Comments by "MRA" (@yassassin6425) on "" video.

@Showboat_Six You cut and pasted them. I can tell you the source if you like. The inclusion of the air accidents is irrelevant. I'm fully aware of the circumstances surrounding the launch of Challenger, the advisories from Morton Thiokol that were ignored and indeed, the inherent design flaws with the shuttle that resulted in the foam impact on the leading edge of the wing of Columbia. No I don't agree that the 'evidence' equates to 'murder' - negligence yes and a systemic failure in management for sure. To suggest that Apollo 13 is "another example of NASA trying to murder three astronauts" is as twisted as it is utterly absurd.
5
If your comment wasn't so sick and twisted the only explanation could be that it was a very poor attempt at humour.
4
@Showboat_Six No it isn't a laughing matter - which if you read my post again you'll realise was my point. Neither is the fact that you think that NASA tried to murder the crew of Apollo 13 - which is as dumb, as it is deranged and twisted. 14 astronauts have lost their lives through spaceflight, 17 if you count the crew of Apollo 1 which was a ground test - not 18. You can't even get that right.
4
@Showboat_Six Yes indeed. You don't need to cut and paste. I was referring to, as you say 'space flight related incidents' - which is 14, and 17 if you count the Apollo 1 tragedy which was a ground based test. We can discuss the circumstances surrounding the jet crashes separately if you wish. None of them were, as you say, "murdered" by NASA, although there was a near criminal level of negligence in particular surrounding the Challenger disaster in 1986.
4
What? And that caused an explosion of Odyssey's oxygen tank No.2 during the Apollo 13 mission? "How shit NASA were"? Conspiratorial nonsense and complete rubbish. Grissom expressed concerns over the design of the Command Module and the pace of development. He was far from being a lone voice in the desert as regards the flaws of the Apollo spacecraft - this was widely shared and the criticism was throughout the organisation. Indeed, a major redesign of the spacecraft was already in progress and NASA’s post-accident report stated openly that “deficiencies in design, manufacture, installation, rework and quality control existed in the electrical wiring... No design features for fire protection were incorporated... Non-certified equipment items were installed in the Command Module at time of test.”. Again, what does any of this have to do with the circumstances surrounding the Apollo 13 incident? Learn about the actual history, science and technology surrounding the Apollo programme instead of consuming and regurgitating the same old junk conspiracy theory that has been parroted for years before you and routinely debunked in the process.
4
The fuel cell assembly was over a metre tall and half a metre wide and weighed 111kg (more than a person). The Apollo Service Module had three of these assemblies onboard. Each assembly produced about 1400W at about 30V. An electric car will use around 10kW, so you’d need 7 or more of these fuel cell assemblies in your electric car. Consider where they will go in your little e-car. Consider the fact that they will add a considerable mass to the vehicle, increasing it’s energy requirements, so you’ll need more than 7 to provide the extra power needed to move the extra weight. And this isn’t taking into consideration the complexity of storing the liquid hydrogen and oxygen. Also, money was no concern for Apollo - the budget was almost unlimited. Fuel cells are expensive and when you factor that in to car production or household use, there are cheaper alternatives. Moreover, hydrogen is not easy to produce. In fact, the round-trip of electricity to hydrogen to electricity is only about 40% efficient. Compared to the same round-trip using batteries at maybe 85% efficient. That means you need twice as much input energy for the same trip if you choose a hydrogen fuel cell over batteries. It is also expensive and problematic to store. So, beyond Apollo, in practical terms, they’re not really feasible at all. Saying that, fuel cell technology based on that used by Apollo has long been developed for use in cars. It’s just not there yet, so battery technology is used in the meantime. You can see some fuel cell powered busses - but they are way more expensive than diesel and so not very common.
2
@mydogbrian4814 Sigh. Did you not even bother reading my reply and the reasons as to why? No lecture. Why do you people ask questions when you have no interest whatsoever in the replies? Never mind.
2
@mydogbrian4814 You are a very strange individual. I really wasn't looking for you to be 'impressed' - you asked a question that demanded an explanation - and the answer I gave you really wasn't particularly 'technical' anyway. You didn't ask the equivalent of "how is the weather treating you" though did you? What an appalling analogy. If you genuinely "don't really care" about an answer - then why ask a question in the first place? The reason would appear to be that it wasn't what you wanted to hear. Why are you even looking at this 'technical' video?
2
So was I. I grew up watching James Burke on BBC TV. I remember being enthralled by Apollo even though I was only six when it was cancelled.
1
@mydogbrian4814 I apologise if I misconstrued your post. I was simply providing a detailed explanation because I genuinely assumed that you were interested in one - but actually, I did attempt to make a somewhat involved topic as simple as possible. No animosity at all - and of course it's amicable (the internet breeds far too much in the way of divisiveness, discord and disagreement as it is.) Thank you for clarifying that and your civil response.
1
I guess that the response would be, that NASA faked a failure to regain attention and public interest which in under a year after Apollo 11 had significantly wained. Equally, I've never understood why conspiracy theorists insist that the destruction of Challenger and Columbia was faked....largely because I can't be bothered to listen to their asinine bullshit.
1