How Apollo 11 made it to the Moon and back
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 23 июл 2019
- Getting humans to the Moon and back was a carefully choreographed journey, with the landing on the lunar surface just one part of the historic Apollo 11 mission carried out by astronauts Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collins. Narrated by legendary BBC presenter James Burke, who led the commentary on the Moon landing, this animation shows many of the crucial steps involved for humans to walk on another world.
Read more about the space race here www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/obje... 
Наука
If NASA lost their technology to get to the moon and back, they just have to watch this handy dandy RUclips video.
NASA did not lose the Apollo technology, they _retired_ it. Big difference.
Nasa never went to moon.
2:32 no one ever asks how they perfectly flew back from space (Pulsar-Tech? Really? hahahaha) - Manually timed and steered huh? Ever asked yourself why we can't even have machines fly back from the moon today? Humans are so freakin naiv!
@@stifler4eva1 yay!
It isn't lost ...a certain amount was shot into space and the remainder ended up in the sea ..if stuff was recovered ..it would be in a protected bunker ...
I was 15 in 1969, and I still remember this awesome historical event. I have a 50th Anniversary T-shirt from Mr. Buzz Aldrin. Thank you so very much for sharing.
@@benny.pepper Thank you, Sir.
wow it must have been amazing to see
That’s cool. I want to ask you Martin: Were people as skeptical about the moon landing as they are today?
@@KhaledTheSaudiHawkII No, people weren't as skeptical back in the 1960's. Those of us who studied and learned our Science, Mathematics, Physics, etc; realized how much work was put into this enormous project. Young people nowadays don't wish to learn in school and therefore can't comprehend these things.
@@KhaledTheSaudiHawkII No. people weren't as skeptical. Those of us who learned our Science, Mathematics, Physics, etc; knew how much work went into this enormous project. Young people nowadays don't wish to learn these things and therefore can't comprehend the landing on the moon.
Imagine orbiting around the moon alone just with a blind hope that your fellow mates would come back as promised. Scary!
Michael Collins did say his biggest fear was having to come home alone.
True, true.
Didn't they fight over who will step out first
No. As the mission commander, Neil Armstrong was allowed to go first.
There weren't any fights. And no people stepped on the moon. The next guy who will step here will be historic.
@Rod Perkins The astronaut himself wrote a book about it.
@Rod Perkins I dont know if this is the right 1 but the name of the book is: We Never Went to the Moon: America's Thirty Billion Dollar Swindle!
@@huhwhoamirobloxhey the writer's not even an astronauts mate
i have one question. How did Eagle(the carrier that took off from moon surface) inspite of being so small, was able to generate enough force to leave the moon on an orbit and join Columbia(the carrier orbiting the moon)
Generally in Earth, you need a carrier as big as six times the actual satellite just to throw out the satellite with a critical speed.
I have the same question. (no gravity and atmosphere is not an answer, it still needs to develop a very high speed)
This is because the moon’s gravitational field strength is far lesser than earth about 1.6N/kg vs 9.81N/kg on earth . Thus in order to leave the surface of the moon eagle, which as a relatively small mass with respect to the entire saturn V, only need alittle fuel to enter into orbit. Furthermore, moon does not have air like earth which causes drag and slows the spacecraft down, thus on the moon due to absence of drag much less energy is needed hence much less fuel!
@@gronz less gravity and atmosphere is actually a crucial part of why it can reach such high speeds with little fuel. This is because in layman terms, lesser energy from the fuel is needed to do work against gravity and drag , thus , u can think of it as more of the energy of the fuel is used to gain speed rather than overcome the resistance of drag and gravity. Hence with alittle fuel it can fly so much faster
@@gronz yea and also the escape speed(which is the minimum speed for a test mass to escape the influence of the gravitational field of the host planet) is much smaller than earth on the moon, thus u oso dont need a really high speed to lift off the moon
@@jarrellchia5062 jarrell, I ask you not give a 'no (or small) gravity' answer, and the first thing you type is about gravity. you just type what you've theoretically learned, and how did thos 2 ships connect again, with magnets?
0:15 What a bold move in space!
In space or in some Hollywood studio.
Space for sure. Believe me there’s no point to fake that mission! Even if they were to attempt back then it would be impossible because there was no CGI.
Had the moon landing truly been fake it would have been Russia or China exposing it not conspiracy theorists
@@lucid212 lol. That's what you think..just like there was no internet untill it came out. But waitvthe internet existed for over a century before the world knew about it. Also just like there was no such thing as UFO and all UFO claims were fake or just some degree. But now the US military tell you that they been around for decades defying the same laws of physics that we say are unbreakable. Lol. Bro open your eyes and leave the matrix
this is what im saying, how tf is this even possible
It's hard to believe this even after more then 50 years later !
Your watching a made-up story with a film that was made in earth. Yeah. moon landing is a film. It not a landing. Its a plan to fool the soviets that they won
@@huhwhoamirobloxhey
And you’ll be giving us a full explanation for EASEP/ALSEP and the retroreflectors. How they were assembled, cabled, aligned etc. this will be interesting...
Kabyletraveler. Try to get some more and better education. Then, it Will not be so hard to believe.
@@YDDES your ignorance makes you believe anything . I don't think you have any education .
It has nothing to do with beliefs. Do you have an understanding how Hitler's V2 rockets worked? Do you know that after WW2, USA (and Russia) carted away to their countries lots of V2s, and the German scientists that drove Germany's rocket programme? Are you aware of what it means to call the Space programme, a PROGRAMME? Are you aware of the initial tests and design/redesign in USA of the earlier V2s? Are you conversant with the objectives of the earlier space programme? Do you know when that programme was upgraded to Apollo programme? Do you know that the ultimate objective of the Apollo programme was to land a man on the moon, but that objective was broken into several sub-objectives whose main purpose was to land a man on the moon? It looks impossible for you because you are obviously ignorant the many sub-objectives that we're achieved earlier. You are focussing on Apollo 11 mission as if it was an isolated event without a history. To understand what Apollo 11 could do and actually did, you must firstly, understand what Apollo 10 was all about. Then Apollo 9, down to Apollo 8, etc all the way back to Hitler's V2's. That's how science works. Stop looking at Apollo 11 mission in isolation. That was an event.
It's amazing how flawlessly this worked...
When developing software, for example, there are so many bugs found and so much debugging going on when developing a new thing that was never developed before, and a lot of times things don't run flawlessly on the first time you run the code...
Really amazing how it worked so well.
Not sure if you know this, but there were the Apollo missions 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, before the landing to work out the problems. Apollo 8 and 10 even went to the moon but did not land.
The entire Gemini program was also preparation for the moon landing.
@@dansv1 yes, that is of course true, but still, there was never a human landing on the moon up to that point and I find it amazing how well it went
@@WilliamsShamir It is well documented. There is timeline of every progress / development including various related technology development. They are "primitive" compare to the technology now but it was do-able.
And that's what make the Apollo project is monumental for human kind history. Many aspect were affected. For example, the silicon integrated circuit (microchip). NASA's Apollo Program was the largest single consumer of integrated circuits in the '60's. The Apollo flight computer was the first computer to use silicon IC chips.
In fact, many NASA invention / research for the Apollo program in the '50s - '70s during the space race with USSR are used daily by human kind.
@@WilliamsShamir Every new type of flying craft always has to do a first landning. Mostly, they go Well.
@@WilliamsShamir There were many glitches on a lot of missions. The landings of Apollo 11, 14 and 16 were nearly aborted at the last minute as well as Apollo 13 of course.
So amazing to see how it happened, would be epic to walk on the moon one day
Timeworks hi why are u here lol
yep
True
@@SomeGuy-ek8bu To wake you fools up.
I am amogus
Say hello to amogus
How many times has Collins orbited around the moon? And why hasn't he taken some pictures of space during these unique moments in the shadow of the moon?
Taken pictures while orbiting the moon?yes he did,in fact collins is the only human being dead or alive that is never(ever) included in a picture.he's the one who capture the moon with armstrong and aldrin on it with the earth behind them with all the living creatures dead or alive that we know as far,isnt it mind blowing?yes it is and i think no one can do it again atleast in our timeline.
He did 🤦🏽♂️
@Jabir&Family no Fluffy NASA didn't delete anything all pictures are freely aviable on their Flicker account.
because it's pure fake
@@PAQUKA what makes you think that
I just enjoy this story every time I hear it. A Classic!
exactly. it's a story and nothing more. a fairytale
American truth about apollo landin on the Moon = american truth about biological weapon in Iraque 2003.America creates its own truth!Opon your eyes and cure your ignorance!
I like Rudolph better, but this one is pretty good 😂
@@altssssssssstell me reason why you think we didn’t land on the moon
they tried using science for eagle ascending didn't work ,so they used Magic
Yea that part I don't understand. Though gravity is 1/6 but you'd still need some serious propulsion to get back to orbit I think?
Hollywood magic? Lol
Awesome animation 👌🏽
Praise where praise is due. great comment.
How did people even learn how to get to the moon and back safely?? That looks super difficult to do.
I'm pretty sure they used something called.....................
Ummm... what was it again...................
Oh yeah! It's called Math and Science. Or something like that.
@@bluepumpkin9073 the word science has become a religion. You can say whatever nonsense you like, call it science and no one will question it
@W.S K.E they did in the fantasy of billions of people
@@YKIMPetje95 People will question it. They will carry out their own research to determine its validity. If their tests are in favour, they will accept it.
@@YKIMPetje95 be careful now, you are speaking truth and you know how the masses react when presented facts of about the world.
How'd they get off the moon??? The animation just shows the LEM floating off the surface.
Lost Fan In the 5 days since you posted that question have you looked into it to find your answers?
The moon has no oxygen how did they ignite the fire on the rocket
The left the movie set in a limo
Did u make this? This is crazily great man!!
this is a museum channel
how does it have enough fuel in that small thing to go to moon and back to earth?
Gravitational assist
Plus once you're far enough from the moon or Earth, you keep your velocity as there's no air resistance.
it’s getting out of earth that uses the most fuel
Moon has lower gravity so they only used few fuel to lunch back to earth
hahah
It really is crazy how they did that with the technology that they had at the time.
Yes, they used slide-rules.
It's crazy bc they didnt do it
It was an amazing time, to put it mildly. Somewhere around 400,000 men and women were involved in some aspect of the missions, from the early 60's through at least the latter half of the 70's. It was a herculean effort, very complex, but doable when you break things down into their simpler issues. For example, a small yet very important part of going to the moon involved researching what kind of foods the astronauts would need (such as, to limit pooping), and how to package that food so that it was still nutritious and appetizing, while taking up a very small amount of volume and mass, since getting anything out of Earth's gravity costs a lot of money, even today.
A computer that could hold only a little over 2000 words of txt... It's astounding!
And they "lost" the technology to do it today... but they can put rovers on mars... doesnt anyone find that strange?
Serious question, would it not take significant propulsion to get off the moon? He made it seem like they were driving up the street to meet up “eagle ascended from the lunar surface to randevu and dock with Columbia” lol. Seriously though what am I missing?
Nothing because it would appear that you have a brain unlike the 9/10 that have wool pulled over their eyes.
As far as I understand the gravity on the moon is WAAY weaker than on Earth, the ship was small and there was little to no air resistance, so getting out of there was a lot easier.
Simple physics, it takes a rocket the size of the empire state building to get them into earths orbit, moons gravity is 1/6th that of earths, so logically it would require a rocket at least 1/6th the size of the empire state building. But all it took for the lander was a little pop of fire, and AWAaaaay they went.
@@kinh6428 rockets lifting off from earth aren't just fighting 6x the gravity, they're also fighting 100+ kilometres of dense, dense atmosphere that's constantly dragging their speed down. That's why rockets leaving earth point straight up for a bit before tilting, so they can escape the thickest parts of the lower atmosphere sooner. Moon's a total vacuum, so there's no air resistance - so the lunar and command modules don't need to get to 100s of kilometres in altitude to reach a stable orbit around the moon, like they do around earth to avoid its atmosphere.
@warrenw7378 Also, to reach an orbit around Earth, You need a velocity of over 8 km/sec. To reach an orbit around Moon, you ”only” need a velocity of less than 1.4 km/sec. Also, the Saturn V had to lift the whole Apolloship (service Module, Command Module and Lunar Lander), while the Lunar Lander ascent stage only had to lift itself.
0:16 why was the CSM separated with the main body and turned 180 degrees then docked? Why wouldn't they launch the rocket with it already docked?
Probably just in case they abort
The LM was not aerodynamic and definitely could not be placed on top.
The astronaut was feeling high so he kind of made a drift going to moon.
How that thing flips upside down then goes back again into the original module to pull out and hook into another module before flipping again and ejecting all while in space seems so unreal to me, how really is it possible>
Hoax is how it’s possible, they “destroyed” all the so called technology that did it 😂😂😂
Its not
If lan. It’s possible Because There are No ”up” or ”down” in free fall in space.
It's quite simple - by manoeuvering through space like an aircraft but by using chemical rockets to adjust your attitude.
@@raphwalker9123 Why isn't it? In that case you wouldn't think it possible for an aircraft to fly and dock to refuel with another - but they do.
That was the clearest, easiest way to understand this mission. Thanks for your work!
Aside from the radiation, heat exposure on the surface, the star comments and the mid 90s speech by Neil…. The bit I just can’t buy is getting off the moon, somehow catching up to the craft carrier (whilst it’s orbiting at god knows what speed).
Rendezvous and docking was no easy feat but why should it be impossible?
It wasn't until 51 years later that we ever saw a rocket land thruster side down on the earth...
Because that's infinitely harder to do here than on the moon, where gravity is 1/3rd and there's no atmosphere to tip your ship over
@@Diandredofus Actually, the gravity on Moon is about 1/6 of Earth gravity. On Mars it is 1/3.
Steve Kurtas Actually, Rolls Royce flew and landed a similar contraption, the ”Flying Bedstead”, already in 1954.
except that's just wrong, rockets have landed like this for quite a while, however only recently have rockets used to launch things into earth orbit been able to.
ShatteredF1re7733 The Surveyor probes softlanded on Moon using rockets 1966 - 1969, so that’s not true.
Some of those maneuvers are just absolutely amazing
Unbelievable
Kyloren Kardashian. The ”amazing maneuvers” are just a matter of falling through gravity Fields.
@@YDDES wait. are you telling me those maneuvers happened without commands? just a mass being naturally readjusted by gravity? that's pretty cool too
@@kylorenkardashian79 No, but in a system like Earth/Moon, where There are No great distances, You hardly have to make any ”amazing maneuvers”. For example, You just fall to Earth if You leave Moon at the side facing Earth.
@@YDDES .. O.. ...
Excellent! A complicated and complex process explained simply and concisely. 👍👍
the moon and earth arent static and contsantly rotating and orbiting, so what corrections were made to the lunar landing and will it have been shorter or longer given alternate routes like interception or chasing?
It was stated in another video that the target reentry window at earth was 7 x 20 miles. do you know where this might be documented ?
How fast is the moon's orbit around the earth? Must be hard to land on a fast moving object.
Every jutsu has a weakness...
How did eagle manage to rendezvous and dock with Columbia? I am not usually a skeptic, but it does seems rather far fetched.
Precisely calculated orbits, precise timing of launch and _radar._ The LM’s docking radar (it also had a landing radar) could in fact detect the CSM from a distance of up to 400 nautical miles (740 km), so the two spacecrafts had no problem finding each other in orbit around the Moon.
@@fromnorway643 thank you for your explaination, presumably after it reached the required altitude it aligned to the same orbit?
@@richard21995
The alignment had to happen shortly after launch while the speed was still low since it takes huge amounts of energy and thus fuel to change the direction of the orbit after reaching the required altitude and speed.
Remember, the WHOLE POINT of the Gemini program was to learn how to do exactly that!
To properly understand spacecraft rendezvous it is essential to understand the relation between spacecraft velocity and orbit. A spacecraft in a certain orbit cannot arbitrarily alter its velocity. Each orbit correlates to a certain orbital velocity. If the spacecraft fires thrusters and increases (or decreases) its velocity it will obtain a different orbit, one that correlates to the higher (or lower) velocity. For circular orbits, higher orbits have a lower orbital velocity. Lower orbits have a higher orbital velocity.
For orbital rendezvous to occur, both spacecraft must be in the same orbital plane, and the phase of the orbit (the position of the spacecraft in the orbit) must be matched. For docking, the speed of the two vehicles must also be matched. The "chaser" is placed in a slightly lower orbit than the target. The lower the orbit, the higher the orbital velocity. The difference in orbital velocities of chaser and target is therefore such that the chaser is faster than the target and catches up with it.
Once the two spacecraft are sufficiently close, the chaser's orbit is synchronized with the target's orbit. That is, the chaser will be accelerated. This increase in velocity carries the chaser to a higher orbit. The increase in velocity is chosen such that the chaser approximately assumes the orbit of the target. Stepwise, the chaser closes in on the target, until proximity operations can be started. In the very final phase, the closure rate is reduced by use of the active vehicle's reaction control system.
2:11 how?
Magic
It had an engine/rocket
@@orthocoinbitzantium1002 xdxdxdxdxdxdxdxdx
This part is the most crucial. What if it was fail? Neil armstrong will die there and not rot forver
This is only animating, real video is also here on RUclips
Loved this
If they were able to do such a thing 52 years ago, i feel like we are capable of doing much crazier things, but idk we dont
Science *requires* questioning, but for some reason, we can't question this subject.
@@boldcounsel9406
What’s the point of questioning if you have already made up your mind?
And what’s the point of repeating questions that has been answered countless times over the last 50 years?
That doesn’t sound like scientific curiosity or honest scepticism to me, but *_denial._*
@@boldcounsel9406 BS! No one told you not to question the subject! Question away! But are you sufficiently open-minded to accept the answer?
The reason we can't go today: We're all out of Saturn V rockets & Apollo spacecraft. Don't worry, though. New hardware is on the way!
@@fromnorway643 You are exactly right. No one ever told Mr. Bold Counsel here not to question anything, he just needs to feel like a victim.
@@fromnorway643
Can't the same be said about you? I say questioning is good. You say that somehow means that I'm close minded. Original Commenter (Lucky Pegasus) brings up a legitimate point on what NASA has done in the past half-century (with trillions in tax-payer dollars). He's immediately called a clown.
hi there - you show the CSM turning a second 180 degree rotation after docking with the LM to fly LM first towards the moon, then turn a third 180 rotation to allow the CSM's SPS rocket motor to slow the craft down for LOI. Then it would require yet another rotation to face the pointy end of the CSM towards earth to light the SPS for the trans earth injection. According to this explanation the CSM would have to do 4 180 rotations on the journey. is this correct? I read in the Apollo 8 journey that the CSM flew 'motor first' all the way to the moon and was wondering if all the other missions did to. i am waiting on NASA for confirmation.
The operation to slow down the landers orbital speed to zero and at the same time controlling a vertical descent perfectly to a soft landing manually was imho impossible. And then remains the question how much energy (fuel) was required to do that. And not to forget the amount of fuel necessary to relaunch from the moon and accelerate again to dock to the control module. Nobody seemed to have raised these issues simply from a laws-of-physics view.
@@McUser1965 The engineers at MacDonell were no idiots. They knew how much fuel would be needed and constructed the LM accordingly.
@@McUser1965 Have you played ksp before? It's all to do with Delta-V. Once you know how much Delta-V you need, it's not hard to adapt to meet those requirements
@@McUser1965 I’m sure the engineers at Grumman knew What they were doing. They knew How much fuel the Lunar Lander would need and saw to that it had it. Remember the landing was on Moon and not on Earth…
@@McUser1965 I calculated myself how much delta V it would have required to take off, turns out it's 2202 m/s, 569m/s to reach 100km and 1633m/s to circularise. This is about the amount the lunar module had for the ascent (2220m/s), bearing in mind the bottom landing half would be ditched to reduce it's mass, the variables used to calculate the deltaV, such as the propellant exit velocity and the fuel to mass ratio look all reasonable to me.
You'll notice no footage of them exists of them exiting or entering the hatch.
The space suits with the life support systems attached were too bulky to do so and so a decision was made to not show how this was accomplished on any of these missions.
Why are you lying? There's a perfectly good reason why there's no such footage, and you know why. No, not your BS conspiracy theory. Try again.
@@Tim22222
Lying? That's a bold claim to make and not backed up with any evidence.
Your anger stems from your inability to answer the question I posed.
I believe that's why YOU. resorted to
lying.
@@neilarmstrongsson795 Actually, my anger stems from a conspiracy loser soiling the name of a great American whose moon boots you are not worthy to lick.
@@neilarmstrongsson795 There are several photos of Aldrin coming out of the hatch, if You just bother to look,
Neilarmstrongsson795. Have You managed to find the pictures of Aldrin coming out from the lander yet??? By the way, your pathetic signature is a lie and a theft.
How those 2 crafts ducked with each other perfectly in space in 1 try is beyond me
That's because you have not studied orbital mechanics. It's just math.
They did a lot of missions beforehand to make sure it would work as planned
Is my eyes playing tricks on me or was I wrong in assuming all these years that after takeoff from earth the rocket makes a clockwise rotation into orbit, and after the first stages of booster separations they head towards lunar injection into a semi clockwise rotation - at lunar orbit left to right? It looks the reversed from this video unless the view is from the other side? Please enlighten me
That is still incredible
It was marvelous to bring these people back from the moon.
Di Zhang. Still, they did it 6 times. Plus Apollo 8, 10 and 13 which didn’t land.
we brought them back like they never there 😀
If I hadn't been on the moon at the time, I couldn't believe it.
I don’t believe it
Hhhhhh funny 🙃
Oh so that was you in the blue suit 🤔 i was there aswell 🤝
@@lo0se127 dammit! I had just left the Moon and these guys came in to land... such a shame
honestly hard to believe it could b done then
Spinning the capsule 180 degrees in space, having never done that before is very challenging for me to believe was possible. There are other challenges that are hard to accept were accomplished with having no previous experience. When you stack them all up it is daunting…
your belief is irrelevant... the maneuver was rehearsed on the Apollo 9 and 10 missions ... nothing on any of the 9 Apollo moon missions were carried out unrehearsed...
I recognised James Burke's voice immediately lol grew up watching him on TV ...legend . PS He was born in Northern Ireland
Thought the same thing. Connections was an amazing first of a kind tv series that actually taught you and made you think.
I still don't understand how they could left the moon surface without a rocket. And then join the other part in the lunar orbit. They didn't "touch" the moon. I don't believe this circus
Did you not notice the rocket engine on the bottom of the ascent stage? There's your rocket. What more do you think would be needed?
You're arguing out of ignorance. It's not a good look.
But they did have a rocket??? What???
Micheal collins was the loneliest person by distance for sometime in human history
Haha
kindly provide more more space videos
cannot wait to get to more space
Let's not forget the part played by earth stations, particularly the one built on Ascension Island in 1966 in order to allow communication between the Apollo spacecraft and Houston, via satellite and Andover, Maine (the building of the earth station is told in the 1967 documentary 'Apollo in Ascension').
Pardon my ignorance but how does this work when the Earth is orbiting the Sun at roughly 107,000 km/h. From what I understand the shuttle is being sling shotted by Earth's motion as well. Shouldn't the shuttle be traveling close to that speed to be keeping up with the Earth's and Moons Orbit around the Sun?
Everything you're talking about - the moon, the ships - were bound by gravity to the earth. Meaning it all started at the same velocity. The other velocities in question are _relative to the earth._ Frame-of-reference stuff.
It’s not just the speed of a planet’s rotation that gives them a slingshot, it’s the planet’s mass which causes a warping of spacetime around the planet. This is felt as a ‘gravitational pull’ by the spacecraft and will give a slingshot if the trajectory has been correctly calculated.
@@julianhembrough6678 lol
i hold my breath while watching this
@W.S K.E proof
So cool 😍😍
That’s incredible.
Yes. Unbelievable.
I came here to know how Eagle ascended from the lunar surface and it is not clear in the video. :(
Because this is fake
It ascended with use of the hypergolic rocket engine. Funny how ignorant some people can be…
Rocket engine can't work without oxygen @@YDDES
@@Nista357 No, I know that. That’s Why the rockets have huge tanks with oxygen or other oxidisers in them, together with the fuel tanks.
imagine flying through space for 3 days not knowing how all this will end up, if you really gonna land on the moon and then fly back home, or if you just die there
This is why I think all of this is fake and we never made it to the moon
@@kahton and i absolutely get it
CharliesMaidenCovers Imagine embarking a passenger plane and not knowing if it will reach its destination or crash on the way there. Same thing.
@@YDDES but knowing there are thousands od planes landing safely every day. this was the first time
@@CharliesMaidenCovers The Apollo 11 landing on Moon was not the ”first time”. NASA had landed at least 5 robots and orbited 2 manned spacecraft around Moon. Apollo 10 did everything except touching down on the surface.
Nice video. It only bother me to see 4 contact probes at the LM.
Martin Mendez The LM only had 3 contact probes. They didn’t want to have a probe near the Ladder, so it could hurt the astronauts when they claimed in and out.
Brilliant explanation
Wow! Watching this and I'm thinking alot of stuff has to be done to perfection. My Windows PC isn't that reliable. So whoever drew this up in 1969 was a genius.
Thousands of geniuses joined in this project.
It was a script taken from Hollywood
How they so sure the tip will reunited without any trial?
they aren't
Of course they have tried. Several times. On Apollo 9 and 10 for example.
@@YDDES are there people in it?
@@WKurniawan03 yes, of course There were astronauts in the LM when they landed on Moon and went back to the CSM. And, in Apollo 9 in Earth orbit and Apollo 10 in lunar orbit during testflight.
@@YDDES I wish people could understand the significance of what you have written. Most people have the mistaken view that Apollo 11 was just an event that sprung out of nothing. Alot of ground had already been covered in the previous missions even before the Apollo programme. They do not know that although Apollo 11 was the first mission mission to take man to the moon, there had been previous mission to land unmanned craft on the moon. There is alot ignorance among today's generation.
That's actually genuis
Apollo era scientists and astronauts were at a different level altogether. We with all resources are still far behind compared to what those Bravehearts did with mere punch cards.
“I'd go to the moon in a nanosecond - the problem is that we don't have the technology to do that anymore. We used to, but we destroyed that technology and it's a painful process to build it back again.” Don Pettit, NASA...hmmmm nice cartoons
They didn't destroy anything they needed, there's simply too much radiation.
Artemis
@Alex Mckinnon He meant he would make the decision to go to the moon in a nanosecond, if he could be. Not the actual journey, only the decision to go.
@@christianege4989 r/wooosh
didn't happen
who can explain about how they went through the van allen belts....
Google can. Ask it.
There are literally _dozens_ of videos right here on youtube that explain it! Have you looked? Have you even tried to find the answer?
Respected sir can i use some footage from here as fair use in my you tube video
I can not understand that for reaching moon a series of rockets needed and they are elapsed after doing work. But during return to earth only single unit is enough?? If it so then why we use so many rockets for starting or is it eassy to return compare to goes to moon?? Please explain..
Because escaping earth's atmosphere is a tough job.
@@pluto9963 Thanks for your reply. One more question for your kind reply please. Here moon has less gravitational force and less atmospheric attraction force so we come back using a single unit. But if we reached in a planet which have more "g"/ gravity or atmospheric attraction force then how can we return from that planet as all our rockets collapse after doing work?? Pls reply soon..
@@gobindamridha3409 No way to return then.
And basically, where'd you go ? Only Jupiter and Neptune of our solar system has greater gravitational pull than earth. Humans ain't leaving our solar system with rockets.
@@rudranroy2109 Also, at least Jupiter is impossible to land upon. Probably No real surface and way too much radiation. You can’t even land humans on Europa, due to Jupiters high levels of radiation.
Wow, that was technically done with lots of study
bullshit.. they had cpu power less than ur mobile phone
It's strange that this still feels impossible to do with all the modern technology.
it was done only in their minds...
@@jol3co1 It would be far more difficult to convince everyone on the planet that we landed on the moon than it would be to actually land on the moon. Imagine faking an entire 150 billion dollar rocket launch when that was the hardest part of the mission. If they're going to launch a rocket then why not go to the moon?
@@jol3co1
correct.
Lol wtf you are talking about, not possible :D??? There were 6 manned Moon landing not just one....
@@ThatOneStopSign it's far easier to direct the landing than actually go there. They would know that after several failed missions. Because you're dealing with a force of a nature and here you are dealing with camera and a set.
where was all that fuel stored so they can travel over 700,000 km in total. A jumbo needs refuelling after 15,000 km !!!! Did they stopped somewhere on their way.
They had to practice so many times to leave earth but everything went perfectly to plan when at the moon. All that flying around the moon and orbiting would take absolute precision. Seems legit
funny how everything went without a hitch and as perfectly planned. coming back is really difficult.
There were _plenty_ of glitches, which you would know if you actually cared; several missions were nearly aborted.
And why would coming back be especially difficult?
@@Tim22222 the lunar orbit ascent and rendezvous is a very complex and precise maneuver. very unlikely they can nail it on the first attempt under actual conditions, even with all the simulations, calculations, and preparation that went into it.
@@metsrus That was the main rationale behind the Gemini programme that proceeded Apollo. Also, It wasn't the first attempt - the LM of Apollo 10 descended to withing 47,000ft of the lunar surface.
@@yassassin6425 did you watch the Armstrong lunar module training video, where the module exploded as he was training? ascending directly from the ground of the moon was definitely the first attempt in the Apollo programs. Personally, i don't believe they have master the propulsion technology enough to pull off that complex and precise maneuver even with all the calculations, training and preparation done on Earth. So many room for errors and malfunctions, yet they nailed the ascent and rendezvous under actual conditions with one shot.
@@metsrus There were _hundreds_ of successful flights of the LM trainer - but of course the only film you've seen is of the one failure. And no, it didn't "explode"; a valve stuck - a valve that the trainer had _but the LM did not._
Everything has to be done for the first time once! Your doubts about the existence of propulsion tech is irrelevant; yes they *HAD* it, and your incredulity without evidence is not an argument.
hello, please don't take for take this as hate or something like that, but how did they have enough fuel to get out of the gravity of the moon and back to earth?
Orbital assist or gravitational assist.
They didn't. The eagle having enough fuel to slow down from orbit speed and landing is already hard to believe. But it having enough to ascend and reach orbitspeed again is ridiculous.
Upon reentering earths atmosphere the reentrycapsule would fall at about 11km per second. That would mean a nice explosion in the sky.
The third stage trans lunar injection is also quite hard to believe. It lasted for 350 seconds and accelerated to 38 624 km/h away from earths gravity. That's like taking an elevator that accelerates from 0 to 110 km/h every second for 350 seconds. And the elevator weighs over 100 tons.
They had tanks with hypergolic fuel and only needed to accelerate to about 1 km/sec to reach orbit, where the CSM waited. Then the CSM accelerated to 2.4 km/sec to get away from Moon and ”fall” back to Earth in free fall.
@@rawgarlic9234It’s only hard to believe if you know nothing about it.
Am so interested in the maths related to this any resource ??
How did they leave? What propulsion was used? How'd they get through the van allen belt? If they cant now?
A big rocket that went really fast
and they can go through the VAB rather easily, and spacecraft go through it.. basicly every day as the ISS passes through parts of it.
They left by having the LM dock to the CM. The LM was then jettisoned, and the SM performed a burn to inject the CM into Earth Orbit. It then performed a final deorbit burn, the CM and SM separated and the CM deployed parachutes and splashed down. There were 5 F-1 engines in the first stage, 5 J-2 engines in the second stage, a single J-2 in the S-IVB (third stage), and A SPS (Service Propulsion System) for the SM. The Van Allen Belt is dangerous, but not immediately lethal like everyone believes. Obviously we can get through the VAB, so I assume why we can't get back to the moon. Well, we are, but the reason it took so long is because of funding, and there isn't a big reason to go there. 6 Missions accomplished a lot of science, and there isn't anything that we can't find without probes.
That was amazing ! We did that 1969 and today we can’t find a way to go back ;)
A Canadian. That’s Because we need LARGE rockets to go to Moon again. Rockets we No longer have.
No one can find the money to go back yet.
But Artemis Will soon go back.
Don't confuse "can't find a way" with "can't afford a way". Though, we seem to be pretty close to going back at this point with the Artemis program.
@@YDDES USA print money, trump print 1.4 trillion and biden 1.8 trillion this is not about the cost but it's very hard to make it, last week NASA pay spaceX to go to the moon because NASA fail to make the engine of the rocket, if spaceX fail to landing to the moon they will say spaceX who fail not NASA hhhhh
Question propped up in my mind is that how that small part get fuel ⛽ ? :/ To travel that long distance
Gravitational assist and the fact that friction is very low in space. Most of the fuel was burned when leaving Earth's atmosphere because of air friction and gravity.
most of the travelling didnt require fuel as the rocket moved in the gravitational fields
Thanks .
Shiblee 06 In space it’s only speed that Counts, Because You are in ”free fall”. It’s not like an aircraft, where You need fuel for the entire Journey.
It’s just amazing how this amount of automation was achieved in 1969.
I’m dumb, can someone please explain how they re-docked the lunar ascent module with the module Collins was piloting? How did they align the orbits so perfectly?
Visually and with radar... look it up for more detail...
Colombia docking with eagle is an insane difficult task?????
this is like when someone tells you he can jump up to 100 feet high but can't do it again even after more than 60 years lol
I was just discussing with my friend about the same point, like how can you explain no manned mission after that at all, strange
@@manikh5825 its all about budget $$
@@soufianebenn1327 and you believe it to be the reason?
@@manikh5825 yeah, russia and china already done missions to the moon with robots, as they are wayyyyy cheaper than transporting humans to the moon, robots dont need to eat, no need to be trained, no need rest and basically only needs to be controlled or programmed.
@@user-mg7wh8zq6v carry on with this logic
How was it carrying enough fuel to get into an orbit around the moon? What was the orbit height above average moon level?
@Phil Failla funny guy. Are you in the nassa rich club?
Thank you. I was wondering how the lunar module, after launching off the moon's surface, would be able to make it back to the command module orbiting around the moon in one piece before flying back to Earth.
How even their signals reach each other to communicate?
Radio
@@drobnoxius9483 Thats insane to think about, back in those days. UNLESS it was all done in a studio back in LA 🤣
@@Gumiplay your not a moon landing denier are you?
The signals had No reason to ”reach each other”. It was enough that they reached the receivers on Earth and on Moon.
the rocket layer arent burned when the first take off from the earth ? and how the fk he can go back and unite again...
they need that big rocket to go there, and small rocket to go back? how ?
Earth has more gravity than the moon and why it needed less power to get off it
You would need over 11 km/sec to leave Earth, but only 2.4 km/sec to leave Moon. With a much smaller weight
So there is something left on and around the moon. Perfect!👾
there is no atmosphere on moon to make u slow down for landing. so that in what speed that vehicle landed on moon???
The booster reduces its relative speed with the lunar body, allowing it to lower itself down at a safer slower speed than what it requires to orbit. Hence why there is a booster on the bottom of the decent stage. A good analogy would be driving two cars at the same speed (say 20 mph) down a road, they both side by side are moving nowhere in relative to each other but in actual fact are travelling 20mph.
very less gravity on moon, and there's no atmosphere.
Giyotyn. That’s Why they had a rocket engine to slow down and land.
How can the soooo accurate only had 1 try..something wrong
It looks fake because it is fake
This is incredible.
I was glued to the television July 1969
I was 9 years old
i dont understand so many things here. first of all, how did the space ship thing de-attach, turn around, and re-attach in space? second, how did they even get that trajectory in space? would the rocket not just go straight, i j dont get how it curves. and then how does the one thing land on the moon while the other orbits? and then how do they launch the damn thing back into the moon’s orbit? and how do they reconnect? and then how do they leave the moon’s orbit after they reconnect if they’re not being launched at that point??
someone smart please explain 🙏🙏
Armstrong won in rock-paper-scissors.
haha.. yes
@@rklokesh1but no actually Armstrong is the missions captain
biggest blunder in mankind history
why
@@shiva2340 becuase it's clearly BS, so many things would have had to go perfect for them, connecting different pieces mid air, timing all that, landing on the moon straight, geting back up, yeah right
Whats the name of the game
Amazing just amazing
May you explain? Why do you think that is fake?
@W.S K.E amazing how 400 000 nasa workers and thousands of soviet spies who hate americans dudnt expose the moon landings
How did they pull off all of that with 60's technology?? ..and got back to our surface alive??
This is fake obviously
Did you watch the video? Which part are you confused about?
So what technology do you think is needed to go to the moon then?
the Lord works in mysterious ways
Amen
How did that craft leave moon's gravity? Without a rocket Propellsion? U got ta be kidding me,
What is a "propellsion"?
The LEM had another rocket onboard in what was called the ascent stage. It was small, as lunar gravity is weak and it didn't need to travel very far to dock with Columbia.
Jibzrko 786. What makes You think the lunar module had No rocket engine for propulsion??? Of course it had. The engineers at Grumman were of course No idiots.
@@YDDES wow u still think it actually happened. Great
@@jibzrko That was all You managed to come up with? Not a single argument for your beliefs? I see...
Why did command module didn't land as well
Because it would be extra weight to have to get back up into orbit, and its safer to keep the command module in orbit with one man on in case of an accident.
Chris Ohio The meaning with a separate lander was to save fuel and weight. Landning the CSM on Moon had requaried a much bigger rocket from the start.
How did they leave the moon and catch the command module in the first fry? That thing was cruising around the moon at thousands of miles per hour. It’s like taking off from a point and catching up to a bullet.
Everything is All-Good within Apollo tales, super maths & driving!
It wasn't the first "fry," they practiced on Apollo 9, 10, and several Gemini missions. And the math was worked out by people way smarter than you & I!
Next time try learning about something before criticizing it?
Not qiet. The Bulletin can manuver
TIming & radar.
The math of orbital mechanics is actually not that complicated, but like has been pointed out. Orbital rendezvous had happened several times already. Particularly on a place like the moon where you don't have to deal with drag, the math is pretty easy to work out. If you get into an orbit at the same altitude as some other orbiting body (in this case, the command/service module) - you will NECESSARILY be going the same speed as that craft to orbit at that height. The only issue is timing your launch so that you are pretty close to your target by the time you reach that desired orbital height. From there, it's just a matter of firing RCS thrusters to maneuver the ships together.
Me too I landed on the moon in my dreams
i landed on my dreams in the moon
0.18 how do they turn 180 degree on space with such precision?!🤔
Youre questioning probably the easiest part of the entire mission.
@@martin5759 😂 thankyou that made my day
@@martin5759 like these kids on the internet duude , they act smart like asking questions but doesnt have any basic knowledge
Attitude control thrusters.
@@martin5759,still waiting for the answer.
Is the coverage of the moon landing is live?? Just asking...
Only the audio.
Even when this graphic was designed, it was prepared with thousands of edits. Despite this, Apollo seems to have returned with a flawless journey during his trip.
Nope! Hardly flawless! There were many problems - communication breakdowns, navigation errors, etc. And then of course there was Apollo 13! Fortunately these things were designed & built by some excellent engineers who made things robust & had backups. It's a weak straw-man "argument."
@@Tim22222 That's right... Since then, we as humans have not been able to go beyond the space station for some weak straw-man "reason".
@@SMART5486 Straw man? How so? I don't think you know what the term means!
@@Tim22222How did the camera get there first? Where is the camera now, and who is controlling it on lift off? And why can't we see the flag from any telescope on earth?
@@spoileralertrecap Whoa, dude, you're WAY off topic. What camera? Which mission? You're just throwing everything against the wall to see what sticks, aren't you?
I always cry when i look to the moon 🥺 who can believe it human being walk on him wow unbelievable
The moon is female.
And nobody has walked on it.
@@neilarmstrongsson795 What about the 12 people that have walked on it
This is EXACTLY what I always wanted to know, see! GORGEOUS!!!! I used to be neutral on weather to believe or deny such act in history, but since technology proves us we're head of what we were 100 years ago, made me realize why not? I've watched hundreds of vids on the conspiracy and then the opposite and finally came to the conclusion it was actually done. Someone said curiosity killed the cat. We humans are curious by nature and will always question life, the beginning and end of times; our curiosity has developed and took GIANT steps to where we are today. The fact we have satellites around the orbit of our planet and we walk around with a super computer on ours hand everyday (smart phones), tells me our curiosity will never stop and yes..., many will die in the process of exploration to know the unknown. I picture us like ants in a glass box, it doesn't matter how big it is or how well sealed is; you'll always find curious lil ants wondering around the house like: Hey, how did you get out of there? :) It's amazing.
The Columbia and the Eagle uification just had me mind-boggling....
Because its fake
How lunar landing Columbia docked with eagle ?!!