Why Is It So Hard To Return To The Moon If We Have Gone Before?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 июл 2024
- The last time a human was on the Moon was in 1972. Since then, technology has taken giant steps, and more and more countries have developed their space program, but despite this, human beings have not returned to visit the Moon. What are the reasons?
The main motivation
To find the reasons that led to the trip to the Moon, we have to go back to the end of the decade of, the 60s. After World War II, during the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union engaged in the Space Race, a stubborn struggle between the two powers whose ultimate goal was to place a citizen of the nation on the surface of the Moon.
The high cost of stepping on the moon again
Reaching the moon was not an easy feat to achieve because, in addition to the technological challenges we will discuss later, there were also many economic challenges.
What happened to technology?
Today NASA has the new rocket SLS ("Space Launch System"), which will be the successor of the Atlas V that was responsible for taking astronauts to the Moon; this rocket made its debut with the launch of the Artemis 1 Mission, which was a success, managing to take the Orion capsule to the orbit of the Moon, which will be the new spacecraft that will transport humans to the lunar surface.
The problem of fuel supply
Before successfully taking off, the Artemis 1 mission was canceled two times due to technical failures in the fuel system; these failures are the same ones that caused the cancellation of the Apollo missions and the same ones suffered by the shuttles.
Reusing rockets
The reason why NASA continues to use hydrogen fuel is its high efficiency since it is the element that provides greater thrust and less weight. Still, another important reason is the law; we are not talking about physical laws but political ones.
--
DISCUSSIONS & SOCIAL MEDIA
Commercial Purposes: Lorenzovareseaziendale@gmail.com
Tik Tok: / insanecuriosity
Reddit: / insanecuriosity
Instagram: / insanecuriositythereal
Twitter: / insanecurio
Facebook: / insanecuriosity
Linkedin: / insane-curiosity-46b92...
Our Website: insanecuriosity.com/
--
Credits: Ron Miller, Mark A. Garlick / MarkGarlick.com ,Elon Musk/SpaceX/ Flickr
--
00:00 Intro
00:15 The main motivation
2:02 The high cost
3:52 What happened to technology
5:50 The problem of flue supply
7:38 reusing rockets
--
#insanecuriosity #returntothemoon #moonlanding 
Наука
Hi Curiosity Squad! If you liked the video, we would love for you to share it on social networks like Facebook, Reddit, Instagram, Tik Tok and Twitter.(Since the algorithm is not helping us in terms of views). You will greatly help the Insane Curiosity community to grow and improve more and more our upcoming content. A big thank you from all of us!
Jesus power proof. Warning it last 72 hours
No, technology is not more advanced, it is magical. By comparison. All of NASA combined had less calculating power than one of the cell phones from 10 years ago. Much less one of the multi-ship multi-gigabyte RAM super computers that we all have in our pocket right now. The metals technology is so much more advanced as well, every single thing has improved beyond the comprehension of what engineers back then whatever have dreamed is even possible.. and something that we effortlessly did. Because when you don't have anybody die during it, I can consider that pretty effortless considering people die testing boats and stuff for you here on earth. When you can do something effortless with 60 years ago technology and you can't do it today that tells you something
Just like those idiots that think the ancients carved and moved 100 tons stones rather than just make them in place, which is the only thing that makes sense
We even have Roman concrete as an example to prove that the ancients had better technology than we did. We only just recently figured out concrete that would do what theirs did
So the people that lived 10,000 years before the Romans having the ability to make stone that is in discernible from the way nature makes stone is completely logical and reasonable, especially since it has been demonstrated by using the same materials they had access to and then sending it into a museum to have them authenticate the stone as from ancient asswan egypt
0:32 oh that's so cute! You think that the goal of the space race was to put a man on the moon when in reality it was just a cover-up to build an ICBM program to deliver nuclear weapons
First time was just a movie :))
Now doing for real is harder
There was no one to the Moon.
Nearly 60 years ago, 6 trips to the moon with 12 astronauts, joy riding on the moon, yet today, can’t even get a moon rocket off the ground without exploding. Stop kidding yourselves folks.
*_"yet today, can’t even get a moon rocket off the ground without exploding"_*
Sure about that are you?
@@yassassin6425look it up bubba
@@yassassin6425 Fake.
@@bargeman100you are fake
@@mvjaganmohanreddy Nobody's ever been to the moon. It's all nonsense.
Anyone who believes that we landed on the moon in 1969 must have rocks for brains.
Rocks for brains? Let's see shall we? - So that'll be entire branches of science, specialist fields of expertise such as aerospace engineering worldwide, Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalists, Nobel Prize winning physicists, in excess of 10,000 private organisations and each of the 76 other space agencies on the planet? In short, domains, disciplines and individuals far cleverer and more informed than an insignificant, random, gullible Dunning Kruger afflicted believer in dumb online conspiracy theory with zero knowledge of the subject whatsoever. And no, known science and technology is not a question of 'belief' that would be the the junk online conspiracy theory that you mindlessly consume and regurgitate.
Other way round.
@@grandcrowdadforde6127 The "moon rocks" came from Antarctica.
@@bargeman100 >> Woh! they have rocks in Antarctica?
You cant go back to a place youve never been before.
Be more specific, the moon deniers won’t get it
That’s the best logic answer and you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to believe it greatest hoax since 1969 greater technology today and there still failing and eating crow as it’s result nice try though NASA fool me once shame on me , fool me twice shame on you . Oh well back to the drawing board give us a break!
Exactly😂
Those suits weigh over 100 pounds, why would they wear those just to fake something? They would have to have 5 minute breaks in between every minute Becuase of the amount of weight against the astronauts bodies or something
Exactly
It wasn't the atlas 5,it was the Saturn 5.
I noticed that
Easy mistake to make, if you don't' do your research well, otherwise not too bad, for a pop culture channel disguised as a scientific one. But main message is clear, "no money, no nothing" for manned space in that era except of course for the fabulous run of NASA unmanned missions to the planets and beyond!!
It doesn’t matter since it never happened.
No it was the Uranus 69.
Yes It was
No reason to go. The moon has no oil
Or anything else for that matter.
@@michaelmappin4425Absolute and total rubbish. Have you any idea what you just said ? The rare Earth up there is worth trillions, the rare moon minerals even more. You have no idea. The reason no one has massive minesites there already isn't even mentioned in this atrocious misinformational video, have you heard of the Van Allen radiation belts?? No one passes. 😮
@@michaelmappin4425 Rubbish, the mineral up there is in the trillions. Where are you learning that trash...Disney ?
@@michaelmappin4425 hahahaha except mineral worth trillions. Go learn.
What mineral is that. Helium B 3?@@deanhall6045
First man on the moon was not Neil Armstrong, it was Stanley Kubrick!!
we haven't because it would be much more difficult fooling the public today. Most people can tell the difference between the Colorado desert and the surface of the moon.
I wouldn't be so sure about that. The level of basic scientific knowledge amongst the public is shocking.
It's because the system of the Internet they build to enslave us backfired and now people can share information between each other in a fraction of a second across the planet. Trying something like this again or making it fake, people will be able to distinguish what's a studio and what's real.
😂
You give people today too much credit theres people today who dont understand basically biology that they can believe men can be women and Visa versa.
“It’s easier to make people believe a lie, then to convince them what they believe is a lie…”
A sense of irony isn't your strong point is it?
@@yassassin6425stronger than you
@@scottw4208
Said the gullible believer in dumb online conspiracy theory.
Again, the irony, was it intentional?
@@yassassin6425 Fake.
Perhaps because we never went there?
Correct mate.
because it never happened...the technology just wasn't there in 1969 or any other year..
What technology is required? Be specific.
The 1960’s was a time of great technological development as British Prime Minister Harold Wilson pointed out in his ‘white heat’ of this ‘scientific revolution’ speech in 1963. From an aeronautical perspective there was supersonic and hypersonic aircraft, spacecraft, satellites and intercontinental ballistic missiles.
Amongst a myriad of aircraft, the U.S. produced the hypersonic X15, the supersonic SR71, the HL10 re-entry vehicle and the first operational variable geometry swing wing aircraft - the F111. In Europe we had the supersonic Concorde and Harrier VTOL ‘Jump Jet’.
Especially now. Hyper tech, mega bucks. Somehow we lost the tech and the interest. oh dear. What will they think of next? Mars, I believe.
Quick answer because we've not been, name one other event that technology goes backwards
Not only does it go backwards but cheaper
Nuclear power, physics generally. Actually there are many scientific endeavors which have reached dead ends or who's interest has stagnated. And yes, Americans Astronauts did land on the moon, several times between 1969 and 1972. No one really cares if you don't believe it.
Concorde.Sr71. Come to mind.
Technology hasn’t gone backwards, it’s the funding for such endeavours hasn’t been made available.
Elon musk also said it goes backwards. Prime example. We can’t build the pyramids like they done a lone time ago. It seems to get lost in time somehow, even tho I can’t grasp it myself lol
I'm 64, healthy. I have no hope of seeing a man on the moon in my life time.
Somehow 50 years ago we had multiple landings on the moon using slide rules.
Today with amazingly more advanced technology not a single country can put a man on the moon.
Makes sense.
Forget man landing, nations are struggling in 2024 to land unmanned modules on the moon! And they say, three guys landed on the moon 54 years ago (with all the primitive scientific know how and technology....at least primitive as compared to that in the current era)!!! What level of fakery and cheating, just to be able to come one up against the Soviets!!!
We never went
Lots of lost explorers was probably the nail in the coffin. Just having a thruster burp would send you off course and to never come back or crash. @@King-kw1mo
@@King-kw1mo Shut up
It’s the ONLY logical answer that makes sense. We never did go.
The Americans have never been to the Moon, that's why we cannot "return" there!
The Russian propaganda continues for the weak minded among us!! 🙄
They did … and they are going back , google how we know we went to the moon
Wonder why Russia and commi China say anything about it true or not beyond me?
Never went in the first place. That’s why
got proof
You do realize that those EVA space suits weight over 100 pounds right? How do you wear that on earth without collapsing from the weight against your entire body?
@@TheBuff007 have you ?
The answer is simple...No man can go to the moon...If the moon landing really happened, the camera man was the first to set foot on the moon, not Neil Armstrong
lol, you really don’t realize the camera was in the equipment bay and was released after landing and the beginning of the climbing down the ladder?
IT WAS ALWAYS DIFFICULT
SO THE SOLUTION WAS TO MAKE A MOVIE AND CLAIM WE WERE THERE
WHEN TRYING TO DO IN REAL LIFE....A LOT OF PROBLEMS COME UP
Caps lock - must be true then, .
It's very hard to visit the moon a second time when you were not there the first time!!!!!
Maybe YOU weren't there, but 12 NASA astronauts stood on the Moon.
@@phildavenport4150 sure they did I'll bet they had a garden party up there and it was all staged in Hollywood because NASA hasn't accomplished nothing in decades.
@@phildavenport4150 I don't know where you got the number 12 at but it is actually zero because United States was never at the moon or on the moon
@@Anthony-gw3dc Then prove it.
@@billgamelson9964 a suggestion would go to the nearest telescope look at the Moon and find the flag that isn't there or the footprints that aren't there
Question is; With weight requirements literally measured in ounces NASA somehow allowed for a 1500 pound Car "Rover", where it was stored is a whole other tale. I believe Armstrong carried it in his pocket?
The rover was carried in the empty quadrant 1 bay of the lunar module’s descent stage, folded and stored with the underside of the chassis facing out. The second generation lunar module had a larger engine bell and greater thrust to carry the extra weight.
The reason is we never went and no-one can leave earth. There is a firmament above us. We are closed in
That's interesting. What altitude is this supposed dome and where are the sides?
Why do you seek to know every little detail?
@@IceColdTruth
Surely if there is a firmament above us this is anything but "every little detail"? It's a very easy question to answer through measurable observation.
Okay, Mr Scientist.
Apollo 11 wasn’t the first “try” it was the culmination of multiple smaller step missions to test subsystems
My thought exactly. Other than the Apollo1 fire, every subsequent Apollo flight up through 12 was successful in taking the next step - these were not "failed attempts" but rather successful or partially successful learning steps leading to a full success on the first complete attempt to land: Unmanned test of Saturn Five(all-up) launch vehicle (4), unmanned Earth orbit test of LEM (5), test of Command/Service module in Earth orbit, second Saturn 5 launch with simulated translunar injection and return entry at high speed (6) Maned flight of Command Mod in Earth orbit(7), Navigation and flight to the moon with Command/Service modules (8), test of CSM/SM/LEM in earth orbit (9) rendezvous & docking, flight of whole system (command/service/LEM to the moon - testing lunar orbit rendezvous, (10) then finally adding the landing phase (11). Pinpoint lunar landing (12) Yes, 13 failed to land but was an epic success in improvisational engineering for survival. 14 was good, 15-17 added the lunar rover, which was amazing, and had extended EVAs and camera improvements that were incredible. What's often missed is that one of the biggest results of Apollo was the development of a system of management that could efficiently guide and control the whole range of technical processes.
All these steps were already taken by the Russians that's why it's unbelievable that we succeeded when we were so far behind the Russians
@@tedcole9936 Yeah. Apollo 11 was NASA's SIXTH successful landing on the moon. Plus all the testing of the Apollo & Gemini program. Every single Apollo flight 98% did stuff that had already been done before in space.
Apollo garbage was a trick to steal money from taxpayers. Nasa is a money pig. They use us like stupid, but they have never lift off.
Don't forget we learned a lot about rendezvous techniques in the Gemini Program before Apollo.
The simple answer is. because we never went in the first place. To paraphrase the 18th Century Philosopher David Hume, ''The simplest explanation is usually the right one,''
*_"To paraphrase the 18th Century Philosopher David Hume, ''The simplest explanation is usually the right one,''_*
Actually, no. Occam's Razor does not always apply.
*_"The simple answer is. because we never went in the first place."_*
Given the incontrovertible scientific, technological, historical, independent and third party evidence in support of the six landings that you would need to explain or handwave away, that is anything but a simple answer. It is however an answer for simpletons and those with absolutely zero knowledge of the subject.
At the time of Apollo science pundits predicted we would be shuttling tourists to and from the moon routinely by the year 2000.
There is tourisum to the Hollywood 😂😁
yup and even to the nearest star systems with the original Orion spaceship, throwing small nuclear bombs out the back for propulsion. Egad!! That would have been glorious to see happen, even today! :D
NASA budget was 20 times more in the 60s than it is now
yes, by percentage I think it was 5 percent of total, vs today at about less than one percent. Or equal to the waste and fraud of just one gov't welfare program, to support lazy people who won't work, and so-called "immigrants". That would bring it back to 5 percent if all wasting programs were taken into account and re-adjusted. Could happen "overnight" with a new fiscally responsible administration in D.C.
So, kids, if you like space, you know what to do!! LOL ;D@@bradleywilson5641
PLUS they were predicting we would be landing humans on Mars by 1979! I said then that it would never happen during my lifetime and I STILL say that!
Well obviously all that previous technology was destroyed as a NASA astronaut told us. It makes complete sense! I don’t know why anyone would think we’ve been lied to 🙃
Jeez, this again?
One astronaut, Don Pettit, speaking in 2017 used an unfortunate turn of phrase. Since then, conspiracy theorists and those dimwits that parrot their quote mined nonsense have obsessively fixated upon it because that's what they do. However, if you have a modicum of intelligence, critical faculty, integrity and the will to objectively appraise the information that you receive and you place his sentence within it's full and intended context - the rest of the interview, then it's abundantly clear what he is referring to. The premature cancellation of Apollo in 1972 due to the retraction of funding from congress and the lack of political and public will, resulted in the abandonment of the specific expertise, the tooling, the production processes, the plants and most significantly, the heavy lift capability that sent crewed missions to the moon. Emphasis was placed instead on low Earth orbit, primarily, the development of the Space Shuttle which promised much, but failed to deliver in terms of its commercial and financial returns and launch cadence. The other huge project was obviously the construction of the ISS. Neither of which send man to the surface of the moon. Deep space exploration became the preserve of unmanned missions - robotic landers and probes. Pettit was speaking prior to the approval of Project Artemis that will return man to the surface of the moon. The technology of Apollo is old and obsolete but since much of the hardware remains, you can understand that his use of the word 'destroyed' was metaphorical. Rebuilding a manned programme to the moon using modern technology that has superseded that of Apollo has been a protracted and painstaking process on a budget that is a fraction of that of Apollo. Why is it even necessary to explain this? ...again?
As soon as the narrator said "The first 10 Apollo missions failed..." I stopped watching. That is not even remotely close to the truth, and anyone with any moderate interest in the space program would know that. This is a joke.
This has lots of data inaccuracy
Indeed.
If we already landed humans on the moon six times, it should be simple to do it again. The reason it's not is because we never did.
Or were told by the 'higher beings' to stay away
@mahalallel2012 Why would they want us to stay away from our own moon? They have the whole Universe to explore. They would be amused at our rudimentary spaceships if we had gone, which we did not. In all actuality, they can easily monitor all our TV broadcasts and they wonder why these beings lie about such things. They probably are waiting for our "civilization" to advance to a truthful civilization before they make contact. Will it ever happen?
That's not how things work. The individual knowledge of everyone involved and the “organisational know-how” of how to actually run such a huge, complex project has been lost after such a long time. Much of the equipment is archaic, and many things cannot be bought “off the shelf” and have to be specially manufactured. Re-designing from scratch is cheaper and better. However, it takes years to build up that sort of expertise and NASA is going through the same problems it had in the early to mid-60’s.
Rocket technology has not progressed much at all and although modern computers are far more sophisticated, they are far more vulnerable to particle radiation than those that used low density integrated circuits and magnetic core memory, both of which are extremely radiation hard, so a new solution has to be found to a different problem. There is also no cold war imperative and no time limit placed on it by a president. We also live in much more risk averse times. All these issues are what has caused it to take so long this time around.
@@gunternetzer9621 Excuses. Funny how SpaceX can engineer sustainable (reusable) rocket technology in less than 20 years with one-tenth the budget of NASA. Also, there are over 800 satellites operating continuously WITHIN the Van Allen Belts. Why not use that radiation-hardened technology?
@@theconspiracydentist Does Space X have the heavy lift capacity required for a flight to the Moon? Which parts of the Van Allen belts are they operating in? The problem of radiation damage to modern computers will be solved but testing it is a good idea.
Maybe the answer is because we didn't reach the moon in the first place.
Wrong answer
You do make a good point! Yes, obviously the tech required wasn't that reliable when it came to extreme temp changes.
Flat earth too huh?😂
The truth they keep trying to hide.
Right answer
The US did a live feed from the moon landing in 1970s but yet we can barely have a direct link nor video live transmission today... 🙄🙄
The don't have a high gain S Band antenna, broadcasting to a dish that is 65 feet in diameter.
But they talked to Nixon we have never been to the moon.
Why are you lying? We literally had a Full HD live stream of a spacecraft REENTERING EARTHS ATMOSPHERE a couple of weeks ago. They couldnt even imagine that kind of tech back then
@@mezlay2 Live feed broadcasting from the moon? today? With a relay satellite, yes.
@@mezlay2 Who's lying about what?
We did not do it before.
Prior to Apollo 11, all flights were stepping stones to get to the moon. The flights weren't cancelled. Apollo 1 was lost to the fire on the ground that killed the 3 astronauts. Apollo 10 went to the moon and circled it and did everything that Apollo 11 would do except land on the moon. Please get your facts correct.
All... what all? #1? Step? 2&3 ? Unmanned #4 & 5 & 6... more what than Gemini?
#7 manned LEO... 8 made a step like 10 did, which could of landed. *5 years!*
Yup, lots of work was needed, in Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs before the big event of the first moon landing over 50 years ago. Some people think we just up and went one day cuz we wanted to, no, it took lots of development, testing, prep work, like Starship is going through right now with all its failures and some successes.@@narajuna
@@narajuna
Yes they were all steps, I don't think you get that 8 was the first manned launch of a Saturn V, previous to that all manned Apollo launches were done with Saturn 1B's and the only Saturn V's launches had been unmanned, Apollo 8 was originally supposed to do what 9's mission was but since the LEM wasn't ready they changed it's mission to a lunar orbit which was never supposed to attempt a landing when it was originally 9's mission anyway and 9 took over as the proof of concept that the command/service module could dock to the LEM, retract it from the Saturn V, then the 2 astronauts could transfer to it, power it up and undock and fly on it's own which was always planned as an earth orbit mission, then 10 was proof of concept that it could be done in lunar orbit with the LEM descending to 60 nautical miles above the lunar surface then fire it's upper stage engine and return to lunar orbit and dock back to the command/service module.
Every single mission was necessary to prove that the hardware and computers would work on every step of the mission leading up to an actual landing on the moon.
No, they couldn't have landed before that, the LEM's weren't ready and all the different steps hadn't been tested, you just don't put astronauts in a brand new rocket that's never been tested, send them to the moon and have them perform all the different docking and undocking procedures with equipment that hasn't been tested, that would have been a serious invitation to disaster, apparently you don't know about the "pogoing" issues that were discovered in the unmanned Saturn V launches which you seem to think were so unnecessary, without those mission's they'd have been putting astronauts in a rocket and sending them towards the moon that had serious issues that were discovered during the unmanned Saturn V launches.
The people that ran the space program were a lot smarter than you, it's funny how you sit here all these years later second guessing what they did.
Apollo Eight was the first flight to the moon. James Lovell (who went twice), William Zander’s, and Commander Frank Borman
@@paulnelson5314
The crew of Apollo 8 also holds the record as the fastest human beings in history, 24,696 miles per hour, I don't know if it was because of a weight factor or what but their speed was just a little faster than the other Apollo mission's.
One of The main reasons i am a believer that we didn't go to the moon because why haven't we been back it isn't because of the budget its because we never been 😂
Good point! Bell labs invented the first transistor in 47. These devices took many years to reach perfection so they could withstand large temp swings. In the 60s I repaired a great many of these new solid state devices. Like am radio receivers mostly damaged by placing them in direct sunlight on the beach. Cold wasn't much of a problem next to that component damaging heat.
@@Blacksheepishot There is no atmosphere on the Moon to efficiently ‘bind’ lunar surface heat to devices that are not in direct contact with it
And so, the fundamental question is: did man really land on the moon in 1969?
No they lied
@@user-ot2ty7hd1f wrong , yes they did… google , how we know we went to the moon .
They did.
@@Lexi2019AURORA No, they didn't!!
@@amaratvak6998 Then why did you ask?
We never went to the moon! And watching all the recent failures justifies that!...50 years on!
On the contrary, there were nine manned missions to the moon and six landings. It would have been at least ten had it not been for the near catastrophe and aborted landing of Apollo 13 and the premature cancellation of the programme and with it, Apollo 18, 19 and 20.
What recent failures? Justify what? You are surely aware that the IM lander was private enterprise? Do you have any conception of the insane budget and support that was hurled at the Apollo Programme?
@@yassassin6425 They never went to the Moon.. They used Space Oddessy 2001 film set.
@@jm252
What? - the supposed set that doesn't look anything remotely like the one in 2001: A Space Odyssey but also managed to replicate perfectly 1/6th g and the vacuum of the moon - which it failed to do in the film? Not only that, it was used six times and convincingly achieved the precise reconstruction of Theophilus in The Sea of Tranquility; the Head Crater vicinity, Ocean of Storms; the Fra Mauro Formation near Cone Crater; the eastern edge of Mare Imbrium, Hadley Rille; The Descartes Highlands; and the eastern edge of Mare Serenitati in the Taurus Littrow Valley? Shout out to the props department too, that managed to fashion fake moonrock consistent which each of those six landing sites and collectively dupe an entire branch of science called geology for over half a century in the process. Nothing gets past you.
Mate, you're that dim, you can't even spell it correctly, let alone get the title right.
Special kind of genius you are.
@@yassassin6425 😂😂😂😂
We never went to the moon, how did they find a car on the ship? each wheel was 80cm in diameter, multiplied by 4, plus the engine, batteries and bodywork...
The rover was carried in the empty quadrant 1 bay of the lunar module’s descent stage, (folded in on itself, including the wheels several times) and stored with the underside of the chassis facing out. It didn't have a conventional engine which wouldn't have been any use in a vacuum and was powered by two 36-volt silver-zinc potassium hydroxide non-rechargeable batteries with a charge capacity of 121 A·h each (a total of 242 A·h), yielding a range of 57 miles (92 km).These were used to power the drive and steering motors and also a 36-volt utility outlet mounted on the front of the LRV to power the communications relay unit or the TV camera.
There are illustrations on pages 135/136 in the Haynes Apollo manual published in 2019, which show how the rover was folded up and stored and on page 199 a diagram which shows how it was deployed on the surface.
Who set up the lights ,the cameras, and how did president Nixon call them speak on the phone @@gunternetzer9621
Because we never land in the moon in the first place 😂
I have just one question - we have gone 6 times to the moon - and there was 0 interest of taking a single shot of stars. Ok not during the first or 2nd landing - but none during 6 attempts? You do not find it strange? Not to mention the infamous reply of Apollo 11 astronauts to the question during press conference - " did you see stars ?" Remember the reply?
The Apollo missions took many pictures of the stars. Apollo 16 was the first use of an ultra-violet camera and low light photography was utilised for stellar imaging.
The question that you refer to was asked by the late Sir Patrick Moore as to whether it was possible to see stars in the sun's corona.
Everything points to that humans never went to the moon. Especially the video and photo material.
Yes. To me the only logical explanation for that is the USA never landed on the moon.
Except every government on the planet, including the Soviet union accepted that it happened, not withstanding know nothing flat earthers on youTube.
Dude, if you confuse the Saturn V, the most iconic space vehicle ever built, with an Atlas V, then I simply can't take the rest of the video seriously. Sorry.
I've heard it's because we're not welcome there.
💯
So much for hearsay.
Yeah...get off our moon 🤣🤣🤣
We never went in the first place!
Hey Curiosity Squad! It was the Saturn 5 that took us to the moon, not the "Atlas 5". If this is the level of accuracy in your videos I'm glad I never subscribed.
I would like to watch them.
Because there's no Cold War/superpowers driving it. And the reason there were ten missions before finally landing is they were TEST missions prior to landing. Each one a baby step to the next mission until they finally did sit down on the surface. Prior to Apollo there were the Mercury and Gemini missions to test how launch, orbit, re-entry, , space walk, recovery, rendezvous & docking in orbit would be done.
😂😂😂 looks like a lot people agree with me. We haven't gone yet
The cost far exceeds technology and safety precautions absolutely necessary for 100% success every mission.
One man was the first to reveal the truth:
Bill Kasing r.i.p.
We're all witnessing the end of lies.
Bill Kaysing???? The truth?
Is this actually serious?
Bill Kaysing and the truth were separated at birth.
@@yassassin6425
Do you have any proof?
If they have been to the moon several times, going back would be a cinch now, especially as technology is now so much more advanced! In fact, they should be able to go back with just 6 months preparation.
Don't expect a call from NASA any time soon.
Oh yea, they should have the space ship and the launch pad done by morning.
The individual knowledge of everyone involved and the “organisational know-how” of how to actually run such a huge, complex project has been lost after such a long time. Much of the equipment is archaic, and many things cannot be bought “off the shelf” and have to be specially manufactured. Re-designing from scratch is cheaper and better. However, it takes years to build up that sort of expertise and NASA is going through the same problems it had in the early to mid-60’s.
Rocket technology has not progressed much at all and although modern computers are far more sophisticated, they are far more vulnerable to particle radiation than those that used low density integrated circuits and magnetic core memory, both of which are extremely radiation hard. There is also no cold war imperative and no time limit placed on it by a president. The terrain will be rougher this time with longer shadows and a heavier lander. We also live in much more risk averse times. All these issues are what has caused it to take so long this time around.
Because we never went to the Moon technology always gets better but they would have you believe that we went with 1960s technology yet we can't go today
That's a pretty small club you belong to that still thinks that NASA didn't send the Apollo mission to the moon. How many other conspiracy theories have you bought into because people who deny the moon landing usually follow other ideas ALSO not supported by science??
Ask yourself a few basic questions. Why build a 365 foot tall that was the most powerful rocket to take off at the time? We saw it rise into the sky. Where did it go?
Why did three astronauts die on the Apollo 1 tests? If they weren't going to the moon why risk lives in tests? Then there are the many thousands of NASA employees who would have to be in on the conspiracy. Or how about the largest building at the time the VAB or vehicle assembly building used to build the Saturn V and later shuttle and now SLS? Was that all a facade?
Get real man!!
No human ever went beyond low earth orbit and never will. They would need hospital treatment immediately.
van allen belts....
The moon landing was a hoax 🤣🤣
Yes. Mortal body won't stand a chance.
I think you answered your question with your discussions of the reduced funding for space exploration, "no money , no nothing" for anything "worthwhile" like going back to the moon, in this episode focus. But today there seems to be lots of money for things not so worthwhile, like endless welfare payments to those who do not work, the green new deal and EV subsidies, and student loan forgiveness, for just a few examples!
We haven't been there yet....
In 1960s, can the communication band width support live TV broadcast from the Moon to the Earth? What kind power will be required? and How the power got to the Moon?
Because the first-generation lunar module’s batteries were not powerful enough and it lacked the bandwidth to operate a standard NTSC TV system, the TV pictures were filmed by a black and white slow scan television camera and beamed back to Earth, via a steerable 20-watt S-band high gain antenna installed on top of the lunar module ascent stage.
S-Band is a microwave that can penetrate radiation and antenna gain refers to the ability of the antenna to focus scattered radio frequency waves into a narrower beam, thereby increasing signal strength. High-gain antenna provides a more precise way of targeting radio signals and are therefore very essential to long-range wireless networks. Low-gain antenna tends to send its signal in a much wider sweep of directions.
The LM’s transmissions were then picked up by a radio telescope at a tracking station in Canberra, Australia. NASA then converted the image to standard broadcast signal which was transmitted to a communications satellite and back down to Houston where it was then broadcast around the world. The radio telescope on the ground for receiving was extremely large and powerful which reduced the amount of battery power needed by the lunar module.
The ‘unified S-Band system’ involved a staff of 4,500 distributed among 15 tracking stations and numerous switching centres around the globe. The telemetry and tracking system is explained on pages 78-79 in ‘Invasion of the Moon 1957-70’ (Peter Ryan).
A colour variant of the same camera was carried on Apollo 12, but this was damaged when it was pointed at the Sun and the sensitive vidicon tube burned out. On later missions the second-generation LM had greater battery power and a more robust, damage-resistant NTSC colour tv camera was used, along with a large unfolding parabolic antenna which allowed enough power to transmit a colour tv signal.
The hardest part of going back to the moon is your first have to go to the moon first
Which they did - nine times.
No mention of sending people through the van allen belt, because the tech was "lost"?
This video is full of incorrect facts
Because aliens kicked us off and said never come back😂
Ha Ha! Get out! And don't come back!
Which of the 6 missions that landed got that message?
Yeah
Smart 👽 aliens!!!
They re lunarians that live there
If NASA had stayed with the Saturn rocket and not gone to the Shuttle, money would have been available. Shuttle was a man killer and budget eater.
“The complexity of human spaceflight suggests that it is unrealistic to expect the program to complete development more than a year faster than the average for NASA major projects, the majority of which are not human spaceflight projects,” authors of the GAO report stated. “GAO found that if development took as long as the average for NASA major projects, the Artemis III mission would likely occur in early 2027.”
The report highlighted a lot of remaining work by both SpaceX and Axiom, who are principal contractors of the Artemis program.
A critical part of the mission is considered to be SpaceX’s Starship rocket, which has been under development in Texas.
The private space company owned by CEO Elon Musk has yet to successfully finish a rocket test that proves the spacecraft is capable of reaching orbit and returning to Earth.
Despite the spectacular failures that have resulted in explosions, SpaceX and NASA leadership have lauded the progress that has been made on the Starship rocket.
Basically, you had all these engineers, technicians, shopworkers, janitors, people who in reality knew nothing about Space ship making. (brand new)
*October 1963,* Joseph F. Shea was named Apollo Spacecraft Program Office (ASPO) manager, responsible for managing the design and construction of both the CSM and the LM.
Just *5 years* of twiddling their first Deepspace Ship and BANG to the MOON ! 🤯
Dude you wrote a long paragraph in one sent sentence 😂
Elon Musk is a conman
I think that it is good to think twice before sending humans to the space. There is so much robots and automated probe can do much better and cheaper. With the large budget required to bring people to the Moon and the more to Mars we could get a lot of scientific gains from Venus to the moons of Jupiter and Saturn.
Not sure WHO censors these winners video comments & replies, many invisbles!
dear of dear
Not getting SaturnV ... could be usually I "dont get anything"😄, sure didnt get that in my reply.... (nor did I get in the Comment...??? >>> Apollo
I always found it strange that the US is the only country that has ever went to the moon.
Because aliens warned them not to return there
4:03 Proof check. The Saturn V took astronauts to the moon, not the Atlas V. 4:52 There were not 10 Apollo missions before Apollo 11. There were only 8 missions before Apollo 11. There was no 2 or 3, the remainder went up in numerical order.
Thank you for admitting that we did in fact go to the moon.
The SLS costs a stupid amount of money per launch. I wonder how much more expensive it would be if it *didn't* reuse shuttle tech/hardware? SpaceX seems to do things by an order of magnitude less money.
Space X is a private company and has a vision that is beyond any other rocket company in the world. But NASA also was able facilitate the SLS flying to and from the moon over a record 26 day flight for vehicle capable of carrying humans. It is very expensive, but they still did something no one else has done in 50 years and did well.
@@michaeldeierhoi4096 its took them ten years or more to finish the rocket and launch it. Not very impressive.
@@airfiero4772 To each his own. It still made it to the moon and back with hardly any issues whatsoever. By the who else has launched a rocket capable of carrying people to the moon and back recently?? Again exactly!!
I'm impressed with the progress Space X has made with starship, but it will be at a couple years before they can get to a nominal flight to and from the moon. Course it is designed as a reusable rocket so a successful landing of at least the booster puts it ahead of the competition.
It's ironic how in Interstellar people believed we never went to the moon too. Ignorance knows no bounds and it was correctly shown in the movie.
Ive been told it would be cheaper to land on moon than fake it - many studios around the world succeeded at a fraction of the lunar costs 😂 so if twas xheaper, it doesnt cost enough to stop returning flights, if they were there in the first place 🙄😏
We never been there, think about it
I agree. They can't figure today how they managed to go to the moon 54 years ago.
Oh shut up
They don't make gold aluminum foil and more.
Comments section has been more entertaining than the video really. I find it facinating how peoples opinions on the matter are so divided and it makes me wonder what the truth really is to why we havnt returned, or have gone in rhe first place.
We could go again tomorrow if we had Stanley to spearhead this monumental event, again..
Has it been said it’s too difficult or they just not bothered to go again.? Like what’s the point in going back there?
Minerals worth trillions would be one reason. Im wondering if your comment is serious. Helium worth billions and billions. Are you being serious ?
While I'm here, why can't China rovers find any Apollo landing sites ? Odd ?
4:12 Orion will not take folks to the lunar surface. Orion is merely the updated CM.
I don't know for certain, but just maybe your title answers its own question.
JUST BECAUSE....technology IS NEW.....does NOT mean it is "better"!!! For example....Many people TODAY argue that cars of the 1960s to the mid 1970s were "of poor quality" due to "planned obsolescence" which isn't exactly as true as cars became by the mid 1980s to present!! Basically cars in the 1940 to around 1975 still employed tried and true building techniques, that seemed to last far longer and were vastly (even wildly) superior to the plastic parts and "everything is disposable" logic of the late 1980s to present!! In other words....auto manufacturers used a material known as "METAL" to build cars until 1980, and after that every part started to become "plastic throw away junk" afterwards!! And today, nothing is "built to last" as today's thinking is "Built to be cheap", then the companies sell it for an obscene profit, for items that last a 1/3 as long as the prior model!!
And there ARE benefits to using different materials like Aluminum and Plastic for parts, BUT the trade off IS a steel pulley, for example, can last 50 or 60 years, while the plastic replacement is meant to be "tossed out" when it fails.....then there are ZERO replacement parts for the plastic one, FORCING YOU to buy a new car, instead of simply replacing the pulley!! Face it car companies ARE IN THE BUSINESS of selling YOU a car.....not selling YOU replacement parts!! And if they can figure out a way to make a car last ONLY 5 to 7 years, then sell you a new one, they will make more parts out of plastic!
Of course the benefits are....first those parts are cheap to make, make the car weigh less for better fuel economy...but does that necessarily mean "it is better"???? Especially when 50 years ago paid labor built a car that cost $2500 brand new....and today that same car is built by a robot, and costs $30,000 with far less human interaction to construct it!!!!
We have never been to the moon.
Have you told the news services about this? 😃
Hard to think about the Moon when a cart of groceries cost $800.
Well never know why but we really do.
1:54
That's a little more than you stated... by orders of magnitude
You left out one glaringly obvious reason why we haven’t (yet) returned to the moon: it has been so long since we went there, most of the scientists who knew how to do it are dead now. Our younger scientists are having to re-learn the whole process over again. And this is not helped by the fact that the way records were kept in the 1970’s are ancient by today’s standards.
[ He is absolutely correct when he asserts that "we don't have the technology to do that anymore." We don't have any flight-ready Saturn V's laying around. We don't have a command module, a service module, and a lunar module either. Then he points out correctly that "We used to" "but we destroyed that technology and it's a painful process to build it back again."] NASA
- So much explanations, excuses, and contradictions of: not having / having by sane smart knowledgeable devoted Fans, why is THAT?
Sorry, but not a very logical reasoning sir..A supposedly thoroughly professional institution like NASA in the field of aerospace and space exploration did not, over time, endeavour to improve upon the data storage techniques and preservation of scientific experiments and processes? Very strange! Even so, why hasn't NASA now redeveloped and improved upon its scientific and technological know how in the 21st century? If the budget is one constraint, why has it been poking its fingers in every damn pie (other NASA projects) when the earlier outcomes and takeaways from its alleged 1969 " moon landing" has not helped manking in any way?
We haven’t been because there is nothing to gain or learn from the enormous cost of the trip. Can’t lure private funding because there is no return on the investment. Now if the moon had oil or lithium…..
@@amaratvak6998nasa has given us incredible contributions but all of those contributions have come from the process of trying to get to space. Once in space the reality sets in that it would take insurmountable resources to simply get humanity to another planet to ultimately die and accomplish nothing more than research. We will destroy ourselves socially and economically before we ever come close to consistent interplanetary travel and settlement.
@@sizmicmedia334 NASA may have been making efforts in space exploration, but it has never given conclusive details about it's Apollo 11 moon mission and how all it was achieved, if at all..citing corroborative proofs of technologies used 54 years ago. They have destroyed all mission data!! They can't replicate the feat now!!😀
😂Rubrick made a stunning movie. 😂
This is the answer. On Apollo 17, there is a plaque that reads "Here man completed his first explorations of the Moon December 1972, A.D. May the spirit of peace in which we came be reflected in the lives of all mankind" The Apollo program was over, just as it was planned.
I thought it was the Saturn V rocket they used for the moon missions?
Are the Apollo astronauts guilty of stolen valour if they did not go in the first place?
If you watch the press conference with the astronauts after the first moon landing you can see the guilt on their face.
Because someone or something doesn't want our presence there since the 60's.
😂
Something similar to what went on with the 'Tower of Babel'.
Something that alot of folks won't understand is that going to the moon during the Cold War really was an existential feat that needed to be done. We now live in the future where we didn't kill off the world in a nuclear war with the russians and almost think it silly that it even came to thinking that. So we dismiss the moon landing to other scientific endeavors, which many folk believe that it doesn't change their way of life. Tropes such as the old: "A high school scientific calculator has more processing power than the Apollo Guidance computers" make it sound like we have already overcome every technological challenge so it should be cheaper and easier to do so. One of the reasons why we stopped going to the moon was the sheer expense of a single trip. Yet we really were throwing money at it like our lives did depend on it collectively. As expensive as current NASA missions may be, they dwarf in comparison to moon shots of long ago. Now it isn't that the world will end unless we show the communists who can do it, now it really is just a PopSci endeavor.
Maybe if they could use those old computers of the 60’s they might have a better chance.
Poor excuses. It should literally be second nature by now
The answer should be obvious to everyone by now.
@@codetech5598 well, it isn't. So explain now
@@ianfeuerhake1859 Look, they never landed men on the Moon in 1969. Unmanned probes, yes. Hence the difficulty multiple nations are having today in keeping humans safe from radiation beyond LEO, etc.
@@ianfeuerhake1859 it's made off cheese
Mostly it is a lack of ambition. Not just because we are lazy, which is part of it, or lack vision, which is also part of it, but because a lot of people just feel kind of defeated with how screwed up society across the globe is.
The FUNDING dried up. Its too damned expensive. Would cost well over 100 billion dollars. Nobody has the $$$
@@Zurround Considering that we spend $800billion yearly for the military $120billion budget for NASA isn't exactly out of the question
It is the interest in going
Without something to gain from going to the moon interest will continue to lag
The other option is that another country, like China, tries to claim the moon as their territory
@@Zurround the US spent $766 Billion on the military last year alone. $100B is not that that much money for the US Government
The waste and fraud in the many gov't welfare programs alone would fund anything you can think of to advance society for the good of all, including space, ...instead of all that money going "down a rat hole" for the benefit of the mostly useless members of our society, who take, but never give back anything of value!
....dear ambition towards what? Golfing on Moon?
I’m not sure we ever went there in the first place there’s the radiation and the cameras that seemed preset I’m not saying we didn’t, but there definitely questions nasa seems to not want to answer
So basically, two things that you demonstrably don't understand.
What questions do NASA seem not to want to answer? I absolutely guarantee that they have, innumerable times.
@@yassassin6425 Fake.
@@bargeman100
Your passport or your birth certificate?
@@yassassin6425 Your mom.
@@bargeman100
So deflection aside, as I thought, the circumstances surrounding your birth then? Righto.
None of those rocks had a hint of cheese.
Apollo 11 was the 5th manned spaceflight of Apollo. Every manned flight was successful, as NASA built upon what they had learned from previous manned missions to test each of the various subsystems of Apollo. Yes, the 3 astronauts of Apollo 1 - Grissom, white, and Chaffee - died when a fire consumed their spacecraft on the launch pad. However, even the unmanned Apollos the led to the 1st successful manned mission of Apollo 7 were, for the most part, very successful.
Amazing!
The reason is we never went in the first place
Oh stop it.
Stop what the truth they can't even land an unmanned craft after over 50 years think about it
@@donhabel1590 Why lie? There have been several successful landings, from 4 different countries, of unmanned craft on the moon since the Apollo missions.
@@firecloud77 yeah successful right tipped over could you imagine that happening with astronauts on board but they did it back in 1969 thru 72 with minute computer 🖥️ power think about my friend ☺️
@@donhabel1590 Your entire argument is a non sequitur. Learn to apply logic.
Sounds kinda fishy that there are laws that say they HAVE to use certain rockets and fuel..Sounds like someone owns or has stock in a certain company that makes these things 🤔 someone should look into this because something doesn't Sounds right..so there's a law saying that even if there better or safer ways they can't because....LAWS 🤔🤔🤔🤔
Meanwhile we send the equivalent of NASA’s annual operating budget to Ukraine in a single month.
It was the Saturn 5, not the Atlas 5, that brought American astronauts to the moon between 1968 and 1972
Because we’re not just going to the moon. We’re trying to establish a permanent presence on the moon as well as a hub to mars. That is a huuuuuuge difference to what they were doing in the 60s.
All those things would have occurred by now had we actually gone to the Moon which we never did
If we went to the Moon with 1960s technology.Why do we need to relearn how to get back to the Moon? Been there done that. Mars Direct!
So why do we need permanent "moon colonies" as President Bush called them ... anyone ?
@@rc44004 Because no one never been there
But what's the point of sending humans to Moon or Mars.
I don't get it, for science resource it's better to send robots.
We need to clean Earth not to put ours trash on another planet... 😢
If you think of it, it was a great feat of engineering to get there. The Lem had to contain two space suits the astronauts had to get into in that tiny space. A rocket motor and its fuel. Provisions for a ten-day trip including water and oxygen. Computers and transmission equipment. The Lunar Rover. Also an airlock for exiting and entering. All bombarded by the Solar Wind (temperature 250F in sunlight, 250 minus in shade).
almost seems like an impossible miracle
Yes would love to see them EVA suit dress in that cubicle (more than 1 broken button), and lots of Oxygen for 3 eva exits, plus a garage space for Rover!
Not only the first throttle rocked ship landing but it hoovered like a helicopter too!
The astronauts were never exposed to the maximum temperature on the Moon which is +260F at mid-day. With no atmosphere this refers to surface temperature not atmospheric temperature. Every lunar landing was made shortly after sunrise. One lunar day (dawn to dusk) lasts nearly 15 Earth days, and the astronauts were only on the Moon for a maximum of 3 Earth days, so they weren’t there long enough for the Sun to be at its highest and hottest.
@@narajuna Apollo used a rebreather system similar to that used in nuclear submarines where the carbon dioxide is chemically scrubbed out of the air and pure oxygen is added from storage tanks. In the spacecraft the oxygen is stored in liquid form, allowing tremendous amounts to be stored in a small volume.
The rover was carried in the empty quadrant 1 bay of the lunar module’s descent stage, folded and stored with the underside of the chassis facing out. There are illustrations on pages 135/136 in the Haynes Apollo manual published in 2019, which show how the rover was folded up and stored and on page 199 a diagram which shows how it was deployed on the surface.
I like your question ls but am saddened by your lack of ability to actively seek the answers. Each question has an answer. Easy to find and hard to refute
The SLS is basically the shuttle launch system w
There were no cancellations due to technical or weather problems.
Great video and information !
No.
It is full of errors in the "facts"
Great? You're kidding, right?
Do you really believe that the first 10 Apollo missions 'failed'?
We have Never been there ...