Flight of experimental Moon lander

[mellonwood]

fake fake fake fake fake fake fake fake fake fake

[Rolco64]

I want one of these cool toys! Do they make a junior version for the hobbyist?

[bobafetthotmail]

@40390576 yes, it was autonomous as any other vehicle of the challenge. That it the real improvement over 60 year-old VTOL rocket-powered platforms with a human pilot (w ww.youtube.co m/watch?v=AH0VYi1G6jo). I was belligerant since I was killing off a moon hoaxer, xismxist, that was saying that this rocket could not go to the moon so moon landing is a hoax. :)

As for the fuckup, that's rocketry. Half the fun is not blowing up when you fire the engines.

[STEVEDIGIBOYtv]

@ItalianoAmericano

Ya they made most the stuff out of plywood. LOL!

[STEVEDIGIBOYtv]

@ItalianoAmericano

The public was far less educated, those war guys like Von Braun were sketchy and their histories hidden so not sure the tech was there for sheilding the Van Allen belt either.

[bobafetthotmail]

@STEVEDIGIBOYtv van allen belt is an issue only if you camp there for weeks. Apollo didn't.

[bobafetthotmail]

I'm ready to bet that the loose piece you see at 2:20 fucked up everything.

[bobafetthotmail]

@NASAvsPETE correction, the above vehicle is piloted by a computer. There is no pilot.

I'ts likely that human pilots do better.

[xismxist]

Why not land it on lose surface instead? why have that landing plate?

[bobafetthotmail]

@xismxist FIRST you make stuff able to land on concrete, THEN you make stuff able to land on something worse. Why complicating life unnecessarily?

[xismxist]

@bobafetthotmail it wont be much of a "lunar challenge" if the landing dont take place on dust.... they had no landing plate when they claimed to land on the moon... u got the picture?

[bobafetthotmail]

@xismxist Here the challenge was designig a rocket able to VTOL on its own (this thing isn't remote-guided). A critical step towards a pilotless lunar lander. But it is just a step. The thing in the video is not going on the moon due to various reasons, but its computers and software will serve to design the True Thing's.

The name "lunar challenge" was chosen since it is evocative of the final goal of this tech.

If you just want to claim moon landing is a hoax, fuck off.

[xismxist]

@bobafetthotmail then change the name for it, your fraud liar! iknow that nab rocket isnt going to the moon beause it cant even land on dust here on earth

[bobafetthotmail]

@xismxist I'm not the uplaoder of the video so I cannot change the name.

The main reason this won't go anywhere near the moon anytime soon is much more fundamental than "it cannot land on dust" though. That's just an issue of designing legs for dust landing (with much wider "feet" like the Apollo lander), which any engineer can do while sleeping.

The main issue is that we don't have rockets capable of sending decent payloads on the moon (at a speed compatible with landing).

[hozayamz]

How much computer power was need for this demo? Oh, but six guys got it done with lots of scotch-taped Mylar and coconut headphones on. If I had been the one to write the story-line of the missions- I'd even include a cliffhanger than ends happily and avoids the "marooned on the moon meme"- too friggin awful.

[WWIflyingace62]

the lander screamed when it tipped over. :(

[MrPanetela]

I would say that tried to land too soon the 2nd time round with too much thrust. I wish them well. It sure was fun to watch this though. Thanks.

[SuperCrazyJunk]

hahahahaha fail nooo puc 3:28

[mike1964180]

thanks for posting mate. No matter what is posted on utube there is only a matter of time before some moron with nothing better to do with their lives writes "fake" and then at least everyone can laugh at them and know not to interact with them. Really nice video and man, we were so lucky that the lem worked fine when needed all those years ago.

[datzfast]

picking up some dust be sure to dust off the landing pads before we take pictures.

camera lens breaks out by rocks at 3:14.

[geofftek]

I love it, it even makes fart noises on the way down.

[datzfast]

what the hell was all that dust? thats not suposed to happen, ok it happened twice in the same spot thats just too crazy ok now three times in the same spot i think its now proven a rocket kicks up dust even over concrete.

[adesokmoa]

how big it is??

[charliewalls05]

¿porque están experimentando nuevamente con tecnología vieja,,, ???

Como dicen otros usuarios ,,,, otra prueba de que el alunizaje era falso!!!

[fredgt28]

Funny, if we just started to master these sort of technology, kinda makes you think what we did in the 60`s for the moon landing vehicle. It uses rocket engine to stop and land. And now suddenly were "researching these technology again".....?

Thats right, another proof that the moon landing was FAKE

[Uejji]

@fredgt28 Buddy, these are private experiments. In the 60s and 70s, very few people outside of governments had access to the funds necessary to build spacecraft and lunarcraft. Now 30-40 years later technology has improved, prices have fallen and now private industries have the means to produce these craft.

Of course you could just be trolling and I just wasted my time.

[rogerpenna]

@fredgt28

thats right, another proof the moon hoax believers like you are stupid.

[rockjackel]

blazer! Love it! i have bought a blazer shoes,nice as well!nike blazer shoes ,my favorite,share with you,site:

.airshoeline com

[rockjackel]

blazer! Love it! i have bought a blazer shoes,nice as well!nike blazer shoes ,my favorite,share with you,site:

.airshoeline com

[extreemeairsoft]

anyone know where that is??

[chorioretinitis]

(sarcasm sign)

[bodrius]

This is so fake. It doesn't form a crater... and there are no stars in the sky... And the flag would be moving if they planted one.

[Slance1Himself]

Um... I normally don't see stars in daytime...

[kargaroc386]

@bodrius it doesn't form a crated because it only makes 1.3 PSI

the stars are actually pretty dim, and to take a picture of them, you would have to overexpose the film.

the flag doesn't move unless their touching it. here's a question: if it's moving because of a breeze, why doesn't it blow around all the dust?

[bodrius]

@kargaroc386 You rock!

[megaCK1000]

@bodrius well of course it doesn't do any of that, this isn't landin on teh moon so stawp being like an apollo hoaxman

[a4ol]

Oh man!! i was about to yell out OWW when it tipped over and that guy did it for me XD hope no damage

[TheAmericanRifleman]

I yelled just before.

[rocketvdo]

Awesome!

[aval1998]

LoLz!xD NICE!

[fanbutton]

Fanbutton > CODE 31

[loperspest]

My condolences?

Anyway, happy Valentines Day.

[fanbutton]

Then again, I could be wrong, because I would imagine that a flame could occur in the near ultra violet or infared, given the type of fuel and/or combustion used.

Got that from watching Galaxy Quest, with their rigged up Endo-Thermic propulsion system, when their main propulsion drives went off line.

Of course, I am just making that up about Endo-Thermic propulsion directly relating to the infared and ultra violet.

Endo-Thermic fuels are combustable mixtures.

[loperspest]

A flame should always be visible infrared, because where there is burning, there is heat. That's a flame is, a jet of heated combusting gases. It's visibility to the human visible spectrum is based on what the flame is made off, and it's density. And (this has nothing to do with Armadillo Aerospace, but it's relevant to a previous discussion) without the 15 PSI earth normal pressure confining the jet, it is going to expand, lowering it's density, and lowering it's visibility.

[fanbutton]

If they can't get it right on the earth, how were they suppose to get it right on the moon?

[loperspest]

They got it right this year.

watch?v=hSZBzIGg-ME

[fanbutton]

RE: Armadillo Aerospace MOD second flight in the second set

You can still see flame from 0:31 to 0:35, other then that I don't credence to videos that are heavily obscured and blurry.

[loperspest]

Why should a rocket exhaust always have a huge highly visible exhaust column and big clouds of smoke? The flame visibility depends explicitly on the type of fuel and oxidizer, the size of the rocket, and (not important here) the pressure of the surrounding atmosphere. Your have almost exclusively shown this idea that any evidence that contradicts a preconceived notion of yours, must be faked.

[fanbutton]

I guess it has something to do with combustion. I used to fly those toy rockets when I was a kid, and they always left a smoke trail and a small flame of combustion.

There were two toy rocket companies which I use to buy them from direct. But they were the coolest toys I had when I was a kid. Even the local press would come around the "track in field" to watch me and my friends launch em.

Sorry, if I seem to sound contradictory, but I am basing my thesis on just the facts.

[loperspest]

Those were solid rockets, fueled by gunpowder, or maybe 'rocket candy'. Those do leave trails of smoke. The space shuttle uses solid rocket boosters,& they issue gobs of smoke. Your thesis may be based on facts, but is limited by the small sample size. Say I said all apples were red, and any apples that weren't are fake. That would be based on facts,as apples can be red. However it would be still false. Combustion doesn't have to have a visible flame or smoke, a pure hydrogen flame has neither.

[fanbutton]

"Those were solid rockets, fueled by gunpowder, or maybe 'rocket candy'"

True, nevertheless, even gunpowder consist of an oxidizer, such as potassium nitrate.

"Combustion doesn't have to have a visible flame or smoke, a pure hydrogen flame has neither."

I believe that is a contradictory statement. How can a hydrogen flame not have a flame, since flame is seldom invisible unless the flame is shielded from view?

[fanbutton]

Also note that the Sun is a prime example of burning hydrogen in action. When the hydrogen from the Sun ignites, you see what is called the Solar Corona...I guess this is a fancy way of saying "the flame around the Sun".

But then again, no one truly knows exactly how the Sun works. I heard a theory that said, the Sun receives its energy from somewhere in the cosmos where the quasers are.

You know me; I'm always open minded.

[loperspest]

1. True, but my point is that the your basing your conclusions on incomplete data.

You used solid fuels, armadillo uses LOX and ethanol, liquid fuel rockets.Completely different rockets types, with completely different exhaust signatures. Look at the difference between the shuttles boosters and the orbiters engines exhaust at launch.

2.

No contradiction, I said no VISIBLE flame. A flame doesn't HAVE to be visible.

watch?v=BC48iDdpedw You can hardly see the flame, yet it heats the metal.

[fanbutton]

Okay, maybe I took it out of context a little, nevertheless, the key word there was "flame". I assumed you said "no visible flame", meaning there must be an invisble flame.

[horizonflyer9]

i hope we return to the moon someday

[fanbutton]

horizonflyer9, you should change your wording to "GO", not "RETURN".

[horizonflyer9]

what do you mean? we were at the moon a few times before so we should return to the moon again

[fanbutton]

"we were at the moon a few times before so we should return to the moon again"

You might want to retract that comment after watching this youtube video and the subsequent volumes after it:

DID WE LAND ON MOON?- (Vol1) -WE WANT THE TRUTH

[horizonflyer9]

oooh so you're another one of those stupid conspiracy theorists... i see now why you don't find my point valid.

[zerodura]

Precisava derrubar???

[tysoe27]

How to make a moon lander AND the price of fuel skyrocket at the same time...

[ucrash2]

don't forget the complex aerodynamic forces these craft encounter here on earth will not be present on lunar encounter.inertia will be stronger without dampening drag, or center of pressure situations. Earth testing is good, but incomplete.

[TerribleAstronomer]

One day I will learn to fly away .....

BTW Did not you already have one ? Which even worked on the moon 6 times. LOL.

[the13hill]

Well, I guess thats why so many people doubt the success of Apollo really landed on the moon surface that erect landing even now is so hard ...

[Avalikia]

Yeah, but such people forget that landing on the moon is much more forgiving that landing on the earth due to the weaker gravity and how the lunar surface isn't as hard as that concrete launch pad they were using, so it absorbs more of the impact from a crooked landing like the second one.

[un4g1v3n1]

Wrong! If you watch the LEM landings on the moon, you'll see they are going sideways at a good clip. When it hits, it's stops as if on a dime. It should have at the very least jerked and tipped towards the side it was moving towards.

[driubi]

not to mention this isn't nasa - its a competition design to reward private endeavors for space exploration - because if the current rate of underfunding continues - private endeavors are going to be the only method of advancing the technologies.

[PetrFM]

Don´t forget that in 60´ were space technology at the top. Not Only we have no technology to land on Moon now, but we are not able to orbit the moon wit such heavy ship as Apollo was.

[shimanoconvergence]

dude im sorry butt u musta just woken up from a 50 year comma or someting....u said that the """60´ were space technology at the top""""" lmao. sorry butt mi curent computerr that im using right now is 5 years old and its about 200-300 times stronger then the one that went up to the moon, i might be wrong... im pretyy shure there is the technology to go to the moon and beyond butt theres not enought funding in this cripled economy ...?

u gett mi point

[PetrFM]

Then send Your laptop to the moon if it is so powerful ;-)). The chips cannot fly to the space they only helps to drive the flight. The key is in engines and mechanical construction - this know how was lost since end of Saurn / Apollo program.

[shimanoconvergence]

how many robots have gonne to space already and theyre chips powered lol yeah.....an im 110% shure that all that lost info is somewere in someones basement getting eaten up by rats and termites :P...... thats all a lie

out governmenbt LIES to our people about alot of shit even about 9/11 bush knew it was coming so that day all the gold was taken out of the safes under the towers...? THE BEST GOVERNMENT IS THE ONE THAT GOVERNS NON AT ALL. period

[fanbutton]

It does not cost $30 billion to go to the moon.

India did it for not even 100 million.

[tkrWkLNsQk]

Human cannot ride it for danger.

[matt87305]

it wasn't in the world, it was on the moon...fucking faggot

[the13hill]

Well, I guess that why so many people doubt the success of Apollo really landed on the moon surface which landing even now is so hard

[Lansinoh]

The yanks are idiots they never went there it is all a big LIE and the rest of the world realise that except for those twats in their ivory towers... which incidentally were not plane proof... whoops.

[JokerisWebCams]

How smoothly everything went back in the Apollo days...

[TheClubland2010]

@JokerisWebCams If the apollo era did anything, it was not smoothly...they encountered hundreds of problems. It was only due to the skills of those involved that they managed to safely land on the moon.

[rogerpenna]

@JokerisWebCams

they didnt. And these landers work much better on the moon than on the Earth.

lower gravity and no gushes of wind to destabilize them.

[kd1s]

That little stunt at the end was great!

[DancingSpiderman]

Armadillo Aerospace welcomes Astronaut Hank Hill of Arlen TX to outer space, piloting the Strickland Flying Propane Tank (aka Moon Lander). Captain Boomhauer is Flight Ops over at Command Central...

[hutsell]

Have to say it - Ssswweeeet!

-

However, if the stabilization software remains problematic and wasn't due to over piloting, it'll still make an awesome leaf blower. :-)

[OghamTheBold]

Too long in the hover - it'll melt all the cheese

[Perktube1]

yehahahahaaa

[bmaLrevilO]

That was pretty damn cool...pity about the end lol

[cederom]

AWSOME!!! CONGRATULATIONS! :-)

CeDeROM WUZ HERE!

[bitRAKE]

Just like the C64 lunar lander game, lol!

[noodlemasta]

Very nice... but didn't 'we' make a pretty good moon lander in 1966?

[BabajaroX]

thrue that! lol

[kd1s]

Yes but many of the engineering drawing and technical specifications are either on media we can no longer read (old computer tapes) or have been lost.

The government needs a good document management system.

[awaken69]

pretty impressive stuff..! :-)

[IgWannA2]

wow, so smooth

[pedrobotinasguedes]

Definitively good job guys!

But unfortunatly this also show that in terms of propulsion techniches, we have created nothing revolutionary since the beginning of space exploration....

[ethalin]

Exactly, time to bring in some new ides, otherwise its a good job!

[pedrobotinasguedes]

Off course we could also say that if we consider the Space1999 TVseries, this looks like one of the propulsion engines of the Eagle spaceship. i.e.-we are only 8 years delayed in terms of Prop technology comparing to the forecasted in the series. ;-P

I wonder.....will the moon get out of earth orbit in a couple of years do to a nuclear explosion, like in the TV Series....(Just Kidding)

[kylegordon]

So close, yet so far

[PJMDS]

Almost perfect, good job, see you at the moon ;)