Can somone explain this Apollo video

Skip to 21:30 www.youtube.com...

How can the ship turn and stop on a dime? I thought for every action is a reaction,so it should keep on spinning cause there is no way they could program thrusters to be that perfect?

reply to post by NLDelta9



Looks like a bad to fair B movie from around that time of technology doesnt it?
The jerky and sudden movements dont make sense to anything that my mind understands, yet I'm sure "someone " will come along and offer a great explanation.
Good question S&F

Good observation. There are a million of these discrepancies. No question what we where fed visually was faked, faked, faked.

At the beginning of the film is Neal Armstrong "stepping onto the moon" for the first time. The position of the camera doesn't seem right to me. It doesn't look as if it is something that could have been attached to the craft. Also note the angle of the sun and the shadow from of the ladder and landing pod. One would think that Neil would be brightly lit. Also not sure why he's testing the soil with the "will I sink in" gimmick, the lander hasn't sunk in. So clearly their doing this to get mileage out of the scene.

Look at 14:48 and the two light sources will above the horizon. Around the same time look at the uneven painting of the horizon and lack of dust on the landing pod. At 14.43 look at the angle of the light source on the visor and look at what portion of the landing arm is illuminated versus the shadow of the arm. This scene is all messed up.

I don't think there is a number big enough to account for all the multitude of assorted irrationalities. When you have just a few of such items that are at odds with odds you are pretty clearly looking at a lie. Same with 9/11, same with anything.

These manouvers are not hard to do in space. With the manuvering jets there is one blast that starts the movment then a couter blast to stop it.

There is not a constant accelleration so there is not a huge amount of inertia to overcome.

[edit on 31-1-2010 by jpmail]

Look at 16:11 there's an insect or a rod flying through the scene and what's the deal with the shaft next to the flag that doesn't appear to really be there?

Originally posted by jpmail
These manouvers are not hard to do in space. With the manuvering jets there is one blast that starts the movment then a couter blast to stop it.

There is not a constant accelleration so there is not a huge amount of inertia to overcome.

[edit on 31-1-2010 by jpmail]

Yeah, I guess that's how it is because otherwise there would be no way to dock things unless that precise. It just looks weird..space is neat

Hey there NLDelta9,
Without getting into the idea of footage fakery, obfuscation, or anything like that, here is the basic explanation for what you are seeing.

In the case of that clip you mention there from Apollo 11 - that is 16mm DAC footage of the LM ascent stage during rendezvous with the CSM. The camera is mounted in one of the CSM rendezvous windows, filming the scene. During this particular phase of the mission, the CSM was essentially acting as the passive target vehicle for the LM to dock to, meaning that the LM was the active spacecraft for this rendezvous. This assignment of having the LM be the active spacecraft meant that CMP Mike Collins in the CSM basically just kept his spacecraft's nose pointed in one direction during the final rendezvous and kept the cameras clicking, and CDR Neil Armstrong, who was in control of the smaller, more maneuverable LM ascent stage, could then fly his spacecraft in and handle the docking alignment and final approach.

Now, very importantly, in that clip you mention, you have to keep in mind some particulars about the camera system NASA says was employed to shoot that footage. That scene was shot on 16mm film through what was called the "Data Acquisition Camera" (DAC). The Maurer "DAC" cameras used throughout the Apollo program were modified variable frame rate 16mm motion picture film cameras. When being used in "automatic" mode (as was the case in this Apollo 11 clip we are talking about), the DAC camera could be set by the astronaut to expose the film within it's magazine at one of three set frame-rates - 1, 6 or 12 frames-per-second. I would have to check my notes to be sure, but just by eye I am pretty sure that footage you are referencing there was archived by NASA as being shot at 6 frames-per-second.

So, what you see in that clip is footage that was shot at 6 fps but that is being played back much faster, at 29.97 fps (as per the NTSC conversion protocols the space agency chose to follow for digitally archiving their variable-speed 16mm DAC footage). If you slow that particular scene down so that it plays back at only 6 fps rather than 29.97 fps, your eye will resolve a jerky, stuttering scene, but it will offer a more accurate representation of the actual rendezvous translation control and maneuvering capability of the LM ascent stage. Basically, that footage was shot in stop-motion (6 fps) but, as shown in that clip you linked, is being played back in fast-forward at 29.97 fps, which is why the LM movements appear so quick, jerky, and abrupt.

By the way, (and I know that this is in no way your fault so I ain't ripping on you) the quality of that particular clip they show in that video you linked to is horrible. The new HD 1280x720 DAC archive releases from NASA that are now available show that scene (well, they show "every" scene really) with far better resolution.

There is also some excellent rendezvous footage (essentially the exact same rendezvous procedure we are talking about here) from Apollo 10 that was shot with the DAC set to "semi-automatic mode", and that semi-auto mode allowed for 24 fps filming. That 24 fps rendezvous footage from Apollo 10, due to it's faster exposure/playback rate, offers a far cleaner and more accurate representation of the real-time movement profile of the "active" LM as it closes on the "passive" CSM during the final approach and docking phase. I cant find that particular clip online anywhere, but I will dig around for it as it is probably on Youtube somewhere. I have it in HD, but it is a huge file that I can't readily upload.

Anyways, hope that helps answer your question.

Cheers,
LC

Originally posted by LunaCognita

Anyways, hope that helps answer your question.

Cheers,
LC

Thanks for the detailed info,the framerate makes sense.

reply to post by NLDelta9


This footage comes from the 16mm film Data Acquisition Camera (DAC). This camera could record at 1, 6, 12 or 24 frames per second. For the footage you linked to. It was likely recorded at 1 or 6 fps (still looking for exact information about this clip). The event in real time would have been much slower. Just watch the Shuttle dock to the ISS for example, it's really slow.

EDIT: It looks like LunaCognita beat me too it. Good post.

[edit on 31-1-2010 by jra]

Originally posted by NLDelta9
Skip to 21:30 www.youtube.com...

How can the ship turn and stop on a dime? I thought for every action is a reaction,so it should keep on spinning cause there is no way they could program thrusters to be that perfect?

What jra and LunaCognita said above is correct, but besides the fact that the frame rate of the film is sped up a bit, the actual turning and stopping can be done relatively easily because of a "Reaction Control System".

The LM had 16 thrusters as part of a Reaction Control System (RCS) - 4 cluster of 4 reaction control thrusters, each of those 4 thrusters in the cluster pointing different directions.

If you want the LM to turn, you fire one or more of the RCS thrusters to make you spin. when you want to stop spinning you apply an exact equal force to the opposite RCS thrusters. It's really as simple as that -- but the trick is to apply the "right" amount of opposite thrust.

You yourself alluded to Isaac Newton's Third Law of Physics: "For Every Action There is an Equal and Opposite Reaction", which is precisely why these reaction control thrusters can work the way they do -- especially in the virtual absence of other outside forces...

...It's because of Newton's Law that it's actually a relatively easy calculation for the LM's "Attitude Control" computer to make -- i.e., the LM's gyros sense the spin motion, and the computer can tell the RCS precisely how to fire to counteract that spin.

The physics is pretty simple, and the fact that there are very few outside forces acting upon the LM makes the actual execution of the maneuver by the computer and thrusters relatively simple, also.


[edit on 1/31/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]

Originally posted by NLDelta9

Originally posted by LunaCognita

Anyways, hope that helps answer your question.

Cheers,
LC

Thanks for the detailed info,the framerate makes sense.

I dont think it will look less "robotic" if you slow down the frame rate. You can try.

You might appreciate this video, especially around 1:05 mark:
YouTube Japan TRDI Kinetic Energy Interceptor Missile

edit to repair link


[edit on 31-1-2010 by dainoyfb]

reply to post by NLDelta9

The easiest and surest way to demonstrate Apollo phoniness

The astronauts never talk about defecating on the moon inside the LM or inside their suits while on the lunar surface. there are actually detailed descriptions of pooping naked in the CM. One may conclude Apollo is phony simply based on the lack of defecation documentation. It is funny and kind of gross and kind of out there, but all very true. Apollo is phony. they did not know how to poop in space.

reply to post by ScottieD


Is that you decisively? It's quite the coincidence that both you and decisively are obsessed with astronaut fecal matter and that decisively was banned the same day you signed up...

Originally posted by NLDelta9

Yeah, I guess that's how it is because otherwise there would be no way to dock things unless that precise. It just looks weird..space is neat

Space is also literally unearthly. It 'doesn't look right', because in Earth terms, it's not, and shouldn't be expected to be.

I've tried to write up a lot of non-intuitive features of space that can lead to misinterpreting visual cues,
in my "99 FAQs about 'space UFOs'",
at my home page www.jamesoberg.com/ufo.html

Feedback and suggestions are appreciated...