To try everything Brilliant has to offer-free-for a full 30 days, visit brilliant.org/DaveMcKeegan . You’ll also get 20% off an annual premium subscription.
@@UpperDarbyDetailing Having been exposed a little bit to fighter pilot culture it is my headcanon that one of the astronauts mispronounced it when arriving for an interview to join the program and everyone just went with it and had to suppress bursting out laughing every time they said it that way to make fun of the guy.
Excellent video well and thoroughly researched. Is the rumour that they didnt put enough fuel in the LEM ascent stage of Apollo 10 because the crew may just attempt to mutiny and land anyway? is there any truth to this?
Most of them don't even know that the program was called "Apollo" let alone that the first landing was numbered 11. They literally don't pay attention.
@MereanaM- Kinda just like: "This is COVID NINETEEN! People! Not COVID ONE!" People don't actually THINK! They just repeat BS that they've heard. So I asked her: "WHERE do you 'think' (knowing she didn't) that '-19' comes from?"
It's like they followed a plan with milestones, learned lessons along the way, developed technologies, and got to the moon eventually. Who'd've thought!?!
I think it's because these days most things are "Let's aim for the moon and hope things don't explode along the way" rather than iterative design with focus on not killing people. Preventative vs responsive
@@luchagain3424 Well, SpaceX is trying rapid design, while borrowing some ideas from NASA. And NASA has had lots of budget cuts and folks constantly asking for something to show, so even they've had to cut corners, which explains...well the "recent" loss of lives.
Virgin Galactic shows how incredibly difficult and dangerous it is to travel where few men have gone before. Space X has taken many years and had many setbacks, as did Blue Origin. I was holding my breath until Bill Shatner got back safely.
ROFL!!! I just did a google search: The moon was a Waxing Crescent with 3% illumination when Apollo 11 launched July 16th, 1969 and still a Waxing Crescent with 30% illumination on July 20th, 1969 when they landed. Talk about overconfidence: They could have missed the moon totally when it was only 3% there.... 🤣😂🤣🤣🤣
@@navyhmc8302 No. It was shortly after lunar dawn at the landing site. This was chosen for maximum contrast and visibility. You will also notice that Eagle landed with the sun directly behind it after an East-to-West descent. Later missions, notably Apollo 15 & 17, landed in the middle of the lunar day.
Wait... you mean Usain Bolt practiced first? I thought he just scoffed chicken nuggets and rocked up to the stadium having never used his legs before. /s
And what was PRACTICED exactly regarding the moon hoax? You mean, the previous years of blatant space hoax that had been happening since the 50's? With the USSR claiming to magically have flown to the moon as early as 1959?
It takes a burping dyslexic to barf out nonsense like that and get liked for it, having no clue what all official sources say on the supposed FIRST HUMAN MOON LANDING.
Yeah, no kidding. I was living in Pasadena and had the opportunity to go to the JPL open house on the 50th anniversary of the first moon landing. They were selling these Apollo T-shirts with the moon and mars in the O's... and a row of three stars. (I could only afford two, or I probably would've grabbed a couple more.) It's amazing that those three were the only deaths, but it speaks well of the people in charge that they were able to raise the priority of crew safety so much and still pull off the missions they did.
It's hilarious. My younger brother was a moon landing denier until his 30s. Over a few beers one night, I was discussing a documentary about Apollo 8 and he was completely baffled. He didn't even know there were earlier missions. He never even questioned why Apollo 11 had "eleven" attached to the name. He is no longer a denier.
Would be suprised to see one "true" well informed denier. Not just one that always is against whatever government is saying (majority for me sounds like that - if government would say earth if flat, next day they would be globe-supporters. If government would say Moon landing never happened - boom, it was suddenly real). Personally I never had any doubts (even one would have some questions - natural curiosity to know how things work) just because I knew person in my early teens who was working on listening US radio transmissions during that time from Soviets side =))
@@elmurcis1 As a general rule, it behooves any good person to be skeptical of their government and the people who run it, but a lot of the flerfer types have just completely broken mental models where absolutely anything said by anyone that they can't verify for themselves is dismissed completely out of hand.
Yes, most of them are completely unaware of Apollo 8 which orbited the Moon and especially Apollo 1 which tragically caught fire on the launch pad killing the three astronauts.
They wanted to make the heist look easy, so they didn't show Ocean's 1-10 where they tested the mission, step by step. Failure was an option, and every time they got caught, they served their time, then went back and tried it again. Took 'em years.
Gene Cernan and John Young did get to walk on the moon on Apollo 16 & 17 in 1972 after going through another full cycle of prime-backup-prime crew. Tom Stafford didn't fly again until the Apollo-Soyuz test project in 1975, six years between flights.
I remember reading a book on the moon landings and one of the astronauts memoirs was about this very thing. "It was right there." Good thing that they did get to walk on the moon a long time later.
It appears Nan was right. It must have been a bit frustrating for the Astronauts on Apollo10 to see that surface so close and know they had all the technology on Apollo 10 to land. The flaw in the plan is they probably wouldn't have got back off the moon. But I am sure the "what ifs" were on their minds.
@@Green_Tea_Coffee Dave's video's are not based in evidence but rather reaffirmation to appease the common fanboy of NASA! You do realize that we haven't returned to moon in almost sixty (60) years? NASA's explorations? Erased tapes Lost tapes Found tapes Sold tapes Destroyed the technology... Painful process to build back again.
Speaking as someone who watched all this happen, and was inspired by it to become both an astrophysicist and an aerospace engineer, still working today, landing a man on the moon was an unparalleled engineering achievement (in cost alone it was roughly the equivalent of 20 Concorde programmes, and that by itself was impressive enough). But it also set the gold standard for what has become known as "systems engineering" - the art and science of designing, building and testing extremely complex systems, from autonomous vehicles and space exploration to healthcare technology and large scale civil construction projects. Since flerfs can't even figure out how a sextant works, it's doubtful they could comprehend the complexity of, for example, a nuclear reactor. In systems engineering there is a thing called Gall's Law (from _Systemantics: How Systems Work & Especially How They Fail_ May 1977). It states: "A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that worked. The inverse proposition also appears to be true: a complex system designed from scratch never works and cannot be made to work. You have to start over, beginning with a simple system.” So if you want to build a complex system that works, build a simpler system first, and then improve it over time. Just like Apollo.
@@conradgittins4476 And what were the "inspiring benefits" of the moon hoax exactly? Enriching a close circle of crooks with stolen budget trillions through a continuing space fraud, while duping the world with fake records?
Yeah, that dyslexic burp ("flerfs") surely shows us an "astrophysicist". And "getting inspired" by a fully-exposed blatant hoax speaks volumes. In the meantime, the incoherent con-artist clown, who claims to be also an "aerospace engineer", still can't figure out how to navigate internet and RUclips and has no clue about basic rocketry still in use since the 50's and the way the rockets are launched in real life. Nor does he have any clue about the basic timeline of the so-called "space exploration" and when the first actual "autonomous" life-support systems started being developed - while the laughable tin can in question not only lacked that in 1969, but had nothing at all to accommodate three grown men in full gear, store all they'd require, protect them and navigate them, even if it could somehow be miraculously launched into space. So much for an "inspired aerospace engineer" and all the hilarious babble of how a "super complex" tin can appeared out of nowhere with its magical moon-flying abilities and disappeared into nowhere with all its telemetry, technology and archives for the decades to follow, instead of being used and improved into modern-day spaceships, somehow not found to this very day, ironically. But yeah, let's divert to "nuclear reactors" and silly dissing of those that are actually smart and knowledgeable, unlike the sad con-artist.
@@conradgittins4476 Still the cost of the programme to every US taxpayer throughout was just $10 a year. Apollos 18, 19 and 20 were all built and ready to go but politics got in the way.
Does this mean we are adding more titles to the growing list of alleged professional members in audience here? Let's see. We have an alleged .. 1. Pilot----Alysm 2. Professor 3. Astrophysicist --you 4. Engineer 5. Journeyman plumber---Dan 6. IHOP dishwasher---No one in particular. Yet the combined aptitude here ghas been uable to produce or tender one legitimate rebuttal so you will understand why I your writer do not belueve that you are an astrophysicist of any sort or variety.
The problem is, people who "think" there isn't a tiny flaw in pouring water over a ball and claiming to have debunked gravity aren't given to actually thinking about things.
It has always annoyed me when they can't seem to understand the difference between down and south. What might be the funniest part with it is that the only reason they seem so focused on south specifically is literally just because that's how maps are made.
I've come to love that ""experiment"" because it not only demonstrates gravity, it creates a near-perfect scale simulation of the Earth and its oceans, with hydrostatic force simulating the effects of gravity.
As a kid that watched much of Apollo live I appreciate people who were not yet born continuing to build our knowledge of it. As a 10 yo I was fascinated by it but it’s only been in recent years that I have come to appreciate just how much was invented directly to get us there.
From X mas 1968 to July 1969 this excited 11 year old was glued to the TV watching all these mission as they played out in real time. This summary brought back some great memories Dave , thank you In fact I can still recall Raymond Baxter on the BBC Program "Tomorrows World" previewing Apollo 5 and telling us that this opened the path to the moon... . God I''m OLD!
No you're not old--I was 17 at the time, and still remember all those Apollo missions vividly (in Black&White). I even had a gigantic model of the Saturn V stack.
I'm not a flerf, nor a denier or conspirationist I just love to hear your explanations and how you destroy their stupidities. Keep up the scientific work, sir!
I almost feel sorry for those who can not partake in the celebrations of our accomplishments because they are too ignorant to understand how we accomplished it.
@@viktorm3840 What threshold of evidence have you accepted to make the Positive claim that space is fake, and astronauts use harnesses? You have made the Positive Claim, you have the Burden of Proof. No waffling, tested, measured and recorded evidence that *meets the Threshold of Evidence you accepted*
@viktorm3840 Might have something to do with having a big heavy backpack on at all time. And did they attach wires to all the dust following ballistic trajectories? Why did Soviets (and independent observers) confirm it after tracking it with radar? What about the satellite footage matching the landscape and showing what matches with the descent module? What about the retro reflectors? How did the light cut off so sharply?
Never heard about the week-long vacuum test before, or the 48 hours in the Sea. But the fact that it was called Apollo 11 should have been a clue that it wasn't the first attempt.
It's funny how they'll comment on videos that go against their beliefs, but never seem to find the time to actually watch them or respond to the topics discussed in the video.
vacuum of deep space is 10-1x -17 torr un achievable on earth synthetically. so theres that. then theres the fact there is that square window on the hershey kiss capsule. bok mr smarty spark. answer me this
@@patirckozz Funny you should say that, I have worked with vacuo in a professional capacity. Something I very much doubt you have, given you mangled scientific notation that thoroughly 🤣
And in the years leading up to Apollo 11, NASA had performed multiple missions involving unmanned probes. Along with the mentioned Surveyor missions, there were the Pioneer, Ranger, Explorer, and Mariner series of missions. Over the course of these missions, there were 17 failures. Landing men on the the Moon was the result of everything they learned from both the successes and failures of earlier missions.
The shifting of the prime and backup crews around was a very interesting segment. I wasn't aware of the amount of crew juggling that had gone on. Must have been an emotional roller coaster for many of them. Thanks for this great video!
I’m going to watch that segment many times over to learn the history of the crew shifting. I take space history very seriously, and want to know it all to the point where I can recite it from memory.
Collins was gravely concerned that he would be taken off flying status as a result of his herniated disc (he got it when ejecting from a crippled F-100 Super Sabre jet some years before).
@@spudeleven5124 I imagine he was concerned. Do you know if the injury was a result of the loads induced by the ejection seat itself, and whether or not he expressed having any symptoms during or after the Apollo program? My guess is that even if he did, he kept it to himself.
Even if the only thing you knew about the first moon landing was that it was Apollo 11, would you not stop to ask why it wasn't Apollo 1? Moon landing deniers, Space deniers, flat earthers, all those people whose catch call is 'do your own research' have no idea how to check the simplest thing.
Judging by the nonsense you wrote while blatantly denying the documented immovable level earth and the space/moon hoax exposed to you in full detail, you've never researched a single thing to this day somehow, still unable to basically operate this very site and internet overall. The question arises where you get your comic chutzpah with such blatant projections then. Get a clue first on what you're trying to even speak about.
@@rickkwitkoski1976 Precisely. Like the clownish dude you're addressing. Sheeple will remain sheeple, no matter how much and how long you rub their noses into the factual reality all around. And that would be fine, if not all the clownish rhetoric on their part towards those critical thinkers who do fact-check things and have balls to question official narratives, unlike them.
@@JohnSmith-ux3tt Huh? So how do you think the former victims of the globe cult questioned its postulates, looked into the actual evidence and found out about the documented flat-earth reality in the first place? Do you ever think through your nonsense when rushing to spew it out?
Everyone's heard the old joke: Nasa approached Stanley Kubrick to help them fake the moon landings. After weeks of discussion and with Kubric refusing to compromise on his artistic vision, they decided to shoot the moon landings on location.
My dad worked on the LEM, so I grew up watching these launches. One night, I think it was 1971 or so, my aunt and family were visiting. Us kids were up late, laying on the floor watching TV. The ground started shaking, stuff rattling, and there was a distant quiet roar sound. (The sound varied with the wind direction, so launches had no sound all the way up to punch in the chest loud, depending…) We all ran out of the house, looking north east toward the space center, and all the neighbors were spilling out, too, looking toward the sky. No launch had been scheduled that was public knowledge, so everyone was confused, but a disaster would have lit up the sky out that way. Nothing. Black sky. The next day, the news reported it was a huge earthquake somewhere else that had sent tremors as far as we were. Maybe Japan…but earthquakes in FL just don’t happen, and rocket launches were happening so much that it’s what we all expected. Talk about cognitive dissonance 😂
I live in FL and i felt a small earthquake a few years ago. It was the only earthquake i've ever felt. I kept looking at the news and I think it said it originated in cuba or somewhere around there
Hah! I know that feeling. I worked at Mojave Air & Space port for almost 20 years and got accustomed to the bangs and rumbles there. One day at my desk I heard a good loud boom and struggled to identify it. Hmmm, it wasn't bombing on the range at China Lake to the north, nor was it from blasting at the cement plant's quarry three miles away to the west, and it didn't have the usual ba-boom of a sonic boom, what could it be? Then it came again and I realized it was just plain old thunder- it rained so rarely there that when I heard hoofbeats I always thought "Zebras!"
A few years back I recall one denier saying that if the moon was so important, then at least one mission would have been scheduled to look at the dark side! *Fun Fact:* _Harrison Schmitt actually put together a mission outline for a daylit landing on the far side, using the command module as the dog-leg relay for transmissions._
I believe you mean the *far* side of the Moon, the one facing away from the Earth most of which we can't see. The dark side is the one facing away from the Sun, i.e. the Moon's night side, as can be clearly seen from Earth during various lunar phases except for full moon.
I was born in 1956, and followed the space programmes (both NASA and the USSR) like a true geek. I therefore remember the Gemini missions, the first EVA, the first docking of two craft (essential for the docking of the LEM and the CSM), the unmanned moon missions, the testing of the LEM on Earth (including Neil Armstrong nearly crashing). I remember the Apollo 1 disaster, which cost the lives of Grissom, White and Chaffee, the Saturn 1B, which preceded the Saturn V, the missions in Earth orbit, then Apollo 8, the first time Man left Earth orbit and ventured out into Space, to orbit the Moon and come back. Remember the line in Apollo 13, Lovell says "I've seen it already" when they look at the lunar surface, unable to land, He had previously circled the moon, and not landed. The point is, all of this was in preparation for Man's first steps on another world. Steps I missed because Armstrong and Aldrin left the LEM ahead of schedule and I had been sent, under protest to bed. I always get goosebumps watching Star Trek Enterprise, the opening credits show prehistoric boats, then sailing ships, balloons, planes, John Glenn, Apollo 11, the shuttle, the ISS....then the ships of the Star Trek universe..... I kept scrap books of all the events, developing hardware, achievements and rehearsals. I could have discussed the mission with Patrick Moore, because I had read so much.
Born in 1960 here. All us kids knew the schedules for Gemini and Apollo missions, and what they would be doing/testing. When the Apollo 1 fire happened, we were afraid the whole thing would be off. But when the new schedules came out, we knew those too. Amazing how just paying a little attention to the news in the 1960's debunks everything moon-landing deniers claim about "first time" nonsense. Hell, I was 9 when Apollo 11 occurred, and I knew more about the mission and its history than deniers today do, and I didn't have the internet!
flerfers can watch flerf influencers prove the round earth and will just say nuh-uh and continue on with their day, do you believe they actually think about this
And... WHY did Windoze go from 8.1 to 10? No 9! Numbers are not always followed in order. But then... ASK and find out why. Most people just don't think. They just believe the BS that their sister's roommate's uncle said.
Just a quick note for any Apollo fans out there: The website Apollo in Realtime does an awesome job of taking photos, video, film, and radio chatter, maps it to a timeline for three of the Apollo missions, and then plays it out in real time. It's a brilliant example of historical documentation.
Yeah, the HISTORICAL DOCUMENTATION of the clowns that had to fake the "distant marble" and "moon talks with Houston" right on camera against the bright blue skies of the earth, then clumsily jump on wires in a studio, then sit with sour faces at that press-conference and embarrass themselves by knowing nothing either about stars or radiation, and then run for the rest of their pathetic lives from the journalists, while their bosses admitted they "oopsey-doopsey, lost all rocks, archives and telemetry" - was brilliant indeed.
My uncle’s argument against the moon landing is now my favorite: there’s no way we could have talked to astronauts on the moon, Direct TV sucks to this day! I don’t know why he doesn’t get those are fairly different techs. Or why he’s still using Direct TV.
And even after they had made it once, they sent up more landers. Surveyor 2 crashed on the moon. Surveyor 3 was successful, but Surveyor 4 was unsuccessful again. They landed 3 more Surveyor missions successfully.
to be fair: the moon landing was done "on the first try", everything prior to this eventually lead to this milestone and made it possible in the first place, but after all that initially work and testing was done, Apollo 11 just needed only one try to landon the moon and to return fro it.
If I want an excellent explainer of a science topic, I'm just gonna pretend to be a flat earther and find a way to deny it happened, as long as Dave sees it.
They must have used a lot of practical effects too, there are people who swear they saw the rockets launching and heard the sound. Quite some theatrics.
LOL..the first satellite live transmissions from overseas was in the 60s and would cut out periodically. (Please Stand By...) The Tokyo 1964 Olympics was the first to do that. Now the Flerfs take for granted instant worldwide communications.
Moonwalk directed by Stanley Kubrick at a super duper top secret underground studio operated by Disney. It was disguised as an agricultural research station in Flat Rock, Nevada. Address 1202 Research Drive just off of then State route 601. From the air it looked like fields of corn and barley. Dr. Jeremy Stone and Major Manchek incharge. 🤔🙄🤦♂ 🤪
An aspect that is commonly forgotten is how much of the achievements of NASA in the '50s and '60s came on the back of the absolutely massive investments in missle technology for military purposes that were happening at the time. Mainly for ICBMs, but also for planned crewed programs that were later canceled. This created an environment where many of the technologies and industrial base used in Apollo were, to some degree, already in development for more than a decade and could readily be adapted to the Moon mission. Without this, the goal of going to the Moon would probably not have been realistic.
@@obbie1osias467 They do, but they usually claim that they're actually powered by ground-based radio towers. Just ignore how you can get GPS remote areas far away from cell towers
@@incognitoburrito6020 I imagine they'd hate GPS because of the word 'Global' on it! They might demand Elon Musk to change it to Firmament Positioning System!🤣🤣🤣
I must say that your vid explaining everything about those missions was very well researched and presented. I don't know HOW people are saying that it was fake. I lived through that and watched it LIVE on TV as we all got to come home from school just to watch it.
So many classic pieces of footage. I'm burning man for TFE - Dave is the perfect man for the job. His views are going to spike with what he brings back to show us!
Thanks, Dave for one of the best explanations of the Apollo program. As a young kid, I kept track of the USA space program and have to say that you got the most info in the shortest length of time than any documentary I have ever seen. Well done.
Nah, see, that's part of how they trick you. They called it Apollo 11, because it has twice as many ones, meaning its twice as first. Therefore, it makes the fact that they successfully landed on the Moon first try even more impressive. Because they didn't just do it first one time, they did it first, twice!
@@doomspud6302 Yep..... the first "1" for Neil Amstrong, the second "1" for Buzz Aldrin. Actually it should be Apollo 110, because Colins didn't land on the moon.
@@doomspud6302 Both you and @Yehan-xt7cw have made a great point. That must be it. That's the same as calling someone junior, and then calling his son Junior Junior.
I’d like to point out that neither Leonard Part 6 or Big Hero 6 had a 1-5. Just saying. You’re also giving these twats too much credit assuming they even know it was called Apollo 11.
I have to say I am impressed with the logic presented in this thread. Love it 👍That said, I am impressed they managed to make the landing legs precisely long enough. Any shorter, and they wouldnt land at all.
Dave, what a fabulous video. I always wondered what happened between Apollo 1 and Apollo 7 but you explained this very clearly. I was fortunate enough to go to the USA and witness the last Saturn 5 lift off. Will never forget it. I just cannot understand why some people cannot accept the history of the Apollo missions. My favourite remains Apollo 8.
It is astonishing when you learn how even such things as hygiene were taken in steps. The first Astronauts including apollo 11 had no shower, using wet washcloths to wipe themselves and these were limited due to water restrictions. They had to take turns going to the bathroom in their space suits and the waste came back with them. The filtration system was not 100% and odors did build up. The Navy recovery teams described an overwhelming odor when they opened the hatch. They did finally install a rudimentary shower system in the lunar module. It used minimal water which was then recycled for future use. Still better than nothing. The brave men who performed these missions did so under extreme conditions that helped NASA learn for future missions. Many of the firsts we will experience, including the first manned Mars mission, will be built upon the work that these first pioneers undertook and those who gave their lives for the endeavor. - Those who deny the lunar landings dishonor the sacrifice so many have given for the achievement. It is shameful.
It's not like they went to the moon on the _very first mission._ They worked up to it, each mission going a _little_ farther and testing one new set of variables. The first landing really was just that "one small step" in the journey.
This was a very ineresting and educational video. In the late 60's I was too young to fully appreciate the immense work and effort that went into the Apollo missions but now in my senior years I can truly understand what it took to make the Apollo missions become a history making reality. As I quote from the movie "Contact": "Small moves Eliie. Small moves". Well done and thank you Dave.
When Dave mentioned that during Apollo 9 the LM and CSM traveled "115 miles" apart, I realized that was the same distance downrange that Alan Shepard flew during his "first American in space" suborbital Mercury/Redstone mission. Interesting comparison over so few years!
Fascinating stuff, Dave. I was a child of the late 60s/early 70s near the west coast of Florida. Our teachers would take us outside to watch every time there was a launch. We gobbled up every bit of info we could on these flights. As I became an adult, I began to really appreciate the risks and margins that these guys faced. Hero is not a strong enough word for what they did.
I am of a similar age. I recall how exciting and futuristic all the equipment looked. In my 40s I went to a special exhibition of left over Apollo tech and was honestly struck by how primitive and fragile everything looked. It was then I truly understood both how brave, and lucky these guys were.
@@yassassin6425 The existence of area 51 was a conspiracy theory until 1998, mkultra, multiple ufo's (f-117) etc all started out as conspiracy theories. The existence of these were for the most part only known by conspiracy theorists (they're not all nutjobs like you seem to think) researching stuff and then with them being confirmed by the government sometimes decades later.
@@Voschane *_"The existence of area 51 was a conspiracy theory until 1998"_* No it wasn't. *_"mkultra"_* Was never a "conspiracy theory". *_"multiple ufo's (f-117) etc all started out as conspiracy theories."_* And remain so. *_"The existence of these were for the most part only known by conspiracy theorists"_* Absolute bollocks.
@@yassassin6425 MKULTRA. The Tuskeegee syphilis experiments. Watergate. The FBI/J. Edgar Hoover harassing Martin Luther King, Jr. Gulf of Tonkin Incident. That's just off the top of my head.
The only time NASA ever had a “first one for all the marbles” was the first space shuttle launch in 1981. The shuttle had no automated landing system. That meant they couldn’t launch one unscrewed without knowingly losing it. They tested it gliding in the atmosphere (crewed) to make sure the “from airliner altitude to landing” worked fine. But the first ever actual liftoff from a pad of the solid rockets, main engines, orbiter, and external tank (individually) was all together in STS-1 with a crew. Every other crewed craft had multiple uncrewed launches first.
I'm not a moon landing denier ad even I am astonished just how much testing and trials where done ahead of the first actual landing. It's always good to actually learn about this stuff.
This is the way. Engineers doing it bit by bit, fixing problems and pushing the limits further. Boeing and its fartliner can most definitely learn a thing or two from those engineers.
I would ask those people if they thought it strange that they walked the first time they took actual steps. They built up to walking just like we built up to landing on the moon. Every experience in human knowledge has a first and typically we could call that first success a first in our experience and only that first, as it almost always is, is the first time we attempt to do something. The wright brothers took flight on their first attempt at Kittyhawk is that weird? Could it be the product of intelligent people who put in the work and had a fair idea of what would happen before they tried it?
The first time they land on the moon, they came right back on the firts try. They went to space before. They went to the moon before. They orbited the moon before. But the forst time they land in the moon, they came back on the first try.
I’ve heard that Aldrin and Armstrong sent Collins to the back of the CSM on a spurious errand and when he was out of the way, jumped in the LM and landed on the moon. True, that. Stanley Kubrick was there.
Apparently this was a valid concern for the mission planners, and the crew were told in no uncertain terms that if they attempted a landing they'd be in a world of hurt.
I listened to an interview with Charlie Duke on a BBC podcast on the 50th anniversary and he mentioned that he practiced landing in the simulator around 2000 times. These deniers all seem to think Armstrong and co just got up one morning, had NASA put together a rocket by midday and blasted off in the afternoon with no more than Gene Kranz pointing to the moon and saying, "Over there guys, that way"!
I mean, that's how that one flat earth guy who launched himself in a steam powered rocket did it. Of course, he ended up being a grease stain on the California desert, but he did it nonetheless.
@@Green_Tea_Coffee It's difficult not to laugh, after all a man died, but..... damn! You kinda get the image of a guy with a pair of old fashioned goggles sitting in something built by his grandson for a soap box derby.
The Mercury program, Gemini program and the early Apollo missions prepared for a successful landing on the Moon... As is pointed out in this video. Thanks. Keep looking up.
Another thing that deniers never consider is the huge level of public exposure that the Apollo missions had. Some of them, specially among those who are too young to have lived it, seem to believe that it was something which was carried out in secrecy and one day someone came and said “hey, we’ve landed on the Moon”. No, it wasn’t like that. It was the main event in the media in the late sixties and early seventies. It was hugely covered everywhere in the world. The astronauts and the technical advances were everyday on every media. In terms of comparison, just think in the coverage of Olympic Games or the football World Cup. The sheer amount of scrutiny and related information makes it impossible to fake it. Does anyone seriously think that the Olympic Games are NOT currently happening in Paris? No, the Games are so huge that no one can fake that. Well, same could be said about the Moon landings.
So true. While my dad watched the news with Walter Cronkite every night, when Cronkite started talking about some aspect of the space program, I was 'glued' to the TV set hanging on his every word.
The jargon alone can prove the program was real. It was very specific and particular to Apollo. Imagine if it were fake how much effort it would take to keep all that terminology straight.
None of the Apollo missions before 11 had tried to _land_ on the Moon, but they had tested out the hardware and _most_ of the procedures necessary to do that, so the only "firsts" for Apollo 11 were the actual landing, walking on and lift-off from the Moon.
Thorough and well done. Thx. Side note: a childhood friend told me his dad invented the oven contraption that tested the command module's heat shield. I never tried to confirm it, because I want it to be true. Hahaha.
What surprises me are the number of people who have no idea that NASA LANDED SIX TIMES. They seem to think Apollo 11 was it; having never heard of the previous missions crewed missions, Apollo's 7, 8, 9 and 10. Or even why Apollo 8 flew to the Moon in Dec 1968.
I have often noticed that too. Also that people think that Apollo 11 was built in a few days and are completely unaware of the history as Dave clearly explains here.
@@belperflyer7419 Sorry to hear this. The statement "Failure is not an option" came from flight director Gene Kranz during the recovery of the Apollo 13 crew.
i love how moon deniers are always " look at those faces during the press conference, they do not look like people who were just to the moon .. well duh. the press conference was weeks after. but we have footage of them being taken out of the command module and in the decompress chamber .. they are tiered, exhausted but grinning like madman.
It was a quarantine trailer. Their supposed dejected demeanour had more to do with their personalities - Neil Armstrong in particular was a very private introverted man whilst Mike Collins had a dry sense of humour and Buzz Aldrin, very acerbic. These gullible fools that lap up junk conspiracy theory have no idea of the more ebullient personalities that followed in subsequent missions that the grifters perpetrating this horseshit fail to tell them about. Individuals such as Pete Conrad, Dick Gordon, Al Shepherd, Charlie Duke, Eugene Cernan and Ron Evans. They are given excerpts of the Apollo 11 press conference but lack the initiative to watch its entire duration or those from Apollo 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17 which most of these goons have never even heard of. In one of his previous videos effortlessly demolishing the lies and falsities of Sibrel, Dave actually shows a clip from the post mission press conference from Gemini 8 in which Armstrong is even more reticent, awkward and hesitant. That was simply his nature.
And there are even many photos from this press conference where they are laughing. The deniers just use one or two single photos from the whole two hours as their "proof".
Also, in the press conferences, they don't come across really any different than, say, an athlete at a press conference who's just won a major victory.
Decompress chamber? They were not in a decompression chamber but in quarantine. They did not want to take the risk that unknown viruses might have been brought along. That turned out not to be the case and the astronauts of the later missions did not have to go into quarantine.
As a God believing science minded fan of rocket science; I can’t get enough of Dave breaking down space tech. And his apologetic approach to flat earthers is top tier schooling
I did a report in MS of the Apollo 9 mission, and of course watched the first steps on the moon live from my living room, but I have never heard a complete breakdown of all the prior Apollo missions after Apollo 1, so thanks for all that. It takes a lot of the mystique out of that first moon landing for all the skeptics out there.
They'll say it's days of soundstage and CG footage - as if inventing film quality CG in 1969 and the hardware necessary to render it is not as impressive an achievement as flying a rocket to the moon. Also don't forget there were live broadcasts from the moon and traveling to and from. They want you to believe NASA could render this film quality CG in real-time. Pretty sure we can't even do that today
@@ctsean That is really hilarious. I've argued with moon hoaxies about this before, and they know even less about the process for creating CGI than they do about the Apollo program. They have zero understanding of how any of that would work, the equipment and software that would be needed to pull it off, and the enormous army of CG effects artists (that would rival the biggest Hollywood studios) you'd need.
It's still pretty crazy that they did it though... Someone born in 1893 would've been 10 years old at the time of the first powered flight, and 76 when man landed on the moon. Now we're 120 years after the first powered flight and 55 years after that first landing and we haven't gone any further than the moon (in person).
Not enough money. NASA had the problem of Nixon being terrified of bad publicity after Apollo 13. It's a wonder that they reached Apollo 17 before manned missions were shut down. Then you got the space shuttle, in effect going back 10 years.
It's those numbers that do give me a little sympathy for the deniers. As in that I understand what thought process they're using, not that they are right.
I like to compare returning to the moon to the exploration of the South Pole. It was reached on 14 December 1911 by Norwegian explorer Roald Amundsen and 4 others. Scott's Polar party arrived January 18th 1912. It was 31 October 1956; 44 years later; before any human set foot there again. And the south Pole is a lot easy to reach then the lunar surface. And the base at the south Pole has been continuously occupied since 1956. Now using that 44 year gap for returning to the pole to returning to the moon would have meant a return in 2016. It''s just a matter of MONEY and POLITICAL commitment to return and to stay.
How so? Not a single engineer had yet to live in a non-flat world and account for any curvature and rotation. So what are you on exactly with that outright insult to anyone's intellect?
@@Green_Tea_Coffee Basic common sense that tells you: you can't bend level, build/sail/walk/live sideways and upside down, and don't fly at astronomical speeds millions of miles away on busted pear-shaped earth comets? While living on the demonstrable immovable flatness, documented to you throughout and seen by your own eyes? Are you using the words "basic common sense" in the totally opposite sense to what they actually mean?
THE APOLLO HOAX IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH FLAT EARTH NONSENSE ** "Flat Earth nonsense should be regarded as the direct antithesis of the Apollo hoax theory. Here's why." Jarrah White has created a collection of both bite sized videos with all you really need to know, and the more detailed trilogy from which those clips came from. ** ruclips.net/p/PLOFH9q50V_sdKrGzLZ5mOFzC_hzF3AtiV
Great memories! Although I was at JSC (then it was MSC) at that time, but I didn't keep up with the unmanned test flights because we were so busy with tests of the suit and left support systems. I wasn't part of the 2-TV 1 team in Chamber A, but worked with many of them in later years as our organizations became consolidated.
"On the first try" seems to be the deniers' new talking point. You get someone who isn't all that familiar with the details, and ask them if they thought NASA could do it "on the first try" and they say "well, since you put it that way..." The Van Allen belt question was in fashion a few years ago. It's like playing Whack-a-Mole with these people.
The thing about the Van Allen Belts is still a major talking point with the moon hoaxies. It comes up over and over again, despite there being multiple sources, including James Van Allen himself pointing out that the VAB are not a total show stopper for manned space exploration.
Wait…you mean smart people, made a plan, with redundancy, incremental advances, to finally accomplish a goal. Sounds like complete hogwash to me! 😂 Thank you for this video! It does a great job explaining the process!
How cow. I'm from the US and almost 50 and always thought it was pronounced Gemin-I and not like Jiminy. You learn something new everyday. Thanks, Dave.
In Latin the i ending is masculine plural and the ae ending is feminine plural. So gemini and geminae would be pronounced differently. That's why it's usual to pronounce the i ending as ee and the ae ending as eye.
To try everything Brilliant has to offer-free-for a full 30 days, visit brilliant.org/DaveMcKeegan . You’ll also get 20% off an annual premium subscription.
You've got a bit of cross-talk at 19:25, where your voiceover is clashing withe the excerpted video's.
NASA did indeed officially call it the gem uh knee project. It was a small nod that told people you were “in the know”
@@UpperDarbyDetailing Having been exposed a little bit to fighter pilot culture it is my headcanon that one of the astronauts mispronounced it when arriving for an interview to join the program and everyone just went with it and had to suppress bursting out laughing every time they said it that way to make fun of the guy.
Yeah not buying your crap, grifter.
Excellent video well and thoroughly researched. Is the rumour that they didnt put enough fuel in the LEM ascent stage of Apollo 10 because the crew may just attempt to mutiny and land anyway? is there any truth to this?
a person sees the name Apollo 11 and doesn't ask why 11 and not 1, all you need to know about the stupidity of these people
NASA has a stutter.
Most of them don't even know that the program was called "Apollo" let alone that the first landing was numbered 11. They literally don't pay attention.
I've already recorded a video about just that topic 😉
@MereanaM- Kinda just like: "This is COVID NINETEEN! People! Not COVID ONE!" People don't actually THINK! They just repeat BS that they've heard. So I asked her: "WHERE do you 'think' (knowing she didn't) that '-19' comes from?"
@@rickkwitkoski1976, it was actually called COVID - 19 because it first appeared in 2019. But you are correct in that there are many coronaviruses.
It's like they followed a plan with milestones, learned lessons along the way, developed technologies, and got to the moon eventually. Who'd've thought!?!
I think it's because these days most things are "Let's aim for the moon and hope things don't explode along the way" rather than iterative design with focus on not killing people.
Preventative vs responsive
@@MaxxJagX spaceX begs to differ. They have had plenty of unplanned rapid disassembles over the past couple decades. But that’s how it works.
The fact it was so well organised is suspicious😊
@@luchagain3424 Well, SpaceX is trying rapid design, while borrowing some ideas from NASA.
And NASA has had lots of budget cuts and folks constantly asking for something to show, so even they've had to cut corners, which explains...well the "recent" loss of lives.
Virgin Galactic shows how incredibly difficult and dangerous it is to travel where few men have gone before. Space X has taken many years and had many setbacks, as did Blue Origin.
I was holding my breath until Bill Shatner got back safely.
“Good thing it was a full moon that day.” - CC Chris from Westchester County, New York.
"would you stop your bs ?" His wife, same adress... at that time....
👍😝🤣
ROFL!!! I just did a google search: The moon was a Waxing Crescent with 3% illumination when Apollo 11 launched July 16th, 1969 and still a Waxing Crescent with 30% illumination on July 20th, 1969 when they landed. Talk about overconfidence: They could have missed the moon totally when it was only 3% there.... 🤣😂🤣🤣🤣
Imaginate landing... sorry mooning in a vacuum? Impossible!
@@navyhmc8302 No. It was shortly after lunar dawn at the landing site. This was chosen for maximum contrast and visibility. You will also notice that Eagle landed with the sun directly behind it after an East-to-West descent. Later missions, notably Apollo 15 & 17, landed in the middle of the lunar day.
Thinking that the moon landings happened first try is like watching an athlete perfom and thinking they've never practiced
The lead Flerf's know all this, they are just grifters trying to extract money from the gullible.
Wait... you mean Usain Bolt practiced first? I thought he just scoffed chicken nuggets and rocked up to the stadium having never used his legs before. /s
@tyrannicpuppy shhhh that's a nasa secret
And what was PRACTICED exactly regarding the moon hoax? You mean, the previous years of blatant space hoax that had been happening since the 50's? With the USSR claiming to magically have flown to the moon as early as 1959?
That makes absolutely zero sense
It takes a flerf to believe the entire Apollo program started with Apollo 11.
RIP Apollo 1 crew!
It takes a burping dyslexic to barf out nonsense like that and get liked for it, having no clue what all official sources say on the supposed FIRST HUMAN MOON LANDING.
Yeah, no kidding.
I was living in Pasadena and had the opportunity to go to the JPL open house on the 50th anniversary of the first moon landing. They were selling these Apollo T-shirts with the moon and mars in the O's... and a row of three stars. (I could only afford two, or I probably would've grabbed a couple more.) It's amazing that those three were the only deaths, but it speaks well of the people in charge that they were able to raise the priority of crew safety so much and still pull off the missions they did.
And it takes a gullible idiot to believe that we landed on the moon in 1969 when my iPhone 8 has more computing power than the onboard computer did.
I got to see Apollo 1 at a Rockwell open house. I was just a kid, but remember the feeling of horror knowing that those men burned to death.
It's hilarious. My younger brother was a moon landing denier until his 30s. Over a few beers one night, I was discussing a documentary about Apollo 8 and he was completely baffled. He didn't even know there were earlier missions. He never even questioned why Apollo 11 had "eleven" attached to the name. He is no longer a denier.
Would be suprised to see one "true" well informed denier.
Not just one that always is against whatever government is saying (majority for me sounds like that - if government would say earth if flat, next day they would be globe-supporters. If government would say Moon landing never happened - boom, it was suddenly real).
Personally I never had any doubts (even one would have some questions - natural curiosity to know how things work) just because I knew person in my early teens who was working on listening US radio transmissions during that time from Soviets side =))
@@elmurcis1 As a general rule, it behooves any good person to be skeptical of their government and the people who run it, but a lot of the flerfer types have just completely broken mental models where absolutely anything said by anyone that they can't verify for themselves is dismissed completely out of hand.
@@Green_Tea_Coffee Unless it coincides with their preexisting worldview, then it's uncritically accepted.
Yes, most of them are completely unaware of Apollo 8 which orbited the Moon and especially Apollo 1 which tragically caught fire on the launch pad killing the three astronauts.
I get the confusion, Ocean's 11 was also the first in the series...
🤣 Didn't that refer to the number of people involved though? Now that would have been a crowded space capsule.
@@scloftin8861maybe the other 8 were film crew and grips.
They wanted to make the heist look easy, so they didn't show Ocean's 1-10 where they tested the mission, step by step. Failure was an option, and every time they got caught, they served their time, then went back and tried it again. Took 'em years.
Also, Leonard Part 6 is the first and only installment in the series.
And it was a remake...
I can remember watching Apollo 10 as a kid and my Nan saying 'that must be so frustrating, so near yet so far'. God bless Nan, you knew Pathos.
I thought that at the time, and even now, over 50 years later, I still think the same thing.
Gene Cernan and John Young did get to walk on the moon on Apollo 16 & 17 in 1972 after going through another full cycle of prime-backup-prime crew. Tom Stafford didn't fly again until the Apollo-Soyuz test project in 1975, six years between flights.
👏🏻🥂
I remember reading a book on the moon landings and one of the astronauts memoirs was about this very thing. "It was right there." Good thing that they did get to walk on the moon a long time later.
It appears Nan was right. It must have been a bit frustrating for the Astronauts on Apollo10 to see that surface so close and know they had all the technology on Apollo 10 to land. The flaw in the plan is they probably wouldn't have got back off the moon. But I am sure the "what ifs" were on their minds.
Man I’m a total Apollo geek and you managed to cover a few things I didn’t know - well done!
His in-depth videos always have something new to learn. It's why I much prefer to watch his debunking videos over those from SciMan Dan or Creaky.
Know? Or instantly believe, memorize and regurgitate?
@@ramonortiz7462 What things did Dave say in this video that you have compelling contradictory evidence for?
@@Green_Tea_Coffee Dave's video's are not based in evidence but rather reaffirmation to appease the common fanboy of NASA!
You do realize that we haven't returned to moon in almost sixty (60) years?
NASA's explorations?
Erased tapes
Lost tapes
Found tapes
Sold tapes
Destroyed the technology...
Painful process to build back again.
Speaking as someone who watched all this happen, and was inspired by it to become both an astrophysicist and an aerospace engineer, still working today, landing a man on the moon was an unparalleled engineering achievement (in cost alone it was roughly the equivalent of 20 Concorde programmes, and that by itself was impressive enough). But it also set the gold standard for what has become known as "systems engineering" - the art and science of designing, building and testing extremely complex systems, from autonomous vehicles and space exploration to healthcare technology and large scale civil construction projects. Since flerfs can't even figure out how a sextant works, it's doubtful they could comprehend the complexity of, for example, a nuclear reactor.
In systems engineering there is a thing called Gall's Law (from _Systemantics: How Systems Work & Especially How They Fail_ May 1977). It states: "A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that worked. The inverse proposition also appears to be true: a complex system designed from scratch never works and cannot be made to work. You have to start over, beginning with a simple system.”
So if you want to build a complex system that works, build a simpler system first, and then improve it over time. Just like Apollo.
While the budget was eye watering the benefits of the program were immense. Apollo inspires people to this day.
@@conradgittins4476
And what were the "inspiring benefits" of the moon hoax exactly? Enriching a close circle of crooks with stolen budget trillions through a continuing space fraud, while duping the world with fake records?
Yeah, that dyslexic burp ("flerfs") surely shows us an "astrophysicist". And "getting inspired" by a fully-exposed blatant hoax speaks volumes. In the meantime, the incoherent con-artist clown, who claims to be also an "aerospace engineer", still can't figure out how to navigate internet and RUclips and has no clue about basic rocketry still in use since the 50's and the way the rockets are launched in real life. Nor does he have any clue about the basic timeline of the so-called "space exploration" and when the first actual "autonomous" life-support systems started being developed - while the laughable tin can in question not only lacked that in 1969, but had nothing at all to accommodate three grown men in full gear, store all they'd require, protect them and navigate them, even if it could somehow be miraculously launched into space. So much for an "inspired aerospace engineer" and all the hilarious babble of how a "super complex" tin can appeared out of nowhere with its magical moon-flying abilities and disappeared into nowhere with all its telemetry, technology and archives for the decades to follow, instead of being used and improved into modern-day spaceships, somehow not found to this very day, ironically. But yeah, let's divert to "nuclear reactors" and silly dissing of those that are actually smart and knowledgeable, unlike the sad con-artist.
@@conradgittins4476 Still the cost of the programme to every US taxpayer throughout was just $10 a year. Apollos 18, 19 and 20 were all built and ready to go but politics got in the way.
Does this mean we are adding more titles to the growing list of alleged professional members in audience here?
Let's see. We have an alleged ..
1. Pilot----Alysm
2. Professor
3. Astrophysicist --you
4. Engineer
5. Journeyman plumber---Dan
6. IHOP dishwasher---No one in particular.
Yet the combined aptitude here ghas been uable to produce or tender one legitimate rebuttal so you will understand why I your writer do not belueve that you are an astrophysicist of any sort or variety.
Apollo 1 through 10: am I a joke to you?
Apollo 1-3 didn't happen.
@@MeerkatADVdepends on what you mean by happen.
Even just the planning process and mock ups can be called happening
@@MeerkatADV Apollo 1 did, Apollo 2-3 didn't
@@MeerkatADVApollo 1 was the fire.
@@davidioanhedges Apollo 1 was scheduled as a launch. The crew was killed in an equipment test a month before it was supposed to fly.
The problem is, people who "think" there isn't a tiny flaw in pouring water over a ball and claiming to have debunked gravity aren't given to actually thinking about things.
It has always annoyed me when they can't seem to understand the difference between down and south. What might be the funniest part with it is that the only reason they seem so focused on south specifically is literally just because that's how maps are made.
I've come to love that ""experiment"" because it not only demonstrates gravity, it creates a near-perfect scale simulation of the Earth and its oceans, with hydrostatic force simulating the effects of gravity.
As a kid that watched much of Apollo live I appreciate people who were not yet born continuing to build our knowledge of it. As a 10 yo I was fascinated by it but it’s only been in recent years that I have come to appreciate just how much was invented directly to get us there.
From X mas 1968 to July 1969 this excited 11 year old was glued to the TV watching all these mission as they played out in real time. This summary brought back some great memories Dave , thank you
In fact I can still recall Raymond Baxter on the BBC Program "Tomorrows World" previewing Apollo 5 and telling us that this opened the path to the moon... . God I''m OLD!
@colinritchie1757 This 13 year old was doing the same.
No you're not old--I was 17 at the time, and still remember all those Apollo missions vividly (in Black&White). I even had a gigantic model of the Saturn V stack.
you´re just in your golden years - and you are an eye witness for these missions unlike an 80´s guy like me
@@civwar64bob77 So did I , Airfix 1/144 , and as usual very badly painted!
Oh dear, I can can remember Sputnik.
I'm not a flerf, nor a denier or conspirationist
I just love to hear your explanations and how you destroy their stupidities. Keep up the scientific work, sir!
"flerf" here, and I love watching people who think it's all real.
@@DanielWilson-k2d
Show me the flat. Why can't you show me the flat?
@@DanielWilson-k2d can't blame your parents for low oxygen supply at birth
@@Everie That's not a nice thing to say.
@@awatt water rests flat. The earth has a lot of proof.
I almost feel sorry for those who can not partake in the celebrations of our accomplishments because they are too ignorant to understand how we accomplished it.
@@viktorm3840 What threshold of evidence have you accepted to make the Positive claim that space is fake, and astronauts use harnesses?
You have made the Positive Claim, you have the Burden of Proof.
No waffling, tested, measured and recorded evidence that *meets the Threshold of Evidence you accepted*
@@viktorm3840 You're...kidding...right? It's so hard to tell on the internet.
@viktorm3840 Might have something to do with having a big heavy backpack on at all time.
And did they attach wires to all the dust following ballistic trajectories?
Why did Soviets (and independent observers) confirm it after tracking it with radar?
What about the satellite footage matching the landscape and showing what matches with the descent module?
What about the retro reflectors?
How did the light cut off so sharply?
@@viktorm3840 So...the 20,000 companies and universities, nearly 100,000 people directly involved with the project...they're all in on it, right?
@@slysneakly6465 And apparently so are the millions of other people indirectly required to make the moon landing possible.
"The moon landing was fake!" - Which?
Which goes along with "if they landed on the Moon, why didn't they go back?"
You mean the other times when they did...?
The!
"yes"
All of them
Never heard about the week-long vacuum test before, or the 48 hours in the Sea.
But the fact that it was called Apollo 11 should have been a clue that it wasn't the first attempt.
"do your own research" crowd did not do any research
lmao
It's funny how they'll comment on videos that go against their beliefs, but never seem to find the time to actually watch them or respond to the topics discussed in the video.
@@Green_Tea_Coffee it's like echo chamber overflowing
@@BarioIDL "Echo chamber"..."septic tank"...same diff, I guess.
"It's easy to make everything a conspiracy when you don't know how anything works."
vacuum of deep space is 10-1x -17 torr un achievable on earth synthetically. so theres that. then theres the fact there is that square window on the hershey kiss capsule. bok mr smarty spark. answer me this
@@patirckozz
10 - 1 x -17????
Did you mean 10^-17?
Which is basically just shorthand for 0.00000000000000001.
@@ShadowFalcon you just proved my point. thank you. no experience with vacuum. just a keyboard and google.
because your numbers are wrong. thats only half the value
@@patirckozz
Funny you should say that, I have worked with vacuo in a professional capacity.
Something I very much doubt you have, given you mangled scientific notation that thoroughly 🤣
And in the years leading up to Apollo 11, NASA had performed multiple missions involving unmanned probes. Along with the mentioned Surveyor missions, there were the Pioneer, Ranger, Explorer, and Mariner series of missions. Over the course of these missions, there were 17 failures. Landing men on the the Moon was the result of everything they learned from both the successes and failures of earlier missions.
The shifting of the prime and backup crews around was a very interesting segment. I wasn't aware of the amount of crew juggling that had gone on. Must have been an emotional roller coaster for many of them. Thanks for this great video!
Stress levels to the moon! 😂
I’m going to watch that segment many times over to learn the history of the crew shifting. I take space history very seriously, and want to know it all to the point where I can recite it from memory.
@@brianarbenz1329 good luck then!
Collins was gravely concerned that he would be taken off flying status as a result of his herniated disc (he got it when ejecting from a crippled F-100 Super Sabre jet some years before).
@@spudeleven5124 I imagine he was concerned. Do you know if the injury was a result of the loads induced by the ejection seat itself, and whether or not he expressed having any symptoms during or after the Apollo program? My guess is that even if he did, he kept it to himself.
Even if the only thing you knew about the first moon landing was that it was Apollo 11, would you not stop to ask why it wasn't Apollo 1? Moon landing deniers, Space deniers, flat earthers, all those people whose catch call is 'do your own research' have no idea how to check the simplest thing.
@warrenburroughs3025 Yeah. But MOST people just DO NOT THINK!
But flat earthers don't stop to think, much less ask.
Judging by the nonsense you wrote while blatantly denying the documented immovable level earth and the space/moon hoax exposed to you in full detail, you've never researched a single thing to this day somehow, still unable to basically operate this very site and internet overall. The question arises where you get your comic chutzpah with such blatant projections then. Get a clue first on what you're trying to even speak about.
@@rickkwitkoski1976
Precisely. Like the clownish dude you're addressing. Sheeple will remain sheeple, no matter how much and how long you rub their noses into the factual reality all around. And that would be fine, if not all the clownish rhetoric on their part towards those critical thinkers who do fact-check things and have balls to question official narratives, unlike them.
@@JohnSmith-ux3tt
Huh? So how do you think the former victims of the globe cult questioned its postulates, looked into the actual evidence and found out about the documented flat-earth reality in the first place?
Do you ever think through your nonsense when rushing to spew it out?
Why did Nasa spend so much money for all these launches when they were just going to fake it? Oh, they actually landed on the moon.
Everyone's heard the old joke:
Nasa approached Stanley Kubrick to help them fake the moon landings. After weeks of discussion and with Kubric refusing to compromise on his artistic vision, they decided to shoot the moon landings on location.
My dad worked on the LEM, so I grew up watching these launches. One night, I think it was 1971 or so, my aunt and family were visiting. Us kids were up late, laying on the floor watching TV. The ground started shaking, stuff rattling, and there was a distant quiet roar sound. (The sound varied with the wind direction, so launches had no sound all the way up to punch in the chest loud, depending…)
We all ran out of the house, looking north east toward the space center, and all the neighbors were spilling out, too, looking toward the sky. No launch had been scheduled that was public knowledge, so everyone was confused, but a disaster would have lit up the sky out that way. Nothing. Black sky.
The next day, the news reported it was a huge earthquake somewhere else that had sent tremors as far as we were. Maybe Japan…but earthquakes in FL just don’t happen, and rocket launches were happening so much that it’s what we all expected.
Talk about cognitive dissonance 😂
I live in FL and i felt a small earthquake a few years ago. It was the only earthquake i've ever felt. I kept looking at the news and I think it said it originated in cuba or somewhere around there
Hah! I know that feeling. I worked at Mojave Air & Space port for almost 20 years and got accustomed to the bangs and rumbles there. One day at my desk I heard a good loud boom and struggled to identify it. Hmmm, it wasn't bombing on the range at China Lake to the north, nor was it from blasting at the cement plant's quarry three miles away to the west, and it didn't have the usual ba-boom of a sonic boom, what could it be? Then it came again and I realized it was just plain old thunder- it rained so rarely there that when I heard hoofbeats I always thought "Zebras!"
A secret space programme perhaps?
@@gedofgont1006
No…there was nothing in the sky, which was where everyone was looking. Rockets light up the night sky like it’s daytime.
Grissom, White, and Chaffee. Never forget.
Never.
That was truly awful. Never forget their sacrifice
A few years back I recall one denier saying that if the moon was so important, then at least one mission would have been scheduled to look at the dark side!
*Fun Fact:* _Harrison Schmitt actually put together a mission outline for a daylit landing on the far side, using the command module as the dog-leg relay for transmissions._
Also a fun fact: The Chinese completed a sample return mission from the dark side of the moon just a few weeks ago!
I believe you mean the *far* side of the Moon, the one facing away from the Earth most of which we can't see.
The dark side is the one facing away from the Sun, i.e. the Moon's night side, as can be clearly seen from Earth during various lunar phases except for full moon.
I was born in 1956, and followed the space programmes (both NASA and the USSR) like a true geek. I therefore remember the Gemini missions, the first EVA, the first docking of two craft (essential for the docking of the LEM and the CSM), the unmanned moon missions, the testing of the LEM on Earth (including Neil Armstrong nearly crashing).
I remember the Apollo 1 disaster, which cost the lives of Grissom, White and Chaffee, the Saturn 1B, which preceded the Saturn V, the missions in Earth orbit, then Apollo 8, the first time Man left Earth orbit and ventured out into Space, to orbit the Moon and come back. Remember the line in Apollo 13, Lovell says "I've seen it already" when they look at the lunar surface, unable to land, He had previously circled the moon, and not landed.
The point is, all of this was in preparation for Man's first steps on another world. Steps I missed because Armstrong and Aldrin left the LEM ahead of schedule and I had been sent, under protest to bed.
I always get goosebumps watching Star Trek Enterprise, the opening credits show prehistoric boats, then sailing ships, balloons, planes, John Glenn, Apollo 11, the shuttle, the ISS....then the ships of the Star Trek universe.....
I kept scrap books of all the events, developing hardware, achievements and rehearsals. I could have discussed the mission with Patrick Moore, because I had read so much.
Born in 1960 here. All us kids knew the schedules for Gemini and Apollo missions, and what they would be doing/testing. When the Apollo 1 fire happened, we were afraid the whole thing would be off. But when the new schedules came out, we knew those too. Amazing how just paying a little attention to the news in the 1960's debunks everything moon-landing deniers claim about "first time" nonsense. Hell, I was 9 when Apollo 11 occurred, and I knew more about the mission and its history than deniers today do, and I didn't have the internet!
Apollo 11, using a Saturn V rocket ... the numbers say it wasn't first time lucky ...
flerfers can watch flerf influencers prove the round earth and will just say nuh-uh and continue on with their day, do you believe they actually think about this
@@qhu3878 Wait, a flef _think_ ? That has never happened.
And... WHY did Windoze go from 8.1 to 10? No 9! Numbers are not always followed in order. But then... ASK and find out why. Most people just don't think. They just believe the BS that their sister's roommate's uncle said.
@@rickkwitkoski1976 For the love of God, don't let them find out about Microsoft's Xbox naming.
@@rickkwitkoski1976 Windows internal version numbers actually make sense - internally they are 1-,6,10,11
Win 7 was 6.1
Win 8 was 6.2
Win 8.1 was 6.3
Just a quick note for any Apollo fans out there: The website Apollo in Realtime does an awesome job of taking photos, video, film, and radio chatter, maps it to a timeline for three of the Apollo missions, and then plays it out in real time.
It's a brilliant example of historical documentation.
Cool. I had not stumbled across that.
It's pretty awesome...I usually link that when some dipshit claims..."where's the evidence we did go" 😂🤦🏻
Yeah, the HISTORICAL DOCUMENTATION of the clowns that had to fake the "distant marble" and "moon talks with Houston" right on camera against the bright blue skies of the earth, then clumsily jump on wires in a studio, then sit with sour faces at that press-conference and embarrass themselves by knowing nothing either about stars or radiation, and then run for the rest of their pathetic lives from the journalists, while their bosses admitted they "oopsey-doopsey, lost all rocks, archives and telemetry" - was brilliant indeed.
@@maladettsWho hurt you?
@@jjeekkll
How is your incoherent phrase relevant to my comments?
My uncle’s argument against the moon landing is now my favorite: there’s no way we could have talked to astronauts on the moon, Direct TV sucks to this day!
I don’t know why he doesn’t get those are fairly different techs. Or why he’s still using Direct TV.
The antennas used to communicate with Apollo were a bit larger than the ones used by Direct TV.
Suggest that he tries using a 70 metre radio dish like NASA did for Comms beyond low orbit; probably he'll enjoy DirecTV much more that way
So people actually think Apollo 11 is the first moon mission?😂 this is hilarious
“Did NASA really land on the moon the first try?”
Surveyor One: allow me to introduce myself. 😏
Surveyor, Mercury, Gemini, Apollo "1" - 10: We simply don't exist 😐
And even after they had made it once, they sent up more landers. Surveyor 2 crashed on the moon. Surveyor 3 was successful, but Surveyor 4 was unsuccessful again.
They landed 3 more Surveyor missions successfully.
@@Everie 👍- but you missed out Ranger - lol
to be fair: the moon landing was done "on the first try", everything prior to this eventually lead to this milestone and made it possible in the first place, but after all that initially work and testing was done, Apollo 11 just needed only one try to landon the moon and to return fro it.
@@t.kersten7695 There was no way, according to Neil Armstrong himself, that he was going to abort.
If I want an excellent explainer of a science topic, I'm just gonna pretend to be a flat earther and find a way to deny it happened, as long as Dave sees it.
What's more complicated than getting to the moon? Understanding the Apollo crew rotation.
I think it's clear the most amazing thing of all of this is how good the CGI was back in the late 60's.
Right? And they made all of that high definition CGI on computers less powerful than a modern digital wristwatch! 😆
They must have used a lot of practical effects too, there are people who swear they saw the rockets launching and heard the sound. Quite some theatrics.
@@KonradTheWizzard im surprised how they even managed to get the russians on board
LOL..the first satellite live transmissions from overseas was in the 60s and would cut out periodically. (Please Stand By...) The Tokyo 1964 Olympics was the first to do that. Now the Flerfs take for granted instant worldwide communications.
Moonwalk directed by Stanley Kubrick at a super duper top secret underground studio operated by Disney. It was disguised as an agricultural research station in Flat Rock, Nevada. Address 1202 Research Drive just off of then State route 601. From the air it looked like fields of corn and barley. Dr. Jeremy Stone and Major Manchek incharge. 🤔🙄🤦♂ 🤪
Strange that NASA never published the pictures of the Flat Earth.
Because it isn't, they publish photos of the earth, and its very obvious that its spherical.
@_John_Sean_Walker But, but, but... THAT would tear apart the conspiracy!!
Their CGI wasn't up to drawing discs, only spheres.
Even more strange is that the flerfers never publish photographs or video of the Flat Earth.
@@Green_Tea_Coffee because they fear that they'll bump their head on the dome before they can get high enough.
An aspect that is commonly forgotten is how much of the achievements of NASA in the '50s and '60s came on the back of the absolutely massive investments in missle technology for military purposes that were happening at the time. Mainly for ICBMs, but also for planned crewed programs that were later canceled. This created an environment where many of the technologies and industrial base used in Apollo were, to some degree, already in development for more than a decade and could readily be adapted to the Moon mission. Without this, the goal of going to the Moon would probably not have been realistic.
I wonder if flat earth and moon landing denier weirdos use GPS?🤣🤣🤣
@@obbie1osias467 They do, but they usually claim that they're actually powered by ground-based radio towers. Just ignore how you can get GPS remote areas far away from cell towers
@@incognitoburrito6020 I imagine they'd hate GPS because of the word 'Global' on it! They might demand Elon Musk to change it to Firmament Positioning System!🤣🤣🤣
Shoulders of giants. 🙂
I must say that your vid explaining everything about those missions was very well researched and presented. I don't know HOW people are saying that it was fake. I lived through that and watched it LIVE on TV as we all got to come home from school just to watch it.
So many classic pieces of footage. I'm burning man for TFE - Dave is the perfect man for the job. His views are going to spike with what he brings back to show us!
Brilliant synopsis! Little steps added up to “One giant leap!”
Thanks, Dave for one of the best explanations of the Apollo program. As a young kid, I kept track of the USA space program and have to say that you got the most info in the shortest length of time than any documentary I have ever seen. Well done.
The F...king proof is the name
Nah, see, that's part of how they trick you. They called it Apollo 11, because it has twice as many ones, meaning its twice as first. Therefore, it makes the fact that they successfully landed on the Moon first try even more impressive. Because they didn't just do it first one time, they did it first, twice!
@@doomspud6302 Yep..... the first "1" for Neil Amstrong, the second "1" for Buzz Aldrin.
Actually it should be Apollo 110, because Colins didn't land on the moon.
@@doomspud6302 Both you and @Yehan-xt7cw have made a great point. That must be it.
That's the same as calling someone junior, and then calling his son Junior Junior.
I’d like to point out that neither Leonard Part 6 or Big Hero 6 had a 1-5. Just saying.
You’re also giving these twats too much credit assuming they even know it was called Apollo 11.
I have to say I am impressed with the logic presented in this thread. Love it 👍That said, I am impressed they managed to make the landing legs precisely long enough. Any shorter, and they wouldnt land at all.
Dave, what a fabulous video. I always wondered what happened between Apollo 1 and Apollo 7 but you explained this very clearly. I was fortunate enough to go to the USA and witness the last Saturn 5 lift off. Will never forget it. I just cannot understand why some people cannot accept the history of the Apollo missions. My favourite remains Apollo 8.
It is astonishing when you learn how even such things as hygiene were taken in steps. The first Astronauts including apollo 11 had no shower, using wet washcloths to wipe themselves and these were limited due to water restrictions. They had to take turns going to the bathroom in their space suits and the waste came back with them. The filtration system was not 100% and odors did build up. The Navy recovery teams described an overwhelming odor when they opened the hatch. They did finally install a rudimentary shower system in the lunar module. It used minimal water which was then recycled for future use. Still better than nothing. The brave men who performed these missions did so under extreme conditions that helped NASA learn for future missions. Many of the firsts we will experience, including the first manned Mars mission, will be built upon the work that these first pioneers undertook and those who gave their lives for the endeavor.
-
Those who deny the lunar landings dishonor the sacrifice so many have given for the achievement. It is shameful.
“Guys it’s not possible to do this on this stage…I think we might just have to go there”
Also I believe Kubrick insisted on filming on location. For the added realism and drama.
@@KonradTheWizzard The on-set caterer must have been livid about having to arrange to get all the craft services stuff up to the moon.
So the movies Gravity and Interstellar were also filmed in space?
Wow, that's cool!😉
@@gedofgont1006 I’d love to know how they filmed interstellar and gravity in 1969!
Wow so cool 😉
@@UShaikh69 Wow. Sandra Bullock looks great for having been acting since the 1960s!
It's not like they went to the moon on the _very first mission._ They worked up to it, each mission going a _little_ farther and testing one new set of variables. The first landing really was just that "one small step" in the journey.
This was a very ineresting and educational video. In the late 60's I was too young to fully appreciate the immense work and effort that went into the Apollo missions but now in my senior years I can truly understand what it took to make the Apollo missions become a history making reality.
As I quote from the movie "Contact": "Small moves Eliie. Small moves". Well done and thank you Dave.
When Dave mentioned that during Apollo 9 the LM and CSM traveled "115 miles" apart, I realized that was the same distance downrange that Alan Shepard flew during his "first American in space" suborbital Mercury/Redstone mission. Interesting comparison over so few years!
Fascinating stuff, Dave.
I was a child of the late 60s/early 70s near the west coast of Florida. Our teachers would take us outside to watch every time there was a launch. We gobbled up every bit of info we could on these flights.
As I became an adult, I began to really appreciate the risks and margins that these guys faced. Hero is not a strong enough word for what they did.
I am of a similar age. I recall how exciting and futuristic all the equipment looked. In my 40s I went to a special exhibition of left over Apollo tech and was honestly struck by how primitive and fragile everything looked. It was then I truly understood both how brave, and lucky these guys were.
Have you heard about the conspiracy theorist who actually did some real research?
Neither did I.
Yes I have. not all conspiracy theories are insane nonsense like the moon landings being faked
@@Voschane
Such as?
@@yassassin6425 The existence of area 51 was a conspiracy theory until 1998, mkultra, multiple ufo's (f-117) etc all started out as conspiracy theories. The existence of these were for the most part only known by conspiracy theorists (they're not all nutjobs like you seem to think) researching stuff and then with them being confirmed by the government sometimes decades later.
@@Voschane
*_"The existence of area 51 was a conspiracy theory until 1998"_*
No it wasn't.
*_"mkultra"_*
Was never a "conspiracy theory".
*_"multiple ufo's (f-117) etc all started out as conspiracy theories."_*
And remain so.
*_"The existence of these were for the most part only known by conspiracy theorists"_*
Absolute bollocks.
@@yassassin6425 MKULTRA. The Tuskeegee syphilis experiments. Watergate. The FBI/J. Edgar Hoover harassing Martin Luther King, Jr. Gulf of Tonkin Incident.
That's just off the top of my head.
The only time NASA ever had a “first one for all the marbles” was the first space shuttle launch in 1981.
The shuttle had no automated landing system. That meant they couldn’t launch one unscrewed without knowingly losing it.
They tested it gliding in the atmosphere (crewed) to make sure the “from airliner altitude to landing” worked fine. But the first ever actual liftoff from a pad of the solid rockets, main engines, orbiter, and external tank (individually) was all together in STS-1 with a crew.
Every other crewed craft had multiple uncrewed launches first.
I'm not a moon landing denier ad even I am astonished just how much testing and trials where done ahead of the first actual landing. It's always good to actually learn about this stuff.
1:58 "Modified Redstone ballistic missile," and people say Minecraft isn't real life...
I guess Mumbo Jumbo being involved in ballistic missile development is a possibility now
Please allow me to present the rebuttal ........Nuh Uh !!!
This is the way.
Engineers doing it bit by bit, fixing problems and pushing the limits further.
Boeing and its fartliner can most definitely learn a thing or two from those engineers.
Excellent recap of the Apollo program, Dave! Really enjoyed that!
Funny how the deniers always talk about the “moonlanding” in the singular.
Thanks!
I would ask those people if they thought it strange that they walked the first time they took actual steps. They built up to walking just like we built up to landing on the moon. Every experience in human knowledge has a first and typically we could call that first success a first in our experience and only that first, as it almost always is, is the first time we attempt to do something. The wright brothers took flight on their first attempt at Kittyhawk is that weird? Could it be the product of intelligent people who put in the work and had a fair idea of what would happen before they tried it?
Great content as usual Dave. I have been a fan of space forever, being born in 1956
Me, 1955.
Hah. Another Globie lie. I bet you've only been a fan of space since about 1958, not "forever".
1961 for me. AND I was born and raised in Florida...😊
@@senhowler "Hah. Another Globie lie." - Sorry toddler, you got that wrong. It is always the flerfs that lie.
@@freddan6fly I think his joke flew over your head...
The first time they land on the moon, they came right back on the firts try.
They went to space before.
They went to the moon before.
They orbited the moon before.
But the forst time they land in the moon, they came back on the first try.
Great educational video about the history of the moon landing program.
I always wondered what would have happened had the Apollo 10 astronauts said "f*** this" and landed.
😂
they got tpaid too well. n signed contra cts
They wouldn't have been able to take off again as the LM wasn't the finished article.
I’ve heard that Aldrin and Armstrong sent Collins to the back of the CSM on a spurious errand and when he was out of the way, jumped in the LM and landed on the moon. True, that. Stanley Kubrick was there.
Apparently this was a valid concern for the mission planners, and the crew were told in no uncertain terms that if they attempted a landing they'd be in a world of hurt.
@@theeniwetoksymphonyorchest7580 HA!
People actually think that we just shot people up there on the first try and said, "hope this works"??? 🤔
I listened to an interview with Charlie Duke on a BBC podcast on the 50th anniversary and he mentioned that he practiced landing in the simulator around 2000 times.
These deniers all seem to think Armstrong and co just got up one morning, had NASA put together a rocket by midday and blasted off in the afternoon with no more than Gene Kranz pointing to the moon and saying, "Over there guys, that way"!
I mean, that's how that one flat earth guy who launched himself in a steam powered rocket did it.
Of course, he ended up being a grease stain on the California desert, but he did it nonetheless.
@@Green_Tea_Coffee the "Read more" here was worth it. 😆
@@Green_Tea_Coffee It's difficult not to laugh, after all a man died, but..... damn!
You kinda get the image of a guy with a pair of old fashioned goggles sitting in something built by his grandson for a soap box derby.
@@ed9121 You really aren't that far off with that description!
The whole thing was very Wile-E-Coyote
The Mercury program, Gemini program and the early Apollo missions prepared for a successful landing on the Moon... As is pointed out in this video. Thanks. Keep looking up.
Another thing that deniers never consider is the huge level of public exposure that the Apollo missions had. Some of them, specially among those who are too young to have lived it, seem to believe that it was something which was carried out in secrecy and one day someone came and said “hey, we’ve landed on the Moon”.
No, it wasn’t like that. It was the main event in the media in the late sixties and early seventies. It was hugely covered everywhere in the world. The astronauts and the technical advances were everyday on every media. In terms of comparison, just think in the coverage of Olympic Games or the football World Cup. The sheer amount of scrutiny and related information makes it impossible to fake it. Does anyone seriously think that the Olympic Games are NOT currently happening in Paris? No, the Games are so huge that no one can fake that. Well, same could be said about the Moon landings.
So true. While my dad watched the news with Walter Cronkite every night, when Cronkite started talking about some aspect of the space program, I was 'glued' to the TV set hanging on his every word.
The jargon alone can prove the program was real. It was very specific and particular to Apollo. Imagine if it were fake how much effort it would take to keep all that terminology straight.
Imagine thinking that Apollo *_11_* was the first try...
None of the Apollo missions before 11 had tried to _land_ on the Moon, but they had tested out the hardware and _most_ of the procedures necessary to do that, so the only "firsts" for Apollo 11 were the actual landing, walking on and lift-off from the Moon.
well, that's what 11 means, right
11 equals 1 plus 1
1 plus 1 equals 1
therefore apollo 11 was the FIRST attempt
Thank you. A very comprehensive explanation. If more people knew this info, fewer would question what Apollo achieved.
This is my favorite RUclips channel. Bar none. Keep doing these. They are such a great resource for these events!
Thorough and well done. Thx.
Side note: a childhood friend told me his dad invented the oven contraption that tested the command module's heat shield. I never tried to confirm it, because I want it to be true. Hahaha.
A far more thorough and reasonable answer than such a silly question deserves.
I'd just go with "How high do you have to count to get to eleven?"
RIP Virgil Grissom, Ed White Roger and Chaffee from Apollo 1
You misplaced the "and" there... Virgil "Gus" Grissom, Ed (Higgins) White (II), *and Roger B. (Bruce) Chaffee.
What surprises me are the number of people who have no idea that NASA LANDED SIX TIMES. They seem to think Apollo 11 was it; having never heard of the previous missions crewed missions, Apollo's 7, 8, 9 and 10. Or even why Apollo 8 flew to the Moon in Dec 1968.
I have often noticed that too. Also that people think that Apollo 11 was built in a few days and are completely unaware of the history as Dave clearly explains here.
Perhaps the most memorable, apart from Apollo 11 itself, is Apollo 13 that failed to arrive but miraculously got the crew back home safely.
@@belperflyer7419 It wasn't a miracle. Failure just wasn't an option.
@@ApolloKid1961 Well, I've failed at few things in my very long life where it wasn't really a option and suffered the consequences.
@@belperflyer7419 Sorry to hear this. The statement "Failure is not an option" came from flight director Gene Kranz during the recovery of the Apollo 13 crew.
Since I'm English, I say Gemini, with the ee ending, because it's the correct pronunciation of the Latin plural of geminus.
But I've seen documentaries and interviews in which the Apollo astronauts and/or other personnel do pronounce it as "Geminee".
@@PFNel Nothing to say that NASA geeks can't be Latin geeks as well.
i love how moon deniers are always " look at those faces during the press conference, they do not look like people who were just to the moon .. well duh. the press conference was weeks after. but we have footage of them being taken out of the command module and in the decompress chamber .. they are tiered, exhausted but grinning like madman.
It was a quarantine trailer.
Their supposed dejected demeanour had more to do with their personalities - Neil Armstrong in particular was a very private introverted man whilst Mike Collins had a dry sense of humour and Buzz Aldrin, very acerbic. These gullible fools that lap up junk conspiracy theory have no idea of the more ebullient personalities that followed in subsequent missions that the grifters perpetrating this horseshit fail to tell them about. Individuals such as Pete Conrad, Dick Gordon, Al Shepherd, Charlie Duke, Eugene Cernan and Ron Evans. They are given excerpts of the Apollo 11 press conference but lack the initiative to watch its entire duration or those from Apollo 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17 which most of these goons have never even heard of.
In one of his previous videos effortlessly demolishing the lies and falsities of Sibrel, Dave actually shows a clip from the post mission press conference from Gemini 8 in which Armstrong is even more reticent, awkward and hesitant. That was simply his nature.
And there are even many photos from this press conference where they are laughing.
The deniers just use one or two single photos from the whole two hours as their "proof".
Also, in the press conferences, they don't come across really any different than, say, an athlete at a press conference who's just won a major victory.
Buzz 1, Bart 0.
What more do you need to know, lol.
Decompress chamber?
They were not in a decompression chamber but in quarantine. They did not want to take the risk that unknown viruses might have been brought along. That turned out not to be the case and the astronauts of the later missions did not have to go into quarantine.
This is such a wonderfully concise summary. Thank you.
As a God believing science minded fan of rocket science; I can’t get enough of Dave breaking down space tech. And his apologetic approach to flat earthers is top tier schooling
What does God have to do with any of it though?
@@mikeuk666 flat earth and space denialism are a fringe of the religious community, not a representation of the mainstream dogma.
@@mikeuk666 Beat me to it 👍
I did a report in MS of the Apollo 9 mission, and of course watched the first steps on the moon live from my living room, but I have never heard a complete breakdown of all the prior Apollo missions after Apollo 1, so thanks for all that. It takes a lot of the mystique out of that first moon landing for all the skeptics out there.
Sod the Flerfers, I love these videos for their pure education from a great teacher. Nice one, Chester lad!
Funny how all the conspiracy theorists try to debunk Apollo, yet never mention the USSR's efforts.
You'd think they would, especially with how spectacularly the N1 *didn't* work.
If you were gonna hoax something,you wouldnt do it time and again...Theres litrally days of footage to watch over all the missions
Fake fake!
Nasa has deliberately got rid of film projectors, Betamax, reel to reel and 8 track so we can never see the original.
They'll say it's days of soundstage and CG footage - as if inventing film quality CG in 1969 and the hardware necessary to render it is not as impressive an achievement as flying a rocket to the moon. Also don't forget there were live broadcasts from the moon and traveling to and from. They want you to believe NASA could render this film quality CG in real-time. Pretty sure we can't even do that today
@@ctsean That is really hilarious. I've argued with moon hoaxies about this before, and they know even less about the process for creating CGI than they do about the Apollo program. They have zero understanding of how any of that would work, the equipment and software that would be needed to pull it off, and the enormous army of CG effects artists (that would rival the biggest Hollywood studios) you'd need.
@@ctsean yep,stanley kubrick for some reason ..be interesting what nonsense they come up with over the nect few years when nasa go back
Charlie Duke said exactly that about the hoax theory, "why did we do it 5 times?" after 11.
I graduated college on my first try.... after 16 years of school.
I am impressed that you could unpack all of that in just twenty minutes, thank you, a great summary.
I love how “flat earth” is never mentioned again beyond the intro…
It's still pretty crazy that they did it though... Someone born in 1893 would've been 10 years old at the time of the first powered flight, and 76 when man landed on the moon.
Now we're 120 years after the first powered flight and 55 years after that first landing and we haven't gone any further than the moon (in person).
Not enough money. NASA had the problem of Nixon being terrified of bad publicity after Apollo 13. It's a wonder that they reached Apollo 17 before manned missions were shut down. Then you got the space shuttle, in effect going back 10 years.
@@petergaskin1811 NASA did make the most of the cut backed budget of the two cancelled Apollo missions with America's first space station Skylab.
It's those numbers that do give me a little sympathy for the deniers. As in that I understand what thought process they're using, not that they are right.
I like to compare returning to the moon to the exploration of the South Pole. It was reached on 14 December 1911 by Norwegian explorer Roald Amundsen and 4 others. Scott's Polar party arrived January 18th 1912. It was 31 October 1956; 44 years later; before any human set foot there again. And the south Pole is a lot easy to reach then the lunar surface. And the base at the south Pole has been continuously occupied since 1956. Now using that 44 year gap for returning to the pole to returning to the moon would have meant a return in 2016. It''s just a matter of MONEY and POLITICAL commitment to return and to stay.
"Isn't it suspicious that they got to the moon on the first try? 🤔" the moonlanding mission is literally called Apollo ELEVEN
s/the moonlanding mission/the first of the moon landing missions to complete a manned landing/
Flat Earth is an insult to engineers. As an engineer I object to this.
It's an insult to anyone with basic common sense.
How so? Not a single engineer had yet to live in a non-flat world and account for any curvature and rotation. So what are you on exactly with that outright insult to anyone's intellect?
@@Green_Tea_Coffee
Basic common sense that tells you: you can't bend level, build/sail/walk/live sideways and upside down, and don't fly at astronomical speeds millions of miles away on busted pear-shaped earth comets? While living on the demonstrable immovable flatness, documented to you throughout and seen by your own eyes?
Are you using the words "basic common sense" in the totally opposite sense to what they actually mean?
Do you equate flat earth with those who propagate loot moon landing Hoax
THE APOLLO HOAX IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH FLAT EARTH NONSENSE
** "Flat Earth nonsense should be regarded as the direct antithesis of the Apollo hoax theory. Here's why."
Jarrah White has created a collection of both bite sized videos with all you really need to know, and the more detailed trilogy from which those clips came from.
** ruclips.net/p/PLOFH9q50V_sdKrGzLZ5mOFzC_hzF3AtiV
Great memories! Although I was at JSC (then it was MSC) at that time, but I didn't keep up with the unmanned test flights because we were so busy with tests of the suit and left support systems.
I wasn't part of the 2-TV 1 team in Chamber A, but worked with many of them in later years as our organizations became consolidated.
This is one of your best information videos, Thank you for the in-depth analysis and collection of information
You have all this excellently researched and presented information, backed up by loads of data and facts. All flerfs have is "nuh-uh" 🙂
At 19:25 I think you forgot to mute the audio.
"On the first try" seems to be the deniers' new talking point. You get someone who isn't all that familiar with the details, and ask them if they thought NASA could do it "on the first try" and they say "well, since you put it that way..." The Van Allen belt question was in fashion a few years ago. It's like playing Whack-a-Mole with these people.
They are just like flat earthers cycling talking points no matter how many times they are proven wrong
@@K_End their talking points go in and out of fashion too.
The thing about the Van Allen Belts is still a major talking point with the moon hoaxies. It comes up over and over again, despite there being multiple sources, including James Van Allen himself pointing out that the VAB are not a total show stopper for manned space exploration.
I imagine that there is a lot of work and time behind this video. Very well done and very well explained 👍
NASA’s version of ‘Musical Chairs’
Do Flerfs not even know that 11 is larger than 1? That the nubmers 1 through 10 all come before 11? 🤣
math is globetard conspiracy, duh
Yes but, if you create a series of files and name them, 1,2,3.....10,11,12 etc and get windows to sort them you get
1
10
11
12
.
.
.
2
3
4
Lol
@@brucethen "windows has sht sorting system" is not the gotcha you think it is
@@BarioIDL I know, but space deniers will clutch at any straw lol
Wait…you mean smart people, made a plan, with redundancy, incremental advances, to finally accomplish a goal. Sounds like complete hogwash to me! 😂 Thank you for this video! It does a great job explaining the process!
How cow. I'm from the US and almost 50 and always thought it was pronounced Gemin-I and not like Jiminy. You learn something new everyday. Thanks, Dave.
In Latin the i ending is masculine plural and the ae ending is feminine plural. So gemini and geminae would be pronounced differently. That's why it's usual to pronounce the i ending as ee and the ae ending as eye.
A new Dave McKeegan video? Hell ya!