Apollo-Lunar Orbital Rendezvous Technique
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 12 апр 2010
- The film shows artists rendition of the spacecrafts, boosters, and flight of the Apollo lunar missions. The Apollo spacecraft will consist of three modules: the manned Command Module; the Service Module, which contains propulsion systems; and the Lunar Excursion Module (LEM) to carry astronauts to the moon and back to the Command and Service Modules. The spacecraft will be launched via a three-stage Saturn booster. The first stage will provide 7.5 million pounds of thrust from five F-1 engines for liftoff and initial powered flight. The second stage will develop 1 million pounds of thrust from five J-2 engines to boost the spacecraft almost into Earth orbit. Immediately after ignition of the second stage, the Launch Escape System will be jettisoned. A single J-2 engine in the S4B stage will provide 200,000 pounds of thrust to place the spacecraft in an earth parking orbit. It also will be used to propel the spacecraft into a translunar trajectory, then it will separate from the Apollo Modules. Onboard propulsion systems will be used to insert the spacecraft into lunar orbit. Two astronauts will enter the LEM, which will separate from the command and service modules. The LEM will go into elliptical orbit and prepare for landing. The LEM will lift off of the Moon's surface to return to the Command and Service Modules, and most likely be left in lunar orbit. After leaving the Moon's orbit, and shortly before entering Earth's orbit, the Service Module will be ejected. The Command Module will be oriented for reentry into the Earth's atmosphere. A drogue parachute will deploy at approximately 50,000 feet, followed by the main parachute system for touchdown. Released 1963.
This film was originally published in 1963.
what a crock of crap.. all that fire power landing and taking off and no dust clouds or holes beneath the rocket lol
Lmao sti
and at that time it was unclear if the moon was solid or not!!! :-D
@@kevingushlaw1562 1.There is a very faint cloud of dust, 2. The Lunar Modules engines stopped 1.5 meters above the surface preventing to much dust from getting high, 3. With no atmosphere to push it around, the dust simply falls back into its original spot.
@@kevingushlaw1562 and the engine was on the lowest thrust level at touchdown so no crater there.
LM operations were clearly the least frozen part of the design at this time. But still impressive that the overall concept was as clear as it was by this stage,
Very well explained.
Love the "arms" that swing the LM around to the nose of the CM.
The long ladder coming down from the top of the LM....
CM lands on solid ground, not in the ocean.
Interesting the ideas that were discarded.
Almost became a reality (except for the "arms") under Project Constellation.
Interestingly, also the lunar landing phase looks more like that of the Soviet LK lander, with a single descent/ascent engine.
The Nova rocket was a competing idea to the Saturn. It would have been massive and probably would not have been successful. Orbital rendezvous was the smart call.
Exactly 😂
Dead weight.
The most impressive part of this whole operation for me is that rendezvous. I can't imagine how they accomplished such a precise maneuver
Then you need to play some KSP, my friend.
I have, and man how do you do that with a slide rule...
@@Alabar3000 mathfs
Its a combination of orbital mechanics and radar tracking. The the launch of LM's ascent stage is timed so that initially its trailing behind the CSM. The ascent stage is inserted into an orbit that is lower and slower than the CSM. Because the the LM is on the inside track and has a smaller orbital circumference it will gradually approach the CSM from below and behind. As the separation distance closes the ascent stage's orbit is gradually raised so the closure rate is gradually reduced. In addition, the ascent stage's rendezvous radar is locked onto a transponder in the CSM. This gives the the ascent stage's guidance computer continuous updates about the CSM's range, elevation and azimuth (side to side angle). The radar homing technique is similar to how an airplane finds an airport at night or in bad weather.
Yeah, it's not like Buzz Aldrin literally wrote the book (well, doctoral thesis) on orbital rendevous or anything.. Oh wait.. He did.
I remember this as a film in school , I was 9 .
whaaaaaaaaaaaaat!
Love those jagged mountains!
Damn early 1960's concept. Huge glass LEM. Long Rope. 50 feet tall LEM. etc... You can see they made a few changes.
The narrator had clear and well modulated voice.
Fascinating to see how the designs, methodologies, processes and working assumptions all evolved through the 1960s. A wonderful historic document.
It's interesting to see how much weight was trimmed from the craft before 1969. Enormous windows, seats, swinging attachment arms, 40 foot ladder, fourth leg, large size, streamlining panels, huge engine bell, all went. And the idea of a more risky land touchdown was also done away with. It descended for the last few minutes at the height of a house every second, not gently, as depicted. Thanks for the upload.
Fourth leg? I'm not sure what you mean. Are you under the impression that the final lander only had 3 legs?
Land landings are certainly doable, but carry a mass penalty. You need either braking rockets or airbags, and I believe both require the heatshield to be jettisoned.
@@rockethead7 He's talking about the moon lander,
@@lawless201
Yes, and that is why what he wrote is confusing. The lander HAD 4 legs. He's claiming the 4th leg was eliminated.
Considering the first flight lunar modules started assembly 3 years later (1966) it's even more impressive.
FWIW: I never knew a _land landing_ was EVER even considered for Apollo.
You're right, this is confusing. The final Mercury mission was in May, 1963 and all 7 of them used a water landing. I assumed NASA decided on water landings back in the late 50's or early 60's because there wasn't a chance of landing in the middle of some city. That and we have a HUGE Navy that could move quickly..
I liked how the LM was just "moved" to the front of the CM instead of how they actually did it. It might be interesting to know why there didn't do it that way...
@@michaelcarter8120 they can aim pretty well when it comes to landing
@@michaelcarter8120 I liked that moving of the LM too! I suspect that, as on its return from lunar surface the LM was a free body and had to be manoeuvred for docking anyway, there was no need for added complexity, failure point (and the all important weight) of having the dump-truck-bin-lift system 🙂
As it transpires, the CSM is manoeuvred to dock with LM both in extraction from the rocket and lunar rendezvous. So I guess... all the facilities were there for lunar rendezvous, no need for added complexity with an additional system for mating after separation from the rocket. Offset is that it would require a little more fuel to be taken.
Anyone's who has played Kerbal Space Program will understand just how stupidly difficult doing any of this is, especially the orbital rendezvous part. It's absolutely baffling how they managed to do it all 50 years ago using computers with a fraction of the processing power of my TI calculator.
intercepting a celestial body moving >3700 km/h on its orbit and after landing there reach again a module orbiting @ >3000km/h and all of that with a sextant, no computers, and a mini rocket, come back to earth, that is moving >100.000 km/h on its own orbit..... and all of that in 8 days those 3 poor guys with no WC???? ..... in Stanford we asked the same question for 20 years.... here in the TUM in Munich still asking the same in de Adv.Phys.Faculty :-D
*me bragging about manual rendezvous*
They had pretty powerful computers, but - they were all on the ground. They were huge, taking up whole rooms.
I remember seeing this in grade school, one of those days between second and third period or so when we walked in and saw a 16MM projector set up in the middle of the class and knew we had a sub. I used to like those short movies 'cause I always learned something.
you were at school, you learned something every day
Always interesting to see early concepts about the Apollo program.
The main rationale the moon landing deniers use is : “we are too stupid to accomplish difficult tasks”.
Well, they are right - if they can't conceive how the moon landings were done, they are certainly too stupid to accomplish difficult tasks. Luckily, NASA doesn't hire stupid people, so their engineers can accomplish a lot of quite difficult tasks...
@@wingsofwrath4647 and Dan Severns: The problem could also be that they have never seen these films ... I mean I was never a denier but used to wonder, how come they took another rocket to return to Earth...The method they actually used (described here) is ingenious!!
@@saurabhmangal6322 The problem, in my experience, with deniers of any kind is that they REFUSE to watch anything that might challenge their view, because anything that disagrees with what they already believe is "propaganda" by whoever perpetuated the conspiracy in the first place and that people who don't believe in their conspiracy are paid "shills".
Now they claim that the earth is flat and space is fake.
"The main rationale the moon landing deniers use is : “we are too stupid to accomplish difficult tasks”."
Moon landing deniers are living proof that they may just be correct about that point.
Thanks for this👍🚀
Wow it’s crazy how many small details ended up changing following the actual Apollo program
Thank you Dr. John C. Houbolt
And that's, boys and girls, how Canada arm was created. With that and the landing on the ground, the designers were overly optimistic about the throw in weight of Saturn V, and the support capabilities required for the mission. It was and still is the struggle between the booster capacity and the mass required for the mission.
The moon landing is Stanely Kubrick's best film
Love it
It’s crazy how much stuff they changed.
La mejor explicacion sin dudass
Haha, I love the Moonscape. Very interesting video!
high level
No one:
Not even a single soul:
Me: *Watches this to have some inspiration to a Moon rocket on KSP*
Oh
Yea and they have added Apollo to stock rockets now
@@thefateweaverchannel2288 You need Making History to get the Acapello blueprints
You know, some of the animation in this, most notably the smoke plumes when the escape tower jettisons, looks very much like animation from the steam railroading documentary, "last of the giants"(ruclips.net/video/M4BWsYbJROQ/видео.html), I wonder if some of the same animators worked on both, or maybe it was just a popular animation style for documentaries at the time. Also, as interesting as the idea for a pair robotic arms connecting the CSM and LEM would be, it probably would've broken during launch. At 24 years old, I'm probably the youngest person here. But I look beyond my own childhood when it comes to nostalgia.
We can look back at this monumental feat now and see some rather basic technology.
Want to see something amazing find Dr Braun concepts with Walt Disney. His lander was 60ft tall!
SpaceX is trying to get something over twice as tall there now. Would probably take 12 tanker launches for a direct descent and return.
@@leerman22 I wish Elon good luck with that.
at 2:05.. wonder when this method was dropped in favor of the maneuver they ended up with?
@Ayush Anand it would have meant unnecessary moving parts, another thing that could go wrong. Since the CSM needed to be able to dock to the LM anyway after takeoff from the moon, it’s much simpler to just do that both times,
@@ewan.cartwright Good point. Also, I think this was before they had really had much practice doing orbital rendevous. They really just didn't know how easy or hard it would be.
Interesting how they envisioned the maneuver at 2:06
Edit: Also the end where they said touchdown would probably be on land rather than at sea
Yes it will have to be 15 to 25 tons in order to get there and back.
Sounds pretty good
I think NASA should have used a kite and 239,000 miles of string.
Funny how the final trip to the moon, had totally different steps
exactly, this was released in 1963, just paving the way to the moon :D
@@fretshot you don’t say 😱 … 🙄
Where is that one video that has the same title but it’s a bunch of kids in a class room figuring out the equation to meet in space rendovou I know I spelled it wrong. NASA literally took it down ??? Any idea anyone
this film must have been made early in the program what year would you day this made? . I am guessing '62
101southsideboy The poster said 1963, so very close.
when will the UAP NASA study be completed so scientifically speaking we can say to the world extraterrestrials and UFOs uaps exist
3:52 I too lift up my mercury suit visor while in space so i can breathe
It turned out to be at sea
Rondeep Bora they realized through testing they would need more rockets to fire at the last second to slow the falling vehicle down enough to safely land on hard earth the way the Russians do now. It was simply easier to fish them out of the water with the Navy.
@@MrFlyboy1313 I think the sea landing was also meant to cool the heat picked up by the heat shield in the atmosphere.
Red Oxide no.. landing on land requires extra retro propulsion in order for the ship not to crumple on touchdown
How exactly did the docking attachment work?
Search for video Apollo Docking Sequence.
No mention of relative velocities when the lander rejoins the command module? (How would the lander achieve orbital velocity???)
That equation was the hardest to figure out. But here is how they did it.. ruclips.net/video/vB7AA7B9hTI/видео.html
@@MasterChief-sl9ro Perfect! Thank you!
The relative velocity when the ascent module docks with the command module is zero. As far as the "equation", it actually wasn't all that hard. While we didn't actually achieve orbit until the 1950, the "equations" that predict precise orbits have been around since the Kepler and Newton era - so several hundred years. We've understood for a very long time how orbits work. One thing to understand is that if you get into the same orbit as the craft you wish to rendezvous with, you will necessarily be going the same speed as that craft once you get into that orbit. The trick is to get into that orbit in such a way that you are also in the same position as that other craft once you reach there.
@@willoughbykrenzteinburg It was that hard moron. I read the accounts. As it was not about Orbit. It was how do you Undock. Land. Then return to the Command Module. As Lunar Orbit Rendezvous had never been done. Nobody had understood the concept. Until John Houbolt brought it up..Then a Computer Women found the answer. As they even mention it in the movie Hidden Figures.
You need to take a course in mathematics. As it wasn't any trick. It had to work, and every time...
@@MasterChief-sl9ro Wow, triggered much? The insults don't work on me. I'd first have to respect your opinion for any insult you hurl to have an effect on me.
You said, "the equation was the hardest to figure out", and this is demonstrable nonsense because the equations existed about 250 years before Apollo ever landed. You are acting as though they had one shot and if they missed, everyone died. That's not how it works. These orbital maneuvers were easily calculated using math that had been around for centuries, and if they miscalculated or didn't execute the burn properly, there was plenty of time to correct the mistake - - and in fact, they DID make many many many correction burns during these maneuvers - and a good amount of times, these correction burns were planned. Orbital mechanics is a very easy subject to master. It is intuitive once you understand what changes in velocity affect orbits in what way. Those involved had an extremely good handle on how to execute these burns to achieve rendezvous. It isn't anywhere near as complicated as you are implying. Of course, before it had been done, there was hesitation. There were doubts to how accurate this math really was. Once they demonstrated rendezvous was possible and the math worked perfectly, all hesitation was gone. They are dealing with ballistic trajectories - - which are incredibly predictable - and have fundamental physics laws that are well-understood which dictate precisely how a body will behave on a ballistic trajectory, and the equations are surprisingly simple. They literally only involve one force : gravity. That's it. You are absolutely without a doubt - entirely wrong when you assert that "the equation was the hardest to figure out". The reason we are able to predict the precise time a solar eclipse will occur years and years into the future (something we could do in 1969 as well) is because we have a very firm grasp on orbital mechanics. If we could predict with 100% confidence when a solar eclipse will happen in 5 years, then I'm sure we could predict when the Command Module will be at phase angle 'x' in 7 minutes, don't you think, genius? You don't know what you are talking about. Frankly, you are embarrassing yourself - - the best part is that you then attempt to insult me. Thanks for that bit of irony!!
You are confused. The notion that lunar orbit rendezvous wasn't thought of doesn't mean they didn't understand how orbital mechanics worked. It means...nobody thought of it. Originally, landing on the moon seemed impossible because the method they were thinking involved taking the entire launch vehicle all the way to the surface of the moon, and returning the entire thing back to Earth. They then thought of staging rockets - which allowed only the payload to travel to the moon, and then they thought of lunar orbit rendezvous so that only the lunar module had to land. And then they thought of making the lunar module a two-stage craft, so that only the ascent module lifted off from the moon and rendezvoused in orbit with the CM. These are logistical ideas. Once the idea of using lunar orbit rendezvous was thought of, they already knew how to perform the maneuvers. Again - that math has been around for two and a half centuries. They had already rendezvoused in Earth orbit several times as well. It would be like you needing to pick up two buddies on your way to a concert and buddy A lives 20 miles out of the way. At some point, buddy A comes up with the great idea to meet you along a straight route between you and buddy B, so you all save time. This is a logistical procedure that your buddy has thought of to save everyone time. Your argument here is similar to assuming that buddy A would have to also learn how to drive in order to make the plan work - - and it's nonsense. He only added a logistical change to the plan. The means by which that plan is executed are already known. He already knows how to drive. He just needs to drive to that point along your route and meet you there. Similarly, lunar orbit rendezvous was simply a logistical change to the procedure. They already knew how to perform the rendezvous itself. They had already demonstrated so on several occasions. The only difference between a lunar orbit rendezvous and an Earth orbit rendezvous is that you do not have to account for the very unpredictable drag on the moon, so rendezvousing in lunar orbit is a much simpler task.
You should probably stop believing everything you see in movies. More often than not, mundane tasks are greatly dramatized for entertainment value. I'm sure some woman came up with a great equation (she didn't really) and it was amazing (it wasn't really). I remember in the movie Apollo 13 where they were docking with the lunar module right after TLI and someone says, "If he can't dock this, we don't have a mission". I mean, yeah that's true, but that maneuver was extremely simple. You'd have to be deliberately trying to muck it up to muck it up. Later in the movie after the explosion and they are contemplating a direct abort or a free return trajectory also didn't happen. A free return was part of procedure. That contingency had already been thought of. There wouldn't have been a bunch of guys yelling at each other in a room. They would have been put on a free return as soon as possible(and they were). Incidentally, they had actually already been on a free return, but had just executed one of the many mid-course burns to take them off that trajectory. After the explosion, they were put back on that trajectory which is what was called for to begin with. The point is, movies make really big deals out of things that aren't really big deals - - - and they also just flat out make things up. So, I don't really care what you saw in a movie.....good lord.
Rip old lem
When did nasa used the Russian Lunar landed
Russian one has a small window
1963 it was a good year indeed, dying to know why? Because that's the year I was born, that's why! 😎
Yo where’s woody?
The moon would be a space exploration base in the future. And it's very adequate place for testing space elevator system. We can preserve the potential energe to explore the space with the space elevator system.
Space elevator would not work on the moon due to how slow it spins (about once per month, tidally locked to Earth). A space elevator works by suspending a "counterweight" at the end pulled upward by the centrifugal force of the planet's rotation.
Space elevator to the moon?? With what materials? Are you familiar with the concept that materials tend to collapse under their own weight?
The ideal materials are CNTs and BN, but in reality, it would be possible to use several strands of Kevlar wire and multiple satellites with pulleys.
@@hhhotyg
YOU SAID: "it would be possible to use several strands of Kevlar wire and multiple satellites with pulleys."
== No, Kevlar's maximum length before breaking under its own weight is about 160 miles. Multiple strands merely would mean they'd all break. You cannot strengthen them from breaking under their own weight by adding more of them. Adding more just adds to the weight, and you're back in the same boat.
== But, you clearly know more than the entire planet's engineers about the subject, which is why you've come to share your Nobel Prize winning knowledge on RUclips comments, right? So, whatever, believe whatever you want.
@@rockethead7 It is an incomplete concept, but wouldn't it be possible to disperse the tension by using the chandelier-shaped multi-stage reverse pyramid pulley structure?
Two of my children just went through K-12 and not in one semester either in Elementary, Middle or High School they learn about the United States Space Program’s history. Not the Mercury, Gemini or Apollo Programs nor the Astronauts that were apart of them. And not the Space Race. They’ve only learned about all of this because my wife and I taught them.
Do our School Systems today not want children to be proud of American Ingenuity and Exploration??
Why is 30+ years of American History being completely ignored by our K-12 School Systems??
@ 5:23: ``...which will gently lower the command module to earth. At this point, the astronauts` assholes will unpucker, and will function normally, once again.``
Almost pooped myself visualizing this sequence, trev98......
Lol, what a great cartoon. Thanks
The human brain was definitely made by God. No other explanation is possible.
Very cute.
.. a blend of manual and automatic systems... basically they managed to accomplish a millimetric docking at 100 miles over the moon at a speed of thousands of miles / hours.... manually!!!
😂😂😂
I do and it does look very kerbal
4:03 The exhaust 🤔 ?
Old video
>OK this is a highly dangerous mission
>Every ounce of weight must be calculated for fuel and trajectory
>AYYOO LEMME GET MY GOLF CLUBS
Hey this event happened exactly as it was reported, buddy.
Really Jacob
Where’s the lunar buggy in all of this?
hahahaha yeah right, just like that - *wham* we riding our golf cart on the Moon.
Piece of cake
tetekofa Except it wasn't just like that and no golf carts went to the moon.
hahahahahahaha gee they were good back in the 60's...now we cant even manage a re-entry
National, technical, financial and political will do not exist to repeat this. When and if they ever do come together again, we will likely do it again.
What do you mean? We do reentries all the time
where is the lunar dust o i see it has a hard surface 😉
5::22 WRONG!
And 10 years later the moon spiders eat all Apollo 18 crew :-D Americans and their fairy tails.... Santa Claus and all the Avengers and X-Men live there! :-D
looks like the planned to use manipulator for lender redocking.
funny
Hahahaha
Great work of fiction.
.. I think that would be your credibility instead
This film was produced before they had actually done it, so at that time it was a work of fiction.
A cartoon presentation....
chet allen None of the hardware existed at the time, nor did CGI so what's your point?
FOMA
This all looks dandy. Pity they never set man on the Moon.
Fifty years ago the United States put two men on the moon while a third waited in orbit... and then the US did it again several more times.
Today, we can't put a person in orbit without the help of the Russians.
Why is that?
One word: Democrats
Kennedy was a democrat. Nixon is the one who killed Apollo.
too bad it only remained a cartoon fantasy... actually sending a man to the moon was something they had to fake
Combustion in a vacuum...
Click my profile picture.
I DARE YOU.
Spacecraft bring along all the oxygen they need for combustion. The fuel and oxidizer are stored in two different storage tanks and are pumped into the engine, mixed and burned.