HOW TO LAND ON THE MOON - Smarter Every Day 250

SmarterEveryDay

1.3M بازدید125

    Get 1st Audiobook + full access to the Plus Catalog for free when you try Audible for 30 days www.audible.com/smarter or TXT smarter to 500500
    Click here if you're interested in subscribing: bit.ly/Subscribe2SED
    ⇊ Click below for more links! ⇊
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    GET SMARTER SECTION
    A very special thank you to Wayne Ottinger
    www.aletro.org/
    Check out the AMAZING website by Ben Feist that synchronizes all Apollo data:
    www.apolloinrealtime.org/
    I had to find a lot of archival footage to make this video. Thanks to Devin for helping me find the original Apollo LLTV footage from Ellington.
    A special thank you to steveslater1987 for providing the footage and audio of the Neil Armstrong Interview after flying the LLTV.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Tweet Ideas to me at:
    smartereveryday
    Smarter Every Day on Facebook
    SmarterEveryDay
    Smarter Every Day on Patreon
    www.patreon.com/smartereveryday
    Smarter Every Day On Instagram
    smartereveryday
    Smarter Every Day SubReddit
    www.reddit.com/r/smartereveryday
    Ambiance, audio and musicy things by: Gordon McGladdery
    www.ashellinthepit.com/
    ashellinthepit.bandcamp.com/
    If you feel like this video was worth your time and added value to your life, please SHARE THE VIDEO!
    If you REALLY liked it, feel free to pitch a few dollars Smarter Every Day by becoming a Patron.
    www.patreon.com/smartereveryday
    Warm Regards,
    Destin

    تاریخ انتشار پیش 29 روز

    نظر

    1. SmarterEveryDay

      We're going back to the moon, and we're going to need to train Astronauts how to land. This video is the result of trying to understand that control problem better. in the next video of this series, I'll show you footage from an actual NASA Lunar Lander software test I participated in many years ago. Also, I'd like to say express grateful I am to everyone who supports Smarter Every Day on Patreon at www.patreon.com/smartereveryday . If you've never considered being a Patreon of Smarter Every Day, then feel free to click the link if you'd like to see what it's all about. If not, then no big deal! I'm grateful that you're here. Warm Regards, Destin

      1. Gavin AndStuff

        Pshhhhh old news. I could land on the moon.

      2. adam philp

        Yyhqara6 you

      3. Almaadin

        @MaGaO true, but the software to land reliably is fairly new and getting better all the time. Most of the failed Mars landings happened without the benefit of the sensors and algorithms available now. It's still best to train the pilots of course.

      4. MaGaO

        @Almaadin Many Mars probes have crashed. If humans are aboard, it makes sense to train them just in case.

      5. hernan jimenez

        @Almaadin that was done on earth..so gullible lol. Mars supposedly is 1% density of earth atmosphere. which means no air. an you need air to slow parachute and need air for lift when they eventually fly helicopter drone. so the impossible without air debunks your Mars landing 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣🤣😭😭😭😭😂🤣🤣🤣🤣😂😭😭

    2. Vincent Pang

      The lumpy gender phenomenologically request because plastic univariately grin through a acoustic grain. wiry, clammy magazine

    3. Who Farted

      How did they know the lunar gravitational force before going to the moon?

    4. Ася Гумерова

      Эти "проэкты"-возможность воровать общие деньги,играть во взрослые игрушки и не быть наказанным,а быть "уважаемыми космическими ворами" Я предпологаю.что верхушка США и СССР были в сговоре и много лет смеялись над доверчивыми гражданами...

    5. Chas Wolf

      We all see drones, and the amazing technology they use to fly straight, steady, and in some cases, autonomously. I'm sure there is a tie-in here.

    6. Brandon Routier

      Didnt the Harrier fly in 1967?

    7. djmips

      What actually happens on the moon landing(s) low-key confirmed by his guest Ben Feist is that the Apollo Guidance Computer (AGC) does all of the flying until final approach where Armstrong and other astronauts use the rate-of-decent mode (P66), a mode not unlike drones for the home market where the stabilization is handled by the AGC and Neil uses the fly by wire stick to control horizontal velocity, avoid a boulder field and then bring bring the horizontal velocity to zero; another two switches can speed up or slow down the computers rate of descent in increments of one foot per second. I know the LLTV also had a computer. How similar was it's stabilization and controls to the actual LEM and the AGC's P66?

    8. el blanco _

      Man, the engineer of the LLTV, what a treasure!

    9. Dylan Wager Music

      1:45 1:58

    10. Adam Armstrong

      i dont want to be apart of this planet anymore

    11. TheEmeraldSword

      4:06 the the angle dynamically shook with his hands, now that's detail.

    12. Kerrie Arkwell

      This was an amazing video. Thank you. Understanding the why truly is as pertinent as the how. If you understand the why, then engineers can use updated techniques if possible instead of just repeating work arounds.

    13. Dan Bertucci

      The communists now in charge want nothing to do with moon landings anyway, so...

    14. SlayerofFiction

      I don't even drink and I want the lunar shot glass

    15. Gert Kruger

      I really do not see the point. The next one will be landed by ai.

    16. KatzRool

      amogus

    17. DrCash7

      4:30 "and if there were no drag.." If there were no drag then there would be no thrust/movement. Just like if there were no weight/gravity there would be no lift.

    18. DrCash7

      Fek

    19. Ephraim

      Would be quite impossible to control Starship HLS by hand. Will be autonomous.

    20. Dhoulmegus

      NASA scientists shoulda just played Kerbal Space Program. I was landing on the Mun as a teenager.

    21. strshooter

      Well done video, learned a lot, (like there are still people that think we didn’t go to the moon, and the earth is flat. I’m sure there are still those that think Hitler didn’t murder millions of people in death camps...) My question is, why go back to the moon? What’s there that we can benefit people? It will cost billions of dollars, tax dollars, just to say we can it? It’s a moon with ... not much on it. The distances to leave our solar system to anyway else are just too far away. Sorry, this isn’t Star Trek, or some other fantasy TV show... .

    22. maksphoto78

      Nah uh, they didn't "make sure velocity is zero when touching the surface". They had probes sticking out of lander which, when the probes touched the surface, automatically shut the engine down (while still some meters above the ground), so the lander gently dropped to the ground.

    23. Doritos XD

      1:58 among us 🤑🤑🤙👌👍

    24. Kevin Palmer

      Your questions and the way his eyes lit up. Surprised and also happy to see someone younger understanding his knowledge. Awesome

    25. Spo8

      Mr. Ottinger is SO COOL. Man, you just know he has countless other amazing stories.

    26. kkcsak ndclon

      The wild patricia univariably influence because belief exemplarily sigh unlike a flashy comic. aromatic, lethal lyocell

    27. Omadais

      Please do a video on the X-14

    28. The Bloody Truth

      Back to the moon? 😅

    29. Ciorram1

      Comment for algorithm.

    30. Leandro Gogola

      I confess, Mr. Ottinger make me laugh a few times. What a great man

    31. Dadly25

      1:45 when the impostor is sus

    32. DavyBoySmith

      Destin, I have a friend who has an LLTV sitting in his shed at work. I was fortunate enough to get a tour of his "work" and I can honestly say as much fun as it looks... yeah, no... His work is the same AFRC mentioned in your video. I was most impressed by the Peroxide thrusters mounted on every corner and axis of the unit. A tour of the Armstrong facility was the most incredible thing I have had the opportunity to experience. if you are ever there ask about the LLTV and perhaps they can take you to the closet for a look see. God Bless you man, I love your take on science.

    33. Egon Pax

      We aren’t going back to the moon, not with lunchbox Joe in power.

    34. gordonfree man

      Everybody know Apollo is a big lie

      1. Atlas

        Wrong

    35. Binky Carolina

      AMONG US!!! HE SAID IT

    36. John Bravo

      @ 5:45 ---> food for thought, the Harrier Jump Jet was first tested in 1967 and introduced into service in '69... 😉

    37. Florian Walter

      Why not installing a helium baloon, that lifts 5/6 of the lander's weight?

    38. Super Song

      at this point this man knows too much to be safe 🙏😂

    39. Ryan Rich

      Where is the loud roar of the rocket when you hear them calmly talking as lunar is landing?

      1. Ryan Rich

        @Atlas nms was tight

      2. Atlas

        It's a pressure fed engine firing in a vacuum, come on.

    40. Hirvieläin

      I would assume the lander's computer will perform the descent and landing in Artemis program.

    41. Suphakrit Phantharat

      Why do we need manual landing when we sent multiple rovers to mars and it has ability to auto land with high precision

    42. Bogdan Bogdan

      15:55 oh my ghaad

    43. Bread Spreader

      1:45 kinda sus....

    44. Patar

      They actually planned on hitting the moon harder, the crunch pistons on the legs didn't get crunched all the way, that's why their steps are more awkward than usual, edit, because the ladder was hooked on the leg

    45. Rooster Original

      Hahaha cant wait til you debunk it by looking into it :)

      1. Atlas

        @DrCash7 there really isn't

      2. DrCash7

        @Atlas nOtHinG to DeBuNK heRe FolKS

      3. Atlas

        There's nothing to debunk.

    46. britshell

      How? miniatures and a sound stage...

    47. mikenco

      That was fascinating! Very few people are qualified to call Neil Armstrong an idiot! lol

    48. The Internet

      I think what you're saying, that we need to learn about *why* decisions were made, is really the root of the "teach a man to fish" adage, and it's such a huge issue with the way I see things being taught. Don't give people the answer, give people the tools to find the answer.

    49. Phineas G

      Folks at NASA are probably taking notes rn.

    50. Black Panther

      Why does the velocity have to be zero upon landing? Why not near zero?

    51. Lavalambtron

      You're making it too easy for tomorrow's kids, they will look like geniuses but instead it was all on youtube.

      1. Some Ones

        The power of technology.

    52. Laura White

      never went to the moon brah. hash tag moon landing hoax

      1. Atlas

        @Laura White I have better things to do than watch conspiracy videos. That said, I never came across a good hoaxer argument.

      2. Laura White

        Atlas gee what a convincing retort Atlas. See “American Moon” on YT and then try to tell me it’s not possible that something’s up with the official narrative.

      3. Atlas

        wrong

    53. David Madsen

      You are truly a treasure! I so appreciate all of your videos, they are some of the most wholesome and informative media out there.

    54. Ian Thornton

      1:58

    55. Asophos

      1:58 amongus

      1. Some Ones

        😳😳😳😳😳😳😳😳😳😳

    56. Wyrylka

      1:44 I can't take this anymore make the pain stop

      1. Bears

        Kinda sus

    57. Aidan Gavin

      1:45

    58. Konnies Egg

      Thanks for the tutorial, just got invited to a Martian party. Heading out tomorrow night.

    59. goutvols103

      Another great video. It would be interesting to know more about the rocket motor that was on the lander and got it back to the orbiter. I had read something where the NASA engineers made it as simple as possible; without any electrical connections to reduce points of failure. It was basically just a mixing of two (2) chemicals by means of the turning of two (2) mechanical valves. Thanks in advance.

    60. Carl Carter

      I flew a test device in Grumman hangar 5 over a mosaic set of lunar photos. All I had was a mockup of the LM cockpit. I made 3 test landing attempts for evaluation data. 50 years later I toured the hangar at the Cape Canaveral facility and in an alcove next to the Saturn V rocket was the same unit I tested at the Grumman facility. I worked at Grumman for 30+ years on the A-6 Intruder , the F-14 Tomcat,and The JSTARS . Fun years!

    61. The Obsolete Man

      There's only three ways to go to the Moon, or one. Step one, resurrect Stanley Kubrick. Step two, rent al large studio in the desert. Step three, buy all media and political influencers to give it credibility. Or Get a bunch of wicked smaht guys to get'em there.

    62. Traci Wagnon

      U said among us a lot

    63. lungotevere

      Excellent. Great job. I know a lot more about lunar landing than I did before watching this. Sign me up!

    64. Tampa Blush

      1:59 among us

    65. Tampa Blush

      1:45 amongus

    66. Jeremy Hopkins

      1:45

    67. Bradyn Austin

      Boots on the moon.

    68. JPazer

      1:45 , 1:59

    69. JPazer

      1:45

    70. Derrick Fyffe

      Hey, I know this video is about the moon, but I have had this question on my mind for a while now, and the recent Mars landing has brought it back again (and I can't think of anyone else to ask) so here goes... This is regarding the 7 minutes of terror: Do you think that it is possible for NASA to build signal amplifiers that would be strategically placed between Mars and Earth, and these would boost the signal enough to reduce the delay in communication time? Or is this still too far in the future? I'm thinking 2 or 3 satellites spaced evenly across the distance whose purpose is to catch and slingshot the signals back and forth... Thank you for your response (provided you get this message, or for anyone else who may have a theory/answer).

      1. Atlas

        The delay is because of the finite speed of light. There's nothing that can be done about that.

    71. Chinmoy Kathar

      Don't you think the next lander will have highly AI assisted landing if not completely AI assisted landing? Although I agree that manual intervention from the onboard astronauts might be necessary and hence the training on earth is necessary.

    72. Travis Weide

      I WANNA SEE THIS CARTOON! MAKE IT HAPEN!

    73. Peter Hoare

      What a brilliant video. Thank you.

    74. Sadrho Gollsodia

      I couldnt find video of the crane attached llrv anywhere else. Where did you get the LLRF-LLRV footage, if you can/want to answer?

    75. Mac Kettner

      Never heard of the X14 either - wow.

    76. curtusw

      Thank you for that video that was awesome I am a space not even though I am not able to go into space but that is so cool that we had that and I bet if we go back to the moon like they want us to we need that version of or a new version of training aid

    77. JustJoe Oleson

      Thanks, dude.

    78. D. Skučas

      1:44 ⠀⠀⠀⡯⡯⡾⠝⠘⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢊⠘⡮⣣⠪⠢⡑⡌ ⠀⠀⠀⠟⠝⠈⠀⠀⠀⠡⠀⠠⢈⠠⢐⢠⢂⢔⣐⢄⡂⢔⠀⡁⢉⠸⢨⢑⠕⡌ ⠀⠀⡀⠁⠀⠀⠀⡀⢂⠡⠈⡔⣕⢮⣳⢯⣿⣻⣟⣯⣯⢷⣫⣆⡂⠀⠀⢐⠑⡌ ⢀⠠⠐⠈⠀⢀⢂⠢⡂⠕⡁⣝⢮⣳⢽⡽⣾⣻⣿⣯⡯⣟⣞⢾⢜⢆⠀⡀⠀⠪ ⣬⠂⠀⠀⢀⢂⢪⠨⢂⠥⣺⡪⣗⢗⣽⢽⡯⣿⣽⣷⢿⡽⡾⡽⣝⢎⠀⠀⠀⢡ ⣿⠀⠀⠀⢂⠢⢂⢥⢱⡹⣪⢞⡵⣻⡪⡯⡯⣟⡾⣿⣻⡽⣯⡻⣪⠧⠑⠀⠁⢐ ⣿⠀⠀⠀⠢⢑⠠⠑⠕⡝⡎⡗⡝⡎⣞⢽⡹⣕⢯⢻⠹⡹⢚⠝⡷⡽⡨⠀⠀⢔ ⣿⡯⠀⢈⠈⢄⠂⠂⠐⠀⠌⠠⢑⠱⡱⡱⡑⢔⠁⠀⡀⠐⠐⠐⡡⡹⣪⠀⠀⢘ ⣿⣽⠀⡀⡊⠀⠐⠨⠈⡁⠂⢈⠠⡱⡽⣷⡑⠁⠠⠑⠀⢉⢇⣤⢘⣪⢽⠀⢌⢎ ⣿⢾⠀⢌⠌⠀⡁⠢⠂⠐⡀⠀⢀⢳⢽⣽⡺⣨⢄⣑⢉⢃⢭⡲⣕⡭⣹⠠⢐⢗ ⣿⡗⠀⠢⠡⡱⡸⣔⢵⢱⢸⠈⠀⡪⣳⣳⢹⢜⡵⣱⢱⡱⣳⡹⣵⣻⢔⢅⢬⡷ ⣷⡇⡂⠡⡑⢕⢕⠕⡑⠡⢂⢊⢐⢕⡝⡮⡧⡳⣝⢴⡐⣁⠃⡫⡒⣕⢏⡮⣷⡟ ⣷⣻⣅⠑⢌⠢⠁⢐⠠⠑⡐⠐⠌⡪⠮⡫⠪⡪⡪⣺⢸⠰⠡⠠⠐⢱⠨⡪⡪⡰ ⣯⢷⣟⣇⡂⡂⡌⡀⠀⠁⡂⠅⠂⠀⡑⡄⢇⠇⢝⡨⡠⡁⢐⠠⢀⢪⡐⡜⡪⡊ ⣿⢽⡾⢹⡄⠕⡅⢇⠂⠑⣴⡬⣬⣬⣆⢮⣦⣷⣵⣷⡗⢃⢮⠱⡸⢰⢱⢸⢨⢌ ⣯⢯⣟⠸⣳⡅⠜⠔⡌⡐⠈⠻⠟⣿⢿⣿⣿⠿⡻⣃⠢⣱⡳⡱⡩⢢⠣⡃⠢⠁ ⡯⣟⣞⡇⡿⣽⡪⡘⡰⠨⢐⢀⠢⢢⢄⢤⣰⠼⡾⢕⢕⡵⣝⠎⢌⢪⠪⡘⡌⠀ ⡯⣳⠯⠚⢊⠡⡂⢂⠨⠊⠔⡑⠬⡸⣘⢬⢪⣪⡺⡼⣕⢯⢞⢕⢝⠎⢻⢼⣀⠀ ⠁⡂⠔⡁⡢⠣⢀⠢⠀⠅⠱⡐⡱⡘⡔⡕⡕⣲⡹⣎⡮⡏⡑⢜⢼⡱⢩⣗⣯⣟ ⢀⢂⢑⠀⡂⡃⠅⠊⢄⢑⠠⠑⢕⢕⢝⢮⢺⢕⢟⢮⢊⢢⢱⢄⠃⣇⣞⢞⣞⢾ ⢀⠢⡑⡀⢂⢊⠠⠁⡂⡐⠀⠅⡈⠪⠪⠪⠣⠫⠑⡁⢔⠕⣜⣜⢦⡰⡎⡯⡾⡽

      1. Atlas

        spooky

    79. Dick Riggles

      Moon landings were faked, hate to break the news.

      1. Brad Wooldidge

        Ha! You’re an ignorant moron. You know NOTHING about the engineering involved.

      2. Kyle Laurent

        Hate to break it to you but you are an idiot.

      3. Dick Riggles

        @Atlas Seriously, do some thinking and use logic...

      4. Atlas

        Wrong.

    80. Bastian Nyström

      Man I'm excited for this series!

    81. W Bix

      tgagyg

    82. Nate Shanks

      This was such an amazing technical feat that mankind accomplished. Thank you for taking the time for making this video and doing in depth research, analysis, and interviews with folks that were involved in the space program. Side note: Sad to see almost 1k flat earthers have shown up.

    83. Patrick Rudolph

      I love getting smarter everyday with your videos

    84. DeltaBravo

      1:58

    85. TP Productions

      WE NEVER WENT TO THE MOON .. OR SPACE AT ALL. GOD IS REAL AND THE EARTH IS FLAT.

      1. Some Ones

        Troller alert :|

      2. Brad Wooldidge

        Troll.

      3. Skippy

        fool spotted

      4. Kyle Laurent

        ****IDIOT ALERT****

    86. langwaydpful

      Absolutely amazing! Keep it up

    87. torrace12

      13:40 *the highest resolution on a film from the 60s ever?* what i mean is that the picture is sharp enough to compare to 480dp

    88. Zach Attack

      It's disappointing I can't like this video more than once.

    89. RoMadSan RodMadSan

      I read Mr. Collins abridged version of his book in Reader's Digest, in a 1974 edition, when I was young, and it is a wonderful book.

    90. Dab-a-tron

      With style

    91. Zander LaMarche

      Not thrusting...

    92. Fabian Herrmann

      Great presentation of the topic at hand again, but there where a few operational VTOL planes in the 1960 like the german EWR VJ 101 and Dornier Do 31, so not that surprised to see one on the lander program here.

    93. jirikivaari

      The apollo real time thing is really cool.

    94. Jin Kuang

      Another reason why people suspect it is fake is because in 1960s, there were no integrated circuits. All computation was using vacuum tubes. There is no way that they could fit that many vacuum tubes into that small module to achieve the REAL TIME SIGNAL PROCESSING FOR LIVE BROADCASTING. Once you realize it is physically impossible with 1960s technologies, you will realize the truth. Hard science won't lie.

      1. Atlas

        @Jin Kuang Noise filtering would have been done at the ground stations. You know, the facilities with godzilla-sized satellite dishes.

      2. Jin Kuang

        @Kyle Laurent I know what I am talking about. This is just a small set of technical issues that are impossible to address in 1960s technologies.

      3. Jin Kuang

        @Atlas You have no idea what you are talking about. Noise filtering is a main operation for real time signal processing. Back in the 1960s there is a big room in TV station doing it. In fact, not until 80s do we start having broadcasting vehicles small enough to fit into a van. And that is 1980s. Think about what is in 1960s when you need to fit a life supporting system AND a broadcasting system into that landing module.

      4. Kyle Laurent

        You have no idea what you are talking about.

      5. Atlas

        Of course there were integrated circuits back then, lol. And they didn't need to do any digital processing. It's just live TV. Live TV has been a thing since the early 1900.

    95. Jin Kuang

      Landing is relatively easy. Launching the heavy life support module back up to 300 miles orbit is hard, even with 1/6 gravity. That is the real reason why people suspect the US landing and returning are fake. If you have a chance to look at the return rocket combustion video, you will conclude it was a joke.

      1. Atlas

        @Jin Kuang Just do the calculations yourself, if you really care that much. Blueprints are freely available to the public. I have no idea what you mean by 'technology data'.

      2. Jin Kuang

        Do you know why so much evidence were destroyed due to "negligence"? These evidence should be the most valuable technology data and blue prints for humanity. But no ... they were accidentally destroyed. Now we can not go back to the moon! Fundamental contradiction on how technology progress. How US suddenly get to land on the moon on the first try (very disruptive in technology progressing) and how suddenly it simply disappear (very disruptive in technology progressing).

      3. Jin Kuang

        @Atlas I have not seen one single video or documentation on the combustion fuel needed to propel this ascending module (life supporting) back to 300 miles high up in orbit. The only video I saw was that laughable shot from the "moon surface" video on the combustion capture.

      4. Atlas

        @Jin Kuang Rocket science doesn't work like that.

      5. Jin Kuang

        @Atlas So it is an equivalent of 1 ton weight on earth. Shoot that up 300 miles and how much combustion material is needed?

    96. Antonín Hájek

      5:55 exactly, reason why america has area 51

    97. Annie Logwood

      The yielding yacht expectantly guarantee because notebook electrophoretically borrow opposite a decorous creature. scared, damp jumbo

    98. Andrew Bickerdike

      God tier science yt channel

    99. Alwayslg

      1:45 Among us 😳😳😳 nasa=among us???!!!111 among us = space game and space = nasa🚨🚨🚨😳😳😳

      1. Some Ones

        omg when amongus nasa😳😳😳😳😳😳😳😳😳😳😳

    100. Doug Wilson

      I still love the space program with all my heart and this video just made me happy. Thanks Destin, for the feels, and the history lesson.