Comments by "andrew worth" (@andrewworth7574) on "JRE Clips" channel.

  1. ​@pixieizzy5431 there's no evidence that it's impossible for manned travel through the Van Allen Belts. Not a single physicist that's studied the Belts has claimed they can't be circumvented or traversed. The reason we haven't had manned flights through them is that the only reason for doing so is to travel to a destination beyond them. Since Apollo, no one has offered to foot that bill.
    4
  2. @benzof5475  Congratulations, I don't.
    3
  3. ​@dann.294 you are correct, you don't know enough about the subject.
    3
  4. Which is why all the apollo missions landed after the lunar sunrise and left well before the local lunar noon. So were there when the temperatures were moderate. Also understand that a vacuum doesn't have a temperature and is an exceptionally good insulator. Only the top couple of inches of the soil has those large temperature ranges.
    3
  5. You imagine you're knowledgeable, but you are not. The higher launch masses required in earlier strategies to get to the moon were a product of the architecture of those strategies. By using lunar orbit rendezvous, rather that LEO rendezvous, the required mass was cut to a fraction. Musk does indeed anticipate having to launch about 9 fuel ships to LEO to supply 1 ship going to the moon and back. He's basically following Von Braun's lunar mission architecture of LEO rendezvous. The ascent stage of the lunar lander followed a similar trajectory to that of the descent stage to LLO, but in reverse. Taking off vertically but with the trajectory curving over to get into LLO.
    3
  6.  @michaelpinkston4628  says everyone. The Apollo astronauts used Hasselblad cameras with rolls of film.
    3
  7. @michaelpinkston4628  what's it like, being over there on the extreme left of the Dunning-Kruger graph?
    3
  8. Yep. He's been at thus for over 20 years and still can't understand basic science.
    3
  9. The information on the tapes was transferred to electronic storage, the originals became redundant.
    2
  10. Based on what evidence do you believe the landings didn't happen?
    2
  11. Because the Apollo program was Kennedy's baby, Nixon was never a fan of the Apollo program, it reminded everyone of Kennedy.
    2
  12. Evidence wasn't destroyed.
    2
  13. @damianweston8670  going from low earth orbit to Earth's escape velocity requires a change in velocity of about 3200m/s, if the average acceleration of the spacecraft were 1g, (10m/s²), it would take 320 seconds (5 minutes and 20 seconds) for the spacecraft to make that change in velocity. Once it's at escape velocity, it can coast, unpowered, to the moon.
    2
  14.  @damianweston8670  worried for you.
    2
  15.  @nakkadu  perhaps you could consider the possibility that other people have studied such matters and, having an understanding of the physics involved, are in a position to make more educated judgements than you.
    2
  16. Once someone had done it, the main incentive to go disappeared. Once the South Pole had been reached, no one went there again for 46 years. Once Challenger Deep had been reached, no one went there again for 52 years.
    2
  17. Walsh only needed to ask Rogan where he got each of those claims from, the answer to every one of them would be "Bart Sibrel". Bart Sibrel never does interviews with anyone with the background or inclination to seriously challenge his claims.
    2
  18. By bumping up GHG's we certainly are causing the planet to warm, that will cause tropical weather to move pole-ward which will have significant effects on agriculture and our infrastructure, and within 2 - 3 decades Arctic sea ice levels will get to zero during the Northern summer. Sea levels are rising and over the next century will rise by a meter or so. But whether those changes constitute a "catastrophe" is a matter of opinion, after all, in the last century our cities have been rebuilt bit by bit, and they're going to be rebuilt bit by bit over the next century with or without climate change and SLR, our agricultural systems have changed enormously over the last century and will do so even more with or without the expected warming over the next century.
    2
  19. RP1, which is a grade of kerosene, was used in the Saturn V first stage.
    2
  20. Rogan makes false claim after false claim, fed to him by Sibrel.
    2
  21. ​ @Jackofthedump your proof is nonexistent.
    2
  22.  @AM-rd9pu  Michael prefers his fantasy world.
    2
  23. They have, third parties have. You just aren't willing to look at the evidence that contradicts your preferred narrative.
    2
  24. Nothing on the Saturn V / Apollo launch vehicle was reusable. The only rocket powered vertical landing of the missions was the descent stage landing on the moon, in 1/6th gravity and without an atmosphere, a far easier task than a rocket powered landing of a launch vehicle stage on Earth.
    2
  25. Thousands of samples of the rock rocks have been distributed to universities and institutions around the world, all testing of them has shown them as from the moon.
    2
  26. In the 1960's we had the X15 hypersonic aircraft, the SR71 Mach 3.2 long range Reconnaissance aircraft and the supersonic Concorde passenger airliner. None of those aircraft, or aircraft with equivalent performance, are flying today.
    2
  27. Bart's figures are false, the lunar modules landed in the morning and left before things got too hot. Also, it's the surface soil temperature that has a temperature, the vacuum of space doesn't have a temperature because a vacuum is nothing, an absence of temperature.
    1
  28. Are you not able to Google to find out for yourself?
    1
  29. Charlie Duke tried it, he nearly went over on his back. The weight and restrictions on movement of the spacesuits greatly reduced the spectacle of the athletics achievable.
    1
  30. There's no evidence against the moon landings and no testimony by any terminally ill people against the landings. And you can offer none to contradict me.
    1
  31. Seek professional help.
    1
  32. The Soviets tracked the spacecraft to the moon and back. Photos of the landing sites have been taken by the spacecraft of several countries.
    1
  33. You look it up. The moon is 380,000km away, Earth's atmosphere only reaches as high as 150km.
    1
  34. What g force?? They experienced up to 4g getting to low Earth orbit, about 1 g doing the translunar injection. After that they never experienced more than half a g until they reentered Earth's atmosphere, when they experienced up to 7 g.
    1
  35. @damianweston8670  only their disconnect with reality
    1
  36. @damianweston8670  you're just waffling. You have no clue about the physics involved. Go and read a few dozen books on the physics and engineering involved in spaceflight, as I have.
    1
  37. @damianweston8670  the books I've read on the topic were published in the 1980's and wouldn't be available now. Your comments about acceleration to get to the moon demonstrate a great lack of understanding of the physics involved, so I couldn't refer you to more technical books on rocketry and orbital mechanics. You could familiarize yourself with the rocket equation, rocket exhaust velocities of the propellant combinations used, look at the mass ratios for each stage of an Apollo mission to get an understanding of the velocity changes each burn was capable of and compare those figures with what is required.
    1
  38. @damianweston8670  here's a rundown of an Apollo mission (from memory) The Saturn 5 rocket at lift off weighs about 3,000 tons, it lifts off powered by 5 F1 engines, each producing about 680 tons of thrust, these burn for about 2.5 minutes accelerating the vehicle to about 2km/s. Then the first stage is dumped and the second stage takes over. The second stage is powered by 5 J2 engines, each producing a little over 100 tons of thrust, these are fueled by liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen. When they take over the rocket is down to about 800 tons of mass, these burn for over 8 minutes, accelerating the rocket to about 7km/s, the second stage is dumped and the third stage gives a short burn putting the 150 tons of mass remaining into low earth orbit.
    1
  39. @damianweston8670  the astronauts and technical experts check the systems which in LEO, if everything is OK the mission continues with the firing of the 3rd stage, which is powered by a single J2 engine, this gives the rocket another 3 km/s of velocity, sending it towards the moon.
    1
  40. @damianweston8670  when the third stage stops firing the rocket has achieved the velocity required to get it as far as the moon, it initially is moving at about 3km/s, it's coasting, unpowered, and slowly loses most of that speed climbing away from Earth. (At 3km/s it could travel as far as the moon in less than 2 days). While in transit to the moon the command and service module separates turns around, docks with the lunar module, and pulls the lunar module from the adapter, where it was housed and protected throughout the launch. The adapter and third stage are dumped.
    1
  41. @damianweston8670  on getting to the moon the trajectory of the combined C/S module and lunar module is curved by lunar gravity, when behind the moon the service modules engine fires, slowing them enough to be captured by lunar gravity, entering lunar orbit. The lunar module fires its descent stage engine, slowing it further, to land it on the moon. After the moon walkers do their thing, they fire the lunar module ascent stage engine, using the descent stage as a launch platform, the ascent stage rendezvous with the C/S module in lunar orbit, the lunat module ascent stage is dumped, and the service module fires its engine again, putting it on a return to Earth trajectory. Before hitting Earth's atmosphere the service module is dumped, with only the tiny command module, with the astronauts aboard, undergoing reentery and parachuting into the ocean.
    1
  42. @damianweston8670  it's about 380,000 km to the moon, about a quarter million miles, they're in freefall during that stage of the mission, why would they suffer injuries?? "Educate yourself" How often do people with no understanding of a topic say that to people in an attempt to hide their own ignorance? It's an extremely arrogant and obnoxious demand from the most ignorant.
    1
  43. @damianweston8670  what is "38800.000 kilometers" even supposed to mean?? It is not the same thing as 380,000 km. Why shouldn't they be able to travel 380,000 km in freefall in 75 hours?
    1
  44. @damianweston8670  what's a "patriotic mindset of ignorance"?
    1
  45. @damianweston8670  you have no understanding of physics, that's been very obvious from your first comment. I'm wondering if you've even finished 6th grade.
    1
  46. @damianweston8670  I have tried, I am defeated, I cannot dumb down the laws of motion to your level. Sorry.
    1
  47. @damianweston8670  at an acceleration of 30m/s², how long would it take to accelerate to 11,100m/s (Earth's escape velocity)?
    1
  48. @damianweston8670  if you can't answer the simple question of how long it would take to accelerate to 11,100m/s at 30m/s², there are no books comprehensible to you that I could refer you to. Evidently, you're not capable of solving even the most basic of problems on the laws of motion. So you'll have to stick with reading that favorite book of yours, the one you have, inexplicably, referred to.
    1
  49. ​@nakkadu how would you know to judge? Have you been on the moon?
    1
  50.  @nakkadu  if you don't know to judge, you don't know to judge. "I don't know" is a perfectly reasonable position.
    1
  51. @nakkadu  the laws of physics don't change, but the applied physics do (1.62m/s² vs 9.8m/s²). Exactly what looked faked in the footage to you? In what way did observation not match theory?
    1
  52. @nakkadu  as I asked: exactly what looked fake to you? I've seen nothing in the footage that's contrary to what could be expected.
    1
  53. @nakkadu  they occasionally fell, no surprise with the lower traction and the suits restricting movement. The suits were robust, and the astronauts would have a better idea of their damage resistance than you. Also, bare in mind that the suits have several layers, with several outer layer that would have to be penetrated to damage the pressure bladder. The low 4 PSI of the suits means that, contrary to myth, there wouldn't be a quick depressurization from a small tear. There is a whole lot of nonsense claims about what it's supposed to have been like for the astronauts on the moon. Always from people with no background in the relevant fields.
    1
  54. Neeson's revenge motivation = instrumental violence (Instrumental violence: is goal-oriented aggression or violence that occurs as a by-product of an individual’s attempting to achieve a superordinate goal), so is the reaction of outrage against anything that looks like racism against minorities or sexism against women, no matter how long ago, instrumental outrage?
    1
  55. Your comment is made up bs from start to finish.
    1
  56. There are no experts on the Van Allen Belts who agree that with your claim that they were impassable for Apollo. It was over 40 years between the first and second successful expeditions to the South Pole. It was over 40 years between the first and second successful expeditions to Challenger Deep. The US passed the Soviet Union in the space race in terms of capability in the mid '60's.
    1
  57. Bart loves that quote, it makes his followers forget the possibility that he's the one doing the fooling.
    1
  58. Sibrel lies every time he opens his mouth.
    1
  59. A common line from those who think they're too clever to be fooled - but were fooled by the conspiracy theorists.
    1
  60. ​@bobafet6064 you wouldn't even be able to define physics or chemistry, let alone understand them.
    1
  61. The components of the Saturn V - Apollo stack were all jetisoned going from Earth to Moon and back, only the tiny command module was recovered. No, the hardware and technology was not all destroyed post Apollo.
    1
  62. We haven't gone again because no one had been willing and able to foot the bill.
    1
  63. The Apollo photos were originally on celluloid and have beentransferred to digital. The Chinese photos are much more recent and in their original digital form.
    1
  64. Common sense can only sensibly be applied to common situations.
    1
  65. Aldrin famously punched Sibrel in the face on such an occasion.
    1
  66. There was nothing shocking about the press conference. The "shocking" was instilled into your weak mind by grifters.
    1
  67. I don't know what you're talking about, and obviously, neither do you.
    1
  68. On the moon
    1
  69. JR sometimes wouldn't know his as from his elbow.
    1