Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

OK, I wouldn't put it past Bart to make an edit like that. Thanks.

Here's another interesting video supposedly released by NASA in 1963 (?) with a cartoon showing their planned mission.



Some interesting parts, but I wonder if they used the same methods to rotate the lander around to the front. Seems risky to use a set of swing arms.

As I mentioned before, I find it difficult to believe that in less than one orbit the LEM reached 60 miles and close to 4,500 mph from a dead stop to rendezvous (not once but six times) with no errors. A nimble little craft, sure, and low gravity of the Moon, still with a tiny amount of time, fuel and distance it strains the imagination for 1969.

originally posted by: Maverick7
Some interesting parts, but I wonder if they used the same methods to rotate the lander around to the front. Seems risky to use a set of swing arms.

They didn't use that system. Instead they turned the CM around in space and captured the LM and extracted it from the launch vehicle, as in the animation below (starting at the 5:52 mark)

originally posted by: Maverick7
As I mentioned before, I find it difficult to believe that in less than one orbit the LEM reached 60 miles and close to 4,500 mph from a dead stop to rendezvous (not once but six times) with no errors. A nimble little craft, sure, and low gravity of the Moon, still with a tiny amount of time, fuel and distance it strains the imagination for 1969.

I can't help you if you find the facts difficult to believe, but they were operating in a vacuum, and against a lower gravity well, and didn't really have "tiny amounts" of fuel (they had more than enough).

By the way, it may have been done six times launching from the moon, but there was also a 7th time (Apollo 10) that the LM flew toward the Moon (without landing) and then flew back to the CM for rendezvous. Apollo 10 was a complete dress rehearsal for Apollo 11, but without the landing.

a reply to: Maverick7

Actually there is quite a bit of data on lunar surface radiation.

Soviet and American unmanned probes took radiation readings. The Russians sent a biological payload to see how they would fare as well. As the moon is not a radiation emitter as such it is subject to radiation levels you would find in space, and again they have recordings of that from unmanned probes. Try looking for the Surveyor, Lunar Orbiter, Zond and Luna data. Apollo also had experiments checking eg Cosmic Rays and Solar Wind. The reports from Surveyor were freely available, I have two myself, as were the Apollo Preliminary Science reports (again, I have 3 of my own from Apollos 15, 16 and 17).

Data from modern probes have found nothing that disputes anything found by these earlier ones.

As for recording radiation, the astronauts wore dosimeters, the data from which they relayed to Houston at regular intervals and there were also recorders built in to the command module that sent readings back via telemetry.

originally posted by: Maverick7

As I mentioned before, I find it difficult to believe that in less than one orbit the LEM reached 60 miles and close to 4,500 mph from a dead stop to rendezvous (not once but six times) with no errors. A nimble little craft, sure, and low gravity of the Moon, still with a tiny amount of time, fuel and distance it strains the imagination for 1969.

I have been in aircraft that reach several hundred mph very quickly after take off, despite weighing a hell of a lot and operating in Earth gravity and an atmosphere.

There is 16mm footage from the LM as it ascends that covers quite a bit of the ascent and it is quite easy to see how quickly it ascends by looking at the field of view as it does s. There is also 16mm footage taken from the CM as the LM approaches.

The TV footage of Apollo 17 ascending taken by the rover camera shows how quickly it travelled once the rather small LM ascent module was given a kick in the pants by a big engine.

originally posted by: Maverick7

As I mentioned before, I find it difficult to believe that in less than one orbit the LEM reached 60 miles and close to 4,500 mph from a dead stop to rendezvous (not once but six times) with no errors.

do you find accelerating from dead stop to 4500mph in one orbit the difficult part to believe?? or is it something else??

to put in in perspective, Apollo 11 CM had an orbital period of about 2 hours

if i assume that the LM ascent stage was to reach an orbital velocity of about 4500mph in 30 mins it would mean it would need to have an average acceleration of about 1.12m/s^2. (i think they had the engine burning for 7 mins or so, giving them an acceleration of about 4.8m/s^2 to reach 4500mph)

to put it into perspective a vehicle that accelerates from 0-62mph in 6 seconds has an average acceleration of about 4.6m/s^2

but anyway as long as they reached lunar orbit, rendezvous with the CM would be relatively simple

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
a reply to: choos

whats so hard to understand that the public was getting bored of Apollo?? that is what i believe.. if you want to claim that the public was NOT bored then you need to show me the public perception.. i dont want to know what a handful of well positioned people believed, they dont tell me what the public perception is..

Mmmmm, yeah. Public perception cancelled Apollo? Is that your argument?

it played its part in Apollo's cancellation..

The public perception is a by-product of the machinations of insiders at NASA, e.g. Julian Scheer; the three television news networks "the small group of men" from the Eastern establishment; Nixon's well placed appointees, e.g. Frank Shakespeare and Thomas O. Paine, Frank Borman, et al.;

Nixon also had solid help from his OMB appointees, Caspar Weinberger and George Shultz constantly nagging NASA to reduce it's budgets. In fact the Nixon administration was eager to get the ball rolling toward, in the words of Lee DuBridge,

quote "a whole new space program" for America in the decade after Apollo. quote. Source Beaver County Times Feb 14 1969

It's obvious Nixon was already scheming for ways to cancel Apollo less than a month after he was inaugurated. That it was reported in the papers is a fact... that's why I am so surprised that Apollo Defenders do not want to find out the real answer to the question:

"Were the America Public Bored! of Apollo Moon Landings?" the answer to that question is a resounding "NO!".

Estimated 500,000 viewed the Apollo 16 launch which happened on a Sunday. That's better than Apollo 14's mid week launch which it was estimated 400,000 travelled to the Cape to view it. It really is outrageous for Apollo Defenders to argue that the public was bored with Apollo moon landings but that's exactly what they did in this thread.

Obviously, there is a lot more at play than just a "bored" American public. Unfortunately the Apollo Defenders are now tar-babied to that notion that the public boredom is to be blamed for the cancellation of Apollo and manufacturing of Saturn V rockets.... those are the same Saturn V's that could take America to Mars by the 1980's according to Wernher von Braun and Spiro Agnew. All those ideas can be laid to rest now in the cemetery of moon hoax Disclosures.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter

The public perception is a by-product of the machinations of insiders at NASA, e.g. Julian Scheer; the three television news networks "the small group of men" from the Eastern establishment; Nixon's well placed appointees, e.g. Frank Shakespeare and Thomas O. Paine, Frank Borman, et al.;

Nixon also had solid help from his OMB appointees, Caspar Weinberger and George Shultz constantly nagging NASA to reduce it's budgets. In fact the Nixon administration was eager to get the ball rolling toward, in the words of Lee DuBridge,

quote "a whole new space program" for America in the decade after Apollo. quote. Source Beaver County Times Feb 14 1969

It's obvious Nixon was already scheming for ways to cancel Apollo less than a month after he was inaugurated. That it was reported in the papers is a fact... that's why I am so surprised that Apollo Defenders do not want to find out the real answer to the question:

And? Have ypu seen anyone deny that Nixon cancelled Apollo? It's also well known that missions were being cancelled alost before Apollo 11 took off. Who claimed otherwise?

"Were the America Public Bored! of Apollo Moon Landings?" the answer to that question is a resounding "NO!".

SO you claim, yet you provide no evidence and have made absolutely no effort whatsoever to do so.

Estimated 500,000 viewed the Apollo 16 launch which happened on a Sunday. That's better than Apollo 14's mid week launch which it was estimated 400,000 travelled to the Cape to view it.

That is firstly a very small number (half that of the Apollo 11 launch) and secondly not given any kind of reference or supporting link. Was it covered on TV? What were the TV ratings?

It really is outrageous for Apollo Defenders to argue that the public was bored with Apollo moon landings but that's exactly what they did in this thread.

What is outrageous is your inability to accept the truth: they were bored. The overwhelming majority of the American public, as evidenced by opinion polls and lack of coverage in the media (so lacking it caused the dismissal of the person responsible for organising that, remember) proves that they were bored.

Obviously, there is a lot more at play than just a "bored" American public.

Which, again, is not something that has ever been denied by anyone.

Unfortunately the Apollo Defenders are now tar-babied to that notion that the public boredom is to be blamed for the cancellation of Apollo and manufacturing of Saturn V rockets....

Nope. You can read the post you actually replied to with your words here - it mentions it as a contributing factor, not the sole reason. But you can bet that if Nixon thought they were popular he would have kept them.

those are the same Saturn V's that could take America to Mars by the 1980's according to Wernher von Braun and Spiro Agnew. All those ideas can be laid to rest now in the cemetery of moon hoax Disclosures.

There is no moon hoax, there is nothing to disclose. Claims Apollo was hoaxed are lies. You have demonstrated nothing to the contrary.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter

It's obvious Nixon was already scheming for ways to cancel Apollo less than a month after he was inaugurated. That it was reported in the papers is a fact... that's why I am so surprised that Apollo Defenders do not want to find out the real answer to the question:

remember when you said this:

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
Nixon cancelled Apollo because he was about to get caught (along with Howard Hughes).

so now Nixon was about to be caught with faking Apollo BEFORE the first lunar missions??

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
The TV footage of Apollo 17 ascending taken by the rover camera shows how quickly it travelled once the rather small LM ascent module was given a kick in the pants by a big engine.

I'm a believer that the landings happened, but the LM ascent looks a bit unrealistic to me. The LM seems to acquire instantaneous speed rather than gradually accelerating from being stationary (as we always see in any rocket launch footage). It looked like the LM has very little mass and popped off like a champagne bottle cork. I wonder what it felt like to the astronauts inside, they must have been punched into the LM's floor by the sudden g-forces.

By the way, in what position were they during the launch? I'm not familiar with the inner structure of the LM, were they sitting somewhere, or standing?

a reply to: wildespace

Relatively speaking it did not have a lot of mass and the champagne cork out of a bottle analogy isn't too far off.

You also have to consider that the angle at which the ascent is viewed after the initial launch changes, so you can't tell whether it is getting faster or not (it clearly is, or it would not reach the velocity required to go into orbit).

Think of it like a jet taking off from an aircraft carrier - it gets an instant acceleration that is enough to get it airborne, after which it carries on accelerating.

There were no seats in the LM, so they were standing. As the moon has 1/6 of Earth's gravity the g forces from their acceleration were proportionately less than on Earth.

a reply to: wildespace

Something to remember. The vast majority of rocket launch footage you see are rockets being launched on Earth where they have 6x the gravity and a whole bunch of air resistance to overcome. On earth, just about every vehicles max speed is where the force of the engine equals the force of the wind resistance (bit of an over simplification but it works in this case) if you eliminate the wind resistance, acceleration becomes pretty easy.

a reply to: onebigmonkey

What is outrageous is your inability to accept the truth: they were bored. The overwhelming majority of the American public, as evidenced by opinion polls and lack of coverage in the media (so lacking it caused the dismissal of the person responsible for organising that, remember) proves that they were bored.

Still fighting that desperate, losing battle to convince everyone that the American public were bored with Apollo? You offered the opinion polls report written by Roger Launius - who was NASA's chief historian for 12 years. That's not proof...
it's called sandbagging.

Why didn't you tell us that Roger Launius authored a paper on the moon landing hoax? It's a very poor study with numerous grammatical errors and gratuitous use of ad hominem.
www.smithsonianconference.org...

Let's look again at the real reasons Apollo moon landings were cancelled by Richard Nixon:

"The National Aeronautics and Space Administration is understood to be under heavy pressure from the Nixon administration to cut its next budget so sharply that it might have to cancel the remaining two Apollo moon landings." - Bangor Daily News Nov 19 1971

The "two Apollo moon landings" are referring to Apollo 16 & 17.

Six months later, Vice President of the United States added:

"Agnew added: "The public and government interest in the program has not diminished." And he called Sunday's launch (Apollo 16-SJ) "the best of the seven Apollo shots I've witnessed." - The Spokesman Review Apr 17 1972

VP Spiro Agnew disagrees with Launius. I would suggest that you find another source for the "bored" American public - because the Launius report (which you cling to so desperately) has been debunked.

a reply to: onebigmonkey

There is no moon hoax, there is nothing to disclose. Claims Apollo was hoaxed are lies. You have demonstrated nothing to the contrary.

Religious denial is not going to convince anyone in this thread. I wish that you would set that aside because flat out denials belong in the religious forums. You said I had demonstrated "nothing to the contrary"... so I'll re-post some of the info I had already posted over the last few 5-6 pages.

_____________________________________________
I have demonstrated that the Nixon administration was interested in shutting down Apollo less than a month after he was inaugurated, according to Dr. Lee DuBridge, he was tasked to come up with,

quote "a whole new space program" for America in the decade after Apollo. quote. Source Beaver County Times Feb 14 1969

_____________________________________________
I have demonstrated the "heavy pressure" that the Nixon administration put on NASA, through Nixon appointees in the OMB.

"The real reason for the sharp reductions in the NASA budget is that NASA is entirely within the 28% of the budget which is controllable." Weinberger, Aug 12 1971

_____________________________________________
I have demonstrated Agnew's sustained attack on the networks which took place one day before the Apollo 12 launch, which had to have a strong effect on that "small group of men" who decided what stories go on the nightly news programs. Was it just a coincidence that Apollo 12 was the only Apollo launch that Nixon attended?? I don't think so. Nixon was only at the cape for about 90 minutes but the network news cameras followed him around like he was the star of the show.

_____________________________________________
I have demonstrated that Nixon's speech writer William Safire admitted on the 20th anniversary of Apollo 11 that Nixon "enjoyed offending these editorialists" and "planned to use the American space triumph to override the public preoccupation with Vietnam."

_____________________________________________
I have demonstrated that Nixon's selection of the space shuttle first week of January 1972 would accomplish,

"The purposes of the program are multiple. The - first - accomplishment would bolster the sagging aerospace industry, providing work for thousands of unemployed. The cost will be high but the benefits, in the long run, far greater." - Virgin Islands Daily News Jan 8 1972

"But, taking first things first, Space Administrator James Fletcher notes that the program will achieve the direct employment of 50,000 persons in the aerospace industry. It has been especially hard-hit by the phasing-out of the Apollo Moon missions, of which the end is almost in sight." Virgin Islands Daily News Jan 8 1972

_____________________________________________
I would surmise that Nixon's "heavy pressure" on NASA caused the cancellation of Apollo which led directly to space industry lay-off's; And his announcement of the shuttle (still on the drawing boards!) caused some heart beats to flutter when he announced 50,000 new aerospace jobs.

I have so far not found any references of a "bored" American public playing any substantive role in the cancellation of Apollo. It's all Nixon and NASA.

edit on 1/3/2015 by SayonaraJupiter because: fix tags

the LM ascent looks a bit unrealistic to me.

I agree. They look like something out of a B grade movie. I've attached a couple of stills for reference.

originally posted by: ppk55

the LM ascent looks a bit unrealistic to me.

I agree. They look like something out of a B grade movie. I've attached a couple of stills for reference.

Please provide a similar still from a grade B movie for comparison.

a reply to: ppk55

Why bother with stills when you have the TV camera following the build up to the launch all the way - including for Apollo 17 time and date specific images of Earth, as well as the close-out procedures leading to the astronauts getting in to the LM.

Why bother with stills when you can have the 16mm footage taken from the ascent module that shows the hardware and trails exactly where the LRO shows it 40 years later?

Why not explain to people without your in depth speclalist knowledge why the appearance of those stills is wrong?

Your thread is now over 2 years old and its flimsy premise (namely a newspaper article about training methods for Apollo that were well known during Apollo was some sort of drip feed to revealing a hoax) has been proven to be completely wrong, and not one person posting claiming that Apollo was hoaxed has come up with anything remotely resembling halfway convincing evidence in support of that lie.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter

I have so far not found any references of a "bored" American public playing any substantive role in the cancellation of Apollo.

That's because you have refused to look for them and ignored the ones you were given.

No matter how many times you are told you still labour under the misapprehension that people who support Apollo are somehow fans of Nixon, think he was a great guy and think he was not responsible for the cancellation of Apollo. That lack of understanding means you automatically take an opposing view to people even when they agree with you.

No-one said that Apollo was cancelled solely because the public were bored with Apollo. They simply stated that they were, which is a well known, well reported and easily verifiable fact.

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

Religious denial is not going to convince anyone in this thread. I wish that you would set that aside because flat out denials belong in the religious forums.

Flat out denial of the historical record belongs in the religious forum, not here.

I have demonstrated that the Nixon administration was interested in shutting down Apollo less than a month after he was inaugurated, according to Dr. Lee DuBridge, he was tasked to come up with,

"a whole new space program" for America in the decade after Apollo."

Elsewhere, you have gone to great pains to "demonstrate" that Nixon planned the "Moon Landing Hoax" decades earlier, planting his brother in a key position before he was even Vice President. Which was it? Did he plan them, or was he against them?

I have demonstrated the "heavy pressure" that the Nixon administration put on NASA, through Nixon appointees in the OMB.

"The real reason for the sharp reductions in the NASA budget is that NASA is entirely within the 28% of the budget which is controllable."

No, you haven't. All you have done is demonstrate that Nixon appointed people to the OMB. You have not demonstrated that this was to put pressure on NASA.

I have demonstrated Agnew's sustained attack on the networks which took place one day before the Apollo 12 launch, which had to have a strong effect on that "small group of men" who decided what stories go on the nightly news programs. Was it just a coincidence that Apollo 12 was the only Apollo launch that Nixon attended?? I don't think so. Nixon was only at the cape for about 90 minutes but the network news cameras followed him around like he was the star of the show.

Here you are claiming that the networks were not giving as much attention to the space program as before. Later, you will deny that there is any evidence of this. Also, your impressions of the launch are colored by your own prejudice, that seems to fixate on Richard Nixon even when he is not present. In your mind, he is always star of the show.

I have demonstrated that Nixon's speech writer William Safire admitted on the 20th anniversary of Apollo 11 that Nixon "enjoyed offending these editorialists" and "planned to use the American space triumph to override the public preoccupation with Vietnam."

Once again you contradict yourself. If the Apollo program was udeful to Nixon for distracting the public from Viet Nam, why would he want to cancel it?

I have demonstrated that Nixon's selection of the space shuttle first week of January 1972 would accomplish,

"The purposes of the program are multiple. The - first - accomplishment would bolster the sagging aerospace industry, providing work for thousands of unemployed. The cost will be high but the benefits, in the long run, far greater."

So what? That has no bearing on whether or not the Moon landings actually happened!

"But, taking first things first, Space Administrator James Fletcher notes that the program will achieve the direct employment of 50,000 persons in the aerospace industry. It has been especially hard-hit by the phasing-out of the Apollo Moon missions, of which the end is almost in sight."

Another 50,000 eyewitnesses you need to account for. Were they all "in on it" too?

I would surmise that Nixon's "heavy pressure" on NASA caused the cancellation of Apollo which led directly to space industry lay-off's; And his announcement of the shuttle (still on the drawing boards!) caused some heart beats to flutter when he announced 50,000 new aerospace jobs.

You seem to forget that Nixon was from California, the heart of the American aerospace industry. You yourself have proven that he had many connections there. Of course he would initiate another program to keep the industry employed! In fact, Nixon did not cancel the Apollo program! Congress had budgeted it for a certain amount, the craft were built, then re-purposed as Skylab and Apollo-Soyuz!

I have so far not found any references of a "bored" American public playing any substantive role in the cancellation of Apollo. It's all Nixon and NASA.

Here is a quote from a noted historian of the period:

"I have demonstrated Agnew's sustained attack on the networks which took place one day before the Apollo 12 launch, which had to have a strong effect on that "small group of men" who decided what stories go on the nightly news programs."

What was that effect? Decreased coverage! All you need to do is compare column inches in newspapers devoted to coverage of the space program, or the number of hours the networks devoted to live coverage.

You have demonstrated nothing but your obsession about Richard Nixon and inability to frame a coherent argument. You also demonstrate a remarkable tone deafness by presuming to tell people who actually lived through the period what those people "really" experienced!

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
No-one said that Apollo was cancelled solely because the public were bored with Apollo. They simply stated that they were, which is a well known, well reported and easily verifiable fact.

Quite right.

Nixon, congress, and NASA needed to figure out how to pay for the next step in manned space exploration -- the Space Shuttle, which was supposed to be a "space truck" of sorts that would make sending humans and satellites into orbit a commonplace thing, with potentially 50+ launches per year (although the complexity of the system and the turn-around time of the spacecraft precluded that from becoming reality).

If NASA wanted the shuttle, then they had to give up something else, because the President and Congress were not about to give NASA the same astronomical (no pun intended) budgets that they had during the height of the Apollo developmental stage of the mid to late 1960s. The next step in Moon exploration would have been moon bases and long-period manned missions. That would cost a lot of testing and development money to be able to design the hardware (Moon bases and pressurized wheeled exploration vehicles) necessary for these long-period missions.

So the Apollo program was easy to cut, since the general public were a bit disinterested in simply landing the LM on the Moon, collecting a few rocks, then taking off 3 days later; been there, done that. Cutting Apollo was an easy sell to the public. The Public would probably be interested in moon bases, but it was not financially feasible to have the Space shuttle in design and development at the same time that Moon base hardware was in design and development.

Design and development was VERY expensive -- more so than the act of actually building a piece of hardware and flying it. That's why NASA budgets were highest in the mid to late 1960s BEFORE the moon flights. It was cheaper to go to the moon than it was to figure out how to go to the Moon. Even with the resources going towards Shuttle development, they probably could have kept flying Apollo missions after 1972 instead of, say, developing planetary science probes such as Voyager I and II or the Viking Landers on Mars, but why? Why continue with the "same old" Apollo flights while ignoring other NASA interests, such as robotic exploration of the solar system.

NASA was hoping that once the Shuttle development was done, and NASA's "space truck" that was capable of easily lifting Heavy loads into space, they would be able to THEN go on to the next stage of Moon exploration. The Shuttle's payload capability was large enough to put the heavy pieces of a Moon base in orbit so they could then be sent to the Moon. But the shuttle proved to not be as advertised. By the time the shuttle flights became relatively routine, NASA decided that their next big thing would be the Space Station, because of the Space Station's long-term benefit to human space exploration.

The Space station is a place that could be a stepping stone to Mars (a greater goal than simply the Moon) because the Space Station could act as an in-situ laboratory for testing methods of long-term human habitation of space. Sure -- a moon base would also be a stepping stone to Mars, but it would also be much more expensive than the Space Station, and the Space station is easier to maintain and easier to get people back and forth from because it is in low Earth orbit rather than on the Moon. The cost-benefit of a Space Station as a testbed for long-duration human habitation of space is much better than that of a Moon base.

By 2005, with the Space Station construction project winding down (the design and development phase was just about over, and all that was left was to finish putting it together), President Bush proposed the Constellation Program, which would start with new launch vehicles and crew vehicles, then move on to Moon bases, which would then be the stepping stone to living on Mars. However, internal and external studies (e.g., the Augustine Commission report) showed that (among other problems with Constellation, such as the cost of development of the hardware) the Moon base phase of the project may not be the only path towards manned Mars exploration, and found that other paths exist to Mars, such as first developing long term crewed Missions to other destinations, such as an asteroid. The "Moon base as a stepping stone" strategy was still on the table, but could be much more expensive, and a relative waste of resources.

President Obama and congress decided to cancel the Constellation Program, and NASA decided to forgo the the "Moon first, then Mars" strategy and instead (along with NASA) adopted the "Beyond Earth first (Manned missions to the Lagrange points and an asteroid), Then Mars" strategy.

And that's where is stands today. The Moon may be a cool place to go, but the ultimate goal (in our foreseeable future) is Mars, and using Moon bases as a stepping stone may not be required to get to Mars, and is thus perhaps a waste of resources (time, money, brainpower, and developmental infrastructure).

SUMMARY of Augustine Commission Report on Human Spaceflight

originally posted by: wildespace

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
The TV footage of Apollo 17 ascending taken by the rover camera shows how quickly it travelled once the rather small LM ascent module was given a kick in the pants by a big engine.

I'm a believer that the landings happened, but the LM ascent looks a bit unrealistic to me. The LM seems to acquire instantaneous speed rather than gradually accelerating from being stationary (as we always see in any rocket launch footage). It looked like the LM has very little mass and popped off like a champagne bottle cork. I wonder what it felt like to the astronauts inside, they must have been punched into the LM's floor by the sudden g-forces.

By the way, in what position were they during the launch? I'm not familiar with the inner structure of the LM, were they sitting somewhere, or standing?

Why was the LM ascent always filmed from the same side of the LM ?

Apollo 15 www.youtube.com...
Apollo 16 www.youtube.com...
Apollo 17 www.youtube.com...