Comments by "MRA" (@yassassin6425) on "neo"
channel.
-
23
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
7
-
No, it made you wonder since you obviously have zero knowledge about the subject and rely on conspiracy theorists to tell you what to think. Those that do understand - including entire branches of science and specialist fields such as aerospace engineering that you seem to think you know more than, have no such incredulity. Incidentally, they are belts since there are two with a third that is transitory. Let's face it, the only reason that you've heard of them is through some dumb conspiracy video that knows as little as you do.
Temperatures in the VABs can reach up to 20,000 Kelvin, however, heat and temperature are two entirely different things. Heat is concerned with thermal energy, whereas temperature describes molecular kinetic energy. Heat is the transfer of thermal energy, whereas temperature is a property the object exhibits and describes the motion of molecules. Since the region of space in the VABs is essentially a vacuum there are very few of these to be excited and temperature is essentially a measurement of how excited air molecules are. The higher the temperature, the more frenzied molecules become and the more they bounce off each other-and this interaction between them is what creates heat. In the VABs what particles are present are spaced far apart. This is why temperature is meaningless. In the absence of an atmosphere there is no convection whilst conduction is limited. Therefore the main source of thermal energy transfer is radiative heating from the sun which space craft mitigate through active and passive thermal management.
7
-
7
-
Nope, the precise selenic coordinates of the Apollo landings are all verifiable. The answer to your question is, because they are every small, whilst objects outside our solar system are massive and distant objects on the fringes of the observable universe can be captured by telescopes such as James Webb and Hubble because they are trillions of times bigger. Physics dictates you would require telescope around 200 meters in diameter to see the lunar landing sites. 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 Apollo landers at the six landing sites.
However, The Apollo 12, 14, 15 and 17 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.
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Well there's those entire branches of science, specialist fields of expertise such as aerospace engineering worldwide, Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalists, Nobel Prize winning physicists, over 10,000 private sector enterprises, independent nations across the planet and each of the 76 other space agencies in existence. In short, domains, disciplines and individuals far cleverer and more informed than an insignificant, random, gullible Dunning Kruger afflicted believer in dumb online conspiracy theory with zero knowledge of the subject whatsoever. And no, known science and technology is not a question of 'belief' that would be the the junk online conspiracy theory that you mindlessly consume and regurgitate.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
"Did a three stage, manned rocket that he designed as the director of NASA’s George C Marshall Space Flight Centre, really fly three men into Earth orbit in 1969?"
Yes - and it did so on nine occasions. This was witnessed on the ground, tracked around the world and observed whilst in orbit as was TLI.
"And did those three men really cross the vast airless vacuum of space, travelling some 238,855 miles ‘From the Earth to the Moon’, in a tiny ‘tin can’ command module that had the miniscule computing power of a pocket calculator?"
No, 24 astronauts made that journey in total and three of them twice. The CM was not a tin can and the AGC was a technological triumph, whilst also being supported on the ground by the RTCC comprising IBM System/360 Model 75J mainframes, plus peripheral storage and processing equipment. So no, not in remotely comparable to "the power of a pocket calculator."
"And did two of those men really set foot on the surface of the Moon dressed only in flimsy zipped up beta cloth space suits"
No. They were equipped with the robust five layer A7L suit. Perhaps read up about it alongside the architecture of the computer systems used by Apollo.
"from an untested and ungainly Moon lander"
It was neither untested or ungainly. The LM was tested during Apollo 5, Apollo 9 and taken to within 47,000ft of the lunar surface by Apollo 10's Tom Stafford and Eugene Cernan. How can something designed to operate within the vacuum of space be "ungainly"?
"that had the appearance of a hastily constructed film prop?"
Again, perhaps do a little reading and understand why it looked like it did. In over half a century, the entire specialist discipline of aerospace engineering has had no issues with the form or the function of the LM - and I'd also suggest that they would have noticed had it actually have been a "hastily constructed film prop". The full schematics and specifications are also available to you. Why don't you look at them too?
And if it was a hastily constructed film prop, do you not think that they'd have fashioned something vaguely resembling popular perceptions driven by sci fi movies to satisfy people like yourself?
"And did those three men safely return to Earth in their command module, culminating in a parachute controlled ocean splashdown"
Again, that would be 24 men in total...including one aborted mission. The service module was ejected and the command module performed a controlled double dip reentry using and ablative heat shield to withstand and protect the craft form the 5,000 °F temperatures generated by reentry. After entering the atmosphere, the acceleration built, peaking at 6 g (59 m/s²). This dropped as they slowed down due to aerobraking, and emerged from radio blackout. Passing through 7,300 metres (24,000 ft), the apex cover was blown by a pyrotechnic charge. This exposed the two sets of parachutes. First the two drogue parachutes were released, which slowed and stabilised the capsule from 310mph to 170mph. They pulled out the three large main parachutes some twenty seconds later which slowed the CM to around 22mph for the targeted splashdown zone in the Pacific Ocean.
"a rescue by ship"
Yes, that was the general idea as opposed to leaving them to fend for themselves in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. Outrageous I know.
"and a triumphant homecoming to jubilant celebrations?"
Yep, which wasn't unexpected given the accomplishment. Neil Armstrong in particular was a very introverted, private, shy and modest individual. A demonstrably brave test pilot and astronaut, but the thought of being paraded around the globe on a 38-day around the world goodwill tour, visiting 29 cities in 24 countries, at the behest of the President of the United States must have filled him with despair and dread.
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
Oh Jeez, here we go, yet another self proclaimed authority but in reality nothing more than a gullible believer in dumb online conspiracy theory with no actual knowledge of the science, technology and the history of the Apollo programme whatsoever.
"They can't land a man on the moon now. With sll our technology & advanced computers."
A moon landing is not possible now because the original LM is defunct and obsolete and Space X is currently developing the HLS.
"But back then. The computers would struggle to turn a light on, they were so primitive & they supposedly landed on the moon."
Why is it that you complete goons think that prior to the advent of the iPhone mankind was banging rocks together and rubbing sticks to create fire, whilst comprising communities of troglodyte cave dwelling hunter gatherers? Would struggle to turn a light on? Seriously, what's wrong with you people? Would you like me to explain the workings of the AGC to you in addition to the Real-Time Computer Complex (RTCC) which was an IBM computing and data processing system at NASA's Manned Spacecraft Center in Houston using IBM 7094-11 computers and later in the programme, IBM System/360 Model 75J mainframes, plus peripheral storage and processing equipment? Why are you people so oblivious to your ignorance and incredulity and proudly brandish stupidity like a badge of honour?
"When they were asked how they got through the van allen belt. They said they had lost the technology."
No one has said any such thing. The reason that crewed missions cannot travel through or beyond the Van Allen Belts - (note the plural, since there are two, plus a third that is transitory - you didn't even know that) - is because the heavy lift capability was abandoned with the cancellation of the programme. This is completely false - no one from NASA has ever said that any technology has been "lost".
"Wake up"
Never ceased to amuse that the ones sad enough to still be using this cringeworthy cliché are those that slept through science classes.
Quick tip - It's always prudent and advisable to be in possession of even the most basic, fundamental knowledge and facts about a subject that you wish to brand as faked.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
"I am a moon-landing denier!"
No, you are simply another two-a-penny drive by Dunning Kruger afflicted troll and gullible believer in online conspiracy theory with zero knowledge of the subject spouting opinion based ignorance and personal incredulity and an internet connection that you don't know how to use responsibly.
"The hubble telescope can see light years ahead into space, but Nasa nor any space agency has not once turned a decent camera onto the moon! Maybe there is a pact amongst space agencies Not to do this in order to prevent embarasing NASA!"
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.
Hubble is designed and calibrated to image deep space phenomena such as galaxies and nebulae which are very, very large. You can see M31/The Andromeda Galaxy with the naked eye - and that is 2.5m light years from Earth. By your logic, we should also therefore be able to discern a flag on the moon.
Meanwhile 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. The best of those are LRO and Chandrayaan-2. Chandrayaan’s camera has a resolution of 0.25 m per pixel. LRO is at about 0.5 m per pixel.
Incidentally, the correct spelling is 'embarrassing'.
"The moon itself is our natural satelite, why do we need a laser reflector to measure the distance from it to us?"
To enable precise measurement and accuracy.
Incidentally, the correct spelling is 'satellite'.
"We have a space station barely a tenth of the distance away to the moon with the most advanced technology with the most highly trained international personnel! For the life of me, I can NOT fathom how 3 men, without today's technology, which is INADEQUITE apparently to get space station personnel to the moon"
Because the Apollo Programme was prematurely cancelled in 1972 and with it the heavy lift capability. We now have the SLS which has replaced the Saturn V and although Artemis 2 will return a crew to orbit the moon, whilst Artemis 3 will land on the surface, this was only approved in 2018. After the abandonment of Apollo emphasis shifted to low Earth orbit whilst deep space exploration became the preserve of unmanned probes and landers that are cheaper and carry less risk.
Incidentally, the ISS does not orbit at a tenth of the distance to the moon whilst the correct spelling is 'inadequate'.
"LANDED ON THE MOON WITH LESS BRAINPOWER THAN THE FIRST DIGITAL WATCH?!"
Incorrect, the AGC was a remarkable technological innovation whilst this was supported on the ground by the Real-Time Computer Complex (RTCC) which was an IBM computing and data processing system at NASA's Manned Spacecraft Center in Houston.
Incidentally - if you press the caps lock key a second time, you'll find that you can turn it off.
"What Solar wind? The moon hangs in a vacuum in space."
The term 'solar wind' refers to a stream of charged particles released from the upper atmosphere of the Sun, called the corona. Seriously, why are you doing this to yourself?
"The dust kicked up by the boosters on take-off would most likely have covered the items claimed to have been left behind."
How have you determined that it wasn't?
What do you mean boosters? Aside from the RCS - The LM upper stage was powered by a single ascent engine.
"The ONLY "Proof" moon-landing disciples have is "WE SAW IT ON TV"
Again, complete and utter nonsense. The Apollo Programme moon landings are supported by a wealth of scientific, independent and third party evidence that not only are you completely ignorant of but is irrefutable.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@heinzwernerwegener6545
He's taking the piss out of you.
Firstly, this is a reconstruction of the Apollo 11 mission which did not take a lunar rover. They were not used until the later J missions, Apollo 15, 16 and 17. In answer to your question, each one, for each of those respective missions was folded and stowed into quadrant 1 of the LM descent stage. You could have established this for yourself, in addition to finding the full schematics and images.footage of it being loaded and deployed.
To address your other questions, which have been answered over and over and over again. Armstrong's descent of the ladder and his first steps on the lunar surface was captured by a Westinghouse camera affixed to an extendable flap in the Lunar Module MESA bay. This was deployed by tugging a d-ring lanyard and activated by Aldrin in the cabin of the LM. Subsequently the camera was detached and mounted on a tripod placed on the surface of the moon.
The lunar surface is solid rock covered by a heterogeneous material called regolith. A compressed boot will form a print in this layer of dust. The LM descent engine although rated to 10,000lbs of thrust. was throttleable. At low gate and approaching touchdown this was only producing around 2,700lbs of thrust. The exhaust exited through an expansion bell 59 inches in diameter, having an area of 2,700 square inches. Thus, at full power, the pressure of gas leaving the engine bell was less than 1.5 psi nozzle pressure. A VTOL aircraft such as a Harrier jump-jet produces around 24,000lbs of thrust directed downwards at landing. This is not sufficient to even create an impression on grass, far less a crater, so why do you think that the LM should or actually, could have done on solid rock?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@twt3716
"Well nasa states that the engine power was too low to cause dust or debris to cover or land on the lander's feet."
Nope. They state basic physics. There is no atmosphere on the moon so dust that is disturbed is does not billow - it radiates laterally. You can see this in the landing footage and in the case of Apollo 11 hear Aldrin acknowledge this in the audio. Yes, the descent engine could be throttled and this was producing 2,700 lbs of thrust at contact (Apollo 11 was the only TD not to immediately cut the engine at this point). But this was still sufficient to disturb the regolith on the surface. As explained, this does not cloud upwards in the same way as it does on Earth where it would remain in the air for a little while, and then slowly subside and settle back down, which would cause some of it to fall on top of the lander’s legs. But on the Moon, any dust that does get kicked up would follow a more-or-less parabolic trajectory, spending no more than a few seconds in flight. By the time the lander’s legs touched down, the dust from its exhaust spread laterally had already returned to the surface
"But then they say the dust was interfering with the flag."
No one says that dust was "interfering with the flag". It is blown over during launch by the ascent engine. You realise that the LM was a staged craft yes? Different rocket engine?
"They cant have it both ways"
No, clearly you didn't then.
"Nasa needs to just be honest. Waiting for all those involved to die before blaming them for the lies is a very shoddy and pathetic way to divulge the truth. I'm very grateful that Nasa does the work it does, but the time for telling the truth is now."
What on Earth are you going on about?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@richardsdossatjr935
So you instantly change the subject to something that has been debunked over and over and over again. Seriously, how many times?
You are referring to former astronaut Don Pettit. Here is the full quote from 2004. which you neglected to place in its full context.
"I'd go to the moon in a nanosecond. The problem is we don't have the technology to do that anymore. We used to but we destroyed that technology and it's a painful process to build it back again. But going to Mars should be one of the next series of steps that humans do."
Since the cancellation of Apollo, the emphasis was placed upon low earth orbit (through the development of the space shuttle and the construction of the ISS) with a specific interest in the duration of missions. NASA has yielded huge amounts of data from this as the focus turns again to manned space exploration. Also, with the ending of Apollo, the technology, tooling, production processes and plants were all closed, whilst the requisite expertise was retired. Boeing, who manufactured the Saturn SI-C have spent years reconfiguring and upgrading their old facility for the production of the SLS core stage. As the old technology of Apollo is now obsolete it has been superseded by modern composites, materials, manufacturing techniques and systems that all have to be validated. This has taken years and the grants from congress have been piecemeal and drip fed. In other words, 'rebuilding' - which has been a 'painful' and protracted process. To remind you, Pettit's quote is almost two decades old. At Cape Canaveral, the Orion capsule was rolled out in November atop of the SLS to the same pad complex that sent Apollo to the moon and performed an unmanned test flight circling the moon in a retrograde orbital perigee of 40,000 miles, further than any capsule constructed for manned spaceflight has ever travelled from earth .
Also, much of the hardware from the cancelled Apollo 18, 19 and 20 missions remains, either in storage or as exhibits.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Oh Jeez. What device are you referring to? Why are you making arrogant statements about something that you have absolutely no knowledge of whatsoever?
"yet these men didn't cook to death in their tin foil capsule"
Well firstly, it wasn't a "tin foil capsule". The purpose of MLI is to provide a lightweight insulation system with a high thermal resistance in vacuum. MLI blankets are utilised to reduce heat loss from a spacecraft, or to prevent excessive heating through heat dissipation. They provide passive thermal control to a variety of spacecraft, launch vehicles, and instruments in vacuum - which is why you see them on satellites. You also seem to be unaware that in a vacuum, there is no convection and objects take time to reach their equilibrium surface temperature through the radiative heating of the sun. The LM itself was also cooled and thermally regulated by porous plate sublimation. You could have ascertained this for yourself - that is assuming that you had the will, the intelligence, or the capability, which you clearly don't. Personal incredulity and ignorance is not a valid argument.
"please. If anyone still believes this crap"
Said the gullible believer in dumb online conspiracy theory.
So that'll be entire branches of science such as astrophysics and geology, the associated specialist fields/cognate disciplines such as aerospace engineering, orbital mechanics and rocketry, Nobel Prize winning physicists and Pulitzer awarded investigative journalists, historians, independent nations, private sector enterprise and each of the the other 76 space agencies on the planet? Or should we listen to a random nobody on the internet with absolutely no relevant knowledge of the subject whatsoever that regards junk online conspiracy theory as a substitute for an education? Tough one that.
And no, known science is not about 'belief'. Yours in the meantime have zero bearing on reality.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"So if these items are still on the Moon, why hasn't there been any new footage in all these years"
What do you mean footage? Why should there be? The purpose of space exploration, which is obscenely expensive, is not to visit the same regions. The emphasis upon future manned missions is to land on the South Pole where they is believed to be large reserves of water ice and the far side of the moon. NASA, private sector enterprise or any of the 76 other space agencies are neither duty bound or obliged to satisfy the inane protestations and insistence from incredulity of a cretinous community of scientifically illiterate gullible believers in dumb online conspiracy theory. Even if a lander was to return to the any of the six Apollo landing sites and photograph them, you goons would simply brand that as faked too.
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. The best of those are LRO and Chandrayaan-2. Chandrayaan’s camera has a resolution of 0.25 m per pixel. LRO is at about 0.5 m per pixel.
"nothing tangible has been produced to verify the landing...its all here say"
Yet another conspiracy believer that doesn't know that there were six landings. And I'd suggest that the third of a ton of moon rock which was returned by them, examined by an entire branch of science called geology, mineralogists, independent analytical laboratories and petrological techniques the world over certainly is tangible.
Incidentally, I think you meant "hearsay".
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Hollywood? Fascinating. Not Shepperton, Elstree or Pinewood UK? And what about Cannon AFB New Mexico? No wait, Area 51 Nevada? Hold on, shouldn't that be the Utah or Arizona deserts? No, no, Devon Island Canada surely? You absolute goons can't even get your stories straight. I guess it depends upon which dumb conspiracy theorist that you allow yourselves to be duped by.
Got to say though, that must be some 'Hollywood backdrop" to convincingly replicate, uncut, the 1/6th gravity and the vacuum of the lunar surface - not to mention the precise reconstruction of Theophilus in The Sea of Tranquility; the Head Crater vicinity, Ocean of Storms; the Fra Mauro Formation near Cone Crater; the eastern edge of Mare Imbrium, Hadley Rille; The Descartes Highlands; and the eastern edge of Mare Serenitati in the Taurus Littrow Valley. Shout out to the props department too, that managed to fashion fake moonrock consistent which each of those six landing sites and collectively dupe an entire branch of science called geology for over half a century in the process.
Clever lad!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
American Moon'??? Is this serious?
Assuming that you have absolutely 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. Clearly you lack the will or the capability to independently verify what you are told. You only have to look at the fact that 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?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Jimmy-tq8dk
"No, allow me to translate since English apparently isn't your forte"
Coming from someone that can't even punctuate a sentence properly.
"He believed in fairy tales as a kid, though as an adult, knows better"
Right. So that'll be those entire branches of science, specialist fields of expertise such as aerospace engineering worldwide, Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalists, Nobel Prize winning physicists, private enterprise contractors and each of the 76 other space agencies on the planet? In short, domains, disciplines and individuals far cleverer and more informed than an insignificant, random, gullible Dunning Kruger afflicted believer in dumb online conspiracy theory with zero knowledge of the subject whatsoever.
As an adult, knows better because Bart Sibrel told him so? Righto then.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@nodarkthings
It's ok, dumb online conspiracy theory just told you that.
There were actually 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 nation's space agencies, Interkosmos, NASA, CNSA, ISRO, JAXA and ESA, have reached the Moon with uncrewed missions.
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. The best of those are LRO and Chandrayaan-2. Chandrayaan’s camera has a resolution of 0.25 m per pixel. LRO is at about 0.5 m per pixel.
Hope this helps.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"there was Simply NOT ENOUGH HORSEPOWER to "blast them OFF" of the moon's surface, again Orbit & "Sling-shot" back to EARTH."
Rocket engines are not rated by “horsepower.” It can be calculated, but you will not see that term in a specification for a rocket engine.
The ascent stage at liftoff weighed about 10,000 pounds on Earth, but in 1/6th lunar gravity it was less than 1,700 lbs but produced 3,500lbs of thrust. Since the gravity on the moon is only 1/6th of what it is on Earth and there is no atmosphere to slow the LM down, it takes less thrust to lift the mass off the surface.The ascent engine used a 50/50 mix of hydrazine and dimethylhydrazine (the mix was called Aerozine 50) with dinitrogen tetroxide as an oxidiser. It is a self-igniting (hypergolic) mix that provides a lot of thrust and a colourless (invisible) flame. The fuel and oxidiser was pressure-fed into the Ascent Propulsion System, which gave it the necessary 16 kN thrust and 311 seconds specific impulse needed to reach lunar orbit. 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. It was the SPS that 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.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@KK96303
You have regurgitated and parroted a series of claims about subjects that you demonstrably have zero understanding of whatsoever that have all been refuted here and you simply disregard all the responses to you, assume your dumb default position of accusing someone legitimately challenging your falsehoods as being a 'shill' and turn tail and run to the hills in the process. To return to your original claims -
"the blueprints for the lunar module and where they are, they mysteriously disappeared"
No they didn't. The full specifications and schematics are readily available online, in academic journals, PDFs, and a wealth of available literature. Also, in engineering, blueprints evolve and are subsequently subject to revisions. Moreover, some of the original Grumman diagrams and drawings have been sold under auction by Southeby's and are owned by private collectors.
"along all the NASA mission control tapes that collected all telemetry and location data. The sacred original film of Armstrong's first step on the moon has been conveniently 'lost', as well."
Again, utter nonsense. Do you even understand what telemetry is?
Some back up recordings of raw analogue video transmitted via unified S Band during the Apollo 11 EVA was at some point erased. The tapes were made using specially designed, high-capacity recording equipment in order to capture the raw transmissions at source in case anything should go wrong with the process used to convert them to a standard broadcast signal. Once the conversion and transmission was complete, the recordings were no longer needed for their original purpose. Any magnetic recording media has a limited life. The magnetic fields of the stored data decay over time. For this reason, and because high-grade tapes were very expensive, they were never considered an archival medium anyway. 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.
During the search for these tapes, 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.
The relevant information from the telemetry was evaluated real-time and shortly after the missions, then the tapes were re-used. The majority of that information coming over telemetry was switch settings, voltages, tank volumes, etc., on a craft that will never be used again. Engineering data about performance of the various systems was sent back to the ground for analysis and diagnosis of any problem. Also, biomedical data on the astronauts. Today, such data would be measured by an analog-to-digital converter and transmitted digitally. At the time of the Apollo program, computers were heavy and expensive. Analog data was encoded in semi-analog formats—frequency modulation, phase modulation, pulse-code modulation—combined into a microwave signal, received on the ground, decoded with special equipment and recorded on large reels of magnetic tape. For viewing the data, the signals were often written out onto long charts with strip chart recorders. Data on magnetic tape that needed to be kept, such as telemetry data, was always printed out as a hard copy. So after each Apollo mission a comprehensive mission report was published where all the extracted telemetry data was analysed and presented as charts and graphs and tables. The telemetry for all the Apollo missions would be hours and days of details of obsolete equipment working normally. Nobody cares about that and the people who might know how to make sense of it are passing from the scene, as is the machinery that could read those tapes. Nowadays, vast quantities of data can be recorded to disk for negligible cost. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, that wasn’t the case. As explained, data was recorded on big, heavy and expensive reels of magnetic tape that could only be read on big, heavy, specialised equipment. 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.
Everything was backed up and transcribed. Every scrap of the original data from the landings is carefully archived away. This is a classic example of the inflation of events in the minds of conspiracy theorists that you parrot. Several backup tapes from one mission EVA gets recorded over. But that's exaggerated to the fallacious claim that involving all footage and all telemetry from all six landings being destroyed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"We could go there now, but we never had the technology back then to make it there."
Specifically, what technology was lacking?
"Just look at the lunar module...what POS that looks like it was made by a group of drunk collage students."
An entire branch of specialist expertise called aerospace engineering already have. For over half a century. All of the specifications and schematics are readily available so there is nothing stopping you doing so either. How is it, that a random, insignificant underachieving troll and gullible believer in dumb online conspiracy theory with no knowledge of the subject whatsoever claims to know better? Go ahead then.
"You expect to believe that was made by some of the best engineers in the world?"
Grumman, and yes it was. Again, what do you know that they didn't?
"Where is all the telemetry tapes and blue prints?"
What do you mean by telemetry tapes? Do you even know what telemetry is? In engineering blueprints are original drafts that do not take into account subsequent alterations and modifications during the developmental and manufacturing process.
"OH, what.........they were all lose they say...................... Priceless."
No one has said anything of the sort. The The blueprints for the Saturn V rocket for example are stored on microfilm at Marshall Space Flight Center, and the Federal Archives in East Point, Georgia. Regarding telemetry, some magnetic back up tapes from the Apollo 11 EVA, which were never intended for archival use and are now obsolete anyway, were reused. Others from subsequent missions were sold at auction to collectors. All of the telemetry was recorded and archived, but consists of readings, switch settings, biomedical data which has no use today. You can view telemetry from all of the Apollo missions online in real time.
Mate, you haven't got the slightest idea what you are talking about. You can't even write basic English or compose a coherent sentence ffs. Why are you doing this to yourself? You are a prime example of everything that is wrong with internet access.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Fascinating. Hollywood you say?..so what about Shepperton, no wait, wasn't it Elstree...no, no, definitely Pinewood UK. Hold on, I thought it was Cannon AFB New Mexico? Or surely Area 51 Nevada? No, hang on, what about the Utah or Arizona deserts? Nope, definitely Devon Island Canada! You absolute goons can't even get your stories straight. I guess it depends upon which dumb conspiracy theorist that you allow yourselves to be duped by.
Got to say though, that must be some 'Hollywood Movie" to convincingly replicate, uncut, the 1/6th gravity and the vacuum of the lunar surface - not to mention the precise reconstruction of Theophilus in The Sea of Tranquility; the Head Crater vicinity, Ocean of Storms; the Fra Mauro Formation near Cone Crater; the eastern edge of Mare Imbrium, Hadley Rille; The Descartes Highlands; and the eastern edge of Mare Serenitati in the Taurus Littrow Valley. Shout out to the props department too, that managed to fashion fake moonrock consistent which each of those six landing sites and collectively dupe an entire branch of science called geology for over half a century in the process.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@vacuumandgaspressurecoexisting
I'm not sure if you're actually attempting to be serious here, having a joke and simply trolling, or are genuinely that ignorant.
Firstly, the supposed rock was a private gift to former prime minister Willem Drees Jr in 1969. Drees had been out of office for 11 years, but was considered an elder statesman. When Drees died in 1988, the 'rock' was donated by his family to the Rijksmuseum without verification, and having been exhibited for two decades was later discovered to to the curator's great embarrassment to have been petrified wood. It had nothing to do with NASA or the US government. You could have verified this for yourself.
Secondly, the goodwill rocks given by NASA to the Dutch government are accounted for in other Dutch museums throughout the Netherlands and encased in Lucite as were all moon rocks officially distributed around the world as gifts.
Thirdly, in 1972 BRGM in France were one of the first independent laboratories to examine a moon rock returned from the Apollo missions. Since then, and throughout the last 50 years, samples from the Apollo manned landings have been distributed throughout an entire branch of science called geology, worldwide for the purpose of petrological analysis.
For example, take a look at the work of geophysicist Jenika Greer et al. at Chicago University, using APT to analyse grains of sample 71501 from Apollo 17. Or planetary scientist Erica Jarin who specialises in the analysis of explosive volcanic deposits on the lunar surface. Her work was based upon samples returned from Apollo 15 and 17. Meanwhile, planetary scientists at The Open University in the UK are spearheading a microscope collection of over 550 rocks collected during the Apollo missions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@davidlawrence8803
"so where is the real footage of the Apollo 17 moon landing and the astronauts walking on the moon?"
Beamed live via unified S-Band to earth, archived, present in multiple films and documentaries about Apollo, and also available online for anyone to see.
"You ask me why do I believe the van Allen belts exist? That's a good question and I only believe they exist because they have been publicised in media as something that is real."
Let's face it, be honest here, the only reason that you heard about them in the first place is because online conspiracy theory told you what to think. The VABs were discovered by NASA - so it is fine to accept that, but not the fact that they can be successfully traversed from the same source?
To answer your question, no the VABs do not pose an issue or a barrier to manned spaceflight which passes through their sparsest region in a short space of time and at a high velocity.
"just like man made global warming"
Anthropogenic climate change is demonstrable and supported by evidence based science and empirical data.
"the moon landing"
The scientific and independent evidence in support of the manned lunar landings has a voice of its own and is incontrovertible. Incidentally, there were six, you appear to think that there was only one.
"Port Arthur in Tasmania was the work of 1 man with the IQ of a 6 year old"
Incorrect, According to a forensic psychiatrists, Martin Bryant was borderline mentally disabled with an I.Q. of 66, equivalent to an 11-year-old. And yes, although disturbed, of course he was capable of coordinating a mass shooting despite the hard-right One Nation Party's vile leader Pauline Hanson's baseless claims of a 'false flag.
"The USA didn't blow up the nordstream pipeline"
There is zero evidence that they did. There is no explanation. A series of reports has variously accused Russia, the United States and Ukraine of sabotage.
"Hunter Biden was not doing deals with china and the Ukraine for favorable financial outcomes for the big guy Joe Biden."
Again, none of that has been evidenced. Hunter Biden was charged in connection with a long-running Justice Department investigation into his taxes. In the process, they uncovered some evidence that Hunter Biden leveraged his father’s position to make money. But their impeachment inquiry is largely based on their unproven claims that Joe Biden was involved in “corrupt” business deals with his son which again, is completely unsubstantiated. Shall we discuss Donald Trump now?
What does any of this have to do with the Apollo Programme?
"And here is my answer - Why should i believe the moon landing is real, let alone the astronauts returning to earth alive."
Because known science and technology is not a question of belief. The actual question is, why should you hold and attempt a viewpoint about something that you demonstrably know absolutely nothing about? You weren't even aware that there was more than one landing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@fendermarshallbluesbox3407
"show me all the blueprints off the moon lander, that is just 1 example oooooooooo wait a minute, they lost it 😂😂, the biggest technical achievement off the century , and the lost it"
Nothing was lost. All the technical data was copied, The full schematics are freely available in the Apollo Program Summary Report (April 1975) and a wide variety of sources. Some of the original blueprints were even suctioned off to private collectors at Southeby's since they are no longer required.
"i don´t need to clever , i can think for my self"
You clearly struggle to compose a coherent sentence - but whatever you want to believe. Guess what? Those specialist fields and entire branches of science worldwide, such as rocketry, orbital mechanics, aerospace engineering, they've all seen them. Is it vaguely possible that they have a higher level of understanding than you? Just a thought.
"show me tests, oooo wait, the test moon lander crashed, but hey, it does not matter."
No LM was lost out of the nine flown in space. You are referring to the LLRVs and later LLTVs. Bill Anders was quoted as describing the LLTV as "a much unsung hero of the Apollo Program". Although Neil Armstrong had to eject from the LLRV due to a jammed thruster, no other astronaut ever had to eject, and every Lunar Module pilot through to the final Apollo 17 mission trained in the LLTV and flew to a landing on the Moon successfully.
If you can think for yourself, you can see, with all the technology today, they hardly can do a vertical landing with a rocket today, it was a fake moonlanding"
Again, you clearly think that you know more that the tens of thousands of aerospace engineers across the planet that would disagree with you. Why? because they've actually dedicated their lives to study, amounted to something and achieved and they don't squander their lives posting asinine brainless comments on You Tube unlike a conspiratorially addled nobody afflicted by gross illusory superiority and a chronic case of Dunning Kruger syndrome in a desperate attempt for attention and recognition in an otherwise insignificant existence.
Returning and remotely landing an unstable rocket with near dry tanks on the surface of the earth with the variables of the atmosphere and reacting and adjusting to these behaviors and centre of mass and drag is indeed challenging. The Falcon 9 needs to be tall and thin so that it can be an efficient launch vehicle, but that exact configuration makes it exceedingly hard to control as it comes back down. Much easier then to pilot a squat small craft in a vacuum, with no atmosphere and 1/6th of the gravity on the Earth it is not even comparable.
Perhaps you should visit a college of aeronautical engineering. Tell them that you can think for yourself, you understand technology today, the moonlanding was fake...and don't forget to let them know that the University of You Tube sent you.
Clever lad!
1
-
1
-
@fendermarshallbluesbox3407
"i do have some understanding off this topic, for instance, the shadow lines must be parallel"
Why? You observe non-parallel shadows in earth due to the terrain.
"and for instance, to much radiation in the van allen belts"
For what? Explain why backed by measurements and data.
"nasa have said it themselves indeed they lost the technology to go back to the moon."
As I have already patiently explained to you, NASA said no such thing.
"it never ceases me to amuse me , people believe everything they have been told on tv, radio , msm, believing the government can cause you to loose your life, and that of your family , look at the lemonade in the arm they have given people"
Because of course online conspiracy theory in the meantime is entirely honest, accurate 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 and agenda. Righto.
"your high school comment: who rely decides what you learn at school?"
Of course curricula can be flawed or badly designed, but no 'government' can subvert mathematics or physical laws which are axiomatic in nature. You live in a world that has been shaped by the effectiveness of the scientific method. You live off the spoils of it. Science accounts for and bids to explain the natural phenomena around you.
"small example: i was told at school, pearl harbour was a complete surprise attack, which turned out to be bull-poo usa let it happen, because the elites wanted the war, they lie about anything."
It has been contended that the attack could have been avoided altogether had certain American officials heeded advanced warnings - but even this is a stretch. The notion that it was allowed to happen is pure conspiratorial nonsense. Roosevelt was totally caught off guard by it. The record is clear. There was no evidence of the Japanese moving toward Pearl Harbor that was picked up in Washington.
The problem clearly lies in the fact that just as you disregard independent specialist expertise in terms of the Apollo missions, you again prefer to place your faith in junk online conspiracy theory and social media as opposed to what history tells us. Even if used responsibly, the internet can only supplement an education - it does not supplant for one.
"now tell me, what club all these astronauts belong to? don't tell me it doesn't matter"
What "club" are you referring to?
"btw, why do talk about parroting?"
Because that's precisely what you do, about subjects and topics that you clearly have no actual understanding of. You have an internet connection which you don't understand how to use responsibly. That's all. None of these claims and misconceptions are your own.
"i am just stating the obvious, it never happened, like i said they "lost" 5 tons off data, total bs"
As I said, you can barely compose a sentence of your own accord.
Please may you clarify precisely why there is 'too much radiation in the Van Allen Belts' for manned transit to take place - and why you claim to know more than an entire branch of science called astrophysics, each of the 77 space agencies in existence and James Van Allen himself?
Let me guess, you saw it on Tik Tok.
1
-
@fendermarshallbluesbox3407
"usa NEW japan was going to attack, and they let it happen , because they wanted the war, it has been documented, they new it"
Mate, you can't even spell 'knew'. And no credible historian on the planet agrees with this which is why, and you still don't get it, that you'll only find this nonsense through junk online conspiracy theory which you think substitutes for actual knowledge. Because, guess what? contrary to the claims you have gullibly consumed - it hasn't been "documented" at all.
"no, look at the pictures "on the moon", light source from different angles, can't happen on the moon, because NASA said they didn't use lamps on the moon"
There is a single light source from the sun but also albedo and reflectivity. The supposed anomalies with the 'non parallel' shadows are due to the terrain. You can observe exactly the same on the Earth.
"what club ? do the research and you will be amazed impossible to be a coincidence."
My reply remains the same as before. I was thinking that you're possibly about to parrot the same old nonsense that they were all masons, but no one could be that stupid. And actually, so what if they were? (which they were not). Who gives a shit?
"yes to much radiation to go trough , van Allen measurements in 1959/60"
You mean provisional measurements and estimations then. By 1962 James Van Allen still suspected that the protons present in the inner VAB could pose serious harm to astronauts, hence the Starfish Prime experiment. When NASA commenced its lunar spaceflight program, its scientists already knew about the belts and their spatial and energy distribution. The energies - electrons below about 1 MeV were unlikely to be dangerous, as were protons below 10 MeV. For example, a proton with an energy of 3 MeV could penetrate about 6 mm of aluminium (a typical spacecraft material) whereas one of 100 MeV could penetrate up to 40 mm. So engineers developed shielding that consisted of a spacecraft hull and all the instrumentation lining the walls. Further, knowing the belts’ absence above the poles, the altitude of the lower edge of the inner belt being ~600 km (well above the LEO) and the location of the South Atlantic anomaly, where doses are at a high 40 mrads/day at an altitude of 210 km allowed NASA to design the Apollo translunar injection (TLI) orbit in a way that the spacecraft would avoid the belts’ most dangerous parts.
"i have understanding off what i am talking about"
Of course you do - whilst an entire branch of science called astrophysics, each of the 77 space agencies on the planet, those that have dedicated their lives to the study or particle radiation and James Van Allen himself do not? Mate, you can barely compose a coherent sentence so I'd suggest to you that an understanding of alpha and beta radiation shielding and particle physics is a tad premature at this stage.
"there is to much radiation to go trough."
Yes, yes, so you keep saying. You have yet to explain why.
"do some real research"
Appreciating that "real research" does not involve self-proclaimed overnight armchair 'expertise' following a squandered evening consuming junk You Tube videos, cherry picked click bait confirmation bias, quote mining, false equivalence and circular self-referencing pseudoscientific conspiracy websites, do feel free to share - how precisely did you do yours?
"and find out who controls the school system eventual, it's by the same people that tell lies on TV, msm"
And who precisely are "they"?
"look at what bullpoo kids are learnt today,"
The difference between 'new' and 'knew'? or "to" and 'too"?
1
-
@fendermarshallbluesbox3407
"usa KNEW it, it has been documented . just search for it"
You still fail to comprehend that you can return practically whatever you wish on the internet. A search engine will return whatever you ask it to. And no, nothing of the sort has been 'documented'.
"no, clearly there are several light sources, pro photographers can tell you about it."
Incorrect. There is one light source which creates albedo and reflection. And no, junk conspiracy videos tell you what you want to hear.
"who gives a s..t is a nonsense thing to say"
Well you certainly don't for one.
"because it matters very much, it can not be a coincidence , and btw, you know what club i am referring to"
Maybe you should mention it so I can effortlessly debunk that too for you?
"they would need 6 foot off lead to protect them against the radiation"
Said no astrophysicist, aerospace engineer or expert on radiation ever. Why would you need '6 feet of lead' to protect against the particle radiation in the VABs? Lead shields X Rays and Gamma Rays. Come back when you understand Bremsstrahlung. Seriously, why are you doing this to yourself?
"and no they did not flew around them"
At no stage did I suggest that they did. Read what I put. To clarify again, The inner Van Allen Belt extends typically from an altitude of 0.2 to 2 Earth radii or 620 mi to 7,500 mi) above the Earth.The VAB are toroidal and trace the shape of the earth's magnetic field, so you need to think of the actual trajectory in terms of the three-dimensional transit. Each mission flew a slightly different trajectory in order to access its landing site, but (with the exception of Apollo 14), the orbital inclination of the translunar coast trajectory was always around the vicinity of 30°. Stated another way, the geometric plane containing the translunar trajectory was inclined to the earth's equator by about 30°. A spacecraft following that trajectory would bypass all but the sparse edges of the Van Allen belts. Furthermore, the hull of an Apollo command module rated 7 to 8 g/cm2. Do you understand what that means in terms of attenuation? Of course you don't.
"because there is to much radiation, van allen proved it"
"the outbound and inbound trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft cut through the outer portions of the inner belt and because of their high speed spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. The resulting radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal dosage – a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such flights. I made such estimates in the early 1960s and so informed NASA engineers who were planning the Apollo flights. These estimates are still reliable."
James Van Allen 2004.
"and one thing i found out is that they "lost" 5 tons of data"
What the hell does this even mean?
"you damn sure KNEW what i meant"
Nope - your written English is so dire that your comments are borderline incomprehensible. Add in a large helping of junk delusional conspiracy theory and gross illusory superiority and you are left with a stream of garbled of badly parroted nonsense spewed forth form a Dunning Kruger afflicted buffoon armed only with an internet connection that they have no idea how to use responsibly. You are simply the consequence of granting online access to very dim people.
"about the cia comment, did you know family of Apollo 1 say the crew was murdered? they were not allowed to tell the truth. and the truth was is that they would never make it, so they had to be eliminated."
Sigh, yes, you are not special - it's the same garbage spouted over and over and over again. Scott Grissom is a disgrace to his Father's legacy, whilst there are no such claims from the White or Chaffee families. The criticism of the early Apollo project was not simply the crew of Apollo 1, it came far more vehemently from other sources withing the programme, such as engineers, contractors and even press. Again, you are simply regurgitating one-sided conspiratorial nonsense about subjects that you have no knowledge of whatsoever.
"just as the many 9/11 truth tellers "suddenly"have died for speaking out"
Name them.
"yes many hours of research on 9/11 too"
As I explained previously, "research" does not involve self-proclaimed overnight armchair 'expertise' following squandered evenings consuming junk You Tube videos, cherry picked click bait confirmation bias, quote mining, false equivalence and circular self-referencing pseudoscientific conspiracy websites
"It's a shame you are a troll"
As the one posting unsubstantiated claims, spamming junk conspiracy theory and ad hominem abuse on this video, then by virtue of the very definition of the term, the 'troll' would be none other than yourself. A simple concept that even you can surely comprehend. I am simply challenging your ludicrous claims - and how you people loath that.
No one asked you to bring your garbage here. if you used the internet for its intended purpose, you would challenge the nonsense that you gullibly and uncritically accommodate instead of using it to substitute for your own insignificance and inadequacies.The problem is that you don't consider any answer valid that doesn't confirm to the notion of an enormous conspiracy about which you are one of a special minority who is clued-up enough to know, and are therefore superior to the brainwashed mass of 'sheeple'. The real, valid, non-conspiratorial answers to your questions - true knowledge - doesn't allow you to pretend that you are amongst the privileged few to be privy to this information, and hence doesn't stoke your ego in the way that you desire. The tragedy is, that you are so dim and so lacking in self-awareness, that you are incapable of perceiving how absurd you sound to others that are equally capable of looking up this nonsense on the internet, but sufficiently sceptical and wise to avoid it.
1
-
@fendermarshallbluesbox3407
"yes it has been documented"
Present it then.
"professional photograph people can tel you there are different light sources"
Nope, that would be junk online conspiracy theory, which as I have explained tells you precisely what you want to hear.
"in fact anyone can see there is light coming from different directions, just look and think for yourself"
The sun is the single light source, but this is both reflected and there is also the albedo of the lunar surface to consider.
"if you take the fact not seriously, that the astronots all belong to a certain club, it´s hard to have a discussion in the first place and you sure know what club i mean"
Perhaps, as suggested, you could actually specify at some stage what this supposed 'club' is. As I have also speculated, if you are referring to Masonic connections, the by all means say so and I can debunk that for you too.
"they "lost" 5 tons of data"
Again, what does this even mean?
"so the biggest technical achievement off the century can't be reproduced because they "lost" the technology ? those are nasa words, not mine."
They are not NASAs words though. So you are lying again.
"you sure knew what i meant."
No, I really didn't. Like I said, your command of written English is so poor it is a challenge to make sense of anything that you type - not to mention, the nonsensical content.
"yes there are indeed such claims, family says they were murdered"
Scott and Betty Grissom. Nothing from the families of White and Chaffee.
"nano termite was found in the dust off 9/11 and there is enough proof off that too but you wouldn't know, because you believe the government bs"
Why are you changing the subject again? - and incidentally, I think you mean 'thermite'. A termite is a small insect not dissimilar in appearance to an ant. There is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles that you would expect to see from a thermite burn. The red/gray chips found in the WTC dust at four sites in New York City are consistent with a carbon-steel coated with an epoxy resin that contains primarily iron oxide and kaolin clay pigments. And there is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles of any size in the red/gray chips, so the red layer of the red/gray chips is not thermite or nano-thermite. All debunked years ago.
"you must be a troll"
As the one posting unsubstantiated nonsense, junk conspiracy theory and ad hominem logical fallacy on this page, by definition, the troll would in fact be none other than yourself. A simple concept that I'm sure even you can comprehend.
"because you betray your country by holding back the truth to people"
The perpetration of disinformation for profit and gain is as bigger betrayal as it gets. Particularly when gullible and impressionable individuals such as yourself that are susceptible to these fruads are the target market.
"they "lost" 5 tons off data, ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT"
Correct, it is. So why do you keep typing it?
"tell the people where we can find the blueprints off the whole deal. if you can't this is an impossible discussion isn't it ?"
All the schematics, technical drawings and specifications for the Apollo programme can be freely accessed online. Thousands of documents are available on NASA historical websites, publications or on archive sites around the internet. Some of the original blueprints have been auctioned off at great expense to private collections, but this is all archived anyway.
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
-
We don't have satellites that can read number plates - that simply isn't true.
Moreover, there is no telescope in existence that can resolve a flag of that size on the moon which is 125cm long. You would require a telescope around 200 meters in diameter to see it. 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 Apollo landers at the six landing sites.
However, the Apollo 12, 14, 15 and 17 landing sites have been photographed by the LRO. The Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) SELENE lunar probe has also imaged the sites which have also been confirmed by India's Chadrayaans 1and 2 and China's second lunar probe, Chang'e 2.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Righteous628
"When China gets there and provides independent corroboration then I will believe it."
There is already independent corroboration. Also, known science is not a question of belief. Meanwhile, China are not interested in sending missions to the moon in order to laud America's past achievements or at the behest of a community of online conspiracy believers.
"But you can already see the storm of propaganda USA is "launching" by claiming that China wants to "take over the Moon"
There will certainly be a scramble for its resources which raises fascinating legal challenges.
"There is absolutely no limit to how low the American Government will go to employ stupidity, deception, corruption and agression."
Because online conspiracy theory is entirely harmless, benign, accurate, honest, not in the least bit deceptive, manipulative or exploitative and with your best interests at heart - completely devoid of bias, agenda or ulterior motive. Righto.
"They are trying to make an excuse to blow up the China rocket ship to prevent China from going to the moon because when China goes,it will finally expose the 50 year lie of American manned Space flight supremecy."
Genuinely, no offence meant, but there are occasions, even in the comments section of You Tube that someone floats a notion so ludicrous, or submits something that is so transcendently stupid that one is perplexed by the sheer variety of overwhelming valid counterpoints that simultaneously present themselves. In such times you find yourself left to suffocate in the overwhelming paralysis of indecisive bewilderment, like a rabbit caught in a car's headlight, which suffers for its immobility when any action would be preferable to none.
"Take a look at Shanghai China,China is 2 generations ahead of America in terms of technological advancements"
Such as?
"Because all America does is make weapons, biological and conventional then sow seeds of discord and conflict and then through proxy or directly, sell the weaponry to both sides of the conflicts."
The unintentional irony at this stage is as excruciating as it is hilarious.
1
-
1
-
@BurninWires
"I heard it with my own ears as I watched him say it."
Buzz Aldrin has never said "we never went to the moon".
"Quickly tell me how the president talked to the astronauts on the moon by telephone2
Microwave link between Washington and Houston, routed to the Deep Space Network, then to the moon via S-band through a 200 foot wide radio telescope dish. Shocking I know.
"watched by millions. No time delay at all"
There was a time delay though. 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, 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.
Why is it even necessary to explain this? Also, I'm curious, why do you people think that ill-informed falsehoods and ignorance in any way supports your contention than the Apollo moon landings were faked. You don't even understand that a phone call can be linked to radio communication.
1
-
1
-
@heinzwernerwegener6545
"A jet engine which is designed to guarantee a smooth installation of a landing ferry with a thrust that is throttled to produce so little thrust that no blade of grass or a grain of dust is moved. Not even one of the tiniest hints of heat or pressure on the original shots. Is this serious?? No further comment!"
Is this serious? What the hell? What does this nonsense even mean? To reiterate, a vertical take off/landing jet produces 24,000lbs of thrust - directed downwards. This does not make an impression even on grass. In comparison, the descent engine of the LM at the point of low gate landing was making a mere 2,700lbs of thrust - and yet you expect this to make a crater on solid rock.!?
To attempt to explain to you again, the exhaust exited through an expansion bell 59 inches in diameter. By the time the LM was proximate to the surface a lot of fuel had been depleted to the point where it had a mass of ~15,000lb. But in the moon’s 1/6g that equates to a weight of only ~2,700lbf. To reiterate, the Descent Engine was about 59 inches across the nozzle, so that is an area of 734 square inches. So even at full throttle, the DPS was only creating a pressure of about 10000/2734 = 3.7 psi. Throttled back to 10% this was only 0.37 psi. But that is the pressure at the exit of the engine bell! The exhaust had another 10 inches or so to expand into a vacuum before contact with the lunar surface, even if the engine was shut-off with the footpads on the surface (as it was on Apollo 11). On all the other landings, the engine was stopped before touchdown anywhere up to 6 feet above the surface, with the Lunar Module free-falling the last few feet. Moreover, contrary to your false claim you can discern in the photographs, scouring and discolouration of the surface. No further comment - other than the fact that you are a complete and utter buffoon.
"No further comment"
Is that a promise? Wouldn't that be nice for everyone?
"With such explanations, one can also claim that 2001 WTC 7 has "suddenly" disintegrated to dust, although it was never hit by an aircraft or any debris parts, this is very very difficult to explain to anyone - that's why no one speaks anymore of the suddenly to dust-decomposed WTC 7 (concrete) building between other undamaged buildings... if someone can explain - try (and why it was no longer mentioned in all the years afterwards) so exited to hear the truth at least here...."
So the usual tangential non-sequitur and deflection from a token dumb believer in online conspiracy theory.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Uh huh. So no hard answers then. No pix Hubble. No pix Webb..but we can see the dawn of time. Yup."
So you ask questions but completely ignore the answers - perhaps because they are too 'hard' for you to comprehend? So why post worthless opinions about something that you demonstrably don't understand? Do you seriously believe that tens of thousands of astronomers and astrophysicists wouldn't have also seized upon this gotcha moment, or could it be, just conceivably, that they know more and have a higher level of specialist knowledge than a self-opinionated nobody spouting garbage over the comments section of a video entertainment platform?
To answer your question, an 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 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 Apollo landers at the six landing sites.
However, the Apollo 12, 14, 15 and 17 landing sites have been photographed by the LRO. The Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) SELENE lunar probe has also imaged the sites which have also been confirmed by India's Chadrayaans 1and 2 and China's second lunar probe, Chang'e 2.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kevinswinyer3176
"Stop, and think... Back in the 70's, NASA supposedly sent Human ASTRONAUTS to the Moon. If this were true, then why would they only be sending a single Dummy dressed up in a Space Suit on their supposed next mission instead of just sending up more human astronauts?"
The sole purpose of the mannequin was not to measure radiation. The 'moonekin' 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. This was fitted with sensors to record gs and acceleration. This enables engineers to 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 provided 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, 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 reaches 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.
"Yes, NASA has already started that on their next Mission to the Moon, they intend to send along a Single Dummy dressed in a Space Suit instead of human astronauts... Why would they do that?"
They didn't. Completely false. The next mission, Artemis 2 will be a crewed flight and the four astronauts will be announced early next year.
Why are you changing the subject and avoiding the question? I'll ask you politely again. Please may you detail the physics and the measurement that determines your contention that were humans "to pass through the Van Allen Radiation Belts, they would be so badly contaminated with high radiation that it would most likely be fatal to them". I look forward to your answer supported by the data that confirms this. Thanks.
1
-
Impressive basement that. Hold on, Hollywood? Fascinating. Not Shepperton, Elstree or Pinewood UK? And what about Cannon AFB New Mexico? No wait, Area 51 Nevada? Or shouldn't that be the Utah or Arizona deserts? No, no, Devon Island Canada surely? You absolute goons can't even get your stories straight. I guess it depends upon which dumb conspiracy theorist that you allow yourselves to be duped by.
Got to say though, that must be some 'Hollywood basement" to convincingly replicate, uncut, the 1/6th gravity and the vacuum of the lunar surface - not to mention the precise reconstruction of Theophilus in The Sea of Tranquility; the Head Crater vicinity, Ocean of Storms; the Fra Mauro Formation near Cone Crater; the eastern edge of Mare Imbrium, Hadley Rille; The Descartes Highlands; and the eastern edge of Mare Serenitati in the Taurus Littrow Valley. Shout out to the props department too, that managed to fashion fake moonrock consistent which each of those six landing sites and collectively dupe an entire branch of science called geology for over half a century in the process.
Clever lad!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@johntate5050
"How many times do your government have to lie to you"
Because the dumb online conspiracy theory that you mindlessly defer to is entirely and unfailingly honest, unwaveringly accurate and consistent, not in the least bit intentionally deceptive, misleading, fallacious, exploitative, opportunistic monetised or manipulative and with your best interests at heart is entirely free of vested interest and agenda? Righto then.
Should we trust our governments? No. Patriotism, as far as I am concerned, involves distrusting the government. Keep them in check. They are our employees... they are to represent us, yet they are frequently self-serving. But that distrust is pointless if we're fooled into thinking that our government is always up to something and yet we can't discern when it is, and when it isn't - or detracts from genuine corruption or duplicity.
Of course governments lie, deceive and conspire. No one in their right mind would suggest otherwise. But simply because they do that does not then logically follow that any random conspiracy theory of one's arbitrary choosing, devising or consequence of personal bias/agenda should automatically be assumed to be true. A lazy syllogistic fallacy.
The Apollo moon landings are governed by known science and supported by scientific, independent and third party evidence which is irrefutable.
"before you wake up?"
Ever a source of amusement that the dullards that insist on still parroting this tired and cringeworthy conspiratorial cliché are the ones that slept through science classes.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@g-man-uz3gx
Why aren't you answering the question? You stated that it was "filmed in Hollywood" You seem very sure of yourself. Could it be, like all the rest, you are simply arrogantly and ignorantly parroting junk online conspiracy theory about a subject that you have absolutely no knowledge of whatsoever, so you just consume and regurgitate crap conspiracy videos and social media memes in the deluded belief it makes you sound informed and clever?
To address yours however, One astronaut, Don Pettit, speaking in 2017 used an unfortunate turn of phrase and the term he used was "destroyed" not "lost". Since then, conspiracy theorists and those dimwits that parrot their quote mined 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 - the rest of the interview, 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 its 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 which are far cheaper and do not carry the risk. 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.
You don't, 'lose' technology in the sense that it is forgotten, mislaid or mysteriously disappears. All the technology remained but rapidly became defunct. You lose the capability, as explained, most significantly, Pettit was referring to the heavy lift capability which was also forsaken in favour of the Space Shuttle Programme and the construction of the ISS. It is a given in engineering that it's far faster, easier, better, and cheaper to simply take the lessons learned by older programmes rather than trying recreate old equipment. There is no longer the capability to fly passengers at supersonic speeds. When civil aviation eventually returns to supersonic flight (it's been nearly a quarter of a century since the demise of Concorde), it isn't about to roll a 1960s design, featuring 1960s hardware out of the museum/hangar. Rebuilding such a complex project as Apollo on a similarly massive scale and utilising contemporary technology on a fraction of the budget of the Apollo Programme has been a long and protracted, painstaking process. Project Artemis was only approved in 2018.
Why is it even necessary to explain this?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@NorbyatManeuvers This is possibly something that I find explaining most frequently to moon landing doubters. The answer lies in optical physics/angular resolution.
You would require a telescope around 200 meters in diameter to see the details of the landing sites from Earth or space. 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. Space telescopes such as Hubble and JW are designed to probe into the far reaches of the universe and detect objects that are trillions of times bigger and orders of magnitude brighter.
However, The Apollo 12, 14, 15 and 17 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. These images correspond precisely with the known selenic coordinates of the six Apollo landings.
1
-
1
-
@FierceMouse
"How many times does the science community have to lie to you before you take their information in critically?"
Known science is governed by physical laws and mathematical axioms and thereby has a voice of its own and is the ultimate arbiter. The 'scientific community' is answerable to the scientific method. Whilst of course your online conspiracy theory meanwhile is entirely honest, accurate 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 and agenda? How many times do these charlatans have to lie to you "before you take their information critically"?
"Why the lie about the petrified wood given to France?"
And you can't even parrot that correctly. Case in point.
"Why are they continuously getting caught using wires and special effects?"
Who? When?
"You will listen to the organization who receives a blank check to deceive you on the cheap. They just need to give your kind pictures created from a computer and you're happy."
Nope. Science demands independent objective evidence and data.
"BTW, the term "conspiracy theorists" was created to take eyes off the CIA after they killed Kennedy. After all these years, we know this now."
This again? Really? It's the same thing gullibly consumed and regurgitated over and over and over and over again with you people. You even have a conspiracy theory about the term conspiracy theory.
Absolutely false. Completely untrue. You clearly believe anything you read on the internet, and yet have the temerity to accuse others of lacking critical capability. Were you to possess one iota of this then even at a cursory level of inspection you'd discover that the term had been in popular parlance and literature since the 19th century. In respect of the 1967 document 'Countering Criticism of the Warren Report' there is not a single sentence in the document that indicates the CIA intended to weaponise, far less introduce the term “conspiracy theory” to disqualify criticism. In fact, “conspiracy theory” in the singular is never even used in the document. “Conspiracy theories” in the plural is only used once, matter-of-factly in the third paragraph. The authors of the document deploy the term in a very casual manner and obviously do not feel the need to define it because it was not a new term but already widely used at the time to describe alternative accounts. At no time do the authors recommend using the label “conspiracy theory” to stigmatise alternative explanations of Kennedy’s assassination.
Seriously, how gullible?
To return to my original response to you - are you also of the belief that the VABs are analogous to a "microwave oven"? 🤣
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1