Why is it Still So Hard to Land on the Moon?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 24 мар 2024
- Get started with InVideo AI for free here invideo.io/i/CuriousDroid
A new race for the moon has started but 55% of the landers have failed even though we have known how to land on the moon for nearly 60 years and the technological advances since then should have made things better, shouldn't it? For example, it took a few years to get the landing techniques right the first time around but then there were no manned failures of the Apollo program on the moon apart Apollo 13 failed well before it got there, so why are we back to crashing on the moon, this video looks into this question.
To give one off tips and donations please use the following :
www.buymeacoffee.com/curiousd...
or paypal.me/curiousdroid
This video sponsored by Invideo invideo.io/i/CuriousDroid
Written, reseached and presented by Paul Shillito
Images & Footage : Nasa, SpaceX, Roscosmos, intuative machines, blue origin, ESA
A big thanks go to all our Patreons for their ongoing support
Eριχθόνιος JL
Adriaan von Grobbe
Alex K
Alipasha Sadri
Andrew Gaess
Andrew Smith
Bengt Stromberg
Brian Kelly
Carl Soderstrom
Charles Thacker
Daniel Armer
erik ahrsjo
Florian Muller
George Bishop II
Glenn Dickinson
inunotaisho
Jesse Postier
John & Becki Johnston
John A Cooper
Jonathan Travers
Ken Schwarz
L D
László Antal
Lorne Diebel
Mark Heslop
Matti Malkia
Patrick M Brennan
Paul Freed
Paul Shutler
Peter Engrav
Robert Sanges
Ryan Emmenegger
SHAMIR
Sirrianus Dagovaxstefan hufenbach
Steve Ehrmann
Steve J - LakeCountySpacePort
tesaft
Tim Alberstein
Tyron Muenzer 
Наука
When youtube is filled with low quality, repeated AI generated "content" like the ones of your sponsor, the platform will become unuseable for finding high quality informative videos like yours. I don't see a world where fully AI created content is good for anyone except people trying to get rich quick
hopefully such AI generated crap will not make anyone rich. As these tools are close to be free to use, it is already filled youtube with crap content, so it will be difficult to make standout content with them. I think for AI it is the most difficult to create something unique and standout, since it works by repeating things that is already existing.
Honestly. I found myself asking out loud what benefit this type of service provides. Seems like it will only make the content farm problem worse.
This is why I'll be unsubbing if I see another AI content generator sponsorship. It'll be sad because I've followed this channel for years, but I can't support that
Yup. Awful in places
@@andrewn7365 Same. Fk A.I
You need to drop that sponsorship ASAP. I just walked past an older coworker of mine and I'm 99% positive she was unknowingly watching a fully AI created video on Facebook. That technology is a scammer's dream come true.
That's why I made the decision to unsub if there's another AI content generator sponsor, even though I really like Paul and his channel, and have been watching it for years.
Running an ad for a science video creating AI yet you are a science communicator yourself feels like you've just shot yourself in the foot.
It's so stupid. Sorry to say.
IKR@@sebrassino
IKR@@sebrassino
It's not just shooting himself in the foot, it's pushing and legitimizing a harmful product that will be embraced by the likes of scammers troll farms. It's a shame, and even though I really enjoy CD's videos, I will unsub if there is another AI content generator sponsorship.
Agree. We want human creativity.
I thought I could accept just about any sponsorship ad if it meant my favorite youtubers could get paid, but appearently AI ads are a step too far for me. I don't want to judge anyone for trying to earn a living, but I also can't watch videos that promote the very software plagiarizing them.
how could a hard working youtuber be so tone deaf?
AI generated content (I REFUSE to call it art) makes a mockery of human emotion and inspiration (the two things needed to make real art and both is a computer incapable of) and is an insult to creativity.
@@OnionChoppingNinja I get where you come from. Though it can help with creativity in my experience. I've used AI image generators many times as a DM in my Dungeons and Dragons campaign. I use it to generate illustrations for my players that I otherwise would never be able to create. I generate scene illustrations, character portraits, images for props (for instance, news paper headline images) and many more things. The creativity comes from me knowing what I want to prompt the generator. The actual result is what the computer makes. Now I'll never say that it's better than a good artist could do, but I'm not a good artist (I'm trying to get into painting, but It's a long road) and even then I could never out put the amount of images I use in an evening session.
It's a tool and I use it as such.
Then again there is a lot of plagiarism involved and that needs to be sorted out.
@@viccie211 Using tools like this for your own personal use is one thing. Using them to quickly flood the market with “low effort” content, or worse, venal profit is another thing entirely. 🤔
The only thing to do is to unsub if it happens again. I'll miss CD, but I cannot support those sponsors.
You can EASILY get better sponsors than AI generators. Don't sell yourself short next time.
Like Raid Shadow Legends (not kidding on that comparison)
@@rikrikonius1301 I'd rather Raid than AI
Realest
We need to pushing back on AI that takes away from human creativity not promoting it
I really like this channel, but this sponsorship threatens to dismantle credibility for Droid as well as every other good science channel. I will not stay subbed if you keep up this sponsorship.
Just design the landers to land on their side!
God, do I have to think of everything?!
More like have all sides be able to land on.
That's what the Japanese lunar spacecraft SLIM was designed to do. Then it landed upside down.
All I can think of is a robot bouncing off the surface LoonyToons style@@gerogyzurkov2259
The country of (pick one you want to slur) designed a lander that could land upwards, upsidedown and sideways. It ending up landing in Detroit.
Or just show us some more fake sh*t like they did before. Its proven, everyone will buy it.
@ video AI: please don't. Videos like this sample, make me run for the hills screaming.
makes great comedy though
@@cmdraftbrnI disagree 👎
That demo short was utterly awful
You can show Paul it's an unacceptable line to cross by unsubbing if it happens again
Thats exactly the way the science spam clickbait channels on youtube operate...
Sponsors can impact credibility. I agree with what others have already written.
As much as I've loved your channel, and followed through with it for years, the AI generated video plug left a bitter taste.
Especially knowing that Science/Documentary AI generated content are on the rise on youtube.
I love your channel because it's not "Content", but because it's interesting.
The AI part really makes me want to stop looking at it, however.
Meh. Just fast forward ya knob
Its painful, but I plan on unsubbing if I see another AI content generation sponsorship. I cannot support that.
Same here, A.I will end channels like this. The Real Ones will be drowned out in a torrent of A.I nonsense.
Uuurrgh .... InVideo AI .... we're already inundated with AI dross on YT. This will totally kill the platform.
Yup. We don't need that.
No it won't. All the best channels on YT don't use anything like that, or certainly not reliant on such. Just the dross does.
@sunnyjim1355 and what happens when the AI videos crack the code of appeasing the alghorythm and that is all we see?
@@sunnyjim1355 They will probably say something like "97% of the great Artworks were painted/assembled not by the famous artist who's name is on it, but by the students toiling underneath them, but it's about the concept and finished piece, not about the physical act of creation"..... but then they also argue massively that art is ALSO about the physical act of creation....either way, art is now about money laundering, so the analogy may not transfer.....but it probably will.
It's astonishing he accepted this bullshit. Especially after the video Kyle Hill made.
Where are the moonbases I was promised as a kid!
At Pinewood Studios
On the moon, have you checked them out ? (kidding)
Yep!!! I actually had the two model Space 1999 "Eagles". I don't know what became of them but they were over-engineered for what is effectively a childs toy. In fact, I think those toys were better than the original film props. And they were heavy.
they hired stanley kubrick, he insisted it was done on location
In my dreams and until my demands are met they'll stay there.
Before Apollo 11, NASA ran these missions to the moon:
8 Pioneer missions, all of which failed
9 Ranger missions, 6 of which failed
7 Surveyor missions, 2 of which failed
5 Lunar Orbiters, 1 of which failed.
That’s 29 unmanned missions to the moon, 17 of which failed. They kept trying, and every failure improved subsequent attempts.
They also ran the entire Gemini program to test procedures for Apollo, then 6 unmanned Apollo missions to test the spacecraft. Apollo 7-10 were manned missions to test the spacecraft and procedures again.
There were only 3 unmanned Apollo tests, Apollo 4, 5 and 6. If you only count Saturn V then it's only Apollo 4 and 6. If you count all other components going back to Saturn I launches, and ground tests, then there were 23 tests in total not involving crew.
But the American taxpayer was footing the bill with an unlimited checking account.
Too bad they never went. What a waste.
@@MagicRoosterBluesBand Yeah, they never went 6 times and 9 times in total, it takes a special kind of irrational and ignorant to unironically think this.
Ask your sponsor how they trained their AI and whether or not they just fed it RUclips videos.
I love how it went full canadian first!
Obviosly if you want an AI to make videos that fit a certain platform, you train it on videos from that platform.
Or is there more that you mean by "just" feeding them RUclips videos?
why does it matter? should Google be paid for the videos or is “watching” ads (and training on them too) enough as it is enough to let you watch youtube?
@@Pelmenji He probably means "Is it woke?"
If the sources used to "feed" the AI are open or free, then how is that any different from you or I "feeding" it to ourselves.
Skipped 2 ads then an ai ad embedded.
You see ads? How quaint.
Sponsorblock. Works like a charm.
use sponsorblock extension. Saved me hundred of hours in YT.
Waiting for the Captcha that demands I click all the craters before letting me see my card balance.
Minor correction. The software patch on the IM-1 lander failed, so Odysseus actually landed with *no* working altimeter at all. It landed with an IMU and optical navigation, within it's targeted landing zone, with only a 100m error in the expected altitude at the time of landing. That error is why it landed a bit fast and a bit sideways, it thought it still had 100m to go. Quite astonishing.
All that stuff worked, until it didn't. Scratch 8 astronauts stranded on Mars. Next idea!
If I see another ad for AI content generation I will unsub. Which would be a big shame, but this crosses a line.
I'm with you on this. It's a real shame!
Welcome to 2024
god i love RUclips vanced
Take a chill pill 💊
The sponsor of this video truly triggered me enough to instantly unsubscribe, as much as I love curious droid videos I refuse to support a content creator who supports such a product.
Institutional knowledge.
It's called institutional knowledge. No matter how well documented a project might be, knowledge is lost one retirement at a time. Everyone who worked on Apollo is retired or deceased.
Or, maybe we never went there.
Exactly. Documentation helps, but you can't build a moon lander just by reading the plans left by someone who did it 50 years ago.... *nobody* is that good at writing documentation. You can learn by working closely with someone who already has the experience - and as you say, they're all retired or dead - or you can learn the hard way, by making a lot of mistakes. Having the documentation should help you avoid some of them, but there's always stuff that never got written down...
@@benjamindover4337 We did go there, many times. Ample evidence proves this beyond reasonable doubt.
@@benjamindover4337 No, we definitely did, as overwhelming evidence and common sense indicates.
@@benjamindover4337 FYI: This is the same guy that complained about pronouns and diversity hires.
Go outside for once, will ya?
The sponsorship’s choice was terrible 👎
AI will never taste in cloths selections you wear .
Thank you Paul!! Now I dont need to wait or watch your videos ever again!
JUST need a nVideo and can make my own video and chill every day THX BUDDY!!
😎😎😎
The "new move fast and break things" development model? That's the way the Soviets did it in the '50s and '60s. It resulted in the R7, the descendent of which is still used today. They were on the way towards making the N-1, a version of the Space X Starship (shown at 5:15 in your video), operational but ran into two problems: 1) the chief designer, Sergei Korolev died before the first flight, and 2) his successor, Vasily Mishin, did not have the political skills of Korolev to stop rival designer Valentin Glushko from shutting down the program. It's a shame since the fourth, and last, N-1 flight came within a few seconds of staging. Since the only truly experimental part of the design was the first stage, the rest would probably succeeded. The fifth flight, which would very likely have been successful, was already on the launch pad undergoing fueling tests when the program was cancelled.
When asked why we can't just repeat Apollo, I always say the odds of death would be unacceptable today. Apollo was not 99.9% safe..
True. The risk was high and well understood, and there were contingency plans in place for potential mission failures.
President Nixon had speeches prepared if the astronauts were stranded on the moon, and perhaps most disturbingly of all, nasa planned to cut communication with the stranded astronauts to preserve their dignity. They didn't want recordings of the men panicking and lamenting as they faced their lonely demise.
I think people really forget the guts these guys had to risk it all like that. A different breed for sure.
Not sure why Apollo was not 99.9% safe, there were 9 crew missions and all came back including Apollo 13, statistically speaking it is 99.9% safe.
@@MervinM123 the survival of 9 missions is not enough to demonstrate 99.9% with a useful margin of error. For example, the safety rate required for 50/50 odds of surviving 9 missions is around 90%.
It never happened anyways, so your point is mute. Can't go today, let alone 56 years ago.
@@MagicRoosterBluesBand whatever flat earther
We don't need AI to land on the moon, we just need more practice.
Yep, A.I will never be a perfect substitute for human "feel" of a situation.
It's definitely needed for robotic landers, but for human landers it would be part of the automated program, there would still be a manual option so the pilot can take over if needed or if he wants to for final descent.
Eventually no living being will be able to come close to the abilities of an AI controlled craft, in space or an atmosphere. The US Air Force put experienced combat pilots against an AI controlled opponent in a simulator, the humans didn’t stand a chance. You can yell at the AI all you want to get off your lawn, but the field of artificial intelligence is improving by huge leaps and bounds at a relatively insanely fast pace. AI is the future, no matter how anyone feels about it. Personally I am profoundly curious to see how things turn out.
@@mikepatton8691 Even if you're using AI (which is a misnomer anyway) you still need to practice building, programming, and operating vehicles that land on alien surfaces. AI isn't magic.
Great video as always! As many other have said. You can do so much better sponsorship wise!
Oh very good timing! Glad we are still getting videos from you.
“Move fast and break things” could also accurately describe a toddler
And you can bet toddlers are learning from it too.
Thank You Paul.
People were is such a rush to get to the moon that they never realised it was a waste of time, there is nothing to do on the moon except build regolith castles.
I'm still waiting on my jetpack and flying cars I was promised as a child.
First they just need to deliver the Hoover board from Back to the future.
We already have both those things. Jetpacks aren't commercially avialable because the human body is simply not suited to that mode of flight. Hence why they are only used for stunts, etc. And we have 'flying cars' - they are called planes. It's just that they function poorly as cars. But you can get one if you want one.
@@sunnyjim1355they have those flying cars that just look like giant quadcopters
Well at least we have mandatory pronouns and diversity hiring.
Who promised you ANYTHING?
the men that made the moon missions possible were absolute mad wizards.
With slide rules.
Thank goodness RUclips provided that helpful "Context" link under your video.
As soon as I saw your sponsor, I assumed that this video was artificially generated and left
"How did you land the craft safely and cheaply?"
"We dragged an anchor, then landed."
Oh aaarrr, so when they land in the 'Mare Crisium' ( Sea of Crises: found to the northeast of Mare Tranquillitatis ), it should be plain sailing for the crew. Hoist the flag and claim the victory. ⚓
@@David-yo5wsYa bloody well right!
Well done. As someone who worked on a couple of these projects I want to say thanks for your effort to report complete and accurate information.
Another fantastic, consise, and well researched video. Keep up the amazing content Paul!
I second that. And I liked Paul's little plug at the end, for peace.
Seeing Curious Droid endorsing AI videos is very sad thing. Its just means that even more soon then we expected RUclips will be filled with low quality meaningless AI crap. Even today is more and more hard to find good stuff like this channel. Well, maybe Droid really is working for robots. Sooo sad...
When you say we can’t use what was used before during the Apollo missions because the tech has leapfrogged for the last few decades, i do wonder if anyone has taken the basic designs of the Surveyor or even the Apollo tech and just upgraded it? The computers alone would’ve weighed so much, that an iPhone could probably do all the computing needed.
Your average modern washing machine has more processing power than the Apollo command module og lunar lander combined, but the difference is, on Apollo the computer merely helped the people land the craft, it didn't really do anything other than calculate the values they needed to fly. Now that they're using new unproven technology and trying to land fully autonomously, the computer has to do a lot more than just calculate where the craft is at
The Surveyors landed blind: no terrain avoidance at all. They’d happily try to land with one foot on a boulder or in a crater. NASA got lucky with the Surveyors.
@@Hobbes746 I didn’t know that, thanks. These days, a basic radar and even a computer would fit in the frame, to give it added ability to land safely?
@@padawanmage71 Yes. The modern landing systems are pretty good, actually. Several of the recent attempts were let down by dumb mistakes (IM1: they forgot to switch on the altimeter, SLIM had an engine failure 50 meters above the surface), but e.g. Chandrayaan-3 and the Chinese landers showed these obstacle avoidance systems do work and allow accurate landings.
@@Hobbes746 It's hard not feeling like we are trying to reinvent the wheel. In the 60s it was just a solid rubber tire, but still a tire. These days the tire would be steel belted, with better traction and a rim made of space age metal. But in the end, it's still a tire.
thank you for your final message
Yeah, I used to work in the Defense industry and even we asked the same question(s).
5:40 There was an interesting short sci-fi story I read years ago that was about tour "boats" that cruised around on the moons dust because it was too soft to walk on. The boat sinks and the story follows the crew, passengers, and rescue team. Pretty fun little story. If anyone knows the name please let me know because I can't remember. 🙃
I'd be interested to hear that as well.
I remember reading that a few years ago, though I had to look up the name.
'A Fall of Moondust' - Arthur C Clarke
if I'm not mistaken that is
Listening to the BBC Night Theatre version now.. Not bad :)@@pyr0b1rd
The worst thing about moon landing videos are the tin foil hatters it attracts😂
Thank you for just another wonderful video.
Objective AI: Land on the grund with the right side up.
Operational AI: I apologize for any confusion....
Thanks Paul for the detailed comparison of how we did it in the sixties (with a much bigger budget) and how they’re doing it now. One thing that I still don’t understand about the latest attempt a couple months ago though is why the communication was so sketchy as they approached the moon. Seems like that would be better now. I’m also unclear on why the toxic chemicals used back in the day can’t be used today - at least in the vacuum of the lunar surface.
The ads are insufferable.
All the new landers sure look top heavy compared to the early successful ones.
You can't accurately judge mass distribution by looking at the outside.
Top heavy and narrow track of the lander legs. Hello SpaceX.
"like we forget how to do it after so much spent on it"
in part yes, we forget that it needed massive support and insane amount of money. the current ones that tries and fails (or succeed) are made on the budget of an ant farm compared to the apollo and similar projects. and most tries it without much prior knowledge on their own, yes, we have the general knowledge on how to do it, but very little practical one, with almost no budget for anything. the few who make it work are the strange ones, not the failures.
Well done on that superb closing , I wonder where we’d be now ❤
Loved the bit at the end… Spending too much money, on how to kill each other. So true.👍🇦🇺🙏
Yes, because if only we'd 'give peace a chance' we'd all live happily ever after. 🙄 Classic liberal delusion based on an utopian fantasy.
I wonder why they haven't tried landing on the Sun
They havent figured out they have to go at night.
The Parker Solar Probe might try haha
You sound like my kinda gal !
Icarus already gave it a shot 😅
@@andymouse
And you think it's a gal why?
Great to see your content again. Thanks 👍🏻
Marvellous video with an excellent ending. Thankyou so much for your time 😊
A problem is NASA in the 60s was very much the wild west, they took risks that would just be unpalatable now. I think Neil Armstrong himself said he thought he had a 50/50 chance of making it back.
They also had orders of magnitude more budget
This is very true. Chuck Yeager's autobiography gives a great account of what things were like in the 40's, 50's and 60's, the prevailing attitudes, and the risks taken. Muroc air force base (now Edwards) ran out of streets to be named after dead test pilots.
He also said he couldn't see stars in cis lunar space. We live in the Milky Way by God!
I thought he said that it was a 50/50 chance of success. ie. they may not be able to achieve the landing.
@@raytrevor1: One of their abort contingencies was to fire the ascent engine of the LM in case they got into trouble during descent. For example if fuel ran out in the descent stage tanks and they were starting to drop. I believe the only time that maneuver was actually performed was during Apollo 10 when an intentional partial descent to within a certain distance of the lunar surface was done. Luckily it was not needed after that.
Hypothetical question for the Moon-landing deniers: in the coming years we will land on the Moon ( again ), with robots and with people, and there will be even more photos/video taken, such as those by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) which clearly show the remains of the various Apollo landers and the Moon buggies and their tracks across the surface. When HD videos and photos of the old Apollo landing sites is shown, hopefully taken during fly-bys or landings near the sites, will you accept we did go there in the 60s, or will you claim it too is fake? You can look up the photos by the LRO online btw...
They will claim the new landings are also fake 😅😅
They will claim it is fake. And in 10 years people will be saying” how could they land with the old fashioned tech of 2024”
Yeah nice try Reptillians.
There is no reasoning with unreasonable and irrational people, they will always have an excuse to not admit being wrong.
That has not been shown in 55 years! All we have is the word of a murderous lying corrupt government.
Very interesting. Thanks!
Um, they should just add a pneumatic ram to right the lander when it tips over. I’m sure there’s some spares left over from Battlebots.
This channel is the best!
Literally I love every video
Without intention to complain! I'm delighted to see you back! I was getting a bit concerned! Hope you are well!
The farther you stray from where you should be, the harder it is to get there. Otherwise you would be there already.
Well said at the end. Great vid. Much love from Northern Ireland
Come on man, I like AI as much as the next guy, but don't advertise that shit as a self respecting creator.
It will suck when AI videos flood platforms....but everyones response is still pretty harsh. Am I missing something?
@@extragoogleaccount6061The platform has been flooded by shitty contents for more than 10 years.
@@extragoogleaccount6061 Because at this time you can still tell the difference. In 2 years time you cannot and most ppl are just not savvy or critical enough, and stop caring.
Excellent video as always!
One thing though - as far as I'm aware, that $4.2 bil fee for Artemis 1 statement is a little bit dubious, as it includes R&D cost of the Orion-SLS.
Not unlike saying the first shuttle launch costed the whole shuttle programme's R&D cost to that point; which isn't a fair assessment.
Oooh, kangaroos not trash bins. For a few moments I was like, 'An experimental trash bin? And why does it get up and move around?'
Usually I like these videos but the sponsor kills it for me. You can do better in the sponsors you choose.
I wonder why they haven't tried landing on the Sun.
I know it is hot but they could do it at night !
@@Firkinnel Ba-Dum-Tss!!
The last comment is 💯 on point. We spent trillion of dollars killing each others rather than space exploration.
Fantastic video as always Paul. Your last point about developing ways to kill each other rather than carrying on the lunar projects was especially poignant.
I'm not gonna unsub because of one ad read but I can't keep watching videos that are helpinng make the internet worse. I'm not saying AI tech is evil but it's being used to flood the internet with low quality trash
it blows my mind that they did all this essentially with slide rules
If the sponsor is an April Fool gag it's hilarious. If it's not, it's still hilarious.
I can't believe you're promoting Ai crap
Echoing a lot of the comments i am seeing about your sponsorship choice. As a science communicator who works hard to educate your audience, and does a great job of it, why promote the thing that is used so widely for disinformation?
Thank u for the statement at the end!
I was launched onto the earth in 1972 and I've forgotten just about f**king everything.
In my opinion Curious Droid makes the best videos on RUclips!
Or apparently, he may be very descriptive to an ai....
Nope, A.I will and he advertised them... Talk about shooting yourself in te foot.
Even after what you said, which was great by the way I still can't understand why there are so many fuckups ? a modern car can back into a garage and tell you the distance to the bloody wall !!.....cheers.
As I am an unemployed and nearly retired person, who holds a sLiGht grudge, I would suggest the young business managers are not smart enough to get 'Grandads' input on the design at the early stages. "Look here son, get rid of the complexity and just have two lights shining down from each side on the surface. When it's a dot, the camera has the height. Just like they did on the Dambusters in 1945." 🤔"Think that will work pop?"
:)@@David-yo5ws
Since we apparently can't manage to slow down enough laterally, all future lunar landers should have longer and more springy legs that splay out much wider to eliminate any possibility of tipping over. Or just make the lander spherical with most of the weight concentrated on the bottom of the sphere.
The Apollo Program might have been at 300.000.000.000 today's USD... yet it was an enormous investment program in innovative techniques and more important: heads. ... yet at the same time, the Vietnam War took at least TWICE AS MUCH! and whom did it serve?
There was a time China were the greatest navigators in the world....then they stopped.
There was a time when Italian and Portuguese sailors were the envy of all Europe.
When Norwegians were the great explorers of the Americas
There was a time The Netherlands was the largest commercial commonwealth.
There was a time Norwegian expeditions got to big international trophy targets.
All of that passed over time. Nobody forgot how to do it, like the fall of Rome is celebrated by historians (not by engineers and architects though who know knowledge continued).
Eventually times change and objectives do too.
We're going back because the Chinese are....that is the only reason....just like the 1960s because the USSR were going.
Spanish did nothing?
The Chinese also stopped inventing things after paper and china tea bowls
@@patosentado9665 Spain borrowed Portuguese and Italian sailors to get going after 1491. England and Scotland borrowed Dutch design and navigation.
There is a reason behind this because the computer is not good enough to land on the moon a human pilot is 10 times better as they have reactions that surpass computers. That is why every moon landing was perfect or almost perfect. It was not done by computer it was done by hand with a joystick and thruster control. A computer overcompensates where a human would be that's just enough. And vice versa.
That's "now" thinking! In a couple of years, once the AI's start designing and building themselves, humans can go back to what they were best at and that is picking small tasty insects off of each others skin!
Nope. The computers are good enough. IM-1 and SLIM both suffered major hardware failures that would have doomed a manned landing attempt.
8:49 OMG, Look at all of those BUILDINGS in the background!! 👽😮👽
🤣
I like to imagine I'm sitting in the lobby of a doctor's office waiting for my appointment, and the person to come out and get me, and this guy sits down beside me, and just tells me the entire story in this video without asking me if I'd like to hear it or not. Including the Ad portion, as well. Then the person calls my name, and I just kinda get up and slowly walk away to go get checked up.
Oh boy your sponsor is what people use to create garbage videos everyday and flood these platforms. Be proud.
if you need an AI video bot, then you don't have anything insightful to contribute to society
I wonder if the Moon would've ever have become an afterthought if the Soviets had beat the US to the Moon. I wonder how accurate the AppleTV show "For All Mankind" would be if that had actually happened.
I like your Farscape reference in the splash page
We need a new batch of cool-headed testpilots like Neil Armstrong.
AI companies are a bad sponsor. Bad faith, inherently.
very good explanation. Thank
Great video. Thank you!
“Nasa is using subcontractors... ". oh, boy(eing)...
NASA has always used subcontractors.
That's what the last A in NASA means.
I’m honestly surprised that someone such as yourself would promote an AI antithesis of yourself. Please don’t. Nobody profits from that except the few.
I remember playing Duck Hunt in '85. Now there are no light gun shooter games.
Wow Droid! thanks.
You could at least mark a timestamp to skip past the adverts...
Please don’t endorse that AI shit. I’m disappointed by that.
It's the future
So is the extinction of humanity, doesn't need to be celebrated or expedited though
I have a pretty big problem with that sponsor what the hell were you thinking?
The good news is that there are probably tens of thousands of people who build flight systems as a hobby nowadays. Including yrs truly. You have engineering games, simulations, drones, amateur rockets, etc. They all open up the vast majority of the engineering problems to regular people, and regular people do build some stupidly amazing stuff.
People need to land more on the Moon.
Like for the first time.
RUclipsrs accepting AI video generators as sponsors seems like digging your own grave happily. Sad to see that on this reputable channel.