Apollo 16 landing

[joe744]

this aint fake happen april 1972..same other 5 landings

[LindaStevensBZ]

AMAZING FEAT!

The LEM is THE flying machine.

[yesiamawizardjonny]

Everyone shit talks the shadow of the LEM. It looks alright to me compared to shadows I've seen on the moon. You are all just a bunch of hoaxers.

[gardenchair]

"Descartes highlands" Love it. I wonder if they found the great man up there still in his oven cogitating away :)

[MrTrescojones]

Said it on related videos, but the fact anyone, anywhere, with a powerful laser and detector of the same wavelength, and a telescope to aim them at one of the 'claimed' landing sites, can bounce an optical pulse off the moon. This is pretty much unfakeable and implies that right angle prism arrays must actually be there as claimed. That in turn means the technology to put them there must work.

[bullshitdetective1]

@MrTrescojones they can send robot deflectors to make out we landed!!!!!!

[MrTrescojones]

@bullshitdetective1  The russian soft landers carried prism arrays and indeed did what you describe , the lunakhod rover lander wheighed 2.4 tonnes, the russian manned lander that was tested in earth orbit wheighed 3 and used the same engines and radar.

I think people get hung up on the idea that a payload is fundamentally different if its human,but its just about the math; rates and amounts.

[jetfreak4]

Would love to have experienced that feeling of having landed on the moon. Young and Duke must have felt like their lives peaked at that point.

[roamingcroat]

@NASAvsPETE Last I checked, I'm not the guy at NASA Marshall who handles FOIA requests. You are more than welcome to file one with NASA, though, asking for copies of the microfilm. You might run into some ITAR problems, and I'm not sure FOIA requests can even be filed by non-citizens, so maybe you could find an American to do it for you, although in that case, I'm not sure how ITAR issues would pan out.

[roamingcroat]

@NASAvsPETE The blueprints aren't missing. They're on microfilm at Marshall. That's the third time I've told you that...

If you were actually following Ares development, you wouldn't have to believe anything - you'd find out that the difficulties were with heavy lifting and had nothing to do with radiation shielding. Obama didn't just cancel the Moon - he cancelled the rockets. If Ares I was feasable, he could have kept that and just cancelled Ares 5/Altair.

You're quite simply wrong.

[roamingcroat]

@NASAvsPETE Right, well, ignoring the silliness, Ares was underfunded from the word go, and it was plagued with technical problems because of the constraints of the design. Ares I couldn't lift Orion into orbit on its own - Orion had to use its own engine to get itself into orbit. The Ares V then had to pick up Ares I's slack, causing its design to balloon. Add required 5-segment boosters and the Ares system was unworkable by 2009. So it was cancelled and replaced with another design-by-politics

[roamingcroat]

@NASAvsPETE That's quite a way to go from "the blueprints are saved on microfilm at NASA Marshall."

The design of Ares I/Ares V was largely political - it attempted to keep jobs where they had always been. Hence the use of solids. It was also an attempt to minimize design costs, but that proved not to be the case. It doesn't say anything about the Saturn V. At all. The fact is, the shuttle system has the same lifting capabilities as the Saturn V and NASA has more experience with it than Saturn.

[roamingcroat]

@NASAvsPETE For one, that's a bit of an anachronism. The Saturn V blueprints would be physical drawings and not stored on magnetic tape. This was before the days of CAD (though I think CAD was starting to show up towards the middle of the 70s...). But it's mostly because the blueprints are on microfilm at Marshall Space Flight Center. I've even read that there's some consideration being given to using the F-1 on a future heavy lifter. The biggest problem is the lack of COTS parts.

[roamingcroat]

@NASAvsPETE Indeed, the same fundamentals, but it's not the fundamentals that get you. Rocket science is easy; rocket engineering is the hard part. The N-1 had 30 engines on its first stage. Any way you look at it, that'll take quite a feat of engineering to get right. The radiation problem was hardly considered insurmountable. The design of their LK lander and the Lunar Soyuz should be evidence enough that conspiracy theorists blow Soviet radiation concerns way out of proportion.

[roamingcroat]

@NASAvsPETE Perhaps I should have specified manned Lunar program. The N-1 was the heavy lifter needed to land a manned vehicle on the Moon. The robotic probes, significantly lighter and smaller, were launched on an existing vehicles of much less lifting capability (the Proton K).

[roamingcroat]

@NASAvsPETE You're quite right I wouldn't. But I rather like space exploration. I also would have funded an Apollo flyby of Venus, as well as more Lunar missions. The Soviets decided that the N-1 was unworkable and focused on putting up space stations. So be it. They had developed a lander and an orbiter for a Moon mission - that should be evidence enough that they didn't think it was impossible. The failure of the N-1 is what killed their Lunar program.

[roamingcroat]

@NASAvsPETE But this brings up the interesting question: what robotic missions went to the Moon? Who built them? Who launched them? What happened to the LM if it didn't go to the Moon? And so on.

The USSR never sent men to the Moon because they couldn't get the N-1 to work. It was a bit of a money pit, and had 4 unsuccessful launches. Curiously, the Soviets never claimed landing on the Moon was impossible, and they had an active Lunar program. That proves the opposite of what you think.

[roamingcroat]

@NASAvsPETE Backtracked? You said you thought the camera should have been unmounted to show the Moon and the inside of the LM. Well, it makes no practical difference if they're on the ground or in orbit - if they've made it to Lunar orbit, that pretty much makes the conspiracy a moot point. Which is why I asked the questions - because I wanted to know what you wanted to see. Apparently, the altitude of the filming makes a difference in your pet theory, so the film that came to mind is right out.

[roamingcroat]

@NASAvsPETE Ah, see, I'm glad we did this. On the ground. That's an important bit. See, if you also allowed for shots on orbit, I'd have something for you. But if you insist on film from the ground, well, I don't know of any off hand.

[roamingcroat]

@NASAvsPETE Aside from that, is that what you want in 16mm film? Properly focused signs of activity in the LM with the properly focused Lunar surface?

If not, could you elaborate what you'd want to see of the interior of the LM?

[roamingcroat]

@NASAvsPETE No, I was talking about the Hassleblad still photos. While I'm sure they could get the necessary depth of field with a high f-number, that'd require a long exposure to properly expose the photo in the dim interior. And that could possibly add motion blur. A low f-number would, of course, allow for a shorter exposure, but either the interior or the exterior would be out of focus. And I'm sure you understand why both inside and outside can't be properly exposed, right?

[roamingcroat]

@NASAvsPETE I would hope the astronauts would have difficult focusing both on the interior of the LM and the surface of the Moon - one is 2-3 feet away, while the other extedns to infinity. Meanwhile, the interior of the LM is dimly lit while the exterior is very bright. A still photograph that properly exposes the interior would have to have an overexposed Lunar surface.

But, back to the 16mm. Just to clarify, you'd like to see the Lunar surface with clear indications of activity in the LM?

[roamingcroat]

@NASAvsPETE Would it make a difference? Apparently the still photos don't convince you. Why would 16mm film make a difference?

I'd really like that question answered before we move on.

[roamingcroat]

@NASAvsPETE Would it make a lick of difference to you if there was 16mm film footage that showed both the Moon at close range and activity within the LM? Would you suddenly say it wasn't a hoax if such footage existed?

How about still photographs of the Lunar surface and an astronaut inside the LM? Would that be convincing to you? Or does it have to be film?

[roamingcroat]

@NASAvsPETE Do you suppose that that might be because they were rather busy, you know, landing the damn thing?

Not to mention the whole point of filming the landing was to film the landing, not film the cockpit procedures.

[roamingcroat]

@NASAvsPETE And I'm an aerospace engineer. On an airplane, a yaw is, of course, effected by the airflow. With the LM, as with an airplane, a rotation about the vertical axis is a yaw. Your "definition" was never given. You only said "rotation" which could be about any of the axes. That you were talking about a yaw was an assumption on my part, but it was never explicitly stated by you. If you don't want to say "yaw," you'll have to say about which axis the rotation is.

I await your video.

[roamingcroat]

@NASAvsPETE Yaw describes the rotation about the LM's X-axis, roll is rotation about the LM's Z-axis and pitch is rotation about the LM's Y-axis. There are three axes about which it could rotate, so if you say there was a rotation, it's important to say what sort of rotation it was. Yaw does not depend on airflow.

Now, you say the LM yaws. Yes, it does, a few degrees. But not enough for the shadow to disappear from the camera's field of view.

[roamingcroat]

@NASAvsPETE It rotates to land? Do you mean to say that, on landing, it would yaw to anywhere from -90 to +90 degrees? Because it doesn't do that. And if you mean something other than a yaw, well, that won't change the shadow's position within the field of view of the camera.

All the Apollo missions came in heading roughly west during the local morning. All the shadows would, therefore, be roughly in the +Z direction in the lander's coordinate system.

[roamingcroat]

@NASAvsPETE "in all cases the front end of the craft has a 150 out of 180 Degree (83%) possibility of not seeing any shadow from the one and only camera onboard"

How did you come to that conclusion?

[Tweekerhead]

@NASAvsPETE You are absolfuckinlutely wrong!

I've' watched every single one of these landings and THEY ARE ALL DIFFERENT! Not one of them are the same. Where are you gettin' this?

Quit propagating nonsense. ..Propagandist. You need to start being honest with yourself...first.

Research, quit relying on Jarrah to do the thinking for you.

[Tweekerhead]

@NASAvsPETE You're wrong, absolutely wrong. Why do you guys make up so much crap? Is your position that weak that you have to make stuff up to prop up your claims?

[Tweekerhead]

@NASAvsPETE  Where do you get that? This looks totally different, like all the other landings.

You're making stuff up. Why?

[miamiboy74]

PROJECTO CHINO TO THE MOON

[gijsshu]

What's that at 2.54 , looking through the bottom of the window?

[galoon]

@gijsshu It looks like a pretty good-sized boulder.

[fotistis]

@gijsshu if u look little uper u will see that is a lion :p

[Funkstar124]

For anyone who hasn't read it yet, read the book "moon Dust" by Andrew Smith. It's probably the latest interviews with 9 of the 12 moonwalkers left. It's quite funny and gives more of an insight into their personalities and lives leading up to the Gemini and apollo missions. Excellent stuff to see this footage. Thanks for posting and I can't waiti till they do start new missions to the moon.

[Beamshipcaptain]

We found more than enough water recently to make lunar colonies feasible. We are going back. I remember all the manned and unmanned space missions from 1964 onward, and It was glorious. I am proud to be an American!. And a citizen of a planet that produces such brave and intelligent men, hurling theri bodies into the void of interplaetary space. Way cool.

[oceanofstorms123]

something to do wiv the camra i guess....

[pt1gard]

anyone know why the upper part of right window gets bigger and smaller?

[Mechadino]

If you are refering to the black area that is simply space. The window stays the same. The lunar horizon is sharply defined as of course there is no atmosphere.

[Rob260259]

hahaha

here I see where you come from Pt1

My god... . ..

[rukieishere]

thats the horizon

[zorbazig]

Awesome ! They got nerves ! I remember spending an evening with Charlie Duke in Switzerland, some 11 years ago... One of the great moments of my life !

[starbabe58]

awsome

[fergaloc]

Amazing we did this in the late 60's and early 70's. Depressing we haven't been back.

[cirurginn]

but we're going back!, I hope they film all in HD... and take shots of the Apollo 11 site so the retards who still doesn't believe we've been on the moon just shut their f* mouth hole :P

[yourboycal]

@cirurginn WEre not going back cupcake. Obama cut funding to the Project. Nasa said they were way behind anyway . it would've taken atleast 2030's to get to moon again =p Why? Who knows many reasons. But the point is we landed at the moon already 1969 right :D all that matters

[svecter]

@cirurginn .. goin' bak huh?

Like nasa and Apollo youre full of it

[myrtlebox]

@cirurginn Are you kidding me? They won't believe any future missions either.

If you strapped them in the rocket and forced them to go, they would be in denial the entire trip (You just gave me LSD and now I'm halucinating). These people are total losers and will sadly never understand many things in life.

[yesiamawizardjonny]

@cirurginn Yeah it sucks. They canceled the program.

[dynawics]

@cirurginn actually we arent going back- obama shut it down