Відео

correct...SaturnV had 3 stages.. the actornauts performed on the 3rd stage then on the lander and then on the film stage set up on the moon....then they fooled around on the rover...

@SelwynRewes Ahhhh... you rubes never disappoint. Love to peruse the comedy section of these comments. Keep up the good mat'l fellas. 😂

Why is there any surprise here? The recording is occurring on the ground side. So, the transmission could take 10 seconds. You hear the audio, press to talk and answer immediate then, right? So, on the ground side, we don't know, see or wait for the audio time to transmit from the moon. However, NOTE the reverse! When Mission control (MCC) talks, note the delay for the response to come back -- it is never instant. So, say start listening at 3:10: At 3:15 Duke ask MCC to go "Aft omni". Note how MCC is able to INSTANT respond, since as noted, we are on earth, and received the voice transmission. but, NOTE the reverse -- MCC at 3:19 responds instant, and without any delay - (since we down on earth having received the transmission - there no delay or wait for MCC to respond. But, now MCC states "Stay forward and you have a Go at 1" Now, start the delay for the response...about 4.0 seconds later when Young says "roger" Keep in mind that they rehearsed this landing 100's and 100's of time. So, what comes next is often anticipated, just like I can finish your sentence for you. However, note the delay for the response - it is about 4 seconds. The time for radio to travel one way is a about 1.25 seconds - a full round trip is 2.5 seconds. So, I count about 4 seconds for the response from moon to earth. As noted, from moon to earth? Well, we hearing the voice transmission on ground - it could have taken 5 minutes, and we would respond instant. So, no, zero surprise here

Yeah, no. Watch the video again. As Albert has pointed out, when Houston responds to the astronauts it's instant. But when the astronauts are responding to Houston, there's a noticeable delay.

"Let's discuss" (you say?)? Then, why do you cut and paste this same thing into numerous videos, then never discuss anything when people correct the gibberish you're spewing?

@@rockethead7 Where in this thread is "lets discuss"? Not aware of anyone saying as such. The simple matter is the transmission could take 15 minutes from mars, and the two astronauts could ask *_Huston, should we set bus A or bus B_* That transmission as noted might take 15 minutes. But WHEN it reaches earth, then you going to hear the question at that point in time, and Huston could respond try bus B without delay. From our end on earth, there not going to be any perceptible delay for Huston to respond, since the recoding and hearing of the transmission is occurring on earth at our end. However, a full round trip to the moon is about 3 seconds. So, WHEN Huston asks the astronauts a question, do a simple 1 choo train, 2 choo train, and 3 choo choo train. You find in the recoding's exactly what you expect - about a 3 second delay for the astronauts to respond to questions from the ground. So, what part of this narrative and explain are you not agreeing with, since what we hear in the recordings is exactly what one would expect based on logic, reason, and common sense. Is there some logic or point you trying to make here that you don't agree with then? You have to explain why you would expect anything different in the recordings then what we all hear.

@@Albertkallal "Where in this thread is "lets discuss"? Not aware of anyone saying as such." Last two words of the OP's post.

@andy-s-76 The computer software on the lunar module computer was divided into different operations. P63 was the braking phase to slow the spacecraft down where the astronauts were flying backwards and unable to see much of the moon's surface. Once the lander was at a specified altitude and speed the programming switched to P64, where the lander pitched over and the astronauts were then able to see the moon's surface and landing area out their windows. When the commander takes over manual control, the computer switches to P66. Hope that helps.

By Apollo 16, P65 didn't exist in the code that was installed in Orion's computer. If we look in the program manual for the Apollo 11 spacecraft, we see that P65 was there. It was a fully automatic version of P66. Whereas P66 put the commander in the control loop, allowing him to adjust attitude and descent speed while the computer was in control, P65 controlled these entirely. There was also P67, which was never used. This gave the commander complete manual control of the LM's attitude and the throttle.

how much did you offer?

You're entitled to your opinion, but unless you can demonstrate expertise in aerospace engineering, I'm going to listen to the people who have that expertise. In the meantime, thousands of scientists from around the world have studied the Apollo rocks for the last 50 years, and they know the rocks are from the Moon. The only plausible explanation for how the rocks got here is that people went to the Moon and collected them.

check 14:17 if you cannot see the dust blowing then your head is the crock...

@@apocalips8008 u gullible moron!

@@hubby9345 You believe any story where people of power lie to you. But they have nothing to get from it. You're maybe easy to manipulate.

@@PierreBrandominiBrandomini That's some serious gaslighting. Who has the power here?

@@bargeman100 No, not gaslighting. I explain : for a Moon conspiracy theorist, NASA (what i called "people of power") lies. Then he/she looks for evidences of lie.

Aye!!!

nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/spacecraft/display.action?id=1969-059C

You're entitled to your opinion, but unless you can demonstrate expertise in aerospace engineering, I'm going to listen to the people who have that expertise. In the meantime, thousands of scientists from around the world have studied the Apollo rocks for the last 50 years, and they know the rocks are from the Moon. The only plausible explanation for how the rocks got here is that people went to the Moon and collected them.

Nobody's ever been to the moon.

​@@bargeman100What shape is the Earth?

@@cavestoryking8761 I'm not a flat earther. You don't have to believe the earth is flat to know there's never been a man on the moon.

@@bargeman100 Well, at least you're not as dumb as them.

@@bargeman100 Just so you know, we sent retroreflectors up there when we went, and nobody has found any problems with the moon rocks NASA brought back.

descent stage which was left behind on the moon had about 10% fuel remaining .. ascent stage tanks were full and had about 2376kg of fuel ... about 5200 pounds..more then enough to rendevouz with the command module...

very easy to look it up ...try how did lunar buggy fit into lunar lander...

Did they have a cooler full of beer in that moon buggy?

So, you came to your conclusion first. Then you asked a pile of questions, but, you don't believe there are answers. You think these are "gotcha" questions. But, you've never lifted to find out the answers, because you already came to your conclusion. Bravo. Pure genius.

@@rockethead7 Do you realize how stupid you sound?

"You space fantasists simply can’t see how ridiculous this “footage” is…" Aerospace engineers have no problem with it. Given the choice between your opinion and expert opinion, I'm going to go with the experts. "where did they fit the car? Underneath?" No. On the side of the descent stage, next to the ladder. This information isn't hard to find. "Ok, what about the 10,000 thrust rocket? Where’s that?" That's underneath, where you'd expect it to be. This information is even easier to find. "How did it shoot through the car?" Irrelevant question seeing as we know the car was nowhere near the engine. Do you seriously think this information isn't available? "Did the he car have pneumonic tires?" No. It didn't even have pneumatic tyres. It had woven wire mesh tyres. Again, this information is easy to find. "How did they have room for things like golf clubs?" One astronaut on Apollo 14 brought the *head* of one golf club - IOW an object smaller than your hand - which he was easily able to fit in a pocket. "Have you ever packed a car before?" Have you ever done any research that didn't involve watching Apollo hoax YT videos?

The youth got queer...

physics, robert, and politics. too complicated for you.

About 20 years ago, I went to Colorado on vacation. We are planning on going back next summer. I guess that's a clue that I didn't go to Colorado 20 years ago.

In 1966 NASA's budget peaked at 4.5% of the federal budget. These days it's less than 0.5%. How do you think your lifestyle and financial plans would be affected if your income dropped by 90%?

@smeeself Thank you.

It's the backup guidance computer, for use in case they had to abort the landing and get back to orbit.

👎👎👎

You’re lack of intellect and education is noted..

Want to see irrefutable proof that Apollo 11 never went to the Moon? ua-cam.com/video/BzAVXNcSWh4/v-deo.html

zzZZZzzzZZZ

@@frankyuk so I guess the whole of Australia was in on the fakery... ua-cam.com/video/ZK8wNoIc4Us/v-deo.html

Yawn....

prove it

So explain EASEP, ALSEP, and LRRR? I’ll wait…

Thousands of scientists from around the world have been able to study the ~380 kilograms of Apollo rocks for the last 50 years. They know the rocks can't be from the Earth. The only plausible explanation for their presence on Earth is that people went to the Moon and collected them.

What's that to do with Apollo 16 landing on the Moon?

@@maxfan1591 He's one of these clowns that thinks the moon landings were faked and that all the pictures and videos we see were shot at Area 51 or some other similar place. They never offer any proof of their claims, they just say stuff like this to get attention.

???

Do some more research. This wasn't faked. Even the "proof" that it was faked can be disproven.

Neil Armstrong: It’s harder to fake it than to make it.

Thousands of scientists from around the world have been able to study the ~380 kilograms of Apollo rocks for the last 50 years. They know the rocks can't be from the Earth. The only plausible explanation for their presence on Earth is that people went to the Moon and collected them.

history.nasa.gov/alsj/CSM08_LM_&_SLA_Overview_pp61-68.pdf

Just because you don't understand how the LM was designed, doesn't mean it's fake. Your argument is no more valid than someone looking at a car and assuming it must be fake because the paint doesn't have the structural strength the hold the car together. The "aluminium foil" for instance is in fact multilayer insulation (MLI). This consists of thin sheets of kapton with a layer of aluminium vapor-deposited onto it. A stack of these layers provides excellent insulation against extremes of temperature. MLI is applied to the outside of the spacecraft, it covers structural aluminium honeycomb sandwich panels.

When you graduate from primary school you can move on to a proper education before technical training and then you’ll have a hope of understanding the basics..

Thousands of scientists from around the world have been able to study the ~380 kilograms of Apollo rocks for the last 50 years. They know the rocks can't be from the Earth. The only plausible explanation for their presence on Earth is that people went to the Moon and collected them.

They are 'belts' you moron. Now, instead of mindlessly parroting dumb online conspiracy theory, state why.

We figured out how to get through the van Allen belts in 1962. In the part of the belt where the intensity is highest, it is high enough that if you stay for about a week (inside an Apollo command module), you receive a lethal dose. So for the Apollo missions, the trajectory was designed to minimize the amount of time spent there. The Apollo astronauts flew through the belts in about 3 hours, while avoiding the part with the highest levels entirely. The hull thickness of the CSM was more than enough to reduce the radiation level inside to manageable levels. Astronauts' overall exposure was actually dominated by solar particles once outside Earth's magnetic field. The total radiation received by the astronauts varied from mission-to-mission but was measured to be between 0.16 and 1.14 rads (1.6 and 11.4 mGy). More details in this video from Scott Manley: ua-cam.com/video/h9YN50xXFJY/v-deo.html

James Van Allen said it wouldn’t be a problem. He knew…

Wow, a guy who can't even spell the word "passed" and doesn't know that it's belts, not a singular Van Allen belt, says the moon landings - which no serious person with any education relevant to the field disputes - are fake! I'm convinced!

All we see is a comment from a person whose head if full of the stuff that pours forth from an overflowing sewer...shame on your parents for raising a complete idiot....

You are no truth lover kiddo, you are lie spreader only.

@Smee Self All bs, if you want to prove apollo was real you must show me tge remains of it on tge moon. But you can't do it because NO MAN has been on the moon.

@Smee Self The only evidence would be the remains of Apollo on the moon. You can't show it, because Apollo was bs.

@@donpettitwedestroyedtheapo6488 "The only evidence would be the remains of Apollo on the moon. You can't show it, because Apollo was bs." No, you have to explain how ~380 kilograms of Moon rock is on the Earth. Thousands of scientists from around the world have studied those rocks for the last 50 years, and the only plausible explanation for how they're on the Earth is that people went to the Moon to collect them.

The only context is the big lie

You need psychological treatment if you believe what you are saying.

Does your computer have only a 7-segment display and hand-woven core memory for program storage?

@@derhackerkatze ahh... great point!

There's no edit in this soundtrack. Your question is a common one and the situation needs a little unpacking to get your head around it. First, the one-way delay time is about 1.3 seconds. It is important to be aware that the recording was made at Mission Control. Given this, you would expect that the CapCom (the person in Mission Control who is speaking to the astronauts) would be able to reply instantly to an incoming message and that this is what the recording would pick up. However, by the same token, if CapCom addresses a question to the astronauts, the answer would not be expected for at least 2.6 seconds because both he and the tape recorder have to wait for a reply. A third situation is if the astronauts are talking to themselves. In this case, there should be no delay in answers as we are just hearing a normal conversation delayed by 1.3 seconds. To restate, the *only* time a delay should be expected is when CapCom asks a question and has to wait for a reply. In all other instances, the delay should be about what would be expected from normal conversation. I hope that helps.