How NASA tried to save Skylab is an interesting story in itself. Skylab was falling because space isn't a perfect vacuum, especially close to the Earth. There's a tiny bit of atmosphere even 'way up there and although it's nowhere near enough to allow us to breathe, it's still enough to cause some friction to an orbiting space craft and gradually slow it down until it falls from orbit. NASA realised that their best chance of saving Skylab so that the shuttle could reach it in time lay in re-orienting the space station so that it presented the smallest profile to the minimal atomosphere it was encountering, but in order to do that, they needed to regain 24-hour control of the station's electronics and computers. The problem was that the rechargable (Ni-Cd) batteries were dead and so the only time power was available was when the solar panels came into the sun during the orbit. On top of this, the safety systems aboard Skylab were set up to disconnect the batteries if an under-voltage was detected. This meant that at least in theory, if they gave Skylab the command to connect its batteries so they could charge from the solar panels, they would be immediately disconnected due to being almost dead. But NASA engineers realised that there was a difference between theory and practice. Every time a command was sent to connect the batteries, a relay would connect the batteries to the solar panels, then the under-voltage would be detected and the relay would drop out, but there was a tiny delay between those two events and during that tiny delay, a small amount of charge would go into the batteries. The NASA engineers came up with a program which would send the command to connect the batteries, wait just long enough for the relay to click in and then drop out again, then send the command again, over and over, several times per second. Each time the relay clicked in for a moment, a small amount of charge went into the batteries. Eventually the batteries gained enough charge that there was no longer an under-voltage and the relay stayed closed, allowing the batteries to fully charge so NASA could control Skylab from the ground once again. It's a pity that Skylab was still lost after all that effort, but what an ingenious effort it was. (Information gained from an issue of Electronics Australia when it still existed and was still a good magazine)
I'm surprised we never, in any era, developed some kind of small and fast rocket that could get fuel, food or supplies to an orbiting craft. A probe of sorts. For example, some kind of small engine sent up to Skylab that they simply could have strapped to the outside to boost it's orbit, or a small resupply to the Columbia crew instead of risking them reentering the atmosphere, or an oxygen resupply to the Apollo 13 crew.
30 And Hating It You haven’t thought this through fully have you? Let’s ignore the cost for now - how would you go about actually performing those ‘simple’ tasks? What with? Do you have a simplified plan with an estimated lead time? Or a plan of any kind? You make it sound so simple that you’d obviously wonder why it didn’t happen, but the simple reason is, it’s further from simple than you are from Pluto. Are you the guy that suggested fitting commercial airliners with drogue chutes so they can’t ‘fall’ out of the sky? Or the guy who suggested making car bodies into electromagnets for collision avoidance? Is this Elon?
@@30AndHatingIt Unfortunately, escaping Earth's gravity isn't a simple task and requires a lot of energy expenditure even without a payload. Also, nobody knew that the Columbia was damaged until after the fatal re-entry attempt so it would have made no difference.
@@thephalcon9501 Look, if you were having a bad day or something I get it, but I don't think posting a simple passing comment on a random video while browsing the site late at night should be used as a definitive measure of my intelligence. I've seen plenty of amateur rocketeers out there get some pretty impressive results with their homebrew launches at pennies next to the dollar. All I was floating out there (pun intended) was the question of making something smaller than what is usually sent up for resupply, as in smaller than the unmanned resupply craft they are sending to the ISS right now that are roughly the size of commercial van. In an emergency, I was thinking something much smaller with only the essentials needed for said emergency, would be cheaper and quicker to launch. Just shooting the shit, no need to professionally evaluate me.
Wow! I hadn't realized just how big Skylab was. It's the closest thing to a 2001-style simulated gravity hamster wheel we've ever constructed. Wicked cool. Too bad it got vaporized.
They still have the backup / "training simulator" (actual flight-capable hardware) at the Smithsonian Air & Space Museum. You could walk through it. It's huge! Presently not on display. Photos online.
@@General12th No we still have to develop proper nuclear fission engines, and from there we can work on developing magnetic fusion engines, explore the power of antimatter, and perhaps even use that to develop the "Alcubierre Drive".
I have an engineering degree and I work in Aerospace and your videos still blow my mind on a regular basis with the quantity and quality of information
Enji Bkk It would have less to do with how far they went than how fast and how heavy they were. If they ran at the same speed the whole time they would have no net effect. Only speeding up and slowing down would turn it.
@@enjibkk6850 It did. The actual reaction wheels had to counter it. However big the mass diference is, Newton doesn't give up. But it didn't rotate for artificial gravity. That would have been an issue when they took thousands of photographs. Also i think when you do that in too small a "wheel" you just get sick. It has to have a certain size.
The flag thing was by FAR the smallest problem with first man. You see it anyway and plenty of others. Just not the planting itself. But... The cringy madeup emotional bullshit, Armstrong looking like he's about to cry all the time... he would not have gotten past the first Nasa psychologist in any test. And of course the IDOTIC camera shaking that is just KILLING the movie. It was frankly absolute shite in pretty much all aspects. When listening to A11 audio it's noticable that Armstrong talks a lot (by his quiet standards) about "humans" and the "world" and very little about "the US". Doesn't say much more than that he knew he had a worldwide audience. Whatever his reasons, it was a smart PR move more than everything. Had he been babbling on about the US it may not be such a remarakble worldwide memory. By keeping it relatively neutral, he didn't exclude anyone and the whole world could feel great about the event. Everybody knew ANYWAY that it was the US that did it. There were enough flags dotted about :) As opposed for example to Ed White who felt "red and blue all over" after his spacewalk. Which even some collegues according to many books found a bit "too much".
The center tank of the Saturn 1 was actually from a Jupiter missile. This along with the cluster of Redstone tanks made the critics dub it Clusters last stand.
i don't know. Most kerbal stations are made by nailing a lot of bits together, like the ISS. It just feels more like a space station as we're used to it. Declaring one big tank a space station would feel kinda cheaty in KSP. While it was a rather sensible idea in reality. Sensible because a (last) SaturnV was available anyway.
@@5Andysalive NovaSilisko was working on a "wet workshops" mod to allow conversion of tanks to living spaces, though I don't know if anything came of it.
"The most Kerbal of space stations." Only if you are like me where everything I build just looks like a bunch of old washing machines celotaped together. But not for a master like ShadowZone.
Hi Scott! I want to say that you explained all of these steps perfectly. I've followed the space program since Gemini and now teach young students about the history of Apollo. Every one of the details about the various stages and individual missions in your video were absolutely spot on! Seldom do I see a video about the various configurations of the Apollo hardware without giant loopholes or flat out wrong identification of missions, segments, reasons, etc. You have done an outstanding job of putting this together in a very concise and informative way without cluttering it up with unnecessary filler. Well done. Keep it up!!
Take a good look discovery channel and national geographic channel... This is how you make an interesting documentary. Watch and learn. Thanks Scott. I love it how you go into all the details.
The audio and video of all the parts of Apollo are so much better than they were at the time. It is absolutely wonderful to have this audio and video all cleaned up as I appreciated each part of the mission.
Your timing is impeccable. Our family wen to see Apollo 11 (from your recommendation) and it was AMAZING. My dad was a Photographic Geodycist for the USAF and in 1968 he was asked to come to NASA-MSC to map out the Apollo Landing sites. I was in 6th grade and I recall watching Apollo 11 (and living it) there south of Houston. There were two parts in the movie that I was intrigued with. 1) The 1202 alarm - which I learned about when I got home 2) How they got the footage of the lighting of the S-IVB engine. My guess was an ejected film canister - since I knew that was common practice for Spy Satellites of that era. I am glad to get that confirmed from you - with all sorts of extra bonus info (SM-style) that I would never have though about. Thanks for the recommendation. I got to re-live 1969 (but with amazing fidelity) and share it with my family.
A large amount of the footage was shot for a (cancelled) film that was later released by NASA as "Moonwalk One". It's available on TH-cam and is well worth the watch.
Fun fact: When Mission control told Apollo 13 that it's SIVB had crashed into the moon as planned they commented "Well, at least something worked on this flight.". 078:02:25 CC: By the way, Aquarius, we see the results now from 12's seismometer. Looks like your booster just hit the Moon, and it's rocking it a little bit. Over. 078:02:44 CMP: Well, at least something worked on this flight. Transscript says cmp (Swigert) but it was cdr (Lovell). The time is the get, the time since launch. btw: Homesteading Space: The Skylab Story very interesting book. Very interesting story. Very impressive saving and repair effort under extreme time pressure. Rivaled in effort only by saving Apollo 13. Sadly a somewhat forgotten story..
HEre it is, in this (amazing) full mission audio video at 29:17 th-cam.com/video/GtQZB0a0XcU/w-d-xo.html And this is defnitely Jim Lovell. Since this is youtube i should add: the footage in that is obviously from a simulator. To approximately show what happens instead of a black screen. When there is actual footage available (launch, tv transmissions) they are shown.
There was another reason why they were happy when the SIVB hit the moon. A radio transmitter on the SIVB used the same frequency as a transmitter on the LM. On a normal mission this wasn't a problem because the LM and the SIVB never operated at the same time, but on Apollo 13 they did. The interference ended when the SIVB impacted the moon.
@@joevignolor4u949 yeah in that videos comments someone claimed you can hear the moment of impact because the static was suddenly much less. But it became much noisier again later. I think it messed up the tracking much more than the com. Or more precisely it messed up com (including a actual loss of it for quite some time) while they were trying to establish tracking on the LM around the SIVB. The com was also bad because to save power most of the time amplifiers and stuff were turned off. And only activated when they needed clear com to read long checklists up.
Skylab's fascinating, and unjustly forgotten --- a space station made out of leftover Apollo parts, when they really had no idea what living in space would be like and were just making things up as they went along. It went wrong on launch, with several pieces breaking off, and required heroic measures by the first crew to repair it into habitability --- the tarpaulin in the photos was a sunshield to prevent overheating. (The exact opposite problem Mir had in 1997!) It did groundbreaking work in solar observation, being able to see wavelengths blocked by the atmosphere; it took 150,000 film exposures. The observatory was a semi-independent unit based on an Apollo Lander hull, and actually ended powering the space station after the launch until the rescue mission could reach it...
Not only did they repair it. They wrote the book (at least the english one) on space station living and working. And Conrad had enough standing and authority to force changes when they felt they needed. He had several private phone conferences with Kraft and Kranz and some higherups, bypassing the official mission control chain of communication. And they overruled overcautios doctors (they had no experiences too) and inefficient procedures. when they needed. He didn't need a "mutiny".
This is all from memory. Skylab reentered in 1979, and NASA knew that it would reenter but they didn’t know exactly where. A Seattle radio station held a contest where anyone who brought a piece of Skylab to Seattle would be awarded $10,000. Some guy in Australia found a chunk, and flew to Seattle to win the contest. Nobody remembers this except me!
It was very interesting to see the pre-11 mission details where they tested each component individually. Normally on history shows they skip directly from Mercury to Apollo 11.
not if you look for good ones. There were lots of interesting stories in Gemini. 8's problems for example. The 3 launches of Gemini 6. Eventual success thanks to Schirras butt sensitivity. Or Cernans infamous EVA on 9. Also the somewhat exaggerated mutiny on Apollo 7, Apollo 8 obviously. The famous Kronkite broadcast from Apollo 4 launch....
This isn’t necessarily directly connected to this video but I would love to see you do an in depth video about the construction/assembly of the individual pieces of the International Space Station. I know videos in the topic exist but are either too fast in the animation and/or lacking some of the specifics that we all love from your videos! PS I got my whole department at work following your channel. Keep it up!
Thank you Scot..finally I now have a resolution to my equal perplexity. I followed the entire NASA program in depth as a child. However I did not know how they got this footage either. I gave in depth presentations on the topic of space craft several times to my class and teachers. I knew my stuff and I managed to keep my peers and my teachers interested. A question time was provided, at which time many of my friends and teachers would ask questions. This topic however has always had me bamboozled..now at long last my curiosity has been assuaged. Thanks again.mates👍👍👍🙌
I just wish that all the video footage wasnt hidden in some obscure archives around the internet. I would love to look at the old documents but I'm too lazy to dig around :/
I asked Rusty Schweickart when I met him here in Adelaide he was a really nice guy, happy to talk about stuff like this, very impressed at how "enthusiastic" Australians were about all things space travel!
The S4-B shown at 7:33 and 7:44 is from the Apollo 7 mission. You can see there are beams in place that would prevent a LEM from being installed and the 4 panels of the adaptor are still attached. A target is attached for the Apollo 7 crew to practice approaching (from a distance) as if a LEM were actually in the hold.
Yes, and the SLA-panels didn´t eject on 7 (they weren´t designed to do so at that point) , and one of the panels didn´t open up fully, which prompted the re-design for later missions.
Thanks! My daughter asked me that question the other day! I think she and her husband had seen the movie. I guessed at the answer and I just shared your video with her so she now has the details. She turned 2 years old during that first lunar landing flight. She really enjoyed the 50th anniversary celebration here in Houston.
I noticed Scott's Kerbalese pronunciation of "Moon" ('Mun') as well. Maybe the Kerbals are actually a race of magical beings related to the Leprechauns, but originating from Scotland instead of Ireland (if the Kelpies are their natural enemies, they would have had ample cause to quit the Earth and find another home)...
Of course you do a video on this! I immediately started scouring forums and social media pages to find the answer to this after the movie. I had never seen that footage and it was awesome! Thank you for always being on my wavelength, Scott! Fav TH-cam channel.
Willst du mich verarschen?! Eben noch das Video von Seps Rede gesehen, wo du Topcomment warst, dann klick ich auf dieses Video und hier bist du schon wieder!
@@Diggnuts Yeah, it makes me disgusted and disappointed. I saw some rips the other day (they are gone now), but I wouldn't download a quality degraded film, especially not this one. I read that it will be released digitally on May 14th. So, blu ray torrents should show up after that. I'm just sad that it didn't release in theaters (there is one imax theatre in my city) in my country (probably never will), not even one or limited schedule, nothing.
I wondered about that segment as well. What an incredible film overall! It had both familiar footage and footage I had never seen before. Thanks for filling in some interesting details about both the film and the Apollo program!
I actually knew the answer to your initial question, but you didn't bother to ask me! You need to work on that! Ha! Awesome video as usual. I knew the film parachuted back but that was about the extent of my "knowledge". I didn't know about the film parachuting into a storm. The little details you illuminate are the things that make your videos so good. My father was an EE at Marshal Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama. He was a NASA employee from 1958 to 1978. He then went to work for Teledyne Brown on the Space Shuttle for about 17 years. Scott, have you read Bob Ward's book on Wernher von Braun titled "Dr Space"? It's hands down the best book on von Braun
The footage where the Apollo 11 crew have removed the transit hatch cover for the transfer tunnel, then showing the docking assembly arms being removed from stowage prior to fitting is also interesting and I've never seen it before. Great episode as always.
I'm old enough to remember all of this. I watched on television as Neil Armstrong stepped off of the LEM and onto the surface of the moon. I hope I live long enough to see Man step onto the surface of Mars.
Hi Scott, every time I wonder where you get such *FANTASTIC* video footages.... Those video, aren't "similar" to the one you're talking of, they are EXACTLY the footage of your spoken caption..... WONDERFUL!
What would Scott wear for that? Also ever since Curious Droid (unironically) repeated the folk tale of Apollo 10 being "underfueld so they wouldn't land" i've become very scpetical of his research quality.
Wow!! That was amazing, all the footage was just stunning(well....most of it anyways)from the launch pad to the moon. I loved seeing views I always wished I could have seen of the Saturn launches including inside the first stage during separation, and friggjn SkyLab!!!! Awesome
My son (33) and I got to see it at an art-house cineplex with tiny screens, as the local IMAX (also tiny for IMAX) was booked solid. Good and interesting but the frequent montages wasted the impact of a lot of the 65 and 70 mm footage; I think I would have edited it differently. Also the simplified graphics of the figure-8 flight path holds the Earth and Moon still and brings them too close together; there must be a way to show it to scale and timescale so we get to realize more what a friggin' long ride that was, with the tiniest of strike zones. If it ever comes to the IMAX I think I will buy two more tickets. Thanks, Scott, this was a great post.
Thanks! I had made a guess on the source of that S-IVB clip and I was completely wrong, this makes a lot more sense. And I'd never seen that S-IV separation and RL-10 ignition video before, fantastic!
Context: Hollywood film makers don't always deliver actual footage to tell a story, even in a documentary. Google blue panels, intrusive and generally unwelcome. Love your channel, Scott. Always really informative content.
3:15 I didn't know they had quadrifiliar helix antennas back then. I thought they came along in the late 70's. I'll have to go through my QST collection again...
@@SuperAWaC Helical, yes.... but the quadrifiliar helix is a little different than a standard helical. Helicals are a beam like a Yagi, but with gain for circular polarization. QFH's are(almost) omni's, and not like a monopole, but in three primary dimensions. You can even see the ground planes that give it a little extra gain in one hemisphere. My understanding was that it evolved out of computer modelling that wasn't available until the 70's.
The center tank of the Saturn I (and Saturn IB) first stage was a "stretched" Jupiter tank, around which the eight "stretched" Redstone tanks were clustered. The alternating black (RP-1 kerosene) and white (LOX) Redstone tanks of the Saturn I and early-flight Saturn IB vehicles was changed to all-white (for the three Skylab crews' Saturn IBs, and the ASTP crew's Saturn IB vehicle) because it was found that the Sun heated up the black RP-1 tanks enough that--through conduction, and also emitted heat from the black RP-1 tanks impinging on their neighboring LOX tanks--the LOX boiled off more rapidly. It was no "show-stopper," just a minor annoyance of having to top off the LOX tanks more often, but switching to the all-white RP-1 *and* LOX tanks significantly reduced the LOX boil-off rate. Also, regarding Apollo 12's S-IVB: All of the other ones--besides Apollo 12's S-IVB--that were sent hyperbolic (from Apollo 8, 9, 10, and 11) were injected into Earth-escape trajectories which reached solar orbits that rather closely "shadow" the Earth's orbit around the Sun. Apollo 12's S-IVB, however, failed to achieve Earth escape velocity due to a slight guidance error, although it came quite close to doing so, and--like one of the Surveyor lander models launched on an Atlas-Centaur test flight (it was launched on a trans-lunar trajectory to a hypothetical Moon [like Gemini 5's "Phantom Agena" test])--Apollo 12's S-IVB eventually wandered into solar orbit after an uncontrolled lunar flyby. Its solar orbit, however, doesn't "clear" the Earth's orbit as well as the other S-IVBs' solar orbits do, which is why it "visits" us at intervals. The Wikipedia article on the Apollo 12 mission says the following about its S-IVB's unusual solar orbit, and how the S-IVB reached it: "After LM separation, the S-IVB was intended to fly into solar orbit. The S-IVB auxiliary propulsion system was fired, and the remaining propellants vented to slow it down to fly past the Moon's trailing edge (the Apollo spacecraft always approached the Moon's leading edge). The Moon's gravity would then slingshot the stage into solar orbit. However, a small error in the state vector in the Saturn's guidance system caused the S-IVB to fly past the Moon at too high an altitude to achieve Earth escape velocity. It remained in a semi-stable Earth orbit after passing the Moon on November 18, 1969. It finally escaped Earth orbit in 1971 but was briefly recaptured in Earth orbit 31 years later. It was discovered by amateur astronomer Bill Yeung who gave it the temporary designation J002E3 before it was determined to be an artificial object.[7][8]"
at 8:10 the booster was gravitationaly affected by the Lagrange point 1, How and why do the lagrange points have gravity or why did its orbit change in a way that it looks like it was pulled towards L1?
The Lagrange points do not have their own gravity in any way. An object orbiting the Sun on a lower orbit will normally have a shorter orbital period than the Earth, however if the object happens lie close to the line between the Earth and the Sun and is sufficiently close to the Earth then the Earths gravitational pull will influence the object enough to increase this orbital period. The L1 point is the point where despite being on an orbit that is closer to the Sun an object would have the same orbital period as the Earth. The reason in the simulation it looks like the object is pulled toward the L1 point has to do with the fact that the simulation is viewed from the Earths fixed point of view. This is going to be hard for me to explain with out using to much physics jargon... As the object approaches the L1 point it's orbital period begins to approach that of the Earths, from the Earths point of view this looks like the component of the objects velocity that is tangential to the Earths own velocity decreaing to zero as it matches Earths orbital period leaving only the objects apparent radial velocity with respect to the Earth. As the object continues to move outward away from the Sun (radially toward Earth) and is further influenced by the Earths gravity the objects orbital period around the sun increases meaning it is moving slower around the Sun relative than the Earth is, from the Earths point of view this looks like the component of it's velocity that is tangential to the Earths own velocity reversing and the object moves down the screen. This is why as the object approaches Earth it appears to be attracted to the L1 point and later when the object is leaving it appears to be repelled by the L1 point, it is because we are viewing it's behavior as if Earth were a fixed point in space, so we are seeing the boosters motion relative to the Earth.
Years and years ago, I read a book on amateur rocked building. They mentioned that the safest place to be during a rocket firing is behind and to the side of the rocket nozzle. That is where debris is least likely to fly. So, the positioning during the S-IVB firing is probably no accident. Still, I'm pretty amazed that they didn't move the Apollo further away before they lit it.
Please! And the Modified Launch Vehicle studies! and the Saturn C-3 and the Saturn liquid fueled booster which would almost get resurrected to be a liquid fueled booster for SLS with 2 F-1 engines.
I knew Rusty piloted the LM, but I didn't realize he got to EVA! That makes hanging out with him two years ago so much cooler when he came to my town to take about asteroids!
5Andysalive What effort, besides shipping in the movie? It's not like they need local subtitles for the UK and Ireland, and for other European IMAX theatres they can just have a local professor or nerd narrate live like for the planetarium presentations.
John Francis Doe A significant proportion of the population in many EU countries understand English well enough for this sort of thing. Especially techies who are the people likely to go and see this.
Skylab had a diameter 6.6 meters, while the modules in the US segment of the ISS brought up by the shuttle have a diameter of 4.2 meters. There was a proposal at one time for an inflatable module that would have had a diameter of 8.4 meters but it was cancelled as a result of costs overruns in the space station program as a whole (and in that module in particular). Interesting to note is that the RL10 is still in use
@@theoriginalJP I think that was too early for even military use of GPS. So I'm guessing they floated and had nautical style EPIRBs. We had them on yachts by then.
Not that tough. They'd have it already pretty close just based on trajectory calculations, and they'd have boats out there waiting to hear the signals.
they had radio beacons. locating a radio signal is pretty easy. Which is btw one of hundreds of killing arguments against the Moon landing conspiracy theory. Faking a signal coming stationary from the moons surface is literally impossible. All spacecraft needing recovery had beacons. Obviously. Spy planes and baloons had dropped cameras to be collected for a decade or more at this point. Some were caught in fall by a plane with a chute. There really is no magic in space flight.
@@bjornseine2342 yup,, if you can't get the unobtainable most amazing version, might as well not try to see any form of it! (I say as I watch grand space vistas on my phone lol
@@ke6gwf That is not what I said. I said that I hope we'll get the movie in cinemas at some point, because otherwise we'll be missing out on the full experience.
I grew up in the 60s and 70s watching booster separation sequences, and always wondered who the poor guy was who filmed it. Now I know. Thanks. (His name is Nigel, and he's retired and lives in Tahiti, where he runs a bed and breakfast.)
Wow! I have to say its one of your best videos, including many things I knew, and several I didn't. I'm a child of the early space era, so it takes a bit to impess me.
It really has. It's so easy to take on-board footage for granted these days, when rockets launch with a dozen cameras, transmit the footage in real time, and we can watch it live on the internet. Back then it took a bunch of extra engineering and a lot of work to get just a few minutes of footage from one launch.
1:25 C'mon dude, `ullage rockets,` I thought you'd be glad to use the phrase "a term originally coined by brewers, wine makers and distillers." We all know you know it!
I love the contrasting shots of Neil and Buzz. Buzz had that cocky borderline insane look and Neil looked like he understood that he might be facing his mortality before his time. Turns out it was a great call on both..
@@tommypetraglia4688 Yeah, Collins was exactly like I would imagine a focused astronaut to be, but I was struck by the difference between them all - particularly Aldrin and Armstrong. Hell of a crew, one for the history books!
@@ohger1 I burst with pride having these men as role models in my youth and to see through the years how they continue to handle themselves. They didn't need to talk... their actions and abilities along with their skill spoke loud enough for them. With each mission it was the perfect chemistry of men. I shipped on tugs and raced and delivered sailing yachts bur I can't imagine squeezing into a craft with 2 others for the better part of a week to leave the world and come back. Ad for that image: Armstrong: we're going to get this (here) Collins: this is how we get this (on the way there) Aldrin: we got this (and already back)
it was over Australia, not Russia, and no a cow wasn't killed by debris from Skylab. There was an earlier rocket launch abort that ended up with debris in Cuba that did kill a cow.
The truth is it's all a giant cover-up: it was actually skylab that fell on Donnie Darko, but to save face they Photoshopped it into a jet engine in the footage when they were making the documentary...
People who deny the actual cause of Lunar craters, are the kind of folk who use their heads to block heavy blunt objects travelling at very high speeds.
Growing up as kids into teenagers in the sixties, we never saw the still pictures so clear and in such high definition as we see above. All we saw was copies of copies in newspapers. Even in mags like Life magazine, I don't ever recall seeing such clear photos of the earth from an orbiting Apollo capsule looking at an S IV-B as we observe at 7:33. I hope "Apollo 11" is still playing in IMAX by the end of March 2019. If not, I'm hopeful they will bring the movie back to IMAX in July during the 50th anniversary of the first Lunar Landing.
How NASA tried to save Skylab is an interesting story in itself.
Skylab was falling because space isn't a perfect vacuum, especially close to the Earth. There's a tiny bit of atmosphere even 'way up there and although it's nowhere near enough to allow us to breathe, it's still enough to cause some friction to an orbiting space craft and gradually slow it down until it falls from orbit.
NASA realised that their best chance of saving Skylab so that the shuttle could reach it in time lay in re-orienting the space station so that it presented the smallest profile to the minimal atomosphere it was encountering, but in order to do that, they needed to regain 24-hour control of the station's electronics and computers.
The problem was that the rechargable (Ni-Cd) batteries were dead and so the only time power was available was when the solar panels came into the sun during the orbit. On top of this, the safety systems aboard Skylab were set up to disconnect the batteries if an under-voltage was detected. This meant that at least in theory, if they gave Skylab the command to connect its batteries so they could charge from the solar panels, they would be immediately disconnected due to being almost dead.
But NASA engineers realised that there was a difference between theory and practice.
Every time a command was sent to connect the batteries, a relay would connect the batteries to the solar panels, then the under-voltage would be detected and the relay would drop out, but there was a tiny delay between those two events and during that tiny delay, a small amount of charge would go into the batteries.
The NASA engineers came up with a program which would send the command to connect the batteries, wait just long enough for the relay to click in and then drop out again, then send the command again, over and over, several times per second. Each time the relay clicked in for a moment, a small amount of charge went into the batteries.
Eventually the batteries gained enough charge that there was no longer an under-voltage and the relay stayed closed, allowing the batteries to fully charge so NASA could control Skylab from the ground once again.
It's a pity that Skylab was still lost after all that effort, but what an ingenious effort it was.
(Information gained from an issue of Electronics Australia when it still existed and was still a good magazine)
I'm surprised we never, in any era, developed some kind of small and fast rocket that could get fuel, food or supplies to an orbiting craft. A probe of sorts. For example, some kind of small engine sent up to Skylab that they simply could have strapped to the outside to boost it's orbit, or a small resupply to the Columbia crew instead of risking them reentering the atmosphere, or an oxygen resupply to the Apollo 13 crew.
30 And Hating It You haven’t thought this through fully have you? Let’s ignore the cost for now - how would you go about actually performing those ‘simple’ tasks? What with? Do you have a simplified plan with an estimated lead time? Or a plan of any kind? You make it sound so simple that you’d obviously wonder why it didn’t happen, but the simple reason is, it’s further from simple than you are from Pluto.
Are you the guy that suggested fitting commercial airliners with drogue chutes so they can’t ‘fall’ out of the sky?
Or the guy who suggested making car bodies into electromagnets for collision avoidance?
Is this Elon?
@@30AndHatingIt Unfortunately, escaping Earth's gravity isn't a simple task and requires a lot of energy expenditure even without a payload.
Also, nobody knew that the Columbia was damaged until after the fatal re-entry attempt so it would have made no difference.
@@thephalcon9501 Look, if you were having a bad day or something I get it, but I don't think posting a simple passing comment on a random video while browsing the site late at night should be used as a definitive measure of my intelligence. I've seen plenty of amateur rocketeers out there get some pretty impressive results with their homebrew launches at pennies next to the dollar. All I was floating out there (pun intended) was the question of making something smaller than what is usually sent up for resupply, as in smaller than the unmanned resupply craft they are sending to the ISS right now that are roughly the size of commercial van. In an emergency, I was thinking something much smaller with only the essentials needed for said emergency, would be cheaper and quicker to launch. Just shooting the shit, no need to professionally evaluate me.
@@melkiorwiseman5234 I've seen a lot of discussion surrounding NASA being aware of the foam strike before the crew attempted reentry.
"Skylab fell back to earth, raining debris over the Australian Outback"
Yep, in Australia, even Skylab tries to kill ya. . . .
I believe the local council where it landed issued NASA a $400 fine for littering.
@@RoccondilRinon I remember Australians wearing "Skylab Target" T-shirts at the time! :)
Martyn de Young Another reason why Australia is awesome!
Yeah, @@RoccondilRinon, if you try to kill us with projectiles from space, we will fine you for littering. Kalgoorlie, represent!
The Australians themselves are dangerous enough thank you.
Wow! I hadn't realized just how big Skylab was. It's the closest thing to a 2001-style simulated gravity hamster wheel we've ever constructed. Wicked cool. Too bad it got vaporized.
So true!
Still my favorit space station
They still have the backup / "training simulator" (actual flight-capable hardware) at the Smithsonian Air & Space Museum. You could walk through it. It's huge! Presently not on display. Photos online.
Not quite, some rather large bits came down in the Nullabor desert in Australia. If memory serves the local council sent NASA a fine for littering.
Skylab was an awesome lab. Too bad the shuttle didn't come on line in time to boost its orbit.
Saturn 1: when you haven't unlocked the entire tech tree so you just strap a bunch of tanks together and see how high it goes.
American ingenuity.
My first Mun and Minmus missions tend to do this, however I strapped 3 than used 3 as boosters :)
Have we unlocked the entire tech tree yet?
I hope not!
@@General12th No we still have to develop proper nuclear fission engines, and from there we can work on developing magnetic fusion engines, explore the power of antimatter, and perhaps even use that to develop the "Alcubierre Drive".
Ophelia Bawles That might just be “German ingenuity”.
Shall we compromise & agree on “engineers’ ingenuity”?
I have an engineering degree and I work in Aerospace and your videos still blow my mind on a regular basis with the quantity and quality of information
Thanks, I don’t have an engineering degree, or a day job in aerospace, but I love sharing what I’m learning.
Love the clip of the astronauts doing their own spin gravity in Skylab!
I wonder if they could act as a reaction wheel and how far they would have to run to have a noticeable effect :)
I never realised how huge skylab was!
So this is the closest we ever got from having an artificial gravity spaceship.
so much room for activities!
Enji Bkk
It would have less to do with how far they went than how fast and how heavy they were. If they ran at the same speed the whole time they would have no net effect. Only speeding up and slowing down would turn it.
@@enjibkk6850 It did. The actual reaction wheels had to counter it. However big the mass diference is, Newton doesn't give up.
But it didn't rotate for artificial gravity. That would have been an issue when they took thousands of photographs.
Also i think when you do that in too small a "wheel" you just get sick. It has to have a certain size.
I loved watching Apollo 11, much more than First Man.
I loved watching Apollo 11, much more than First Man.
@@bippityboppityboo552 first man had its moments
@@leefithian3704 yeah the scene on the moon nearly made me cry
@MITCHELL LANDREY which is?
The flag thing was by FAR the smallest problem with first man. You see it anyway and plenty of others. Just not the planting itself.
But... The cringy madeup emotional bullshit, Armstrong looking like he's about to cry all the time... he would not have gotten past the first Nasa psychologist in any test. And of course the IDOTIC camera shaking that is just KILLING the movie. It was frankly absolute shite in pretty much all aspects.
When listening to A11 audio it's noticable that Armstrong talks a lot (by his quiet standards) about "humans" and the "world" and very little about "the US". Doesn't say much more than that he knew he had a worldwide audience. Whatever his reasons, it was a smart PR move more than everything. Had he been babbling on about the US it may not be such a remarakble worldwide memory. By keeping it relatively neutral, he didn't exclude anyone and the whole world could feel great about the event. Everybody knew ANYWAY that it was the US that did it. There were enough flags dotted about :)
As opposed for example to Ed White who felt "red and blue all over" after his spacewalk. Which even some collegues according to many books found a bit "too much".
The center tank of the Saturn 1 was actually from a Jupiter missile. This along with the cluster of Redstone tanks made the critics dub it Clusters last stand.
The black ones are kerosene, the white ones are LOX.
@@cowboybob7093 derpy derp is derpy derp.
@@nicewhenearnedrudemostlyel489 Well played.
Uhm no. For one, it was "derived", not directly from
I think it's supporters called it that, too.
Ah, Skylab. The most Kerbal of space stations.
What about mir
i don't know. Most kerbal stations are made by nailing a lot of bits together, like the ISS. It just feels more like a space station as we're used to it. Declaring one big tank a space station would feel kinda cheaty in KSP.
While it was a rather sensible idea in reality. Sensible because a (last) SaturnV was available anyway.
@@5Andysalive NovaSilisko was working on a "wet workshops" mod to allow conversion of tanks to living spaces, though I don't know if anything came of it.
"The most Kerbal of space stations." Only if you are like me where everything I build just looks like a bunch of old washing machines celotaped together. But not for a master like ShadowZone.
??
Hi Scott! I want to say that you explained all of these steps perfectly. I've followed the space program since Gemini and now teach young students about the history of Apollo. Every one of the details about the various stages and individual missions in your video were absolutely spot on! Seldom do I see a video about the various configurations of the Apollo hardware without giant loopholes or flat out wrong identification of missions, segments, reasons, etc. You have done an outstanding job of putting this together in a very concise and informative way without cluttering it up with unnecessary filler. Well done. Keep it up!!
Take a good look discovery channel and national geographic channel... This is how you make an interesting documentary. Watch and learn.
Thanks Scott. I love it how you go into all the details.
The audio and video of all the parts of Apollo are so much better than they were at the time. It is absolutely wonderful to have this audio and video all cleaned up as I appreciated each part of the mission.
Your timing is impeccable.
Our family wen to see Apollo 11 (from your recommendation) and it was AMAZING.
My dad was a Photographic Geodycist for the USAF and in 1968 he was asked to come to NASA-MSC to map out the Apollo Landing sites.
I was in 6th grade and I recall watching Apollo 11 (and living it) there south of Houston.
There were two parts in the movie that I was intrigued with.
1) The 1202 alarm - which I learned about when I got home
2) How they got the footage of the lighting of the S-IVB engine.
My guess was an ejected film canister - since I knew that was common practice for Spy Satellites of that era.
I am glad to get that confirmed from you - with all sorts of extra bonus info (SM-style) that I would never have though about.
Thanks for the recommendation. I got to re-live 1969 (but with amazing fidelity) and share it with my family.
If your dad has ever been interviewed, I’d love to see it. I’m a surveyor her on Earth.
A large amount of the footage was shot for a (cancelled) film that was later released by NASA as "Moonwalk One". It's available on TH-cam and is well worth the watch.
the film was never cancelled, but a lot of material shot for it was obviously un-used
Isn't moon walk one the one where the guy turns his helmet towards the camera
@@mrgbs7168 Pretty sure they all did that?! It's how you take a picture. There are about 20hrs of pretty good eva tv footage from Apollo 17 alone.
Fun fact: When Mission control told Apollo 13 that it's SIVB had crashed into the moon as planned they commented "Well, at least something worked on this flight.".
078:02:25 CC: By the way, Aquarius, we see the results now from 12's seismometer. Looks like your booster just hit the Moon, and it's rocking it a little bit. Over.
078:02:44 CMP: Well, at least something worked on this flight.
Transscript says cmp (Swigert) but it was cdr (Lovell). The time is the get, the time since launch.
btw: Homesteading Space: The Skylab Story very interesting book. Very interesting story. Very impressive saving and repair effort under extreme time pressure. Rivaled in effort only by saving Apollo 13. Sadly a somewhat forgotten story..
HEre it is, in this (amazing) full mission audio video at 29:17 th-cam.com/video/GtQZB0a0XcU/w-d-xo.html
And this is defnitely Jim Lovell.
Since this is youtube i should add: the footage in that is obviously from a simulator. To approximately show what happens instead of a black screen.
When there is actual footage available (launch, tv transmissions) they are shown.
That IS a fun fact. Thanks.
There was another reason why they were happy when the SIVB hit the moon. A radio transmitter on the SIVB used the same frequency as a transmitter on the LM. On a normal mission this wasn't a problem because the LM and the SIVB never operated at the same time, but on Apollo 13 they did. The interference ended when the SIVB impacted the moon.
@@joevignolor4u949 yeah in that videos comments someone claimed you can hear the moment of impact because the static was suddenly much less.
But it became much noisier again later. I think it messed up the tracking much more than the com. Or more precisely it messed up com (including a actual loss of it for quite some time) while they were trying to establish tracking on the LM around the SIVB.
The com was also bad because to save power most of the time amplifiers and stuff were turned off. And only activated when they needed clear com to read long checklists up.
You have reignited my love for space since it disappeared in my teen years. I'm 30 now, you have taught me so much and I love it
Skylab's fascinating, and unjustly forgotten --- a space station made out of leftover Apollo parts, when they really had no idea what living in space would be like and were just making things up as they went along. It went wrong on launch, with several pieces breaking off, and required heroic measures by the first crew to repair it into habitability --- the tarpaulin in the photos was a sunshield to prevent overheating. (The exact opposite problem Mir had in 1997!)
It did groundbreaking work in solar observation, being able to see wavelengths blocked by the atmosphere; it took 150,000 film exposures. The observatory was a semi-independent unit based on an Apollo Lander hull, and actually ended powering the space station after the launch until the rescue mission could reach it...
Not only did they repair it. They wrote the book (at least the english one) on space station living and working. And Conrad had enough standing and authority to force changes when they felt they needed. He had several private phone conferences with Kraft and Kranz and some higherups, bypassing the official mission control chain of communication.
And they overruled overcautios doctors (they had no experiences too) and inefficient procedures. when they needed.
He didn't need a "mutiny".
Hopefully now that we're getting back into thicc rockets, we can have more roomy space stations again for important acrobatic science.
"Thicc Rockets" XD
@O F We need thicc rockets, thicc space stations, thicc mars base and wide Elon walking
6:11 - Manufacturer: Found lying by the side of the road.
This is all from memory. Skylab reentered in 1979, and NASA knew that it would reenter but they didn’t know exactly where. A Seattle radio station held a contest where anyone who brought a piece of Skylab to Seattle would be awarded $10,000. Some guy in Australia found a chunk, and flew to Seattle to win the contest. Nobody remembers this except me!
It was very interesting to see the pre-11 mission details where they tested each component individually. Normally on history shows they skip directly from Mercury to Apollo 11.
not if you look for good ones. There were lots of interesting stories in Gemini. 8's problems for example. The 3 launches of Gemini 6. Eventual success thanks to Schirras butt sensitivity. Or Cernans infamous EVA on 9.
Also the somewhat exaggerated mutiny on Apollo 7, Apollo 8 obviously. The famous Kronkite broadcast from Apollo 4 launch....
"The Saturn I … it was built out of the stuff they had lying around."
That's so kerbal! xD
Some days its just really good to be a Space Geek. Superb vid. Love all the little technical details.
The upper stage ignition shot brought me to tears. I’m not afraid to admit it!
Science and space travel often brings me to tears too. Don't even know why really.
This isn’t necessarily directly connected to this video but I would love to see you do an in depth video about the construction/assembly of the individual pieces of the International Space Station. I know videos in the topic exist but are either too fast in the animation and/or lacking some of the specifics that we all love from your videos! PS I got my whole department at work following your channel. Keep it up!
Thank you Scot..finally I now have a resolution to my equal perplexity. I followed the entire NASA program in depth as a child. However I did not know how they got this footage either. I gave in depth presentations on the topic of space craft several times to my class and teachers. I knew my stuff and I managed to keep my peers and my teachers interested. A question time was provided, at which time many of my friends and teachers would ask questions. This topic however has always had me bamboozled..now at long last my curiosity has been assuaged. Thanks again.mates👍👍👍🙌
I got over load of "I didnt know any of this and its awesome" from watching this video.
That's pretty much how i would describe Scott's channel :) It's awesome, thank you so much for the passion and knowledges you share Mr Manley !
I just wish that all the video footage wasnt hidden in some obscure archives around the internet. I would love to look at the old documents but I'm too lazy to dig around :/
I asked Rusty Schweickart when I met him here in Adelaide
he was a really nice guy, happy to talk about stuff like this, very impressed at how "enthusiastic" Australians were about all things space travel!
The S4-B shown at 7:33 and 7:44 is from the Apollo 7 mission. You can see there are beams in place that would prevent a LEM from being installed and the 4 panels of the adaptor are still attached. A target is attached for the Apollo 7 crew to practice approaching (from a distance) as if a LEM were actually in the hold.
Yes, and the SLA-panels didn´t eject on 7 (they weren´t designed to do so at that point) , and one of the panels didn´t open up fully, which prompted the re-design for later missions.
Thanks! My daughter asked me that question the other day! I think she and her husband had seen the movie. I guessed at the answer and I just shared your video with her so she now has the details. She turned 2 years old during that first lunar landing flight. She really enjoyed the 50th anniversary celebration here in Houston.
2:50 he speaks of the Mun not Moon! #kerbalconspiracy
Wash your ears out dude, naw he disnae.
@@sniffy6999999 "naw..." = ? Please , enlighten me... tia
I noticed Scott's Kerbalese pronunciation of "Moon" ('Mun') as well. Maybe the Kerbals are actually a race of magical beings related to the Leprechauns, but originating from Scotland instead of Ireland (if the Kelpies are their natural enemies, they would have had ample cause to quit the Earth and find another home)...
he said Moon in faster pronunciation bruh
Of course you do a video on this! I immediately started scouring forums and social media pages to find the answer to this after the movie. I had never seen that footage and it was awesome! Thank you for always being on my wavelength, Scott! Fav TH-cam channel.
Just saw Apollo 11 yesterday and was wondering about some of the shots. Thanks for this!
Please do more space related Film (sequence) reviews, they are so awesome! :)
Willst du mich verarschen?! Eben noch das Video von Seps Rede gesehen, wo du Topcomment warst, dann klick ich auf dieses Video und hier bist du schon wieder!
@@dmitriyarkadeyevichpopov1699 ;-)
GOod suggestion!
Still not out yet in Europe :/
Will it even be tho? Couldn't find anything online 🤔
Not even as a torrent.. Only flat earth moon hoax nonsense when you search for Apollo 11
@@Diggnuts Yeah, it makes me disgusted and disappointed. I saw some rips the other day (they are gone now), but I wouldn't download a quality degraded film, especially not this one. I read that it will be released digitally on May 14th. So, blu ray torrents should show up after that. I'm just sad that it didn't release in theaters (there is one imax theatre in my city) in my country (probably never will), not even one or limited schedule, nothing.
NEON said in Twitter it would release in digital format after US theaters debut. I guess it will be easy to find in a 1.5/2 months time.
@@Diggnuts index: Apollo 11 2019
Some spectacular graphics 7:53 when you're describing that errant Saturn 4B. Beautiful Orbital Mechanics. Thank you
Skylab... the heroes of my younger years... take that space deniers...
I wondered about that segment as well. What an incredible film overall! It had both familiar footage and footage I had never seen before. Thanks for filling in some interesting details about both the film and the Apollo program!
Is that ice at 1:15 ?.
Very good question! It appears so..
It's the frozen moisture surrounding the tank which is frozen because the tank contain liquid oxygen (-250°c)
@@attacktitan09 So... ice.
@@supertoaster94 yes
I was 14 when Skylab launched, that program fascinated me more than Apollo did. I collected every photo of it that I could. Great memories.
I actually knew the answer to your initial question, but you didn't bother to ask me! You need to work on that! Ha! Awesome video as usual. I knew the film parachuted back but that was about the extent of my "knowledge". I didn't know about the film parachuting into a storm. The little details you illuminate are the things that make your videos so good. My father was an EE at Marshal Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama. He was a NASA employee from 1958 to 1978. He then went to work for Teledyne Brown on the Space Shuttle for about 17 years. Scott, have you read Bob Ward's book on Wernher von Braun titled "Dr Space"? It's hands down the best book on von Braun
The footage where the Apollo 11 crew have removed the transit hatch cover for the transfer tunnel, then showing the docking assembly arms being removed from stowage prior to fitting is also interesting and I've never seen it before. Great episode as always.
I'm old enough to remember all of this. I watched on television as Neil Armstrong stepped off of the LEM and onto the surface of the moon. I hope I live long enough to see Man step onto the surface of Mars.
You saw a man in a studio.
@Mudkip909 - The studio is still operational.
@Mudkip909 someplace in the UK or Spain.
Hi Scott, every time I wonder where you get such *FANTASTIC* video footages.... Those video, aren't "similar" to the one you're talking of, they are EXACTLY the footage of your spoken caption..... WONDERFUL!
I dream of a day when Scott Manley and Paul Shillito make a collaboration video
That would be so bright!
YES !
What would Scott wear for that?
Also ever since Curious Droid (unironically) repeated the folk tale of Apollo 10 being "underfueld so they wouldn't land" i've become very scpetical of his research quality.
Wow!! That was amazing, all the footage was just stunning(well....most of it anyways)from the launch pad to the moon. I loved seeing views I always wished I could have seen of the Saturn launches including inside the first stage during separation, and friggjn SkyLab!!!! Awesome
Wish the doc was playing near me.
My son (33) and I got to see it at an art-house cineplex with tiny screens, as the local IMAX (also tiny for IMAX) was booked solid. Good and interesting but the frequent montages wasted the impact of a lot of the 65 and 70 mm footage; I think I would have edited it differently. Also the simplified graphics of the figure-8 flight path holds the Earth and Moon still and brings them too close together; there must be a way to show it to scale and timescale so we get to realize more what a friggin' long ride that was, with the tiniest of strike zones. If it ever comes to the IMAX I think I will buy two more tickets.
Thanks, Scott, this was a great post.
Update: looks like the graphics were from that era (per Moonwalk One). Still think we should do them over.
Thanks! I had made a guess on the source of that S-IVB clip and I was completely wrong, this makes a lot more sense. And I'd never seen that S-IV separation and RL-10 ignition video before, fantastic!
Ha! "Skylab never really dumped any of its garbage" Except all over Australia!
Context: Hollywood film makers don't always deliver actual footage to tell a story, even in a documentary.
Google blue panels, intrusive and generally unwelcome.
Love your channel, Scott. Always really informative content.
Googling blue panels wasn’t helpful. All I get is interior decoration.
Quite amusing irony when you talk about some mega-machine crashing into the Outback, then finish with "Fly safe!"
Scott. You rock! [US idiom for "You are awesome!!"] :) The information, delivery, presentation, OMG so awesome. - Ehud, Tucson AZ US
3:15 I didn't know they had quadrifiliar helix antennas back then. I thought they came along in the late 70's. I'll have to go through my QST collection again...
pretty sure helical antennas have been around since the 40s
"Quadrifiliar helix antennas" sounds so much like technobabble! :-D
@@SuperAWaC Helical, yes.... but the quadrifiliar helix is a little different than a standard helical. Helicals are a beam like a Yagi, but with gain for circular polarization. QFH's are(almost) omni's, and not like a monopole, but in three primary dimensions. You can even see the ground planes that give it a little extra gain in one hemisphere. My understanding was that it evolved out of computer modelling that wasn't available until the 70's.
The center tank of the Saturn I (and Saturn IB) first stage was a "stretched" Jupiter tank, around which the eight "stretched" Redstone tanks were clustered. The alternating black (RP-1 kerosene) and white (LOX) Redstone tanks of the Saturn I and early-flight Saturn IB vehicles was changed to all-white (for the three Skylab crews' Saturn IBs, and the ASTP crew's Saturn IB vehicle) because it was found that the Sun heated up the black RP-1 tanks enough that--through conduction, and also emitted heat from the black RP-1 tanks impinging on their neighboring LOX tanks--the LOX boiled off more rapidly. It was no "show-stopper," just a minor annoyance of having to top off the LOX tanks more often, but switching to the all-white RP-1 *and* LOX tanks significantly reduced the LOX boil-off rate. Also, regarding Apollo 12's S-IVB:
All of the other ones--besides Apollo 12's S-IVB--that were sent hyperbolic (from Apollo 8, 9, 10, and 11) were injected into Earth-escape trajectories which reached solar orbits that rather closely "shadow" the Earth's orbit around the Sun. Apollo 12's S-IVB, however, failed to achieve Earth escape velocity due to a slight guidance error, although it came quite close to doing so, and--like one of the Surveyor lander models launched on an Atlas-Centaur test flight (it was launched on a trans-lunar trajectory to a hypothetical Moon [like Gemini 5's "Phantom Agena" test])--Apollo 12's S-IVB eventually wandered into solar orbit after an uncontrolled lunar flyby. Its solar orbit, however, doesn't "clear" the Earth's orbit as well as the other S-IVBs' solar orbits do, which is why it "visits" us at intervals. The Wikipedia article on the Apollo 12 mission says the following about its S-IVB's unusual solar orbit, and how the S-IVB reached it:
"After LM separation, the S-IVB was intended to fly into solar orbit. The S-IVB auxiliary propulsion system was fired, and the remaining propellants vented to slow it down to fly past the Moon's trailing edge (the Apollo spacecraft always approached the Moon's leading edge). The Moon's gravity would then slingshot the stage into solar orbit. However, a small error in the state vector in the Saturn's guidance system caused the S-IVB to fly past the Moon at too high an altitude to achieve Earth escape velocity. It remained in a semi-stable Earth orbit after passing the Moon on November 18, 1969. It finally escaped Earth orbit in 1971 but was briefly recaptured in Earth orbit 31 years later. It was discovered by amateur astronomer Bill Yeung who gave it the temporary designation J002E3 before it was determined to be an artificial object.[7][8]"
at 8:10 the booster was gravitationaly affected by the Lagrange point 1, How and why do the lagrange points have gravity or why did its orbit change in a way that it looks like it was pulled towards L1?
The Lagrange points do not have their own gravity in any way. An object orbiting the Sun on a lower orbit will normally have a shorter orbital period than the Earth, however if the object happens lie close to the line between the Earth and the Sun and is sufficiently close to the Earth then the Earths gravitational pull will influence the object enough to increase this orbital period. The L1 point is the point where despite being on an orbit that is closer to the Sun an object would have the same orbital period as the Earth.
The reason in the simulation it looks like the object is pulled toward the L1 point has to do with the fact that the simulation is viewed from the Earths fixed point of view. This is going to be hard for me to explain with out using to much physics jargon... As the object approaches the L1 point it's orbital period begins to approach that of the Earths, from the Earths point of view this looks like the component of the objects velocity that is tangential to the Earths own velocity decreaing to zero as it matches Earths orbital period leaving only the objects apparent radial velocity with respect to the Earth. As the object continues to move outward away from the Sun (radially toward Earth) and is further influenced by the Earths gravity the objects orbital period around the sun increases meaning it is moving slower around the Sun relative than the Earth is, from the Earths point of view this looks like the component of it's velocity that is tangential to the Earths own velocity reversing and the object moves down the screen.
This is why as the object approaches Earth it appears to be attracted to the L1 point and later when the object is leaving it appears to be repelled by the L1 point, it is because we are viewing it's behavior as if Earth were a fixed point in space, so we are seeing the boosters motion relative to the Earth.
Years and years ago, I read a book on amateur rocked building. They mentioned that the safest place to be during a rocket firing is behind and to the side of the rocket nozzle. That is where debris is least likely to fly.
So, the positioning during the S-IVB firing is probably no accident. Still, I'm pretty amazed that they didn't move the Apollo further away before they lit it.
Daniel McClellan
That sounds right. But it was fifty years ago. Hard to remember exactly.
Could you update us on the starliner delay?
bhai thu bi scott manley dektha hai
@@lalithchandramusipatla1480 of course. Favourite channel.
Great video once again! You doing an audio commentary once the documentary hits DVD would be so god damn awesome.
Can you do a video about the Saturn rocket family? I would love to hear more about these other variants besides the Saturn V.
Please! And the Modified Launch Vehicle studies! and the Saturn C-3 and the Saturn liquid fueled booster which would almost get resurrected to be a liquid fueled booster for SLS with 2 F-1 engines.
@@odysseyvoyager2354 soundslike the outline for another series like Going Nuclear.
I knew Rusty piloted the LM, but I didn't realize he got to EVA! That makes hanging out with him two years ago so much cooler when he came to my town to take about asteroids!
When/how will we be able to see this doc? (in the UK)
Probably never
EXACTLY!!!
@@bend1483 PResumably will be out for dl/on Bluray. They won't go through this effort for a one off screening. I Hope.
Shame i can't see it in Imax.
5Andysalive What effort, besides shipping in the movie? It's not like they need local subtitles for the UK and Ireland, and for other European IMAX theatres they can just have a local professor or nerd narrate live like for the planetarium presentations.
John Francis Doe A significant proportion of the population in many EU countries understand English well enough for this sort of thing. Especially techies who are the people likely to go and see this.
Skylab had a diameter 6.6 meters, while the modules in the US segment of the ISS brought up by the shuttle have a diameter of 4.2 meters. There was a proposal at one time for an inflatable module that would have had a diameter of 8.4 meters but it was cancelled as a result of costs overruns in the space station program as a whole (and in that module in particular).
Interesting to note is that the RL10 is still in use
*Skylab 1 deorbits*
Oh! A meteor! I wish I had a piece of a rocket!
*..... THUNK!*
*Stares at giant solar cell*
Cool!
Thanks Scott- as always, your videos are fantastic!
They had to find those cameras, in the ocean, without GPS trackers.
That is TOUGH
Not tough if you make it up as you go along.
Without GPS? That assumes military tech isn't 30yrs ahead of civilian tech. Before declassification and civillian use of GPS would be my guess.
@@theoriginalJP I think that was too early for even military use of GPS. So I'm guessing they floated and had nautical style EPIRBs. We had them on yachts by then.
Not that tough. They'd have it already pretty close just based on trajectory calculations, and they'd have boats out there waiting to hear the signals.
they had radio beacons. locating a radio signal is pretty easy. Which is btw one of hundreds of killing arguments against the Moon landing conspiracy theory. Faking a signal coming stationary from the moons surface is literally impossible. All spacecraft needing recovery had beacons. Obviously.
Spy planes and baloons had dropped cameras to be collected for a decade or more at this point. Some were caught in fall by a plane with a chute. There really is no magic in space flight.
these were the best 10 minutes I ever spent on youtube!
gotta love when you crash stuff into the moon *FOR SCIENCE*
Gotta unlock the next level of that tech tree!
Stand back, I'm going to use SCIENCE!
Really ❤️ this channel, one of my absolute favorites. Excellent topic and presentation Scott!
Meanwhile in Europe: I WANT TO SEE THIS MOVIE !!!
Yeah, I hope we'll get it at some point....
you could watch piracy
@@lalithchandramusipatla1480 We could, but it would never even get close to watching the original in a cinema.
@@bjornseine2342 yup,, if you can't get the unobtainable most amazing version, might as well not try to see any form of it!
(I say as I watch grand space vistas on my phone lol
@@ke6gwf That is not what I said. I said that I hope we'll get the movie in cinemas at some point, because otherwise we'll be missing out on the full experience.
Decades unanswered question was answered today. Thank you.
How do I watch this documentary? All i can find from google is trailers and reviews!
I believe it's still in theaters. Not sure if you can buy it or find it on any streaming service yet.
You need to live in a big US metropolis...
An accomplishment so great that till this day you have people denying it as a hoax. What a compliment!
Next question is where are the strange goo pods located?
Nicely done.
A lot of other channels should
watch this channel.
Bravo.
How did you get footage from the Doc? Is it possible to watch it somewhere? It's not available here in denmark
All the footage from the documentary here is just from the trailer
the skylab footage are amazing !
Whenyou sat “moon,” I keep hearing, “Mun!”
There's something about these old images, that combination of film, light, equipment colors and more - they're beautiful
How is that a question? In KSP I also can see the whole spacecraft
Because it was real footage, implying there was a camera watching the stage from somewhere. Where, and why it is there is the question.
You got that to run on the 16-bit Apollo Guidance Computer? That's very impressive.
Experimental build of the game for NASA only
Ikr? I even got the camera outside all the way to space! 😂
I grew up in the 60s and 70s watching booster separation sequences, and always wondered who the poor guy was who filmed it. Now I know. Thanks. (His name is Nigel, and he's retired and lives in Tahiti, where he runs a bed and breakfast.)
hm. very interesting scott!
Wow! I have to say its one of your best videos, including many things I knew, and several I didn't. I'm a child of the early space era, so it takes a bit to impess me.
I cannot believe they parachuted and recovered individual cameras. How the world has changed!!!
It really has.
It's so easy to take on-board footage for granted these days, when rockets launch with a dozen cameras, transmit the footage in real time, and we can watch it live on the internet. Back then it took a bunch of extra engineering and a lot of work to get just a few minutes of footage from one launch.
LOVE the shot at 7:43 of the S-IVB orbiting directly over Cape Canaveral.
Crewed vs crude. How bout that
Unbelievably AMAZING old footage of excellent quality! I don't know how you do it!!
I believe it's all free and in the public domain. NASA gives it away.
1:25 C'mon dude, `ullage rockets,` I thought you'd be glad to use the phrase "a term originally coined by brewers, wine makers and distillers." We all know you know it!
"Ullage motors"
@@Nghilifa SMH, well played
I love the contrasting shots of Neil and Buzz. Buzz had that cocky borderline insane look and Neil looked like he understood that he might be facing his mortality before his time. Turns out it was a great call on both..
Yes... i ran the 3 men clip back 3 x to watch it again with Command Module Pilot Collins' pure focus
@@tommypetraglia4688 Yeah, Collins was exactly like I would imagine a focused astronaut to be, but I was struck by the difference between them all - particularly Aldrin and Armstrong. Hell of a crew, one for the history books!
@@ohger1
I burst with pride having these men as role models in my youth and to see through the years how they continue to handle themselves.
They didn't need to talk... their actions and abilities along with their skill spoke loud enough for them.
With each mission it was the perfect chemistry of men.
I shipped on tugs and raced and delivered sailing yachts bur I can't imagine squeezing into a craft with 2 others for the better part of a week to leave the world and come back.
Ad for that image:
Armstrong: we're going to get this (here)
Collins: this is how we get this (on the way there)
Aldrin: we got this (and already back)
Somehow London is still not global enough for this to be showing
[Inserts Brexit joke]
(Sorry, mate!)
Yeah it’s only playing in Christian countries so England’s out
I was really wondering about the shot of the Lunar injection burn. Your channel is awesome dude!
Jeffrey Bue Like carrying a bag of fireworks to the party, then standing well back when launching it.
8:04
Earth = your head
J002E3 = the joke
Benito Llan Matos so the joke went right over your head...
I am always happy and excited if you upload a video.
Probably a couple of expendable Kerbals.
Finally subscribed Scott. You're videos have gotten really good. Interesting stuff!
Didn't skylab fall on a cow in Russia that we still haven't payed Russia back for?
no it fell definetly on prison island.
it was over Australia, not Russia, and no a cow wasn't killed by debris from Skylab. There was an earlier rocket launch abort that ended up with debris in Cuba that did kill a cow.
@@baneblackguard584 maybe an emu got killed. would be a reason for a second war. i fear they seek revenge
The truth is it's all a giant cover-up: it was actually skylab that fell on Donnie Darko, but to save face they Photoshopped it into a jet engine in the footage when they were making the documentary...
@@AttilaAsztalos I KNEW it. it's all REAL.
People who deny the actual cause of Lunar craters, are the kind of folk who use their heads to block heavy blunt objects travelling at very high speeds.
And I've seen a piece of that Sky Lab! Awesome video, thanks Scott!
The SIVb is my favorite stage from the Saturn Rockets. They were perfect for the job.
Growing up as kids into teenagers in the sixties, we never saw the still pictures so clear and in such high definition as we see above. All we saw was copies of copies in newspapers. Even in mags like Life magazine, I don't ever recall seeing such clear photos of the earth from an orbiting Apollo capsule looking at an S IV-B as we observe at 7:33. I hope "Apollo 11" is still playing in IMAX by the end of March 2019. If not, I'm hopeful they will bring the movie back to IMAX in July during the 50th anniversary of the first Lunar Landing.
Thank you for a great episode Scott!