Comments by "MRA" (@yassassin6425) on "Global News"
channel.
-
12
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
_"What mixed bag of misunderstanding the issues, strawman arguments, untruths and dismissive analysis by the astronomer."
Well he is after all dealing with the same old obligatory junk conspiracy theory which specialises in strawman arguments, untruths and dismissal.
But then, online conspiracy theory is of course entirely and unfailingly honest, unwaveringly accurate and consistent, not in the least bit intentionally deceptive, disingenuous, misleading, fallacious, exploitative, opportunistic, profiteering or manipulative and with your best interests at heart is entirely free of vested interest and agenda? Righto then.
The sole problem here is that he isn't saying what you want to hear.
1/ No it doesn't. It moves when disturbed either by contact with an astronaut or venting from the PLSS. And yes, the rod has everything to do with it.
2/ Incorrect. It was not possible to see the stars from the lunar surface due to the glare of the sun and the moon's albedo - just as is the case here on Earth during the daytime. And there are many accounts of the Apollo astronauts being awestruck by the stars, particularly around the far side of the moon during the lunar night time.
3. The moon does have a low albedo, but it was still bright enough to cast shadows, just as it can here on Earth. The shadows are entirely consistent with a single light source.
4. Absolute utter nonsense and highly ironic since conspiracy theorists and their gullible believers obsess over 'several feet of lead' not realising that this will actually produce secondary radiation when hit by charged alpha and beta particles in the VABs due to bremsstrahlung. In cislunar space the main danger beyond the protection of the earth's magnetosphere as you say, comes from CMEs and solar particle events. The hull of an Apollo command module rated 7 to 8 g/cm2. 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. a moonwalker caught in the August 1972 storm might have absorbed 400 rem. Although serious they would have returned to earth with sufficient time to be treated. The key is time and intensity. Furthermore, with notice, the aluminum hull of the lunar module would have attenuated the 1972 storm from 400 rem to less than 35 rem at the astronaut's blood-forming organs.
Astronauts on the lunar surface absorb about 60 microsieverts of radiation per hour. That's 5 to 10 times higher than the rate experienced on a trans-Atlantic passenger flight and about 200 times what we get on Earth's surface. Charged particles such as galactic cosmic rays (GCRs), which are accelerated to tremendous speeds by faraway supernova explosions, contribute about 75% to this total lunar-surface dose rate of 60 microsieverts per hour. So it wasn't an issue for the Apollo astronauts but any prolonged habitation would necessitate shielding because this can spike massively. Doses received by the crewmen of Apollo missions 7 - 17 were small because no major solar-particle events occurred during those missions. The highest total dose recorded at skin level was the crew of Apollo 14 at 1.14 rads (due to the path taken through a denser region of the VABs). The Alpha and Beta particles within are easy to shield against. Total mission doses would have been in the region of 1 - 1.5 rems.
5. Yes there was a camera mounted upon the MESA bay - but the amount of people in these comments sections that are unable to comprehend this is staggering. It's absurdly one of the most commonly raised objections to the moon landings.
Ah, the compartmentalisation chestnut - again - and yet you hilariously refer to his rebuttal as a "trope". The US government couldn't even keep a burglary on a hotel secret or a b*** job from a summer intern quiet. "Compartmentalisation" is just a magic spell hand-wave favoured by conspiracy theorists. You can't compartmentalise a project of such complexity and consisting of so many interwoven parts and reciprocity. Any alteration/revision in any part of the production process or system affected all the other parts. NASA actually had to do the complete opposite of compartmentalisation and engender a culture of communication and openness. An entire department was charged with the task of nothing except version-keeping and distributing materials to all the contractors involved. Contractors forced engineers from different departments working for NASA to interact and talk - for example, separate canteens were discouraged and closed to encourage greater cooperation Had it have been attempted any other way (not that it could have been) such clandestine working would have meant that Kennedy's goal of placing man on the moon by the end of the decade would have been unachievable. Even defence contracts operate like that, and NASA was not a military organisation. Plenty of personnel were dismissed during and since the Apollo Programme and its employees were mostly civilians, free to move about, have beers with strangers and go on vacations. Yet no one talked or smuggled a bunch of smoking-gun documentation out, and the entire scam would have been blown wide open by investigative journalism - not to mention the resident/participatory press and journalists. The Apollo Programme was scrutinised by the entire world and was under a global lens. It was then and has been in the half a century since. Yet a community of online conspiracy believers with zero knowledge of the science, technology and history of spaceflight/the Apollo Programme claim to know better that entire branches of science, specialist fields and cognate disciplines such as aerospace engineering, Noble Prize winning physicists and Pulitzer awarded journalists that have collectively failed to notice these supposed 'gotchas' collectively consumed and regurgitated over comments sections and social media.
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@carlhawkins-tu9yl
On the contrary, lunar resources encompass solar power potential, oxygen, and abundant elements including, among others, hydrogen , oxygen, silicon, iron, magnesium, calcium, aluminium, manganese and titanium. Also, non-radioactive helium-3 from the moon may one day power nuclear fusion reactors. Water can also be found in the poles. Beyond our near neighbour, measurements by rovers and satellites at Mars have also indicated massive amounts of water in the form of ice beneath and within the regolith. Mineral resources are in abundance as well, including iron, titanium, nickel, aluminum, sulfur, chlorine and calcium.
When the technology is put in place to extract this in an economically viable way, there will be a race to lay claim to different regions of the moon and later Mars and the scramble to exploit their resources will commence...in the case of the moon, likely in the latter half of this century as the lunar economy opens up.
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
When NASA commenced its lunar spaceflight program, its scientists already knew about the Van Allen 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. That is why mission planners were able to calculate safe trajectories through them exposing the astronauts to as little as1 - 1.5 rems.
They also knew that GCRs both in cislunar space and on the surface of the moon would not present a challenge given the short duration of the Apollo missions. On the lunar surface astronauts were subject to a measured average of 60 microsieverts of radiation per hour from GCRs. That's only 5 to 10 times higher than the rate experienced on a trans-Atlantic passenger flight.
The main hazard was the possibility of a CME/SPE during one of the missions. The Apollo programme coincided with a solar maximum and NASA took a calculated risk. They were very fortunate, because between Apollos 16 and 17 there was an SPE. a moonwalker caught in the August 1972 storm might have absorbed 400 rem. Although serious they would have returned to earth with sufficient time to be treated. The key is time and intensity. Furthermore, with notice, the aluminum hull of the lunar module would have attenuated the 1972 storm from 400 rem to less than 35 rem at the astronaut's blood-forming organs. That's the difference between needing a bone marrow transplant, or having a headache.
There were plans in place to deal with a large scale CME. These storms would not have been instantly deadly, but could have caused a serious case of acute radiation syndrome. The plan was if such an event happened was to get home ASAP, and treat the ARS on Earth.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"Can we go to the moon today?"
Yes, Artemis 1 returned last month.
"No, so htf did we go in 1969"
The Apollo Programme.
"anyone who believes this rubbish, is either stupid, deluded or in denial"
So that'll be entire branches of scientific disciplines such as mathematics, physics and geology, associated branches including astrophysics, orbital mechanics and petrology and such related specialist fields as aerospace engineering, rocketry and computing that collectively verify the authenticity and validity of the moon landings. All comprising acute expertise, knowledge and individuals far more informed and clever than yourself, a random nobody on the comments section of You Tube.
2
-
2
-
2