Dear viewers, The Orchard Music has filed a copyright claim against this video. They haven't done anything yet (and probably won't) but in case they ever do, please view the original [ahem, *public domain*] video in the "media" section of the Apollo 15 article on Wikipedia instead of allowing this trololo company to tarnish your viewing experience. Thanks!
@MissVoodooKitten Thanks! Well, I did dispute the claim but as it turns out there's no third-party mediator for these little things. They simply confirmed what they were already trolling, and of course I raged beautifully. Whoever was responsible, I curse their ancestors and their extended family and the monkeys that begot them. GRRR.
I asked Al Worden (command module pilot for 15) about the launch and he said it took 12 seconds for the Saturn V to clear the tower and that it felt like they weren't going any faster than taking off from a red light, it was only once they got higher up it felt like they were speeding up at all.
@CosmicTwillight, yes, nice that there are some reminants in the rocket design. But you are giving all credit to German's which is bogus since 99% of the technology there is non-German.
@theblackcomp111 -- If I'm reading the numbers correctly, the shuttle has a launch weight of about 4.5 million pounds and thrust of about 6.8 million pounds while the Saturn V had a weight of 6.7 million pounds and a thrust of 7.6 million pounds so yeah, after watching the Saturn V's lift off for years, the Shuttle looked like it went up like a toy rocket.
@theblackcomp111 Like nesokretep said, the Saturn V has a much smaller thrust to weight ratio than the shuttle. However, it seems like that is only because of the difference in tower clearance. THey seem to both reach approximately the same speed and height in altitude after roughly four minutes. One possible reason the Saturn V might seem much slower than the shuttle is the difference in size. For example, a Boeing 747 going 500 mph probably looks slower than a business jet at the same speed.
@jetfreak4, You're assuming each is accelerating at top speed. Instead, they control the thrust to give a slow, stable launch with less shaking. Saturn V is more powerful so they must slow the thrust down more at launch.. After it reaches a higher altitude they turn the power up to full. But your explanation of the boeing looking slower is also true and comes into play.
@countdown2xstacy lol, yeah that "after commercial" Apollo 11 (Jack King) intro Miller uses is great for cranking up...well that and the jazzy Black Sabbath instrumental riff that occasionally leads into a commercial
People need to stop with the faked landing crap, it's junk speculation and a disservice to the courageous astronauts who put their asses on the line to reach the unthinkable!
I see my posts are getting censored. Here't the info again. I posted some evidence that the moon missions had been faked in a studio on a science forum. To see it, google "The Naked Scientists". In the "New Theories" section of the forum there's a thread entitled "Did We Land on the Moon?". It's on page 15. It's the 7th post from the top.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I see my post got deleted.
There's a partial summary of evidence that they never went to the moon on a science forum thread. Google "The Naked Scientists". In the "New theories" section of the forum there's a thread entitled "Did We Land on the Moon?". It's on page 15. It's the seventh post from the top.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Did they ever come clean in how they used nuclear detonations in these rockets? (Shown by how no one was allowed around the launch pads and how Kerosene, a non rocket fuel, was used as a disguise)
THis was not the NERVA system, which has hundreds to thousands of times the thrust of this simple Rocketdyne system enginse which only burned kerosene and liquid Oxygen in 5 huge engines in the 1st stage, which produced over seven million pounds of thrust. Huge 1st stage was made by Boeing a the Michaud facility in New Orleans.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
They never went to the moon. The evidence of a hoax is crushing. Do YouTube searches on "Moonfaker" and "Apollo 15 flag waving". Do a Google Video search on "What happened on the Moon".
I thought the leveling system of the mobile launch platform pretty much kept the assembly vertical while stationary. Immediately after launch the first stage engines gimbal a bit to steer the vehicle away from the launch tower, so it appears to tilt somewhat as it rises. That initial maneuver scared a lot of observers of the first unmanned test launch. They thought it was falling over or going out of control, but it is a planned movement.
No it wouldn't. The projected energy released if every drop of Saturn V fuel was ignited was 0.5 kilotons because the fuel wasn't really mixed to maximize the detonation. There would be mostly a big Hollywood-style fireball (like other such failures) with a weaker shockwave component.
500 tons of TNT equivalent would not kill anyone (except the crew?) because noone was nearer than 3 miles, at that range there'd be many broken windows and maybe a few hurt eardrums, but no direct fatalities.
Another difference is that a chemical explosion has a lot slower energy release time than a nuclear detonation. The overpressures would be lower. If you compared a 0.5 kt nuclear explosion with a 0.5 kt chemical explosion, the nuke would do more damage for the same energy release because it "goes off faster". No doubt a Saturn V failure would be spectacular and locally (hundreds of yards) destructive, but no where equivalent to a nuclear explosion.
Actually, I believe it would be the other way around. Shockwaves have a peculiar behavior - skocked air moves faster than undisturbed air. Lagging overpressure would tend to overtake the front and concentrate on it, even if if wasn't released totally simultaneously. That's one reason why nuclear airbursts create strong Mach stems and reinforce direct shockwaved with reflected.
Another thing is 0.5 kT nuclear only releases something like 50% energy as blast, the rest is thermal.
The energy release is still orders of magnitude slower. Chemical kinetics deals with time courses on the order of microseconds. Combustion just isn't that fast of a reaction, especially over large sizes, like would be required to detonate a half ton of explosives. Fission occurs on the order of a few femtoseconds in a small volume. Same energy over a shorter time means a bigger bang. Near the center of a nuclear burst, you've got pressures of millions of atmospheres.
It doesn't really matter because the difference between nuclear and chemical ends when the shockwave propagation stops being radiation driven in the nuclear case and transitions to hydrodynamic. From that point on, a shockwave is a shockwave. The difference is a nuclear process releases wast amounts of energy in a small volume creating an initial, radiation driven fireball. After the speed of sound in that superheated radiative fireball equals its rate of expansion, a shockwave forms.
What you might be thinking of is the duration of positive and negative shockwave pressure phases. That *does* scale with *yield*, a megaton bomb will have a longer phase for a *given* overpressure (so it will be more destructive) but for the same yield the phases will be the same duration. Again, nukes dump some 50-60% of their energy into the initial radiative fireball so only half of the TNT equivalent is kinetic blast. Asteroids and chemical detonations lack this first pulse.
I've done a fair bit of reading on nuclear explosion physics so am fairly certain about this. Things like nuclear thermal double-peaks, thermal minimums, shockwave breakaway, hydrodynamic separation etc. It's quite fascinating stuff actually. The double-flash is characteristic for nuclear detonations, no other explosion exhibits it.
Shockwaves propagating through air are immensely slower than either nuclear or chemical reaction timelines and as far as they're concerned, there is no difference.
I am familiar with the processes but all I am saying is that the energy release and subsequent pressure effects are just that much greater. When I was helping model some lunar cratering mechanisms we looked at the shocked rock and shatter cones from nuclear and chemical subsurface detonations. No comparison. You don't even get shatter cones with chemical explosions. The shock rocks show nowhere near the deformation. And those aren't thermal effects.
I've seen some video that allegedly was of an N1 launch failure. Pretty impressive chemical explosion, but nowhere near what a nuclear explosion does. The rate of progression of the chemical reaction of combustion just isn't in the same league as nuclear reactions.
It wasn't on the level of a nuclear explosion, but it was big enough that it was detected by U.S. satellites and infra-red sensors..that is the only reason the U.S. found out that the Soviets were attempting to build their own moon rocket. The reason we beat the Russians to the moon was that the Saturn V was planned out over a longer period of time and tested sooner than the N1...the N1 was underfunded, and the Soviets did not have the capability to develop an engine as powerful as the F1.
That's true, they had no equivalent to the F1 engine. The N1 booster, IIRC, had a cluster of 30 smaller engines in the main stage. The launch failures they had were the result of several of these engines failing and shutting down, which either caused a fallback, or other damage to the vehicle as it tried to ascend.
Amazingly beautiful, those swing-arms retract right on the tick.
From a scientific viewpoint, Apollo 15 was probably the most brilliant space mission ever flown. We learned more about lunar geology from this one mission than almost all the others put together.
The high-point of my graduate student days was doing one of the first geochemical analyses (thanks to my dissertation advisor) on lunar samples. They are unlike any terrestrial rocks. So much for conspiracy theories...
The elements and chemical compounds are similar of course but the mineralogy is different. Some minerals you expect to see for a given rock type aren't there in any measurable quantities. It all has to do with the early formation., Lack of water on the airless, waterless moon, at least in quantities necessary to make some minerals and rock types.
The rocks ages are also significantly older than any found on Earth. The real dazzler from Apollo 15 was the anorthosite "Genesis Rock".
There used to be one at the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum that you could touch. There were others parceled out to various museums. I think the Armstrong Museum in Wapakoneta had one for awhile. NJ got some because Aldrin was from there. The others are very, very rare. It is illegal for anyone to have private ownership of lunar materials. There was a bit of a row about that because some dust was collected from astronaut clothing that had some residual lunar soil on it.
Regarding display, there was a traveling NASA exhibit I just saw at the Ohio State Fair that had a specimen of lunar rock from Apollo 17 collected by Jack Schmitt.. It was guarded and encased in a clear plexiglass globe so you could get right up close to it and visually inspect it. I recognized it immediately as a lunar sample because of its vesicularity, granularity, and color. Watch for that traveling display in your area.
Do you know if there's a list out there somewhere of where I can find lunar rock samples? You mentioned that they were all divvied up to various museums......
I'll be on watch though. That traveling exhibit sounds promising.
You can get to the link for the one I saw by going to the main NASA website. I don't think YouTube will allow us to post links directly. There is a Search option on the main NASA page. The exhibit is called Journey To Tomorrow and it is from the Glenn Research Center. There is a video on the webpage.
Another difference is the lunar samples are so much older than those we find on Earth. It's pretty rare to find an Earth rock older than about 3 billion years. The lunar samples commonly had specimens in the 4+ billion year range.
The oldest was the one collected by Jack Schmitt on Apollo 17, at the base of the South Massif in the Taurus-Littrow valley. 4.5 billion years old, about the age of the formation of the planets. That is the real "Genesis Rock" of the Apollo Program.
I see what you mean........but wouldn't we be hard-pressed to find rocks so old anyway, because the Earth tends to recycle rocks over time? (It was something I once learned in science...something like a crack at the bottom of the ocean makes new rock as old rock gets shoved below shore back beneath the Earth.)
Whoa.....did he know the age of the rock (as in did he carry around some tool to measure age?) or was it random selection?
Field geologists are trained to recognize "interesting" specimens at first sight, things like color, texture, etc. Schmitt recognized the specimen as promising based on that, something robots are unlikely to do. He knew where to look, the South Massif of Taurus-Littrow was known to be a likely place for older features.
Yes, terrestrial environments are geologically and climatologically active, which "recycles" crustal materials fairly frequently.
An interesting bit of trivia is that Schmitt came in for repeated reminders from ground controllers who were watching him on the Rover camera to close his helmut visor. He'd always be seen with his EVA visor up to check on the "true" color of specimens. The EVA visor distorts the colors a little (not much, I've looked through one), but just enough to throw things off a little. He wanted to get a pure read on the colors of the samples he was collecting.
LOL for you hoaxers ,hire a lawyer and try sueing the government,nasa etc ,for not going to the moon ,ps bring your'e fake eviedence,and be prepare to fail
I like both personally. Saturn V worked and was a supremly impressive piece of engineering, but the N1 looked BIG. Many things are big, but the N1 looked like the monstrous mass of metal it was.
The Russians have a proclivity for building things that are big but either not useful or don't work ("Czar Kokolol", "Czar Pushka", "Czar Bomba"). I read somewhere that the first stage of the N1 had a cluster of 30 separate engines. It needed all of them to work to even get to Stage 2. Lots of chances for failure in that. Not to diminsh their achievements, but the Russians have typically chosen the simple, brute-force method over elegance and miniaturization, and in the end it cost them.
If you knew basic physics and a little bit of the history of American rocketry, you would see things in all of the videos that could not POSSIBLY be faked... and things so subtle that NASA would never bother to include them - if they were fake. It's too bad that you believe America's greatest engineering achievement was a "fake".
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"If you knew basic physics and...achievement was a "fake"."
These general statements don't prove anything. You seem to be trying to sway people who haven't seen the hoax evidence. Once people have seen the evidence, there's nothing you government disinfo agents can do do make them think they really went to the moon.
3W's (dot) rushlimbaughforum (dot) com/never-went-the-moon-t2782 (dot) html
Launch commit occurs when everything is "ready" for launch (such as all 5 engines are at 95+ percent chamber pressure, all 5 engines are running smoothly, pressures and temperatures are all within spec, etc..)
With the Space Shuttle, many many more parameters are checked by computer and "launch commit" occurs when the computer says "all is OK" and starts the two solid rocket boosters, blows the frangible nuts and allows liftoff.
More stress/vibration free voices of astronots on launch...Something even the shuttle astronauts are incapable...
HMMMM? Try the comparison yourself. Or maybe shake your belly and listen to the sound of your voice...that's a good in your chair demonstration of why Apollonots voices lack the realism of an actual launch. ODD, isn't it?
The shuttle has a much higher acceleration right after liftoff then the Saturn V due to it's massive solid rocket boosters. These solids are also the reason for the vibrations during a shuttle launch.
Maybe it's just that the sound quality is bad - I myself can't hear any vibration, and on my bad speakers the words are barely understandable. This video overall is old; so maybe the sound isn't what it could have been if it was modern.
No worries. Its an online community. A well respected regular there uses the same username, so I thought you might be the same person. You don't fall into noob for that.
Dear viewers, The Orchard Music has filed a copyright claim against this video. They haven't done anything yet (and probably won't) but in case they ever do, please view the original [ahem, *public domain*] video in the "media" section of the Apollo 15 article on Wikipedia instead of allowing this trololo company to tarnish your viewing experience. Thanks!
starwarsfanboy 2 months ago
@starwarsfanboy
I really hope you dispute their claim, which is false. Public domain movies, etc. have no copyright holder. They cannot do anything to your video.
MissVoodooKitten 3 weeks ago
@MissVoodooKitten Thanks! Well, I did dispute the claim but as it turns out there's no third-party mediator for these little things. They simply confirmed what they were already trolling, and of course I raged beautifully. Whoever was responsible, I curse their ancestors and their extended family and the monkeys that begot them. GRRR.
starwarsfanboy 3 weeks ago
I asked Al Worden (command module pilot for 15) about the launch and he said it took 12 seconds for the Saturn V to clear the tower and that it felt like they weren't going any faster than taking off from a red light, it was only once they got higher up it felt like they were speeding up at all.
Willysmb44 4 months ago
Dennis Miller uses this countdown to begin segments on his radio show... John King is the announcer and had a long career with NASA.
irish89055 5 months ago
Every time I see a Saturn V launch I get all emotional - simply for the fact that the greatness we achieved there has never been equalled since.
cplsyx 6 months ago
Apollo 15's 40th anniversary is just a week away from today.
jetfreak4 7 months ago
Rocket engines burning fuel so fast
off into the black sky so vast
lqetvb 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
PROOF that Andy Harglesis, disbeliever of Apollo landings, is famous:
Andy Harglesis's Wikipedia page: /wiki/AndyHarglesis after en(dot)wikipedia(dot)org
andyharglesissupport 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Apollo moon missions were faked in a studio. Here's a link to some of the evidence.
spurstalk (dot) com/forums/showthread (dot) php?t=144487
Cosmored 11 months ago
Comment removed
Futurecop2012E 11 months ago
Who the fuck disliked this>? Russians?
11AMERICANO11 1 year ago
Good German Technology ! : )
CosmicTwillight 1 year ago
@CosmicTwillight Good Robert goddard technology you mean!
F3HDemonDriver 1 year ago
@CosmicTwillight, yes, nice that there are some reminants in the rocket design. But you are giving all credit to German's which is bogus since 99% of the technology there is non-German.
zooomfun 2 months ago
good burn
guitarnashelter 1 year ago
This looks like it launches sooooo much slower than the shuttle. Does anybody have figures? speeds?
theblackcomp111 1 year ago
@theblackcomp111 -- If I'm reading the numbers correctly, the shuttle has a launch weight of about 4.5 million pounds and thrust of about 6.8 million pounds while the Saturn V had a weight of 6.7 million pounds and a thrust of 7.6 million pounds so yeah, after watching the Saturn V's lift off for years, the Shuttle looked like it went up like a toy rocket.
nesokretep 1 year ago
@theblackcomp111 Like nesokretep said, the Saturn V has a much smaller thrust to weight ratio than the shuttle. However, it seems like that is only because of the difference in tower clearance. THey seem to both reach approximately the same speed and height in altitude after roughly four minutes. One possible reason the Saturn V might seem much slower than the shuttle is the difference in size. For example, a Boeing 747 going 500 mph probably looks slower than a business jet at the same speed.
jetfreak4 11 months ago
@jetfreak4, You're assuming each is accelerating at top speed. Instead, they control the thrust to give a slow, stable launch with less shaking. Saturn V is more powerful so they must slow the thrust down more at launch.. After it reaches a higher altitude they turn the power up to full. But your explanation of the boeing looking slower is also true and comes into play.
zooomfun 2 months ago
The Dennis Miller radio show clip at :34 past the hour.
countdown2xstacy 1 year ago
This is the audio clip Dennis Miller uses on his radio show at :34 past the hour. I cant help but blare it on my car radio !!!
LIFT OFF, WE HAVE LIFT OFF !!!...freakin great
countdown2xstacy 1 year ago
@countdown2xstacy lol, yeah that "after commercial" Apollo 11 (Jack King) intro Miller uses is great for cranking up...well that and the jazzy Black Sabbath instrumental riff that occasionally leads into a commercial
MightySaturn5 1 year ago
People need to stop with the faked landing crap, it's junk speculation and a disservice to the courageous astronauts who put their asses on the line to reach the unthinkable!
Galeati08 2 years ago 5
Can you please tell me where this video originated from...I need the information for a bibliography ASAP. Thanks!
munckinpie 2 years ago
Dave Scott is the man!
curea229 2 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
I see my posts are getting censored. Here't the info again. I posted some evidence that the moon missions had been faked in a studio on a science forum. To see it, google "The Naked Scientists". In the "New Theories" section of the forum there's a thread entitled "Did We Land on the Moon?". It's on page 15. It's the 7th post from the top.
Also, do a YouTube search on "MarsFaker".
Cosmored 2 years ago
Are you a "birther" too?
mcclir 2 years ago
Hey Cosmored ol' pal...didn't I see your late mothers corpse being wheeled around in a red wagon by some drunken sailors?
MightySaturn5 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I see my post got deleted.
There's a partial summary of evidence that they never went to the moon on a science forum thread. Google "The Naked Scientists". In the "New theories" section of the forum there's a thread entitled "Did We Land on the Moon?". It's on page 15. It's the seventh post from the top.
Cosmored 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Did they ever come clean in how they used nuclear detonations in these rockets? (Shown by how no one was allowed around the launch pads and how Kerosene, a non rocket fuel, was used as a disguise)
raunchbear 2 years ago
dumbass
yarahahrwe 2 years ago
THis was not the NERVA system, which has hundreds to thousands of times the thrust of this simple Rocketdyne system enginse which only burned kerosene and liquid Oxygen in 5 huge engines in the 1st stage, which produced over seven million pounds of thrust. Huge 1st stage was made by Boeing a the Michaud facility in New Orleans.
Beamshipcaptain 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
They never went to the moon. The evidence of a hoax is crushing. Do YouTube searches on "Moonfaker" and "Apollo 15 flag waving". Do a Google Video search on "What happened on the Moon".
Cosmored 2 years ago
You are a perfect specimen for a snake oil salesman!
lander4545 2 years ago
@Cosmored
Shut the fuck up. Go find bigfoot or the loch ness monster you moron.
Michael55443 2 years ago
you would think the rocket would be standing straight up but it actualy is leaning away from the tower a little bit. awesome
ftutbs 2 years ago
I thought the leveling system of the mobile launch platform pretty much kept the assembly vertical while stationary. Immediately after launch the first stage engines gimbal a bit to steer the vehicle away from the launch tower, so it appears to tilt somewhat as it rises. That initial maneuver scared a lot of observers of the first unmanned test launch. They thought it was falling over or going out of control, but it is a planned movement.
ennui2000 2 years ago
iff one oh those things exploded on the ground it would act like an atomic bomb and kill everybody within 3 miles
IR0NMAIDEN12 2 years ago
No it wouldn't. The projected energy released if every drop of Saturn V fuel was ignited was 0.5 kilotons because the fuel wasn't really mixed to maximize the detonation. There would be mostly a big Hollywood-style fireball (like other such failures) with a weaker shockwave component.
500 tons of TNT equivalent would not kill anyone (except the crew?) because noone was nearer than 3 miles, at that range there'd be many broken windows and maybe a few hurt eardrums, but no direct fatalities.
ugowar 2 years ago 2
Another difference is that a chemical explosion has a lot slower energy release time than a nuclear detonation. The overpressures would be lower. If you compared a 0.5 kt nuclear explosion with a 0.5 kt chemical explosion, the nuke would do more damage for the same energy release because it "goes off faster". No doubt a Saturn V failure would be spectacular and locally (hundreds of yards) destructive, but no where equivalent to a nuclear explosion.
ennui2000 2 years ago
Actually, I believe it would be the other way around. Shockwaves have a peculiar behavior - skocked air moves faster than undisturbed air. Lagging overpressure would tend to overtake the front and concentrate on it, even if if wasn't released totally simultaneously. That's one reason why nuclear airbursts create strong Mach stems and reinforce direct shockwaved with reflected.
Another thing is 0.5 kT nuclear only releases something like 50% energy as blast, the rest is thermal.
ugowar 2 years ago
The energy release is still orders of magnitude slower. Chemical kinetics deals with time courses on the order of microseconds. Combustion just isn't that fast of a reaction, especially over large sizes, like would be required to detonate a half ton of explosives. Fission occurs on the order of a few femtoseconds in a small volume. Same energy over a shorter time means a bigger bang. Near the center of a nuclear burst, you've got pressures of millions of atmospheres.
ennui2000 2 years ago
It doesn't really matter because the difference between nuclear and chemical ends when the shockwave propagation stops being radiation driven in the nuclear case and transitions to hydrodynamic. From that point on, a shockwave is a shockwave. The difference is a nuclear process releases wast amounts of energy in a small volume creating an initial, radiation driven fireball. After the speed of sound in that superheated radiative fireball equals its rate of expansion, a shockwave forms.
ugowar 2 years ago
What you might be thinking of is the duration of positive and negative shockwave pressure phases. That *does* scale with *yield*, a megaton bomb will have a longer phase for a *given* overpressure (so it will be more destructive) but for the same yield the phases will be the same duration. Again, nukes dump some 50-60% of their energy into the initial radiative fireball so only half of the TNT equivalent is kinetic blast. Asteroids and chemical detonations lack this first pulse.
ugowar 2 years ago
I've done a fair bit of reading on nuclear explosion physics so am fairly certain about this. Things like nuclear thermal double-peaks, thermal minimums, shockwave breakaway, hydrodynamic separation etc. It's quite fascinating stuff actually. The double-flash is characteristic for nuclear detonations, no other explosion exhibits it.
Shockwaves propagating through air are immensely slower than either nuclear or chemical reaction timelines and as far as they're concerned, there is no difference.
ugowar 2 years ago
I am familiar with the processes but all I am saying is that the energy release and subsequent pressure effects are just that much greater. When I was helping model some lunar cratering mechanisms we looked at the shocked rock and shatter cones from nuclear and chemical subsurface detonations. No comparison. You don't even get shatter cones with chemical explosions. The shock rocks show nowhere near the deformation. And those aren't thermal effects.
ennui2000 2 years ago
well if you want a good comparison of what a saturn would look like exploding all you have to do is look at all the u.s.s r. n1 rockets.
ftutbs 2 years ago 3
I've seen some video that allegedly was of an N1 launch failure. Pretty impressive chemical explosion, but nowhere near what a nuclear explosion does. The rate of progression of the chemical reaction of combustion just isn't in the same league as nuclear reactions.
ennui2000 2 years ago 7
It wasn't on the level of a nuclear explosion, but it was big enough that it was detected by U.S. satellites and infra-red sensors..that is the only reason the U.S. found out that the Soviets were attempting to build their own moon rocket. The reason we beat the Russians to the moon was that the Saturn V was planned out over a longer period of time and tested sooner than the N1...the N1 was underfunded, and the Soviets did not have the capability to develop an engine as powerful as the F1.
jetfreak4 7 months ago
@jetfreak4
That's true, they had no equivalent to the F1 engine. The N1 booster, IIRC, had a cluster of 30 smaller engines in the main stage. The launch failures they had were the result of several of these engines failing and shutting down, which either caused a fallback, or other damage to the vehicle as it tried to ascend.
ennui2000 7 months ago
Amazingly beautiful, those swing-arms retract right on the tick.
From a scientific viewpoint, Apollo 15 was probably the most brilliant space mission ever flown. We learned more about lunar geology from this one mission than almost all the others put together.
The high-point of my graduate student days was doing one of the first geochemical analyses (thanks to my dissertation advisor) on lunar samples. They are unlike any terrestrial rocks. So much for conspiracy theories...
ennui2000 2 years ago
Amen to that. Maybe we'll have a moon colony yet (foolish as it sounds).
Ahhh....Thank you for pointing that out. I forgot all about the rocks taken back....I think they have a sample at the NASA Ames Center?
At any rate, I see your point...
Just curious though, could you summarize for a layman (I don't know any lingo that scientists use =P ) how they're different? Just wondering.
starwarsfanboy 2 years ago
The elements and chemical compounds are similar of course but the mineralogy is different. Some minerals you expect to see for a given rock type aren't there in any measurable quantities. It all has to do with the early formation., Lack of water on the airless, waterless moon, at least in quantities necessary to make some minerals and rock types.
The rocks ages are also significantly older than any found on Earth. The real dazzler from Apollo 15 was the anorthosite "Genesis Rock".
ennui2000 2 years ago
I think I see what you mean.....thank you for the explanation. =)
Genesis Rock, hmm? So, are these on display anywhere for the public or anything?
starwarsfanboy 2 years ago
There used to be one at the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum that you could touch. There were others parceled out to various museums. I think the Armstrong Museum in Wapakoneta had one for awhile. NJ got some because Aldrin was from there. The others are very, very rare. It is illegal for anyone to have private ownership of lunar materials. There was a bit of a row about that because some dust was collected from astronaut clothing that had some residual lunar soil on it.
ennui2000 2 years ago
Illegal? That's odd......
starwarsfanboy 2 years ago
Regarding display, there was a traveling NASA exhibit I just saw at the Ohio State Fair that had a specimen of lunar rock from Apollo 17 collected by Jack Schmitt.. It was guarded and encased in a clear plexiglass globe so you could get right up close to it and visually inspect it. I recognized it immediately as a lunar sample because of its vesicularity, granularity, and color. Watch for that traveling display in your area.
ennui2000 2 years ago
Oh! That sounds interesting.
Do you know if there's a list out there somewhere of where I can find lunar rock samples? You mentioned that they were all divvied up to various museums......
I'll be on watch though. That traveling exhibit sounds promising.
starwarsfanboy 2 years ago
You can get to the link for the one I saw by going to the main NASA website. I don't think YouTube will allow us to post links directly. There is a Search option on the main NASA page. The exhibit is called Journey To Tomorrow and it is from the Glenn Research Center. There is a video on the webpage.
ennui2000 2 years ago
Another difference is the lunar samples are so much older than those we find on Earth. It's pretty rare to find an Earth rock older than about 3 billion years. The lunar samples commonly had specimens in the 4+ billion year range.
The oldest was the one collected by Jack Schmitt on Apollo 17, at the base of the South Massif in the Taurus-Littrow valley. 4.5 billion years old, about the age of the formation of the planets. That is the real "Genesis Rock" of the Apollo Program.
ennui2000 2 years ago
I see what you mean........but wouldn't we be hard-pressed to find rocks so old anyway, because the Earth tends to recycle rocks over time? (It was something I once learned in science...something like a crack at the bottom of the ocean makes new rock as old rock gets shoved below shore back beneath the Earth.)
Whoa.....did he know the age of the rock (as in did he carry around some tool to measure age?) or was it random selection?
starwarsfanboy 2 years ago
Field geologists are trained to recognize "interesting" specimens at first sight, things like color, texture, etc. Schmitt recognized the specimen as promising based on that, something robots are unlikely to do. He knew where to look, the South Massif of Taurus-Littrow was known to be a likely place for older features.
Yes, terrestrial environments are geologically and climatologically active, which "recycles" crustal materials fairly frequently.
ennui2000 2 years ago
I see....
Thanks again for your time and effort. Your informative comments are very much appreciated. =)
starwarsfanboy 2 years ago
An interesting bit of trivia is that Schmitt came in for repeated reminders from ground controllers who were watching him on the Rover camera to close his helmut visor. He'd always be seen with his EVA visor up to check on the "true" color of specimens. The EVA visor distorts the colors a little (not much, I've looked through one), but just enough to throw things off a little. He wanted to get a pure read on the colors of the samples he was collecting.
ennui2000 2 years ago
Of course with 7.5M lbs of thrust at the party, the swing-arms are either retracting, or going along for the trip!
; )
Neat insight on the geology, thanks.
rockyPants4000 2 years ago 2
What is stunning about this clip is how loud the Saturn V engines still sound long after the rocket has gone out of view.
bubbareese57 2 years ago
Yes, I agree. The power of those engines is truly amazing....
starwarsfanboy 2 years ago
shit quality
Polybun 2 years ago
*shrug*
The video is pretty old.
starwarsfanboy 2 years ago
The Saturn V certainly had the most powerful engines ever built.
elkinsinbox 2 years ago
The conspiracy theorists are ignorance personified. They take the physics as nonsense when it is behind everything we do.
From a Physics Undergrad
andyib632 2 years ago 3
To say the Apollo missions were fake does a huge injustice to Chaffe,Grissom, and White. They gave their lives so we could land on the moon.
Galeati08 2 years ago 22
@Galeati08 amen brothaa..carelessness of apollo 1
gbrunck24 11 months ago
@Galeati08 Not to mention the crew of Apollo 13.
jetfreak4 7 months ago
LOL for you hoaxers ,hire a lawyer and try sueing the government,nasa etc ,for not going to the moon ,ps bring your'e fake eviedence,and be prepare to fail
stormrider62033 2 years ago 3
No Cosmored, they didn't fake it. Maybe you do not understand the technology and engineering that brought men to the moon.
dopje31857 2 years ago
i like america saturn V rocket is a so big and pretty rocket,,,
i dont like ussr russia rocket N1
bestamerica 3 years ago
I like both personally. Saturn V worked and was a supremly impressive piece of engineering, but the N1 looked BIG. Many things are big, but the N1 looked like the monstrous mass of metal it was.
loperspest 2 years ago
The Russians have a proclivity for building things that are big but either not useful or don't work ("Czar Kokolol", "Czar Pushka", "Czar Bomba"). I read somewhere that the first stage of the N1 had a cluster of 30 separate engines. It needed all of them to work to even get to Stage 2. Lots of chances for failure in that. Not to diminsh their achievements, but the Russians have typically chosen the simple, brute-force method over elegance and miniaturization, and in the end it cost them.
ennui2000 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
They faked the moon missions. There's a partial summary of the hoax evidence in post #1 of this thread below.
3W's (dot) rushlimbaughforum (dot) com/never-went-the-moon-t2782 (dot) html
(check link for gaps)
Thanks to the internet people are finally seeing the evidence.
Cosmored 3 years ago
If you knew basic physics and a little bit of the history of American rocketry, you would see things in all of the videos that could not POSSIBLY be faked... and things so subtle that NASA would never bother to include them - if they were fake. It's too bad that you believe America's greatest engineering achievement was a "fake".
rkrupski 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"If you knew basic physics and...achievement was a "fake"."
These general statements don't prove anything. You seem to be trying to sway people who haven't seen the hoax evidence. Once people have seen the evidence, there's nothing you government disinfo agents can do do make them think they really went to the moon.
3W's (dot) rushlimbaughforum (dot) com/never-went-the-moon-t2782 (dot) html
(check link for gaps)
Cosmored 3 years ago
Launch commit usually occurs at the 0.5 second mark. Which basically means commited to launch cannot abort.
elkinsinbox 3 years ago
Ahh, I see.
Maybe they didn't use that back in the time of this launch. I think the space-shuttle is smaller than this, so maybe this could apply to that.
starwarsfanboy 3 years ago
At what point in the countdown does "launch commit" occur and do they use that for the Space Shuttle?
elkinsinbox 3 years ago
I'm sorry, I don't really understand what you mean - do you mean "launch commence"?
And I haven't seen any footage of space shuttle launches, so I wouldn't know.
starwarsfanboy 3 years ago
Launch commit occurs when everything is "ready" for launch (such as all 5 engines are at 95+ percent chamber pressure, all 5 engines are running smoothly, pressures and temperatures are all within spec, etc..)
With the Space Shuttle, many many more parameters are checked by computer and "launch commit" occurs when the computer says "all is OK" and starts the two solid rocket boosters, blows the frangible nuts and allows liftoff.
rkrupski 3 years ago
If all is ok at the T-31 mark in a space shuttle countdown, the shuttle takes over the countdown. Thank you for the info.
elkinsinbox 3 years ago
0:45 0:53 0:58
More stress/vibration free voices of astronots on launch...Something even the shuttle astronauts are incapable...
HMMMM? Try the comparison yourself. Or maybe shake your belly and listen to the sound of your voice...that's a good in your chair demonstration of why Apollonots voices lack the realism of an actual launch. ODD, isn't it?
un4g1v3n1 3 years ago
The shuttle has a much higher acceleration right after liftoff then the Saturn V due to it's massive solid rocket boosters. These solids are also the reason for the vibrations during a shuttle launch.
blablubb12345 3 years ago
watch?v=u8XXKKmE8m0
Really? Why don't you tell that to Neil Armstong then? And while you at it, inform Bill Anders about it as well!
watch?v=dUJhyOZpRuM 3:35 mark...Watch and listen...then get back to me blablubb
un4g1v3n1 3 years ago
Maybe it's just that the sound quality is bad - I myself can't hear any vibration, and on my bad speakers the words are barely understandable. This video overall is old; so maybe the sound isn't what it could have been if it was modern.
starwarsfanboy 3 years ago
The video is a couple seconds ahead of the audio track but still a very nice piece of film. Is this from Spacecraft Films?
RJY4356 3 years ago
Oh, no, I don't know what you're referring to. I got this clip off Wikipedia, and my other space videos too.
starwarsfanboy 3 years ago
Are you on TOTSE with this same username too?
LavaRed1 3 years ago
TOTSE? I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you mean...the Internet is divided into several major groups, and I fall into "noob" for that.
starwarsfanboy 3 years ago
No worries. Its an online community. A well respected regular there uses the same username, so I thought you might be the same person. You don't fall into noob for that.
LavaRed1 3 years ago
Ah, I see. That's interesting.
Well, thank you for clarifying. But unfortunately, if I am not a noob, it still does not make me an experienced person.
starwarsfanboy 3 years ago