Comments by "MRA" (@yassassin6425) on "Bart Sibrel Argues That The Moon Landing Was Staged" video.

  1. Venting yes.
    3
  2. It wasn't a 500 degree difference though. Those are equilibrium surface temperatures on the moon and extremes that were never experienced. Additionally, since there is no atmosphere on the moon, obviously there is no convection and therefore no air temperature. Apollo did not use air conditioning, rather porous plate sublimation.
    3
  3.  @BN-cp6fw  The temperatures on the lunar surface can range from 250°F to -210°F. At no stage have I disputed that. In fact in the deepest and darkest recessed of some craters where no sunlight ever reaches, temperatures as low as -410°F have been recorded. However, understand that the latter are surface equilibrium temperatures. Allow me to elucidate further. Heat and temperature are two different things. Heat is concerned with thermal energy, whereas temperature describes molecular kinetic energy. Heat is the transfer of thermal energy, whereas temperature is a property the object exhibits and describes the motion of molecules. Since the surface of the moon is essentially a vacuum there are very few of these to be excited and they are very sparsely spread. So temperature is essentially a measurement of how excited air molecules are. The higher the temperature, the more frenzied molecules become and the more they bounce off each other-and this interaction between particles is what creates heat. On the moon, in the absence of an atmosphere there is no convection due to the lack of an atmosphere and therefore no air temperature whilst conduction is limited. Therefore the main source of thermal energy transfer is radiative heating from the sun. The temperature extremes that you mention are equatorial surface temperatures - extremes. Objects take time to build up to their equilibrium temperature and the length of the lunar daytime is equivalent to 29.5 Earth days. This is why all of the Apollo moon landings were timed to coincide with the lunar dawn. The temperature range that you refer to was never experienced. I hope this helps.
    3
  4.  @bjjbrawler1  "Yes I did." Let's see shall we? "There's no way we orbited the moon 50 years ago" 52 actually, the last Apollo landing was 1972. "dropped a dune buggy" They didn't take any dune buggies. There were however, three lunar rovers folded and stowed into quadrant 1 of the LM descent stage that were employed as part of the later J Class missions, Apollo 15, 16 and 17. "did burnouts" What burnouts? A burnout isn't possible in a lunar rover on the moon. Do you even know what one is? "shot" back up leaving purple sparks" There were no "purple sparks" - simply the fact that you don't understand how scattered MLI behaved when captured by a colour wheel camera. "rendevoued with the orbiter and returned" What prevented this? "and flimed it all(some remotely)" TV signals were first sent in 1927 whilst remote control can be traced back to the latter half of the 19th century. "using less tech than in your phone." It wasn't though. And smart phones don't send crewed missions to the moon. "We sent a lander there 5 months ago unmanned and it flopped on its side and ceased communications. LOL." That was IM, not NASA with a miniscule budget. And you would be wrong again. In spite of the landing IM was able to communicate with Odysseus and its sensors remained operational. "It was a sham to fool the Russians." The Soviet Union infiltrated the Apollo Programme. Wasn't hard - it was completely transparent. The Apollo Programme has been forensically dissected by entire branches of science and specialist fields and disciplines, investigative and technical journalists and some of the finest minds on the planet for over half a century. There is no engineering project in history of the scale and complexity that has been so ingrained in the public eye and exhaustively covered. In addition to this, in excess of half a century, the physics of every mission profile, every design down to each schematic, specification - to every nut, bolt, switch and circuit breaker has been forensically scrutinised and technically examined worldwide. There are tens of thousands of publications, journal articles/papers and books written on the subject. The private sector space sector is growing exponentially. Companies such as Blue Origin and Space X and Aerojet Rocketdyne are part of a huge supply chain of consisting of a myriad of contractors, partnerships and stakeholders in Project Artemis. Meanwhile independent organisations such as Intuitive Machines, Advanced Space, Astrobotic, Northrup-Grumman, Venturi Astrolab and many others are making modern lunar missions happen in addition to the 76 other space agencies on the planet. To varying degrees, the work they're doing is predicated upon what was learned during the Apollo missions and this invites large scale investment from stakeholders with serious money on the line who need to be privy to the inner workings of these ventures. There are also companies working on next generation of lunar terrain vehicles for the Artemis missions. They're also basing aspects of their work on the accomplishments of Apollo, specifically data derived from the three rovers on Apollos 15-17, which you also claim to be fake. And then there are those professors teaching orbital mechanics at MIT, Purdue, UC Boulder, and other elite universities whose work also draws on the achievements of the Apollo program). Meanwhile there are random, insignificant, scientifically illiterate, incredulous, gobby nobodies on the comments section of You Tube such as yourself, that gullibly consume and regurgitate junk online conspiracy theory because they are under the impression it makes them sound informed and clever. Now to return to Kubrick, have you actually looked into this? Which social media meme was it this time that told you what to think about a subject that you clearly know absolutely nothing about whatsoever? (This should be even funnier).
    3
  5. "At 1/6th the gravity of Earth, propelled by a rocket motor, the LM would've taken off like a scolded cat, not slowly rise up in a linear fashion." Incorrect. The LM ascent stage weighed just about 1700 lb on the moon and only needed a 3500 lbf engine. It steadily gained velocity as it ascended. Incidentally, the correct term is a "scalded cat". "Oxygen was one of the fuels pumped into the rocket motot, so there should have been some sort of flame." Incorrect. The fuels were hypergolic, an oxidiser, which was also pressure fed, was used to to self ignite the reaction which then burnt without a flame in the vacuum of space. "Also, the biggest scoober diving air tanks, approximately the size of the space suit backpack, would only last 3 hours max but, somehow they managed to do 25 hours of moonwalks." Wrong again. Cumulatively, the longest EVAs totalled 22 hrs and four minutes, there were three of them during Apollo 17. The longest singular EVA was also Apollo 17 at 7 hours and 37 minutes. A diver's tank is usually not a rebreather like the Apollo PLSS and can last much longer than an open circuit Scuba. (Note the spelling). Diving air is usually either regular air at 21% oxygen or Nitrox with up to 40% oxygen, and 60% nitrogen. Astronauts on spacewalks with tanks of 100% oxygen. Divers can’t use 100% oxygen because it’s poisonous under high pressures, while space suits maintain comfortable low pressures. In other words, they get 5x more oxygen per tank. "The door to the LM was barely big enough to get through with a spacesuit on, the astronauts would have had to climb 3 feet to reach the first rung of the ladder, there is no footage of them achieving this feat." Yes there is. "There wasn't enough room for them inside the LM to take the spacesults off." Yes there was. It was cramped and they had to do it one at a time, but the cabin of the LM had 235 cubic feet (6.7 cubic meters) of interior space for a crew of two astronauts, which was ample. "The fuel tanks for the LM were nowhere near big enough to hold the fuel they said they carried." No use simply saying it - show your calculations. Or, let me help you here. The ascent rocket expelled exhaust gases at Ve = 3.0 x 103 m/s. Its initial mass, including fuel, was 4800 kg. With no atmosphere, they could accelerate constantly, get up to speed very quickly and could reach orbit at very low altitude. That's a lot less fuel required. The Tsiolkovsky rocket equation tells us that the 2 tons of fuel in the LM ascent stage could propel the ~2 tons of empty mass to a speed of more than 2000 m/s, when they only needed 1600 m/s to get into lunar orbit and dock with the CM. In 100 sec, the ascent stage was travelling over 600 mph. In under seven minutes, they had reached orbital velocity. "If the launch from the moon had been mistimed by as much as 10 seconds they would never have been able to dock with the CM doing 2,000 mph" Source? "and as for matching speed in order to dock with the CM seems impossible." Simply because you don't understand something, that does not then mean that it is fake. The GNC (Guidance Navigation and Control) systems required very good accelerometers and gyroscopes, some of the very best that could be made. Fortunately, there’d been a lot of research and development on these devices for ballistic missile applications. On-board radar units provided very accurate measurements of the relative positions and velocities LM (Lunar Module) and CSM (Command and Service Module stack). All of these devices were state of the art for the day, and very expensive, but that wasn’t a big problem for the Apollo program. Both the Lunar Module’s AGC and AGS were connected to the gyroscope for inertial navigation and to the rendezvous and docking radar and were part of the Primary Guidance and Navigation System (PGNS). After the LM returned from the surface, it entered a highly elliptical orbit at slightly less than 10 nautical miles and just over 5,500 FPS. This orbit would have carried it out to 48 nautical miles, but was adjusted by RCS thrust a few minutes later to roughly 62 x 44 nm at about 5,400 FPS. The LM then gained on the CSM, not just because it was going a little faster, but because it was climbing from a lower orbit, and lower orbits have shorter periods. A little over three hours after liftoff, the LM’s orbit intersected the CSM’s at about 60 nm, and RCS thrust brought it into a nearly identical orbit of 63 x 56 nm, closing on the CSM by about 10 fps. Finally, a series of short braking burns brought the two ships into hard dock.
    3
  6. And yet entire branches of science including orbital mechanics and specialist disciplines including rocketry and aerospace engineering have no such issues understanding and accounting for the lunar orbit rendezvous. Simply because you don't understand and are unable to comprehend something, that does not mean that it is fake. It wasn't the first try at all. In fact the entire Gemini Programme was largely predicated upon the perfection of orbital rendezvous. Apollo 9 had practised this in Earth orbit and Apollo 10 flew the lunar module down to within 47,000 feet of the lunar surface. The GNC (Guidance Navigation and Control) systems required very good accelerometers and gyroscopes, some of the very best that could be made. Fortunately, there’d been a lot of research and development on these devices for ballistic missile applications. On-board radar units provided very accurate measurements of the relative positions and velocities LM (Lunar Module) and CSM (Command and Service Module stack). All of these devices were state of the art for the day, and very expensive, but that wasn’t a big problem for the Apollo program. Both the Lunar Module’s AGC and AGS were connected to the gyroscope for inertial navigation and to the rendezvous and docking radar and were part of the Primary Guidance and Navigation System (PGNS). After the LM returned from the surface, it entered a highly elliptical orbit at slightly less than 10 nautical miles and just over 5,500 FPS. This orbit would have carried it out to 48 nautical miles, but was adjusted by RCS thrust a few minutes later to roughly 62 x 44 nm at about 5,400 FPS. The LM then gained on the CSM, not just because it was going a little faster, but because it was climbing from a lower orbit, and lower orbits have shorter periods. A little over three hours after liftoff, the LM’s orbit intersected the CSM’s at about 60 nm, and RCS thrust brought it into a nearly identical orbit of 63 x 56 nm, closing on the CSM by about 10 fps. Finally, a series of short braking burns brought the two ships into hard dock.
    3
  7. "Of course is fake. You have swank and zoom used in this recording and all of this done by the heavy gloves on your hands and with camera big and heavy like a half of a car." Sigh. Familiarise yourself with the GCTA. "So, they have today astronauts returning back from the mission in a capsule and parachute but then they landed safely and took off from moon back in 1969. What a pile of nonsense." "I don't understand something therefore it is fake" is not an argument.
    3
  8. Yes, those entire branches of science and specialist fields and disciplines, investigative and technical journalists and some of the finest minds on the planet for over half a century that have forensically dissected every detail of the moon landings. The Apollo Programme was completely transparent and there is no engineering project in history of the scale and complexity that has been so ingrained in the public eye and exhaustively covered. In addition to this, in excess of half a century, the physics of every mission profile, every design down to each schematic, specification - to every nut, bolt, switch and circuit breaker has been forensically scrutinised and technically examined worldwide. There are tens of thousands of publications, journal articles/papers and books written on the subject. The private sector space sector is growing exponentially. Companies such as Blue Origin and Space X and Aerojet Rocketdyne are part of a huge supply chain of consisting of a myriad of contractors, partnerships and stakeholders in Project Artemis. Meanwhile independent organisations such as Intuitive Machines, Advanced Space, Astrobotic, Northrup-Grumman, Venturi Astrolab and many others are making modern lunar missions happen in addition to the 76 other space agencies on the planet. To varying degrees, the work they're doing is predicated upon what was learned during the Apollo missions and this invites large scale investment from stakeholders with serious money on the line who need to be privy to the inner workings of these ventures. There are also companies working on next generation of lunar terrain vehicles for the Artemis missions. They're also basing aspects of their work on the accomplishments of Apollo, specifically data derived from the three rovers on Apollos 15-17, which you also claim to be fake. The professors teaching orbital mechanics at MIT, Purdue, UC Boulder, and other elite universities then spring to mind. They should be alerted, since it's clear that they too have been wasting their time (their work also draws on the achievements of the Apollo program). It's sad to think that some of the very smartest among us, the thousands and thousands of pioneering minds, scientists, engineers and technologies around the world involved in aerospace are oblivious to these gotchas. Meanwhile we have random, insignificant nobodies such as yourself, that have zero relevance to the real world, with no knowledge or understanding of these subjects whatsoever, squandering their time on internet comments sections and claiming to know better. Incidentally, known science is not a question of belief.
    2
  9. Oh ffs. It wasn't guessed. They knew the timings and accounted for the delay, but it still needed to be perfectly timed. Ed Fendell has also done this twice before. In the case of Apollo 15 the GCTA jammed and could not capture the ascent, whilst for Apollo 16, the rover had been parked too close to the LM.
    2
  10.  @ryansta  I see, Thank you for clarifying.
    2
  11. The same predictable wall of badly regurgitated conspiratorial drivel, falsities, personal incredulity and ignorance.
    2
  12. There were three of them taken as part of the later expanded J missions, Apollo 15, 16 and 17. They were folded and stowed into quadrant 1 of the LM descent stage. You can easily find full schematics detailing this in addition to images/footage of both loading and deployment.
    2
  13. That is completely incorrect. Armstrong was a very private and reserved man that loathed the attention. Some astronauts such as Aldrin struggled to adapt to the normality of life afterwards, such as others such as John Young continued as astronauts or flourished in the public eye - notably Eugen Cernan and Charlie Duke.
    2
  14. Is this a joke? Seriously?
    2
  15. On the contrary, there were nine manned missions to the moon and six landings. There would have been more had it not been for the premature cancellation of Apollo by Congress and the aborted Apollo 13 landing which presumably NASA felt the need to fake their own failure too? Apollo is now defunct and obsolete. Modern technology is being purposed to deliver the very different mission profiles and objectives of Project Artemis.
    2
  16. Or perhaps he had a cold.
    1
  17. Did you?
    1
  18. At what stage are you referring to?
    1
  19.  @typeins  What are you doing squandering your time on You Tube then?
    1
  20. "there is atmosphere on the moon it is much thinnerand not nearly as much oxygen,but there is atmo... " There is no oxygen on the moon. You are referring to the geocorona which consists of hydrogen atoms so spaced apart that it is essentially a vacuum. What's your point? "The Worst Problem with moon landng, believe it or not is the dust infecting the suit" The dust posed issues for many aspects of the Apollo moon landings (you appear to believe that there was just the one). But these were no insurmountable. "the camera was controlled by a astronaut on inside of LM." What camera are you referring to and what's your point? "when i was 8 i believed it." And now you are nine, you believe junk online conspiracy theory instead. Your command of written English doesn't seem to have improved either.
    1
  21. Have you at any stage attempted to place these into their intended context? Let's start by providing a source for each and then we'll go from there.
    1
  22.  @MediaLieDetector  How about you detail the "specs" and demonstrate why they are lacking. Go ahead then.
    1
  23. Right because Bart Sibrel does? Righto then.
    1
  24.  @JohnSmith-lq1sm  True
    1
  25. American Moon? Is this serious? This horseshit is as ridiculous as Sibrel. How gullible does it get?
    1
  26.  @dredwick  I have completely dismantled your posts in the past, highlighting the scientific inaccuracy, assumptions, personal incredulity and other logical fallacies. You completely ignored it. I am fully familiar with the footage of the departure of Apollo 17's Challenger ascent stage. How about this? The Apollo Programme has been forensically dissected by entire branches of science and specialist fields and disciplines, investigative and technical journalists and some of the finest minds on the planet for over half a century. The Apollo Programme was completely transparent and there is no engineering project in history of the scale and complexity that has been so ingrained in the public eye and exhaustively covered. In addition to this, in excess of half a century, the physics of every mission profile, every design down to each schematic, specification - to every nut, bolt, switch and circuit breaker has been forensically scrutinised and technically examined worldwide. There are tens of thousands of publications, journal articles/papers and books written on the subject. The private sector space sector is growing exponentially. Companies such as Blue Origin and Space X and Aerojet Rocketdyne are part of a huge supply chain of consisting of a myriad of contractors, partnerships and stakeholders in Project Artemis. Meanwhile independent organisations such as Intuitive Machines, Advanced Space, Astrobotic, Northrup-Grumman, Venturi Astrolab and many others are making modern lunar missions happen in addition to the 76 other space agencies on the planet. To varying degrees, the work they're doing is predicated upon what was learned during the Apollo missions and this invites large scale investment from stakeholders with serious money on the line who need to be privy to the inner workings of these ventures. There are also companies working on next generation of lunar terrain vehicles for the Artemis missions. They're also basing aspects of their work on the accomplishments of Apollo, specifically data derived from the three rovers on Apollos 15-17, which you also claim to be fake. The professors teaching orbital mechanics at MIT, Purdue, UC Boulder, and other elite universities then spring to mind. They should be alerted, since it's clear that they too have been wasting their time (their work also draws on the achievements of the Apollo program). It's sad to think that some of the very smartest among us, the thousands and thousands of pioneering minds, scientists, engineers and technologies around the world involved in aerospace are oblivious to these gotchas. Meanwhile we have random, insignificant nobodies such as yourself, that have zero relevance to the real world, with no knowledge or understanding of these subjects whatsoever, squandering their time on internet comments sections and claiming to know better. Have you at any stage paused to self-reflect, listen to yourself and understand how utterly absurd this is and you are? Do you share this nonsense in the real-world or people that you meet? (Assuming you have any interaction with reality).
    1
  27.  @dredwick  You only have to reply just the once. I did read what you said and I explained to you why I'm not going to squander my time deconstructing your nonsense again. Having done so in the past on a point by point basis, you simply ignored it and totally disregarded my counterpoints which is what you people do. There is no constructive, discourse, no debate, no concessions with you fools, simply anger, ignorance and arrogance. Confidence is the prize afforded to the mediocre. You top out the Dunning Kruger scale, imagining yourself as a genius, and geniuses dunces. Such is the inverted reality that you construct. A smart person can fake being stupid. A stupid person cannot fake being smart. As you are ample testimony to - increasingly, stupid people actually seem to believe they are smart. "I reject reality and substitute it with my own version." - Every conspiracy theorist ever. I substitute it with what someone else without even a foundational knowledge in science says or what "seems to me". Today, the world is full of subjectivists and relativists who actively sneer at the Truth and proclaim that everyone has their own truth. When you start believing your own truth, your own propaganda, your own bullshit, you become a narcissist. My reply to your asinine nonsense this time simply illustrated that entire branches of science and specialist disciplines support the authenticity of the Apollo moon landings. That the entire programme was completely transparent throughout and from the physics of the mission profiles, down to every design, every schematic, every specification, every last switch and every nut and bolt and every image and second of footage, it has been exhaustively forensically scrutinised by legitimate areas of expertise and respective fields for in excess of half a century. The lifetime work of venerated and esteemed academics, academic institutions and entire businesses are predicated upon the data and knowledge yielded by the Apollo Programme - nine manned missions to the moon and 6 landings. Yet a random, insignificant, attention seeking gullible conspiracy believer on the comments section of You Tube claims to know better. Does this deter you? Of course it doesn't. As opposed to exercising some humility, some introspection and self-awareness, you arrogantly simply bludgeon on regardless, fuelled by obscene illusory superiority and laughable personal incredulity. You think that you have exposed the lie? Then what in the name of f**k are you doing pissing about on the comments section of You Tube you complete buffoon? I am irrelevant to this exchange. Step outside of social media and your internet bubble and bring your findings into the real world and credible scrutiny and see how far you get. And don't forget to mention that the University of You Tube sent you. Now go and do something worthwhile and stop wasting bandwidth you ridiculous individual.
    1
  28. Fortunately, they did not use "tin foil suits". Meanwhile, the probability of a moonwalker being hit by a meteorite on the moon is actually 1:1,000,000. The surface area of the Moon is about 38 million m2, then the fall of meteoroids the size of ping pong ball on a plot of 1 m2 will occur approximately once per thousand years.
    1
  29. So what?
    1
  30. Six times. Deal with it.
    1