Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "The Jolly Heretic" channel.

  1.  @Bazed.  The context wasn't "technology" in the abstract. We still have that. It's like having a VHS tape. You want to see what's in it. I no longer have the technology. We humans still understand how tapes work, I just don't have a VHS player. While you can certainly ask a friend (or look on ebay) for a VHS player, a rocket... it's kind of a pain to rebuild.
    5
  2. ​ @lrn_news9171  If you orbit an object, you move at the same velocity as it. Please learn inertial frames of reference.
    5
  3. ​ @demonofheavn  We've seen the other side of the moon. It's perfectly possible for a shadow to be smaller than the object.
    5
  4. ​ @der0keks  They got to the moon, just with an unmanned rocket. Your comment hot disproved.
    4
  5. ​ @dofehino5444  People would go to the moon if the ticket price was the same as Tibet.
    4
  6.  @demonofheavn  I'm dilluted? I'm actually very concentrated.
    4
  7. ​ @GGTutor1  notice how you changed the topic from heat to the lack of impressions on the crater. Fun fact, there's a war going on right now. Both sides use rocket artillery which does not leave impressions on the ground but scorches the weeds.
    3
  8.  @GGTutor1  Escape velocity in the moon is much lower. I didn't change the topic, I pointed how rocket thrust can leave less of an impact than you think. You did change the subject to "heat makes it impossible" to "waaa forget I mentioned heat, now it's blast craters".
    3
  9.  @GGTutor1  It didn't, you got countered on the heat issue and had to deflect. Acknowledge your initial comment was wrong before changing the subject.
    3
  10. The shuttle was a failure (government programs, am I right?). Modern electronics are extremely radiation sensitive while older tech wasn't.
    3
  11. Solid boosters are simpler. You're going to have to eject them, might as well make them as simple as possible. The Shuttle itself uses liquid fueled engines, that's why the big orange tank is strapped to the airframe.
    3
  12. So if your car breaks down, you couldn't have ever driven because you can't drive now?
    3
  13.  @demonofheavn  The telemetry data is used to monitor the mission. After the mission is done and you've debriefed everything, why would you store it? Do you actually understand what telemetry is? Because if you wanted to see telemetry, NASA could just fake it. If the real telemetry data existed, you wouldn't believe it.
    3
  14. I haven't been to a water park in a decade. That means they don't exist.
    3
  15.  @PoptartParasol  Unfortunately the clips may have been taken down on youtube and I am not going to look for a decade old documentary.
    2
  16. We had to ditch very expensive rockets back then, we land them now. Kicking a ball into a net is not special, but we celebrate World Cup goals more than a Falcon Heavy reentry.
    2
  17. You can't take photos of the sky in "daytime" in the moon because the exposure necessary to see stars would blow out the image with the sunlight.
    2
  18. Out of context.
    2
  19. ​ @The_Reality_Filter  That's such a bad argument. We circumnavigated the globe 500 years ago and don't do it anymore even though our ship tech is better. We just are too busy shipping goods to take leisure trips.
    2
  20. ​ @matthewrutter7062  Completely false. At 11 meters depth in water you have more pressure differential than the suit and space.
    2
  21. ​ @GlasbanGorm  but those reflections are scattered. The retroreflector experiment requires the signal being stong enough to detect back home. Aim away from the reflector, you get nothing.
    2
  22. The rover tire marks can still be seen.
    2
  23.  @elbuggo  Not if it matches the path taken.
    2
  24. ​ @heavensanchor6055  the Kubrick movie makes it obvious how difficult it would be to fake.
    2
  25.  @tatsuroaran1635  Pretty much all arguments have been answered. You people just move the goalposts. It's easier to come up with BS than addressing it in detail.
    2
  26. No. Atmospheric pressure is about 101kPa. That means space is approximately 0 kPa. Water pressure inside a column of fluid is aprox. one atmosphere for every 10 meters. So if you swim to 20 meters depth, you're exposed to twice the pressure differential a space suit has in space.
    2
  27. ​ @DuncanL7979  That was an out of context quote.
    1
  28. TV cameras were used to guide experimental bombs dropped from airplanes in WW2. So the tech was at least 14 years old.
    1
  29. ​ @robjob9052  Hit by burning debris, had three diesel generators.
    1
  30. ​ @elbuggo  Ablative shielding "burns up". Look up Nighthawkinlight's video on Starlite and intumescent materials. Look up that short video of a ceramic heatshield cube being taken out of a forge and touched by hand while it's still glowing orange.
    1
  31.  @robjob9052  There was a fire in Iran where a concrete core building with a steel shell had a fire, the steel collapsed and the concrete center remained standing. Diesel generators are a factor because tons of fuel = heat = buckling and softening of the steel. Everyone mentions it. It wasn't memory holed. The building did not collapse as rapidly as possible. You can see the small roofed section on top collapse first while the walls stand. The building started falling from the inside, you only saw the thin outside shell collapse. That small roofed section (I think it's the top of the elevator shaft) falling first is the only clue about how long the building took to fall that can be seen from the outside.
    1
  32. ​ @johnclaffey7218  Moving goalposts. Admit you were wrong.
    1
  33.  @johnclaffey7218  There's a ton of dust from lift off. Explain your issue with the landline. The telemetry isn't important and even if they had it, you wouldn't believe it. I could fake telemetry data right now in Microsoft Excel. Technology went backwards several times in history, have you noticed that ancient Egyptians and Romans built great architectural works and the technology seemed "lost", with humans not bothering with such feats for like a thousand years? If Von Braun thought it was impossible, why did the build the Saturn V for NASA? In fact, he thought about projects for a Mars mission and wrote a sci-fi book about it.
    1
  34. ​ @rhodium-maiden  what could they find on the moon you can't find with a telescope?
    1
  35. ​ @SuperRobinjames  probably because TV is produced by people who have no clue and cut a conversation out of context.
    1
  36.  @SuperRobinjames  So? It still lacked specifics.
    1
  37. ​ @MartinWillett  there was a Cold War
    1
  38. Because America in the late 1960s is more technically competent than authoritarian regimes that get by on copying Western tech.
    1
  39. Money was an issue for Russia and China. Mind that the Soviet economy collapsed. It's been 50 years - Russia lost tons of industrial capacity and highly technical brains, China copied most of what they made. My dude, Russia is a backwater. They can't produce the T-14 Armata and Su-57 in usable numbers. They're using 1960s tanks. They're welding naval AA guns to MT-LBs.
    1
  40. I'm going to leave a flat piece of paper 10 miles away from you, laying with the thin edge facing you, and ask you to see it with a set of binoculars.
    1
  41.  @kristaan  They didn't lose the original video tapes, they were reused because the tapes were of a specific kind. The footage was recorded in multiple formats, so it was not important to keep it on those tapes. The BBC also wrote over the tapes containing the early episodes of Dr Who, I guess it's a conspiracy too?
    1
  42. The pictures are real, though. Nvidia did a conference about their computing cores to handle light reflections, and they input the conditions in the moon - the simulations are exactly like the real pictures.
    1
  43. ​ @L3onOfKings  the claim was that there were no explanations. You're moving the goalpost.
    1
  44. ​ @Anon1gh3  Because NASA switched to Russian rockets and the Shuttle which is not meant for long range mission, and the Shuttle got canned too. Since the SLS program was full of delays and cost overruns, Obama said the US did not have the capability to do Saturn V style missions.
    1
  45. A vacuum chamber can't be at 1.5 kelvin because there's no heat convection in a vacuum.
    1
  46.  @alienscientist8893  We can get to within 0.1 K with some methods. You don't need to cool the vacuum chamber because the vacuum has no temperature. Temperature is a measure of energy in the molecules of a material (solid, gas or liquid). Vacuum is the absence of material. No molecules, no temperature. The sides of the chamber are irrelevant. The sides of the chamber do not touch the rocket, just like in space nothing touches the rocket.
    1
  47.  @alienscientist8893  But in space there are no sides of the chamber. And yes, you could run the test with large vacuum chambers, this is also how high supersonic wind tunnel testing is done. Large vacuum containers are opened and gas is sucked through the object being tested, it only lasts a few seconds. Why does the engine need vacuum testing, by the way? Just to understand what you're trying to get at. The rocket's most demanding phase is inside the atmosphere. The rockets used in space are weaker and thus less difficult to design.
    1
  48.  @heavensanchor6055  What state of the art cinematography? It was never used again and now we just use CGI.
    1
  49.  @demonofheavn  It's not that I'm smart, it's that you should know better than trying to discuss science when you can't even type properly. You're probably not a native English speaker so you're jealous of America. Good luck in your country that can't achieve the same feats as the US.
    1