Apollo 12 in 24fps: Lunar Module docking with CM
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 3 сен 2020
- Support content like this and more at my Patreon: / dutchsteammachine
Join the Discord Server: / discord
Contact: apollo16uvc@gmail.com
Apollo 12 Lunar Module & Command Module meet in lunar orbit and dock!
16mm footage interpolated from 6 to 24fps with DAIN-AI. Colour corrected and synchronized with audio. Also includes TV footage televised between film cassette change.
Artefacts caused by interpolation.
16m, TV & Audio: NASA
Video Processing: Dutchsteammachine
Patron Credit:
€10,- Tier:
generaljohnson
John Yamashiro
€5,- Tier:
Burke Burnett
Connor Jakubik
Jan Strzelecki
Gijs Doeglas
Doug Edworthy
Cassandra Baker
Venkatesh Srinivas
Robert Washburn
Gio Pagliari
Joshua Lennen 
Наука
All Navy crew. All gone now. Shore leave to the stars. Ad Astra
They said that Pete did a "navy" landing because he sharply cut engine power and dropped the remain few feet to the surface. I guess naval aviators land harder than the chair force.
@@sillygoose210_6 Yes they do, in fact that's why navy fighter aircraft have 2 wheels on the nose landing gear not just 1 like the airforce.
I like só much. Thank you
Good one John.
@@sillygoose210_6 That was how the lunar module was supposed to land, with the engine power being cut as soon as the leg probes touched the lunar surface.
This conversation they have is so funny. "Go down" "where?" "Towards the moon".
At what time
Jyothi Machireddy 10:50
@@keatonhare7691 Cheers
@@keatonhare7691 Thanks for marking that time. "I don't know where the moon is!"
" I can't see it. I'm upside down".
I wonder how that was possible back in the 60's, when today we find it so difficult to even successfully land a probe on the moon. Incredible achievement. 👍
Today we land easily on Mars.
Awesome work! Happy to see 12 getting more recognition.
11:08 "Sorry, I don't know where the Moon is" "Oh...it's right there!"
Shown this to my 8 year old son and he was truly stunned
Who wouldn’t be stunned tbh, this is amazing
Then everyone clapped.
Pete Conrad, Alan Bean,Richard Gordon are often forgot about. Good work putting the spotlight on them!
In Andy Weir's Artemis, which' story is set around humankind's first lunar city (called Artemis), two of the habitation modules are named after Conrad and Bean.
Beautiful! Thank you for the video upgrade.
That was beautiful. I love this!!!!
This is so funny. This channel is doing a great service to humanity.
Very nice, as usual.
Just got back from the virgina air and space museum. Just saw this bad boy in person . Had to watch this immedietly when i got back.
Amazing ! Thanks for sharing !
These guys were so relaxed orbiting 400k km from the earth orbiting the moon in sync
Probably because they weren't . This footage is fake as fuck
@@donlogan428 Glad you said it - how does one believe this shit?
@@donlogan428 You say that with no explanation provided.
@@cindythompson179 Aswell as you.
They are trained not to panic.
60'S TECHNOLOGY
CANNOT BE DONE NOW
Right. The techs and the factories are long gone. Good thing Artemis is in the works!
You don't think spacecraft are still docking with each other today?
How do you think astronauts arrive and leave to/from the International Space Station?
It can be done but its so ridiculously expensive the government didn't wanna do it anymore.
@@rydoggo BAHAHAHAHAHAHA The excuses the people come up with in attempt to maintain the lies. 😅🤣
@@freegee3503 today's equivalent of $260B dollars was spent to get us to the moon, I feel like if that kind of money was spent today half the country would have an aneurysm. You included.
Increíble la precisión de la maniobra
Absolutely gorgeous.
Brilliant.
This is so NEAT!
So obviously FAKE you probably mean.
its not real lmao
@@chainlink2348 get a life...or a brain
@@chainlink2348 Dumb. get off the drugs
@@chainlink2348flea brain whacko
From around 2:00 to 2:30 something comes into the picture. From the upper side, slightly to the right. What can this be? Looks like the end of a hair.
It look like the space module did not showed any sign of engine exhaust flume, it is always travelling in the same angles, no signs of changing course and direction,
lmao "down! towards the moon!" "I don't know where it is" "it's right there"
They really just sound like they're having the damndest of times XD
How do they enter the lunar module to begin with.
Through the docking hatch atop the LM. When the two spacecraft are linked and the docking ring sealed, the mechanism and both hatches are removed so that there's a short 'tunnel' between the two spacecraft.
What piloting? Amazing guys!
How does the pilot control the RCS thrusters , given that there are 16 in total ?
Are they controlled individually ?
The pilot commands a stick for the wished rotation and trajectory. The Reaction Control circuits and logic has, as one of its purposes, translating this human command into the adecuate set of thrusters to blow and achieve the wanted movement. Simpler than it sounds, it's quite less sofisticated that nowadays "fly-by-wire" computers. That's possibly why they behaved always so reliably.
In short, 4 thrusters fired at a time to create the proper rotation from the stick input.
can anyone tell me what is happening at 13:00 where an antenna/dish seems to drop? Was it damaged?
I got my answer below, thanks
The antenna of the model gets stuck on one of the wires holding it in front of the projection screen
@@mrglasses8953 ignorance can be cured with education. But stupidity is something you seem to take pride in.
11.22 “you have to pull both rendezvous radar breakers “ or something like that. I think the antenna has to be retracted for The manoeuvre. When this is done, because of the lack of gravity you see it bounce a couple of times before the energy dies out of the bounce.
I love this channel. You’ve done great stuff here. I have a question: Right at 13:00 what looks like a satellite dish on the side of the command module jumps around suddenly. I wonder what could’ve caused that? I’ve seen that segment used by moon deniers / flat earthers (which I’m NOT) claiming it hit a wire. I’m sure there’s a logical explanation.
Thanks for all these great videos!
And found my answer below...a malfunctioning steerable S- band dish!
AWESOME QUESTION!
You won't like the answer, because it's the Truth:
It's one of the guide wires moving the toy model around.
As they rotate it hangs up on the high gain antenna... twang!
At another point You see the LEM go completely out of frame, the camera doesn't follow because it's being hoisted up to the puppeteers who attempt unhooking the snagged wire, to which I imagine the director screaming WHERE'S MY SPACESHIP!
It's fake, accept what You see with My explanation, it's the whole Truth.
@@Not1Edit Sorry, I already got the answer. Like I said, it was a malfunctioning S-band dish. The faulty linkage would cause it to jerk suddenly when they would manually adjust it.
Thanks tho.
@@Not1Editdumb. stop making nonsense up. it goes out of frame because the camera is pointing out the window and the lem goes below the window. why would it follow if its not being held by someone.
The S Band antenna, which is the one you’re talking about is steerable. It’s the principal antenna the LM crew used to communicate with Earth.
@@Not1Editcurious how you blindly believe the morons online spewing out this bs. When there are so many debunk videos. From experts in physics, to experts in cameras and photography. And they break down how none of this shit could of been faked in a set. You do realize there are entire pan shots on the moons surface right? Showing the full scene, and hmm no set in sight. Also various shots of visor reflection, one even showing neil and earth in buzz's visor. That some crazy good CGI for people yall try to say are the most incompetent people on earth. Also at a time when CGI as we know it didnt exist. Go type "Mr computer first CGI" and see what they were working with at the time, then go look at apollo photos, and explain how they were able to do that in late 60s/early 70s.. jfc you guys have 0 logical thinking skills.
At the time we listened in awe. No film until later. A exciting time with moe Apollo's to come; ( no cancellations until later when media/Governmental interest waned, more's the pity).
On the trip back from the Moon, Conrad told Gordon and Bean he was moving to the Skylab program to get another space mission. Bean took the hint, but Gordon held out for his chance to land on the Moon as commander of Apollo 18.
is he calling the ascent module ugly or the other astronaut?
At 12.58 the dish on the side of the module seems to catch an invisible wire and ping back!!! Can someone please explain that.
That's the steerable S-band dish. The idea is, they want to aim that dish at Earth, so the lunar module had the best communication possible. And, it quite literally is "steerable." I'm not sure what went wrong with Apollo 12's dish, but, yes, it did have a distinct wobble every time they moved it, like there's something wrong with the mount or something. This wasn't the only time that happened. Every time they told it to move (using the controls), it wobbled like that. But, as a side note, Apollo 12 wasn't the only time they had trouble with that dish, or its mount. Apollo 16's steerable S-band dish (identical to the one on Apollo 12) got stuck, and they couldn't use it at all, and used the backup radios with the omni antennae for the entire mission. On Apollo 11, they had a really hard time aligning that dish, and were basically going to scrap it during descent and go to aft omni, until Aldrin finally got the thing aligned, basically right before they'd need to abandon it. Anyway, why does it wobble so much on Apollo 12? Well, something is clearly loose within the mechanism. I have detailed schematics of most of the stuff for Apollo, but, I'm not sure if I have schematics of the innards of the steerable S-band, in order to tell you what part probably isn't working right. I doubt the engineers meant for it to wobble that much. But, invisible wires? What?
@@rockethead7 People have lost their minds to TV and religion. That's all. It's so much easier to believe some Fox Tv show or some religious preacher as to whether we went to the moon rather than read physics and study engineering.
@@rockethead7 I would guess that it's not so much wobbling but hunting, trying to maximize signal.
@@hubbsllc
No, they had a lot of problems with the stowing and spring mechanism. And, hunting for a signal wasn't automatic. The astronauts keyed in the angle they wanted, and the dish moved to that angle.
@@rockethead7 OK - I just knew that some kinds of dish antennae that track are designed to oscillate back and forth or around. I remember some sort of radar unit (I have it in my head it was an aft radar for the B-52 but I'm not sure) whose center horn assembly was mounted a bit off-axis from the disk and spun around on a gimbal.
Trying to find the images Bean took of the CSM during this video. He and Conrad discuss that they think they might be looking at signs of burn damage to the Service Module’s antenna from the lightning strike.
Anyone find these?
"Images"? If you mean pictures from the Hasselblad 70mm still-frame cameras, I think you're probably looking for something that doesn't exist. I think only one of those cameras came back from the moon, and it wasn't on Apollo 12. I believe the Hasselblad cameras for Apollo 12 (plus one roll of film they forgot to bring home) are still on the lunar surface.
They did take rendezvous video film from the lander, though, using the 16mm Maurer. I'm sure you can find the videos.
There are only two Apollo 12 still-frame images I found of the command module from the lunar module: AS12-47-6877 and AS12-47-6878. But, those were from before they went down to the surface, not from this rendezvous maneuver in this video.
@@rockethead7 I knew the still cameras were left on the surface and Conrad says the images they took were with 16mm sequence photography camera. I discovered that was Magazine D being used.
I found one image- maybe all there is.
Besides something (not described) about the S-Band antenna, it was the umbilical cover that Conrad also noted, and Bean said looked brown. I cannot make out anything unusual from the image that I found- not with the cover, or the antenna. Conrad also says the CSM has “something sticking out of the top” and I don’t see that, although most images of the CSM do show a white conduit, perhaps ten inches long, angled forward a few degrees, from near the top, between SM and capsule. If it is there on 12, it is in the shadows (the top being at the bottom of the picture as the two are upside-down to each other at the time).
Never could find what Conrad saw.
Curious, neither the image I located, nor Conrad’s and Bean’s observations, are referenced in any of the reports on the lightning strike. I suppose NASA determined these presented no useful evidence. Besides, what was learned is that the *worst* a lightning strike could do to an Apollo is exactly what it did.
Thanks for your suggestions.
You guys sound very knowledgeable. Does anyone know what caused, what looks like a satellite dish, to jump around at the 13:00 mark? I see moon deniers / flat earthers using that clip to portray it as a model hitting a wire. I’m definitely not in agreement with them on anything but I am curious as to what caused it. I guess it could be a micrometeor strike?
Never mind, found my answer below. It was a malfunctioning steerable S band dish.
@@twocyclediesel1280 Not looking at the video, but as I recall, they disengaged the tracking or slewing mechanism, and the dish wobbled when the tension was released.
LOL Al Bean sounds like my ooold grandmother (M RIP) "what?? I don't understand what he's saying"
Bro! What a view! Do you prefer youtube membership or patreon?
Yeah! Props to him for going with the bois on Apollon12. What a madlad.
Beautiful certain but Keep quite with all those artifacts, around the LM for example. Already enough hoxtards we have.
I try my best!
shouldn’t have to cater to that crowd
MPEG artifects
Interesting to note how the lunar features go by much slower relative to the LMs position as the CMs viewing angle becomes more oblique.
Because the ground beneath is much closer than the features near the horizon
Do they bring LM with CM back to earth ?
no. just the CM
Apollo 13 was the only mission to bring back the LM to Earth, where is burned up on atmospheric entry.
No. They crashed it into the moon after they transferred to the command module. As a matter of fact, it was only a few years ago that they finally found the crash site for Apollo 12. There had been an error in the data, which made them think that the crash site was somewhere else, but they never found evidence for it at that location on the moon in the LRO photos. But, eventually, someone tracked down the error in the data, made the proper corrections, then went to the LRO photography, and found the crash evidence (big streaks of damage on the lunar surface from where Apollo 12's ascent stage struck a high point, then scattered across the moon's surface).
Would have been a relief after the docking issues they had earlier after launch.
Pete Conrad = legend
Just like in 2001 A Space Odyssey in front of the pod bay door but for real
The precision of these rendezvous is absolutely chilling. Especially considering the crude nature of their equipment at that time. Fantastic. All we can do today is hand out cash we don't have to welfare layabouts.
The equipment was far from crude.
@@darkwood777 Sounds like you'd prefer having your laptop based on discrete RTL, storing your files in rope memory cells.
The precision came from the fact that they used radar guidance to perform the rendezvous. And, they had 7 different phases of the ascent and rendezvous. They launched off of the surface of the moon (first phase), and had 6 more different/separate engine firings to fine-tune the approach to the command module. A couple to get the orbit orientation to line up correctly. Then a few more course correction burns along the way. The radar on top of the lunar module (that's the dish right smack in the center on top) was only part of the equation, also. MIT engineered ground based radar and radio telescope tracking algorithms, based on input from dozens of tracking stations all around the Earth, which, in combination, gave the Earth-based tracking an accuracy within 1 mile. Therefore, if the rendezvous radar on the craft failed, the ground based tracking could get the two craft within 1 mile of each other. And, from there, the strobing lights (a lot like commercial jet aircraft running lights) could be seen, and the rest of the rendezvous could be performed visually.
@@rockethead7 Yes, I can read Wikipedia too.
@@billsixx
Think whatever you want. But, I didn't get a single word I wrote from Wiki. I got my understanding of the ground based radar tracking from MIT's own documentation about how they, and their Draper Labs subsidiary, as well as the worldwide network of countries with appropriate dishes, designed the ground based tracking to work. I got my understanding of how the lunar module's radar worked by reading the design specifications for the components, and reading the operations manuals.
11:00 "I don't know where the moon is"
He couldn’t see it 😭
How can they be locked in orbit and not rotate at the z axis. They’d be twirling.
Great special effect.
No, If you watch at 12:59 you can see where the antenna of the model gets stuck on one of the wires holding it in front of the projection screen 🤣
That antenna jerk is one of Manny give aways of the takeness..
At 13 min mark.
That antenna movement looks like a stick swinging on a rope, On Earth.
That is the S-band radio antenna. This was adjusted manually from inside, the linkage was faulty and would cause it to wobble suddenly when they did that.
@@Hobbes746another turtle…
totally not fake….
Sarcasm noted.
Just out of interest, why should anybody give your opinion any credibility in the discussion?
Looks like they docked a lot faster back then than they do these days.
The safety standards today are incomparable to what they had back then. Also it's a bit different when two smaller spacecraft dock compared to smaller spacecraft docking to a giant spacecraft like ISS.
@@FrankyPi yeah they really don't want to bump the ISS.
@@sillygoose210_6 maybe after Progress M-34 crashed into Mir and damaged it during a docking maneuver they’re being a little more careful.
If you miss the dock in LEO, you can land after a few more orbits. The LM had but limited oxygen and so does the CSM, and both are 385,000 km from home.
If you were correctly lined up, there was no reason to screw around, Just dock before alignment was lost. This shows the result of hundreds of hours of practice,.
Kubrick's Fake
flatearthersayswhat?
Funny how the antenna goes "cloing" at 12:52 :)
Looks like there is gravity
Funny how so many people on the internet don’t understand any of Newton’s laws.
Gravity has nothing to do with it. It's not dropping toward anything. It's oscillating after being freed from its fixed position. And, it's not "funny." Those steerable S-band dishes gave them lots of problems throughout Apollo. The one on Apollo 16 was the most extreme, because it literally got stuck, and never worked, and they had to use backup communications throughout the mission.
@@rockethead7 It sure is funny , although the sudden start/stops like on 14:24 are even funnier ;)
Looks like a model on a stick haha
YOU SAID: "It sure is funny"
== I just got done explaining why it's not funny. And, you never explained how "gravity" would have anything to do with it. Gravity doesn't cause oscillations. Gravity can make things sag downward, or speed up acceleration in a downward direction, but, gravity doesn't cause an oscillating wobble. I think it's pretty clear that you don't have the foggiest clue what you're talking about.
YOU SAID: "although the sudden start/stops like on 14:24 are even funnier ;)"
== Well, then do your own 24FPS conversion!!! What are you waiting for? The software on this particular CGI rendering probably just doesn't know how to smooth out those motions. What EXACTLY are you expecting? It was originally shot at 6FPS. What do you propose we do about it at this point? How do you propose to produce frames that were never shot? Have you watched the TV signal version of these maneuvers (for the missions that had them)? Those were shot slow-scan through a vidicon tube, and the resolution isn't as good, of course, but, you won't get as much of the sudden start/stop motion you're complaining about. Have you tried? What EXACTLY is your complaint? Are you taking the "I don't understand how any of this stuff worked, therefore it's fake" logic?
YOU SAID: "Looks like a model on a stick haha"
== You can "haha" until the cows come home. All you're doing is demonstrating your own ignorance. So, please enlighten the world, how EXACTLY would you propose to make those videos appear "normal"? They were shot at 6 FPS. That was the frame rate. So, what's your solution? Can you name it? Do you know anything whatsoever about the up-conversion software? I mean, sure, if you want to pay a fortune to do these up-conversions with some really elaborate custom software, go right ahead. But, are you REALLY sitting there complaining about CGI up-convert renderings from free software? Really? Are you going to suggest a better way to do it? Or, are you just going to wallow in ignorance, and declare, "I don't understand what I am looking at, therefore it's fake"?
@@rockethead7 They had no CGI renderings in the mid '60's , but that is not what you ment probably ... just small models on rotating riggs , like used in space movies like 2001 ASO in 1968.
If you can link a TV signal version i'm more then happy to watch and learn
*Blue Danube plays while NOTHING HAPPENS*
(Not that I'm suggesting they should skid into the docking like professional drivers on a closed course.)
tokyo drift in SPACE
True; Kubrick had it closer to correct in 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY.
How does anyone buy this?
Nobody "buys this." You're not even supposed to. He tells you that this is a CGI enhanced version for the purpose of translating 6FPS to 24FPS. Did you not read the description? If you want the real video, go watch the original 6FPS version.
ŻYCZĘ.,POWODZENIA.,NAUK.,OCHRONA.,WŁAŚCICIEL!!
.....no shadding on surface? What was that line at 1:27 hair?
They're nowhere near close enough to the surface to cause a shadow.
@@HoudiniGTP *?* Why not? In vacuum any obsticle should cast a dark.
@@wildboar7473 It was 60 miles above the surface. Nothing that small will cast a shadow at that distance.
@@HoudiniGTP o YEAH? Says who.... a stupid Scientist? Get a cloud 52 miles up, here and will cast a shade, so a vacuum isnt going to haze a Light obsticle.
@@wildboar7473 You have no idea what you're talking about. An airplane is only 5 miles up doesn't cast a shadow on Earth and they can be three times the size of the lunar lander.
This real or simulation?
Simulation. The real version was shot at 6FPS. This video is a CGI scan and rendering at 24 FPS.
The event is real, of course.
Nice video to prove it was in fact faked
How does this in any way prove that it’s fake?
@@dalek14mc ....and this is how they get away with it. As it rotates, the dish clearly drops and pendulum swings for a few seconds. Impossible in space.
@@maverick627uk Uh, no it’s not. If you had actual done your research, you would know that they always had problems with the swiveling radar systems. Nice try.
@@dalek14mc Problems as in gravity. Hilarious
@@dalek14mc Also, try find the original footage of this, NASA felt the need to delete it. Wake up
I love the wood screws used at 16:29. Surely this looked and sounded so real 50 years ago.
Moron
Were you trying to make yourself look like an ignorant fool on purpose?
If so, you're certainly succeeded Stephen - congratulations!
@@sailorman8668you tell em’ lol
your a hero, sir. putting all us skeptics in our place. bravo!
@@paulcarbone4054 You have no place.
This shit is hilarious,,, looks like a B movie !!! 😂
Fine!!! If you don't like this CGI up-covert version, go watch the original 6FPS version instead!! Why would you complain about this version, which he openly tells you that he used a CGI program to create?
Very dangerous, manual flight.
Love how at 12:59 the antenna dish collapses like in earth gravity, top left corner of the video, clearly a model shot in a studio on earth.
Impossible to have shot with a model.
You do realize that radar is able to swivel, right? Numpty…
That is the S-band dish. This was adjusted manually from inside, and there was a faulty linkage would cause it to jerk suddenly when they did that.
You actually didn't understand what was happening in the footage did you?
Hardly surprising, as you don't actually know too much about spacecraft, orbital mechanics and rocket science.
You ignorant opinion counts for nothing I'm afraid.
@@sailorman8668the same comment again? why am i not surprised
This is a fake video, the space module was like hanging up by a fishing line, there was no sign of exhaust flume produced by the engine, we can only hear some recorded engine sound,
Very different from the Chinese space module, we can see the ejected flume by the Chinese space module when it change courses and slowing down.
It amazes me how any adult could believe this is real
Huh? Nobody even claims this is real. He tells you in the description that this is the software's interpretation of the original real films. He used this software to up-convert the real films to this computerized version in 24FPS. There are plenty of copies of the real films out there.
@Jardel how do you know the other planets are round?
@Jardel but you don't know anything about planets
@Jardel so they look round, so you think it's a sphere?
Sounds like you believe something, you do not know.
@Jardel a round circle and a sphere are two different things...
Are ya`ll actually falling for this?
What's there to "fall for"? He tells you this is computer generated.
Falling for what?
This is legit.
Here's some context - they are traveling up 69 miles from the lunar surface and reaching speeds of 3600MPH - several times the speed of a bullet and locating a craft moving as fast with no GPS. There is no atmosphere and nothing to help them steer except small blasts from thrusters. If you believe this happened, you might also consider Scientology - it can change your life.
lol nothing to help them steer except exactly what is required to steer
@@ftroop8462 lol
Why don’t you spend an hour finding how they actually managed that. It will change your life. You’ll be laughed at behind your back a lot less for a start.
@@peteconrad2077 lol - don’t care what tards say about me. There’s plenty of people out there that believe building 7 just fell at free fall speed because of small fires…. Or that Jesus died for my sins. I really don’t care about the opinion of “believers”.
@@roncollins644 it’s not about belief. It’s about evidence. There’s simply no evidence. And buildings
Collapse from fire all the time.
Lovely brain wash. Can I have some more sir?
You seem to have been "brain washed" plenty already.
Mate you got brain washed by a 60 year old on youtube 🤣
Apollo denier.
@@CJFashi how can you deny something which never was??!!
@@CallMeNumber8 what does this mean?
we went to the moon, so to say we didnt would be to be a denier.
Wait a minute the LM had hot gas ignition thrusters not just cold compressed gas like we have today for RCS!? That's why you cant see the thrust in the other LM docking videos because there is none, and why the movements of the LM are so much faster and jerky "fake by moon conspiracy theorist", then we see with ISS docking today! SpaceX is just developing hot gas ignition thrusters for their RCS "now" in 2020 for there mega rocket "Starship" and they will be the first to use them I thought! What happen to our space technology history the last 50 years OMG:(! P.S that radio conversation is amazing lol...
You aren't looking good enough. RCS thrusts can be seen on 16mm and TV.
Dutchsteammachine I just found them actually on your fantastic “Apollo 12 in 24FPS “ at 9:14! And I discovered a fact I didn’t know, and it explains everything. The LM used Ignited RCS thrusters! You can see them clearly fire them at 9:14 and even before that too. That technology is more advanced then modern RCS thrusters that just uses cold compressed gas RCS like the shuttle and the dragon/Soyez used today, and sprays large plume of ice crystals. Ignited RCS thrusters don’t do this as they are literally small rocket engines that totally consume the visible exhaust gasses just like you see from the main rocket engines on a dragon space craft. Elon Musk took 10 minutes explaining on video how they are currently developing ignited hot gas RCS thrusters for the “Saturn 5” sized StarShip rocket they are building and how much more powerful they will be. Turns out we used those advanced and powerful ignited RCS thrusters 50 years ago. The Apollo program is our pyramids....
@@malcolmgerald Its actually quite easy to learn why we have not. Other then IT technology western civilization has been in a downward spiraled collapse. With the vast amount of money our economies have being controlled by a smaller and smaller group of people who are willfully ignorant and stupid especially when it comes to the sciences. In addition to an ever increasing corrupt government. IT illusion blinds most people to think they are in an ever advancing society this is not the case. Rocket technology, nuclear technology, hyper sonic and super sonic technology has all decreased since 1975. Its only space x led by ideology rather then profits and spending billions of its own money on building 1950s steel rockets and landing tail sitter rockets that is starting to make strides into new territory again.
@@malcolmgerald busy spending money in useless wars & no funds, no competition, no incentive to go
@@malcolmgerald The world is crying over 1,000 different type of government spending.
Recessions, depressions, financial crisis, war...
Congress won’t allocate that type of money again to go back to the moon.
They’ll never use that old tech again either. Safety and procedure has changed in 50 years making the cost probably 10 times greater.
Remember, back then cars didn’t have seatbelts, now cars have 12 airbags.
🌎と🌎docking連結出来る🤩だからねーパターン構成や合成や工学光学効果公開早く早送り早くしろ！💢
toys
Lol It's good to see that the number of people who laugh at these ridiculous NASA videos keeps growing and the desperados going nuts around RUclips defending the Apollo missions because for some reason the coming out of the truth will somehow damage them.
Yeah, keep laughing. That’s all you guys ever do. You have no arguments, you just laugh.
HOW THE FUCK DO PEOPLE BUY THIS??????
they are educated
@@willoughbykrenzteinburg in nerd indoctrination.......
@@ruslanpetrovski8413 And none of them would be offended by this
was this video a nasa joke or did they pass this as real?
Nobody says this is "real." And, nobody said NASA had anything to do with it. Good grief. He even tells you in the description how it was done. But, I'll dumb this down to your level. He took the original NASA 16mm film version, shot at 6 frames per second, and then ran it through a computer CGI program. Yeah, this means that it's been digitalized, manipulated, etc., and the computer inserts frames that were never actually there, in order to render 24 frames per second. This results in some "fake" looking appearance in some areas, because the CGI interpretation isn't perfect. But, if you want the real thing, fine, go watch the original 6 FPS version. It's not very smooth looking, of course, because of the low frame rate. Or, you have to watch it sped up, so everything happens too fast on the screen. Or, go try to make your own 24 FPS version. Your choice.
@@Georgia-Red-Mud
YOU SAID: "Thank you for your reply,"
== No "thank you" is necessary.
YOU SAID: "I have seen several different videos of this scene, with this being the smoothest."
== Yes, that's because the CGI has inserted frames that were never even on the original film, smoothing things out when played back at 24 FPS.
YOU SAID: "Even in the original film you see the binding dish support and the resulting rig vibration when the bind is freed."
== Yes, they had a lot of issues with those steerable S-band dishes. Apollo 11's dish: they couldn't even get it aligned correctly on the approach to the moon, and finally, Aldrin got it to line up just as mission control was about to tell him to abandon it and switch to aft omni. Apollo 12's dish seemed to wobble around every time they moved it, like something was probably loose in the internal steering mechanism. Apollo 16's dish was stuck for some reason, and they never got it to free up so they could use it. As a result, their lunar module operated on backup radios the entire mission. Yeah, looks like those steerables probably could have used a little more engineering.
YOU SAID: "I thought it was from nasa because my copy of it is from nasa."
== The wobbly dish is on every copy, CGI enhanced like this one, or the originals. It's a bit smoother on this one, of course. But, yes, the wobble is still there. I have pretty detailed designs of the lunar module, but, I don't think I have anything that includes the actual interior steering mechanism within those dishes. I'm guessing it's a geared/servo system, but, I don't know for sure.
YOU SAID: "But you are correct in that AI enhancement does make it not real."
== Yes, but, the CGI is getting better all the time. Maybe in a couple more years.
YOU SAID: "You lawyer-ed this up very well sir. lol"
== Funny. But, honestly, all anybody needs to do is read the description of the video. He tells you that it's done with computer software. And, yeah, even if he didn't spell it out, almost all of those original clips were shot at a low frame rate. So, almost anything that says it's 24FPS, you know it's been CGI up-converted.
This is hysterical - are we supposed to believe this shit? omg- thanks for the laugh though
Not the brightest bulb, eh Cindy?
Get back on the short school bus. This isn't your stop.
12:57 look at how the satellite dish comes unglued and swings around. So fake
"Comes unglued"? If it can swing around like that, it cannot be glued into place. You're contradicting your own claim.
I don't think they would leave it in there if they are trying to fake it
So, a loose dish = fake? How? Why? What EXACTLY makes it fake, if the dish's articulated mount's innards aren't quite working properly?
It's actualy got blasted by cm's rcs thruster plume
Haha, wow, people believe anything... This slo-mo model is pathetic.
Low budget CG. China now better than.
Ok, so there’s a lot of people on here looking for ‘flaws’ in the footage. But no-one is pretending that this is real footage right? It’s just a demonstration of what happened?
It is real footage, which was shot at 6 frames per second on a 16mm film camera in the command module. It was processed by interpolating frames to get a smooth 24 fps video.
Correct, nobody is pretending this is real footage. He spells it out quite clearly in the description that this is CGI enhanced from the original 6 FPS to 24 FPS. The only way that can be done is to insert "fake/CGI" frames, which means 3 out of every 4 frames was manufactured in his computer by taking the real frames, approximating what frames would fill in the blanks, and CGI painting those frames.
You know it's real because it looks so fake.
Clearly you're not part of the proper hoax nut club. All hoax nuts are supposed to claim all NASA footage is fake.
@@kitcanyon658
Clearly you've been told more than once that you don't listen, and you always think you're right.
@@gww5385 : No, I can be wrong. Can you?
@@kitcanyon658
No-one is infallible.
@@gww5385 : Exactly, especially people with predetermined needs to feel better about themselves.
I'm not saying it's fake and would really like to understand, but starting at 6.55 why did the conversation time between Apollo and mission control relay in under a second ? Like almost instant. Edit: Actually I am saying it's fake. It's way past obvious. It really blows my mind that someone could be an adult and still believe this mess.
YOU SAID: "I'm not saying it's fake and would really like to understand, but starting at 6.55 why did the conversation time between Apollo and mission control relay in under a second ? Like almost instant."
== Because that particular audio is not between Apollo 12 and mission control. That's between the command module and lunar module. No reason to expect a delay there. How can you tell? The audio that included Houston had those Quindar tones (the beeps at the beginning and end of each transmission). The communications between the command module and lunar module didn't have those, so, you can know that the communication you're complaining about is between the lunar module and command module. But, beyond that, there are countless complaints from conspiratards about incorrect delay. Inevitably, it's always a matter of one of two choices: (1) They are unaware of where the recording is taking place, therefore expect there to be delays when there would be no reason to have a delay. Like, if an astronaut speaks, and Houston answers, there's no reason to expect a delay there, because the recording is taking place in Houston. The delay is in the opposite direction, but, conpsiratards rarely understand this. Or, (2) They are watching edited videos. It was pretty common for documentaries, or news clips, to edit out the delays. Most people don't want to listen to long delays, and they really didn't want to waste a lot of time with their documentaries or news stories, so, they simply edited the delays out. There are no examples in any of the original recordings of incorrect delay.
YOU SAID: "Edit: Actually I am saying it's fake. It's way past obvious. It really blows my mind that someone could be an adult and still believe this mess."
== Like, every single one of the world's 72 space agencies, staffing the virtual entirety of experts in aerospace engineering and space travel? Those are the ones that blow your mind that, universally, there is not a single one of the world's space agencies that reject Apollo? You already exposed your intellectual dishonesty. And, while I do give you credit for "coming clean" (quite rare for a conspiratard), you still did the exact same thing that everyone else like you does... you asked questions, but didn't wait for the answers before coming to your conclusions. And, your opinions are based upon pure ignorance.
We have such better special effects now.
No special effect is better than doing it for real.
You actually didn't understand what was happening in the footage did you?
Hardly surprising, as you don't actually know too much about spacecraft, orbital mechanics and rocket science.
You ignorant opinion counts for nothing I'm afraid.
look strange...remaster with cg ? they can docking with hand control by( manual joystick ) like protagonist can do in a movie 🤣
As the video description says, the original video was at 6 frames per second. Dutchsteammachine interpolated this to get 24 fps video.
Look I’m all for nasa. Obviously we were on the moon. But tell me this first clip footage doesn’t look fake. Like Is this the footage all the conspiracy theorists reference.
Um, yes, it is "fake." He tells you the software that was used to generate it. He took the original 6 frames-per-second 16mm film video, ran it through some software, and produced 24 frames-per-second. At a minimum, this means that 75% of the frames are computer generated. But, yeah, it seems that the software goes a couple of steps beyond that, and actually seems to manipulate some of the real frames, probably to smooth things out. I guess we should feel lucky that we have the software to upscale 6FPS to 24FPS in the first place. But, yeah, after watching the real video, then putting it next to this CGI-processed version, sure, it looks a little "fake." Maybe the software will get a bit better as time goes on. But, if the conspiracy nutters have a problem with this version, they should simply watch the original instead.
Lol, mad fake...
This looks so fake. Just like old scifi movie.
Fine. Then go watch the original version 6FPS version. The channel owner is rendering this mostly CGI version for the people who want to see it in actual speed, rather than the 4x speed that you get when you watch 6 FPS at 24 FPS. He's using the CGI to insert frames that were never there. Yes, as a result, some of the stuff looks a bit fake (because it is, because this is a highly modified CGI translation from the original 6FPS version).
What a joke.
Tin foil dunce cap on too tight?
How I´be been fooled for so many years. This is the worst joke. Ridiculous. Its a fake so bad its actually unbelievable.
Your personal incredulity (and your ignorance) is not evidence.
ahahah bro let them indocrinated brainwashed sheep say whatever they want.
@@Jan_Strzelecki how many more usa presidents do you need to realize going to the moon its impossible. And dont even talk about mars. if you believe there are rovers in mars... Then I can do nothing for your thinking skills.
@@Gozne _how many more usa presidents do you need to realize going to the moon its impossible._
What a strange metric. We've already landed on the Moon, so even if we never did it again, that's not going to change anything. We've landed on the Moon. That's a fact.
_if you believe there are rovers in mars._
It's not a matter of belief. It's a matter of understanding science. You don't understand science, so your beliefs are wrong. I mean, your best piece of "evidence" provided thus far is "it looks fake to me".
_I can do nothing for your thinking skills._
That's correct. I, however, can do something about _your_ thinking skills 🙂
@@Jan_Strzelecki The only proof you have that THEY landed on the moon is your belief, cause they destroyed the data and the videos. So its your belief in nasa the only thing that suports your claim. If you believe scientist are the kind of people who destroy evidence, u are suporting criminals.
Understanding science doesnt turn lies into truths, no matter how good are you at science. Again, the only proof you have of anything landing in any planet is the word of a ctiminal organization, and the fantastic cgi of hollywood movies. One day youll realize how they have fooled you, and then youll face people like you. I don blame you, ive believed those piece of shit all my life with no proof, and ive also called idiots those who didnt share ny belief, but one day youll use the skepicism u now use against easy targets like wizardry against nasa, and your realize how easy is to debunk any sapce agency.
I have a question for you. Do you believe china, israel and india have landed in the moon? Check the weak evidence of that claim and wonder if they could have spended milliins of dollars in adding a 20€ Camera in those lunar landers, and why they point those 460 pixels 10 frames per second resolution cameras to their landers instead of filming the moon or the deep space.
The people who saw this live were also convinced that the first Star Wars movies looked real. Younger people are more familiar with CGI and are much better at intuitively recognizing fakes, such as this one.
Er, no, we weren't. The Star Wars films were great story telling but looked exactly like what they were, films.
This is a model in front of a rear projection screen, not CGI. That's what happens at 12:59, the antenna gets stuck on one of the wires. Practical effects baby!
@@mrglasses8953 No. This would have been impossible to film with a model or a projection screen.
Nonsense 😂
Reality.
You actually didn't understand what was happening in the footage did you?
Hardly surprising, as you don't actually know too much about spacecraft, orbital mechanics and rocket science.
You ignorant opinion counts for nothing I'm afraid.
@@sailorman8668again? c’mon man!
I don't understand how it's done, therefore it's fake. Flat Earther.
hahaha so fake.. dat mensen dit geloven..
Why the fade out to such poor quality film at 5:30 and then a flash and a fade in to show the "CM window frame" .. If this footage was really filmed from the CM, the window would have been seen from the beginning of this laughable fakery.
You are a food thief.
Looks so fake ! This must be a joke 😆
Tell you what, you guys have better arguments than just “this looks fake,” then we’ll talk.
How should this footage look any different, in order to appear more 'real' to you?
".. Simple by talking to PAN'S pro AstroNOT nutters, like ducky an fakey over her,
Fake
So what? If you don't like this CGI enhanced version, go watch the original version instead.
not convincing
It wasn’t made to convince those without the intellect to understand it.
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂