Why is it so hard to return to the moon?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 15 май 2024
- Full podcast episodes: www.askaspaceman.com
Support: / pmsutter
Follow: / paulmattsutter and / paulmattsutter
If we went to the Moon already, why can’t we go back so easily? What technology have we lost? What are we trying to do differently? I discuss these questions and more in today’s Ask a Spaceman!
Follow all the show updates at www.askaspaceman.com, and help support the show at / pmsutter !
Keep those questions about space, science, astronomy, astrophysics, and cosmology coming to #AskASpaceman for COMPLETE KNOWLEDGE OF TIME AND SPACE! 
Наука
When you bought a car in the 60's. Your owner manual gave instructions on how to adjust your valve lash. Today, your manual warns against drinking the antifreeze. Society has become "stupidy".
This
It’s by design. It’s a lot easier to control scared and stupid people.
Read any current issue of Scientific American and compare them to articles written in the 1940’s: analytical, comprehensive, efficient is expressing complex concepts. Even the ads back then make you realize they were operating on a much higher plain and not treating the reader like a child with zero attention span. Although, that last part should be especially earmarked to the American news/entertainment infintalization complex.
Operating on a higher plane. I know. I went to public school as well.
@@johnlaughlin266
Infantilization, yes.
Stanley Kubrick died is the real reason.
You bet. 😊
He did make a good movie.
Google fact check says that we succeeded, so you know its 100% propaganda.
Really? Kubrick insisted on doing the shooting on location!
AVATAR's makers have been taking NASA way beyond the moon.
Pretty impressive that you can take less than five minutes worth of talking points and stretch it out for over 30 minutes.
😂😂😂
It's not hard to return. It's hard to find a reason _to_ return.
Thank you for not using AI generated narration like so many channels have defaulted to.
funny they have AI narrate videos now, but cant go back to the moon because "it's too expensive" even though they spend way more on funding wars in ukraine and Israel
@@randuthaynelol would you go back to where there no treasures? Only lunar rocks 😂
@@pasonveronica2370 . . if you can show up the first time without being caught spreading petrified wood afterward as the genuine article . . Interesting that recent returns from the Chinese unmanned lunar mission contained rocks having an entirely different ratio of minerals not remotely matching any of the material from Apollo missions . . No 60 minutes quest is forthcoming however -- let alone network news coverage in fake journalistic enterprise beyond celebrity gossip.
@@pasonveronica2370only reason we really need to go back is for the alleged abundance of helium-3 which would make a more efficient fuel for further exploration and possibly manned missions to the outer worlds.
@@randuthayne the bit, explanes the fir go at anything, it unknown, some times you nee to actuly build tooling needed to, to even make the machine you want to make, NASA it's self, big tool needed for task,, well doing, it second or third time? almost everything, from the first go? so costs sould go down, second third fourth, and soon on,
Interesting that it could be done in the 1960’s with one launch, but now we need 20… very interesting. Anyone believe this?
Yes. In fact multiple launch scenarios were considered during the design phase of the 1960's lunar mission development including a number of varying types of multi launch plans. In that same spirit there were ideas to mount the command module to a lander base and take all the hardware to the surface. Many designs and plans were considered.
IT NEVER HAPPENED
Have you ever seen the documentary A FUNNY THING HAPPENED ON THE WAY TO THE MOON? Or ASTRONAUTS GONE WILD?
@@kbotah2023pseudo science that has been debunked long ago
@@kbotah2023 IT DID HAPPENED
Have you ever seen the documentary A FUNNY THING HAPPENED ON THE WAY TO THE MOON DEBUNK ?
I still can't believe smart people think they landed humans 6 times on the moon with less than the technology of a first generation Nokia phone and here we are in 2024 and they can't even land a robot on the moon without it falling over.
It just amazes me that people still believe we went to the moon back in the 1960's and 1970's and even took rover buggies with them.
Who in their right mind would believe that shlt these days.
13.3% of the federal budget goes to the military, 12.7% to education, 0.3% to Nasa.
I am an old fellow that started computing in 1968, the year before Apollo 10. These days the computing power of cell phones are quite literally millions of times faster (GHz instead of kHz) with millions of times the memory (Gbytes instead of kBytes). Just think about that for a moment. Hell, that took some programming skill.
There is a great you tube video about the software that did it. Search for the Apollo computer.
well yes, but there are reasons and motivation for more powerful computing. Though Apollo computers were very primitive, they rode a vehicle with a zillion horsepower. ***THAT*** is what is needed to go to the moon, otherwise we'll end up like Soviets trying to perfect the N1.
So Ukraine receives the entire Artimus budget every quarter?
Yeah! Makes sense
I made a similar comment yesterday, came back to see responses to my post and found my post had been deleted. :O
We had Vietnam war going on ?
@@indianastan Yes if something has a political motivation there is plenty of money but science or long term human interest does not
Sickening. Isn't it??
Ukraine is a pressing issue of the future world our children inherit. Will it be a world based in logical rule of law, or a world in which it is ok to murder people just to steal their shit. Authoritarian governments are the default animal state but reflect all of mans failings whereas democracy represents a higher ideal which is very hard to hold together always in jeopardy of the tyranny of the many, or the tyranny of the few. Hold foremost in your heart the better angels of your human nature for the sake of our collective future, and be willing to defend them when they are under direct violent assault or we shall perish and enslaved, and miserable species.
With modern technology it should be easier not harder
Yes of course . They couldn't go in 60s or since then . 😊
The hard part is prying the funding out of Congress. They'd rather pay to house all these newly-arrived Democrat voters in hotels than fund science.
@@marksprague1280 You can't cut taxes and increase the budget.
@marksprague1280 The space race and the Cold War were both imaginary money pits. Because they were imaginary, the government was able to cut taxes for the rich.
Space telescopes and landing on asteroids and comets, that's real science. You should be happy that we do any science.
@@rawmilkmike When has of the KluKKer party ever actually cut taxes?
Imagine we spent 800billion on space exploration instead of war...
We can’t go back to where we have never been.
On the contrary, there were nine manned missions to the moon and six landings. It would have been more had it not been for the premature cancellation of the Apollo Programme and the aborted Apollo 13 mission - (presumably NASA also inexplicably felt the need to fake a failure?)
Totally agree. With so many fake photos pretending to be taken from the moon, and the Van Allen Belts, we should all agree about the hoax that it was. It was a PR scheme used to cover up spy satellite launches, and to distract the exorbitant amount of tax payer dollars spent on the space program (defence budget). Everyone needs to get their head out of the sand.
@@yassassin6425 Maybe they actually tried to do it for real that time, or maybe that was a fake too (go circle around in low earth orbit for a few days, then return "from the moon"), but even on shorter, simpler missions things can go wrong sometimes, like the Challenger disaster. Please remember that no one has ever claimed that astronauts did not go into space, just that they did not cross the Van Allen belt.
@@yassassin6425man don't believe everything they tell you It is very clear that man has never been to the Moon look at the aluminum foil spacecraft that they sent no way those were able to Traverse space and land on the Moon that is a joke especially with the technology that they had
@@yassassin6425man don't believe everything they tell you It is very clear that man has never been to the Moon look at the aluminum foil spacecraft that they sent no way those were able to Traverse space and land on the Moon that is a joke especially with the technology that they had
That’s ludicrous that we couldn’t rebuild a Saturn V rocket today, I do not believe that for a second. The other idea that we lost some of the technology we used is also preposterous.
Oh and also we as a government couldn’t blow Elon Musk if we built our own rockets.
Why would we want to build terribly outdated rockets? That's like asking why we don't mass produce Ford Model Ts anymore. 😂😂😂
Not ar all ludicrous! I retired from an industry which peaked in the 80s. It was clear specialization and continuation of expertize were declining in various systems/techbolgy in the following decades
@@austinlumpkins1955we did not "lose the tech" we lost the INFRASTRUCTURE.
We cannot build cathode ray tube televisions in the US either.
Does that mean we "lost" the tech? No.
They were told to destroy the blueprints for the Saturn V. One NASA employee smuggled one of the blueprints home as a souvenir, but reported that a week or two later (I have forgotten the exact length of time he said) a couple of federal agents showed up at his front door and demanded he hand over his pilfered blueprint. He didn't know how they knew, but they figured it out somehow. It was old technology, not a national security risk. Why were they so anxious to destroy the plans? The obvious deduction: it was evidence. Evidence of something they wanted to hide forever. This is but one of many pieces of evidence that point to this conclusion. On the positive side, if it is this hard just to get to the moon, we probably don't have to worry about space aliens.
"I like money"
Proof that the movie "Idiocracy" is a documentary
we miss Stanley Kubrik!
@@Ezekiel903he made it look so easy
Stanley Kubrick...🤔 I wondered myself if that Women have their grubby Spider Fingers in our Pie?
I mean I cannot even make the Short Symbol of a Spider.
Me too.
When they brought back the battle ships during the 80s they had to bring back the old timers to show many how to run the boilers and other systems.
Forgot to mention NASA also "lost" about *14.000* tapes with telemetry data from the Apollo project, vanish, gone.
Wouldn’t want anyone these days to prove they actually faked it, so you know, lose that important data asap.
@@Samuelfish2k its bit like unrelated buildings collapsing on 9-11 full of computers and paperwork. Its a sad fact of life that Goverments lie to us every single day.
@@Samuelfish2k If you actually think they 'faked' it....I challenge you to go to Florida and look at the Saturn V they have laying on its' side and tell me it's not real. And often times there will be people there who worked on the Apollo project who will be happy to answer any questions you might have. But you won't do that because you'd rather live with your delusions than find out the truth.
If you actually look...you can find blueprints, specifications, test procedures and results from every single part in that spacecraft....of which there are millions. All faked...of course. Once you see the mountain of documentation it should start to dawn on you that it was real.
@@Samuelfish2kThey lost the telemetry tapes for ONE mission only. You can find the Apollo 15 telemetry data online. So, that’s a very poor excuse.
@@TheSteveSteele they lost them all.
If we as a species didn't spend so much money and effort on ways to destroy ourselves..maybe we could accomplish this and a lot more. 🤔
That's arguable, I mean we are talking about one of the greatest achievements in history motivated by one of the greatest superpower schlong measuring contests in human existence.
There are many ways of destroying ourselves. The cost of preventing that from happening costs even more, and going back to the moon is one way of preventing our self destruction.
Ironically, we ride to space on technology developed originally to kill people, but yeah, I'm with you.😊
To be fair. Without war we would likely not have rockets...
Considering that military spending is 800+ billion and that went to NASA instead, then yes we would be on Mars in no time.
They aren't going back because they NEVER went to the moon in the first place ...too hard to fool us now
It's not hard to fool us, it's hard to convince a portion of the population. People now don't believe anything from authority. With all the evidence available some people would die before admitting the earth is a sphere. Bizzare times we live in.
美国人是否曾经登月，对中国人来说并不重要😊
中国只是必须在月球建立基地，如果今后我们在月球看见美国人，会请你们去中国基地吃饭的，中餐😊
Have you seen Capricorn 1
@@user-agheuu0v USA will be telling china “Congratulations.. what took you so long to finally get here” 🤣🤣🤣
Apollo 6 DID NOT HAVE ASTRONAUTS ABOARD MY GOOD FRIEND.
Actually a Funny thing happened going to the moon , the funny thing happened in low orbit.
You mean that horribly inaccurate conspiracy theory fan fiction? It's complete nonsense. Every second of it
@KornPop96 you know what ? Today I've seen a submarine that sank to the top of the sky .it's been on the news all day !
@@vidtech2630 I don't even know what that's supposed to mean. 😂
@@KornPop96 correct
@@KornPop96 It's on video tape guy. And way before photoshop. Even if you still believe -in Santa Claus- that the moon walks were real events, there is still no way the documentation isn't totally faked. Even the best, officially released footage, once you know what to look for, you can see it's a fraud.
President Nixson called the moon from a land-line phone. It shouldn't be to hard today 😂
🤡👀yeah and in real time too! 🖖
That 'land line phone' was patched through a radio transceiver so...Nope. Try again.
@diverdannavyvet9672 Baaaa, none of it ever happened, it's all bs. Try again 😂👍
@@dpackman
How did all of the things that went to the moon and are still there get there ?
Santa ? ..
Try again.. Sorry, no cute cartoons to punctuate my posting..
@@richardlincoln8438 nothing up there, none of it ever happened. Have a great day 👍
#1. The Saturn 5 was a custom, specialized rocket meant for a single purpose.
#2. All Saturn 5 rockets were single use. Build a new rocket. Launch. Gone. Next mission? Build an entirely new Saturn 5 rocket. Every single mission.
#3. There were 15 Saturn 5 rockets built, 12-13 went to space, none were ever re-used.
#4. Space Shuttles were built for extensive, repeated use. There were only 6 ever built, 5 ever used in space, and those 5 went to space 135 times.
#5. If we were still using Saturn 5, we would have had to build 135 Saturn 5 rockets to do what the 5 Space Shuttles accomplished.
#6. There are dozens of other rocket classes that put things in space all the time and are significantly cheaper. They just don't carry people.
#5 is not correct.
Most people know nothing of the Saturn V.
HAHAHA 🤣😂
We can’t go off of what they’ve done in the past to figure out how to get to the moon for the same reason we can’t figure out how to create a warp drive from watching Star Trek.
We know exactly how the Apollo Programme placed man on the moon from every mission profile down to every switch, circuit breaker and rivet.
We know what we are told the question is do we believe everything we hear? When you have an event take place and the people in the position to know how that happened. Cannot figure it out and do not “remember” it was done, when the photographic and evidence taken of that event is clearly fake and altered you have to start thinking for yourself. The old saying it is easier to fool someone than it is to convince them they have been fooled is never more timely than discussing the moon landing project. I too once believed it was true and to this day, I wish it was true but when you look at the evidence, it was clearly faked. I’ll save this at least what they’re presenting is fake. Maybe it happened and they have no photographic or video evidence so they created it, but you see there it goes again. The mind filling in the blanks when the truth is just too hard to believe.
10-20 Launches just to fuel the thing,. And they expect us to believe we did that 55 years ago in one launch?
Exactly. And then 13000 boxes with all the "moon missions" original recordings were put into a trash can by some janitor lady. So unlucky!
@@Zorro33313It wasn’t all the moon missions. You’re making stuff up. I bet you can’t even articulate what was lost and what wasn’t.
@@TheSteveSteele yeye sure. photos are good (well, not exactly good since they've got moon color wrong lol). all the videos, sensor data etc - lost.
10 to 20 launches to refuel Starship, which is much, much larger than the Apollo craft that went to the moon the first time.
This stuff is only confusing to you because you want it to be. Your ignorance is intentional...
@@Zorro33313 All of the Apollo missions telemetry data and tapes exist. Apollo 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17. All of the telemetry data exists except for some of Apollo 11 telemetry data is missing. Search NSSDCA Master Catalog Search. “These data were extracted 'as read' from 7-track ALSEP ARCSAV (TELEMETRY) tapes that were recovered from the Washington National Records Center (WNRC) in 2010 [1]. Each tape contains 24-hour, time-edited, raw data (not decommutated) from instruments for the ALSEP station deployed near the Apollo 12 landing site. The NASA Johnson Space Center recorded approximately 5000 ALSEP ARCSAV tapes from April 1973 to February 1975 for Apollo 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17 but so far only 439 of them containing data from April through June 1975 have been found at the WNRC [2].”
280 billion dollars for appolo which had 6 trips to the moon.... And now NASA already spent 90 billion without a single trip yet.
It's over 300 billion today, one Artemis mission costs about the same as one Apollo mission, a few billion dollars, the development of hardware for the whole program is much cheaper in comparison, Saturn V alone cost over 60 billion dollars to develop.
I take it you're unaware that the SLS launch system cost 1 billion dollars a piece and has in 12 years occurred a total of 1 trillion dollars in cost and it's only flown once because no part of it is reusable
This was excellent. I’ve been wondering about this.
Wikipedia -> Apollo 6 ->
first line quote :
"Apollo 6 (April 4, 1968), also known as AS-502, was the third and final *_UNCREWED_* flight in the United States' Apollo Program ..."
So yeah it "clearly" put the non existing crew in mortal danger
We can keep dithering but it's going to hurt when the Chinese get to the moon ahead of Artemis.
It's only harder because they're doing it with 2.5% of the budget they used to go the first time. NASA doesn't build anything, it's all government contracts. Hard to get things built when you can't afford to pay anybody but the lowest bidder. This is why SLS is derivative of the shuttle rocket and Orion is a jazzed up Apollo era capsule.
Why?
We’ve never been before 😂😂
Except that we already beat them to the moon...in 1969.
ChangE project has been doing almost all experiments for mankind moon landing since 2013 while Artemis doing almost nothing so far.
The descent from parked orbit to the moon is incredible to review in detail, too. There is an enthusiast who gave a talk that was posted to YT which goes into detail on the Apollo guidance computer. Amazing stuff.
What a badass video, you definitely deserve a sub!
There are several inaccuracies in this video but the ones that really caught my attention were that SpaceX Starship's 33 Raptor engines generate over 16 million pounds of thrust which is nearly twice that of the Saturn V rockets thrust. Also, SpaceX's Starship (with Super Heavy rockets) stands about 31 feet taller than NASA's Saturn V rockets.
I think the details are in the language being used. “Starship” is the upper stage of the fully stacked rocket. So Starship (or “SS”) sits atop the SuperHeavy rocket (or “SH”). So SH can get SS to NEO. Apparently SS can’t propel itself to the moon directly afterwards because of its incredible size. Remember it can accommodate 100 people or 100 tons…something like that. I think 100 people require a great deal of heavy life support equipment and materials, supplies, food etc.
Ok. Now we have big old SS up in orbit. So it has equipment for the moon. But it needs more fuel that couldn’t come along for the ride in addition with the moon equipment. So that may be why another 15 or so SS fuel tanker launches are needed in order to add enough fuel to send SS to the moon. I never understood any of this until thinking it through in the writing of this post. Please let me know if I’m not correct; I’m happy to edit it if I’m wrong…I just want to fully understand the problem that we have in terms of why SS can’t just be launched and fly to the moon in one shot.
The Super heavy block-one version presently generates 74.4 MN (16.7 million lbf) thrust. While Saturn IV generated 34.5 million newtons (7.6 million pounds). More than double.
SH is 71 m (233 ft) tall, while Starship is 50.3 m (165 ft).
Saturn 5 was 110.6 m (363 ft) tall.
So 35' taller than Saturn V.
Starship block-2 will have stretched tanks in both booster and second stage, with 35 Raptors in SH, 6 sea-level and 3 vacuum Raptors in Starship. This should increase real payload capacity from 45 mt [presently] up to 110 mt (242550 lb).
Block-2 is going to be used for the HLS contract unless block-3 arrives sooner than expected.
@@imconsequetau5275Dude, you got your data on the Starship Blk 2 backwards: It's going to have 6 vacuum engines and 3 sea level engines. As for the actual moon lander, that's going to need an almost entirely different engine configuration altogether because the moon has no atmosphere and a loose, rocky surface - no hardened landing pads there yet.
@@Bobcat665
Of course we know that Starship HLS is going to have high-mounted landing engines.
Where did you find definitive specs on block-2 ? I couldn't just trust any artist's depictions, so I concluded practically that SpaceX wouldn't risk the additional cost of 3 more vacuum Raptors until the recovery rate exceeded 85%, or 7 recovered Starships.
The tanker versions could easily exceed 3 gravity but you also want to rapidly accumulate a lot of experience with human rated designs.
So, using 3, 4, or 6 vacuum Raptors for tankers will depend on how much you are going to allow acceleration to exceed 3 gravity, and also on gravity drag equations. As the ship weight drops from ~2100 mt down to ~200 mt, you shut off all but one sea level engine in stages and then throttle down and shutoff pairs of vacuum Raptors to stay within load spec. The vacuum bell mass of shut-down engines, and how long they are dead weight, are factors.
@@Bobcat665
Of course we know that Starship HLS is going to have high-level landing engines. What's your source on block-2 vacuum engines? Artist depictions?
"Space maybe the final frontier but its made in a hollywood basement" - Californication RHCP
So Anthony Kiedis said so. What's your point?
Are you that dim that you can't even understand a metaphor by the Red Hot Chili Peppers?
You know NASA itself is the origin of such a theory. It was all about destroying interest in this place that contains high tech remnants of an ancient society. Brookings Report/Invention Secrecy Act of 1951. You've got to read the entire documents because the summations give you the wrong/false impressions.
Lost “institutional knowledge” is much like Grandma’s cornbread recipe that wasn’t written down and hasn’t been successfully duplicated despite many attempts.
A top boss of my past employer not only tossed out all the copies of the physically thick and comprehensive established Policy & Procedures books…in order to start over under a new administration…but also denigrated the vast knowledge base of the combined staff, the people with tried and true skills, the people with bright and shiny ideas… The results weren’t at all positive. The “cornbread” wasn’t fit for a hungry squirrel!!
😢Univac was a tech leader but laid off the engineers that kept it all running.
@@chuckevans2792
Very much like Boeing being an industry leader until the merger and they replaced the engineering staff with accountants.
Yeah, instead of buying a Mustang, I asked Ford for a new Model A. They couldn’t do it. Some here would say that was evidence that the Model A never existed.
I get your message but in this case there was absolutely no squirrel or recipe for space blue ribbons simply because they were not able to get to the moon but we're actually perpetrating the vinacular w slow motion technology... Yes no technology for none needed..pick any moonwalk sir and go to speed settings,2xfast is real time and there's nothing else to say about it, but it's the truth...no cap , no way ,ck my ch.🤔
@@petermcgill1315They could, but automobiles are massed produced, thus it would make it cost-prohibitive.
Space rockets like Saturn V aren’t, they were custom made and also very expensive, but very possible to replicate today.
We have not been trying to go back to the moon for the past 52 years. There was no commercials or sufficient scientific compelling interest for putting people up there. Now, the interest is moon landings as a stepping stone to Mars.
This was the single best summary I've seen of why Artemis is so different from Apollo. A few crucial take-aways from this summary involve the stepping stones we need to create for further solar system exploration. One is earth orbit refuelling that will permit far greater payloads to be boosted their destination from low earth orbit. Apollo was greatly limited by the amount of payload and fuel that could be launched by one rocket into low earth orbit for TLI (trans-lunar injection) due to the low mass fractions that can be achieved due to earth gravitation and aerodynamic drag. The precision we can now achieve to take advantage of sophisticated LaGrange orbits will permit Artemis missions to reach the moon with more payload for less fuel and for Artemis 3 to reach the lunar poles and potential sources of water to make H2 and O2 fuel and oxidizer that will revolutionize interplanetary exploration. Apollo leveraged 1960s technology to achieve getting to the moon and safely back within narrow destination limits dictated by nearly flat lunar orbital inclinations. Artemis is leveraging 21st century technology to create stepping stones to lunar and planetary colonization. If Apollo could be re-built today, it would remain a working museum piece with extremely limited, if any, further scientific utility. It's like comparing a Baldwin steam locomotive to a superconducting maglev train or the Jamestown colony to an agriculturally, economically and politically sustainable settlement. Artemis is a logical next step in space for humankind if we can educate enough people both here and abroad to believe in logic. That's the only part of the mission that has me really worried.
You sound like a fanboy for the Artemis program....haha
you can't return to a place you've never been
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
In your case, a library.
How high do you have to be to believe this?
Haha earth is flat too huh?
@@festivalflightcrew2895 you don't have to be high at all to believe the governments lies just look to 2020 the entire world was lied to and everyone walked around with diapers on their face. You should get high on some form of plant and do some deep thinking. NASA lost all the technology and data on what was supposedly mankind's greatest achievement be a good thought to dwell on
Apollo 6 almost killed the crew? There was no crew as it was an uncrewed test.
Exactly, no one survived Apollo 6.
Did he mean Gemini 6?
I'm not familiar with this channel. Does this guy slap them together fast?
@@Three_Random_Words Sure as hell drags it out ,,, He needs to speed it up 5X at least OR have two channels, one for those that maybe finished Junior School and another for those that read at least one of the many Volumes of Encyclopedia Britannica.
@@TagiukGold 🤔 Which part of "uncrewed" didn't you understand? Apollo 6 had no crew. It was an uncrewed or unmanned mission. The only Apollo mission in which "no one survived" was Apollo 1.
Excellent analysis presented in an engaging manner. Thank you
In the context,
For All Mankind makes so much sense
The NASA budget decreased in proportion to the increases of the Vietnam war. The Vietnam war killed the Apollo project.
My dad who worked his entire life at NASA/JPL always said that the NASA administration and bureaucrats can screw anything up. When the engineers get to do what they’re best at doing will get you more than the desired result. Like Voyager 1 & 2 - they were told that they shouldn’t try and build anything that could do more than make a flyby to Jupiter and Saturn. My dad and his coworkers said ok sure. And then they just went ahead and made sure that both of the probes would make it a lot farther, even going to interstellar space. Rest In Peace dad, your Voyager probes are still on their way.
No one ever went beyond low earth orbit.
vietnam war is still ongoing? wow didn't know.
they are running on nuclear batteries, why dont we have nuclear batteries in EVs?
@@oojimmyflipWe have schools turning out psychopaths, and imported half of the Venezuela prison population?
🎉Kudos to your Dad, Voyager was so exciting for me!
"Two hundred and eighty billion!!" "My God, Man! That's almost twenty weeks of military spending."
"What's that, you say?... Peace? For five whole months? Get real!"
It pays a lot of salaries and companies. Keeps a lot of corrupt politicians friends happily.
The point though, is defense is objectively useful and popular with voters. But going to the moon, to do what, is not. You will please a few percent of voters and make nerds excited going to the moon.
If there was an asteroid on its way to earth in 5 years, we would be to the moon in a year, Mars in 2 and intercept the asteroid in 3.
More like 13 or 14 weeks.
ITs NOT peace, its inviting crazy guyd to do even more. as soon as they realize you are not defending yourself. Its Just the beginning of something WAY More Negative. dont be so naive.
@@iwh7 Well, I was referencing the idea of a modest reduction in military spending, rather than sacking every soldier and sending them home for five months, or 13-14 weeks as your fellow commenter has said. When have you heard of any initiative to rein in military spending, even to reduce nuclear warheads. Why wouldn't it be possible to negotiate a 10% reduction in arms spending among, say, the biggest five or ten spending nations. No one would be put at risk, as everyone was doing the same. Why isn't anyone even suggesting this? Arms lobby money, perhaps?
@@leskobrandon691 Ever the optimist, me. I probably forgot the present funding of two 'wars' abroad.
one thing is for sure. I was born too late to explore the seas and too early to explore the stars. damn.
to or too?
You deserve the views on this video. You have been plugging away for years and I have noticed it! Congrats, long may it continue and thank you for the video.
Apollo 6 was an unmanned spaceflight. The engine that failed was a J2 on the second stage. None of the F1 engines on the first stage ever failed.
cuz F1 never existed lol
@@Zorro33313 What makes you think that?
@mikepennington8088 because a million people in person watching a Saturn V go to the moon never existed in the deluded minds of two-bit trolls
@@captlazer5509 wut. noone's been watching Satrun V go to the moon lol. "in person" lmao
@@mikepennington8088 "Occam's razor" principle, "burden of proof" principle, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs" principle.
The answer to why we cannot go back is pretty easy to figure out.
Will watch out for your video explaining why.
@@MisterHowzat I guess he meant if you never were there you can not 'Go back'
@@hansjorgkunde3772 Yes, I'm certain that was the meaning. But I want to see his presentation explaining why he says so.
yup. The fact you're not allowed to say it out loud without being attacked is just more evidence for what you're not allowed to say but yet everyone knows it now. :D
Gulp. Aliens?
We spend 60% of our budget on the military
I just found the following info about the Orion Outbound module from NASA "The sealed capsule also provides radiation protection needed to safeguard crew and spacecraft systems from cosmic and solar radiation seen in deep space, " So why is radiation protection needed now when none was used in any of the Apollo missions?
NASA Hollywood Collaboration is FAR Easier than real landing on the Moon😂😂😂😂
😆 Yup!
🚀 hellywood basement🏁🤺
ya know the
tune..💰.. *follow*
hit 2x speed settings @@amarshmuseconcepta6197moon walks😂
Ckmy ch
Alridn dropped a feather and a hammer at the same time and landed together
@@jackietreehorn5561
😆"Hey Jackie how's the *Dude* still alive
I've heard but dodging the hellywood 🎥film *sett* 😈🏁🤺 🎬👎
Arthur C. Clarke commented on the Space Shuttle program, describing it as a camel -- that is, a horse designed by committee. He'd mentioned that the program had Federal legislators arranging to have parts built in their districts to provide jobs for their constituents, and that the shuttle design was so poor it "strained its guts to work."
Did you just say be careful with our budget the US has a 34 trillion dollar debt and we just spent another 10 trillion and 2024 and it's not even over which will put the US debt at 40 trillion by 2025
We are still working on it! Its difficult to go to the moon for the first time!
Contrary to your claims, there were nine missions to the moon and six landings. Hope this helps!
@@yassassin6425no there were no missions to the Moon there were no aluminum foil spacecrafts that were able to Traverse space
@@yassassin6425 According to what? I have never heard it.
@@spidey5324 According to the scientific, technical, historical, independent and third party evidence that you are oblivious to and is manifest, having a voice of its own.
And if reality was defined by what you have heard of, there wouldn't be much out there.
@@MrThe1234guy
*_"no there were no missions to the Moon"_*
Incorrect. There were nine of them and 24 astronauts in total that journeyed to the moon between 1968 and 1972as part of the Apollo Programme.
*_"there were no aluminum foil spacecrafts that were able to Traverse space"_*
Correct. What made you think that they were made out of aluminium foil? If you go into a house, do you think that it is held up by wallpaper?
Incidentally, the plural of 'spacecraft' is 'spacecraft' not "spacecrafts".
It's way cheaper to produce complicated parts, computational power, simulations, than in the 60's, so the budget argument is somewhat meh.
its not in the 60`they took a LOT of risks and risky decisions. That alone means anything regarding to bild the tech WILL cost more.
There was NO BUDGET. Unlimited funding to accomplish this by the end of the decade.
::: laughs in machinist :::
Buddy, you have no clue what you're talking about.
I was a high school National Science Foundation intern at Goddard Space Flight Center when Apollo 11 landed on the moon. A few thoughts to consider after watching the film:
1. We are no longer racing the Soviets, but we are racing the Chinese who are hell-bent on colonizing the Moon.
2. Returning to the Moon requires national will and resolve. For that the U.S. needs leadership which is sorely lacking
3. In the 60s the Apollo project was primarily a singular American project. Today we can collaborate with Europe, Japan, India and yes even Russia and many more. We don’t have to do it all ourselves
4. The Apollo program cost a fortune but the technological spin-offs were enormous.
5. Exploring and colonizing the Solar System is a high priority for Mankind and will energize and motivate millions of people, particularly our young to aspire to great achievements at a time when they are lost and confused about the most basic things and values. We are wasting trillions on silly endeavors which could be used to move humanity to heights we can now only dream of.
I could go on. Thank you for the film. And Godspeed
Wow. Just wow. You should study harder and read less propaganda. We never went! Period. It’s physically impossible and will never happen.
@@Ajaxx827wow, you’re just asserting something as fact and insulting someone who made a thoughtful and interesting post and who has a background in science.
@@Will_SchrankI thought it was positive to a better future... there is always programs in programs.
@@mrchow7517 That was true when Mark Twain said it, and it’s still true today.
Sorry you are totally wrong.
Russia were miles ahead of us in every aspect of the space race!
People don't give up trying, just because one country did it! If Russia could have put a man on the moon then and now, they would have done so, there's trillions of minerals waiting to be had.
Funding is NOT the issue.
The Van Allen belts and space radiation are!
Russia and China have sent Landers to the moon at less than $200million, we spent $10 Billion just on the JWST, with zero payback.
The moon is rich in Helium 3 which has a current retail of more than $140 million per tonne!!!
Even if we spent 10 Billion sending a mining crew to the moon, we could recoup that money back in Helium 3, in no time.
In perspective, the SpaceX Starship Super Heavy booster produces 16.7 million pounds (74.3 Meganewtons) of thrust. This is more than any previous rocket system, including those that sent men to the Moon in the 1960s and 1970s. The Starship is 397 feet (121 meters) tall, which is 90 feet taller than the Statue of Liberty. It has 33 engines at the base of the booster, with each engine producing 74 meganewtons of thrust.
Largest ever built? Starship flew by the time you released this video
Occam Razor… simple explanation tends to be the right one.
A big part that had to be done was the development of the parallel titan for delivery of a nuclear warhead.
Adding in the precursors to the price is a bit reduculous. Because you could say that the Artemis cost is closer to 370billion because you have to add in the Gemini and appollo programs because they were precursors.
The culture of giving As to everyone from primary grades through college graduation regardless of their actual education has a lot to do with it. A previous commenter hit the nail on the head with his comparison of car owners' manuals of the 60s and now. Today, the education establishment hits the nail on the thumb!
Astronaut Don Pettit- "I'd go to the moon in a nano second. The problem is we don't have the technology to do that anymore. We used to, but we destroyed that technology, and it's a painful process to build it back again."
Everyone takes this quote out of context. It doesn’t help that his choice of words was lazy. He’s stating the obvious though. After Apollo, NASA moved on to the Space Shuttle. The industry that was built up around the Saturn V was abandoned because it was no longer needed, and the engineers that worked on the Saturn V retired. Now 50+ years later we’d have to build up the entire Saturn V industry which would cost trillions probably. A new infrastructure is being built. But it has to be done right, or the whole mission will fail.
It’s pretty damn sad that there are people like you that just laugh it off like a joke, when there were thousands of families that gave their entire existence to make Apollo happen and get Americans to the moon. I should know. I grew up in a NASA family. My father was rarely home because he gave most of his adult life to make sure the Apollo missions succeeded. My family knew most of the Gemini and Apollo astronauts. We know the truth because we lived through it. Everyday.
@@TheSteveSteeleFalse narrative. We never went to the moon. You can't land on a light.
Hahaha, this is funny.
@@TheSteveSteeleblah, blah, blah...
@@jaimealfaro200 Prove me wrong. You can’t.
Truths are short and simple......
I watched a documentary not long ago which explained a lot. The blueprints for the Saturn V exist. The talent to build it does not. The Saturn V that lifted off in July of 1969 was not on any blueprints. The number of changes made to the spacecraft by people who had no computers but hands on knowledge were never recorded. That slide rule, hands on talent no longer exists. The Saturn V hasd five engines and five engine nozzles. When first built they were unstable because of a vibration caused by the design of the nozzles. The nozzles were not just a big tailpipe. They were made up of a bunch of very small exhaust ports. These exhaust ports cause a vibration as designed in the blueprints. It took trial and error of hands on engineers to correct the problem. These changes were nover integrated into the blueprints and died with the engineers.
What we are doing now is starting from scratch with no enthusiasm or funding for the project.
As you described Artemis program using Shuttle hardware, I recall when NASA Administrator O'keefe making the rounds talking about how the 2004 VSE program will result in cost savings for the return to the moon, then to Mars and beyond. Well that result in a non-starter for congress. Out goes O'keefe, in comes Griffin who implements "simple, safe, soon" approach. CEV becomes Orion, use one Shuttle SRB for ARES I rocket, use external tank with SSME engines, and SRBs for ARES V. Obama creates a commission to review the Constellation program (and cancels it). But congress and senate create SLS with legal requirement of using Shuttle hardware.
Now how did Shuttle (program final design concept approved in Jan 1972) hardware become what it is? Excellent lecture series on MIT OCW in 2005 on systems engineering. Key players (Dale Myers, Aaron Cohen, Chris Kraft, others) explain how Shuttle came to be.
Many others have mentioned the same, you explain in a most clear and direct way.
They never went...........easy to answer ,not hard to find out
. . if we can show up the first time without being caught spreading petrified wood afterward as the genuine article . . Interesting that recent returns from the Chinese unmanned lunar mission contained rocks having an entirely different ratio of minerals not remotely matching any of the material from Apollo missions . . No 60 minutes quest is forthcoming however -- let alone network news coverage in fake journalistic enterprise beyond celebrity gossip.
They did, they went round and round the earth and were catapulted to the moon by earth's gravity (???). Remember, energy is free and easy to create. We never went there and we will not go there for at least two generations (if ever)
Until they work out a way to travel through the Van Alan radiation belt, then the Americans lied in the name of defeating Communism.
Question...lets say you pull off the conspiracy of all times..you made them believe you went to the moon..fantastic.. would you then do the same conspiracy several more times thus exposing your conspiracy?.if we only went once it might have been faked but nobody would be stupid enough to keep on and on trying to fake out millions of people
@@disillusionedanglophile7680it will be difficult to fake it this time though..
You have to admit it's a decent movie so part two is on Mars ... One day yes one day we're going to the moon maybe 🧐
I think the multi-phase approach is good practice for when we think about Mars and beyond
When you mentioned that we were building the new rockets around the shuttle engines, I got Boeing chills for a second.
Mate, just stop talking about it, you're bringing it on top
The Psy-Op that never dies.🙄
😆
Only in America
🐏🐑"led by da da-da🏁🤺🎯🤬 ts
60+ yrs and people believe this stuff? We have HD cameras yet no HD images of space
Smarter Everyday gave a good talk about this to nasa engineers. Basically a grilling but it was all in good faith.
One of the reasons "why we can't seem to go back to the moon" that every likes to point out for jaded or contrarian reasons, but i don't think people see it as a factor, is that we were indeed in a cold war. It wasn't just scientific and human endeavor. It was the fate of, if not mankind's continued existence against nuclear war, at least the American way. Many reading this will roll their eyes but they weren't there so these sentiments are alien and it's easier to think that the moon landings were fake or that it was a giant boondoggle to steal the common man's money which is true for most everything else.
Capricorn One was an excellent example of dotting I's and crossing T's.
Never went.
You never went to school? It's not too late.
@@captlazer5509school is overrated
@no22sill if your lawyer said that in criminal court...your reply would be ... dafuk?!?!
from a structural engineer point, Starship sanding on any gravity field , is a unstable structure. so tined supports and tie down.
Any chance for a free membership?
When I was a kid I watched the Apollo missions. I thought with normal progression I'd be going to the moon or mars in my lifetime. Not going to happen. Human advancement just isn't a priority. Wars and getting cetain folks rich seem to be the priorities.
because what you watched is from hollywood. the actual work is a lot harder. and now it is a lot harder to fake it again because there are satellite from other country too.
Unfortunately, you're probably right.
My response was to @mmad3130's comment, not the second one.
I was very surprised when I asked Chat GPT if anyone has ever drilled a hole on the moon and found out no space mission has.
And you do really "believe" ? A code programed from humans and humans have subjective view of situations....🤔 I don't know what do you believe, but i would be very very sceptical even for A.I. and if is manipulative,so yes there is a debate if humans step on moon BUT even the moon landing arguments have many many plot holes, so the bottom line is something subjective, unfortunately after all this they make the public opinion to doubt for something but we really don't know what they get if they make people believe false hypothesis, so the final bottom line is all we must sceptic with the non moon landing sceptic theory....!!!!
It's not hard. If we can take a heavy payload into orbit we can go to the moon. And we can do that.
The reason nobody has gone back since is simply because there's been no reason to go back, at least not for the very short visits made in the 1960's and 70's.
We now plan to go back and stay for months. And that's harder. Food, water, air, accommodation etc has to be scaled up exponentially.
And radiation protection too. Because radiation exposure is cumulative. And the probability of being on the moon during a solar flare increases from a low probability to a near certainty.
So radiation protection needs to be significantly increased.
Sometimes it's hard to repeat greatness
Maybe we never got there? 🤣
But seriously, this channel is not for 6-year olds like you.
Great essay, well done, thank you for taking the time to compose and post.
Let's not forget about the high tech photo 3d production bought and paid for factorial installations, that are ready willing and able around the globe (costs greatly reduced), able to from scratch not to be confused with from the ground up, to get it on and get us ready to rumble..., thanks for your assessment Terrence Howard.
Dr. Paul.
How did the astronauts in 1969 survive the Van Allen radiation belt? How are we going to get through this time?
They didnt . And they wont . 😅
@@martinattwood7801 Yes sir.
People like doctor Paul are supposed to be the smart ones. lol
@@martinattwood7801 🥴
Doctor Paul.
How much fuel did it take to get to the moon the first time. How much fuel is estimated to get us there now?
Zero energy anti gravidic survey says..$0.00.00🤓👆🚨😜
No man has ever set foot on the moon that’s why we haven’t been back. As buzz himself said we’re haven’t because we didn’t.
Buzz never said that! Show me!!!
Buzz punched a doofus in the face, trying to harass him. So he landed on the moon, and he landed punch.
I dare you to say that to Buzz Aldrins face.
They had to make new technology spend money figuring how how to get to the moon. They already know how it will be way less cost.
Very good video! I've also wondered about this issue.
The moon doesn't have gold nuggets an oil. 😂. So it's difficult to get back to the moon.
It has a lot of Helium 3.
It's meant to be a way station en route to other destinations.
Pretty sure it contains some gold !
The Moon has lots of lithuim: you know, that stuff which helps the batteries in your phones and electric vehicles run. There's relatively little lithium in the Earth's crust.
There's lots of lithuim on the Moon: you know, that stuff which helps the batteries in your phones and electric vehicles run. There's relatively little lithium in the Earth's crust. 🤓
"We have tried to recapitulate it for nearly two decades now." I'd like to point out this statements horrible inaccuracy. The Artemis program was established in 2012. This makes our effort to put people back on the moon a little over a decade in the making now. Granted it's been too long but there is solid reasons for this to become a necessity to be realised if mankind at all can justify any technological advancement as being utilised to all of its potential. What's the use of all our wonderful technology if we can't use it to reach out and explore the universe we've been given.
$300 billion moon landing budget
1960s politicians: "Let's not and say we did"
Is it me, or does this Artemis thing look like a disaster waiting to happen? There is so much that could go wrong with such a complicated approach.
The Moonmen said GET OUT AND DON'T COME BACK! Lol
Apparently, a deal has been made, likely brokered by the Pledeians (not to be confused with the Plebeians) for the lunar residents to allow Earthlings to play there again.
@brendanradford2859 . . prop up a dead horse in "Backdoor" confirmation through unreliable inside narratives created for the purpose . . or they went there another 5 times anyway and gave the "aliens" the finger -- your choice . . let's all prop up a dead horse . .
Did I happen to say Prop up a dead horse? . . in case I failed to mention it -- let's all prop up a dead horse . .
Prop up a dead horse
Yeah it sounds funny and I believe it’s true. Seriously
We were exportimg too much cheese!!
@@MisterHowzat oh that is interesting if true. I was only aware of the deal never come back this Moon is ours. A very funny scenario btw. Here the Earthlings eager to take over the Universe. There a overpopulated Universe settling even Moons.
Dr. Robert Zubrin also addressed this question. I don't recall all the details but you left out the role of the lunar gateway in returning to the moon. I think Dusty/Dustin from smarter everyday addressed the same question, but I believe his video had the segment with Dr. Robert Zubrin addressing the deficit in capability between now and then.
Funny...48 (lb) Tons (or rather 48 Kg Tonnes which is 48 X 2.2 == 120 (lb) Tons) is about the wieght of a fully loaded gravel truck and tridem trailer (53 Kg Tonnes to be more accurate), which ain't a lot of mass...LOL
This entire presentation is so bloated with conjecture and conflated opinions. You did not really answer the question.
It's an opinion piece, that's a valid form of presentation and opens up to interesting arguments and conversations.
He answered the question.
Price Politics Priorities
Try to keep up.
The moon landings are so bloated with conjecture and conflated opinion...
Yes he DID answer the question.. some of you people I swear.
Everyone check your pockets! If we can find that missing telemetry data, then we're halfway there!
The only reason you know about the missing telemetry data tapes is because NASA released the information about it. All the data from the telemetry tapes was documented. Every Gemini and Apollo mission report is available online as is all the preliminary science reports. These reports include most of that data from the missing telemetry tapes.
People like you are absolutely clueless about the sheer magnitude of what would be involved to pull a hoax like this off. I've asked numerous hoax believers to explain away all these points listed below and they can only come up with the typical hoax believer answer. Until you people can come up with something better that can be verified by credible experts in the relevant fields involved, then as far as I'm concerned, the moon landing hoax theory is right up there with the flat-Earth nonsense. Credible, btw, means somebody willing to have his/her work/evidence subjected to review by their peers. Endless speculation, conjecture and theories without proof don’t count:
1) 400,000 people were involved with the project, yet nobody has come forward with evidence that the landings never happened. You guys like to bring up the Manhattan Project compartmentalization security that kept only the ones in the need to know fully aware of what was going on. Yeah, sure. A top secret military project that kept even vice president Truman out of the loop being compared to a project like Apollo that was as publicly open as possible. Yet despite all the USA's attempts to keep the A-bomb project under wraps Russia still managed to get key people in the right places to provide them enough info that they developed their own bomb much sooner than the USA expected. You seriously expect us to believe that in the past 50+ years since the landings were supposedly staged, nobody has come forward with insider information or definitive proof? Yeah, right.
->Typical hoax believer answer: (Something involving a worldwide conspiracy with zero credible proof)
2) The Russians tracked and confirmed all 6 of the Apollo moon landings. They offered to help with Apollo 13. Why would the USA's major competitor during the space race do that?
->Typical hoax believer answer: (Something involving a worldwide conspiracy with zero credible proof)
3) Russia, Europe, China, India and Japan have all flown missions to the moon. So far, none of these countries/nations have brought forth any evidence that it's impossible to do a manned mission to it. That includes this nonsense about the radiation in the VAB's being too hazardous to pass through. No radiation expert from any country including the ones mentioned here have ever stated that the radiation in the VAB's was an insurmountable problem during the Apollo missions to the moon. Why is that?
->Typical hoax believer: (Something involving a worldwide conspiracy with zero credible proof)
4) Scientist from around the world for the past 50+ years have verified and peer reviewed the lunar rock & core samples plus all the data transmitted back to Earth by the ALSEP's left behind. There's also the Apollo 16 UV telescope images that include some of Earth that no astronomer for the past 50+ years has ever found fault with. How do you explain this?
->Typical hoax believer: (Something involving a worldwide conspiracy with zero credible proof)
5) Hoax believers have for the last 50+ years tried to find evidence that the landings were faked and have found nothing that can't be debunked. The proof they failed is that despite all their efforts, the missions are still in the history books. A story of that magnitude would have been seized on by investigative reporters and news networks. Not just the USA but countries from around the world would have gone after the biggest scoop in history. Explain how come they haven't.
->Typical hoax believer: (Something involving a worldwide conspiracy with zero credible proof)
6) Third party evidence from countries outside the USA that NASA would have had to orchestrate and coordinate flawlessly while at the same time supposedly hoaxing the mission; How could they manage that without insider proof coming forward for the past 50+ years to blow the whistle on it all?
->Typical hoax believer: (Something involving a worldwide conspiracy with zero credible proof)
Trying to discredit information because it came from NASA, as I'm sure you'll do, is a bit ridiculous. They made all the engineering and science required to pull the missions off available to their counterparts from all kinds of countries throughout the world.
In regards to the Apollo landings, we are talking about hundreds of 1000's if not millions of people with above average intelligence in various countries throughout the world over a time span of 50+ years.
I'm not just talking about the people involved with the project while it was happening. There's also all the scientists and engineers in the following decades that have access to everything related to it regarding the engineering plus all the scientific, peer reviewed evidence, data and samples. Yet in all that time none of these highly intelligent folks from around the world have ever found a way to somehow get information out to anybody about NASA"s alleged duplicity regarding the supposed landing hoax.
Considering how incompetent everybody seems to think governments are, it's pretty amazing how people like you have no problem believing that a hoax of this magnitude could have been kept for so long without one piece of verified proof from the hoax believers being brought forward in 50+ years. All you guys have is unsubstantiated claims that require ridiculously more unlikely and equally unverifiable conspiracies within conspiracies to keep the original moon landing conspiracy going. Does that not give you the slightest hint that maybe the moon landing conspiracy is seriously flawed? People who see no problem with that usually dismiss, ignore or don't understand the irrefutable scientific evidence.
Not missing, never was.
It's gotta be around here somewhere.
I thought the 3rd stage restarted and put them on a lunar trajectory? The service module was only used to brake them into and in time out of lunar orbit?
Correct.
Because we NEVER WENT.
😅
We're not returning anywhere. We're just now trying to go!😂😂
On the contrary, there were nine crewed missions to the moon. It would have been more had it not been for the premature cancellation of the Apollo Programme and the aborted Apollo 13 landing. Presumably NASA inexplicably felt the need to fake a failure too?
@@yassassin6425they tried until everytime they failed and everytime the rocket 🚀 failed it costs more money and astronauts then they faked it on Hollywood
How dare you, Sir. How dare...
(8:15) Billions are invested in wars. Governments have more appetite for that these days. It's a choice, innovation or destruction?