Comments by "MRA" (@yassassin6425) on "Apollo 11: The final 13 minutes to the Moon - BBC World Service, 13 Minutes to the Moon podcast" video.
-
8
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
"FAKE..."
The circumstances surrounding your birth? Your education? Or your hooker's sole orgasm?
"WHO WAS FILMING THE FAST MOVING MODULE.."
The Command Module pilot.
"N IF IT LANDED..HOW IT MANAGED TO COME UP FROM THE SURFACE OF MOON...😂"
The moon has one sixth of the gravity of the earth, to lift off from the moon, the ascent stage needed to overcome this. The force you exert on a surface due to gravity pulling you down is measured in Newtons (N) - this depends on the strength of gravity at a given location - in this case 0.17g. The ascent rocket expelled exhaust gases at Ve = 3.0 x 103 m/s. Its initial mass, including fuel, was 4800 kg. With no atmosphere, they could accelerate constantly, get up to speed very quickly and could reach orbit at very low altitude. That's a lot less fuel required. The Tsiolkovsky rocket equation tells us that the 2 tons of fuel in the LM ascent stage could propel the ~2 tons of empty mass to a speed of more than 2000 m/s, when they only needed 1600 m/s to get into lunar orbit and dock with the CM. In 100 sec, the ascent stage was travelling over 600 mph. In under seven minutes, they had reached orbital velocity. The LM ascent stage weighed just about 1700 lb on the moon and had a 3500 lbf engine, so it had easily enough thrust. Ignition was hypergolic and the lunar lander's ascent engine used Aerozine 50, a half-and-half mixture of hydrazine and unsymmetric dimethylhydrazine (UDMH) developed for the Titan 2 and witnessed during the Gemini programme.
"AND WHY DIDN'T AMERICAN NASA EVER WENT THERE AGAIN...😅"
They did, on five more occasions. It would have been at least ten had it not been for the premature cancellation of the programme resulting in the loss of Apollo 18, 19 and 20 in addition to the aborted landing of Apollo 13. Presumably NASA inexplicably felt the need to fake their own failure too?
"THEY LIED TO WHOLE WORLD 🌎"
And to think, for in excess of half a century no one has noticed bar a community of gullible, cretinous believers in dumb online conspiracy theory that tells them what to think about a subject they have zero knowledge of whatsoever.
"COLD WAR TACTICS...."
And the Soviets didn't think to call them out on it.
So the usual ignorance, personal incredulity, logical fallacies, shouty caps lock insistence and childish emojis. Congratulations, full house on my dipshit conspiracy believer bingo card.
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Except they didn't. One astronaut, Don Pettit, speaking in 2017 used an unfortunate turn of phrase. Since then, conspiracy theorists and those that parrot their nonsense have obsessively fixated upon it because that's what they do. However, if you have a modicum of intelligence, critical faculty, integrity and the will to objectively appraise the information that you receive and you place his sentence within it's full and intended context, then it's abundantly clear what he is referring to.
The premature cancellation of Apollo in 1972 due to the retraction of funding from congress and the lack of political and public will, resulted in the abandonment of the specific expertise, the tooling, the production processes, the plants and most significantly, the heavy lift capability that sent crewed missions to the moon. Emphasis was placed instead on low Earth orbit, primarily, the development of the Space Shuttle which promised much, but failed to deliver in terms of it's commercial and financial returns and launch cadence. The other huge project was obviously the construction of the ISS. Neither of which send man to the surface of the moon. Deep space exploration became the preserve of unmanned missions - robotic landers and probes. Pettit was speaking prior to the approval of Project Artemis that will return man to the surface of the moon. The technology of Apollo is old and obsolete but since much of the hardware remains, you can understand that his use of the word 'destroyed' was metaphorical. Rebuilding a manned programme to the moon using modern technology that has superseded that of Apollo has been a protracted and painstaking process on a budget that is a fraction of that of Apollo.
Why is it even necessary to explain this? - again?
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
They did go again, five times.
The USA stopped going to the moon because in the midst of an expensive foreign war, growing public apathy and disquiet, a lack of political will and the looming OPEC crisis, Congress withdrew the funding in 1972. They saw little benefit in continuing to plough in, what had been at its peak, 4% of the annual federal budget into repetition of something that had already been achieved. The Apollo Programme was cancelled meaning that the manufacturing plants, the processes, the bespoke tooling, the expertise was either retired, disassembled or moved on, whilst production of the heavy lift capability ceased and no one build a replacement for the Saturn V. Powerful lobbying for the folly of the Space Shuttle Programme shifted the emphasis upon low Earth orbit and the subsequent construction of the ISS meant that space exploration became the preserve of much cheaper unmanned probes and landers that did not require a heavy lift rocket. The old technology of Apollo has become obsolete and defunct.
What do you expect it look like?
3
-
@lalkhanlaghari8410
So like your fellow dumb conspiracy believing ilk, you completely disregarded my reply to you.
Entire branches of science, specialist fields of expertise and disciplines worldwide such as aerospace engineering, Pulitzer nominated investigative journalism, Nobel Prize winning physicists, over 10.000 private sector organisations and investments and each of the 76 space agencies on the planet to name a few all corroborate the moon landings.
The Apollo Programme has been forensically dissected by entire branches of science and specialist fields and disciplines, investigative and technical journalists and some of the finest minds on the planet for over half a century. It was completely transparent and there is no engineering project in history of the scale and complexity that has been so ingrained in the public eye and exhaustively covered. In addition to this, in excess of half a century, the physics of every mission profile, the engineering of every design down to each schematic, specification - to every nut, bolt, switch and circuit breaker has been forensically scrutinised and technically examined worldwide. There are tens of thousands of publications, journal articles/papers and books written on the subject. The private sector space sector is growing exponentially. Companies such as Blue Origin and Space X and Aerojet Rocketdyne are part of a huge supply chain of consisting of a myriad of contractors, partnerships and stakeholders in Project Artemis. Meanwhile independent organisations such as Intuitive Machines, Advanced Space, Astrobotic, Northrup-Grumman, Venturi Astrolab and many others are making modern lunar missions happen in addition to the 76 other space agencies on the planet. To varying degrees, the work they're doing is predicated upon what was learned during the Apollo missions and this invites large scale investment from stakeholders with serious money on the line who need to be privy to the inner workings of these ventures. There are also companies working on next generation of lunar terrain vehicles for the Artemis missions who base aspects of their work on the accomplishments of Apollo. Then there are the professors teaching orbital mechanics at MIT, Purdue, UC Boulder, and other elite universities whose work also draws on the achievements of the Apollo program).
The scientific, technical, independent and third party evidence in support of the Apollo moon landings is demonstrable and has a voice of its own.
3
-
3
-
Unfortunately, your comment was shadow banned, and so only visible in my notifications, so I have duly summarised it below
"So you are saying my digging was watching a crap online conspiracy video?"
No, you have probably squandered a large portion of your life watching multiple crap conspiracy videos. "Digging" does not involve self-proclaimed overnight armchair 'expertise' frittering away your evenings consuming junk You Tube videos, cherry picked click bait confirmation bias, quote mining, false equivalence and circular self-referencing pseudoscientific conspiracy websites, do feel free to share - how precisely did you do yours? Do you have anything new? Oh hang on...
"What about if I watched hundreds of videos and read 10+ books?"
Books? I'd say why don't you try it instead. Naturally, you'll ensure that the literature is objective, well researched and don't have the names Kaysing or Sibrel on the spine and cover. Why don't you start by reading up on the actual science, technology and history of spaceflight and the Apollo Programme instead of relying upon what dumb online conspiracy theorists tell you what to think?
"You assuming someone else’s intellect, ability, and determination to dig is ignorantly laughable. Why?"
Because clearly, you equate "intellect, ability and determination to dig" with junk conspiracy theory.
"Can I show you some areas to look into? Or do you trust the government agencies over your brothers?"
Should we trust our governments? No. Patriotism, as far as I am concerned, involves distrusting the government. Keep them in check. They are our employees...they are to represent us, yet they are frequently self-serving. But that distrust is pointless if we're fooled into thinking that our government is always up to something and yet we can't discern when it is, and when it isn't - or detracts from genuine corruption or duplicity. Of course governments lie, deceive and conspire. No one in their right mind would suggest otherwise. But simply because they do that does not then logically follow that claims that the moon landing was faked, or any random conspiracy theory of one's arbitrary choosing, devising or consequence of personal bias/agenda should automatically be assumed to be true.
The government is irrelevant. The science is demonstrable and the mathematics axiomatic thereby having a voice of their own. Meanwhile the independent and third party evidence in support of the moon landings is incontrovertible.
Areas to look into? What I'd like you to do instead is to present your singular most compelling piece of evidence that the six Apollo moon landings were faked. What do you regard as irrefutable evidence? I absolutely guarantee that I have heard it before over and over and over again, and I can tell you where it came from...that is of course unless you have your own original thoughts and observations, which I would welcome. I have invited this from countless conspiracy believers, but as yet, it has never happened. You could be the first.
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"Really? Still sticking to that old narrative?"
What "narrative" would that be? The scientific, technical, historical, independent and third party evidence that you are wholly ignorant of, is manifest, incontrovertible and has a voice of its own.
"And about 50 years later NASA begins to think about radiatzion issues."
"Radiatzion"??? You're not all that bright are you.
If you mean cosmic, solar and charged particle radiation, this has been studied by NASA since its inception and by astrophysics for decades before that.
"Nobody with a sound mind believes these narratives anymore."
Apart from entire branches of science, specialist fields of expertise such as aerospace engineering worldwide, Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalists, Nobel Prize winning physicists and each of the 76 other space agencies on the planet? In short, domains, disciplines and individuals far cleverer and more informed than an insignificant, random, gullible Dunning Kruger afflicted believer in dumb online conspiracy theory with zero knowledge of the subject whatsoever. And no, known science and technology is not a question of 'belief' that would be the the junk online conspiracy theory that you mindlessly consume and regurgitate.
Quick tip. If you really insist on branding something as fake, it's an idea to learn even the most basic and rudimentary facts about it before you do.
"Radiatzion" 🤦♂
Seriously, why do you people do this to yourselves?
2
-
2
-
Firstly, the main objective of the dummy was to equip it with the first-generation Orion Crew Survival System suit – a spacesuit astronauts will wear during launch, entry, and other dynamic phases of their missions. It was fitted with sensors to record gs and acceleration in order that engineers could compare Artemis I flight data with previous ground-based vibration tests with the same test dummy, and human subjects, to correlate performance. Accelerometers inside Orion yielded data for comparing vibration and acceleration between the upper and lower seats. It also evaluated the integration of the newly designed systems with an energy dampening system that the seats are mounted on.
In terms of radiation, Orion is a completely different craft to Apollo designed for longer duration and distance The longest Apollo mission was Apollo 17 at 12 days - in comparison, Artemis 1 was 25 days (42 originally) and unlike Apollo reached an apogee around the moon of 40,000 miles. The mannequin was also testing a new radiation shielding vest, called the astrorad. Also the mission coincided with peak solar activity which was a tremendous opportunity to gain more data in respect of the crew cabin and its systems.
Secondly, the Russians did have a moon programme which actually continued after the cancellation of Apollo. Their aspirations to reach the moon were confounded by the continued failure of the N1 rocket, the untimely death of Sergei Korolev and a fraction of the funding of the Apollo Programme.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"FAKE!"
On the contrary, there were nine manned missions to the moon and six landings. It would have been at least ten had it not been for the near catastrophe and aborted landing of Apollo 13 and the premature cancellation of the programme and with it, Apollo 18, 19 and 20. In order to declare something as "fake", you need to actually be informed and knowledgeable about it.
"God knows whatelse we have been lied about!"
Because naturally the online conspiracy theory that you defer to is entirely and unfailingly honest, unwaveringly accurate and consistent, not in the least bit intentionally deceptive, misleading, fallacious, exploitative, opportunistic or manipulative and with your best interests at heart is entirely free of vested interest and agenda? Righto then.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1