Looking Down at the Apollo Landing Sites
Вставка
- Опубліковано 11 вер 2014
- For comparisons of all six Apollo transit maps with Lunar Reconnaissance images, check out the latest blog post on Vintage Space: www.popsci.com/blog-network/vi...
Title image via NASA. Music "New Perspective" from Music Loops.
For more Vintage Space, add me on Facebook, Google+, and Twitter as @astVintageSpace. And subscribe to Vintage Space on Popular Science for regular blog update: www.popsci.com/blog-network/vi...
For weekly Vintage Space video updates, don't forget to subscribe!
Questions or comments? Leave them below! Let's talk about space! - Наука та технологія
![Why I Don't Like the Space Shuttle [Amy's Soapbox]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4K7QRoemb-I/mqdefault.jpg)
Considering the heroism of the astronauts undertaking such a dangerous mission, it is deeply disrespectful to call it a hoax. I'm in awe of their courage.
Look into it it was utter nonsense
I never doubted we landed. Great job guys. 👍
Happy to see this video still getting traction 8 years ago! You make great content :)
As one of many millions of people who are old enough to remember the space race starting with Sputnik,, saying that these moon landings didn't happen is like saying that a part of my life didn't happen, even though I was just an interested bystander to all this. I can just imagine how the people who were actually part of the space program must feel about such absurd claims.
@Peter A. Trust a hoaxer to get it wrong. As per usual.
That's because these conspiracy freaks are all like little children there brains are not fully developed yet!
Amy, thank you for giving time to this important subject. I don't know how to express my experience as a child, watching all the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo missions. Anybody at the time who would have tried to discredit the reality of our achievements would have been considered completely insane.
Pls where is the proof? Photoshop is easy to use and its not the first time NASA fakes footage or images BTW.
Their moon landing looks even more impressive when you see they set it down among some fairly large craters.
Great to see the progression of your content and how you've developed your hosting filming, and editing skills. The change in how comfortable you are in front of the camera shows.
I've been reading and soaking up a great deal of content you've made, and you're part of a holy trinity of things that I have managed to utilise to engender an interest in space for my children, the others being SpaceX launches and gaming (space sims and kerbal-esque fun) through the lockdown period.
The only negative I found was the Ars Technica debacle, which surprised me that it couldn't so easily be resolved. Whatever the case all human beings are flawed and why anyone who is a proponent of space wouldn't be able to resolve such issues with discretion is beyond me, when all you're doing is giving you flavour, using your appeal to draw attention to similar subject matter and help inspire others the same way both yourself and the other authors/writers would have wanted to do in the first place.
Keep up the good work.
Not gonna tip toe around the subject but she is quite the looker, makes it easy to learn!
Just found this channel and absolutely love it. Great job all, subscribed.
Nice to see a fellow Torontonian. I grew up in Brampton watching the Apollo launches
nice job amy keep up the great work you found a fan in me I think its awesome for someone like yourself to have so much knowledge about the space program that has changed this world for the better thanx
She absolutely 100% true nasa DID land on the moon
Can't get to the moon if you can't cross the VA radiation belt.
ART CORE
You can cross the Van Allen radiation belt though.
@@artcore9886 says the idiot that knows nothing about radiation... do some honest research on the subject and then you will say, "oh... that is how..."
really did they ,look up 10 reasons why I don't believe n a s a
Amy, I'm an engineer by training, it was all just possible with 60's technology. I also understand that modern laser rangefinding can still find the ALSEP mirror.
Yes, some of the ALSEP stuff is still working and still being used.
The Russians put a rover on the moon in 1970, and Nasa put a mirror on the moon around the same time... obviously there must have been cosmonauts on the moon too!
I'm a rocket scientist... We didn't go. It was impossible
Once more, thank you.
Thank you for doing this!
I'm living in SE Asia now and I'm surprised how many people believe any conspiracy here. I'm am doing my part to educate the masses but factual video's from Amy help so much more! It's not that people from SE Asia can't reason, it's just that science education is down quite a bit. As it seems it is in Thailand. So space travel just seems so utterly fantastic, it might seem that it is not real as I have known it growing up in central Florida with friends families that made a lot of happen.
Conspiracists have trouble with the math. Looking at a 1 meter object on the moon 200,000 miles away is exactly proportional to looking at a 1 millimeter object (head of a pin) that is 200 miles away. Also proportionally, a 10 meter object (33 feet) on the moon is like looking at the head of a pin 20 miles away.
yeah but the LROC is in orbit, yet there are no clear videos of the landing site. If they exist, wheres the link?
nice job and thank you
Amy, I believe you are my youngest hero! You have done incredible work.
Love your videos!! You are awesome
Very good, although I was hoping to see all six sites. ("Looking Down at the Apollo Landing Sites" is the title.)
there are other videos here on YT that will show that...
Oh my gahd, an oasis of sanity in the intelligence bereft desert of conspiracy nuts that plague the internet!
This video is a good thing, thank you for making it. A tiny portion of my respect for modern humanity has been restored.
htomerif You haven't read the comments yet, have you?
PINGPONGROCKSBRAH seems pretty normal. Am I missing something?
Spirits confirmed we Landed ua-cam.com/video/nz5CQe6hN78/v-deo.html
Hi Amy. I live your posts. Would have been nice if they were longer. Keep up the good work.
Literally awesome
Can you do a video on the canceled Apollo 18,19 and 20 missions? Where they were going to land, what were the mission objectives, and who were the crews? I've always wondered what got dumped when the missions were scrapped. Thanks BTW, love your channel, great work!
+WATERDOG300 Apollo 18, 19, and 20 were diverted to the Skylab program and 21 was used in the Apollo / Soyuz mission. All remaining Apollo craft and Saturn rockets are in museums now.
Yes I know, but I wanted to know what the original missions for those canceled flights was to have been.
The landing sites for the canceled missions were not firmly settled upon as they were canceled. In late July of 1969, Apollo 18 was assigned to land in Schroter's Valley, Apollo 19 near or in Hyginus rille, and Apollo 20 in Copernicus crater. With the failure of Apollo 13, one mission site was deleted (Censorinus crater) and Apollo 14 was re-assigned to 13's proposed landing site in the area north of Fra Mauro. Later, other sites were proposed including the large rille-filled crater Gassendi (Apollo 18), and either the Marius Hills or at the Surveyor 7 landing site near Tycho crater (Apollo 20).
There was a safety concern of landing too far away from the lunar equator. That meant taking the mission off the free-return trajectory, making a rescue like Apollo 13 harder.
Awesome Photoshop work!!
For some unknown reason twin telescopes or moor cold giva a truly high resolution from earth, at least for a second or two. That always left me scratching my feathers.
I wish we had the internet and channels like this back in 1969! You would have made a young boy very happy!
Specifically for the moon landing deniers: What evidence do you need? Where would it have to come from? How much? In fact, tell me everything you would need to be convinced that astronauts have been to the moon?
A self defeating proposition. If they did give you the list and you showed 100% that we went to the moon, they would start arguing with your information. There is absolutely no way they will relinquish their death grip on their fantasy.
Telemetry data.
Thank you for your very interesting videos.
I suggest you give the dimensions in meters rather than feet.
Otherwise, with dimensions in feet, only three countries on Earth can understand you.
Hi, love all your videos. I don't seem to find any videos about Viking Mars landings. Do you have some information on that? Thank you
Pretty awesome! I really enjoy your videos. I was watching one of Dr. Michio Kaku's videos; he was saying that there were two sets of shadows from the astronauts, one from the sun, and one from the brightly-lit Earth. Sure we can see the landing sites from Earth. A good high-powered auto-tracking telescope can take a pretty good look. Might be a little fuzzy depending on things..
I remember seeing the Apollo 11 landing when I was a kid. Our apartment faced a major 8 lane highway, and the cool thing I remember is it was absolutely EMPTY during the landing. Not a car or truck to be seen. Nobody in sight outside either.
+PointyTailofSatan It's nice to find someone who saw the whole thing.. and to you a have a question: Do you remeber looking at the moon that very day?
+MauDaytona Yes. I even had a small Tasco telescope on a tripod to do it!
How nice.. then you remember it.. So.. have you ever wonderered why the earth viewed from the moon looked so small? Shouldn't it be a lot bigger since the earth is 3,7 times bigger than the moon.. (please don't think i'm disrespctful, it's a genuine thought that i have for a long time)
+MauDaytona The size one sees when looking at the Moon is deceptive. It seems fairly large, but a dime at arms length covers it. Human perception has some funny quirks.
How large an object appears on camera is 100% related to the lens focal length. Do you know the focal length for the camera used on the moon to look at the earth?
Help, my tin-foil hat is a bit too tight.
There are some good websites that show photographic experts analysing moon photos and some of the points raised are very thought-provoking.
You can't convince these mouthbreathers. They lap up lies like a dog drinks water
So where's the Tang? ..... Just being silly. I love these images. As a certified Apollo fan and space geek who was up at all hours to watch the landings and EVAs, it is terrific and nostalgic to see these descent stages and rovers, which have been motionless for more than 45 years!
Can you or have you covered the Van Allen belts?
I have! ua-cam.com/video/9BEylTGOlQ8/v-deo.html
And I've got another episode on this coming up... just as soon as I have a chance to read the full paper that came out about radiation in space not too long ago.
Vintage Space Cool beans. I'm going to watch it right now. Thanks.
You mean Irwin...but nice any how.
You could put them on a ship to Tranquility Base, and show them Neil Armstrong's footprints. And they would STILL spin a conspiracy. (Which WILL happen some future day.)
+bobert4him Same for the believers. Most of them will still believe we went to the Moon even after overwhlming evidence that the landings sites are empty. It's more comforting to keep the beliefs you currently have than to question them.
+bobert4him ::So true. Also, why did NASA use pure oxygen on Apollo 1 and 3 heros had to give their lives? If it was fake, they only would have needed to use regular air. No wonder Buzz took it so personally when he decked that guy.
+Simboiss I have become convinced that the lunar landing conspiracy people are all schizophrenic.
There are no human footprints on the moon.
Thanks for going up there and checking.
The first pic, at the 1:00 min mark is a good example of how they touched up the photo. In a lot of these photos, the cross hairs either do not exist or they can be seen to have been altered.
Very good.
Actually, in a telescope, you *can* see the landing "sites" (basically *where* the Apollo missions landed), but you can't see the equipment or the landers on the surface due to the moon's extreme distance and the limited resolution of earth-based telescopes. You would have to have a telescope with an aperture of around 100 meters (328 feet) to just begin to see the descent stage on the lunar module from Earth. No such telescope exists (the largest planned for the future is only 39.3 meters in aperture). In my 14 inch telescope, I can see the "Cat's Paw" crater (about 2.7 km across) just west of the landing point of Apollo 11. The astronauts could see that crater's ramparts 5.5 km (3.4 miles) away on the horizon out the windows of the landed lunar module before they got out to walk on the lunar surface. I can also easily see Hadley rille and St. George crater which the Apollo 15 astronauts visited in the lunar rover, as well as Apollo 16's North Ray crater which the astronauts drove to. At Apollo 17's landing site at Taurus-Littrow, I can see "Bear Mountain", the North and South Massifs, the west escarpment, and the white elongated landslide off the north side of South Massif which the astronauts sampled. I can't see the stuff they left there, but at least I can see some of the features that the astronauts did when they were on the surface of the moon.
David Knisely She said that hubble couldn't see it?
Michael Cox *Any* decent sized Earth-based telescope can see the "sites" where the Apollo lunar modules landed, but they can't show the landers or the equipment left there by the astronauts. The Hubble Space Telescope can't show the equipment either, as it can only show craters and other topographic surface detail that are on the order of 56 meters (163 feet) across or larger.
Which means you can't prove there is anything there.. because there isn't
@@DrFumesta
I don't understand your argument. Before the invention of the electronic microscope, it was possible to see bacteria with an optical microscope, but not the viruses, that were too small. It doesn't mean that the viruses did not exist because it was impossible to see them!
Considering the AV technology aailable in the 60's, it would have been impossible to fake the footage. Difficult as it was, going to the moon was an easier option.
+ben kerr Exactly,the images of the moon seen in documentaries like FOR ALL MANKIND which is formatted for a 720/1080 big screen TV would of required modern day processing power and,imaging software,not available in 1969-1972.Period.
Exactly back in the 60s it was much easier to land on the moon then it was to fake a moon landing
kelly wilson whitehead no way to fake it in the 60s
No they had master film maker stanley kubrick on their side.
He was not a special effects man. Having seen 2001, I can say that his special effects man wasn't, either. NO ONE back then, regardless of budget, could have made it work.
The Apollo program is Mankind's greatest technical achievement
the dust is one proof that I hadn't heard before. A simpler one is the shadows. On Earth, shadows always have two parts, because of atmospheric refraction. They also have softer, more diffuse margins. The shadows on the moon are only one part (no penumbra) and have razor sharp edges.
Wait. We ACTUALLY went to the moon? It wasn’t a hoax? Oh wow. That’s amazing!
Wow it's amazing how many ignorant morons live amongst us! Wow!
@@michaelpellegrino1754 - Yeah, it's just crazy. By the way, Pellegrino is my favorite fizzy water.
You have some very imaginative viewers, judging from the comments.
Where can I find these maps/images? I find them extremely fascinating. Very cool that you can still see the foot paths created nearly 50 years ago, but with literally no erosive conditions, baring an impact, it makes sense.
Thanks Amy.
most never questioned the landings on the moon
but for those "special" few no proof will ever be enough to stop their (forgive the pun) LUNITIC BEHAVIOR
+Steve Dwyer It's ok to consider the option of conspiracy. This is what critical minds do. Followed of course by research and finding evidence. This being said; I find evidence for the US moon landing abundant. Evidence for conspiracy not so good, just lot's of talk and ignorance.
Titansoftime I agree.
+Steve Dwyer
Hi Steve... no one likes grammar Nazi but it's spelt 'Lunatic'. The word comes about because originally those who suffered from mental unease were suppose to have done so because of the influence of the moon. I learned that at my very first Latin lesson.
Like I say , no one likes a grammar Nazi but try to remember Proverbs 9:9... hope you'll take that as a compliment.
Cheers Steve
PB
:-)
+Steve Dwyer Its very hard to let go of participation and credit for a great accomplishment, your EGO is clearly tied up in this great accomplishment, to consider it to be a lie to be FAKE is very difficult for you. Have you gotten consoling for this, I can have it arranged for you?
+Nostrudoomus +Steve Dwyer
Nosters ol' boy , I don't think that Steve Dwyer is a Moon Landing Denier, far from it. Have you thought about counselling for yourself. I can tell you that it's really not hard to arrange and need not be expensive.
I'll be here if you need to talk.
;-)
Didn't this all start with the fun movie Capricorn One?
@S. M. yeah made to reveal the truth of dumbasses thinking they are right by telling everyone the moon landing was faked
@@emperorofwar1 roasted
@S. M. it really didn't, Bill Kaysing was putting his bullshit in books starting in 1976, 2 years before Capricorn One came out. The film is fiction and the book is wrong. The conspiracy only holds up if you don't actually understand anything about how Apollo was pulled off. the more you learn about it and understand even the basics of orbits, photography, radiation, etc. the less people's dumb conspiracy theories make sense. Please do yourself a favor and do more proper research and try in earnest to find answers to the questions you have rather than blindly believe people claiming it was all a hoax.
What always amuses me is that the people who reject the Lunar Orbiter images as being too indistinct or ambiguous, and so reject the idea that we landed on the moon, are often the very same people who will pounce on vague and ambiguous shapes on Mars to argue that there is life/aliens/ a secret base there!
+Brian MacGabhann Their reasoning is simple :
Does this data support my conclusion? If so, I accept it; if not, it's fake.
Show them a picture of remnants left on the moon? Fake.
Tell the radiation would have killed the astronauts? True.
No other research required from the perspective of the hoaxer.
That's why you will never convince them. Anything that contradicts what they already baselessly conclude is automatically rejected on principle - albeit flawed principle, but they are oblivious to it.
Wow cool.
woW. im convinced. that we nvr went to the 🌙
Idiot ,nothing would convince you .
I'm sure the nut jobs are now claiming that the images have been photoshopped.
They've been claiming that for a long time. As well as claiming that every space program by every agency on earth is fake, and no satellites exist, including those you can see with your own eyes. Some have told me that even backyard telescopes are fake.
SirHuddleston Fuddleston It boggles the mind when you consider how much of the world you have to deny to support some of these fringey conspiracy theories.
+SirHuddleston Fuddleston _"Some have told me that even backyard telescopes are fake."_ I've gotten that one too. They claim that there is hidden circuitry in every telescope which projects false images into the eyepiece.
Actually NASA has it made it that the images were Photoshop why can't we have a satellite found the earth if we can use that same satellite to film some other possible life containing planet millions of miles away out in space it makes no sense to satellite works pointing that way but can't turn around and show us this way it's 2016 NASA should have a channel by now that anyone can turn on and see the earth spinning they have the technology in 1969 to go to the moon but we don't have the technology into thousand and 16 to put a giant telescope on it pointed directly at the earth so we can see it spinning in real time? Who knows maybe will even get lucky and they'll include the stars this time!!!
Jeffery Miller Ever heard of Google Earth?
Bless her heart ... but ... Ms. Amy Shira Teitel does not mention if she is related to the family of Wally Schirra, a career NASA astronaut of the Apollo time period. Maybe she will enlighten us youtubers?
The concept of Photo Shop is an amazing thing. If you look a Googles Lunar photography and NASA's photography.... the (supposed) trails the astronauts left do not match each other.
indyjons321 Boy, I sure wish I had PhotoShop version they had BACK IN THE LATE 1960'S....
***** Actually the high rez photos were released after the originals.... welcome to the age of developing technology.
indyjons321 Not sure I understand what you mean, but they were still FILM IMAGES, even if they were high resolution. They were NOT "digital" in the way we think of in the internet age....
I like taking the Google Earth tour of the moon. Again, everything lines up.
I hope we get back up to the moon before we lose all of the original astronauts.
+Sean Hollingsworth well, the chinese got a rover up there, that's about the most you can expect, since the moon just became boring for sending billions of dollars worth of stuff up there just to see what you have already seen. The Mars will be the next big step, even if the first mission heading there will just go into orbit and not land, it's pretty neat.
@@mxtsy381 Maybe. The real reason to go back to the moon would be to mine the minerals available there. If it can be made cost effective.
Sure, those pictures , are so cristal clear that I don't understand why they need to specify what it is the we are supposed be looking at......... yeah right!
Great video. Another powerful piece of evidence from LRO is the reconstruction (I think by Google) of the view from the LM during descent. Video here (narrated by Armstrong): Neil Armstrong Narrating his Apollo 11 Moon Landing
Great vid 👍
I wish we would go back to the moon.
I'm afraid Andrew19ao is right.
Our space program was mostly driven by our need to stay ahead of the soviet Union in technological and cultural progress. Now that cold war is over, we just don't need to. : (
True, I guess Mars is the next target huh?
Plans to do so are being made, and vehicles are being built.
This NASA art work proves nothing !!!
@Blob B loll
I've never had any doubts
Amy thx for the short and sharp video again. I do have question on the navigation system of the lunar module. During Apollo 13 the gyro instrument was used to navigate back to earth. This suggest a 'space' gyro. However for landing on the moon an artificial horizon might be needed, but if this one uses a gyro, it must be an 'earth' gyro that uses gravity information to stay aligned with the surface. I would be very interested if you are able to figure how the lunar module was equiped for both space and surface related flight?
Gyros don't use gravity. They use gyroscopes - spinning wheels.
Allan Folmersen You are partially right. The gyro itself is just a spinning wheel, however, when suspendes in gimbles and the center of gravity is not centered in the center of the gimble axises, acceleration (and by definition gravity) will have influence on the gyro. The navigation instrument however uses a gyro, but can also use other input. This is what I refer to as a 'earth' gyro. This instrument uses the gyro and it stable position in space as a reference when the air/space craft moves around it. For longer periods, the gyro needs to constantly aligned with the earths surface. Gravity information is used in the instrument to align the gyro. However in space flight you need a navigational instrument that stays independent from gravity and I named this a ' space' gyro. This type of instrument does not align with gravity (or acceleration) but stay 'rigid' in space. It needs however regular alignment to compensate for friction in the gimbles. This is done through the use of bodies in space that have a known position.
So basically I was talking about a navigation instrument that uses a gyro as a source of information, but not necessarily the only source of information.
El BU Wrong. Nothing affects a gyro. You READ the position of the axis and the computer does the rest. Yes, the gyros were re-zeroed by alignment with the optical sight and star sightings. But gravity is NOT influencing the gyro.
Basically, the exact same gyros used on the Apollo missions were tested in an airplane, flying across the USA and it was accurate. Even though it was affected by gravity.
Allan Folmersen Please read what I wrote. The spinning wheel itself is rigid in space and is not effected by anything. However this spinning wheel is suspended in gimbals. You know the effect of torque on a gyro, it moves at a 90 deg angle compared to the torque vector. This effect is accounted for in instruments for two different reasons. To compensate for friction in the bearings as they will apply torque on the spinning gyro and as a consequence force the gyro out of its original alignment. The other effect is the location of the centre of gravity of the spinning gyro. If this is not perfectly aligned with the centre of the gimbal axis, any form of acceleration (and gravity) will affect the spinning gyro as this will create a torque. The first effect can be compensated for in regular intervals, depending on the quality of the bearings. The 2nd effect needs much shorter interval specially when the craft is moving. This 2nd effect is also deliberately used in aircraft instruments to keep the gyro constantly aligned with the surface in order to have permanent correct attitude reference when the craft is maneuvering. Please make a distinction between the actual spinning wheel and its phenomena and the instrument that uses the spinning wheel and its inherent calibration and alignment requirement.
El BU whatever. You don't need a special gyro in space.
Only the ones with Tinfoil Hats and ride the short bus think we never landed on the moon. Hell you can hit the Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment, retroreflector to measure how far the moon is to the inch from your location on earth.
Yes you tell yourself that buddy.
The LRO photos in this film is not convincing at all. Some blobs with no distinguishable features. Well not everyone take things at face value, they actually scrutinize the evidence people put forward. And this is not the evidence that proves NASA went to the moon. It is clearly manufactured, and they didn't do a stellar job.
And for the reflectors, why do you need a human on the moon to put a reflector there?
I tip my tin foil hat at you sir. :D
mullahviking
Warning.. The Short Bus people have arrived.
You really mean that the photos are any good?
No matter what you believe, it is not easy to make anything out of them.
If it some how is the best evidence for manned missions to the moon, the quality is a little low.
mullahviking
I believe someone is looking for you. Maybe Bellevue is missing a patient.
Should I give them a buzz and let them know where you are?
I am sorry you feel offended of being told that the slow motion moon NASA showed was a cold war hoax.
I would grant you that it was a good hoax, and you have to be over average interessested to even look at the evidence that show that it was.
I suppose you are an american since you behave in this way.
And you are excused, since you probably think your country wouldn't lie to you.
The lie is more comfortable than the truth, and i will not challenge your beliefs any further.
I do feel sorry for you though.
Nice. Don't you worry, conspiracy nuts won't stop being nuts.
Apollo nuts won't stop either.
It’s not nuts to think they faked it, they did.
@@bulletproofkam7931 *Sigh* Proof please. The onus is on you to offer up some definitive, verifiable proof, not squawking "They faked it! They faked it!" like some demented parrot. There is not one piece of evidence of a faked moon landing that you conspironauts have produced that has not been thoroughly debunked & hurled unceremoniously into the garbage bin where it belongs.
You go, Amy!!
It would be cool to have a video about what each mission was doing compared to the photos of the landing site. Like what each experiment did where and why there
You can find all that on the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal: history.nasa.gov/alsj/
That always bothered me that they knocked over the flag and didn't even bother going back and fixing it. Come on NASA! I
+MrFang333333 And by this point, the harsh solar radiation on the moon has long since bleached all the flags to pure white. If we could see them now, it would look like we'd landed on the moon and surrendered.
+Adam Ahmed In some ways...We kinda did surrender.
I saw a bubble at 2:33
...I think this is shot in a water tank or pool and Amy is just CGI.
:-D
I love how you pronounce 'reconnaissance.'
You go doll!!
We landed on the moon!
Only in your Dreams.
+shlibber
In reality, Santa Claus is more credible than Apollo.
+shlibber
He didn't bring me gifts!
Reading some of the comments by the conspiracy theorists makes me understand how Trump got elected.
How,s the DNC doing?
@Milt Farrow I refuse to eat it! Sure, I might nibble on it a little now and then, maybe a few bites with a good glass of wine, but eat it? No sir!
Next you'll tell me that the context of the 30 minute Don Pettit interview was that the people and equipment used to build Apollo era systems are gone. The factories retooled, the molds, tools, and dies gone. And that Each Saturn V, Command Service Module and Lunar Excursion Module were handmade by highly skilled individuals long since retired or passed on. And thus despite the existence of complete mission ready units in Museums and storage, their plans safe in the National Archives and NASA document Storage Facility, they cannot rebuild the system in a cost effective manner. And that by quote mining Don Pettit down to a sentence he never actually spoke the meaning of his answer is altered to the point of absurdity.
And I will completely refute that by saying: No way dude!
@tinwoods I find your writing to be very yokel like, you must be one of those hillbillies going online to vent frustrations.
God, I miss those days. I thought it would go on forever.
Keep it up Lady!
Of course we landed on the moon.. It was on TV
Just wondering. What would it take to convince you?
1905934 I saw it live 1969
It's impossible to broadcast a tv signal from the moon to earth..look that up the aluminum foiled treehouse didnt have the power to.
They faked it.
“It’s impossible to broadcast a tv signal from the moon to earth”. Who told you that. You’re wrong sorry.
Actually, what's impossible is for the lunar rover batteries to have enough C storage capacity to broadcast the alleged 'take off scene' signal through 300 miles of atmosphere. Like, do the math people ... (unless you're a DoHS blackmail victim, in which case you obviously don't know math)
My conspiracy theory is that NASA faked the moon landing by buying exclusive broadcast rights to the Soviet moon landing (the Soviet Union being a bit strapped for cash) and ended up taking credit for the whole thing. They even hired Stanley Kubrick's matte painters to make the Kazakh steppes look like Florida.
+Salvatore Shiggerino
I'll grant that is an original one.
Is that indicated camera from one minute 23 seconds, to the upper left corner, is the camera that Neil forgot to bring back?
¿Ésa cámara que se indica a partir del minuto 23, hacia el ángulo superior izquierdo ¿es la cámara que Neil se olvidó de traer de vuelta?
I would like to see a serious presentation of animated "maps," zoomin in from 10,000 feet to each sight, for location purposes, perhaps with dashed lines of where the astronauts traveled, for each landing sight, in a way that we can learn the relation of each landing from the others on the moon's surface.
WHERE on the moon did we actually land?
Great videos!
Key in "location of moon landing sites" into Google. Select "images."
Curious Droid has an excellent video that shows all the Apollo landing sites from the LRO (Lunar Recon Orbiter)
We can't have close up vieuws from the landing sites but , blablabla......., some die hard believers always come up with new APOLLOgies.....
You had to label them due to not being able to see the landing area. Where did you get the photos and is there any better ones?
Theres also the Ascent stage film of the sites, also match LRO images and the Maps.
Just curious who or what took the picture of the hubble telescope around the :40 mark?
Probably the shuttle after they fix the dam thing.
You should do a video of the footage captured by China recently
amy please explain how the apollo' astronauts space suit air conditioning works
I dunno Amy. You sound so convincing, but the actual pictures from the LRO simply show a few white dots. Why is still so far away from the surface, but the MRO was able to get pictures zoomed all the way down to the surface?
Jamie Godman You do not have to "zoom in" on a mountain, valley, or crater....
99% of the difficulty is getting off the earth. The earth's gravity well is the problem; but a friendly Saturn five might come along and solve that little issue for you. The rest is easy in comparison.
Deniers are just really low brow fools. Great to see the final proof in a well presented vid . GJ VS
Maybe.. but you could also be a really gullible moron too.. and you wouldn't know the difference
I spent a bit of time with my K-Mart telescope trying to see the Apollo landing sites ("I know it should be right there!") I was not terribly bright as a kid. Little did I know how small an area the sites actually covered. A $50 dollar Tesco Refractor doesn't have a chance (1984 dollars).
Well done Amy! Not sure if you're education is in science, history or journalism, but it's clear that your facts are well vetted. NASA published more photos of other lunar landing sites recently.
I still cant believe that some wont believe that we landed on the Moon, It was our finest hour. i wish wed go back
Why hasn't anyone? Wheres the telemetry data?
what is the angular resolution of Hubble? My scope is theoretically 0.54 seconds of arc.
Have you ever considered using the a search engine to find the answers to simple questions on the internet? Asking Google suggests that the angular resolution of Hubble space telescope is about 0.05 arc seconds. It also offers 31 arc minutes (so 1860 arc seconds) as the angle in the sky covered by the diameter of the Moon. And finally that the diameter of the Moon is 3474km. Which means that at lunar distances Hubble's 0.05 arc second angular resolution covers just under 100 meters.
With the footprint of the LM decent stage being about 9.5 meters square Hubble would probably need better than 10 times the angular resolution to see it at all, and probably another ten times that resolution to render the LM decent stage recognizable.
I heard that one on one of the missions, the astronauts set up a mirror and that an observatory on earth shines a laser beam towards it and it bounces back this proving we landed on the moon.
They set up three reflectors - one for each of Apollo 11, 14, and 15. The experiment marked "LRRR" (for 'Lunar Ranging Retro Reflector') in the video is the reflector.
The experiment is used to measure the distance between the earth and the moon to a high level of precision - about an inch.
radio waves or lasers can bounce back on any surface, you don't need a mirror
You're right about radio bouncing off the moon. Lots of us Ham radio geeks have done it with backyard junk in the 70cm band, and it's moderately difficult. The moon is distant (you can crudely measure it this way) and a sphere makes a crappy reflector. You need a few hundred watts of transmit power, a steerable narrow-beam antenna, and a sensitive receiver. But a laser shining at 400-700 nanometer wavelengths would be mostly scattered by the regolith. To have any hope of getting a detectable return you need a mirror, and a super keen pointing algorithm.
Did the scientists think that space dust on the moon was going to be a problem for the 1st Apollo Landing? If so what was their plan to resolve it?
Amy please explain why the apollo astronauts' photographs show no radiation damage
I just finished looking at some "4K quality" images from NASA so clear you can see individual moon rocks. Why can't we get that type of imagery on the moon landings sites? Please answer this question.
Where are these 4k pictures you speak of? What and from where were they taken? Fact matter, bro.
How about a video on what would they do had they not been able to take off from the moon to return home.
Nixon had the announcement ready. (which is to be expected; you don't wait until someone dies to write an obituary).
The Norsemen were on the moon first!!!
Good video.
Would a future manned mission actually revisit one of these sites again to walk through the area ?
How freaking awesome would that be... I hope I live to see it on high res video.
@@justgjt Apollo 12 went to the Surveyor 3 site to collect parts of the unmanned spacecraft. This helped to understand what effects the moon's environment has on equipment long term. A return to one of the Apollo sites would be very productive in that regard.
How was the weight distribution figured out with only one thruster on a loan and logical that had to rovers safely tucked inside of it
mathematics, just like every other calculation
You're as dumb as a door knob for thinking a rocket was used to take them into space where they then flew 226,000 through radiation with no protection, landed on the moon, drove around jumping over shit and hopping in slow motion lol