Comments by "MRA" (@yassassin6425) on "Joe Rogan on the Moon Landing Conspiracy" video.
-
77
-
12
-
7
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
On the contrary, here were nine manned missions to the moon and six landings. It would have been at least ten had it not been for the near catastrophe and aborted landing of Apollo 13 and the premature cancellation of the programme and with it, Apollo 18, 19 and 20. This is supported by scientific, technological, historical, independent and third party evidence that is incontrovertible.
Moon landing conspiracy theories on the other hand have zero factual basis and are predicated upon incredulity, deception, scientific illiteracy and outright lies. Those that entertain these and the grifters that perpetrate them, have zero knowledge of the actual science, technology and history of spaceflight and the Apollo Programme.
And why should anyone listen to someone that can't differentiate between a preposition and an adverb?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@roberthak3695
Why would anyone do that? Why not independently learn about the subject first instead of relying a junk conspiracy video to tell you what to think about something you have zero prior knowledge of whatsoever?
So if you have no understanding the Apollo programme or the science, technology and history of spaceflight whatsoever then I can see why it seems superficially plausible. If however you do, it's immediately obvious that it is full of ridiculous assumption, inference, deception, scientific and historical inaccuracies and tenuous correlation. The producers of this know exactly what they are doing, because it is their stock in trade and there is a market for it. I knew it was farcical, but I hadn't appreciated quite how bad it actually is until watching it again recently. It's an appalling supposed 'documentary', one sided, dishonest, deceptively edited, badly researched and aims to bombard the lay audience with a farrago of falsities, erroneous claims and supposition so as to bamboozle and misinform. I was astonished by the level of inaccuracy and intentional misrepresentation. Amazingly, it even incorporates the David Percy scam.
No surprises that t's made by Massimo Mazzucco, a particularly vile breed of professional con artist, grifter and a cheat. After all, nothing says trustworthy like a man that killed people for money shilling fake medical treatments.
Seriously, why don't you objectively learn about the actual science, technology and history of the Apollo programme, then you won't allow yourself to fall victim to these charlatan's claims?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Nonsense. His job was done. He didn't need to be present in mission control. There is a very famous photo of him relaxing at the launch control centre, Cape Kennedy, after the launch of Apollo 11. He was not muzzled or hidden from view at all.
March 1, 1970, von Braun and his family relocated to Washington, DC, when he was assigned the post of NASA's Deputy Associate Administrator for Planning at NASA Headquarters. After a series of conflicts associated with the truncation of the Apollo program, and facing severe budget constraints, von Braun retired from NASA on May 26, 1972. Not only had it become evident by this time that NASA and his visions for future U.S. space flight projects were incompatible, but also it was perhaps even more frustrating for him to see popular support for a continued presence of man in space wane dramatically once the goal to reach the Moon had been accomplished.
Walter Cronkite interviewed him on national TV just before the launch of Apollo 17. He had left NASA a few months before that and was working for Fairchild Republic.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"Perfect, now explain to me..."
Are you even remotely interested in listening to the answer?
"how a Kodak film can survive radiation exposure like the one in the moon and temperature changes from 180 Celsius at the sun and minus 160 Celsius in the shadows without going blank or Crumbing to dust?"
Firstly, astronauts on the lunar surface absorbed a measured average of 60 microsieverts of radiation per hour - so it wasn't an issue. Because there is no atmosphere on the moon the figures that you mention are surface extremes. In the absence of convection, the main process of heat transfer is radiative and objects take time to absorb this heat and build up to their equilibrium temperature. Also, the all the Apollo landings were timed to arrive at the lunar dawn which meant none of these temperature extremes are relevant.
"The Hasselblad cameras did not have any protection."
That is entirely false. Absolute nonsense. Hasselblad adapted their 500EL camera for the Apollo missions by removing the viewfinder, modifying the shutter, replacing the usual plastic black outer surface with reflective bare metal, and using special lubricants resistant to vacuum and high temperatures Moderate speed and low sensitivity film types that was used was well protected. In fact, the camera films were doubly protected as they were in custom built aluminium and steel magazines that were a lot thicker than the standard Hasselblad ones. Also, as explained, heat transfer is not significant in the absence of convection.
"So what do you want to tell me? The trip happened, but the pictures were staged? It's all bullshit."
That before declaring something fake, you should learn the very basic objective facts and avoid presupposition and your own internal bias. Also, I'd urge you to critically appraise junk online conspiracy theory before you consume and regurgitate it online.
Hope this helps.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"We didn't go to the moon."
Fascinating, do tell...
"the van alden radiation belt"
It's the Van Allen radiation belts. In the plural, since there are two, with a third that is transitory.
"can not"
Cannot is one word.
"be passed thru by a human being, one time going through would make you sick with radiation coming back 2nd time death"
if you have a shred of integrity the I'd like you to honestly ask yourself the following questions.
1/ How much do I genuinely know about the Van Allen Belts? - their shape extent and distribution? Energies and intensity? Type of radiation?
2/ What do I actually understand by alpha and beta particle radiation and shielding against it?
3/ What have I understood about the actual structure of the Command Module and the materials that it was fashioned from?
4/ What have I learnt about the trajectories flown by each of the Apollo missions and their passage through the belts?
5/ What do I know about what James Van Allen himself have to say about the belts and the Apollo missions?
If the answer to these questions is nothing, then obtaining the answers will prevent you form humiliating yourself in the future and avoid making such dumb and ignorant claims on a public comments section with no actual prior knowledge about the subject.
"Nasa has a video Saying they lost the technology to go "back" to the moon. lol"
No they really don't. You don't "lose" the technology, rather the capability. With the cancellation of Apollo, the tooling, plants, hardware and crucially, the heavy lift requirement was all abandoned. Much of Apollo was had built and the expertise was retired. The expertise is long gone as are the production processes. The technology has become obsolete, not lost, but superseded by modern tech.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Oh Christ alive, where do you start with all this?
"I agree about the press conference. I tell that to people. You wanna question the moon landing(s)? Start there."
Then you obviously haven't watched the entire footage from start to finish, rather appropriated excerpts from junk conspiracy videos and supposed documentaries that have omitted them laughing and joking. Sigh, yet another online armchair self-appointed authority in behavioural psychology. Having undertaken a rigorous and exhausting programme of training consisting of six day weeks for six months, the mental and physical demands and intensity of the eight day mission, immediate quarantine for three weeks directly before - not to mention the prospect of an exhaustive and exhausting programme of P/R press conferences during a gruelling world tour consisting of 29 cities in 24 countries in 38 days...you really expect them to be bouncing off the walls with enthusiasm? Neil Armstrong in particular was a particularly introverted, private, shy and modest individual. A demonstrably brave test pilot and astronaut, but the thought of being paraded around the world must have filled him with dread. However,, characters such as Pete Conrad, Al Shepard, Charlie Duke, Eugene Cernan and Ron Evans all had far more ebullient personalities. Perhaps you should also watch the post mission press conferences for Apollo 12, 14, 15, 16, 17 and even the aborted Apollo 13 landing that your conspiracy theory never mentions. Whilst at it, find footage and images of them beaming after recovery in the Mobile Quarantine Trailer.
"Watch the promo video for the Orion project where the guy says "First we need to figure-out how to safely send human beings through the radiation belts". I guess he didn't get the memo that not only did we "do" that but human beings were allegedly hitting golf balls, dropping feathers & hammers and driving around in dune buggies like it was nothing - every couple of months!"
You are referring to a 2014 video entitled 'Orion: Trial by Fire' in which Kelly Smith discusses the challenges posed by the VABs for the then new Orion capsule. 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 high density 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 the read only core rope memory used by Apollo is radiation hard. In contrast, 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. 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. This was not a problem for the Apollo design. Smith stated that these challenges "needed to be solved" before we can send a crew into those regions of the belts and beyond. In the same year Orion was sent into the densest regions of the belts and last year, to orbit the moon and return to Earth as part of Artemis 1, to overwhelming success. Why is it even necessary to explain all this again?
"You talk about having better technology now - what was wrong with that old technology? Essentially untested and performed nearly flawlessly, losing not 1 human life in "Man's Greatest Achievement"!"
It didn't perform flawlessly though. All nine voyages to the moon were dogged by glitches and potentially mission aborting challenges. The success of six out of seven landings is testament to the redundancies engineered into the programme and the ingenuity of the astronauts, engineers and technical staff on the ground.
The Apollo technology was retired together with the tooling and manufacturing processes. All of this are obsolete. Are you suggesting that if we return to supersonic passenger services it's simply a matter of rolling Concorde out of the hangar/museum again?
*_"Look up the clip of "NASA astronaut and engineer" Don Pettit telling us that NASA "destroyed that technology and it's a painful process to build it back.."
Don Pettit, speaking in 2017 used an unfortunate turn of phrase, "destroyed". 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?
"Look-up the clip of Gene Krantz admitting that they lost ALL of the telemetry tapes. What?"
Do you even know what telemetry is? None of the telemetry from the Apollo missions has been lost - but it's all pretty much irrelevant. Some magnetic back up tapes of the Apollo 11 EVA that were never intended for archival use were erased. These are all defunct now and some from other missions have been sold in auction to collectors. There are real-time recordings and transcriptions of all the missions and the data/confirmation can be found in the post flight mission reports. These are available in PDf format for download
You have done nothing but parrot the same old obligatory junk conspiracy theory based upon your own personal incredulity and a complete lack of knowledge of the science, technology and history of the Apollo Programme.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@househead99
"yes they did. All the telemetry data and film for Apollo 11 is lost."
Did you even bother reading your own source? Back ups for Apollo 11 were erased. You said that all the telemetry data was lost. Do you even understand what telemetry is? And presumably you are aware that there were a further five landings?
“A team of retired NASA employees and contractors tried to find the tapes in the early 2000s but was unable to do so. The search was sparked when several still photographs appeared in the late 1990s that showed the visually superior raw SSTV transmission on ground-station monitors. The research team conducted a multi-year investigation in the hopes of finding the most pristine and detailed video images of the moonwalk. If copies of the original SSTV format tapes were to be found, more modern digital technology could make a higher-quality conversion, yielding better images than those originally seen”
And the search revealed high-quality broadcast versions of the footage. NASA then working in conjunction with Lowry Digital, a premier film restoration company, processed the video using techniques unavailable in 1969. The restored video was released in HD as part of the 40th anniversary of Apollo 11.
Let me remind you of your claim -
"Why did NASA destroy all the original telemetry data, blueprints and original film reels for the biggest accomplishment achieved by mankind?"
They didn't "destroy "all the original telemetry data and original film reels" your own Wiki reference tells you that. Your statement is demonstrably source.
The blueprints that you refer to are not destroyed and the full schematics and technical documentation for the Apollo Programme all readily available. The blueprints for the Saturn V rocket/Apollo are archived and stored on microfilm at Marshall Space Flight Center, and the Federal Archives in East Point, Ga., also house 2,900 cubic feet of Saturn documents. Rocketdyne has archived dozens of volumes from its Knowledge Retention Program, which was initiated in the late ‘60s to document every facet of F-1 and J-2 engine production and assist in any future restart.
1
-
@househead99
Did you actually read your own source? Your three replies and your ad hominem abuse is simply a product of your own frustration.
Firstly, you asked "Why did NASA destroy all the original telemetry data?". They did not - from your own link that is demonstrably untrue.
"blueprints"
Again, completely and utterly false.
"and original film reels"
Again, what on Earth are you talking about? Film reels? The data on those tapes, including video data were relayed to the Manned Spacecraft Center during the mission. The video was recorded there and in other locations; there is no missing video footage from the Apollo 11 moonwalk. There was no video that came down slow scan that was not converted live, fed live, to Houston and fed live to the world. What film reels? What the hell are you talking about?
The search also discovered high-quality broadcast versions of the footage. From your own link: "Their findings included a videotape recorded in Sydney after the conversion but before the satellite transmission around the world, videotape from CBS News archives (direct from NASA, without commentary) and kinescopes at Johnson Space Center.[3] At the news conference, it was mentioned that Lowry Digital would complete enhancing and restoring the tapes.[3] Mike Inchalik, president of Lowry Digital, mentioned that his company would only restore the video and would not remove defects (such as reflections that looked like flag poles).[1] A few short clips were shown at the news conference, showing their improved quality.[3] NASA released some partially restored samples on its website after the news conference.[33] The full restoration of the footage, about three hours long, was completed in December 2009".
So during the search, the team came across broadcast-converted tapes that were far superior in quality to anything previously seen. There were tapes recorded in Sydney, Australia, during the Apollo 11 mission. They also found kinescopes at the National Archives that had not been viewed in 36 years that were made in Houston. Sifting through the CBS archives they uncovered tapes that had been fed directly from Houston to CBS - the raw data as recorded and archived.
Your claim is complete and utter nonsense.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@myfirstasmrvideo8463
"cameras have gotten better over time so it's very likely that nasal have worked on better cameras that would work in space plus alot of those images are sent directly to nasa wirlessly, when the moon landing happened they was littrly filming on potatos and had to have the footage in their hands to be able to see it meaning that the camera would have to make its way back to earth witch very lively was noy designed to leave the earth thefor the heat from it leaveing or entering earth's atmosphere at speed would have burnt parts of the film and due to the poor quality of the camera anyways the footage would not be usable as proof as we would not actually be able to see anything other than a blury image that jumps about"
Punctuation is your friend. I'd like to conclude that you dictated this, but some of the appalling English betray a complete lack of literacy.
Other than that, what you typed is complete and utter nonsense. Seriously, why are you attempting to sound authoritative and informed about a topic that you demonstrably have zero understanding of whatsoever?
"Technology has improved so much over such a short time what we have now is 100 times better that they had during that time they was not going in to space at that time with iPhone 37s or what ever we are on now shooting 8k videos that they was wordlessly airdriping to everyone, The carmas they had there wear poor quality not designed to go to space and the footage had to be brought phisicly back for anyone to see it and if you know anything about would cameras its hard to keep the film intact it gets damaged so easily here on earth so imagine what happens if you take this fragile thing and shoot it up in to space where it essentially has to pass through an oven and then back again the chances of that footage surviving is very low and once its damaged there's not really anyway to get it back to the way it was meant to be so yes there is a very high chance that the footage was unable but nasa didn't want to let people down as they promised us footage so they had no other choice but to fake it"
It's honestly nigh on impossible to know where to begin when confronted by such abject ignorance. Firstly, the cameras were expressly modified for the Apollo mission both in terms of heat and radiation. Levels of radiation encountered during the Apollo missions did not have had a significant effect on the moderate speed and low sensitivity film types they used. The film for the cameras was well protected. In fact, the camera films were doubly protected as they were in custom built aluminium and steel magazines that were a lot thicker than the standard Hasselblad ones. Radiation’s effects are largely cumulative, so if you can toss a roll of film in a drawer for two decades, which you can, and then use it successfully, you’ll actually have exposed it to the worst that any film on the Apollo missions experienced. In the main, Apollo used modified Hasselbad 500 EL 70mm film cameras and initially slow scan video cameras on the surface of the moon. The images were relayed via S band antenna. Regarding temperature, this is redundant and completely different to heat. Space is a vacuum, so no, it is nothing remotely like 'an oven' which heats its contents largely through convection but also conduction. On the moon, there is no atmosphere and so no air temperature. In space you need to shield over time against the radiative heat of the sun, but also insulate against heat that is radiated out from a body in the shade. This is no issue whatsoever for a small camera or the film inside anymore that it was in terms of the operation of the experimental packages/instruments deployed on the lunar surface.
Again, I am utterly unable to comprehend why so many people feel the need to advertise their complete ignorance over the internet and to comment about subjects for the sake of it that they clearly haven't the remotest idea about. Is this something that you do in the real world?
1
-
@myfirstasmrvideo8463
"so because I didn't put a gay ass little squiggly line in the right place what I'm saying is automatically a lie?"
Nope, I commented on the fact that your post was so appallingly written and composed it was virtually unreadable. What precisely is a "gay ass little squiggly line"? Meantime, what you were saying is not a wilful lie, it's simply wrong and based entirely on your own lack of knowledge and conjecture.
"okey bro what ever you say, like I said that was just my opinion your entitled to your own but to say someone is wrong because of something that has nothing to do with the subject we are talking about is just dumb asf this is not an English class room it's the comment section of a YouTube video so fk your punctuation marks"
Take one moment to read that rant back, reflect on my previous response to you and hopefully have some humility and introspection. Your punctuation (or lack of it) aside, this is nothing to do with "opinions", yours or mine. The film, the cameras, the video footage, the fact that no, space is not like your oven, all this can be independently verified. The issue here is that you are confusing your "opinion" with fact - and it's everything that is wrong with the internet and the populist world that we now live in. Individuals feeling the need to comment for the sake of it around subjects that they demonstrably have zero knowledge of whatsoever and being completely oblivious to their personal incredulity. And why the unnecessary abuse?
"if you want ti say I'm wrong then at least come up with good points to suggest that I'm wrong or come at me with some real evidence not just oh you didn't put a punctuation mark here and there that means your uneducated on the subject we are talking about thefor your opinion is automatically wrong"
Sigh! - what part of my response to you did you not understand. The models of the cameras and contrary to your claims, their modifications made to them? The S-Band transmission of footage? Or the thermal dynamics of a vacuum? Specifically, which of these would you like me to clarify further or go into more detail about? Shall we start again in explaining why the vacuum of space is not remotely like your oven?
Seriously, if you are that thin skinned sensitive and indignant in response to a comment on a video entertainment platform, how on earth do you function in the real world on a daily basis?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You mean you saw a quote mined conspiracy video that told you what to think, Find the original 'Orion: Trial By Fire' from 2014 and place it in its intended context. Engineer Kelly Smith said that the challenges of the space radiation environment had to be solved for the new design - the Orion capsule before a crew can be sent into this region of space. 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. The Apollo Guidance Computer used low density integrated circuits and magnetic core memory, both of which are extremely radiation hard. The computers were responsible for a relatively small aspect of the operation of the spacecraft; a lot of tasks were performed manually. In contrast, modern spacecraft like Orion are controlled by very high-density computing, and single event upsets (SEUs) can cause major problems. The challenge to be solved for Orion was therefore a completely different one to that solved by the Apollo design. 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 the Apollo era pre-written core rope memory is radiation hard. In contrast, 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. In the same year (2014), Orion was sent into the densest region of the belts and performed flawlessly, and last year on a test flight to the moon and back (Artemis 1).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@fanaticzrecordz
I have watched it - several times. If you have no knowledge about the Apollo programme or the science, technology and history of spaceflight whatsoever then I can see why it seems superficially plausible. If however you do, it's immediately obvious that it is full of ridiculous assumption, inference, deception, scientific and historical inaccuracies and tenuous correlation. The producers of this know exactly what they are doing, because it is their stock in trade and there is a market for it. I knew it was farcical, but I hadn't appreciated quite how bad it actually is until watching it again recently. It's an appalling supposed 'documentary', one sided, dishonest, deceptively edited, badly researched and aims to bombard the lay audience with a farrago of falsities, erroneous claims and supposition so as to bamboozle and misinform. I was astonished by the level of inaccuracy and intentional misrepresentation. Amazingly, it even incorporates the David Percy scam. it's made by Massimo Mazzucco, a particularly vile breed of professional con artist and a cheat. After all, nothing says trustworthy like a man that killed people for money shilling fake medical treatments.
Seriously, why don't you independently and objectively learn about the actual science, technology and history of the Apollo programme, then you won't allow yourself to fall victim to these charlatan's claims? Why would you rely upon a conspiracy theorist to tell you what to think about a subject that you clearly know nothing about?
1
-
1
-
It's virtually impossible to know where to start with this rote regurgitation of junk online conspiracy theory.
"Every time these astronauts are caught with their pants down regarding the moon landings topic, they always get confrontational and lose their cool."
They really don't. However, when you have an opportunistic lunatic of the ilk of Bart Sibrel relentlessly harassing and stalking you it's not hard to understand why Ed Mitchell for example booted him out of his house or Buzz Aldrin twatted him outside a hotel.
"Neil Armstrong wouldn’t even swear it on the bible that they went2
Why should he? I did enjoy his response - “Mr. Sibrel, knowing you, that’s probably a fake Bible.” 🤣
"Buzz Aldrin has strongly hinted that we never went to the moon"
Nope - nothing more than the usual quote mining by conspiracy theorists.
"just look at the Apollo 11 post-mission press conference film, none of those astronauts looked like they were proud of what was suppose to be a pinnacle achievement for mankind."
How many times? Seriously? You obviously haven't watched the entire footage from start to finish, rather appropriated excerpts from junk conspiracy videos and supposed documentaries that have omitted them laughing and joking. Sigh, yet another online armchair self-appointed authority in behavioural psychology, Having undertaken a rigorous and exhausting programme of training consisting of six day weeks for six months, the mental and physical demands and intensity of the eight day mission, immediate quarantine for three weeks directly before - not to mention the prospect of an exhaustive and exhausting programme of P/R press conferences during a gruelling world tour consisting of 29 cities in 24 countries in 38 days...you really expect them to be bouncing off the walls with enthusiasm? Neil Armstrong in particular was a particularly introverted, private, shy and modest individual. A demonstrably brave test pilot and astronaut, but the thought of being paraded around the world must have filled him with dread. Frankly if that's all it takes to convince you, it's hardly surprising that people of your ilk are the target market for these conmen and frauds that perpetrate online conspiracy theory.
"The moon landing hoax was the real-life version of ’Capricorn One’."
Yep - both are fantasy and fiction.
"The U.S. government threatened to hurt their families if any of the astronauts didn’t follow through with the plan."
Evidence?
"I also believe"
Must be true then.
this is why Area 51 was developed to conceal the evidence and equipment that NASA faked the moon landings."
The site in Groom Lake was acquired in 1955 to develop and test the U2.
"And just for the record, the official confirmed code name for the moon landing phony production was called 'Operation Slamdunk"
This again? Really? The term Slam Dunk didn't even exist in the 1960s. It was invented in the mid-70s - after the cancellation of Apollo - by announcer Chick Hearn. Seriously, why is it even necessary to explain this?
I'm not sure quite why people feel the need to parrot dumb online conspiracy theory about subjects that they have zero understanding of whatsoever in the deluded belief that it makes them sound informed and clever.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sigh. You are referring to part of a conspiracy video called 'A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon' by an online grifter and con artist called Bart Sibrel.
If you watched the full length original footage that it came from that you are clearly completely oblivious to, you'd discover several things: In the longer footage, you can see that, after a while, the camera backs away from its position where it had been up close to the window so that you can see the square corner of the window with the shape of the Earth clearly in the distance on the outside. You can tell that the Earth is on the outside because the perspective of the view changes between the window and the Earth as the camera moves. This proves several key things about the narrated story: Sibrel’s story specifically states that the camera was “at the back of the ship” and not up close to the window. The narrator makes a distinct point of this because it is important to the rest of Sibrel’s story. The narrator even insinuates that the astronauts were lying about the camera being up close to the window. The camera backing away from the window proves that this part of Sibrel’s story is a lie. Sibrel’s story specifically states that the camera was looking through the “round window.” The square corner of the window proves that this part of Sibrel’s story is a lie. Sibrel’s story claims that the shape of the Earth was created by the “round window” (or, in some later stories, that there was a “template” of the Earth on the window that caused the “round” shape of the Earth. The change in perspective between the earth, which is clearly outside of the window glass, and the square corner of the window proves that this part of Sibrel’s story is a lie.
So Bart Sibrel cut out the part of the video in which the camera backs away from the window, shows the square corner of the window, and clearly shows that the shape of the Earth is on the outside of the glass. You can clearly see that he cut this part out because the longer length video is continuous through to where the camera backs away from the window where Sibrel’s version makes a sharp cut at that point and transitions to another view.
The video then transitions to a time after the interior lights of the space ship are turned on. At this point, you can see a blue glow from a window. (The CM had 5 different windows.) Sibrel’s narration at this point tries to convince you that the blue glow is not glare from the interior lights but is actually the Earth as seen from “low Earth orbit.If what you were actually looking at through that window were really “the Earth as seen from low Earth orbit,” all the features that you do see in the window would be moving past the window at nearly 18,000 miles per hour and only a couple hundred miles away. The blue glow comes up when they turn on the interior lights — just as glare appears in a window any time you turn on your interior lights at home. (It’s blue because the Apollo window glass is multiple layers of thick quartz glass with protective coatings).
Perhaps most hilariously, Bart Sibrel puts a header at the front of the video that he has inserted to the original which claims that the video which follows is some sort of “secret.” And he claims that NASA must have sent it to him by mistake. Aside from this obviously being complete horseshit, this claim is utterly hilarious because at the time of release the full footage in full had been available to the public for decades.
Seriously, you couldn't make this up - only he did and gullible people fall for it because they are his target audience and market.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"The reason we haven’t returned to the moon is because we never went to begin with."
On the contrary, there were nine manned missions to the moon and six landings. It would have been at least ten had it not been for the near catastrophe and aborted landing of Apollo 13 and the premature cancellation of the programme and with it, Apollo 18, 19 and 20. There have also been a multitude of unmanned landings. Six space agencies, Roskosmos, NASA, CNSA, ISRO, JAXA and ESA, have reached the Moon with uncrewed missions.
"And how do we know that we really have landed rovers on Mars?"
How do you know that anyone has summited K2 or visited Challenger Deep?
"Remember, this government told us that 81 million people voted for Brandon"
Nope, the results told you that. Your previous president said the same. He also told you to drink bleach to cure Covid-19.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sigh.
Simply because you don't understand something, it doesn't mean it isn't true.
The LEM needed to enter orbit, so no, although it lifted off, it did not "travel vertically". The CM was not travelling at 8,000 mph. Where on earth are you getting this from? So you don't understand orbital mechanics and therefore it's fake?
If you are referring to MH370, it was a Boeing 777 200-ER, not a 747. Civil radar doesn’t work the same way military radar does… civil radar hits the plane, the planes IFF responds and the position is plotted on a screen. Turn the IFF off and you disappear from civil radar. The primary transponder was turned off, and the backup didn't activate. once an aircraft is more than 240km (150 miles) out to sea, radar coverage fades and air crew keep in touch with air traffic control and other aircraft using high-frequency radio. Independent analysis of raw satellite data released by inmarsat indicates that the aircraft was flown to the Southern Indian Ocean.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I have watched it - several times. If you have no knowledge about the Apollo programme or spaceflight whatsoever then I can see why it seems so plausible. If however you do, it's immediately obvious that it is full of ridiculous assumption, inference, deception, scientific and historical inaccuracies and tenuous correlation. The producers of this know exactly what they are doing, because it is their stock in trade and there is a market for it.
I knew it was farcical, but I hadn't appreciated quite how bad it actually is until watching it again recently. It's an appalling supposed 'documentary', one sided, dishonest, deceptively edited, badly researched and aims to bombard the lay audience with a farrago of falsities, erroneous claims and supposition so as to bamboozle and misinform. I was astonished by the level of inaccuracy and intentional misrepresentation. Astonishingly, it even incorporates the David Percy scam.
I then recalled that it's made by the vile Massimo Mazzucco, a professional con artist and cheat. After all, nothing says trustworthy like a man that killed people for money shilling fake medical treatments.
Seriously, why don't you independently and objectively learn about the actual science, technology and history of the Apollo programme, then you won't allow yourself to fall victim to these charlatan's claims?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Massimo Mazzucco - Is this serious?
If you have no knowledge about the Apollo programme or the science, technology and history of spaceflight whatsoever then I can see why it seems superficially plausible. If however you do, it's immediately obvious that it is full of ridiculous assumption, inference, deception, scientific and historical inaccuracies and tenuous correlation. The producers of this know exactly what they are doing, because it is their stock in trade and there is a market for it. I knew it was farcical, but I hadn't appreciated quite how bad it actually is until watching it again recently. It's an appalling supposed 'documentary', one sided, dishonest, deceptively edited, badly researched and aims to bombard the lay audience with a farrago of falsities, erroneous claims and supposition so as to bamboozle and misinform. I was astonished by the level of inaccuracy and intentional misrepresentation. Amazingly, it even incorporates the David Percy scam.
As you say, it's made by Massimo Mazzucco, a particularly vile breed of professional con artist and a cheat. After all, nothing says trustworthy like a man that killed people for money shilling fake medical treatments.
Seriously, why don't you independently and objectively learn about the actual science, technology and history of the Apollo programme, then you won't allow yourself to fall victim to these charlatan's claims?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Oh great - another self-appointed armchair behavioural psychologist over the comments section of You Tube.
You don't genuinely "question" anything, that's the problem. You are merely another gullible conspiracy believer parroting online nonsense fed to you by junk videos and dishonest grifters responsible for this garbage. Firstly, the press conference you are referring to was almost a month after they had returned from the moon having been in quarantine. Find the photos and footage of their recovery on the USS Hornet and from the Mobile Quarantine Unit trailer.
Regarding the later press conference that you refer to, you obviously haven't watched the entire footage from start to finish, rather appropriated excerpts from junk conspiracy videos and supposed documentaries that have omitted them continually laughing and joking. If you have any shred of integrity and will to independently verify this for yourself, you'll now go back and review this to challenge the claims that you have regurgitated. Having undertaken a rigorous and exhausting programme of training consisting of six day weeks for six months, the mental and physical demands and intensity of the eight day mission, immediate quarantine for three weeks directly before - not to mention the prospect of an exhaustive and exhausting programme of P/R press conferences during a gruelling world tour consisting of 29 cities in 24 countries in 38 days...you really expect them to be bouncing off the walls with enthusiasm? Neil Armstrong in particular was a particularly introverted, private, shy and modest individual. A demonstrably brave test pilot and astronaut, but the thought of being paraded around the world must have filled him with dread.
Frankly if that's all it takes to convince you, it's hardly surprising that people of your ilk are the target market for these conmen and frauds that perpetrate online conspiracy theory.
1
-
1
-
@alangaillard2988
"The danger of the loss of the crew was not the reason cited for the cancellation of the last three Apollo missions: it was budget cuts, or why go ahead with 14-17?"
Eh? - Read my post again in which I mention budget cuts. At no stage did I suggest that it was. I was simply responding to your correct implication that manned space flights to the moon are both risky and highly dangerous ventures.
"Now, I'm not absolutely convinced, one way or another, but why no missions beyond low Earth orbit?"
You mean manned missions? Because the heavy lift capability was abandoned and since America stopped building the Saturn V there has been no means by which to send them. Following the cancellation of Apollo, the emphasis was placed upon the Space Shuttle Programme which was Nixon's baby. The construction of the ISS was also a very costly and protracted project. Deep space missions became the preserve of unmanned probes and robotic landers which incur far less cost and risks involved. With the advent of the SLS, manned missions beyond low earth orbit are once again possible.
"If the VAB belt isn't deadly, why not build a space station farther out?"
They are belts, since there are two, with a third that is transitory. The VABs are not at all deadly if passed through at high velocity, in a short period of time and through the trajectories flown by the Apollo missions through the outer sparsest regions. They consist of charged particle alpha and beta radiation that is easily blocked from such mission profiles. However, the crew of a space station orbiting within the densest regions of the belts would receive a fatal dose of radiation within about three weeks. In comparison, radiation doses measured during Apollo were significantly lower than the yearly average of 5 rem set by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission for workers who use radioactive materials in factories and institutions across the United States. So, radiation was not an operational problem during the Apollo Program. Doses received by the crewmen of Apollo missions 7 - 17 were small because no major solar-particle events occurred during those missions which was the greatest concern. 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). Total mission doses would have been in the region of 1 - 1.5 rems.
"Even if you entirely believe that the Apollo missions happened & that the reporting of them was absolutely true, there are obvious questions about our lack of activity since which need answering, & which. if left unanswered, will continue to cast a shadow of doubt."
No there aren't. Apollo was prematurely cancelled due to a lack of public and political will and the unsustainable funding required. Since then, budget has been allocated elsewhere. Rebuilding a manned programme to the moon has been a long and painful process validating and testing the modern technology that has usurped the old and obsolete and stymied by peicemeal funding and false dawns. Project Artemis pledges to return man to the surface of the moon by 2025 which is hugely unrealistic. The Space X HLS needs thorough development and testing and I really can't see this happening until the end of the decade at the earliest.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@matshanssen2070
"You must be a young ignorant lad that just came out of the egg and thinks he knows it all."
You're the one that feels the need to use childish emojis. As I already explained to you, I am irrelevant to this exchange, do try to stay on subject.
"Ever heard of the propaganda-wars in the sixties, einstein?"
Propaganda has flourished throughout recorded history. Of course governments lie and deceive - no one in their right mind would suggest otherwise. However, simply because they did and do, that does not mean that claims of hoaxed moon landings or any random conspiracy theory based upon one's choice, devising or person agenda should therefore automatically be assumed to be true. A syllogistic logical fallacy.
The scientific, technological, historical, independent and third party evidence in support of the moon landings is incontrovertible and has a voice of its own.
"And by the way : where is your absolute proof?? Where??"
Yet another conspiracy believer that is unable to comprehend burden of proof. You made a positive assertion, therefore as the one making the claim and challenging the status quo, the onus is incumbent entirely on you to substantiate it. Go ahead then. You appear to be suggesting that the Apollo missions journeyed to the moon in a "crappy man made metal vehicle" - (of course it was "man made"), and that there wasn't sufficient fuel?
"Show me, young sleepwalker"
Ever an ongoing source of amusement that those insisting on still parroting such cringeworthy clichés are the ones that slept through science classes.
1
-
1
-
@matshanssen2070
"Ever heard of Stanley Kubrick and what he had to say about this?"
This again? Seriously, how many times? How gullible? Do you people have anything remotely resembling an original thought or observation ever even occasionally entering your vacuous craniums? Stanley Kubrick had nothing to say about it - although he did request the use of the rare f/0.7 camera lenses manufactured by Carl Zeiss for NASA in order to shoot the candlelight scenes in ''Barry Lyndon'.
Possibly one of the most ridiculous theories that you deniers cling to. Aside from the fact that even today, convincingly faking continuous uncut footage in a vacuum and 1/6th g would be utterly impossible, the special effects in '2001: A Space Odyssey' didn't remotely resemble the Apollo of the lunar landings. Moreover, Douglas Trumbull was responsible for this, not Kubrick, and the whereabouts, projects and activity of the man are completely accounted for throughout all of the Apollo missions 1969 - 1972. Furthermore, there is no way that man of Kubrick's stubborn and defiant nature and character would have compromised his artistic integrity for the US government. Amusingly, much of this horseshit stems from an excerpt from an appalling film made by T Patrick Murray, called 'Shooting Stanley Kubrick' featuring a deathbed confession. The actor cast in the role, (Tom Mayk), doesn't look or sound remotely like him, but that doesn't stop it being consumed and regurgitated by gullible social media addicts. Please don't tell me that you are so gullible you fell for that?
Regarding your claims concerning "propaganda" and "the government", I have already responded to this. Do try to keep up.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"There are on yt from NASA where they are talking about the Artimis program and future plans for manned missions to the moon and the engineer goes into am explanation of the van Allen radiation belts and admitted they have to figure out how to shield astronauts from the deadly effects of radiation before sending humans through them."
This again? How many times? In an educational video aimed predominately at children, one NASA engineer Kelly Smith is talking about the (then) new capsule Orion and that it needs to be tested and validated before they can send astronauts through the belts. Orion is a completely different craft to Apollo utilising onboard systems and modern electronics that are far more vulnerable to particle radiation than their Apollo-era counterparts and it is designed for missions of longer distance and duration. The Apollo Guidance Computer used low density integrated circuits and magnetic rope core memory, both of which are extremely radiation hardened. When high-energy protons and other ions hit orbiting spacecraft, they often leave ionisation tracks in electronic chips. These tracks can cause single event and spacecraft computer memories and otherwise disrupt sensitive electronics ad life support 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.Later that year 2014 Orion was deliberately sent into the more intense inner belt to test these and it passed with flying colours.
"The space suits had no radiation protection. Fuck the van Allen belts, what about the extreme solar radiation an astronaut working on the lunar surface would be exposed to?"
The main concern was an SPE/CME, but since the Apollo missions coincided with a solar minima,, none occurred during any of the missions. Other than that, an astronaut on the moon absorbed a measured average of 60 microsieverts an hour largely from GCRs.
"Couple that with the fact the PLSS(The backpack the had on, the Personal Life Support System) weighed a couple hundred pounds. 1/6 gravity or not, the MASS of the astronaut and the backpack doesn't change. They'd still have that much mass, and all the inertia and momentum accompanied with it, to deal with. It would throw their center of gravity off. Then they were moving forward or jumping up and down and stopped, the weigh equivalent to their body would want to keep going. The weight would either throw them face down, or tip them over backwards"
Nope - it weighed only 14lbs on the moon, 84 lbs on Earth, fully loaded with consumables about 104lbs, which equates to 17lbs on the moon - your statement is completely false.
"While I'm on the subject, wtf does moving forward in a decreased Gravity environment have to do with slowing down their forward motion? Walking on the moon's surface, the forward motion is perpendicular to the moon's, and Earth's, gravity. So what's the reason every movement seems to be in slow motion?"
For the most part, the astronauts appear to move more slowly on the Moon because they are. While their weight was less, their mass was the same. And in addition, the space suits were bulky and stiff. This meant much of their motion was deliberate and slow so that they would not loose their balance and because of the resistance - you referred to this yourself. Now factor in that astronauts on the moon are accelerated towards the surface by lunar gravity - or about 1/6th as fast as on Earth. So when they take a step, they come down more slowly. Why is it even necessary to explain this?
"Look at the photos. Converging and parallel shadows is impossible with a single distant light source. Converging shadows indicate a light source very close. And shadows that are perpendicular indicates multiple light sources.
All of this can be observed on earth in similar undulating terrain. It's the same thing, parroted over and over and over and over again.
"Nevermind the fact that in the photo of aldrin exiting the lunar module, he's completely lit up. He should be in almost complete darkness."
Again, the same relentless claims. Why? Because online conspiracy theorists completely ignorant of albedo and camera exposure said so?
"Look at lro images. The resolution is amazing, until they are of the Apollo sites. In the hires images, you can see where NASA edited the photos and blacked out images..."
No you can't.
"Of buildings, craft, equipment, etc that's not from humans."
What????
"So why is the moon able to reflect light on aldrin bit not on anything else?"
The suit is white, the exposure captures his descent on the ladder as the frame of reference.
"Consider this... The side of the rock, or the lunar lander, or the astronaut facing the sun would be at a temp of about 250F, while the opposite side that's unlit would be at about -240 F. You think that space suit or lander could take those yltps and extremes. One side of the lander and astronaut outside, would be vooled. Half the lander, made of something like 20 gauge aluminum or smaller would be expanding from such high heat while the side in shadow would be at -250 and contracting due to cold."
Those are extreme surface equilibrium temperatures. In a vacuum, there is no air, so in the absence of convection, temperature is irrelevant. The only significant form of of thermal transfer is radiative from the sun. Objects on the moon take time to build up to those extremes and time to radiate heat away - it is not instantaneous. Moreover, the Apollo landings were timed to coincide with the lunar dawn. A day on the moon is equivalent to 27.5 Earth days - so none of the temperatures that you mention are applicable or were experienced.
"Do you think the suit and PLSS had the ability to remove that much heat and cold and keep the astronaut at a comfortable 68Fover his whole body? Plus. The suit had to be airtight and pressurized to 14psi in the vacuum of space. The suit and gloves would swell up like the Michelin man and they wouldn't be able toove. Now that I think about it, the same thing would happen on a space walk. Where's all tha power to maintain temp. Pressure and oxygen coming from ? There's no way that backpack could do that , especially for the amount of time they were on the surface."
Firstly, the main role of the PLSS was to shed heat. Body heat of the astronauts was carried away from the water-cooled undergarment and in waste air, both of which passed through the PLSS 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. And no, the suits were not pressurised to 14psi - where are you getting all this from? The A7Ls were pressurised to 4.3psi the same as contemporary suits. Lunar surface EVA times for the first four missions (Apollo 11 through 14) were limited to 4 hours, with oxygen stored at 1,020 pounds per square inch (7.0 MPa), 3.0 pounds (1.4 kg) of lithium hydroxide, 8.5 pounds (3.9 liters) of cooling water, and a 279 watt-hour battery. For the extended missions of Apollo 15 through 17, the EVA stay time was doubled to 8 hours by increasing oxygen to 1,430 pounds per square inch (9.9 MPa), lithium hydroxide to 3.12 pounds (1.42 kg), cooling water to 11.5 pounds (5.2 liters), and battery capacity to 390 watt-hours. What's your point?
"There are statements that on later missions, the astronauts never traveled more than 20iles away from the lander."
??? On Apollo 17 the rover went 35.9 km in 4 hours 26 minutes total drive time. The longest traverse was 20.1 km and the greatest range from the LM was 7.6 km.
"It's risky enough launching, traveling hundreds of thousands ofules in one direction, navigating, deploying craft, docking, undocking. Landing on the moon while the command module orbits, ascending back into lunar orbit and rendezvousing with command module, traveling back through space, through the van Allen belts, entering the atmosphere at a precise angle, position, and speed, surviving reentry, shoots deploying. Landing in the middle of the Pacific ocean and not sinking right by a carrier..."
Every aspect of the Apollo missions was fraught with danger and it's highly likely that had the programme not been prematurely cancelled due to cost that it would have claimed the lives of a crew. However, every aspect that you mention here was possible due to superb engineering and and understanding of physics.
"not saying, I'm just saying."
No, you're 'just' consuming and parroting the same old recycled and obligatory, predictable fallacious assumptions, bad science, atrociously researched and outright deceptive conspiracy theory combined with your own personal incredulity.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@RonWard-i1x
Sigh. A question for you - and if you have the integrity and the honesty I'd like you to ask it of yourself. Entire branches of science the world over and specialist fields of expertise - specifically radio communications and radio-astronomy have absolutely no issue with the Apollo transmissions. Do you think it just might be possible that you don't know as much as them?
Let's try again shall we? The Apollo broadcasts were sent by unified S band which relayed the live video feed back to Earth, along with the other radio and telemetry data that was already being sent back. And yes, we can do it now with the same technology. Where on Earth do you get the idea that we can't?
The image and sound signals were transmitted via a lightweight antenna on the top of the lander. The antenna was lined with 38 miles of fine gold-plated wire, thinner than human hair, to reflect the signal 250,000 miles back to Earth. Unified S-band could send: telemetry, command, voice and television data using different frequencies but combined into a single antenna. However, even with this new system, there wasn’t enough bandwidth available for a standard 525-line video camera. In order for the video feed to fit into the downlink, Westinghouse and RCA developed slow-scan cameras which transmitted just 325 scan lines at a mere 10 frames per second. The signal was then backed up and converted on the ground when received at the Deep Space Network. When the Apollo TV camera radioed its images, the ground stations received its raw unconverted SSTV signal and split it into two branches. One signal branch was sent unprocessed to a fourteen-track analog data tape recorder where it was recorded onto fourteen-inch diameter reels of one-inch-wide analog magnetic data tapes at 3.04 meters per second. The other raw SSTV signal branch was sent to the RCA scan converter where it would be processed into an NTSC broadcast television signal.
Also, where do you get the idea that a radio signal can't be broadcast 238,000 miles of space? We are still receiving data from the Voyager probes. Voyager I communicates with the Deep Space Network to receive routine commands and to transmit data to Earth. At a distance of 162 AU (24 billion km; 15 billion mi) from Earth as of November 2023, it is the most distant human-made object from Earth. Astronomical radio sources are objects in outer space that emits strong radio waves. Radio emission comes from a wide variety of sources such as quasars and pulsars on the edge of the known universe. Recently radio-astronomers have the most distant fast radio burst ever detected: an 8-billion-year-old pulse that has been travelling for more than half the lifetime of the universe.
Regarding Apollo 1, a stuck microphone was the main problem with the communications loop connecting the crew, the Operations and Checkout Building, and the Complex 34 blockhouse control room. The poor communications led Grissom to remark: "How are we going to get to the Moon if we can't talk between two or three buildings?". What's your point?
Seriously - and it's the same for all of you online conspiracy believers - why do you make demands from personal incredulity about subjects that you demonstrably have zero comprehension of whatsoever? You don't understand something, so you insist that it has to be fake.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jdheelfan
Incorrect. I do not defer to junk online conspiracy theory and I am informed about the science, technology and history of the Apollo Programme. And you demonstrably are ignorant, because you think that the Apollo moon landings are faked. Meanwhile entire branches of science, specialist fields worldwide such as aerospace engineering, rocketry and geology, Pulitzer Prize nominated investigative journalists, Nobel Prize winning physicists and each of the other 76 space agencies on the planet are able to demonstrate otherwise. In short, domains, disciplines and expertise far exceeding an insignificant outspoken, opinionated troll, that thinks that dumb conspiracy theory constitutes "scientific research"
But let's see shall we? No use simply saying it. Go ahead and present your singular most compelling, conclusive, persuasive and irrefutable piece of evidence that the Apollo Programme was faked. Naturally you will be avoiding the same old predictable crap online conspiracy theory that has been mindlessly consumed and regurgitated over and over and over and over again and routinely debunked and shown to be false innumerable times.
Do you have anything vaguely original to contribute, or based upon your own thoughts or observations? I'm all ears.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Even the astronauts on international space station say we hope to visit space beyond these belts completely forgetting about the Apollo missions 7 that supposedly did."
No they don't. One astronaut and commander of the ISS, Terry Virts, referred to the loss of the heavy lift capability following the cancellation of Apollo, correctly saying, right now we don't have the means to get out of near Earth orbit. This was in 2015, three years before the approval of Project Artemis and seven years prior to the first test flight of the SLS.
"NSA says we threw out that technology- phooey."
No, again one astronaut, Don Pettit, this time speaking in 2017 used an unfortunate and cynical turn of phrase which was 'destroyed' the technology and quote mining conspiracy theorists and their believers have obsessively fixated upon this inflating it to 'NASA says'. With the premature cancellation of Apollo, the plants were closed, the production processes and tooling wound up, the expertise retired or moved on, and the technology left to lie fallow and become obsolete. Meanwhile, spaceflight continued to evolve and grow in other ways with the emphasis upon low earth orbit whilst deep space exploration became the preserve of less expensive unmanned probes and landers.
*"We had trouble even getting unmanned spacecraft in to just out of earths orbit."
This is so inaccurate and absurdly false it's laughable.
"Those astronauts acted spooked from what they saw on the other side of the moon from earths orbit."
You can't see the other side of the moon from Earth orbit.
You clearly haven't got the remotest idea of what you're talking about. So let;s start with the VABs. if you have a shred of integrity then I'd like you to honestly ask yourself the following questions:
1/ How much do I genuinely know about the Van Allen Belts? - their shape extent and distribution? Energies and intensity? Type of radiation?
2/ What do I actually understand by alpha and beta particle radiation and shielding against it? 3/ What have I understood about the actual structure of the Command Module and the materials that it was fashioned from?
4/ What have I learnt about the trajectories flown by each of the Apollo missions and their passage through the belts?
5/ What do I know about what James Van Allen himself have to say about the belts and the Apollo missions?
6/ What have I done to challenge my preconceptions and the claims made by online conspiracy theorists in relation to the VABs?
If the answer to these questions is nothing, then obtaining the answers will prevent you form humiliating yourself in the future and avoid making arrogant claims on a public comments section with no actual prior knowledge about the subject.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@smoothmovenyc7992
"so what are your thoughts after watching the new Bart Sibrel episode?"
That nothing says informed, honest and accurate like a former cab driver and convicted felon, ex stalker and religious cult member, one time advertisement maker that managed to get himself ostracised by the entire industry and a proven liar and fraud turned conspiracy theorist, with absolutely no specialist knowledge of scientific expertise whatsoever.
"how did they get through the Van allen belt if still today they do not possess the technology to get through it?"
This again? Seriously, how many times? The VABs are toroidal, and consist of charged alpha and beta particles. By traversing the sparsest regions at high velocity in a short space of time they present no barrier to crewed spacecraft. The issue is not lacking the technology, but the modern technology that we have now.
The nonsense spouted by Sibrel stems from a 2014 video entitled 'Orion: Trial by Fire' in which Kelly Smith discusses the challenges posed by the VABs for the then new Orion capsule. 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 high density 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 the read only core rope memory used by Apollo is radiation hard. In contrast, 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. 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. This was not a problem for the Apollo design. Smith stated that these challenges "needed to be solved" before we can send a crew into those regions of the belts and beyond. In the same year Orion was sent into the densest regions of the belts and last year, to orbit the moon and return to Earth as part of Artemis 1, to overwhelming success. Why is it even necessary to explain all this again? And why are you allowing/trusting a buffoon and extortionist such as Sibrel to tell you what to think about a subject that you clearly have zero knowledge of whatsoever?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1/ On the contrary, there were nine manned missions to the moon and six landings. It would have been at least ten had it not been for the near catastrophe and aborted landing of Apollo 13 (I suppose that was inexplicably faked too?) and the premature cancellation of the programme and with it, Apollo 18, 19 and 20.
2/ 9/11 certainly wasn't an 'inside job' correct. al-Qaeda claimed full responsibility and the evidence that they planned and executed the attacks is incontrovertible.
3/ All vaccination programmes carry with them the possibility of a small element of risk - but this is negligible in comparison to the benefits. One vaccination that I haven't myself personally had is for Small Pox. Is there the remotest chance that your tiny conspiratorially addled mind can work out why?
What does any of this have to do with 'the government'?
And meanwhile, online conspiracy theory is entirely honest, accurate, reliable and consistent, not in the least bit deceptive, misleading, fallacious, exploitative, opportunistic or manipulative and with your best interests at heart is entirely free of vested interest, agenda ad disinformation? Righto then.
1
-
1
-
1
-
The landline call placed through the existing microwave network to Houston was then patched to the Deep Space Network, whereupon it was relayed via radio transmission using a very large radio dish directed at the moon.
In contrast, understand that the signal on your phone is received by a crappy 1.94 square centimeter antenna nestled into the bottom of your device. 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 at 20 watts, to a dish that was 65 feet in diameter which reduced the amount of battery power needed by the lunar module. 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 have 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.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@everettmagnusson9154
"In 1969 a typical TV transmission tower was 1000 ft high. Just saying"
Just saying what precisely? What does this have to do with the Apollo Programme?
"It doesn't matter anymore if something is faked, back then there was no VCR to record or Internet to look back on. The public saw a one shot program, and they thought that would be the end of it. Weird huh"
No, it's not in the slightest bit weird - and the footage was subsequently available by VHS and DVD in the years following and has been for decades. And what do you mean by "one shot programme"? You make no sense.
Between 1969 and 1972 there were nine manned missions to the moon with six landings. Since then, 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. It 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, the physics of every mission profile, the engineering of 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. There are some 10,000 private sector organisations and venture capital initiative invested in space exploration.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 who base aspects of their work on the accomplishments of Apollo. Then there are the professors teaching orbital mechanics at MIT, Purdue, UC Boulder, and other elite universities whose work also draws on the achievements of the Apollo program.
You have yet to answer the question though. Instead of waffling about transmission towers and "one shot" space programmes, could you please explain what a 1960s TV set has to do with the cutting edge, bespoke technology developed for and harnessed by the Apollo Programme, in addition to summarising precisely what areas of it were lacking? Go ahead, try again.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ricardasbg1049
Can I suggest that you consolidate your replies into one single comment? (perhaps attempt to do so without the reliance upon so many childish emojis if you can?). Good lad.
"you use words like science, math, physics and not providing any of them."
Happy to discuss any aspect of them with you.
"If you not interested in his content why you even here 😁 personal attacks incoming 😁😁😁 this is the best what you have"
What personal attacks? I have no need for ad hominem fallacy. I am simply making observations.
"So we went to the moon you say?"
The overwhelming consilience of scientific, independent and third party evident says that. I am irrelevant to this exchange.
"Why were never been back there?"
Because Apollo was cancelled by Congress and with it the heavy lift capability.
"If it's money than I think it is much cheaper to go now then it was years ago. As we have much better technology. And technology got cheaper over the time."
Firstly, the funding for Apollo was virtually limitless whilst Artemis and the Constellation Project that preceded it has been piecemeal and drip-fed. Secondly, the technology is very different to Apollo and in spite of the advances this does not come cheaply. It is still extremely expensive to send a manned mission to the moon.
"So let's get some super computer, get some rods, tin foil and build a lunar module. Then we are all set 😁😁 to the mooon!!"
Perhaps you should read up in the actual construction of the Lunar Module?
"Nasa scientist said. We need to solve the problem's of solar radiation, van allen belts before sending humans though this dangerous radiation. You never even saw this as you on YouTube"
This again? Yep - and I've heard it over and over and over and over again from conspiracy believers that have fallen for quote mined dishonestly appropriated videos and lack the will or the objectivity to actually understand the context. You are referring to NASA engineer Kelly Smith, who was discussing the new Orion capsule in a 2014 video chiefly aimed at children called 'Orion Trail by Fire'. Orion was 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, as I already mentioned, the technology is very different. 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 ionization tracks in electronic chips. These tracks can upset spacecraft computer memories and otherwise disrupt sensitive electronics. The challenge to be solved for Orion was therefore a completely different one to that solved by the Apollo design which used low density integrated circuits and magnetic core memory, both of which are extremely radiation hard. The computers were responsible for a relatively small aspect of the operation of the spacecraft; a lot of tasks were performed manually. In contrast, modern spacecraft like Orion are controlled by very high-density computing, and single event upsets (SEUs) can cause major problems for modern systems such as life support and environmental control. Smith was referring to challenges related to the new technology. The Orion capsule has been tested twice in this environment - in 2014 it was sent into the densest regions of the Van Allen Belts and passed with flying colours. Last year's Artemis 1 mission was over 25 days in duration.
At no stage did Kelly Smith say that it is too dangerous to send men to the moon now - although at the point of that video being made, Orion did need to be validated through unmanned test flight procedures.
1
-
@ricardasbg1049
"can you do another essay"
If by that you mean a few paragraphs replying to your two posts, then by all means. Do you have any further questions regarding Kelly Smith's comment? Are you genuinely interested in the answers? Earlier you said this - "you use words like science, math, physics and not providing any of them." So which is it? I can discuss the latter in great detail if you wish - or would you be more comfortable with a few sentences and a series of emojis? Space flight is very complicated.
"What about the rockets in to the space? Is it not too cold to burn fuel or how combustion works in space?"
A liquid fuelled rocket launched into space is already burning fuel. If the engine is required to be re-lit, then this is done through an oxidiser and an ignition source in the combustion/thrust chamber. Alternatively, hypergolics which require no oxidiser or ignition will simply react and combust on contact. Because space is a vacuum the notion of external temperature is redundant. Spacecraft need to be protected from the radiative heat from the sun as much as they need to be insulated to prevent heat from radiating away. There are both passive and active methods of thermal management.
"Do you need to stop and fill fuel at the spacestation?"
a rocket engine is not continually firing. To journey to the moon a rocket needs to perform a burn for a set duration of time in order to overcome the pull of the earth's gravity and be captured by the moon. This is called Trans Lunar Injection - a speed of 24,995mph. Once the burn has been made, the spacecraft is coasting the the moon, but continually losing velocity due to the force of Earth's gravity exerted on it. Once it is captured by the lunar sphere of gravitational influence, much like reaching and passing over the crest of a hill, it will start to accelerate again. It then needs to perform two burns to enter and stabilise lunar orbit, otherwise it will slingshot back around towards Earth again. To return to earth a further burn is performed and the craft is then in 'freefall' back home. The spacecraft simply need to have the fuel capacity to perform these burns, gravity does the rest. At the point of re-entry, the craft will have accelerated from the initial TLE burn velocity of 5,680mph to around 25,000mph as it gathers velocity during its fall back to earth.
1
-
1
-
Why have you felt the need to cut and paste the majority of this comment from a erroneous paper plucked and cherry picked from a low quality pay to publish journal? This is so full of falsities, assumptions and flawed science, it's almost impossible to know where to start.
Firstly, the author. It's Alen J Salerian ffs - who if you don't know is a struck off psychiatrist and has no expertise in radiobiology/radiation whatsoever. His licence to practice was revoked following immoral or unprofessional conduct in the practice of medicine. At the time a federal judge in southwestern Virginia was forced to declare Salerian as “mentally incompetent” to assist in his own defense and was forced to indefinitely postpone his trial on felony charges of distributing narcotic painkillers to people with no legitimate need for them and prescribing more than 800 pills a month to four members of a major western Virginia drug-trafficking ring. The guy has blood on his hands. Following his spectacular fall from grace and once his empire had crumbled he became a full blown conspiracy whack-job and took refuge deep into the rabbit hole. Your post is nothing more than a hilarious appeal to authority. Furthermore, Salerian is utterly devoid of a conscience, completely without moral scruples, integrity and intellectual honesty.
Not only are his figures completely to cock, so is his science.."1.8 Sv in 3 hours of travel through the radiation belt during the mission."???? What??? Radiation doses measured during Apollo were significantly lower than the yearly average of 5 rem set by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission for workers who use radioactive materials in factories and institutions across the United States. So, radiation was not an operational problem during the Apollo Program. 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. 100 rems are equivalent to one seivert.
When NASA commenced its lunar spaceflight program, its scientists already knew about the spatial and energy distribution of the VABs. 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. In the most intense part of the Van Allen belts, one would have to stay there six days to receive a lethal dose of 300Rads. By using trajectory and speed, the astronauts passed through in one hour receiving a measured dose of about 0.9Rads. The Command Module's Inner Hull varied in thickness from 0.25 inches to 1.5 inches of aluminium alloy. The Outer Hull vairied from 0.5 inches to 2.5 inches in thickness of steel. Between the two hulls was a layer of fibrous thermal insulation.
The VAB consists of a high population of low energy particles, easily stopped by the spacecraft's hull. Only the relatively low population high energy particles would penetrate the crew compartment, resulting in a low radiation dose for astronauts on Apollo translunar missions. When shielding against charged alpha and beta particles, the last thing that you want to use is lead due to the bremsstrahlung effect.
The main danger beyond the protection of the earth's magnetosphere in cislunar space comes from CMEs and solar particle events. 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.
Regarding Grissom and the crew of Apollo 1, they were not the only ones to be vocal about the design issues and managerial flaws blighting the early Apollo programme. Many throughout the programme had voiced similar concerns. The disaster was caused by a stray spark and the combustible flammable materials within the capsule that were easily ignited due to the pure oxygen. The hatch was inward opening, so the crew couldn't get out of the pressurised capsule. The harsh reality is, that Kennedy's goal of placing man on the moon by the end of the decade would never have happened had it not been for the tragedy of Apollo 1.
You haven't the remotest idea what you are talking about.
1
-
1
-
False. Three did.
Why should anyone after years of harassment be forced to swear on a magic book brandished in front of them by that deranged stalker and conspiracy nutjob Bart Sibrel? Imagine that you did something truly revolutionary, at unimaginable risk to yourself. You did it on national TV, with the whole world watching. Hundreds of thousands of people can personally attest to what you did…Then some grifter with a camera crew comes up to you and demands that you go through some pseudo-formal rigmarole to “prove” that you actually did it. Now, not only is this charlatan insinuating that you faked your great accomplishment, based on half-baked theories and zero hard evidence, but he’s also arrogantly proclaiming himself to be the supreme arbiter of truth (i.e., “If you don’t pass my test, then that proves you faked it”). When Neil Armstrong was approached he retorted, “Mr. Sibrel, knowing you, that’s probably a fake Bible.” And why should he have sworn on it? he wasn’t Christian. His NASA paperwork marks his religious preference as “none.”
However, as explained, three of them, Jim Lovell, Al Bean and Eugene Cernan all did. You therefore have no choice but to accept that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You conveniently omit the age of disinformation. It's "never been so easy" for baseless conspiracy theory to gain traction amongst the poorly educated and scientifically illiterate. Even where used responsibly, the internet should only supplement an education, it does not supplant for one. Moreover, every conspiracy theorist that I have encountered has zero expertise in or knowledge about the subject concerned. Appreciating that '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, ask yourself honestly, how do you do yours?
With conspiracy theory, what I have encountered to a man is Dunning Kruger afflicted illusory superiority through which conspiracy believers seem to believe that an internet connection can afford the higher levels of expertise or specialism of the branches of science that they decry or reject. My background is atmospheric science - no appeal to authority, I solely defer to that, not any qualification I have earned, a certificate or a piece of paper. This is governed by physical laws and mathematical axioms and has a voice of its own and yet I actually have chemtrail believers attempting to 'educate' me online about meteorology based upon a few minutes frittered away on a bogus junk website.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"How did they survive the radiation"
What so you mean "the radiation"? Radiation is not homogenous and comes in different forms and intensities. The Van Allen Belts consist of charged alpha and beta particle radiation that is easy to shield against. Moreover given that the belts are toroidal and the trajectories flown through the outer regions, it was possible to pass through the sparsest areas at high velocity and in a short space of time. 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). Total mission doses would have been in the region of 1 - 1.5 rems.Radiation in cislunar space and on the surface of the moon - largely GCRs - is not an issue and easy to attenuate. astronauts on the surface of the moon were exposed to a measured dose of around 60 microseiverts an hour. The main fear was a SPE/CME and since all the Apollo missions took place during a solar maximum NASA took a calculated risk. Fortunately the one that occurred during the return of Apollo 16 was not directed at the spacecraft.
"How did they take off from the moon without fuel exhaust etc"
What do you mean without fuel? The ascent stage of the LM contained separate fuel tanks - and why would you expect exhaust from a hypergolic reaction in a vacuum?
"How did they then meet up with Collins and reattach????"
And Gordon, and Roosa and Worden and Mattingly and Evans! - or were you unaware that there were a further five landings? You can also add the test flights of Apollo 9 and 10.
One of the purposed designations of the Gemini programme was to perfect orbital rendezvous. One of the main reasons that Aldrin was selected for Apollo 11was due to his MIT doctoral thesis which was on orbital mechanics.
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 rendez-vous 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. The ascent stage of the LEM, having lifted off and docked with the CM, was subsequently jettisoned. The SPS performed the TEI burn which lasted approximately 150 seconds, providing a posigrade velocity increase of 1,000 m/s (3,300 ft/s) sufficient to overcome the gravitational influence of the moon and send Apollo on its three day fall back to earth.
"I'm calling shenanigans"
And I'm calling someone with absolutely zero knowledge of spaceflight and the science and technology of Apollo, desperately attempting to sound informed and clever through arguments from ignorance and incredulity.
1
-
Oh ffs.
There is no telescope in existence that can resolve the details of the Apollo landing sites other than those in direct orbit of the moon. The resolution of a telescope is limited by diffraction. You would require a telescope around 200 meters in diameter to see them from Earth. To explain why, understand that the expression of the resolution of a telescope used visually is called the Dawes limit, which tells us that the smallest angle we can resolve (in arcseconds) equals 116/D, where D is the aperture’s diameter in millimeters. If we were to train say the Hubble telescope on the Moon (for which D is 2,400 mm), we’d be able to discern surface features as small as 0.05 arcsecond. When the Moon is closest to Earth (221,000 miles away), 0.05 arcsecond equates to about 85 meters (280 feet). Not only is this insufficient to resolve a discarded flag on the Moon, but it’s not even sufficient to detect the 10-meter-wide spread of the lunar module descent stages at the six landing sites.
However, The Apollo landing sites have been photographed by the LRO. In addition to this, 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.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@daryllect6659
"You just keep telling yourself that."
The irony, was it intentional?
Mate, I am irrelevant to this exchange, and actually, so is whatever NASA has to say about it...why is it that you utter goons are unable to comprehend that? It's nothing to do with what I "think", the scientific, technical, historical, independent and third party evidence in support of the moon landings that you are wholly ignorant of is manifest, incontrovertible and has a voice of its own. Nothing to do with me.
Quick tip. If you wish to brand something as fake, you'll find it's prudent to at the very least have a very basic understanding and knowledge about it before you do.
1
-
It’s cheaper, simpler, easier to install and they don’t need the main feature of 5G, which is to provide support for much larger numbers of client devices does not apply. Companies want 5G is because they can deliver more data to more customers, faster. Every single cellular increment, from 1G to 5G was an improvement on the carrier’s ability to carry data to customers. They want to host more customers, deliver more data, and go faster.
Astronauts don’t need that on the moon, and we aren’t planning to move enough people to warrant a 5G network anytime soon. Its also expensive and requires more infrastructure. Also, because a 5G tower operates on a higher-frequency band, higher frequencies require more power and travel less distance.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@UKFANINJAPAN
"what was dishonest about Kelly Smith video where he states, speaking on the Van Allen belts, we will have to solve this? It should be solved."
The titles of the videos that appropriated the footage and as I said the quote mining removing the statement from its full context.
Orion utilises onboard systems use modern electronics that are far more vulnerable to particle radiation than their Apollo-era counterparts and it is designed for missions of longer distance and duration. The Apollo Guidance Computer used low density integrated circuits and magnetic core memory, both of which are extremely radiation resistant. When high-energy protons and other ions hit orbiting spacecraft, they often leave ionization tracks in electronic chips. These tracks can upset spacecraft computer memories and otherwise disrupt sensitive electronics. In 2014, shortly after the video, Orion was deliberately sent into the more intense inner belt to test these.
"And it’s interesting they are sending unnamed to ensure humans can survive it. Haven’t they already?"
The 2014 mission was a test-flight of a new capsule. It is customary for these to be unmanned. If you are referring the the recent flight of Artemis 1 the sole purpose was not to measure radiation. Again this was a test flight. The mannequin was wearing the first-generation Orion Crew Survival System suit – a spacesuit astronauts will wear during launch, entry, and other dynamic phases of their missions. These are fitted with sensors to record gs and acceleration. Engineers will compare Artemis I flight data with previous ground-based vibration tests with the same test dummy, and human subjects, to correlate performance. Accelerometers inside Orion will provide data for comparing vibration and acceleration between the upper and lower seats. It also evaluates the integration of the newly designed systems with an energy dampening system that the seats are mounted on.
In terms of radiation, as explained, Orion is a completely different craft to Apollo designed for longer duration and distance The longest Apollo mission was Apollo 17 at 12 days - in comparison, Artemis 1 is 25 days (42 originally) and unlike Apollo reached an apogee around the moon of 40,000 miles. The mannequin 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 systems.
*_"It’s all a hoax. But I know a good number of people believe as you do.
You mean entire branches of science such as astrophysics and specialist fields of expertise from orbital mechanics to aerospace engineering the world over?
Incidentally, known science is not a question of "belief".
"I’m just just not one of them.."
Correct, you have elected instead to be duped by online conspiracy theory.
1
-
@UKFANINJAPAN
"yeah, I think you are being duped.2
Said the online conspiracy believer.
"And duped by Nazi no less"
What 'Nazis' would those be?
"I don’t really care about the sensitive on board systems."
Of course you couldn't. Because firstly, that's what Kelly Smith was actually referring to, and secondly, it doesn't fit in with the conspiratorial narrative that you consume and regurgitate.
"Humans can’t survive it and they certainly couldn’t in the late 60’s-70’s."
Because...reasons.
"I could detail every reason why I think is total nonsense but it doesn’t really matter."
Correct. Junk online conspiracy theory has no bearing upon the real world.
What you could do though is qualify your claim that "humans can't survive" the VABs. Nobody who insists on repeating this falsity has ever presented any evidence to show that the flights to the Moon would have resulted in dangerous radiation doses for the astronauts involved. They are happy to hypocritically accept NASA's word that the radiation belts exist, but not the actual science behind them. You insist that manned transit of the VABs is impossible, although you are unable to substantiate your statement. Moreover, this is contrary to the existing data and measurement gathered, an entire branch of science called astrophysics, known radiobiology and the work of James Van Allen himself. Yet somehow, you claim to know better?
"You believe what you will, as will I."
Known science is not a question of 'belief' - yours or mine (and at no stage have I mentioned the latter).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ffs - not this again. It's the same thing over and over and over and over again with you goons.
Find the original video, 'Orion: Trial By Fire' from 2014 and place it in its intended context. Engineer Kelly Smith said that the challenges of the space radiation environment had to be solved for the new design - the Orion capsule before a crew can be sent into this region of space. 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 ionization tracks in electronic chips. These tracks can upset spacecraft computer memories and otherwise disrupt sensitive electronics. The Apollo Guidance Computer used low density integrated circuits and magnetic core memory, both of which are extremely radiation hard. The computers were responsible for a relatively small aspect of the operation of the spacecraft; a lot of tasks were performed manually. In contrast, modern spacecraft like Orion are controlled by very high-density computing, and single event upsets (SEUs) can cause major problems. The challenge to be solved for Orion was therefore a completely different one to that solved by the Apollo design. 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 the Apollo era pre-written core rope memory is radiation hard. In contrast, 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. In the same year (2014), Orion was sent into the densest region of the belts and performed flawlessly, and last year on a test flight to the moon and back (Artemis 1).
Why do you people gullibly rely on junk online conspiracy theory to tell you what to think? Why are you incapable of ascertaining this for yourself?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@txmale5070
Of course you "don't care". Populist opinion over the internet cares not for correction... or fact. You are symptomatic of much that is at fault with the internet age. And no, you didn't "interpret it" that way at all - you simply allowed junk online conspiracy theorists to tell you what to think about a subject that you have zero understanding of whatsoever, and yet you feel the need to foist your "opinion" on others instead of having some humility and self-awareness.
You obviously haven't watched the entire footage from start to finish, rather appropriated excerpts from junk conspiracy videos and supposed documentaries that have omitted them laughing and joking. Sigh, yet another online armchair self-appointed authority in behavioural psychology.
Having undertaken a rigorous and exhausting programme of training consisting of six day weeks for six months, the mental and physical demands and intensity of the eight day mission, immediate quarantine for three weeks directly before - not to mention the prospect of an exhaustive and exhausting programme of P/R press conferences during a gruelling world tour consisting of 29 cities in 24 countries in 38 days...you really expect them to be bouncing off the walls with enthusiasm? Neil Armstrong in particular was a particularly introverted, private, shy and modest individual. A demonstrably brave test pilot and astronaut, but the thought of being paraded around the world must have filled him with dread. However,, characters such as Pete Conrad, Al Shepard, Charlie Duke, Eugene Cernan and Ron Evans all had far more ebullient personalities. Perhaps you should also watch the post mission press conferences for Apollo 12, 14, 15, 16, 17 and even the aborted Apollo 13 landing that your conspiracy theory never mentions. Whilst at it, find footage and images of the Apollo 11 crew beaming after recovery on the deck of the USS Hornet and in the Mobile Quarantine Trailer.
Frankly if that's all it takes to convince you, it's hardly surprising that people of your ilk are the target market for these conmen and frauds that perpetrate online conspiracy theory.
1
-
1
-
Punctuation - it's a thing.
To answer your questions.
"there's no pictures taken of Earth"
Demonstrably false. There are tens of thousands.
"how come there's one man that tells you they're all CGI"
How come there are millions of people that tell you the earth is flat? Why would you listen to him or them?
"but yet there was somebody left behind filming them leaving the Moon"
Or perhaps instead, it was simply Ed Fendell operating the remote control camera on the Lunar Rover in Houston through the LCRU - which he had been doing throughout the Apollo 17 mission - and you simply weren't aware of this.
"how did they make the phone call from the Moon to the Earth and called the president and talk live"
Radio. The first transmitters were built in 1887.
Apollo 11 did not "call the president". The call from the White House was set up in advance using the microwave link between Washington and Houston, then routed to the Deep Space Network, then via DSN station to the moon in view via S-band.
"and called the president and talk live no delaying signal or nothing straight from there to the president"
There was a delay. The communication signal speed is the same as the speed of light. The moon is 384,400 km away. The speed of light is 299,792 km/s. This means, even considering additional time delays through relays and equipment that would equate to a fraction over 3 seconds. However, this was only in one direction. Since the recording of the conversation took place on Earth, and Nixon was also on Earth, as soon as the astronaut’s voice is heard, Nixon can and does answer immediately and we hear it immediately and without delay. The time delay is only apparent when Nixon finishes a sentence… we don’t hear a reply from the astronauts for about three seconds… about 1.5 seconds for Nixon’s voice to get to the moon, and another 1.5 second for the astronauts reply to return to the Earth. There are also edited versions of the exchange on some documentaries that have removed this lag.
"unbelievable the b**** the people believe"*
Well that's junk online conspiracy theory for you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Absolute utter nonsense. There have been multiple unmanned missions to the moon, whilst there were nine manned missions to the moon and six landings. It would have been at least ten had it not been for the near catastrophe and aborted landing of Apollo 13 and the premature cancellation of the programme and with it, Apollo 18, 19 and 20.
Incorrect. Artemis 1 was a test flight of the SLS the new ICPS and Orion capsule. Orion was sent into the densest region of the Van Allen Belts in 2014 (note the plural since there are two, with a third that is transitory), where it performed flawlessly.
Additionally, a mannequin onboard was equipped with the first-generation Orion Crew Survival System suit – a spacesuit astronauts will wear during launch, entry, and other dynamic phases of their missions. It was fitted with sensors to record gs and acceleration in order that engineers could compare Artemis I flight data with previous ground-based vibration tests with the same test dummy, and human subjects, to correlate performance. Accelerometers inside Orion yielded data for comparing vibration and acceleration between the upper and lower seats. It also evaluated the integration of the newly designed systems with an energy dampening system that the seats are mounted on.
In terms of radiation, Orion is a completely different craft to Apollo designed for longer duration and distance 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. The mannequin was also testing a new radiation shielding vest, called the astrorad. Also the mission coincided with peak solar activity which was a tremendous opportunity to gain more data in respect of the crew cabin and its systems.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1