Analytical Graphics has created a simulation of the Apollo 11 Lunar Module "Eagle" landing on the moon. -- Relive the Apollo 11 Moon Landing in Realtime: www.space.com/relive-apollo-m... Credit: Analytical Graphics / mash mix: Space.com
What a difference 50 years makes in computer graphics. Especially important to me, since a computer drew pictures I needed for my Ph.D. thesis, 48 years ago.
Dr. Laird Whitehill's Fun with Astronomy Channel We never went to the moon and here is all the proof you will ever need: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-l-KI-2e0_NQ.html
@@dharmashekhar1047 no like with how much fuel compare to the earth to moon trip and how they calculate the precise moment to take off to match the designated trajectory. That would be even more amazing than how they land on moon.
@@hoanghuydinhduc4306 100% agree. I don't question the math (I'm an engineer), but rather executing the maneuvers. The precision required would be extreme. Of course, with 1960s technology this was completely manual. Just 1 degree off on the trajectory, or a second or two off on the timing, and it's all over. And they pulled this off how many times? It's pretty comical how you get strange looks (especially here in the US) when you question the official story. It's more patriotic to have faith, apparently.
How did the cameraman filming the panning departure shot of the lunar module blasting off the moons surface get back to Earth? Are they still up there? Did the Russians come by and pick them up in their spacecraft, so we can have the footage of the lunar module leaving the moon surface? Can we maybe send a Uber for the two cameramen, surely they must be hungry by now! 😌
@@flipflat4814 Hello, "Houston". I assume 2 things from your remarks. 1. You're talking of Apollo 17's lunar launch and 2. You believe the Moon stuff was faked. Why was it faked 6 times but then also had a near disaster in the middle (Apollo 13) and 3 charred bodies (Apollo 1) at the start? Listen to the real Apollo 17 lunar launch. You will hear the astronauts grow concerned when they think communications are lost (and you and I would be too 240,000 mikes away) but then relieved when reconnected. And that shot was not by two stranded camera men. You've heard of auto camera lock and wireless transmission I'm figuring. The camera and phone and computer we use today all have much owed to the tech developed in the 60s and 70s. Trust me, it was not all Jobs and Gates and folks who self promote that came up with tech.
@@flipflat4814 It was a camera that was moved from earth with a delay of 6 seconds. During the takeoff when the LM was out of reach the camara moved to take some pictures of the surface until it was shut down. It was left there and is still on the surface.
It is so heartwarming to find other like-minded people on the internet who rely on facts and deduce reason from logic. Not only did we not go to the moon, we never left Europe, and there's no such thing as a New World. Why is this so hard to understand?
Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong reported very little sign of disturbance on the lunar surface beneath the LM, aside from dust having been blown away and some fairlyinsignificant singe marks.
I'm sorry you are so ignorant. There's just 150mm of lunar dust, only. Do you see Elon Musk's gigantic ships landing on earth (with six times more gravity!) gouging out a "blast crater"? No, of course not. Blast craters are what you get when you explode bombs buried below the surface, and NOT when you land spacecraft. Get your facts right.
😽🙀😿😾🙈🙉🙊👦👧👨👩👴👵👶👱👮👼👳👸💂👷🕵🎅👯👯💆💇👰🙍🙍🙎🙅🙆🙆🙋🙋🙇🙌🙏🙏👤👤👪👪🕴👫👫👬👭💏💑💑👇👪💪👈👉☝👆🖕👇👇✌🖖🤘🖑🖐✋👏👌👍🖒🖓👋👋👏👐💅✍👂💋💘❤👀👁👅👄❤💓💔💕💗💛💜💞💟❣💤💢💥💦💫💣💣💣🗨💬🗯💭👓🕶🕶👔👕👖👘👙👚👛👜👝🛍🛍🎒👞👟👠👡💎📿👑👒🎩🎩🎓🎓💄💍💍💎📿 clute them
Exactly. Watching this simulated descent, it seems far fetched that it could be done with 1960s technology. A take off and rendezvous would require extreme precision and timing, so as to not be miles off course with the orbiter. Just 1 degree day off and it's all over. All manual controls. They did it how many times without failure? Speaking as an engineer, it is so far fetched. I don't question the math, but rather the execution. There was extreme political pressure, recall. I'm surprised they released this simulation.
@@suekennedy8917 No needed, all manual operations, that why they needed 3 astronauts. However, the astronauts assumed it was very easy to join the capsule.
You can never make a smoorh 90 degree landing from such a low orbit. As you slow down you will get lower. You'll hit that surface at a 45 degree angle. Even if you turn the LEM perpendicular to the moon surface you'll still have a considrable horizontal velocity. Those horizontal firecrackers are not going to do much. Even when a stripped down version of the LEM was vertically released on earth they couldn'r land this thing with one vertical engine and a few horizontal firecrackers. Anyway were these rocket engines testzd in vacuum conditions?
@@johntu1967 i was refering to the main comment that initially started this thread.if space is a vacuum how could anything work correctly or at all?they cant replicate the vaccum of space on earth much less test the equipment ...
Just amazing, I cant help feel on edge thinking of how one little unforseen mishap, and then what can you do ?.. cant exactly call in sea/air rescue...
Jaspinder Singh We never went to the moon and here is all the proof you will ever need: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-l-KI-2e0_NQ.html
No, the 1st 11 missions were not failures... they were "stepping stones" that honed the technology and techniques to get closer to landing on moon....the ultimate goal of the Apollo missions was to eventually get there.
@@maozedung7270 I’ve got a question. Assuming the landings were fake (they weren’t, but I’ll go with it) how would a real lunar landing be and look like? What would be different from the one we had?
Its going like 2500 mph. They are really skilled to control that and the calculation for the one time mission is perfect. So many things could've gone wrong
@@noname52768 Without a hitch? Are you serious? Program alarms on 11, LPD issues on 12, a faulty abort switch on 14, 15 landing at the tilt limit and a failed backup SPS gimbal on 16. Apollo 17 was about the only one which went smoothly!🤣
it had two stages, the first one was used to land, once they wanted to come back to the capsule above them, the 2nd stage (that they occupied) seperated from the first one , it had its own engine and fuel, just enough to come back to the capsule
The lunar module consisted of an ascent stage on top of a descent stage. Both stages had a rocket engine. The descent stage engine was used for the descent, and the ascent stage engine was used for the ascent. The crew cabin was the main part of the ascent stage.
There's footage of the landing from a film camera pointing out the window of the Lunar Module. There couldn't be a video of the LM landing from far away since there were no cameras there before they landed
Why is there nothing showing how the lander was able to control the landing. Was there thrust vectoring, or separate rockets for pitch and roll? And were these manually controlled, or did they use computers equivalent to a commodore 64?
For Apollo 11's powered decent, Armstrong had to take manual control to avoid landing in a dangerous spot. Folks who knock the computing power of the onboard computer don't appreciate the fact that there were two human brains on board, so not everything had to be automated. Computer scientists still can only dream of building a General Artificial Intelligence machine that compares to what we all are born with.
"Why is there nothing showing how the lander was able to control the landing." The point of the video is to show the path and attitude of the lunar module. There's nothing particularly suspicious about not showing "how the lander was able to control the landing". "Was there thrust vectoring, or separate rockets for pitch and roll?" The latter. The LM had a Reaction Control System consisting of four quads of thrusters placed roughly on the corners of the ascent stage. "And were these manually controlled, or did they use computers " Not really either. The LM had three accelerometers at right angles to each other which could detect if the LM's attitude was shifting. The LM could be flown automatically or manually. Each landing started with the LM flying automatically. In this mode, the LM's path to touchdown was preprogrammed, so the LM always knew which direction it should be facing. As the intended attitude changed, a combination of RCS thrusters would fire to cause that attitude change. And if the accelerometers showed the LM's attitude was changing from what it should have been, then a combination of thrusters in the RCS would fire to counter that attitude change. In theory the LM could fly itself to a landing, but as it didn't have any sort of hazard avoidance system, it might land in a crater or on a rock and be destroyed. Therefore, when the LM was about two minutes from touchdown the astronauts took manual control. In this mode, the commander used one control to change the main rocket engine's throttle setting, and another to change its attitude. This was a fly-by-wire system; so rather than manually activating RCS thrusters, he moved the controller to indicate the attitude change he wanted, and the LM's computer fired the RCS thrusters needed to cause that attitude change. "equivalent to a commodore 64?" That's a very specific comparison. Any particular reason for it?
At 0:23 Earth comes over the horizon. Was that in fact the alignment of Columbia and Eagle at that point. First com comes in to Mike Collins -- "everything went swimmingly -- I've always understood Eagle to have dropped down as it takes several more seconds before we hear the scratchy first signals from Eagle.... Picking nits, I know. Otherwise, an excellent video.
Good question! And no it wasn't. The command module and lunar module separated about two hours before the lunar module began its descent. In that time, the lunar module fired its engine to enter a different orbit with a low point only 9 miles above the Moon, while the command module stayed in a 60 mile circular orbit. Because the spacecraft needed line of sight with the Earth in order to talk to Mission Control, yes, the Earth was visible during the descent. But when the descent began the two spacecraft were dozens of miles apart. The descent began about 15 minutes after the lunar module regained contact with Earth, and by the time the lunar module landed the Earth was high in the sky. There are a couple of photos taken from the surface of the Moon at the foot of the lunar module looking up, showing the Earth. They are AS11-40-5923 and AS11-40-5924.
Less than a year later, Mike Pence was hiding in our Capitol as a group of traitors were looking to hang him. All because a man-child president couldn't admit he lost and then launched an Insurrection Against America.
@@ollie7811 how about this... is your wifi at home same distance as the Cell tower of your phone... is your AM radio broadcast the same as your FM... Is your CB radio same distance,,, as those above.,, the worst thing is your bad cell communication could be your company poor coverage... and not able to roam on another carrier?
So the lander has 2 engines one to land and one to blast off? when they blasted from the moon they left the main engine behind and only half of the lander took off. How ridiculous to think that the lander has one engine on top of another. Honestly the Lander is made with gray paper, cardboard, PVC pipe and missing screws, I bet a 20 mile wind would completely destroy the lander.
In answer to your questions Christopher, once the lunar module ascent stage was docked with the Command Module and the crew transferred, it was jettisoned. To initiate Trans Earth Injection, the SPS burned for 2 minutes, 21 seconds, adding 2080mph (3,050 ft/s/930 m/s) to their orbital speed (which was 3,600mph). This was sufficient to leave the orbit of the moon. At 38,896 nautical miles from the moon, the CM reached equigravisphere, the threshold of the moon's gravitational exertion. From this point on the gravitational pull of the Earth was stronger than that of the Moon. From now on they would start to accelerate towards the Earth meaning that prior to re-entry Apollo was travelling in excess of 24,000mph. This is simply known as a 'translunar coast'. The lunar module was an addition to what are known as the 'J missions' - Apollos 15, 16 and 17. It was folded and stowed in the quadrant 1 equipment bay on the descent stage of the LEM. It was deployed by the astronauts once on the surface of the moon through a mainly automatic process. The rear wheels folded out and locked in place. When they touched the lunar surface, the front of the rover could be unfolded, the wheels deployed, and the entire frame was lowered down to the surface by pulleys. From memory, Apollo 15 had a few minor difficulties and you can find footage of Dave Scott and James Irwin painstakingly extricating it from the LEM. That was nothing compared to what was to come - the heat transfer experiment and the probes that they were expected to drill into the lunar surface. (Apollo 16 had this easier - but the experiment was ruined by John Young tripping over the cabling and ripping it out). Hope this helps. Any further questions, please don't hesitate to ask.
There is so much wrong with this,...first the command capsule was at the very front of the rocket so at the beginning the lunar lander had to be on the left or behind it. Second how did 2 astronaunts get seperated into the lunar lander when they all left earth in the command capsule(there was no transfer port), the fuel and rocket of the lunar lander were left behind so what propelled the lunar lander capsule back into orbit to dock w the command capsule
Aster getting into earth orbit, the command module separated from the booster, rotated 180°, and re docked to the lunar module. There WAS an access tunnel between the two craft with hatches on both. The ascent module had its own rocket engine and fuel supply, and used the descent module as a launch pad.
Is it the last picture (LM5) is real picture at the moon? I thought this picture was fake (illustrated by NASA) The background (bright area) too small and no star at the sky.
Apollo 11 didn't have a lunar rover, only the last three missions (Apollo 15, 16 and 17) did. The rover was carried folded up on the outside of the lunar module's descent stage.
Louis Fabale, it’s very understandable why everyone believed the fiasco in the 60’s and 70’s but to see people still believing it today is not. The only believable evidence of the space mission is the take-off, the rest is just MGM type sci-fi production quality stuff but with an unlimited budget. It’s obvious you have put zero thought into this at all. There is a very good reason that all you have seen since the so-called lunar missions has been satellite level missions with the space station, that’s the level of our technology. Von Braun himself said that to go to the moon you need a rocket the size of the Empire State Building. Energy and the ability to control motion matter on manned missions. It don’t matter how expensive your car is, if the tank is empty or the steering or brakes don’t work, you are in trouble.
Mitch Batten I’m 85% it didn’t happen... the only part I think may have been a bit hard to fake is the footage from when they are actually landing rather than that from when they have landed on...
Wrong, the descent engine displaced regolith in a radial lateral pattern which is precisely consistent with 2,400lbs of thrust in 1/6th G and a vacuum.
Vyralator speed at the start and the maximum mass, impossible engine composition and scheme, navigation for landing and docking on lunar orbit, fuel and control;
Whats the difference between a moon and earth? When it comes to landing? What i mean is If we had 2 balls, 1 Ball has a hole in the middle, therefore the human who lands into that ball will pass through that hole to land to the bottom. where the moon has no hole so you land on the edges of the ball. So does that mean the moon is a solid ball and earth is actually not a ball but a flat surface that gives an illusion of a ball? The reason why i say this is because, When you land on earth you cannot see the galaxy and other planets, where when you land on Moon you basically are in the galaxy
PSTRIPPLEE you can see the galaxy from earth. It’s pretty dim, so you have to be in a pretty dark environment. I only saw it a bit once. My country doesn’t have any “dark areas”, there are houses pretty much everywhere. Next time i’m on vacation in a country with a desert or sth like that I’m definitely going to watch the milky way!
I like the way they have the nerve to show rocket engine blast to surface on an animation but this didnt seem to be the case on the real landings, there was no crater nor any debris around to even look like there was
Actually, we can see how the outer layer of regolith has been blasted away in a radial pattern, and there's even a groove made by one of the contact probes, consistent with after-mission report of the LM drifting a bit before touchdown. To put it simply, even if the Moon landings _were_ faked, a significant care was put into making the fake lunar surface look like it _has_ been landed on.
We are in the year 2021, and this is the best that can be shown to the public. Animation. Only if there was real footage like this, of ships traveling in space.
And after the Apollo missions that were 480,000 mile trips, the furthest anyone's gone from the earth is 365 miles to discover that the extreme radiation from the Van Allen Belts were more than could be endured by the aircrafts
Show my just one example of solid evidence and i believe you. But it has to be solid evidence, not just speculation like “no stars” “attached by a rope”.
