Thank you for proving you are nothing more than a senile old man.
Hm, Sunday 28 April I am 73 and there is a BBQ at my place the day before with plenty women, etc, around celebrating their young, good looking father, etc.
Which says NOTHING to the contrary of you being a senile old man.
And please do not quote Dr. Buzz Aldrin saying he did a vertical rocket landing on the Moon back in 1969. Everyone knows he is a lying American alcoholic going around schools and TV studios rambling about his past since then. I feel sorry for him as I describe it at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm#EV8 .
Do you suggest that this research of mine is false?
I said you suck at research and here you prove it. Neil Armstrong did the landing, not Buzz. If you'd had done even a little research then you would know that. Add to that the 5 subsequent landings, the landings of unmanned probes before and since, the recent automated landings by Spacex witnessed by thousands that you can't research correctly and refuse to watch for yourself and the hundreds of successful flights of the LLTV and LLRV in the 60s and you prove it even more.
Did Neil Armstrong do the vertical landing on the Moon 1969? No, it was Mr Buzz Aldrin at the helm and Neil just watched. http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm#EV8 ! Buzz became a Dr later.
But who cares? None of them, Buzz and Neil, were never on the Moon.
Only twerps believe otherwise.
Wrong again. More LIES from Heiwa. Armstrong did the landing. Your link claims otherwise but provides no proof. All your link proves is you don't understand the subject as one can tell from the multiple instances of begging the question and argument from incredulity. Likely you were confused by their titles. Armstrong is the Commander and Aldrin the Pilot. But Armstrong still piloted the LM. AGAIN, a little basic research (which you failed to do) would have shown you this. They are both pilots and capable of landing but one is in command and does the actual landing. This was true on all apollo missions and remained true through the shuttle era.
And also wrong on when Buzz got his doctorate. He earned that from MIT in 1963. You prove AGAIN that you suck at basic research.
and again you spew insults. Yet more proof you've got nothing else.
It seems Buzz, born 1930, got a science degree of some sort at MIT 1963 so he could participate at a fake Apollo 11 Moon landing 1969 (and a fake Gemini 12 space flight 1966). Neil was the commander and Buzz was the pilot of Apollo 11 Lunar Module. The Lunar Module had at one moment a velocity of 5560 fps and 694 seconds later it landed vertically at 0 speed. Plenty fuel was used! Throughout the descent; Buzz called out navigation data to Neil; who was busy piloting the Eagle, is one description of it. Maybe Buzz was at the helm, when the Lunar Module lifted off to return home? However, both Gemini 12 and Apollo 11 flights were physically impossible. I explain why at my web site. Buzz is a simple con artist. Like Neil!
It is a fact that Buzz has not collected €1M from me to win the Challenge (topic).
According
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11MIssionReport_1971015566.pdf neither Buzz nor Neil piloted anything! The trip was generally automatic and computer controlled apart from some manual intervention when the computer went bananas. Everything was planned ahead incl. eating and sleeping. Only visits to the toilet were forgotten - the space craft had no such thing!
From the report:
Powered descent. Ignition for powered descent occurred on time at the minimum thrust level, and the engine was automatically advanced to the fixed-throttle point (maximum thrust) after 26 seconds. Visual position checks indicated the spacecraft was 2 or 3 seconds early over a known landmark, but with little cross-range error. A yaw maneuver to a face up position was initiated at an altitude of about 45 900 feet approximately 4 minutes after ignition. The landing radar began receiving altitude data immediately. The altitude difference, as displayed from the radar and the computer, was approximately 2800 feet. At 5 minutes 16 seconds after ignition, the first of a series of computer alarms indicated a computer overload condition. These alarms continued intermittently for more than 4 minutes, and although continuation of the trajectory was permissible, monitoring of the computer information display was occasionally precluded. (See "Computer Alarms during Descent" in section 16.) Attitude-thruster firings were heard during each major attitude maneuver and intermittently at other times. Thrust reduction of the descent propulsion system occurred nearly on time (planned at 6 minutes 24 seconds after ignition) and contributed to the prediction that the landing would probably be down range of the intended point, inasmuch as the computer had not been corrected for the observed down-range error. The transfer to the final-approach-phase program (P64) occurred at the predicted time. After the pitch maneuver and the radar antenna position change, the control system was transferred from the automatic to the attitude hold mode, and control response checked in pitch and roll. Automatic control was restored after the pitch and yaw errors had been reduced to zero. After it became clear that an automatic descent would terminate in a boulder field surrounding a large sharp-rimmed crater, manual control was again assumed, and the range was extended to avoid the unsatisfactory landing area. The rate-of-descent throttle control mode (program P66) was entered in the computer to reduce the altitude rate so as to maintain sufficient height for landing-site surveillance. Both the down-range and the cross-range positions were adjusted to permit final descent in a small, relatively level area bounded by a boulder field to the north and by sizable craters to the east and south . Surface obscuration caused by blowing dust was apparent at 100 feet and became increasingly severe as the altitude decreased. Although visual determination of horizontal velocity, attitude, and altitude rate were degraded, cues for these variables were adequate for landing. Landing conditions are estimated to have been l or 2 ft/sec left, 0 ft/sec forward, and 1 ft/sec down; no evidence of vehicle instability at landing was observed. (end of quote)
I always wonder what computer was used and what all those 100's of people at Houston were doing at their screens following the trip. Any ideas?