How NASA Took Cars to the Moon
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 май 2017
- REBOOT! The Museum of Flight in Seattle asked to include my old video on this in their new Apollo exhibit, and when I looked at it I decided it was too embarrassing. So I redid the video, and added onboard audio! And am happy with the outcome so decided to take the old one down and put this one up instead. Enjoy!
Want weekly Vintage Space ? Don't forget to subscribe! / @amyshirateitel
And more even older space in my book, BREAKING THE CHAINS OF GRAVITY! You can order your copy on Amazon: bit.ly/astbtcog
Or get a signed hardcover edition on my website! www.amyshirateitel.com/store.html - IT'S BACK ONLINE! :) (But orders are slow for the moment - waiting for books from my publisher!)
My blog archives has lots of awesome olde timey space, too (and I'm looking for a new home for it, too!): www.popsci.com/blog-network/vi...
I've also got a PATREON PAGE! Want to listen to a Vintage Space Podcast or get awesome merch like t-shirts? Please consider becoming a patron! I've set up a Patreon account so I can raise funds to buy the gear I'll need to make an awesome podcast and also work with professionals to make better content all around. Any help is so hugely appreciated. / amyshirateitel
Connect on Facebook: / amyshirateitel
Google+: plus.google.com/u/0/+AmyShira...
Instagram: / astvintagespace
Twitter: / astvintagespace 
Наука
![Latto - Sunday Service (feat. Megan Thee Stallion & Flo Milli) [Remix] (Official Video)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/9gL0F1xIt2I/mqdefault.jpg)
a new restaurant just opened on the moon the food is great but it doesn't have any atmosphere.
And there no drive though,lol
The 60s just called. They want their joke back.
ba-DUMP CHH!
I’m coming from Everyday Astronaut too....
You stole this joke from the everyday astronaut
Thank you for posting the distance in metric units in the video. It really makes the viewing experience a lot better by not having to try to calculate units while watching.
Soooo cool!
I love seeing this footage and appreciate the time you took to re-do what you felt was a flawed original production.
Love your vids! Keep up the wonderful work, Amy.edit: This really brightened up my June 1/ May 29 / May 32.
Ahh.. i wondered how they crammed those things on the lander. Much easier than trying to cram one on a KSP lander xD
I usually bring two rovers to keep my CoM happy but yeah, stock KSP could definitely do with a few foldable bits.
And a spirit level.
And an exterior radar altimeter.
And a docking indicator on the navball.
lyianx Yeah haha I was thinking about that.
lyianx show me one successful lunar test flight on earth video.
duckrutt I wonder why SQUAD can't just do this instead of the DLC? Is it money they want to earn from the DLC?
lunar test flight on earth? This is like asking to see test of submarines done on land.
I had never seen that footage before, thanks Amy and your cat too!
I saw it live on TV!! Of course that was a long time ago, before Fake News!!
I enjoy your posts! My best friend was highly involved in the shuttle era missions, and he and his astronaut friends have told me some wild stories! So please keep it up!
Cool video, learned something new today, thanks and keep up the great work!
Hey Amy, would you discuss the differences in the various types of life support systems among the vintage spacecraft, and the reasons that motivated those as a dedicated episode? I know you've touched on them for various videos, like the Apollo 1 disaster and Apollo 13, but I'd be interested in hearing a broader discussion.
That sound interesting!
Like Apollo vs Soyuz
Do the math yourself. Even a 5th grader can figure out how much volume it takes to support life in a bubble. Jeesh
No need for paved roads on the Moon, the dust settles 2x faster than on my dirt road here on good old EARTH.
That is scientifically impossible you are aware of that right??
@@mr.davidwoodard7809 why ?
@@lpb3731 He's comparing dust billowing in air, to dust thrown in a vacuum... where it drops like gravel.
I actually did not know this! great video! and it was awesome seeing you speak at ISDC 2017!!
I've always wondered this! Thanks Amy!
This begs the question, who's filming this 'footage'?
A camera on a stand, like this one: www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5907HR.jpg.
Tripod.
Bringing a rover is one of the few things which are harder to do in KSP than in the real life.
I haven't built a rover in ages. I don't know what it is with KSP and wheels but they never quite get along.
If only stock KSP had foldable parts.
mesoth mesoth Basically XD
Until that time, there's Infernal Robotics. I didn't have much success even with it, though, so I ended up sending a non-foldable one anyway.
I love you Amy for such awesome stories 💓💓
I've been wondering about this lately. Pretty cool.
What engineers were able to do in 70's is quite incredible. I once gave ride to friend, electrical engineer, who took his car to shop because he couldn't start it. He thought it was starter. Didn't cross his mind to jump the battery to try first. Yes, it was bad battery. Not to mention all those who can't replace spare when they get flat.
If he really was an electrical engineer he should be ashamed of himself, As an Electrical Engineer I am often asked to get the fleet started, From power palet trucks, Quad Bikes, cars, lorries, shunting engines, oh and the 300Mw Generators.
Well, I heard Bigfoot once on my shortwave radio! It made a sound that I would not want to hear twice in my life!!
@@kenlogsdon7095 shure you did buddy, Now put down your keyboard and get back to to your padded room. "Nurse the nutter has gotten out again!"
I'm in EE, as much as I love the field, almost all my peers are just not in touch of the actual engineering but it's easy enough to pass the course. (Ofc its hard but it's out of touch)@@dogwalker666
Amy, you are amazing. Your videos are fun and informative, well researched, and presented in a way that's accessible to everyone. I love your channel and I'm so glad I found it. Please keep making more videos!
Love this channel, best on RUclips!
Love your content thank you. Glad your around
Thank you for explaining something I've been wondering about for almost 50 years. The footage showing how the rover was stowed and deployed is invaluable.
You have wondered for almost 50 year without realizing you have been fooled?
Lol that was so fake
@@brantpickup9493Would you guys pick another topic to troll on? Like Israeli-Palestine conflict or legitimacy of Kosovo?
I'm so glad this channel exists. This astronomy-nerd has to be careful sometimes to not waste an entire afternoon geeking out, video after video after video...
This was the first time I've ever seen footage of the rover being deployed and it's completely fascinating.
Have to say I was also VERY amused by the Mr. Potato-Head in the background on the bookshelf (I will never grow up...).
Yep....Mr. Potato Head,,,, first thing that I noticed
That is not actually Mr Potato head, it is actually Professor Robert Winston, FMedSci, FRSA, FRCP, FRCOG, FREng. A very inspiring chap.
@shillslayer Wow, you're really slaying them with your... not very impressive comments.
@shillslayer What else is there to say? You're really not good at this.
@@carlh2001 You mean second thing after her! Ha Just me?
Great channel Any, always interesting to watch.
Greetings from the UK.
Fun and wonderful. Thank you Amy.
AHH This makes me so happy :) I already saw this video at the Museum of Flight :)
I've always wondered, what would have been the plan if a rover broke down while the astronauts were far away from the lander?
They'd walk back, obviously.
The plan was for them to walk back, so they never went *too* far from the LM.
Abi Gail walking but they'd probably have to hold their breath half way back...
I guess they would have no other choice than hopping back to the lander.
The navigation system on the rovers told the astronauts how far and in which direction the LM was.
Thank you, Amy, for mile to kilometer conversion.
Was wondering!!! Where do you get all these informations from??
The LM was a bunch of shower curtain rods and tin foil.
Drawing conclusions bases on nothing but external appetence is the pretty much the definition of superficial.
steve white
But it was *gold* tin foil, that gave it a more glamorous touch
well duhhh. those astrobois had to take showers, and use tin foil hats to protect them from the gammar radiations and such. i learnd that from xmen magneto, b/c he had to wear a metal hat too.
I need some gold foil to make a hat out of..
steve white and you're a looney tune...
Thanks. I always assumed the box it came in was printed with "Some assembly required - batteries included" but now I know the whole story.
Very interesting video Amy 👍🏻 keep up the good work?
the very last clip of the LM taking off, is that at normal speed or is the footage sped up?
Rover was made of Lego so Astro-Nuts could have fun while on Moon.
I always wondered where they rover was stored. Thanks for sharing!
Thank you this video answered so many questions for me!!
All except one.... how did they get the camera footage from the rover of them taking off into space??
Easy. After the shot was done, a camera operator walked over to the camera and unloaded the film from it.
The only videos where Amy tells us what we wanted to know. Love you Amy. You are smart and clever.
(Amy) "Send me to the moon..."
You wanting lies
GM and Boeing sure did a great job on the rover. :)
With the time delay to the moon how did they pan the camera up so perfectly?
They had tried it on Apollo 16 and didn't do so well because of the delay. On Apollo 17 they parked the rover further away to make framing the LM easier. They also had figured out the delay time better and the guy in mission control (Ed Fendell) had practiced it so he got it right he second time.
Joe Vignolo ....f....ing genius. In addition to perfect sound quality, a brand new method of transmission, never been tested, full colour live TV broadcast from a CRT based system, on miniature TV cameras the Japanese failed to invent, all sent 240,000 miles from a low wattage ( less than 20w) battery powered, and not even a crackle in the picture or sound, despite traversing through a radiation field. GTFOOH.
Where did you get the footage from? Is it all publicly available somewhere?
Amy your always right on target with your info, I love it, and some of the feedback comments just crack me up. I love your work and love seeing you on TV as well as you tube, I remember back in college before my third degree asking my professor how the rovers were transported to the moon, and he showed me on a scale model but I enjoy your video better, keep it up, and I wish you all the best. super fan Gordon.
1. She is absolutely beautiful. 2. That buggy costs (according to NASA 62 million dollars) I was born AT night, not LAST night. That thing was not 62 million dollars.
Nice a another video from Amy with a fascinating folding lunar rover :-)
willys jeep was lunar rover :-)
This is really cool thanks
how far away from the lunar module descent stage did they drive ?
would they have enough oxygen to walk that distance back in case the rover failed ?
Thanks! I remember watching this on B&W TV when we were kids
Amazing. Myself wanted to watching these extraordinary missions live at the time. But, only born in 1993.
did you spot the Coke bottle bottom RH of the screen before they deleted it - i did :-)
This footage was also my first memory of Apollo. Our B&W set had a bunch of cardboard wedged into the channel knob to keep the image from fuzzing over...
James Gibson Good one. Typical 1970s TV standard.
How did the cameras turn up by them selves to video the module leaving the moon
@Trebor Do you really believe that? 400.000 km away in 1969?
yer, what time did the luna buggy do the quarter mile in??
Amy you are bloody brilliant.! 😊
+Vintage Space How did the life support packs work? When would they run out of oxygen to breathe and how far could they safely go on the rover? In general my biggest curiosity are the moments where they had to go back to the LEM and what that process of changing in and out of those huge suits was like in such a small, confined space. I'm also interested in cabin pressurization and how long it took for the LEM to re-pressurize? Apologies in advance if these topics have already been covered, I will certainly look. Thanks!
Any astronauts will tell you that getting in and out if the suit in space is a pain in the ass, and that it usually takes the help of a buddy.
Evan J Hollywood so it just Hollywood. They didn't have remote cameras back then
Rocky Oneal - they had remote (radio) controlled missiles by the end of world war two (e.g. the Henschel Hs 293) so why wouldn't they have remote controlled cameras in 1971?
Agree on these questions. I have always been interested in the repressurization of the LM. I think I remember seeing it took 90 seconds to depressurize. It just seems like such a critical part of the mission. If they couldn't get the cabin to pressurize, they'd have a real problem.
Rich Daley - their suits had valves and external connectors. So they could connect them with LEM directly. Normaly they still have to do it between EVAs to resuply tanks in suits.
I thought IKEA packed them for NASA.
No way, they could never read the "pidgin language" instructions to put it together! LOL.
How was the camera on the luna rover controlled and by whom so that it could follow the lunar lander taking off?
David B There is quite a good answer to your question a few comments earlier. Scroll up.
I'd love to see a video on the design process for the rover. Like did they consider using threads or a walker of some kind. Keep up the awesome work!
“Moon Machines” goes into some of that.
Outstanding. Q. Are they still serviceable (with a new battery) if there was a return mission to the area(s)?
No. By now even the tough old-style electronics are toast. The metal of the frame would be embrittled by decades of lunar heat and cold.. and the motor windings are probably in a million pieces from it.
It's not "intelligence". He's smart enough. It's a kind of insanity. Maybe it's an extreme desire to rebel against the status quo. In moderation, this is an important in-bred desire.
No, the batteries used where one time only batteries (like Alkaline batteries)
A one-time battery (opposed to a rechargeable) is called a "primary" battery. I don't think it's the best term, but that's the convention.
Would stand to reason though, that all other components being serviceable that perhaps new batteries could be installed?
I believe it wasn't until Apollo 17 that they got the camera to correctly track the ascent stage after take-off and it was done manually from Earth.
Anders Welander - I assumed it was motion tracking automation. That clip is maybe 2 seconds? Isn’t there a transmission delay due to the distance like those observed from ISS broadcasts? How is this different? Honest question, thanks.
butchtropic - Thanks!
@@chucknoob7041 Not sure if it would have been possible to develop a tracking mechanism. At any rate they didn't. A guy in mission control sent commands to track the ascent seconds before it happened. They failed the first attempts and only got it down for this last mission.
Hi Anders, hope that you are well. You referred to the filming of the assent stage of Apollo 17. This camera was controlled by Ed Fendell in the Huston control centre. This as you can imagine was a difficult task, In addition to the 1.3 second time delay each way he had to deal with a motor reaction time of just over 1 second. This meant that he had to anticipate some 4 seconds into the future. The filming of the Apollo 15 and 16 LM assents didn't go exactly as planned for various reasons but third time lucky Ed got it wonderfully spot on for the Apollo 17 LM assent from lunar surface. More details about and plans of this camera system are available online. Take care.
Just wanted you to know that I love and appreciate your videos. I love your knowledge and research into very informative topics. I hope you can continue your channels well into the future. Despite the hoax trolls!
I had the Dinky toy lunar rover...loved it.
Umm... Apollo 15 had automated motion detecting camera tech? Or did someone just stay on the moon and film them leaving?
Help me out here?
It's all bullshit. We can't even leave earth's atmosphere. Never could
@@rickperkins shut up for god's sake, we landed on the moon,we went to space and go until this very day, earth is a blue globe and we can go to space and go every month, next question
they had a camera tha looked up on the moon, im pretty sure they had that camera in every apollo mission that landed on the moon not just 15, but 15 was the only one that had a good result
The Apollo missions had cameras that were remotely operated from Mission Control.
The operators had to anticipate where to steer the camera due to the 1.28 second time lag between the Earth and the Moon.
But one managed to track the take-off of an ascent stage.
Denialists, get over the fact that some people can do things beyond your comprehension.
@@OnASeasideMission satslight dush wifi 🤣🤣🤣🤣 wake up
Funny this was never mentioned until they started asking the question. I still worry about the 500F temperature difference between sun and shade among other things. Like full force solar wind on your electrics and fuel.
Which is why the Lunar Module was wrapped in thermal insulation.
While it is correct to state that the moon's surface experiences a wide temperature range over the course of a lunar day (in the range 140K to 400K) However these temperatures were never encountered during any of the Apollo missions. All the Apollo landings were planned to occur at lunar dawn, when the lunar temperature is somewhere in the middle of the range. For example, during the Apollo 11 mission, the measured temperature range was between -23°C to 7°C (250K to 280K). Take care.
Hi Amy... Great job with this Channel ! I just came across it a few days ago and now I'm hooked. :)
Have you ever done a video on the whole mystery of Gus Grissom's faulty hatch that caused Liberty Bell 7 to sink during recovery? I know the capsule was recovered a few years ago and I was wondering if that has given any answers? Thanks!
Amy. How did the astronauts get back to the LM after taking a long drive away from it? After it was out of sight and below the horizon, I mean. Obviously they could follow their tracks back to the LM, but did they have a map and/or other means of navigation? Known landmarks; boulders, craters, etc?
Bringing a rover to a film studio. Ain’t nothing complicated in that! 😉
Was actually on the Moon, please grow up.
If the rover broke down while the astronauts were far away from the lander, they would simply board the set cart and be driven back across the studio to the make up and cast crew dining area.
Lol
It was all faked. This chick is paid propaganda
are they able to be turned back on and used if we ever go back to the moon?
@ Vintage Space: Love your vids! What was typically carried in those four storage compartments in the base of the LEM? I work as an engineer for a military contractor. There is rarely empty space designed into a craft unless there is an intention to use that space for some future iteration. How early in the design cycle of the LEM was the decision made to send a lunar rover (and thus ensure there would be space inside to store it in transit)?
Wiki's page on "lunar roving vehicle" will give you quite a bit of insight into the timeline.
There were basically two versions of the lunar module (I mean, two versions that were ever meant to land anyway). I can't link here, because she turned that off for her videos, but look for "lunar module familiarization manual" and you'll find all of the changes they made between the lunar modules for Apollo 11, 12, 13, 14, vs. the ones they made for Apollo 15, 16, 17, plus some high level schematics. (The manual says LM 10-14, which is 5 LMs, but they only ever built 3 of them, because at that point that they made the manual, they were going to have an Apollo 18 and 19, but those got canceled, just like Apollos 20+ had already been canceled before.) All prior LMs to Apollo 11 were different from each other. For example, though they looked alike, and were quite similar, Apollo 11's LM and Apollo 10's LM were different. Apollo 10's LM was still too heavy to land, and they were still working on trimming it down for Apollo 11. But, a funny story there, Apollo 10's LM actually probably could land, just wouldn't have had the margin of error they wanted, so Cernan joked (but semi-seriously) that they didn't put enough fuel in Apollo 10's LM to land, because they feared that Stafford and he would decide to actually land the thing, rather than test the abort system.
LM5 was Apollo 11, LM6 was 12, LM7 was 13, LM8 was 14. LM9 was originally going to be Apollo 15. But, because congress cut the budget, NASA cut out one of the missions that wasn't supposed to have extended stays and a rover, and went straight into the J missions for Apollo 15. The first rover mission was originally going to be Apollo 16, but became Apollo 15 because of the budget cut. Now LM9 sits in a museum, almost complete, but never flown due to the schedule change.
Anyway, LM5 through LM9 (Apollo 11 through the originally intended Apollo 15) couldn't put a rover in there. The space was occupied by other stuff. And, there are lots of schematics you'll find simply by Googling them. LM10-12 (originally planned LM10-14), which were used for Apollo 15/16/17 (originally including 18/19), were designed with a completely open compartment in quadrant 1, before they even knew it would be a rover that they'd be putting inside it. Yes, you wouldn't normally see wasted space like that. But, when they began designing LM10+, Grumman was instructed by NASA that they would want to put something in there, but it hadn't been decided what it would be. So, designing and building the LMs was underway, keeping quadrant 1 open. And, in the timeline you'll find on the lunar rover article, you'll see that in 1969, they contracted GM and Boeing to build lunar rovers, and Grumman (already underway in designing/building the LMs) now knew for sure what would be put into that quadrant, and could enhance the details of the design accordingly. (But, note, they pretty much anticipated that it would be a rover by that point in time... that's what had been talked about for some time, but, it didn't get solidified until 1969).
Side note: the rover didn't actually fit all the way into the quadrant, and the fenders and rover bottom actually stuck out a fair amount. More images can be found by Googling, and/or in the image library of the Apollo 15 portion of the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal website.
Note: I didn't mention it, but, Grumman actually DID begin building LMs for Apollo 18, 19, and 20. But, the ones for Apollo 19 and 20 were barely begun, and were scrapped. The one for Apollo 18 was on its way to being completed, and was complete enough to start to look like a LM, so it wasn't scrapped. Instead, eventually, the partially completed LM was made into a museum piece, and the visible missing components were added (cosmetic equivalents, not actually flight worthy), so it would look pretty close to one that would actually fly.
Your original question about what was in those other compartments can be found in the familiarization manual I gave you, and the other materials you can Google about the schematics.
It looks like the astronauts are delivering a baby when they unfold the buggy
I *DID NOT KNOW* the last rover missions drove *THAT FAR* total distance.
It's also amusing that they covered that in 3 days. Compare that to the Lunokhod rovers that covered 39km in a little less than 5 months or the Opportunity rover that took 10 years.
Peter Merchant → If the Apollo astronauts had taken THAT LONG, their oxygen would probably have run out...《grin》
The difference between manned and unmanned driving is the difference between turning the wheel and being able to dodge a bump in a fraction of a second, versus having to wait a couple of seconds, or even minutes, for the round-trip response time.
Im pretty sure the reason that the Lunokhod and MER's took so long to do it is that they were driving along slowly so that ground controllers could deal with obstacles, and that they were stopping to look at things. The Apollo rovers on the other hand were being driven by astronauts which could react in real time to obstacles, and had a pretty good idea where they wanted to go. So they weren't stopping a whole lot.
Yupp, especially with the mars rovers you cant control them directly because the signal takes minutes to run - so they have to wait for images from the rover, then they simulate and plan the desired path here on earth to make sure the rover does not get stuck etc - then they transmit the program, then the rover moves a few metres or even only centimeters, then the whole process starts again. the same goes for drilling rocks, collecting samples etc. - i guess a manned mission can make months of rovers work in a few hours.
but maybe this will get better with advances in AI in the coming decades.
I would love to know what type of cooling system did they have in their packs for the excess heat that was generated or the excess cold that was generated on the moon at specific intervals.
are the Mechanics do this and how does it work OK if it works as a cooling system how does it work as a heating system in extreme cold
Don, what exact "extreme cold" are you talking about? Cold WHAT? What exact "cold" are you thinking was going to affect anything?
Trebor ....where was the water coming from ? Also don't see any vents on those backpacks for the "steam" to evaporate.
What kind of video cameras were used on the surface?
They were basically simple black and white TV cameras of various designs that used a transparent spinning tri-color wheel to sequentially break the image up into the three primary colors. Back on earth a similar color wheel was spun in front of a B&W picture tube to add the colors back in. The wheel on earth had to be spinning in perfect synchronization with the one in the camera on the moon in order to reproduce the colors correctly. Here is a pretty good article on the subject: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_TV_camera
Please make videos on the Vehicle Assembly Building and the Crawlers
Yes! That would be awesome.
You said the last rover had the record of 35km. What was the max speed of these rovers?
13 km/h
I believe Gene Cernan got it up to 11 mph on a slight down hill, test pilots always has to push things to the limit :-)
I don't think the solar wind really counts....
love your channel and info.
What they have WiFi for the cams. If I recall back then u had to take the roll of film out of the cam. ???
They had 16mm film cameras, and they had TV cameras that streamed video back to Earth.
Half of youtube thinks we never got to the moon. I am glad there are normal people giving out good information.
Doc Zoidberg after listening to some convincing reasoning, it’s obvious manned spacecraft have never left low earth orbit. But the narrative was set in ‘69, and the astronauts had to play the game. Consider that the U.S. was still trying to develop a supersonic airliner to compete with the Concord at this same time, with limited success. And we’re meant to believe they built a rocket that could go 238,900 miles, through deadly Van Allen belts, negotiate the moon landing, and come back, complete with a tv signal? Von Braun even wrote in the late 50’s the rocket would need to be 10x what the Apollo rocket ended up being. But the idea is often just more romantic than reality.
@@SpottedSharks Be gentile, after all morons don't know they are.
No youre not. You fear good information because it conflicts with your mind control programming
Doc Zoidberg lol irony much
@@Emcfree2084 nasa is fake space
One of the funniest moon landing denial reason I heard was that the lander 'clearly' lacked any form of 'garage', ramps &/or a crane that allowed them to transport & unload a 'large & heavy' vehicle.
Lmao
I would *LOVE* to see the *THREE ROVERS* still parked on the MOON!! Unfortunately they are *NOT* on the moon because *NO HUMAN* has stepped foot there🤔
@@tumarbongrox6074 Wiki "third party evidence of Apollo" and see all three.
Looks for the tracks marks..... and seek the trail of this expensive movie.
@@carloslarard When you don't see tracks, the astronauts have been scuffling around the LRV collecting gear, etc.- you can watch footage and see it obliterating the tire tracks.
I love your channel so much. Can u do a video showing historical inaccuracies in the Apollo 13 movie.
Were you going to do an episode on the Modular Equipment Transporter from Apollo 14?
3:20 just looks ridiculous
Yup, it does look ridiculous. But, just checking here, you do know she greatly sped up the clip, right? The actual ascent was about the same acceleration as an elevator in a skyscraper.
@@rockethead7 did she speed it up or did the overlords give her that speed with all the blurriness so that it's harder to point out the fakery?
At 1:40 they couldn't manage to make the cord fall at 1/6 Earth's gravity. Yet the Astronauts bounce around at 1/6 Earth's gravity, almost like they are on a tether.
Jacques E.T. ....well noticed. Another point to shout " Fake " at all the gullible folk lapping it up.
this footage is sped up
How where they able to get the films back?
They took the FILMS back by carrying them with them into the lunar module. They got the TV VIDEOS back using dishes like this one:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkes_Observatory#/media/File:Parkes_Radio_Telescope_09.jpg
I wish you had mentioned something about the propulsion system on them - how much power the electric motors consumed, what was the type of battery used. Was it recharged? Did it have a brake?
Why in the he'll didn't Buzz take a picture of Neil?? Give me a break o
1) He DID take pictures of Armstrong.
2) There are fewer pictures of Armstrong than Aldrin because Armstrong had the camera more of the time than Aldrin had it. They only brought one Hasselblad to the surface (the other one was for use inside the module), and Armstrong and Aldrin alternated using it... but Armstrong had it far more than Aldrin did.
@@rockethead7 Where you there dude with them? You seem to be a know it all.
@@phlhoran12396
It would have been great to be there with them. But, alas, I was far too young during the moon missions.
What, not a single word about General Motors' substantial involvement in the rover development? As I understand it, the rover wasn't even NASA's idea. GM thought it up and NASA said if they could somehow fit the rover into a tiny storage compartment, they'd fly it. GM was determined that the first 'car' on the moon was going to be a GM product. It was serious bragging rights, just like Plantronics has RECENTLY done with their headsets being used the moon... Maybe we need episodes on rover development, and and on Ed Fendel and the remote control of the rover camera.
willys jeep was lunar rover
Mike Cowen GM had a basic design in the works long before NASA put RFQs out, and Boeing worked with them to put those three machines on the Moon.
@butchtropic If GM can put a car on the moon why can't they fit a spare car in the boot/trunk so we don't have to muck around changing tires and can just keep on driving?
@shillslayer Wow, you're really slaying them with your... not very impressive comments.
@shillslayer And shillslayer is about to raise his game, just as soon as he thinks of something clever. Keep waiting, people, because he WILL get there. Eventually. Maybe.
I really like your channel. I've subscribe some time ago, but didn't watch all your video. I saw Apollo 11 this weekend, and realized, that even as a space nerd, I had no clue how they did this. I assumed I knew, butWhen thinking about it was like... No I don't. Search youtube there you are with this awesome video that already in the channel I subscribe too all along.
Something I did not know. Thank you.
Why did they bring new rovers in new missions when the others where still there? I assume because of the different landing sites which were too far apart to get the abandoned one?
butchtropic thanks! 🙂
You got it.
Well..."not very expensive" by Apollo standards. But they also jettisoned 3 Saturn stages, a service module, an LEM and made it back with a shot capusle, so it's all relative. Compared to the cost of the rest of the mission, peanuts. Compared to, say, a regular car or a normal person's yearly income: expensive. However even without all that it was cheaper than redesigning the whole LEM to be able to take off again carrying it, and obviously landing always in one place was worthless.
@@justforever96 Many of us paying USA taxes then were happy to pay the bills for NASA, not like today with so much wasted on such things as foreign aid, UN, Nato, welfare, food stamps, need I continue?
Those rover that cost each 60 million dollars, Yeah the price of 12 haul trucks. The go karts that the astronauts took to the moon are very well known for not leaving tire tracks, for the ridiculous price tag, and for creating rooster tails on the moon surface comparable to other Sand cars we see on earth. How they took it to the moon? very simple , they didn't. however, they had to include this go kart as part of the moon stuff to get as much money as possible from YOU. We are talking about a go kart with fewer parts than a jeep that cost 60 million dollars. Do you guys have any idea how much money contractors and people making the deals with those contractors pocketed during the Apollo program. It was a cash cow.
Not just that. They needed this shit to make it interesting and iconic. You couldn't JUST go land on the moon, nah, too boring. The propaganda needed to be bigger, golf and go-carts for the TV helped achieve that. Think how fucking retarded it would have been to carry extra weight on a dangerous and highly unpredictable mission, and they're bringing this fucking thing, for what? To gather some rocks which they could have done without a vehicle? Fuck that. Anyone who thinks this shit happened needs to go watch the press conference with the 3 astronauts and observe their body language and overall demeanor. I am not one to buy into conspiracy theories, but this one has credence.
thanks for the info! so that's how the lunar rover fit into the craft... it's like part-Transformers and part-Lego 😸
Fantastic video, as usual! How did they account for the extra weight during launch?
Alvious The rocket was designed for it to begin with. Also it had extra room to spare in the design. There may have been some really nitty gritty program settings that had to be changed for the flight computer but that is it.
Mike, actually, the Saturn V had been so altered for the J missions that a lot of the engineers were really worried that it might be a problem, since they never tested the modified Saturn V. The F1s were boosted up in power. The landers were modified with bigger engine bells. The landing trajectories of the last 3 missions were greatly altered to be more aggressive to save on fuel (at the price of some of the safety). The list goes on. But, they pulled it off. I mean, ok, the engine bell on Apollo 15's descent stage has a massive crack in it because it slammed into the moon so hard that you can basically almost say it crash landed. But, I don't think that was because of the extra weight. Anyway... I ramble.
90 million dollars on 3 buggies ,my somebody was partying hard :)
All fake tax free donation to feed you bs. And buy homes cars. Ect
They only needed to build one, after their done filming at set they store it until it is needed for the next landing. They had 60 million to party with : )
boy that is really interestin, could you tell us how they comunicated with the little green men on the moon. oh wait that is BS also
How far did the travel out from the lander? Was there a backup plan in case the rover failed a considerable distance from the lander?
The greatest straight-line distance from the LM achieved in any Rover trip was 5 km (3.1 miles). In the unlikely event of total failure of the rover walking back to the LM would have been the backup.
good one with the camera allowed to watch. Good one. so convenient again. LOL
The idea that this stuff can be called "vintage" makes me feel old. Really old.
bridgecross it happend 50 years ago
@@jony7610 I was 23 and just home from two years in the US Army, it was a double bonus time for me!!!
The concept model was designed with a 1/6 GI Joe astronaut figure as its driver and the full size version had 4 wheel drive/steering. The first rover's front wheels wouldn't turn and another was involved in the first extra terrestrial accident when it knocked a fender loose by hitting a rock. The design was dictated by the storage compartment shape and was why it folded into a pyramid like shape of the 5x5x5 compartment. The strangest feature was that it used a form of wax as a heat sink for the batteries and doors could be opened to let the wax cool between trips.
Very nice and educational video. 😊
How were they powered?
Who panned & zoomed the camera up on that car? That's right NASA did from earth perfectly on the first try.
"Who panned & zoomed the camera up on that car? That's right NASA did from earth perfectly on the first try." - If they did it "perfectly on the first try" why is it that the LM accent stage lift off video that always gets used is from Apollo 17 rather than from Apollos 15 or 16? Alternatively it might be the case that the issues associated with videoing the LM accent stage take off where such that they only got it right on the third attempt, leaving the Apollo 17 footage as the only example that effectively illustrates the lift off and so the footage that always gets used.
Random415510 you just got schooled dumbfuxk
I never realized that it was the Lunar Rover camera's that allowed us to see the take off of the Lunar Lander.
it was a tricky bit of camera work for the guy in mission control, due to time delay, 1.5 seconds I think. So he had to basically start the process, steadily tracking the camera upward, a second before the actual event was to take place on the moon. Cool huh?
Ron Schlorff
Hahaha.....let's hope he buys that
@@pleasepermitmetospeakohgre1504 WHO CARES!
@@ronschlorff7089 BULLSHIT!!! What type of signal did he use for the remote control that could travel 237k miles with 1.5 sec delay?
@@wullymc1 can't change History, son! Accept it, you'll sleep better!! He did the delay. He started early knowing the signal would take a second plus to get there, You know, like you lead a duck with your shotgun, you (doubt it) shoot in front of his flight path so the shot gets there when he does, and you blow his downy little ass out of the sky!!
That Was Freakin' Cool !!!
How likely would it be for the rovers left behind to still work if we got on the moon again?