Engineering the Moon Landing - Engineering Space - S01 EP02 - Space Documentary
Вставка
- Опубліковано 22 жов 2023
- Explore the incredible engineering journey of the lunar module, a spacecraft that carried astronauts to the moon in the 1960s. Discover the challenges faced by the unsung heroes who built this extraordinary machine, from its design to the nail-biting moments during lunar landings. Learn how innovative solutions and determination made the dream of landing on the moon a reality. Watch this full episode of Engineering Space to delve into the engineering marvel of the lunar module.
-------
Engineering Space uncovers the untold stories of space visionaries and their unwavering dedication. Delve into the history of American space achievements through captivating interviews, historical footage, and expert analysis, offering viewers a profound understanding of the challenges faced by engineers on the front lines. Hear from astronauts who entrusted their lives to the spacecraft crafted by these dedicated individuals. Explore pivotal moments on the path to space exploration excellence that have yet to grace the screen, guided by knowledgeable space historians. Discover the profound impact and significance of their contributions to humanity's quest for the stars.
-------
Welcome to Banijay Science, your premier destination for full-length scientific documentaries and intriguing tales from the realms of engineering, technology, and beyond. Banijay Science showcases real-world applications, top-tier documentaries, and award-winning TV shows that engage and enlighten.
Immerse yourself in the captivating world of science and engineering, with content from renowned series like Mythbusters and Abandoned Engineering.
Subscribe to our channel and stay updated with every breakthrough: www.youtube.com/@BanijayScien...
#fulldocumentaries #sciencestories #factual #science #engineering #technology - Розваги
Little town I'm from in upstate Michigan had a specialty wire manufacturer. They made wire so fine that it could be woven into cloth-like material that was strong, abrasion-resistant, and lightweight.. This was used on the outer boots worn my Niel and Buzz on the lunar surface. Our tiny contribution to a nationwide effort to accomplish this.
Exactly right. Deniers don’t have any idea how many businesses and engineers and workers all got together to make the landings happen.
@@stevenbeach748Yes. Many of them put in lots of extra hours for no pay just because they were so dedicated to its success. Unfortunately that kind of dedication could be hard on families so a lot of breakups or other types of issues. Yet some uneducated morons say it was all hoaxed. Pretty ridiculous.
That same cloth is very visible on the back of the Commander and Lunar module Pilots spacesuits. It was to protect the suit from the life support back pack.
Thanks-from the home of the LEM-Long Island, NY
@@mako88sb It was a hoax, the lunar landing actually happened in the year 0
0:10 That's my dad in the yellow shirt and tie.
way cool. I myself got onboard the program in 79 and went on till the Shuttle ended. I had put to bed a few pieces of equipment used in the moon missions that we still used even in teh Shuttle prpogram and many many other missions.
My dad is Pepe the Frog online.
@@rtqii When did they let you out, by mistake ?
During college, I worked summers at TRW SYSTEMS IN Redondo Beach. I was in the Non Destructive Test Department. One item which we x-rayed was a titanium manifold. It was about ten inches overall. This hand formed piece was where the two explosive gasses cane together. Two pipes in, one pipe out. There were two fkat flanges and two thin formed sheet halves. The halves were welded together and the flanges were welded to the ends. These four welds were hyper critical die to the enormous stresses at the point of mixing and exploding. Each weld was x-rayed one inch at a time. If there was an imperfection (inclusion) in the weld, it was ground out and rewelded. After all was perfect they were set into the production line. They all worked perfectly. There are seven of these still on the moon. I held them all in my hands. Larry Sorenson, Phoenix Arizona
Very cool Larry, I got to watch the second one leave the Earth and head for the Sea of Tranquility on the Moon when I was a month away from my 17th birthday. Me and a buddy drove to Florida to witness history in July of 69!
Thanks for making this tribute to the Apollo mission engineers. They made the moon landings possible. A spectacular achievement worth remembering and celebrating.👍👏
One of the original actual LEMs that was intended for Apollo 18 but never flew in space can be seen in Washington DC at the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum. Tours are free. To stand just 15 feet away from this amazing piece of history is inspiring!
There is also a real one at The Cradle of Aviation on Long Island a couple of miles from Grumman where it was built.
@@douglasfortin9711Better than that: Cradle also has a full pre-production mock up that you can approach within a few feet and lots of prototype elements like a cabin you can also get close to. Retired Grumman staff were among the volunteers when I was there in 2019.
Absolutely incredible documentary. Just when I thought I had seen them all. It really is heartbreaking and infuriating the level of ignorance that so many people display simply because they can't believe it. Just this one machine and the near miraculous levels of engineering and ingenuity that went into it... and this was just a small fraction of roughly half a million people who worked on the Apollo program. It's been said many times that it was simply easier to do it than to fake it.
But here we are in 2024, when people can't believe that we accomplished something so incredible. Then again, look at the thousands of brilliant young scientists and engineers who actually learned & applied critical thinking skills back in those days... and compare them to the output of today's public school system, among other factors. How many people today can't even grasp that the world isn't flat, let alone basic science and common sense, not to mention critical thinking.
Anyway, thanks for putting this together. Incredible stuff.
Jim your comment is dead on, unfortunately. All done with slide rules and no AutoCad.
@@stevefoote9995 yes indeed!
Very well said! The world will always have its fools and knockers, unfortunately.
Very well said! The world will always have its fool and knockers, unfortunately.
0.0003% of Earth's population believe it's flat and that the moon landing never happened.... coincidentally 0.0003% of Earth's population are complete idiots. So don't get your feathers ruffled....You're good with the rest of us.
I went to engineering school,with a guy who had worked during the summer at the company that made the legs for the LEM. Machined out of solid aluminium rods, they were about 20 feet long, but had been almost completely hallowed out to reduce weight. He had a piece of one from a failed manufacturing test. Amazing. And that was just one small part of the whole system.
In Montreal?
@@sblack48 no, in US. I know it was a Canadian company, i think, that made the legs for LEM. So, yes, I cannot explain this difference. But I'm pretty sure he worked for a US company. He told me that the reason his company got the contract was because they were the only company that had a milling machine that could bore a hole, with great precision, to very great depths, more than 2 meters I'm guessing. Canada has alwasy had and still do, great engineering companies.
@@brussels13207 the reason I ask is that I saw a part of an LM leg in the Canadian Aviation and Space Museum a few months back that was made in Montreal. I guess it was a different part.
Héroux Devtek (Quebec) began developing a legged landing subsystem in about 1960 when one of the designs was for a 5-legged lander. They went on to develop the 4-leg system after the decision was made for the lunar orbit and rendezvous landing method.
Héroux is a little-known name in the history of Apollo, but they were a contractor for Grumman, as opposed to being originally contracted by NASA.
@@ginskimpivot753 yes that was it. Couldn’t think of the name
Absolutely wonderful! Seeing these machines, feeling the emotions of the engineers it seems just pure magic to me. Seven years, 24 hour a day these LEM-s were being developed by hundreds of people, well.. it was just possibble that way! I wish I could have been part of Apollo, even just as a cleaner. There is only one Apollo and never ever be something similar. I was born in 1983 but I somehow feel so related to the era..
❤
💯
More ignorance....the term LEM was dropped in 1967...The Apollo landers are always referred to as LMs ...pronounced LEM...but those who continue to use the acronym LEM just show they have little, or no in- depth, knowledge of the NASA Apollo missions.
Oh my, you sure told THEM. You feeling SUPERSMART now,@@narajuna?
@@meredithlidstone1576 someone does
>deldelahaye3811 (20+ old supersmart shill)
3 weeks ago
narajuna "More ignorance....the term LEM was dropped in 1967...The Apollo landers are always referred to as LMs ...pronounced LEM...but those who continue to use the acronym LEM just show they have little, or no in- depth, knowledge of the NASA Apollo missions."
- late catch Response but thanks anyway, i managed....
#2 "The fact that other people use the term LEM is irrelevant and does not change the fact that the name was changed to LM over 50 years ago. And just because somebody referred to working on the original design of the LEMm as it was then called, does not excuse the use of the wrong term now.
It is not " VERY BAD " to call it the LEM now, it is just factually WRONG...and when we are debunking conspiracy garbage we rely on getting the correct facts..It is called attention to detail - something conspiracy spouters continuously ignore.."
- and on and one the sane winner full of science ranted & raved 🤭
Thanks to all the wonderful engineers and astronauts that made Apollo a success. The lunar module was always my favorite model and I still have the one that I got a 1972. I have a great deal of respect for what you did and it will continue to motivate new generations of engineers to come. Thank you!!
I STILL have my LEM model.
And my favorite fairy tale is the tooth fairy.
@yomommaahotoo264 next you will say the earth is flat....
@@lylewilshire No - it's always the shills who bring up that stupid crap.
I remember that model. I loved it but somehow lost it decades ago.
There was No TV in entire India in 1969. We saw the Entire "Moon Landing" on a USIS portable TV in Calcutta. After it, Pannalal Hazarika and I went to the US consulate to look for Scholarship, but actually received Immigration Forms. We then arrived at Milwaukee.
Milwaukee is a great city!
All these ppl involved SHOULD be as proud of making history as we are of them and the all the others some of whom gave their LIVES for it to happen !
Well, we're on our way back. Godspeed to Victor Glover 🤘🏿, and his Crew. Can't wait!
I remember the speech JFK made and his assassination and the landing on the moon. It was an amazing time to be alive. Now I’m a very old man and in retrospect I believe we did land on the moon and the best time of my life was when I had gotten married and had 2 daughters and they were growing up. I have few regrets and feel that when I’m standing in front of my God I will hold my head up and be invited to come inside.
God Please Save & Protect our World from Destruction. Amen
Beautifully spoken, sir.
God bless you, and take care!
"the meek shall inherit the earth, and they will reside in it FOREVER".
the earth will not be destroyed.
As somebody born a decade after the first moon landing I envy you. My childhood memories are of the shuttle. But it sounds like you've lived a fulfilling life and I hope you and your family health and happiness
Vous vous souvenez peut être du discours de JFK complètement ignorant de quoi il parlait concernant d'envoyer des hommes sur la lune, à ce niveau de votre croyance au système de la NASA , je suis sûr que vous êtes persuadé qu'il n'y avait qu'un seul tireur dont vous croyez que c'était Oswald et vous devez croire aussi que les attaques de Ben Laden sur le WTC et la tour 7 et aussi un énorme Boeing à 900 kmh aurait transpercé le Pentagone... Franchement sans aucun F16 ne sont intervenus....Un complot énorme bien organisé par Président junior G.W.B
The amount of brain power and man hours dedicated to this endeavor makes me proud to be a human. The paragon of human achievement
and CHina thinks they are going to just walk in and start doing this stuff. They had better hope they have no failures.
No paragon for 2024 Odyssey landing? Russia’s Luna-25 ? The Hakuto-R lunar ?
A manned vehicle is not at all the same as a robotic autonomous probe @@narajuna
The Apollo moon landing was epic! I was there. Every night. That's why America is great. We did it first. Nobody can take this away from us. 🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲
We pulled off the lie which did indeed make the US great and launch a lot of politicians and engineers into lofty careerss. They should do a video on the damages done to people like Aldrin having to live a lie for "the greater good".
@@davebryant8050 It was one of the most public events of the 20th century, viewed around the world. Any conspiracy would had to have involved hundreds of different people from many different countries over decades, including Great Britain, the former Soviet Union, France, Australia, Italy, Germany, Switzerland, Canada, China, Japan and India, from which not one credible witness has ever emerged. It would also have been impossible to cover up for such a length of time; the Watergate conspirators couldn’t keep their escapade silent for more than a few months.
There are no ‘anomalies’ that cannot be explained scientifically and there is much third-party corroboration; for example, the spacecraft were tracked to the Moon, the rock and soil samples have been authenticated by many different scientists around the world for decades, the dust from the rover falls back in a way only possible in a 1/6g vacuum and Chinese, Japanese and Indian probes have photographed and or observed the equipment left behind at various Apollo landing sites.
@@davebryant8050 Why not a programme on how uneducated, paranoid people believe BS.
Ponder these facts:
1) The UK tracked the Apollo mission right down to the Moon's surface using the huge Jodrell Bank radio telescope (my friend did his PhD in astrophysics from there). They obviously couldn't see the astronauts, but their telemetry matches NASA's exactly. Therefore the Eagle DID reach the moon.
2) The USSR (BOO!) also tracked every mission from the early days of the US space program. The best propaganda for them would have been to prove to the world that it was faked. They didn't.
3)Moon rock has been analysed by geologists around the world. They all agree that the rocks are NOT from Earth.
4)When people claim that it was a studio set, they fail to spot that the reflections in the astronaut's convex visors WOULD show lighting rigs, cameras, film crew etc.
They ONLY show a wrap-around panorama of the Moon's landscape. Without CGI and convincing green-screen technology, how do you explain this?
I'd love you to PROVE me wrong. I can't wait!
We did it first and last!
It doesn't get talked about enough but the LEM descent engine was the greatest technical achievement of the moon landing.
Access to the LEMDE lab at TRW was thru a vestibule with a shoe dip tray containing a cleaning solution. A few feet down the aisle was a full-sized engine. A sign on the engine encouraged you to “pat” the exhaust nozzle for good luck. The “spot” on the nozzle was easily noticeable from the accumulation of thousands of good luck touches. The sign also noted that this engine may end up on the moon. A large banner was strung across the back wall which read, “The last five miles are on us”.
Great video! Thanks! One of my engineering professors worked on Apollo, and shared amazing stories.
Plenty of engineers, professors and politicians were born out of the biggest hoax ever pulled off.
Engine throttle capability was a game changer. What a tremendous job!
Great report
Apart from all the comments one thing stands out IT WAS A STAGGERING AGHIEVEMENT
How is lying to a nation a staggering achievement? You need to get your moral straight
@@DZ302-Z28 People like you are funny. As if your whole life is devoted to just this joke. You actually think that you know better than all the top scientists in the world. That is hilarious.
@@DZ302-Z28 You need to get an education
@@DZ302-Z28 did your mom drop you on your head?
Interesting that the "this is so fake" comment maintains top position in the comments. This was an incredible achievement and just sickens me to see some try and denigrate it to a falicy.
It just drums up comments and engagement and that's what the algorithm thrives on
Ikr 🤦🏻♀️
Was it by CC? 😂
@@MattyJ LMAO. 🤣
I can't believe there are STILL some folks who really believe the USA landed people on the moon SIXTY YEARS ago! It was IMPOSSIBLE then and today STILL is IMPOSSIBLE! BUT again there are some folks who believe things the COWARDLY DRAFT DODGER THIEF TRAITOR TRUMP says. Some folks will believe ANYTHING!
I wish I was alive to see that moon landing in person, I hope to be alive when they land again on the moon. I believe that America will do it again soon and and I'll be watching it live on TV.
At 31:41, the narrator says, "To the engineers, it seems the astronauts have just escaped certain death". No, it only seems that way to the narrator. If Armstrong's descent fuel level had reached a certain level, there would have been a "Bingo" call. Armstrong would have had to land immediately or abort the mission. If he had aborted, he would have had all of the fuel in the ascent stage available to him. The ascent stage fuel supply was separate from that of the descent stage fuel supply. An abort would certainly have been risky, but it would not have been "certain death."
sounds like you flew the mission or was a direct go too guy in Houston to make it happen
Actually, a lunar abort was a very critical, and highly dangerous maneuver. It was probably the one thing flight controllers, engineers, and the astronauts least wanted to become a reality. It created a huge orbital mechanics problem
@@Esteb86 I agree that it was dangerous. But it was not certain death. When Armstrong and Aldrin were running out of fuel in the descent stage, the fuel in the ascent stage, which was to be used to return to the command module, was untouched.
Aborting a landing was a serious possibility. There was an abort guidance computer in case an abort had been necessary.
I think the "certain death" could mean if they didn't about and absolutely ran out of fuel, they would have possibly crash landed, causing certain death.
@@Epic_C This is how the situation was described in NASA’s “Apollo Lunar Surface Journal” by journal contributor Paul Fjeld: "The quantity light latched at 102:44:31, and indicated that 5.6% of the original propellant load remained. This event started a 94-second countdown to a 'Bingo' fuel call which meant 'land in 20 seconds or abort.' So if the count gets down to zero, Neil will have 20 seconds to land, if he thinks he can get down in time. Otherwise, he will have to abort immediately. If you're 50 feet up at 'bingo fuel' with all of your horizontal rates nulled and are coming down to a good spot, you could certainly continue to land. With your horizontal rates nulled at 70 to 100 feet, it would be risky to land - perhaps giving you a landing at the limiting load of the landing gear. At anything over 100 feet, you'd punch the abort button, say goodbye to the moon, and stew for the rest of your life!"
The documentary fails to explain why the skin to the pressure compartment was so thin and how it could be so thin. Well two words; pressure differential. The LM was filled with pure Oxygen (02) instead of Earth atmospheric gasses. As a consequence of that, they only needed to pressurise the LM to 4.3 psi. So against the vacuum of space as 0.0psi obviously the differential is just 4.3psi. A soda can was only slightly thicker but they had to cope with pressure differentials between 15 - 45 psi. So that helped save a considerable amount of weight.
Yes it does. Weight reduction was a necessity.
yeah nice fairy tale that you took from nasa talking points real original thoughts bub. next tell me how roger and tony nelson also went to the moon cause we all saw it on i dream of jeanne
@@jackbriggs3110 Oh really so you think I am just copying what has been said before by NASA. Ok then test me on this subject, why don't you?
Better still how about you and I have a live debate on UA-cam about the moon landings?
Let's see you put your money where your mouth is.
@@jackbriggs3110 Get back on the short school bus. This isn't your stop.
@@robertcampbell6349 yeah bub, your stop lying meth using tweaker kato's couch where you can be his next if and or butt boy bub
The flat Earth flerfs are predictably all over this post.
The only thing they're afraid of, is the curve 🌎
awesome documentation!
Marvelous
Its always been hard for me to reconcile the early LMs' fanatical weight savings initiatives ($40K for 1 lb saved!!??), with the final three LMs (Lets pack a 600 lb car in there!)
Very good video. I wish it showed Tom Kelly, "Father of the LM".
Yes, this gets brought up fairly often. Grumman was informed very early in the LM’s development that there would be efforts made to uprate the Saturn V’s F-1 & J-2 rocket engines. If successful. NASA planned to eventually include something to extend the EVA range. At that time they were looking at a few things including some type of aerial mobility device. Since they hadn’t settled on anything yet, Grumman was instructed to make the LM design flexible enough to accommodate what might eventually be included as well as the mass redistribution that would be required. If not successful, than the regular type missions would have continued without the ability to extend the distance of the EVA’s.
I should add that some of the original moon landing plans intended to use two Saturn V’s so that a larger enclosed lunar rover could be included with the missions.
@@mako88sb The part about using two Saturn V's, was this before they switched their plan to lunar orbit rendezvous or before? Because I could totally see that if they were doing what they intended to do in sending a big ass rocket there and back. But I was curious if you knew
@@jsteezy80 Yes. This was just one of many different concepts being mulled over before deciding on the LM to simplify and use only one Saturn V. I found one website a long time ago that listed most of them. Some pretty interesting ideas were being dreamed up including what Von Braun was hoping for. I’ll see if I can find that site again.
What happened in between is that ways were found to increase the performance of the Saturn V that were not foreseen when the weight savings program was started.
Operational experience allowed them to reduce margins, load more fuel here and there, reduce the number of retrorockets on the first stage etc.
@@jsteezy80 That idea didn't last 3 months. As they found the unstable moon gravity field would toss that huge ass rocket around. Making it burn more fuel. And since that Gravity field was unknown how much it changed across the moons surface. They went with Lunar Orbit. Which used one Rocket. Used tons of less fuel.
And had one rocket had problems. You lost the whole mission.
And that one huge rocket went out of favor just as quick. As that thing explodes. It takes out the whole launch Site. Not just the Pad. Using 8 Saturn V engines just to lift it off the pad..Not including all the other support and manufacturing it would take to invent the thing..
How can someone sit here and watch sll this old footage and still have the audacity to call it fake? You can lead a man to the ocean but it's up to the man to believe it's the ocean.
*Facepalm*
It's because its the only thing they feel they can contribute to with what they think passes for intellect and the sense that they're too smart to be fooled by mere engineers and Physics PhDs.
It puts them in an elite little club of naughty boys who won't go with the _status quo,_ - it also allows them to make stuff up, as they bluff their way through simple scientific principles they actually have no basic understanding of.
Everything they deny comes from inside a mission based on what something _'looks like'._ There's never anything from the period when this vastly complex logistical hoax was in full swing and employing people they somehow knew how to hold to lifelong silence.
The only hoax is the hoax.
It's why none of them can actually debate their own opinions; to a man, they're all too poorly informed, and educated.
There are some small heads around, some even think the earth 🌎 is flat, they are small it’s better not to be bothered.
@@jacobhall8423 Proof of your claim?
I have a difficult time taking the word of anyone commenting on aerospace matters when they cannot spell "satellite" @@jacobhall8423
@@musicbruv proof it wasn't?
All that work and engineering to be done for a film , I don’t think so , those who say it was a ‘film” are not right in the head and never will be
They ought to be locked up . Men gave their lives to achieve the moon landing , to deny it is an affront to those brave men. Who died but never
Saw the landing . Kennedy would have been so proud of them
Que gran ingeniería la del Apollo!! Especialmente el módulo Lunar.
The Lunar Excursion Module (LEM) descent engine was made at TRW Space Systems. I worked on them.
With my experince of TRW am even more amazed they made it
Grumman and it’s engineers faced a near impossible task with this machine. 55 years ago: let that sink in!
You're right. Now take off the word "near" and let that sink in.
@@swilsonmc2why? It wasn't impossible; the LM successfully landed six times and even saved the lives of the Apollo 13 crew. It was a phenomenal machine; it got the job done.
What? You mean people have never succeeded with near impossible tasks? How about the genius Alan Turing and his team cracking the Enigma codes during WW2. How about the mathematicians and astronomers whose observations from more than one locations on Earth in the 1700s allowed a calculation of the Earth's orbital diameter to an accuracy of 0.8%, which is within the natural variance of said orbit. Yet another in the 1700s is the British Clock maker whose innovative design solved the 'longitude problem' and revolutionised global trade. And later, Einstein's relativity calculations that were accurate enough to show what we now call dark energy - the apparent force which causes the universe to accelerate outwards.
The fact that it was 55 years ago is irrelevant since the challenge was within the scope of existing engineering, maths and physics of the day.
Nasa says they lost all this technology??? How is that possible? I bet it makes all these old engineers pissed knowing all their hard work is gone
monumental marvelous....
I remember every min. of the whole Apollo programme and still have all the Uk news papers of the time. Thank you for the film.
I can't imagine the relief the engineers must have felt when whatever part they worked on did what it was supposed to do. My dad worked for a company that made some parts for the LEM. He said "if this ascent engine doesn't light, I'm not going back to work." It obviously did light, despite the fact that one of the astronauts hit the arming breaker with his backpack and broke the handle off. They had to flip the breaker with part of an ink pen. Talk about a pucker moment.
I read Tom Kelly’s book and the proposed mass of the LM when they won the contract was around 24,000 lbs. Shortly after winning the contract, NASA engineers made it clear that the design needed more redundancy which quickly caused the weight to increase. Those redundancies were also added with all the instruments and controls. They were coming up with a workaround when Buzz decided on his shortcut method. Point is they were never in any danger of being stranded because of that incident. For whatever reason the seriousness of that issue has become exaggerated over the years.
@mako88sb I'm pretty sure there was no redundancy with the ascent engine itself. However they did make it as simple as possible using helium for pressure instead of pumps and hypergolic fuels that ignite on contact
@@jsteezy80 Yes, only room for one of those. Also from the same book was a fairly large write up about how the ascent engine was frequently at the top of the notorious list of issues that could seriously delay or even prevent the planned lunar landing by the end of the decade. The main problem was combustion instability that took a long time to solve and intervention by NASA to get rival companies to work together on it. They eventually figured that conducting the same type of tests using blasting caps to induce combustion instability as what was done on the Saturn V’s F-1’s was the best approach. The tests were called bomb tests and they were discussing this while on a passenger plane. Even with the lax security compared to nowadays, they found themselves being led away after landing to explain themselves. Fortunately it didn’t take long to clear that up. Those tests helped them solve the problem but just to make sure, they conducted more than 3X’s the amount of testing usually required for the man-rated certification.
No one in mission control had heard the term "Tranquility Base" until Neil said it, hence the very brief hesitation of the capcom.
Its literally a lifetime achievemrnt for the engineers
Thanks for this story, it still gives me goosebumps watching this. It all happened when i was 7 and i was the only kid who could read what the teacher wrote about this on the blackboard. Memories 😁
I taught some of the the Apollo Guidance Computer software during the Apollo program. During the landing phase, when I heard they had that software malfunction code (1202) I thought "OH NO! It's time to abort the mission". Lucky for that monumental flight, they determined very soon that the malfunction was due to the Rendezvous Radar switch being left on, swamping the computer's ability to complete all its functions. Thank goodness someone at NASA had seen that same malfunction during simulation runs and knew exactly what was causing it. He informed the flight controllers and they immediately asked Buzz Aldren to turn that switch off. And the malfunction went away!
You are right. Armstrong thought it was a good idea. That almost cost him his fame. So NASA made up a story to save Armstrong the embarrassment.
And I know they say it was flight manual issue. That was never revised. But it was revised. When they found it in testing years before. It's how the engineer knew what that code was from his cheat sheet. He seen it before.
Lies.
Chat gpt bot lies
The hack is chat got bot????@@BadAtTeaDude
"... those MIT guys didn't think the same way I did..." 👏
@@BadAtTeaDude YOUR semi-literate reply is more likely to be a bot. If not, present your evidence that the learned gentleman is lying.
Great research and a lot of information I have never heard or seen before. Thank you
The reason we had what it took to get to the moon is because back in 1968 to 1972 we had brains, guts, determination and a drive to go there. Now that the cold war is over we have no drive and that is missing in the equation and why it's been taking so long to go back.
They are heroes. whomever thinks that is fake, go play in traffic.
- NOM
What an exciting time. Imagine what we could do now if we wanted to? Maybe not a manned to Mars... yet.. but would a base station on the moon possibly with affordable tourism be amazing?
Disney could pull it off.
A base on the Moon is actually a more daunting prospect that putting a man on Mars. It would require multiple different mission types and greatly magnified risks with so many complex launch and return/re-entry cycles. It would pretty much require an open-ended project, like Apollo began as, but with the mindset of the shuttle concept.
But mining the Moon - assuming that was a goal - would also require very specific Moon to Earth delivery/re-entry vehicles. It'll never happen - no one has the money or the will, plus it could never be cost effective....even if the place was knee-deep in gold nuggets.
I'd say Mars is a waste of time, money and effort. We need to put things right on Earth with that money, not contaminate somewhere else. But at least a man on Mars is one project with one launch. They never lost a man in deep space, but if it happens it'll happen because of pride and self-aggrandisement - not necessity. Till we know more about long-term space effects on humans with voluminous hard data, there's actually no need to send one anywhere near Mars. But they will, anyway..
Just for info, the Moon itself is now contaminated pole to pole, simply because of repeated landings using chemical exhaust cocktails. Scientists believe trace elements from landings and orbits cover the surface and the lower altitudes, thereby confounding and confusing any future science projects where fine accuracy of certain gathered data is critical.
Fake
Half a century later no space program can even do a soft landing without crashing or landing on their lid. How can anyone believe that NASA did it plus beam themself back up to the mother ship for the trip home. Smart people can't possibly believe this nonsense.
'To the moon, Alice. To the moon. Bang zoom!".
Futurama 😂
Hypergolics was a great idea. I'm curious if on Apollo 13, did they only use the descent engine, or did they eject that stage and use the ascent engine too ?
Only the descent engine.
I never tire of hearing the various versions of the stories of Apollo!!!
In your mind, you mean?
Ponder these facts:
1) The UK tracked the Apollo mission right down to the Moon's surface using the huge Jodrell Bank radio telescope (my friend did his PhD in astrophysics from there). They obviously couldn't see the astronauts, but their telemetry matches NASA's exactly. Therefore the Eagle DID reach the moon.
2) The USSR (BOO!) also tracked every mission from the early days of the US space program. The best propaganda for them would have been to prove to the world that it was faked. They didn't.
3)Moon rock has been analysed by geologists around the world. They all agree that the rocks are NOT from Earth.
4)When people claim that it was a studio set, they fail to spot that the reflections in the astronaut's convex visors WOULD show lighting rigs, cameras, film crew etc.
They ONLY show a wrap-around panorama of the Moon's landscape. Without CGI and convincing green-screen technology, how do you explain this?
Please don't just dismiss what I've said and retreat into your comfortable fantasy. Actually think long and hard. I'll answer any genuine questions that you have.
@@Oldmusician1357 First serious question... What the hell does this have to do with my comment?
@@chrislong3938 I apologise if I misinterpreted your comment.
The triple exclamation marks after 'various versions...stories' gave the impression that you were being sarcastic and were part of the 'Moon-landing hoax' brigade.
It seems that I was wrong. That's the problem with reading a remark as opposed to hearing someone say it, with the associated inflexion and facial expression.
I'll reserve my defence of scientific truth for the ones whose comments are unambiguous.
Best wishes from the UK.
Absolutely fantastic documentary 👏
Would love to Visit the Moon. 😊🌛
back in the 70's Texas Instrument, made a game for their calculators. It was based on the eagle landing on the moon!
in year 2000, i was flown to Marquardt in Van Nuys for a job interview to work in their commercial aviation sub-division. i sat and waited.
in the lobby of the plant that made the hundreds of reaction control engines flown on every Apollo mission. my skin was doin tha hokey pokey
i looked over from my seat, waiting, and saw a large poster of Edwin Aldrin climbing down the ladder.
i walked over to the framed poster sized print, and saw that Neil Armstrong had signed it, Thanking Marquardt workers. Oh hell yes.
your skin was what? 😆
Fake
fake what? the Apollo program, or my job interview?@@RottenPoliticians
I have 1 question,
Who was filming lunar lander returning back to earth @41:37
That was done by a TV camera installed on the lunar rover. That camera was controlled remotely from Mission Control, by Ed Fendell. The camera transmitted its images directly to Earth.
@@h.dejong2531 even though you are bot, but to your owner-
Really? There were auto panning, auto target locking, auto zoom in out, high-tech camera equipment back in 60's.
That could work remotely, million miles away,
B please.
@@wdmfan No, here were no 'auto panning, auto target locking, auto zoom in out' cameras in 1972.
They had a *remote control* camera: the cameraman sends the commands to pan and zoom the camera. The camera was far enough away that they did not need to refocus: the focus was set at infinity once and stayed there.
All the cameraman had to do, is press the 'pan up' button 2 seconds before liftoff. That would send the signal to the moon (with a delay of about 2 seconds due to the distance) and it would arrive in time to follow the spacecraft. Liftoff was at a predetermined time, so they had a countdown the cameraman could use time the command.
During the entire mission, the Apollo spacecraft had a radio link back to Earth. This carried audio, video and telemetry. They cold upload data to the onboard computer. Sending a few commands to the camera was simple by comparison. The distance is easy enough to deal with: they built a giant antenna on Earth (actually, several of them in locations around the world, so that at any time, at least one had a line of sight to the moon).
@@h.dejong2531 here is a strong believer of the lies :)
Why don't you look it up? It's not hard. Literally every detail is there for you to not have to look like an idiot.
Oh Man! This is better than Entertainment tonight! With all the Fucking Moron unbeliever retards who have been brainwashed like a Democrat. Saying it never happened because they slept through class.
I would have done a few things different but these guys did pretty good. Just wanted to see what it's like to act like a younger generation person
There was no way the Ascent engine was not going to ignite. They had 2 ways to open that valve. Then a 3rd steel cable to pull. That would open that valve..
They did have fuse failure, that Buzz solved by bridging the leads with a conductive metal tube from a pen.
@@christopherpardell4418Not as big a deal as its been made out to be. Not long after Grumman won the contract, they were informed they needed to add as much redundancy as possible. That’s why they had to develop a weight reduction program as all the added redundancy quickly ballooned the weight. That included all the controls and electrical systems. Houston was in the process of writing up the required workaround procedure when Buzz used his shortcut method. There was never any danger of being stranded by that particular issue.
@@mako88sb Nothing is a big deal when you can fix it faster than NASA can come up with a solution… But waiting for NASA would have cost them that launch window. And they only had one more chance to launch after that without running out of air before they could make rendezvous.
@@christopherpardell4418 That was over the toggle switch that got broke off..They ended up using an Ink Pen..
@@christopherpardell4418 Anytime someone on the scene can come up with a solution to an issue is great. My point is that if that solution hadn’t occurred to either astronaut, it was not an issue that would have stranded them on the moon which is what it is often incorrectly portrayed as. They landed on the moon with 45 hours supply based on 2 EVA’s but since only one was planned, probably around 48 hours or more. Their time on the moon was around 21.5 hours so that left them with over a days worth of battery power and oxygen. I have no idea were you get this one last window opportunity from because looking into it shows otherwise. NASA had all kinds of contingency plans for who knows how many possibilities. Scott Manley did an episode about one of them for the J-missions that involved the lunar rover and a failed ascent stage launch that’s really interesting if you haven’t seen it.
I was 5 back then. It took a second to realize the LEM doesn't need wings.
When I see movies with spacecrafts with wings it used to crack me up. But then it dawned on me one day that to land on a planet with an atmosphere they need wings during that phase. Ala the shuttle
Not forgetting the contribution of Katherine Johnson
I watched this with my Dad sitting on the Living Room floor. It was amazing I think I was eleven?
I also rember the "lunar Rover" and for the life of me could not figure out how they got it folded and secured on the LM! Amazing!
Few years ago I read an article on the design of the rover. Worth trying to find it.
@@ColinWatters There are also videos here on YT.
They did not
@@fransschepens3low iq moron
Great documentary, but the music is very disturbing. A gave up after 9 minutes.
Good show. Informative and detailed. Thanks.
Grumman Bethpage!!
The Engineering mathematically had to be extremely difficult to get the exact speed and exact moments it had to be perfect or they'd fly right by at approximately 24,000 mph? Thats scarry I'm not sure I would trust any human being to make the decisions on my life like that? No thanks. 😎👀
It wasn’t going 24,000mph when it reached the Moon. The engine was shutdown once escape velocity had been achieved. The Earths gravity was slowing them down until they were captured by the Moons gravity. A small burn put them in orbit. Do the maths. 3 days to the Moon, 240,000 miles away…
@@expattaffy1 6 days to do what?
@expattaffy1
It's down to a lot of variables, such as mission type, manned/unmanned, orbital factors and other considerations.
If it's unmanned and you want other events to take place along the way, there would be no need to go with a higher transit speed, as oxygen use isn't a factor for any crew. It doesn't suddenly become sinister just because you can't be bothered to do a little reading or some application of logic.
The ESA's Smart-1 probe took a year and six weeks to reach the Moon, but a probe can do the journey in 10 hours if they want it to.
@ginskimpivot753 your reply silenced that mong. Well done sir.
@expattaffy1 Artemis went into a highly elliptical orbit around the Moon. Study orbital mechanics, you might learn something?…
19:50 .. I had no idea that there was such poor craftsmanship. The welds are just insulting. Any trained welder would be ashamed to produce such bad and ugly welds.
And why did they use a type of glass that could shatter? In those days, they already had very durable, immensely strong plastics.
They could make plexiglass that would only crack, not shatter. But on the LEM, that glass would never encounter situations where it would be pushed to its limits.
You don't say where these visibly poor welds are, but any aesthetic properties in the LEM came second to its being able to handle its pressure tests and flight testing, which it did.
Grumman were a reputable aircraft manufacturer, but the LEM set multiple precedents. It was, after all, the only true spaceship. Windows were of Chemcor 0312 glass, which not only had to handle pressure, but also the high stress loads applied to it as part of the structural design and securing methods used on the LEM. It thus had to remain rigid and impervious to heat stress and warping.
Like most soda cans, cars and helicopters, the basic integrity its body panels could be destroyed with a screwdriver. But for its intended purpose it had slightly more outer protection than all of the above.
The LEM was a phenomenal machine.
19:50 ... The hexagonal containers, f.i.
In the video, the Americans themselves were appalled by the poor work that has been done......
So, it's not just me.
In my life, I have seen real craftsmen perform an outstanding job. I stood next to world class welders while they were doing their job. I saw the end result. I know what a good weld should look like. What we see here is rubbish.
@@telescopereplicator
Yes, agreed; I dug up the experience report and the issues were even more problematic than the voiceover suggests.
Other welding issues included component shrinkage, welded joints which couldn't be accessed due to incorrect assembly, and stress cracks, induced most likely from poor preparation and/or sloppy brazing.
This is the point of prototyping and component testing, of course. The LEM did become a pretty flawless flying machine, and Grumman clearly felt proud of the final result.
People who work at this level, on projects like these, should NOT make so many mistakes and such bad mistakes, to begin with.
I know how Formula 1 engines are made, f.i. And F1 cars, themselves. ALL of the welds, all over the car, are perfect. If you cannot do a good job to begin with, they will never let you work on a car. And that is just a race car, not a space craft.....
Yeah.... It was still 1967.
When Apollo 8 flew in December of 1968 the Lunar Module still wasn't ready. They still had a couple years to go before they perfected the design.
Finally flying an Earth Orbital mission on Apollo 9
The clean up anecdote is the reason why I admire and respect NASA.
I just don’t understand why NASA and SpaceX are trying to reinvent the wheel. We had a perfectly functional lunar lander in 1969. They are making it WAY too complicated now and I fear I’ll be dead and gone before we ever get back to the moon again (Certainly China and India are well on their way to get back there first) With today’s technology and improved engines, the LEM could simply be upgraded. Any large cargo or habitat modules should just be delivered separately on big single launch no return vehicles. The refueling of a Starship lander has so many complex hurdles that it will be at least another decade before its even a viable option.
Very good point. Are today's engineers attempting to reuse any of the technology from back then?
The goal of Artemis is very different from Apollo. Instead of putting 2 men on the moon for 3 days, we want larger crews that can spend months on the surface. So they need to transport far more mass to the moon.
And a lot of what Artemis does is done to test techniques and procedures for a Mars mission.
At this point I think it'd be kinda like asking Ford to incorporate the basic concept of the Model A into an F150. The vehicles are the same in certain respects, but even just the gear to manufacture the components - not to mention the components themselves - are SO different.
The LM was designed for what amounted to a camping trip. Modern crewed missions have very different objectives, and therefore different gear is required.
Apollo was about getting people on the moon, taking some photos, and going home. Artemis is about going to the moon and staying on the moon with hundreds of tons of cargo.
The entire Apollo program was nothing more than a MAGICIANS ACT of "don't look there...look over here"
What is your evidence?
@@gunternetzer9621 THE ENTIRE APOLLO MISSIONS
@@d3vilz_lair666 Be specific.
sooo what were we not supposed to be looking at then?
@@bradhagen4594 everything they tried to make look REAL...moon surfaces and backgrounds(front screen projections) altered or faked pics 1000s of pics taken for such a short period of times per landings(so called landings) intense radiation and vacuum of spaces it impossible to take ANY pics and come out undamaged
I was also a believer all through my life. Then at 60 someone questioned me about it. So I spent years looking and searching for information concerning the landings. My view unfortunately is that we didn’t land on the moon I’m afraid. I was mortified that I had been duped for all those years.
I believe only a selected few knew about what really happened up there. They got no further than earths orbit and waited it out. Even mission control was duped. In fact they still have trouble today just getting men into orbit let alone the moon!
Politicians have a terrible habit of telling lies, and Kennedy was one I’m afraid.
What are you particular queries?
mortified is a bit of a stretch, but each their own.
@david45ross _"So I spent years looking and searching for information concerning the landings"_ and what did you find ... I also spent years researching information about the 9 Apollo missions to the moon and back ...here's a summary...
1. There are over 8,000 photos available to the public of the moon landing missions.
2. There are thousands of hours of video too.
3. Hundreds of kilograms of lunar material that has been studied and verified by astronomers and geologists all over the world and showed chemical signs of being on the moon.
4. The LRRR data laser retroreflector arrays left by Apollo 11, and other subsequent Apollo missions, can still be interacted with today by using powerful enough lasers here on Earth.
5. The SELENE photos which show the damage to the lunar surface where we landed the Apollo missions.
6. The Chang'e 2 photos, which show the lander base and the flags.
7. Chandrayaan-2, which managed to photograph another Apollo lander base.
8. A group at Kettering Grammar School, using simple radio equipment, monitored Soviet and U.S. spacecraft and calculated their orbits.
9. Pic du Midi Observatory, which watched Apollo missions all the way to the moon.
10. The Lick Observatory observations during the return coast to Earth produced live television pictures broadcast to United States west coast viewers via KQED-TV in San Francisco
11. Larry Baysinger, a technician for WHAS radio in Louisville, Kentucky, independently detected and recorded transmissions between the Apollo 11 astronauts on the lunar surface and the Lunar Module. He could only detect messages FROM the lunar vehicles and not to them, cause the earth was between him and Houston. Also, backyard amateurs all around the world were able to tune in on the Apollo audio (not the video, that would have taken bigger hardware, but, the audio was easy) by pointing their Yagi and/or dishes at the moon. Hundreds (or maybe thousands?) of people in many countries did exactly that.
12. The Soviet Union, who monitored the missions at their Space Transmissions Corps, who's leader Vasily Mishin, in an interview for the article "The Moon Programme That Faltered", describes how the Soviet Moon programme dwindled after the Apollo landing.
13. The absurdity that thousands of people who worked on the Apollo missions would have to be kept silent for years and years without a single person coming forward to claim it was a fraud.
14. In October-November 1977, the Soviet radio telescope RATAN-600 observed all five transmitters of ALSEP scientific packages placed on the Moon surface by all Apollo landing missions excluding Apollo 11. Their selenographic coordinates and the transmitter power outputs (20 W were in agreement with the NASA reports.
15. Images taken by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter mission beginning in July 2009 show the six Apollo Lunar Module descent stages, Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments Package (ALSEP) science experiments, astronaut footpaths, and lunar rover tire tracks. These images are the most effective proof to date to rebut the "landing hoax" theories. Although this probe was indeed launched by NASA, the camera and the interpretation of the images are under the control of an academic group - the LROC Science Operations Center at Arizona State University, along with many other academic groups. At least some of these groups, such as the German Aerospace Center, Berlin, are not located in the US, and are not funded by the US government.
16. After the images shown here were taken, the LRO mission moved into a lower orbit for higher resolution camera work. All of the sites have since been re-imaged at higher resolution. Comparison of the original 16 mm
17. Apollo 17 LM camera footage during ascent to the 2011 LRO photos of the landing site show an almost exact match of the rover tracks.
18. Further imaging in 2012 shows the shadows cast by the flags planted by the astronauts on all Apollo landing sites. The exception is that of Apollo 11, which matches Buzz Aldrin's account of the flag being blown over by the lander's rocket exhaust on leaving the Moon.
19. Spain and Australia were 2/3rds of the DSN that received all of the TV broadcasts from the moon.
20. Dozens of tracking stations around the world (including from enemies) used radar and radio telescopes to track all of the missions. You can find more info about this on MIT's site. The tracking was accurate to within 1 mile.
21. Spain had the largest telescope on Earth at the time, and used it to photograph the SIVB fuel dumps around the moon (which spanned out for miles, thus were visible to a large enough telescope), as well as the Apollo 13 debris and gas field (same dynamic).
22. There are more than 100,000 photos taken from lunar orbit.
23. The Jodrell Bank Observatory tracked the movements of the Eagle Lunar Module from the beginning of its descent clear down to the lunar surface by monitoring the doppler shift in its telemetry signal.
Politicians, I'm sure you will agree, have problems finding a men's room, let alone being able to plan and execute a hoax that would fool THOUSANDS of engineers, scientists and technicians. Faking the Apollo program would have required a technical and engineering program even MORE difficult than the Apollo program EVER WAS.
What's more...those SAME politicians would have had to be around DECADES later to convince the Lunar Orbiting Satellite program that they ALSO had to participate in the hoax and "create" photos from the satellite showing 'fake" Apollo Lunar landing sites with the equipment left behind.
I have no doubt he will have a McDonald's on the moon, the real problem is
getting people to the moon with the $100,000 for the Big Mav and $60,000 for the fries
Fvck knows why, but I wept buckets at the landing footage of this wonderful story..
"I'd go to the moon in a nanosecond. The problem is, we don't have the technology to do that anymore. We used to, but we destroyed that technology and it is a painful process to build it back again."
Some fraud from nasa
Don Pettit said that in 2010. He was right and wrong at the same time. In 2010, NASA did not have a spacecraft in production that could put men on the moon. Apollo ended and we replaced it with the Space Shuttle, which was a big advance over Apollo, but it had one drawback: it could not carry enough fuel to get to the moon.
"we don't have the technology" just means we don't have a spacecraft in production. It does not mean " we don't know how to do this anymore".
@@h.dejong2531 yawn...
Blah blah blah
Sockpuppet chat gbt bot
@@BadAtTeaDude So no rebuttal, just insults. Typical.
@@h.dejong2531 beep boo chat gbt npc. Welcome to ignore.
Yea, i don't get it.
If they have all these archives, plus all these engineers are still alive.
How come they lost/destroyed technology that was used?
One thing they *never* show is when the lunar module allegedly docked into the orbiting rocket above the moon after blasting off from the moon. There is simply no way in hell they could have pulled that off.
ua-cam.com/video/uazzYgghQD4/v-deo.htmlfeature=shared
@@russellupsumgrub9633hey jackazz - it didn’t happen. Get over it
Well they DID do it...not just once...but several times.
@@badguy5554 Sure they did. And they also “lost” all the technology to get there, unfortunately.
@@hourglass44 I'm not sure if "lost" is the right word. The blueprints and the software we used on the Apollo Guidance and Navigation computers for the LEM and CM is still available. The problem is we'd have to spend a lot of money to tailor that information for new vehicles and until a landing program is initiated, no one is going to spend that kind of money.
But, keep heart. Look at Musk's Space X vehicles. They can land on their own, without human intervention. So, obviously...much of that knowledge is NOT lost.
They literally built this thing here on Long Island Bethpage Long Island. Grumman built it in our backyard and they were also building out in Calton Long Island, which is in Brookhaven. The F1 lot going on Long Island was a major hub for aviation for America. This is where Charles Lindberg took off now it is the Greenacres Mall, or they called the Roosevelt Field mall that you see an airport, yeah credible incredible history. They republic airport history but it’s all gone now.
Title of the tune at 2:37, please😊❤
The Lunar Module ascent motor was fueled in the same fashion as the WWII Me-163 Komet interceptor, a design penned by Wernher Von Braun. Shame on the producers for this huge omission. Apparently it's made by British so it's no surprise really.
1...2 Nasa is lying to you...
3..4 "went to the moon can't do it no more
5..6 cgi and photoshop tricks...
7..8 50 years they procrastinate..
9..10 with Artemis we'll fake it again...
It appears all this science has upset you. Why not try religion instead?
10.1, you fell for the silliest prank in history and now you think you know something. We laugh.
But it was so easy in the 60's😂 Astronauts were so hard back then they could cruise right through the radiation belts without even thinking twice about it.
@@rozzgrey801Religious people believe it's a sin to lie.
@@justingammon1163 But religious people always believe that the end justifies the means and this overrides all other considerations, so they'll lie, cheat and anything else as it's for a good cause.
Spend money on people instead spend on moon, their are too many poor countries need money.
Look, the wealth gap between the top 10% of Americans and the lowest 10% has risen 38% in the past 20 years. Do you seriously think rich people, in ANY country, give a damn about the people who are starving, suffering terrible deprivation, denial of education, healthcare, housing and job opportunities? Nah, they would say 'well that's just an incentive to succeed'. I promise you, these people are utterly selfish, detached from reality and incapable of empathy. We are a profoundly flawed species.
NASA has filed over 80,000 patents in it's endeavors, many of which have benefitted mankind tremendously and are available for licensing by the public. They range from communications, medicine, computer processing., materials development, environmental and...well, the list goes on and on. Without reaching for the stars, we'll all be stuck in the mud.
Such a dumb statement.
Really? Do you know how many billions of dollars the US has thrown at the homeless issue? And its still here getting worse because of all the others coming across the border. You have to remember that government creates problems, they never solve them. So much of yours and my taxes go to bureaucrats, etc., so they can ask for more money next year. Why don't you think we have cures for diseases, even the common cold? Its not good business. Its how the world operates. Homelessness will never go away, it keeps too many gov't people employed. Look at the IRS, they hired 87,000 more after Jan 2021. Government always wants MORE government.
Vietnam was a poor country. America spent 100 times as much in Vietnam as they did going to the moon. Perhaps they weren't spending it they way you'd like...
👍👍👍❤❤❤🚀🚀🚀
Here's a question I can't seem to answer. Why are all the tiny thrusters on the sides of the LEM always so shiny and clean? I've never seen a photo or video showing anything being ejected out of them.
Those thrusters burn Aerozine 50 with dinitrogen tetroxide. This reaction leaves no solid residue, no soot. The reaction also does not create a bright flame, at least not in a vacuum. In our atmosphere the flame is more visible due to reaction with atmospheric oxygen.
@@h.dejong2531 Interesting, thank you.
@@h.dejong2531
If you watch docking footage where the camera's in line with the nozzles, there is indeed a flame. It just lasts as long as its combustion reaction inside the back of the nozzle. Same with the ascent engine on lunar take-off - you can only see it at pitch-over, when the LRV camera looks into the thrust chamber.
@@h.dejong2531 Very interesting. Thank you for that.
What do you expect to see ? smoke ummm coal dust
Yes, lots of people worked on this project, but the outcome was nevertheless faked. They still can't do it even 50 years later.
No. The evidence says the Apollo landings are real.
The only reason we haven't been back yet is money.
No, that's false and just the lazy made-up story that hoax nuts use to make themselves not feel so bad about their abilities and knowledge.
@wsclater ..yep you cracked it ... the 12 'actornauts' Neil Armstrong, Edwin Aldrin, Charles Conrad, Alan Bean, Alan Shepard, Edgar Mitchell, David Scott, James Irwin, John Young, Charles Duke, Gene Cernan, and Harrison Schmitt who allegedly walked on the moon had to sign the 'Keep silent or Tell a Big Lie' contract to receive a massive $100 million payout each.
In all the US government paid out $1.2 trillion to keep all NASA employees, their families, friends, church groups, work colleagues silent for the rest of their lives.
They also paid out huge sums of money and blueprints of the Saturn V rocket to the Soviet Union in return for their silence ... to make it even more convincing they paid the Australians to make this fake movie... ua-cam.com/video/ZK8wNoIc4Us/v-deo.htmlfeature=shared.
The only thing fake is your education
THEY whoever THEY are CAN go back but it is EXPENSIVE you re,tard
NASAs number one concern is safety, as long as it doesn’t cost to much.
I was little kid back then when they landed on the moon, watching this on GE black & white tv. There was no CGI, home pc computers or even cell phones.
Thats one small scam on man
One giant scam on mankind
Dumb online conspiracy theory? Correct.
no scams making the back street porn movie your mother starred in when you were accidentally created....
This is so fake
the low budget back street porn movie your mother starred in when you were accidentally created was NOT faked...
I'm a retired machinist, I worked for Grumman in the bad old days.
Trust me, it's not fake.
Nope....just the bots that parrot: "tHiS iS sO fAkE!".
As fake as the look on your face! 😮
Fake fake fake
10.05.2024
Johnny Hates Jazz - Shattered Dreams (my cover version 🆕)
*_Sore much for your promises_* ☹
*_They died the day you 'let' me grow_* 👦➡👨
*_Caught up in a web of lies_* 🕸
*_But I was just too young to know_* 🤷♂
*_I thought it was truth_* 😤
*_Who taught me by your side_* 😠
(Chorus)
*_And NASA given me, given me_* 😡
*_Nothing but shitty dreams, shitty dreams_* 💩
*_Neil like Collins passed away, passed away_* ⚰⚰
*_Gone these 'pretty' hearts_* 😈😈
*_Two dead who lied to me_* 🤬
*_Woke up to reality_* 😎
*_And found the future plot so bright_* 👍
*_I left the imposter ball_* 🤜🌐
*_And baby things would work out right_* 🙏
*_I thought it was truth_* 😤
*_'Who' could do me so wrong_* 👨🚀👨🚀👨🚀
(Chorus) x2
*_Gone these 'pretty' hearts_* 😈😈
*_I thought it was truth_* 😤
*_Two dead who lied for gov_* 👎
(Chorus) x2
*_Oh no no no - two dead who lied to me_* 🤬
*_Oh oh, oh oh, lied to me_* 🤬
*_Sore much for your promises_* ☹
*_Sore much for your promises_* ☹
Although they accept LOR didn’t accept Dr. John C. Houbolt, and he never received the credit he truly deserve, so many envious people out there.
The proper technical term is big brass ones
He is now.
Also sounds like SpaceX's tech today.
The LM landing gear manufactured by Richard Marchand working at Heroux Inc. near Montreal, Canada.
Cool, I hadn't heard that before. Thanks.
So bad that nasa lost the blueprint of all this stuffs :)
@@richelieutartempion4435 : No, they didn't lose the design details other than to archive stuff that would never be used again.
If you're going on a long trip, are you going to use an old car, without air conditioning, only a radio and 10 mpg mileage?
Here is the best comment the moon landing denying flatearthers can come up with...
@BadAtTeaDude
3 hours ago (edited)
"Beep boop bots"
And he even had to edit it! LOL
LOL ... Biggest achvement Humans have ever made. Well .. kind off, the most specular indeed, I would rahter be in a cell my whole live then fly this thing haha. The guys who had done this must have ENOUMOUS Cojones :D
All of them(except Harrison Schmitt) were military pilots. Most of them also became test pilots. 6 of the 7 commanders(including Apollo 13) that did the hands on controls landings on the moon also happened to have been naval aviators. Landing high performance military aircraft on a a aircraft carrier in all kinds of foul weather conditions plus often at night says a lot about their capabilities. I can’t remember the statistics but a heck of a lot more test pilots died compared to astronauts since NASA was founded.
The LM was praised by those who actually flew it. It got the job done.
13:48 I saw a youtube vid that said Artemis arent going to do the same.
the free world is back on the moon
I wonder why UA-cam needed to place a box with information from Encyclopedia Britannica? Doesn't that change the video itself and therefor have edited the content? This places UA-cam as a publisher and not a platform.
I’m nit picking here, but he says the lunar modules computer only had one megabyte of computing power… WRONG!!!!! The computer that ran
Mission control and took up 180 sq feet of floor space was only 2 MB. The primary guidance computer (pings) was 16 KILObytes and the auxiliary guidance computer (ags) was on SIX KILObytes.
What's this apparition on the screen at 31:17 ? 🤣
Good catch on this. Looks like a camera that was located in the building photographing an engineers hand or ET's.
I don't get why the LM had to be soo lightweight when it was going to be flying in a place that had 1/6 earth's gravity anyways
The LM had to be lightweight, because one kg added to the LM increased the weight of the rocket by a lot more than that. This is known as the 'tyranny of the rocket equation'. When the LM gets heavier, the Service Module needs more fuel, which makes it heavier, so the third stage needs even more fuel, etc.
The margins of performance were tiny: add too much fuel, and the rocket is now too heavy to get off the ground.
@@h.dejong2531 Ahh right I see what you mean,soo by them making the LM that little bit heavier they would have had to make the whole system much more heavier just to be able to get it out of the atmosphere
@@d.c2837 There was also a limit on how much thrust the engine could produce to act as a brake for the weight it was trying to slow down on descent.
@@gunternetzer9621 Thanks buddy I understand what you mean 👍👊
@@d.c2837 Happy to help out.
That is what happens when the country works together. We haven't been back since. That is by design.
❤😮😊
At 32 minutes, 30 seconds, a small technical glitch with the horizontal, flag support is explained. In doing so, it clears up a misunderstanding among those who don't believe that the moon landing occurred.