Comments by "MRA" (@yassassin6425) on "Top 5 Apollo 11 Moon Landing Conspiracies" video.
-
@Bob-my1sx
_"Frustrating.. I studied Engineering and am an avid Astronomer."
Judging by your posts, only a self-proclaimed one. Your personal appeal to authority is irrelevant here. The Apollo programme was designed and developed by those far cleverer and more capable than you or I.
"Space is 65 miles up"
Actually the FAI, the international record-keeping body for aeronautics, defines the Kármán line as the space boundary, at an altitude of 62 miles. The U.S. military, and NASA all set the boundary of space at 50 miles.
"Space Station is only 250 miles up... Why's that? Why Were they afraid to go 10k miles away from Earth?"
What are you talking about? The moon is an average of 238,855 from earth. Afraid to go? We landed on the moon six times, and in addition to this, placed crews into orbit on two occasions - also circling it during the aborted Apollo 13. Going to the moon is extremely dangerous, but also, hugely expensive. The Apollo programme was cancelled due to cost and a lack of political public will. Since then, development has focussed on near earth orbit. The advent of Project Artemis and Space X Starship is about the change all that.
"Something they're not telling us? Is it Radiation? Is that why?"
The risks and hazards of prolonged/deep space exploration beyond the protection of the earth's magnetic field are huge, but not insurmountable. Apollo was a sprint - a calculated risk.
Yet they allege they went to the Moon, In largely1950's technology"
Actually no. The Apollo programme was a sea change demanding huge levels of innovation, research and development. It ushered in many new and nascent technologies.
"60s top range cars and aeroplanes ALL LEAKED, unreliable and inefficient."
So what? The technology developed for the Apollo programme did not.And actually, that's not necessarily true is it? Concorde was developed during the 1960s. There were some marvels of automotive and aeronautical engineering born of this age.
"Even in until 1980s tech was still infant really."
Technology is constantly evolving. of course much of 80s tech was in its infancy compared to today. But look at the pace of change since the industrial revolution.
"Something's not right, be honest."
The Apollo programme is entirely consistent with the developments and technical possibilities of the age. Necessity breeds innovation. As I said, new technologies and processes had to be researched and developed, but that was to be expected given the magnitude of the undertaking. As a claimed engineer, instead of personal incredulity, you should not only be familiar with all this as an inspiration but also fully cognisant of its application, function and principles and workings.
"Also "Conspiracy theory" is a std Gov agency terminology."
No it isn't. The term can be traced back to the 19th century in common vernacular. You can argue that today it is applied in a pejorative and disparaging sense, but that's hardly surprising given the complete horseshit that conspiracy theorists churn out and believers in their nonsense routinely parrot online.
22
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
@lorichet
"I'm sure the conditions on the moon -- the extreme temps, the vacuum, radiation, micrometeorites, solar flares -- were no big deal. "
If you think that they were, then do by all means explain why. There were no solar flares during any of the Apollo missions, but it indeed was significant risk and potentially a very "big deal".
"In fact, Apollo proved that all the equipment can work just as well on the moon as it can in, say, the Arizona desert, for example"
Why shouldn't it? You have yet to explain.
4
-
@lorichet ,
"Considering that one of the biggest solar storms occurred during one of the Apollo launches, there was still no chance of any flares hitting the Arizona desert."
One of the biggest solar storms? Really, which launch? Mission, date, time?
The Apollo programme coincided with a solar maximum and the programme took a calculated risk. They were very fortunate, because between Apollos 16 and 17 there was an SPE in August 1972.
"If you think I have yet to explain why, then you have yet to comprehend my last reply."
I fully comprehended your last reply - unfortunately in common with the rest of your ilk due to your illusory superiority, you are not in reality as clever as you think you are.
You have yet to detail why the cameras developed for the Apollo missions cannot operate on the moon. Regarding the 'Arizona desert', are you talking about testing or supposed staging. Really you people need to make your minds up. I thought it was filmed in a studio in Hollywood? no wait, Shepperton, hold on, isn't it supposed to be Area 51, or New Mexico? - that can't be right, someone yesterday claimed it was Death Valley.
Hilarious.
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
"There was no crater impression, but the footstep impression was possible."
There was ample disturbance in a radial pattern, which is entirely consistent with the thrust of the DPS in 1/6th gravity and a vacuum. Because it was throttleable, at the point of contact it was producing a mere 2,700lbs of thrust. The nozzle had a diameter of 59 inches which meant that equates to 11 psi chamber pressure and having an area of 2,700 square inches even at full power, the pressure of gas leaving the engine bell was only 0.5 PSI . Being in vacuum, it immediately spread out, dropping rapidly toward zero pressure. Perhaps you should reconsider your question?
The surface of the moon is covered in regolith which is a blanket layer of material covering solid rock - so yes footprints. Now consider the 24,000 lb thrust of a Harrier jump-jet, which does not make a crater when it lands - even on grass!. Do VTOL aircraft ever make a crater?
"A cameraman was already there."
Seriously, how stupid does it get? Do you think that NASA staged this gargantuan hoax on a colossal scale but were too dumb to realise that people would notice such a glaring error? Or could it just possibly be, that knowing absolutely nothing about the subject and mindlessly consuming and regurgitating junk online conspiracy theory, gullible dimwits such as yourself don't understand that a camera could be deployed via an extendable arm on the descent stage and activated by a switch in the cabin? Look up 'Westinghouse camera MESA bay'. Clever lad.
"The waving flag and shadows made is so obvious."
What is obvious here is two things. Firstly the flag moved when disturbed, whilst the shadows are entirely consistent with the lighting and you can observe similar on Earth. Secondly, that you are simply parroting the same old crap conspiracy theory that has been repeated and debunked over and over and over and over and over again. Do you by any chance have anything remotely resembling and original thought or observations of your own?
3
-
3
-
@lorichet
"There are differing opinions about where each of the Apollo moon landings were filmed"
Opinions. Precisely.
"as there are a few possible locations -- but we can all be 100% certain that none of them were filmed on the moon."
Can you? How?
"My comment about the vacuum of space had to have been visible since you responded to it."
That wasn't my question. You mentioned cold welding. There are clearly some that aren't visible to me.
"I already told you during Apollo 16."
No you didn't. It is however possible that again, your comment is not showing, as you know, the comments section of You Tube is a mismanaged mess which has yet to be corrected.
"April 18, 21, & 27 of 1972...of the 144 detectable flares that were recorded by NASA between April 17 and April 27, five (3.5%) were of the largest Class X and at least two out of the five were major proton events."
You've simply cut and pasted this from a Jarrah White column culled from yet another conspiracy website 'Aus Online' run by the publishers of Dark Moon. Firstly, these events did not take place as you stated during launch. Secondly they are not as you claim "one of the biggest solar storms" - whatever that means. They were indeed five Class X flares and although the nuclear particle detection system registered a slight increase in proton and alpha particle fluxes, no measurable radiation dose increment was received by the crew from these flares. Why? Because what White neglects to tell you is that solar flares are directional. Solar flares are primarily distinguished by their localised enhancement of UV and x-ray light. Electromagnetic radiation propagates through space in the direction it was emitted. The Solrad network detected these events during the Apollo 16 mission but they posed no problem to the mission flightpath. Regarding SPEs, the particle energy spectrum and arrival time seen by satellites varies with the location and nature of the event on the solar disk.
The most significant detected solar flare activity occurred from 2 to 11 August. Had this had occurred during Apollo 16 or 17 it would have forced an abort and the crew resorting to contingency measures. It would not however have as White claimed have been indisputably 'lethal to astronauts' - that is yet another bare faced lie.
"I didn't retract it -- the CIA deliberately coined the phrase as a derogatory term to silence the rising number of critics of the Warren Commission report."
You stated that the CIA invented the term and now you are contending that they "coined it." This is a flagrant and wilful lie. And no, at no stage was it used as a pejorative or derogatory term, that is absolute nonsense. Read the report - it is no different to the application of the phrase dating back in literature and popular parlance for the century that preceded this.
Objectivity? Critical thinking? You are deluding yourself.
3
-
3
-
@lorichet
"If "conspiracy theory" was never intended as a derogatory term given by your beloved CIA, then why do you and every other CIA apologist use it as a derogatory term?"
At what point have I expressed any preference or liking for the CIA? Yet another strawman logical fallacy to add to your growing list. Also, as I explained, in the context of the report that you refer to in which you laughably claimed they "invented the term", there are no negative connotations in the slightest. I suggest that you actually read it because you clearly haven't.
As I explained to you, the liars, conmen, anti-science and vile agendas that ironically you and many of your ilk are apologists for have earnt the disdain. That conspiracy theory is largely a disparaging term now is entirely down to those that perpetrate it, the ludicrous claims made and the deranged lunatics that then act on it. Being associated with a belief in flat earth or Alex Jones' shameful profiteering doesn't exactly help you people either. I don't believe in crude categorisation but for many, susceptibility to online conspiracy theory is like an illness that consumes and spreads. You are clearly displaying all the symptoms.
"You know, you NASA/CIA fans would make a perfect cast in a remake of Orwell's "1984."
- And there's another.
So shall we return to the nonsense about solar flares that you lifted word for word, unwittingly from Jarrah White via Aulis? You see this is what happens when you think that parroting conspiracy theory and confirmation bias can instantly substitute for zero knowledge of the subject concerned.
3
-
@lorichet
"You mean the dispatch to "counter and DISCREDIT the claims of the conspiracy theorists"? Yes, I read it. And, yes, it had very negative connotations about "conspiracy theorists."
Nope, to discredit the criticism of the Warren Report. Again, there is no evidence that the CIA memo had any impact whatsoever on the popularity of the concept. As I said, the casual way the memo uses the phrase just on one occasion acknowledges that the concept was already quite popular in the 1960s. And to return to the point, squirm out of this all that you like, but your original claim was that "the CIA invented the term conspiracy theory" is an outright lie and simply more evidence of your blind and uncritical faith in the junk online conspiracy theory that you mindlessly parrot.
"Are you thinking that you "caught" me on something? lol -- I made it clear where the quote was from before I even copied & pasted it because I knew the link would get deleted!"
Which I think that it was, and I believe you, because as I said at the time, it was quite clear that some of your comments weren't visible. Unfortunately if you elect to deploy links the crude and broken shadow ban filter will tend to remove the posts.
"White is an excellent researcher"
Jarrah White is nothing of the sort. For a start, in order to be an excellent researcher you need impartiality which is a foreign concept to you.
"and he wrote a very informative article on the solar flares."
So much so, he neglected to tell you that they are directional.
"You should read it sometime."
I did. It's a shame that you didn't, given your subsequent claim that they occurred during the launch of an Apollo mission. Moreover, I can assure you that I am infinitely more knowledgeable than yourself about the origins, background and protagonists of your dumb conspiracy theory. White is no different to the rest of them, simply more cerebral which means he can bamboozle and dupe the likes of scientific illiterates such as yourself with greater ease. Given though that you fall for the likes of Sibrel and Kaysing it makes you wonder why he expends the effort.
"You might learn something."
I learn more about these con artists each day. In terms of education, I'll stick with the objective science if it's all the same to you.
"And like the "conspiracy theorist" accusation, now comes the "flat earth" accusation "
What accusation? Seriously, do you have learning/comprehension issues? I merely provided an example of the increasing stigmatisation of conspiracy theories along with the deplorable behaviour of individuals such as Alex Jones.
"probably another psyop started by the CIA in their attempt to discredit moon landing critics so that people won't look at the evidence they present."
Just pause for a minute and read that back. I genuinely don't think it's possible that even you could be so stupid to believe what you just typed.
"You're wasting your time, Yassassin. You'll never succeed in getting any FORMER moon landing believer to RE-believe in that transparent fraud."
I don't expect to. As a believer in online conspiracy theory you belong to one of the most closed minded and ignorant communities on the entire internet next to religious extremists and cult members - which is why it is potentially so dangerous. Where I do demonstrably succeed however is effortlessly debunking the stream of nonsense that you gullibly regurgitate.
3
-
3
-
3
-
So, basically, because you say so - and yet in spite of this 'gotcha' in over fifty years, entire branches of science and related specialist feilds such as aerospace engineering have no issue with the validity of the Apollo moon landings whilst Jeffery Logan, University of You Tube, knows better? Ok then.
The surface of the moon is covered in regolith, which is a dust like blanket of heterogeneous deposits covering solid rock. It is also quite coarse, coagulated and thick. The descent engine of the LM was throttleable and at the point of touchdown was producing 2,700lbs of thrust. This was sufficient to disturb the dust on the surface beneath the lander and as you say, this was acknowledged prior to contact. Incidentally the voice you refer to is Aldrin's (not Armstrong), who remarked, "picking up some dust" at about 20 feet before touchdown and you can see it on the footage. What one earth are you talking about the lack of any disturbance? The rocket engines were not sufficient to clear the dust entirely but the impressions can be seen on each mission. The landing sites have been photographed by the LRO whilst the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) SELENE lunar probe has also imaged the sites which have further been confirmed by India's Chadrayaan 2 handrayaan-2 orbiter captured an image of the Apollo 11 Lunar Module Eagle descent stage (the orbiter's image of the Apollo landing site was released to the public on September 3, 2021) clearly showing the radial disturbance of the dust from the LM.
"Anyone who says otherwise is lying. Any made up bullshit reason why that is the case is nonsense."
Because Jeffery Logan said so.
- Reducto ad absurdium, a common lame tactic of the online conspiracy believer.
"Don’t need to analyze intersecting shadows or waving flags."
You mean parrot the contents of another dumb conspiracy video? Oh please do, I'd welcome the comic relief.
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"You’re telling me that there was a race to the moon and all the other countries just stopped when America got their first?"
There was only one other nation in contention, and that was the Soviet Union. And no, they did not stop. The Soviet moon landing programme was not cancelled until 1975.
"So Russia and china are cool with there being an American flag on the moon and they haven’t gone up there to plant their flag too?"
It is obscenely expensive to place crewed missions on the moon. The Soviet moon landing programme was doomed from the beginning due to the fact that it was allocated a fraction of the budget of Apollo. That, and the untimely death of Korolev and the consistent failure of the N1 rocket. China, went the way of all spacefaring nations post Apollo, which was low Earth orbit and the construction of Tiangong. Deep space missions became the preserve of unmanned landers and probes which are significantly cheaper and avoid the risk of manned exploration.
"You’re telling me it’s possible to get to the moon but no country has gone up since the 1960s???!!!"
Wrong. The last manned moon landing was December 1972. Since the cancellation of Apollo and the cessation of the Soviet manned lunar landing programme three years later, no nation, including the USA possessed or developed the heavy lift capability necessary to launch crewed missions to the moon. With the approval of Project Artemis in 2018 and the advent of the SLS/Starship, that is soon to change.
"Even though we are a lot more advanced with technology?"
Technology still costs money and doesn't surmount every challenge. The technology exists to fly passengers from London to New York in under 3 hours, but there is no supersonic airliner currently in service. By your skewed logic, Concorde was a hoax too.
1
-
The same personal incredulity over and over and over again.
"There seems to have been no dust kicked up AT ALL from the landing."
😆You can clearly hear Buzz Aldrin during the landing of Apollo 11 say - "picking up some dust" at about 20 feet before touchdown and you can see it on the footage.
And what do you expect at 10% of the descent engine's rated thrust? The LEM descent propulsion engine only had a thrust (at full power) of 10,125 lbf (45.04 kN) . To achieve that, it only needed a combustion chamber pressure of 100 psi (690 kPa). The exhaust exited through an expansion bell 59 inches in diameter, having an area of 2,700 square inches. Thus, at full power, the pressure of gas leaving the engine bell was only 0.037 PSI. Being in vacuum, it immediately spread out, dropping rapidly toward zero pressure.
The dispersal of dust on the ground is caused not by rocket exhaust, but by the displacement of air. There is no air on the Moon, therefore no significant dust movement beyond that which is observed by Aldrin and captured on the LEM camera.
"The radiation is still an issue, with NASA claiming they have to do ALL the research all over again to get through it. Seems like a lie to me."
As I said, the same things over and over and over again. Apollo is a very different craft to Orion. The challenge to be solved for Orion was a completely different one to that solved by the Apollo design. Orion is being designed for a different mission to Apollo. It will spend weeks, months, even years outside the protection of Earth's magnetic field. By way of comparison Apollo spent only a few days outside of this protection. In addition, Orion's onboard systems use modern electronics that are far more vulnerable to particle radiation than their Apollo-era counterparts. One NASA engineer, by the name of Kelly Smith, presenting a video about the then upcoming first unmanned test flight of the new Orion spacecraft (now over 5 years ago) said that the challenges of the space radiation environment had to be solved for the new design. This seems to have been massively misinterpreted by moon landing conspiracy believers.
"Also, explain the crosshair appearing BEHIND objects."
They are not behind. For God's sake, think rationally. Assume for a moment that NASA had both the technology and the wherewithal to pull off such a massive conspiracy as to do the impossible and fake the moon landing successfully. Do you really think they would be so careless as to make daft errors like that? Do you not think they would make sure that they dotted all their Is and crossed (haired) all their Ts? Very fine markings can get washed out in overexposed regions of the film, as very bright light tends to “bleed” due to reflections within the film itself. You see precisely the same on terrestrial photography. The reticles can be hard to observe easily in certain circumstances, e.g., if a bright area washes them out. That’s it. Either the contrast is low or there is overexposure or bleeding or any of many possible photographic exposure and developing issues. (And sometimes it’s just the quality of the reproduction - It consistently amazes me at how many alleged self-professed “photo experts” on conspiracy sites work from low resolution, highly-compressed JPEGs.)
What’s the alternative? That NASA put the crosses on a backdrop? That they “forgot” to draw in the crosses after the fact precisely at a border of light and dark? Seriously?
"I used to believe the moon landings, but now I have some doubt. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, I just have doubt."
You appear to be susceptible and succumbing to the erroneous and ill-informed claims of conspiracy theorists. Which is a great shame.
"The Vietnam war was also happening at this time."
So what?
1
-
1
-
@-TheOracle-
Kelvin is a measure of temperature. Space as such is neither hot or cold, it’s empty. There is no 'hot' in space; it’s a vacuum. So space is said to be “filled with cold”. If atoms come to a complete stop, they are at absolute zero. Space is just above that, at notionally an average temperature of 2.7 Kelvin. From this, naturally the common misconception is that outer space is cold, but in truth, space itself has no temperature. In thermodynamic terms, temperature is a function of heat energy in a given amount of matter, and space by definition has no mass. Furthermore, heat transfer cannot occur the same way in space, since two of the three methods of heat transfer (conduction and convection) cannot occur without matter. Any heat you feel is radiant energy from a sun. Objects in space can be hot or cold, depending on how much energy they have, they receive and they lose. In the absence of convection and conduction a body will either warm in the presence of a heat source or cool down in the absence of it through radiation.
Clearly then the Apollo craft was simultaneously exposed to the heat of the sun and the loss of it in the shade. In spacecraft design, the function of any thermal control system is to keep all the spacecraft's component systems within acceptable temperature ranges during all mission phases. It must cope with the external environment, which can vary in a wide range as the spacecraft is exposed to the extremes found in the shadows of deep space or to the intense heat found in the unfiltered direct sunlight of outer space. A TCS must also moderate the internal heat generated by the operation of the spacecraft it serves. A TCS can eject heat passively through the simple and natural infrared radiation of the spacecraft itself, or actively for example through an externally mounted infrared radiation coil.
Apollo spacecraft were often put in a "barbecue roll" - an example of a passive thermal control mode. This slowly rotated the spacecraft along its main axis. Without this maneuver, one side of the spacecraft would get too hot from facing the sun all the time.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@-agent-47-80
You simply need to understand the nature of radiation - or rather, the Van Allen Belts.
High energy gamma rays were ignored. Nothing short of a thick lead layer (which would weigh way to much) would stop that. Gamma radiation isn’t one of the types of radiation present in the outer Van Allen Belt, so “a few inches of lead” wasn’t necessary to shield the astronauts from the Van Allen Belts, as is often claimed.The remaining alpha and beta radiation is stopped by the aluminium skin and the windows – alpha radiation is even stopped by a sheet of paper. The Van Allen belts are a trap for charged particles like protons and electrons. They’re held in place by the magnetic field of the Earth, and so they trace the shape of the magnetic field itself. The problem with the Van Allen belts lies not in them being impassable, but in the charged particles they contain.
The Van Allen belts are no threat to astronauts passing through them at tens of thousands of miles per hour. Early probes enabled us to calculate, whilst Apollo dosimeters confirmed, that astronaut exposure from belt passage was roughly the same as a chest x-ray. Exposure for the entire trip to the moon was equivalent to from one to three mammograms, or half the annual exposure of residents of Denver CO.
The VAB are toroidal, so you need to think of the actual trajectory in terms of the three-dimensional transit. The highly technical reports of Apollo are accessible and give the three-dimensional details of the translunar trajectory as did the PMP.
Each mission flew a slightly different trajectory in order to access its landing site, but the orbital inclination of the translunar coast trajectory was always around the vicinity of 30°. Stated another way, the geometric plane containing the translunar trajectory was inclined to the earth's equator by about 30°. A spacecraft following that trajectory would bypass all but the edges of the Van Allen belts.
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.
The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is … nonsense.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Oh Jeez. Seriously, just a small amount of independent reading and learning would dispel your personal incredulity. When does a rocket leave a 'blast crater'? It's all science fiction and artistic licence.
Firstly, the surface of the moon is covered in a substance called regolith which is a dust like blanket of unconsolidated, loose, heterogeneous superficial deposits above solid rock.
Secondly, why should the descent stage "leave a crater"? What do you expect at 10% of the descent engine's rated thrust? The LEM descent propulsion engine only had a thrust (at full power) of 10,125 lbf (45.04 kN) . To achieve that, it only needed a combustion chamber pressure of 100 psi (690 kPa). The exhaust exited through an expansion bell 59 inches in diameter, having an area of 2,700 square inches. Thus, even at full power, the pressure of gas leaving the engine bell was only 0.037 PSI. That is considerably less than the 24,000 lb thrust of a Harrier jump-jet, which does NOT make a crater when it lands - even on grass!. Do VTOL aircraft ever make a crater?
Why is it even necessary to explain this?
1
-
@gerrytolbertjr.6246
"You’re just indoctrinated and reading stuff you’ve been taught out of a book. You have no idea what’s on the moon surface"
I am irrelevant. You asked a question I provided the answer. You don't like it because it challenges your belief in the conspiratorial narrative you have been fed. We know full well what the lunar surface consists of. This is all independently verifiable.
"did you know some of the rocks that they brought back we’re literally petrified wood?"
This again. Really? And your point about being 'indoctrinated' when you are simply badly parroting junk conspiracy theory? You are referring to the Dutch national museum, the The Rijksmuseum. The piece of petrified wood in question was simply in the personal belongings of a Dutch diplomat and was found along with a NASA card after his death. It was simply assumed that the two items were related and alerted the media. They were not, in fact, related at all. The Dutch media and curators never did the proper research to determine the origin of the exhibit.. Had they done even cursory research, they would have found that NASA never gave out un-encased specimens. There are hundreds of moon rocks and samples from the Apollo missions distributed to countries around the world and geologists alike.
"Why haven’t we gone back?"
A lack of political and public will, the fact that it was motivated by the space race, and the main factor, the sheer expense - which is why the Apollo Programme was cancelled - and the Space Shuttle Programme which meant the impetus was low earth orbit. All that is about to change with the advent of Project Artemis and the Space X/Starship programme .
"I’m not saying that it has to be a huge crater in the ground, but there would be some sort of evidence of dust, or surface trauma, there’s literally no evidence that a space craft had landed in that spot; but a footprint stayed?"
How do you know? - by your own self-defeating logic, you haven't been there. I explained the physics to you - whilst contrary to your claims the surface dust was greatly disturbed on each of the six landings. But, if anybody expects a mere 3000 pounds of thrust out of a 20 square foot engine bell to cut a crater into the layer of compacted regolith and rock - as per your original comment, they're not only completely ignorant of the physics of the Apollo programme, but divorced from reality in general.
"So go ahead and repeat your mumbo-jumbo and try to sound smart, just because you put a bunch of numbers and name a few elements doesn’t mean you know what you’re talking about."
Nothing to do with me, it's simple physics supported by the mathematics which by nature is axiomatic. The fact that you don't understand it means that you shouldn't be commenting, whilst your personal incredulity has no bearing upon reality or scientific fact.
"Most of the time, the answer that’s the most obvious, is the real answer."
The principle of Occam's Razor, you should apply it to your junk conspiracy theory before you parrot it.
1
-
Oh jeez. Just a small amount of reading and understanding would prevent you from typing this nonsense. The surface of the moon is covered in regolith which is a dust like blanket of unconsolidated, loose, heterogeneous superficial deposits covering solid rock.
Why should the descent stage "leave a hole"? What do you expect at 10% of the descent engine's rated thrust? The LEM descent propulsion engine only had a thrust (at full power) of 10,125 lbf (45.04 kN) . To achieve that, it only needed a combustion chamber pressure of 100 psi (690 kPa). The exhaust exited through an expansion bell 59 inches in diameter, having an area of 2,700 square inches. Thus, even at full power, the pressure of gas leaving the engine bell was only 0.037 PSI. That is considerably less than the 24,000 lb thrust of a Harrier jump-jet, which does NOT make a crater when it lands - even on grass!. Do VTOL aircraft ever make a crater?
Why is it even necessary to explain this?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@michaellyne8773
🤣None of them say that at all. I find it amusing that in your desperation for confirmation bias combined with your limited powers of comprehension you think that. Simply repeatedly saying something online - (such as half of Americans think that the moon landings are faked, or that you are an military veteran and ex pilot) - may reinforce your delusions, but it doesn't make it true.
Since the technology for manned spaceflight was left to lie fallow with the cancellation of Apollo, the development of the space shuttle and construction of the ISS, we lost the capability for crewed missions beyond near earth orbit. To send man to the moon, you need a giant fuck off mega-bucks rocket like the Saturn V. Hence the development of the SLS, and SpaceX's Starship.
After a successful WDR on the launch pad, last month, the SLS was rolled back into the VAB for final preparations and pre-launch readiness. It's been sitting there for all to see. The window for Artemis 1 is between August 23rd and September 6th. If all proceeds well, Artemis 2 will be a manned orbit of the moon - reminiscent of Apollo 8 - whilst Artemis 3 will be the mission that lands on the moon.
When this does happen, your coping mechanism will be denial and to retreat into your fantasy world (y;know, the one in which you're an ex USAF pilot), and simply claim it was fake. It's tremendously sad as it is humorous really.
1
-
@michaellyne8773
That's because they weren't designed to go to the moon. And actually you're wrong again. Apollo 4-6 were test flights of the Saturn V, Apollo 7 tested the Command module in near earth orbit and 9 accomplished the same the LEM which was undocked and flown15 miles from the CM to test the systems and descent engine.
The Van Allen Belts again? The Van Allen belts are no threat to astronauts passing through them at tens of thousands of miles per hour. Early probes enabled us to calculate, whilst Apollo dosimeters confirmed, that astronaut exposure from belt passage was roughly the same as a chest x-ray. Exposure for the entire trip to the moon was equivalent to from one to three mammograms, or half the annual exposure of residents of Denver CO.
The inner Van Allen Belt extends typically from an altitude of 0.2 to 2 Earth radii or 620 mi to 7,500 mi) above the Earth.The VAB are toroidal and trace the shape of the earth's magnetic field, so you need to think of the actual trajectory in terms of the three-dimensional transit. The highly technical reports of Apollo, accessible but admittedly, doubtless beyond your comprehension, give the three-dimensional details of the translunar trajectory as did the PMP.
Each mission flew a slightly different trajectory in order to access its landing site, but the orbital inclination of the translunar coast trajectory was always around the vicinity of 30°. Stated another way, the geometric plane containing the translunar trajectory was inclined to the earth's equator by about 30°. A spacecraft following that trajectory would bypass all but the sparse edges of the Van Allen belts.
"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.
The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense."
James A. Van Allen (2004)
The VABs trap charged particles - alpha and beta radiation. Do you know why this is significant? Of course you don't.
1
-
1
-
@michaellyne8773
I thought you weren't going to type anymore? By all means, keep it coming, you are most amusing.
"no! Making a fool of you get it right before you make nonsensical statements!"
Use punctuation before you make nonsensical statements. Ha! - like I said, the irony.
"You just can't accept that you are debunked"
I welcome it - you simply haven't managed it. And as I said, nothing to do with me. I quoted James Van Allen himself. It would perhaps help in your bid to debunk if you didn't rely on parroting junk online conspiracy theory from an ex cab driver that's already previously been comprehensively debunked. Why don't you have a go at falsifying one of the thousands of peer review journal papers that support the physics of the Apollo Programme?
"and I don't say that lightly! They don't allow you to vote do they? You can say what you like but it doesn't change the truth!"
You can say what you like, it doesn't make it true. Did you know, the Apollo astronauts actually were accomplished pilots?
"In an interview, Donald Pettit —a NASA astronaut— mentioned that he’d go the moon in a nano of a second but they no longer have the technology to do that. All the technology from the Apollo mission has been destroyed, and it is a painful process to build it back again."
Indeed. As I explained to you, after the Apollo Programme was cancelled and the final mission in 1972, the technology was left to lie fallow and the manufacturing processes abandoned. The funding was pulled and the Space Shuttle project took precedence. Hence Project Artemis required an entirely new rocket - the SLS - and Orion has been built using contemporary technology. Once this is fully tested, mankind will return to the moon. For fifty years, we have been unable to send manned missions beyond near earth orbit. Now, happily that is all soon to change.
"And I wonder why they lost all the data information?"
They didn't - I wonder why you think that? Ah yeah, Bart Sibrel told you that too.
"I'll give you a clue shall I?"
Oh do tell, the suspense is killing me.
"Because the Apollo missions were faked!"
That settles it. Thanks genius! 🤣Because you said so. Didn't you also say that you were an ex military veteran and fighter pilot? The words take, pinch and salt immediately spring to mind.
You still haven't been able to answer my question. The VABs consist of highly changed energised particles trapped by the earth's magnetic field. Do you know why this is significant?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@klausmikealson4856
"each engine on the Luna had a force of 10,000 you seen no dust before or after they landed , not deniers just people that uses common sense duhh"
What do you mean "each engine on the Luna" - how many do you think that there were? and what's a 'Luna'?
So what? The engine was throttled. What do you expect at 10% of the descent engine's rated thrust? Even at full power, the LEM descent propulsion engine only had a thrust (at full power) of 10,125 lbf (45.04 kN) . To achieve that, it only needed a combustion chamber pressure of 100 psi (690 kPa). The exhaust exited through an expansion bell 59 inches in diameter, having an area of 2,700 square inches. Thus, even at full power, the pressure of gas leaving the engine bell was only 0.037 PSI. That is considerably less than the 24,000 lb thrust of a Harrier jump-jet, which does NOT make a crater when it lands - even on grass!. Do VTOL aircraft ever make a crater? Why is it even necessary to explain this?
You can clearly hear Buzz Aldrin during the landing of Apollo 11 say - "picking up some dust" at about 20 feet before touchdown and you can see it on the footage - so again, you are talking complete nonsense.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lorichet
Entire branches of science such as physics, geology and astronomy, in addition to related fields of specialist expertise including aerospace engineering, petrology, orbital mechanics, and rocketry would all disagree.
With whom to afford credence? Evidence based disciplines predicated upon independent verification, measurement, physical laws and mathematical axioms, or a gullible random conspiracy believer seeking recognition and significance over the comments section of a video entertainment platform?
If you think it is pseudoscience then go ahead and demonstrate why. Instead of wasting your time on You Tube consuming and regurgitating other people's dumb conspiracy theories, start by falsifying the wealth of academic literature dedicated to the Apollo programme. That, or go back to your Bill Kaysing book and your Bart Sibrel videos.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lorichet
"Do you really think I would ever give you a source for anything"
Nope - you are a conspiracy believer so incapable of doing so - moreover prone to making unsubstantiated claims, so no surprise there.
"when your tactic is to shoot the messenger no matter who the source is?"
If it is legitimate then I will not be able to will I? Quick tip. Try relying on something more credible than Bill Kaysing. Known and verifiable science is a good place to start.
"I'm not your research assistant"
Thank f**k for that.
"look that up yourself. And don't pretend you've never heard that about China either."
As the one making the claim, the burden of proof is incumbent upon you. The onus does not lie with myself or another party to search for a negative or absent upon your insistence, behest and personal incredulity.
"Oh, yes, the moon landings do have a LOT to do with the other known frauds. They were every bit as fake -- though, granted, nowhere near as realistic."
Because again, you said so?....or rather, Bill Kaysing, given that you hang on his every word.
"And just so you know, critical thinking, common sense, and research are required to go from a mindless moon landing believer who accepts whatever govt authorities say to a FORMER mindless moon landing believer who now verifies whatever authorities say."
Known science is not about 'belief' or whatever "authorities say". Pull yourself together man, you're becoming increasingly irrational and flustered again.
And on the subject of mindless belief...the irony, was it intentional?
Lets go back to your claim. You stated that Professors in China are telling students that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax. What 'professors'? Where is your evidence for this?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lorichet
"A good example of character assassination, which, again, is exactly the reason I will not give you any more names of people whose characters you would proceed to assassinate."
How convenient. We both know full well that the real reason is that you are unable to source your claims that are largely mindlessly and uncritically accommodated online. A recent example being your absurd statement that Professors in China are telling students that the Apollo moon landings are faked. I merely asked you to substantiate this and you were unable to do so. Perhaps you can trot out the same tiresome trope that the CIA 'invented' the phrase conspiracy theory again?
Again laughable. Kaysing's behaviour, his fraudulent claims and his outright lies to discredit others for his own gain are demonstrable and there's nothing noble or honourable about that. The 'assassination' that you speak of is all his own. Even Ralph Rene of all people commented that Kaysing submitted "a load of drivel!" in his failed lawsuit against Jim Lovell. That you choose to venerate, revere and place blind faith in such people says much about you.
"Because you cannot give a valid argument against the "message," you NASA fans always "shoot the messenger." Do you not know that only those on the losing side of an issue do that?"
That you are blind to your own logical fallacies is the main reason I find you so entertaining. That, and your weird obsession with trolling these videos. 'You NASA fans''? What is that even supposed to mean? NASA are irrelevant here. As I keep explaining to you, the Apollo moon landings can be independently verified and those that challenge your absurd conspiratorial claims do so through objective science. I, and others, counteract everything that you post about Apollo with a valid argument which is independently verifiable. It's the same obligatory ill-informed arguments from ignorance, incredulity, quote mining, confirmation bias, cherry picking, circular logic over and over and over and over again. You post your 'message' I will not only address it on a point by point basis, but debunk it. The fact that you aren't genuinely interested in the answers is as manifest as your scientific illiteracy.
1
-
1
-
@yourtube15807
The same things over and over and over again.
It does create disturbance. You can even hear Aldrin acknowledging it during the landing of Apollo 11 when he says "picking up some dust" at about 20 feet before touchdown and you can see it on the footage.
What do you expect at 10% of the descent engine's rated thrust? The LEM descent propulsion engine only had a thrust (at full power) of 10,125 lbf (45.04 kN) . To achieve that, it only needed a combustion chamber pressure of 100 psi (690 kPa). The exhaust exited through an expansion bell 59 inches in diameter, having an area of 2,700 square inches. Thus, at full power, the pressure of gas leaving the engine bell was still only 0.037 PSI. Being in vacuum, it immediately spread out, dropping rapidly toward zero pressure.
The dispersal of dust on the ground is caused not by rocket exhaust, but by the displacement of air. There is no air on the Moon, therefore no significant dust movement beyond that which is observed by Aldrin and captured on the LEM camera.
Next?
1
-
@yourtube15807
"all these details do not impress me "
Your personal incredulity is neither here nor there, they are scientific facts and thus, independently verifiable. Don't ask a question if you can't handle the answer because it differs to the narrative you have been fed by your blind faith in online conspiracy theorists over physics.
"anyways why did not they blare on Media, brag about their achievement? Why is there no publicity? "
? They did and there was. The moonlandings were broadcast live to 500 million which was by far the biggest live audience in history at the time. The Apollo astronauts would then typically embark upon a gruelling 38-day around the world goodwill tour, visiting 29 cities in 24 countries, at the request of the President of the United States, who would provide one of the private jets for the journey. This followed by endless P/R, TV interviews and appearances, industry and corporate dinners. The media and publicity was on a scale never seen before.
"I MEAN they landed 11 times or 12 , so why no gloating EVEN by US citizens?"
No, there were six manned landings on the moon. All of them were accompanied by huge national pride.
"USSR copied every move even sputnik was and mars race won by USSR so why did not THEY land on moon?"
USSR put the first satellite into orbit and the first man in space - but only because NASA erred on caution with the Mercury programme. The Russians failed to land on the moon largely due to design flaws with the N1/Zond rocket and in part due to the diversion of funding into defence. Above all this were the fundamental systemic problems in the programme which was rushed coupled with the Nedelin disaster. The project was badly derailed by the death of its chief designer Sergei Korolev in 1966. Each of the four attempts to launch an N1 failed, with the second attempt resulting in the Nedelin disaster in which the rocket fell back onto its launch pad shortly after liftoff and causing one of the largest artificial non-nuclear explosions in human history and destroying the launch facility.
In a last ditch attempt to beat America to the moon, the Russians sent an unmanned lander Luna 15 to retrieve and return lunar soil, which arrived in orbit several days prior to Apollo 11, but crashed into a mountain in the sea of crises during the descent.
The problem appears to be, that you don't seem to have any knowledge whatsoever about the technical details, history and circumstances surrounding the Apollo programme. You have already made up your mind that it was faked, irrespective of any evidence to the contrary because that is what you want to believe.
1
-
@yourtube15807
"great...I am still not covinced"
Still not convinced about something you clearly have no knowledge or understanding of whatsoever? Classic You Tube comments section.
Convinced about what? I have addressed every aspect of your response and each of your questions all of which is independently verifiable. Your personal incredulity has no bearing on the real world.
"you live in your world"
I will indeed - it's called reality. You should plan to visit it from time to time.
"never heard or saw video of 6 lunar landings"
Apollos 11, 12, 14, 14, 16 and 17. You can routinely find footage of each. Again, your ignorance and personal incredulity have no bearing upon the real world.
"and USSR backed out? u r talking about kruschev here"
Which is precisely why they were expected to deliver with limited funding and resources whilst huge sums were being invested in arms and defence. At no stage did I say they "backed out" - why the strawman? The programme was beset by systemic failure, the rocket design flawed and the the main proponent of the N1 Rocket and Lunar Strategy, Sergey Korolev died in 1966. When he did, competing factions within the Soviet Space program jockeyed for positioning for funding, staffing, and resources. This meant that the N-1 was not the entire focus of the Soviet program unlike Apollo's Saturn V. The launchpad disaster caused by a malfunctioning turbopump effectively put paid to the Russian moon landing effort.
1
-
@yourtube15807
"lets say they did it 6 times"
No 'let's say' about it - there were six manned moon landings.
"let them do 7th time...if it is a great achievement we will see that live"
They are. The SLS was rolled out for a full wet dress rehearsal last month on the pad for all to see, and is now in the VAB undergoing launch readiness. Following that, Artemis 2 will send a manned mission to orbit the moon and if all goes well Artemis 3 will attempt the landing. When this happens, you will naturally assume your default coping mechanism of denial and in spite of the coverage claim that it is faked, further entrenching yourself in your fantasy world of online conspiracy theory surrounding subjects you clearly have no knowledge about whatsoever.
"and this time someone who is a scientist and no american do some press material"
The Apollo Programme was made possible through science. Not only did it embrace entire scientific fields the Apollo systems were developed by MIT. Moon rocks and samples were returned and distributed amongst geologists worldwide - the missions were independently tracked and their findings the subject of tens of thousands of research journal publications. Hundreds of innovations and technologies were progressed and made possible by Apollo. And finally, what is most hilarious about your statement - NASA even sent a scientist to the moon Dr.Harrison Schmitt, as a member of the Apollo 17 crew and the twelfth man to set foot on the lunar surface.
"*btw did u notice youtube has removed 99.99% of videos claiming moon landing was hoax"*
No they haven't. You can still routinely find this junk, whilst a five second Google search will bring up pages of results...and guess who owns Google genius?
I have systematically and comprehensively addressed all of your posts, your misconceptions, your personal incredulity and you simply ignore it, mindlessly trotting out more nonsense based upon your emotionally invested faith in online conspiracy theory and the fact that you have no knowledge of the history, science and technical details of the moon landings whatsoever. Why are you doing this to yourself?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"So we haven't been back to the moon because NASA says that it's impossible to pass through the Van Allen Belt"
Incorrect - and NASA have made no such statement. They "haven't been back to the moon" because Congress cut the funding and the programme was prematurely cancelled 1972. This meant the abandonment of a heavy lift capability up until the development of the SLS. Project Artemis was only approved as recently as 2018.
Regarding the Van Allen Belts, (note the plural, since contrary to your misconception there are in fact two - with a third that is transitory), NASA fully understand how to safely traverse the belts. They consist of diffuse toroidal volumes around the Earth's equator within which radiation levels are elevated by the planet's magnetic field trapping charged particles from the sun. The inner torus is populated by energetic protons which they passed through in mere minutes and against which the hull of the CM was an effective shield. The hull of an Apollo command module rated 7 to 8 g/cm2. The craft took an hour and a half to traverse the more extensive outer torus but this region has mainly low energy electrons and so was less of a concern to mission planners. Also the inclination of the trajectory being in the plane of the Moon's orbit avoided the strongest regions of the belts near the equator.
When NASA commenced its lunar spaceflight program, its scientists already knew about the belts and their spatial and energy distribution. The energies: electrons below about 1 MeV were unlikely to be dangerous, as were protons below 10 MeV. For example, a proton with an energy of 3 MeV could penetrate about 6 mm of aluminium (a typical spacecraft material) whereas one of 100 MeV could penetrate up to 40 mm. So engineers fashioned shielding that consisted of a spacecraft hull and all the instrumentation lining the walls. Further, knowing the belts’ absence above the poles, the altitude of the lower edge of the inner belt being 600 km (well above the LEO) and the location of the South Atlantic anomaly, where doses are at a high 40 mrads/day at an altitude of 210 km allowed NASA to design the Apollo translunar injection (TLI) orbit in a way that the spacecraft would avoid the belts’ most dangerous parts.
"which is the excuse for why we sent an unmanned rocket to the moon recently, to "get the data needed to know what we need to pass through the V.A.B. so that we can finally leave earth orbit"
Again false. Firstly, that statement is made up and a lie. Once more, NASA have said no such thing. Artemis 1 was an unmanned test of a new launch vehicle and capsule.
"This makes no sense"
It makes no sense to you - and such personal incredulity is one of the main reasons that junk online conspiracy theory is perpetuated and spread by individuals with zero knowledge of spaceflight. Orion is a completely different craft to Apollo. It will spend months, years out of the protection of the Earth's magnetic field. By way of comparison Apollo spent only a few days outside of this protection. In addition, Orion's onboard systems use modern electronics that are far more vulnerable to particle radiation than their Apollo-era counterparts. When high-energy protons and other ions hit orbiting spacecraft, they often leave ionisation tracks in electronic chips. These tracks can upset spacecraft computer memories and otherwise disrupt sensitive electronics.
Because the computers aboard Orion are much more powerful than those carried by NASA’s Apollo moon missions during the 1960s and 1970s, such advanced electronics are more susceptible to the levels of radiation found in the Van Allen belts and beyond. This is a given and needs no further explanation. However, understand that core rope memory used by Apollo is radiation hard. In contrast, in the case of modern high density systems, radiation ionising the underlying semiconductor material - for instance when an electron tunnels into a transistor, can cause adverse effects. Look up single event upset and the more destructive single event effects/latch-up for more information. The large bipolar (NPN and PNP) transistors in the AGC were not very sensitive to radiation. Modern MOSFETs are much more radiation sensitive. 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. One of the mannequins was testing a new radiation shielding vest, called the astrorad. Also the mission coincides with peak solar activity which is a tremendous opportunity to gain more data in respect of the crew cabin and its high-tech systems.
"but according to NASA, we destroyed that technology and it's too hard to rebuild it"
This again? Really? How many times?
One astronaut, Don Pettit, speaking in 2017 used an unfortunate turn of phrase - "destroyed" and he didn't say "it was too hard to rebuild it". Why do you keep lying? 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?...yet again?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@СерхиоБускетс-ф7я
Why do you people attempt to sound informed and authoritative about subjects that you demonstrably don't have the remotest idea about and then expect to be taken seriously? It's excruciatingly embarrassing to read.
"The rover does not fit into the lunar module, it is non-separable."
All three rovers used for the J class missions (Apollo 15, 16 and 17) were folded and stowed into quadrant 1 storage bay of the descent stage of the LM. There is ample footage and many photographs of these being loaded, the release procedure being practiced in mock ups on earth and of the actual deployment on the moon.
"The lunar module does not have correction nozzles after launch, in the video after takeoff it rotates a little and deviates from the course, without nozzle correction you will turn around and fall back."
What on earth are you talking about? The LM had four reaction control thruster quads. Google "Reaction Control System Lunar Module".
"No tanks of fuel, you need several tons of fuel to take off from the moon, for example, 2 tons of gasoline is 3 cubic meters in volume, do you see it on the lunar module? I do not see."
You think the LM used gasoline??? The ascent engine used Aerozine 50, a half-and-half mixture of hydrazine and unsymmetric dimethylhydrazine (UDMH) developed for the Titan 2. You can see the location of the tanks in the schematics/technical specifications or cross-sctional diagram of the ascent stage. The moon has one sixth of the gravity of the earth and no atmospheric resistance. To lift off from its surface, the ascent stage simply needed to overcome that gravity. 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. Do the mathematics. 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. And 0.3g isn't small. In 100 sec, you would be over 600 mph. In 6-7 min you'd have 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.
"The US said they brought hundreds of kilograms of soil."
The Apollo 17 mission returned the highest: 741 individual rock and soil samples totaling 110.5 kilograms. What's your point?
"They tell us that they brought a non-separable rover there (large mass) and then brought soil from the moon. This is nonsense for idiots."
Well let's see. In over half a century entire branches of science such as physics and geology, related specialist fields including aerospace engineering worldwide, 76 other Space Agencies, independent nations, Nobel Prize winning physicists and Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalists all accept the authenticity of the moon landings. Meanwhile, you, a random insignificant scientifically illiterate conspiracy believer posting nonsensical arguments from personal incredulity over the comments section of a video entertainment platform doesn't. To whom to afford credence? Tough one that.
Quick tip - it's not a bad idea to learn, at the very least, even some very basic facts about something before you brand it as fake and others infinitely more accomplished and intelligent that yourself as 'idiots' - don't you think? Of course you don't.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It's Fahrenheit - you can't even get that right. Actually, 280 F (138 C) - which 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 absorbtion of radiation.
All the Apollo missions to the Moon’s surface were carefully planned for lunar dawn, to ensure the surface hadn’t had time to heat up fully to its daytime temperature. Bear in mind here that the lunar day is just under 700 hours long. In addition to this, the angle of insolation ensured that the sunlight was not too strong.
There are three ways heat can transfer and only two are possible on the Moon. The first is radiation, both directly from the Sun and from the albedo on the surface. The astronauts’ spacesuits were designed to reflect almost 90% of the light that reaches it, so very little heat would have transferred to the astronauts. The second is by conduction from the direct contact their feet had with the surface. This is also an ineffective process as regolith on the lunar surface doesn’t conduct heat well and the astronauts’ boots were insulated, slowing down conduction even further and the moon has no atmosphere. The normal kind of thermal transfer we see on Earth requires matter for the heat to transfer to. With no air, heat has no immediate way to escape a body. and so in respect of convection - the most efficient process of heat transfer - there is no medium for this to take place.
Body heat of the astronauts was carried away from the water-cooled undergarment and in waste air, both of which passed through the PLSS (Personal Life Support System) backpack, where they were cooled by a water ice sublimator. Several gallons of water was contained in a pair of flexible reservoirs inside the backpack for this purpose. Astronauts could control the operation of the sublimator, and so the amount of cooling. No heat was ever needed, as the human body cranks out as much heat as an incandescent light bulb.
All very basic thermodynamics. Why are you humiliating yourself by posting utter crap about subjects you clearly have no knowledge of whatsoever?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@user-dt3rz2lz7q
"I've never considered myself to be significant in any way, shape or form. Never
Your comments indicate the opposite.
"I will however point out that, a comments section invites one's opinions and reactions."
And I am inclined to agree. However know science is about neither.
"Dumb, implies unwilling or even unable to speak, hardly an accurate description of me."
Simply one definition. It also means to be lacking in intelligence.
"In the free world l am entitled to my opinion which l gave"
You are indeed. Simply because you are at liberty to express that on the internet however does not make it a valid one. Quick tip, it helps if you actually know some very basic details about subjects that you wish to declare as being fake. Not one conspiracy believer that I have ever encountered has ever grasped that notion.
"you however, chose to play cryptic mind games and a desire to win an argument, on this entertainment platform."
Nope, I gave you an example of context, pointed out that contrary to your belief, truth is not subjective and responded to a series of banal statements subsequent to that.
"You have clearly been seeking favourable attention from the other commenters."
And how have you established that?
"Why did you responded directly to me in the first place?"
Because that's the general idea of a comments section, hence the feature marked 'reply'. And as you yourself mentioned, I am at complete liberty to do so.
"There are many other comments, from many others here, that reflect my view exactly."
From equally deluded Dunning Kruger afflicted individuals, that similarly flock to these videos in the mistaken belief that parroting online conspiracy theory makes them sound informed and clever and feel special. Fortunately, there are those that challenge this hubris.
"Maybe keep your personal opinions about others intelligence to yourself"
Maybe keep your dumb conspiracy theory to yourself - or if you insist upon trolling videos such as these, don't respond with surprise and indignation when someone challenges your asinine claims.
"and use this video entertainment platform to express relevantly and factually your opinion, so that others actually understand why YOU, believe Man walked on the Moon."
Know science is not a question of belief and at no stage have I mentioned mine.
"Oh and Yassassin, l don't believe he walked on the Moon, but l do believe there's a Man in it. Pardon my mirth."
You already said that too - do you have the retention of a Goldfish and the repertoire of a parrot?
1
-
"If possible catch a movie called Capricorn 1 (about a fake Mars landing). This movie parallels in so many ways the moon landing that I think it is closer to the truth about the moon landing than anybody thinks. Of course in the movie, the outcome is different than the "moon landing", but Hollywood movies have to have an exciting ending."
It's a film - pure fantasy, nothing more. To fake the Apollo programme would have required the silencing of not just the near half a million involved and associated with the project, but the collective coercion and co opting of entire branches of science such as astronomy, geology and physics. Additionally, the Apollo flights were tracked all over the globe. The US couldn't even keep a blow job on the president a secret.
"Also, I don't believe they had the computing power in 1969 to successfully get anyone to the moon since the average modern cell phone has more computing power than NASA had back then."
You personal incredulity and beliefs, have no bearing upon reality and scientific fact. The computing power was sufficient though - hence the fact that it was able to undertake it. Of course any contemporary device has vastly more raw computational ability than the computers employed during the moon landings, but they were nonetheless remarkably capable, reliable, and up to the task given. To understand the Apollo system is to appreciate why its tiny amount of raw processing power is irrelevant.
The Apollo Guidance Computer in the command module had two main jobs. First, it calculated the necessary course to the moon, calibrated by astronomical measurements that the astronauts made in flight. No different to the principle of a sextant used by oceanic navigators. Once the moon was lined up, Earth, or the sun was then located in one sight, and it was then necessary to fix the location of a star with the other. The computer would then measure those angles and recalculate its position. Second, it needed to control the many physical components of the spacecraft. The Apollo Guidance Computer could communicate with 150 separate devices within the spacecraft. Conceptually, the MIT Instrumentation Laboratory, which designed the system used principles derived from the work they’d done for the Polaris guided-missile system. The Apollo computer's hardware was well understood in the world of military avionics. Most of the system’s memory and tasks had been prewritten woven onto rope memory, but some elements could also be written both by the astronauts and remotely from Mission Control. Sceptics focus on 'power' without comprehending that it’s not about the raw number of transistors, but the machine fitting and designed around the mission objectives. So capability, not power.
That you don't understand it is as I said, irrelevant.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1