Apollo 11: How Did NASA Land A Man On The Moon? | To The Moon | Progress 

That is a great memory to have. Cherish it. Take care.

Oookooo oom m OO on OO m oom oom m OO mii ok OO ko ki OO liopJjjlijooj JJijibb JJ m😅o😅olo OO o JB no BB j JB😊 JB mm​@@TheWokeFlatEarthTruth

Wonderful video! Greetings from Russia! Thank you for your memories. I was 9 years old at the time, and at that time I could not imagine that after 25 years, Neil Armstrong would personally respond to my letter. In the letter, I wrote that I was very interested in the history of the development of the space programs of the USSR and the USA and in my collection there are many articles from Soviet newspapers in July 1969, very detailed from launch to landing. By the way, despite the Cold War between the Soviet Union and the United States, the Vietnam War and the moon race, absolutely all articles are written in a respectful tone and this applies to all NASA programs. Also, the Soviet government, the Academy of Sciences of the USSR and all Soviet cosmonauts in their telegrams congratulated U.S. President Richard Nixon, NASA management and the crew of Apollo 11 on their outstanding and successful flight to the moon. Letters and autographed photographs from American space pioneers John Glenn and John Young are also carefully kept in my house in St. Petersburg, for which I am immensely grateful to them. Eternal memory to them. Good luck with everything!

They must have let us here in the states out of school as well because I remember watching the landing on TV with my family at home.

Same, our school didn’t have tv, so we were sent to a students house across the road and I remember we were all crowded in the lounge room. I was more interested in my school crush who was sitting next to me haha…

@@paul5882 I’ve got your tin-foil hat for you, you left it at home.

That was in hollywood studio .

@@ariosaljooghi6439 ? I thought it was supposed to be Area 51? 😉

@@Tim22222 👍👍😁

@@paul5882 comon man thats like saying there is no santa .

Me too!

It’s awesome, I need help trying to pinpoint the trance track that pipes in regularly throughout the documentary, it’s great sound track,

"It's easier to fool the people than to convince them that they have been fooled." Mark Twain

@@vernonfrance2974 Now that is a hard quantitative analysis that proves they never landed on the moon!

@@vernonfrance2974 Which is why conspiracy theorists refuse to change their minds, no matter how many times their questions are answered and misconceptions explained.

I've always wondered what those other things were. Any idea?

He was amazing, great speech.

One of them was the American SST (Concord).

@@frazemac8625 He was a great man but did not understand that life forms could not make the trip to the moon and back because of the many hazards in space and on the moon. Some of these hazards were not understood during JFK's lifetime. HAZARDS: The radioactivity of the moon's surface built up from centuries of accumulated radiation from cosmic rays; the static electricity reaching dangerous levels as noted by NASA scientists in the 90's; the extremes of temperature from sun to shade; the lack of an atmosphere; the lack of substantial computer power; the LEM that never worked on Earth; the failure of the command modules' captains to take photos of the stars from the dark side of the moon; the constant bombardment by micrometeorites which strike at thousands and thousands of mph since there is no atmosphere to burn them up as on Earth (It would take only a tiny one to damage not only the space suits but the flimsy spacecrafts which were only fractions of an inch thick) COMPUTERS: "To put its computing power into perspective, the AGC could perform around 40,000 instructions per second, according to American Scientist(opens in a new tab). That's far less than the 10 billion of a typical laptop." mashable.com/article/apollo-moon-landing-computer PHOTOGRAPHS: The cameras allegedly took perfect photos despite the fact that camera film is even more sensitive to temperature extremes than humans and would become brittle in the shadows from the cold and burn up in the sun with temperatures above the boiling point. Even if it could have survived the high and low temperature extremes, the levels of radiation would have caused it to have streaks on the photos. Also, with the sun as the only light source, why aren't all shadows parallel? Further the mechanics of using the cameras was virtually impossible: The fumble fingered gloves would make it next to impossible to manipulate and focus the cameras even if the "astronuts" could have seen through the view finders which they couldn't because the stiff helmets prevented them from bending their necks down to the chest mounted cameras. NO ATMOSPHERE: How were the flags waving in the non-existent wind? NO DUST DISTURBANCE: SpaceNews spacenews.com › dealing-with-dust-a-back-to-t... "Dec 25, 2020 - During their landings, dust blown up into the thin lunar atmosphere impacted astronaut visibility. Once crews were out and about on the moon, “One of the most aggravating, restricting facets of lunar surface exploration is the dust and its adherence to everything no matter what kind of material, whether it be skin, suit material, metal, no matter what it be and its restrictive friction." Yet, there are no photographs of this dust and why wasn't it preserved for study back on Earth? No dust settled on the landing gear, the spaceships or the astronauts despite the LEM's alleged landing which would cause dust to blow up and then resettle. However, the photos showed it remaining shiny clean throughout. NO PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE STARS FROM THE DARK SIDE OF THE MOON: Why Can't You See Stars In Space? - LunarSail.com "On the daylight side of the moon, the same thing occurs. The light from the sun washes out the stars and creates a glare on the moon's surface. On the dark side of the moon, astronauts can see the stars just as we can on Earth at night.Jun 3, 2022" The command module captains could have taken photos of the heavens undistorted by atmospheric interference from the dark side of the moon. The question is, "Why didn't they do so?" HAZARDS OF TRAVEL TO, LANDING ON, AND RETURNING FROM THE MOON *Space is a Vacuum. Any opening, no matter how tiny, would cause the gases inside to rush out into the external vacuum. There is no evidence the "space ships" used were air tight and/or highly insulated. MICROMETEORITES: Furthermore, the "space ships" could be easily damaged. *Micrometeorites are frequent. "There are about 100 pingpong-ball-sized meteoroids hitting the moon per day," Cooke said. That adds up to roughly 33,000 meteoroids per year. Despite their small size, each of these pingpong-ball-size rocks impacts the surface with the force of 7 pounds (3.2 kilograms) of dynamite. Apr 11, 2022" There are much tinier micrometeorites that are even more numerous. All they would have to do is pierce the space suits and a loss of pressurization would be fatal because the moon has no atmosphere. Since even the tiniest micrometeorites come in at thousands of mph it would not take a large one to penetrate a space suit or even metal.. How many space rocks hit the moon every year? - Live Sciencewww.livescience.com › News › Lifes-little-mysteries *TEMPERATURE EXTREMES "Space, is a vacuum-meaning it's basically empty. Gas molecules in space are too few and far apart to regularly collide with one another. So even when the sun heats them with infrared waves, transferring that heat via conduction isn't possible.Feb 18, 2023 - Popular Science popsci.com www.popsci.com › why-is-space-cold-sun-hot When Neil Armstrong took his "first small step for man," it would have been around 130 degrees Celsius (266 F) in the sunlit places and -40 degrees in the shadows. Would the photo film which captured his alleged "giant leap" have survived without snapping or melting? And wouldn’t the visor have cracked if they had been partly in the sun and partly in the shadows?" RADIATION: *The moon is constantly being bombarded by cosmic rays and radiation from the sun and space and that will make the surface rocks radioactive the way a nuclear reactor contaminates the clothing and other items that are close to its radiation. That would mean the moon has absorbed radiation for untold millennia. Radiation only decreases when the half life of the particular form of it is reached and since the material is not protected from subsequent bombardment, it will constantly replenish its radioactivity. "Our Moon is a hazardous, desolate place - devoid of atmosphere, and lacking protection from a constant rain of radiation emitted by our Sun. Apart from the Sun, astronauts are also subjected to other sources of radiation on the Moon. First to consider are the galactic cosmic rays (GCR) released by exploding stars out in deep space. And then there are particles created in the lunar soil, as a result of the interactions between solar energetic particles from the Sun and galactic cosmic rays. Solar particles are less energetic than galactic cosmic rays, “but when there is a solar particle event, then their flux can be much higher than that of galactic cosmic rays,” said Robert F. Wimmer-Schweingrube from the University of Kiel in Germany." www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-space-radiation-threatens-lunar-exploration-180981415/ STATIC ELECTRICITY "Because the soil is insulating, providing no path to ground, a space suit or rover can build up tremendous triboelectric charge, whose magnitude is yet unknown. And when the astronaut or vehicle gets back to base and touches metal-ZAP! The lights in the base may go out, or worse." Universe Today www.universetoday.com/10830/static-electricity-in-space/

Every single intelligent astrophysicist, engineer, architect involved in the project, thousands of people over the course of years, years, tell the same story, it really happened, The hazards and impossibility you list is a testament to the feat they achieved, they also needed a little luck some got it, some died. I love being proved wrong honestly , it feels really good because you learn something. This is perfect for you to try, if you can leave behind the angry emotion of everybody not acknowledging how dangerous space and rockets are and let one of the thousands of physicists and engineers refute and explain all your points on how it was done, then realize why and how we have all the problems humanity has, remember how sure and angry you felt nobody listened to how difficult and dangerous the mission was and realize you were wrong or a little misunderstood and you will have experience with understanding polarizing arguments It's up to you, nobody can do the thinking for you, but you can become smarter, and enjoy learning and using common sense over emotion

Yep ..the US at its best... hypnotizing & mesmerizing the Sheeple out of millions in stolen tax money

@@smeeself You're sadly mistaken & misinformed. Aliens & space are unproven & 109% hearsay. I don't fear non-existent lil "greens & greys" 😅🤣😂 & you can't prove space. I don't worship "daddy" NASA based on CGI & cartoon nonsense hearsay while looking like this 🤤🤪🤡

Sempre tem um brasileiro kkkk

A large percentage of America citizens don't believe the Apollo fairytale.

Idiots will be idiots.

Why did they go to the moon ?

@@user-ur8ed2vl7b They didn't go to the moon, it was a giant hoax.

@@user-ur8ed2vl7b Because we could. To beat the Soviets. To develop ICBMs...take your pick. Whatever the reason, it captivated the world like nothing before or since. And, if they really made it up, the Soviets would have known and it would have been a national embarrassment like no other.

They think being dropped on their head at birth gave them a super intellect ..

Umm…..no ……the real reason is because it WAS fake….we couldn’t do it today and we sure as hell didn’t do it in 1969!!

@@teresa67factoid95 Thumbing up your own comment proves my point.. People now days are out of touch with reality, and I feel sorry for your misguided understanding of history..

@@parttime9070 and I feel sorry for that you swallowed the impossible Apollo moon landing hoax

PARTTIME, LOLOL!! THEY (NASA) DID SOMETHING50 ODD YEARS AGO, THAT CANNOT BE DUPLICATED EVEN TODAY! FILM,PICS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS TO THE MOON THE COSMIC RAYS,THE V.A.B. AND 500 ° TEMP SWINGS NEVER EFFECTED EVEN ONE PIC?? BTW,HOW MANY "ASTRONAUTS" HAVE DIED OF CANCER?? DON PETIT SAID THAT ALL TECH TO GO TO THE MOON WAS DESTROYED.. NOT LOST,BUT DESTROYED. WHY DESTROY TECHNOLOGY OF MANKIND'S GREATEST ACHIEVEMENT? THE NETHERLANDS WAS GONNA INSURE THE MOON ROCK GIVEN TO THEM BY A11 MEMBERS. TURNS OUT,IT WAS PETRIFIED WOOD..FROM OUR MOON!?

Kennedy was a great man but he was no scientist.

Deception

@@aemrt5745 My theory is that he was trying to divert attention away from the Military Industrial Complex' total reliance on wars for profit. That was a mistake. Once he was out of the way, the long lasting, unnecessary, debt inflating wars began and have been conducted almost continuously.

@@vernonfrance2974 He was talking about peace, he had to go.

@@Harpy-Mark-Tomlinson True. The powerful corporations and banks need war to keep getting richer and to rip off the Middle Class.

time?

I was 6 at the time and was watching with you and the rest of the world. I can remember watching many Mercury, Gemini and Apollo launches. And you're right, every single one of them was exciting. To have grown up in the "space age" is something that perhaps today's young people cannot fully appreciate just how exciting it all was.

I remember watching it on TV...I was 5 and I still feel the excitement. I am just bummed that there was such a long pause after the 60s to take up getting into space again. I wish I could go!

What are all these childhood stories?! It’s every other comment. This is a spook video with a bunch of spook comments. This entire thing is completely fake. I bet 90 percent of these comments are ai generated cia created fakes. Fn wake up people! Take care!

Yep trillions spent while millions starved 🙄

@@jimbrown4456 Please don't make me laugh 😂 Later they did not fly and millions continued to starve, and now they are starving too. Any conclusions? 🙈

And its still the same now​@@jimbrown4456

@@davebryant8050 Because the individual knowledge of everyone involved and the “organisational know-how” of how to actually run such a huge, complex project has been lost after such a long time. Much of the equipment is archaic, and many things cannot be bought “off the shelf” and have to be specially manufactured. Re-designing from scratch is cheaper and better. However, it takes years to build up that sort of expertise and NASA is going through the same problems it had in the early to mid-60’s. Rocket technology has not progressed much at all and although modern computers are far more sophisticated, they are far more vulnerable to particle radiation than those that used low density integrated circuits and magnetic core memory, both of which are extremely radiation hard, so a new solution has to be found to a different problem. There is also no cold war imperative and no time limit publically placed on it by a president. We also live in much more risk averse times. All these issues are what has caused it to take so long this time around.

​@jimbrown4456 are you not aware that no matter how much money it's dumped into humanitarian aid, people will still starve? Stop complaining about everything you possibly can and just appreciate where humans have put you in your life.

The Saturn V only held its title of most powerful launch vehicle for 2 years, until it was beaten out by the N1 in 1969. N1 then held the title for 54 years until SpaceX's starship made its first flight.

Moon landing deniers are the same people that say Earth is flat, ignorant people

I don't think the N1 really counts. They never had a successful launch. All four uncrewed launches ended in failure before first-stage separation. The longest flight lasted 107 seconds, just before first-stage separation. @@nzredwolf4048

* The N1 failed in 4 of 4 attempts.

Starship will soon have the record. Over twice as powerful as Saturn 5.

I'm waiting for him to finish his two part Gemini missions doc.

​@@Drgonzosfavessame

It's my understanding he's a college student with all those other responsibilities so I'm cutting him some slack.

And for Apollo 8 much riskier. If the orbital insertion burn or the TEI (Trans Earth Insertion) burn are slightly off, you ain't coming home.

@@aemrt5745 If the TEI burn were slightly off, there would be plenty of opportunities to correct their trajectory.

@@willoughbykrenzteinburg Ya know, now that I think about it that is correct if it was too short. Thank you. They would be placed in an orbit that would miss being captured by the moon and they would return to earth. By design the nominal TLI burn was short of earth's escape velocity. But, if they burned too long, I would think they would have too much Delta V to enter lunar orbit. Question I have is if the long burn exceeded earth's escape velocity, was there enough fuel to return?

@aemrt5745 Yes. Remember, they also had the lunar module and it's fuel supply. In a nominal Apollo mission, the service module engine performed all burns between the Earth and moon for course corrections. Both to and from the moon. If needed, they could use the lunar module engine - which is what they actually did on Apollo 13 when the explosion and venting of gasses threw them off course. They would have to go very far off course to not have enough fuel to get on a trajectory that would bring them back home. Of course, If you are in a position to need to fire up the lunar module engine for course correction, it kills the landing because it was too risky to attempt a landing if youve used up some of the fuel needed for landing- which is why the Apollo 13 landing was aborted. They needed the LM engine to course correct, therefore didn't want to attempt a landing having used fuel dedicated to the landing.

The Soviets did plan the full thing, including the landing. Had a design for a 2-man lander, space suits and everything. A trip around the Moon was a backup plan, in case N-1 project failed. They *did* successfully fly this mission unmanned, with tortoises on board, in September 1968, but then more complex Apollo 8 happened, and there was no sense trying to fly a still risky lesser mission, even though the astronauts were ready to do it.

Just don't let ARTEMIS technology "Be Destroyed" like they did the APOLLO!!! If only some asshole hadn't used all those records for Fire Tinder from Apollo we could deflect those PESKY VAN ALLEN belts and a Vaccum atmosphere that would crush the LEM like an Aluminum can.... How unfortunate that essential tech documents from The Greatest Human Accomplishment ever were LOST by the richest country in HISTORY!!! DARN!!! Dems the BREAKS!!!

Make sure someone can actually fly it on Earth first ... NEIL had to eject out and none of the other Pilots even tried it on earth .... They just did it "ON THE FLY" 238,00o miles from home!!!

​@@jpb1231000Source? If you had checked the Wikipedia article and the referenced NASA document about the LLRVs/LLTVs, you would have found that there were a total of 5 of the lunar landing trainers, with a total of almost 600 flights (including some 100 qualification flights with test pilots). If you look at the flight log, each Apollo astronaut had (and had to) performed more than 20 successful flights with several hours of combined flight time. And yes, 3 of the vehicles eventually crashed - one due to strong wind (which you obviously won't have in space) and two due to technical failures (including Neil's spectacular ejection). All pilots survived. In addition, the actual LMs were tested 3 times flying in space: unmanned and manned in earth orbit (Apollo 5+9) and manned in lunar orbit (Apollo 10). Apparently everything went well enough during all these tests that NASA decided that Apollo 11 was ready for the actual landing...

​@@jpb1231000That's not entirely correct. It is true Armstrong had to eject from LLRV-1 (Lunar Lander Research Vehicule), but he and the rest of the crews successfully trained on an improved version of the LLRV known as LLTV (Lunar Landing Training Vehicles).

Hahahahahaha, this generation is so far gone. If this is inspirational to you, then you seriously need help. God should be your inspiration, nothing else. You need to open your eyes and look up, stop staring at your cell phone. You can’t land on the moon, it’s not a rock. Get a telescope and look at it, most of the time parts of it are not there. It’s more of an orb, or something else that we are not told. Sometimes you can see through parts of it. You people are hilarious to me.

I seriously doubt if you have watched any of the videos exposing the different aspects of this hoax or the articles exposing the lethality of the journey, beginning with the political subterfuge and murders, the hazards of the trip, the inadequacy of the videos and the alleged proofs. You want to believe, which I do too. However, I cannot believe because the evidence proves that it isn't so. The LIARS in Charge since JFK was killed to the present are the powers behind the throne from the Military Industrial Complex. They have turned our system of government into a mechanism for the nearly continuous raid on ours and the world's resources and monetary supplies.

Ffccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccxxxccccccccccccccc ccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccxcccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccxccccccccccccccccccccxcxcccccccxxcccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccxcccccccccccxxxxccccccccccccccccccxxccccxccccccccxcccc ccccccccccxcxcccccccccccccccccxcxccccccxxxcccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccxxcxcxccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccxcccccccccccxcccccccxxccccxcccxcxcxxxccxxxxccccccxxxcccccccxxxcccccccccccccccccxcxcxccccxxxcccxxcccccccccxccccccccccccccccc

@@AndyCreepy27 Now that you have expressed some sort of emotion, are you able to raise some arguments against what aroused that emotion? Progress in understanding is made through evidence, logic and reasoning.

@@vernonfrance2974 I guess this is what happens when I fall asleep whilst watching something... 🤦

What did I say to get you even more creepy?????

Yes, thanks to Warner Von Braun, a German designer of weapons of mass destruction during WW11. I wonder how he would have been received by the American people if his V1 and V11 rockets had rained down on Washington, killing thousands of citizens, as they did on London and other British cities? Hypocrisy at it best. At least the Russians use home grown scientists.

Greatest in history....Second to none...

Man, I gotta say that I'm amazed there weren't more problems. That undertaking was huge, with many places possible of going terribly wrong.

​@@johntomasik1555 Yep. And they had plenty of near misses that could have ended tragically (Gemini 8 and Apollo 13 come to mind).

@@aemrt5745 Apollo 11/14/15/16

@@gunternetzer9621 Indeed

They’ll never be forgotten by the CIA at least.

You mean fake-a-mentary

@@davidsheckler4450 You better not be ruining everything for everyone everywhere idk wtf your problem is -- I know mine is a have eaten way too much hair and it is stuck and I have eaten all of my cats hair so stop ruining everyones life

​@@TimPerfetto Don't waste letters on a troll, 7 months old acc and always spewing nonsense.

Kennedy was trying to wean us off the Military Industrial Complex' dependence on war spending. It backfired in the worst way and the planned rip-off of the taxpayers was put in to full operation. They used the trumped up Vietnam War as a tremendous boondoggle and it was greatly escalated soon after his death. However, science was not JFK's strong suit. Whether he knew it or not, life forms for numerous reasons could not survive a trip to the moon and back, even if it were feasible which it wasn't. If you can't make it fake it. Nixon's career summed up in six words.

And to President Eisenhower for starting the space program with it's original seven astronauts.

@@paulbriggs3072 I did not know Eisenhower started it. It of course was a ruse for using space as a platform for trying to access military advantage.

​@@vernonfrance2974 Your tin foil hat is on too tight.

@@vernonfrance2974 just because you feel it was impossible is not evidence or proof of anything. When Mike Collins was on the far side of the moon he would not see stars when in sunlight....the term you use ;dark side, does show a lack of understanding. Have good day and wonder why you see stars at midnight, but not at noon.....

What US has achieved?

Watched it, never happened. You joking? They say the tech has been destroyed and is impossible to replicate... impossible to replicate technology from the 60's? Yet every elementary school teacher brags to every child about the fact that the capabilities of a MODERN CALCULATOR are far greater than all the technology that went into the moon landing combined. Make it make sense.

​@@aodigital9421 Your tin foil hat is on WAY too tight. 🙄

@@aodigital9421 _They say the tech has been destroyed and is impossible to replicate... impossible to replicate technology from the 60's?_ Why, yes. We've _replaced_ manufacturing facilities needed to do so _several times over._ Ford wouldn't be able to make you a brand new Ford T either, would it? What we can _do,_ though, is to build a modern version of the old hardware, which is what NASA is doing right now with the _Artemis_ program.

@@Jan_Strzelecki That is some extremely sad cope, of course Ford could build the Ford T, because schematics still exist, it's so well documented that aftermarket shops are now able to fully restore them, what a terrible example and comparison. Keep on lying to yourself, you probably believe Biden is the greatest president to have ever existed as well and that COVID didn't come from a laboratory.

​@A\O Digital Your inability to comprehend, is not evidence of a hoax.

I was 20. Lived in Huntsville Alabama where the Rocket and engines were developed. My brother's wife worked for Von Braun, on the team calculating the orbital math for Apollo 11.

Ohhhhhhhh god bless you for saying such amazing things and god bless god for being so amazing and god bless hair and cats and eating hair ohhhhhhh

Can't remember where and where I've read it, but is seems Armstrong didn't panick and kept his head during moments of emergency. He sort of managed to save the Gemini 8/Agena mission; he jettisoned out of the malfunctioning lunar landing training vehicle (the flying bedstead) in the nick of time, etc. Of course they all were well trained pilots, but NASA wanted Neil to be in the crew of the first manned lunar landing attempt.

@@Emdee5632 ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-797jevfbsEE.html

@@Emdee5632 No Armstrong died on Gemini 13 idk wtf you people are talking about STOP SPREADING HAIR

@@TimPerfetto I never stop being amazed by deeply confused people who have absolutely no idea what they are talking about. There never was a Gemini 13 mission. Neil Armstrong died on August 25, 2012. Get your facts right. And if you really really want me to shave my hair more often I can do that, not sure why you are offended by hair...

@@Emdee5632 There were at least 140 Gemini missions and Armstrong died on at least 16 of them

The last mission was a true scientific one, with a real geologist walking among the craters and boulders. They are still learning from the rocks they brought back.

This estimate of why there was never a lunar base is partially correct. The likelihood of rescuing astronauts from the ISS is really slim, but it does carry a “lifeboat” capsule. Getting to the moon adds time but 90% of the energy is used to simply reach orbit. A much bigger problem is the toxicity of lunar regalith dust and its ability to wear holes into anything it touches. The mechanical issues of operating a lunar base would have collapsed any project.

Because they weren't an issue. The only people that tell you that they were are the online fraudsters, con artists and grifters that peddle conspiracy theory for profit. And they are mentioned, frequently. I suggest that you investigate what James Van Allen himself had to say about the Apollo missions' transit through them.

Not the inner city African Americans. Heard “Whitey’s on the moon”?

I have also read that because Neil wasn't active in the military, basically a civilian, he got the nod to prevent an Air Force/Navy flier was the first to walk on the moon scenario.

Neil most definitely had ice water in his veins, the definition of cool as a cucumber. No panic in him, could analyze a situation and react accordingly, very quickly. They chose the right man for the job.

the short answer is no it wouldnt have been more simple to do that. The way the trusters were positioned, at an angle to induce roll, no matter what way you pitch or yaw, you would still be rolling the same way with that thruster firing, thats why it was such a pain to deal with. Theres a good series called "From the Earth to the Moon - produced by HBO / Tom Hanks, they have a good animation of the scenario on one of the episodes, its definetly worth a watch if you haven't seen it. Even though it was a yaw thruster it started a roll first(i think it had to work with another thruster to work as a yaw control but with it just alone made it just roll but im not sure), and only after they seperated did they start tumbling also.

@@CrazySaVaunT, interesting. I can’t think how an RCS thruster that produces a front-to-left yaw moment could produce any other kind of moment. Nevertheless, I’m sure Armstrong knew what he was doing.

@@mr88cet The way that the thrusters were setup, they had to use more then one for each direction, when both fire properlly it yaws, if only one fires it rolls. I was confused about this at first too until i remembered the thruster config.

Not surprising...It was an ideological war which the US won, the Soviet Union suffered a humiliating defeat in a race in which they were ahead until 1965. NASA completed its mission. Today everything is in the hands of private companies...

Not also public interest, also the cost of the continuing Vietnam war. The biggest reason was simply the fact that the Apollo project had done what it was supposed to do, namely to ''beat the Soviets to the moon''. So add more politics as well. So no Apollo follow up program, only Skylab and the space shuttle. Uncrewed space missions remained succesful but yeah, nothing like a manned moon base or even the prospect of a Mars program.

Like most of America's Blunders, the Cancellation was done by a Republican President, the choice of the Flawed Shuttle Design was under the same President, and both Shuttle Accidents happened with Republican Presidents

What use is the knowledge? Humanity is not even able to live in harmony on its origin planet. Who are we to bring this unbalance to other worlds? Besides that, the monetized system we use is making this impossible. First we would have to let go of money before putting serious energy in colonization. And even then, I would not trade this blue planet for a heavily radiated dusty nearly vacuum rock.

Slavery?

Well, it *was* expensive.

@@maxfan1591 It most certainly was

@@stephenpage-murray7226They were right to stop it when they did as there was no provision for rescue. Had it continued it is quite possible (as some NASA managers and astronauts privately feared) that somewhere amongst the thousands of parts a fault would get through the quality control that wouldn’t be fixable and there would be a fatality in space or on the Moon.

And the administration didn't have much appetite for risk. Apollo 13 got everyone jittery.

@@jdos2 In fact there were people in NASA who wanted to cancel Apollo after Apollo *11*. Imagine what hoax believers would make of that!

🤣😂🤣😅😂🤣 Greatest propaganda piece until 9/11.

@@vernonfrance2974dolt

Yes. But remember that the government had lied big time about the Vietnam War... So to the public was not so unbelievable that they lied about the space program too.

Imagine how many people could think that steel towers would fall down on their own footprint after being on fire, at the top, in less than an hour.

@@BwanaFinklestein imagine "80 million" people actually voted for biden.

@@BwanaFinklestein You obviously don't understand structural mechanics and the effect a hot fire has on the strength of steel. In addition, the heat makes the steel try to expand, and if something restrains it from expanding (such as the weight of the floors above the point of crisis), then the stresses in the steel increase dramatically. I am a civil engineer and structural engineering is a sub-field of civil engineering. In my practice, I don't do a lot of structural design, and most of what I do is reinforced concrete rather than steel, but I still have the educational and practical background needed to understand what happened to the buildings on 9/11 and why. I have also read--cover to cover--at least a half dozen official government reports about the building failures as well as several similar reports prepared by non-government experts. These reports don't agree on every point, but they agree on the key points. In fact, the computer modeling results that I saw match very well with the actual failures as recorded on video. When I saw the first impact on the news, I told my wife that the tower was going to fall and why and how. Same for the second impact. My original predictions were pretty accurate. But, then again, I am an engineer and it's obvious that you are not.

Did you ever see a clear picture of that trash can they claimed “landed “on the moon? Nobody has set foot on the moon. Get over it

And what about Apollo 12, the aborted landing of Apollo 13, Apollo 14, Apollo 15, Apollo 16 and Apollo 17? Have you watched those press conferences in their entirety, or the scores of other ones delivered by the Apollo 11 crew? Have you watched it through, the parts when they are laughing and joking, or seen the photos and the footage of them on the deck of the USS hornet or in quarantine? Or was it that you simply relied on dumb online conspiracy theory videos, deceptively cobbling together selected excerpts that told you what to think?

Damn i miss the days when you could see the dislikes.

It's not an urban myth actually. As far back as 1968 it was unpopular with many of the public and certainly by the early 70's during the economic recession. No one was watching the tv transmissions of the later missions.

@@gunternetzer9621 That's true. People were riveted to their sets for 11, then again for 13 (well for the nightly news anyway) and there was a mild, brief blip of interest in the rover on 15, but that was pretty much it. In the public's defence, it was actually pretty boring stuff to watch. The soundtrack was mostly technobabble, the visuals slow moving, white on dull greys. Both the astronauts and Mission Control were busy landing on the Moon and not a lot went into making it pulse pounding entertainment. When Artemis lands, I imagine NASA might put more into that aspect. Though who knows; I saw the four flyby crew members on a late night show and they were affable and engaging, but way more astronauts than entertainmers. Not everyone is a Chris Hadfield.

@@thewildcellist If NASA had promoted the idea of commercial applications and space tourism as Elon Musk and his wealthy competitors have, the American public would have maintained interest and possibly encouraged the program.

@@aliensoup2420 Maybe. It's hard to imagine something along those lines happening back then. NASA/affiliated private companies were still flying by the seat of their pants with regard to how new a lot of the tech was. If someone wants to "do space" as a private enterprise now, there's quite a lot they can accomplish with relative ease today that they couldn't have circa 1970. If we use the year that Nixon cancelled Apollo as baseline date (1971) a LOT of technology was completely out of reach for the average person. Today, a competent musician can fairly easily create a decent sounding record using an inexpensive microphone with an iphone as a recording studio. Uploaded to spotify, such a recording could stand shoulder to shoulder (in terms of production) with records made in an expensive studio. That was utterly impossible in 1971. I'm using music as an example, but with computer software, designing say, a lunar lander is much easier with modern tech. The likes of Astrobotic and Intuitive Machines would not even have been a twinkle in someone's eye in 1971. Not that those companies' Moon missions are something ANYONE could do, but the tech and infrastructure (private rockets, especially) of today are making such ventures viable. Even with broad public support, I just don't think we were there 40+ years ago. If Apollo had continued (a whole different story; it's still sad to me that it didn't) that might've changed the equation considerably and private enterprise might have entered the picture much sooner.

. . they didn't . . 😃 . . "Didn't what?" . . repetition and production quality are required to endlessly prop up a dead horse called Apollo . . not to mention a never ending display of sponsored activity in the forums for the effort -- as with other controversial issues . . and often a flood of one liners, some of them hilarious in their over-the-top nature . . . . The entertainment never ends.

Hello, welcome to the internet. Try searching for images of him.

lol

I guess it would be to a twelve year old. Or maybe a hillbilly.

@@ohasis8331 Either way its true

Grow up

Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey is a decent indication of what Hollywood special effects could do at the time - and it’s extremely shonky. It genuinely was simpler to film on location.

Although 2001 is a marvel, the effects at the time is nowhere near what was shown in the Apollo program.

I consider moon landing deniers for the birth of civilian disinformation. It’s threatening our democracy, and the deniers think they’re so smart.

are you referencing Kubrick's death bed confession?

The F1 is the most powerful liquid fuel single combustion chamber rocket engine. The RD170 from Russia is the most powerful liquid fuel rocket engine to ever fly, but has 4 combustion chambers. There was an upgraded version of the F1 that was more powerful than the RD170, but it never flew. The most powerful rockets of any type are the SLS solid rocket boosters. SpaceX went a different route with the Raptor Engines. They are built to be mass produced and with multiple engine capability on each rocket.

Excellent, but it was MAN on the moon. No need to go PC, women have not walked on the moon yet. Also, they were ALL Americans.

They did.

Grow up Comrade

Not on the Moon they didn't.

@@maxfan1591 You take shit out of perspective, a lot? The start of the space race wasn't landing on the moon. It took the u.s. a few years to catch up with the Russians, just to get even a chimp (first u s. Astronaut) in to space. You really did fail history?

I would rather be the Best than the First.

@@aliensoup2420 "I would rather be the Best than the First." Would you like to define "Best" when it comes to landing people on the Moon?

It's obviously escaped your attention, that the title of this video started with 'Apollo 11'. Also, why have you made reference to the fact that there was no mention of 'Apollo 12 or 13' - are you completely oblivious to the other 4 lunar landing missions, 14, 15, 16 and 17?

@@sailorman8668 Calm down dear. Life is short, have an affair.