OK, friday night, and nowhere to go. Let's talk science.
Problems galore: A rocket can go up in our atmosphere but once it gets too high the air thins out. No more propulsion.
Then you get into a vacuum and there is no air to push off of. That wouldn't work.
For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Third law of motion. If you have ever used a pressure washer wand, you'll notice the moment you squeeze the trigger and release water, the wand moves backwards into your hand. The water doesn't need to push off a surface. Rockets in a vacuum work on the same principle. If you want to debunk this, you will literally need to debunk Issac Newton and a principle that has stood for over three hundred years with countless testing, data, and demonstrations to prove its validity. Next.
The pressure would make the craft explode if it was
a vacuum. The craft's walls were super thin.
Why? You realize we can empty a thin walled container of air, and it doesn't explode? We can do the reverse as well, and its fine. I think you are under the impression that vacuums suck things into them. This is an illusion, a vacuum is the displacement of an area of high pressure into an area of low pressure, such that they equalize. The action of this is a vacuum. These spacecraft are tested inside vacuum chambers before we put people into them. The pressure differential isnt much either. Air pressure at sea level on Earth is 14 PSI. There is more pressure in a car tire. Next.
The heat and cold difference would kill everyone inside. Not enough protection. Not near enough oxygen to support a trip that long. Power would be a problem. Batteries weren't as good as they are now. Solar panels? lol.
So...Space is interesting. Its cold but it can also be quite hot from radiation. The thing is...heat needs a way to be transferred, and a vacuum cant do this. Ever drank from one of those Yeti cups? They operate using the same premise, two walls separated inside by a vacuum sealed chamber. Guess what? Cold things stay cold and hot things stay hot in the cup while the outer wall remains the same temperature as the room its in. When you have an area without air, heat cannot transfer through. There is virtually no air in space, nothing to transfer heat, so there is no issue. Also, the thing I think you are actually referencing, the Van Allen Belts, which though having dangerous levels of radiation...well, radiation becomes a problem if you stick around too long. The spacecraft is traveling at 24,000 mph. They arent making camp there. There was also plenty of air for the crew. The carbon dioxide they exhaled was removed by canisters of lithium hydroxide. The amount of oxygen required for three people for thirty days rounds out to 180 kg, give or take. Its a quantifiable amount that can be calculated and planned for. The power was not supplied by solar panels on the Apollo missions, instead they used hydrogen/oxygen fuel cells. They had two functions: providing power to the command module and the byproduct of this cell is water. We have made car batteries using a similar tech. Next.
If you want to believe it because you saw it on tv. That's not proof. Much of what you saw was a simulation. Probably from a soundstage. The floating spacewalks are likely done in a pool under water. That's why many people see bubbles. There is more of a deception going on than just the space program but that's part of it.
And some random person you found on youtube who feeds you this disinformation is also not proof. I find it fascinating you wont list your sources, but I know who they are. All of your points are things I've heard before, nothing new under the sun. Watch this: You can say whatever you want about the moon missions, but all we need is one photo, one video to be authentic. You need ALL of them to be fake for your claim to hold up, along with every single scientist who has been involved with moon missions and external third party testing to be in on the con as well, AND indiependent researchers who have no relationship with a space agency but have tested scientific principles related to the moon missions. People like me. Good luck with proving that. Next.
Note the shoddy construction, no dust on anything. The background looks like a soundstage. Obviously a staged photo, but why play it off as real?
The dust on the moon has a very "static-esque" characteristic. It adheres to the surface quite well, and remember the moon is basically a lightly coated rock. The layer of dust is not as thick as you think. Theres also no air, so how would the dust blow away anyhow? Here's my thing though: You imply that Nasa is so bad at faking photographs and video that you, a person who thought the dark side of the moon was literally dark, can see through the lies yet they have fooled everyone with expertly crafted cgi, soundstages, and science jargon. You can't have it both ways. Next.
Why no stars you can see the little earth fine? Oh and wouldn't it be bigger? Why so much curve on the horizon? I'm sure Dragon Slayer can explain it all!
Didn't I go over this already with the stars thing? Also, the Earth is 250,000 miles away. Why do think it should be bigger? Looks just fine to me. I mean, if the moon is the size of a postage stamp held at arms length here on Earth, then the Earth should be like ...four postage stamps? Why is there an issue concerning the horizon? The moon is a 2000 mile ball, of course when you get high enough the horizon will be curved. Also, I'm not a dragon slayer, I'm the dragon. Get that right at least. Try again.
Ding-ding, round four. Can I have the TKO so we can all go home already?
