Youtube comments of Raptor White (@raptorwhite6468).

  1. That's still better than being hit by a rocket stage at terminal velocity, which is how most of them end up
    219
  2. A small correction, the booster at this point in the flight weighs "only" around 300 t, but it's still an incredible achievement
    20
  3. iT'S A fOtoMoNTAge!!!!!111
    13
  4. That's an interesting point you just made. Could you provide evidence for it? Have you calculated the ∆v of the craft? Or the amount of fuel based on the volume of the tanks? Maybe you calculated that the thrust of its engines is insufficient? Or that the walls couldn't withstand the pressure difference? Or that the landing legs couldn't withstand the force of the impact? Or that the engine design was flawed and they couldn't be ignited? Or that micrometeorite strikes were likely enough to be a concern? Or that the radiation levels were too high to survive? Or that the temperature control systems couldn't be able to handle the harsh lunar environment? Or that the antennas were not sufficient to ensure stable communication with Earth? Or that the batteries couldn't keep the craft working for 70 hours? Or that the air or water supplies were too low? Or that there was something wrong with the radar? Or the docking port? Or that the center of mass wasn't lined up with the engine? If so, I'd like to see your calculations to hopefully be able to continue a civilized and respectful discussion on the topic.
    13
  5.  NattieChristopher  That's why people should stop theorizing who would win, spino literally won in a real fight. (That's just a joke, I hope t-rex fanboys won't kill me)
    11
  6. ​ @anticom6099  It is estimated that Starship would have to launch every 11 seconds to cause as much pollution as cars
    10
  7. "why isnt there still Neanderthals?" I also thought there are no Neanderthals until I saw that comment
    9
  8. Yeah, sure... Except "A Space Odyssey", with all due respect, looked ridiculously unrealistic
    8
  9. The joke is that uneducated idiots don't believe it
    8
  10. ​ @therealrobinc  Just stating facts, recreating the Apollo footage on Earth would require a vacuum chamber with an area of at least 10 000 m²
    7
  11. Average IQ in this reply section is almost negative
    7
  12. By then enough data will have been collected for the odds to be either 100 or 0%
    7
  13. Why are we experimenting with new cars, if we already had cars 100 years ago?
    6
  14.  @scaf121  Why would they pretend they are on the Moon while they were on the Moon?
    6
  15.  @scaf121  Do you have any proofs it didn't happen?
    6
  16. They already used "drones" (probes) to do it, LRO, Chandrayaan and Chang'e all photographed the sites and the landers are still there, as expected.
    6
  17.  @abhroy  Two tiny answers: 1) There is a slight crater. The engine was really weak, only capable of blowing away the thin top layer of dust. 2) A camera. No one needs to hold a camera for it to record. According to your logic, who recorded all the footage from nuclear tests? Who is sitting 5 meters away from a rocket recording its launch? Are there 700 million people just holding all the cameras in China? Ever seen a footage of a crime from security cameras? Why doesn't the guy who's recording stop it? Are there people in Mars rovers recording? Are there some kind of tiny gnomes hidden in every drone to hold the camera?
    6
  18. We went to the moon nine times
    6
  19. Nope
    6
  20. That's your problem, but it doesn't change the fact moon landings were real
    6
  21. 3.35 billion spent throughout the next 12 years. That's less than the military spends in two weeks
    6
  22. The LM was operated by NASA, whereas blue ghost is operated by Firefly
    5
  23. @bryantrackhurricanes1367  No, it's not that big, in the worst case it can destroy a city
    5
  24. How would they know? The asteroid was detected two months ago, they don't have enough data to predict it accurately
    5
  25. Because it was in 1969, and cameras had to be light and durable at the same time
    5
  26.  @scoobtube5746  Why everyone who says this knows totally nothing about space travel nor old cinematography
    5
  27. - Casini went to Saturn - Juno went to Jupiter - New Horizons is on its way out of the solar system All three combined are like a "Voyager 3" mission, but because they are separate missions, they provide more scientific data
    5
  28. No, they didn't
    5
  29. 12 people did
    5
  30. Not really, the fact they did is pretty obvious
    5
  31.  @abhroy  "A big bulky film or tv camera" Westinghouse Apollo Lunar Television camera dimensions were 269 mm × 165 mm × 86 mm "Survived the landing shock" The Landers impacted the surface at around 2.5 m/s. Around as fast as one does after a jump. "flag waving" the flag was only waving while held by astronauts. That's called inertia. How early did you stop learning physics in school that you don't even know that? "Multiple shadows of astronauts" there never were multiple shadows. I could make up some stuff as proof too, but I prefer just using facts. "crossing the van allen radiation belt" alpha and beta radiation can be blocked by thin aluminum. Not to mention that Gemini XI spent more time in the Van Allen belts than all the Apollo missions combined. But the astronauts were unharmed. "no stars in the sky" really? This might be the most embarrassing point you guys make. At this point I don't think I really need to explain that, you definitely had this explained many times, but just choose to ignore it and remain delusional.
    5
  32. Do you have a slightest idea what van allen belts are?
    5
  33.  @FillInLastName  Why are you changing the topic?
    5
  34. NOBODY has NEVER been to the moon? Does that mean everybody has been to the moon?
    5
  35. This is really simple - if you put your hand in water that's for example 100°C hot, you will probably get a burn. If you put it in an oven where air is 100°C too, it won't be nearly as bad, because it's less dense, so not as much thermal energy is transferred. The temperatures you mentioned are in a near vacuum environment, so almost no energy can be transferred. A good example of that is a fusion reactor, where temperatures reach 150 million degrees Celsius, but they don't melt anything, because their in a near vacuum too
    5
  36.  @maxsmith695  That's not what I think, it's what I KNOW. Governments and civilians from across the world tracked the rocket to the moon and back
    5
  37. ​ @williamborregard6384  Do you really think that misinterpretation of someone's words is a proof?
    4
  38.  @williamborregard6384  How exactly can it be debunked?
    4
  39. I'm standing at the moment, so no, not everything lies
    4
  40.  @Catceptionv2  Calculating orbital trajectories isn't that easy, since its discovery it has only finished 4% of its orbit, that's too little to accurately predict where it will be in 7 years. Even if they knew exactly where it will hit and it would hit a densely populated area, why wouldn't they tell them now, so that they would have 7 years to prepare for an evacuation?
    4
  41. And it's the choice you've made
    4
  42. You can see planets with a decent telescope
    4
  43. We did. It's simpler this way
    4
  44. ​ @American-Motors-Corporation  So now the whole cold war was fake? Just because it doesn't add up to your nonsense idea?
    4
  45. 12 people had been there
    4
  46. Do you see stars during day? (Other than Sun)
    4
  47. During Apollo, they tried all they could to ensure that missions won't fail, for obvious reasons, here taking a risk was a better idea than spending billions
    4
  48. ​ @alfredocardenasdelgadillo4277  It will take some time to transfer the images to Earth
    4
  49. ​ @bikeguyhd1035  Because we can't feel motion, only acceleration idiot
    4
  50. 0×1000 is still 0
    4
  51. Yeah, all science is a waste of money, it would be better if we kept living in caves, the technology would never advance, but at least we wouldn't waste any money
    4
  52. Cybertruck is a really bad option. It's extremely heavy, has unnecessary parts and rubber tires
    4
  53. ​ @Unrealrankedchalle  We didn't. However, if you'd like me to, I could give you a detailed description of how NASA landed people on the Moon in 1969.
    4
  54. They don't want you to. If you choose to be ignorant and don't believe it it's your problem
    4
  55. I wonder why the cameras had such low resolution? Maybe because they had to be as light as possible, radiation resilient, and had to transmit data from 300000 km for over two hours?
    4
  56. Saturn V weight was over 3000 tonnes and 40% of 5 F1s thrust would only be able to lift 1300, even that simple math is too much for you?
    4
  57. ​ @leotimtom6637  They used it after Apollo, in Skylab, but technology has to move on, they can't keep using the same rocket forever like Russians
    4
  58. No, it's way too small
    4
  59. I wanted to say I almost had a stroke reading that, but upon closer inspection I conclude I'm not the one here who had a stroke
    4
  60. I can't stand that, you idiots really can't understand what an orbit is? YOU HAVE TO GO SIDEWAYS TO SPEED UP TO 8 km/s
    4
  61. Three separate space agencies already wasted their time photographing the sites from orbit, but idiots are still idiots
    4
  62. "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands" I'm not sure what do you think this has to do with the moon landing, Werner von Braun was christian, there's nothing strange of him to put this on his grave.
    4
  63. ​ @maxsmith695  Nope, only first stage did, second one fell later and spacecraft went back to Earth after a week
    4
  64.  @maxsmith695  being told something isn't always equal to being lied to
    4
  65. Can you explain how a human being can possibly be that stupid?
    3
  66. No, it fell over and exploded. Even if it didn't, the saltwater would damage the engines
    3
  67. ​ @rilenixx  You made a huge mistake here - gtavity doesn't work like "6 times less, man jump 6 times higher". Because it's a constant force, the longer you stay over the surface, the more you accelerate, therefore it could only allow for, if I'm not mistaken 2,5 times higher jumps. Of course, if the astronaut didn't wear 80 kg of life support systems
    3
  68. ​ @leotimtom6637  Skylab
    3
  69. I get it, the existence of intelligent people may be unbelievable for such an idiot
    3
  70. Starship, the second stage which is planned to carry people eventually, doesn't slow down as rapidly
    3
  71. Know what?
    3
  72. Astronauts were sitting in Apollo rovers too, it's not that hard
    3
  73. USA didn't break up into a bunch of communist countries, so I think it can be said that they won
    3
  74. ​ @shefhenko  These double orbits make no sense, orbit requires gravity, so that would made every planet a Moon of an unidentified unobservable and unmaterial object with high mass. Other scientific reasons why it don't work are observations made by: ASA, AfSA, BIRA-IASB, CSA/ASC, CNSA, CSIRO, ESA, EUSA, GISTDA, DLR, ISRO, ISARS, INTA, ISA, JAXA, KARI, CNES, CNIE, LAPAN, CONAE, NSAU, NASRDA, SRON, NOSA, SUPARTO, CONIDA, POLSA, RKA, CBK PAN, NARSS, UNOOSA and 20 other space agencies without an acronym. You only excluded NASA, so I guess these count.
    3
  75. What better do we have than landing rockets?
    3
  76. They are experiencing around 3 G, it's not that bad
    3
  77. And now, it'll finally get to rest after 72 flights
    3
  78. Last year the highest temperature ever was recorded, too hot to sustain life. Yeah, guess that's just a coincidence
    3
  79. No, it's called moon
    3
  80. Except the Bible never says that
    3
  81. Because only a tiny part could get so far, the entire rocket was abandoned part by part
    3
  82. No, that place is called "Mare tranquillitatis"
    3
  83. It's an animation
    3
  84. No, everyone knew from the beginning that Apollo 1 wasn't going to the moon, it was never any kind of secret
    3
  85. Telescope isn't a microscope, it can't show much details. Taking so detailed photos of lunar surface would probably just result in a white image, because of how bright it is, and Landers would still be to small to see. Their angular size is smaller than the size of galaxies. But even though it's not possible to take photos of landing sites with a telescope, they still had been taken by lunar satellites, one from USA and one from India.
    3
  86. You don't. You need an object to push yourself against, in case of a rocket engine - its exhaust
    3
  87.  @gp6746  Then don't make assumptions like this if you don't want to actually check if they were correct
    3
  88. ​ @everydaynine_2282  Hey, I need a clown for a birthday party, how much do you want?
    3
  89. No, they never did
    3
  90. Maybe focus on how US spends 700 billion a year on military
    3
  91. Wait... If you're Ground News, why did you sponsor a video about space news?
    3
  92. It's not NASA's fault you haven't heard about other missions, it's just that public doesn't care about missions that didn't take people to the moon
    3
  93. How much wishful thinking led you from cheap test vehicle failure to not landing on the moon?
    3
  94.  @steveg2448  I did the research, but unlike you on both sides, so I clearly see which one is right
    3
  95. You again? First of all, photons can't be affected by magnetic field, so radiation in Van Allen belt isn't made of photons, therefore not of X-Rays, or Gamma rays, but of highly charged particles, which can create those kinds of radiation by collisions with massive atoms, like lead, for example. Therefore, the lighter the spacecraft, the less radiation is created. Btw. if nothing can get to the Moon, then I guess the retroreflectors just appeared on their own all of a sudden?
    3
  96. ​ @leotimtom6637  Source: I made it all up
    3
  97. The asteroid wasn't detected until then, it was too small
    3
  98. I bet you have an education in aeronautics and did all the calculations necessary to come to such conclusion, instead of just "I don't understand it, so it can't work"
    3
  99. Do you really think that all the people at SpaceX, with better qualifications, more experience and data were unable to figure out that the issue with Starship is one of the simplest possible problems and one that they've dealt with in the past, but you were able to?
    3
  100. Yes, there's nothing strange about it, unless you're an uneducated ignorant
    3
  101. We stopped because there's no money for that
    3
  102.  @1Waarheid  Is this backed up with any calculations? Or just by "common sense"? Angular size of the ISS is 51,5 angular seconds. The size of a Boeing 737 is 722. So ISS appears to be around 14 times smaller. Roughly the width of 737's horizontal stabilizer, which you can see from the ground. In addition to that, ISS is visible at nighttime, when it's placed against a dark sky, making it appear bigger. And, just as I expected, you provided no explanation for what it may be
    3
  103. Because USA moves on to create better rockets, while Russia keeps using that old thing, which doesn't seem too reliable, as three cosmonauts are trapped on ISS right now.
    3
  104. The amount of comments I've seen on YouTube praising cleaning your butt with water in the most random places is uncanningly high. I mean, this is such a random topic, why is it advertised through comments so much?
    3
  105.  @leotimtom6637  What do new engines have? Stability. The stronger the engine, the harder it is to control it. Why do you think Russians stopped using RD-170 if it was the strongest engine ever? Also, all these old planes/cars etc. are completely different things than rockets, because we already know a lot about them. Rockets are new technology, so still using Saturn V would be like using planes from I world war
    3
  106. Many pictures were taken, by LRO, Chandrayaan and Chang'e missions
    3
  107. It is, it's impossible to fake it
    3
  108. Were you an aerospace engineer back then? If not, you don't know what you're talking about
    3
  109. Apollo 9 and 10 were test flights of the LM. Do some research before posting something
    3
  110.  @steveg2448  There were like 200 successful tests of the LLTV
    3
  111.  @arthorse6835  But you are not asking questions - you're denying facts. If you were asking questions, then, after basic education, which is obligatory, you should know answers to almost all of them, or at least know how to find the answers.
    3
  112.  @maxsmith695  But I will never see it, because it doesn't exist
    3
  113. ​​ @alicesherson4894  These were just two missions out of 135 missions, so it's still not too bad. I don't mean it wasn't a tragedy, but the program itself was pretty good
    2
  114. Yes. How is that relevant here?
    2
  115. Yeah, every organization that lies to people would definitely put it in their name so no one will ever know
    2
  116. No, guiding the Apollo Lunar Module was much easier for various reasons: - no atmosphere - lower gravity - way smaller spacecraft - way larger landing area - landing on wide legs, not tiny pins - pilots can correct possible errors - pilots steer the lander in the most difficult phase of descent - it's controlled using RCS thrusters, not gambling engines, which is much easier - the engines use hypergolic fuel, so they basically can't fail - the engines aren't exposed to high temperatures caused by reentry, nor low temperatures caused by cryogenic propellant - LM could hover for much longer, allowing for greater precision (precision was still much lower, landing within tens/hundreds of meters from the chosen site)
    2
  117. The fact that morons like you get to vote is concerning
    2
  118. Aliens have no reason to fight us, if they can travel between planetary systems, we aren't a threat and if they needed resources, they'd rather take it from a planet with no life on it
    2
  119. They take great care of them, all of them are safe and available online
    2
  120. No, they stopped using free return trajectory after Apollo 11
    2
  121. It's going to keep increasing until the predicted trajectory gets really accurate, then it'll either rise to 100%, or, which is much more likely, drop to 0%
    2
  122. Some experiments are too complex for satellites, also ISS is supposed to test how a long term stay in space affects human body
    2
  123. No, it's a launch pad they have no use for anymore
    2
  124. Yes, though it might seem funny for uneducated people
    2
  125. By catching it they can just put it back on the launch mount within minutes, if they landed it they would have to somehow pick it up, retract its landing legs (which also weigh a lot lowering the rocket's payload capacity) and transport it to the launch site
    2
  126. Because it's a car, not a moon rover
    2
  127.  @Helliconia54  A few mods? Well: - the entire body of the car is extremely heavy, so as much of it as possible should be removed and probably made of different material, maybe carbon fiber - most of the computers would be unnecessary, self driving would be impossible anyway - it may be an all terrain car, but that doesn't include the moon, the very fine and sharp dust is unlike anything on Earth, so modifications to suspension and wheels would be necessary, along with specialized tires - a lot other parts should be removed; they should get rid of three seats, as well as anything that's added only for the car to be comfortable and fancy - no need for that on the Moon - engines and all the other moving parts have to be protected from the regolith, otherwise it will quickly destroy them - the batteries could maybe stay, assuming they can withstand the temperature gradients, which I doubt So, literally not a single part would remain unchanged
    2
  128. Because some people are stupid, or just want to feel special
    2
  129. They didn't go all the way to the Moon to photograph the Earth. The exposure of the images is set to see the details of the surface, not of Earth.
    2
  130. ​ @SC-zq6cu  Not really, there's a company that's experimenting with this technology and current tests show that it's even less vulnerable than regular modules.
    2
  131. Do you think standing on the Moon immediately granted the astronauts unlimited knowledge about it? There are still countless experiments that haven't been done. "How does it only have batteries for two weeks" the LM only had batteries for three days. This isn't the issue though, I'm not an expert, but as far as I'm concerned, the real problem is the lunar night. In daytime they have infinite electricity thanks to solar panels, but after a two week long night, the spacecraft freezes. If you want it to turn back on afterwards, you need to use energy the entire time to keep it somewhat warm, but equipping the lander with such heavy batteries is pointless, since all the experiments can be done within 14 days
    2
  132. I'm not so sure, on previous flights second stage engine ignited a few seconds after MECO, but here the failure happened at the exact same moment
    2
  133. I don't know if I found the right channel, but it was full of uneducated people spreading lies and false information. Not a single fact about space.
    2
  134. How many times it has to be repeated? If NASA had the budget from the 1960's we'd have been on Mars a long time ago
    2
  135. Even though I hate China as a country, I still hope their space program is successful
    2
  136. ​ @stoplookinent4791  Well, kind of. The only experiments a regular person can do give results that we were taught about, so we can't really know more than we are told.
    2
  137. First of all, in the beginning NASA had a lot of failures. Secondly, this wasn't a failure. The rocket did what almost all the other rockets do, except it's way bigger
    2
  138. It could be a little shorter distance, because sound had to travel back too
    2
  139. 3 times more was spent on US military in 2022 alone
    2
  140.  @shaunigothictv1003  Again, I'm not trying to explain what he meant, I'm just saying that no matter what he meant, the technology is still there.
    2
  141. What Moon artifacts got lost? One bag with some dust in it?
    2
  142. ​ @jefftruax77  Liquid fueled roclets fly very smoothly, just denying facts doesn't prove your point
    2
  143.  @jefftruax77  Have you seen a video from a fighter jet cockpit? The plane isn't shaking violently either, as long as it's going straight.
    2
  144. ​​ @jamiec4478  It was kind of pointless to go, they did It mostly to win the space race, now they don't need to. Also 60 million dollars isn't enough, one rocket costs billions of dollars, not to mention they have to pay their employers and for many other space programs. However, with new technology (because old is useless now) we are getting back to the moon: cheaper, faster, more efficiently and with a better goal - to build a base there
    2
  145. Nobody, it was controled from Earth
    2
  146. Looking at Saturn V start won't help, as it was completely different rocket, it had 5 strong engines instead of 33 not as strong ones. The rocket that's the most similar to Starship was N1 and looking at how it flew wouldn't be too helpful either...
    2
  147. Dude you can see it for yourself, go out of your basement from time to time
    2
  148. No, the Landers hovered for a very long time to find a safe landing site
    2
  149. You must've had a really good sleep on all those physics lessons
    2
  150. Yet NASA recently only managed to launch a weaker rocket, once, which development cost was 2.5 times higher and isn't, nor will ever be reusable
    2
  151. ​ @mosesmanaka8109  It took them such a long time because it's how science works, they need proofs. The fact people like you were saying this doesn't prove you right, it's like saying all eggs in the world are rotten and claim you're right, because someone found a rotten egg. "We"? Are you 100 years old? And even if you were, nobody would call you a "conspiracy theorist" because this term was first used in 1945 and popularized in Late XX Century. Always when I see some people who don't like vaccines for whatever reason, it reminds me of the fact that similar idiots thought people would turn into cows after taking vaccines when they were first invented. And you asked for photos of Apollo landing site, just look up "apollo landing sites photos" you will easily find many of orbital photos, some taken by NASA, some by different space agencies.
    2
  152.  @mosesmanaka8109  No, I got vaccinated and I didn't get ill. Btw, covid vaccines are supposed to protect from serious illness, not from just getting ill
    2
  153. What do you mean? Some humans have been even to the deepest parts of the ocean
    2
  154. ​ @mjjones8216  Future Starships won't be landing on water. That was the only reason it exploded.
    2
  155. They didn't
    2
  156. Intelligent people
    2
  157.  @yourfriendlyneighborhoodin1559  Natural selection works almost the same way - when humans don't like a dog they made, they don't let it breed. When an animal isn't suited for the environment it lives in, it dies, so it can't breed either. I just wonder what exactly makes you not believe in evolution? You don't understand how it works? Or for some reason you think it doesn't match your belief in God, even though most people don't have that problem
    2
  158. The debris flew over the islands, how would it possibly fall near it?
    2
  159.  @RetroRocketReview  "Starship booster catch - sonic boom and crowd reaction"
    2
  160.  @RetroRocketReview  Again, if that doesn't convince you, you can just go there yourself, it's the 21st century, you can get to USA from pretty much anywhere in the world
    2
  161. They do, that's why Artemis 1 was unmanned
    2
  162. USSR sent tortoises and fruit flies back in the 1960's and they survived. Also NASA sent 24 people and they survived too
    2
  163. Just because you don't understand how it works doesn't mean it costs too much. This isn't just a suit, it's a small spacecraft
    2
  164. That's not a fact
    2
  165.  @Gd5369-x7r  Yes, but it was: 1. Very low quality 2. It is possible to get live transmission from the moon, but it requires a lot of really big antennas. NASA has enough, but they'd have to cut connection with some of their probes, so it's not worth it.
    2
  166.  @billyray4491  India also showed an animation. It's hard to get live transmission from the moon. About the Capricorn One, it was honestly a mid movie, takes itself way too seriously, considering how silly the idea behind it is
    2
  167. It's just multiple images combined, that doesn't make it fake
    2
  168. They got there too a few times
    2
  169.  @LewisKerrin  What did you expect? It was a private company launching their first lander on a completely new rocket. A lot could go wrong
    2
  170.  @LewisKerrin  If you think it's that easy, why don't you send a lander yourself?
    2
  171. How do you know what shape is it when the video has such low quality?
    2
  172. They are completely different. NASA is a government organization specializing in conducting research in space, while SpaceX is a private company building rockets
    2
  173. It was the third time entering lunar orbit, not counting ~20 unmanned missions
    2
  174. If they wanted to kill them, they would probably do it in a way that wouldn't cost a few billion dollars
    2
  175. Aż wstyd że z takimi ludźmi żyję w jednym kraju
    2
  176. That would be really ironic if the asteroid changed its course after that and hit Earth
    2
  177. There also is a YouTube video about a guy stumbling across Star Wars ships in Germany, crazy right?
    2
  178. Brain size of most people here is near planck length
    2
  179. In my opinion the biggest problem is that not only is it expensive and hard, but scientists can't profit from it. Why? Because if someone actually invented Cure for cancer it would cost a lot of money, and many people would be angry, because "People with cancer should get it for free or they'll die"
    2
  180. Feel free to go see it yourself next time
    2
  181. How does it feel down there on your IQ level?
    2
  182.  @rez5  It looks the same, it's just unnaturally fast
    2
  183. What color did you expect shady craters to be? There's no atmosphere to scatter light on the moon
    2
  184.  @leelunk8235  Not everyone is American, I haven't even seen koolaid in my life
    2
  185.  @leelunk8235  I don't believe anyone landed on the moon in 1968. I know 12 people landed on the moon in 1969-1972. And koolaid is literally illegal to sell in Europe, educate yourself a little. Oh wait, if you did educate yourself there wouldn't be any conversation here in the first place.
    2
  186.  @leelunk8235  Your arguments are just dumb. I'm pretty sure I already explained you all of that.
    2
  187.  @leelunk8235  TRUTHS
    2
  188. ​ @leelunk8235  WHY ARE YOU MEAN?
    2
  189.  @leelunk8235  AND WHY ARE YOU USING CAPSLOCK
    2
  190. There is 1/6th of earth's gravity on the moon
    2
  191. Yeah, after Apollo program NASA lost most of its funding
    2
  192. I don't think scuba gears need to deal with vacuum, extremely low and high temperatures and radiation
    2
  193. Professionals don't need photos as proofs
    2
  194. Operating on the lunar surface isn't just walking
    2
  195. You really underestimate the size of the Moon
    2
  196. ​ @davidsheckler4450  Why? If anyone provides any proofs you'll just say it's fake for no reason.
    2
  197. ​ @donpettitwedestroyedtheapo6488  Yes, the technology does advance, that's why we have way better rockets today
    2
  198.  @donpettitwedestroyedtheapo6488  We can leave LEO, we just don't send humans there, because it's expensive and pointless
    2
  199.  @donpettitwedestroyedtheapo6488  Why? Because you said so?
    2
  200.  @donpettitwedestroyedtheapo6488  No it's not
    2
  201.  @donpettitwedestroyedtheapo6488  Apollo program
    2
  202.  @donpettitwedestroyedtheapo6488  They will next year
    2
  203.  @donpettitwedestroyedtheapo6488  They could do it, but sending humans so far is pointless, expensive and requires a lot of preparation
    2
  204.  @donpettitwedestroyedtheapo6488  How am I supposed to prove it? Send a rocket myself?
    2
  205.  @donpettitwedestroyedtheapo6488  Because I don't have my own space program and billions of dollars
    2
  206.  @donpettitwedestroyedtheapo6488  You put it wrong, you can't make claims that can't BE proven. Otherwise claiming that, for example, planes can fly is wrong, because I can't make my own.
    2
  207.  @donpettitwedestroyedtheapo6488  I don't know what do you mean by outrageous, leaving leo is an easy task, you just need a lot of speed (and of course money)
    2
  208. They can't just send people to the Moon in a completely new rocket. It could've ended up like Apollo 1, especially considering how many problems Artemis 1 had.
    2
  209.  @RoachDogg_JR  You're not? Why do you not think logically at all and deny obvious facts then?
    2
  210. But they couldn't lie about that
    2
  211.  @SlackerU  What does the fact that stuff in your house is Chinese has to do with Moon landings?
    2
  212.  @SlackerU  They probably will, Artemis program already started
    2
  213. ​ @FFE-js2zp  there's no cold welding there for two reasons: - those are made out of two different metals - he is pounding quickly, cold welding takes time
    2
  214. Not exactly, Falcon 9 does a suicide burn, Superheavy activates its engines earlier to do a slower, more controlled descent
    2
  215. I'm sure he had taken all the other kinds of talents too to be able to do this
    2
  216. Not all, most are being build by machines and some are even 3d printed
    2
  217. Nie masz nic lepszego do roboty?
    2
  218.  @1Waarheid  No, because they make sense. For example, have you ever seen the ISS in the sky? What is it, if not a space station? Somehow no one has came up with any other explanation. You should have one, if you really do your own "research" and not just repeat what someone else manipulated you into thinking is true
    2
  219. ​ @MCRecordSetter  So using your "critical thinking" prove there's a way to make light that will not be scattered by atmosphere and will be perfectly even without making the shadows fuzzy.
    2
  220.  @leotimtom6637  It didn't? So all the fuel tanks were mostly empty?
    2
  221. Of course, LRO and Chandrayaan-2
    2
  222. Sure, remember about your visit to the psychiatrist
    2
  223. Nope
    2
  224.  @mysticnomad3577  No proofs?
    2
  225.  @mysticnomad3577  There are no proofs, just misunderstandings of the subject.
    2
  226.  @RayleighCriterion  You mean gravity?
    2
  227. How does it feel to single handly lower average IQ of human race?
    2
  228. Yes, they will need to be careful, but it is possible to survive. In fact, even astronauts on ISS survive higher radiation, due to South Atlantic anomaly, then astronauts outside Earth's magnetic field
    2
  229. Not always, in the US it does, so that rocket stages can be dropped into water. Russia drops them on a desert and China on small villages (-2000 social credit)
    2
  230. To get to low Earth orbit you need around 8000 m/s of ∆v, which, considering they had to take 100 tonnes of payload there takes a colossal rocket. Getting to lunar orbit requires only 1000 and because they only have to get a few tonnes there and there's no atmosphere, a small spacecraft is easily enough
    2
  231. Yeah, sure, but you still don't have a proof of that
    2
  232. If for some reason my earlier comment doesn't show up at all, look up "Discovery completes ISS assembly" and "STS-88 first ISS assembly" There are videos of it, you just don't try to find them
    1
  233. Let's be honest here - no one cares about robots.
    1
  234. Because it's a SIMULATION. They can't record the landing so they use that to know where the probe is
    1
  235.  @jesua301  What?
    1
  236. This doesn't change Moon's balance at all, mass of the lander is around 0,00 000 000 000 000 002% the mass of the Moon
    1
  237. You can just go see it yourself
    1
  238.  @Kadamose  Does your "closed system" not include Texas? If it does, your point is irrelevant
    1
  239.  @Kadamose  Well, why can't you go to Texas then? Are you implying it is not part of the earth? "Nothing gets past the firmament" Luckily for us, it doesn't exist Combustion does work in a vacuum, you just need to bring oxygen with you. 3000 miles away? How exactly was this measured? I could easily explain how to measure the real distance, but I wonder if you can explain how that was calculated.
    1
  240. We would, if the government didn't reduce NASA budget by over 80%
    1
  241. Too late to say that. 54 years too late to be exact.
    1
  242.  @JH-si9oe  They did
    1
  243.  @JH-si9oe  So you just confirmed that your source is "I made it up"
    1
  244. ​ @ericb3157  Dark matter is only known to exist because of effects of its gravity in galaxies... Why does the guy believe it exists then?
    1
  245.  @georgejones3526  Apollo 11 footage wasn't really scientifically important, it was only supposed to be transmitted live all around the world, the more important footage was taken in later missions and remains untouched.
    1
  246. By "math" do you mean the 8 inches per mile squared thing? It's only accurate exactly at sea level. Curvature calculators are way better, although they don't account for atmospheric refraction, so the results are still a little off
    1
  247. Starship fuel is methane, which doesn't cause pollution when burned
    1
  248. Why?
    1
  249. They didn't, some other people did
    1
  250. If you don't then we know you have 3 IQ
    1
  251. And all those powerful telescopes still can't find who asked
    1
  252.  @DeputyNordburg  No, I meant who asked him
    1
  253. The moment of Neil Armstrong going down the ladder and the lunar module leaving the moon were both recorded by automatic cameras. Stars weren't visible, because it was daytime
    1
  254. China plans on landing in 2030
    1
  255. There aren't high temperatures on Mars, it's around -60°C
    1
  256. What about the moon landing? You might be surprised, but people cheered even more back in 1969
    1
  257. NASA will spend less money on this program in the next 12 years than the military does in 2 weeks
    1
  258. No it's not, why would it?
    1
  259. Most of NASA's rocket parts fall into the ocean, but it's after it's burned in atmosphere. But you're right, it's impossible to get through something that doesn't exist
    1
  260. For example: research about climate, they help people all around the world by predicting droughts and they're the ones that literally saved the world by discovering hole in ozone layer
    1
  261. Russia doesn't have really good rockets
    1
  262. It's both
    1
  263. But helicopters are easier to control and don't require fuel, because they can use energy from solar panel instead
    1
  264.  @marxman00  It can work if it's strong enough
    1
  265.  @marxman00  There is atmosphere, 10 hPa is enough for helicopter to work if it's powerful enough
    1
  266.  @marxman00  I like educating people so I will reply. Do you think NASA wouldn't know if it was impossible? They have thousands of scientists who studied this subject they whole lives. They would send baloons if there was no other option
    1
  267. Your last brain cell must feel really lonely
    1
  268. No, a space elevator has to reach a distance at which the orbital period is equal to the time it takes the planet/moon to rotate, for example geostationary orbit. For the Moon, this distance is, if my calculations are correct, is 90 000 km, which is far beyond its sphere of influence
    1
  269. ​ @Dullydude  Falcon 9 boosters could have way lower turnaround time, but there's not enough launches required for the number of existing boosters. They'd have to launch the same booster twice in a row to reach the advertised 24 hour refurbishment time. Why would they do it? Just to prove a point? As for the boiloff, it will probably be greatly reduced just by aiming the heat shield at the Sun. So I think it would make the most sense if they transferred all the fuel to a single tanker first and then into the HLS. But I'm not an expert, we'll have to wait and see how they handle this.
    1
  270.  @J-Johna-Jameson  Then maybe they could let some of it evaporate to keep the tanks pressurized? I don't know, but NASA definitely wouldn't base arguably the most important missions of the Artemis program around HLS if SpaceX didn't have a clear plan on how to deal with it.
    1
  271. @J-Johna-Jameson I doubt Elon has that much to say in that topic. He didn't go to NASA to propose using Starship as the lander, even if he did, they wouldn't accept it just like this. If SpaceX, or any other company proposed using warp drive to get to the Moon, NASA wouldn't immediately make it one of the core elements of the program, no matter how much the government loves the CEO, unless they had a plausible plan of accomplishing it.
    1
  272. There actually is a company that plans to do it, but they struggle to find a launch site where people won't mind the sonic booms. There are many other significant problems, it still requires a rocket engine to reach orbital velocity, can only launch small satellites and the g forces are extremely high, meaning that payload has to be rigid enough to withstand them.
    1
  273. ​​ @chloesdad1000  If you want to find proofs, maybe read about it a little. Lunar lander was inside the rocket and was empty when passing through belts
    1
  274.  @mpirokajosephmgcokoca2355  Apollo astronauts were incredibly well trained, the risk of them dying wasn't really high
    1
  275.  @tvviewer4500  Batteries are heavy. During a lunar night you need enough electricity to keep the lander warm for two weeks, otherwise it wouldn't be able to turn back on in the morning. The mass of the lander is very limited, so to add big enough batteries, you would have to sacrifice some scientific experiments.
    1
  276. It's completely different than the pyramids, we can easily build a pyramid, but there's no reason to.
    1
  277. I think it will freeze unless they spend electricity to keep it warm at night
    1
  278.  @scoobtube5746  I don't really like Star Wars and I don't say that I'm an expert, but I know enough to understand that Moon Landing wasn't as complicated as you think. All that's necessary is to make rocket move on a high enough velocity to leave Earth's orbit and get to Moon's. NASA does it a lot of times. The only thing that makes it different, is that the crew module must've been pressurized and that lunar module had to connect to it twice. That's all.
    1
  279.  @scoobtube5746  The biggest problem is money. US actually landed on the moon mostly for political reasons, so they could spend a lot of money on it. Now it's not necessary anymore.
    1
  280.  @7150285  I'm not American, I'm from Poland. I'm just angry because China recently stated that countries which used to be occupied by Soviet Union, like Poland, aren't real countries.
    1
  281. NASA is a government agency, they can't make money like that
    1
  282. Yeah, let's give the money to random homeless people and make qualified, talented engineers homeless instead. Sounds like a great idea!
    1
  283. They don't waste money, they just use a small part of the money that would otherwise be spend on military to take humanity further than ever before.
    1
  284. You're just three google searches away from realising how wrong you are: 1. Look up Starship fuel - it's methane 2. Look up what is emitted when methane burns - water and carbon oxide (II) 3. Look up greenhouse gasses - carbon oxide (II) isn't one So Starship doesn't cause global warming
    1
  285.  @Tony_265  Burning fuel probably didn't produce any, CO2 is Carbon Oxide (IV) and methane produces Carbon Oxide (II), which isn't harmful for the environment
    1
  286.  @Tony_265  I know, as I said it probably didn't emit any carbon dioxide
    1
  287. Yes, because burning methane emits water
    1
  288. A rocky asteroid will burn up or explode, depending on trajectory, an iron one will make it to the ground
    1
  289. I learned an important thing from that comment: there's at least one more idiot in this world
    1
  290. He didn't hit the dust directly, it was sent up by the ball, so it had less energy
    1
  291. It's not only about how hard you hit it, but how you hit it. It won't stop any asteroid, but can be enough to redirect them
    1
  292. You know how to travel around the world, it's simple, just book some flights and that's it. But does it mean you can do it? No, because you can't afford it.
    1
  293. If they could send unmanned missions, what do you think was stopping them from sending humans on board?
    1
  294. When a new car is made, why test it at all? Cars already worked 50 years ago.
    1
  295. Let me just ask you a single question: have you ever seen that glowing dot flying in the sky? The one that always appear exactly where ISS should be? What is it? You'll probably guess it's a plane, flying at maybe 20 km or something like that. Apart from the fact that it never lands, how can it fly around the Earth in 90 minutes? And always show up precisely where predicted? Well, let's assume that they have some magic propulsion systems, and that answers everything. Right? Of course not. Look at that dot in the sky and look at a flying plane. It takes a similar amount of time for them both to pass from horizon to horizon. That means if it's a plane flying at an altitude of around 20 km, for it to go from horizon to horizon at a similar rate to a regular plane, it has to be travelling only twice as fast, so around 1800 km/h. Quite a bit slower than ~27000km/h. Not to mention if it was at that low altitude, it wouldn't be visible across such vast areas, thousands of kilometers wide. With some math we can calculate, that it only makes sense for it to be at an altitude of around 400 km. But why stop here? Maybe it's a hologram on the dome? Well, there is one more problem. It occasionally passes in front of the sun and moon. And blocks their light. So it has to be a solid object flying under them. In conclusion, it has to be a solid object, flying 27500 km/h and 400 km over the surface. So it can't be a hologram, it can't be a plane... What can it be then? A space station. And so... I ended up answering the question for you... But perhaps there is something I missed, I'd love to see if you have any other explanation, because so far, no one had.
    1
  296. However you would want to interpret those words, we have the technology to go to the Moon. We just don't have the money.
    1
  297.  @keltonfoster  If I remember correctly, most of the telemetry data from Apollo 11 was found in Australia and data from other Apollo missions never got lost
    1
  298. ​​ @marvincarr7125  expect 12 lucky (or more like hard-working and ambitious) people
    1
  299. You can go see it yourself.
    1
  300. You know that NASA is a government agency? They can't make money
    1
  301. You can go see it yourself.
    1
  302. ​@Mellow4202 She has a Bachelor of Science degree in biology and chemistry, doctorate in biochemistry, spent years working in universities and as a NASA scientist and after that trained for two more years to finally become an astronaut. Meanwhile you probably didn't achieve much in life, yet you act like you're better, or at least at the same level as she is.
    1
  303. Just a camera. You can also take your phone, start a live on yt or Somewhere else, leave it on the ground for a few minutes and it will still record
    1
  304. Yeah we would, if we had an infinite money glitch
    1
  305. Let me just ask you a single question: have you ever seen that glowing dot flying in the sky? The one that always appear exactly where ISS should be? What is it? You'll probably guess it's a plane, flying at maybe 20 km or something like that. Apart from the fact that it never lands, how can it fly around the Earth in 90 minutes? And always show up precisely where predicted? Well, let's assume that they have some magic propulsion systems, and that answers everything. Right? Of course not. Look at that dot in the sky and look at a flying plane. It takes a similar amount of time for them both to pass from horizon to horizon. That means if it's a plane flying at an altitude of around 20 km, for it to go from horizon to horizon at a similar rate to a regular plane, it has to be travelling only twice as fast, so around 1800 km/h. Quite a bit slower than ~27000km/h. Not to mention if it was at that low altitude, it wouldn't be visible across such vast areas, thousands of kilometers wide. With some math we can calculate, that it only makes sense for it to be at an altitude of around 400 km. But why stop here? Maybe it's a hologram on the dome? Well, there is one more problem. It occasionally passes in front of the sun and moon. And blocks their light. So it has to be a solid object flying under them. In conclusion, it has to be a solid object, flying 27500 km/h and 400 km over the surface. So it can't be a hologram, it can't be a plane... What can it be then? A space station. And so... I ended up answering the question for you... But perhaps there is something I missed, I'd love to see if you have any other explanation, because so far, no one had.
    1
  306. Nearly all the fuel exploded, and the part that didn't turned into gas and even if it didn't, it isn't anything toxic, just methane.
    1
  307.  @elderwelder  That's how orbital mechanics work. It's like driving up a hill, it takes energy to get up there, but to get back down you just need a slight push.
    1
  308. It isn't a bad idea, but it's really hard to accomplish, it's not like you can send entire flying cities on just a few rockets
    1
  309. You can go see it yourself. Your comment just proves you don't know anything. The booster reenters the atmosphere at 5000 km/h, this is way too low for it to burn. It's stuff that comes down from orbit that burns, because it's moving over 5 times faster
    1
  310. Right now there's 7, but probably none of them wear diapers, because it's unlikely that someone is doing EVA right now
    1
  311. This rocket would have to launch every 11 seconds to create as much pollution as cars
    1
  312.  @LR0278  I'm not American, what does that have to do with anything? No taxes are even spent on the development of Starship at all, only on vehicles derived from. NASA contracts for the development of HLS, which includes around 24 Starship launches and 3 landings on the Moon cost less than 2 SLS launches. So no, NASA can't do the same thing cheaper.
    1
  313. Your opinion can't change the fact that it was real
    1
  314. Why wouldn't they?
    1
  315. I'm not exactly sure what you mean, but they already are using giant arms to catch it
    1
  316. ​ @steveg2448  First learn what money is kid
    1
  317. The spacecraft is ready, but they have to wait until the end of the Crew 9 mission
    1
  318. Rockets accelerate them to those speeds
    1
  319. ​ @neilarmstrongsson795  That's because he wasn't at that point yet, that's a pre-flight press conference. Your comment is a great example of quality of your "evidence"
    1
  320. How is "the" flat?
    1
  321. Launches are not a good metric of speed, nor cost of a rocket's development. If we actually compare those numbers, then it is somewhat hard to tell which was developed faster, but it's safe to say Saturn V was. It launched for the first time 7 years after they began designing it. It's hard to pinpoint exactly when Starship began its development though, it was first announced in 2005 (it was a very vague announcement, just that they plan on making a really big rocket), but designs that they use today only date back to 2018. Regardless of that, Starship is not an operational vehicle yet, so Saturn takes the crown here. When it comes to costs however, Starship's development is 5-10 times cheaper, because the government understandably doesn't dump loads of money on it, like they did with the Apollo program. You also imply that "billions of taxpayers money" are spent on the development of Starship. This is not true. NASA awarded SpaceX 4.04 billion dollars for development, construction and delivery of two HLS spacecrafts for Artemis III and IV. (This might sound like a lot, but meanwhile NASA spends 1.5 billion dollars just developing an upgraded mobile launcher) They were also awarded 100 million dollars as part of the Space Force's Rocket Cargo program. All mentioned contracts have a fixed price, so no, the taxpayers are not paying for each launch of Starship, as many people think. This is completely financed by SpaceX.
    1
  322. Not yet, the spacecraft is ready, but they have to stay until the end of Crew 9 mission
    1
  323. From taxes
    1
  324. You know you can just go see it yourself?
    1
  325. No, it was never dismissed, I recommend you changing your information source cause the one you're using is clearly lying to you
    1
  326.  @yourfriendlyneighborhoodin1559  We have many breeds of dogs. It's an example of evolution, where humans are the ones responsible for natural selection
    1
  327. Not only that, they are able to stream during reentry! Plasma blocks radio waves, so up until now spacecrafts were losing contact in that phase of the mission.
    1
  328. Neither of them is fake
    1
  329. Idk, but Sun will definitely be replaced by a black hole
    1
  330. This comment is wrong in every single possible way. This guy wasn't even a NASA spokesman and you, as always, misinterpreted his words. They have the necessary technology, but they can't use it, because it's expensive and dangerous.
    1
  331. ​ @MrJuulia01  Yes, at this point, it definetely already deorbited because of atmospheric drag
    1
  332. I wonder how many times China and Russia send the biggest rockets in the world.
    1
  333. Go see it yourself
    1
  334.  @RetroRocketReview  Yes there are, just look it up and find amateur recordings, you can see and hear all the people there
    1
  335. You can just go see it next time
    1
  336.  @oscarcabral6913  Thousands of people saw it, hundreds recorded and posted it on the internet. You can too, it's the 21st century, you can get to Texas from almost anywhere in the world.
    1
  337. No, wings for a runway landing weigh a lot and you need to transport the rocket afterwards, using sling shots could only work for small payloads
    1
  338. Do you mean that they should use these computers to steer rockets nowadays?
    1
  339. 1:20 He is the protagonist in an action movie
    1
  340. Is that the book written by that idiot who started this fake landing idea just because he doesn't know anything about the topic? Even if not, it's still a book written by another idiot, who doesn't know more than him.
    1
  341. Just like they couldn't put five F-1 engines on a Mercury-Redstone rocket at the time it was used, so does it mean it was more powerful than Saturn V?
    1
  342. What camera? It's an animation
    1
  343. No, they were filmed on the moon dummy
    1
  344. Millions of stars have been observed forming in nebulae
    1
  345.  @yourfriendlyneighborhoodin1559  Just look up nebula, it's not that hard
    1
  346. No, it was just too small to be detected easily
    1
  347. Buran was not much better than the space shuttle, probably would be very expensive
    1
  348.  @johnconstantin3377  Buran wouldn't be any cheaper than the Space Shuttle. So around 50k per kg to LEO, which is a ridiculous amount.
    1
  349. Engines were weak and they turned them off right before landing, so that regolith won't start flying around.
    1
  350.  @DesertRascal  At that time NASA didn't have to contact all the deep space probes and for Apollo missions it was very important to see what is happening on the Moon
    1
  351.  @gregorylayne9044  That's not my problem
    1
  352. ​ @romantarango3343  Tf? Of course not, just some idiots made that up, media stopped talking about it because it is old
    1
  353. You're just three google searches away from realising how wrong you are about that environment thing: 1. Look up Starship fuel - it's methane 2. Look up what is emitted when methane burns - water and carbon oxide (II) 3. Look up greenhouse gasses - carbon oxide (II) isn't one And btw. all the buildings are repairable
    1
  354. That comment aged as expected
    1
  355. Imagine being in that School bathroom and realizing the lesson just started
    1
  356. USA had its own space station too
    1
  357. This is a common misconception about gravity, in 1/6th of Earth's gravity you could jump only about 2,5 times higher. And some astronauts did attempt to jump, for example during Apollo 16, which almost ended tragically for Charles Duke
    1
  358. Don't worry, the Moon will remain unchanged. Earth from the Moon looks basically the same as ever, despite there being so many cities on it. The worst that can happen is city lights being visible on the shaded part of the Moon, but I doubt any of us will live long enough to see that
    1
  359. Go see it yourself the next time
    1
  360.  @1990-w1l  Neither did SpaceX's, it was a Chinese rocket
    1
  361. No one, it's an animation
    1
  362. No, we can go higher than VA belts, nothing is stopping us from it
    1
  363. If it was, as soon as you touched the ground the charges would equalize and you could float
    1
  364. Before they would even start working on faking it, USSR would already know and told the public
    1
  365. Fun fact: the sky is IN FRONT of the moon
    1
  366. This face doesn't exist, it's just a random rock
    1
  367.  @perlitocabauatan9285  It doesn't look like face, it only did because of how shadow was casted on it and because of bad image quality, new photos reveal that it's regular rock
    1
  368. ​ @allbankbasalisk___2005  It's just a bit, ignore it
    1
  369. What do you mean? Curiosity is still OK
    1
  370. You can go see it yourself
    1
  371. Yes
    1
  372. It's propellant released from thrusters used for maneuvering the booster. You research anything before you make a statement
    1
  373. You don't have to share your stupidity so openly
    1
  374. It does have fish eye lens, but that doesn't prove anything
    1
  375. USA is still far ahead of them
    1
  376. That's because in space engines are unnecessary, because nothing slows you down in there. But also Mars, unlike moon have atmosphere, so you can use parachutes instead of engines to save fuel.
    1
  377. Yeah, not like they launched more rockets in a year than most space agencies throughout their existence
    1
  378.  @anthonyb5279  Not really, if counting only the actual launches, 272 out of 274 were successful. It's almost 2 times higher reliability than Space Shuttle. Even if counting the test flights, it's still far from the most failed rockets. The only way your claim can make sense is counting boosters explosion, but I doubt you can find any othercompany/agency which has at least tried to land an orbital booster. And at least 80% of their flights carry unpressurized cargo, so it doesn't make sense
    1
  379. Sky crane was part of the lander
    1
  380. You can go see it yourself
    1
  381. ​ @The_Reality_Filter  No, this mission isn't important enough to cut contact with deep space probes just to have live transmission of the landing
    1
  382. A rocket launch is all about choreography, otherwise the rocket couldn't fly
    1
  383. GPS antenna on the tower was damaged, so they decided catching is not worth the risk
    1
  384. Even today it's hard to get as sharp shades as in the real footage. Not to mention how dust acts there
    1
  385. Gold is one of the most reflective substances in the world, it's perfect for thermal insulation
    1
  386. Why? Is 5 mins too long for you?
    1
  387. NASA is a government agency, they can't make money like that
    1
  388. If this meteor hit ~30 years earlier it may have started a nuclear war
    1
  389. Because it costs way too much and makes no sense
    1
  390. In space a bowling bowl would fall too, gravity is present regardless of whether atmosphere is present. Satellites don't fall, because they are in orbit
    1
  391. They stored the film in a special container
    1
  392. 1:00 Something isn't right... They speak Polish, and there's no comments "POLISH!" or "POLSKA GUROM"
    1
  393. ​ @TheGecko213  No it wasn't
    1
  394.  @mariorl3605  I don't believe, I know. Why shouldn't they go there?
    1
  395.  @LJ...69.  Just go see it yourself
    1
  396. They won't mine it, it's pointless.
    1
  397. No, it'll never happen because it's impossible
    1
  398. ​ @leelunk8235  GET A KEYBOARD THAT HAS AN OPTION TO TURN OFF CAPSLOCK
    1
  399. As a person from the future I can confirm, that Flamin' Hot Cheetos bag had given us a lot of knowledge about ancient civilizations.
    1
  400. Fun fact: The lion king is also an ripoff
    1
  401. You know that Hollywood is on Earth, not Moon right?
    1
  402. I hate to break it to you, but nothing can get rusty in space, it requires oxygen
    1
  403. It's already done, now it's time for further expeditions
    1
  404. It wasn't hit directly, so it had less energy
    1
  405.  @elchiconews7107  Both parts are in the same sentence, but it seems like you only care about the part of the sentence that's more convenient for you
    1
  406. This was before the launch, but the reason they look happier, is becahse they aren't the same people. (Shocking, right?) I recommend you the book "Man on the Moon", it does a great job portraying how different astronauts were
    1
  407. Actually, they can only be second
    1
  408. "Goes out of the atmosphere a d comes back down" That's an ICBM, not a hypersonic missile. They are relatively easy to intercept because they follow a ballistic trajectory.
    1
  409. Cars and lunar rovers are not the same thing
    1
  410. You don't understand how little money that mission costs compared to some other things
    1
  411. Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy, but Starship isn't operational yet, so I'm not sure if it should count
    1
  412. Literally the most important part about making space equipment is to make it as small and lightweight as possible
    1
  413. You're just three google searches away from realising how wrong you are: 1. Look up Starship fuel - it's methane 2. Look up what is emitted when methane burns - water and carbon oxide (II) 3. Look up greenhouse gasses - carbon oxide (II) isn't one
    1
  414. Even a dwarf planet has moons...
    1
  415. No it's not
    1
  416. There is a little, around 1% of Earth's atmosphere
    1
  417. No, the part that is supposed to carry payload, that isn't a crewed vehicle
    1
  418. Uy Scutti was proven to be two times smaller than we previously thought
    1
  419. No, the real one is in space. What is so hard to understand about it, it's literally in its name
    1
  420. Not really, it's a simulation showing the current phase of flight
    1
  421. Not really, a successful soft landing is when the lander doesn't damage its payload on touchdown
    1
  422.  @anamorph  Dude, it's literally what definition of a successful landing is, especially because the position of the lander doesn't even affect its funcionality
    1
  423. ​ @alfredocardenasdelgadillo4277  You can't even speak English, as if your statement wasn't enough proof of your poor education
    1
  424. ​ @God-isGod-was-God-always  No need to write anyone, the explanation is simple - we're going to space and retarded braindeads aren't stopping us
    1
  425. These are two completely different things, cancer is not a regular illness you can cure by drinking a spoon of banana-flavoured medicine. It's a complicated genetical disease, caused by spreading cells with damaged DNA. It requires either changing back the DNA of hundreds of cells to the same perfect state as was before, where literally none out of millions of nucleobases can be wrong. Or just cut off the infected part of the body.
    1
  426. Because making a rocket powered with electricity is impossible
    1
  427. I'm sure that Sun will be a black hole in that documentary.
    1
  428. You know you can just go see it yourself? It's the 21st century, you can get to Texas from basically anywhere in the world
    1
  429. What would they need better CGI for?
    1
  430. I don't know what your source of information is, but you're wrong, since industrial revolution, ammount of carbon dioxide with carbon 12, which is the kind of carbon in fossil fuels, had gone up a lot.
    1
  431. It depends on how much energy it got from being hit, dust closer to the ground got send less far away
    1
  432. Modern ones do the same thing old ones do, just explode hydrogen or methane or something else
    1
  433. You can go see it yourself.
    1
  434. I'm sure that Maria won the election because she became famous after that cosmic ray incident. That teaches us a lesson - if universe wants something to happen, it will happen.
    1
  435. NASA uses regular spacecrafts now
    1
  436. You don't know anything about space suits. They are like little spacecrafts, they need oxygen, life support systems and it need to protect astronaut from radiation and metal pieces flying thousands of kilometers per hour. It isn't strange it costs so much
    1
  437.  @Fokadas  For comparison, now I liked my comment, as you can see now there are two likes, so the first one wasn't mine Edit: now I have taken my like back, as of now the comment still has two likes though, because someone liked it in the meantime
    1
  438. Nope😊
    1
  439. Nope, Starship is fueled by methane, the worst thing it can produce is carbon oxide (II), so it doesn't emit any greenhouse gas
    1
  440.  @EvilChuckie  No, (II) stands for carbon being divalent, just like oxygen, so it's CO, not CO2
    1
  441. It's because the dust gets hit by the ball, so it gets less energy
    1
  442. Considering it's a part of military budget, all good it could do is give America more guns, even though they already have more guns than people.
    1
  443. It wasn't his fault, the vehicle malfunctioned
    1
  444. He did, rocket didn't explode by itself, it was detonated
    1
  445.  @arthorse6835  If you open the replies from the video, not from notifications, you can see the "deleted" comments. And I honestly wouldn't call them "valid points"
    1
  446. It's from Martian asteroids, just parts of Mars that went to space and fell on Earth
    1
  447. I would, it costed a few hundred millions
    1
  448. So why don't you make an F-1 yourself?
    1
  449. No, it's not even sand but dust and it fell quickly because it wasn't hit directly so it didn't have enough energy to fly far
    1
  450. I guess that "projection in the sky", whatever it is, must have went out more than 4.5 billion years ago, as Earth has never been flat
    1
  451. You can go see it yourself.
    1
  452.  @WilsonTaylor-vc7gt  Don't have anything to say? Well, that doesn't surprise me at all.
    1
  453.  @maxsmith695  Information from your ol' reliable source "I made that all up"
    1
  454.  @WilsonTaylor-vc7gt  If you really don't have anything to do, go to school for once and learn something
    1
  455.  @WilsonTaylor-vc7gt  By "research" you mean watching yt videos of some morons who don't even know what they're talking about?
    1
  456.  @karlarockster7979  You mean the automatic Apollo Lunar Television Camera? When you see footage from security cameras you also think someone is holding it?
    1
  457. The problem with that is that it needs a giant ring, otherwise the artificial gravity would affect your feet more than your head and that's not a good thing
    1
  458. It's called Fra Mauro Crater
    1
  459. Women are more likely to get cancer from radiation, this wasn't a problem during Apollo, because only men were flying to the moon back then
    1
  460. Cybertruck is a terrible option, it's a car, not a moon rover
    1
  461.  @jamescobban857  Cybertruck is so far from being a lunar rover that it just can't be modified to become one, it would literally just have to be a completely different vehicle. - it's extremely heavy, which is never a good thing in spaceflight - it has a lot of unnecessary parts and systems that would make it harder to maintain - none of its parts have any sort of protection from lunar regolith - high temperature gradients on the Moon would definitely have a negative impact on its performance - regular rubber tires aren't the best option to use on the Moon - the vehicle would probably get stuck quickly, unless more complex modifications are made - it's unnecessarily big, as of now space for only two astronauts is required So after turning it into a rover, probably the only major part that could remain unchanged would be batteries, assuming they can withstand the temperatures. All that to make something that would still be very far from perfection.
    1
  462. You can go see it yourself
    1
  463. You're just three google searches away from realising how wrong you are: 1. Look up Starship fuel - it's methane 2. Look up what is emitted when methane burns - water and carbon oxide (II) 3. Look up greenhouse gasses - carbon oxide (II) isn't one
    1
  464.  @EvilChuckie  I already answered you, but I can do that again: CO2 is Carbon Oxide (IV) not Carbon Oxide (II), because those numbers stand for valence, not amount of oxygen.
    1
  465. Nope
    1
  466. ​ @bakedbeans3181  Oh, seems like you're a radiation specialist and you definitely know everything about how Van Allen belts work, if you do, then enlighten us, if you don't, just shut up.
    1
  467. That's just a simple animation to show the phase of the flight. There would be no reason for them to make the animation at Disney level
    1