Comments by "rockethead7" (@rockethead7) on "Real Stories"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"If my duct tape gets over 30 degrees it is not really sticky anymore. So they should have had "professional moon and-space quality duct tape "on board."
Huh? You're talking about the duct tape on the fender, right? You do know the duct tape didn't work for very long, right? They put it on, it worked for a bit, but, then they had to use clamps to repair the fender, because the duct tape failed. You do know this, right? It sounds like you're complaining that something is fake, because you don't even know that your own criteria (that the duct tape would fail) actually happened exactly as you expected. Good gods.
"Good that they thought about repairing something before launch!"
Does this even make sense to you? You want them to fix something BEFORE it breaks?
"Just make the rocket a little bit bigger."
I don't even understand your objection here. But, the way they got a heavier weight to the moon for the later missions was to increase thrust and efficiency of the engines. They added 25,000 pounds of thrust to each F1 for Apollo 15/16/17. And, they increased the efficiency of the lander's engine by lengthening the engine bell (less spread of the exhaust, more focused thrust).
"What do you know about my knowledge of physics?"
That you have none.
"You get a lot of warming of materials because of that."
Yes, hence why they used silver to reflect most of the sunlight on crucial items, suits that reflected most sunlight instead of absorbed it, and a thermal blanket on the craft that combined inconel panels (which are good insulators while not expanding as much as other metals), black tape (to radiate heat), and Mylar/Kapton foil (to create vacuum gaps and reflect light/energy).
"That can give temperatures above chemical stability, material stresses etc."
So, the 7,000 aerospace engineers at Grumman all "did it wrong," and you're here on a YouTube comment to "correct" them in their massive failure to understand aerospace engineering?
"The extreme heatloss in the shadows, radiating to 3 degrees Kelvin of background of space, that cools quickly. Quick temperature changes of all type of materials is the result."
They were more worried about radiating the heat on the side facing the sun than the side facing the shadow. I fail to understand why you think you've made some sort of relevant point here.
"The moon Hasselblad camera's must have been magic"
So, now the engineers at Hasselblad all "did it wrong" also when they lined the cameras with silver to reflect the heat/energy/light, and, you've come to YouTube to tell all of those camera engineers that they don't know how to engineer cameras. Bravo!
"Film inside them must have been magic because it breaks when too cold."
And, you think they got too cold, why? Again, you are merely demonstrating that you have zero understanding of thermodynamics.
"They never seemed to have mis clicked"
Huh? Have you looked at the photo archives? What? There are THOUSANDS of bad photos including tons and tons of misclicks when they took a photo while the camera was pointed at who-knows-what.
"and seemed to be able to change the roll of photo;s (24 per roll?)"
So, you're here to say that the Hasselblad camera engineers and Kodak film engineers didn't know what they were doing, yet, you don't know that each roll of film had HUNDREDS of photos (per roll)? Really? 24 per roll? Where do you get this garbage? Why would you think you understand a topic better than the engineers who built the things, when you know so little about it?
"Needed correction is mostly in the microsecond or faster realm"
Pfftt. What EXACT maneuver required microsecond reactions? And, now you're back to saying the 7,000 engineers at Grumman built the lander wrong?
"Even breathing and moving your hand in the capsule can change the center of mass and so the position to the drive rocket and can give an angular deviation."
The descent rocket had a gimbal, dewdrop. Do you not understand what that means? Gimbals deal with that exact issue. The first burn in the lunar lander was for ullage (only used RCS, which was used to orient the fuel/oxidizer/helium in the tanks). The second burn was at 11% throttle (though, they say 10%, whatever, it was actually 11%) to align the gimbals. After that, the gyros took care of the gimbals for the rest of the descent. Why do you not know this? You know more about aerospace engineering than the aerospace engineers who built the craft!!!! Right?!?!!?! So, why are you unware of the gimbals?
"In the end you could end miles away from your appointment , with the capsule that stayed in a trajectory around the moon, or overshoot it."
The command module SPS engine was gimbaled also. Good gods. Do you know ANYTHING about rocketry?
"I am curious about the moon car video, I have never seen a video about the unloading of the thing. I believe you on your word that there are texts, photos and videos how they did that."
And, I told you exactly how to find it. What's your problem? Is your Google broken?
"And all this was done by an amazing low use of rocket fuel."
Calculate it. The Tsiolkovsky (also Goddard) rocket equation has been understood since 1903, and is still the cornerstone of rocketry today. What are you waiting for!?!?!?! The thousands of engineers who built the craft and rockets all forgot how to calculate it!!! Here's your chance!!! Publish your calculations in aerospace engineering journals!!!
I have no idea why you're so proud to know absolutely nothing. But, that's your problem, not mine.
1
-
YOU SAID: "great docu, but why are the still images always super high resolution and crystal clear yet all footage looks like its 1.0p 😁"
== It depends on the camera used. Most of the video footage from Apollo 17 came from a low resolution television camera, via a live radio broadcast back to Earth. It was an RCA field sequential scanning camera (making matters worse for picture quality, but, it made it very lightweight and easy to mount to the rover). And, they didn't exactly have the bandwidth (using that term loosely, since it wasn't a digital signal, it was actually an analog signal, but "bandwidth" is close enough to describe it for now) to send live high definition video back home. And, they really didn't have the cameras for higher definition either, at least not small/compact/light enough to stick on the front of a rover.
== They had other cameras. They had two 70mm Hasselblad film cameras (still photographs), which produced images that have a higher "pixel" (equivalent) density than the most expensive digital camera you can buy today. They also had a 35mm stereoscopic film camera. They also had a 16mm film video camera. But, those only held a few minutes of film before they'd need to change the film roll, and they didn't use that camera as much as some of the others.
== What you see in documentaries like this are selected imagery (still photos, or video) from the various cameras, and put together in a documentary format. Personally, I like the documentaries that give you the camera that was used, and the official NASA catalog number of the photo/video every time they show it on the screen. But, alas, most documentaries don't do that, and just put together these assemblies of videos/photos, sometimes even borrowing footage/photos from other missions, and never give you a frame of reference to understand it. I don't blame you for being confused, because the documentaries rarely specify enough information for you to fully realize what's happening. But, whatever, it's just a documentary. If you want all of the original TV footage, there's a YouTube channel called "Apollo Seventeen" (spelled out like that) that has nearly the entirety of Apollo 17's mission video on it. And, if you want to see copies of all of the original still photography and 16mm video film photography, you'll find it on the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal website.
YOU SAID: "and why did light particle dust fall back down when they were driving and not linger/float if no gravity"
== If there was no gravity, EVERYTHING would float away. The rovers. The dust. The mountains. The rocks. The people. Everything. The moon's gravity isn't zero. It's about 1/6th of Earth gravity. That's not a lot. But, it's enough to make things fall down.
YOU SAID: "not doubting im just generally interested."
== No problem. Nobody blames anybody for asking honest questions.
1
-
Apollo 9 and 10 were not in 1968, they happened in 1969.
Apollo 13's explosion wasn't due to faulty wiring, that's a vast oversimplification.
Some unsolicited advice: there are only 4 moonwalkers still alive. Go meet them. I've met most of the 12 across many different occasions over the years, had dinner with them, breakfast, lunch, sit-down conversations, you name it. I've watched them die off, one by one, and regret either not meeting some of them at all (like Alan Shepard), or not spending as much time with them as I could have (like Edgar Mitchell). Thankfully, I've met with ones like Cernan enough times to have a pretty good glimpse into their personalities, before they died... but, no matter what, it's never enough time... but at least I can say that I've talked with him for several hours. Dave Scott is the only commander still alive. He isn't the open book that Aldrin or Cernan are/were, but, again, the only commander still alive. He'll answer your questions, but, he doesn't go into the level of detail that some of the other did. Aldrin is the best to talk with. I've spoken with him a bunch of times (don't remember how many) over the years. He was definitely the most disliked of all of the astronauts (by the other astronauts). But, man, he'll give you all of the information you ever asked for, and a ton more. I had breakfast once with him and Jim Lovell, and I almost said nothing at all, and just listened to Aldrin talk, telling details that you don't find in any books. Lovell didn't even say much. Aldrin remembers the technical details as if it all happened yesterday. Charlie Duke is one of the friendliest of the astronauts. I've never seen him NOT smile. He's really fun to speak with. Schmitt is more difficult to meet than the others. I've met him a couple of times, but, didn't get as much time with him as I would have liked, and never one-on-one. But, he's definitely one fine speaker, and doesn't make too many mistakes about the information.
Anyway, just my 2 cents. They're getting old. Don't miss out on a chance to meet them, if you have the means.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
None of the Apollo rock/dust samples had ever been exposed to oxygen, nor moisture. Sorry, you're not going to find that in any meteorites in Antarctica. The Apollo program has labeled 11,000 samples that they brought back from the moon, most of which are the size of a grain of sand. They literally labeled and cataloged every single piece of rock/dust, whether large or small (except the ones that they haven't even opened yet, saving them for future generations with better technologies). Sorry, but little dust sized rocks aren't surviving entry into Earth's atmosphere to be found in Antarctica. The Apollo samples have been given to thousands of worldwide geologists and geology students over the past 50 years, and not a single one of them thinks any came from Antarctica. You claim that "all geologists" agree with you? That's absolutely wrong, and a complete lie. There literally hasn't been a single paper written by any of those geologists or students that has accused the rocks of being meteorites from Antarctica, published in any recognized peer review geology journal anywhere in the world. But, if you think you understand the topic better than the entire planet's geologists for the past 50 years, why aren't YOU publishing your findings in some of those journals? What are you waiting for?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Tim, why are you on YouTube? You apparently believe that your knowledge of geology exceeds thousands of the entire planet's geologists who have studied the Apollo moon rocks, none of whom have ever come to the conclusion that they are merely meteorites that came from Antarctica. You apparently believe your knowledge of radio exceeds the entire planet's communications experts who do not believe that the magnetosphere affects radio at all. And, you think that the entire planet's backyard amateurs who have done "moon bounces" for the past 70 years have someone been wasting their time when they point their dishes and Yagi at the moon, when they bounce radio off of it, because, you believe that the signal is really bouncing off of the magnetosphere, and therefore nobody has ever needed to aim their dishes at the moon at all. I'm sure you can reproduce this yourself, right? But, you never explained... why do radio bounces off of the magnetosphere or ionosphere take 2.5 seconds? And, how do they get half way around the world? Let me guess, you ran off to a video that "explained" (sigh) that the ionosphere in certain conditions can reflect radio, right? And, from that, you think this explains the last 70 years of moon bounces?
When are you going to give up here, Tim? When are you just going to admit that you have no clue what you're talking about?
1
-
Good grief. Tim, why are you pretending? What point do you have in pretending to understand concepts you do not?
1) You cannot bounce signals off of the ionosphere and get a radio signal half way around the world, like you can with a moon bounce. The range is a couple hundred miles at best. And, it's not the same.
2) You claimed that you can bounce radio signals off of the magnetosphere also. Where's your Nobel Prize for rewriting everything known about radio?
3) When you send moon bounce radio signals, the round trip time is 2.5 seconds. When you bounce a radio signal off of the ionosphere, the round trip time is nearly instantaneous. So, sorry, but anybody can tell that they're bouncing the signals off of the moon by the round trip time.
4) If you think that the last 70 years of thousands of radio experts bouncing signals off of the moon are all wrong, and that those signals are bouncing off of the ionosphere, but, they just don't realize it, then, as I said, why aren't you demonstrating it by doing the very same thing, except doing it at a time when the moon is not in view of your dish? See, the people who actually do moon bounces know they're bouncing off of the moon because it only works when they aim their dishes (or Yagi) at the moon. If you say that they could just be bouncing those signals off of the ionosphere, then aiming at the moon shouldn't be necessary, right? So, why aren't you DEMONSTRATING IT!!?!??! Go do the exact same thing that the moon bouncers have been doing for 70 years, but, make it work when the moon is not in sight!!! Why won't you do this?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@shillseeker9538
Dummy, you just got done claiming that Trump wrote a blank check. I responded by outlining that the president has no such power to do that. Congress grants the money. That's how it works. Congress has to vote to even grant the money to begin with, and how much. And, then there's an appropriations committee that decides where every dime is spent. The White House has already gone back to congress and the appropriations committee and said that they have NOT been granted enough money to make it by 2024. The speeches are political posturing to apply pressure to congress to grant the money. Unfortunately, that's actually how this sort of thing works sometimes in life. They watched it work for Kennedy (for example). Kennedy's very famous "we choose to go to the moon" speech happened before a single dime was allocated by congress to fund Apollo. Not one dime. But, the speech rallied the public behind it, Apollo would become the tip of the sword for the cold war against the Soviets, and congress granted the funds. The speeches came before the money. It sometimes works. So, Pence/Trump/Bridenstine are attempting to do the exact same thing now. They're running around making speeches, for about 9 or 10 months now, claiming that they "choose to go to the moon" by 2024. But, it's not working. Nobody is really rallying behind it. There is no cold war going on to inspire that kind of funding at that kind of rate. There is no amazing public inspiration to put the 13th person on the moon. So, it's backfiring (so far). No matter how many times they run around making speeches about putting people on the moon by 2024, there's still not enough money to make it happen that fast. Congress is only granting the money that would put people on the moon by around 2028 or 2030, not by 2024. Yet, you go around talking about Trump writing a blank check?? Where?? Where is this blank check?? If he wrote a blank check, then why did the White House OMB (Office of Management and Budget) write to the appropriations committee, complaining that there wasn't enough money to make it by 2024?? If they already had a blank check, then what would be the purpose of such a letter? Why do you keep changing topics? You said Trump wrote a blank check. Where is that blank check? Produce evidence of that blank check. Don't give me speeches that prove ME correct. I already told you the purpose of the speeches. Give me actual evidence of this blank check you're talking about.
You know, dummy, you are amazingly gullible. Off the charts gullible. History is riddled with empty promises and speeches made by presidents, vice presidents, politicians, etc. Trump made a million speeches about building a wall and making Mexico pay for it. The money was never granted. Obama promised to start a housing fund that would prevent most people from getting their houses foreclosed during financial hard times. The money was never granted. Clinton promised health care reform. The money to do so was never granted. And, now, Pence and Bridenstine are running around, talking about putting people on the moon by 2024, before the money has been granted to make it by then. But, you go around talking about a blank check written by Trump??? What's wrong with you?? Good gods, you're dumb.
1
-
"home recording of launch 14 shows Apollo is way to slow to have made . it to the moon ,"
What ARE you talking about? There is no "home recording" that could even see how fast it was going. It lifted off of pad 39A, then headed east over the ocean. By the time it got up to speed, it was well outside the range of any home camera. Even the professional cameras couldn't see that far, because the craft went over the horizon.
"other things like radiation"
Write it up for a science journal. What are you waiting for. Demonstrate mathematically that the radiation would have been a problem.
"lander never tested"
Huh? Apollo 5, Apollo 6, Apollo 9, and Apollo 10, all flew those landers in space to test them, before Apollo 11 went to the moon. Why don't you know this? Why would you say "fake" about a program you know absolutely nothing about?
"shadows from different sides while being so called on the moon"
Sorry that you don't understand photographic perspective, but, that's how all shadows work, on the moon, on Earth, or anywhere else.
1
-
"way much slower than the tv pictures , isn't that strange ?"
More problems understanding photographic perspective, eh?
"and what about the rediation, mesurements in 1959/60 , the geiger counter returned to earth broken because to much radiation."
Huh? A Geiger counter isn't really a measurement tool. It clicks. That's it. They sent up two missions with Geiger counters, in an air-filled chamber, which played clicks, and a tape recorder recorded the clicks. That's not a measurement. And, who told you that they broke? Good grief. Yes, they found there was a lot more radiation than they expected, but, subsequent launches with real instruments revealed the exact measurements. There were between tens of MEV and hundreds of MEV at an altitude of about 1000 miles. So what? Why do you think that matters for Apollo?
"you can see on pictures the shaddows are not parallel to each other"
Yes, shadows converge if looked at from eye level. That's what they do.
"where can people find blueprints of the whole rocket ?"
What in the world are you talking about?!!?!?!?!? There has never been a blueprint of the whole rocket. How big do you think that blueprint would be? And, why would they make one? Good grief. Do you even know what a blueprint is for?
"they "lost" 5 tons off data"
No, you are just regurgitating silly claims from conspiracy videos that intentionally take things out of context.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1