Comments by "MRA" (@yassassin6425) on "Global News"
channel.
-
2
-
"But for some reason, nobody go back to moon."
Given that no one was paying for it, no, they didn't.
"Everybody who worked in the project completely forget how to go back there."
No one 'forgot how to go back there'. The plants, processes, tooling, specialist expertise was all retired or moved on, whilst the technology was left to lie fallow and become obsolete.
"Accidently nobody care enough to write down all the step to go to the moon."
What on Earth are you going on about now? The Apollo programme was fully documented. All of the technical details, the schematics, the mission planning, the technology is recorded and can be detailed in full. We fully understand how Apollo landed men on the moon.
"Also nobody know who actually work on the project that brought human to the moon, except some specific famous person."
What? NASA is a civilian organisation. The personnel involved in the Apollo programme was huge, but fully transparent. There have been books written and documentaries made about the astronauts, the engineers, the management, the computer scientists, the contractors, the consultants - right from the top tier upper echelons of the project down to those that stitched the flags or ran the catering. Where are you getting this nonsense from?
"50 years later, with all the technology advantage, yet nobody able to copy the technology that bring human to the moon, including the people that claim "We went to the moon"
That technology is largely defunct. You don't copy technology. It is a given in engineering that it's far faster, easier, better, and cheaper to simply take the lessons learned by older programmes rather than trying recreate old equipment. To reiterate, it is fully understood how to send crewed missions to the moon. Project Artemis was only finally approved as recently as 2018.
2
-
@hoanglinhle4468
"Really? It's so well recorded to the point that the Soviets at their peak fail to understand and un-able to re-create in their space race?"
What? Firstly, clearly there was a degree of secrecy during the 1960s and the development of Apollo. However, it wasn't military grade and although the Soviets had information about this they were committed to their own moon landing programme and the N1 rocket/Zond which was very different to the Saturn V. What you need to understand it that the Soviet bid to land man on the moon was doomed to failure for the start. This was in part due to intrinsic, irreversible design flaws in the N1. Its clustered engine design. At the root of this was the deep personal conflict between Valentin Glushko chief rocket engine designer, and Sergei Korolev who originally lead Soviet Lunar program before his death.Glushko refused to work on powerful LOX/PR engines for lunar rocket. To avoid the spinning detonation or combustion instability associated with a larger more powerful engine (that the Apollo scientists solved with the F1s), clustered configurations of smaller engines were favoured. In spite of this, the Soviets couldn't solve the flow separation problem for large nozzle sizes. The Soviets never trusted themselves to build a thrust chamber beyond 500,000 lbf. That’s the rumor, at least. So trusting only smaller engines, meant clustering and that it a completely different paradigm. The complex plumbing necessary to feed fuel and oxidizer into the clustered arrangement of rocket engines was fragile and a major factor in its continual failure in addition to unsophisticated flight computers and software. The untimely death of Korolev in addition to the fact that the Soviet moon programme was operating on a fraction of the budget of Apollo meant that it was never going to be successful.
"The first step of learning is by copying. If you fail to copy a "well document" program, how can you take any lesson from it?"
Of course there are lessons taken from it. There is a huge amount of information and data yielded from the Apollo programme, but that does not mean duplicating the technology. Why should we build a vehicle that used 1960s technology when we could build far more capable, safer spacecraft today? Many principles remain the same and the J2X engines used for Project Artemis are essentially a derivation of the Apollo J2s. The SLS itself utilises much of the technology from the shuttle programme such as upgraded SRBs whilst Artemis 1 reused three of the Atlantis RS-25 engines.
"How can you be sure that the old program was even really worked or not?"
Because scientific, independent and third party evidence tells us so, in addition to the huge quantity of data and experimentation yielded from the nine missions to the moon.
"Copy => Study => Modify" is the key process for engineering as a whole. Unless you are a super genius who creates everything from zero."
Not when the technology is outmoded, together with the processed, plants, tooling and manufacturing all purposed for the 1960s it isn't. When we eventually resume a supersonic passenger service, (and it's approaching a quarter of a century now), they aren't about to dust off Concorde, or a duplicate and roll it out of retirement from a museum or hangar.
2
-
@hoanglinhle4468
"Which exactly "third party evidence" told you so?"
By the time of The Apollo missions, and actually, by Shepherd's first Mercury flight, NASA had already established at least 30 ground stations on five continents; several islands; and aboard ships sailing the Atlantic, Indian and Pacific oceans. This required the complicity of foreign nations and governments. However, countries such as Australia were eager to directly participate and the U.S. encouraged them to take the helm of the DSN communications stations. NASA selected the Parkes Observatory in New South Wales, Australia, to receive the remote Apollo 11 moonwalk readings, or telemetry, whilst the 85-foot antenna at Honeysuckle Creek to the south tracked the LEM and the moonwalks. If the USA was going to fake the videos, it would take the cooperation of those other countries to do it. Spain for example, offered Robledo and Fresnedillas. There were also independent institutions and facilities most famously Jodrell Bank Observatory in the UK, which was used to observe the mission, as it was used years previously for Sputnik. At the same time as Apollo 11, Jodrell Bank scientists were tracking the uncrewed Soviet spacecraft Luna 15 which was trying to land on the Moon. In July 2009, Jodrell released some recordings that Sir Bernard Lovell's team had made. But there are also many, many others, such as Pic du Midi Observatory (in the French Pyrenees), The Arcetri Observatory near Florence, Italy and the Catalina Station of the Lunar and Planetary Laboratory. The Bochum Observatory director (Professor Heinz Kaminski) was able to provide confirmation of events and data independent of both the Russian and U.S. space agencies. This in addition to thousands of amateur radio operators/technicians and astronomers across the globe. NASA released information to the public explaining where third party observers could expect to see the various craft at specific times according to scheduled launch times and planned trajectories. The TLI burn was visible in the sky from the Apollo 15 mission. There was even a group at Kettering Grammar School who using simple radio equipment, monitored Soviet and U.S. spacecraft and calculated their orbits. In addition to this, academics in the Soviet Union published a paper in 1978 measuring coordinates with the various sectors of the RATAN-600 telescope. The selenographic coordinates of the ALSEP transmitters deployed on the lunar surface by the Apollo 12 and 14-17 crews were measured to an accuracy of 1.0 to 1.5 deg of arc (or 12-15 arcsec in alpha and delta) with a 1.5-arcmin x 1-deg beam. ALSEP was designed to be assembled and configured by hand and could only have been placed there by manned landings. Also, independent geologists and mineralogists worldwide have examined the Apollo moon rocks using petrological analysis. Planetary scientists at The Open University in the UK are spearheading a microscope collection of over 550 rocks collected during the Apollo missions. BRGM in France were one of the first independent laboratories to analyse a moon rock from Apollo 11,. The Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) SELENE lunar probe has imaged the landing sites which have also been captured by India's Chadrayaan-2 orbiter which photographed 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). They were also confirmed by China's second lunar probe, Chang'e 2.
These are just some of the examples of the top of my head.
"All I have seen so far are "trace of Apollo", not anything solid yet."
Then stop looking solely at dumb online conspiracy theory to tell you what to think.
"People can discover water on the mood, collect moon dusk, scan the surface. But sending 1 robot to a specific location for high res pictures is too complicated?"
Three rovers have been sent to the moon. Future missions plan to explore the far side, whilst two are destined for the lunar polar regions.
Do you actually think that missions to the moon are predicated upon satisfying the demands of, and at the insistence and behest of a community of credulous cretins and scientifically illiterate conspiracy believers that can't be arsed to actually learn about the Apollo Programme, as opposed to science and exploration? NASA are neither obliged nor duty bound to respond to arrant stupidity.
2
-
@hoanglinhle4468
"So NASA claimed they were on the moon and confirmed it with their own station? Do you have any idea what "Third Party" mean?"
Did you not read my reply to you? You seem to ignore 99% of content of responses and just blithely plough on. No, these stations were provided by different governments and countries and staffed by their own nationals. Have you any idea what Independent Nations means?
"Do you have any idea what "Third Party" mean?"
Yep. Read my reply again in which I have provided multiple examples that you chose to disregard.
"Also copying Wiki doesn't help man."
No copying from Wiki, but you'll no doubt find that the same information is available since it is independently verifiable.
"They always "We confirm this and that" but fail to give evidence."
There is a an abundance of verifiable objective scientific and independent evidence that the moon landings are real. You requested the third party proof, I gave it to you and you chose to ignore most of it.
"If you think NASA can't lie just because it requires some high authority, remember Iraq's bottle of salt."
NASA are fully accountable. Regarding your Iraq non-sequitur, although no WMD production was discovered, in the Halabja massacre, Saddam Hussein orchestrated the biggest chemical attack on a civilian population in history - even exceeding the crimes of Assad.
And meanwhile, the online conspiracy theory that you mindlessly defer to is of course 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. The words metric, ton and salt immediately spring to mind.
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1