Comments by "MRA" (@yassassin6425) on "How America Won The Space Race (Apollo Documentary) | Spark" video.

It isn't in the least bit odd. Landing on the moon costs money and NASA has a fraction of the budget of Apollo which at its peak consumed almost 5% of the federal budget. Apollo was cancelled and with it the heavy lift capability to go to the moon. Project Artemis has been developed on drip feed piecemeal funding from congress and the new technologies that supersede those that are obsolete from Apollo have taken time to test, validate and develop. We haven't flown a supersonic passenger service for almost two decades and it is likely to be the best part of that until we do. Doesn't mean that Concorde that was designed and developed in the 1960s didn't exist either. It too was unsustainable and hideously expensive. It makes perfect sense.
9
@JarekGmrcy Please, take your ignorance together with your caps lock elsewhere. It really isn't welcome.
9
There were six moon landings - and all the telemetry was printed off as hard copies and the footage remains. The technology was abandoned due to the cancellation of the Apollo programme, meaning that the r&d, the production plants and processes were closed. The funding was either cut or diverted to the development of the Space Shuttle. This technology is now obsolete anyway and has since been superseded. Witness that craft called Orion, that as I type this is perched atop of that hardly insignificant 321ft 70-metric-ton rocket capable of 8.4 million pounds of thrust at liftoff and carrying 154,000 pounds of payload into orbit that is currently sitting on the same pad complex that launched the Saturn Vs to the moon and awaiting its first test flight next month.
6
@gerardm921 Known science is not about opinion and at no stage have I mentioned mine. No technology 'got lost', rather it was abandoned due to the retraction of funding and the cancellation of Apollo and with that the heavy lift capability to reach the moon. Project Artemis has superseded the old obsolete technology of Apollo and it ready to return man to the surface of the moon. A supersonic passenger service has not been provided since the cancellation of Concorde - 60s technology that was unsustainable and cripplingly expensive to operate. It is unlikely that this will be resumed for another decade at the earliest, possibly two. That would be 40 years. Your other post is shadow banned. May I suggest that you consolidate your comments into just the one reply? If you would like me to explain the operation of the Apollo computing systems to you and the technology that made it possible, I would be only too happy to do so.
6
No.
6
@bootburner4544 "It’s Easier To Fool People Than To Convince Them That They’ve Been Fooled" Hilarious that this is parroted by so many dumb conspiracy believers that have zero comprehension of irony.
5
"how we were to first to land men on the moon yet 50 years later we are totally dependent on the Soviet Union to transport our personnel to the space shuttle?" I think you mean the ISS. And that statement is false. "how did we penetrate the Van Allen belt without even the film getting damaged?" They are 'belts', the plural not the singular, because there are two, with a third that is transitory. They are toroidal bands created through the trapping of charged particles by the Earth's magnetosphere. Since they vary in intensity and can be effectively shielded against, they posed no barrier to the Apollo mission trajectories that passed through the sparsest regions at high velocity in a short space of time. This had no implications for camera film. "The supposed cameras on the astronauts suits were not even insulated to stop radiation let alone the heat for ASA200 to withstand 200+ degrees temperature." Incorrect. Firstly, Hasselblad adapted their 500EL camera for the Apollo missions by removing the viewfinder, modifying the shutter, replacing the usual plastic black outer surface with reflective bare metal, and using special lubricants resistant to vacuum and high temperatures. Levels of radiation encountered during the Apollo missions did not have had a significant effect on the moderate speed and low sensitivity film types they used. The film for the cameras, was well protected. In fact, the camera films were doubly protected as they were in custom built aluminium and steel magazines that were a lot thicker than the standard Hasselblad ones. Secondly, since there is no atmosphere on the moon, there is no air temperature or convection in the absence of this medium. Heat in a vacuum is through either radiative transfer or to a lesser extent, conduction and so you are referring to surface temperature. All of the Apollo missions were timed to coincide with the lunar dawn, meaning that the angle of insolation was low and the lunar surface was still relatively cool. There was sufficient insulation from conduction, whilst incoming heat from the sun was passively radiated and reflected away. 200°F may be the temperature of the lunar surface material at equilibrium in full sunlight, but it's not necessarily the temperature of any object in a similar situation. Objects will be heated to that temperature only if they absorb the same amount of sunlight as lunar surface material, and also radiate it at the same rate. More reflective objects absorb less light and are heated less. Less reflective items may be heated even hotter. The temperature of the lunar surface (i.e., rocks and dust) as quoted by NASA has nothing to do with the equilibrium temperature reached by other objects exposed to sunlight in the lunar environment. Objects will slowly approach this from emission and absorption of radiation. Clearly, this had no bearing upon the film used in the cameras or their operation. Just out of curiosity, why why do you people think that making ill-informed and ignorant statements in any way supports your contention that the moon landings were faked? Wouldn't it be better to actually first learn about that which you claim to be a hoax? How do you expect to be taken seriously when you demonstrably don't even understand the basic science?
5
There is actually none. Having said that, feel free to highlight what you regard as the singular most compelling example. You'll naturally wish to avoid the same old recycled fallacious claims and bas science from junk You Tube conspiracy videos, cherry picked click bait confirmation bias, quote mining, false equivalence and circular self-referencing pseudoscientific conspiracy websites. Your own thoughts and observations would be welcomed.
5
Caps lock, so it must be true.
4
@projectnightshift6488 What do you mean 'people'? Not on a Redstone there weren't. And there was only one before him - Yuri Gagarin (Vostok 1) atop of a rocket derived from an ICBM, the R7. Shepard would have been the first man in space because MR-3 (Freedom-7) was originally scheduled for April 26, 1960. It was postponed five times by unplanned preparatory work and Gagarin, who launched almost a year later, took the accolade much to Shepard's irritation.
3
That's conspiracy theory for you I'm afraid.
3
The entire fields of aerospace/propulsion engineering and rocketry in addition to Newton's third law of motion would beg to differ, but then as an online conspiracy believer - of course you know best.
3
@JamesOberg From memory actually you are correct, or at least partially - Eisele Apollo 10 , not sure about Cunningham though. Didn't he leave NASA prior to the final two Apollo missions after provisionally heading the astronaut office for the upcoming Skylab project?
2
@hughzapretti-boyden9187 "neither, just this 🐂💩!" So that'll be both then. "Next they'll tell us that the war in 'Nam was a victory for the US!" No one would tell you that - no political scientist, not historian, no journalist and not even those with even a cursory knowledge of the conflict. What's your point?
2
It would be the seventh time. There were six moon landings in total.
2
This is hugely inaccurate. Yes, there were clearly design flaws with Mercury and most of the danger lay in a problem called dual authority control where it was possible for an astronaut to switch to fly-by-wire without turning off his manual system, drawing fuel from both tanks. During the the flight of Aurora 7, Carpenter didn’t realise his horizon scanner, the instrument that optically fed pitch attitude information to his onboard computer, was off by about 20 degrees - which he should have done. He also didn’t appreciate that in switching between fly-by-wire and manual control as prescribed by his flight plan he’d engaged dual authority control six times during his first orbit. Arguably not his fault. However, he wasn't concerned by the low fuel levels and despite a stream of advisories from Houston, which he ignored, he even covered the low fuel warning light with duct tape so it wouldn't distract him. He was so absorbed by changing the film in a camera for a last round of pictures and investigating the “fireflies” that had perplexed Glenn on his flight that he was late beginning his pre-retrofire checklist. It was at this point, when he needed to move quickly through vital steps, that he finally noticed the flaw with his horizon scanner. The automatic stabilisation system couldn’t maintain the 34-degree pitch and zero-degree yaw attitude he needed for reentry. Trouble shooting this new problem put him further behind, and when he engaged his fly-by-wire control mode, he forgot to switch off the manual system meaning for 10 minutes, both systems were burning fuel. Although Aurora 7 aligned for retrofire, it consequently was a sub-optimal orientation and it was late meaning the capsule canted about 25 degrees to the right and the burn began three seconds late. And it was only after retrofire that Carpenter noticed both control systems were drawing fuel; at which point, the manual system was empty and the automatic system had just 10 percent left. Using fly-by-wire sparingly to keep the horizon in sight, Carpenter managed to hold Aurora 7’s attitude. The remaining fuel was consumed by the auxiliary damping mode that minimized oscillations as the spacecraft fell through the atmosphere...it was a very close call. Chris Kraft vowed that Carpenter would never fly again - and he didn't. Although unquestionably a very talented electrical engineer and pilot. Max Faget who designed the Mercury capsule called Carpenter a better poet than astronaut. The Mercury capsule was a learning experience for all, but for all its flaws, there was a flight plan and Carpenter ' ' chose to disregard it. Witness the following 'Sigma 7' flight - (Carpenter's by then had become known as 'Stigma 7) - in which Wally Schirra performed to near perfection. Ironically he was also later 'grounded' due to his objection to the excessively detailed flight plan and work load placed on Apollo 7.
1
@JamesOberg You may well be correct. Certainly, none of them were ever going to fly in space again...(much like the crew of Apollo 15). I think that the main issue of contention was the refusal to wear helmets during re-entry.
1
Cunningham is also an ardent opponent of the notion of anthropogenic climate change - astonishingly, so is Harrison Schmitt.
1
Bart Sibrel or Bill Kaysing?
1
What about it?
1
Bart Sibrel is a proven opportunistic deceptive conman and liar with zero scientific credentials. Why would you uncritically trust the claims of a former cab driver turned conspiracy theorist?
1
@gerardm921 Known science is governed by mathematical axioms and physical laws and therefore has a voice of its own - you would know this if your education hadn't eluded you and thought that online conspiracy theory substituted for it instead. It would also teach you objectivity. Known science is not about opinions nor does it seek to influence them. Now returning to your OP, would you like me to explain the design and purpose of the Apollo computing systems to you? I would be happy to oblige. Fortunately, reality is not contingent or determined by what "makes no sense" to Gerrard M. Not sure why conspiracy believers are unable to comprehend that, particularly when they demonstrably have no understanding or knowledge about the history, science and technology of the Apollo Programme.
1
@gerardm921 "keep trying, so you are really good in reading out text books?" Nothing to do with me, as explained the science is self evident. "good for you! good luck, i rather don' t be a hypocrite, facts are facts" Indeed - and known science is all about facts. "conspiracy is a word used to diskredit stuff before even looking at it." No, it is a word that means the act of clandestine plotting. Conspiracy theorists speculate about the latter. Conspiracy believers (such as yourself) then mindlessly and gullibly consume it and regurgitate it online in the misguided belief that it makes them sound informed and clever. "and you clearly have no clue" You are the one that said it makes no sense to you. "im gonna leave it here" Is that a promise? "education what a joke" Sore because it eluded you? Like I said, I'm perfectly happy to explain the principles and operation of the Apollo computing systems to you.
1
Actually, during reentry and splashdown of the Apollo-Soyuz mission, the crew of the CM were accidentally exposed to toxic hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide fumes, caused by unignited reaction control system (RCS) hypergolic propellants venting from the spacecraft and reentering a cabin air intake. The RCS was inadvertently left on during descent due to an error by Vance Brand, and the toxic fumes were sucked into the spacecraft as it drew in outside air. Brand briefly lost consciousness, while Stafford retrieved emergency oxygen masks, put one on Brand, and gave one to Slayton. The three astronauts were hospitalized for two weeks in Honolulu. Toxic monomethyl hydrazine fuel from the plumbing in one of the space shuttle's orbital maneuvering system pods or APUs was quite common. During STS-9, two of the three APUs caught fire in the APU compartment in the rear of the Shuttle. The APUs provide hydraulic pressure to operate the orbiter’s flight controls and landing gear. Unaware of the fire, John Young landed the orbiter without difficulty. The fire continued after the wheels stopped, eventually burning itself out, causing major damage to the compartment. The fact that there had been a fire was not discovered, however, until the APU compartment was opened during post-flight inspections.
1
I think you'll find online conspiracy theory stole that particular mantle years ago.
1
@piercingtheveil7749 So I invited original evidence as opposed to parroting the same dumb online conspiracy theory - and someone comes back parroting dumb online conspiracy theory. No, NASA is not Hebrew to deceive. The acronym stands for National Aviation and Space Administration - but the organisation was originally called “NACA” - the “National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics” (founded in 1915 - long before space flight was even seriously considered) - and only when they in 1958 did they change the “C” to an “S” and rearrange the words. There is a rare verb in the Bible - “השׁיא” which means to deceive, but it’s pronounced HEY-SHEE. The verb ”נשׁא” as it appears in the dictionary does not appear even once in the Bible, and anyway it is pronounced NASHAA. It is not in use in modern Hebrew, and it is so rare, that even fluent Hebrew speakers don’t even this verb exists. The word NASA is written נאסא in Hebrew in has no meaning. The Hebrew letter shin ש (the "s" in nasa) represents two different phonemes: 's' and 'sh' . The two are distinguished by a dot above the left-hand side of the letter for 's' (rendering the letter as "sin") and above the right-hand side for 'sh' (rendering the letter as "shin"). In the text that this claim is taken from, the letter shin has a dot on the right side indicating that the letter is pronounced "sh" and therefore rendering the word "nasha", not "nasa." Therefore, it is "nä·shä' that means deceive. The letter s in nasa (dot above the left side of the letter) is pronounced like the s in side and means to "carry away". The rest of your post is simply crackpot conspiratorial fantasy.
1