Why is there no dust on the Lunar Module?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 4 июл 2024
- Head to squarespace.com/davemckeegan to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain using code davemckeegan
PATREON: / davemckeegan
Please consider supporting the channel by making purchases through my Amazon affiliates: geni.us/Affiliate
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Music by Bensound.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
#moon #moonlandings #apollo 
Наука
It's funny how people that don't know high school physics all of a sudden become rocket surgeons when it comes to the moon landings!
The same people who think water accumulates and remains on any shape except a container with at least an upturned edge, such as a crater, and still water finds its own level within a crater.
Yes. And all studies have been conducted through the Twitter app on their smartphone. No need to attend expensive universities at all.
Rocket surgeons. 😅
Why work hard when being silly online gets you views and attention!!!
Dunning-Krueger!
I love how these Flat-Earth debunking videos turns in actual Science lessons where everyone can learn from. A lot of stuff I did not know or consider before. Thanks a lot!
He is talking about “dust” - you bell end.
Had this exact convo with about 100 FEs: "There's no air to brake the dust near the module."
The next day they'd be asking the same question on a different video.
They don't care about ANY answers when they ask questions.
@@EVRose60 Exactly. FE "questions" are a mechanism used to ignore answers and reality.
They have an auto-reset feature when going to sleep.
Perhaps the dust ended up between their ears...
@@T_Hoog I've often asked if they feel good about basing an entire belief system that insists it's "knowledge" on unanswered questions.
I feel like you are explaining algebra to hamsters 😆
In this context, the hamsters are more receptive to the information...😊
Not talking about hamsters, unless you are stuffing one up your backside. Does that rock your boat?
Don't insult hamsters. They are smarter than flerfers.
Also the dust layer, called regolith, on the surface isn't very thick. Underneath is basically solid rock. There's not soil from weathering like we find here on Earth. So once the engine blew away the thin layer of regolith and exposed the rock underneath the engine was basically blasting at the equivalent of a concrete pad.
That explains all the pick up games of basketball.
@@reidflemingworldstoughestm1394 it does
Did the contact probes just snap off then? I always assumed they were forced into the soft regolith by the lander's weight (only realizing as I write this that that would mean Neil would sink up to his helmet within a foot of the lander 😆), but that doesn't work if the regolith is so shallow
They expected there to be a thick layer of regolith which the feet of the lander would sink into. That’s why the last step of the ladder ended up to be so high up that the astronauts had to jump.
@@kellydalstok8900 Thanks. Sounds like the contact spikes would have snapped off then
In this excellent video Dave correctly mentions how dust kicked up on the lunar surface will behave differently compared to an equilivent situation on Earth. A perfect example of this is the "Rooster Tail" dust trails kicked up by Apollo 16's John Young during his "Grand Prix" in April 1972. This very situation has been analysed, studied and the published results are easily obtained online. "Ballistic motion of dust in the Lunar Roving Vehicle dust trails", Hsu, Hsiang-Wen, Horányi, Mihály, (University of Colorado), American Journal of Physics, Volume 80, Issue 5, pp. 452-456 (2012). They conclude that the lack of particles’ deceleration along the x-axis of their coordinate system, could only be the case if Apollo 16’s rover footage was filmed in a vacuum. Enjoy reading, take care.
@@aemrt5745 dammit, those equations are secret, and NOT to be revealed.
So far, every time (many, many times) i have asked a flattard "how far can you throw a baseball ?" the answer has been crickets.
Now, they will be able to answer ... crickets.
@@victorfinberg8595 LOL. Ja! I was disappointed when I finished Engineering school. I thought there would be a wild initiation party, secret handshakes, and lifelong checks in the mail.
Alas, I need to make a living and pay my mortgage.
LOL, because of your name, I expected at any point in your comment for you to go full flerf mode! 😄😄 There's exactly one channel I know of which has "truth" in their name and aren't loonies of one kind or another, and he _used to be_ a flerf, too! 😂
You basically pulled a form of a reverse Rickroll on me, you could say! 🤣 I kept expecting it and kept expecting it, and... bam, nothing! 🤣 So... I've gotta say well done for that. ❣️
❤️❤️
@@aemrt5745 Hi Aeromarmot, thank you for your interesting comment. In the research paper that I mentioned above it was concluded that "we found that the dust followed ballistic trajectories under the influence of the lunar gravity. The gravitational constant of the moon derived from the dust trajectory is within 10% of the expected value". Of course, this research is unlikely to convince many reality deniers as anyone who can grasp this is most unlikely to be a conspiracy theorist in the first place.
@@TheWokeFlatEarthTruth Been a space nut most of my life. Made a career out of it!
They love starting "debunkings" on false premises from the beginning. "How was there no delay on the "phone call"?" There was. "They "lost" all the telemetry data?! Yea right!" They didnt. "They didnt sink into this supposed lunar dust?!" They did at times.
Etc. Etc.
They didn’t loose all the telemetry data? You sure about that? NASA themselves said it walked off, and no one not a single soul knew were it went!
Then went as far as to say it was recorded over! I’d say that’s pretty well lost!
You can go verify that yourself!
@@msoares1109there's nothing to verify. you're mixing up different tapes and exaggerating (ie lying) about the rest.
@@Agarwaen
Well go watch the video
Go verify everything I said. It’s all there:
Def not exaggerating. The rest is lies.
lol
That’s cute, I have no need to lie. I’ve been studying this shit dir decades!
This is seriously all the stuff you can see in the video, videos. It doesn’t matter what tape it came from! It’s still all a lie on tape! We all know this.
Look at what they don’t show and tell you. You pay attention to what they show and say like this guy here. Staying they shut the engine down before contact. Everyone knows Apollo 11 landed with the engine on!
@@msoares1109 i think its funny how you've supposedly studied this for decades yet you fail to make your arguments coherent
Matt, are you attempting to kiss Dave in his Uranus?
Great explanations to the layman. My only critique would've used the examples Corridor Crew used about a year ago. They had a cut of astronauts kicking up moon dirt and how it traveled and arcd back to the surface, the rooster tail like off the lunar Rover wheels, and they did a comparison with 2001 where the smoke plumes rolled on the set because it was obviously in an atmosphere. I know you were strictly covering rocket exhaust, but I think those would've been good add-ons to reinforce that lack of atmosphere and weaker gravity with tossed dirt dispersion. And no doubt the reality deniers will have a lack of comprehension in the rocket exhaust at sea level because (in Nathan Oakley's voice ugh) "We'll my hosepipe (translated to English English 😏) is shooting a stream and it's not rocketing me off the surface." Derp derp ballz.
Oakley should man up and get himself a jet washer, then he'll feel it :D
I'm guessing that Oakley wouldn't have seen the Mythbusters episode where they used six firehoses to lift a car above their heads.
@@mmattson8947 You should be able to do that with a shower head , it stay in air and if water is cut off it drops .
Mythbusters was also great in showing how few fire hoses need more water than the main water line in that area could deliver .
but even Slappy the Clown would have to admit that a FIREHOSE //CAN// rock a firefighter off their feet... his measly garden watering equipment simply lacks the pressure / moved mass to do anything like that. This argument is saying like "my leafblower cannot get me airborne therefore jet engines are a hoax"
Or think of the giant outlets of a man made dam... with thousands of liters per second flowing through...
🤣 Even if there had been dust on the lander, the "flatters" would come up with a stupid explanation how that was faked !!
Good info.
If you look at the ALSJ at 102:45:44 Armstrong says he didn't hear "contact light" called out and ended up touching down before shutting down the engine. It was almost a problem with the ladder because it didn't compress as intended on landing so the had to jump quite a ways to get back in the LM.
Armstrong - "We actually had the engine running until touchdown. Not that that was intended, necessarily. It was a very gentle touchdown. It was hard to tell when we were on."
Explains how he managed such a soft landing compared to the others - he cheated 🤣
Dude buttered the landing *too* well. What a legend.
He did better than anyone else before, so bashing is pointless.
@@XtreeM_FaiL He lucked out. IIRC they were running VERY low on fuel by the time he actually decided on a landing place. a couple of seconds more (something between 10 and 12 IIRC) and they would have gone down regardless...
@@XtreeM_FaiL Or lack of bashing I suppose 🤭
One of the things most people are unaware of with the Apollo lunar landers, is that unlike with most aircraft landing gear struts, which have hydraulic springs absorb the shock of landing, the Apollo craft actually had collapsable landing gear struts which were more akin to the crumple zones you find on modern cars which absorb impact damage in a crash by collapsing in a controlled manner. The fact that the lander was basically designed to crush its own landing gear upon touchdown didn't matter of course, because these craft were only ever intended to make one landing, This was also part of the many weight-saving aspects of its design, since it didn't need any complex heavy duty springs or hydraulics, just some crushable telescopic tubing.
One part of this which was potentially a bit dodgy however, was that the craft's crushable landing gear struts did still have to act as a stable base for the launch of the upper part of ascent module in which the astronauts would lift off from the Moon to rendezvous with the orbiting module in which the astronauts would make the return journey, so it was important that all of the struts would crush to more or less the same amount in order to let the craft settle in as level an attitude as possible. In fact the angle at which the lander would settle when it touched down was critical for the eventual launch of the ascent stage for the journey back to Earth. Various bits of documentation for the LEM state that the maximum angle safe for a launch was somewhere between 12 to 15 degrees. Any more than this and there was basically no guarantee that a safe ascent from the lunar surface would be guaranteed. This is why a lot of tiime was spent surveying suitable landing areas for the Apollo missions and is why Neil Armstrong manually took over the descent for Apollo 11 in order to ensure they landed in a level spot.
Out of all the Apollo landings, Neil Armstrong's Apollo 11 touchdown saw the module settle in the most level attitude, with just four degrees of tilt. This was far and away the best any of the Apollo landers managed and just shows how good a pilot Armstrong was. David Scott's Apollo 15 settled on the lunar surface at an angle of 11 degrees, which, being just one degree under the critical angle limit for a launch, was enough to cause some slight concern at mission control, however, the contingency plans which would have seen the astronauts being asked to dig out some dirt from under a strut to level things off was never actually required to be done. This is in fact why one of the first bits of telemetry data from the Apollo missions which mission control would examine following lunar touchdown, was this angle at which the craft settled, in order for them to come up with solutions should the craft be at a critical angle after it landed.
The craft itself was capable of tilting over to about forty degrees upon landing without tipping over which took care of any risk from transverse movement during a touchdown; so long as the craft finally settled within that 12-15 degree limit off being dead-level, theoretically all would be well for a launch.
Such an amazing vehicle. I also love the fact that if the automatic ignition didnt work they could pop a hatch in the floor and open the fuel values to the ascent engine manually.
Yes. P68 in the PNGS and 00413 in the AGS assured this so that if there was a tilt of the landing surface (and there always was), the ACS/RCS would stop trying to correct for it after landing. Part of the post-landing checklist was to record the angles (degrees of roll and pitch) so that the ACS/RCS would not try to correct for the tilt immediately at APS initiation and would wait until the ascent stage was clear before attitude correction in case something called for an immediate takeoff. Those NASA engineers were pretty sharp back in the day. Nowdays they're just diversity hires and the best brains are down the coast at Boca Chica ;-)
@@motokid6008 NO WAY! Was there such a procedure? Have never read about it.
@@spudeleven5124 - I read about that a long time ago. I'll have to try and look it up. But because the engine was hypergolic that's all that needed to happen. Two values open and the fuel explodes when it mixes. No spark or turbo pumps needed.
@@motokid6008 Apollo 11 Command Module Pilot Michael Collins, in his memoir "Carrying the Fire" remarked that he wasn't really qualified to troubleshoot anything in the CSM if there was a problem. There was a small toolkit but NASA didn't spend a lot of time on training him about expedient repairs of the docking probe assembly or the ring and shroud assemblies. His thought was that if anything weird came up, the ground would train on it and then walk him through it. This came to pass on Apollo 14 when an intermittent anomaly with the abort system almost terminated the LM descent. In an astonishing hardware/software hack, MIT engineer Don Eyles came up with a work-around to tell the PNGS to ignore the Abort flag which was set. The landing proceeded as normal. Eyles was awarded the Medal of Freedom for that (highest US civilian honor for valor).
A very good friend who has since “gone to God” George N. Warned me when I first popped my head in this space about 4 years ago, that I was being naive if I thought education could change the mind of flerfs. He was right. In fact as George said, there are 2 types of flerfs. The genuine flat Earthers who were unfortunate to inherit more than their fair share of the stupid gene, and the grifters who figured out that the stupid people are easy to fleece. Anyway, I’m here for the entertainment value, as it seems you are too. Awesome content!
Don't underestimate the collateral positive influence the likes of you and Dave have on people like me, letting us re-discover our interest in things like physics, astronomy, and the likes ...
@@hartmutholzgraefe I totally agree we non flerf's love to learn new stuff and brush up on subjects we have long forgotten.
@@hartmutholzgraefe Because NASA has the FE math hidden in Area 51 and in the Egyptian pyramids the FE math is wickedly hard, but you don’t need all the FE math to debunk the globe, lots of the truth is on Mike “ Oppenheimer” Smith channel, he has destroyed the globe many times, in the last few weeks he has videoed the Firmament. 😜
Some flerfs can do it. I know of at least two content creators who got out of flat earth thanks to debunkers, and there may be more that we don’t know about because they aren’t making any noises. So it’s always worth having a go.
That said, your point is still correct. Certainly I watch these videos to learn new things - which I promptly mostly forget - and to be amazed at the ingenuity and capability of humans to achieve incredible feats if they put their minds to it.
Yeah you dont seem to have a problem with the morons when they are Glerfs though do you? Maybe because you are one of them? But as soon as a Glerf becomes a Flerf all of a sudden it's a problem. And by sheer numbers alone...morons and criminals who aren't flat earthers outnumber flat earthers who are morons and criminals hundreds of millions to 1. So you should probably start dealing with your glerf problem before you attack Flerfs don't you think?
As an aside the Appolo Lunar Surface Journal is jammed full of great info. GO LOOK AT IT!
This is from the same timestamp (102:45:44):
[Armstrong: "I was surprised by a number of things, and I'm not sure (I can) recall them all now. I was surprised by the apparent closeness of the horizon. I was surprised by the trajectory of dust that you kicked up with your boot, and I was surprised that even though logic would have told me that there shouldn't be any, there was no dust when you kicked. You never had a cloud of dust there. That's a product of having an atmosphere, and when you don't have an atmosphere, you don't have any clouds of dust."]
[To clarify Neil's observation, on Earth, small particles don't travel very far due to air drag. Collectively, the particles kicked off the surface will stir the air it travels through, forming a dust cloud. Particles in the cloud will fall only slowly, and the cloud will last long enough to move with any breeze that is present. On the airless moon, each particle follows a ballistic trajectory. They don't form a cloud but, rather a sheet of individual particle all moving outward at about the same speed.]
[Armstrong - "I was absolutely dumbfounded when I shut the rocket engine off and the particles that were going out radially from the bottom of the engine fell all the way out over the horizon, and when I shut the engine off, they just raced out over the horizon and instantaneously disappeared, you know, just like it had been shut off for a week. That was remarkable. I'd never seen that. I'd never seen anything like that. And logic says, yes, that's the way it ought to be there, but I hadn't thought about it and I was surprised."]
I like this last _Apollo_ 11 photo as well, because it also shows a shallow gouge made by one of the rods, in strict accordance with the landing footage and Armstrong's recollection of the landing, which says that the LM has picked up a slight drift just before touchdown.
Which makes the hoax theory self-contradictory at this point, because it requires NASA to be both attentive enough to adjust the ground accordingly to the sideways drift story, _and_ careless to the point of not bothering to make a crater that allegedly should be there, _both at the same time_ 🙂
Yes, well, they also insist that everything was brilliantly faked, except for the rocks that for some reason have letters all over them.
They always conveniently avoid anything that doesn't suit their denial of the facts. We have pictures of the landing sites from another country now. We have Artemis getting ready to go back. They need to let go now. We went... we came back. Let's move on.
@@mschedler4984 and stop milking their followers money? How dare you speak the truth! 😂😂
@@mschedler4984 You have international masons working for the lie, you cant even imagine what the flat earth means to your reality.
You realize they filmed and photographed the same event don't you? The success was in checking all the boxes and faking the event and it was easy to fake considering no one has been or will ever be on the moon. It was a massive simulation. All the math was right and they did the best that they could but many anomalies ended up sliding through the cracks because you can't take everything and you know what happens when you lie...it's impossible to keep up with the lies. The numbers and words on paper still stand because that's all that they ever were.
Actual rocket surgeon here. Your explanation of the exhaust plume was perfectly fine.
Rocket surgeon. I like that! (From a fellow Aerospace Engineer)
They were sitting on top of a massive rocket landing and taking off. Yet there is no sound inside of the craft at all. Try doing that in a helicopter.
@@ValMartinIreland Are you talking about the ascent module? That's a 16,000 Newton engine, which is quite small. It's also operating in a vacuum. The noise you hear in a rocket launch is primarily the creation and dissipation of vortices in the exhaust plume. Think of the whump...whump...whump sound in your car if you crack a single window (technically, those are Karman vortices, but same idea). In a vacuum, these are not created to the same degree, as the plume is not expanding into an atmosphere; additionally, without an atmosphere to conduct the sound waves, they do not transmit back to the module to any degree.
Ironically, you point to evidence that they are not on a soundstage. Well done.
@@aemrt5745 Correct. Additionally, the vortices that produce the noise to begin with don't form, as they are caused by the velocity differential between the exhaust and the atmosphere, which obviously doesn't exist in a vacuum.
@@brayhill Thanks for the additional details! I have not studied con-di nozzle fluid dynamics since graduate school in the early 1990s (worked structural design and analysis during the Aerospace portion of my career).
Clear and well explained, as always. The fact that a rocket landing on a surface with no atmosphere is very different than our everyday experience of plumes of dust. I've known about the 'contact light' and the probes on the bottom of the landing pads. They literally 'fell' that last few feet (and in 1/6 g, that takes a bit longer, over a second).
(intereting side note, the first LM in space, Apollo 9, had four such probes. But they removed the one for the front leg because there were concerns that upon landing, the probe might crumple up in a bad shape and foul the ladder and make it harder for the astronauts to climb down.)
I always assumed it was an automatic shutoff if the probe hit something solid, i did not know the crew still had to press a button...
The "cake testers" were a safety measure in case a hard landing drove the descent engine bell up into the engine itself, which could easily have resulted in a catastrophic explosion (The very next step after shutting the engine off was venting the helium from the system to isolate the remaining fuel and oxidizer in the tanks). The engine stop did more than just stop the engine - it cut off the fuel supply totally. It could be re-started but there was (to the best of my knowledge) no procedure for re-starting it because having successfully reached the lunar surface, the Descent Propulsion System (DPS) had done its job and was no longer needed for anything at all (the sole exception was using the DPS for Apollo 13's course correction burns. Special procedures had to be developed on the fly for this, but fortunately the DPS was built so well that it performed flawlessly). Unsymmetrical Dimethyl Hydrazine (UDMH) mixed with Hydrazine (Aerozine 50) for fuel and Nitrogen Tetroxide for oxidizer are both insanely volatile by them selves but are even more so when combined (they explode on contact) but was considered extremely reliable, which was why a variant of this mixture powered Titan ICBMs for decades, and why the Apollo lunar astronauts trusted their lives to an ascent engine which, because it could not be throttled or otherwise controlled and was highly ablative (the ascent engine bell was carbon), it was fired FOR THE VERY FIRST TIME, ON THE MOON, without having been test-fired previously. WHOA
@@spudeleven5124 "...considered extremely reliable". All too true, except Buzz needed a pen to push in the circuit breaker to arm it. Not really a flaw in the engine, but if not for Buzz's enginuity, things could have ended badly.
@@spudeleven5124 Hydrozine is nasty stuff, but very reliable. Consistently used for RCS engines throughout the manned space program, past and current.
@@aemrt5745 There were traces of it in the first soil samples that were studied.
Always clear and precise information that ANY person can learn from, cheers Dave 👍😊
‘can’ being the operative word! Sadly, the people that would benefit most from learning this stuff usually wilfully ignore/misinterpret it so that they can keep up their own illusion of being special and different
@ewanr111 hence my words of "ANY". If "they" choose not to, it doesn't make it unworthy to learning...
@@More-Space-In-Ear fully agree!
Well Dave DOES do his own research and actually looks for it in ALL the relevant sources.
The keyboard warriors of the babble-front on the other hand, say they want to research, but then only bring the same old, long debunked facebook memes as their "results" that all the other FE "crusaders" have vomited out for 10 years...
@@ewanr111 oh like gravity huh yeah sure like that is real thing lol. ever hear of buoyancy!
I think this is the best way to teach science to kids to make them hook up.
Instead of throwing to them formulas that will bore them to hell and in the end in few years they will forget them. Start the discussion like this. Why we do not see a crater, Or many other flat earth questions is a great opening to talk about science.
and you approach the topic very great, by mentioning how small thrust the engine has, then introducing the effect of atmosphere and in this case the lack of,
and when you factor all this up you can see why not expect any craters.
"and in the end in few years they will forget them" - honestly, I cannot argue that.
Not that those videos can single handedly replace whole education system, but they are very useful. I know about some things that are included in education system beforehand, or aren't included at all! I don't state that those things are really useful, but discriminant isn't that useful either.
Kids need visually appealing and relatable descriptions to start kindling their interest and curiosity about science. I've seen many teens who for various reasons didn't do well in science, yet when certain topics where made commonly relatable, they showed a sharp and nuanced understanding.
@@user-oq7xc5qp3y i did not said replaced i said how you can start talking about a topic.
lets say perspective instead of throwing the math formula
why not first talk with kids what is perspective what it does and then introduce the formula
same when you want to teach photography and exposure time instead of saying all the technical stuff
tell them why when you make pic of moon you do not get start on photo?
which will engage students more,
telling them that the mechanism opens and stays open for a pre determined amount of time?
or talking about why no stars?
how kids will get what a wave is than saying go to lake throw a stone you see the water moves thats a wave
will it not be better than throw them the formula?
@@skateboardingjesus4006 yeah i remember one time in chemistry the teacher was talking about catalyst all where bored to death
and then said why you put this ingredient to make this food and what will happen if you do not
and with a topic all can relate and easily replicate at home more kids interact on the topic
not remember the food but the catalyst if i remember right was lemon
Absolutely useless without the fundamentals. Might as well send you up against a major league pitcher after having a philosophical chat about hitting.
I always learn something new here. Thanks for that.
Dave I have to say I love you dog. He sits there so nice and composed, and when you move your hand in front of him he brings his paw up to touch your arm to say "hey pet me".
Love the way you explain things so that the layman can understand!! Keep up the awesome content!
The moon soil is reddish brown, not silver grey white and black
It's a photograph ffs, a movie still!
I had this exact discussion last week on Thunderfoot's StarShip explosion video comments section. Some dude made the claim of no crater & dust on Apollo landing, lander foot pads etc.. I referred him to the actual footage out the window showing dust streaming away and Aldrin's commentary at landing. Aslo mention dust behaves very differently in vacuum etc. The dude would have none of it, kept demanding me to look at landing pad close up images as no dust present. Eventually he made the assertion it was all faked and craned down onto a studio set.
Once again they argue that the absence of something we'd expect to see if it was filmed on Earth is somehow proof that it was filmed on Earth.
Part of me always wanted to engage deniers so I can beat them up with science, truth, and knowledge, but no longer. Certain people (and political bends) just won't be open to the possibilities they may be factually incorrect, nor are they open to having their beliefs and opinions challenged with reason and debate - it always seems to end up with them devolving into yelling to speak over someone they disagree with, or finding likeminded idiots in order to gang up. I've concluded they're not even worth pitying. Too bad they seem to multiply exponentially, either thru sex or hijacking the latest graduating class from university.
As an addendum to the rocket nozzle explanation: if you over-expand the rocket nozzle for the ambient atmospheric pressure, you get _less_ than atmospheric pressure in the exhaust, which makes the exhaust contract and allows atmosphere to enter the rocket bell, leading to instabilities in the exhaust. Which isn't good for performance, and can lead to vibration and damage to the engine.
Crazy. I did not know that.
You can’t over-expand a rocket exhaust in a vacuum however. The engine bell gets too big and heavy for the extra thrust generated to be worth it.
@@spudeleven5124 The theory is really neat. I did classical and numerical analysis of rocket nozzle design in college, also did work liquid rocket engine design at one time in industry.
What is also cool is how gas flow behaves differently in a supersonic regime. In subsonic design (like an aircraft engine or garden hose nozzle) you accelerate flow by reducing area. Rocket engine supersonic flow is the opposite. You accelerate gas flow by increasing area, hence the rocket engine nozzle bell shape design.
In space shuttle launch videos you can even see the nozzles flex and the flow separate.
ruclips.net/video/g4zU5gIvZ2I/видео.html
Another point regarding the crater under the engine (or lack thereof) is that the Apollo missions discovered that the lunar surface was quite hard and only covered by a few centimeters of dust (regolith). So, the engine would have blown away the thin veneer of dust but could not excavate the solid surface underneath. Also remember that the engine crater idea was largely promoted by pre-Apollo science fiction depictions that merely assumed a rocket engine would excavate a crater.
When touching down on the lunar surface, the Apollo lunar module could be damaged from the descent propulsion system engine exhaust gases, either because they would blow debris from the surface or simply from the blast bouncing off the surface and back at the LM. Thus, they needed to stop the engine when they were still several feet off of the lunar surface. There were concerns (which turned out to be well-founded) that dust blown up might obscure the astronauts' sight during the final moments before touchdown.
The solution to this dilemma was the use of lunar surface sensing probes. Mounted on the bottom of the landing gear's foot pad, they were essentially five-foot-long "feelers": Once one touched the lunar surface, a lunar surface "contact light" lit, indicating to the crew that they were in close proximity to the surface and that they should cut the DPS engine.
You can hear Aldrin call, "Contact light" during the Apollo 11 landing.
Originally, all four legs of the lunar module had contact probes (refer, e.g., to AS09-21-3199, showing Spider, Apollo 9's lunar module, in earth orbit). The contact probe was removed from the leg of the lunar module containing the egress ladder, out of fears that it would bend and jut up toward the ladder, ready to puncture a pressure suit. Starting with Apollo 11, only three legs sported probes.
Of course, having what amounted to five-foot spikes protruding from the bottom of the landing pads wouldn't do the S-IVB's liquid hydrogen tank any good (when the LM was nestled in the SLA during launch), so the probes were folded up toward the LM, as shown on Apollo 10's lunar module (photo S69-17810).
The lunar surface sensing probe attached to each landing gear footpad is an electromechanical device. The probes are retained in the stowed position, against the primary strut, until landing gear deployment. During deployment, mechanical interlocks are released permitting spring energy to extend the probes so that the probe head is approximately 5 feet below the footpad. When any probe touches the lunar surface, pressure on the probe head will complete the circuit that advises the astronauts to shut down the descent engine. This shutdown point which determines LM velocity at impact, is a tradeoff between landing gear design weight and the thermal and thrust reactions caused by the descent engine operating near the lunar surface. Each probe has indicator plates attached to it, which, when aligned, indicate that the probes are fully extended. (heroicrelics.org/info/lm/lunar-surface-probe.html)
as another example, the f35 has over 4 times the thrust of the lunar module, but they still don't destroy runways or carrier decks during vtol operations.
Same with Harriers. They can land on grass and not dig holes.
Actually, from what I understand, F-35Bs (the US Marine version) DID have an issue with damaging their landing zones, at least at first.
I think they believe the dust layer on the moon is like 10 feet thick or something, rather than thinly covered solid rock.
@@thudthud5423 heat damage
Unless poor craftsmanship, I watched a F-15 strip a tennis ball court sized piece of runway during take-off once.
Hence the moon was probably built by Germans.
8:35 In a manner of speaking, Blackhawks do have jet engines... Turbines to be precise. But they drive the rotors instead of producing thrust themselves. Love your content, man. Keep them coming!
Turbines are just a part of jet engines. I think you wanted to say "turboshaft" instead.
He meant to say rocket engines in the video. Shame would have saved him alot of pointless comments. XD
From one engineer to another that was an excellent analysis.
You sheep
For the dust thing you missed to show the amazing footage when the rover is driving with quite a speed and kicked off dust. The way the dust behaves is by itself a proof the footage was taken in vacuum.
I saw no doifference
That’s exactly what I’ve always said.
@@ValMartinIreland look again, it’s perfectly obvious to me.
@@ValMartinIreland- there were NO dust clouds on the moon, dust kicked up and then just fell back to the moon's surface slowly in a parabolic profile. Dust did not drift off to the side or billow in the wake of the lunar rover as it would have if there had been air around the rover as it would have on earth. If it was faked it would have taken a huge vacuum chamber for the rover to be driven around while the cameras rolled and then the dust would have fallen too fast due to gravity being 6 times stronger on earth than the moon.
Are you sure you aren’t a Rocket Scientist? That break down of the low/spread of the thrust was some of the best explainations of rocketry I have seen.
Are ye rocket scientist as well?
Excellent video! I've become a big fan of your videos. I'm a huge Apollo missions geek and knew about the contact light and how the lack of atmosphere affected the lunar dust during landing, but i didn't know about the thrust levels and how they contributed to a lack of crater. I always learn something new when I watch your videos. Keep up the good work!
This stuff is awesome and a never ending rabbit hole. I have been studying Apollo since being a kid in the 1970s, and am still learning!
The fact of zero dust on the footings actually proves it was real in a lunar vacuum.
It's counterintuitive that a "stage production" director would leave the lander absolutely dust free.
In fact, had they sprinkled some dust on the landers feet, someone would have used that "production error" as proof of a hoax using the exact logic of this video.
Part of me always wanted to engage deniers so I can beat them up with science, truth, and knowledge, but no longer. Certain people (and political bends) just won't be open to the possibilities they may be factually incorrect, nor are they open to having their beliefs and opinions challenged with reason and debate - it always seems to end up with them devolving into yelling to speak over someone they disagree with, or finding likeminded idiots in order to gang up on said hypothetical someone. I've concluded they're not even worth pitying. Too bad they seem to multiply exponentially, either thru sex or hijacking the latest graduating class from university.
Those academics that are qualitatively studying conspiratorial beliefs have found that they are in fact not growing, just holding stable to a minority of the population who also, sadly, correlate often with lower income and lower academic achievements. However, media reporting on them is very popular, because people like news about weirdos and fringe-dwellers, leading to the impression that the subculture is growing. About 6% of the US population believe the moon landings are faked, compared to 25% that believe the assassination of JFK was a staged plot.
Further studies on opinion and how minds change also show that direct confrontation and argument is by far the _worst_ way to go about changing minds, and that conversational inquiry about how the beliefs were formed, and how confident they were in those beliefs, was far more effective in getting people to reflect and review their beliefs. However that takes a time and patience that many lack.
Finally, the embracing of a conspiratorial narrative often helps loners to find a tribe in which they are welcomed. That social, tribal belonging is a very strong driver, and the fear of rejection or estrangement from a group that welcomed and accepted them is incredibly powerful. I don't know if you've seen any examples of what happens when flat earthers publically reject their views - it's not pretty.
That said what Dave is doing may inoculate fence-sitters who might be prone to falling for the seductive narrative of believing something that not too many people do. Plus it gets him views, and comments, so there's no harm in him spending his own time on what he wants to do.
The best you can hope is that you can demonstrate to _other_ people how wrong the denier's position is.
The Moon landing conspiracy is really a kind of religion. Hoaxers for whatever reason don't want to think it could have happened and whatever evidence you present to them they will just dismiss it as impossible or lies, and the more you argue with them the more entrenched their views become, because for them it is a matter of belief.
When Neil Armstrong first walked on the moon's surface one of the first things he noted was the lack of a crater under the exhaust nozzle. The surface of the moon there was as hard a granite and only had a little amount of dust covering it. Rays from the exhaust were noted, but no crater due to the hardness of the surface. Other Apollo missions landed in different levels of Lunar dust with deeper craters.
Which is why it is all false. You can’t land on a solid matter, then say there are inches of dust!
2nd if there was a rock hard substance the blast would have blown all the dust completely away as well as the small pebble like rocks underneath.
Further more, if it was solid. It would have done exactly that pushed the dust off and away. There for making some type of crater like ring.
The sheep is strong with this one!😂
listen to Amrstrongs remarks and look at the photos from NASA. They are consistent with the dust blown away from a fairly solid surface.@@msoares1109
Listen to Armstrong's own words on file. There is evidence of rays. Look at the photos he took. They are on file as well. There is no crator because the Regolith was blown away by the blast and the hard surface remained with evidence of "rays". See the definition of "Regolith". You can even rely on Wikipedia if you wish. @@msoares1109
@@msoares1109… yes they can, because they didn’t land in the same spot every single time.
They shut off the engines at least 5ft above the surface, too. Try seeing a crater ring in less than an inch of dust… especially when said dust is only being affected by gravity.
Mixed with the light landing… yeah, simply, you didn’t watch the video.
Now, all this is simply in the video, but I doubt you have the brains to watch it in segments longer than a minute to dispute it.
@@NoFlyZone31 he obviously didnt watch as it was explained that they pressure from the engine was less than 1 single psi, and anything that wouldnt move from a large fan, would also not move from the engines thrust
It's rocket science, obviously.
This has always been my challenge to flat earthers. I can be convinced by evidence, so show me the math. I'm a math person, though I never intended to be. I have degrees in engineering. So all you gotta do is show me the math. Predict an eclipse. Derive fundamental equations of physics without gravity.
Also, they dont seem to understand that level and flat are not the same thing.
The flat-earth community believes that education is how "they" pull the wool over our eyes. Knowing nothing seems to be a prerequisite to becoming a moon/space/globe denier.
The Math is that NASA lied and are still lying. They know no human can ever to to the moon. Not in 1000 years.
Dave, I think this is my favorite video of yours so far. Thanks for so much good information.
I'm really enjoying your approach to debunking Flerth and Moon landing bollocks, especially the photography side of it all. 👍
I love whenever you're using your hands a lot your dog goes in for high-fives.
So. In other words. Not one single flat earth or moon denier talking point holds up to even minor scrutiny.
"But NASA said the earth''s atmosphere extends to the moon!" Sorry but I wanted to say it before a real flat earther did. As if traces of atmosphere thinner than a politician's promise is going to matter that much.
now allegedly beyond, but they censor the latest claim and its mostly links to the halfway to the Moon.
Yeah I remember when that article came up. slappy was so happy that he even declared on one of his "shows" that nasa was flattie approved now, because it meant the moon was inside the magical container.
Well they constantly change their story!
The moon is 238,000 miles away. You have to go through the Van Allen Radiation Belt…
Uh, the moon is in earths atmosphere 😂😅 so inside the firmament? 😂
@@geraldpolzinjr9670 Maybe science keeps discovering things?
@@barryon8706 That’s the story and they’re sticking to it. They’ll always find new things to stay relevant.
Everyday I open up google there’s another article from Science Today talking about some photos from some galaxies Billions of miles away, but they got crystal clear pictures. 🤦♂️
Excellent video as per usual. I love the way you explain things in ways which is easy to understand.
Nicely done.
It appears your dog understands science better than most flat earthers.
Good doggo
Indeed, the good dog has a higher intelligence than average flerf
10:01 - Papa, pet me more.
10:04 - PET ME!
10:07 - This is acceptable.
I'm very happy, that you point out the differences between dirt trajectory in atmosphere and in vacuum.
Dust particles in vaccuum do not billow or plume, they follow a ballisitic trajectory until they fall back down to the ground again.
So this whole train of thought about missing dust particles on the landing pads would only have credit, if there was some sort of atmosphere around, which obviously is not.
The footage of the landings corroborates this. There is no billowing or pluming opposite to any landing tests of space vehicles on Earth.
I was always puzzled why anyone would think the moon landings were faked? At the time even my teenage brain was able to grasp that physical conditions on the moon were different to here on Earth. And to me that explained most of what those 'whack jobs' were alleging was fake.
Why would you be puzzled, did you ever tried to research it? Like IDK, search ‘aulis’ maybe?
@@sekito2125 I was puzzled because of the abundance of evidence that these moon landings did take place. You must ignore a lot of evidence to come to a different conclusion.
I looked into a lot of their so called evidence these landings were staged. And all of them were bogus arguments. So I dismissed any thing else they alleged based on that. The moon flag one was a particularly stupid argument.
Puzzled? I’m puzzled that you are puzzled-go and show the official footage from NASA of the luna module docking in space to anyone under 30 years of age and the vast majority will think it’s not official NASA footage, that you are showing them something fake -why would that be? There is literally hours and hours of official footage that exposes their media presentations being staged and documentaries that expose the whole thing as a hoax.
@@sekito2125 Aulis is not only run by people who don't have a clue (and one is proudly a 'psychic') but its "articles" are "written" by "experts" who apparently don't exist, with very few exceptions.
@@sekito2125 Yeah, that's another thing. I'm puzzled by how stupid people have to be to fall for nonsense like aulis.
The dog wanted to get involved at 10:03 😂
Nice work, well explained.
Keep going mr Keegan
10:02 "what you doing with that hand? Why isn't it petting me?"
- Pup, probably.
Your dog must be very smart, laying there absorbing all that information. 😀
I miss having a dog. 🥺
It's so funny when moon landing and space deniers try to show how smart they are and they only show how much they don't understand. They can't(or won't) understand that things act differently on the moon than they do here on earth and being in space is vastly different than being outside in the fresh air. Of course it all boils down to their disbelief in space itself and, I guess, they think the moon is inside the dome so being on the moon should be just like being on earth...? Or something. Who knows what goes on in their brainless heads, it certainly isn't anything resembling coherent thought.
FACT!
Multi stage rocket launches are more efficient because the bell shape of the rocket nozzles are optimized (different) depending on the stage as each stage operates at a different altitude.
That's just a bonus, the fact is even if the engines were same multi-stage rocket would still be much more effective
I've often wondered about the landing, thanks for putting this out there.
Finally, a flat earth debunk video where I didn't know the answer. Great explanation Dave!
You do realize you are asking people to believe in physics and fluid dynamics? People who barely trust arithmetic.
People who use a number as an argument and then ask you to ignore it because they made it up. Yea, @Sateloons NOT Satelites, I am about you.
Early fears about the depth of the dust on the lunar surface varied widely. Many fictional movies have demonstrated the concern but the reality of thin dust/lots of rock was a relief.
Except when they tried to set the American flag.
Oops.
@@jimsmith7212 Apollo 11 blew it over when they lifted off of the surface, they had placed it too close to the LM, so the blast from the ascent engine knocked it over.
I once had a fun sci-fi book (can't remember the title) about a lunar sea ship that floated across the dust on a lunar sea, hypothesized to be so fine one would sink in it.
@@maxpeterson8616 - sounds like I'd enjoy it
So embarrassing. I just Googled. Arthur C. Clarke's "A Fall of Moondust".
Man, i wish my cleaning lady was this thorough
Fun addition on the descent engine kicking dust away. Apollo 12 landed 163 m from Surveyor 3. Analysis of photos and returned parts of Surveyor indicated the LM plune blasted dust off of Surveyer facing that way.
You mentioned making this video the other night and I got a recommend from RUclips on how moon dust is a huge problem, it was a very interesting video. Too bad for you that Flatzoid will debunk this with only three words: "violates natural law".
Don’t forget about gas behaviours.
This would be the Flatzoid who bases his nonsense on his invisible sky daddy
That's a denial, not a debunk! To debunk it he would have to present convincing evidence *why* Dave's explanation violates natural law.
@@ceejay0137 because space is fake and would violate the second Law. The other guy is right though, Flatzoid's main reason why he believes in flat earth etc is God, specifically the Christian one.
@@ceejay0137 flatzoid would have to be taken to moon to see it for himself, he says there's no demonstration possible to show that anything about space or the moon is real. To him it's all made up and the simplest explanation is the best one: the moon is a light that regenerates itself with plasma and earth is flat because that's what we observe and since gravity can't be proven and curvature is only an optical effect it must be God putting us here.
Basing the entire lunar conspiracy on ONE photo is like saying you can read every language on earth because you've learned ONE letter of your alphabet.
The photos of the astronauts clearly show how dirty they got and it should be noted that this dust was very abrasive and caused quite a bit of concern at NASA as this dust would have been very nasty for delicate equipment. When they cleaned up the return capsule with vacuum cleaners the dust ruined the paper filters! The dust is abrasive because their is no atmosphere or water like there is on Earth to smooth off the edges of the individual particles. The jagged edges of these dust particles also helps explain the action of the dust kicked up by the lunar rover. A vehicle on Earth would never kick up dust or sand the way it happened on the moon, plus there is no air to disperse it.
And that's a serious issue for long term missions.
Nice presentation, thnx. I particularly enjoyed watching the dog follow your hands.
If there was dust in the landing feet, they would claim it was proof of wind, and further evidence it was staged on earth. You can't win with goalpost movers.
Erudite as ever! Thank you. One bugbear of mine: Helicopters don’t generate upward thrust by fanning air down. Their lift is from the rotating blades (wings). There is a huge amount of turbulence and this is what causes the dust storms as they land. Rant over. Excellent debunk as usual. Thank you.
still, air is being thrown down in accordance to equal and opposite reactions, right? you could probably build a helicopter with flat sheets for blades and still fly, but not very efficiently.
Technically true.
But similarly, plane wings also don't generate all their lift from the pressure difference between the top and bottom surface, but also a sizable amount from pushing air down behind the wing.
After all, any action results in an equal and opposite reaction. Meaning in order for the mass of a vehicle to be pushed up by the air, an equivalent mass of air needs to be pushed down.
This is pretty much what you see in helicopters landing, and can also clearly be observed in planes flying closely above the ground or the water, or a layer of clouds.
@@Appletank8 No, a helicopter with flat (untitled) blades would very ineffective.
@@CChrisHolmes I think they meant flat (not wing shaped) blades, but still tilted at an angle.
Rotary wing and fixed wing, i.e. helicopter and airplane, both have the ability to change the pitch of their wings. The higher the pitch, the greater the AoA-angle of attack-the greater the lift in low speed flight such as takeoff and landing (low and slow). I think that’s what most of the comments above are alluding to.
Low and slow creates more wingtip vortices/turbulence as already mentioned.
Nice explanation there. I always found the dust plumes from the lunar rovers weird looking as dust moving in a vacuum behaves so differently from on earth.
It does doesn’t it, to me that has always been one of the strongest pieces of evidence that we did go to the moon.
@@johnferry7778yeah, probably the best, since it’s physically impossible to get that type of vacuum on earth, and record in it.
I was kinda wondering about that too and this was perfectly explained. All makes sense to me.
Another great video. Love the dog just chilling there ❤
Once again we discover that moon landing deniers simply do not understand rocket science. Or even just any science. They don't get it, ergo it didn't happen. Going through life with the working concept of "if I don't understand it, it must not be real" must create a very dark and dim world they live in. I am actually coming around to feel sorry for these people. They had a chance to go to school and learn about things just as I did yet they didn't - for whatever reason - so now their world is forever broken. Its very sad.
Dave - thank you once again for a superb simple and well explained video.
If membership of the Idiocracy carried a charge they'd be the richest organisation on Earth (as well as the largest) - but they're too dumb to think of it...
it is a said statement that you need to debunk moon landing conspiracy theories
correction: blackhawk helicopters have a jet engine. two of them, in fact. "jet engines" are in fact better termed "turbine engines." the blackhawk uses the GE t700 turbine engine.
side note, the abrams MBT also uses a turbine engine.
THEN WHY CAN'T ABRAMS TANKS FLY?!?!?!?!
Uh...sorry...
Could never be a denier. But love watching the inside, behind the scenes, background, science of it as well as a great presentation. Well done mate
Enjoy your videos very informative, love your dog.
Very well done. Clearest and easiest to understand explaination. The rocket science may have lost a few but there is really no other way to explain it in a short video. Fantastic video.
I've been bingeing on your videos today and I've learnt a lot about photography and other things. Thanks, Dave! ❤
P S my name is Pete Lennox.
5 words that, I believe, proves we went to the moon: Soviet Union( Russia), China, North Korea...
Take a look at Apollo 11's Hasselblad magazine 40 (the same magazine which contains the shot of the radially scoured lunar surface under the DPS engine bell, which you showed here); a couple of the photos show the foot pads, with the lunar surface at the inner sector (facing the DPS bell) several inches lower than the surface at the outer sector of the pads (facing away from the DPS bell).
Clearly, a shallow, rimless bowl was eroded out of the lunar surface by the DPS, all the way out to the footpads.
And that dust didn't end up in billowing dust clouds settling back on the LM, but was blown sideways at high speed with some of the dust particles landing many kilometres away.
I can answer that: because there is NO ATMOSPHERE on the moon. The dust would just settle back down on the moon's surface. Which means that some might get on the footpads, but not on the LEM. Our atmosphere holds particles by virtue of little oxygen, nitrogen, and misc molecules. It takes a while for those particles to move through the traffic jam, and back to the surface. But they do eventually get there.
Really enjoyed this Dave 👍
Easy to follow and understand. It reminded me of some physics lessons at school where the teacher would go through basic stuff but in a way that we could all enjoy.
Flerfer: Isn't it "convenient" how every time we see something we don't understand some NASA believer comes up with a perfectly reasonable explanation we didn't think of?
I just got banned from Oakley’s stream for destroying flat earth with lunar eclipses 💀
And he wonders why nobody will go onto his channel and debate him ... nobody's allowed lol
@@DaveMcKeegan his recent stream specifically timestamp of 1:35:00
Though my replies there aren’t visible to other people now.
I might try something like that
@@GhoulSolo___ you’ll get banned just saying
@@jetpond7904 Is his channel Nathan Oakley or something else? I might try it getting banned by him will be amazing
The engine does not to be used for the actual landing. Landing is due to the moons gravity. The engine thrust is used to counter gravity to reduce drop speed and continue flight to the actual landing point. The moons light gravity does not require so much thrust.
genuinely interesting, really keep doing this. You are very good at explaining these concepts to us numpties
Thank you for this, Dave. You always explain things so well and plainly enough that anyone (even flerfs) can understand!
Now that is wrong! You have to say "anyone ( EXCEPT flerfs) can understand!
First, I love your videos. They are very well done, logical, informative, etc.
Next, in all of the FLERF debunking videos I've watched, no one has ever approached it from the point of view of simple logic about the TRILLIONS of dollars being spent worldwide on space exploration, astronomy, etc., the BILLIONS of dollars and hours spent on education in all of the various disciplines and lifetimes of MILLIONS of people dedicated to these sciences, the (I think we're up to) THOUSANDS of rocket launches by MANY different countries and space agencies; in short, just the sheer magnitude of time, money, effort, and resources dedicated to all of this, and these FLERF fools think that IT'S ALL JUST TO MAINTAIN THE HOAX that the earth is spherical, instead of flat??
Which leads to two ?'s: WHY????? and
MILLIONS of people keeping the secret and there's NO whistleblowers...??
Please do a video on this... 🤪
I think prof. Dave did video about this
The resources are also a major reason NASA was able to do everything it did for Apollo. There were hundreds of thousands of people with practically unlimited financing (I think it ended up at ~3% of the national GDP) and the singular goal: get to the moon by the end of the decade. It was a national effort on an unbelievable scale.
Have a handful of XKCD comics: 1074, 808, 980, 2786, 1235, 258. Do check the title text too.
Just a quick point about helicopter rotors: they don't generate lift by blasting air downwards (or backwards) like a jet engine or rocket motor; the actual lifting force comes from the blades 'cutting upwards' into the air above the rotor. The massive downdraught is only an incidental byproduct of the lift-generating process.
Close to the ground, this blast of air is more of a hindrance than a help [it creates a destabilising cushion of air known as 'ground effect'].
An aeroplane's propeller works the same way as a ship's prop or a helicopter's rotor. It's what's in front of it, not what's behind that counts. It's not the air being blown backwards that gives thrust, it's the pitch of the blades 'screwing forwards' into the air ahead that does the job. That's why you can use a propeller that's exactly the same diameter as a plane's blunt, flat nose and still generate sufficient thrust.
The propeller doesn't have to extend beyond the diameter of the fuselage, although there will be far less turbulence/drag and much greater efficiency if it does.
If this sounds non-intuitive and wrong, an experiment with a radio-controlled [RC] model of a Sopwith Camel or Pup, or any Stearman biplane or especially a Gee Bee Racer will demonstrate the principle.
All these RC aircraft can fly perfectly well with a propeller even smaller than the diameter of their blunt nose and bulky fuselage - i.e. one that can't possibly be blowing any air straight backwards.
So a helicopter doesn't blow itself into the sky - it uses its rotating aerofoils to screw itself up!😁
Although you say you are not a rocket scientist, your ability to explain the dynamics so well shows you have a great understanding of the more complicated stuff. Many thanks!!
Great video very informative 😊 🔥🚀
Yeah, but reasons.
'nu-uh' is all the reasons some people need
Meanwhile the dog is saying....that hand is not busy, it should be petting me. Dave, as usual, great analysis........
From one Dave to another, great video!
As usual Dave clearly and simply explained and will be denied with the all powerful nu uh.
The "do your own research" brigade never disappoints. As long as you count on them disappointing.
Wonderfully explained. I especially like your graphics the visual aids were very well done.
It will come a time, when your dog explains that to flatearthers.
Good video. One suggestion - a better analogy that a BlackHawk (for the crater argument) would have been a Harrier jet.
Just subscribed. You’re pretty smart for a photographer😉. Great channel.
I'm just loving the ultra-chill doggo.
As always, your videos focus on being informative, rather than insulting or condescending toward those who question the matters you cover (with the occasional wee bit of semi-snark). Very much enjoyed!
Beautifully explained, of course this means nothing to a FE/Moon landing denier as they will just stick their fingers in their collective ears and say “see couldn’t have happened”…….
If the Moon landing was fake, don’t you think Russia would have called fowl 🤓
These fools are now attempting to suggest that the Soviet Union was in on the hoax.
@@yassassin6425 I've heard that "explanation" years ago. Either through secret bribery or threats of nuclear annihilation via secret orbit nuclear-dolls. Third variant says both countries were run by cabal of masonite satanists who arranged hoax as covert show of power and mystical ritual.
You really are a nice guy to accept to translate in human language all that your dog did explain to you the day before!
Nice observation about the Saturn5's exhaust plum expanding with altitude.
Much appreciated Garry, thank you👍