Comments by "MRA" (@yassassin6425) on "How did they broadcast live TV from the Moon?" video.
-
"I can't even get phone singals some parts where i live and your telling me they got singal for a live feed 238,000 miles away people are so gullible to believe anything"
We are still receiving signals from Voyager 1 which is 36 AU (15 billion miles) from Earth, the farthest object created by humans. We can detect radio signals from quasars and pulsars that have travelled across 50m light years of space, whilst when the signal from the most distant FRB discovered - 20220610A - originated, the universe was just 5 billion years old. (For comparison, the universe is now 13.8 billion years old.) Presumably, you think that's all fake too?
Gullible? So entire branches of science in addition to the specialist fields of radio-astronomy and communications have in over half a century failed to notice that a live broadcast from the moon is impossible, but a random internet user and gullible believer in dumb online conspiracy theory that can't even punctuate a sentence knows better? Righto then. Seriously, what's wrong with you people? Why are you incapable of acknowledging and recognising your incredulity lack of understanding and insight? Are you actually willing to listen and learn?
The signal on your phone is received by a crappy 1.94 square centimeter antenna nestled into the bottom of your device, as opposed to a 64 metre wide radio telescope dish. The current 4G communication band is 0.8-2.6GHz, and the main communication frequency band used by 5G is also below 6GHz, your signal can dip as low as a trivial -30 dBm. The transmitters used in space have exponentially greater power than the few milliwatts of a cell phone, using a high gain receiver and directed focused antenna arrays. The Apollo radio transmissions broadcast via unified S-Band at 20 watts, to dishes that were up to 200 feet in diameter. They also had line of sight, i.e. there was no obstruction between the Earth and Moon. A cell phone transmits 300-600 milliwatts to a 2-foot-long antenna and has towers to bounce signals off when there is no line of sight. They also have millions of other users that compete for bandwidth. Thus, depending on how many users there are, and whether there are enough towers to connect the signals, you might not get any service. They are entirely different scenarios.
Why is it even necessary to explain this?
So you arrogantly declare something to be faked and draw conclusions based upon a complete and utter lack of knowledge about it. Do you have any conception how dangerous that is?
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
@hotheadedjoelhaha
"I Believed the same Crap as You for over 50 years"
To clarify again, the known science and technology associated with the Apollo Programme is not a question of belief and at no stage have I mentioned mine. I am irrelevant to this exchange, whilst the latter is demonstrable and has a voice of its own.
And meanwhile, for over half a century, entire branches of science, specialist fields of expertise such as aerospace engineering worldwide, Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalists, Nobel Prize winning physicists, some 10,000 private sector initiatives and each of the 76 other space agencies on the planet have no issue with the veracity of the Apollo landings. In short, domains, disciplines and individuals far cleverer and more informed than an insignificant, random, gullible Dunning Kruger afflicted believer in dumb online conspiracy theory with zero knowledge of the subject whatsoever.
"Then I began my Real Research. As you should."
So what you actually meant to say, in the last two year's or so you allowed yourself to succumb to junk online conspiracy theory about a subject that you know absolutely nothing about. Funny you should mention it, because I work in research capability - that's my job, enabling post doctoral research. So appreciating that "real research" does not involve self-proclaimed overnight armchair 'expertise' following a squandered evening consuming junk You Tube videos, cherry picked click bait confirmation bias, quote mining, false equivalence and circular self-referencing pseudoscientific conspiracy websites, do feel free to share - how precisely did you do yours?
Go ahead. In your own time.
4
-
"Because they spent over a million dollars to invent a ballpoint pen that would write in outter space, while the Russians used a pencil."
Actually, that's nothing more than a popular urban myth. The Fisher pen was developed using private capital, not government funding. And yes, the development of the thixotropic ink cost Paul Fisher around $1 million but it was used by NASA and the Soviet Union.
Originally, NASA astronauts, like the Soviet cosmonauts, used pencils which may not have been the best choice anyway. The tips flaked and broke off, drifting in microgravity where they could potentially harm an astronaut or equipment. In 1965 Fisher patented a pen that could write upside-down, in frigid or roasting conditions (down to minus 50 degrees Fahrenheit or up to 400 degrees F), and even underwater or in other liquids.
That same year, Fisher offered the AG-7 "Anti-Gravity" Space Pen to NASA and after testing the space pen intensively, the agency decided to use it on spaceflights. From February 1968, NASA ordered 400 of Fisher's antigravity ballpoint pens for the Apollo program. A year later, the Soviet Union ordered 100 pens and 1,000 ink cartridges to use on their Soyuz space missions.
Since the late 1960s American astronauts and Russian cosmonauts have used Fisher's pens. In fact, Fisher has created a whole line of space pens. A newer pen, called the Shuttle Pen, was used on NASA's space shuttle programme and on the Russian space station, Mir. You don't have to go to space to get your hands on a space pen - you can buy one yourself for a mere $50.00.
4
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
"return to the moon???....they admitted they never went"
Then you'll have absolutely no problems posting this supposed full quotation at source. Good luck with that.
"not even once did they even leave low earth orbit."
Well that's complete horseshit too. Even by 1966 Gemini 11 had achieved 853 miles (1,373 km), the highest Earth orbit ever reached by a crewed spacecraft.
"Hollywood basement for the production. One small soundstage for man, one giant lie for mankind!"
A Hollywood basement is it now? Fascinating. But what about Shepperton or Pinewood UK? No, wait, wasn't it Elstree?...or perhaps Twickenham? No hold on, I thought it was definitely Cannon AFB New Mexico? Or was that Area 51 Nevada? Or maybe the Utah or Arizona deserts? No, no, without a doubt Death Valley - hang on, surely Devon Island Canada?
You absolute goons can't even get your stories straight. I guess it depends upon which dumb conspiracy theorist that you allow yourselves to be duped by.
Got to say though, that must be some 'Hollywood Basement" to convincingly replicate, uncut, the 1/6th gravity and the vacuum of the lunar surface - not to mention the precise reconstruction of Theophilus in The Sea of Tranquility; the Head Crater vicinity, Ocean of Storms; the Fra Mauro Formation near Cone Crater; the eastern edge of Mare Imbrium, Hadley Rille; The Descartes Highlands; and the eastern edge of Mare Serenitati in the Taurus Littrow Valley. Shout out to the props department too, that managed to fashion fake moonrock consistent which each of those six landing sites and collectively dupe an entire branch of science called geology for over half a century in the process.
You haven't really thought this through have you? Clever lad.
1
-
1