Comments by "rockethead7" (@rockethead7) on "neo"
channel.
-
11
-
9
-
"how could it transmit the first steps?"
It was hooked up to the S-band radio.
"Was it already there when they got there?"
It was mounted to the side of the lander in the equipment bay, on a structure called the MESA. It folded out from the side of the lander.
"lol."
Thanks for demonstrating that you don't want answers to your own questions.
"Anyone who believes they really went to the moon is nuts."
So, every single one of the world's 77 space agencies, staffed with the virtual entirety of the experts on the topic (either as direct employees or as contractors), are nuts? And, YOU know better? And, you know this because "how did the camera work"? So, you have no understanding of the camera, but, for some reason, you believe you know more than the entire planet's experts. Right. Sure.
"have used NASA and the military to launder tax payers money"
Dewdrop, how would that even work? Why would they choose an extremely public program for any such "laundering"? And, who's the benefactor of this "laundering"? Can you name someone in particular? Or, just "they"? The government has any number of black projects going on at any time, with no public access to documentation to know where the money is going. Why not use one of those programs for any such illegal activity? No? They chose the most publicly visible multi-billion dollar endeavor in history? THAT's the program to use?
"they allegedly ‘lost’ the technology"
It's lost in the exact same spirit that Concorde supersonic airliner technology is lost, or SR71 technology is lost, or X15 technology is lost. "Lost" has more than one meaning, dewdrop. Stop getting your "knowledge" from conspiracy videos that lie to you.
8
-
8
-
8
-
First of all, those are from two separate movies (both made by Bart Sibrel, though).
Secondly, yes, not all of the astronauts remembered all of their training decades later, especially something as insignificant as the Van Allen belts. No aerospace engineers, nor any radiobiologists, thought the Van Allen belts would be an issue for Apollo. James Van Allen didn't think there'd be an issue, and he's the one the belts are named after. So, why is it significant to you if an astronaut doesn't recall that part of his training? They were quite busy learning the craft, the mission parameters, lunar geology, the emergency procedures, the flight characteristics, etc. Why do you care if someone doesn't remember "oh, and by the way, you're going to go through the Van Allen belts, but, it won't matter"? It only became important to you deniers because conspiracy videos told you so, not because any actual expert thought so.
Third, sorry, but if you actually fell for that silly "round window trick" lie, there's not much hope for you. Bart Sibrel said it was his very best piece of evidence, yet, it falls apart instantly with just a tiny bit of knowledge. There are a million ways to know for yourself that his window trick claim is complete nonsense. But, if you need your hand held for you, "Addendum A Funny Thing Happened... (By GreaterSapien - MIRROR)" is quite a nice demonstration that Sibrel was the real liar, and not the astronauts. It's only a few minutes long, but, it makes it quite clear. And, if that's not good enough, there are dozens more ways to know that you're wrong. I mean, you couldn't even get Sibrel's version correct. It wasn't a "picture over the window." It was a CUTOUT of the window (his claim anyway). You cannot even get Sibrel's lies correct.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
"Where’s all the trash from the other 5 landings"
He made a video covering one landing site, and you're complaining that he didn't make 5 more videos?
"including 2 jeeps"
3 rovers. Yeah, you really know a lot about this topic alright.
"This is"
So, you don't know anything about Apollo, but, you think you understand it better than the entire planet's experts somehow?
"NASA budget worth $74 mill /day to taxpayers"
It's not quite that high, but, close enough not to complain. Dewdrop, are you even aware of the hundreds of different programs they run? It's not all about going to the moon. It's not even all about space. They finance jet research, weather studies, microchip development, glacier studies, etc.
Congratulations on telling the world that you don't know anything. Now, if you really want to do the world a favor, put this post on every job application you ever fill out.
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
Really? You think Aldrin said he never went to the moon? You're not just intentionally taking quotes out of context? Really? So, Aldrin admits that he was involved with the biggest fraud in human history, and nope, nobody cares, no investigations, no trials, no senate inquiries, no press coverage, nothing. Now, can that be because SANE people know that Aldrin never said any such thing? Or, is that because that YOU somehow uniquely noticed these "confessions" that nobody else notices?
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Dewdrop, there's a well understood concept in physics called "optical resolution" which you clearly do not understand. And, there's a well understood formula for the size lens you need in order to resolve [whatever] at [whatever] distance. And, if you use that formula, you will find out that it would take a lens approximately 75 feet in diameter to see the lunar lander as just a single dot. You wouldn't know what the dot was, you'd just see it as a dot. In order to barely make out enough details to know what it was, it would take a lens about a quarter mile in diameter. Thus far, the largest lens ever constructed is 5 feet in diameter, and costed $168 million to produce. I think we're a long way away from constructing quarter mile wide telescopes.
But, in the meantime, we have orbiters sent to the moon by the USA, India, and China, which have all sent back images of the landing sites from low orbit around the moon. You can see the landers, rover tracks, foot paths, shadows of the flags (5 of which are still standing), etc.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Yes, every single one of the world's 77 space agencies, staffed with the virtual entirety of the world's experts, believe it. Meanwhile, the most vocal ones who deny it consist mainly of taxi cab drivers, warehouse workers, yoga instructors, musicians, and high school dropouts. Sure, and, the emojis are their best argument.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
"Hilarious."
No, what's hilarious is when people who understand absolutely nothing... pretend to know more than the entire planet's experts.
"A 10,000lb static thrust motor"
Are you intentionally trying to cram the most wrong things into the fewest amount of words? First of all, if they tried to land at 10,000 pounds of thrust, guess what, they'd never have landed at all. They'd go straight up. At the time of landing, the craft weighed approximately 2,500 pounds in lunar gravity. It began at about 33,500 pounds (Earth weight). It burned about 18,000 pounds of fuel and oxidizer getting down to the surface. Divide by 6 to adjust to lunar gravity. It's about 2,500 pounds. If you ran an engine at 10,000 pounds of downward thrust into a craft that weighs 2,500 pounds, you aren't landing the thing. You're shooting straight up. You clearly don't know what you're talking about. Secondly, you claimed "static thrust," but, that's wrong too. The descent engine was dynamically throttleable. It wasn't static at all. In computer mode P66, with the sub "rate of descent mode," as a matter of fact, the throttle was constantly adjusting itself to compensate for the mass of fuel/oxidizer it was burning off. It was about as far from being static as you could even imagine. Yet, here you are, in all of your glory, declaring the exact opposite. Thirdly, sorry, dewdrop, but in rocketry convention, you call it a "motor" if it uses solid rocket fuel, and you call it an "engine" if it uses liquid rocket fuel. The descent rocket burned liquid fuel, therefore was an engine, not a motor. I mean, good grief, it's absolutely stunning to watch people like you, with absolutely zero understanding of a topic, declare these things, in defiance of the entire planet's aerospace engineers and rocket scientists, pretending that you know better.
"that didn't produce any dust"
A rocket wouldn't "produce dust," it would blow dust. And, yes, of course it did. Have you never watched the videos of the landing? Have you never looked at the photos of the ground underneath the lander? It's quite clear that dust was blown by the rocket.
"let alone a crater."
A CRATER?!?!?! In compacted regolith and rock? Good grief, even at the 10,000 pounds of thrust you incorrectly asserted it was using, it wouldn't create a crater. Have you tried doing the math, dewdrop? The engine bell cross section was 2,733 square inches. That's about 3.66 pounds per square inch. Do you really think you're cutting a crater with only 3.66 pounds of pressure per square inch? Sheeesssshh. And, it's even worse than that, because the actual thrust was about 2,500 pounds at landing. That's less than 1 pound per square inch. Sorry, you're not cutting craters with that.
"Great cartoon just like the original 1969 cartoon"
Do you see what I mean? You know nothing about the topic. Every single word you spewed was laughably wrong. Yet, you're sooooooo confident in yourself anyway, that you know better than the entire planet's aerospace engineers.... Why? What makes you so confident? You clearly don't know a lick about rocketry. So, what would make you believe you're correct, and that the entirety of the planet's experts are incorrect?
5
-
Dewdrop, YOU are the one that made the claim. YOU claimed it never happened. Yet, you offer ZERO evidence.
Yes, there are mountains of evidence for Apollo, such that I could write entire encyclopedias on it, and would barely scratch the surface. But, start with the obvious few:
China's Chang'e-2 orbiter, India's Chandrayaan-2 orbiter, and Arizona State University's LRO camera have all taken photos of the Apollo landing sites. They can see the landers. And, in the case of LRO and Chandrayaan, they can even see rover tracks, shadows of flags (still standing), flame deflectors, etc. Furthermore, dozens of countries (including the Soviets) tracked the Apollo missions with radar and radio telescopes. This resulted in accuracy within 1 mile.
Again, I could go on for hours. But, that's a pretty decent starter.
5
-
5
-
More goalpost shifting by deniers. Good grief. Three different satellites orbiting the moon have cameras from India, China, and Arizona State University that have sent photographs of the landing sites. But, now, you want "live feed" to see the landing sites? Do you even know what you're asking for? These satellites are going about 3600 mph and taking these images in a fraction of a second, then those images need to be processed, compressed, and sent back to Earth. Any "live feed" couldn't possibly show the landing sites, and if they did (hypothetically), you'd only see the landers for one frame and then the orbiter will have gone right past the site. "I want to see a live feed from a race car camera to see a speck of dust on the tarmac, otherwise the speck of dust isn't there." You people shift the goalposts to the point that you're asking for things that can't happen. There is no way to demonstrate the landings to you, because you've already decided, in advance, that no amount of evidence would ever convince you. So, you set up a situation that can't actually even work, then declare that until that situation happens, you will disbelieve.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
"Notice how the Chinese moon rover, the Indian moon rover"
Huh? Those rovers are nowhere near any Apollo site. Are you under the impression that the moon is the size of college campus or something?
"and the James Webb telescope (when close to the moon) never views the Apollo landing site."
Dewdrop, when the moon is closest to the telescope, the landing sites are on the wrong side of the moon for that. Are you really that oblivious to basic geometry? I mean, there are several other reasons also why this is a ridiculous request. But, c'mon, let's start with the fact that the moon and the landing sites are facing the wrong way, and go from there.
"The recent rovers and new telescopes capture nothing of The Apollo Landings for one excuse or another."
Nowhere near the Apollo sites. The moon is facing in the wrong direction for what you're requesting. The telescopes are nowhere near large enough to capture the images you're asking for. The Webb telescope isn't designed to face the sun, and seeing what you're asking wouldn't be possible even if it was. How are these "excuses"? I mean, it's like you have an electric car, trying to stick gasoline inside, and saying it's just a pile of "excuses" that the gasoline won't make the car work. Or, it's just a bunch of "excuses" about why submarines can't fly. Or, "why can't I fit 10 gallons of milk into a pint sized container, it's just a bunch of excuses." Sorry, dewdrop, but there's a difference between "reasons" and "excuses."
"No red flags then?"
What difference would these things make anyway? The Arizona State University LRO camera has taken hundreds of photos of the Apollo landing sites from low orbit around the moon, showing rover tracks, landers, foot paths, etc., which are a 100% match for the original mission photography. None of the deniers care. Last year, both China and India released photos from their individual orbiters showing the landers. The one of Apollo 12 from India is one of the most impressive photos of the landing sites you'll ever find, showing the shadow of the flag (still standing), flame deflectors on the lander, etc. It doesn't matter to the deniers. They just conclude that China and India joined "the deception" 50+ years later. Tell me, what would these rover photos or telescope photos do to prove the moon landings to the people who refuse to accept any input? How do you get through their brick wall? There are only two rules to their game: (1) All evidence in favor of Apollo is deception, no matter how numerous or where it comes from. (2) All evidence against Apollo is valid, no matter what level of quackery produced it. How can you get someone to get past those two rules? What possible reason would you have to believe that the deniers would suddenly accept yet more evidence, if they're already rejecting the mountains of evidence we have already?
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
"And today, very good fakes can be made in HD as well."
Yes, but that wouldn't be very easy to fake in 1969.
"Why didn't those astronauts leave in those missions a big mirror made of pieces like a puzzle?"
Huh? What is it about you silly deniers that makes you comment on videos without watching them? He shows the mirror array at 4:16 in the video. Yes, that "puzzle" of small mirrors reflects light back to the originator on Earth.
"We would have had proof that there really were some people there"
There are mountains of proof... tons and tons of evidence... starting with the mirror reflector arrays that you just [incorrectly] claimed that they didn't have.
"if we had sometimes seen a greater glow from the moon from the reflection of the sun in the mirror."
No, dewdrop. The corner cube mirrors point the light back in the same direction that it came. So, the light goes back toward the sun, not toward Earth. So, you don't know what you're talking about. They use powerful lasers on Earth and measure those reflections, not sunlight. There are literally dozens of laser ranging facilities around Earth, in many countries, that use those reflectors every single day.
"Was it hard?"
Is it too hard to watch the video before you comment on it?
"Now I think that robots can be sent, although they should be extremely sophisticated, and put those pieces of the mirror to create a bigger one."
Why? They have no problem hitting the mirrors right now. What purpose would there be in making bigger ones?
"Otherwise, I don't believe anything from what I see on the screens, all kinds of documentaries."
So, let me get this straight... you won't believe the moon landings happened, until they put mirrors on the moon (which they already did, but you don't know about it, because you didn't watch the video before commenting), and until they assemble a bunch of mirror fragments to make bigger mirrors (which aren't required)? Really? That's your criteria for belief or non-belief? I mean, most people base their beliefs on evidence. Not you, though. Nope. You will only believe things when they do something YOU want them to do (while remaining completely oblivious to the fact that they already did).
"Maybe someone was there after all, but I'm very reluctant."
You're reluctant to look things up before spewing nonsense everywhere. You're reluctant to watch videos before you comment on them. Yeah, dewdrop, if you want to decide whether to believe something or not, maybe you should actually learn about it first, eh?
"Sorry."
No, you're not. You enjoy the delusional notion that you know more than the entire planet's experts.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Well, we don't know for certain. But, the idea is that there are always tiny micrometeorites hitting the surface. And, this kicks up tiny dust amounts. Also, it's well understood that the static charge of the moon suspends microscopic particles of dust above the lunar surface. You'd never notice it in person, but, from a large distance, they can see the aggregate effect. And, they were able to measure the field while there, and from modern lunar orbiters. This microscopic layer of dust can settle back down onto the items sitting on the lunar surface also. But, the proof is in the pudding. Until someone actually goes to one of these sites and takes a look at the dust layer (or no dust layer), all we have are mathematical models based on incomplete information.
5
-
5
-
5
-
Wow, not the brightest bulb, eh? I'd say it's even worse than that, and the bulb didn't work right out of the box. Good gods.
"Has anyone seen the theatrical set of the "moon" surface when the overhead light falls and almost hits the astronaut."
Yes, dewdrop. It's a spoof. The people who originally posted it said it's a spoof. Good grief. "Astrobrandt2 5 Actual Apollo Hoaxes that Hoax Nuts Fell For." The spoof you're talking about is #4. How far gone are you when you use a video that was made to make fun of you, somehow thinking it supports you?
"Has anyone really looked at the photo"
There are hundreds of such photos, not just one.
"of the "lander" and wondered why there isn't moon dust all over the landing pads"
Maybe you should look at the hundreds of photos, not just the one fed to you by a conspiracy video, eh?
"or why the dust isn't disturbed"
Yes, dewdrop. The dust was greatly disturbed. Once again, you should look at the actual photo archives, not the cherry picked low-res photos from bad angles.
"by the powerful jet engine directly above it?"
Jet engine, eh? Oh, you're a true genius alright. Jets?
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
"We never landed on or step foot on the moon."
Not a single one of the world's 77 space agencies, staffing the virtual entirety of the world's experts on the topic, in friendly and enemy countries, agrees with you. Not one.
"All of these items were staged in a hanger somewhere."
Oh, look. A moon landing denier who writes like a 6 year old. Shocker. I mean, dewdrop, don't you find it at least a little bit surprising that not a single one of you people can read or write? Just a little bit of a head scratcher for you? No? You think the people who can't read or write are the smart ones, and the world's literate people are the clueless ones? Dewdrop, the word is "hangar," not "hanger" - unless you think the videos were shot on hangers in a coat closet.
"The Lunar Hoax was to scare the Russians into believing that our technology and abilities were far greater than their own."
That is basically correct, except for the claim that it was a hoax. I mean, one thing the Soviets were capable of doing (and did) was track the Apollo missions themselves. On the topic of this video (Apollo 11), the Soviets even sent Luna 15 (unmanned) to the moon a couple of days ahead of the Apollo 11 craft, with the intent of landing and racing Apollo 11 back home with the first lunar samples. Unfortunately for them, it was a rushed mission, and they made several human errors that resulted in Luna 15 crashing instead of soft landing. So, they never raced Apollo 11 back home. But, there were dozens of countries (including the Soviets and their allies) that were tracking Apollo 11 and Luna 15 with radar and radio telescopes. And, of course, there were many other ways to know that Apollo 11 was really up there, but, I'm just stating the most obvious in response to your claim about being a scare. Yes, it was basically a demonstration of technological dominance. That was the main purpose of Apollo. But, if you think for one second that the Soviets were just going to take our word for it, you clearly know nothing about it. Dozens of countries had the radar/radio dishes capable of tracking Apollo, and did exactly that.
"Even with todays technological advances we can't come up with a design to safely transit human beings from Earth to the Moon."
Wrong.
"It amazes me that there are still people who believe we actually accomplished such an impossible feat!"
Dewdrop, then outline what you think makes it "impossible," and write it up. Submit it to journals on physics or engineering. You don't just come to a YouTube comment and declare it to be impossible. You have to outline what EXACTLY makes the missions "impossible," then explain why none of the 450,000 people who worked on Apollo ever realized that the stuff they designed and built to go to the moon... couldn't do what they designed and built it to do. Can you? What do you know about the capabilities of the rockets and craft that the people who designed and built them didn't know? Why didn't any of them know it was "impossible" to do it? Why aren't you publishing in the science journals to outline what's so "impossible" about it?
And, for that matter, why are you not interested in the evidence? You didn't even mention the evidence.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
1) Resolution and distance are two different things. We can see lightyears away, yet, we can't see a bacterium on the wing of an airplane flying at 35,000 feet. Did it not occur to you that distance isn't the issue, but, resolution is?
2) There have been multiple lunar satellites from different countries that have taken photos of the landing sites. They can't resolve tiny little objects, but, they can see the landers, foot paths, rover tracks, etc. Deniers reject those as "fake," even the ones produced by other countries. Why would a denier suddenly accept the photos if they were done with larger optics to get better resolution? Seeing landers and rover tracks aren't convincing to you, but, seeing a waste bag or something would be convincing? Or, is that just a way to shift the goalposts?
3) What are you giving up with these larger optics? You have a craft like LRO, which could weigh up to 4,000 pounds (the payload capability of the rocket they used). OK, you want bigger optics to see more detail. Alright, which experiment packages would you sacrifice? Or, would you give up fuel (which would result in shortening the lifespan of the craft)?
4) Google has no such capability. The closer photos on Google maps come from low flying planes, not satellites (despite the label). Read their FAQ if you don't believe it.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
"It was really early in the morning"
Dewdrop, the Apollo 11 moonwalk took place at 1pm through about 4pm in Sydney, Australia time. Already, you know that this "early morning" story has a million holes in it, including the fact that it's the completely wrong time of day. Yet, you buy it, hook line and sinker? Dewdrop, why would they do this "deception" live anyway? I thought you deniers thought it was all pre-recorded. But, you're saying that there was a live streaming mistake with a bottle on the set, and they cut to "technical difficulties," which none of the other hundreds of millions of viewers ever saw? And, you can't get the time of day right. You can't name anybody's name. Just a random story about an old lady hallucinating a Coke bottle. And, THAT is what you're sticking with?
4
-
4
-
4
-
"Real post year 2000 imagery of the Apollo sites will make these trips and landings more believable."
So, like the Arizona State University LRO camera images? Like China and India's photos from their respective orbiters? Like those post-2000 images?
"Here we are in 2024, incapable of repeating such feats with more technology advancements"
Huh? What does technology have to do with it? What technology do we have now that we didn't have in 1969-1972 that is relevant to successful moon landings?
"and landing small robotic landers can't complete their missions in more than half of the attempts."
Yes. You already said it: robotic. They shoot those things up there with about 10% of the quality control and testing and redundant systems as a crewed mission. They don't care. It's better that way. They can spend 10x the time and money to make extremely reliable robotic probes. Or, they can shoot 10 of them up there for that same amount of money (and a lot less time) and hope some of them land successfully. Which is smarter? This is exactly the same as the 1950s and 1960s. They were perfectly happy with failures because they just kept sending more of them up there. Nobody wants to wait a decade in development and spend 10x more money on putting a robot on the moon. Just fire it up there, and if it works, great. If it doesn't work, shoot another one up there. By your own math of half of the probes working, the other half not, this would mean that, over time and 10 attempts, they'd get 5 successful robots on the moon, rather than spending 10x more money to make only one robot ultra-reliable to a manned landing standard.
"I have an open mind either way"
You'd be the first. I've seen a thousand people say that, and it never turns out to be true.
"as to whether it really happened or not"
Ridiculous. Like, what? You think the entirety of the world's 77 space agencies, staffed with about 99.9% of the experts on the topic (either directly or as contractors) somehow can't spot this stuff that the yoga instructors and taxi cab drivers who make conspiracy videos spot? Which do you suppose the REAL liars are here?
"I hope I live long enough to see modern proof"
Well, what proof have you examined thus far? Somehow, I think the answer is: "none, but, I've watched a lot of conspiracy videos, and they don't show me any proof."
"and not AI-assisted CGI composits."
If you can't spell "composites" correctly, sorry, but, I have absolutely no faith in your ability to determine what's a composite or not.
4
-
1) The images on Google that show your car in the driveway are not from satellites. Those images come from low flying planes, despite that Google puts "satellite" in the caption. Look at their own FAQ about how they get those images. It's from planes at about 1200 feet, and/or balloons and drones.
2) Arizona State University has an entire section of their site dedicated to the LRO images (they built and manage the camera) that show you hundreds of photos of the Apollo landing sites, with or without labels. You can see rover tracks, landers, foot paths, shadows of the 5 flags that are still standing, and you can even see a slight bright spot that might be the Apollo 11 flag that fell over (hard to know for sure, though), etc. If you don't like the labels, just click the button to turn them off.
3) India's Chandrayaan-2 shot of the Apollo 12 landing site is probably the most impressive of all of the shots of the landing sites, with very clear images of the shadows of the flame deflectors (still standing), the flag shadow (just north of the lander, exactly where it's supposed to be, still standing), etc. And, comments with links get blocked all the time on YouTube, as do instructions on where to find them, so, you'll have to figure out how to find the photos for yourself.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Dewdrop, understanding the Van Allen belts isn't about watching a 30 second clip of a Kelly Smith video made for children. Good grief. There have been hundreds of probes sent into the belts, and thousands of scientific publications about them. And, you're going to dismiss all of that because you didn't understand what Kelly Smith meant in a tiny little clip in a video made for children? Really? And, you arrogantly sit there and say, "Don't tune out when you get upset at the facts"? Really? Hey, dewdrop, if you have an issue with the Van Allen belts, PUBLISH YOUR FINDINGS IN THE SCIENCE JOURNALS. Don't sit there and talk about a silly video made for children, and how they wanted to test the Orion craft in belts before putting people inside. They did the same on Apollo, you know. They sent Apollo 6 up through the belts and back before putting people inside. And, they did a virtually identical mission with Orion back in 2014, and it passed the tests. So, why would you still be quoting from a 10 year old Kelly Smith video made for children? Is that really the limit of your understanding? A few sentences out of a video produced for children? Why do you suppose there are no radiobiologists anywhere on Earth who believe what you do?
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
What difference would that make? Japan's JAXA/Selene orbiter confirmed Apollo via comparing its mission photography to their lunar orbital 3D photography in a level of detail that wasn't available in 1969-1972 (except by actually being there). Deniers didn't care. LRO confirmed Apollo by taking photos of all of the landing sites, showing landers, rover tracks, foot paths, etc. Deniers just chalked that up to NASA CGI. China took photos with their Chang'e orbiter, showing the landers exactly where they're supposed to be at all 6 sites. Deniers say the resolution wasn't good enough. India took photos of the landing sites with their Chandrayaan-2 orbiter in the highest resolution yet taken from Lunar orbit, again showing landers, shadows of flags, foot paths, etc. Deniers pretend that India "joined the deception" 50+ years later. You can hand them a million new photos, and all they're going to do is reject them, no matter who takes the photos.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
What difference does it make? There are mountains of evidence. Does it make a dent on your beliefs? About 9-13 years ago, Arizona State University's LRO camera photographed the landing sites in enough detail to see rover tracks, landers, foot paths, etc. It doesn't mean anything to the deniers. Both India and China sent their own orbiters to the moon, and have released photographs last year, showing the Apollo landers right where the original mission photography showed them. India's camera is the best one around the moon right now, and you can even see a spectacular photo of the Apollo 12 landing site that they released last year, showing the lander, shadows of the flame deflectors, and the shadow of the flag (still standing) just north of the lander. It makes absolutely no difference, the deniers still deny. So, tell me, what good would additional probes be? What EXACTLY do you think they're going to show, that the deniers will actually accept?
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
1) So, your objection is that if we don't/can't do it now, this means it was never done before, right? OK, so, please explain the EXACT rockets and craft you would have used to get to the moon after the Apollo program was retired by congress, and how would they have managed to do that without congress allocating a new program for it?
2) By your logic, does this mean that the X15 mach-7 plane was fake? After all, we've never flown a plane at mach-7 again (or even half of that speed) since the X15 was retired in the 1960s. And, it seems like your logic is that if it was done before, we are never allowed to retire that technology, else it's fake, right?
4
-
"Hmm how come the LRO and other missions do not focus on this most historic site."
LRO has taken hundreds of photos of the landing sites. What in the world are you talking about?
"In 2024 we should have the technology to observe these sites in great detail from our orbiting craft."
The detail isn't good enough for you? You can see the landers, the rover tracks, foot paths, shadows of the flags, etc. Yes, it's true that you cannot see the smaller stuff as more than just a single pixel. But, if you want more resolution, you need a bigger camera/lens, and unless you want a heck of a lot of wasted photography, you'd also need a bigger/better communications array to send back more data. So, do tell, what experiments should they have left behind in favor of a bigger camera and communications system? You have 4,000 pounds to deal with, and LRO used every pound of it. Should they have left fuel behind so they could put bigger cameras on the thing? Should they have left the detailed laser altimeter off of it, and gone with a bigger communications dish and radio? What would you give up in order to get more resolution from the cameras? And, what would be the point? Deniers know darned well that the LRO photos are good enough. They just complain about the resolution because they don't know how else to preserve their delusions.
"Maybe when non government missions go to the moon we will one day really see the evidence."
Oh? Like China's Chang'e orbiter that photographed the landing sites? Like India's ISRO Chandrayaan2’s photos of the landing sites? The US government played no part in those. Yet, two other countries photographed the landing sites, and you can see the landers, shadows of the flame deflector and flag, etc. Not good enough for you?
"Until this I remain sceptical."
Dewdrop, everyone should be skeptical about everything. Skepticism is a method of thinking. But, you seem to think skepticism is blind rejection.
"Strange why we have not been back for so long."
How would you propose NASA go back? Congress has denied any funding to do so (until they funded Artemis in 2019). So, explain how you think they should have gone back, when congress wouldn't supply the money to do it?
4
-
Gee, why didn't anybody else ever think of using a telescope?!!?!?! Wow, the world sure is lucky to have you. Either that, or, hmmm, just going out on a limb here, maybe it's because of the property of light, such that photons interfere with each other in transit, and you'd need a telescope a quarter mile in diameter to be capable of seeing just the lander, or many miles in diameter to see the smaller stuff shown in this video?? I dunno. Maybe you should write up a paper and submit it to physics journals, eh? Who needs those pesky laws of physics anyway?
4
-
4
-
4
-
Well, you already got your answer. On Apollo 11, the camera was hooked up to the lander's power supply and radio. So, you can't keep powering a camera after the radio and power supply have lifted off. But, if it's any consolation to you, they did leave the cameras running on Apollo 15/16/17 (because those were powered by the rovers' batteries, and piped through the rovers' radios). I can't remember how long Apollo 15's camera ran after they left. But, Apollo 16's camera ran for 36 hours, and Apollo 17's camera ran for 27 hours. But, even I, who has watched every single piece of Apollo footage that they ever shot, can't sit through those videos. I tried. Pan the camera around, stop. Look at Earth. Stop. Pan the camera around. Stop. Look at the sun. Stop. Pan the camera around. Stop. Look at a mountain. Stop. Pan the camera around. Stop. Look at Earth. Stop. Pan the camera around. Stop. Look at another mountain. Stop. I think I actually made it through about an hour before I just couldn't watch any longer. I'll bet most people can't make it 5 minutes.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
"produced really poor quality photos?"
The resolution of the photos as taken by LRO are better than just about any commercial digital camera you can buy today. However, when they show you the photos of the Apollo landing sites, they're zooming in on a very small section of a massive photo. Take the highest quality photo of anything you want, and then zoom in and zoom in and zoom in, and you'll see pixilation and complain that it's low quality. Take a photo of a tree, and then zoom in on an ant crawling on the tree, and it'll look pixilated. If someone showed you a photo of the tree, and zoomed in on the ant, would you say the ant was fake because the resolution wasn't good enough to see the ant's eyes? You can definitely see that it's an ant, but, yeah, eyes, you can't quite see. Is the ant therefore fake? That's what we have with LRO. You can definitely see the landers, foot paths, rover tracks, etc., at a level of enough detail to know that's what you're looking at, and they're exactly where they're supposed to be, a 100% match for the original mission photography. But, yeah, it's a product of really zooming in. So what?
LRO did the best they could with the budget and weight limitation. The payload capacity of the booster was 4,000 pounds, and that's exactly the initial weight of LRO, exactly 4,000 pounds. You want better photos, ok, that takes a bigger camera and a bigger communications array. What are you going to give up? Some of the fuel, so the mission can't last as long and they can't make too many orbit changes? Some of the other experiments, like the laser ranging tool? The radiation detectors? What? You need to give something up, if you want a bigger camera capable of taking even higher resolution photos, so, what are you giving up?
"Everybody knows that an earth satellite can see even the shoe size of a person!"
If you want to read the number on a shoe from Earth orbit, it would take a lens about 6 miles in diameter. I mean, putting aside atmospheric distortion, which would block you from seeing the shoe size anyway. But, pretending there's no distortion, the raw physics dictates that reading the number on a shoe from orbit would require a lens 6 miles across, and then the focal length would probably be about 10 miles. Are you aware of any 6 mile wide, 10 mile tall, satellites orbiting Earth? Optical resolution. Go learn about it. There are well understood mathematical formulas that you can use to calculate the size lens you need from whatever distance to see objects at whatever resolution.
In reality, the Earth orbit satellites have roughly the same resolution as LRO has. Yeah, a bit better (not by much), even though they're higher up. But, this is because those satellites were put up with much larger optics than LRO has. Again, this goes back to the tradeoffs. NASA could have put a larger camera on LRO, but, it would have meant sacrificing something else. There are satellites around Earth that are 100% dedicated to just having a big lens and taking better pictures. So, yeah, a little bit better than LRO. But, nowhere near the level you think. It also doesn't help anything when Google says "satellite" on their map photos, when those photos were taken from low flying planes at only 1/4 of a mile above. Lots of Apollo deniers think that those photos are actually from space, therefore have unrealistic expectations. But, hey, check their FAQ.
"to end once and for all any doubt"
Get real. This is absurd. The LRO photos are good enough to see the stuff on the moon. Yeah, you're not reading the serial numbers, but, yeah, good enough. And, they haven't silenced any denier. The deniers only have two rules to their game: (1) Any evidence against Apollo is real, no matter how easily it's debunked. (2) Any evidence for Apollo is fake, no matter where it comes from. Those are their only two rules. If we had a 6 mile wide camera orbiting the moon, that could read the numbers on the equipment left on the surface, it wouldn't make a bit of difference to the deniers. They'd just call those photos fake, just like they call LRO photos fake. We now (in the last year or two) have photos of some of the landing sites from China and India from their obiters above the moon, showing the same things that LRO shows. India's camera has double the resolution of the LRO camera, showing more detail than LRO shows. The deniers just conclude that China and India have joined "the deception" 50+ years later. So, your request for better resolution photos is just plain goalpost shifting. We could send up a camera with 10x the resolution, and deniers will just ask for 20x. Give them 20x, they'll ask for 40x. It's just a method they use to keep denying. The reality is that LRO's images are GOOD ENOUGH to see the Apollo stuff. And, asking for better is just disingenuous. If you reject LRO's images, you'll reject better images the exact same way you reject LRO.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
David, if you are under the impression that Apollo 11 had a rover, then you obviously know absolutely nothing about Apollo. Nobody has EVER claimed that Apollo 11 had a rover with them. They had one moonwalk that lasted a couple of hours, and that was all. They didn't even venture out past just a short walk. There was no need for a rover, and no rovers had even been built by the time of that mission. Yet, here you are, completely oblivious to what the missions were, what was included, what was not included, very very basic entry level things... yet, you think you know enough about the topic to call it a Hollywood production? WHY?!!?!? What EXACTLY do you think you understand about Apollo, that the entire world's experts somehow overlooked for 50+ years, while simultaneously knowing so little about the topic that you think Apollo 11 had a rover?? That's like, "I have no idea where the brain is located in the human body, but I know that brain surgery is fake." That's exactly what you sound like.
3
-
3
-
The TV camera was located in the MESA (quadrant 4 of the lander). When Armstrong got out onto the porch, he pulled the lanyard to lower the MESA. This resulted in the camera being pointed at the ladder. After some of the initial tasks, Armstrong dismounted the camera from the MESA, and attached it to the tripod, and carried it out to the spot where it would be used for the rest of the moonwalk.
A picture (or video) is worth a thousand words. "APOLLO 11 16MM ONBOARD FILM 1969" at about 54:40.
AS12-46-6728 (be sure to look at the high res version, not the standard version) shows the MESA lowered, as Alan Bean climbs down the steps after Pete Conrad, and you can see the TV camera pointed at the ladder. I chose an Apollo 12 photo for this because the Apollo 11 photos only show the camera still covered by the thermal blanket, so you just see a tiny piece of the lens, not the whole camera. But, Conrad removed the thermal blanket on Apollo 12, so, you can see the camera on the MESA better.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
"I'm still waiting for the pictures."
I'd eat my hat if you have even bothered to look at the original 7,000 photos taken from the lunar surface, or the 110,000 photos taken from lunar orbit. You want new pictures before you bothered to look at the old pictures. Tell me I'm wrong. Can you?
"Google earth can take detailed pictures of street signs, pedestrians and lamp posts."
Yes, they mount huge cameras to the roofs of cars and drive them around town.
"Why can't we do the same thing with the Apollo landing sights?"
Drive cars around each site? Or, sorry, spelling it your way, drive cars around each sight?
"With all of our advancements in computer science"
How much thrust does a modern computer generate?
"aeronautics"
And, that's relevant to space travel, how?
"and rocket design"
Please tell me the advances in rocket design that would make any difference today vs. 50 years ago?
"TODAY, no nation on the face of the earth, neither the United States nor any other technically developed nation; not Russia, China, India, France, Japan, Great Britain, Germany nor any other nation, NONE of them has the technology at present to send men from the Earth to the Moon"
And, NONE of them have supersonic airliners. And, NONE of them have mach 7 airplanes. And, NONE of them have mach 3 spy planes. So what? The 1950s and 1960s were the golden age of aviation and space travel. Virtually unlimited budgets result in amazing feats. Now, it's tough to get anybody to spend that kind of money.
"with all of our advancements in computing power"
Again, how much thrust does your computer generate? Why do you think computing power means anything?
"communication"
OK, but, are you saying that analog communications wouldn't work?
"aeronautics"
Again, why does this matter to you?
"and physics"
What aspect of physics has advanced since the 1960s in any way that relates to space travel?
"We simply don't have the ability to do it."
Bingo. It was retired, like most of the other relics of the golden age of aviation and space travel.
"This is equivalent to nobody being able to fly a plane for 50 years after the Wright Brothers flew at Kitty Hawk in 1903. That makes no sense."
Let me help you make sense of it. Airplanes = profitable. Moon missions = not.
"Men never walked on the Moon."
So, you couldn't even wait to get answers to your questions before declaring your conclusions. Hey, dewdrop, why didn't your list of objections include looking at the EVIDENCE?
3
-
Wow, I never thought I'd say this, but, yeah, your posting was so convincing, I guess I'll go ahead and discard the work of 450,000 people for a decade of their lives. I mean, if you were a model2dude, no, I wouldn't believe you. But, since you're a model3dude, I'm totally convinced by your thorough explanation that defies the entire planet's experts.
3
-
3
-
3
-
Dewdrop, the moon doesn't have a perfectly circular orbit. The altitude varies by about 25,000 miles or so. It gets further away, and then closer, then further away, etc., on every orbit. But, on average, the moon is receding, not getting closer. I have no idea what you're talking about with this 7 inches nonsense, but, neither do you.
3
-
Apollo took about 4% of the entire federal budget in hard costs, plus the equivalent of about 2% more in soft costs and international support. And, for that, we got 13 Saturn V launches, 9 manned missions to the moon, with 6 landings, and the largest payload was a 400 pound rover. No mission even had a full 24 hour day's worth of time walking on the lunar surface because there weren't enough supplies.
Now you want colonies, eh? So, a moon base would weigh a couple of million pounds, and would require massive assembly efforts lasting years upon years. How many Saturn V launches do you suppose that would take? 5000 or so? For the equivalent of 6% of the entre federal budget, we got 13 Saturn V launches. Even with the benefits of assembly line efficiencies, what percentage of the federal budget do you think it would take to build this moon base you want?
3
-
3
-
3
-
"who set the camera up to record the first astronaut coming down the ladder"
Armstrong deployed the MESA via a lanyard at the top of the ladder, before he descended downward. The camera was attached to the MESA. Aldrin then activated the circuit breaker to make the camera work, and used the controls for brightness/contrast based upon feedback from Houston.
"wouldn't that be the first person on the moon?"
Do you find it THAT difficult to understand that the camera was there already, attached to the side of the module? Really? And, none of the 7,000 engineers at Grumman who designed and built the craft ever realized that they forgot to put a camera there, and none of them ever wondered how they got the video? Really? But, YOU noticed this problem. YOU did. None of the 7,000 engineers who designed and built the craft ever realized that there wasn't a camera there. But, you did.
"I'm going buy what was just presented in this video the camera is on a stand"
You clearly do not buy anything in this video. Stop lying.
"so placed the stand?"
Armstrong. "APOLLO 11 16MM ONBOARD FILM 1969" - go to 54:44, and you will see Armstrong carrying the camera and stand to its location. It was filmed at only one frame per second (otherwise they'd run out of film in about 3 minutes), so the motions are jerky and sped up. But, it's good enough to answer your question.
"I dont belive we have ever been tothe moon"
Well, I don't believe you ever graduated high school. But, that doesn't matter. I just wonder why you think you know enough about the topic to make such a declaration. I mean, you don't know how the camera worked, that's how little you know about the topic. Most sane people in your shoes would say they don't have enough knowledge about the topic to even have an opinion. Not you, though. Nope. If you don't understand it, it must be fake, right?
"and my reasons why are simply this if we had why did we stop"
Because it was, by far, the single most expensive exploration endeavor in human history, and congress didn't want to keep funding it. But, once again, your "reasons" aren't reasons. They're questions. So, basically, "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake." Bravo. Pure genius at work.
"it would have been a great way to develop technically for outer space travel"
Then YOU fund it!!! Good grief.
"and I belive its why they that being our govermant wont let people go to S4 i.e. area 51 because thats where we shot them so called moon landing."
So, in your mind, there shouldn't be any top secret programs? We should just develop new military aircraft and stuff like that in the plain view of the public so that enemy countries know exactly what we're doing? Nope. That shouldn't happen. And, instead, you believe that they still have the moon "sets" sitting around in Area 51, 50+ years later? Nope, they didn't tear down the sets when they were done with them. Nope. Instead, they left the sets intact, and have assembled a secret base to protect those moon sets for 50+ years. Did meth do this to you? Something else?
"If imm wrong I can live with that just prove me wrong."
Fine. But, that's like asking for an encyclopedia of evidence in a YouTube comment. So, I'll just offer one piece of that mountain instead. Both China and India have photographed some of the Apollo landing sites on the moon, and those photos show the landers exactly where they're supposed to be.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Huh? Three different countries photographed the Apollo landing sites from probes in lunar orbit. USA, China, and India. You can see the landers, foot paths, rover tracks, etc. No, you cannot see the smaller items depicted in this video, and you cannot see the state the stuff is in after +50 years and hundreds of cycles of days/nights on the moon. But, you can see enough to know it's there. The CGI in this video is to depict what he imagines it looks like in the small details. I'm sorry you think it's a good idea to display your utter ignorance and incredulity to the world, but, hey, that's your own problem.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
"there is no such pictures in existence of the landing sites"
Correct, that's why he rendered it in a computer. It's speculation for how things might look today.
"The sites that are left from the landings have never been photographed since the astronauts left."
Well, not in this level of detail anyway. China, India, and USA have each sent orbiters to the moon that have photographed the Apollo 11 landing site, and you can see some of the bigger stuff (the lander, foot paths, a tiny hint of the flag laying on the surface, a few pixels of the larger experiments, etc.) But, yeah, the resolution of those orbital cameras is not good enough to really see the kind of detail he wanted to produce here. So, he made this video. Why is this a problem?
"It is not a parent"
Good gods.
"why they want to photograph it or whether they even want to"
Were you sober when you wrote this? I think not. Anyway, HOW would you suggest getting more detail than they got out of the Arizona State University camera, or India's ISRO Chandrayaan-2 camera? What exact mechanism would you use to get better photos?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Dewdrop, YOU are the one who knows so little about the topic that your original assertion was that there's no gravity on the moon. THAT is how little you understand. "What is the moon's gravity" would tell you that you're wrong (if you understood how to use a search engine). Or, you could go learn some physics. I mean, I would have thought any child would know that the moon's gravity causes the tides on Earth. But, whatever, you don't understand it. And, yet, after this embarrassingly ridiculous assertion of yours, what do you do? Do you back off, humbled by not understanding something any 6 year old knows? Nope, instead, you amp it up, change topics, talk about more things you understand nothing about, and declare victory?
"I'm the world's greatest basketball player, with more underwater touchdowns than anybody 🤔☁🤣🤣🐻." That's exactly what you sound like. You don't understand ANYTHING about the topic. Yet, you profess expertise anyway. Sheeeesshhhh.
3
-
3
-
Why aren't you rewriting physics then? If you believe that the well understood formula for calculating the size lens/mirror required to see things is wrong, then why aren't you writing the correct formula? I'm sure there's a Nobel Prize in it for you if you are able to prove that photons don't work the way we understand them to work. You were told the size lens/mirror required, and you rejected it. So, why are you on YouTube? Why aren't you rewriting physics? On wiki, there's a page called "optical resolution" which shows you the well understood formula for calculating the size of lens/mirror required. On Earth, the size is about 75 feet in diameter to see a lunar lander as just a dot. You wouldn't know what it was, it would just be a dot. If you want enough resolution to begin to know what it is, you need a lens/mirror about a quarter mile in diameter to produce that kind of resolution. That's what the math shows. But, you believe the math is wrong, and that no physicist on the planet is aware, right? So, publish. Prove it wrong. And, in the meantime, also explain why no telescopes are capable of doing what you propose. Can you?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
"Capricorn One,(1977) you seen that? It was so easy to make a fake."
Huh? You think that looked "real"? Good grief. Yes, dewdrop. I saw that movie. It didn't look real at all.
"And yes, the sun being behind the earth"
Dewdrop, if the sun was behind the Earth (relative to the moon) then that's what's called a "lunar eclipse." What in the world are you talking about? How can light from the sun hit the mirrors on the moon during a lunar eclipse? Good grief!!! You make no sense whatsoever.
"so for me, let's say it was night and in front of me the moon, the sun being bigger than the earth could send its rays to the moon and over the earth"
You clearly do not understand what you are talking about. No, dewdrop. The Earth completely obscures the sunlight from hitting the moon during an eclipse. And, of any sunlight that goes "around the Earth" (or "over the Earth" in your words), basically missing the Earth, guess what, that light would be reflected right back around the Earth in the same direction it came from!!! What's wrong with you!?!?!? You are proposing a scenario where the light misses the Earth and goes around, but, you think it won't miss the Earth on the return path?
"so that the moon would reflect them back."
Again, dewdrop, you didn't even watch the video before spewing this nonsense, and you thought there were no mirrors on the moon, remember? Why can't you just bring yourself to admit that you have no understanding of the topic, and that you didn't watch the video, and that you have no understanding of how those mirrors work? Why? Why must you stick your head in the sand and pretend you understand things you do not?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
There are many reasons why this can't work. But, right out of the gate, let me explain that if you wanted to just be able to see the landers from Webb, the angles to be able (to see the Apollo 11 landing site) dictate that the moon would be about 1,200,000 miles away from Webb. And, it would be in darkness, because the sun would be on the wrong side. Secondly, the Webb telescope itself would need to be about 1.25 miles wide in order to just see the landers at barely enough resolution to know what they are, but Webb is only 21 feet wide, not 1.25 miles wide. If you want to even remotely approach the level of detail shown in this video, Webb would need to be around 20 miles wide. I'm afraid you don't really understand the limitations of optical resolution.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
"the only pics nasa has shown of the supposed landing sites are 30 miles above the moon."
No. In 2012, they dropped LRO's orbit to 12 miles. They got even better photos after that, than they had earlier.
"but won't show us close ups of the supposed apollo landing sites because these close ups would prove the moon landings were a hoax."
Yet, both China and India took orbital photos of some of the landing sites also.
"see the truth and the facts"
Whose "facts"? Yours? Thus far, your "facts" are wrong.
"nasa has admitted we don't currently have the tech to safely have a manned spacecraft go through the deadly van allen radiation belts"
No. A decade ago, they said they wanted to test the Orion craft in the belts before putting people inside (just as they had done on Apollo 6). And, they did that in 2014. It passed. So, why are you still complaining 10 years later?
"So how did we go through them over 50 years ago with primitive tech, simple answer, we didn't"
So, before anybody could even give you an answer to your question, you already negate it? You obviously don't want answers to your own questions, which is why you believe the silly things you do. You're not honestly "researching" anything. You're regurgitating claims others have made, without understanding anything about it.
3
-
There are plenty of satellite images of all 6 landing sites. Arizona State University's LRO camera has taken hundreds of them, basically from every possible sun angle, so you can see the stuff on the moon as it is lit up from the sun from the east/west/overhead. However, LRO was "only" dropped to an altitude of 12 miles. For a satellite, that's actually very low, relatively speaking. But, from 12 miles up, there's no way to see the kind of detail illustrated in this video.
As for rovers (and the rover cams), those burned out within about 36 hours after the astronauts lifted off in 1971 and 1972. I'm convinced that if the rovers had been commissioned a lot earlier (they were a last-minute addition), they'd have made them autonomous with radioisotope generators and would be hardened to last for years. But, as it was, with the timeline they had, they were scrambling to even get functional rovers to last 70 hours, let alone making them last for years.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Cody,
A) If you were serious, you wouldn't have asked the question the way you did. You would have said, "I don't understand how this stuff worked, can somebody explain it?" But, no. Instead, you did this "who walked out there with the camera" question.
B) You could have read through the comments to see the question being asked and answered a billion times.
C) Seriously, learn to read and write. Not joking. If you want to go through life with the reading and writing capabilities of a 2nd grader, I guess I can't say anything about it. But, if you actually want to better yourself, the way to accomplish it is NOT to ask silly questions in the silly way you asked... but to actually learn how the English language works.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
No. Artemis intends to land at the poles. They want longer missions, like at least a month, not just 74 hours (Apollo 17's length of stay). But, staying a month is a real problem, because it gets super hot and super cold in the lunar afternoon and lunar overnight. (A lunar day is about a month.) The Apollo missions always landed early in the lunar morning to avoid those extremes. But, Apollo couldn't land on the poles. They could only land within about a 20 degree angle from the equator. And, Apollo wasn't equipped to stay a month (both in lack of enough supplies, and in the fact that the equipment couldn't handle a lunar afternoon or lunar overnight). But, by landing at the poles, this keeps the surface temperatures moderate the entire time. The poles get the same amount of light/heat all month long (a lunar day). If you're standing on one of the poles, the sun is always low on the horizon. There is no "high noon" (nor the boiling temperatures that go with it). And, there's no "overnight" either (and the cold that goes with it). The Artemis missions plan on landing at the south pole, because they think there's water there. But, the same mission profile could land it on the north pole if they change their mind. And, well, I suppose they could land closer to the equator, like Apollo did, if they wanted. But, then they probably couldn't stay a full month (as explained above), at least without a heck of a lot of hardening of all of the equipment to withstand the extremes.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
There have been mountains of proof of Apollo, coming from dozens of countries. Deniers reject it all. In 2007, Japan sent Selene to the moon, which provided additional proof of Apollo. Deniers rejected it. In 2009, Arizona State University's camera was sent onboard LRO to the moon, and took hundreds of photos of the Apollo landing sites over the following years, showing the landers, foot paths, rover tracks, etc., which match exactly with the original mission photography. Deniers simply label those photos as "fake" also. In the last couple of years, both China and India have sent their own probes to the moon, which took similar photos of some of the Apollo landing sites, clearly showing the landers, shadows of the flame deflectors and flag still standing just north of the Apollo 12 lander, exactly where the original mission photography showed it. Deniers reject that also, simply concluding that China and India have decided to join "the deception" +50 years later. Why in the world would you ever believe that sending yet another probe to the moon is ever going to convince anybody of anything? They'll just attribute those new photos to CGI, and label the missions as fake (again). Why? Why exactly do you think they should spend money on trying to convince people who, in advance, intend to reject what they see?
3
-
3
-
So, let me get this straight... you opened your comment with a silly little emoji, laughing, as if you know something about telecommunications technologies that the entire planet's telecommunications engineers don't know... asking something so simplistic that you should have known before you asked. But, then you get offended if people don't treat you with respect? Good grief. Dewdrop, if you want respect, ask your questions honestly. Don't put little emojis there, as if you think this is some sort of "gotcha" that you've discovered, that nobody else could figure out for 54 years. Anybody could pick up a land line phone and call a radio car phone (ever since the first ones in the 1940s). You picked up the land line, you dialed a mobile operator, they patched you through to the radio. So, there is no difference in calling and being patched through to a radio for Apollo, except that the radio signal went further.
3
-
3
-
3
-
Dewdrop, India, China, and South Korea have all photographed the landers on the lunar surface. Stop pretending that it's just "marks on a map." You could make that argument, perhaps, about the photos from China, because the resolution isn't very good. But, the ones from India show the landers, foot paths, flame deflectors, shadow of the Apollo 12 flag (still standing), etc. You cannot claim it's a "mark on a map." And, your demand to "get closer" is ridiculous. You know darned well that they could land a probe that was capable of photographing serial numbers off of the equipment, and you'd simply deny it also, calling it "CGI." Stop pretending. All you're doing is shifting the goalposts, and you will deny reality no matter what evidence is provided.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Are you asking why we can't see it from Earth? There are lunar orbiters that can see it. But, to see it from Earth, there's a concept called "optical resolution," which outlines some of the properties of light itself, which you can look up and find some good info on Wiki. The short version is that in order to see that level of resolution from this distance, you'd need an optically perfect lens a quarter mile across. The largest one in existence is 5 feet across, and costed $168 million to build. We're pretty far away from quarter mile wide lenses. Note: this isn't because we just need better glass, or better technology, or something like that, no, it's actually because, if you want better resolution with a lens smaller than a quarter mile wide, you truly cannot have it, because the photons actually interfere with each other, based on their wavelengths, and you'd be trying to capture photons that aren't there.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
"What trip's me out"
... is that you're an adult who reads and writes like a 2nd grader? "Trip's"? Trip's what? Do you even know how to form words and phrases?
"is that we have microscopes that can see everything &and I mean everything"
Is this a joke? You are trying to use a microscope to see the moon? Not a telescope? You know SO little about the topic that you confuse microscopes (to see things that are very close and very small) with telescopes (to see things very large and very distant)? You think those are the same things? Please tell me you're joking.
"except a close up of the moons surface."
Optical resolution. It's a property of light. You cannot see things from this distance when the photons themselves don't even exist at that resolution from this distance. Hence, you need large lenses. The bigger the lens, the more you can resolve. Look up optical resolution, and do the math yourself to calculate the size lens you'd need. Hint: if you don't know how to do basic math, the answer is that you'd need a lens about 75 feet in diameter to even see a lander on the moon as just a single dot, or a lens a quarter mile in diameter if you want to be able to actually make out what it is.
"Why is it that we cannot see the area's"
The area's what?
"that we landed on the moon all those years ago??"
Well, you can either go build a quarter mile wide lens, or you can send lunar satellites. Thus far, countries have chosen to send lunar satellites, because, ya know, the largest lens ever constructed is 5 feet in diameter, and costed $168 million to build. We're a long way away from quarter mile lenses. So, yeah, they send lunar satellites.
"We have satellite's"
You have satellite's what?
"that can see close UPS of the Earth's surface with no problem"
Nope. Sorry that Google maps mislabels its images as "satellite," but, nope, those are images from low flying planes. You have to read the FAQ on how they got those images. They fly at about 1,200 feet, to be more exact. There are no satellites with the capability you are thinking they have.
3
-
3
-
What equipment would you use to see "close-up"? We already have orbital photos from miles above, from LRO, China, and India. But, yeah, it's not good enough to resolve small items. So what? It's not good enough for you? It's good enough to clearly see the landers, foot paths, rover tracks, etc. If you're not convinced by that, I seriously doubt that you'd be convinced by "closer" photos (you'd just call those fake also). But, ok, I won't pre-judge. Explain what equipment you expect them to use to take the photos you're requesting.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Secondly, the lunar satellite cameras such as the Arizona State University camera on LRO, or China's Chang'e camera, or India's Chandrayaan-2 camera, are extremely high resolution, better than any camera you can buy on the market today. But, when they show you the landers and rover tracks and foot paths and shadows of the flags, etc., they are greatly zoomed in. Go take a look at the original image files. They are amazingly huge, covering miles of surface area, in extremely high resolution. But, you can't see Apollo stuff unless you keep zooming in. It's like a nice high resolution photo of your friend standing at an amusement park, then trying to zoom in on a single hair on that person's arm. That's why you people think these are "low res."
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"they can produce insanely real looking stuff"
Well, no, it wasn't all that easy until CGI. But, so what? The best evidence for Apollo has nothing to do with videos or photos. I mean, you'd have to explain why/how they'd "fake" about 80 hours of mission video, 7500 surface photos, and 110,000 lunar orbit photos. And, you referenced the Gravity movie, which took hundreds of people using modern technology to produce a few minutes of special effects in a total movie a couple hours long. Back in the 1960s and 1970s, you'd be talking about needing thousands of people to produce the 80 fake movie hours and nearly 120,000 fake photos. I guess none of them said anything, huh? But, anyway, like I said, I'll grant you that mission videos and mission photos don't matter that much. There are mountains of evidence for Apollo from dozens of countries that have confirmed Apollo in dozens of ways.
2
-
"Can't seem to find ANY REAL PHOTOS ( not digital images)"
Well, frankly, it's been about 30 years since I've even heard anybody asking for physical prints. It used to be that all you had to do was request copies of whatever Apollo photos you wanted, pay the fees, and NASA would provide you prints. Nowadays, you can just go to the archives and download them. But, for whatever the reason, you don't want that. You want physical prints. Have you tried ordering them? I have no idea if they still print Apollo photos or not. You're the first one I've seen who doesn't just download high res copies and then print them himself. Would it really matter to you if they printed it instead of you? If you're making a beef that it's not real because you haven't seen physical prints, um, ok, what difference is it really going to make to you that they print you a copy instead of you printing it yourself?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Well, it is "easier" to a degree. But, it's still very expensive. Apollo costed around $300 billion (adjusted into today's inflated dollars) in hard costs, plus roughly another $150 billion in soft costs and international support. Artemis' initial budget was $30 billion, but, when you include some prior development costs from existing precursor programs, and current overruns (i.e. the ridiculous hideous lander), yeah, the total cost is expected to be around $90 billion. Yes, as you said, that's far cheaper than Apollo, due to technological advancement. But, Moore's Law doesn't apply to rocketry. Advancements only buy so much. It's still very expensive, and congress hadn't approved another manned moon program until funding began for Artemis in 2019.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Why would you think it would be difficult to survive? Did a conspiracy video tell you that? How do you survive a medical CT scan's radiation? Those are just as fatal as the Van Allen belts, you know. The answer is that you don't sit in the CT scan machine for a week at a time. You get the scan done, it takes 15 minutes, you are being irradiated for those 15 minutes, and then you get out of the machine, and the radiation stops. Same goes for the Van Allen belts. They went through very quickly. Yes, they received a dose of radiation. Yes, it would be fatal if they stayed in there for a long time (which is why they didn't send the ISS, shuttles, Skylab, etc. into those belts, because those missions do last a long time). But, Apollo went through very quickly, minimizing the exposure. And, sorry, but you're wrong about aluminum. While it's not good protection from the inner belt (because NOTHING is), aluminum is an excellent shield from the outer belt.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"Where are these "literal photos""
You keep changing your tune in different threads. In the other thread, separated by just a few minutes, you acknowledged the photos exist. Now, in this thread, you say they don't exist. Also, if you need to ask where to find them, (a) you have proven that you're not even reading replies, because I've spelled it out repeatedly in this thread and others, and (b) you are not in any position to say what does or doesn't exist, because you have demonstrated that you've not even looked at them yet. Why do you keep denying these things exist, while simultaneously asking where to find them? Clearly, if you haven't found them, you wouldn't know whether they exist or not.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
They took hundreds of photos of the stars during Apollo. But, if you expect to see them in the same frame as a properly exposed daytime lunar surface, you know nothing about photography. It takes very long exposure times to capture stars on film, whether on Earth, or the moon. You clearly never tried it yourself, otherwise you'd never make this statement.
As for Aldrin saying that it was all fake, good grief, what's wrong with you? Had that really happened, there would be congressional hearings, thousands of people would be arrested (including Aldrin, and countless other from the Apollo program still alive), it would be front page news across the world. But, you hoax nuts don't understand any of that. Instead, you intentionally take words out of context, and pretend it's a "confession." Let me guess, you were bamboozled by the fact that Aldrin said the live landings seen on TV were animations. Am I right? And, you never watched any of those live broadcasts to understand what he meant by it, right? Instead, you just concluded it was a confession, right?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"stated props were used when the "ship" landed on the moon"
You can't even keep your conspiracies straight, dewdrop. Props were used during practice and training. Why wouldn't they? How else should they train? And, somehow, you've blended this in your mind and mixed it up with his comments on the Conan O'Brien show. Conan said that his family watched the Apollo 11 moon landing "live" on TV. Aldrin corrected him, stating that there was no TV camera during the landing, and that the broadcasters played animations. He's 100% correct. The landing was shot on 16mm film, not a TV camera. They had to wait until they got home to get the film developed before anybody could see it. Nobody saw it "live." So, yes, the broadcasters needed something to put on TV during the landing, so, they showed animations. The live TV camera wasn't set up until a few hours after landing. Go watch some of the animations he talked about. Or, wait, you don't see the point, right?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
To clarify a bit, from lunar orbit, under certain lighting angles, they were able to detect a very sparse dust layer that "hovers" above the moon. Think of it like the dust in your house. You don't see it, but, over time, it will build up on your shelves. They took static electricity readings on the lunar surface, and the notion is that the static causes super tiny dust particles to "float." And, as the static comes and goes, it can "float" and then "fall" back onto things. But, until someone goes there for a close look, nobody knows for sure how think this microscopic dust layer would be (if at all).
2
-
"It is rediculous"
Oh, a moon landing denier who can't read or write. What a shocker.
"that no one ever addresses the fact that we have not pointed a satelite 's camera at the 1969 landing site."
Pfffttt. Nobody ever addressed it, huh? Yet, the Arizona State University LRO camera photos of the landing sites have been on their site for about 13 years. And, about 10 years ago, they dropped the orbit even lower, and got better resolution photos of the landing sites. There are hundreds of photos on their site, and you can see the rover tracks, landers (descent stages anyway), foot paths, etc. You can even see the shadows of the 5 flags still standing. Oh, but nobody addresses it. Sure.
"Which brings to mind, why not place a satelite in moon orbit ?"
When you don't know how to spell satellite correctly, um, yeah, what could you possibly know about the topic. Dewdrop, the USA, China, India, and Japan, have all sent satellites to the moon that have photographed evidence for Apollo. Did you even TRY to look this up before spewing a pile of nonsense?
"How many incoming UAP shots could we present to congress?"
What does this have to do with Apollo?
"During the last LIVE Dragon launch, in the background of the camera capturing the thrusters exhaust, the video clearly showed 2 fast moving dots of light traveling together above the earth's horizon. During CNN's coverage that night ( same video) the fast moving dots were edited out."
Was it drugs that did this to you?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Apollo 11 carried 50 state flags, 135 country flags, and the UN flag, to the moon and back. Yes, small ones. They then took those flags, and lunar samples, and made nice plaques and displays of a piece of the moon plus each flag, and gave them out as "good will samples." But, for flying a flag on the lunar surface, yeah, the US took on well over 90% of the enormous cost of going to the moon, and flew its own flag.
2
-
2
-
Dewdrop, you have confused the concept of tidal locking with the notion that there's no night and day. It's ridiculous. Just look at the moon, dewdrop. If it's a full moon, the close side is in daylight. If it's a new moon, the close side is in nighttime. Anything in between means that some of the close side is in daylight, and some is in nighttime. How do you think a solar eclipse happens anyway? It's because the close side of the moon is in total nighttime, and the far side is in daylight, and the moon happens to cross the ecliptic at exactly the right time to cause an eclipse. But, as I said, every 708 hours (about a month), the moon goes through the cycle of a "day" (sunrise to sunrise). Sorry that you failed 8th grade geometry. Maybe you should go back and try again, huh?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"NASA accidentally sent Bart Sibrel footage of the astro nots faking footage at low earth orbit"
Why would you believe such a thing? What possible reason would you have? I mean, not only did I have my copies of that footage before Sibrel's ridiculous movie ever came out, but, countless others did also. And, all you need to do is watch the original copies of that video to show that Sibrel simply edited out the parts of that clip that prove himself wrong. The original video is readily available, you know. And, anybody with any understanding, even on an entry level, would know that you cannot be in low orbit without going about 17,500 mph. Yet, do the clouds move by the window in Sibrel's movie clip at 17,500 mph? No? They're stationary, right? How would that be possible, if Sibrel's version was correct? Ooops. But, anyway, just go watch "Addendum A Funny Thing Happened... (By GreaterSapien - MIRROR)" - it's only a few minutes long, and utterly destroys the notion that Sibrel got some secret footage, and demonstrates quite clearly that the only thing that happened here was that Sibrel edited the clip to produce this ridiculous story you fell for. There are a million other ways to know that Sibrel is not only wrong, but deliberately lying, but, that one way will do for now.
As a side note, Sibrel also claimed that it was film that he was sent by NASA (it was not, it was a TV signal, not recorded on film), and that he had the film carbon dated (you cannot carbon date film), and it showed a date of July 18, 1969 (if you could carbon date a piece of film, which you can't, but if you could, it wouldn't show the date that someone exposed it to light, it would show the date that the carbon was last inside a living being, like 80 million years ago, not 1969). Yet, Sibrel spewed all of that garbage anyway, which is laughed right out the door by anybody who understands anything about carbon dating. So, do you believe Sibrel when he claims he had this NASA "film" (which wasn't film) carbon dated (which doesn't work on film)?
"Wake up dude"
Huh? You just got done quoting Bart Sibrel, a criminally convicted taxi cab driver who produced a pile of absolutely outlandish conspiracy videos that fall apart the instant anybody scrutinizes them.
"it was a hoax because they couldn't pull it of and didn't want to lose to Russia."
And, the Soviets would just go along with it? Why?
"No dust on the lunar lander"
So says another conspiracy video, right? Did you ever look at the photo archives yourself? (No, of course not.)
"crossing shadows in pics"
Not even close.
"not to mention the van Allen radiation belt"
You just mentioned it. Why would you say you're not mentioning it?
"that no human could survive passing through"
James Van Allen disagreed with you. What do you know that he didn't know?
"and don't forget about the leaking orange juice in one of the ASTRO nots suits"
That guy went through all of that trouble to find the exact moment that the film cartridge got smeared, and then he presented it to you as orange juice, and you believed it? Why? He doesn't know what he's talking about!!! Good grief. I've never before seen someone spend that much time hunting down the exact moment that the Apollo 16 camera lens got smeared, finding that moment on video successfully, then jump to a ridiculous conclusion about this fantasy orange juice leak. It's ridiculous. What possible reason would you have to believe that it's orange juice, other than a brash guy making that silly claim? And, wouldn't that defeat your own position? Hundreds of photos were ruined by this "orange juice," which they could simply have re-shot if it had been in a studio. Isn't a roll of hundreds of ruined photos more of a testament to the fact that they were on the moon, rather than in a studio, where they could have just re-shot the photos if they had been ruined by orange juice? I mean, good grief, the entire orange juice story makes no sense to begin with. But, you can watch the video, which that guy even presents to you, and see for yourself that there was no apparent orange juice leak. And, you can see the very moment that the lens was smeared (not by orange juice). But, you just blindly swallow what he says anyway? Why? What possible reason would you have to swallow such nonsense?
"the vacuum of space would have killed him."
No, dewdrop. The suits were not 100% airtight anyway. And, a small leak wouldn't matter. Some of the suits DID have small leaks anyway. You don't know what you're talking about.
"Do some research dude"
Watching conspiracy videos isn't research, dewdrop.
'instead of believing what you are told."
Now this is just off the charts. You just got done blindly regurgitating ridiculous nonsense that was told to you in two conspiracy videos. You believed that nonsense hook line and sinker. Now you're accusing others of doing EXACTLY what you are doing? What's wrong with you?
2
-
"that's very easy to fake. Just slow down the footage."
Wrong. You are referring only to very simplistic movements, cherry picked by the makers of conspiracy videos. Yes, there is always a multiplier where you can slow down (or speed up) a recording to make it match Earth's gravity. That's just physics. However, it only applies vertically, not horizontally. And, if you go watch the entirety of the moon videos at 2.5x speed (the correct multiplier), you will find that there are countless segments when the motions just don't match reality, with comical Keystone Cops horizontal movements coupled to "normal" vertical movements. And, at 2.5x speed, you will see numerous times when the motion of the dust doesn't jive with the motion of the astronauts. I'm sorry you blindly swallowed nonsense fed to you by conspiracy videos. But, why should your gullibility be everyone else's problem? Why subject astronauts to your slander/libel, simply because you fail to understand basic physics, and you bought into silly garbage you saw in videos made by charlatans?
"It's impossible to land men on the moon, especially in the 60s."
Name the exact technology that they lacked, thus making it impossible. Can you?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"Russians why they never went to the moon" Because, dewdrop, they never built a rocket capable of doing it. They tried 4 different launches of their N1 moon rocket, and it blew up all 4 times. They DIDN'T have superior technology. They flew their lunar lander in space on multiple test missions, but, it was quite inferior to the Grumman lander, and could only carry one person, and couldn't stay as long. The Soviets had the technological lead for a while, but, by the time the USA began the Gemini program, they passed the Soviets quite definitively. As a matter of fact, throughout the entirety of Gemini's 10 manned missions, the Soviets didn't launch a single mission. Not one. They had fallen behind, and stayed behind.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"It's funny that NASA has admitted it doesn't have the technology to achieve a manned moon landing now."
Huh? Why is this funny? We don't have the technology right now to fly 100+ people at mach 2 across the Atlantic either, and haven't for decades. But, the 1969 Concorde could do it. Luggage too.
"Can't even get through the Van Allen belts safely yet."
How would they? In order to go through the Van Allen belts, you need a manned rated booster capable of lifting a manned craft that high/fast. Are you under the impression that, after the Saturn V was retired, that we have any such booster? I mean SLS did it last year. But, that was in order to get it human rated. Now that it's human rated, the next one will do it. But, between the Saturn V being retired, and the upcoming SLS rocket, exactly what booster would you think they should have used to get through the belts? Can you name one? And, what do you mean, "safely"? The key to safety is speed. The belts are harmful to long duration missions (like the shuttle, or ISS, or Mir, etc.). But, Apollo went through very quickly.
Exactly what is it you think you know, that the entire planet's aerospace engineers don't?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Pfftt. So, the photos aren't good enough? Let me guess, if they had photos that could see the serial numbers on the equipment, you'd still reject it, right? I mean, you can clearly see rover tracks, foot paths, lander bases, etc. But, that's not good enough. So, what ever would be?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Yes, they got back inside the lunar module, took off the PLSS backpacks, and got ready to discard everything that they were leaving behind. They then plugged their suits into the internal lunar module life support (oxygen supply hose), opened the hatch again, and tossed out anything non-essential for getting back home (including the PLSS backpacks). It's only a couple of pounds of oxygen to re-pressurize the cabin.
My favorite photo of this is from Apollo 14, AS14-66-9338. You can see both PLSS backpacks, which they really got some good distance from the LEM when they threw them. 1/6th gravity helps, of course. And, they removed the OPS and radio from the top, which lightened it up quite a bit. And, you can clearly see from the marks in the dust that the far one bounced/dragged across the lunar surface. But, they managed to throw the thing way out past the flag.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I am not sure what you mean. It's true that they tended not to take pictures directly into the sun, because it tended to just turn out to be a really lousy photo of lots of lens flare and a big white blob drowning out the image. It's just like on Earth, you know. If you point a film camera at the sun, it just dominates the image, making a much bigger blob of white, beyond just the angular size of the sun. The chemical process on the film goes bananas with that much light, and bleaches out the colors, and kind of dominates the image altogether, and creates tons of lens flare. But, to say that there are "no pictures"?? Huh? They took about 7000 photos across the 6 missions that landed, with 80 hours of walking out on the surface, across 2 astronauts per mission. I've never counted the number of those photos that were pointed directly into the sun, but, it's at least a couple of hundred. Yeah, not a large percentage of the 7000 total (because they tried taking most of the photography down sun, rather than up sun). But, yes, the photos do exist. AS12-46-6762 is only just one of them, but, instantly proves that you have never even looked at the photo archive before spewing absolute nonsense.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
If you want to see a lunar module from the distance of Earth, in enough resolution to barely be able to see its shape a few pixels wide, it would take a lens a quarter mile in diameter. If you really want to be able to determine the shape and start to see a few details, you're talking about a half mile wide lens. If you want to read a license plate, well, I'd have to do the math, but, since you haven't done the math, I'm certainly not going to spend that time for you. Rough guess, about a lens 6 or 8 miles in diameter. Largest lens in existence = 5 feet in diameter, and costed $168 million. But, you just keep on pretending to know things you don't. That's why you use YouTube, right?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
As for unmanned probes to prove it's real, what more do you want? Japan sent Selene to the moon, but, it didn't have the resolution required to see the landers on the surface. It could tell that the dust was disturbed at each of the 6 sites. Deniers = "not good enough, I want closer." Arizona State University sent their camera onboard LRO, and was able to see the landers, the rover tracks, foot paths, etc. Deniers = "not good enough, I want 3rd party verification, not a USA probe." China sent Chang'e to the moon, and told the public that it verified Apollo. Deniers = "not good enough, why won't they show the photos?" China released the photos. Deniers = "not good enough, I want better resolution." India sent Chandrayaan to the moon, yielding the best resolution to date, showing the landers, shadows of the flame deflectors, shadow of the flag on Apollo 12, etc. Deniers = "not good enough, India has just decided to join the deception." Why do you believe another probe will result in deniers suddenly accepting it, instead of saying, "not good enough"?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
So, let's recap. You originally asked why telescopes in present day haven't taken photos. (No telescope in existence has anywhere near that kind of resolution, and would require a telescope many miles in diameter to do what you want). You then shifted the topic, claiming no photos of this stuff even existed during the missions. (I provided you a few examples. And, it's clear you never looked for yourself, if you're making that claim in the first place.) And, rather than acknowledging any of this, you now shift the topic to the liftoff video? (There is no lunar liftoff video of Apollo 11, because the camera wasn't turned on until they were around 1,000 feet up.)
If you feel absolutely no obligation to understand anything about a topic before you reject it, what's your point in asking questions? It's clear that you don't want the answers.
2
-
"Photographic film is damaged in a vacuum"
So, Kodak didn't do anything about it? Dewdrop, first of all, no, film doesn't get significantly damaged from a vacuum. That's something conspiracy videos tell you. It's a very minor effect. Secondly, even for the small amount of issues that film can have in a vacuum, Kodak knew this, and engineered specialized film to help mitigate that.
"Apollo 13 should have been blown hopelessly off course by the blast from the side of the service module"
Huh? So, 320 pounds of oxygen gets blown out the side of the service module, and you think it has THAT much effect on the trajectory of the 97,000 pound total command/service/lunar modules? Math just isn't your thing, eh dewdrop? Plus, given that the craft was rolling, any small amount that the craft was pushed in one direction would quickly be negated by the same effect a few seconds later when the very same offgassing would push the craft in the opposite direction as it rolled the other way.
Stop pretending to know things you don't.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"I have telescopes, I have researched, I have a 190"
And, at 190, you don't realize that there isn't a telescope in existence capable of seeing Apollo stuff from this distance? Who gave you that 190 number, by the way? You read and write like a 2nd grader. So, ok, if you're 18 months old, alright, I'll believe you. Otherwise, this rings of one of those apps that get advertised as "solving this puzzle means your number is XYZ." It's silly. Anybody worth their salt would be PUBLISHING IN THE JOURNALS ON RADIOBIOLOGY AND COSMOLOGY/ASTRONOMY, not in a YouTube comment.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
It's one of those attributes of having a completely delusional mind. If someone opposes you, it's because you are "over the target," and you feel positive reinforcement. If someone agrees with you, you feel positive reinforcement. If nobody objects at all, you feel positive reinforcement. No matter what happened, you were going to feel positive reinforcement. Um, sorry, but that's not exactly indicative of a strong position here... especially given the fact that you feel like you're the first person on the planet to suggest pointing a telescope at the moon. I wouldn't even know how to operate my life if I was that far gone, so, sorry, but, I cannot relate to this ridiculous condition you're in. You're like one of those stalkers who haunt a poor girl's life while she avoids you like the plague, and you just feel, "she's just playing hard to get, but, as soon as she gives me a chance, she'll love me." Like, ya know, you must be getting pretty close to the mark for her to call the police, huh? Who would call the police on someone she doesn't care about at all? Clearly, she must care a lot.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Dewdrop, the LRO photos are extremely high resolution, better than any commercial camera today. But, you must use digital zoom to see the landers and stuff. Same for the photos from India's orbiter. Go look at some of the original image files for yourself, rather than the zoomed versions. I've done it. I even knew where to look, and it took me about 15-20 minutes to zoom in on the lander. Or, since you clearly have no idea what I'm talking about, I need to take this down about 40 notches for you... it's like when you look at the girly pictures online. Even with super high resolution, you're not able to zoom in on a single hair without it looking very grainy, appearing to be "bad resolution." I'm sorry you don't understand digital photography, but, should the rest of the world really suffer for your own "knowledge level" (lack of)?
2
-
Go take a photography 101 class. Learn something about the chemistry of film. Stars don't show up on film very easily, whether it's daytime or nighttime. It doesn't matter if it's a black background. In order to produce an image on the film, photons have to hit the film and cause a chemical reaction to the film's silver halides. Starlight is extremely dim (not very many photons), and it takes very long exposures to trigger the chemical reactions to make an image show up. Typical film that is designed for regular daytime exposure requires about a 30 second exposure for stars to show up. There are films that are a bit faster than that, and they can get the exposure times down to around 4 seconds. But, those films are no good for filming regular daylight things, and Apollo didn't bring any of such film. With the exception of Apollo 16, which brought along a specialized camera for taking star photos (it took 125 of such photos), they just weren't there to take star photos. They were there to take moon photos in daylight. And, all of their equipment was designed for that. I'm sorry that you know absolutely nothing about photography, but, seriously, this is stuff any university photography 101 class would teach in the first couple of weeks. Exposure settings are crucial to understanding photography.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
spoileralertrecap:
"Instant communications"
No, dewdrop. You simply aren't accounting for where the recording is taking place. There's no reason to expect a 3 second delay after an astronaut speaks for Nixon to answer. That's because the recording is taking place on the Earth side, not the moon side. When Nixon hears the astronauts, he can respond right away. There's no reason for him to wait 3 seconds. But, in the reverse direction, when Nixon speaks, and when the astronauts answer, you will always hear the delay. Again, that's because the recording is happening on the Earth side, not the moon side.
"who set the tripod up?"
Armstrong. But, you're an expert on the topic, right? You know enough about it to label it as fake, right? So, why do you not know who set up the tripod? Have you never watched the video of the tripod being set up?
"who controlled it remotely"
On Apollo 11? Nobody. Remote control of the TV camera didn't happen until Apollo 15. Again, why do you not know this? You have more expertise on this topic than the entire world's experts!!! I don't understand why you know so much about Apollo, yet don't know simple things like this.
"And what invention was it that plugged the prez directly to them? To speak in back and forth convo from a landline?"
It's called a "telephone." And, no, it wasn't direct. It was relayed through Parkes, Australia, where the radio signal was connected to a wired signal. Ya know, just like had been done a million times before since the first car phones in the 1940s, where an operator just plugs in two wires between the phone call and the radio transmitter? I thought you were a communications expert?? The president could make phone calls to ship captains on the ocean, car phones, Air Force 1, etc. Are you not aware that it's a simple matter of connecting two wires between a radio transmitter and a landline? Back then, they did this with operators who had a 2-wire plug and a switchboard. Today, it's all automated. But, it's the same 2-wire system. How can you not know this?
"if they can zoom inside a crater to studyrocks and water. They can zoom to the base pole of the flag"
Dewdrop, the LRO resolution in black and white is only about 1.5 feet per pixel. In color or other wavelengths, it's even worse. They cannot see flagpoles. And, when they look for water, they're just trying to see photons of a certain wavelength, not take actual photos of the water. Aren't you an expert on the Arizona State University camera system?
Look, dewdrop, stop pretending to know things you don't. This is just plain ridiculous. All you're doing is blindly rejecting everything, while knowing absolutely nothing about the topic you're rejecting. And, it's crystal clear that you don't actually want answers to your questions. So, why do you ask them?
2
-
"A simple search online will show you that spy satellites have a resolution of 5-6 in"
Yeah, different sources say different things. Some say more. Some say less. So what? The fact is that most nations simply will not reveal the true resolution. Like, if you look up the top speed of the SR71, it says 2,200 mph. But, there are records indicating that SR71s have been over one place at one time, and then been spotted over a different place 3,000 miles away, just 60 minutes later. When it comes to spying, disinformation is a very normal thing. Also, let's just take your 6 inch statement at face value. That doesn't mean you know what that 6 inch thing is. It means that one single pixel is 6 inches by 6 inches. If you want to see a 12 inch shoe, that would mean that it would occupy 2 pixels. You wouldn't know it was a shoe. It would just two brown pixels. And, guess what? That's not all that different than the Chandrayaan-2 camera I told you to look into.
"and they don't have a 5 mile lens last time I checked."
Dewdrop, you asserted that you thought a satellite could read someone's shoe size from space. That would mean that you would need enough resolution to read a small number printed on a shoe. That would mean you'd need a resolution of roughly a millimeter per pixel, not 6 inches per pixel. Do the math, dewdrop.
"So, there is no need for so long comments buddy."
If you didn't want answers to your questions, don't ask them. And, did you even read the entire message? I can tell you didn't.
"And it's not me who moves the goalposts."
Yes, you are.
"The LRO show no remains."
Complete nonsense. You can't have looked at the hundreds of LRO photos of the landing sites, if you're making that claim.
"They show shadows and arrows which supposedly dictate where something is."
Then look at the raw images that don't just show shadows and arrows. What are you waiting for? Look at the images from other sun angles. A lot of times, if they're just showing one LRO photo, yes, they show a really low sun angle to emphasize the shadows of the smaller objects and the flag. But, if you want to see the larger objects without shadows, sure, just go look at the raw images. There's a button to turn off and turn on the arrows. Arizona State University has hundreds of those images cataloged and set up as a slide show. They're the ones that built and maintain that LRO camera. Go look. Stop spewing nonsense. Stop asking questions when you have zero interest in the answers. And, go look.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
What in the world are you talking about? In your first message, said they went to the moon, but never put a foot on it. I don't even understand this, so I asked. In your second message, you said I should remain silent for asking what you meant? Good grief. And, it gets worse from there:
"They encountered complications while landing due to something shredding their suits and equipment."
Does that even make sense to you? While they're landing, something is shredding their suits? Good grief.
"Imagine a moon of metal"
Metal moon? Metal? Do you even know what a metal is?
"getting hit all the time , releasing tons of tiny metal pieces that are going to act as a sand storm there."
Sandstorms on the moon?
"They never even tried to go back since then"
Dewdrop, there were 9 manned missions to the moon, 6 of which landed on it. If that's not "going back," I don't know what is.
"there ain’t even a question to ask as if they really went there"
But, wait, that IS the question you were asking. Then you immediately contradicted yourself.
"if they really did successfully landed why would they leave and never go back"
They DID go back!!! What's wrong with you?
"dont tell me that’s because they had nothing to discover on the moon anymore"
No, dewdrop, I never said any such thing.
"and I guess it makes sense to you that they would cut nasa ´s budget"
Yes, they couldn't afford that level of spending. And, they also wouldn't get that amount of international support. NASA's budget went from about 4.5% of the entire federal budget down to about 0.49% of the entire budget after Apollo. And, the soft costs and international support equated to about 2% more, which were not going to be perpetuated either.
"when they would have just landed on the moon and the whole country was sheering about it ?"
Dewdrop, they ended the Apollo program in 1972 for moon missions, and in 1975 for the Apollo applications programs such as Skylab and Apollo-Soyuz. The first moon landing was in 1969.
"please think further"
The irony.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"Even the creator of the camera said that camera wouldn't have been able"
Wow, so, a quote mine? Dewdrop, Hasselblad (the creator of the cameras you're alluding to) are still very proud to this day to have manufactured the Apollo cameras. So, how do you explain this? If your assertion is that the makers of the cameras know that they couldn't function in those extremes, why do you suppose they believe Apollo happened? Gee, could it be because Apollo never went to the moon during those extremes, and the makers of the cameras know that? You've had YEARS to work on this since last time you spewed this garbage. Yet, you're still quoting high noon hot temperatures and overnight cold temperatures, even though no Apollo mission ever landed at night, nor at high noon?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sending a satellite to the moon isn't like sending one into low orbit around Earth. All other things equal, it takes far more energy to do it, and therefore far more lifting capability. So, no, all other things aren't equal. If you're using the same booster rocket, you can lift a larger satellite camera into Earth orbit (the bigger the camera, the better the resolution) than you can to the moon. The payload to the moon for LRO, for example, was 4,000 pounds. And, no, they weren't just going to plop a huge 4,000 pound camera into lunar orbit to grab "high res" photos (of the kind you're asking for). LRO was a complete package of scientific experiments and sensors and equipment, also carrying fuel to last for decades of burns to change orbit, etc. If you wanted LRO to have a bigger camera, that means you're giving up something else in trade. You have to give up some of the fuel, or some of the other experiments, because LRO weighed every bit of the 4,000 pounds payload they were given. They packed all they could into that probe. So, while you're complaining that the resolution should be better, because it's a lot lower (closer to the lunar surface) than Earth based satellites are to Earth, yeah, fine, if all things were equal, you'd be right, the resolution should be better. But, again, what do you want them to give up. They were willing to dedicate entire satellites to just photography around Earth (thus have really big cameras). But, for LRO, there are dozens of different things they wanted it to do, and they wanted it to last for decades and be able to change orbits (lots of fuel). A huge camera wasn't possible without giving up a bunch of other stuff.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"The LRO has the exact same camera that Google earth uses"
Not even close. The LRO camera you're referring to (it has more than one, but, whatever, you'll never understand it), actually only takes photos that are literally 1 pixel tall, by 5,064 pixels wide. Then, it "stripes" the lunar surface via the motion of the camera itself. It's like one of those old Xerox copy machines, where you can see the light bar scanning the paper from left to right, creating the copy via those long stripes, then re-assembling the image onto a piece of paper. Same basic concept. That's not how Google works at all.
"and is 240 thousand miles away and we can see cars and people"
No, those photos on Google are from low flying airplanes, helicopters, and even hot air balloons sometimes. Most are from about 1,200 feet. Who told you those Google cameras are 240,000 miles away?
"yet the LRO is only 62 miles away"
They dropped it to about 22 miles to take the Apollo site photos.
"and can't see squat."
You can clearly see the rover tracks, landers, foot paths, etc. Don't pretend the resolution isn't good enough.
"No reason at all that they can't zoom in on these sites"
That IS zoomed in!!! Have you ever looked at the original photos? I have. And, just as an exercise, I decided to see how long it would take me to find the lunar lander from Apollo 11. It took me about 20 minutes. And, I even knew basically where to find it. The photos you see of the landing sites have already been zoomed in for you. They did you a favor, by finding the sites in those huge photos spanning miles upon miles wide, and dozens of miles long, and then zooming in for you. But, if you don't like it, just do what I did. Go download the original photo images, and go hunt down the landing sites yourself, and zoom in.
"I can see my car from 240 thousand miles away but can't see squat on these alleged moon landing sites"
Sorry, but if you think Google's cameras are on the moon, and can see your car, this is so painfully a pile of nonsense that I wouldn't even know how to respond. Google themselves tells you how they take the photos in their FAQ pages. Low flying aircraft at approximately 1,200 feet. You made a mistake by about a factor of a million x. That's like saying you make a million dollars, when you only make $1.
1
-
Good grief. How is it even possible to believe Aldrin said he didn't go? In your mind, he "confessed," but, nobody on the planet did anything? No senate hearings? No prosecutions? No international lawsuits? No press? No attention whatsoever? That's how you think it would go when "confessing" to the biggest fraud in history? Or, hmmm, dewdrop, maybe, just maybe, you're watching conspiracy videos that lie to you, and intentionally take his words out of context, eh?
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
-
Well, there's a bit of an irony in asking for that. Last year, congress passed a law stating that they would not fund any private missions to return to either the Apollo 11 or Apollo 17 sites. One would assume that this also means they don't intend to fund any public missions to those sites either. Their motivation is to treat the Apollo 11 and 17 sites as historic monuments. It's a "look but don't touch" mentality. And, I think they know that if anybody goes to those sites, they're going to touch them. And, well, nobody owns the moon, so, they actually can't control what any private industry ever does, nor what other countries do, so, again, they can only say that there's a law now that no such mission will ever get any public funding. But, they didn't apply that law to Apollo 12, 14, 15, and 16. So, I suppose this means that you can get a government subsidy to send a mission to those sites. Or, one of those sites can be a public program someday. Or, of course, they could always just repeal the law.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Well, Artemis' budget started at $30 billion. After they roped in a few of the prior development costs, and added a gateway, and made horrific choices with the lander, and other "normal" out of control spending, they're now projecting it to be about $90 billion. And, for that, they expect 2 or 3 landings for a few weeks each. So, how much do you think it would take to build a colony? Power facilities, housing, farming facilities (a huge greenhouse), communications arrays, construction equipment, medical facilities, landing and liftoff facilities, plumbing and water treatment, food storage, etc.? Can you give an estimate about how much money you think "isn't all that expensive"?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
11) This is one of the many reasons I know you're not actually studying Apollo. You're watching videos that lie to you, and you just gobble it up like Christmas dinner, never lifting a finger to fact-check anything. Yes, dewdrop, they had the Carruthers UV telescopic camera on the surface of the moon and took hundreds of star photos, yet, you're complaining that they didn't take star photos and didn't have a telescope? They also took hundreds of star photos from lunar orbit, which is a lot more useful than taking them from the lunar surface (the Carruthers camera shots were essentially useless). And, yes, they took hundreds of photos of Earth, not "only a handful."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Dave-bq6gy
"I'm sure it will need to be postponed however, oh... by another 5 years maybe. Then another 5 years, and so on."
Naw, they'll do it between 2028 and 2030. And, the original $30 billion will become $90 billion. It's still way short of Apollo's $300 billion (adjusted for inflation) in hard costs, and another $150 billion in soft costs and international support. The irony is that congress never even intended to do it by 2024 (the date Trump and Bridenstine kept pushing). Congress never funded it at a pace to ever meet that date, and said so. So, when NASA keeps saying that they'll do it faster, it's nothing but silly hype. Congress paced the funding to put them on the moon between 2028 and 2030. And, yes, they keep needing more money (like all government programs that deceive people about the actual costs just to get the program approved, then beg for more money later).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Dewdrop, no, you don't get to backtrack like that. YOU brought up Webb and Hubble. YOU did that. Neither of those telescopes would have even the remotest chance to render any images like you're saying. So, don't pretend that you were only saying "like Webb or Hubble," because, that's equally as ridiculous. Webb and Hubble can't do it, and neither could anything LIKE Webb or Hubble. Furthermore, you made a claim that there are satellites that could see matchbook covers. Not even close. The very best satellites render images that have individual pixels about 1 foot by 1 foot square. So, unless you're talking about some crazy clown matches that are 14 feet tall or something, no, you're not seeing matchbook covers from any existing satellite.
No, you do not get to be completely wrong about everything you type, then pretend I'm the problem. You don't know anything.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
So, you opened by saying BS fake? THEN you ask your questions? Don't pretend that you're really interested in answers, when you come to your conclusion first, and then ask questions second. And, sorry, but you have ZERO understanding of thermodynamics and temperature. This is evident from the start, when you quote 260 degree temperatures. The moon doesn't get that hot until the lunar high noon. All landings took place early in the lunar morning. You seem to think that the sun comes up, and BING, it's 260 degrees. No. Not even close. It's a slow and gradual rise. There's a special kind of irony when you take the numbers provided by NASA when they suit you, but, you ignore the time of those numbers provided by NASA. When they said the surface temperature reaches 260, you readily accept it. When they tell you when those temperatures happen, you ignore it. They always landed early in the lunar morning when the surface temperatures were still below zero (F). From then, sure, it slowly heats up. But, they were never there for the extremes you're talking about at high noon.
1
-
"The suits are pressurized. Why didn't they blow up like a balloon."
Because of two reasons.
(1) The suits were 24 layers. 21 layers of the main suit, and then 3 layers of the inner garment. Most of those layers were not all that expandable. Think of it like a bike tire. When there's no pressure, sure, it's pretty flat. But, once you get the thing to about 15 PSI, it pretty much doesn't expand after that, all the way up to 110 PSI. Unless you're touching the tire to feel the pressure, you really can't visibly tell the difference between 15 PSI and 110 PSI. The tire just doesn't keep expanding. Same concept for the Apollo suits. Once they were pressurized even a little bit, that was it, they're done expanding. Most of the layers just didn't expand past the shape you see in the photos. And, the layers that did expand were well restrained by the layers around them.
(2) The pressure inside the suits was between 3 PSI and 3.5 PSI. Unless you're Alan Bean, and yeah, it was probably a bit higher when his pressure release valve got stuck. Anyway, 3 PSI is not a lot. It was pure oxygen, so, they had to keep the pressure pretty low to avoid oxygen toxicity. It's not as if they operated at Earth's sea level pressure of around 15 PSI. It was around 20% of that pressure.
1
-
"Heat radiates even in a vacuum. I'm not saying it didn't happen but I am skeptical of it."
And, you think none of the engineers knew about heat? Yes, heat radiates, and heat gets absorbed. It's an equilibrium. Sunlight shines on stuff, and it heats up. At the same time, the stuff is radiating that heat. The net temperature is related to how much heat is being absorbed, vs. how much heat is radiating. If there's more energy coming in than going out, yes, this means the object is getting hotter. If it's radiating more energy than it's absorbing, that means it's getting colder. So what? You seem to be applying these terms randomly, without really understanding the relevance.
1
-
"Show me evidence of a thermometer on or being held by an astronaut."
The "thermometers" to measure temperature inside the suits were inside the suits. They didn't "hold" them. And, the ones that measured surface temperatures were in little probes that they inserted into the lunar "soil." They dug little holes, put the probes into those holes. I wouldn't call them "thermometers" exactly, but, yeah, close enough. They were powered by solar panels on the EASEP for Apollo 11, and powered by the radioisotopic (nuclear) generators for the rest of the missions with the ALSEPs. If you want to see them doing it, then yeah, some of the missions had the camera running while they were setting those up, and you're welcome to go hunt it down. I'd normally do that homework, but, I have very little faith that you really care all that much about watching them insert probes into the ground, and more often, the "show me this" and "show me that" comments are just made to make others go off and do busy work for a topic the deniers intend to ignore anyway.
"sewn with needle and thread. Hence they had thousands of tiny holes in each layer."
Yes and no. The main purpose of those outer layers was to squeeze shut the inner layers. Layer 18 was a Neoprene coated nylon layer that was not stitched. And, 19 was a more flexible version of the same. Once zipped up, it squeezed those layers to create quite a good seal. But, yeah, all of the suits leaked anyway. Who cares? Do you ever go scuba diving? You know how 90% of the first stages just constantly leak little tiny amounts? Yeah, Apollo suits were like that. They had slow leaks. Nobody cares. They had enough oxygen for about 7 hours (in the later missions). Leaking 1 or 2 % isn't all that big of a deal. It shortened their supply by a few minutes, and was factored in to the plan. It's a drop in the bucket next to the "waste" of the venting from the porous plate sublimators, the purge/pressure release valves, etc. I'll never understand why so many people think these things had to be 100% air tight or something. It's not like that. They vent. They breathe. They leak. 99% was good enough.
"Pressure goes from high to low."
In a pure oxygen environment, you cannot operate at Earth's atmospheric pressure, or you get oxygen poisoning. Oxygen is about 21% of the Earth's atmosphere. That's the amount of oxygen the human body expects. So, they ran the suits at about 20%-25% of the pressure of Earth's atmosphere, so the human body would be breathing about the same amount of oxygen that they got on Earth.
"So a pressurized flexible suit would expand in a vacuum."
Do you really not know that there are materials that flex, but don't expand? Look at a child's balloon made of Mylar. It flexes. But, once it's at the full shape, it really doesn't expand any longer. You can keep adding pressure all you want, but, the balloon doesn't get any bigger. This is different from a rubber balloon, which will just keep getting bigger and bigger until it pops. But, a Mylar balloon flexes without getting any bigger. Same for the Apollo suits. Ironically, some of the layers are Mylar. But, really, except for the Neoprene layers, the rest of the layers of the suits really didn't expand, even though they're flexible.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
There's a formula for optical resolution. I normally don't recommend Wiki to learn things (way too many things are wrong), but, in this case, it's good enough. Optical resolution. Then, find the formula for calculating the size lens you need in order to see it. You'll need to be able to convert the angular size to radians, and of course, before you do that, you need to know enough trig to calculate the angular size. But, from there, the math is pretty straightforward. The formula only gives you the size lens you need to see something as a single dot, however. Therefore, if you want to calculate the size lens to be able to actually tell what you're looking at, you have to decide about the resolution you want before you enter it into the formula.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Thinking about the technology NASA had when they first landed on the moon"
OK, so, is this an acknowledgement that they had the technology, and that they went to the moon? You analyzed the technology enough to know that it actually worked as designed, right?
"and today’s technology. You would think it would be much easier to send man back to the moon."
Yes, and it is. When you adjust for inflation, Apollo costed about $300 billion in hard costs, and about $150 billion more in soft costs and international support. The current Artemis program to send people back to the moon has a budget of about $35 billion. Yes, there are also lots of soft costs, or costs buried in other programs, and I'm not actually certain about how much that amounts to. I've read speculation that it's about $95 billion if you extrapolate the real costs. And, being a government program, I'm sure the costs will balloon. But, it's still a fraction of the approximate $450 billion of Apollo. So, yes, it's easier to go back now. Far less research and development costs. But, as has been pointed out to you, rocket technology hasn't really changed all that much. Even the Artemis program is using 40 year old recycled rockets (not kidding) based upon a 50 year old design.
"Something is very suspicious that they haven’t been back there."
Congress wouldn't fund another program after Apollo (until Artemis anyway). Why is this suspicious to you?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"I find it hard to believe"
TRANSLATION: "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake."
"that we can’t see the landing site perfectly clearly through at least one of our earth bound telescopes."
Well, that's because you don't understand telescopes. See, there's a problem with how telescopes work, and the limits of resolution. It's called "Dawes' Limit," if you'd care to look it up. This is the limit of optical resolution. Photons interfere with each other on the way from the moon to Earth, thus limiting the resolution you're capable of seeing. The only way to get around this issue is to build bigger lenses/mirrors, so you can capture photons far enough away from each other that they didn't interfere with each other in transit. In other words, if you want to see something the size of stuff like the landers and rovers and stuff, you need bigger mirrors or lenses to do it. There's a very well understood formula you can use in order to calculate the size of lens or mirror you need for a certain level of resolution at a certain distance. And, let's face reality here, it's really a lens that you'd need, because mirrors are not perfect enough for such detail. So, ok, lenses.... You can calculate the size of lens yourself. But, if you don't know how to do that, I'll skip right to the answer: If you want to see an Apollo lander on the moon from the distance of Earth, it requires a lens about 75 feet in diameter. It would only be a single dot, and you wouldn't know what it is. But, if you want to be able to start to make out what it is, it would take a lens about a quarter mile in diameter. Thus far, the largest optical grade lens ever constructed is 5 feet in diameter, and costed $168 million to manufacture. So, yeah, we're a long way off from building quarter mile wide lenses.
"and even more bizarrely not visible even by our spaceship telescopes"
Yes, that would eliminate the issue of light scatter through the atmosphere (another issue on top of the above). But, it wouldn't change the fact that you would need the telescope in orbit to be just as large as I illustrated above.
"you gotta agree"
Well, gee, I wonder why nobody on Earth has ever thought of something so simple, huh?
You do know that there are cameras on satellites in orbit around the moon that have taken plenty of those photos, right? You don't need a quarter mile wide lens when you're only 12 miles above.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Why don't you show some real pictures from the site?"
Like the original mission photography? Just go look at it.
"Oodles of lunar missions flew to the Moon but NASA has forbidden them to pass over the Apollo sites to take pictures."
Yet, LRO has taken hundreds of pictures, as have China and India. How would NASA enforce such a thing? Where'd you get this ridiculous idea?
"Now that's odd, isn't it!?"
What's odd is that you'd believe such a thing.
"Humans greatest achievement but no-one may investigate or ask any "out of the formal line narrative" questions about it."
Dewdrop, plenty of people investigate. And, questions are fine. The issue is that none of you people ever listen to the answers.
"Aren't they curious as we are how it REALLY looks at those sites? Why won't they allow that?"
What EXACTLY do you think is preventing it? Me: I know that optical resolution is one of the reasons we don't see that level of detail. But, we do see enough to know Apollo was there. And, contrary to the babble you're spewing, I also know that three different countries have flown over the landing sites and taken the photos that you think don't exist. So, basically, you don't know what you're talking about.
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
-
"Obama ... said we haven't left low Earth orbit. Former NASA Astronaut and ISS Commander Terry Virts while in low Earth orbit says specifically that we can not go beyond Low Earth Orbit"
Dewdrop, what didn't you understand about the words "right now"? Right now, we cannot fly 100+ people at mach 2 across the Atlantic. But, if you ignore the words "right now," then this means the Concorde didn't exist, right? Did you even watch the entire interview? Or, just the one little sentence that you think supports your gibberish? Are you REALLY asserting that presidents and astronauts think the moon landings didn't happen? Or, do you just love parroting silly one-line nonsense out of context? This is downright ridiculous. It's as if every time anybody says anything in an interview, they MUST say, "and Apollo happened," otherwise you people will insist on misunderstanding what is being said, and jump for joy when you find someone saying "right now, we can't leave orbit." Yes, dewdrop, the Saturn V had the capability to lift a manned craft past low orbit. There hasn't been a man-rated rocket capable of doing that since the Saturn V was retired. But, now the SLS is man rated, and will do so on its next flight.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
OK, you want a bigger camera/lens? Alright, please illustrate what you are willing to give up. See, they can't just send up anything they want. Rockets have very specific payload capacities to very specific altitudes, etc. In this case, the launch capability to the moon was exactly 4000 pounds. So, how much did LRO weigh? Exactly 4000 pounds. So, you want a bigger camera with far more resolution, right? That also requires a bigger communications system/dish/radio to transmit more bandwidth, right? So, what are you willing to give up? Fuel? Other experiments?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"throw away equipment that can be reused/recharged"
Huh? So, you want to bring unnecessary equipment back to Earth? Why? The PLSS backpacks and the OPS units on top weighed about 100 pounds (Earth weight anyway). You're saying that you wanted them to bring one of them back, instead of the 100 pounds of moon rocks that they could bring back instead? Or, bring back both of them, instead of 200 pounds of rocks? Dewdrop, is there any point at which you'll stop pretending to understand concepts you don't? I can't even imagine that another denier would read anything you're writing and actually get behind the nonsense you're spewing.
"to "save weight""
Yes, dewdrop. The only real variable in these missions was the weight of each individual astronaut, which was kept under a strict cap, or they didn't go. Everything else was controlled to the ounce. The only times when people bent these rules were when the astronaut was about 145 pounds, leaving a lot more wiggle room. But, beyond those times, yes, every ounce mattered. Don't pretend you understand rocket engineering, when it's perfectly clear that you do not. No amount of emojis is going to convince anybody that you understand this topic.
"then dump "extra fuel" too?"
What fuel dumps are you referring to? The SIVB? When did they dump fuel?
"Not much of engineering if they can't bring back PLSS they can reuse, to be checked for tearing/wear, have it cleaned, and readied for the next astronauts."
Congratulations on confirming that you understand absolutely nothing. First, you complained about airlocks. Now, you're complaining that the engineers all "did it wrong" when they left unnecessary weight behind.
Just stop pretending. You're no good at it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
China's published space budget is $11 billion. Now, of course, I would never blindly accept that number, because they're secretive, and won't necessarily reveal everything, but, to believe your claim that their actual space budget is in the hundreds of billions is quite difficult to accept.
Dozens of countries tracked the Apollo missions with radar and radio telescopes, including enemy countries.
Spain had the largest telescope at that time, and took photos of the SIVB fuel dumps around the moon, and the Apollo 13 debris field.
India has taken photos of the Apollo landing sites with their lunar orbiter Chandrayaan2, which is the best camera around the moon today, and you can see the landers, foot paths, shadows of the flame deflectors and Apollo 12 flag (still standing), etc.
Backyard amateurs anywhere in the world (facing toward the moon anyway) could aim their dishes/Yagi at the moon and receive Apollo's audio.
China's Chang'e orbiter took photos of the Apollo landing sites also, and have confirmed that the landers are still there.
Dozens of countries still use the Apollo laser reflectors on the lunar surface.
The list goes on, and on, and on.
You don't know what you're talking about.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yes, I'm sure they just saw the moon landings as something that would make a popular episode, so they covered it. I try to look at it with the eyes of someone who maybe doesn't know anything about Apollo, and yeah, I guess they did a good enough job (maybe). But, I also know that they oversimplified many things, and even made a couple of mistakes. The laser reflector thing, yes, they had lasers before ever going to the moon to put a reflector there. But, the bounce-back was subject to a lot of scatter and false positives. With the reflectors, there are so many more photons coming back, that the scattered ones and false positives don't mean much. Google is your friend. "Apollo laser reflector graph." Images. Look at the one called LaserMeasure. That's what it looks like with a reflector. You get a super distinct line. So much that you can ignore the other hundreds of dots. Without the reflector, you just get the hundreds of dots and need to take averages, with a much wider margin of error.
Also note: newer laser ranging facilities can focus the beams a lot more than the ones in the 1960s and 1970s.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"NASA is still grinding on the radiation problem of the Van Allen belts"
No, they're not. Who told you that? Let me guess, some deniers made a video that showed you a couple of clips from a decade old video made for children about Orion, right? They flew Orion in the belts TWICE now before putting people inside (just like they flew Apollo's capsule twice in the belts before putting people inside). See, the thing about you deniers is that you'll always find a way. Had they NOT tested Orion in the belts before putting people inside, you'd be yelling, "Hey, it's a brand new craft with new mission parameters, and new electronics, are you telling me that they don't want to test it in the Van Allen belts before putting people inside? FAKE!!!" But, they say the opposite, that they ARE testing the craft before putting people inside, and you people say, "Hey, they supposedly already went through the belts on Apollo, why do they want to test a new craft? FAKE!!!" Either way, you people look for an excuse to cry FAKE every chance you get, while knowing absolutely NOTHING about the topic.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
So, one location didn't have a lot of information about the lunar lander, therefore they never landed? Huh? What kind of "logic" is that? Good grief.
"I'm only skeptical that man actually landed on the moon"
Sorry, that's not skepticism. Truly skeptical people use a method of analysis to come to conclusions. Your method = "one place I visited didn't have the info I wanted, therefore the info I wanted doesn't exist, and the program was a fraud." No, that's not skepticism.
"60 years later"
Math isn't your thing either, eh?
"we still cannot vertically land reusable rockets consistently"
So what? Why does anybody want to do that? Other than SpaceX pretending that it's a good idea that wasting fuel that could have been used for increased payload and saving it for a vertical landing instead, who has even tried? Most sane rocket companies just use the fuel to lift bigger payloads, then splash the rockets down into the ocean under parachutes. McDonnell Douglas experimented with vertical landings, and realized that it just wasn't worth it. What does that have to do with Apollo? And, Apollo's landers weren't reusable, so your analogy fails anyway.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"ionizing radiation and cosmic rays present in such space environments, combined with the extreme temperatures, would have devastating effects on the film"
So, Hasselblad and Kodak didn't know what they were doing, but YOU do? YOU? You just got done complaining about a temperature range that the astronauts never even experienced, because they weren't there for those extremes. Oh, but NOW, a sentence later, you think you know what you're talking about? Dewdrop, Kodak and Hasselblad dealt with radiation by encasing the film canisters in aluminum and silver, reflecting a vast majority of the radiation. They also developed specialized film to be used in space. And, sorry, but a vacuum is an excellent insulator from the surface temperatures.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"dark backgrounds with white dots"
Well, that's one way to prove you've never looked at the photos you're rejecting. First of all, the published images from China are light or middle shaded backgrounds with dark dots (landers). So, once again, you're backward (seems to be a pattern with you). Secondly, sorry, but if you are trying to wipe away the ones from India as "not good enough," you're clearly just denying reality. You can see the landers' octagonal shapes, with landing pads and struts sticking out the sides, shadows of the flags and flame deflectors, foot paths, etc. India proudly shows them as an accomplishment that they can see the Apollo landers in more detail than any other current orbiter.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"incapable of engaging in a discussion with serious argument"
Dewdrop, you refused to read my replies. Everything you wrote was incorrect, and I told you exactly why. You dismissed it without reading it, and, you want to pretend you have the high ground!?!?! Utterly hilarious. But, I'll tell you what, dewdrop: you go publish any of your gibberish here in any journal on aerospace engineering or astrophysics. I promise I'll be your first rebuttal. OK? Start by explaining why you magically believe that the moon's overnight surface temperatures, or the afternoon surface temperatures, matter at all, given that the astronauts were never there overnight or in the afternoon. Every response you've made avoids those simple facts, and you desperately hope I won't keep reminding you about all of the things you know nothing about.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"he admitted we never went"
Oh, the one where he answered her question about why they haven't gone back in such a long time, and he explained it? The one where, in the very same interview, he told the very same little girl, both before, and after, this one sentence you're abusing, that he DID go? That's your "evidence"? You took a single spoken sentence out of context intentionally, and with that, you think you understand things you don't?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@inyourgenes
Dewdrop, what don't you understand here? First of all, the ascent engine wasn't throttleable. It was either 3500 pounds of thrust or zero. They didn't ever run it at 1700 pounds. (You forgot the weight of astronauts and payload, which meant it was more like 1950 pounds in lunar gravity, by the way.) Secondly, dewdrop, how much of the lunar surface do you think was hit by that thrust? Most of it was going to hit the first stage, and be greatly dampened and deflected. What little amount trickles to the side will blow dust, yes. But, that's pretty spread out. Let's just say for grins that it's a 50 foot circle, which is about right once the craft lifts off enough to start blowing past the edges of the 1st stage, and the exhaust spreads out (in a vacuum, it spreads pretty wide pretty fast). That's an area of 1964 square feet. What is the resulting thrust upon each square foot of lunar surface? A whopping 1.78 pounds of thrust per square foot of dust. And, in a couple of seconds, the lander is too high up to make much of a difference at all.
Quit pretending you know things you don't. And, go learn English also.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"I seriously dont understand how the flag moved as it did."
I don't understand it, therefore it's fake.
"The footage I have seen looks really strange. Not a twist of the pole by one of the astronauts"
Are you sure? Without an atmosphere to dampen the movement of a flag, it doesn't take very much to make a flag wave a lot. And, depending on the frame rate (a lot of it was only at 6 FPS to conserve on film), you may not always see small hand movements. Or, if you're talking about smaller flag movements, are you sure it wasn't from the life support backpack venting, or the suit's overpressure valve opening? Sometimes the flags even moved without being touched. One time, the flag moved about 180 degrees when the astronauts were nowhere near it, because the lunar module's purge valve was opened, and oxygen rushed over the surface. I mean, without any reference point, I wouldn't even know how to answer you more than these generalizations. If you had a timestamp or something, I could look closer.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Dave-bq6gy
So, since you believe that the USA, India, China, and the other dozens of countries who have supplied evidence for Apollo (both from enemy countries and friendly ones) are all "in on it," what method could anybody ever use to convince you that you're wrong? If your only criteria is "anybody supplying evidence for Apollo is a liar," then it seems that you've created an unfalsifiable scenario in your head, basically paranoid delusional. So, what mechanism could ever even be used to show you otherwise, if you've decided, in advance, to reject all evidence?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"with temperatures high enough to melt aluminium?"
Yes, they could definitely "melt" a few molecules of aluminum. Who cares? At that scale, the concept of "melting" doesn't mean anything. A drop of hot water might melt about a drop's worth of ice in an iceberg. It doesn't melt the iceberg. And, yeah, when complaining about temperatures in space, there are so few molecules/atoms/particles that it really doesn't matter how hot they are. The effect is going to be exactly the same as dropping hot water onto an iceberg. Did you think you understood this concept better than the entire planet's physicists and aerospace engineers?
"I love it....all the deniers."
You're the denier here, dewdrop.
"Even Mr Petite admitted it....duh! Even modern astronots say they can't get higher than low earth orbit."
Yes, and modern passengers say they can't get a ticket on a supersonic airliner also. That doesn't mean that a passenger a few decades ago couldn't do it. Yes, they retired the Saturn V rocket, the only rocket capable of lifting a manned craft past low Earth orbit. They retired the Concorde, the only plane capable of carrying 100+ passengers at mach 2 across the Atlantic. Why are you surprised that a modern astronaut would say he/she couldn't get higher than low orbit? Are you under the impression that they can? Soon, though. The next SLS and Orion capsule are being built.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I fail to understand what in the world you're talking about. Now you're acknowledging the photos exist? But, your new question is, if the photos didn't exist, how would I know the stuff is on the moon? Dewdrop, you don't understand the topic. You kept expecting telescopes to be able to see it, because you don't know the physical limitations of telescopes. You kept denying the photos exist, but, I assume now you've finally looked at them. You even confused orbital Earth photos with low flying aircraft photos. This is how little you understand anything. Stop pretending. Yes, there are mountains of other evidence for Apollo, beyond just the orbital photos. I do not understand why you're asking for it. You already know, in advance, that your only reply will be "nuh uh" because you've already decided that all evidence for Apollo is fake, no matter how real it actually is. So, why are you even asking? I'm not wasting more time on someone who refuses to listen to all input.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"It´s unsettling why space telescopes that reach far in the galaxy actually are blind to see the moon surface."
Distance and resolution are not the same thing. Telescopes have no trouble with distance. Telescopes have trouble with resolution. There's a well understood concept in physics called "optical resolution" (it's a modern subset of the old Dawes' limit). Photons of light interfere with each other in transit, and the only way you can see items with higher resolution than Dawes' limit allows is by making the lens bigger. You can use the well understood formulas to calculate the size of the lens you'd need in order to see [whatever] resolution. In the case of the Apollo lander on the moon, it would require a lens about 75 feet in diameter to see it as just a dot. You wouldn't know what it was, it would just be a dot. In order to start to make out enough details to see that it's an Apollo lander, it would require a lens about a quarter mile in diameter. (The largest lens in existence is 5 feet in diameter, and costed $168 million to build, so, we're pretty far away from quarter mile lenses.) Don't believe me? Do the math yourself. I normally don't recommend Wiki for learning anything, because too much is wrong. But, Wiki has a nice little article on "optical resolution" which includes the formula to calculate lens size required. Be my guest. Do the math for yourself. Then, come back here and decide how "unsettling" it is that we don't have quarter mile wide telescope lenses.
"The moon landing forgery is another crime against human history"
No, dewdrop. The crime here is your slander/libel.
"that equals religious beliefs"
No, dewdrop. There's a mountain of evidence for Apollo, confirmed across dozens of countries with dozens of different mechanisms. No religion has anything like that.
"that cannot stay dogmatic and unchallenged."
FINE!!! But, if you're going to challenge it, then do so with something that actually makes sense. Thus far, your "objection" is that you think there should be telescopes that can see the Apollo stuff on the moon. This isn't a "challenge." This is only because you don't understand the physics of light. I mean, good grief, why do you suppose there aren't any physicists anywhere on the planet making this objection of yours? Do you think you're the first person in history who ever thought of pointing a telescope at the moon? Shheeeesssssshhhh. Get real. I mean, you're welcome to challenge Apollo all you want. But, if you're going to do that, maybe you need to first learn something about the topic you're challenging, huh?
"This must be seen with reason and not with emotion."
Being "unsettled" isn't an emotion? You opened your entire comment with an emotion!!! Good grief.
"If you believe in it, it is faith not science."
The irony. I wouldn't know how to be more backward, even if I tried.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"-250 degreesFahrenheit in the dark or shadow, 200-250 degrees in the sunlight"
No, dewdrop. It doesn't work that way. It doesn't get to that high of a temperature until the lunar high noon, and that low of a temperature until the lunar overnight. Learn something about thermodynamics. It's not like the temperature is 250 degrees, and then, BING, you make a shadow and it drops to -250. Or, it's in a shadow at -250, and then BING, sun hits it and it goes up to +250 instantly. It takes a long time to heat up and cool off. You don't know what you're talking about. All Apollo missions landed early in the lunar morning, long after the cold overnight, and long before the high noon.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
@TheWokeFlatEarthTruth
Just another reminder: Arizona State University's LRO camera has taken countless photos of ALL of the Apollo landing sites, not just 12, 14, and 17. You really should check them out. They've even got an web app that allows you to slide through the images of the landing sites to see the multiple sun angles, and can gradually "watch" the sun come up, go through all of the angles, and sun go down, including even following the shadow of the flags traverse across the lunar surface as the sun angle changes. (This is done by assembling a whole bunch of the photos from the various sun angles into a little slideshow.) Not that I object to you just saying Apollo 12, 14, and 17. I'm just amplifying what you said to be more inclusive of the amount of photos we're talking about, and emphasizing that they didn't just do those 3 sites. India also released their Apollo 12 photo, by the way.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Weeellll, correct and incorrect. 1969, 1970, 1971, and 1972 = 4 years. But, ok, there weren't actually any landings in 1970, so, 3 years, yes.
As for making it look easy, well, immediately, I'd have to argue that it wasn't easy. And, the reason there weren't any landings in 1970 was because Apollo 13 exploded half way to the moon. Hardly making things look "easy."
As for "saving some of the tech" for Elon and Bezos: well, Musk is a conman, and Bezos didn't get the contract. So, I fail to understand your point.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"When NASA's photos they gave to us were shown to a top AI program it said they were not real"
Yes, dewdrop, a Russian AI bot said a couple of the 7000 photos taken from the lunar surface were not real. These same AI algorithms sometimes cannot figure out the difference between a military tank and a crop of trees, but, you're going to rely on them? Furthermore, they never revealed which photos they were, or what they found "wrong" with them. For all we know, they pumped one of the composite photos through the AI. If they don't spell out what they think is wrong, and won't even give the image numbers, why do you trust anything about this claim? All you're basically saying is that you'll blindly trust anything anybody tells you that confirms your predetermined conclusion, and reject anything that goes against it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Dewdrop, they're not blurry, they're zoomed in. I'm sorry you don't understand this, but, if you want the non-blurry format (massive huge files covering many square miles of the lunar surface), ok, fine, go download those files from ASU yourself. I have. You can do it too. But, if you want to see the landing sites, you need to zoom in. And, yes, by zooming in, you can see the landers, rover tracks, etc. Again, you're just looking for reasons to deny them. You people can no longer complain that those images are only coming from the USA, therefore they're fake. China and India have also taken similar photos of a couple of the landing sites with their orbiters, and released them to the public. So, people like you are left with no choice but to just conclude that other countries have decided to join a 50 year old "hoax," or come up some other reason to reject the photos. You've chosen the latter, by just saying they're "blurry" (because you don't understand digital photography). It's the "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake" argument. Besides, let's pretend you're correct, and that they're "blurry." Alright, now what? You still see the rover tracks. You still see the landers. They are a 100% perfect match for the photos from the Apollo missions, located exactly where the 1969-1972 photos showed them, oriented exactly how they were oriented, with the exact same rover track pattern, "blurry" or not. So, how do you explain it? Because they're "blurry" (in your mind), this means they're fake?
1
-
1
-
1
-
How many more years do you need? It's been 52 years since the last manned landing. And, still to this day, the best you deniers can do is say, "look at their faces during the press conference," and "I don't understand the Van Allen belts, therefore James Van Allen was wrong, and going through them is impossible, and "who placed the camera for the first steps, it must have been done on a movie set." So, when and how are you people ever going to prove your point? And, what about the multiple countries that have photographed the Apollo landing sites and found Apollo landers there? Are they "in on it"?
1
-
1
-
@DeputyNordburg
Yup. But, I don't think Luna 15 had any type of capability to actually track another craft. I never understood it to land before Apollo 11. It was to orbit, wait for the landing of Apollo 11, then land, but take off before Apollo 11 took off. This is one of the reasons that NASA was extremely suspicious (or so I understand it), because it sounded as if they were going to try to crash Luna 15 into Apollo 11 on the surface. The intended landing spot was not all that far from Apollo 11's (relatively speaking), so we might not recognize a ramming attempt until it's too late. This is why MIT had to re-engage on short notice to increase the radar tracking capability to 3 craft instead of 2. Originally, radar tracking was only designed to simultaneously identify the command/service module, and the lander. There wasn't the capability to track 3 craft at the same time. But, MIT did whatever they do (I don't know the details) and expanded the tracking capability to 3 craft, so they could keep an eye on Luna 15, and try to see if it looked like it was on a ramming course. I doubt they'd do all of that if Luna 15 was supposed to land first.
But, I'm not exactly a Luna 15 expert. So, who knows, maybe I'm wrong about all of it, and you're right?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
SpaceX won't be selling any trips to the moon any time soon. Their dearMoon project was nothing more than a publicity stunt, and has finally been canceled (it's stunning that anybody actually believed that was real). This ridiculous notion that they're going to sell tickets to Mars for $200,000 each is outrageous, and, again, I cannot fathom how anybody can swallow such dribble. And, after wasting $3 billion (and counting) on SpaceX's ridiculous Starship HLS, and they still can't get the thing to work right, I'll bet it's only a matter of time before the government stops funding that silly thing, especially because its biggest proponent within NASA has left NASA to work at SpaceX (gee, I wonder how long that had been arranged?). Their commercial trips to the moon are as much of a pipe dream as their commercial Starship city-to-city travel they're advertising on their website. It's not impossible that they get their act together someday... not very likely with existing leadership, though.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ismzaxxon
5 hours ago
Surely cosmic winds on the moon would have covered the footprints by now.
Reply
10 replies
@rockethead7
@rockethead7
5 hours ago
Um, no.
Reply
@ismzaxxon
@ismzaxxon
3 hours ago
@rockethead7 My Mistake, only larger planets have cosmic winds.
Reply
@rockethead7
@rockethead7
3 hours ago
Strike two.
Reply
@ismzaxxon
@ismzaxxon
2 hours ago
@rockethead7 It is on the NASA wesite. Seems Mars (for example) has regular solar dust storms.
Reply
@rockethead7
@rockethead7
1 hour ago
Yikes, strike 3.
Reply
@ismzaxxon
@ismzaxxon
31 minutes ago
@rockethead7 I have no idea what you mean, Use your words if you have something to say other than UM, Strike. It would seem you feel the need to make a point, feel free to advise where NASA is going wrong.
Reply
@rockethead7
@rockethead7
27 minutes ago
Or, how about stopping pretending you know things you don't? How about that for an idea?
Reply
@ismzaxxon
@ismzaxxon
19 minutes ago
@rockethead7 Is that your fallback position? I say "Surely cosmic winds on the moon would have covered the footprints by now." That makes you think I am making statement of fact? I was hopeing you were going to give me some facts, educate me further... This is not really a big issue for me at all. Sorry if it seems to upset you.
Reply
@rockethead7
@rockethead7
17 minutes ago
We are nowhere near any stars with cosmic wind.
Planets don't make cosmic wind, stars do.
You then switched to solar dust storms on Mars, but, you didn't understand that either, because the solar wind doesn't cause the dust storms. The sun does, but, not the solar wind (which isn't the same as cosmic wind). It appears you don't know the difference between types of stars, and shockingly, you even claimed that planets give off cosmic wind (or solar wind, for that matter), which is ridiculous, because only a star can do that. Are you done pretending now?
Reply
@rockethead7
@rockethead7
15 minutes ago
I'll just never understand it. Never. I truly will never understand why people like you feel compelled to pretend to know things you don't.
Reply
@ismzaxxon
@ismzaxxon
10 minutes ago
@rockethead7 That is where you should have started. Now I know. Are you okay? Are things going okay? You know your comments were a bit OTT.
Reply
@rockethead7
@rockethead7
5 minutes ago
Surely, boats cannot float. They have those spinny propeller things that face straight downward, but, that's not enough to push boats upward. Also, all boats are made out of solidified sugar, so, the water would dissolve the sugar, and the boats would basically just melt away.
That's exactly what you sounded like, talking about a topic you knew nothing about.
Reply
@ismzaxxon
@ismzaxxon
44 seconds ago
@rockethead7 I am concerned for your mental health. Read back, and tell me your response is a rational one.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Are you even capable of staying on topic? You opened by complaining that there was no proof of the moon landings, and wanted a rover to go and photograph the landing sites. He replied and told you that there have been 4 lunar orbiters that have photographed the landing sites already, and that some of them had the resolution required to see the landers, foot paths, rover tracks, etc. Did you respond? No, of course not. Instead, you changed topics.
You then talked about one press conference. You were asked if you watched the whole thing, or just a deceptively edited copy. And, you were asked if you saw the other press events where the astronauts were smiling ear to ear. No answer.
Dewdrop, if you're not going to address your own topics, and all you're capable of doing is changing topics, what is your point? It's clear you won't accept reality. You probably don't even read the answers to your own comments.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
There's no reason to spend billions of dollars to send probes to places they've already been. The hoax nuts will just declare those probes to be fake also. We already have hundreds of LRO photos from 22 miles above the landing sites, showing the landers, rover tracks, foot paths, etc. And, what do the nuts say about it? They just call those fake also, and demand closer photos. They will continue to shift the goalposts. If you give photos from 10 miles above, they'll just want photos from 5 miles above. If you give them those, they'll want photos from 1 mile above. And, this shifting of the goalposts will continue until you can read the serial numbers off of the equipment... and even then, they'll still just call it fake.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Quote: "I don't know a lot about telescopes, I'll admit that. But you mean to tell me with the tech we have today, we can't find a way to get high res photos of the moons surface?"
Correct, there is no mechanism to receive photons that have been interfered with, and are lost in transit. Technology has nothing to do with it. It's a property of light, not a property of technology. Yes, there is a way to see those small items from 240,000 miles away. You can build a telescope about 30 or 40 miles in diameter, to capture photons that are far enough apart that they haven't been lost in transit. But, you need to put the telescope in space, because on the ground it suffers from atmospheric distortion.
Side note: the largest lens ever built costed $168 million to construct, and is 5 feet in diameter. I think there's a long way to go before we'll ever construct a 40 mile wide lens.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
And, when you're unable to actually address anything, change topics, right? Good gods.
Dewdrop, just go somewhere and deny calculus exists or something. At least then, you'd just be impugning yourself. But, when you sit there, knowing absolutely nothing about a topic, impugning thousands of others, yeah, nobody likes people who do that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yeah, the best chance would have been with the rover-cams on Apollo 15/16/17. And, if they hadn't have been a last-minute addition to the program, giving GM and Boeing only a year to develop them, I strongly feel that they would have made those rovers remote controllable (not just the cameras that were remote controlled, but the entire vehicles also), and they could have hardened them for the extreme temperature swings, and powered them with solar panels and/or radioisotopic generators, which would last many years. But, a year wasn't enough time to develop them that much. But, yeah, had there been more time, perhaps those rovers could have been driving around on the moon for a decade (or more) after the astronauts left.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
No, dewdrop. Apollo was canceled because it wasn't economically viable to keep sustaining it. And, its main purpose was to beat the Soviets, as an expression of technological dominance. Once that purpose was served, it became very unpopular to continue funding it. So, NASA's budget was slashed down to about 10% of what it was during the height of Apollo. During the height of Apollo spending, the budget was about 4.5% of the entire federal budget, and then that was reduced to about 0.45%. Again, that's about 10% of the budget NASA had while they were building Apollo. And, no longer were they permitted to spend nearly the entirety of their budget on just one thing, either. They were to spread the money over hundreds of programs. Yet, here you are, basically demanding that if they didn't continue going to the moon, then it never happened to begin with. Sorry, but you just don't know what you're talking about. NASA doesn't dictate its own budget, nor does it even decide how its budget is spent. Congress does that.
1
-
1
-
Well, they basically skirted around the worst parts (except Apollo 14, which went right through the middle). But, it didn't matter, because your entire premise is wrong. Where are you getting the notion that short term exposure is fatal? Who told you that? A conspiracy video? Did you calculate it yourself? James Van Allen did (and a million others, including myself). The math doesn't indicate anything like you're suggesting. I'd eat my hat if you knew how to do the calculations, so, instead I'll just tell you what James Van Allen said about the Van Allen belts:
QUOTE: "The radiation belts of the Earth do, indeed, pose important constraints on the safety of human space flight. The very energetic (tens to hundreds of MeV) protons in the inner radiation belt are the most dangerous and most difficult to shield against. Specifically, prolonged flights (i.e., ones of many months' duration) of humans or other animals in orbits about the Earth must be conducted at altitudes less than about 250 miles in order to avoid significant radiation exposure. A person in the cabin of a space shuttle in a circular equatorial orbit in the most intense region of the inner radiation belt, at an altitude of about 1000 miles, would be subjected to a fatal dosage of radiation in about one week. However, 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.
-- James A. Van Allen"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
So, that's how you say the evidence doesn't exist? Simply deny it when someone presents you with the evidence you pretended to ask for? See, dewdrop, your position is what's called "unfalsifiable" (that's not a good thing). If all you're going to do is label all evidence as "fake," then this is the very definition of being delusional. And, look at the byproduct. You have now involved China and India into your little fantasy, and Arizona State University with their LRO camera, pretending that they have "joined the deception" 50+ years afterward. How many more countries need to send probes to photograph the sites, in your mind? If two more countries launch probes and photograph the landing sites, they're just joining the deception also, right? See dewdrop? It's impossible to present you with the evidence you're pretending to ask for, if all you're going to do is reject it in advance.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Huh? Then go watch one of the liftoffs. Good grief. Start with Apollo 15's liftoff. As it goes up, you can clearly see tons of "haze" (which is all you can expect for seeing dust from TV camera with only about 200 lines of resolution). And, once the rocket has sufficient distance from the lunar surface, you see the "haze" go away, starting from the top, then to the bottom. Yes, that's the dust falling back to the surface. But, again, if you expect to see individual dust grains at that resolution, then you should go get a camera with that same low resolution, throw some dust in the air, and see if it looks like a haze, or if you can see individual grains. (Hint: you will see a haze, and nothing more.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I'll never understand why people like you think that a YouTube comment is the place to tell the entire planet's aerospace engineers and radiobiologists that they've gotten everything wrong about the Van Allen belts. You don't even know that there's more than one, because you said "belt" (singular). James Van Allen himself said that it would take more than a week inside the very worst area of the belts before getting a fatal exposure level, and Apollo went through that area in 15 minutes. The Soviets sent two dogs in and out of the belts for 3 weeks, plunging them into the worst areas for about 40 minutes at a time, dropping them back down, flinging them back up again in an oblong orbit, over and over, 3 weeks. No problems, the dogs lived a normal lifecycle afterward. But, for you, none of this matters. You know things that the entire planet doesn't. And, you've come to YouTube to share it with the world. Do you publish in the science journals on radiobiology or astrophysics, the way normal people would demonstrate their calculations? Nope, of course not. You come to YouTube with a patriotic eagle and US flag, and accuse thousands of Americans of being criminals that would be thrown in prison for their entire lives if you were correct. Bravo, Mr. Hero. Bravo.
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