Watch Apollo 11's Moon Landing in Amazing Simulation
Vložit
- čas přidán 6. 09. 2024
- Analytical Graphics has created a simulation of the Apollo 11 Lunar Module "Eagle" landing on the moon. -- Relive the Apollo 11 Moon Landing in Realtime: www.space.com/...
Credit: Analytical Graphics / mash mix: Space.com
What a difference 50 years makes in computer graphics. Especially important to me, since a computer drew pictures I needed for my Ph.D. thesis, 48 years ago.
And needed 50 years for the program to run with the hardware specs at that time.
Dr. Laird Whitehill's Fun with Astronomy Channel We never went to the moon and here is all the proof you will ever need:
czcams.com/video/l-KI-2e0_NQ/video.html
@@akakakakakak3084 It took 8 hours to simulate a 15 minute landing during development of the Apollo computer programs.
How about a takeoff from the moon simulation?
I am excited to see it.
i want to take a look too. How can the moon lander took off and go home
@@hoanghuydinhduc4306
Exactly that point with 1/6th of earth's gravitational. pull!
@@dharmashekhar1047 no like with how much fuel compare to the earth to moon trip and how they calculate the precise moment to take off to match the designated trajectory. That would be even more amazing than how they land on moon.
@@hoanghuydinhduc4306 100% agree. I don't question the math (I'm an engineer), but rather executing the maneuvers. The precision required would be extreme. Of course, with 1960s technology this was completely manual. Just 1 degree off on the trajectory, or a second or two off on the timing, and it's all over. And they pulled this off how many times? It's pretty comical how you get strange looks (especially here in the US) when you question the official story. It's more patriotic to have faith, apparently.
It is so heartwarming to find other like-minded people on the internet who rely on facts and deduce reason from logic. Not only did we not go to the moon, we never left Europe, and there's no such thing as a New World. Why is this so hard to understand?
And Me! I never left my parents basement!
The moon? Bull Shit we landed on Venus in 1960! It's proven I just saw the movie.
@@rcdogmanduh4440 First Spaceship on Venus. A Classic!!
@@rcdogmanduh4440 1978. Venera probe.
Loon Landing LMBO 😀😀😀😀
What a GREAT simulation. Thanks for the trailer/tracer to further help visualize the path.
How did the cameraman filming the panning departure shot of the lunar module blasting off the moons surface get back to Earth? Are they still up there? Did the Russians come by and pick them up in their spacecraft, so we can have the footage of the lunar module leaving the moon surface? Can we maybe send a Uber for the two cameramen, surely they must be hungry by now! 😌
@@flipflat4814 Hello, "Houston". I assume 2 things from your remarks. 1. You're talking of Apollo 17's lunar launch and 2. You believe the Moon stuff was faked. Why was it faked 6 times but then also had a near disaster in the middle (Apollo 13) and 3 charred bodies (Apollo 1) at the start? Listen to the real Apollo 17 lunar launch. You will hear the astronauts grow concerned when they think communications are lost (and you and I would be too 240,000 mikes away) but then relieved when reconnected. And that shot was not by two stranded camera men. You've heard of auto camera lock and wireless transmission I'm figuring. The camera and phone and computer we use today all have much owed to the tech developed in the 60s and 70s. Trust me, it was not all Jobs and Gates and folks who self promote that came up with tech.
@@flipflat4814 It was a camera that was moved from earth with a delay of 6 seconds. During the takeoff when the LM was out of reach the camara moved to take some pictures of the surface until it was shut down. It was left there and is still on the surface.
@@kempielaptop6598 😨😂😂😂
@@kempielaptop6598 you guys have answers to every question regarding the moon landing,
There is so much wrong with this,...first the command capsule was at the very front of the rocket so at the beginning the lunar lander had to be on the left or behind it. Second how did 2 astronaunts get seperated into the lunar lander when they all left earth in the command capsule(there was no transfer port), the fuel and rocket of the lunar lander were left behind so what propelled the lunar lander capsule back into orbit to dock w the command capsule
Aster getting into earth orbit, the command module separated from the booster, rotated 180°, and re docked to the lunar module. There WAS an access tunnel between the two craft with hatches on both.
The ascent module had its own rocket engine and fuel supply, and used the descent module as a launch pad.
Excellent landing by Neil Armstrong after the LEM overshot the original landing site because of rocky terrain. Fantastic achievement. 🙌👍🌒✌💞
You can never make a smoorh 90 degree landing from such a low orbit. As you slow down you will get lower. You'll hit that surface at a 45 degree angle. Even if you turn the LEM perpendicular to the moon surface you'll still have a considrable horizontal velocity. Those horizontal firecrackers are not going to do much. Even when a stripped down version of the LEM was vertically released on earth they couldn'r land this thing with one vertical engine and a few horizontal firecrackers. Anyway were these rocket engines testzd in vacuum conditions?
Falcon series rockets land on earth frequently and do it on one main booster with smaller thrusters, high horizontal velocity.
Exactly.....the vacuum destroys everything...
@@erictobias7 what do you mean?
@@johntu1967 i was refering to the main comment that initially started this thread.if space is a vacuum how could anything work correctly or at all?they cant replicate the vaccum of space on earth much less test the equipment ...
@@erictobias7 Well, there is no perfect vacuum even in space, but you certainly can replicate it on earth.
बहुत ही सुंदर तरीके से आप ने दिखाया है very nice video Hamen Garv hai ki Ham India mein rahte hain
Sarm me India me rhne ka yha grib mr rha hai aur tujhe chad pr Jane ki pdi hai kisan mr rhe hai .....bhari sankat k bavjud
Chand per Jana Apne bharatvarsh ki Garv Ki Baat Hai aur kisanon ki samasya alag Baat Hai Main Bhi Ek Kisan ki Bahu
looks good except for the last bit. There was no blast crater
there would not be a blast crater
Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong reported very little sign of disturbance on the lunar surface beneath the LM, aside from dust having been blown away and some fairlyinsignificant singe marks.
I'm sorry you are so ignorant. There's just 150mm of lunar dust, only. Do you see Elon Musk's gigantic ships landing on earth (with six times more gravity!) gouging out a "blast crater"? No, of course not. Blast craters are what you get when you explode bombs buried below the surface, and NOT when you land spacecraft. Get your facts right.
And perfect footprints in dust with no moisture
fixit We never went to the moon and here is all the proof you will ever need:
czcams.com/video/l-KI-2e0_NQ/video.html
I can’t call my mum in the country side cause of bad signal, but these guys can call eachother from different planets.
Decent
You do know that your phone doesn't connect to a satellite, right? Cell towers have limited range.
Monkeyboysdontknow if we can communicate out of space then surely we have the technology for communication on the earth properly
@Ollie You don't have the huge Deep Space Network dish antennae like the ones in California, Spain and Australia connected to your phone.
@@ollie7811 how about this... is your wifi at home same distance as the Cell tower of your phone... is your AM radio broadcast the same as your FM... Is your CB radio same distance,,, as those above.,, the worst thing is your bad cell communication could be your company poor coverage... and not able to roam on another carrier?
I can't fly my RC airplane across the Atlantic ocean, and yet Boeing 747s do it everyday.
Apples and oranges
how ascended and joined with capsule and returned back to earth. show this.
Exactly. Watching this simulated descent, it seems far fetched that it could be done with 1960s technology. A take off and rendezvous would require extreme precision and timing, so as to not be miles off course with the orbiter. Just 1 degree day off and it's all over. All manual controls. They did it how many times without failure? Speaking as an engineer, it is so far fetched. I don't question the math, but rather the execution. There was extreme political pressure, recall. I'm surprised they released this simulation.
Cannot, because it will show explosion during the impact.
Ascent is also quite funny with no radar stations on the moon to verify the orbiting CMSs period and ignition time for the LEM.
@@suekennedy8917 No needed, all manual operations, that why they needed 3 astronauts. However, the astronauts assumed it was very easy to join the capsule.
@@foobarmaximus3506 better than you didn't faked
The reason this music is pleasing to your ear is the same reason both apollo and shuttle beeped!
Be thankful!
Which software is used here for simulating the landing?
So how did that landing craft take off and join back on to th main capsule !!!
it had two stages, the first one was used to land, once they wanted to come back to the capsule above them, the 2nd stage (that they occupied) seperated from the first one , it had its own engine and fuel, just enough to come back to the capsule
The lunar module consisted of an ascent stage on top of a descent stage. Both stages had a rocket engine. The descent stage engine was used for the descent, and the ascent stage engine was used for the ascent. The crew cabin was the main part of the ascent stage.
So this is the simulation of the 1969 simulation 🧐 ??
STFU you ignorant moron
Mitch Batten I’m 85% it didn’t happen... the only part I think may have been a bit hard to fake is the footage from when they are actually landing rather than that from when they have landed on...
@@mrorangepeel659 STFU you ignorant MAGA moron
@Mitch Batten we did had that rocket. The rocket of Empire state building
Excelente simulación, los felicito
త్వరలోనే మరో ప్రయత్నంలోనే అపూర్వ ఫలితాలను పొందుతారు అనే పూర్తి విశ్వాసం నాకుంది. జయహో ఇస్రో! జయహో భారత్!
So the lander has 2 engines one to land and one to blast off? when they blasted from the moon they left the main engine behind and only half of the lander took off. How ridiculous to think that the lander has one engine on top of another. Honestly the Lander is made with gray paper, cardboard, PVC pipe and missing screws, I bet a 20 mile wind would completely destroy the lander.
> How ridiculous to think that the lander has one engine on top of another.
I mean... that's literally how multi-stage rockets work.
Stupid animation from the beginning...It never happend on the moon
@@maozedung7270 you are blind? Mentally handicapped?. Get a cheap telescope and look at the power part of the landers they left on the moon
And the engine balances it? I thought balancing rockets were invented by Elon only a few years ago?
@@blainekavanagh2696 it’s on the moon with no atmosphere and much less gravity…
excellent
At 0:23 Earth comes over the horizon. Was that in fact the alignment of Columbia and Eagle at that point. First com comes in to Mike Collins -- "everything went swimmingly -- I've always understood Eagle to have dropped down as it takes several more seconds before we hear the scratchy first signals from Eagle.... Picking nits, I know. Otherwise, an excellent video.
An interesting question! The best sort of nits!
Good question! And no it wasn't. The command module and lunar module separated about two hours before the lunar module began its descent. In that time, the lunar module fired its engine to enter a different orbit with a low point only 9 miles above the Moon, while the command module stayed in a 60 mile circular orbit.
Because the spacecraft needed line of sight with the Earth in order to talk to Mission Control, yes, the Earth was visible during the descent. But when the descent began the two spacecraft were dozens of miles apart. The descent began about 15 minutes after the lunar module regained contact with Earth, and by the time the lunar module landed the Earth was high in the sky.
There are a couple of photos taken from the surface of the Moon at the foot of the lunar module looking up, showing the Earth. They are AS11-40-5923 and AS11-40-5924.
Is there any video of the LEM reattaching to the main unit after it took off from the moon?
Yes, look for LEM docking with CM.
Hahaha it never was made because it never ever happened
@@maozedung7270 I’ve got a question. Assuming the landings were fake (they weren’t, but I’ll go with it) how would a real lunar landing be and look like? What would be different from the one we had?
It was filmed on earth, no man has ever gone to the moon, we don't even know what the moon is, it depends on you part in the simulation we call life
Almost landed in a crater.
Yep, there be craters all over the place on that airless ball of rock.
@@georgehenderson7783 what they needed was the Project Genesis
@@jmadratz And after that Matt Damon's potato farms.
The Martian - great book and movie!
Awesome. Greetings from Brazil.
👨⚕️100%🛣🌚🏗⚽️ L 👂 R = ?%?
We are in the year 2021, and this is the best that can be shown to the public. Animation. Only if there was real footage like this, of ships traveling in space.
Super animation.
NASA Best of luck 👍 from Bangladesh
Yes you are right dear
Next time Bangladesh launch rocket in india🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
😽🙀😿😾🙈🙉🙊👦👧👨👩👴👵👶👱👮👼👳👸💂👷🕵🎅👯👯💆💇👰🙍🙍🙎🙅🙆🙆🙋🙋🙇🙌🙏🙏👤👤👪👪🕴👫👫👬👭💏💑💑👇👪💪👈👉☝👆🖕👇👇✌🖖🤘🖑🖐✋👏👌👍🖒🖓👋👋👏👐💅✍👂💋💘❤👀👁👅👄❤💓💔💕💗💛💜💞💟❣💤💢💥💦💫💣💣💣🗨💬🗯💭👓🕶🕶👔👕👖👘👙👚👛👜👝🛍🛍🎒👞👟👠👡💎📿👑👒🎩🎩🎓🎓💄💍💍💎📿 clute them
hey
puja roy thanks support
Why didnt it show the lunar lander coming out of the rocket un manned and how the hatch opened w no person to do it
No hatches opened "w no person to do it".
Why is there nothing showing how the lander was able to control the landing. Was there thrust vectoring, or separate rockets for pitch and roll? And were these manually controlled, or did they use computers equivalent to a commodore 64?
For Apollo 11's powered decent, Armstrong had to take manual control to avoid landing in a dangerous spot. Folks who knock the computing power of the onboard computer don't appreciate the fact that there were two human brains on board, so not everything had to be automated. Computer scientists still can only dream of building a General Artificial Intelligence machine that compares to what we all are born with.
"Why is there nothing showing how the lander was able to control the landing."
The point of the video is to show the path and attitude of the lunar module. There's nothing particularly suspicious about not showing "how the lander was able to control the landing".
"Was there thrust vectoring, or separate rockets for pitch and roll?"
The latter. The LM had a Reaction Control System consisting of four quads of thrusters placed roughly on the corners of the ascent stage.
"And were these manually controlled, or did they use computers "
Not really either.
The LM had three accelerometers at right angles to each other which could detect if the LM's attitude was shifting.
The LM could be flown automatically or manually. Each landing started with the LM flying automatically. In this mode, the LM's path to touchdown was preprogrammed, so the LM always knew which direction it should be facing. As the intended attitude changed, a combination of RCS thrusters would fire to cause that attitude change. And if the accelerometers showed the LM's attitude was changing from what it should have been, then a combination of thrusters in the RCS would fire to counter that attitude change.
In theory the LM could fly itself to a landing, but as it didn't have any sort of hazard avoidance system, it might land in a crater or on a rock and be destroyed. Therefore, when the LM was about two minutes from touchdown the astronauts took manual control. In this mode, the commander used one control to change the main rocket engine's throttle setting, and another to change its attitude. This was a fly-by-wire system; so rather than manually activating RCS thrusters, he moved the controller to indicate the attitude change he wanted, and the LM's computer fired the RCS thrusters needed to cause that attitude change.
"equivalent to a commodore 64?"
That's a very specific comparison. Any particular reason for it?
Fantastic but real time tho
Love it!!
NASA OR ISRO credit goes to human beings
well no fucking shit, bro youre dumb, obviously
can I copy a nasa Apollo moon landing video without a permission in youtube?
Can i use this graphics at my video giving you credit
Its going like 2500 mph. They are really skilled to control that and the calculation for the one time mission is perfect. So many things could've gone wrong
And 6 different times, by different crews without a hitch. Lol
No, because nobody landet on the moon
@@noname52768 Without a hitch? Are you serious? Program alarms on 11, LPD issues on 12, a faulty abort switch on 14, 15 landing at the tilt limit and a failed backup SPS gimbal on 16. Apollo 17 was about the only one which went smoothly!🤣
@@qarnos do you believe the materials of back then / today can withstand the extreme radiation?
@@noname52768 well yes, for a temporary time.
it took 3 to 4 days jurmey to the moon...where is the footage on the first day? i mean why they never make any record from inside the aircraft when they were in the middle between moon and earth?
The footage is here on YT. And probably the National Archives. "Apollo 11 Video Transmission from Halfway to the Moon" is the name of the video here.
I like the way they have the nerve to show rocket engine blast to surface on an animation but this didnt seem to be the case on the real landings, there was no crater nor any debris around to even look like there was
Actually, we can see how the outer layer of regolith has been blasted away in a radial pattern, and there's even a groove made by one of the contact probes, consistent with after-mission report of the LM drifting a bit before touchdown.
To put it simply, even if the Moon landings _were_ faked, a significant care was put into making the fake lunar surface look like it _has_ been landed on.
Only blew the dust away, the exhaust wasn't hovering long enough or powerful enough to blast bedrock away to produce a crater
@@thegreatdivide825 😂😂😂
FAF
@@deaddog3500 🤴 W⚓
Could you explain how many failures in Apollo with high quality animation please.
Bro Apollo-11 means first 10 were failure...11 is not a code
No, the 1st 11 missions were not failures... they were "stepping stones" that honed the technology and techniques to get closer to landing on moon....the ultimate goal of the Apollo missions was to eventually get there.
@@mr.reinhardt998 I mean the first was a tragedy
Legal a animação. Abraço! Rio RJ Brazil
English anyone?
Just amazing, I cant help feel on edge thinking of how one little unforseen mishap, and then what can you do ?.. cant exactly call in sea/air rescue...
Totally fake
@@bobsilver3983 no
Not convinced. The transition between horizontal velocity and vertical touchdown is never so abrupt
Gu Nesnaj - This is a simulation for illustrative purposes. It is not intended to convince you of anything.
@@GH-oi2jf Exactly. It doesn't.
@@GH-oi2jf You sound so... convincing.
@@p.macdermott2490 I’m laughing my tits off
Wow... That was one long burn. 0.o
Sure is 50 of being burned in fact.
On 26 March 2019, Vice President Mike Pence announced that NASA's Moon landing goal would be accelerated by four years with a planned landing in 2024.
more BS, never went, never can
@@bobsilver3983 Do how did many impactors impacted the moon
Less than a year later, Mike Pence was hiding in our Capitol as a group of traitors were looking to hang him. All because a man-child president couldn't admit he lost and then launched an Insurrection Against America.
why did they stop cancelling out their horizontal velocity?
What?
@@digitalblasphemy1100 He starting burning upwards.
@@S1baar huge crater and a bunch of boulders the computer was aiming for so he landed long
@@S1baar he had canceled out all of the velocity
Fantástico!!
Apollo 11 its the first onec humans go to anether planet its the NASA great history
What is the booster pushing against? If uou are in a vacuum there is no air resistance so nothing would slow the lem down. And boosters don't work so well without a oxygen rich atmosphere to burn in. Just sayin
It is a myth that a booster works because it is pushing against the atmosphere. To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Chuck a lot of stuff out at high speed in the same direction you are flying and it WILL slow the LEM, atmosphere or no atmosphere.
Mass ejection as a source of force has been demonstrated in a vacuum many times. Newton's laws of motion are simple, if you accelerate mass (exhaust), there is a force.
@@wmobberley4416 That's right, that's right. That is correct. Issac Newton never said an atmosphere is needed.
You assume things. You limit your horizon doing so. The way to go forward is: learn to think. Understand that 'thinking' is not an automatic function of the mind; the connections of logic are not made by instinct. Understand that thinking is a voluntary process of trail and succes and, like writing or riding a bike, it has to be learnt.
So, learn to use your mind, learn to conceptualise, to discern and to judge. Learn to think, and then, when something still seems strange to your rational faculty, ask questions. Don't assume things, especially not about complicated issues like rocket science or celestial mechanics.
You can do it!
Good luck.
The booster is "pushing" against the craft itself.
Bro your using the metric system for the first seconds then switch to imperial system that make no sense
i have a doubt, they arraived to the mon or not?
Yes
A lot of people say not
Kaun kaun chandrayan 2. Ke bad dekh RHA hai.like kro
After watching chandrayan2
same
@@foobarmaximus3506
Everything is easy.... It's all depends on how an individual thinks... That's it... 👍
@@foobarmaximus3506 you are the real fool
Jaspinder Singh We never went to the moon and here is all the proof you will ever need:
czcams.com/video/l-KI-2e0_NQ/video.html
There were 11+ plus Apollo missions, idiots will cry always
@Apollo fraud will be exposed very soon were still waiting bro
So who(camera crews)took a picture of Armstrong climbing down the ladde?
A camera that was already mounted on the exterior of the LEM before launch?
Things being attached to other things is a difficult concept for you to grasp, is it?
I like that🤗
Is it the last picture (LM5) is real picture at the moon? I thought this picture was fake (illustrated by NASA) The background (bright area) too small and no star at the sky.
It is real picture, There is no star cause they were at the moon where light doesn't travel faraway
and that little thing had enough fuel to get back to earth? Where was the lunar buggy btw....inside? cant see it attached anywhere
Apollo 11 didn't bring a lunar buggy.
In answer to your questions Christopher, once the lunar module ascent stage was docked with the Command Module and the crew transferred, it was jettisoned. To initiate Trans Earth Injection, the SPS burned for 2 minutes, 21 seconds, adding 2080mph (3,050 ft/s/930 m/s) to their orbital speed (which was 3,600mph). This was sufficient to leave the orbit of the moon. At 38,896 nautical miles from the moon, the CM reached equigravisphere, the threshold of the moon's gravitational exertion. From this point on the gravitational pull of the Earth was stronger than that of the Moon. From now on they would start to accelerate towards the Earth meaning that prior to re-entry Apollo was travelling in excess of 24,000mph. This is simply known as a 'translunar coast'.
The lunar module was an addition to what are known as the 'J missions' - Apollos 15, 16 and 17. It was folded and stowed in the quadrant 1 equipment bay on the descent stage of the LEM. It was deployed by the astronauts once on the surface of the moon through a mainly automatic process. The rear wheels folded out and locked in place. When they touched the lunar surface, the front of the rover could be unfolded, the wheels deployed, and the entire frame was lowered down to the surface by pulleys. From memory, Apollo 15 had a few minor difficulties and you can find footage of Dave Scott and James Irwin painstakingly extricating it from the LEM. That was nothing compared to what was to come - the heat transfer experiment and the probes that they were expected to drill into the lunar surface. (Apollo 16 had this easier - but the experiment was ruined by John Young tripping over the cabling and ripping it out).
Hope this helps. Any further questions, please don't hesitate to ask.
It was a hoax, and strange anyone would believe it happened.
Thanks.
And after the Apollo missions that were 480,000 mile trips, the furthest anyone's gone from the earth is 365 miles to discover that the extreme radiation from the Van Allen Belts were more than could be endured by the aircrafts
The Van Allen belts begin at a height of about 640 km above the Earth. This is well, well above the operating altitude of any "aircrafts". Take care.
aircrafts! ha!
No Jet blast underneath the LM when it lands........Hmmmmm
Wrong, the descent engine displaced regolith in a radial lateral pattern which is precisely consistent with 2,400lbs of thrust in 1/6th G and a vacuum.
i was young and dumb and thought simulator was the name of the Apollo ship.
Hey this is my video! :D Just now saw this.
Классный мультик! Оскара немедленно!!!!!!!
Thank you!
Grace of god only
Ok i have been looking how they ejected back to earth ..i cant find any
They returned at 5 000 mph....to Earth who translates at 67 000 mph. That's imposible!! That's why You can't find it .
@@DanielMartinez-kt9zy
Play some KSP.
A lot of KSP.
You clearly need it
A bit blurry
czcams.com/video/sj6a0Wrrh1g/video.html
@@pancytryna9378 l know!! But Earth rotates and translates at "supersonics" speed...lm dizzy everyday hahaha
@@DanielMartinez-kt9zy
Well yes it does what's the problem with that?
Does anyone maybe know if there is any video/foto of the spaceship approaching the moon, even still far away from it? 🌕
czcams.com/video/k_OD2V6fMLQ/video.html
They never went, never did and never will
There's footage of the landing from a film camera pointing out the window of the Lunar Module. There couldn't be a video of the LM landing from far away since there were no cameras there before they landed
fantastic
I have a question for NASA if we cut any part of our body will it bleed or not plz do reply me
How to take off from moon ?? How to go back to earth ??? Where is the energy
I'm not exactly sure what your question is. The LEM has it's own fuel and rocket engine. It got back to the Earth by using that.
War es genau so?
NASA makes more money on their cartoons than Disney and Pixar together..
😆🤣😃😂🤣 lol..
At 1:30 it suddenly slows down greatly for no visible reason. Poopy simulation mate
@Dave G whats your point
roidroid where’s YOUR perfect simulation?
@roidroid > Look at the clock in the lower right, the time is sped up about 10x faster than normal.
Why is there no dust on the landing feet?
Because the engine was shut off a good second before they actually landed
lol
I was about to ask the same thing.
Since there is no atmosphere, the vector of particulars would have remained undeterred. And since the particles would have been at a very high velocity (an industrial sandblasting machine) it would have been very difficult for any particles in any significant amounts to be left in the area. Most probably would have landed kilometers away. No dust cloud would be expected. And therefore no dust to settle.
No atmosphere to cause electrostatic charge causing adherence to the legs...
Landing on earth. Crash in water
Because no soft landing on earth.
The moon landing remains the religious event that spawned the myth of American exceptionalism.
Show my just one example of solid evidence and i believe you. But it has to be solid evidence, not just speculation like “no stars” “attached by a rope”.
Thanks to this great simulation we see that a moon landing never happened.
How many hoops did you have to jump through, to get to that silly conclusion?
Vyralator just several years of study of engineering and technical aspects of that landing “thing”.
@@wren2900 Let me take a wild guess, it probably isn't aerospace engineering?
Which "technical" aspects are you so concerned about?
Vyralator speed at the start and the maximum mass, impossible engine composition and scheme, navigation for landing and docking on lunar orbit, fuel and control;
Günther Schepke you’re an engineer?? At which university? It sure is not one of the best universities...
Don’t they return in a capsule? I never see one on the lunar modules..,
The capsule they returned in is shown at 0:04. It is between the lunar module and the service module.
The Service Module docked with the LM ascent stage
Thanks, I finally figured that out..
They faked it, and I'm surprised how many people believed it!
@@bobsilver3983 I am surprised you had a parent
Wheres the made up theory simulation of how they got off the moon and back to earth????? 😅
There are Videos about the lsunch as well
Cool video
Cool, and very fake
The original simulation was enough, don't need see again just to pay some one for ads
Love u ♥️ NIL arm miss u
Where's the rover in this simulation?
Apollo 11 didn't have a lunar rover, only the last three missions (Apollo 15, 16 and 17) did. The rover was carried folded up on the outside of the lunar module's descent stage.
Nice
Whats the difference between a moon and earth? When it comes to landing? What i mean is
If we had 2 balls, 1 Ball has a hole in the middle, therefore the human who lands into that ball will pass through that hole to land to the bottom.
where the moon has no hole so you land on the edges of the ball.
So does that mean the moon is a solid ball and earth is actually not a ball but a flat surface that gives an illusion of a ball?
The reason why i say this is because, When you land on earth you cannot see the galaxy and other planets, where when you land on Moon you basically are in the galaxy
PSTRIPPLEE you can see the galaxy from earth. It’s pretty dim, so you have to be in a pretty dark environment. I only saw it a bit once. My country doesn’t have any “dark areas”, there are houses pretty much everywhere. Next time i’m on vacation in a country with a desert or sth like that I’m definitely going to watch the milky way!
There is no hole.
Basically earth has an atmosphere where moon doesn’t hence why the clouds makes an illusion there many layers in earth where the moon has no clouds
Just how I do it in Kerbal Space Program.
Chandrayaan 2 is best....achieved in first attempt proud Indian🇮🇳🇮🇳🇮🇳🇮🇳🇮🇳🇮🇳🇮🇳🇮🇳🇮🇳🇮🇳🇮🇳🇮🇳🇮🇳🇮🇳🇮🇳🇮🇳🇮🇳🇮🇳🇮🇳
☠
HAHAHAHA
It was an impacter?
Very__ good_______ jaihind♡♡♡♡♡♡
In reality it travels at a speed of 5000 miles per hour...this is just a slow simulation...
I love you NASA
This simulation is more realistic and believable than the 1969 hoax. Imagine Michael Collins being entrusted to orbit the moon solo with no regard for what might happen to him. Not even a co pilot. I can't take even a short airplane hop without two pilots. And when Neil and the boys were finished playing in the Moon sand the shot up in the air where Michael was waiting in the orbiter taxi to take them home. Farcical.
The only thing I have learned from your comment is that you have no clue how orbital mechanics work.
@@willoughbykrenzteinburg
Enlighten me please with your vast knowledge.
@@p.macdermott2490 I dont know where to start. Tell me what you j understand about how an orbit works, so I can get am idea of your level of understanding and we can go from there.
@@willoughbykrenzteinburg Good cop out mate. I don't want to fry your brain with matters which you would not understand. My lecture would be too long for a YT reply.
@@p.macdermott2490 Michael Collins was in a stable orbit. He isnt doing anything. He isnt piloting anything. He is literally just coasting. Again, if you understood how orbits work, youd know that. There is no need for a co pilot. There is no risk of anything bad happening with regard to the trajectory of the craft.
As for the rendezvous, the ascent module must necessarily get into orbit and in doing so, would more or less match velocities with the CM already in orbit. Knowing this, you just need to time the launch such that the ascent module reaches that parking orbit at roughly the same time as the CM is in that part of its orbit. These are not complicated calculations to make. Orbital mechanics is relatively simple math. And it doesnt have to be perfect.
It is clear that you dont understand these mechanics. You dont know how orbits actually work because no educated person would ever wonder how Collins managed to stay in orbit all by himself. The fact that you clearly think just coasting in orbit for a few hours is some kind of complicated task requiring constant piloting and monitoring is testament to that blatantly obvious fact.
It's real ?not animation?
Its in the fucking title its animation you dumb fuck
It is 100% possible that it has landed on the moon successfully and only our communication from ISRO is lost.
А ниче,что он с земли летел наоборот😂Это где это он успел развернуться,а?
Science fiction only !
You do not possess the ability to distinguish fact from fiction. Your education was abysmal.
Crappy musica
This simulation is very pretty, but works only in simulation, in fact no inhabited misson landed on the moon.
David Robert how do you know
❤
Says a complete random on the Internet...
Con simulaciones puedo ir y venir a dode sea pero eso no es la realidad
I wonder the fuel tank was so huge to provide thrust for deceleration, soft landing, and rocketing in the end. Three men with uniform only the mass should be not less than 300kg.
@ps10iceman moron 😂
@ps10iceman
Why are you stupid
300:6=50
Space
The Lunar Rover weighed 14,000 kilograms, when fuelled, and each one cost the same as if they were made from solid gold. In today's gold price that would be, $678,699,000 per LEM. So now you know how expensive and difficult it was to design and make a Lunar Module.
@@Chris.Davies You write: _"The Lunar Rover weighed 14,000 kilograms, when fuelled"_
Apollo 11 did not carry an LRV "Lunar Rover". The last three missions carried one, and it weighed 460 pounds on Earth. It had no fuel, only batteries.
You're quite right, though, space is extremely expensive. Space missions with live people aboard especially so.
I can not believe there is still in 2020 people stupid enough to believe we went to the moon
and in 1969 !!! just Imagine technology back then i 1969 !!!
just think for a second how complicated it would be to lunch astronauts from surface of the moon to space and back to earth ! just picture that in your head ,and what would it take and what you must have on the moon to lunch 3 astronauts and weight of apollo 11 lunar and how much thrust would it take to lunch astronauts and all that weight back to space
_I can not believe there is still in 2020 people stupid enough to believe we went to the moon_
That's because you're ignorant enough to believe we didn't.
_just think for a second how complicated it would be to lunch astronauts from surface of the moon to space and back to earth !_
So your best evidence is your personal incredulity?
_just picture that in your head ,and what would it take and what you must have on the moon to lunch 3 astronauts and weight of apollo 11 lunar and how much thrust would it take to lunch astronauts and all that weight back to space_
Why would you want just to "picture that"? The official values are readily available. The rocket equations predate NASA, and are proven on a daily basis. You can check the math yourself, if you want. You don't have to imagine anything.
1:40 Apollo inspired Elon.
श्री मोदी राज में ही चांद पर तिरंगा लहराएगा