To try everything Brilliant has to offer-free-for a full 30 days, visit brilliant.org/DaveMcKeegan . The first 200 of you will get 20% off Brilliant’s annual premium subscription.
Of course you're right, but you're arguing with people who refuse to listen. Nothing you say will ever change their minds, because they don't want them changed. You're basically messing with their Unicorn fantasies. But thanks for trying Dave.
A friend of mine watched a video of a Russian general who doubted the moon landing because "the astronauts walked out of the shuttle." And he believes it is a good point due to loss of muscle mass and bone density that would've occurred during the trip. Can you look into this one and see if that holds any water?
@@ravenpotter5131 First off the astronauts weren't on a "shuttle". Secondly, the four days going to the moon wouldn't have made any measurable difference to bone density. The cosmonaut who spent a year on Mir did lose a lot of bone density, but that's a huge difference. No, this is ridiculous and doesn't "hold water". The video your friend watched is just dumb.
@@ravenpotter5131 exactly how much muscle mass and bone density did he expect them to loose over 3 days? It tends to be a problen for ISS astronauts because the spend months in zero G.
The common thread for people who deny the moon landing is that since THEY aren't smart enough how to figure out how to go to the moon NOBODY is smart enough to figure out how to go to the moon.
@ghost307, deniers lack the ability to think and research. Since they are deniers, they will instantly dismiss anything they do accidently read or see that verifies the space program and the moon landings.
Yup by their logic computers don't exist, because if they can't understand Newtonian physics they certainly aren't smart enough for electronics engineering.
Yup by their logic computers don't exist, because if they can't understand Newtonian physics they certainly aren't smart enough for electronics engineering.
Yup by their logic computers don't exist, because if they can't understand Newtonian physics they certainly aren't smart enough for electronics engineering.
Saying "we couldn't have gone to the moon because scuba tanks don't hold enough air" is like saying "we couldn't have gone to the moon because cars can't achieve orbit." It's the kind of thing so spectacularly naive and wrong you'd expect whoever said it was five years old.
The really infuriating thing is that they all consider this naivety to be some kind of down to earth home grown common sense that is superior to all this high falutin book learning. If they use the logic of a toddler, then it means these so-called experts have overlooked something even a toddler knows, so they can't be all that smart. It's a brain dead "wisdom of the street", and you see it everywhere (like people who argue against veganism by saying cows and chickens will overpopulate the earth if we stop eating them, or by saying there's not enough land for crops if everyone is vegan, as if more land isn't being used to grow cattle feed).
When I read the flat Earth comment that started this I immediately knew that person had never gone scuba diving. During any scuba training class they explain to you over and over and over again how the tanks work, and how you breathe more the deeper you go, due to increasing water pressure. Why anyone thinks the Apollo missions were pressurized to the same level as dozens of feet under the water is beyond me
@EbonAvatar Because MOST people DO NOT THINK!! The problem is the myriad misconceptions that MOST people have! They "think" it is pure oxygen. They "think" that oxygen explodes! They "think"... well, no they do not THINK! They just parrot something that they've heard. To them, "GEE!! I never THOUGHT of that before! WOW! We've been LIED TO!!!" Instead of actually going and LOOKING this up! All the figures that Dave presents here are easily found online. Why don't these people actually DO THEIR OWN research? Because they don't know how. They just find something that "looks good" to them... and they are done. NASA is lying to us but some GRIFTER isn't? WOW! The NON thought processes that so many people have...
Always informative Dave. I, obviously mistakenly, thought rebreathers were developed so special ops could go undetected by tell tale bubbles from standard scuba air tanks. In some ways, like the famed Japanese WW2 Long Lance torpedo, that used compressed oxygen, hence didn't leave any bubble trail, so consequently was hard to spot from the surface. As has been said many times Dave, conspiracy theorists say, "You talking real science, I ain't listening". But you're so informative. Keep it up with your lovely doggy as companion.
This Dave is your straw man. He just make shit up. No. One in their right mind would say the things he says they say. Believer or one that knows they never landed. It is all about getting his channel up. Wake up and think. You must be stupid to think a person could think the things he says they say. Lol
@@reidflemingworldstoughestm1394 what's a flerp? And of course you can debunk something without lying. What are you on about ? Like, no humans have been through the Van Allen radiation belts, ...I just debunked your lies with the truth in one quick sentence. See? You're welcome.
Saying "The apollo rockets couldn't carry enough scuba tanks to provide them enough air" is like saying "Your car can't fit enough 14 year old cyclist to pedal it at 75 miles an hour." Its an absolutely absurd notion thinking that your car, a much more expensive and complex machine, runs on the same power as your local paperboy's bike. Likewise its absolutely absurd to assume that the multi-billion dollar apollo program was using consumer-grade diving tanks for oxygen.
Get your brain in and use it. The only person that is going on about tanks of air is the idiot that makes it up to make these videos. And all you that believe it I bet you believer all had the jab too. Lol. Think for yourself.
I always love when you debunk a theory with a single piece of evidence, by accounting for just a single factor they missed... to then show there are multiple factors that all are equally as devastating to their argument.
It's funny because if somebody says "Do your own research" it's a red flag that they have indeed NOT done their research, since simple and basic research would be able to answer all their questions. They don't even bother to go that far.
@@Paladwyn Those of us who actually do research will always be ignored by those who want to spread ignorance because the cure for ignorance is knowledge and that is anathema to such closed minds. The old saying 'ignorance is bliss' may not be true, but many THINK it is and it is easy to use and/or abuse for whatever cause.
And there are still additional factors. The oxygen needed in the lunar module would be reduced by the oxygen used in the time that the astronauts were outside the LEM and using their suit-mounted supply, as noted in the video. Furthermore, oxygen consumption varies a lot by physical activity, and the weightless environment is far less strenuous than living on earth, further reducing the oxygen needs.
@@mriguy3202 Not really, while the environment itself would be less strenuous Astronauts report it took additional effort and exertion to move in the inflated balloons they were wearing. Have just encountered that again while reading a 2021 book about the Lunar Rovers, "Across the Airless Wilds".
At this point flat earthers are losing ideas to make their theories look plausible Edit: I meant that they were trying their best to makes their shit theories look good...
I was waiting for the points about scuba venting and the carbon dioxide scrubbers in Apollo. You did not disappoint. Another fantastic video and debunk.
My mind went straight to rebreathers as well. Plus of course, the scene in Apollo 13 where they had to bodge together a square filter into a round hole.
He kind of buries the lede here (the key difference being that a spacecraft is a closed environmental system and SCUBA gear isn't) but that's a way to make the narrative a little more dramatic.
And it seems the deniers consider that with every breath we draw in, 100% of the oxygen is converted to carbon dioxide, therefore every time someone breathes, all the oxygen is consumed.
My only gripe here was when Dave mentioned the scrubbers and showed an image of the Apollo 13 "DIY" jury-rigged emergency scrubber....which of course not what the main scrubber system looked like.
Sometimes they actually do understand reality - but just a very tiny section of it (say, up to 1 mile around them) and use their very limited experience of it to make bold and silly claims, ignoring everything outside their understanding. Or even ignoring what they rely on day by day (like the navigation app in their smartphones - which seem to be smarter than them).
They feel the need to compensate for not being that smart by pretending they're so smart that they figured out the tricks that the people they felt overshadowed their intelligence didn't, therefore making them the smartest. Through this practice they no longer have to worry whether or not they're the dumb one in the room.
I learned to love your explanation on your YT channel of how an airfoil creates lift. The reason I say “learned to love” is I had to give up long held beliefs of how lift is created as traditionally taught. As retired ATC I do not easily give up concepts that have served me well over a thirty year career. To tie this all in I will say that skepticism is not simple doubt and denial of conventional wisdom. Skepticism is evaluating new evidence against what you think you know, and if the new evidence is valid, adjusting your knowledge based on that evidence. You and Dave both do a masterful job of bringing rationality to the conversation. Thank you.
One of the best channels on RUclips, PERIOD. I love your work! Clear explanations, no name calling, no insults. Even people who are not flat earthers can learn a TON from this channel. Keep it up man!
It makes no sense to take 500 scuba tanks to the moon. No water, no diving. Besides, they didn't have time for any shenanigans even if there had been an ocean on the moon.
Folding Ideas' video "In Search of a Flat Earth" told me everything I need to know about flat earther types. It's not about being dumb, it's about having an existing agenda, and the flat earth view is in service to that agenda. I wouldn't be surprised if most moon hoax types are the same.
@@EvilAng3laI'm sure the type its either narcissist grandiose disorder or charlatans motivated by money. Most of them is low intelligence people with narcissist grandiose disorder.
@@kathleenr4047 Math and maths are both valid shorthand terms for mathematics, they just have regional differences in usage. But since mathematics is plural, 'maths' does seem a bit more logical, doesn't it?
@@ReffaDayCorrection. They can’t figure out how to do it on a budget, while also making all the contractors happy. Even then, they’re working on it. Artemis-I was an uncrewed flyby using the Orion capsule
@@ReffaDay theres just no point in going back, hence why their budget is cut and they dont have the money to spare to do it. They went multiple times, found its just a bunch of gray rocks and meteors, and thats about it. They still send other unmanned satellites and rovers there, but theres no point in endangering humans to go themselves anymore until its much cheaper and safer to do so.
Easy rebuff: Rebreathers.. those things can go for a loooong time on one tank, we breathe in 21% O2 and breathe out 16%, you just scrub the co2 out of that, and you only lost what about 25% of the oxygen per breath, so a regular scuba tank lasts about 4 times as long, or longer, (by my quick math, so it is probably a lot longer) you add pure o2 to a rebreather, and then you could compare that to a spaceship. *The amount of oxygen available in a typical rebreather setup can last around 12-16 hours* I REALLY need to watch the entire video before commenting
Even easier rebuff: "500 scuba tanks? Who said anything about scuba tanks? Please post a source where NASA says they sent compressed air to the moon" Make them do their own work
Absolutely correct. The 4 hours mentioned in the video is actually the lifetime of the CO2 scrubber, and again, is impacted by depth (ambient pressure). The working section of the scrubber material gets wider as the pressure increases, and conversely narrower as the pressure decreases (which helped the Apollo crew even more, as the scrubber lasts longer.)
@@ctsean They don't lol. They just say "do your own research" ad nauseum and *if* they link to a source, it's usually some other crack pot who refuses to post their sources, and if they do it links to another crack pot, rinse, repeat, and see there is no actual source beyond 'I heard one time'
@@ctsean You know they won't that id the problem with Flerfers and other conspiracy theorists, they just say crap and people but it.. looking it up is too hard for a population that can't hold its attention on something for more than 2 minutes or 280 characters
These are my favourite flat-earth/conspiracy debunking videos because almost no time is spent in preformative "anger", and instead I get to learn about all sorts of neat pieces of information exactly like this. "debunk" almost feels like a disservice, this is so much gentler and really feels like a "please let me help you understand" and it makes them very easy watches.
Your videos are genuinely interesting, I don’t watch them as debunking videos, just educational content. The fact that all the real information is out there for anyone to look at is brilliant. Unfortunately not everyone is willing to ‘do their own research’ correctly…..it speaks volumes about how people wasted their education….free in the UK! I used to work with a fully entrenched conspiracy theorist, thick as two short planks and a horrible person to boot, but had that confident patter that would reel in the weak minded like a fish….the boss in this case! Very self important barking orders at everyone. Liked by no one and would be ‘busy’ and walk away when quizzed too much on a topic. Always carried a bundle of papers so he looked to be doing his job.
This is probably one of the cooler answers I've come across during my flerf watching lol. Not because it was a good argument on their part, but because it was a general question with a great, satisfying answer. Keep it up!
I actually have a kids book in my collection called “How We Got To The Moon,” which explains how the oxygen system in the Apollo missions worked. Let that sink in. The “enlightened” Flat Earthers are beaten by a kids book.
Modern day flat earthers are driven (almost) entirely by memes. Short, satirical, nonsensical memes. It seems the rest just got sucked in by Dubays soothing voice. Books/educational videos, such as Mr McKeegans, are like kryptonite to them.
I think the only people surprised are the Flat Earthers. Then again, I am sure they are surprised by all kinds of things. Things like breathing rely on something that cannot be seen, so therefore by many Flat Earthers' definition, breathing cannot exist. I don't know about you, but I like breathing...
My son was gifted such a book written as an early reader, it was in dogeral & mostly ok until near the end where they talked about the astronauts needing "gravity boots" to keep them on the Moon's surface, sigh!
@@joerichardson4325 But of course Dubay doesn't believe in any of his nonsence either. He knows he's created a money pyramid and he's at the top of it.
Perhaps the best lone argument I've heard refuting claims that we didn't go to the moon, is the fact that even if we didn't go, we would still have to create literally everything. Every document and every manual for every part and every system on every vehicle, which are scientifically accurate. Every rocket and every engine. In fact, they'd still have to do everything, including launching the rockets with full payloads. Plus you have all of the paperwork (facts and figures) for actually doing the landing, orbit, all of it. I've actually seen a few arguments that it would have been more difficult and/or would have cost more to fake it all, than to actually go to the moon.
Of course it would’ve been far more difficult and expensive. To accurately fake the lighting you would hundred or more small high powered multicolored lasers which literally didn’t exist in 1969 and developing those lasers alone probably would’ve cost more than just building the rockets and infrastructure and training the astronauts and actually going
We do, but there are a couple problems with that: NASA's archiving systems in the 1970s weren't exactly pinpoint and didn't account for morons claiming something that clearly happened never happened. Also, NASA built very little of the Apollo hardware in house, hundreds of contracting companies were employed and they would have had those schematics in their own facilities.
You might like the book "Exo" by Steven Gould. It's total fantasy (4th book in the "Jumper" series(Jumper, Reflex, Impulse, Exo)), but does have a rather good description of making a rebreather device from scratch for use in space. In a nutshell. 1. System pressurized to 5 psi. 2. Emergency dump valve that releases to environment if pressure exceeds 6 psi. 3. Carbon dioxide scrubber. 4. Fill valve from oxygen tank to suit if pressure < ~ 4.5 psi. In a nutshell, just breath, taking in O2 and exhaling CO2. The scrubber will absorb the CO2, reducing the pressure in the suit. When pressure drops below trip point, value releases oxygen into suit to get pressure back to nominal. If value sticks, etc. Pressure relief valve prevents issues with over pressure.
@@johncochran8497For this to work, the tank must be at least 5 times the volume you breathe in (2-8L, depending on the person). Otherwise, breathing in would drop the pressure, the tank would add O2 to rebuild the pressure, and then breathing out would overpressure it and cause it to vent. So it's a little bit more tricky to get right.
@@HenryLoenwind Really? Modern spacesuits are constant volume in order to prevent the astronaut from having to fight the tendency of a suit to "starfish". Breathing merely exchanges the air outside the body with the lungs without changing the overall volume of the entire system contained within the suit itself. Breath in - Volume of air outside the body decreases while the chest expands by the same amount of volume. Total volume within suit remains constant. Breath out - Chest contracts, expelling air into suit. As air enters suit from lungs, the the pressure doesn't increase because the chest compresses, giving a larger volume between the suit and body.
I am a SCUBA instructor and a certified Rebreather Diver, I love how you break down the information that I teach and I live with when ever I go diving to make it easy to understand.
Fun extra fact: 100% oxygen at normal atmospheric pressure would lead to oxygen toxicity. The reason this doesnt happen in a space capsule with 100% O2 is due to the reduced ambient pressure (5 psi) as mentioned in your video. If you calculate the actual partial pressure (pO2) at that reduced pressure it is well below where O2 toxicity becomes a concern. Edit: I should point out that the specific type of O2 toxicity I'm referencing is pulmonary, not CNS.
Another fun fact.. The band sweet wrote a song about Love&Oxygen... Love is like oxygen You get too much you get too high Not enough and you're gonna die
Another fun fact.. When you feel the need to take a breath, it's not about the lack of oxygen at all but due to the buildup of CO2. This is why work in silos and tanks can be extremely dangerous, as you breathe normally but don't get any oxygen if there are other gases in there that displace the oxygen.
@gottagowork mostly true, however, low blood oxygen does in fact play a role in respiratory drive. The physiology is a little complicated but long story short - decreased o2 levels cause the peripheral chemoreceptors to signal the central chemoreceptors to become more sensitive to changes in CO2 levels. While CO2 plays a much larger primary role, it does not bear sole responsibility for your drive to breathe.
This is also one reason for a depth limit to scuba diving using air. Deeper diving uses a different mix of gasses with a lower oxygen concentration to keep the partial pressure of oxygen low enough.
Fascinating info! Truly fascinating. At nearly 58 yrs, I may not be to old to learn new tricks (maybe to old to perform them, but not to learn them)! Love this channel!
Yeah, it was pretty sad. Strong stuff from Dave, but when I heard the topic, I was like "oh, that one is easy." I knew every single point he was going to make.
Yeah, I felt the same. You don't even need that firm of a grasp on science to see the fault here, the first lesson on an open water course is sufficient.
It’s almost like engineers solved these problems well before we went to space. Liquified gasses have been a thing for medical and industrial purposes for a long time.
(To add a bit to this video) As someone who has worked on aircraft for many years, military and civilian, I can tell you that LIQUID oxygen systems carry much higher density of oxygen than gaseous oxygen. The space missions, like many military aircraft, used liquid oxygen, as stated in the video. It is held in a container called a dewar, like a very high quality thermos. There are actually two containers, one inside of the other. The space between has almost all the air pumped out, creating a vacuum. That vacuum doesn't transmit heat well, so the oxygen stays liquid much longer than it would if held in a single container. In fact, the liquid oxygen has to go through a series of coils to warm it up so it will turn into a gas and be brought up to a breathable temperature. Also, liquid oxygen is measured in liters (since it is a liquid). Military aircraft, depending upon size, have either five, ten, or twenty-five liter containers, though I have seen special 75 liter containers used for a larger cargo/passenger aircraft (it actually had two of those for the passengers as well as a standard 25 liter container for the crew members).
Very good explanation on what the real O2 Requirements were and environment the Cabins and Suits were. On Apollos 15, 16, and 17, by having the Rover, the Astronauts spent a lot of the EVA sitting in/on the Rover, which reduced their O2 consumption rates compared to walking the entire EVA. Of course the Max distance they could take the Rover away from the LM was limited to how long their O2 would last if they had to walk back. That explains why generally the Trips were done early in the EVAs and the most Remote stops were also early in the EVA. On most EVAs on these 3 flights, the Moon walkers used less O2 than the Apollo 14 astronauts, even though the EVAs were about 75% longer
The thing that proves the value of Dave's info that we almost never see flerfs trying to debunk him or disagree with him, purely because it is SO well researched and presented. Keep up the great work Dave.
as a certified rescue diver, thank you for explaining this concept to the morons who used this analogy to try to debunk the moon landing. SCUBA is an entirely different system.
Dave. Your expertise in debunking flat earth theories is unparalleled, and your attention to detail sets you apart from others. Keep it up, love your content.
Wow... I never considered how 17% of the air that we exhale is oxygen, and that scuba divers are exhaling that are so it can't be reused... I never thought about that. Great video as always Dave!
I just like learning about the specifics of space travel. I grew up with a general understanding of how things like Apollo worked but find it neat to get into the more nuts and bolts of it.
Speaking of bolts, the Saturn V pad explosive hold bolts had to all work in milliseconds of each other. Reflective Layer has a decent overview of the basic types of release mechanisms at ruclips.net/video/PFABKpqWG9Q/видео.html There are also explosive guillotine style cable cutters, such as used on separation of the CM and SM.
Right? I love how that one comment was “here’s something no one has considered,” like he’s the first person to ever think that a spacecraft would need oxygen🤦♂️
Huh, it's almost like a bunch of smart people calculated how much oxygen the astronauts would need, and then stuffed enough of it inside the spacecraft... weird, isn't it?
Scuba instructor here: good job. Especially including rebreather, which is indeed the closest to what they used. 4 hours is what the manufacturer for my rebreather says a 3 liter tank is good for(and as importantly: how, much CO2 the scrubber is good for), but as mentioned that's a very conservative figure. If I stay at mostly the same depth and thus don't subject the device to pressure changes, and don't exert myself much, I could easily last 10 hours or more on that(I've done one 2.5h dive where I'd only used 10% of my oxygen). The previous owner claimed he could do 12 hours on a 2 liter tank, I believe him. Air consumption on open circuit is also very variable, I can do 90+ minutes at 10 meters on a standard 80cu/11.2L 200 bar tank(my record single tank dive is 124 minutes, average depth 8m), we also consider the last quarter(50 bar) of gas in the tank to be reserve, not to be used in the dive, you're supposed to surface with that.
The one fact that seems to be consistently overlooked, is that it was impossible to fake what we saw on TV. I was a film student at Temple University and currently work in the audio recording industry. The technology to fake the moon landings simply did not exist at that time. I would suggest watching the RUclips video titled; Moon Landing Faked? Filmmaker Says Not. It is presented by S. G. Collins. He is an American filmmaker currently living in Amsterdam. He has been active in the industry since the late 1970s.
@@vacuumandgaspressurecoexistingwatch the video I suggested. Go outside sometime and look at the shadows. In the studio there will be a drop off in the shadows. Also, it was not possible to slow down video tape in that era. And if they shot it on film, and over cranked it that would require a tele-cine the size of a garage to broadcast it. Remember, that broadcast lasted over 2 hours straight. I remember sitting in my parents living room watching it live. Again, watch the video I referenced in my earlier comment.
You say that Apollo 11 LM depressurized only once. Actually, they depressurized twice, the second time to open the door and jettison the PLSS's and other excess weight like cameras (sans film). Similarly, the subsequent flights have one more depressurization than excursions. Apollo 15 had an extra depressurization for the standup EVA (SEVA) before the moon walks.
Well done, sir! Clear demonstrations of facts, extant technologies at the time, and the methods by which the denied achievements were accomplished. I have an engineering and manufacturing background and I regularly learn new things from your work. I really appreciate your videos.
It always amazes me that these people think "How does that work?" and rather than just looking up the answer and learning something they instead conclude that it must be fake because it couldn't possibly work in their mind.
It's not just the impossibility of fitting 576 cylinders into the spacecraft. When full they also weigh around 15kg each; my math puts that at 8.5 tons! Scuba divers actually do often breathe gasses with a much higher precentage of O2, and even 100% O2 at shallow depths. Just as with closed-circuit diving, the Apollo system was much, much more efficient than just letting spent gas escape. However, the scrubber does not convert the CO2 back to O2; it just absorbs it. You do need therefore to keep injecting O2 back into the sytem to maintain pressure. The extra air cylinder for a scuba CCR is to dilute the gas mix if it gets too rich in O2, as that can kill you at depth if the pressure of O2 you breathe gets more than 2 Bar. Of course in the Apollo spacecraft they were breathing O2 at 0.3 Bar so this wasn't going to be a problem.
I bet most of it was fueled by adrenaline. I can’t imagine, all those years of training, preparing, the trust they must have in all the amazing scientists and engineers. A lot of these guys were from the military, disciplined and intelligent, incredible examples of humanity.
I remember building representative Oxygen tanks in the LEGO Creator Expert Lunar Module, which was approximately in scale with the Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin Minifigs that came with it (it unfortunately didn't include the Command Module or Michael Collins). The set aimed to be an accurate scale model. Throughout the instructions it includes little excerpts about the assemblies as I constructed them. One of those excerpts were on the Oxygen and fuel tanks. I highly recommend the set. I've been collecting these sets myself. I have the LEGO Ideas Saturn V, the already mentioned Creator Expert Lunar Module, I also have the LEGO Ideas ISS, and of course, the LEGO Discovery Shuttle with Hubble Space Telescope. A little side note: During the sponsorship, at around 1:30 when you showed your phone, the "Hello Dave," gave me a good laugh. It reminded me of HAL 9000.
@@Utopian1234 I was lucky when I found the Shuttle. It was st a Bricks & Minifigs, and I had already saved enough for it because I knew we were going to visit the store on the trip. I honestly didn't expect to see the shuttle of all things. I bought most of these sets months apart from each other, at least.
The three-part answer I anticipate: 1) Little of the oxygen in a SCUBA tank is actually absorbed into the bloodstream. Most of it gets discarded when the diver exhales. 2) If you instead recycle air by replacing used oxygen and removing exhaled carbon dioxide, then the oxygen requirements drop dramatically. 3) Oxygen is a gas at room temperatures and pressures. At lower temperatures, it becomes a liquid. At higher pressures, it becomes a supercritical fluid. Both are hundreds of times denser than oxygen gas. Edit: Yep. More or less that.
Dave, may I add some points that may be slightly wrong with your presentation, they actually make things more obvious as to how the astronauts use oxygen (and divers on rebreathers). First, let's talk some numbers, for example on Sunday I carried out a typical dive in Scotland for around 60-70 mins (let's say 1 hour) and used 35bar of oxygen from my 3 litre cylinder. That is basically around 35x3÷60 = 1.75 litres of oxygen per min. Note, I didn't mention depth! That's because the oxygen consumption is totally unrelated to depth on a rebreather. The rate of oxygen consumption is solely due to the person's metabolism - which is related to how much work the person does. So although the gas used in open circuit scuba is related to depth, on closed circuit scuba it isn't. Typically a person would metabolise ~ 2 litres of oxygen per minute when active (finning hard) and 1 litre per minute at rest, all converted to carbon dioxide. A key point then is that the body reacts to the CO2 as an urge to breathe - NOT the drop in oxygen, (so the films where you see people gasping as the oxygen level drops is just pure rubbish - actually what happens is you just go to sleep, totally unaware of the lack of oxygen - it's a very serious concern when diving on a rebreather!) BTW scuba is "self contained underwater breathing apparatus" - both open circuit (a standard cylinder and regulators) and closed circuit (rebreather) are self contained and used underwater so both are scuba. Also the proper term for the cylinder is cylinder , although people colloquially use bottle, can, tin, etc. But tank is actually incorrect (although some places actually misuse tank to mean cylinder) - because strictly a tank contains a liquid in a gas or liquid environment (such as fuel tank, water tank etc), whereas a cylinder contains a gas within a gas or liquid environment (such as a calar gas cylinder, or diving cylinder etc) a tank is not a pressure vessel, but a gas cylinder is.
*"A key point then is that **_the body reacts to the [excess] CO2 as an urge to breathe - NOT the drop in oxygen,_** (so the films where you see people gasping as the oxygen level drops is just pure rubbish - actually what happens is you just go to sleep, totally unaware of the lack of oxygen"* I want this to be common knowledge. Most environments on earth have a readily available excess of oxygen. The respiration problem occurring most often for aerobic organisms isn't a shortage of oxygen, it's the build up of CO2, which becomes toxic at ridiculously low levels.
Small correction: while the primary drive to breathe comes from CO2 buildup and a subsequent generation of hydrogen ions acidifying the blood through hydrolysis of carbonic acid - low blood oxygen does play a secondary role through the peripheral chemoreceptors signaling the central chemoreceptors to become more sensitive to increasing CO2 levels. This is where the theory of hypoxic respiratory drive comes from.
@@reidflemingworldstoughestm1394decreasing blood oxygen levels do in fact play a role in respiratory drive, see my previous comment fore more details.
Not having seen your channel before and unaware of viewers that are not the sharpest tool in the shed making SCUBA Tank/Diver comparisons to O2/LOX requirements for space travel, I started this video with a hefty dose of skepticism. Nice job on debunking THAT line of thought. Knowing how these people think (don't even ask, sigh) they go down the rabbit hole of anything that fits their POV and will not listen to reason. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink!
It generally seems moon landing deniers who watch this channel concede on the specific topic of each video after watching, before inventing a _new_ point to contest the moon landing every time. It has me wondering: At what point do moon landing deniers realize that every previous argument they made simply does not hold up, and realize that their worldview is inconsistent with everything they now know about the science? In effect, where is the point of realization that the only answer consistent with the evidence surrounding the moon landing _is_ that it did happen? When does it go from "I understand this point but I still don't think it happened because X" to "It must have happened because I have answers from A-Y, this small Z thing I believe to be an inconsistency _may_ just be me having a lack of knowledge on this specific topic?" I'm sure those who brought up this scuba argument don't know anything about it, not even what the acronym stands for, and yet they _choose_ not to take the time to learn about it before making it the crux of their position . So at what point is the burden of proof, which should fall on them but is met by debunking channels like this, satisfied?
All this info is out there if you want to actually research it. But when they say "do your own research," they just mean "accept what other hoaxers say."
And then when you claim you did the math and proved it happened they claim that any numbers you got to do the math was from a reputable source thus also must be fake. Then when you experimentally find the numbers yourself without trusting the basic physics from around the time of Gallileo and Newton they claim that you're brainwashed or they claim you did it wrong cause some other guy did the experiment (and did it wrong) that proved the moon landing didn't happen
I appreciate this article, Dave, because you corrected a misunderstanding on my part. After Apollo 1 had its deadly fire due to a pure oxygen environment, I’ve always thought they changed to a mixed gas environment in the Apollo system… I was wrong. They reduced flammable content withinin the capsule. Live in learn.
They did switch to mixed gas in part Apollo 1 had pure at 16psi on the launch pad to push any nitrogen out of the cabin with the intention of reducing it to 5psi after launch - that high concentration of oxygen is what made everything highly flammable Following missions used 60/40 mixed gas at 16psi until they reached space, after which the cabin was switched to 5psi pure oxygen
Excellent explanation Dave. I hope flerfs will take the time to actually watch the entire video rather than just blurting ‘nope’ But….. who knows! Gotta lie to flerf 🌎🌍🌏
I learn something every Dave video I watch. I never realised the Apollo crew had pure oxygen atmosphere @ 5PSI. It's not intuitive because pure oxygen at atmospheric pressure is lethal. In fact after the Apollo 1 launch pad fire which killed three astronauts, they revised the launch pad mix to 40% nitrogen/60% oxygen @ 16psi (slightly higher than atmospheric pressure) to avoid the fire risk and then gradually vented that mixed air to replace it with the pure oxygen mix after achieving orbit. Great video, Dave.
Scuba tanks range in size from a 0.5 litres pony cylinder for the Stab jacket at a pressure of 230-300bar, whilst the largest is often called a “dustbin” 15 litres/300 bar/4,500 psi and I haven’t met any diver that goes through their air that fast either! The Apollo command modules used pure oxygen at less than 5psi and they also had co2 scrubbers (remember the Apollo 13 fix involving square scrubbers vs the round versions.
What always gets me with flat earthers and their ilk is that if they just put in half the time googling their question as they spent googling the info for their incorrect assumption they wouldn't exist.
That was some absolutely incredible engineering BTW. NO question whatsoever. Those 60's nerds pulled this off mostly with just slide rules & pencil & paper & perhaps the occasional help of giant computers much less powerful than today's phones(mind you), for some more precise final calculations & such. It really is amazing that some people 100% legit have NO idea whatsoever just how much more others can & indeed do know than themselves, especially about specific things. IMHO I think that idea alone ought to be taught as its own subject in early-mid basic EDU, at least briefly. Nobody knows what they don't know, but to make such HUGE mistakes can easily be avoided with a small amount of humility.
RUclipsr Usagi Electric actually has an old NASA computer sitting waiting for some sort of restoration. Looking forward to that series.. Until then it's Curious Marc all the way to space
The Apollo 13 story and the air scrubbers kind of nails this. Subs can resurface or snorkel in air. Great explaination and why contrasting two different situations doesn't work :)
There is a well-known axiom that states that "there are no stupid questions, only stupid answers" however the question about 500 scuba tanks disproves this rule. This point was raised by someone who obviously hasn't spent even 5 minutes considering the implications of their question and has no idea at all about any of the facts or science involved - either in scuba diving or space travel. The fact you feel it necessary to make videos like this, Dave, is a sad reflection on the stupidity of some people and the general non-critical sheepiness of so many internet users. Its all together tragic.
@MrOttopants Because he DOES NOT "think"!!! People like him are really REALLY STOOPID!!! They are! The "interwebs" has given them a platform to show their ignorance. We can laugh at them, but they carry on, mostly oblivious to exactly how stupid they sound, and are. People do have misconceptions. That is completely fine. But then, LEARN from that. So many can NOT do that! 50 years ago, Biology 11 class, our teacher was discussing how fish breathed oxygen from the water. What FORM in the oxygen IN the water? I doubt that anyone in the class knew, expect me. Perhaps there was someone else but no one was saying anything. We heard "liquid" oxygen several times. Water is liquid, right? Therefore the oxygen within in it must also be liquid. Well, that's an initial line of reasoning. But how can you test that? How can you determine if you are correct without actually doing a test? Knowing physical properties of substances, that's how. I was SO annoyed that these incorrect answers were being bantered about. Finally the teacher asked me to tell the class. HE was confident that I really knew, but he didn't know for sure. "DISSOLVED" I told the class. The look of incredulity on many faces... so many had no idea what to dissolve really meant. So... today... SO MANY really have NO IDEA about how the natural world actually works. Even though they have ALL the knowledge that they need right at their fingertips.
Oh yeah, kinda makes me think about those liquid air systems. They are cool in theory, but a lot of problems in reality. If they worked we could go so much deeper in the ocean
Thank you for your channel. There are many articles and books that cover all the conspiracy theories and debunk them but they dont necessary cover everything. Your channel fill these gaps and I always learn new things. Thank you Dave!
Yes, oxygen toxicity comes from breathing in too much oxygen - high pressure pure oxygen becomes toxic however at low pressure, i.e. 5psi, the amount of oxygen being breathed in isn't that different from regular air at sea level
Recently lost my uncle to the "we didnt go to the moon" conspiracy. And he's an engineer and otherwise really sharp, balanced person! He was sending me the dumbest "debunking the moon landing/space travel/etc" videos and I was just thinking "youre smarter than this dude!" I dont remember the details but they were the dumbest "proofs we couldnt have" and stuff like that. Like, "how did they get the footage of him stepping out, did they send a camera crew first? See!" And "how did that rover fit in the tiny spacecraft?!" Type stuff. Dude, there are plenty of books and manuals that cover all this! You can literally buy the Saturn V Flight Manual and Apollo Mission Plans. Step by step checklists for EVERYTHING. Im afraid he's gonna end up at flat earth eventually lol. There are PLENTY enough REAL conspiracies, we dont need to go making up absurd additional conspiracy theories!
Matt....you're lucky...I'm surrounded by flat Earth/ we never went to the Moon/ we live in a Dome/ there's water outside the Dome/ and Polar Ice keeps the water from falling off the edges....Moon is a Disk..Sun is a Disk...both inside the Dome..water is flat..planes fly straight or they hit the Dome..rockets hit the Dome..etc etc..i get it day in day out..24/7/365/Since internet
@@markianclark9645 wow. That's unfortunate. Really sad how science and engineering illiterate people have become. I think a number of "conspiracy theories" that turned out to be true have broken a lot of people's trust with ANYTHING from the Gvmt. And maybe rightfully so. But there is more than enough legitimate evidence that the celestial bodies are spherical, that we landed on the moon, etc to overcome some justified distrust of the powers that be.
Another great video where I learned something new and on top of that,the comment section is also disseminated with some good information. Thanks Dave(and Rusty)
It's actually not a bad question, it's not immediately obvious why scuba tanks seem to last a much shorter time than the air in a spaceship. The difference is that I clicked on this video to find out why that might be the case, and they instantly decided that it must be impossible and fake.
@DaveMcKeegan 4:46 Slight error describing the second stage regulator. The diagram is a downstream valve, where the spring pushes the valve closed. When the diver breathes in (equivalent of about 1cm water into a straw), allowing the weight of the water on the main diaphragm pushes on the lever to open the valve. Otherwise a great description of scuba vs rebreather and why it does talke 500 scuba tanks.
1:30 See? All Globers have to lie! 284 in the picture, says 283 in the script? Why the lies?????? obvs sarcasm to mock FLERFs who actually do have to lie about everything
Mathematics, actually just simple arithmetic, is the key. Most conspiracy theories can easily be disproven with addition, subtraction, multiplication and division.
My wife worked at NASA writing the life support documents/ manuals for all the Apollo missions, and all your calcs are spot on. Waw very impressive. Keep up the good work.
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
To try everything Brilliant has to offer-free-for a full 30 days, visit brilliant.org/DaveMcKeegan . The first 200 of you will get 20% off Brilliant’s annual premium subscription.
Of course you're right, but you're arguing with people who refuse to listen. Nothing you say will ever change their minds, because they don't want them changed. You're basically messing with their Unicorn fantasies. But thanks for trying Dave.
@@PruneHubppp
A friend of mine watched a video of a Russian general who doubted the moon landing because "the astronauts walked out of the shuttle." And he believes it is a good point due to loss of muscle mass and bone density that would've occurred during the trip. Can you look into this one and see if that holds any water?
@@ravenpotter5131 First off the astronauts weren't on a "shuttle". Secondly, the four days going to the moon wouldn't have made any measurable difference to bone density. The cosmonaut who spent a year on Mir did lose a lot of bone density, but that's a huge difference. No, this is ridiculous and doesn't "hold water". The video your friend watched is just dumb.
@@ravenpotter5131 exactly how much muscle mass and bone density did he expect them to loose over 3 days? It tends to be a problen for ISS astronauts because the spend months in zero G.
By their logic a Navy submarine needs about 750,000 scuba tanks per week.
How many oxygen candles is that? ;)
@@0LoneTechI'm guessing about 200 if the AOG is down.
No, they would say that submarines are all a scam by NASA, oh, I mean NOAA.
By their what ? 😁
You made me laugh.
The common thread for people who deny the moon landing is that since THEY aren't smart enough how to figure out how to go to the moon NOBODY is smart enough to figure out how to go to the moon.
@ghost307, deniers lack the ability to think and research.
Since they are deniers, they will instantly dismiss anything they do accidently read or see that verifies the space program and the moon landings.
Same with flat earthers and other reality challenged folks.
Yup by their logic computers don't exist, because if they can't understand Newtonian physics they certainly aren't smart enough for electronics engineering.
Yup by their logic computers don't exist, because if they can't understand Newtonian physics they certainly aren't smart enough for electronics engineering.
Yup by their logic computers don't exist, because if they can't understand Newtonian physics they certainly aren't smart enough for electronics engineering.
“How many atmospheres can the ship withstand?”
“We’ll, it’s a spaceship, so I’d say anywhere between zero and one.”
Love the reference!
i forgot, was it futurama ? XD
@@Nuke-MarsX Yes it was.
@@CativaCookie a colossal mouth bass!
@@qwopiretyumy manwich!
Saying "we couldn't have gone to the moon because scuba tanks don't hold enough air" is like saying "we couldn't have gone to the moon because cars can't achieve orbit." It's the kind of thing so spectacularly naive and wrong you'd expect whoever said it was five years old.
The really infuriating thing is that they all consider this naivety to be some kind of down to earth home grown common sense that is superior to all this high falutin book learning. If they use the logic of a toddler, then it means these so-called experts have overlooked something even a toddler knows, so they can't be all that smart. It's a brain dead "wisdom of the street", and you see it everywhere (like people who argue against veganism by saying cows and chickens will overpopulate the earth if we stop eating them, or by saying there's not enough land for crops if everyone is vegan, as if more land isn't being used to grow cattle feed).
"cars can't achieve orbit."....queue video of SpaceX's red Telsa sportster leaving Earth orbit....;-)
@@TornadoCAN99 well it did have some help getting there
@TornadoCAN99 did it drive there?
Don’t give them ideas
This is the best debunking channel, hands down. No insults. No mockery. Just education.
agreed. he's pitch perfect.
He does do a bit of mockery, but it's tasteful
And a lazy attention seeking dog to boot!
I completely agree, 100% .
Just education what about truth on Jan 1 st 2018 google took all truth off the internet now truth is called disinformation
When I read the flat Earth comment that started this I immediately knew that person had never gone scuba diving. During any scuba training class they explain to you over and over and over again how the tanks work, and how you breathe more the deeper you go, due to increasing water pressure. Why anyone thinks the Apollo missions were pressurized to the same level as dozens of feet under the water is beyond me
@EbonAvatar Because MOST people DO NOT THINK!! The problem is the myriad misconceptions that MOST people have! They "think" it is pure oxygen. They "think" that oxygen explodes! They "think"... well, no they do not THINK! They just parrot something that they've heard. To them, "GEE!! I never THOUGHT of that before! WOW! We've been LIED TO!!!"
Instead of actually going and LOOKING this up! All the figures that Dave presents here are easily found online. Why don't these people actually DO THEIR OWN research? Because they don't know how. They just find something that "looks good" to them... and they are done.
NASA is lying to us but some GRIFTER isn't? WOW! The NON thought processes that so many people have...
@@rickkwitkoski1976Also, they think they know everything that needs to be known for their objection to be valid.
Especially because higher pressure inside, means more strength needed to hold everything inside... More strength needed = more weight needed.
As we all know, it was all done under water in a shed in the Nevada desert.
Always informative Dave. I, obviously mistakenly, thought rebreathers were developed so special ops could go undetected by tell tale bubbles from standard scuba air tanks. In some ways, like the famed Japanese WW2 Long Lance torpedo, that used compressed oxygen, hence didn't leave any bubble trail, so consequently was hard to spot from the surface.
As has been said many times Dave, conspiracy theorists say, "You talking real science, I ain't listening". But you're so informative.
Keep it up with your lovely doggy as companion.
As usual, deniers can only refute a straw man. Thank you Dave for your straightforward and non-judgmental explanations!
It's the same problem every flerp argument has ─ ya can't debunk reality without saying something that is grossly untrue.
@@reidflemingworldstoughestm1394 #gottalietoflerf
@@reidflemingworldstoughestm1394yeah, their strategy is believing in something so incredibly unrealistic that there isnt any way to disprove it
This Dave is your straw man. He just make shit up. No. One in their right mind would say the things he says they say. Believer or one that knows they never landed. It is all about getting his channel up. Wake up and think. You must be stupid to think a person could think the things he says they say. Lol
@@reidflemingworldstoughestm1394 what's a flerp? And of course you can debunk something without lying. What are you on about ? Like, no humans have been through the Van Allen radiation belts, ...I just debunked your lies with the truth in one quick sentence. See? You're welcome.
Saying "The apollo rockets couldn't carry enough scuba tanks to provide them enough air" is like saying "Your car can't fit enough 14 year old cyclist to pedal it at 75 miles an hour." Its an absolutely absurd notion thinking that your car, a much more expensive and complex machine, runs on the same power as your local paperboy's bike. Likewise its absolutely absurd to assume that the multi-billion dollar apollo program was using consumer-grade diving tanks for oxygen.
My local paperboy is a girl. And her mother drives her around delivering the papers... Not sure if she's pedalling the car.
@@tin2001 Check between the wheels for shoes running along the ground, they could be flintstoning that.
Ridiculous idea. We all know it's tiny horses.
@@johnridout6540 yes, why else is the car's power measured in horsepower?
Get your brain in and use it. The only person that is going on about tanks of air is the idiot that makes it up to make these videos. And all you that believe it I bet you believer all had the jab too. Lol. Think for yourself.
I always love when you debunk a theory with a single piece of evidence, by accounting for just a single factor they missed... to then show there are multiple factors that all are equally as devastating to their argument.
But... but... but... You counter ignorant belief with FACTS? HOW COULD YOU???????????????????????????????
It's funny because if somebody says "Do your own research" it's a red flag that they have indeed NOT done their research, since simple and basic research would be able to answer all their questions. They don't even bother to go that far.
@@Paladwyn Those of us who actually do research will always be ignored by those who want to spread ignorance because the cure for ignorance is knowledge and that is anathema to such closed minds. The old saying 'ignorance is bliss' may not be true, but many THINK it is and it is easy to use and/or abuse for whatever cause.
And there are still additional factors. The oxygen needed in the lunar module would be reduced by the oxygen used in the time that the astronauts were outside the LEM and using their suit-mounted supply, as noted in the video. Furthermore, oxygen consumption varies a lot by physical activity, and the weightless environment is far less strenuous than living on earth, further reducing the oxygen needs.
@@mriguy3202 Not really, while the environment itself would be less strenuous Astronauts report it took additional effort and exertion to move in the inflated balloons they were wearing. Have just encountered that again while reading a 2021 book about the Lunar Rovers, "Across the Airless Wilds".
At this point flat earthers are losing ideas to make their theories look plausible
Edit: I meant that they were trying their best to makes their shit theories look good...
Not at all. You see, they can just keep recycling their old debunked theories to vastly extend the time they can continue to reject reality.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
Their what now?
There are no ideas which make their theories look plausible.
The main problem of a flat earth. is that if the earth was flat.. Cats would have pushed everything off it by now
I was waiting for the points about scuba venting and the carbon dioxide scrubbers in Apollo. You did not disappoint. Another fantastic video and debunk.
My mind went straight to rebreathers as well. Plus of course, the scene in Apollo 13 where they had to bodge together a square filter into a round hole.
He kind of buries the lede here (the key difference being that a spacecraft is a closed environmental system and SCUBA gear isn't) but that's a way to make the narrative a little more dramatic.
And it seems the deniers consider that with every breath we draw in, 100% of the oxygen is converted to carbon dioxide, therefore every time someone breathes, all the oxygen is consumed.
My only gripe here was when Dave mentioned the scrubbers and showed an image of the Apollo 13 "DIY" jury-rigged emergency scrubber....which of course not what the main scrubber system looked like.
@@tomstamford6837 Yeah, there is like half of oxygen left in air we breath out.
I can't imagine going through life thinking "I don't understand reality so reality must be the one with the problem"
And, when you point out reality to them, they accuse YOU of living in a fantasy world.
Sometimes they actually do understand reality - but just a very tiny section of it (say, up to 1 mile around them) and use their very limited experience of it to make bold and silly claims, ignoring everything outside their understanding. Or even ignoring what they rely on day by day (like the navigation app in their smartphones - which seem to be smarter than them).
@@c.augustindunning Krueger effect at its finest
They feel the need to compensate for not being that smart by pretending they're so smart that they figured out the tricks that the people they felt overshadowed their intelligence didn't, therefore making them the smartest. Through this practice they no longer have to worry whether or not they're the dumb one in the room.
Isn’t that leftism in a nutshell?
I think you nailed it.
hidden youtuber comment discovered
...and today on the range we are testing these homemade rounds against these scuba tanks and flatearthers over there
@@tibrochief7896"today we see if a slug made from the densest element on the planet, flerfskullium, can go Mach speeds."
Spot on! I'm a pilot and scuba diver and confirm your calculations are correct.
I learned to love your explanation on your YT channel of how an airfoil creates lift. The reason I say “learned to love” is I had to give up long held beliefs of how lift is created as traditionally taught. As retired ATC I do not easily give up concepts that have served me well over a thirty year career.
To tie this all in I will say that skepticism is not simple doubt and denial of conventional wisdom. Skepticism is evaluating new evidence against what you think you know, and if the new evidence is valid, adjusting your knowledge based on that evidence. You and Dave both do a masterful job of bringing rationality to the conversation.
Thank you.
I'm sure your confirmation means everything to this man. . . Not.
@@anopoabednego6173 Please elaborate.
G'day @FlywithMagnar, Happy New Year & hope you never need to combine your 2 passions.
I'm an ROV pilot and a scuba diver, and I can confirm that your confirmation is correct...
One of the best channels on RUclips, PERIOD. I love your work! Clear explanations, no name calling, no insults. Even people who are not flat earthers can learn a TON from this channel. Keep it up man!
It makes no sense to take 500 scuba tanks to the moon. No water, no diving. Besides, they didn't have time for any shenanigans even if there had been an ocean on the moon.
If they didn't intend to go scuba diving, then why did they land on the Sea of Tranquility, hmm? Think about it.
@@Bnio Always thought that was a metaphor, like the way the Sea of Arizona is just evaporative coolers.
Im sure they would've gotten to dive a little in their free time, otherwise that's just been mean.
@@reidflemingworldstoughestm1394it’s called a sea because humans thought the dark spots on the moon were oceans, and named the as such.
Alan Shepard, on mission 14, did play golf.
Some of these flat earthers may have been oxygen deprived at some point. it could explain a lot.
Some of them seem to wheeze while speaking--as if their brains can't decide what to do first.
Folding Ideas' video "In Search of a Flat Earth" told me everything I need to know about flat earther types. It's not about being dumb, it's about having an existing agenda, and the flat earth view is in service to that agenda. I wouldn't be surprised if most moon hoax types are the same.
@@EvilAng3laI'm sure the type its either narcissist grandiose disorder or charlatans motivated by money. Most of them is low intelligence people with narcissist grandiose disorder.
@@EvilAng3la And more often than not, that agenda has to do with fundamentalist religious belief.
Or smoked a few too many 'special' mushrooms to take the place of the evil oxygen.
It’s really not fair to use math. That’s the conspiracy theorist’s kryptonite.
We may need to use crayons and nursery rhymes to truly get them to understand
Or thinking and reason ...
Maths
@@mikeuk666 No, it's just math. Like it's just science, or history, or geography. It's not 'geographies'.
@@kathleenr4047 Math and maths are both valid shorthand terms for mathematics, they just have regional differences in usage. But since mathematics is plural, 'maths' does seem a bit more logical, doesn't it?
It’s almost as if NASA got it all worked out before sending humans to the moon
But can't figure out how to get anyone back there.
@@ReffaDaywe also have higher standards now
@@ReffaDayCorrection. They can’t figure out how to do it on a budget, while also making all the contractors happy.
Even then, they’re working on it. Artemis-I was an uncrewed flyby using the Orion capsule
During 1972 the nasa claim was that they'rd colonise Mars by year 1999. That was a blatant lie.
@@ReffaDay theres just no point in going back, hence why their budget is cut and they dont have the money to spare to do it. They went multiple times, found its just a bunch of gray rocks and meteors, and thats about it. They still send other unmanned satellites and rovers there, but theres no point in endangering humans to go themselves anymore until its much cheaper and safer to do so.
Easy rebuff: Rebreathers.. those things can go for a loooong time on one tank, we breathe in 21% O2 and breathe out 16%, you just scrub the co2 out of that, and you only lost what about 25% of the oxygen per breath, so a regular scuba tank lasts about 4 times as long, or longer, (by my quick math, so it is probably a lot longer) you add pure o2 to a rebreather, and then you could compare that to a spaceship. *The amount of oxygen available in a typical rebreather setup can last around 12-16 hours* I REALLY need to watch the entire video before commenting
LOL I almost posted the same but said to myself no....he'll probably mention it. lol
Even easier rebuff: "500 scuba tanks? Who said anything about scuba tanks? Please post a source where NASA says they sent compressed air to the moon" Make them do their own work
Absolutely correct. The 4 hours mentioned in the video is actually the lifetime of the CO2 scrubber, and again, is impacted by depth (ambient pressure). The working section of the scrubber material gets wider as the pressure increases, and conversely narrower as the pressure decreases (which helped the Apollo crew even more, as the scrubber lasts longer.)
@@ctsean They don't lol. They just say "do your own research" ad nauseum and *if* they link to a source, it's usually some other crack pot who refuses to post their sources, and if they do it links to another crack pot, rinse, repeat, and see there is no actual source beyond 'I heard one time'
@@ctsean You know they won't that id the problem with Flerfers and other conspiracy theorists, they just say crap and people but it.. looking it up is too hard for a population that can't hold its attention on something for more than 2 minutes or 280 characters
These are my favourite flat-earth/conspiracy debunking videos because almost no time is spent in preformative "anger", and instead I get to learn about all sorts of neat pieces of information exactly like this. "debunk" almost feels like a disservice, this is so much gentler and really feels like a "please let me help you understand" and it makes them very easy watches.
This.
That was the most informative 15 minute dog cuddle session I've seen on RUclips. He/she is adorable! That little paw just kept asking for more pats
Thanks!
You're welcome, thank you for the support
Your videos are genuinely interesting, I don’t watch them as debunking videos, just educational content. The fact that all the real information is out there for anyone to look at is brilliant. Unfortunately not everyone is willing to ‘do their own research’ correctly…..it speaks volumes about how people wasted their education….free in the UK! I used to work with a fully entrenched conspiracy theorist, thick as two short planks and a horrible person to boot, but had that confident patter that would reel in the weak minded like a fish….the boss in this case! Very self important barking orders at everyone. Liked by no one and would be ‘busy’ and walk away when quizzed too much on a topic. Always carried a bundle of papers so he looked to be doing his job.
I'm always learning something new in Dave's videos. 👍
This is probably one of the cooler answers I've come across during my flerf watching lol. Not because it was a good argument on their part, but because it was a general question with a great, satisfying answer. Keep it up!
I actually have a kids book in my collection called “How We Got To The Moon,” which explains how the oxygen system in the Apollo missions worked.
Let that sink in. The “enlightened” Flat Earthers are beaten by a kids book.
Modern day flat earthers are driven (almost) entirely by memes. Short, satirical, nonsensical memes. It seems the rest just got sucked in by Dubays soothing voice.
Books/educational videos, such as Mr McKeegans, are like kryptonite to them.
I think the only people surprised are the Flat Earthers. Then again, I am sure they are surprised by all kinds of things. Things like breathing rely on something that cannot be seen, so therefore by many Flat Earthers' definition, breathing cannot exist.
I don't know about you, but I like breathing...
My son was gifted such a book written as an early reader, it was in dogeral & mostly ok until near the end where they talked about the astronauts needing "gravity boots" to keep them on the Moon's surface, sigh!
@@joerichardson4325 But of course Dubay doesn't believe in any of his nonsence either. He knows he's created a money pyramid and he's at the top of it.
@@GaryMarriottthe boots were weighted yes
Perhaps the best lone argument I've heard refuting claims that we didn't go to the moon, is the fact that even if we didn't go, we would still have to create literally everything. Every document and every manual for every part and every system on every vehicle, which are scientifically accurate. Every rocket and every engine. In fact, they'd still have to do everything, including launching the rockets with full payloads. Plus you have all of the paperwork (facts and figures) for actually doing the landing, orbit, all of it.
I've actually seen a few arguments that it would have been more difficult and/or would have cost more to fake it all, than to actually go to the moon.
Of course it would’ve been far more difficult and expensive. To accurately fake the lighting you would hundred or more small high powered multicolored lasers which literally didn’t exist in 1969 and developing those lasers alone probably would’ve cost more than just building the rockets and infrastructure and training the astronauts and actually going
We do, but there are a couple problems with that: NASA's archiving systems in the 1970s weren't exactly pinpoint and didn't account for morons claiming something that clearly happened never happened. Also, NASA built very little of the Apollo hardware in house, hundreds of contracting companies were employed and they would have had those schematics in their own facilities.
The moon landing was faked on the moon
I always wondered how scuba rebreathers worked and now I know. Great video!
A history nut like me would have answered: "It works like a more advanced Momsen lung." Which is correct, but completely unhelpful to a layperson. 😜
You might like the book "Exo" by Steven Gould. It's total fantasy (4th book in the "Jumper" series(Jumper, Reflex, Impulse, Exo)), but does have a rather good description of making a rebreather device from scratch for use in space. In a nutshell.
1. System pressurized to 5 psi.
2. Emergency dump valve that releases to environment if pressure exceeds 6 psi.
3. Carbon dioxide scrubber.
4. Fill valve from oxygen tank to suit if pressure < ~ 4.5 psi.
In a nutshell, just breath, taking in O2 and exhaling CO2. The scrubber will absorb the CO2, reducing the pressure in the suit. When pressure drops below trip point, value releases oxygen into suit to get pressure back to nominal. If value sticks, etc. Pressure relief valve prevents issues with over pressure.
@@johncochran8497For this to work, the tank must be at least 5 times the volume you breathe in (2-8L, depending on the person). Otherwise, breathing in would drop the pressure, the tank would add O2 to rebuild the pressure, and then breathing out would overpressure it and cause it to vent. So it's a little bit more tricky to get right.
@@HenryLoenwind Really? Modern spacesuits are constant volume in order to prevent the astronaut from having to fight the tendency of a suit to "starfish". Breathing merely exchanges the air outside the body with the lungs without changing the overall volume of the entire system contained within the suit itself.
Breath in - Volume of air outside the body decreases while the chest expands by the same amount of volume. Total volume within suit remains constant.
Breath out - Chest contracts, expelling air into suit. As air enters suit from lungs, the the pressure doesn't increase because the chest compresses, giving a larger volume between the suit and body.
I never wondered how they work, but now I know too.
0:03 i see a doggo receiving headpats, you have my attention sir
I am a SCUBA instructor and a certified Rebreather Diver, I love how you break down the information that I teach and I live with when ever I go diving to make it easy to understand.
Fun extra fact: 100% oxygen at normal atmospheric pressure would lead to oxygen toxicity. The reason this doesnt happen in a space capsule with 100% O2 is due to the reduced ambient pressure (5 psi) as mentioned in your video. If you calculate the actual partial pressure (pO2) at that reduced pressure it is well below where O2 toxicity becomes a concern.
Edit: I should point out that the specific type of O2 toxicity I'm referencing is pulmonary, not CNS.
Another fun fact.. The band sweet wrote a song about Love&Oxygen...
Love is like oxygen
You get too much you get too high
Not enough and you're gonna die
Another fun fact.. When you feel the need to take a breath, it's not about the lack of oxygen at all but due to the buildup of CO2. This is why work in silos and tanks can be extremely dangerous, as you breathe normally but don't get any oxygen if there are other gases in there that displace the oxygen.
@gottagowork mostly true, however, low blood oxygen does in fact play a role in respiratory drive. The physiology is a little complicated but long story short - decreased o2 levels cause the peripheral chemoreceptors to signal the central chemoreceptors to become more sensitive to changes in CO2 levels. While CO2 plays a much larger primary role, it does not bear sole responsibility for your drive to breathe.
This is also one reason for a depth limit to scuba diving using air. Deeper diving uses a different mix of gasses with a lower oxygen concentration to keep the partial pressure of oxygen low enough.
Fascinating info! Truly fascinating. At nearly 58 yrs, I may not be to old to learn new tricks (maybe to old to perform them, but not to learn them)!
Love this channel!
As a scuba diver myself this was probably the saddest moon hoax "argument" I've ever heard. Good grief. Talk about grasping at straws.
Yeah, it was pretty sad. Strong stuff from Dave, but when I heard the topic, I was like "oh, that one is easy." I knew every single point he was going to make.
Yeah, this didnt really deserve a 15 minute video. A 60 second short would do it fine.
Talk about gasping for air...
Or gasping through straws, as the case may be...
Yeah, I felt the same. You don't even need that firm of a grasp on science to see the fault here, the first lesson on an open water course is sufficient.
Where have you been my whole RUclips life? I couldn’t love this straightforward approach to debunking nonsense more.
It’s almost like engineers solved these problems well before we went to space. Liquified gasses have been a thing for medical and industrial purposes for a long time.
(To add a bit to this video) As someone who has worked on aircraft for many years, military and civilian, I can tell you that LIQUID oxygen systems carry much higher density of oxygen than gaseous oxygen. The space missions, like many military aircraft, used liquid oxygen, as stated in the video. It is held in a container called a dewar, like a very high quality thermos. There are actually two containers, one inside of the other. The space between has almost all the air pumped out, creating a vacuum. That vacuum doesn't transmit heat well, so the oxygen stays liquid much longer than it would if held in a single container. In fact, the liquid oxygen has to go through a series of coils to warm it up so it will turn into a gas and be brought up to a breathable temperature. Also, liquid oxygen is measured in liters (since it is a liquid). Military aircraft, depending upon size, have either five, ten, or twenty-five liter containers, though I have seen special 75 liter containers used for a larger cargo/passenger aircraft (it actually had two of those for the passengers as well as a standard 25 liter container for the crew members).
Thanks!
Very good explanation on what the real O2 Requirements were and environment the Cabins and Suits were.
On Apollos 15, 16, and 17, by having the Rover, the Astronauts spent a lot of the EVA sitting in/on the Rover, which reduced their O2 consumption rates compared to walking the entire EVA. Of course the Max distance they could take the Rover away from the LM was limited to how long their O2 would last if they had to walk back. That explains why generally the Trips were done early in the EVAs and the most Remote stops were also early in the EVA. On most EVAs on these 3 flights, the Moon walkers used less O2 than the Apollo 14 astronauts, even though the EVAs were about 75% longer
you'd think at this point when they raise these objections they'd instead think "Maybe I don't know how this even works"
If they were rational enough to do that, they wouldn't be flat earthers.
Of course anything they don't understand is fake. Cause they know everything
The thing that proves the value of Dave's info that we almost never see flerfs trying to debunk him or disagree with him, purely because it is SO well researched and presented. Keep up the great work Dave.
The people debating with Dave can't debunk, so they have to resort to deliberate misrepresentation or just ridicule to pander to their own audience.
You know, playing games I never thought to ask "what is a rebreather actually?" and you come along and explain it so well. Love your vids
Another question I had never thought about but am happy to now have an answer to !
as a certified rescue diver, thank you for explaining this concept to the morons who used this analogy to try to debunk the moon landing. SCUBA is an entirely different system.
Dave. Your expertise in debunking flat earth theories is unparalleled, and your attention to detail sets you apart from others. Keep it up, love your content.
Wow... I never considered how 17% of the air that we exhale is oxygen, and that scuba divers are exhaling that are so it can't be reused... I never thought about that.
Great video as always Dave!
I just like learning about the specifics of space travel. I grew up with a general understanding of how things like Apollo worked but find it neat to get into the more nuts and bolts of it.
Speaking of bolts, the Saturn V pad explosive hold bolts had to all work in milliseconds of each other. Reflective Layer has a decent overview of the basic types of release mechanisms at ruclips.net/video/PFABKpqWG9Q/видео.html
There are also explosive guillotine style cable cutters, such as used on separation of the CM and SM.
Now it will pop up people who say that Oxygen is fake.
That flerf duo of Pete and Peter, probably.
Idk have you ever seen an oxygen ? I sure haven't 😏
@@K_End Everybody knows that Oxygen is CGI.
@@mjjoe76i was just going to mention them/him.
@@HykjeOxygen is an inside job bro! Explain Tank No.7 Mr. Smarty Pants 😂
I love how dumb these people are sometimes. Makes me feel better about myself.
Right? I love how that one comment was “here’s something no one has considered,” like he’s the first person to ever think that a spacecraft would need oxygen🤦♂️
Thats obvious, we dont need to breath 🤦♂@@goldenageofdinosaurs7192
I makes me feel worse about humanity.
Their mentality seems to be if there is an engineering problem to be solved, then it must be impossible.
@@BrianMelancon Disinclude them from humanity and the issue becomes manageable.
Huh, it's almost like a bunch of smart people calculated how much oxygen the astronauts would need, and then stuffed enough of it inside the spacecraft... weird, isn't it?
Scuba instructor here: good job. Especially including rebreather, which is indeed the closest to what they used. 4 hours is what the manufacturer for my rebreather says a 3 liter tank is good for(and as importantly: how, much CO2 the scrubber is good for), but as mentioned that's a very conservative figure. If I stay at mostly the same depth and thus don't subject the device to pressure changes, and don't exert myself much, I could easily last 10 hours or more on that(I've done one 2.5h dive where I'd only used 10% of my oxygen). The previous owner claimed he could do 12 hours on a 2 liter tank, I believe him. Air consumption on open circuit is also very variable, I can do 90+ minutes at 10 meters on a standard 80cu/11.2L 200 bar tank(my record single tank dive is 124 minutes, average depth 8m), we also consider the last quarter(50 bar) of gas in the tank to be reserve, not to be used in the dive, you're supposed to surface with that.
The one fact that seems to be consistently overlooked, is that it was impossible to fake what we saw on TV. I was a film student at Temple University and currently work in the audio recording industry. The technology to fake the moon landings simply did not exist at that time. I would suggest watching the RUclips video titled; Moon Landing Faked? Filmmaker Says Not. It is presented by S. G. Collins. He is an American filmmaker currently living in Amsterdam. He has been active in the industry since the late 1970s.
They couldn't construct a small studio with some studio lights, wires, a few props and a backdrop and slow down footage in the 60s?
@@vacuumandgaspressurecoexistinghave you watched all of the clips? Kinda hard to fake all that
@@vacuumandgaspressurecoexistingwould have taken a lot more than that to pull it off. Even the Soviets admitted defeat bro
@@vacuumandgaspressurecoexistingwatch the video I suggested. Go outside sometime and look at the shadows. In the studio there will be a drop off in the shadows. Also, it was not possible to slow down video tape in that era. And if they shot it on film, and over cranked it that would require a tele-cine the size of a garage to broadcast it. Remember, that broadcast lasted over 2 hours straight. I remember sitting in my parents living room watching it live. Again, watch the video I referenced in my earlier comment.
You say that Apollo 11 LM depressurized only once. Actually, they depressurized twice, the second time to open the door and jettison the PLSS's and other excess weight like cameras (sans film). Similarly, the subsequent flights have one more depressurization than excursions. Apollo 15 had an extra depressurization for the standup EVA (SEVA) before the moon walks.
This was a really well thought out and educated video but the best part is your pup, he or she is adorable.
Well done, sir!
Clear demonstrations of facts, extant technologies at the time, and the methods by which the denied achievements were accomplished.
I have an engineering and manufacturing background and I regularly learn new things from your work. I really appreciate your videos.
It always amazes me that these people think "How does that work?" and rather than just looking up the answer and learning something they instead conclude that it must be fake because it couldn't possibly work in their mind.
It's not just the impossibility of fitting 576 cylinders into the spacecraft. When full they also weigh around 15kg each; my math puts that at 8.5 tons!
Scuba divers actually do often breathe gasses with a much higher precentage of O2, and even 100% O2 at shallow depths.
Just as with closed-circuit diving, the Apollo system was much, much more efficient than just letting spent gas escape. However, the scrubber does not convert the CO2 back to O2; it just absorbs it. You do need therefore to keep injecting O2 back into the sytem to maintain pressure. The extra air cylinder for a scuba CCR is to dilute the gas mix if it gets too rich in O2, as that can kill you at depth if the pressure of O2 you breathe gets more than 2 Bar. Of course in the Apollo spacecraft they were breathing O2 at 0.3 Bar so this wasn't going to be a problem.
7 hours walking about on the moon must have been amazing
I bet most of it was fueled by adrenaline. I can’t imagine, all those years of training, preparing, the trust they must have in all the amazing scientists and engineers.
A lot of these guys were from the military, disciplined and intelligent, incredible examples of humanity.
So glad you mentioned that a crewed spacecraft is more like a CCR (rebreather) than an open circuit scuba system. Great explanation(s), as always!
I remember building representative Oxygen tanks in the LEGO Creator Expert Lunar Module, which was approximately in scale with the Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin Minifigs that came with it (it unfortunately didn't include the Command Module or Michael Collins). The set aimed to be an accurate scale model. Throughout the instructions it includes little excerpts about the assemblies as I constructed them. One of those excerpts were on the Oxygen and fuel tanks.
I highly recommend the set. I've been collecting these sets myself. I have the LEGO Ideas Saturn V, the already mentioned Creator Expert Lunar Module, I also have the LEGO Ideas ISS, and of course, the LEGO Discovery Shuttle with Hubble Space Telescope.
A little side note:
During the sponsorship, at around 1:30 when you showed your phone, the "Hello Dave," gave me a good laugh. It reminded me of HAL 9000.
I have all of those sets except for the discovery shuttle, You're living the life.
@@Utopian1234 I was lucky when I found the Shuttle. It was st a Bricks & Minifigs, and I had already saved enough for it because I knew we were going to visit the store on the trip. I honestly didn't expect to see the shuttle of all things.
I bought most of these sets months apart from each other, at least.
Flat earthers simply didn't pay attention in middle school.
school was in mama's basement
Bold of you to assume they ever attended any
@@jase171973 Mama says engineering is the Devil !
The three-part answer I anticipate:
1) Little of the oxygen in a SCUBA tank is actually absorbed into the bloodstream. Most of it gets discarded when the diver exhales.
2) If you instead recycle air by replacing used oxygen and removing exhaled carbon dioxide, then the oxygen requirements drop dramatically.
3) Oxygen is a gas at room temperatures and pressures. At lower temperatures, it becomes a liquid. At higher pressures, it becomes a supercritical fluid. Both are hundreds of times denser than oxygen gas.
Edit: Yep. More or less that.
Math, Chemistry, and Physics…the nemesis of every flat earther/space/moon denier.
... and logic.
Dave, may I add some points that may be slightly wrong with your presentation, they actually make things more obvious as to how the astronauts use oxygen (and divers on rebreathers).
First, let's talk some numbers, for example on Sunday I carried out a typical dive in Scotland for around 60-70 mins (let's say 1 hour) and used 35bar of oxygen from my 3 litre cylinder. That is basically around 35x3÷60 = 1.75 litres of oxygen per min.
Note, I didn't mention depth! That's because the oxygen consumption is totally unrelated to depth on a rebreather. The rate of oxygen consumption is solely due to the person's metabolism - which is related to how much work the person does.
So although the gas used in open circuit scuba is related to depth, on closed circuit scuba it isn't.
Typically a person would metabolise ~ 2 litres of oxygen per minute when active (finning hard) and 1 litre per minute at rest, all converted to carbon dioxide.
A key point then is that the body reacts to the CO2 as an urge to breathe - NOT the drop in oxygen, (so the films where you see people gasping as the oxygen level drops is just pure rubbish - actually what happens is you just go to sleep, totally unaware of the lack of oxygen - it's a very serious concern when diving on a rebreather!)
BTW scuba is "self contained underwater breathing apparatus" - both open circuit (a standard cylinder and regulators) and closed circuit (rebreather) are self contained and used underwater so both are scuba.
Also the proper term for the cylinder is cylinder , although people colloquially use bottle, can, tin, etc. But tank is actually incorrect (although some places actually misuse tank to mean cylinder) - because strictly a tank contains a liquid in a gas or liquid environment (such as fuel tank, water tank etc), whereas a cylinder contains a gas within a gas or liquid environment (such as a calar gas cylinder, or diving cylinder etc) a tank is not a pressure vessel, but a gas cylinder is.
Thank you for the clarifications 😊
*"A key point then is that **_the body reacts to the [excess] CO2 as an urge to breathe - NOT the drop in oxygen,_** (so the films where you see people gasping as the oxygen level drops is just pure rubbish - actually what happens is you just go to sleep, totally unaware of the lack of oxygen"*
I want this to be common knowledge. Most environments on earth have a readily available excess of oxygen. The respiration problem occurring most often for aerobic organisms isn't a shortage of oxygen, it's the build up of CO2, which becomes toxic at ridiculously low levels.
Small correction: while the primary drive to breathe comes from CO2 buildup and a subsequent generation of hydrogen ions acidifying the blood through hydrolysis of carbonic acid - low blood oxygen does play a secondary role through the peripheral chemoreceptors signaling the central chemoreceptors to become more sensitive to increasing CO2 levels. This is where the theory of hypoxic respiratory drive comes from.
@@reidflemingworldstoughestm1394decreasing blood oxygen levels do in fact play a role in respiratory drive, see my previous comment fore more details.
@@marcusbardstown505 Science > movie tropes
I had no idea how rebreathers worked. I've seen them on movies and whatnot but never looked into it. Thanks for that - learning is fun.
Not having seen your channel before and unaware of viewers that are not the sharpest tool in the shed making SCUBA Tank/Diver comparisons to O2/LOX requirements for space travel, I started this video with a hefty dose of skepticism. Nice job on debunking THAT line of thought. Knowing how these people think (don't even ask, sigh) they go down the rabbit hole of anything that fits their POV and will not listen to reason. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink!
It generally seems moon landing deniers who watch this channel concede on the specific topic of each video after watching, before inventing a _new_ point to contest the moon landing every time.
It has me wondering: At what point do moon landing deniers realize that every previous argument they made simply does not hold up, and realize that their worldview is inconsistent with everything they now know about the science?
In effect, where is the point of realization that the only answer consistent with the evidence surrounding the moon landing _is_ that it did happen? When does it go from "I understand this point but I still don't think it happened because X" to "It must have happened because I have answers from A-Y, this small Z thing I believe to be an inconsistency _may_ just be me having a lack of knowledge on this specific topic?" I'm sure those who brought up this scuba argument don't know anything about it, not even what the acronym stands for, and yet they _choose_ not to take the time to learn about it before making it the crux of their position .
So at what point is the burden of proof, which should fall on them but is met by debunking channels like this, satisfied?
All this info is out there if you want to actually research it. But when they say "do your own research," they just mean "accept what other hoaxers say."
Do your own research means all info that exists from reputable sources is fake and you can only trust armchair psudoscientists and yourself.
And then when you claim you did the math and proved it happened they claim that any numbers you got to do the math was from a reputable source thus also must be fake.
Then when you experimentally find the numbers yourself without trusting the basic physics from around the time of Gallileo and Newton they claim that you're brainwashed or they claim you did it wrong cause some other guy did the experiment (and did it wrong) that proved the moon landing didn't happen
What type of cheese is the moon made of? Surely the astronauts tasted it?
According to Wallace and Gromit, it's Wensleydale.
@@maxfan1591I thought it wasn’t like any cheese Wallace had tasted
I hadn't realized that the Giant Leap was so short in time.
I appreciate this article, Dave, because you corrected a misunderstanding on my part. After Apollo 1 had its deadly fire due to a pure oxygen environment, I’ve always thought they changed to a mixed gas environment in the Apollo system… I was wrong. They reduced flammable content withinin the capsule. Live in learn.
They did switch to mixed gas in part
Apollo 1 had pure at 16psi on the launch pad to push any nitrogen out of the cabin with the intention of reducing it to 5psi after launch - that high concentration of oxygen is what made everything highly flammable
Following missions used 60/40 mixed gas at 16psi until they reached space, after which the cabin was switched to 5psi pure oxygen
@@DaveMcKeegan - thank you for this too
Excellent explanation Dave. I hope flerfs will take the time to actually watch the entire video rather than just blurting ‘nope’
But….. who knows! Gotta lie to flerf
🌎🌍🌏
Even if they did watch the whole thing, they'd still just be like "Me no understand, so it am fake and lies".
There was a flerf ‘rockets don’t work in space’ comment here a few minutes ago. He seems to have done a runner now… :)
The law of conservation of momentum: "What am I, a joke?"
Bob_the_bomb4508. Yeah, I’ve met a couple of them here…
I learn something every Dave video I watch. I never realised the Apollo crew had pure oxygen atmosphere @ 5PSI. It's not intuitive because pure oxygen at atmospheric pressure is lethal. In fact after the Apollo 1 launch pad fire which killed three astronauts, they revised the launch pad mix to 40% nitrogen/60% oxygen @ 16psi (slightly higher than atmospheric pressure) to avoid the fire risk and then gradually vented that mixed air to replace it with the pure oxygen mix after achieving orbit. Great video, Dave.
Awesome as always, Dave. Informative, precise, and clearly presented. Thanks!
Edit: Hi, Rusty!
This channel has hands down the best technical debunk of flerf objections.
This is why you needed to pay attention in school there's basic knowledge being given that will help you use the scientific method.
Scuba tanks range in size from a 0.5 litres pony cylinder for the Stab jacket at a pressure of 230-300bar, whilst the largest is often called a “dustbin” 15 litres/300 bar/4,500 psi and I haven’t met any diver that goes through their air that fast either! The Apollo command modules used pure oxygen at less than 5psi and they also had co2 scrubbers (remember the Apollo 13 fix involving square scrubbers vs the round versions.
What always gets me with flat earthers and their ilk is that if they just put in half the time googling their question as they spent googling the info for their incorrect assumption they wouldn't exist.
if nasa can't fit 500 scuba tanks on the module, they obviously didn't use scuba tanks
why is this an argument?
That was some absolutely incredible engineering BTW. NO question whatsoever. Those 60's nerds pulled this off mostly with just slide rules & pencil & paper & perhaps the occasional help of giant computers much less powerful than today's phones(mind you), for some more precise final calculations & such. It really is amazing that some people 100% legit have NO idea whatsoever just how much more others can & indeed do know than themselves, especially about specific things. IMHO I think that idea alone ought to be taught as its own subject in early-mid basic EDU, at least briefly. Nobody knows what they don't know, but to make such HUGE mistakes can easily be avoided with a small amount of humility.
RUclipsr Usagi Electric actually has an old NASA computer sitting waiting for some sort of restoration. Looking forward to that series.. Until then it's Curious Marc all the way to space
The Apollo 13 story and the air scrubbers kind of nails this. Subs can resurface or snorkel in air. Great explaination and why contrasting two different situations doesn't work :)
Scuba Steve is my Hero
There is a well-known axiom that states that "there are no stupid questions, only stupid answers" however the question about 500 scuba tanks disproves this rule. This point was raised by someone who obviously hasn't spent even 5 minutes considering the implications of their question and has no idea at all about any of the facts or science involved - either in scuba diving or space travel. The fact you feel it necessary to make videos like this, Dave, is a sad reflection on the stupidity of some people and the general non-critical sheepiness of so many internet users. Its all together tragic.
This video reminds me of the other day when Flatzoid thought that scuba tanks had liquified air.
@MrOttopants Because he DOES NOT "think"!!! People like him are really REALLY STOOPID!!! They are!
The "interwebs" has given them a platform to show their ignorance. We can laugh at them, but they carry on, mostly oblivious to exactly how stupid they sound, and are. People do have misconceptions. That is completely fine. But then, LEARN from that. So many can NOT do that!
50 years ago, Biology 11 class, our teacher was discussing how fish breathed oxygen from the water.
What FORM in the oxygen IN the water? I doubt that anyone in the class knew, expect me. Perhaps there was someone else but no one was saying anything. We heard "liquid" oxygen several times. Water is liquid, right? Therefore the oxygen within in it must also be liquid. Well, that's an initial line of reasoning. But how can you test that? How can you determine if you are correct without actually doing a test? Knowing physical properties of substances, that's how.
I was SO annoyed that these incorrect answers were being bantered about. Finally the teacher asked me to tell the class. HE was confident that I really knew, but he didn't know for sure. "DISSOLVED" I told the class. The look of incredulity on many faces... so many had no idea what to dissolve really meant.
So... today... SO MANY really have NO IDEA about how the natural world actually works. Even though they have ALL the knowledge that they need right at their fingertips.
And with the typical confidence describe how you can clearly hear "sloshing" in them
Oh yeah, kinda makes me think about those liquid air systems. They are cool in theory, but a lot of problems in reality. If they worked we could go so much deeper in the ocean
Can we all just take a minute to appreciate just how on point Dave's sponser segues are!
Most of these questions they could just type into google and get an answer rather than making fools of themselves in comments sections.
Thank you for your channel. There are many articles and books that cover all the conspiracy theories and debunk them but they dont necessary cover everything. Your channel fill these gaps and I always learn new things. Thank you Dave!
Genuine question: why didn’t oxygen poisoning come into play in the Apollo missions?
Did it have to do with the pressure?
Yes, oxygen toxicity comes from breathing in too much oxygen - high pressure pure oxygen becomes toxic however at low pressure, i.e. 5psi, the amount of oxygen being breathed in isn't that different from regular air at sea level
@@DaveMcKeegan ok cool
I had no idea how any of this worked. I kept having questions, and you kept answering them. Great video my friend.
Recently lost my uncle to the "we didnt go to the moon" conspiracy. And he's an engineer and otherwise really sharp, balanced person! He was sending me the dumbest "debunking the moon landing/space travel/etc" videos and I was just thinking "youre smarter than this dude!" I dont remember the details but they were the dumbest "proofs we couldnt have" and stuff like that. Like, "how did they get the footage of him stepping out, did they send a camera crew first? See!" And "how did that rover fit in the tiny spacecraft?!" Type stuff. Dude, there are plenty of books and manuals that cover all this! You can literally buy the Saturn V Flight Manual and Apollo Mission Plans. Step by step checklists for EVERYTHING.
Im afraid he's gonna end up at flat earth eventually lol.
There are PLENTY enough REAL conspiracies, we dont need to go making up absurd additional conspiracy theories!
Your uncle is smarter than you.
@@vacuumandgaspressurecoexisting
Said the gullible believer in junk online conspiracy theory.
Matt....you're lucky...I'm surrounded by flat Earth/ we never went to the Moon/ we live in a Dome/ there's water outside the Dome/ and Polar Ice keeps the water from falling off the edges....Moon is a Disk..Sun is a Disk...both inside the Dome..water is flat..planes fly straight or they hit the Dome..rockets hit the Dome..etc etc..i get it day in day out..24/7/365/Since internet
@@markianclark9645 wow. That's unfortunate. Really sad how science and engineering illiterate people have become. I think a number of "conspiracy theories" that turned out to be true have broken a lot of people's trust with ANYTHING from the Gvmt. And maybe rightfully so. But there is more than enough legitimate evidence that the celestial bodies are spherical, that we landed on the moon, etc to overcome some justified distrust of the powers that be.
Another great video where I learned something new and on top of that,the comment section is also disseminated with some good information. Thanks Dave(and Rusty)
It's actually not a bad question, it's not immediately obvious why scuba tanks seem to last a much shorter time than the air in a spaceship. The difference is that I clicked on this video to find out why that might be the case, and they instantly decided that it must be impossible and fake.
@DaveMcKeegan 4:46 Slight error describing the second stage regulator.
The diagram is a downstream valve, where the spring pushes the valve closed.
When the diver breathes in (equivalent of about 1cm water into a straw), allowing the weight of the water on the main diaphragm pushes on the lever to open the valve.
Otherwise a great description of scuba vs rebreather and why it does talke 500 scuba tanks.
1:30 See? All Globers have to lie! 284 in the picture, says 283 in the script? Why the lies??????
obvs sarcasm to mock FLERFs who actually do have to lie about everything
Mathematics, actually just simple arithmetic, is the key. Most conspiracy theories can easily be disproven with addition, subtraction, multiplication and division.
Especially multiplication by 0.
You can just ignore the SCUBA tank physics because the spacecraft don't use SCUBA tanks
My wife worked at NASA writing the life support documents/ manuals for all the Apollo missions, and all your calcs are spot on. Waw very impressive. Keep up the good work.
as a diver - checks out :D quic question - did Apollo not have scrubbers? (lol wrote this at 11:00) sigh just needed to wait a little longer hahaha
And the scary part is there are people out there that don’t believe a word you just said .
It’s almost like a group of very clever people used maths, science and engineering to figure out how to get to the moon.
and it took them years of effort
🤯