Comments by "CatsRule" (@1133saginaw) on "Moon landings: Are we worse than 50 years ago? | BBC News" video.

  1. The Apollo computers (the size of entire rooms) were on the ground. They relayed calculations to the space capsules.
    2
  2. The Apollo ascent stage had it's own fuel source. They ran low on landing fuel.
    2
  3. The SR-70, the Blackbird, the fastest aircraft ever flown was designed in the late 1950's. The Concorde was designed in the early '60's. Why do you question the technology of the '60's?
    2
  4. That's nonsense. They used ground-based computers and relayed the results to the Apollo spacecraft. The onboard computers only had to control the engines and relatively minor tasks, air conditioning, etc.
    2
  5.  @bookofeli4867  Without the bubbles. So much for the "they did it in a swimming pool theory".
    2
  6. The equipment was endlessly tested during Apollo. They also had an endless budget.
    2
  7. They have nearly a half ton of moon rocks in storage in Texas.
    1
  8.  @giocanni3590  That didn't happen. Keep it up. You sound like a person who would confuse a rock with a chunk of wood.
    1
  9.  @giocanni3590  They found a chunk of petrified wood in some diplomat's desk drawer after the guy died and deduced it must have been a moon rock. Sound's plausible, don't you think ? A moon rock worth millions was stashed in a desk drawer. It was bright orange. Of course, everyone knows the moon is orange.
    1
  10.  @giocanni3590  Any rockhound worth his salt would ID that rock as either chert or petrified wood.
    1
  11.  @giocanni3590  It's not wood. Petrified wood is rock, not wood. It's like a "dinosaur bone"- the bone has been replaced by silica or some other mineral.
    1
  12.  @giocanni3590  Anyway, they found this rock in a guys desk along with an invitation item he received when the apollo astronauts came to town. Whoever found the two items in the desk automatically assumed the rock must have been a moon rock and the invitation was it's tag. This is the rock: https://media-cldnry.s-nbcnews.com/image/upload/t_fit-1240w,f_auto,q_auto:best/ap/97a493bc-80a7-4af8-bd49-d6f1c24f68b3.jpg I don't know what the people at the museum were thinking. I have been collecting rocks forever. I could have identified that rock as either chert or petrified wood when I was ten years old.
    1
  13.  @BlueRage  "A Funny Thing Happened' is complete nonsense.
    1
  14. Why would NASA confess to lying? Lying about what?
    1
  15. Armstrong said he was prepared to free-fall if they were withing 15 ft from the surface.
    1
  16. If the landings were fake, there are 800lbs of moon rocks in storage that have to be explained away.
    1
  17.  @usfl7972  The technology to build a 40 year old TV likely is lost. A hand made TV would likely be pricey too.
    1
  18.  @chickennugget9443  Then you have to explain away 840 lbs of moon rocks locked up somewhere in Texas. Pretty hard to fake a rock. Easier to just go there and collect them.
    1
  19.  @johnsonanum  We are not "war driven" against China anywhere to the extent we were against the USSR in the 60's. Back then , we thought our economic system was at risk.
    1
  20.  @johnsonanum  That's 'competition', not warfare. China's economy completely depends on trade with the US .
    1
  21. 50 years ago they didn't have the technology to fake the moon landings.
    1
  22. No, the top people are working on other things in private industry. In the 60"s NASA was the only game in town.
    1
  23. Who would anyone spend that kind of money to look at an old landing site? The entire world, except you, knows the landing sites are there.
    1
  24. Monn landing studio? Where woud that be? 50 years ago there was less technology available for faking a landing than actually making the landing.
    1
  25.  @davidfognini8526  Then you have to explain the 842 lbs of moon rocks. How did they fabricate them? It would be far easier to go and collect them than to fabricate fake ones.
    1
  26.  @alpheendomination  The first species to the moon (in orbit) were Russian tortoices.
    1
  27. Explain the 800+ ponds of moon rocks. it's just ignorance. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUkbdqw9pBk
    1
  28. We didn't "ship" them back. Many of the moved here permanently.
    1
  29. But the moon rocks brought back, all 840 lbs, are no myth.
    1
  30.  @MasterCheeks-2552  The Japanese used radar technology to generate the surface features on the moon using an orbiter. They are identical to Apollo images. https://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/ls15.jpg
    1
  31. Well, that "lie" has produced 840 lbs of moon rocks so far.
    1
  32.  @martinattwood7801  So, if they didn't walk on the moon, how did they get that 800 lbs stash of moon rocks, not to mention the 2,000 or so photographs?
    1
  33.  @KiraNt4  Did the space ships on the moon collect all those moon rocks by themselves?
    1
  34.  @martinattwood7801 The Russians sent turtles around the moon sucessfully. Why would humans die? You did not look into this very closely.
    1
  35.  @martinattwood7801  Burt how about the 840 lbs of moonrocks? How do you fake a photograph? Someone is believing what they are told. It isn't me.
    1
  36.  @martinattwood7801  Moon turtles pic: https://images.ctfassets.net/cnu0m8re1exe/2mFOsUNoPIn7xglstSladx/4a954e4b426e29be7cb10110869fa871/tortoisephotoop.jpg?fm=jpg&fl=progressive&w=660&h=433&fit=pad
    1
  37.  @KiraNt4  Rocks? The Russians brought back soil samples, each the size of a thimble. 840 lbs of rocks proves a lot.
    1
  38.  @martinattwood7801  You aren't going to try to debunk? Figures. The Russian turtles may be still alive. I've been trying to find out.
    1
  39.  @martinattwood7801  So, according to your logic, this space suit was developed, at huge cost, for no reason? http://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/static/history/alsj/a17/ap17-72-H-251.jpg
    1
  40.  @martinattwood7801  Just explain to me how you fake a photograph using 1960's technology. Do you know what a Dark Room is? That was state of the art 50 years ago. I don't think you know enough to explain anything to me, which is why you avoid my questions and rely on that stupid video..
    1
  41.  @martinattwood7801  Yes, start with this picture. How did they fake it? Click on it. Make it big. https://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollopanoramas/images/preview/original/JSC2007e045379.jpg
    1
  42.  @martinattwood7801  Are you ready for this? Go to the video you mentioned and stop it at 1:20. See the ditch? Apollo 15 landed where the ditch makes an upside down 'U' toward the left of the image. When they took off from the moon , they traveled toward the 7 oclock direction, over where the ditch scrapes along the side of the mountain. They then traveled over the 3 larger craters (forming a triangle) , further toward 7 oclock. Now this is 'out the window' film footage made from Apollo 15 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLLP6bzNJwo At 1:14 you will see the ditch. At 2:41 you will see the ditch along the side of the mountain. At 3:26 they travel over the 3 craters.
    1
  43.  @martinattwood7801  Your channel never mentioned the moon rocks. Having 840 lbs of moon rocks is one of the main proofs someone went to the moon to collect them. (Duh) They try to debunk the landings and leave out some of the most convincing evidence - just like they left out that panoramic photo I sent you an hour ago..
    1
  44. The Mars landing budgets are much larger, which is the reason they are more successful..
    1
  45.  @ronaldlincoln2935  The technology today isn't much different. Reliable rocket engines is the key. You have to realize back in the 60's they had huge budgets to work with. They did much more testing. Today, they do it on the cheap.
    1
  46. Want to see tech? Watch this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUkbdqw9pBk This is 1960's tech. They were very good at building rockets back then. The supersonic Concorde was designed in the 1960's , as was the Blackbird which still holds the air speed record today.
    1
  47. Somehow they managed to get 840 pounds of moon rocks, not to mention the 2,000 + photographs. (there's a mountain of evidence the landings occurred).
    1
  48. 50 years ago the top students wanted to be engineers. Today they want to be CEO's.
    1
  49. In the 60's the technology for going to the monn was much greater than faking it. These were the days before AI and computer graphics.
    1
  50. 50 years ago, we had leaders like Kennedy who actually sought to lead the country to a higher level.
    1
  51. How did Hollywood generate moon rocks?
    1
  52.  @dphuntsman  Spend the money to save earth. Instead of making the moon inhabitable, let's insure the earth will remain habitable.
    1
  53. The 840 lbs of moon rocks collected can't lie.
    1
  54.  @titteryenot4524  It was national prestige. No one could stomach the idea of a dictatorship nation being in the history books, for all time, as being the first to the moon. The idea was intollerable.
    1
  55. There are 840 lbs of moon rocks stored away in Texas this very minute. Hard to come by if you don't go to the moon to collect them.
    1
  56. Those "tin cans" were proper space ships designed to make landings using a single rocket. Weight was critical Remember, they weren't making a movie. No one cared what they looked like. Look at the Wright Brothers airplane. They had a similar challenge.
    1
  57. But yet, these NASA produced "films" managed to produce over 800 pounds of moon rocks. Quite amazing. It's almost as if they actually went to the moon and collected them
    1
  58. They have 840 pound of moon rocks.
    1
  59. Did you notice the dust from the buggy fell cleanly to the ground - no lingering cloud? Same thing with people kicking the dust. It falls to the ground as if it was lead shot. No lingering cloud. That buggy was in a vacuum. I'm afraid each and every of your 15 items can easily be debunked.
    1
  60.  @KiraNt4 The Russians (the Chinese were out of it) monitored voice transmissions from the lunar spacecraft. The antennas were directional. US school children did the same thing throughout the country using short wave.
    1
  61.  @KiraNt4  They have telescopic photos of them dumping pee.
    1
  62.  @KiraNt4  There is a video (which I can't seem to find) which compares weather satelite images with photos taken out the window of Apollo 11. They were the same.
    1
  63.  @KiraNt4  One was taken with a weather satellite, the Apollo pics were taken with a Hasselblad camera out the window. Weather satellites don't use Hasselblad cameras.
    1
  64.  @KiraNt4  And Armstrong commented the color changed when you looked from different angles. The soil is full of glass beads which reflect sunlight differently from different angles. Apollo 17 brought back some orange soil. https://c7.alamy.com/comp/D0NY13/apollo-17-red-soil-on-the-moon-D0NY13.jpg
    1
  65.  @KiraNt4  The Apollo rock samples ranged from black, brownish , grey and white.
    1
  66. Kubrick's studio was not in Hollywood.
    1
  67.  @pravgan-wv2fz  Why are they going to send witnesses? They are 100% sure they landed 50 years ago.
    1
  68. Not possible. 840 lbs of moon rocks were brought back and studied.
    1
  69. There is a HUGE mountain of evidence the landings occurred and virtually no evidence they were faked. Back in the 1960's they were very good at building rockets, horrible at graphics . The movie 2001 was probably the best but the lunar topography shown was very bad.
    1
  70. The landings were not shot in Nevada (or any other place on earth) . All those bright lights? Where are the insects?
    1
  71. They have 840 lbs of moon rocks stored away in Texas. Of course they landed on the moon.
    1
  72. What are you talking about? Go to Google Earth. They have radar generated photos of the entire surface of the moon.
    1
  73.  @dphuntsman  Not to mention the back side of the moon.
    1
  74. 12 people landed, not one.
    1
  75. Where did they get 800 lbs of moon rocks?
    1
  76. Smartphones do more than compute. Not comparing apples to apples.
    1
  77. The 840 lbs of moon rocks which were brought back and studied are not "theory".
    1
  78.  @theconspiracydentist  55 years ago 400,000 people actively worked on landing a man on the moon. The budget was a thousand times greater.
    1
  79.  @theconspiracydentist  A waste of time.
    1
  80. Laugh off the existence of 840 lbs of moon rocks.
    1
  81. Regarding your comment, the computing power was done on the ground in those days - not the spacecraft. You are comparing apples to oranges.
    1
  82.  @NoName-zm1ks  The Russians landed a spacecraft on the moon in 1966.
    1
  83. Did they find the moon rocks in the studio too?
    1
  84. The computing power of the Apollo missions was largely ground-based. They could do the same calculations - they just were bigger back in those days.
    1
  85.  @geoffreykeane4072  Armstrong said he was going to land it fuel or no fuel. He said the shock absorbers could withstand a free fall of 15 ft. He was also prepared to land in in that crater if he had to.
    1
  86.  @geoffreykeane4072  They got it from the HBO series 'From the Earth to the Moon' . The makers of the series couldn't resist making it more dramatic than it actually was.
    1
  87.  @bookofeli4867  They didn't have CGI in the 1960's
    1
  88.  @bookofeli4867  What they had back then were called 'cameras'
    1
  89.  @theconspiracydentist  Where is your evidence we didn't go to the moon? You have 840 lbs of moon rocks to explain away and a hundred other things as well.
    1
  90. What was difficult? It landed. You have to realize in the 1960's the the landings were government funded and the funding was 1,000 times greater than that little privately funded robot received. You are comparing apples to oranges.
    1
  91.  @eric9069  Where did you get the "all the efforts in the 60's are completely useless" part?
    1
  92.  @eric9069  They aren't going to try to cobble together 50 year-old hardware. It all has to be redone from scratch. Time and money . Problem is: they have much less money to work with, and the fact the only reason they are going in the first place is national prestige, not necessity.
    1
  93.  @eric9069  The SR70, the Blackbird, still holding speed records, was designed in the late 1950's.
    1
  94.  @eric9069  My point was technology was pretty good back in the 50's and 60's - good enough to go to the moon.
    1
  95.  @eric9069  They had computers - big ones. I don't know what your point is.
    1
  96.  @eric9069  And where do you get this "technological regression"? Where is there evidence of that?
    1
  97.  @eric9069  They land on Mars all the time. Why do you think they can't go to the moon? One thing that gets ignored is landing people on the moon would require a stay of a week or two , not three days like last time. The solar radiation problem has to be worked out.
    1
  98.  @eric9069  "Or Does the United States think it is no longer needed?" I think you may have answered your own question. Why do you think the US needs to go back to the moon?
    1
  99.  @eric9069  Another thing, if the US wanted to build another record-braking plane, but it had to be three times bigger, would they have to engineer it differently? Of course they would. It might even take 10 years to do it. A return to the moon will need a much larger spacecraft , big enough for a much larger crew, a larger rover and more supplies because they will stay for a couple of weeks or more.
    1
  100.  @eric9069  Speaking of someone not knowing what they are talking about - the unmanned spacecraft you mentioned was privately owned and operated.
    1
  101. 55 years ago moon landing budgets were huge. Today, we do it on the cheap. There is your difference. Btw, where did you get the idea they did not have decent computers in 1969? They were just bigger and slower.
    1
  102.  @eric9069  1970's fighter jets and F-35 capabilities are irrelevant to moon landings. You are talking apple to oranges.
    1
  103. The Van Allen Belts were discovered in 1958. They have a solution - avoid going through them.
    1
  104. Our technology regarding moon travel is not much better than it was back then. Remember, back then they had an unlimited budget using the resources of the entire country.
    1
  105.  @kishanmelville5406  Where did they get the moon rocks?
    1
  106.  @kishanmelville5406  To sum it up: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
    1
  107.  @kishanmelville5406  You have to realize for Apollo they spent 40 billion dollars for the facilities, training , etc., (1965 dollars) and 2 billion for each flight. Also, it was a national priority back then. Today, there isn't much reason to go besides prestige. Gather more moon rocks.
    1
  108. The Nevada desert has plants.
    1