Comments by "MRA" (@yassassin6425) on "neo"
channel.
-
@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