We went to the moon. Stop being a bunch on immature faggots spreading lies. You have no understandable proof showing we didnt, only speculation that is easily debunked.
@Alexvideoclip No, they didn't land on the Moon with an astronaut training vehicle with a turbojet engine. They landed on the Moon with lunar landers with rocket engines.
The two kinds of vehicles weren't even designed and built by the same company.
@marshalllucky It's not "van halen", it's "van Allen". And no, they don't fry people (or equipment) passing through them. Study science instead of buying what the hoax-sellers say.
Reporter "Has been any pressure on you by NASA..?"
T.Baron "er-mm no er-mm we were ,my wife and I,were somewhat harassed at home when this thing first broke, some time back ,but it ..er-mm it's gone away now"..
But a week after this interview the health and safety expert who researched the Apollo 1 deaths Baron above, was found dead with his family in a "train accident" ..! NASA have killed many more people to keep their moon scam alive
If the missions truly were faked don't you guys think NASA would of performed one serious editing job on the films before releasing them. With the reputation of our country at stake, don't you hoaxers think they would have taken the time to edit out things like errant shadows, fake suns, wires and all the other things you claim are visible on the films. Hahaha...why would they leave all those mistakes for you boneheads to find. They don't call them rocket scientists for nothing
nasa went to the moon. lol. but just recently found out launching a rocket full of people in freezing tempatures with giant icecylcles hanging from the rocket.. could be a bad move. weve deffinatly not lerned much in 40 years. seems we had it going on . then took major jumps backwards.. thats why things dont add up..
funny how dumb ass mythbuster put the same suit on and rode the vomit commit and had no problem bouncing around and walking and they DIDNT GET TO PRACTICE.. yet our best astrounauts have trouble... yea. ok.
Neil Armstrong was the bravest and held on the longest ----- that is why he was selected as commander. He never successfully landed such a craft on Earth, yet we are supposed to believe he landed on the moon ? Further, other test pilots have crashed this thing.
Why would you call this fake? Honestly, you know nothing about what you're calling a hoax. This was used to train astronauts, there was already another version on cables. One blew up in the air with neil armstrong on it, almost killing him. He had to jump out and parachute down. Why would they fake that? Honestly, you show your stupidity when you call something fake in a way that you clearly don't know what it even is.
@TheOnlineCommunity thats what i said moron... they cant get shit right here on earth.. but thousands of miles out in space everything goes to perfection.. and they practiced walking and jumping in moon gravity hundreds of times before they went yet when they get their they fall around like idiots. plus they only weigh 60 pounds gear and all on the moon.. these are phisically fit men... they should have no problem handleing their 60 pounds of weight
@TheOnlineCommunity ok they said we went their on the computing power of a modern wrist watch... were far past that now.. we clearly have a space program.. far superior than 40 years ago.. right. whats the hold up you cant go to mars if you cant go to the moon..space is space.. or has it changed since the last time they went.. 6 times might i add come and go at will.. now they gotta think on though.. lol.
If I might give a little answer to WHY we haven't gone to the Moon for the last 40 years: Money. The majority of the taxpayers are not willing to spend their money on moonflights. So, the politicians won't give NASA the needed money. It's just as simple. That,s also why the planned Apollo 18 and 19 never were launched.
@tinman842 By today's safety standards, the Apollo program was extremely ambitious, extremely dangerous, and didn't go completely as planned most of the time. Today, nothing short of perfection is acceptable when it comes to space flight. There's no political pressure forcing us to put a man on mars anytime soon. In short, things were way different back then. It HAS indeed changed since the last time they went.
Interesting point about political pressure ...... both the shuttle disasters were a direct result of political pressure. In the Apollo days if an engineer said something was not safe the project stopped while his concerns were investigated. (Challenger booster seal).
If they suspected a spacecraft was too damaged to return they would not have done nothing and kept their fingers crossed (Columbia ice damage)
They could do NOTHING about Columbia. There was no way to repair the "possible" damage. There was no way to get another Shuttle up in time before the oxygen tanks were empty. And with Columbias orbit there was no possiblity to reach the Spacestation. With Challanger it was an whole other story. It shouldn't have lifted off during those conditions.
Sorry but I cannot accept what you say. They would have had enough life support for about 14 days. That would have been plenty of time to set up some kind of rescue mission using the Russian supply rockets used for the ISS, if not to return the crew at least extend the life support time until another shuttle could reach them.
@tpsossff Maybe, just maybe. If the Russians could have readied a Progress (or Soyus) in that time. They are not just standing by, ready to fire at any moment, You know. And if they could have transferred supplies in an EVA, because the Progress can't dock to a Shuttle. And, it would have taken two Shuttle starts to bring back all seven astronauts, because there is only room for seven people.
With Columbia they simply did not know the shuttle was damaged that badly there have been foam liberation events before but they never did serious damage.
If they did know how bad it was they could have a rescued the crew as they once launched consecutive shuttle missions 12 days apart.
In a dire emergency they could have one ready in as little as a week.
As for bringing back the crew they would only need one shuttle they can install extra seats in the mid deck if a rescue was needed.
@Membrane556 Well, are You sure they cold have had another shuttle ready in just one week? And, are they prepared in advance, so extra seats can be installed? I'm not saying You are wrong, just wondering if You have any information about the matters.
There was another shuttle being stacked in the VAB at the time and in theory they could have had it ready if the processing crew pulled double shifts.
This was from an account I heard from someone who worked on the shuttle program talking about the accident on TV they really had no idea something was wrong until reentry.
If they did they could have at the very least altered the reentry profile to avoid stress on that wing which may have given them a chance.
Had it been the NASA of decades ago they would have saved them. But they were simply not that organised to make sure flight ready shuttles overlapped ... such is what happens when accountants take control. They knew the wing was probably damaged but no one was going to have the courage to speak out.
The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera, or LROC, was able to image five of the six Apollo sites, with the remaining Apollo 12 site expected to be photographed in the coming weeks. Future LROC images from these sites will have two to three times greater resolution.
Sorry conspiracy theory losers, you're 15 minutes of fame are up!
Synth: I wish it was that simple, but the real conspiracy obsessives will just do what they did with the 'face on mars' scenario and claim NASA faked the LRO images too. In other words rather than give up the conspiracy theories, they will just broaden them to try to invalidate whatever proof is shown them. It's a sad fact of how paranoia works.
You're right unfortunately. I have given up trying to talk any sense into any of them as it's seems clear from some of the ranting nonsense that they post that there is some serious mental illness involved in many of the hoax believers. The rest of the people who claim we never landed on the moon are trolls looking to inflame or people who are just trying to sell a book or dvd.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I saw those images. They are just tiny black specks. It looks like any picture of the moon's surface. Further, they claim the dark spots are made by the LM pushing away moon dust as it landed, but all other photos show no disturbance whatsoever, not even a speck of dust on the pads.
well looka here it's a video of Neal Armstrong in the LLRV which mooninqueerer says doesn't exist....and here's another big piece of humble pie for you, with humble ice cream and humble sauce and a big second helping of humble on the side. Next month when the Lunar orbiting camera takes pictures 3+ times better for clear pictures of the "specks" you say mean nothing, you can have an overdose of humble pie and die. Or you can just claim they're fake too and keep taking it up the ass.
Well, this video does not show him land. AND, it is a FAN turbojet, not a rocket. A propeller airplane is not going to work on the moon, and neither is a jet. The LM had a ROCKET engine. Further, the LM was much more narrow, and had to overcome lateral motion, that this LLRV does not, AND carry much, much more weight. ( Later, the LM suposedly carried a lunar rover, tools, and extra batteries, plus oxygen for three days. )
More humble pie coming your way stupid. The LLRV had a turbojet for climbing but was cut to 5/6 power to simulate moon gravity and ROCKET engines were used to land and manuever. Fucking....Rockets......enjoy your slice, you getting full yet?
Of course you don't "see it here" and you won't look it up because it will upset your moontard mind when you find out that ONCE AGAIN you're wrong. I'm not addressing any more of your points because every time you get proven wrong, you slither away with more bullshit. It's like trying to nail down a strand of spaghetti. Argue with someone else I'm done wasting time on you, enjoy your slice. Again.
@musicbruv Because of the CONTRADICTION. NASA and Phil Plait make a very big case that what we see on those photos ( the recent satellites images purportedly of the landing sites ) is the moon dust having been pushed out over a large area. But we see no disturbance whatsoever in any of the photos brought back to Earth from men on the moon.
Pictures taken from a height will always show better detail than pics taken close up, and I have seen pics of dust that has been disturbed with streaks eminating outwards from the centre line of the engine, while they may no be as noticable from the ground, shots taken from higher up will show it. if you look at the video of Niel landing the LEM you will see the dust blowing outwards.
@musicbruv Yeah, Buzz Aldrin says, "kicking up some dust." like he is so bored. That was the first time he or Neil were in any such landing craft, and faced certain death. That was so unrealistic. Later on, Buzz goes along with spinning a tall tale about how they almost didn't make it because they were running out of fuel.
But am talking about the very sharp still pictures of the LEM. There isn't even a speck of dust on the pads.
Please answer these, what sort of camera setting would you need to take a picture of fine dust particles, and why would you expect dust on them? the dust would not swirl around then settle it would be blown outward away from the lander. and the Buzz saying they almost ran out of fuel proves what?
I was tangentially taking a "pop shot" at Buzz. Anyhow, it shows yet another contradiction. Buzz participates in a NASA storyline that there was an intense life or death drama ----- to really up the ante. It already was a life or death drama, because they had never flown in such a craft. When you are facing certain death, you do not care about being the announcer, much less in such a boring manner. And Buzz says , " KICKING UP some dust."
These men were chosen to go to the moon because they had the "right stuff" kicking up dust may sound boring but shows they were close to landing which must be a relief, further he was relaying this info to Neil who was concentrating on flying, they were highly trained men doing what they were trained to do, what's wrong with that?
@musicbruv Buzz gave NO indication of that relief. It was a totally unrealistic narration. They might have been highly trained, but NOT on any type of rocket lander, so they were NOT doing what they were trained to do. They went cold turkey into this venture, with no assurances of a chance of success.
Buzz's rendition of the Apollo 11 event, with over-the-top stories about his plunging a pen into a circuit breaker at the last minute, to heart pounding percussive music........
I dont know what your real point is, these men are not going to start panicing because things are not going according to plan that would be un-professional they have to stay calm, as for the lander they spent time in a simulator learning the controls and if the lander was well designed any competant pilot would be able to fly it, how do you think the first helecopter pilot manged not to kill himself? And so they had no assurance of success! they knew that, again what is your point?
I agree with musicbruv - these guys were not picked because of their thrilling narration or voiceover, they were chosen for their ability to remain cool under extra-ordinary conditions. Like Jake Sullenberger who landed that jet in the Hudson - he's facing certain disaster, but he's an icicle - that's the kind of right stuff we're talking about.
@musicbruv whats wrong is here on earth they cant get shit right.. they crash this thing everytime they use it.. everytime the climb in the rocket for blastoff something goes wrong and they abort.. now all of a sudden everything works perfect perfect amount of fuel no mistakes no mishaps go back n forth six times no mishaps . but today we can barely get to the space station without killing someone... nasa neeed another seven astronauts...
Sorry to say this but you are bullshitting, there were nearly 800 flights of the LLVR, there was only a couple of crashes so it was not everytime was it? and what is all this about barely go to the space station without killing someone, there has been over 100 shuttle launches with 2 accidents so once again your accusation is wrong! but I guess that is all you have to back your belief, pretty pathetic dont you think?
Did You really think that EVERY flight of the LLVR should be up here on Youtube? Or, from where have You got the impression that "every time...something goes wrong"? Also, there WAS a mishap during the Moon-landings. Remember Apollo 13? And, as others have told You here: Well over 100 Shuttle-flights, and 2 accidents... Please try to be honest yourself, if You are going to accuse people of lying...
@mooninquirer yea hes say their almost outta fuel.. but their is plent to get back up and rendevous with another craft going tenthousand plus miles and hour... lol yea. ok get fkn real nasa..
LOL more crap from you, the descent stage was low on full, the ascent stage had its own engine and fuel tank, and what is the problem of docking with another craft doing thousands of miles per hour? shuttle does it all the time with the ISS, speed is relative. you are the one who needs to "get real"
@musicbruv shuttle does it with two huge rockets attached ... not little propane bottles. if it doesnt make it it falls back to earth... thats the diff. the carried the exact amount to decent... so they carried exact amount to accent too no mistakes... they made a mistake on decent had to overide auto pilot.like i said everything goes perfectly for all six missions but when they get out of spaceship they all bumble around like idiot droping everything and triping.. didnt they practice
Are you for real? the Shuttle weighed440,000 lbs, the lunar ascent stage weighed 10,000lbs, shuttle had to reach about 200 miles, the Lunar ascent module had to go about 60 miles, the Shuttle had to contend with 1g of gravity and the Lunar ascent module had only 1/6 g, shuttle orbit speed 18,000 mph, Lunar orbit speed 3,500 mph, the shuttle had air resistance to overcome the Lunar ascent stage did not, the rest of your comment is equaly stupid and not worth the effort of replying.
@musicbruv LLRV used compressed air to reach moon's escape Velocity? 6,720km/ph? So we might as well use a bunch of Vacuum cleaners and go to the moon. I don't know what technology they used and I do not doubt the moon landing, but in order for the maths to work you need something to reduce 5/6ths of the weight of that vehicle.
"Bumble around like idiot droping everything and triping"... Is THAT an evidence for men not being on the Moon, fto You? It's, of course, hard to practice the exact manuevers here on Earth, because of the big difference in gravity. I wonder how well YOU would do in a clumsy spacesuit on an uneven ground in a gravity You are not familiar with...
If You want to accuse the astronauts of lying, You'll have to come up with something better...
@YDDES funny how the camera looking out upon landing show giant dust cloud and neil even says were kicking up dust.. yet once they show the lander sitting on the surface.. not one spec. on the pads or anywhere on the lander.. the dust uder the lander hasnt been disturbed either.. then when they blast off from the moon debris and dust fly off in every direction....
Yes, the dust flies AWAY from the lander. The particles move in ballistic trajectories. Due to the vacuum on the Moon, the dust doesn't billow around and hang in the air, so it wouldn,t settle on the lander. And, how can You be so sure that the dust under the lander hasn't been disturbed? You don't know how much dust there was before the landing. Also, do You admit that You was wrong, saying that they crashed the LLRV almost every time?
Well, it can be OK to exaggerate a bit sometime, but perhaps not so much if you accuse thousands of people, including all American astronauts of being simple liers...
@YDDES they dont pactice on earth einstein.. its called the vomit comet.. its a airplane that makes a series of dives.. that EXACTLY REPLICATE moons gravity.. and they practice hundreds of walks prior to their television debut..or are you saying they werent smart enough to think of the vomit comit back then and they simply fueled the rocket up and went to the moon on hope that their right... lol..
The Vomit Comet can only simulate zero gravity for less than a halv minute at a time, and they didn't have an artificial lunar landscape onboard... So, practicing walk on the uneven lunar surface wasn't so easy as You might think. Also, just as with the LLRV, only the mishaps are up here on these clips, not all the hours when everything went well.
@mooninquirer What is the difference between a rocket and a jet? they both burn fuel and produce thrust from that combustion, as does a piston engine driving a propeller, and what is the problem with overcoming lateral motion?
The LM on Apollo 17 landed pretty smoothly at at just over two feet per second. The landing you are thinking of where there was a violent jolt was Apollo 15, where the engine was shutdown with the rear landing stantions over a dinner dish shaped crater. This was a pretty rough landing, but I can assure you that you can indeed see camera motion in it, not to mention that jarring impact.
You hoax people shock me. I deplore your abuse of science and recycling of debunked arguements.
1) The LLRV was flown numerous times and landed successfully.
2) The flight dynamics of the LLRV turned out to be markedly different from those of the LM, the LM being a far easier vehicle to handle that can be flown with great precision and stability.
So what? You're talking about a vehicle that was never used on the moon and had questionable if any benefits in training astronauts to land on the moon.
No Lunar Module ever experienced any catastrophic failure, and no LM ever came anywhere near to crashing... The LLTV and LLRV were nothing like the LM which operated in a vacuum at 1/6 gravity and did not have any wires, pulleys or turbo fan engines attached to it...
I agree with you there... Personally I would not have included that vehicle in the training regimen... I think the risks inherent to it far outweighed any benefit gained from flying it...
The only purpose of the LLTV was to be a training vehicle to give an astronaut real hands-on experience with the flight dynamics of the LM. While that jet engine's thrust allowed the craft to hover, the pilot was able to experience maintaining vertical stability by controlling reaction control thrusters with a joy stick. This was never meant to be a prototype of anything. It was a training simulator.
It's pretty likely that I'm the only person on this board trained to fly an LM to NASA Spec, and as such I can assure that the LLRV wasn't even a good simulator of the LM.
The LM in PNGS ATT HOLD mode running P66 was so stable that you could hover it 10 feet off flat ground, take your hands off the controls, look away from the window and the instruments, smoke a cigarette down to the stump, and be confident that you would still be sitting wings level at 10 feet when you were finished.
The reason for this is that the LM was stabilised by a computer that automatically fired the RCS jets if a certain deadband that could be set to .5 degrees or 5 degrees was breached. The visible phase of the landings were performed on minimum deadband, so you might feel a bit of wallowing as the guidance system hunted, but that sucker was one of the most stable flying machines ever built. This is partly because, as you pointed out, there was no aerodynamic stress on it.
thetrueprometheus... Is this also the cause of the visible oscillation in the LM DAC window view of the ascent from the Moon... the guidance system hunting for vertical? I've always wondered.
The LM flight to orbit was initiated vertically, and then it pitched over to 305 degrees (55 degrees forward of vertical) because the LM required a velocity of 5000 feet per second to insert into Lunar Orbit at around 49000 feet. They then used reaction control jets to fine tune the velocity and station hold with the Command Module.
Descendents of these types of machine do exist. They are called the Harrier and LockMar's Joint Strike Fighter, both of which hover on a column of jet turbine thrust, but with much better reliability and safety than that roaring, spitting deathtrap you see in the video.
The LLTV was an extremely unstable aircraft, and I use the term aircraft VERY loosely. But since was way before modern simulators, this was the best there was at the time. Of the 4 that were built, 3 crashed. Not a good record.
The dust was scattered by the descent engine, but there was no large blast crater gouged out of the rock underneath the dust. That is consistant with what one would expect to occur in this scenario.
thetrueprometheus... The LLTV had an air breathing jet engine thrusting against 1G of Earth gravity to hover in a 14 psi atmosphere. The LM was thrusting at throttled down power against 1/6 G at the bottom of its trajectory, having consumed most of its fuel and in a vacuum atmosphere. Those are some significant differences.
If you watch a helicopter or harrier jet landing, which require 6 times more thrust per pound of mass to hover than the LM, they do not blast the ground to bits and clear the entire area around them of dust. That is becuase the downthrust is focused on a point. On the LM this is the case as well. the engine bell focused the downthrust in a highly directional way...
That's in direct contradiction to the explanation of others. They say that the vacuum caused the thrust energy to spread out immediately after it left the nozzle.
Helis and Harriers try to land on runways.
When helis DO land on sand, LOTS of it gets blasted away.
Moon is 1/6th gravity, SIX times more would be blasted away.
"When helis DO land on sand, LOTS of it gets blasted away."
True but they don't deform a wide radius of ground as you seem to think the LM should. The LM did accelerate ten micron dust particles to near lunar escape velocity, but small rocks were only moved a few feet.
"Moon dust/soil undistrubed from the descent rocket's blast. ??? Enough left over to make footprints ??
THINK."
Okay, I've thought. Yes enough left over to make footprints. It is quite impossible for the exhaust gases to displace any dust that they had no physical contact with and in the last 100 feet when the dust was displaced the LM's lateral velocities were small. The astronauts on all the missions walked (or drove)well away from the LM. BTW, surveyor3 was sandblasted by displaced dust.
Funny how slow the LEM simulator "blasted off" from Earth, despite having a jet engine to negate 5/6ths of Earth gravity. LEM on the "moon" blasted off without accelleration of mass, just max speed in 1/10th of a second. Without rocket flame, of course.
What do you think this aircraft and the simulators were for? He had plenty of practice. Yes, it would be impossible, for an average joe. But that's why NASA picks the best, and then put them through years of training. Do you think they spend all that time eating twinkies and sipping tang?
And, taking off hovering and then landing in NO way simulates an actual moon landing. The perfect mockup would have to be dropped from a height and the engine would have to be the only means of arresting the drop to a soft landing. Only THAT would give the pilot adequate training.
Ever see the simulators? They are basically video games. They would have a camera movie over a model of the moon, in sync with the controls of the simulate. this would be played on rear projection screen in front of the "windows". And it could simulate what you said. These men were trained, they weren't just thrown in a tin can and told "Go to the moon." What makes you an expert on the amount of training it would take to get to the moon? Please tell us.
I'm just as qualified as you are. Both of us have a good sense of logic. The difference is that I'm sceptical because to me, it doesn't make sense. I WANT to believe, it's a nice story, man on the moon but there are just too many oddities.
Your right. I am no pilot. But expert opinion agrees with me. The people who agree with you sell Dvd's with public domain 'never before seen footage' Also there are 3 reasons the LM on landing doesn't produce as much dust.1 less thrust needed in the weaker gravity.2 there is less dust to throw around, the layer of dust on the moon was only a few inches deep,underneath was a much more compact surface.3 no air on the moon, so that only dust disturbed by the directly by the exhaust would blow away.
Only in an atmosphere my friend. The thrust was directed straight down, and since with no air to carry a shock wave to disturb dust further away, and to help float it, like a feather in air, only the dust right under the nozzle was affected. Check out this websites for an expert opinion. Just copy it into you address bar and remove the spaces clavius . org / techcrater . html
I promise to look at any website you refer me to in good faith.
Other arguments say that because of no air, the blast is immediately spread out, dispersed, as it leaves the nozzle. You say because of no air the blast is straight down.
Both are used to explain why little moon dust was displaced.
What makes sense here only, is that the LM was placed on an artificial surface.
No one is saying it immediately dispersed, just much, much more rapidly in a vacuum. There would be a central cone of gas with the gas around the edges rapidly dispersing before the canter. And we 'pro apollo nutters' as some love to call us, can be wrong. Even the man who does Bad Astronomy was wrong a few times, but he did correct his mistakes. badastronomy. com / bad / tv / foxapollo . html By the way, did you look at that website link I gave you?
Other arguements are wrong, and unless you want to be wrong as well, I suggest you listen to me since your own ideas are so limited.
Do a google image search under "lunar module engine bell" and you'll see that the lunar module had a bell shaped exhaust designed to make the thrust highly directional. That would be because the engine bell could be gimballed so that on descent its v-sub-i could be precisely controlled...
I had a look at your link and they contradict what you say.
"The notion that it was focused at all displays some misunderstanding of how rocket engines behave in a vacuum. Watch very carefully at the next rocket launch. As the rocket climbs higher and higher, the exhaust plume spreads out. Because the surrounding air gets thinner as the rocket climbs, there is less air pressure to impede the dispersal of the exhaust gasses."
No it doesn't. There is a difference between instant dispersal, and a rapid dispersal. If the space shuttle had a leak, it wouldn't instantly drop to zero pressure. The exhaust would quickly disperse, but stay coherent long enough to kick up dust, especially considering how fine the surface material was. Maybe I am just not describing it well enough. If so I apologize.
With no air to impede the action of the rocket blast and with low gravity, you would think that it would take even less force to disperse the dust on the surface.
You see, it all just looks too clean. It looks exactly like the lander was simply put in place, carefully, gently.
Your right, it was put in place carefully, gently, by the men inside. They had been training for this for years, in simulators and the craft shown in this video that while not an exact analogue gave valuable experience with this type of flight. And you are probably right, with no air to provide resistance, the dust would likely be blown about sooner. The engine in fact started blowing dust about at around 100 feet. thespaceplace . com / history / apollo / apollo12 . html
In that case, how could ANY dust be left nearby to allow any footprints? Your peers have stated a number of time that all dust was blown away revealing, a hard, denser surface surrounding the LM.
But you know, I'm still young enough to see ORION, some day, go back.
With the Internet, you can bet that THAT adventure is going to come under very close scrutiny. CGI not withstanding, of course.
No, only underneath the LM. Remember, only dust touched directly by high pressure gas would float, and then almost only as long as the thrust was on. This is counter intuitive because we are used to seen things move in air, but remember, the moon has no air. .clavius. org / techcrater . html This also explains the 'same background effect'. On earth we use haze to judge distance, on the moon there is no haze, leading to some mistaken conclusions, especially from a 2D photo.
You see, it all just looks too clean. It looks exactly like the lander was simply put in place, carefully, gently.
RATFLMFAO!!!!
Of course it was put in place gently. If it wasn't the struts would have collapsed and the astronauts would have died. The optimum h-dot at touchdown was 2.5fps
Totally different arguement. The exhaust plume may have spread out but that does not mean the direction of thrust did. If the force was not precisely directed, the rocket would have crashed...
The lunar module was lighter than a chinook helicopter in an envirnoment where 15% of the thrust per kilogram a Chinook needs to hover were required for the LM to hover. I see helicopters take off and land every day at my work at a sandy dusty aerodrome, never have I seen them blast the surface to pieces or clear all the dust within a 500 foot radius. This does not correlate with good science or observation and I'd advise you to forget it before you make any more of a tit of yourself.
"A helicopter's thrust is spread over a much, much larger area than the "highly directional thrust" of a rocket engine."
Indeed it is, but this has gotten to the point where I am no longer sure what the hell you want me to tell you. One minute you say not enough dust was displaced and then too much dust... Which is it? What do you wish me to refute?
"You might want to avoid insults, they only serve to discredit your argument."
You leave me with the unpleasant impression that you have never read any of the arguments against your position... You don't understand how it was done, therefore it couldn't have been done... I know how to fly the LM and how to operate it's two computer systems I can assure you, it really was not any more difficult to land the LM from orbit than it was to land a Boeing 737 on a runway.
I think what he means is that the force required to support the helis is far less per square inch than that of the more concentrated force of a rocket's thrust.
His point about a runway having very little dust to displace is valid too, I think. If that's what he meant.
But with WW3 over Iran about to start, isn't all of this kind of childish and pointless?
Since all the data we know of the lunar regolith was collated when we went to the moon, he is trying to use data collated on the moon to refute the idea that we went there...
"I think what he means is that the force required to support the helis is far less per square inch than that of the more concentrated force of a rocket's thrust."
That proviso is not really important... What is of more import is the fact that there is no atmosphere on the moon, so the regolith would be expected to propogate radially as seen on the DAC...
"His point about a runway having very little dust to displace is valid too, I think. If that's what he meant."
He has stumbled onto another misconception in his blind flailing way... It stands to reason that not all of the Lunar surface will be equally dusty...
It did not reach maximum speed in a tenth of a second, it reached command thrust which was set to 100% rated performance in a tenth of a second. It would have accelerated steadily until the ascent engine was shut down...
And it had a rocket flame, which as I explained would not create a visible plasma on the Moon as it would on Earth since the Moon has no atmospheric gases to be ionized.
The astronauts were standing because they operated much of the LM flight in zero g, so it was more suitable for them to be strapped in place than to incorporate chairs that would have increased the LM's mass...
Strapped to the floor of the LM... If you look at the ACA in the LM you'll notice there is a marked difference between this and the control surfaces used for yaw in an aerospace vehicle. This would be because foot pedals would be difficult to exert subtle pressure changes on while you are weightless. The LM ACA used a twist grip instead for yaw...
BFD. Try dropping it from 50,000 feet at 2,000 mph and see if it can land on its feet. Funny how the Apollo LEM had no rocket exhaust, not even thrusters, and astronots had to stand up since it had no seats.
the exaustion form the engine is very clear during some langings (though the flame is much less visible in vaccum) and also the ASTRONAUTS were standing because the g-force was relative low during the landing and the take off.
The LM had a rocket exhaust, the engine bell is clearly visible, it had vernier thrusters that expelled hydrogen peroxide.
The descent engine kept the h-dot steady at around a hundred feet per second, which is around 150 miles per hour and nowhere near 2000 miles per hour.
There is no atmospheric gas to be ionized on the moon, therefore there is no plasma created by the heat of the engine, therefore the exhaust is not visible.
Oh, and astronaut is spelled with two a's and a u...
The inane rubbish you have posted on the subject leaves me with the unpleasant feeling that you haven't studied any of the arguements counter to your position at all...
The pilot in this vehicle has perfect visibility. The LM had tiny, port hole windows.
The only way the astronots could have recieved adequate flight training for the landing would be to pilot a PERFECT mockup, exact in every way with the same thrust but 1/6th lighter.
Keep in mind, the purpose of the LLRV wasn't to be a "perfect mockup". It was simply to provide a means for the astronauts to get a 'feel' for what flying the LM would be like. How it would handle, etc. The rigorous LM training occurred in the simulator.
Like I said, the idea was to get the 'feel' of flying a similar craft to the LM - not the LM itself. At the time there were no craft about that acted similarily to the LM at all (they tried helicopters, but they didn't cut it).
An "exact" replica vehicle couldn't be used simply because the LM was unable to lift itself under the Earth's 1G gravitational field.
All you need to do is build a machine that was 1/6th lighter to simulate what you need, on earth. Then you have to drop it and allow it to gain free fall speed. THEN, you have to slow it down with the engine and nail the landing spot without creating a spot.
Like I said, the LM isn't able to lift itself from the surface of the Earth - its engine can't lift its mass under 1G. There is no way you're going to be able to exactly replicate it for Earth. So what they did was build the LLRV so its engine would compensate for 5/6ths of the Earth's gravity (thus simulating 1/6th G). They did exactly what you described, only in reverse (rather than reduce mass which was impossible, they increased engine power).
Indeed you're correct about the effect of a larger engine - but like I said, reducing the mass to 1/6th equivalent couldn't be done (like I said - the LM engine couldn't lift the craft on Earth). Increasing the engine was the only way to make the craft operate in a way comparable to the 1/6th gravity encountered by the LM. The effect you mentioned was a trade-off.
Besides, if I recall correctly, LLRV experience wasn't even mantadory for the astronauts. The LM itself was tested in LEO and Lunar orbit - and it operated the way as expected - simulator work was adequate.
We went to the moon. Stop being a bunch on immature faggots spreading lies. You have no understandable proof showing we didnt, only speculation that is easily debunked.
xXDEICIDE216Xx 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The moon missions were faked in a studio. Here's a link to some of the evidence.
politicalforum (dot) com/moon-landing/190138-apollo-moon-missions-were-faked-studio (dot) html
Cosmicmoron 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The moon missions were faked in a studio. Here's a link to some of the evidence.
politicalforum (dot) com/moon-landing/190138-apollo-moon-missions-were-faked-studio (dot) html
Cosmored 5 months ago
Armstrong never flew LLRVs which were unmanned prototypes. Reportedly he flew LLTVs, three of which crashed
elvisinpersonator 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@elvisinpersonator
'Armstrong never flew LLRVs which were unmanned prototypes. Reportedly he flew LLTVs, three of which crashed'
Not quite true. From Wikipedia:
'Neil Armstrong was flying LLRV-1 on May 6, 1968 when it went out of control'
Monkeyboysdontknow 6 months ago
strap a grey disk around that thing and put a glass half sphere window on top and you got yourself a flying saucer
101andrewj 7 months ago
And they landed on the moon with that shit, sure...
Alexvideoclip 7 months ago
@Alexvideoclip No, they didn't land on the Moon with an astronaut training vehicle with a turbojet engine. They landed on the Moon with lunar landers with rocket engines.
The two kinds of vehicles weren't even designed and built by the same company.
YDDES 7 months ago
there is no way these space shuttel could get to moone, the van halen belt would heve fr them the astronuts ;-)
marshalllucky 8 months ago
@marshalllucky It's not "van halen", it's "van Allen". And no, they don't fry people (or equipment) passing through them. Study science instead of buying what the hoax-sellers say.
YDDES 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Reporter "Has been any pressure on you by NASA..?"
T.Baron "er-mm no er-mm we were ,my wife and I,were somewhat harassed at home when this thing first broke, some time back ,but it ..er-mm it's gone away now"..
But a week after this interview the health and safety expert who researched the Apollo 1 deaths Baron above, was found dead with his family in a "train accident" ..! NASA have killed many more people to keep their moon scam alive
watch?v=ZfYBJFPuiwE
potrodsas 8 months ago
armstrong cant even fly a LLTV on earth LOL
space monkey
Nasa is a Fraud
fuckutube74 11 months ago
@fuckutube74 Armstrong? that old liar- hiding his face away. He's nothing but a scared old man. Fuck buzz too. They're both lying scumbags
kaderoder 9 months ago
Neil Armstrong is da man!
FantasticBob7000 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If the missions truly were faked don't you guys think NASA would of performed one serious editing job on the films before releasing them. With the reputation of our country at stake, don't you hoaxers think they would have taken the time to edit out things like errant shadows, fake suns, wires and all the other things you claim are visible on the films. Hahaha...why would they leave all those mistakes for you boneheads to find. They don't call them rocket scientists for nothing
nosajj12345 1 year ago
nasa went to the moon. lol. but just recently found out launching a rocket full of people in freezing tempatures with giant icecylcles hanging from the rocket.. could be a bad move. weve deffinatly not lerned much in 40 years. seems we had it going on . then took major jumps backwards.. thats why things dont add up..
tinman842 1 year ago
in the words of the great tim wilson.. where the fk is my jetpack..
tinman842 1 year ago
funny how dumb ass mythbuster put the same suit on and rode the vomit commit and had no problem bouncing around and walking and they DIDNT GET TO PRACTICE.. yet our best astrounauts have trouble... yea. ok.
tinman842 1 year ago
Where do any of you hoax guys get your information? All I seem to read are strange anecdotes and facts you guys seem to make up.
ceraniic 1 year ago
Neil Armstrong was the bravest and held on the longest ----- that is why he was selected as commander. He never successfully landed such a craft on Earth, yet we are supposed to believe he landed on the moon ? Further, other test pilots have crashed this thing.
mooninquirer 1 year ago
It made me laugh when he lost contol of it at one point and he ejected just before it hit the ground and exploded!
05u16hep 2 years ago
ufo!
haknumkom 2 years ago
Comment removed
TheOnlineCommunity 2 years ago
Comment removed
a8emitos 2 years ago
Careful what you type. The authorities may be reading this. You don't want to get arrested!
TheOnlineCommunity 2 years ago
Lol, thousands of people saw it in person. Sorry, try again.
TheOnlineCommunity 2 years ago
Why would you call this fake? Honestly, you know nothing about what you're calling a hoax. This was used to train astronauts, there was already another version on cables. One blew up in the air with neil armstrong on it, almost killing him. He had to jump out and parachute down. Why would they fake that? Honestly, you show your stupidity when you call something fake in a way that you clearly don't know what it even is.
TheOnlineCommunity 2 years ago 23
@TheOnlineCommunity thats what i said moron... they cant get shit right here on earth.. but thousands of miles out in space everything goes to perfection.. and they practiced walking and jumping in moon gravity hundreds of times before they went yet when they get their they fall around like idiots. plus they only weigh 60 pounds gear and all on the moon.. these are phisically fit men... they should have no problem handleing their 60 pounds of weight
tinman842 1 year ago
@tinman842 Not everything went to perfection. Simple as that. Again, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
TheOnlineCommunity 1 year ago
@TheOnlineCommunity ok they said we went their on the computing power of a modern wrist watch... were far past that now.. we clearly have a space program.. far superior than 40 years ago.. right. whats the hold up you cant go to mars if you cant go to the moon..space is space.. or has it changed since the last time they went.. 6 times might i add come and go at will.. now they gotta think on though.. lol.
tinman842 1 year ago
@tinman842
If I might give a little answer to WHY we haven't gone to the Moon for the last 40 years: Money. The majority of the taxpayers are not willing to spend their money on moonflights. So, the politicians won't give NASA the needed money. It's just as simple. That,s also why the planned Apollo 18 and 19 never were launched.
YDDES 1 year ago
@tinman842 By today's safety standards, the Apollo program was extremely ambitious, extremely dangerous, and didn't go completely as planned most of the time. Today, nothing short of perfection is acceptable when it comes to space flight. There's no political pressure forcing us to put a man on mars anytime soon. In short, things were way different back then. It HAS indeed changed since the last time they went.
TheOnlineCommunity 1 year ago
@TheOnlineCommunity
Interesting point about political pressure ...... both the shuttle disasters were a direct result of political pressure. In the Apollo days if an engineer said something was not safe the project stopped while his concerns were investigated. (Challenger booster seal).
If they suspected a spacecraft was too damaged to return they would not have done nothing and kept their fingers crossed (Columbia ice damage)
tpsossff 1 year ago
@tpsossff
They could do NOTHING about Columbia. There was no way to repair the "possible" damage. There was no way to get another Shuttle up in time before the oxygen tanks were empty. And with Columbias orbit there was no possiblity to reach the Spacestation. With Challanger it was an whole other story. It shouldn't have lifted off during those conditions.
YDDES 1 year ago
@YDDES
Sorry but I cannot accept what you say. They would have had enough life support for about 14 days. That would have been plenty of time to set up some kind of rescue mission using the Russian supply rockets used for the ISS, if not to return the crew at least extend the life support time until another shuttle could reach them.
tpsossff 1 year ago
@tpsossff Maybe, just maybe. If the Russians could have readied a Progress (or Soyus) in that time. They are not just standing by, ready to fire at any moment, You know. And if they could have transferred supplies in an EVA, because the Progress can't dock to a Shuttle. And, it would have taken two Shuttle starts to bring back all seven astronauts, because there is only room for seven people.
YDDES 1 year ago
@YDDES
With Columbia they simply did not know the shuttle was damaged that badly there have been foam liberation events before but they never did serious damage.
If they did know how bad it was they could have a rescued the crew as they once launched consecutive shuttle missions 12 days apart.
In a dire emergency they could have one ready in as little as a week.
As for bringing back the crew they would only need one shuttle they can install extra seats in the mid deck if a rescue was needed.
Membrane556 9 months ago
@Membrane556 Well, are You sure they cold have had another shuttle ready in just one week? And, are they prepared in advance, so extra seats can be installed? I'm not saying You are wrong, just wondering if You have any information about the matters.
YDDES 9 months ago
@YDDES
There was another shuttle being stacked in the VAB at the time and in theory they could have had it ready if the processing crew pulled double shifts.
This was from an account I heard from someone who worked on the shuttle program talking about the accident on TV they really had no idea something was wrong until reentry.
If they did they could have at the very least altered the reentry profile to avoid stress on that wing which may have given them a chance.
Membrane556 9 months ago
@Membrane556 OK. thanks.
YDDES 9 months ago
@Membrane556
Had it been the NASA of decades ago they would have saved them. But they were simply not that organised to make sure flight ready shuttles overlapped ... such is what happens when accountants take control. They knew the wing was probably damaged but no one was going to have the courage to speak out.
TheSpiritof1969 8 months ago
The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera, or LROC, was able to image five of the six Apollo sites, with the remaining Apollo 12 site expected to be photographed in the coming weeks. Future LROC images from these sites will have two to three times greater resolution.
Sorry conspiracy theory losers, you're 15 minutes of fame are up!
Synthetrix 2 years ago 2
Synth: I wish it was that simple, but the real conspiracy obsessives will just do what they did with the 'face on mars' scenario and claim NASA faked the LRO images too. In other words rather than give up the conspiracy theories, they will just broaden them to try to invalidate whatever proof is shown them. It's a sad fact of how paranoia works.
camilleri63 2 years ago
You're right unfortunately. I have given up trying to talk any sense into any of them as it's seems clear from some of the ranting nonsense that they post that there is some serious mental illness involved in many of the hoax believers. The rest of the people who claim we never landed on the moon are trolls looking to inflame or people who are just trying to sell a book or dvd.
Synthetrix 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I saw those images. They are just tiny black specks. It looks like any picture of the moon's surface. Further, they claim the dark spots are made by the LM pushing away moon dust as it landed, but all other photos show no disturbance whatsoever, not even a speck of dust on the pads.
mooninquirer 2 years ago
well looka here it's a video of Neal Armstrong in the LLRV which mooninqueerer says doesn't exist....and here's another big piece of humble pie for you, with humble ice cream and humble sauce and a big second helping of humble on the side. Next month when the Lunar orbiting camera takes pictures 3+ times better for clear pictures of the "specks" you say mean nothing, you can have an overdose of humble pie and die. Or you can just claim they're fake too and keep taking it up the ass.
TheJomogogo 2 years ago 2
Well, this video does not show him land. AND, it is a FAN turbojet, not a rocket. A propeller airplane is not going to work on the moon, and neither is a jet. The LM had a ROCKET engine. Further, the LM was much more narrow, and had to overcome lateral motion, that this LLRV does not, AND carry much, much more weight. ( Later, the LM suposedly carried a lunar rover, tools, and extra batteries, plus oxygen for three days. )
mooninquirer 2 years ago
More humble pie coming your way stupid. The LLRV had a turbojet for climbing but was cut to 5/6 power to simulate moon gravity and ROCKET engines were used to land and manuever. Fucking....Rockets......enjoy your slice, you getting full yet?
TheJomogogo 2 years ago
I do not see that here. Further, you do never addressed my other points.
mooninquirer 2 years ago
Of course you don't "see it here" and you won't look it up because it will upset your moontard mind when you find out that ONCE AGAIN you're wrong. I'm not addressing any more of your points because every time you get proven wrong, you slither away with more bullshit. It's like trying to nail down a strand of spaghetti. Argue with someone else I'm done wasting time on you, enjoy your slice. Again.
TheJomogogo 2 years ago
Errr, weight! on the moon it weighed 1/6th of what it would weigh on earth, so why is that a problem?
musicbruv 1 year ago
@musicbruv Because of the CONTRADICTION. NASA and Phil Plait make a very big case that what we see on those photos ( the recent satellites images purportedly of the landing sites ) is the moon dust having been pushed out over a large area. But we see no disturbance whatsoever in any of the photos brought back to Earth from men on the moon.
mooninquirer 1 year ago
Pictures taken from a height will always show better detail than pics taken close up, and I have seen pics of dust that has been disturbed with streaks eminating outwards from the centre line of the engine, while they may no be as noticable from the ground, shots taken from higher up will show it. if you look at the video of Niel landing the LEM you will see the dust blowing outwards.
musicbruv 1 year ago
@musicbruv Yeah, Buzz Aldrin says, "kicking up some dust." like he is so bored. That was the first time he or Neil were in any such landing craft, and faced certain death. That was so unrealistic. Later on, Buzz goes along with spinning a tall tale about how they almost didn't make it because they were running out of fuel.
But am talking about the very sharp still pictures of the LEM. There isn't even a speck of dust on the pads.
Neil never landed such a craft on Earth.
mooninquirer 1 year ago
Please answer these, what sort of camera setting would you need to take a picture of fine dust particles, and why would you expect dust on them? the dust would not swirl around then settle it would be blown outward away from the lander. and the Buzz saying they almost ran out of fuel proves what?
musicbruv 1 year ago
I was tangentially taking a "pop shot" at Buzz. Anyhow, it shows yet another contradiction. Buzz participates in a NASA storyline that there was an intense life or death drama ----- to really up the ante. It already was a life or death drama, because they had never flown in such a craft. When you are facing certain death, you do not care about being the announcer, much less in such a boring manner. And Buzz says , " KICKING UP some dust."
mooninquirer 1 year ago
These men were chosen to go to the moon because they had the "right stuff" kicking up dust may sound boring but shows they were close to landing which must be a relief, further he was relaying this info to Neil who was concentrating on flying, they were highly trained men doing what they were trained to do, what's wrong with that?
musicbruv 1 year ago
@musicbruv Buzz gave NO indication of that relief. It was a totally unrealistic narration. They might have been highly trained, but NOT on any type of rocket lander, so they were NOT doing what they were trained to do. They went cold turkey into this venture, with no assurances of a chance of success.
Buzz's rendition of the Apollo 11 event, with over-the-top stories about his plunging a pen into a circuit breaker at the last minute, to heart pounding percussive music........
mooninquirer 1 year ago
I dont know what your real point is, these men are not going to start panicing because things are not going according to plan that would be un-professional they have to stay calm, as for the lander they spent time in a simulator learning the controls and if the lander was well designed any competant pilot would be able to fly it, how do you think the first helecopter pilot manged not to kill himself? And so they had no assurance of success! they knew that, again what is your point?
musicbruv 1 year ago
I agree with musicbruv - these guys were not picked because of their thrilling narration or voiceover, they were chosen for their ability to remain cool under extra-ordinary conditions. Like Jake Sullenberger who landed that jet in the Hudson - he's facing certain disaster, but he's an icicle - that's the kind of right stuff we're talking about.
krisdevalle 1 year ago
@musicbruv whats wrong is here on earth they cant get shit right.. they crash this thing everytime they use it.. everytime the climb in the rocket for blastoff something goes wrong and they abort.. now all of a sudden everything works perfect perfect amount of fuel no mistakes no mishaps go back n forth six times no mishaps . but today we can barely get to the space station without killing someone... nasa neeed another seven astronauts...
tinman842 1 year ago
Sorry to say this but you are bullshitting, there were nearly 800 flights of the LLVR, there was only a couple of crashes so it was not everytime was it? and what is all this about barely go to the space station without killing someone, there has been over 100 shuttle launches with 2 accidents so once again your accusation is wrong! but I guess that is all you have to back your belief, pretty pathetic dont you think?
musicbruv 1 year ago 3
@tinman842
Did You really think that EVERY flight of the LLVR should be up here on Youtube? Or, from where have You got the impression that "every time...something goes wrong"? Also, there WAS a mishap during the Moon-landings. Remember Apollo 13? And, as others have told You here: Well over 100 Shuttle-flights, and 2 accidents... Please try to be honest yourself, if You are going to accuse people of lying...
YDDES 1 year ago
@mooninquirer yea hes say their almost outta fuel.. but their is plent to get back up and rendevous with another craft going tenthousand plus miles and hour... lol yea. ok get fkn real nasa..
tinman842 1 year ago
LOL more crap from you, the descent stage was low on full, the ascent stage had its own engine and fuel tank, and what is the problem of docking with another craft doing thousands of miles per hour? shuttle does it all the time with the ISS, speed is relative. you are the one who needs to "get real"
musicbruv 1 year ago 4
*fuel*
musicbruv 1 year ago
@musicbruv shuttle does it with two huge rockets attached ... not little propane bottles. if it doesnt make it it falls back to earth... thats the diff. the carried the exact amount to decent... so they carried exact amount to accent too no mistakes... they made a mistake on decent had to overide auto pilot.like i said everything goes perfectly for all six missions but when they get out of spaceship they all bumble around like idiot droping everything and triping.. didnt they practice
tinman842 1 year ago
Are you for real? the Shuttle weighed440,000 lbs, the lunar ascent stage weighed 10,000lbs, shuttle had to reach about 200 miles, the Lunar ascent module had to go about 60 miles, the Shuttle had to contend with 1g of gravity and the Lunar ascent module had only 1/6 g, shuttle orbit speed 18,000 mph, Lunar orbit speed 3,500 mph, the shuttle had air resistance to overcome the Lunar ascent stage did not, the rest of your comment is equaly stupid and not worth the effort of replying.
musicbruv 1 year ago 18
@musicbruv LLRV used compressed air to reach moon's escape Velocity? 6,720km/ph? So we might as well use a bunch of Vacuum cleaners and go to the moon. I don't know what technology they used and I do not doubt the moon landing, but in order for the maths to work you need something to reduce 5/6ths of the weight of that vehicle.
kousoulides 11 months ago
@kousoulides LLRV never went fast it was simply a test machine for moving and landing on the moon, why do you need to reduce the weight by 5/6?
musicbruv 9 months ago
@tinman842
"Bumble around like idiot droping everything and triping"... Is THAT an evidence for men not being on the Moon, fto You? It's, of course, hard to practice the exact manuevers here on Earth, because of the big difference in gravity. I wonder how well YOU would do in a clumsy spacesuit on an uneven ground in a gravity You are not familiar with...
If You want to accuse the astronauts of lying, You'll have to come up with something better...
YDDES 1 year ago
@YDDES funny how the camera looking out upon landing show giant dust cloud and neil even says were kicking up dust.. yet once they show the lander sitting on the surface.. not one spec. on the pads or anywhere on the lander.. the dust uder the lander hasnt been disturbed either.. then when they blast off from the moon debris and dust fly off in every direction....
tinman842 1 year ago
@tinman842
Yes, the dust flies AWAY from the lander. The particles move in ballistic trajectories. Due to the vacuum on the Moon, the dust doesn't billow around and hang in the air, so it wouldn,t settle on the lander. And, how can You be so sure that the dust under the lander hasn't been disturbed? You don't know how much dust there was before the landing. Also, do You admit that You was wrong, saying that they crashed the LLRV almost every time?
YDDES 1 year ago
@YDDES yes i exagerated to make a p oint......
tinman842 1 year ago
@tinman842
Well, it can be OK to exaggerate a bit sometime, but perhaps not so much if you accuse thousands of people, including all American astronauts of being simple liers...
YDDES 1 year ago
@YDDES they dont pactice on earth einstein.. its called the vomit comet.. its a airplane that makes a series of dives.. that EXACTLY REPLICATE moons gravity.. and they practice hundreds of walks prior to their television debut..or are you saying they werent smart enough to think of the vomit comit back then and they simply fueled the rocket up and went to the moon on hope that their right... lol..
tinman842 1 year ago
@tinman842
The Vomit Comet can only simulate zero gravity for less than a halv minute at a time, and they didn't have an artificial lunar landscape onboard... So, practicing walk on the uneven lunar surface wasn't so easy as You might think. Also, just as with the LLRV, only the mishaps are up here on these clips, not all the hours when everything went well.
YDDES 1 year ago
@mooninquirer What is the difference between a rocket and a jet? they both burn fuel and produce thrust from that combustion, as does a piston engine driving a propeller, and what is the problem with overcoming lateral motion?
musicbruv 9 months ago
humanmoneyshit4brains
Synthetrix 2 years ago
They had about a 50 - 50 chance of making it back alive and grace was on their side.
GA7777777 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
they never went ot the moon on the apollo spacecraft the truth is so valueable it has to be covered with a body guard of lies.
raypsi 2 years ago
says who? Bart Sibrel? you guys are pathetic.
marlsdad 2 years ago
U got to see the movie wag the dog . They can do anything in Hollywood
raypsi 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Neil Armfraud
GordanKokanovic 3 years ago
The LM on Apollo 17 landed pretty smoothly at at just over two feet per second. The landing you are thinking of where there was a violent jolt was Apollo 15, where the engine was shutdown with the rear landing stantions over a dinner dish shaped crater. This was a pretty rough landing, but I can assure you that you can indeed see camera motion in it, not to mention that jarring impact.
You hoax people shock me. I deplore your abuse of science and recycling of debunked arguements.
thetrueprometheus 3 years ago
1) The LLRV was flown numerous times and landed successfully.
2) The flight dynamics of the LLRV turned out to be markedly different from those of the LM, the LM being a far easier vehicle to handle that can be flown with great precision and stability.
thetrueprometheus 3 years ago
yeah, but it was a complicated vehicle and 3 of the 4 crashed
joachim2464 3 years ago
So what? You're talking about a vehicle that was never used on the moon and had questionable if any benefits in training astronauts to land on the moon.
No Lunar Module ever experienced any catastrophic failure, and no LM ever came anywhere near to crashing... The LLTV and LLRV were nothing like the LM which operated in a vacuum at 1/6 gravity and did not have any wires, pulleys or turbo fan engines attached to it...
thetrueprometheus 3 years ago
No, i am just saying that it was not a reliable vehicle.
joachim2464 3 years ago
I agree with you there... Personally I would not have included that vehicle in the training regimen... I think the risks inherent to it far outweighed any benefit gained from flying it...
thetrueprometheus 3 years ago
Three crashes in over 200 flights is not too bad for such an experimental vehicle. And ALL Apollo CDRs said it was a very valuable training device.
blablubb12345 3 years ago
Correction. there were 3 built and tested, and 1 went out of control.
boomshanka 2 years ago
nor, do some research. 3 crashed.
joachim2464 2 years ago
The only purpose of the LLTV was to be a training vehicle to give an astronaut real hands-on experience with the flight dynamics of the LM. While that jet engine's thrust allowed the craft to hover, the pilot was able to experience maintaining vertical stability by controlling reaction control thrusters with a joy stick. This was never meant to be a prototype of anything. It was a training simulator.
satweavers 3 years ago
It's pretty likely that I'm the only person on this board trained to fly an LM to NASA Spec, and as such I can assure that the LLRV wasn't even a good simulator of the LM.
The LM in PNGS ATT HOLD mode running P66 was so stable that you could hover it 10 feet off flat ground, take your hands off the controls, look away from the window and the instruments, smoke a cigarette down to the stump, and be confident that you would still be sitting wings level at 10 feet when you were finished.
thetrueprometheus 3 years ago
The reason for this is that the LM was stabilised by a computer that automatically fired the RCS jets if a certain deadband that could be set to .5 degrees or 5 degrees was breached. The visible phase of the landings were performed on minimum deadband, so you might feel a bit of wallowing as the guidance system hunted, but that sucker was one of the most stable flying machines ever built. This is partly because, as you pointed out, there was no aerodynamic stress on it.
thetrueprometheus 3 years ago
thetrueprometheus... Is this also the cause of the visible oscillation in the LM DAC window view of the ascent from the Moon... the guidance system hunting for vertical? I've always wondered.
satweavers 3 years ago
The LM flight to orbit was initiated vertically, and then it pitched over to 305 degrees (55 degrees forward of vertical) because the LM required a velocity of 5000 feet per second to insert into Lunar Orbit at around 49000 feet. They then used reaction control jets to fine tune the velocity and station hold with the Command Module.
thetrueprometheus 3 years ago
Armstrong was nearly killed flying that thing.
CountArtha 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Why don't we see these type of machines since prototypes existed in the late 60's????? I don't believe this Crap!
weerprobeer 3 years ago
Descendents of these types of machine do exist. They are called the Harrier and LockMar's Joint Strike Fighter, both of which hover on a column of jet turbine thrust, but with much better reliability and safety than that roaring, spitting deathtrap you see in the video.
eenersha 3 years ago 2
The LLTV was an extremely unstable aircraft, and I use the term aircraft VERY loosely. But since was way before modern simulators, this was the best there was at the time. Of the 4 that were built, 3 crashed. Not a good record.
da40flyer 3 years ago
The dust was scattered by the descent engine, but there was no large blast crater gouged out of the rock underneath the dust. That is consistant with what one would expect to occur in this scenario.
thetrueprometheus 3 years ago
thetrueprometheus... The LLTV had an air breathing jet engine thrusting against 1G of Earth gravity to hover in a 14 psi atmosphere. The LM was thrusting at throttled down power against 1/6 G at the bottom of its trajectory, having consumed most of its fuel and in a vacuum atmosphere. Those are some significant differences.
satweavers 3 years ago
great vid. 1 day, my rc chopper would get into orbit too. Of korz ill pack it up w/ lotza energizer batt.
ikugpagi 3 years ago
nerds!
rocksystem132 3 years ago
Moon dust/soil undistrubed from the descent rocket's blast. ??? Enough left over to make footprints ??
THINK.
howitsdun 4 years ago
Yes, and what's worse, at 1/6th gravity, that soil/dust would have easily been blasted away.
Zero disturbance of the surface soil directly under the landers,,, ALL of them. The smoking gun.
I guess when they were planning the hoax, they debated about the propoganda value of the first footprint and decided to take the risk.
carnooba 4 years ago
If you watch a helicopter or harrier jet landing, which require 6 times more thrust per pound of mass to hover than the LM, they do not blast the ground to bits and clear the entire area around them of dust. That is becuase the downthrust is focused on a point. On the LM this is the case as well. the engine bell focused the downthrust in a highly directional way...
thetrueprometheus 4 years ago
That's in direct contradiction to the explanation of others. They say that the vacuum caused the thrust energy to spread out immediately after it left the nozzle.
Helis and Harriers try to land on runways.
When helis DO land on sand, LOTS of it gets blasted away.
Moon is 1/6th gravity, SIX times more would be blasted away.
carnooba 4 years ago
"When helis DO land on sand, LOTS of it gets blasted away."
True but they don't deform a wide radius of ground as you seem to think the LM should. The LM did accelerate ten micron dust particles to near lunar escape velocity, but small rocks were only moved a few feet.
thetrueprometheus 3 years ago
"Zero disturbance of the surface soil directly under the landers,,, ALL of them. The smoking gun."
What a preposterous arguement. I've walked on dusty ground after helicopters have landed and still managed to leave footprints.
thetrueprometheus 3 years ago
there was a disturbance in the dust. geez!
tracyterry 3 years ago 2
"Moon dust/soil undistrubed from the descent rocket's blast. ??? Enough left over to make footprints ??
THINK."
Okay, I've thought. Yes enough left over to make footprints. It is quite impossible for the exhaust gases to displace any dust that they had no physical contact with and in the last 100 feet when the dust was displaced the LM's lateral velocities were small. The astronauts on all the missions walked (or drove)well away from the LM. BTW, surveyor3 was sandblasted by displaced dust.
thetrueprometheus 3 years ago 3
Funny how slow the LEM simulator "blasted off" from Earth, despite having a jet engine to negate 5/6ths of Earth gravity. LEM on the "moon" blasted off without accelleration of mass, just max speed in 1/10th of a second. Without rocket flame, of course.
apolloscam 4 years ago
Did you know that the moon and earth have diff. gravity? Maybe not?
Btw what a great pilot..
r0ck3tsm0k3 4 years ago
The moon and the earth have the same gravity. Gravity is gravity, it's the same all over the universe.
How strong the gravity is, depends on the mass of the object.
Excellent pilot but he had no experience landing on the moon. Impossible to do without a great deal of practise which he didn't have. Sorry.
howitsdun 4 years ago
What do you think this aircraft and the simulators were for? He had plenty of practice. Yes, it would be impossible, for an average joe. But that's why NASA picks the best, and then put them through years of training. Do you think they spend all that time eating twinkies and sipping tang?
loperspest 4 years ago
And, taking off hovering and then landing in NO way simulates an actual moon landing. The perfect mockup would have to be dropped from a height and the engine would have to be the only means of arresting the drop to a soft landing. Only THAT would give the pilot adequate training.
Sorry.
howitsdun 4 years ago
Ever see the simulators? They are basically video games. They would have a camera movie over a model of the moon, in sync with the controls of the simulate. this would be played on rear projection screen in front of the "windows". And it could simulate what you said. These men were trained, they weren't just thrown in a tin can and told "Go to the moon." What makes you an expert on the amount of training it would take to get to the moon? Please tell us.
loperspest 4 years ago
I'm just as qualified as you are. Both of us have a good sense of logic. The difference is that I'm sceptical because to me, it doesn't make sense. I WANT to believe, it's a nice story, man on the moon but there are just too many oddities.
carnooba 4 years ago
Your right. I am no pilot. But expert opinion agrees with me. The people who agree with you sell Dvd's with public domain 'never before seen footage' Also there are 3 reasons the LM on landing doesn't produce as much dust.1 less thrust needed in the weaker gravity.2 there is less dust to throw around, the layer of dust on the moon was only a few inches deep,underneath was a much more compact surface.3 no air on the moon, so that only dust disturbed by the directly by the exhaust would blow away.
loperspest 4 years ago
Plenty of loose dust to allow footprints. There should not have been ANY loose dust to allow that.
Less thrust than what? How much thrust? Enough to slow down and then hover the LM. How many tons? even at 1/6th gravity?
carnooba 4 years ago
Only in an atmosphere my friend. The thrust was directed straight down, and since with no air to carry a shock wave to disturb dust further away, and to help float it, like a feather in air, only the dust right under the nozzle was affected. Check out this websites for an expert opinion. Just copy it into you address bar and remove the spaces clavius . org / techcrater . html
I promise to look at any website you refer me to in good faith.
loperspest 4 years ago 2
Other arguments say that because of no air, the blast is immediately spread out, dispersed, as it leaves the nozzle. You say because of no air the blast is straight down.
Both are used to explain why little moon dust was displaced.
What makes sense here only, is that the LM was placed on an artificial surface.
carnooba 4 years ago
No one is saying it immediately dispersed, just much, much more rapidly in a vacuum. There would be a central cone of gas with the gas around the edges rapidly dispersing before the canter. And we 'pro apollo nutters' as some love to call us, can be wrong. Even the man who does Bad Astronomy was wrong a few times, but he did correct his mistakes. badastronomy. com / bad / tv / foxapollo . html By the way, did you look at that website link I gave you?
loperspest 4 years ago
Other arguements are wrong, and unless you want to be wrong as well, I suggest you listen to me since your own ideas are so limited.
Do a google image search under "lunar module engine bell" and you'll see that the lunar module had a bell shaped exhaust designed to make the thrust highly directional. That would be because the engine bell could be gimballed so that on descent its v-sub-i could be precisely controlled...
thetrueprometheus 4 years ago
I had a look at your link and they contradict what you say.
"The notion that it was focused at all displays some misunderstanding of how rocket engines behave in a vacuum. Watch very carefully at the next rocket launch. As the rocket climbs higher and higher, the exhaust plume spreads out. Because the surrounding air gets thinner as the rocket climbs, there is less air pressure to impede the dispersal of the exhaust gasses."
carnooba 4 years ago
No it doesn't. There is a difference between instant dispersal, and a rapid dispersal. If the space shuttle had a leak, it wouldn't instantly drop to zero pressure. The exhaust would quickly disperse, but stay coherent long enough to kick up dust, especially considering how fine the surface material was. Maybe I am just not describing it well enough. If so I apologize.
loperspest 4 years ago
With no air to impede the action of the rocket blast and with low gravity, you would think that it would take even less force to disperse the dust on the surface.
You see, it all just looks too clean. It looks exactly like the lander was simply put in place, carefully, gently.
carnooba 4 years ago
Your right, it was put in place carefully, gently, by the men inside. They had been training for this for years, in simulators and the craft shown in this video that while not an exact analogue gave valuable experience with this type of flight. And you are probably right, with no air to provide resistance, the dust would likely be blown about sooner. The engine in fact started blowing dust about at around 100 feet. thespaceplace . com / history / apollo / apollo12 . html
loperspest 4 years ago
In that case, how could ANY dust be left nearby to allow any footprints? Your peers have stated a number of time that all dust was blown away revealing, a hard, denser surface surrounding the LM.
But you know, I'm still young enough to see ORION, some day, go back.
With the Internet, you can bet that THAT adventure is going to come under very close scrutiny. CGI not withstanding, of course.
carnooba 4 years ago
No, only underneath the LM. Remember, only dust touched directly by high pressure gas would float, and then almost only as long as the thrust was on. This is counter intuitive because we are used to seen things move in air, but remember, the moon has no air. .clavius. org / techcrater . html This also explains the 'same background effect'. On earth we use haze to judge distance, on the moon there is no haze, leading to some mistaken conclusions, especially from a 2D photo.
loperspest 4 years ago
You see, it all just looks too clean. It looks exactly like the lander was simply put in place, carefully, gently.
RATFLMFAO!!!!
Of course it was put in place gently. If it wasn't the struts would have collapsed and the astronauts would have died. The optimum h-dot at touchdown was 2.5fps
thetrueprometheus 4 years ago
Totally different arguement. The exhaust plume may have spread out but that does not mean the direction of thrust did. If the force was not precisely directed, the rocket would have crashed...
thetrueprometheus 4 years ago
Ah, that magical moon dust/soil/regolith. What to make of this then,
/general80/smoking.htm
A smart feller like you ought to be able to explain how a flag pole gets to be planted with no one coming anywhere near close enough to do the job.
carnooba 4 years ago
Unfortunatly, I can't view that web page, could you provide a more complete version of the link, (just add spaces)
loperspest 4 years ago
OK, try this.
rense(dot)com/general80/smoking.htm
carnooba 4 years ago
Assuming that they made it the 250,000 miles to the moon, I have little doubt that they managed to climb the extra fifteen feet to plant the flag...
thetrueprometheus 4 years ago
The lunar module was lighter than a chinook helicopter in an envirnoment where 15% of the thrust per kilogram a Chinook needs to hover were required for the LM to hover. I see helicopters take off and land every day at my work at a sandy dusty aerodrome, never have I seen them blast the surface to pieces or clear all the dust within a 500 foot radius. This does not correlate with good science or observation and I'd advise you to forget it before you make any more of a tit of yourself.
thetrueprometheus 4 years ago
You might want to avoid insults, they only serve to discredit your argument.
Precisely directed force to hover how many lbs?? even adjusted for 1/6th gravity?
No atmosphere and only 1/6th gravity with extremely dessicated, very fine dust in no way has any comparison to your example.
A helicopter's thrust is spread over a much, much larger area than the "highly directional thrust" of a rocket engine.
carnooba 4 years ago
"A helicopter's thrust is spread over a much, much larger area than the "highly directional thrust" of a rocket engine."
Indeed it is, but this has gotten to the point where I am no longer sure what the hell you want me to tell you. One minute you say not enough dust was displaced and then too much dust... Which is it? What do you wish me to refute?
thetrueprometheus 4 years ago
"You might want to avoid insults, they only serve to discredit your argument."
You leave me with the unpleasant impression that you have never read any of the arguments against your position... You don't understand how it was done, therefore it couldn't have been done... I know how to fly the LM and how to operate it's two computer systems I can assure you, it really was not any more difficult to land the LM from orbit than it was to land a Boeing 737 on a runway.
thetrueprometheus 4 years ago
I think what he means is that the force required to support the helis is far less per square inch than that of the more concentrated force of a rocket's thrust.
His point about a runway having very little dust to displace is valid too, I think. If that's what he meant.
But with WW3 over Iran about to start, isn't all of this kind of childish and pointless?
beneehall 4 years ago
Since all the data we know of the lunar regolith was collated when we went to the moon, he is trying to use data collated on the moon to refute the idea that we went there...
That is preposterous...
thetrueprometheus 4 years ago
"I think what he means is that the force required to support the helis is far less per square inch than that of the more concentrated force of a rocket's thrust."
That proviso is not really important... What is of more import is the fact that there is no atmosphere on the moon, so the regolith would be expected to propogate radially as seen on the DAC...
thetrueprometheus 4 years ago
"His point about a runway having very little dust to displace is valid too, I think. If that's what he meant."
He has stumbled onto another misconception in his blind flailing way... It stands to reason that not all of the Lunar surface will be equally dusty...
thetrueprometheus 4 years ago
"But with WW3 over Iran about to start, isn't all of this kind of childish and pointless?"
This is a non sequitir...
thetrueprometheus 4 years ago
It did not reach maximum speed in a tenth of a second, it reached command thrust which was set to 100% rated performance in a tenth of a second. It would have accelerated steadily until the ascent engine was shut down...
And it had a rocket flame, which as I explained would not create a visible plasma on the Moon as it would on Earth since the Moon has no atmospheric gases to be ionized.
thetrueprometheus 4 years ago
The astronauts were standing because they operated much of the LM flight in zero g, so it was more suitable for them to be strapped in place than to incorporate chairs that would have increased the LM's mass...
thetrueprometheus 4 years ago
Strapped in place to what?
carnooba 4 years ago
Strapped to the floor of the LM... If you look at the ACA in the LM you'll notice there is a marked difference between this and the control surfaces used for yaw in an aerospace vehicle. This would be because foot pedals would be difficult to exert subtle pressure changes on while you are weightless. The LM ACA used a twist grip instead for yaw...
thetrueprometheus 4 years ago
Good point and displays the enormous difficulty in duplicating EXACTLY The real thing. Thank you.
carnooba 4 years ago
"Good point and displays the enormous difficulty in duplicating EXACTLY The real thing. Thank you."
I have a perfect duplicate of the ACA that I purchased from PC World for £19.99, and a perfect replica TTCA that a friend built for me for 35 quid.
You really should research this subject before you pontificate on it.
thetrueprometheus 3 years ago 2
And also dick-head....there is virtually Zero gravity on the moon. Very little.
hoadmaback 4 years ago
"there is virtually Zero gravity on the moon. Very little. " no, the gravity there is 1/6 from here.
NoCleverNames 4 years ago 5
BFD. Try dropping it from 50,000 feet at 2,000 mph and see if it can land on its feet. Funny how the Apollo LEM had no rocket exhaust, not even thrusters, and astronots had to stand up since it had no seats.
apolloscam 4 years ago
the exaustion form the engine is very clear during some langings (though the flame is much less visible in vaccum) and also the ASTRONAUTS were standing because the g-force was relative low during the landing and the take off.
NoCleverNames 4 years ago
The LM had a rocket exhaust, the engine bell is clearly visible, it had vernier thrusters that expelled hydrogen peroxide.
The descent engine kept the h-dot steady at around a hundred feet per second, which is around 150 miles per hour and nowhere near 2000 miles per hour.
There is no atmospheric gas to be ionized on the moon, therefore there is no plasma created by the heat of the engine, therefore the exhaust is not visible.
Oh, and astronaut is spelled with two a's and a u...
thetrueprometheus 4 years ago
No, it's astroNOT as in not possible, never happened no way, nada, nicht, niema, guvno.
carnooba 4 years ago
The inane rubbish you have posted on the subject leaves me with the unpleasant feeling that you haven't studied any of the arguements counter to your position at all...
thetrueprometheus 4 years ago
The pilot in this vehicle has perfect visibility. The LM had tiny, port hole windows.
The only way the astronots could have recieved adequate flight training for the landing would be to pilot a PERFECT mockup, exact in every way with the same thrust but 1/6th lighter.
howitsdun 4 years ago
Keep in mind, the purpose of the LLRV wasn't to be a "perfect mockup". It was simply to provide a means for the astronauts to get a 'feel' for what flying the LM would be like. How it would handle, etc. The rigorous LM training occurred in the simulator.
ChrissyoSpace 4 years ago
No flight training EVER went from simulator directly to the real thing.
How could you get that "feel" unless you were piloting an EXACT replica that duplicated everything EXACTLY.
Such an expensive and dangerous adventure and they would not leave anything to chance. That's the NASA way, rightly so.
carnooba 4 years ago
Like I said, the idea was to get the 'feel' of flying a similar craft to the LM - not the LM itself. At the time there were no craft about that acted similarily to the LM at all (they tried helicopters, but they didn't cut it).
An "exact" replica vehicle couldn't be used simply because the LM was unable to lift itself under the Earth's 1G gravitational field.
ChrissyoSpace 4 years ago
All you need to do is build a machine that was 1/6th lighter to simulate what you need, on earth. Then you have to drop it and allow it to gain free fall speed. THEN, you have to slow it down with the engine and nail the landing spot without creating a spot.
carnooba 4 years ago
Like I said, the LM isn't able to lift itself from the surface of the Earth - its engine can't lift its mass under 1G. There is no way you're going to be able to exactly replicate it for Earth. So what they did was build the LLRV so its engine would compensate for 5/6ths of the Earth's gravity (thus simulating 1/6th G). They did exactly what you described, only in reverse (rather than reduce mass which was impossible, they increased engine power).
ChrissyoSpace 4 years ago
The inertial responses would have been totally different. You would HAVE to reudce th weight by 1/6th.
carnooba 4 years ago
Indeed you're correct about the effect of a larger engine - but like I said, reducing the mass to 1/6th equivalent couldn't be done (like I said - the LM engine couldn't lift the craft on Earth). Increasing the engine was the only way to make the craft operate in a way comparable to the 1/6th gravity encountered by the LM. The effect you mentioned was a trade-off.
ChrissyoSpace 4 years ago
Besides, if I recall correctly, LLRV experience wasn't even mantadory for the astronauts. The LM itself was tested in LEO and Lunar orbit - and it operated the way as expected - simulator work was adequate.
ChrissyoSpace 4 years ago
As I said, orbital flights, all of them. Tested in Lunar orbit doesn't give you the ESSENTIAL practise to affect a safe landing.
carnooba 4 years ago