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
-
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
-
"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