Additional 16MM High Quality Footage of Apollo-11

[fertilizerspike]

I love how the hoaxers thought it was necessary to have a bunch of tiny craters all around on the ground to convince people it was the moon, hilarious. What caused all those craters? Where's the falling rocks that supposedly blew them out? Ridiculous.

[YDDES]

@fertilizerspike At the speed most of the meteorites hit the moon, they are vaporized upon impact when the kinetic energy is transformed to heat.

[fertilizerspike]

@YDDES

Hahaha you clearly know nothing of physics, rocks hitting rocks generate negligible heat, if any. Learn some physics before you mouth off about it any further.

[ApolloWasReal]

@fertilizerspike Anything hitting the moon from space must do it over 2.38 km/sec, its escape velocity. Most meteorids and especially comets hit considerably faster, up to 60 km/sec, 2x the earth's orbital speed. At 3 km/s each kg of meteoroid releases as much energy as a kg of TNT, and at 30 km/sec it's 100x! That's hardly "negligible".

[FantasticBob7000]

Great footage, I like how they slowed the 16mm film to normal speed.

Thanks for posting!

[galacticSavior]

I think its funny how commenters on youtube think they're physicists and most of them are just talking out of their asses! Lol.

[rodsky71]

For a full transcript of what they are saying, google the phrase ""have what appear to be vesicles in the surface" and "apollo lunar surface" Buzz begins by saying "The contingency sample is down (that is, Neil has the sampler assembled) and it's (garbled)." and this begins at 109:33:30 MET. His first words were "Okay. That's good." but the film begins in the middle of the "long pause". Note Neil's excited voice on commenting how far he can throw things around the lunar surface at 109:36:08 MET.

[flyingmonkey1001]

I got a Question :o When the Lander is landing how did they get that footage from a Camera On the moon when it was our first time going there? xD

[rodsky71]

@flyingmonkey1001

There was no footage of the LM coming down to the surface while a video/tv/film camera was on the surface of the moon--all the descent footages were all recorded by the 16mm DAC, attached to the LM right window, tilted about 30-40 degrees downward. It's the same type of camera in the video posted above.

[flyingmonkey1001]

@rodsky71 Cool ty :D explains alot xD

[masharcool123]

what a fucking retard, could it be too hard to just jump or walk around? no hes gotta face away from the danm camera!

How long will I need to spend to see him do something?!?

[jigglesnap]

2:20: ..that's what she said

[pt1gard]

another instance where the gold visor isnt necessary

[luiwimmes]

So one needs strong and good computers to stay in the same time frame

We deal with Newton, but also with EINSTEIN .............!

(Different time flow when there are strong gravitational pulls or very high speed)

[ytmoog]

Actually he is correct, neither the Moon nor the Earth have powerful enough gravitational fields for the difference to be significant.

Taking your example of the GPS satellites, there the difference caused by relativity is only about 38 microseconds per day.

For the Apollo missions that kind of difference is just not noticeable.

[luiwimmes]

The American army is full time busy to correct those 28 micro seconds, you mentioned . They need powerfull computers to correct this "small problem of you

If you would drive a car with GPS you could end up in a canyon without those corrections Drs. Stormvloed

[ytmoog]

Yes... but those 38 microseconds are trivially insignificant to missions such as Apollo. Or any of the many space probes which have been sent in the last 50 years.

For those Newtons laws are perfectly sufficient.

[luiwimmes]

@DrBuzz0:

Its not only simple Newtonian physics but also Einsteinian physics.

Do not forget that time runs at a slightly differtent pace out in space than down on Earth, due to the stronger gravitational pull on earth.

If modern omputers would not make Einsteinian corrections for the present used GPS system, it would be totally unusable.

So I have to correct you with all due respect.

[dopje31857]

Navyseal; yes, it was quite a job! One of the most commonly quoted 'facts' quoted about 60's technology is that "a modern washing machine has more computational power than the first lander."

This is a questionable fact, but it hardly matters. It's amazing what you can achieve with primitive computers if you're not worried about fancy user interfaces. Also, most of what had to be computed in the missions was done on earth and radioed up. Not everything had to be carried on board.

[jcgmed]

Is pretty patetic see how moon hoaxers cant find precise info to support their theories using computing resources too much powerful than all the Apollo missions merged together a billion times.

[navysealblackwater]

And what about the limitations of 1960's technology? Almost 40 years ago, with combined CSM and LM guidance computer memory totaling only 10.3% [ 152kb] of a common 1.4MB [1474.56kb] floppy disk, NASA claims to have gone 59,900% farther than any other manned spacecraft has gone before or since and made many a safe landing on the moon?

[DrBuzz0]

Powerful computers are unnecessary to fly to the moon. It's just simple newtonian physics to land on the moon. Basic algebra with limited variables. The computers did not need to do what today's computers do (generate a graphic interface, run a TCP/IP stack, manage multiple input and output adapters.)

It just needed to solve basic physics equations.

[AnnieMouse60]

Also a couple of mainframes at NASA did much the heavy work and transmitted results to the onboard computer.

[vomisacaasi]

@DrBuzz0 Exactly.  They could have gone to the Moon using slide rule. It just would have taken a lot longer.

[ApolloWasReal]

@DrBuzz0 Fairly powerful computers were still required to plan maneuvers, but they were all on the ground. A set of IBM 360 mainframes in Houston made up the Real Time Computing Complex. The results were read orally up to the crew, who wrote them down.

The onboard computing tasks were kept fairly simple. The most important ones were a digital autopilot and the periodic updating of the spacecraft state vector. Both are solving fairly basic physics equations without a lot of iteration.

[guitarplayer4real]

Great footage BTW, thanks for this.

[nathanielscott]

Thanks for sharring and explaining about the 12 frames per second.

Could you tell me what DAC stands for?

Also, do you know what camera specifically that was being used? Who the manufacturer was?

[guitarplayer4real]

DAC=Data Acquisition Camera.

Just the technical term for the motion camera. There were other cameras with other designations but I believe only the motion picture taker was called the DAC?! Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

[DrBuzz0]

Yes, that was the only film motion picture camera, but later Apollo missions used a better television camera system that provided high quality full color video.

That was video though not film.

[ApolloWasReal]

@nathanielscott DAC = Data Acquisition Camera. Made by Maurer, I believe. It's just a fancy name for a 16mm movie camera with a selection of frame rates. Apollo often ran below the standard 24 fps to conserve film. It was a completely different era before modern digital cameras the size of key fobs that can store hours of HDTV on a card the size of a fingernail.

That's one of the reasons I'd love to go back, to see it all again but with modern cameras and communications.

[mainframe1981]

Really very impressive! Thanks a lot for showing this on your channel.

[Anthrax4000]

Also, i'm surprised the conspiracy theorists aren't swarming this video already.

[Anthrax4000]

It's still very intriguing to watch this old footage.