Comments by "rockethead7" (@rockethead7) on "Real Stories" channel.

  1. And, there are only 4 left alive who have walked on the moon, only 1 of which was a commander who flew the lunar module and drove the rover. Nobody lives forever, and, if they don't keep Artemis on pace to put more people on the moon, we could be in a position where we'd have to say that there's nobody alive who walked on the moon.
    16
  2. Which of those three categories do the virtual entirety of the world's experts in aerospace engineering fall under, employed either directly or indirectly by the world's 72 space agencies? And, why has there never in history been a single demonstration of your beliefs that has passed through the scientific rigors of the peer reviewed process? Not one. Not in any recognized peer review journal anywhere on Earth. Not a single time. Not ever. Why would that be?
    10
  3. So, let me get this straight. Your first comment said that people cannot survive the Van Allen belt (you wrote singular, because you're unaware that there are two, sometimes even three). Now, I gave you James Van Allen's exact words (which you thought were mine, despite that I quoted him directly and even said so). And, you've taken a new position now that it's the radiation beyond the belts that's the real problem, which contradicts your first comment. Is that about right?
    7
  4. Huh? What about James Van Allen himself? "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. These estimates are still reliable. -- James A. Van Allen"
    6
  5. Huh? They took 110,000 photos of the moon during Apollo, half of which are on the other side. The Soviets actually took the first photos of the other side. Japan mapped out the entire moon, including the other side, in 2008. LRO has been up there for 13 years mapping the moon with a resolution down to 1.5 feet per pixel, including the other side. How much more do you want?
    6
  6. There should be ABSOLUTELY NOTHING preventing you from buying a supersonic airliner ticket to London tomorrow... unless CONCORDE NEVER EXISTED...
    6
  7. As usual, you come to these videos to display your stupidity.
    6
  8. It's called "dynamic range." Human eyes have a similar problem seeing stars in daytime that cameras have, just for a slightly different reason. The astronauts DID talk about seeing stars while in orbit on the dark side of the moon. But, it was simply too bright while on the lunar surface. And, sorry, but context is important. You don't get to just take out of context quotes about seeing stars on other types of missions/craft, without actually knowing a lot more details than the one-sentence clips fed to you from conspiracy videos.
    5
  9. YOU SAID: "I want the same phone they used to talk to them" == Well, then you need to attach this dish to your phone: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkes_Observatory#/media/File:Parkes_Radio_Telescope_09.jpg That's one of the ones used to communicate with Apollo. YOU SAID: "to em when they landed on moon, coz my mate comes round and his cellphone don't work in my kitchen because of the kingspan insulation with thin aluminium foil which blocks the signal, what was the space craft made from?" == Dummy, your cell phone's antenna is on the INSIDE of the phone. Apollo's antennae were on the OUTSIDE of the craft. Really? You really believe that the entirety of communications experts forgot to put the antennae on the outside of the craft? Good gods. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/Apollo_CSM_lunar_orbit.jpg See those 4 S-band dishes? See that little arced scimitar omni? (There are also more from other angles you can't see.) Those are the communications antennae. There were similar antennae on the lander. Are you PROUD to know nothing? What's wrong with you? Why would you think it's a good idea to proclaim to the world, "Hey everybody, look at me!!! I don't know anything, and I'm very proud of it!!!" ??
    5
  10. Huh? In 2019, they were granted the money to go back, hence we have the Artemis program. They've already sent one unmanned mission back to the moon as a test of the SLS rocket and the Orion spacecraft. Starship (which will eventually be used as a moon lander) is being tested right now. They're approaching a test launch in the coming months. Why in the world would you say they're not going back, when things are proceeding forward?
    5
  11. And, you'd believe such a silly thing, why?
    5
  12. Oh, who was "catching on"? Were the Soviets "catching on" when they tracked the Apollo missions to the moon and back with radar and radio telescopes? What about the other dozens of countries that did that also? When Japan sent Selene to the moon, and found signs of the Apollo missions on the moon, were they "catching on"? How about Arizona State University's LRO camera, which has been sending back images of the Apollo landing sites for over a decade? Why haven't those people "caught on"? How about China, which saw the Apollo landing sites with their orbital cameras also? No? They didn't "catch on"? Just a few months ago, India released their photos of the Apollo landing sites that they captured with their lunar orbiter, which showed the exact same thing that all of the others show... landers, rover tracks, foot paths, etc. Why haven't they "caught on" to whatever you think you've caught on to?
    5
  13. Don't be ridiculous. Every single one of the world's 72 space agencies believes Apollo happened. Many countries confirmed Apollo in many different ways, including enemy countries. Here we are, 50 years later, and STILL there has not been a single anti-Apollo scientific paper anywhere on the planet in any science journal that has made it through entry-level scrutiny. That's why people like you are relegated to YouTube comment fields (no scrutiny), because not a single one of your anti-Apollo claims holds water.
    5
  14. 1) Ed Fendell. 2) Yeah, the 7,000 people at Grumman who designed the lunar lander, the hundreds more at Boeing and GM who designed the rover, all simultaneously forgot to make it fit, and for 50 years, they never realized that they overlooked such an obvious thing. 3) Huh? Weightless? Are you under the impression that there's no gravity? 4) It was being handled. Air, or no air, is not relevant. 5 and 6 and 7 and 8) Again with gravity, huh? How would the moon even stay together if there was no gravity? 9) Ed Fendell.
    5
  15.  @ICANanimations  YOU SAID: "Starship will be active within 10 years." == Well, maybe. Who knows? Certainly in one form or another. But, it had better be faster than 10 years in the lunar lander form of Starship, because the rest of the Artemis program will be ready before then, and I'd hate to see them just waiting for a lander. Of course, that can happen (waiting for one craft). YOU SAID: "if not them it will be Blue Origin doing it." == Bezos lost the lawsuit. But, yes, in the back of my mind, I hope it still swings over to Blue. I never liked Starship. YOU SAID: "SLS just rolled out" == Yes, there is a certain irony when the conspiratards keep saying we can't do it today, when a moon rocket is sitting on the launchpad this very minute. YOU SAID: "bringing humans back to the moon in 2024." == Lunar orbit maybe. Almost certainly no landing by then. Even NASA isn't spewing that date for landings any longer (a date which congress never approved the funding for anyway). Congress funded it at a rate that would make the landings in 2028-2030, according to the White House OMB. But, yeah, that sort of thing changes a lot. So, we'll see. Might be faster, might be slower, might get canceled altogether. Time will tell. YOU SAID: "there is still hope for you" == Love your optimism.
    5
  16. Name one scientifically peer reviewed journal article that supports what you just said. Name one.
    5
  17. "Artemis apparently orbited the moon, it did not take any pictures or our previous supposed moon landings" Huh? Do you have any concept of how high the Artemis orbit was? No, it couldn't take photos of the landing sites. And, don't pretend it would matter to you if they did. You already said you won't accept evidence provided by NASA. You're already denying the LRO photos. So, more photos will not matter to you. Don't pretend otherwise. "Outside corroborating evidence" Have you looked for it? Spain took photos of the SIVB fuel dumps around the moon (they had the biggest telescope at that time, which was able to capture the fuel dumps because they spanned out for miles). They also used that telescope to take photos of the Apollo 13 debris field (which, once again, spanned for miles). Japan's JAXA/Selene orbiter took 2D and 3D photos, and they have an entire section of their website dedicated to how they used it to prove Apollo. China's orbiters have seen the Apollo landing sites. You can bounce lasers off of the Apollo reflectors left on the moon, which has been done every single day, from laser ranging facilities all around the world, including enemy countries, since the Apollo 11 astronauts were still on the lunar surface. Dozens of countries tracked the Apollo missions to the moon and back using radio telescopes and radar. Spain and Australia received most of the video and audio transmissions from the moon, while pointing their dishes AT THE MOON. Hundreds of backyard amateurs all around the world could tune into the Apollo audio simply by pointing their dishes at the moon. They gathered 850 pounds of lunar material, which has been examined by geologists from all over the world, and those samples have never been exposed to oxygen or moisture (good luck finding that on Earth). The list goes on and on and on. How about asking questions FIRST, then coming to conclusions LATER?
    5
  18. Actually, their suits were quite damaged. It's tough to know for sure, but, the people who have examined those suits say that they probably couldn't get more than 2 or 3 more EVAs out of them before the wear and tear (dust damage mainly) would start to compromise the outer layers. It wouldn't have been fatal by any means. There are many layers. But, yeah, the fabric in the outer layers was quite torn up.
    5
  19. You have been presented with evidence for two years now, that has nothing whatsoever to do with what the government says, yet, you keep on posting the same nonsense over and over. It's time, man. Go make that appointment for an evaluation. You know you've been waiting too long. It's time to get diagnosed and treated.
    5
  20. Huh? Why would an atmosphere be required in order to have color?
    4
  21. Huh? There is no wind on the moon. Are you talking about the flag moving when being handled? If so, what did you expect it to do?
    4
  22.  @ChrisPBacon777  He's claiming that the volcanoes in Hawaii look exactly like the mountains seen in the videos taken on the moon. It's ridiculous. Here is a man who believes everything he is told by conspiracy videos, no matter how outlandish.
    4
  23. And, you think you can tell the difference between 0.5 degrees (angular size) vs. 2 degrees (angular size), just by looking at some photos? Yes, if you know the focal lengths, the lenses used, the distance to relative objects in frame, etc., you should be able to mathematically calculate it. But, at a glance, why do you think you'd be able to tell? Either one is still really small in the sky.
    4
  24. "your assertion concerning the absence of a blast crater" You have no concept of what kind of thrust it would take to dig a crater. Helicopters have far more downward thrust than the lunar lander did. A typical helicopter lands with 10x the vertical thrust. Big ones land with 40x the vertical thrust. No craters, not even when they land on sandy beaches. Why would you expect a crater from the lander? And, why do you suppose there aren't any aerospace engineers that agree with you? "or a disturbance of any reasonable metric" Well, there was plenty of dust blown, and it shows when you look at the close-up photos. It's pretty clear that rocket engines were running. But, if you think there are some "reasonable metrics," then go publish a science paper on those metrics. Submit it for peer review. What are you waiting for? "a departure from reality and common sense." So, the "common sense" is to believe that the world's aerospace engineers can't spot these "problems" you think you've spotted. And, people like you, with no knowledge in this field, are the ones who are the real experts? Really? That makes "common sense" to you? "pressure that the F-1 engine would create decending to the lunar surface" The F1, huh? With 1.5 million pounds of thrust each. For a lander that weighed about 2500 to 2700 pounds at landing. Um, dewdrop, the only thing that would be happening if they fired an F1 with a lander attached (I dare not even say a lander with an F1 attached, because, at that scale, it's a rocket with a craft attached, not a craft with a rocket attached), is that the astronauts would be crushed from the force of acceleration, and the only direction they'd be going is straight up. "would have washed the surface underneath the LEM kicking up dust and debris everywhere." OK, you've got me there. Yes, if they had an engine with 1.5 million pounds of thrust, sure, now maybe you might expect a blast crater or something. "No evidence of this exists under any of the LEM's for all 6 Apollo missions. That's the proof" Sorry, but your "proof" fails miserably. I mean, seriously here, did you REALLY think you spotted this "gotcha" that not a single aerospace engineer on the face of the Earth has been able to figure out? Really? C'mon man. The F1? It couldn't even be throttled. It was 100% thrust, or turned off. Those were the only two settings. And, have you seen one of those things in person? The engine bell alone was 12 feet wide and 20 feet tall. Just the bell alone. That doesn't include the rest of the rocket. You think that huge rocket was on the bottom of the landers? "okay, fair enough the LEM rocket may not have been an F-1" And, yet, this doesn't give you pause. You think you understand more about rocketry than the entire planet's aerospace engineers. Yet, when you don't even know what rocket was used, you don't even step back and realize that you're out of your lane. Nope. You continue to believe that, somehow, the entire planet's experts are wrong, and you're right... while you confuse 1.5 million pounds of thrust with 2.5 thousand pounds of thrust. You are off by a factor of 600x. And, this doesn't even cause you to skip a beat. Nope, it's still full speed ahead, denial denial denial, accusing thousands of people of participating in a fraud... while you can't identify the difference between an F1 engine and a lunar lander's engine. "since it was never disclosed as to what engine it used" Ridiculous babble. When will you ever understand to just stop? Why? Why would you EVER say such a silly thing? What possible reason? There are terabytes of documents outlining the exact specifications of the engine. But, beyond that, just walk into the Smithsonian and look at it. They have F1 engines on display. They have the lunar modules engines on display. They're clearly labeled. Don't sit here and pretend they were never disclosed. This is beyond nonsense, and you're just making excuses. "i just assumed it was the F-1" Why? "nevertheless NASA did disclose that it produced 10k lbs. of thrust, can we agree on that?" Yes, 10,500 max. But, that engine (on the descent stage) could be throttled. The F1 couldn't. And, upon landing, it was down to about 2500 to 2700 pounds of thrust. Go take the cross section of the engine bell, and do the math yourself on the PSI. (Hint: it's less pressure per square inch than a human footprint.) "for ot not to have completely washed the surface below it is an impossibility." See what I mean, dewdrop? Do you understand why nobody can respect such gibberish? You just demonstrated time and again that you don't even have an entry level understanding of the topic. Not even the basics. And, you certainly don't understand this either. Dewdrop, before you go running around, accusing thousands of people of being criminals who would spend the rest of their lives in prison if you were correct, how about asking a few questions first? How about getting an education? How about realizing that you don't actually know anything? No? Accuse first? And, I was going to say that you might learn something second. But, I seriously doubt you really want to learn anything.
    4
  25. Nick already answered you, but, I'll add the same basic sentiment a bit differently. You can look up the schematics and demonstrate your claim that the stuff wouldn't fit. But, none of you conspiratards do that. You just say "too big" or "too small" or "not enough" or "too much" to things like the size of the lander, radiation, fuel, etc. None of you people ever calculate it. None of you people look at the schematics and do the math. No. Instead, you go on YouTube and pretend you know what you're talking about. Dummy, how do you think this conspiracy goes, anyway? The thousands of Grumman engineers and technicians who designed and built the lander never said, "oh, wait a minute, we forgot to make the rover fit!!!" No? They're all too stupid to realize they forgot to make the rover fit? But, YOU say it can't? How about the engineers at Boeing and GM? They never realized they forgot to make the rover be able to fold up and fit in the lander either? No? Decades go by, and not a single one of them has ever said, "wait a minute, we forgot to make the rover be able to fold up!!!!" No?
    4
  26. Well, I suppose a lot of people think it's weird, sure. But: (A) What's the point in going higher than 300 miles, unless you actually have a destination in mind (such as the moon or Mars or soemthing)? And, (B) What rocket would you propose they use to go much higher? Once the Saturn V was retired, do you have a particular rocket in mind that would be capable of carrying people higher, plus all of the craft and life support needed for such a mission? As a side note: thanks for proving for the billionth time that moon hoax nuts cannot read and write. I know it has no impact directly on the arguments you'd make. But, good grief, if just ONE of you nuts was capable of writing a sentence, it would be quite refreshing. "Wierd"?? Good gods. Go back to school.
    4
  27.  @mikep9604  I'm pretty sure he meant manned missions. But, yeah, with the hoax nuts, you never know what in the world they're saying.
    4
  28. It's part of the only two rules that conspiratards operate by. Rule (1): all evidence against their delusion is fake, no matter how real it is. Rule (2): all evidence supporting their delusion is real, no matter how ridiculous it is. Of course there are real photos of the Earth from space, thousands of them. But, in order to support the delusion, they simply must dismiss them all as fake. So, that's what they do.
    4
  29. "No human has stepped on the moon since this landing in 1969" "do a little research" Good gods, man. You clearly didn't even know that there were landings after 1969. That's how little you understand. How much "research" could you possibly have done, if you're unaware of Apollos 14, 15, 16, and 17? And, no, dewdrop, watching conspiracy videos isn't "research." You have absolutely no understanding of the topic. Don't tell people who know 1000000x more than you do to "do research."
    4
  30. "Thrust line below C of G easily could create tipping." Below, huh? And, you're an engineer? What's wrong with below the center of gravity? I mean, with rockets, you're more worried about center of mass, not center of gravity, but, ok, those two concepts are basically the same thing, so, I can forgive the misnomer. But, didn't you mean to the SIDE of the center of gravity? No? Below it will cause tipping? You're worried about a line of thrust that's directly below? Why? Also, rockets have these things called GIMBALS to deal with any center of gravity/mass issues. Nearly all rockets have them, because no rocket has 100% perfect center of mass/gravity. I'm surprised that an aviation engineer such as yourself would fail to understand something so simple. It's true that the ascent engine on the lunar module didn't have one, and it used RCS instead. So what? If you're an engineer, why would you choose YouTube comments as your forum to announce to the world that you've calculated that the lunar module wouldn't do what it was designed to do? Why aren't you publishing in the engineering journals? Only crackpots think YouTube comments are the place to provide this Earth-shattering revelation. You're not one of those, are you?
    4
  31. The answer is "no" for all practical purposes. But, technically, there are some trace gasses in extremely small quantities. Long story short, the moon has one trillionth of the atmosphere as Earth (literally). Can't technically say zero, but, at that low level, yes, it's perfectly acceptable to say it has zero atmosphere.
    4
  32. Optical resolution. This is a property of light that directly relates to the wavelength. Go look up the formula to determine the size of lens needed to see the Apollo stuff on the moon from the distance of Earth. Do the math. The answer is that you would need a lens 75 feet in diameter to see the Apollo landers as a single dot, or a lens a quarter mile in diameter to see them with enough detail to know what they are. The only way to make a telescope "more powerful" is to make them larger. And, thus far, the largest lens ever constructed is 5 feet in diameter, and costed $168 million to build.
    4
  33. No wonder you don't know anything.
    4
  34. Who told you the original footage was all lost? Why would you believe such a silly thing?
    4
  35. I wish all people would be willing to display stuff like this on the internet. It would make the hiring process a lot easier. Usually, it takes months to figure out when people are so far gone, past the point of no return. But, people like you make it very easy to know that immediately.
    4
  36. So, let me make sure I understand you correctly. You made two replies. One reply said that you were going to ignore everything I stated, and you ranted about my "inadequacies" and other nonsense... anything you could to to shift the focus off of the facts, and targeting me personally instead, making it quite clear that you have no interest in anything I say. Yet, your second message was asking me more questions? Huh? And, your opening question basically proved that you didn't even read my first reply, because immediately, you claimed that I was saying that they couldn't jump more than a couple of feet... even though I clearly said that Duke jumped about 4 feet (double what you thought I said)? So, you won't read what I wrote, you'll ignore it, but, you want me to sit here and explain more stuff for you to ignore?
    4
  37. Stars during the daytime, taken by a low-res TV camera? Huh?
    4
  38. So, before you get the answers to your questions, you already came to your conclusions. Bravo. The Van Allen radiation is dangerous if you stay in the worst of it for over a week (or so). Hence, they don't go up into them with the ISS, because, as you already pointed out, those missions last for many months. Furthermore, the higher you go, the more energy you need to put into a craft. There's a big difference between lifting a craft a couple hundred miles vs. lifting a craft a couple hundred thousand miles. You seem to think that time is what matters, and not energy? Um, no. Thermodynamics. Go learn it. Yes, they send 4,000 pound orbiters to the moon, but, if you want to lift a manned craft, landers, etc. (total weight is about 100,000 pounds), that's a different thing entirely. Are you under the impression that the entirety of the world's aerospace engineers (who universally disagree with everything you're saying) don't understand how this stuff works, and you do?
    4
  39. You can't even spell "Apollo" correctly, yet, you think you understand it better than the last 50 years of aerospace experts across the entire globe. You conspiratards are always good for a laugh.
    4
  40. "I also noticed that the lunar surface never gets smaller as they descend" You got that nonsense from a silly video made by a lawnmower repairman who made that ridiculous claim. Anybody can simply watch any landing video, and measure the size of the craters on their screens, and watch it increase as they get closer to the surface. You didn't do that, and instead, decided just to regurgitate an incorrect claim. You even got that wrong, because the surface gets LARGER as they descend, not smaller. You couldn't even regurgitate your claim correctly.
    4
  41. Thanks for re-proving, as has been proven a thousand times before you, that all moon hoax believers have the reading and writing skills of a 2nd grader. If life cannot survive in the Van Allen belts, tell me, why did James Van Allen disagree with you? He stated that Apollo astronauts would receive less than 1% of a fatal dose because they went through quickly, and it would take at least a full week in the worst parts of the belts to kill astronauts. And, there are no space agencies anywhere on the planet that believe any differently. What do you know that they don't? Also, how do you explain that the Soviets sent two dogs into the belts, who lived for 3 weeks? (They probably got the fatal dose in a week or two, and it took a week or so to die.) How do you explain this?
    4
  42. YOU SAID: "If this was really true" == There's no "if." It's really true. YOU SAID: "why NASA haven’t gone back to the moon" == They DID go back!!! They sent NINE manned missions to the moon. Six of those missions landed on it. YOU SAID: "since 1969" == They sent 5 manned missions to the moon after 1969. YOU SAID: "with the advanced technology we have today?" == Technology has nothing to do with it. Congress pulled the funding. It was very expensive, you know.
    4
  43. "We have a hundred billion times more money now" No. "then" Than. "in the 60’s" Inflation matters too, dewdrop. "and we don’t go NOW with a million more experience and technology" And, how does this technology help fund a moon program? "But have no plans to ever go again!" Huh? Artemis was funded in 2019, dewdrop. They just sent Artemis 1 to the moon a few months ago. Artemis 2 will send people. "But in most peoples eyes we never actually ever went!" No. Your fringe cult isn't "most people." "So prove us all that we actually went and land in the same spots!" Why? So you can call the new missions fake also? Why go back to the same spots we've been? To convince cult members that they're wrong?
    4
  44. I was also too young during the moon landings to have had any part of them. But, as for "could not have been born at a better time for Apollo" ... well, my asperations would have been a bit different than yours. I'd have wished to have been born at a time to BE one of them, not just "be inspired" by them.
    4
  45. "Moon gravity doesn't cause tides... Thats just more lies." Huh? So, when the high tide is always when the moon is overhead, and the low tide is always when the moon is at 90 degrees from overhead, you think this means that the moon isn't causing the tides? It's just a big massive coincidence for the past thousand years of recorded history on the tides? How about gravimeter readings? When the moon is overhead, you can take a gravimeter reading, and it's always lighter. When the moon is on the opposite side of the globe, it's always heavier. If that's not because of the moon's position and its gravity, what is causing these things?
    3
  46. Only one? Which one was faked?
    3
  47. Yeah, I had dinner with Gene Cernan once, met him a few other times for drinks (he drank, but, I don't drink alcohol), a couple of informal interviews, etc. And, I almost bought his blue Corvette (but, I already had a '72, and didn't need a '74). I never met Young. He's one of the few moonwalkers I didn't meet. How was Young in person? He doesn't seem to talk much in some of the interviews I've seen. But, I know nothing about his actual personality.
    3
  48. TRANSLATION: "I don't understand anything about the topic, therefore the topic is fake."
    3
  49. So, the point was that you don't understand it. And, your reply is in the form of additional things you don't understand? Hilarious!!! You know, most people, the sane ones anyway, would seek to get educated in a topic before coming to conclusions. Not you, though. You prefer NOT to know anything.
    3
  50. You don't even need to trust NASA to get confirmation of Apollo. There are dozens of other sources of evidence outside of NASA.
    3