Apollo 16 EVA1 Part 2: Loading Up

[@universe4839]

It's fun yet difficult trying to mentally put myself in their shoes. I mean, THEY'RE ON THE FRIGGEN MOON! What a sensational experience it must have been, pausing for a second to remind yourself where you are. I imagine it was challenging trying to top that experience later in life.

[@LegendaryMrLongtoes]

another MG troll speaks!

[@LondonDada]

..by the name of MG svector perchance?

[@TruthandjusticeXXL]

Moonlanding was faked!

[@vin01vin23]

@@TruthandjusticeXXL your brain is faje

[@kerbaladventures2480]

Every time I come here to reply to a comment I can't stop watching this video. All these years later it's incredibly fascinating.

[@TruthandjusticeXXL]

Astronots on wires. For example at 14:02 min.; 21:05 min. ; 27:19 min. And that are certainly no antennas

[@brokensoap1717]

Yup they are antennas

[@L2ggs]

The plural of antenna is antennae. And yes they are antennae, not wires you moron.

[@Bob31415]

@TruthandjusticeXXL - 14:02 is the upper portion of a strut on the LEM. The other two are the antenna on the PLSS of one of the astronauts. If they are wires, why aren't they seen all the time Einstein? The only wires I see are the ones holding your puppet brain up.

[@terrycurran780]

The picture is so clear, Its a pity Apollo 11 wasn't as clear as this. Love Apollo.

[@headfella]

Just reading FOREVER YOUNG by John Young and all of these Apollo 16 videos here in KZbin surely supplement the prose in the book. I was in my early 20s while all these events were happening, but now in my 70s I have a greater appreciation of these events. Both through all the books the Apollo astronauts have written and the new tech like KZbin that now provides a far superior visual record of these events than TV broadcasts did in the 70s. Kudos to all those who’ve uploaded. Watching these events via all the new tech is just “way too cool for school”. We old baby boomers really appreciate your efforts at keeping this history alive. Best astronaut book IMO is Michael Collins CARRYING THE FIRE. Chris in Westwood Winnipeg Jan 2021.

[@thegrimsniper]

on earth, if you have a camera with dust on the lens, you might try to blow it off, so through force of habit, duke tried to blow the dust off, momentarily forgetting that he was wearing a space suit and that blowing the dust off was impossible. it would appear that he said it to convey the humor of his mistake to everyone else involved in the mission.

[@markanderson5402]

John Becker, well said

[@tomjohnson7529]

And yet he retired a General in the USAF.

[@dr.davidbannerf.e.s.6217]

According to your explanation those astronauts must have been "blowing things" a lot....lol Because they do it several times, not only on this mission. On another mission one of the astronauts even tells his friend to blow on something to get the dust off, and then you hear him blow.....Which makes sense, because if you look at the dirt that was brought in for the set, it was some really fine stuff...beautiful looking dirt actually..LMAO!!!

[@PashaDefragzor]

If its a part of an Earth, why there is so many very large scale craters on it. Their suits armor - looks cool even now its looks cool. And I wish to see the 2D shadows, I've heard they are ultrablack

[@TruthandjusticeXXL]

Ask Stanley Kubrick.

[@TruthandjusticeXXL]

Ask Stanley Kubrick.

[@orange70383]

At 28:30 he stops and exclaims excitedly "man look at that ? ? John, right there this big r-ah comin round the ----"and he's totally ignored.

[@L2ggs]

You're hearing things, he never used the word "comin"

[@gazmartinpadiham.lancs.3435]

Youre looking at me with the big eye,the answer is immediate. Where is the delay?

[@tlatosmd]

In the beginning, a 16mm camera is mentioned, yet all we see is NTSC video footage.

[@markwagner6990]

...and with all of the fancy technology, they forgot to take a simple stereoscopic camera along so kids back on earth could see the moon close-up with their GAF Viewmasters, which were quite popular back in the day.

[@nogoodnameleft]

The only Apollo mission with a crystal-clear ground-level 16mm camera footage of the flag-raising is Apollo 14. Apollo 11 had great 16mm footage from inside the lunar module so was looking down at Neil and Buzz but Apollo 14 had the best quality and best view (also thanks to Apollo 14's MET lunar rickshaw with the mounted 16mm camera). Apollo 12 didn't have any video footage whatsoever due to the TV camera dying after pointing to the sun and no 16mm camera available to film the flag raising. Apollo 15 and 17 had great footage but good-not-great NTSC quality. Funny looking at this Apollo 16 EVA footage and there is no video footage of Apollo 16's flag raising because by the time the camera finally turned around the flag was already raised. APOLLO 14 FLAG RAISING: kzbin.info/www/bejne/jJTJpn17qpelpKM

[@rockethead7]

Well, if you key in "apollo 16 16mm film" into the search engine, you'll see plenty of videos that show you the 16mm footage.

[@TruthandjusticeXXL]

Was the camera fixed in the moon ground?

[@YDDES]

It was mounted on the rover.

[@Encelad81]

20:51 www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/21463319730/in/album-72157656673260623/

[@TruthandjusticeXXL]

1:25 min. the Astronaut says: Hey. You look at me with a big I. 1:27 min. Answer: All right. The big eye is on You. Who is answering?

[@joachim2464]

Capcom

[@dr.davidbannerf.e.s.6217]

@@joachim2464 Wrong...it was Houston. lol

[@MrAzazel666]

Who do you think Capcom is? Come on man.

[@rockethead7]

@@dr.davidbannerf.e.s.6217 YOU SAID: "Wrong...it was Houston. lol" (in response to "capcom"). == Is it your goal to go from thread to thread and demonstrate your ignorance?? Yes, dummy. Capcom was in Houston.

[@antonionovais5257]

Minuto 33.24...este tipo andou ....andou e andou com isto..,.chega ao topo deste terreno e pára precisamente no topo...em frente daquele negro........porque não continuou?Porque o cenário termina ali.....?

[@chrrev1]

16 is the most problematic of the lot from the perspective of surface temperature. The landing would have occured in -272 celsius as the sun has not even appeared and the first EVA 14 hours later in -200 conditions lasting for 7 hours and ending at -165... The second EVA would’ve been more plausible starting in the -80 celsius, ending 7 hours later at -43. Third EVA presents little problem although getting pretty hot towards the end, starting at around 38 celsius, ending 5 hours and 40 minutes later at around 65 celsius. To me, clearly the first EVA is implausible. The other missions fall within less extreme ranges although 12 lands in extreme cold. 11 lands at -49 and leaves at 17, 12 lands at -125 and leaves at 16 , 14 lands at -45 and leaves at 84, 15 lands at -29 and leaves at 76, 17 lands at -19 and leaves at 86... Thats for surface temperature, above that since there is no atmosphere the space temperature is always going to be a few Kelvins only around the minus 250 mark assuming some radiated heat from the surface when it heats up... All in all, cold was the issue, not heat. imho.

[@Bob31415]

What do you mean the sun had not even appeared when 16 landed? They didn't land in the dark. Also all of the negative Celsius temperatures you cite are wrong. It wasn't freezing. The Sun was out on the Moon and it was extremely HOT.

[@chrrev1]

Jon Brahms It was extremely hot hahaha, mate where have you been? Certainly not to school I see... Background temperature in empty space is at around 3 degree Kelvin - or around minus 250 Celsius. There is no atmosphere so there is in reality no temperature as we know it... THinks cool down by radiative loss hence very slowly. The Surface temperature is a completely different thing. Suffice it to say that it behaves as a black body in physical terms so its relatively easy to calculate it. Good luck pal

[@Bob31415]

@christian revuelta - Well I have been to school my friend. You wrote, and I quote..."The landing would have occured in -272 celsius as the sun has not even appeared". THE SUN HAS NOT EVEN APPEARED? Do you actually think they landed in the dark? Come on. Now who needs to go to school? And yes, I was referring to surface temperature which was well over 200 degrees F.

[@chrrev1]

Jon Brahms For your education, the surface never gets above around 120/130 celsius. It takes time for it to heat up. THat is why all flights were timed around sunrise. Good luck mate.

[@rockethead7]

@@chrrev1 YOU SAID: "16 is the most problematic of the lot from the perspective of surface temperature." == Well, it certainly had the highest surface temperatures of any Apollo mission. But, it wasn't much of a problem. It was still within the design parameters of all of the equipment. YOU SAID: "The landing would have occured in -272 celsius" == Ridiculous nonsense. You think the surface temperatures were near absolute-zero?? Um, no. The surface temperatures never get below about -170 degrees Celsius, and that's well after a lunar midnight. They landed in the lunar morning, well after those cold temperatures had gone. I'm certainly not going to bother looking it up for your sake, but from memory, I think the surface temperature at landing of Apollo 16 was about +10 degrees Celsius, not -272 Celsius. You're off by almost 300 degrees. YOU SAID: "as the sun has not even appeared" == This is just plain stupid. Did you bother watching the landing before spewing this nonsense. Do you think they landed in the dark?? What ARE you talking about?? This is just plain silly. YOU SAID: "and the first EVA 14 hours later in -200 conditions lasting for 7 hours and ending at -165..." == Wrong. Utter nonsense. YOU SAID: "The second EVA would’ve been more plausible starting in the -80 celsius, ending 7 hours later at -43." == Wrong. Utter nonsense. YOU SAID: "Third EVA presents little problem although getting pretty hot towards the end, starting at around 38 celsius, ending 5 hours and 40 minutes later at around 65 celsius." == It actually got a small bit hotter than that (surface temperature). YOU SAID: "To me, clearly the first EVA is implausible." == Oh, this is hilarious!!! The first EVA is not plausible to you. But, landing in the dark was plausible?? You're very funny. YOU SAID: "The other missions fall within less extreme ranges although 12 lands in extreme cold. 11 lands at -49 and leaves at 17, 12 lands at -125 and leaves at 16 , 14 lands at -45 and leaves at 84, 15 lands at -29 and leaves at 76, 17 lands at -19 and leaves at 86..." == You have NO IDEA what you're talking about. None whatsoever. Why are you just sitting there making up numbers?? YOU SAID: "Thats for surface temperature, above that since there is no atmosphere the space temperature is always going to be a few Kelvins only around the minus 250 mark assuming some radiated heat from the surface when it heats up... All in all, cold was the issue, not heat. imho." == Um, wrong again. A vacuum doesn't have a temperature AT ALL. A vacuum isn't hot. A vacuum isn't cold. A temperature is a measurement of the energy state of MATTER. No matter = no temperature. But, well, at least you got the first sentence correct. Every sentence afterward has been an utter train wreck. YOU SAID: "It was extremely hot hahaha, mate where have you been? Certainly not to school I see..." == Oh, but the one who thinks Apollo landed before the sun came up, and who thinks a vacuum has a temperature... oh, you're the educated one??? Pfftttt. YOU SAID: "Background temperature in empty space is at around 3 degree Kelvin - or around minus 250 Celsius." == Wrong. Empty space doesn't have a temperature at all. YOU SAID: "There is no atmosphere so there is in reality no temperature as we know it..." == Good gods. What's wrong with you. So, all of your above statements claimed there was a temperature. Now, you are acknowledging that there wasn't a temperature?? Good grief. YOU SAID: "THinks cool down by radiative loss hence very slowly. The Surface temperature is a completely different thing. Suffice it to say that it behaves as a black body in physical terms so its relatively easy to calculate it. Good luck pal" == What an idiot. YOU SAID: "For your education, the surface never gets above around 120/130 celsius. It takes time for it to heat up. THat is why all flights were timed around sunrise. Good luck mate." == AFTER sunrise. AFTER sunrise. Not when it was dark (like you claimed earlier). And, this is even more true of Apollo 16, which had some significant delays in being able to land due to problems with the SPS engine on the command module. So, the lander couldn't go down to the moon until they worked out the command module issue, delaying the landing even more than the originally planned time AFTER sunrise.

[@antonionovais5257]

20.24 Eu penso que este salto teria que ser muito mais alto...muito mesmo mais alto....

[@PashaDefragzor]

As I can see, satellites doesn't have seismic activity and there is not tectonic slabs, so the ground is perfect for landing and perfect for take-off. So basically the guys on ISS doing wrong thing. Humans should build a starport's onto the surface of a satellites. Starport or a Stargate between space and a planet surface. The one problem about Mars satellites is they are not round, but they are way bigger than a Moon and both low G force

[@TruthandjusticeXXL]

Moonlanding was faked! The ISS doesn't exist at all!

[@TruthandjusticeXXL]

ISS is a hoax.

[@chrislareau7460]

You can top that experience by eating at Arby's.

[@dr.davidbannerf.e.s.6217]

You always have to appreciate the delicate touch of the LEM rocket as it lands...The astronauts get out and immediately start kicking dirt around, leaving footprints and footpaths around the LEM as they unload stuff.....but the ever-so gentle LEM rocket doesn't even disturb the dirt as much as the astronauts feet do. Gotta love that don't ya? I know you like that soft touch LEM rocket...say it...Say yes Larry..The LEM rocket is very gentle...doesn't even disturb the ground as much as the astronauts do around the LEM Larry, they built it that way....Just the astronauts can disturb the dirt, because the LEM rocket is super special and stuff, plus other things....LMAO!!!

[@yosoydeyarumal]

Yes. England has gentlemen, USA has gentlerockets.

[@stevemt3238]

Go to 18:00 mark. The camera slowly pans to the right to show the long shadow of the LEM, which is going toward the right side. The astronaut comes into view @18:40 on the right side and his shadow and the flag shadow are both going in nearly the opposite direction, as if a spotlight on the right side is in front of them.

[@1CAG]

The TV camera pans through180 degrees to the right, that is why the flag and astronaut shadows seem to point in the opposite direction!

[@rockethead7]

Steve MT: Yes, of course. The camera turns 180 degrees. The shadows are SUPPOSED to be going in the other direction. Why would they not?

[@FakeMoonRocks]

The Moon has 1/6th gravity. That means a camera pan of 180 degrees, on Earth, is actually 180 divided by 6, on the Moon. The camera only needed to pan 30 degrees to be facing the other direction. Then, just use your imagination, to undo the effects that the non-atmospheric conditions had on the shadows, and they are parallel...kinda...sort of...okay, not really.

[@TheWokeFlatEarthTruth]

@@FakeMoonRocks "he Moon has 1/6th gravity. That means a camera pan of 180 degrees, on Earth, is actually 180 divided by 6, on the Moon. The camera only needed to pan 30 degrees to be facing the other direction"............Please tell me you are trolling.......I would hate to think that any human being is so stupid. Take care.

[@KuriVaiM]

16:15 old flag waves quite a lot

[@nls.135]

Because he’s moving it? What don’t you understand?

[@stevemt3238]

@23:00, the sun is on the right with the shadows going toward the left. The LEM shadow comes into view @23:52 and now the sun is on the left. The shadow of the radar antenna @23:50 is nearly perpendicular to the opposing shadows from either side.

[@my3dviews]

+Steve MT As the camera pans the angles change as they should. If a shadow comes from the left and you pan 180 degrees, the shadows will then appear from the right. This shouldn't be that hard to understand.

[@Thephilpw99]

From 16:30, the unfolding of the flag is quite telling. The lower right corner of the flag kept going up, like there was air blowing it. Then in 17:13, the corner suddenly folded up for no reason other than some wind just picked it up.

[@kerbaladventures2480]

"No reason" = "I don't know anything about physics". The flag is behaving exactly as it should in 1/6 Earth's gravity. There are 2 rods in the flag 90 degrees from each other attached at one end, which, due to him working on it, momentarily pulls on the fabric from opposite corners. With no air resistance and low gravity, it creates a line of stress at a 45 degree angle, causing the material to fold itself up. The stupidity of moon hoaxers is just mind boggling - "I don't understand therefore it can't be true".

[@Thephilpw99]

Kerbal Adventures The problem of the Apollo dreamers is that they always assumed others don't understand the physics, and always find some ridiculous explanation trying to cover the abnormality. Your claimed that it was the two rods created the stress on the corner, but in all other flag movements the corner never moved like that. If what you said were true, then whenever the flag moved, the corner should be jumping up first, but in the video only in 17:13 the corner of the flag suddenly flew up with little flag movement. Stress of the corner cannot explain that. Anyone with unbiased eyes can see this simple truth.

[@rockethead7]

Good grief. It's called "static" - look it up. Sheesh.

[@Thephilpw99]

rockethead7 You are funny! "Static" is the king! His power is so immense! But wait, the same side of the flag should have the same charge of positive or negative, right? The same charge means the same side of the flag will repel each other, right? Look it up.

[@kerbaladventures2480]

No I'm not assuming anything. You just proved it with your comment. No matter what proof is set before you moon hoaxers you will always refuse to consider it.

[@TruthandjusticeXXL]

Often the Astronauts syas something and somebody else is answering. Who is that?

[@TruthandjusticeXXL]

+ Cliff Yablonski A radio signal from earth to moon takes 1,28 seconds. That is 2,56 seconds delay. There are several examples where there is no delay at all.

[@TruthandjusticeXXL]

Oh. OK. I didn't knew that. But moonlanding was faked nevertheless.

[@dr.davidbannerf.e.s.6217]

@@TruthandjusticeXXL Exactly...we use this film a lot to show how NASA lied. It's impossible for Houston to hear what the astronaut says just a fraction of a second after he says it. and actually, since Houston both hears and says "OK' all in less than a second....we know for a fact Houston isn't talking to any astronauts on the moon.

[@tgstudio85]

@@dr.davidbannerf.e.s.6217 oh yea multiblilion dolar hoax and they couldn't fake delay:D You hoaxers are funny... and incredible stupid:)

[@dr.davidbannerf.e.s.6217]

@@tgstudio85 And I guess you are too smart to watch the NASA film, and detect when there is no lag time between conversations? If you need me to post the links again, and the times they happen during the footage, I will. It's not something I am making up...that's for sure. And as far as being stupid goes...I bet you still think that a sonic boom is actually made by a jet breaking the SOUND barrier, and not the thin water barrier of our atmosphere....Right...I don't know that you are smart enough to even know what is actually happening when a sonic boom occurs... I bet you don't even understand that when the tides go out due to gravitational pull...You yourself weigh slightly less....Hint: If the Sun or the Moon are actually powerful enough to pull water towards them, you would weigh slightly less when it happens. Crunch on that for a while, maybe I'll share some other things you don't know or understand.

[@stevemt3238]

@18:50 - 21:45, the flag is moving slightly for that entire sequence.

[@rockethead7]

Steve, yes, the flag is still moving. That's because there is no atmosphere on the moon. It takes a very long time to stop moving when there's no air to stop it. Without air friction to slow it down, it will just swing like a grandfather clock pendulum for a long time until the energy dissipates. This sequence is one of the most solid pieces of evidence that this happened on the moon, because it wouldn't have happened in air. Good job spotting it. Thanks!!

[@kerbaladventures2480]

I was fortunate enough to have seen all of the moonwalks live and every network had a host and another person with a science background. I even remember the name of one of the "Science Editor" for one network was a guy named Jules Bergman. It was explained (during Apollo 11, I believe) that the solar wind could actually cause the flag to move slightly because of the lack of atmosphere and low gravity. Not sure if that plays any part in this instance, but possible I think. Unfortunately though, the moontards will scoff at that explanation because of the word "wind".

[@TruthandjusticeXXL]

Moonlanding was faked!

[@rockethead7]

Kerbal Adventures: YOU SAID: "It was explained (during Apollo 11, I believe) that the solar wind could actually cause the flag to move slightly because of the lack of atmosphere and low gravity. Not sure if that plays any part in this instance, but possible I think." == Well, I think that's probably a huge stretch of the imagination. Any solar wind with enough energy to actually make a flag move... yeah, would probably be awfully darned powerful, and without having done the math to verify what I'm saying, I'll stick my neck out a bit and say it would probably include so much radiation that it would be awfully damaging to any humans there at the time. Anyway, the most plausible explanations are (1) most of the times, when the flag moves, it's because it's being handled, or has just been handled and is still swaying until the energy finally dissipates... and (2) the one and only time it moved without being touched (I think Apollo 15, if I remember) was probably because the astronaut walked by it and the PLSS backpack was probably off-gassing (like venting) at the time, causing a small wind from the backpack.

[@kerbaladventures2480]

I'm sure you're probably correct but I was just repeating what the "science editor" said when I watched these live on TV back in the 70's. Maybe he didn't know what he was talking about, but I was about 14 at the time, obsessed with Project Apollo, and I still remember it vividly. I know that handling the flag is going to cause it to move much longer than it would in an atmosphere and 6x the gravity, so that was not what I was referring to. There are some times when it appears to move very slightly for no apparent reason, and your explanation of the PLSS offgassing makes perfect sense. But you'll never convince the mindless moonhoaxers.

[@antonionovais5257]

Porque será que de cada vez que alguém opina em sentido contrário que não aquele relativo aos crentes que acreditam nas idas à lua,não os respeitam ,chamando-lhes logo de idiotas?como sabem eles que os idiotas são os outros e não eles?Eu sou desse tempo...uns acreditavam outros não.....punha-nos a conversar uns com os outros,sobre este tema.....mas nunca nos insultava-nos uns aos outros.Ainda hoje falamos sobre isso...continuamos a respeitarmo-nos uns aos outros,tendo até alguns de nós deixar de acreditar....e deram as suas razões.....uma delas ,as armas de destruição em massa que o Iraque não tinha,e que essa mentira veio precisamente do mesmo país que disse ter ido à lua.Se calhar foi...se calhar não foi.não existem certezas absolutas nesta vida...até porque os politicos e afins estão constantemente a mentir,mentiras essas que apenas servem os seus propósitos......e agenda.

[@albaniandisciple625]

Its look like a room not like a open environment

[@игорьсмирнов-ф2ш]

gorisont 50 m ))) bravo !!! oskar !

[@lm-uf8tg]

why americans and russians haven't gone back to the moon since their first times ??????????

[@robertoroberto9798]

Too expensive, takes too much time, and bureaucracy stops already existing programs.

[@TheWokeFlatEarthTruth]

"why americans and russians haven't gone back to the moon since their first times ?" In terms of manned landings the Americans went back 5 more times and the Russians have never got there. Both countries have had numerous unmanned missions to the moon.

[@Not-A-Space-Agency]

😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@TruthandjusticeXXL]

Astronots on wires!

[@tgstudio85]

Idiot on the internet!

[@antonionovais5257]

@@tgstudio85 Ao fim e ao cabo....todos nós,incluindo tu,não passamos de uns idiotas,porque acabamos sempre de cair na rede deles.....WWW....uma teia do tamanho do mundo.....não sejas convencido,pensando que só os outros são idiotas,e tu o único inteligente...idiota...

[@markwagner6990]

Space is a vacuum. Heat energy cannot be dissipated into a vacuum as anyone who owns a thermos bottle knows. The LEM engine is fueled by hypergolic chemicals which burn at 3000 degrees centigrade. Every single BTU of thermal energy produced from the combustion process is absorbed and conserved within the structure of that craft. The temperatures would far exceed what the on-board electronics, photographic film, and the humans could tolerate.

[@L2ggs]

Your second sentence is false, heat energy DOES travel through and into a vacuum by radiation, which is how heat from the sun travels to us on earth.

[@rockethead7]

YOU SAID: "Space is a vacuum." == Congratulations on the only correct sentence you wrote. YOU SAID: "Heat energy cannot be dissipated into a vacuum as anyone who owns a thermos bottle knows." == Wrong. Heat dissipates in a vacuum, but does so radiantly, rather than by direct contact with air/water/whatever. Radiant heat transfer is a lot slower, which is why Thermos uses a vacuum layer. But, yes, radiant heat transfer still works. YOU SAID: "The LEM engine is fueled by hypergolic chemicals which burn at 3000 degrees centigrade. Every single BTU of thermal energy produced from the combustion process is absorbed and conserved within the structure of that craft." == Pffttt. Maybe you'd have a point if they burned the fuel/oxidizer INSIDE THE SPACECRAFT. But, ya know, they used this thing called a "rocket engine" to do the burn. I realize you have no understanding of what that means, but maybe you should look it up. See, what happens is, the fuel/oxidizer don't burn INSIDE THE CRAFT. Nope. Instead, they shoot the fuel/oxidizer into the engine bell, which is exposed to space. And, a vast majority of the heat is ejected straight out of the engine bell with the exhaust gasses. The exhaust gasses are the hot stuff. That hot stuff is ejected out into space as rocket exhaust (which also propels the craft). YOU SAID: "The temperatures would far exceed what the on-board electronics, photographic film, and the humans could tolerate." == Yet, amazingly, not a single aerospace engineer or rocket scientist on the planet has ever noticed this "flaw" you've spotted... that rocket engines cannot actually be used, huh? I mean, ok, you apparently don't think space is real, because rocket engines work the same anywhere in space, not just at the moon, right? You're a flat Earther, right? So, even in your own ridiculous model (in your brain) for how you believe rockets work, how do you explain the rockets that launch. Millions of people watch them. Why aren't those rockets all being blown apart, if you think the the rocket exhaust/heat goes INTO the craft??

[@markwagner6990]

@@L2ggs Electromagnetic energy radiates from the sun; it excites the atmospheric molecules, vibrating them; creating thermal energy.

[@toucheturtle3840]

Are you still a dickhead or is Jesus coming to save you?