@andy-s-76 The computer software on the lunar module computer was divided into different operations. P63 was the braking phase to slow the spacecraft down where the astronauts were flying backwards and unable to see much of the moon's surface. Once the lander was at a specified altitude and speed the programming switched to P64, where the lander pitched over and the astronauts were then able to see the moon's surface and landing area out their windows. When the commander takes over manual control, the computer switches to P66. Hope that helps.
I know we shouldn’t have favourites but John Young was just the epitome of the coolest astronaut in the programme. Charlie Duke wasn’t far behind him. Two American Heroes. Thanks for posting. Best wishes from your friends in Scotland 🏴
He's one of the under-appreciated heroes of the space program. He smuggled a corned beef sandwich onto his first Gemini flight, but went on to fly on Gemini again, visit the moon twice, walk on it once, and command the first shuttle flight. RIP.
When John passed away I put his name and portrait up on my Facebook wall and asked my friends if they knew about this great explorer. I added a link to his wikipedia article and told them to read up and be ashamed if the name John W. Young hadn't rung any bell untill now. He never made a name for himself. Such a genuine professional.
I did the same thing. When he was about to fly the first Shuttle mission, I sent a letter to Johnson Space Center to his attention telling him "good luck on your mission." He (or his secretary) sent back some moon photos and an autographed picture which I treasure more than just about anything.
@Nick Bruno, and my point is, that a weather related launch , ie cold weather, led to a system failure, there's nothing on here that says Apollo program only to be talked about, so there you go. Although before you say it, that system failure was a known design flaw, just took the cold weather launch to really give that flaw a chance to do it's deadly work.
It's amazing how much talent was assembled for that project. 15:38 for example, John Young gives a nod to the engineers that designed the LLTV. Their contraption flew just like the real thing.
Good that with Charlie Duke at least one of the eternal capcoms got this chance. Vance Brand, the Apollo 13 accident Capcom would have deserved it but he really drew the short straw on Apollo. Also fun fact i know about 16: Gene Cernan was assigned to it as LMP, being on the backup crew on 14. But he went to Deke Slayton and - as the first Astronaut ever - refused. He said he deserved his own mission as CDR (sure did). Knowing full well that 17 would be the last landing. A gamble that entered him into a (friendly) competition with Dick Gordon for the job. He finally got the job, started training - and nearly blew it by crashing a helicopter into a river completely by his own fault. Because he survived (close) and the lower public interest in the Moon landings the press barely covered it and Deke Slayton managed to push it under the carpet. And training and mission kept going. He got a pretty stern talking to though by Tom Stafford who helped him to the job. (Dick Gordon was championed by Pete Conrad).
YOU SAID: "Gene Cernan was assigned to it as LMP, being on the backup crew on 14." == He was the backup commander of Apollo 14. YOU SAID: "But he went to Deke Slayton and - as the first Astronaut ever - refused." == This was a good bit prior to his role as backup commander of Apollo 14. He didn't outright refuse, though. He basically assertively asked, pushed very hard. It's a fine line, I know, very close to a refusal. But, he did say that he'd do it if Slayton insisted. Slayton had put Cernan on Apollo 16 because Apollo 16 was more likely to fly, and he wanted to give Cernan his moonwalk. Apollo 17 was still up in the air at the time that Slayton assigned Cernan to Apollo 16. And, well, technically, he didn't actually assign him directly to Apollo 16, it just worked out that way in the rotation. I believe Cernan was originally slated to be the backup LMP on Apollo 13, which would have put him as prime LMP on Apollo 16. Generally speaking, they were backup on [whatever] mission, then became prime crew 3 missions later. There were some examples of juggling that rotation a bit. But, that's the basic gist of it. So, by Cernan arguing not to be the backup LMP of Apollo 13, he was basically arguing (also, therefore) to not be the prime LMP for Apollo 16. Yes, he wanted command. Slayton warned him that Apollo 17 might not even fly due to budget cuts. Cernan said he'd take his chances, so Slayton made him backup commander of Apollo 14, putting him as commander of Apollo 17. Another little tidbit to add to your tidbits: The Apollo 16 crew was made the backup crew for Apollo 17. So, quite literally, if the prime crew didn't fly, the backup crew would be the exact same two that had just walked on the moon for Apollo 16, and they'd go again (except with Roosa as the backup). In reality, though, it probably wouldn't have gone that way. They'd probably put Schmitt with Young. And, that, ironically, very nearly happened because Cernan banged up his leg, which wasn't fully healed in time for his flight. He ended up walking on the moon with a weak leg. But, he figured, 1/6th gravity, how bad could it be, and he underplayed how bad the leg was to the doctors.
@@rockethead7 Interesting. Gene was also the only Commander of an apollo flight without previous command experience. Schirra Commanded his own Mercury flight (obviously) and Gemini 6a before Apollo 7; Borman commanded Gemini 7 before Apollo 8; McDivitt commanded Gemini 4 before Apollo 9, Stafford commanded Gemini 9A before Apollo 10 (and the ASTP mission as well); Armstrong commanded Gemini 8 before Apollo 11; Conrad Commanded Gemini 11 before Apollo 12 and Skylab 2; Lovell Commanded Gemini 12 before Commanding Apollo 13; Shepard commanded the first Mercury flight before Apollo 14; John Young Commanded Gemini 10 before Apollo 16. That leaves Dave Scott who was CMP on 9 before Commanding 15. The CMP's were higher in seniority than the LMP's which is why Jim Lovell (Apollo 8 CMP) , Dave Scott (Apollo 9 CMP) & John Young (Apollo 10 CMP) went on to command later flights.
RIP John Young. It sounded strange hearing Charlie Duke's voice on the other end of the flight. I'm used to hearing his South Carolina drawl on the landing of Apollo 11.
hahaha Duke forgot to call out angles and rates because he recognized some craters and was really excited he recognized them haha love these guys 11:46
Spectacular! These are amazing videos! Such bravery, skill, and dedication! I can't imagine what it must be like to land on another world! We need to do it today! This was done in 1972! Imagine what we could do today? We need to follow these astronauts, and what they have done for all of mankind! The Moon is beautiful, yet hostile, but it looks so calm and serene. We desperately need to go back! What an amazing achievement! I truly admire these astronauts! They are legendary heroes!
I remember running home from school to watch this landing that particular Thursday afternoon. At first I was disappointed that they didn't land right away. I thought they aborted. But there was a minor problem with the CSM. After the problem was resolved, they landed about six hours later. The astronauts went to sleep about an hour after landing, and started exploring the next day.
I really love David Woods' How Apollo Flew to the Moon. It answered so many questions that I had! Wish there was some kind of "Apollo Club" in southern California.
Yeah, but I was a young 10 year old at the time and Duke scared the hell out of me when he yelled like that. Maybe the first time I had felt so nervous in my life.
@@pajasa62 No worse than during Apollo 15, when apparently Jim Irwin read a false contact light and Dave Scott killed the descent engine from about ten feet off the surface at Hadley Rille (it should have indicated contact at about four feet) and Falcon hit the surface fat and heavy. Jim Irwin yelled "BAM!" when they came to rest. It startled the ground crew at Houston. That mission supposedly holds the record for hardest manned lunar impact to date. It's a credit to Grumman who built the LEM to tolerate such abuse.
@@frankalexander1599 Good info...thanks. When you look at the footage outside the LEM , they really did take a jolt just normally. I guess Stuart Roosa holds the record for the hardest, soft dock attempt. I know it caused a reaction by Alan Shepard and Shepard was probably the one astronaut you did not want on your bad side.
@@pajasa62 Yep...the two astronauts known for being able to hold a grudge were Al Shepard and Gordo Cooper - both of whom were among the Original 7. Also, one risked their career crossing Deke Slayton (another Original 7, grounded before his planned Mercury orbital mission after Glenn's, and relegated to NASA crew selection duty for ten years before being cleared for flight duty on the Apollo-Soyuz mission) and would get the hairy eyeball from Neil Armstrong and Frank Borman as well.
@@frankalexander1599 I heard that about Gordon Cooper, but I am sure Pete Conrad handled him just fine in Gemini 5. There's a good, post-splashdown photo on Conrad playing with Cooper's beard growth.
I was young at the time when this happened and while it seems cool and marvelous now, back then this was really scary stuff. I remember the chill I felt when Duke yelled "Wooooow!" and that split moment when I wondered was his yell a reaction to crashing....it was much different live and looking at TV simulation. Again, SCARY STUFF!!!
Did the Apollo crews ever get any medals for their heroism? It took a lot of guts to land on the moon. I admire them. Also, this is an excellent video presentation.
Yes John Young and several other astronauts received the Congressional Space Medal of Honor along with numerous other accolades. And they never have to buy their own beers in a bar again (though they will, humble types as they are).
John Young was awarded the Space Medal of Honor for taking the Shuttle up on its first flight. Now, i'm not denigrating his moon shot, but that took a lot more balls. Taking what was essentially, an untested and unproven craft into earth orbit, without a single unmanned test flight? All the computer sims in the world mean absolutely dick in real-time. His ass was hanging out more on STS-1 than it ever was on Apollo 16, Or Gemini 3 and 10. It could have gone south real fast. Considering what happened in 1986 and 2001? And what almost happened to Atlantis? My respect for him tripled in recent years.
l'm watching this in parallel with _Homemade Movies_ ~ by JacksonTyler ~ 'Apollo 16 Remastered (50th anniversary) 4k ...and is really interesting to hear it with, and without music, and commentary. l'm so thankful the peeps that make these incredible video available to us. Thank You uploader! :D
It's fun to hear General Duke's voice as a flyer instead of the cap com. His voice is probably associated with landings as much as the late Jack King's is with launches.
Landing that thing on the Moon had to be the most terrifying operation any astronaut ever attempted. With a computer that was out classed by a Commodore 64.
+leftcoaster67 True, but there are alternative ways to look at it. The AGC was more an embedded controller than a computer of the style that were sold cheap to households in the eighties. Trying to integrate a VIC-20 into a LM would be an interesting exercise. More importantly, what really makes a computer go is its software and that for the AGC, whether in the Lunar Module or the Command Module, was highly attuned to the tasks it had. It was beautifully written. Finally, the AGC was essentially a mid-1960s design, predating the VIC-20 by about 15 years, an aeon in computer development. Give it a break. I would suggest that without the AGC, there might not have been a VIC-20, at least at the time it did appear.
The programs were "weaved" into core memory. It was called "rope memory. Mass storage back then was heavy, very low density for it size, and very fragile. A sub $20 SD card would handle it.
+Zoomer30 Since the storage was only the equivalent of about 64K, even the oldest floppy disks that I'm aware of could have carried it. But fragile? Once built, I believe the wired memory was covered in a potting compound that formed it into a solid block. More importantly for space use, this core rope memory technology was immune to radiation. It was great for the job.
+QuietElite I acquired them from a film researcher. They had all been transferred to HD by NASA. Over the coming months I intend to put all the onboard films onto the Apollo Flight Journal RUclips channels as I've already done for the missions up to Apollo 11. For example, see: ruclips.net/channel/UCnVYpEWcPdnotlCz7kriFxg
It's a shame that NASA didn't schedule a mission for the poles. I bet they would've found water ice many years earlier and could've established a permanent site. (Yes, that sounds similar to that TV show For All Mankind.)
Indeed, it does seem too good to be true but the amount of evidence in favor of the moon landing happening is much more (and more consistent) than evidence against the moon landing
I'm trying to wrap my head around the 1 1/2 second delay each way for radio coms. There's no edit in this, right? This is captured in real time? So, "mark" from Houston repeated back would have ~3 seconds between them. Am I missing something?
There's no edit in this soundtrack. Your question is a common one and the situation needs a little unpacking to get your head around it. First, the one-way delay time is about 1.3 seconds. It is important to be aware that the recording was made at Mission Control. Given this, you would expect that the CapCom (the person in Mission Control who is speaking to the astronauts) would be able to reply instantly to an incoming message and that this is what the recording would pick up. However, by the same token, if CapCom addresses a question to the astronauts, the answer would not be expected for at least 2.6 seconds because both he and the tape recorder have to wait for a reply. A third situation is if the astronauts are talking to themselves. In this case, there should be no delay in answers as we are just hearing a normal conversation delayed by 1.3 seconds. To restate, the *only* time a delay should be expected is when CapCom asks a question and has to wait for a reply. In all other instances, the delay should be about what would be expected from normal conversation. I hope that helps.
By Apollo 16, P65 didn't exist in the code that was installed in Orion's computer. If we look in the program manual for the Apollo 11 spacecraft, we see that P65 was there. It was a fully automatic version of P66. Whereas P66 put the commander in the control loop, allowing him to adjust attitude and descent speed while the computer was in control, P65 controlled these entirely. There was also P67, which was never used. This gave the commander complete manual control of the LM's attitude and the throttle.
Oh America! What happened to you!!! You used to do the impossible, yet we were all rooting for you. Today, we have a majority hell-bent on punishing you for her past sins! I'm weeping and yes, I cried today for America.
Met Charlie Duke 30 years ago and got his autograph, wanted to get the other 11 (who walked on the moon) not gonna happen:( Only 3 left I believe (including Duke).
What struck me was the remarkable clarity of the audio and the seemingly instantaneous communication between Mission Control and the Apollo 16 crew. Considering the moon is approximately 384,400 kilometers away from Earth, a round-trip radio communication should take about 2.56 seconds due to the speed of light. Yet, in the recording, the responses seem to occur with zero delay. The quality of the audio and the immediacy of the exchanges made it feel as though Mission Control and the Apollo 16 crew were in the same room, not separated by roughly 385,000 kilometers of space. I encourage others to listen to this historic landing and share their thoughts. Is the clarity and lack of delay in the conversation as astonishing to you as it was to me? Let's discuss!
Why is there any surprise here? The recording is occurring on the ground side. So, the transmission could take 10 seconds. You hear the audio, press to talk and answer immediate then, right? So, on the ground side, we don't know, see or wait for the audio time to transmit from the moon. However, NOTE the reverse! When Mission control (MCC) talks, note the delay for the response to come back -- it is never instant. So, say start listening at 3:10: At 3:15 Duke ask MCC to go "Aft omni". Note how MCC is able to INSTANT respond, since as noted, we are on earth, and received the voice transmission. but, NOTE the reverse -- MCC at 3:19 responds instant, and without any delay - (since we down on earth having received the transmission - there no delay or wait for MCC to respond. But, now MCC states "Stay forward and you have a Go at 1" Now, start the delay for the response...about 4.0 seconds later when Young says "roger" Keep in mind that they rehearsed this landing 100's and 100's of time. So, what comes next is often anticipated, just like I can finish your sentence for you. However, note the delay for the response - it is about 4 seconds. The time for radio to travel one way is a about 1.25 seconds - a full round trip is 2.5 seconds. So, I count about 4 seconds for the response from moon to earth. As noted, from moon to earth? Well, we hearing the voice transmission on ground - it could have taken 5 minutes, and we would respond instant. So, no, zero surprise here
Yeah, no. Watch the video again. As Albert has pointed out, when Houston responds to the astronauts it's instant. But when the astronauts are responding to Houston, there's a noticeable delay.
"Let's discuss" (you say?)? Then, why do you cut and paste this same thing into numerous videos, then never discuss anything when people correct the gibberish you're spewing?
@@rockethead7 Where in this thread is "lets discuss"? Not aware of anyone saying as such. The simple matter is the transmission could take 15 minutes from mars, and the two astronauts could ask *_Huston, should we set bus A or bus B_* That transmission as noted might take 15 minutes. But WHEN it reaches earth, then you going to hear the question at that point in time, and Huston could respond try bus B without delay. From our end on earth, there not going to be any perceptible delay for Huston to respond, since the recoding and hearing of the transmission is occurring on earth at our end. However, a full round trip to the moon is about 3 seconds. So, WHEN Huston asks the astronauts a question, do a simple 1 choo train, 2 choo train, and 3 choo choo train. You find in the recoding's exactly what you expect - about a 3 second delay for the astronauts to respond to questions from the ground. So, what part of this narrative and explain are you not agreeing with, since what we hear in the recordings is exactly what one would expect based on logic, reason, and common sense. Is there some logic or point you trying to make here that you don't agree with then? You have to explain why you would expect anything different in the recordings then what we all hear.
Thank you for your query. The Lunar Rover was an ingenious design that made use of an empty bay on the side of the lunar module's descent stage. The car had three chassis panels; forward, centre and aft. The smaller forward and aft panels held the wheels which could fold back onto the panels. These panels then folded over the centre panel to create a shape that fit into the empty bay between the propellant tanks. The whole contraption was designed to be unloaded merely by pulling tapes, letting it unfold using spring force and then lifting it free. At the end of the mission, the rovers were parked about 100 metres east of the lunar modules to allow their Earth-controlled TV cameras to provide coverage of the lunar lift off.
@@ddogjones8677 All three Rovers are still parked about 100 metres east of the dead LM descent stages. They can be seen in photos from the LRO probe that has been mapping the Moon since 2009. www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/images/584392main_M168000580LR_ap17_area.jpg
That's a question that is often asked. You may have noticed that much of the chat has little or no delay and some folk are confused by this. Allow me to explain this. It is important to remember that this sound recording was made at Mission Control. Let's unpack what's actually happening. You would expect that the CapCom (the person in Mission Control speaking to the astronauts) would be able to reply instantly to an incoming message and that is what the recorder would pick up. If, on the other hand, CapCom addresses a question to the astronauts, then the answer would not be expected for at least 2.6 seconds because both he and the tape recorder would have to wait for the reply. The third case is where the astronauts are talking to themselves. Here, there should be no delay because they hear each other immediately and reply accordingly. The recorder doesn't record their conversation until 1.3 seconds after it occurs but the delay is equal for both crewmen. To restate, the only time a delay should be expected is when CapCom asks a question and has to wait for a reply. In all other instances, the delay should be about what would be expected from normal conversation. I hope that helps.
@@apollo16-apolloflightjourn63 There's an illustration of this at 3'10" into this vid. Capcom answers their question immediately, but there's a long gap before they acknowledge his "go at one" call.
Look everybody and see that this is done in a studio on Earth and not on any Moon. At exactly 14:28 you hear ''boom'' as the LM touches the surface. A camera is recording the descend. This camera cannot be attached to LM because as the LM touches the surface, the whole LM jitters slightly that means LM sways momentarily before LM finds a comfortable position on surface with its quadpod. If the camera is fixed to LM, it, too, should have shaken and vibrated just as much as the descending LM. And that is not the case. It looks as though the camera is fixed to some other object (perhaps scaffolding) next to the lowered LM by a crane. The camera is solidly fixed onto another object which is NOT a part of the descending LM and stands independently of LM. This is simple physics which is violated by observation. There was no man on the Moon.
@@ericephemetherson3964 Yes, we already know You are jealous, have to spending your days sittning here and lying, while others do things You Will never be able to do: walking on the Moon!
Remember where the recorder is (at mission control). Since the recording was made at Mission Control, then you would expect that the CapCom (the person speaking to the astronauts in Mission Control) would be able to reply instantly to an incoming message. By the same token, if CapCom addresses a question to the astronauts, the answer would not be expected for at least 2.6 seconds because both he and the tape recorder had to wait for the reply. Also, if the astronauts are talking to themselves, there should be no delay. To restate, the *only* time a delay should be expected is when CapCom asks a question and has to wait for a reply. In all other instances, the delay should be about what would be expected from normal conversation. I hope that helps.
@@apollo16-apolloflightjourn63"... if CapCom addresses a question to the astronauts, the answer would not be expected for at least 2.6 seconds..." It seems like the reply would be delayed by at least 5.2 seconds as the question must travel to the moon (2.6 sec) and the answer to Earth (2.6 sec).
@@Joe-wy2bn 1.3 seconds to the Moon. 1.3 seconds back. 2.6 seconds return light time. The Moon is 400,000 km away. The speed of light is 300,000 km per second.
I don't know how Duke got from Huston operator(30 seconds!/Apollo 11-voice over) to being lamding on the moon in Apollo 16; but I'll say this: NASA really knows how to set up flying teams, 😂 I don't imagine mr. Armstrong having a co-pilot like Duke 😆 .. Imagine the scenario. I laugh every time i try to imagine that moon landing pair! 😆 .. "Niel! We got 60 seconds!" "I'm gonna skip a few bumps" "30 seconds Niel!" Uh....Huston.... Tranquility base here..... THE EAGLE HAS LAN...!" "woooow!!! Wooohoo!! Wooooowwwww Niel! Woooowwwww!!!"
Thanks for this post...! NASA in the 60's was IT...! So now we are going back to the MOON.... Should have stayed there all along US...! Bloody Nixon playing stupid politics. An on budget extension of the AAP ( Apollo Applications Program ) would have seen a US Moon Base in the 80's.....
@@bargeman100 Just so you know, we sent retroreflectors up there when we went, and nobody has found any problems with the moon rocks NASA brought back.
correct...SaturnV had 3 stages.. the actornauts performed on the 3rd stage then on the lander and then on the film stage set up on the moon....then they fooled around on the rover...
You're entitled to your opinion, but unless you can demonstrate expertise in aerospace engineering, I'm going to listen to the people who have that expertise. In the meantime, thousands of scientists from around the world have studied the Apollo rocks for the last 50 years, and they know the rocks are from the Moon. The only plausible explanation for how the rocks got here is that people went to the Moon and collected them.
@@maxfan1591 He's one of these clowns that thinks the moon landings were faked and that all the pictures and videos we see were shot at Area 51 or some other similar place. They never offer any proof of their claims, they just say stuff like this to get attention.
About 20 years ago, I went to Colorado on vacation. We are planning on going back next summer. I guess that's a clue that I didn't go to Colorado 20 years ago.
In 1966 NASA's budget peaked at 4.5% of the federal budget. These days it's less than 0.5%. How do you think your lifestyle and financial plans would be affected if your income dropped by 90%?
We figured out how to get through the van Allen belts in 1962. In the part of the belt where the intensity is highest, it is high enough that if you stay for about a week (inside an Apollo command module), you receive a lethal dose. So for the Apollo missions, the trajectory was designed to minimize the amount of time spent there. The Apollo astronauts flew through the belts in about 3 hours, while avoiding the part with the highest levels entirely. The hull thickness of the CSM was more than enough to reduce the radiation level inside to manageable levels. Astronauts' overall exposure was actually dominated by solar particles once outside Earth's magnetic field. The total radiation received by the astronauts varied from mission-to-mission but was measured to be between 0.16 and 1.14 rads (1.6 and 11.4 mGy). More details in this video from Scott Manley: ruclips.net/video/h9YN50xXFJY/видео.html
Wow, a guy who can't even spell the word "passed" and doesn't know that it's belts, not a singular Van Allen belt, says the moon landings - which no serious person with any education relevant to the field disputes - are fake! I'm convinced!
So fake. The landing was done in a studio. Notice the difference in shadows? The small rock at 16:05 is pointing right while other shadows are obviously pointing a little to the left. Yea, now reverse the film (16:33). So fake.
These two panoramas are constructed from a handful of photographs taken from the windows soon after landing. They are therefore extremely wide angle and a change of perspective should be expected along with shadow angle. As to the second point (16:23), careful inspection will show that the details on the ground are completely different to the right of the LM shadow. It is not a repeat of the first panorama. I hope this helps.
@@apollo16-apolloflightjourn63 Yep, correct. The shadow of the LM is facing differently to that of surrounding shadows. Suggesting that large studio spotlights were used to brighten the scene and the background is simply black with no stars in sight.
Thousands of scientists from around the world have been able to study the ~380 kilograms of Apollo rocks for the last 50 years. They know the rocks can't be from the Earth. The only plausible explanation for their presence on Earth is that people went to the Moon and collected them.
Just because you don't understand how the LM was designed, doesn't mean it's fake. Your argument is no more valid than someone looking at a car and assuming it must be fake because the paint doesn't have the structural strength the hold the car together. The "aluminium foil" for instance is in fact multilayer insulation (MLI). This consists of thin sheets of kapton with a layer of aluminium vapor-deposited onto it. A stack of these layers provides excellent insulation against extremes of temperature. MLI is applied to the outside of the spacecraft, it covers structural aluminium honeycomb sandwich panels.
When you graduate from primary school you can move on to a proper education before technical training and then you’ll have a hope of understanding the basics..
Thousands of scientists from around the world have been able to study the ~380 kilograms of Apollo rocks for the last 50 years. They know the rocks can't be from the Earth. The only plausible explanation for their presence on Earth is that people went to the Moon and collected them.
You're entitled to your opinion, but unless you can demonstrate expertise in aerospace engineering, I'm going to listen to the people who have that expertise. In the meantime, thousands of scientists from around the world have studied the Apollo rocks for the last 50 years, and they know the rocks are from the Moon. The only plausible explanation for how the rocks got here is that people went to the Moon and collected them.
You space fantasists simply can’t see how ridiculous this “footage” is… where did they fit the car? Underneath? Ok, what about the 10,000 thrust rocket? Where’s that? How did it shoot through the car? Did the he car have pneumonic tires? How did they have room for things like golf clubs? Have you ever packed a car before?
So, you came to your conclusion first. Then you asked a pile of questions, but, you don't believe there are answers. You think these are "gotcha" questions. But, you've never lifted to find out the answers, because you already came to your conclusion. Bravo. Pure genius.
"You space fantasists simply can’t see how ridiculous this “footage” is…" Aerospace engineers have no problem with it. Given the choice between your opinion and expert opinion, I'm going to go with the experts. "where did they fit the car? Underneath?" No. On the side of the descent stage, next to the ladder. This information isn't hard to find. "Ok, what about the 10,000 thrust rocket? Where’s that?" That's underneath, where you'd expect it to be. This information is even easier to find. "How did it shoot through the car?" Irrelevant question seeing as we know the car was nowhere near the engine. Do you seriously think this information isn't available? "Did the he car have pneumonic tires?" No. It didn't even have pneumatic tyres. It had woven wire mesh tyres. Again, this information is easy to find. "How did they have room for things like golf clubs?" One astronaut on Apollo 14 brought the *head* of one golf club - IOW an object smaller than your hand - which he was easily able to fit in a pocket. "Have you ever packed a car before?" Have you ever done any research that didn't involve watching Apollo hoax YT videos?
They added a shadow this time , for an enhancing effect, and note how they seem to be overjoyed with the wide view ! All those things that made the first landings a bit dull. It still seems like the moon looks like a plaster model I suggest next time they "go the moon" maybe they could add some stars, like any normal person would expect.
But I don't have a NASA camera , it still is remarkable they didin't even try it. Since you are so wise, how come we can't hear the rocket-engine howling like thunder, when the craft is landing? In those days you could not park a car in silence ..!! Also it is quite WEIRD that , no marks of the thrust of the engine were visible on the moon surface. While we can clearly hear about "DUST" , ofcourse to cover up the silly zooming-in on the moon -model. Nope, I don't buy it.
"it still is remarkable they didin't even try it." Ironically, Apollo 16 carried an instrument called the Far Ultraviolet Camera/Spectrograph. It took numerous images of astronomical objects in the far ultraviolet part of the EM spectrum. The earth's atmosphere is opaque to this part of the spectrum, so no one had ever seen what anything looked like at those wavelengths. Taking pictures of the stars in visible light would have been a waste of time and money, as it wouldn't have shown them anything scientifically new. But the images taken in the far ultraviolet were scientifically unprecedented.
"Since you are so wise, how come we can't hear the rocket-engine howling like thunder, when the craft is landing? In those days you could not park a car in silence ..!!" Two factors: 1 - The microphones they used had squelch controls. When I ride in my friends Comanche 250, we're sitting behind an 8.9 liter six cylinder with no mufflers, and you can barely hear the engine over the intercom system. 2 - Rockets are loud because of the disturbance they make in the air around them. Take away the air and you take away all that noise. The crews remarked that the APS engine, which was right under their feet, sounded like water running through plumbing. "Also it is quite WEIRD that , no marks of the thrust of the engine were visible on the moon surface. While we can clearly hear about 'DUST' , ofcourse to cover up the silly zooming-in on the moon -model." The dust is clearly visible. That's what you see flying away as they near the surface. Remember: they're in a vacuum. Even the finest dust grains will fly away like any other ballistic object. There is no air in which the dust can become suspended. "Nope, don't buy it." Yet the world's populations of physicists and engineers do. Perhaps you simply don't have as thorough an understanding of the subject as you think you do.
A "NASA camera"? Even today on the ISS they use Nikon DSLRs (D4s) that anyone can buy. Why don't you learn a little something about basic photography before you make stupid statements that ANYONE with even a basic knowledge of cameras knows is idiotic.
I love it on all the missions when they transition to P64 and pitch over, the excitement level in their voices increases dramatically!
@andy-s-76 The computer software on the lunar module computer was divided into different operations. P63 was the braking phase to slow the spacecraft down where the astronauts were flying backwards and unable to see much of the moon's surface. Once the lander was at a specified altitude and speed the programming switched to P64, where the lander pitched over and the astronauts were then able to see the moon's surface and landing area out their windows. When the commander takes over manual control, the computer switches to P66. Hope that helps.
I know we shouldn’t have favourites but John Young was just the epitome of the coolest astronaut in the programme. Charlie Duke wasn’t far behind him. Two American Heroes. Thanks for posting. Best wishes from your friends in Scotland 🏴
Aye!!!
John Young was put on this Earth to leave it as much as possible. A true career rocket man.
One of the best online comments I've ever read.
He's one of the under-appreciated heroes of the space program. He smuggled a corned beef sandwich onto his first Gemini flight, but went on to fly on Gemini again, visit the moon twice, walk on it once, and command the first shuttle flight. RIP.
@@tonkaGuy888 And commanded the first Spacelab. Plus would have launched the Hubble Space Telescope, if not for Challenger.
Yep John Young the original extra terrestrial! RIP
@@tonkaGuy888 seriously. that guy was legend. pinnacle astronaut.
When John passed away I put his name and portrait up on my Facebook wall and asked my friends if they knew about this great explorer. I added a link to his wikipedia article and told them to read up and be ashamed if the name John W. Young hadn't rung any bell untill now.
He never made a name for himself. Such a genuine professional.
I did the same thing. When he was about to fly the first Shuttle mission, I sent a letter to Johnson Space Center to his attention telling him "good luck on your mission." He (or his secretary) sent back some moon photos and an autographed picture which I treasure more than just about anything.
@@MarvelousLXVII I have only one response to that:
WOW!
@David Sorell I might - but I took the short version.
Duke and Young sound like awesome people to go to the moon with.
I would have loved to have gone with Conrad, Gordon and Bean.
Conrad, Gordon, and Bean wins hands down.
@Nick Bruno , no they just launched Challenger when it was too cold, the rest is history.
@Nick Bruno, no but I did, so fucking what? Dumbass!!!
@Nick Bruno, and my point is, that a weather related launch , ie cold weather, led to a system failure, there's nothing on here that says Apollo program only to be talked about, so there you go. Although before you say it, that system failure was a known design flaw, just took the cold weather launch to really give that flaw a chance to do it's deadly work.
Thanks for posting all of these landings. It's great to relive these moments again.
Cool how you could see the LM shadow getting closer and closer beginning at around 800 feet.
this is a huge help for landing- the size of the shadow indicates the surface's distance to the LM.
@@chrismoferand landing with the sun in your back also helps not getting blinded by it. Great sight to see the shadow appear
The excitement in their voice when they land says it all, they were there!
They where there? I don't understand your comment.
The people known as hoaxtards will tell you that the Apollo missions to the moon were a hoax.
Means they were there, on the Moon.
Sure sure, who needs a thing like _evidence_ when you have such a convincing 'voice over' to believe in.
14:33
"Duke: Wow!!! (Garbled) man!"
Wasn't garbled at all; listen to it; nobody wanted to enter "Gawwd, man!" into the transcript.
"What a neat place". Awesome, thank you for putting these on here. Loving these videos!
I love Duke's enthusiasm.
It's amazing how much talent was assembled for that project. 15:38 for example, John Young gives a nod to the engineers that designed the LLTV. Their contraption flew just like the real thing.
Charilie Duke: Hey John, we got to get down, we're way high.
John Young(slightly irritated): Alright Charlie, give me a minute.
Charlie sure does talk a lot, doesn't he...
I like Charlie. He’s cool.
Good that with Charlie Duke at least one of the eternal capcoms got this chance. Vance Brand, the Apollo 13 accident Capcom would have deserved it but he really drew the short straw on Apollo.
Also fun fact i know about 16: Gene Cernan was assigned to it as LMP, being on the backup crew on 14. But he went to Deke Slayton and - as the first Astronaut ever - refused. He said he deserved his own mission as CDR (sure did). Knowing full well that 17 would be the last landing. A gamble that entered him into a (friendly) competition with Dick Gordon for the job.
He finally got the job, started training - and nearly blew it by crashing a helicopter into a river completely by his own fault. Because he survived (close) and the lower public interest in the Moon landings the press barely covered it and Deke Slayton managed to push it under the carpet. And training and mission kept going.
He got a pretty stern talking to though by Tom Stafford who helped him to the job. (Dick Gordon was championed by Pete Conrad).
YOU SAID: "Gene Cernan was assigned to it as LMP, being on the backup crew on 14."
== He was the backup commander of Apollo 14.
YOU SAID: "But he went to Deke Slayton and - as the first Astronaut ever - refused."
== This was a good bit prior to his role as backup commander of Apollo 14. He didn't outright refuse, though. He basically assertively asked, pushed very hard. It's a fine line, I know, very close to a refusal. But, he did say that he'd do it if Slayton insisted. Slayton had put Cernan on Apollo 16 because Apollo 16 was more likely to fly, and he wanted to give Cernan his moonwalk. Apollo 17 was still up in the air at the time that Slayton assigned Cernan to Apollo 16. And, well, technically, he didn't actually assign him directly to Apollo 16, it just worked out that way in the rotation. I believe Cernan was originally slated to be the backup LMP on Apollo 13, which would have put him as prime LMP on Apollo 16. Generally speaking, they were backup on [whatever] mission, then became prime crew 3 missions later. There were some examples of juggling that rotation a bit. But, that's the basic gist of it. So, by Cernan arguing not to be the backup LMP of Apollo 13, he was basically arguing (also, therefore) to not be the prime LMP for Apollo 16. Yes, he wanted command. Slayton warned him that Apollo 17 might not even fly due to budget cuts. Cernan said he'd take his chances, so Slayton made him backup commander of Apollo 14, putting him as commander of Apollo 17.
Another little tidbit to add to your tidbits: The Apollo 16 crew was made the backup crew for Apollo 17. So, quite literally, if the prime crew didn't fly, the backup crew would be the exact same two that had just walked on the moon for Apollo 16, and they'd go again (except with Roosa as the backup). In reality, though, it probably wouldn't have gone that way. They'd probably put Schmitt with Young. And, that, ironically, very nearly happened because Cernan banged up his leg, which wasn't fully healed in time for his flight. He ended up walking on the moon with a weak leg. But, he figured, 1/6th gravity, how bad could it be, and he underplayed how bad the leg was to the doctors.
@@rockethead7 Interesting. Gene was also the only Commander of an apollo flight without previous command experience. Schirra Commanded his own Mercury flight (obviously) and Gemini 6a before Apollo 7; Borman commanded Gemini 7 before Apollo 8; McDivitt commanded Gemini 4 before Apollo 9, Stafford commanded Gemini 9A before Apollo 10 (and the ASTP mission as well); Armstrong commanded Gemini 8 before Apollo 11; Conrad Commanded Gemini 11 before Apollo 12 and Skylab 2; Lovell Commanded Gemini 12 before Commanding Apollo 13; Shepard commanded the first Mercury flight before Apollo 14; John Young Commanded Gemini 10 before Apollo 16.
That leaves Dave Scott who was CMP on 9 before Commanding 15. The CMP's were higher in seniority than the LMP's which is why Jim Lovell (Apollo 8 CMP) , Dave Scott (Apollo 9 CMP) & John Young (Apollo 10 CMP) went on to command later flights.
I know a lot about Apollo and even I didn't know a lot of that (beyond the heli crash)
My favorite mission
Charlie Duke sounds so excited. I can watch this over and over again. Such a great time in history.
RIP John Young. It sounded strange hearing Charlie Duke's voice on the other end of the flight. I'm used to hearing his South Carolina drawl on the landing of Apollo 11.
Exactly what i was thinking at first.
So glad you are on you tube! Read the journal almost daily
Thanks for doing this---very cool to see the film matched to the voices, and good job on the annotations.
hahaha Duke forgot to call out angles and rates because he recognized some craters and was really excited he recognized them haha love these guys 11:46
Spectacular! These are amazing videos! Such bravery, skill, and dedication! I can't imagine what it must be like to land on another world! We need to do it today! This was done in 1972! Imagine what we could do today? We need to follow these astronauts, and what they have done for all of mankind! The Moon is beautiful, yet hostile, but it looks so calm and serene. We desperately need to go back! What an amazing achievement! I truly admire these astronauts! They are legendary heroes!
Watched a video of a NASA guy, saying that they lost the technology of the moon landings and it's very difficult to go back.
@@williamhauser7156 No you didn't.
@@williamhauser7156no we can go back. Funding and the will to do it.
I remember running home from school to watch this landing that particular Thursday afternoon. At first I was disappointed that they didn't land right away. I thought they aborted. But there was a minor problem with the CSM. After the problem was resolved, they landed about six hours later. The astronauts went to sleep about an hour after landing, and started exploring the next day.
RIP J Young
Awesome. David Woods, love your books.
I really love David Woods' How Apollo Flew to the Moon. It answered so many questions that I had! Wish there was some kind of "Apollo Club" in southern California.
I love dukes reaction when they touched down.
Yeah, but I was a young 10 year old at the time and Duke scared the hell out of me when he yelled like that. Maybe the first time I had felt so nervous in my life.
@@pajasa62 No worse than during Apollo 15, when apparently Jim Irwin read a false contact light and Dave Scott killed the descent engine from about ten feet off the surface at Hadley Rille (it should have indicated contact at about four feet) and Falcon hit the surface fat and heavy. Jim Irwin yelled "BAM!" when they came to rest. It startled the ground crew at Houston. That mission supposedly holds the record for hardest manned lunar impact to date. It's a credit to Grumman who built the LEM to tolerate such abuse.
@@frankalexander1599 Good info...thanks. When you look at the footage outside the LEM , they really did take a jolt just normally. I guess Stuart Roosa holds the record for the hardest, soft dock attempt. I know it caused a reaction by Alan Shepard and Shepard was probably the one astronaut you did not want on your bad side.
@@pajasa62 Yep...the two astronauts known for being able to hold a grudge were Al Shepard and Gordo Cooper - both of whom were among the Original 7. Also, one risked their career crossing Deke Slayton (another Original 7, grounded before his planned Mercury orbital mission after Glenn's, and relegated to NASA crew selection duty for ten years before being cleared for flight duty on the Apollo-Soyuz mission) and would get the hairy eyeball from Neil Armstrong and Frank Borman as well.
@@frankalexander1599 I heard that about Gordon Cooper, but I am sure Pete Conrad handled him just fine in Gemini 5. There's a good, post-splashdown photo on Conrad playing with Cooper's beard growth.
At about 13:00 you can begin to see the shadow of the LEM descending, never ceases to fascinate me.
I never noticed that before! Truly amazing. Almost as good as a video of the LM taken from the moon.
Dieses Video ist so wunderbar, so voller Arbeit und Spannung.
Machen Sie bald mehr davon?
BittE
Translation: This video is so wonderful, so full of Work and Excitement. Will you make more of these soon? Thank you.
I was young at the time when this happened and while it seems cool and marvelous now, back then this was really scary stuff. I remember the chill I felt when Duke yelled "Wooooow!" and that split moment when I wondered was his yell a reaction to crashing....it was much different live and looking at TV simulation. Again, SCARY STUFF!!!
pajasa, I had the exact same thought when I heard him yelling. It sounded like a cry of terror. But it was exactly the opposite. :)
Fantastic. I dream of when we do that again. It is not easy.
"Boom!" Thanks so much for these phenomenal videos. Is it too much to hope for an Apollo 17 video?
Did the Apollo crews ever get any medals for their heroism? It took a lot of guts to land on the moon. I admire them. Also, this is an excellent video presentation.
Yes John Young and several other astronauts received the Congressional Space Medal of Honor along with numerous other accolades. And they never have to buy their own beers in a bar again (though they will, humble types as they are).
John Young was awarded the Space Medal of Honor for taking the Shuttle up on its first flight. Now, i'm not denigrating his moon shot, but that took a lot more balls. Taking what was essentially, an untested and unproven craft into earth orbit, without a single unmanned test flight? All the computer sims in the world mean absolutely dick in real-time. His ass was hanging out more on STS-1 than it ever was on Apollo 16, Or Gemini 3 and 10. It could have gone south real fast. Considering what happened in 1986 and 2001? And what almost happened to Atlantis? My respect for him tripled in recent years.
bigdrew565 well said
They got a huge pension for life at the tax payers expense, for lying to the whole world.
Such role models.
ᚱᛰUᛠӖᚱ ᚦᗩӖϻᛰᚤ you’re a first class dickhead mate.
Thanks for your huge effort.
l'm watching this in parallel with _Homemade Movies_ ~ by JacksonTyler ~ 'Apollo 16 Remastered (50th anniversary) 4k ...and is really interesting to hear it with, and without music, and commentary. l'm so thankful the peeps that make these incredible video available to us. Thank You uploader! :D
Landing was a few hours late because of having to diagnose/fix Mattingly's CSM issue
i like how duke kept the chatter low in focused times
And they didn't have to worry about car rental they brought there own,, ;-)
Well, sure it was rented....from NASA....they didn't own the pink slip....
What a great and informative video.
Their excitement is infectious.
It's fun to hear General Duke's voice as a flyer instead of the cap com. His voice is probably associated with landings as much as the late Jack King's is with launches.
Amazing to watch thank you for uploading 👍
this is so neat! thank you
You probably already know it, but John Young is a Georgia Tech alum.
RIP John Young
Young and Duke sound like they are genuinely enjoying the experience
15:54. Gotta love it. And, AFJ, First Man got me here. Very well done.
Landing that thing on the Moon had to be the most terrifying operation any astronaut ever attempted. With a computer that was out classed by a Commodore 64.
+Zoomer30 A VIC-20 would have outl classed it.
+leftcoaster67 True, but there are alternative ways to look at it. The AGC was more an embedded controller than a computer of the style that were sold cheap to households in the eighties. Trying to integrate a VIC-20 into a LM would be an interesting exercise. More importantly, what really makes a computer go is its software and that for the AGC, whether in the Lunar Module or the Command Module, was highly attuned to the tasks it had. It was beautifully written. Finally, the AGC was essentially a mid-1960s design, predating the VIC-20 by about 15 years, an aeon in computer development. Give it a break. I would suggest that without the AGC, there might not have been a VIC-20, at least at the time it did appear.
The programs were "weaved" into core memory. It was called "rope memory. Mass storage back then was heavy, very low density for it size, and very fragile. A sub $20 SD card would handle it.
+Zoomer30 I am age 71, and still have my High School slide-rule (cough cough)
+Zoomer30 Since the storage was only the equivalent of about 64K, even the oldest floppy disks that I'm aware of could have carried it. But fragile? Once built, I believe the wired memory was covered in a potting compound that formed it into a solid block. More importantly for space use, this core rope memory technology was immune to radiation. It was great for the job.
Wonderful. Thank you.
Hahaha *massive static* "Go Aft Omni" (interrupting Charlie Duke's exuberance) *static clears* "That's better"
Incredible to listen to this.
Young and Duke ... the best.
remarkable… truly remarkable
thee coolest, smoothest guy on the planet. or off of it. John Young.
Great! I love this.
Wow! I love this. Like a plane landing at an airport; except it’s the Moon!👏🇺🇸
Is 16 the only one where we got the LEM shadow down for the last 1000ft?
+CaribSurfKing1 My edit for the Apollo 17 landing is nearly finished. The shadow is very clear in that. Coming soon.
+David Woods Were did you get the high quality 16mm film ? I downloaded some clips on ALSJ under Video and Movie clips and the quality wasnt good.
+QuietElite I acquired them from a film researcher. They had all been transferred to HD by NASA. Over the coming months I intend to put all the onboard films onto the Apollo Flight Journal RUclips channels as I've already done for the missions up to Apollo 11. For example, see: ruclips.net/channel/UCnVYpEWcPdnotlCz7kriFxg
+Apollo 16 - Apollo Flight Journal Yeah I already saw the other channels and look forward for more stuff.
Quie
"What a neat place".
Just abeam of Double Spot
It's a shame that NASA didn't schedule a mission for the poles. I bet they would've found water ice many years earlier and could've established a permanent site. (Yes, that sounds similar to that TV show For All Mankind.)
BZ, John Young.
Outstanding production. TY for creating and posting this!
And there are still stupid people who say that all this was done in a theater ... !!!
Indeed, it does seem too good to be true but the amount of evidence in favor of the moon landing happening is much more (and more consistent) than evidence against the moon landing
lol Percy Precision- that probably irritated Young.
Have you worked at NASA? I don't understand much.
When I write subs, I give them names like Orbital, Transitional and Landing. Not '63' or '64' or '66'.
Does your computer have only a 7-segment display and hand-woven core memory for program storage?
@@derhackerkatze ahh... great point!
I'm trying to wrap my head around the 1 1/2 second delay each way for radio coms. There's no edit in this, right? This is captured in real time? So, "mark" from Houston repeated back would have ~3 seconds between them. Am I missing something?
There's no edit in this soundtrack. Your question is a common one and the situation needs a little unpacking to get your head around it. First, the one-way delay time is about 1.3 seconds. It is important to be aware that the recording was made at Mission Control. Given this, you would expect that the CapCom (the person in Mission Control who is speaking to the astronauts) would be able to reply instantly to an incoming message and that this is what the recording would pick up.
However, by the same token, if CapCom addresses a question to the astronauts, the answer would not be expected for at least 2.6 seconds because both he and the tape recorder have to wait for a reply.
A third situation is if the astronauts are talking to themselves. In this case, there should be no delay in answers as we are just hearing a normal conversation delayed by 1.3 seconds.
To restate, the *only* time a delay should be expected is when CapCom asks a question and has to wait for a reply. In all other instances, the delay should be about what would be expected from normal conversation.
I hope that helps.
Where’s p65 ?
By Apollo 16, P65 didn't exist in the code that was installed in Orion's computer. If we look in the program manual for the Apollo 11 spacecraft, we see that P65 was there. It was a fully automatic version of P66. Whereas P66 put the commander in the control loop, allowing him to adjust attitude and descent speed while the computer was in control, P65 controlled these entirely. There was also P67, which was never used. This gave the commander complete manual control of the LM's attitude and the throttle.
Oh America! What happened to you!!! You used to do the impossible, yet we were all rooting for you. Today, we have a majority hell-bent on punishing you for her past sins! I'm weeping and yes, I cried today for America.
The youth got queer...
Hard part : Finding a nice surface ..
What does AGS mean?
@smeeself Thank you.
It's the backup guidance computer, for use in case they had to abort the landing and get back to orbit.
11:44
Met Charlie Duke 30 years ago and got his autograph, wanted to get the other 11 (who walked on the moon) not gonna happen:(
Only 3 left I believe (including Duke).
Four moonwalkers left. Aldrin, Scott, Duke and Schmitt. 9 other astronauts that flew to the moon left.
MCC:" Wish I were there"
Me:" Wish I were there too"
Love the music . so hip and in touch with today’s modern youth .
Can't, don't, want, 2 top
What struck me was the remarkable clarity of the audio and the seemingly instantaneous communication between Mission Control and the Apollo 16 crew. Considering the moon is approximately 384,400 kilometers away from Earth, a round-trip radio communication should take about 2.56 seconds due to the speed of light. Yet, in the recording, the responses seem to occur with zero delay.
The quality of the audio and the immediacy of the exchanges made it feel as though Mission Control and the Apollo 16 crew were in the same room, not separated by roughly 385,000 kilometers of space.
I encourage others to listen to this historic landing and share their thoughts. Is the clarity and lack of delay in the conversation as astonishing to you as it was to me? Let's discuss!
Why is there any surprise here? The recording is occurring on the ground side. So, the transmission could take 10 seconds. You hear the audio, press to talk and answer immediate then, right? So, on the ground side, we don't know, see or wait for the audio time to transmit from the moon.
However, NOTE the reverse!
When Mission control (MCC) talks, note the delay for the response to come back -- it is never instant.
So, say start listening at 3:10:
At 3:15 Duke ask MCC to go "Aft omni". Note how MCC is able to INSTANT respond, since as noted, we are on earth, and received the voice transmission.
but, NOTE the reverse -- MCC at 3:19 responds instant, and without any delay - (since we down on earth having received the transmission - there no delay or wait for MCC to respond.
But, now MCC states "Stay forward and you have a Go at 1"
Now, start the delay for the response...about 4.0 seconds later when Young says "roger"
Keep in mind that they rehearsed this landing 100's and 100's of time. So, what comes next is often anticipated, just like I can finish your sentence for you. However, note the delay for the response - it is about 4 seconds. The time for radio to travel one way is a about 1.25 seconds - a full round trip is 2.5 seconds. So, I count about 4 seconds for the response from moon to earth.
As noted, from moon to earth? Well, we hearing the voice transmission on ground - it could have taken 5 minutes, and we would respond instant.
So, no, zero surprise here
Yeah, no. Watch the video again. As Albert has pointed out, when Houston responds to the astronauts it's instant. But when the astronauts are responding to Houston, there's a noticeable delay.
"Let's discuss" (you say?)? Then, why do you cut and paste this same thing into numerous videos, then never discuss anything when people correct the gibberish you're spewing?
@@rockethead7
Where in this thread is "lets discuss"? Not aware of anyone saying as such.
The simple matter is the transmission could take 15 minutes from mars, and the two astronauts could ask
*_Huston, should we set bus A or bus B_*
That transmission as noted might take 15 minutes. But WHEN it reaches earth, then you going to hear the question at that point in time, and Huston could respond try bus B without delay.
From our end on earth, there not going to be any perceptible delay for Huston to respond, since the recoding and hearing of the transmission is occurring on earth at our end.
However, a full round trip to the moon is about 3 seconds.
So, WHEN Huston asks the astronauts a question, do a simple 1 choo train, 2 choo train, and 3 choo choo train. You find in the recoding's exactly what you expect - about a 3 second delay for the astronauts to respond to questions from the ground.
So, what part of this narrative and explain are you not agreeing with, since what we hear in the recordings is exactly what one would expect based on logic, reason, and common sense.
Is there some logic or point you trying to make here that you don't agree with then?
You have to explain why you would expect anything different in the recordings then what we all hear.
@@Albertkallal "Where in this thread is "lets discuss"? Not aware of anyone saying as such."
Last two words of the OP's post.
Where did they put the lunar buggy? How do you put a car in a spaceship?
Thank you for your query.
The Lunar Rover was an ingenious design that made use of an empty bay on the side of the lunar module's descent stage. The car had three chassis panels; forward, centre and aft. The smaller forward and aft panels held the wheels which could fold back onto the panels. These panels then folded over the centre panel to create a shape that fit into the empty bay between the propellant tanks. The whole contraption was designed to be unloaded merely by pulling tapes, letting it unfold using spring force and then lifting it free. At the end of the mission, the rovers were parked about 100 metres east of the lunar modules to allow their Earth-controlled TV cameras to provide coverage of the lunar lift off.
ddog jones
..How about a "thank you" for the very polite and informative answer? No? ok.. guess not.
@@jmrico1979 Where is it now?
@@ddogjones8677 All three Rovers are still parked about 100 metres east of the dead LM descent stages. They can be seen in photos from the LRO probe that has been mapping the Moon since 2009. www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/images/584392main_M168000580LR_ap17_area.jpg
@@jmrico1979 Are you ddog's dad?
Meters? What are meters?
The correct and most sense unit of the world
Meters are things that measure stuff.
It's those little creatures that cover distance.
@@MrMa1981yup a 1/10.000 of the distance from Aquator to the North pole.
The calculations were done in meters inside the computer, but were then converted to feet for the pilots.
Why are there not more views :(
There was only one camera inside the LM during the descent, which was hung to record the view out the right window.
Charlie Duke is a tad bit loquacious, isn't he?
frankpinmtl not as much as Gene Cernan :)
He's a medium mouth as Cernan was a damn big mouth.
Young was notoriously taciturn, so Duke seems loquacious by comparison.
@@valentinotera3244 On 17, you wonder how they ever heard the ground during landing, they never shut up.
@@mikechapmanmedia2291 "OKKKéI HOUSTON THE CHALLENGER HAS LANDEEED!!"
should there be a lag in radio comm?
That's a question that is often asked. You may have noticed that much of the chat has little or no delay and some folk are confused by this. Allow me to explain this.
It is important to remember that this sound recording was made at Mission Control. Let's unpack what's actually happening.
You would expect that the CapCom (the person in Mission Control speaking to the astronauts) would be able to reply instantly to an incoming message and that is what the recorder would pick up. If, on the other hand, CapCom addresses a question to the astronauts, then the answer would not be expected for at least 2.6 seconds because both he and the tape recorder would have to wait for the reply. The third case is where the astronauts are talking to themselves. Here, there should be no delay because they hear each other immediately and reply accordingly. The recorder doesn't record their conversation until 1.3 seconds after it occurs but the delay is equal for both crewmen.
To restate, the only time a delay should be expected is when CapCom asks a question and has to wait for a reply. In all other instances, the delay should be about what would be expected from normal conversation.
I hope that helps.
Apollo 16 - Apollo Flight Journal Thanks, great answer and great videos by the way.
@@apollo16-apolloflightjourn63 There's an illustration of this at 3'10" into this vid. Capcom answers their question immediately, but there's a long gap before they acknowledge his "go at one" call.
Most awesome. I can really rely to how it was to be on board of that spacecraft back than. So exciting .. :-)
Look everybody and see that this is done in a studio on Earth and not on any Moon. At exactly 14:28 you hear ''boom'' as the LM touches the surface. A camera is recording the descend. This camera cannot be attached to LM because as the LM touches the surface, the whole LM jitters slightly that means LM sways momentarily before LM finds a comfortable position on surface with its quadpod. If the camera is fixed to LM, it, too, should have shaken and vibrated just as much as the descending LM. And that is not the case. It looks as though the camera is fixed to some other object (perhaps scaffolding) next to the lowered LM by a crane. The camera is solidly fixed onto another object which is NOT a part of the descending LM and stands independently of LM. This is simple physics which is violated by observation. There was no man on the Moon.
Ericephem. 🤣🤣🤣
@@ericephemetherson3964 Yes, we already know You are jealous, have to spending your days sittning here and lying, while others do things You Will never be able to do: walking on the Moon!
Farout!
There's a lot of communication here between Duke and MCC where replies are given in less than 1 second. Seems like there should be a delay.
Remember where the recorder is (at mission control).
Since the recording was made at Mission Control, then you would expect that the CapCom (the person speaking to the astronauts in Mission Control) would be able to reply instantly to an incoming message. By the same token, if CapCom addresses a question to the astronauts, the answer would not be expected for at least 2.6 seconds because both he and the tape recorder had to wait for the reply. Also, if the astronauts are talking to themselves, there should be no delay. To restate, the *only* time a delay should be expected is when CapCom asks a question and has to wait for a reply. In all other instances, the delay should be about what would be expected from normal conversation.
I hope that helps.
@@apollo16-apolloflightjourn63"... if CapCom addresses a question to the astronauts, the answer would not be expected for at least 2.6 seconds..." It seems like the reply would be delayed by at least 5.2 seconds as the question must travel to the moon (2.6 sec) and the answer to Earth (2.6 sec).
@@Joe-wy2bn 1.3 seconds to the Moon. 1.3 seconds back. 2.6 seconds return light time. The Moon is 400,000 km away. The speed of light is 300,000 km per second.
I don't know how Duke got from Huston operator(30 seconds!/Apollo 11-voice over) to being lamding on the moon in Apollo 16; but I'll say this:
NASA really knows how to set up flying teams, 😂
I don't imagine mr. Armstrong having a co-pilot like Duke 😆
..
Imagine the scenario.
I laugh every time i try to imagine that moon landing pair! 😆
..
"Niel! We got 60 seconds!"
"I'm gonna skip a few bumps"
"30 seconds Niel!"
Uh....Huston.... Tranquility base here..... THE EAGLE HAS LAN...!"
"woooow!!! Wooohoo!! Wooooowwwww Niel! Woooowwwww!!!"
*Context*
The only context is the big lie
Thanks for this post...! NASA in the 60's was IT...! So now we are going back to the MOON.... Should have stayed there all along US...! Bloody Nixon playing stupid politics. An on budget extension of the AAP ( Apollo Applications Program ) would have seen a US Moon Base in the 80's.....
Nobody's ever been to the moon.
@@bargeman100What shape is the Earth?
@@cavestoryking8761 I'm not a flat earther. You don't have to believe the earth is flat to know there's never been a man on the moon.
@@bargeman100 Well, at least you're not as dumb as them.
@@bargeman100 Just so you know, we sent retroreflectors up there when we went, and nobody has found any problems with the moon rocks NASA brought back.
Get rid of the music.
No chance. I am very happy with it.
LOL - All staged fools...
correct...SaturnV had 3 stages.. the actornauts performed on the 3rd stage then on the lander and then on the film stage set up on the moon....then they fooled around on the rover...
@SelwynRewes
Ahhhh... you rubes never disappoint.
Love to peruse the comedy section of these comments.
Keep up the good mat'l fellas.
😂
Would be so much cooler with 2 black astronauts talking jive🤩
How convenient of the moon hoax folks to edit in a shadow of the descending lander to throw folks off the scent.
🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️🤣🤣🤣
You need psychological treatment if you believe what you are saying.
That homeless tweaker shelter never went anywhere 🤣😂😅👍
nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/spacecraft/display.action?id=1969-059C
You're entitled to your opinion, but unless you can demonstrate expertise in aerospace engineering, I'm going to listen to the people who have that expertise. In the meantime, thousands of scientists from around the world have studied the Apollo rocks for the last 50 years, and they know the rocks are from the Moon. The only plausible explanation for how the rocks got here is that people went to the Moon and collected them.
The more of these "PROOF" videos i watch the more i, m convinced its all bollox.
Area 51 is a beautiful place!
What's that to do with Apollo 16 landing on the Moon?
@@maxfan1591 He's one of these clowns that thinks the moon landings were faked and that all the pictures and videos we see were shot at Area 51 or some other similar place. They never offer any proof of their claims, they just say stuff like this to get attention.
51 years later and NASA tells us that they are attempting to formulate a plan to land men on the moon. That's a clue.
physics, robert, and politics. too complicated for you.
About 20 years ago, I went to Colorado on vacation. We are planning on going back next summer. I guess that's a clue that I didn't go to Colorado 20 years ago.
In 1966 NASA's budget peaked at 4.5% of the federal budget. These days it's less than 0.5%. How do you think your lifestyle and financial plans would be affected if your income dropped by 90%?
They never set foot on the moon surface, never past the van Allan belt...
They are 'belts' you moron. Now, instead of mindlessly parroting dumb online conspiracy theory, state why.
We figured out how to get through the van Allen belts in 1962. In the part of the belt where the intensity is highest, it is high enough that if you stay for about a week (inside an Apollo command module), you receive a lethal dose. So for the Apollo missions, the trajectory was designed to minimize the amount of time spent there. The Apollo astronauts flew through the belts in about 3 hours, while avoiding the part with the highest levels entirely. The hull thickness of the CSM was more than enough to reduce the radiation level inside to manageable levels.
Astronauts' overall exposure was actually dominated by solar particles once outside Earth's magnetic field. The total radiation received by the astronauts varied from mission-to-mission but was measured to be between 0.16 and 1.14 rads (1.6 and 11.4 mGy).
More details in this video from Scott Manley: ruclips.net/video/h9YN50xXFJY/видео.html
James Van Allen said it wouldn’t be a problem. He knew…
Wow, a guy who can't even spell the word "passed" and doesn't know that it's belts, not a singular Van Allen belt, says the moon landings - which no serious person with any education relevant to the field disputes - are fake!
I'm convinced!
So fake. The landing was done in a studio. Notice the difference in shadows? The small rock at 16:05 is pointing right while other shadows are obviously pointing a little to the left. Yea, now reverse the film (16:33). So fake.
These two panoramas are constructed from a handful of photographs taken from the windows soon after landing. They are therefore extremely wide angle and a change of perspective should be expected along with shadow angle. As to the second point (16:23), careful inspection will show that the details on the ground are completely different to the right of the LM shadow. It is not a repeat of the first panorama.
I hope this helps.
Please resist the urge to procreate. The gene pool is already to screwed up.
Our water supply is busted Mick, please help us.
That tinfoil hat must be too tight.
@@apollo16-apolloflightjourn63
Yep, correct. The shadow of the LM is facing differently to that of surrounding shadows. Suggesting that large studio spotlights were used to brighten the scene and the background is simply black with no stars in sight.
Beautiful faking !!!
???
Do some more research. This wasn't faked. Even the "proof" that it was faked can be disproven.
Neil Armstrong: It’s harder to fake it than to make it.
Thousands of scientists from around the world have been able to study the ~380 kilograms of Apollo rocks for the last 50 years. They know the rocks can't be from the Earth. The only plausible explanation for their presence on Earth is that people went to the Moon and collected them.
They upgraded the roofing paper, aluminum foil and broom sticks.
Wake up
history.nasa.gov/alsj/CSM08_LM_&_SLA_Overview_pp61-68.pdf
Just because you don't understand how the LM was designed, doesn't mean it's fake. Your argument is no more valid than someone looking at a car and assuming it must be fake because the paint doesn't have the structural strength the hold the car together. The "aluminium foil" for instance is in fact multilayer insulation (MLI). This consists of thin sheets of kapton with a layer of aluminium vapor-deposited onto it. A stack of these layers provides excellent insulation against extremes of temperature.
MLI is applied to the outside of the spacecraft, it covers structural aluminium honeycomb sandwich panels.
When you graduate from primary school you can move on to a proper education before technical training and then you’ll have a hope of understanding the basics..
Thousands of scientists from around the world have been able to study the ~380 kilograms of Apollo rocks for the last 50 years. They know the rocks can't be from the Earth. The only plausible explanation for their presence on Earth is that people went to the Moon and collected them.
I dont buy this 😂🤣
how much did you offer?
You're entitled to your opinion, but unless you can demonstrate expertise in aerospace engineering, I'm going to listen to the people who have that expertise. In the meantime, thousands of scientists from around the world have studied the Apollo rocks for the last 50 years, and they know the rocks are from the Moon. The only plausible explanation for how the rocks got here is that people went to the Moon and collected them.
You space fantasists simply can’t see how ridiculous this “footage” is… where did they fit the car? Underneath? Ok, what about the 10,000 thrust rocket? Where’s that? How did it shoot through the car? Did the he car have pneumonic tires? How did they have room for things like golf clubs? Have you ever packed a car before?
very easy to look it up ...try how did lunar buggy fit into lunar lander...
Did they have a cooler full of beer in that moon buggy?
So, you came to your conclusion first. Then you asked a pile of questions, but, you don't believe there are answers. You think these are "gotcha" questions. But, you've never lifted to find out the answers, because you already came to your conclusion. Bravo. Pure genius.
@@rockethead7 Do you realize how stupid you sound?
"You space fantasists simply can’t see how ridiculous this “footage” is…"
Aerospace engineers have no problem with it. Given the choice between your opinion and expert opinion, I'm going to go with the experts.
"where did they fit the car? Underneath?"
No. On the side of the descent stage, next to the ladder. This information isn't hard to find.
"Ok, what about the 10,000 thrust rocket? Where’s that?"
That's underneath, where you'd expect it to be. This information is even easier to find.
"How did it shoot through the car?"
Irrelevant question seeing as we know the car was nowhere near the engine. Do you seriously think this information isn't available?
"Did the he car have pneumonic tires?"
No. It didn't even have pneumatic tyres. It had woven wire mesh tyres. Again, this information is easy to find.
"How did they have room for things like golf clubs?"
One astronaut on Apollo 14 brought the *head* of one golf club - IOW an object smaller than your hand - which he was easily able to fit in a pocket.
"Have you ever packed a car before?"
Have you ever done any research that didn't involve watching Apollo hoax YT videos?
They added a shadow this time , for an enhancing effect, and note how they seem to be overjoyed with the wide view ! All those things that made the first landings a bit dull. It still seems like the moon looks like a plaster model I suggest next time they "go the moon" maybe they could add some stars, like any normal person would expect.
But I don't have a NASA camera , it still is remarkable they didin't even try it.
Since you are so wise, how come we can't hear the rocket-engine howling like thunder, when the craft is landing? In those days you could not park a car in silence ..!! Also it is quite WEIRD that , no marks of the thrust of the engine were visible on the moon surface. While we can clearly hear about "DUST" , ofcourse to cover up the silly zooming-in on the moon -model.
Nope, I don't buy it.
"it still is remarkable they didin't even try it."
Ironically, Apollo 16 carried an instrument called the Far Ultraviolet Camera/Spectrograph. It took numerous images of astronomical objects in the far ultraviolet part of the EM spectrum. The earth's atmosphere is opaque to this part of the spectrum, so no one had ever seen what anything looked like at those wavelengths. Taking pictures of the stars in visible light would have been a waste of time and money, as it wouldn't have shown them anything scientifically new. But the images taken in the far ultraviolet were scientifically unprecedented.
"Since you are so wise, how come we can't hear the rocket-engine howling like thunder, when the craft is landing? In those days you could not park a car in silence ..!!"
Two factors:
1 - The microphones they used had squelch controls. When I ride in my friends Comanche 250, we're sitting behind an 8.9 liter six cylinder with no mufflers, and you can barely hear the engine over the intercom system.
2 - Rockets are loud because of the disturbance they make in the air around them. Take away the air and you take away all that noise. The crews remarked that the APS engine, which was right under their feet, sounded like water running through plumbing.
"Also it is quite WEIRD that , no marks of the thrust of the engine were visible on the moon surface. While we can clearly hear about 'DUST' , ofcourse to cover up the silly zooming-in on the moon -model."
The dust is clearly visible. That's what you see flying away as they near the surface. Remember: they're in a vacuum. Even the finest dust grains will fly away like any other ballistic object. There is no air in which the dust can become suspended.
"Nope, don't buy it."
Yet the world's populations of physicists and engineers do. Perhaps you simply don't have as thorough an understanding of the subject as you think you do.
A "NASA camera"? Even today on the ISS they use Nikon DSLRs (D4s) that anyone can buy. Why don't you learn a little something about basic photography before you make stupid statements that ANYONE with even a basic knowledge of cameras knows is idiotic.
Doubters are mentally ill. Even if they could personally inspect all 6 landing sites, they would still yell "hoax." Kind of scary to be that dumb.