Why the Lunar Module "looked fake"
Вставка
- Опубліковано 20 вер 2024
- To try everything Brilliant has to offer-free-for a full 30 days, visit brilliant.org/D...
The first 200 of you will get 20% off Brilliant’s annual premium subscription
PATREON: / davemckeegan
Please consider supporting the channel by making purchases through my Amazon affiliates: geni.us/Affiliate
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Music by Bensound.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This video was sponsored by Brilliant
#moon #moonlandings #apollo
To try everything Brilliant has to offer-free-for a full 30 days, visit brilliant.org/DaveMcKeegan/. The first 200 of you will get 20% off Brilliant’s annual premium subscription.
I love the kurzgesagt style artwork that some of the tasks have.
Is there anything else that looks this flimsy which NASA made and used in a real mission?
I'd love to see that first before believing you.
Obviously you watched the documentary American Mqpn, and still defending NASA?
@@sbkarajan
The moon missions were tracked by the British schoolboys who discovered Russian spy satellites.
Moon landing confirmed 👌
@@sbkarajan
Quick IQ test...
Solve: 4, 5, 14, 185, ...
@@sbkarajan Try watching the video and *then* commenting. It's a great way to avoid looking foolish.
I've always thought it strange that those who believe the footage was faked in a studio wouldn't wonder why they didn't use something that looked more robust and realistic.
That and no one but the astronauts know what it really looks like up there... how can people sit at a computer at home and say "that's not how it would look." LOL Seriously? : P
cause they cannot find their own arse with a guide, a ten hour youtube how to video and adult supervision holding their hands all the way down.
Why…because stupid is always going to be stupid!
Or just the fact that a lot of the time, even when you DO explain logically all the evidence involved, it will never matter what you say because "nuh-UH! I saw a video on UA-cam and I did a 20 minute Google search! I KNOW what I'm talking about!"
Mmmkay. Tell you what then. Build yourself a rocket and see how far you get. Should be a snap.
Just don't do it around me, please. Rocket fuel is rather dangerous.
I have often wondered, if they had faked it, if they had made a big crater under the landing module and visible stars too.
I’m an astronomer and I do a lot of public outreach. Every time I setup a telescope and point it to the Moon I get a few people who tell me the landing was fake. If they become insistent I tell them the same story. “NASA paid Stanley Kubrick to fake the landing, but Kubrick, being Kubrick, demanded to film on location”. 😁
:-D
That he did it in one take was the real miracle😉
I always tell them that they faked the moon landing…..
…..on the moon, like they brought a whole team of film makers and a whole set up there.
@@nikelinq2899 "Yo guys, I forgot where I put the rest of the pictures."
BECAUSE THATS THE SORT OF PUBLIC PLACES YOU LOVE TO HANG AROUND, GROOMING AND PREYING ON VULNERABLE LOCALS POINTING YOUR TELESCOPE AT LUNAR TICKS WHLIST TUCKING INTO PIZZA AND ICE CREAM
Charles Lindbergh wasn't the first person to fly across the Atlantic, or even the Atlantic non-stop. He was the first person to do it alone, aka a solo flight. John Alcock and Arthur Brown were actually the first to do so in June 1919, which was 16 years after the Wright brothers first flight. 1969 is 12 years after Sputnik which puts it in line with with the same jump in difficulty.
Lindbergh made the east to west flight which is against the prevailing winds so it was a far more risky prospect. He also landed at New York to immense happy crowds. Alcock and Brown also wrote off their Vickers Vimy converted bomber when it came down in an Irish bog and they were probably only greeted by a few Gaelic sheep so they didn't really do it 100% successfully :)
Though I take your point. Others had lost their lives attempting what Lindbergh achieved.
@@ShizukuSeiji Any landing you can walk away from is a good one. If you can re-use the aircraft afterwards, that's just icing on the cake.
His dad was a pro fassist congressman. Far more interesting.
@@1anwrang13rKerbal mindset
@@ShizukuSeiji Lindbergh flew eastward, with prevailing winds, from New York to Paris, where he was met with large crowds at Le Bourget airport. He returned to New York by ship.
I've used the "crumpled foil = less contact area" idea for 40+ years, too. If your cooking a pizza, french fries, or anything in the oven, wad up a piece of foil and then gently flatten it back out a bit (like at 9:20) to cook your food on. Acts like a non-stick surface. Works like a champ!
And that absolutely proves that man has been on the moon. Well done champ.
@@deanhall6045 nope, don't be silly, but it demonstrates the nonsense of the counter-argument
What's wrong with being silly..?? Do you know how many froot loops still believe man has walked on the moon, now that's silly. Google Kelly Smith NASA lecture to learn how it's impossible. Then wake up. Cheers.
@@patrickfox-roberts7528 that'll be NASA explaining why it's impossible, not me.
I'm taking a screen cap of this and trying it next time I bake some sweet sweet pizza.
I remember all of this being explained at the time when I was just a tiny kid, and it all made perfect sense.
That adults over half a century later can't understand it is very sad.
"adults"... you use that term very generously!
Agreed!! Those of us that lived through it already knew this. Why someone that didn’t would automatically think it was fake because it didn’t look like a sci-fi ship is just nuts.
As a kid you want to understand. Certain adults are deliberately trying not to understand.
It's not that they can't understand...
They just don't ever bother to assume there is a reason to check.
"NASA rocket engineers are dumb as rocks they used tinfoil lol"
Seems legit, no need to question it.
Even assuming you couldn't imagine the reasons why they used specific materials ...
A 30 sec search would bring up all the history of the engineering marvels and ideas and theory of the space race.
It's not that they can't understand what kids knew back then...
It's that they DONT bother trying to understand...
They see 1 thing, it fits "govt bad" so just go with it.
I think it was easy for us to understand what was happening because we lived through it and witnessed the years of testing and failures which were constantly reported on the news. It was a time of continual development and improvements which lead to many records being broken and many new discoveries.
NASA was the bright future of mankind and everyone saw them as pioneers and explorers who were creating machinery so that people could live in space. We watched every rocket launch on TV, we saw every incremental improvement and understood why it was important because the launch and development programs were publicised too ! Nothing was hidden from the public, every engine test was reported, even the computers that were used on the space craft were publicised and all updates and improvements to them was public information, we always knew what to expect and when it would happen !
This happened over many years and every stage of every mission was publicised in advance so that people could understand what was happening and why it was important, we would wait patiently for updates and reports and often received far more information than expected ! There were clubs and societies were you could find more information and it all added up to a very clear picture of the 'Moon Program' as it unfolded !
When people dispute the moon landings it just shows their ignorance !
Idiocy is timeless! I'm sure there was some conspiracy nutter back in 1912 who said, "If the Titanic had been tested on land it would never have sunk".
So true. Stupid is a condition, ignorance is a choice. The moon landing hoax nutters exhibit the symptoms of both stupidity and ignorance.
Actually the conspiracy nuts wreckon it was not the Titanic that sunk but her sister ship Olympic
@Justice52555 I actually know about the Government Alcohol Poisoning during the Prohibition period. I heard that in an attempt to stop people from making homemade moonshine, the government increased the toxicity of the ingredients that were needed to make homemade moonshine.
The Titanic wasn't real either. Nothing before 1970 was real, it's all just one big lie to convince us natural-born that our alien-cloned parents were real people with a rich and horrible history instead of programmed drones.
It saddens me greatly that I have to add a disclaimer hat above is a joke. It should be obvious to any mentally sound human...
@@Zach1221how would they even do that though? You can make moonshine with basic ingredients anyone could make or grow at home.
Flat earthers are the definition of "double think". It's funny to me. Like in one breath they will say this and that about nasa's millions of dollars budget, in the next nasa is using tinfoil and cheap stuff to fake it... because that makes sense...
Just like they claim that footage from inside of the ISS is made in a zero g flight, but at the same time gravity doesn't exist and it's all density, which would make zero g flights impossible
@@raptorwhite6468 Agreed. And that's the point Dave made. If NASA wanted to fake it, the flimsy looking lunar lander is the very last thing they'd design. And then the conspiracy idiots point and say "haha, NASA must have faked it because look at that thing!" without have the critical thinking to sit down and consider everything as the NASA engineers did and as Dave has done here.
The analogy with Lindbergh's "Spirit of St Louis" is a very good one.
Yep, same with the Van Allen belts. They claim no one can get through them, so don't believe NASA they did go through them, but also believe NASA that the belts even exist.
Why would NASA even say the belts exist and they need to get through them if it's all fake?
it doesn't make sense you are just proving how silly this foil and cardboard prop really is.., you can even see curtain rods in the frame 😅😅😅
@@raptorwhite6468 what you call zero G can exist on flat models that just use densities.... it's all
about match the speed of which medium you are
equalizing through
"Looks like made of tinfoil and you can punch through it"
Boys at Grumman:
-Exactly!!!
The "foil" that was on the Lunar Module was made of Kapton. This alloy is very effective in shielding anything under it from heat.
I used to work for a medical electronics company. We had what is called "Kapton tape". Most of the electronics in the 2000s were surface mount and many with 80 or more contacts. To remove an 80 pin microprocessor, a hot air soldering removal tool was used. These processors had dozens of small surface mounted components all around them. The Kapton tape was applied to the coprocessor and also over all of the components around it to shield the heat of the de-solder tool and isolate it to the contacts of the big chip. The tape was the same "gold" color as the protective foil on the lander.
how did it survive high velocity dust and rocks? lol it never left the Hollyweird set
@@peaceandwealthseeker4504 what high velocity dust and rocks?
@@peaceandwealthseeker4504 The rocks would not be moved in the absence of air. The dust that is small enough to be moved by the molecules of combusted propellant will be sent on ballistic trajectories away from the craft. Why should be that a problem?
Kapton tape is also popular on 3D printer hotends and sometimes print surfaces. Great insulation and containment for very little weight.
Would we still see this on boards, or was it just a manufacturing tool? Because I recall seeing some gold tape stuff stuck on boards several times in the past...
On of the deniers said it was fake because how would the Lander make it through the earth's atmosphere, The level of ignorance among them is scary,
Ignores Fairings!!
Or asking who took the photo of Eagle.
@@acesw6124 actually one said there was no video of the Eagle leaving earth, after I recovered from the face palm I explained that it was inside the massive white pointy thing with flames coming out the bottom, He eventually stopped commenting. Don't know if it got into his pea brain.
@@dogwalker666 You are being far too generous suggesting his brain was the size of a pea. Mind you "pea brain" has a better ring to it than "grain of sand brain"
@@ShizukuSeiji particle brain?
“The fact it looked so fake validates the fact it was real” uh oh. Flerfs aren’t going to like that sentence
They don't like most of my sentences to be fair 🤣
Because they can't grasp the meaning behind that statement.
Normal human beings understand why that makes sense.
It's celebration of stupidity and Orwellian double think. Fake is real...
Thank you! I haven’t engaged with any of them because it would apparently be nothing more than an exercise in futility.
They hear "made out aluminum", see the Mylar film, and think "oh, that must be aluminum foil".
I mean, it was real, just not really on the moon
@@LauraReed-wu2ww Sorry, but I'm not going to pander to your delusions.
These folks seem to forget that there are still people alive who watched or listened via radio to this live. We did NOT have CGI back then, hell we barely all had TV's back then as they were very expensive still. In my town, you still picked up the phone and asked to be connected to a number, you didn't dial and you hoped like hell your gabby neighbor wasn't on the line yacking to her girlfriend (yes you could just listen to other folks conversations). I watched this on my grandma's black and white tv (with all the big glowing tubes in the back).
These idiots who think this was made up are insulting to the men and women who dedicated their lives to making this happen.
"These idiots who think this was made up are insulting to the men and women who dedicated their lives to making this happen."
This is a point I have made before. Humans DIED so that we could land people on the Moon. Its a massive insult to everyone involved from the astronauts right down to the canteen cooks who kept these people fed all those long nights of hard relentless work.
And you claim fake? F*** you, deniers.
And then there were the people that lost their lives to do the impossible. It truly is a slap in the face for these people.
not at all we just aren't brainwashed by the media like y'all were. this thing never left the Hollywood basement...
Space may be the final frontier but it's made in a hollywood basement
I like to think of it as: the moon landing was such an achievement that people can not believe we did it.
Five of the thirty assigned Apollo astronauts died during the program. The actual flights were calculated to have a 10% probability of a loss of crew rate - and Apollo 13 came close to that as did the Apollo 15 LM (which almost toppled over on lunar landing (it landed on a crater rim and crushed the descent engine as a result)).
"The fact that it looked so fake, sorta validates the fact that it was real". Best. line. ever.
I dont understand this statement at all it seems to be some sort of doublespeak. Like when Elon Musk said his car in orbit must be real because it looks so fake. It seems like idiotic gibberish to me. So if something looks fake it makes it more real......why?
Just like Elon Musks, "It has to be real because it looks so fake".
Utter nonsense, it looks so fake because it is fake.
What school told you that.
And yet 99% of our fellow Americans believe this actually happened. sigh
@mortb9378 Yeah, because they're not stupid
BTW, it would seem that the flat earthers might be the one's that could most benefit for signing up to your sponsor.
Space may be the final frontier but it's made in a Hollywood basement
I wouldn't hold out any hopes for a meaningful revenue stream.
@@peaceandwealthseeker4504 At least it's better than the basement that belongs to your mom you're sitting in right now
@@peaceandwealthseeker4504 thank you hollywood for figuring out how to make pocket dimensions, very helpful!
@@peaceandwealthseeker4504 Dude, really? How could space be fake? It's right there! You can point a telescope at Saturn and literally see it's rings!
I like the way you give your answers without insults to people who just have questions they'd like answered...cheers
Lindbergh was NOT the first person to cross the Atlantic in a plane. He was the first to do so SOLO.
Fair cop, although pretty sure the same could be said the Vicker Vimy
@@DaveMcKeegan “Vickers”.
The Vimy was also the first aircraft to fly to Australia and South Africa - and that was within 20 years of the first flight ever of a powered heavier than air aircraft. It took rockets 25 years from getting into space to getting men to the moon (the first unmanned “space” flight occurred in 1944).
Ironic, considering that Han Solo flies with Chewie :P
@Dave McKeegan Reading a pre-prepared script you just read the propaganda right Dave.
. . fake as a 3 dollar bill with Hillary's portrait on it . . . and to disparage Lindbergh to even mention his name in this forum of dopey sponsored activity for a sponsored channel that need not function using his own initiative to guarantee an income by conforming to mainstream supported narratives . . Sponsored activity is very normal today for commercial and political purposes and subjects of controversy -- in the attempt to lead public debate . .
Another interesting fact about the Kapton insulation: What some people have called "colored sparks" or "fireworks" during the televised lunar liftoff of Apollo 17 is actually scraps of Kapton being blown off the Descent Stage by the APS engine. Because it happened in a vacuum and 1/6 g , the lightweight scraps flew away at high velocity. The RCA Ground Command TV camera used a rotating color wheel in front of a single vision tube, instead of the three vidicon tubes (one each for red, blue and green) typically used by color TV cameras of the time, because this made the camera lighter and more compact, and eliminated the need for delicate alignment of the three tubes. Because of this, fast moving objects, like the Kapton scraps, would often appear in frame only long enough to be imagined through one or two of the filters on the color wheel, either red, blue or green. And because they were highly reflective, looked like primary colored streaks.
Yes, that was an ingenious bit of engineering. It also saved on bandwidth for the transmission.
@@therealzilch That's how all color tv worked
@@sdrc92126 That's how very early color TV worked, but the first commercially avalable color TV camera, the RCA TK40 from 1953 had a beam splitter that directed the three separated colors onto three image orthicon tubes. No color wheel.
No, it's not. Rotating color wheels were an old technology that had been out of use for a long time. By the mid '60s, studio color TV cameras made use of three vidicon tubes, one for each color. This made them larger and heavier than a black & white camera, and also required precise alignment of the three tubes to work properly, so weren't amenable to being transported. That's why color TV cameras were typically only found in studios. Most TV shows, whether color or b&w, were actually shot on film and then converted for broadcast. This was common well into the '80s.
Going back to the old color wheel technology allowed Westinghouse and RCA to develop color TV cameras that were light, compact and durable enough to take to the moon.
@@sdrc92126 As @FosterZygote said, but also: A color TV signal is not 3 black and white signals in a row. It is a single black and white signal with color information mixed in. Converting between those 3 formats is quite involved, as one has 3 frames that are from 3 different points in time, both in transmission and creation, whereas the other only has one image. This means that for converting from 3-channel to color, you need to buffer three frames and then combine them into one, before encoding that one. The other way round you need to fill 3 buffers from a single signal and then send those 3 frames one after the other. In both cases the new signal needs to be sent out while the next frame is received, so you need 2 copies of all buffers.
Or you project the image at a wall and film it from there with a second camera.
Testing it on Earth would be the equivalent of someone eating Carolina Reaper peppers to prepare for an ice cream eating challenge.
Now you tell me 😂
Also, the "foil" wasn't literally just metal foil. It was multiple layers of metallized plastics, including Mylar.
I'm surprised that he didn't mention it. Metallised plastic is much lighter and less conductive than aluminium foil.
@@rayjack400 the thickness of the pressure vessel was in places compared to the thickness of an aluminium drink can, which contains fluid and carbon dioxide at high pressure. The oxygen in the LM was only at 5 psi. A quick search will tell you that a drink can contains a pressure of about 22 psi at only 2C, higher at room temperature. It wasn't compared to foil.
@rayjack400 PS we're talking about the foil on the exterior of the LM, especially the descent stage. You're talking about something else. Redirection.
@rayjack400 ad hominem attack ignored. You do realise that space is essentially empty and presents no resistance to an object travelling through it? The same reason why the laws of momentum apply to the spacecraft in space over any sort of resistance in the medium? In any case it has zero relevance to the reason for putting crumpled kapton foil on the exterior of the LM which was to reflect the heat of the sun. At no point was the LM exposed to atmospheric resistance in the process of reaching Earth orbit or TLI. It was protected by the housing between the SIVB and service module.
The argument that makes me facepalm is the idea that the pressure inside the LM would be too high. Apparently flat earthers have never seen an aluminum can containing carbonated liquid.
Edit: same applies to moon landing deniers who aren’t flat earthers.
Or a child's balloon.
and I think a military-grade spaceship has slightly higher strength than a can
@@LineOfThy A drink can has to hold 1000kPa. The LM has to hold 40kPa.
@@LineOfThy you would think so, but tin cans are quite strong carbonated drinks put a lot of pressure on the container
The usual response you get from science deniers, such as flerfs or moon landing deniers, is that a pop (soda) can is not in a vacuum... because according to science denier maths, the difference between 1 and 0 is many times the difference between 2 and 1.
''Quite an eyesore''
I honestly, have always kinda liked it. I don't know why, but there's something weirdly endearing about the crumbled coppery look.
I agree, the first real space ship
I never considered people thought it an eyesore, it looks awesome to me
Its hilarious that you think its real. Go watch, 'Orion, trial by fire' and let NASA tell you why its fake. About half way mark, you'll learn about the shielding needed and " more research is needed before we can safely send people through this region of space ." From the horses mouth. That'll be NASA scientist Kelly Smith giving you the reasons why NO ONE has been through the Van Allen radiation belts, let alone land that thing on the moon. Its becoming a joke to the rest of the world now. You need to start critically thinking and stop blocking out the hard parts. Like VAB. Cheers.
A certain company's "spaceship" being tested these days, now _that's_ an eyesore! 😂
It always reminded me of my room as a teenager. After I cleaned it. 😂
I have said from time to time that if NASA was going to fake a moon landing, it would have looked more like the rockets and equipment used in the 50s science fiction series man in space. Your video surprised me with the reason that the gold foil looked crumpled. There were so many things to think about!
No, they didn't have to fool the public. They had to fool the Russians who also knew what the US did...
@@evanroberts2771 Anyway, they didn't waste time trying to fool anyone. They just went to the moon . And the Russians followed them all the way by radar.
Probably flattards think the lunar module is fake because it doesn't look like in hollywood.
@@jimmorrison2657 And the Russians would've left no stone unturned to expose their American foe as a fraud...
@@evanroberts2771 And yet they said to the whole world that it is legitimate. Soviet lunar landing program were very similar to the NASA one. But constant failures in production of N-1 put an end to it.
"It's fake because it doesn't look like this other fake thing!"
The lunar module was designed with the realities of spaceflight firmly in mind, and the most severe constraint on said design is the mass. It's flimsy because it _had_ to be - a heavier-built lunar module would require a proportionally bigger rocket to launch it to the moon, and the Saturn V was already ridonkulously huge.
Best ever Argument for the realnes:
If this all was a fake, the russians would point it out.
everybody with a radio-telescope can triangulate where a spacecraft exactly is... so the russians tracked the module landing, and coming back.
Otherwise, your argument must be this: The Russians are sitting in that controvery too. Wich would be nuts.
It would be nuts.
But sadly I've had people in this comment section tell me this exact thing. Trying to claim that the US and Russians were some how working together to deceive us all.
Moon landing deniers are a... particular group indeed
It wasn't actually that "flimsy" either. If you look at the construction photos that entire front face was milled from a single slab of billet aluminum.
Yes! Ribbed structure
People gave too much credit to Hollywood special effects. 1960’s fx is horrific. We did land on the moon.
There's a video by S G Collins about how the 60's TV technology wasn't enough to fake the moon landing.
ok, now go and watch Stanley Kubrick’s 2001, A Space Odyssey, released in 1968.
“It’s easier to fool people than to convince them they have been fooled” comes to mind…
The videos were also horrific, a copy of a copy of a copy, displayed on a screen, and then filmed with a TV camera. No one could see that it's fake, because everything was blurry and shitty, but it's the only thing there was at that time. You saw something in your small black and white TV, and you were told it's Apollo, you believed it.
@@Jonathan-Sund most of those effects on 2001 were cut out on animation table. lol.
@@Simboiss It’s easier to fool people than to convince them they have been fooled
I think the flerfs forgot that most aircraft made up to the late 30's were made with wood and fabric. Some notable aircraft during WW2 made of wood and fabric was the Hurricane and Mosquito....
The Vampire jet had a timber cockpit (being designed by the same guys behind the timber Mosquito has a bearing).
The limit on timber is the compression heat from supersonic flight.
The earliest Soviet spacecraft had timber hulls however as heat shields.
To Space-Deniers:
You yourself can confirm we did, indeed, go to the moon by bouncing a laser off of retro-reflectors astronauts left there.
Space is real. Deal with it.
Most people that try to say that space is fake are so stubborn and outright stupid that facts will not work
Ok, I just pointed a laser at the moon. Now what?
@@GalacticScrooge oh you child
@@GalacticScrooge I doubt you did.
But it's a laser range finder. Long distance one.
If you got an actually good one you can measure distance to the moon from your yard.
@@typhoon1575 That is complete rubbish.
" _With poor education you can achieve any stupid idea._ " - me while looking at conspiracy theorists
Well there’s that peaceandwealthseeker in the comments demonstrating that.
If you don't care about truth, any conspiracy theory is plausible.
@@robertt9342 Thx for the info. Just got nuked 🤣
Perfect unintelligent quotes 😂😂😂 hahaha
Watching videos of the lunar lander leaving the surface of the moon are downright hilarious when thinking that anyone could believe that was real. No dust clouds, camera pans perfectly up to watch it because some guy "knew the delay and timed it" absolutely perfectly on the first attempt...yeahhhh...i got that memo too.
"You can tell it's real because it looks so fake" It looks fake because it is fake.
But you’ve no way of telling us why it looks fake to you.
And you know it's fake...how?
@@maxfan1591 Because NASA can't prove the moon landings were real. No other country has ever made a manned moon landing. America has never returned in over 52 years if you ever believe they even did back then. Simple time in motion exercise show they took to many photos on each alleged landing, they would not have had enough time to do anything else. Also if they could even leave the earths atmosphere then you would have to prove gas pressure with out containment.I could go on but just these few examples prove a manned moon landing impossible. No has or ever will go to the moon or beyond.
I feel sorry for people like you with clear mental illness...
@@syphon583 actually what he says makes a lot of sense and is pretty easy to understand.. i really don't know what you don't understand..
A quick correction: British aviators Alcock and Brown were the first people to cross the Atlantic by air,non-stop (in 1919) not Charles Lindbergh (Lindergh was the first to do it solo).
*Lindbergh
Thanks Dunning
Oh really? I didn't know that! Thanks, Clive Wells!
@@theultimatereductionist7592 According to a video on the Lindybeige channel, Lindbergh was the 92nd person to fly non-stop across Atlantic. He has perhaps a better self-publicist than the others.
Thanks Clive, yes a few have pointed out he was the first solo flight rather than first overall
The same still applies to Alcock & Browns Vickers - compared to modern standards it looks flimsy
Easy, there is no reason to build no structural elements to look like something out of star trek. There is no air to cause friction damage so no need to have a cowling.
Exactly and as I have told the deniers, this is how deep sea research vehicles ar built now and they have to deal with far more massive pressures than 7psi.
@@dogwalker666 I love them bringing up the flying bedstead as well. They didn’t test it on Earth, well why would they? What purpose would is serve? Just like the Soviets you test a space vehicle in space where you can see how well it works.
It’s like these idiots don’t think any of the other missions had no purpose and 11 just happened all by itself.
@@Isolder74 exactly it was never designed to be capable of atmospheric flight.
@@Isolder74 actually the Gerry Anderson "Space 1999" Eagle transporters bear a lot of similarities to the Eagle lander, Strangely I didn't make the connection until now, Dohh!
@@dogwalker666 Yes, they were just a mesh of struts with a cabin at the front whose viewing windows were a direct take from the LEM and an engine at the back and various cargo pods could be placed between the two. They were a much more sensible sci-fi design than Kubrick's 2001 space ship.
My though: engineers are not designers, we don't create things to look nice, we do them to WORK first and foremost. If someone wants to add some decors on it afterward, why not, as long as it doesn't thwart the initial purpose of the object.
Architects are the antithesis of engineering - they start with a look and expect an engineer to make it work…
Right on! This makes me think of Gene Krantz's line from Apollo 13 (movie): "I don't care what it was DESIGNED to do, I only care about what it CAN do."
@@Mindlagoon Funny, I might have tried to use paint brushes and color crayons when I drawn electronic circuits (years ago) instead of this boring professional CAD program, and being constraint by the rules of physics to do them!!!! The word design don't always mean the same thing depending of the domain of usage, ie. fashion industry or electronic engineering.
a perfect example would be the corvair, who in there right mind would design a fan belt system that has a 90 degree bend in it? it was engineered like that cause they had to work with what they had to make it all work
@@allangibson8494 even worse is when the beancounters design it cuase they dont care about either looks OR function only penny pinching
If they faked the Apollo 11 moon landing, why would they fake it 5 more times? 🤷🏻♂️😂😂😂
$$$$$
@@jason_m_schmidt622 😂😂😂😂🤦🏻♂️
In other news, submarines are fake because those rubber tiles clearly can't be holding it together.
Or that the Challenger tank is protected by ceramic tiles, yet our kitchen plates can't protect us against a rock
Our houses are held together by their wallpapers!
I used to be a Moon hoaxer, and have had discussions with current Moon landing deniers. I have absolutely no idea where the lunar module “wAs nEveR tEstEd!!!” comes from - There were three Apollo missions dedicated to testing it prior to Apollo 11….
Because when you take an incorrect position you HAVE to lie
@@gowdsake7103 Only if you are being deliberately deceitful, otherwise falsehoods are not considered lies.
If they deny that space exists, they will not accept that the module was tested in space :/
It was, however, tested in a vacuum chamber on Earth prior to deployment.
Mike what made you go from thinking the landings were hoaxed to thinking they actually went if you dont mind me asking?
@@forbiddenscience1970 Science, evidence, intelligence, and reasoning skills. As opposed to nu huh and me dun unnerstan
I love how they think Nasa is simultaneously both able to convincing CGI before Pixar was even doing 3D animation at all, and unable to do convincing CGI
Do you know when space Odyssey was made🤦 go back to playing with your crayons.
@Sam Goodman Space Odyssey was made using props and models, not cgi
@@JayBagent a projector was used for the background and the the line in which the set meets the fake background looks almost identical to the "moon landing" footage👌 lots of rocks and detail until the set ends and the projector.
@@samgoodman-qx9sb
Grow up, and get a clue!
@@samgoodman-qx9sb there's something really amusing about trying to use technological advancements in order to disprove technological advancements
"you can tell it's real because it looks so fake" -Elon Musk.😂😂😂😂
The lunar module looks real. It's all the spaceships in movies and TV that look fake.
Even the ones designed to replicate the actual spacecraft that have been used?
@@osutuba yes
the most of them look fake
I always love it when the deniers try to say that Stanley Kubrick directed the Apollo footage, while also saying the lander looks like it was built out of cardboard and foil by children. Ok, so look at 2001 A Space Odyssey. That came out before the Apollo missions. How can the Apollo footage look so cheap if Kubrick was involved? Did he forget how to make movies? Was there not enough money in the budget to conduct the biggest hoax of all time? How can the deniers possibly hold both positions?
...the moon mission happened in 1969.
What the fuck are you on about?
Yeah its real I agree but what??
@@typhoon1575 2001 a space odyssey didn’t come out in 2001, yeah it’s confusing I know
@@Top-Code 1968... huh.
Go figure.
Yea guess that's on me.
@@typhoon1575 Moon landing deniers often say two things; Apollo 11 was directed by Kubrick, and the footage looks terrible and fake. But Kubrick had already directed a film depicting people traveling to the moon, and it looks amazing. The two points are antithetical.
Kubrick would have insisted on shooting the moon landing on location. 😂
I remember Jim Lovel talking about having to spend so much time in the LEM when the thirteen thing happened. He said he had everyone keep close to their helmets and oxygen masks in case they sprung a leak. He said it was so flimsy you could have punched through it, but it never failed once. He gave all the credit to the guys and staff at Gruman.
Sorry kenparnell, but that is only true of the outside. What is not seen, which can be seen in images of the LEM under construction, is that the hull was made of an aluminium honeycomb overlaid with aluminium sheeting. It it could have been so flimsy as to punch through it how were the equipment modules attached? Don't forget there was also a hinged hatch which would have had to have something substantial to anchor it to the LEM and even the windows themselves needed sealing. Just look at 6:30 in the video and you can see how it was under the foil covering.
@@mikestrohm3271 Sorry Strohm, but even Buzz Aldrin commented on how thin the skin was noting pushing a pen against the skin would have perforated it.
Yes, it was made of honeycombed aluminium, but it _was_ honeycombed, 1 inch thick, which means it is not a solid sheet of metal and was comprised of numerous voids.
The LM was not pressurized to 1 atmosphere, but to 5 psi as Dave mentions so it could be very thin, thin enough to punch through
As for hatches, etc, there is a frame work underpinning the vehicle, it wasn't just a tube of thin metal. While you can have a thin skin, it is just that, a skin which is attached to the frame while the hatches were attached to the solid frame work. It's like a modern jet airliner. The skin is thin, very thin, but between that skin and you sitting inside are layers of insulation and internal paneling to prevent you from perforating it. The windows and especially the doors and hatches aren't attached to the skin, but again... you guessed it... the framework, just as the internal equipment would have been on the LM.
@@mikestrohm3271 Not to disagree but I'll disagree with you. I too know more about the Apollo program than most.
@@tomstamford6837 Wrong
@@kenparnell4297 So how do you explain the images of the LEM construction which show a solid hull before the foil and other types of outer heat reflectors were added?
"Carefully thought out reasons" is a concept that escapes flat earth nuts.
Why bring the shape of the earth into it. Strange how NONE of them would put their hand on the bible and swear that they went. NOT ONE.
i wouldn't either lol@@peat11
yeah mate, everyone who points out the obvious is a flat earther to you quadruple vaxxed folks.
and you tell me you have any coherent world view outside your TV?
@@peat11they were atheist If I remember lol
@ranklin5847 They where all freemasons and you cannot be a freemason if you are an atheist, you have to believe some sort of god. Strange but true.
The image of the lunar module with no crumpled reflective material is one of the most effective I have ever seen in teaching about it's true nature. Now I realise that it only had to withstand 5 psi internal pressure and had ribbing to make the walls stronger it's much easier to believe it was entirely suited to the journey to the moon's surface. There was a saying that astronauts had to be pretty careful using any pointy tools in the LEM because it was very easy to poke a hole in it by accident!
debunked myth
I believe the external ribbing also served to minimize the amount of surface contact area, further helping to keep heat out.
@@bidensucks2922 a flerf and a MAGA?
That fits. Both hate the truth.
@@ihcterra4625 lol...all you traitors do is lie and hate
@@bidensucks2922 the more you say, the more you prove me right.
I feel like the biggest stigma about the moon footage being faked comes from the fact that it’s otherworldly, it’s not earth it’s space, a completely different environment where light behaves differently and it can be a challenge to wrap your head around that everything is practically in zero gravity
Light doesn’t behave differently though according to basic physics. The footage just looks very questionable and edified at times. It’s also really strange how we simply stopped going a long time ago. We should have 8k footage by now :/
@@jalene150 probably should have elaborated that what I meant was about the lack of an atmosphere makes light more sharp and negates effects of things becoming ‘blurred’ at a distance. But you’re right it will be cool to see digital 8k photography of the lunar surface…. and then watch flat eathers claim it’s CGI…
@@jalene150 Strange? The funding was cut due to the enormous cost. The main objectives had been achieved after the six landings.
Nothing strange about it.
@@jalene150 It's only "strange" in the same way it's strange that we could fly across the Atlantic in a Mach 2 passenger airplane in the 1970s, while 50 years later passenger jets only fly at one-third that speed. We "should" be flying at Mach 9.
Footage of men in 1/6th gravity and a vacuum is going to look unusual. There are no credible examples of fraudulent "editing".
@@jalene150 First, light does behave differently, there's no atmosphere to scatter the light. Second, nothing is strange about it, the budget was cut and used for other things like the ISS. Third, you can't add detail. What you started with is all you get. If you want it in 8k I'm sure you can pay some effects company to refilm it with CGI for a few hundred thousand dollars.
What is it with you all people saying it looks fake. It doesnt.
Volkswagen actually had an ad that showed a VW Beetle and a lunar lander. The tagline was: "Ugly, but it gets you there."
EDIT: I misremembered the ad. It just shows a model of the lunar lander, the tagline, and a VW logo. See link below.
no shot lmaooo
I love the fact you don't try to insult the people who believe these things you simply counter them with facts and logic and attempt to simply explain reality to them it's very refreshing to hear some proper debunking and answering rather then just bashing people for believing something that they think is the truth.
With the moon's gravity and the weight of the eagle lander the amount of thrust required to land would have done things to the surface that just weren't done at least with the evidence we were shown. If they did go to the Moon they didn't show us one piece of the real moon that's for sure and it's funny how overtime that use tactics to socially engineer and brainwash people into believing it. For example I noticed that a much higher percentage of the population is afraid to come out about how obviously fake the moon landing is ever since the flat-earth situation. They made that so popular as a tactic to try to get people to think while this one stupid so going against any narrative is going to be stupid now so let's just believe everything the ruling class wants us to. Meanwhile NASA's spending like how many millions of dollars a day and literally just rolling around with rovers that do nothing on deserted Islands
I agree, as a Flat Earther it is hard being insulted all of the time. Much better when people calmly explain their opinions and positions without lots of insults. We are all people with feelings after all.
@@forbiddenscience1970I mean this in the best way possible but please listen to them. You sound like a good person, get out of these conspiracy things, they won't do you any good.
@@CarlosAM1 hey thanks for your kind words Carlos I appreciate that man.
Astronaut David Scott in 1971 dropped a 1.32kg. hammer, and a 30g. Falcon feather. Like Sir Isaac Newton predicted...They fell at the same rate.
Galileo Galilei predicted that.
"I don't believe they went there and if you do you are stupid" This is the core of every moon lander denier's argument.
Conspiracy theories are gnostic cults that let the willfully ignorant pretend that they're among the very few people in the world too clever to be fooled. It's basically intellectual wanking. That's why so many of them become angry when someone corrects their mistakes and misapprehensions. They're declaring their superior intelligence and they think anyone who tries to teach them something is calling them stupid. That probably explains why so many of them appear to be so poorly educated. They likely resented school and their teachers because they thought they were insulting them be saying, "here's something you need to know". Just look how many can barely construct cogent sentences.
Actually I don't believe that there was a moon landing, but I don't think that people who buy it are stupid, we just have different opinions. For me the construction looks fake, but naturally it's not only that, there are many other details that point out it was fake that simply don't go hand in hand with facts and logic. But anyone is free to believe what they want.
Not true, Some of us like to do the math of the stresses that even 5 psi can put on a panel. Thats 720 pounds per square foot or 6500 pounds per square yard.
A quick look at the lems diagrams will show that these stresses are not possible on this craft. Oh wait, we are not able to see the diagrams. Taxpayers paid for this piece of junk and We are not able to examine the drawings. If You disagree, reply to this comment with a link to the diagrams
@@danneumann3274 How do you know the craft can't take the stresses if you don't have the schematics for it, What are you basing your math on?
@@downswingplayer9712 I estimate the stresses that would be put on a panel then listen to the description that the astronauts made of the thickness of the material. One said it could be poked through with a pencil if I recall correctly. I then use common sense as I am a CNC machine shop owner. I used to make race car parts that would be somewhat similar in design to components on space crafts. I have also made aircraft parts. I am not approaching this with no knowledge. Why don't they show us pictures of the lem being assembled. We could see these components and make a better assessment. This information belongs to the people as we paid for it.
“The fact that it looks so fake validates the fact that it was real”
I’ve been using this line for years to explain my love for the 60’s Godzilla movies
good one
Thanks, Dave! I've noticed that Flat Earthers in the last year have really begun repeating in earnest that the lunar module was never tested on Earth (or some say never tested at all), as if it's some crushing point. The fact is, as you say, there were plenty of tests. They just didn't land the LM on Earth because it was never designed for that. Similarly, cruise ships are not tested on land.
Personally, I won't step foot on any cruise ship that hasn't been tested for conditions on Rodeo Drive, Beverly Hills, California. Just to be safe, ya know?
You mean they don't test to see what the effects would be if the cruise ship ran aground? Oh dear, how careless of them.
Yeah always gotta watch out for fringe theorists they always say "Studies were never conducted" and conveniently miss out on the directly relevant studies and tests. This is happening alot recently with Covid. I think recently Russel Brand went on that god awful Joe Roegan podcast and was talking about how "natural immunties studies were never conducted because big pharma wants to keep you down". Whilst it may be true "big pharma does want to keep you down" lol but the fact of the matter is there are countless tests both pre and post covid which study the effects of natural immunities and they always come back with, they are less effective than directly targetted vaccines because of course lol. Most of the studies were done by academic institutions (because of course that is what they are there for) which might be their contention but I mean who cares the studies are there and probably slightly more valid since they are done by academics. But somehow people who have fringe ideas either just completely miss out on the these studies or more likely didnt even bother taking even a quick check on google scholar to see if there is any validity to what they are saying.
@@Asura12 Right. And it's not even like the astronauts didn't practice flying a lunar module stand-in on Earth. That's what the LLRV was for. This was one of the most dangerous flying machines ever constructed and nearly killed Neil Armstrong, but NASA kept using a version of it because as Deke Slayton once said, "It may be dangerous, but sending a man to the Moon without training is even more dangerous." And there were also, of course, simulators.
@@clivedavis6859 Well one Italian Captain did and it didn't turn out well .
Conspiracy theorists (such as flerfers) are those guys who simultaneously:
1) Claim reasonable people can't distinguish fiction from reality, and that we nurture a "Star Wars fantasy"; AND
2) Complain when spacecrafts of the real world don't look as pretty as X-Wings, Tie Fighters or the Millenium Falcon.
Does that make any sense? hahaha
PS.: anyone who understand basic physics know how hilariously wrong accelerations are depicted in Star Wars space scenes!
Conspiracy theorists have been right a lot, especially lately👌😂
EDITED from here because my replies keep getting deleted so curious to see if this one does too, can't speak truth on UA-cam, Nazis in charge 😂
conspiracy theorists were correct about the origins of covid coming from the lab, that covid overwhelmingly effected over 70s and the obese. They were correct that vaccine isn't good for or needed for young and healthy people (it's been stopped now😲😂) as well as being one of the causes of more strains. They were correct about Epsteins island for over a decade, correct about no WMD in Iraq.. there's lots more if you want me to continue?😁
So the buggy was on the side, can you explain the weight discrepancy while taking off and then the weight discrepancy coming back as they traveled without?
Congrats on copying and pasting something, means nothing.
I'm not sure what history books you're reading but those 3 astronauts apparently died during a rehearsal not an attempt to go to the moon 😬
Can you explain why on the footage you can quite clearly see the line in which the set meets the fake background. Before the line, plenty of rocks dust etc.. after the line always a smooth moon😬 Kubrick was also very close with top NASA officials and the government as well as thanking them for working together on his space Odyssey movie, strange.
Here's the video.. go to 10 mins in if you don't want to hear about Stanley, just look at the proof of fake footage. Look forward to your response😁
Remove "DOT" and add a "."
rumble DOT com/vohjn5-stanley-kubrick-fake-moon-landings-hidden-shining-clues DOT html
@@benmrgamw681 You constantly make a fool of yourself. All the information are freely available and explained over and over. You are simply to lazy and ignorant to accept reality.
@@benmrgamw681
*Conspiracy theorists have been right a lot, especially lately*
Oh, but they haven't!
*Can you explain how they fit the moon buggy, the astronauts in their huge suits and all their gear in that shuttle?*
That's not the shuttle. And the rover is placed outside of the lunar module.
*Can you explain why the drivers took the ridiculous risk of driving miles away from the shuttle which would have been fatal had they broken down as they can't get back*
Try telling about that risk to people who willingly were put on top of a "bullet" to pierce their way through the atmosphere so thy can fly to a 380.000 km distant rock inside of a tiny tin can.
Also, it takes too little effort to answer that kind of question: _An operational constraint on the use of the LRV was that the astronauts must be able to walk back to the LM if the LRV were to fail at any time during the EVA (called the "Walkback Limit"). Thus, the traverses were limited in the distance they could go at the start and at any time later in the EVA. Therefore, they went to the farthest point away from the LM and worked their way back to it so that, as the life support consumables were depleted, their remaining walk back distance was equally diminished. This constraint was relaxed during the longest traverse on Apollo 17, based on the demonstrated reliability of the LRV and spacesuits on previous missions. A paper by Burkhalter and Sharp provides details on usage._
Literally less than 2 minute search.
*Can you also explain how the buggy had far better battery power than a Tesla today?*
Who says so? You? The LRVs had silver-zinc potassium hydroxide non-rechargeable batteries, and had a range of about a 100 km, whereas Tesla Model S is powered by lithium ion batteries that provide a range of more than 400 km (that on an environment that provides a lot more drag). Making stuff up won't help you, buddy!
*how the wright brothers crashed as well as the majority of first runs of such feats being failures but the MOON LANDING was done with ease*
I don't know which history books you've been reading, kiddo, but the american space program was making a collection of failures during the cold war. The first Apollo never left the ground, and resulted in the deaths of three astronauts. And Apollo 11 wasn't even the first to get to the Moon. What's Apollo 5? Apollo 8? Apollo 10? Why didn't Apollo 13 land, as planned?
*We'll start with this*
You're off to a bad start. Try answering my questions before moving on.
@@opelvectra2297 It's easy to be made to look like a fool when you make it so obvious that you do not know what you're talking about.
You didn't do research
you didn't want to do research
You just want the lie you've built in your head to be validated.
Genuinely, do you really think that you, some random idiot with an internet connection magically knows about a conspiracy of a fake moon landing...
When soviet russia, who at the time had an intelligence agency that made the CIA look like a joke, never made such claims?
the literal enemy of america a the time, constantly spying, prying for the conspiracy theories that you try to pry for now, with real funding and death as consequence for failure, did not try to call it fake despite the fact they could've made it a propaganda piece for their own agendas.
They knew it was real and had to take it seriously despite the blow to their ego.
yet here you are, thinking you're some how better than that.
@@benmrgamw681
Your vacuous replies were being censored, in order to prevent you from embarrassing yourself any further.
In order to get around that, you went right ahead, and doubled down on your *dumb!*
I love how all these people think there’s some mysterious entity trying to sell us fake space and stuff and for some reason they think they’re doing it with like middle school play level tech. Like surely if they were faking it all they wouldn’t make thinks so easy to “poke holes” in. But I think it just is one of those things where they’re convinced that since they’re so much smarter than everyone else that everything else is just drooling daydreamers fooled by cardboard cutouts.
The other day, I saw a video of a parade. In it was float that was (supposedly) constructed on a Ford F150. The float decorations looked very flimsy, and I couldn't really see the F150 underneath (in fact, I'm still not convinced that there really was an F150).
As I watched it, I became more and more convinced that there's no way a vehicle with those paper maché decorations could even make it from one end of the street to the other. Scientists and engineers in the video pointed out that, "Yes, there really is an F150 underneath all those decorations - that's a really strong truck." But I didn't believe them. I trust my own eyes. I saw those decorations, and they were definitely germane to the operation of the whole vehicle. I know what I know, and your trucktard lies won't work on me!
The metallised mylar is nothing like tinfoil, it is incredibly tough.
i really liked your alantic flight analogy, gonna be using it in the future
it also makes me super excited for the day when we'll be making flight to the moon and back like it's a holiday vacation
sipping our cocktails and watching the telly :)
If it happens in my lifetime and I go...it will be the first time it's ever rained on the moon.
Calling my shot before the video starts:
The lunar module looks flimsy, because it was. There is no atmosphere on the moon, so materials could be thinner.
The lunar module wasn't deployed while exposed to Earth's atmosphere, so again, the materials could be lighter.
The materials needed to be lighter because the idea of a rocket launch, weight is at a premium. So again, being lighter is a benefit.
The area that needed protection and shielding was the re-entry module which didn't go to the surface of the moon.
Nailed it. Forgot about gravity... but pretty good for a lay understanding
It's not exactly -rocket science- brain surgery.
Nice
I worked for Grumman as a summer job in building 2. The LEM (as it was called back then) was being built on the ground floor. The construction area was separated from the rest of the factory by what looked like 2x4's and covered with clear polyethylene film. I would go down and look in on the construction during my lunch breaks. I can assure you, it was real.
My Cub Scout pack on Long Island took a trip to Grumman. One of our fathers was an engineer there. I remember watching them building the LEMs knowing that some day those things I was looking at would be on the moon. That father also used to bring 16mm films from NASA to show at some monthly pack meetings. Might have helped to influence me to become a mechanical engineer.
Reindeer is real.
Santa's reindeer is not.
Just because someone builds something doesn't mean it going to do a job.
@@busterhikney6936 It sounds like your parents
@@thegreatdivide825 Just because they hired your mother to sweep and mop didn't mean they were gonna pay it.
cool! Really wish they could had been there.
Having been involved in constructing components for NASA vehicles, I know the stringent requirements made for each component , as I was the lead QC/QA person that did the testing to those standards. It wasn't fake.
NASA published a "best practices" guide for electronics. I learned a lot from the publication and it greatly improved my designs for scientific instruments. By following their requirement that heat shrink tubing needs to be transparent has made my life much better.
I haven't directly worked on any NASA related projects but I think some of my microcontroller code is in orbit.
You're correct, the moon landings weren't fake.
I hope you are aware of the UA-cam channel *CuriousMarc.* He has lots of great videos about old Apollo tech.
@@ddegn The company I was working for at the time we made the cables was Raychem Corporation, the inventor of Cross Linked Polymers (Heat Shrink Tubing). I think it is owned by Tyco now.
It was the Space Shuttle Computer Control Cables that I personally inspected. I headed up the QC lab in the cabling department in the Electronics Division of Raychem at the time. We also made the cabling for Al Juniors Winning Indy Car and was fortunate in meeting him at Laguna Seca.
I work in aerospace engineering myself, and the QC and tolerances requirements are simply nuts.
I can only imagine how much more demanding it was for all the space programs...
Yet, those deniers, without having ANY knowledge whatsoever about how to make those things, and what is required to do, will keep arguing about it.
@@jocec3283 I'm amazed at how many people think their ignorance of how something could be done is somehow proof the thing wasn't done.
Some questions I've seen from the deniers:
"How did could the lunar rover's batteries possibly cool down without an atmosphere?"
"How can film survive vacuum?"
"How could the astronauts possibly talk to Nixon on the phone?"
These questions all have really interesting answers if they bothered to look but instead they think their ignorance on these topics is somehow proof the landings were faked.
Again, I recommend the UA-cam channel *CuriousMarc* to anyone interested in Apollo tech.
I don't and can't work, I can assure you that I have no clue how things work outside watching a few videos here and there regarding anything with engineering. The only QA I ever did was tasting what my buddy or my GF cooked, it feels a bit less fancy and important tho. 👍
I like the foil. I think it looks neat to use a minimal weight design, in a weird graceful engineering kind of way.
I've seen the rover up close here in Florida. The wheels are metal with hundreds of holes, giving it a rigid lightweight design with no need for rubber parts.
they claim high velocity dust and rocks are all over space and the lunar surface.... magic foil?
@@peaceandwealthseeker4504 it'd say you're kinda forgetting how large space is
@@snonsig2688 outer space is fiction all we have is earth
@@peaceandwealthseeker4504 I've never heard anything about that before.
@@peaceandwealthseeker4504 space... is big. therefore, the density of dust is very low. Less dust = less impact = less damage. Also, for the most part, the lander was concealed in a rocket whilst it drifted through the exosphere, the place with the most debris.
I love it when people like you try to act smart
If I was trying to trick the "IDIOTS" I would certainly have used a more Spacey-looking craft... fins, antennas, weird bits and bobs hanging off it. The gaul of NASA to use something "fit for use" instead.
Exactly. Use what works, not what looks like it would
I think a lot of people don't realize how much weight they actually sent into lunar orbit. Even the modern Artemis can't match it. Saving weight was absolutely critical.
My favorite part is that the same people that claim it looked fake also claim that everything was compartmentalized. If most of the engineers working on the project thought they were actually designing something that would land on the Moon, why wouldn't they design something that is space worthy? And if they didn't design it that way, why did none come forward to claim that the LEM would have never gotten the job done?
If they vetted their claims for logical coherence, they wouldn't have become conspiracy theorists in the first place.
@@therealzilch His own framing debunks his questions. Compartmentalised as in 1000s of people contributed a tiny piece each, they didn't know where their piece was going or what it was going to be attached to. Do you think they were giving out the full plans of the craft to everyone?
@@wilfred-wils The plans for all of NASA's spacecraft are freely available online and have been for a long time. And if you think that engineers could work from plans just for their part, you have no idea how things work in the real world.
@@wilfred-wils _Compartmentalised as in 1000s of people contributed a tiny piece each, they didn't know where their piece was going or what it was going to be attached to._
That is incorrect. We know for a fact that the _Apollo_ program wasn't compartmentalized, and that it _couldn't_ have been compartmentalized - pretty much every subcontractor had to know where their piece was going or what it was going to be attached to.
_Do you think they were giving out the full plans of the craft to everyone?_
No, because those subcontractors were the ones that actually made those plans in the first place.
@@Jan_Strzelecki ok so list all the subcontractors and how many employees from each there were.
You should try reading the comment before the one you are replying to first or you just sound ignorant
I was 9 years old when we landed on the moon. They had so much time to kill on TV that they explained just about everything you’ve addressed with excellent models and it was pretty easy to understand. 👍💚
pretty easy to get brainwashed too.
. . Fake comments are getting more sophisticated . . Yet exposed when they reach an over-the-top nature such as this one . .
@@markwilding3828Sad little manchild
@@LowProfile0247 gullible little halfwit
@@markwilding3828 Into believing the earth is flat, despite all of the proof it isn't?
I always ask, if it was faked(lol) why did they risk getting caught another 5 times.....?
Cuz once you get away with something once you’ll do it again and again as it gets easier. And remember it was a time ago when we the people couldn’t fathom our elite government would ever lie to us. Also you basically had to trust and believe whatever media said. People 10x more naive then. And they had distractions like Veitnam war Feminism racial tensions LSD Cold War….etc same MO as today.
That Foil was actually several layers of Mylar. Each Layer was crumbled individually before installation
Sure dude. Keep telling yourself that. Talk about seeing is not believing
@@DZ302-Z28
Pull your head out of your Butt and you might be able to see, hear, and thereby learn something
@@DZ302-Z28What do you want us to do then? I'm sorry but physics dictates how optimal MLI looks, should we start making multi-layer insulation perfectly smooth to make you happy?
@@DZ302-Z28 you are so stupid ngl
@@DZ302-Z28 "Seeing is believing" is a limiting phrase for the simple minded. You should do more than just see, you should strive to understand.
It looks like it was designed by engineers, not sifi movie set designers.
I saw the real thing at Kennedy space Center. I thought it was a fake mock up. I am a general contractor. I was literally thinking “my team could build something that looks more realistic than this and “then I found out it was an actual unused lander.
The brilliant expat Taffy would disagree, he's brilliant you see, absolutely brilliant. He's right, everyone else is wrong, because no one else is brilliant, like him.
He also seems to have a unique definition for the word "brilliant".😁
@@cargy930 He is a brilliant black hole of knowledge...
@@cargy930 He might think it means bald because it comes from the root word shining lol. In which case I dont even think his bald head is all that shiny either lol.
"it doesn't look like the sci fi spaceships you see in the movies so it must've been faked by hollywood"
Moon landing deniers using arguments like "it looks fake" and "it looks so flimsy" are just showing they watch too much sci-fi. What had they expected? A Tie-fighter sheering across the moon's surfice and a guy in a black breathing mask collecting rocks with his light saber?
Yes, they do.
The lunar module never had to move through an atmosphere, that is the major reason why it would look completely different from aircraft.
Part of the problem is that many people learn their "science" from bad movies that go for spacular effects rather than truth and accuracy - TBH, I'm kinda surprised FEers don't cite the movie "Transformers: Dark of the Moon" as 'proof' the Moon landings were fake, because the Ascent stage (crewed part) is still in place on the Descent stage.
What's the difference between Transformer movies and Apollo "moon landing" movies? Both are fantasy made by Hollywood. They believe one while you believe the other, but either way, you both believe in fantasy.
@@scoobtube5746 Well no.
@@scoobtube5746 For 50+ years all the Apollo video footage has been available to scientists around the world who are specialized in the field of kinematics. None of them have found anything suspicious that they said it was faked.
@@sH-ed5yf Looks like a yes to me.
@@mako88sb Doesn't matter, it's still fake.
Clicked on "Newest first" and lost braincells.. these people will do everything to not ruin their facade of "The Moon landing being faked"
"If it was fake, why make it look so flimsy"
If they made it look sturdy the flerfs would say it looks fake because the wright brother's first plane didn't look sturdy either, nor did the first car, or the first of anything, really.
Flerfs only care about how they can twist everything they see to suit their narritive.
Videos like these are not for the flers, they are for the rest of the world to show just how bizar the flerf's line of thinking is.
your chanel is the perfect example that once you start engaging with conspiracy theorists you can't get away from them anymore. no matter how thoroughly you debunk any of their claims, the will just come up with two new ones.
Observation was done by Dr John D PhD.
3.5ft view height.
Ship at 20.8 miles.
Refracted Horizon = 2.47
Refracted Hidden= 191.95
So the horizon can be no further than 2.47 miles "its beyond 20.8 miles, even with refraction you need to account for 191.95ft ?
For a 6ft observer on a ball with a radius of 3559 miles the horizon can be no further than 1.22 miles according to the globe maths.
ua-cam.com/video/a0j59pX1l3s/v-deo.html
That's the difference between engineering and conspiratorial thinking - and engineers don't care about idiots.
Never a truer word.
Good pub conversation I was once sucked into:
Person A. “I don’t believe man landed on the moon”
Person B. “What? You believe in the moon?”😁
What is funny is nothing about this looks fake to me. I'm a professional graphic artist of 15 years. I use photoshop everyday including right now.
Maybe it's that combined with understanding the times back then, and how important it was that we get there first. For some reason the deniers think there was zero danger involved with the moon landings. It's like they have no idea how dangerous it was, that's why it's so impressive of a feat, the astronauts could have died a brutal death at any second, their bodies would never be buried on earth. The president even had a speech ready in case they did indeed die out there. If it was faked why even bother with that. And like you said, the fact that it doesn't look like a clean star wars ship is evidence it wasn't some Hollywood film. The thousands of people that actually work in Hollywood would have spotted things by now. Or came forward on their death bed with evidence.
Oh wow.. your argument is that the president had a letter?😂
Can you explain how they fit the moon buggy, the astronauts in their huge suits and all their gear in that shuttle?😂 Can you explain why the drivers took the ridiculous risk of driving miles away from the shuttle which would have been fatal had they broken down as they can't get back. Can you also explain how the buggy had far better battery power than a Tesla today?😂
Can you explain how the wright brothers crashed as well as the majority of first runs of such feats being failures but the MOON LANDING was done with ease😂
We'll start with this and then move onto more evidence that disproves you people😁👌
@@benmrgamw681
Moon landing confirmed 👌🚀
@@benmrgamw681 - Everyone of your statements is false. Even down to the term shuttle. How do you manage that? Why haven't you done the research on it?
@Ben Morgan you said with ease. Have you ever heard of Apollo 1? It was a horrific tragedy, here is a short of the audio of the astronauts, fair warning ⚠️ it's disturbing
ua-cam.com/users/shortsktVVE1mUZOs?feature=share
Love the end, cause it went through my mind as well: If you were faking the moon landing, you'd make the landing craft look neater. The fact it looks so weird makes more sense for it to be the real deal.
Also, while the landing module might never have been test-flown on Earth (which it quite possibly would never have been able to anyway), there were some contraptions that mimmicked the TWR and maneuverability of the lunar module, so the pilots could train with those. I think they used jet-engines, though.
Indeed. The lander module couldn't be tested on earth without major modification due to the atmosphere and increased gravity. Technically, yes, it would still work, but the TWR would be too low to really do much, and the odd shape of the lander would cause various drag effects that decrease it's stability in flight. It wasn't designed for it after all.
___
There's some really cool videos of the training vehicles used by the astronauts if you want a better idea of how they work. It's basically just a stripped down version of the lunar lander, an open cockpit attached to a simple frame with all the same computerized flight controls and maneuvering thrusters, etc. Like you mentioned, a jet engine was added pointing downward to provide enough thrust to counteract enough of Earth's gravity to simulate the weaker gravity of the moon. Not very much you can do about atmosphere though, especially since the jet engine needs it to work
OR because they gave Cubrik the Job to fake it, way to late so he had to Improvise some shit, out of the Stuff he found on the Base.
LLRV (aka flying bedstead) was used for training on earth and it did use a jet engine.
@@youcanhandlethetruth4695 I mean sure, those that deny the moon landings are willing to say that it's one of the best-planned, most flawlessly executed conspiracies in human history, yet somehow at the same time, it's also the most incompetent and transparent.
It's the tinfoil version of "Having your cake and eating it too."
@@youcanhandlethetruth4695
Kubrick famously insisted on shooting it on location
8:45 people forget even if it was foil tape, that was SOMETHING THAT HAD NOT BEEN INVENTED YET. They literally invented new materials without the need for aesthetics of course it’s gonna look bad. The job Isnt to sell at the job it’s to get the job done..
People don’t realize how much of a weight constraint the whole Apollo program was under. Especially for the lunar lander. It was stripped down to be a minimum viable vehicle for the job. It didn’t even have seats, the bed was a hammock. It was only after that first lunar lander when they realized they had a little margin for more mass, but even the lunar rover was basically a folding table with 4 wheels and a folding chair. When you go light and don’t have to worry about an atmosphere, you go ugly, anything else is just unnecessary weight.
it's a bit like the pub at 01:00 AM. You don't care if it looks ugly if it gets you there.
Absolutely ridiculous. Do you know the weight of air conditioning and purifying and manufacturing, and the shielding that module needed to even survive. Then add heating and cooling. You're all dreaming still. Why can't the Chinese find your landing sites even with GPS coordination? Makes you wonder if anything in your country was real in the sixties, not much else is as they say it was.
@@deanhall6045 so you continue proving you have no clue whatsoever what requirements there were, or what equipment was used. and the chinese has publicly stated to have found the apollo landing sites. and finally.. there are no "gps coordinates" on the moon.
@@deanhall6045"GPS coordination" wtf is that even supposed to mean, or did you attempt to write "GPS coordinates"? If so, you're still an idiot, as there's no GPS system for the moon. And double so an idiot, since the chinese space agency have publicly stated to have found the apollo landing sites. Also, the LM didn't have "air conditioning", nor "manufacturing". It had liquid O2 and lithium hydroxide based CO2 scrubbers, and mostly used passive heat management while landing during lunar morning when temps are quite reasonable. Makes you wonder if you can manage to walk and breathe at the same time.
Safety was not a concern, right?
Thank you Dave, you make me think there really is hope for the internet
Uh... I would say, hope for UA-cam? The internet allows you to check Wikipedia, access a bunch of libraries, academic journals, museums websites, get a certificate on a course you took online, and communicate with almost every place on the planet.
I'll say that's good enough.
@@MariaMartinez-researcher. I think they mean “internet” as in the people who you would encounter on it.
@@MariaMartinez-researcher The internet has also allowed stupid to flourish at an unprecedented rate, created echo-chambers for that stupid to reinforce itself, etc. And considering the level of edit wars, affronted huffing and plain vandalism-edits on wikipedia, I wouldn't use it as something promoting the advantages of the internet.
@@mooneyes2k478 Librarian here. The same has been said of TV, movies, radio, books, and writing itself. Nothing new in that regard. I have seen many very stupid and wrong books.
@@MariaMartinez-researcher Oh, absolutely. The downside of the internet is the speed and reach it has. Books are far less accessible and available.
The internet is great for many many things, wouldn't do without it, and even if we could, the genie is well and truly out of the bottle. But, it lends itself very very well to spreading stupid faster than you can catch up.
That always bugged me. "It looks fake, with all that tinfoil and whatnot". Like ok, are you an aeronautics engineer? Or any kind of engineer for that matter? Didn't think so. What did you expect it to look like, something out of star trek?
The hoaxers are not really the sharpest tools in the shed.
Mythbusters showed how the lighting/shadows looks weird on the moon landing.....I miss Mythbusters 😢
Dave concludes conveying pretty much >>>The fact that it looks so fake validates that it's real. Brilliant Dave.
A minor point. Apollo 10 lunar module descended to an altitude of 15 km / 50,000 feet, not 50 miles. I looked it up because I remember at the time 50,000 feet was mentioned and later people asked the astronauts if they were tempted to complete a landing (nope), and how did they feel being so close to the moon? Apart from that thanks for this, fascinating development details.
They didn't give them enough fuel for a landing. But they would have followed orders regardless.
"Capricorn One"
@@257ian ... was a bad movie.
Forgeries always show with age. A painter forged Vermeer paintings in the 1930s - when we look at them now they look like they were painted IN the 1930s. Our current fashion is invisible to us - we think the 1970s and 1980s fashion looked ugly but OUR style/fashion today is just sensible or ‘normal.’ A faked spacecraft in the 1960s would like like a Star Trek shuttle. And engineers TODAY would see easily that such a craft couldn’t even land properly. Space is real - astronomy is real - our space programs our real - there is no centuries long conspiracy orchestrated by ‘them.’ Let it go.
Videos of Apollo really do look like shit. Some of them really do look like models moving in a black box with studio lighting.
Anyone says the LEM systems were never tested wants us to believe Apollo Missions 9 and 10 never happened. Spider and Snoopy did the job 'nominally.'
Keep up the good work of educating those who are ignorant about physics, orbital mechanics, engineering, the moon and outer space.
And you
I'm waiting for comments mentioning the "ten to the power of negative 18" ultrastrong vakuum. It boggles the mind flerfs don't understand that this only means: the pressure out there is very close to zero, and it's not hard to contain a pressure difference of 1 bar (let alone the measly 5 psi used on the LEM). Every car tire contains a bigger pressure compared with the athmosphere around it, and thats only some millimeters of fabric + rubber.
Space may be the final frontier but it's made in a Hollywood basement
@@peaceandwealthseeker4504 Prove it.
We have photographs of earthvtaken from outer space and on actual film. You have a huge burden of proof to fulfill to disprove them.
@@peaceandwealthseeker4504 got any real arguments or are you just spouting the usual flerf/moonlanding denier bullshit?
@@peaceandwealthseeker4504 yawn say something original at least
@@peaceandwealthseeker4504 So what? A line from a song proves exactly nothing. Like all pop songs, they do not have any truth inside of it.
As I've said before, I worked in aerospace materials in the 80s.. One of my functions was to measure the solar absorptance of these materials, to supply base figures to our 'Thermal' group, who built models of heat generation within the [satellite] ( we built comms sats, not manned landers, although we were involved with STS projects ), absorbtion of heat from solar energy [approx 1.3 kW / m^2] , and heat dissipation by thermal radiation. They had to keep the whole system in passive equilibrium.
The foils are made from a polyimide called 'Kapton', a sort of space age cellophane, in various thicknesses. It is a sort of yellowish - orange colour, depending on thickness. The back surface was VDA coated, in much the same way as a crisp packet. That is why it has that 'gold foil' appearance. It most certainly is not gold foil, nor any sort of foil with a gold coloured first surface coating on. The colours varied from yellow/gold to dark orange, depending upon thickness, silver, & even matt black. I never troubled to enquire WHY there were so many different thicknesses & surfaces, trusting that they knew what they were about, just as they trusted me. Over time, I accumulated large quantities of samples around my lab, such that I barely gave it another thought.
The kapton was often not used in single layers, but built up into multilayer 'blankets', with scrim mesh between layers, & carefully sewn together like vast quilted blankets. And, they were joined by clear kapton sticky tape, like yellow sellotape [ 'Scotch' ] tape.
We built comms sats, those things in geo synchronous orbits, which allow you to obtain TV signals, & bounce telephone signals around the world. We didn't just launch them, & they came back down - we launched them, & [hopefully] they are still up there. ( The ones I helped build will probably long ago have passed their life expectancy [ 10-15yrs back then ], but will have been superseded by newer, in the same place, for the same function). With the right gear, & suitable permission, you can prove that they are there - you can beam a signal up to the satellite, & it will be beamed down to a remote place of your choice.
So, how did that get there?? Did 'God' place it there at the Creation, six and a half thousand years ago, 'stuck' to the inside of the glass dome, and waiting for us to get smart enough to figure out how to use it? The inside surface of the 'Firmament' is not universally microwave reflective, because you cannot bounce signals off any random point in the sky. Or, is there ANOTHER secret organization that secretly knows how to travel up to the glass dome, & stick repeaters to the inside , with celestial blu-tak?
Space may be the final frontier but it's made in a Hollywood basement.... space is fiction look into high altitude balloon footage
@@peaceandwealthseeker4504 How bored and stupid do you have to be for all this low-rent trolling?
Kapton is polyester…
BTW gold foil and plating is used because it is really good at reflecting infrared. The Astronauts outer visors were gold plated for that reason.
The James Webb telescope uses gold plated mirrors because it is optimised for infrared where the Hubble used aluminium because it is optimised for visible light reflection.
@@allangibson8494 Look again at what I said. Kapton is polyimide. Now, you might want to class polyimide amongst 'polyesters', but not all polyesters are Kapton.
Apart from anything else, you need space materials to have low outgassing properties [ total mass loss, TML
Slight correction: Apollo 10 took their LM down to 50,000 ft, not 50 miles.
I knew there was a 50 in there 🤣
For many years of my life, I thought 1 mile was 1,000 feet, similar to how a kilometre is 1,000 metres. It was only about a year to two ago when I was watching Blue Origin launch where they listed the speed in mph and altitude in feet, that I realized the numbers didn't make sense. When I looked it up, it was actually some weird number of feet make up a mile, leaving me more confused about the logic behind this. SpaceX uses km/h as their speed and km for altitude during their launches.
"Apollo 11 was never tested, the lunar module too!"
Apollo 1-10: 😭
What on earth are you talking about?
@@yassassin6425 Apollo 1-10 had already happened and those could be used as tests for 11
The Lunar Module was never flown correctly once. Also, each module could only be used once, because of the corrosive nature of the fuels.
The shot at 6:30 gives a lovely view of the actual structure underneath all the insulation and micrometeorite shielding. To anyone familiar with aircraft construction, it looks much like a supersonic airframe turned inside out, and, in fact, the Grumman team who designed the LM next went on to design the F-14 Tomcat.
The "foil" was actually an insulation material called Kapton, developed by DuPont. It was applied in multiple layers, all hand crumpled prior to installation to minimize thermal conduction. The Ascent Stage, on top, was also surrounded by a couple of layers of aluminum micrometeorite shielding, suspended on stand-off posts to provide spacing between each layer and the pressure hull. Micrometeorites striking the spacecraft would be traveling at such a high speed differential that they would essentially turn to a plasma upon contact with the shielding. This would disperse their energy over a much larger area of the next layer, making penetration much less likely. This is much the same concept behind the stand-off armor used to detonate shaped charges a distance away from the actual armored vehicle, dispersing the energy over a wider area. There was also more Kapton film in layers between the micrometeorite shielding.
Foster, I am seventy one, and witnessed this event, no one can tell me it was "staged"..
It is sad to see the " skeptics" Fooster, these people were not even invented then, I understand well.
Typo, Foster.
I worked as an aerospace engineer in the late 60's mainly because of the Moon Programme.
Then, bizarrely, I worked with Stanley Kubrick (I think I was the only person to turn him down when he wanted me to design a film for him?).
He would barely travel from his home in Watford to Elstree studios (is there such a thing as travelophobia?) He certainly didn't shoot a 'fake' film... he would have insisted on shooting it on the Moon...
The LEM was a brilliant concept as it took advantage of all the problems of space...
Miss my dog...
There is a fear of travel, called hodophobia.
(Also, Kubrick would not allow Armstrong to flub his line, and his style of filming (doing multiple takes of each scene, and sort of bullying the actors) wouldn't work when faking something like that.)
@@Jan_Strzelecki Good point... he would also have insisted on Armstrong actually saying the words each take... even though you could not see his lips! :)... and thanks for homophobia!.
He did manage to travel as far as Pinewood Studios for 'Eyes Wide Shut', but I guess kept his eyes wide closed for a forty minute journey!
Haven't watched and im certain this is the video but my dad and I talked about it when I was a child, like grade school and it took me about 7 seconds to understand that it needed to be light as possible and because it would not encounter any friction of any kind and because it would operate in an environment where everything would be much lighter it didn't need to be very strong. It took my dad 10 seconds to explain to a gradeschooler and these grown adults can't put this together. These people are straight embarrassing
So your'e smarter than your dad by 3 seconds. Wow!
The HBO Series From The Earth To The Moon has an episode called Spider that explains much of the process of developing the Lunar Module after the Lunar Orbit Rendevous system was chosen. It's still a work of entertainment, but Moon Hoaxers would have many basic questions answered by watching that one hour episode.
'Spider' is my favourite episode along with 'That's All There Is'.
It was tested on earth.
Correct, lunar module 2 (LM-2) was intended to fly on a similar mission profile to Apollo 5, however Apollo 5 was deemed satisfactory and another similar flight was seen as unnecessary. LM-2 was then used for ground testing.