@@HistoryShell1786 Elon Musk has been sending capsules full of millionaires' crap up there fir a while. It's to preserve their treasured items. One woman sent up a capsule full of lipsticks. Entitled cretins.
The low atmosphere on the moon results in a low moisture content milk (from when the cow jumped over the moon) meaning the Moon is actually made from Halloumi cheese and doesn't melt.
Don't you guys know anything???? Green cheese dosn't melt like your liquefied soft cheeses. It tends to crumble. Moreover the better green moon cheeses have a much higher boiling point. Im surprised she didn't mention that.
Many people through out the years have mentioned that the moon was made of cheese. This has been mostly a myth however the truth is that just the interior is made of cheese the surface is made of a milky type substance. Neil Diamond when he landed on the moon sang us a song about how good it tasted. You have heard of moon pies, right? Now you know everything science has learned. In order to learn more we have to go again to the moon again but NASA has lost all the data tapes and pictures so we'd just be doing it all over again from scratch. Nobody likes to do work over again and only get credit for doing it once. One great singer, Frank Sanatra sang a song that went like this, "Fly me to the moon and let me play among the stars. Let me see what things are like on Jupiter and Mars." No one at NASA ever let Frank go to the moon, why? It's hard to say, maybe because of his age or maybe because he drank too much. You can't be drunk and be an astronaut, that place is taken by Buzz. In fact that is how he got his name, Buzz, get it. It took me a while too but I laughed and laughed pretty damned funny isn't it. No much is funny about the moon unless you are talking about the moon car and why even the astronauts The rest of the facts about the moon and astrophysics can be found out by googling Jake the Flat Earth Asshole, He puts out great videos that will aid your search greatly. Good luck and never let a good lie lay.
Speaking of fakes; Buzz Aldrin was a fictional character. He was named after Mr Lightyear from the Disney films. Im no jeanyus but I figured that one out right away.
Kubrick: Action! Armstrong: That's one small step for man, one giant - Kubrick: Cut! You're supposed to say "That's one small step for *A* man, Neil." Armstrong: This is the 79th take! Kubrick: Don't you want to get it right Neil?
@@paulbeardsley4095 Actually, NASA did fake the moon landings, with Kubrick's help. The only problem was that Kubrick was such a nit picky stickler for detail that he insisted on faking the moon landings right on location in the Sea of Tranquility, the Ocean of Storms, the Valley of Taurus Littrow...
Love your channel.I found it through a link from a hang gliding site.I had a thrill of a lifetime meeting Neil, Mike and Buzz at the National Air and Space museum at a ceremony commemorating the 15th anniversary of Apollo 11.I was staring into the Columbia when a man stood next to me. Without seeing who it was I said that it must have been something to have been able to fly in that. When the answer was, "It certainly was.", I got to shake the hand of one of my heroes. Neil then took me around and introduced me to the rest of the guys. I was a young aerospace engineering major with dreams of following in their foot steps. Less than a year later an eye injury took me out of flight status with the Air Force. Not being able to fly I left the aerospace world. That was a major mistake!
Those were great memories in my young life. I watched the first landing in 69 and thought it was just wonderful. Really miss those heady days of "we can do anything".
@@TheRoguelement exactly, this vile lying shill of a woman in the OP video is just one of their kind. Someone who values money over people, and surely loves it vastly more than honesty. Masonic lucifarians almost exclusively comprise the teams of these ACTORS doing the dastardly. They have been telling lies for multiple decades now and these SCUM that think we are too silly to be able to debunk that amount of lies are absolutely exactly what they accuse others of. Like over the course of my lifetime so far I have managed to debunk about 1000 lies in the mass/alt media...yet little super shills like the greedmonger in the OP video have yet to even debunk ONE since they were born....how's that for apt? We went to the same types of schools, yet ONE of us was intelligent, knowing there are MOUNDS of liars on the planet (CRUMB I used this word UY that bothers me AS I KNOW that word SUX and this is THE EARTH yet see how even after YEARS of knowing the truth the childhood programming SUX) and so therefore there must be LOTS of lies that these narcissistic types are spreading...so I set about learning the truth...also it's like knocking a domino over...if they LIE about something simple like that for ZERO reason, then you KNOW they are surely going to lie about stuff that matters. It is just part of their make-up...I believe (could be off some) that about 50% of people are pretty much evil (liars) and 50% are pretty much good (truth tellers)...yet these asinine people seem to think that everyone who works at nasa OR the mass/alt media is just super honest and their friend...more interested in TRUTH than they are about earning their grubby paycheck from their globalist (mindset) corporation...yeah those globalist b-ches are real peaches, hahah! (jk)
@@TheRoguelement @Michael Laverty exactly, this vile lying shill of a woman in the OP video is just one of their kind. Someone who values money over people, and surely loves it vastly more than honesty. Masonic lucifarians almost exclusively comprise the teams of these ACTORS doing the dastardly. They have been telling lies for multiple decades now and these SCUM that think we are too silly to be able to debunk that amount of lies are absolutely exactly what they accuse others of. Like over the course of my lifetime so far I have managed to debunk about 1000 lies in the mass/alt media...yet little super shills like the greedmonger in the OP video have yet to even debunk ONE since they were born....how's that for apt? We went to the same types of schools, yet ONE of us was intelligent, knowing there are MOUNDS of liars on the planet and so therefore there must be LOTS of lies that these narcissistic types are spreading...so I set about learning the truth...also it's like knocking a domino over...if they LIE about something simple like that for ZERO reason, then you KNOW they are surely going to lie about stuff that matters. It is just part of their make-up...I believe (could be off some) that about 50% of people are pretty much evil (liars) and 50% are pretty much good (truth tellers)...yet these asinine people seem to think that everyone who works at nasa OR the mass/alt media is just super honest and their friend...more interested in TRUTH than they are about earning their grubby paycheck from their globalist (mindset) corporation...yeah those globalist b-ches are real peaches, hahah! (jk)
I'm a geek, I love space and all things nerdy. I love Star Trek and the idea of exploration, but unfortunately going to the moon in 69' was bull excrement, an IQ test to separate the sheep.
Lol how stupid can people possibly get? Does a Harrier jump jet leave a "blast crater" every time it lands? The Apollo lunar module descent engine has 1/4 the thrust of a Harrier - because that's all it needs operating in 1/6 earth gravity.
My favourite conspiracy fact about the moon conspiracy theory is that you have to try so hard to convince people that the main narrative is not made up.
There sure a LOT of reaction to debunk "crazy no science nonsense...." CTs :) Many have said engine shut before landing so still dust, false 5 seconds after.
My favourite Moon landing conspiracy theory is that the landings were faked by Stanley Kubrick, but because he was Kubrick he insisted that they film them on the actual Moon.
That's like the David Wright joke about the guy who came home and was freaked out because all of his furniture was removed and a duplicate set was replaced exactly like it was before.
Steven Wright you mean? "I got pulled over for speeding once and the cop asked me why I was going 80mph and I said, I didn't want to be out that long." That guy?
LOL. Yep, Steven Wright. He was a funny dude. Weird jokes, right up my alley. He said; "You know that feeling you get when you tip over on the back of your chair and catch yourself before you fall? Well, I feel that way all the time."
Good vid and seems to contain an error. You said LM descent engine was thrusting at 3,000 pounds, but "this would be less in moon's 1/6 G environment." That seems incorrect. The thrust of the engine is independent of the the gravity environment.
Thrust is based on pounds or Newtons. Force. They are calculating the 3000 lb thrust for the moon. The engine wasn't powerful enough to lift the module on earth. So it was never tested.
The thrust of the engine would be independent of the strength of gravity, but the apparent thrust, or the thrust relative to the force of gravity, experienced by an astronaut would be different if the engine was being used on earth from being used on the moon.
I think she was trying to illustrate that the engines only needed 3000lbs of thrust because the LEM weighed less than 3000 lbs on the moon. Thrust is independent of Gravity but, Gravity will determine how much ( or how little ) thrust you'll need.
@@jasonsmith8210 The Lunar escape engine was never tested, either. It was a one shot rocket. The exhaust was so corrosive that, once you turned it off, it wouldn't turn back on. They didn't even know if it would work at all because, they couldn't test it to see if it worked without having to completely rebuild it.
@@Thumper770 3000 pounds during the touch down? A leaf blower has 5 pounds of thrust. So if you point 600 leaf blowers on sand nothing is gonna happen?
1:41 "Pounds of thrust feel less under less gravity" Are you really shure abou that one? I mean when you have exhaust velocitys measued in km/s I think the small portion gravity adds to this is negligible... EDIT: Actually gravity doesn't add anything to this at all, because it doesn't influence the relative velocity of the exhaust to the space craft.
When calculating trust, the force of gravity is factored in. The force is actually in Newtons, which are the same anywhere, but you multiply it by the local force of gravity to translate that into pounds. Pounds tend to be easy for people to picture in their minds, so that's why it's used.
But the engine doesn't care if you measure it in "Earth-Pounds" when you are on Earth or "Moon-Pounds" when you are on moon. It will always produce the same amount of thrust.
Ok, you're right with that one of course. However it doesn't explain why an engine firing with the same force into the ground should produce a smaller crater, because the gravity is lower.
Serious questions to consider: How much oxygen was needed and how was it stored? If liquid oxygen, how was it stored at minus 297 degrees Fahrenheit? How was it slowly, and at the needed pace, restored to a useable gaseous state? How did the astronauts defecate? Where did the gaseous oxygen go that was converted from liquid, as this would have drastically increased cabin pressure?
Here ya go, dust on the landing pads: www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/images/print/AS14/66/09234.jpg tothemoon.ser.asu.edu/data_a70/AS16/processed/AS16-107-17441.png tothemoon.ser.asu.edu/data_a70/AS16/processed/AS16-107-17442.png tothemoon.ser.asu.edu/data_a70/AS17/processed/AS17-134-20388.png www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/images/print/AS12/47/6904.jpg www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/images/print/AS12/47/6905.jpg Want more photos of dust on the landing pads? How about looking for yourself, rather than just trusting other conspiratards just as clueless as you are? As for a blast crater, are you insane? Why would anybody expect one? You think that engine with its 20 sq foot (cross section) is going to cut a crater into compacted regolith and rock? Um, no.
@@JakusJacobsen You are correct. The only two rules to their game are (1) All evidence for Apollo is fake, no matter how real it is, and (2) All evidence against Apollo is real, no matter how wrong it is. You can never get around their two rules. So, yes, when they say the photos show no dust, those are "real" photos. Then, when you show them they're wrong, those pictures are "fake." All photos that help their delusion are real. All photos that go against their delusion are fake (whether they are even aware that those photos exist, or not... their conclusions are pre-determined by the two rules).
@@rockethead7 "The Moon landings are fake!!! But Hillary has a child sex slave operation on Mars (which - as we all know from that fat fuck with the biggest brain - is part of the Moon) that's run out of the basement of a pizza joint that has no basement!!!"
Amy, you are THE best! Great explanation... I'm old enough to remember when Surveyor touched down (sending pictures while it did so!) there was concern the surface would be covered so thickly in dust, the thing might just sink out of sight. Surveyor's successful landing ended that theory as dust disappeared but the landing was "solid". You'll know this from memory, but I think it was Apollo XII that landed next to that site and brought back a few pieces of it.
I recall an incident several years ago in which a man argued that astronauts cannot possibly manipulate objects on the moon because in a vacuum their gloves would swell up like balloons and become too rigid to move. He then demonstrated this by putting a simple rubber glove in a vacuum chamber (with the open part of the glove sealed to the wall of the chamber) and pumping the air out of the chamber. I found this hilarious because A) astronaut gloves are far more complex than simple rubber gloves and B) if true this would debunk every space walk in low-Earth orbit.
Yeah, but that's the typical "science" of hoaxers. They don't understand it, therefore it could not have happened. Instead of looking into how they made it work, hoaxers would rather remain ignorant. It's easier on them.
That's like proving that the Saturn V couldn't take man to the moon by strapping a bunch of skyrockets to a chair and setting them off and having it not make it to the moon. PROOF!
The reason spacewalks are done in pure oxygen at 5.8 psi is because of the *bending* of the glove. Mike Massimino has talked of how just manipulating tools was like working a hand exerciser.
And none of the stirred up dust ended up landing inside the landing pads ... Thing with lunar dust is that it was getting on and into everything ... Magical stuff that forms perfect footprints without containing any moisture and yet can leave no wheel tracks in front of or behind the rover on many of the photos... Absolutely amazing stuff... Even a small helicopter will clear any dust and debris from a large area, and that's nothing compared to a " throttled down" rocket motor... You are not convincing me.
Sorry, but the conspiracy videos you've been watching have been lying to you. Everything you've said here is straight out gibberish. There are plenty of photos showing dust in some of the landing pads. You don't need moisture to have a footprint. And, no, helicopters typically don't really clear the dust very much. You don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about, and all you're doing is regurgitating stuff you saw in videos made by people who know the exact same amount that you do (zero).
That is very true. I noticed too that at least some of these channels have only comments that basically cheering and not a single comment even asking valid questions. ie. they have deleted comments that even ask, how did they do this or that ?
My favorite conspiracy theory regarding the moon landings is that they were actually a cover-up created by the US Government for the "real" moon landings involving UFOs or some such shit. I sometimes wonder what kind of drugs the people coming up with these conspiracy theories are on xD.
How about the one where the moon is a hologram. That's probably my favorite one. It doesn't involve landing but if you believe the moons a hologram you'd have to also believe we never went there.
Exactly. Apparently according to this bozo lady, an astronaut walking can leave a footprint but 3000 pounds of thrust-according to her, is not enough to disturb the ground LOL
@@Tony-uy2bd It is like being in a very very bad film screening. Better you leave your seat and go to the exit. Moonlanding is one of the worst horror stories. I don't understand, how anyone can believe in this shit nowadays. It is like brainwashing or gaslighting.
3000 pounds of _mass_ (3000lbm) will feel different of the Moon, but 3000 pounds of _force_ (3000lbf) will feel exactly the same. Much confusion is caused by 'pounds' meaning both force and mass, end even clever folks not knowing that these are two separate, formally defined units. Makes me glad I use SI units..
Epi Endless: Wow, that explanation is probably the best one I've seen for how/why her statements are so confusing about that particular comment. I'm embarrassed that I never thought of that reason.
@@xismxist, ok, this means you know everything right, so tell me how Jay Windley and Phil Plait know about antimatter and it 's interaction with matter. tell me why do we exist at all as in empty space there are many matters and antimatter particles annihilating with each other releasing energy and still getting the amount of mass in space and the charge of space to be zero , I am simply asking why do we exist? if you cant answer that that all you say is crap and nobody should believe you.
a) 01:43, 3,000 lbs thrust will not "less" on the moon and it has nothing to do with gravity (...although the RESULTS from such thrust might...)Thrust is vector-self-referenced to the system where it is created, so 3,000 lbs of thrust is always the same on Earth, on the Moon, on Jupiter or in deep space, for that matter. b) Although I don't subscribe to the conspiracy theories this episode is trying to address, it should be noted that the claim made those "theorists" is not there is no crater but rather that the surface seems completely undisturbed, as the image on the beginning of the episode clearly shows. I am eager to hear the correct scientific explanation about such apparent non-disturbance because, I am sure, it exists.
Correct - in a vacuum the dust'd be moving at exhaust velocity - maybe 10,000 ft per second - it's for sure not going to be billowing up around the landing pads.
@@jasonsmith8210 they didn't fly it on earth dipshit, it weighed 33000 lbs and the engine put out 10000, they did in fact fire the engine on earth, it just didn't fly, if you're referring to the Flying bedstead then you will be amazed at the fact that that was not the lunar lander
Well there exist really only one reality, the truth wow what a stupid girl. This is really the most stupid explain away I ever heard The film showed they used trust. It gives no meaning at all, the dust is also 6 times lighter and the kinetic energy is the same as on earth.
An F-35 fighter makes 43000 lbf of thrust which is like 4x the thrust made by the descent stage during vertical landings. And despite that it hasn't blasted any crater I've seen. That's simply not enough. But they did kick up tons of dust. To truly blast a crater you need something with the power of a Starship. Now that was an actual groundbreaking launch.
Great points, although one addition. The LM descent engine was throttled down to less than 30%, so the F-35's engine actually pushes at more than 10x what the descent engine was running at. And as you said, even that engine doesn't gouge holes, and it has the advantage of trying to do so in an atmosphere, which keeps the exhaust contained in a column. The LM engine didn't have that. It's a pity that the deniers don't understand what you wrote, but then again if they did they wouldn't be deniers.
@@jaybird4756 Oh please, do explain what I missed. Why would you multiply that by 2000? Do you think a helicopter's downwash has 2000 times the force of an F-35 or the LM descent engine? If so, I'd love to see your calculations on that. And see if you can do it without the emojis. They make you look like an idiot.
If you notice a SpaceX launch, you can see the thrust plum get wider as the rocket reaches the upper atmosphere. For the same reason explained in this video, the less ambient air pressure the wider the exhaust plume. On the moon, the exhaust plume with a throttled back engine would be much wider than the same plume at sea level on Earth. Just notice any rocket launch as the engines hit the outer atmosphere. Another reason why there is little or no crater from the LM on the moon. Depending on where the LEM landed determined the nature of the blast crater. Some Apollo landing surfaces were harder than others.
daffidavit Good observation about the rocket exhaust plume in the upper atmosphere. The Jack of Realms That's about 1 pound per square inch of thrust. Rockets thrust by fuel gases pushing off the inside of the rocket, not involving anything outside the rocket. There is _no need_ to push off the vacuum, since the fuel gases have already done the pushing _before_ they even leave the rocket.
all of those foot prints they show you right around the lem in dust that looks to be about 4-5 inches thick it would have produced a lot of dust which would and should have fallen on the landing pads which where dustless from the moon dust which they say drove them crazy because it stuck to everything.
The thrust of the LM engine is a 3000lb spread over several hundred square feet not inches. The engine shut down 10 feet above the lunar surface (if you look at the landing footage you can see the probe rods shadows below the landers pads). The forces involved were like a one foot drop on earth cushioned by the struts compressing. The gas forces were about on a par with a sneeze at the surface. The designers were expecting a much softer surface with the engine bell possibly hitting the surface. (Hence the separate ascent stage).
@@allangibson8494 that's completely ridiculous. The lamest stupidest defense of an already proven to be faked perpetuation of total bullshit I've ever heard. A fucking SNEEZE. REALLY YOU MORON? The astro-nots boots kicked up dust, but this sorry ridiculous contraption made out of duct tape and curtain rods doesn't? You try to sound intelligent as you regurgitate some NASA nonsense you saw on TV and read in some NASA textbook. LMAO. No one has landed on the moon and no one ever will because it's IMPOSSIBLE. A fucking sneeze. Wtf?
Listen, the 3ply aluminum Reynolds wrap outer shell of the ‘lunar excursion module’ would not have been able to hold ANY atmosphere intact inside the craft...period. Btw as for the blast crater issue, if all this dust was blown around why isn’t there a speck of dust on any of the landers footpads? Apollo was a counterintelligence operation that went too far and now as a result on the ongoing ‘lunacy’they can’t explain one single thing coherently. That’s why they’ve lost all the ‘telemetry data’, the schematics for the LEM and pretty much everything else that would back up their claims. A little research goes along way...of course being spoon fed propaganda does too.
"Why isn't there a speck of dust on and off the landers footpads?" There is. You must didn't bother to look at any of the photos except the ones the hoax sites used to spread their lies. Here's one with dust. www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a16/AS16-107-17442.jpg
Since I proved one part of your argument as false with only a 20 second internet search, how confident are you that anything else you are claiming is correct either?
YOU SAID: "Listen, the 3ply aluminum Reynolds wrap" == No. It was aluminumized mylar/Kapton. YOU SAID: "outer shell of the ‘lunar excursion module’ would not have been able to hold ANY atmosphere intact inside the craft...period." == Correct. The outer layers of "foil" (thermal blanket) had absolutely nothing to do with holding any "atmosphere" (sigh) intact. Did you think that it was supposed to do so? Who ever told you that the thermal blanket was supposed to contain oxygen? What are you talking about? YOU SAID: "Btw as for the blast crater issue, if all this dust was blown around why isn’t there a speck of dust on any of the landers footpads?" == Pffttt. See, this proves you haven't looked for yourself. All you've done is trust other people who are just as clueless as you are. Yes, dummy, there was dust on some of the footpads. The only people who claim there wasn't... are people who haven't actually looked at the photos. You know what's most ironic about this? You insane conspiratards are constantly accusing the sane people of blindly trusting what they're being told. But, YOU are the ones who blindly trust what you're told. If someone told you there wasn't a speck of dust on any of the landers' footpads, you've blindly swallowed that. You never looked for yourself to verify if what you've been told is true or not. In actuality, your only filter is this: (1) if it agrees with your predetermined conclusions, you blindly accept it... (2) if it goes against your predetermined conclusions, you blindly reject it. You have just proven that this is EXACTLY what you're doing, when you claim there was not a speck of dust on any footpad. Niall provided you with one photo that included dust on the footpads. Guess what, there are plenty more photos just like the one he provided. YOU SAID: "Apollo was a counterintelligence operation that went too far and now as a result on the ongoing ‘lunacy’they can’t explain one single thing coherently." == Pffttt. Explain WHAT?? Do you expect NASA to sit around and answer stupid clowns who say the dumbest crap imaginable? Do they staff armies of people to respond to every stupid conspiracy claim? YOU SAID: "That’s why they’ve lost all the ‘telemetry data’," == Says who? The same people who claimed that there's not a speck of dust on any of the landing pads?? Um, no, dummy, they lost TWO backup tapes from one mission. That's all that's been lost. The primary tapes are still intact. Countless copies are still intact. But, about a decade ago, they discovered that they lost two backup tapes from Parkes, Australia. But, since then, you stupid conspiratards keep escalating (in your minds) what was lost. Every year since then, you clowns keep claiming more and more and more stuff was lost... based on absolutely nothing (except intentional mis-quotes, and an utter butchery of the facts). YOU SAID: "the schematics for the LEM" == Pffttt. And, you think those are lost, why? So, my copies must be really valuable, then, huh? And, um, dummy, even if your ridiculous fantasy about losing the schematics for the LEM was true (sigh), they have a few LEMs in museums, you know, which were pretty near completion. It wouldn't be all that difficult to reverse-engineer them. And, even if the schematics were lost (again, sigh, ridiculously stupid), how does this disprove the moon landings? All it would prove is that the schematics were lost. And, of course, it would prove that my basement is the most valuable basement on Earth, because I have boxes and boxes of copies of the schematics for the LEMs (both the Apollo 9-14 version, and the Apollo 15-17 version), command modules, service modules, lunar rovers, Saturn V, etc. Of course, so do millions of people, but whatever, you don't know what you're talking about. YOU SAID: "and pretty much everything else that would back up their claims." == Everything ELSE? You haven't named the first thing correctly. YOU SAID: "A little research goes along way...of course being spoon fed propaganda does too." == Hilarious!!! I think it's pretty clear that YOU are the one who has been "spoon fed" your opinions. Your "research" (sigh) consists of watching conspiracy videos that make the dumbest possible claims imaginable. And, you've believed every word, hook line and sinker. No, dummy, you're not the skeptical one here. You're the dupe.
The lunar module wasnot able to leave a crater but Neil Armstrong was able to leave a solid footprint by simply walking and since the surface of moon is rock so they were easily able to stick the flag pole. Damn science is amazing
Dewdrop, the surface layer of dust will leave footprints, and will be blown by rocket blast. However, underneath the first inch or two is a layer of much more compacted regolith and rock. And, they didn't easily put the flag pole into it either. It took a lot of effort.
C'mon, girlie. If the astronauts hopping around kicked up dust all round, there SHOULD HAVE BEEN DUST ON THOSE SHINY gold tinfoil lunar lander strut bases.
This is so helpful my science teacher believes that the united states never landed on the moon. I've been communicating and hope to change that opinion.
Silas Mayes okay ... when you say US.... you mean humans landing on the moon...or just any thing. Things have made it to the moon from usa missions...ie the laser reflector. But, it doesnt necessarily prove usa humans made it there.
I have seen a Russian with a professor degree in space technology and one of the best on his field who exposed it all with abidance. He even took his stop watch and measured the Apollo missile travel time from 0 to optimal velocity using the clouds only and he said "This missile is crawling like a turtle, it is impossible to leave the orbit like this" and he was so serious. Unfortunately it is not in English
They tell us the dust on the surface is only a few centimeters, eg. the landing pads on resting on solid rock. They started kicking up dust at about 75 feet. This was a very violent event throwing dust beyond the horizon and at speeds approaching the escape velocity of the moon. They were also moving across the surface right up to the landing. This means they are exposing a swath of bare rock and yet when they exit the craft there is dust everywhere to make footprints. Maybe this can be explained but I can share some prints in other photos that are much harder to explain as to how they got there !
One classic is that the Sky is black with no stars visible on photos from Moon, hence it is fake. Of course we don't see stars in Daylight on Earth either.
The Earth is not the moon. In the day here, the sky is blue due to difusion. How is it that in a black sky above the moon there is no light? Isnt light opposite of darkness. You believe, I don't . The moon landing requires faith. I only have fatih in one, that's Jesus, and He tells me it will take faith. I need facts for the moon landings, not a TV broadcast.
@@paulbeardsley4095 I understand that light is the opposite of darkness, and if I cannot see fireballs in the darkness, and you can explain it away, then I'm not stupid, you have left science, and are selling a religion. Admit it.
@@paulbeardsley4095 there are billions of stars (fireballs) there are planets, how convenient that we cannot see ONE of anything on the atmosphere-less moon. Keep "believing".
@@barcoxx Well to start with you need to work on your English. Get back to me when you've learned to express yourself coherently. That might take some time.
I was a college student in 1969. I was majoring in psychology, so I took a part-time job as a psychiatric attendant at a mental hospital. That is where I encountered my first ever moon hoax believer. This was before there was even the term moon hoax believer. I remember the patient as being a young man, as I was back then, with sort of blond hair and a small mustache. We were the only two people in the day room watching what, I think, was a replay of the launch of Apollo 11. The mission had not yet reached the moon, as we watched this. All of a sudden the patient spoke up. "You don't think they are really going to the moon, do you?' This is all being done in Hollywood" He went on and on explaining why this had to be the case Then he got up, threw a rolled up newspaper at the screen, and walked away I would never have imagined that, years later, this would become an opinion shared by many people,
It just goes to show that your education was worth nothing because you failed to use common sense or at the very least keep an open mind. Hubris can be quite embarrassing.
@@GTJW22409 Well, they must have faked the flight over and over again. Apollo 8, went around the moon. Apollo 10 made a low pass. Apollo 11, 12, landed. Apollo 13 had that emergency in space, "Houston, we've had a problem" I heard a talk by Fred Haise a few years ago who was one of those astronauts. He is either the greatest story teller in history, or he was really on that flight Apollo 14,15,16. and 17. all went to the moon. Unless, as you say, the whole thing was a fake. Talking about the scientific method, without any proof, or knowing anything at all about me, you proclaim that my education was a waste.
@@GTJW22409 I thought I had replied to your comment. Talk about lack of proof! You claim that my education was worth nothing without knowing anything about me, or my education.
On Apollo 11 you can hear Buzz Aldrin say the first word ever spoken on the moon. "Contact". Hanging from 3 of the four support leg pads were 2-meter long electric wire-like contact probes. When the first probe touched the moon a blue light lit the LM's instrument panel. At that moment Aldrin said: "Contact light". Neil Armstrong hit a large button that shut off the descent engine 2 meters above the Moon's surface and the LEM gently dropped down on collapsible legs. Armstrong landed so softly, the extension gear on the LM did not fully depress making a long first step from the bottom rung of the ladder to the surface. The touch down was a "greaser". The surface where Apollo 11 landed was extremely hard making it difficult to hammer down to insert the Flagpole. About 7 feet above the moon's surface before the descent engine was cut off, the dust was blown away from under the engine nozzle exposing a hard table-top like surface. Most dust was blown away before it could settle on the footpads by the wide plume of the engine blast before the pads hit the surface. This explains not only why there was a very small if any landing crater, but also why there was no dust on the footpads. See: "Rocketmen" by Craig Nelson for a review of Apollo 11 approach and landing.
I'd appreciate it if you could provide us with some written data on that. Maybe a NASA certified transcript. Or a video of Neil or Buzz saying so. I admit that when you hear Aldrin say "Contact light" it takes a second or two for Armstrong to confirm engine stop, but that doesn't prove anything. Neil could have simply delayed his confirmation that the engine was shut down. Or, the engine was indeed cut off a second after confirmation of light making it 5 ft. Or, Armstrong was "hovering" at the contact light level for a second or so before he cut off the power.
Neil Armstrong has said that he left the engine on all the way to touchdown. Also, in a lot of these videos, there are a couple of other guys who post a lot, who had posted the exact engine shutoff time for each mission (how long before or after touchdown), and the source of that data. Now, the problem is that I've watched so many interviews... it's doubtful that I'd remember which one(s) of those interviews included those comments. But, I'm pretty sure it didn't come from any time I've spoken to the astronauts myself, so yeah, it's probably in videos that you can find online. And, well, scrolling back through the comments to find the exact comments about that... yeah... that will take a while. But, for grins, I just googled the phrase "neil armstrong left engine running until touchdown," and a few entries down on the list, you can find the quoted words, "As we approached the ground, I still had a left translational rate which made me reluctant to shut the engine off,' Neil Armstrong is quoted as saying in the annotations to the radio report. `We actually had the engine running until touchdown."" You might try to dive into that. This was the first time I've seen that quote... my knowledge of this came from elsewhere... but it's a nice source to answer your question, maybe?
Also, by the way, side note, it's pretty unlikely that they'd hover after the contact light. I mean, ok, it's possible. But, keep in mind, the throttle didn't work the way most people think. It was really just a selection of how fast you want to descend, in feet per second increments. If you're coming down at 10 feet per second, you click 3 times, and it lowers your descent rate to 7 feet per second. Click 5 more times, and the computer lowers your descent rate to 2 feet per second. They didn't use a throttle lever like an airplane. You told the computer what descent rate you wanted, and it did the calculations, because with the fuel draining so quickly (lightening the load every second), and in 1/6th gravity, it would be really easy to accidentally ascend instead of descend. So, instead, they built the system so that you told the computer what descent rate you wanted, and it did the calculations for what exact throttle should be used for the remaining weight. If I remember correctly, the LEM burned 18,000 pounds of fuel on descent (double check this, please). So, a throttle position of [whatever] would have a dramatically different effect every second that went by. So, they computerized that part. Bottom line: it's pretty doubtful that Armstrong would put the thing back into "hover" (0 feet per second descent rate) after the contact light was on. Not that it wasn't possible. I just don't think so, and the video doesn't support that idea either.
Rockethead7: I find this an interesting topic because it involves one of the most, if not the most momentous accomplishment by human beings. It's amazing to watch and listen to the Apollo 11 audio and video. It never gets tiring. I just want to know more about the details of the last minute before touchdown. If you state you've seen or heard videos where Armstrong or Aldrin stated they kept the power on until or almost until touchdown, I have no way to argue with you. That is why I wanted to see something that describes the event. I've heard that Armstrong touched down so softly the legs on the LEM did not fully compress thus making the last step on the ladder to the surface extra high. Maybe that's because he touched down with power. NASA didn't want that because they were afraid the thrust plumb might reverse back up into the engine and cause problems. Also, it was widely assumed there were about 17 seconds of fuel remaining after touchdown of the Apollo 11 LEM. I heard later that NASA recalculated the amount of fuel and determined there were about 40 something seconds left. To this day I still don't know because I see conflicting answers. Many people will say "who cares"? Well, I do as a matter of history and space science and as one of the millions of young kids back in the day who wanted to become astronauts. As far as the hovering issue, it's not that far out. When Armstrong took over part of the autopilot system and manually flew over the crater and boulder field, his flight path actually took the LM from a descent to level flight to a slight climb before he began to descend again. So it wouldn't be a far stretch for him to have hovered for a second or two just after Aldrin called "contact Light". But I have no proof for this at all and I don't want to start a rumor. I'd really like to see a reference to the video where Armstrong describes the final touchdown. I'm going to try to find it. My hope is someone will direct and describe how high the LEM was when the engine was cut off or how much fuel was really left in the tanks after touchdown. If I come across any evidence, I'll be sure to post it here. I hope you will do the same. Be well.
The single most important thing she said was that there is no atmosphere there. Turbulence created in air would have kicked up dust, but just thrust from an engine with no air around, I'd be surprised if it did much of anything.
Wouldn't the dust stay suspended longer on the moon because their is little gravity to bring it back down? The lunar rover kicks up plenty of dust when it is moving around.I would imagine just a small rocket blast would have sent clouds of dust into the air. On another note who did the video of the module departing?
Yes. considering gravity alone, lower gravity would mean that dust would get kicked up farther and be slower to come back down. But the lack of atmosphere means that even the smallest speck of dust would come back down at the same rate as a giant boulder. Even if one kicked dust up 100 meters (330 feet) it would all be back on the surface about 22 seconds after getting kicked up. Getting prepped to get out of the lander would give plenty of time for any dust kicked up by the landing to fall back to the lunar surface.
I agree turbo, a small blast would send copious amounts of dust into the air and it would stay suspended for some time.I have studied this moon landing issue for years , I don't think it is possible today let alone in 1969.
interman 77 Again, there is no "air" for the particles to be suspended in. Anything kicked up by the blast would follow a simple parabolic trajectory up then down again. A dust particle massing 1 microgram would fall back to the surface just as fast as a boulder massing 1 trillion times as much (1000 kg).
+Michael Witkowski I like that her clear voice and fast paced voice keeps me from spacing out. And the shortness of the video; on audio, on radio, there's the radio StarDate and Earth&Sky. Anyone who can read this can find it, or else contact me.
3000 pounds of thrust will feel like less on the moon? Are you frickin kidding me? No, no, no, no, no! And the thrust is going to be more dispersed because there's no atmosphere and so it's not going to really disperse any moon dust? Nope, sorry, I ain't buying i! Not for one dang second!
YOU SAID: "3000 pounds of thrust will feel like less on the moon? Are you frickin kidding me? No, no, no, no, no!" == Yeah, I really don't know what she was trying to say there. Maybe she was trying to say something about the fact that they were in 1/6th gravity, but I'm not really certain about how that is supposed to relate to how 3000 pounds of thrust is supposed to feel. YOU SAID: "And the thrust is going to be more dispersed because there's no atmosphere" == Correct. If you watch any rocket launch with one of those onboard cameras, you will see that the higher they go, the more the exhaust disperses as the atmosphere gets thinner and thinner. This is well understood. YOU SAID: "and so it's not going to really disperse any moon dust?" == Sigh. When did she say moon dust wasn't dispersed??? She's explaining why there wasn't a BLAST CRATER. Lots of conspiratards think that the lunar lander should have cut a 5-10 foot deep blast crater into the lunar surface, and that's what this video is addressing. Of course lots of the surface dust was displaced. Nobody claims otherwise. But, under the dust layer is a dense layer of compacted regolith and rock. And, that measly rocket isn't going to cut a crater into that stuff, especially since the thrust disperses so much. That was a 20 sq. foot engine bell (cross section). By the time the thrust hits the lunar surface in a vacuum, the thrust was easily dispersed to 30-40 sq. feet of surface area. There's no hope in hell of 3000 pounds of thrust of cutting a crater into compacted regolith and rock when spread across that kind of surface area. But, nobody ever claimed dust was not blown around. Quite to the contrary, if you look at the photos, it's very clear that dust was blown. Here, take this photo as an example. It's very clear that the 1-2 inch dust layer is almost completely gone, blown away by the rocket engine. There are visible radial striations in the surface, also showing a rocket had been blowing on it. Only the compacted regolith and rock layer remains, and 99% of the loose dust has been blown away. www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5921HR.jpg YOU SAID: "Nope, sorry, I ain't buying i! Not for one dang second!" == That's because every statement you have made has been dead wrong. No wonder your conclusions are wrong. When all of your input is garbage, your conclusions are garbage. Garbage in = garbage out.
2047: "Ok Grandfather, we took the lunar express to Armstrong city and visited theTranquility base exhibit dome, so now do you believe?" "No no no no no .."
You would think by now they would have tourist trips around the moon, but they don't. Amazing how we did it 60 years ago with 1/32 of the technology we have now, but still no tourist trips around the moon.
" 50 " years ago and, I don't know, say £5 billion for the trip. May go wrong ( Apollo 13 ) etc. etc. That's why we're not doing it. And that's a late 60's £5 billion ! " Why don't we go back ? " I'm sorry but what a fucking stupid counter - reason to fill your conspiracy colostomy bag with !
3,000 pounds of *thrust* will feel like less on the Moon? Er... no it won't. The Lunar Module's 30,000 pounds of mass will feel a lot less heavy though. About 5,000 pounds in fact. Also the engine was throttle-able? The astronauts didn't have to turn it on and off like those 1980s "moon lander" video games? Childhood ruined :)
Plus, below the top inches of dust, the ground was very dense, when trying to hammer in the soil sample tubes, they encountered a dense, compacted soil.
I will have to disagree with you on this one. I think if you look at the photos you can actually see the blast crater. It is very shallow as the pressure was very low, probably comparable with a helicopter landing on a beach. If you look at photo AS11-40-5921 you can see ray like effects from the engine and in AS11-40-5864, and AS11-40-5892 you can see the effects of the exhaust plume. You would only expect a crater a couple of inches (~5cm) deep and that is what one can see.
aqueousone Yep, In my opinion there is one; it is just not deep due to the low thrust and low pressure of the exhaust plume. And it is not circular due to a small amount of sideways motion, so not symmetrical. It can be a little hard to spot. But the tin foil hat brigade want something that looks like Meteor Crater in Arizona.
StJohns River66 I am not sure how either of those separately or together proves anything to be a fake. A little more explanation may be required. Either that or it is a poor troll.
actually there is a rather OBVIOUS craters and if you actually pay attention even a slight bit of trenching to the crater. But an ignorant tinfoil wearing true believer like you can't deal with facts so...in your own parlance. "U DUM FUK IS REAL". sincerely, someone way smarter than you.
+1978ajax Let us be honest, the primary problem with StJohns River66's argument is he (?) starts with a bad assumption. And as we know, assumption is the mother of all F@#k ups. StJohn assumes that dust will behave the same on the Moon as it does on Earth. However the Earth has an atmosphere and the Moon does not. On the Earth one would expect that the dust would be kicked up, the atmosphere would slow it down. The dust would be suspended in the air near the landing for seconds to hours and the wind would blow it onto the pads. On the Moon, when the dust is kicked up, it is thrown away from the lander in projectile motion. There is no air to slow it down and it will settle at a distance from the lander. There will be no dust to settle on the pads. So StJohns River'66's argument comes down to "The dust on the moon did not act the same way it would on Earth, therefore this is absolute proof that this was been done of Earth". To you and me, this is a nonsensical argument and is actually further proof that humans landed on the Moon. But to StJohns, who appears to be incapable of critical reasoning or rational thought, this is absolute proof that the Moon landings were faked. Either that or he is a poor troll.
You forgot to mention that the descent engine blew all the dust into a neat pile underneath the ladder where they made the famous first footprint. You got a video on that?
Huh? What are you talking about? Let me guess, you think the "famous" Aldrin footprint photo is actually Neil Armstrong's first footprint. Right? I'd love for you to name a single photo taken at the base of the ladder on Apollo 11. Can you?
No response, eh Norma? It's been 2 weeks. Why can't you find this photo you're talking about? Was I correct? Did you finally figure out that the photo you thought was Armstrong's "first footprint" right at the base of the ladder was actually nowhere near the ladder, and wasn't even Armstrong's? It was Aldrin's, right? You're not answering, because you found out you're wrong, but cannot admit it, right?
Wrong, because there's no atmosphere on the moon so there's no air to support or "carry" the dust, so it falls down very quickly because there's nothing between the dust and the ground. The same reason a feather falls way faster in a vacuum than normally.
@Grenherb Has Rad Redfern been to the moon to prove that the dust would produce a fog like cloud? No, so why didn't you question his claim? Is it because you want to agree with him/her but not me? By your logic we should dismiss every person who says the moon landings are fake because they haven't been on the moon. So yeah maybe you're right, the conspiracy theorists must be full of shit, i'm glad we can agree. We should only listen to people who have been on the moon, like the Apollo astronauts.
That whole moon conspiracy garbage just blows me away. It is a slap to all the men and women (including my dad, who worked on the Atlas project) who worked very hard to meet a very high goal. Men gave their lives for this event. These people believe the most outlandish ideas, and when confronted with a simple explanation, they refuse to believe it. I always ask the goobers the same question..."Do you think the Russians would have let us get away with a fake landing?" They don't have an answer for that, except to say that the CCCP must have been in on it!
@@patrickgalban1110 You should have quit while you were ahead. You had humour on your side, but now you've thrown that away. Life is too short to waste it on people who think the Moon landings were faked.
I was an electrical engineer for the Titan II but I helped with a lot of the mechanical systems. I like the Titan II. It is a simple rocket and lots of what applies to it also applies to modern rockets. There are lots of things: (1) the IMU, (2) the computer, (3) the autopilot, (4) the in complex alignment equipment, (5) the gyros (how they work for accelerators and movement), (6) how exhaust gasses were vented at the bottom of the silo, (7) the launch control system, (8) the sound attenuation system, (9) the 480 volt generator, (10) the memory (actually a drum) on the computer (built by IBM), (11) the ablative skirt on the 2nd stage, (12) the vernier rockets on the RV, (13) the pre-valves on the 1st stage engine, (14) the 750 ton silo door and the opening system
I watched the first moon landing live on TV (we had black and white-we couldn't afford color ). I loved the entire space program and followed every development avidly. John Glenn and Yuri Gagarin were my Heroes. Anyone who was "there" at that time knew absolutely that every bit of it was real, and the moon landings were the greatest achievement and adventure mankind had ever accomplished. Thank you for all of your outstanding and fun videos!!
Absolutely - I was 12 at the time so was old enough to remember the years leading up to this - Gemini - the drama of the first dockings in space - the first spacewalks - the first satellites coming into commercial operation - the loss of three men during the Apollo 1 test, the year or more delay after that, the incredible Apollo 8 first flight around the moon at Christmas and the reading from Genesis. Apollo 13.
To answer the question of the Van Allen belt radiation; the trajectory of the Apollo spacecraft took it through the thinnest parts of the belts, the astronauts didn't stay within the belts long enough to sustain permanent damage to their bodies ruclips.net/video/bLtgS2_qxJk/видео.html As for the dust, the LM landed at an angle that blew dust away from it; and, since the Moon's gravity is 1/6 of Earth's gravity, there wouldn't be enough dust left in the area to be visible to the naked eye.
@@AndrewSmoot then why is the surface undisturbed, but the footprints are so we'll defined with no lubricant to hold the form. If you watch the first 12 seconds of this video she nails it. The rest is Amway sales.
@@chriscrocker6783 YOU SAID: "then why is the surface undisturbed" == Pffttt. Who said it's undisturbed? Other people who know just as little as you? Here, take a look at this photo as an example: www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5921HR.jpg Notice anything? The 1-2 inch dust layer is virtually gone. All that remains is the layer of compacted regolith and rock underneath. You see radial striations. OBVIOUSLY "disturbed." But, some internet dummies said the surface wasn't disturbed, so that's what you went with. You never verified this for yourself. YOU SAID: "but the footprints are so we'll defined with no lubricant to hold the form." Pffftttt. The conspiratards love to compare lunar dust to beach sand, expecting the same behavior, that dry sand won't form crisp footprints, but lunar dust does, therefore the moon photos are faked, and/or they think there should be a wet substance to help hold the sand together. But, the lunar dust isn't beach sand. It's not the same thing at all. Here's an example of lunar dust: factsc.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Lunar-Dust-Under-Microscope.jpg It's very jagged and has lots of angles and stuff sticking out, very easy to catch together with other pieces of lunar dust (especially in 1/6th gravity), and is able to hold its shape. Here's an example of beach sand: static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/image/2015/11/10/16/Seychelles%20caramel_0.jpg Millions of years of the churning of ocean surf smooths the edges of the beach sand, so they are far smoother than moon dust. Beach sand cannot hold a footprint shape very easily. It's too smooth. The Soviets even sent unmanned probes to the moon that scooped up some lunar dust and brought it back to Earth. Guess what; same exact properties as the Apollo samples. See, this is the problem with you conspiratards: you think you have all of these "gotcha" moments. But, not a single one of you knows what you're talking about. You're completely ignorant of the sciences that you're blindly rejecting. And, in amazing irony, you people always assert that OTHERS are not skeptical enough. Meanwhile, you'll swallow every stupid claim that supports your delusion, with no scrutiny whatsoever. Who's the gullible one here? Who's the one who isn't skeptical enough? You blindly swallowed these dumb concepts that the lunar dust wasn't disturbed under the landers, and that the lunar dust should behave like beach sand. Both of those concepts are easily dismissed by just a few moments of scrutiny. But, if the conspiratards' claims support your delusion, you don't scrutinize them at all. You blindly accept them as "fact," no matter how wrong they are. No, dummy, we're not the ones who lack skepticism. You are.
@@chriscrocker6783 is 1/6 of earths gravity, even with that reduced gravity, the LM still weighs thousands of pounds, which would press into the Lunar surface, and compact the Lunar Dust enough to leave footprints. The Lunar surface seems "undistrubed" because the LMs landing blew away any of the loose dust particles leaving a compacted surface that, aside from the LM's footprints, wouldn't show any disturbance from the LMs landing.
@@AndrewSmoot you know you and this attention seeker nailed it in your first statements. There is no blast crater under the rocket exhaust. It's undisturbed. Geeze dude eave the crack alone.
No. What you need it for, is reduce your relative velocity against the surface of the moon to zero. As she clearly laid out, you do most of that at the beginning of the decent, high up over the moon, to actually leave orbit and start sinking (lowering orbital height to 0). In the final stages, close to the surface, if you did it right earlier, you only need small puffs for fine adjustments, until the surface and your module smoothly connect. Imagine the moon and the space craft as two separate objects on collision course, with only a very gentle attractive force between them. The orbital velocity you need to shed is much more significant than moon´s gentle pull. Plus, it did in fact kick up a lot of dust, you can still see that on the pictures of the landing sites taken much later, the radial pattern of slightly different-coloured surface around the descent stages. Only, with no athmosphere to hold it up via Brown´s motion, each and every dust particle would simply follow a ballistical curve, and fall back to the surface like a stone (in fact, exactly like any stone), no dust cloud would be formed, and the dust would settle much faster than on earth. You can see as much, when you watch the videos from the lunar rover. The dust behind the wheels. That is what throwing fine dust in a vacuum looks like. And that´s actually proof (one of many) they were actually there, because you couldn´t have faked that in the 70s. You would have to manage to set the whole stage to high vacuum and 1/6th g to get the appropriate behaviour of the dust. Actually, by the speed the dust falls on the lunar vehicle films, you can calculate the gravitational force it was subjected to, and you will find that it exactly matches what you would expect on the surface of the moon.
@@paavobergmann4920 Nonsense. Not even one footage of a landing on the Earth previous to that on the moon. It's extremely difficult to do it, and more if cut the engine, lol
@@tegtactics1966 I don´t understand what you mean. Why would you want to land on earth before landing on moon? Of course it was difficult. That was the point. Just because the two of us can´t do it doesn´t mean nobody can.
@@tegtactics1966 There is footage of the astronauts training in the lander-simulator vehicle. ruclips.net/video/rbdJPuq08Wc/видео.html Of course it was not the original lander, because that one was built for 1/6g. I still don´t see where you are aiming at.
I feel bad that people like you even have to make debunking videos about space exploration or the shape of our planet. Having said that, nice video, full of information and great research. Love the channel.
Slightly mis-spoke perhaps? The thrust is less because the weight of the lander is less compared to the Earth. I guess that is the idea the presenter may have intended to convey, but the usual suspects are bound to pounce if they think they see a chance🎺
Will someone answer this question from a non rocket scientist, please? When Apollo 17's LEM blasted off from the Moon which was captured from the video camera left on the Rover, why was there no flame coming out of it's exhaust cone?
There was a flame, it just burns clear, a lot like certain alcohol fires. The ascent stage used aerozine50 and dinitrogen tetroxide hypergolic fuel. In the correct ratio, these chemicals will produce a clear flame. This is compounded by the lack of an atmosphere on the moon to concentrate the exhaust into a clearly defined plume.
Hypergolic engines have a fuel and an oxidizer, each in a separate tank. The two liquids are pushed in the combustion changer by pumping helium into the tanks. When the two compounds come into contact with each other there is a instant reaction without the need for ignition. They burn with a clear flame. Hypergolic compounds are less energetic than other fuels and easier to store for longer periods than say liquid oxygen. They are ideally suited to space travel because the engine can be turned on and off simply by opening and closing the mixing valves. The Germans experimented with many types of these engines during WW2.
@@nicsandee123 What you're saying is quite true. But, make no mistake about it, most of the rocket engineers really didn't like those fuels. If they had the time and money, and additional lifting capacity of the Saturn V, they'd have engineered a much bigger landing craft with more rockets on it for redundancy. And, they'd have steered clear of the hypergolic fuels/oxidizers they used. They are massively corrosive. They are massively toxic. As you said, the energy produced isn't quite as good. Every time they used the engine with those fuels/oxidizers, the engine had to be rebuilt completely. Lots of scientists dealing with those rocket fuels/oxidizers died, both from the explosion they produced while testing, and from accidentally inhaling the compounds if there was a leak. Those particular fuels/oxidizers are really nasty stuff. But, they had an agenda and a timeline to meet. They were in a cold war race to the moon, and didn't have the time, nor lifting capacity, to create a much larger lander that could have more redundant systems, and could run on more preferred fuels. So, they wanted to make the engines simple, super simple. As you said, open the valves, close the valves. Those were the only moving parts they wanted. Everything else was just chemistry. As long as the valves worked, the rocket ran. If you were going to bet the astronauts' lives on a single engine, yeah, they wanted those hypergolic fuels, because it made the rockets so simple that there was almost no way for them to fail to fly. But, I don't think anybody had said they thought those fuels/oxidizers were "ideally suited" to anything. I think they all hated them. But, it was the best choice at the time.
my favorite conspiracy is the filming of the module leaving, it tracks the launch vehicle as if some one is controlling it, and how was the film retrieved after it was taken
xandarian It _was_ controlled, by Ed Fendell at Mission Control. Also, the video was transmitted to Earth, not recorded locally on some film. It's as if the world's top engineers actually planned how to do this.
Not a conspiracy theory, but I like that the cover up implies the Soviet Union was in it. I mean, if the lunar landing was fake, the Soviet Union would have love to embarrass the United States, right?
And why isn’t the 10,000lb module leaving an impression in the dust? It didn’t sink in at all yet footprints from the astronauts are all around. So funny
@@hurpaderpp A) because it's only 1600lb in the moons gravity B) there were 4 large landing pads (about the size of 20 boot prints) dissipating 400lb equally C) each landing pad had a probe which indicated contact prior to touchdown which further dissipated impact force. D) Lunar regolith only goes down a certain amount prior to bedrock. E) They did leave a significant imprint in the regolith - This once again proves to me that people who don't think we landed on the moon, know next to nothing about the moon landings.
@@hurpaderpp They did leave an imprint, maybe not as significant as you would expect, but significant in 1/6 gravity. There is an inch or two of lunar dust and then a more sturdy regolith underneath that. So the landing pads made significant imprints in that top layer (which is easily found with a quick google search) but were supported quite well by the harder regolith beneath. You'll also note the contact probes dig right into the top layer, which absorbed most of the impact. You can find a million videos debunking all of these conspiracy myths, you're looking for something that just isn't there. EDIT: Also take into account the landing pads were concave at the base. Quite visible here with the landing probes (11aaEagle.jpg (1600×1472) (bp.blogspot.com))
There have been no Soviet manned moon landings, however the first man made object to land on the moon was the Soviet Luna2 Spacecraft in 1959. Several unmanned landings have been made by Russia, America and China. Only America has put men on the moon in the years 1969-1972
Huh? Who told you there was no mark? There wasn't a CRATER, of course. Making a crater with that engine is simply not going to happen. But, plenty of marks were made. The dust was blown. There are radial striations from the rocket blast. Apollo 15's engine bell even smashed into the lunar surface, cracking and crumpling the engine. Do you think that didn't leave a mark? Let me guess, you watched a video that claimed no marks were left, and you never lifted a finger to view the photo archive for yourself to verify if that was really true... right?
The engine was throttled down to approximately 3000 lbs at landing. The engine bell has a diameter of 54 inches. If you do the calculations, you will find that the psi at the end of the engine bell (that is, before it had the chance to spread out in the near-vacuum) was only about 1.5 psi. Do you really think that amount of pressure is going to cause any appreciable damage to the lunar surface?
"3k force will leave a mark". Would you please provide a detailed calculation taking into account all factors as support for your claim? I honestly wouldn't trust you to calculate much of anything of an engineering nature.
Oops! Looks like you watched slightly less than half the video and made a dumb comment before getting to the part where she explains why you'd be wrong. XD
assault and battery Um... you are aware that there were multiple cameras mounted on the exterior of the module on _all_ of the moon landings, right? You do know that, right?
8 лет назад+2
BigRalphSmith No, there were not. Neither were there, or have there been, any moon landings. This was 69, remember. It's now 2016 and we still can't get through the Van Allen belt. If you need to push this stuff, show REAL pictures of the cameras on the moon. If, as you say, there were multiple cameras on the lander, surely at least one camera would show at least one other camera.
assault and battery Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize you were one of those moon landing conspiracy fruitcakes. Here's the definitive _PROOF_ that your radiation objection is complete crap: www.braeunig.us/apollo/VABraddose.htm It contains _ALL_ the math that actually demonstrates the invalidity of the "Moon Landing Conspiracy Nut-job 'Van Allen Radiation' Objection". Now, I don't for one second think that you will actually look at, let alone come close to understanding, the math or any of the rest of the information in this document nor will you even consider that you could be wrong. That's the hallmark of a conspiracy fruit loop. Then, there's your problem of there being so much information out on the Internet that debunks all these whack-job conspiracies that anyone who _honestly_ wants to know the truth about the moon landings literally can't avoid seeing them. So, the only option left to the conspiracy dumbass is to completely ignore all of it. . *The moon landings happened, deal with it, get over yourself.* . As I do not entertain the fantasies of conspiracy freaks, these are my last words in response to you on this subject. Thanks for playing and have a great day.
You do understand that multiple other countries confirmed these missions both at the time and since then, right? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings Radar tracking, directional radio communications, images taken by orbiters, and the list goes on. And we aren't talking about a few friendly countries that wanted to cheer the US on. The USSR pretty much hated the USA and confirmed the moon landings with their own gear. And those guys even managed to land a probe on Venus just to show up the USA.
without an atmosphere there isnt anything to block the blast, the blast can only spread out when you have an atmosphere to redirect the gass, without an atmosphere the blast has no friction with other gasses so it cant spread out magically by interacting with the vaccuum of space. the only thing that the blast is interacting is with the surface, which the blast should have blasted a crator into the moon and sunk in it.
@@phoenixash3076 I don't think you know how this works, when a gas is released into space does it stay in one tiny stream? NO, as evidenced by the entire fucking history of rocketry in space, the thrust plume spreads out, like physics says, and has said since, well, the beginning of time
Think about this, when mass is ejected out a rocket engine its mass doesn't change but its weight does, that's why when youyou fire a rocket engine in 1/6th gravity, the mass of the combustion products stays the same but the weight is fractioned
Totally awesome how we circumnavigated deadly radion in space further than 450 miles out. Totally awesome how we outsmarted the VanAllen radiation belt.
Great video Amy, thanks. Buyt why keep saying 3,000 lb of thrust when @1:37 you state "the moon only has about 1/6th the amount of gravity"? 3,000 x 0.1667 = 500 lb
Yeah. I imagine when they say 3000 pounds, they mean 3000 pounds of force, which is the same anywhere in the universe. Definitely a yikes moment hearing Amy say that. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_(force)
Don't know why she brings in the lower gravity, she could have expressed the thrust in newton to express that. But thrust is thrust be it outside the solar system or here on earth.
Well, it is confusing how we have two different unit systems (weight pounds which depend on gravity, and force pounds which don't) but refer to both as pounds. Amy seems to have read a number in force pounds and assumed it was in weight pounds.
YOU SAID: "Hmm We should just go back to the moon & take some HD pictures of all the equipment left behind." == There were 5700 photos taken on the moon, and tons of them were pictures of the equipment. Why do you want more pictures? YOU SAID: "Should be a whole lot easier" == No. YOU SAID: "& cheaper today. Right?" == When adjusted for inflation, yes, a bit cheaper. But, not by much.
@@JohnSmith-yn3eb YOU SAID: "so we shouldn't go back?" == I did not say that. I said (in a nutshell) that there's no reason to go there and take HD photos of the equipment left behind. If/when people return to the moon, taking photos of old equipment should be a very very very very very low priority. YOU SAID: "I'm not saying we didn't go but Of the 5700 photos released by NASA many had discrepancies and some were blatant lies like the Michael Collins "spacewalk" photo." == First of all, the 5700 photos didn't include any spacewalks. There were 5700 photos taken from the lunar surface (nobody calls those a "spacewalk," even though technically they were in space). If you include photos taken from orbit/transit, there were far more than 5700. I have forgotten the total, but it's over 10,000. == Secondly, I know of no Apollo photograph showing Collins doing an EVA. Collins did two EVAs during Gemini. But, he didn't do any EVAs during his Apollo 11 flight. YOU SAID: "A training photo that NASA edited and passed off as real. This is a fact." == No, it is not. If you think otherwise, give me the Apollo photograph catalog number. YOU SAID: "There is no harm in revisiting the moon w.todays technology. Yes it would be cheaper & safer." == Again, probably a bit cheaper. But, not by as much as you'd think. As for safer, how in the world can you even know? No equipment has yet to even be designed, beyond the Orion command module. How can you comment on the safety of craft that isn't even designed yet? YOU SAID: "The cell phone I'm using right now has one million times the memory and seven million times more ROM than the Apollo guidance computer." == So what? Your cell phone is going to make it cheaper or safer? How? Why? What relevance is your cell phone's memory to the safety and cost of a new moonshot program? What ARE you talking about??? YOU SAID: "So yes let's go back in Ultra High Definition." == Sure, but to go there for the purpose of taking photographs of the old equipment on the moon?? What's the point? You never answered my question. Why do you want new photos of the Apollo equipment on the moon? What possible purpose does that serve? You spew a lot of ignorance around, saying completely meaningless and irrelevant things, but cannot bring yourself to answer a simple question. And, you seem to drift off of your own topic that YOU started. You said you want new HD photos of the Apollo equipment on the moon. I asked you why. And, your response is to talk about your cell phone?? What the hell?
@@rockethead7 man you are insufferable. My point about the cell phone is how much smaller, better, faster, and cheaper our technology is in general. Yes we should "go back” and film the old equipment In ultra high definition. It's not a low priority in my book. It not only holds incredible historic significance but would provide invaluable research and data on the wear & tear of our man made materials that have spent 50 years in the atmosphere free environment of the moon. How are the electrical connections? Can the Lunar Rover ever run again? Etc.
@@JohnSmith-yn3eb YOU SAID: "man you are insufferable." == ME??? Nothing you say makes any sense. And, you're sitting there saying that NASA claims that Michael Collins did a spacewalk during Apollo and faked pictures of it and tried to pass them off as real? That's fucking stupid. No. NASA has NEVER claimed that Michael Collins did a spacewalk during Apollo 11, nor have ever produced any photographs of such an imaginary spacewalk and tried to pass them off as real. You are making shit up. Or, more likely, some stupid conspiratard made that insane claim, and you decided to swallow it hook line and sinker, and had the audacity to claim it as "fact." But, ***I*** am insufferable?? Good fucking gods. YOU SAID: "My point about the cell phone is how much smaller, better, faster, and cheaper our technology is in general." == Just computer technology. Rocketry hasn't advanced all that much overall. Rocket chemistry in particular has been at a complete standstill. Rocket assembly hasn't really advanced much either. Rocket training facilities/machines have gone BACKWARD (in many respects), in favor of price over quality. Safety records have gone down since Apollo. But, whatever, you like to look at computer technology, and just blindly assume that all technology advances at the same pace. Guess what, it doesn't. And, computers are less than 1% of any moonshot program budget. YOU SAID: "Yes we should "go back” and film the old equipment In ultra high definition." == The raw film resolution we have of that equipment is better than any digital high-def today. That's because it's film. YOU SAID: "It's not a low priority in my book." == Well, thankfully, NASA isn't paying attention to your book. You don't have the foggiest clue what you're talking about, and it shows with every painful sentence you write, like nails on a chalkboard. YOU SAID: "It not only holds incredible historic significance but would provide invaluable research and data on the wear & tear of our man made materials that have spent 50 years in the atmosphere free environment of the moon." == Pffttt. OK, and that is "invaluable" how exactly? What benefit does that knowledge have for us? YOU SAID: "How are the electrical connections? Can the Lunar Rover ever run again? Etc." == Why would you use a the singular form of the word "rover" instead of plural? There are three of them up there. See what I mean? You really don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. And, your opinions about what NASA should do with future moon missions are about as valuable as your opinions on brain surgery techniques. Next time you want to talk utter bullshit about NASA claiming that Michael Collins made a moonwalk during Apollo, and that they faked some pictures of it, and tried to pass them off as real, yeah, you need to come to the table with better evidence than a stupid statement like "you're insufferable." I'm not the topic here. The topic here is your painful ignorance.
@@JohnSmith-yn3eb YOU SAID: "Lol Is that why the footage looks like complete horseshit?" == Dumbass, you obviously do not understand the footage you're looking at, which parts were done with film, which parts come from the 200 line resolution TV camera, etc. All you're doing is wallowing in ignorance. Man, you're just stupid. That's really all there is to this whole thing. You seriously just lack intellectual capacity to understand things. Again, what happened to your Michael Collins "fake EVA photo" claim? Why won't you address it? You simply accused NASA of faking a photo of Michael Collins doing an EVA during Apollo, and that's it? That's all? You call it a "fact" and then won't back up your asinine accusations? I think we both know why, right? That is a claim you found on a conspiratard video, and you just automatically assumed that the claim was true. That's how low-IQ minds work, you know. This is a known phenomenon. Someone who isn't very bright will just blindly accept claims made, if the claims align with something he/she WANTS to believe. And, that's exactly how your mind operates. I mean, can you even see how fucking stupid that claim is? Can you fathom how purely dumb your claim is? Here you are, claiming that NASA presented a doctored photo and claiming that it was "real" - of Michael Collins making a spacewalk, which contradicts everything known about Apollo 11?? And, you think this is true? Did your mother take a lot of drugs when you were in the womb or something? How can you believe a claim as stupid as that one? How? Good gods, what a moron. You also insisted that the newer stuff would be "safer." Where do you get that notion from? I asked how you know it would be safer when the equipment hasn't even been designed yet. No answer. You also said that it would be "invaluable" to know if the Apollo equipment had working electrical connections and if the rover (singular, because you know so little about Apollo that you didn't know there are three of them up there) would still work if the batteries were replaced. I asked what's so "invaluable" about knowing that? Why EXACTLY should we care about whether that stuff still works? What's so "invaluable" about knowing that? No answer. See, the entire theme in this thread is your own ignorance. And, the amazing thing is that you ACTUALLY believe you're smart. You ACTUALLY believe that you have something to offer. But, you don't. Nothing you say makes any sense. And, I said it before, and I will say it again, your opinions on this matter are exactly equal in value as your opinion on brain surgery techniques. You know exactly the same amount about Apollo as you know about brain surgery, zero. Yet, for some stupid reason, you actually think you know enough about Apollo to make comments, and tell NASA what they should/shouldn't be doing... all while you believe the absolute dumbest shit imaginable, like the concept that NASA presented a fake photo of Michael Collins doing an EVA during Apollo, and told the world it's real. That's the level of stupidity you're operating at. I ask questions or challenge the stupid things you say, but you realize that you cannot answer, so you just ignore them. In one ear, out the other, declare victory, huh? That's how you operate? You spew the most ignorant nonsense anybody can imagine, then, when challenged, you either ignore it completely, or double down on your stupidity. Good fucking gods. ANYTHING besides admitting you're wrong, huh? ANYTHING. People like you will NEVER admit just plain being mistaken. Nope. In your mind, you've never just made a mistake. This is also a known phenomenon associated with very low IQ scores. Thanks for confirming your stupidity with the remaining statements you made in your last comment. I hope you're proud. Once again, the topic here isn't ME. The topic here is your stupidity, and your resulting insane beliefs, which you're happy to share with the rest of the world for some reason. I hate to use the old "back in my day" cliche, but it's true, back in my day, before the internet was a thing, dumb people were really ashamed of being dumb. They were quiet, and very few of them would ever let anybody know how dumb they were. But, for whatever the reason, with the advent of the ability to place open comments for the entire world to see, you morons ACTUALLY believe it's a good idea to tell 7 billion people how dumb you are. It's truly amazing.
OK then there should be dust all over the lem's landing pads/feet and actually everywhere, but it looks like it came off the showroom floor, did they have a pressure washer to clean it
Ha ha ha ha. Hilarious. Did you know that with no atmosphere, dust on the moon once disturbed, falls straigh back down without lingering or floating in the air. When the LM is landing, dust is blown outward at the speed of a bullet, blown out by the exhaust that is dispesed over a large area due to the lack of atmospheric pressure. Look at any landing vid, and you can see this effect. The engine switches off just before the feet hit the ground, meaning by the time the LM has hit the ground, the dust has long cleared the LM.
Why do you think there was no dust on the landing pads? Some other idiot (who knows just as little as you do) said so? See, this is the problem with you moronic conspiratards... you blindly accept anything you think supports your delusion, and blindly reject anything that goes against your delusion. It's ridiculous. None of you assholes ever fact-check each other. Some dipshit said there was no dust on the landing pads, now ALL of you dipshits say there was no dust on the landing pads. Yet, you're calling the scientists the "sheep" (not yourselves??)? Hey, dumbass, you wouldn't expect there to be much dust on the landing pads in a vacuum, because the dust will just get thrown outward and follow the same trajectory that any rock would follow. There's no air for the dust to "linger" and swirl around and fall back down. So, yeah, there'd only be a small amount of dust, and even then, it would depend on when they cut the engine. But, yes, dummy, there was some dust on the landing pads. I'm sorry you're too stupid to actually check for yourself. But, here are some photos. If you want more, DO YOUR OWN CHECKING, and stop relying on everyone else to spoon-feed you information to support your pre-determined (and wrong) conclusions. www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/images/print/AS14/66/09234.jpg tothemoon.ser.asu.edu/data_a70/AS16/processed/AS16-107-17441.png tothemoon.ser.asu.edu/data_a70/AS16/processed/AS16-107-17442.png tothemoon.ser.asu.edu/data_a70/AS17/processed/AS17-134-20388.png www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/images/print/AS12/47/6904.jpg www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/images/print/AS12/47/6905.jpg
I would certainly hope that they didn't need full throttle just before landing, if so they'd be screwed for take off lol. Aside from the from being like 25 feet above the ground when they cut the engine, I never really questioned it, never thought I needed to haha
YOU SAID: "I would certainly hope that they didn't need full throttle just before landing" == After the craft burned off all of that fuel/oxidizer, just before it landed, it weighed (in lunar gravity) approximately 2,600-3,000 pounds (depending on which mission you're talking about). Full throttle was about 10,500 pounds of thrust. If they had run that rocket at full throttle just before landing, it wouldn't have landed at all, and would have just shot straight back up. YOU SAID: "if so they'd be screwed for take off lol." == The ascent stage didn't use the same rocket, nor fuel/oxidizer tanks, that the descent stage used. It was a separate system entirely. YOU SAID: "Aside from the from being like 25 feet above the ground when they cut the engine" == Apollo missions 11 and 14 didn't cut the engine until touchdown. The other missions shut down the engine shortly after the 5'8" landing probes touched the lunar surface. No engine was ever cut at 25 feet. YOU SAID: "I never really questioned it, never thought I needed to haha" == Question everything. But, get your facts straight first.
For whatever reason, there are people who believe one way. And someone's belief is not something you can change simply by stating the facts. More currently, beliefs are more related to peer pressure - and facts that stand against one's beliefs (and thereby one's peers beliefs) will simply cause anger and a renewed fervor to argue back. Ignoring the facts or nitpicking minor details is much more acceptable than being 'un-friended'. We landed on the moon. You should celebrate it. We - all mankind - achieved a monumental feat. I think maybe if it was the UK that did it then there would be less doubters, but it was American ingenuity so that makes it trivial. After all, it's so popular to hate America today.
Only if you need better friends. I was at dinner the other night and asked one of my friends what the surface gravity on Pluto is, and he told me. THAT'S a cool friend.
But, are you actually hearing yourself? The photos don't depict a smaller than expected crater. They depice zero deformation at all to the lunar topsoil around the lander. Your argument really really sounds like it's working backward from the photo, and plugging in whatever physics are necessary to explain the result... which you still don't fully admit is... zero deformation. This really sounds like Apollo-gistics (bad pun). You're basically saying that, in the five or ten meters above the lunar surface, where any jet blast might've deformed the topsoil... no jet blast was necessary, as the lander was already going slow enough to just touch down, unassisted, at just the right speed. This is an extraordinary claim.
If you follow through the math (see comments above), which starts with the amount of thrust the engine was producing to allow the LEM to hover/gently descend, there was 1.5psi of pressure being exerted on the surface by the descent engine (if they didn't turn it off completely and let the LEM fall the last few metres to the surface). Thats within an order of magnitude of what you can blow. Go to the beach, blow on the sand from standing height til you make a blast crater. If you want to round up instead of down - use a bicycle pump instead. Let me know when you're done.
It might be tough to make the argument that zero deformation occurred without a photo from the same angle and lighting before the landing. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." It's not that extraordinary a claim. It's physics at some of it's simplest. e.g. Newtonian. The more extraordinary claim is that nothing happened to the surface at all after a controlled thrust landing on an alien celestial body. I'm only suggesting that what one's intuition based on earthly experiences suggest we see need not apply to something unearthly.
Martin -- There are burn marks on the Apollo sites. They've been photographed by the NASA Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter. But the burn marks are from taking off, not landing.
So you can see the radial blast of dust from the landing and they say "Picking up dust." You can see the LEM take off and it creates a dust cloud even with the base present, but stationary pictures don't show any evidence of a blast. I wouldn't expect a crater, I would expect to see a radial disturbance at the base. It's still not there.
Here you go, dust blown away, radial striations, just like you asked for. Next time, how about actually LOOKING FOR YOURSELF, rather than trusting idiotic conspiratards who have just as little knowledge of this topic as you have? www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5921HR.jpg
@@anthonymorris5084 if you're basing your opinion off of Gallop poll statistics, you need to look at the how the questions were phrased in the "creationism vs evolution" poll. Gallop polls are done to elicit a particular response through loaded questions that influence the participants answer. Many Americans do look at Anthropology through a Creatonist lens, but when the question is asked with a differentiation between a massive sea level rise and a Biblical fable, the percentages swing heavily toward respondents believing that a deluge occurred but not in the Noah's Ark tale
Why do you focus so hard on the conspiracy theories? I think the tinfoil hat guys are going to wear their tinfoil hats no matter what you tell them, you know? :P I mean, technical information is interesting and cool, but using the conspiracy stuff as a hook to get to the technical stuff seems like giving in too much to the conspiracy nuts' need for attention. :P
Because she gets to discuss the specific details of equipment like the descent rocket, and how it works, which is awesome. I don't think she's trying to convince any of the hoaxers, although I still maintain that that rocket engine could never have melted steel bars.
It's a specific series, made in advance, to cover the time she's in Australia and can't make them every week. Once she's back, they'll go back to being different subjects and reactive to viewer suggestions.
The moon landing deniers get way too much of a say, especially considering they have no new ideas, they just keep repeating the same stuff. I like it that someone is out there countering their claims. The tin foil hat brigade aren't going to budge from their position but for those who are investigating these claims for the first time, it's nice to know they might see a video like this before filling their heads with conspiracy nonsense.
Why? Because it really is an insult to all the technicians, designers, workers, controllers and astronauts, to call them a liar with nothing more in hand then not even basic knowledge of simplest physics or technics.
Amy's name is actually Amy Actually. I'm actually going to make a drinking game where I actually drink a shot every time she actually says actually. 12 times in 3 and a half minutes! Actually, i'm kind of impressed, this video actually earned the first troll comment I've ever made on RUclips.
It's because the lunar module was polite and cleaned it
Yes, no need to make messes up there
The moon is very sensitive
@@HistoryShell1786 Elon Musk has been sending capsules full of millionaires' crap up there fir a while. It's to preserve their treasured items. One woman sent up a capsule full of lipsticks. Entitled cretins.
Not the astronauts, they littered plenty, least put poop in bags.
Then why didn't the engines melt the cheese?
The low atmosphere on the moon results in a low moisture content milk (from when the cow jumped over the moon) meaning the Moon is actually made from Halloumi cheese and doesn't melt.
Don't you guys know anything???? Green cheese dosn't melt like your liquefied soft cheeses. It tends to crumble. Moreover the better green moon cheeses have a much higher boiling point. Im surprised she didn't mention that.
Many people through out the years have mentioned that the moon was made of cheese. This has been mostly a myth however the truth is that just the interior is made of cheese the surface is made of a milky type substance. Neil Diamond when he landed on the moon sang us a song about how good it tasted. You have heard of moon pies, right? Now you know everything science has learned. In order to learn more we have to go again to the moon again but NASA has lost all the data tapes and pictures so we'd just be doing it all over again from scratch. Nobody likes to do work over again and only get credit for doing it once. One great singer, Frank Sanatra sang a song that went like this, "Fly me to the moon and let me play among the stars. Let me see what things are like on Jupiter and Mars." No one at NASA ever let Frank go to the moon, why? It's hard to say, maybe because of his age or maybe because he drank too much. You can't be drunk and be an astronaut, that place is taken by Buzz. In fact that is how he got his name, Buzz, get it. It took me a while too but I laughed and laughed pretty damned funny isn't it. No much is funny about the moon unless you are talking about the moon car and why even the astronauts The rest of the facts about the moon and astrophysics can be found out by googling Jake the Flat Earth Asshole, He puts out great videos that will aid your search greatly. Good luck and never let a good lie lay.
Speaking of fakes; Buzz Aldrin was a fictional character. He was named after Mr Lightyear from the Disney films. Im no jeanyus but I figured that one out right away.
No, you are wrong, Buzz got his nick name because he was an alcoholic.
Kubrick: Action!
Armstrong: That's one small step for man, one giant -
Kubrick: Cut! You're supposed to say "That's one small step for *A* man, Neil."
Armstrong: This is the 79th take!
Kubrick: Don't you want to get it right Neil?
People who think Kubrick faked the Moon landings know as little about Kubrick as they do about the Moon.
@@paulbeardsley4095 exactly. He'd have demanded to film on location.
@@paulbeardsley4095 Actually, NASA did fake the moon landings, with Kubrick's help. The only problem was that Kubrick was such a nit picky stickler for detail that he insisted on faking the moon landings right on location in the Sea of Tranquility, the Ocean of Storms, the Valley of Taurus Littrow...
@@michaelwhalen5058 Yeah, I think your heart is in the right place, but this joke is so old and overdelivered now.
Neil A ↔️ A Lien
Love your channel.I found it through a link from a hang gliding site.I had a thrill of a lifetime meeting Neil, Mike and Buzz at the National Air and Space museum at a ceremony commemorating the 15th anniversary of Apollo 11.I was staring into the Columbia when a man stood next to me. Without seeing who it was I said that it must have been something to have been able to fly in that. When the answer was, "It certainly was.", I got to shake the hand of one of my heroes. Neil then took me around and introduced me to the rest of the guys.
I was a young aerospace engineering major with dreams of following in their foot steps. Less than a year later an eye injury took me out of flight status with the Air Force. Not being able to fly I left the aerospace world. That was a major mistake!
I still think the moon is made of cheese. We landed on it, but since cheese is so hard, it didn't make a blast crater! Durr!
Brie, or Swiss?
Swiss of course; the lander would have sunk into Brie (also explains the craters)
American. What else would it be made of? :-)
Well, it certainly isn't pepperjack!
then why didn't they land on a puddle of delicious melted cheese eh ?? touche moonlandist
Those were great memories in my young life. I watched the first landing in 69 and thought it was just wonderful. Really miss those heady days of "we can do anything".
Welcome to the new age of spaceflight. Humanity's pushing for it once again!
To Bad it was all total Bullshit...
@@TheRoguelement exactly, this vile lying shill of a woman in the OP video is just one of their kind. Someone who values money over people, and surely loves it vastly more than honesty. Masonic lucifarians almost exclusively comprise the teams of these ACTORS doing the dastardly. They have been telling lies for multiple decades now and these SCUM that think we are too silly to be able to debunk that amount of lies are absolutely exactly what they accuse others of. Like over the course of my lifetime so far I have managed to debunk about 1000 lies in the mass/alt media...yet little super shills like the greedmonger in the OP video have yet to even debunk ONE since they were born....how's that for apt? We went to the same types of schools, yet ONE of us was intelligent, knowing there are MOUNDS of liars on the planet (CRUMB I used this word UY that bothers me AS I KNOW that word SUX and this is THE EARTH yet see how even after YEARS of knowing the truth the childhood programming SUX) and so therefore there must be LOTS of lies that these narcissistic types are spreading...so I set about learning the truth...also it's like knocking a domino over...if they LIE about something simple like that for ZERO reason, then you KNOW they are surely going to lie about stuff that matters. It is just part of their make-up...I believe (could be off some) that about 50% of people are pretty much evil (liars) and 50% are pretty much good (truth tellers)...yet these asinine people seem to think that everyone who works at nasa OR the mass/alt media is just super honest and their friend...more interested in TRUTH than they are about earning their grubby paycheck from their globalist (mindset) corporation...yeah those globalist b-ches are real peaches, hahah! (jk)
@@TheRoguelement @Michael Laverty exactly, this vile lying shill of a woman in the OP video is just one of their kind. Someone who values money over people, and surely loves it vastly more than honesty. Masonic lucifarians almost exclusively comprise the teams of these ACTORS doing the dastardly. They have been telling lies for multiple decades now and these SCUM that think we are too silly to be able to debunk that amount of lies are absolutely exactly what they accuse others of. Like over the course of my lifetime so far I have managed to debunk about 1000 lies in the mass/alt media...yet little super shills like the greedmonger in the OP video have yet to even debunk ONE since they were born....how's that for apt? We went to the same types of schools, yet ONE of us was intelligent, knowing there are MOUNDS of liars on the planet and so therefore there must be LOTS of lies that these narcissistic types are spreading...so I set about learning the truth...also it's like knocking a domino over...if they LIE about something simple like that for ZERO reason, then you KNOW they are surely going to lie about stuff that matters. It is just part of their make-up...I believe (could be off some) that about 50% of people are pretty much evil (liars) and 50% are pretty much good (truth tellers)...yet these asinine people seem to think that everyone who works at nasa OR the mass/alt media is just super honest and their friend...more interested in TRUTH than they are about earning their grubby paycheck from their globalist (mindset) corporation...yeah those globalist b-ches are real peaches, hahah! (jk)
I'm a geek, I love space and all things nerdy. I love Star Trek and the idea of exploration, but unfortunately going to the moon in 69' was bull excrement, an IQ test to separate the sheep.
Lol how stupid can people possibly get? Does a Harrier jump jet leave a "blast crater" every time it lands?
The Apollo lunar module descent engine has 1/4 the thrust of a Harrier - because that's all it needs operating in 1/6 earth gravity.
My favourite conspiracy fact about the moon conspiracy theory is that you have to try so hard to convince people that the main narrative is not made up.
What's really amusing is that there literally isn't an alternative narrative.
@@paulbeardsley4095 This is a hardware invented for only one software
Lol you just got a sub. I don't care if you make videos, that comment, I'll never forget. 😆 take care good luck
It’s not, there were several other moon landings so by your logic the US government decided to fake several more moon landings for no reason
There sure a LOT of reaction to debunk "crazy no science nonsense...." CTs :)
Many have said engine shut before landing so still dust, false 5 seconds after.
My favourite Moon landing conspiracy theory is that the landings were faked by Stanley Kubrick, but because he was Kubrick he insisted that they film them on the actual Moon.
that is a good one, never hear of one before X-D
Nice one. He wanted Neil to say, "One small step for man, one giant leap for Johnny".
That's like the David Wright joke about the guy who came home and was freaked out because all of his furniture was removed and a duplicate set was replaced exactly like it was before.
Steven Wright you mean? "I got pulled over for speeding once and the cop asked me why I was going 80mph and I said, I didn't want to be out that long." That guy?
LOL. Yep, Steven Wright. He was a funny dude. Weird jokes, right up my alley. He said; "You know that feeling you get when you tip over on the back of your chair and catch yourself before you fall? Well, I feel that way all the time."
Good vid and seems to contain an error. You said LM descent engine was thrusting at 3,000 pounds, but "this would be less in moon's 1/6 G environment." That seems incorrect. The thrust of the engine is independent of the the gravity environment.
Thrust is based on pounds or Newtons. Force. They are calculating the 3000 lb thrust for the moon. The engine wasn't powerful enough to lift the module on earth. So it was never tested.
The thrust of the engine would be independent of the strength of gravity, but the apparent thrust, or the thrust relative to the force of gravity, experienced by an astronaut would be different if the engine was being used on earth from being used on the moon.
I think she was trying to illustrate that the engines only needed 3000lbs of thrust because the LEM weighed less than 3000 lbs on the moon. Thrust is independent of Gravity but, Gravity will determine how much ( or how little ) thrust you'll need.
@@jasonsmith8210 The Lunar escape engine was never tested, either. It was a one shot rocket. The exhaust was so corrosive that, once you turned it off, it wouldn't turn back on. They didn't even know if it would work at all because, they couldn't test it to see if it worked without having to completely rebuild it.
@@Thumper770 3000 pounds during the touch down? A leaf blower has 5 pounds of thrust. So if you point 600 leaf blowers on sand nothing is gonna happen?
1:41 "Pounds of thrust feel less under less gravity" Are you really shure abou that one? I mean when you have exhaust velocitys measued in km/s I think the small portion gravity adds to this is negligible...
EDIT: Actually gravity doesn't add anything to this at all, because it doesn't influence the relative velocity of the exhaust to the space craft.
When calculating trust, the force of gravity is factored in. The force is actually in Newtons, which are the same anywhere, but you multiply it by the local force of gravity to translate that into pounds. Pounds tend to be easy for people to picture in their minds, so that's why it's used.
But the engine doesn't care if you measure it in "Earth-Pounds" when you are on Earth or "Moon-Pounds" when you are on moon. It will always produce the same amount of thrust.
The same amount of thrust in Newtons, yes. But a pound on earth is 1/6th pound on the moon
Ok, you're right with that one of course. However it doesn't explain why an engine firing with the same force into the ground should produce a smaller crater, because the gravity is lower.
I think I made a mistake. Newtons is also a measurement of weight
Serious questions to consider: How much oxygen was needed and how was it stored? If liquid oxygen, how was it stored at minus 297 degrees Fahrenheit? How was it slowly, and at the needed pace, restored to a useable gaseous state? How did the astronauts defecate? Where did the gaseous oxygen go that was converted from liquid, as this would have drastically increased cabin pressure?
Have you considered actually searching for those answers?
So no dust on the landing pads? No blast crater at all, not even a tiny one? Bs.
Here ya go, dust on the landing pads:
www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/images/print/AS14/66/09234.jpg
tothemoon.ser.asu.edu/data_a70/AS16/processed/AS16-107-17441.png
tothemoon.ser.asu.edu/data_a70/AS16/processed/AS16-107-17442.png
tothemoon.ser.asu.edu/data_a70/AS17/processed/AS17-134-20388.png
www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/images/print/AS12/47/6904.jpg
www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/images/print/AS12/47/6905.jpg
Want more photos of dust on the landing pads? How about looking for yourself, rather than just trusting other conspiratards just as clueless as you are?
As for a blast crater, are you insane? Why would anybody expect one? You think that engine with its 20 sq foot (cross section) is going to cut a crater into compacted regolith and rock? Um, no.
@@rockethead7 Lol, nice one. These clear pictures of their precious smoking gun dust will be fake of course though. :)
@@JakusJacobsen
You are correct. The only two rules to their game are (1) All evidence for Apollo is fake, no matter how real it is, and (2) All evidence against Apollo is real, no matter how wrong it is. You can never get around their two rules. So, yes, when they say the photos show no dust, those are "real" photos. Then, when you show them they're wrong, those pictures are "fake." All photos that help their delusion are real. All photos that go against their delusion are fake (whether they are even aware that those photos exist, or not... their conclusions are pre-determined by the two rules).
@@rockethead7 "The Moon landings are fake!!! But Hillary has a child sex slave operation on Mars (which - as we all know from that fat fuck with the biggest brain - is part of the Moon) that's run out of the basement of a pizza joint that has no basement!!!"
Amy, you are THE best! Great explanation... I'm old enough to remember when Surveyor touched down (sending pictures while it did so!) there was concern the surface would be covered so thickly in dust, the thing might just sink out of sight. Surveyor's successful landing ended that theory as dust disappeared but the landing was "solid". You'll know this from memory, but I think it was Apollo XII that landed next to that site and brought back a few pieces of it.
I recall an incident several years ago in which a man argued that astronauts cannot possibly manipulate objects on the moon because in a vacuum their gloves would swell up like balloons and become too rigid to move. He then demonstrated this by putting a simple rubber glove in a vacuum chamber (with the open part of the glove sealed to the wall of the chamber) and pumping the air out of the chamber.
I found this hilarious because A) astronaut gloves are far more complex than simple rubber gloves and B) if true this would debunk every space walk in low-Earth orbit.
Yeah, but that's the typical "science" of hoaxers. They don't understand it, therefore it could not have happened.
Instead of looking into how they made it work, hoaxers would rather remain ignorant. It's easier on them.
That's like proving that the Saturn V couldn't take man to the moon by strapping a bunch of skyrockets to a chair and setting them off and having it not make it to the moon. PROOF!
+USWaterRockets Exactly. I'm dealing with an idiot right now who doesn't understand Newton's third law, therefore rockets can't work in space!
Ugh.
The reason spacewalks are done in pure oxygen at 5.8 psi is because of the *bending* of the glove. Mike Massimino has talked of how just manipulating tools was like working a hand exerciser.
Robert Destree Been there, done that. No air to press on so the rocket won't work. Arrgh! That's so frustrating!
And none of the stirred up dust ended up landing inside the landing pads ... Thing with lunar dust is that it was getting on and into everything ... Magical stuff that forms perfect footprints without containing any moisture and yet can leave no wheel tracks in front of or behind the rover on many of the photos... Absolutely amazing stuff... Even a small helicopter will clear any dust and debris from a large area, and that's nothing compared to a " throttled down" rocket motor... You are not convincing me.
Sorry, but the conspiracy videos you've been watching have been lying to you. Everything you've said here is straight out gibberish. There are plenty of photos showing dust in some of the landing pads. You don't need moisture to have a footprint. And, no, helicopters typically don't really clear the dust very much. You don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about, and all you're doing is regurgitating stuff you saw in videos made by people who know the exact same amount that you do (zero).
notice that all the conspiracy supporting vids are gone?
That is very true. I noticed too that at least some of these channels have only comments that basically cheering and not a single comment even asking valid questions.
ie. they have deleted comments that even ask, how did they do this or that ?
@@kimbalcalkins6903 Yes i had a vid in which I talked about some of the photo evidence, gone now
@@HydrogenWizard wow
My favorite conspiracy theory regarding the moon landings is that they were actually a cover-up created by the US Government for the "real" moon landings involving UFOs or some such shit. I sometimes wonder what kind of drugs the people coming up with these conspiracy theories are on xD.
+darkjedi351 haha that's actually not a bad one
How about the one where the moon is a hologram. That's probably my favorite one. It doesn't involve landing but if you believe the moons a hologram you'd have to also believe we never went there.
billy mccabe Holographic LEMs!
It was the sixties after all :-)
TurboCMinusMinus No, it most certainly is not.
If the Gravity was that different that the thrust did not leave any crater, then how come the astronauts were so easily able to make footprints?
Because they walked
Because they still have weight on the moon witch it just enough to leave footprints on the moon (also there life support suits are *Very* heavy)
Exactly. Apparently according to this bozo lady, an astronaut walking can leave a footprint but 3000 pounds of thrust-according to her, is not enough to disturb the ground LOL
@Tony Yes, Nasa leaves blues clues for us deliberately.
@@Tony-uy2bd It is like being in a very very bad film screening. Better you leave your seat and go to the exit. Moonlanding is one of the worst horror stories. I don't understand, how anyone can believe in this shit nowadays. It is like brainwashing or gaslighting.
Why are there part boot prints under the footpads ?
Why is there a blast crater under my chair?!? ; D
Sucktion. The 'pressure' in u r butt is actually sucktion.
beans?
Why can you see footprints but not rocket thrust crater? Why is there no dust on lander pads? Too much BS in explanation!
Dennis Burke There is a rocket thrust crater under my chair!!!!
because you blasted a lot more than 3000lbs of thrust...
3000 pounds of _mass_ (3000lbm) will feel different of the Moon,
but 3000 pounds of _force_ (3000lbf) will feel exactly the same.
Much confusion is caused by 'pounds' meaning both force and mass, end even clever folks not knowing that these are two separate, formally defined units. Makes me glad I use SI units..
This chick has no clue what she is talking about... she getting her crap from proven liars like Jay Windley and Phil Plait
Every one of her videos is crap
Epi Endless:
Wow, that explanation is probably the best one I've seen for how/why her statements are so confusing about that particular comment. I'm embarrassed that I never thought of that reason.
@@xismxist, ok, this means you know everything right, so tell me how Jay Windley and Phil Plait know about antimatter and it 's interaction with matter. tell me why do we exist at all as in empty space there are many matters and antimatter particles annihilating with each other releasing energy and still getting the amount of mass in space and the charge of space to be zero , I am simply asking why do we exist? if you cant answer that that all you say is crap and nobody should believe you.
Pounds is not mass. It's force. Another measurement for Newtons.
a) 01:43, 3,000 lbs thrust will not "less" on the moon and it has nothing to do with gravity (...although the RESULTS from such thrust might...)Thrust is vector-self-referenced to the system where it is created, so 3,000 lbs of thrust is always the same on Earth, on the Moon, on Jupiter or in deep space, for that matter.
b) Although I don't subscribe to the conspiracy theories this episode is trying to address, it should be noted that the claim made those "theorists" is not there is no crater but rather that the surface seems completely undisturbed, as the image on the beginning of the episode clearly shows. I am eager to hear the correct scientific explanation about such apparent non-disturbance because, I am sure, it exists.
IcantSee
It was blown past them.
Correct - in a vacuum the dust'd be moving at exhaust velocity - maybe 10,000 ft per second - it's for sure not going to be billowing up around the landing pads.
Look more closely. There is a dusted patch under the lander. The engine was shutdown 6 to 10 ft before the pads touched down.
Gas is matter, imagine shoot a rock 1km above to the moon surface rock diameter 10 cm ,imagine a molecule of rocket gas does the same
@lalybum They all have a little. Who cares?
Even no dust blown away. Amazing.
1:42 "3000lbs of thrust would feel like less on the moon."
Lol, what? 3000lbs of force is 3000lbs of force. Gravity has no effect.
I think she meant the engines would have to be on a lower throttle for landing, but idk she wasn't very clear.
Yes, I believe they killed the engine thrust when those long feeler-poles dangling beneath the four foot pads touched the surface.
Nasa has Armstrong on tabe saying "touchdown , engine off " Shows engine running right up to and inc touchdown .
@@noviceangler8084 yea, cause he has to deal with the guidance computer malfunctioning, he landed it by hand
They never even tested it on earth. Their lighter mockup kept crashing on earth.
@@jasonsmith8210 they didn't fly it on earth dipshit, it weighed 33000 lbs and the engine put out 10000, they did in fact fire the engine on earth, it just didn't fly, if you're referring to the Flying bedstead then you will be amazed at the fact that that was not the lunar lander
@@dylansynowic2829 that's what I just said. And stop calling people names.
You will never, never change the mind of people who live in a different reality to the rest of us.
Well there exist really only one reality, the truth
wow what a stupid girl.
This is really the most stupid explain away I ever heard
The film showed they used trust.
It gives no meaning at all, the dust is also 6 times lighter
and the kinetic energy is the same as on earth.
Mass is the important thing, the mass is the same always!
Amy Shira Teitel is far from stupid!
That about covered it. :)
***** People see what they wanne see, purely led by the emotional.
There's reasoning utterly reflect that.
Like she said it should disturb the dust. So why can't I see that ?
the best person to do Moon stuff
An F-35 fighter makes 43000 lbf of thrust which is like 4x the thrust made by the descent stage during vertical landings. And despite that it hasn't blasted any crater I've seen. That's simply not enough. But they did kick up tons of dust.
To truly blast a crater you need something with the power of a Starship. Now that was an actual groundbreaking launch.
Great points, although one addition. The LM descent engine was throttled down to less than 30%, so the F-35's engine actually pushes at more than 10x what the descent engine was running at. And as you said, even that engine doesn't gouge holes, and it has the advantage of trying to do so in an atmosphere, which keeps the exhaust contained in a column. The LM engine didn't have that.
It's a pity that the deniers don't understand what you wrote, but then again if they did they wouldn't be deniers.
@@critthought2866lmao, you've missed something that proves you wrong😂😂😂😂
Ever seen a helicopter land in a dusty field? Now multiply that by about 2,000. Damn you guys pretending to be smart...😂😂😂😂
@@jaybird4756 Oh please, do explain what I missed.
Why would you multiply that by 2000? Do you think a helicopter's downwash has 2000 times the force of an F-35 or the LM descent engine? If so, I'd love to see your calculations on that.
And see if you can do it without the emojis. They make you look like an idiot.
+Vintage Space
"Bloomin' Thrust..,"
Love it.
If you notice a SpaceX launch, you can see the thrust plum get wider as the rocket reaches the upper atmosphere. For the same reason explained in this video, the less ambient air pressure the wider the exhaust plume. On the moon, the exhaust plume with a throttled back engine would be much wider than the same plume at sea level on Earth. Just notice any rocket launch as the engines hit the outer atmosphere. Another reason why there is little or no crater from the LM on the moon. Depending on where the LEM landed determined the nature of the blast crater. Some Apollo landing surfaces were harder than others.
daffidavit
Good observation about the rocket exhaust plume in the upper atmosphere.
The Jack of Realms
That's about 1 pound per square inch of thrust.
Rockets thrust by fuel gases pushing off the inside of the rocket, not involving anything outside the rocket. There is _no need_ to push off the vacuum, since the fuel gases have already done the pushing _before_ they even leave the rocket.
all of those foot prints they show you right around the lem in dust that looks to be about 4-5 inches thick it would have produced a lot of dust which would and should have fallen on the landing pads which where dustless from the moon dust which they say drove them crazy because it stuck to everything.
@@theonewiththeeyeoftruth884 are you a crack baby?
The thrust of the LM engine is a 3000lb spread over several hundred square feet not inches. The engine shut down 10 feet above the lunar surface (if you look at the landing footage you can see the probe rods shadows below the landers pads). The forces involved were like a one foot drop on earth cushioned by the struts compressing.
The gas forces were about on a par with a sneeze at the surface.
The designers were expecting a much softer surface with the engine bell possibly hitting the surface. (Hence the separate ascent stage).
@@allangibson8494 that's completely ridiculous. The lamest stupidest defense of an already proven to be faked perpetuation of total bullshit I've ever heard. A fucking SNEEZE. REALLY YOU MORON?
The astro-nots boots kicked up dust, but this sorry ridiculous contraption made out of duct tape and curtain rods doesn't? You try to sound intelligent as you regurgitate some NASA nonsense you saw on TV and read in some NASA textbook. LMAO. No one has landed on the moon and no one ever will because it's IMPOSSIBLE.
A fucking sneeze. Wtf?
Listen, the 3ply aluminum Reynolds wrap outer shell of the ‘lunar excursion module’ would not have been able to hold ANY atmosphere intact inside the craft...period. Btw as for the blast crater issue, if all this dust was blown around why isn’t there a speck of dust on any of the landers footpads? Apollo was a counterintelligence operation that went too far and now as a result on the ongoing ‘lunacy’they can’t explain one single thing coherently. That’s why they’ve lost all the ‘telemetry data’, the schematics for the LEM and pretty much everything else that would back up their claims. A little research goes along way...of course being spoon fed propaganda does too.
"Why isn't there a speck of dust on and off the landers footpads?"
There is. You must didn't bother to look at any of the photos except the ones the hoax sites used to spread their lies.
Here's one with dust.
www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a16/AS16-107-17442.jpg
Since I proved one part of your argument as false with only a 20 second internet search, how confident are you that anything else you are claiming is correct either?
YOU SAID: "Listen, the 3ply aluminum Reynolds wrap"
== No. It was aluminumized mylar/Kapton.
YOU SAID: "outer shell of the ‘lunar excursion module’ would not have been able to hold ANY atmosphere intact inside the craft...period."
== Correct. The outer layers of "foil" (thermal blanket) had absolutely nothing to do with holding any "atmosphere" (sigh) intact. Did you think that it was supposed to do so? Who ever told you that the thermal blanket was supposed to contain oxygen? What are you talking about?
YOU SAID: "Btw as for the blast crater issue, if all this dust was blown around why isn’t there a speck of dust on any of the landers footpads?"
== Pffttt. See, this proves you haven't looked for yourself. All you've done is trust other people who are just as clueless as you are. Yes, dummy, there was dust on some of the footpads. The only people who claim there wasn't... are people who haven't actually looked at the photos. You know what's most ironic about this? You insane conspiratards are constantly accusing the sane people of blindly trusting what they're being told. But, YOU are the ones who blindly trust what you're told. If someone told you there wasn't a speck of dust on any of the landers' footpads, you've blindly swallowed that. You never looked for yourself to verify if what you've been told is true or not. In actuality, your only filter is this: (1) if it agrees with your predetermined conclusions, you blindly accept it... (2) if it goes against your predetermined conclusions, you blindly reject it. You have just proven that this is EXACTLY what you're doing, when you claim there was not a speck of dust on any footpad. Niall provided you with one photo that included dust on the footpads. Guess what, there are plenty more photos just like the one he provided.
YOU SAID: "Apollo was a counterintelligence operation that went too far and now as a result on the ongoing ‘lunacy’they can’t explain one single thing coherently."
== Pffttt. Explain WHAT?? Do you expect NASA to sit around and answer stupid clowns who say the dumbest crap imaginable? Do they staff armies of people to respond to every stupid conspiracy claim?
YOU SAID: "That’s why they’ve lost all the ‘telemetry data’,"
== Says who? The same people who claimed that there's not a speck of dust on any of the landing pads?? Um, no, dummy, they lost TWO backup tapes from one mission. That's all that's been lost. The primary tapes are still intact. Countless copies are still intact. But, about a decade ago, they discovered that they lost two backup tapes from Parkes, Australia. But, since then, you stupid conspiratards keep escalating (in your minds) what was lost. Every year since then, you clowns keep claiming more and more and more stuff was lost... based on absolutely nothing (except intentional mis-quotes, and an utter butchery of the facts).
YOU SAID: "the schematics for the LEM"
== Pffttt. And, you think those are lost, why? So, my copies must be really valuable, then, huh? And, um, dummy, even if your ridiculous fantasy about losing the schematics for the LEM was true (sigh), they have a few LEMs in museums, you know, which were pretty near completion. It wouldn't be all that difficult to reverse-engineer them. And, even if the schematics were lost (again, sigh, ridiculously stupid), how does this disprove the moon landings? All it would prove is that the schematics were lost. And, of course, it would prove that my basement is the most valuable basement on Earth, because I have boxes and boxes of copies of the schematics for the LEMs (both the Apollo 9-14 version, and the Apollo 15-17 version), command modules, service modules, lunar rovers, Saturn V, etc. Of course, so do millions of people, but whatever, you don't know what you're talking about.
YOU SAID: "and pretty much everything else that would back up their claims."
== Everything ELSE? You haven't named the first thing correctly.
YOU SAID: "A little research goes along way...of course being spoon fed propaganda does too."
== Hilarious!!! I think it's pretty clear that YOU are the one who has been "spoon fed" your opinions. Your "research" (sigh) consists of watching conspiracy videos that make the dumbest possible claims imaginable. And, you've believed every word, hook line and sinker. No, dummy, you're not the skeptical one here. You're the dupe.
The lunar module wasnot able to leave a crater but Neil Armstrong was able to leave a solid footprint by simply walking and since the surface of moon is rock so they were easily able to stick the flag pole. Damn science is amazing
Dewdrop, the surface layer of dust will leave footprints, and will be blown by rocket blast. However, underneath the first inch or two is a layer of much more compacted regolith and rock. And, they didn't easily put the flag pole into it either. It took a lot of effort.
C'mon, girlie. If the astronauts hopping around kicked up dust all round, there SHOULD HAVE BEEN DUST ON THOSE SHINY gold tinfoil lunar lander strut bases.
This is so helpful my science teacher believes that the united states never landed on the moon. I've been communicating and hope to change that opinion.
you know he conning ya?
00Billy No he us being legit he actually thinks that
Silas Mayes okay ... when you say US.... you mean humans landing on the moon...or just any thing. Things have made it to the moon from usa missions...ie the laser reflector. But, it doesnt necessarily prove usa humans made it there.
You can't be serious!
This is a *science* teacher?
I have seen a Russian with a professor degree in space technology and one of the best on his field who exposed it all with abidance. He even took his stop watch and measured the Apollo missile travel time from 0 to optimal velocity using the clouds only and he said "This missile is crawling like a turtle, it is impossible to leave the orbit like this" and he was so serious. Unfortunately it is not in English
I call BS there wasn't even any dust on it either look for yourselves
Wasn't any dust on what exactly?
They tell us the dust on the surface is only a few centimeters, eg. the landing pads on resting on solid rock. They started kicking up dust at about 75 feet. This was a very violent event throwing dust beyond the horizon and at speeds approaching the escape velocity of the moon. They were also moving across the surface right up to the landing. This means they are exposing a swath of bare rock and yet when they exit the craft there is dust everywhere to make footprints.
Maybe this can be explained but I can share some prints in other photos that are much harder to explain as to how they got there !
I never noticed a lack of a blast crater. but then I never thought we didn't land on the moon either
If you want to believe that the landing was faked, you’ll start to see “suspicious” things.
thats because we didnt...
@@bennybooboobear3940 thats because your eyes are open and you can judge for yourself.
@@maxpower9848 🤣
This comment section is cringe in a nutshell
One classic is that the Sky is black with no stars visible on photos from Moon, hence it is fake. Of course we don't see stars in Daylight on Earth either.
The Earth is not the moon. In the day here, the sky is blue due to difusion. How is it that in a black sky above the moon there is no light? Isnt light opposite of darkness. You believe, I don't . The moon landing requires faith. I only have fatih in one, that's Jesus, and He tells me it will take faith. I need facts for the moon landings, not a TV broadcast.
@@barcoxx "The moon landing requires faith."
No, it doesn't require faith, it requires understanding.
@@paulbeardsley4095 I understand that light is the opposite of darkness, and if I cannot see fireballs in the darkness, and you can explain it away, then I'm not stupid, you have left science, and are selling a religion. Admit it.
@@paulbeardsley4095 there are billions of stars (fireballs) there are planets, how convenient that we cannot see ONE of anything on the atmosphere-less moon. Keep "believing".
@@barcoxx Well to start with you need to work on your English. Get back to me when you've learned to express yourself coherently. That might take some time.
I was a college student in 1969. I was majoring in psychology, so I took a part-time job as a psychiatric attendant at a mental hospital. That is where I encountered my first ever moon hoax believer. This was before there was even the term moon hoax believer. I remember the patient as being a young man, as I was back then, with sort of blond hair and a small mustache. We were the only two people in the day room watching what, I think, was a replay of the launch of Apollo 11. The mission had not yet reached the moon, as we watched this. All of a sudden the patient spoke up. "You don't think they are really going to the moon, do you?' This is all being done in Hollywood" He went on and on explaining why this had to be the case Then he got up, threw a rolled up newspaper at the screen, and walked away I would never have imagined that, years later, this would become an opinion shared by many people,
It just goes to show that your education was worth nothing because you failed to use common sense or at the very least keep an open mind. Hubris can be quite embarrassing.
@@GTJW22409 It's not worth arguing over. You will not convince me, and I will not convince you.
@nidurnevets Until it can be observability repeated, it is not a fact, that is the epitome of science.
@@GTJW22409 Well, they must have faked the flight over and over again. Apollo 8, went around the moon. Apollo 10 made a low pass. Apollo 11, 12, landed. Apollo 13 had that emergency in space, "Houston, we've had a problem" I heard a talk by Fred Haise a few years ago who was one of those astronauts. He is either the greatest story teller in history, or he was really on that flight Apollo 14,15,16. and 17. all went to the moon. Unless, as you say, the whole thing was a fake. Talking about the scientific method, without any proof, or knowing anything at all about me, you proclaim that my education was a waste.
@@GTJW22409 I thought I had replied to your comment. Talk about lack of proof! You claim that my education was worth nothing without knowing anything about me, or my education.
On Apollo 11 you can hear Buzz Aldrin say the first word ever spoken on the moon. "Contact". Hanging from 3 of the four support leg pads were 2-meter long electric wire-like contact probes. When the first probe touched the moon a blue light lit the LM's instrument panel. At that moment Aldrin said: "Contact light". Neil Armstrong hit a large button that shut off the descent engine 2 meters above the Moon's surface and the LEM gently dropped down on collapsible legs.
Armstrong landed so softly, the extension gear on the LM did not fully depress making a long first step from the bottom rung of the ladder to the surface. The touch down was a "greaser".
The surface where Apollo 11 landed was extremely hard making it difficult to hammer down to insert the Flagpole. About 7 feet above the moon's surface before the descent engine was cut off, the dust was blown away from under the engine nozzle exposing a hard table-top like surface.
Most dust was blown away before it could settle on the footpads by the wide plume of the engine blast before the pads hit the surface. This explains not only why there was a very small if any landing crater, but also why there was no dust on the footpads. See: "Rocketmen" by Craig Nelson for a review of Apollo 11 approach and landing.
Armstrong didn't cut the engine until actual touchdown. He was supposed to cut off the engine 5 feet above the surface, but didn't.
I'd appreciate it if you could provide us with some written data on that. Maybe a NASA certified transcript. Or a video of Neil or Buzz saying so. I admit that when you hear Aldrin say "Contact light" it takes a second or two for Armstrong to confirm engine stop, but that doesn't prove anything. Neil could have simply delayed his confirmation that the engine was shut down. Or, the engine was indeed cut off a second after confirmation of light making it 5 ft. Or, Armstrong was "hovering" at the contact light level for a second or so before he cut off the power.
Neil Armstrong has said that he left the engine on all the way to touchdown. Also, in a lot of these videos, there are a couple of other guys who post a lot, who had posted the exact engine shutoff time for each mission (how long before or after touchdown), and the source of that data. Now, the problem is that I've watched so many interviews... it's doubtful that I'd remember which one(s) of those interviews included those comments. But, I'm pretty sure it didn't come from any time I've spoken to the astronauts myself, so yeah, it's probably in videos that you can find online. And, well, scrolling back through the comments to find the exact comments about that... yeah... that will take a while. But, for grins, I just googled the phrase "neil armstrong left engine running until touchdown," and a few entries down on the list, you can find the quoted words, "As we approached the ground, I still had a left translational rate which made me reluctant to shut the engine off,' Neil Armstrong is quoted as saying in the annotations to the radio report. `We actually had the engine running until touchdown."" You might try to dive into that. This was the first time I've seen that quote... my knowledge of this came from elsewhere... but it's a nice source to answer your question, maybe?
Also, by the way, side note, it's pretty unlikely that they'd hover after the contact light. I mean, ok, it's possible. But, keep in mind, the throttle didn't work the way most people think. It was really just a selection of how fast you want to descend, in feet per second increments. If you're coming down at 10 feet per second, you click 3 times, and it lowers your descent rate to 7 feet per second. Click 5 more times, and the computer lowers your descent rate to 2 feet per second. They didn't use a throttle lever like an airplane. You told the computer what descent rate you wanted, and it did the calculations, because with the fuel draining so quickly (lightening the load every second), and in 1/6th gravity, it would be really easy to accidentally ascend instead of descend. So, instead, they built the system so that you told the computer what descent rate you wanted, and it did the calculations for what exact throttle should be used for the remaining weight. If I remember correctly, the LEM burned 18,000 pounds of fuel on descent (double check this, please). So, a throttle position of [whatever] would have a dramatically different effect every second that went by. So, they computerized that part. Bottom line: it's pretty doubtful that Armstrong would put the thing back into "hover" (0 feet per second descent rate) after the contact light was on. Not that it wasn't possible. I just don't think so, and the video doesn't support that idea either.
Rockethead7: I find this an interesting topic because it involves one of the most, if not the most momentous accomplishment by human beings. It's amazing to watch and listen to the Apollo 11 audio and video. It never gets tiring. I just want to know more about the details of the last minute before touchdown.
If you state you've seen or heard videos where Armstrong or Aldrin stated they kept the power on until or almost until touchdown, I have no way to argue with you. That is why I wanted to see something that describes the event. I've heard that Armstrong touched down so softly the legs on the LEM did not fully compress thus making the last step on the ladder to the surface extra high. Maybe that's because he touched down with power. NASA didn't want that because they were afraid the thrust plumb might reverse back up into the engine and cause problems.
Also, it was widely assumed there were about 17 seconds of fuel remaining after touchdown of the Apollo 11 LEM. I heard later that NASA recalculated the amount of fuel and determined there were about 40 something seconds left. To this day I still don't know because I see conflicting answers.
Many people will say "who cares"? Well, I do as a matter of history and space science and as one of the millions of young kids back in the day who wanted to become astronauts.
As far as the hovering issue, it's not that far out. When Armstrong took over part of the autopilot system and manually flew over the crater and boulder field, his flight path actually took the LM from a descent to level flight to a slight climb before he began to descend again. So it wouldn't be a far stretch for him to have hovered for a second or two just after Aldrin called "contact Light". But I have no proof for this at all and I don't want to start a rumor.
I'd really like to see a reference to the video where Armstrong describes the final touchdown. I'm going to try to find it.
My hope is someone will direct and describe how high the LEM was when the engine was cut off or how much fuel was really left in the tanks after touchdown. If I come across any evidence, I'll be sure to post it here. I hope you will do the same.
Be well.
The single most important thing she said was that there is no atmosphere there. Turbulence created in air would have kicked up dust, but just thrust from an engine with no air around, I'd be surprised if it did much of anything.
Wouldn't the dust stay suspended longer on the moon because their is little gravity to bring it back down? The lunar rover kicks up plenty of dust when it is moving around.I would imagine just a small rocket blast would have sent clouds of dust into the air. On another note who did the video of the module departing?
Yes. considering gravity alone, lower gravity would mean that dust would get kicked up farther and be slower to come back down. But the lack of atmosphere means that even the smallest speck of dust would come back down at the same rate as a giant boulder. Even if one kicked dust up 100 meters (330 feet) it would all be back on the surface about 22 seconds after getting kicked up. Getting prepped to get out of the lander would give plenty of time for any dust kicked up by the landing to fall back to the lunar surface.
I agree turbo, a small blast would send copious amounts of dust into the air and it would stay suspended for some time.I have studied this moon landing issue for years , I don't think it is possible today let alone in 1969.
interman 77
Again, there is no "air" for the particles to be suspended in. Anything kicked up by the blast would follow a simple parabolic trajectory up then down again. A dust particle massing 1 microgram would fall back to the surface just as fast as a boulder massing 1 trillion times as much (1000 kg).
+Jqbogus I was using "air" as a figure of speach ,the miniscule gravity would cause everything to be suspended longer is what I meant.
I'm always thrilled when I see Amy has posted a new video. That's one very smart woman.
Great rack too.
+Michael Witkowski I like that her clear voice and fast paced voice keeps me from spacing out. And the shortness of the video; on audio, on radio, there's the radio StarDate and Earth&Sky. Anyone who can read this can find it, or else contact me.
"sexy" is also what's between the ears :)
3000 pounds of thrust will feel like less on the moon? Are you frickin kidding me? No, no, no, no, no! And the thrust is going to be more dispersed because there's no atmosphere and so it's not going to really disperse any moon dust? Nope, sorry, I ain't buying i! Not for one dang second!
YOU SAID: "3000 pounds of thrust will feel like less on the moon? Are you frickin kidding me? No, no, no, no, no!"
== Yeah, I really don't know what she was trying to say there. Maybe she was trying to say something about the fact that they were in 1/6th gravity, but I'm not really certain about how that is supposed to relate to how 3000 pounds of thrust is supposed to feel.
YOU SAID: "And the thrust is going to be more dispersed because there's no atmosphere"
== Correct. If you watch any rocket launch with one of those onboard cameras, you will see that the higher they go, the more the exhaust disperses as the atmosphere gets thinner and thinner. This is well understood.
YOU SAID: "and so it's not going to really disperse any moon dust?"
== Sigh. When did she say moon dust wasn't dispersed??? She's explaining why there wasn't a BLAST CRATER. Lots of conspiratards think that the lunar lander should have cut a 5-10 foot deep blast crater into the lunar surface, and that's what this video is addressing. Of course lots of the surface dust was displaced. Nobody claims otherwise. But, under the dust layer is a dense layer of compacted regolith and rock. And, that measly rocket isn't going to cut a crater into that stuff, especially since the thrust disperses so much. That was a 20 sq. foot engine bell (cross section). By the time the thrust hits the lunar surface in a vacuum, the thrust was easily dispersed to 30-40 sq. feet of surface area. There's no hope in hell of 3000 pounds of thrust of cutting a crater into compacted regolith and rock when spread across that kind of surface area. But, nobody ever claimed dust was not blown around. Quite to the contrary, if you look at the photos, it's very clear that dust was blown. Here, take this photo as an example. It's very clear that the 1-2 inch dust layer is almost completely gone, blown away by the rocket engine. There are visible radial striations in the surface, also showing a rocket had been blowing on it. Only the compacted regolith and rock layer remains, and 99% of the loose dust has been blown away.
www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5921HR.jpg
YOU SAID: "Nope, sorry, I ain't buying i! Not for one dang second!"
== That's because every statement you have made has been dead wrong. No wonder your conclusions are wrong. When all of your input is garbage, your conclusions are garbage. Garbage in = garbage out.
Thank you for your great content and making me realize how interesting early space exploration really was!
Lol yeah and 2019 we all died . Opps another KNOWN HOAX
2047: "Ok Grandfather, we took the lunar express to Armstrong city and visited theTranquility base exhibit dome, so now do you believe?" "No no no no no .."
We have real relic of the cross here, you think we should exhibit it more often?
It was by collecting all the bits of the cross that Noah was able to build the ark.
You would think by now they would have tourist trips around the moon, but they don't. Amazing how we did it 60 years ago with 1/32 of the technology we have now, but still no tourist trips around the moon.
Wouldn't Noah have been able to build two arks with all the bits from the cross?
" 50 " years ago and, I don't know, say £5 billion for the trip. May go wrong ( Apollo 13 ) etc. etc. That's why we're not doing it. And that's a late 60's £5 billion ! " Why don't we go back ? " I'm sorry but what a fucking stupid counter - reason to fill your conspiracy colostomy bag with !
3,000 pounds of *thrust* will feel like less on the Moon? Er... no it won't. The Lunar Module's 30,000 pounds of mass will feel a lot less heavy though. About 5,000 pounds in fact.
Also the engine was throttle-able? The astronauts didn't have to turn it on and off like those 1980s "moon lander" video games? Childhood ruined :)
Imagine try to land a 5000 lbs object here on earth in the desert (with rocket or jet engines) and then leave the surface untouched.... lol
"the engine was throttle-able? The astronauts didn't have to turn it on and off" We know it was computer controlled.......
@@charlesbaxter7405 The lowest it would go was about 2500 lbs of thrust
Plus, below the top inches of dust, the ground was very dense, when trying to hammer in the soil sample tubes, they encountered a dense, compacted soil.
still very good, hammer, others used a drill in that solid rock bed.
I will have to disagree with you on this one. I think if you look at the photos you can actually see the blast crater. It is very shallow as the pressure was very low, probably comparable with a helicopter landing on a beach. If you look at photo AS11-40-5921 you can see ray like effects from the engine and in AS11-40-5864, and AS11-40-5892 you can see the effects of the exhaust plume. You would only expect a crater a couple of inches (~5cm) deep and that is what one can see.
Then we are good :)
aqueousone Yep, In my opinion there is one; it is just not deep due to the low thrust and low pressure of the exhaust plume. And it is not circular due to a small amount of sideways motion, so not symmetrical. It can be a little hard to spot. But the tin foil hat brigade want something that looks like Meteor Crater in Arizona.
StJohns River66 I am not sure how either of those separately or together proves anything to be a fake. A little more explanation may be required. Either that or it is a poor troll.
actually there is a rather OBVIOUS craters and if you actually pay attention even a slight bit of trenching to the crater. But an ignorant tinfoil wearing true believer like you can't deal with facts so...in your own parlance. "U DUM FUK IS REAL". sincerely, someone way smarter than you.
+1978ajax Let us be honest, the primary problem with StJohns River66's argument is he (?) starts with a bad assumption. And as we know, assumption is the mother of all F@#k ups. StJohn assumes that dust will behave the same on the Moon as it does on Earth. However the Earth has an atmosphere and the Moon does not.
On the Earth one would expect that the dust would be kicked up, the atmosphere would slow it down. The dust would be suspended in the air near the landing for seconds to hours and the wind would blow it onto the pads.
On the Moon, when the dust is kicked up, it is thrown away from the lander in projectile motion. There is no air to slow it down and it will settle at a distance from the lander. There will be no dust to settle on the pads.
So StJohns River'66's argument comes down to "The dust on the moon did not act the same way it would on Earth, therefore this is absolute proof that this was been done of Earth". To you and me, this is a nonsensical argument and is actually further proof that humans landed on the Moon. But to StJohns, who appears to be incapable of critical reasoning or rational thought, this is absolute proof that the Moon landings were faked.
Either that or he is a poor troll.
Amy, play KSP again. . Please.
Play KSP with the Real Solar System mod.
What's KSP ?
+Schizophrenic Enthusiast Kerbal Space Program
trekky0623 Just checked it out.. looks really cool
+trekky0623 Okay I started playing it and I have to say I got addicted real quick
My favorite moon landing conspiracy theory is that we landed on the moon just like we know we actually did. That's a theory that works for me.
Occam's Razor certainly applies to this theory.
You forgot to mention that the descent engine blew all the dust into a neat pile underneath the ladder where they made the famous first footprint. You got a video on that?
Huh? What are you talking about? Let me guess, you think the "famous" Aldrin footprint photo is actually Neil Armstrong's first footprint. Right? I'd love for you to name a single photo taken at the base of the ladder on Apollo 11. Can you?
No response, eh Norma? It's been 2 weeks. Why can't you find this photo you're talking about? Was I correct? Did you finally figure out that the photo you thought was Armstrong's "first footprint" right at the base of the ladder was actually nowhere near the ladder, and wasn't even Armstrong's? It was Aldrin's, right? You're not answering, because you found out you're wrong, but cannot admit it, right?
low gravity, so the dust whipped up would produce a fog like cloud that would be a very long time settling down.
Wrong, because there's no atmosphere on the moon so there's no air to support or "carry" the dust, so it falls down very quickly because there's nothing between the dust and the ground. The same reason a feather falls way faster in a vacuum than normally.
No wind, but somehow a bag swung back and force uncontrollably
Also, wouldn't some dust have still settled on the feet? They're spotless
@@paleemperor5379 wouldn't that 'falling' action also apply to the lander after the rocket was shut off?
@Grenherb Has Rad Redfern been to the moon to prove that the dust would produce a fog like cloud? No, so why didn't you question his claim? Is it because you want to agree with him/her but not me? By your logic we should dismiss every person who says the moon landings are fake because they haven't been on the moon. So yeah maybe you're right, the conspiracy theorists must be full of shit, i'm glad we can agree. We should only listen to people who have been on the moon, like the Apollo astronauts.
I wish my science teachers looked like that when I went to school, I would have paid more attention. Great work Amy.
That whole moon conspiracy garbage just blows me away. It is a slap to all the men and women (including my dad, who worked on the Atlas project) who worked very hard to meet a very high goal. Men gave their lives for this event. These people believe the most outlandish ideas, and when confronted with a simple explanation, they refuse to believe it. I always ask the goobers the same question..."Do you think the Russians would have let us get away with a fake landing?" They don't have an answer for that, except to say that the CCCP must have been in on it!
If we faked our moon landing, why didn't the Russians fake theirs first?
@@patrickgalban1110 Are all these questions spoofs?
@@patrickgalban1110 Thanks for confirming they were all spoofs.
@@patrickgalban1110 You should have quit while you were ahead. You had humour on your side, but now you've thrown that away. Life is too short to waste it on people who think the Moon landings were faked.
So you're saying your dad was a part of this hoax? Shame on him.
I was an electrical engineer for the Titan II but I helped with a lot of the mechanical systems. I like the Titan II. It is a simple rocket and lots of what applies to it also applies to modern rockets. There are lots of things: (1) the IMU, (2) the computer, (3) the autopilot, (4) the in complex alignment equipment, (5) the gyros (how they work for accelerators and movement), (6) how exhaust gasses were vented at the bottom of the silo, (7) the launch control system, (8) the sound attenuation system, (9) the 480 volt generator, (10) the memory (actually a drum) on the computer (built by IBM), (11) the ablative skirt on the 2nd stage, (12) the vernier rockets on the RV, (13) the pre-valves on the 1st stage engine, (14) the 750 ton silo door and the opening system
1:48 Moon does have an atmosphere A pretty thin 1 but is their
Prove it
I watched the first moon landing live on TV (we had black and white-we couldn't afford color ). I loved the entire space program and followed every development avidly. John Glenn and Yuri Gagarin were my Heroes. Anyone who was "there" at that time knew absolutely that every bit of it was real, and the moon landings were the greatest achievement and adventure mankind had ever accomplished. Thank you for all of your outstanding and fun videos!!
Ah yes, John Glenn and Operation Dirty Trick
Absolutely - I was 12 at the time so was old enough to remember the years leading up to this - Gemini - the drama of the first dockings in space - the first spacewalks - the first satellites coming into commercial operation - the loss of three men during the Apollo 1 test, the year or more delay after that, the incredible Apollo 8 first flight around the moon at Christmas and the reading from Genesis. Apollo 13.
You didn't miss anything by having a B&W TV. The TV cameras for the early Apollo missions were B&W. The film cameras used both B&W and color film.
Then was is there no dust in the LM's landing pads? And what about the Van Allen Radiation belt?
To answer the question of the Van Allen belt radiation; the trajectory of the Apollo spacecraft took it through the thinnest parts of the belts, the astronauts didn't stay within the belts long enough to sustain permanent damage to their bodies ruclips.net/video/bLtgS2_qxJk/видео.html As for the dust, the LM landed at an angle that blew dust away from it; and, since the Moon's gravity is 1/6 of Earth's gravity, there wouldn't be enough dust left in the area to be visible to the naked eye.
@@AndrewSmoot then why is the surface undisturbed, but the footprints are so we'll defined with no lubricant to hold the form. If you watch the first 12 seconds of this video she nails it. The rest is Amway sales.
@@chriscrocker6783
YOU SAID: "then why is the surface undisturbed"
== Pffttt. Who said it's undisturbed? Other people who know just as little as you? Here, take a look at this photo as an example:
www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5921HR.jpg
Notice anything? The 1-2 inch dust layer is virtually gone. All that remains is the layer of compacted regolith and rock underneath. You see radial striations. OBVIOUSLY "disturbed." But, some internet dummies said the surface wasn't disturbed, so that's what you went with. You never verified this for yourself.
YOU SAID: "but the footprints are so we'll defined with no lubricant to hold the form."
Pffftttt. The conspiratards love to compare lunar dust to beach sand, expecting the same behavior, that dry sand won't form crisp footprints, but lunar dust does, therefore the moon photos are faked, and/or they think there should be a wet substance to help hold the sand together. But, the lunar dust isn't beach sand. It's not the same thing at all. Here's an example of lunar dust:
factsc.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Lunar-Dust-Under-Microscope.jpg
It's very jagged and has lots of angles and stuff sticking out, very easy to catch together with other pieces of lunar dust (especially in 1/6th gravity), and is able to hold its shape.
Here's an example of beach sand:
static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/image/2015/11/10/16/Seychelles%20caramel_0.jpg
Millions of years of the churning of ocean surf smooths the edges of the beach sand, so they are far smoother than moon dust. Beach sand cannot hold a footprint shape very easily. It's too smooth.
The Soviets even sent unmanned probes to the moon that scooped up some lunar dust and brought it back to Earth. Guess what; same exact properties as the Apollo samples.
See, this is the problem with you conspiratards: you think you have all of these "gotcha" moments. But, not a single one of you knows what you're talking about. You're completely ignorant of the sciences that you're blindly rejecting. And, in amazing irony, you people always assert that OTHERS are not skeptical enough. Meanwhile, you'll swallow every stupid claim that supports your delusion, with no scrutiny whatsoever. Who's the gullible one here? Who's the one who isn't skeptical enough? You blindly swallowed these dumb concepts that the lunar dust wasn't disturbed under the landers, and that the lunar dust should behave like beach sand. Both of those concepts are easily dismissed by just a few moments of scrutiny. But, if the conspiratards' claims support your delusion, you don't scrutinize them at all. You blindly accept them as "fact," no matter how wrong they are. No, dummy, we're not the ones who lack skepticism. You are.
@@chriscrocker6783 is 1/6 of earths gravity, even with that reduced gravity, the LM still weighs thousands of pounds, which would press into the Lunar surface, and compact the Lunar Dust enough to leave footprints. The Lunar surface seems "undistrubed" because the LMs landing blew away any of the loose dust particles leaving a compacted surface that, aside from the LM's footprints, wouldn't show any disturbance from the LMs landing.
@@AndrewSmoot you know you and this attention seeker nailed it in your first statements. There is no blast crater under the rocket exhaust. It's undisturbed. Geeze dude eave the crack alone.
So the trust of the engine cannot replace dust, but they can leave footprints ....yeah right hahahaha
Trust engines have footprints. Dust is completed on the yeah. Right is ha, but replacement is so.
*thrust *displace. I agree with you.
nonsense if the engine thrust was too weak to kick up dust it was too weak to stop the Hollywood prop from smashing into the soundstage
No. What you need it for, is reduce your relative velocity against the surface of the moon to zero. As she clearly laid out, you do most of that at the beginning of the decent, high up over the moon, to actually leave orbit and start sinking (lowering orbital height to 0). In the final stages, close to the surface, if you did it right earlier, you only need small puffs for fine adjustments, until the surface and your module smoothly connect. Imagine the moon and the space craft as two separate objects on collision course, with only a very gentle attractive force between them. The orbital velocity you need to shed is much more significant than moon´s gentle pull.
Plus, it did in fact kick up a lot of dust, you can still see that on the pictures of the landing sites taken much later, the radial pattern of slightly different-coloured surface around the descent stages. Only, with no athmosphere to hold it up via Brown´s motion, each and every dust particle would simply follow a ballistical curve, and fall back to the surface like a stone (in fact, exactly like any stone), no dust cloud would be formed, and the dust would settle much faster than on earth. You can see as much, when you watch the videos from the lunar rover. The dust behind the wheels. That is what throwing fine dust in a vacuum looks like. And that´s actually proof (one of many) they were actually there, because you couldn´t have faked that in the 70s. You would have to manage to set the whole stage to high vacuum and 1/6th g to get the appropriate behaviour of the dust. Actually, by the speed the dust falls on the lunar vehicle films, you can calculate the gravitational force it was subjected to, and you will find that it exactly matches what you would expect on the surface of the moon.
@@paavobergmann4920 Nonsense. Not even one footage of a landing on the Earth previous to that on the moon. It's extremely difficult to do it, and more if cut the engine, lol
@@tegtactics1966 I don´t understand what you mean. Why would you want to land on earth before landing on moon? Of course it was difficult. That was the point. Just because the two of us can´t do it doesn´t mean nobody can.
@@paavobergmann4920 Practice. They can't show footage doing it right before hand
@@tegtactics1966 There is footage of the astronauts training in the lander-simulator vehicle.
ruclips.net/video/rbdJPuq08Wc/видео.html
Of course it was not the original lander, because that one was built for 1/6g. I still don´t see where you are aiming at.
I feel bad that people like you even have to make debunking videos about space exploration or the shape of our planet. Having said that, nice video, full of information and great research. Love the channel.
I agree. NASA has found that comets are NOT dirty snowballs.
ruclips.net/user/results?search_query=thunderbolts+67P
@@PersonalStash420 *,InGliche¿*
You probably believe in religion too?
Slightly mis-spoke perhaps? The thrust is less because the weight of the lander is less compared to the Earth. I guess that is the idea the presenter may have intended to convey, but the usual suspects are bound to pounce if they think they see a chance🎺
Will someone answer this question from a non rocket scientist, please? When Apollo 17's LEM blasted off from the Moon which was captured from the video camera left on the Rover, why was there no flame coming out of it's exhaust cone?
There was a flame, it just burns clear, a lot like certain alcohol fires.
The ascent stage used aerozine50 and dinitrogen tetroxide hypergolic fuel. In the correct ratio, these chemicals will produce a clear flame.
This is compounded by the lack of an atmosphere on the moon to concentrate the exhaust into a clearly defined plume.
Hypergolic engines have a fuel and an oxidizer, each in a separate tank. The two liquids are pushed in the combustion changer by pumping helium into the tanks. When the two compounds come into contact with each other there is a instant reaction without the need for ignition. They burn with a clear flame. Hypergolic compounds are less energetic than other fuels and easier to store for longer periods than say liquid oxygen. They are ideally suited to space travel because the engine can be turned on and off simply by opening and closing the mixing valves. The Germans experimented with many types of these engines during WW2.
@@nicsandee123
What you're saying is quite true. But, make no mistake about it, most of the rocket engineers really didn't like those fuels. If they had the time and money, and additional lifting capacity of the Saturn V, they'd have engineered a much bigger landing craft with more rockets on it for redundancy. And, they'd have steered clear of the hypergolic fuels/oxidizers they used. They are massively corrosive. They are massively toxic. As you said, the energy produced isn't quite as good. Every time they used the engine with those fuels/oxidizers, the engine had to be rebuilt completely. Lots of scientists dealing with those rocket fuels/oxidizers died, both from the explosion they produced while testing, and from accidentally inhaling the compounds if there was a leak. Those particular fuels/oxidizers are really nasty stuff. But, they had an agenda and a timeline to meet. They were in a cold war race to the moon, and didn't have the time, nor lifting capacity, to create a much larger lander that could have more redundant systems, and could run on more preferred fuels. So, they wanted to make the engines simple, super simple. As you said, open the valves, close the valves. Those were the only moving parts they wanted. Everything else was just chemistry. As long as the valves worked, the rocket ran. If you were going to bet the astronauts' lives on a single engine, yeah, they wanted those hypergolic fuels, because it made the rockets so simple that there was almost no way for them to fail to fly. But, I don't think anybody had said they thought those fuels/oxidizers were "ideally suited" to anything. I think they all hated them. But, it was the best choice at the time.
my favorite conspiracy is the filming of the module leaving, it tracks the launch vehicle as if some one is controlling it, and how was the film retrieved after it was taken
xandarian
It _was_ controlled, by Ed Fendell at Mission Control. Also, the video was transmitted to Earth, not recorded locally on some film.
It's as if the world's top engineers actually planned how to do this.
Well in 1969 they had sooooooo much more advanced technology. Haha I know rite?
That’s a remotely operated camera mounted on the LRV ..it was operated from Earth …lemme guess ..Apollo 17’s liftoff ascent from the moon??
Not a conspiracy theory, but I like that the cover up implies the Soviet Union was in it. I mean, if the lunar landing was fake, the Soviet Union would have love to embarrass the United States, right?
@@ArthurbeaslieYes, you probably couldn't even comprehend how an electric motor works, and that is 19th century tech, bird brain.
So there would be more dust? Nice... Glad to see that clean foot ;)
And why isn’t the 10,000lb module leaving an impression in the dust? It didn’t sink in at all yet footprints from the astronauts are all around. So funny
@@hurpaderpp don't forget the paper thin aluminum and Milar that was airtight in a complete vacuum 🤔🤦♂️🤣
@@hurpaderpp A) because it's only 1600lb in the moons gravity B) there were 4 large landing pads (about the size of 20 boot prints) dissipating 400lb equally C) each landing pad had a probe which indicated contact prior to touchdown which further dissipated impact force. D) Lunar regolith only goes down a certain amount prior to bedrock. E) They did leave a significant imprint in the regolith - This once again proves to me that people who don't think we landed on the moon, know next to nothing about the moon landings.
@@michaeljamieson3582 so nearly weightless astronauts left footprints but a massive lander didn't? makes no sense
@@hurpaderpp They did leave an imprint, maybe not as significant as you would expect, but significant in 1/6 gravity. There is an inch or two of lunar dust and then a more sturdy regolith underneath that. So the landing pads made significant imprints in that top layer (which is easily found with a quick google search) but were supported quite well by the harder regolith beneath. You'll also note the contact probes dig right into the top layer, which absorbed most of the impact. You can find a million videos debunking all of these conspiracy myths, you're looking for something that just isn't there. EDIT: Also take into account the landing pads were concave at the base. Quite visible here with the landing probes (11aaEagle.jpg (1600×1472) (bp.blogspot.com))
Will you talk about the Soviet's attempts at a moon mission?
Attempt in 1969, landed in 1970
+Adamast I assume that you are referring to the video posted of Ron Howard which is an except from a COMEDY show..
Peter Loftus No, I had the Lunokhod programme in mind but there is Luna 9 before that.
Yes, I meant a Soviet manned moon mission.
There have been no Soviet manned moon landings, however the first man made object to land on the moon was the Soviet Luna2 Spacecraft in 1959. Several unmanned landings have been made by Russia, America and China. Only America has put men on the moon in the years 1969-1972
Even the Simpsons did the moon hoax bit. And they have been right so many times.
3k force will leave a mark there was absolutely no mark. Listen all the excuses she making up.
Huh? Who told you there was no mark? There wasn't a CRATER, of course. Making a crater with that engine is simply not going to happen. But, plenty of marks were made. The dust was blown. There are radial striations from the rocket blast. Apollo 15's engine bell even smashed into the lunar surface, cracking and crumpling the engine. Do you think that didn't leave a mark? Let me guess, you watched a video that claimed no marks were left, and you never lifted a finger to view the photo archive for yourself to verify if that was really true... right?
The engine was throttled down to approximately 3000 lbs at landing. The engine bell has a diameter of 54 inches. If you do the calculations, you will find that the psi at the end of the engine bell (that is, before it had the chance to spread out in the near-vacuum) was only about 1.5 psi. Do you really think that amount of pressure is going to cause any appreciable damage to the lunar surface?
"3k force will leave a mark".
Would you please provide a detailed calculation taking into account all factors as support for your claim? I honestly wouldn't trust you to calculate much of anything of an engineering nature.
I think someone needs to show this lady what 3k pounds of thrust looks like in a place that has very little gravity, its not a leaking party balloon.
Oops! Looks like you watched slightly less than half the video and made a dumb comment before getting to the part where she explains why you'd be wrong. XD
I took another look at the landing video,... no dust.
I saw plenty of dust getting blown from under the lunar module as it touched down.
What video were you watching? (link it here)
assault and battery
Um... you are aware that there were multiple cameras mounted on the exterior of the module on _all_ of the moon landings, right? You do know that, right?
BigRalphSmith No, there were not. Neither were there, or have there been, any moon landings. This was 69, remember. It's now 2016 and we still can't get through the Van Allen belt. If you need to push this stuff, show REAL pictures of the cameras on the moon. If, as you say, there were multiple cameras on the lander, surely at least one camera would show at least one other camera.
assault and battery
Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize you were one of those moon landing conspiracy fruitcakes.
Here's the definitive _PROOF_ that your radiation objection is complete crap:
www.braeunig.us/apollo/VABraddose.htm
It contains _ALL_ the math that actually demonstrates the invalidity of the "Moon Landing Conspiracy Nut-job 'Van Allen Radiation' Objection".
Now, I don't for one second think that you will actually look at, let alone come close to understanding, the math or any of the rest of the information in this document nor will you even consider that you could be wrong. That's the hallmark of a conspiracy fruit loop.
Then, there's your problem of there being so much information out on the Internet that debunks all these whack-job conspiracies that anyone who _honestly_ wants to know the truth about the moon landings literally can't avoid seeing them. So, the only option left to the conspiracy dumbass is to completely ignore all of it.
.
*The moon landings happened, deal with it, get over yourself.*
.
As I do not entertain the fantasies of conspiracy freaks, these are my last words in response to you on this subject.
Thanks for playing and have a great day.
You do understand that multiple other countries confirmed these missions both at the time and since then, right?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings
Radar tracking, directional radio communications, images taken by orbiters, and the list goes on. And we aren't talking about a few friendly countries that wanted to cheer the US on. The USSR pretty much hated the USA and confirmed the moon landings with their own gear. And those guys even managed to land a probe on Venus just to show up the USA.
How do you slow a touchdown on the luner surface if space is a vacuum???
Riddle me that.
By using a rocket.
rockethead7 he is probably one of those that think Newton second law of motion magically stops working in space;)
Yes model on a stage you got it in first statement!!!
3000 pounds of thrust would actually be MORE on the moon.
exactly completely 100% true the thrust would remain the same and the load would be diminished due to the reduction in gravity
These people think we are fucking retarded. Astronauts were simply walking and kicking dirt out 2 feet with every step.
without an atmosphere there isnt anything to block the blast, the blast can only spread out when you have an atmosphere to redirect the gass, without an atmosphere the blast has no friction with other gasses so it cant spread out magically by interacting with the vaccuum of space.
the only thing that the blast is interacting is with the surface, which the blast should have blasted a crator into the moon and sunk in it.
@@phoenixash3076 I don't think you know how this works, when a gas is released into space does it stay in one tiny stream? NO, as evidenced by the entire fucking history of rocketry in space, the thrust plume spreads out, like physics says, and has said since, well, the beginning of time
Think about this, when mass is ejected out a rocket engine its mass doesn't change but its weight does, that's why when youyou fire a rocket engine in 1/6th gravity, the mass of the combustion products stays the same but the weight is fractioned
Totally awesome how we circumnavigated deadly radion in space further than 450 miles out. Totally awesome how we outsmarted the VanAllen radiation belt.
Astronaut Alan Bean didn't know he had passed through the belt
Nobody said it's deadly
So I guess it had less thrust than a leaf blower?
Great video Amy, thanks.
Buyt why keep saying 3,000 lb of thrust when @1:37 you state "the moon only has about 1/6th the amount of gravity"?
3,000 x 0.1667 = 500 lb
would it not be the other way around, if the 3000 was measured on earth, on the moon it would be like 18000,
Yeah. I imagine when they say 3000 pounds, they mean 3000 pounds of force, which is the same anywhere in the universe. Definitely a yikes moment hearing Amy say that. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_(force)
Don't know why she brings in the lower gravity, she could have expressed the thrust in newton to express that. But thrust is thrust be it outside the solar system or here on earth.
Well, it is confusing how we have two different unit systems (weight pounds which depend on gravity, and force pounds which don't) but refer to both as pounds. Amy seems to have read a number in force pounds and assumed it was in weight pounds.
+Adamast yes, she should just have said that the lower gravity meant that less trust was need then would have been needed on earth
Hmm We should just go back to the moon & take some HD pictures of all the equipment left behind. Should be a whole lot easier & cheaper today. Right?
YOU SAID: "Hmm We should just go back to the moon & take some HD pictures of all the equipment left behind."
== There were 5700 photos taken on the moon, and tons of them were pictures of the equipment. Why do you want more pictures?
YOU SAID: "Should be a whole lot easier"
== No.
YOU SAID: "& cheaper today. Right?"
== When adjusted for inflation, yes, a bit cheaper. But, not by much.
@@JohnSmith-yn3eb
YOU SAID: "so we shouldn't go back?"
== I did not say that. I said (in a nutshell) that there's no reason to go there and take HD photos of the equipment left behind. If/when people return to the moon, taking photos of old equipment should be a very very very very very low priority.
YOU SAID: "I'm not saying we didn't go but Of the 5700 photos released by NASA many had discrepancies and some were blatant lies like the Michael Collins "spacewalk" photo."
== First of all, the 5700 photos didn't include any spacewalks. There were 5700 photos taken from the lunar surface (nobody calls those a "spacewalk," even though technically they were in space). If you include photos taken from orbit/transit, there were far more than 5700. I have forgotten the total, but it's over 10,000.
== Secondly, I know of no Apollo photograph showing Collins doing an EVA. Collins did two EVAs during Gemini. But, he didn't do any EVAs during his Apollo 11 flight.
YOU SAID: "A training photo that NASA edited and passed off as real. This is a fact."
== No, it is not. If you think otherwise, give me the Apollo photograph catalog number.
YOU SAID: "There is no harm in revisiting the moon w.todays technology. Yes it would be cheaper & safer."
== Again, probably a bit cheaper. But, not by as much as you'd think. As for safer, how in the world can you even know? No equipment has yet to even be designed, beyond the Orion command module. How can you comment on the safety of craft that isn't even designed yet?
YOU SAID: "The cell phone I'm using right now has one million times the memory and seven million times more ROM than the Apollo guidance computer."
== So what? Your cell phone is going to make it cheaper or safer? How? Why? What relevance is your cell phone's memory to the safety and cost of a new moonshot program? What ARE you talking about???
YOU SAID: "So yes let's go back in Ultra High Definition."
== Sure, but to go there for the purpose of taking photographs of the old equipment on the moon?? What's the point? You never answered my question. Why do you want new photos of the Apollo equipment on the moon? What possible purpose does that serve? You spew a lot of ignorance around, saying completely meaningless and irrelevant things, but cannot bring yourself to answer a simple question. And, you seem to drift off of your own topic that YOU started. You said you want new HD photos of the Apollo equipment on the moon. I asked you why. And, your response is to talk about your cell phone?? What the hell?
@@rockethead7 man you are insufferable. My point about the cell phone is how much smaller, better, faster, and cheaper our technology is in general. Yes we should "go back” and film the old equipment In ultra high definition. It's not a low priority in my book. It not only holds incredible historic significance but would provide invaluable research and data on the wear & tear of our man made materials that have spent 50 years in the atmosphere free environment of the moon. How are the electrical connections? Can the Lunar Rover ever run again? Etc.
@@JohnSmith-yn3eb
YOU SAID: "man you are insufferable."
== ME??? Nothing you say makes any sense. And, you're sitting there saying that NASA claims that Michael Collins did a spacewalk during Apollo and faked pictures of it and tried to pass them off as real? That's fucking stupid. No. NASA has NEVER claimed that Michael Collins did a spacewalk during Apollo 11, nor have ever produced any photographs of such an imaginary spacewalk and tried to pass them off as real. You are making shit up. Or, more likely, some stupid conspiratard made that insane claim, and you decided to swallow it hook line and sinker, and had the audacity to claim it as "fact." But, ***I*** am insufferable?? Good fucking gods.
YOU SAID: "My point about the cell phone is how much smaller, better, faster, and cheaper our technology is in general."
== Just computer technology. Rocketry hasn't advanced all that much overall. Rocket chemistry in particular has been at a complete standstill. Rocket assembly hasn't really advanced much either. Rocket training facilities/machines have gone BACKWARD (in many respects), in favor of price over quality. Safety records have gone down since Apollo. But, whatever, you like to look at computer technology, and just blindly assume that all technology advances at the same pace. Guess what, it doesn't. And, computers are less than 1% of any moonshot program budget.
YOU SAID: "Yes we should "go back” and film the old equipment In ultra high definition."
== The raw film resolution we have of that equipment is better than any digital high-def today. That's because it's film.
YOU SAID: "It's not a low priority in my book."
== Well, thankfully, NASA isn't paying attention to your book. You don't have the foggiest clue what you're talking about, and it shows with every painful sentence you write, like nails on a chalkboard.
YOU SAID: "It not only holds incredible historic significance but would provide invaluable research and data on the wear & tear of our man made materials that have spent 50 years in the atmosphere free environment of the moon."
== Pffttt. OK, and that is "invaluable" how exactly? What benefit does that knowledge have for us?
YOU SAID: "How are the electrical connections? Can the Lunar Rover ever run again? Etc."
== Why would you use a the singular form of the word "rover" instead of plural? There are three of them up there. See what I mean? You really don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. And, your opinions about what NASA should do with future moon missions are about as valuable as your opinions on brain surgery techniques.
Next time you want to talk utter bullshit about NASA claiming that Michael Collins made a moonwalk during Apollo, and that they faked some pictures of it, and tried to pass them off as real, yeah, you need to come to the table with better evidence than a stupid statement like "you're insufferable." I'm not the topic here. The topic here is your painful ignorance.
@@JohnSmith-yn3eb
YOU SAID: "Lol Is that why the footage looks like complete horseshit?"
== Dumbass, you obviously do not understand the footage you're looking at, which parts were done with film, which parts come from the 200 line resolution TV camera, etc. All you're doing is wallowing in ignorance.
Man, you're just stupid. That's really all there is to this whole thing. You seriously just lack intellectual capacity to understand things. Again, what happened to your Michael Collins "fake EVA photo" claim? Why won't you address it? You simply accused NASA of faking a photo of Michael Collins doing an EVA during Apollo, and that's it? That's all? You call it a "fact" and then won't back up your asinine accusations? I think we both know why, right? That is a claim you found on a conspiratard video, and you just automatically assumed that the claim was true. That's how low-IQ minds work, you know. This is a known phenomenon. Someone who isn't very bright will just blindly accept claims made, if the claims align with something he/she WANTS to believe. And, that's exactly how your mind operates. I mean, can you even see how fucking stupid that claim is? Can you fathom how purely dumb your claim is? Here you are, claiming that NASA presented a doctored photo and claiming that it was "real" - of Michael Collins making a spacewalk, which contradicts everything known about Apollo 11?? And, you think this is true? Did your mother take a lot of drugs when you were in the womb or something? How can you believe a claim as stupid as that one? How? Good gods, what a moron.
You also insisted that the newer stuff would be "safer." Where do you get that notion from? I asked how you know it would be safer when the equipment hasn't even been designed yet. No answer.
You also said that it would be "invaluable" to know if the Apollo equipment had working electrical connections and if the rover (singular, because you know so little about Apollo that you didn't know there are three of them up there) would still work if the batteries were replaced. I asked what's so "invaluable" about knowing that? Why EXACTLY should we care about whether that stuff still works? What's so "invaluable" about knowing that? No answer.
See, the entire theme in this thread is your own ignorance. And, the amazing thing is that you ACTUALLY believe you're smart. You ACTUALLY believe that you have something to offer. But, you don't. Nothing you say makes any sense. And, I said it before, and I will say it again, your opinions on this matter are exactly equal in value as your opinion on brain surgery techniques. You know exactly the same amount about Apollo as you know about brain surgery, zero. Yet, for some stupid reason, you actually think you know enough about Apollo to make comments, and tell NASA what they should/shouldn't be doing... all while you believe the absolute dumbest shit imaginable, like the concept that NASA presented a fake photo of Michael Collins doing an EVA during Apollo, and told the world it's real. That's the level of stupidity you're operating at. I ask questions or challenge the stupid things you say, but you realize that you cannot answer, so you just ignore them. In one ear, out the other, declare victory, huh? That's how you operate? You spew the most ignorant nonsense anybody can imagine, then, when challenged, you either ignore it completely, or double down on your stupidity. Good fucking gods. ANYTHING besides admitting you're wrong, huh? ANYTHING. People like you will NEVER admit just plain being mistaken. Nope. In your mind, you've never just made a mistake. This is also a known phenomenon associated with very low IQ scores.
Thanks for confirming your stupidity with the remaining statements you made in your last comment. I hope you're proud. Once again, the topic here isn't ME. The topic here is your stupidity, and your resulting insane beliefs, which you're happy to share with the rest of the world for some reason. I hate to use the old "back in my day" cliche, but it's true, back in my day, before the internet was a thing, dumb people were really ashamed of being dumb. They were quiet, and very few of them would ever let anybody know how dumb they were. But, for whatever the reason, with the advent of the ability to place open comments for the entire world to see, you morons ACTUALLY believe it's a good idea to tell 7 billion people how dumb you are. It's truly amazing.
How much did they pay you to make this garbage?
They never landed on the moon. They landed in Nevada.
Her head is full of space
the earth is round
we went to the moon
but building 7 makes me wonder
the Earth is round of course, but 9/11 was an inside job- the evidence is overwhelming (not just wtc7)
This is beyond lame. Look at the footage of the rover kicking up all that dust. You're claiming a rocket engine has less effect? Idiocy.
I live how their best defense to legit questions are resite obsolete talking points
Or name calling when you point a finger at someone else you have 3 pointing back at yourself
You idiot
OK then there should be dust all over the lem's landing pads/feet and actually everywhere, but it looks like it came off the showroom floor, did they have a pressure washer to clean it
Ha ha ha ha. Hilarious.
Did you know that with no atmosphere, dust on the moon once disturbed, falls straigh back down without lingering or floating in the air. When the LM is landing, dust is blown outward at the speed of a bullet, blown out by the exhaust that is dispesed over a large area due to the lack of atmospheric pressure. Look at any landing vid, and you can see this effect. The engine switches off just before the feet hit the ground, meaning by the time the LM has hit the ground, the dust has long cleared the LM.
Why There Are No Blast Craters Under the Lunar Module
? Because it never happened!!!
Oh you and your funny pounds and feet.
No dust over the legs after landing haha!! You don't need a massive crater, but really not even dust over the legs. Explain that one.
Why would you expect there to be dust on the legs? What is your experience with moon dust in a vacuum at 1/6G?
Perhaps Electrostatic modulation for Landing? ruclips.net/video/cLWQiYBX-ls/видео.html. Just a hypothetical possible answer......
Why do you think there was no dust on the landing pads? Some other idiot (who knows just as little as you do) said so? See, this is the problem with you moronic conspiratards... you blindly accept anything you think supports your delusion, and blindly reject anything that goes against your delusion. It's ridiculous. None of you assholes ever fact-check each other. Some dipshit said there was no dust on the landing pads, now ALL of you dipshits say there was no dust on the landing pads. Yet, you're calling the scientists the "sheep" (not yourselves??)? Hey, dumbass, you wouldn't expect there to be much dust on the landing pads in a vacuum, because the dust will just get thrown outward and follow the same trajectory that any rock would follow. There's no air for the dust to "linger" and swirl around and fall back down. So, yeah, there'd only be a small amount of dust, and even then, it would depend on when they cut the engine. But, yes, dummy, there was some dust on the landing pads. I'm sorry you're too stupid to actually check for yourself. But, here are some photos. If you want more, DO YOUR OWN CHECKING, and stop relying on everyone else to spoon-feed you information to support your pre-determined (and wrong) conclusions.
www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/images/print/AS14/66/09234.jpg
tothemoon.ser.asu.edu/data_a70/AS16/processed/AS16-107-17441.png
tothemoon.ser.asu.edu/data_a70/AS16/processed/AS16-107-17442.png
tothemoon.ser.asu.edu/data_a70/AS17/processed/AS17-134-20388.png
www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/images/print/AS12/47/6904.jpg
www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/images/print/AS12/47/6905.jpg
I would certainly hope that they didn't need full throttle just before landing, if so they'd be screwed for take off lol. Aside from the from being like 25 feet above the ground when they cut the engine, I never really questioned it, never thought I needed to haha
They had a completely seperate engine and fuel system for the ascent from the lunar surface.
YOU SAID: "I would certainly hope that they didn't need full throttle just before landing"
== After the craft burned off all of that fuel/oxidizer, just before it landed, it weighed (in lunar gravity) approximately 2,600-3,000 pounds (depending on which mission you're talking about). Full throttle was about 10,500 pounds of thrust. If they had run that rocket at full throttle just before landing, it wouldn't have landed at all, and would have just shot straight back up.
YOU SAID: "if so they'd be screwed for take off lol."
== The ascent stage didn't use the same rocket, nor fuel/oxidizer tanks, that the descent stage used. It was a separate system entirely.
YOU SAID: "Aside from the from being like 25 feet above the ground when they cut the engine"
== Apollo missions 11 and 14 didn't cut the engine until touchdown. The other missions shut down the engine shortly after the 5'8" landing probes touched the lunar surface. No engine was ever cut at 25 feet.
YOU SAID: "I never really questioned it, never thought I needed to haha"
== Question everything. But, get your facts straight first.
Thank you for that image. [Armstrong to Houston}: We've given it full welly and we ain't moving! Houston, we have a freaking problem."
For whatever reason, there are people who believe one way. And someone's belief is not something you can change simply by stating the facts.
More currently, beliefs are more related to peer pressure - and facts that stand against one's beliefs (and thereby one's peers beliefs) will simply cause anger and a renewed fervor to argue back.
Ignoring the facts or nitpicking minor details is much more acceptable than being 'un-friended'.
We landed on the moon. You should celebrate it. We - all mankind - achieved a monumental feat.
I think maybe if it was the UK that did it then there would be less doubters, but it was American ingenuity so that makes it trivial. After all, it's so popular to hate America today.
Good comment. In addition, it's way cooler to say you think the moon landings were faked than to discuss the geology of the moon.
Only if you need better friends. I was at dinner the other night and asked one of my friends what the surface gravity on Pluto is, and he told me. THAT'S a cool friend.
TurboCMinusMinus
I suppose I am guilty in soliciting such a nit-pick. You'll get a gold star on your report card.
Except that the facts actually support the belief that we landed on the moon.
the only thing that's been to the moon are unmanned craft...like we wouldn't have taken one of the shuttle's there??? nope
How much did nasa pay you?
They gave her a script and said here’s a paycheck lol
But, are you actually hearing yourself?
The photos don't depict a smaller than expected crater.
They depice zero deformation at all to the lunar topsoil around the lander.
Your argument really really sounds like it's working backward from the photo, and plugging in whatever physics are necessary to explain the result... which you still don't fully admit is... zero deformation.
This really sounds like Apollo-gistics (bad pun).
You're basically saying that, in the five or ten meters above the lunar surface, where any jet blast might've deformed the topsoil... no jet blast was necessary, as the lander was already going slow enough to just touch down, unassisted, at just the right speed.
This is an extraordinary claim.
If you follow through the math (see comments above), which starts with the amount of thrust the engine was producing to allow the LEM to hover/gently descend, there was 1.5psi of pressure being exerted on the surface by the descent engine (if they didn't turn it off completely and let the LEM fall the last few metres to the surface).
Thats within an order of magnitude of what you can blow.
Go to the beach, blow on the sand from standing height til you make a blast crater. If you want to round up instead of down - use a bicycle pump instead. Let me know when you're done.
It might be tough to make the argument that zero deformation occurred without a photo from the same angle and lighting before the landing. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." It's not that extraordinary a claim. It's physics at some of it's simplest. e.g. Newtonian. The more extraordinary claim is that nothing happened to the surface at all after a controlled thrust landing on an alien celestial body. I'm only suggesting that what one's intuition based on earthly experiences suggest we see need not apply to something unearthly.
Actually, that pretty good thinking! More thrust just before touchdown, NOT less! - Also, why no burn marks?
Not a 'neigh sayer' - just curious!
Martin -- There are burn marks on the Apollo sites. They've been photographed by the NASA Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter. But the burn marks are from taking off, not landing.
That doesn't work either as the lander would have protected the surface from any blast damage. - Again, Not a 'neigh sayer' - just curious!
So you can see the radial blast of dust from the landing and they say "Picking up dust." You can see the LEM take off and it creates a dust cloud even with the base present, but stationary pictures don't show any evidence of a blast. I wouldn't expect a crater, I would expect to see a radial disturbance at the base. It's still not there.
Here you go, dust blown away, radial striations, just like you asked for. Next time, how about actually LOOKING FOR YOURSELF, rather than trusting idiotic conspiratards who have just as little knowledge of this topic as you have?
www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5921HR.jpg
It's amazing, people believe in Noah's ark, but don't believe in the moon landings. Go figure.
Anorhony, it seems you're confusing the deluge story and the Ark
@@alabastardmasterson Ya, I'm the one who's confused. Holding my laughter.
@@anthonymorris5084 laughing at yourself is healthy
@@alabastardmasterson Sadly, delusion isn't.
@@anthonymorris5084 if you're basing your opinion off of Gallop poll statistics, you need to look at the how the questions were phrased in the "creationism vs evolution" poll. Gallop polls are done to elicit a particular response through loaded questions that influence the participants answer. Many Americans do look at Anthropology through a Creatonist lens, but when the question is asked with a differentiation between a massive sea level rise and a Biblical fable, the percentages swing heavily toward respondents believing that a deluge occurred but not in the Noah's Ark tale
1:46 fell less on the moon, Ok, right? So the tires pick up the dust driving the moon rover and the 3,000 lbs no dust. LOL
Short answer: We never went. Let the flaming begin.
p0llenp0ny Oooh, no flaming for two whole years 😢.
It's a shame the original telemetry footage tapes have been "erased".
You have to be a complete fool if you think the landings are real
That hair cut need to go...
Why do you focus so hard on the conspiracy theories? I think the tinfoil hat guys are going to wear their tinfoil hats no matter what you tell them, you know? :P I mean, technical information is interesting and cool, but using the conspiracy stuff as a hook to get to the technical stuff seems like giving in too much to the conspiracy nuts' need for attention. :P
Because she gets to discuss the specific details of equipment like the descent rocket, and how it works, which is awesome. I don't think she's trying to convince any of the hoaxers, although I still maintain that that rocket engine could never have melted steel bars.
It's a specific series, made in advance, to cover the time she's in Australia and can't make them every week. Once she's back, they'll go back to being different subjects and reactive to viewer suggestions.
The moon landing deniers get way too much of a say, especially considering they have no new ideas, they just keep repeating the same stuff. I like it that someone is out there countering their claims. The tin foil hat brigade aren't going to budge from their position but for those who are investigating these claims for the first time, it's nice to know they might see a video like this before filling their heads with conspiracy nonsense.
Why? Because it really is an insult to all the technicians, designers, workers, controllers and astronauts, to call them a liar with nothing more in hand then not even basic knowledge of simplest physics or technics.
Well, everyone knows Iraq war based on a big lie, but you cannot call all the FBI and CIA liars. Or Iraq has no WMD is an insult to all American.
Amy's name is actually Amy Actually. I'm actually going to make a drinking game where I actually drink a shot every time she actually says actually. 12 times in 3 and a half minutes! Actually, i'm kind of impressed, this video actually earned the first troll comment I've ever made on RUclips.