The moon hoax crowd should watch this and realize how many subcontractors were used to build the Apollo rockets, many who went out of business after Apollo was finished. Then they might understand why you couldn’t just look up the blueprints and make one today, not that we would want to either.
I've been reading all of the old NASA summaries for the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs so finding this was a gem. It left me wondering one thing though, When did they change the LM door form round to square? The ones in this video are round.
The LM mockup in the video must have been an old one. Grumman had switched to the square hatch by January 1965 after astronauts complained that it was difficult to crawl through the round opening with the bulky PLSS backpack.
"Block 1" and block 2 spacecraft are mentioned repeatedly. IIRC block 1 was LEO and block 2 was lunar mission hardware. After the crew compartment fire tragedy only the block 2 concept was carried forward. I've never found any reasoning behind having 2 "blocks."
I can think of 2 reasons for 2 blocks. First. Apollo was conceived before the goal of a lunar mission has been established. Apollo was originally going to be an all-purpose spacecraft as a follow-on to Mercury with missions primarily to low-Earth orbit. No rendezvous, no docking, and no trans-lunar navigation--at least not until much later on. So the first version would not include any of the required hardware. Designs were drawn up and metal was bent. This became Block I. Then the lunar mission was announced, and that required many design changes. Was it too late to include these changes in Block 1? Probably. If so, these changes would lead to a new version of the spacecraft, Block II. If not, I submit my 2nd reason for 2 blocks. The original method for going the moon called for the Apollo command and service modules to land on the moon atop a large landing stage. There would be no lunar module and thus no docking. The method of Lunar Orbit Rendezvous (LOR), which required docking with the LM, wasn't chosen until 1962. By then, much of the Block I hardware had already been built. Why not complete it and flight test it while the massive changes required for LOR were designed and built? This new design would be Block II. Lessons learned while flying Block I could be incorporated into Block II. Block II became the top priority, and work on it was accelerated. This coupled with delays in launching Block I allowed Block II to almost catch up. Then the Apollo I fire occurred, and it became obvious that Block II would be ready before fixes to Block I could be implemented. Just implement the changes in Block II and fly it. Block I was used for unmanned testing of the Saturn V rocket while Block II was being modified.
Hard to fathom that even with such care taken, three men had to die because some fool thought a 100% oxygen filled cap was a good idea among miles of DC wiring.
That's the way it had been done during the Mercury and Gemini missions so they must've just assumed it was okay. One of those things that seems so obvious in hindsight
@@_MaxHeadroom_ There was only one reason to pressurize to sea level and above that capsule with pure oxygen, and that was to shut up Gus Grissom. Keep in mind that the apollo fairy tale narrative had astronots breathing 5psi and under of pure O2 for days and weeks at a time - something that there is ZERO independent evidence of humans being able to do. The below explains what happens when breathing under low pressure (not enough atmospheric pressure .... like a fish out of water): High-altitude pulmonary edema (HAPE) can occur even when someone is breathing 100% oxygen at high altitudes because of reduced oxygen consumption. This is due to hypoxic pulmonary vasoconstriction (HPV), which is an excessive increase in pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) caused by hypoxia. This constriction of blood vessels in the lungs increases pressure, causing fluid to leak into the lung tissues and air sacs (alveoli). This damage to the blood-gas barrier increases capillary permeability, which leads to non-uniform pulmonary edema that impairs oxygen transport.
@@franciscodanconia45 Imagine this: 2 astronots are on the moon for days with every second of voice being recorded and accounted for as per the apollo narrative . Orbiting above is the Command Module with the 3rd astronot. But not ONE communication between the lunar and orbiting astronots for the duration of the lunar visit. An error in simulation.
Can only imagine the incredible wasteful cost of all of this. And it achieved nothing apart from bragging rights for beating the Soviets to the moon. Imagine what could have been achieved had they spent all of those finances, technology and energy on improving our life here on earth.
Incredible structural and propellant engineering. Even if the rocket was never launched, without the technology developed by the 1000's of contractors, would have left us in the dark ages of iron and steam. The mathematics of navigation went from soup cans drug behind ships in water, to autonomous sensor driven micro electronics. Trillions were spent on the Great Society Programs, and we still have people camped on sidewalks.
I think that's a legitimate argument. It is worthy of a fair discussion. The Soviets were beating us badly in the space race. They were using that technological success to persuade third world leaders that their way (Communism) was superior to ours (Capitalism.) The Soviets had the first spacecraft in orbit, the first human in orbit, and the first women in orbit. Meanwhile, our rockets were blowing up on the launchpads. President Kennedy asked NASA what's the one thing we could do that the Soviets could not. The answer: Go to the moon. The rest is history. The U.S. was the undisputed superpower after WWII, but with stalemate in Korea and failure in Vietnam, that image was fading. After the moon landings, there was no more doubt throughout the world. I'm one who believes there was an immense payback in world influence (and peace for many decades...) Also, Neil DeGrasse Tyson likes to point out that the famous "Earthrise" photo taken by Bill Anders on Apollo 8, had an irreversible profound effect on how humans viewed Planet Earth. That photo gave birth to the first conservation and ecology movements, and later, legislation. However, I do wonder why we're going back.
![NOSFERATU - Official Trailer [HD] - Only In Theaters December 25](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/nulvWqYUM8k/mqdefault.jpg)
Fascinating. I'm 58, and this all happened when I was born.
Pop worked at Aerojet sac on this and other projects
The moon hoax crowd should watch this and realize how many subcontractors were used to build the Apollo rockets, many who went out of business after Apollo was finished. Then they might understand why you couldn’t just look up the blueprints and make one today, not that we would want to either.
LOLOLOL
400,000 people and billions of dollars devoted to a project equivalent to the highest priority in time of war
@@djpalindrome
LOL- All staged
If I ever found myself in a debate with a hoaxer, I'd just turn around and walk away. Of course, Buzz Aldrin punched one out, which is OK, too.
@@robrussell5329 Everyone except you shills know it was a hoax lol
Great historical footage. I find these MSC reports just as interesting as the actual Apollo mission videos.
I've been reading all of the old NASA summaries for the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs so finding this was a gem. It left me wondering one thing though, When did they change the LM door form round to square? The ones in this video are round.
The LM mockup in the video must have been an old one. Grumman had switched to the square hatch by January 1965 after astronauts complained that it was difficult to crawl through the round opening with the bulky PLSS backpack.
@@frankbrockler100%. It was Pete Conrad that pushed for that.
Before the January 1967 terrible fire, followed by a complete rebuild of the spacecraft.
Great historical video. Hits home with me because in my career, I called on UTC here in Connecticut!
That playpen chicken coop never went to the moon.
Great work go America go 🐦🌔
"Block 1" and block 2 spacecraft are mentioned repeatedly. IIRC block 1 was LEO and block 2 was lunar mission hardware. After the crew compartment fire tragedy only the block 2 concept was carried forward. I've never found any reasoning behind having 2 "blocks."
I can think of 2 reasons for 2 blocks. First. Apollo was conceived before the goal of a lunar mission has been established. Apollo was originally going to be an all-purpose spacecraft as a follow-on to Mercury with missions primarily to low-Earth orbit. No rendezvous, no docking, and no trans-lunar navigation--at least not until much later on. So the first version would not include any of the required hardware. Designs were drawn up and metal was bent. This became Block I.
Then the lunar mission was announced, and that required many design changes. Was it too late to include these changes in Block 1? Probably. If so, these changes would lead to a new version of the spacecraft, Block II. If not, I submit my 2nd reason for 2 blocks.
The original method for going the moon called for the Apollo command and service modules to land on the moon atop a large landing stage. There would be no lunar module and thus no docking. The method of Lunar Orbit Rendezvous (LOR), which required docking with the LM, wasn't chosen until 1962. By then, much of the Block I hardware had already been built. Why not complete it and flight test it while the massive changes required for LOR were designed and built? This new design would be Block II. Lessons learned while flying Block I could be incorporated into Block II.
Block II became the top priority, and work on it was accelerated. This coupled with delays in launching Block I allowed Block II to almost catch up. Then the Apollo I fire occurred, and it became obvious that Block II would be ready before fixes to Block I could be implemented. Just implement the changes in Block II and fly it. Block I was used for unmanned testing of the Saturn V rocket while Block II was being modified.
@@frankbrockler (about block i /ii Apollo CM) Thanks, makes sense.
How to build a turd bioler 101!
Hard to fathom that even with such care taken, three men had to die because some fool thought a 100% oxygen filled cap was a good idea among miles of DC wiring.
It was an assassination to shut up Gus Grissom, who was outing the hoax.
That's the way it had been done during the Mercury and Gemini missions so they must've just assumed it was okay. One of those things that seems so obvious in hindsight
@@_MaxHeadroom_
What? LOL
Mercury and Gemeni were pressurized over sea level pure oxygen?
@@yomommaahotoo264 Yeah the pressure was higher but I was referring to the 100% oxygen environment
@@_MaxHeadroom_
There was only one reason to pressurize to sea level and above that capsule with pure oxygen, and that was to shut up Gus Grissom.
Keep in mind that the apollo fairy tale narrative had astronots breathing 5psi and under of pure O2 for days and weeks at a time - something that there is ZERO independent evidence of humans being able to do.
The below explains what happens when breathing under low pressure (not enough atmospheric pressure .... like a fish out of water):
High-altitude pulmonary edema (HAPE) can occur even when someone is breathing 100% oxygen at high altitudes because of reduced oxygen consumption. This is due to hypoxic pulmonary vasoconstriction (HPV), which is an excessive increase in pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) caused by hypoxia. This constriction of blood vessels in the lungs increases pressure, causing fluid to leak into the lung tissues and air sacs (alveoli). This damage to the blood-gas barrier increases capillary permeability, which leads to non-uniform pulmonary edema that impairs oxygen transport.
Elon needs to get a copy of these, and watch them. Someone loves space travel, and I think it's me, not Mollusk.
You think he doesn't do billionaire drugs and sit in his private imax theater flipping through RUclips videos about Apollo?
😅😮😅😅😅😮😅😅😅😅well information good show 😅😅
LOL - Who still believes this fairy tale?
Adults
@@franciscodanconia45
LOLOL If you're an adult I pity you.....
@@yomommaahotoo264 lol ok
@@franciscodanconia45
Imagine this:
2 astronots are on the moon for days with every second of voice being recorded and accounted for as per the apollo narrative .
Orbiting above is the Command Module with the 3rd astronot.
But not ONE communication between the lunar and orbiting astronots for the duration of the lunar visit.
An error in simulation.
Alot of wackos out there lol who think this is a hoax.
Don't do drugs folks!
Can only imagine the incredible wasteful cost of all of this. And it achieved nothing apart from bragging rights for beating the Soviets to the moon. Imagine what could have been achieved had they spent all of those finances, technology and energy on improving our life here on earth.
Incredible structural and propellant engineering. Even if the rocket was never launched, without the technology developed by the 1000's of contractors, would have left us in the dark ages of iron and steam. The mathematics of navigation went from soup cans drug behind ships in water, to autonomous sensor driven micro electronics. Trillions were spent on the Great Society Programs, and we still have people camped on sidewalks.
All a hoax.
I think that's a legitimate argument. It is worthy of a fair discussion.
The Soviets were beating us badly in the space race. They were using that technological success to persuade third world leaders that their way (Communism) was superior to ours (Capitalism.) The Soviets had the first spacecraft in orbit, the first human in orbit, and the first women in orbit. Meanwhile, our rockets were blowing up on the launchpads. President Kennedy asked NASA what's the one thing we could do that the Soviets could not. The answer: Go to the moon. The rest is history.
The U.S. was the undisputed superpower after WWII, but with stalemate in Korea and failure in Vietnam, that image was fading. After the moon landings, there was no more doubt throughout the world. I'm one who believes there was an immense payback in world influence (and peace for many decades...)
Also, Neil DeGrasse Tyson likes to point out that the famous "Earthrise" photo taken by Bill Anders on Apollo 8, had an irreversible profound effect on how humans viewed Planet Earth. That photo gave birth to the first conservation and ecology movements, and later, legislation.
However, I do wonder why we're going back.
The long term scientific and social benefits of the Apollo project are many and varied. But I have to agree with rob above… why go back?
@franciscodanconia45 only thing I can see is using to prep for a Mars mission.