This is by far one of the most stupid questions I've ever seen about the moon missions. Haven't you figured it out that is was remote controlled before making a video about it?
Couldn't have been remote controlled, there is almost 3 second delay for a signal to get from the moon, to earth and back to the moon, not to mention the processing delay in adjusting the controls by the operator. NASA claims it was a timer that panned up, but how was the zoom out so precisely controlled and timed to keep the module right at the top of the frame. Just a split second timing error in the camera or miscalculation on the takeoff and the module goes right off the screen.
Brandon Ed Fendell had trained extensively and even done it on Apollo 15 and 16. He got it right on Apollo 17. Since there were a countdown, as on every rocket launch, he knew exactly when to hit the "tilt up" and "zoom out" buttons to compensate fot the delay. The "tilt up" and "zoom out" rates were fixed, so the astronauts were instructed to park the rover at a distance where the tilting up camera would keep the LM in sight during lift off. As can be seen (on the unedited video), Fendell got problems to follow the LM when it tilted over to accelerate more horizontally "down range" to build up speed to reach orbit velocity.
YDDES I assume, then, there are photos of all of this measuring of distance and setting up then? Seeing as the number of photos taken vs time available, surely there should be dozens of photos of this setting up the rover at the correct distance
Brandon Again you assume they're working with delay both ways. You haven't given any reason for this yet. It's a one-way delay, about 1.3 seconds. The camera operation signal goes from the Earth to the moon only, not back to Earth again.
Brandon Since the camera was mounted on the rover, mission control could see if the rover was parked at right distance to be able to follow the LM up. No "measuring" by any rulers necessary...
No Man ever left Low Earth's Orbit.We DO NOT have today a Lander Tech,otherwise the Astronauts from ISS wouldn't land with the Soyuz.You've been CONNED.That's all.Peace to the Gullible.
What has returning from the ISS got to do with the moon landings? Also, the Saturn V is by far the largest and most powerful rocket ever launched into space (exactly what is needed to get men to the moon), no rocket since then comes close to the size and power of the Saturn V, so do you conclude that the Saturn V was faked too? In the same year as the first moon landing, 1969, Concorde flew for the first time. It was a passenger plane that travelled at TWICE the speed of sound and yet today, if we're going on vacation, we can't travel at the speed of sound, much less *twice* that speed as we did on Concorde. So I guess your conclusion is that Concorde was fake too. Right? :)
***** Are YOU really telling me that you believe (when the desk top calculator was the latest in technology) we were able to travel to a celestial moon 238,000+ miles away (for no clear reason and zero military advantage), orbit, land, unpack a rover, drive around doing shitties, hit a golf ball, have a two men crew successfully launch back into orbit, connect with an orbiting craft, fly back the 238,000+ miles reentering the Van Allen Radiation Belts and repeat six different times all without failure but then deliver "moon rock" samples to countries around the world that later turn out to be petrified wood? Or was it an excellent trick - hiding the payloads and expenditures of a top secret spy satellite program (Corona) as they placed military hardware into orbit to prevent a future armed Sputnik? There is a big difference between orbiting a couple of hundred miles above earth vs. "landing on the moon". Sorry to bust your moon landing bubble but the moon landings were a hoax.Concorde has nothing to do with Anything.
nano63a You should stop reading only the hoax-sellers sites. It was not "without failure". Never heard of Apollo 13? NO moon rocks turned out to be petrified wood. You should try to get some real education.
YDDES Apollo 13? That's a Joke.All the missions were faked.If you want know more,go to apollo reality site.We DO NOT have today (2014) the lander Tech.Imagine in 1969,ha,ha,ha....What a failure.You have to learn how it works out there.It's not what NASA says.Have a good Study.Looooser.
Ive noticed something kinda strange i doubt anyone has pointed out. Watch the background. From 0:00 to about 0:05, the background has very little "noise" or movement of small pixels. Once you hear him say "3-2-1", right at "3" the "noise" starts to speed up. Possible evidence of a spliced clip (filming then turning off the camera, and turning it back into the next scene) I don't think its anything crazy, but definitely something ive noticed from working/editing video clips. It just seems out of place to me, especially when it should all be one shot. IF ANYONE AGREES, PLEASE REPLY. i might just be crazy..but i don't think so, what im talking about IS there.
You're looking at what is obviously several copies removed from the original. Trying to base any ideas of video manipulation on this degraded quality footage is unwise. Better quality footage exists online than this clip recorded from a tv documentary.
The sparkle effect is because the camera recorded each prime color in sequence, and the framrate was low enough to allow the module to move between partial frames. The stuff flying is the mylar-like material used for insulation on the descent stage. The camera was remote-controlled from mission control. Only 3 controls were necessary - zoom, tilt and pan. Easy stuff really. The lack of visible exhaust is caused by the type of rocket. The hypergolic fuel and oxidizer didn't produce visible flame
Harrison Schmitt, not being a professional test pilot like all the others, but a geologist, probably couldn't contain his joy and came with a spontaneus outburst. Like when they both yelled "pitchover" when the ascent stage turned and started to pick up ground speed instead of just going straight up. It was to verbally verify to Houston (that's how it's spelled by the way) that the programme ran according to plan.
Because the footage you're hung up on, is shot with a wide-angle lens. If it wasn't, all you would see from the inside of the CM, was a tiny part. If you shoot with a wide-angle lens, distant objects seem smaller.
I know this video is old, but I don't understand how you can believe we had the technology to send people to the moon, send audio to the moon, and actually take off from the moon and get safely back to Earth, but not the technology to remote pan a camera.
At launch, the cabin had ambient air and pressure. As they ascended, the cabin was vented, and eventually sealed, then filled with a 1/4 atm of pure oxygen. This was to prevent the hatch from being blown in if they had to exit in a hurry. When in space, they breathed pure oxygen.
Its Simple they used a small spindle fixed to the camera mount and a very long string , as the lunar lander took off one of the guys back on earth at NASA pulled the string this turned the spindle and that made the camera tilt up :)
To answer your question, there are two possibilities. 1 The camera on the lunar rover was set to remote control and using the countdown for the launch, taking into account the time delay to the moon, the camera operator panned the camera upwards on cue, OR 2, the cameraman was left on the moon and it really sucked to be him.
The "Lost Tapes" question is blown out of proportion. The tapes contained the telemetry from Apollo 11, with the SSTV signal embedded. In order to convert this signal in realtime to a broadcast-signal, the SSTV signal was shown on a monitor, captured by a camera, and then transmitted worldwide. The tapes were very expensive, and were erased and reused. All the others still exists. But it is moot anyway, since only one machine capable of play exists. And it is not know if it even works.
NO I AM NOT! Please don't misrepresent what I'm writing. I clearly wrote that the dust was blown away directly beneath the descent engine. But since there is no air on the moon, it will move radially away from the area beneath the nozzle.
The code word is 'autonomous' - the LM wasn't autonomous. It had pilots to decide the really important stuff. The LM's computer flew a simple descent profile, which was precalculated, and adjusted according to radar info. The hover part was in attitude hold, where the controller acted as the stick in a helicopter, so the pilot could move by tilting left, right, forward and back, but the computer still controlled the attitude, to keep the LM within safe parameters.
Precisely. I don't understand why it is so difficult to fathom, that the relatively simple act of activating a small motor by radio remote is so difficult to grasp. It must be an act of will to deny it.
So you are saying that they controlled the camera from Earth with no delay effect at all??? It takes almost 2 seconds for light to travel to the moon. And this is perfect camera work. Hollywood style.
The microphones were inside the helmets. They were in full closed spacesuits when they landed and took off again. Since there is no air outside, the engines don't create much noise, and what there is can't really be transmitted to the crew cabin. Also the crew cabin was pressurized to 1/4 atmospheric pressure, and didn't conduct sound very well. All in all, the engines aren't audible on the radio. Especially when the microphones were designed to only receive sound from one direction.
All the questions you've raised were pretty much worked out during Project Gemini. (spacecraft rendezvous, docking, computer-assisted orbital translation) The Lunar Module was tested unmanned in earth orbit on Apollo 5, and again manned (and very extensively) on Apollo 9 before ever being sent to the moon. Apollo 10 tested the LM in lunar orbit & took it down to 50K feet before attempting to land. This was no magic show, it was a very regimented flight test operation of the hardware and systems.
The colored sparkels were a result of the type of camera and transmission used. The 3 prime colors seen here are the same as seen on a tv-screen if you get close enough. The cause of the sparkles is, that each color is transmitted in sequence, and the framerate was low enough to allow the motive to move between partial frames.
250 degrees is the temperature ON THE SURFACE AT NOON. They landed and took off in the early lunar morning and they didn't place the film on the surface. It was encased in the cameras, surrounded by the best temperature insulation that exists: Vacuum. The temperatures on Moon is exactly the same as in low Earth orbit. The same sunlight, the same deep shadows. Cameras with film have been used in open space since the days of the Gemini program.
Also, there is no air on the moon. The dust just flies away, in a straight line. There is no force, which makes it go anywhere but away. Try this: Find some ball bearings, and put them on a flat surface. Then blast them with air from above. They'll just go away from the blast, not up. That's the way dust acts on the moon, when hit by rocket exhaust.
Absolutely. In fact I would love to hear the attorneys Voir Dire the witnesses in the case.. Q: Dr Aldrin, you hold a PhD in Astronautics from MIT, shot down 2 MIGs in Korea, pioneered spacecraft rendezvous, and walked on the moon, correct? A: Yes. Q: Mr Sibrel, you were fired from your cameraman's job at WSMV-Nashville for stalking astronauts and later arrested for vandalism when you left the cab you were driving and jumped on a car hood during a parking spot dispute? A: Yes. Verdict for Apollo
I still return to my camera question, was it left running when the rover was parked to film the final lift-off or did Ed switch it on before take-off?, a simple question that no-one seems to be able to answer, how many times must I ask it before I get an explanation? I'll try again tomorrow.
Tommy Tommy Tommy, why to you insist on lying to what has already been shown you? You've been shown repeatedly footage which shows the camera was turned back on over a half hour before they lifted off, following the 17 hrs from when they parked the rover tip they departed.
We don't know 100 percent. A poster suggested they used ANR, a technology used to remove engine sound, etc. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't? I doubt if it was necessary. The LEM module had a throttle-able motor which cut-out once the contact was made, contact being with those long sensing probes projecting below the pads, NOT the pads. People are usually unaware of this and wrongly assume the motors ran right down to contact with the ground. In realty they cut out some way off the ground
No, dust will behave markedly different in atmosphere. In vacuum, it will just move accordingly to gravity. In atmosphere, it will drift with aircurrents, lighter particles will stay airborne longer than heavier stuff. On the moon, all particles will move uniformly. When about to land, the LM weighted 14.8 - 8.0 = 6.8 ton. The 8 ton was descent fuel, which was almost expended when they landed. So only thrust to hover 1.13 ton was necessary.
The LM was insulated against heat influx from the sun and the reflection off the surface of the moon. But in space, where there is no noticable reflection off the surface, the LM radiated it's own heat to space. Also, nearly all electrical equipment was turned off, to conserve power. Only airflow and radio was active. The reflective coating on the camera insulated them from the enviroment. Remember, vacuum. No conduction from the enviroment. Only solar heating (and some from the surface).
You have repeatedly referenced "Lunar Olympics". What is that? They didn't jump high, because the PLSS could be damaged, if they lost control, and landed on it. You don't want to loose your oxygen and pressure, when you're on the moon, would you? The only example of high jump I know about is when Armstrong re-entered the LM. He jumped quite high, but he had the ladder on the LM for support and control.
In your dream world, some dark clad stranger with sunglasses would come round to their house, and ask them politely to die. But strangely enough, that doesn't happen in real life.
The main problem I see with a Mars mission would be the atmosphere. It's thin enough that parachutes are increasingly ineffective by the ratio of the cube divided by the square of the increase in size of vehicle. And its thick enough that super-sonic heating would be a problem and prevent a powered descent with an exposed engine nozzle.
I was alive at the time of the moon missions and the television anouncers of the day stated that 1 of the astronauts controled the camera by remote control from inside the lander during takeoff.
As as I have previously stated, Fendell was a person worthy of the medal of Honour, an unsung hero, so you are saying he had, on earth, the means to switch off the rover camera and then, at the right moment, switch it on again and, not only that, capture the lift-off, Jeez, what a hero.
FosterZygote (with a period) ... You stated, "The reason that the crews of orbiting spacecraft seem to "float" is because they are essentially in the same orbit as their craft." Could we agree then that they are under nearly the exact same gravitational plane as the craft?
All the answers about how the camera worked, etc. But I want a good answer for his last question. How did it get enough thrust to lift off the moon like that? Only serious explanations, please.
The camera on the rover was not operated by the astronauts. They had enough to do even without that. The videocamera was designed and built to be purely remotely operated. There was a console at mission control which only function was to control the camera. Also, the antenna on the LRV was directional, so the videocamera couldn't be used while driving, except for a single occurence, where it was driven in a straight line.
Who constructed the Saturn V, the Command module, the service module, the lunar module, the LRV, the spacesuits, the launch tower, the command centers, the ALSEPs - and who designed them?
I mis-stated what they did, they threw the PLSS out of the hatch, not their entire suits. In the vacuum of space there is no temperature, only an object can have a temp which is affected by how long that object is in direct sunlight. Even if an astronaut stood still facing the sun, their backside wouldn't be and would be far colder. There is not radiative heat, so even a lunar surface heated up isn't going to feel like Texas on uber broil. Their body heat was the biggest heating problem for them
The DPS had an exhaust velocity of 3054 m/s. The force required to balance the gravity of the moon is F = m x a = 6.800 kg x 1.62 m/s = 11100 N. The nozzle area was (1.5/2)^2 x pi = 1.76 m2. This gave a force/cm2 at nozzle exit about 6.2 Newton - that's the equivalent of 1.2 lb/cm2. Or 7.7 lb/square inch. That's about one half earth atmosphere at sea level. And of course, the rocket exhaust expanded drastically outside the nozzle, so the surface recieved much less force.
The maximum acceleration of the LM ascent stage was about 1.7 m/s^2 - slightly higher than the moon's gravity. Not nearly enough to cause any problems. The LM was insulated by up to 50 layers of very thin aluminium-coated plastic. The coating reflected the solar heat away from the contents, so the cabin didn't receive the heat. And since the cameras were insulated, and painted with reflective paint, the film inside didn't suffer either.
The 'parts of the ship' is the insulation blankets wrapped around the descent stage. They are very thin aluminized plastic. The lack of rocket exhaust is because the hypergolic fuel and oxidizer doesn't produce a visible plume, just high-speed gas. Which by the way expands in every direction once it has left the nozzle. Look at the Saturn V lifting off. At the pad, the exhaust is nice and collected, but when the rocket goes higher, it spreads out. It is not contained by atmospheric pressure.
You're right. No fakers has thanked Ed Fendell. Not a single one. They didn't have any fakers around back then. But the TV-stations who recieved his tv-Pictures DID thank him.
... add to that the fact that the motor was shut-down when contact was made with the 5ft long sensing probes mounted below the pads. That's quite a height above the ground in all.
Where did you get this information? Because the manufacturer of the camera sad that the film was not protected at all. The thin metal body is not an effective protection. it can't even block cellular signals when you are traveling in a car and using your cellphone. I live in an all aluminum body trailer and my cell phone works fine with all the doors closed.
Then how did it land off-runway, without falling into a hole? Remember it was designed to refuel, rearm and basically operate from temporary runways, forrest clearings or dirt roads, in order to combat an advancing sovjet armoured force.
It turns out it was the SSTV-camera, which wasn't activated. It would not have mattered anyway, since it's uplink was dependent on a directional antenna, which would loose tracking once the LM reached it's pitchover-altitude. The 16mm film camera DID run and recorded the liftoff and ascent. Docking with the CSM was an multiple-hour affair. They had to get orbital velocity, and then match orbit and position with the CSM. The ascent engine performed multiple burns.
Those are layers of Kapton and Mylar, where each sheet reflects about 97 percent of radiated HEAT! So with the LM spending days in constant sun, what do you suppose was the purpose of Kapton and Mylar given that information? :) Cosmic ray levels on the moon's surface are only a fraction higher than they are in low earth orbit, and about 3 times higher mid-way between the earth and moon, so it's not a problem for missions lasting 1-2 weeks.
The question is "how did the camera follow the lunar lander?" Quite simple - the expected trajectory and acceleration of the lander were very precisely known and the camera's motion could have been controlled with a mechanical device fitted to the camera's tripod, triggered optically by the flash of the lander's engine igniting. Or...it could have easily been controlled, by remote, from Houston. Radio signals to control the camera's motion, and zoom out, could easily have been sent by a NASA engineer, in real time as well. The moon is only 1.25 "light seconds" away from Earth. This would have been a relatively simple engineering exercise (in 1969) compared to many of the procedures in the Apollo program.
Correct. Ed Fendell at Houston was the rover camera operator, this was his third mission in the role. He'd previously attempted to get this shot for the last two launches. Knowing the time delay, pan rate of the camera, and access to the launch countdown, he pulled off this great shot.
I will ask you the same unanswered question I have asked before and never got an answer, when the astronauts exited the rover ro begin the journey back to earth [a five minute drive from Nevada], they placed the rover nose-mounted camera perfectly, sans viewfinder, pointing exactly at the take-off vehicle, did they switch off the camera before exiting the rover?, if not film must exist somewhere of them walking from the rover to the take-off vehicle, [believe me, it doesn't] so,10 seconds before it happened Mr Ed also switched the camera on, this guy was a genius, those are the only two possibilities, don't piss down my leg and tell me it's raining.
tommy hall Yes, this footage is available on the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal. In particular navigate to Apollo 17 section, Videos, Return to orbit sequence, where you can review the footage of Gene Cernan parking the rover, setting it up for the launch, and then returning to the LEM. I think that if you can't find something, you shouldn't assume it doesn't exist, because if somebody else finds it, then you end up looking quite stupid.
***** Oh yeah? This belongs in the same bracket as the Lunar Landers, so what is new? Same slowed-down, up-graded walking speed, but, show them entering t he take-off vehicle, [cleverly positioned with the entry door out of sight], but, funnily enough, on landing, the leg mounted camera filmed it all, did it just run out of batteries, or was the rover fitted with super-batteries Don't piss down my leg and tell me it's raining.
Surely, in the last five years since this video was uploaded, Glowdarks must have seen the explanation of how this remote controlled camera was operated from mission control. I wonder why it has been left up all this time.
Which remote camera? The one on the lunar lander leg, the one on the front of the Rover or the one positioned between the heads of the astronauts on the rover, until we establish which one all discussion is irrevelant.
tommy hall There was only one remotely operated camera on Apollos 15, 16 and 17. This was the RCA color TV camera fitted to the motorized mount on the front of LRV. The camera on the LM was the same camera, which was moved to the LRV after it was deployed. The camera between the LLRV seats was the Maurer 16mm film camera. Even if it had been remotely controllable, it would have been rather difficult to retrieve the film for processing after the crew had departed the surface in the Ascent Stage.
FosterZygote Oh, is that so, your explanation does not seem to agree with the rest of the believers who state that the [between-seats] camera filmed the take-off, so, what you are saying is this, the Austronauts parked the rover, sans viewfinder, in exactly the right position to film the lift-off, departed to the take-off vehicle and entered, very conveniently out of sight, slept for 17 hours and then took off? Show me the film of them exiting the Rover and entering the take off vehicle, or did they switch off the camera and good old Mr Ed Fendell switched it on again just 10 minutes before lift off, [a lift of with voice-overs which have just been admitted as fakes,] 'We're on our way Huston' 'What a ride',} complete and utter bullshit, Listen pal, in a life and death situation you do not call out a gleeful message, At the risk of boring you all, I served as a National Serviceman in the jungles of Malaya, in a tense situation we shit ouselves, literally, soiled our pants, yet these Fakers show not the least fear, don't even call kith and kin from the moon, FUCKING BULLSHIT OF THE HIGHEST ORDER, HOW YOU PRICKS CAN SWALLOW THIS US PROPAGANDA IS BEYOND ME, Well in a ligher vein, ask me any question you want, I will guarantee to answer it.
tommy hall "Oh, is that so? Your explanation does not seem to agree with the rest of the believers who state that the (between-seats) camera filmed the take-off." You're correct. My explanation is in disagreement, because they (whomever "they" are) are wrong. As I said, the camera mounted between the seats was the DAC, a 16mm film camera. This camera had no remotely controlled mount, and even if it did, what use would it be to record the ascent with a film camera? "...or did they switch off the camera and good old Mr. Ed Fendell switched it on again..." Yes, that's exactly what happened. If you'll take the time to look at this PDF copy of the Ground-Command Television Assembly (GTCA) Operation and Checkout Manual... www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/GCTA-Manual.pdf ...and look at Table 1-2 displaying the GCTA REMOTE CONTROL (GROUND) COMMANDS on page 1-13, you'll see that the operator at mission control could, indeed, turn the camera on and off remotely from the INCO consoles. "Listen pal, in a life and death situation you do not call out a gleeful message, At the risk of boring you all, I served as a National Serviceman in the jungles of Malaya, in a tense situation we shit ouselves, literally, soiled our pants, yet these Fakers show not the least fear" So you must be in your 70s then, yes? How bad did things have to get before you literally shit your pants? Should every pilot of experimental aircraft be expected to shit his pants every time he flies? Even back in the '60s and '70s, Formula 1 drivers managed to drive 200 MPH cars made of folded aluminum sheets and filled with 50-60 gallons of gasoline without shitting their pants. The Apollo crews could have died at any time from so many potential dangers. I guess they should have been shitting their pants pretty much constantly. "Well in a ligher vein, ask me any question you want, I will guarantee to answer it." Will you admit that you are wrong about the remote controlled TV camera?
Just a command for the camera to pan upwards. They knew the exact moment of lift off, and also knew the signal transit time delay. They tell the camera "move" and two secs later it moves. You can see the image, before it moves. The camera was set to pan upwards at a certain rate. Not sure what the big deal is here. Just a little physics.
I fly about 30,000 miles a yr and rarely do people 'shit themselves' on any of the flights I've been on, even the ones crossing oceans. I've jumped out of perfectly good airplanes from 15,000 ft and was shouting with joy as soon as I hit free fall. A very dangerous activity that requires attention to what you are doing with your body and that your gear is properly put together, doesn't mean I didn't enjoy it my first time. Astronauts excited on a great accomplishment achieved, not surprising.
Please provide a source for this claim. Are you talking about the "C"-rock? The one where a hair in one early print looks like a c, unless you look closely. And the photo taken of the same rock from a different angle a few seconds before don't show the same. And later copies from the same pictures don't show the 'c'.
The most heat sensitive part of the two engines on the LM was the helium pressure system, which provided pressure to the fuel and oxidizer tanks. This pressure had to be greater than the chamber pressure in the engines. Heat slowly crept into this, and raised the pressure, until a burst disk would rupture, and vent the helium. This would make the engines unable to fire, since there were no pumps to feed the engines. See the Apollo 13 movie, where this issue is mentioned.
The rocket you refer to is a narrow nozzle type. The one on the LM had a 5 feet diameter nozzle - and it was in vacuum, which allowed the exhaust to expand very quickly. The force on the surface was enough to move dust and some larger particles, but not enough to dig a hole. Impressive, that you think yourself more intelligent than all those others, who worked on the project. Maybe you should evaluate your own education in relation to theirs.
prior to launching from the moon, nasa control had about 1-2 sec`s to instruct the camera to tilt, so when Armstrong and Aldrin were ready to launch the instruction was sent to the remote camera Armstrong had set up on the Moons service. Controllers commented later that they were fortunate to have got it right.
What camera?, there were, according to the believers, discounting the chest-mounted ones, three more, the one leg-mounted one on the Lunar lander, [remember the grainy images which suddenly became clear when terrestrial images took over?] And two on the Rover, one nose-mounted and one located in the seats between the astronauts heads, now, the one between the astronauts heads is the so-called one that filmed the lift-off, according to myth, the landers parked the Rover, [sans viewfinder] 100 yards or more away from the take-off vehicle, positioned the said camera in just the right position for a Hollywood type shot, walked to the lander, slept for 17 hours, and then took-off, Christ, who switched the camera back on to film this momentous occassion? Surely not Mr Ed again? or did they use Duracill batteries? The more I delve the more it becomes clear it was the biggest hoax in history,
it was in the the same kit all of neil`s experiments were in, he set it up after he had completed his scheduled list of procedures and you know how pedantic NASA is about procedures.
tommy hall no need to get nasty, if you don`t want to believe that`s your perogative. After he had set up his experiments on the moon`s surface he set the camera up, it was remotely operated from earth. And for your info I don`t read comics, gave that up nearly 40 years ago.
tommy hall What those guys did (YES, DID) 45 years ago was the greatest achievement by mankind before or since. All of it happened, and you're a loon to think otherwise. Sorry, but it's the truth. The first several lunar takeoffs were not recorded, since they had not figured out how to pan the camera up like they'd had to in order to make it work. When they figured it out, they did it. There were three or four, as I recall, which shot the liftoff from the lunar surface. You're a nut case. How old a guy are you? Did you watch any of this as a kid, as I did? Did you bother to listen, if you did? When some nut case like you tried to get in Buzz Aldrin's face crying foul about the moon landing, Buzz almost took the guy's head off. People like you need to go read an encyclopedia or two. You're caught up in la-la land, thinking everything from JFKs assassination to the moon landing were all government conspiracies. God help us that people like you are few and far between
tommy hall What need did the rover camera have for a viewfinder when it was a video camera controlled by mission control with full tilt & pan functions? Please oh please inform us of why something so needless should have been on a remote controlled video camera.
If this camera was remote controlled from Houston, how did they overcome the multiple delays in radio communications. First there would be a 1.25 sec delay of the astronaut counting down the blast off. Then another 1.25 sec delay in the response of the remote controlled PTZ from Houston back to the moon. Then another 1.25 sec delay for the updated image from the moon back to the Houston based camera operator for him to follow LM up.
Getting this shot right was anything but perfect. On Apollo 15, there was a problem with the remote head, so they left the liftoff camera set-up as a locked-down shot. Apollo 16 was mis-timed and the ascent stage went out of frame. But on Apollo 17, director Ed Fendell in Houston anticipated the delay just right, and that is the clip you see above. The Apollo 15&16 clips I mentioned are on TH-cam as well, have a look. You just see this one all the time, because it's a great shot, well deserved.
One simple unanswered question, why can't we photograph the moon landers detrius? We land on the moon in 1969 yet today we don't have equipment capable of photographing the moons' surface, doesn't that strike you as odd?
***** You have to be joking, if we can photograph footprints we can photograph wheel tracks, right? Or take-off platforms, or even hammers and golf clubs, do me a favour pal, go back to Disneyland.
tommy hall "take-off platforms"? Doyou mean the Lunar Modules descent stages? They have been photographed, just as the wheel tracks. Do your self a favour. Google LRO and study some science and technology.
tommy hall The rover tracks ARE in the LRO photos, so are the descent stages of the Lunar Modules. Hence please follow the advice offered by YDDES my friend :)
This to me is a big plus for the deniers, nothing could land on a dusty surface without generating dust, are you saying that the levels of thrust needed to slow the lander down didn't even disturb the surface? If you are I will gladly rest my case.
US Navy in 1946 bounced radio waves off the moon to communicate over thousands of miles. Only problem was both locations had to be in visual line with the moon so Navy gave up on idea. The ability to tilt a camera remotely doesn't require great computer power, it's a basic mechanical motor process with a radio receiver to trigger the motor. First UAV (drones) were flown in late 40s, a much more complicated remote control feat than tilting a camera.
Q: HOW did the camera follow the lander? (punctuation added by editor) A: Radio waves. The control arm the camera mounted to that panned it around had a receiver so that it could be remote controlled from ground control in Houston. If you look at the previous Apollo mission to this one, they tried the same trick to follow the take-off, but timed and tracked it poorly because of the couple seconds signal delay.
It was cooled by Water sublimation. It was tested several times in zero g, in orbit the earth, and then in orbit around the moon. The batteries were dimensioned so that the charge would last for the duration of the mission. Most of the control was handled by the computer. Only final few hundred feet were flown in a semi-automatic mode. The computer controlled the attitude and thrust of the descent, according to input from the hand controllers.
giannivee vee, I suggest you consult with your fellow-believers who seem to think the camera was contained in the nosecone of the rover, are you disagreeing with this? If you are we are into a whole new ball game here.
It is a very well controlled shot. The lunar module doesn't even break frame on the tilt. Any human control might break frame ever so slightly but the module doesn't break frame at all. To properly explain this from the perspective that it wasn't faked would hint more towards automation. I would not lean towards the idea that it was remotely or manually controlled. But on the flip side if it was a hoax, there is something odd about how the zoom pullback velocity matches the ascent velocity of the lander. This might imply that the pullback effect was instrumental in establishing how the lander module looked like it was rising up from the planet when it really was the camera zoom making it look like in relative perspective that it was rising up.
Good old Ed, now loper, did the landers leave the nose-mounted camera switched on, filming them leaving the Rover and entering the LEM, or did they switch it off, leaving Ed to switch it on again? I know I have, on numerous occasions asked the same question but I still haven't received an answer, [note they, sans viewfinders] parked the rover in just the right place to film the take-off, and Ed took over perfectly, if you believe this crap you deserve my slings and arrows.
tommy hall You make a good point Tommy. Why do we not see the astronauts board the lunar module? When you are raised in the age of television, the holes so to speak as to why the camera follows the action are habitually overlooked. It is definitely a symptom of mental conditioning that we all are victims of. I would be interested in the explanation from loperspest. By the way Tommy, if certain NASA people were involved in this hoax, would it not make sense to subject the astronauts i.e. the face of the hoax to some form of mind control? To this day we have former "moon landed" astronauts making the rounds at Universities all through the countryside. They never go into too much detail on their actual walk on the moon. Rather it gets glossed over like they were on the clock so to speak and had no time to take in the sights.
Brad Miller You don't see them enter because to position the rover so it see's the LM hatch would mean parking it so it's facing the sun, not exactly an ideal camera angle if you want to record the lift off of the LM. There is the full video on youtube of them after parking the rover doing some last minute work, including watching one of the astronauts throw a tool a Superman like distance if it was on Earth. Can also see the 30+ min of footage taken before the LM lifts off and then once out of sight the camera continues to be panned around the lunar surface. Tommy would like to con fools by making his observations based on this short clip from a tv program.
Brad Miller As I have previously stated Brad, don't take any notice of God botherers like corn, just analyse the known facts, it was Apollo 15 which carried the first lunar rover, [or so they would have us believe,] have you ever checked out the space available on the LEM?, weight distribution, unloading, [sans lifting gear] of said vehicle in a hostile environment, to start from issue one, How can they last for hours on the moon with one oxygen tank, two, if the lander didn't cover the feet in dust 'cos it is thinly spread, how come the one with the probe falls over when he goes 3 feet deep? Three, and I really have to go to bed now, The take-off vehicle is being filmed, incidentally just 10 seconds before take-off by that wonderful Mr. Ed in Huston, some prick, before his arsehole is of the moon's surface shouts 'We're on our way Huston', or What a ride' somewhat reminiscent of my thoughts when, under fire in Malaya, aged 19, I shouted, as an atheist, 'Oh God help me', and I was on earth, get real you deluded pricks.
tommy hall There you go lying again about when the camera was turned on. Well when you've got nothing to support your fake beliefs, repeating lies is not unexpected behavior from the credibly deficient.
Why? They knew the exact time of liftoff, the signal delay due to distance and hardware delays, so pressing a button at the correct time wasn't that difficult.
Yeah, the video description above is incorrect. On Apollos 15-17, the color camera was attached to the lunar rover a great deal of the time and controlled remotely by director Ed Fendell in Houston. He had the ability to pan, tilt and zoom the camera and it took that burden off of the astronauts. They tried this lunar lift-off shot locked down on A-15, on A-16 the timing was off, but on Apollo 17 (above) Fendell compensated for the transmission delays just right, and the results are seen here.
It is because they don't understand the physics of the subject. First of all, the low gravity of the moon allowed the engine to be throttled way down when they were close to the surface, secondary, the nozzle was almost 5 feet across, so the pressure of the exhaust when it reached the surface wasn't enough to move more that dust.
And if you observe the dust carefully, it doesn't billow out and remain suspended as it would on earth - it shows a perfect parabolic arc back to the lunar surface. No billowing, no suspension. This is because it's in a vacuum.
The answer is: Good math. NASA had the ability to remotely tilt the camera up and down (and left to right) when needed. This was used during many of the moon walks and was seen in live televised sessions. The trick was to time it out precisely including the few seconds of delay it took for the camera move command to reach the remote camera. So, with the countdown computers in concert with the camera tilt command, the amazing one-chance-only shot was achieved!
I know what to tell you: it works for both. Such foil would be sufficient to block any alpha particles and that and the spacecraft's hull would block most beta radiation. Then it's just the gamma radiation to worry about. This is because a sheet of paper is enough to block alpha particles, and a few millimetres of aluminium will block all beta particles too
That's not what I wrote. The dust goes flying, yes. But the surface beneath the sand is hard-packed, and not easily disturbed. It takes more than the gentle breeze from the rocket to move it.
Also, the myriad of geologist, all over the world, who received moon rocks, all agree they could not have been created on earth. For example, they show evidence of having been molten, and then solidified in another (lesser) gravity than the one we have here on earth.
How would you know what it was like before? Anyway the engine was cut out at some height above the ground when this 5ft long probes mounted below the pads indicated contact.
Not only those who built the rockets and spaceships were involved. There were people designing and manufacturing the spacesuits, the rovers, all the scientifical equipment, building the launchpads and the crawlers to transport the rockets, the VAB, the control centers at both KSC and Houston, the people who fabricated the fuel, those who participated in each launch and those who trained the astronauts, etcetra, etcetra...
YDDES, You may be having a weekend off but I am still waiting for answers, it must be a lot harder for you answering them than for me posing them, but, you must admit, regarding the lunar rover, camera-wise, you're thinking now aren't you?
Am I correct in saying that the control room personnel only had the capacity to monitor the flight, not to control it? All control was down to the Astronauts and Buzz's slide rule.
Three tries. And the first time the camera didn't move. There was a fault in the tilt mechanism, so they decided not to try it. They wanted to be able to look around on the surface after the LM had left, and if the tilt mechanism got stuck pointing at the sky, the camera would be useless.
When the Soviets couldn't get their lunar rocket to function they switched their attention from the moon to space stations. They put up 10 of them. Their designs are today still ahead of US station design. Their modules can be launched into space and autonomously connect themselves w/out any human involvement. Manned spaced missions have stagnated due to no deep space vehicles, but we've progressed greatly in space. Rovers on other planets, Hubble, probes orbiting sun, planets & their moons.
corn1971, Well, when was it turned on,? Let's review the scenario, the fakers drove the rover, with the camera, I presume, still running and without a viewfinder, positioned it at just the right angle to film the lift off and, after doing this exited the rover, walked to the take-off vehicle, entered [out of sight] from the rear and with a whoop of sheer joy took off, I think not, firstly, was the nose-mounted camera configured to swivel upwards, I think not, secondly, was it left running [in which case film exists of them entering the take-off vehicle] I think not, if not then it was switched off by the fakers prior to entry and switched on again by Mr Ed just before lift-off, which of my theories is correct? You really are struggling with this one boys.
No, only passive temperature control for the fuel and oxidizer. The cabin was cooled by a sublimator, when needed, and the electronics too. Since the only heat source which could affect the fuel/oxidizer tanks were sunlight, it was easier, lighter and more efficient to calculate how much insulation was needed. Also, the LM was landed with the back to the sun, so the tanks were equally heated. Also the astronauts could see the landing, when they made the final descend with the back to the sun.
No, it is made from titanium, aluminium, stainless steel. The 'duct tape' wasn't that - it was a stronger, more durable and lighter material, which was used to keep the insulation in place. And no, NASA won't take it down. You can go see 2 LM's not flown, they're in museums.
Please consider HOW MUCH x-rays there were, and the energy of it. The energy determines the damage each photon is capable of, and the amount sums the damage. The energy levels of the x-rays were so low, aluminium in the film cassettes caught most of it, and the films weren't damaged by it.
The color footage was filmed on the Moon, someone back at Mission Control had the camera controls and watched the module take of. There was a 2 second delay, and this is the best footage of an LM ascent. Go and check the other ascent videos and notice how the camera either loses the module, or trails behind.
Kris de Valle @ 5:02 PM 9/7 asked, "When you say 'non-gravitational docking' do you mean in orbit? Where you are in zero gravity?" *Absolutely NOT. You're smarter than your buddy however you are STILL trying to con ME there is no gravity holding the Moon to Earth aren't you?* ? ? SWEET!
No-instruments? Except the rendezvous radar, the transponders, the two computers on the spaceships. Neil Armstrong took semi-manual control of the descent, noticing a dangerous area, flew past it, and set down on a safe place. No need to measure dust depth - a few inches of dust wasn't dangerous. Also, one of the later missions landed on an incline, so bad the astronauts had difficulty sleeping, because they felt the LM was in danger of tipping.
Very simple, the camera was controlled by remote control from Houston. On Apollo 16 they tried and were not quite able to follow because of the .8 second time delay, so they figured out how to make a list of moves on a sheet of paper and then follow THAT instead of by direct sight with the TV picture. They knre the liftoff was at say 156 hrs 26 minutes 17 seconds into the flight, and the camera had to move at a certain rate to follow the liftoff. Pretty simple if you can do math.
This doesn't disprove the moon landings... The rocket was fired from Earth and they knew the expected vertical acceleration, such that they were able to correlate this to the motion of the camera
The LLRV and LLTV flew successfully 238 times. When Neil Armstrong had his accident, the vehicle failed. Also, it wasn't built by the same company, which built the LM. So your argument is invalid. Also, the temperature is not a valid argument, since the CM/LM had a controlled enviroment. Once on the moon, in a vacuum, the cameras, which were modified to function there, didn't have problems with temperature, since there was no air to conduct heat.
Since your question has been answered, wouldn't it be appropriate for you to make an annotation to that effect?
This is by far one of the most stupid questions I've ever seen about the moon missions. Haven't you figured it out that is was remote controlled before making a video about it?
Couldn't have been remote controlled, there is almost 3 second delay for a signal to get from the moon, to earth and back to the moon, not to mention the processing delay in adjusting the controls by the operator. NASA claims it was a timer that panned up, but how was the zoom out so precisely controlled and timed to keep the module right at the top of the frame. Just a split second timing error in the camera or miscalculation on the takeoff and the module goes right off the screen.
Brandon Ed Fendell had trained extensively and even done it on Apollo 15 and 16. He got it right on Apollo 17. Since there were a countdown, as on every rocket launch, he knew exactly when to hit the "tilt up" and "zoom out" buttons to compensate fot the delay.
The "tilt up" and "zoom out" rates were fixed, so the astronauts were instructed to park the rover at a distance where the tilting up camera would keep the LM in sight during lift off. As can be seen (on the unedited video), Fendell got problems to follow the LM when it tilted over to accelerate more horizontally "down range" to build up speed to reach orbit velocity.
YDDES I assume, then, there are photos of all of this measuring of distance and setting up then? Seeing as the number of photos taken vs time available, surely there should be dozens of photos of this setting up the rover at the correct distance
Brandon
Again you assume they're working with delay both ways. You haven't given any reason for this yet. It's a one-way delay, about 1.3 seconds. The camera operation signal goes from the Earth to the moon only, not back to Earth again.
Brandon Since the camera was mounted on the rover, mission control could see if the rover was parked at right distance to be able to follow the LM up. No "measuring" by any rulers necessary...
No Man ever left Low Earth's Orbit.We DO NOT have today a Lander Tech,otherwise the Astronauts from ISS wouldn't land with the Soyuz.You've been CONNED.That's all.Peace to the Gullible.
you do have a point that needs to be looked into +1
What has returning from the ISS got to do with the moon landings? Also, the Saturn V is by far the largest and most powerful rocket ever launched into space (exactly what is needed to get men to the moon), no rocket since then comes close to the size and power of the Saturn V, so do you conclude that the Saturn V was faked too?
In the same year as the first moon landing, 1969, Concorde flew for the first time. It was a passenger plane that travelled at TWICE the speed of sound and yet today, if we're going on vacation, we can't travel at the speed of sound, much less *twice* that speed as we did on Concorde. So I guess your conclusion is that Concorde was fake too. Right? :)
***** Are YOU really telling me that you believe
(when the desk top calculator was the latest in technology) we were able to travel
to a celestial moon 238,000+ miles away (for no clear reason and zero military advantage),
orbit, land, unpack a rover, drive around doing shitties, hit a golf ball, have a
two men crew successfully launch back into orbit, connect with an orbiting craft,
fly back the 238,000+ miles reentering the Van Allen Radiation Belts and repeat
six different times all without failure but then deliver "moon rock" samples to
countries around the world that later turn out to be petrified wood?
Or was it an excellent trick - hiding the payloads and expenditures of a top secret
spy satellite program (Corona) as they placed military hardware into orbit to prevent a future armed Sputnik?
There is a big difference between orbiting a couple of hundred miles
above earth vs. "landing on the moon". Sorry to bust your moon landing bubble but
the moon landings were a hoax.Concorde has nothing to do with Anything.
nano63a You should stop reading only the hoax-sellers sites. It was not "without failure". Never heard of Apollo 13?
NO moon rocks turned out to be petrified wood.
You should try to get some real education.
YDDES
Apollo 13? That's a Joke.All the missions were faked.If you want know more,go to apollo reality site.We DO NOT have today (2014) the lander Tech.Imagine in 1969,ha,ha,ha....What a failure.You have to learn how it works out there.It's not what NASA says.Have a good Study.Looooser.
Ive noticed something kinda strange i doubt anyone has pointed out.
Watch the background. From 0:00 to about 0:05, the background has very little "noise" or movement of small pixels. Once you hear him say "3-2-1", right at "3" the "noise" starts to speed up. Possible evidence of a spliced clip (filming then turning off the camera, and turning it back into the next scene) I don't think its anything crazy, but definitely something ive noticed from working/editing video clips. It just seems out of place to me, especially when it should all be one shot.
IF ANYONE AGREES, PLEASE REPLY. i might just be crazy..but i don't think so, what im talking about IS there.
You're looking at what is obviously several copies removed from the original. Trying to base any ideas of video manipulation on this degraded quality footage is unwise. Better quality footage exists online than this clip recorded from a tv documentary.
corn1971 I'd agree to that
The sparkle effect is because the camera recorded each prime color in sequence, and the framrate was low enough to allow the module to move between partial frames. The stuff flying is the mylar-like material used for insulation on the descent stage. The camera was remote-controlled from mission control. Only 3 controls were necessary - zoom, tilt and pan. Easy stuff really.
The lack of visible exhaust is caused by the type of rocket. The hypergolic fuel and oxidizer didn't produce visible flame
Harrison Schmitt, not being a professional test pilot like all the others, but a geologist, probably couldn't contain his joy and came with a spontaneus outburst. Like when they both yelled "pitchover" when the ascent stage turned and started to pick up ground speed instead of just going straight up. It was to verbally verify to Houston (that's how it's spelled by the way) that the programme ran according to plan.
Because the footage you're hung up on, is shot with a wide-angle lens. If it wasn't, all you would see from the inside of the CM, was a tiny part. If you shoot with a wide-angle lens, distant objects seem smaller.
I know this video is old, but I don't understand how you can believe we had the technology to send people to the moon, send audio to the moon, and actually take off from the moon and get safely back to Earth, but not the technology to remote pan a camera.
At launch, the cabin had ambient air and pressure. As they ascended, the cabin was vented, and eventually sealed, then filled with a 1/4 atm of pure oxygen. This was to prevent the hatch from being blown in if they had to exit in a hurry. When in space, they breathed pure oxygen.
Its Simple they used a small spindle fixed to the camera mount and a very long string , as the lunar lander took off one of the guys back on earth at NASA pulled the string this turned the spindle and that made the camera tilt up :)
To answer your question, there are two possibilities. 1 The camera on the lunar rover was set to remote control and using the countdown for the launch, taking into account the time delay to the moon, the camera operator panned the camera upwards on cue, OR 2, the cameraman was left on the moon and it really sucked to be him.
The "Lost Tapes" question is blown out of proportion. The tapes contained the telemetry from Apollo 11, with the SSTV signal embedded. In order to convert this signal in realtime to a broadcast-signal, the SSTV signal was shown on a monitor, captured by a camera, and then transmitted worldwide. The tapes were very expensive, and were erased and reused. All the others still exists. But it is moot anyway, since only one machine capable of play exists. And it is not know if it even works.
NO I AM NOT! Please don't misrepresent what I'm writing. I clearly wrote that the dust was blown away directly beneath the descent engine. But since there is no air on the moon, it will move radially away from the area beneath the nozzle.
It was controlled from Houston, and in fact had to be programmed a few seconds ahead to anticipate the time lag.
The code word is 'autonomous' - the LM wasn't autonomous. It had pilots to decide the really important stuff. The LM's computer flew a simple descent profile, which was precalculated, and adjusted according to radar info. The hover part was in attitude hold, where the controller acted as the stick in a helicopter, so the pilot could move by tilting left, right, forward and back, but the computer still controlled the attitude, to keep the LM within safe parameters.
Precisely. I don't understand why it is so difficult to fathom, that the relatively simple act of activating a small motor by radio remote is so difficult to grasp. It must be an act of will to deny it.
And maybe there's a difference between a casual traveler, and a highly educated, trained astronaut on the journey of a lifetime.
So you are saying that they controlled the camera from Earth with no delay effect at all???
It takes almost 2 seconds for light to travel to the moon.
And this is perfect camera work.
Hollywood style.
The microphones were inside the helmets. They were in full closed spacesuits when they landed and took off again. Since there is no air outside, the engines don't create much noise, and what there is can't really be transmitted to the crew cabin. Also the crew cabin was pressurized to 1/4 atmospheric pressure, and didn't conduct sound very well. All in all, the engines aren't audible on the radio. Especially when the microphones were designed to only receive sound from one direction.
All the questions you've raised were pretty much worked out during Project Gemini. (spacecraft rendezvous, docking, computer-assisted orbital translation)
The Lunar Module was tested unmanned in earth orbit on Apollo 5, and again manned (and very extensively) on Apollo 9 before ever being sent to the moon. Apollo 10 tested the LM in lunar orbit & took it down to 50K feet before attempting to land.
This was no magic show, it was a very regimented flight test operation of the hardware and systems.
The colored sparkels were a result of the type of camera and transmission used. The 3 prime colors seen here are the same as seen on a tv-screen if you get close enough. The cause of the sparkles is, that each color is transmitted in sequence, and the framerate was low enough to allow the motive to move between partial frames.
250 degrees is the temperature ON THE SURFACE AT NOON. They landed and took off in the early lunar morning and they didn't place the film on the surface. It was encased in the cameras, surrounded by the best temperature insulation that exists: Vacuum.
The temperatures on Moon is exactly the same as in low Earth orbit. The same sunlight, the same deep shadows. Cameras with film have been used in open space since the days of the Gemini program.
Also, there is no air on the moon. The dust just flies away, in a straight line. There is no force, which makes it go anywhere but away. Try this: Find some ball bearings, and put them on a flat surface. Then blast them with air from above. They'll just go away from the blast, not up. That's the way dust acts on the moon, when hit by rocket exhaust.
Absolutely. In fact I would love to hear the attorneys Voir Dire the witnesses in the case..
Q: Dr Aldrin, you hold a PhD in Astronautics from MIT, shot down 2 MIGs in Korea, pioneered spacecraft rendezvous, and walked on the moon, correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Mr Sibrel, you were fired from your cameraman's job at WSMV-Nashville for stalking astronauts and later arrested for vandalism when you left the cab you were driving and jumped on a car hood during a parking spot dispute?
A: Yes.
Verdict for Apollo
I still return to my camera question, was it left running when the rover was parked to film the final lift-off or did Ed switch it on before take-off?, a simple question that no-one seems to be able to answer, how many times must I ask it before I get an explanation? I'll try again tomorrow.
Tommy Tommy Tommy, why to you insist on lying to what has already been shown you?
You've been shown repeatedly footage which shows the camera was turned back on over a half hour before they lifted off, following the 17 hrs from when they parked the rover tip they departed.
corn1971 Show me the footage, taken half an hour before take-off and we may have some common ground.
corn1971 Turned back on by whom? Ed on earth,? come one corn, you are now really entering the realms of fantasy
I know you're old, but remote radio control is hardly out of this world tech even for the 70s.
corn1971 That is not answering my question is it, read it again and answer it fully.
How nice of them, he must have boosted their ratings tremendously.
They knew the exact timing of the launch and sent the properly timed remote control commands to the camera to get the shot. They weren't idiots.
We don't know 100 percent. A poster suggested they used ANR, a technology used to remove engine sound, etc. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't? I doubt if it was necessary.
The LEM module had a throttle-able motor which cut-out once the contact was made, contact being with those long sensing probes projecting below the pads, NOT the pads. People are usually unaware of this and wrongly assume the motors ran right down to contact with the ground. In realty they cut out some way off the ground
No, dust will behave markedly different in atmosphere. In vacuum, it will just move accordingly to gravity. In atmosphere, it will drift with aircurrents, lighter particles will stay airborne longer than heavier stuff. On the moon, all particles will move uniformly.
When about to land, the LM weighted 14.8 - 8.0 = 6.8 ton. The 8 ton was descent fuel, which was almost expended when they landed. So only thrust to hover 1.13 ton was necessary.
The LM was insulated against heat influx from the sun and the reflection off the surface of the moon. But in space, where there is no noticable reflection off the surface, the LM radiated it's own heat to space. Also, nearly all electrical equipment was turned off, to conserve power. Only airflow and radio was active.
The reflective coating on the camera insulated them from the enviroment. Remember, vacuum. No conduction from the enviroment. Only solar heating (and some from the surface).
You have repeatedly referenced "Lunar Olympics". What is that?
They didn't jump high, because the PLSS could be damaged, if they lost control, and landed on it. You don't want to loose your oxygen and pressure, when you're on the moon, would you?
The only example of high jump I know about is when Armstrong re-entered the LM. He jumped quite high, but he had the ladder on the LM for support and control.
In your dream world, some dark clad stranger with sunglasses would come round to their house, and ask them politely to die. But strangely enough, that doesn't happen in real life.
The main problem I see with a Mars mission would be the atmosphere.
It's thin enough that parachutes are increasingly ineffective by the ratio of the cube divided by the square of the increase in size of vehicle.
And its thick enough that super-sonic heating would be a problem and prevent a powered descent with an exposed engine nozzle.
I was alive at the time of the moon missions and the television anouncers of the day stated that 1 of the astronauts controled the camera by remote control from inside the lander during takeoff.
As as I have previously stated, Fendell was a person worthy of the medal of Honour, an unsung hero, so you are saying he had, on earth, the means to switch off the rover camera and then, at the right moment, switch it on again and, not only that, capture the lift-off, Jeez, what a hero.
FosterZygote (with a period) ... You stated, "The reason that the crews of orbiting spacecraft seem to "float" is because they are essentially in the same orbit as their craft."
Could we agree then that they are under nearly the exact same gravitational plane as the craft?
All the answers about how the camera worked, etc. But I want a good answer for his last question. How did it get enough thrust to lift off the moon like that? Only serious explanations, please.
The camera on the rover was not operated by the astronauts. They had enough to do even without that. The videocamera was designed and built to be purely remotely operated. There was a console at mission control which only function was to control the camera. Also, the antenna on the LRV was directional, so the videocamera couldn't be used while driving, except for a single occurence, where it was driven in a straight line.
Who constructed the Saturn V, the Command module, the service module, the lunar module, the LRV, the spacesuits, the launch tower, the command centers, the ALSEPs - and who designed them?
I mis-stated what they did, they threw the PLSS out of the hatch, not their entire suits. In the vacuum of space there is no temperature, only an object can have a temp which is affected by how long that object is in direct sunlight. Even if an astronaut stood still facing the sun, their backside wouldn't be and would be far colder. There is not radiative heat, so even a lunar surface heated up isn't going to feel like Texas on uber broil. Their body heat was the biggest heating problem for them
I can see how this might be a problem for a child. When you're a kid, you probably don't know there is such a thing as wireless remote control.
The DPS had an exhaust velocity of 3054 m/s. The force required to balance the gravity of the moon is F = m x a = 6.800 kg x 1.62 m/s = 11100 N. The nozzle area was (1.5/2)^2 x pi = 1.76 m2. This gave a force/cm2 at nozzle exit about 6.2 Newton - that's the equivalent of 1.2 lb/cm2. Or 7.7 lb/square inch. That's about one half earth atmosphere at sea level. And of course, the rocket exhaust expanded drastically outside the nozzle, so the surface recieved much less force.
The maximum acceleration of the LM ascent stage was about 1.7 m/s^2 - slightly higher than the moon's gravity. Not nearly enough to cause any problems. The LM was insulated by up to 50 layers of very thin aluminium-coated plastic. The coating reflected the solar heat away from the contents, so the cabin didn't receive the heat. And since the cameras were insulated, and painted with reflective paint, the film inside didn't suffer either.
The 'parts of the ship' is the insulation blankets wrapped around the descent stage. They are very thin aluminized plastic.
The lack of rocket exhaust is because the hypergolic fuel and oxidizer doesn't produce a visible plume, just high-speed gas. Which by the way expands in every direction once it has left the nozzle. Look at the Saturn V lifting off. At the pad, the exhaust is nice and collected, but when the rocket goes higher, it spreads out. It is not contained by atmospheric pressure.
You're right. No fakers has thanked Ed Fendell. Not a single one. They didn't have any fakers around back then. But the TV-stations who recieved his tv-Pictures DID thank him.
Except for the fame, the money, the admiration of the entire scientific community, no reason.
... add to that the fact that the motor was shut-down when contact was made with the 5ft long sensing probes mounted below the pads. That's quite a height above the ground in all.
Where did you get this information?
Because the manufacturer of the camera sad that the film was not protected at all. The thin metal body is not an effective protection.
it can't even block cellular signals when you are traveling in a car and using your cellphone. I live in an all aluminum body trailer and my cell phone works fine with all the doors closed.
Then how did it land off-runway, without falling into a hole? Remember it was designed to refuel, rearm and basically operate from temporary runways, forrest clearings or dirt roads, in order to combat an advancing sovjet armoured force.
It turns out it was the SSTV-camera, which wasn't activated. It would not have mattered anyway, since it's uplink was dependent on a directional antenna, which would loose tracking once the LM reached it's pitchover-altitude. The 16mm film camera DID run and recorded the liftoff and ascent.
Docking with the CSM was an multiple-hour affair. They had to get orbital velocity, and then match orbit and position with the CSM. The ascent engine performed multiple burns.
Those are layers of Kapton and Mylar, where each sheet reflects about 97 percent of radiated HEAT! So with the LM spending days in constant sun, what do you suppose was the purpose of Kapton and Mylar given that information? :) Cosmic ray levels on the moon's surface are only a fraction higher than they are in low earth orbit, and about 3 times higher mid-way between the earth and moon, so it's not a problem for missions lasting 1-2 weeks.
The question is "how did the camera follow the lunar lander?"
Quite simple - the expected trajectory and acceleration of the lander were very precisely known and the camera's motion could have been controlled with a mechanical device fitted to the camera's tripod, triggered optically by the flash of the lander's engine igniting.
Or...it could have easily been controlled, by remote, from Houston. Radio signals to control the camera's motion, and zoom out, could easily have been sent by a NASA engineer, in real time as well. The moon is only 1.25 "light seconds" away from Earth. This would have been a relatively simple engineering exercise (in 1969) compared to many of the procedures in the Apollo program.
Correct. Ed Fendell at Houston was the rover camera operator, this was his third mission in the role. He'd previously attempted to get this shot for the last two launches. Knowing the time delay, pan rate of the camera, and access to the launch countdown, he pulled off this great shot.
I will ask you the same unanswered question I have asked before and never got an answer, when the astronauts exited the rover ro begin the journey back to earth [a five minute drive from Nevada], they placed the rover nose-mounted camera perfectly, sans viewfinder, pointing exactly at the take-off vehicle, did they switch off the camera before exiting the rover?, if not film must exist somewhere of them walking from the rover to the take-off vehicle, [believe me, it doesn't] so,10 seconds before it happened Mr Ed also switched the camera on, this guy was a genius, those are the only two possibilities, don't piss down my leg and tell me it's raining.
tommy hall Yes, this footage is available on the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal.
In particular navigate to Apollo 17 section, Videos, Return to orbit sequence, where you can review the footage of Gene Cernan parking the rover, setting it up for the launch, and then returning to the LEM.
I think that if you can't find something, you shouldn't assume it doesn't exist, because if somebody else finds it, then you end up looking quite stupid.
***** Oh yeah? This belongs in the same bracket as the Lunar Landers, so what is new? Same slowed-down, up-graded walking speed, but, show them entering t he take-off vehicle, [cleverly positioned with the entry door out of sight], but, funnily enough, on landing, the leg mounted camera filmed it all, did it just run out of batteries, or was the rover fitted with super-batteries Don't piss down my leg and tell me it's raining.
tommy hall I believe they were silver-nickel hydride or something similar, expensive to make but the best power to weight ration for batteries.
Surely, in the last five years since this video was uploaded, Glowdarks must have seen the explanation of how this remote controlled camera was operated from mission control. I wonder why it has been left up all this time.
Which remote camera? The one on the lunar lander leg, the one on the front of the Rover or the one positioned between the heads of the astronauts on the rover, until we establish which one all discussion is irrevelant.
tommy hall There was only one remotely operated camera on Apollos 15, 16 and 17. This was the RCA color TV camera fitted to the motorized mount on the front of LRV. The camera on the LM was the same camera, which was moved to the LRV after it was deployed. The camera between the LLRV seats was the Maurer 16mm film camera. Even if it had been remotely controllable, it would have been rather difficult to retrieve the film for processing after the crew had departed the surface in the Ascent Stage.
FosterZygote Oh, is that so, your explanation does not seem to agree with the rest of the believers who state that the [between-seats] camera filmed the take-off, so, what you are saying is this, the Austronauts parked the rover, sans viewfinder, in exactly the right position to film the lift-off, departed to the take-off vehicle and entered, very conveniently out of sight, slept for 17 hours and then took off? Show me the film of them exiting the Rover and entering the take off vehicle, or did they switch off the camera and good old Mr Ed Fendell switched it on again just 10 minutes before lift off, [a lift of with voice-overs which have just been admitted as fakes,] 'We're on our way Huston' 'What a ride',} complete and utter bullshit, Listen pal, in a life and death situation you do not call out a gleeful message, At the risk of boring you all, I served as a National Serviceman in the jungles of Malaya, in a tense situation we shit ouselves, literally, soiled our pants, yet these Fakers show not the least fear, don't even call kith and kin from the moon, FUCKING BULLSHIT OF THE HIGHEST ORDER, HOW YOU PRICKS CAN SWALLOW THIS US PROPAGANDA IS BEYOND ME, Well in a ligher vein, ask me any question you want, I will guarantee to answer it.
tommy hall "Oh, is that so? Your explanation does not seem to agree with the rest of the believers who state that the (between-seats) camera filmed the take-off."
You're correct. My explanation is in disagreement, because they (whomever "they" are) are wrong. As I said, the camera mounted between the seats was the DAC, a 16mm film camera. This camera had no remotely controlled mount, and even if it did, what use would it be to record the ascent with a film camera?
"...or did they switch off the camera and good old Mr. Ed Fendell switched it on again..."
Yes, that's exactly what happened. If you'll take the time to look at this PDF copy of the Ground-Command Television Assembly (GTCA) Operation and Checkout Manual...
www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/GCTA-Manual.pdf
...and look at Table 1-2 displaying the GCTA REMOTE CONTROL (GROUND) COMMANDS on page 1-13, you'll see that the operator at mission control could, indeed, turn the camera on and off remotely from the INCO consoles.
"Listen pal, in a life and death situation you do not call out a gleeful message, At the risk of boring you all, I served as a National Serviceman in the jungles of Malaya, in a tense situation we shit ouselves, literally, soiled our pants, yet these Fakers show not the least fear"
So you must be in your 70s then, yes? How bad did things have to get before you literally shit your pants? Should every pilot of experimental aircraft be expected to shit his pants every time he flies? Even back in the '60s and '70s, Formula 1 drivers managed to drive 200 MPH cars made of folded aluminum sheets and filled with 50-60 gallons of gasoline without shitting their pants. The Apollo crews could have died at any time from so many potential dangers. I guess they should have been shitting their pants pretty much constantly.
"Well in a ligher vein, ask me any question you want, I will guarantee to answer it."
Will you admit that you are wrong about the remote controlled TV camera?
tommy hall Do you really expect a good answer?
Just a command for the camera to pan upwards. They knew the exact moment of lift off, and also knew the signal transit time delay. They tell the camera "move" and two secs later it moves.
You can see the image, before it moves. The camera was set to pan upwards at a certain rate. Not sure what the big deal is here. Just a little physics.
I fly about 30,000 miles a yr and rarely do people 'shit themselves' on any of the flights I've been on, even the ones crossing oceans. I've jumped out of perfectly good airplanes from 15,000 ft and was shouting with joy as soon as I hit free fall. A very dangerous activity that requires attention to what you are doing with your body and that your gear is properly put together, doesn't mean I didn't enjoy it my first time. Astronauts excited on a great accomplishment achieved, not surprising.
alot of folk don't realize that we can and have looked at the stuff left behind with space telescopes
Please provide a source for this claim. Are you talking about the "C"-rock? The one where a hair in one early print looks like a c, unless you look closely. And the photo taken of the same rock from a different angle a few seconds before don't show the same. And later copies from the same pictures don't show the 'c'.
The most heat sensitive part of the two engines on the LM was the helium pressure system, which provided pressure to the fuel and oxidizer tanks. This pressure had to be greater than the chamber pressure in the engines. Heat slowly crept into this, and raised the pressure, until a burst disk would rupture, and vent the helium. This would make the engines unable to fire, since there were no pumps to feed the engines. See the Apollo 13 movie, where this issue is mentioned.
The rocket you refer to is a narrow nozzle type. The one on the LM had a 5 feet diameter nozzle - and it was in vacuum, which allowed the exhaust to expand very quickly. The force on the surface was enough to move dust and some larger particles, but not enough to dig a hole.
Impressive, that you think yourself more intelligent than all those others, who worked on the project. Maybe you should evaluate your own education in relation to theirs.
prior to launching from the moon, nasa control had about 1-2 sec`s to instruct the camera to tilt, so when Armstrong and Aldrin were ready to launch the instruction was sent to the remote camera Armstrong had set up on the Moons service. Controllers commented later that they were fortunate to have got it right.
What camera?, there were, according to the believers, discounting the chest-mounted ones, three more, the one leg-mounted one on the Lunar lander, [remember the grainy images which suddenly became clear when terrestrial images took over?] And two on the Rover, one nose-mounted and one located in the seats between the astronauts heads, now, the one between the astronauts heads is the so-called one that filmed the lift-off, according to myth, the landers parked the Rover, [sans viewfinder] 100 yards or more away from the take-off vehicle, positioned the said camera in just the right position for a Hollywood type shot, walked to the lander, slept for 17 hours, and then took-off, Christ, who switched the camera back on to film this momentous occassion? Surely not Mr Ed again? or did they use Duracill batteries? The more I delve the more it becomes clear it was the biggest hoax in history,
it was in the the same kit all of neil`s experiments were in, he set it up after he had completed his scheduled list of procedures and you know how pedantic NASA is about procedures.
tommy hall no need to get nasty, if you don`t want to believe that`s your perogative. After he had set up his experiments on the moon`s surface he set the camera up, it was remotely operated from earth. And for your info I don`t read comics, gave that up nearly 40 years ago.
tommy hall What those guys did (YES, DID) 45 years ago was the greatest achievement by mankind before or since. All of it happened, and you're a loon to think otherwise. Sorry, but it's the truth. The first several lunar takeoffs were not recorded, since they had not figured out how to pan the camera up like they'd had to in order to make it work. When they figured it out, they did it. There were three or four, as I recall, which shot the liftoff from the lunar surface.
You're a nut case. How old a guy are you? Did you watch any of this as a kid, as I did? Did you bother to listen, if you did? When some nut case like you tried to get in Buzz Aldrin's face crying foul about the moon landing, Buzz almost took the guy's head off. People like you need to go read an encyclopedia or two. You're caught up in la-la land, thinking everything from JFKs assassination to the moon landing were all government conspiracies. God help us that people like you are few and far between
tommy hall What need did the rover camera have for a viewfinder when it was a video camera controlled by mission control with full tilt & pan functions? Please oh please inform us of why something so needless should have been on a remote controlled video camera.
If this camera was remote controlled from Houston, how did they overcome the multiple delays in radio communications. First there would be a 1.25 sec delay of the astronaut counting down the blast off. Then another 1.25 sec delay in the response of the remote controlled PTZ from Houston back to the moon. Then another 1.25 sec delay for the updated image from the moon back to the Houston based camera operator for him to follow LM up.
Cool
Getting this shot right was anything but perfect. On Apollo 15, there was a problem with the remote head, so they left the liftoff camera set-up as a locked-down shot. Apollo 16 was mis-timed and the ascent stage went out of frame. But on Apollo 17, director Ed Fendell in Houston anticipated the delay just right, and that is the clip you see above.
The Apollo 15&16 clips I mentioned are on TH-cam as well, have a look.
You just see this one all the time, because it's a great shot, well deserved.
One simple unanswered question, why can't we photograph the moon landers detrius? We land on the moon in 1969 yet today we don't have equipment capable of photographing the moons' surface, doesn't that strike you as odd?
They were photographed years ago my friend :)
/watch?v=PTeM4ZqEKR4
***** You have to be joking, if we can photograph footprints we can photograph wheel tracks, right? Or take-off platforms, or even hammers and golf clubs, do me a favour pal, go back to Disneyland.
tommy hall "take-off platforms"? Doyou mean the Lunar Modules descent stages? They have been photographed, just as the wheel tracks.
Do your self a favour. Google LRO and study some science and technology.
YDDES
LRO it's a Fake just like everything else.
tommy hall
The rover tracks ARE in the LRO photos, so are the descent stages of the Lunar Modules. Hence please follow the advice offered by YDDES my friend :)
This to me is a big plus for the deniers, nothing could land on a dusty surface without generating dust, are you saying that the levels of thrust needed to slow the lander down didn't even disturb the surface? If you are I will gladly rest my case.
US Navy in 1946 bounced radio waves off the moon to communicate over thousands of miles. Only problem was both locations had to be in visual line with the moon so Navy gave up on idea. The ability to tilt a camera remotely doesn't require great computer power, it's a basic mechanical motor process with a radio receiver to trigger the motor. First UAV (drones) were flown in late 40s, a much more complicated remote control feat than tilting a camera.
Q: HOW did the camera follow the lander? (punctuation added by editor)
A: Radio waves. The control arm the camera mounted to that panned it around had a receiver so that it could be remote controlled from ground control in Houston.
If you look at the previous Apollo mission to this one, they tried the same trick to follow the take-off, but timed and tracked it poorly because of the couple seconds signal delay.
Soviets & US both landed probes on the moon prior to Apollo which performed tasks far more complex than merely tilting or zooming a camera.
It was cooled by Water sublimation. It was tested several times in zero g, in orbit the earth, and then in orbit around the moon. The batteries were dimensioned so that the charge would last for the duration of the mission. Most of the control was handled by the computer. Only final few hundred feet were flown in a semi-automatic mode. The computer controlled the attitude and thrust of the descent, according to input from the hand controllers.
giannivee vee, I suggest you consult with your fellow-believers who seem to think the camera was contained in the nosecone of the rover, are you disagreeing with this? If you are we are into a whole new ball game here.
It is a very well controlled shot. The lunar module doesn't even break frame on the tilt. Any human control might break frame ever so slightly but the module doesn't break frame at all. To properly explain this from the perspective that it wasn't faked would hint more towards automation. I would not lean towards the idea that it was remotely or manually controlled. But on the flip side if it was a hoax, there is something odd about how the zoom pullback velocity matches the ascent velocity of the lander. This might imply that the pullback effect was instrumental in establishing how the lander module looked like it was rising up from the planet when it really was the camera zoom making it look like in relative perspective that it was rising up.
Good old Ed, now loper, did the landers leave the nose-mounted camera switched on, filming them leaving the Rover and entering the LEM, or did they switch it off, leaving Ed to switch it on again? I know I have, on numerous occasions asked the same question but I still haven't received an answer, [note they, sans viewfinders] parked the rover in just the right place to film the take-off, and Ed took over perfectly, if you believe this crap you deserve my slings and arrows.
tommy hall
You make a good point Tommy. Why do we not see the astronauts board the lunar module? When you are raised in the age of television, the holes so to speak as to why the camera follows the action are habitually overlooked. It is definitely a symptom of mental conditioning that we all are victims of. I would be interested in the explanation from loperspest.
By the way Tommy, if certain NASA people were involved in this hoax, would it not make sense to subject the astronauts i.e. the face of the hoax to some form of mind control? To this day we have former "moon landed" astronauts making the rounds at Universities all through the countryside. They never go into too much detail on their actual walk on the moon. Rather it gets glossed over like they were on the clock so to speak and had no time to take in the sights.
Brad Miller
You don't see them enter because to position the rover so it see's the LM hatch would mean parking it so it's facing the sun, not exactly an ideal camera angle if you want to record the lift off of the LM.
There is the full video on youtube of them after parking the rover doing some last minute work, including watching one of the astronauts throw a tool a Superman like distance if it was on Earth. Can also see the 30+ min of footage taken before the LM lifts off and then once out of sight the camera continues to be panned around the lunar surface. Tommy would like to con fools by making his observations based on this short clip from a tv program.
Brad Miller As I have previously stated Brad, don't take any notice of God botherers like corn, just analyse the known facts, it was Apollo 15 which carried the first lunar rover, [or so they would have us believe,] have you ever checked out the space available on the LEM?, weight distribution, unloading, [sans lifting gear] of said vehicle in a hostile environment, to start from issue one, How can they last for hours on the moon with one oxygen tank, two, if the lander didn't cover the feet in dust 'cos it is thinly spread, how come the one with the probe falls over when he goes 3 feet deep? Three, and I really have to go to bed now, The take-off vehicle is being filmed, incidentally just 10 seconds before take-off by that wonderful Mr. Ed in Huston, some prick, before his arsehole is of the moon's surface shouts 'We're on our way Huston', or What a ride' somewhat reminiscent of my thoughts when, under fire in Malaya, aged 19, I shouted, as an atheist, 'Oh God help me', and I was on earth, get real you deluded pricks.
tommy hall
There you go lying again about when the camera was turned on. Well when you've got nothing to support your fake beliefs, repeating lies is not unexpected behavior from the credibly deficient.
Why? They knew the exact time of liftoff, the signal delay due to distance and hardware delays, so pressing a button at the correct time wasn't that difficult.
Yeah, the video description above is incorrect. On Apollos 15-17, the color camera was attached to the lunar rover a great deal of the time and controlled remotely by director Ed Fendell in Houston.
He had the ability to pan, tilt and zoom the camera and it took that burden off of the astronauts.
They tried this lunar lift-off shot locked down on A-15, on A-16 the timing was off, but on Apollo 17 (above) Fendell compensated for the transmission delays just right, and the results are seen here.
It is because they don't understand the physics of the subject. First of all, the low gravity of the moon allowed the engine to be throttled way down when they were close to the surface, secondary, the nozzle was almost 5 feet across, so the pressure of the exhaust when it reached the surface wasn't enough to move more that dust.
And if you observe the dust carefully, it doesn't billow out and remain suspended as it would on earth - it shows a perfect parabolic arc back to the lunar surface. No billowing, no suspension. This is because it's in a vacuum.
The answer is: Good math.
NASA had the ability to remotely tilt the camera up and down (and left to right) when needed. This was used during many of the moon walks and was seen in live televised sessions. The trick was to time it out precisely including the few seconds of delay it took for the camera move command to reach the remote camera. So, with the countdown computers in concert with the camera tilt command, the amazing one-chance-only shot was achieved!
I know what to tell you: it works for both. Such foil would be sufficient to block any alpha particles and that and the spacecraft's hull would block most beta radiation. Then it's just the gamma radiation to worry about.
This is because a sheet of paper is enough to block alpha particles, and a few millimetres of aluminium will block all beta particles too
His method of argument is "throw a turd at somebody and run away laughing".
That's not what I wrote. The dust goes flying, yes. But the surface beneath the sand is hard-packed, and not easily disturbed. It takes more than the gentle breeze from the rocket to move it.
Also, the myriad of geologist, all over the world, who received moon rocks, all agree they could not have been created on earth. For example, they show evidence of having been molten, and then solidified in another (lesser) gravity than the one we have here on earth.
Please document the claim that there was no tracking all the way to the moon. Also document how the spacecraft didn't go to the moon after TLI.
How would you know what it was like before?
Anyway the engine was cut out at some height above the ground when this 5ft long probes mounted below the pads indicated contact.
They didn't find a place with a minimum of dust. They landed on the lunar surface. The layer of dust/soil was thin. That's it, really.
Not only those who built the rockets and spaceships were involved. There were people designing and manufacturing the spacesuits, the rovers, all the scientifical equipment, building the launchpads and the crawlers to transport the rockets, the VAB, the control centers at both KSC and Houston, the people who fabricated the fuel, those who participated in each launch and those who trained the astronauts, etcetra, etcetra...
YDDES, You may be having a weekend off but I am still waiting for answers, it must be a lot harder for you answering them than for me posing them, but, you must admit, regarding the lunar rover, camera-wise, you're thinking now aren't you?
Am I correct in saying that the control room personnel only had the capacity to monitor the flight, not to control it? All control was down to the Astronauts and Buzz's slide rule.
Three tries. And the first time the camera didn't move. There was a fault in the tilt mechanism, so they decided not to try it. They wanted to be able to look around on the surface after the LM had left, and if the tilt mechanism got stuck pointing at the sky, the camera would be useless.
When the Soviets couldn't get their lunar rocket to function they switched their attention from the moon to space stations. They put up 10 of them. Their designs are today still ahead of US station design. Their modules can be launched into space and autonomously connect themselves w/out any human involvement.
Manned spaced missions have stagnated due to no deep space vehicles, but we've progressed greatly in space. Rovers on other planets, Hubble, probes orbiting sun, planets & their moons.
corn1971, Well, when was it turned on,? Let's review the scenario, the fakers drove the rover, with the camera, I presume, still running and without a viewfinder, positioned it at just the right angle to film the lift off and, after doing this exited the rover, walked to the take-off vehicle, entered [out of sight] from the rear and with a whoop of sheer joy took off, I think not, firstly, was the nose-mounted camera configured to swivel upwards, I think not, secondly, was it left running [in which case film exists of them entering the take-off vehicle] I think not, if not then it was switched off by the fakers prior to entry and switched on again by Mr Ed just before lift-off, which of my theories is correct? You really are struggling with this one boys.
Is that during powered descent, or just while they are coasting towards the moon, or in orbit?
No, only passive temperature control for the fuel and oxidizer. The cabin was cooled by a sublimator, when needed, and the electronics too. Since the only heat source which could affect the fuel/oxidizer tanks were sunlight, it was easier, lighter and more efficient to calculate how much insulation was needed. Also, the LM was landed with the back to the sun, so the tanks were equally heated. Also the astronauts could see the landing, when they made the final descend with the back to the sun.
No, it is made from titanium, aluminium, stainless steel. The 'duct tape' wasn't that - it was a stronger, more durable and lighter material, which was used to keep the insulation in place.
And no, NASA won't take it down. You can go see 2 LM's not flown, they're in museums.
Please consider HOW MUCH x-rays there were, and the energy of it. The energy determines the damage each photon is capable of, and the amount sums the damage.
The energy levels of the x-rays were so low, aluminium in the film cassettes caught most of it, and the films weren't damaged by it.
He used more than just front projection. Just because you can't figure out how a magician did his trick does not mean magic is real.
I have been an astrophotographer for 37 yrs. A pro Astrophysics lecturer for 19 yrs. There is NOTHING wrong with any of the photography on the moon.
The color footage was filmed on the Moon, someone back at Mission Control had the camera controls and watched the module take of. There was a 2 second delay, and this is the best footage of an LM ascent. Go and check the other ascent videos and notice how the camera either loses the module, or trails behind.
Kris de Valle @ 5:02 PM 9/7 asked, "When you say 'non-gravitational docking' do you mean in orbit? Where you are in zero gravity?"
*Absolutely NOT. You're smarter than your buddy however you are STILL trying to con ME there is no gravity holding the Moon to Earth aren't you?* ? ?
SWEET!
No-instruments? Except the rendezvous radar, the transponders, the two computers on the spaceships.
Neil Armstrong took semi-manual control of the descent, noticing a dangerous area, flew past it, and set down on a safe place. No need to measure dust depth - a few inches of dust wasn't dangerous.
Also, one of the later missions landed on an incline, so bad the astronauts had difficulty sleeping, because they felt the LM was in danger of tipping.
Very simple, the camera was controlled by remote control from Houston. On Apollo 16 they tried and were not quite able to follow because of the .8 second time delay, so they figured out how to make a list of moves on a sheet of paper and then follow THAT instead of by direct sight with the TV picture. They knre the liftoff was at say 156 hrs 26 minutes 17 seconds into the flight, and the camera had to move at a certain rate to follow the liftoff. Pretty simple if you can do math.
This doesn't disprove the moon landings... The rocket was fired from Earth and they knew the expected vertical acceleration, such that they were able to correlate this to the motion of the camera
The LLRV and LLTV flew successfully 238 times. When Neil Armstrong had his accident, the vehicle failed. Also, it wasn't built by the same company, which built the LM. So your argument is invalid. Also, the temperature is not a valid argument, since the CM/LM had a controlled enviroment. Once on the moon, in a vacuum, the cameras, which were modified to function there, didn't have problems with temperature, since there was no air to conduct heat.