I could never understand why these flights were not seen more as a milestone in the preparation of astronaunts for a moon landing. Surely the most critical phase of the mission.
Actually John, just about every part of the flights was mission critical. That was why exhaustive testing and simulations were so important. This is a part of all of the apollo missions that hoaxers are not aware of.
@Spacecoastz I'm probably telling you something that you already know, but there is another mission-ready Lunar Module hanging up in the KSC's Apollo Saturn 5 Center. It was originally intended for Apollo 15 but was replaced by an upgraded LM that carried the first Lunar Rover. The Lunar Module on display has the entry hatch open so that some of the interior is visible from down on the floor.
One unmanned flight in earth orbit on Apollo 5 by LM-1. Manned flights by LM-3 (Spider) on Apollo 9 and LM-4 (Snoopy) on Apollo 10. First Landing by LM-5 (Eagle).
@@jamesperkins179 The LLRV was a simulation vehicle to be used on earth to prepare the astronauts for the landing. The LM was a completely different vehicle.
Main Engine: General Electric CF700-2V Turbojet, rated at 4,200 lbs thrust.. Why is there no exhaust plume seen coming from the main engine during liftoff?
@@RocketPal Thanks.. Well, at least the LLTV thrusters show the hypergolic fuel plumes.. That's more than can be said for the Apollo LMs, that allegedly flew in the vacuum of space.
Turbojets generally don’t generate big exhaust plumes. The rocket engines used on the Apollo LM don’t either: the flame from those engines is transparent, and there’s no soot to form a visible plume either.
has their been any video evidence of a successful lunar module test flight, cause the only one i seen is where it exploded in mid-air? i'd figure lunar conditions would be 100x more difficult to navigate since we only have theories and formulas to go on and no first hand experience. Yet everyone made it back successfully back and alive on the first try from the moon surface, all based on mathematics and formulas.
The LM was never tested on Earth and it couldn't be, under 1 G it's too heavy. It was tested in low Earth orbit during Apollo 9 and in lunar orbit during Apollo 10. A LLTV never exploded in mid-air, I'm not sure which incident you're referring too. Flight on Earth was once only "theory and formulas" too, but that's irrelevant. It's actually simpler because space is a vacuum so there isn't any aerodynamic forces at all. Just Thrust > Weight and vehicle goes up, simple as that.
I just noted that this video has significantly less views than average video from any conspiracy butthead. People dont want to know history and whats was behind it, they want scandals, coverups, intrigues... truth has no value :(
I see this film first time. I think NASA produce new films now to prove its fake Apollo programm. 50 e ago they have 6 flight in 3 years. Now the technology ia 1000 x better and no one flight. They are liar and will produce more and more fake films in studio. But will never fly in reality.
@@Tadek5 If NASA faked the Moon landings - *six* times they faked it - how come they haven't faked something else that is equally massive, such as...oh, I don't know...a Mars landing? Now wouldn't *that* be a fake to get the world's attention? And NASA has all that experience from *fifty years* ago with the faked Moon landings to fall back on. It would be sooo easy for them to get away with a Mars landing in an Area 51 studio, wouldn't it, Dalek...sorry...Tadek5?
MarsFKA Because they'd have to finally prove they can get through the Van Allen belts and our technology would be following them all the way expecting real footage, not cgi crap.
@@pleasepermitmetospeakohgre1504 Oh for christ's sake! Cut the bullshit! All that Van Allen crap ran out of gas before it even reached the starting line and so did every other idiotic "reason" why the Moon landings were faked. I was alive and paying attention when the Moon landings were happening. You weren't even born then - you can't have been because none of you conspiracy idiots have the faintest idea of what you are talking about. You just repeat tired old crap that someone else has repeated from someone else, who didn't have a clue, either. Apollo was real, lamebrain. It gave my generation the defining moment in history and nothing that you blithering idiots say can take that away from us.
I wish you the best. Maybe you will be one of first cosmonauts ? But What we need is a real fright. No Programs, simulations , venture companies atc. Just few days ago company who promissed flight to Mars gone bancrupt.
The description to this video talks about the next giant leap is putting men on Mars. Shouldn’t you go to the moon first? A test run so to speak. 50 years and what? Still muddling around in low earth orbit.
Spot on ... Talking about mars bullshit when they can't even get to the Moon. So many dumb people eat nasa lies for dinner then regurgitate the poison to others because they saw it on TV. It's on the TV so it must be true! SMH no ability to think for themselves 😂
Jet engine only can run in earth atmosphere. And this premature giant spider does not have enough fuel for landing time ignition and flying back to mother ship which was orbiting in moon orbital. Can anyone explanation this scientifically ( not emotionally)
It's literally in the name: Lunar Landing Research (or Training) Vehicle. It was specifically used to simulate the last few moments of a *lunar landing* when the vehicle was under manual control. It was not used to simulate orbital braking or the ascent stage's liftoff.
This vehicle was used for *training*, here on Earth. The LM could not be flown on Earth (its engine did not have enough thrust to lift the LM in Earth gravity), so they built the LLRV and LLTV so the astronauts could practice the landing in a vehicle that could operate on Earth, but would feel similar to the LM on the moon.
The jet engine was not used for "power" necessarily. It's sole purpose was to simulate lunar gravity. The engine was on gimbals - - which means if the craft tilted one way or another, that engine could tilt in the opposite direction so that it was always pointing straight down - - again to simulate lunar gravity. It did this by burning with a constant thrust equal to 5/6ths the weight of the test vehicle - hence making it weigh about 1/6th of what it would - thus again - to simulate lunar gravity. That was the ONLY job of this engine. It was something that would not exist on the ACTUAL lander, so the fact that jet engines don't work in a vacuum - while correct - is irrelevant, since the ACTUAL LM did not have this jet engine to simulate the lunar gravity they would ACTUALLY be in. As has been pointed out, this vehicle was built only for the astronaut to train landing on the moon. It had nothing to do with de-orbiting, burning off a large amount of horizontal velocity, landing, taking off again and getting back into orbit. The only thing it had to do was lift off the surface a bit.....and then land back down. It was only a training vehicle for landing. This training vehicle wasn't coming from orbit, landing, then getting back into orbit. It simply lifted off.....got a few hundred feet high....and then came back down and landed. That's the only thing it did. You are comparing the fuel needed for that to what would be needed getting into orbit. It's a patently absurd comparison.
So..this must be the only example of tests being unsuccessful, resulting in a crash and nearly loss of life, but then all this being ignored and the programme gone ahead with..
@@dansv1 Test or training the result was the same. This contraption couldn't fly in Earth's atmosphere and would have been just as unstable in Space with little atmosphere.
@@nigelwilliams9307 It wasn't unstable. Did you even watch this video? Armstrong talks about 150 development flights being made (i.e. non-training flights), and subsequently many training flights to allow Apollo commanders to practice simulated moonlandings. I think Armstrong himself made about 50 flights - he had to eject from only one when his vehicle ran out of RCS propellant. The fact that over 700 flights in total were made by these flying simulators is part of the record. Some moonlanding hoax bullshit claimed that this vehicle was 'unflyable' and you fell for it. The opposite was true.
We landed men on the moon over 50 years ago and now NASA tells us that they are trying to develop a plan to land men on the moon now. That sounds like NASA hasn't figured it out yet. How did they do it over 50 years ago with old technology? I have my doubts.
I once went on vacation to Colorado. I am putting together plans to go again soon. I guess the fact that I have to plan again, it means I never went to Colorado before, right? That alone should tell you how absurd your train of logic is. But further, they are doing so with entirely new technology, new hardware, new staff. It's still a mission to the moon. Just because we did it 5 decades ago doesn't mean we can just build a rocket and fly to the moon on a moment's notice. The entire infrastructure that landed men on the moon during the late 1960s and 1970s vanished. All the people that worked on it are dead or retired. While we know how they did it before, we won't be doing it the same way - - - - - it would be like thinking you're going to start a web-based company and thinking you're going to be able to do it with a bunch of Apple II computers. If you plopped a computer engineer from 1965 who designed some code for some operation for the Apollo program into 2024, he's be completely lost. If you asked him to write code that will operate a computer using today's technology that will put a man on the moon, do you think that guy would need some training? I mean, he's done it before, right? Would the fact that he would need to be extensively trained on the systems and software before he could even begin? Would the fact that he would need extensive training on today's tech be somehow evidence that he wasn't part of a program that put man on the moon using 1960s technology? The answer is no. Of course not.
Was it possible for a lunar lander to take off and do a moon orbit rendezvous? Yes. Was it probable to do,6 separate times, without error? Sorry, that bit is difficult to swallow. Given the complexity of the mathematics and the crude technology of the 60s, the pilots would have had an exceedingly small margin of error. Is there video of LM-orbiter rendezvous testing, say in earth's orbit? Actual test footage, not simulation or diagrams. Surely they did exhaustive testing of such an incredibly risky procedure.
Nope. No testing. In 1968 They were 10 years away from going to moon . And funding was an issue. If we did launch men in that tin can to go to moon in 1969. It was so unbelievably risky. It was criminal. After Grisom burned up .4 months earlier. It was Suicidal...So much could go wrong. Those old wire resistor computer controlled systems were prone to bugs. It was a great achievement to goto earth orbits. For 4. days. Stay alive And then re entry and splash down. I think the moon stuff. Was Gemini unmanned vehicles. Like Russian luna 15. They may have sent drone to moon with an antenna in 1969. But the videos of men on moon was a full scale simulator. And the playing golf. And racing around in dune buggies. Doing somersaults and Jumping around careless with those fragile 4 psi pressurized suits. Sorry Charlie . Never happened. No way. To risky. No redundancy. If you analyzed the pictures of lem on moon. You see the gold wrapping. Was not uniform. And the rivets were not uniform. It was a prop. No way nasa would just wrap the stuff like ac10 year child would wrap a package.
Also: the whole ascent and docking procedure was divided in seperate phases. Each phase designed in such a way, that they had to take care of only one variable but the sequence eventually leading to a LM - CMS distance from which docking by hand could be done. You might want to look up this procedure as it is quite interesting instead of claiming things to not have been done which actually have been done and you simply do not know!
@@riddlescom The apollo lunar lander's AGC computer was NOT an "old wire resistor " computer but a integrated circuit computer. The integrated circuits were out before the apollo missions. We even had them in the UK then!!!! See; www.ourcomputerheritage.org/E5_Elliott_905.htm I was a service engineer for 5 years at GEC on these and the predecessor the 903 which was resistor/diode/transistor based. The Texas TTL SSI had to be out before 1968 for them to be designed into a computer. I don't have enough personal knowledge to debunk all of your ideas, just the computer non-facts. Have a look at computer info on; en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Guidance_Computer
This moon lander looks as child chouse in the garden made of cartoon and foil. How this objet could start from a Moon with high speed and not brake off to pieces ? How computer made of wire and weight 32 kg could calculate a trajectory to base ship. Hot to get to base ship . And in fina how can he join to base ship. No any chance . No any such events after 1972 year. No any returns . All was a fake. Space odysey 2001 no 2 reacrivation . made by NASA.
@@Tadek5 I understand why you may think that the lunar ascender would break to pieces during it's ascent, this may be because you think that the force of the air on the fragile looking craft would mash it to bits!! There is no atmosphere on the moon so there is no pressure on the ascent module apart from acceleration. How could the computer calculate a trajectory to the exact microsecond to the exact degree etc etc. It was much simpler than you think. The orbit of the CSM was KNOWN. The time of the burn needed to get the ascent module in a lower orbit was known. The CSM knew where the lunar module was on the lunar surface, so the CSM commander altered his trajectory to fly close to directly over the lunar descent module, it didn't need to be exact. When the CSM was getting close to over the lunar module, the ascent module engine burn was initiated. This burn was such that the ascent module would be some time behind the CSM and in a lower orbit. As the ascent module was in a lower orbit it was going faster so would catch the CSM in an hour or so, nothing exact needed. As the ascent module caught up the CSM it accelerated to get in the same orbit as the CSM and then re-docked with the CSM. It was great that the NASA scientists, engineers and astronauts knew what they were doing, a good job you were not involved.
They didn't explain how they reduced lunar orbital speed from 3000mph to landing speed. Did that consume much fuel seeing there is zero atmospheric resistance to assist breaking?
They relied entirely on engine burning to slow down. The lander was incredibly lightweight, so the fuel mass wasn’t that much compared to the rest of the mission
They are brainwashed by the television and cannot critically think. It's so obvious to me that it was fake but debunkers always spew crap they learn on documentary shows. The same shows funded by networks controlled and funded by intelligence agencies.
No, it was a simulation vehicle - to provide astronauts experience of flying in a low gravity environment, such that they would encounter when descending to the Lunar surface.
Neil almost got killed in that thing. The LLRV caught a 40 MPH wind and started doing cartwheels. Neil bailed out, it blew up, and Neil came down unharmed lived to fly another day.
Нетрудно увидеть - НАСА демонстрирует нам лишь КОРОТКИЕ отрезки различных пролетов тренажера ЛМ над Землей. А не цельный длительный полет. Из чего делаю вывод: никакого надежного тренажера ЛМ, на котором якобы обучился летать целый отряд астронавтов НАСА, НЕ СУЩЕСТВОВАЛО. И летать над Землей в любой проекции, как это пришлось бы на орбите Луны, этот аппарат не мог. Потому 3 тренажера и развалились при попытке полета под углом к Земле. США НИКОГДА НЕ ЛЕТАЛИ К ЛУНЕ!
А ты знаешь что леонова вообще на вертолете готовили к полету? А ты знаешь что на американском тренажере был турбореактивный двигатель? т.е разная тяга а статичном положении и при движении. От реального посадочного аппарата тренажер был далек.
@@spinningsquare1325 , ни на каком тренажере ЛМ американские астронавты научиться посадке-взлету с Луны не могли. Как и полету к поверхности Луны. У Луны они должны летать В РАЗЛИЧНЫХ проекциях ЛМ относительно поверхности Луны. А тренажер мог летать лишь со струей осн. двигателя вниз. В условиях пылевого облака и при обзоре через узкие треугольные иллюминаторы тренажер не испытывался. Как и при положении астронавта , лежа на панели управления. На тренажере актер, играющий будущего астронавта, всегда сидел на удобном кресле, с великолепным обзором. А садился тренажер всегда на чистые плиты аэродрома. ---- ЛМ фирмы "Грумман" вообще не существовал: при его якобы испытаниях на видео и фото НЕТ БЕЛОГО СЛЕДА ОТ ДВИГАТЕЛЕЙ НА ФОНЕ ЧЕРНОГО НЕБА! Это макет на веревочке. Как и сделанный из гнутых листов картона, обрезков труб, рваной черной бумаги, фольги и скотча ЛМ для съемок на голливудской Луне. При увеличении фото панели управления лунного ЛМ становится видна затертая донельзя краска панели, следы ржавчины. В левой части панели ОТСУТСТВУЮТ ДВА КРЕПЕЖНЫХ ВИНТА. А пучки проводов болтаются под панелью, как на "Жигулях" после 20 лет эксплуатации. -------------------------------------- США И ЛЕОНОВ НИКОГДА НЕ ЛЕТАЛИ НА ЛУНУ!
@@ИВАНИВАНОВ-ю9э3х я и сам сказал что тренажер фигня. ЛМ не картонный. Фольга действительно есть, но не та что у тебя на кухне. Потолще для термоизоляции. В космосе еще есть проблема перегрева ведь. ЛМ действительно не был прочным. А почему бы ему быть прочным? Не разу за путешествие не касается атмосферы. Это достаточно минималистичный аппарат выполяющий нужную задачу. Ты еще наверное не видел русский аналог. Там вообще пиздец.
@@unfortunatelyswagged6226 Why? Seriously why it's out of this world, when it was made on this world;) And it's nothing fancy even, just a craft with jet engine at its mass center;)
but it works with a jet turbine ....you cant use that for landing on the moon. Why do they train with an other kind of engine when they need to be trained with a real rocket-engine? Thats significant... its like training with a Motorbike to get a Formula 1 pro
jet engine was used for simulation of the lunar gravitation which is much less then on the Earth , listen to the speaker more attentively at 0:45 and on
Regio Montanus and technically, it still makes no sense . Gravity in Moon is 1/6 of Gravity at Earth, but you have a engine for the moonlanding Thais min. 6 times stronger than the Engine for earth and you havent trained
@@rudirosti5501 Dude read documents which is online and stop being illiterate or remain being stubborn conspirologist if you like it due to your predisposition to the antiamericanism communism , hatred for accursed "whities" and so on of that kind history.nasa.gov/alsj/LLRV_Monograph.pdf hydrogen-peroxide.us/history-US-Bell/LLRV-Design_and_Operation_Characteristics_of_a_Lunar-Landing_Research_Vehicle-1965.pdf www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/LLRV-DFRC.pdf
Sorry ,it was not a question about Physik or not understanding the Video. Its just a simple question. They spend billions of dollars for the moonlanding and than they send a landingmodul that was Never testeten in real. It means: nobody testet the Modul with the rocketengine under the ass in reality.I know you can calculate the situation on the moon and it should work. But the only real Test was in the moon,isnt it? Or is there capture 2 i havent Seen? I dont wana say there was no moonlanding, but this point is significant...DUDE....
It can't be like the LM. Nor was it supposed to be. The LM can only fly in space. The LLRV could only fly on Earth. But the LLRV DID handle very much like the LM above the Moon - and THAT was the whole point.
@@eventcone >>Nor was it supposed to be. Of course not, because, had it been like the LEM, it would have failed even more spectacularly. The point was to go through the motions of 'testing' but not actually test it properly.
@@markgerhard1362 first off let me remind you, as many have before, the LLRV/LLTVs were not the LM. Second the LM's performance in lunar orbit and surface met all operational requirements. Armstrong escaped and flew other LLTVs in training prior to his actual mission in the LM.
show me one single test with the real Lunar module descending successfully prior to Apollo 11. More than 30 years later, many attempts to land on Mars have failed and ending in a complete crashed failure on the martian surface. Descending on the moon would have been a lot more challenging and yet nothing proving a stable test operated with a pilot, descending over 10 km.
There was Apollo 9, which tested the LM in earth orbit (tested the throttleable descent engine, the electrics, the electronics the seperation from the descent stage, the acent engine). Then there was Apollo 10, which flew the LM down to a few hundred feet above the surface of the moon. And then came Apollo 11 which did the final step of actually landing. One mission has to be the first, you know. There is just one possibility to "test" an actual landing on the moon. And this is to actually land there.
Miguel what are you doing your making a fool of yourself with your comments about stuff that you know nothing about just go and research this stuff 1st so that you don't have to be ignorant any more
@@MrApolloTom 5 Surveyor robots successfully soft landed on Moon, before Apollo 11. With even much lesser computer power and no experienced test pilots to control it.
@@willllllll-r1f Armstrong flew over 30 training flights in the LLTV, making over 60 landings. All 7 of the apollo mission Commanders did this. Then apollo 5, an unmanned test of the LM, testing both descent and ascent engines. apollo 9 tested the LM in earth orbit, separation and rondavous, test firing of both descent and ascent engines. Apollo 10, testing LM in lunar orbit, fired descent stage, approached to within 10 miles, ascent stage test to rondavous.
G Alan If you are still hooked by this hoaxer stuff, you should read this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Landing_Research_Vehicle It will blow your mind how ignorant and clueless all those hoaxers are.
Armstrong: ok engines stop... Houston: we copy you down Eagle...did they forget about the 4 seconds delay? 240,000 miles away and they replied as if they were next door! Maybe because they were next door? 🤔
That footage was being recorded on earth, after being broadcast from the moon.. If you’re standing in mission control and you hear the astronauts talk, you can respond as quickly as you like, and recording equipment would pick it up accordingly. The astronauts wouldn’t hear you for about 2 seconds and you wouldn’t hear their response for about 4 seconds.
Spacecoastz It's like your Burger dissappeared and some people think your dog ate it and some think that it was the cat. How ever. We (the humans) did accomplish things we never thought of, and that's whats important.
Pathetic. Only recently has SpaceX been dumb enough to try landing on a nozzle. They still fail about 50% of the time using liquid cooled mega super computers. Apollo orbited the Earth, thats it.
*Only recently has SpaceX been dumb enough to try landing on a nozzle* Right, because we didn't had earlier Harrier aircraft;) You are so stupid, it's just amazing;)
@@tgstudio85 The AV-8B Harrier has 8 nozzles for control. Armstrong catastrophically crashed the only training flight for the fake LEM landing. NASA decided it wasn't worth practicing to success since the landing had long since been abandoned.
I'm being ironic! Of course it was the moon! A farce would be perceived by the Soviet Union. You, in replying, are saying that you are smarter than they and all the scientists in the world! I hope the traduror has worked.
"..had the pleasure of flying every one of the machines...Including the Weber ejection seat..." Funny. Test pilot humor.
I could never understand why these flights were not seen more as a milestone in the preparation of astronaunts for a moon landing. Surely the most critical phase of the mission.
Nasa start to produce new films to prove theirs fake. Thats it. Film is quite new I never seen such.
@@Tadek5 you have not looked
Actually John, just about every part of the flights was mission critical. That was why exhaustive testing and simulations were so important. This is a part of all of the apollo missions that hoaxers are not aware of.
have u seen any test conducted when the module lifted and got attached to the ship in the air? Real live test footage on earth?
That was the easiest part...you are completely ignorant about aero and astronautics.
Nice history of part of the Apollo training program. Very daring and guttsy effort.
Nicely done, NASA LLRV Project Engineer & Bell LLTV Technical Director
Great video. Love watching stuff like this. Such a great achievement. Thanks for sharing :)
By this video i understands that how effort the nasa take for appolo missions.... Salutes you
Nice to see NASA uploading these videos Vs every other channel riding the fair use clause to make a easy buck.
I can’t even imagine trying to get used to life back on earth after walking on the moon.
That predicament was never an issue..lol
Flying and landing helicopters was an integral part of astronaut training to land on the moon also.
Incredible accomplishments. Good job humanity!
So the first flight of this simulator took place only 5 years before the actual moon landing, right ?
Any test flight of the real LM module ?
Apollos 9 & 10
@Spacecoastz I'm probably telling you something that you already know, but there is another mission-ready Lunar Module hanging up in the KSC's Apollo Saturn 5 Center. It was originally intended for Apollo 15 but was replaced by an upgraded LM that carried the first Lunar Rover. The Lunar Module on display has the entry hatch open so that some of the interior is visible from down on the floor.
@Spacecoastz Excellent!
One unmanned flight in earth orbit on Apollo 5 by LM-1. Manned flights by LM-3 (Spider) on Apollo 9 and LM-4 (Snoopy) on Apollo 10. First Landing by LM-5 (Eagle).
First flight of the LLRV was in '64? WOW.
Was not the LEM controlled by astronauts who were required to stand, not sitting?
Red Herring. Test pilot does not appear to be Neil Armstrong.
@@jamesperkins179 The LLRV was a simulation vehicle to be used on earth to prepare the astronauts for the landing. The LM was a completely different vehicle.
The LLRV (R for research)was used to develop the LLTV (T for training).
Main Engine: General Electric CF700-2V Turbojet, rated at 4,200 lbs thrust.. Why is there no exhaust plume seen coming from the main engine during liftoff?
"Turbojet"
@@RocketPal Thanks.. Well, at least the LLTV thrusters show the hypergolic fuel plumes.. That's more than can be said for the Apollo LMs, that allegedly flew in the vacuum of space.
"Allegedly" no. It did.
@@oscarin13 Yeah, I shouldn't have used the words "allegedly flew", when what I really meant to say was "didn't fly".
Turbojets generally don’t generate big exhaust plumes.
The rocket engines used on the Apollo LM don’t either: the flame from those engines is transparent, and there’s no soot to form a visible plume either.
There's still 2 left. A shame these aren't kept in an airworthy state..
If you got em flying again you'd be back to displaying them in museums before long, but in scrapheap form
has their been any video evidence of a successful lunar module test flight, cause the only one i seen is where it exploded in mid-air? i'd figure lunar conditions would be 100x more difficult to navigate since we only have theories and formulas to go on and no first hand experience. Yet everyone made it back successfully back and alive on the first try from the moon surface, all based on mathematics and formulas.
th-cam.com/play/PL_2ItyUsGKvs36ZaUhv5qM1XZZiKEocsH.html&si=kwsSqhrddtHw2p0a
I ask the same question, haven't seen
The LM was never tested on Earth and it couldn't be, under 1 G it's too heavy. It was tested in low Earth orbit during Apollo 9 and in lunar orbit during Apollo 10. A LLTV never exploded in mid-air, I'm not sure which incident you're referring too.
Flight on Earth was once only "theory and formulas" too, but that's irrelevant. It's actually simpler because space is a vacuum so there isn't any aerodynamic forces at all. Just Thrust > Weight and vehicle goes up, simple as that.
Thought it was LLTV
The Lunar Landing Training Vehicle was an improved version of the Lunar Landing Research Vehicle.
wow
I just noted that this video has significantly less views than average video from any conspiracy butthead. People dont want to know history and whats was behind it, they want scandals, coverups, intrigues... truth has no value :(
I see this film first time. I think NASA produce new films now to prove its fake Apollo programm. 50 e ago they have 6 flight in 3 years. Now the technology ia 1000 x better and no one flight. They are liar and will produce more and more fake films in studio. But will never fly in reality.
@@Tadek5 If NASA faked the Moon landings - *six* times they faked it - how come they haven't faked something else that is equally massive, such as...oh, I don't know...a Mars landing? Now wouldn't *that* be a fake to get the world's attention? And NASA has all that experience from *fifty years* ago with the faked Moon landings to fall back on. It would be sooo easy for them to get away with a Mars landing in an Area 51 studio, wouldn't it, Dalek...sorry...Tadek5?
MarsFKA
Because they'd have to finally prove they can get through the Van Allen belts and our technology would be following them all the way expecting real footage, not cgi crap.
@@pleasepermitmetospeakohgre1504
Oh for christ's sake! Cut the bullshit! All that Van Allen crap ran out of gas before it even reached the starting line and so did every other idiotic "reason" why the Moon landings were faked.
I was alive and paying attention when the Moon landings were happening. You weren't even born then - you can't have been because none of you conspiracy idiots have the faintest idea of what you are talking about. You just repeat tired old crap that someone else has repeated from someone else, who didn't have a clue, either.
Apollo was real, lamebrain. It gave my generation the defining moment in history and nothing that you blithering idiots say can take that away from us.
I wish you the best. Maybe you will be one of first cosmonauts ? But What we need is a real fright. No Programs, simulations , venture companies atc. Just few days ago company who promissed flight to Mars gone bancrupt.
Are those shopping cart wheels on the LEM? WTF.
No, the LM stood on wide foot pads, to give a lower ground pressure. The LLRV was always going to land on tarmac, so no need for big pads.
I love the rocket chopper ultra light .._ be quite easy to swap to a air propulsion drive._. Even a water drive system ._.
Why have we not returned ? No: money, interest, big rocket, lander, spacesuits, rover.
Rover - check
Spacesuits check
Other than that yes that is how it is
the flying brothers whould have like this
The description to this video talks about the next giant leap is putting men on Mars. Shouldn’t you go to the moon first? A test run so to speak. 50 years and what? Still muddling around in low earth orbit.
Spot on ... Talking about mars bullshit when they can't even get to the Moon. So many dumb people eat nasa lies for dinner then regurgitate the poison to others because they saw it on TV. It's on the TV so it must be true! SMH no ability to think for themselves 😂
@@BlazingBigJointz Says the guy who got all his "evidences" from crappy conspiracy videos and websites
Yup apparently your vision matches nasa. They also plan moonbase first
really, their press conference told a lot
Где то в углу горько плачет Маск со своими бочками с гайками!-))))
Ok, so where can I get one?!😂😂😂
How the fuck does that fly ?
Propulsion, baby!
Jet engine only can run in earth atmosphere. And this premature giant spider does not have enough fuel for landing time ignition and flying back to mother ship which was orbiting in moon orbital. Can anyone explanation this scientifically ( not emotionally)
It's literally in the name: Lunar Landing Research (or Training) Vehicle. It was specifically used to simulate the last few moments of a *lunar landing* when the vehicle was under manual control. It was not used to simulate orbital braking or the ascent stage's liftoff.
This vehicle was used for *training*, here on Earth. The LM could not be flown on Earth (its engine did not have enough thrust to lift the LM in Earth gravity), so they built the LLRV and LLTV so the astronauts could practice the landing in a vehicle that could operate on Earth, but would feel similar to the LM on the moon.
The jet engine was not used for "power" necessarily. It's sole purpose was to simulate lunar gravity. The engine was on gimbals - - which means if the craft tilted one way or another, that engine could tilt in the opposite direction so that it was always pointing straight down - - again to simulate lunar gravity. It did this by burning with a constant thrust equal to 5/6ths the weight of the test vehicle - hence making it weigh about 1/6th of what it would - thus again - to simulate lunar gravity. That was the ONLY job of this engine. It was something that would not exist on the ACTUAL lander, so the fact that jet engines don't work in a vacuum - while correct - is irrelevant, since the ACTUAL LM did not have this jet engine to simulate the lunar gravity they would ACTUALLY be in.
As has been pointed out, this vehicle was built only for the astronaut to train landing on the moon. It had nothing to do with de-orbiting, burning off a large amount of horizontal velocity, landing, taking off again and getting back into orbit. The only thing it had to do was lift off the surface a bit.....and then land back down. It was only a training vehicle for landing. This training vehicle wasn't coming from orbit, landing, then getting back into orbit. It simply lifted off.....got a few hundred feet high....and then came back down and landed. That's the only thing it did. You are comparing the fuel needed for that to what would be needed getting into orbit. It's a patently absurd comparison.
So..this must be the only example of tests being unsuccessful, resulting in a crash and nearly loss of life, but then all this being ignored and the programme gone ahead with..
That wasn’t a test, it was training. And it was just one of many training flights that were flown.
@@dansv1 Test or training the result was the same. This contraption couldn't fly in Earth's atmosphere and would have been just as unstable in Space with little atmosphere.
@@nigelwilliams9307 'This thing' made 700 successful landings.
@@eventcone lol
@@nigelwilliams9307 It wasn't unstable. Did you even watch this video? Armstrong talks about 150 development flights being made (i.e. non-training flights), and subsequently many training flights to allow Apollo commanders to practice simulated moonlandings. I think Armstrong himself made about 50 flights - he had to eject from only one when his vehicle ran out of RCS propellant. The fact that over 700 flights in total were made by these flying simulators is part of the record.
Some moonlanding hoax bullshit claimed that this vehicle was 'unflyable' and you fell for it. The opposite was true.
Moves like a flying saucer
We are all order to tham not America only!!
Flying space grade toothpicks
We landed men on the moon over 50 years ago and now NASA tells us that they are trying to develop a plan to land men on the moon now. That sounds like NASA hasn't figured it out yet. How did they do it over 50 years ago with old technology? I have my doubts.
This time they are doing it with different technology, and at a different location (the Moon's south pole).
I once went on vacation to Colorado. I am putting together plans to go again soon. I guess the fact that I have to plan again, it means I never went to Colorado before, right?
That alone should tell you how absurd your train of logic is. But further, they are doing so with entirely new technology, new hardware, new staff. It's still a mission to the moon. Just because we did it 5 decades ago doesn't mean we can just build a rocket and fly to the moon on a moment's notice. The entire infrastructure that landed men on the moon during the late 1960s and 1970s vanished. All the people that worked on it are dead or retired. While we know how they did it before, we won't be doing it the same way - - - - - it would be like thinking you're going to start a web-based company and thinking you're going to be able to do it with a bunch of Apple II computers. If you plopped a computer engineer from 1965 who designed some code for some operation for the Apollo program into 2024, he's be completely lost. If you asked him to write code that will operate a computer using today's technology that will put a man on the moon, do you think that guy would need some training? I mean, he's done it before, right? Would the fact that he would need to be extensively trained on the systems and software before he could even begin? Would the fact that he would need extensive training on today's tech be somehow evidence that he wasn't part of a program that put man on the moon using 1960s technology? The answer is no. Of course not.
Was it possible for a lunar lander to take off and do a moon orbit rendezvous? Yes. Was it probable to do,6 separate times, without error? Sorry, that bit is difficult to swallow. Given the complexity of the mathematics and the crude technology of the 60s, the pilots would have had an exceedingly small margin of error. Is there video of LM-orbiter rendezvous testing, say in earth's orbit? Actual test footage, not simulation or diagrams. Surely they did exhaustive testing of such an incredibly risky procedure.
Nope. No testing. In 1968 They were 10 years away from going to moon . And funding was an issue. If we did launch men in that tin can to go to moon in 1969. It was so unbelievably risky. It was criminal. After Grisom burned up .4 months earlier. It was Suicidal...So much could go wrong. Those old wire resistor computer controlled systems were prone to bugs.
It was a great achievement to goto earth orbits. For 4. days. Stay alive And then re entry and splash down.
I think the moon stuff. Was Gemini unmanned vehicles. Like Russian luna 15. They may have sent drone to moon with an antenna in 1969. But the videos of men on moon was a full scale simulator. And the playing golf. And racing around in dune buggies. Doing somersaults and
Jumping around careless with those fragile 4 psi pressurized suits. Sorry Charlie . Never happened. No way.
To risky. No redundancy.
If you analyzed the pictures of lem on moon. You see the gold wrapping. Was not uniform. And the rivets were not uniform. It was a prop. No way nasa would just wrap the stuff like ac10 year child would wrap a package.
Also: the whole ascent and docking procedure was divided in seperate phases. Each phase designed in such a way, that they had to take care of only one variable but the sequence eventually leading to a LM - CMS distance from which docking by hand could be done.
You might want to look up this procedure as it is quite interesting instead of claiming things to not have been done which actually have been done and you simply do not know!
@@riddlescom The apollo lunar lander's AGC computer was NOT an "old wire resistor " computer but a integrated circuit computer. The integrated circuits were out before the apollo missions. We even had them in the UK then!!!! See;
www.ourcomputerheritage.org/E5_Elliott_905.htm
I was a service engineer for 5 years at GEC on these and the predecessor the 903 which was resistor/diode/transistor based. The Texas TTL SSI had to be out before 1968 for them to be designed into a computer.
I don't have enough personal knowledge to debunk all of your ideas, just the computer non-facts.
Have a look at computer info on;
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Guidance_Computer
This moon lander looks as child chouse in the garden made of cartoon and foil. How this objet could start from a Moon with high speed and not brake off to pieces ? How computer made of wire and weight 32 kg could calculate a trajectory to base ship. Hot to get to base ship . And in fina how can he join to base ship. No any chance . No any such events after 1972 year. No any returns . All was a fake. Space odysey 2001 no 2 reacrivation . made by NASA.
@@Tadek5 I understand why you may think that the lunar ascender would break to pieces during it's ascent, this may be because you think that the force of the air on the fragile looking craft would mash it to bits!! There is no atmosphere on the moon so there is no pressure on the ascent module apart from acceleration. How could the computer calculate a trajectory to the exact microsecond to the exact degree etc etc. It was much simpler than you think. The orbit of the CSM was KNOWN. The time of the burn needed to get the ascent module in a lower orbit was known. The CSM knew where the lunar module was on the lunar surface, so the CSM commander altered his trajectory to fly close to directly over the lunar descent module, it didn't need to be exact. When the CSM was getting close to over the lunar module, the ascent module engine burn was initiated. This burn was such that the ascent module would be some time behind the CSM and in a lower orbit. As the ascent module was in a lower orbit it was going faster so would catch the CSM in an hour or so, nothing exact needed. As the ascent module caught up the CSM it accelerated to get in the same orbit as the CSM and then re-docked with the CSM.
It was great that the NASA scientists, engineers and astronauts knew what they were doing, a good job you were not involved.
They didn't explain how they reduced lunar orbital speed from 3000mph to landing speed. Did that consume much fuel seeing there is zero atmospheric resistance to assist breaking?
They relied entirely on engine burning to slow down. The lander was incredibly lightweight, so the fuel mass wasn’t that much compared to the rest of the mission
Also engines work more efficiently in space.
If you know anything about orbital mechanics
@@junkyard3924 Keh? Do explain
@@yabbadabbadoo8225 Re-entry burn.
More like proving it waant safe to try!
It's pretty obvious that the "gravity reducing" propeller is doing all the floating and the "thrusters" are just for the show.
@@darts-multiverse The Lunar Module is basically a primitive Harrier jump jet that can only hover.
This is so embarrassing. My word. What can you NOT get people to believe?
They are brainwashed by the television and cannot critically think. It's so obvious to me that it was fake but debunkers always spew crap they learn on documentary shows. The same shows funded by networks controlled and funded by intelligence agencies.
@@BlazingBigJointz tell lie visions.
You're so cute when you think you're smarter than everyone
@@BaguetteGamingOfficial You're so cute when you're condescending. SMH, another bozo that believes everything Nazis tell them.
@@BlazingBigJointz Nazis ? What are the nazis doing here lol ?
Is that the thing go to the moon...lol
No, it was a simulation vehicle - to provide astronauts experience of flying in a low gravity environment, such that they would encounter when descending to the Lunar surface.
Neil almost got killed in that thing. The LLRV caught a 40 MPH wind and started doing cartwheels. Neil bailed out, it blew up, and Neil came down unharmed lived to fly another day.
Well, he was harmed, but not too badly.
Footage is right here
And not even mentioned that he went to his desk and worked on some papers like nothing happened afterwards. The steel balls required...
Shouldn't they be standing while flying these things like on the lunar lander? 😂
Нетрудно увидеть - НАСА демонстрирует нам лишь КОРОТКИЕ отрезки различных пролетов тренажера ЛМ над Землей. А не цельный длительный полет.
Из чего делаю вывод: никакого надежного тренажера ЛМ, на котором якобы обучился летать целый отряд астронавтов НАСА, НЕ СУЩЕСТВОВАЛО.
И летать над Землей в любой проекции, как это пришлось бы на орбите Луны, этот аппарат не мог. Потому 3 тренажера и развалились при попытке полета под углом к Земле.
США НИКОГДА НЕ ЛЕТАЛИ К ЛУНЕ!
Your are right friend from Russia. They never flight on the Moon. All was films from studio and there are 1000 of proves for it.
@@Tadek5 show me some, that can stand scrutiny.
А ты знаешь что леонова вообще на вертолете готовили к полету? А ты знаешь что на американском тренажере был турбореактивный двигатель? т.е разная тяга а статичном положении и при движении. От реального посадочного аппарата тренажер был далек.
@@spinningsquare1325 , ни на каком тренажере ЛМ американские астронавты научиться посадке-взлету с Луны не могли. Как и полету к поверхности Луны. У Луны они должны летать В РАЗЛИЧНЫХ проекциях ЛМ относительно поверхности Луны. А тренажер мог летать лишь со струей осн. двигателя вниз. В условиях пылевого облака и при обзоре через узкие треугольные иллюминаторы тренажер не испытывался. Как и при положении астронавта , лежа на панели управления. На тренажере актер, играющий будущего астронавта, всегда сидел на удобном кресле, с великолепным обзором. А садился тренажер всегда на чистые плиты аэродрома.
----
ЛМ фирмы "Грумман" вообще не существовал: при его якобы испытаниях на видео и фото НЕТ БЕЛОГО СЛЕДА ОТ ДВИГАТЕЛЕЙ НА ФОНЕ ЧЕРНОГО НЕБА!
Это макет на веревочке. Как и сделанный из гнутых листов картона, обрезков труб, рваной черной бумаги, фольги и скотча ЛМ для съемок на голливудской Луне.
При увеличении фото панели управления лунного ЛМ становится видна затертая донельзя краска панели, следы ржавчины. В левой части панели ОТСУТСТВУЮТ ДВА КРЕПЕЖНЫХ ВИНТА. А пучки проводов болтаются под панелью, как на "Жигулях" после 20 лет эксплуатации.
--------------------------------------
США И ЛЕОНОВ НИКОГДА НЕ ЛЕТАЛИ НА ЛУНУ!
@@ИВАНИВАНОВ-ю9э3х я и сам сказал что тренажер фигня. ЛМ не картонный. Фольга действительно есть, но не та что у тебя на кухне. Потолще для термоизоляции. В космосе еще есть проблема перегрева ведь. ЛМ действительно не был прочным. А почему бы ему быть прочным? Не разу за путешествие не касается атмосферы. Это достаточно минималистичный аппарат выполяющий нужную задачу. Ты еще наверное не видел русский аналог. Там вообще пиздец.
Awah awah awahahahahahahaha!!
Alien technology
Nope, just human technology:)
tgstudio85 You do have to admit, it does seem out of this world, and with good reason!
@@unfortunatelyswagged6226 Why? Seriously why it's out of this world, when it was made on this world;) And it's nothing fancy even, just a craft with jet engine at its mass center;)
@@unfortunatelyswagged6226 i work in heavy metal industry as PLC programmer, and seen things you would consider magic;)
@@tgstudio85 Nope, Hollywood trickery. Moonlanding was a fake, total fraud to humanity.
Kinda bizarre seeing these hunks of junk hovering and flying around in the 1950s...still waiting on my flying car...
1960's
A flying car would be hard to pilot. Simple. You can buy a civilian ultralight aircraft the size of a car but it does require training and runways
Wildmantis 1 Not in the 1950’s. The 1960’s.
but it works with a jet turbine ....you cant use that for landing on the moon. Why do they train with an other kind of engine when they need to be trained with a real rocket-engine? Thats significant... its like training with a Motorbike to get a Formula 1 pro
jet engine was used for simulation of the lunar gravitation which is much less then on the Earth , listen to the speaker more attentively at 0:45 and on
Regio Montanus and technically, it still makes no sense . Gravity in Moon is 1/6 of Gravity at Earth, but you have a engine for the moonlanding Thais min. 6 times stronger than the Engine for earth and you havent trained
@@rudirosti5501 Dude read documents which is online and stop being illiterate or remain being stubborn conspirologist if you like it due to your predisposition to the antiamericanism communism , hatred for accursed "whities" and so on of that kind
history.nasa.gov/alsj/LLRV_Monograph.pdf
hydrogen-peroxide.us/history-US-Bell/LLRV-Design_and_Operation_Characteristics_of_a_Lunar-Landing_Research_Vehicle-1965.pdf
www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/LLRV-DFRC.pdf
Kit Canyon thanks verry much it shows your a Genius. 🤣🤣🤣
Sorry ,it was not a question about Physik or not understanding the Video. Its just a simple question. They spend billions of dollars for the moonlanding and than they send a landingmodul that was Never testeten in real. It means: nobody testet the Modul with the rocketengine under the ass in reality.I know you can calculate the situation on the moon and it should work. But the only real Test was in the moon,isnt it? Or is there capture 2 i havent Seen? I dont wana say there was no moonlanding, but this point is significant...DUDE....
😂😂😂
What?
As if this was anything like the LEM.
It can't be like the LM. Nor was it supposed to be.
The LM can only fly in space.
The LLRV could only fly on Earth.
But the LLRV DID handle very much like the LM above the Moon - and THAT was the whole point.
@@eventcone
>>Nor was it supposed to be.
Of course not, because, had it been like the LEM, it would have failed even more spectacularly. The point was to go through the motions of 'testing' but not actually test it properly.
@@markgerhard1362 what failure are you talking about? The LLRV/LLTV and the LM were both successful projects.
@@silenthunter8254
The LLRV nearly killed Neil Armstrong.
The LM didn't even look very convincing in the studio.
@@markgerhard1362 first off let me remind you, as many have before, the LLRV/LLTVs were not the LM.
Second the LM's performance in lunar orbit and surface met all operational requirements.
Armstrong escaped and flew other LLTVs in training prior to his actual mission in the LM.
show me one single test with the real Lunar module descending successfully prior to Apollo 11. More than 30 years later, many attempts to land on Mars have failed and ending in a complete crashed failure on the martian surface. Descending on the moon would have been a lot more challenging and yet nothing proving a stable test operated with a pilot, descending over 10 km.
You want to see footage of a Lunar lander, designed to land on the moon, landing on Earth?
Apollo 11 was by definition the first landing on the moon, if they'd been one before it, that'd be the first....
There was Apollo 9, which tested the LM in earth orbit (tested the throttleable descent engine, the electrics, the electronics the seperation from the descent stage, the acent engine).
Then there was Apollo 10, which flew the LM down to a few hundred feet above the surface of the moon.
And then came Apollo 11 which did the final step of actually landing.
One mission has to be the first, you know. There is just one possibility to "test" an actual landing on the moon. And this is to actually land there.
Miguel what are you doing your making a fool of yourself with your comments about stuff that you know nothing about just go and research this stuff 1st so that you don't have to be ignorant any more
@@MrApolloTom 5 Surveyor robots successfully soft landed on Moon, before Apollo 11.
With even much lesser computer power and no experienced test pilots to control it.
0 for 25 trying to land the lander on earth and then all of the sudden 6-6 landing it on the moon ! yea ok.....
nope, did you not ready my post ??@@Profile2.5
@@willllllll-r1f Armstrong flew over 30 training flights in the LLTV, making over 60 landings. All 7 of the apollo mission Commanders did this.
Then apollo 5, an unmanned test of the LM, testing both descent and ascent engines.
apollo 9 tested the LM in earth orbit, separation and rondavous, test firing of both descent and ascent engines.
Apollo 10, testing LM in lunar orbit, fired descent stage, approached to within 10 miles, ascent stage test to rondavous.
They flew and landed the 5 astronaut training vehicles more than 200 times on Earth, before attempting the first moon landing.
G Alan
If you are still hooked by this hoaxer stuff, you should read this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Landing_Research_Vehicle
It will blow your mind how ignorant and clueless all those hoaxers are.
@@3gunslingers I doubt it will blow his mind any more than it already is. He *is* a hoax believer, after all.
Armstrong: ok engines stop... Houston: we copy you down Eagle...did they forget about the 4 seconds delay? 240,000 miles away and they replied as if they were next door! Maybe because they were next door? 🤔
That footage was being recorded on earth, after being broadcast from the moon.. If you’re standing in mission control and you hear the astronauts talk, you can respond as quickly as you like, and recording equipment would pick it up accordingly. The astronauts wouldn’t hear you for about 2 seconds and you wouldn’t hear their response for about 4 seconds.
@@Jakedasnake1066 it was faked and half America believe it was too!
@@michaellyne8773 No. Only you conspiracy freaks believe it fake.
@@marksprague1280 your so entrenched with beliefs it happened it didn't get over it
@@marksprague1280 forgot to mention you are a freek for believing that it happened.
Nasa VFX studio is good.👍👍👍
What makes you think this is fake?
"think"?.. buttheads can't think, all they do is meaningless screams and screeches
Hardly, looks more like a high school science project !
Now only if they really went to the moon!
Spacecoastz It's like your Burger dissappeared and some people think your dog ate it and some think that it was the cat. How ever. We (the humans) did accomplish things we never thought of, and that's whats important.
Pathetic. Only recently has SpaceX been dumb enough to try landing on a nozzle. They still fail about 50% of the time using liquid cooled mega super computers. Apollo orbited the Earth, thats it.
Oxygen Thief
*Only recently has SpaceX been dumb enough to try landing on a nozzle*
Right, because we didn't had earlier Harrier aircraft;) You are so stupid, it's just amazing;)
@@tgstudio85
A Harrier has 8 nozzles for control. Christ, people are such morons.
@@135iN55 LOL, Harrier had one engine Pegasus6 with two adjustable exhausts and it flew flawless.
@@tgstudio85
The AV-8B Harrier has 8 nozzles for control. Armstrong catastrophically crashed the only training flight for the fake LEM landing. NASA decided it wasn't worth practicing to success since the landing had long since been abandoned.
LOLOLOLOLOL
Hilarious!! Look at the little wheels... It'd never get to nowhere...
This did not land on the moon. It was a training vehicle.
idiot
Sofa casters! Nobody went to the Moon.
You exist? Prove? I'm just seeing written words!
Adailton Vidal Exactly! I think you're beginning to understand.
I'm being ironic! Of course it was the moon! A farce would be perceived by the Soviet Union. You, in replying, are saying that you are smarter than they and all the scientists in the world!
I hope the traduror has worked.
Adailton Vidal I'm not saying that. I'm saying I'm smarter than you. What's a traduror?
Adailton Vidal The Soviet Union was in on it. It's all just population control.
Why makea a trush engine that dual attack negative air to compress air and fuel