Comments by "rockethead7" (@rockethead7) on "Real Stories"
channel.
-
2
-
@stephenpage-murray7226
Just one small clarification: yes, the Saturn V boosters for Apollo 18/19/20 were basically "finished." They weren't quite 100% finished, some minor final assembly stuff, but, yeah, close enough to call them finished. No real argument there. But, the landers were not finished. The one for Apollo 18 was closest to being finished, of course, and became a museum piece. It is missing the navigation computer, and much of the electronics. The antennae that are on it were added later, and are just cosmetic replicas. But, ok, it was close enough to being finished that I wouldn't even argue a lot about that one. But, the ones for Apollo 19 and 20 were so far from being finished that they just scrapped them entirely. So, I wouldn't use the word "completed" about those missions. However, I'm just nitpicking, and I definitely am not trying to denigrate your underlying point. Your main point was obviously valid... they were far enough along on Apollo 18/19/20 that they definitely lost a lot by canceling them, leaving unused hardware to be put into museums.
Also, only one Saturn V was used for Skylab. That was the one that put Skylab up into orbit. The other Skylab launches (to launch the crews) used the Saturn 1B.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
A) You cannot even spell his name correctly.
B) If you think the size of the universe is wrong, what are you doing on YouTube? Why aren't you writing scientific papers about how all of those galaxies seen in telescopes are not billions of lightyears away, but, in actuality, are close, and the stars in them are the size of basketballs instead of the normal size of stars/galaxies? I mean, you'll also have to explain how a basketball sized star doesn't burn out in less than a second, but, whatever. In order for those galaxies to be closer than we calculate, yes, you will have to believe those stars are the size of basketballs. So, go right ahead, explain that in the science journals. YouTube comments is where people who have no idea what they're talking about go to pretend that the world's experts are all wrong.
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@shillseeker9538 Um, dummy, you can go outside and track any of the visible satellites, you know. You can use radio to track the GPS satellites. You can see many of the satellites with your bare eyes in the correct lighting conditions. And, their trajectories are published, and you can get one of your conspiracy friends to cooperate with you to prove yourself wrong. Just look at the trajectory of a large satellite, like the ISS, when the lighting conditions are correct to see it, and then stand directly under that path. Get a conspiracy friend of yours to stand in a place about 500 miles away that is also along that same trajectory. You watch when it passes directly over your head. Then your idiotic friend can watch when it passes directly over his head. And, you can use basic "distance = rate x time" calculations to determine how fast it was going. Guess what, it comes out to 17,000 mph. Every single time. This is basic physics. Distance = rate x time. (Rate = velocity.) If you don't believe it's going 17,000 mph, then what are you waiting for?!?!!? This is remarkably easy to demonstrate. Why are you on YouTube instead of proving it?
1
-
@shillseeker9538
Dummy, what's wrong with you?? Distance = rate x time. Go out there and DEMONSTRATE IT!!! Do exactly what I said. You will have mathematical proof that the ISS is being faked, if you can simply demonstrate that it cannot cover the distance of 17,000 miles in the period of an hour!!! Why are you on YouTube?!?! Mathematical proof of your position awaits you!!! You'll be famous!!! Worldwide, if you can demonstrate that the ISS is being faked, because it's not going the speed they say it's going, you can single-handedly bring NASA to its knees!!! You'll be on paid appearances on talk shows all around the world. You'll get million dollar book deals. You'll be on university lecture circuits for $70,000 per week for YEARS to come!! Your name will go down in the history books!!! Why bother with YouTube when you can demonstrate that the ISS isn't going 17,000 mph?? Don't you realize how amazingly significant that is?? You will spearhead senate investigations that will eventually result in imprisoning thousands of NASA officials and engineers for fraud!! This is amazing news!!! And, just think, I'll get to say I knew you when you were just a moron on YouTube spewing utter garbage... I'll be so proud.
1
-
1
-
@shillseeker9538
YOU SAID: "you’re going to keep replying to me because it’s your job to do so."
== What drugs did this to you? How far down the toilet have you pissed your brain away, if you think people are paid to point out how stupid you are?
Anyway, dummy, I'm still waiting. I offered you an iron clad method of proving the ISS is not going 17,000 mph. Distance = rate x time. This is fundamental mathematics. Yet, you refuse to address it. All you do is change topics. Why? Why won't you address the "distance = rate x time" formula?? Why not? This formula is BY DEFINITION true. It simply cannot be untrue. Distance = rate x time BY DEFINITION. 17,000 mph means that it's going 17,000 miles in an hour. That's the definition of "mph," right? So, with some simple 6th grade math, you can prove your point. Why won't you?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bisser6969
YOU SAID: "calling people names"
== Pffttt. "Shill Seeker" is an absolute moron who believes that millions of people have been committing a massive fraud on the public, and that nothing has ever gone into space. He refuses to address simple mathematics. And, yes, I'm going to call him names. He is accusing millions of people of fraud.
YOU SAID: "instead of considering therapist your self"
== I'm not the paranoid delusional idiot who can't do math.
YOU SAID: "is a bad idea. PRECISELY the technology missing at the time was the computer capable of landing the lunar module"
== Oh, perfect then. So, the computer wasn't capable? Great. All you need to do is provide your calculations to say that the computer wasn't good enough. Provide your mathematical calculations outlining the exact amount of memory and processing power that was required in order to do it, and why. And, then explain why none of the PhDs and engineers at MIT and Raytheon ever noticed that the computers they designed and built to control the lunar landers were not good enough to do the jobs that they designed and built them to do. Why were they unaware that they didn't build the computers good enough?
Write it all up into a scientific paper, and submit it for scientific peer review. THAT is how you prove your point. Your Nobel Prize is in the mail, I can feel it.
YOU SAID: "and balancing the module going down"
== Balance was achieved via a gimbal, you moron, not the computer. You don't even know which components did which task.
YOU SAID: "with baby compressed air thrusters is even more si fi."
== Dummy, the thrusters didn't work via compressed air. They were RCS rockets that burned N2O4 and Aerozine 50.
YOU SAID: "4 jets are nowhere close enough, 8 would be maybe possible"
== Well, it's a good thing they had 16 then, right?
YOU SAID: "with 4 working all the time and 4 more working on deviations of the weight distribution of the module."
== The GIMBAL did that, you moron, not the thrusters, and not the computer.
You have confused descent with ascent. The ascent engine didn't have a gimbal, and used the RCS thrusters to do the tasks you're talking about. The decsent engine had a GIMBAL, you moron. You don't even know how these components worked. And, yeah, without a gimbal on descent, sure, it would be awfully difficult for the RCS thrusters to manage weight distribution and corrections. The entire LEM's descent + ascent stage were far far far far more massive than just the ascent stage. But, the ascent stage was about 34% of the mass of the ascent stage + descent stage together. So, yes, the thrusters were more than adequate to manage just the ascent stage. So, yes, on ascent, they didn't use a gimbal. You have confused ascent with descent, you ignorant jackass. Stop accusing thousands of people of fraud, based on your ignorance!!! People like you are pigs. You spit in the faces of the 450,000 people who made Apollo happen, based on your absolute ignorance about how this equipment worked. You accuse thousands of them of being criminal frauds who would get a lifetime in prison for their crimes. And, why?? Because you don't know how many thrusters the lander had? Because you don't realize that the descent engine had a gimbal? How would you like it if I paraded all over the internet and called you a child molester, based on a complete mis-identification of who you are, and my complete ignorance about any facts? That's EXACTLY what you're doing with Apollo. You know NOTHING about the topic. But, you're accusing thousands of the people involved of being criminals would would be imprisoned for life for bilking billions of dollars out of countless countries, to commit the greatest fraud against humanity in history. And, you do this because you don't know the descent stage had a gimbal, and you got it confused with the ascent stage. Nobody likes jackasses like you. Absolutely nobody.
YOU SAID: "Do not be like dumb liberal( please notice that, i did not call you dumb), and just call names where logic fails to support facts."
== Facts??? You don't even know which parts did which job. Good grief, what is it with you utter idiots that you think you understand aerospace engineering better than aerospace engineers?? Morons. You're all morons.
1
-
YOU SAID: "No stars in the back ground."
== In the background? Like, there's a brightly lit lunar surface in the foreground, and no stars in the background? That's what you mean? Of course not. If there were stars in the background when there's a brightly lit lunar surface in the foreground, then that would mean the photo was fake. You can't properly expose stars onto the same photograph as you properly expose a bright surface. Photography 101. You can't do it on Earth, and you can't do it on the moon either.
YOU SAID: "don't know who took the photo."
== Well, you're not exactly explaining what you're talking about here. Are you talking about the famous "Blue Marble" photo? Schmitt took it. I'm not sure why the editors of the video don't know that. But, anyway, the same thing happens for photos of a brightly lit Earth. You can't get an exposure of a brightly lit Earth in the same frame as exposing stars. Photography 101. Just to dumb this down (oversimplified), when you're talking about exposing brightly lit objects onto film, vs. exposing stars onto film, you're basically talking about a 1/60th of a second exposure vs. a 4 second exposure. You can't have it both ways within the same photograph. Even modern digital cameras can't do it... without some pretty fancy software tricks.
YOU SAID: "you spend all that money to go up to space but don't take a photo."
== What are you talking about? You just said they took the photo. Yeah, the editors of the video didn't know who took it (for some strange reason). But, you just looked at the photo, now you're saying they didn't take the photo.
YOU SAID: "surely that was the whole point!!! Of gong there.."
== No, the main point of going there was to demonstrate to the Soviets that we will beat them in anything we put our minds to. It was a political statement during the cold war. It was a method of expressing technological, engineering, and industrial dominance. It was a method of trying to prevent the cold war from turning into an actual war. Yes, there were other purposes too, such as raw exploration. But, that wasn't the main purpose.
YOU SAID: "a Hollywood film production from start to finish"
== Wrong.
YOU SAID: "You haven't given me any evidence.. its Google that you've given as evidence .."
== No. He gave you instructions on how to find the answers about film exposure for yourself.
YOU SAID: "childish fear mongering brainwashing mainstream Media programming.. not evidence!!.."
== How is learning about how film exposure "fear mongering" or "brainwashing"? What ARE you talking about? This is ridiculous.
1
-
1
-
Yup. As far as I'm concerned, he was the "perfect" speaker. If you asked him a question, he always answered it in the exact amount of detail that you'd want. If someone asked him an entry-level question, he'd answer it in very basic terms. If you wanted a more detailed engineering answer, he could give you the engineer's answer in great detail. He could scale his answers up or down, based on his "read" on the person he was speaking with. And, he was razor sharp at knowing his audience. I, too, met him a number of times over the years. I've met most of the moonwalkers a bunch of times. You'll get the most raw information from Buzz Aldrin. Ask him a question, you'll get a 1/2 hour answer (which is great). But, Cernan (before he died) and Schmitt would also give you tons of information if you ask for it. And, Cernan was probably the best at putting everything in human terms.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
YOU SAID: "nasa astronauts are freely saying they have never - I repeat - never left Lower Earth Orbit"
== No NASA astronaut has ever said that (EDIT: except maybe when talking about THEMSELVES in particular... no NASA astronaut has ever claimed that Apollo never left Earth orbit). You are intentionally taking things massively out of context.
YOU SAID: "as they haven't got the technology to by pass the VA belts"
== What EXACT "technology" do you think is required? What EXACT "technology" is lacking?
YOU SAID: "and the radiation of outer space"
== What radiation? What type(s)? What quantity?
YOU SAID: "also earths orbits protect us every second of every day from outer space meteors"
== How does Earth's orbit protect us from meteors? What are you talking about?
YOU SAID: "and other space particle - on the moon they hit the moon constantly because there is no atmosphere"
== Constantly? What? Do you have any idea about how rare those impacts are? Um, nutbag, if there was some sort of constant rain of particles hitting the moon, guess what, we wouldn't be able to clearly see the moon, because clouds of particles would block the vision. And, let's just talk about how spread out those particles really are. Take, for example, the rings of Saturn... we've sent craft right through them, without hitting a single particle. Just because you can see those big rings, doesn't mean they're dense. Yet, you think there's a constant barrage of particles on the moon, which we can't even see? Um, what???
YOU SAID: "if a small meteor the size of a grain of sand hit and astronaut on the moon its speed would take it straight through him -dead instantly"
== Depends. If it hit something vital, sure. But, if it passed through something non-vital, they were trained on how to deal with it. The suits had a self-sealing layer for small punctures like that.
YOU SAID: "time to grow up folks - they faked it"
== You have no understanding of the topic.
YOU SAID: "there are thousands of mistakes"
== Yet, scientifically illiterate morons on the internet are the only ones who spot these "thousands of mistakes" - while the worldwide rocket science community of trained experts cannot find a single flaw.
YOU SAID: "and some were left by whistle blowers to show they never went anywhere near the moon"
== Pfftttt. You apparently believe anything you see that supports your delusion, and reject anything you see that goes against your delusion.
YOU SAID: "by the way it will take Nasa many years to solve the problems of manned flights in space"
== There are manned flights in space right now. What ARE you talking about?
YOU SAID: "Nasa's words not mine"
== No. You are butchering the living daylights out of these words, which you clearly do not understand in the slightest.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1