Comments by "Scott Wallace" (@therealzilch) on "The Why Files" channel.

  1. Yep. I guess according to the "Kubrick filmed it" deniers, when a breeze made the flag wave, Stanley just said, "Leave it in, no one will notice."
    14
  2. Here you go. Dr. James Van Allen told NASA that the radiation belts named after him would not be a problem if they didn't spend days in them, and he was right. The temperature can be very high in the thermosphere, but since it's so thin, the amount of heat is very low: look up "heat versus temperature". And the "wires" that are visible are short antennas sticking up from the astronauts' backpacks.
    4
  3. The stars were visible during the lunar day with a telescope, because there was no illuminated atmosphere to wash out their light. They were not visible to the astronauts, because their eyes were adapted to the sunlit surfaces.
    3
  4. 2/10 for originality. The pressure on the Moon is zero.
    3
  5. Degrees Kelvin is a measure of temperature, not heat. Temperature =/= heat. Back to school with you.
    3
  6. Movies =/= reality.
    3
  7. They could see the stars just fine on their way to the Moon, but once they landed on the brightly sunlit surface, they couldn't see the stars, for the same reason you can't see them during the day on Earth.
    3
  8. 1. They took Dr. James Van Allen's advice and went through the thinner parts of the belts quickly. 2. Congress slashed NASA's budget after Apollo 17. No money, no big rockets. 3. If your eyes, or your cameras, are adjusted to sunlit surfaces, you are not going to see stars.
    2
  9.  @luluszahir  Numbers matter here. As Van Allen said, you would have to spend a week in his belts to receive a fatal dose. The astronauts were less than two hours there. What's your problem?
    2
  10.  @dngrwllrbnsn_  That's not a problem if you understand the differences between the electronics and the trajectories of the different missions. The Apollo rockets only had to make it to the Moon and back. The Artemis and Orion rockets are designed to be able to go to Mars or beyond. This means that they need much more powerful modern computers, whose tiny components are much more susceptible to radiation damage than the relatively huge and primitive Apollo ones. And because of the much greater length of the missions, the newer rockets will need to take a slingshot trajectory which passes through much thicker parts of the Van Allen belts- they won't have enough fuel to go around them, as the Apollo missions did.
    2
  11. 1. No, they don't. 2. Nope, NASA never said that. There were overshoes for the boots that made different footprints. 3. Nope again, in a vacuum with no atmosphere to funnel the exhaust, it expands and dissipates rapidly because of its pressure.
    2
  12. ​ @ashrafmraish  Unless the link is to a YouTube video, it will get deleted automatically.
    2
  13. What extreme temperatures? The astronauts were only on the Moon during the early morning. Measured surface temperatures from Apollo 11 ranged from -23⁰ C to 7⁰ C. The cameras were well insulated and modified to be used with gloves. They shot from the chest and made lots of bad photos too.
    2
  14. Why not? Radio waves go through space just fine.
    2
  15.  @jackharris9835  Distance does not degrade a signal, it just makes it weaker. That's why they used the huge directional antennas of radio telescopes to pick up the astronauts' transmissions. Not a problem.
    2
  16. Pathetic. I tuned out at "shadows from one light source should look parallel". I guess you've never really looked at shadows.
    2
  17. They went quickly through the thinner parts, as Dr James Van Allen advised them to.
    2
  18.  @JimLovell-np4pv  Sorry, Jim, you are not paying attentiion to my claims.
    2
  19. ​ @luridape7486  No, that's not how it works. Strictly speaking, the inverse square law only applies to point sources of light. The total amount of light you get from an object is proportional to the inverse square of your distance, but only if you can see the same area of the object. At some point as you approach, say, the Moon, it will fill your entire field of view. After that point, the amount of area you can see will decrease as to the square of your distance. This exactly cancels out the increase in light intensity from a given area with decreasing distance, so the intensity remains the same after that point. You can test this with your computer screen. Make it all white or some solid color, put your eye maybe two inches away, so it fills your entire field of view. Now reduce the distance to one inch. Did the light double in intensity?
    2
  20.  @luridape7486  No, the math does not lie. Once something completely fills your field of view, light intensity does not increase as you approach nearer. It doesn't matter how bright the light is- multiply its intensity by one and it doesn't change. And think of this- if you were correct, the same would apply to the surface of the Earth as well. The Moon has an albedo (reflectivity) of about 0.12, about the same as an old asphalt street. Why aren't we blinded as we get closer to an old sunlit street, not to mention anything brighter, such as sand or snow?
    2
  21. The Hubble and JWST are too far away from the Moon/too small in aperture to resolve any artifacts left there
    2
  22. @peppergrand1072  I somehow doubt NASA sent newsletters worded in that way. But in any case, that's not the same as saying they "lost all the data", is it?
    2
  23.  @Spot-0n  The Van Allen belts are explained in many places. Briefly: Dr James Van Allen advised NASA to send the astronauts through the thinner parts of the belts quickly. They did, and their total exposure to radiation was about 1% of a fatal dose per mission. So the belts were not really a problem.
    2
  24. Dr. James Van Allen advised NASA that the belts he discovered could be safely passed if they didn't linger in the thicker parts too long- a week there would likely be fatal. So NASA went through the thinner parts in less than an hour. No problem. The technology that NASA lost was the hardware and the means of producing it: the actual rockets, the assembly lines, the tooling, the infrastructure all had to go when Congress slashed their funds. The knowledge was not lost. But NASA's budget is still not close to what it was in the Apollo years. Big rockets are very expensive.
    2
  25.  @ambientsounds1416  Glad to hear it. But as you probably know, there are deniers who make basically identical claims seriously. You have to get a lot sillier for the parody to be obvious.
    2
  26. Why should NASA lie? They didn't fake anything.
    2
  27. They took Dr. James Van Allen's advice, and went through the belts quickly. They did take photos of stars from the lunar surface. Why don't you use the internet to look up these answers?
    2
  28. They took the advice of Dr James Van Allen and went through the thinner part of the belts quickly. No problem.
    2
  29. How much thrust does your cell phone develop? Big rockets are the main problem, not calculating power- orbital mechanics can be done (slowly) with pencil and paper. NASA's budget was slashed after the first few landings and has never reached the amount it got during the Apollo years. Big rockets are not any cheaper now than they were back then.
    2
  30. ​ @KK96303  Really? Dr. James Van Allen disagrees, but I guess you know better.
    2
  31. The takeoff was captured by a TV camera which broadcast live to Earth. No film, no cameraman necessary.
    2
  32.  @dngrwllrbnsn_  I know. That's why the panning wasn't very well synchronized until Apollo 17, their last try.
    2
  33. They got through the Van Allen belts safely by taking Dr. James Van Allen's advice: they went through the thinner parts of the belts quickly. And they transmitted from the Moon using a radio, picked up on the Earth by radio telescopes.
    2
  34. "Technology" can mean devices, such as computers, rockets, the assembly lines to build them, etc, or it can mean knowledge: physics, engineering, blueprints, etc. The technology that NASA lost when Congress defunded then was the devices, not the knowledge. None of the countries you mentioned has attempted Moon landings recently. Only the Soviet Union ever tried, and they gave up after their N-1 rockets kept blowing up.
    2
  35. 1. The remote controlled camera was an analog video camera (basically a TV camera) connected directly to the radio transmitter which they also left on the Moon. No tape, no film, live broadcast. 2. The electronics they had aboard were shielded and robust enough to not be affected by the radiation. The problems that NASA must solve for the planned Orion missions are because of their being much longer, and modern electronics are much more miniaturized, which makes them more susceptible to damage from cosmic rays.
    2
  36. They are alike in that they are both historical facts.
    2
  37.  @russellmckernan  I asked because you obviously have no idea what was destroyed. No technological records were destroyed; they were all archived and are all available to the public. When Don Pettit said "the technology was destroyed", he meant not the knowledge, but the artifacts themselves: the Saturn V rockets and all the other vehicles, space suits, etc, and all the assembly lines, tooling, and infrastructure necessary to build them. After Apollo 17, NASA's budget was slashed, and they couldn't keep up the huge industry.
    2
  38. The main difference is that the Apollo heroes were backed by 5% of the federal budget.
    2
  39. Nasha means "deceit" in Hebrew. Nasa means "raise or lift". Strong's Concordance nos. 5377 and 5375. Look it up.
    2
  40. Some of the areas in the Van Allen belts have temperatures up to 20,000 Kelvin. But because the ions are so diffused, the belts contain very little heat. Look up the difference between temperature and heat.
    2
  41. More of the same. It was first photographed by Luna 3, a Soviet probe, in 1959.
    2
  42.  @rustymixer2886  No, spelling a name wrong doesn't negate you. But it doesn't exactly recommend you as an authority either. Have you read what Dr. Van Allen himself said about the belts named after him, as williammann suggested? And as for NASA's problems with radiation in space go nowadays, there are a couple of reasons. One: the missions being considered (other than returning to the Moon) will last much longer. Two: the modern electronics necessary for such missions are much more susceptible to radiation damage, due to the tiny size of the components. And three- in order to reach Mars, for instance, it's necessary to use a slingshot orbit, which puts the astronauts and equipment in the thickest part of the Van Allen belts much longer than the Apollo astronauts were subjected to. I hope that helps. Cheers from snowy Vienna, Scott
    2
  43.  @rustymixer2886  No, shielding like they had in the 60's is not enough any more, for the reasons I mentioned. I have a cracked screen too, and I don't always type perfectly either. The problem here is that you haven't researched what the actual situation is.
    2
  44. Nope. The surface of stars is very bright, but very small. That's why they can't be seen during the day. And the Hasselblad cameras the astronauts used were preset for 1/250 second exposure, with aperture of f5.6 for sunlit surfaces, f11 for shade. Far too little exposure to capture stars.
    2
  45. Good point. Slava Ukraini. Cheers from not-so-distant Austria, Scott
    2
  46. Dr. James Van Allen advised NASA to go quickly through the thinner parts of the radiation belts that bear his name, and that's what they did. He estimated that it would take about a week in the thickest parts to get a fatal dose, and the Apollo missions spent about an hour in the thinner parts, so there was no problem. If you disagree, you are free to publish your research.
    2
  47.  @princeofreddit3280  Yep. If they had heard the real explanation and didn't understand it or disagreed with it, that would be fine. But instead, they just see some denier guru's video and parrot what he claims to be a real "gotcha" question. It's pretty sad.
    2
  48.  @samohenigman3628  You know you could look it up yourself online? But basically, Van Allen said the belts would become lifethreatening if the astronauts stayed for a week in the thickest part of them. So NASA sent the astronauts through the thinner parts in less than an hour. No problem.
    2
  49. For good reasons. First, their backpacks shifted their balance towards the back, which made them clumsy. Second, they were not on the Moon to do acrobatics: and a bad fall could have holed the suits.
    2
  50. You might want to look up Strong's 5375, which is "nasa", not "nasha".
    1