ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 16 ก.ค. 2014
- Original Mission Video as aired in July 1969 depicting the Apollo 11 astronauts conducting several tasks during extravehicular activity (EVA) operations on the surface of the moon. The EVA lasted approximately 2.5 hours with all scientific activities being completed satisfactorily. The Apollo 11 (EVA) began at 10:39:33 p.m. EDT on July 20, 1969 when Astronaut Neil Armstrong emerged from the spacecraft first. While descending, he released the Modularized Equipment Stowage Assembly on the Lunar Module's descent stage. A camera on this module provided live television coverage of man's first step on the Moon. On this, their one and only EVA, the astronauts had a great deal to do in a short time. During this first visit to the Moon, the astronauts remained within about 100 meters of the lunar module, collected about 47 pounds of samples, and deployed four experiments. After spending approximately 2 hours and 31 minutes on the surface, the astronauts ended the EVA at 1:11:13 a.m. EDT on July 21.
- วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
There are no words to describe the courage of those 3 astronauts
Fun fact:
They put up the flag too close to the lander, when they launched the ascend module, the engines exhaust knocked over the flag.
"That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind" 3:30
Every time i watch it i go right back to the moment in 1969. A six year old kid sitting up open mouthed with mum and dad, well past his bed time. Watching on our 20 inch black and white TV here in England. It was INCREDIBLE .!!!!
20:54 the first laugh on the moon.
If this were done today...NIKE would be all over that space suit.
Lol
***** Did I say Redbull?
Im such a nerd, im gonna watch all 3 hours of this and enjoy every minute!
cerrejonensis Oh you~
this is when we finally learned that the moon is not made of cheese. :')
No. :( they even tasted it on the lander jus in case.
***** lol
No matter how many footage, pictures, ... I see of the Moon landings, i still find it amazing and beautiful to watch. Thank you!.
Seems unbelievable that it's been 45 years to the minutes since I watched this live in the middle of the night in the UK. Considering the technology available, Apollo took risks we couldn't today, beat all the odds and set an example that will be hard to repeat, even with today's advances. The thousands involved were superb engineers and true heroes of the 20th century. Thanks for sharing NASA.
Indescriptible experience ... I just can't imagine what you can feel walking on a another ground than planet earth and see the planet earth so far away in front of you ... Scary and fucking exciting at the same time! Thanks a lot for this superb video!
After 45 years, I STILL, and ALWAYS WILL remember this Great Day!!!!!
***** you can prove NOTHING that you say.
***** Truth? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I was born in july, 1969. My name is Edwin Aldrin J. da Silva.
Whether intentional or not, your question implies that we haven't been back because we're no longer able to do it now. The primary reason we haven't isn't so much capability but money. NASA's budget is currently about 0.5% of the federal budget. During the height of the Apollo program that figure was about 5%, with the vast majority being funneled directly to Apollo. Throw enough money, national pride, curiosity and anti-Soviet sentiment at a problem and it will get taken care of in a hurry. It was the right time; a perfect storm, so to speak.
The goals, among other things, were making sure a human being could survive space travel and then, hopefully, to send a few to the moon. Those were accomplished (and, to be fair, the fruits of that labor continued to serve us well into the future). The problem was that after these were accomplished people began to wonder why we needed to continue funding the same mission over and over again. An expensive mission. Adjusted for inflation, each Apollo landing (not mission, but landing) cost roughly $20B. To put that into perspective, that's more than NASA's entire budget this year alone.
A human standing on a surface other than the Earth is a truly amazing feat for not only our country but our species as a whole. But, as amazing as it is, it's also extremely pricey and extremely dangerous. A lot of what we need to do in space can be accomplished at the ISS, and a lot of what we need to know about the moon can be accomplished with a probe. We need a more pragmatic purpose to justify the costs.
Alexander Brown Excellent comment!
where did you get info about costs? I'm doing a small research on Apollo 11 and interested in how much money were spent. I would appreciate if you share your sources.
proflob Google "NASA budget since 1958" :D Good luck! It's all US record.
Alexander Brown I hope you know USA was bankrupt and had economic issues in 1971. Apparently they had money for another moon landing (Apollo 17).
The asrtoNOTS *_kicked up enough dust_* to cover the rover tracks. ~ Kris de Valle
I've been looking for this kind of footage for a loooong time, thank you
3:19 Historic moment when Neil Armstrong steps on the moon: "It's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind."-Goose bumps!
When this happened it was another 5 years until I was born. Even with all the media coverage I have seen all of my life just watching the first step gave me shivers of how cool it must have been to make that step.
Why is it that EVERYWHERE I go on TH-cam that is the least bit moon-related, there are hundreds of comments saying "fake!!!"?
Paul Brown LOL LMFAO!!! Thanks for the explanation!
It was a soundstage on Mars.
:-)
NASA, Congratulations on your 45th Anniversary of lifting the Human Spirit on a voyage to explore beyond planet Earth's bound and thank you for sharing the footsteps our Astronauts took on Earth's Moon in July 1969.
3:30 to 3:37 "One small step for man...one giant leap for mankind" :D
Happy 45 !!! *Tranquillity Base here. The Eagle has landed !!* This audio exerpt gives me goosebumps since childhood !!
The level of ignorance in these comments makes me sad... I'm sure some are trolls, but still...
WOW! The best thing that i could wait for! Thanks alot NASA! Thanks for this awesome 45th!
wow so awesome thanks nasa for the eva in its entirety
Forget Skylab,the Shuttle,and ISS,we should have continued Apollo and Apollo Applications! We likely would have had a small lunar base by the late 70`s!
I vote the moon for president!
Is it a US citizen?
I know this sounds really stupid but where were the cameras filming this? I mean the very first steps. Was the camera on the landing legs or where was it on the lander.
It was on an extendable arm on the LEM.
BuryTheShovel Ahh. That makes sense.
*virtual thumbs up*
I remember watching this as it happened while on holiday in Cornwall. A magnificent achievement.
Why does everybody think this is fake?
Because the man walk on the moon, he was suppose to floating off the moon in the space like the rocks float in the space. Does the moon have air? No. How can he walk on the moon?
Uhh, I suggest you read a little on gravity
Mark Martin
"It has enough gravity to keep an astronaut from drifting away." You do believe what ever you want. I believe man stand and walk on the moon are very fake. I'm not scientist or physics, I'm just ordinary man and am deaf. I observation the video of man stand and walk on the moon plus a current astronaut jetpack with floating or gravity (whatever you call it)... Therefore man on the moon is absolutely drifting away. Suppose the astronaut jetpack are very near to the moon but suddenly the jetpack stop working, will he fall down to the moon like a man fell off the helicopter to the ocean? Phphph!
Mark Martin
Yes I did read your another post. Your post of mathematics is interesting me.
May I ask? Why was an astronaut floating in the space with his jetpack?
Mark Martin
Thanks for the explanation. You have good knowledge of NASA/space.
Okay, how about why the Space Shuttle floating in the space?
An astronaut stand/walk on the moon is less risk?
I believe we went to the moon. Neil and Buzz are two of the most amazing human beings who have ever lived. Not a single astronaut has ever said we didn't go to the moon. Several astronauts have talked publicly about aliens and advanced technologies that NASA deny, but no astronaut has ever said we didn't walk on the moon. We've not been back since the early 70's so its understandable why people are questioning if we ever went at all. For me the biggest tragedy is the fact mankind has never explored the solar system further than our own doorstep since Neil and Buzz showed mankind what we are capable of.
Excellent exellent you cannot ever get tired on watching history in tbe making
Thanks NASA for sharing this historic and very special moment for humanity.
Thanks NASA for sharing this moment with us, the humanity!!!
Why do they look to be translucent?
It is like that, because TV technology of the era: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_camera_tube
Those video tubes tend to have large inertia. Longer that sweep time. It produced smudged, blurry and translucent images of "fast" moving objects.
cheers
tjblues01
Thank you for the kind explanation
Congratulations to show the greatness. Thanks to ascend the human species.
NASA lit the imagination of billions of people. Created hope and beauty.
I have a feeling that the most interesting events took place just after the camera had been turned off ;)
Fantástico, deve ser uma sensação indescritível pisar em um outro corpo celeste ...
Uma pena o vídeo não mostrar a decolagem de regresso.
I don't think New Zealand got the best quality footage as mentioned at the start of this video . I am fairly certain NZ didn't even get it Live as the tape was flown over from australia by the NZ air force .
Я очень горжусь,Мы высадились на Луне ! Мои эмоции переполняют Душу ! Это лучшее в жизни что я вижу,Один человек сделал шаг огромный шаг в будущее,в освоении космоса ! Не могу удержаться от слёз радости ! Следующая наша остановка,это Марс ! Россия,Америка,Китай,Индия
Looks cool!! Actually it looks different because of the lower gravity and no atmosphere.Thanks!
one step forward
3:30
Still for ever the biggest humanity archievement ever!
An amazing achievement from an amazing time in our race when science duped fights and got something better than just a win on a hypothetical chess board.
So many things have been discovered in that time for these missions and so many of them continue to affect us even today.
OK, guys - I have been wondering for my entire life about that occasional "beeping" sound that you hear coming over the Apollo audio . . . Can anyone enlighten me about that? What was the purpose of this "beep" ? What was it indicative of? Did it come from the earth or the moon? (Insane curiosity going on here . . . )
What you're hearing are called "Quindar tones". They were generated on the ground when Mission Control wanted to talk to the astronauts.
When the Capcom needed to speak, he'd press a button, which would send the first tone down dedicated phone lines to whatever tracking station was picking up the astronauts. The station would get the tone and begin transmitting When he was done talking, he'd release the button, which would generate the second tone (at a slightly lower frequency), and the station would stop transmitting.
***** Thanks very much!
It is a "roger beep". Signifying the speaker has stop talking.
I have always found myself attracted to the unique "feel" of that particular sound. It's something that I equate only with the Apollo Missions - (except, of course, for a certain section found in an early Pink Floyd song from 1967 called, "Interstellar Overdrive," in which Syd Barrett mimics this sound on his electric guitar.)
The Quintar beeps were an electronic signal to mute the transmitter so transmission noise would be cut off and not cause the astronaut's headset to hiss continously. They were named after the company which made some of the equipment.
Only the CAPCOM's transmissions were ended with a quintar beep.
So, where are the stars? Or this is a Hollywood studio without stars? )))
EUSSR Exposure for the camera is too low. For it to be high enough to see the stars, you couldn't see anything else.
Amazing
really awesome
The Silence disapproves :D "YOU SHOULD KILL US ALL ON SIGHT"
Lol, good one. Certainly one of the freakiest of all Dr. Who monsters.
Looks great!
Should cold war last long we would be near Proxima Centauri now. Not sure if it is good or bad.
As long as we don't end up in a nuclear apocalypse the Cold War was actually a good thing science-wise.
Joe Seph Well, I have a different opinion. Living permanent fear, tax money going to the army, police and other secret services is not good. Yeah, Americans landed on the Moon, Russians put the first man into space. Their are the great achievements. But also we have big military junkyards full of never used equipment...
cheers
***** So you are saying that Americans should keep Space Shuttle and pay for each flight some 300 million dollars instead of $50 million? We should fly Concord NY - London for $15000 instead of $1000? ESA? Do they fly manned missions with their own vehicles? Since when?
In other words; Cold War forced governments to spend (waste) lots of money without other reason then show off.
cheers
tjblues01
*"Science-wise"*
-Me
Joe Seph
OK, so you truly believe that: _The end justifies the means._ ? Seriously?
Eu assisti e me lembro certinho....
This all started when the Russians first launched Sputnik. The historic event struck fear in the US, now one of two super powers at the time had an advantage, having the capability to launch weapons from space. It all evolved into what has been called "The Space Race". Who would get to the moon first.
The fact that the Russians to this very day have not called the USA's landing to be a "farce". Of all detractors, Russia would have been the first screaming foul right from the start. This was the only mission designed to put man on the moon, nothing else. Later missions will be designed to keep man on the moon for extended times, with the ability to manufacture their own food, oxygen and water. This is why the US has yet to go back to the moon.
A completely different mission entirely which involves new technology.
it looks transposed over a surface..
they look seethrough in some parts.
+Gary Stinten
Depends on the slow scan analoug TV technology and the converting of that signal to broacast format.
Try googling "afterglow" and "ghosting"
It never ceases to amaze me how people still think this was faked - this was one of the most innovative and amazing things humanity has ever undertaken. For people spewing that nonsense, you only show your ignorance, and I genuinely feel sorry for you.
I don't think the images were this good on the original broadcast.
"small step for man, one giant leap for mankind"
I still don't understand why the Australians didn't make a direct recording of the original signal; relaying the signals to NASA by pointing their live camera at the lunar feed screen really hurt the quality of this video. A video of a video is the same as a copy of a copy.
Very suspicious. Then, 3 hours later, there's a Super 8 of that. Yet no take off footage, at all.
The TV signal from the moon wasn't in a format that could have been broadcast anywhere (the technical details of TV are beyond the scope of a TH-cam comment, but en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcast_television_systems covers some of the basics).
Even had they saved a direct recording (and I don't know that it was even possible to have a 3+ hour video recording at the time), it would still have to have been converted to a format that could be broadcast and received. The easiest and most fool-proof way to do the conversion in 1969 was to do exactly what they did.
FosterZygote thanks! I love that kind of stuff.
Uma legenda cairia bem em NASA.
It's amazing how people seem to believe that NASA actually landed man on the moon. All you need to know is simple science and astronomy to realize that they never went there.
Actually, those are skills that can disprove that dumb conspiracy.
There weren't stars because the brightness of the ground makes most of the pretty much invisible
You need to be in the radiation belt around earth for over a week with the radiation shielding the Apollo vehicles had to experience deadly amounts.
Most of the Apollo missions had portable mirrors on the lander, you can still point a laser at just the right spot to get a reflection of the laser.
Also, if you look though a telescope you can see the lander, and if you have a powerful enough telescope you can see a white flag on the surface, which was the American flag but years of radiation dried out the colours.
Also, if Americans could fake the moon landing why didn't the soviets fake one?
whiterino16 If a Russian and a Chinese space probe/satellite didn't find anything on the moon, what makes you think a person will with a telescope?
The fact of the matter is, if you look through a telescope at the moon, the only thing you'll see is the "Moon!"
whiterino16 And you with the ground reflection making the stars not visible, ("invisible")...You'll have to do better than that!
Most of the ground reflection shown is at close range...distant areas would not be effected, stars would appear from the distance.
Yaxel Perez We can calculate the physics of the travel. The Van Allen radiation belt is where the serious complexities are.
Most people don't realize or know that there's two (2) radiation belts, not one.
The second belt is between the Earth and the Moon.
No one could survive radiation belt. No Human, Country, or NASA can make a space vehicle that can make a 470,000 mile round trip, in 1969 or now. Van Allen belt starts at about 1000 miles up to 20,000 miles up.You can not go around the belt, Earths magnetic field makes the radiation and holds it.The radiation output is 50 to 100 roentgens per hour. At 10 roentgens per hour, humans have 50/50 chance of survival. Many astronauts have told of feeling the effects of the radiation at 300 miles out.
Jean Philippe
Well, the ship is traveling over 20,000 miles per hour, and is made of aluminum honeycomb. So they spent less than an hour exposed to the radiation belts you mention. Those belts consist of particle radiation - alpha and beta particles (a magnetic field won't have any appreciable effect on gamma rays) which can be stopped by writing paper and kitchen aluminum foil respectively
Also, as you might note from the distribution of the Northern and Southern lights - the belts are not of uniform density, and the missions did not pass through the most dangerous areas.
There are huge problems with the image (gradation of tones, dynamic range in black-and-white footage. Large "flat" areas, with no detail).
Compare with "Apollo 11 45th Anniversary Resource Reel" (from minute 14.14) released by NASA.
this is epic
The was one brilliant generation of brave humans. I would like us to have at least half of their guts.
It was 1969, now 2014...so why not any other man mission for "moon"?
We have not needed to return to the Moon. Moon missions are expensive and since we already know a lot about the Moon from these missions there is no need to go back currently. Also there is no space race and political pressure to do so.
***** yes I agree with you,its too expensive...But there are lots of changes in Technology ..... One robot can do this same task...I like Voyager 1 and Voyager 2 mission by NASA.... :)
NASA has already built the new rovers and are in the process of testing the new Orion command module. If you go to the NASA website you will discover that they have already posted their schedule for the return missions to the moon.
Partha Pakray
It's not that expensive, it's just the United States would rather spend all their money on building enough weapons to fight every other country on the planet combined, maintain military bases all over the world, and occupy by force oil rich countries in the middle east. If it wasn't for that monumental waste of money in imperialist aggression more extensive moon missions would easily be possible to fund.
As for the idea that there's no reason to go back to the moon that's silly. There are still many questions about how exactly the moon formed, and what resources are there. On the far side of the moon there's the opportunity to place radio telescopes shielded from all the noise we make on Earth. There's the potential to mine resources there which are becoming scarce on Earth. There are many reasons to go back to the moon if only more resources were directed towards science and exploration instead of war.
entropyembrace you sir know the truth. The us is a rich smart ahead of its time country but they are using it in the wrong way. They can stop the oil war now by a discovery of a american scintest that makes oil from rocks its not as productive as taking oil forcebly but its cheaper and in the long run they will never run out of rocks. So yea... the us can probebly reach mars and pluto and probebly if they team with other countrys like russa (because its rich in minerals) they can go out of the galaxy.
Communication in real time from the moon to the earth? Come on!!!
Is there someone to explain? I would like to have an answer!!! If the moon landing is a fact, congratulations for these heroes!!!
"One giant leap for mankind" and poses the US flag.
Ik heb dit eerder gezien
Wow!
"Restored" Apollo 11 EVA? :D
can I get a DVD?
and we still don't have a colony there.
O no, missing subtitles
so that others can understand the conversation!!!
Wow ! Wow ! Wow ! I Love You !
how come you can see the terrain through their bodies?
That is an artifact of the camera technology. This same effect fools people looking at shuttle and ISS videos into thinking they see UFOs. Here on earth it can lead to "rods" which some people thought/think are trans-dimensional objects. People want to believe all manner of voodoo.
was on-air visual/audio casting possible from the Moon at that time? I mean, even now is that possible?
Hyun Ju Kim Yeah. It's just TV. As long as your antenna is big enough to pull in the signal, it's not a problem. In fact, there were amateur radio operators who were picking up the audio with equipment they'd built themselves and an antenna in their back yard.
Man went to the moon, totally agree, but for example, the ISS is protected by the Electromagnetic field of the earth, do not suffer radiation, how the crew of apollo 11 do it with out this help? Because that can help for Mars mission
The ISS isn't "protected" 100%. You cant safely be up there for an extended amount of time. Same thing goes here, but on a shorter safe time. People can safely withstand a bit of radiation.
Alpha and Beta particles can generally be stopped by thin aluminum. Gamma rays need a lot more to stop them. Exposure time also matters.
The Moon missions took less than two weeks, while a Mars round trip would take about 18 months. Presumably for the longer trip, they would need a small storm shelter within the craft lined with water, hydrogen rich plastic, or lead (more nuclei=better at blocking) to weather intense radiation periods.
they are risking their lives for this and they know it. none of these questions went unnoticed, and only some of them were answered. and they did it anyway. they are brave pioneers.
i don't think they had shielding, they were only up there for something like 2 weeks. the ISS crews are up there for 6 months so its more important.
Yaxel Perez the entire apollo 11 mission was only a week? wow.
Was this the 1st n last time a man set foot on the moon? Maybe they should build a space station on the moon since it's safe to land there n do a moonwalk .
No, there were also Apollo Landings 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17. We have considered moon bases, but the cost couldn't be justified.
"remained within about 100 meters of the lunar module, collected about 47 pounds"??? What was the height of the LEM in cubits I wonder?
It is like the probe that crashed because the scientists on one side put the measurements in feet, and on the other in meters so the probe's deceleration was screwed up. As a point of fact, it is about 5.73 cubits. Google!
Mark Martin There is. The connection between metric units is linear. Except the connection with the speed of light.
If we had a number system based on twelve, everyone would be using imperial
Nikolas Powell
Then blame nature for not giving us six fingers for each hand.
Though we would still use different variation of metric that is consistent with itself.
***** The reason we created imperial in the first place was for making calculations of time and weight easier back when we used *Roman numerals,* before there was a zero. The reason the Arabic invented a decimal system instead of a *duodecimal* system is because of the number of fingers on our hands. If however, we had twelve fingers, the two systems would have coincidentally coincided in modern day and there would be no metric, as metric is simply a form of measurement based on the decimal system. Just a single system of measurements that would allow multiplication by twelve by adding a zero to the end of the number. Don't blame the measurement systems, blame the counting systems.
I"m delighted that We're on the moon ! Yay !
We're not.
I'm* we're*
to all, who don't believe.
look at the astronauts legs. they really was on the moon. look, how they bend their knees. you can't stand and move like this in Earth by 3 hours.
Not that I don't believe we went to the moon, but to argue against your point, they were off camera for much of the film. Therefore, how do you know that they were standing like that the whole time? P.S. I don't think this was a hoax.
Brian Scheuermann
The following should interest you my friend :)
Many people don't realize that the Apollo 11 moon landing was actually filmed by TWO cameras, the TV camera you see in this video (that most have seen) and a film camera from inside the lander, just in case the live broadcast failed, where it was set to capture a frame approximately every second (making the reel last about 90 minutes).
You can watch both footage side by side in the following videos, take note of the TV camera with stand being moved into position by the astronaut in the first video at 34:00 onwards;
Part 1: /watch?v=XL_SrBMBRCc
Part 2: /watch?v=cVAGjO2dtUA (Film runs out at the end of this video)
Part 3: /watch?v=T0L12WjQ4co
***** you were right. Thanks for the links. I wish there was some better footage of this than the grainy TV broadcast, or the choppy lunar module footage. Either way it never ceases to amaze me. ; )
Imposture Lune
I couldn't care less what you believe HB, your mind is made up.
It's up to each individual to look at the evidence on both sides and decide for *themselves*, or do you object to that too? :)
Imposture Lune Understanding the Apollo missions must begin with what is known..not what the history revisionists hope for or imagine....
¿Cómo es posible que en 2 horas y pico no haya variado la sombra de la piedra ni del módulo?
Because a lunar day lasts over 354 hours. So shadows change nearly 30 times slower than on Earth. Two hours on the Moon is like 4 minutes on Earth.
Before ANY of you stake claim that the moon landings are fake, I have one question..... Have you taken the time to visit an observatory with a telescope and tried to search for the landing sites? You haven't, because you don't want to be proven wrong. I have. Oh wait, I suppose you now are going to try to tell me that even though they weren't there when I was looking at a different star, someone crawled up there and painted the lander while the telescope was zoning in...?
E sim como uma das maiores conquistas dos EUA.
they must have spent billions on getting men on the moon & all that technology , but they skimped on high grade video cameras..wonder why
Video in 1969 was still primitive. Look at how high quality some of the photos were, though.
i don't remember moves/films TV of that period being that bad
dave Jones They didn't "skimp" on the video cameras. They had to spend a lot of time and money developing a video camera that could meet the requirements.Video technology of the time typically required vacuum tubes, which were relatively heavy, but more importantly, took a shitload of power to run. The specs for the camera gave it about 6.5 watts of power. To put that in some perspective, the light in your oven draws 40 watts. It also had to be about the size of a small loaf of bread, because that was how much space was available.Then there's the issue of bandwidth. The camera was allocated only 500 kHz for it's broadcast--roughly twice what an FM radio station uses. There was no digital compression, so the only way to get the signal in 500 kHz was to drastically cut the amount of information it transmitted. They did that in two ways--the camera's frame rate was 10 fps (compared to 30 for a normal TV broadcast) and instead of the standard 525 scan lines, it used 320.The downside of transmitting a "non-standard" TV signal was that nobody could see it without it being converted to the standard, and that couldn't be done in 1969 without losing a fair amount of the quality.
+almostfm To simulate lunar gravity Kubrick reduces the frame rate to 10. In this video, we see no noise FM detector. Also in the large hall (MCC) was the projector - so there is a geometric distortion and graininess.
***** Unable to create a 1/6 gravity on Earth as the moon. In raditehnike 10 frames lets you use a narrow channel, and thus the signal noise will be better. Slowing down allows you to create an imitation of a different gravity.
even though gravity is lower, howcome the flag stay comepletely straight out in the air, during all this time.. no wind there??
This has been answered over and over and over.
The flag had a metal wire frame built into it to make it stay extended. The astronauts were never able to straighten out the frame completely, which is why it looks like it's slightly wrinkled.
If you're ever worked with metal wire, you'd know how hard it is to get that stuff to cooperate. Imagine doing that but with giant, thick space-suit gloves on.
Thank you :)
Kimallmighty also no air. At all
Christopher Lemke She already knew there was no air, she mentioned it in her original question.
"howcome the flag stay comepletely straight out in the air" She was asking if there was no wind. Witch would also assume she thinks there is air.
did you know if you take the official landing time of 1092420 and divide by 45 years you will get a whole number !
Did you also know if you take official landing date 2071969 multiplied by 9 you get the phone number to Connie Kreski.
Funny
did you know if you take the day of this landing and multiply by who gives a dam.
Where is the Stars, billions of them ?!?
I think it had something to do with the camera
I would think they would have better cameras 30 yrs after,say,The Wizard of Oz?
Bob Burton Built to withstand the rigors of space? No.
Fractal Music Radiation is not as deadly as they show in the movies. There were people alive at Fukushima, for example, though they were exposed to outrageous levels of radiation.
Protecting against potentially lethal levels of radiation is simple. If you've ever used a microwave, you can see that it isn't all that difficult to shield things from harmful rays. It's all engineering and science.
Engineering and science and project management at unheard of levels by people who were much smarter than most of the smartest people alive today, is what it took to put people on the moon. There was no hoax.
It is just so unimaginable by today's standards, that people have trouble comprehending it. Kind of like the pyramids. Heck, we can't get buildings to stand 100 years, and the pyramids have withstood 5000+ years. That's something tough to wrap your noodle around.
Seriously, it's all science and engineering on a super-human level. Everything unbelievable can be explained, and most of the answers are (believe it or not) out there in the Googleverse.
Bob Burton The real problem was that they had some limitations on how the camera had to be designed.
First was the weight--the camera weighed 5 pounds. At the time, "portable" TV cameras were huge, and required two people (one to run the camera, one to carry the battery) www.oldradio.com/archives/hardware/TV/rca-hh44.jpg is an example. Even by the mid-70's, portable TV cameras still weighed about 20 pounds. The Apollo camera weighed 5.
It also needed to consume very little power. Other cameras at the time used a crapton of electricity.
Finally, there was the issue of bandwidth. They only had so much available, which they maximized by running at 10 fps (instead of 30 for a normal TV), and at a much lower resolution than even standard definition TV.
All that conspired against getting even close the quality of a TV studio or film camera.
Besides, it's 1969, and they're showing freaking TV pictures from the moon--a little perspective, please.
lfrankow What are you talking about? I was just pointing out that him complaining about high durability cameras on a piece of metal that went to the freaking moon being low fidelity is pointless. Said nothing about radiation levels...
Grady Klein sorry for the misunderstanding, Grady. I wasn't replying to you. My comment was about the Van Allen belts, which is the excuse of the moment that moon hoax people are gravitating to.
How can an astronaut lived on the moon while the temperature extremest hot (250F to 300F)? That is impossible!
Uh, maybe because they wore specially-designed spacesuits (and the lunar surface temperatures only get up to around 250 degrees F near lunar noon, and that is only the surface itself, as the astronauts were largely walking around in a vacuum). The landing occurred in the lunar morning not long after lunar sunrise. The actual temperatures encountered during the Apollo 11 moonwalk were between 180 degrees F in the sun and -160 degrees F in the shade of the lunar module. The spacesuits provided the astronauts with breathable oxygen, cooling, communication, and protection from the vacuum of space and insulation from the intense sunlight. There is a lot of information available on how the suits were made and tested, so a little research should provide you with all the facts.
For all who say it was faked, How come its never been from the USSR/Russian government?
Very strange, in the 40 homemade hand camera that filmed colored existed, and the greatest achievement of mankind 30 years later they only had black and white camera does not accept that there's something very strange.
This video was not actually recorded in the LEM but was transmitted back to Earth, so the quality of the video was limited by their radio systems. Having 3 hours worth of film on the lander would require more space and more fuel for launch. The color video that does exist is fairly short, but stuff like the landing was recorded in color video. There are also plenty of color still photos from the Apollo 11 moonwalk.
Dude, please read something about history of photography and videography.
For real. Those color cameras you speak of were film - this was "filmed" by one of the worlds very first digital cameras.
Wind in a vacuum?
The movement of the flag is due to the force applied to it when it was put i the ground and because there is very low gravity and no atmosphere it continues to move
haters gonna hate
incroyable 2h30 de film et la source de lumière et les ombres ne bouge pas ,ah la belle arnaque américaine
Si ça avait vraiment du être un fake, les américains auraient mis tellement de moyen en place pour s'assurer que tout était parfais qu'on ne verrait aucun défaut.
Se realmente foram até la, porque nunca mais voltaram???
Custo - benefício.
só acho que já teriam arranjado alguma desculpa pra voltar la se realmente já tivessem ido...afinal ja faz muuuito tempo
These hoax nuts are the kind of people who would look for the nicest yard in town and go dump all their trash on it.
They just don't go back to moon because there is nothing they could earn. Launching one on the moon would just be throwing money away. Nothing as valuable as the price of thé lauch there.
Sorry for bad english :(
nico basket I agree with Max.
+nico basket
There is nothing wrong with your English, as far as I can tell - you may have accidentally misspelled "launch" as "lauch", but except for that, you could probably come off as a native speaker.
Actually, I am not a native English speaker myself, but I am very familiar with the language, and your English is totally fine.
views?
It is a 3 hour video. That is sometimes outside the patience of people to view an historic event.
OMG OMG OMG 1960S FILM EQUIPMENT DOESN'T FILM AT 80 FPS IN 1280p OH MY GOD!!!11!!!1!!11 ITZ A COMPLETE CONSPIRACY!!1!!!1
weird ! its 24276