The tracking shot is not something that could ever be done remotely over 40 years ago, you could not pull that off today, from the other side of the same planet, using modern equipment... HOWEVER... even if you argue that it could be done, kindly explain the operation of the zoom lens, as that shot pans backwards before going upwards... something that needs a human touch, even today... i make films, cameras are my bag ok.
That camera work was done by a human hand, not a remote control
@AmsterdamnedMovie Also, notice the way in which towards the end, the camera starts to pan down a bit, to keep the pod in shot, but can't keep going to the left, and allows the pod to exit screen left... if the camera had gone further to the left, what would it have seen? one of the main buildings at area 51? or the crane supporting the pod?
The proof is in the money? This was before the time of Obama and the fact that the government throw hundreds of millions of dollars to make nothing? As for the camera they have used the best technology availible because of the inovation of NASA. Let us not forget when the government invents something the generally don't release it to the public right away.. There are tons of examples, look em up
@GUARDIANtrooper Your excellence in counter-trollism is impressive. Thanks for standing up to the conspiracy theorists who say we didn't goto the moon despite all the evidence against their claims. I don't thank you because you stand against them, anyone can do that, I thank you for being such an effective judicator!
too bad I will never live the day when Mankind will return to the Moon and then conquer Mars,we came in peace and we will one day return(probably in the 22nd century).
Cheer up, Space Adventures is planning a lunar flyby and have already sold a ticket. While an actual landing is substantially more complicated, it's a start.
@loperspest yes I know about the Soyuz moon flyyby,I understand that James Cameron bought one of the 100 million $ ticket,but the info on this mission is weak,and the date 2015 is too optimistic as they have to modify the Soyuz capsule and practicaly insert a larger service module for longer life support(THIS IS TOUGH TO ACCOMPLISH)
@TheHotelMoxa Still, it is likely to happen in your lifespan, so that's hope. Personally, I think NASA should leave orbit to the businesses and get back to exploring the universe, starting with the rest of the solar system.
Ever hear of NAUTILUS-X? Now that is a true ship of space, real spaceship.
She can not land on any world, only soar the endless depths.
@loperspest i've read of Nautilus on nasaspaceflight forums a couple of years ago,I understand that it has a very low projected cost for such a big ship(it used the Bigelow infaltion technique for the moduls),but it still needs a lot of venture capital to go of the drawing board,I want to see a new american spacecraft that has all the critical design review done,NASA and Roscosmos needs new spacecraft,they have perfoermant rockets like Atlas V Proton Delta IV.
@TheHotelMoxa The Russian space program isn't exactly innovating, but the age of Soyuz is itself a kind of innovation. Instead of throwing everything out only to remake it, Soyuz has had an incremental advancement until the present model Soyuz pretty much only has the basic frame in common with the original, and even that's not the same material any more.
Much sympathies on the loss of Phobos-Grunt.
As for NASA, I too hope they get more of what they need, what we as a species need.
@loperspest Regarding Orion there exists the prospect of budget cuts,MPCW and SLS could be canceled exactly like Constellation because of budget overruns and cuts/changes in space policy like it hapened with the Augustine committee.
I'm afraid of that,Mankind could cancel all manned LEO expeditions and evan the unmanned robotic missions(NASA and Roscosmos have no future funds for BIG flagship unmanned missions beyound LEO)
The future is vey dire $ is needed urgently at NASA
The camera on the rover could be remotely controlled from Earth and if you look at earlier video from this mission, there is many other examples as well.
/watch?v=vjHQMmL5ZYk
It was even moved after the astronauts left.
/watch?v=rKDZmLJZVcg
An interview with the man, google his name if you want more info.
@GUARDIANtrooper If anybody is the troll here, it's you pal. I'm not gonaa claim to be some know-it-all asshole like yourself, but if you were truly as smart as you proclaim to be, I doubt you'd be suck a fucking dickwad. Unless you think you're a higher being than the rest of us. Either way, the point I'm getting at is go fuck yourself and learn some social skills.
@TheLolcat69 I also love how your whole account revolves around the moon landings. It's not healthy to be so obsessed with such a stupid theory. Let me guess, you think 9/11 was an inside job too? Give me a break, kid.
@69YEARidiot What do you care to even challenge my opinions? Why did you come here? People who fight on either side of the fence don't even believe this crap to investigate it. Technology is much better, but everyone is still talking about going to the moon and rockets are still exploding. You don't know me old man to make any assumptions about me whatsoever. You can keep your lame suggestions to yourself. If I'm such a problem go find a grownup or go play with yourself if that's even possible.
@GUARDIANtrooper Haha you are such a fucking child. You think calling me old will butt hurt me or something? I am 19 kid, about to go in the Marines, and I will kick the living shit out of you if that's what you want. Just shut the fuck up and do something productive with your sad, lonely life. I'm done arguing with a stupid teen because I actually have things to do in my life. Like be with my fiance! Woah there, you probably don't know what it's like to be loved or be touched!
@GiFOOL So I guess you are too stupid to go to college so you decided to commit suicides by joining the Marines at wartime? Now you are definitely an idiot 4real... I'm not much younger than you are clown, with a much better future... Look at your head fool, you deliberately turned it completely backwards, because you can't hyperextend your leg enough to kick yourself in the face. You have absolutely no idea who I am, so stand by your weapons before they go off while you are wearing them...
@GUARDIANtrooper People like you make me laugh. You use a bunch of smart lingo and you instantly think you are a fucking master on the subject. How about we stick you on one of the shuttles, and send you straight into the fucking moon? It'd make us all happy, and prove your bitchass wrong.
@GUARDIANtrooper, I know I don't. At this point there is so much well thought out info supporting space program that anyone who chooses to believe it's fake does so for petty reasons. I say, let them think what they want! There's a few anti-moon people on every video, none of which seem agree on anything. If anything it looks like you're trying to change everyones understanding of what are facts. Prove we didn't go in a way that can't be debunked or be labeled a troll.
@pimpgangstaboss You are a joke. Where's the crane? Where's the atmosphere that stops the thin sheets of protecting mylar on the descent stage to fly a loong way away, as the do?
@nholt The camera was remote controlled from Earth. The operator new the exact time for lift-off (counting down) and the exact rate of ascent. He had trained extensively for the operation. The text under the video describes it even more. Check it out!
@nholt You can't send a signal 250,000 miles pass the space debris, strong radiation without interruptions to control a camera by remote dude. Get a remote control car and see how far it goes before you lose the signal. Do you not have signal interruptions with todays technology on earth with cell phone, satellite radio, TV, radio, etc? Imagine 30 planet earths lined up to control a camera by remote. Our tech couldn't reach the distance yesterday or today. Don't be fool for these lying Trolls...
@GUARDIANtrooper, typical crap talk with no proof. Interruptions don't matter to an analog signal. Even if they were there, they can keep sending new deltas until the camera is in position. And you compare the power levels of two entirely different signals, lol. funny. Cell signals are limited to protect civilians long term and are of lower power. You don't even believe what you are saying. You're just a troll calling others trolls. Obvious.. Very obvious.
@codednines It is quite obvious that you are thumbing yourself up fool and any idiot can see that, why can't you, LMAO!!! You are out of breath, just give up and die out...
@codednines No, obviously you have multi accounts thumbing yourself up for that ridiculous lame comment, you are an idiot and target practice. I don't have to prove anything to you liars, you proved it with your presentation to prove. NASA is on trial, not me, stop sweating. Why acknowledge my presents as a TROLL and then try to prove a LIE to be true. Honesty doesn't sweat for anything. If the Moon Landings are true, then what are you fighting for? The TRUTH doesn't need your support CLOWN...
@GUARDIANtrooper To fight to stop the spread of ignorance in this world, we already have enough as it is. You obviously don't know the meaning of TRUTH if you don't want to prove anything. PROOF gives meaning to the TRUTH. And if the US did not really go to the moon, why didn't the Soviet Union say anything? They were listening the whole time, surely America's greatest enemy at the time would have wanted to expose this secret?
@jvtillinfinity The only thing that is spreading is more Trolls and that spawning is ignorant. Spreading lies is enough already, the world doesn't need yours. TRUTH, will prove itself with no support, you will only defile it, leave it alone and watch the foolishness dissipate. Advocate it and watch the fight accumulate to the point of confusion to those undecided. That is a nonbeliever in the eyes of those who believe, like I was until I met your kind to research it. So keep up the good work...
@GUARDIANtrooper Great speech but you didn't answer my question. If truth will prove itself with no support, how is truth supposed to be recognized without evidence? There's no use in arguing with a troll, you are so far up your ass defecating on yourself that you are blind to your own ignorance.
Think of it like this, imagine talking beetween a ton of walls with walkey talkeys, the radio waves are able to go through the walls, same with the camera.
Cease all your blather you people don't have the right to give your opinion in this kind themes. Especially when you get your assuptions from other fools like you or ridiculous films. Try to form your own lies at least.
The rover has a camera controlled by a console in mission control, in apollo 15 and 16 the couldnt capture a perfect liftoff due to the lag of 6 seconds, so Ed Fendel, the camera guy at mission control panned and zoomed in several seconds before launch.
also, the LEM's name is Challenger, not Eagle, and they didnt have rovers in 11, so they couldnt broadcast the launch, except from inside the space craft, also
there arent any stars due to the Sun' s light, the Earth's light reflection, the LEM reflection, and of course, the Lunar soil reflection. also, at one point in the mission, Ed Fendel turned the camera toward the earth and zoomed in on it
Type "LROC Explores the Apollo 17 Landing Site" in your YouTube search bar and see why only nutbags and 13 year olds still think the 6 Moon landings were hoaxed.
@Daddyo930 Stop posing, no one cares. Go back to the "three days of darkness" or Nibiru and leave history to the ones who can recognize reality.
Should I post your comments about the "dark star that's 50 times bigger than Earth that will give us three days of darkness" bull shit you posted back in August? You sad, fool.
@Daddyo930 You really gotta give up that implicit assumption of yours that you're the smartest human who ever lived. If you can do that, everything will fall into place. For Apollo, NASA hired 400,000 or so technicians, engineers and scientists who were all a lot smarter than you so they WERE able to figure it out.
It's not like you have to do it independently, you know. You could actually try to learn how they did it instead of dropping buzzwords in a failed attempt to seem learned.
This fuels and oxidiser mix does not produce a visible plume in a vacuum. The 2nd stage of the Delta II rocket uses the exact same mix, in fact early models used surplus LM descent engines.
/watch?v=wzXKeOn3R1I#t=4m30s
You see a similar "burp" and no further visible plume.
@loperspest No plume on a vacuum! But of course! Yes, how could have not preceded to know that. Thanks! But the energy used to escape the moon must be dismal! I heard that a person without a weight suit on the moon could virtually jump away into space. I even heard one could fling rocks into space from the moon. I don't know what the gravity is exactly on the moon but it seams possible. I think it was 1/81 that of the Earth. I dunno, you can correct me if I'm wrong.
@brinztar The gravity isn't *that* low. It's more or less 1/6th that of Earth. But combined with the lack of atmosphere, so no friction, you need a lot less fuel to get into lunar orbit then Earth orbit. If you watch from the start of the video I linked to, you can see why the plume is transparent. Even though quite visible at launch, the exhaust for the first stage expands as there is less and less air pressure to contain it.
@loperspest Yeah. Luna is actually about the most challenging size it could have in terms of being able to soft-land easily on it. It's massive enough to have a pretty significant escape velocity (about 2.2 km/sec) but not so massive to hold an atmosphere that a parachute could use. So it takes a powered descent with quite a lot of fuel to soft-land on the moon. Fortunately, it's not that much harder to get back off it again.
@brinztar Yup, Luna (the name of our moon) is among the largest moons in the solar system (but four others are larger). Until the discovery of Pluto's moon Charon, the Earth/Luna combination was considered the closest thing we had in our solar system to a "double planet".
@ApolloWasReal That I did know. Our moons proportion compared to our planet and other planets moons compared to them are different. It is also cool how the moon is n times smaller than the sun but they are also n times apart in space, making them look the same size. The moon is awesome! n = a variable I forgot but you get the picture hahahaha.
@brinztar What you're saying is equivalent to the moon and sun having the same apparent size, about half a degree. That is cool, but it's just a coincidence. The moon was once much closer to the earth, and it is steadily moving away -- this is one of the things we know thanks to the Apollo program. We just happen to live at a time when we can see some really awesome solar eclipses. Of course, even now some of those eclipses are annular when the moon is at apogee and doesn't cover the sun.
@loperspest Oh yes I see. I said 1/81 because that is the density of the moon compared to the Earth. I thought there would be a correlation between mass and gravitational pull. My first guess was 1/4 but 1/6 sounds right. Yes the vid does show it quite well, thank you.
Another curious thing is that this "moonlander" is allegedly propelled on a pillar of gas, with a thrust of several tonnes. Where's the flame? All I see are some weird dots. Where´s the massive cloud of dust that must result? And how insanely skilled and cool is that astronaut who manages to pull a stunt like that? It's not like driving a car... You wont get a second try. Could he look out from a hole in the foil walls to see what angle he was in, or did he balance that thing on pure feeling?
These kinds of of fuels mixesdo not produce visible plumes in a vacuum. During my research, I found that the 2nd stage (not the solid rocket strap-on boosters) of the Delta 2 rocket uses the same and also produces, aside from a short "burp" also seen here, no visible plume in a vacuum.
@Chezzaze No atmosphere on the Moon, hence no exhaust or flame and the fuel was hypergolic.
No cloud because again there's no air on the Moon.
Every craft every airplane you see flying in the sky had to be flown for the first time by someone, they're called "test-pilots" and they have very huge & very gigantic balls.
It's amazing to me they could get their frigin balls in those tiny cock-pits
@Chezzaze Others have already correctly explained why there's no visible flame. As for the astronauts 'driving', during ascent the computer did all the driving. To keep the astronauts from getting too bored, they were given something to do: they punched a switch to manually lock the ascent engine on after it had already been started by the computer, and they had a button to manually stop the ascent engine in case the computer didn't shut it down on time.
How could they zoom and move a videocamera in real time back in 69? The technology of today lags several seconds when you make a live interview with some reporter from across the globe. But this is, as you point out, 238000 miles away, and it works great. Why dont we use that today? You didn't even have remote controls for your TV back then, but the wizards at NASA could transmit video without delay to the moon and back?
@Chezzaze There was lag, he, Ed Fendell, practised, and practised with raising it at the right time by using a simulated speed of light delay. If you watch the Apollo 16 lunar take off, you can see that he didn't get it right that time.
Oh and they did have remote controls for television back then, and the Russians were remotely controlling a rover on the moon.
This film, more than anything elsee, makes me convinced that some of the moonlanding films were faked and that, of course, makes the whole thing suspect. I can't believe that people can whatch films like this, in the age of the internet, and still refuse to believe their own eyes. What with the zooming in real time (on the moon), the weird lights (a la 2001) and the general vibe of crappy sci-fi? It not real. We're dreaming. I guess the implications are just too much.
@Chezzaze Yes, you're right. I can't understand how people can watch films like this, with the enormous amount of Apollo reference material readily available on the Internet, and actually think that it was all somehow faked.
@Chezzaze "I can't believe that people can whatch films like this".
Lets get this straight: This is a FANTASTIC piece of footage. Take it from me, you don't know what crappy sci-fi is.
This is a scene, captured by a 1969 TV camera, beamed 238000 miles to Earth, where it was recorded onto videotape. And you want to complain about the video quality/resolution? Get to specifics: What exactly is it about the film that makes you think it was faked?
The solar constant. 1.95 langleys Ly per minute. one langley is 41840.00 J/m². 41840 joules per meter squares or 41840 joules per kilogram = 4184000 rads. We never went anywhere because we couldn't even protect against the solar constant once you leave the protective 300 mile bubble. We'll leave the radiation belts out of it. The solar constant is one of the many reasons we never went anywhere the and we can't go now.
LOL 4 million rads hahaha you are just throwing numbers out that you don't understand, your figures are garbage. "300 mile bubble"? OK Gemini 8 went 850 miles high and had no problem, or was that fake too?
@Blahblobify Are you making threats? You should be careful about that. E=mc2 is the formula you use to convert mass to energy and energy to mass. You can convert pounds per square inch to rads with that formula.
@eventcone By using Einstein's formula E=mc² we can discover that a tiny amount of matter is equivalent to a massive amount of energy. If 1 gram of matter could be totally converted into energy it would be enough to : Lift 15 million people to the top of mount Everest; Boil 55million gallons of water or supply a town of 15000 people with electricity for a year. Where did you go to school?
@Daddyo930 I see that went straight over your head.
PSI is force per unit area. Nothing to do with mass.
But we are getting away from your original point, which was converting the solar constant to rads. Now you are a little out of my province - so I suggest you address Tweekerhead's point: That the solar constant can NOT be converted to RADS. Makes sense to me, as the constant refers to the sum total of the sun's output, not just the ionising radiation.
@eventcone "I don't think so. The pound is a unit of force, not of mass." By using Einstein's formula E=mc² we can discover that a tiny amount of matter is equivalent to a massive amount of energy. Now your just acting stupid. Now, what percentage of the solar constant is ionizing radiation?
@Daddyo930 Now you've retreated to relativistic mass-equivalence as the prohibitive issue of landing on the Moon?
Let's see.....first it was the flare of Nov.69' ..then all solar flares, the VAn Allen's, then gamma ray bursts-supernovae, the solar constant ,which you think is all ionizing, and now E=mc² ?
Now you really are desperate to confirm your wacky beliefs, but I gotta hand it to ya' ..You get right back up every time you get your ass handed to ya'.
@Tweekerhead Well, if you want to continue this conversation, if that's what you wanna call it, then you had better find it because we ain't goin nowhere until you do. Good luck.
Not that it matters it doesn't prove a thing, for one flare of Nov69' was prohibitive, two ...you haven't given so much as a little slightest meager inclination that you know how to calculate a flare -Earth interception from 69' LOL...Pleeeease
.
You keep spamming your nonsense, and I'll keep busting your claims, that's how a public forum works.
@Tweekerhead But.... But....You admitted that NASA uses Carrington! Everyone knows that NASA used Carrington. Why would they use Stonyhurst coordinates on one catalog?
@Daddyo930 You seem to think that by me admitting the coordinates are Carrington,that this exonerates you & proves the Moon landings were faked,it doesn't it's moot.You don't understand how to calculate flare intercepts or anything else related to astrophysics.
Your belief system is based on half cooked assumptions, just look at previous posts.
Catalog was compiled by astronomers from Czech. I'll try to find where it says Stonyhurst so you can sleep at night.
@Tweekerhead You already admitted that NASA uses Carrington for everything else. You expect me to believe they used Stonyhurst on this one catalog? please!
@Tweekerhead That's not how this goes. You insisted that this particular catalog uses Stonyhurst while at the same time admitting that NASA uses Carrington for everything else. We will stay here until we resolve this issue.
@Tweekerhead This guy has been all over Youtube tossing out radiation units without any clue what they mean, or the difference between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation, or even the difference between electromagnetic radiation and energetic charged particles. And not for the lack of my trying to educate him...
@Tweekerhead No, I was commenting to you about this clown Daddyo930, who has been all over Youtube pretending to know something about solar physics and space radiation and making a major fool of himself in the process.
@Tweekerhead Yes, I just watched it. It was great. I also sent some comments to him about it.
Daddyo is like hunchbacked, both can be fun to spar with and they give you an incentive to learn something interesting in the process, which is much more than they seem to be getting out of all this.
@ApolloWasReal . Ask hunchbacked, pt1gard, or un4g1v3n1 to use Photoshop to duplicate an LRO photo and see what happens. They say a child can do it but when I ask THEM to do it they huff and they puff and they get all wound up, lol. Check out the "Standing Wrongly" channel or "Moon Myth BUSTED! Flag in a Vacuum" channel to see what I mean. I asked pt1gard to go ahead of the curve and post a Photoshop LRO photo from real close up, like a mile away........ haven't heard from him since.
@teddysalad65 Yeah, I've made the very same requests to show us how easy it supposedly was to photoshop an LRO photo of a landing site. I got no further than you did. The same happened when I asked them to fake a convincing movie of an astronaut jumping on the moon, or throwing lightweight bags. Or to make an astronaut move just like an Apollo astronaut by using wires on the earth. All I ever get are crickets chirping. If it's so easy, why can't they do it?
@Daddyo930 You really have a problem with basic physics, don't you? Not to mention the difference between ionizing and non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation (photons), and the difference between ionizing electromagnetic radiation and energetic charged particles like electrons and protons.
Hint #1: photons do not have an electric charge. Hint #2: particles without electric charge are not deflected by magnetic fields, such as the earth's natural field.
@Daddyo930 I could tell you, but you're the one making the extravagant claims here so it was your job to find out before you stuck your foot in your mouth.
But first you should figure out the difference between photons and protons because it's fairly obvious you still don't get it even after I and others explained it to you many times.
@ApolloWasReal Stop acting like you know something and prove yourself. Post the number you believe to be the percentage of ionizing radiation in the solar constant or get lost.
@Daddyo930 I don't have to prove a thing to you. I didn't make the absurd claim that "the solar constant" somehow kept us from venturing beyond a "protective 300 mile bubble". You did. So it's entirely up to you to explain exactly why and back it up with evidence and logic. That's how science works -- the burden of proof is on the one making the extraordinary claim.
Or you could still show me that you understand the difference between a photon and a proton.
@ApolloWasReal Wow..., I don't have to go to school today and checking my emails, because this is the time I get up on weekend mornings. But why are you up this early worrying about this stupid shit? Are you in another country, WTF? This is definitely your job you fucking troll, LMAO!! Get a real job, NASA must be desperate to have you clowns on here defending this lie allllllllll day and night. Don't spend your ten dollar a week check all in one place bozo, LMAO!!! Loser...
@GUARDIANtrooper What country do you think I'm in? What hours do you think I normally keep? How much do you think I make doing this? Is this really any of your business? Or do you attack me personally while hoping that I'll simply forget that you can't address, much less actually win, a single relevant technical point I've made?
@GUARDIANtrooper Guardian. Watching "documentaries" on youtube where supposed "experts" say we didn't go to the moon does not make it true, and it doesn't make you more knowledgeable in the matter. Luckily for all of us, humanity has reached the moon, and it breaks my heart the greatest achievement by the U.S., the very reason I became a citizen, is denied by kids and morons on youtube. Conspiracy theories are almost always false. And this one, above all, is idiotic.
@evinado1 Then why did you come here to debate with me on the issue if it is meaningless? If morons on Youtube broke your steppingstone to be part of a dream then you came to this country for all the wrong reasons. My dream is to be an astronaut someday and I will claim victory, but first I have to help take care of this lie that you think makes our country so great. Conspiracy theories are mostly declassified by the perpetrators after they got BUSTED. Are you still in the USA, I can't tell...
@GUARDIANtrooper If You are so gullible and ignorant about basic physics, astronomy, photography and history that You believe the "hoax-sellers", I'm sorry to say You'll NEVER become an astronaut...
@YDDES What the hell was that jack o lantern ass comment you just wrote. It looked like you had to change your mind before you brought that bullshit, you better change that shit, LMAO!!! Dude, I am a astronaut, I just need to get pass the government hindering my path. You have no fucking idea what a great mind is capable of achieving, because you love sucking your own shit off of NASA's dick. There is no end to you ignorant ass GOVERNMENT DICK SUCKING TROLLS. I feel sorry for your futures...
@GUARDIANtrooper Well, if You are an "astronaut", please explain more exactly what You meant when You said that they couldn't bring enough fuel to travel to the Moon. Because it was hard to understand and didn't seem to add up with reality. Thank You!
@YDDES How many times do I have to explain this to you clowns. A rocket has only enough fuel to make it to the moon, IT IS NOT BIG ENOUGH TO MAKE A ROUND TRIP. It is not going to coast back to earth, even if you left the payload. If you believe the moon has 1/6 gravity you have to have more propulsion to get that Dr. Seuss looking piece of shit contraption into moon's orbit. Docking with the CM would be impossible with the tech we had and getting back requires fuel for guidance, constantly...
@krisdevalle Question: How do you find a CM miles in space in a cramped LEM looking through a window without any guidance? How do Michael Collins do a test on the moon when he was in space? What proof do you have that earth's gravity takes over after 1/6 of the way, NASA/Wikipedia? How does normal film work in extreme temperatures? How do you keep a rocket from going off course in an environment with not air and attitude guidance for a few days? You are a dumb motherafucker, study that Troll...
@krisdevalle Shut the fuck up Kris, everyone knows your Trolling ass is stupid... Every time I ask you a question you won't answer, but you conjure up bullshit that doesn't have anything to do with anything pertaining to what the fuck anyone said. Clean up your stupid shit, LMAO!
@GUARDIANtrooper I answered your questions. You seem to know very little about orbital mechanics, or even how a Homann transfer orbit works. 500 characters is scant room to educate you on what you should really be learning in a classroom.
You ask silly questions, often. How do you find the CM? You time the launch for the calculated time that CM is passing over, you use careful orbital mechanics to put it in the area, you use radar for pinpoint rendezvous. Not easy, but do-able. Next!
@GUARDIANtrooper What makes You think that the moonrockets only had enough fuel to make it to the moon? Are You a better rocket scientist than the scientists and rocket engineers working at Boeing, Douglas, North American and the other aerospace companies that designed and built the moonrockets? No, You are not, because then You shouldn't have produced so ignorant statements.
@YDDES First of all, the rocket never made it to the moon. It would be like you putting on a blindfold and letting someone spin you around and then shoot at a target. Just because you know the target is there, doesn't mean you can hit it. Comment sense doesn't have a damn thing to do with anyone with a degree. If you don't have any sense bitch, you can't get a degree. Your ignorant ass can't see that at all. If my statements are so ignorant, why do you challenge them? U-R Full of Shit...
The Russians sent probes to the moon in the 50's, including an intentional hard landing and a flyby that gave us the first pictures of the farside of the moon. They landed spacecraft on the moon and put them in lunar orbit 3 years before Apollo 11. They even sent probes to Venus successfully before any Apollo mission, manned or unmanned.
@loperspest With all the many times we have supposedly landed on the moon manned, the Russians has never to this day, WHY? FAKE probes, fake ass Apollo missions, what part of HOAX do you people continue to misunderstand when arguing with people who don't believe that shit? What do you care if I believe or not? Do my comments bother you? Of course, that is why I continue. If you clowns wouldn't acknowledge me on this subject, I wouldn't even be here. You fuck off, I'll fuck off... Still puzzled?
So any evidence that disagrees with your preconceived notions is "fake" ? The Lunokhod reflectors that scientists bounce lasers off around the world, are "fake"? The imagery the Jodrell Bank received from Luna 3,9 among others was "fake".
As for why the USSR never went, the Soviet Moon rocket, the N1, had a bad habit of blowing up in the first stage. In all four launch attempts, it did this. Kind of hard to get to the moon without a big rocket.
@GUARDIANtrooper Why wasn't the Service Module engine, already in lunar orbit and only needing to boost enough to leave lunar orbit to return the command service module to Earth,enough to return the CSM to Earth? Ever hear of Luna 16, 20 and 24? They were Soviet unmanned sample return probes that landed on the moon and returned lunar samples to Earth.
Of course, you are going to say that's fake as well, with equally little evidence.
@loperspest Because they couldn't even get pass the Van Allen belts to even make to the moon to even be debating on the issue. watch?v=dyl1LsB7Xr8
Only 350 miles above our planet and they suffered the unexpected. All the probes were FAKE and they are still FAKE to this day, lmao! You have to look at it from a HOAX point of view and not NASA's bullshit. You better cleanup that bullshit. That is why I call you bozos what you are, clowns with all your bullshit antics, lmao!!
@loperspest The Russians already tested animals and it is conclusive. They all died from lethal dozes of radiation. That is why the Russians don't have a flag on the fucking moon. If they tested so safely, where is their moon flag fool? Russian astronauts begged their leaders to go and they declined it. If they didn't, they would have a flag on the moon or a base, right? The Russians were ahead of us big time and now, nothing, what happen? Probes are fake, electronics will fail versus the belts.
I'd like a source for your claim that the animals in Russian tests "all died", the sources I provided say otherwise.
As said, their moon rocket, the N1, failed.
astronautix*com/lvs/n1*htm
Medium and GSO orbit satellites have to travel through the belts to their final orbit, satellites used for GPS use these orbits, so something is wrong with your claim.
Were Russians ahead?
Voskhod was a converted Vostok rather than a truly more capable craft as Gemini was compared to Mercury.
@loperspest I'm done with the homework bullshit, the source shit never works for you clowns. The internet is all propaganda as well as real life. I hardly think people working for NASA or the other propagandist would be a fucking source for anything other than a HOAX. You pretty much have to rely on real reasonable science and common fucking sense. It is evident that you people lack that shit. I bet you won't leave this shit to the called psychos and let the your so-called truth be what it is...
Without sources for your statements, I only have your word on this, which is contradicted by my sources.
I hope you can understand my doubts.
Your, for lack of a better word, antics of claiming everything I present is a lie or propaganda reminds me of a woman who said that the Earth stood on a turtle and didn't hang in space.
When asked what the turtle stood on, she replied
"It's turtles all the way down!"
From what you've presented so far, your claims are about as sensible.
@loperspest Fuck your sources, it is shit that NASA conjured up. How in the fuck is that reasonable coming from the perpetrators on trial you idiot? I don't give a shit about your doubts, I have mine and I don't respect yours. Therefore you have a choice. You could either respect mine or fuck off, I don't give a fuck. I'm a threat to your stupid ass moon landing HOAX, that is why you stupid ass people are acknowledging me. If not, then why bother? Believe in what you do and fuck the rest..
"That's right,get on outta here and never come back lousy earthlings"
NeutralNegotiator 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The tracking shot is not something that could ever be done remotely over 40 years ago, you could not pull that off today, from the other side of the same planet, using modern equipment... HOWEVER... even if you argue that it could be done, kindly explain the operation of the zoom lens, as that shot pans backwards before going upwards... something that needs a human touch, even today... i make films, cameras are my bag ok.
That camera work was done by a human hand, not a remote control
AmsterdamnedMovie 6 days ago
@AmsterdamnedMovie Also, notice the way in which towards the end, the camera starts to pan down a bit, to keep the pod in shot, but can't keep going to the left, and allows the pod to exit screen left... if the camera had gone further to the left, what would it have seen? one of the main buildings at area 51? or the crane supporting the pod?
AmsterdamnedMovie 6 days ago
The proof is in the money? This was before the time of Obama and the fact that the government throw hundreds of millions of dollars to make nothing? As for the camera they have used the best technology availible because of the inovation of NASA. Let us not forget when the government invents something the generally don't release it to the public right away.. There are tons of examples, look em up
iG0HAM 1 week ago
Astronaut: Hey guys! I set up the motion tracker tripod like you said
*lander takes off*
Astronaut: Guys? where'd you go?
*meanwhile, inside the lander pod*
Astronaut #2: Hey greg, did we forget something?
Astronaut #3: Nah, you're just being paranoid
ThePhychoHero 1 week ago
pitch over !!!
mon13orby16ar 2 weeks ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
wow does cameraman live on the moon? or did he return tı the world by other ship hahahaha idiots.
faruk34gng67 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
faruk34gng67 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
faruk34gng67 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Phony moonandings.
Aeronauticalexplorer 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
awey271 3 weeks ago
@GUARDIANtrooper Your excellence in counter-trollism is impressive. Thanks for standing up to the conspiracy theorists who say we didn't goto the moon despite all the evidence against their claims. I don't thank you because you stand against them, anyone can do that, I thank you for being such an effective judicator!
DrinkElectrolytes 3 weeks ago
1st person on the moon was Stanley.
KubricksMoons 4 weeks ago
@KubricksMoons Have you ever even watched 2001 you numbskull? It looks NOTHING LIKE THE APOLLO FOOTAGE.
yesiamawizardjonny 3 weeks ago
Kubrick made it look real.
KubricksMoons 4 weeks ago
Cameraman was left behind
surf55123 4 weeks ago
first people on the moon were armstrong (buzz)
rocketdude291 1 month ago
too bad I will never live the day when Mankind will return to the Moon and then conquer Mars,we came in peace and we will one day return(probably in the 22nd century).
TheHotelMoxa 1 month ago
@TheHotelMoxa
Cheer up, Space Adventures is planning a lunar flyby and have already sold a ticket. While an actual landing is substantially more complicated, it's a start.
loperspest 1 month ago
@loperspest yes I know about the Soyuz moon flyyby,I understand that James Cameron bought one of the 100 million $ ticket,but the info on this mission is weak,and the date 2015 is too optimistic as they have to modify the Soyuz capsule and practicaly insert a larger service module for longer life support(THIS IS TOUGH TO ACCOMPLISH)
TheHotelMoxa 1 month ago
@TheHotelMoxa Still, it is likely to happen in your lifespan, so that's hope. Personally, I think NASA should leave orbit to the businesses and get back to exploring the universe, starting with the rest of the solar system.
Ever hear of NAUTILUS-X? Now that is a true ship of space, real spaceship.
She can not land on any world, only soar the endless depths.
loperspest 1 month ago
@loperspest i've read of Nautilus on nasaspaceflight forums a couple of years ago,I understand that it has a very low projected cost for such a big ship(it used the Bigelow infaltion technique for the moduls),but it still needs a lot of venture capital to go of the drawing board,I want to see a new american spacecraft that has all the critical design review done,NASA and Roscosmos needs new spacecraft,they have perfoermant rockets like Atlas V Proton Delta IV.
manned Delta IV needed
TheHotelMoxa 1 month ago
@TheHotelMoxa The Russian space program isn't exactly innovating, but the age of Soyuz is itself a kind of innovation. Instead of throwing everything out only to remake it, Soyuz has had an incremental advancement until the present model Soyuz pretty much only has the basic frame in common with the original, and even that's not the same material any more.
Much sympathies on the loss of Phobos-Grunt.
As for NASA, I too hope they get more of what they need, what we as a species need.
loperspest 1 month ago
@loperspest Regarding Orion there exists the prospect of budget cuts,MPCW and SLS could be canceled exactly like Constellation because of budget overruns and cuts/changes in space policy like it hapened with the Augustine committee.
I'm afraid of that,Mankind could cancel all manned LEO expeditions and evan the unmanned robotic missions(NASA and Roscosmos have no future funds for BIG flagship unmanned missions beyound LEO)
The future is vey dire $ is needed urgently at NASA
TheHotelMoxa 1 month ago
who moved the camera?
NiPpLeSpAzM 1 month ago
@NiPpLeSpAzM
Ed Fendell back on Earth.
The camera on the rover could be remotely controlled from Earth and if you look at earlier video from this mission, there is many other examples as well.
/watch?v=vjHQMmL5ZYk
It was even moved after the astronauts left.
/watch?v=rKDZmLJZVcg
An interview with the man, google his name if you want more info.
next*nasa*gov/alsj/Fendell-OralHist*pdf
loperspest 1 month ago 8
@GUARDIANtrooper If anybody is the troll here, it's you pal. I'm not gonaa claim to be some know-it-all asshole like yourself, but if you were truly as smart as you proclaim to be, I doubt you'd be suck a fucking dickwad. Unless you think you're a higher being than the rest of us. Either way, the point I'm getting at is go fuck yourself and learn some social skills.
TheLolcat69 1 month ago
@TheLolcat69 I also love how your whole account revolves around the moon landings. It's not healthy to be so obsessed with such a stupid theory. Let me guess, you think 9/11 was an inside job too? Give me a break, kid.
TheLolcat69 1 month ago 6
This has been flagged as spam show
@69YEARidiot What do you care to even challenge my opinions? Why did you come here? People who fight on either side of the fence don't even believe this crap to investigate it. Technology is much better, but everyone is still talking about going to the moon and rockets are still exploding. You don't know me old man to make any assumptions about me whatsoever. You can keep your lame suggestions to yourself. If I'm such a problem go find a grownup or go play with yourself if that's even possible.
GUARDIANtrooper 1 month ago
@GUARDIANtrooper Haha you are such a fucking child. You think calling me old will butt hurt me or something? I am 19 kid, about to go in the Marines, and I will kick the living shit out of you if that's what you want. Just shut the fuck up and do something productive with your sad, lonely life. I'm done arguing with a stupid teen because I actually have things to do in my life. Like be with my fiance! Woah there, you probably don't know what it's like to be loved or be touched!
TheLolcat69 1 month ago 5
This has been flagged as spam show
@GiFOOL So I guess you are too stupid to go to college so you decided to commit suicides by joining the Marines at wartime? Now you are definitely an idiot 4real... I'm not much younger than you are clown, with a much better future... Look at your head fool, you deliberately turned it completely backwards, because you can't hyperextend your leg enough to kick yourself in the face. You have absolutely no idea who I am, so stand by your weapons before they go off while you are wearing them...
GUARDIANtrooper 1 month ago
@GUARDIANtrooper People like you make me laugh. You use a bunch of smart lingo and you instantly think you are a fucking master on the subject. How about we stick you on one of the shuttles, and send you straight into the fucking moon? It'd make us all happy, and prove your bitchass wrong.
TheLolcat69 1 month ago 6
@GUARDIANtrooper, I know I don't. At this point there is so much well thought out info supporting space program that anyone who chooses to believe it's fake does so for petty reasons. I say, let them think what they want! There's a few anti-moon people on every video, none of which seem agree on anything. If anything it looks like you're trying to change everyones understanding of what are facts. Prove we didn't go in a way that can't be debunked or be labeled a troll.
codednines 1 month ago 24
@codednines google lunarlandingresearchfacility , go to pictures and understand it was lifted there with the crane and filmed at night.
pimpgangstaboss 2 weeks ago
@pimpgangstaboss You are a joke. Where's the crane? Where's the atmosphere that stops the thin sheets of protecting mylar on the descent stage to fly a loong way away, as the do?
YDDES 1 week ago
@TheLolcat69 Hey buddy, your talking to yourself.
xxuncexx 1 month ago
@xxuncexx I was continuing my comment towards Guardiantrooper.....
TheLolcat69 1 month ago
@TheLolcat69 Hey buddy, your talking to yourself.
xxuncexx 1 month ago
was that fake
Ucan274 1 month ago
@Ucan274
What was? Apollo 18? This video?
Please clarify your statement.
loperspest 1 month ago
@Ucan274 no idiot
Frankeinstein127 1 month ago
But the question is WAS APOLLO18 ON THE MOON?
MrCssmovie 1 month ago
Serious question was the camera remote controlled? How did it tilt up to follow the blast off?
nholt 2 months ago
@nholt The camera was remote controlled from Earth. The operator new the exact time for lift-off (counting down) and the exact rate of ascent. He had trained extensively for the operation. The text under the video describes it even more. Check it out!
YDDES 2 months ago
@nholt You can't send a signal 250,000 miles pass the space debris, strong radiation without interruptions to control a camera by remote dude. Get a remote control car and see how far it goes before you lose the signal. Do you not have signal interruptions with todays technology on earth with cell phone, satellite radio, TV, radio, etc? Imagine 30 planet earths lined up to control a camera by remote. Our tech couldn't reach the distance yesterday or today. Don't be fool for these lying Trolls...
GUARDIANtrooper 2 months ago
@GUARDIANtrooper, typical crap talk with no proof. Interruptions don't matter to an analog signal. Even if they were there, they can keep sending new deltas until the camera is in position. And you compare the power levels of two entirely different signals, lol. funny. Cell signals are limited to protect civilians long term and are of lower power. You don't even believe what you are saying. You're just a troll calling others trolls. Obvious.. Very obvious.
codednines 1 month ago 19
This has been flagged as spam show
@codednines It is quite obvious that you are thumbing yourself up fool and any idiot can see that, why can't you, LMAO!!! You are out of breath, just give up and die out...
GUARDIANtrooper 1 month ago
@GUARDIANtrooper Why so fag?
TheIronicUsername 3 weeks ago
@codednines No, obviously you have multi accounts thumbing yourself up for that ridiculous lame comment, you are an idiot and target practice. I don't have to prove anything to you liars, you proved it with your presentation to prove. NASA is on trial, not me, stop sweating. Why acknowledge my presents as a TROLL and then try to prove a LIE to be true. Honesty doesn't sweat for anything. If the Moon Landings are true, then what are you fighting for? The TRUTH doesn't need your support CLOWN...
GUARDIANtrooper 3 weeks ago
@GUARDIANtrooper To fight to stop the spread of ignorance in this world, we already have enough as it is. You obviously don't know the meaning of TRUTH if you don't want to prove anything. PROOF gives meaning to the TRUTH. And if the US did not really go to the moon, why didn't the Soviet Union say anything? They were listening the whole time, surely America's greatest enemy at the time would have wanted to expose this secret?
jvtillinfinity 3 weeks ago
@jvtillinfinity The only thing that is spreading is more Trolls and that spawning is ignorant. Spreading lies is enough already, the world doesn't need yours. TRUTH, will prove itself with no support, you will only defile it, leave it alone and watch the foolishness dissipate. Advocate it and watch the fight accumulate to the point of confusion to those undecided. That is a nonbeliever in the eyes of those who believe, like I was until I met your kind to research it. So keep up the good work...
GUARDIANtrooper 3 weeks ago
@GUARDIANtrooper Great speech but you didn't answer my question. If truth will prove itself with no support, how is truth supposed to be recognized without evidence? There's no use in arguing with a troll, you are so far up your ass defecating on yourself that you are blind to your own ignorance.
jvtillinfinity 3 weeks ago
@GUARDIANtrooper
Think of it like this, imagine talking beetween a ton of walls with walkey talkeys, the radio waves are able to go through the walls, same with the camera.
awey271 3 weeks ago
Wow, we've got a keeper here, folks...
Seriously, resistance in space? I'm almost afraid to see where this rabbit hole goes...
Bankstercide 2 months ago
Cease all your blather you people don't have the right to give your opinion in this kind themes. Especially when you get your assuptions from other fools like you or ridiculous films. Try to form your own lies at least.
SEVENFLORES 2 months ago
And the reason we left: /watch?v=0F6DU6gx7-w
nils4545 2 months ago
WHERE IS GUARDIANTROOPERS COMMENT @#$%^&
PurplePacto 2 months ago
FAKE
MrWaliNanggroe 2 months ago
@MrWaliNanggroe
Give a reason why this is fake
awey271 3 weeks ago
who was staying to take video of the liftoff?
moon buggy was unnecessary. it was big risk to take with them to the moon.
they didn´t film that when muun buggy was taken from the eagle.
where are all the stars? why they didn´t videotaped earth when they was on the moon surface?
is this a hoax of the centary?
qlli100 2 months ago
@qlli100
There was television camera on the moon buggy. It could be remote controlled from Earth, just like the Lunokhod rovers were.
Why do you think the rover a big risk?
A bit of a nitpick, but Eagle was the designation for only the Apollo 11 LM.Here is them deploying the rover on Apollo 15.
watch?v=-ShauSWcTC4
As for where the stars are, they are too faint to be visible and expose the sunlit moon surface properly.
There is, in fact,. video of Earth from the surface.
watch?v=JRuauJsU0n4
loperspest 2 months ago 2
@qlli100
The eagle didn't have a moon buggy you idiot.
There are no stars in any other videos of space walks from orbit either dumbfuck, educate yourself as to why.
Now STFU you are too ignorant to have an opinion on anything.
Blahblobify 2 months ago
@qlli100
The rover has a camera controlled by a console in mission control, in apollo 15 and 16 the couldnt capture a perfect liftoff due to the lag of 6 seconds, so Ed Fendel, the camera guy at mission control panned and zoomed in several seconds before launch.
also, the LEM's name is Challenger, not Eagle, and they didnt have rovers in 11, so they couldnt broadcast the launch, except from inside the space craft, also
awey271 3 weeks ago
@qlli100
there arent any stars due to the Sun' s light, the Earth's light reflection, the LEM reflection, and of course, the Lunar soil reflection. also, at one point in the mission, Ed Fendel turned the camera toward the earth and zoomed in on it
awey271 3 weeks ago
Shit, the camera controller on earth did an AWESOME job considering the three second delay!
aigg 3 months ago
@aigg Yep, practise will do that.
loperspest 3 months ago
@loperspest true...if i remember correctly, he screwed it up on the previous flight...
aigg 3 months ago
@aigg Yep, that and they parked the rover too close to the LM to catch it, the camera tilting up at a fixed rate as the ascent module lifted off.
loperspest 3 months ago
Wow, you almost can't even see the string...
dav8d777 3 months ago
Did they left heir cameraman there?
Or how the camera been moved?
HeZu1987 3 months ago
@HeZu1987
The same way it is being moved in this video.
watch?v=vjHQMmL5ZYk
There was a television camera on the lunar rover that could be remotely panned, tilted, and zoomed from Earth by mission control.
Ed Fendell was in charge of this particular camera movement.
No, this is not impossible. The USSR was remotely piloting a rover, Lunokhod 1 on the moon in 1970.
loperspest 3 months ago 2
@loperspest Ofcourse its possible, from earth to moon theres atleast 2seconds delay or more.
HeZu1987 3 months ago
@HeZu1987 Yep, and that is why Ed Fendell practised. Here is an interview with him.
next*nasa*gov/alsj/Fendell-OralHist*pdf
loperspest 3 months ago 4
Type "LROC Explores the Apollo 17 Landing Site" in your YouTube search bar and see why only nutbags and 13 year olds still think the 6 Moon landings were hoaxed.
teddysalad65 3 months ago 3
Complete nonsense. We never went anywhere.
Daddyo930 3 months ago
@Daddyo930 Stop posing, no one cares. Go back to the "three days of darkness" or Nibiru and leave history to the ones who can recognize reality.
Should I post your comments about the "dark star that's 50 times bigger than Earth that will give us three days of darkness" bull shit you posted back in August? You sad, fool.
Tweekerhead 3 months ago
@Daddyo930 You really gotta give up that implicit assumption of yours that you're the smartest human who ever lived. If you can do that, everything will fall into place. For Apollo, NASA hired 400,000 or so technicians, engineers and scientists who were all a lot smarter than you so they WERE able to figure it out.
It's not like you have to do it independently, you know. You could actually try to learn how they did it instead of dropping buzzwords in a failed attempt to seem learned.
ApolloWasReal 3 months ago 2
Cool how it only takes a lame ass explosion to escape the moons gravity and on the Earth it takes tons of fuel continuously being shot out.
brinztar 3 months ago
@brinztar
This fuels and oxidiser mix does not produce a visible plume in a vacuum. The 2nd stage of the Delta II rocket uses the exact same mix, in fact early models used surplus LM descent engines.
/watch?v=wzXKeOn3R1I#t=4m30s
You see a similar "burp" and no further visible plume.
loperspest 3 months ago
@loperspest No plume on a vacuum! But of course! Yes, how could have not preceded to know that. Thanks! But the energy used to escape the moon must be dismal! I heard that a person without a weight suit on the moon could virtually jump away into space. I even heard one could fling rocks into space from the moon. I don't know what the gravity is exactly on the moon but it seams possible. I think it was 1/81 that of the Earth. I dunno, you can correct me if I'm wrong.
brinztar 3 months ago
@brinztar The gravity isn't *that* low. It's more or less 1/6th that of Earth. But combined with the lack of atmosphere, so no friction, you need a lot less fuel to get into lunar orbit then Earth orbit. If you watch from the start of the video I linked to, you can see why the plume is transparent. Even though quite visible at launch, the exhaust for the first stage expands as there is less and less air pressure to contain it.
loperspest 3 months ago
@loperspest Yeah. Luna is actually about the most challenging size it could have in terms of being able to soft-land easily on it. It's massive enough to have a pretty significant escape velocity (about 2.2 km/sec) but not so massive to hold an atmosphere that a parachute could use. So it takes a powered descent with quite a lot of fuel to soft-land on the moon. Fortunately, it's not that much harder to get back off it again.
ApolloWasReal 3 months ago
@brinztar You heard wrong. Unless you can jump at over 2,380 m/sec, the moon's escape velocity, you can't escape the moon that way.
Only from small asteroids could an astronaut literally jump away.
ApolloWasReal 3 months ago
@ApolloWasReal Oh I see. The moon is still mighty.
brinztar 3 months ago
@brinztar Yup, Luna (the name of our moon) is among the largest moons in the solar system (but four others are larger). Until the discovery of Pluto's moon Charon, the Earth/Luna combination was considered the closest thing we had in our solar system to a "double planet".
ApolloWasReal 3 months ago
@ApolloWasReal That I did know. Our moons proportion compared to our planet and other planets moons compared to them are different. It is also cool how the moon is n times smaller than the sun but they are also n times apart in space, making them look the same size. The moon is awesome! n = a variable I forgot but you get the picture hahahaha.
brinztar 3 months ago
@brinztar What you're saying is equivalent to the moon and sun having the same apparent size, about half a degree. That is cool, but it's just a coincidence. The moon was once much closer to the earth, and it is steadily moving away -- this is one of the things we know thanks to the Apollo program. We just happen to live at a time when we can see some really awesome solar eclipses. Of course, even now some of those eclipses are annular when the moon is at apogee and doesn't cover the sun.
ApolloWasReal 3 months ago
@loperspest Oh yes I see. I said 1/81 because that is the density of the moon compared to the Earth. I thought there would be a correlation between mass and gravitational pull. My first guess was 1/4 but 1/6 sounds right. Yes the vid does show it quite well, thank you.
brinztar 3 months ago
@brinztar There is, but density is only part of the equation. Where are you getting your 1/81 figure?
Density has nothing to do with total mass by the way, it's how *much* mass in a given amount of space.
loperspest 3 months ago
@brinztar You think maybe, just maybe, it might have something to do with the moon having only 1/81 the mass of the earth?
ApolloWasReal 3 months ago
HAHA did they just blast off without their camera guy?
theblacksheep1000 3 months ago
@theblacksheep1000 No, the television was mounted on the rover remote controlled from Earth.
It even panned around after they left before the battery ran out.
/watch?v=rKDZmLJZVcg
loperspest 3 months ago
There's an amusing piece of journalism that might raise a few questions, called "Wagging the moondoggie". Make a search for it, if you so wish.
Chezzaze 3 months ago
Another curious thing is that this "moonlander" is allegedly propelled on a pillar of gas, with a thrust of several tonnes. Where's the flame? All I see are some weird dots. Where´s the massive cloud of dust that must result? And how insanely skilled and cool is that astronaut who manages to pull a stunt like that? It's not like driving a car... You wont get a second try. Could he look out from a hole in the foil walls to see what angle he was in, or did he balance that thing on pure feeling?
Chezzaze 3 months ago
@Chezzaze
These kinds of of fuels mixesdo not produce visible plumes in a vacuum. During my research, I found that the 2nd stage (not the solid rocket strap-on boosters) of the Delta 2 rocket uses the same and also produces, aside from a short "burp" also seen here, no visible plume in a vacuum.
/watch?v=wzXKeOn3R1I @4:30
As for the lack of dust cloud, there is no air for the dust to be suspended in.
You might not get a 2nd try, but they had lots of practise back on Earth in simulators.
loperspest 3 months ago
@Chezzaze No atmosphere on the Moon, hence no exhaust or flame and the fuel was hypergolic.
No cloud because again there's no air on the Moon.
Every craft every airplane you see flying in the sky had to be flown for the first time by someone, they're called "test-pilots" and they have very huge & very gigantic balls.
It's amazing to me they could get their frigin balls in those tiny cock-pits
Tweekerhead 3 months ago
@Chezzaze Lunar Orbiter has taken photos of several of the landing zones.
Vionite 3 months ago
@Chezzaze Others have already correctly explained why there's no visible flame. As for the astronauts 'driving', during ascent the computer did all the driving. To keep the astronauts from getting too bored, they were given something to do: they punched a switch to manually lock the ascent engine on after it had already been started by the computer, and they had a button to manually stop the ascent engine in case the computer didn't shut it down on time.
ApolloWasReal 3 months ago
How could they zoom and move a videocamera in real time back in 69? The technology of today lags several seconds when you make a live interview with some reporter from across the globe. But this is, as you point out, 238000 miles away, and it works great. Why dont we use that today? You didn't even have remote controls for your TV back then, but the wizards at NASA could transmit video without delay to the moon and back?
Chezzaze 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Chezzaze There was lag, he, Ed Fendell, practised, and practised with raising it at the right time by using a simulated speed of light delay. If you watch the Apollo 16 lunar take off, you can see that he didn't get it right that time.
Oh and they did have remote controls for television back then, and the Russians were remotely controlling a rover on the moon.
en*wikipedia*org/wiki/Remote_control#Television_remote_controls
en*wikipedia*org/wiki/Lunokhod_1
loperspest 3 months ago
This film, more than anything elsee, makes me convinced that some of the moonlanding films were faked and that, of course, makes the whole thing suspect. I can't believe that people can whatch films like this, in the age of the internet, and still refuse to believe their own eyes. What with the zooming in real time (on the moon), the weird lights (a la 2001) and the general vibe of crappy sci-fi? It not real. We're dreaming. I guess the implications are just too much.
Chezzaze 3 months ago
@Chezzaze Yes, you're right. I can't understand how people can watch films like this, with the enormous amount of Apollo reference material readily available on the Internet, and actually think that it was all somehow faked.
ApolloWasReal 3 months ago
@Chezzaze "I can't believe that people can whatch films like this".
Lets get this straight: This is a FANTASTIC piece of footage. Take it from me, you don't know what crappy sci-fi is.
This is a scene, captured by a 1969 TV camera, beamed 238000 miles to Earth, where it was recorded onto videotape. And you want to complain about the video quality/resolution? Get to specifics: What exactly is it about the film that makes you think it was faked?
eventcone 3 months ago
They just left someone up there to film it. Lol.
azsxdc731 3 months ago
The solar constant. 1.95 langleys Ly per minute. one langley is 41840.00 J/m². 41840 joules per meter squares or 41840 joules per kilogram = 4184000 rads. We never went anywhere because we couldn't even protect against the solar constant once you leave the protective 300 mile bubble. We'll leave the radiation belts out of it. The solar constant is one of the many reasons we never went anywhere the and we can't go now.
Daddyo930 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Daddyo930 "The solar constant is one of the many reasons we never went anywhere the and we can't go now".
You forgot to reference your source......?
eventcone 3 months ago
@eventcone He forgot to reference his source because he doesn't have one beyond his own imagination and ignorance of physics.
ApolloWasReal 3 months ago
@Daddyo930
LOL 4 million rads hahaha you are just throwing numbers out that you don't understand, your figures are garbage. "300 mile bubble"? OK Gemini 8 went 850 miles high and had no problem, or was that fake too?
Blahblobify 3 months ago
@Blahblobify Do you understand the concept of mass-energy equivalence?
Daddyo930 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Daddyo930 Do you understand the concept of mass-energy equivalence?
Evidently not.
Tweekerhead 3 months ago
Comment removed
Blahblobify 3 months ago
@Blahblobify Are you making threats? You should be careful about that. E=mc2 is the formula you use to convert mass to energy and energy to mass. You can convert pounds per square inch to rads with that formula.
Daddyo930 3 months ago
Comment removed
Blahblobify 3 months ago
@Daddyo930 "You can convert pounds per square inch to rads with that formula".
I don't think so. The pound is a unit of force, not of mass.
eventcone 3 months ago
@eventcone By using Einstein's formula E=mc² we can discover that a tiny amount of matter is equivalent to a massive amount of energy. If 1 gram of matter could be totally converted into energy it would be enough to : Lift 15 million people to the top of mount Everest; Boil 55million gallons of water or supply a town of 15000 people with electricity for a year. Where did you go to school?
Daddyo930 3 months ago
@Daddyo930 I see that went straight over your head.
PSI is force per unit area. Nothing to do with mass.
But we are getting away from your original point, which was converting the solar constant to rads. Now you are a little out of my province - so I suggest you address Tweekerhead's point: That the solar constant can NOT be converted to RADS. Makes sense to me, as the constant refers to the sum total of the sun's output, not just the ionising radiation.
eventcone 3 months ago
@eventcone "I don't think so. The pound is a unit of force, not of mass." By using Einstein's formula E=mc² we can discover that a tiny amount of matter is equivalent to a massive amount of energy. Now your just acting stupid. Now, what percentage of the solar constant is ionizing radiation?
Daddyo930 3 months ago
@Daddyo930 Now you've retreated to relativistic mass-equivalence as the prohibitive issue of landing on the Moon?
Let's see.....first it was the flare of Nov.69' ..then all solar flares, the VAn Allen's, then gamma ray bursts-supernovae, the solar constant ,which you think is all ionizing, and now E=mc² ?
Now you really are desperate to confirm your wacky beliefs, but I gotta hand it to ya' ..You get right back up every time you get your ass handed to ya'.
Tweekerhead 3 months ago
@Tweekerhead We are still at you pointing out in the catalog where the reference to Stonyhurst is.
Daddyo930 3 months ago
@Daddyo930 I honestly looked for it the other day, but I can't remember where it was.
Not that it matters becuase the issue is refuted, by why not show me where it says the catalog uses Carrington instead? Mmmmm?
Tweekerhead 3 months ago
@Tweekerhead Well, if you want to continue this conversation, if that's what you wanna call it, then you had better find it because we ain't goin nowhere until you do. Good luck.
Daddyo930 3 months ago
@Daddyo930 No...YOU aren't going anywhere.
Show me where it says Carrington.
Not that it matters it doesn't prove a thing, for one flare of Nov69' was prohibitive, two ...you haven't given so much as a little slightest meager inclination that you know how to calculate a flare -Earth interception from 69' LOL...Pleeeease
.
You keep spamming your nonsense, and I'll keep busting your claims, that's how a public forum works.
.
Now show where it says Carrington.
Tweekerhead 3 months ago
@Tweekerhead But.... But....You admitted that NASA uses Carrington! Everyone knows that NASA used Carrington. Why would they use Stonyhurst coordinates on one catalog?
Daddyo930 3 months ago
@Daddyo930 You seem to think that by me admitting the coordinates are Carrington,that this exonerates you & proves the Moon landings were faked,it doesn't it's moot.You don't understand how to calculate flare intercepts or anything else related to astrophysics.
Your belief system is based on half cooked assumptions, just look at previous posts.
Catalog was compiled by astronomers from Czech. I'll try to find where it says Stonyhurst so you can sleep at night.
Show where it says Carrington.
Tweekerhead 3 months ago
@Tweekerhead You already admitted that NASA uses Carrington for everything else. You expect me to believe they used Stonyhurst on this one catalog? please!
Daddyo930 3 months ago
@Daddyo930 Show me where it says Carrington,......page .........?????
I'd move on to some other astrophysical related issue as a barrier for space flight, cuz' that last go round was fun.
Tweekerhead 3 months ago
@Tweekerhead That's not how this goes. You insisted that this particular catalog uses Stonyhurst while at the same time admitting that NASA uses Carrington for everything else. We will stay here until we resolve this issue.
Daddyo930 3 months ago
@Daddyo930 What page did you say???
Tweekerhead 3 months ago
@Daddyo930 Oh God, you've corrected by many people including me on this.
The solar constant can NOT be converted to RADS
Not all of the solar constant is ionizing radiation.
Your conversion is stupid and ridiculous.
Tweekerhead 3 months ago
@Tweekerhead This guy has been all over Youtube tossing out radiation units without any clue what they mean, or the difference between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation, or even the difference between electromagnetic radiation and energetic charged particles. And not for the lack of my trying to educate him...
ApolloWasReal 3 months ago
@ApolloWasReal I think you have me confused with Daddyo my man, I defend Apollo not slander it.
And yes, I do know the difference between said radiations ;-)
Tweekerhead 3 months ago
@Tweekerhead No, I was commenting to you about this clown Daddyo930, who has been all over Youtube pretending to know something about solar physics and space radiation and making a major fool of himself in the process.
ApolloWasReal 3 months ago
@ApolloWasReal I assume you've seen Lunar Tuner's new video answering pt1gard's 10 questions?
It's pretty freekin awesome. One of the best.
Daddyo is fun, he comes up with some crazy stuff, he's helped me brush up on some astro-related subjects.
TC
Tweekerhead 3 months ago
@Tweekerhead Yes, I just watched it. It was great. I also sent some comments to him about it.
Daddyo is like hunchbacked, both can be fun to spar with and they give you an incentive to learn something interesting in the process, which is much more than they seem to be getting out of all this.
ApolloWasReal 3 months ago
@ApolloWasReal . Ask hunchbacked, pt1gard, or un4g1v3n1 to use Photoshop to duplicate an LRO photo and see what happens. They say a child can do it but when I ask THEM to do it they huff and they puff and they get all wound up, lol. Check out the "Standing Wrongly" channel or "Moon Myth BUSTED! Flag in a Vacuum" channel to see what I mean. I asked pt1gard to go ahead of the curve and post a Photoshop LRO photo from real close up, like a mile away........ haven't heard from him since.
teddysalad65 3 months ago
@teddysalad65 Yeah, I've made the very same requests to show us how easy it supposedly was to photoshop an LRO photo of a landing site. I got no further than you did. The same happened when I asked them to fake a convincing movie of an astronaut jumping on the moon, or throwing lightweight bags. Or to make an astronaut move just like an Apollo astronaut by using wires on the earth. All I ever get are crickets chirping. If it's so easy, why can't they do it?
ApolloWasReal 3 months ago
@Daddyo930 You really have a problem with basic physics, don't you? Not to mention the difference between ionizing and non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation (photons), and the difference between ionizing electromagnetic radiation and energetic charged particles like electrons and protons.
Hint #1: photons do not have an electric charge. Hint #2: particles without electric charge are not deflected by magnetic fields, such as the earth's natural field.
ApolloWasReal 3 months ago
@ApolloWasReal So tell me then. What percentage of the solar constant is ionizing radiation?
Daddyo930 3 months ago
@Daddyo930 I could tell you, but you're the one making the extravagant claims here so it was your job to find out before you stuck your foot in your mouth.
But first you should figure out the difference between photons and protons because it's fairly obvious you still don't get it even after I and others explained it to you many times.
ApolloWasReal 3 months ago
@ApolloWasReal Stop acting like you know something and prove yourself. Post the number you believe to be the percentage of ionizing radiation in the solar constant or get lost.
Daddyo930 3 months ago
@Daddyo930 I don't have to prove a thing to you. I didn't make the absurd claim that "the solar constant" somehow kept us from venturing beyond a "protective 300 mile bubble". You did. So it's entirely up to you to explain exactly why and back it up with evidence and logic. That's how science works -- the burden of proof is on the one making the extraordinary claim.
Or you could still show me that you understand the difference between a photon and a proton.
ApolloWasReal 3 months ago
@ApolloWasReal Wow..., I don't have to go to school today and checking my emails, because this is the time I get up on weekend mornings. But why are you up this early worrying about this stupid shit? Are you in another country, WTF? This is definitely your job you fucking troll, LMAO!! Get a real job, NASA must be desperate to have you clowns on here defending this lie allllllllll day and night. Don't spend your ten dollar a week check all in one place bozo, LMAO!!! Loser...
GUARDIANtrooper 3 months ago
@GUARDIANtrooper What country do you think I'm in? What hours do you think I normally keep? How much do you think I make doing this? Is this really any of your business? Or do you attack me personally while hoping that I'll simply forget that you can't address, much less actually win, a single relevant technical point I've made?
ApolloWasReal 3 months ago
@GUARDIANtrooper Guardian. Watching "documentaries" on youtube where supposed "experts" say we didn't go to the moon does not make it true, and it doesn't make you more knowledgeable in the matter. Luckily for all of us, humanity has reached the moon, and it breaks my heart the greatest achievement by the U.S., the very reason I became a citizen, is denied by kids and morons on youtube. Conspiracy theories are almost always false. And this one, above all, is idiotic.
evinado1 3 months ago
@evinado1 Then why did you come here to debate with me on the issue if it is meaningless? If morons on Youtube broke your steppingstone to be part of a dream then you came to this country for all the wrong reasons. My dream is to be an astronaut someday and I will claim victory, but first I have to help take care of this lie that you think makes our country so great. Conspiracy theories are mostly declassified by the perpetrators after they got BUSTED. Are you still in the USA, I can't tell...
GUARDIANtrooper 3 months ago
@GUARDIANtrooper If You are so gullible and ignorant about basic physics, astronomy, photography and history that You believe the "hoax-sellers", I'm sorry to say You'll NEVER become an astronaut...
YDDES 3 months ago 21
This has been flagged as spam show
@YDDES What the hell was that jack o lantern ass comment you just wrote. It looked like you had to change your mind before you brought that bullshit, you better change that shit, LMAO!!! Dude, I am a astronaut, I just need to get pass the government hindering my path. You have no fucking idea what a great mind is capable of achieving, because you love sucking your own shit off of NASA's dick. There is no end to you ignorant ass GOVERNMENT DICK SUCKING TROLLS. I feel sorry for your futures...
GUARDIANtrooper 3 months ago
@GUARDIANtrooper Well, if You are an "astronaut", please explain more exactly what You meant when You said that they couldn't bring enough fuel to travel to the Moon. Because it was hard to understand and didn't seem to add up with reality. Thank You!
YDDES 2 months ago
@YDDES How many times do I have to explain this to you clowns. A rocket has only enough fuel to make it to the moon, IT IS NOT BIG ENOUGH TO MAKE A ROUND TRIP. It is not going to coast back to earth, even if you left the payload. If you believe the moon has 1/6 gravity you have to have more propulsion to get that Dr. Seuss looking piece of shit contraption into moon's orbit. Docking with the CM would be impossible with the tech we had and getting back requires fuel for guidance, constantly...
GUARDIANtrooper 2 months ago
@GUARDIANtrooper The craft only needs to get clear of the lunar gravity before it simply falls back to Earth.
It's that simple, buddy. Escape velocity of the Earth: 11.186 km/s Escape Velocity of the Moon: 2.38 km/s. Notice there is quite a difference!
So once the craft is 1/6th of the way back, Earth's gravity takes over. It really does coast (or fall, really).
You are either stupid, or ignorant, or both. I suggest continuing your studies at present.
krisdevalle 2 months ago
@krisdevalle Question: How do you find a CM miles in space in a cramped LEM looking through a window without any guidance? How do Michael Collins do a test on the moon when he was in space? What proof do you have that earth's gravity takes over after 1/6 of the way, NASA/Wikipedia? How does normal film work in extreme temperatures? How do you keep a rocket from going off course in an environment with not air and attitude guidance for a few days? You are a dumb motherafucker, study that Troll...
GUARDIANtrooper 2 months ago
@GUARDIANtrooper Orbital mechanics, chump. TLI return orbits and Homann transfer orbits have been known and tested extensively.
krisdevalle 2 months ago
@krisdevalle Shut the fuck up Kris, everyone knows your Trolling ass is stupid... Every time I ask you a question you won't answer, but you conjure up bullshit that doesn't have anything to do with anything pertaining to what the fuck anyone said. Clean up your stupid shit, LMAO!
GUARDIANtrooper 2 months ago
@GUARDIANtrooper I answered your questions. You seem to know very little about orbital mechanics, or even how a Homann transfer orbit works. 500 characters is scant room to educate you on what you should really be learning in a classroom.
You ask silly questions, often. How do you find the CM? You time the launch for the calculated time that CM is passing over, you use careful orbital mechanics to put it in the area, you use radar for pinpoint rendezvous. Not easy, but do-able. Next!
krisdevalle 2 months ago 3
@GUARDIANtrooper What makes You think that the moonrockets only had enough fuel to make it to the moon? Are You a better rocket scientist than the scientists and rocket engineers working at Boeing, Douglas, North American and the other aerospace companies that designed and built the moonrockets? No, You are not, because then You shouldn't have produced so ignorant statements.
YDDES 2 months ago
@YDDES First of all, the rocket never made it to the moon. It would be like you putting on a blindfold and letting someone spin you around and then shoot at a target. Just because you know the target is there, doesn't mean you can hit it. Comment sense doesn't have a damn thing to do with anyone with a degree. If you don't have any sense bitch, you can't get a degree. Your ignorant ass can't see that at all. If my statements are so ignorant, why do you challenge them? U-R Full of Shit...
GUARDIANtrooper 2 months ago
@GUARDIANtrooper
The Russians sent probes to the moon in the 50's, including an intentional hard landing and a flyby that gave us the first pictures of the farside of the moon. They landed spacecraft on the moon and put them in lunar orbit 3 years before Apollo 11. They even sent probes to Venus successfully before any Apollo mission, manned or unmanned.
Your idea of impossible puzzles me.
loperspest 2 months ago
@loperspest With all the many times we have supposedly landed on the moon manned, the Russians has never to this day, WHY? FAKE probes, fake ass Apollo missions, what part of HOAX do you people continue to misunderstand when arguing with people who don't believe that shit? What do you care if I believe or not? Do my comments bother you? Of course, that is why I continue. If you clowns wouldn't acknowledge me on this subject, I wouldn't even be here. You fuck off, I'll fuck off... Still puzzled?
GUARDIANtrooper 2 months ago
@GUARDIANtrooper I
So any evidence that disagrees with your preconceived notions is "fake" ? The Lunokhod reflectors that scientists bounce lasers off around the world, are "fake"? The imagery the Jodrell Bank received from Luna 3,9 among others was "fake".
As for why the USSR never went, the Soviet Moon rocket, the N1, had a bad habit of blowing up in the first stage. In all four launch attempts, it did this. Kind of hard to get to the moon without a big rocket.
loperspest 2 months ago
@loperspest Exactly, we didn't go, because we didn't have a big enough rocket to return to hold enough fuel to return...
GUARDIANtrooper 2 months ago
@GUARDIANtrooper Why wasn't the Service Module engine, already in lunar orbit and only needing to boost enough to leave lunar orbit to return the command service module to Earth,enough to return the CSM to Earth? Ever hear of Luna 16, 20 and 24? They were Soviet unmanned sample return probes that landed on the moon and returned lunar samples to Earth.
Of course, you are going to say that's fake as well, with equally little evidence.
loperspest 2 months ago
@loperspest Because they couldn't even get pass the Van Allen belts to even make to the moon to even be debating on the issue. watch?v=dyl1LsB7Xr8
Only 350 miles above our planet and they suffered the unexpected. All the probes were FAKE and they are still FAKE to this day, lmao! You have to look at it from a HOAX point of view and not NASA's bullshit. You better cleanup that bullshit. That is why I call you bozos what you are, clowns with all your bullshit antics, lmao!!
GUARDIANtrooper 2 months ago
@GUARDIANtrooper
You're wrong about the Van Allen Belts
2 dogs passed in and out of the lower Van Allen Belts for 22 days on Cosmos 110.
Excluding the time beneath, that's still far longer than Apollo, which spent only hours.
ncbi*nlm*nih*gov/pubmed/12197540
The also Soviets measured the radiation with the Zond 5 & 7 probes to test manned safety.
"7-day flights along the trajectories
of Zond-5 and 7 probes are safe from the radiation point of view."
cdsweb*cern*ch/record/864491/files/p484*pdf
loperspest 2 months ago
@loperspest The Russians already tested animals and it is conclusive. They all died from lethal dozes of radiation. That is why the Russians don't have a flag on the fucking moon. If they tested so safely, where is their moon flag fool? Russian astronauts begged their leaders to go and they declined it. If they didn't, they would have a flag on the moon or a base, right? The Russians were ahead of us big time and now, nothing, what happen? Probes are fake, electronics will fail versus the belts.
GUARDIANtrooper 2 months ago
@GUARDIANtrooper
I'd like a source for your claim that the animals in Russian tests "all died", the sources I provided say otherwise.
As said, their moon rocket, the N1, failed.
astronautix*com/lvs/n1*htm
Medium and GSO orbit satellites have to travel through the belts to their final orbit, satellites used for GPS use these orbits, so something is wrong with your claim.
Were Russians ahead?
Voskhod was a converted Vostok rather than a truly more capable craft as Gemini was compared to Mercury.
loperspest 2 months ago
@loperspest I'm done with the homework bullshit, the source shit never works for you clowns. The internet is all propaganda as well as real life. I hardly think people working for NASA or the other propagandist would be a fucking source for anything other than a HOAX. You pretty much have to rely on real reasonable science and common fucking sense. It is evident that you people lack that shit. I bet you won't leave this shit to the called psychos and let the your so-called truth be what it is...
GUARDIANtrooper 2 months ago
@GUARDIANtrooper
Without sources for your statements, I only have your word on this, which is contradicted by my sources.
I hope you can understand my doubts.
Your, for lack of a better word, antics of claiming everything I present is a lie or propaganda reminds me of a woman who said that the Earth stood on a turtle and didn't hang in space.
When asked what the turtle stood on, she replied
"It's turtles all the way down!"
From what you've presented so far, your claims are about as sensible.
loperspest 2 months ago
@loperspest Fuck your sources, it is shit that NASA conjured up. How in the fuck is that reasonable coming from the perpetrators on trial you idiot? I don't give a shit about your doubts, I have mine and I don't respect yours. Therefore you have a choice. You could either respect mine or fuck off, I don't give a fuck. I'm a threat to your stupid ass moon landing HOAX, that is why you stupid ass people are acknowledging me. If not, then why bother? Believe in what you do and fuck the rest..
GUARDIANtrooper 2 months ago