Can you imagine the anxiety of pushing the button and getting no response?......you would know you were doomed. These guys had the confidence, the Right Stuff for sure.
@@RideAcrossTheRiver It was also a very simple engine. There were two valves in the ascent stage that needed to open and it used hypergolic fuel. Those valves could be opened manually if need be and as long as those two valves opened, it would fire.
Scotty wasn't too chuffed when they got back to the CM..... It was not meant to be playing over their loop, and Wardo got a right telling off. Al's autobiography is brilliant by the way..... Dude.
LRO found those tire marks exactly as they were after all these years. Also another strange effect, with no atmosphere, and craters of all sizes, you always feel the moon's surface is a few hundred feet below you the whole time. No matter how high you get, it's hard to read the distance. When the Chinese landed a couple of years back, it was really disorienting.
The clarity of the vacuum plays with your perception of distance. The Apollo astronauts joked about everything appearing so close by, "only to take 2 weeks to get there". They often miscalculated distances by hundreds of feet. Scientists also believe the lower gravity may have added to the visual confusion. We're conditioned to see other objects, colour changes in the earths atmosphere, on the Moon you have nothing to judge distances by and with no atmosphere to change the colour, clarity at a distance it confuses us, earthlings..
As to why the Ascent Module took off like that, in the moon's gravity, it weighed only 1400 lbs with 3000 lb of thrust, giving it over 2:1 thrust to weight ratio. And it only got lighter as the fuel was consumed, towards the end, it would have been accelerating at 0.67 g to 3750 mph orbital velocity, which is also matched by recent simulations.
@@dansv1 Yeah, I get why he did it since it was an all Air Force crew, but that song hindered communication at a critical time. Maybe Al Worden could have waited until Falcon was finally docked back with the CSM to do it?
I was 21 at the time of this mission and remember watching it on TV at the time. Amazing then and still amazing now. We are still years away from doing it again.
@RideAcrossTheRiver NASA is currently operating a lunar landing program known as Artemis. Artemis I has already flown an unmanned mission around the moon and back. Artemis II will be a manned mission similar to Artemis I. Artemis III will be a manned lunar landing. SpaceX's Starship will have a variant that will serve as the lander. That lander will launch into orbit, and then several missions will refuel it in Earth orbit before it heads to the moon. The refueling missions will need to be able to launch, refuel the lander, return to the launch tower, refuel and relaunch. SpaceX has recently landed their Starship being caught by the launch tower. This was a mission in pursuit of that goal (to be able to land at the launch tower for rapid refueling and turnaround for the Artemis missions). Have you been under a rock?
@@RideAcrossTheRiver I didn't miss anything. There are talks of canceling SLS - which is a part of Artemis, but not Artemis itself. It's like thinking Dell is gonna stop making computers because they cancelled their contract with Intel. No, they would just use a different CPU (That's not happening - it's just an example to show how absurd your logic is).
0:24 the behavior of those pieces of foil are exactly what you would expect in a vacuum. They really went there, this is total evidence; watching those pieces of foil bounce on the surface and loosen some dust while bouncing back up.
When they walked on the surface you could see the dust and pebbles fly up in perfect parabolic trajectories, quite unlike in CGI movies where they always introduce billowing as if the debris is encountering an atmosphere. Even Special Effects professionals will candidly admit they still can't fully recreate the effects of low G environments to this day.
Hello from me a Brit in the uk. My favourite Apollo mission. Probably because we just got a colour tv at this time in 1971 and I was enthralled by coverage of Scott and Irwin’s eva,s and the first lunar rover. For the deniers, what about the 800 pounds plus of rocks ? The LRO pictures from orbit? One of the greatest achievements of mankind being trashed by folks whose IQ’s are doing a reverse of evolution! Either that are they have to make mischief.
I remember like it was yesterday, as an 11 year old, waiting for Scott to come down the ladder, and seeing his boot first come into view, hitting the ladder rung, and then the whole spacesuit, thinking how much better the image quality was compared to Apollo 11.
Al Warden played that music from a tape recorder in the CM and though it was only going to mission control, but it was actually reverberating into the headsets of the men in the LM trying to concentrate. While this made commander David Scott upset at Warden he later took credit for the stunt when speaking to fellow air force members.
I was reading Worden's book last week. He and Dave Scott didn't get along well and the issue of the postal covers led to Worden being fired from the astronauts office. Though Dave Scott took responsibility for it, he did not suffer professionally for it. But the astronaut office actually put so many bad remarks in Al Worden's service sheet he was told he would never be promoted in the Air Force again. Al said that over time things got a lot better when all the political sharks guys who hated him left NASA or retired. Ironically many people who tried to maintain the holier than thou attitude up to President Nixon all fell to their own scams, and it was the height of irony when NASA flew postal covers on board the Shuttle themselves, which gave Worden enough spirit to sue NASA and get his covers back. The book is a fascinating read.
To me these lift of videos prove we went there. When the footage is at ground level I can see how it could be faked and that it is actual somewhere out in the Arizona desert that we are seeing with colour manipulation and editing out the sky. But as soon as they lift off you can see how close the horizon is curving away than it would on earth with its larger diameter. How hard is it too comprehend that there was more money pumped into this and there was a race on back then which made this possible. Also those gold foil sheets that blast outwards just would not react like that if this was faked moon footage. You can actually see them holding altitude then hit surface then rebound back up to practically the same altitude if you look closely. Whereas on earth with no wind they would drop altitude quicker then land and stop.
@@Auricfield I'm certain that if Elon Musk booked you on a starship and took you to the Moon and showed you where Apollo 15 landed, you brush it off as something that government sent up there recently so that it could continue "the lie" that people landed there in 1971.
@@hhale that's because flat Earth comes from religion and dogma, which are both responsible for literally all government and all war, demonstrably, throughout history
Wow. . . wow. . . wow. . . ! I've seen the A17 liftoff from the outside camera left on the moon's surface and that's awesome. But I've never before seen this one and it gives a first-person perspective that is awesome in a different way. Thanks for uploading.
The DAC that recorded the lunar lift off was mounted inside the top of the right side triangular window..Yet this footage shows it was recorded inside a rectangular shaped window.. The Apollo Lunar Module had two triangular windows and a hatch.. The windows were located above and to either side of the egress hatch.. There was no rectangular shaped window on the LM.. So that alone proves this footage is fake... Edited to add, the DAC lens was right up against the LM window, so it would not have shown any of the inside of the LM, as seen in this footage.
It's something you could watch for a while. Being able to remember these missions,it's still incredible to these missions again online and Dave Scott still appears on line, speaking mainly about science.
I’d love to see the conspiracy boogers’ mental gymnastics as they try to convince themselves that those pieces of foil tumbling through the air and bouncing on the ground would behave that way on earth with 9.8 m/s2 gravity and 15psi atmosphere. And why can I see a shadow of the ascent module but no strings or crane or anything else? How was that done? And man, how damn big is that fake set? How did they light it so evenly without causing multiple shadows?
I lot of people think landing an airplane is 'so dangerous', but yet successful landings occur many thousands of times every day. So many potentially dangerous things are made only slightly risky through a combination of engineering, training, and skill.
I read about the explosive charged guillotine unit that severed the electric cable connection between stages on take off. I wonder if this was used on all Apollo craft?
The guillotine was part of the LEM design, and severed everything (wires, tubes, etc) that connected the Ascent and Decent stages, except the hardware that. I am pretty certain that there was no significant change in this respect between any of the flown LEMs.
@MrLewisbate Except of course the very similar LM computer that did "crash" , 4 times or come up with an error in Apollo 11 on the way down to the surface . It went into overload and could not handle the data stream . They figured out the problem , the rendezvous radar was set wrong and left on all the way down . This consumed 13% of their computer power and caused the problem , a 1202 alarm . To fix before liftoff the moon Aldrin turned off the rendezvous radar and the error disappeared .
Amazing accomplishment. Especially in 1971. If you want to do it bad enough, you’ll make it happen. 15 was the best mission. 17 was great with Cernan and Schmidt, 16 with Duke and Young was good too, but had problems.
If you would like to see the Apollo 15 Command module it's at the U.S. Air Force Museum in Dayton, Ohio. As you can tell from the music the whole crew was U.S. Air Force so that's why WPAFB got the command module.
They dodged a real screwup at the moment of liftoff when a large piece of Mylar is seen flying out towards the experiments package left behind. If it had just touched the central station antenna that would have been the end of a million dollars worth of experiment equipment and hundreds of hours of planning.
Indeed. We don't think much about lunar liftoff but that's a rocket going off on an unprepared surface. There's no flame trench and no pressure suppression system.
That large flat piece follows an interesting trajectory - a true projectile, then it bounces and keeps going in that low lunar gravity. It could never ever be able to do anything remotely like that on earth with the air slowing it down.
I am struck how close the ALSEP was to the landing site. The Apollo 14 ALSEP was set up 200 yards from the LM so as to avoid any dust or debris from striking the science package.
"Okay auto shut down." Meaning: "I fully trust this computer in calculating burn time, mean acceleration, direction of travel, and acceptable deviations."
I agree. Just think of the crews picked for 18, 19 and 20 that had there lives changed abruptly by being told NO. Their kids already bragged to their friends about their Dads being picked to go to the Moon next. You can thank President Nixon that stopped it. He personally felt that the money should be used to fund the Space Station instead. That's why it ended.
As to why you can't hear a rocket engine going full thrust right below the crew cabin, interestingly this question was asked by Buzz Aldrin on the rendezvous back to the CM. From the Apollo 11 flight journal...(Explanation mentioned in notes added later..) 125:30:45 Armstrong (onboard): What? 125:30:46 Aldrin (onboard): Did you hear that? 125:30:57 Aldrin (onboard): Why you don't hear these 3 - 3,500-pound rocket engines when you're sitting on them, I'll never know. (Most of the noise we associate with a rocket engine is produced by the violent and turbulent interaction of the exhaust gases with the atmosphere through which they flow. However, in the LM, the gases are expelled straight into a vacuum. What little noise there is comes from the flame front within the engine and the vibrations it produces which can travel through the structure. There aren't even any pumps whirring or vibrating to add to the noise. On Apollo 15, David Scott commented that the ascent engine sounded 'like the wind whistling'.) 125:31:03 Armstrong (onboard): Yes. Fascinating reads those journals and the explanatory notes. You'll get some idea of just how much is involved in a mission beyond any TV show.
The combustion chamber is gimbaled on shock absorbing mounts... this absorbs nearly all vibration from the actual rocket motor that might transmit thru the structure. The whistling wind noise is almost certainly from the vibration of the pump impellers being transmitted thru the actual liquid hypergolic fuel into the fuel in the tanks that are directly mounted to the LEM ascent stage frame. That would be my guess.
@@stephenpage-murray7226 Yes. The rocket fuel doesn’t pump itself into the combustion chamber. The impellers in a turbo pump, or an electric pump make a whining sound because of the speed at which they spin. The only medium in the vacuum that could transmit sound waves was the liquid fuel in the flexible fuel lines that fed the motor. So the whistling wind sound was most likely the pumps.
@@stephenpage-murray7226 Unless, of course, they didn’t use pumps... if they just used helium to push the fuel into the chamber then the engine would have been throttled by some form of Valve controlling the flow... and the fuel whistling sound might have been from that valve. Either way, the sound they heard in the LEM ascent stage must have been transduced from the fuel flow itself.
So Cool to watch this. It's a lot easier when the gravity is 1/6 th of Earth. Escape velocity on moon is 5,323 MPH but it is 25,053 MPH on Earth. I am glad we are finally going back to the moon in 2024.
@@theeraphatsunthornwit6266 Yes.. unfortunately. -They did have Artemis 1 go there without people in Nov. 2022 and circle the moon. Artemis 2 will have people but not land and them finally Artemis 3 should land there, if it is not delayed again. It's going to have the first woman ever walk on the moon with another man. (Person # 13 and # 14.)
Jim Lovell and Fred Haise were also very interested, but unfortunately, they didn't get to land. They were the first astronauts to train with Lee Silver and the other academic geologists brought in by Jack Schmitt. Neil Armstrong did a great job of gathering "the suite," given the limited training and time he had.
The stamp issue was sad but watching him cancelling a stamp was fun to see 👌 Geology was the key point of the Apollo missions apart from landing and returning to Earth. I've studied actual lunar samples under a microscope! absolutely amazing seeing all the different chemical, minerals and elements in the regolith, breccia and rocks 👓🎓🔭
It's a good job the moon's gravity is so much less than the Earth's. It still fascinates me though that it takes so little effort to lift off from the moon compared to Earth.
The amount of fuel need is exponentially proportional to the gravitational force and total delta V needed. On earth you need to get very high up against gravity to clear the atmosphere and then you need to hit about 17000 mph to get to orbit -- atmospheric drag and the gravity drag to reach that height mean the actual delta V is much more, at least 2 km/s more. Typically a rocket is already half its weight on the pad in the first 1 minute after launch, that's where most of the fuel goes. On the moon you only need to reach 3700 mph. No atmosphere, much weaker gravity, so everything weighs less and needs much less thrust, you can reach orbit at virtually any height above the surface, so you don't have to go high up. So yeah, with a very small spacecraft, achieve it easily. There's an amateur rocket video of a small rocket reaching nearly all the way to space. That rocket would have easily attained escape velocity on the moon. Strangely, if earth was only a little bit bigger or more massive, we would be unable to launch rockets into earth orbit at all with chemical fuels.
See how that flat piece of gold foil or shielding is propelled outwards in a straight line over a long distance? That would only happen in a vacuum. So, if you think this is fake, then it was filmed on a HUGH zero pressure sound stage.
@@TTEchidna actually it was President Johnson who ordered the shutdown of the Saturn V production lines. We could have launched Apollo 18 and 19 (the Apollo 20 Saturn V was used to launch Skylab), but that’s it. Those two missions were canceled, frankly, because the public was bored with the moon.
Even some of the Apollo managers knew they were pressing their luck with Apollo and it was a matter of time before a crew fatality with the technology of the time.
~0:26: Lower Right hand corner. My eyes may be getting old and I don't have the map of Hadley handy but that bit of debris tossed up by the Ascent engine Ignition sure looks at first glance like an American flag. Could someone Take a closer look at this please?
It's not the American Flag, just a bunch of liftoff debris. The Lunar Rover had a camera still working on the surface after liftoff to confirm the flag was still on it's flagpole. Plus we've had a satellite orbiting the moon for over a decade now and it takes pictures of all the landing sites where all but Apollo 11 shows the shadow of the flag..however, the flag is almost certainly now completely bleached white and in tatters.
@@erichaynes7502 Can you verify the flagpole position for me? I can't get at my flight data file for the mission so I don't have the standard map of where everything on the surface was deployed. I spent a long time yesterday with all the LRO Images of Hadley I could get. I do not identify anything that has the general shape of the flag/flagstaff. but the sun angle on most of the pictures isn't very good for ID on small surface Items.
For all those wondering if this is possible, this student Team built rocket reached Mach 5 to get into space above 60 miles against Earth's gravity and atmosphere. Vertically mind you. th-cam.com/video/Y5j74uv427g/w-d-xo.html On the moon this is not only sufficient to get to orbit (orbital velocity Mach 4.83 or 3700 mph approx. ), but because no atmosphere and much weaker gravity it could easily reach escape velocity in the vertical direction. It would take only a few seconds for this rocket to do this horizontally on a typical orbital trajectory. So yes, not that difficult to achieve even for a small rocket on the moon.
@@AMC2283No Sir, watergate had not happened yet and contra coke if I understand you correctly wasn’t until the late eighties. Vietnam would be the only issue you’ve mentioned that was ongoing. My point being it was an incredible achievement by mankind yet there’s this constant put down by every generation of basement dwellers who’ve achieved nothing and probably never well.
You would think there would be a huge cloud of dust with no gravity. On landing you would have had to blow away dust to clear a large area may have had rockets for that purpose.
There is gravity, 1/6 that of Earth's. But there's no atmosphere. If the moon had an atmosphere it would be like Mars, with most of its surface hidden under dust storms. Clouds can only form in a medium, which on the moon is absent. Hammers, feathers, or dust particles - they all behave the same way, falling at the same rate according to acceleration due to gravity.
also the dust is not like baby powder they say its sort of sticky and not like our fine dust. on decent it DOES blow out dust but on liftoff the rocket is now blasting on the lower stage and not blowing directly onto the surface.
The ascent engine fires onto the landing stage which defuses the exhaust before it hits the surface. On landing the landing stage engine is hitting the surface directly.
I traced back the orbit path and as I suspected, the slope at the end is the edge of Archimedes crater. Go to quickmap.lroc.asu.edu/layers?extent=-9.8872976,27.368811,0.5718332,32.5789678&proj=10&layers=NrBsFYBoAZIRnpEoAsjYIHYFcA2vIBvAXwF1Siylw4pYMlgBmaaKBBnfSi5uOJukRcCJcj1JA and flip the image 90 degrees so the craters in the last part of the video match up with the satellite imagery.
@@RetroSpaceHD In the time they were there the rotation of the moon would cause the orbital plane of the CSM to shift slightly. They might have also needed to manuever around very hilly terrain.
Rick Wolf....the LEM accent engine was not designed to 'Gimble' because of design and weight! the back and forth motion 'Wallowing' is thruster activity putting the spacecraft on the correct trajectory 👌👓🎓🔭:)
To add to the reply Notts boy24 already gave you.... Most rockets have gimbals. These gimbals keep the thrust aligned in the direction of flight, so a rocket flies very straight and true. Any slight deviation, and the gyros cause the rocket to gimbal, and correct the trajectory accordingly. You can Google "rocket gimbal" to get a better understanding. The gimbal keeps the thrust directly aligned through the center of mass. The thing is, the ascent stage doesn't have gimbals. They wanted to keep the design as simple as possible for lift-off, with the absolute minimum of moving parts. It was the only major piece of Apollo that literally had no redundancy whatsoever. If that rocket failed, they were stuck, with no backup plan. So, they built it as simply as they possibly could, with the absolute fewest moving parts possible. In addition to that, the rocket for the ascent stage was actually right there jutting up into the cabin space. It was covered, of course, but, still, it was mainly inside the LM's living quarters. To add gimbals would add weight and size that they really didn't want, because it was crammed already, and saving weight was critical. So, they went without gimbals for the ascent stage. The slightest movements or lack of perfect balance, would, therefore, throw the trajectory off. They knew this, and planned for it. So, they went with a gentle rocking motion, while the RCS rockets fired occasionally to re-orient the craft on its proper heading. Note: they could have made the RCS rockets fire even more often. But, then that would be wasteful. They didn't want to need to keep blasting those things constantly. So, they allowed for a bit of a margin of error, and over-corrected, then allowed it to sway back off heading (slightly), then over-corrected again, etc., which gives it the rocking motion you see in the liftoff videos. Astronauts have described it like a boat on waves. But, it got the job done. Note: the descent stages for all of the landings all had gimbals. For landing, they really didn't want all of that rocking back and forth, and wanted much more precise control. And, with the descent stage, the craft was basically double the size (harder for RCS to deal with). But, for liftoff, they didn't need that level of precision, and the craft was small enough at that point, so, it was good enough to just let the RCS system keep the craft in line.
The main engine has no gimballing, it's fixed. So every now and then the RCS thrusters need to keep firing to make it switch from vertical to horizontal.
Do you happen to know why the image is so fluid (going up and down) like that? This liftoff had by far the most of this 'pogo' effect that I've seen and I can't quite understand what would make that happen.
Allow me to expand, please. As the channel host says in the description, he has stabilized the images. So, what you see here has been intentionally smoothed out. As for "pogo," no, that's actually a different rocket phenomenon. You can look it up, but, basically that's a recurring rapid surge of thrust followed by a rapid fall-off in thrust, primarily due to the way the fuel flows. The Saturn V had a lot of problems with that, until they baffled the fuel better to calm down that effect. But, that wasn't the reason for the oscillations you're asking about for the lunar liftoffs. To answer the core of your question, the issue with the rocking back and forth during the ascent from the moon, is mainly because the ascent engine didn't have a gimbal. A gimbal's job is to keep the rocket thrust pointed directly through the center of mass, so the rocket flies straight. Almost all big rockets have them, or they use thrust veining. But, the ascent engine didn't have either option. In order to keep the weight and size down, and keep the design as simple as possible, they didn't put a gimbal on the ascent stage. So, even the slightest bit of off-center weight distribution (which is inevitable) will result in the rocket going off-course. So, how did they solve this? They decided to use RCS thrusters (the 16 little thrusters) to steer the craft back on course. But, they didn't want RCS to constantly fire all the time (not very efficient). So, they chose a slower rocking motion. They programmed the computer to let the course drift off, then provide correction (over-correction), then let the course drift again, then provide over-correction again. This saved on fuel, as opposed to constantly firing corrections 10x a second or something crazy like that. So, basically, the rocking back and forth was a known effect of the way they set up the autopilot to operate. The astronauts described it like being on a boat, rocking in the waves.
@@rockethead7 - There was also the effects of fuel sloshing around in the tanks. The Ascent Stage was very light so it would have been very responsive.
There was a tape machine inside the LM and the crew played music during the lift off from the Lunar surface? Or it was being played at Mission Control?
That lump of something that got flung out as the explosive bolts separated the ascent stage from the descent stage flew for quite some distance. Buzz Aldrin said the same thing when he and Neil busted out of Tranquillity. He tracked a piece of debris that did not want to stay down. Only 12 apostles saw that happen for real. Have a little faith, baby.
Yes, but here's the interesting part. The music was played by Worden in the command module and he was supposed to only broadcast it to mission control. But he left the com channel on and so it was heard in the LM as well just at takeoff. The commander wasn't too happy about that..
Mago....the LEM windows are semi triangular! the position of the camera was angled on a rod in front of the right window hence why we see that type of view 👌🔭
I added this to my comment .. Edited to add, the DAC lens was right up against the LM window, so it would not have shown any of the inside of the LM, as seen in this footage.
The way they were bouncy boouncing around i again think at least in landing they would more dust a chopper isn't bad after a couple of times and they have some choice.
It was played by Command Module Pilot Al Worden, without Commander Dave Scott's prior knowledge. Scott was angry, and rightfully so. But it's fun to look back on now.
Rocket exhaust interacting with the atmosphere makes for some mighty noisy turbulence. In a vacuum, the exhaust quietly and very rapidly disperses with no surrounding gas trying to retard it. In the lower atmosphere we see a flaming pillar because of the great constraints imposed by the great mass and pressure of the surrounding air. In space, the exhaust can be thought of as being more like a ball-like bubble or balloon of essentially invisible gas the spacecraft is sitting on and being pushed by. The difference in behavior is amazing to those only familiar with the typical sci-fi inaccuracies.
@@glennledrew8347 ? How much atmosphere does the moon have at ground level? I would have to look this up. What fuel combination did they use? In a vacuum there is nothing to push against. Don't forget inside the engine inself you have turbulence and such. Where is all that noise?
No, Al up in the command module played it as a tribute for all of the Astronauts being from the USAF, The Crew gave him hell for it when they got back.
It is both sad and disturbing that in 2020 we still have millions of Apollo hoax supporters. What is going on with our educational institutes? I'd be worried if my kids were still in school.
I can't tell what you're saying. Are you wondering why, in 2020, there are so many people who foolishly still think Apollo was a hoax? Or, are you saying that Apollo was a hoax, and you can't figure out why there are so few people that agree with you?
@@rockethead7 We have evidence of a elementary school [4th,5th graders ] teacher and a college professor promoting the Moon hoax. They were given licenses to teach, so they should know how to research a subject. So yes, we have a problem. The elementary school teacher bragged online"claiming, so far no one confronted me about my views" The professor was filmed by students and posted online. The one student said."this is what I'm paying for."She was upset. I believe he was fired.
@@thomaslewis7883 We have evidence teaching moon brags view films. Students online pay for firings. 4th and 5th graders are upset. Licenses believe researching a subject about evidence of confrontations. Post the paying for professor about the film. Elementary the was said about the subject.
@@thomaslewis7883 So, you won't answer my questions, but you expect me to answer yours? Also, I can barely understand a single thing you're writing. You have the writing skills of a 7 year old.
I use this shot to prove to those who refuse to believe we went That space debris movement would be impossible replicate on a set which would mean they would have to resort to effects artist. Impossible in those days without modern CGI software
"I use this shot to prove to those who refuse to believe we went " The DAC that recorded the lunar lift off was mounted inside the top of the right side triangular window..Yet this footage shows it was recorded inside a rectangular shaped window.. The Apollo Lunar Module had two triangular windows and a hatch.. The windows were located above and to either side of the egress hatch.. There was no rectangular shaped window on the LM.. So that alone proves this footage is fake... Edited to add, the DAC lens was right up against the LM window, so it would not have shown any of the inside of the LM, as seen in this footage.
@cardboard9124 Nice excuse, but it doesn't explain why the fiducial marks are missing on all of the Apollo 15 DAC lift off footage.. This information comes from the Lunar Science and Exploration site.... " Fiducial marks were recorded on the film.".. So where are those marks on this footage? "Apollo 15 Mission" "16-millimeter Maurer Data Acquisition Camera (DAC) The 16-millimeter Maurer DAC had frame rates of 1, 6, and 12 fps in the automatic mode and 24 frames per second in the semiautomatic mode with corresponding running times of 93.3, 15.5, 7.8, and 3.7 minutes respectively. A green light emitted light pulses at the frame rates. Fiducial marks were recorded on the film. The camera could be handheld or used in a boresight mount on the lunar module on windows 1 or 3."
@@straydog02 this footage has been edited to make it as clear as possible. Also would you care to explain china photographing the lunar landing sites and finding all the apollo equipment?
@cardboard9124 Edited to remove the fiducials? .. Seriously??? 😂 .. China has never published any of their Apollo site images, even though they claimed to have photographed the sites in high resolution back in 2010.
What is this? The module has so much fuel to hover over the Luna surface like that? It is not going up that is for sure the surface continues at one point for minutes. What is this? It's not Apollo 15 for sure.
Still demonstrating your complete and total ignorance of Apollo, just as you always do, eh? You go from video to video saying "FAKE" about topics you know absolutely nothing about. Dummy, the lunar module had 3500 pounds of thrust in the ascent stage. The lunar weight of the ascent stage was about 1950 pounds (give or take a bit, per mission). Yes, plenty of thrust to weight ratio. And, you clearly know nothing about the trajectory. The craft lifted off straight up. But, approximately 5 seconds later, it begins to pitch over to accelerate laterally. It is still climbing upward also, but, that's when they start introducing more lateral movement. Human eyes do not perceive upward movement very well, except right at the beginning. Like in an airplane, once you get to a decent altitude, you really don't visually perceive very well that you're climbing or descending. You only realize it when you look at the instruments, or visually over longer periods of time. That's what happens in videos like this. Once they get up there, and pitch over, you don't even really realize that they're still climbing upward while also accelerating horizontally. They must build up 3600 mph of horizontal speed in order to achieve lunar orbit, so, yes, at that point, horizontal speed becomes just as important as altitude, whether you visually perceive it or not. But, guess what... MATH shows it all. You're welcome to take a topographical map of the moon, and use instrumentation to illustrate the relative size of the craters and stuff, and then use it to get a decent approximation of the changes in height. You can see that the craters "shrink" in relative size as they climb, and you can do the math to demonstrate whether they're climbing or not (hint: they are). So, you can just forget about your conspiratard notions like, "it's not going up that is for sure." You just don't know what you're talking about. I could show you a very similar type of footage from aircraft, and you'd say the same thing, "it's not going up." And, you'd be equally wrong.
it's kind of funny to think about the fact that to leave Earth, Apollo launched on the Saturn V, history's most powerfull rocket (as of this post). To get off the moon and into orbit...the accent stage of the LEM.
The DAC that recorded the lunar lift off was mounted inside the top of the right side triangular window..Yet this footage shows it was recorded inside a rectangular shaped window.. The Apollo Lunar Module had two triangular windows and a hatch.. The windows were located above and to either side of the egress hatch.. There was no rectangular shaped window on the LM.. So that alone proves this footage is fake.... Edited to add, the DAC lens was right up against the LM window, so it would not have shown any of the inside of the LM, as seen in this footage.
Yeah Democrats don't care about science only identity politics and faux "science". We'd have bases on the moon if everyone stopped crapping on about feelings.
@@rubydooby1679 Check the history: Apollo was built when Dems had both houses + presidency (61-69), then cancelled under Repub Nixon, Space Shuttle was largely built when Dems had both houses + presidency (77-81), then cancelled when Repubs had both houses + presidency (2003-7). Cancellation wasn't frivolous though: this stuff costs a lot (Apollo over $150B in current dollars) and is hard to sell to the public
@@lappansommer546 Democrats also started The Vietnam War out of nothing. Dem's of the early 1960's were very different to the the Dem's of the later 60's and onwards. They redirected funds from Apollo and NASA - human exploration, & shifted resources to social welfare programs which resulted in the broken homes and alienation of male achievement resulting in the damaged generation of children of single mothers. What has come to the fore over time is that money used for large scale projects has more benefit to society with more employment, greater intellectual advancement and purpose driven lives of all people involved, being more fruitful. The economy benefits as a result. People then benefit in a greater general sense. A janitor at NASA feels greater self worth that they are part of on an important project than a lawyer working the family court. A welder at Space X has greater sense of self worth and life satisfaction than a consultant selling banking Insurance. Great Projects develop more for society and the individual.
@@rubydooby1679 And republicans scoff at science being considered when dealing with a pandemic. Don't even present the GOP as the science party when its ranks are full of religious extremist wishful thinking pray it away individuals. The bible never cured a disease or built anything useful.
Can you imagine the anxiety of pushing the button and getting no response?......you would know you were doomed. These guys had the confidence, the Right Stuff for sure.
There were several means to arm and fire the LM ascent engine. It was a tried-and-true design.
@@RideAcrossTheRiver It was also a very simple engine. There were two valves in the ascent stage that needed to open and it used hypergolic fuel. Those valves could be opened manually if need be and as long as those two valves opened, it would fire.
@@StevenEveral CDR hits Fuel then LMP hits Ox and both better hang on!
Just two different reactive fuels mixing there was definitely going to be a blast off.
The bravery of those men in the face of so many failure modes is incredible.
These days the failure modes are no less... will see when returning to the moon.
@Roborav D what do you mean?
@Roborav D BS. Grow up.
@Roborav D evidence it was faked?
Yeah NASA is fake as hell.
Landing on the moon: Exceptional.
Taking off from the moon: Amazing.
Playing the Air Force song while you're taking off: The Right Stuff!
Scotty wasn't too chuffed when they got back to the CM..... It was not meant to be playing over their loop, and Wardo got a right telling off. Al's autobiography is brilliant by the way..... Dude.
@@donpettitwedestroyedtheapo6488 you commenting even sadder. G:(
It's amazing what you can do with a string and a toy and a cracker.
LRO found those tire marks exactly as they were after all these years. Also another strange effect, with no atmosphere, and craters of all sizes, you always feel the moon's surface is a few hundred feet below you the whole time. No matter how high you get, it's hard to read the distance. When the Chinese landed a couple of years back, it was really disorienting.
Yes, the craters form a similar ground pattern, regardless of your altitude.
@ srinitaaigaura
You mean disorientating, or disoriental- ating.
exactly. I think it is because of the fractal nature (self-similiarity). No matter how you zoom in or zoom out, the same shape always appears then.
The clarity of the vacuum plays with your perception of distance. The Apollo astronauts joked about everything appearing so close by, "only to take 2 weeks to get there". They often miscalculated distances by hundreds of feet. Scientists also believe the lower gravity may have added to the visual confusion. We're conditioned to see other objects, colour changes in the earths atmosphere, on the Moon you have nothing to judge distances by and with no atmosphere to change the colour, clarity at a distance it confuses us, earthlings..
I would like to see a link to that as all I've seen are pixilated rubish images
As to why the Ascent Module took off like that, in the moon's gravity, it weighed only 1400 lbs with 3000 lb of thrust, giving it over 2:1 thrust to weight ratio. And it only got lighter as the fuel was consumed, towards the end, it would have been accelerating at 0.67 g to 3750 mph orbital velocity, which is also matched by recent simulations.
Of course. I knew that.
Buzz Aldrin said it was "1 G" and that was referencing the Earth's gravity. Was Buzz wrong? Or was he just estimating?
Also, it left the bottom portion and landing legs on the moon.
that's peppy
@@nebtheweb8885 Yes, that's what ascent stage means. Descent stage of the module served as a launch platform for the ascent stage.
I love that they thought “let’s play awesome music as we lift off”.
Indeed, makes it unique!
Al Worden played it from the Control Module. The astronauts in the ascent module were pissed at him for the stunt.
@@dansv1
And understandably so. It hindered communication at a critical time.
I recall it was an all Airforce crew.
@@dansv1 Yeah, I get why he did it since it was an all Air Force crew, but that song hindered communication at a critical time. Maybe Al Worden could have waited until Falcon was finally docked back with the CSM to do it?
I was 21 at the time of this mission and remember watching it on TV at the time. Amazing then and still amazing now. We are still years away from doing it again.
The budget just isn't there. It might be gone completely now.
@RideAcrossTheRiver NASA is currently operating a lunar landing program known as Artemis. Artemis I has already flown an unmanned mission around the moon and back. Artemis II will be a manned mission similar to Artemis I. Artemis III will be a manned lunar landing. SpaceX's Starship will have a variant that will serve as the lander.
That lander will launch into orbit, and then several missions will refuel it in Earth orbit before it heads to the moon. The refueling missions will need to be able to launch, refuel the lander, return to the launch tower, refuel and relaunch. SpaceX has recently landed their Starship being caught by the launch tower. This was a mission in pursuit of that goal (to be able to land at the launch tower for rapid refueling and turnaround for the Artemis missions).
Have you been under a rock?
@@willoughbykrenzteinburg Guess you missed the last election.
@@RideAcrossTheRiver I didn't miss anything. There are talks of canceling SLS - which is a part of Artemis, but not Artemis itself. It's like thinking Dell is gonna stop making computers because they cancelled their contract with Intel. No, they would just use a different CPU (That's not happening - it's just an example to show how absurd your logic is).
@@willoughbykrenzteinburg It's Space Force II, baby!
0:24 the behavior of those pieces of foil are exactly what you would expect in a vacuum. They really went there, this is total evidence; watching those pieces of foil bounce on the surface and loosen some dust while bouncing back up.
Of course we did. It's really not that difficult to go to the moon, just takes an enormous amount of funding and determination.
That is cooking foil in the studio
Yes ,
@@rubybrady7051Lol you never ever saw a rocket launch did you. No movie ever gets space right.
@@thomaskolb8785 just takes an enormous amount of funding and determination... and foil
Awesome footage, love the shadow of the ascent stage, as it powers away from the descent stage! Great mission and commander Dave Scott.
When they walked on the surface you could see the dust and pebbles fly up in perfect parabolic trajectories, quite unlike in CGI movies where they always introduce billowing as if the debris is encountering an atmosphere. Even Special Effects professionals will candidly admit they still can't fully recreate the effects of low G environments to this day.
They tried their best in the film Gravity, but still got a lot of things wrong. You can't fake space travel.
and CGI loves to have flaming fireballs with thunderous explosions in outer space.
Radio miniature car on sand can create exactly that
You can tell in From the Earth to the Moon that it was filmed on earth by the way the dirt lands.
Hello from me a Brit in the uk. My favourite Apollo mission. Probably because we just got a colour tv at this time in 1971 and I was enthralled by coverage of Scott and Irwin’s eva,s and the first lunar rover.
For the deniers, what about the 800 pounds plus of rocks ? The LRO pictures from orbit? One of the greatest achievements of mankind being trashed by folks whose IQ’s are doing a reverse of evolution! Either that are they have to make mischief.
I remember like it was yesterday, as an 11 year old, waiting for Scott to come down the ladder, and seeing his boot first come into view, hitting the ladder rung, and then the whole spacesuit, thinking how much better the image quality was compared to Apollo 11.
Al Warden played that music from a tape recorder in the CM and though it was only going to mission control, but it was actually reverberating into the headsets of the men in the LM trying to concentrate. While this made commander David Scott upset at Warden he later took credit for the stunt when speaking to fellow air force members.
I was reading Worden's book last week. He and Dave Scott didn't get along well and the issue of the postal covers led to Worden being fired from the astronauts office. Though Dave Scott took responsibility for it, he did not suffer professionally for it. But the astronaut office actually put so many bad remarks in Al Worden's service sheet he was told he would never be promoted in the Air Force again. Al said that over time things got a lot better when all the political sharks guys who hated him left NASA or retired. Ironically many people who tried to maintain the holier than thou attitude up to President Nixon all fell to their own scams, and it was the height of irony when NASA flew postal covers on board the Shuttle themselves, which gave Worden enough spirit to sue NASA and get his covers back.
The book is a fascinating read.
Love it. Thanks for posting this.
To me these lift of videos prove we went there. When the footage is at ground level I can see how it could be faked and that it is actual somewhere out in the Arizona desert that we are seeing with colour manipulation and editing out the sky. But as soon as they lift off you can see how close the horizon is curving away than it would on earth with its larger diameter. How hard is it too comprehend that there was more money pumped into this and there was a race on back then which made this possible.
Also those gold foil sheets that blast outwards just would not react like that if this was faked moon footage. You can actually see them holding altitude then hit surface then rebound back up to practically the same altitude if you look closely. Whereas on earth with no wind they would drop altitude quicker then land and stop.
Lift off could simply be a miniature man made set in a hanger. They had the space and the funds to do it.
@@Auricfield I'm certain that if Elon Musk booked you on a starship and took you to the Moon and showed you where Apollo 15 landed, you brush it off as something that government sent up there recently so that it could continue "the lie" that people landed there in 1971.
@@hhale that's because flat Earth comes from religion and dogma, which are both responsible for literally all government and all war, demonstrably, throughout history
@@Auricfield IDIOT!!!!!
You can see all the landmarks and craters on google moon and LRO imagery. Exactly where on earth does anything remotely like this exist?
Wow. . . wow. . . wow. . . ! I've seen the A17 liftoff from the outside camera left on the moon's surface and that's awesome. But I've never before seen this one and it gives a first-person perspective that is awesome in a different way. Thanks for uploading.
The DAC that recorded the lunar lift off was mounted inside the top of the right side triangular window..Yet this footage shows it was recorded inside a rectangular shaped window.. The Apollo Lunar Module had two triangular windows and a hatch.. The windows were located above and to either side of the egress hatch.. There was no rectangular shaped window on the LM.. So that alone proves this footage is fake... Edited to add, the DAC lens was right up against the LM window, so it would not have shown any of the inside of the LM, as seen in this footage.
Absolutely fascinating to watch!
It's something you could watch for a while. Being able to remember these missions,it's still incredible to these missions again online and Dave Scott still appears on line, speaking mainly about science.
Blue Yonder cracks me up every time.
I’d love to see the conspiracy boogers’ mental gymnastics as they try to convince themselves that those pieces of foil tumbling through the air and bouncing on the ground would behave that way on earth with 9.8 m/s2 gravity and 15psi atmosphere.
And why can I see a shadow of the ascent module but no strings or crane or anything else? How was that done? And man, how damn big is that fake set? How did they light it so evenly without causing multiple shadows?
Well, they would just say that NASA spent millions just in the development of magical foil to fool the world.
Seriously, these guys are that lame.
let the fools live theirselves in a permanent dumb state....they are son of God too.
I wouldn't even waste time on that. They're not worth even a second of my thought. Let them live and die in ignorance.
@Bobb Grimley the last two years would like to have a word with you
@@kitcanyon658they would to get their hands on that magical foil to make some hats from.
Thanks for this wonderful vid looks truly breath taking. TFS, G :)
Unbelievable. So many things could have gone wrong and the skills are unquestioned, but this was so dangerous.
I lot of people think landing an airplane is 'so dangerous', but yet successful landings occur many thousands of times every day. So many potentially dangerous things are made only slightly risky through a combination of engineering, training, and skill.
Hollywood studios are dangerous....??? I don't think so....ask Stanley Kubick...🤣🤣🤣🤣
I remember watching this live (from the rover camera feed.) in our living room. The USAF song gag really cracked my dad up.
That's the Rille. It matches exactly to what the LRO photo'd in 2009.
I read about the explosive charged guillotine unit that severed the electric cable connection between stages on take off. I wonder if this was used on all Apollo craft?
The guillotine was part of the LEM design, and severed everything (wires, tubes, etc) that connected the Ascent and Decent stages, except the hardware that. I am pretty certain that there was no significant change in this respect between any of the flown LEMs.
To think that your phone has more computing power than those aircrafts... crazy
Most of the computing power was on earth.
MUCH more. But it had what was required. Busting out a quick game of Fortnite wasn't on their list of priorities.
Much much much more . memory wise 1 billion times more , CPU ? at least 1 million times more , graphics .......NA.
@MrLewisbate Except of course the very similar LM computer that did "crash" , 4 times or come up with an error in Apollo 11 on the way down to the surface . It went into overload and could not handle the data stream . They figured out the problem , the rendezvous radar was set wrong and left on all the way down . This consumed 13% of their computer power and caused the problem , a 1202 alarm . To fix before liftoff the moon Aldrin turned off the rendezvous radar and the error disappeared .
My Casio watch in ‘82 did.
Amazing accomplishment. Especially in 1971. If you want to do it bad enough, you’ll make it happen. 15 was the best mission. 17 was great with Cernan and Schmidt, 16 with Duke and Young was good too, but had problems.
CM pilot Al Worden caught hell from Scott for playing the music at liftoff.
Hear that whirl sound.
he sure did.....blasted right in their ears and nothing they could do.
And Worden said 'whats the big deal, no one died did they?'
@Norm T Al was sending the music back to Mission Control, he didn't know they were sending it back to Scott and Irwin.
@Norm T Then someone would have died .Then it would have been a big deal.
Awesome! Thank you, Apollo 15
If you would like to see the Apollo 15 Command module it's at the U.S. Air Force Museum in Dayton, Ohio. As you can tell from the music the whole crew was U.S. Air Force so that's why WPAFB got the command module.
Those were some impressive views on the way up.
They dodged a real screwup at the moment of liftoff when a large piece of Mylar is seen flying out towards the experiments package left behind. If it had just touched the central station antenna that would have been the end of a million dollars worth of experiment equipment and hundreds of hours of planning.
Indeed. We don't think much about lunar liftoff but that's a rocket going off on an unprepared surface. There's no flame trench and no pressure suppression system.
RobbHahn.....correct observation and well spotted my friend 👌👓🎓🔭🔬:)
That large flat piece follows an interesting trajectory - a true projectile, then it bounces and keeps going in that low lunar gravity. It could never ever be able to do anything remotely like that on earth with the air slowing it down.
I am struck how close the ALSEP was to the landing site. The Apollo 14 ALSEP was set up 200 yards from the LM so as to avoid any dust or debris from striking the science package.
"Okay auto shut down."
Meaning:
"I fully trust this computer in calculating burn time, mean acceleration, direction of travel, and acceptable deviations."
exactly haha
beautiful !!!
America should never have walked away from Apollo.
They already won the race to put a man on the moon and the program was very expensive
I agree. Just think of the crews picked for 18, 19 and 20 that had there lives changed abruptly by being told NO. Their kids already bragged to their friends about their Dads being picked to go to the Moon next. You can thank President Nixon that stopped it. He personally felt that the money should be used to fund the Space Station instead. That's why it ended.
As to why you can't hear a rocket engine going full thrust right below the crew cabin, interestingly this question was asked by Buzz Aldrin on the rendezvous back to the CM. From the Apollo 11 flight journal...(Explanation mentioned in notes added later..)
125:30:45 Armstrong (onboard): What?
125:30:46 Aldrin (onboard): Did you hear that?
125:30:57 Aldrin (onboard): Why you don't hear these 3 - 3,500-pound rocket engines when you're sitting on them, I'll never know.
(Most of the noise we associate with a rocket engine is produced by the violent and turbulent interaction of the exhaust gases with the atmosphere through which they flow. However, in the LM, the gases are expelled straight into a vacuum. What little noise there is comes from the flame front within the engine and the vibrations it produces which can travel through the structure. There aren't even any pumps whirring or vibrating to add to the noise. On Apollo 15, David Scott commented that the ascent engine sounded 'like the wind whistling'.)
125:31:03 Armstrong (onboard): Yes.
Fascinating reads those journals and the explanatory notes. You'll get some idea of just how much is involved in a mission beyond any TV show.
The combustion chamber is gimbaled on shock absorbing mounts... this absorbs nearly all vibration from the actual rocket motor that might transmit thru the structure. The whistling wind noise is almost certainly from the vibration of the pump impellers being transmitted thru the actual liquid hypergolic fuel into the fuel in the tanks that are directly mounted to the LEM ascent stage frame. That would be my guess.
@@christopherpardell4418
Pump impellers?
@@stephenpage-murray7226 Yes. The rocket fuel doesn’t pump itself into the combustion chamber. The impellers in a turbo pump, or an electric pump make a whining sound because of the speed at which they spin. The only medium in the vacuum that could transmit sound waves was the liquid fuel in the flexible fuel lines that fed the motor. So the whistling wind sound was most likely the pumps.
@@stephenpage-murray7226 Unless, of course, they didn’t use pumps... if they just used helium to push the fuel into the chamber then the engine would have been throttled by some form of Valve controlling the flow... and the fuel whistling sound might have been from that valve. Either way, the sound they heard in the LEM ascent stage must have been transduced from the fuel flow itself.
I didn't know that the swung the ascend stage around to keep the rille in view for as long as they could. Amazing planning.
So Cool to watch this. It's a lot easier when the gravity is 1/6 th of Earth. Escape velocity on moon is 5,323 MPH but it is 25,053 MPH on Earth. I am glad we are finally going back to the moon in 2024.
When?
It is 2024 now
Postponing to 2026 i guess and then postpone more
@@theeraphatsunthornwit6266 Yes.. unfortunately. -They did have Artemis 1 go there without people in Nov. 2022 and circle the moon. Artemis 2 will have people but not land and them finally Artemis 3 should land there, if it is not delayed again. It's going to have the first woman ever walk on the moon with another man. (Person # 13 and # 14.)
@@MegaSkills9 i bet no one can go, not within the nex 20 years
Wild to see Mylar fly like that
Great vid. Dave Scott was one of the few astronauts interested in geology. Shame about those bloody stamps ...
thankfully we had a real geologist onboard one of the Apollo flights.He added a lot to the mission knowledge base.
Jim Lovell and Fred Haise were also very interested, but unfortunately, they didn't get to land. They were the first astronauts to train with Lee Silver and the other academic geologists brought in by Jack Schmitt. Neil Armstrong did a great job of gathering "the suite," given the limited training and time he had.
The stamp issue was sad but watching him cancelling a stamp was fun to see 👌 Geology was the key point of the Apollo missions apart from landing and returning to Earth. I've studied actual lunar samples under a microscope! absolutely amazing seeing all the different chemical, minerals and elements in the regolith, breccia and rocks 👓🎓🔭
@@dskyyksd if anyone ever deserved to land on the moon, it was Jim Lovell.
It's a good job the moon's gravity is so much less than the Earth's. It still fascinates me though that it takes so little effort to lift off from the moon compared to Earth.
Having no Atmosphere allowed a much more efficient flight path, than can be flown from earth.
Yep...it's about 1/6 of earths.
The amount of fuel need is exponentially proportional to the gravitational force and total delta V needed. On earth you need to get very high up against gravity to clear the atmosphere and then you need to hit about 17000 mph to get to orbit -- atmospheric drag and the gravity drag to reach that height mean the actual delta V is much more, at least 2 km/s more. Typically a rocket is already half its weight on the pad in the first 1 minute after launch, that's where most of the fuel goes.
On the moon you only need to reach 3700 mph. No atmosphere, much weaker gravity, so everything weighs less and needs much less thrust, you can reach orbit at virtually any height above the surface, so you don't have to go high up. So yeah, with a very small spacecraft, achieve it easily.
There's an amateur rocket video of a small rocket reaching nearly all the way to space. That rocket would have easily attained escape velocity on the moon. Strangely, if earth was only a little bit bigger or more massive, we would be unable to launch rockets into earth orbit at all with chemical fuels.
See how that flat piece of gold foil or shielding is propelled outwards in a straight line over a long distance? That would only happen in a vacuum. So, if you think this is fake, then it was filmed on a HUGH zero pressure sound stage.
With low gravity to boot. Must have been mounted inside a giant airplane doing parabolic dives.
It was filmed on a stage 240,000 miles above the earth and 2250 miles in diameter to make it realistic.
Exactly tell that to the foolish deniers
Interesting to see the foil flying a wide parabola - and to know that it will be its last movement for millions of years ...
52 years ago. What the hell happened?
@Libturds Suck you are a fucking idiot, ok?
Nixon.
@@TTEchidna actually it was President Johnson who ordered the shutdown of the Saturn V production lines. We could have launched Apollo 18 and 19 (the Apollo 20 Saturn V was used to launch Skylab), but that’s it. Those two missions were canceled, frankly, because the public was bored with the moon.
Money…..
Even some of the Apollo managers knew they were pressing their luck with Apollo and it was a matter of time before a crew fatality with the technology of the time.
And just think. Today no one gives a darn about the postal covers.
I’m guessing that somewhere this comment actually makes any sense. Not HERE, but somewhere.
I'm surprised that kapton blanket didn't knock over all that ALSEP gear like a bowling ball.
Epic!
Thanks!
O-M-G
~0:26: Lower Right hand corner. My eyes may be getting old and I don't have the map of Hadley handy but that bit of debris tossed up by the Ascent engine Ignition sure looks at first glance like an American flag. Could someone Take a closer look at this please?
Yes it looks like something blown off
It's not the American Flag, just a bunch of liftoff debris. The Lunar Rover had a camera still working on the surface after liftoff to confirm the flag was still on it's flagpole. Plus we've had a satellite orbiting the moon for over a decade now and it takes pictures of all the landing sites where all but Apollo 11 shows the shadow of the flag..however, the flag is almost certainly now completely bleached white and in tatters.
@@erichaynes7502 Can you verify the flagpole position for me? I can't get at my flight data file for the mission so I don't have the standard map of where everything on the surface was deployed. I spent a long time yesterday with all the LRO Images of Hadley I could get. I do not identify anything that has the general shape of the flag/flagstaff. but the sun angle on most of the pictures isn't very good for ID on small surface Items.
Let’s repeat it!👍
Never gets old!
Wish the camera can pan out to see the horizon or the earth , well nice take off fellas.
The camera was fixed to the window and pointing down. It helped to improve landing site maps.
Was that the flag shooting away in the initial blast of the engine?
For all those wondering if this is possible, this student Team built rocket reached Mach 5 to get into space above 60 miles against Earth's gravity and atmosphere. Vertically mind you.
th-cam.com/video/Y5j74uv427g/w-d-xo.html
On the moon this is not only sufficient to get to orbit (orbital velocity Mach 4.83 or 3700 mph approx. ), but because no atmosphere and much weaker gravity it could easily reach escape velocity in the vertical direction. It would take only a few seconds for this rocket to do this horizontally on a typical orbital trajectory. So yes, not that difficult to achieve even for a small rocket on the moon.
Platò de television hasta se escucha la cinta de cine de esa epoca
Why do some people want to challenge what a miracle this program was during a time when society was really getting it’s shit together!
Because it’s going on amidst Vietnam sandwiched between jfk and watergate with contra coke deals on the horizon
@@AMC2283No Sir, watergate had not happened yet and contra coke if I understand you correctly wasn’t until the late eighties. Vietnam would be the only issue you’ve mentioned that was ongoing. My point being it was an incredible achievement by mankind yet there’s this constant put down by every generation of basement dwellers who’ve achieved nothing and probably never well.
You would think there would be a huge cloud of dust with no gravity.
On landing you would have had to blow away dust to clear a large area
may have had rockets for that purpose.
There is gravity, 1/6 that of Earth's. But there's no atmosphere. If the moon had an atmosphere it would be like Mars, with most of its surface hidden under dust storms. Clouds can only form in a medium, which on the moon is absent. Hammers, feathers, or dust particles - they all behave the same way, falling at the same rate according to acceleration due to gravity.
So tell us Mike, where did you learn that there's no gravity on the moon?
The same place that you learnt about chemtrails and big foot?
also the dust is not like baby powder they say its sort of sticky and not like our fine dust. on decent it DOES blow out dust but on liftoff the rocket is now blasting on the lower stage and not blowing directly onto the surface.
Go watch the landing video
The ascent engine fires onto the landing stage which defuses the exhaust before it hits the surface. On landing the landing stage engine is hitting the surface directly.
Some very dramatic undulations and high drops , and a really steepening slope here and there and near the end. What kinds of elevations in those?
Try this wms.lroc.asu.edu/lroc/view_rdr/NAC_DTM_APOLLO15
@@RetroSpaceHD the artistic licence taken in the movie wasnt so artistic really so.... Have you seen the 60fps moon rover upscaled footage?
I traced back the orbit path and as I suspected, the slope at the end is the edge of Archimedes crater. Go to quickmap.lroc.asu.edu/layers?extent=-9.8872976,27.368811,0.5718332,32.5789678&proj=10&layers=NrBsFYBoAZIRnpEoAsjYIHYFcA2vIBvAXwF1Siylw4pYMlgBmaaKBBnfSi5uOJukRcCJcj1JA and flip the image 90 degrees so the craters in the last part of the video match up with the satellite imagery.
That was amazing
Anyone know why the LM took a turn over the rille? Was it to give us such a great view or, more likely, was it needed to get to the right orbit?
The ascent profile was automated to get them into the right orbit. The nice view was not intentional as far as I know.
@@RetroSpaceHD In the time they were there the rotation of the moon would cause the orbital plane of the CSM to shift slightly. They might have also needed to manuever around very hilly terrain.
The Rille is longer and wider than I'd always thought.
Throughout the burn there was this light rocking, about 3 seconds per cycle, a few degrees back and forth. I'll assume that's natural.
Yes, the LEM did that movement, it was part of the autopilot adjustments.
That was fuel sloshing around causing the rocking.
Rick Wolf....the LEM accent engine was not designed to 'Gimble' because of design and weight! the back and forth motion 'Wallowing' is thruster activity putting the spacecraft on the correct trajectory 👌👓🎓🔭:)
To add to the reply Notts boy24 already gave you....
Most rockets have gimbals. These gimbals keep the thrust aligned in the direction of flight, so a rocket flies very straight and true. Any slight deviation, and the gyros cause the rocket to gimbal, and correct the trajectory accordingly. You can Google "rocket gimbal" to get a better understanding. The gimbal keeps the thrust directly aligned through the center of mass. The thing is, the ascent stage doesn't have gimbals. They wanted to keep the design as simple as possible for lift-off, with the absolute minimum of moving parts. It was the only major piece of Apollo that literally had no redundancy whatsoever. If that rocket failed, they were stuck, with no backup plan. So, they built it as simply as they possibly could, with the absolute fewest moving parts possible. In addition to that, the rocket for the ascent stage was actually right there jutting up into the cabin space. It was covered, of course, but, still, it was mainly inside the LM's living quarters. To add gimbals would add weight and size that they really didn't want, because it was crammed already, and saving weight was critical. So, they went without gimbals for the ascent stage.
The slightest movements or lack of perfect balance, would, therefore, throw the trajectory off. They knew this, and planned for it. So, they went with a gentle rocking motion, while the RCS rockets fired occasionally to re-orient the craft on its proper heading. Note: they could have made the RCS rockets fire even more often. But, then that would be wasteful. They didn't want to need to keep blasting those things constantly. So, they allowed for a bit of a margin of error, and over-corrected, then allowed it to sway back off heading (slightly), then over-corrected again, etc., which gives it the rocking motion you see in the liftoff videos. Astronauts have described it like a boat on waves. But, it got the job done.
Note: the descent stages for all of the landings all had gimbals. For landing, they really didn't want all of that rocking back and forth, and wanted much more precise control. And, with the descent stage, the craft was basically double the size (harder for RCS to deal with). But, for liftoff, they didn't need that level of precision, and the craft was small enough at that point, so, it was good enough to just let the RCS system keep the craft in line.
Does anyone know what object was sent flying by the ascent motor across the surface, nearly taking out the ALSEP?
Probably some of the descent stage insulation foil.
@Norm T 😂😂
Why is it shaking back and forth like it's on a balloon or in an atmosphere?
Oh, it's from autocorrect in the autopilot... Someone else had answered~
Yes, the autopilot performed corrections in a cyclical manner :)
The main engine has no gimballing, it's fixed. So every now and then the RCS thrusters need to keep firing to make it switch from vertical to horizontal.
Course corrections.
Thanks a bunch for the replies~
Wow, Hadley Rille is just a V-shape all the way down.
0:27 Haben die Radio an Bord?
Do you happen to know why the image is so fluid (going up and down) like that? This liftoff had by far the most of this 'pogo' effect that I've seen and I can't quite understand what would make that happen.
Those are periodic corrections done by the autopilot. It was really like that!
Allow me to expand, please.
As the channel host says in the description, he has stabilized the images. So, what you see here has been intentionally smoothed out.
As for "pogo," no, that's actually a different rocket phenomenon. You can look it up, but, basically that's a recurring rapid surge of thrust followed by a rapid fall-off in thrust, primarily due to the way the fuel flows. The Saturn V had a lot of problems with that, until they baffled the fuel better to calm down that effect. But, that wasn't the reason for the oscillations you're asking about for the lunar liftoffs.
To answer the core of your question, the issue with the rocking back and forth during the ascent from the moon, is mainly because the ascent engine didn't have a gimbal. A gimbal's job is to keep the rocket thrust pointed directly through the center of mass, so the rocket flies straight. Almost all big rockets have them, or they use thrust veining. But, the ascent engine didn't have either option. In order to keep the weight and size down, and keep the design as simple as possible, they didn't put a gimbal on the ascent stage. So, even the slightest bit of off-center weight distribution (which is inevitable) will result in the rocket going off-course. So, how did they solve this? They decided to use RCS thrusters (the 16 little thrusters) to steer the craft back on course. But, they didn't want RCS to constantly fire all the time (not very efficient). So, they chose a slower rocking motion. They programmed the computer to let the course drift off, then provide correction (over-correction), then let the course drift again, then provide over-correction again. This saved on fuel, as opposed to constantly firing corrections 10x a second or something crazy like that. So, basically, the rocking back and forth was a known effect of the way they set up the autopilot to operate. The astronauts described it like being on a boat, rocking in the waves.
@@rockethead7 - There was also the effects of fuel sloshing around in the tanks. The Ascent Stage was very light so it would have been very responsive.
There was a tape machine inside the LM and the crew played music during the lift off from the Lunar surface? Or it was being played at Mission Control?
The music was being played from the CSM orbiting.
Yeah @@originalusername121 I find that out.
That lump of something that got flung out as the explosive bolts separated the ascent stage from the descent stage flew for quite some distance. Buzz Aldrin said the same thing when he and Neil busted out of Tranquillity. He tracked a piece of debris that did not want to stay down.
Only 12 apostles saw that happen for real. Have a little faith, baby.
Have faith in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Moon Landings.
@@talkingbread2012 Santa Claus and the Moon landing were real. The easter bunny, not so much.
With today's technology, were they ever able to scan the depths and altitudes of deep ridges, hills and craters?
Did the actually had that music at take off?
Yes, they did, from a portable tape player :)
@@RetroSpaceHD Thanks! :-)
Yes, but here's the interesting part. The music was played by Worden in the command module and he was supposed to only broadcast it to mission control. But he left the com channel on and so it was heard in the LM as well just at takeoff. The commander wasn't too happy about that..
They did this several times without a single failure (except Apollo 13 passing by the moon).
Why that trapezoidal screen?
In any case, spectacular video!
The camera is picking up the the window frame to the left.
Mago....the LEM windows are semi triangular! the position of the camera was angled on a rod in front of the right window hence why we see that type of view 👌🔭
Mago the 16mmDAC camera was mounted to the Apollo LM window. Here is a photo of it. images.app.goo.gl/Dj2Uh7NEZrnWDoYK9
They were taking the video out of the trapezoidal window of the ascent stage. The same window they used to land the L.E.M.
You may not be seeing the while window in this video so there's no telling what shape the window is.
I added this to my comment .. Edited to add, the DAC lens was right up against the LM window, so it would not have shown any of the inside of the LM, as seen in this footage.
0:24 F por el módulo de descenso xd
The way they were bouncy boouncing around i again think at least in landing they would more dust a chopper isn't bad after a couple of times and they have some choice.
Uhhh what?
Why haven’t we been back
$$$$$$$$$$$
Where that music was played? In the cabin? Over the radio? Why?
It was played by Command Module Pilot Al Worden, without Commander Dave Scott's prior knowledge. Scott was angry, and rightfully so. But it's fun to look back on now.
That's what I want to know? Why no engine sound when the engines are right under your rear ends. Why no rocket plumes or shadows of engines or plumes?
The answer is a few comments above your comment. One of the first comments.
The type of fuel used in the ascent stage did not produce any exhaust plume.
Rocket exhaust interacting with the atmosphere makes for some mighty noisy turbulence. In a vacuum, the exhaust quietly and very rapidly disperses with no surrounding gas trying to retard it. In the lower atmosphere we see a flaming pillar because of the great constraints imposed by the great mass and pressure of the surrounding air. In space, the exhaust can be thought of as being more like a ball-like bubble or balloon of essentially invisible gas the spacecraft is sitting on and being pushed by. The difference in behavior is amazing to those only familiar with the typical sci-fi inaccuracies.
@@glennledrew8347 ? How much atmosphere does the moon have at ground level? I would have to look this up. What fuel combination did they use? In a vacuum there is nothing to push against. Don't forget inside the engine inself you have turbulence and such. Where is all that noise?
@Libturds Suck Hi Ok so how is my comment stupid please explain?
i dont remember the music during the liftoff
What's the music all about. Is that someone's ring tone?
No, Al up in the command module played it as a tribute for all of the Astronauts being from the USAF, The Crew gave him hell for it when they got back.
Just saw this 4/29/24 but the lift off looked like some debris hit there instruments they planted on the surface..
Anyone know what the music he had for his ringtone?
Off we go, into the wild blue yonder....
US air force song
Ringtone invented: 1990 Launch from Moon: 1971 :)
It is both sad and disturbing that in 2020 we still have millions of Apollo hoax supporters. What is going on with our educational institutes? I'd be worried if my kids were still in school.
I can't tell what you're saying. Are you wondering why, in 2020, there are so many people who foolishly still think Apollo was a hoax? Or, are you saying that Apollo was a hoax, and you can't figure out why there are so few people that agree with you?
@@rockethead7 We have evidence of a elementary school [4th,5th graders ] teacher and a college professor promoting the Moon hoax. They were given licenses to teach, so they should know how to research a subject.
So yes, we have a problem. The elementary school teacher bragged online"claiming, so far no one confronted me about my views" The professor was filmed by students and posted online. The one student said."this is what I'm paying for."She was upset. I believe he was fired.
@@thomaslewis7883
We have evidence teaching moon brags view films. Students online pay for firings. 4th and 5th graders are upset. Licenses believe researching a subject about evidence of confrontations. Post the paying for professor about the film. Elementary the was said about the subject.
@@rockethead7 How do we know there was a Titanic that sank? Can you prove we fought a Civil War?
@@thomaslewis7883
So, you won't answer my questions, but you expect me to answer yours? Also, I can barely understand a single thing you're writing. You have the writing skills of a 7 year old.
They could have changed the music to “Off we go into the wild BLACK Yonder”
It was a tribute to the fact that all three crew members came from the Airforce service branch.
I lived through those times. The only person I recall saying it was faked by the US was my wife's Italian grandmother. She was a simple pisan
You will never watch it full screen 🙂
(1971)
Led Zeppelin: _Playing "Stairway to Heaven_
Apollo 15: ...
I use this shot to prove to those who refuse to believe we went
That space debris movement would be impossible replicate on a set which would mean they would have to resort to effects artist.
Impossible in those days without modern CGI software
"I use this shot to prove to those who refuse to believe we went "
The DAC that recorded the lunar lift off was mounted inside the top of the right side triangular window..Yet this footage shows it was recorded inside a rectangular shaped window.. The Apollo Lunar Module had two triangular windows and a hatch.. The windows were located above and to either side of the egress hatch.. There was no rectangular shaped window on the LM.. So that alone proves this footage is fake... Edited to add, the DAC lens was right up against the LM window, so it would not have shown any of the inside of the LM, as seen in this footage.
@@straydog02 some of the footage is cropped, thats why its a different shape.
@cardboard9124 Nice excuse, but it doesn't explain why the fiducial marks are missing on all of the Apollo 15 DAC lift off footage.. This information comes from the Lunar Science and Exploration site.... " Fiducial marks were recorded on the film.".. So where are those marks on this footage?
"Apollo 15 Mission"
"16-millimeter Maurer Data Acquisition Camera (DAC)
The 16-millimeter Maurer DAC had frame rates of 1, 6, and 12 fps in the automatic mode and 24 frames per second in the semiautomatic mode with corresponding running times of 93.3, 15.5, 7.8, and 3.7 minutes respectively. A green light emitted light pulses at the frame rates.
Fiducial marks were recorded on the film. The camera could be handheld or used in a boresight mount on the lunar module on windows 1 or 3."
@@straydog02 this footage has been edited to make it as clear as possible. Also would you care to explain china photographing the lunar landing sites and finding all the apollo equipment?
@cardboard9124 Edited to remove the fiducials? .. Seriously??? 😂 .. China has never published any of their Apollo site images, even though they claimed to have photographed the sites in high resolution back in 2010.
When America was great.
Biden 2024
What is this? The module has so much fuel to hover over the Luna surface like that? It is not going up that is for sure the surface continues at one point for minutes. What is this? It's not Apollo 15 for sure.
Still demonstrating your complete and total ignorance of Apollo, just as you always do, eh? You go from video to video saying "FAKE" about topics you know absolutely nothing about. Dummy, the lunar module had 3500 pounds of thrust in the ascent stage. The lunar weight of the ascent stage was about 1950 pounds (give or take a bit, per mission). Yes, plenty of thrust to weight ratio. And, you clearly know nothing about the trajectory. The craft lifted off straight up. But, approximately 5 seconds later, it begins to pitch over to accelerate laterally. It is still climbing upward also, but, that's when they start introducing more lateral movement. Human eyes do not perceive upward movement very well, except right at the beginning. Like in an airplane, once you get to a decent altitude, you really don't visually perceive very well that you're climbing or descending. You only realize it when you look at the instruments, or visually over longer periods of time. That's what happens in videos like this. Once they get up there, and pitch over, you don't even really realize that they're still climbing upward while also accelerating horizontally. They must build up 3600 mph of horizontal speed in order to achieve lunar orbit, so, yes, at that point, horizontal speed becomes just as important as altitude, whether you visually perceive it or not. But, guess what... MATH shows it all. You're welcome to take a topographical map of the moon, and use instrumentation to illustrate the relative size of the craters and stuff, and then use it to get a decent approximation of the changes in height. You can see that the craters "shrink" in relative size as they climb, and you can do the math to demonstrate whether they're climbing or not (hint: they are). So, you can just forget about your conspiratard notions like, "it's not going up that is for sure." You just don't know what you're talking about. I could show you a very similar type of footage from aircraft, and you'd say the same thing, "it's not going up." And, you'd be equally wrong.
You know what you are right. You have a good day.
@@findkip : To me, you lost that argument.
I want to believe
it's kind of funny to think about the fact that to leave Earth, Apollo launched on the Saturn V, history's most powerfull rocket (as of this post). To get off the moon and into orbit...the accent stage of the LEM.
I think the reasons for the difference are obvious enough.
They took off to the west. It isn't apparent in the film
And they say give us proofs that we have been in the Moon. What proofs do they need if they dont believe this??
The DAC that recorded the lunar lift off was mounted inside the top of the right side triangular window..Yet this footage shows it was recorded inside a rectangular shaped window.. The Apollo Lunar Module had two triangular windows and a hatch.. The windows were located above and to either side of the egress hatch.. There was no rectangular shaped window on the LM.. So that alone proves this footage is fake.... Edited to add, the DAC lens was right up against the LM window, so it would not have shown any of the inside of the LM, as seen in this footage.
揺れてるのは撮影者の呼吸によるものかな？
I wonder which studio camera did they use
considering you dont know anything about cameras, why would that matter to you? "Where are the stars?" 🤡
spellbinding
Эбе парап санап укся, иль арак кайза!
🚀
Ignore all the trailer trash moon deniers!
The moon wasn't a trash dump until the 1960's or before. We trashed the moon like we have mars.
@@ryancool-pq5vu Dammed if you do and dammed if you don't.
@@ryancool-pq5vu that isn't trash that's artifacts and if someone happens to retrieve them in the future that debris will be valuable.
Kubrick was a man far ahead of his time - just amazing to see how well this holds up nearly 50 years later!
Well, he DID insist on filming on location for realism.
Such a shame that in 21 century and we can’t go to the moon. Something is not right 🧐
Yeah Democrats don't care about science only identity politics and faux "science".
We'd have bases on the moon if everyone stopped crapping on about feelings.
@@rubydooby1679 Check the history: Apollo was built when Dems had both houses + presidency (61-69), then cancelled under Repub Nixon, Space Shuttle was largely built when Dems had both houses + presidency (77-81), then cancelled when Repubs had both houses + presidency (2003-7). Cancellation wasn't frivolous though: this stuff costs a lot (Apollo over $150B in current dollars) and is hard to sell to the public
@@lappansommer546 Democrats also started The Vietnam War out of nothing.
Dem's of the early 1960's were very different to the the Dem's of the later 60's and onwards.
They redirected funds from Apollo and NASA - human exploration, & shifted resources to social welfare programs which resulted in the broken homes and alienation of male achievement resulting in the damaged generation of children of single mothers.
What has come to the fore over time is that money used for large scale projects has more benefit to society with more employment, greater intellectual advancement and purpose driven lives of all people involved, being more fruitful. The economy benefits as a result. People then benefit in a greater general sense.
A janitor at NASA feels greater self worth that they are part of on an important project than a lawyer working the family court.
A welder at Space X has greater sense of self worth and life satisfaction than a consultant selling banking Insurance.
Great Projects develop more for
society and the individual.
@@rubydooby1679 And republicans scoff at science being considered when dealing with a pandemic. Don't even present the GOP as the science party when its ranks are full of religious extremist wishful thinking pray it away individuals. The bible never cured a disease or built anything useful.
@@michaelfisher7170 you sound loopy