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).
@@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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
@@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.
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.
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.
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".
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 RU-vid, 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!
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
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 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.
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.
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🤦♂️
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.
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.
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.
This another example of, not stupidity of hoaxers, but intellectual laziness. Their argument can be reduced to, "I don't believe it, so it's fake." This is why arguments can get frustrating. They are not idiots. They actually come up with some pretty creative spins to deny reality. Unfortunately, their intellectual laziness, when combined with cognitive dissonance makes it visually impossible to convince them that their world view is completely false. Any discussion invariably devolves to them accusing us of conspiracy, or being sheep, or any other personal attack. In this video, Dave does a deep dive (sorry) into the reality of Apollo life support systems. I guarantee, any Hoaxers watching discredit it from the outset because they know he isn't one of them. That's why hoaxers, flerfs, truthers.. They are never the scientists or engineers, because they lack the ability to disconnect their preconceived notions from the experiments. It's not their intelligence. It's their critical thinking skills.
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?
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?
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.
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!
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!
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 🌎🌍🌏
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
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.
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.
Great video Dave, very well explained and thanks for sharing! Sadly the naysayers will instantly dismiss if because you used actual maths and scientifically proven theories 🙄🙄🙄🤦♀🤦♀🤦♀
It's almost as if the people who made this happen were more knowledgeable on the subject(s) than the school dropout landing denier keyboard warriors...
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.
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 used to be that if you didn’t understand something, you either learned about or just stayed quiet about it. Now, it seems, if you don’t understand something, you apparently have to deny it’s real and tell the entire world how stupid you are.
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 RU-vid 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.
While I appreciate that your debunking videos are directed primarily at idiots who still use that antiquated system, for the love of science, please, please, please, use SI units. All that switching back and forth between sensible and non-sensical units really drives me nuts. Just like it drove Wernher von Braun nuts, the original inventor of the first man-made object in space. He was the OG, the granddaddy of all modern space flight who was brought from Nazi Germany to the USA in Operation Paperclip.
I used to enjoy your channel. Now I just hate humanity. I am a technical diver, and I doubt a single Apollo denier could explain "partial pressure" let alone re-breather technology
To give the apollo deniers just a shred of credit, at least with this example they odentified an actual problem that NASA and the USSR had to contend with and find solutions for. If only they were capble of thinking critically about the problem instead of immediately assuming its impossible.
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
Tbh anyone who suggests that spacecraft have scubatanks for air will struggle understanding this vid. People like them are why aliens won't talk to us.
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.
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.
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
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.
@alexcrouse Yeah... and also SCUBA is compressed AIR and not pure oxygen... as this vid tells you. If YOU are a SCUBA diver, you should know this. I've never used anything BUT compressed air while diving. Understanding the physics of it isn't difficult. 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!
Great Video…but you sort of missed a point that makes the deniers claims „even more wrong“ ;-) When diving at 10m depth (which is the baseline for most calculations) the ambient pressure is 2 bar (or double the airpressure at sealevel). This pressure also works on the lungs…so when breathing in this pressure is equalized with the air from the tank. So the lung is filled with twice the amount of air compared to sealevel…hence you use double the volume of air to breath in an open system at 10m compared to sealevel. This is the reason for the first and most important lesson in scuba diving: always ALWAYS exhale when ascending…if you don‘t your lungs will rip or even explode. On a side note, in rescue diving this is used to ascend to the surface without airsupport. When rising slowly from a depth of 10m you can easily breath out slowly all the way to the top due to the expanding air in the lungs. Considering that the Apollo Spacecraft was not pressurized above the normal athmospheric pressure, the amount of tanks used as a foundation of the deniers argument would have to be cut in half for this reason alone…in addition to everything else in your video.
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.
So how about the Red Elephant in the denier room. The Soviet Union... How about a video going into detail exactly how the Soviets tracked all 9 moon missions.
That's always my go-to rebuttal for moon landing deniers. The Soviet Union HATED the US, and the feeling was mutual. There is no universe where they wouldn't have called out an attempt to fake the landings because the Apollo missions basically ended the space race. Of course when you bring it up they default to saying that there's an enormous shadow government that obviously controls every single country on Earth perfectly with no dissent and without anybody finding even a shred of proof that such a thing exists.
@@physicsunderstander4958 The soviet union was financed by wall-street. There never was any real animosity. Run by the same international cartel of criminals.
Wouldn't the Apollo Astronauts have used less oxygen than scuba divers anyway, because it's far more energy intensive swimming through water than floating in a zero-g environment?
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.
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.
So basically you’re saying that people thought that a scuba tank was peak NASA-grade gas compression technology? They designed and engineered almost everything from scratch, but when it came to the astronauts breathing, scuba tanks 😂
Mathematics, actually just simple arithmetic, is the key. Most conspiracy theories can easily be disproven with addition, subtraction, multiplication and division.
Apart from using archaic units and this making the maths more complicated, it was a very thorough discussion. Not that it’ll make much difference to those that deny the moon landing took place. After all, why let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy.
@@MIKE_FROM_DETROITThat really isn't much of a point, as using metric would have the same result. It's baffling how people tote this as if the units used had anything to do with it.
@MIKE_FROM_DETROIT Oh boy, you are just plain wrong. Metric was used for a lot of calculations, including on-board ones(then converted to imperial for astronauts). Also it is noted that the one of the significant people in the program Verner Von Braun absolute despised imperial system.
What irritates me is deniers raise all these objections like NASA didnt already think of that problem. Its their job to do this stuff of course they're not going to forget to put enough oxygen in it
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!
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.
Dave... oxygen toxicity. AS a SCUBA diver, I learned that oxygen toxicity began when you were breathing TWO atmospheres of pure oxygen. Or at 10 atmospheres of depth if you were using normal SCUBA compressed air. Which depth, you were very unlikely to get to. I just did a bit of looking.... PURE oxygen at ONE atmosphere of pressure is not very toxic. Long term use... it could cause problems. So my facts from 40 years ago aren't totally correct. One thing that PURE oxygen in hospitals did 60 years ago was to cause the blinding of premature infants. Their cornea were affected by being in a pure oxygen incubator and often more than just the cornea. Many preemie babies became blind because of this factor. Not knowing!!!! This changed. I have a 64 year old cousin who was a preemie. Her twin died but she was kept alive and in an oxygen environment. She has been blind all of her life. Initially she had some shadow sight but that eventually failed. So we LEARN things all the time. She is a living contributing person. Kept alive by former medical knowledge, but also blind. We learn things all the time. It is the people suffering from personal incredulity and with LITTLE knowledge of "how things work" that deny reality. Thank you for all that you do. I've turned to other people for photographic knowledge. You have turned your time to other uses. I hope that it will help SOME people.
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 ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-PFABKpqWG9Q.html There are also explosive guillotine style cable cutters, such as used on separation of the CM and SM.
@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
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.
(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).
Thank you! I once did all the calculations shown in this video and made a comment to someone either on RU-vid or Facebook (I forget) and then the original commenter deleted their comment and I lost all the nicely typed-out rebuttal. Now I can just link this video.
In Denton Texas we have one of these " flat earthers." They have spray painted slogans all over their house and vehicles. Everybody just considers them the village idiots.
So much incredible math went into those missions. We whine and complain about it in school, but imagine trying to pull this sort of thing off if they had never learnt this stuff... Another excellent video full of info I did not know and was too lazy to research myself. You always manage to package it so neatly and understandable. I never doubted they had enough oxygen because they actually pulled it off. All the other evidence proves that. So I'd never even considered doing the research to figure out how. So many different disparate fields of science had to come together to make these missions successful. Understanding how human biology works to know exactly what amounts of what gases are required. Knowing how big and how thick to make the tanks so that they can safely hold enough of those gases to get the humans there and back with full cognitive function the entire time. Understanding the chemistry of how to cycle the unwanted gases back out and to use the oxygen to make both power and water. There were just so many genius bits of kit strapped together to make all of this work. Is it any wonder we can (mostly) still all come together and celebrate the incredible achievement of all mankind that these missions represent? I'm all for trust but verify. We should all be a little skeptical of everything anyone tells us. But there is definitely a point where we go past that into pointless denial against overwhelming evidence. Shame that so many are so willing to spit on the efforts of hundreds and thousands of people's shiny achievement. We put human beings on another celestial body ffs. What is worth celebration if not that?
in this case, no. this material is actually quite complicated, and here it's more likely that the "deniers" really don't understand it. "strawman" requires deliberate fraud
@@victorfinberg8595you can accidentally create a strawman. But refusal to research the topic before continuing with the argument doesn't make it any less dishonest.
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.
