.be/jSx7ZzPOtVw
2
Yes, this was done in the 1960s, by throwing unlimited resources at the problem. At the height of Apollo, 450,000 people were involved.
2
Stanley Kubrik didn't say anything of the sort. Don't get your news from trolls.
2
The Voyagers are about 20 light-hours away. We wish we could build spacecraft that can travel lightyears.
2
The SpaceX suits were not made for use on the moon. Even for EVAs they're very limited at the moment. They rely on an umbilical connection instead of having a backpack, for instance.
2
yes, that's correct.
2
Yes, it's consistent with a satellite at low altitude (~400 km).
2
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
@narajuna Nope. In 50 years, nobody has presented any actual evidence that the moon landings were faked. Worse for you, when we examine e.g. the videos from the Apollo missions, we can measure the movement of falling objects in those videos. They all fall at 1.6 m/s2, which is impossible to reproduce here on Earth: here, objects fall at 9.8 m/s2. So we have definitive proof those videos were made on the moon. In recent years, lunar orbiters from 3 different countries have photographed the Apollo landing sites, and confirmed that they look exactly as shown in the Apollo data.
2
About 450,000 Americans and 200 Germans worked on the Apollo program. The German contribution to Apollo was about 0.05%.
2
Nope. Water finds level (i.e. the surface of a sphere) when it comes to rest in an environment that has gravity: gravity pulls each water molecule towards the center of the planet.
2
False. We hae independent confirmation that the Voyagers are where NASA says they are.
2
@abstract5249 On several occasions, radio telescopes detected the Voyagers. Febr 21, 2013, National Radio Astronomy Observatory's Very Long Baseline Array (VLBA) and Green Bank Telescope. Repeated in June 2013. November 8, 2018, Parkes radio telescope tracked Voyager 2. In 1989 during the Neptune encounter, the VLA was used to downlink data.
2
@abstract5249 I see you're providing no evidence for your claim.
2
They lost only one recording: the Apollo 11 landing and first steps, as 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. For Apollo 12-17 we have those first-generation TV recordings.
2
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
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
Simple experiments anyone can do reveal Earth shape. And every time we do those experiments, we find that Earth is spherical. The ancient Greeks were the first to figure this out, 2500 years ago.
2
Using a single 34-m antenna, we can keep in contact until 2050 (Voyager 1) and 2057 (Voyager 2), if their power supply would last that long. NASA also have the option to receive data with an array of antennas, which could stretch this even further. The Voyager missions will end when there's not enough power left to operate one instrument. Not because we can't communicate with them. And it's an expensive solution. A repeater near Jupiter, for instance, would orbit along with Jupiter, and would be farther away from the Voyagers than we are for half of Jupiter's 12-year orbit. You'd need 4 repeaters in Jupiter orbit alone for them to be useful. Easily a 4 billion dollar endeavor. Antennas on Earth cost $100M each.
2
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
@James-zp5po So I debunk one of your claim, and instead of acknowledging that you are wrong, you just move right along to the next claim that can similarly be debunked by opening an astronomy book. No, the stars do not stay in the same place. 2500 years ago, the ancient Egyptians used Thuban as their North Star, because back then, it was closer to the celestial pole than Polaris. Now, Polaris is closer. In 2000 years, another star will be closer. Barnard's star has moved 1º since we discovered it 100 years ago.
2
@James-zp5po Yep, that's all there is to it. No flat Earth claim is worth the paper it's written on. They have been proven incorrect for centuries.
2
The solid boosters were manufactured in Utah, and had to be transported to Florida by rail. This put limits on the maximum length of a segment (because it had to fit through curves in existing infrastructure). Arianespace managed 100+ launches of their Ariane 5 with a similar booster design without failures.
2
Oxygen toxicity depends on pressure. Anything over 2 bar at 100% oxygen gets toxic. When you're in the NBL, the pressure of the air you breathe has to be at least equal to the water pressure. At 10 meters, you have 1 bar of water pressure plus the 1 bar of the atmosphere overhead, so you'd be at 2 bar minimum for your air supply.
2
It's complex in that those 15 launches have to be done within a few days, followed by 15 dockings between stages and the tanker. That has never been done before.
2
@swinuyasha JWST is in a large orbit around the L2 point, this orbit is designed so the spacecraft never enters Earth's shadow.
2
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
The LM could put ~500 kg of payload on the moon. Now we want to put 10 tons or more of payload onto the moon.
2
Some crazy entrepreneur is privately building a rocket more capable than the Saturn V at the moment. NASA built the New Horizons spacecraft which is comparable to the Voyagers, and our current Mars missions are a lot more capable than the Vikings.
2
Why is it that people like you just blithely assume the team didn't think this through?
2
@philosophyweb Unlike you, I've measured this, and the astronaut's movement is consistent with 1/6G.
2
JWST does carry cameras. These are the 4 instruments on JWST: Near-Infrared Camera, or NIRCam. Near-Infrared Spectrograph, or NIRSpec. Mid-Infrared Instrument, or MIRI, a combination camera and spectrograph Fine Guidance Sensor/Near InfraRed Imager and Slitless Spectrograph , or FGS/NIRISS, a combination camera and spectrograph.
2
Yes, that's a risk. OTOH, there's been life on our planet for a very long time. Finding a civilization is a lot harder than finding life.
2
He wasn't 'shunned by his peers for going against the narrative'. He posed an incomplete hypothesis: he said redshift wasn't caused by expansion of the universe, but failed to offer an alternate explanation for redshift. And the data he used to support his hypothesis was so noisy that there have been a bunch of studies alternating between yes/no on his claimed observation of quantized redshift. I.e. despite astronomers not accepting his hypothesis people are still looking at his studies and trying to confirm or disprove it. That's science at work.
2
You do a lot with your legs on the ISS. Workstations on the ISS have a rail on the floor that the astronauts hook their toes under, so they can 'stand' at the workstation instead of floating.
2
We have taken such pictures. Both LRO and Chandrayaan-2 photographed the Apollo landing sites from lunar orbit.
2
That's serendipity, not copying.
2
The LSST/Vera Rubin is basically that. It'll image the entire sky every few days, then we can do comparisons between observations.
2
Hubble's resolution looking at Earth is around 30 cm/pixel.
2
100% oxygen is toxic at pressures above 2 bar (which you get when diving to 10 meters depth), in the space suit the pressure is only 0.3 bar.
2
Oh, excellent. I've been using the Lunar Surface Journal, but those are low-res scans in comparison.
2
Are you going to claim that you can bring a ship that has gone over the horizon back into view by zooming in? You actually can't. Every video that claims to do this is lying to you by zooming in on a small boat in front of the horizon.
2
it's an area where the gravitational fields of Earth and the Sun are in equilibrium. You can draw orbits around L2 where the forces balance out. JWST will also use its thrusters regularly to stay in orbit.
2
The main secret is that the tape decks on the Voyagers don't see constant use. You can make a Revox tape deck last this long if you don't use it for 8 hours a day.
2
The suits ARE tested in a vacuum chamber. Every new suit goes through extensive testing. What they're doing under water is find out how the suit behaves in 1/6 G or 0 G, both of which you can't do in a vacuum chamber. The suit does not expand like a balloon because the pressure suit is wrapped in a tight mesh that keeps it from expanding.
2
Anyone who claims Earth is flat does not have the tools to distinguish reality from nonsense.
2
Every single one of Dubay's "200 proofs" has been DISproven. Anyone can do simple experiments that reveal Earth's shape. Every time we do that, we find that it is curved, not flat. Because anyone can do these experiments, it's not possible for anyone to 'keep the truth from you'. We can verify, and heave verified, that people who tell us that Earth is a sphere speak the truth. We have verified that Eric Dubay lies.
2
@rogerthat487 We're not ignoring anything. We have data from meteorological stations all over the world, for every day of the last ~200 years. Beyond that it gets more sparse, but we have usable data from various sources going back thousands of years. We use this to test and refine our models - not just by comparing to actual weather, but by running tests: start the model at 1900 with the data from that year, and compare the predictions it makes to our historical data for 1901 etc. And we don't just have one model: every research group develops models, These are compared with each other, to see which is the most accurate, and those are used as the start of the next iteration of making models. We've been doing climate modelling since the 1970s, so today's models have decades of testing and refinement behind them, and provide excellent predictions. And even if we ignore the models for a moment: the data itself tells us our climate is changing rapidly. The 1990-2000 decade set records: these 10 years were the warmest we'd ever seen since we started measuring. Then came the 2000-2010 decade, and it was warmer than 1990-2000. Then came 2010-2020 and it was warmer than 2000-2010. The only remaining uncertainty in our models is caused by having to predict human action: if we take climate change seriously and we limit our CO2 emissions, we get one outcome. If nations drag their heels and keep increasing their CO2 output, we get another outcome.
2
nope, actual photos from actual satellites.
2
it's technically possible, but impractical. The magnetic force varies by a large amount over a short distance. So one second you're floating along, and the next you slam into the floor. This feels really unnatural.
2
It's possible, but expensive.
2
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
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
@BoBwikCruz Earth is not a perfect sphere. 1. it rotates. This creates a centrifugal force, which makes Earth a bit larger around the equator. 2. the thickness of the crust varies, and this results in that bulge not being symmetrical: it's a bit larger in the Southern hemisphere. We can measure all of this: by 1840, geodetic surveys were done to measure Earth's oblateness. These days, satellite measurements supplement survey information.
2
@BoBwikCruz NOAA publishes photos made by the GOES and Himawari satellites. Scott Manley has done a video where he explains how to use these to see Earth's oblateness.
2
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
@doctorsexo420 Don't bother, it's a troll.
2
TV shows often show space with all kinds of rocks floating around to add drama, but we know from measurements that even in the asteroid belt, asteroids are millions of km apart. Space is empty: it's a huge expanse of nothing, with the very occasional rock. The average density of space is emptier than the best vacuum we can create on Earth.
2
Almost right: JWST will be in a large orbit around L2.
2
Your guess is worthless.
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
Sure. It'd cost millions to buy, and you'd have a laptop that produces 500 W of heat to get 50 W of electric power.
2
False. Instead of being exposed, we'll see more and more confirmation. The deniers will be exposed.
2
No, it was an actual event.
2
Every day, you profit from data and services provided by satellites. The phone you're viewing this on is a side effect of NASA's investment in the first generation of integrated circuits during Apollo.
2
In 1970, Boeing was building the 707. Why did they design the 787, when the 707 design was readily available in their own archive? Answer: the 787 takes advantage of 50 years of advance in airliner design, so it can do things the 707 can't. Similarly, Artemis is a lot more ambitious than Apollo. We don't want to put 2 people on the moon for max 3 days, we want to build a moon base.
2
@1USACitizen192 NASA has just sent its Orion spacecraft on a flight around the moon. On its next flight, it will be manned. The only reason there were no manned flights out of LEO since 1972 is that the Space Shuttle (the only manned spacecraft NASA had from 1981 to 2010) was optimized to carry large loads to low Earth orbit.
2
We weren't ready to do that back then. Automation not advanced enough to build a radio telescope, and anything small enough to fit on a lander in one piece would be too small to be useful.
2
Yes. Eruptions go on for hours, as can be clearly seen in this video. In an atom bomb explosion the mushroom cloud quickly starts to dissipate, it doesn't keep growing for hours.
2
NASA has done this occasionally going as far back as the Voyagers: there's a brief video of Jupiter, taken at 1 frame per 90 seconds while the spacecraft approaches Jupiter. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsQLy1ft8M4 Video is not done often because video files are very large and the amount of data they can send across such large distances is limited: 1.5 Mb/hour for Juno. So most videos you see will be timelapse rather than 24 fps. The closer to Earth, the easier this gets: Mars rover Perseverance has sent us video of Ingenuity flights, for instance.
2
Diffraction is most visible for point sources of light. The light of a galaxy is smeared out, so its diffraction is smeared out as well.
2
Slowing down from orbital speed to Mach 3 requires almost as much fuel as launching the spacecraft. This is a Catch-22: instead of a 10-ton spacecraft, you now have 10+300 tons up there, which would require about 3 Saturn Vs to launch.
2
No, all that to go into space.
2
The transmission kept stuttering throughout. Sending high-bandwidth live video from a moving aircraft remains hard.
2
@yomommaahotoo264 Every claim made by them has been debunked. They offer no evidence.
2
@DadBodGaming7 Cell service is short-range radio, with a tiny antenna and a $30 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. Radio waves don't travel well through solid obstacles, so each wall between you and the cell tower reduces your signal. JWST has an unobstructed line of sight to the receiving station.
2
@FlattyMcTruth With binoculars and a ruler, you can measure a section of Earth's surface. You will find that it is curved. With the naked eye, I can see satellites overhead. I can measure their speed and position, and I find values that show they are in space, not in our atmosphere. Level is a spherical surface where every point is at the same distance to the center of the planet.
2
@FlattyMcTruth From Michigan, you can see the tops of the skyscrapers, not the shoreline. If Earth were flat, you'd be able to see the shoreline. 2200 ft indicates you are using a curvature calculator that is incorrect: it does not account for observer height and/or atmospheric refraction.
2
The radiation levels in space are lower than in an X-ray machine. You see radiation damage on some of the Apollo photos as bright streaks as a single high-energy particle went through the film.
2
There IS gravity on the Moon, it's about 1/6 G.
2
Flying two spacecraft in close formation is difficult: they're in different orbits, you you need lots of corrections for the 2 spacecraft to stay together. Then there's the collision risk.
2
If you were on a flight near enough Antarctica to see it, you'll have noticed that that flight was far shorter than any flerf map claims it must be. That flight proved we live on a sphere, not a flat plane.
2
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
That could be an issue with very weak structures, but most rock is more than strong enough to withstand the higher gravity level.
2
Check out the next telescope proposal: LUVOIR.
2
you're right, that first photo looks more like a Hubble product.
2
Glitching is to be expected: a fast-moving aircraft is sending live video via a radio link. This tends to be unreliable, which is why the video is also recorded on board the aircraft. As Scott indicated, because there was no drogue deployment the capsule arrived at low altitude sooner than expected, which explains the early landing time. The claim that the main parachute deployed at 20 kft is then incorrect.
2
@markpirola8152 The capsule wasn't overfilled. It was designed for 2 kg, they captured 250 g and the minimum wanted to collect was 60 g.
2
@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
Because moon missions are hugely expensive.
2
It means "divide the distance by 2.5".
2
Natural satellites of other planets are generally called moons.
2
Your phone didn't cost $400 million.
2
No, he meant to go BACK to the moon. Forgotten about Apollo?
2
Anyone can do simple experiments to find out Earth's shape for himself. No government needed. You will find that Earth's surface is curved, not flat. So nobody is in a position to "hide the truth". Flat Earth is a grift to fleece the gullible, nothing more.
2
You mean, collect particles from the solar wind and store those for use as propellant? The solar wind doesn't provide enough matter to do that.
2
Anyone can go out and measure Earth's surface. We always find curvature when we do that. Anyone can go out and see satellites in the night sky, which proves that space is real. God created a universe that works according to laws of physics, not a pancake under a dome.
2
Apollo 1, and 7-17, plus ASTP and 3x Skylab. 14 manned Apollo missions, plus a few unmanned test launches.
2
No, the extra launches are not about money. We're talking about the company that wants to make a launch 1000 times cheaper than it is today by reusing the rocket.
2
Incorrect. In the area where Planet X is thought to be, planets are on the edge of our detection capabilities. New telescopes coming online in the next few years will improve on this. Expect a host of new discoveries in the outer solar system from 2027.
2
Wrong. We've learned a lot from the Mars missions, about its current conditions and its history. We know there was water on Mars in the past, and water can still be found e.g. at the poles as ice. Our exploration of Mars is far more than that single data point of 'is there life on Mars'.
2
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
Nope. We have tons of photos of every planet.
2
A dish antenna concentrates all of the signal into a single receiver. An ESA has lots of receivers that each get a small portion of the signal. That means the signal-to-noise ratio of an ESA is a lot lower. With the weak signals the DSN works with (down to -170 dBm) you need all the S/N you can get. There's also a practical problem: DSN receivers are cooled to 4K. It's a lot easier to do that with one large receiver than with hundreds spread over the antenna surface.
2
JWST is a joint NASA-ESA-CSA project, and the launch was part of ESA's financial contribution. Ariane 5 is also one of the few launchers that can launch a spacecraft this large and heavy.
2
Despite the inaccurate terminology, it's obvious that the video talks about the latter, not the former.
2
That won't work. A satellite "halfway between Earth and Mars" is in orbit around the Sun, and its orbital period is halfway between the 1 year of Earth's orbit and the 686 days of Mars' orbit. I.e. this satellite is almost never actually halfway between Earth and Mars: it's somewhere else in its orbit. You'd need a dozen satellites per orbit to make a difference. There's a much easier way to speed up data transfer between Earth and Mars: place satellites in orbit of each planet, and use an optical link between them instead of the radio links used now. This increases the bandwidth enormously.
2
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
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
Yes. There's a proposal to do that, IIRC you have to be at 540 AU to use our Sun as a graviational lens.
2
The point of sending out probes is to gather scientific data. The only way to do that for targets as far away as the heliopause is with a one-way mission.
2
The flat Earth hoax was a hundred years old by the time NASA was founded.
2
Calculations gave them an orbit, but not the point along that orbit. So there's a large area to search, and much of that orbital path is against the background of the center of the Milky Way, so they're looking for a faint object against a bright background. The combination means only a few telescopes can be used to search for the planet, and it takes a long time to scan the entire area.
2
The ancient Greeks proved that Earth is a sphere, using nothing more than naked-eye observations. Since 500 BC, nobody has presented any evidence that shows Earth is anything other than an oblate spheroid. Your blithe dismissal of 2500 years of evidence does not change that. Denying evidence is pointless: YOU have to PROVE that all of the evidence is incorrect. You won't be able to do that: minds far brighter than yours have tried and failed. Anyone can use a camera on a tripod and a ruler to measure a section of Earth's surface: Find a section of flat ground. 1. place the camera on the tripod. 2. Place the ruler upright on the ground, 20 meters in front of the camera 3. Look through the camera at the ruler, and read the height using a fixed feature (crosshairs, something like that) in the camera lens. 4. Move the ruler 100 meters and do it again. 5. Repeat until you're at a distance of 1 km. You will find that the ground curves: the heights you measured show Earth's curvature.
2
@TheRealNewWhirledOrder You continue to lie. As I've already told you, the ancient greeks proved that Earth is a sphere.
2
@TheRealNewWhirledOrder I've already given you one method anyone can use to prove that Earth's surface is curved, not flat. A few more: 1. the way a ship is obscured from the bottom up when it goes over the horizon proves that there is a physical obstacle between the observer and the ship. This obstacle is Earth's curvature. 2. The way the elevation angle of the stars changes with latitude allows you to measure Earth's diameter. Eratosthenes was the first to realize this in 250 BC. 2. Photos from high altitude show Earth's curvature directly. Again, this has been done countless times. 3. Photos from space show that Earth is an oblate sphere. Millions such photos exist. All of these are *proof*. Nobody has ever been able to debunk any of these methods. So, yes, the burden of proof is on you. We have presented our evidence, 2500 years of it. You have not presented ANY evidence for your claims, so we are free to summarily dismiss them as fantasy.
2
@TheRealNewWhirledOrder Several posts in this thread have given you evidence that Earth is a sphere that rotates on its axis. This includes experiments you can repeat yourself. Your 10 ridiculous synonyms don't change that. Nothing you said changes the reality of this evidence. In 2500 years, nobody has presented any evidence that shows Earth is any shape other than an oblate sphere.
2
@TheRealNewWhirledOrder Surface tension is a force that shapes water. This proves water is subject to forces acting on it. Gravity is another force acting on everything around us, including water. When I place a bucket on a scale and fill it with water, its weight increases. This is gravity at work.
2
That depends on the spacecraft. Normal operations use a 20 kW transmitter, with 20 kW rarely being necessary. But Canberra also has a 400 kW transmitter, which is used to transmit to Voyager 2 at 75 kW to compensate for Voyager 2's receiver, which isn't working correctly.
2
Aldrin didn't lie. Anyone who claims the moon landings were faked, lies.
2
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
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
@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
Ground-based systems can't observe at all at the wavelengths JWST is designed for: our atmosphere absorbs these wavelengths.
2
nobody in their right mind puts a spy satellite at 1.5 million km away. They are in low Earth orbit, 200 km above the surface. The resolution drops when the distance increases, so you want to be as close as possible.
2
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
There's no point in building or storing bombs on the moon for use on Earth: you'd have days of warning time before one arrives here, instead of the 10 minutes you get from an ICBM launch. The hydrogen on the moon is a possible resource for fusion, once we figure out how to build a fusion reactor.
2
@BensMiniToons No, we can't make it a lot lighter. Electronics took up a few hundred kg in Apollo, out of a launch mass of ~ 3000 tons, so replacing those has only a minimal effect. A clean-sheet design for a rocket can be a bit lighter than the Saturn V, but the SLS is not a clean-sheet design. It uses solid boosters, which are heavy and have low performance, so the SLS does not perform any better than the Saturn V in this regard.
2
Every photo that's not done using photosensitive film is 'created by a computer'. That doesn't make those photos any less real.
2
@sebastiand152 JWST is divided into 3 regions: a warm region on the sun side of the sunshield. This stays at a constant temperature above 1ºC, a cold region where the telescope mirrors and the instruments live, and a transition between them. The hydrazine tank and thrusters are in the warm region.
2
Rockets bring their own oxygen. That's how they can be used outside our atmosphere.
2
The Apollo program sent 9 missions out of low Earth orbit to the moon. And one of the Gemini missions went into the van Allen belts. Kelly Smith (the Orion engineer you're referring to) never claimed that Apollo did not get out of low Earth orbit. His challenge was to design Orion, and make sure IT was safe for humans by doing an unmanned test before putting humans on board.
2
The power supply is no longer able to power the camera system, which draws a lot of power.
2
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. You're arguing from ignorance.
2
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
There's about one meteor strike per km2 per 1000 years. Not an issue.
2
A planet the size of Nibiru that gets anywhere near Earth and was visible to the Sumerians at some point would have been found by now. A planet that fits those constraints is far too large and too close to not be noticed.
2
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
@heybacchus6899 I haven't been involved in the Apollo missions, I've just examined the results and the engineering involved.
2
@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
Yes. Earth's rotation drags the pixel across the target, so they end up with lines of imaging data.
2
Yes, they use a consumable gas. These thrusters are designed to provide very little thrust, and they can be operated in brief bursts (milliseconds). So one thruster firing consumes a tiny bit of fuel. And after the planetary encounters, they only have to adjust the spacecraft's attitude occasionally.
2
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
@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
JWST's resolution is too low to see the moon lander, let alone the flag. To resolve the lander from Earth, you need an optical telescope with a diameter of about 50 meters; JWST is further from the Moon than we are. However, the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter photographed the Apollo landing sites: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pnhnx95LkCc
2
yes.
2
You're wrong. The lander was repressurized using oxygen from a tank carried by the lander. This is pretty simple.
2
GPS works in the middle of the ocean, where there are no cell towers. GPS was designed to be used in war, so it had to work for US aircraft flying over the USSR, in a situation where you could guarantee the USSR would shut down any infrastructure that would help the enemy. A tiny bit of critical thought would have shown you the holes in your argument.
2
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
The calibration images haven't been published yet. I suspect they want to wait until calibration has finished, to prevent people coming to the wrong conclusions.
2
Yes, micrometeorite impacts were taken into account when estimating the mission length.
2
We have plenty of evidence that proves we did go to the moon.
2
@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
@kryptoniterocks8245 Bart Sibrel is a charlatan who has been caught lying and who fabricates evidence. None of his arguments are valid.
2
Oxygen is toxic if you inhale far more of it than your body's designed for. In those suits at the bottom of the pool, they're at 2.3 bar. That would be toxic. In space, the suit is at a pressure of 0.3 bar.
2
Crap is believing "space is fake" while typing youtube comments on a phone that can receive satellite signals.
2
@nitrofreakmanho I'm not talking about the phone connection, I'm talking about the GPS signals your phone receives for navigation.
2
@nitrofreakmanho That is incorrect. GPS does work on the open ocean. It works in warzones where cell networks have been shut down, too. In fact, that was the original reason the US military developed GPS: to provide accurate navigation over enemy territory. Cell towers are everywhere to provide voice and data links to cell phones. Not for navigation.
2
@nitrofreakmanho Funny, that. I've been on the open ocean. No cell coverage. GPS works fine. Every day, thousands of airliners fly from continent to continent using GPS. Every day, thousands of ships sail from continent to continent using GPS. All you have is empty denial not based on data.
2
@nitrofreakmanho A satellite signal is one of the many items of evidence that prove we can put a spacecraft in space. And when we can do that, you have to accept the data supplied by those spacecraft, including the environmental data we've been gathering since 1958 which says we can safely put humans in a spacecraft and have them fly to the moon.
2
@nitrofreakmanho Just like there is ample proof that space is not fake, but a real environment we can operate in, there is a ton of evidence that proves the Apollo landings are real.
2
@nitrofreakmanho I can prove that satellites are not suspended from balloons: I can measure their speed and altitude, and find values that are impossible to reach for a balloon. NASA launches the occasional balloon in addition to the many satellite missions it runs. Pseudoscience is claiming that space is fake, when all of the evidence shows that it is real.
2
@nitrofreakmanho I actually can prove that satellites are in space. As I already told you, I can measure their speed and altitude from the ground. Altitude: take two photos from different places at the same time, then triangulate. Speed: once you know altitude, you can take two photos a known time apart to get the speed. The values I get (400 km and more, 8 km/s) show the satellite is in orbit, which would be impossible if the satellite were in our atmosphere, which proves it isn't in our atmosphere. Meanwhile, your belief, unlike mine, is not based on evidence but on wishful thinking.
2
@nitrofreakmanho Evidence that spaceflight is real includes: 1. anyone can see satellites in the night sky. By simple triangulation we can measure their speed and altitude. We find that satellites are at an altitude of 400 km and more, and a speed of 28,000 km/h which proves they are in orbit. It also proves they are not in our atmosphere: anything moving that fast in our atmosphere glows brightly from atmospheric friction. 2. We can aim a radio antenna at those satellites and get radio signals from them, which means they are not inert objects. From many satellites, we can download data. e.g. photos of Earth can be downloaded directly from various weather satellites. 3. The existence of GPS is another item of evidence. GPS works all over the world, which is easy enough to verify. This cannot be done with a ground-based system. We can also use directional radio antennas to find where the GPS signals are coming from, and they always come from positions in the sky that move in predictable patterns, which is only feasible for transmitters located on satellites. 4. Using a directional radio antenna, I can find geostationary satellites which orbit 36,000 km above the equator. Again, I can triangulate the satellite position and find that that's where they are. 5. Photos of Earth from space can only be taken from space. Every day, several satellites take photos of the entire planet. If we wanted to produce these up-to-date images using airplanes, we'd need tens of thousands of aircraft taking photos continuously. Such a fleet does not exist.
2
@nitrofreakmanho Now it's up to you to prove your claim that spaceflight is fake. Unfortunately for you, you can't. There is no evidence that supports your claim.
2
@nitrofreakmanho I've given you several experiments you can do to verify my claim. These experiments have been done by many people all over the world. For instance, the 'find a satellite in geostationary orbit' experiment has been done by about a billion people every day for decades, as they happily watched satellite TV. Scott Manley has done a video that demonstrates how you can measure the altitude and speed of a satellite. Others have demonstrated how to download data from weather satellites. This evidence is easy to find. You continue to provide no evidence for your claims.
2
yeah, the orbits are wide enough (wider than the Moon's orbit around Earth) that it's not an issue.
2
No, obviously. They do carry some redundancy (both are using their backup transmitters now, for instance, and the computers are all duplicated).
2
Apollo was done at a time when CGI consisted of wireframe images at 1 fps. We have evidence from multiple independent sources that shows the Apollo landings are real.
2
That's incorrect. The images are postprocessed. They have to be, to make infrared images visible to the human eye. But they are not CGI. They are an accurate representation of what the telescope sees, just using different colors.
2
@hysteriaw3094 That's nonsense. Every day, millions of people travel in airliners, at altitudes that would kill them if they were exposed. But those airliners keep those passengers safe. Spacecraft do the same.
2
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
@kingkezz9188 Your suspicion is based on a lack of information.
2
@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
JWST will be orbiting L2 at a distance of 300,000 km, well outside of Earth's shadow.
2
There's a ton of evidence from multiple independent sources that confirms the Apollo landings are real. There's no coverup, no lie, other than the nonsense spread by moon landing deniers.
2
@dennyrose3689 'nasa' in Hebrew means 'to lift up'. To deceive is 'nasha'. That sh is one letter in Hebrew, distinct from *s*. In all the years since NASA's inception, nobody has presented any evidence of any deception by NASA.
2
@narajuna It's the moon landing denier claims that always end up being debunked.
2
Your blind assumption that the scientists who worked on this didn't know what they're doing is not supported by facts. They spent a lot of time making sure their algorithms were not influenced by assumptions.
2
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
That's a reflex action. Obviously it doesn't work when you're in a helmet.
2
That's incorrect. Only one Hubble was built. The NRO didn't need Hubble, they had the KH-11, which uses a mirror similar to Hubble's, with instruments optimized for Earth observation (i.e. very different to Hubble's requirements).
2
Most satellites are in orbit move much faster than Earth rotates, so images from those satellites mainly show the movement of the satellite itself. You need a satellite that is very far away if you want to capture Earth's rotation. We have one satellite in the right position: DSCOVR sits at the L1 Lagrange point, about a million km from Earth, on the line from the Earth to the Sun. Timelapse videos made from DSCOVR photos show Earth's rotation. Experiments we can do here on Earth also show Earth's rotation: Foucault's pendulum, for instance. A long pendulum swings in a fixed plane, while Earth rotates underneath it.
2
@matthewbarker4109 How would anyone "manipulate and fake" our view of the Moon?
2
If you use that definition, Pluto isn't #9, it's #10. And you'd have 20+ additional planets. The discovery of the Kuiper Belt made the old classification impractical. Classification (=dividing things into categories) has always been part of science, because it makes it easier to have a discussion when everybody uses the same classification. When Galileo saw Jupiter and understood that it was a planet like ours, the solar system had two classes: anything in orbit around the Sun is a planet, anything in orbit around a planet is a moon. Then we started to discover asteroids, starting with the largest: Ceres. This was initially considered a planet. Then we discovered hundreds of smaller objects in similar orbits, and astronomers added a new class: asteroids. Ceres was moved from the Planet class to the Asteroid class. Then we discovered Pluto. Seemed to be alone in its region, so it was considered a planet. Then we discovered hundreds of smaller objects in similar orbits, and astronomers added a new class: dwarf planets. Pluto was moved from the Planet class to the Dwarf Planet class. The more objects you have, the more classes it becomes useful to divide them into. This is done everywhere in science. What most people call mosquitoes, biologists divide into several hundred species. Etc. In this case, a scientific classification has entered the public consciousness and people are flipping out because they have an emotional attachment to Pluto.
2
@TheWilkReport You're redefining words just as much as the IAU is, just in another direction. If "spherical and orbits the sun" is your definition, Pluto isn't the 9th planet. Ceres falls under your definition too, making Jupiter 6, Saturn 7, Uranus 8, Neptune 9 and Pluto 10.
2
No, that article was overstating things. The plan for the Voyagers hasn't changed: monitor the available power and switch off instruments to stay within that limit. Occasionally, they find a way to keep the instruments running for longer than expected.
2
we "can"t" refuel JWST only in the sense that we haven't built the custom spacecraft that's needed to refuel JWST yet.
2
JWST will start doing science in 6 months. They have started taking images for mirror calibration this week.
2
People who claim the moon landings were faked have not "woken up". They have been deceived by charlatans. I've looked into the arguments used by those charlatans, and they all fall apart.
2
Anyone can do simple observations and experiments to find out what the shape of our planet is. So nobody is in a position to lie about Earth's shape, and what we've been told is easily verifiable as true.
2
You can't really negate the effect of gravity in the body, that's why they talk about these sessions only simulating part of the experience.
2
detector noise would make the image unusable at some point, but IDK how long that takes.
2
Not really. We've done it for low-frequency radio (1 GHz), but interferometry gets harder for shorter wavelengths: your timing requirement gets tighter, and the distance between telescopes must be known to about 1 wavelength.
2
They used Pu-238 because it's an alpha emitter. Moreover, the entire decay chain is via alpha emission. A sheet of paper will stop all of the radiation from the Pu elements. They are encased in several layers much thicker than a sheet of paper, so they'd have to disassemble the RTG completely to be exposed to radiation. Any civilization advanced enough to operate in space will know about radiation. And last, by the time the Voyagers get anywhere near a star, the entire RTG will have decayed all the way to non-radioactive lead.
2
No, NASA does not claim that 'all NASA photos are fake and CGI'. We know that's not true. NASA has taken millions of actual photos, not CGI, of Earth. And NASA is not the only supplier of photos of Earth. Other space agencies take photos too. Amateurs have built balloons and rockets that have gone high enough (all you need is an altitude of 10 km) to show Earth's curvature. And we have many methods to find Earths' shape that do not rely on photos. 1. watch a ship go over the horizon. It will be hidden progressively from the bottom up. This is only possible on a curved surface. 2. Watch a lunar eclipse. Earth's shadow on the moon is a circle. This is only possible if Earth is a sphere. 3. We can measure the 3D position of points on Earth's surface. When we do that, we find that they are on a spherical surface. Every day, we do thousands of geodetic surveys that confirm this. 4. We can see how the elevation position of the sun and the stars changes with latitude. This is only possible on a curved surface. 5. We can sail and fly around the world in a straight line and get back to our starting point, both along the equator and over the poles. This is only possible on a sphere. So that's 4 methods anyone can use, and a fifth that requires a bit more investment, that all demonstrate we live on a sphere.
2
JHUAPL is working on an interstellar probe mission. They worked out we can make a spacecraft of Voyager's size travel twice as fast. The big limitation is the efficiency of chemical rockets, which has not improved much since Voyager. The Voyagers got most of their speed from gravitational assists. We've gotten better at those, so we can design trajectories that pick up more speed from more planetary flybys. They even considered doing a sun flyby, but that would have required so much thermal shielding on the spacecraft that the net gain would be zero. Once Starship is operational, this is likely to improve: when you can refuel a rocket in Earth orbit, you can acellerate the spacecraft to a higher speed.
2
You can look up tonight and see satellites in space, proving that space is real.
2
Look up tonight. You can see spacecraft passing overhead, proving that spaceflight is real. Only charlatans claim that space is fake when anyone can prove the opposite is true.
2
@baaldiablo8459 Moon landing deniers are no better than flat earthers.
2
No. Images taken after the eruption show that the two islands on the edge of the caldera are now smaller.
2
No. the energy in those particles is not enough to power the Voyagers.
2
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
These days, we have accurate measurements of the position of a billion stars. We're a lot closer to knowing the galaxy's shape accurately than we were 30 years ago.
2
@RAFFIZUMZ Yes, that's right.
2
No, both Voyagers are still operational. There's some garbage data coming from Voyager 1's attitude control system, but that doesn't seem to be impacting operations.
2
It's real. That's a spacewalk during one of the Gemini missions.
2
RTG-powered spacecraft are a tiny fraction of the total number of satellites we've launched. More than 10,000 satellites, less than 50 use RTGs.
2
You're overlooking the 2 smaller horizontal spikes.
2
That 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.
2
Right, advances like accurate weather forecasts, accurate navigation, long-range communications, detailed information on land use for agriculture, TV and radio broadcasts are all worthless? We're using space to SOLVE problems we have on Earth.
2
'piece of cloth, packed for 7 years in the vacuum of space' is a bit more complicated.
2
The Andromeda Galaxy appears 3 million times wider in our sky than this black hole. It's larger than the Moon. It's easy to get high-quality images from objects that large.
2
No, he doesn't prove that at all. He only proves it's difficult to test a rocket in a vacuum chamber.
2
this video does not show details smaller than 500 meters. No missile is that large. All we have is one frame showing a cloud that's 1-2 km wide.
2
@liftmasterdavid1 American Moon doesn't contain a single fact.
2
That's incorrect. That term is used by people who follow the evidence to categorize people who fall for nonsense, believing in ideas for which there is no evidence.
2
Every single bit of video made by the Apollo crews can be found at the Apollo Flight Journal.
2
Don't be ridiculous. JWST is an observatory, it can't annihilate anything.
2
all of the evidence says the Apollo missions did go to the moon.
2
Space is really empty, so the chance is very low. We haven't lost a spacecraft to micrometeorite damage yet.
2
Planes can take footage like this, and have been doing so for decades. Look up the recent Starship launch: this was filmed by a WB-57 too. Video glitches are normal when you try to send real-time video from an aircraft. It's pretty dumb to believe spaceflight is fake when you benefit from data and services produced in space every day.
2
@spoileralertrecap The details we can see on the surface of the sun, using a telescope on Earth, are hundreds of km across. The details we can see on the surface of the moon using a telescope on Earth are hundreds of meters across.
2
@spoileralertrecap We aren't looking for water by resolving a single drop, obviously. We are detecting entire lakes using the spectroscopic signature of that lake.
2
@spoileralertrecap Chandrayaan-3 is more than a thousand km from the nearest Apollo landing site. The Vikram rover has a range of 100 meters. They cannot "explore the terrain around the flag".
2
@Unsalted667 Not my opinion, this is common usage of the word. Anyone who practices science is a scientist. Doesn't matter if you have a degree, or if you get paid to do it or not.
2
We did it again. 6 times.
2
@VigilantX-TikTok Fireworks and smoke demonstrate that the atmosphere moves with the surface, plus or minus a small factor we call 'wind'. If the atmosphere did not rotate with the surface, Earth would be uninhabitable: you'd have a 1500 km/h wind at the equator. There is enough friction between the atmosphere and the surface to make sure the atmosphere moves with the surface. The friction is low enough that local factors (sunlight heating the air) can create wind.
2
There's a radio transmitter on JWST, with a dish antenna pointed at Earth. Twice a day, NASA's Deep Space Network is used do download information from JWST and upload new commands. These downloads take up to 4 hours. The DSN has large dish antennas (34 m and 70 m diameter) in 3 stations: Goldstone, USA, Madrid and Canberra. These antennas are equipped with receivers that are cooled to around 4 K, to reduce their noise to the absolute minimum. JWST transmits in the Ka-band (around 26 GHz), at 3.5 Mbyte/s. We don't need repeaters with an antenna this large.
2
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
They had to advance the state of the art in 10 different fields to be able to build the JWST. That's not a scam, it's the inevitable cost of making progress.
2
Congratulations, you win the 'biggest conglomeration of nonsense' award.
2
@jerryhoward6007 "impenetrable barrier above Earth": that barrier is impenetrable only to electrons. Satellites go through that "barrier" without experiencing any problem. "plasmasphere": a region of Earth's magnetosphere that is responsible for some radio phenomena. Not a barrier. "Lands beyond the pole/Antarctica/ice wall/Nos Confunden Map": flat-Earther nonsense claims. Earth is a sphere, Antarctica is just a continent.
2
@jerryhoward6007 I have proof for all of it. 1. barrier above Earth: we've launched hundreds of spacecraft to altitudes greater than that "barrier", including geostationary TV broadcast satellites (which anyone can use by aiming a dish antenna in the right direction, confirming their existence and location) and GPS satellites (which anyone can use, confirming their existence and location). That also takes care of 2. 3. Anyone can measure the surface of our planet. You will find that it is curved, not flat. The ancient Greeks were able to figure out that Earth is a sphere. Nowadays, you can charter an aircraft and fly over the South Pole, and see for your self that there are no "lands beyond the pole".
2
@jerryhoward6007 Why would I believe you when all of the evidence proves you wrong?
2
Anyone interested in the actual images can see them here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlwatKpla8s
2
Anyone can use basic tools to verify Earth isn't flat. The 'flat Earth' idea has been thoroughly disproven.
2
@astraldragon5702 Laser-guided weapons have a range that is limited by the horizon. On a flat Earth, the horizon does not exist, so the fact that we have a horizon means Earth cannot be flat.
2
The team wants to do that, but it's not certain that a mission extension will be granted for that.
2
The telescopes that can see the Apollo landing site are orbiting the moon right now. We have four of them, and their photos prove that the Apollo sites are real.
2
The Voyagers were launched by a rocket, which gave them a speed of about 35 km/s. They're in space, so there is no drag to slow them down. The only factor that slows the Voyagers down is the Sun's gravitational pull: the farther they get from the Sun, the slower they will travel. At each planetary flyby, the spacecraft was pulled in by the planet's gravity, accelerating the spacecraft.
2
@andrewjenery1783 The same way the stages of a rocket separate from each other: either via a spring-loaded mechanism, where latches open and release the spacecraft, or via pyrotechnics that sever the connection.
2
No, it doesn't. Solid, dry rock does that.
2
@Cheka__ Non-hollow objects can ring too. The seismologist who said this, meant this: the impact of the Saturn stage on the lunar surface caused vibrations that lasted longer than in a similar impact on Earth. This is caused by 2 things: 1. Earth's crust is a thin layer on a thick, molten mantle. This mantle absorbs vibration energy. 2. Earth's crust contains a lot of liquids, like water and oil. Again, this absorbs vibration energy. The moon doesn't have these things. That's what the seismograms from the Saturn impacts indicate.
2
Javelins are antitank weapons. Civilians generally don't drive tanks.
2
Incorrect. The moon landings were real .
2
@kongmik False. The videos show an environment that cannot be recreated on Earth.
2
Wrong. This is based on actual experience, and tests with actual moon dust.
2
It had to wait for the Earth to rotate to bring its targets into view. Arecibo had a receiver that could be moved around, this gave them a bit more freedom.
2
@christianorsa Yes, that's right.
2
If the boat were 'too far', you'd be able to bring it back into view using binoculars or a telescope. In reality, when you use a telescope, the part of the ship that is hidden by the horizon does not come back into view. You just get a better view of the part of the ship that is still above the horizon.
2
A space suit does all that, yes. It provides oxygen for 8 hours at 0.3 bar. In the pool, they're at 2.3 bar. They use a nitrox mix instead of pure oxygen, which adds another 50%, so the tanks have to be 12 times larger than in space. There's not enough room in the suit for all that. Having tanks that large would also make the backpack a lot heavier, making the simulation less realistic. The backpack contains a cooling system that only works in a vacuum, so that has to be replaced. Radio doesn't work well under water, a cable gives more reliable comms.
2
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
@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
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
Anyone with binoculars and a ruler can disprove Oakley's claims.
2
An area the size of this telescope is hit by one object less than 1 cm3 in size once every 1000 years.
2
We have abundant proof that says we have been there before. In the 1960s, NASA launched 29 unmanned missions to the moon, 17 of which failed. IM-1 was the FIRST lander built by Intuitive Machines.
2
@fuckyomamafuckyosisterfuck6136 Nope. Only the Rangers and early Lunas did that. The Surveyors did soft landings, as did later Luna missions: Luna 9 was the first soft landing on the moon. And of course we had the 6 soft landings made by the Apollo missions.
2
These are weather satellites. They don't need continuous video, one frame every 10 minutes is enough. The imaging system that takes these pictures, cycles through 16 filters to get details you can't get with an RGB camera. Then there's bandwidth: these images are 10k x10k pixels. Streaming that at 24 fps would take a lot of data.
2
Not so strange when you consider the cost of Apollo versus NASA's budget after Apollo. NASA could never afford manned lunar missions once the goal of beating the Russians to the moon was achieved. And no, NASA does not claim 'they cnat figure out certain pieces amd how to replicate the process'. Even the 'some of that technology was destroyed' is not accurate. We have enough information on Apollo that we could replicate it entirely.
2
Nope. Glitchy coverage all the way through, as can be expected when you send a high-bandwidth signal from a moving aircraft.
2
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
No. When looking at our Moon, JWST would have a resolution of about 50 m/pixel. So life forms would be too small to show up. JWST will look for life by doing spectroscopy: analyzing the gases in the atmosphere, checking for gases that don't occur naturally.
2
@Bearzerk330 JWST will see exoplanets as a single pixel. It would be able to see if the planet was unnaturally warm, but a civilization would need to generate a LOT of heat before that happens. Humans have only started to influence Earth's temperature in the last 100 years, but we have lots of internal information (use of fossil fuels) that allow us to separate natural changes in temperature from human-induced climate change.
2
JPL estimates they can keep in contact with Voyager 2 until 2050, which would put it at 250 AU. That's for 40 bps, and a single 34-m HEF antenna. Arraying more antennas would increase the range a lot (they're doing 1400 bit/s with an array of 3x34 m and 1x 70 m now, when a single 34 m antenna gets 160 bit/s), and they could even use the VLA to increase it further.
2
The L2 point is created by the Sun (mass of 10e30 kg) and Earth (mass 10e24 kg). Us sending a spacecraft (10e4 kg) there won't make a measurable difference, just like placing an ant on the Eiffel tower doesn't make a difference to the Eiffel tower.
2
Handheld GPS devices do not contain a transmitter. A phone with GPS can transmit its location, but the phone company already knows where you are because it has to be able to send your data to the correct cell tower.
2
@magburner As I said, long before GPS was integrated into phones, the phone company knew where you are. It is an inevitable consequence of how a mobile phone system works.
2
Incorrect. Voyager transmissions have been received by radio telescopes not operated by NASA. NASA is still operating the Voyagers because they are the only spacecraft that can inform us of conditions beyond the heliosphere.
2
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
@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
@FourthWayRanch There is no dome. 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. And we have independent verification that various interplanetary spacecraft are where NASA says they are. Astronomers have seen the Voyagers using radio telescopes, confirming they really are more than 120 AU out. Radio amateurs can receive signals from spacecraft at Mars.
2
@FourthWayRanch What you see in all of those cases is a rocket ascending vertically, then doing a pitchover maneuver to get into a trajectory that gradually becomes parallel to Earth's surface. What you don't see is a giant explosion as the rocket hits a dome. Explain this to me: why would a commercial company spend all that money on a rocket launch only to have it splatter on a dome so he has to spend billions more to fake the service he's selling? Why do these companies make money while having only enough income to fund the satellite construction, launch and operation, not the 100 times more it would take to fake that information? There is no dome.
2
When you launch a rocket, part of it ends up on the ocean floor: the first stage. The second stage achieves orbit, along with the payload. We have successful measurement of curvature going back centuries. Every single geodetic survey in history shows that Earth is curved, not flat. Even observations as simple as looking at the horizon while a ship goes over the horizon demonstrate that Earth cannot be flat.
2
total travel time includes lifting the platform off its supports, leveling the platform as the crawler goes uphill, maneuvering into place at the launch pad, and setting down the platform at the launch pad.
2
Earth weighs 10e24 kg. JWST weighs 10e3 kg. The amount of material removed is negligible.
2
Flexibility depends on the pressure difference. The bigger the difference, the more effort it takes to bend e.g. the fingers of the glove. The large joints (elbow, shoulder) use rigid, rotating rings to reduce the effort needed to reposition them. At 4.5 psi, the suit is flexible enough that you can work in the suit for 8 hours.
2
The correct value is +83 (although I've seen other sources quoting slightly higher temperatures).
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 landing of Apollo 12 sandblasted the Surveyor 3 probe which was about 1 km from the landing site.
2
The moon turns red during an eclipse because light that goes through Earth's atmosphere is refracted and ends up on the moon. A selenelion is visible in a narrow strip of land on our spherical Earth: a strip that sees the Sun on one horizon, and the moon on the opposite horizon. This is only possible on a spherical Earth.
2
Wrong, Apollo was real.
2
They never reached orbit. The Shuttle used its OMS to add the last few m/s of speed to get into orbit.
2
Bullshit. The money was spent on actual hardware and real missions.
2
Yes. Pure oxygen at a pressure of 1 bar is toxic: the chemical processes in your body would speed up because there's so much oxygen available to react with. At 0.3 bar, the amount of available oxygen is similar to what we have in our atmosphere at sea level.
2
@JFK-ir7yz No, zooming in does not bring objects that have gone over the horizon back into view. All it can do is enlarge objects that are still in front of the horizon. The flerf videos that claim to do this, all show the same: they are zooming in on small boats in front of the horizon. This is the correct way to do the experiment: 1. go to a sea port, and watch a large ship as it moves away from you. The larger, the better. 2. Wait until the hull of the ship is hidden behind the horizon, while the superstructure remains visible. 3. Zoom in. You will notice that the hull does not come back into view. Alternatively: watch a sunset. Once the sun has set completely, zoom in. You will not be able to bring the sun back into view.
2
@JFK-ir7yz No, you have not. All you can do is magnify your view of the part of the ship that remains visible. But the part that is hidden below the horizon, remains hidden. Take this video for instance: Nikon P1000 Max Zoom Test: 4 to 6 Mile Horizon Boat Test. At 1:10, he's zooming on on a group of 7 boats. 6 of them are fully visible, ie they are in front of the horizon. Of the seventh boat, only the mast is visible. Zooming in does not reveal the hull of this boat: only the mast remains visible.
2
@luigicirelli2583 Fresh water basins are too small to have significant tides. In the Great Lakes, the level changes by 5 cm between ebb and flood. There are two reasons for this: 1. the size of those lakes compared to the size of the moon. The moon is 3000 km across, so its gravity affects a large area. The change in gravity is only small from one end of the Great Lakes to the other. 2. the amount of water that can be moved around. In the open ocean, water can freely move around. In the Great Lakes, the flow is restricted: the lakes are connected by narrow rivers and canals.
2
@luigicirelli2583 No, the Dead Sea does not have tides.
2
They were planned, then cancelled.
2
Cohesion is maintained by gravity. Bennu weighs 10 million tons, that's enough material to create a tiny but noticeable gravitational field.
2
No.
2
@Joe-mobilegaming The problem with 0 G training in an airplane is that 1. you only get 30 seconds at a time, followed by 20 seconds at 2 G. and 2. 0 G in an aircraft is 'bumpy'. It's very difficult to stay suspended in the same place. Airplane training is still done. It tests the astronaut's reaction to 0 G, so every astronaut goes through it. And occasionally they use the aircraft to study specific operations. e.g. during Apollo they installed a lunar rover mockup and tested how the astronauts could get in and out of the LRV.
2
Almost correct. At the time Apollo was cancelled, hardware for Apollo 18-20 had already been built. One Saturn V was repurposed for Skylab, the other two are on display in museums.
2
You're wrong. 6 manned missions, and dozens of unmanned missions have allowed us to gather a great deal of information on the moon.
2
No, he's right. Those Starship launches are all for fuel delivery. The Starship HLS lander will have an empty weight on the order of 100 tons, so it's going to need a lot of fuel to get to the moon and to land on it.
2
@leontassone5201 The evidence for the moon landings includes: - 382 kg of lunar rock samples, - hours of live TV and film, - more than 8000 photos, - stacks of measurements and scientific results, - during the Apollo missions, amateur astronomers could see the CSM/LM on its way to the Moon. - 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. - 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. -Lunar orbiters from 4 different countries have photographed the Apollo landing sites. As for evidence against the moon landings: there is none. All the deniers ever produce are bad arguments that are easily debunked.
2
@1legend517 I should have explained. For telescopes, it's useful to specify the resolution as an angle. The angle remains the same for all distances, but if you said "the resolution is 1 meter/pixel" that's only valid for one distance. The smaller the angle, the better the resolution. 1 arcsecond is 1/3600 of 1 degree. Let's look at the Moon. That is about 0.5 degrees, or 1800 arcseconds wide. So Hubble can see details that are 1800/50 or 1/36 the diameter of the moon. That's about 95 km per pixel. JWST can see details 1800/31, that's 1/58 the diameter of the moon, or 58 km per pixel.
2
on the list of things we do that influence our climate, space tourism is way down in the noise.
2
@deozeo4442 Yes, all spaceflight is a bigger problem than space tourism alone. But, - it's still a small problem compared to e.g. aviation - with everything we do, there's a cost/benefit analysis. Each satellite we send up benefits us. Does that benefit outweigh the cost? I think so.
2
@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
@petethewrist No. Each impact fuses together the dust and rocks underneath.
2
@Deadwindshadow Look at your finger as it bends. You'd need a series of elements that can slide over each other to follow that movement. Now build a mechanism that does that smoothly when there's 1 kg/cm2 of force pushing those sliding elements against each other, without having massive leakage. It's a difficult problem.
2
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
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
@ToddDouglasFox There's a big difference between "we don't know if it works" and "we know that it doesn't work". Astrology sits firmly in the second category. To give one example: if astrology worked, we'd see this show up in statistics: people born on certain dates would be more accident-prone than others. Insurance companies study this for a living, and have found no correlation between date of birth and accident rates. The shift of the ecliptic is another big red flag. We may not know everything, but there are things we do know. Astrology has been proven beyond any doubt to be useless.
2
@Tracy-Inches The only lies on this subject are told by moon landing deniers. We have a ton of evidence that shows the Apollo landings are real. This includes stuff anyone can verify. For example, you can measure how objects move in the Apollo videos. You will find that they all fall at the same rate: 1.6 m/s2, which indicates those videos were not recorded on Earth but on the moon.
2
During Apollo, we found that the Apollo suits had some serious limitations. They were getting noticeable wear and tear after only 3 days on the lunar surface, from the very abrasive lunar dust. You're basically walking around on sandpaper grains and glass shards. So for Artemis, a much better, more resilient suit is needed. The Apollo suits were tailored for each astronaut. This meant they fit well, but could not be shared. For Artemis, instead of making new suits for each astronaut, we want standardized suits that can be adapted to the body size and profile of the wearer. That's another major change. This video shows another major change: Apollo just picked the lowest suit pressure they could get away with. This has advantages (lighter construction, less resistance to movement) but also disdvantages. Apollo lived with those disadvantages. Now they're trying to eliminate those disadvantages by experimenting with other pressure settings.
2
Once the fuel is gone, it'll start drifting away from L2, and after a while it'll enter a normal heliocentric orbit which means it'll start lagging behind Earth, which starts to reduce communications bandwidth. Without fuel, attitude control will be lost at some point. As soon as the cold side is exposed to sunlight, the mission is over.
2
Using a single 34-m antenna, we can keep in contact until 2050 (Voyager 1) and 2057 (Voyager 2), if their power supply would last that long. NASA also have the option to receive data with an array of antennas, which could stretch this even further. The Voyager missions will end when there's not enough power left to operate one instrument. Not because we can't communicate with them.
2
The evidence says otherwise.
2
It's a volcano. A nuclear bomb looks very different.
2
There's no point in doing that. With the antennas we have on Earth right now, we could keep in touch with the Voyagers for another 25 years. The power supply on the Voyagers will cease to provide enough power to run the transmitter long before that.
2
No, NASA does not claim that. And it's easy to confirm that the technology is not lost. Tons of data are sitting in public archives.
2
There were a few requirements for the star used for calibration: 1. the star must be isolated, with no bright stars nearby. 2. the star must be visible from JWST's position (it can see only 30% of the sky at any given time). 3. the star must not be too bright.
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. That also means the dust uniformly moves at high speed - far too fast to settle on the lander feet.
2
@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
Not just the orbit, the payload. The Apollo LM had a payload of 500 kg, enough for 2 people and supplies for 3 days. For Artemis, they want to land tens of tons on the moon, for missions that spend months on the moon.
2
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
it's quite possible they replaced the gimbal actuators with solid rods. I think the actuators were hydraulic, you don't want to have an active hydraulic system on a museum piece.
2
The resolution of this EHT image is 1000 times better than what the JWST will achieve. That's the advantage of having a telescope the size of Earth. What JWST will see is comparable to that timelapse of stars orbiting the black hole.
2
Eh, no. You'll find that as you go faster, it starts to take more and more energy to accelerate. Einstein predicts there is no way for a macroscopic object to reach the speed of light. 'travel at 1 G for one year' is not achievable. The equation does mean you cannot go faster than c.
2
@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
You have been misled.
2
yes.
2
yes.
2
@user-Rockstar1 We have placed over 12000 satellites in orbit over a period of 60 years. Rockets don't go straight up because they have to orbit Earth, i.e. fly parallel to Earth's surface. Most of a rocket's job is to build speed (8 km/s) not altitude (200 km is enough in many cases). Airplanes fly above the location the Bible gives for the firmament. Those are thousands of flights a day for a century, There is no evidence in favor of a firmament. Light from space reaches us unimpeded. We can send radio waves through it, we can send objects through it, etc.
2
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
@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
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
The ISS weighs 400 tons, which means it takes an enormous amount of energy to move it. It's also not designed for the lunar environment. So we're building a new space station, the Lunar Gateway, that is optimized for the lunar environment.
2
@Xernive Based on the fact that every claim I've come across has been easily debunked.
2
@DonnyBrisco It doesn't matter who answers you. It matters that you get an answer. To summarize, you are the one who has been conned, by someone who claims to measure the temperature of moonlight while he's measuring something else.
2
That location is a known volcano that has erupted several times the last few years. ICBM warheads must be detonated before impact: the impact will destroy them. So you can't launch a missile and detonate it weeks later.
2
yes, +83 is correct.
2
The animations are incorrect. Those mirrors are perfect. You can see that in video of the actual mirrors.
2
When you have a cloud of material that contracts, it starts rotating. any velocity vector perpendicular to that rotation tends to be cancelled out by collisions, and all matter ends up orbiting in the same plane.
2
one cubic decimeter.
2
The US has spy satellites to do that. Hubble can't photograph targets on Earth: it can't rotate fast enough to keep a position on Earth in focus.
2
@jimmybutler3728 The US military has launched 17 KH-11 spy satellites between 1976 and now. These are optimized for Earth observation and are much better at it than Hubble. Hubble was built publicly. You can't sneak in the equipment a spy satellite would need in such an environment. All of Hubble's images are public; it has no time to do Earth observation in between the published observations.
2
No, it's 930,000.
2
You're overestimating. it's $10/taxpayer/year for 10 years.
2
Don't be ridiculous. Models are being tested all the time. For our climate, for example, we have enormous amounts of data going back centuries, and we can reconstruct more data from indirect sources going back millions of years. Our climate models are tested against this data; that's how we know how accurate these models are.
2
@shaunmichaelchase 'patently absurd' is just the result of you applying your lack of knowledge to the situation. 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.
2
the evidence proves you wrong.
2
The Bible says very little about the stars, and does not contradict our findings.
2
This volcano has had at least 5 eruptions in the last 10 years. It doesn't need our help.
2
A telescope on the moon is difficult: you have a day-night cycle that's 28 days long, so you have to store lots of power or use nuclear power, you have a huge difference in temperature between day and night, and you have to keep the lunar dust out of the telescope.
2
It was shared between NASA, ESA (22 member states) and CSA. So 23 countries involved (CSA is also an ESA member).
2
When you have a cloud of material that contracts, it starts rotating. any velocity vector perpendicular to that rotation tends to be cancelled out by collisions, and all matter ends up orbiting in the same plane.
2
Look at the Sun. See how bright it is? THAT is a plasma. The moon produces no light, so it is not a plasma.
2
That's nonsense. Humans are perfectly capable of building systems that last a long time. We're just mostly too cheap to do it.
2
The Voyagers were built for a primary mission of 5 years, with flybys of Jupiter and Saturn. That was the requirement. Everything else was a bonus. JWST was built to work for a minimum of 5 years. That's the requirement, and the worst-case scenario. The average-case scenario was 10 years. Currently, after a better-than-expected launch we're looking at 20 years. And JWST can be refueled to extend its life even further.
2
The title is incorrect. NASA isn't ending the mission any sooner than it has to. The end of the mission is determined by one parameter: the amount of power produced by the RTG. This drops steadily, at a rate of about 4 W/year. So they regularly have to switch off instruments to stay within that limit. When the last science instrument has to be switched off, the mission is over.
2
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
That's easy: by not spending sp much time in the belts that the radiation dose builds to a dangerous level. They only spent 3 hours crossing the belts, and a dangerous dose does not build up until you spend a week in the belts.
2
When a ship is 20 miles away, only the top of its masts will be visible over the horizon. The ship has to be a lot closer than that for the periscope to be of any real use. At 20 miles, you're more likely to use the sub's ECM to detect the ship's radar, or use the sub's sonar to detect the ship's noise.
2
Every time we measure Earth's surface, we find that it is curved, not flat.
2
I can prove you wrong by looking at the sky and seeing satellites pass overhead.
2
The usual: mechanical engineering or electronics engineering degrees. Maybe some aerospace engineers (but IDK if that was available as a specialization by the 170s). Mix in some scientists with physics, mathematics etc. background.
2
Sibrel has long been exposed as a liar.
2
@nakiaboyr6196 Easily verifiable facts trump your incredulity every time.
2
Nope. Hero.
2
Earth IS pear-shaped. It deviates from a perfect sphere by 0.3%: because Earth rotates, you get a centrifugal force that pushes the equator outwards a bit. This is measurable: two centuries ago the French Geodetic Missions to the Equator and to Lapland measured the difference in Earth's curvature between those two places. This is also visible in high-resolution photos of Earth from space. every time we measure Earth's surface, we find that it is curved. Anyone can do such a measurement with simple tools.
2
@davidguy7335 Yes, they were able to communicate clearly, after spending hundreds of millions on building extremely large antennas all over the world to send and receive signals to/from the Apollo spacecraft.
2
@davidguy7335 20,000 satellites in orbit prove there is no firmament.
2
@davidguy7335 Airplanes use an altimeter to fly at a constant altitude. This constant altitude is a circle around our planet, at a constant height above the surface of our spherical world.
2
The effect of varying G levels is limited, and can be simulated by changing the pressure in the propellant tanks. So the moon lander engines could be tested on a test stand. An all-up flight test of the moon lander was not possible on Earth, but was done in Earth orbit.
2
Photos of the ISS usually show the ISS in bright sunlight. The exposure time is far too short to show stars.
2
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
@papalegba6796 It is exactly in accordance with Newton's laws. It's the force diagram you have been asking for. And it is proven to work by 10,000 satellites successfully operating in orbit.
2
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
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
@James-zp5po These experiments are simple enough that anyone can repeat them. I have done several myself, and unsurprisingly, the results I get are the same as "they" get. That means "they" are telling the truth: Earth is a rotating sphere. As I said, I can calculate the centrifugal force created by Earth's rotation, and it's 300 times smaller than the gravitational force pulling us down. I can do simple measurements that confirm this calculation. That means, your claim of "nothing would stay on the earth" is not based on you doing the math, it's based on you making a blind assumption.
2
he mentions this in the video. 86ºF or 30ºC.
2
other way round: Interstellar is between stars, intergalactic is between galaxies.
2
10,000 satellites in orbit prove you wrong.
2
Every time we measure Earth's surface, we find that it is curved, not flat. Pseudoscience is claiming Earth is flat when all of the evidence tells us it isn't.
2
Pu-238 has a half-life of 87.7 years, so the output of the RTG reduces a bit every year. The Voyagers started out with 470 W, they're at about half of that now.
2
it starts out as a sphere. Collisions between objects tend to cancel out 'vertical' movement, leaving only the 'horizontal' component, and everything ends up orbiting in the same direction.
2
1. the suits used in the NBL have similarities, but also differences to the suits used in space. They are mechanically similar (so movement will feel similar). But the life support system is completely different, using an umbilical instead of having all of the equipment in the backpack. A suit designed for a vacuum is airtight, which means it is also watertight. The temperature management under water is different to that in a vacuum. 2. Space suits are tested regularly in vacuum chambers. Astronaut training is done in the pool, because the important thing they have to train for is how to operate in zero gravity, which can be approximated through neutral buoyancy. If you put the astronaut in a vacuum chamber, he still weighs 200 kg with the full suit and backpack. 3. NASA publishes just about everything they do. Tons of technology developed for space has made its way into commercial products.
2
@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
The Moon consists of rock. This can easily be verified using spectroscopic analysis of the light reflected by the Moon, proving you wrong.
2
Once it passes a threshold (the Schwarzschild radius), it can't escape. The light we're seeing comes from matter that is orbiting the black hole a bit farther out.
2
When you use your senses to observe a ship going over the horizon, you'll see that it gradually disappears from the bottom up. Using a telescope will not bring the hidden part of the ship back into view, which indicates that the ship is not being hidden by limits to our eyesight, it's hidden by a physical obstacle. If Earth were flat, there would be no obstacle between you and the ship, no matter how far away it goes. So the only possible conclusion is that Earth is not flat.
2
Those 15 missions for Artemis? those are Starship missions. SpaceX provides a lunar lander for Artemis, in the form of the Starship HLS. THIS needs ~ 15 tankers to get to the moon.
2
Kubrick was busy filming 2001: A space odyssey, using state-of-the-art special effects. His moonwalks are immediately obviously recorded on Earth: he did not have the means to fake 1/6 g convincingly. We still don't. The Apollo videos show they are in 1/6 g, which means they can only have recorded that on the moon.
2
@andrewpotter5956 your sarcasm is indistinguishable from what many people seriously claim in the comments on this video.
2
Close, but not quite. The angle between the sun-JWST line and the observation line can vary between 85º and 135º.
2
Nope. They run actual missions, not cons.
2
That would not help. With our current ground systems, we could contact Voyager out to 200 AU (Voyager is at 150 AU now). We will lose contact because the probes run out of power, not because they're out of range. It's much cheaper to just build a larger antenna on Earth than to send relay probes. A receiving antenna on Earth costs $100 million, and has a diameter of 34 meters. Sending an antenna that large on a Voyager-like trajectory would cost several billion, because you'd need a Saturn V to send a spacecraft that large and heavy.
2
@user-pf5xq3lq8i Take a look at figure 4 of the 2020 paper. This shows that earthquakes become more frequent when the proton density rises. It does not show a second peak at low proton densities. So this paper does not predict an increase in earthquakes at a solar minimum.
2
@IanGammer-vj9cb Water staying in place on a spinning sphere is not magic, it's gravity. It's pretty crazy to claim an "ice wall" holds the water in place, when there is no evidence that there is an ice wall, and tons of evidence that Antarctica is just a continent on a sphere.
2
No, that's not a fact. Simple experiments anyone can do prove Earth is a rotating sphere. 1. Anyone can measure the 3D positions of a series of points on a seemingly-flat piece of land. You will find that those positions are on a spherical surface. 2. A simple pendulum will precess as it swings, this is caused by Earth's rotation.
2
@christinerobinson9372 The Voyagers use radioisotope thermal generators: there's a device filled with small pellets of Plutonium-238. This decays and produces heat, Peltier elements convert this to electricity. Pu-238 has a half-life of 87.7 years, so the output of the RTG reduces a bit every year. When the power output has dropped to the point where Voyager can't power one science instrument, I expect they will switch off the transmitter. This makes sure we don't receive random noise from the transmitter later on, this could interfere with radio telescopes. This is the standard way of ending a mission.
2
The only editing they'll do is the 1:1 mapping of infrared wavelengths to visible-light colors (which you need for images to be viewable at all).
2
it's not traveling through time. The Voyagers are so far away light (and radio signals) take about 20 hours to travel from Earth to Voyager, but we've built ground stations that can handle that.
2
Your opinion is not based on evidence, so it's useless.
2
+83 ºC.
2
It's a phonograph record, not a CD. Instructions for playback are on the cover. Any civilization advanced enough to have spacflight should be able to read those instructions and build a record player.
2
In 1976, someone retranslated a Sumerian text and claimed it talks about an unknown planet. Charlatans then claimed this planet (Nibiru) would destroy Earth in 2012 (coinciding with the end of one period in the Mayan calendar). When that didn't happen (and indeed, no new planet was visible in the night sky), charlatans moved on to the next bit of nonsense. The 1976 translation turned out to be full of errors. Data from archaeology and astronomy disproved the Nibiru claims. We have found actual planets much further out than this hypothetical one. Sedna has a 10,000 year orbit. So we know Nibiru doesn't exist, and any claims about a "planet 9" that will destroy us can be dismissed.
2
JWST will start doing science in 6 months. They have started taking images for mirror calibration this week.
2
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
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
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
Instead of more Voyagers, we built spacecraft that could visit one planet for years: Galileo, Juno and Cassini. These are expensive missions, so we can't do many of them, but they gave us so much more information than any Voyager-type flyby ever could.
2
@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
@WerZel When you look at the moon with your binoculars, the smallest details you can see are 10 km across.
2
Simple experiments anyone can do prove that space is real. You profit from data and services provided by satellites every day.
2
The title card is ridiculous. JWST was hit by a grain of sand, not a 1 m boulder.
2
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
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
The camera systems on the Voyagers were switched off in 1990. They no longer have enough power to run the cameras.
2
Anyone claiming we never went to the moon is trying to mislead you.
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. That also means the dust uniformly moves at high speed - far too fast to settle on the lander feet.
2
Starship is not a failed project. It's in the middle of being developed, with good progress being shown recently. SpaceX has a history of doing what they claim to do (remember the early skepticism toward reuse of the Falcon 9 first stage? They've successfully landed 200 stages and have been reusing them up to 15 times per stage. They also have a history of being overly optimistic with their timelines, but getting there in the end, on a timeline that would be fast for anyone else but slower than their own initial estimates.
2
We have satellites dedicated to taking such photos: SOHO observes the sun, various space telescopes photograph the stars.
2
Because there's an object 100 meters high sitting on top of it.
2
@papalegba6796 Ignoring the evidence doesn't make you right.
2
We have multiple independent lines of evidence that shows the Apollo landings are real. We can see the ISS from the ground, even with the naked eye. We have millions of actual non-CGI photos of Earth from space, and we make more every day. This started with Gemini: astronauts had cameras with them and took photos of the planet. Apollo missions took photos of the whole Earth in one shot. Every ISS astronaut has a camera and snaps thousands of photos (see NASA's Flickr page). These days, geostationary weather satellites take photos of the whole hemisphere every 10 minutes.
2
We have factual evidence, we don't need to dig to the core for that. Seismic sensors allow us to investigate the inside of the moon. All of the data indicates that the moon consists of solid rock. If the moon were hollow, it'd have been obvious from those seismic experiments.
2
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
NASA didn't lose any of the telemetry data for Apollo. It's all still available, much of it in public archives. The only 'technology' lost was the giant tools and jigs that were used to fabricate the Saturn V. All of the drawings, specifications etc. are still available and in public archives. Buzz Aldrin never claimed the moon landing was faked. Finally, we have tons of photos and video of JWST. The only thing we don't have is a camera that shows the telescope being deployed. So we use renderings to illustrate what the deployment looks like. That's not a big deal. NASA was not founded by von Braun. He was working for the US Army when NASA was founded by the US Government.
2
Nope. Looks like actual people on the moon, in 1/6g gravity, which remains impossible to fake convincingly here on Earth.
2
@thebruffy1077 The astronauts were in pressurized spacesuits. It took a lot of effort to move in those suits. So the astronauts experimented with walking techniques, and found that the 'bunny hop' was the most energy-efficient. And this applied to the entire EVA: they tried to expend as little energy as possible. This definitely includes driving in the LRV. The LRV controls were built to facilitate this: they could drive and steer the LRV by moving just the wrist. When I'm driving, I sit still too, moving only as much as needed to operate the controls.
2
we're not looking at the point where the Big Bang occurred. We're looking at stars 13.5 bn lightyears away, so we can see them as they were 13.5 bn years ago.
2
That's one of the options they are considering (the Russians already do this with their suits).
2
We have millions of photos of Earth, starting with the hundreds of photos taken by the Apollo crews. These days, geostationary weather satellites take photos of an entire hemisphere every 10 minutes.
2
@mj7335 Incorrect. The Apollo crews took photos using analog photo cameras. Weather satellites produce photos. So do Earth observation satellites. None of this is CGI, they are actual imaging data.
2
The radiation level in the belts is low enough that humans can travel through the belts safely, as long as you don't spend too long in the belts. In the center of the belts, the level is high enough that you accumulate a lethal dose in one week. The Apollo missions took 3 hours to cross the belts.
2
240 Falcon 9 launches are not the result of a con.
2
@chengong388 What con artist spends billions of his own money, instead of trying to get someone else to pay for his scheme?
2
@Amanlikeme "throwing people in jail for saying the earth was a sphere in the early 1600s" is a lie. You're thinking of Galileo, who was thrown in jail in the early 1600s for claiming that Earth was not the center of the solar system. We have known Earth is a sphere for 2500 years. The ancient Greeks were able to prove this.
2
Two things were in Apollo's favor: 1. it was seen as a national emergency, with an almost unlimited budget. 2. there was no political interference: the engineers were free to find the best solution, instead of having a mandate from Congress to use the SLS. 3. Apollo was far less complex: just get boots on the moon. Artemis wants to put larger crews on the moon for months, instead of 1-3 days. It includes a space station in lunar orbit.
2
Hubble's current cameras are already pretty close to the limit set by the mirror size.
2
No. A rocket has to reach a speed of 8000 meters per second. A plane can provide no more than 300 m/s of that, i.e. 3.7%. The relationship between speed and cost is not linear so the potential savings are a bit better than 3%, but in general the cost savings of making a rocket a bit smaller are tiny: most of the cost is in design and testing, not in the materials that you'd save by making the rocket a bit smaller. And there's a big mass constraint. Even the largest airplanes can only carry a rocket with a payload of less than one ton.
2
@marleonetti7 There is no indication NASA lied about going to the moon. We have a ton of evidence that shows the Apollo landings are real, and no evidence, none at all, that they were faked. Similarly, there is no evidence that Earth is flat. Just bad arguments made by charlatans hoping to manipulate you. Simple experiments anyone can do show that Earth is not flat.
2
Nope, real mission and real data.
2
Yes, this is an image from space. It looks a bit different to what you're used to, this is a scientific camera, not a cellphone. That means the colors are a bit different. Next time you see something you don't understand, don't be so quick to assume it must be fake.
2
You never know. Several imaging techniques developed by NASA for space telescopes have found their way into medical imaging devices (X-ray, MRI, CT, etc).
2
You need a spellchecker.
2
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
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
@Phoenix80675 In Genesis 1, it says that birds fly in the firmament. That means that word refers to our atmosphere, and not to a solid structure.
2
Simple experiments anyone can do demonstrates that Earth is a rotating sphere. The Bible refers to pillars of the Earth. In all of the digging we've done, we found no pillars, only molten rock. The Bible says Earth has corners. Yet no flat-Earth model has corners. We've sailed and flown around the world in all directions and never hit a corner. The Bible often uses poetry and metaphor to describe the planet. It is not a science textbook.
2
Science starts with observations. Scientists try to find an explanation for those observations, this becomes a model. The model is tested using more observations or experiments. When the model holds up and makes accurate predictions, it becomes a theory. The word 'theory' has a specific meaning here: it's not the colloquial opposite of 'practice'; a scientific theory is a model that has been shown to be accurate in a wide range of circumstances, and the best way we currently have to explain how things work. Models and theories are always subject to improvement. To replace a theory, you need to come up with a better one: a model that explains not just everything the old theory did, but makes new, testable predictions.
2
There's plenty of proof, you just stick your fingers in your ears and go 'lalalalalala I can't hear you'.
2
There is a photo camera on the rover.They've published some photos of the lander taken by the rover, for example.
2
To bring them back, we'd have had to design a different trajectory that would slingshot them back into the inner solar system from Neptune, and we'd have missed out on 30 years of measurements on the outer solar system and the heliopause.
2
APL is working on an interstellar mission proposal. Even using an SLS to launch a Voyager-sized spacecraft, we can only get it to twice Voyager's speed.
2
These astronauts were not part of Apollo, so they have to learn how to operate in this environment.
2
@spartanpatriot3163 Neither was I: I was talking about procedures: these astronauts are learning how to move in 1/6 g gravity.
2
Using a single 34-m antenna, we can keep in contact until 2050 (Voyager 1) and 2057 (Voyager 2), if their power supply would last that long. NASA also have the option to receive data with an array of antennas, which could stretch this even further. This is much cheaper than building relay spacecraft.
2
@invictusfarmer7188 We'll have to invent faster-than-light communications to do that. (yep. Star Trek fan)
2
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
Hubble doesn't have the resolution to do that. We do have several spacecraft orbiting the moon that have photographed the landing sites with enough resolution to see astronaut foot tracks.
2
Those craters were created over 4 billion years. The current impact rate is so low this telescope would be hit once every few thousand years.
2
@RobertCro You're overlooking that it's dozens per day spread over the Moon's entire surface. I'm talking about the impact rate per km2.
2
Yep, that's the same technology.
2
The details on this (actual performance vs expected) haven't been published yet. The big ticket item (diffraction limited imaging) is as expected.
2
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
it is right though. it's 1 million photons/s per cm2. Multiply by the area of the primary mirror, and you see how telescopes work: they gather a lot more photons than the naked eye can.
2
Have a look at the LUVOIR proposal.
2
We don't. The Voyagers have a few kgs of fuel left, enough to change their course by a tiny amount. But we have no way to scan the area ahead of the Voyagers for obstacles smaller than, say, Pluto. Luckily space is very empty, so we can get away with that.
2
At no point around 49s is Earth visible behind the astronaut.
2
Planets aren't very bright in radio wavelenghts. And the black hole is the size of Mercury's orbit, i.e. a lot larger than most planets.
2
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
@StariDido I can measure the speed and altitude of a satellite from the ground, using nothing more than two cameras and some math. When I do that, I find that every satellite I see is at an altitude of 400 km or more, and a speed of 8 km/s. That's 10 times higher than any balloon has ever been, and a hundred times faster than any balloon has ever been. I can also aim a telescope at the satellite, and easily see there's no balloon attached to it.
2
Incredulity is not evidence, though. There are rational explanations for everything.
2
We can go beyond LEO, and we have. Apollo remains real. There's a ton of evidence that proves this beyond doubt, and no evidence that they were faked. This is reality.
2
We have TVV footage of Armstrong stepping of the lander, but no still photos. Of the several hundred still photos they took, only 1 or 2 show Armstrong.
2
@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
 @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
@JPerry-jw9ik Yes, that's possible.
2
We're spending hundreds of billions on cures for all kinds of disease. This project would be a drop in the bucket.
2
You've fallen for a con. Flat-Earth conmen are claiming the Challenger astronauts are still alive. The evidence they provide for that claim is so shoddy it'd be laughed out of any court.
2
The actual data show that the van Allen belts are safe for humans to travel through. That data consists of radiation measurements that were gathered by 6 satellite missions from 1958 to 1962, in a project led by James van Allen. By 1962, those missions had given us enough data to create a map of the radiation levels. That data has since been confirmed by more measurements. We've sent hundreds of spacecraft through the van Allen belts (every geostationary satellite, 200 interplanetary spacecraft and lunar missions, 9 manned Apollo missions and Gemini 11).
2
Yes. It wasn't possible at all in 2006. The New Horizons team has been thinking about an orbiter: "The mission ... put a New Horizons-scale spacecraft with new instruments into Pluto orbit. It requires one of the massive new, Saturn V-class launch vehicles now in development, a Jupiter gravity assist, and a nuclear electric stage augmented by a chemical propulsion braking stage to reach Pluto orbit."
2
@sporkeh90 We're throwing away ~1000 tons of mostly aluminium in the form or rocket stages. On a total of 2 billion tons of waste, that's tiny. Some low-hanging fruit: 20 million tons of tobacco which ends up as ash (and used 10 million ha of arable land). 3000 containers (at 20 tons each) go overboard on container ships each year. Rocket stage reuse is still a very new technology (8 years). It'll take a while for everyone to develop new rockets.
2
We have satellites orbiting Earth in all directions. Most Earth observation satellites are in polar orbits, because those allow you to photograph the entire surface of the planet.
2
@Tim22222 Yep, For the area covered by any of the landings, it's one impact per 1000 years.
2
Teledyne built the H2RG detectors used in JWST. They also offer the H4RG, which is a 4096x4096 pixel instrument with a pixel size of 15 um (H2RG: 2048x2048, 18 um). This seems to be the state of the art for astronomical IR imaging CCDs. The H4RG has been available for at least 5 years now. The problem with a project like JWST is that at some point, you have to freeze the design. If you keep iterating, it'll never get finished. After the design freeze, there's several years of testing (during which you can't replace components, or you'd have to redo all the tests). the pixel count seems low, but you can't compare these to consumer cameras. To detect really faint light, you need larger pixels. To detect IR, you also need larger pixels.
2
Yes, it's a budget thing, along with the US government mandating 'you must use SLS and Orion'. Stuck using them, and without the money to fix them.
2
You're comparing apples and oranges. For the heliosphere, the Voyagers were the first to give us measurements at all. For our climate we don't have that problem: we have enormous amounts of data going back centuries, and we can reconstruct more data from indirect sources going back millions of years. There was a time when our climate models weren't very good: back in the 1960 when this science was in its infancy. These days, the models are accurate, and consistently make correct predictions.
2
Nope. we arrived at the conclusion that Earth must be a sphere by following the evidence. No invention necessary.
2
"in" the moon would be in a tunnel below the surface. We don't say "in" Earth either.
2
JWST does have cameras. 3 of the 4 instruments are imaging systems.
2
@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
plus 83.
2
To see the moon landing, JWST would have to be 53 lightyears away, because that's where the light that left the Moon in 1969 is now.
2
The radiation level in the belts is high enough that long exposure is lethal. Spending 3 hours in the belts gives you a radiation dose that's equivalent to a few chest Xrays.
2
Cadillac Kadafi Nope, that's not what he said.
2
What do you mean? The trajectory of both probes has not changed since their last planetary encounter in the 1980s: they're going in a straight line.
2
@Heracles_FE If NASA is a mind control operation, why do they keep running real, verifiable missions?
2
Those satellites are owned by NOAA and JAXA.
2
You need a telescope with a mirror diameter of about 100 meters to see the flag from Earth. However, we have several telescopes orbiting the Moon, that have photographed the Apollo landing sites with enough resolution we can see the foot tracks left by the astronauts. LRO and Chandrayaan-2. Look them up. NASA lost one copy of one broadcast, of one mission. We have other copies of that same broadcast. We have complete footage for every Apollo mission.
2
We did that in 2017, using radio telescopes. Some of the telemetry being sent back by Voyager 1 is off: the data sent by the attitude control system (i.e. which direction it's pointing in) is corrupt. The rest of the data is still correct. NASA's in contact with the Voyagers every day, and that contact includes accurately measuring the location of both spacecraft. So we know they're still where they're supposed to be. We can still receive signals from V1, indicating that the attitude is still correct. That makes it very unlikely the problem is caused by anything outside the spacecraft.
2
@STOICZZZ JWST would see the Voyagers as a single pixel at most, that's not enough to get information useful for troubleshooting the attitude data problem.
2
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
Take a closer look. Those are pressure gauges.
2
Koyaanisqatsi.
2
There are models and models. For our model of the heliosphere, the Voyagers are providing the first in-situ measurements. So we basically knew going in our model was going to be incomplete and have large error bars. For may processes here on Earth we have much better models, based on mountains of data, that have been tested by making predictions and seeing if they are accurate. The errors in those models are going to be tiny, which gives us confidence to use them for further predictions.
2
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
Fuel transfers are inevitable if we ever want to get farther than putting 2 men on the moon for 3 days (which is about the limit of what's possible with a single launch from Earth). Any trip to Mars or Venus will require fuel transfer, so we might as well get started testing it now. I'll also note that the alternative lander (from Blue Origin) will also require fuel transfers for its mission.
2
@peterprice2048 We're in the middle of working out the details, converting a concept into actual flying hardware. And we'll get plenty of experience flying Starship in Earth orbit before the first HLS is sent on its way.
2
The only technology we need to get past the van Allen belts is radiation-hardened electronics, and you can order those from a catalog because thousands of satellites use the same electronics. Humans can pass through the VA belts without any technology beyond the aluminium hull you need anyway. None of the technology from Apollo was lost. All of the information remains available in public archives. And no, nobody at NASA claims they've never been past the van Allen belts.
2
That doesn't observe at the right wavelength (260 GHz).
2
@promerops All the parts of the EHT have to observe at the same wavelength, otherwise you can't do interferometry. Meerkat observes at up to 1.7 GHz.
2
@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
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
@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
The title is correct though: NIRCam has been switched on, it's being used to align the mirrors.
2
no. The sunshield also covers the Earth and Moon (2 big sources of heat that have to be avoided).
2
The reason we haven't been back yet is not "because we can't", it's because we decided to do other things.
2
Simple experiments anyone can do prove that Earth is a rotating sphere. You can look up at night and see satellites pass overhead, proving that space is real. Simple measurements prove that Earth orbits the Sun, not the other way round. One petri dish is enough to demonstrate evolution in action. The Cavendish torsion balance proves that gravity is real. I.e. we arrived at each of these conclusions from measurements, experiments and observations.
2
You are showing your ignorance again. 1. The metals used in rocket nozzles are far stronger in tension than in compression. So when the engine is at high altitude and the pressure inside the nozzle is higher than outside, the nozzle is in tension. It's designed to be strong enough to take the loads in this configuration. When you try to test a high-altitude engine down at sea level, the atmospheric pressure outside is higher than inside the nozzle, and the nozzle is now in compression. This is no different in principle than a coke can: when the can is full, it is strong enough to stand on. When it's empty, the can is no longer in tension and I can flatten it with my hand. 2. There are no rockets in use today where the second stage weighs 3000 tons. The Saturn V is the largest, and its third stage plus payload weighed less than 200 tons. 3. A gas that is at a higher pressure than its surroundings exerts a force on its surroundings.
2
@fingerprint8479 The Russians had an advantage: Baikonur is dry land, not a swamp on the coast. This meant they didn't need to build the launch pads above the grade, so rails could easily be used. Horizontal transport has a drawback: the rocket has to be built stronger, to withstand the transport loads while lying horizontal. If you design a rocket for vertical integration, you can build a lighter construction and end up with a rocket that can carry more payload.
2
Easily. Photons don't need to interact with anything to travel - in fact they travel better in a vacuum. If radio waves couldn't travel through a vacuum, we wouldn't get sunlight on Earth.
2
The main problem is scale. This explosion had the same power as 10 million tons of TNT. To block the volcano, you'd have to drill down (without causing an eruption) and circulate water to cool down the lava until it solidifies. That requires millions of tons of water, thousands of drill sites. And you have to keep doing this because Earth keeps heating the lava from below.
2
@AWikkedMoon "I'm not reading that, I'd rather stay dumb" - you.
2
A star emits photons in all directions: this can be visualized as a sphere. As you get farther away from the star, that sphere gets bigger, and the number of photons per cm2 gets smaller. You can calculate this: you know the distance (radius) so you can calculate the surface area of a sphere with that radius. So when you get farther away from a star, fewer photons from that star will hit your eye, and the star will become less bright. At some point, the number of photons per cm2 will fall below the threshold that the eye can detect, and the star is no longer visible with the naked eye. Then we get a telescope: this gives us a larger area to collect photons from.
2
Cell service (and wifi) is short-range radio, with a tiny antenna and a $3 receiver in your phone. These systems are 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. Radio waves don't travel well through solid obstacles, so each wall between you and the cell tower reduces your signal. NASA uses a giant dish to receive signals from New Horizons, builds the best receiver electronics money can buy ($100 million each, the receiver is cooled to cryogenic temperatures to reduce noise), and they have a clear line of sight without obstacles between transmitter and receiver. At these distances, communication is slow: NH sends data at 1000 bits/s. See, when you investigate instead of going straight to "I can't believe", you might learn something.
2
To do that, there has to be a ground station on Tonga. I don't know if that's the case. A ground station could easily have been damaged by the shockwave or tsunami.
2
for Neptune, we had a small area of sky to search: we didn't just have an orbit, we had the most likely location on that orbit. For planet X, we only have the orbit. So we have to take photos along the entire orbit, some of which is in front of the center of the Milky Way, making it difficult to see anything.
2
Yes, we could add telescopes on other planets. This complicates the setup, but is theoretically doable.
2
we've launched more than 10,000 satellites to altitudes higher than where the firmament is claimed to be. This conclusively proves that there is no solid object anywhere above us. God created a universe, not a snowglobe.
2
The effect of gravity on light is so small that we can just about measure the effect of the Sun on the light of a star that's visible near the limb of the sun. Earth's mass is not large enough to bend light by a noticeable amount.
2
@NPC420x Light does bend due to atmospheric refraction. When the sun sets, the position we see is inaccurate: in fact the sun is already below the horizon, but refraction causes the sun to appear higher in the sky than it really is. The moon appearing larger when it's near the horizon is a separate effect: the size of the moon does not change, but when it's near the horizon, the size reference provided by the objects on the horizon means our brain interprets the moon's size differently than when the moon is high in the sky and no size reference is available. We can check this by comparing two photos taken with the same lens and settings of the moon high in the sky and near the horizon: they show that the moon's size remains the same.
2
@NPC420x In the Astrochamp experiment, the laser light is bent by changes in the refractive index of the sugar water. This is the same principle as atmospheric refraction. Both have nothing to do with gravity.
2
@NPC420x As I already mentioned before, we can take photos of the moon just above the horizon and high in the sky, and measure the actual size of the moon in those photos. When we do this, we find that both images are the same size, which proves that the apparent difference is caused by our brain, not the actual size of the image. This is well-supported by research.
2
@NPC420x We don't have to guess what happens in that tank, we know because we spent the time figuring it out. The liquid in the tank is not uniform: at the bottom, the sugar content is higher than at the top. This causes the light to refract downwards. The denser the medium, the slower the light goes, which ends up bending the light downwards. In our atmosphere, changes in temperature and humidity causes the same effect: light bends downwards.
2
@NPC420x Science progresses because we don't accept holes. Science progresses because we spend the time figuring out why things happen.
2
@NPC420x Youtube doesn't like links in comments: it automatically deletes such links. The 2013 book The Moon Illusion documents the fact that the illusion exists. And as I said, anyone can take two photos of the moon and compare the sizes in those photos to confirm that it is an illusion.
2
@NPC420x On the contrary. It is well proven that the actual size of the moon stays the same. Anyone can do this by taking two photos of the moon as I told you.
2
@NPC420x At no point did I claim that the atmosphere is uniform, quite the contrary.
2
Yes. They were numbered that way because Voyager 1 would be the first to reach Jupiter.
2
Hubble takes photos, not "computer generated images".
2
SpaceX launches actual missions to space. Scammers just take your money.
2
@charlesbrightman4237 you need to read up on spacetime and gravity. It doesn't work the way you think it does. The Moon orbits Earth. It doesn't fall into the 'dent' created by Earth: the speed of the Moon balances the gravitational force exerted by Earth. This happens on larger scales as well. The solar system isn't getting closer to the center of mass of our galaxy.
2
@charlesbrightman4237 When misconceptions as big as "galaxies collapse in on themselves" are in play, explaining the basics has to take priority.
2
@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
Accreting matter starts out as a sphere. But collisions between particles tend to cancel out the 'vertical' part of the velocity vector, so you end up with a disk. We've only been able to image the 2 largest and nearest black holes, Sgr A* and M87*. We don't have enough resolution to see others.
2
It's unlikely we'll see a return of engines this large. We're moving towards reusability, and that's much easier to do when you have lots of smaller engines so you can just run one and get the small amount of thrust you need to land the stage. A stage with 5 F1 engines you'd have to throttle down one engine to under 10%, and it turns out throttling down a rocket by that much is difficult.
2
don't be ridiculous. Anyone with basic surveying tools can measure Earth's curvature.
2
@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
Imagine that: biology is more complex than you think.
2
pretty good. The gaps between objects are hundreds of millions of km.
2
8:40 'Hundreds' of AU? The Voyagers are at 120 and 150 AU, I dunno if that can be called 'hundreds'. 13:40 I think DSS 14 at Goldstone is the only DSN antenna with a radar transmitter.
2
@aaronbarlow4376 Actual geologists tell me that solid, dry rock reverberates for a long time.
2
@aaronbarlow4376 You assume you know better than the actual geologists who studied the Apollo seismic data?
2
@aaronbarlow4376 He said that in 1962, before we had any seismographic data from the moon. From the NASA website, today: "At the Moon’s center is a dense, metallic core. This core is largely composed of iron and some nickel. The Moon’s core is relatively small (about 20% of its diameter) compared to other terrestrial worlds (like Earth) with cores measuring closer to 50% of their diameters. Above the core are the mantle and crust. The lunar mantle, with a thickness of roughly 1350 km, is far deeper than the crust, which has an average thickness of about 50 km. "
2
Combustion does work in space. You just have to provide the oxidiser along with the fuel. Every rocket carries two tanks, one for the oxidiser and one for the fuel. These are mixed in the combustion chamber, and they combust very well indeed.
2
We don't think we're moving through space, we know because we can measure it. Anyone can set up a pendulum and watch it precess, demonstrating Earth's rotation. If you have a telescope, photos of the nearby stars taken 6 months apart show that Earth orbits the Sun.
2
@Rpm68 The nearby stars move fast enough that their positions no longer match those in the first accurate star maps made by Tycho Brahe in the 1600s. The North Star does move, in a few thousand years Polaris will no longer be the closest star to our celestial pole.
2
@Rpm68 Anyone can set up a Foucault pendulum and find out for himself if Earth spins on its axis. Every time we do, we get the same result: Earth rotates. Clueless is ignoring the evidence and claiming Earth is stationary when all of the evidence says it moves.
2
The power source is nuclear (Plutonium-238 decays which produces heat, thermocouples convert that heat directly into electric power). The spacecraft were built with lots of flexibility and redundancy, and the best components were used throughout. Even so, quite a few of those redundant components have failed, and Voyager 2's receiver isn't working well (but we can compensate for that by changing our transmissions).
2
We know what the Milky Way looks like, because we've measured the position of a billion stars. Plot those, and the familiar shape shows up. Before that, radio telescopes plotted the position of hydrogen clouds, that gave us our first image of the Milky Way. We don't need to go outside the galaxy to have a pretty good idea of what it looks like. The center of the galaxy is obscured to visible light by dust clouds, but dust is more transparent at longer wavelengths. IR telescopes have no problem seeing the center of the galaxy, nor do radio telescopes.
2
Spaceflight has a huge ROI. Stopping spaceflight would be counterproductive.
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
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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@Djru4real For 50 years, every single claim of 'they lied' has turned out to be nothing more than hot air. Nobody has ever presented any evidence for those claims.
2
Ample evidence proves that they did. You, on the other hand have nothing. No evidence at all for your claims.
2
We don't need a rocket that large. This is easy to calculate using the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation. Some of the early concepts for Apollo did need a rocket larger than the final Saturn V design: these initial designs used the 'direct ascent' mission model, where the entire vehicle would land on the moon and take off again. This would make the lunar vehicle very large and heavy. Apollo's genius is in the realization that you don't have to do that: with the Lunar Orbit Rendezvous technique you can split that vehicle in 3 parts, and leave the heavy Command Module+Service Module in lunar orbit. The resulting Lunar Module is much lighter, and fits in the Saturn V as it was designed.
2
We can measure the distance to the moon quite easily using several different methods. We always find the moon is at 380,000 km, not 5000. It's obvious the moon is not a projection: projections cannot block out the sun. A projection needs a solid object to project on. Hundreds of satellites orbit at altitudes of more than 5000 km, proving there is no projection surface at 5000 km.
2
@luigicirelli2583 It's pretty simple for anyone to measure the distance to the moon and the sun. You can do a basic measurement without any tools. There is no "game", this is reality. If the sun were at a distance of 5000 km, its size would change dramatically between midday and sunset. In reality, the sun stays the same size. With a consumer camera we can measure this to an accuracy of 0.1%, which means the size of the sun changes by less than 0.1% between midday and sunset, which means the distance to the sun changes by less than 1% between midday and sunset. The distance between midday and sunset is 10,000 km on the equator, so the distance to the sun is at least 1000 times that, or 10 million km.
2
@luigicirelli2583 There is no "temporary disk". Your claims about the umbra are mathematically impossible.
2
@luigicirelli2583 Islands that are visible when they "should be hidden" - anyone claiming this ignores important factor in calculating the curvature. Usually, people ignore atmospheric refraction. When that is taken into account, we see exactly what we should see.
2
@luigicirelli2583 The moon is not a "luminary". Most of the time, part of its surface is not lit. The part that is lit corresponds exactly to the moon's angle relative to the sun. We can measure the light from the moon and find that it is reflected sunlight.
2
@luigicirelli2583 We have launched hundreds of satellites to an altitude of 36,000 km, i.e. 6 times higher than where you claim the moon is. Yet those satellites never pass behind the moon.
2
@luigicirelli2583 When the sun and moon are just a few degrees apart in the sky, the moon is never 60% lit. When the sun and moon are just a few degrees apart in the sky, we have a new moon, i.e. only a tiny sliver is lit.
2
@luigicirelli2583 We can see the ISS with the naked eye, as a point of light only. With a camera linked to a telescope with a 10 cm mirror, you can see details.
2
@luigicirelli2583 If you divide 5400 by 360, you find how long it takes the ISS to travel 1/360 of its orbit. That orbit is a circle with its center at Earth's center. When you observe from the ground, your position is 6370 km away from Earth's center, so the angle the ISS travels from your point of view is not the same as the angle it traveled as seen from Earth's center. So, your claim is based on a simple mathematical error.
2
About the 'camera on the ship in the ocean' example. There are people who claim you can bring a ship back into view after it's gone over the horizon. But every video that claims to show this, actually shows a small boat in front of the horizon. i.e. they did the experiment incorrectly. The correct way to do the experiment is to pick a ship large enough to be easily visible at 5 km distance. Wait until its hull is hidden by the horizon but the superstructure is still visible, and THEN zoom in. When you do that, you'll notice that no, the hull will not come back into view. And this goes for every "flat Earth" experiment. They do the experiment incorrectly (either by accident, because they weren't thinking it through, or deliberately, to lie to their followers). Claims of "we can see farther than Earth's curvature predicts" invariably mean they use an incorrect method to calculate curvature. etc.
2
It would have to be pretty sharp. The Apollo A7L suit consisted of 15 layers, and the pressure bladder (the one you care most about) is the second layer from the inside. i.e. there's 13 layers outside of that, including a pretty thick woven outer layer that's designed to protect the inside of the suit in a fall.
2
Oh, and the contingency if you do spring a leak is that the PLSS can supply more air, so if the leak is not too large it can keep the pressure in the suit near normal despite the leak.
2
They would take off their helmets once inside the LEM.
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. 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
@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
The diagram is incorrect, JWST will be in a large orbit around the L2 point so it'll be in full sunlight. +83 ºC is the right value.
2
@lumbarsupport if they're in the shade, the solar panel has to be a lot larger to get enough power. And you get variations in light level because of the Moon (lunar eclipses); they wanted a constant temperature because changes in temperature would cause problems with the telescope's shape.
2
@MythsandReality4 I've observed the change in elevation angle of the stars as I move to a different latitude. I live near a place where I can see Earth's curvature with the naked eye (the Afsluitdijk). I have friends who live in the Southern hemisphere and who have confirmed that the stars rotate in the opposite direction from what I see. I've built a Foucault pendulum and have seen it precess. In other words, I was able to confirm everything I've been told about Earth and our solar system.
2
Nobody is in a position to lie about the shape of our planet. Anyone can do simple experiments that confirm Earth is a sphere. So, they're telling the truth. The only agenda here is the people claiming that Earth is flat.
2
@marcwoodward850 That is incorrect. No amount of zooming in will bring a ship that has gone over the horizon back into view. There are videos that claim to show this, but every single one of them zooms in on a small boat that has not gone over the horizon yet. The correct way to do the experiment is to follow a large ship, wait until the horizon has hidden the hull from view but the superstructure is still visible, and then try to zoom in. Every time we do this, the hull does not come back into view. A demonstration of this is "Does More Zoom Cause Ships to Come Up Over Horizon? Flat Earth"
2
@marcwoodward850 The human eye does noes not have a fixed "vanishing point". Instead, how far we can see depends on how large the target is: the bigger the target, the farther away it can be and still be visible. An ant is invisible to the naked eye at 10 meters, while a mountain can be visible at 100 km if you have a line of sight. The Moon is visible at 380,000 km. The horizon has nothing to do with this: all ships, large and small, start to disappear from the bottom up at the same distance (5 km if you're standing at sea level). The fact that ships disappear from the bottom up instead of all at once again indicates that the horizon is not caused by any limit of the human eye. The fact that ships come back into view when we climb to a higher elevation is another indication that the horizon is not caused by any limit of the human eye.
2
@flashgordon6670 As you've been told already, we don't have telescopes on Earth large enough to resolve the landing sites. Spacecraft orbiting the Moon have photographed the landing sites.
2
Because the average distance between asteroids is millions of km, and the Voyagers didn't get close enough to any asteroids to take images where the asteroid was more than a single pixel.
2
@peckop1793 GPS was designed to provide the US military with accurate navigation over hostile territory. You know, the kind of territory where you can't place navigation beacons and you can't rely on civilian beacons being available. They experimented with astronavigation: installing star trackers on aircraft to get position data. That turned out to be not reliable enough, so they went to the only method that would work: satellites in space, out of reach of any enemies.
2
@ekij133 I'll repeat the main point: Spirit and Opportunity never needed them. The panels were cleaned by dust devils often enough.
2
The Voyagers can't, but New Horizons is doing that at the moment.
2
The electronics are powered by a solar panel on the sun-facing side of the spacecraft. You're right, heat from the electronics is a potential problem, so the spacecraft had to be designed to efficiently remove heat, and to insulate the instruments from the computers.
2
They left a camera on the LRV, which was controlled remotely from Mission Control in Houston. The LRV had its own transmitter that could send the TV signal directly to Earth.
2
@pathtooptimalhealth They were named before the launch, the launch dates are set far in advance.
2
Look up tonight. You can see satellites pass overhead, proving that spaceflight is real.
2
To answer a common question I see in the comments: What about meteor strikes? While the moon gets hit a lot more than Earth, meteor strikes are still pretty rare. There's about one meteor strike per km2 per 1000 years, and the majority of those are smaller than 1 cm3.
2
Incorrect. Rational people around the world know the moon landings are real, while suckers fell for the bad arguments and lies told by the deniers.
2
No. Two years ago, there was a period when we couldn't send commands to Voyager 2 because the only antenna that could do that was being upgraded. We're still in daily contact with both Voyagers.
2
Earth is hit by about 5000 tons worth of meteors per year.
2
@stephenphillips7699 You're welcome. Most of that 5000 tons is tiny particles of dust (as you see in meteor showers).
2
@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
+83 is correct.
2
The evidence says we did go to the moon, and landed 6 times.
2
When all of our temperature records show that temperatures now are higher than only 100 years ago, that's not bias. That's reality.
2
Texts much older than the 1600s mention the moon, so we can discount your claim as a fable.
2
You're watching the wrong videos. We launched several dedicated missions to study asteroids.
2
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
We have abundant evidence that the Apollo landings are real. Every claim NASA has made has been confirmed by third parties, including their enemies in the Space Race: the USSR. They did not "destroy the technology" in any meaningful sense. All of the Apollo data is available in public archives, we could rebuild a Saturn V today if we wanted to. None of the moon rocks have been lost. 382 kg of lunar rock samples remain available today, and are studied by geologists all over the world. So, every claim you've made is based on lies.
2
Both the Russians and Americans had lots of failures early on in their lunar program. The Americans lost 5 Ranger spacecraft, 2 Surveyor, 6 Pioneer. By the early 1970s, the Russians made several successful landings on the moon, including 2 rovers (Lunokhod) and a sample return mission.
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. That also means the dust uniformly moves at high speed - far too fast to settle on the lander feet.
2
They are doing these tests to simulate being weightless. You can't do that in a vacuum chamber. Vacuum chamber tests are done to test every new space suit (not just every new design, but every item that is produced).
2
@foopah Youtube won't allow me to put links in a comment, but you can find videos of space suit testing in a vacuum chamber.
2
@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
Only the ignorant call the Voyager missions bullshit.
2
@dune8998 a few of your replies have been eaten by Youtube's spam filter. Don't put links into posts.
2
@dune8998 Radiation, at the levels present in space, does not affect radio waves. The only thing you need to communicate across such distances is a large antenna. NASA operates the largest radio antennas in the world.
2
The Apollo Flight Journal and Apollo Lunar Surface Journal are good places to start.
2
Several countries (USA, Japan, India, China) have launched lunar orbiters which have photographed the entire lunar surface, including the landing sites of each Apollo mission (and landing/crash sites of the many missions sent by the US and USSR in the 1960s and 1970s). The resolution is high enough that you can see the foot tracks of the astronauts.
2
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
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
@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
No, it's not broken. JWST was designed so that the mirrors would have to be aligned after launch. This was inevitable for several reasons: 1. the size of the telescope meant it had to be folded 2. the telescope had to be launched at room temperature, but is designed to work at ~30K. This means the telescope will shrink after launch.
2
They do curve, at a rate of 8 cm per km. That is tiny, and much smaller than the fluctuations in altitude you get from turbulence etc. If you bring a gyroscope on a long flight, you can see the change in angle quite easily.
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. 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
There have been 29 successful moon missions, 6 of which were manned.
2
+83 ºC is the right value.
2
Missing word, maybe? first and only commercial DS antenna?
2
via radio. They'll upload a set of instructions, JWST carries out the observations and sends back the data.
2
The moon does spin. It makes one revolution every 28 days. This is why we always see the same side of the moon. Even though we can only see that one side of the moon from Earth, it's obvious that the moon is a sphere. Craters near the center are circles, while craters near the limb are distorted as if we're seeing them side-on. That means the side we can see is a hemisphere. The only sane option is that the other side is also a hemisphere.
2
No, they didn't translate to audio. The 'rings like a bell' reference is just a description of the fact that the seismic waves took a long time to die out. This happens because the moon is solid rock, with no liquid mantle and no liquids embedded in the rock to dampen the vibrations.
2
Those films aren't "the truth". They're full of errors and downright lies.
2
The Soviet Moon missions were all named Luna. The rovers were called Lunokhod. The Lunokhods had 8 wheels, not 6. They had a pressure hull with air inside - this simplified cooling the electronics. The Lunokhods were remote-controlled from Earth - this was very difficult on the crew, because they had to deal with 2 seconds of delay between giving a command and seeing the results. Short documentary on the Lunokhods: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qELeRJesg_c&t=328s
2
At 1 bar, a space suit would be so stiff you'd be exhausted after 2 hours. At 0.25 bar, moving in the suit becomes a lot easier and you can do an 8-hour spacewalk.
2
NASA uses a power source that cost $100 million to manufacture, and could produce 450W at the start of the mission, down to about half that now. That's $500 per kWh, if I'm not mistaken. Are you prepared to pay that much for power?
2
The pressure in the spacecraft is 1 bar. That's far too high for a space suit: the higher the pressure, the stiffer the suit and the more effort it takes to move in the suit. So they currently use a pressure of 0.3 bar in the space suits. This test is exploring other pressure settings.
2
@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
No, the data it sends us takes about 20 hours to reach us.
2
@paulwonderley538 No. Data from Mars takes 3 to 22 minutes to reach us, depending on where in their orbits Earth and Mars are. Voyager 1 data takes 22 hours and 34 minutes to travel to Earth, Voyager 2 data takes 18 hours and 50 minutes. Those are al flight times. Then there's the data rates. The Voyagers currently send data at 40 bits per second.
2
@Sneakycat1971 Anyone with common sense and a grasp of the basics of physics and the scientific method, knows that every single argument produced by the moon landing deniers is a sham. Those arguments are based on ignorance ("I don't know how they did it, so I'm going to claim it's fake"), or outright lies (deniers have been caught fabricating evidence). Of the thousands of photos, hours of video and other evidence of the moon landings, exactly 0 has been proven wrong.
2
@mattt6459 That's not how science missions work.
2
We could place a telescope on the moon. And there have been proposals to build a telescope in a crater on the moon, similar to Arecibo.
2
Ridiculous is believing the Apollo landings were faked, when we have tons of evidence that proves the landings are real.
2
Imagine posting a straw man that can be debunked by looking at the hundreds of photos of Earth the Apollo missions took.
2
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
Yes, that's Neil Armstrong.
2
False. there are more than 8000 photos and hours of video of people on the moon.
2
@DeepDishPizza I see you've been spamming the comments section with claims that the moon landings were faked, which explains why you don't want me to comment. Why are you wasting your time trolling? Does it make you feel better to spout nonsense?
2
Your source data is off. Lunar craters don't all have the same depth.
2
Eh, we've known about this black hole for decades. This is just the first time we've been able to see it.
2
@russellyork5853 Incorrect. We have proven over and over again that Earth is a sphere. Every geodetic survey in history (and we do thousands of those all over the world every day) shows that Earth's surface has a curvature consistent with a diameter of 12700 km. About 200 years ago, geodetic survey equipment got accurate enough that we could measure Earth's oblateness (ie the difference between equatorial and polar diameters). 2250 years ago, Eratosthenes measured Earth's diameter for the first time, coming within 10% of the currently-known value. Many other lines of evidence lead to the same conclusion. Photos of Earth from space merely confirm what we've known for 2500 years.
2
@russellyork5853 I've seen those claims of 600 mile observations. They have already been debunked: that 600 mile observation showed moving clouds, when the clown making the video claims he was looking at Cyprus.
2
@russellyork5853 Laser tests fail to take into account that light, including laser light, is refracted by our atmosphere. Again, bad experiments leading to invalid conclusions.
2
We can, we just had other priorities.
2
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
Real images. JWST has 3 infrared cameras, so they'll have to do some mapping of IR wavelengths to visible colors to produce visible-light images.
2
Nobody's claiming 'we lost the technology to enter outer space'. We've successfully launched more than 200 missions out of Earth orbit so far.
2
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
That's a load of nonsense.
2
We're doing this because we want to know more about the universe. How does it work, how did it all begin (i.e. where do we ultimately come from). Is there other life out there.
2
Earth has an average equatorial diameter of 12,756 km and a polar diameter of 12713.6 km. We know it with enough accuracy that you have to specify which points you're measuring. If you dig towards the center you will find yourself immersed in lava. Where you end up depends on where you start and whether you can accurately navigate.
2
@jaywatt4674 God made a universe that works according to well-defined physical laws we can discover, not a magical pancake that lies to us when we investigate it.
2
@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
Right. Whole islands devastated, people dead, tsunamis, pressure waves measured all around the world "all CGI". Are you really that stupid?
2
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
@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
@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
@shawnnorris3410 Science. It works.
2
Science starts with observations. Scientists try to find an explanation for those observations, this becomes a model. The model is tested using more observations or experiments. When the model holds up and makes accurate predictions, it becomes a theory. The word 'theory' has a specific meaning here: it's not the colloquial opposite of 'practice'; a scientific theory is a model that has been shown to be accurate in a wide range of circumstances, and the best way we currently have to explain how things work. Scientists are very aware of the gaps in our theories, and are careful not to mix up conjectures and proven theories. The press consistently gets this wrong and ascribes far more confidence than the scientists themselves feel.
2
Simple experiments anyone can do prove that Earth is a rotating sphere. Millions of people are wrong, like lemmings running off a cliff.
2
Ariane 5 is one of the most reliable rockets around.
2
@VigilantX-TikTok No, you have not zoomed past the horizon. You have deluded yourself by zooming in on objects in front of the horizon. Every YT video that claims to zoom past the horizon does this. It's easy to see this: they zoom in on an object that has water behind it. When a boat reaches the horizon, there's only air behind it, and no amount of zooming in will change that. I challenge you to go to a sea port, and follow the largest container ship you can find until it goes over the horizon and the hull of the ship is hidden. Zoom in all you want, you will not be able to bring the hull back into view.
2
@VigilantX-TikTok Yes, you have seen the skyline: the part of Chicago that is visible above the horizon. You have not seen the shoreline: that remains hidden from your point of view. Hidden below the horizon, despite your zooming in.
2
@VigilantX-TikTok Yes, we're reading from the same script. It's called physics: a set of rules that describe how our world works. These rules were established by lots of experimentation and observation, and checked again and again. This is how we know how the horizon works, and why we can say with complete certainty which of your observations are valid and which are false claims.
2
'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
The JWST is designed to look at galaxies very far away (more than 13 billion lightyears). The light of these galaxies is redshifted so far to the infrared that Hubble can't see them. JWST will also be used for other observations, including closer galaxies, exoplanets, etc.
2
Budget realities happened. And we started solving the problems of long-duration spaceflight by doing lots of tests in space stations.
2
Yes.
2
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
Forward momentum is independent of atmospheric pressure or a magnetic field. As Newton predicted: objects continue to move in a straight line when no force works on them. Rockets don't hit a "dome", they achieve orbit. You can see satellites with the naked eye. You can measure their speed and altitude from the ground, and find that they are in space.
2
@jareddavis4980 I'm saying I don't just "think" it's 400 km: that 400 km is not a guess. I know it's 400 km because that is the value I measured.
2
6 seconds travel time, 3.5 Mbit/s data rate. There are downloads twice a day, so the images spend some time stored on the telescope before they're downloaded.
2
No. In the Apollo videos, we see that the astronauts can easily get back up from some positions, less so from others, depending on how much leverage they can apply, and in which direction they have to apply it (the suit can't move in all directions). One big difference between the NBL and being on the moon is the drag you experience. An astronaut who falls forward on the moon, can push himself back up and gain enough momentum to get upright again. In the NBL, you're fighting a whole lot more drag so you end up building far less momentum and you can't get back up.
2
@natturner2681 There is a lot of evidence that we have landed on the Moon. There is no evidence that we didn't. Just a lot of half-baked arguments that are easily debunked by anyone who has studied physics.
2
Global warming is not caused by volcanoes. Volcanoes worldwide in total produce about 240 million tons CO2 annually on average. Human industry and road traffic produce 20 billion tons per year.
2
We've left Earth's atmosphere hundreds of times.
2
Using a single 34-m antenna, we can keep in contact until 2050 (Voyager 1) and 2057 (Voyager 2), if their power supply would last that long. NASA also have the option to receive data with an array of antennas, which could stretch this even further. The Voyager missions will end when there's not enough power left to operate one instrument. Not because we can't communicate with them. And it's an expensive solution. A repeater near Jupiter, for instance, would orbit along with Jupiter, and would be farther away from the Voyagers than we are for half of Jupiter's 12-year orbit. You'd need 4 repeaters in Jupiter orbit alone for them to be useful. Easily a 4 billion dollar endeavor. Antennas on Earth cost $100M each.
2
The EVA suits are selfcontained. They contain air for more than 8 hours, a cooling system, scrubbers etc.
2
@dominiccharvet546 We have millions of photos of Earth from space. Start with Earthrise, a photo taken by the Apollo 8 crew. We have geostationary weather satellites (GOES, Meteosat, Himawari) that take images of the entire hemisphere every 10 minutes. A little farther out at the L1 point, we have DSCOVR, which takes photos of Earth and the Moon. For more detailed images, we have more than a hundred lower-altitude satellites like Landsat, SPOT, the Maxar constellation etc. that continuously photograph our planet.
2
@dominiccharvet546 The Hebrew word nasa means to lift up. Nasha means to deceive. The SH is one letter in Hebrew, and it's not the same as S.
2
@dominiccharvet546 Photos of Earth from space are *photos*, not paintings or CGI.
2
That's a ridiculous conclusion to draw. Scientists are very aware of the limitations of their knowledge.
2
@bradandrews777 You're confusing popular journalism with science. In scientific papers, scientists are very careful to indicate how certain they are of their hypotheses.
2
@nocturnallust4145 Anyone can use simple tools to measure Earth's shape. That means it is impossible for any organization to "keep the truth from us". Every time we measure Earth's shape, we find that Earth is a sphere. The ancient Greeks were able to figure this out in 500 BC.
2
Space exploration has a huge ROI, growing the economy to make more money available for fixing the planet. Satellites are an essential tool for monitoring the planet (land use, climate, pollution).
2
That's a bunch of nonsense. JWST provides real science, not CGI. A human eye on the moon can't see stars during the daytime if the lunar surface is in view. A telescope with a decent lens hood can photograph the stars during daytime on the moon. This project is a radio telescope, which isn't bothered by sunlight at all. Radio telescopes on Earth work during the day. The computer you wrote that comment on is a side effect of NASA investing enormous sums in chip fabrication in the 1960s.
2
At 14.7 psi, it would take a lot of force to do anything in the suit: the higher the pressure, the more force you need to bend e.g. your elbow or grasp something in your hand. You'd be exhausted after 2 hours.
2
They tried, but were unable to get their manned lunar program developed in time. The N-1 had its first unmanned test launch in 1969.
2
They were numbered in order of arrival at Jupiter. Voyager 2 was launched first, but had a slower trajectory than Voyager 1.
2
and yet thousands of people visit the South Pole every year.
2
All of the evidence shows that humans are the only ones to have set foot on the moon.
2
Astronomers have access to about 800 observatories all over the world, plus a dozen or so space telescopes. Nobody in his right mind will present fake images to a community that has so many ways to check your work.
2
Moon in the night sky: really bright compared to the stars. Our eyes adapt to the darkness. Moon next to Earth: here you can see that the moon reflects far less light than Earth.
2
NASA has a Canberra with cameras in the nose that's been used for reentry observation.
2
Why would they go boom?
2
We did not lose that information. We can look up exactly how Apollo did it. And when we do that, we find that the Apollo lunar module used an atmosphere with 100% oxygen at 5 psi, so there was no prebreathe time: they did not have this problem. The ISS is an oxygen/nitrogen atmosphere at 14.7 psi, and the Artemis lunar lander will use this too. So they have the experience of the ISS to draw on, and that experience shows a lot of time is lost with prebreathing/decompression. So they are doing experiments with the goal of finding ways to reduce that time.
2
Making IM-1 wider would have meant making the design more complicated, with landing legs that had to fold up. It also wouldn't have saved the mission: IM-1 fell over because one of the landing legs broke because they were landing at too high a speed.
2
Yes, that tells you everything you need to know. Even a cursory search will reveal that NASA lost exactly 0 of the photos made during Apollo. All of the more than 8000 photos are available in public archives. March to the Moon has scans of every single negative.
2
Complete reality. It's a pity you can't distinguish between scams and actual science.
2
That's a load of nonsense. We have known Earth is a sphere for 2200 years. The only conspiracy is the one that started the 'flat Earth' meme. There is no evidence that Earth is flat. On the contrary, all our observations indicate Earth is a sphere. You can measure this yourself using simple surveying equipment. We have a horizon. When you get farther away from an object, it will disappear below the horizon. This is correctly predicted by the 'Earth is a sphere' hypothesis, and it disproves the 'Earth is flat' hypothesis. The 'Earth is flat' hypothesis is full of holes and cannot be maintained by anyone who applies scientific rigor and logic.
2
and yet people like you never come up with any evidence to support that claim.
2
Bart Sibrel is a charlatan who does not deserve the attention he got.
2
No.
2
They use Pu-238, which has a half-life of 87.7 years, so the output of the RTG reduces a bit every year. The Voyagers started out with 470 W, they're at about half of that now. Pretty soon, not enough power will be available to run one science instrument.
2
After the Voyagers, we switched to long-term missions to single planets: Galileo, Juno and Cassini examined Jupiter and Saturn for years, answering the questions raised by the Voyager missions. A mission to Uranus is being developed right now.
2
That's much lighter though.
2
@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
@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
There is no reason to jump from a hiccup in a live video feed from an aircraft (a feed which had been glitching throughout, indicating they were losing data due to imperfect antenna alignment) right to "NASA swapped in a fake capsule". As Exhibit A, I present the landing of Genesis, which had a parachute malfunction and crash-landed. NASA showed the crash, and has been nothing less than completely transparent about the crash.
2
Status page: https://jwst.nasa.gov/content/webbLaunch/whereIsWebb.html
2
@gedstrom There's also a blog (search for NASA JWST blog), YT won't let me paste that link here...
2
Earth is a spheroid. The evidence is incontrovertible.
2
You need a Hebrew dictionary. Nasa means 'to lift up'. But NASA is not a word, it's an acronym. National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Since its inception, NASA has been running real projects, providing real benefits to mankind.
2
@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
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
Look up tonight: you can see satellites in the night sky, proving that space travel is possible.
2
You're wrong, all Voyager data is accessible.
2
If Earth is flat, they why does every geodetic survey we do show that Earth's surface is curved?
2
Yes. Voyager 1 was sent North of the ecliptic plane (=the plane in which the planets orbit) from Saturn, Voyager was sent South from Neptune.
2
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
@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
There are no dust storms on the moon, because there's no atmosphere. Meteor strikes are rare enough not to matter.
2
There's an excellent graph (made by Randall Munro of xkcd) called 'possible undiscovered planets'. This shows there's an area of our solar systems where our telescopes don't have enough resolution yet to see a planet. This area is getting smaller as new telescopes come on line, but we're not yet at a point where we can see everything in the solar system.
2
It's a high voltage, but very little power. It'd be a lot cheaper to set up some solar panels.
2
They use reaction wheels for pointing, and magnetic torque bars to desaturate the reaction wheels.
2
@DANTHETUBEMAN As I said, light can bleed under the reseau marks. In bright areas, that bleed can be enough to wash out the marks.
2
@DANTHETUBEMAN There is no evidence of that happening in any of the Apollo photos though. 1970s era photo manipulation is pretty obvious, and no signs of it have ever been found in Apollo images.
2
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
@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
@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
@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
You mean, the actual answers based on solid science that show why not all of the dust was removed?
2
That's a water fountain from an earlier, small eruption. The resolution of these images is 0.5 km, a missile is far too small to show up.
2
In 1976, someone retranslated a Sumerian text and claimed it talks about an unknown planet. Charlatans then claimed this planet (Nibiru) would destroy Earth in 2012 (coinciding with the end of one period in the Mayan calendar). When that didn't happen (and indeed, no new planet was visible in the night sky), charlatans moved on to the next bit of nonsense. We have found actual planets much further out than this hypothetical one. Sedna has a 10,000 year orbit. So we know Nibiru doesn't exist.
2
We solved that problem in 1962: we measured the radiation levels in the belts, and realized those levels are low enough that humans can safely travel through the belts, as long as you don't stay in the belts too long. When you stay in the center of the inner belt for one week, you accumulate a lethal dose of radiation.
2
@eriknelson2559 The Voyagers have enough propellant to last another 2 decades. They're running out of Pu-238, not hydrazine. Adding another RTG would weigh a lot more than 1 kg.
2
+83 ºC is the right value.
2
They use imperial units in communication to the public.
2
Nye has been teaching the scientific method for decades, which makes him a scientist.
2
No. The pressure is so low that even the lightest possible envelope is too heavy for a balloon to generate any lift. When the Apollo LM took off from the moon, it doubled the atmospheric pressure on the moon, that's how little atmosphere there is.
2
The Voyagers used 3 computers (CCS, FDS, AACS), all custom designs (the CCS was used earlier on the Viking Mars landers).
2
no, this volcano produced as much as we do in 1 day.
2
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
@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
@dopefresh8848 A glass of water has curvature. Earth's curvature is about 8 cm per km, so in a glass of water 5 cm in diameter, the middle of the water is 0.0004 cm higher than the edges. Too small to notice, difficult to measure at this scale (also because surface tension creates a bigger difference between the middle and the edges), but no less real. Water is subject to gravity, just like all matter. And gravity pulls the water into a sphere centered on Earth's center of gravity.
2
@notsoserious0944 The graphic is incorrect. JWST will orbit the L2 point at a distance of 800,000 km, in full sunlight. It needs to be in sunlight for the solar panels to work.
2
it's a figure of speech. These satellites use solid state storage.
2
Maybe you should read up on how the Osiris-Rex team planned for bringing this sample back, and the regulations that govern any sort of sample return, and the reasons behind those regulations. You know, actual data instead of a novel.
2
Modeling is an essential part of science. Science starts with observations. Scientists try to find an explanation for those observations, this becomes a model. The model is tested using more observations or experiments. When the model holds up and makes accurate predictions, it becomes a theory. The word 'theory' has a specific meaning here: it's not the colloquial opposite of 'practice'; a scientific theory is a model that has been shown to be accurate in a wide range of circumstances, and the best way we currently have to explain how things work. In this case, we had no prior in-situ observations, so we built a model based on the physics we knew to be involved and what Earth-based observations we had.
2
it's named after a former NASA director.
2
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
@hannesswart4827 The moon goes around the Earth because gravity keeps it in orbit. The Earth-Moon system orbits the Sun again due to gravity.
2
@hannesswart4827 Earth is not flat. Every time we measure the surface (geodetic survey), we find that it is curved.
2
@hannesswart4827 A ball's shadow is bigger than the ball itself only if the light source is smaller than the ball. The sun is much larger than Earth, so Earth's shadow is slightly smaller than Earth itself.
2
@hannesswart4827 All of our flat maps are inaccurate. That's because they are projections of a spherical surface onto a flat surface, and there is no way to do that without introducing distortions. We have many different projections, that all distort in different ways. We choose a projection to minimize the distortion for the application we are going to use the map for. Our most accurate maps exist only in the computer, where we can store a 3-dimensional surface accurately.
2
We have excellent sonar systems these days. They're mostly hampered by needing to be installed on a ship, which means scanning the sea floor is painfully slow.
2
No, the radiation level in the VA belts is far too low to do that. We measured the levels in the belts, and found that humans can traverse the belts safely. The evidence says the Apollo landings are real.
2
@davidstanley6243 No, there are no videos that show the sun changes size. There are videos that claim it does, but they use an incorrect method to measure the size: without using a filter, you are unable to find the actual size of the sun.
2
@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
@WilsonFox123 This is typical denier behavior: make unrealistic demands, and when someone gives you evidence that meets those demands, move the goalposts.
2
The moon has no atmosphere, so water would evaporate immediately.
2
The previous data we have is from 50 years ago. Now, instead of having a human with a simple film dosimeter, we have the opportunity to send a heavily-instrumented dummy, using measurement techniques 50 years more advanced. Nothing suspicious about wanting more detailed data.
2
nope. Lots of real images.
2
Because at high pressure, pure oxygen becomes toxic.
2
I can look at the sky and see satellites pass overhead. I can measure their speed and position, proving they are in orbit, not in our atmosphere.
2
You need a really low average density for that to work (see Inflatable Reentry Vehicle Experiment).
2
@ronaldgarrison8478 NASA did some tests with inflatable structures launched on a sounding rocket. The idea is to have a capsule, with an inflatable structure to increase its surface area during reentry. There are some scientific papers that describe the results, you should be able to find them using the experiment name.
2
@longtesticles8442 No, it doesn't. It means 'to lift up'.
2
@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
They are integrated circuits. Sure, there's only a few transistors, but it's still 4 transistors on one piece of silicon, instead of 4 tripods on a PCB.
2
@anticat900 the Asianometry videos are not mine. I've seen some of CuriosMarc's videos on the AGC.
2
of course we can. When we look at a star that's 4 light-years away, we see light that left that star 4 years ago. This applies at all distances, so when JWST looks at a galaxy 13 bn light years away, it'll look 13 bn years into the past.
2
Pilots trim their aircraft to stay at a constant altitude. The line of constant altitude is a circle around the Earth, so by setting your altitude to a constant value you are following that circle. You are "diving" by 8 cm per km, a tiny value compared to the changes in altitude due to local variations in wind, your fuel usage etc.
2
A spacecraft weighing 450 kg on an oversized rocket can get there in 9h. The Apollo flights took 3 days to get to the moon. But the time spent traveling there isn't the issue. A moon base project would be very expensive. It looks like it might get a lot cheaper in a few years though.
2
None of the images in the video have been made by JWST. JWST will start doing science in 6 months. They have started taking images for mirror calibration this week.
2
You misinterpreted the news. They didn't need to wake one up. In 2020, NASA replaced the transmitter on the only antenna that can send new commands to Voyager 2. During that time, we kept receiving data from Voyager 2 every day, we just couldn't send new commands.
2
People who believe humans walked on the moon, do so based on a mountain of evidence that has been examined extensively and found to be valid. People who believe the moon landings were faked do this based on no evidence at all. This is what we call a conspiracy theory.
2
@williamwalker6071 Yes, on Voyager 1 the DTR is still operational (last I checked, in January this year). On Voyager 2 it was switched off after the last instrument that could use it, failed.
2
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
@wesfolsom The system used to communicate with the Apollo mission cost $300 million in today's money, mostly to build the huge antennas. This system would be useless for Wifi or cell phone service. 1. Those huge antennas have to be pointed precisely in the direction of the target. Wifi and phone base stations have to deal with moving targets all around them. 2. Huge antennas help a bit, but don't solve the main problem of wifi and cell phones: radio signals don't travel well through solid walls. All of the buildings between you and the cell tower are obstacles that degrade the signal. In practice, we have done the opposite of the Apollo comms system: instead of using one huge antenna and a powerful transmitter, we put tiny transmitters in every room (for Wifi). Similarly the phone network is placing more and more base stations so each station only has to cover a small area with less obstacles between you and the base station.
2
@wesfolsom You can see satellites with the naked eye. Just look up at night.
2
That reason is money. After Apollo, NASA's budget was cut by 90%, making manned lunar missions unaffordable.
2
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
The Voyager RTG cost $100 million, and can provide an average of 200 W for 50 years. Solar panels that can provide that much power cost a few thousand.
2
We can easily measure the distance to the moon, and find that it's at 380,000 km, not 100. We know what plasma looks like. The sun is an example. Notice how bright it is? Now look at the new moon, and see that it does not produce light.
2
We don't "believe" NASA went to the moon, we know NASA went to the moon. The evidence is conclusive.
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
You have been duped by conmen.
2
There is a solar panel facing the sun. Solar panels don't work well for heat insulation: the backside of the solar panel gets as hot as the front.
2
The sunrises and sunsets were observed by astronauts in orbit around the moon.
2
@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
@MikeRey785 There is no 'darkness between the Sun and Earth'. Any object you put there will be brightly lit by the sun. Venus: brightly lit by the sun. The Moon: brightly lit by the sun. Earth: brightly lit by the sun. Light has no effect on empty space, so we don't easily see the light traveling from the Sun to Earth. But that doesn't mean there's no light there.
2
@cerealkiller8999 Yep, the dust falls back slowly. This is especially visible in the videos that show the lunar rover.
2
Images like 0:14 are real. In this case, the color yellow is used to indicate where we found water. This is called a false-color image. It is based on photographic data, using a camera that can do more than just create RGB images. Narrowband filters allow for detection of e.g. water. An image using this filter creates the yellow dots on the image.
2
The radio link isn't the limiting factor. The Voyagers are running out of power: in about 2 years, there's not enough power left to run a single instrument. Our current communications system would be able to stay in contact with the Voyagers until 2057 if the Voyager power source lasted that long.
2
Massimino never claimed he walked on the moon. They're discussing Armstrong and Aldrin, who did walk on the moon during the Apollo 11 mission.
2
Every time the sun sets, it does something that's impossible on a flat plane. We have known, not just guessed or suspected, known with absolute certainty that Earth is a sphere for 2500 years.
2
This video does not show details smaller than 500 meters. No missile is that large. All we have is one frame showing a cloud that's 1-2 km wide.
2
In principle yes, but the distances between objects in the Oort cloud is expected to be huge. So the chance of an impact is low.
2
About 8.4 GHz, IDK which modulation is used.
2
to get miles, divide the number of km by 1.6.
2
We have a pretty good idea of how the Moon was formed (collision with a protoplanet), and we have a bunch of data that makes it unlikely the moon is hollow.
2
@Gospodin_Kurac Without a time machine, there's no way to prove anything, so we use what we have, which is not an assumption, but a model that makes accurate predictions.
2
not quite. Perkin-Elmer used an instrument (the null corrector) to check the curvature of the mirror. This instrument was designed for another mission, and had to be modified for Hubble. During that modification they made an error, which meant the null corrector guided them into grinding the mirror to the wrong shape. PE did check the curvature using a second method which showed that the curvature was incorrect, however they chose not to believe the results.
2
We know Earth is not flat. We know it cannot possibly be flat, because every time we measure Earth's surface, we find that it is curved, not flat.
2
8 GHz and 2 GHz.
2
None of that is even remotely correct.
2
The Apollo crews produced 19,000 photos, dozens of 16mm films, and hours of live TV. None of those are lost. The only 'lost' footage is one copy of one broadcast: we have many copies remaining of that broadcast.
2
The evidence says he was there.
2
A nuclear explosion has a distinctive seismic signature that can be detected on the other side of the world. That signature has not been found in this event. Also, if you're going to wipe out evidence of anything, you don't nuke an uninhabited island.
2
Reality.
2
Yes, they did.
2
We have proof the Apollo landings are real.
2
Yes. Many factors influence GC/CB.
2
Luckily, not everybody is as indifferent to our origin and environment as you.
2
Space around Earth isn't really cold though. Every m^2 of space around us receives more sunlight than we get on the hottest day of the year.
2
Anyone can do simple experiments to determine the shape of our planet. We can measure the surface, and find that it is curved, not flat. Anyone can look up at the sky and see satellites pass overhead. We can measure their speed and altitude, and confirm they are in space. We can measure the distance to the moon and sun, and find they are at very different distances. These observations combined tell us there is no solid structure anywhere above us. Anyone can measure Earth's rotation.
2
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
The 'Earth is a closed system' quote was about colonizing other planets. We are currently not able to terraform Mars so we can make a colony there selfsustaining, that's what he was referring to. Nye is CEO of the Planetary Society, an organization dedicated to promoting spaceflight. He does not claim humans cannot leave Earth.
2
NASA has lost or deleted no valuable data. They deleted the stuff that had become worthless when Apollo ended. No more Saturn Vs meant that the Saturn V telemetry records no longer had value, so the tapes that held those were reused. NASA made it to the lunar surface 6 times with manned missions, and a bunch more unmanned missions. Since then, they've launched LRO, which still orbits the moon and which has photographed the Apollo landing sites. Orbiters from other countries have also photographed those sites.
2
False. We've eliminated all of those for the change we're seeing now.
2
In theory, yes. We'd have to solve some problems first though: transferring PB of data over such long distances, and measuring the distance exactly enough for VLBI to work.
2
JWST will orbit the L2 point. You can visualize this orbit as being on the side of a hill and orbiting the top of the hill. The hill is not steep, but you do require the occasional course correction to sty in this orbit. This orbit doesn't collect debris: that will roll downhill. And you may be overestimating the amount of stuff in outer space. JWST will encounter no more than micrograms of dust per year.
2
@narajuna Dave McKeegan did a video recently where he analyzes in detail how Sibrel lied. The very footage Sibrel uses shows they were looking at the full Earth from 150,000 km, proving they were on their way to the moon. It's another nail in the moon landing denier coffin, and a very satisfying one.
2
We've gotten very good at building spacecraft that can recover from software errors.
2
1. They have to adjust each mirror to within a fraction of the wavelength of the light. 2. it takes a long time to cool the mirrors and instruments to operating temperature. They have to make sure that when the telescope cools off, gases don't condensate on the mirrors. This alone adds more than a month to the cooldown time.
2
The telescope has a narrow viewing angle. That's sufficient to block out the light of the stars
2
Yes.
2
Voyager 2 was aimed to fly by Neptune's moon Triton, which meant the trajectory would go out of the ecliptic.
2
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
Depends on how you define it. The heliopause is the end of the region where the Sun's electromagnetic and particle influence is dominant, but the Sun's gravity is dominant in a much larger area.
2
Yes. The Apollo missions had the astronauts live for up to 2 weeks at 5 psi. Skylab had an atmosphere of 70% ox/30% nitrogen at 5 psi, and the longest Skylab mission was 84 days.
2
He does a pretty good job of labeling enhanced images. 3:54 is an unmodified image.
2
That's nonsense. The volcano had been active since Friday; on Saturday a large part of the island disappeared in a landslide, which made the big eruption possible.
2
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
The Apollo suits carried enough oxygen for 8 hours plus a reserve. The suits used on the ISS can carry a bit more than that. Using pure oxygen at only 0.3 bar reduced how much you need, and the backpack includes CO2 scrubbers (like a rebreather for divers). The backpack contains tanks with liquid oxygen, which means they can carry more in the same volume. Divers carry a tank with pressurized gaseous air or another gas mixture. Diving time is limited by several factors: 1. the air has to be delivered at a higher pressure than the surrounding water. 2. they have to use air: pure oxygen at high pressure is toxic. This means part of the tank contents is not breathable. 3. most divers don't use a rebreather, so exhaled air is lost.
2
People said that about relativity. Understanding relativity turned out to be crucial to making GPS work, 70 years later. Fundamental research tends to help out other fields.
2
The world is not flat. The curvature of the Earth is 8 cm per km (about 4" per mile), which is too small to see when you stand at ground level. You can easily measure this using only basic tools, if you live in an area of level ground. Hills have much larger curvatures than 8 cm/km so in hilly areas measuring Earth's curvature is more difficult. You can see the curvature of the Earth with the naked eye from an altitude of about 15 km. If you take a photo at ground level, in an area where you can see the horizon, and you measure the photo, the curvature shows up as well.
2
We have evidence that NASA does not do that, see the Genesis return capsule, whose crash was not covered up.
2
Just because you're not interested, doesn' t mean we shouldn't do this. Every year, billions are spent on " the working-class men and women who pay for all of this", and we are rich enough that we can also afford to spend a bit on expanding our knowledge of the universe. To me, this type of mission is inspirational and fulfilling. Every day, you benefit from our investment in spaceflight. The right questions for you to ask would be "what are NASA spinoffs" and "what is GPS" and "what is the source for our weather forecasts", etc.
2
@offhandacoustic GPS transmitters are not stationary, so they're not towers. And they move far too fast to be balloons or aircraft. Satellite TV dishes are aimed at a point 36,000 km above the equator. Point a telescope in that same direction and you'll see no aircraft or balloon.
2
@offhandacoustic I don't have to believe: I can verify all of this. You're the one believing in claims that not only can't be verified, but have lots of evidence that disproves those claims.
2
@lynnB3159 that's incorrect. They take images at 10 minute intervals.
2
this video does not show details smaller than 500 meters. No missile is that large. All we have is one frame showing a cloud that's 1-2 km wide.
2
No, they're switching to hot staging (light the second stage engines before separating the stages).
2
There is no dome. 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.
2
@shawnbrown6719 you're right, it's a good question. I just didn't know how much you wanted to know. So, there's a radio transmitter on JWST, with a dish antenna pointed at Earth. Twice a day, NASA's Deep Space Network is used do download information from JWST and upload new commands. These downloads take up to 4 hours. The DSN has large dish antennas (34 m and 70 m diameter) in 3 stations: Goldstone, USA, Madrid and Canberra. These antennas are equipped with receivers that are cooled to around 4 K, to reduce their noise to the absolute minimum. They're transmitting in the Ka-band (around 26 GHz), at 3.5 Mbyte/s.
2
The question is 'what pressure should we run the spacecraft and spacesuits at'.
2
@narajuna So, you concede I'm right and your argument has no merit.
2
This black hole is about 1000 times smaller than the smallest detail even the GTC can see.
2
nope, actual spacecraft.
2
That is a load of nonsense.
2
by not looking at one emission/absorption line, but at several of them that are a known distance apart. When the whole pattern shifts, you know you're looking at redshift.
2
Photos of Earth actually show that it is oblate: its equatorial diameter is 0.3% larger than its polar diameter. Scott Manley made a video that demonstrates this. All you need is a high-res photo of Earth (easy to find, the NOAA publishes new ones every 10 minutes).
2
These are photos, not CGI.
2
Nye has been teaching the scientific method for decades. That makes him a scientist.
2
This eruption provides about as much CO2 as 1 day of human activity. Look at the data before making grand proclamations.
2
@Toxxxic_ The first images were made and published before the start of mirror alignment, at the end of January. This was the image that showed 18 copies of the same star. The image shown here at 0:45 was published on March 16, after mirror alignment. At the end of April, NASA published an image that showed all of the instruments working.
2
The primary is fixed. So they point the entire telescope. That does limit the area they can view (basically a cylinder with its axis on the Sun-Earth axis). In the course of a year, almost the entire sky can be viewed.
2
more detail on the limits to how Webb can be pointed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0bOi3kVIBs
2
@ardennielsen3761 A pressure of zero means there are no molecules in the chamber. Negative pressure does not exist.
2
The container was not hermetically sealed, air got in through the SRC Sample Canister Air Filter. After landing, the capsule was flushed with nitrogen.
2
Right now, we can build a spacecraft that can catch up to the Voyagers in about 35 years. Twice the speed of the Voyagers is the fastest we can achieve today.
2
@mikestephens5200 The speed of a spacecraft depends on where it's going. Parker Solar Probe gets up to huge speeds as it's flying towards the Sun: the Sun's gravity accelerates it. Spacecraft to the outer solar system are flying against the Suns' gravity: they are slowing down all the time. On an escape trajectory from the solar system, twice the speed of the Voyagers is the best we can do.
2
All of the useful telemetry is available in NASA's NRTS archive, which is open to the public.
2
@charlesferreira3597 Simple measurements prove Earth is not flat. 20,000 satellites orbit our planet, proving spaceflight is real.
2
@PramochanYaan it's caused by the pressure difference. So when you're on Earth and have the suit pressure at 1.3 bar, it feels the same as being in space with the suit at 0.3 bar.
2
Paul was right. NASA tended to use photography and film for engineering purposes, and had to be convinced of the value of regular 'pretty picture' photography.
2
@marxman00 I don't need one to put a ruler across a photo and measure the two major dimensions of the object in the photo. I can also duplicate the photo, and slice one in half across the equator and the other one across both poles. Then line up the equator with the pole-to-pole line and see they're not the same length.
2
@marxman00 They don't need to be. On a photo of Earth, I can measure the distance between the top and bottom of the planet, and between the left and right side of the planet. If those distances are not the same, Earth is oblate.
2
@marxman00 We have photos that show the entire planet going back to 1968, when the Apollo 8 mission took a ton of photos of Earth from lunar orbit. These days, geostationary weather satellites operated by NOAA, Meteosat and the Japanese weather agency give us whole-hemisphere photos every 10 minutes. These photos, made by the GOES, Himawari and Meteosat satellites, have enough resolution for the measurement I described above. Then we have DSCOVR, which is farther away and can photograph Earth and the Moon in one shot.
2
@marxman00 The photos made by GOES and Himawari are oriented conventionally: the North Pole is at the top. So the edges of the photo are all the reference you need. Find the largest diameter in the vertical and in the horizontal direction, and you're done.
2
@marxman00 I said Blue Marble 2002 used photos made by low-orbit satellites. I also gave you sources for single-frame photos of the whole hemisphere: geostationary weather satellites operated by NOAA, Meteosat and the Japanese weather agency give us whole-hemisphere photos every 10 minutes.
2
That's just you. The video was glitching throughout, as can be expected when you're sending high-bandwidth real-time signals from a fast-moving aircraft.
2
Yes.
2
When you have a cloud of material that contracts, it starts rotating. any velocity vector perpendicular to that rotation tends to be cancelled out by collisions, and all matter ends up orbiting in the same plane.
2
The upper limit would be the noise of the image sensor, I suspect. Hubble did some images with 12 days of exposure; JWST has less noise so it could go longer than that. But with 10 hours of exposure, JWST has already seen galaxies 13 bn lightyears away.
2
@cokemachine5510 You're still arguing from ignorance. The Van Allen belts are toroids, centered on Earth's equator. The highest radiation levels are at the center of each belt. The Apollo missions were launched from 28º North, into a trajectory that took them to higher latitudes. That means they missed the center of the belts entirely, and spent 3 hours in lower-radiation regions. But I guess you rather stay ignorant than learn something.
2
@cokemachine5510 There is a big difference between muscle deterioration after 6 months and "we can't leave Earth's magnetic field". If you can't see that, you need to step away from the keyboard and learn how science works first.
2
@cokemachine5510 I don't have to wonder, I know. 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.
2
Every year, NASA produces tons of scientific papers, advancing the state of the art of physics, astronomy, earth observation and other sciences. Every year, NASA achieves significant milestones, like today's sample return from Bennu. We can in fact prove we've been to the moon. Apart from the data produced by the Apollo missions themselves, we have observations of the Apollo spacecraft on their way to the moon, we have photos of the Apollo landing sites from lunar orbit (made by later orbiters from multiple countries). Anyone can ping the laser reflectors left on the moon by the Apollo missions.
2
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
Nice fairy tale you got there. In reality, we know exactly how NASA got to the moon. We have every single drawing used to create the Saturn V and Apollo spacecraft. All 6 million of them, archived at the Smithsonian. We have complete Saturn V rockets sitting in museums. We have thousands of technical reports on every aspect of the program, publicly accessible (even via the internet). We still have every single science result from every experiment done by Apollo. We still have all of the lunar rock samples.
2
The "petrified wood" story is just that, a story. 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. Every year, hundreds of samples are sent to geologists all over the world (i.e. outside US government funded labs).
2
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.
2
@moonatnoon953 Your 'story' about fake moon rocks is again, just that, a story full of holes. There is no evidence of that petrified wood item existing before 2006.
2
@moonatnoon953 The photos taken by the astronauts are anything but "grainy, blurry, washed out". They used the best camera available (Hasselblad EL500). This resulted in photos that have more resolution than the best digital cameras can produce today. All of these photos (around 8000) have been scanned at full resolution and are available to anyone via the March to the Moon archive. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgYSdOi4u5A
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
Technically there were 4 more: Apollo-Soyuz and the 3 Skylab missions.
2
@ZartanXL Earth itself IS the real-time working model. Building a scaled-down model would require capabilities we don't have: you have to travel to a location far enough away form the Sun so your scaled-down Sun will be the biggest source of gravity in the model. This requires traveling more than one light-year. Alternatively, the model would have to be larger than the solar system itself. That's not feasible either. We don't need such a scale model to know that our model is accurate. Every part of the model has been tested using experiments and observations. The model makes predictions of future behavior that turn out to be correct.
2
@ZartanXL anyone can use simple methods to determine Earth's shape. You will find that it is a sphere. Anyone with a telescope can measure the distances to the nearby planets, and find that they all orbit the Sun. Our model of the solar system is not "without evidence" it is built on a ton of evidence that anyone can verify. Your BS meter is broken.
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
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. (Arthur C. Clarke)
2
That's not necessary. Using a single 34-m antenna, we can keep in contact until 2050 (Voyager 1) and 2057 (Voyager 2), if their power supply would last that long. NASA also have the option to receive data with an array of antennas, which could stretch this even further. The Voyager missions will end when there's not enough power left to operate one instrument. Not because we can't communicate with them.
2
They aren't. There are people who claim ISS footage is faked, but all of their examples turn out to be simple video glitches (transmission gets interrupted briefly, which means incomplete data is received and the video decoder fills in the blanks. This video has more information on how that works: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3M01m3UUgoM
2
We've landed successfully more than 30 times now.
2
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
In order to calibrate, one of the instruments has to be used. So the title is correct: the first images have been taken.
2
Yes, but the amount of energy you can capture that way is tiny. It's much easier just to install solar panels.
2
Because Apollo could only put 2 men on the moon for a maximum of 3 days. We want to do much longer missions with a larger crew, which means we need to land a lot more mass on the moon.
2
JWST has taken a series of images of one star, these images are being used to align and focus the mirrors. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlwatKpla8s
2
Look up tonight. You can see satellites in the night sky, proving that spaceflight is real.
2
Voyager 1 is headed North out of the ecliptic plane, Voyager 2 is headed South, and New Horizons is staying in the ecliptic plane. Their trajectories were dictated by the positions of the planets they visited.
2
The audience knew to look at the evidence, and the evidence is clear: the Apollo landings are real.
2
No, their boots were just that, ordinary boots, weighing 1-2 kg. Their body weight plus the PLSS backpack weighs around 160 kg.
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
People thinking we faked the moon landings when we have a ton of evidence that proves the Apollo missions are real, is nothing short of laughable!
2
We're not assuming that at all. There's an entire field of science (exobiology) investigation other ways life could have formed, and what kind of signature that would leave. One of the things they found is that other chemistries (i.e. not using carbon and oxygen) have big chemical disadvantages (more energy needed, fewer combinations of elements possible) that mean they can't compete with 'our' chemistry.
2
+83 is the correct value.
2
@krishmalhotratalks we're talking about the temperature of a spacecraft in or near Earth orbit. With the spacecraft in constant sunlight, the hot side ends up at about +83 ºC. In the vacuum of space, water goes directly from solid to gas (sublimation) at around -60 ºC.
2
"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
No, ships don't 'disappear because we can only see so far'. When I observe a ship disappearing over the horizon, this happens at the same distance whether the ship is large or small. When I'm at the sea shore and I watch a ship disappear, I can climb a nearby tower to bring it back into view. But at sea level, no amount of zooming in will bring the ship back into view.
2
For small buildings, curvature is not taken into account. For a house 10 meters wide, the curvature is 0.8 mm, and housing is not made that accurately. For large constructions, like bridges that are several km long, curvature IS taken into account. For large suspension bridges, the two towers are both perpendicular to the local surface, but they are not parallel because of the curvature of the surface between them.
2
As far as I know, Arecibo has never been used to communicate with spacecraft - because Arecibo wasn't steerable, a spacecraft would quickly move out of view.
2
We don't have a "broken" mirror, we have one primary mirror segment that has a tiny damaged area. Impacts like these were taken into account. If a primary segment becomes too damaged, it can be tilted to make sure its distorted light doesn't enter the telescope, for instance.
2
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
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 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
@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
@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
There's a plan for a faster mission (APL interstellar probe), but even that will only be twice as fast (7 AU/year vs 3.5 for the Voyagers). That's the main problem: we don't have a way to get to the outer solar system fast.
2
False. The lunar surface is no brighter than an asphalt road on a sunny day.
2
Telescopes generally use reaction wheels to point at their targets, not thrusters.
2
There is no evidence to support that claim.
2
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
They're doing both. They've switched off heaters, and they're planning to operate instruments intermittently when that becomes necessary.
2
No. 150 AU is 1 light day, or 1/1200 the distance to the nearest star.
2
That's an animation, obviously.
2
That's nonsense.
2
The Apollo samples were not more radioactive than rocks found on Earth. The radiation creates the occasional isotope, but most of those are short-lived and decay quickly.
2
This object is a thousand times smaller than we can see with the best optical telescopes, and you're moaning about resolution?
2
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
They're called roll patterns: they allowed NASA to monitor the roll rate of the rocket from far away.
2
On Earth, seismic shocks are damped quickly by Earth's mantle and by the abundant water in the crust. The Moon has neither, so seismic chocks reverberate longer. We know the moon is not hollow because we have weighed it: from its orbit, we can calculate the moon's mass. The mass we found can only be achieved by a solid body.
2
Doing that will not extend the Voyager mission. The mission will end because the power supply does not have enough power to run one instrument. Our current systems could contact the Voyager for the next 30 years, if those had power available.
2
First, you need to ask yourself what kind of resolution you need to take an image of an entire hemisphere (12,000 km diameter) and be able to zoom in to where you can see people (1.5 m). That's 8 million pixels for 12,000 km. How many cameras do you know that have a resolution of 64 terapixels? That's right, none. So with current technology, you can't zoom in from an entire hemisphere to a single human. Not that a 64 Tpx image would convince you, you'd just move the goalposts again. So instead of making impossible demands, how about we examine your beliefs instead? On a flat Earth, there would be no horizon. That fact alone shows Earth can't be flat. Here are a few other bits of evidence that show Earth cannot possibly be flat: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_W280R_Jt8 and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pL1b9khYH5Y Getting back io imaging Earth, we have geostationary weather satellites that take images of the entire hemisphere every 10 minutes, see for example https://youtu.be/zoMRwyNhqJ4 And a few more: Earth from space: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVBlQ31FzJU and Earth from the moon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTNTfSxP0HQ and images of Earth, incl Moon and Earth in one shot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPM2kITNtTs
2
The Apollo A7L suit consists of many layers. The critical one (the pressure layer) has a pretty substantial layer around it that keeps the rubber bladder from expanding. This is covered by thirteen layers of material which were (from inside to outside): rubber coated nylon, 5 layers of aluminized Mylar, 4 layers of nonwoven Dacron, 2 layers of aluminized Kapton film/Beta marquisette laminate, and Teflon coated Beta filament cloth. The Mylar and Kapton don't give much protection, but the Dacron and Beta cloth are strong, resilient materials. In addition, they had Teflon knee and elbow patches. It's pretty good, but they found tears in the outer layers on several of the suits after the missions.
2
Ion engines are heavier than hydrazine thrusters. So they do really well when you need lots of delta-v (which would require tons of chemical fuel), but in this case the weight of ion engines plus propellant plus solar panels is higher than that of hydrazine thrusters plus propellant.
2
It's mostly sufficient because most missions are near enough the ecliptic that these 3 stations can see them. There are a few exceptions: Voyager 2 is so far south of the ecliptic that Canberra is the only station that can see it, so we have only 8 h/day coverage for Voyager 2. Most missions can store data onboard so they don't need continuous coverage anyway: most missions have one downlink session per day. Voyager 2 can't store data on board any more, so we're losing data from it. But the region it's in only changes slowly, so we can get away with that.
2
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
Once a ship has gone over the horizon, no amount of zooming in will bring it back into view. Every video that claims to show this, actually zooms in on small boats in front of the horizon. This is the right way to do the experiment: Watch a large ship (the larger the better) go over the horizon. When its hull is completely hidden from view but the superstructure remains visible, zoom in as much as you like. You will find that the hull does not come back into view. An alternative experiment: Watch a sunset. Once the sun has gone below the horizon, zoom in as much as you like. You will find that the sun does not come back into view. We can also prove that the horizon is not a "limit to how far we can see". I can bring a ship back into view by moving to a higher elevation. The distance stays the same, but the ship becomes visible.
2
Airplane contrails are curved by 8 cm per km, and you are looking at them from below. A curvature that small is not visible to the naked eye.
2
We have millions of single-frame photos of Earth. Every manned mission since Gemini has taken cameras into space. The Apollo missions took photos of the whole planet from lunar orbit, including the famous Earthrise picture taken by Apollo 8 We have geostationary weather satellites (GOES, Meteosat, Himawari) that take photos of the entire hemisphere every 10 minutes. At the L1 point, we have DSCOVR, which is far enough away that it shows Earth's rotation. For more detailed images, we have over a hundred lower-altitude satellites like Landsat, SPOT, the Maxar constellation etc. which take photos of Earth continuously. We can tile these together to get a photo of the entire planet in high resolution.
2
If the sun were close to us, its size would change between midday and sunset. In reality, the sun stays the same size, and that is only possible if it is very far away. There are several methods for measuring the distance to the sun that anyone can use, and they always have the same result: we find a distance of 93 million miles.
2
Hubble orbits Earth in about 2 hours, so it has to be rotated to keep the object in view, that's done by reaction wheels. The motion of Earth around the Sun is slower, but can also be compensated for by reaction wheels.
2
That's incorrect. Radiation damage is visible on a number of Apollo photos, in the form of streaks that were caused by single high-energy particles going through the film. Airport scanners use much higher radiation levels than are found on the surface of the moon, to be able to see through all of the material in a suitcase.
2
The 'film is damaged by airport scanners' is more complicated than that. Signs at TSA security checkpoints indicate film below 800 ISO will not be affected by the x-ray scanner. The new TSA CT scanners will damage unprocessed film.
2
@annunaki06 No, that's the other way round. The radiation level in airport scanners is higher, and they use X-rays, compared to the mix of radiation (with lots of easily-stopped alpha and beta radiation) you find in space.
2
The Voyagers were the first manmade objects to reach interstellar space while they were still active. Pioneer 10 and 11 got there before them, but had run out of power by then.
2
This camera is observing an object 0.5 meters wide at a distance of 10 km. Quality is limited by the camera aperture, which is limited by the weight the aircraft can carry.
2
we spend hundreds of billions every year 'ending poverty and finding solutions to have a prosperous clean planet for the future'. We can spare a few billion to learn more about the universe.
2
They used a TV camera on the lunar rover, which could be operated remotely from Mission Control.
2
We aren't using the Saturn V for several reasons: 1. the Saturn V is not big enough for what we want. Artemis plans to have 4-man crews on the moon for a month or longer. Saturn V could only support 2 men on the mon for 3 days. 2. Reusing a 50 year-old design is not easy. We have the drawings, but we'd have to redo all of them in CAD to support modern manufacturing. We'd have to redesign thousands of parts because they relied on components that are no longer available. You wouldn't want to reuse any of the electronics, for example, so that means redesigning all of them. 3. there was political pressure to support the companies that built Shuttle components, NASA was forced to build the SLS instead of anything else.
2
@vacuumandgaspressurecoexisting Does your denial of reality never end?
2
We've done that: LRO and Chandrayaan-2 made photos of the landing sites.
2
The maximum launch weight means you can't add more instruments. The thermoacoustic system was chosen because it has less vibration than other methods.
2
Varda has no reentry permission because the FAA is not convinced their reentry plan is solid enough. This is about aviation safety (having a capsule fly through airspace that's in use), not whatever's inside the capsule.
2
it's +83.
2
That's manual tracking, I believe. The capsule does not broadcast its position.
2
We're not expecting to see the Big Bang itself. Just the first stars and galaxies that formed after the Big Bang.
2
They're slowly decelerating (the Sun's gravity slows them down gradually, but they have enough speed to escape our solar system).
2
Radio is blocked by obstacles, like buildings. No buildings between Voyager and its receiving antennas here on Earth.
2
Anyone can do simple experiments that confirm what these 3 people have said. We've known Earth is a sphere for 2500 years.
2
In a conflict, both sides need weapons. The Javelin was instrumental in derailing the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
2
The big deal is this is the first time we've been able to capture an image of it.
2
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
Yes, we did. There's a mountain of evidence that proves it beyond any doubt.
2
@WolfeTone17-98 What you saw was an optical illusion, nothing more.
2
@WolfeTone17-98 I said, a solar eclipse demonstrates that the moon is not transparent, which means that you did not see something behind the moon, it must have been in front of it. This is not a "narrative", this is plain, simple logic that follows from observations millions of people have made during solar eclipses.
2
@WolfeTone17-98 Again, you did not understand what I wrote. I did NOT say you saw a solar eclipse! I said that we know the moon is not transparent, because if it were transparent, the moon would not block the sun's light during a solar eclipse.
2
@WolfeTone17-98 It is obvious that the moon is what we have been told. You were misled by an optical illusion, nothing more. The moon is not transparent. If it were transparent, a solar eclipse would not block the sunlight. If the moon were transparent, we'd be able to see stars behind the moon. In reality, we cannot see stars through the moon.
2
@WolfeTone17-98 We know the moon goes in front of the sun and not behind it, because we can measure the distances to the moon and sun. Anyone can do this, and see that the Sun is 400 times farther away than the moon.
2
@WolfeTone17-98 No, this is what anyone can observe.
2
@WolfeTone17-98 Look it up. Hundreds of years ago, people found ways to measure the distances to the moon and the sun just by making careful observations.
2
Astrology doesn't work. The best thing you can do to improve your life is throwing away those charts.
2
yes.
2
That's a load of nonsense.
2
@Ron-dt1cz Something may be getting lost in translation. Heat is a property of a material: any molecule can be hot or cold. On an atomic level, this is the vibration level of the atoms. I've never seen a reference to a 'heat molecule', and I've studied physics.
1
All of the evidence says Earth is a sphere. The only people who conclude it must be flat, use non-scientific arguments while ignoring the evidence.
1
Yes. They have started taking images for mirror calibration this week.
1
@GINMOONLIGHT Yes, we can measure the speed and altitude of satellites. Scott Manley did a video that shows how (Using Cameras To Measure The Real Altitude Of The Space Station). Basically you take two photos of the satellite at the same time, from different positions on the ground. Place the photos over each other. The stars are in the same position, but the apparent position of the satellite is different relative to that background: this is called parallax. That parallax can be used to calculate the altitude. Speed can then be calculated by taking two photos a known time apart.
1
@GINMOONLIGHT Not "paperwork", observations and math. This is the foundation of all science.
1
@GINMOONLIGHT Anyone who thinks space is fake, is not smart. Anyone who is presented with evidence that space is real (evidence that you can verify yourself, no less), and still thinks space is fake, is even dumber. Every day, you profit from data and services provided by satellites. Accurate navigation thanks to GPS satellites. Accurate weather forecasts thanks to weather satellites. Hundreds of channels of TV thanks to satellites. Internet and phone calls in regions not serviced by landlines or cell towers, thanks to satellites.
1
@GINMOONLIGHT Earth's atmosphere demonstrates gas pressure without a container. As you go to higher altitudes, the air pressure drops, and it keeps dropping all the way to indistinguishable from zero at 400 km altitude. At the ceiling of my living room, the pressure is measurably lower than at the floor of the same room. The pressure does not equalize, despite there being no barrier between the floor and ceiling. This demonstrates that gases cannot flow freely: they are constrained by gravity. As I've already told you, we can prove this by observing satellites. And if you want a small-scale demonstration, you can put dry ice in a vacuum chamber. Scott Gauer did a video where he demonstrates this (Dry Ice Vacuum Chamber (Homemade Comet)).
1
@GINMOONLIGHT And another dumb non-argument from you. Observations are not "read a book", they are "look at an object", in this case a satellite. They are visible to the naked eye. A photo records the position of the satellite relative to the background stars. The math we use to determine the satellite's speed and altitude, is used daily by millions of people in all kinds of professions. It has been proven to be correct over and over and over again.
1
@GINMOONLIGHT No, I have not made any assumptions. I have given you a process that will prove from first principles that satellites are real. And that's not the only way to prove this either, just like we have a dozen different ways to prove that Earth is not flat, but spherical, and dozens of ways to prove there is no dome above us, just an atmosphere that very gradually reduces to zero pressure.
1
@GINMOONLIGHT I can and I have: I've already given you methods YOU can use to prove the reality of spaceflight. You are ignoring those because actually doing that experiment would destroy your worldview.
1
@GINMOONLIGHT You should watch the video I indicated. And as I've already told you several times, Earth's atmosphere is verifiable proof of gas pressure without a container. This is not hard to grasp: gases have weight. We can prove this by placing an empty gas cylinder on a weighing scale and filling it. The fact that gases have weight means they are subject to gravity: a force is pulling those gas molecules down. On the scale of our planet, the entire atmosphere is pulled down to Earth, preventing most of it from escaping.
1
@GINMOONLIGHT The result of gravity is a force, no matter what the mechanism is that causes this force. Einstein's general relativity, provided a better explanation for what causes gravity. It does not make gravity any less real.
1
@GINMOONLIGHT I've already explained this to you, and you're coming back with exactly the same false claim? Stop wasting everybody's time.
1
Same reason it doesn't get squashed after liftoff: the rocket was built to take those loads.
1
@pytlakowski77 Pressure tests can be done in any environment. As long as the pressure difference between inside the suit and outside of it is the same as would be seen in space, the suit behaves exactly the same. In the NBL, the suit is inflated to the pressure of the surrounding water, plus 5 psi.
1
@pytlakowski77 Every space suit is vacuum-tested. These are very boring tests to look at, so not much video is published on them.
1
The gravitational lensing is essential: it allows us to examine faraway objects in more detail than would otherwise be possible. The images are very clear, clearer than they've ever been for an infrared telescope. Just because you don't like the image, doesn't make it fake or unclear, or not useful. Capturing the same area Hubble did was not luck, it was planned.
1
Amateurs carry out these tests in small vacuum chambers because that's what they can afford. NASA and other space agencies test their rocket engines in much larger chambers, which are designed to extract the exhaust gases so the chamber stays a vacuum during the test.
1
@papalegba6796 Newton's first law: A body remains at rest, or in motion at a constant speed in a straight line, unless acted upon by a force. When you run a rocket engine, fuel and oxidiser are mixed in a combustion chamber, then ignites. This increases the pressure in the combustion chamber, producing a force in all directions. The force components to the sides of the chamber cancel each other out. The force on the front of the chamber is not canceled out because the back of the combustion chamber has a hole. This imbalance creates a net force pushing the rocket forwards.
1
@papalegba6796 So you'd rather stay dumb than learn something? Yeah, that does not surprise me.
1
Wrong.
1
Biologists have studied that question. It's much harder for silicon to form complex molecules. Among all of the millions of species on Earth, 0 are silicon-based. So we have pretty good indicators that carbon-based life is more common than silicon-based life.
1
Dust would get between them.
1
The Voyager missions are real. Anyone claiming otherwise is neither unbiased nor objective.
1
Your "fact 3" is not a fact. JWST is not military. It's being operated by a university, the last place you'd use if you want to keep things secret. The target for the first year has been published. All observations will be published. US Military satellites are run by the Air Force or the NRO, not by universities.
1
No, it's too small for that.
1
We have geostationary weather satellites that take images of the entire hemisphere every 10 minutes, see for example https://youtu.be/zoMRwyNhqJ4 These images are available for free on the NOAA website. And we have DISCOVR which can see Moon and Earth in one shot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPM2kITNtTs, these images are available for free as well. These aren't video, but video is pointless at these distances anyway.
1
Yes, of course we did. Decades later, we can still see the landing sites: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pnhnx95LkCc
1
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
JWST has a single purpose. It's not a weapon - there's no space or power available in the telescope to fit a weapon. And L2 is a really dumb place to place a weapon - the large distance would make any weapon placed there a lot less effective.
1
no, that's an earlier, smaller eruption. The resolution of these images is 0.5 km, a missile is far too small to show up.
1
It's not at -200. Heaters in the spacecraft keep the vital components near 0 ºC.
1
You're comparing apples and oranges. Voyager: we know where it is. At every contact, its distance from us is measured to an accuracy of 1 meter. Its course doesn't change, so its future position is entirely predictable. Ship: if your ship has AIS, you can find it. If you can't find it, the AIS is switched off or broken. That "anonymous source at NASA" is an idiot. 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
Actual scientists have long debunked electrogravitics.
1
It's surprisingly difficult. APL is working on an interstellar mission proposal, and they have trouble coming up with a design that's twice as fast as the Voyagers.
1
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
@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
They're not acting as if it's the first time they are on the moon, they are trying out procedures and systems that are not identical to Apollo so they have to be tested before being used in practice.
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. Every day, you benefit from data generated in space, proving space is real and Earth is not flat.
1
And yet we can measure the movement of the tectonic plates.
1
Volcanoes produce little CO2. Most of that cloud is water vapor. Volcanoes worldwide in total produce about 240 million tons CO2 annually on average. Human industry and road traffic produce 20 billion tons per year.
1
Don't be ridiculous. We have millions of photos of Earth from space. We have geostationary weather satellites that take images of the entire hemisphere every 10 minutes, see for example https://youtu.be/zoMRwyNhqJ4 A few more sources: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVBlQ31FzJU and Earth from the moon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTNTfSxP0HQ and DISCOVR images of Earth, incl Moon and Earth in one shot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPM2kITNtTs
1
The sample is in a closed container inside. That doesn't get opened until the container is in the cleanroom.
1
Computers are not used to sharpen these images. Colors have to be chosen: JWST observes in IR.
1
That's incorrect. Venus is a planet, not a "heavenly light". It is reachable, and has been visited 46 times.
1
still flying through the Kuiper Belt. It flew by Akkoroth in 2019, the team is looking for another flyby target.
1
this emitted about 1 day's worth of human emissions.
1
@ED-988 no, in total.
1
@jonathannagela2130 "The government" is not in position to lie about this. anyone can do simple experiments that prove Earth is a rotating sphere.
1
@jonathannagela2130 You imagine that if Earth rotates, the atmosphere would somehow not rotate with it. That is physically impossible. In reality, the atmosphere rotates with the surface.
1
@jonathannagela2130 We can fly around the world in a straight line, and land in the same place we departed from, because Earth is a sphere.
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. 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
That doesn't work, the water would evaporate immediately.
1
Why yes, he was treading very carefully for that specific step, knowing he was going to take a photo of that impression.
1
Pinball machine parts?
1
Most of the dust thrown up by the astronaut is too large/heavy to be lifted by the electrostatic force.
1
@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
@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
@gazmartinpadiham.lancs.3435 so am I.
1
The Apollo missions mostly didn't: the mission was short enough that the radiation level didn't pose a problem.
1
Aviation uses about 1 million times more fuel than the entire rocket industry.
1
@kid8605 Nope. We know the Sun is at a distance of 150 million km, because we can measure this. On that distance, a difference of 6000 km is insignificant and not enough to explain the difference between day and night. We know the Earth rotates, because we can measure this. Earth's rotation has been extensively proven to be the cause of the difference between day and night.
1
The Apollo CM has an aluminium pressure hull, with a phenolic resin on the outside of that. As Scott said, that works out to an equivalent of 7 mm of aluminium.
1
Those JPL documents were written long after the launch (2002), so they reflect the status then. The video gets it right: at launch, only a Jupiter-Saturn mission was approved.
1
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
@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
101 kPa is not a problem for the suit, but a problem for the astronaut. At 101 kPa, the suit is much stiffer than at the ~30 kPa they use now. At 30 kPa, you're exhausted after moving in the suit for 8 hours. At 101 kPa, it would take only 3 hours to be exhausted.
1
@Guapter Yes, and the dive shown in this video is part of a program for testing some of those options.
1
The current SpaceX suits are for use inside the vehicle, not for spacewalks or walking on the moon. That means the suit can be lighter and more compact, but it provides less protection to the astronaut.
1
That's really unlikely. Only one system is sending spurious data (the attitude control system), all the other data remains normal.
1
That is incorrect. There are some flat-Earth con artists who claim that, but all they did was find some people who have the same last name, and who look a bit similar. Ever heard of witness protection? If someone has to disappear, he gets a new name, a new identity. They're also careful not to let photos of the witness be made.
1
More than 20 hours at the moment.
1
They spin out of control when they haven't perfectly adapted to the combination of being in 1/6 g and wearing a 90 kg backpack in a stiff spacesuit yet. Practicing in the NBL is valuable, but it's not a perfect analog of being on the moon so mistakes are still made on occasion.
1
No, it doesn't make its own fuel. It just uses very little. All it has to do is adjust the way it's pointing its antenna, and that can be done with tiny amounts of fuel.
1
The melting point of a material does not change in a vacuum. That's not an assumption: this is easy to test here on Earth, so we did test it.
1
@jamiebraswell5520 You`ve never talked to an actual scientist then. Any scientist is aware of the limitations of our knowledge, and ready to be proven wrong. The trouble is, journalists don't often bother to convey this in their reports, so phrases like "to the best of our knowledge" are omitted and an impression of certainty is created.
1
They start at 1.3 bar, as they go underwater, the suit pressure rises with the pressure of the ambient water. At the bottom of the pool they are at 2.6 bar.
1
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
Science starts with observations. Scientists try to find an explanation for those observations, this becomes a model. The model is tested using more observations or experiments. When the model holds up and makes accurate predictions, it becomes a theory. The word 'theory' has a specific meaning here: it's not the colloquial opposite of 'practice'; a scientific theory is a model that has been shown to be accurate in a wide range of circumstances, and the best way we currently have to explain how things work. That whole process is called science.
1
Nothing odd about their behavior.
1
We don't have a spacecraft that can service Hubble at the moment.
1
Your 1 foot mineral blocks have been photographed from a low-altitude aircraft: the highest zoom levels of Google Earth aren't satellite imagery. This was seen from 36000 km away. Isn't it fascinating that we have the technology to photograph the entire hemisphere every 10 minutes?
1
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
This eruption isn't big enough to make a difference. Current estimate is that this year's average temperature will be 0.1 ºC lower than normal.
1
No. JWST can look at objects 13 bn lightyears away. Moving the telescope 5 light-hours isn't going to make a difference.
1
On Earth, the shock waves from seismic events are damped by the transition from solid to molten rock, and by water inside the rock. The moon doesn't have these, so seismic shocks are not damped as much.
1
SRB. Solid Rocket Booster.
1
Earth's curvature is 8 cm per km. Our eyes are not sensitive enough to distinguish between a straight line and such a subtle curve. We can easily measure this curvature though.
1
The intent of the Space Shuttle was to make access to space cheaper. That turned out to be a lot harder than anticipated, and the US government was unwilling to fund all of the R&D needed to achieve that (which is why the Shuttle used e.g. solid boosters that were very expensive to service, instead of an airplane-like first stage that would have returned to the launch site and landed on a runway).
1
@artistart55 In a desert on Earth, not long, because the presence of an atmosphere enables heat transfer through conduction and convection. The air is hot, and that heat is conducted into the spaceship. On the Moon, those mechanisms are absent, so all you have to do is reflect the sunlight, and your spaceship will stay cool. The Apollo space suits had a white outer layer that reflected 90% of the incoming sunlight. The LM was mostly covered in very reflective materials too. The ascent stage had MLI under the outer skin, which is still very effective. The LM, CM and the space suit were all designed to have a comfortable interior temperature without active cooling.
1
@artistart55 That picture was not expected to survive the heat. No measures were taken to help it survive the heat. The LM and the space suit WERE designed to survive the heat, as I described above.
1
it's +83.
1
You're dropping something, all right,
1
The power source supplied 470 W at launch, and produces about half of that now (~250 W, dropping by 4 W/year). The RTG produces a lot of heat (more than 1 kW). There are also radioisotope heater units in the spacecraft. The transmitter transmits at 12W or 18W of radiated power, using 50-70W of input power. The antenna diameter is 3.6 m, antenna gain is 48 dB at X-band. Details can be found in Descanso 4, a JPL document that describes the Voyager telecommunications system. The main reason we can still communicate with the Voyagers is at the receiving end: a 34 m antenna with a cryogenically-cooled receiver, which has no trouble receiving the -160 dBm signal from the Voyagers at 160 bits/s.
1
JWST will observe at wavelengths where SOFIA does not work, because the water vapor in the atmosphere absorbs most infrared light. SOFIA's resolution is also a lot lower than JWST's, and JWST can observe 24/7 while SOFIA rarely manages to make more than one 8-hour flight a month.
1
You heard wrong. All images will be released.
1
as it turns out, this is really hard. The only way we know of to create a gravitational force is by having lots of mass. You'd need an entire planet's worth of mass to create a zero gravity chamber here on Earth. Launching into orbit is a lot cheaper.
1
Why can I see satellites pass overhead at an altitude of 400 km, i.e. bar above the 'firmament'?
1
The tape recorder has 560 Mb of storage space, not 69 kb.The images are 800x800 pixels at 1 byte/pixel, so 640 kb each, so there's room for quite a few images on the tape. Nasa isn't picking up Voyager's transmission with a satellite, it uses a giant dish antenna (70 m diameter) here on Earth, with a cryogenically cooled receiver. If you work out the link budget, you'll find this is more than enough to receive a signal. Transmission speed at this distance is low: 160 bits/s.
1
There's an excellent graph (made by Randall Munro of xkcd) called 'possible undiscovered planets'. This shows there's an area of our solar systems where our telescopes, including NEOWISE don't have enough resolution yet to see a planet.
1
You should watch the video: we don't have to guess.
1
Asteroids are rare enough that the chance of that happening is astronomically low (10^-9).
1
A successor to Hubble is being planned, but that will be a separate mission (LUVOIR).
1
In theory, yes. We'd have to solve some problems first though: transferring PB of data over such long distances, and measuring the distance exactly enough for VLBI to work.
1
We'd find lots of empty space.
1
This is the truth: we did go.
1
At the moment, no. The best we can do is launch a spacecraft the size of Voyager (weighing about 1 ton) that will catch up with one of the Voyagers in 25 years. To retrieve the Voyagers, we'd need to send 10,000 tons of fuel to each, to slow them down, and accelerate them back into the inner solar system.
1
Keep in mind this image was done at radio wavelengths. 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
Rockets don't need a medium. A rocket engine pushes against its own exhaust gases.
1
@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
@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
There's nothing impossible about that. Gases, like everything else, are subject to gravity. We can prove this by looking up at night: we can see satellites in the night sky. We can measure their speed and altitude, and find values that prove they are not in our atmosphere but in a vacuum.
1
We spend billions each year on all kinds of problems. There is room in our budget for discovering more about the universe.
1
Not only is it possible, we did it 9 times between 1968 and 1972.
1
You're right, it has about 45º of vertical movement. The maximum wait time is 6 months.
1
At an altitude of only 6000 km (apogee), only 0.04 seconds.
1
this video does not show details smaller than 500 meters. No missile is that large. All we have is one frame showing a cloud that's 1-2 km wide.
1
As far as I've been able to find, no. They are in a heated compartment, but not pressurized.
1
More accurately, none of this says that we didn't. If all they wanted to do was fake it, there was no reason to spend billions developing hardware like the Apollo Guidance Computer. Fun fact: you owe that cheap, super-powerful computer you use to NASA.
1
@paladinyyz6868 Have you compared NASA's budget to that of the military? It's tiny. Have you compared the amount of public scrutiny for NASA vs. military projects? It's huge: NASA publishes everything they do. Military organizations are free to work in secret, NASA can't. That makes your idea rather unlikely.
1
We have real images of Earth going back to 1947, when a V-2 rocket was launched to an altitude of 100 km and made a photo of the landscape below, showing Earth's curvature. Since then, millions more have been made. Right now, dozens of satellites are continuously taking photos of our planet.
1
@RabbitholeIsrael What you saw were photos that were manipulated to make the planet look flat. When you take photos that are not distorted, Earth's curvature is visible. Earth's curvature is confirmed by any number of methods: geodetic surveys that measure the shape of the surface directly. Observations of things like ships going over the horizon. Earth's shadow, as visible during a lunar eclipse.
1
All of the evidence says it isn't. Don't be ridiculous.
1
NASA has published plenty of images of the Red Spot. Blame the maker of this video for not including any.
1
NASA uses a giant dish (34 m or 70 m diameter) to receive Voyager's signals, builds the best receiver electronics money can buy (cooled to near absolute 0 to reduce noise) and they have a clear line of sight without obstacles between transmitter and receiver. The data rate is very low at these distances: 160 bits/s.
1
All large explosions have similarities (they all produce a mushroom cloud, for example).
1
JWST is not large enough to provide detailed images of exoplanets. We'll see them as a single point of light. This video shows Hubble's images of Pluto: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tu327ZWGG1M
1
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
@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
@jermarionfrancois That's incorrect. As I've said, anyone can use simple methods to see Earth's shape. I've done this myself.
1
They were switched off because after Neptune, there was nothing for the cameras to look at. And the amount of available power was getting smaller, so switching off the camera platform meant they could keep using the other instruments.
1
you need a bunch more zeroes in that number to get to the edge of the universe. The Voyagers haven't left our solar system yet.
1
IFT-3 did the first fuel transfer test in orbit, between two tanks in the same vehicle. IFT-4 will continue those experiments, and with 6 Starship flights planned this year it would not surprise me to see a fuel transfer between two starships soon.
1
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). Now, NASA's working on Artemis, a new manned Moon program.
1
The trajectories were dictated by the planetary encounters. Voyager 1 did a flyby of Saturn's moon Titan, which set the exit trajectory. Voyager 2 flew by Neptune's moon Triton.
1
yes.
1
volcanoes worldwide in total produce about 240 million tons CO2 annually on average. Human industry and road traffic produce 20 billion tons per year.
1
@uio890138 If you have a closed system that can handle x amount of CO2, and you start adding (x*1.01) of CO2 each year, what happens? Yep, the atmospheric CO2 concentration starts to rise. This is not guesswork, we can measure this. At the same time, global average temperatures are rising in proportion with the CO2 we are adding to the atmosphere. That's not a coincidence, that's not a 'narrative', those are facts. We know what sources of CO2 there are, and how much CO2 is produced by volcanoes. They don't produce enough to explain the increase in atmospheric CO2 we're seeing. The amount of fossil fuels we burn OTOH, does.
1
Volcanic eruptions produce far more SO2 than CO2. SO2 produces a cooling effect; the Pinatubo eruption lowered the average temperature by 0.6 ºC for 2 years. This eruption is much smaller, so the current estimate is a temperature change of -0.01 ºC for this year.
1
@uio890138 Have you looked at the science? Because those factors are all taken into account. Natural temperature cycles happen over thousands of years. Our output is creating a temperature change over tens of years instead of thousands: a much faster change that nature can't keep up with.
1
Carlson is a mysticist, not an astronomer. We'd have found any companion star by now.
1
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
@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
The Apollo suits were developing problems after only 3 days on the lunar surface. They were also custom-made for each astronaut. For Artemis, NASA wants to spend months on the moon, and leave the suits up there for multiple missions, so they have to be adjustable.
1
@vintage-red-carpetmasonic-38 Despite 50 years of trying, no moon landing denier has ever brought a single shred of evidence to support their ideas.
1
No planet that close is going to be invisible. We can see Venus with the naked eye, we could see a planet in a similar orbit out of the ecliptic plane just as well.
1
@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
He has advanced space exploration by decades with the Falcon 9. He's in the middle of doing that again with Starship. It's taking longer than his initial optimistic estimate, but there's no sign of Starship being a failure.
1
Ultima Thule was a preliminary choice by the team. When that was published, it turned out that name is tainted by the Nazis, so they chose a different name.
1
Hate to disappoint you, but that video isn't real.
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. 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
The cameras on the Voyagers were switched off in 1989 and no longer work. And I don't think the Voyagers are far enough away to do parallax measurements on a galaxy. The New Horizons mission has been taking some parallaxes recently.
1
Before spouting nonsense, do some research. That's not a "GoPro", it's a visor.
1
None of those are valid claims. 1. No, the suit is not compressed. The pressure bladder is on the inside of the suit. Directly around that there's a mesh that prevents the pressure bladder from expanding when it's inflated. 2. There's rust on the space station because a. air leaks out, and b. you get atomic oxygen from the atmosphere even at 400 km. Atomic oxygen is very reactive. You'll notice that the rust is mostly around the airlocks. 3. The only bubbles you see in space are WATER bubbles that are used by the astronauts to demonstrate weightlessness. Then there are charlatans that take footage from the NBL, and falsely claim "NASA says this footage is from the space station". 4. The outer airlock cover is thermal insulation. There's no need for this to be rigid. 5. Having the hatch open inward means that when it's closed, the air pressure against the hatch presses it against its seals. This makes the hatch safer (there's no way for a failing hinge to result in depressurization) and reduces the leak rate.
1
It uses a solar panel.
1
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
@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
Actual person. NASA director in the 1960s.
1
NASA's Voyager Mission Status page keeps track of that.
1
Incorrect. We have abundant evidence that proves the Apollo landings are real.
1
Sharp dust quickly cuts through thin film bags.
1
@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
Yes.
1
You're wrong. The Saturn V brought humans to the moon. There's tons of evidence to support this. The deniers, on the other hand, never present evidence. All they have is half-baked 'arguments' that fall apart on examination.
1
@themoonlandinghoax That's not going to happen. We already have independent confirmation that the Apollo landings are real. You believe in a fairy tale.
1
@marxman00 The SPF can reach a pressure of 10E-4 Pa. They did test both the CM and the LM in the SPF. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEv3dvKvc0I This also included full-mission duration tests. The LM was pressurized for most of the flight. It was depressurized only during the lunar EVAs. The astronauts were in their spacesuits during the descent and ascent to/from the lunar surface, but were able to remove their suits in between EVAs.
1
@marxman00 That video shows one of many tests.
1
@marxman00 Spaceflight is real, David Blaine's magic isn't.
1
@marxman00 We have tons of evidence that says spaceflight is real. Every day you profit from services provided by satellites.
1
My 14 year-old car is rust-free. Don't buy crap.
1
The 'Pale Blue Dot' image shows Earth as a single pixel. We can identify that pixel as Earth only because we know where the planets were at that moment, and we know Voyager's orientation.
1
RTGs are very expensive (on the order of $100 million per spacecraft) and production is limited so they're only used when there is no other option.
1
no. They're too small and dim.
1
They were used to working in cramped spaces. Apollo was roomy after an F-104 Starfighter cockpit.
1
@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
Wrong. This image is based on data, not fantasy.
1
The Apollo landings remain real. Tons of evidence confirm this.
1
@AutismusMaximus1 You mean, the fake "confession" from a mockumentary, by an actor who doesn't even look like Kubrick? Great bit of "evidence" there, pal.
1
@ I just follow the evidence. And I've checked the claims made by the moon landing deniers: none of those claims are valid.
1
it's +83.
1
Gases expand unless they are constrained by a force. Earth's gravity keeps our atmosphere from expanding into space.
1
@Jalo-rl2so He's talking about the fundamental cause of gravity: gravity is the curvature of spacetime, rather than a force that is carried from one place to another by a particle (as we see with electromagnetism). The end effect is still a measurable force that attracts any two masses to each other.
1
@Jalo-rl2so As I said already, the end effect is still a measurable force that attracts any two masses to each other. We can measure this force. Nobody has "debunked" mass attracting mass. Quite the contrary - easily repeatable experiments demonstrate that this is real. Gravity exerts a force on every atom in our atmosphere, pulling it down. This is why atmospheric pressure drops when your altitude increases. This is again an easily measurable fact. At the ceiling of my living room, the pressure is lower than at the floor. The pressure does not equalize, even in a small enclosed space. This keeps happening all the way up. At 10 km, the air pressure is 0.3 bar, 30 kPa. At 100 km, it's 0.1 Pa. At 1000 km, it's 100 nPa. Simple observations from the ground confirm this. You can see satellites pass overhead. With simple tools, you can measure their speed and altitude. You'll find an altitude of more than 200 km and a speed of 8 km/s. At a speed of 8 km/s, if the satellite were in our atmosphere, it would be leaving a bright glowing trail, like a meteor. This would destroy the satellite in seconds. Yet here we are, with thousands of satellites that operate for decades. This is definitive proof that space is real.
1
@Jalo-rl2so The second law of thermodynamics states that heat flows from hot to cold places.People who claim that this means space cannot exist, are basing their reasoning on not understanding this law.
1
@Jalo-rl2so As I said, the net effect of gravity is still a force. This is the measurable effect of gravity. Nobody has "debunked this". Simple experiments are enough to prove that this force is real, and that any two masses attract each other. Einstein replaced the fundamental mechanism that causes this, he did not say the effect is anything other than a force.
1
@Jalo-rl2so It's pretty simple to prove that space is real. I can look up at night and see satellites pass overhead. I can measure their speed and altitude from the ground. At a speed of 8 km/s, if that satellite were in our atmosphere, it would be glowing red hot and burning up, like a meteor. In reality, satellites operate for decades without burning up, proving that they are in a vacuum.
1
@Jalo-rl2so Gases only disperse into space if there is no force preventing them from doing that. In the real world, there is such a force: gravity. In my living room, the pressure near the floor is higher than near the ceiling, and yet the atmosphere does not equalize this difference. This proves that a force is working on the atmosphere to keep it from expanding. At 10 km altitude, the pressure is 0.3 bar, or 30 kPa. At 100 km, it's 0.1 Pa. At 1000 km, it's 100 nPa.
1
@Jalo-rl2so Gases are contained by gravity.
1
@Jalo-rl2so We have abundant proof that we do not live in an enclosed system. We have launched more than 200 spacecraft that have left Earth orbit entirely, and have reached every part of the solar system. None of them every ran into any barrier. Closer to home, anybody can verify that there's a vacuum above us, simply by measuring the speed and altitude of satellites in Earth orbit: at 8 km/s, if those were in our atmosphere they'd be leaving a fiery trail, like meteors do.
1
@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
@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
@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
The alignment images are limited-access until the end of the commissioning period, then they'll be released. This was done to prevent premature comments about the image quality, attempts to do astronomy on imperfect images etc.
1
Using a liquid won't work: any liquid instantly evaporates in the Moon's vacuum.
1
Nye has been practicing and teaching science for decades. That makes him a scientist.
1
Reality.
1
Astronomers have access to about 800 observatories all over the world, plus a dozen or so space telescopes. Nobody in his right mind will present fake images to a community that has so many ways to check your work.
1
His Starship will be used as the lunar lander.
1
In 1976, someone retranslated a Sumerian text and claimed it talks about an unknown planet. Charlatans then claimed this planet (Nibiru) would destroy Earth in 2012 (coinciding with the end of one period in the Mayan calendar). When that didn't happen (and indeed, no new planet was visible in the night sky), charlatans moved on to the next bit of nonsense. We have found actual planets much further out than this hypothetical one. Sedna has a 10,000 year orbit. So we know Nibiru doesn't exist, and any claims about a "planet 9" that will destroy us can be dismissed.
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. Every day, you benefit from data generated in space, proving space is real and Earth is not flat.
1
@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
@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
@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
@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
@KronosGodwisen LDEF is just one example. The Apollo missions did similar experiments (though on a smaller scale).
1
That's a load of nonsense.
1
The spacesuit that was used for the Apollo flights was the A7L, i.e. the seventh major design.
1
We know it upgraded because we can communicate with the spacecraft: we send a radio signal, it sends data back. By the 1970s, we knew how to radiation-harden integrated circuits.
1
@petethewrist Photons travel until they encounter an obstacle. Space is so empty that enough photons even from remote galaxies arrive here without encountering any obstacle.
1
The Bible tells us to take care of Earth. Our behavior which causes climate change is not 'taking care of Earth'.
1
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
it all comes down to angular size. We haven't discovered all of the asteroids yet; not even all of the large ones. Similarly, there's a region of the solar system where planets are too far away: their angular size gets smaller than our telescopes can resolve, or their brightness gets too low.
1
it's a hole in the sense that anything that falls into it never comes back out. A black hole is matter compressed to infinity.
1
That "kit" was a hoax. $250 gets you a starter motor and no batteries.
1
Our mesaurements of the radiation levels in the belts disagree with that. We have abundant proof that the Apollo landings are real.
1
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
Nothing is going on on the far side of the Moon.The LRO and DISCOVR missions can see the far side of the moon.
1
@nissan_z_nismojdm NASA's budget is used to run actual missions, not fake ones.
1
@nissan_z_nismojdm I can see the ISS from the ground. I can receive radio signals from many NASA missions. People with better equipment were able to receive signals from the Apollo missions at the moon, and can receive signals from Mars missions now. Improvement in ground telescopes has ended up confirming tons of observations done by NASA space telescopes.
1
Every dollar spent on Apollo grew the US economy by $7. One of its spinoffs was making computer chips affordable.
1
You have no idea. No, a simple camera cannot take pictures in infrared. A simple camera cannot see stars of magnitude 11 (far too faint for the naked eye), let alone the hundreds of galaxies in the background of this image. And this is just a mirror calibration image: the science images will be even better.
1
No, JPL says no such thing. From the Voyager Mission Status page 2023-12-31: one way light time for Voyager 1 is 22h 35min, Voyager 2 is 18:52.
1
No. They're moving away from us at a huge speed (17 km/s), it would require several Saturn Vs worth of fuel to brake to 0 and accelerate in the other direction.
1
In 1976, someone retranslated a Sumerian text and claimed it talks about an unknown planet. Charlatans then claimed this planet (Nibiru) would destroy Earth in 2012 (coinciding with the end of one period in the Mayan calendar). When that didn't happen (and indeed, no new planet was visible in the night sky), charlatans moved on to the next bit of nonsense. The 1976 translation turned out to be full of errors. Data from archaeology and astronomy disproved the Nibiru claims. We have found actual planets much further out than this hypothetical one. Sedna has a 10,000 year orbit. So we know Nibiru doesn't exist, and any claims about a "planet 9" that will destroy us can be dismissed.
1
There is no "bombardment". The area of this telescope gets one hit every few thousand years.
1
That's nonsense. Building equipment that lasts a long time is a skill that's been generally available to anyone for a long time. When it comes to spacecraft, there were specifics we had to learn: our first spacecraft didn't last a year. Our first probes into deep space predate the Voyagers by 20 years, so the Voyagers were built on a lot of experience. Heck, we even built Pioneer 10 and 11 specifically to measure what the environment around the outer planets was like so we could design the Voyagers properly - and it's a good thing we did, the radiation environment around Jupiter's a lot worse than we expected so the Voyagers had to be built to keep functioning in this environment. Then there's the timeline: Congress approved money for a 5-year mission instead of the Grand Tour that was requested, and the team building the spacecraft went ahead and built the probes to last as long as possible anyway, knowing that successful Jupiter and Saturn encounters would increase the chance of getting a mission extension. They were never designed for 5 years only. As for 'last even that much longer if not outlive Earth' - it's easy to do that with an inert object. We don't have interstellar travel.
1
The evidence proves you wrong.
1
No. It's in a 800,000 x 300,000 km elliptical orbit around L2, designed so JWST is never in shadow.
1
'Buzz' is Edwin Aldrin's nickname.
1
Actual experience with modern deep-space missions proves you wrong.
1
Those 15 rocket launches will be cheaper than 1 SLS launch. that's the huge advantage of using a reusable rocket.
1
There IS light in a vacuum. The only thing absent in a vacuum is light *scattering*. Your claim that "no real images" exist is also false. Millions of images of objects in space exist.
1
In 2021, NASA started development of 2 Venus missions: DAVINCI+ and VERITAS.
1
Not really, It's 20,000 lightyears away.
1
No. This telescope can only "look back in time" because light has a finite speed: when we look at an object 1 light-year away, we see the light that left that object 1 year ago, so we see 1 year into its past.
1
Like any space mission, the Veneras communicated via radio. Get a large enough antenna, and getting signals form Venus isn't difficult and well within our capabilities in the 1970s.
1
@vojislavdragic5090 We have millions of photos of Earth. The Himawari and GOES images (and Meteosat, which uses a similar imaging system) provide images in 10k x 10k resolution, in 16 spectral bands. The spectral bands are optimized for meteorology, so you won't get an RGB image. They do have red and blue channels, not green IIRC. 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. And of course the photos and film made by the Apollo missions.
1
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
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
That's incorrect. We can, and we already have, 9 times.
1
@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
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
The power source for the Voyagers costs $100 million for 470 W, and contains Plutonium. Nobody's going to use that in cars or phones.
1
@gilee4481 In those days there was a certain amount of optimism about peaceful uses of nuclear power. They were quickly superseded by Li-iodide batteries. Pu-238 is safe as long as it's contained, but very toxic if spread around. A cremation of someone with a Pu-238 pacemaker implanted would be a major disaster. And that's a pacemaker: an expensive medical device used in small numbers, on people who are under regular medical care. Seeing how careless people are with their phones, I wound't want a Pu battery anywhere near that.
1
@gilee4481 Cars? A Pu battery that weighs 500 kg (about the weight of the 100 kWh battery in a Tesla) produces.... 4 Kw. That's enough for a top speed of 50 km/h. And you forgot to address the cost: nuclear fuel processing (Pu-238 doesn't occur in nature, it has to be produced in a nuclear reactor, after which you have to separate it from other reaction products) is expensive.
1
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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
by synchronizing the instrument to an atomic clock.
1
We don't think that, we know.
1
@FuzzyPurp The moon landings ended because they were the most expensive engineering project in history. After Apollo, NASA's budget was reduced by 90%, making manned lunar missions unaffordable for decades. There was nothing botched about the Apollo program. There is no evidence that indicates the moon landings were faked, and a whole to of evidence that proves they are real. The past decade has shown that Americans can be manipulated to believe nonsense, including "the moon landings were faked".
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.
1
The use of rubber gaskets was an inevitable consequence of the choice of manufacturer: Thiokol produced the segments in Utah. The size of the segments was determined by the limitations on transport size: the segments could not be made longer. The segments were filled in Utah too, so you couldn't transport them to the Cape and weld them there. Because the SRBs were meant to be reusable, any sort of permanent joining of the segments was out. Riveting would have been difficult too, again because the segments are already full of propellant at that point. The only way to avoid segmented boosters would have been to manufacture and fill them at the Cape. Note that Arianespace has launched 100+ Ariane 5s with segmented boosters without issues.
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. '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
We have proof: images and other data sent by the probes, signals received from the mission by radio astronomers outside the USSR. Data corroborated by later missions. You on the other hand are making a claim without evidence.
1
The heat and kinetic energy from asteroid strikes fuses dust together.
1
As long as they don't cut the RTG open, they'll be fine. The entire decay chain of Pu-238 only produces Alpha particles, which are stopped by a sheet of paper.
1
Wifi is designed to be short range, because the shorter the range, the more wifi hotspots you can install without them interfering with each other, and the more users you can serve. Radio waves don't travel well through solid obstacles, so each wall between you and the hotspot reduces your signal. The same goes for cell phones. NASA uses a giant dish antenna to receive Voyager's signals, builds the best receiver electronics money can buy ($100 million each, the receiver is cooled to cryogenic temperatures to reduce noise), and they have a clear line of sight without obstacles between transmitter and receiver. At these distances, communication is slow: Voyager sends data at 160 bits/s.
1
They don't use active cooling for the mirrors: they're relying on heat radiation. That's part of why it takes so long to cool down.
1
No, that is not a fact at all. Look at the sky tonight: you can see satellites pass overhead. they are in orbit, which proves that chemical propulsion work just fine in a vacuum. Newton predicted this: rockets work according to Newton's third law of motion.
1
Reality is that we went to the moon 9 times, landed 6 times. Nixon's phone call uses technology from the 1930s: by then we knew how to connect a telephone to a radio.
1
@rushgush We have known the world is a sphere for 2500 years: there are all kinds of measurements we can do on the ground to verify that. Balloons are limited by physics, the higher they get, the smaller their payload is. We have photos of Earth from space not just from NASA, but from dozens of space agencies all around the world. We have photos showing the curvature of Earth from high altitude from even more sources: an airplane or balloon at 10-15 km altitude is enough to make this curvature visible to the naked eye. And you haven't answered my question. How many balloons does it take to photograph all 510 million km2 of Earth's surface every 10 minutes? About 5 million. Show me the balloon bases where they can maintain, refuel and launch 5 million balloons every few days.
1
The highest skydiving attempts are from about 38 km altitude. Baumgartner reached a speed of 1300 km/h. This capsule entered our atmosphere at an altitude of 100 km, with a speed of 43,000 km/h.
1
Having a vacuum is not useful for learning how to operate in space. The big difference is not the vacuum, it's the weightlessness. So most of the training is focused on dealing with that. The vacuum has two consequences: 1. the suit is stiff because the pressure inside is higher than outside. When the astronauts train in the NBL, their suit is kept at ambient pressure plus 5 psi, ie the same as they get in space, so that aspect is already covered. Vacuum training is done: just like air force pilots, astronauts learn what it's like to go through a depressurization, how to recognize a lack of oxygen etc.
1
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
the chance of a hit are really low though.
1
Changes to the images include: 1. assign colors (required, since the source data is IR, but there is some freedom to choose colors depending on what the image is used for) 2. tiling (for images like the Carina nebula, which consist of multiple exposures) 3. artefact removal (dead pixels). Can often be done with tiling. 4. artefact removal (stray light). Done by subtracting a stray light calibration image from the image. None of that changes the source data.
1
Earth gets hit by about 5000 tons of meteors per year. Divide that by Earth's surface area, and it works out to micrograms per m^2 per year. And Earth is a worse environment than deep space. So the odds of a spacecraft not surviving are about one in a billion. Not magic, science.
1
@edward4258 This is based on several sources: 1. amount of meteors found on Earth. We've done systematic searches and can extrapolate from that. 2. Observation of meteors as they enter our atmosphere and leave bright trails. 3. our experiences running about 9000 satellites in Earth orbit, and several hundred missions all over the solar system. Including a series of missions specifically designed to measure the amount of debris.
1
@edward4258 These observations and measurements have been published the usual way (in scientific journals, many of which are accessible to the common man). We also see the result: satellites and deep space missions continue to function for decades without significant damage. These observations were made not by one entity, but by dozens of space agencies from different countries, along with dozens of commercial companies whose income depends on that data being correct.
1
@edward4258 5000 tons are divided over Earth's surface (an area of 10^20 m^2), that's 10^-11 grams per m^2 per year. Most space dust consists of tiny particles, which leave tiny craters or pinholes in the outer shell of a satellite. So over time, we see damage accumulating. Solar panels will degrade over time, for example. There's an element of luck to this: a meteor that weighs 100 g would destroy a satellite, and we can't track every piece of debris that small yet. But since 1957, we haven't lost a single satellite though meteor impact. We've lost 2 satellites that collided with each other, and a few were intentionally destroyed by antisatellite weapons.
1
@edward4258 These are not my estimations. This is my summary of actual studies done by space agencies over the past 60 years. Studies that have been published, and which I've read. They take into account that most debris doesn't reach Earth's surface intact. I'm not asking you to trust me, I'm saying the data is available for anyone.
1
@edward4258 On one side we have multiple independent parties doing research and presenting their findings, from raw data to methodology to conclusions. On the other side, we have you saying "I don't believe all that research, but I have no data to support my position". If you want anyone to believe you, you need to come up with data, otherwise it's a much greater leap of faith to believe you than it is to believe the people actually running these spacecraft. There are several methods anyone can use to measure meteor flux: 1. point a camera at the sky, count meteor streaks. 2. go somewhere cold, dig out a few m^2 of snow and count meteorite dust embedded in the snow. 3. monitor satellites. This is easiest for TV broadcast sats, but you can receive data from many satellites with a ham radio setup. This can be used to verify if a satellite is active or defunct.
1
@edward4258 So you read one book that selectively interprets its source data. Meanwhile, you are claiming all data supplied over a period of 60 years by multiple parties is false, despite you having no data at all to support your position.
1
@edward4258 There's a big difference. In your book, someone took the results of a study (probably along the line of 'chemicals x, y and z were found in the soil here) and concluded 'it must be aliens'. There's a big gap between data and conclusions. When it comes to space dust, we have multiple studies done by different parties that all gave consistent results, and about 11,000 experiments done over 65 years to validate that data. This is the scientific method: you do observations, you create a hypothesis, and then you test if that hypothesis makes accurate predictions. Your book stops at making a hypothesis. It doesn't do any experiments to validate the hypothesis, it doesn't gather additional data. For space dust, we've done a large number of tests that confirmed the hypothesis. If you want to question this hypothesis, go ahead, but you'll have a difficult job: you have to prove all that data incorrect. If you do that, scientists will take you seriously. Just saying "I don't believe it" without any data to back you up won't cut it.
1
@edward4258 So you want me to provide evidence, and when I refer you to the studies that contain the evidence, you're saying "nah, I'm not going to bother with them because I've already decided I don't believe what they say". That's not my problem, it's yours.
1
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
@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
@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
The goal of Apollo was to beat the Russians to the moon. Once that goal was met, we started to look at how much those missions cost. NASA's budget was cut by 90%, making further manned lunar missions unaffordable.
1
1. the Saturn V was limited to putting 2 people on the moon for up to 3 days. Now we want a 4-man crew to stay on the moon for a month. That would require a dozen Saturn V launches. 2. rebuilding a 50 year-old design is not that simple. Components are no longer available. you'd have to do all the drawings in CAD for modern manufacturing, etc.
1
@JimboJuice They actually do have drawings for every part of the Saturn V. 6 million of them. As I said, you'd have to redesign many parts for modern manufacturing. e.g. the F-1 engines had miles of hand-brazing in the nozzles, these days we use a completely different method (electroplating, then CNC milling).
1
@JimboJuice I disagree with your claim that 'converting the 50 year old rockets into CAD would be pitifully easy'. You end up having to make major changes to individual parts, which affects how they're assembled, etc.
1
The STSci hasn't published full-resolution versions of the calibration images yet.
1
@DeanStephen The scientifically valuable data still exists, most of it in public archives. The only telemetry that was discarded is engineering data (temperatures, pressures and valve settings in the engines, that sort of thing) that became obsolete and useless once the Apollo production lines shut down.
1
@DeanStephen Of course it would have been obsolete. Technology advances steadily. Only 20 years later, 50% of the off-the-shelf parts in the Saturn V would have been out of production. The computers would be 12 generations out of date. In that time, CNC machining became common, so the production processes for a million parts would be outdated. In 1972, it was clear that a return to the moon was not going to happen any time soon. NASA had its hands full with the Space Shuttle (which took 12 years to design and develop, taking up all of NASA's human spaceflight budget).
1
@DeanStephen NASA saved all of the useful data. More than enough to demonstrate there was no coverup.
1
He mentioned this early in the video. 100% O2 is toxic at high pressures. At 40 ft you get close to the pressure where that happens.
1
Anything. $90M a year is a lot more than Hubble operations cost, for instance, for far less science (800 hours vs 8760 hours of observation, and far fewer papers)
1
The "we no longer have the technology" is being abused by the deniers. It does not mean what they think it means. This is reality: By 1970, NASA's budget was being reduced by 90% from its peak. The goal of beating the Russians to the moon had been achieved, the space race was over and won, so the government was no longer willing to spend 5% of the Federal budget on spaceflight. That made Apollo missions after Apollo 17 unaffordable. After Apollo, NASA proceeded to design the first reusable spacecraft: the Shuttle. This was an attempt to make spaceflight cheaper. It did not live up to that promise, mostly because NASA did not get enough money to fix the flaws of the first Shuttle design. The Shuttle was a big improvement over Apollo in all aspects except one: the Shuttle could not carry enough fuel to get to the moon. During the Shuttle program, there was never enough money to build another huge rocket for a manned moon mission. That is the technology we "lost": the production line for the Saturn V and Apollo spacecraft was shut down and dismantled, so we no longer had a vehicle that could get to the moon.
1
@codedecode878 Pettit meant well, but he was incorrect. We didn't destroy the technology. We only destroyed the manufacturing process: the tools we'd need to recreate the Saturn V exactly: tools and jigs to create those huge structures, etc. We also lost the capability to manufacture 1960s era electronics, so we'd have to do some redesign to use modern parts. It'd take a few years to redesign and rebuild the manufacturing process (using the information we did preserve).
1
@codedecode878 Sure. Now fast-forward 70 years and try to reuse your code. Oops, it relies on 10 libraries that have been obsolete for 60 years. Which rely on processors that have not been available for 60 years. etc. The Apollo project used 100,000 subcontractors, many of which are long gone. Saving the main documents was easy enough: all of the Apollo engineering drawings are available. It's the lower-level stuff that will be harder: materials may no longer be available in the exact specifications used in the 1960s. The electronics will have to be redesigned because nobody makes ferrite core memory anymore, for instance.
1
Koyaanisqatsi.
1
@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
@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
That 'confession' has been shown to be fake.
1
@cplcabs Yes, that's right. Baikonur isn't built on a swamp, so there's no problem digging a large pit under ground level, which means your launch pad doesn't have to be on a hill.
1
Dozens of people have flown over Antarctica, mostly as part of flights that circumnavigate the planet via both poles. That hasn't stopped the flat-Earthers, they just ignore this evidence just like they ignore all evidence. Antarctic flights are only one of a dozen methods we can use to prove Earth is a sphere.
1
You want a survey instrument to do that, not an instrument like JWST that's optimized to look at very small areas.
1
Because Venus is under continuous cloud cover. It's much easier to build solar power stations in Earth orbit. We'd still have to solve the problem of transmitting that energy to the ground.
1
SpaceX launched 100 rockets this year, more than the rest of the world combined.
1
@thinkoutsidethelines8265 Juno is limited to about 1.5 Mb/hour of downlink. It has a bunch of scientific instruments that have to share that downlink, so most of the time they'll choose to create a photo instead of taking a video (=24 photos per second). .
1
mostly, no.
1
Nope. Satellites are in orbit, not in our atmosphere.
1
Spy satellites have a resolution of about 30 cm/pixel. To be able to read fingerprints, you'd need a telescope mirror hundreds of meters across.
1
No. The Aether was disproven a century ago, and we have plenty of evidence that shows light is influenced by gravity.
1
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
@papalegba6796 You didn't quote anything. You just made a false assumption.
1
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
Climate impact from volcanoes is about 1% that of humans. Only the largest eruptions (Krakatoa) have a measurable impact on climate.
1
Apollo could only put 2 men on the moon for up to 3 days. We want to do much longer missions, so we have to land a lot more mass on the moon than the Apollo stack was capable of.
1
yep.
1
Unfortunately those old records don't match up with any of the thousands of objects we've found. Whatever they saw, it's unlikely to have been a planet.
1
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
Incorrect. The images shown at the start of the video are photos.
1
+83 is the correct value.
1
Look at the sky tonight. You'll see satellites pass overhead, at altitudes far greater than where the "firmament" is claimed to be.
1
@rongee3707 There is no evidence that any solid barrier exists anywhere above us. We can freely fly to any altitude we want: we've sent spacecraft all across the solar system. We can measure the distance to objects in the solar system, and find they're all at different distances, not projected on a dome (which would give them all the same distance). Projection glitches in a planetarium are just that. They are not an accurate representation of the structure of the sky.
1
The telescopes work in mm wavelengths, the image is basically a grayscale brightness map. So we can assign any color we want.
1
No, it has power to do something useful for 2-5 more years. Then the power drops to a level where it can operate the computers, but no science instruments for a few more years, pretty soon after that there's not enough power left to run the transmitter. Power output is still above 200 W and the RTG will continue to produce some power for hundreds of years, but operations will end when they can't transmit any more.
1
No, it was a volcano. The volcano in that area has erupted several times in the past few years.
1
For the voyagers, they used Plutonium-238. Most Uranium isotopes have half-lives that are too long to be useful.
1
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
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
@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
No, that's a volcano. Nuclear bomb blasts don't keep generating ash clouds for several hours.
1
Friendy Frienderson these videos do not show details smaller than 500 meters. No missile is that large. All we have is one frame showing a cloud that's 1-2 km wide. Also, volcanic eruptions can be loud enough to be heard on the other side of the world.
1
We can easily find the center of our galaxy because everything orbits around it. Plot a few orbits and the center can be found. The Event Horizon Telescope has a resolution 1000 times better than the best optical telescopes. Planets like Pluto don't emit mm wavelength radio, so there's no point aiming this telescope at Pluto.
1
I just retired my 10 year-old iPhone 5s, not because the hardware was failing, but because the OS no longer supported some of the apps I'm required to use.
1
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
Sure we will. They'll look a bit different from Hubble images, they'll still be cool.
1
This is a bit counterintuitive. We're not going to look at the place where the Big Bang took place - there's not a single place we can point to. Instead, we're going to look at galaxies 13.5 bn lightyears away. They will be 13.5 bn years old, so they should be the oldest galaxies in the universe, containing the first generation of stars. We can find these galaxies in any direction.
1
That only works inside a room with air. Ideally, the dust never gets inside.
1
Show us the peer-reviewed paper that confirms this.
1
He died in a fire that served as a wakeup call. After that accidental fire, NASA and its contractors spent a year going over every design and systematically stamping out all of the bugs. That fire was a big part of the success of the Apollo program.
1
Voyager 1 used thousands of components that went out of production 45 years ago. None of the parts of the Voyager computers are still being made, for instance.
1
Because L2 is the only one where you can use one sunshield to cover the Sun, Earth and the Moon.
1
@larryswindcatcher We know a lot more than you think. We've mapped the magnetic fields in the solar system.
1
They did. There's a 70-page Apollo Experience Report that lists all of the problems they had with dust.
1
Yes, that's true. But it's that really old light we're interested in, because it can tell us what happened a long time ago.
1
Yes. Pioneer 10 was launched in that direction .Unfortunately that spacecraft is long out of power.
1
What was the distance between the aircraft and the spacecraft?
1
Well, yeah. That flyby wasn't done by the Voyagers, but by New Horizons.
1
It appears smaller to the naked eye: you only see the brightest part of the galaxy. A long-exposure photo will show the actual size.
1
They weren't lying. We have a mountain of evidence that proves the Apollo landings are real.
1
Imagine landing on Mars with a system that spreads debris over an area of 1.5 km (as was the case for Perseverance). Imaging driving a rover through the area where we know the debris landed (because we've taken photos of the area before and after, from an orbiting spacecraft, so we know what landed where) and seeing debris that matches what we know was part of the landing system (like the thumbnail and the debris images in the video). It would be pretty dumb to assume the debris we found was created by anything else than the landing system.
1
That's not how science works though. Science starts with observations. Then scientists try to find an explanation for those observations, this becomes a model. The model is tested using more observations or experiments. When the model holds up and makes accurate predictions, it becomes a theory. The word 'theory' has a specific meaning here: it's not the colloquial opposite of 'practice'; a scientific theory is a model that has been shown to be accurate in a wide range of circumstances, and the best way we currently have to explain how things work. Models and theories are always subject to improvement. You are assuming scientists make assumptions. They don't: observations are always the starting point. When an astronomer presents his findings about stars being 'constant and stable', he'll say 'based on [large number] of observations of [another large number] of stars, I found that 73% of them have no observable variability, and the variability in the remaining stars was [table summarizing findings]". Less knowledgeable people then paraphrase this as 'stars are constant and stable', but that's not what the outcome of the study was. Science does not and should not stop at observations. Models are what makes science worthwhile, because with a model, we can start to do real work. Gravity is a model that allows us to calculate the orbit of a satellite, etc. The variability of stars is well-known in astronomy. Variable stars have long been a focus of astronomical study, because it turns out there are variable stars that have a predictable variability, which can be used to measure distances.
1
False. All images will be released.
1
Watch a ship go over the horizon: that's Earth's curvature in action.
1
2 of the 4 science goals for JWST require observations of faraway galaxies. And for the showcase images, it was important to include a deep field to inform astronomers of what's possible.
1
This was studied extensively with samples from the moon. Radioactivity levels are very low.
1
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
It is archived, much of it on the NASA Technical Report Server, which is open to anyone. Those reports showed that the Apollo suits had some drawbacks. One example: they were showing noticeable wear after only 3 days on the surface. For Artemis, the suits have to last much longer than that. For Apollo, they also didn't to the research that was shown in this video: the pressure for the Apollo CM was only 5 psi, so there was no need to test suit pressures higher than that.
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. 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
@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
@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
No. This electrostatic charge produces a tiny torque, compared to the graviational effect that caused the phase lock.
1
The resolution of this image is 1000 times higher than what JWST can achieve.
1
@roadnottaken2780 Yes, you're correct. Unfortunately we haven't been able to build such a telescope array for visible or IR wavelengths yet: the shorter the wavelength, the more difficult it becomes to do this.
1
No. Space is very empty: JWST will encounter micrograms of dust per year, on average. Asteroids are a potential problem: we haven't found all of them yet. But the chance of being hit by an asteroid is very low. Since the beginning of spaceflight, we haven't lost a spacecraft to an asteroid impact yet.
1
@DelfinoGarza77 10,000 satellites since 1958 and no hits.
1
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
if the donut were bright in mm wavelenghts, yes.
1
Using a single 34-m antenna, we can keep in contact until 2050 (Voyager 1) and 2057 (Voyager 2), if their power supply would last that long. NASA also have the option to receive data with an array of antennas, which could stretch this even further. The Voyager missions will end when there's not enough power left to operate one instrument. Not because we can't communicate with them.
1
@jghgiroot6735 I'm in good company. This is Richard Feynman, winner of the Nobel prize for physics, explaining what science is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw
1
You're arguing from ignorance. We solved that problem before Apollo even began. 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
@Damidas No. The only shapes you see on the moon are hundreds of kilometers across.
1
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
That's incorrect. We have left Earth's orbit, 9 times with manned missions, several hundred unmanned spacecraft.
1
Yeah, that's an artefact of history. we saw a bright source of radio emissions, didn't know what it was, it got a provisional label.
1
We have photos of stars orbiting an object that's mostly invisible. From those orbits we can calculate how much mass there must be: 4 million solar masses in a tiny amount of space. The only theory that can explain those observations is a black hole. Now we've imaged that invisible object, and our observations match the theory. That means black holes are real, not theoretical, not imaginary.
1
We know what the Milky Way looks like, because we've measured the position of a billion stars. Plot those, and the familiar shape shows up. Before that, radio telescopes plotted the position of hydrogen clouds, that gave us our first image of the Milky Way.
1
@kordelas2514 That is ridiculous nonsense. We have launched 10,000 spacecraft to orbit. Some of those are visible 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, which means they have to be outside our atmosphere, proving you wrong.
1
They've started calibrating the mirrors this week.
1
That's incorrect. We still talk to both every day.
1
James Webb is a former director of NASA.
1
The drawback is the price tag: $100M.
1
No, it's a graphical representation of measurements.
1
The telescope is fully operational, and image quality after this hit is still better than required. All of the showcase images were taken after this hit. It wasn't "botched".
1
We'd have to solve some problems first though: transferring PB of data over such long distances, and measuring the distance exactly enough for VLBI to work.
1
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
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
@typhoidmary5097 "everything humans touch they destroy" is disproven by any number of magnificent feats of engineering that stand to this day. NASA conducted Apollo in the open: they published everything. Journalists had access to the people designing and building the Apollo hardware. Every photo taken on the moon was published. They had live video from the moon. In addition, NASA's claims have been confirmed by independent third parties. Scientists from all over the world were able to receive radio signals form the Apollo craft during the missions. Amateur astronomers saw the spacecraft on their way to the moon. The USSR (which was running its own lunar program at the time, trying to beat the Americans) would have loved to be able to prove the Apollo landings were faked. They had spies in the US aerospace industry. Yet they accepted the Apollo landings as real. Since then, lunar orbiters from several countries have photographed the Apollo landing sites.
1
@yomommaahotoo264 Every single argument made by the Apollo Detectives has been debunked. They have provided no evidence that stands up to examination.
1
@Roadglide911 1x Apollo Guidance Computer, 1x Abort Guidance System.
1
That's correct. Color is added on the ground.
1
The original design of the 747 was a freighter with a high wing, like the C-5: it was designed as a competitor to the C-5. Aircraft with 2 passenger decks go back way before the 747.
1
the chances of that happening are really low though.
1
@dingo23451 The reason "we still don't have pictures" has been known and planned for years: they're still commissioning the telescope. JWST was built to withstand micrometeoroid impacts: this is not the first mission to L2, so we already know what to expect. The hit that was in the news recently produces a just-about-noticeable change in the images.
1
'Sun-like' means it has a similar mass and composition as the Sun. Stars that are much larger or smaller behave differently.
1
@coffeeisgood576 Have a look at this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RIYnXMJ0hI "sun-like star" is shorthand, astronomers have a more exact method of classifying stars. Our sun is a G2-class star.
1
@coffeeisgood576 I know. When an astronomer uses the word 'sun-like', he is talking about a G-class star.
1
Not from this, no.
1
Then it wouldn't fit on any current launcher.
1
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
It can't get back to Earth orbit - it doesn't have thrusters on the side facing away from the Sun. They'd have to rotate the spacecraft to point a thruster that way, and this would expose the mirror and instruments to direct sunlight.
1
I don't have to imagine, I can calculate. Earth's curvature is 8 cm per km, which can be easily measured if you're in the right place, but is too small to see with the naked eye at ground level. Dozens of satellites take photos of Earth every day: these weather satellites alone take compete-hemisphere pictures every 10 minutes.
1
They were used for only 3 days. That's not long.
1
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
this video does not show details smaller than 500 meters. No missile is that large. All we have is one frame showing a cloud that's 1-2 km wide.
1
@theylivewesleep2623 there is footage from 2 geostationary satellites. Those are 36,000 km away from these events, and their maximum resolution is known (500 meters/pixel for both).
1
@theylivewesleep2623 Yep. Science is better than guesswork.
1
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
I haven't seen any report on it being an issue for orbiting spacecraft.
1
no, that hasn't been published yet.
1
Russia focused on Mars and Venus, and struggled to build interplanetary spacecraft that kept working for very long. Their Mars probes kept malfunctioning even before they reached Mars.
1
Yes, once you're inside the schwarzschild radius, there's no way to escape, no matter how much energy you put into it.
1
The same way we often deal with radiation here on Earth: don't spend too much time being exposed to it. The Apollo spacecraft spent about 1 hour in the van Allen belts, giving the astronauts a radiation dose of about 2 Rad. A dose of 300 Rad in 1 hour is lethal. For Orion, we need something better. Not because of the Van Allen belts, but because of the journey to Mars which takes several months. So NASA is looking at shielding materials, and powerful electromagnets that can create a local magnetosphere. For unmanned spacecraft, Earth's van Allen belts are not a big deal either. Jupiter has van Allen belts too, the radiation levels there are much higher. So Juno's electronics are in a shielded box, and Juno's orbit is designed to minimize the time it spends in Jupiter's van Allen belts.
1
@corning1 Nope. We get annular eclipses, where the sun remains visible as a ring all around the moon. That's not "perfect". The Earth-Moon distance is changing by a few cm per year. That means that in a few million years, we will no longer have full solar eclipses.
1
The evidence says otherwise.
1
At the altitude of an airliner, curvature is visible, in principle. But you need a few variables to be in your favor. 1. Weather. Clouds and haze can obscure the horizon. 2. Field of view. 10 km altitude is at the lower edge of where curvature is visible, You need a wide field of view to see it. Small airliner windows often don't give a wide field of view.
1
@ The Apollo missions are real. This is proven by tons of evidence. You have nothing.
1
No, NASA does not 'colorize' photos from Mars. They calibrate their cameras, by taking photos of a calibration target that has known colors. The only variable that remains is the color balance. Some photos are published using a color balance based on Mars' atmosphere, others are published using a color balance that more closely approximates what the scene would look like if it were in Earth's atmosphere.
1
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
We have millions of those (literally). We have geostationary weather satellites that take images of the entire hemisphere every 10 minutes, see for example https://youtu.be/zoMRwyNhqJ4 A few more sources: Earth from space: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVBlQ31FzJU and Earth from the moon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTNTfSxP0HQ and DISCOVR images of Earth, incl Moon and Earth in one shot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPM2kITNtTs
1
No, it does not. That is an unsupported assumption.
1
The moon does have gravity: it's just weaker than Earth's at 1/6 G.
1
False. We know exactly how to get to the moon, and we're in the middle of building two different lunar landers.
1
that was a mistake, it's +83.
1
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
That volcano has erupted 5 times in the last 10 years, and it was active in the week leading up to the big eruption on the 15th, including a big landslide on the 14th.
1
@SeaJay_Oceans Is there a sudden uptick though? I checked the statistics: for the past 20 years, it's been pretty constant at about 80 eruptions/year.
1
@mrs6968 Have a look at this. Gaia is a satellite that measures the positions and motion of stars very accurately. Using Gaia data, scientists made this visualization of how those stars will move over the next few million years. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87lgSRVUSxM
1
Your tinfoil hat is on too tight.
1
@BlueDragonAkira Anyone can do simple measurements that demonstrate Earth is not flat, but curved. Anyone can do a simple experiment that shows Earth rotates. These are things we figured out centuries before NASA was created.
1
@BlueDragonAkira No, Earth is not stationary. We know Earth moves because we can measure its movement. We know planets don't orbit because of "magnetic energy". If they did, anything made of iron would be impossible to lift.
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
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
No, we did not "destroy" the "technology" to travel through the radiation belt. A human in a basic spacecraft can safely travel through the belts. You just can't orbit in the belts for long period: if you put a spacecraft in the center of the belt where the radiation level is highest, a human gets a lethal dose of radiation in one week.
1
We have hours of video from Apollo that are impossible to replicate on Earth. Kubrick's best efforts can be seen in 2001, and the moon footage in that is immediately obvious it's not recorded on the mon but on Earth.
1
Each photo was 800x800 px with 8 bpp, so 5.1 megabits, or 640kB.
1
I just retired my iPhone 5s after 10 years, because it no longer ran the apps I needed. The hardware was still in good shape.
1
"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
@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
Aviation uses about 100,000 times more fuel than the rocket industry. The industry would have to grow by several orders of magnitude to get to 'devastating' levels.
1
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
Convenient that the capsule was visible from the ground form an altitude far higher than any aircraft can reach.
1
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
@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
@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
@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
No.
1
Their trajectories were dictated by the planetary encounters. The 'grand tour' alignment meant both probes would be going in similar directions. But Voyager 1 went 'up' relative to our ecliptic plane, and Voyager 2 went 'down'.
1
False. Rockets have explored the entire solar system. 10,000 satellites have been launched successfully and orbit our planet, at more than enough altitude to see Earth's curvature. In addition, we have many methods to see and measure Earth's curvature that don't rely on observations from high altitude. We can measure Earth's curvature directly in a geodetic survey. We can photograph Earth's curvature even at sea level: https://youtu.be/fbyWC9cqEGo. 2500 years ago, the Greeks realized our planet cannot be flat.
1
@freefreepalestine360 False. Rockets work fine in a vacuum. A rocket doesn't need anything external to push against: it pushes against its own exhaust gases.
1
@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
We have no way to repair Hubble at the moment. It's one failure away from ending its mission.
1
they are using mirrors. Mirrors consist of a reflective surface on a carrier: usually, that carrier is glass. In this case, they use a thin sheet of plastic because that's much lighter than glass and can be folded.
1
After Voyager, we switched to missions that study one planet in detail for many years: Galileo and Juno at Jupiter, Cassini at Saturn. They were all designed to answer questions that arose from the Voyager observations. The drawback of these mission is that they're expensive: about 10x the cost of the Voyagers. So we couldn't afford to do both. There's a recent plan for a faster mission (APL interstellar probe), but even that will only be twice as fast (7 AU/year vs 3.5 for the Voyagers).
1
Do not vote for any Republicans in November. They continue to support a would-be dictator who has no respect for the election process.
1
Flat-Eathers like to claim you can bring a boat back by zooming in. But every video where they demonstrate this turns out to be misleading: they use a small boat in front of the horizon, small enough to not be visible in the zoomed-out view. An honest demonstration would be to zoom in on a huge container ship, or on the Sun after sunset. But those videos don't exist. That means the horizon is a real obstacle: a hill of water between you and the disappearing ship. When you trace the path of the ship as it goes over the horizon, you will see a vertical curve show up: this is Earth's curvature.
1
@tylerd7330 I've done the experiment and was unable to zoom in on a large ship once it had gone over the horizon, so I don't believe you.
1
@tylerd7330 Water is subject to gravity, like everything else. So water on the surface of our spherical Earth will have a spherical surface. This is evident when we look at the horizon. This has been measured countless times. And it's visible directly from high altitude.
1
@tylerd7330 As I said before, every single "bring back a boat by zooming in" zooms in on a boat in front of the horizon, not one that has gone over the horizon.
1
It's much cheaper to build larger antennas on Earth than to launch them into space. It's also more efficient: an antenna on Earth can support spacecraft on any trajectory, while a relay launched in the same direction as one of the Voyagers would only be able to support 1 spacecraft.
1
@JoeGator23 On Earth, we can build an antenna with a diameter of 34 meters for about 50 million. These antennas are capable of talking to a Voyager-style spacecraft at a distance of about 200 AU (Voyager 1 is at 150 AU now). The largest antenna we've seen in space so far is the Spektr-R radio telescope, with a diameter of 10 meters. A relay spacecraft that can function outside of Jupiter's orbit will cost on the order of a billion dollars, so we could build 20 antennas on Earth for that. We're going to lose contact with the Voyagers because their power source is degrading, in a few years there isn't enough power left to operate one science instrument. JHUAPL is working on a proposal for a next-generation interstellar probe, the main problem is that this probe needs to be a lot faster than the Voyagers. Even with the best rockets we have today, we can only reach 2x the speed of the Voyagers.
1
@JoeGator23 The Voyagers gained about 10 km/s from each of their slingshots around Jupiter and Saturn, and 2 km/s for Uranus and Neptune. They arrived at Jupiter at 10 km/s, so that first slingshot doubled their speed.
1
A solid enclosure would have made the telescope too large to fit on the Ariane 5. You're overestimating the amount of space dust JWST will encounter.
1
that depends on the target: an image of Jupiter can be done in a few seconds, an image like Hubble's Deep Field will take days.
1
That's because an object approaching a black hole has a speed vector that's usually not lined up entirely with the black hole. So when the object gets closer, it accelerates toward the black hole, but the vector perpendicular to that line still exists and the object misses the black hole, entering an orbit instead of smashing into it.
1
You're assuming something that isn't true.
1
It's molecules moving very fast. It's not inaccurate to call that wind even if there are only very few molecules (1/cm3).
1
@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
There are instructions on the cover. Anyone who has figured out spaceflight can figure out how to play a record that has visible wave patterns.
1
The plan is to use large solar arrays and batteries.
1
@KarasCyborg Basic optics: the reflection of the sun is on a section of the helmet that is not facing us, it's at an angle. The sun is at twice that angle.
1
@KarasCyborg You are underestimating the distance to the horizon. Here on Earth, the farther away we look, the more atmospheric blurring we get. Humans use this to gauge distances. There's no atmosphere on the moon, so your brain is assuming the entire scene is nearby, when in fact you're looking at terrain that can be up to 2 km away (the distance to the horizon on the moon).
1
Don't be ridiculous. The (tiny) funding for the Voyager project supports daily operations (we still get new data every day) for a small staff (5-10 people), plus the cost of using the DSN.
1
it would only show a single bright dot.
1
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
no. Our sun is orbiting that black hole.
1
@jamebond007slayer Black holes have mass. The one at Sgr A* is about 4 million times the mass of the sun. It's a bit more complicated. The galaxy rotates around its center of mass. Most of the mass in the galaxy is concentrated around that black hole, so it's not just the black hole keeping our sun in orbit, it's the combined mass of everything near the center.
1
Incorrect. No such video was revealed, all you have are wild claims not supported by evidence.
1
No, the Apollo mission were short enough that it wasn't a problem.
1
Yes.
1
You mistyped "seventh moon mission".
1
False. Nothing about that image is impossible. It's a bit distorted by the wide-angle lens.
1
JWST has looked at several of the outer planets already.
1
@scottmanley The RTGs would be pretty bright though, so it might show up as an unresolved dot.
1
@Vaportrail56 Anyone can do simple experiments that demonstrate Earth is a sphere. That means we can verify what any authority tells us.
1
The An-225 is comparable to the C-5 Galaxy: large enough for military trucks, with enough payload to transport tanks. The Guppies were developed for cargo with an even larger cross-section but far less weight.
1
Nobody reliable has claimed those photos were edited.
1
The evidence says we did go to the moon.
1
@formertenant9276 Example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLXHrQ1Keac
1
@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
@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
@formertenant9276 I believe stories that are supported by solid science and engineering.
1
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@formertenant9276 You have been misled by charlatans.
1
this has caused problems for NASA as well. In particular, the Shuttle solid rocket boosters are made by ATK in Utah and their size is limited by the only mode of transport available: rails. This means that the SRB has to be transported in sections, and stacked in Cape Canaveral. Which meant the sections have to be linked with transport joints, which have O-rings which caused the Challenger disaster.
1
Depends on how you define it. The heliopause is the end of the region where the Sun's electromagnetic and particle influence is dominant, but the Sun's gravity is dominant in a much larger area.
1
"we never went to the moon" is a lie. 6 Apollo missions landed on the moon. We have a ton of evidence that supports this, and no evidence that says otherwise.
1
Look up tonight. You can see satellites in the night sky, proving that we have been to space over and over again.
1
@vacuumandgaspressurecoexisting It's pretty simple to measure the speed and altitude of those satellites. An altitude of 400 km and more, and a speed of 28,000 km/h proves that these objects are orbiting Earth, and are not in our atmosphere. Another proof: I can aim a radio dish at a position 36,000 km above the equator, and find that there's a satellite at that location. Meanwhile, here you are, denying reality.
1
volcanoes worldwide in total produce about 240 million tons CO2 annually on average. Human industry and road traffic produce 20 billion tons per year.
1
We don't know yet how many rockets are needed because the rocket in question is still in development, so its payload is unknown.
1
One disco ball vs. 25,000 Starlink satellites. Do you see the difference?
1
That is incorrect. The radiation levels are low enough that you can pass through the van Allen belts without radiation shielding. Shielding becomes necessary only when you want to do a long-term orbit inside the van Allen belts.
1
You're arguing from ignorance: you don't know how they were able to send pictures from Venus, and instead of learning how they did it, you just claim they faked the mission. That's a worthless argument.
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. Every day, you benefit from data generated in space, proving space is real and Earth is not flat.
1
Every year, there are about 100 rocket flights, and millions of airplane flights. Guess which ones are an actual problem?
1
NASA publishes the raw data for all of their science missions.
1
There is no dome. We can bounce radio signals off the Moon, and measure its distance from the delay in getting those signals back. This confirms the moon is at 380,000 km. Other objects in the sky are at different distances, confirming they are not on a dome, but objects in space.
1
It's pretty easy to establish that I can point an antenna at most places in the sky and get no reflected signal back, proving that there is no dome. The places that do reflect my signal back move at high speed (and we can measure this speed), proving that the reflection is caused by a moving object that operates in a way consistent with the laws of gravity (i.e. those objects are in orbit).
1
the centrifugal force due to Earth's rotation is tiny compared to gravity. We can measure this: we can weigh an object at the equator, then go to the pole and weigh it again. The weight changes by 0.3%: at the equator, the measured weight is 0.3% lower due to Earth's rotation.
1
No, they're photos.
1
@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
@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
LARES-2 is an attempt to measure it more accurately.
1
The reason we don't do that anymore is Echo was only usable with powerful transmitters. Instead of a Starlink pizza box, you'd need a giant dish antenna in your garden. Echo used 26-meter antennas. and Echo had severely limited capacity: transmissions would interfere with each other, while Starlink can separate its transmissions into beams.
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. 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
Those 11 are stuff that was launched with those 5 spacecraft (de-spin weights, solid boosters).
1
No. Voyager 1 is sending some spurious telemetry from one system (AACS).
1
There's only one star in our solar system: the Sun. It will take tens of thousands of years before either Voyager gets anywhere near another star. I suspect you're talking about asteroids or space debris instead: space is empty. The gaps between objects are huge, so the chance of hitting anything is astronomically low.
1
@DT2PZ0 It's not a silly statement, it's a true statement. We don't need photos to prove Earth is a sphere. A few examples: 1. The ancient Greeks were able to work out that Earth cannot be flat, just from naked-eye observations. They did this by observing the horizon. Ships moving away disappear over the horizon. When you look at the same ship from two places, one at sea level, the other on top of a tower or cliff, the person at sea level will see the ship disappear first. This can only happen if there is a physical obstacle between the observer and the ship. The only explanation that works is that Earth is a sphere. 2. They observed the shape of Earth's shadow during an eclipse: it's a circle segment. This happens for all lunar eclipses, no matter which part of Earth is in daylight. The only shape that produces a circular shadow in any orientation is a sphere. 3. In 250 BC, Eratosthenes calculated the diameter of Earth, by measuring the elevation of the sun at noon in two cities a known distance apart. His value is within 2% of the currently known value. 4. When more accurate instruments became available for measuring elevation angles, we started using them for navigation, We found that those elevation angles accurately predicted where on Earth you are (latitude). This only works on a sphere. 5. For the past 400 years, we have been able to measure the curvature directly using a geodetic survey. 6. We can circumnavigate the planet in any direction: we can fly in a straight line and end up where we started. This is only possible on a sphere. 7. We can look at the planets, e.g. Jupiter: with a decent telescope you can see that they are rotating spheres. 8. Spherical excess: when we measure a triangle on Earth's surface, the sum of the angles is greater than 180º, which shows the triangle is not on a flat plane.
1
Going to the moon remains complicated and dangerous.
1
When you have 3 points of a planet's orbit, you can calculate its orbit. Depending on the accuracy of your data and the distance of the object, this can be done quickly: we've done this in less than a week for some of Saturn's moons. For Pluto, it took 1 year. No need to wait until 2178.
1
In 1976, someone retranslated a Sumerian text and claimed it talks about an unknown planet. Charlatans then claimed this planet (Nibiru) would destroy Earth in 2012 (coinciding with the end of one period in the Mayan calendar). When that didn't happen (and indeed, no new planet was visible in the night sky), charlatans moved on to the next bit of nonsense. We have found actual planets much further out than this hypothetical one. Sedna has a 10,000 year orbit. So we know Nibiru doesn't exist, and any claims about a "planet 9" that will destroy us can be dismissed.
1
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
The Space Shuttle did 6 missions that involved Hubble. The first was the launch, the others were service missions, where they would fly up to Hubble, grab it with the robotic arm, attach it to the payload bay and do spacewalks to replace Hubble components.
1
'all that weight' was maybe 200 kg in computers. A lot by modern standards, but a tiny part of the 50 tons of equipment we sent to the moon.
1
The Space Shuttle is so heavy (80 tons) that it can't carry enough fuel to accelerate from low Earth orbit to a translunar injection orbit.
1
That's nonsense. All of the originals are available via the Mikulski Archive for Space Telescopes.
1
Yes. It's too dim to see that with the naked eye, though.
1
TLDR: Don't be afraid to give negative feedback. Artemis is overcomplicated.
1
no, they're not. They've shown Hubble and JWST images of the same area side by side, and there's a huge difference.
1
it's difficult to get to French Guyana in the middle of a lockdown.
1
False. The Apollo missions are real.
1
no, but the Voyagers aren't powered by chemical batteries. They use radioisotope thermal generators: Pu-238 decays and produces heat, Peltier elements convert this to electricity. Pu-238 has a half-life of 87.7 years, so the output of the RTG reduces a bit every year. The Voyagers started out with 470 W, they're at about half of that now.
1
In theory, yes. We'd have to solve some problems first though: transferring PB of data over such long distances, and measuring the distance exactly enough for VLBI to work.
1
Early 80s it could well have been the Pioneers. They are on their way out of the solar system too. They're a bit slower than the Voyagers (the Voyagers have overtaken the Pioneers in recent years). The Voyagers were still working when they exited the solar system (= they exited the heliosphere, the bubble inside of which our solar wind is the biggest influence), so the Voyagers were the first to provide measurements of the environment outside the heliosphere. That phone call sounds like they took some of the data sent by the spacecraft and translated it to sound.
1
Lung problems are usually caused by long-term exposure, not the max. 6 days the Apollo astronauts were exposed to the dust.
1
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
@mikeprice4079 One person said that, and he was wrong. The technology is not lost. We can still look up how everything worked on Apollo: that's all in public archives.
1
@truckloadoftruth4772 There's nothing in science that says "time stops to exist" outside of Earth's influence. The clocks on the Voyager spacecraft continue to operate normally at 150 AU from Earth, far from any measurable influence of Earth.
1
@truckloadoftruth4772 Einstein's concept of spacetime has been proven again and again: his theory makes predictions of phenomena we should encounter in nature. Every time, we find that these phenomena exist. Time dilation: we have loaded cesium clocks onto airplanes and flown them around the world in opposite directions, and we found that the two clocks display a time difference that is predicted by GR. Curvature of spacetime: light is bent by gravity, as predicted by GR. We see this in starlight from stars behind the sun. We see this when the light from entire galaxies is bent by galaxies in front of them. Gravitational waves, Mercury's orbit, and more all show that Einstein was correct.
1
The atmosphere stops most meteors before they become meteorites.
1
The chance of that happening is very low (less than 1 in a billion).
1
That is correct for British English only.
1
No, that's not something the Apollo astronauts could hear. Earthquakes are not audible. The 'rang like a bell' was a description of the seismogram, which showed that the moonquake continued a lot longer than it would have on Earth.
1
@patrick2t724 The 'ringing' visible in the seismograms is caused by the fact that the moon is dry rock: no liquid mantle, and no liquids like water or oil embedded in the rock. On Earth, these dampen vibrations.
1
Geodetic surveys (i.e. measurement of Earth's surface, and how points on the surface relate to each other) show that no part of the known Earth is flat.
1
Apophis was discovered in 2004.
1
@amyredford7158 It took 450,000 people to solve all the problems that needed to be solved to get to the Moon. There were about 200 German scientists, so they did about 0.05% of the work. von Braun made people aware of the possibility, Kennedy convinced the American political system and the public it would be a good idea, and 450,000 people advanced the state of the art from the 100 km altitude von Braun had reached to the Saturn V that would carry people to the Moon.
1
@igordrakulovic6857 We have lots of evidence that the Apollo landings are real, and no evidence at all that they were faked.
1
You can find all of the originals at the Mikulski Archive for Space Telescopes.
1
JWST is a joint NASA-ESA-CSA project. The launch was part of ESA's contribution to the cost.
1
That is an issue for the sun-facing side of the telescope: the sun imparts a (tiny) thrust. The starlight hitting the other side is many orders of magnitude weaker than sunlight, so its thrust is negligible.
1
Eh, no.
1
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
That's a small eruption before the main one.
1
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
You're mixing up JWST and NGR. NGR uses a mirror donated by the NRO which has stipulated that it must not be used to image Earth. NGR, like JWST will orbit the L2 point.
1
It's pretty obvious that the moon is not made of plasma. A plasma is a gas that's hot enough for the atoms to lose electrons. A gas that hot glows brightly. The moon does not produce light, as is obvious when you look at a moon that's not full. Why go on about "telling the truth" when you propagate such easily-disproven nonsense?
1
it's much cheaper to build a giant antenna here on Earth than to build one in space.
1
5 years is the length of the primary mission. That's how much time they need to answer the questions this telescope was built to answer. The telescope is designed to last at least this long, with margin for error; 10 years is how long they expect the fuel to last.
1
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
@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
@arclightredux6088 no, 450,000 people in total.
1
Yes. the R-7. There have been a bunch of satellite launchers derived from ICBMs as well, usually an ICBM with an extra stage on top.
1
No, it'll be made out of aluminium sheet and tubing, like the old one.
1
@huanhoundofthevailinor2374 The current definition isn't great, but there's no definition that makes scientific sense that would leave you with 9 planets. It's either 8 or dozens.
1
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
I have seen the arc. N 53°01'14.44 E 5°12'2891, looking along the Afsluitdijk. Video: Causeway Ijsselmeer The Netherlands - Earth's Curvature
1
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
this video has a resolution of 500 meters/pixel, and it consists of images taken 10 minutes apart. So you're looking at a cloud that's 1-2 km wide. This is consistent with small-scale volcanic activity before the big eruption, it's not consistent with a missile strike.
1
@violetflame6596 The photos are timestamped. This satellite has been taking images every 10 minutes for years. You can also independently verify both resolution and timeframe, by counting the number of pixels (the original is a 10k x 10k image which shows the entire hemisphere with a radius of 12,000 km) and by e.g. measuring the shockwave (which propagates at a known speed).
1
@violetflame6596 Did you see the part about independent verification? I don't have to trust anything to arrive at this conclusion, I'm using the exact same images you are. You are choosing to interpret the images as if they were high-resolution 24fps video, and I'm telling you that's not how this video was made. You're the one seeing things that are not there and calling them "facts".
1
@kimbyrd2298 That's incorrect. 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
Artemis was a mess from the beginning. The SpaceX-supplied lander is the most sane part of the project.
1
@FrankyPi I agree there's risk involved with HLS. I was referring to the decision to use Orion and SLS, but not optimize them for the lunar mission so they end up with a lunar orbit that is way too big.
1
@NinjaGaiden-z7t No, that is not perspective. Perspective is that faraway objects seem to get smaller in every dimension at the same time. The experiment I described above demonstrates that perspective is not a factor in the way a ship disappears as it goes over the horizon: if that was caused by perspective, the whole ship would disappear at once. what we see in reality is that the ship gets hidden from the bottom up. When the superstructure is visible but the hull below it is not, that proves that perspective is not causing the ship to disappear.
1
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
Yes, it has a refueling port. What we don't have yet is a spacecraft that can safely approach JWST without damaging the sunshield.
1
Do look up, and measure Apophis' orbit, and you can see that NASA is telling the truth.
1
Apollo 11 took about 600 photos on the surface, not 5000. When your information is off by that much, no wonder your conclusions are incorrect.
1
it starts out as a sphere. Collisions between objects tend to cancel out 'vertical' movement, leaving only the 'horizontal' component, and everything ends up orbiting in the same direction.
1
Not all rainbows are political.
1
It's a problem that was noticed during the first mission. Various things were tried to mitigate the problem on later missions.
1
No. An area the size of this telescope is hit by one object less than 1 cm3 in size once every 1000 years.
1
That video is a load of bullshit, claiming the moon landings were faked.
1
Nope. 450,000 people worked on Apollo and made it a success. Kubrick was off to the side directing 2001: A Space Odyssey.
1
The nice thing about science is that we don't have to witness an event to be able to get a decent picture of an event. Craters are formed by a finite number of physical processes, which we have studied in detail here on Earth, and we've created and validated models. These models can then be used to on other planets. If we encounter a crater there, we can use its features to reconstruct what happens. Are we 100% certain? No. No scientist ever is. We can however a. eliminate everything we've disproven, and b.offer a hypothesis that is based on solid data. Are we guessing blindly? Far from it.
1
Don't be an ass.
1
I don't think Peltier coolers will get you to 6 K.
1
You want the timing to be accurate, because when one mirror is out of phase with another, the signal from those 2 mirrors would cancel each other out.
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.
1
the 'space is very empty' comment was about dust, meteors etc. The average density of space in our solar system is 1 atom per cm3. You're right, there are lots of stars, but they're very far apart.
1
That's a load of nonsense.
1
@JohnParker1967 False. The suit had an inner airtight layer, and immediately outside of that, a layer of non-stretchy woven material that stopped the inner layer from expanding.
1
Ah, the old argument from incredulity. Instead of researching, you just assume based on no evidence.
1
AI will claim that 2+2 equals 5, so it's not a reliable judge of reality. Actual people with actual brains have analyzed the Apollo photos and found that they are real. Worse for you, they cannot be fake: we can't replicate those photos on Earth today. The Shuttles were designed to take 20 tons of payload into LEO. That made them large and heavy, and unable to bring along enough fuel to get to the moon.
1
The actual data on the van Allen belts shows that the radiation level is low enough that humans can travel through the belts without issue. Bean spoke the truth, as did the other Apollo astronauts.
1
@deanhall6045 Kelly Smith was talking about the electronics on Orion. Modern integrated circuits are far more susceptible to radiation than the much larger semiconductors used in Apollo. Kelly's job was to make sure the modern electronics on Orion would function well in the van Allen belts. van Allen's calculations have not changed. The radiation levels have not changed, and continue to be low enough that humans can pass through them safely. The only change between 1969 and now is the electronics. Alan Bean had no reason to know about the belts. He didn't have to do anything related to the belts. That was all taken care of during the design of the Apollo spacecraft.
1
@deanhall6045 From 2012, to 2019, a pair of spacecraft (the van Allen Probes) did long-term measurements of the radiation levels in the belts. All of that data was published. And no, the Orion data was not classified "top secret".
1
@deanhall6045 In 1970, I could fly from London to New York at Mach 2, on Concorde. Now, I can't. Technology going backward.
1
@deanhall6045 Yesterday, I downloaded a load of data from the van Allen probes archive. It's all there, proving you wrong. The data gathered by James van Allen and his team in 1958-1962 is all over the science journals of that era.
1
@deanhall6045 Astronauts spend their time studying the information that is important to them: spacecraft operations, navigation, science operations, etc. They did not have any tasks related to the van Allen belts. No procedures to go through before crossing the belts. No settings to change before crossing the belts. Therefore, there was no need to study the belts.
1
@deanhall6045 Kelly is talking about Orion only. At the time of that video, he was preparing for the first test flight of Orion. Moon landing deniers like to twist his words, and you fell for that trick.
1
@deanhall6045 Supersonic travel is impossible for civilians today.
1
@deanhall6045 It took me 30 seconds to find the van Allen probes archive at JHUAPL.
1
@deanhall6045 Ah, so supersonic passenger flight ended because it was unprofitable. Apollo cost $250 billion. It was the most expensive engineering program in history, and that cost was only accepted by the USA because of Kennedy's mandate to beat the Russians to the moon. Once that goal was achieved, the political will to fund NASA at 5% of the US Federal budget dwindled. By 1972, NASA's budget was reduced by 90%, making manned lunar missions unaffordable. NASA attempted to make spaceflight cheaper with the Space Shuttle, but was not given enough money to see that through so the Shuttle ended up a compromise design that was still very expensive per launch. The Shuttle was incapable of leaving Earth orbit (it was too heavy and could not carry enough fuel). NASA's manned spaceflight budget was insufficient to support a second manned spacecraft for lunar missions, which meant that manned lunar missions were unaffordable from 1972 to 2010. Only in 2017 did NASA get a new mandate to do manned lunar missions.
1
@deanhall6045 If the "new data is top secret", how do you know the radiation is much worse? You're contradicting yourself.
1
@deanhall6045 Again, we know how van Allen discovered the belts because that information is all over various science journals from the 1960s. The very first satellites launched by the US were designed to measure the environment of space. Temperature, radiation etc. Van Allen used data from Explorer 1, 3 and 4, and Pioneer 3. Data from those missions is in the NSSDCA.
1
@deanhall6045 From 1972 until 2010, low Earth orbit was the limit for practical reasons: the Space Shuttle cannot carry enough fuel to get to high orbits. Dragon is also limited in that it cant' get to the moon, again because it can't carry enough fuel. Neither have anything to do with radiation. And no, there is no astronaut that claims the radiation level in the VA belts is "100 times the lethal dose". Again, you are making claims without evidence, allowing yourself to be misled by moon landing deniers.
1
@deanhall6045 Everything I've said is easily verifiable fact. The radiation level increases when you get to higher altitude. But there's a huge difference between "the radiation level increases" and your claim of "the radiation is immediately lethal". Again, our measurements of the van Allen belts show that the radiation levels are NOT immediately lethal. In the center of the inner belt (a region only a few thousand km across), where the radiation level is highest, you receive a lethal dose after one week of exposure. 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 of the inner belt entirely. The radiation dose on the Apollo missions was no higher than 1.2 Rad, while a lethal dose is 300 Rad.
1
@deanhall6045 I've read your posts, I've explained to you that your claims are incorrect and I've given you the real data. Your entire claim boils down to "nuh-uh". You have presented no data on the van Allen belts. You have claimed that data is classified - but I found that data in a public archive. Now, instead of accepting that you were wrong, you are doubling down on nonsense.
1
@deanhall6045 Again, everything I've said is easily verifiable by comparing it to data in public archives. Your claim is "the radiation in the VA belts is lethal, but I can't show you the data because it's classified", which is self-contradictory.
1
@deanhall6045 Youtube deletes almost all posts with links.
1
JWST's cameras would be damaged by the heat if they were aimed at Earth. Luckily, we don't need JWST for this. There's loads of satellites closer to Earth that provide images of Earth every day. JWST will probably be used in the search for planet X (which is far away in the outer solar system, if it exists). We're certain Nibiru does not exist - we regularly look at the area where the legend says it is, and there's nothing there.
1
Nope. The ISS is in the sky. You can see it pass overhead with the naked eye.
1
You're wrong. 1. 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 convince them was to actually go to the Moon. 2. Other independent parties tracked the Apollo missions as well, including radio astronomers from various countries. 3. The Indian Moon mission Chandrayaan-2 photographed the landers. So did one of the Chinese Moon missions. 4. The Apollo missions left laser reflectors on the Moon. Anyone with a decent laser and a telescope can ping these and verify they're there. 5. NASA has 380 kg of moon rock samples. These samples are different from anything found on Earth. Any geologist can examine these samples. 6. All of the hardware that was needed for a Moon mission was actually designed and built. Examples remain on Earth and can be examined, and found to be real. Crucial parts like the Apollo Guidance Computer have been examined by outsiders and they work exactly as NASA said they would.
1
No, we can't. That's the whole point of this video.
1
@joseywells9616 Whatever you're looking at, it's not a planet.
1
it hasn't been released yet.
1
They're planning an event where the images will be shown and explained, and questions can be answered. Much better than dribbling them out piecemeal.
1
Use your common sense: at the speed of the Apollo spacecraft, 226000 miles takes only 3 days of travel.
1
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
In theory, yes. We'd have to solve some problems first though: transferring PB of data over such long distances, and measuring the distance exactly enough for VLBI to work.
1
Yes. It's possible now, just very expensive.
1
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
Note that Perseverance wasn't a whole lot cheaper than Curiosity. You get some economies of scale from #2, but the production numbers have to be larger to get a real savings. Then there's the infractructure. JWST occupied a giant clean room for about 5 years. Those rooms don't come cheap, so where do you leave the second telescope?
1
There's tons of evidence that supports the moon landings being real, and no evidence that supports the idea the moon landings were fake. All of the so-called arguments the moon hoaxers come up with fall apart with even a cursory examination. Why do you believe a story that has no supporting evidence?
1
No, they didn't throw away the data. All of the drawings, thousands of technical reports etc. still exist. Don Pettit was wrong about that.
1
@boriskaragiannis.7735 I have no idea what that means.
1
@boriskaragiannis.7735 I'm not going to view all of the videos on a channel.
1
@boriskaragiannis.7735 The first video I opened was unwatchable. His arguments are incoherent. Not going to waste time on that.
1
@boriskaragiannis.7735 If you think that pile of drivel should be more believable than the thousands of photos, hours of film and thousands of technical reports provided by the Apollo missions, you need to learn what evidence is.
1
Yes. RocketLab has flown hundreds of 3D printed engines in their missions already.
1
The Voyagers have several programmable computers on board. They replaced the software several times (each planetary encounter had a new program).
1
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
@jeanbonnefoy1377 No, the Cape was officially called Cape Kennedy 1963-1973.
1
@mikecolquhoun1674 It has solar panels to power the electrical systems on board. These systems require up to 2 kW of power. If you want to use fossil fuels to produce 2 kW for 10 years, that's 175 MWh, at 200 g/kWh is 35 tons of fuel, and you need oxygen as well. The solar panel weighs closer to 35 kg. With 35 tons of fuel we wouldn't have been able to launch JWST - there's no rocket today that can lift a payload that heavy.
1
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
That angular size this video talks about: 60 microarcseconds. That's 1000 times smaller than what our best telescopes can resolve: i.e. 1 pixel of a JWST image. So Sag A* is far too small to be seen by visible-light or IR telescopes.
1
You didn't watch the video then. The astronauts did NOT have ejection seats and did not survive.
1
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
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
it's called DSN Now.
1
Yes, you can. Gravity acts on gases, just like it acts on liquids and solids.
1
In 50 years, nobody has presented a single shred of evidence for the claim that the moon landings were faked. The only people who have been caught lying are the moon landing deniers.
1
That was actually considered. The JHUAPL Interstellar Mission is a current study for a fast probe to outside the heliosphere. One option they considered was a close flyby of the Sun for a gravity assist. Unfortunately, the shielding required for this added so much mass that the net effect was too small to be usable.
1
JWST will start doing science in 6 months. They have started taking images for mirror calibration this week.
1
No.
1
The sun does not have micronovas. That's sensationalist nonsense cooked up by people who profit from selling lies.
1
Space is very, very empty. The average density out there is 1 atom per cm3. Even in the densest part of the solar system (the asteroid belt), there was only a 1 in 1 billion chance of hitting something.
1
LARES-2 is an attempt to measure it more accurately.
1
It's much cheaper to build a few more antennas here on Earth.
1
In 2021, NASA started development of 2 Venus missions: DAVINCI+ and VERITAS. A rover would be an immensely complex project: the Venera record stands at about 90 minutes of surface operations. You want a rover to survive for months or years.
1
The resolution of this EHT image is 1000 times better than what the JWST will achieve. That's the advantage of having a telescope the size of Earth. What JWST will see is comparable to that timelapse of stars orbiting the black hole.
1
@robertbutsch1802 Not quite. We already have near-IR observations made by the VLT that show the stars closest to the black hole. This telescope made the timelapse of these stars orbiting the black hole.
1
It's called an 8-track tape because there are 8 tracks of data side by side on the tape. But yeah, this is not the consumer 8-track cartridge system.
1
20 minutes is the average, rounded up. Close enough for the purposes of this video.
1
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
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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@Bibiisachildkiller You're the one making that incoherent argument: "we stopped making X, so X had to be fake".
1
@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
 @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
There is a proposal to do that: the APL Interstellar mission. It turns out to be really difficult to make a spacecraft faster than the Voyagers: the APL proposal requires a launch on an SLS, and its speed is 7 AU/year, only twice as fast as Voyager.
1
We have photos of stars orbiting an object that's mostly invisible. From those orbits we can calculate how much mass there must be: 4 million solar masses in a tiny amount of space. The only theory that can explain those observations is a black hole. Now we've imaged that invisible object, and our observations match the theory. That means black holes are real, not theoretical, not imaginary. Welcome to science.
1
NASA is shackled by Congress, who mandated the use of Shuttle components for SLS. BTW, Apollo cost $250 billion in today's dollars, dwarfing that $44B number.
1
The eruption continues to generate steam and smoke after the shockwave.
1
The US already spends far more than JWST's annual budget on the homeless. Throwing more money at this problem isn't going to solve it, it'll require changes to how US society works. Starting with a better way to pay for medical care: many homeless are homeless because of medical bankruptcy. Those changes will not happen as long as the Republican party has any influence.
1
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
I spent some time investigating the links between Hubble and spy satellites; my conclusion is that those links are tenuous at best. By the time the Hubble project was started, spy satellites with 2.4 m mirrors were in operation. That meant there was confidence in the industry they could build high-quality 2.4 m mirrors. But the Hubble mirror contract went to Perkin-Elmer, who hadn't built a mirror larger than 1.5 meters yet. Ironically, the backup mirror contract went to Kodak, who did have experience, and made a mirror that had the correct shape. For checking the shape of the mirror, Perkin-Elmer reused an instrument that was built for those 1.5 m mirrors. They modified the instrument, but made a mistake that ended up putting a critical part of the instrument 1.3 mm out of place, which meant the mirror was ground incorrectly. Had the Hubble mirror been an off-the-shelf part, this error would have been found before. Hubble's control systems don't match spy satellites. Hubble's maximum rotation rate is too slow to do Earth observation, for example. And Hubble's instruments are all built to observe faint objects, whereas spy satellites work on daylit Earth. IR has limited usefulness for espionage. IR is absorbed by water in the atmosphere, so an IR photo of Earth shows the distribution of water vapor. Weather satellites use this.
1
5 years is the length of the primary mission. That's how much time they need to answer the questions this telescope was built to answer. The telescope is designed to last at least this long, with margin for error; 10 years is how long they expect the fuel to last.
1
This has nothing to do with cancel culture. The current definition just wasn't working well any more for astrophysics purposes. Classification (=dividing things into categories) has always been part of science, because it makes it easier to have a discussion when everybody uses the same classification. When Galileo saw Jupiter and understood that it was a planet like ours, the solar system had two classes: anything in orbit around the Sun is a planet, anything in orbit around a planet is a moon. Then we started to discover asteroids, starting with the largest: Ceres. This was initially considered a planet. Then we discovered hundreds of smaller objects in similar orbits, and astronomers added a new class: asteroids. Ceres was moved from the Planet class to the Asteroid class. Then we discovered Pluto. Seemed to be alone in its region, so it was considered a planet. Then we discovered hundreds of smaller objects in similar orbits, and astronomers added a new class: dwarf planets. Pluto was moved from the Planet class to the Dwarf Planet class. The more objects you have, the more classes it becomes useful to divide them into. This is done everywhere in science. What most people call mosquitoes, biologists divide into several hundred species. Etc. In this case, a scientific classification has entered the public consciousness and people are flipping out because they have an emotional attachment to Pluto.
1
Space is really empty.
1
@MissMystique187 In 50 years, nobody has presented a single shred of evidence that shows any of the Apollo landings was faked, much less all of them. All the deniers ever come up with is contrived 'arguments' that turn out to be baseless.
1
it's 6 months, not a year.
1
Yes.
1
The sun's gravity is dominant in a much larger area than that: roughly halfway to the next star, so 2 lightyears or so.
1
I'm amazed that people believe the moon landings were faked, when we have a ton of evidence that proves the landings are real, and no evidence at all that they were faked.
1
False. Hubble, NGR or JWST observations are public. None of them can image Earth: their instruments are built for observation of faint, faraway objects. Hubble's attitude control system cannot keep up with Earth's rotation. etc. Spy satellites are run by the NRO, who have satellites for their exclusive use, which is much simpler than running a clandestine mission in the middle of a public project.
1
Yes.
1
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
There's an excellent graph (made by Randall Munro of xkcd) called 'possible undiscovered planets'. This shows there's an area of our solar systems where our telescopes don't have enough resolution yet to see a planet. Exoplanets are found by looking at a star and detecting changes, not by imaging planets directly.
1
@palimpalim5291 They weren't there to take selfies.
1
@palimpalim5291 They had a second Hasselblad on board the LM, this wasn't intended for surface use so had a black finish rather than silver, but in the event of a malfunction of the DAC they could have used this.
1
@palimpalim5291 The documentation of Apollo 11 was perfectly adequate. And the number of US sample return missions to the moon: 0.
1
@palimpalim5291 We have him on TV and on high-res film. Selfies are overrated, we already know what he looks like.
1
In the 1960s, it took the combined efforts of 450,000 people for a decade to go to the moon. They had countless problems, but solved them all by throwing tons of manpower at them. The van Allen belts was not one of those problems. By 1962, we had measured the radiation levels in the belts, and it was clear that humans in an unshielded spacecraft could go through the belts safely. The only thing you shouldn't do was orbit in the center of the belts for long periods: then the radiation dose builds up to lethal levels over time. We did not lose the Apollo technology in any meaningful sense: we know exactly how they did everything. All of that information is preserved and easily available. The only thing we 'lost' (better: allow to be discarded) is the production lines for the Apollo hardware. Artemis is far more ambitious than Apollo. Instead of having 2 people on the moon for 3 days, we want to build a base on the moon, and have 4-man crews spend months on the moon.
1
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
No, the EU model didn't predict the heliopause.
1
False. Thermodynamics laws pose no barrier for lunar landings.
1
@myndzi8125 Gravity provides the container for our atmosphere.
1
That's a load of nonsense. Planet-size objects are easy to detect from any of the 800 astronomical observatories on Earth, plus the thousands of amateur astronomers. NASA is in no position to keep this kind of information secret.
1
They all have 8 spikes, but on the dimmer objects some spikes are less bright than others.
1
Probably 8.7 miles instead. Or even 8.7 km.
1
If you find it, let us know. The telescope used for that timelapse was probably the VLT.
1
Yes. At 14.7 psi/1 bar, moving your limbs would be exhausting.
1
There's no physics that supports a torus-shaped object with a mass of 4 million times the sun.
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, 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.
1
It spent only about 30 minutes "close to our atmosphere". JWST's location orbiting L2 is empty: no space debris there.
1
After the Voyagers, we switched to missions that orbit one planet to study it in far more detail than a flyby ever could: Galileo and Juno at Jupiter, Cassini at Saturn. New Horizons to Pluto is the exception (a mission that can enter Pluto's orbit would have been very expensive).
1
not of the whole process I guess, but I've seen time lapses of e.g. the sunshield deployment test.
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
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
All NGR observations will be published.
1
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
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
Classification (=dividing things into categories) has always been part of science, because it makes it easier to have a discussion when everybody uses the same classification. When Galileo saw Jupiter and understood that it was a planet like ours, the solar system had two classes: anything in orbit around the Sun is a planet, anything in orbit around a planet is a moon. Then we started to discover asteroids, starting with the largest: Ceres. This was initially considered a planet. Then we discovered hundreds of smaller objects in similar orbits, and astronomers added a new class: asteroids. Ceres was moved from the Planet class to the Asteroid class. Then we discovered Pluto. Seemed to be alone in its region, so it was considered a planet. Then we discovered hundreds of smaller objects in similar orbits, and astronomers added a new class: dwarf planets. Pluto was moved from the Planet class to the Dwarf Planet class. The more objects you have, the more classes it becomes useful to divide them into. This is done everywhere in science. What most people call mosquitoes, biologists divide into several hundred species. Etc. In this case, a scientific classification has entered the public consciousness and people are flipping out because they have an emotional attachment to Pluto.
1
@coreyr.1012 With a telescope, I can see details. The ISS is recognizable even through an amateur telescope. I can see that no satellite is attached to a balloon. With a simple photo camera, I can measure the speed and altitude, and find values that are impossible to achieve for a balloon: satellites move at 28,000 km/h, or 100 times faster than any balloon has ever been. With a radio antenna, I can find the location of satellites, even in geostationary orbit, at 36,000 km, that's 1000 times higher than any balloon has ever been. In addition to the 10,000 satellites we have in orbit, NASA launches a handful of balloons per year to conduct atmospheric research. Those travel at an altitude of up to 30 km, and operate for about a month. Then the balloon pops and the payload falls back to Earth.
1
@coreyr.1012 Whether you believe me or not is irrelevant. Instructions for doing all of these things are easy to find, so you can try this yourself. From the 1980s, hundreds of millions of people have done #3, aiming satellite dishes at a point 36,000 km above the equator. Finding the altitude of a satellite requires a buddy: you need to take two photos of the same satellite at the same time, from different angles. Finding the speed of a satellite is easy when you've found the altitude: a few more photos will give you the speed.
1
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
@morrisonathome I'm going to believe the people with actual experience.
1
@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
@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
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
Look at JWST's location: the L2 point. You can a draw a straight line from the Sun to Earth, and continue outwards to get to L2. JWST's vertical axis is parallel to this line. It can pitch up to +5º and -30º from this axis. To image Earth, it would have to pitch almost 90º, and that would expose the cold side of the telescope to direct sunlight, which would overheat the telescope. It's pretty pointless to aim JWST at Earth: Earth's atmosphere is opaque at the wavelengths JWST is designed for, so you'd just see the distribution of water vapor in the atmosphere. We don't need JWST to get high-res images of Earth. We have geostationary weather satellites that take images of the entire hemisphere every 10 minutes, see for example https://youtu.be/zoMRwyNhqJ4 and we have lots of low-orbit Earth imaging programs (Landsat, SPOT, Maxar to name a few). Anyone can buy high-res satellite photos from several sources. And the images from those geostationary weather satellites are available for free on the NOAA website.
1
no, the Voyagers are too small and dim for that.
1
Yes, we'll see all of the pictures it makes. Like other scientific missions, there will be a public image archive.
1
Armstrong was captured on TV and film, plus one photo.
1
Dude, did you watch the video at all? The Planet 9 we're looking for is not Pluto; it's a much larger, more distant object.
1
@jonathannagela2130 Contrails are curved. This is not very visible from the ground, but that doesn't mean the curvature is not there.
1
@jonathannagela2130 "idiot" is a good word for someone whose goal in life is to waste people's time.
1
Musk is building all those rockets primarily because he wants to go to Mars. That's what Starship was designed for. Meanwhile, they've added a secondary goal of launching Starlink satellites (and they have to launch thousands of them. The Moon project is a nice bonus.
1
@waynewells4885 "he isn't doing ANY Mars stuff" except for developing the giant rocket that can make a Mars colony even remotely affordable.
1
@waynewells4885 You'll notice that I did not say anything about Musk being a 'hero'. I just answered your question of 'why is SpaceX building a fleet of Starships'.
1
JWST can't image Earth or the Moon, because that would expose the cold side of the telescope to direct sunlight, which would overheat the telescope. Earth's atmosphere is opaque at the wavelengths JWST is designed for, so you'd just see the distribution of water vapor in the atmosphere.
1
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
Normal black holes are generated when a large star goes supernova. Supermassive black holes occur ing the center of a galaxy.
1
The moon is not in a circular orbit, the Earth-moon distance varies by 10%. Craters are "the same depth" because these large impacts melted enough tock to fill the crater with lava. The soil below the surface is not younger. The apparent size of the moon is only approximately the same size as the sun. Because the moon's orbit is not circular and neither is Earth's orbit around the sun, there is enough variation in the apparent sizes that you get annular eclipses, where the sun is visible as a ring around the moon. The moon's orbit is slowly getting larger, so in a few million years, all eclipses will be annular.
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. Every day, you benefit from data generated in space, proving space is real and Earth is not flat.
1
Let's do a sanity check on that. Earth's cross-section is 3.9 E13 square meters. JWSST's mirror is 3E1 square meters. How much can JWST possibly add to the amount of sunlight that reaches Earth? answer: 10e-13, or 0.0000000000001. Sanity check 2: Where would you place a mirror if you want more sunlight on Earth? A: not on the night side, that's for sure.
1
Incorrect. The dust is not radioactive, just like ground-up rock on Earth is not radioactive.
1
@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
There is no relationship between JWST and spy satellites.
1
No, that's incorrect. We have found about 1000 Kuiper Belt Objects.
1
@iupetre no, we're seeing objects in stable orbits that are right in the middle of where we predicted the Kuiper Belt to be.
1
@iupetre from Wikipedia: After the discovery of Pluto in 1930, many speculated that it might not be alone. The region now called the Kuiper belt was hypothesized in various forms for decades. It was only in 1992 that the first direct evidence for its existence was found. The number and variety of prior speculations on the nature of the Kuiper belt have led to continued uncertainty as to who deserves credit for first proposing it. The Kuiper belt was initially thought to be the main repository for periodic comets, those with orbits lasting less than 200 years. Studies since the mid-1990s have shown that the belt is dynamically stable and that comets' true place of origin is the scattered disc, a dynamically active zone created by the outward motion of Neptune 4.5 billion years ago;] scattered disc objects such as Eris have extremely eccentric orbits that take them as far as 100 AU from the Sun. In 1943, in the Journal of the British Astronomical Association, Kenneth Edgeworth hypothesized that, in the region beyond Neptune, the material within the primordial solar nebula was too widely spaced to condense into planets, and so rather condensed into a myriad smaller bodies. From this he concluded that "the outer region of the solar system, beyond the orbits of the planets, is occupied by a very large number of comparatively small bodies": xii and that, from time to time, one of their number "wanders from its own sphere and appears as an occasional visitor to the inner solar system",: 2 becoming a comet. So comets were part of early Kuiper Belt hypotheses, but larger objects in stable orbits were too. And we haven't just found the KB, we've also found objects in the scattered disk, which we now think is the source of short-period comets.
1
Thanks for confirming you live in the 15th century.
1
JWST will start doing science in 6 months. Mirror calibration and cooldown will take until then. All JWST images will be published.
1
Troll.
1
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
NASA goes everywhere. I can see the ISS in orbit, even with the naked eye. Radio amateurs have received signals from NASA missions on Mars.
1
Anyone who believes the moon landings were fake, despite there being no evidence of fakery, and a ton of evidence that proves the moon landings are real, is seriously mentally ill, and should seek help immediately.
1
JWST will study life on other planets exactly as the documentary said: by detecting not only water but plant and pollution generated by other lifeforms. These things show up in the spectrum of an exoplanet's light, which JWST can measure.
1
The more telescopes, the less interpolation they'd have to do.
1
waiting for the mirrors and instruments to cool down.
1
@timg6176 Simple experiments anyone can do show that Earth's surface is curved, not flat. Anyone who claims Earth is flat, is living a lie.
1
@timg6176 We have evidence that anyone can verify. You have nothing.
1
@timg6176 People who claim Earth is flat, demonstrate that they have no critical thinking skills.
1
@timg6176 This is your post, to John, who started the thread by claiming Earth is flat: "Do NOT try to convince normies of anything. They NEED the lie.". You are agreeing with John, who claims Earth is flat.
1
the raw data from all of JWST's instruments will be published. Many of JWST's images will be of objects we've imaged before, which provides a way to check the JWST data. Any astronomer can apply for observation time on JWST.
1
@kevin-ng8md There are good reasons photos of Earth look different. The Earthrise photo taken by Apollo 8 was done with a consumer camera. This is a pretty good match to what the naked eye would see. Many modern whole-hemisphere photos are made by weather satellites. These are not built to match naked-eye images: the latest weather satellites (GOES-R) have a camera that records in 16 bands across the visible and IR spectrum. It has red and blue filters, but no green, so the visible-light images made by these satellites look different to what you're used to. For details on this camera, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_S8d_1KVhU
1
@kevin-ng8md As for recreating a globe map: It's impossible to create an accurate representation of a 3D object (like a globe) in 2D. There are lots of different ways to map the 3D object to a 2D object (these are called map projections), each projection has its own errors, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIID5FDi2JQ
1
@kevin-ng8md The early origins of the universe and the Big Bang are derived from data from all kinds of instruments, most of which are not operated by NASA. Some of these observations were done long before NASA was even established: the fact that most galaxies are moving away from us was established in 1910. This was measured using ground-based telescopes around the world.
1
@kevin-ng8md There are a few exceptions: the Andromeda galaxy is moving towards us, for example. A few thousand galaxies are moving towards us, the rest (billions) are moving away from us.
1
@kevin-ng8md The pyramids don't seem to be lined up to any stars. sunset on the winter solstice falls above the Pyramid of Menkaure as seen from the Great Sphinx of Giza. And the corners of the Great Pyramid of Giza also align well with the cardinal directions — north, south, east, and west. But no alignment to stars has been found, even when we calculate where the stars were at the time the pyramids were built.
1
There were several factors: the Vietnam war (which cost so much money the US had to cut spending everywhere else), general aversion to expensive projects (even in the 1960 there were people who found Apollo too expensive), and the reality of manned spaceflight (manned missions to Jupiter would have made Apollo look cheap, and Apollo/Skylab revealed there were many unsolved problems for long-duration flights).
1
@wannabecriminalman yeah, you're right. My knowledge was outdated.
1
Yes. LARES-2 is an attempt to measure with more accuracy.
1
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
JWST will image exoplanets as a single pixel.
1
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
Using a single 34-m antenna, we can keep in contact until 2050 (Voyager 1) and 2057 (Voyager 2), if their power supply would last that long. NASA also have the option to receive data with an array of antennas, which could stretch this even further. The Voyager missions will end when there's not enough power left to operate one instrument. Not because we can't communicate with them.
1
It's not seeing anything, because the cameras have been switched off. We've been learning a lot from the instruments that are still working though.
1
We've had definitive proof that Earth is a sphere for 2500 years. Every "long distance photo" turns out to be possible on our spherical Earth: every flerf that claims it isn't possible to take photos at those distances makes basic errors in math, does not account for essential factors etc. Then there are the liars, who take photos of some clouds and then claim they're looking at an island 800 km away.
1
SpaceX has done autonomous landings of its Falcon 9 first stage more than 200 times now.
1
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
An exoplanet will be a single pixel - so all the light coming from that planet will be mixed up. I don't think we can extract an aurora from that.
1
No.
1
That was a picture of a different black hole, in the M87 galaxy.
1
no, it's a volcano. It's been active recently and it has erupted several times in the past few years.
1
Adding nitrogen would mean the suit has to be run at a higher pressure, which makes it stiffer and harder to move in.
1
In theory, yes. We'd have to solve some problems first though: transferring PB of data over such long distances, and measuring the distance exactly enough for VLBI to work.
1
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
@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
JWST won't be at the edge of the galaxy, it is at the Sun-Earth L2 point, which is 1.5 million km away from Earth. It arrived at this destination a few weeks ago.
1
@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
Ultima Thule was a preliminary choice by the team. When that was published, it turned out that name is tainted by the Nazis, so they chose a different name.
1
There's tons of evidence that supports the moon landings being real, and no evidence that supports the idea the moon landings were fake. All of the so-called arguments the moon hoaxers come up with fall apart with even a cursory examination. That "documentary" was made by people who either don't understand physics, or are deliberately telling lies.
1
for the mid-infrared instrument, yes. Longer wavelength means you need larger pixels.
1
Since 2005, over 300 impacts have been seen and recorded by the Lunar Impact Monitoring Program.
1
NASA has not been defunded: their budget is not smaller than it was before SpaceX started operating. SpaceX has done NASA a huge service by providing launch services at much lower cost than NASA managed with the rocket programs they operated.
1
@kpec3 Atmospheric refraction explains why the laser IS visible.
1
@kpec3 And as I said before, we have proven that laser light is subject to atmospheric refraction over those distances. In fact, laser light is subject to exactly as much atmospheric refraction as all other light. Laser light is not magic.
1
 Friendy Frienderson Volcanic eruptions can produce explosion sounds. Krakatoa in 1883 could be heard thousands of km away.
1
No, they didn't shut down. Both remain operational.
1
@jimmytaylor1570 yeah, there was a story in the news recently that headlined 'NASA is shutting down the Voyagers'. That headline was misleading. That "shut down" process will take years. NASA is going to keep the spacecraft running for as long as possible. They'll monitor the available power (which slowly reduces, at about 4 W/year) and switch off instruments to stay within that limit. Occasionally, they find a way to keep the instruments running for longer than expected: two years ago the engineers switched off the heater for the cosmic-ray detector, which had been crucial in determining the heliopause transit. Everyone expected the instrument to die, but it kept working. This, and variability in the rate of decay of the RTG makes it difficult to predict exaxtly when the Voyagers will run out of power to run the last remaining instrument. The current best guess is 'about 2025'.
1
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
The image can't be optically rotated. JWST uses reaction wheels, so it should be able to rotate without using fuel.
1
Just because you don't understand how we can do that, doesn't mean it's impossible.
1
-5º to +40º.
1
No, the paperwork for Apollo did not "disappear". Millions of documents for Apollo are available in public archives. All of the drawings for the Saturn V, tens of thousands of technical reports on every aspect of Apollo, all of the science data etc.
1
Clear footage of a rocket launch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2VygftZSCs
1
@TheHaughtyOsprey Rocket launches are pretty straightforward. Clear the launch tower, then a pitch maneuver as the rocket starts to accelerate to orbital speed.
1
@TheHaughtyOsprey The atmosphere rotates along with the ground. Just like a liquid in a sphere (or other container): when you start to spin the container, the liquid 'stays behind' a bit (due to inertia), but after a while, the liquid will have the same speed as the container.
1
@TheHaughtyOsprey When it's in orbit, a satellite moves parallel to the Earth's surface. To get to orbit, you need 2 things: 1. enough altitude to be above the atmosphere - at least 200 km. 2. enough horizontal speed - about 8 km/s. So you launch vertically (because that's the easiest way to place a rocket on the launch pad). Then after launch, you soon start a pitch maneuver that will allow you to start building that horizontal speed while still building altitude.
1
@TheHaughtyOsprey Gravity always points to the center of the Earth, including the poles. So at the pole like everywhere else, when you fire a bullet it's pulled toward the ground: it follows a parabolic trajectory. The moon is visible from a hemisphere: the half of the Earth that's closer to the moon. On the edge of that hemisphere, you see the Moon just above the horizon, in the middle of the hemisphere the Moon will be right overhead. You can visualize this: take a ball (or other spherical object), and place it in front of a lamp, a few feet away. Switch other lights in the room off. One half of the sphere will be illuminated - everyone living on this half can see the light. The other half of the sphere is dark - people living on this half can't see the light.
1
@TheHaughtyOsprey it's easy to build a model and make some claims about it. The concept of gravity has been tested thousands of times and the only problem we've found is in the behavior of galaxies (which led to the idea of dark matter and the search for what that can be). At all other scales the predictions made by the theory of gravity are spot-on. If you look at falling objects on Earth, you have to take into account gravity and air resistance. This goes for many theories and models: you have to look at all factors.
1
@TheHaughtyOsprey At the poles, the centrifugal force from rotation is at its lowest. It's highest at the equator: if you spin a sphere at 1 revolution per minute, the equator of that sphere has a speed of π x the diameter of the sphere, near the poles the speed is π x the local diameter which is a lot smaller. Even at the equator, centrifugal force provides an acceleration of only 0.03 m/s^2, compared to gravity's acceleration of 9.81 m/s^2. If you weigh yourself on the pole and at the equator, you'll see this difference in the measured weight.
1
@TheHaughtyOsprey What kind of experiments do you want to do? I live in Europe...
1
@TheHaughtyOsprey But can that same model replace gravity in other places? Humans are affected by gravity (=our weight). Even the strongest electromagnetic fields we can create don't affect our weight. I had an MRI scan a few years ago. I was not allowed to bring anything made of metal into the room, because it would be ripped from my hand and fly into the MRI machine at high speed. I could walk normally in and out of the room. If the force that pulls us down toward the ground is electromagnetic, the MRI machine would have affected me.
1
volcanoes worldwide in total produce about 240 million tons CO2 annually on average. Human industry and road traffic produce 20 tons per year.
1
this video does not show details smaller than 500 meters. No missile is that large. All we have is one frame showing a cloud that's 1-2 km wide. The video shows photos taken at 10-minute intervals.
1
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
@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
@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
@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
@FFE-js2zp EU is pseudoscience. Every claim made by EU proponents has been disproven. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9q-v4lBGuw
1
@FFE-js2zp What expert claims the T-38 has 2000 lbs thrust when the T-38 has TWO engines with 2000 lbf EACH?
1
@FFE-js2zp You must have a very loose definition of 'square' then.
1
The descent stage uses a parachute, plenty of opportunity for some string to get loose before the landing.
1
@passivehouseaustralia4406 "string" is shorthand for anything woven into a cable-like structure. I haven't seen a more detailed announcement.
1
We've done hundreds of those. Getting humans through the belts is easy. By 1962, we knew that the radiation levels in the belts are low enough that they pose no threat to the astronauts passing through the belts. Manned missions that orbit in the belts have to take precautions. For electronics it's a bit more difficult: modern electronics are far more susceptible to radiation than humans (older electronics are less susceptible than new designs: the smaller the features on an IC, the more susceptible to radiation). So we learned how to radiation-harden our electronics. These days, you can get radiation-hardened microprocessors from commercial sources. Every year, new satellites using these processors are launched to geostationary orbit, which is inside the outer VA belt. These satellites routinely operate for 15 years without issue.
1
That would mean it'd take a lot longer to get to the heliopause.
1
About 450,000 Americans and 200 Germans worked on the Apollo program. The German contribution to Apollo was about 0.05%.
1
Random internet commenter thinks he's smarter than people who study this for a living.
1
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
@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
@trueleo7893 You'll enjoy this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2EJ42awPOA
1
You'll have to wait a long time for that. There's about one meteor strike (average size of a golf ball) per km2 per 1000 years.
1
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
@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
They're not in the clean room yet.
1
The astronomy community has already proposed a successor (LUVOIR), this will be another flagship project that will take 20 years to develop and build.
1
Astronomers have access to about 800 observatories all over the world, plus a dozen or so space telescopes. Nobody in his right mind will present fake images to a community that has so many ways to check your work.
1
The lunar dust/rock is not radioactive.
1
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
JWST produces actual images. This channel however uses lots of CGI and stock photos in this video.
1
Eh, no. Hubble got a new mirror to a very different design to that used for spy satellites. Crucially, Hubble's mirror was a lot larger than previous mirrors made by Perkin-Elmer for spy satellites. PE modified the instrument they used for checking the mirror shape, but they did this incorrectly. Worse, they checked the mirror with a second, older instrument which indicated that the mirror shape was incorrect, but instead of realising there was a problem with a mirror, they assumed the older instrument wasn't working correctly. So the mirror was sent off for inclusion in Hubble. NASA didn't check the mirror again (relying on PE's previous checks), and launched the faulty mirror.
1
@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
You got so close, and then instead of finishing the calculation you gave up and succumbed to nonsense. You forgot about the gain of the antenna on New Horizons, and the gain of the receiving antenna on Earth, and the sensitivity of the receiver. This receiver can detect signals as low as -170 dBm. The data rate is only 1 kbit/s, so it took 18 months do download all the data of the Pluto encounter.
1
No, it's too small to be resolved.
1
14.4 and 12 billion miles (see the Voyager Mission Status page).
1
@kordelas2514 Proving you wrong, again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zApGNHOi0s and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_ADBlrIRsM and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vn7Jklb0qZw
1
Anyone can verify that satellites are real, just by looking up at the night sky. This proves that space isn't fake, which collapses your entire argument like a bad soufflé.
1
We have been to the moon. The evidence is conclusive.
1
@lostmymarbles9151 Evidence for the moon landings includes: - 382 kg of lunar rock samples which have been examined by geologists all over the world, who found that those samples have a structure that is unlike any rock found on Earth, caused by those rocks forming in 1/6 g gravity. - hours of live TV, all of which show they are in 1/6 g gravity and in a vacuum - more than 8000 photos. - tons of measurements and scientific results. - during the Apollo missions, amateur astronomers could see the CSM/LM on its way to the Moon. - 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. Radio amateurs were able to listen to transmissions from the moon. - India's Chandrayaan-2 orbiter has photographed the Apollo 11 and 12 landing sites, and found they match the Apollo data, down to the foot tracks left by the astronauts. Japan's Selene lunar orbiter has mapped the Apollo landing sites and found the topography matches that seen in Apollo photos. - the Apollo missions left laser reflectors on the moon, and anyone with a powerful laser can confirm those reflectors are there. - tens of thousands of technical reports on every aspect of Apollo remain available in public archives, so we can see how they did everything. All of this proves beyond reasonable doubt that the moon landings are real. The deniers, on the other hand, have come up with nothing. 50 years, and not a single shred of evidence has surfaced that shows the Apollo landings were faked.
1
@lostmymarbles9151 The "petrified wood" story is just that, a story. In 1969, the American ambassador presented a gift to a Dutch citizen to conmemorate the Apollo 11 landing. This gift was a piece of petrified wood. The gift did not claim to be a moon rock. That gift ended up in a museum's collection. In 2006 someone found it in the museum stores and incorrectly assumed that this was a lunar rock sample. 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 is not one of them.
1
Aerogel doesn't work well in a vacuum.
1
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
You can look up tonight and see satellites pass overhead. You can measure their altitude and see they are far above 62 miles. In 2023, we launched about 200 rockets, most of them with commercial payloads. Why would a company pay hundreds of millions and then dump it in the ocean? Your claims don't make sense.
1
You can look up tonight and see satellites pass overhead. You can measure their altitude and see they are far above 62 miles. In 2023, we launched about 200 rockets, most of them with commercial payloads. Why would a company pay hundreds of millions and then dump it in the ocean? Your claims don't make sense.
1
And yet billions of vaccination later, we're all still alive.
1
@beta_cygni1950 Except radio telescopes.
1
JWST has a refueling port. What we don't have yet is a spacecraft that can safely approach JWST without damaging the sunshield.
1
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
That's what happens when you're in a place that has no atmosphere to slow down the dust.
1
Don't be ridiculous. When the Apollo astronauts flew through the van Allen belts (which took about an hour), they received a dose of radiation of about 2 Rad, or 1% of a lethal dose. Clearly they survived.
1
Have you even watched the video? In IR, we can see stars orbiting something, so we know where it is. The theory that describes black holes tells us how large they are. If we pointed JWST at this location, the black hole would cover 1/1000 of 1 pixel, so it's too small to see with any single telescope. We had to build a network of telescopes that spans the globe to make this image.
1
@dudeimstoned5141 Black holes are an inevitable result of physical laws we know apply elsewhere. Just using those laws, we can create model that describes how a black hole behaves. This theory also makes predictions we have tested and verified. We can observe stars near Sagittarius A* orbit an invisible object.
1
no, he does not.
1
@major_kukri2430 It's 1/6 g, not 1/3.
1
@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
@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
@rockroll3983 yes, I just said that.
1
@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
@rockroll3983 False. All lunar videos remain unaltered.
1
They're using selective laser sintering or selective laser melting to print in metals.
1
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
@joeydepalmer4457 Up and down are relative to some reference. Astronomers use Earth as their reference. So 'up' is the direction our North pole points to.
1
@joeydepalmer4457 Yes, it could be. These names are arbitrary. Once the first people started using 'north' and 'south' we were all stuck with whatever they chose.
1
this video does not show details smaller than 500 meters. No missile is that large. All we have is one frame showing a cloud that's 1-2 km wide.
1
Many people influenced the Apollo mission design. Two key figures were Werner von Braun, who was the director of the facility that designed the Saturn V, and John Houbolt, who came up with the idea of lunar orbit rendezvous, which enabled the Apollo missions to be done using only one Saturn V.
1
No.
1
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
Any astronomer can check NASA's claims. NASA is not in a position to lie about this.
1
We have independent proof that "they" do send spacecraft everywhere.
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. 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
That won't help. The Voyager mission will end when it no longer has enough power to run one science instrument, which is in about 5 years. Our radio systems are good enough to communicate with the Voyagers until 2057.
1
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
1500 m/s is about 3000 mph.
1
They wouldn't miss the oxygen in the atmosphere though.
1
5 years was the worst-case scenario (and enough to fulfill the primary science objectives), 10 years the expected lifetime, and after a bettter-than-expected launch we're already at 20 years.
1
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
@Legendary-Duke Every day, thousands of geodetic surveys measure Earth's curvature. Every day, photos of Earth from space show it's a spinning sphere. Intellectual depravity is ignoring all of the evidence we've gathered over 2500 years and clinging to the unsupported notion that Earth is flat and stationary.
1
That's actually not less expensive. It would have required Osiris-Rex to carry enough propellant to reduce its speed from 12 to 8 km per second. This requires tens of tons of propellant, which in turn would require hundreds of tons of propellant to get the spacecraft to Bennu in the first place. You'd need several Saturn Vs to launch a spacecraft that heavy.
1
Yes, it orbits at L2. Orbit radius is 300,000 x 800,000 km.
1
We know there are 0 bases on the Moon. We have photos of the entire surface at 0.5 m resolution.
1
False. More than 500 people have been to space already.
1
it's +83. Actually a bit higher than that: NASA says the hot side of the sunshield will bet at +110 ºC.
1
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
The images shown at the start of the video are photos.
1
Starving children these days are mostly in war zones. You don't solve their hunger by throwing money at the problem; even a military intervention won't help.
1
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
JWST will start doing science in 6 months. They have started taking images for mirror calibration this week.
1
No. Hubble was used for astronomy before the lenses were corrected.
1
@TheRealNewWhirledOrder Evidence for gravity: 1. the behavior of the planets and moons in our solar system. They follow Newton and Einsteins laws of gravity exactly. We have ruled out other forces because those would be easily measurable on these large scales. 2. the Cavendish experiment, which demonstrates that any two masses attract each other. Again, we have ruled out other forces. 3. the behavior of objects on earth, and the changes in behavior depending on where you are, demonstrating variations in the gravitational field depending on the amount of material nearby (mountains, Earth's equatorial bulge). Gravity is the only possible explanation for all of these.
1
@TheRealNewWhirledOrder The Apollo Flight Journal has hundreds of analog photos taken by every Apollo mission. Flickr has hundreds of thousands of photos taken by ISS astronauts. The NOAA has millions of photos of Earth taken by geostationary weather satellites.
1
@TheRealNewWhirledOrder Surface tension plays a role at small scales, affecting only the edge of a body of water. A body of water 1 km long has a surface that is a section of a sphere. In the middle it is 4 cm higher than on the edges. This is not surface tension.
1
@TheRealNewWhirledOrder Every satellite orbiting Earth is evidence that the space above us is a vacuum. Satellites at higher altitudes stay in orbit for decades without slowing down, i.e. they do not experience drag.
1
@TheRealNewWhirledOrder There are objects in the sky that move. We (i.e. anyone with a telescope) can measure the distance to them and see how large the solar system is. Observation of the planets from Earth allowed us to learn the basics: some are rocky like earth, others are gas giants. We (humanity) have built spacecraft that have traveled to these planets to learn more about them.
1
@TheRealNewWhirledOrder As I've already told you, the curvature we measure on large bodies of water has nothing to do with surface tension. We have measured the limits of surface tension. Anyone can do this by playing with a blob of water on a table. When a ship goes over the horizon and disappears from the bottom up, its path forms a curve: that is Earth's curvature. In some places, this curvature is visible with the naked eye from sea level. Eg. the Bonneville salt flats, and the Afsluitdijk in the Netherlands.
1
We have photos of stars orbiting an object that's mostly invisible. From those orbits we can calculate how much mass there must be: 4 million solar masses in a tiny amount of space. The only theory that can explain those observations is a black hole. Now we've imaged that invisible object, and our observations match the theory. That means black holes are real, not theoretical, not imaginary. Welcome to science.
1
note that the NRO didn't donate a complete satellite: all NASA got was a mirror assembly.
1
It can't be used to look at Earth. Looking at Earth would expose the cold side of the telescope to sunlight, which would quickly warm it up and make it useless. We have satellites in Earth orbit that are designed for Earth observation, they'll do a better job than JWST.
1
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
hello, scammer.
1
Anyone can figure out that space is real by looking up at night. Every day, you profit from data and services supplied by satellites.
1
@matrixresetinprogress I can use a telescope to look at satellites, and I can see enough detail to see they are not suspended from balloons. I can measure the speed and altitude of satellites from the ground: I find speeds of 28,000 km/s a hundred times faster than any balloon has ever been, and an altitude of 400 km and more, when no balloon has been higher than 50 km. With a radio antenna, I can find satellites at altitudes of up to 36,000 km. So, anyone can prove that satellites are real, and not suspended from balloons.
1
The last one this big was 40 years ago, Mt. St. Helens.
1
@marxman00 False. As I said before, only 1 TV broadcast recording was lost, 0 photos were lost, 0 of the 16mm film was lost. None of the technical data was lost. The only data that was deleted was engineering telemetry that became useless the moment Saturn V production was stopped.
1
Almost none of the information on that record is outdated. "hi, we're humans, this is what we look like, here are some of our languages and this is our location".
1
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
@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
@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
@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
@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
Yes, those are taken into account.
1
@henkvisser9741 The instruments are pretty simple. They detect magnetic fields, and various types of radiation. The 'unexpected' happens when the measurements are different to what the physics model predicted, but it's still measuring something well-known and well-tested before launch. The Voyagers also have onboard checks to make sure the computers haven't been corrupted.
1
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
@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
That's nonsense.
1
No. JWST is infrared, the EHT works in mm wave radio. All the parts of the EHT have to observe at the same wavelength, otherwise you can't do interferometry.
1
Voyager can't be used to search for planet 9. Its cameras are not well-suited for imaging faint objects, and the spacecraft no longer has enough power to operate the cameras. Other instruments don't help with this either. The course of the Voyagers was determined by their last planetary flyby: Voyager 1 had to do a close flyby of Saturn's moon Titan, which determined the angle at which it exited the Saturn system. The same goes for Voyager 2 and Neptune. Any stars along those paths are incidental.
1
it's Koyaanisqatsi.
1
@WilliamStoneContentZone Yes, he's misidentifying the footage in Koyaanisqatsi, that shows a mix of footage from 3 different rockets (all unmanned).
1
There's an excellent graph (made by Randall Munro of xkcd) called 'possible undiscovered planets'. This shows there's an area of our solar systems where our telescopes don't have enough resolution yet to see a planet. The faraway objects we can see are far larger and more luminous than a planet.
1
Scientists use the scientific method. Any claim must be supported by evidence. We haven't found evidence for alien life, so no scientist will say "there's life out there".
1
it starts out as a sphere. Collisions between objects tend to cancel out 'vertical' movement, leaving only the 'horizontal' component, and everything ends up orbiting in the same direction.
1
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
Scientists adapt to their audience. Audience is American and mostly laymen?->use Imperial units. The actual units used in the design of the JWST are metric.
1
Maximum comms distance will be reached in 2050 (assuming only the current DSN is used. If we use e.g. the VLA, we can stay in contact much longer). Of course, the power will run out long before that.
1
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
JWST will be in a large orbit around L2, so it'll be in permanent sunlight. Yes, it's the Sun-Earth L2.
1
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
Because that is a baseless accusation.
1
You're right, JWST has a refueling port. What we don't have yet is a spacecraft that can safely approach JWST without damaging the sunshield.
1
There's about one meteor strike (average size of a golf ball) per km2 per 1000 years.
1
Once matter gets inside the Schwarzschild radius, it can't escape. Some of the matter in the accretion disk doesn't end up spiralling in, it gets fired out in a jet.
1
Because they have to last for months, instead of days.
1
Observation at THz wavelengths? As I understand it, their main observations are done at 1.3 mm, which is 230 GHz.
1
Yes. A very thin one, discovered by Voyager in 1977.
1
We can't do interferometry at IR wavelengths yet. Interferometry gets harder for shorter wavelengths: your timing requirement gets tighter. We haven't gotten to the point where we can store IR observations as data in small enough timeslices to do interferometry.
1
Electricity is provided by solar panels.
1
we'd know by now from the fallout raining down all over the south Pacific.
1
No. The EU 'theory' posits that every interaction in the universe is driven by electromagnetism instead of gravity. That has been disproven. The existence of EM interactions in our solar system does not mean the EU theory is correct.
1
JWST hasn't discovered anything yet: they're still commissioning the telescope. Alignment images have been released at several points in this process.
1
That sentence is missing a word.
1
The benefit is that we'll find out more about how the universe works, how it came to be and if we're alone.
1
@pantheraleoromanus6241 The difference between 10E-17 Torr and 0 is negligible when you are talking about systems influenced by pressure.
1
That was the case a few years ago. Since then, the process for making Pu-238 has been restarted.
1
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
@philosophyweb The astonishing thing is that you're comfortable claiming that without any verification. Anyone serious would measure the astronaut's movement.
1
@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
First science operations are in June, they're using one of the science instruments to adjust the mirrors.
1
The problem with flat Earth "models" is that 1. there's more than one, and they contradict each other. 2. there has to be more than one, because none of those models explain all of our observations. A model that explains observation A will fail at explaining observation B. 3. None of these models have been shown to be accurate. This is how we test models: you use the model to make predictions, and then you see if those predictions come true. I can use the globe model and our model of the solar system to predict when the next solar and lunar eclipses will be. No flat-Earth model can do this. In fact, our observations show that Earth cannot possibly be flat.
1
The 1969 moon landing was not faked, and nor were the 5 more landings that followed. There is a mountain of evidence that shows the Apollo landings were real. There is no evidence that shows they were faked. All you have is bad arguments made by conmen. I've looked into those arguments, and I was able to disprove all of them.
1
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
@mcrick8931 There are articles online that have annotated photos of each landing site.
1
Artemis missions involve a crew of 4 staying on the moon for months, not the 2 men for 3 days that Apollo was limited to. Food, oxygen and other supplies have not gotten any smaller since Apollo.
1
The farther away from the sun you get, the less light you have (1/r^2). We can run spacecraft on solar panels as far out as Jupiter; beyond that, the panels would get so large the spacecraft would be too heavy to launch.
1
Troll.
1
Yes. The Artemis program is a series of missions to the moon.
1
@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
@Peliwat_Nusantara There is a mountain of evidence that shows the Apollo landings are real and no evidence, none at all, that they were faked.
1
I spent some time investigating the links between Hubble and spy satellites; my conclusion is that those links are tenuous at best. By the time the Hubble project was started, spy satellites with 2.4 m mirrors were in operation. That meant there was confidence in the industry they could build high-quality 2.4 m mirrors. But the Hubble mirror contract went to Perkin-Elmer, who hadn't built a mirror larger than 1.5 meters yet. Ironically, the backup mirror contract went to Kodak, who did have experience, and made a mirror that had the correct shape. For checking the shape of the mirror, Perkin-Elmer reused an instrument that was built for those 1.5 m mirrors. They modified the instrument, but made a mistake that ended up putting a critical part of the instrument 1.3 mm out of place, which meant the mirror was ground incorrectly. Had the Hubble mirror been an off-the-shelf part, this error would have been found before. Hubble's control systems don't match spy satellites. Hubble's maximum rotation rate is too slow to do Earth observation, for example. And Hubble's instruments are all built to observe faint objects, whereas spy satellites work on daylit Earth.
1
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
We can, in fact. We've known how since 1962.
1
they're still providing useful information on the interstellar medium from the 4/5 working instruments.
1
@PtolemyJones If you want to know how we can determine that: the diffraction limit tells us the upper limit of resolution for any optical system.
1
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
There's tons of evidence that supports the moon landings being real, and no evidence that supports the idea the moon landings were fake. All of the so-called arguments the moon hoaxers come up with fall apart with even a cursory examination. Apollo Detectives was made by people who either don't understand physics, or are deliberately telling lies.
1
Diplomacy.
1
We have millions of real images of Earth already. We have geostationary weather satellites (GOES, Meteosat, Himawari) that take images of the entire hemisphere, see for example https://youtu.be/zoMRwyNhqJ4 The first GOES was launched in 1975. The current 2 GOES satellites and Himawari take full-disk images every 10 minutes, that's 87,000 full-disk images per satellite per year. 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 For more detailed images, there's low-orbit satellites like Landsat, SPOT, the Maxar constellation and many more taking images every day.
1
@JohnMichaelGodier I'll have to disagree on that. The technology didn't die. We have lots of detailed information on the Saturn V and its engines. What died is outdated manufacturing methods: the F1 engine used manual brazing to create the engine bell, which is very laborintensive, in modern engines this has been replaced with new manufacturing processes. So while you could recreate a Saturn V from drawings, it'd be much easier to replace some of the parts (1960s guidance computers, for one) and redo other parts to take advantage of modern manufacturing methods.
1
It looks like a white disk. At the wavelengths JWST observes at, the atmosphere is opaque. You'd mostly see the distribution of water vapor in the upper atmosphere.
1
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
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
@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
@Blobba Fetta Pure unvarnished truth, and easily verifiable.
1
@Blobba Fetta Nope, pure unvarnished truth, and easily verifiable.
1
The big problem with railgun launch on Earth is the aerodynamics: you're bringing an object to supersonic speed in the densest layer of the atmosphere. That will rapidly heat the rocket, requiring a heavier structure.
1
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
the correct figure is +83, of course.
1
The JWST blog has an article that explains why they haven't added deployment cameras to JWST.
1
JWST is a passive system: it just processes incoming light. There's no way to detect from a distance that this is happening.
1
Nothing to damage within 60 km.
1
No, they installed COSTAR, which inserted extra optical elements between the secondary mirror and each of the instruments. These optical elements corrected the image. Later servicing missions swapped out the original instruments for new ones that had corrective optics included, so on one of the later servicing missions COSTAR could be removed.
1
We know what the Milky Way looks like, because we've measured the position and movement vector of a billion stars. Plot those, and the familiar shape shows up. Before that, radio telescopes plotted the position and movement vector of hydrogen clouds, that gave us our first image of the Milky Way. It doesn't matter which way the axis of rotation of the black hole is pointed: it is visible in any direction.
1
You can see JWST through a telescope and verify that it is indeed orbiting L2. During the Apollo program, amateurs saw the Apollo spacecraft through their telescopes and verified that they were orbiting the Moon. If your username is 'Truth matter', why do you believe in claims for which there is no evidence?
1
@truthmatters5536 Why can't we see the Apollo landers on the moon from Earth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2FnbzR2ox8 to summarize: it's a lot easier to see a spacecraft against the black background of space than against the bright background of the Moon. This is basic physics.
1
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
@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
@rogerthat487 That's climate denier propaganda not supported by data.
1
@samarbid13 Dave McKeegan did a video (How were Moon take offs FILMED?) that answers this.
1
How wold you fit such a system in the fairing volume of an Ariane 5?
1
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
We have photos of stars orbiting an object that's mostly invisible. From those orbits we can calculate how much mass there must be: 4 million solar masses in a tiny amount of space. The only theory that can explain those observations is a black hole. Now we've imaged that invisible object, and our observations match the theory. That means black holes are real, not theoretical, not imaginary. Welcome to science.
1
JWST can be refueled, we just haven't built a spacecraft that can do this safely yet.
1
We have found bacteria that survived for months on the outside of the ISS.
1
Calculate the volume of a cylinder with those measurements, and a cylinder with a diameter of 7.5 m, subtract to get the volume of water. I get 440 tons.
1
3 years ago, this team published images of another black hole. About half of this video was made back then.
1
Probably not. Static electricity usually doesn't contain much usable power.
1
@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
The decision to launch Challenger was made by managers under pressure from the government (for PR reasons), over the objections of scientists and engineers. The O-rings were not reused.
1
Apollo did get to the moon, 6 times. The evidence is overwhelming.
1
that's a hypothesis with no supporting evidence.
1
That's incorrect. Our sun doesn't have novas.
1
JWST will start doing science in 6 months. They have started taking images for mirror calibration this week.
1
@collinweeks6322 We can repeat Eratosthenes' experiment and get the same result. He came within 5% of the actual value of Earth's diameter. No, zooming in does not bring a ship that has gone over the horizon back into view. Every video that claims to show this, is lying to you: they zoom in on small boats that have not gone over the horizon yet. When you follow a large ship as it goes over the horizon, it is clearly visible that the ship gets progressively hidden from the bottom up. Wait until the hull is hidden but the superstructure remains visible. Then zoom in as much as you like: you will be unable to bring the hull back into view.
1
We didn't need CGI in 1969, and we won't need it now.
1
JWST is a joint NASA-ESA-CSA project. The launch was part of ESA's contribution to the cost.
1
As you can see in this video, our investment in space is enabling us to see Earth from a new angle, giving us information we never had before.
1
@dougwedel9484 there's a couple of reasons it'll take 6 months. 1. cooling down the telescope takes a long time. They have to do this slowly, to make sure any gases escaping from the telescope don't condense on the mirrors or the imaging sensors. For the next month, heaters will keep these elements warm. 2. the mirror positions have to be finetuned: they must match within a few nanometers. AFAIK, JWST will be inserted into orbit by the end of January.
1
NASA discarded only the engineering telemetry. That data was essential for troubleshooting during the mission, but became useless at the end of the program. All of the useful data was preserved, and continues to be available in public archives. The scientific hardware from each mission is sitting on the moon. The data from those experiments continues to be available in public archives.
1
That's one of the puzzles this image has thrown up: the rotation axis of the accretion disk isn't what we expected.
1
It's easy to prove the Apollo videos were not recorded in a studio: Everything in those videos moves in perfect 1/6 g gravity, not the 1 g you'd get when you recorded it here on Earth.
1
the chance of that is tiny. Space is very empty.
1
Different parts of the EM spectrum reveal different things. JWST is an IR telescope because we want to look at the spectra of stars and galaxies, and those spectra have a lot of information in the IR range. And we want to use it to detect visible light that has been redshifted into IR. The EHT can't do that.
1
If you leave a Toyota Mirai in the garage for a month, its tank will be empty.
1
@mantasfrombfd So we can prove.
1
It's not buoyant, it's levitated electrostatically.
1
this video has a resolution of 500 meters/pixel, and it consists of images taken 10 minutes apart. So you're looking at a cloud that's 1-2 km wide.
1
it's +83. Actually a bit higher than that: NASA says the hot side of the sunshield will bet at +110 ºC.
1
@lancecullen77 It's the other way round. 100% oxygen at low pressure is cheaper for two reasons: 1. the pressure hull can be made thinner, because of the lower pressure. 2. you don't have to carry a system to supply nitrogen (after every EVA, the cabin had to be filled again).
1
It's a conspiracy because it's an idea for which there is no evidence, i.e. an empty hypothesis.
1
@thom1218 Nope. The data says 'impacts cause seismic shocks that reverberate longer than they would on Earth's surface'. We can replicate that on Earth, in dry rock. Earth's surface is not dry rock. There is no data that makes the Moon being solid improbable. There is no data that suggests the moon is hollow.
1
@thom1218 Extraordinary claims (like claiming that the Moon is not a natural object) require evidence, not empty speculation. You have no evidence to support your position.
1
The Chinese suits are for spacewalks. That's a lot easier than designing a suit for use on the moon.
1
That's incorrect. Novas only occur in binary stars, and our sun isn't one.
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.
1
no. It was launched on December 25. They're adjusting the mirrors now.
1
Yes, this is all real.
1
Why not? Amateur astronomers can see JWST orbiting L2. With parallax measurements you can easily verify the spacecraft really is at L2.
1
Back in the 1960s and 1970s, neither was true.
1
No, unfortunately.
1
Yes, people believe it because it's true. The only people who think NASA is based in Hollywood are people who distrust the government, but are extremely gullible when fed crap by charlatans.
1
Physics. Work though the equations, and this is the shape that shows up.
1
@alphabetsoup488 If you fill a pool with water, the water will follow Earth's curvature regardless of what the bottom of the pool looks like. On a 50 m long pool, this curvature is 4 mm, which is hard to measure unless you have an indoor pool that's absolutely still, but the curvature is there.
1
We actually did go to the moon, 6 times. There is a mountain of evidence that proves this.
1
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
@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
The trajectories of the Voyagers were set by the flybys: Voyager 1 had to visit Saturn's moon Titan, this determined the direction in which it would leave the solar system. Any stars along this trajectory are coincidence. Voyager 2 had to fly by one of Neptune's moons.
1
They're using radio, at about 8 GHz. The transmitter on JWST is nothing special. On Earth, NASA uses a dish antenna with a diameter of 34 meters and a cryogenically cooled receiver. The data rate for downlink is about 3.5 Mbit/s. The protocol is custom-made for use in space, it tolerates long delays (it takes 6-7 seconds for the signal to travel from JWST to Earth).
1
@DadBodGaming7 Yes.
1
@FlattyMcTruth 0. Find a piece of land that is level. 1. place binoculars on a tripod. Having a graduated sight is even better. 2. ask a buddy to walk 100 meters from the tripod and place the ruler vertically on the ground. 3. use the binoculars to read the elevation from the ruler 4. repeat step 2 and 3 at 100-meter intervals 9 times. You now have 9 elevation measurements that show a curve. This is Earth's curvature.
1
@FlattyMcTruth Satellites are not suspended from balloons. We can measure their speed and altitude from the ground, and find that satellites are at altitudes 10 times higher than any balloon has ever reached, and speeds 100 times higher than any balloon has ever reached. We can observe satellites through a telescope and find that no balloon is attached to them.
1
@FlattyMcTruth NASA launches a small number of large balloons to do atmospheric research. In addition, they launch much larger numbers of actual satellites. So do dozens of commercial entities all over the world.
1
@FlattyMcTruth Reality is that Earth is a sphere. I can go out right now and prove this. Similarly, I can go out tonight and prove that satellites are real. Why would I "accept" anything not based on evidence?
1
@FlattyMcTruth Evidence that Earth is a sphere: 1. the existence of the horizon. On a flat plane, objects would not be gradually hidden from the bottom up as they go farther away. 2. Earth's shadow (as visible during a lunar eclipse) is a circle. The only object that makes circular shadows no matter which part of it is sunlit, is a sphere. 3. the variation of sun elevation with latitude. These three were enough for the ancient Greeks to not only conclude Earth must be a sphere, but calculate its diameter in 250 BC. 4. Geodetic surveys (i.e. measuring positions on Earth's surface in 3 dimensions) always show Earth's surface is curved. 5. Photos from high altitude and from space show Earth's curvature. 6. Earth's curvature is visible to the naked eye from altitudes of 10 km and up. 7. In places with the right features on the surface, you can see Earth's curvature while standing on the ground. Places that have a long straight dam going into a body of water, for instance. Or roads on salt lakes.
1
@FlattyMcTruth Proof that Earth rotates is provided by Foucault's pendulum, by gyroscopes, and by the fact that the weight of an object changes based on its latitude. Proof that space is a vacuum is provided by the 10,000 satellites we are operating in that vacuum. It's also provided by the fact that planets and moons are in stable orbits, instead of being slowed down by drag.
1
@FlattyMcTruth The proofs I listed are solid. In 2500 years, nobody has been able to disprove them.
1
@FlattyMcTruth A hot air balloon hovers because the atmosphere rotates with the planet. You are imagining a fairy tale world where the planet rotates but the atmosphere somehow stays stationary.
1
@FlattyMcTruth Using vision alone, we cannot distinguish between Earth rotating and the sky rotating above us. Just like when you're sitting in a stationary train and the train next to you starts moving: for a moment you are confused which one is moving until other clues are added that can tell you which train is moving. So, a timelapse of the sky tells us nothing. We need other instruments. As I said, those instruments definitively prove that Earth rotates.
1
@FlattyMcTruth 'luminaries' is nonsense. We know the universe is far more complex than that. We can see differences between the stars: they are at different distances, different sizes and different parts of their life cycle. We can see that they are much farther away than the planets, so they are not projections on a dome.
1
@FlattyMcTruth There are no satellites floating on balloons. We can measure the speed and altitude of satellites from the ground, and find values that are impossible to achieve for balloons.
1
@FlattyMcTruth You have not presented a single shred of evidence in this thread.
1
@FlattyMcTruth When a gas flows over a solid object, it experiences friction. When you stick your hand out of a moving car, you feel this: a force pushes your hand backwards. This friction causes the speed of the atmosphere to equalize with the speed of the surface. Local heating/cooling causes local differences between the speed of the atmosphere and the surface, this is what we call wind. A simple demonstration: fill a bucket with water. Then spin the bucket on its vertical axis. The water will start spinning with the bucket, with a small delay because the friction force is not large enough to overcome the inertia of the water immediately.
1
@FlattyMcTruth Any posts that contain links are automatically deleted by YT. So that post is not visible to me.
1
Krakatoa produced about 10 Gt of CO2. We produce 200 Gt per year at the moment.
1
Incorrect. NASA is not saying the Voyagers are about to shut down: some idiot outside NASA wrote an incorrect article that this video is based on. For decades, the plan for the Voyagers has remained the same: keep them operating for as long as possible. Switch off instruments as needed (the power source slowly degrades). When the mission ends is hard to predict: this degradation is slightly irregular, and occasionally the team finds a way to extend the mission. Recently, for instance, they switched off the heater for one of the instruments, to their surprise the instrument kept working at the lower temperature. The best estimates are that the missions will end between 2025 and 2030. All NASA has said about the "strange signal" (corrupted information from the attitude control system) is that it hasn't found the cause yet. It could be a program glitch, a hardware error, a connection issue etc.
1
We have 10,000 space missions that say otherwise. There is no dome.
1
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
That's not honest, it's blatant disregard of all the evidence that says we did do this in the 60's.
1
We have lots of evidence that says they do and no evidence they don't.
1
Nope. The Pioneer missions ended when their RTG could no longer power any of the science instruments. They were followed for several years after, but the only data we received was internal telemetry. This continued until the RG could no longer power the transmitter.
1
At first glance, Earth seems flat. But as soon as we start measuring, we find that its surface is curved. It turns out, our eyes can't distinguish between a flat plane, and a surface that is curved by 8 cm over a length of 1 km (i.e. a deviation from straight of about 0.008%). With a visual aid, it's pretty easy to see this curvature though. - a ship going over the horizon is such a visual aid. Notice how the ship disappears from view from the bottom up. You're looking at Earth's curvature between you and the ship. - a long, straight road over a flat piece of land, or a long, straight dike through a body of water is another visual aid. Stand next to the road, look along it and you'll be able to see its curvature.
1
The N1 was run on a shoestring budget. That meant no test installation where the full first stage could be tested. So the plan was to do that kind of testing by launching rockets instead. The first few launches just had dummies for the upper stages, and a bunch of failures was entirely expected: they planned 14 test launches. To make matters worse, the NK-15 was a single-use engine: it used pyrotechnic valves that had to be replaced after use, so instead of testing each engine, they'd build 10, test 5 of them and if those tests were successful, they'd install the other 5. Some of the issues were caused by primitive electronics (one one launch, one engine failed, and the engine control system which was supposed to shut down the engine on the opposite side to retain thrust symmetry, shut down all engines instead). Primitive electronics also meant things like vibration in the propellant lines could not be modelled, but had to be found though trial and error (again, by launching instead of test bench work).
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. 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
@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
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
When you have to align 18 mirrors to be in sync to within a few nanometers, the process is inevitably going to take time. Cooling down the mirrors and instruments is also a slow process, because it's mostly done passively.
1
@manoo422 And your expertise in aligning mirrors to a precision of less than 1 wavelength of IR light is what, exactly?
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. Every day, you benefit from data generated in space, proving space is real and Earth is not flat.
1
Spirit and Opportunity functioned for 10 years without needing a wiper.
1
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
@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
@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
@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
@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
False. All you have to do is build your suit strong enough to withstand the force that comes from the pressure difference between inside and outside. For a space suit in a vacuum, that's 0.3 bar, or 0.3 kg/cm2. Every day, airliners are subjected to a larger pressure difference than that when they fly at 10 km altitude.
1
Every single photo taken by NASA science missions is available in its original, unaltered form. Published photos are not "doctored", they are color calibrated.
1
Our cell phone system is designed with limited range, because the more range you have, the fewer phones you can handle in the network. There's no such constraint for the radio link with Voyager: it has a dedicated link and we can use huge antennas to amplify the signal.
1
It's not a gamble. They spent 4 years testing JWST.
1
The Ariane 5 was designed in the 1980s. Retrofitting cameras would mean redesigning the communications system to carry way more data, which means requalifying the rocket, which they're not going to do for the last 5 Ariane 5 missions.
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 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
@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
@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
No. They don't carry enough fuel to do that: they're leaving the solar system at a speed of 17 km/s. You would need several Saturn V rockets to brake from 17 km/s to 0 and then accelerate in the other direction.
1
No, he's telling you what happened. The moon landing deniers are the ones making things up.
1
The evidence says otherwise.
1
@KaosRunes The largest telescope we ever launched to Pluto's orbit has a mirror diameter of 20 cm. We have telescopes with an 8 m mirror here on Earth. The huge increase in size more than compensates for the extra distance.
1
@BrumKid You're making two false claims here. 1. In order to see what someone's reading from space you need a telescope mirror with a diameter of several hundred meters. The largest spy satellites use mirrors with a diameter of about 3 meters, which translates to a resolution of 30 cm/pixel. 2. We did go to the moon. The only reason we haven't been back yet is money.
1
NASA isn't ending the mission any sooner than it has to. The end of the mission is determined by one parameter: the amount of power produced by the RTG. This drops steadily, at a rate of about 4 W/year. So they regularly have to switch off instruments to stay within that limit. When the last science instrument has to be switched off, the mission is over. The transmitter can't be used at a lower power setting than 12 W: if power drops below that, the transmitter stops working at all.
1
This eruption isn't big enough to do that. Current estimate is that this year's average temperature will be 0.1 ºC lower than normal.
1
If you insist on making Pluto a planet, Ceres is one too.
1
it's +83.
1
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
They had that equipment anyway, for the tape recordings that were ferried across the Atlantic every day.
1
this video does not show details smaller than 500 meters. No missile is that large. All we have is one frame showing a cloud that's 1-2 km wide.
1
The Venera probes did that: each mission consisted of an orbiter and a lander.
1
@DiamondGuitarist Sibrel has been caught fabricating 'evidence' on more than one occasion. He has no credibility.
1
Nemesis is not a scientific theory, it's a conspiracy theory. Not worth anyone's time.
1
No, the density is far too low to harvest usable energy from them.
1
JWST does have a refueling port. What we don't have yet is a spacecraft that can safely approach JWST without damaging the sunshield.
1
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
We already have spacecraft that do that. DISCOVR is one of them, at a similar vantage point. We also have geostationary satellites that give a closer view.
1
This is what a couple of amateurs with a background in science can derive from publicly-available information. Nothing sinister about it.
1
Fuel: we can verify that the spacecraft had more than enough fuel for every stage of the mission. Vacuum: a vacuum is only lethal if you expose a human to vacuum. The astronauts were in a pressurized environment during the whole mission. The only lunacy can be found in the claims made by the moon landing deniers.
1
You're comparing apples and oranges. For the heliosphere, the Voyagers were the first to give us measurements at all. For our climate we don't have that problem: we have enormous amounts of data going back centuries, and we can reconstruct more data from indirect sources going back millions of years. We can use that data to verify our models. There was a time when our climate models weren't very good: back in the 1960 when this science was in its infancy. These days, the models are accurate, and consistently make correct predictions.
1
That solves one problem (spacecraft being masked by the Sun on occasion), but it makes the antennas a lot more expensive for little gain. The DSN will probably switch to laser comms for new missions, that does require receivers in space, but they'll probably be placed in Earth orbit.
1
@GaryBlogg Every single one of Dubay's "proofs" has been debunked. I'll give you an example. Proof #2: “The horizon always rises to the eye level of the observer as altitude is gained, so you never have to look down to see it.” That is incorrect. At an altitude of 1 km, the horizon is already at 1º below eye level. This is easily measurable.
1
This eruption isn't big enough to do that. Current estimate is that this year's average temperature will be 0.01 ºC lower than normal.
1
No, they are positioning the mirrors at the moment. Science observations will start in June.
1
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
The thumbnail is a photo of Perseverance's backshell, which was ejected before the landing and crashed nearby.
1
The Surveyors were guided from Earth: measurements from Goldstone established the position of the spacecraft, and a pretty simple landing program was started on ground command. The Surveyor had a landing radar so it could adjust its engines to make a soft landing, but it seems to have had no flexibility in choosing a landing site.
1
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
@lorichet I talked to people who did this.
1
Sensors still operational on both: Cosmic Ray Subsystem, Low-Energy Charged Particles, Magnetometer, Plasma Wave Subsystem, Plasma Science (PLS) on Voyager 1 only. Data from most instruments is sent live from the spacecraft to Earth, and we receive this data for about 8 hours per day. Only the PLS instrument records data on the onboard tape recorder for later playback.
1
you mean, how is the gold layer applied to the mirrors? That's done with vacuum vapor deposition: the mirrors are put inside a vacuum chamber, a small quantity of gold is vaporized and it deposits on the mirror
1
at 100 jupiter masses, you're already in 'small star' territory, instead of 'large planet'.
1
We can't just reuse the Apollo hardware: it is limited to putting 2 men on the moon for a max of 3 days. Artemis wants larger crews to spend months on the moon, which means scaling everything up.
1
the Apollo 1 astronauts, you mean. That happened because for the test, they were sitting in 100% oxygen at 1.3 bar pressure. That is a huge fire risk, so that was never done again. In space suits, we continue to use 100% oxygen, but at a pressure of 0.3 bar, which is no more a fire risk than our normal 80% N2/20% O2 atmosphere.
1
@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
No, NASA is a civilian agency and independent of the DOD.
1
@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
JWST will start doing science in 6 months. They have started taking images for mirror calibration this week.
1
1. only what's incidentally provided by the suit layers. 2. Yes, NASA and others have been experimenting with such systems for decades now. IDK why this never made it to the production stage.
1
It's a bit puzzling: in a video about gravitational lensing events, several of these lensing events are discussed without ever showing the observation.
1
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
@Lion2Lamb247 nope. We knew about every one of his tests immediately. Nuclear bombs have a distinctive seismic signature very different from volcanic eruptions.
1
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
The shoulder joint on the space suit only allows the astronaut to move his upper arm fore and aft, not to push his elbow up.
1
We can see it from any direction.
1
The "lid" is a cover for the parachute. It doesn't need to be rigid, in fact it's better to have a flexible cover as that is less likely to damage the parachute.
1
no. Small telescopes on Earth can do that.
1
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
@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
@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
@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
that's pretty easy: the important thing is that the difference between the pressures inside and outside the suit are the same. So they take the pressure at the bottom of the pool and add 0.3 bar to get the suit pressure.
1
Learning more about the universe is never useless.
1
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
You're mostly correct, we still use inertial guidance. For attitude tracking (i.e. the orientation of the spacecraft), we use star trackers these days: a small camera linked to a computer with a star map. Take a photo, compare to the map to find which way the star tracker is pointing.
1
We know what the Milky Way looks like, because we've measured the position of a billion stars. Plot those, and the familiar shape shows up. Before that, radio telescopes plotted the position of hydrogen clouds, that gave us our first image of the Milky Way. We don't need to go outside the galaxy to have a pretty good idea of what it looks like.
1
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
@XeiDaMoKaFE Any channel that advertises itself as 'flat Earth' has lost all credibility.
1
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
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
It starts out as a sphere. Collisions in the sphere tend to collapse it into a disk.
1
That table consists of angle profiles, i.e. it's not wood but metal in some kind of coating.
1
No, of the first 7 we had one failure (Apollo 13).
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
NTRS 20000023160 is an aircraft model for a spherical, rotating Earth.
1
The best estimate is 250 +/- 100 grams.
1
Space is very empty: JWST will encounter micrograms of dust per year, on average. There's no need to clean the mirrors. At the moment, there are no plans to service the telescope. We don't have a spacecraft capable of it, so it wasn't designed to be serviceable. Hubble has large, easily accessible modules that can be swapped out. JWST doesn't. The only servicing that might be done is refueling, but even that requires a new spacecraft to be designed.
1
@limiv5272 Not quite yet. Ed Stone, the Project Scientist (i.e. scientific director) has had that role since 1972, is still active today.
1
Even the largest telescopes on Earth don't have enough resolution to show objects that small. JWST will be farther away so its resolution when observing the Moon is lower than the best telescopes on Earth. JWST also can't be pointed at the Moon, because that would require tilting the telescope at an angle that exposes the cold side to sunlight. We do have the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, which made photos of Apollo landing sites: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pnhnx95LkCc
1
Evidence for SLIM's moon landing: - the launch was easily visible from hundreds of km around Taganeshima - telemetry from SLIM was received independently by a group of radio amateurs in Bochum, DE - the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter has photographed SLIM on the moon. - photos from SLIM and its rovers have been received and published - and there is no evidence at all that points to these missions having been faked.
1
@LordDeBahs I've already listed the empirical evidence that proves definitively that SLIM is on the moon.
1
There is no evidence that the moon landings were faked, and mountains of evidence that it is real. You believe in fairy tales.
1
We've already explored all of those in more detail than JWST can. Anything obvious enough for JWST to pick up we'd have seen by now.
1
No. The target list for the 'first light' observations hasn't been published. The first year of regular observations has been published (look for the General Observer program).
1
JWST can be refueled. The hard part is to design a spacecraft that can approach JWST without damaging its sunshield. This is a lot easier with a lightweight spacecraft than with a massive Starship.
1
Polar orbits are usually sun-synchronous, so they cover the entire Earth in 24 hours. IDK why the animation represents those orbits this way.
1
Yes, they did, 6 times.
1
@Algoritmik No, Destin is not claiming the Apollo missions were faked. He did several videos that discuss Apollo in detail, and at no point during those hour-long videos does he claim that the missions were faked.
1
We're looking at the closest planets for signs of life, so up to 1000 lightyears.
1
We have abundant evidence that shows the Apollo landings are real, and no evidence that they were faked.
1
Nope. It's immediately obvious from the Apollo videos that they were not underwater. For example, the dust kicked up by the astronauts flies away as if it's in a vacuum instead of in a water tank.
1
@weirdshit The lunar surface consists of grains of all sizes from microscopic to gravel to boulders. I've measured falling objects in Apollo videos, and they all accelerate at 1.6 m/s2, which is consistent with lunar gravity, and inconsistent with how objects fall in water.
1
@weirdshit No, that was not suspicious. When I go to the beach and jump, some of the sand is launched upwards at the same speed as my feet, so that sand lands at the same time as my feet. Other particles are launched at lower speeds so they follow a shorter arc and land earlier.
1
The hydrazine tank and fuel lines are kept warm.
1
Space is very empty: JWST will encounter micrograms of dust per year, on average. Asteroids are a potential problem: we haven't found all of them yet. But the chance of being hit by an asteroid is very low. Since the beginning of spaceflight, we haven't lost a spacecraft to an asteroid impact yet.
1
The answer is that nothing physical was snuck onto the probes. The requirement was for a spacecraft that could do a 5-year mission. The design team went ahead and designed the spacecraft to last as long as possible, i.e. they avoided design choices that would limit the lifetime.
1
Classification (=dividing things into categories) has always been part of science, because it makes it easier to have a discussion when everybody uses the same classification. When Galileo saw Jupiter and understood that it was a planet like ours, the solar system had two classes: anything in orbit around the Sun is a planet, anything in orbit around a planet is a moon. Then we started to discover asteroids, starting with the largest: Ceres. This was initially considered a planet. Then we discovered hundreds of smaller objects in similar orbits, and astronomers added a new class: asteroids. Ceres was moved from the Planet class to the Asteroid class. Then we discovered Pluto. Seemed to be alone in its region, so it was considered a planet. Then we discovered hundreds of smaller objects in similar orbits, and astronomers added a new class: dwarf planets. Pluto was moved from the Planet class to the Dwarf Planet class. The more objects you have, the more classes it becomes useful to divide them into. This is done everywhere in science. What most people call mosquitoes, biologists divide into several hundred species. Etc. In this case, a scientific classification has entered the public consciousness and people are flipping out because they have an emotional attachment to Pluto. Lastly, the classification was done by the IAU, not NASA.
1
@generaleerelativity9524 You didn't read what I wrote at all, did you? In 1960, Pluto was the only object we knew off in this area. Now, we have found more than 2000 objects and that number is climbing rapidly. More objects means we can benefit from a finer classification. That's all this is, but concepts that complex will sail right over your tinfoil hat, I suspect.
1
Voyager 1 would be the first one to reach Jupiter.
1
They merge into one.
1
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
No. We can't do that for ships in a nearby star system, let alone at the edge of our galaxy.
1
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
@alexcoch6606 That's true. They went anyway, and took that risk.
1
Above and below the Milky Way we have a decent view, so we know what's there. What's difficult to see is what's on the other side of the Milky Way's center: the center is so dense we can't see through it.
1
@vstreetsmart Take a look at this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmk9ykjasB4 The Milky Way is visible as a narrow band across the sky. If you can see this band, it's easy to find the direction perpendicular to the milky way. In all directions, the stars we see (with the naked eye) are inside the milky way. With a telescope, we can see what's outside of it.
1
Ultima Thule was a preliminary choice by the team. When that was published, it turned out that name is tainted by the Nazis, so they chose a different name.
1
Incorrect. They've published 3 sets of calibration images, this is one of them.
1
No. The center of buoyancy depends on the distribution of the *volume*.
1
They have more than that: photos from several missions, and lots of measurements. The Veneras had about 10 science instruments on board.
1
The resolution of this image is about 1000 times higher than what JWST can do. That's the advantage of linking telescopes all over the world.
1
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
It's easy to prove Oakley wrong. 1. I can see satellites at night with the naked eye. 2. I can point a dish antenna at a point 36,000 km over the equator and receive TV signals. 3. A GPS receiver tells you where you are based on satellite signals. You can use its data to work backwards and find where the satellites are. Every day, you profit form data created by satellites.
1
@stevea8355 All 3 of my claims are easily repeatable experiments. To prove me wrong, you have to demonstrate the flaws in these experiments, which I predict you are unable to do.
1
@stevea8355 The Rayleigh criterion applies to being able to resolve objects. You can see objects that are far smaller if they reflect enough light. Satellites definitely reflect enough light at dusk and dawn, when the sun is below the horizon for an observer on Earth but the satellite is still in sunlight.
1
We haven't forgotten how to do it. We can still do this today, but nobody in his right mind will want to because we have better methods for fabricating a nozzle.
1
@papalaz4444244 I disagree with Curious Droid. We can build F-1 engines now using the same production method that was used in the 1960s. But that's a much more expensive and less reliable method than we have available today, so if we wanted to build an F-1 we'd redesign it to use modern manufacturing methods.
1
What you were looking at WAS the antechamber.
1
We know the Apollo photos were not taken in a studio on Earth. Or anywhere on Earth. Anyone can examine the photos and videos and see they're in 1/6 g and in a vacuum, lit only by the sun (ie no studio lighting).
1
They kept using a pure O2 atmosphere during missions. The Apollo 1 fire was so bad because they pressurized the CM to 1.25 bar at 100% O2. During the mission, the cabin pressure was 0.25 bar, which reduced the fire risk. For high-pressure tests on Earth thee may have switched to O2/N2 mixes.
1
Not as simple as that. They have to search a large section of sky, they've done half of that section now.
1
The moon has no molten core, it's all solid rock. There's also no water to speak of. On Earth, the shock waves from seismic events are damped by the transition from solid to molten rock, and by water inside the rock. Without this damping, seismic shocks reverberate longer on the moon.
1
Look up at night. You can see the ISS pass overhead, proving you wrong.
1
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
@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
@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
We're spending billions each year solving all kinds of problems, we can afford to spend a bit on finding out more about the universe.
1
it's kapton with a metallic layer. Spacecraft are wrapped in this because it's an excellent insulator, protecting the spacecraft from the huge temperature variations in space (+100 ºC in direct sunlight, -200ºC in the shadow).
1
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
@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
@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
@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
@mukfay The Star Trek movie is about Voyager 6...
1
Yes and no. Temperature is a property of matter. There's almost no matter in space, so space itself doesn't have a temperature. If you have a spacecraft in space, the only way for it to get warmer or colder is through radiation. Anything near Earth that's exposed to direct sunlight warms up to about 120 ºC. Anything in shadow can get very cold (JWST manages 40 K in the shadow of its sunshade).
1
We have photos of stars orbiting an object that's mostly invisible. From those orbits we can calculate how much mass there must be: 4 million solar masses in a tiny amount of space. The only theory that can explain those observations is a black hole. Now we've imaged that invisible object, and our observations match the theory. That means black holes are real, not theoretical, not imaginary. Welcome to science.
1
@dutchymon In October 1969, J. W. Middendorf II, US ambassador to the Netherlands gave a present to a former Dutch prime minister, Willem Drees, during the world tour of the Apollo 11 astronauts following their mission. During that world tour, the astronauts did not present any lunar rock samples to any country: those were not ready yet, and would be presented several months later. When Drees died in 1988, that gift was donated to the Rijksmuseum. The item is a large, reddish rock fragment. The card that accompanies it says it's a gift to commemorate the visit of the Apollo 11 astronauts. The card does not claim that this is a lunar rock sample. In 2006, two Dutch artists found it in the museum stores and decided to claim this was a lunar rock sample. People who saw the exhibit quickly concluded that that label was incorrect, and informed the museum. The museum had the object examined and that confirmed this was not a lunar rock, but a piece of petrified wood.
1
We know how to get out of LEO and have known since the 1960s. Nobody has been willing to pay for manned missions to the moon from 1972 until 2017, when Artemis was started.
1
You've got that backwards. The current hypotheses for how stars and planets are formed are based on the laws of physics that we've observed, and the stages of star and planet formation we have observed. These are used to create a model for planet formation, which we can confirm or disprove by further observation. The 'plasma model' is a hypothesis we have tested through observation. It failed: our observations show that the universe does not behave as predicted by this model, which means the model is incorrect.
1
Flerfs made a dishonest comparison of the footprint (which was made by a big overboot that was worn on the lunar surface) with a photo of the inner boot (which was a lot smaller, and was used for EVA during the flight).
1
The resolution of this EHT image is 1000 times better than what the JWST will achieve. That's the advantage of having a telescope the size of Earth. What JWST will see is comparable to that timelapse of stars orbiting the black hole.
1
Real images of Earth coming up: we have geostationary weather satellites that take images of the entire hemisphere every 10 minutes, see for example https://youtu.be/zoMRwyNhqJ4 And a few more: Earth from space: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVBlQ31FzJU and Earth from the moon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTNTfSxP0HQ and images of Earth, incl Moon and Earth in one shot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPM2kITNtTs
1
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
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
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
@kryptoniterocks8245 Nope. I've examined the evidence. None of the claims made by the deniers hold up.
1
@kryptoniterocks8245 You're arguing from ignorance.
1
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
They're going at a slow speed because JWST has no thrusters on the side facing away from the Sun. So they can't slow down when they get to the target orbit. The speed slowly drops off as it gets farther away from Earth (due to Earth's gravity), they've calculated the speed to reach 0 at exactly the right time.
1
@goobytron2888 I've done a lot of reading about JWST over the years. You're right, when JWST was released from the second stage it was moving at 22000 mph, above escape velocity. But escape velocity doesn't mean Earth's gravity is no longer a factor. Compare it to throwing a ball straight up: its velocity decreases during the climb, until it reaches 0. In physics term, kinetic energy (speed) is converted to potential energy (altitude). JWST is doing this too: converting that 22000 mph into the potential energy of an orbit at 1.5 million km altitude.
1
They don't have to adjust for distance, but they will recalibrate occasionally (or rather, check to make sure the calibration is still correct).
1
Yes, but that chance is very small. Space is empty.
1
@Mysticsword Yes. On average, JWST will encounter only micrograms of dust per year. We haven't found all of the asteroids around Earth yet, so an impact with an object we don't know about is possible.
1
This depends on the reference frame you're using. In a stationary reference frame, there's a centripetal force. If you switch to a rotating reference frame, a centrifugal force shows up.
1
it takes 6-7 seconds, communication is done via radio.
1
That's backwards, the Imperial system is the outdated one.
1
@jamesf3801 Space is a better vacuum than the best vacuum chamber here on Earth can replicate. The average density is 1 atom per cm3. On Earth, there are 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 atoms per cm3.
1
We have abundant evidence that proves the Apolllo landings were not filmed here on Earth, but on the moon.
1
They talked about that in the video. There's a piece of foam in the helmet. The astronaut can push his nose against that to close his nose for clearing the ears.
1
Those equations and models are the result of us gathering evidence.
1
That volcano has been active in the week before the big eruption. The day before the big eruption, there was a big landslide on the island. So it didn't need an asteroid to erupt.
1
The JWST science team allocates time to researches. Any astronomer can apply for observation time. The first 6 months of observation time have been allocated and published.
1
The USA has an entire agency (the NRO) tasked with building and running spy satellites. Why would NASA waste valuable observation time of NGR replicating what the NRO does?
1
No, it was donated from a project for a successor to KH-11, which got cancelled.
1
Only a few months ago, I retired my iPhone 5s, which was 10 years old. The hardware was still operational. If you buy cheap junk, you get what you pay for.
1
@peterlution I said 300,000 km, but that seems to be incorrect. Wikipedia has the radius as 800,000 km.
1
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
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
Yes. But the Voyagers will run out of power to run a single instrument long before the S/N ratio drops below the threshold. The DSN could keep in contact with the Voyagers until 2057 if the Voyagers had enough power to operate by then. If necessary, we could use the VLA to stay in contact even longer.
1
10,000 satellites in orbit prove there is no dome.
1
@paumang4811 No argument, then.
1
Experience with Spirit and Opportunity showed this wasn't necessary: their solar panels were cleaned regularly by dust devils.
1
@antondavidoff150 You're one of those people who believes the moon landings were faked, despite there being no evidence to support that claim?
1
The title is incorrect. NASA isn't ending the mission any sooner than it has to. The end of the mission is determined by one parameter: the amount of power produced by the RTG. This drops steadily, at a rate of about 4 W/year. So they regularly have to switch off instruments to stay within that limit. When the last science instrument has to be switched off, the mission is over.
1
The effect of this eruption on this year's average temperature will be tiny (-0.011 ºC).
1
The center of buoyany would only shift if the volume of the spacesuit changes.
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. 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
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
"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
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
NGR is not a flagship like JWST that needs lots of development of new technology, so this'll be a lot closer to schedule.
1
the correct value is +83 ºC.
1
no. Images will be analyzed on the ground, not onboard.
1
@TheWilkReport Under the IAU definition, Pluto does not meet the definition of a planet. It hasn't cleared its neighborhood.
1
As you get farther out from the sun, your solar panels provide less power. At their current distance, solar panels provide 1/14400 the power they do here on Earth.
1
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
No. The cameras were shut down in 1989 after the last planetary encounter. The cameras were no longer useful, and shutting them down meant more program and data storage was available for the rest of the instruments.
1
No. The cameras were shut down in 1989 after the last planetary encounter. The cameras were no longer useful, and shutting them down meant more program and data storage was available for the rest of the instruments.
1
That is incorrect. There's a cone of shadow extending outwards from Earth. This cone covers a tiny part of the sky. Most of the time, the moon is not inside that cone. When it enters that cone, you get a lunar eclipse.
1
That's YouTube clickbait with no supporting evidence. The sun does not have micronova events.
1
Images will be published in a few days.
1
Images are here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlwatKpla8s
1
Rockets don't need a medium. A rocket engine pushes against its own exhaust gases.
1
We're learning more about the planets right now, with dedicated missions that can study the planets for years, instead of flybys that can study the planet for a few hours. Galileo, Juno, Cassini. There are mission proposals to do this at Uranus and Neptune as well.
1
The ISS orbits within the van Allen belts, which limits their exposure. The exosphere doesn't contribute much.
1
@tumarbongrox6074 Technically, yes. But the density of the atmosphere at 400 km is too low to provide noticeable attenuation of incoming radiation.
1
@peeperleviathan2839 yeah, 'within' is ambiguous.
1
@peeperleviathan2839 Well, yes, that's what I said.
1
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
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
Space (specifically, the ISS) is one of the few areas were we're still working with the Russians. The ISS was set up as a diplomatic effort. Abandoning it would harm everyone.
1
@Gary-Seven-and-Isis-in-1968 If the plug were to be pulled on cooperation with Russia for the ISS, we'd have to abandon the ISS - there are essential functions that can't be done without Russian cooperation.
1
Setting up a comms relay on the moon is pretty pointless. It makes the process much harder and more expensive for little benefit. The first commercial deep space communications stations are already operational: Goonhilly in the UK is one. I expect most commercial operators will use laser comms, for which a satellite in Earth orbit may be beneficial.
1
That's nonsense.
1
The EHT team went to great lengths to make sure their algorithms would work on any image, not just black holes. They deliberately didn't put in preconceived notions of what a black hole would look like. They tested this with non-astronomical images. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGL_OL3OrCE
1
JWST is designed to be refueled. JWST uses reaction wheels to point the telescope, occasionally these have to be 'reset' and that requires fuel. It also needs fuel to correct its orbit about once a month. Without fuel the spacecraft will start drifting away from the L2 point. The end of the mission will be when the antenna can no longer be pointed at Earth. The telescope uses liquid helium for cooling, with a cooling system to keep this helium cold. This shouldn't run out any time soon.
1
That moniker was coined by flat-Earthers. Not exactly known for being a reliable judge of anything.
1
@robsargent8801 Earth from space: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBPjVzSoepo also search for Earthrise (the iconic photo taken by Apollo 8) and DISCOVR (a spacecraft far enough away from Earth that it can capture Earth and Moon in one photo).
1
@robsargent8801 The whole Earth, for your viewing pleasure: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVBlQ31FzJU
1
We have independent confirmation that the Apollo landings are real, and the only people who claim it was faked never come up with evidence that stands up to examination.
1
Yes, that's what's done for missions: the astronauts practice a lot before the mission, and have autonomy during the mission. This test, however, is something different. The test has to be controlled, for it to give useful data.
1
Troll.
1
Thaller and Tyson have doctorates, Nye has been practicing and teaching science and the scientific method for decades. All 3 are scientists.
1
We have photos of stars orbiting an object that's mostly invisible. From those orbits we can calculate how much mass there must be: 4 million solar masses in a tiny amount of space. The only theory that can explain those observations is a black hole. Now we've imaged that invisible object, and our observations match the theory. That means black holes are real, not theoretical, not imaginary. Welcome to science.
1
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
@ampstaak100 The Apollo program was one of the first to use integrated circuits. The personal computer revolution started right there.
1
@ampstaak100 The only time NASA got signals from Pluto, was during the New Horizons flyby in 2015.
1
Impacts generate a lot of heat, which turns the dust underneath to glass.
1
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
@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
@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
it all comes down to angular size and brightness. There's a region of the solar system where planets are too far away to detect: their angular size gets smaller than our telescopes can resolve, or their brightness gets too low.
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. Every day, you benefit from data generated in space, proving space is real and there is no dome.
1
The cameras were switched off in 1990. The power supply on Voyager produces less power every year, so some instruments had to be switched off to allow the others to keep working.
1
We do what we can with the data we have. We have a lot more data about Earth than Mercury.
1
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. Radio waves don't travel well through solid obstacles, so each wall between you and the cell tower reduces your signal. NASA uses a giant dish to receive Voyager's signals, builds the best receiver electronics money can buy ($100 million each, the receiver is cooled to cryogenic temperatures to reduce noise), and they have a clear line of sight without obstacles between transmitter and receiver. At these distances, communication is slow: Voyager sends data at 160 bits/s.
1
Draw a line from the Sun to Eath. Then continue this line on Earth's night side, for 1.5 million km. That's where the L2 point is. The sun won't be between JWST and Earth.
1
+83 is the correct value.
1
@krishmalhotratalks I didn't look it up, I remembered +83 is closer to the temperature of an object in Earth orbit than -83 ºC. The JWST website says the temperature is a bit higher than +83: "The sunshield separates the observatory into a warm, sun-facing side (thermal models show the max temperature of the outermost layer is 383K"), that's 110ºC.
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. Every day, you benefit from data generated in space, proving space is real and Earth is not flat.
1
@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
@chuckp3131 I've done my research. I've seen satellites. I've shown you that what you claim is impossible.
1
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
@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
The moon landing footage was received at several stations around the world (depending on which part of Earth could see the Moon. Those stations sent the signal back to the US (via geostationary satellites if necessary), distribution to the TV networks was done from there.
1
Real pictures are available now, the Planetary Data System has about 1 million MESSENGER photos. This video does a bad job of showing them off.
1
yes, that's correct.
1
the environment in the suit is pure oxygen. That makes the backback less complicated (no nitrogen circuit needed) and allows them to use a lower pressure. Apollo used 100% oxygen in the cabin as well. For the Shuttle and later projects they switched to having a normal 80/20 atmosphere at 1 bar/14.7 psi.
1
How embarrassing that you think the Apollo landings were faked, when there is so much evidence that proves you wrong.
1
You have to divide that cost by the number of targets, which will be a few hundred thousand over 20 years.
1
The SRBs were transported by rail, not road.
1
Advancing the state of the art is an unpredictable process. For JWST, the state of the art had to be advanced in 10 areas.
1
Voyager 1 and 2 massively increased our knowledge of the gas giants, but that data also led to new questions. To answer those, we built Galileo, Cassini and Juno. Galileo and Cassini were hugely expensive missions, so we can't afford a lot of those. A mission to Uranus or Neptune is likely to be next.
1
No. The hallmark of a scientific theory is that it makes predictions we can test. If black holes exist, they have to behave according to a mathematical model. So we observe black holes to see if their behavior matches the predictions. And you know what? It does. We have observed this region in IR for 20 years. These observations show stars orbiting an object that's mostly invisible. From those orbits we can calculate how much mass there must be: 4 million solar masses in a tiny amount of space. This matches the predictions for a black hole. Now we've imaged that invisible object, and our observations again match the predictions. That means black holes are real, not theoretical, not imaginary. Welcome to science.
1
@jomudesimedia The geocentric model was proven wrong when Galileo found objects that don't orbit Earth. He didn't have to indoctrinate anyone: people could see for themselves. The geocentric model is also incompatible with the force of gravity: gravity requires that small objects orbit large ones, not the other way round.
1
@jomudesimedia The blue marble pictures have not been debunked. Charlatans make wild claims about that, but never provide any evidence. Their claims invariably show they don't understand physics, so it's their claims that end up being debunked.
1
 @jomudesimedia I'm sorry you've been deceived that much. Anyone who claims the Earth is stationary soon runs into all kinds of observations he can't explain.
1
The environmental impact from spaceflight is about 1/1,000,000 that of airline travel.
1
Tons of evidence prove you wrong.
1
Troll.
1
@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
@ashardalondragnipurake Humans are transported in a pressure vessel, this parachute wasn't. Adding a pressure vessel for the parachute would have made the mission a lot more expensive due to all the extra weight.
1
Zippers were used in the outer layers, not in the pressure bladder. You're arguing from ignorance.
1
Statistics.
1
The direct cause was equipment failure, it took a bit longer to figure out what the underlying cause was.
1
That's nonsense. Classification (=dividing things into categories) has always been part of science, because it makes it easier to have a discussion when everybody uses the same classification. When Galileo saw Jupiter and understood that it was a planet like ours, the solar system had two classes: anything in orbit around the Sun is a planet, anything in orbit around a planet is a moon. Then we started to discover asteroids, starting with the largest: Ceres. This was initially considered a planet. Then we discovered hundreds of smaller objects in similar orbits, and astronomers added a new class: asteroids. Ceres was moved from the Planet class to the Asteroid class. Then we discovered Pluto. Seemed to be alone in its region, so it was considered a planet. Then we discovered hundreds of smaller objects in similar orbits, and astronomers added a new class: dwarf planets. Pluto was moved from the Planet class to the Dwarf Planet class. The more objects you have, the more classes it becomes useful to divide them into. This is done everywhere in science. What most people call mosquitoes, biologists divide into several hundred species. Etc. In this case, a scientific classification has entered the public consciousness and people are flipping out because they have an emotional attachment to Pluto.
1
it's a different target.
1
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
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
@TM-tw1py This will get you started: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=debunk+moon+hoax
1
We can see satellites from the ground. With simple equipment we can measure their speed and altitude; we find speeds of 8 km/s for satellites at 400 km. Scott did a video on how to do this. No balloon has ever been above 50 km, no balloon has ever reached a speed of 1/100 that of a satellite. I can confirm that geostationary satellites are at 36,000 km above the equator by pointing a directional antenna at them from 3 different locations.
1
@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
@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
@TheEvilmooseofdoom or the same way the rocket engine itself works: by cooling the print head.
1
That's baloney. The people who got paid for building the spacecraft are not the people now operating the telescope. And anyone doing this would be guaranteed their scam would be found out some day, because at some point, a more advanced telescope than JWST will be built.
1
yes. The program is uploaded, then checked, before they switch from the old to the new software.
1
The US does something similar. Space suits are never fully sealed. Instead, they measure the leak rate and as long as it's below a preset threshold, the spacewalk goes ahead. The PLSS contains enough oxygen to keep the pressure in the suit at nominal level with that leak rate.
1
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
plus 83 is the correct value.
1
@spoileralertrecap What video are you referring to?
1
@spoileralertrecap The moon rotates, with the same speed as it orbits us: one revolution in 28 days, one orbit in 28 days. That's how we always see the same side of the moon. And no, the continents don't match up with the contours of the lava plains on the moon. The moon looks nothing like Earth.
1
@spoileralertrecap The distance between the Earth and the Moon slowly increases, at a few cm per year. Its position is not fixed, it changes.
1
@spoileralertrecap Anyone can set up a simple experiment that shows Earth's rotation: a Foucault pendulum.
1
@Unsalted667 He taught science, by doing it.
1
@Unsalted667 We have Nye on video doing scientific experiments and explaining the scientific method. THAT qualifies him as a scientist.
1
@Unsalted667 You don't need credentials to be a scientist. All you have to do is practice science.
1
@Unsalted667 Incorrect yet again. As I said, we have tons of TV programs where Nye does scientific experiments. Tyson and Thaller have each published countless scientific papers, i.e. reports of their scientific research.
1
Yes, the tape recorded is in a heated compartment along with the rest of the electronics.
1
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
Your calculation is off. A research report issued by Michael Courtney and Amy Courtney in 2012 provided Coriolis corrections for 168-grain Barnes TTSX bullets launched from a .30-06 Sprg at 2,800 fps due west at a latitude of 45 degrees north. At 500 yards the bullet struck 1/2 inch low. At 1,000 they found deflection was between 3 to 4 inches.
1
The current estimate is that this year's average temperature will drop by 0.011 ºC because of this eruption. Predicting volcanic eruptions is difficult, because they are caused by processes inside the Earth's crust we can't monitor directly.
1
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
if this is CGI, then so are the photos you take with your phone.
1
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
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
No, there are no photos of him because he was the one holding the camera. We have hours of video of both astronauts though.
1
This is what he told NASA: Don't be afraid to speak up when you see something going wrong.
1
we've had several IR missions after IRAS: ISO, Herschel, WISE.
1
@jerryhoward6007 Then your "research" is flawed. We have known (not believed, known for certain) for 2500 years that Earth is not a flat disk but a sphere. All of the actual evidence shows this. You have fallen for pseudoscience and lies, produced by charlatans and grifters. None of their arguments hold up to scrutiny.
1
No. There's one charlatan hawking a book by making wild claims.
1
They didn't. Several visors were scratched before the end of the mission.
1
Look up tonight. You can see the ISS pass overhead, proving that space is real. We don't live on a snowglobe, we live on an actual planet that works in accordance with laws of physics we can discover.
1
NASA's experimenting with laser communication, to replace radio. This would offer a huge increase in bandwidth.
1
We have complete photos of Earth (showing the entire surface) going back to the 1970s, when the first Earth observation and weather satellites became operational.
1
@param888 I'm not a video creator, but here are a few resources you can look into. Landsat is the first Earth observation program. The photos taken by these satellites are available for free. US Weather satellites are operated by NOAA, and they make the photos made by their satellites available as well. Eumetsat is the European agency for weather information, and they do the same with photos from their satellites. The Apollo crews were among the first to take photos of the whole Earth. Those photos are in the Apollo Flight Journal.
1
@astraldragon5702 If you used your critical thinking skills, you'd notice that every flerf claim turns out to be built on quicksand. Every flerf argument can be debunked by applying actual science.
1
@astraldragon5702 As a pilot, you should be ashamed to have fallen for the nonsensical claims that Earth is flat. Every time we measure Earth's surface, we find that it is curved, not flat.
1
@astraldragon5702 Explain this first. When we measure Earth's surface, we find that it is curved, not flat. Everything else is secondary to that.
1
That is incorrect. Flat-Earther charlatans found a set of people with similar names to the Challenger astronauts and who looked somewhat similar. Those people have nothing to do with Challenger, but the followers of these charlatans have been hounding these people ever since.
1
You can see satellites pass overhead, even with the naked eye. With simple tools, you can triangulate their altitude and measure their speed. You will find that they are at altitudes of 200 km and up, far higher than any balloon can reach, and they move at 8 km/s, 100 times faster than any balloon has ever been. This demonstrates that space is real. You have been misled by charlatans who use big words like "second law of thermodynamics" in the hope you don't know enough about physics to see the holes in their argument. We have a dozen different ways to determine the shape of our planet. From simple observations of the horizon, to direct measurement of the curvature of Earth's surface (geodetic survey), to direct observation from high altitude, all these tell us the same: Earth is a sphere. The second law of thermodynamics is about the amount of energy you can extract from a closed system. It basically says you can't get more energy out of a system than has been put in.
1
it wouldn't be centuries, it'd be 100,000 years.
1
It arrived at Earth at a much higher speed than the ISS, so you'd need a rocket engine and a huge amount of fuel to slow down. Using a reentry capsule, the atmosphere does the work of slowing the capsule down.
1
@icesphere1205 Objects in low Earth orbit like the ISS move at about 7.6 km/s. To escape Earth, you have to accelerate to 11.4 km/s. To get to Bennu, you have to accelerate more to get to its orbit (about 12.2 km/s). So the probe was returning from Bennu at 12.2 km/s. Elon's car was launched to an orbit that reaches Mars, which requires a higher speed (the farther away from the sun, the more speed you need).
1
It's probably more the solder, and any coatings on the electronic components that would start outgassing in a vaccum.
1
no. Waves that high would have wiped most of Tonga off the map. Actual wave height was less than 1 m. There's one source that claimed 15 m, but that was incorrect.
1
The resolution of this image is about 1000 times higher than what JWST can achieve. That's the advantage of linking radio telescopes all over the world.
1
That's incorrect. We can, and we already have, 29 times.
1
no.
1
We study Jupiter and other planets to learn more about our solar system: how did it form, how does it work now. We get to see what's possible when conditions are very different from Earth. We explore because we can. And sometimes we are surprised by our discoveries: we found moons around Jupiter and Saturns that have liquid water oceans underneath an ice crust. We might find life there.
1
A light would have been another risk to add for very little benefit.
1
Spirit and Opportunity ran for years without any of that.
1
Even though Canada and Europe have contributed to the mission, and science results in all disciplines are always shared freely?
1
Yes, that's been SOP since the 1970s.
1
Space exploration is not just about exploitation. We want to know how the universe works.
1
A new 34-meter antenna on the ground costs about $100M. A satellite with an antenna that large would be a lot more expensive, for little gain. (Literally: the extra gain you get from moving the antenna from the ground to Earth orbit is a tiny amount). A dish antenna concentrates all of the signal into a single receiver. A phased array has lots of receivers that each get a small portion of the signal. That means the signal-to-noise ratio of a phased array is a lot lower. With the weak signals the DSN works with (down to -170 dBm) you need all the S/N you can get. DSN receivers are cooled to 4K, that's not achievable with passive cooling in Earth orbit.
1
Small, but on a 4 bn year timescale, not insignificant.
1
GOES W or Himawari-8, both are weather satellites.
1
The first camera has been started up already, they are using it to position the mirrors. Science observations will start in June.
1
We spent $250 billion on Apollo. After Apollo, NASA's budget was cut by 90%, making further manned lunar missions unaffordable. There is abundant evidence from many different sources that proves the Apollo landings are real.
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. 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
For the General Observer program (i.e. observations requested by astronomers outside the JWST core team) there's a standard period of 6 months where the requesting astronomer has exclusive access to the images. After 6 months, ALL data is published via MAST. For DD-ERS (which is scheduled in between the GO program) images are released immediately.
1
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
Volcanoes produce little CO2. Most of that cloud is water vapor. Volcanoes worldwide in total produce about 240 million tons CO2 annually on average. Human industry and road traffic produce 20 billion tons per year.
1
They use radioisotope thermal generators: Pu-238 decays and produces heat, Peltier elements convert this to electricity. Pu-238 has a half-life of 87.7 years, so the output of the RTG reduces a bit every year. The Voyagers started out with 470 W, they're at about half of that now. They cost about $100 million a piece to produce, because you have to process highly radioactive material to get the Pu-238.
1
@randycooper3940 Sure, large-scale development would make RTGs cheaper, but they'd need to be about a million times cheaper to be cost-competitive with our current grid. I don't see that happening. RTGs are also really inefficient: The Voyager RTGs convert about 5% of the heat from the Pu-238 into usable power. And producing Pu-238 adds another step of inefficiency. For use on Earth, you're much better off with a nuclear reactor, which gets closer to 50% efficiency. Distributed nuclear power isn't going to happen. A Pu-238 RTG is safe under normal circumstances (it only produces alpha radiation, which is stopped by the casing), but an accident would spread toxic, radioactive Pu-238.
1
@1969nitsuga Despite the flaws in his measurement, Eratosthenes got within 5% of the real value of Earth's diameter. The distance to the horizon (5 km) is exactly what is expected for a sphere with a diameter of 12700 km; a flat plane does not have a horizon at all. Any picture of "supposed to be hidden" objects ignores observer height, atmospheric refraction and its variation, or both. When I make three right turns of 60º each, I've made a triangle. With a theodolite, I can establish that the angles of a triangle on Earth's surface add up to slightly more than 180º (spherical excess). Nav charts are all projections of spherical data on a flat piece of paper.
1
We suspect that's the case.
1
@bensemusx There is a center of mass in every galaxy. That's what the galaxy rotates around. The black hole is usually pretty close to that.
1
Yes, NASA launches balloons. They launch half a dozen of those per year, to study the upper atmosphere. In addition, they launch lots and lots of satellites into Earth orbit and beyond, to do things you can't do in our atmosphere.
1
The nozzle diameter depends on the ambient atmosphere. Lower pressure = you can make the nozzle larger. And you want that, because what pushes the rocket is the force exerted by the exhaust on the rocket: on the front wall of the combustion chamber, and on the nozzle. Make the nozzle larger = more of the exhaust pushes on the nozzle.
1
The body uses oxygen for various processes. Feed far more oxygen into a human than they're used to, and those processes speed up to where they endanger your health.
1
7:14 there's some information missing here. The perturbations Lowell was using to calculate there had to be another planet, turned out to be measurement errors. The "planet X" he was looking for is unrelated to the current work by Brown et al.
1
@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
@gasnxt6805 "I don't understand how it works, so I'm going to call it fake" is not a good argument.
1
The 8 classical planets are within ~10º of the ecliptic plane. We have lots of KBOs at much higher inclination angles. And our ecliptic is at a large angle relative to the Milky Way's plane.
1
@rogerledwell5776 The second law of thermodynamics says that heat always flows from hot places to colder places. Flerfs like to use complicated-sounding terms like "second law of thermodynamics" in an effort to bamboozle you. But their argument is groundless: there's nothing about our atmosphere and space that violates this law.
1
@rogerledwell5776 Gravity has been proven over and over again. Cavendish first demonstrated that any two objects will attract each other with a force that depends only on their mass. Newton and Einstein's equations make numerous predictions (from simple things like the orbits of the planets, behavior of objects on Earth, to more complex predictions like the warping of spacetime by mass), which we can verify through observation and experimentation. Every time, we find that those predictions are adequate, confirming that these theories are an accurate description of reality.
1
@rogerledwell5776 The effect of gravity is clear: it produces a force that pulls objects closer together. We can measure this force. Newton's equations correctly predict this force. We know this force is caused by mass warping spacetime. Ever since Einstein first proposed this, we have examined his equations, used them to predict how this warping of spacetime would manifest itself, and then dit observations and experiments to see if those predictions are accurate. Time and time again we found that they ARE accurate, which means Einstein's proposal was correct. There are unanswered questions in this, but the basics are solid.
1
The Voyagers can't land, so any species that can find and access one of the Voyagers has mastered spaceflight, figuring out how to play a record is a far simpler problem than spaceflight so we're confident they could solve that puzzle. Sound and light are pretty universal.
1
Those would evaporate quickly.
1
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
whether it's audible or not depends on local circumstances. If you're behind a hill, you're less likely to hear it than when you're right on the coast.
1
@MrEpic86 Depends where you are, it seems. SF Bay is mostly behind hills. By the time it reached Alaska, the sound wouldn't have been very loud, so it might have been drowned out by traffic. And are you sure nobody on the SF coast heard the sound?
1
That's incorrect. Hubble information is not stored on tapes, but on servers with backups. They haven't lost any observations.
1
the first ~15 seconds of the video are real images.
1
Nope. There's an airtight layer on the inside, other fabrics outside of that.
1
10 days after launch, the cold side is already at -233 ºC. I don't think it'll take 6 months to cool down to final temperature: in about 2 weeks the calibration process starts. That will take a few months.
1
RTGs are still used when necessary: the Mars rovers Curiosity and Perseverance use them, for instance. Juno is the first Jupiter mission to use solar panels instead of an RTG, because solar panel technology has improved to the point where that's feasible. RTGs are also very expensive ($100 million), so you want to use them only when no alternatives are available.
1
yes. The instrument unit ran the Saturn V. Once the command module separated from the Saturn, it had to do its own navigation.
1
Using a single 34-m antenna, we can keep in contact until 2050 (Voyager 1) and 2057 (Voyager 2), if their power supply would last that long. NASA also have the option to receive data with an array of antennas, which could stretch this even further. The Voyager missions will end when there's not enough power left to operate one instrument. Not because we can't communicate with them.
1
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
@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
@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
1. No, all impacts don't go to the same depth. Craters tend to have flat floors because that's what happens after an impact. We see the same on Earth. 2. The only drilling done on the moon was by the Apollo crews, with handheld tools, and perhaps one of the Luna missions, again with small tools, reaching a depth of no more than a few meters. Impact craters are much deeper than that.
1
JWST can't image Earth or the Moon, they would have to expose the cold side of the telescope to direct sunlight, which would overheat the telescope. If we overcame that problem, its resolution would be about 100 m/pixel. Luckily we don't need JWST to get high-res images of the Moon. We have the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, which has photographed the entire Moon with a resolution of 0.5 m. LRO images of Apollo landing sites: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pnhnx95LkCc
1
That is incorrect. Impact craters cause a raised center when material flows back into the crater and collides in the middle. Part of the ejecta fall back into the crater, which makes them shallower. There is no evidence that supports the 'electrical discharge' hypothesis - this is part of the "electric universe", which is a crackpot idea that has long been disproven.
1
The only Apollo telemetry that was discarded is the engineering telemetry from the Saturn V. This was essential for troubleshooting if a failure happened during the mission, but became useless the moment the last Saturn V mission ended. All of the important data on the Apollo missions is retained and remains available. The data on the physical effects of the van Allen belts can be found in van Allen's papers, in Apollo experience reports etc, all of which remain available in public archives.
1
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
That software patch was done around 1990. At that time, the power to the camera system was also switched off, including its heaters. It's unlikely the cameras survived that.
1
@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
That's Murphy's law, not Moore. They spent years testing every aspect of the telescope.
1
@Seantmalone42 JPL has written a series of reports called 'DESCANSO' that gives a lot of detail on this.
1
@Seantmalone42 A signal from Alpha Centauri will be 1 million times weaker than one from Voyager. So you need 1 million times the collection area of a 34 m dish...
1
@brussels13207 Well, there's a connector that's unplugged, it's not like they'll pull the cable apart. Often there's a plate that holds a bunch of connectors, and it's pretty easy to winch that plate away from the rocket.
1
The electronics are in a heated compartment, still around 0ºC.
1
the Why files is full of nonsense. He didn't do his research.
1
3D printing gives you access to geometries that are difficult to impossible to achieve with other methods. The combustion chamber, for instance is double-walled, with propellant circulating between the inner and outer walls. Every method we've used to make those is very labor-intensive (hand-brazing hundreds of tubes) or takes forever (chemical deposition).
1
@HexaSquirrel Have you seen how prop tanks are built? It starts with a thick sheet of aluminium, 80% of which is milled away to get a thin sheet of aluminium with stiffening ribs. Then a giant press is used to bend this to a cylinder. Then you need giant jigs to weld the domes to each end. 3D printing is not ideal for this, but the current process is again very capital and labor intensive.
1
Voyager took 45 years to travel to a point still within our solar system. We don't have the technology yet to travel to other stars in a reasonable time.
1
Unlike you and your images, the EHT team has lots of corroborating evidence for this being a black hole.
1
We have about 10 spacecraft orbiting the L2 point right now.
1
No, they didn't throw away the data. All of the drawings, thousands of technical reports etc. still exist. Apollo cost 5% of the US Federal budget for a decade. After Apollo, NASA's budget was cut by 80%. That's why we haven't been back.
1
No, that's just bad reporting. Our sun will not go supernova.
1
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
We don't need to. Using a single 34-m antenna, we can keep in contact until 2050 (Voyager 1) and 2057 (Voyager 2), if their power supply would last that long. NASA also have the option to receive data with an array of antennas, which could stretch this even further. The Voyager missions will end when there's not enough power left to operate one instrument. Not because we can't communicate with them.
1
@FourthWayRanch Read again what I wrote above. We have independent confirmation of spacecraft operating at Mars and beyond. Again, there is no dome. There is no evidence that supports its existence, and the only source you have is an old mistranslation that has since been proven wrong.
1
Due to where the SRBs were manufactured (Utah) they were stuck with building them in segments, transporting them and then assembling them on site. So they needed a method to seal the joints between the segments that was non-permanent (so the segments could be taken apart again so the SRB could be reused).
1
Hubble was not a surplus telescope, it was a new development. You're thinking of WFIRST/Nancy Grace Roman, which is based on a NRO mirror assembly from a cancelled project. Spy satellites mirrors have a wider field of view than Hubble. They also use very different instruments: spy sats use cameras optimized for Earth daylight conditions. Space telescopes have to be far more sensitive.
1
Musk is close to $10B into his Starship project and hasn't launched to orbit yet. Advancing the state of the art costs money, and JWST had to advance the state of the art in 10 areas.
1
they have started taking images for mirror calibration this week.
1
easier local environment, but a longer trip - and the Soviets had trouble making electronics that lasted long enough to get to Mars. So they had a whole string of failed Mars missions.
1
No. In 1976, someone retranslated a Sumerian text and claimed it talks about an unknown planet. Charlatans then claimed this planet (Nibiru) would destroy Earth in 2012 (coinciding with the end of one period in the Mayan calendar). When that didn't happen (and indeed, no new planet was visible in the night sky), charlatans moved on to the next bit of nonsense. We have found actual planets much further out than this hypothetical one. Sedna has a 10,000 year orbit. So we know Nibiru doesn't exist, and any claims about a "planet 9" that will destroy us can be dismissed.
1
It'll do 20 years of science, and you think you can predict its output from 1 calibration image?
1
@keeplookingup911 These are already proper images, and the science observations will be better still. We'll get full-color images, and we'll get images of things we've never been able to see before.
1
They're using radio. You can receive a signal from so far away with careful design of the transmitter and receiver. Dish antennas concentrate the signal into a narrow cone, providing an enormous amount of gain over omnidirectional antennas. You can also build very sensitive receivers by cooling them to cryogenic temperatures (which reduces noise).
1
above and below the ecliptic plane.
1
In 1989, Voyager 1 made photos of all the planets of the solar system.
1
NASA is advancing the state of the art in multiple scientific disciplines every year. It has enabled us to start using space for commercial purposes, which have paid back our investment in NASA many times over.
1
the Shuttle Enterprise was named after the Star Trek ship.
1
Scuba gear can't provide the same duration for two reasons: 1. The PLSS includes a rebreather. SCUBA systems are open-circuit. You can get rebreathers for under water. 2. under water, you have to provide air at a pressure above the water pressure. This means an open system goes through a lot more gas than necessary. In the space suit, you can provide air at 0.3 bar.
1
Nope. There are no wires. He's pushing himself off the ground, which is hard on Earth but easy in 1/6 g.
1
The US went to the moon 6 times. We've analyzed the Apollo photos and video, and found they cannot be replicated in a studio on Earth.
1
probably a few more than that. 17 KBOs larger than 600 km diameter (=large enough that they're round if they're primarily made of ice)
1
This released less CO2 than we do in 1 day.
1
You're getting most of that wish: In 2021, NASA started development of 2 Venus missions: DAVINCI+ and VERITAS.
1
Turbulence in the atmosphere (caused by heat) distorts light. Not the heat itself.
1
@JFK-ir7yz You are confusing two issues, two reasons for a ship to disappear from view. reason 1. the ship is too small to be visible to the naked eye. At a distance of 5 km (the distance to the horizon at sea level), a small boat is just a smudge. In ideal conditions, the human eye can resolve details as small as 1.5 meters at that distance, but conditions looking over the sea are not idea. You have a moving target, and the atmosphere just above the water is seldom clear. Zooming in will improve the image by increasing the resolution. Videos that claim to zoom in and reveal a ship, are looking at small boats that have not gone over the horizon yet. In the zoomed-in view, this is easy to identify: you can see water behind the ship. 2. the ship is hidden by the horizon. Once a ship has gone over the horizon, it is progressively hidden from the bottom up by the horizon. In effect, there is a hill of water between you and the ship. Zooming in does not remove this hill, it just makes the part of the ship that is still above the horizon easier to see. This is a good test: watch a large ship go over the horizon. The larger, the better. And you need a ship with a large superstructure: not a tanker, but a ferry or a container ship. Wait until it goes over the horizon, wait until the hull has completely disappeared , but the superstructure remains visible. Then zoom in as much as you like. You will notice that your view of the superstructure improves, but the hull does not come back into view.
1
@randyschissler5791 Your post with the link has disappeared.
1
@JFK-ir7yz There's a video "Nikon P1000 Max Zoom Test: 4 to 6 Mile Horizon Boat Test". Look it up. At 1:10, the video zooms in on 7 boats. 6 of them are in front of the horizon and completely visible. Number 7 is behind the horizon, and only the mast is visible. Notice that while zooming in, the hull of number 7 never comes into view: at any zoom level, we only see the top section of the mast.
1
@JFK-ir7yz At first glance, when you look around you, Earth seems flat. But is it really? When we measure a section of Earth's surface, we always find that it is curved, not flat. Over a distance of one kilometer, the surface deviates from a straight line by 8 cm. That is too small to see with the naked eye, but it's pretty easy to measure. Geodetic surveys measure this every day. This curvature becomes visible when we look at the horizon: when a ship goes over the horizon, it is gradually hidden from view from the bottom up. Zooming in will not bring the obscured part of the ship back into view, despite your claims. It just makes the part that is not hidden yet, more visible. What will bring the obscured part of the ship back into view is moving to a higher elevation. The distance to the ship has not changed, which proves that the ship is not being obscured by any optical effect, is is being obscured by a physical obstacle: a hill of water between you and the ship.
1
JWST has been built with more redundancy than Hubble, to make sure it doesn't break down.
1
@luigicirelli2583 Simple experiments anyone can do, prove that Earth is spherical, not flat. This is the truth: Earth is a sphere.
1
JWST IS using solar energy.
1
Some landers use RTGs: Curiosity and Perseverance have RTGs. But they are very expensive and production is limited so they're only used when there is no other option.
1
We've had that since 1968.
1
The cooling tubes that circulate water around the body lead to a heat exchanger with the vacuum. This is a radiator; water is sprayed onto the radiator. This freezes, then sublimates, carrying away the heat.
1
This is a medium-sized volcanic eruption. They happen every 30 years or so. We were far away from 'getting wiped out'.
1
@leagueoftrolls3 We measure the severity using seismic sensors: the eruption causes an earthquake that can be measured. The air pressure measured in the shockwave also gives us useful information. Eruptions this large are rare, that's true. Smaller eruptions are more common (80/year on average) so we have a decent amount of data to extrapolate from. And the nuclear tests in the 1940s-1960s gave us a lot of information on large explosions as well.
1
We've seen light warping around heavy objects like galaxies: it can form an Einstein ring if the conditions are right.
1
Because nothing like that exists.
1
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
The ROI for Apollo was 7:1. Most of the 10,000 satellites launched so far are commercial, i.e. they have to turn a profit.
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. 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
Radio. The lander transmitted to the orbiter, which transmitted back to Earth. Reception was done with a dish antenna with a diameter of 70 m.
1
@anthonybowers7571 I've never seen a video on the Russian deep space communications system. The USA has a similar system, the Deep Space Network. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzRP1qdwPKw
1
@trap4089 I was just summarizing the answer. As it stands, the Rashmi theory is not a theory in the scientific sense. It does not offer a mathematical framework that describes how the universe works, it does not offer testable predictions. The theory contradicts things like the speed of light. We have lots of evidence that supports our current understanding of the speed of light, and Rashmi offers no explanation for that evidence. So scientists aren't taking this idea seriously. Hawking has never said that black holes don't exist in the sense you're meaning. In 2014, Hawking wrote a paper that proposes that black holes work slightly differently than what we were thinking at the time. Instead of destroying matter completely, it just traps it. Hawking's model still has a singularity where matter is compressed to infinity. The EHT observation does not contradict this theory.
1
It was an accident. The whole "NASA killed Grissom" story is nonsense. Supposedly, NASA killed him to cover up his criticism of the Apollo program. But the fire proved that that criticism was correct. It drew attention to that criticism far more than when he was alive. This was easily foreseeable. Anyone with a brain would have concluded that a capsule fire would be the dumbest possible way to assassinate Grissom. So we can discard that whole claim, and stick to the facts: Grissom, White and Chaffee died in an accident.
1
The only bullshit is the stuff you're spouting. We have run over 200 missions that left Earth orbit.
1
No. The density was higher than expected, but not by enough to account for the missing mass.
1
Getting a sample from deeper down requires drilling (as far as we knew at the start of the mission). It was a surprise that the TAGSAM was able to push into the surface so far - and this means at least some of the sample will be from below the surface.
1
None of them. And as we know now, those aren't elements.
1
That would be a problem in low Earth orbit. L2 is a lot cleaner.
1
There is no video "telling everyone Nasa finally lost contact with Voyager". There are videos about temporary losses of contact (e.g. because the only antenna that can send commands to Voyager 1 was offline for refurbishment), but no claims that contact was lost permanently.
1
every 3 weeks or so.
1
The evidence says otherwise.
1
@leontassone5201 The blue prints (all 6 million of them) are still available in a public archive.
1
Does the donut have any contrast to the background, in mm wavelengths?
1
they don't. The chance of that happening is really low though. Space is empty.
1
@1legend517 No, JWST's resolution is similar to Hubble's.
1
@1legend517 Hubble has a resolution of 50 milliarcseconds/pixel. JWST is 31 mas/px at its shortest wavelengths.
1
@redlightrunner930 JWST is 1.5 million km away. For radio, that's practically next door. Cell service is short-range radio, with a tiny antenna and a $30 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. Radio waves don't travel well through solid obstacles, so each wall or hill between you and the cell tower reduces your signal. NASA uses a series of giant dish antennas (the Deep Space Network) to receive signals from spacecraft like JWST and Voyager, it builds the best receiver electronics money can buy ($100 million each), and they have a clear line of sight without obstacles between transmitter and receiver. You can verify this yourself: every radio link ever built has a link budget: this is an equation that tells you how much transmitter power you need to receive the signal over the distance you need.
1
@redlightrunner930 images from Hubble, JWST and others are at the Mikulski archive for space telescopes. Data from planetary missions is in the Planetary Data System. Both have public websites where you can access the raw data from all experiments.
1
JWST will observe at wavelengths at which our atmosphere is opaque. The only way to do those observations is from a satellite.
1
You're melting one drop at a time, instead of a whole vat as you'd do with casting. Old methods can be energy-intensive too.
1
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. Radio waves don't travel well through solid obstacles, so each wall between you and the cell tower reduces your signal. NASA uses a giant dish to receive Voyager's signals, builds the best receiver electronics money can buy ($100 million each, the receiver is cooled to cryogenic temperatures to reduce noise), and they have a clear line of sight without obstacles between transmitter and receiver. At these distances, communication is slow: Voyager sends data at 160 bits/s. It takes about 20 hours for radio signals from Voyager to reach Earth.
1
In every landing video, at about 1 minute before touchdown you can see the dust being blown away.
1
Maybe, but it won't be used to look for planet X. You want a survey instrument to do that, not an instrument like JWST that's optimized to look at very small areas.
1
Nope.
1
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
They are pictures of the accretion disk.
1
The Shuttle was a design compromised by pennypinching. Earlier designs had the entire stack as reusable, but that was deemed to expensive and NASA was not given enough budget to design and build it that way. Ejection seats would have limited the crew to 2-3 instead of 7. An escape system that could detach the entire cabin was looked at, but its mass penalty was too high, which made some of the missions the Shuttle was designed for impossible.
1
Not necessarily.
1
Those are the brake disks. They're in front of the electric motors that drive the tracks.
1
Earth is not flat. We have a dozen methods to measure Earth's shape, and they all agree: Earth is a sphere. Similarly, we have a ton of data that shows Earth is not the center of the solar system, or the universe. Flat Earth and geocentrism are dead. Their corpses just twitch occasionally as hopefuls poke at the remains of their idols.
1
No. A TEG needs a temperature difference to work, and the only way to keep a lander cool is by running a refrigerator, which always takes more power than TEGs can harvest from the temperature difference.
1
No. Our climate models are excellent, and have been shown to accurately predict events again and again. In 2000, we tallied the average temperatures for 1990-2000 and it turned out that decade was the hottest decade since temperature measurements began. In 2010, we did that again and the 2000-2010 turned out to have been even warmer. In 2020, we did that again and the 2010-2020 decade turned out to have been even warmer. This validated our models, again, showing a strong correlation between humans producing excess CO2 and our planet getting warmer. So anthropogenic global warming is not "rhetoric", it's data. Plain for all to see. We're warming up the planet. The only people still denying that are shills for the fossil fuel industry and the people hoodwinked by them.
1
An RTG uses thermocouples. This is an electrical device consisting of two dissimilar electrical conductors forming an electrical junction. A thermocouple produces a temperature-dependent voltage as a result of the Seebeck effect. So it converts heat directly into electric power, without any moving parts.
1
Taking images is part of the mirror alignment process, so yes, the first images have been taken. They'll be a blurry mess so they aren't being published yet.
1
it's the only way to do what we want: put a 4-man crew on the moon for a month or more. If you wanted to do that with a single launch, the rocket you need would dwarf the Saturn V.
1
Astrology is nonsense. Consider this: your "sign" is based on the position of the sun relative to 12 constellations, 2200 years ago. That position isn't constant: it changes due to precession. These position have changed by more than 30º, meaning "your sign" no longer matches the position of the sun relative to the constellations. Astrologers blithely keep using the wrong signs. In addition, the stars exert no measurable influence on anyone.
1
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
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
3D printing is being used by several rocket companies right now. RocketLab prints entire engines, as do others.
1
Earth is hit by about 5200 tons of debris every year. With the difference in size between Earth and JWST, you can calculate JWST will be hit by nanograms of debris every year.
1
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
Have you ever tried to disassemble a 60- million ton mountain like that? It takes forever.
1
They test by filling the suit to the pressure of the ambient water, plus 4 or 6 or 8 psi, ie the pressure difference is made the same as it would be in space.
1
The Voyagers do use nuclear power. It's not a reactor: they use the decay heat from Plutonium-238.
1
@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
@Roxasamico We have independent verification that the lunar landings are real.
1
The Apollo program cost $25 billion. It caused the US economy to grow by $175 billion. That's an excellent return on investment.
1
No. Only the general planform is similar. Airbus use fuselages with a circular cross-section, the Boeing 707 didn't (it has a double-bubble cross section). Everybody uses underwing podded engines because that's the most practical solution. The wings are far more advanced than the simple wing shape used on the B707.
1
No, if it doesn't roll away, the ground beneath it is at a constant distance to the center of the planet, i.e. the surface is spherical.
1
Kilometers tell 97% of the world's population everything. Miles are for laggards.
1
People who believe the moon landings are fake are making wild claims without evidence.
1
The O-rings WERE replaced for each mission. The SRBs were basically stripped to bare metal and rebuilt completely.
1
The mirror surfaces must be very accurate (down to nanometers). Self-healing materials are not that accurate, so you'd end up with an unusable area anyway. Might as well leave the hole as-is.
1
A number of orbital launches (and attempts) too. Black Arrow and Europa 1.
1
An atomic bomb test is over in a few minutes, with the cloud staying in place for half an hour or so. This cloud keeps growing for hours. Not a bomb test, a volcano.
1
It needs maintenance every 3 weeks or so, and current estimate is that it has enough fuel for 20 years of operations. When it runs out, it'll start to drift away from L2 and end up in a heliocentric orbit.
1
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
@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
@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
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
To some extent, yes. Some parts of the light are removed entirely, you can't restore those. And depending on the amount of redshift, JWST's filters may not line up with RGB so you may not be able to reproduce the colors correctly.
1
@novadestry Yes, any processing will be done on Earth. but if information's missing from the incoming light, you won't be able to add it back in. To take a color picture, you basically take 3 images through red, green and blue filters. JWST would have to take 3 pictures using 3 IR filters that have to line up with R, G and B after shifting the light. JWST has a bunch of filters (16, IIRC) so for some redshifts you should be able to do this.
1
I hate to break it to you, but scientists aren't rich.
1
Apollo was capable of putting 2 men on the moon for a maximum of 3 days. Anything more requires a bigger rocket to get the crew, their food, their instruments etc to the moon. You can't use a reactor to split water to feed a rocket engine. You need a reactor that weighs thousands of tons to provide enough power to keep up with the kind of fuel consumption you have in a rocket engine.
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.
1
@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
@RRaquello The success of the Saturn was down to the fact that NASA could afford to build huge test stands where they could test-fire every stage of the Saturn V. The Russians didn't do this, and resorted to testing their stages by flying them instead. Those failures were not unexpected (they thought they'd need up to 14 launches to get the bugs out of the rocket).
1
@RRaquello The Russians thought that building a test stand capable of holding down 4500 tons of thrust would take too long. They didn't take the moon race seriously until 1965, so they were far behind schedule. The engines used for the first 4 launches were not restartable at all: they used pyrotechnics to open and close the valves. So they couldn't even be tested before installation. They'd build 6 engines, test 3 and if those passed, the other 3 were installed in a stage. They were working on a version of the engine that could be restarted, which would have solved that problem, but those didn't become available until the early 1970s.
1
gravitational slingshot, you mean?
1
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
@Tim22222 All except Neil Armstrong on Apollo 11, he kept the engine running to touchdown.
1
@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
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. You're doing the same for Venus.
1
Why do you get so upset over a wrong answer one guy gave 10 years ago? We haven't been back to the moon yet because we decided to do other things (Space Shuttle, the ISS) which left no room in NASA's budget for manned lunar missions.
1
We can see satellites pass overhead, even with the naked eye. This proves you wrong.
1
@neilarmstrongsson795 False. Both Armstrong and Aldrin were filmed coming down the ladder, by the TV camera on the MESA cover.
1
@neilarmstrongsson795 You think that indicates something, when it doesn't.
1
That channel pushes pseudoscience.
1
you mean a low viscosity fluid. Well, try to find a benign one that's cheap enough to use a whole pool of. Alcohol: you have to deal with the fumes when you have this much of it. White spirit is even worse (toxic). etc.
1
Because we want to learn more about how the universe works.
1
That plan depends on two quantities that are unknown: the payload of Starship (which remains unknown until development has finished), and the boiloff rate of the propellants in Starship tanks (which remains unknown until it's been tested in space).
1
No, it'd be the seventh manned moon landing.
1
The diffraction spikes were predicted from the start. They're inevitable in reflector telescopes. Science observations don't require a target star. The mirror alignment will be checked regularly, but doesn't need to be adjusted for individual observations.
1
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
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
The mission ends pretty soon after it's out of fuel. Without fuel, it becomes harder and harder to keep the spacecraft pointed correctly.
1
The arguments in that "documentary" are full of holes. But that's par for the course for moon landing deniers.
1
The sample container has not been opened yet, that will be done in about 2 weeks.
1
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
Incorrect. Gravity alone accounts for the near-misses. Planetary magnetic fields are far too weak to deflect another planetary body. And most asteroids are not affected by magnetic fields because they don't contain magnetic materials.
1
We have photos of stars orbiting an object that's mostly invisible. From those orbits we can calculate how much mass there must be: 4 million solar masses in a tiny amount of space. The only theory that can explain those observations is a black hole. Now we've imaged that invisible object, and our observations match the theory. That means black holes are real, not theoretical, not imaginary. Welcome to science.
1
@nojustaveryverytallboi3657 There's a simple equation for calculating orbits. Its variables are the mass of the two objects and the distance between them. In this case we have the distance, and the mass of the orbiting star, so we can calculate the mass of the object it is orbiting. So yes, the fact that the stars are moving in a pattern does indicate there's a massive unseen object inside the star's orbit.
1
Genesis 1:20: 'and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open 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.
1
The Voyagers transformed our understanding of our solar system. You may not appreciate that knowledge, but some of us do.
1
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
@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
What you're measuring is not the "temperature of moonlight". The object you used to produce shade is blocking the heat radiating from the shaded object.
1
@Snuggles_the_Unholy Yep.
1
A bowl of water is small: all of the water in the bowl is affected equally by the Moon's gravity. An ocean is large enough to show the effect (as tides).
1
not so much "now" as "over the past 10 years". They're measuring the heliopause, where the Sun's electromagnetic influence ends and the interstellar medium begins.
1
The evidence proves you wrong.
1
@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
Space is real, spaceflight is real, and they have nothing to do with Satan. God made a world we can explore and understand, including looking at it from above.
1
there's no way to do that. They'd need several Saturn V's worth of fuel to reverse course.
1
About 450,000 Americans and 200 Germans worked on the Apollo program. The German contribution to Apollo was about 0.05%.
1
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
No. This was a VEI 5 earthquake. We've had VEI 7 (i.e. 100 times larger) without cracking the crust.
1
air pressure would be the same for everyone.
1
Rockets aren't large enough to show up in these images (resolution is 0.5 km/pixel). It looks more like a small eruption to me.
1
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
JWST will be orbiting the L2 point; if you use a reference frame that follows Earth's orbit the depiction is accurate. In a stationary reference frame, it'll be a sinus, I think.
1
you need a visible-light telescope about 50 meters across to see the flags from Earth. They won't show up well in IR, and the L2 point is 5 times further away from the Moon than Earth is.
1
1. Galaxies are very large compared to Pluto. A galaxy one billion lightyears away takes up a larger patch of sky than Pluto. 2. Stars are only visible because they're very bright: they're smaller than a single pixel.
1
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
The Voyager tape recorders are kept at room temperature.
1
both had their moments. The Soviets ran an extensive unmanned lunar program, including rovers and sample return missions. They had a string of Venus missions, but a lot of failures on Mars. No outer planet missions, but a series of manned stations in Earth orbit. The Americans produced a large number of failures early on, but by the end of the 1960s they were ahead with the Apollo program. Then their planetary exploration program really kicked off with the Voyagers. The Soviets suffered from a lack of available money. Their manned lunar program was run on a shoestring budget, and it showed: first unmanned test launch in 1969.
1
Don't be ridiculous.
1
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
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
@MrTurboTash No. Because the dust is visible, we can estimate the total amount of dust in a galaxy. That number is too low to explain the gravitational effects we see.
1
It's a slight simplification, but still correct for most of the universe.
1
Yes, at least if they're not too far away. But they'll only be visible as a single pixel.
1
@johnc735 yep. Even that will be an advance on what we have now: even the largest telescopes we have can only see a small number of exoplanets directly. Most of the exoplanets we've discovered have been found through indirect methods (when the planet passes in front of its star, we can measure the difference in brightness of the star), we've never seen them.
1
no. The best technology we have for this application is sitting on JWST. That's why it took so long to build: lots of stuff had to be invented, developed, then built.
1
We have tons of independent confirmation on NASA discoveries.
1
This black hole is about 1/1000 the size of the smallest feature JWST can see.
1
That's nonsense.
1
@LevelEarth2021 Even one star falling on Earth would vaporize Earth completely, so this verse must be referring to something else. Keep in mind that meteors are called falling stars. We now know they are bits of rock, ranging from grains of sand to objects several km in diameter. Heliocentrism is not a belief. We have evidence: measurements of the position of the sun and the planets that irrefutably proves that the planets in our solar system, including Earth, orbit a common barycenter that mostly falls within the Sun.
1
Of the 455,000 people who worked on Apollo, 200 were of German descent. So 0.05% German.
1
The actual number is about 6 months.
1
 @danielmconnolly7 The volcano is under water, and so is the lava.
1
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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
Pinatubo was a bit larger than this one though, VEI 6, while this is a 5 (i.e. a factor 10 smaller).
1
Nope. The orbit of the moon is getting bigger every year, so there's only a brief period in its history where the moon's apparent size more or less matches the sun's. Tidal locking is common for moons.
1
No, that was an engineering-led decision. LOR allowed each Apollo mission to be launched on a single rocket. All other mission designs needed multiple launches.
1
It's embarrassing that you post that days after SpaceX demonstrated cryogenic refueling in space on IFT-3.
1
@Dailydose13 They moved fuel from one tank to another, in 0 G. That may have caused the ship to go out of control so they have problems to solve.
1
There's a bunch of videos on JWST sun shield test deployments, and info on the sunshield. Here's one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWBHO8FIP8Y
1
The evidence says 12 men have been on the moon.
1
A "fraud" who has successfully launched 100 rockets last year, and is well on track for finishing Starship development a lot faster than the SLS was done.
1
No, we just have to accept science to believe we can communicate with such a device. Specifically, the equations that govern electromagnetic waves, which give us the exact parameters we need to communicate over that distance. It turns out, all you need is a large antenna (we have those: the DSN was built for this, with antennas 70 meters wide) and a receiver cooled to near absolute zero (DSN has those too). In fact, the antennas have enough margin that we could communicate with a Voyager type spacecraft at a distance of 200 AU.
1
@WSCLATER I'm not saying that at all. The equations that govern electromagnetic waves can be easily verified here on Earth, and have been verified thousands of times. Every radio on Earth uses the same principles. We also have independent verification the Voyagers are in the location NASA says they are, from people who operate large radio telescopes. You said "Such a belief defies natural physics". You're basically saying "I don't understand how this works, so I don't believe it" There are 3 ways to handle such a situation. 1. learn more until you understand how this works. The best option, but it takes time. 2. Accept that you don't understand and trust the people who do understand. That's what I meant by 'accept science'. You can't be an expert on everything, so at some point you have to believe what people are telling you. This is made easier by the fact that every science is transparent: scientists publish their work, and explain how they reach their conclusions. Scientists continuously check each other's findings. A wrong conclusion doesn't survive long. 3. assume you know better than the entire scientific community. This is what you were doing. Science is built on a solid foundation where everything is tested and verified. An assumption doesn't have any foundation so it is far less reliable.
1
@WSCLATER You claim that the radio link between Voyager and Earth 'goes against natural physics'. I've actually done the calculations for that link for myself, and the results I got indicate that that link does not go against natural physics. So either you're just assuming (i.e. arguing from ignorance), or you think the whole field of electromagnetism is using the wrong equations. The same physics that governs the radio link between Voyager and Earth also governs every radio link here on Earth. We have billions of those. So the science of radio is well-understood and verifiable (and has been verified billions of times). If you want to challenge that science, go ahead, but be aware of the amount of evidence you are working against. Just saying "I don't believe it" is not enough: you have to prove that our current understanding of physics of electromagnetism is wrong.
1
@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
@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
@PhilosopherNewport I've reviewed claims made by many deniers. I have found exactly 0 claims that can't be debunked easily.
1
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
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
@peckop1793 Proving you wrong: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwxrNurAuu8 We use these every day.
1
They touch on this early in the video. They realize that large-scale movement is unrealistic because of the drag component, so for instance they won't have astronauts simulate an 8 hour lunar EVA where the astronaut has to walk a lot, they'd simulate just the bits in between the long walks (gathering rock samples, other science/engineering tasks).
1
Lifetime until the fuel runs out is about 10 years. It may be possible to refuel by then. We are sure the telescope won't be damaged. Space is very empty.
1
You can receive a signal from so far away with careful design of the transmitter and receiver. Dish antennas concentrate the signal into a narrow cone, providing an enormous amount of gain over omnidirectional antennas. You can also build very sensitive receivers by cooling them to cryogenic temperatures (which reduces noise). NASA uses a 70 m dish to receive Voyager's signals, and builds the best receiver electronics money can buy. The Voyagers don't use GPS. Instead, they use star trackers to determine their attitude. Pointing the antenna is easy: the beam Voyager transmits is focused, but it's still 100 million km wide when it arrives at Earth, so the pointing accuracy required is not that high. Space is empty: it's a huge expanse of nothing, with the very occasional rock. The average density of space is emptier than the best vacuum we can create on Earth. There are no temperature fluctuations. Just a very gradual decline as the spacecraft travel farther away from the Sun. Heaters keep all of the sensitive components at a constant temperature. Temperature fluctuations don't interfere with radio. The amount of dust between us and Voyager is on the order of nanograms - the 12 billion miles of vacuum is less of a problem than our atmosphere. 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. Radio waves don't travel well through solid obstacles, so each wall between you and the cell tower reduces your signal. Radio amateurs with a few hundred $ worth of equipment can reach each other on the other side of Earth if the conditions are right. The radio horizon is something that applies on Earth: high-frequency radio is limited to line-of-sight: these signals travel in a straight line. Voyager has an unobstructed line of sight to Earth.
1
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
Because that would have required a much larger spacecraft, to carry enough fuel to brake. We didn't have a large-enough rocket for such a mission.
1
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
Because everyone buys the cheapest version of whatever they need, instead of spending a bit more on a high-quality item.
1
Imagine believing NASA does not go to space, when all of the evidence tells you it does.
1
This eruption isn't big enough to do that. Current estimate is that this year's average temperature will be 0.01 ºC lower than normal.
1
@threwthelookingglass7194 The nice thing about science is that we don't have to guess. We can measure the volcano's output and make a pretty accurate estimate based on those measurements.
1
Nope. There are some flat-Earthers who like to make false claims about that, but the Challenger astronauts are all dead.
1
@CharcoChoc It's pretty easy to look up. None of the Challenger astronauts had a twin.
1
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
@ruslanpetrovski8413 Aldrin walked on the moon. Anyone claiming otherwise is ignoring all of the evidence.
1
@gilqueiroz Every orbital launch reaches true space. Every year, satellites are launched to geostationary orbit, above the van Allen belts. India just demonstrated landing on the moon, again.
1
@gilqueiroz NASA tested its rocket engines in a vacuum chamber before launching. They built a chamber that can maintain a vacuum while a rocket is running, see e.g. the Plum Brook station In-space Propulsion Facility.
1
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
The Russians operated a radio telescope in space (Spektr-R) and they did interferometry experiments with it, at much lower frequencies though.
1
Apollo 18 is a work of fiction.
1
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
@davidguy7335 We see the same constellations all of our lives, because we move in a circle with a radius of only 150 million km at 66,000 mph. That radius is tiny compared to the distance to the stars. We see evidence of this movement: the constellations closer to the equator are only visible for part of the year. And the stars closest to us have apparent movement due to parallax.
1
@davidguy7335 Simple measurements that anyone can do, prove Earth's surface is curved, not flat. And that's just one of many ways to prove Earth's shape. There's an entire branch of science (i.e. looking for verifiable evidence) that investigates Earth's shape: geodesy. In the 2500 years since the first people started to apply the scientific method to Earth's shape, every measurement, experiment and observation we've ever done shows Earth is spherical, not flat.
1
Sure, those vehicles would be reliable. They'd also cost a million dollars each.
1
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
no. only light from a narrow cone ends up in the telescope. Light from the sunshield could hit the primary or secondary mirror, but that light path doesn't end up on the next mirror.
1
Yes, there are proposals to use magnetic fields to protect long-duration human missions.
1
The Voyagers use digital computers.
1
Nope. Theories are supported by evidence.
1
The surface looks different depending on the angle of the sun.
1
That would require a pressure seal over the wrist, I can't imagine that will be comfortable.
1
The light level on Pluto is comparable to dusk on Earth. With long exposures, you can get excellent photos.
1
Parts of the spacecraft (including the batteries) are much warmer than that - the sun-facing side is at +100 ºC.
1
It starts out as a sphere. Collisions in the sphere tend to collapse it into a disk. This happens in the formation of planetary systems as well.
1
"they were warned" is the bullshit here.
1
A rocket works by pushing against its own exhaust. Action: burn some propellant, which pushes with equal force in all directions. In once direction, the rocket engine is in the way, so this force is applied to the rocket. In the other direction, nothing is in the way, so the force goes into the gas molecules from the exhaust flying away at high speed. You can try this at home: stand on a skateboard, and throw something heavy. You will move in the direction opposite to where you threw that ball.
1
Air pressure doesn't do anything to rock. Wind would, but wind speeds on Venus are low. Heat: 400ºC is far below the melting temperature of rock. Acidic air leads to erosion, but that's a slow process.
1
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. Radio waves don't travel well through solid obstacles, so each wall between you and the cell tower reduces your signal. NASA uses a giant dish to receive Voyager's signals, builds the best receiver electronics money can buy ($100 million each, the receiver is cooled to cryogenic temperatures to reduce noise), and they have a clear line of sight without obstacles between transmitter and receiver. At these distances, communication is slow: Voyager sends data at 160 bits/s. And they still get interference on occasion (rain is a problem, for example).
1
No, NASA hasn't decided that at all. They're going to keep the spacecraft running for as long as possible. They'll monitor the available power (which slowly reduces, at about 4 W/year) and switch off instruments to stay within that limit. Occasionally, they find a way to keep the instruments running for longer than expected: two years ago the engineers switched off the heater for the cosmic-ray detector, which had been crucial in determining the heliopause transit. Everyone expected the instrument to die, but it kept working. This, and variability in the rate of decay of the RTG makes it difficult to predict exaxtly when the Voyagers will run out of power to run the last remaining instrument. The current best guess is 'about 2025'.
1
The Apollo missions landed 0.5 tons of payload on the moon, enabling 2 people to stay for 3 days. Artemis wants to land tens of tons on the moon, to allow a larger crew to stay for months. That's what the 15 rockets enable.
1
See the link in the description.
1
The correct value is +83.
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. 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
New Horizons is slower, so it'll never pass the Voyagers. There's a plan for a faster mission (APL interstellar probe), but even that will only be twice as fast (7 AU/year vs 3.5 for the Voyagers).
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
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
Apollo 14 used the Modular Equipment Transporter, a two-wheeled cart (a bit like a wheelbarrow) that was pushed by the astronauts.
1
@jeffreypardy2831 That dream does not mean Apollo 14 had an LRV.
1
The footage of the astronauts driving was taken as part of a test of the LRV: this was specifically done to see what the limits of the LRV were.
1
In order to use the military version, you'd have to know the code used to encrypt the signal.
1
A new 34-meter antenna on the ground costs about $100M. A satellite with an antenna that large would be a lot more expensive, for little gain. (Literally: the extra gain you get from moving the antenna from the ground to Earth orbit is a tiny amount).
1
@FlatWaterFilms I can see satellites even with the naked eye. I can measure their speed and altitude from the ground: satellites move at 28,000 km/h, a hundred times faster than any balloon has ever been. This proves that satellites are not balloons.
1
@FlatWaterFilms So, no evidence to support your position then, just an empty claim.
1
We can measure the speed of stars and galaxies; they're all moving away from us, so the universe is expanding.
1
Whichever liquid you use, you can design the cooling system so that the stuff stays liquid throughout. Oxygen is generally not used for cooling because it's more difficult to work with than most fuels (oxygen tends to oxidise most materials, which limits what you can use to build the rocket nozzle and cooling system).
1
you're missing the 2 smaller horizontal spikes.
1
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
@whitemiasma5288 You severely underestimate how hard it is to do anything in a space suit, even with tons of practice.
1
SPMTs didn't exist in 1963. And NASA had valid reasons for wanting to stack the Saturn V indoors instead of on the launch pad, including: 1. ability to have multiple rockets in the process of being stacked and tested 2. better access for testing 3. hurricanes
1
@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
Welcome to the laws of physics. Nothing is free.
1
False. Dust is clearly visible in the landing videos, from about 1 minute before each landing. Armstrong's words, "picking up some dust".
1
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
Metals are really strong in compression, and the thrust frame is built so the loads are entirely in compression.
1
That water came from the cooling system. It may not be safe to drink.
1
Wrong, these are all photos. Astronomers have access to about 800 observatories all over the world, plus a dozen or so space telescopes. Nobody in his right mind will present fake images to a community that has so many ways to check your work.
1
The "planet nine" those textbooks are talking about is a conspiracy theory. In 1976, someone retranslated a Sumerian text and claimed it talks about an unknown planet. Charlatans then claimed this planet (Nibiru) would destroy Earth in 2012 (coinciding with the end of one period in the Mayan calendar). When that didn't happen (and indeed, no new planet was visible in the night sky), charlatans moved on to the next bit of nonsense. We have found actual planets much further out than this hypothetical one. Sedna has a 10,000 year orbit. So we have proved that Nibiru doesn't exist, and any claims about a "planet 9" that will destroy us can be dismissed. The Oort cloud has the status of hypothesis for now: our solar system formation models predict that it exists, but we have no evidence that confirms or disproves it. Your dismissal of theories shows you don't understand what a theory is. Science starts with observations. Scientists try to find an explanation for those observations, this becomes a model (or hypothesis). The model is tested using more observations or experiments. When the model holds up and makes accurate predictions, it becomes a theory. The word 'theory' has a specific meaning here: it's not the colloquial opposite of 'practice'; a scientific theory is a model that has been shown to be accurate in a wide range of circumstances, and the best way we currently have to explain how things work.
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. Every day, you benefit from data generated in space, proving space is real and Earth is not flat.
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. 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
One spacecraft is operated by NOAA, the other by JAXA.
1
Look up at the sky tonight. You can see satellites pass overhead, even with the naked eye, proving there is no firmament.
1
The injector manifold, and the nozzle were both complex. The nozzle consisted of hundreds of tubes brazed together. The manifold had tons of small holes.
1
That's not a fact.
1
We expect that the first galaxies mostly had giant stars which would burn out quickly (few million years).
1
In the next few years.
1
After a brief adjustment period, the Apollo astronauts were able to move easily on the moon. The first thing Armstrong and Aldrin did was find out what the easiest method of locomotion was, and they arrived at the bunny hop, in which the astronauts jump instead of walking.
1
No.
1
Why would you advertise such junk?
1
Correlation is not causation. No link between solar activity and volcanism has been found.
1
In 1976, someone retranslated a Sumerian text and claimed it talks about an unknown planet. Charlatans then claimed this planet (Nibiru) would destroy Earth in 2012 (coinciding with the end of one period in the Mayan calendar). When that didn't happen (and indeed, no new planet was visible in the night sky), charlatans moved on to the next bit of nonsense. We have found actual planets much further out than this hypothetical one. Sedna has a 10,000 year orbit. So we know Nibiru doesn't exist, and any claims about a "planet 9" that will destroy us can be dismissed.
1
Genesis says birds fly *in*, not below, the firmament. This means the word that was falsely translated with "firmament" should be translated as "sky".
1
Saturn's rings are easily visible from Earth. The rings on Jupiter, Uranus and Neptune are much fainter. Uranus' rings can be seen through terrestrial telescopes and were discovered in the 1970s. The Voyager spacecraft discovered Jupiter's rings in 1977. In 1984 Neptune's rings were discovered when an astronomer observed Neptune passing in front of a star, and he noticed that the star blinked several times on each side of Neptune.
1
Underwater exercises are not done to test the space suit. They're done to train the astronauts. Space suits are tested in vacuum chambers.
1
@marxman00 no, they wear a separate training suit built to be used under water. The pressure suit would work, but the outer layers of a space suit are built for use in a vacuum, with e.g. insulation that doesn't work well under water.
1
@marxman00 False. The environment underwater is used to train for operating in weightlessness. There are differences of course, but it's the best approximation of weightlessness we can create on Earth. Your claims of bubbles and ballast showing up in space videos are incorrect. Flerfs like to take training footage from Earth and claim that this shows NASA is faking space. They are wrong. Actual videos shot in space show 0 bubbles, and no signs of being filmed in water in general. Example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvTmdIhYnes
1
@marxman00 No. They train underwater because you can simulate a weightless environment by trimming the suit to have neutral buoyancy. The resistance of the water means that movement does not correspond exactly to weightlessness, but it allows the astronaut to practice one critical aspect of weightlessness: the inability to counter torque just by having your feet on the ground.
1
@marxman00 The difference between a vacuum chamber on Earth and the vacuum of space is only 10E-4 Pa. And it's the difference in pressure that counts. So a test in a vacuum chamber with the pressure inside the suit set to 25,000.0001 Pa instead of 25,000 puts exactly as much stress on the suit as when it's used in space. In practice, suits are tested at a higher internal pressure (+10-20%) to make sure there's plenty of margin.
1
@marxman00 Basic physics.
1
@marxman00 Mars has an atmosphere. Again, you're arguing without having the correct information.
1
@marxman00 A vacuum chamber like the SPF is sufficient to do realistic tests on spacecraft before we launch them.
1
@marxman00 For helicopters that operate on Earth, testing in a vacuum chamber is pointless. The helicopter that is currently operating on Mars (Ingenuity) has been tested in a vacuum chamber, at Mars atmospheric pressure.
1
@marxman00 Ingenuity takes advantage of the square-cube law: when you shrink an object, its surface area will drop, but its mass will drop more. So it is possible to build a small helicopter that will function on Mars, but you couldn't take a Blackhawk there.
1
@marxman00 That is incorrect. As Ingenuity has demonstrated, it is possible to fly on Mars if your aircraft is small enough.
1
The title is incorrect. NASA isn't ending the mission any sooner than it has to. The end of the mission is determined by one parameter: the amount of power produced by the RTG. This drops steadily, at a rate of about 4 W/year. So they regularly have to switch off instruments to stay within that limit. When the last science instrument has to be switched off, the mission is over.
1
eh, no. Radiation does not recharge an RTG. And they can't turn everything on: at the moment, the RTG only supplies around 250 W and when all the instruments are on, they consume more than that.
1
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
such thermal vacuum tests are done without the ISS mockup. They use a vacuum chamber with a treadmill, so they can measure the performance of the insulation and cooling system at different exertion levels.
1
Current estimate of the effect on this year's average temperature is there'll be a tiny decrease, -0.011 ºC.
1
This telescope can only "look back in time" because light has a finite speed: when we look at an object 1 light-year away, we see the light that left that object 1 year ago, so we see 1 year into its past. JWST is 5 light-seconds away from Earth, so that's how far back into our history it can see.
1
Nope. It's a scheme for producing actual science and furthering mankind's knowledge of our surroundings.
1
Sag A* is a more difficult target: there's more stuff in the way than with the M87 black hole.
1
@samcena3942 I haven't seen a detailed report yet, but I'm guessing longer observations improve the signal/noise ratio.
1
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
That is all nonsense.
1
Yep. That demonstrates how empty space is.
1
This eruption isn't big enough to do that. Current estimate is that this year's average temperature will be 0.1 ºC lower than normal.
1
That's incorrect. LaCroix is a charlatan peddling nonsense.
1
on hte order of femtowatts.
1
JWST will start doing science in 6 months. They have started taking images for mirror calibration this week.
1
We can already look back 13 bn years. The extra 0.5 bn isn't going to make people give up their religion.
1
@jacobmartin9446 The Hubble Deep Field contained objects more than 13bn lightyears away.
1
You're comparing apples and oranges. For the heliosphere, the Voyagers were the first to give us measurements at all. For our climate we don't have that problem: we have enormous amounts of data going back centuries, and we can reconstruct more data from indirect sources going back millions of years. There was a time when our climate models weren't very good: back in the 1960 when this science was in its infancy. These days, the models are accurate, and consistently make correct predictions.
1
The EU hypeothesis has been disproven. It's junk.
1
@quentinquogamoddy1999 That's bullshit.
1
@lewispeaks1518 round trip is about 7 days.
1
Space is empty.
1
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
All you have is empty claims. The actual evidence proves beyond doubt that the Apollo landings are real.
1
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
No, JWST is not a spy satellite, nor related to spy satellites. You didn't even watch the video, did you? The mirror for the Nancy Grace Roman telescope was originally made for a spy satellite. Only an idiot would place a spy satellite at the L2 point. At 1.5 million km from Earth, resolution is much lower than from low Earth orbit. Similarly, using IR sensors is pointless for a spy satellite: our atmosphere is opaque to IR, so all you'd see is the distribution of water vapor in the atmosphere.
1
What's easier: seeing a star 1000 lightyears away, or seeing microbes on Mars?
1
LARES-2 is an attempt to measure it more accurately.
1
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
Yes.
1
Several tourists have been to the ISS. I don't know if any did a spacewalk, but space suits are routinely worn for ascent and landing.
1
New Horizons will never pass the Voyagers. It's flying slower than the Voyagers.
1
I can see satellites pass overhead in the night sky, proving you wrong.
1
@somedude1313 1. With a telescope I can see enough detail to recognize them. 2. Satellite tracking services predict when I'll be able to see them. 3. by aiming a radio antenna at my observation I can receive radio signals from them, that's often enough to positively identify them. 4. my observations rule out airplanes and balloons: these satellites move at 28,000 km/h and orbit at altitudes of 400 km and more.
1
@somedude1313 When a satellite passes over my house at the exact same time every day, I know it's not in the atmosphere where wind can accelerate or delay it.
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
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
@syaiqunnizartrisnasaputra8424 Yes.
1
The Voyagers haven't stopped reporting back quite yet.
1
No, it includes instructions on how to play the record. Building a record player should not be difficult for a civilization that has mastered spaceflight.
1
No. It was hit, and there's some damage, but the telescope is fully operational, and image quality after this hit is still better than required. All of the showcase images were taken after this hit.
1
You generally avoid running the engines in zero G: before the main engine is started, a small ullage thruster provides enough thrust to settle the propellants at the bottom of the tank so the main engine can start.
1
nope. This research and testing has to be done because we're not blindly reusing the stuff Apollo had. In this case, the space suits. The A7L suit was good enough for Apollo, but on the longer missions (i.e. 3 days on the moon instead of one) they noticed the suits were starting to get damaged from the very sharp abrasive moon dust. Those suits are not going to continue functioning well if you use them daily for a month (which is the goal of the Artemis missions). So we need better suits than we had for Apollo.
1
Anyone can use simple tools to verify Earth's shape. When you do that, you'll see that Earth really is a sphere.
1
No. We have lots of data from different sources that all point to the same age of the universe. By now it's highly unlikely that will change.
1
We have lots of video of Neil on the moon, and only one or two *photos*.
1
@dennishagans6339 They are scarce because most of them have been thrown away by now...
1
We have much larger antennas here on Earth than on JWST. NASA uses 34-m antennas to contact Voyager, JWST has an antenna about 1 m wide.
1
Dust is solid matter, it has no problem existing in a vacuum. The BS is all yours.
1
We've had definitive proof that Earth is a sphere for 2500 years. Every day, we confirm this by measuring Earth's curvature in geodetic surveys.
1
On top of Mt Everest, air pressure is 33 kPa, close to the pressure in the suit when it's used in space. The pressure of the water remains the same (depends only on the depth of the water), so you still end up with a suit pressure under water of more than 1 bar so the bends are still a concern.
1
The videos you've seen show e.g. astronauts walking on the Moon - in daylight. Or astronauts doing a spacewalk from the ISS - again in daylight. When you're outside in daylight, do you see stars? No. When you take photos in bright daylight, do you see stars? No. The exposure time is too short.
1
Light going in different directions generally doesn't influence each other.
1
Space is expanding, but objects in space can also move. Andromeda is moving toward us faster than the space between us and Andromeda is expanding.
1
Anyone with common sense and logic will follow the evidence, and the evidence is clear: we landed on the moon 6 times. Anyone with common sense and logic can tell you that yes, the LM was capable of doing the tasks it had to do. We have a paper trail a mile wide that allows us to verify this. We know the Apollo photos and videos were not made on Earth. They show an environment we cannot replicate on Earth: 1/6 g gravity, no atmosphere, and lighting that cannot be replicated in a studio.
1
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
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
@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
@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
All of Voyager's computers are digital. Both Voyagers have developed faults over the years. Instruments have failed, some of the computers are dead. But the Voyagers were built with redundancy: each computer has a backup. So do the transmitters, and various other parts. So they were able to keep the spacecraft operational by switching to backup systems. Voyager 2 has a failed component in its one remaining receiver, which means the receiving frequency slowly drifts. They compensate for this by sending signals at different frequencies, to find out which frequency the receiver is listening to now. The 1970s electronics helped in some aspects: the integrated circuits contain large components, so when the IC is hit by radiation, it's unlikely to cause a problem. Modern electronics with their tiny transistors are more susceptible to this problem.
1
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
It takes more than one 1.5 hour webcast to explain everything about JWST. The information you want can be found elsewhere.
1
Cite your sources.
1
Spirit and Opportunity functioned for 10 years without needing a wiper. NASA doesn't want to resurrect SOFIA: the astronomy community has been trying to kill it for years because its science return is low.
1
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
You lose phone reception because of all the buildings between you and the cell tower, and the thousands of other cell users in the area. There are no obstacles between us and the Voyagers, and no shared radio link either.
1
Each of those detectors is 4 MP. JWST has a bunch of them in different instruments.
1
@blue_ish4499 Yes. They're using the Teledyne H2RG, which was developed for JWST. Teledyne sells these for about $150,000...
1
All video was either broadcast directly (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3DfWR3CVlc), or it was recorded on an analog film camera.
1
@MicrophonicFool Space telescopes are cameras pointing away from Earth. 8 of them take photos in the visual spectrum, including Hubble. There are photos of the stars taken by ISS astronauts. ISS astronaut photos are not well-organized so it takes a while to find them. The Apollo missions didn't take photos of the stars with their normal cameras. One mission (A16?) carried an UV telescope.
1
@MicrophonicFool It took me five seconds to find "Sunset Timelapse from the International Space Station" right here on Youtube.
1
@MicrophonicFool Earth's magnetosphere does not influence photons. Earth's atmosphere is the thin blue area just above Earth's surface, so you're seeing the Sun long before it begins to be filtered through the atmosphere.
1
@MicrophonicFool The Apollo missions made a bunch of panoramas, and for at least Apollo 14 some of those contain the sun. Apollo 14 magazine 64/LL. AS14-64-9087 for instance.
1
@MicrophonicFool You're welcome. I had a look at ISS schematics as well: there are a few windows on the ISS that don't face the ground but they're pretty small. Most of the photography on the ISS is done in the Cupola, which faces down, so you get lots of sunsets and sunrises, but far fewer shots of the sun at higher angles.
1
False. Every mission has a different background.
1
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
NASA does not lie. Every day, you use services provided by satellites. You can see satellites with the naked eye, and verify that htey are in space.
1
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
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
It has been observed from Earth. NASA runs the Automated Lunar and Meteor Observatory, which has observed about 300 impacts so far.
1
Apollo 11 only had one photo camera on the lunar surface. That's how tight the weight margins were.
1
those 16 launches will land about 16 times more mass on the moon than Apollo did. The goal is not to put 2 men on the moon for 3 days, it's to put a larger crew on the moon for months. So we need to transfer a lot more mass to the moon.
1
no, there's no longer enough power available to run the cameras.
1
No.
1
No, that fountain is a smaller eruption before the main one. The splash caused by a missile is far too small to be seen on these images.
1
No, the Challenger astronauts are dead. Space deniers found some people who look a bit like the Challenger crew, then falsely claimed these were the Challenger crew. If you put photos of the crewmembers and these people side by side, you will notice major differences that cannot be explained by plastic surgery. The deniers also cannot explain why these people have the same name as the dead crewmembers. Rule one of witness protection is that you get an entirely different name.
1
In the 1960s, NASA put 450,000 people to work for a decade to get to the moon. Now they're going to the moon with 1/25 that workforce, so inevitably it's taking a bit longer.
1
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
@romanm.3529 Body language says he's getting a bit old. No lies in this video.
1
You're comparing apples and oranges. For the heliosphere, the Voyagers were the first to give us measurements at all. For our climate we don't have that problem: we have enormous amounts of data going back centuries, and we can reconstruct more data from indirect sources going back millions of years. There was a time when our climate models weren't very good: back in the 1960 when this science was in its infancy. These days, the models are accurate, and consistently make correct predictions.
1
That is just a bunch of drivel. The physics of space are real. 10,000 satellites in orbit prove this beyond any doubt.
1
They use radio. This was invented around 1900. Cell phones use radio. The only new requirement for cell phones was the ability to have multiple calls going on without them interfering with each other.
1
That's an airplane in Earth's atmosphere, not an UFO.
1
The big difference is that Apollo had 25 times the annual budget that Artemis has. Of course it's going to take longer that way. And Apollo cannot support the kind of missions we want for Artemis, where 4-man crews stay on the Moon for months.
1
bits.
1
Yes. Each image is assigned a visible color. The alignment images were all taken through a single filter (so they're monochrome, and you get one color in the output). NIRcam and MIRI each have multiple filters. They can create color images by taking multiple images through different filters (similar to a consumer camera: this takes an image through red, green and blue filters and combines the output).
1
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
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
volcanoes worldwide in total produce about 240 million tons CO2 annually on average. Human industry and road traffic produce 20 billion tons per year.
1
That satellite is at an altitude of 36,000 km. You can calculate the minimum altitude needed to image a full hemisphere: that's about 12,000 km. Clearly, 36,000 km is high enough.
1
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
@ottom.3094 You haven't looked at a Hebrew dictionary then. Nasa: A primitive root; , in a great variety of applications, literally and figuratively, absolutely and relatively: – accept, advance, arise, (able to, [armour], suffer to) bear (-er, up), bring (forth), burn, carry (away), cast, contain, desire, ease, exact, exalt (self), extol, fetch, forgive, furnish, further, give, go on, help, high, hold up, honourable (+ man), lade, lay, lift (self) up, lofty, marry, magnify, X needs, obtain, pardon, raise (up), receive, regard, respect, set (up), spare, stir up, + swear, take (away, up), X utterly, wear, yield.
1
@ottom.3094 Look up at the sky tonight. You can see satellites passing overhead. There are about 4000 operational satellites, which supply us with data that are impossible to fake.
1
@ottom.3094 Of course there are interruptions and signal loss. The people who notice that are the satellite's operators, not the general public (with a few exceptions, like TV broadcast satellites). Space junk is a problem, and satellites have to be built to keep working despite the occasional hit. Most of the debris is microscopic; a Whipple shield offers good protection against that. Large pieces of space junk and large near-Earth asteroids are tracked, and satellites sometimes have to maneuver to avoid a collision.
1
We have those going back to 1947, when a V-2 rocket was launched to an altitude of 100 km and made a photo of the landscape below, showing Earth's curvature. Since then, millions more have been made. Right now, dozens of satellites are continuously taking photos of our planet.
1
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
@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
@samueljenkis6253 The problem is that you've made up your mind based on misinformation and outright lies.
1
In 1976, someone retranslated a Sumerian text and claimed it talks about an unknown planet. Charlatans then claimed this planet (Nibiru) would destroy Earth in 2012 (coinciding with the end of one period in the Mayan calendar). When that didn't happen (and indeed, no new planet was visible in the night sky), charlatans moved on to the next bit of nonsense. We have found actual planets much further out than this hypothetical one. Sedna has a 10,000 year orbit. So we know Nibiru doesn't exist, and any claims about a "planet 9" that will destroy us can be dismissed.
1
What you want isn't transparency. It's confirmation of a myth. In reality, vaccines do not contain microchips.
1
NASA crashed several Saturn-IVB stages into the moon, and recorded the impact with seismographs (left by the Apollo missions). This showed that the crash caused vibrations that died out over a longer period than they would on Earth. On Earth, the water in the crust, and the liquid mantle dampen these vibrations. Lunar rock is dry, and there's no liquid mantle, so less dampening.
1
Actual science tells us space travel is possible. Anyone claiming space travel is impossible is not using science to come to that conclusion.
1
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
False. Every mission had problems. Ignoring those leads to unrealistic conclusions.
1
@mrpicky1868 Nope, it's both a particle and a wave.
1
@mrpicky1868 In physics, both the particle and wave representations are useful. Both can be used to calculate and predict behavior in a wide range of circumstances. The 'particle and wave' claim isn't something I'm making on my own: this is the common way physicists describe all forms of electromagnetic radiation.
1
Nope, not a fact, just drivel.
1
No. In 2036, Apophis will pass us at a closest distance of 50 million km.
1
@Phoenix80675 if 'contained in' was meant, you'd use 'under' , not 'in'.
1
@Phoenix80675 We have abundant evidence that there's no solid structure anywhere above us. That's why that word cannot mean 'firmament'.
1
@Phoenix80675 Perhaps you should reread all my posts in this thread.
1
The Voyagers currently communicate at 160 bits per second.
1
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
The Apollo missions took 1-2 weeks. A Mars trip takes 6 months. The difference means we could ignore radiation issues for the Moon missions, but can't for missions to Mars.
1
It's been sitting outside, getting thermal-cycled between +120 and -100 ºC every 14 days. The electronics are probably broken. Then there's cold welding, micrometeoroid impacts etc.
1
The "petrified wood" story is just that, a story. 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. We've landed on the moon 29 times, with spacecraft from several different countries. More spacecraft have orbited it. 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
@robertzendejas8349 Incorrect. The story as presented by the deniers is full of holes. It claims, for instance, that Apollo 11 astronauts presented a sample weighing over 80 grams, not encased in perspex, to the former prime minister in 1969. 1. the samples presented by NASA to various nations are below 1 gram each. 2. the samples presented by NASA are all encased in perspex. 3. the samples presented by NASA were presented to current government leaders, not retired private citizens. Holes large enough to drive a truck through.
1
@robertzendejas8349 All you have is second- and third-hand reports, cherrypicked by deniers with an agenda. I read the originals.
1
@robertzendejas8349 Satellite photos of Earth certainly don't use a Mercator. projection. They merely photograph a sphere segment. The only projection that emulates this is the near-sided perspective projection, which is rarely used for maps. This is especially obvious in photos taken by geostationary satellites, example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoMRwyNhqJ4 The areas near the edge are viewed from a very low angle so these areas are very distorted, while the area in the center is viewed from directly above.
1
It is sticky because it has an electrostatic charge. That charge can also levitate the dust.
1
@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
@varum2011 For example, Surveyor 6 image 328141526.354
1
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
The ISS is not a good environment for a space telescope. 1. Far too much vibration from the astronauts moving around. 2. Far too much structure blocking your sight.
1
JWST will start doing science in 6 months. They have started taking images for mirror calibration this week.
1
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
We know deep down that we did go. We have a mountain of evidence that proves this, and no evidence that the Apollo missions were faked.
1
We could, but Apollo was limited to putting 2 men on the moon for 3 days. We want to have larger crews that can stay on the moon for months, which requires landing a lot more payload on the moon than a Saturn V can carry.
1
@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
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
No. For the heliosphere, the Voyagers provided the first data - anything before that was theoretical; Voyager was the first chance we had to validate and refine the model. For our climate, we have enormous amounts of data, with more being added every day. And we have the option to validate these models against e.g. historical data. So the uncertainty in climate models is a lot smaller than that of our heliopause models before Voyager.
1
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
It's easier to land on the moon than on Earth: you don't have to deal with wind. That makes the landing more predictable. Before Apollo, NASA ran the Surveyor program, which did basically blind landings on the moon. No obstacle avoidance, just basic radar to detect altitude. 5 out of 7 missions succeeded. The Falcon 9 lands on a moving target while dealing with our atmosphere during reentry and landing. The Apollo landings were feasible due to the combination of computer guidance and the astronauts' ability to adjust the landing site. It's taken 50 years for computer control to catch up to that. Your claim that there was 'no training' is incorrect. The astronauts trained extensively. First in a simulator rig. Then in a capsule suspended from a gantry, and then in the LLTV. There was no followup to Apollo because Apollo was the most expensive engineering project in history and nobody was willing to spend that kind of money once Apollo was done.
1
about 20 (distance to the moon / diameter of Earth), I expect.
1
@spartanpatriot3163 Have you ever learned anything new, that required motor skills you haven't used before? Juggling, or ice skating, for example? Was it enough to watch someone else do this, or did you have to practice yourself? Similarly, these astronauts don't magically get skilled at working in 1/6 just because 12 men did that 50 years ago. They have to practice this themselves.
1
@spartanpatriot3163 This particular lab is from the 1990s. But the first use of a pool to simulate neutral buoyancy is from 1964. When those tests proved successful, NASA built the Water Immersion Facility at the Manned Spacecraft Center and the Neutral Buoyancy Simulator at Marshall Space Flight Center.
1
The lineup the Voyagers used involved all 4 gas giants. The alignment we saw this year was missing Neptune, and had Uranus in the wrong place for a mission to fly by Jupiter, Saturn and Uranus.
1
Nope. Impacts produce circular craters even at low angles of incidence. The side facing Earth still has about 99% of its sky not blocked by Earth. The depth to width ratio is no different from impact craters on Earth, and we know the soil mechanics after an impact causes this.
1
You know anything to do with NASA is reality.
1
All mission flight records are on the NASA Technical Report Server, which is a public archive. We do remember how to get people to the moon. We just don't want to reuse a 50 year-old design so we're spending a few years designing a modern rocket and lander.
1
Nope. The experts say there's no indication that Earth is hollow. The people who claim it is are "experts" in name only, making false claims not supported by evidence.
1
@robpowell7307 That is incorrect. Actual geologists have concluded that solid, dry rock (i.e. no molten mantle, no water embedded in the rock) has this seismic signature.
1
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
Bullshit. There's no money in one theory over another, and the project has not been set up in a way that allows for things to be kept a secret. All images and data are published.
1
No stars between us and the black hole. The EHT team has been very up front about this being an image based on radio observations. Taht our galaxy is in motion is irrelevant. Photons from the black hole are sent out in all directions, so it's inevitable some will end up on our planet.
1
In 1976, someone retranslated a Sumerian text and claimed it talks about an unknown planet. Charlatans then claimed this planet (Nibiru) would destroy Earth in 2012 (coinciding with the end of one period in the Mayan calendar). When that didn't happen (and indeed, no new planet was visible in the night sky), charlatans moved on to the next bit of nonsense. The 1976 translation turned out to be full of errors. Data from archaeology and astronomy disproved the Nibiru claims. We have found actual planets much further out than this hypothetical one. Sedna has a 10,000 year orbit. So we know Nibiru doesn't exist, and any claims about a "planet 9" that will destroy us can be dismissed.
1
JWST orbits the L2 point in an orbit 800,000 x 300,000 km wide.
1
We can, if the doughnut stands out from its surroundings in mm wavelengths.
1
They're commonly used to describe directions relative to the ecliptic.
1
@Noah-ws8ho Here's how they arrived at that number: A star the size of the sun produces ~10e26 watts. Dividing by the energy of 1 photon at the sun's peak wavelength (4x10e-19 Joules), you get roughly 10e45 photons per second. Divide by the surface area of a sphere 10 lightyears in radius, and you get 1 million photons/cm2. The sensitivity of the eye has not been factored in.
1
@Tracy-Inches Anyone doing actual research will conclude the Apollo landings are real. There is no evidence for any fakery.
1
"Earth is flat" is a lie. "space is fake" is a lie. Spaceflight is real.
1
@steveclark.. Apollo cost $250 billion in today's dollars. Once the objective of Apollo was reached (beating the Russians to the moon), NASA's budget was cut by 90%, making manned lunar missions unaffordable. There were no further political/military benefits, so after Apollo, any moon mission could only be justified by science, and the cost/benefit ratio of manned lunar missions just wasn't there. The cost of lunar missions also made any commercial activity uneconomical.
1
@steveclark.. There are no aspects that "don't add up". Just lots of misinformation.
1
Ion engines are really good when you need lots of speed on a small amount of fuel, but the engines themselves are heavy. So for small corrections like JWST needs, ion engines are usually not lighter than hydrazine engines.
1
You haven't done any research, nor have you used common sense. Five minutes of searching would have told you that the blastoff was filmed by a camera on the lunar rover, which was controlled from Earth. The first steps were filmed by a camera that was installed on the LM, and which was controlled from inside the LM. None of this was deceptive or faked.
1
False. 12 people have.
1
@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
That effect is tiny.
1
To do that, you'd need to invent faster-than-light travel first. Also, if JWST were to look at Earth, it would see an opaque atmosphere. The reason JWST has to be in space is that the atmosphere blocks the wavelengths we're interested in.
1
We could, but the Apollo architecture still puts an upper limit on the mass it can ferry to the moon: enough to put 2 people on the moon for a few days, not enough to support a larger crew for 3-6 months.
1
@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
@christuff9881 You're comparing apples and oranges.
1
@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
@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
it should be 6 months.
1
Sad that you think the moon landings were faked, when we have a ton of evidence says that they're real.
1
No, from Neptune.
1
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
The issue is heat removal. A fusion reactor sits in an ambient temperature much lower than the reactor temperature, so it's easy to remove heat. To remove heat from a Venus probe, you need a heat pump that can remove heat from inside and lose it outside - where the temperature is 400ºC. It's technically possible (a fridge pumps heat from a cold environment to a warm environment, after all), but we've never built a system for that extreme environment. It'll need a lot of power, which means a nuclear reactor, which produces a lot of heat itself. This drives the mass of the probe up.
1
Video of the astronauts unpacking the lunar rover: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpqhVKwByZY
1
The tracks are color-coded by altitude.
1
False, these are photos, not artwork.
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. 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
@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
@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
A zoom lens allows you to capture nearby and far-away objects with a single lens. Astronomers are not interested in nearby objects, so they use fixed optics that are permanently set at maximum zoom level.
1
@narayankunwar7313 JWST will see exoplanets as a single pixel. If we want to see more than that, we need a much larger telescope (thousands of kilometers across).
1
No, NASA isn't "shutting down" the Voyager missions. They're going to keep the spacecraft running for as long as possible. They'll monitor the available power (which slowly reduces, at about 4 W/year) and switch off instruments to stay within that limit. Occasionally, they find a way to keep the instruments running for longer than expected: two years ago the engineers switched off the heater for the cosmic-ray detector, which had been crucial in determining the heliopause transit. Everyone expected the instrument to die, but it kept working. This, and variability in the rate of decay of the RTG makes it difficult to predict exaxtly when the Voyagers will run out of power to run the last remaining instrument. The current best guess is 'about 2025'.
1
@TB-xx8vj Gravity is not a concept. It is an actual physical phenomenon. Its effect in nature is visible everywhere: objects fall to the ground. Planets orbit the sun, and moons orbit planets. Everywhere we look, gravity influences everything.
1
@TB-xx8vj The 'black swan' observation proves that atmospheric refraction exists and is variable. At other times, most or all of that oil platform is hidden by the horizon, as predicted by the sphere model. This is impossible on a flat Earth, therefore Earth is not flat. We can measure Earth's curvature directly. We have indirect measurements (elevations of the stars at different latitudes) that are impossible on a flat Earth, but perfectly explained by the sphere model. We have direct observations of Earth from enough distance that its curvature is visible. During a lunar eclipse, we can see Earth's shadow projected on the moon. This shadow is always a circle segment, no matter which part of Earth is facing the moon. This is only possible if Earth is a sphere. You see, we have multiple independent lines of evidence that all show Earth is a sphere. You, on the other hand don't have a single piece of evidence that shows Earth is flat.
1
@TB-xx8vj The ground is not flat, it just looks that way to the naked eye at sea level. When you look out over the sea or e.g. a salt flat, the horizon is about 6 km long. Over that distance, it curves by only 50 cm. Our eyes cannot distinguish between a straight line and one that is curved by that amount. With simple tools, we can make this curvature visible: https://youtu.be/fbyWC9cqEGo
1
Nope. There were program alarms that indicated the computer was overloaded. The computer automatically reset and shed low-priority tasks. Armstrong switched from Program 64 (land in preselected spot) to P66 (manually adjust the landing spot). Both had the computer in the loop, in P66 the computer managed the spacecraft attitude while Armstrong moved in the X and Y directions.
1
@lymancopps5957 'just fine' was an answer from someone else. There was an issue: the computer had more tasks than it was designed to handle: Aldrin had started one extra task that was non-essential and put the computer over 100% utilization. However, it had built-in routines for dealing with such situations, so without operator intervention it shed the low-priority tasks, while keeping the essential stuff operational. This was not a failure of the computer: it kept running, and it automatically solved the problem.
1
if you want to know more, find 'the 1969 Apollo guidance computer', which goes into detail on what happened. B1J2RMorJXM
1
taxes.
1
Actual research shows that oblique impact still create circular craters.
1
He told you what happened already.
1
While more meteors reach the ground on the moon than on Earth, the rate is not problematic: less than one per km2 per 10,000 years.
1
it's +83. Actually a bit higher than that: NASA says the hot side of the sunshield will bet at +110 ºC.
1
Reality denier.
1
Satellites in orbit follow a path that's parallel to Earth's surface. So of course a rocket isn't launched straight up but in a curve. It doesn't come back down though, its altitude keeps increasing. To get into orbit, you need a lot of speed (8 km/s) so most of the rocket's thrust must be expended in the horizontal direction. This is obvious when you watch the uncut video of any rocket launch.
1
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
We have much bigger fish to fry. One sinking ship will put more metal on the bottom of the ocean than all of the world's launches, for example.
1
After Voyager, we switched to missions that would spend decades examining a single planet in far more detail than the Voyagers were capable of.
1
Yep, lots of progress in a short time. That's what you get when you're handed a blank check.
1
@marcleblanc3602 In the 1960s, NASA's budget was about 10% of the total federal budget. The budget cuts came after Apollo 11.
1
All of the seismic data we have tells us that the moon consists of solid rock. Why would anyone build an artificial object out of solid rock?
1
There was no Apollo 20. You can't launch a Saturn V without a million people all over Florida noticing it.
1
Meteor impacts.
1
@royalbloodedledgend No. Meteors are a natural phenomenon.
1
Yes, we have devices that can simulate gravity of more than 1 G. They're called centrifuges. They're commonly used for fighter pilot training, those go up to 9 G but are pretty small. There are a few labs that have much larger structures that can be spun. These are used for research into space stations that can spin to simulate gravity.
1
it's +83. Actually a bit higher than that: NASA says the hot side of the sunshield will bet at +110 ºC.
1
not really. The area of this telescope gets hit once every few thousand years, mostly by small objects that would just punch a hole in the primary dish. A catastrophic hit during the telescope lifetime is really unlikely.
1
Without a technological masterpiece to examine the planet, a network of relays has nothing to do. So we build relays when we need them. Several satellites orbit Mars right now and function as relays for the missions on Mars' surface.
1
@there_can_only_be_one__unicorn Read up on the history of Mars exploration. The Mars Pathfinder lander was preceded by the Mars Global Surveyor orbiter and relay. Spirit and Opportunity were preceded by the orbiter and relay Mars Odyssey. And those orbiters had more functions than just relaying radio: they had their own instruments for examining Mars from orbit.
1
@there_can_only_be_one__unicorn The Apollo program was about two things: flagwaving (useful only in terms of political influence, but it paid the bills) and science (useful). In fact, as of now, science is the only useful goal of spaceflight. Technology hasn't advanced yet to the point where doing anything in space (outside Earth's orbit) has economic value (mining, colonies). Until we're there, we'll keep learning about our surroundings.
1
@there_can_only_be_one__unicorn I don't get the urgency. We have no-one to "catch up" to, we can do this at our leisure.
1
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
@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
@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
@nunyabusiness8538 Volcanoes produce more SO2 (which has a cooling effect) than CO2.
1
@lunamaria1048 Edgeworth and Kuiper theorized that there would be a large number of small objects outside of Neptune's orbit. They also thought some of those might become short-period comet. We found thousands of small objects, confirming that part of their hypothesis. Since then we've gathered more data about comets, and found that the short-period comets originate from the scattered disk instead. That's actual science, not religion.
1
No. JWST is infrared, the EHT works in mm wave radio. All the parts of the EHT have to observe at the same wavelength, otherwise you can't do interferometry.
1
@MadawaskaObservatory The problem with making the sensors larger is that everything else gets larger too. They were running out of space with the current design, larger sensors would have made it too large to launch on Ariane 5. NIRCAM has two sets of four H2RG sensors, so that's 2x 16MP already...
1
@MadawaskaObservatory The choice is between being able to launch JWST now, or having to wait another 5 years for larger rockets to become available. That's not bureaucratic, it's dealing with the limits of what's feasible.
1
Nope. The moon rings like a bell because it consists of dry, solid rock. Earth's liquid mantle and the liquids in the crust dampen vibrations.
1
NASA doesn't want to resurrect SOFIA: the astronomy community has been trying to kill it for years because its science return is low.
1
Where's that museum in Wales? I'd like to visit someday.
1
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
No, they don't. Every planet is a sphere: when you observe e.g. Jupiter through a telescope, this is clearly visible.
1
That's a bunch of nonsense. We have independent verification that the Apollo missions went to the Moon. And we have independent verification that the Voyagers are where NASA says they are.
1
@Daveyo747 Your "witnesses" are lying. Look up 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. 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. We have a dozen ways to prove Earth is not flat: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBdcG5IQOVo
1
@Daveyo747 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
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
The moon does have gravity: it's about 1/6 that of Earth.
1
@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
Actual photo of exoplanet: https://youtu.be/ggfa0Bc8Rn4?t=386
1
@benjalucian1515 1. The solid boosters were manufactured in Utah, and had to be transported to Florida by rail. This put limits on the maximum length of a segment (because it had to fit through curves in existing infrastructure). If they'd been built in one piece, they would have had to be transported by road, which is a lot more complicated. 2. The boosters were filled at the factory. A single segment weighed 150 tons, which is just about within the weight limit for a special railcar. The whole booster weighed 600 tons, which would have made the transport a lot more unmanageable.
1
People who believe the moon landings are fake are making wild claims without evidence.
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. Every day, you benefit from data generated in space, proving space is real and Earth is not flat.
1
JWST has a refueling port. What we don't have yet is a spacecraft that can safely approach JWST without damaging the sunshield.
1
The only problem is that the atmosphere will melt your spacecraft.
1
When you look at a small boat, it eventually gets too small for the naked eye to see. The boat is still in front of the horizon at that point. Then you can use binoculars to see it again. When you observe a large ship, you can follow it to the horizon with your naked eye. When it goes over the horizon, the ship will be progressively hidden from the bottom up. When you use binoculars or a telescope, you will not be able to see the hidden part of the hull.
1
@Bnslamb You may want to review what I wrote.
1
Gaia did it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPucRSaFgLI JWST isn't a difficult target: amateurs have spotted it on its way to L2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PM_ywxQ8OQ
1
No grift, just actual science. MESSENGER took about 1 million photos of Mercury, this video just does a bad job of showing those.
1
@bmstockwood291 They ARE photographs. The only difference between the photo camera on MESSENGER and a consumer camera is that MESSENGER has the ability to take photos through more color filters than just RGB.
1
@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
@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
The measurements are very sensitive. Once they're converted to digital data, they're just like any other data: unaffected by radiation, as long as you don't store the harddisk inside a nuclear reactor.
1
There's thousands of images that show this, going back to the 1960s. A selection: @
1
@Heracles_FE I'm an electronics engineer. I know what it takes to receive such weak signals. It's pretty simple to calculate, using a link budget. NASA's 70 meter antennas with receivers cooled to 4 K are more than capable enough to receive Voyager's signals. And we have independent confirmation: radio astronomers occasionally track the Voyagers. More independent confirmation comes from the fact that the Voyager observations of the planets have been replicated with telescopes on Earth.
1
@Heracles_FE Operation Paperclip is no secret. About 200 rocket scientists were brought to the US and were put to work developing rockets, as it was clear that rockets were the next big development in warfare.
1
We don't need to be outside the Mikly Way to create an accurate picture of what it looks like. We know what the Milky Way looks like, because we've measured the position of a billion stars. Plot those, and the familiar shape shows up. Before that, radio telescopes plotted the position of hydrogen clouds, that gave us our first image of the Milky Way.
1
@emanuelward7938 The 1946 photo was taken by a V-2 rocket.
1
The only people lying are the ones making up moon hoax claims.
1
@Wonderduck1 Yes, it probably won't last long. Depends on the size of the star of course.
1
Their tracks are still visible: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pnhnx95LkCc
1
It's not a single object. It's loose atoms.
1
You have to be not very bright to believe the Apollo flights were faked, despite all of the evidence that proves they are real.
1
Wifi is designed to be short range, because the shorter the range, the more wifi hotspots you can install without them interfering with each other, and the more users you can serve. Radio waves don't travel well through solid obstacles, so each wall between you and the hotspot reduces your signal. The same goes for cell phones. That doesn't mean all radio is short range. In 1901, Marconi was able to send a radio message across the Atlantic. These days, radio amateurs can contact people on the other side of the world with inexpensive equipment and the right conditions. NASA uses a giant dish to receive Voyager's signals. They use receivers cooled to near absolute zero to reduce noise, and they have a clear line of sight without obstacles between transmitter and receiver.
1
We know what Earth's shape is with an accuracy of better than 1 meter. It's an oblate sphere.
1
Back to, yes. We landed humans on the moon 6 times form 1969 to 1972. In the 50 years since, nobody has presented any evidence that says otherwise. All we get from the deniers is hot air and nonsense.
1
The sun side of the sunshield receives more sunlight than we get on the hottest day on Earth (our atmosphere absorbs or reflects some of the light). So yes, it'll get that hot. In space there's no air to distribute the heat, so you get the situation that JWST can place a radiator on the sun side of the sunshield and use that to lose heat.
1
@adrianedlington2493 The diagram is wrong.
1
The telescope is designed to be refueled. Making the instruments serviceable would have added too much weight and we wouldn't have been able to launch it.
1
The Apollo videos show an environment with lower gravity than Earth. That is impossible to fake. The landings are real.
1
JWST has a refueling port. What we don't have yet is a spacecraft that can safely approach JWST without damaging the sunshield.
1
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
You mean the Bernoulli effect?
1
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
3.35m, actually. Close enough.
1
@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
Every single drawing for the Saturn V and Apollo has been archived at the Smithsonian.
1
This video doesn't explain that. The airtight layer of the suit is on the inside, it goes over the cooling garment Destin wears when he tries on the suit. Over the airtight layer there's a strong mesh that keeps the flexible airtight layer from expanding. Hoses used for liquids under pressure do something similar. Brake lines for instance: there's a rubber hose, and then a metal mesh around it. Cut that mesh away, and the hose will swell up if you pressurize it.
1
They didn't fool you though. The only people trying to fool you are the moon landing deniers; they're charlatans trying to fleece people by writing books and videos filled with nonsense.
1
No. They waited 25 years for the telescope to be built. JWST's data rate is 3.5 Mbit/s, the data budget per day is 28 GB. They've taken and downloaded more than 50,000 images already.
1
Good question. The fingerprints are still there and recognizable: for each element or molecule, you get a bunch of spectral lines and the distances between them match what we measure in a lab: It's just that the entire group of lines is shifted towards the IR. That's actually how we measure redshift: we take a spectrum, and try to match it to known elements. Then we measure where the lines occur, calculate the difference with our lab fingerprint and we know how much it has been shifted.
1
The CMP saw sunsets and sunrises from the command module as it orbited the moon.
1
The Voyagers detected the heliopause (the edge of the area where the solar wind is the main contribution to the environment). The location of the heliopause and the shape of the heliosphere were unknown until then. The shape is still being debated because we only have 2 data points.
1
After Voyager, we switched to missions that study one planet in detail for many years: Galileo and Juno at Jupiter, Cassini at Saturn. They were all designed to answer questions that arose from the Voyager observations. The drawback of these mission is that they're expensive: about 10x the cost of the Voyagers. So we couldn't afford to do both.
1
Yes.
1
@hisgreasiness Yes, sounds about right.
1
Yes. LARES-2 is an attempt to measure it more accurately.
1
The universe is expanding. As the light travels through the expanding universe, it expands with it and the wavelength gets longer. Comparable to the Doppler effect.
1
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
They did land on the moon. There are no tools to "fake it", then or now. For example, the Apollo rock samples are different from any rock found on Earth. The Apollo videos show they're in 1/6 g gravity, not the 1 g we have here on Earth. No movie ever gets this right, because it's impossible to fake 1/6 g convincingly. Apollo was the most expensive engineering project in history. It cost $300 billion. After Apollo, the US government was unwilling to spend that much on a return to the moon.
1
The phrases 'dark matter' and 'dark energy' are just placeholders. We're very aware that our understanding of physics is wrong somewhere. These phrases give us a way to describe where the discrepancies are. 'Dark Matter' is shorthand for 'matter we can't see with our current sensors, but which does have a gravitational effect on large scales'. We con't know what is missing, exactly - and there are a number of astronomy projects trying to fill this gap in our knowledge.
1
this video has a resolution of 500 meters/pixel, and it consists of images taken 10 minutes apart. So you're looking at a cloud that's 1-2 km wide.
1
Actual geologists HAVE explained every single "anomaly", including crater depths. There's nothing suspicious about that.
1
Well, the problem isn't removing the dust, it's damage caused by the dust during the EVA.
1
The F-1 was built using lots of manual labor, e.g. brazing together thousands of tubes to make the nozzle. We can still do this today, but nobody in his right mind will want to because we have better methods for fabricating a nozzle. Those methods replace those thousands of tubes with one part milled on a CNC machine, followed by chemical deposition of the outer layer of the nozzle.
1
4 years of testing. Not so big a gamble.
1
Shutter speed could be days. Hubble did the 'Deep Field' which had an exposure time of 10 days...
1
Scientists use km.
1
it'll take about 6 months before the first pictures are taken by JWST.
1
No, general relativity requires energy and mass that we haven't found yet. Not mass/energy that's fundamentally impossible to detect. The distinction is important.
1
We're already spending hundreds of billions solving problems here on Earth. We can afford to also spend some money on learning more about the universe.
1
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
@Gozne If you used your brain, you wouldn't have fallen for the ignorant 'arguments' used by the deniers.
1
Yes, they still feel those effects, so working inverted for long periods is avoided in the NBL.
1
The "Apollo detectives" never produced any proof. They come up with arguments based on them not understanding the technology, and with outright fabrications.
1
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
von Braun found a new way to explore the heavens: by going there.
1
Yes, in theory. But it's much harder to synchronize optical observations than radio: you have to get the timing correct to within less than 1/10 wavelength, and she shorter the wavelength gets, the more accurate your timing must be. The only optical telescope that uses this technique has 2 telescopes sitting right next to each other, and even then it's difficult.
1
just gravity. It's in an unstable orbit and needs regular corrections to stay in that orbit.
1
As far as we know, there's no way to create a black hole that small.
1
JWST has a refueling port. What we don't have yet is a spacecraft that can safely approach JWST without damaging the sunshield.
1
@olasek7972 That's incorrect. One of the videos around the showcase images had an interview with the people who process the images. They assign the colors manually. There is a convention (the longest wavelength becomes red, medium becomes green, shortest becomes blue) but they have the freedom to deviate from that depending on the image (JWST has narrowband filters to show e.g. methane emissions, if you want to create an image to emphasize this you'd choose the colors differently).
1
JWST works in infrared. So the images are generally a representation of what we could see if we have IR vision, not what the object would look like in visible light. There is one exception: distant objects are redshifted. So the light that used to be at visible wavelengths has shifted to IR. We can shift this light back to visible and get a decent approximation of what the object looks like in visible wavelengths.
1
It's sad that someone that close to the program cannot distinguish between truth and lies.
1
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
That video is a lie. Flat-Earther charlatans found a set of people with similar names to the Challenger astronauts and who looked somewhat similar. These people have nothing to do with Challenger, but the followers of these charlatans have been hounding these people ever since. It is one of the most disgusting pieces of reality denial I've come across.
1
@papalegba6796 A rocket engine is less efficient at sea level than at high altitude. The difference is caused by the ambient air pressure. Let that sink in: when the rocket exhaust gases have to push against the atmosphere, the rocket gets less efficient.
1
@papalegba6796 w=PV applies to closed systems that change slowly (quasi-static). It's useful for piston-driven steam engines, not so much for rockets.
1
@papalegba6796 A rocket in a vacuum is obviously not a closed system: the exhaust gas leaves the system.
1
@papalegba6796 You mean 'real physics, except the bits I'm ignoring because they don't fit my worldview'.
1
@papalegba6796 Yes, that is exactly what a closed system means.
1
@kareemsalessi The spacecraft is covered in foil. This is called multilayer insulation (MLI): a stack of thin metallized plastic sheets, this is used a lot in spacecraft because it provides excellent insulation in the vacuum of space. Under the MLI is the structure of the spacecraft, the instruments etc.
1
@kareemsalessi Youtube deletes almost all posts with external links.
1
@BA-gn3qb This is easily verifiable: take any of the lunar videos, and measure how long it takes for an object to fall. You will find that all objects take 2.45 times longer to reach the ground than they would on Earth.
1
Incorrect. The movement of the dust is consistent with a gravity of 1/6 G and no atmosphere.
1
Most Russian systems are based on trains, as shown for the N-1 in this video. Soyuz uses a much simpler transporter on a single set of tracks, but the idea is the same: horizontal transport, and put it upright at the pad.
1
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
@LJ...69. Then provide a link to that video.
1
plus or minus 50 km, more like. The ISS has enough atmospheric drag that over a year it'll lose several dozen km of altitude, so it is pushed into a higher orbit regularly by visiting spacecraft.
1
Most missions today orbit planets, which tends to take more fuel, the mission ends when the fuel runs out, and the amount of fuel you can carry is limited. This is what ended Cassini and Galileo, for instance.
1
You mean 'destroy the environment and flight safety'.
1
The resolution of this image is about 1000 times better than what JWST can achieve.
1
@b1blancer1 Andromeda is huge: its apparent size is 3º x 1º. This black hole is 60 microarcseconds, or 1/(3600*1000000) of 1 degree. And HST can see those stars as single pixels. 'Resolving' a star means seeing it as a disk, which HST can't do. Galaxies billions of ly away cover maybe 10x10 pixels in an HST image.
1
@b1blancer1 In astronomy, the term "resolve" is used when we can see details. E.g. to the naked eye, Mars appears as a single point of light, but telescopes like HST can resolve it as a disk and see details within that disk. When HST observes Andromeda, each star is smaller than one pixel. It's still bright enough that that pixel will register the star. This works for really bright objects like stars. HST's resolution is 30 milliarcseconds: when 2 stars are 30 mas apart, it will see them as 2 stars. Any closer, and the two appear as a single point of light. This black hole is 60 microarcseconds wide. HST might be able to see it as a single single pixel, if it's bright enough. We don't know how bright the black hole appears in visible light because it's obscured by dust at these wavelengths. The VLT has observed this region in IR. It made the timelapse that shows stars orbiting the black hole. In that timelapse, you can see an occasional flicker that I suspect is the black hole. It appears as a single pixel.
1
@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
People are claiming that but don't have any evidence. This was a natural event.
1
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
@AWikkedMoon If that's true, why do you talk about "6 feet of metal" when there are no measurements that support that number?
1
@Guycjohnsen I'm not aware of a formula for this. I did find a study that explored the smallest amount of photons that the eye can detect (pulses that contain about 60 photons can be detected).
1
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
No. It's not even 1/10 of the way to the Oort cloud.
1
@edme8865 the problem is, with the data we have, we can't narrow it down further.
1
Because there's very little debris in space.
1
@SubCultureVulture702 in low to medium Earth orbit, there is enough man-made debris that yes, satellites in LEO get hit regularly. This debris was created by failed launches (upper stages exploding), insufficient passivation (decommissioned satellites exploding), degradation (paint flaking off), military action (tests of antisatellite missiles), and satellite collisions. Once you're out of Earth orbit, this type of debris no longer occurs. The average density of space in our solar system is on the order of 1 atom per cm3, and the average size of objects out there is ~ one atom.
1
Plenty of real images in this video though.
1
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
@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
@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
No. They use radioisotope thermal generators: Pu-238 decays and produces heat, Peltier elements convert this to electricity.
1
1-3 inch.
1
this video has a resolution of 500 meters/pixel, and it consists of images taken 10 minutes apart. So you're looking at a cloud that's 1-2 km wide.
1
Yes, but it won't be used to look for planet X. You want a survey instrument to do that, not an instrument like JWST that's optimized to look at very small areas.
1
It won't be rebuilt.
1
it's not one or the other. Galaxies are stable structures, with stars orbiting the common center of gravity.
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 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
Like all perpetual motion machines, your idea won't work.
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.
1
@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
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
@BobK5 Your information is incorrect, then.
1
@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
@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
Your assumption is incorrect: we are studying the Milky Way in great detail.
1
Nope. We have abundant proof the landings are real.
1
Layer one reflects most of the incoming heat, but transfers some of it and reradiates on the other side. Layer 2 reflects most of this, but transfers some of it and reradiates on the other side, etc. 4 layers is enough to get the insulation they need, a fifth layer was added for redundancy.
1
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
@DrDeuteron Power, mainly. Most antennas on the DSN have 20 kW transmitter. DSS 14 has a 500 kW transmitter.
1
They don't. You just have unrealistic expectations.
1
it's a reflex action.
1
This is 25,000 lightyears away. It would take millions of years to get close.
1
Yes. It appears smaller to the naked eye: you only see the brightest part of the galaxy. A long-exposure photo will show the actual size.
1
No, he did not claim that at all. Apollo put 2 men on the moon for up to 3 days. They built the largest rocket that was feasible at that time so they could fit everything into a single launch, and they cut corners to do it. The low-pressure pure-oxygen atmosphere was done to save weight, for instance. The LM was on the edge of what was physically possible. Artemis is designed to put larger crews on the moon for a month or more, which means they need far more supplies than can fit in an Apollo LM. They're also using far more robust spacecraft, with more living space, more redundancy and safety features, etc.
1
The only lying has been done by moon landing deniers. The Apollo missions were real.
1
No. This happens when the entire moon is solid rock, with no liquid mantle and no liquids embedded in the rock to dampen the vibrations.
1
We're well on our way to proving that we can land on the moon again.
1
The lunar surface is at the same pressure as the space above it, so no airflow to move the dust.
1
Even though they no longer exist, we can still learn from them how the universe works.
1
No. 0:05: real image, part of JWST mirror alignment imaging. So is 3:26. 3:44 is a Hubble image. 5:32 and on are made by SOHO or STEREO. 7:32 JWST mirror alignment image. etc.
1
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
The people who discovered them.
1
@albertchehade9916 No. The person who discovers a planet gets to choose the name for it (usually). William Herschel discovered Uranus. His choice for a name was an exception to the naming rule. He proposed 'Georgium Sidus (George's Star)' after the British king George, which the astronomical community didn't like, because it's inconsistent with the names of the other planets (which are derived from Greek and Roman mythology) and because you shouldn't name a planet "star". A german astronomer proposed the name Uranus, and that stuck.
1
@Rpm68 Anyone actually thinking for themselves would use my comments, look up the experiments I briefly described, and do those experiments. You, on the other hand, keep clinging to a position no supported by evidence.
1
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
no, that's an earlier, smaller eruption. Image resolution is 0.5 km/pixel, a missile wouldn't show up.
1
@gotohell6814 the images are 10 minutes apart.
1
@gotohell6814 You can use the . key to step through the video frame by frame.
1
@gotohell6814 At 2 o'clock from the eruption? that looks like a smaller vent to me, with smoke going up. I've played with the footage a while and there's nothing that looks like a missile to me. Keep in mind this footage has a resolution of 0.5 km/pixel. Items as small as a missile don't show up.
1
@gotohell6814 Sound travels at 300 m/s, so 200 km in 10 minutes.
1
@gotohell6814 Shock waves move at the speed of sound.
1
@gotohell6814 you're right, of course.
1
@gotohell6814 No worries, I learned something today, and that's always good.
1
One decade. The mirrors were donated in 2012.
1
An electrostatic charge builds up on non-conductive materials. Degaussing works on magnetic materials, which are conductive.
1
Try this video: How JWST orbits the L2 point: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybn8-_QV8Tg
1
The operation is split into two steps. TAGSAM has an arm that pushes the sample container into the asteroid. A puff of nitrogen is used to push sample material into the container. Once the spacecraft has ascended from the asteroid, the container is placed into the sealed compartment of the lander. This means the seal is not exposed to flying rubble so it should stay clean.
1
4 million is right (2048x2048, to be exact).
1
@TheEvilmooseofdoom That's comparing apples to oranges though. For IR, the pixels have to be larger. For very faint targets, the pixels have to be larger again.
1
It starts out as a sphere, but collisions between objects tend to flatten it: all velocity vectors are averaged out.
1
No 'bleeding edge satellites' were transferred from the US to China or the CIS. Anything advanced or sensitive is launched by a US company from US soil. This is what ULA was created for.
1
North and South in the solar system are relative to the ecliptic plane.
1
Teledyne built the H2RG detectors used in JWST. They also offer the H4RG, which is a 4096x4096 pixel instrument with a pixel size of 15 um (H2RG: 2048x2048, 18 um). This seems to be the state of the art for astronomical IR imaging CCDs. The H4RG has been available for at least 5 years now. The problem with a project like JWST is that at some point, you have to freeze the design. If you keep iterating, it'll never get finished. After the design freeze, there's several years of testing (during which you can't replace components, or you'd have to redo all the tests).
1
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
They did. We have independent confirmation.
1
@domenicozagari2443 That is incorrect. All of the data we have on the van Allen belts says we can safely traverse them.
1
@domenicozagari2443 All easily verifiable from multiple sources.
1
@glenliesegang8935 return on investment. Every dollar spent on spaceflight adds $7 to the economy.
1
Earth is not stationary. Simple experiments anyone can do show that Earth moves. Earth is not flat. Simple experiments anyone can do show that Earth's surface is curved. The Southern hemisphere has 24 major time zones, just like the Northern one.
1
Massimino has never been to the moon, so he has no first-hand experience. No deceit.
1
The evidence says otherwise.
1
The project WAS done in partnership with ESA and CSA. We might be able to extend the lifetime of the spacecraft: NASA is conservative when making these estimates, and JWST has been built so it can be refueled. Also, 10 years is already a big improvement on the first infrared telescopes. IRAS, for example, had an operational life of 10 months. Part of the cost of JWST was in creating the technology that can keep an IR observatory in operation for 10 years.
1
@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
NASA isn't upset at the Voyagers. The Voyager 1 data anomaly has been solved: The AACS had started sending its telemetry data through an onboard computer known to have stopped working years ago, and the computer corrupted the information. Switching back to the correct computer solved the problem.
1
Terrestrial radio and TV transmitters broadcast at much higher power levels than Telstar.
1
Just because you don't understand the scientific process, doesn't make it invalid.
1
JWST has a solar panel that provides power for the electronics, the battery is just there as a buffer. The amount of pressure on the sunshield is too low to perform orbit corrections.
1
This one seems to be about 1/100 the size, so it won't be that severe.
1
We have.
1
No, it makes Earth the center of the observable universe. Observers on any planet in the universe would see everything else moving away from them too.
1
Delays are par for the course for the first launch of a new rocket.
1
no, that's a smaller burp before the main eruption. The photo resolution is far too low to image a bomb.
1
The point of the IAU definition is not authority, it's having a common language. Science benefits from having everyone in the field use the same definitions. This makes reading someone else's paper a lot easier. The reason for the new classification is obvious: Classification (=dividing things into categories) has always been part of science, because it makes it easier to have a discussion when everybody uses the same classification. When Galileo saw Jupiter and understood that it was a planet like ours, the solar system had two classes: anything in orbit around the Sun is a planet, anything in orbit around a planet is a moon. Then we started to discover asteroids, starting with the largest: Ceres. This was initially considered a planet. Then we discovered hundreds of smaller objects in similar orbits, and astronomers added a new class: asteroids. Ceres was moved from the Planet class to the Asteroid class. Then we discovered Pluto. Seemed to be alone in its region, so it was considered a planet. Then we discovered hundreds of smaller objects in similar orbits, and astronomers added a new class: dwarf planets. Pluto was moved from the Planet class to the Dwarf Planet class. The more objects you have, the more classes it becomes useful to divide them into. This is done everywhere in science. What most people call mosquitoes, biologists divide into several hundred species. Etc. In this case, a scientific classification has entered the public consciousness and people are flipping out because they have an emotional attachment to Pluto.
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.
1
the only people lying to you are the moon landing deniers.
1
yes, but it would show just a single dot. Hubble's resolution isn't high enough to see more.
1
Going to space since 1958, as anyone can confirm by looking up at the night sky.
1
JWST is at the L2 point. It will never be between us and the Sun. To block the Sun, you need an object 3400 km wide, like the Moon.
1
That's the same satellite that generates the data for your weather forecast every day.
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
@Exmarine268 The live TV broadcasts are just the start. They can't be faked - there is no place on Earth large enough to film the moon walks and rover traverses. That Saturn V launch really did send people to the Moon: amateurs and foreign countries (including enemies like the Soviet Union, who would have loved to expose the American effort as a hoax) could track the CSM on its way to the Moon. The first Surveyor missions in the early 1960s showed it's possible to land on the Moon. The Russians were able to land on the Moon, and return lunar samples. More recently, the Chinese have landed on the Moon. We can still use the laser reflectors left on the Moon by the Apollo astronauts. We have several hundred kg of lunar samples - these rocks and dust are different to anything found on Earth. Every single moon hoax argument falls apart when you examine it. Why do you believe in an idea that's so easily disproven?
1
The whole lecture is on YT (Ottinger LLRV Lecture). Yes, there's a proportional relationship between acceleration and tilt angle. We're using thrust from the main engine to accelerate horizontally, by tilting the spacecraft: that gives the thrust a horizontal component, which moves the spacecraft horizontally. On the moon, you're in 1/6 G, so your engine is providing 1/6 the thrust it needed on Earth, so to get the same horizontal acceleration you had on Earth, you need 6 times the tilt angle.
1
@carlosschagun6922 The leak rate that was considered acceptable (i.e. the threshold above which the EVA will be cancelled if they find this rate during the pre-EVA test) is 180 standard cm3/minute. The Apollo PLSS carried oxygen for 8 hours, plus a 30-minute emergency supply, plus the option to link up to a partner to share air and cooling systems.
1
@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
@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
The Ariane 5 was designed in the 1980s. Retrofitting cameras would mean redesigning the communications system to carry way more data, which means requalifying the rocket, which they're not going to do for the last 5 Ariane 5 missions.
1
For Apollo, yes the pressure in the spacecraft is about 0.3 bar. They solved this by having the astronauts breathe pure oxygen for the several hours before launch, to remove the nitrogen from their bodies.
1
We don't know yet what the bright spots are. One of them is probably light coming towards us, the others are a surprise - and we have something new to study.
1
This video explains it well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MxH1sfJLBQ
1
@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
That's a load of nonsense.
1
@mynameis.5480 When we look at the actual records, there's no increase in volcanic activity. There is a big increase in reporting: these days, people everywhere get notified about natural disasters happening on the other side of the planet within hours of the event. 30 years ago, that wasn't the case.
1
@mynameis.5480 I prefer science over bullshit.
1
The radiation levels were not high enough to be a problem for the short Apollo missions. Neither was the dust exposure.
1
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@Aaron_Bleu "everything that has come out" turns out to be nonsense. All moon landing denier arguments fall apart when examined.
1
@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
Uh, we have found millions of Sun-like stars. The number of habitable-zone planets we've found is small, but rapidly increasing.
1
@mbukukanyau Sun-like means G2-class stars, i.e. with very nearly the same mass and composition as the Sun. We're very good at determining what type a star is from a distance already.
1
@mbukukanyau JWST is the first instrument that will be able to determine if there's life on an exoplanet, previous instruments aren't sensitive enough to do that.
1
No, NASA does not say that.
1
@kazimierzsokolowski7810 No. You are misquoting a 2010 interview from Don Pettit, where he says he'd like to go to the moon but he can't. He was correct: in 2010, NASA did not have a moon-capable spacecraft in production. Note that this does not mean NASA did not have such a spacecraft in 1969. As of now, that is changing: Artemis 1 has shown we can deliver a manned mission to the moon. The accompanying lander is still in development.
1
@kazimierzsokolowski7810 No. Pettit wasn't quoting anyone when he said that. He made an off-the-cuff remark that the deniers have latched onto, pretending that it is the "ultimate gospel" and proof that the Apollo missions were faked. It is neither.
1
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
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
Yes. I think we'd need to constantly measure the distance between telescopes very accurately.
1
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
Nope. No proof, not even convincing evidence. All the moon landing deniers ever seem capable of producing is wild claims.
1
@MythsandReality4 There is no dome. 10,000 satellites have been successfully launched to altitudes way above where the dome is claimed to be. The whole "dome" bit is the result of the incorrect translation of one word in the Bible. In reality, the Bible speaks about the sky, not about any dome.
1
that same satellite (the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter) took photos of every Apollo landing site. The LM is visible, along with the science instruments they installed. Even the foot tracks and the rover tracks are visible.
1
We have lots of evidence that supports the universe having a finite age (and we can see how old it is) and no evidence that supports the universe being forever.
1
It's called a reflex action. Ever tried to suppress a reflex?
1
They learned from each failure, so it's not surprising the success rate went up rapidly. And the Apollo program wasn't exactly "without a hitch". Apollo 1: fire in the capsule during ground test, 3 astronauts dead. Apollo 12: lightning strike just after liftoff disables most systems in the command module, only quick thinking by Mission Control enables the astronauts to recover the mission - they were minutes away from aborting the mission. Apollo 13: a design flaw causes an explosion in one of the oxygen tanks of the Service Module, getting close to killing 3 astronauts. They used several Rube Goldberg solutions to keep the astronauts alive.
1
All of the evidence says we went to the moon. Smart people follow the evidence, not the empty claims that the landings were faked.
1
The chance of that is very low: space is empty. The telescope can't protect itself: it has no way to detect asteroids. We have asteroid monitoring systems on Earth, and if a big asteroid were to come near the telescope, we could command evasive maneuvers from Earth.
1
That's nonsense.
1
+83 is the correct value.
1
@krishmalhotratalks I saw your explanation. Ultimately it doesn't matter at which temperature water boils under what circumstances: the hot side of the spacecraft will be at +83 ºC.
1
A relay won't help the Voyagers: they aren't close to getting out of radio range, they're running out of power to run the radio.
1
There's a liquid cooling system in the suit.
1
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
@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
All of the available evidence shows that Apollo went down exactly as how it was told.
1
@dw4956 We discovered the van Allen belts using satellites. No satellites, no knowledge of what's above 30 km altitude. That's a contradiction. There's what we actually know, instead of what you fantasize about the van Allen belts: 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
Tons of evidence prove the Apollo landings are real.
1
No. This is a tiny object, about 1000 times smaller than the resolution of JWST.
1
False. Light travels perfectly well though a void.
1
The Apollo LM could put 2 men on the moon for at most 3 days. Now we want a larger crew to stay on the moon for a month. That makes the lander a lot larger, in order to carry all the supplies they'll need. SpaceX proposed a version of Starship to be used as the lander. This is much bigger than needed for just that goal (it was built to carry a payload of 100 tons, enough to support an even larger crew for 6 months). The many launches are used to get that very large ship to the moon. They optimized not for minimum weight, but for minimum cost. With a reusable rocket, those 15 launches per mission may turn out to be cheaper than developing a weight-optimized lander.
1
Why would NASA allow NGR to be used like that, when the US Government already has a separate agency (NRO) operating dedicated spy satellites? Unlike NASA, the NRO has no obligation to publish its data, or to make its instruments available to astronomers. Also, NGR's instrumentation will be designed for faint objects, while spy satellites have to take short exposures in broad daylight.
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
The Apollo suits were developing problems after only 3 days on the lunar surface. They were also custom-made for each astronaut. For Artemis, NASA wants to spend months on the moon, and leave the suits up there for multiple missions. This means the suits have to be easily adjustable to different astronauts, and they have to be a lot more resilient when dealing with (extremely abrasive) lunar dust.
1
Because it's another failure point, it poses a risk to the solar panels (dragging something across a fragile panel will damage it), and previous missions never needed it: Spirit and Opportunity ran for years.
1
Every video that claims to do this, shows a small boat that has not gone over the horizon yet. This is obvious when you watch the video: water behind the boat is visible. When a boat reaches the horizon, no water is visible behind the boat. Once a ship goes over the horizon, no amount of zooming in will bring the hidden parts of the ship back into view.
1
Not for 'the same effect'. 50 years ago, we built a rocket that could put 2 men on the moon with enough supplies for 3 days. Now we want to build a base on the moon, which requires a lot more material to be transported to the moon. This obviously means the rocket has to be bigger.
1
@dinkokolic4386 For the first mission, they still want to use the same, much larger lander as the later missions.
1
@dinkokolic4386 The lander is Starship, a SpaceX vehicle that is still in development. This is a huge vehicle designed to carry 100 tons of payload. It is not a mass-optimized lunar lander. Because it is still in development, along with its booster rocket, the amount of fuel that one Starship can carry to orbit (to refuel the lunar lander) is unknown, which explains the large variation we see in number of tanker missions required.
1
Around June of this year.
1
Voyager 1 was the first to arrive at Jupiter.
1
Hybrids are really good when the load is variable. Most rocket engines run flat-out the entire time, and in that regime it's more efficient to drive the turbine directly.
1
The eruption took out all of Tonga's internet links.
1
@bufordmaddogtannen5164 no. The CO2 from this event is about what we produce in 1 day.
1
The main factor that limits that approach is weight: you'd need tons of water per day.
1
Because you didn't spend $500 million on it.
1
ollisions between particles orbiting the black hole tend to collapse everything into a disk.
1
NASA remains a civilian agency, entirely separate from US military activity in space.
1
The environmental damage caused by rockets is tiny, compared to e.g. aircraft. And SpaceX's rockets already pollute a lot less than e.g. the Space Shuttle (solid boosters are a lot worse than methane or kerosene).
1
That caveat is not going to impact NGR's mission (to look at the stars) in the slightest, so why scupper a mission over a non-issue?
1
Downvoted for clickbait. The video title is a lie: you're talking about the remains of the descent stage, i.e. NASA DID land those items on Mars.
1
yes. Voyager 1 would be the first one to reach Jupiter.
1
We've started doing that a few years ago (LIGO is a gravitational wave detector). The resolution is pretty low though.
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
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
The heliopause is the boundary of the Sun's electromagnetic dominance. The Hill sphere is the boundary of its gravitational dominance (and this is ~halfway to the next star).
1
pretty much, yes.
1
All of the evidence says otherwise.
1
They use radioisotope thermal generators: Pu-238 decays and produces heat, Peltier elements convert this to electricity. Pu-238 has a half-life of 87.7 years, so the output of the RTG reduces a bit every year. The Voyagers started out with 470 W, they're at about half of that now. In a few years, there won't be enough power left to drive the radio transmitter. That will end the mission.
1
Because they'd be too heavy if they were thicker.
1
The point was to inspire people.
1
That's a load of nonsense. There is no "planet x".
1
Not just one. 12 men walked on the Moon.
1
@stephenphillips7699 Yep, most of it isn't a threat. You still get the occasional Chelyabinsk Meteor to liven things up.
1
False. The Apollo missions were real, and we have abundant evidence that proves it.
1
LARES-2 is an attempt to measure it more accurately.
1
It did that in 1989 (Pale Blue Dot). Can't do it again, not enough power to run the camera system (and the cameras have been switched off since 1989, so they're frozen and probably broken).
1
it's correct though.
1
Humanity IS doing it in 2022: preparations for a new Moon program (Artemis) are underway.
1
Nope. Time dilation on Mercury is tiny. one hour to an outside observer take 3599.99991 seconds on Mercury.
1
@bloodyorphan I don't need to fly to Mercury, I can measure its orbital speed from here. The time dilation on Mercury can then be easily calculated. And that time dilation has been confirmed by the spacecraft sent to it: if it had experienced the huge time dilation you claim, it'd have been immediately noticeable as it got closer to Mercury.
1
@bloodyorphan I assume you mean MOND. That hypothesis has not been proven to this day. Observations correlate only weakly with MOND, and we have found galaxies without dark matter, which MOND cannot explain at all. And MOND does not claim that Mercury has its time dilated by a factor 4 million.
1
I figured out where your '4 million' confusion comes from. You're multiplying instead of dividing. The time dilation is actually 1:40,000,000, i.e. after 40 million seconds, the time difference is one second. Which matches my "one hour to an outside observer takes 3599.99991 seconds on Mercury".
1
@bloodyorphan Mercury does not travel at the speed of light, so that result doesn't seem relevant to what we're talking about here.
1
@bloodyorphan You continue to use the wrong operator. The frequency shift when talking to a spacecraft at Mercury is 1 divided by 40,000,000, not multiplied by 4,000,000.
1
@bloodyorphan You continue to use multiplication when you should be using division, so the time dilation you come up with is 20 orders of magnitude too high.
1
@bloodyorphan Yes, general relativity is well-proven. Your claim that time on Mercury flows 4 million times faster than on Earth is NOT proven and is based on a basic mistake that I've now pointed out to you 3 times.
1
@bloodyorphan You keep making the same mistake! On Mercury, time flows 1/4000000 slower.
1
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
That's incorrect. It wasn't a legitimate hypothesis, it was a publication in the USSR version of Reader's Digest. This was no more credible than von Daniken and his 'ancient astronaut' unsupported claims.
1
So, you blithely dismiss the actual science in this area, which is based on observation and experiment, then proceed to present an alternative hypothesis for which you present no evidence at all?
1
He's making a 10-minute video about an airplane that only has a very indirect link to Von Braun. Going by your standard, it would have to be a 9-hour video detailing everything ever done wrong by anyone ever involved with the Guppy project. In reality, that's what encyclopedias are for.
1
You can receive a signal from so far away with careful design of the transmitter and receiver. Dish antennas concentrate the signal into a narrow cone, providing an enormous amount of gain over omnidirectional antennas. NASA uses a 70 m dish to receive Voyager's signals. You can also build very sensitive receivers by cooling them to cryogenic temperatures (which reduces noise). The DSN can receive signals much weaker than the Voyager's.
1
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
Most satellites fly prograde (in the same direction as Earth's rotation, because that takes the least energy during launch. Some satellites are launched to an altitude of 36,000 km (geostationary orbit), where they complete an orbit in 24 hours, so they appear to stay in the same location. These are typically used for TV broadcasts. Some satellites are in polar orbits (north-south), this is useful for imaging the entire surface of Earth in a day. Some satellites are in retrograde orbits (east to west). Israel launches its satellites into retrograde orbit, because that's the only direction they can launch in.
1
Starship is not large enough to transport Webb with an extended sunshield.
1
@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
@maxwellbruce4747 A few hiccups on the first launch of a new rocket are not unusual. They don't indicate failure.
1
People who believe the moon landings are fake are making wild claims without evidence.
1
@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
Volcanic eruptions are difficult to predict.
1
We already know there's no planet 'behind the sun'. 1. we have spacecraft that can view that region. 2. even before that, it was obvious: orbital mechanics shows such an orbit is unstable and any planet in such an orbit would soon be ejected from that orbit.
1
They figured out how to get through the belts in 1962. The radiation levels are low enough that humans can safely pass through the belts without shielding.
1
@jstagzsr Yes, Google was wrong when it says satellites orbit at 160 km. 160 km is on the lower edge of viable orbits: at that altitude, satellites quickly lose speed and reenter the atmosphere. In practice, very few satellites orbit below 400 km altitude. The ISS is at about 400 km. Most satellites are between 400 and 2000 km, and hundreds are in higher orbits (36,000 km is common: that's the geostationary orbit, where many communications satellites are).
1
@jstagzsr Your 'decades of research' have left big gaps in your knowledge. The radiation levels in the van Allen belts are low enough that humans in an unshielded spacecraft can traverse the belts without risk to their health. The Apollo crews got a dose on the order of 0.2 Rad from one belt crossing. A lethal dose is 300 Rad. The belts are more of a problem for modern electronics: the features in integrated circuits are so small that a single particle passing through the IC can carry enough charge to flip a bit. Because we've been building satellites for this environment for decades, we've gotten really good at building electronics that can handle this. Several companies will sell you radiation-hardened ICs for use in space. Again, no shielding is necessary when you use these electronics.
1
@jstagzsr NASA does not claim they can't get through the VA belts. Everything I've said is based directly on dr. van Allen's research papers published in 1958-1962. Here's a direct quote from van Allen himself: “The radiation belts of the Earth do, indeed, pose important constraints on the safety of human space flight. The very energetic (tens to hundreds of MeV) protons in the inner radiation belt are the most dangerous and most difficult to shield against. Specifically, prolonged flights (i.e., ones of many months’ duration) of humans or other animals in orbits about the Earth must be conducted at altitudes less than about 250 miles in order to avoid significant radiation exposure. 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 Ed 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.”
1
Moon landing denial is as dumb as ever.
1
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
@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
@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
He did, along with 11 others.
1
No. It's pretty simple to transmit data at long distances. NASA uses a giant dish (34 m or 70 m diameter) to receive Voyager's signals, builds the best receiver electronics money can buy (cooled to near absolute 0 to reduce noise), and they have a clear line of sight without obstacles between transmitter and receiver.
1
That's correct only in the sense that surrounding the moon's core is a partially liquid mantle.
1
Those claims have all been disproven.
1
It's not necessary for the Voyagers (if they didn't run out of power, we'd still be able to reach them in 2050). For new missions at much larger distances, a relay might be useful, but it'd be expensive: you'd need to launch a giant antenna with a large power source. The DSN uses 70 m antennas and up to 20 kW of transmitter power (that's 50 x more power than the Voyagers had at launch). The relay would have to be in deep space itself, so you're launching a multi-ton spacecraft on a Voyager-like trajectory (compared to the Voyagers which weighed ~800 kg at launch). You'd also need a relay for each mission because a relay halfway between us and Voyager 1 would be useless for Voyager 2. It's easier and cheaper to just build better antennas on Earth: a 34 m antenna costs $100M, a deep-space antenna would cost billions.
1
don't be ridiculous.
1
As far as we know, there's no way to create a black hole that small.
1
it's very unlikely. Voyager sends its signals in a narrow cone aimed at Earth. Anyone receiving them would be between us and Voyager, or on the other side of Earth on that same line, and pretty near us (or the signal would get too weak to receive). There's no sign of alien life inside our solar system.
1
JWST can roll on the vertical axis (the line pointing from JWST to Earth). So at any time, it can image a cylinder section of the sky that contains part of the ecliptic. Mars will pass through that cylinder twice a year.
1
No. The radiation intensity in space is not high enough to make the spacecraft radioactive.
1
Troll.
1
we don't need JWST to Nancy Grace Roman to get high-res images of Earth. We have geostationary weather satellites that take images of the entire hemisphere every 10 minutes, see for example https://youtu.be/zoMRwyNhqJ4 We also have programs like Landsat, SPOT and Maxar that have satellites in low Earth orbit for earth observation. These image Earth in much more detail than JWST ever could.
1
@ben-yi3nh There are no holes in the spherical Earth model. The only people who claim there are holes are flat-Earthers, and the claims they make never hold up to scrutiny.
1
@ben-yi3nh A geodetic survey can be used in two ways: 1. to measure Earth's curvature. 2. to measure the elevation of objects relative to Earth's curvature. To do this, you have to take Earth's curvature into account. This is the most common form of geodetic survey, as used in preparation for construction, for determining land borders etc. Before you can do a survey of the second type, a survey of the first type has to be done to determine Earth's curvature. Examples of this type of survey are the French Geodesic Mission to Lapland of 1736 and the French Geodesic Mission to the Equator of 1735. They measured not only Earth's diameter, but also its oblateness (the difference between the equatorial and polar diameters).
1
@ben-yi3nh Every single claim of "we can see farther than the curvature predicts" turns out to be false. There are 3 common types of error: 1. they use a curvature calculation that ignores observer height, target height, or both 2. they use a curvature calculation that ignores atmospheric refraction and its variability 3. the observation itself is a lie. There's a recent one where someone claims to see an island from a distance of 600 miles. When you watch the video, it's easy to see he's looking at clouds, not an island: the clouds move and deform during the video. Another common one is to make a video of a mirage and claim it's a direct observation.
1
@ben-yi3nh Earth's shape is an objective fact. The evidence is overwhelming, and it is entirely one-sided. ALL of the evidence shows that Earth is a sphere. - Geodetic surveys allow us to measure Earth's curvature, and its diameter. - observation of a ship going over the horizon shows that Earth's surface is curved. - observation of the range of a radio transmitter shows that Earth's surface is curved. - observation of the elevation angle of the sun and the stars, and how this changes with latitude, shows that Earth's surface is curved. - we can fly around the planet both via the equator and via the poles, demonstrating that Earth does not have edges. - Photos from high altitude and from space show Earth's curvature directly. We have millions such photos from lots of different, independent sources. Even amateurs have been able to make photos from an altitude of 30 km, clearly showing Earth's curvature.
1
@ben-yi3nh You'll notice I did not say the French measurement is the only one. The first measurement of Earth's curvature was done by Eratosthenes in 250 BC. We've done many since then. I'm not going to explain geodetic surveying to you in a comment, that's what Wikipedia is for.
1
@ben-yi3nh Davidmescher is correct. When you do Eratosthenes' experiment (vertical shadow at location A, measure the length of a shadow at B) and assume Earth is flat, you get a distance between point A and the Sun. When you move the stick from point B and measure the shadow a few hundred km to the North of point B, you get a different distance between point A and the Sun. So you have two measurements that conflict with each other, which means the measurement contains a flawed assumption. That flaw is the assumption that Earth is flat.
1
@ben-yi3nh By 250 BC they'd already realized that the Sun is neither small nor close to Earth. You can do this by comparing the size of the sun at noon and near sundown: if the size of the sun changes, you know the sun is nearby. Observations show that the size of the sun does not change, which means it's far away, which in turn means it has to be large, in order to be seen as a disk. Shadows show that the light of the sun is parallel.
1
@ben-yi3nh Example: Let's place point A at the equator, and B at 10ºN latitude. That's a distance of 1111 km. At point B I measure an angle of 80º, then the altitude is 6301 km. Then place point A at the equator, and B at 20ºN latitude. That's a distance of 2222 km. At point B I measure an angle of 70º, then the altitude is 6105 km. Oops, two different altitudes for the same sun. If Earth were flat, these two measurements would give the same result.
1
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
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
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
@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
@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
@Righteous628 Bringing easily verifiable facts into the discussion is now 'gaslighting'?
1
Yes. The chances of that happening are really low though. : in 60 years of operating ~10,000 satellites, we've had 0 catastrophic meteor hits.
1
As far as I know, Arecibo has never been used to communicate with spacecraft - because Arecibo wasn't steerable, a spacecraft would quickly move out of view.
1
You;re probably seen the middle section before, that was made a few years ago when the first black hole image was published.
1
The Why files use nonsense and fabricated "evidence" to drum up views.
1
@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
@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
@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
it's spelled kapton.
1
You can do the same with WiFi. I've got a USB Wifi module with external antennas, you can get those in various sizes with the larger ones having more gain. I use these when camping - where my computer's built-in Wifi doesn't find a signal, I can connect easily using the external antenna. - I've made connections at more than 100 meters from the nearest access point.
1
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
They aren't. Those images will be released immediately. They're just not telling us the targets for those first observations beforehand. All JWST images will be published (via the Mikulski space telescope archive). Most images will have an exclusive-access period so the astronomer who requested the images will be the first to analyze them. The target list for the first year (the General Observer program) is already public.
1
Cell phones do use cell towers to help determine where they are, when available. This helps to get a position fix quickly without having to wait to download the entire ephemeris.
1
Classification (=dividing things into categories) has always been part of science, because it makes it easier to have a discussion when everybody uses the same classification. When Galileo saw Jupiter and understood that it was a planet like ours, the solar system had two classes: anything in orbit around the Sun is a planet, anything in orbit around a planet is a moon. Then we started to discover asteroids, starting with the largest: Ceres. This was initially considered a planet. Then we discovered hundreds of smaller objects in similar orbits, and astronomers added a new class: asteroids. Ceres was moved from the Planet class to the Asteroid class. Then we discovered Pluto. Seemed to be alone in its region, so it was considered a planet. Then we discovered hundreds of smaller objects in similar orbits, and astronomers added a new class: dwarf planets. Pluto was moved from the Planet class to the Dwarf Planet class. The more objects you have, the more classes it becomes useful to divide them into. This is done everywhere in science. What most people call mosquitoes, biologists divide into several hundred species. Etc. In this case, a scientific classification has entered the public consciousness and people are flipping out because they have an emotional attachment to Pluto.
1
This takes tome for the same reason divers don't swim to the surface immediately after a deep dive. If you do that, you get decompression sickness.
1
Every spacecraft we've ever launched gets hit regularly. It's inevitable, so we build them to withstand those impacts. JWST will still be running in 8 years.
1
Have a look at the JWST blog.
1
Our eyes are very ingenious. They adjust to the ambient light level, mostly without you noticing anything. The night sky is 9 orders of magnitude darker than a sunny noon. Hubble photos are bright because a. Hubble observes targets for long periods, and b. the brightness of the image is adjusted to a level we can see easily on a screen.
1
@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
@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
We've seen calibration images at 3 stages of the process. You can also go over to the Mikulski Archive for Space Telescopes, and see that they've taken more than 50,000 images already. All of these will be published when calibration is finished.
1
Incorrect. 12 people have walked on the moon.
1
JWST did receive first light this week, according to the NASA JWST blog. They've started calibrating the mirrors.
1
The Voyagers won't get anywhere near another star for the next 100,000 years or so. Plenty of time to invent better weapons.
1
@bobsmoot2392 What would aliens be doing in the empty space between star systems? You underestimate how big space is.
1
@bobsmoot2392 The golden records' primary function was to inspire humanity.
1
@bobsmoot2392 The main goal of the records was to inspire humanity and get some PR for the Voyager project.
1
Your 8-track was a Rube Goldberg contraption, using a single reel to make sure you'd have lots of problems with the player eating the tapes. The Voyagers use a two-reel design that has nothing in common with your 8-track apart from the number of tracks across the tape.
1
The first calibration images haven't been released yet.
1
@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
Apollo was the opposite of a compartmentalized program. It was run in full public view.
1
JWST images are not classified: every observation will be published (via the Mikulski archive for space telescopes). For most observations, there will be a period where the astronomer who requested the observation will have exclusive access to the data. For most observations, the target list is public as well (the General Observer program for the first year has been published already). For the first few hours of science observations at the end of the calibration process, STSci has not published the target list beforehand, you'll see what they targeted when the observations are published.
1
@piconano And I've dug deeper than the headline. The only thing they're "keeping secret" is the target list for the Fist Light observations, so nobody will know beforehand what the targets are. Those observations will be published immediately. Not much of a secret, is it?
1
We have research on gravity going back all the way to Newton's publication of Principia. Cavendish proved that any two masses attract each other, and measured the gravitational constant. We knew Earth is a globe 2500 years ago, and since then, we've used a dozen different methods to confirm this. The rest of your claims is as unsupported as the first two.
1
Because the force pulling it towards the sun is balanced by the centrifugal force caused by its orbital speed. Just like all of the planets.
1
Yes, Apollo was a success. We have multiple independent lines of evidence that shows the Apollo landings are real.
1
No, it doesn't. An electrostatic charge will do it.
1
That's not how it works. They use radioisotope thermal generators: Pu-238 decays and produces heat, Peltier elements convert this to electricity. This decay happens whether you convert the heat into electricity or not.
1
@shannonjaensch3705 The truth is that every time we measure the surface of our planet, we find curvature.
1
@shannonjaensch3705 Yep. Here's how you can do it too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYz_Hs35YrQ
1
Clearly you haven't done any research. The SR-71 was built to leak on the ground because it would fly at Mach 3 for several hours, which would heat up the airframe and the expanding metal would seal any leaks. The Saturn V is out of the atmosphere in a few minutes, so heat soak isn't an issue and you can build tanks that are gastight. "the power of vacuum" is a pressure difference of 1 bar. For 200 years we've been building steam engines which work a pressure vessel that works at a pressure difference 20 times higher. Hydraulic systems work at a pressure 200 times higher, and do it routinely without leaks. Building a vessel that has 1 bar inside and 0 bar outside is easy.
1
@fireballxl-5748 More lack of research from you. The leakage rate of the SR-71 wasn't large enough to "waste thousands of $ of fuel". The SR-71 was the first aircraft built for Mach 3, and they cut corners. Later high-speed aircraft like the MiG-25 and the B-70 didn't have leaky fuel tanks. Rockets don't have leaky fuel tanks. You again overestimate "the power of vacuum". Atmospheric pressure is 1 bar, which is 1 kg per cm2. If you have a vacuum vessel at ground level, 1 kg/cm2 is the force it has to withstand. If you have a pressure vessel with a pressure of 2 bar inside, it has to withstand that same force of 1 kg/cm2, this time from the inside. There's none of the 'negative infinity' you imagine. Five minutes with a physics textbook will confirm this.
1
@fireballxl-5748 Then the radiation. Again, you haven't done your research. 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 Apollo CSM, LM and space suits had minimal radiation shielding because that's all they needed.
1
@fireballxl-5748 You're still overestimating the amount of force it takes for a container to hold 1 bar of pressure. Yes, a railroad tank car can implode when a vacuum is pulled inside the car. That same tank car has no problem holding a pressure of 1 bar higher than the outside pressure: most materials are much stronger in tension than in compression. Spacecraft in a vacuum are in tension. Consider this: airliners fly at an altitude of 10 km, where atmospheric pressure is 0.2 bar. The pressure in the cabin is held at 0.8 bar (to make sure the passengers don't faint from lack of oxygen). Airliners typically have an aluminium fuselage about 1 mm thick. That's all it takes to withstand a pressure difference of 0.6 bar. 2 mm thick is enough to withstand a pressure difference of 1 bar.
1
India and Japan are landing 100 kg on the moon. Artemis wants to land tens of tons on the moon. Of course you're going to need more rockets to do that.
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. Every day, you benefit from data generated in space, proving space is real and Earth is not flat.
1
@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
that's because water, unlike gas, is not compressible.
1
There was nothing left to look at. The Voyager cameras were built for the planetary encounters, and wouldn't work well for astronomical observations (not enough light available).
1
Teledyne built the H2RG detectors used in JWST. They also offer the H4RG, which is a 4096x4096 pixel instrument with a pixel size of 15 um (H2RG: 2048x2048, 18 um). This seems to be the state of the art for astronomical IR imaging CCDs. The H4RG has been available for at least 5 years now. The problem with a project like JWST is that at some point, you have to freeze the design. If you keep iterating, it'll never get finished. After the design freeze, there's several years of testing (during which you can't replace components, or you'd have to redo all the tests).
1
In 1976, someone retranslated a Sumerian text and claimed it talks about an unknown planet. Charlatans then claimed this planet (Nibiru) would destroy Earth in 2012 (coinciding with the end of one period in the Mayan calendar). When that didn't happen (and indeed, no new planet was visible in the night sky), charlatans moved on to the next bit of nonsense. We have found actual planets much further out than this hypothetical one. Sedna has a 10,000 year orbit. So we know Nibiru doesn't exist, and any claims about a "planet 9" that will destroy us can be dismissed.
1
@ziiziizii3838 That's not a belief, that's knowledge. A planet the size of Nibiru that gets anywhere near Earth and was visible to the Sumerians at some point would have been found by now. It's far too large and too close to not be noticed.
1
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
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
@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
@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
Investment in NASA alsways grows the US economy by more than we put into the project. So instead of a burden, Artemis is a boon to the US economy.
1
The Voyagers are too small and dim for JWST. But we don't need JWST for this: we know exactly where they are. The radio link we have with Voyager allows us to measure its distance to an accuracy better than 1 meter, and its horizontal and vertical position (azimuth and elevation) down to fractions of an arcsecond.
1
the name 'Ultima Thule' has been coopted by the Nazis.
1
1. They don't, they just accept that it happens. It's nothing more than a brief flash. 2. In a rocket, propellant is burned. This creates a high-pressure gas that wants to expand in all directions, exerting a force on any walls it comes across. The combustion chamber and nozzle are open at the rear, so no force in that direction. The forces on the sides cancel each other out, and the force on the front of the nozzle and chamber is not cancelled out. This is the force that drives the rocket forward.
1
Don't be ridiculous.
1
I can look up tonight and see the ISS pass overhead, proving that space is real. We only see one side of the moon because it is tidally locked to Earth, as many moons are. Look it up. Armstrong "admitted" no such thing, the Apollo missions have been proven real.
1
That's incorrect.
1
@Ashghaus False. There are no bodies aboard the Voyagers. There is no space for them, and the added weight would have made the mission impossible.
1
Yes.
1
No, nobody has "proven" we never left Earth with humans. In 50 years, nobody has presented actual evidence that the Apollo landings were faked.
1
NASA sent 7 Surveyors to the moon in the 1960s, of which 2 failed.
1
Troll.
1
We have geostationary weather satellites that take images of the entire hemisphere every 10 minutes, see for example https://youtu.be/zoMRwyNhqJ4. You can buy high-res images from low-orbit satellites like the Landsat and SPOT programs, Maxar etc. So anyone has access to high-quality images of Earth from space. The only restriction the DOD has given NASA is not to publish spy satellite-quality images. The reasons for this are obvious.
1
You missed the comparison between Hubble and JWST, where the JWST image has hundreds of stars not visible in the Hubble image. And Hubble can't see at all at most of the wavelengths JWST work at.
1
@mattt6459 That's nonsense. No scientist is getting rich from his work. Free energy is a fantasy. Wake up, the people telling you you're being lied to are lying themselves.
1
@mattt6459 Tesla found a way to distribute energy wirelessly (and inefficiently). He didn't find a way to generate the power to drive that transmitter that wouldn't cost money. So he'd have a system that cost money to run, and no way to make users of that power pay for it. Tesla's idea was economically unviable.
1
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 about 2 Rad, or ~1% of a lethal dose.
1
The US military budget is $850 billion. NASA gets $25 billion.
1
@full__tilt The private sector doesn't work for free. Much of NASA's budget goes into fundamental research, something private companies don't do.
1
And you are yet another who fell for the worthless arguments used by the moon landing deniers.
1
Eruptions this size happen every 30 years or so.
1
@DiamondGuitarist They're on the moon to examine the moon. The TV camera was there to record them doing that, not to look at Earth. We have video of Earth from lunar orbit, e.g. from Apollo 8, but you're going to whine again that's not what you asked for. The resolution of the Apollo photos (144 MP) is much higher than that of the 16 mm film (2 MP) or the video (400 kp), making them harder to fake.
1
That's not an object "siphoning" plasma from the sun, those are solar flares where the sun ejects particles.
1
@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
@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
Wrong, they are done in space. You can see the ISS pass overhead in the night sky.
1
@cannabearr Of course we can see it. The ISS is visible to the naked eye at the beginning and the end of night, when the ground is in darkness but the ISS (400 km above us) is still in sunlight. It's one of the brightest objects in the night sky. With a telescope, we can confirm we're looking at the ISS: we can see enough detail to recognize it.
1
@cannabearr Boats do go over the horizon. Anyone who claims they can zoom in on a ship that has gone over the horizon and bring it back into view, is lying to you: they are zooming in on small boats that have not gone over the horizon yet.
1
The internal pressure was kept as low as possible, and the suit layers were not stretchy enough to balloon up.
1
JWST is a joint NASA-ESA-CSA project. The launch was part of ESA's contribution to the cost.
1
The moon has a diameter about 4 times smaller than Earth's. That means the horizon is at a distance of only 2 km. And with no atmosphere, buildings or vegetation, it's much easier to see the horizon than it is on Earth.
1
PTSD is not surprising given the amount of stress the astronauts were under. The mandate to get to the moon before the end of the decade AND before the USSR put a lot of pressure on the program.
1
0:15 shows what Hubble sees of Pluto. The only way to improve that is by using a larger telescope. Composite images can be made via interferometry; unfortunately it's difficult to do that for visible light.
1
There have been several smaller eruptions recently.
1
The Voyagers use radioisotope thermal generators: Pu-238 decays and produces heat, Peltier elements convert this to electricity. Pu-238 has a half-life of 87.7 years, so the output of the RTG reduces a bit every year. The Voyagers started out with 470 W, they're at about half of that now. This is unsuitable for use in phones.
1
Osiris-Rex is small and specialized. A cubesat would be unable to return a sample back to Earth, for example.
1
That is incorrect. We have millions of photos of Earth from space. From the Gemini program onward, every manned mission took cameras along. Apollo missions made iconic photos of Earth from the moon (Earthrise, Apollo 8 and Blue Marble, Apollo 17). By the early 1970s, the first Earth observation satellites came into service (Landsat), which have been photographing Earth's surface in detail ever since. Geostationary weather satellites take photos of the entire hemisphere every 10 minutes. Just about every mission we sent to other planets carries cameras, too.
1
They were numbered in order of arrival at Jupiter.
1
No, they didn't. We didn't need any "technology" to get through those belts. Humans can pass through the belts without a problem.
1
About 450,000 Americans and 200 Germans worked on the Apollo program. The German contribution to Apollo was about 0.05%.
1
@chaseschneier1076 Rockets are not developed by one person. von Braun was director of MSFC, he set the high-level parameters. Thousands of scientists and engineers had input on the design.
1
provably wrong.
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. Every day, you benefit from data generated in space, proving space is real and Earth is not flat.
1
We already know there's no dead twin. Full-sky surveys from Earth have ruled that out, with much better instruments than the Voyagers carry.
1
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
@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
@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
Skylab was used for 3 manned missions, then its orbit decayed and Skylab reentered our atmosphere, burning up.
1
@1ginner1 JWST will orbit at a distance of about 300,000 km from the L2 point, so it'll be in direct sunlight.The sun-facing side will be at +80 ºC.
1
The focus was on reusable rockets: the Space Shuttle. Unfortunately the path NASA ended up choosing was so technologically complex that it was barely within the financial means of the organization, and things like the SRBs were done as a cheap-to-develop interim solution because the proposals for e.g. boosters that could fly back to the Cape and land as aircraft were too expensive to develop.
1
Yes, solar panels get less efficient. When the distance to the sun doubles, the same amount of light gets spread over an area 4 times larger. So the amount of power reduces with the square of the distance. If you want to operate a spacecraft in the outer solar system on solar panels, the panels have to get really large and heavy.
1
Yes. L2 is a good position: far away from the manmade debris in low Earth orbit. They will get the occasional hit from microscopic dust, on the order of nanograms per year.
1
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
Multiple much newer spacecraft that routinely work for decades prove that that isn't the case.
1
@xaviercostar6554 yes. Earth's and Venus' orbits are both inclined, so most times, when Venus passes between us and the Sun it will go above or below the sun from our point of view.
1
This is a bit counterintuitive. We're not going to look at the place where the Big Bang took place - there's not single place we can point to. Instead, we're going to look at galaxies 13.5 bn lightyears away. They will be 13.5 bn years old, so they should be the oldest galaxies in the universe, containing the first generation of stars. We can find these galaxies in any direction.
1
GOES, Himawari, Meteosat. Satellites in geostationary orbit that take photos of the whole hemisphere every 10 minutes. Zoom in, and you can see cities and mountains both above and below the equator. images easily found at NOAA.
1
Climate science remains an objective science. Temperatures today are higher than in the past.
1
They're spherical just like planet Earth.
1
The truth is that the Apollo landings are real.
1
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
Earth is in a part of its orbit where it's moving in the same direction as the Voyagers, at a higher speed than the Voyagers.
1
The Vatican has been funding astronomy research for a long time. Nothing nefarious about that. NASA has not replaced the SLS yet.
1
Materials don't orbit a void.
1
not quite. 1:07, 1:24 and 3:11 are JWST images.
1
There is no life on Bennu. No chance of a disease developing there.
1
None of that is true.
1
10,000 operational satellites in orbit prove you wrong.
1
@neuroncrux5937 At 100 km altitude, the atmosphere is so thin that you can't use aerodynamic lift to fly at this altitude at any speed lower than orbital speed. This is defined as the edge of space. At 400 km, atmospheric drag is so low it takes more than a decade for a spacecraft's orbit to decay. At 1000 km, atmospheric drag is so low a spacecraft will orbit indefinitely. I.e. all satellites operate at altitudes where the atmosphere cannot contribute to the satellite staying in orbit. Spacecraft engines work at any altitude, including lunar orbit, halfway to Mars, and out past Pluto.
1
it's currently very expensive to land large amounts of material on the moon.
1
It starts out as a sphere. Collisions in the sphere tend to collapse it into a disk.
1
And another empty claim based on no evidence.
1
A hydrogen-powered jet engine burns hydrogen, i.e. it combines hydrogen with oxygen from the atmosphere, creating water.
1
it's too small. The resolution of the EHT image is about 1000 times better than what JWST can achieve.
1
JWST was built to have robotic refueling as an option. What we don't have yet is a spacecraft that can approach JWST without damaging the sunshield or contaminating the mirrors.
1
@shawnnorris3410 False. We have independent verification of the moon landings.
1
no, a bit smaller.
1
The launch cost around $150M. It helps humanity by allowing us to learn more about the universe.
1
False. There are dozens of stamps of Armstrong.
1
@SJSUPhilosopher The 10-cent First Man On The Moon air mail stamp from 1969 is not enough for you?
1
@SJSUPhilosopher Apollo was a joint effort by 450,000 people, not a one-man project.
1
@qcodes5547 This is called 'gravity losses', this video explains how it works: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOX1ldnO0Uo
1
Cannot legally look at Earth because that would reveal the capabilities of those spy satellites.
1
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
They have started taking images for mirror calibration this week. Science-quality images will take a while, yes.
1
Apollo landed 2 men on the moon for up to 3 days. Now we want to send larger crews to the moon to spend months on the surface. We could do this with a few dozen Saturn V missions, or we can find a better architecture. Artemis isn't optimal (the long orbit they're stuck in because Orion doesn't have the performance), but it's better than launching dozens of non-reusable rockets.
1
Having a 1-bar nitrogen atmosphere is a better protection from our atmosphere than having the samples in a vacuum. Vacuum chambers are never perfect, so there'll always be a tiny amount of atmospheric oxygen in the chamber.
1
yes, on Dec 25.
1
@jokebapack2 it's on its way to L2 now, and they've started deploying the sunshield.
1
@jokebapack2 Yes, we won't get visible-light images.
1
@jokebapack2 We'll get something more exciting: we'll be able to see through the clouds that make up the pillars of creation. We'll get fantastic new images from JWST, they'll just look different to what Hubble gave us.
1
Voyager : no, the cameras on the Voyagers no longer work. The New Horizons team recently published results of some parallax observations.
1
Anyone who uses actual common sense and research will realize that the Apollo missions are real. There is no data to suggest otherwise.
1
@janethayes5941 No, nobody serious thinks the moon is hollow. On Earth, seismic shocks are damped quickly by Earth's mantle and by the abundant water in the crust. The Moon has neither, so seismic chocks reverberate longer. We know the moon is not hollow because we have weighed it: from its orbit, we can calculate the moon's mass. The mass we found can only be achieved by a solid body.
1
@dom_ferris_ 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
A tank is a device for storing liquids or gases. You have a fuel tank on your car.
1
@jareddavis4980 Most satellites are larger than basketballs. In LEO, typical weights are on the order of a ton, and they have several square meters of solar panel. In the evening, when the sun has set on the surface but LEO is still sunlit, those satellites are easily visible to the naked eye. With nothing more than a photo camera, I can measure the distance to those satellites and prove they are at least ten times higher than any balloon has ever been, proving those satellites are not suspended from balloons. Once I have the altitude, a few more photos prove those satellites move at a speed of 8 km/s, i.e. orbital speed, which can only be achieved by a rocket working in a vacuum.
1
@jareddavis4980 I don't think I can see satellites, I know I can, because I've done it. With the naked eye you can't resolve a satellite, but it reflects enough light to be visible to the naked eye. And with a photo camera and some math, I can measure their altitude: they're at 400 km and higher, proving they are not hanging from a ballon: no balloon has ever been that high. I can also measure their speed. At 28,000 km/h, satellites move a hundred times faster than any balloon has ever been. So, simple observations anyone can do prove that satellites are in space, not in our atmosphere.
1
@jareddavis4980 The "battery" on the Voyagers is a radiosiotope thermal generator. Plutonium decays and produces heat, and this heat is converted to electricity. When the Voyagers were launched, the Pu on board produced more than 4 kW of heat, which was converted to 470 W of electricity. Pu-238 has a half-life of 88 years, so after 88 years the heat output will drop by 50%. At the moment, the RTG still produces more than 250 W of power. The antenna on the Voyagers has a beam width of about 0.5 degree. At a distance of 15 billion km, even a beam that narrow covers most of Earth's orbit, which means the Voyagers don't have to adjust their antenna to track the Earth during the transmission. We're able to lock onto that signal because we use an antenna with a diameter of 70 meters, with a received cooled to 4 Kelvin. See? information trumps incredulity every time.
1
@jareddavis4980 That is nonsense. I don't think satellites are at 400 km altitude, I know because I can measure that with enough accuracy to know that they're not at 40 km altitude but ten times higher.
1
@jareddavis4980 No, I can treat the satellite as a point source. I'm doing parallax measurements: for the altitude, I take two photos from positions a few km apart (at the same time), and I measure how the position changes relative to the background stars. For speed, I can then take two photos with a known interval between them and measure how the position changes relative to the background stars. Scott Manley has a video that shows how to do this.
1
@jareddavis4980 Just using synchronized watches you can get within one second. And it's not that hard to calculate the error introduced by that.
1
@jareddavis4980 Yes. We can get a lot closer than one second though. Several options are available: 1. use a transit. e.g. the satellite passing in front of the sun or the moon. 2. use the transit of the satellite into or out of Earth's shadow 3. more accurate options to synchronize the cameras: a countdown gets you within a few tenths of a second, electronic means can give a time difference several orders of magnitude smaller.
1
nope. All images will be released. Any astronomer can request observations, the list of observations is public, and all images are stored on a public website.
1
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
This is what international cooperation looks like. ESA provided some of the scientific instruments on Webb, and contributed the launch.
1
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 nobody else could afford to spend that much.
1
A few hundred million. $100M for the nuclear power source alone. $250M for a launch on the largest rocket you can find, plus you have to nuclear-certify it.
1
Collisions between particles orbiting the black hole tend to collapse everything into a disk.
1
The little flares that appear are reflections off of the radio antenna that sits on top of the PLSS. This antenna is easily visible in many photos. It's generally less visible in the TV shots, due to the very low resolution, unless the camera catches a specular reflection.
1
0:14 HD84406 was the first of about 25 stars that were used during the mirror alignment process. They had to keep switching to fainter stars as the mirror alignment got better. 13:25 this star is 2MASS J17554042+6551277.
1
No, it'll be the 7th manned moon mission.
1
this video does not show details smaller than 500 meters. No missile is that large. All we have is one frame showing a cloud that's 1-2 km wide.
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. 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
Yep, Earthrise was Apollo 8.
1
@natturner2681 This is basic physics. Kinetic energy goes up with the square of the speed. To get a spacecraft flying at Voyager's speed into orbit around Jupiter, you'd need a rocket that weighs several hundred tons. So instead of launching 800 kg on its way to Jupiter, you'd have to launch 1000 times more. We have no rockets powerful enough to do that.
1
@natturner2681 It's a lot easier to land on the Moon (needs 1.5 km/s of delta-V) than to get into Jupiter orbit when you approach at 10 km/s. The amount of fuel needed is exponential. The Moon's low gravity really works in our favor.
1
@natturner2681 We did land on the Moon already. There's no 'limit' we can't go beyond.
1
@bufordmaddogtannen5164 Show the data that confirms that, then. The actual effect of this volcano will be a slight cooling this year (-0.1ºC) due to the water vapor and SO2 produced.
1
Your tinfoil hat is on too tight.
1
@americanknow8232 We have independent verification of both the Voyagers and the moon landings. I.e. we have proof they were not faked.
1
Teledyne built the H2RG detectors used in JWST. They also offer the H4RG, which is a 4096x4096 pixel instrument with a pixel size of 15 um (H2RG: 2048x2048, 18 um). This seems to be the state of the art for astronomical IR imaging CCDs. The H4RG has been available for at least 5 years now. The problem with a project like JWST is that at some point, you have to freeze the design. If you keep iterating, it'll never get finished. After the design freeze, there's several years of testing (during which you can't replace components, or you'd have to redo all the tests).
1
I can see the ISS in orbit, even with the naked eye. NASA's doing this for real instead of faking it.
1
Nope. We have photos of that haze.
1
@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
As usual, you are arguing from a lack of knowledge. Radiation is a problem for months-long missions to e.g. Mars, not a one-week trip to the moon. The van Allen belts are lethal if you put a spacecraft in the center of the belts for a week. The Apollo crews crossed the entire belts in 3 hours.
1
You see Venus at dawn or dusk, i.e. close to the Sun, right where the heliocentric model predicts it will be. There's loads of photos that show Hubble in space.
1
What do you mean by negative pressure? Pressure can't get lower than 0.
1
@MisterDishWash Yes, I see what you mean. I'm afraid that would make the suit a lot more complicated for no benefit. At the start of the video you see Destin putting on the cooling garment. The next layer that goes over that is the pressure bladder: this is the airtight layer. Over that goes a fabric mesh that keeps the pressure bladder from ballooning when it's pressurized. Everything outside the pressure bladder is at vacuum already, when you're in space.
1
The first images the Voyagers took a few days after launch are of Earth and the Moon. It seemed fitting that the last images the Voyagers took would be a family portrait of the solar system, including Earth. Not because those images had any scientific value, but because they have emotional value.
1
@flat-earther You should read the Antarctic Treaty sometime, it does not say that at all.
1
Every time we measure the surface of our planet, we find that it is not flat, but curved. We can separate that into local terrain (hills, mountains) and a long-range component that is always the same: a sphere with a radius of 6700 km. When we look at the horizon, we see that objects that go over the horizon disappear from the bottom up, indicating that when the distance gets long enough, a physical obstacle appears between us and the object. This always happens at the same distance. That distance is again consistent with a sphere with a radius of 6700 km. all of the evidence, from these measurements to direct observation of Earth from high altitude, tells us that Earth is not flat, but spherical. Now, do you find it logical that God would create a world that is one shape, but appears to be something else? A world that lies to us whenever we look at it? I don't find that logical. That means Earth really is a sphere.
1
JWST won't be in Earth's shadow. It will be in a large orbit around the L2 point, so it's in constant sunlight.
1
Here's what we actually know, instead of what you fantasize about the van Allen belts: 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
1. it's a "disco ball" that only reflects light in the exact direction the light came from. 2. one disco ball vs. 25,000 Starlink satellites. The difference should be obvious.
1
Every time a spacecraft approaches or leaves the ISS, you can see them using thrusters to maneuver.
1
1. We don't know beforehand where that will happen. 2. We don't have the tools yet to scan the entire sky for changes to catch a star being born. That will change in a few years. 3. Stellar formation is slow. In our galaxy, the chance that 1 star was born in the last 25 years is about 10%. 4. Stars are born in regions with lots of dust which obscures these new stars until the remaining dust is blown away by the light from the new star, which takes a long time. So it's statistically unlikely we could catch a star in the process of igniting.
1
The spacecraft is insulated to keep its temperature within the limits of the materials it uses, obviously.
1
About 100 kg. Most of the propellant was in the rocket that launched it (more than 600 tons).
1
Don't be an idiot and a liar. Read up on who made the decisions.
1
Crappy troll.
1
this video has a resolution of 500 meters/pixel, and it consists of images taken 10 minutes apart. So you're looking at a cloud that's 1-2 km wide, not a missile.
1
@_harbinjer No, radiation is produced in all nuclear explosions. Splitting Uranium or Plutonium produces radiation itself, and the two 'halves' of the split atom are always unstable (=radioactive).
1
@_harbinjer I'm pasting that response when people see something in the video that isn't there. It's called pareidolia: the human brain tries to find patterns (e.g. movement) in video even if the source material doesn't contain any.
1
@anuardelcastillo2627 That story is full of holes, based on no research whatsoever.
1
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
 @HarzemTube We can measure the distance to our deep space missions down to the meter or so.
1
The Belugas are designed to fly into small airports (e.g. Hamburg), so they are optimized to carry cargo with lots of volume but little weight. The A380 would need an entirely new fuselage: the floor of the second deck is an essential part of the structure. This is why the A380F failed: that deck in the middle could not be removed, and it got in the way of freight ops.
1
@dominiccharvet546 The evidence says NASA has never lied to us.
1
@nocturnallust4145 The truth is that Earth is a sphere. As I said before, anyone can do simple observations that confirm this. The ancient Greeks figured this out 2500 years ago, and ever since, nobody has presented evidence that Earth is any other shape. Every "flat Earth" argument is based on false claims.
1
@nocturnallust4145 With a camera or telescope with crosshairs, and a ruler I can measure a section of its surface and see the curvature. With a stick of known length and a ruler I can repeat Eratosthenes' experiment and measure the elevation of the sun and how it changes with latitude, which gives me the diameter of Earth.
1
We can prove Earth is a sphere without using any tools, just by observing things like the behavior of the horizon, and the shape of Earth's shadow. That's how the ancient Greeks realized Earth was not flat, in 500 BC. We can use tools to measure Earth's curvature (geodetic survey). NASA, other space agencies, commercial space companies, and anyone who can get a balloon with a camera to 10 km altitude just provide confirmation of what we've known for centuries: Earth is a sphere.
1
With the information on the plaque that covers the records, building a record player is easy.
1
@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
You've fallen for lies thought up by charlatans. We can prove Earth isn't flat. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBdcG5IQOVo and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDy95_eNPzM and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQigLd2wjp8
1
@alexanderbreston9918 The ISS is in space. We can measure its speed and altitude from the ground: take two photos of the ISS at the same time from different locations, and you can use parallax to measure its altitude. Take two photos a known time apart, and you can calculate its speed. We find that the ISS is at an altitude of 400 km and a speed of 8 km/s. Anything flying at 8 km/s in our atmosphere glows like a meteor, the ISS doesn't do this, proving that it is not in our atmosphere. Another indication that it's not in our atmosphere is that the ISS keeps flying for years on end, without constantly using engines.
1
Don't be silly. We know what goes on out that far because we sent spacecraft (the Voyagers) to measure the environment.
1
Depends on the target. Hubble once did an image that had 10 days of exposure time (the 'Deep Field' image, they had to stack individual photos because Hubble is in Earth orbit so the target would be hidden behind Earth for half of each orbit).
1
They'll need more than a Starship. Starship's thrusters would damage the sunshield, so they'll have to build a smaller craft that can approach safely.
1
Hubble wasn't based on a spy satellite bus. - Hubble's designed to be serviced, spy satellites aren't. - Hubble uses a different attitude control system that allows accurate pointing for long periods, but isn't fast enough to image targets on Earth - Hubble's instruments are designed for faint, faraway objects, spy satellites have fast cameras to work in Earth's daylight.
1
@OzDeaDMeaT That's part of it, yes.
1
Voyager 1: they wanted a close look at Saturn's moon Titan, this dictated the path for the flyby. Voyager 2: They wanted a close flyby of Triton. Triton's orbit is at a large angle to the ecliptic plane, and Triton was below Neptune at the time of Voyager's flyby, so they needed a course change that pointed "down" from Neptune.
1
That's a load of nonsense. 10,000 successful satellite launches prove that whatever the "firmament" is, it's not a solid structure. NASA studies occasionally specify "these calculations assume Earth is stationary and flat". That does not mean NASA thinks Earth is flat. It means that they are using a simplified mathematical model for the study. Those same studies also talk about airplanes with no air friction and infinite fuel. Those don't exist either. NASA in Hebrew means to lift, or to support. We have known Earth is a sphere for 2500 years, long before Jesuits or masons existed. 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: there are no "gatekeepers to the truth", anyone can use simple tools to measure the shape of our planet.
1
@rich-yahuw420 I've actually read those studies, you obviously haven't. Every day you profit from services that can only be provided by spacecraft.
1
@rich-yahuw420 When Hilary Clinton talks about the "glass ceiling", she's talking about women attaining top positions in companies and the government. She's not talking about spaceflight. Anyone who has read not just the quote "glass ceiling" but the sentences around that quote can see this.
1
@rich-yahuw420 I'm sorry for your loss. The loss of your sanity, that is.
1
For more detail on what goes on at a DSN station, this 3-part series is very informative: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzRP1qdwPKw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rCrfQUcXDI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sP_hleOXTaU
1
don't be an asshole.
1
You're arguing from ignorance.
1
nah, that refers to Mimas.
1
IIRC the argument was that Voyager 1 would be the first to reach Jupiter.
1
here on Earth? No, they've long since been replaced. They're still running some of the original software in emulation, IIRC.
1
The evidence says otherwise.
1
No, that won't help. The Voyager transmitter has 2 fixed power levels: 12 and 18 W. The transmitter cannot be run with less power. It also doesn't have a battery to buffer energy.
1
It won't be operational for another 5+ months, but they have started taking images for mirror calibration this week.
1
Scientists: we plan for the worst and build in a lot of margin everywhere. The primary mission was 5 years, so the telescope has to last 5 years even if a lot goes wrong.
1
Yes.
1
It'll be really faint. That's part of the problem: it's at the edge of our detection capability.
1
Bill Nye has been practicing science and teaching science for decades. That makes him a scientist.
1
volcanoes worldwide in total produce about 240 million tons CO2 annually on average. Human industry and road traffic produce 20 billion tons per year.
1
@TRANNYBASHER it's pretty easy to measure this. Denying it based on no information at all makes no sense.
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. Every day, you benefit from data generated in space, proving space is real and Earth is not flat.
1
There were plans for silos (for Blue Streak, IIRC), at least one was built (and still exists) but the cost became a problem.
1
It means "divide the distance by 2.5", obviously.
1
@charlesspringer4709 Meh, multiplication and division are basically the same operation, just swapping the factor n for 1/n. Colloquially, it's clear to everyone what is meant by "2.5 times closer".
1
@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
Yo re "convinced" based on no data at all.
1
Not really. New Horizons is not going to last longer than the Voyagers and was optimized for the Pluto encounter, not examining the heliosphere. There's a proposal from APL for an interstellar mission, their focus is on making it a lot faster than the Voyagers.
1
The ISS is at 1 bar (14.7 psi) with a normal air composition. The suit has to be at a much lower pressure because the higher the suit pressure, the more resistance it has to bending. So they tend to go as low as possible, which means using close to 100% oxygen. Using pure oxygen also makes the backpack much simpler and lighter: you con't have to carry nitrogen tanks and a mixing system.
1
Apollo was a fine vehicle for putting 2 men on the moon for a maximum of 3 days. Now we want to put more people on the moon and have them stay for months, which would require dozens of Saturn Vs per mission.
1
Space is empty. Really empty.
1
Incorrect. Armstrong did go to the moon.
1
@terencehurst8636 We have a ton of evidence, including from independent third parties, that proves the Apollo landings are real. We have no evidence at all that says the landings were faked.
1
@DonnieDarko727 all of the footage of every Apollo mission remains available today. ONE recording was lost, of the Apollo 11 EVA. We have other recordings of that same broadcast, the lost recording was of slightly better quality as it missed one conversion step. The only perpendicular shadows are cast by perpendicular objects.
1
@DonnieDarko727 Sibrel's claims that the astronauts were faking being halfway to the moon have been thoroughly debunked by Dave McKeegan (see his recent video). As usual, Sibrel was lying when he made that claim.
1
@DonnieDarko727 Evidence that shows the Apollo landings are real includes: - the photos and videos made by the Apollo crews. They show an environment we can't replicate on Earth.The lighting shows these photos and videos were not recorded in a studio: there is one light source very far away. The videos show they are operating in 1/6 g, which we cannot replicate at all on Earth, and in a vacuum, which would require recording in a vacuum chamber, and we already know from the lighting they are not indoors. - 382 kg of lunar rock samples that have been examined by thousands of geologists all over the world. They found that the structure of those samples is different from anything found on Earth. - eyewitness reports from people who observed the Apollo spacecraft to its way to the moon, and from people who received radio comms from the spacecraft again from the moon - lunar orbiters from 4 different countries have photographed the Apollo landing sites and saw they were exactly as described in the Apollo data - the Apollo missions left laser reflectors behind, which anyone with a decent laser can still use today. Meanwhile, there is no evidence that the landings were faked. None. All you have is arguments that rely on you not finding the holes in those arguments (as I did with your claims).
1
@bargeman100 No. Pettit said (in 2010) that NASA had lost the technology to get to the moon. He was right and wrong at the same time. 1. right: in 2010, NASA did not have a spacecraft in production that could get to the moon. The only manned spacecraft in use, the Space Shuttle could not carry enough fuel to do a translunar injection burn. 2. wrong: that does not mean NASA lost the knowledge of how to build such a spacecraft. That knowledge has been retained and tons of information is available in public archives.
1
@bargeman100 Ah, so you fell for all of the lunatic conspiracy theories, and not just one of them.
1
Hyatt is a charlatan. The evidence proves him wrong.
1
We'd have noticed if physics were different.
1
That's incorrect. The Voyagers have no batteries, so there's no low-powered mode they can use. The 'once every 24 hours' is correct, but that comms session lasts 8 hours. During that transmission, they're relaying live sensor data - this data can't be stored on board any more.
1
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
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
Amateur astronomers have taken pictures of JWST, so it's certainly doable for Hubble. But at a distance of 1.5 million km, it won't resolve much detail.
1
There is no reason to doubt the reality of the Apollo landings. There is abundant evidence that shows the Apollo landings are real.
1
JWST won't be in Earth's shadow, it'll orbit L2 at 800,000 km radius so it's in sunlight. +83 is the right temperature.
1
@RandyJames22 Not really. The trajectory design was determined entirely by the position of the 4 gas giants, and the flybys the team wanted to do (Voyager 1 visited Titan at Saturn, which meant its trajectory would go upwards out of the ecliptic plane, voyager 2 visited Triton at Neptune, aiming its trajectory downwards).
1
@effyelvira we're spending billions every year on fixing hunger, pollution and the climate problem. We can afford to spend some money on discovering more about the universe.
1
Everyone knows the real score is Apollo 6 - Artemis 0.
1
That complexity will be required if we want to go to Mars or any other destination in the solar system.
1
Because those technological advances did not lead to cheaper spaceflight.
1
Watch the first 30 minutes today, and the rest tomorrow. You'll be glad you did.
1
No. The resolution of this image is 1000 times better than what JWST can achieve.
1
So does Titan. On the other hand, Mercury doesn't. Using "does it have an atmosphere" to separate planets from non-planets introduces new problems.
1
@Mark-Stone "Man/woman is complicated" is an objective scientific fact. Chromosomes: in addition to XX and XY there's a whole range of combinations that occur in nature. Some women have cells with XY and other cells with XX. Genitalia: all kinds of in-between shapes are possible. Then there's the mental issues (gender dysphoria). Reducing all this to a social issue is a reductio ad absurdum.
1
No. They were launched at a high enough speed to escape from the solar system, so they'll keep going.
1
You're incorrect. The current model of the formation of the solar system has the planets moving around quite a bit. The channels you're recommending are all pseudoscience channels, they peddle ideas we already know are incorrect. The electric universe idea, for instance, has been disproven.
1
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
@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
@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
@5-Minutegeography 5. No. All we have is bullshit claims by people who argue from ignorance. None of their claims hold up.
1
@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
@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
@5-Minutegeography 7. Every argument made by the deniers is based on ignorance.
1
@5-Minutegeography Yes, books full of nonsense and halfbaked 'arguments' that themselves have been debunked using actual science.
1
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
How can anyone believe it was faked?
1
Galaxies are very large compared to Pluto. A galaxy one billion lightyears away takes up a larger patch of sky than Pluto.
1
That video is a load of crap, made by a charlatan who makes money from selling books on the "moon hoax".
1
There's tons of evidence that the moon landings are real, and no evidence that they're faked. Sane people follow the evidence.
1
@kalliste23 Evidence is not koolaid. You believe in fairytales.
1
@kalliste23 Nope. There are a lot of claims of fakery in the moon shots, but none of those claims stand up to scrutiny.
1
That's not what the change in definition was about though. Nobody's saying dwarf planets are dead rocks.
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
We don't need to be outside the Mikly Way to create an accurate picture of what it looks like. We've measured the position of a billion stars. Plot those, and the familiar shape shows up. Before that, radio telescopes plotted the position of hydrogen clouds, that gave us our first image of the Milky Way. So: not speculation, but hard data.
1
We don't have one.
1
You're mixing up JWST and NGR. JWST would overheat when looking at Earth, NGR uses a mirror donated by the NRO which has stipulated that it must not be used to image Earth.
1
That's not possible. The Voyagers are moving away from us at a speed of about 20 km/s. They have fuel to change that by a few meters/s, far too little to cancel out that huge speed.
1
@mukuldave7767 In the region where the Voyagers are now, there are no large planets. You'd need a very large planet (larger than Jupiter) to change Voyager's course back into the inner solar system. A small planet doesn't have enough gravity for a large course change.
1
They swapped them at the last moment because problems were found in what ended up as Voyager 1. The numbering reflected which spacecraft arrived at Jupiter first.
1
The moon is a bit lighter than Earth on average, but well within the range you expect for a solid object.
1
That's a load of nonsense. 10,00 successful satellite launches prove that space is real. The ISS is visible from the ground. The only madness is believing space is fake.
1
@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
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
@allanb52 Published in science journals, and still available in NASA's technical document library.
1
No, accounting for redshift you get into the infrared region.
1
Space is really empty. So we can move fragile structures in space without damaging them.
1
There's no point in doing that. Using a single 34-m antenna, we can keep in contact until 2050 (Voyager 1) and 2057 (Voyager 2), if their power supply would last that long. NASA also have the option to receive data with an array of antennas, which could stretch this even further. The Voyager missions will end when there's not enough power left to operate one instrument. Not because we can't communicate with them.
1
@stevemorgan4715 To do what? They'll be in the middle of nowhere.
1
@stevemorgan4715 Those stations would have to orbit the Sun, which means they don't line up with each other most of the time. Orbital mechanics really works against you in this case.
1
Earth is hit by about 5200 tons of debris every year. With the difference in size between Earth and JWST, you can calculate JWST will be hit by nanograms of debris every year.
1
Orion was designed for a different mission than what it's being used for now, and was not modified to have enough d-V. Apollo did not have that problem.
1
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
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
Why would he cover fiction?
1
It's pretty easy to measure the 3D position of a series of points on Earth's surface. Surveyors do this every day. And when we do this, we always find the surface is curved, not flat. Water is curved too. Look at a ship going over the horizon: when it reaches a distance of 5 km, it starts to be hidden from the bottom up. This is caused by the curvature of the water. Water curves on any scale. The force that causes this to happen is gravity. That means: on Earth's it's difficult to show this on a small scale, because the gravitational field of the planet is much stronger than the field of any small object. We can do the experiment in orbit, and we find that water sticks to even small objects.
1
@gstynchula You have been misled. Once a ship has gone over the horizon, no amount of zooming in will bring it back into view. Every video that claims to show this, actually zooms in on small boats in front of the horizon. Perspective does not make things disappear from the bottom up. It only makes faraway objects look smaller, it does not change which parts of the object are visible.
1
No, they didn't.
1
Yes.
1
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
According to the accident investigation, the Arecibo structure failed because the cable ends were terminated incorrectly. They were embedded in zinc, and over time the cable strands pulled out of that zinc jacket.
1
Solid rocket motors contain both fuel and oxidiser. You can run them in a vacuum, or under water.
1
this video does not show details smaller than 500 meters. No missile is that large. All we have is one frame showing a cloud that's 1-2 km wide.
1
it's +83, the slide is incorrect.
1
No, space does not violate any laws of physics. The second law of thermodynamics says that heat always flows from hot places to colder places. Look up tonight: you can see satellites in space, proving that space is real.
1
@spakeface9752 Yes, Earth is obviously an open system: heat comes in from the Sun, and heat is lost to space through IR radiation.
1
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
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
@stanleyhampton7185 Again, you misunderstand. from 1958 to 1962 we measured the van Allen belts and the space above it with a series of satellite missions. This gave us a radiation map. These are the results: 1. the radiation levels in the belts are higher than above them. 2. the level in the belts gradually increases as you get closer to the center of the belts. At the center of the inner belt, the radiation level is 4 orders of magnitude higher than outside. 3. At the center of the inner belt, the radiation level is high enough that a human gets a lethal dose in 7 days. 4. Above the belts, the radiation level is high enough that a human gets a lethal dose in 2 years. But the radiation level varies: in a solar flare or CME, the radiation level gets a lot higher. The Apollo missions were not built to protect the crew against the levels seen in a CME. The Apollo CM, with its pressure hull and heat shield, provided incidental radiation shielding. The Apollo missions spent no more than 3 hours in the belts. The radiation exposure of the astronauts during an Apollo mission was on the order of 1 Rad, and most of that was from the time they spent above the belts. For Artemis, the radiation levels in the belts still are not a problem. But the radiation levels above the belts will be a problem for long missions, and so will CMEs. THIS is what they are looking into.
1
@stanleyhampton7185 There are no contradictions. 1. You misunderstand the basics. Radiation dose = radiation intensity multiplied by exposure time. A 3-day mission has 1/10 the exposure time of a 30-day mission, so the crew gets 1/10 the dose. 2. The problems they are solving now are problems they didn't have in the 1960s. a. Modern integrated circuits are a million times smaller than the transistors used in the 1960s, so they are a million times more susceptible to radiation damage. As ICs got smaller, we learned how to design ICs that can survive for a long time in high-radiation environments. These days, you can buy radiation-hardened electronics off the shelf. For Orion, these electronics were going to be used for a manned spacecraft for the first time, so they did their due diligence and tested this specific configuration. b. For Artemis, we're looking beyond the Moon. We want to go to Mars. And those missions are long enough that you want to have radiation shielding in place. So it's time to start developing that.
1
less than 1 kg.
1
Yes. Launch cost is in the region of $250M.
1
That is the opposite of a fact.
1
In 1900, Marconi was able to communicate across the Atlantic ocean using radio. Extending the range of a radio signal turns out to be pretty simple: you can increase transmitter power, you can increase the size of the antennas on either end, or you can make the receiver more sensitive. For Voyager, we use a huge antenna here on Earth, with a receiver cooled to 4 K to eliminate all noise coming from the receiver electronics. The range of a radio link is limited by simple physical principles. We can calculate the range of any radio system using a simple equation, and that equation tells me the radio system used for the Voyagers has enough range to receive signals at 200 AU distance. So, you don't "know" we don't have the technology, you assume based on not doing any research.
1
@zorrosuperme2356 I'm not an American. I am, however, capable of examining the evidence for projects like the moon landings and Voyager. And all of the evidence is clear: these projects are real. As an electronics engineer, I can verify what I've said in my previous post about calculating the range of a radio signal. I can create my own radio signals and measure their range, and see how this changes when I replace the antenna, for instance. Millions of others around the world can do this as well, and every time our results are the same: the radio range equation is correct, and works the way it's claimed to work. I am also capable of examining the arguments that are produced by those who claim the moon landings were faked. And every time I do that, I find that those arguments are full of holes.
1
@zorrosuperme2356 Moon landers have to use rockets to slow down and land on the moon. This is made easier by the low gravity of the moon, which means you need less fuel. Still it forces you to design the lander to be as light as possible. For Apollo, the spacecraft was split up: the command module and service module (which would return to Earth) stayed in lunar orbit, and only the LM landed on the moon. The LM was split into two modules: only the upper module launched from the moon into lunar orbit, where it met up with the command module so the astronauts could transfer into the command module. Then the LM was discarded. This design meant that the CM and SM (which were big and heavy) did not need to land on the moon, which made the moon lander a lot lighter.
1
the correct value is +83 ºC.
1
This video shows the launch pad sitting in the VAB, on pillars. The crawler is about to drive underneath it to pick it up. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdCs2wNGXJE
1
High-quality marques like Mercedes and BMW come pretty close to that standard.
1
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
That's incorrect. Complete TV recordings are available for every mission, in addition to all the film footage they took and thousands of photos. All easily accessible in public archives. What they threw away was engineering telemetry: readings off every sensor on the rocket and spacecraft. NASA filled 700,000 tapes during the Apollo missions. This information was vital during the missions, but became obsolete when the Apollo program ended. Then those telemetry tapes were reused for the Landsat program during a budget crunch in the 1980s.
1
Photos of Mercury are shown at the start of the video.
1
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
You should read up on how they arrived at that decision. Summary: we do know enough to be sure there's nothing biological in that sample container.
1
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
In theory, yes. We'd have to solve some problems first though: transferring PB of data over such long distances, and measuring the distance exactly enough for VLBI to work.
1
no. the Voyagers are too small to be visible at that distance.
1
Nope. Telescopes are passive instruments: they just collect incoming light. You can't detect/measure if someone is watching you with a telescope.
1
No. The long reverberation of moonquakes happens because the moon consists of solid rock, with no liquid mantle and no liquids embedded in the rock to dampen the vibrations.
1
@offgridamy717 This is what actual geologists working with the NASA data concluded. At no point has NASA claimed the moon is hollow.
1
The farther away from the sun you get, the less light you have (1/r^2). We can run spacecraft on solar panels as far out as Jupiter; beyond that, the panels would get so large the spacecraft would be too heavy to launch. So for outer solar system missions, we use radioisotope thermal generators instead: Pu-238 decays and produces heat, Peltier elements convert this to electricity. Pu-238 has a half-life of 87.7 years, so the output of the RTG reduces a bit every year. The Voyagers started out with 470 W, they're at about half of that now.
1
The animation is accurate: JWST is orbiting the Sun-Earth L2 point, not Earth itself.
1
@dickJohnsonpeter This video explains it well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybn8-_QV8Tg
1
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
@CtrlAltDelicious1 Incorrect. Bart Sibrel lied when he claimed that footage was taken in Earth orbit. In fact, it was filmed 10 hours after launch, with the spacecraft 50,000 km from Earth.
1
The electronics are kept warm by heaters.
1
Observations of various solar system objects are planned for the first year of operation. They're still commissioning the telescope at the moment, so they're imaging targets that are useful for that purpose.
1
@deocyasol9406 We've already looked at every object in the solar system that possibly could have supported life at some point. They're all dead worlds now. The only remaining options are moons with an ocean under thick ice (Europa, Enceladus), and we need dedicated missions to go there to look in more detail than we can do from far away.
1
for raw images that's correct. But they can rotate the telescope a tiny amount, then take another picture to fill the gaps.
1
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
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
@dariousmoiras2476 No. When you measure the speed and altitude of a visible satellite, you'll find an altitude of more than 200 km (4 times higher than any balloon) and a speed of 8 km/s (100 times higher than any balloon can reach). A satellite orbits Earth in 90 minutes to 24 hours, a balloon takes several weeks. High-altitude balloons have a severely limited life: they fail after no more than 4 weeks. So you'd have to keep launching balloons to replace the failures.
1
the minus sign was a typo, the value is +83 ºC.
1
@notsoserious0944 Think about it: the spacecraft is at almost the same distance to the sun as we are. Without an atmosphere, it'll receive more sunlight than we do. So its temperature will be a bit higher than ours.
1
JWST continues to operate normally.
1
@user-kz4ke8mg4r No, they don't.
1
Your sense of humor needs repairing.
1
@hannesswart4827 No, for surface targets the range is around 30 miles, depending on how tall the two ships are. To get a range of 100 miles, you need an airborne radar.
1
@hannesswart4827 Moon light isn't 'cold'. Videos that claim to show that, actually show something else. At night, the ground, and objects on the ground, cool down. Objects in shadow cool down slower than object that not in shadow: unshaded objects can radiate more heat away. That is the temperature difference you measure. This can be easily proven: the same difference between shaded and unshaded objects happens when the moon is below the horizon.
1
@hannesswart4827 That is what I said.
1
@hannesswart4827 'it can't happen" is a result of you not understanding the physics involved. Those speeds are meaningless; the only important factor in the orbits of the moon and Earth are the forces involved: the gravitational forces between the bodies. Those are balanced with the orbital speed of each body, leading to stable orbits.
1
@hannesswart4827 The basketball's shadow is smaller than the ball itself.
1
yes, +83 is correct.
1
No. It'll take tens of thousands of years before they get anywhere near another star, and even then they'll pass that star at a distance of more than 1 lightyear. The Voyagers will run out of electrical power in the next 5 years. They won't be able to send anything after that.
1
They keep working on this because that's what the US government has ordered them to do. Artemis is not non-viable, it's just not the most efficient way of doing things.
1
can't do that, that would expose the instruments to the Sun and overheat them. NASA occasionally does a life feed showing Earth from the ISS. Worth watching.
1
@marcusaquarius1585 The astronauts adjusted the exposure time to get their main subject (Moon surface, astronaut activities) well-lit, which means the stars don't show up. You can try this for yourself if you have a camera with manual settings: take a photo during the day, with exposure time and diaphragm set appropriately. Use the same settings to take a photo of the night sky. No stars will show up, because the exposure is far too short. There are photos of Earth taken from the Moon surface, but most of the Apollo photos (and video) that show Earth were taken from lunar orbit.
1
@davidstanley6243 Simple observations anyone can do prove that Earth is a spinning globe. We can measure the surface directly, and find that it is curved, not flat. A Foucault pendulum proves that Earth rotates. Simple observations anyone can do prove that the sun is not local. Observe the sun at zenith and near sundown. Measure the apparent size: you will find that they are the same. If the sun were small and local, the 10,000 km it moves between zenith and sundown would make it appear smaller at sundown.
1
@davidstanley6243 When you stand on a set of railroad tracks, it appears as if they get closer together in the distance. THAT is perspective: faraway objects appear smaller. The sun does not do this: the apparent size of the sun does not change between zenith and sunset, which means the distance to the sun is much greater than the change in distance between zenith and sunset (which is about 10,000 km). When the sun sets, it again does not get smaller and smaller. The bottom of the sun gets blocked from your view by the horizon. If the sunset were due to perspective, we'd be able to watch the sun set, then after sunset, aim a telescope at the place where the sun set and bring the sun back into view. In reality, we can't do that, proving that sunsets are not due to perspective.
1
These rockets weren't accurate enough to hit an incoming missile. Using a nuclear warhead, they could disable incoming missiles just by getting in the general vicinity.
1
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
There have been some experiments with the Russian Spektr-R space-based radio telescope. The fact that the distance between it and a groundbased telescope keeps changing makes this more difficult to do.
1
Yes.
1
This volcano has erupted 5 times in the last 10 years, and it was active in the days before the explosion.
1
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
@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
Yes.
1
We have photos of stars orbiting an object that's mostly invisible. From those orbits we can calculate how much mass there must be: 4 million solar masses in a tiny amount of space. The only theory that can explain those observations is a black hole. Now we've imaged that invisible object, and our observations match the theory. That means black holes are real, not theoretical, not imaginary. Welcome to science.
1
@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
@123davepreston So you're going to just ignore the measurements that show the astronauts fit through the hatch?
1
@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
When you have 3 points of a planet's orbit, you can calculate its orbit. Depending on the accuracy of your data and the distance of the object, this can be done quickly: we've done this in less than a week for some of Saturn's moons. For Pluto, it took 1 year.
1
Ah, the "I don't understand geometry" argument.
1
The first camera has been started up already, they are using it to position the mirrors. Science observations will start in June.
1
They use whatever material has the best properties for the application. For the mirrors, that turned out to be beryllium. Other components use alloys, polymers etc. where appropriate.
1
The first science observations will start in 6 months. Before that, we may see a few calibration images. Images will become available to the public a few days after they are made.
1
Part of this video was made 3 years ago when the first black hole photo was published by this same team.
1
It's pointless to aim JWST at Earth: Earth's atmosphere absorbs the infrared wavelengths that JWST observes at. So you get a view of the water vapor in the atmosphere, like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0dIpgqPOcw
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 anywhere on the lander.
1
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
False. We have lots of observations of new craters being formed (this regularly happens on the Moon, for instance). We have a physics model that shows how impact craters are formed. We track hundreds of thousands of asteroids that can impact any planetary body. Apart from volcanism, we don't have a physics model that provides any other explanation for crater formation.
1
@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
The temperature of the moon is ignored in this video because it's irrelevant to the discussion of this underwater training. Your talk of an "air conditioner" reveals your lack of knowledge. Clearly you have not spent even the least time studying how they did this. Temperature management on the moon begins with the color of the suit: it's white, which means about 90% of the incoming sunlight is reflected. Underneath the outer layer there are insulation layers which reduce heat transfer into the suit even further. The PLSS contains a cooling system. This is not terrestrial air conditioning with a compressor and a fluid that changes phase. Instead, the water that's circulated in the suit is fed through a radiator in a closed loop. The outside of the radiator is exposed to vacuum. Water is sprayed onto the radiator. This freezes first, then sublimates. This removes thermal energy from the radiator. The gaseous water is vented to outside. So, when we dig deeper, we find no lies, we find a thorough explanation of how they handled this, and we can calculate from first principles that the approach they took was valid.
1
When Youtube's automatic anti-spam system sees you are posting a link, or are posting the same text more than once, it deletes your post and bans you from posting for a day, usually without informing you. It happens to everyone. The only thing you can do is wait a day and try again.
1
You're comparing apples and oranges. For the heliosphere, the Voyagers were the first to give us measurements at all. For our climate we don't have that problem: we have enormous amounts of data going back centuries, and we can reconstruct more data from indirect sources going back millions of years. There was a time when our climate models weren't very good: back in the 1960 when this science was in its infancy. These days, the models are accurate, and consistently make correct predictions.
1
The title is incorrect. Hubble wasn't the first space telescope. About 35 space telescopes were launched before Hubble. The first was a Russian project called Proton-1, which was launched in 1965. The first visible-light telescope was ESA's Hipparcos, in 1989.
1
After the Voyagers, NASA switched to missions that would examine one planet in detail. Galileo, Juno and Cassini were built to answer questions raised by the Voyager data. These are expensive missions, so we can't do very many of them.
1
No, that's not what we are saying at all. We know exactly how Apollo got to the moon. But Artemis is not intended to be a repeat of Apollo. They want to put larger crews on the moon for months, which requires a lot more mass to be transported to the moon than what an Apollo LM could ever handle.
1
@TheJudyStroyer All over YT you can find videos of satellites passing overhead. ISS, Starlink trains etc.
1
Rockets travel at a few km/s. Light and radio waves travel at 300,000 km/s. Can you see the difference?
1
Same as on Earth: dirt doesn't stick as well on smooth surfaces.
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. 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
That's nonsense.
1
By then the power supply will be dead, so they won't measure anything.
1
it's +83.
1
 @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
during Apollo, NASA got about 8 times more money than they get now.
1
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
@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
@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
@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
@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
no. Those are limited to low Earth orbit.
1
We know it's not flat, because it's pretty easy to measure Earth's surface. And every time we do that, we find curvature.
1
Incorrect. Black holes don't exert an infinite force on the objects around them. Just like Earth can stay in orbit around the Sun for billlions of years, stars can orbit a black hole indefinitely.
1
JWST will "find life" by detecting the spectroscopic signature of a molecule that is produced by life. Every day, JWST is looking at planets and making those spectrograms.
1
False. Anyone can buy high-resolution, recent satellite images from companies like Maxar and Satellite Imaging Corp. Old pictures in Google Earth are a Google problem, not a government problem.
1
That's a small eruption before the main one. Remember, these are photos taken 10 minutes apart.
1
Classification (=dividing things into categories) has always been part of science, because it makes it easier to have a discussion when everybody uses the same classification. When Galileo saw Jupiter and understood that it was a planet like ours, the solar system had two classes: anything in orbit around the Sun is a planet, anything in orbit around a planet is a moon. Then we started to discover asteroids, starting with the largest: Ceres. This was initially considered a planet. Then we discovered hundreds of smaller objects in similar orbits, and astronomers added a new class: asteroids. Ceres was moved from the Planet class to the Asteroid class. Then we discovered Pluto. Seemed to be alone in its region, so it was considered a planet. Then we discovered hundreds of smaller objects in similar orbits, and astronomers added a new class: dwarf planets. Pluto was moved from the Planet class to the Dwarf Planet class. The more objects you have, the more classes it becomes useful to divide them into. This is done everywhere in science. What most people call mosquitoes, biologists divide into several hundred species. Etc. In this case, a scientific classification has entered the public consciousness and people are flipping out because they have an emotional attachment to Pluto.
1
The retirement of engineers was a problem, but I've seen no indication that documentation was lost.
1
There is no 'inner space'. Outer space is anything outside our atmosphere.
1
@Bolsa1971 The edge of space is generally considered to be an altitude of 100 km. At that altitude, there's so little air, an aircraft would have to fly at orbital speed to stay up. All satellites are above that: they rely on there being no atmosphere: in order to orbit Earth, you have to fly at 28,000 km/h. Without drag from the atmosphere, you can use a rocket to accelerate to that speed once and then coast for years. Those clips saying we can't get past the atmosphere are incorrect.
1
The electric universe is a hypothesis not supported by mathematical models. Every experiment we did to test this hypothesis failed. So the hypothesis has been disproven: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9q-v4lBGuw
1
By aiming the telescopes, duh.
1
@tylerharrison8588 Yes. All telescopes do this. Even for amateur telescopes you can get a motorized mount that will keep your target in sight.
1
@sundhaug92 Vanguard's first stage was derived from the V-2 though.
1
Yes, occasionally, mostly during the planetary encounters. The environment around Earth is worse than outer space because we've generated a lot of space debris in Earth orbit (satellites exploding or colliding).
1
It's not difficult to design a trajectory that is guaranteed to miss the asteroid if the spacecraft runs out of fuel.
1
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
Nope, no lines are visible in ANY of the Apollo footage. The Apollo videos show perfect 1/6 g gravity. Even individual grains of dust behave exactly as they should in 1/6 g and a vacuum. If the astronauts were on lines, the dust would be falling at 1 g instead of 1/6 g.
1
@Dziaji Wrong again. The footage is not slowed down, as is obvious from looking at how the astronauts move.
1
We could stay in contact with them to a distance of about 200 AU.
1
It doesn't have enough speed to leave our galaxy, so it'll keep orbiting the center of our galaxy.
1
Don't be ridiculous. There's no way to create data that will convince future scientists without doing the actual work you say you're doing. So that money was spent on actual R&D.
1
All of the evidence says the Apollo landings are real. People who believe the landings are faked do so based on no evidence at all.
1
"But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only."
1
Props are more efficient but limited to lower speeds (and noisier). So for passenger aircraft, turbofans are popular (faster), for air freight speed matters less.
1
Apollo used 100% oxygen at 1.3 bar during the Apollo 1 test. So ppO2 was a lot higher, which led to the fire.
1
@bdennyw1 That would have required adding a nitrogen system to the SM, making it more complex and heavier, or running extra plumbing to supply that from the ground. The whole point of going with a 100% oxygen system is to simplify the SM and make it lighter.
1
There is no deception. Spaceflight is real. It's easy to verify this through many different means. We have multiple independent confirmations of the reality of the Apollo lunar landings as well.
1
The magnetic fields of the planets are not strong enough to do that.
1
Yes. We'd have to solve some problems first though: transferring PB of data over such long distances, and measuring the distance exactly enough for VLBI to work.
1
@olasek7972 Movement can be accommodated: we just need to measure the distance between the telescopes accurately.
1
this eruption is too small to affect our climate.
1
The first photo of the far side of the moon was made by Luna 3 in 1959. Since then photos of the far side have been made by the Lunar Orbiter series, the Apollo missions, the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, Chandrayaan-2 and several Chinese lunar spacecraft.
1
In 1976, someone retranslated a Sumerian text and claimed it talks about an unknown planet. Charlatans then claimed this planet (Nibiru) would destroy Earth in 2012 (coinciding with the end of one period in the Mayan calendar). When that didn't happen (and indeed, no new planet was visible in the night sky), charlatans moved on to the next bit of nonsense. We have found actual planets much further out than this hypothetical one. Sedna has a 10,000 year orbit. So we know Nibiru doesn't exist, and any claims about a "planet 9" that will destroy us can be dismissed. There is no "second sun" either.
1
In 1976, someone retranslated a Sumerian text and claimed it talks about an unknown planet. Charlatans then claimed this planet (Nibiru) would destroy Earth in 2012 (coinciding with the end of one period in the Mayan calendar). When that didn't happen (and indeed, no new planet was visible in the night sky), charlatans moved on to the next bit of nonsense. We have found actual planets much further out than this hypothetical one. Sedna has a 10,000 year orbit. So we know Nibiru doesn't exist, and any claims about a "planet 9" that will destroy us can be dismissed.
1
nobody outside Europe with enough disposable income to build large telescopes, maybe?
1
They numbered them that way because Voyager 1 would be the first to arrive at Jupiter.
1
JWST can tilt to +5º and -40º on its vertical axis. So its field of view is a cylinder with its axis along the Earth-L2 axis. In 6 months, that cylinder sweeps across the entire sky
1
@Ignat99Ignatov Russia and China have been the biggest contributors to space debris, by doing antisatellite missile testing.
1
With the DSN antennas we have now, we could stay in touch with the Voyagers until 2057. Their power supplies will run out long before that.
1
SLS was designed to do that, and pretty soon we'll have Starship too.
1
Yes. Well, we'd need radio telescopes, not JWST-type infrared ones.
1
Sensors often give us more information than a camera.
1
Planets don't emit much mm wave radio, so we wouldn't see much.
1
@WSCLATER MESSENGER made high-resolution photos (down to 20 meters/px) of the entire surface of Mercury, taking about 1 million photos to do so. This video does a bad job of showing off all that data.
1
We already have spacecraft orbiting the moon that have mapped the entire surface including the far side. Luna 2 was the first to take photos of the far side, in 1959 IIRC. Since then, Lunar Orbiter and Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter have done full maps. Chandrayaan-2 and Chang'e 2 are on mapping missions now.
1
@robertnorman4306 All of the photos I mentioned are available in public archives. They all show the same thing: the far side of the moon is similar to the near side, the only difference is there are more craters and fewer maria. There is no "cover up".
1
@mkpinganYT Radio waves, actually.
1
The original image is in radio wavelengths. It contains brightness information only, so you could show it as a black and white image. Red seems to work better than B&W for our eyes, so that's what we commonly use.
1
only in the sense that they are longer wavelengths than visible red light. From Wikipedia: "IR is generally understood to encompass wavelengths from around 1 millimeter (300 GHz) to the nominal red edge of the visible spectrum, around 700 nanometers". This excludes radio. The EHT works at 260 GHz.
1
You're arguing from ignorance. We didn't lose the technology, we do remember how to get people to the moon. We just stopped producing Apollo hardware in the 1970s so we don't have a rocket ready to go. Now that we want to go back, we don't want to reuse a 50 year-old design so we're spending a few years designing a modern rocket and lander.
1
@BaronUnderbite No, that's not what happened. By 1970, the US Government was cutting NASA funding, from its height at 5% of the Federal budget to below 1%. The goal of the Space Race (beating the Russians to the moon) was achieved, and the US was unwilling to keep spending money at that rate. So NASA could not afford to keep up a manned lunar program. It pivoted its manned space program to something more affordable: learning how to live in space for long periods, using the ISS and Space Shuttle. Even the Space Shuttle was underfunded, and this meant that the promise of a cheap reusable rocket was not realized, because essential parts of that system were cancelled in favor of cheaper-to-develop, but more expensive to use hardware. Despite the occasional Presidential speech of wanting to go back to the moon, NASA funding remained flat at a level that could not sustain the Shuttle, the ISS plus a manned lunar program at the same time. When the Shuttle program ended in 2010, funds became available for the first time to return to the moon. Then there was some political wrangling about which rocket to use for that. Once that was sorted out. Artemis was started, and we've just seen its first flight.
1
this video does not show details smaller than 500 meters. No missile is that large. All we have is one frame showing a cloud that's 1-2 km wide.
1
The motor/generators used in pumped storage power stations are worth a bit more than one sentence, I think. The largest are 500 MW, with 300 MW being a common size.
1
Yes, it should be possible. An amateur astronomer took this video about 5 days after launch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PM_ywxQ8OQ
1
and yet you're commenting on this video.
1
The net effect will be that this year's average temperature is lowered by 0.011 ºC.
1
it's a major step forward from the previous IR telescopes. - active cooling to 6K instead of relying on a vat of liquid helium that slowly evaporates. Traditionally cryocoolers are mechanical systems so they vibrate, JWST's cryocooler has to prevent vibrations to the telescope - mirrors in a new material that makes them more accurate than ever before - microshutters that work at 6K - electronics that work at 6K - folding telescope structure that still ends up with accurate mirror positions - first segmented mirror in space - better detectors than ever before
1
@anirudhanand6253 The problem with the shape of Hubble's mirror had nothing to do with Metric/imperial. They had assembled the instrument that checked the mirror shape incorrectly.
1
@anirudhanand6253 Are you referring to the resolution of the instruments? Qualifying electronics for space takes several years, due to the radiation environment these have to work in. Add the requirement for cooling to 6K. No wonder the resolution is lower than your phone camera.
1
@anirudhanand6253 No. This is straight from NASA's report of the investigation into the problem: the optics in the null corrector had to be placed at the correct distance from each other. A rod was precisely ground to the correct length, and a field cap was placed on the end of the rod. This field cap had a non-reflective coating over a reflective metal surface. Some of this coating flaked off, causing the null corrector to measure the wrong distance. Metric-imperial errors are not the cause of this problem.
1
@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
@tmo4330 That is incorrect. 9 crews have left Earth orbit entirely to go to the moon.
1
@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
it isn't. Space is very empty, so the chance of serious damage is tiny.
1
it's +83. Actually a bit higher than that: NASA says the hot side of the sunshield will bet at +110 ºC.
1
That's not what "you can't prove a negative" means. That refers to e.g. the existence of something. We can't prove ghosts don't exist. It's perfectly possible to demonstrate that something doesn't work. In this case, a test firing of the SRB in cold weather would have demonstrated the problem. A simple pressure test with the O-ring in a test rig would have demonstrated the problem.
1
@Factchekka Yes, in those conditions you'd get a sunset. You'd still be able to differentiate between that and a sunset on a spherical world: on a spherical world, you can climb to high altitude and get a later sunset, on a flat world that wouldn't work nearly so well.
1
no. It'll cause a tiny temperature drop this year, but nothing significant in the longer term.
1
That is incorrect. Apophis has no chance of impacting Earth in the next 100 years.
1
No, that is not a reason. The radiation levels in the van Allen belts are low enough that humans can safely travel through them. The only problem is that electronics have to be radiation-hardened, and after launching hundreds of missions (mainly geostationary satellites) through the belts, we've gotten very good at that.
1
All calibration images will be published at the end of the commissioning process.
1
False. We can see just fine out there.
1
There's tons of evidence that supports the moon landings being real, and no evidence that supports the idea the moon landings were fake. All of the so-called arguments the moon hoaxers come up with fall apart with even a cursory examination. Apollo Detectives was made by people who don't understand basic physics.
1
They spent a lot of time and effort, and several missions, going from a first lander that was destroyed during descent to several landers that landed intact, and worked for up to 90 minutes before failure.
1
For JWST's planned observations, it doesn't matter. There are only a few satellites that have to be out of the ecliptic plane, to observer the Sun's poles for instance.
1
Radar antennae predate both. The first radio telescopes were repurposed radar antennae.
1
We did, and we landed 6 manned missions.
1
The helmet had a flange that was locked inside a ring. The pressure inside the suit pushes the helmet against a seal. This means the helmet can be closed easily when the suit isn't pressurized, while providing a good seal. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htrwFqO8BKM
1
@subramaniamchandrasekar1397 You're confusing two things. 1. working with a vacuum on Earth. You have a container at low pressure inside our atmosphere at 1 bar. The pressure inside is lower than outside. The container has to withstand a compression load. 2. a space suit, which is a pressure vessel inside a vacuum, i.e. the pressure inside is higher than outside. The space suit is in tension: it tries to expand. Most materials are much stronger in tension than in compression. A soda can, for example, can hold a pressure of 5 bar. But if you draw a vacuum in that same soda can, it will buckle.
1
@subramaniamchandrasekar1397 You continue to confuse things. The Apollo space suit was pressurized to 0.25 bar, in an environment at 0 bar. For tests on Earth, the space suit would be pressurized to 0.25 bar above ambient pressure. The air in the suit was 100% oxygen.
1
@subramaniamchandrasekar1397 The tests at 1.25 bar were short enough not to cause health problems. In flight, the CM and LM all had 100% oxygen atmospheres, at pressure of about 0.25 bar, which does not pose a health risk. During launch preparations, the Apollo capsule contains normal air. After launch, vents allow the air to escape, and the environmental control system starts to supply oxygen.
1
@subramaniamchandrasekar1397 Your numbers for oxygen toxicity are off. The Lorrain-Smith-effect may occur at a partial oxygen pressure above 0.5 bar for more than about 24 hours. It is a lung toxicity. The Paul-Bert-effect may occur at a partial pressure above 1.6 bar for minutes to a few hours. It is a central nervous system toxicity. The time to onset of symptoms is highly variable but most individuals can tolerate 12-16 hours of oxygen at 1.0 ATA, 8-14 hours at 1.5 ATA, and 3-6 hours at 2.0 ATA before developing mild symptoms. or the Apollo astronauts the time when breathing pure oxygen at a pressure above 0.5 bar was limited to a few hours (2:10 for Apollo 11). Divers routinely prebreathe pure oxygen for several hours before a dive.
1
@subramaniamchandrasekar1397 SP-368 Biomedical Results of Apollo: a comprehensive validation program was instituted by NASA in cooperation with the National Academy of Sciences Working Group on Gaseous Environments. Both industrial and Department of Defense laboratories were used in the program. Data obtained from these studies indicated that exposure of man for 14 days to the 100 percent oxygen, 34 500 N/m2 (5 psia) atmosphere selected for the Gemini spacecraft would not impose any physiological problem (Morgan et al., 1965; Welch et al., 1965; Helvey et al., 1965; Mammen et al., 1965) NASA does not employ morons, so they tested this before deciding what atmosphere to use for the Apollo spacecraft and space suits.
1
@subramaniamchandrasekar1397 Most experiments with divers are carried out at much higher pressures than 1 bar. That's where things get dangerous.
1
@subramaniamchandrasekar1397 The "did they see stars" point is ridiculous. The confusion stems from the fact that the answer is different for each part of the mission, and they were not given enough time to explain fully.
1
@subramaniamchandrasekar1397 The space station weighs 400 tons. It would take far more fuel than we can currently launch to get it into a high orbit.
1
@subramaniamchandrasekar1397 You claim NASA is lying but you provide no evidence. No space denier ever does: all you have is half-baked arguments that fall apart when examined closely.
1
@subramaniamchandrasekar1397 NASA's tests on high-oxygen environments have been corroborated by scientists outside NASA. You just think your half-baked understanding qualifies you to call them liars, when it doesn't.
1
@subramaniamchandrasekar1397 I have examined the lunar landings thoroughly, and found no issues. The arguments of the deniers, on the other hand, always fall apart when you examine them. I'm fine with asking questions. That's not what you're doing though; you start from the assumption that the moon landings must be faked and you cherrypick data to fit your narrative. The oxygen issue is an example. Studies show that oxygen toxicity becomes a problem after about a day of exposure to oxygen at 100% and 1 bar. You claim these effects start much sooner than that, but offer no data for your claims.
1
@subramaniamchandrasekar1397 Armstrong told the audience that he landed on the moon.
1
@subramaniamchandrasekar1397 Yes, they died in a fire, not from oxygen toxicity.
1
Here's Neil Armstrong practicing in the SPF vacuum chamber: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDN0S4eJWYY In addition to spacesuit tests, they ran tests where the entire CSM with crew was put into a vacuum chamber for up to 14 days: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEv3dvKvc0I
1
@subramaniamchandrasekar1397 The difference between the best vacuum we can achieve on Earth and the vacuum of deep space is 0.00001 Pa. So if we want to test an Apollo space suit, we set the pressure inside the suit to 25000.00001 Pa instead of 25k, and the forces working on the suit will be identical to what it will encounter on the moon.
1
@subramaniamchandrasekar1397 No, testing the LM engines on Earth would not result in them achieving 1/6 the height. The LM weighs 15600 kg. The descent engine thrust is max. 4600 kgf, so it wouldn't get off the ground on Earth. The LM was designed to function in the 1/6 G gravity of the Moon, where the LM weighs 2600 kg (15600/6) and its engine has a T/W ratio of more than 1.
1
@subramaniamchandrasekar1397 I just looked up the lowest pressures achieved on Earth. The category of 'ultra-high vacuum' starts at 10E-7 Pa. The 'pressure' on the moon is 1 atom per cm3, which is about 10E-12 Pa, or 100,000 times lower. The difference in the force exerted on a spacesuit depends only on the difference in pressure. 10E-7 minus 10E-12 is 0.000 000 099 999. Again, this is a rounding error.
1
@subramaniamchandrasekar1397 And? The construction of a vacuum chamber is irrelevant to this discussion.
1
@subramaniamchandrasekar1397 The LM was tested, just not on Earth's surface. Apollo 9 tested the LM in Earth orbit. Apollo 10 tested the LM in lunar orbit. They got to within a few hundred meters of the surface, testing almost the entire descent and ascent profile, plus the inflight abort option.
1
@subramaniamchandrasekar1397 I'm saying you don't need to achieve a perfect vacuum to test a spacesuit. In fact, you can test a space suit without using a vacuum chamber at all. Pumping up the pressure inside the suit until it is 0.25 bar higher than outside the suit will put exactly the same forces on the suit that it will encounter in space. It's the difference between inside and outside that's important.
1
I don't think so. At that stage, the tsunami would be a tiny ripple. Shock waves show up better in the atmosphere.
1
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
None of this is correct. There is no way for any object to remain "hidden behind the sun" for more than a few days. Any star (dead or not) in a 26 ky orbit would have been seen by lots of amateur astronomers by now.
1
We do, with much higher resolution than this image.
1
I suspect we'll see a proposal for a refueling vehicle soon. It's not needed for another 10 years, so no need to develop it while JWST was under construction.
1
@powersww1reset Dave McKeegan has done a video on observing the ISS from the ground. Scott Manley has done a video on measuring the speed and latitude of satellites.
1
about 6 tons.
1
Neil stepping off the ladder was captured by TV and film cameras, we don't have a photo of that moment though.
1
JWST can't image Earth or the Moon, they would have to expose the cold side of the telescope to direct sunlight, which would overheat the telescope. Luckily we don't need JWST to get high-res images of the Moon. We have the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, which orbits the Moon at an altitude of less than 50 km. LRO images of Apollo landing sites: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pnhnx95LkCc
1
@guleria88 We have many telescopes in orbit, but only one has been used for interferometry: Spektr-R. And this used very low frequencies, which makes interferometry easier.
1
@lazarus2691 The radiation levels in the VA belts are lower than that. At the center, where the level is highest, it takes one week to get a lethal dose of radiation. The astronauts traversed the belts in 3 hours, while avoiding the center of the belts completely.
1
Those 'repeated attempts and failures' each provided a lesson to NASA and its contractors. Each failure resulted in improvements to the next rocket they launched. So all those failures led to rapid improvement in reliability. This is obvious from the launch statistics from the late 1950s to 1970. The number of failures dropped precipitously. NASA prepared for the Apollo missions with a ton of tests. Saturn V stages were tested on huge test stands before a rocket was assembled and flown. Then there were unmanned tests of the Saturn V and the Apollo spacecraft. They managed to do all this quickly because they were given a blank check and they could put 450,000 people to work to solve tons of problems in parallel.
1
The very first NASA satellites were designed to measure the radiation levels in space. So by 1962, we had a map of the van Allen belts. That data told us that humans can pass through the belts safely without needing any shielding beyond what was provided by the pressure hull of the CM. The research people are doing today is not about the VA belts. It's about the radiation in interplanetary space, and e.g. on the surface of the moon. Again, the levels here are low enough that humans can operate in them safely for short missions like the Apollo missions, but with Artemis we want to spend months on the moon, and 6 months is long enough for the radiation to become a concern. This is also why we can't use the Apollo tech. It was only good for short missions: 2 people on the moon for up to 3 days. Now we want to build a base on the moon, so larger crews can do 3-6 month long missions on the surface.
1
The moon landings are real.
1
They have only been 'manipulated' in the sense that an overlay has been added to make it easier to identify regions. The original images without overlay are also available and have been used in the video as well.
1
Right, people dead, explosion heard thousands of km away, shockwave measurable on the other side of the planet, must be fake. Think before you post.
1
it doesn't corrode them, it abrades them.
1
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
@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
@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
@FFE-js2zp Shadowbanning is what happens when you're trying to sell lies.
1
@FFE-js2zp You'll find that the actual percentage is a lot higher than that.
1
@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
@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
Not in the first year. No observations scheduled in the General Observer program, at least.
1
They're traveling away from us at a huge speed (~10 km/s). The Voyagers have a small amount of fuel on board, enough for minor corrections to the trajectory, but they'd need several hundred tons of fuel to cancel out that speed and start heading back. Getting that much fuel to their position would take dozens of Starship launches.
1
@theTruthLifeNWay Charlatans are trying to fool people by claiming the Apollo missions were faked. Despite all the evidence that proves them wrong, they are able to deceive people like you.
1
No. They're too dim to be seen by JWST. Radio telescopes can see the Voyagers.
1
We didn't lose the knowledge: all of the scientific and engineering principles remain well-known and easily found. What's lost is some of the practical experience of operating the Apollo spacecraft (why did we do X at time Y and not half an hour earlier), the kind of minutiae nobody thinks to document because it doesn't seem important enough. It's the problem any organization has when people move to a different job or retire: some institutional knowledge is lost, and it's not feasible to document everything to the extent you'd need to prevent that entirely.
1
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
@nanunanu83 How are you able to keep these flying? Spares must have become a real problem.
1
A nuclear bomb on a ballistic missile has to be detonated before it hits the water, the force of impact would destroy the bomb and make it impossible to detonate.
1
Yes, they are moons.
1
I can prove you wrong just by looking at the sky. I can see satellites pass overhead.
1
Astronomers all over the world can observe the asteroid and calculate its trajectory. NASA is not in a position to cover anything up.
1
@nightshadowblade Incorrect. As of 2021, we know for certain it won't hit any time in the next 100 years.
1
1. radiation. When you get out of LEO, there's more radiation. nothing lethal in the short term, but on a 6-month mission to Mars you have to deal with it. 2. higher reliability requirement. 3. longer mission = more payload needed for supplies.
1
Koyaanisqatsi.
1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEzcFXRKHUw
1
no, it's too small and dim for that.
1
These are geostationary satellites. At an altitude of 36000 km, they complete one orbit in 24 hours, so they appear stationary above Earth. This is convenient for e.g. meteorology: you can take images from the same position every few minutes and see weather patterns develop. These images gover the entire hemisphere.
1
There is no NASA document that proves a flat, stationary Earth. You have been misled. Emergency landings do not "prove" Earth is flat. That's a false claim made by a charlatan. His arguments have been disproven. Eric Dubay's "200 proofs" of a flat Earth have all been disproven. There are no astronauts that claim Earth is flat. In short, you fell for every single con in this area.
1
Incorrect. The pictures show a gaseous atmosphere that's blue. Uranus does not have a solid surface.
1
@ranger9706 If you and I are talking about the color of the sky, and you can look up to verify what I've said, there's no point in me trying to tell you that the sky is green: you can see for yourself if I'm telling the truth. Earth's shape is the same: all I need to check what people are saying about the shape of the world is a camera on a tripod, and a measuring stick. Nobody is in a position to lie about the shape of the world, because as I said, anyone can check for themselves.
1
A spy satellite is a satellite that's used by an intelligence agency to monitor enemy activity. This can be through imaging, but there are other methods as well (e.g. signals intelligence: monitoring radio communications). A spy satellite in low Earth orbit with a 2.4 m mirror has a resolution of about 0.3 m/pixel.
1
Then Pluto wouldn't be the 9th planet, but the 10th. Ceres becomes a planet too under that definition.
1
They aren't.
1
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
@EIWPmedia We believe that because we have evidence that proves this is true. We have a scientific model that explains how this works. Ww have no evidence that Earth's shape is anything other than a spheroid.
1
@EIWPmedia Up and down are determined by gravity: Down is always towards the center of the planet, up is in the opposite direction. So for someone on Antarctica, Down is the direction towards their feet, just as for someone standing at the North Pole, Down is the direction towards their feet.
1
most of the volcano is underwater, but there are 2 small islands on the edge. Too small to show up in these images.
1
They did that in 1989. Portrait of the solar system, Pale blue dot.
1
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
We've done some tests with such a satellite: Spektr-R. There are 2 issues to solve: 1. antenna size, and 2. transmitting huge amounts of data over such long distances.
1
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
The density of lunar rock varies between 2300 and 2900 kg/m3. Mascons cause satellite orbit perturbations over a period of months to years
1
Are you sure that that's not just the CCD saturating?
1
We can do that because we know exactly where the Voyagers are. If we didn't, we'd never find them again.
1
Cryogenic fuels boil off. JWST uses hydrazine, which is a liquid at room temperature, so there's no evaporation.
1
JWST does have solar panels. One thing you can't do with electricity alone is propel a spacecraft (which JWST has to to regularly). The mission length is limited by the amount of thruster propellant: they couldn't add more because of weight limitations. JWST has a refueling port. We don't have a spacecraft yet that can safely approach JWST without damaging the sunshield. 5 years was always the worst-cse scenario, 10 years the consevative estimate. At the moment, after a better-than-expected launch, we're looking at a 20-year mission.
1
@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
The Voyagers were not used to map the sky. Their cameras are not well-suited for observation of such faint objects. We have much better telescopes here on Earth.
1
It's probably going to take a look, but yeah, it won't see this level of detail.
1
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
You have been listening to charlatans.
1
this video does not show details smaller than 500 meters. No missile is that large. All we have is one frame showing a cloud that's 1-2 km wide. Also, the photos are taken at 10-minute intervals.
1
No.
1
Black holes are firmly part of science, not pseudoscience. They are an inevitable result of physical laws we know apply elsewhere. The theory that describes black holes makes predictions we have tested and verified. We can observe stars near Sagittarius A* orbit an invisible object. etc.
1
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
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
No, he's pronouncing it correctly. The original name is Ou-ranos.
1
Jesus voluntarily gave himself up to be killed. That was the only way to pay the price for all our sins.
1
@abdelhadi8533 He was both. Jesus was divine, and human. God is holy, and no human on his own is good enough to approach Him. Our sins prevent that. Jesus paid the price for our sins and made it possible for us to approach Him. And after He paid the price, He showed His divinity by conquering death.
1
Yes, we really went to the moon in 1969. Tons of evidence prove this beyond doubt. Then NASA ran 6 more manned missions to the moon, 5 of which landed. We haven't been back since because Apollo was incredibly expensive, and nobody was willing to spend that much money, until 2017 when Artemis got started.
1
False. Each mission arrived during the lunar morning, and stayed for up to 3 Earth days. They had no sunrise/sunset.
1
No, your smartphone can't take photos in mid-IR, let alone do spectroscopy. It also can't pick up the faint targets JWST is designed for because its sensor produces far too much noise.
1
We do have a satellite orbiting Jupiter right now: Juno. We used to have one at Saturn too: Cassini. So your argument holds no water.
1
It's pretty easy to confirm that they did go. You've been duped by moon landing deniers who made false claims about this press conference, just as they lied about everything else.
1
The NRO gave 2 mirrors to NASA.
1
Spy satellite imagery is published only occasionally (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLmpXgdgNZM), most images remain secret until the program that created them ends.
1
The Guppies were built to carry cargo that is voluminous but light. The payload of the aircraft has not increased.
1
There's nothing wrong with our technology. The maker of this video was too lazy to find the actual images.
1
That's incorrect. They have 3 RTG modules, but these have all been used since launch. You can't keep RTGs in reserve: the Pu inside is going to decay at the same speed whether you use its output or not.
1
Amazing how there are no stars when you're in bright daylight. Learn how photography works.
1
No. We could increase the resolution by placing the antennas farther apart. Put one on the Moon, for example.
1
The Apollo missions are real, as proven by tons of evidence. In 50 years nobody has presented a single shred of evidence that the Apollo missions were faked.
1
The Voyager program was sold to the US government as an exploration of Jupiter and Saturn, which would take about 5 years. The team that did the proposal was fully aware of the 4-planet alignment, but they were also aware that an earlier proposal for a 4-planet mission had been decided against because it was considered too expensive. Voyager was a reduced version of that proposal, with two spacecraft instead of 4, with simpler spacecraft than were proposed for the Grand Tour, and focusing on Jupiter and Saturn. The spacecraft were designed to last at least long enough to visit all 4 planets, and from the beginning, the team was hoping for a mission extension once the Jupiter and Saturn encounters had proven a success.
1
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
@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
That video is wrong.
1
They found that the plasma instrument can detect the flash of tiny dust particles hitting at high speed and disintegrating. There are lots of impacts like that, fortunately no large impacts.
1
No. They're just not publishing the targets for the first few hours beforehand. When those observations are done, they will be published immediately (along with the raw data, and all of the 50,000+ mirror alignment and calibration images). Why? Because they want those first science images to be a surprise. That's all there is to it.
1
@danielwendel9214 I looked for a list of polar circumnavigations.
1
Yes.
1
No. Flat-Earther charlatans have found some people who look a bit like the astronauts and have the same name, and are claiming those are the astronauts. This story is full of holes: 1. there are similarities, but also big differences in e.g. facial bone structure. 2. the US has a program for hiding people: Witness Protection. This has stringent rules which include not keeping your old name, not using social media, not getting your name and photo plastered all over the media. These people did not follow any of these rules, so they are not hiding. These are not the Challenger astronauts. 3. the flerfs claim that the US government murdered Ron McNair's brother so Ron could take his place. This is a ridiculous claim.
1
@tnwhiskey68 From the beginning, witness protection was set up to defend against criminal organizations with the resources to trawl through all public records. From the beginning, the program was designed to give witnesses a new identity, not "hide" them by letting them keep their name.
1
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
@SON-of-a-TrueKING No, none of the astronauts have ever said any of that. Those are the facts.
1
@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
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
@SON-of-a-TrueKING No, they haven't. Anyone telling you that is lying.
1
Eric Dubay is a charlatan who sells lies for money. Wake up.
1
@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
@lynnB3159 what do you mean by 'how they managed to capture the explosion'? These satellites take a photo of the entire hemisphere every 10 minutes. They'll capture everything large enough to show up that happens to be visible when the picture is taken. Events shorter than 10 minutes are lost.
1
The Voyagers had a number of failures. Voyager 2's main transmitter is dead, and its backup transmitter has a failed component that means we can't just transmit to it the way we normally would: we have to find the frequency it's working at first before we can send commands. The Voyagers are still working because they were built to last. The best components were used, they built in as much redundancy as they could, and they avoided components that degrade as much as possible. The computers were designed to detect problems and recover from them automatically. This happens regularly. A 3 year-old iPhone has one component that 'turns to garbage': its battery has a finite number of charge cycles because the chemicals inside degrade with each cycle. The Voyagers don't use batteries. Printers are made to be disposable because manufacturers have found it's more profitable that way. Not because they can't build devices that last. My stereo system is 20 years old and still works like new. My parents have a typewriter from the 1950s that still works.
1
More propellant would make the spacecraft heavier. Weight was a problem for this mission.
1
Every day, people travel in space.
1
Via radio, like all spacecraft.
1
The used long exposure times to get well-lit images.
1
That's not skepticism though. Every single one of the items you mention are wild claims without evidence. Skeptics require evidence before they believe something.
1
@jurgenroscher5777 Well, you should follow your own advice. You're claiming "We could have already spent Trillions on space", but government budgets are public, tax rates are public (so we can work out how much money the government gets), and the combination of those shows there's no room for "trillions" of classified expenditures.
1
JWST is optimized for mid-infrared. Those wavelengths are blocked by Earth's atmosphere, so JWST wouldn't see any details. Also, JWST can't be pointed at Earth, because that would expose the cold side of the telescope to direct sunlight and damage the instruments. We don't need JWST to monitor Earth: we have satellites imaging Earth every day. From weather satellites to commercial imaging to espionage.
1
CGI is useful to explain how the telescope works.
1
SpaceX is in the middle of developing their moon-capable rocket, Starship. NASA took 5 years to develop the Saturn V to the point where it could be launched into orbit. SpaceX is in year 4 of its work on Starship, and they are developing a more ambitious vehicle. they don't just want to launch 100 tons into Earth orbit, they want to launch more than that and then be able to recover and reuse both stages.
1
We can measure the position of the Voyagers with excellent accuracy. This position matches what you'd expect if they're in free flight for all those years. Any interception would alter their trajectory. All of the data we have shows no interception. The golden record contains images of people of all races. The cover image you're thinking about is just an outline, it has no color at all.
1
this eruption wasn't large enough to have that big an effect.
1
That's not how scientific missions work. Sooner or later we're going to launch another mission to beyond the heliosphere and verify the Voyager data.
1
That would improve the resolution, but we'd still have gaps between the observations.
1
If you want to convince people to become Christians, this is not the way to do it. Please stop.
1
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
I feel so bad for people who think this is fake.
1
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
@braininavatnow9197 That's provably nonsense. Construction videos show what the spacecraft were made of: aluminium for structural parts, phenolic resin for the CM heat shield, multilayer insulation for head shielding on the LM. The space suit consists of about 16 different layers, each with different materials.
1
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
@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
+83 ºC is the right value.
1
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
not quite. Previous IR telescopes used a large tank of liquid helium that slowly evaporated. This evaporation (which had to be vented) kept the remaining helium at 4 K, but it meant the mission ended when the helium ran out. Hubble doesn't use cooling. JWST has an active cooling system: a device that removes heat from the liquid helium, so the helium doesn't evaporate. The device that has to be cooled is the image sensor (CCD).
1
Yes. Transferring the data will be a problem, and you have to deal with the changing position of this telescope relative to the ones on Earth.
1
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
The "constant" rain of meteorites works out to 1 meteorite per 1000 years for the area covered by any of the Apollo missions.
1
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
There's no information on it on the internet. Many Voyager documents haven't been digitized, so to access them you have to travel to the archive that holds them.
1
several are in various stages of planning or construction. The next flagship proposal is LUVOIR, a segmented telescope like JWST, for UV, visible and IR, with a mirror diameter of 8 m or more. I don't think this proposal has been accepted yet.
1
JWST will start doing science in 6 months. They have started taking images for mirror calibration this week.
1
@connd9630 0:26: image from January. 0:45: image from March 16. Missing from this video: the final alignment images published on April 28 showing all 4 instruments.
1
@GuitarUniverse2013 See the JWST blog.
1
In Earth orbit, the standard speed is about 17000 mph. for interplanetary missions, speeds vary depending on destination: anything heading towards the Sun is accelerated by the Sun's gravity, anything heading outwards gets slower the further away it gets. What makes the Voyagers special is that they have reached escape velocity from the sun. Only 5 spacecraft have done that so far (Pioneer 10/11, Voyager 1/2, New Horizons), and Voyager 1 is the fastest of those.
1
They won't need to.
1
@zJKjanozyH1 You overestimate how many meteoroids hit the moon. An area of 1 km2 gets hit once every 10,000 years, and most hits are tiny. So a. the impact frequency is low enough not to matter, and b. if a small meteoroid hits the antenna, it just punches a small hole in the antenna surface, reducing the effective surface a tiny bit.
1
@zJKjanozyH1 Again, there is a big difference between 'how many meteoroids hit the moon' and 'how many meteoroids hit 1 km2 of the lunar surface'. The moon gets hit 33000 times per year, divided over a surface area of 37 million km2. That's one hit per km2 per 1000 years.
1
No, they're measurements.
1
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
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
You'd have to give the moon an atmosphere first. Lakes would evaporate immediately in a vacuum.
1
JWST downlink speed is 3.5 Mbit/s. Images will be downloaded in batches, on the same day they were made.
1
The evidence proves you wrong. We landed on the moon 6 times.
1
@MarkYesno-nv7hp The radiation level in the VA belts is low enough that humans can pass through them safely without any shielding other than the pressure hull of the spacecraft. The only potential issue is with the radiation affecting electronics, and radiation-hardening electronics is not that difficult either. From 1958 to 1962, some of the first satellites launched by the USA were used to measure the radiation levels in space. By 1962 we knew the VA belts would not be a problem for Apollo.
1
They'll stop transmitting in a few years (the team is trying to get them to 50 years, so 2027), they're running out of electric power.
1
The Apollo lunar suits consisted of 16 layers, using a wide variety of materials including plastics.
1
@misplacedidentity1036 Minutes are universal. Nobody's going to set up a different timekeeping system for each planet. We use sols (the length of a local day), but those are divided into Earth hours and minutes because doing anything else is madness.
1
@rogerledwell5776 Grissom, White and Chaffee died in an accident. His criticism of the Apollo project was proven correct by that fire, and NASA spent the next year doing a complete review of the design of every part of Apollo. In that fire, the 'failure is not an option' mentality was born, and this led to the success of the Apollo missions.
1
@rogerledwell5776 Already answered. You are going to claim Grissom, White and Chaffee were murdered. The problem with that claim is that killing these people in a capsule fire has the exact opposite effect of shutting them up. The Apollo 11 fire demonstrated the reality of Grissom's concerns, and NASA spent a year addressing those concerns. So the only rational conclusion is that the Apollo 1 fire was an accident and not murder.
1
Simple experiments that anyone can do prove that we live on a rotating sphere. We've known this for hundreds of years, and don't need spaceflight to prove this. Photos of Earth from space just confirm what we already know.
1
Yes, that's all correct.
1
Several vacuum chamber test videos can easily be found. Underwater training is not done to test the spacesuits, but to train the astronauts for operating in zero G.
1
You're wrong. All the astronauts wore dosimeters.
1
It did that in 1989 (Pale Blue Dot).
1
@davidrummel133 Oh yes, I see now. I think it'd be difficult. There's not enough power available to run the camera system. And when the cameras were switched off, the temperature of the camera module dropped from 0ºC to -200 ºC. The camera uses a vidicon tube, that's probably broken.
1
The reclassification of Pluto has nothing to do with NASA. The IAU decided that.
1
Activity beneath the surface is not a great way to distinguish planets. We have moons with subsurface activity (Io, Enceladus), and even smaller objects (comets) with subsurface activity.
1
The Voyagers don't have sensors that would enable it to detect a ship nearby. So all we'd know is that the spacecraft has stopped transmitting.
1
Data is usually published after a few months (to give the mission team a first chance to look at the data).
1
The only way to make a gas that heavy is by putting it under huge pressure. That pressure creates all kinds of problems.
1
This is how the Apollo missions broadcast TV form the Moon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3DfWR3CVlc
1
No, that's not the truth. Over 200 missions have left Earth orbit.
1
That photo was taken in an airship hangar, 300 m long x 100 x 50 m. That little stripey object in the center is the access door on one side of the hangar, a door that measures 100 x 50 m. The camera's in that direction somewhere, far too small to see.
1
The 'money we throw at space' is 1. a tiny fraction of the total amount we spend, and 2. has an excellent return on investment. Fundamental research in general is essential for our progress as a species. Spaceflight has been a key enabler in learning more about our planet.
1
You can receive a signal from so far away with careful design of the transmitter and receiver. Dish antennas concentrate the signal into a narrow cone, providing an enormous amount of gain over omnidirectional antennas. You can also build very sensitive receivers by cooling them to cryogenic temperatures (which reduces noise). NASA uses a 70 m dish to receive Voyager's signals, and builds the best receiver electronics money can buy. This is simple physics.
1
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
Neither of those is true. all of the footage is still available. We have a mountain of documentation on every aspect of Apollo. The only know-how that was lost was the practical knowledge you build up when you build and assemble a device from drawings: things like order of operations, little adjustments etc.
1
What you're doing is not critical thinking. It's blindly assuming the Soviets were lying without presenting evidence for your claim.
1
@eddiebaker3267 I'm well aware of that. I'm also aware that Soviet scientists do actual research with verifiable findings, and the Venera program is part of that. The Venera program isn't the only missions ever done to Venus; other countries have run missions too. By and large, lying gets you nowhere in science because other people will try to repeat your experiments and check your results, so fraud is discovered sooner or later.
1
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
Because gravity pulls them into the most compact shape possible - which is a sphere.
1
It's called DSN Now.
1
9:05 is Ed White during a Gemini spacewalk. The Gemini spacesuit had a rotating helmet, the Apollo suit didn't.
1
We have lots of evidence that says there is a black hole, and no evidence there isn't.
1
We have millions of real images of Earth already. We have geostationary weather satellites (GOES, Meteosat, Himawari) that take images of the entire hemisphere, 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 For more detailed images, there's Landsat (images available for free), SPOT, the Maxar constellation (commercial) and many more taking images every day.
1
@igordrakulovic6857 Everything I said is easily verifiable.
1
Why not? There's a ton of evidence that shows the Apollo landings are real, and no evidence that shows they were faked.
1
No, that was a journalist misreporting things. The ringing was seen in seismograms, not heard by astronauts.
1
Computers are only a tiny fraction of what it takes to get to the moon. Designing and building a 100 meter tall rocket has not gotten any cheaper since 1960, just like designing and building an airliner has not gotten cheaper since then.
1
The telescope can be refueled. It's likely that will be done at least once.
1
because the alternatives create more vibrations.
1
That, or vibrations in the ground made the flagpole and flag move.
1
@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
@TrackTruth NASA has not 'stolen' anything. They used that money to build and launch hardware on actual missions.
1
yep.
1
That's a binary clock.
1
@sylvainbriere7039 Yes, your'e right. It's not binary. That's a TIX clock. Count the number of illuminated squares in each block to find the time. At 0:40 in the video it's 04:51. The pattern changes every second, but the number of illuminated squares stays the same.
1
@cokemachine5510 You are incorrect. There is no data that says that, just wishful thinking from moon landing deniers. If you're looking for grift, look at the deniers: they sell books and videos, making money off their false, already-debunked claims.
1
Sibrel hasn't made a valid point in his entire career. He's a grifter, nothing more.
1
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
@moonatnoon953 False. What supports the manned lunar landings is an absolute mountain of evidence. This includes 8000 photos of exquisite quality, reels of 16 mm film, and hours of live TV. The "no records of how we got men to the moon" is pure nonsense. As I've already told you, those records do exist. Denying their existence is like claiming New York is not real because you've never been there.
1
For the heliosphere, the Voyagers were the first to give us measurements at all. We have much better data to go on for most areas of science.
1
Luck. It doesn't have a way to detect nearby objects. Fortunately space is empty enough that this method works.
1
@donhansen5677 The angle was known and expected, as they landed very close to the predicted point, which was why the Iwo Jima was within visual range for the landing. The length of the blackout was unexpected. As Scott says, this was due to the A13 crew waiting a bit longer to switch the radio back on, and not telling Mission Control beforehand that they were going to do this.
1
@LordDeBahs IM proves yet again that Earth is a sphere, that space is real, and that we can land on the moon.
1
@donhansen5677 From Apollo by the numbers: the reentry took 853 seconds in total, which is about average for Apollo. They ended up within 1 mile of the reentry target. A shallower angle than expected would have meant a longer reentry than expected, AND they would not have landed that near the target. They were within 0.25º of the 6.5º reentry angle target. The Apollo 13 technical debriefing confirms that reentry was very close to the predicted values for e.g. the G-force.
1
@donhansen5677 My source for Apollo 13 turning off its radio is Scott Manley's answer in this same thread. The Apollo 13 tech debrief shows they had a number of possible landing points, and chose the one where USS Iwo Jima was parked. Then they landed within 1 km of that planned landing spot, which means they did not travel at 7 km/s for an extra 87 seconds, which means the communications pause was caused by something else.
1
@donhansen5677 And again you are missing the point. 1. Apollo 13's hit its target, i.e. the splashdown point they were aiming for, NOT the atmospheric entry point, within 1 km. 2. NO, they did NOT spend an extra 87 seconds traveling at 7 km/s. IF they had done that, the blackout would have STARTED 87 seconds later and they would have OVERSHOT the target by 609 km. They did NOT overshoot, which proves they did NOT spend an extra 87 seconds traveling at 7 km/s.
1
@donhansen5677 You're wrong yet again. From the moment of the explosion (55 hours into the flight), NASA studied possible return trajectories. At 70 hours into the flight, NASA settled on a trajectory that would put the reentry in the Pacific near the location of the main recovery force, and did a DPS burn to put the spacecraft on this trajectory. Then they had another day to refine the trajectory and set the reentry point.
1
@donhansen5677 Again, you are wrong. The G values were recorded during reentry, and are the same as for other flights. the deceleration is the same, which means they were slowing down from orbital speed to terminal speed in the same time. IF the reentry had been shallow enough to make the blackout 87 seconds longer, the reentry angle would have been 30% lower, i.e. 4.5º instead of the 6.5º that was recorded. Your claims are not supported by the recorded data.
1
@donhansen5677 History records they were out of radio contact for 6 minutes. That differs from 'they were in radio blackout for 6 minutes'. Can you spot the difference?
1
@donhansen5677 Recorded history only shows they were out of radio contact for 6 minutes. It does not show the cause of that. So, you are still making assumptions, and building an argument on that assumption.
1
Stellardrone.
1
We have millions of real images of Earth already. We have geostationary weather satellites (GOES, Meteosat, Himawari) that take images of the entire hemisphere, 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 For more detailed images, there's Landsat, SPOT, the Maxar constellation and many more taking images every day. JWST is optimized for mid-infrared. Those wavelengths are blocked by Earth's atmosphere, so JWST wouldn't see any details, just the distribution of water vapor in our atmosphere. And JWST can't be pointed at Earth, because that would expose the cold side of the telescope to direct sunlight and damage the instruments.
1
Look at the sky tonight. You can see satellites pass overhead. You can measure their speed and altitude https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zApGNHOi0s and find that they are not in our atmosphere, proving that spaceflight is real. Every day, you profit from services provided by satellites.
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. Every day, you benefit from data generated in space, proving space is real and Earth is not flat.
1
no, 930 thousand.
1
Fregat is an upper stage for Soyuz.
1
New Horizons took thousands of pictures of Pluto.
1
HST has looked at Pluto, but it's so small it can't resolve any detail on the surface.
1
We can't do interferometry at IR wavelengths yet. Interferometry gets harder for shorter wavelengths: your timing requirement gets tighter. We haven't gotten to the point where we can store IR observations as data in small enough timeslices to do interferometry.
1
It has been done for low-frequency radio (the Spektr-R radio telescope). For mm wave radio, we'd have to solve some problems first: transferring PB of data over such long distances, and measuring the distance exactly enough for VLBI to work.
1
@narajuna Transatlantic ships and airplanes did not benefit from a national emergency program like Apollo. The Apollo program consumed up to 5% of the US federal budget. That meant a huge workforce could be hired to solve every problem in parallel, instead of slowly developing everything in series. The Apollo program really began in 1961: Mercury and Gemini were necessary stepping stones to Apollo, as were the Ranger, Surveyor and Lunar Orbiter missions. By 1969, the work was not completed. Improvements to the rocket and spacecraft were still underway, to enable the J-missions Apollo 15-17. The last Apollo lunar mission was in 1972. So yeah, Apollo took slightly over a decade.
1
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
@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
@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
No. The border between planet and dwarf planet is not based on mass, but on observations of its orbital region: is this clear of other bodies?
1
I spent some time investigating the links between Hubble and spy satellites; my conclusion is that those links are tenuous at best. By the time the Hubble project was started, spy satellites with 2.4 m mirrors were in operation. That meant there was confidence in the industry they could build high-quality 2.4 m mirrors. But the Hubble mirror contract went to Perkin-Elmer, who hadn't built a mirror larger than 1.5 meters yet. Ironically, the backup mirror contract went to Kodak, who did have experience, and made a mirror that had the correct shape. For checking the shape of the mirror, Perkin-Elmer reused an instrument that was built for those 1.5 m mirrors. They modified the instrument, but made a mistake that ended up putting a critical part of the instrument 1.3 mm out of place, which meant the mirror was ground incorrectly. Had the Hubble mirror been an off-the-shelf part, this error would have been found before. Hubble's control systems don't match spy satellites. Hubble's maximum rotation rate is too slow to do Earth observation, for example. And Hubble's instruments are all built to observe faint objects, whereas spy satellites work on daylit Earth.
1
Earth is hit by about 5200 tons of debris every year. With the difference in size between Earth and JWST, you can calculate JWST will be hit by nanograms of debris every year.
1
The question is: what should the air pressure in the spacecraft and in the space suits be?
1
no, real photos from several different sources.
1
That is not as big a problem as you think. Starship development is progressing at high speed, and part of that is testing the hardware until it breaks.
1
No.
1
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
If you were a skeptic, you'd see that every claim made by moon landing deniers falls apart.
1
Kapton is excellent as a carrier for heat shielding, it has been used on thousands of spacecraft.
1
no. To get fallout, you have to have a nuclear reaction first. There isn't enough Uranium in the ground to do that.
1
The heliosphere is defined as the region where the Sun's electromagnetic influence is dominant. The Voyagers left that area a few years ago. They won't leave the area where the Sun is gravitationally dominant for 50,000 more years.
1
You failed the grasp the lesson of this video then.
1
@JohnsonFE We have abundant proof that the Apollo landings are real.
1
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
The chance of that happening is really low.
1
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
@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
@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
@Alex-bz7re I'm serious, and this is easily verifiable.
1
@JohnMichaelGodier Can you indicate their timestamps? Like hayorge27 I don't recognize any of the images shown while discussing #1 and #2 as a gravitational lensing image. It would also help to label the images, so we can separate the random CGI out from the actual observations.
1
The only dumb people are the ones who believe the landings were faked, when all of the evidence says they were real.
1
That is incorrect. NASA does not alter photos. The orange tint is real, as can be easily verified by checking the calibration targets present in many photos.
1
Incorrect.
1
The only fakers are the people who claim "green screens and wires" when no wires or green screens are visible in the video.
1
MESSENGER took more than 1 million photos in total, so at least 200k of Mercury.
1
Everything in physics is "just a theory". That doesn't make it unreliable.
1
Yes, JWST has a refueling port. What we don't have yet is a spacecraft that can safely approach JWST without damaging the sunshield.
1
Photos are maps of the brightness of each pixel. That's exactly what this image is too: a map of the brightness of areas of space. The original data was in mm wavelength, but that doesn't change anything.
1
@williardbillmore5713 Why is black and white "more honest" than red? They used red because it's easier to see variations in contrast when the image is in color than when it's in grayscale.
1
Nope We have a spacecraft orbiting Mercury, carrying a camera.
1
@EdjeBos The Planetary Data system is a public archive that holds the raw data from all spacecraft that have visited other planets, including MESSENGER's photos of Mercury.
1
Every time we measure the surface of our planet, we find curvature. Every time we launch a satellite, we fly to altitudes much greater than where the "firmament" is supposed to be, and we find no obstructions. We have sent spacecraft to Pluto and found no obstructions.
1
I can see the ISS pass overhead from my back yard, proving you wrong.
1
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
For a color image, 3 images are made, using different filters (different wavelengths, the same way a photo consists of R, G and B channels). These images are grayscale. After downloading, the imaging team takes these 3 images, assigns colors to each image and stacks them to make a color image. There is some artistic freedom in choosing which colors to use, but generally the longest wavelengths are mapped to red, medium to green and short to blue.
1
More expensive for the amount of data they had to collect.
1
this video does not show details smaller than 500 meters. No missile is that large. All we have is one frame showing a cloud that's 1-2 km wide.
1
The resolution of the image shown here is 1000 times higher than what JWST or Hubble can achieve.
1
@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
Anyone can set up a pendulum and see it precess, demonstrating that Earth does rotate. Navigation with gyroscopes just becomes a bit more complicated due to Earth's rotation.
1
No, none of the astronauts are alive. Flat-Earther charlatans have published lies claiming the astronauts are still alive. If you want to call NASA out for fraud, provide evidence. Since the inception of NASA, nobody has been able to do that. Not one single time. So put up or shut up.
1
The resolution of the image shown here is 1000 times higher than what JWST or Hubble can achieve.
1
Nope. They lost small amounts of data (not surprising, as these projects are now 50 years old), but Venera science results are still available, as are mountains of Apollo data.
1
We're spending far more on fixing hunger than this telescope has cost.
1
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
Because that's what dry rock does.
1
@hudsonumi Basic physics.
1
@hudsonumi They weren't 'shocked'. At that point, we had one planet on which we'd done geology. The moon was the first chance to do geology on a different body, and the seismology looked different to what they were used to. We were able to determine why that was in short order.
1
@hudsonumi There are several ways a planet can gain moons, which lead to moons of different sizes. A protoplanet collision created our moon.
1
@hudsonumi The sample size is tiny (a few dozen), and even in that sample we have planets whose moons are a larger fraction of their host than Earth's moon: Charon is half the diameter of Pluto.
1
That's mainly a logistics problem. To fully map the seafloor you have to travel 510,000,000 km in a boat.
1
It is correct though: NIRCam has been switched on. It's being used to calibrate the mirrors.
1
Prove it!
1
@robinhood4911 If you think Americans did not land on the moon, you are ignoring all of the evidence that says they did, in favor of bad arguments unsupported by any evidence that are spread by charlatans.
1
Musk is an optimist. His timelines cannot be trusted. But he generally achieves what he sets out to do.
1
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
@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
@FFE-js2zp You're wrong. Video of the laboratory where the samples are kept: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxZ_iPldGtI
1
No, not in enough detail to be useful.
1
Every Mars lander has color calibration targets. When they land, the first thing they do is take photos of those targets to calibrate the cameras. This is how we know the photos from Mars have accurate colors. Using a white balance designed to replicate Earth's atmosphere does not improve the Mars photos.
1
The Voyagers don't use batteries. They use radioisotope thermal generators: Pu-238 decays and produces heat, Peltier elements convert this to electricity. Pu-238 has a half-life of 87.7 years, so the output of the RTG reduces a bit every year. The Voyagers started out with 470 W, they're at about half of that now.
1
Musk is on track to provide a rocket as large as the SLS for 1/10 the cost of the SLS.
1
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
You're assuming they never bothered to check their work. That's quite unlikely.
1
It isn't. Planet 9 would have to be larger than the Sun to do that, i.e. it would have to be a star, not a planet, and we'd have found it by now.
1
@treesapien5762 Yes. An object that large has so much gravity that its core will be compressed to the point where fusion starts, i.e. it will inevitably be a star.
1
The thumbnail is a photos of the backshell of the Perseverance descent system. That photo was made by the Ingenuity helicopter.
1
Every dollar spent on NASA grows the US economy by $7. Thanks to NASA you have affordable computers, accurate weather forecasts, free accurate satellite navigation, and thousands more items developed by NASA.
1
Ping pong? I've never heard that term. There is a phenomenon called pogo oscillation, i.e. a back-and-forth movement of the fuel on the longitudinal axis of the rocket.
1
'no air in space' is generally correct, however the atmosphere doesn't end abruptly. At 100 km altitude, air pressure is about 10e-15 bar, and it keeps dropping off as you get higher. You have to be above 1000 km before there's no noticeable drag. The ISS (to 400 km) loses several km of altitude per month due to drag, so every few months it has to be boosted to a higher orbit.
1
No.
1
SRB fuel isn't explosive. The SRBs just kept running until they ran out of fuel.
1
@Boodieman72 The SRBs are pretty solid. They are steel casings 8 mm thick, supported on the inside by the fuel, which has a rubbery structure.
1
@EIWPmedia Globe proof source: all of our observations, all of our measurements of Earth's surface.
1
With 1 week of science observations done, no. They did catch one galaxy that's 13.1 bn lightyears away, just doing the showcase images.
1
doing VLBI at IR wavelengths is difficult: the short wavelength means you have to synchronize the observations to within fractions of a nanosecond to be useful. Even when two telescopes are next to each other, optical interferometry has problems.
1
@erikknight5664 There is no firmament. We can see satellites in the night sky, even with the naked eye. We can measure their speed and altitude, and find that they are far higher than where the firmament is claimed to be. Several lunar missions left laser reflectors on the moon, and anyone with a powerful laser can prove those reflectors are there - and in the process measure the distance to the moon. All you have is reality denial.
1
@erikknight5664 Wow, you're off your rocker.
1
JHUAPL is working on a proposal 'Interstellar probe' at the moment. They found that the highest speed we can achieve for such a mission is twice that of the Voyagers. If we launched one today, it'd catch up to Voyager 1 in 25 years.
1
@shammusomalley8986 That 'list' is full of nonsense. That press conference is nr. 16 in a series of events, the astronauts had been talking nonstop for 14 days and were tired by then. That's all there is to it. The 'were you able to see stars' is an example of journalists not having enough patience. During their mission, the astronauts went through a wide variety of circumstances that made the stars visible or not. - standing on the surface of the moon: they were in full sunlight. No stars visible. - during the Earth-Moon transfer: they were in full sunlight. No stars visible. - orbiting the moon: during the shadowed part of their orbit, they were able to see more stars than they'd ever seen from Earth. During the sunlit part of their orbit, they were in full sunlight. No stars visible. The van Allen belts were a non-event to the astronauts. This was entirely taken care of by the people who designed the trajectory. No reason for the astronauts to know such minutiae. As usual, these arguments fall apart on examination.
1
@shammusomalley8986 No, that's not correct. They remembered just fine. Read Collins' biography, for instance. They weren't given enough time to give a full answer to the question.
1
that's what they're doing. The NIRCam instrument has 10 image sensors, for example.
1
@mundaner-1163 Why does gravity pull? - we don't know, we can just observe that it does. Is it strong or weak: gravity is proportional to the weight of the objects involved. Why does a helium balloon go up: gravity is proportional to the weight. The upwards force on the balloon is buoyancy, which is proportional to the balloon's volume. Balloons have a lot of volume and little weight. Buoyancy is caused by gravity: gravity pulls the air down. Again, proportional by weight. Air is mostly nitrogen and oxygen, which are heavier than helium. So the balloon weighs less than its volume in air, which causes a net upwards force.
1
@mundaner-1163 welcome to the leading edge of physics. We have good information on how gravity behaves. The why hasn't been definitively answered yet. So we have some hypotheses, including the one that postulates gravitons. We're trying to verify these hypotheses but this is difficult. Only in the last few years have we been able to observe gravitational waves for the first time. Is this 'just a guess'? Yes. A guess by the best minds in physics, and one that is consistent with all of our observations so far.
1
APL is working on an interstellar mission proposal. These missions are difficult to get funded: they're expensive, and it takes decades to get results.
1
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
Advancing the state of the art never comes cheap. It's not surprising this project went over budget. We shouldn't cancel this sort of advanced-technology projects when they turn out to get more expensive than we thought: we'll never advance if we do that.
1
The Russians did try to put a man on the moon. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vi6fjs_8Yx8 They had a few problems: They started late (1964), there was no central coordination (like NASA did for the American program), and the only person who could coordinate efforts (Korolev) died in 1966. Their program had far less funding than Apollo. The result was that their moon rocket, the N-1 had its first unmanned test launch in 1969. After Apollo 11, the Russians lost interest. They did run an extensive unmanned lunar program, with sample return missions and 2 lunar rovers. The Russians ran a series of Mars missions, they all failed. Their early Venus missions were successful, so they concentrated on those. The Americans had the opposite: failurs at Venus, success on Mars, culminating in the Viking landers.
1
They will. When commissioning is complete, all of the images made during commissioning (50,000+) will be released.
1
In terms of general relativity, the Voyagers aren't traveling fast. Their age is within one second of that of an observer here on Earth.
1
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
@dandobrowolski5818 Again, you are wrong. Bill Nye's show was all about sharing understanding and knowledge. He taught people the scientific method by example, the underpinning of all science. He shared knowledge. It doesn't matter that those experiments have been done before: he exposed people new to science to these experiments.
1
All large explosions look similar. The mushroom effect is caused by hot air rising over the explosion site, which draws in colder air from the sides.
1
Charlatans have published videos where they claim you can bring ships that have gone over the horizon back into view. But every single one of those videos turns out to be fake: they are zooming in on small boats that have not gone over the horizon yet. The real test would be to follow a large ship, wait until its hull is hidden by the horizon but the superstructure is still visible, and then zoom in and try to make the superstructure visible again.
1
Orbits don't work like that. Planet X has a long orbit, but we complete an orbit every year. So for half of our year, we inevitably are on the same side of the Sun as Planet X.
1
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
It shields against any radiation in the form of a particle with an electric charge (ions of radioactive isotopes, loose protons, etc) . Those are deflected by magnetic fields.
1
@macsnafu If we could see magnetic fields, I suspect we'd see huge bubbles around each star (their heliospheres). And charged particles streaming out from every star (solar wind). And those streams would interact with each other in between the heliospheres.
1
We're perfectly capable of building durable devices. It just costs more money than we're generally willing to spend. Hell, we perfected the art long before the Voyagers: we have machines and infrastructure 100 years old that's still in daily use.
1
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
Space is really empty, the most likely collisions are with microscopic dust particles which will just create a tiny crater in the mirror. If a primary mirror segment is destroyed, the telescope can still work. JWST will encounter nanograms of dust per year, on average.
1
We're spending billions each year solving all kinds of problems, we can afford to spend a bit on finding out more about the universe. JWST is the most advanced telescope in existence right now. The reason it took so long to build is that we had to invent all kinds of new technology. How can it possibly be obsolete?
1
@n-xplorer A device becomes obsolete when we build a better device. right now, JWST is the best mid-infrared telescope we have. No other device on Earth is more advanced, therefore it is not obsolete.
1
You're comparing apples and oranges. For the heliosphere, the Voyagers were the first to give us measurements at all. For most models we don't have that problem: we have lots of data to test the model with, and we add more data every day, so models can be improved quickly.
1
it's +83. Actually a bit higher than that: NASA says the hot side of the sunshield will bet at +110 ºC.
1
The alignment images were all taken through a single filter (so they're monochrome), they added a red filter in postprocessing - they've done this as it helps out with the contrast in the image, but any color can be used. NIRcam and MIRI each have multiple filters. They can create color images by taking multiple images through different filters (similar to a consumer camera: this takes an image through red, green and blue filters and combines the output). Whether these filters line up in a way that allows them to undo the redshift as you suggest, depends on the distance of the object.
1
Mt. Pinatubo was a lot larger than this one.
1
It's been hit by a grain of sand going at more than 1 km/s. Window washing won't help.
1
3 heroes, you mean.
1
No. That coal plant is much more efficient than any car engine, so it uses less fuel to charge your Tesla than you would use in your car. That reduces your CO2 emissions even if you get your power from coal.
1
We have photos of stars orbiting an object that's mostly invisible. From those orbits we can calculate how much mass there must be: 4 million solar masses in a tiny amount of space. The only theory that can explain those observations is a black hole. Now we've imaged that invisible object, and our observations match the theory. That means black holes are real, not theoretical, not imaginary. Welcome to science.
1
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
The video is correct: Voyager 2 was launched first. The numbering was swapped because Voyager 1 would be the first one to reach Jupiter.
1
no, it'll take 6 months.
1
@guff9567 Incorrect. The Apollo project money went into producing rockets (several of which can be seen today in museums) and spacecraft. 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
The complexity is not in the number of launches. It’s: - launch 16 tanker missions in a timeframe of a few days. It’s one thing to launch two missions from two launch pads on the same day, it’s quite another to launch 16 missions from two launch pads in 2 days. - dock each tanker with the ship that will take all that fuel to the moon - transfer tens of tons of fuel in zero G. At the moment, most missions take a day from launch to docking, that would have to be sped up drastically. Fuel transfer of cryogenic fuels has never been demonstrated.
1
@CausticLemons7 No, this is not speculation, this is knowledge. I've been following Artemis closely. - they need a short timeframe because the propellants are cryogenic, which means they boil off quickly. The longer the interval between tankers, the more flights you need. - only one launchpad for Starship is available now. Work is ongoing for a second. Those are the only pads available in the next few years.
1
this video does not show details smaller than 500 meters. No missile is that large. All we have is one frame showing a cloud that's 1-2 km wide.
1
The heliopause is the edge of the heliosphere. The heliosphere is the area in which our sun's influence is dominant. The heliopause is where the sun's influence reduces. Outside the heliosphere, the interstellar medium is dominant.
1
Voyager 2 is operational. Voyager 1 has a problem with one of its computers, and is not sending us any science data at the moment.
1
Pure oxygen at a pressure of 2 bar or more is toxic. Not at 0.3 bar which is used in orbit.
1
@maplifiers The human body is built to deal with a certain amount of oxygen coming in per second. That oxygen is used in various processes in the body. If you get more oxygen coming in than you need, those processes speed up, with bad results if they speed up too much.
1
Yes, 800 kbps sounds about right, given the amount of bandwidth you need to transmit a TV signal.
1
Nope. That interview was faked, not the moon landings.
1
@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
A theory is supported by evidence. A conspiracy theory isn't.
1
Yes, the simulation is correct. JWST will be in full sunlight, so it can use solar power.
1
Yes.
1
No. The AACS was sending its data to the wrong computer (a failed unit) for processing. Once they switched back to the working backup computer, the AACS data returned to normal.
1
it would punch a hole.
1
It's about 12 litres/hour.
1
5 psi for the CM and LM, 3.7 psi for the A7L suit, and 100% oxygen for both.
1
Wifi is designed to be short range, because the shorter the range, the more wifi hotspots you can install without them interfering with each other, and the more users you can serve. Radio waves don't travel well through solid obstacles, so each wall between you and the hotspot reduces your signal. The same goes for cell phones. That doesn't mean all radio is short range. In 1901, Marconi was able to send a radio message across the Atlantic. These days, radio amateurs can contact people on the other side of the world with inexpensive equipment and the right conditions. NASA uses a giant dish to receive Voyager's signals, builds the best receiver electronics money can buy, and they have a clear line of sight without obstacles between transmitter and receiver.
1
You're making grand claims without any evidence to back you up. You're the gullible one.
1
360 degree cameras are not necessary for operations in space. We have a whole bunch of 'detectors for specific frequencies on the electromag spectrum ' in space. We call them space telescopes.
1
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
@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
@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
@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
10,000 satellites in orbit, providing services you use every day, prove you wrong.
1
@discipleoftheLordJesusChrist Let's examine that idea: 1. we don't have enough helium to do that. A single high-altitude balloon capable of lifting 1000 kg requires 1.7 million m3 of helium. There are about 6000 satellites in operation tocay. 6,000 balloons times 1.7 million m3 of helium per balloon is 10 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.
1
Yes, it'll always be in the night sky. It'll orbit L2 so its position varies. With a decent telescope you should be able to see it.
1
This volcano has erupted 5 times in the last 10 years, and it was active in the days before the explosion.
1
at the start of the video.
1
No, they confirm Earth is a globe. Look at any of the planets through a telescope. You can see they are spheres. You can even see that Jupiter and Saturn rotate. You can see the 4 Galilean moons orbit Jupiter.
1
We're developing new technology because instead of putting 2 men on the moon for 3 days, we want to put larger crews on the moon for months. We want to build a base on the moon, and a space station in lunar orbit.
1
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
@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
@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
@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
We know where Beagle is, and it's nowhere near Perseverance. What is near Perseverance is the debris from Perseverance's landing system (backshell, skycrane, parachute).
1
The only Saturn V stuff that's lost is the manufacturing facility, and the logistics chain. Drawings for every part are available, test reports, etc.
1
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
@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
@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
@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
Nope. The exhaust of the rockets is a rounding error compared to that from aircraft.
1
No. After Voyager, we went right along and prepared missions that examined Jupiter and Saturn in detail, by orbiting those planets for years - instead of the few hours that the Voyagers spent in their vicinity. We've sent missions to Mars, to asteroids, to comets. We sent a mission to Pluto.
1
@jamesflake6601 Nobody has ever produced evidence that NASA has lied about anything. Why would we not trust NASA?
1
All large explosions produce similar-looking clouds. This was not nuke, it's a volcano. It has erupted several times in the past 10 years.
1
@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
Space is very empty. The mirrors will collect no more than picograms of dust per year.
1
Apollo cost $250 billion in today's money. That's why nobody has been back to the moon yet. The cost of developing and building 100 meter tall rockets has not come down yet - SpaceX is the first to attempt to do that with Starship. In the 1960s, the US was willing to spend this much in order to win the Space Race and beat the USSR. For science missions, that level of funding is unattainable. To see the stuff we left there, we have the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter. This is 10,000 times closer to the Moon than e.g. Hubble or JWST, so it has a much better view. LRO has photographed all of the Apollo sites, with enough resolution that we can see the foot tracks left by the astronauts.
1
Ingenuity is a proof of concept that's already outlived its expected lifetime by a lot. They didn't include a provision for Perseverance to recharge Ingenuity because that would have added cost and risk, while not being necessary for Ingenuity's primary mission.
1
There's no point in doing that. With the receivers we have now, we could stay in contact with the Voyagers until 2057 - if the Voyagers' power supply would last that long.
1
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
it's a typo, the correct value is +83 ºC.
1
Wrong, we still get data from them every day.
1
We're in contact with both Voyagers every day, and every contact allows us to verify their position. They're on entirely predictable trajectories, so even after years of no contact you'd be able to find it in one try.
1
"simplifying assumptions" means real life is less simple than those assumptions.
1
@johnchapman8131 The flight dynamics summary has one purpose: to give the students an idea of the physics that apply to their aircraft. It leaves out a lot of detail, just like your first year of high school physics spent time examining perfectly elastic collisions, and balls rolling over a frictionless plane. Pilots don't need the same amount of detail that e.g. the designers of the flight control system need: they just need enough detail to understand how their control inputs influence the aircraft.
1
@johnchapman8131 When we measure Earth's surface, we always find that it is curved, not flat. Earth's curvature is visible to the naked eye as well. A simple pendulum proves that Earth rotates. THIS is science: we do observations and experiments, and we follow the evidence they provide. Nobody has ever found a body of water that does not curve.
1
Take a look at the JWST blog for the reasons they haven't included cameras.
1
Science. We learnt a lot about Venus from the Venera program.
1
Professionals do actually appreciate to hear the truth. Managers, less so.
1
Anyone can prove space is not fake, just by looking up at night. Satellites are visible to the naked eye.
1
Using a single 34-m antenna here on Earth, we can keep in contact until 2050 (Voyager 1) and 2057 (Voyager 2), if their power supply would last that long. NASA also have the option to receive data with an array of antennas, which could stretch this even further. The Voyager missions will end when there's not enough power left to operate one instrument. Not because we can't communicate with them. Sending a mission to Neptune with a large enough antenna to contact the Voyagers would require so much weight we'd need to launch it on SLS or Starship. All to reduce the distance from 150 AU to 120 AU. Then you have the problem that Neptune is moving away from the Voyagers, and pretty soon, it'll be farther away from the Voyagers than Earth is. It's much easier and cheaper jut to build more antennas on Earth.
1
That's a pointless metric by which to decide its usefulness to us.
1
Voyager has the same problem. When it rains at the DSN station they use to receive Voyager's signal, the S/N ratio takes a nose dive. They have about 20 dB of margin, but there's still occasional loss of signal.
1
None. The trajectories of the Voyagers were chosen because they wanted to visit specific moons of Saturn (Voyager 1) and Neptune (Voyager 2). Whatever else lay along that course is coincidental.
1
That's rich, coming from someone who swallowed the words of a charlatan instead of checking his claims.
1
@mikew8914 Yes, you have been lied to. There is no footage of people on spacewalks being filmed by people who wear scuba tanks. All footage where people wear scuba tanks is recorded at the NBL. Reality deniers take NBL footage and claim "NASA says this was recorded in space". You'll notice who's doing the lying here.
1
@mikew8914 Every single instance of "people on wires" is footage where no wires are visible. The only footage where astronauts "fade out" is from the Apollo missions. On Apollo, they used a custom TV camera that recorded at only 10 frames per second, to reduce the bandwidth of the signal. On Earth, that signal had to be converted to a normal TV signal. This was done by displaying it on a monitor and recording it with an NTSC camera. This process causes the fading.
1
@mikew8914 There is NO footage where people on a spacewalk are "filmed by people with scuba tanks". All you have is footage shot at the NBL, where a dishonest space denier claims "NASA says this footage was shot in space" when NASA said no such thing.
1
That's not what happened. Congress approved money for a 5-year mission instead of the Grand Tour that was requested, and the team building the spacecraft went ahead and built the probes to last as long as possible anyway, knowing that successful Jupiter and Saturn encounters would increase the chance of getting a mission extension.
1
The Saturn V rocket could put a few hundred kg of payload on the moon, enough for 2 men on a 3-day mission. Now we want to put a larger crew on the moon for months.
1
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
@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
It takes a few seconds to read out an image. Moreover, these images have an exposure time measured in minutes or hours. But for JWST's science goals, video is not necessary.
1
yep. And Earth has its own energy shield.
1
don't be ridiculous. A sun simulator that can 'cover up' a lunar eclipse has to produce as much light as the sun itself, over an area 3400 km across. That takes 10e21 W, or a billion times more power than the entire Earth uses. Eclipses also are not occurring more, they continue to have the same frequency as they've had for thousands of years.
1
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
Stars are large and produce a lot of light. Stars are visible to telescopes even if their apparent size is smaller than a pixel in the telescope's instruments. To image the surface of a planet, you have to resolve it, with the planet spanning multiple pixels. JWST can create an image of Mars that's 1000 px wide, or 1 km/pixel, that's about the best we can do at the moment. A probe sent to orbit Mars can take images with a resolution of 1 meter/pixel.
1
electrical power is from solar panels. The telescope also needs occasional course corrections using rocket thrusters. The thruster fuel is the limiting factor for the mission, but the spacecraft is designed to be refueled.
1
We don't know yet how many rockets are needed for refueling because the rocket that will do the refueling is still being designed. They have a target payload, but history shows that such a target is rarely met. More so when the design is so ambitious (this will be the first fully reusable rocket).
1
A scientific theory is an idea that has been tested extensively and has been shown to correctly predict the behavior of whatever the theory describes. I.e. an idea doesn't become a theory until it has been proven to work. A conspiracy theory is an accurate name for an idea not based on facts or evidence.
1
yes, the 12th of july, not june.
1