NorthMountain,
Take it up with NASA. They are the ones who said it.
Here is the link where NASA admits to this barrier:
https://youtu.be/4O5dPsu66Kw?t=164
"We" knew a long time ago how to make electronics radiation-hard. The Van Allen belts were never the big deal you make them out to be. How do you think they were discovered?
Quit Lying.
Do you know the difference between heat and temperature? Do you know there IS a difference between heat and temperature?
Quit lying.
New Horizons is unmanned. You know that, right?
Quit lying.
A youtube video! We know those are never bogus.
Ummm..no, NASA did not "admit" anything. You took what an engineer said out of context and put a spin on it.
THINK. Your whole premise is that NASA is faking all the space stuff. And then you go and say that NASA is admitting we can't go into space. Make up your mind. It's either one or the other.
Your interpretation of what is said is not a valid interpretation of what is on the video.
From your previous post:
We have not solved the problem of getting through the Van Allen radiation belts that kill living beings.We have not solved the problem of getting through the thermosphere whose temperatures are significantly higher than needed to melt the metals in the spacecraft.
Both of the above statements are incorrect. The Van Allen radiation belts can damage and kill living things, if the living things are exposed to the radiation for a long enough period, without shielding. There are ways to reduce the exposure time, and to place the orbit through the belts where there is the least amount of radiation.
The temperature in the upper atmosphere is not hot enough to melt common metals. It is movement through the atmosphere that produces the heat. The area you are probably thinking about is called the thermosphere. That is generally the region from about 90 km above the surface to 500-1000 km above the surface. The temperatures there are high because the molecules there are moving fast. But they are relatively far apart. The pressure of air in that area is considered a very hard vacuum on Earth. While the molecules of air there are hot in the higher levels, there are very few of them, so they have almost no ability to heat metal in that area.
At 100km, the density of the atmosphere is so low that molecules do not reliably collide with each other. The equivalent pressure would be about .00032 millibars. Pressure at sea level is about 1013 millibars, on average. At 100 km, the temperature, as such is about a -80 degrees Centigrade. The temperature goes up as you go higher, but the number of molecules are so few, it would not heat a thermometer in the area. The temperatures are calculated from the theoretical temperatures of molecules moving at the velocities those molecules are moving.
As we have the pressure at 100 km, at .00032 millibars, and the pressure at the surface, at 1013 millibars, we can calculate the rough density at 100 km height is about .000000316 of that at the surface. That is 3.16 ten millionths of what it is at the surface. The volume of a car is about 5 cubic meters. That amount of air at 100 km up, when compressed to the pressure at the surface, would fill a sphere 1.45 centimeters, or about .57 inches in diameter. The density of the thermosphere drops off very rapidly as you go higher where the high "temperatures" are. Here is a link explaining both problems, and how they were solved.
I have good friends who believe as you do. Perhaps I have beliefs that are incorrect as well. I do not worry about it unless my friends try to convince me to make critical decisions based on a poor interpretation of data.
Sorry about the long post, but it is an area I have had some professional training and expertise in.