And... where is the pilot?

[Peter B]

What information would be gained by seeing video of an astronaut flying the LM?

Watching the video of the LM landing gives us useful information about the surface of the Moon.

It would be useful to determine if they really went to the moon or simulated, since there is little convincing evidence that module flew anywhere, engines that do not show fire or make noise inside the LM was pressurized, therefore if air why not hear the engine, never?

Please make up your mind what the problem is.

First you want video of the astronauts flying the LM. Now you're complaining about the lack of flame and noise.

Right, here goes...

How does video of the astronauts flying the LM prove they landed on the Moon? If there was such video it wouldn't show a view out the window, so you would complain that video you had just asked for doesn't show the LM landing on the Moon.

There is plenty of evidence that astronauts walked on the Moon, such as the video and photographic record of the astronauts on the Moon, and the rocks they brought back. They had to get there somehow, and the LM is a suitable means of getting to and from the Moon. There is video of the LM in flight, both from inside and outside the LM. Put that all together and that is enough for most people. If it doesn't suit you, that is unfortunate but it does not mean the evidence we have is not good enough.

Lack of engine flame? The LM Ascent Engine used the same propellants as the Titan II missile. You can verify that. Photos of Titan II missile launches show the exhaust flame was nearly invisible. You can verify that too. The image quality of the lunar rover TV camera was much lower than cameras used to take photos of Titan II launches. You can verify that.

It is therefore not surprising that the TV pictures of the LMs lifting off from the Moon do not show an exhaust flame.

Lack of engine noise? The only means of transmitting sounds from the LM to Mission Control was by means of the astronauts' microphones. The microphones were highly directional and located close to the astronauts' mouths. You can verify that. The reason for this was that it was important for Mission Control to hear the astronauts' voices only, and not be distracted by other sounds.

It is therefore not surprising that the astronauts' microphones did not pick up the sound of the LM Ascent Engine: the microphones were specifically designed to pick up the sounds of the astronauts' voices to the exclusion of other sounds.

Do you want video from inside the spacecraft or outside? If inside the spacecraft, what information would be gained by watching three astronauts sitting in their couches? If outside the spacecraft, exactly how do you expect the video to be recorded?

We have seen how the rocket Apollo separate phases in orbit, I see no reason not to do the same when re-entering the atmosphere or when you perform the landing, had become more credible such a strange scene with engines that do not make noise or expelled flar.

I do not understand what you are saying. What were you expecting to see? Video of the Command Module from somewhere outside the spacecraft? Or video of the crew inside the spacecraft?

Launches were filmed only by cameras on the ground at the launch site. Re-entry occurred over the Pacific Ocean. Where was NASA supposed to place cameras to record re-entry?

Or perhaps you could watch this video:

a little after 17:30 you get an image of the re-entering spacecraft. Are you happy now?

As others have shown, you need to look to find information.

Another one that repeats the same music ... "go get" it is NOT an answer but a confession that there is nothing to show.

Are you willing to withdraw that claim now that I've shown you evidence that you are wrong?

[bknight]

The night reentries are spectacular, Apollo or Shuttle.

[sts60]

Agreed.  I've watched Shuttles leave a plasma trail from Houston.  (And was at the SLF for the first night landing at KSC.)

Ascents are also cool.  I've watched a number of Shuttle liftoffs from KSC and the Cape, but have also watched Shuttles on high-inclination night launches from Virginia and Maryland.  It's fun to watch a fat yellow spark zipping up along the East Coast.)

[ka9q]

So we have perhaps an hour of intense, mission critical activity where the astronauts are busy with very tight maneuvering - who should film it? Why should they film it? What would a film show, other than the astronauts sitting in their couches, occasionally flipping switches, and one moving a hand controller very carefully. Not much to see, is there?

Yet they did film and photograph it, though the images are of the LM sitting on top of the S-IVB as the CSM approached it. Because that's the interesting part.

Photos of the interior would simply show the CMP in the left seat with his right hand on the attitude joystick and his left hand on the translation controller, looking out the window through his COAS device. Would look just like training photos on the ground except for the stuff floating in weightlessness, moving around a little as he maneuvered the spacecraft.

There are plenty of photos, film and video of the three astronauts floating inside the command module during more relaxed times as they flew between the earth and moon. They're shown eating (and sometimes playing with their food), reading, conducting experiments, looking out the windows, waving at the camera, or sleeping. The video segments are long enough to prove the weightlessness isn't being done in an airplane; they're really in space.

But our friend probably doesn't know any of this.

[raven]

An even better example of the transparency of the exhaust of the hyperbolic propellent used is the second stage (go to 7:10) of the Delta II rocket. Just a brief belch and then no visible exhaust. You can even see the engine bell glowing in the shadow, but, again, no visible exhaust except that start up burp. The Titan 2 first stage isn't quite the best example, because the air pressure around it confines the exhaust column, and air reacts with unburnt propellent to create the orange clouds nitrogen dioxide, neither which, obviously, would happen on the moon.

[ka9q]

the exhaust of the hyperbolic propellent

hypergolic propellant. The term originates in Germany, and it refers to a fuel/oxidizer combination that ignites spontaneously on contact, without an igniter.

All rocket engines, except solid fuel, seem to have invisible or nearly invisible plumes in space except for those startup transients you mentioned. Even SpaceX's kerosene/LOX upper stage, which surprised me because kerosene's plume is so bright in the atmosphere. In vacuum the plume expands much more rapidly after leaving the engine nozzle, and there's no oxygen to burn the exhaust (all rocket engines I know of operate on a rich mixture).

[raven]

the exhaust of the hyperbolic propellent

hypergolic propellant.

All rocket engines, except solid fuel, seem to have invisible or nearly invisible plumes in space except for those startup transients you mentioned. Even SpaceX's kerosene/LOX upper stage, which surprised me because kerosene's plume is so bright in the atmosphere. In vacuum the plume expands much more rapidly after leaving the engine nozzle, and there's no oxygen to burn the exhaust (all rocket engines I know of operate on a rich mixture).

Very true, but this  mixture seems to be particularly transparent. While the Falcon second stage liquid oxygen/kerosene exhaust is  just visible in SpaceX's video,  Delta II 2nd stage uses the exact same propellent as the LM.
And my bad on the spelling. I am familiar with the concept.

[bknight]

the exhaust of the hyperbolic propellent

hypergolic propellant.

All rocket engines, except solid fuel, seem to have invisible or nearly invisible plumes in space except for those startup transients you mentioned. Even SpaceX's kerosene/LOX upper stage, which surprised me because kerosene's plume is so bright in the atmosphere. In vacuum the plume expands much more rapidly after leaving the engine nozzle, and there's no oxygen to burn the exhaust (all rocket engines I know of operate on a rich mixture).

Very true, but this  mixture seems to be particularly transparent. While the Falcon second stage liquid oxygen/kerosene exhaust is  just visible in SpaceX's video,  Delta II 2nd stage uses the exact same propellent as the LM.
And my bad on the spelling. I am familiar with the concept.

It seems no matter how many times the HB crowd are told about the nearly invisible flame, this "concern" keeps popping up.  I try to link a Gemini 11 or 12 earth launch to debunk it.

[Sus_pilot]

Tarkus, how do you think somebody "drives" a spaceship?

I guess in the strange world which tarkus claims to inhibit it should look more like this

(F1 cockpit cam: See the driver at work)

GoPro wasn't in existence in the 60's-70's

To be fair, small 16mm data acquisition cameras did exist and were used in cockpits - the X-15 cockpit films come to mind, as do the ones used to film astronaut reaction in Mercury.

In the X-15, the camera was used to record the instrument panel, not so much the pilot.  The famous footage of Michael Adams' fatal flight clearly shows that the pilot was almost in the way of what was being recorded, being an over-the-shoulder shot.  In Mercury, the astronaut was the main subject of the experiment, so naturally his reaction would be filmed.

I suspect that by the time Apollo came along, the perceived need to film the astronauts had pretty much been obviated, so they didn't bother.

Finally, in-cockpit films of pilots are boring! Even watching footage of a pilot flying aerobatics is dull - it's someone sitting there moving some controls (even the famous GIF of the topless woman doing rolls just gets dull after a few repetitions).

[onebigmonkey]

I think at this point it's worth reminding everyone about tarkus' first post on this forum, which contained a link to a video showing the Apollo 13 crew in their spaceship.

[bknight]

Tarkus, how do you think somebody "drives" a spaceship?

I guess in the strange world which tarkus claims to inhibit it should look more like this

(F1 cockpit cam: See the driver at work)

GoPro wasn't in existence in the 60's-70's

To be fair, small 16mm data acquisition cameras did exist and were used in cockpits - the X-15 cockpit films come to mind, as do the ones used to film astronaut reaction in Mercury.

In the X-15, the camera was used to record the instrument panel, not so much the pilot.  The famous footage of Michael Adams' fatal flight clearly shows that the pilot was almost in the way of what was being recorded, being an over-the-shoulder shot.  In Mercury, the astronaut was the main subject of the experiment, so naturally his reaction would be filmed.

I suspect that by the time Apollo came along, the perceived need to film the astronauts had pretty much been obviated, so they didn't bother.

Finally, in-cockpit films of pilots are boring! Even watching footage of a pilot flying aerobatics is dull - it's someone sitting there moving some controls (even the famous GIF of the topless woman doing rolls just gets dull after a few repetitions).

Film yes, but not continuous live TV broadcasts, of activities.

[Dalhousie]

In the X-15, the camera was used to record the instrument panel, not so much the pilot.  The famous footage of Michael Adams' fatal flight clearly shows that the pilot was almost in the way of what was being recorded, being an over-the-shoulder shot.  In Mercury, the astronaut was the main subject of the experiment, so naturally his reaction would be filmed.

I did not no such footage existed, let alone being "famous".  Without being morbid (I hope), is it available on line?

[Sus_pilot]

Yes - the film got light shot after the crash, so the last few feet showing the actual crash was wiped out.

[bknight]

I don't know about plane crashes, but in the few automobile accidents I have everything seemed to go in slow motion. Of course a camera wouldn't sense that.

[tarkus]

For fun:

lol knew this photo but this proves anything? What I see here is a man in a mock spaceship and illuminated with black background, nothing more.
I was talking about something else ...

I don't care

It's a photo of  human being at the controls of a lunar module, one of a series of photos that start with a very distant LM against the moon. A sequence that was also captured on 16mm footage.

Do try keeping your goalposts in the same place for a few minutes.

This does not prove that this module is nowhere, could be in a suspended cable studio behind a black curtain, not proof that someone is driving, only one head is seen behind a window.