I remember that my family was very upset about the lack of coverage of the later moon missions. I still don't understand what is wrong with people that they are so uninterested in learning. It hurts our society very much.
Not unless we develop a faster than light drive or learn how to warp space. There is absolutely no friendly place in our solar system. So nothing we can live on in our neighborhood. I have no doubt that there are earth-type planets in some of the billions of galaxies, but those galaxies are very far. We're not going anyplace soon.
"Exploration is in our nature. We began as wanderers, and we are wanderers still. We have lingered long enough on the shores of the cosmic ocean. We are ready at last to set sail for the stars." - Carl Sagan
Not if we don't assure our indefinite future, here first, which, at this rate of population growth, coupled with a declining ability to sustain said population, such future is not looking certain, by any means.
I was confident the crew would get back safely. Sad that Capt. Lovell did not walk on the moon after all of his training and experience. He was chosen to be Neil Armstrong's backup on Apollo 11, so if anything happened to Armstrong before the flight Lovell would have been first to walk on the moon.
What’s really sad is that in the rotation, Lovell was slated to command 14. In which case, he actually would’ve walked at Fra Mauro instead of Al Shepard.
I think that one of the lessons learned in Apollo 13, which was not an established lesson in aerospace, by any means, was to guard against the unpredictable, even at high costs in performance or efficiency. I am sure that in countless projects before and since, a smart engineer has asked the team the sensible question of "Can anyone imagine a single reason why we need so much weight and complexity for this high level of redundancy?", to which a smarter engineer answered "To guard against that which we are unable to imagine". Another lesson, perhaps, was to standardize as much as possible. If 2 systems, in 2 different craft perform the exact same function, why design them to be different? They were designed differently because no one imagined that, one day, in one mission, one part from one craft may have to be used on another. Keep you designs open to the unpredictable, be it in civil engineering, software developing, aerospace hardware, an any other field or system where lives may be at risk.
One area where these lessons were not employed, even for later Apollo missions was in the procedure to couple the lunar module to the service module, in space, while in transit to the moon. In order to simplify the launch escape system (LES), and optimize the efficiency of the Saturn V as a whole, the lunar module sat behind the service module prior to launch, meaning that if a similar problem to Apollo13's (where all oxygen tanks were damaged, including the added 3rd tank) happened before the two were connected, the astronauts would be left without engines. Redesigning the LES to carry and discard the LM as well as the CM would've been super expensive. However, it would've provided a lot more flexibility when and if a catastrophic failure of the SM happened at any time on the way to the moon, as the lunar module "lifeboat", and one with engines, would always be there.
I am assuming you're talking about the CO2 scrubbers in the CM/SM and LEM? The reason the systems were incompatible is because they were designed and built by two different companies. Don't ask me why those companies never communicated with each other.
not justluck, they got home thanks to the thousands of people who worked day and night to make it possible. Their spacecraft was seriously crippled and the astronauts would have died within hours had Houston not worked the problem they way they did.
Amazing how they got them back. Amazing that they shelved a program that got man to the moon yet it still hasn’t been done today. Just use the Apollo program and save billions.
that would defeat the purpose of developing new technology that will enable spaceflight for the future. Apollo was only planned until Apollo 20, ultimately scrapped after 17 due to budget constraints. The space race was essentially over as soon as Neil stepped off the LEM. The Soviets struggled through the mid to late 60's due to bureaucracy within government, competition between Korolev and Chelomey, competition between government departments, and massive budget concerns as the Soviets were still rebuilding after the decimation the Nazis caused in Soviet cities. The US, while still suffering from competition between departments and military, was essentially united after JFK was assassinated. Project Apollo was planned pretty much as soon as Mercury was underway, then as Apollo was made clearer, Gemini went ahead. The space program of the 60's and 70's was never designed as long-term habitation of Space. It was literally a proxy to develop efficient and powerful ICBM's for the Military, and to beat the Soviets. Artemis is being designed for long-term use of the Moon and it's resources to develop further Space travel within the Solar System
@@Shifty319 The main reason the Soviets lagged behind is because Korolev, the only man capable of pulling off getting the N1 to the moon, died unexpectly due to complications during surgery. I can't recall what the ailment was that needed urgent surgery, but I can imagine it was cardio vascular.
@@paulmichaelfreedman8334 Korolev dying didn't help, no. But the in-fighting between Chelomey and Korolov, combined with the lack of funding due to the agricultural crisis turned what should have been an easy decision (between the UR700 and the N1) into a long drawn out process. when it was finally decided to go ahead with the N1, further budget cuts followed. Korolevs death obviously stalled their program, but there was 10 years of bureaucracy, paranoia, and in-fighting that handicapped the Soviet program, before Korolevs demise
@@paulmichaelfreedman8334 there's an amazing podcast called "A History of the Space Race" by Albert Lai which explores every facet of both programs extensively.
At the time Americans didn't want another very expensive box of rocks. If we had long term missions maybe the same 'ol same 'ol missions would have been better received.
Tell me you're an American without telling me. 😂 He isn't an American speaker. Therefore, he is saying it correctly. Your accent isn't everyone's accent. Even within the borders of your country. 🙄
![Eminem - Fuel (feat. JID) [Official Lyric Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/t5H_CewqpKA/mqdefault.jpg)
I remember that my family was very upset about the lack of coverage of the later moon missions. I still don't understand what is wrong with people that they are so uninterested in learning. It hurts our society very much.
Brilliant engineering and the bravery of those men is outstanding!
You really think we went to the moon in a tin can 😂😂😂
Space exploration the future of mankind
Would that be outer space or inner space?
Not unless we develop a faster than light drive or learn how to warp space. There is absolutely no friendly place in our solar system. So nothing we can live on in our neighborhood.
I have no doubt that there are earth-type planets in some of the billions of galaxies, but those galaxies are very far.
We're not going anyplace soon.
That is, if we survive the next four years… which isn’t looking likely.
"Exploration is in our nature. We began as wanderers, and we are wanderers still. We have lingered long enough on the shores of the cosmic ocean. We are ready at last to set sail for the stars."
- Carl Sagan
Not if we don't assure our indefinite future, here first, which, at this rate of population growth, coupled with a declining ability to sustain said population, such future is not looking certain, by any means.
I was confident the crew would get back safely. Sad that Capt. Lovell did not walk on the moon after all of his training and experience. He was chosen to be Neil Armstrong's backup on Apollo 11, so if anything happened to Armstrong before the flight Lovell would have been first to walk on the moon.
What’s really sad is that in the rotation, Lovell was slated to command 14. In which case, he actually would’ve walked at Fra Mauro instead of Al Shepard.
I think that one of the lessons learned in Apollo 13, which was not an established lesson in aerospace, by any means, was to guard against the unpredictable, even at high costs in performance or efficiency.
I am sure that in countless projects before and since, a smart engineer has asked the team the sensible question of "Can anyone imagine a single reason why we need so much weight and complexity for this high level of redundancy?", to which a smarter engineer answered "To guard against that which we are unable to imagine".
Another lesson, perhaps, was to standardize as much as possible. If 2 systems, in 2 different craft perform the exact same function, why design them to be different? They were designed differently because no one imagined that, one day, in one mission, one part from one craft may have to be used on another.
Keep you designs open to the unpredictable, be it in civil engineering, software developing, aerospace hardware, an any other field or system where lives may be at risk.
One area where these lessons were not employed, even for later Apollo missions was in the procedure to couple the lunar module to the service module, in space, while in transit to the moon.
In order to simplify the launch escape system (LES), and optimize the efficiency of the Saturn V as a whole, the lunar module sat behind the service module prior to launch, meaning that if a similar problem to Apollo13's (where all oxygen tanks were damaged, including the added 3rd tank) happened before the two were connected, the astronauts would be left without engines.
Redesigning the LES to carry and discard the LM as well as the CM would've been super expensive. However, it would've provided a lot more flexibility when and if a catastrophic failure of the SM happened at any time on the way to the moon, as the lunar module "lifeboat", and one with engines, would always be there.
I am assuming you're talking about the CO2 scrubbers in the CM/SM and LEM? The reason the systems were incompatible is because they were designed and built by two different companies. Don't ask me why those companies never communicated with each other.
When I use to work at NASA, there was a saying.....To go places and do things that have never been done before, that’s what living is all about.
Great video❤
I remember watching this first hand in 3rd grade at school. 😊
And all of that was mathematics
With a slide rule!
Yes.. and they made a great movie about it!
Which is full of endless inaccuracies!
@@KeystoneInvestigations Uh, care to elaborate there a bit??
Still my favourite movie. Artistic license
There were some, but I'm actually impressed with how right the movie got it compared to most "based on a true story" films. @@KeystoneInvestigations
Yup. The book is excellent and tells you everything. The movie is still good tho.
Euclides. 🙂👍👍👍💯💯💯💯💯🇺🇲🦅. Hello. You. 🙂👍💯
Nasa got so luck...
not justluck, they got home thanks to the thousands of people who worked day and night to make it possible. Their spacecraft was seriously crippled and the astronauts would have died within hours had Houston not worked the problem they way they did.
Amazing how they got them back.
Amazing that they shelved a program that got man to the moon yet it still hasn’t been done today. Just use the Apollo program and save billions.
that would defeat the purpose of developing new technology that will enable spaceflight for the future.
Apollo was only planned until Apollo 20, ultimately scrapped after 17 due to budget constraints. The space race was essentially over as soon as Neil stepped off the LEM.
The Soviets struggled through the mid to late 60's due to bureaucracy within government, competition between Korolev and Chelomey, competition between government departments, and massive budget concerns as the Soviets were still rebuilding after the decimation the Nazis caused in Soviet cities.
The US, while still suffering from competition between departments and military, was essentially united after JFK was assassinated. Project Apollo was planned pretty much as soon as Mercury was underway, then as Apollo was made clearer, Gemini went ahead.
The space program of the 60's and 70's was never designed as long-term habitation of Space. It was literally a proxy to develop efficient and powerful ICBM's for the Military, and to beat the Soviets.
Artemis is being designed for long-term use of the Moon and it's resources to develop further Space travel within the Solar System
It would probably not save any money at all. Look up how F-1 engines were made, and marvel at how much a PITA of a process it was.
@@Shifty319 The main reason the Soviets lagged behind is because Korolev, the only man capable of pulling off getting the N1 to the moon, died unexpectly due to complications during surgery. I can't recall what the ailment was that needed urgent surgery, but I can imagine it was cardio vascular.
@@paulmichaelfreedman8334 Korolev dying didn't help, no. But the in-fighting between Chelomey and Korolov, combined with the lack of funding due to the agricultural crisis turned what should have been an easy decision (between the UR700 and the N1) into a long drawn out process.
when it was finally decided to go ahead with the N1, further budget cuts followed. Korolevs death obviously stalled their program, but there was 10 years of bureaucracy, paranoia, and in-fighting that handicapped the Soviet program, before Korolevs demise
@@paulmichaelfreedman8334 there's an amazing podcast called "A History of the Space Race" by Albert Lai which explores every facet of both programs extensively.
29:10 Back in the days when it was OK for a senior NASA official to be sucking on a cancer stick whilst delivering a press conference.
At the time Americans didn't want another very expensive box of rocks.
If we had long term missions maybe the same 'ol same 'ol missions would have been better received.
Way too many ads
Welcome to RUclips.
Any room logo Sci In the video
When I used to work at NASA, there was a saying... "To go to places and do things that have never been done before, that's what life is all about.
Did you actually or did you just copy that other commenter
@@bv6377 Bots
@@bv6377...😂
Aha sure you did pal.
🎉
14359
166
The fact they have to write true should tell you something
Yes, it tells you that you should stop believing in crazy conspiracy theories.
Unbelievable is right! Haha! We never went to the moon, just a Hollywood basement. Billions paid for fake cartoons.
Narrator…… it’s not “capshule”. Nor is it “mojule”
Tell me you're an American without telling me. 😂
He isn't an American speaker. Therefore, he is saying it correctly.
Your accent isn't everyone's accent. Even within the borders of your country. 🙄
@@myste1973 I apologize on behalf of my obvious fellow American there. Despite lots of evidence to the contrary, we’re not all like that. 😅
@TitaniumTurbine I'm an American too. Too many have their attitude.
1:40:00 Lovel says "Fred, Jack and I... " Proper grammar, instead of the increasingly common "me and..."
Not just I instead of me, but also putting himself last when the says all their names.
God is great
God is not great!
😂
The movie was better. This video is not needed. Just watch the movie.
Which is full of endless inaccuracies!
@@KeystoneInvestigations Not according the people that actually lived it. They said it was very accurate.
Nobody forcing you to watch it.
@@alanluscombe8a553 Nobody is forcing you to read my comments.
Jim Lovell and Ron Howard acknowledge and are OK with short cuts and dramatizations in the Apollo 13 film. Straight documentaries have their place.
All staged fools.
ok.
God damn I hope you guys weed yourselves out soon...
@@alextownsend8624 unfortunately there will always be idiots like this
And 55 years later not one of you can present a crumb of hoax evidence.
@alextownsend8624 🤣 wouldn’t it be nice? What’s more horrific is that these people have offspring, which just prolongs the ignorance.