I started skimmimg about halfway through, but one item I noticed was his comparison of the distance through space to the moon being so much farther than what we currently accomplish with contemporary launch vehicles.
His argument was asking how we could send a vehicle through thousands of miles of space in the 60s when we can only do a few hundred in 2020.
This argument is entirely naive of the concept of gravity wells and that the initial push away from a planet is the most difficult (energy intensive).
Ok. I mean believability is subjective, so while it seems reasonable to me, it might not to you.
But remember that acceleration due to gravity drops off as an inverse square from the center of the Earth. So it gets much, much easier to push away from Earth the farther out you get.
And moving more than 500 mi from Earth isn't because of a hard energetic limit. It's because nobody's wanted to sink the money into a modern manned moon mission.
Other countries have sent probes to the moon, so it's been proven physically possible by other parties. Unless those are hoaxes too?
Congrats on dismantling one paragraph of hundreds when stripped of all context.
Read the entire thing and if your takeaway is still “I know more about the moon landing than this guy” you ain’t it son.
Not saying "I know more", but I've looked through a lot of the article now, and the gut knows history but not physics. For example, in the second installment, he takes issue with the heating cooling system in the LEM. First, you don't need a heater. The LEM was like a thermos bottle in near vacuum. Body and equipment heat would have been enough. Second, cooling was supposedly accomplished through water sublimation. Pump water to some external plates and it sublimates away taking heat with it. I'm not saying NASA couldn't lie about it, but you can't use it as proof that LEM temp control was impossible as the author does.
Once again you're taking things and stripping them of all context. The LEM wouldn't need a heater? lmfao? you would go to space without a way to generate heat on the assumption that "well my car is like a thermos so I'll never NOT be hot.
idk bro questionable. Have you watched American Moon?
I'm open to NASA being a bunch of liars, and I do think there's evidence that something weird went on with the Apollo missions. I'm just saying that guy's arguments are questionable.
Your comparison of a car acting like a Thermos is a perfect example of scientific misunderstanding. A car is not like a Thermos because we have an atmosphere on Earth, so convection from the air quickly equalizes the temperature inside and out.
But in thevarticle, the author is assuming the LEM behaves like a car on Earth even though the moon had no atmosphere. This is why the LEM behaves differently from a car on Earth.
Haven't seen American Moon, but I've watched a bunch of moon hoax docs. Honestly, most of my personal doubt comes from that post-return presser where the astronauts are acting really weird.
I started skimmimg about halfway through, but one item I noticed was his comparison of the distance through space to the moon being so much farther than what we currently accomplish with contemporary launch vehicles.
His argument was asking how we could send a vehicle through thousands of miles of space in the 60s when we can only do a few hundred in 2020.
This argument is entirely naive of the concept of gravity wells and that the initial push away from a planet is the most difficult (energy intensive).
Ok. I mean believability is subjective, so while it seems reasonable to me, it might not to you.
But remember that acceleration due to gravity drops off as an inverse square from the center of the Earth. So it gets much, much easier to push away from Earth the farther out you get.
And moving more than 500 mi from Earth isn't because of a hard energetic limit. It's because nobody's wanted to sink the money into a modern manned moon mission.
Other countries have sent probes to the moon, so it's been proven physically possible by other parties. Unless those are hoaxes too?
Congrats on dismantling one paragraph of hundreds when stripped of all context. Read the entire thing and if your takeaway is still “I know more about the moon landing than this guy” you ain’t it son.
Not saying "I know more", but I've looked through a lot of the article now, and the gut knows history but not physics. For example, in the second installment, he takes issue with the heating cooling system in the LEM. First, you don't need a heater. The LEM was like a thermos bottle in near vacuum. Body and equipment heat would have been enough. Second, cooling was supposedly accomplished through water sublimation. Pump water to some external plates and it sublimates away taking heat with it. I'm not saying NASA couldn't lie about it, but you can't use it as proof that LEM temp control was impossible as the author does.
https://www.messie2vie.fr/bible/strongs/strong-hebrew-H5377-nasha.html
Nasa - to deceive
Once again you're taking things and stripping them of all context. The LEM wouldn't need a heater? lmfao? you would go to space without a way to generate heat on the assumption that "well my car is like a thermos so I'll never NOT be hot.
idk bro questionable. Have you watched American Moon?
I'm open to NASA being a bunch of liars, and I do think there's evidence that something weird went on with the Apollo missions. I'm just saying that guy's arguments are questionable.
Your comparison of a car acting like a Thermos is a perfect example of scientific misunderstanding. A car is not like a Thermos because we have an atmosphere on Earth, so convection from the air quickly equalizes the temperature inside and out.
But in thevarticle, the author is assuming the LEM behaves like a car on Earth even though the moon had no atmosphere. This is why the LEM behaves differently from a car on Earth.
Haven't seen American Moon, but I've watched a bunch of moon hoax docs. Honestly, most of my personal doubt comes from that post-return presser where the astronauts are acting really weird.