Comments by "rockethead7" (@rockethead7) on "neo" channel.

  1. Dewdrop, has it ever occurred to you that not all people/channels are interested in providing "proof" to silly people who have no intention of listening to the proof anyway? Some people just like talking about the missions, and feel no obligation to "prove" anything.
    6
  2. Let me guess, you watched some conspiracy videos, believed every word they said (just like a sheep), and you've come here to declare that everyone is the problem, not you... right?
    6
  3.  @DeputyNordburg  NASA didn't invent Velcro. The MIB got it from alien technology, remember?
    6
  4. Do you really not understand the difference between distance and resolution? You can take a photo of a plane flying 5 miles up (distance isn't a problem). You cannot take a photo of a microscopic bacterium on the wing of that plane (resolution is the problem). Get it now?
    6
  5. Dewdrop, how about getting your information from actual legitimate sources, instead of lawnmower repairmen who make YouTube videos? Absolutely nothing you just claimed is accurate.
    6
  6. Lunar satellites (LRO, India, China) have captured the bigger items like the landers and some of the other stuff, but do not have the resolution required to see the smaller stuff depicted in this video. And, they can't do it in color (the color cameras have about 7x worse resolution). As for telescopes on Earth, um, no. There's no such telescope with that level of resolution from this distance. Do you have any concept of the size of the lens that would be necessary to see Apollo artifacts from the distance of Earth?
    6
  7. Photons interfere with each other in transit, causing a limited level of resolution that's even possible. You cannot get the kind of resolution you're asking for (from the distance of Earth anyway) with any telescope ever manufactured. To barely see the landers in enough detail to know what they were, you'd be talking about a telescope with a lens a quarter mile in diameter. To see the small stuff depicted in this video, you'd need a lens several miles across. This isn't a matter of technology. It's just how light works.
    6
  8. A) What rocket technology do you think we have today that we didn't have in 1969-1972? B) Because congress pulled the funding.
    5
  9. Well, it's probably not what you meant, but, there are a couple hundred pictures of the landing site as taken during the original mission photography. It's even more than that if you include the photos taken while looking out the windows from inside the craft. But, as for "real photos" since then, all we have are the lunar orbital photos from China, India, and Arizona State University's LRO camera. I'm not sure what you're trying to say about those orbital photos not being consistant (your spelling) with pictures we have from Earth. There are no pictures from Earth of the Apollo landing sites.
    5
  10. The Mars drone has helicopter blades. That requires "air" or "atmosphere." Mars' atmosphere is quite thin, but, is enough for the helicopter blades to work. The moon's "atmosphere" is essentially so close to zero that it doesn't matter. It's literally 1 trillionth of that of Earth. There is no mechanism for a Mars drone to work on the moon.
    5
  11. This video is about Apollo 11. The first lunar rover wasn't until Apollo 15.
    5
  12. 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
  13. Hilarious!! So, they didn't want the public to find out that there were safety issues with the spacecraft. So, they murdered 3 astronauts by rigging up the capsule to have safety issues, and then blamed the unsafe capsule for their deaths. And, this was to prevent the public from finding out that there were safety problems? They manufactured safety problems, then blamed those safety problems, so the public wouldn't find out there were safety problems. Oh, you're a real Sherlock alright.
    5
  14. Of course they really went to the moon. Of course they used the reflectors. The first use was while the astronauts were still on the lunar surface (back inside the lander). All three of the Apollo reflectors are used by multiple countries around the world every single day since 1969.
    5
  15. Dewdrop, there was no such remote controlled camera on this mission. You are referring to the rover missions, which didn't happen until a couple of years after Apollo 11. Stop pretending you understand things you do not.
    5
  16. WOW!!! A new record. It was a whole 14 hours since someone asked that in these comments. Usually that question is asked every 2-5 hours.
    5
  17. It's the same camera. It was mounted to the MESA on the side of the lander for the first steps. Then, about 20 minutes into the moonwalk, Armstrong detached it from the lander, mounted it to a tripod, and moved it about 40 feet to the north, at the final resting spot seen in this video.
    5
  18. Good gods. Why do people like you think you're smart?
    5
  19. And plus, your human man expertise specialty is are in what topic subject?
    5
  20. The moon is receding at the rate of a few centimeters a year. The mechanism is well understood. The short version is conservation of energy. As the moon's gravitational pull slows the rotation of the Earth, the altitude of the moon rises. The rotational kinetic energy loss of the Earth is conserved in the rising potential energy of the moon going to a higher altitude. I'm not sure why you think it's getting closer. You're backward.
    5
  21. Wow, a new record. I think that's only been asked in these comments about 30 times today.
    5
  22. 1) I don't understand it, therefore it's fake.
    5
  23. Have you looked at the Chandrayaan-2 (India's probe) lunar orbital photos of this landing site? As for the notion that we "have the tech or we don't," well, that applies to a million different things, especially in aviation and aerospace engineering. Do we have the technology to fly 100+ people at mach 2 for 3000 miles? Nope. Did we have it decades ago with the Concorde? Yes. Do we have the technology to fly a plane at mach 7 to the edge of space? nope. Did we have it decades ago with the X15? Yes. Technologies do get RETIRED, dewdrop.
    5
  24. 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
  25. The camera wasn't on the tripod for the first steps. It was mounted to the side of the lunar module in an equipment bay called the "MESA." Later, they put the tripod in its spot, and moved the camera to the tripod.
    5
  26. Dewdrop, guess what... not every video about Apollo needs to be about providing proof. There are mountains of proof. But, in your mind, if someone makes an Apollo video, it needs to be about providing proof? Congratulations on being yet another denier with "truth" in his nickname, while having absolutely no understanding of the word.
    5
  27. Nylon would not survive the heat? Huh? Nylon melts at 515 degrees Fahrenheit. The reflective layers on the lander were to give thermal protection to the equipment underneath. So what? What does this have to do with the flags? Arizona State University's LRO camera and India's Chandrayaan-2 orbiters have taken photos from lunar orbit that show the shadows of the flags (the 5 that are still standing anyway). They haven't melted away. What do you know that they don't?
    5
  28. From a space station? Like, Mir, ISS, Skylab, etc.? Maybe because the lens would need to be hundreds of times bigger than the station itself?
    5
  29. "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
  30. 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
  31. Go show this comment section to your doctor, and let him/her decide which type of specialist is needed to treat your illness.
    5
  32. 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
  33. Distance is not the same thing as resolution.
    5
  34. Wow, you sure are a deep thinker alright. Dewdrop, there are mountains of evidence for Apollo. You call it a "fantasy" because you like to pretend you know things you don't. To compare Apollo to a cell phone is about as dishonest as anybody could be.
    5
  35. Who told you such silly nonsense? Why would you believe it?
    5
  36. Yes, it did. It was mounted to the MESA on the side of the lander. Then, they moved it to its final spot.
    5
  37. I don't understand it, therefore it's fake.
    5
  38. Um, ok, go look at the archive photos then. This video IS "just talk" because all it's trying to do is speculate about how this stuff looks after +50 years.
    5
  39. You'd want to spend a billion-plus dollars on a rover to go where we've already gone? Why not go somewhere new?
    5
  40. "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
  41. Is that like, "we nvr finushd D 2nd grade"?
    5
  42. First of all, this video wasn't even made by an American. Secondly, nobody is pretending this CGI video is real.
    5
  43. It doesn't concern you that your own "facts" are wrong? What in the world makes you think that the IBM mainframes used on Apollo were "the first IBM machine"? Their first electronic computer was in the 1940s, and their first commercially available one was in 1952. No, Apollo didn't use that computer, nor any in that series. And, dewdrop, going to the moon, or not going to the moon, has nothing to do with advancements in computers. Who told you that we can't figure it out anyway? Was it a conspiracy video?
    5
  44. They got back in the module, and pressurized. They took off their boots, backpacks, etc., and prepared to throw those things (and a bunch more unnecessary stuff) out the door. Later, they hooked up the suits to the internal oxygen supply, depressurized the cabin again, opened the door, threw the stuff out, and then closed the door and re-pressurized.
    5
  45. "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
  46. As I said, just let the world know when you really want answers. But, with your second posting, you've made it even more clear that you have no desire for any answers for any of your questions.
    5
  47. Sara, radio is essentially the same thing as light, just operating at a different frequency. Light gets through the Van Allen belts with no issues whatsoever. Why would radio have a difficult time doing the same?
    5
  48. The camera was mounted to the side of the lander for the first steps, then was moved to a tripod about 20 minutes later.
    5
  49.  @DeputyNordburg  He wouldn't know. His head (including eyes) are buried deep inside it.
    5
  50. "film would have melted prove me wrong" Is this a joke? You keep saying this, and you get bunches of responses from me and others, and you ignore every word. How can anybody prove ANYTHING to you when you refuse to read the responses?
    5