"EXPANDING UPON APOLLO / SATURN TECHNOLOGIES" NASA FILM w/ DR. CHARLES H. TOWNES 19164

Want to support this channel and help us preserve old films? Visit / periscopefilm
Browse our products on Amazon: amzn.to/2YILTSD
This informational film titled “Manned Space Flight: Apollo/ Saturn The Use for Science and Applications” was made by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) sometime in the late 1960s or 1970s. The film chronicles NASA’s then mission of expanding upon the Apollo Saturn space vehicle technologies for further space explorations in Earth’s orbit, the Moon’s orbit, and the Moon’s surface. The committee of scientists led by Dr. Charles H. Townes sought to bridge the gap between space technology from the 1960s to that of the 1970s and beyond. (Charles Townes was the experimental physicist who invented the laser - now indispensable in science, technology, and medicine. Townes received the 1964 Nobel Prize in Physics for his work. More than a dozen subsequent Nobel Prizes have depended on the existence of lasers.)
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) logo (0:09). Dr. Charles H. Townes speaks to the camera (0:17). Animation detailing plans for first basic manned Apollo Saturn missions (1:38). Animation detailing planned missions to the moon (2:01). Animation with more details about manned missions in Earth’s orbit and positive outcomes from the mission (2:28). Animation with more details about planned lunar flights and positive outcomes from the mission (3:28). Animation of astronauts working in a lab on the moon (4:03). Saturn 1B and Saturn V rockets (4:24). Modifications to be made to the rockets for future unmanned missions to planets like Mars (4:37). Basic Apollo Spacecraft (5:09). Crew member enters the command module (5:30). Lunar excursion module (5:48). Illustration detailing scientific payload calculations (6:23). Illustration detailing the scientific payload of the lunar excursion module (7:35). Footage of meetings of the team behind applying the Apollo/Saturn technologies (10:06). Meetings at the Office of Manned Space Science in Washington D.C. (10:31). Aerial views of government facilities used for manufacturing Apollo Saturn hardware (10:54). Experiments on finished hardware pieces (11:29). Apollo Saturn 1B preparations for unmanned missions - development tests (11:58). Saturn 5 development tests (12:13). Establishment of a worldwide tracking and communications network (12:38). Meeting of scientists and engineers (13:01). Aerial shots of earth’s landscape (13:25). Photographs of earth from The Gemini 4 mission (13:42). Photograph from a manned spacecraft over Tibet (14:19). Benefits of multispectral sensors on identifying crops and forests as well as oceanography and meteorology efforts (14:43). Animation of a telescope in Earth’s orbit (15:43). Animation of astronaut assembling a radar in space (16:28). Photographs of the Moon's surface taken by Ranger 7 (Ranger VII) (17:00). Scientist mapping out landing site based on photographs (17:26). Animation detailing a possible mission in equatorial orbit (19:16). Closing comments (21:18).
We encourage viewers to add comments and, especially, to provide additional information about our videos by adding a comment! See something interesting? Tell people what it is and what they can see by writing something for example: "01:00:12:00 -- President Roosevelt is seen meeting with Winston Churchill at the Quebec Conference."
This film is part of the Periscope Film LLC archive, one of the largest historic military, transportation, and aviation stock footage collections in the USA. Entirely film backed, this material is available for licensing in 24p HD, 2k and 4k. For more information visit www.PeriscopeFi...

[@evilkittyofdoom195]

Love that old school animation !

[@pedrothepussycat6142]

YEP Nailed it AS IT WAS AND STILL IS . ANIMATION

[@0neIntangible]

I like it... All great ideas, team... I say let's go ahead and do it!

[@markypee9040]

Great Films. Very much enjoyed.

[@nicholasmaude6906]

The Saturn-IB/Centaur three-stage launcher was a missed opportunity for NASA.

[@colinbarnard6512]

I suspect this film was made in or around 1965. It breaks my heart to see what was squandered when Richard Nixon got his hands on NASA and Apollo. It's as if a deliberate plan was implemented to get only the bare minimum of objectives Apollo could have been used for. One can close one's eyes and imagine someone from SpaceX talking about Starship's potential... If you really want to self-flagilate, read Stephen Baxter's fantastic SF novel 'Voyage-, which also expanded upon Apollo Applications.

[@DadIsALoon]

I'll presume you found some bad information instead of assuming you are promoting ideological propaganda. How the hell do you think Nixon had *anything* to do with the decline of the space program? Are you not aware that Congress is responsible for funding the government, not the executive branch. If the Congress wants to fund something, they can pass a bill to do so, and even if the president wants to veto it, a veto can be overridden if enough members of Congress vote for it. The space program declined for two basic reasons: 1. The main reason it, despite all the rah-rah propaganda about how we need to go into space for adventure, exploration, and the evolution of humanity, despite all the Kennedy-worship about being a visionary, the space program was one thing, and one thing only. A means of developing the technology needed to create and control long-range nuclear weapons systems, as well as the technology to defend against them (google "SAGE computer' and "the DEW line" for examples). The government, especially after World War II and the Korean War, as well as the brewing war in Viet Name, as well as the communist takeovers of many other countries, the people in the US were not at all keen on going to war. They were scared shitless by what was then a new and almost magical technology: atomic and thermonuclear weapons. The government was not in a position to go to the population and ask for the immense amounts of money (numbers so large most people couldn't relate) to develop technology they didn't understand for wars they didn't want. But, at least back then we people had some pride in their county and men had balls, you could sell the narrative of heroic explorers conquering new frontiers, which is why they had movie-star Kennedy push this so hard, and then used his assassination to sell it even harder. 2. The fickle public, after the initial novelty of the moon landing, was bored. Worse, despite propaganda to the contrary, the space program was never that popular with the public. A majority of people thought we had social and environmental problems that were more important, and that the space program was an effete luxury. Again, Congress appropriates money, and you can find voluminous evidence of Democrats, in particular, arguing against spending on the space program. NASA cancelled the last Apollo missions because they wanted to spend their money elsewhere. You can find undocumented rumors that Nixon had something to do with it, mostly because he was spooked by the failure of Apollo 13, but there isn't a shred of evidence for it, but there are hundreds of congressional speeches and at least as many news reports about people protesting the spending. Let me be clear about something; I'm a classic nerd. I think from the perspective of the species, going into space is essential. I am an engineer, and I've worked on two NASA projects (i.e. actually wrote code for them). I also think exploration and scientific discovery are of great value as a way to stimulate new ideas. However, too much of history is being corrupted by political/ideological bullshit. It is the most primitive of thinking to pick a bogeyman (e.g. Nixon) and blame it on the sacrificial goat. That's tribal. There were lot's of people making lots of money building lots of weapons; the money spent on the space program, in comparison, was pocket change. History teaches that the only time a foothold on a new frontier endures is when it is in the economic interest of a significant number of people. That is true whether one is talking about food crops, precious metals, industrial ores, luxury goods, energy, etc. It is especially successful when that economic gain is reflected in a higher standard of living for a wider number of people. People may not like this fact, but history proves it; exploration has always been funded by the desires of people who want to acquire resources that lead to wealth, and even the "pure" explorers, who need money for their missions, had to seek patrons.

[@dougball328]

This film provides the evidence that Apollo was about politics and not science. We went to the moon to beat the Russians. Borman flat out said this in one of his interviews. I do agree that we squandered a golden opportunity to explore our near universe. And it wasn't just Nixon. While I am no fan of Nixon, Congress was no longer willing to support the program. For them Apollo 11 was 'mission accomplished', so cancel it and save the money.

[@allgood6760]

I watch this in anticipation of Artemis 1 flight tomorrow..we are going back to the Moon folks👍

[@gregorydahl]

At 1:40 you can see the loading of buffering indicator on the center of your screen of the cheap dilapidated youtube internet connection .

[@LuciFeric137]

54 years gone and just now getting ready to test a comparable booster.

[@lukestrawwalker]

And one built from pre-existing old shuttle parts, the most expensive bits but all used in "expendable" mode so they all end up in a million pieces on the floor of the ocean after each flight... and according to NASA's own Inspector General's office, a rocket which will cost $4 billion dollars PER FLIGHT... NOT including ANY mission costs or hardware costs-- that's just for the rocket and launching it. SLS is a BAD JOKE. Supposedly reusing the old shuttle technology would enable the vehicle to be built YEARS sooner for BILLIONS less money, even though NASA's own RAC-2 study showed that a new "clone" of the Saturn V with a liquid kerosene powered first stage, topped by a liquid hydrogen ascent stage and a liquid hydrogen in-space propulsion stage, would be less expensive to operate and give WAY more flexibility for upgrades or improvements into the future. BUT it wouldn't reward the old shuttle contractors with their heavily lobbied space-state politicians, so NO it HAD to be the SLS. Basically there's NOTHING that SLS can do that you COULDN'T do with a pair of Falcon Heavy launches. SLS will require billions in upgrades before it will be able to actually perform any *real* missions; SLS as it is now cannot even get an Orion capsule alone into low lunar orbit and back out again-- instead they're doing all they can manage which is a highly elliptical roughly 24 hour lunar orbit that spends about an hour in the vicinity of the Moon at perilune and then the next 23 hours outbound to a point 75,000 miles (IIRC) above the Moon before reaching apolune and then dropping back down toward the Moon again. It's ridiculous. There's only so many pairs of old shuttle booster casings left, and since they cannot be recovered after each SLS flight, they'll be dumped into the ocean to break up and sink after each launch (The Ares I-X flight with a four segment shuttle booster topped by a dummy fifth segment proved that the booster casings could not be reused, as it was bent beyond repair from the ocean landing under parachutes). The four RS-25 SSME's powering each SLS core will likewise be dumped back into the ocean after the core breaks up and burns up on reentry. SLS will require expensive block 2 upgrades including all new throwaway higher-performance SRB's, PLUS a new liquid hydrogen upper ascent stage (second stage roughly analgous to the S-II stage) PLUS a new in-space propulsion stage (similar to the S-IVB stage) to be able to do anything but test mission "stunts". It's a rocket to nowhere. IN addition, because SLS is only designed to be launched every 2-3 years, and a Mars mission will require AT LEAST six launches to accomplish even with the "more powerful" block 2 SLS, it will require at least 12 years to assemble and fuel a Mars-bound spacecraft in Low Earth Orbit using SLS, at a cost JUST for the rockets required coming in at $24 billion dollars (the ENTIRE Apollo program only cost $26 billion dollars all total!) SO SLS is a joke. In a United States suffering economic collapse and doing everything possible to start a two front war with both Russia and China, there simply isn't going to be money to waste on this boondoggle much longer. Later! OL J R :)

[@lukestrawwalker]

Saturn V went from paper idea to first flight in five years. They've been working on SLS (and its predecessor from which it's derived, Ares V) since 2004-5, over 17 years... Back when Saturn V was built, EVERYTHING was new and uncharted territory to build a booster of that size, build engines the size of F-1 to propel it, develop the J-2 hydrogen engines, it required all new state of the art processes to design, construct, test, integrate, transport, and launch, all done without computers using only slide rules, and all the hardware needed to build, test, transport, and launch it had to be built along with it. SLS was built from pre-existing shuttle boosters and engines and over 50 years of knowledge from Saturn on down in how to build large rocket structures, using new materials and cutting-edge state of the art processes, using advances in materials science, testing, welding, fabrication, measurement, etc from the past 50 years, and using the most advanced state of the art computerized design and analysis tools on the planet, and it's STILL taken them 15 years and BILLIONS more dollars to do to produce a VASTLY INFERIOR product that will cost BILLIONS more (over 3 times as much) per launch than Saturn V. It's really SHAMEFUL! OL J R :)

[@markgnarz5399]

Well this is new to me KZbin. A pop up to a definition of Apollo?

[@Mark_Ocain]

Pretty ambitious back then eh? Some of this came to pass whilst other expectations were never met.

[@videodistro]

This film is clearly BEFORE manned Apollo missions. So why is it listed as being from the late 60's early 70's??? ?? It's more like mid 60's.

[@jackandersen1262]

Many of the modified LM configurations exactly match flight configurations described in "Alternate Apollo Mission Descriptions" which dates to September of 1965, but the LM shelter taxi mission seems quite preliminary compared to "Apollo Extension Systems - Lunar Excursion Module Phase B" which dates to December of 1965, so put it somewhere in between the two (probably around September or close to it as the orbital configurations were set out as early as May).

[@thebruffy1077]

Any vacuum chamber testing footage of pressure suits?

[@nicholasmaude6906]

What might have been if it hadn't have been for that bottomless money-pit known as the Vietnam-war.

[@huwzebediahthomas9193]

Did man go to the moon? Okay, if so, why have we not been back since, many times, after 1975? Presidential order?

[@Bill_N_ATX]

Because nobody wanted to pay for it. It’s as simple as that.

[@Bill_N_ATX]

@@jagone5672 Bite Your tongue. I’m one of those rarities who eschews voting for nominees from either of the criminal gangs called the Republicans and the Democrats.

[@GaryTaters]

@@Bill_N_ATX incredibly un-informed take Will

[@Bill_N_ATX]

@Alistair Muir , I’m not sure what he could have found that wasn’t published eventually. It was almost insanely dangerous. They had a long list of single points of failure and shit that would just plain kill them. There was a significant list of unknowns too. But between a lot of hard work and a lot of luck, they only lost the crew of Apollo 1. Most folks know of the dangers of Apollo 13 but there were a couple others that were touch and go. They lost two Shuttle crews and could have easily lost two more. Going to space is dangerous. Getting out of the Earths gravity well takes an immense amount of energy. Then you get to space where everything is trying to kill you. It’s not going to be a place for women and children for a long time.

[@abundantYOUniverse]

@@jagone5672 Jag's just an idiot conspiracy tard, nothing more.

[@gregorydahl]

And then we got a kick in the stomach whe announced that the next great giant leap would be a glider that lands like a glider but launched with a rocket . It would be used to build a hap hazard collection of space debris and equipment in orbit called the international space station or i ss . It would orbit horizon to horizon in 52 seconds and amazingly pass precisely ofhead of the september 2001 new york world trade center collapsing dust rollout during it's 12 second duration to document the effects on a 200,000 ton steel tower caused by the release of contained plasma from an underground thermonuclear blast in the bedrock under manhatton Island .

[@riconui5227]

I hadn't heard this one yet. I presume this amazing assertion must be validated by some amazing evidence? Care to let us in on it?

[@gregorydahl]

@@riconui5227 A railroad bridge made out of steel tresstle warren truss thrown at the side of the 911 world trade center at the speed of an airliner would not be able to make a hole in the 78th floor . But you say a thin aluminum sheet metal crumply airplane hollow tube sagging and tearing and bending from suitcases and fuel did . 21 years later . In the middle of the night . On some chicken shit radio typewriter . As if people who want answers will protect you .

[@lukestrawwalker]

LOL the shuttle was a pooch screw based on a lie from day one. First ALL the "studies" that showed the shuttle would "save money through reusability" were based on false assumptions. First NASA based it on insanely high flight rates-- in the early days it was 70 flights per year-- about one every five days. Second, they assumed ridiculously low recurring costs, refurbishment requirements and costs, and turn-around times for the shuttle system to enable that many flights per year. Third, even space experts at the time said that there was NO payloads for that many flights-- NASA was basing it all on "build it and they will come" type thinking which was pie-in-the-sky and based on ridiculously low launch costs of $10 million per flight. Eventually NASA did reel back its inflated numbers a bit to "50 launches a year" (about one per week). The ORIGINAL plan for the shuttle was by Maxime Faget, the engineer who designed the Mercury spacecraft and Apollo. His design used a "fluffy" sorta pudgy looking conventional airplane arrangement for the orbiter, with straight slightly swept wings and a conventional airplane type tail, and which carried all its propellants in INTERNAL tanks. Of course the tanks were a VERY large proportion of the vehicle, and thus only room for a crew cabin and SMALL payload bay. It would be launched atop a reusable flyback winged first stage, which would carry it up to sufficient altitude and speed that the orbiter then ignited its rocket engines to propel itself into space, while the separated booster would fly back to a runway landing at the launch site. Due to the huge empty fuel tanks, the orbiter would be VERY light for its surface area, allowing it to use a "hot structures" metallic heat shield made from high-temperature alloys like Inconel, gliding down to a runway landing. NOTHING would be thrown away-- the entire vehicle was 100% reusable other than propellants. Of course NASA didn't get the money to develop a fully reusable shuttle, so that was the first thing out the window. The more NASA studied the possible shuttle designs and what it would REALLY cost to build, the more they realized they didn't have the money and weren't likely to get it, particularly with anti-manned-space senators like Walter Mondale and William Proxmire with his "Golden Fleece" awards whistleblowing on extravagant gubmint expenditures like $500 hammers and $4,000 toilet seats... SO NASA went looking for more money, and found a willing partner in the Air Force. The USAF had been itching to have their own space capability for decades. First in the early 60's they had their Dyna-Soar program-- a small delta-winged manned glider launched by a Titan II or III rocket, capable of "skipping" along the Earth's outer atmosphere like a rock on a pond at near-orbital velocities, doing spy missions, or with additional power entering orbit to spy on enemy satellites or other such stuff. It was cancelled by McNamara as a cost-saving measure early in the Vietnam days, and he threw them a bone with the "Manned Orbiting Laboratory" program, which would have used a version of NASA's Gemini capsules called "Blue Gemini" mated to a 10 foot diameter mini-space station equipped as a manned spy satellite with a "Dorian" spy satellite camera, inserted into orbit by an uprated Titan III-M rocket. (The Soviets actually ended up trying this 2-3 times, launching modified "Salyut" stations called "Almaz" (diamond) into space, manned by two military cosmonauts. They found that the additional vibration and "noise" from the equipment needed to air condition and recirculate air in the station for men, plus the cosmonauts themselves bumping into the walls, basically ruined most of the value of the station as a spy satellite, which needs to be EXTREMELY stable and vibration free to take sharp photographs from orbit at high magnification without blurring). The USAF actually launched a test version with a dummy MOL and unmanned Blue Gemini, to test a hatch cut in the heat shield which was required for the astronauts to be able to enter the station through a hatch in the back of the capsule in orbit, and close it to come home again when the mission was over. Each station would only be used once, as the capsule was mated to it on the ground and Gemini couldn't dock with it and seal itself to the tunnel. The AF had recruited and trained their own cadre of astronauts when the whole thing was cancelled due to Vietnam expenses and "not being needed". To be continued... OL J R:)

[@lukestrawwalker]

SO, the USAF was more than willing to jump in bed with NASA and provide additional funding to develop shuttle, BUT they had some "requirements" that had to be met. The AF wanted to be able to launch shuttles into polar or high-inclination orbits from Vandenberg AFB in California, and had a "requirement" to do a "once around" mission, which basically would have the shuttle launch out of Vandenberg heading SOUTH, dropping its spent boosters off the lower California coast, entering orbit heading past South America, flying over the Antarctic south polar region, and then flying northwards toward the East-- either the Soviet Union or China, depending on the inclination of the orbit, and approaching the target from the SOUTH. It would then open its payload bay doors, which would expose a huge spy camera taking up the payload bay of the shuttle, which would then do a photo reconnaissance run over the enemy from orbit, like a Mach 20 SR-71 100 miles high. After completing its photo run, it would shut the payload doors, flip around and perform a retrofire maneuver, and reenter over the Arctic north polar region, gliding back down to a runway landing at Edwards AFB in California about 90 minutes after liftoff, having completed a single orbit. The problem was, the stubby-winged fat orbiter NASA preferred didn't have the cross-range capability the AF needed to do a "once around" mission, since the Earth continues to spin at roughly 1,000 mph eastwards (at the equator) during the 1.5 hour mission, meaning the landing strip at Edwards AFB would be considerably further east than when the shuttle had launched. SO the USAF "required" the large delta-winged shuttle to get the necessary cross-range capability. They also wanted the ENORMOUS 15x60 foot payload bay of the delta-winged glider orbiter, which could fit gigantic spy satellites they planned to launch with the shuttle. The AF had all sorts of dumb ideas as well, like sending up a shuttle with military astronauts to rendezvous and "capture" enemy spy satellites, or send astronauts spacewalking over to "inspect" them and determine their capabilities, or even "sabotage" them by spray painting over the camera lenses and other such goofy stuff, which of course the enemy would detect and would give them the excuse they needed to send their own cosmonauts up to sabotage our spy-sats or blow them up in orbit with ASAT rockets. Really stupid insane stuff. Of course they have to figure out an "affordable" way to get this 99 ton delta behemoth into orbit, so they turn to "reusable" solid rocket boosters. By constructing them in segments and stacking them together to make up the boosters, made out of thick maraging steel segments similar to a submarine hull but only 12 feet in diameter, they can withstand the 750 PSI internal pressure when burning, and survive intact landing under parachutes in the ocean, be refloated horizontal and towed back, taken apart, and shipped to Utah to the solid rocket motor plant for refurbishment and refilling with propellant. Of course Von Braun and the other bigwigs of the manned space program had never wanted to put humans on a solid rocket powered booster before for good safety reasons, but they were overruled when it became apparent that was basically the only realistic option they had. Of course since there was no room in the orbiter for propellant tanks, that meant an External Tank would have to be used, which due to its size and speed when separated meant it would be disposable. The additional heat of reentry from the much DENSER orbiter meant that it would get far too hot during reentry for the metallic heat shield idea to work. Instead they used the silica glass-foam tiles which would withstand the heat, but were extremely brittle (about like styrofoam) and would have to be individually applied to the surface of the orbiter. Being so brittle would also impose more constraints on when and what the shuttle could fly through-- raindrops impacting the orbiter would dig holes in the tile like BB's shot into styrofoam, for instance, and the blizzard of frost and ice raining down from the tank at the moment of liftoff had to be stopped. SO the idea of spraying the tank with insulating foam was invented. The size and weight of the orbiter, and the need to carry large payloads, meant no "launch escape" system could be used, as it would essentially be so heavy as to eat up the payload capability. Besides, no manned spacecraft had EVER had to use a launch abort system, so why waste time building one? All these bad compromises made the shuttle a technologically brittle vehicle, one with no realistic escape options (particularly after the first four flights when the ejection seats were removed from the upper deck, to bring the crew capability up to seven). They would, with a poor safety culture of a complacent NASA management later on, end up causing the loss of 2/5 of the shuttle fleet and 14 astronauts. More to come... OL J R :)

[@gregorydahl]

@@lukestrawwalker So why did they built the space station to fly over new york and photograph and test the release of hot pressurized plasma from an underground nuclear explosion under the twintowers to erupt up out of the ground up through a specially constructed steel world trade center twin towers . And the plasma flow would expand and cool like refrigerant on atomic steroids , but strike the surfaces of the steel like explosive gasses from conventional explosives do to induce supersonic shockwaves that combine and overlap and underlap to produce " cavitation" . A process that turns metal or rocks to dust . But with the added effect of freezing. They just want to get the oil and get rich and blame the people for all the pearl harbors and 911's .

[@huwzebediahthomas9193]

Van Halen's Belt I thought would fry us...

[@lukestrawwalker]

Van Allen... it would "fry" you IF YOU STAYED IN IT. Apollo only took about an hour to cross the Van Allen belts... that short amount of time you get a negligible radiation dose. Radiation doses are determined by 1) the level of the radioactivity and 2) the length of time your exposed to it. You can go through even VERY high levels of radiation IF you're only exposed to it for a few seconds. Likewise we ALL get very low doses of radiation at all times from the sun and galactic radiation, but it's so low even though we're exposed constantly it doesn't bother us. OL J R :)

[@MikeHunt-rw4gf]

Algorithm.

[@DouglasUrantia]

This film is pure science fiction.

[@lukestrawwalker]

Not if they'd have used Saturn to its potential... Congress cheaped out, Nixon wanted Saturn killed because it was his rival Kennedy's baby, not his, and so NASA double down on the Space Shuttle because they thought it was the next "logical" thing to do and because they realized politically that Nixon would fund it because it would 1) put his stamp on the space program and 2) it would funnel vast sums of money to Nixon's home state of California aerospace industry contributors. There were concepts for NASA to do manned flybys of Venus or Mars with the Saturn V and Apollo hardware, with minimal modification. Plans to add a sixth F-1 to Saturn V, or F-1A engines with 300,000 lbs more thrust each, or add liquid rocket boosters or solid boosters, a seven J-2 engine powered stretched S-II stage, which would put 140,000 lbs payload not into low EARTH orbit, but low LUNAR orbit... with that kind of performance they could have built a real moonbase and done missions continuously, landing a large hab-rover on the surface capable of trekking anywhere on the Moon, etc. With the NERVA nuclear powered stage, it would have been possible to do pretty much anything you wanted including Mars missions. But they p!ssed it all away because of shallow-minded politics. Later! OL J R :)

[@DouglasUrantia]

@@lukestrawwalker .....landing on the moon was not a safe possibility in 1969 due to the primitive nature of technology at that time. Kennedy was overly optimistic so Nixon was obliged to fake it with the help of Kubrick and his moon set at the MGM Studio in north London.

[@pedrothepussycat6142]

"" Made in a Hollywood Basement ""

[@DouglasUrantia]

@@pedrothepussycat6142 ....you have the idea Pedro. The US has never landed a man on the moon but maybe it will happen someday.

[@DouglasUrantia]

@@CNCmachiningisfun ....moon fakery is obvious by watching Apollo 11 crews going from walking on the ''moon'' to entering the lander with their space suits and boots covered with moon dust. Even Hollywood knew you can't do that.

[@pedrothepussycat6142]

NASSA IS HEBREW FOR "Deceive "

[@pedrothepussycat6142]

@@CNCmachiningisfun Doné, Done, Done and Doné