Why haven't humans gone back to the Moon?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 8 ก.พ. 2025
- One of humanities greatest ever achievements was pointing humans on the moon ... so why has it never been repeated?
PATREON: / davemckeegan
Please consider supporting the channel by making purchases through my Amazon affiliates: geni.us/Affiliate
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Music by Bensound.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
#moon #moonlandings #apollo
It was 52 years between the first and second manned visits to Challenger Deep (deepest point of the Pacific Ocean). It took 36 years to even send a second unmanned probe.
I bring this up all the time to hoax believers. Nothing but crickets.....
So the pacific ocean is fake. I knew it
It only took 36 years because they spent all that time photoshoping the photos, its obvious that they never went there in the first place
@@thepopulationofkazakhstan1116 James Cameron went to the bottom of Challenger Deep not too long ago with video evidence. Why would he have just claimed to have gone down there, photoshopping all of the video recordings he took, if he funded the project himself and went down there simply because he is fascinated with the ocean? What would be the point?
Well, obviously that's because the oceans are fake too!
My favourite line was “a rover won’t complain about being in a small box with no air…”
My thought, well neither will a human… I’ll see myself out.
"Neither will a human" ... well, at least not for long. And even then you won't hear it
Ba da tisss 🥁
You're out of line... but you're not wrong.
@@C4... Google translate nearly turned your comment into a rickroll
☠️🤣
Another often overlooked aspect of the Apollo program was that the space-race was more or less considered a war time expense. The USSR and the USA were basically doing a technological battle to showcase supremacy. That's why at those times there were so many interesting aircrafts entering the stage like the X-15, SR71, XB-70 etc
Cost of numerous junk the US forces have built doesn't mean anything it archiving a goal which the US yet to do ...add to your list Abrams, Bradley, Zumwalt ships, f35, rapter
Overlooked? This is one of the most popular arguments for landing
@@scottsuttan2123 The Abrams and Bradley are not junk at all.
@@scottsuttan2123 did. . . did you just list the Abrams and the Bradley as "junk?"
So what you're saying is that your opinion shouldn't be taken seriously.
I’m convinced the entire Cold War was a big scam played on both countries
If you look closely, to the right of the dog, there's a guy talking to us on the camera.
Cant tell which one of them is the dog
qeywvkQEUKQeuyqYQGŞIvqqeş QEŞOWHEQQU EIZ
with the most comfortable knees on youtube
th-cam.com/video/ZXq0Pf1vVV8/w-d-xo.htmlm20s
Holy sh*t i see him too😂
Another thing is safety. The Apollo missions safety factors were waaaaaaay lower than NASA’s current standards for human-rated flying
Another thing is there is no mcdonalds, or oil, so why would the muricans want to go back
What makes you think space is real? You just believe stories the government tells you? Laws of Thermodynamics disprove space. Are you an entropy denier? 😮
I often wonder where we would be now if the ancient mariners, like Columbus, had to deal with the occupational safety standards we have today.
@SkipPlaysCello
Well considering they got men to the moon safely six times where they drove a dune buggy and played a little golf without so much as a sprained ankle, I don't think their safety standards were low
@@clivedavis6859 *I often wonder where we would be now if the ancient mariners, like Columbus, didn't rape, pillage and murder.
Thank you for addressing the people who straw man the issue as “NASA claims we don’t have the technology anymore.” It’s like claiming cassette tapes are fake because my car stereo doesn’t have a tape deck.
Soundwave cries quietly in a corner…No one knows what I am anymore…
We don't even "have" the technology to build steam locomotives from 1880! I've seen some engineering drawing from a locomotive factory. Just a few main dimension given, no tolerances or nothing. But the people at machine shop back then new all this by heart and produced close perfect parts which the fitters then filed and adjusted to make it work. Try sending those drawings to modern CNC shop!! Sure we can build steam locomotives but we have to completely to re-design and re-tool them to todays methods and procedures.
@@Axel_Andersen Yep. And the same is true of all manner of outdated technologies. Things like a Model T, vacuum tube computer, 8-track cassettes and players, etc. I'd say that I don't understand how / why flerfing morons don't understand this, but I've encountered enough of them to know _exactly_ why they don't understand these things.
but i have a box full of cassettes, i can hold them in my hand and know they are real, what specific technology is it that is missing?
what function did it perform?
is there not something else we can make now that could perform that function?
faster, lighter, cheaper and more energy efficiently than 50 years ago?
are you saying don petitt didn't say what he said in the widely posted clip?
and i don't remember the name of the guy talking about how radiation was a problem they didn't know how to deal with yet, but that clip has also been widely shared.
@@axeman2638 C'mon man... Why be purposely obtuse? You're telling me you _really_ can't wrap your head around the analogy?
Okay, since you don't like the cassette tape analogy, how about the steam engine example mentioned above?
Also, did you not watch the fucking video?
It's also worth noting that the "Trial by Fire" video was released just before the launch of EFT-1 on the Delta IV Heavy. The Delta IV Heavy was not nearly as powerful as SLS and could not send EFT-1 all the way out to the moon. As a result, the elliptical orbit for EFT-1 had a much lower apogee, and this was used in part to test how Orion would handle lingering in the Van Allen belts for much longer than a normal Artemis mission. Whereas an Artemis mission sends Orion through the belts quickly, Orion lingered in that region of space during its final, elliptical orbit on EFT-1, and it went through some of the most intense parts of the belts.
By my calculations using SPENVIS, in a single orbit, EFT-1's final orbit trajectory should have resulted in a hypothetical crew on board receiving roughly half the total dose that would be accumulated over the entire course of the Artemis I mission (which lasted for weeks). And whereas the vast majority of the dose received during an Artemis mission comes from solar radiation beyond the VABs, nearly the whole dose of radiation for EFT-1 came from the VABs because of how its trajectory traveled through them so much slower than on Artemis I.
You and Reds keep up the good work 😊🤗
The concept of stress testing is lost on these people. Or more precisely, they will selectively forget it when they need to, in order to reinforce their own biases, even though they wouldn't buy a cell phone battery that didn't satisfy industry safety standards, much less an actual vehicle.
@@paulzuk1468 I had a flat earther ask me on twitter how I could call Artemis I a success when it "failed" to put people in orbit of the moon or land on the moon. They're willfully ignorant of how space vehicles are initially tested without people aboard. Space Shuttle was a rare exception. John Young and Bob Crippen had/have balls of steel to do what they did.
A bunch of nonsense you speak 🗣️
Brooooo😂😂😂 dont chat chit
There are a lot of issues with this.
First, put the supposedly huge budget-busting cost into perspective. $250 billion sounds like a lot if you say it quickly and don't blink or think about it.
During the same time frame, Americans spent as much on cosmetics, and large States spent more on liquor. Don't mention the cost on the Vietnam war in the same breath. Don't think of comparing Apollo to the war, or your head will explode.
Today our *_annual_* DoD budget is comfortably greater than the entire historic running grand total NASA cost. Including Apollo, the Shuttle, the ISS, and everything else NASA does. Not counting "black" military spending and ongoing military operational expense, which aren't in that voted DoD budget and are more.
We give the DoD $680 billion a year. The Pentagon has catastrophically failed its audits and can't account for over half of its assets. Half of what we give them every year (more than the total Apollo cost) just goes away and nobody asks why or where. We've spent $14 trillion + on the military since 2003.
Second, the often repeated claim that Congress cut Apollo because the public had lost interest. They say that the most amazing thing that NASA ever did was to make going to the Moon seem boring.
We have a memo from the White House in '66 to the State Department pushing forward the Outer Space Treaty. It specifically said that they wanted to leave in the parts which are hostile to private interest in space, so that they could cause a loss of interest so that they could cut the budget. Of course it said they wanted to allocate the money to other parts of the budget, but it specifically mentioned "... and to mitigate the Political Strain of the war in Vietnam." (Memo retrieved via FOIA in '98 by 2 members of the National Space Society, first published in print by Dr Robert Zubrin in his '99 book "Entering Space")
Government didn't cut the space budget because people lost interest, that's the exact opposite of what happened. It's also a lie that cutting the Apollo budget was saving money to go to the war. Apollo and NASA as a whole has never been more than very small drop in a very big bucket of the Military spending.
It was also pointed out that when the "Pathfinder" little rover landed on Mars, even if you take half of the number of hits on the NASA website for the mission as repeats, that's still more people than those who vote in this country. More than there are either actively for or against any supposedly "hot button" issue that we or our media spend so much time on. People have always been very interested in anything meaningful going on, even if it was just flags and footprints to beat the Soviets, or a little rover.
The real hoax and scam of the Space Age is that so many including people knowledgeable about space, have been convinced that going to the Moon or doing other large things in space is a very great budget-busting expense, and that there isn't and wasn't then known very good beneficial reasons to be doing big things in space.
Gerard O'Neill started looking into space industries and habitats in '69 and through the early '70s, culminating in the '75 NASA Ames / Stanford space settlement studies.
There are (were) no new inventions needed to start, mining asteroids and moons and to build for virtually Earth-like conditions anywhere in space where there are or to which we bring materials.
The early first generation "Stanford Torus" habitat was to be for the ≈10k workers in the space manufacturing facility. The first hab and all the ground, launch, and in-space infrastructure to reproduce it would have been done by 2005. the cost over the time period would have been ≈3 or 4 times the Apollo program cost, variously around $900 billion today. Like many large infrastructure or industrial developments down here. Like the Interstate Highway System or a large dam. Like 3 or 4 of our CVNs and their air wings and escorts and the logistics infrastructure to deploy them.
Vastly less than a small oil war or the bailouts we've seen.
Any who disagree with any of that are invited to show their professional qualifications in mining, construction and astronautical engineering and where they've published under peer-review showing that those studies were wrong.
Note that before the fist hab is done, we've been mining NEAs and already building Solar power satellites, thus ending scarcity of energy and raw materials and room for growth, showing the way to removing from within the biosphere all our worst heavily polluting primary acquisitive industries. Ending oil wars and budget crunches, forever.
Yes, we hear that asteroid mining and building Solar power sats is 25 years away from producing any real returns. It's been 25 years away since the '70s. Yes, we hear that anybody who mines NEAs and brings back significant amounts of previously rare or "monetary" metals, undercuts the value of such things and thus their own business case. Yes, but for that moment, they own more "wealth" as such is measured, than all the mercantile interests & mega-corporations and old-money empires & nation-Sates, combined.
And yes, I love it when people try to tell me that I'm over-stating any of that.
The reason we haven't been back to the moon continuously and on to Mars and other big things in space, is that doing so means having at least one or more likely several operating production lines of SHLV boosters like the Saturn-V and bigger, and substantial experience doing things in space.
If we'd kept on going to the Moon and other large things in space, then by now somebody would be mining NEAs and building Solar power satellites and the value of all the gold in all the vaults and all the oil underground would drop down through the cellar, and the political power built on them would evaporate. Who pays and owns congress? (the people? Don't make me laugh.)
gold would stay useful and valuable for wires, tbf, but yeah just me nitpicking at the end
@cookies23z a good point. When you increase the supply and lower the cost, new uses become "economical".
The immense negative public sentiment when lives are lost is a _huge_ part of why we don't send people anymore, and is not mentioned in the video. I can remember being a kid and all the media attention on Christa McAuliffe being on board the Space Shuttle. I can also remember the horror and after-effects of that explosion being shown all over the nation, live, including in the classrooms of every school that had a TV, in 1986, only to be followed, in 2003, by another shuttle disaster. It shaped people's minds just as surely as 9/11 did, not in the magnitude of how many lives were lost, but in the sheer waste of it for no really good purpose. Not once, but twice.
We send people to war. I guess human sacrifice is bias
And this lost lives argument explains what exactly? Actually you MAY be proving the point. It is and was never safe at all. Damn near impossible. Yet, historians would have us believe we repeated this feat 6 times!? Really? No problemo. Waiting for the return paaaaatiently. Not gona happen. I think those that believe in the Apollo landings find this fact unbearable. We all waiting man. Man is so advanced these days it should be a walk in the park. on the ocean argument, once again as oceangate titan disaster abundantly showed, deep ocean is just as bad as outer space. And yet whoever returned 36 years later, with no national pride bragging rights or billions of investment by the govt. Do you truly not smell a rat? Fascinating. Earthbound us little ants are. The evidence is everywhere. Footage from 1969 doesnt cut it anymore. So obvious it is scary how easily people can be fooled. I truly hope I am wrong. Humble pie shall be consumed by the ton by myself. The landings have too many unanswered questions. I challenge the believers to respond without personal insult. Thats also not going to happen. As another comment noted, I will see myself out.
But they are still sending people into space.
the ones fried were going to talk obviously
Reverse question: why haven’t flerfs gone to the “ice wall”
They have a canned response for that, Antarctic Treaty, I can’t go because it’s ilwegal and they won’t let me!
Ignoring that if you get the permits and register a travel plan and can show your not going to kill yourself there’s no problem. You’ve just got to pony up the cash!
Look these morons won’t bother to visit the North Pole either and that’s easier to get the permits for.
Haven't you heard?? The worlds navies won't let any one there.. Nevermind that on their wonderfully accurate and totally true map of the flat earth that Antarctica is many thousands of kilometres long and it'd take many hundreds of ships and planes to patrol it.. maybe even thousands of ships and planes.. and besides, They get more money being stupid and denying a globe earth..
They're afraid of the UN's penguin army obviously.
@@VitalVampyr Those penguins are crack shots I tell you. The only warning you receive is when they flipper you the bird.
@@Tsudico So that’s where Admiral Lee went! His heart attack was a massive government cover up to keep his training them a secret!
I remember reading that 'Moon Dust' was found to be far finer and extremely abrasive, the Moon Dust was even able to penetrate airtight seals. The moon dust got into everywhere & everything, and it was just pure luck that dust didn't course a mission to be scrapped or a life lost.
It’s nasty stuff.
Many Apollo astronauts dealt with cancers that were probably related to the lunar dust on the surface
That's correct. The Moon dust is a major issue.
@@catmate8358 Yup, the lack of an atmosphere and hydrosphere is a major culprit here. There is nothing to round off the dust particles into a less abrasive form like what happens to mineral fragments here on Earth. Same is true to a lesser extent on Mars but that is at least more like the consistency of sand from an arid dessert that still has wind erosion to help as it does have enough atmosphere to loft dust particles and thus to still have wind erosion of particles at least. Still not ideal though there is a reason why a coastal sand dune and one in the Sahara have very different grain character with the latter being far more abrasive. The material for the former is mostly eroded out from solid rock formations by wave erosion then deposited and whipped into dunes by the wind later. Mostly having been fairly well polished and rounded off by repeated wave action by that point.
So with all the time passed and technology now we can’t go back because of that? You can’t stay with we are so advanced but then go with we not advanced…… AI checkmate humans 2 weeks ago don’t worry your kids and kids kids will feel it
I was a child of Apollo and it was a great adventure, especially for us kids. NASA went all out in selling space to us, including having shows like The Jetsons and Star Trek on prime-time. Even I Dream of Jeannie was space-based. My brother and I were on NASA's kids mailing list and we had a telescope and star charts so we knew knew where to look for stuff. When Apollo 11 touched down everyone, and I mean everyone, watched. I had my little carboard LEM next to me and the whole block cheered out loud when Armstrong announced: "The Eagle has landed!" What a day! I figured by 2000 there would be flying cars, colonies on Mars, and...then the show was over. He's right. If Apollo 13 hadn't drawn people back in 14 just may have been the final trip.
At its scientific heart, NASA was never really down with the manned space program. It got them a boatload of money so they pumped it up but the science guys always outnumbered the exploration guys. James Webb was on record as saying the Apollo program wasn't worth it as far as ROI was concerned but Kennedy made it clear to him that outside of going to the Moon he really wasn't that interested in space. There is some evidence Kennedy was ready to ditch the program if he couldn't talk the Soviets into a joint effort. Johnson was more of a space guy than Kennedy.
And that's why we don't go back. The explorers lost the internal battle. Nixon threw em a bone with the Shuttle but it really didn't have much of a mission and cost a lot of money. NASA only started talking up Mars again when Elon Musk was making noise about it but I think Elon and NASA are going to realize it's a whole tougher and way more expensive than they think and people these days just aren't into it. Plus, there's no bad guy to race against. If the US had managed to get Alan Sheppard into space first Apollo may never have been a thing. But those damn Soviets, who couldn't build a washing machine or a car worth a damn kept beating us in space. The Bay of Pigs also helped give birth to Apollo. Kennedy needed a win as well as a good distraction and he got both with his Moon shot.
Alas, I won't live to see that Martian colony and now that I'm older I thank God flying cars never came about. But I feel for the kids today. We don't dream big dreams anymore and as we have become more interconnected we have lost those competitive juices. Too bad. Live long and prosper gang, just get used to doing it right here on the good Earth.
"Competitive juices" got America into Vietnam (and a dozen other places since). Even Dave shyly noted that while Vietnam was going on the government couldn't waste money on projects "less popular with the public", thus (perhaps inadvertently) implying that space exploration was less important to the Americans than bombing distant country's villages with napalm. Imagine if White House weren't spending all those dollars on wars around the world and kept funding NASA with 5% GDP.
So yeah Musk might be a dreamer, but that's exactly what is needed these days, and such an irony that it's a South African who's showing Americans how to dream big again.
The next BIG achievement may well be the successful folding of space/time, AKA warp drive. Now THAT will lead to a renewed lust for space travel which, in a limitless universe, will know no bounds! And now that it has attracted the attention of mainstream science, the search is likely to be more fruitful than if a penurious private investigator were to make the crucial successful first steps. Who knows, maybe First Contact's suggestion that our first warp signature could attract nearby aliens is not as far fetched as most of us believe. My only regret is that I am most unlikely to be around if that happens.
Man this comment really hit me hard. I guess I’m guilty of being one of those that just doesn’t really care anymore about the moon. We successfully landed 6 times isn’t that enough? They haven’t really provided any viable reason we would need to go back so why bother? I don’t even agree with the Artemis missions. I LOVE space but as I’ve gotten older and understand the risks and massive use of resources it’s just hard to get on board with now with all the problems we have dirt side. I don’t know if we could have done a better job over time maintaining the public interest in the space program or if it was just a matter of time before we moved on. I hate that I feel this way because it was the opposite as a child I couldn’t get enough, even now I do research on my own and will watch anything space oriented I’m just not on board with humans going back out there anymore. I just don’t understand the need for the risk.
Well worded comment! I agree wholeheartedly with your sentiments. I watched the whole thing as well as a child. I'm too lazy to put up such a great comment, so thank you😊
This is a really well written piece thank you for posting it
Another fun fact about concord, lots of people complained about the extremely loud sound. Setting off car alarms and shaking windows near the air port, and just being extremely loud for the duration of the flight for anyone on ground in the flight path.
Right…because if our government is known for nothing else, it’s fiscal discipline
The fact that people can't (or won't) understand this is almost depressing. Should we have stopped the moon program? Of course not, but politics got involved.
Exactly. Blame Nixon, he's why the Shuttle was our only way to space for 30 years, and why it became the dangerous design it ended up being.
@@corneliuscrewe677Yet we still made it work for those thirty years, human achievement is so impressive
Politics was always involved. Establishing NASA was a political decision to start with: the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, written and passed by Congress. Have a good look at that name: yup, same acronym.
The Administrator, the head of NASA, is appointed by the president and answers to him.
Congress allocates funding to NASA from the federal budget and has a say what they can spend it on. NASA is a public, governmental agency
The decision to go the moon was a political decision to begin with. And so was the decision to stop going and move on to the next projects.
@@hijtohema yay, I can quote wikipedia too. Has nothing to do with what I'm talking about though. The Apollo program was funded as a way to beat communism. As soon as it was successful the politicians stopped funding it, because we had accomplished all they wanted to accomplish. The science aspect of it was irrelevant.
I really enjoy your content and delivery style. And your furry lap critter too 😂. Thanks for your entertaining and educational vids...keep 'em coming please.
seeing explanations of orbital navigational terms always tickles my fancy after playing a lot of kerbal space program, i'm basically sitting here going "oh I know that one!" there was another one in a different video that mentions orbits high and low points. With a lot of games you could just brute force progression, but (at least without mods) it's extremely difficult to do a lot in ksp without actually taking the time to learn all the terms, maneuvers, and whatnot so you can use the tools the game provides you to get your desired results.
9:40 While this is mostly true, one of the Apollo missions did go through the centre of the belts - Apollo 14. The skin radiation dose received was 1.14 rads, compared to 0.18 for Apollo 11. See "Apollo Experience Report - Protection against Radiation" (Nasa Technical Note TN D-7080).
Edit: In the same document, it notes that the maximum allowable skin dose was set at 400 rads and that this was at the time an x-ray equivalent. It also states "Radiation doses to Apollo crewmen have been significantly lower than the yearly average of 5 rem set by the US Atomic Energy Commission for workers who use radioactive materials in factories and institutions across the United States."
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤡
@@andrewgreenwood3998 Use your words.
@@andysmith1996 So, explain to me why no human has ever been further into space than 380 miles in the last 50 years and why those shuttle astronauts that did venture that far, experienced flashing lights in their eyes, even with them closed? Classic solar & cosmic radiation effects.
@@andrewgreenwood3998 Astronauts have stayed in low-earth orbit since Apollo because that's what the government told Nasa to do. After Apollo, Nasa's budget was cut and it was directed to concentrate on the space shuttle programme. Nasa doesn't get to just ignore the government and keep sending people to the moon or deep space.
And astronauts have widely reported light flashes visible with their eyes closed, but the exact mechanism for this phenomenon is not yet known. It's not evidence against the moon landing.
@@andrewgreenwood3998 The flashing lights were from cosmic rays.
Funding. It's always been funding. Because it stopped being popular and with how expensive it is, congress stopped funding it well enough.
That is such a hilarious argument to make given what Goverrnment spends money on every year.
@@IAmAHeaterThey don’t spend it on space travel they spend it on war and giving gender studies grants to Bulgaria
Just like they said in The Right Stuff: "No bucks, no Buck Rogers"
Didn't go the first time
They always cherry pick what the NASA engineer said about going through the Van Allen belts. He was specifically talking about testing the new technology for the Orion spacecraft.
He is in no way implying that NASA doesn't know the risks of sending humans through the radiation. The Apollo Astronauts were monitored for the amount of radiation exposure.
The amount was about the same for a CT scan. They went through the weaker parts of the belts and didn't spend enough time to be exposed to lethal amounts.
There were risks to their lives in every mission including the Mercury and Gemini programs. These Astronauts were willing to take these risks.
Funny how they always say NASA lies except when it's something they can easily quote mine and misrepresent. Then it's "NASA said, NASA said!"
They're also the same people who complain about temperatures in the thermosphere being said to be between 1000 F & 2000 F (due to absorbing some of the most dangerous solar radiation types, like x-rays and UV), but don't understand that the air is so thin that there's not enough to transfer heat to a passing object fast enough.
@@synthetic240 Totally correct. Heat and Temperature and not the same thing.
In 1958, James Van Allen discovered the existence of the Van Allen radiation belts. Conspiracy theorists, including flat-Earthers, use it to “prove” the Apollo Moon landings were faked and never happened. To dispel the hoax, James Van Allen himself wrote letters clarifying the false allegation.
“The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious & entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense.”
Both the discovery of the Van Allen radiation belts and the statement that the radiation belts do not prevent space travel came from James Van Allen. Conspiracy theorists cannot merely quote one when it appears to support their belief and conveniently reject the other if it is against them.
Au contraire, my friend!
Why has NASA, presidents and many others stated that we are trapped in low earth orbit?
The payload problem is one that would often amuse us in the bar of an evening, back when I worked in aerospace.
You put an extra kilogram of mass into your payload, and now you need to add extra fuel /oxidant to get it off the ground, say 10 kilos. Then, you have to put in an extra 100 kilos to lift that extra fuel, and 1000kilo to lift ......... It quickly seems that the rocket can never take off at all.
In fact, it was pointed out to me that as it stands on the pad prior to launch, the rocket IS too heavy to lift off. After the rocket engines ignite, & as they are building up to full thrust, they are burning off fuel & mass, so that as they come up to full power, the take off weight is just down to match the thrust available from the engines. So that the rocket doesn't go off in an unstable state [ see early film of rocket trials ], there are actually arms that hold the rocket down until the correct moment. You can her this in the launch countdown, as " engines start " at approx t -8s, before " lift off" at t-0.
There is some excellent footage of various launches out there, where the camera gives an excellent view of hold-down arms and frangible bolts doing their thing.
And then don't forget that with all that extra fuel, you need a bigger rocket to hold it, which adds mass to the rocket itself, which then requires more fuel to get that extra mass off the ground too, etc, etc.
It really is kinda amazing that any of this math ever can be made to work out in the end at all...
I actually hadn't thought about the fact that the rocket is technically "too heavy to launch" at the start of the whole process, too, though it does definitely make sense if you think about it...
"as it stands on the pad prior to launch, the rocket IS too heavy to lift off"
I don't think that's true, the hold-down mechanisms are only meant to make sure the engines get to their full performance after ignition first.
What a launch where the rockets initial weight indeed matches the initial lift could be seen on this failed Astra launch. Nominally that one had a 1.25 to 1 lift to weight ratio, but one of the five engines failed. So it started with about exactly 1:1 ratio, and only as it ate into its fuel reserves and its weight went down it slowly started to rise.
This is not what regular launches look like, so I find it hart to believe in your "too heavy to lift of" claim ...
+Chas Setterfiled, writes _"In fact, it was pointed out to me that as it stands on the pad prior to launch, the rocket IS too heavy to lift off."_
That depends on the rocket.
Mass of a fully loaded Falcon 9: 549,054 kg
Trust of a Falcon 9 First Stage: 777,273 kg
Forgot to paste the link to the Astra launch: th-cam.com/video/kfjO7VCyjPM/w-d-xo.html
I'd be amiss if I didn't mention that the animation showing the trans-lunar orbit had the craft orbiting in the wrong direction.
Another issue with the "but technology is so much more advanced now" argument, is that it really hasn't when it comes to a major requirement. There are limits to just how efficient a chemical rocket can get, and we are pretty much bumping up against that.
While Nuclear powered rockets are much more efficient, they are only useful once you reach Earth orbit, as they just can't produce the thrust needed to lift something into LEO.( And if you could build a nuclear rocket capable of lifting a large payload to LEO, you wouldn't want to be anywhere near it when it took off) And it is getting to LEO where the real heavy lifting is done. Getting from LEO to the Moon is easy in comparison.
You'd be remiss, the animation is amiss. No offence attended (sic) 😊
@@avaggdu1 None taken. I felt there was something not quite righ with that sentence, but couldn't put my finger on it. 🤔
Another factor that was not mentioned here that makes the cost of going to the moon even higher in comparison to a rover, is that humans usually would appreciate being brought back to earth after getting on the moon. Which means you now need additional thrusters, fuel and equipment to perform the return flight. For example, once they arrived in orbit of the moon, the lunar module would seperate from the command module orbiting the moon to bring 2 people down. This lander had 2 stages. A descent stage, which contained thrusters and fuel to slow down the spacecraft and land safely, and an ascent stage which also had its own fuel and thruster, and container the crew compartment.
When the astronauts were ready to leave, the lunar model ascent stage would detach from the lunar descent stage, in order to leave its trusters and empty fuel tanks. That stage was now useless once they landed so bringing it back would only mean having to carry even more fuel and thrusters to lift that extra weight back up. Alot of the equipment the astronauts brought down was also left behind in order to shave off as much weight as possible, such as the lunar rover, the cameras and other stuff. Only the stuff we wanted to bring back, such as pictures and moon rocks were kept onboard.
Once back in orbit, the lander’s ascent stage then met back with the orbiting command module, onboard which a 3rd astronaut stayed. The appollo missions were a 3 crew mission, with only 2 actually landing, and 1 staying in orbit onboard the command module. The 2 modules then connected back to eachother and the two astronauts who landed on the moon got back onboard the command module.
And then, finally, the lunar lander ascent module was then ditched, left into the moon’s orbit. The command module then would return to earth with the crew, and other stuff collected on the moon, such as the moon rocks, which also were transfered onboard the command module before ditching the lander.
If we were to bring every stage back, we would need ALOT more thrust.
Yeah i'm finally convinced. I finally feel at peace about this
A favorite story: "Buzz" Aldrin finally punched a guy, 1 blow, who was practically spitting in his face and accusing him of being a coward for not admitting the moon landings were faked. Guy had been pestering him for years.
In the vid, you can see Mrs. Aldrin rolling her eyes and stepping out of the way. As she said later, "You don't call experimental fighter jet pilots 'cowards' and expect nothing."
The YT "journalist" expected a lot of sympathy when he posted the vid, but the Internet community crushed him.
Bart Sibrel is an absolute tool.
The many Aldrin punches Sibrel videos are wonderful short video clips.
The best part about that incident (that almost nobody realizes unless they've done the analysis) is that Bart Sibrel 100% absolutely KNOWS that they DID go to the moon and he spouts his bullshit just for money and fame. When he did his documentary, "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon," for his main "proof" he took the original footage of a publicly available hour-long original NASA video filmed by Apollo 11, claimed that it was "top secret" and that he had "found it," edited out a half-dozen 5-second clips, and put it together with a false narrative about what the astronauts were doing. If you compare his chopped up version to the original, you can see exactly where he cuts off the video just 2 seconds before the next few seconds show that he's lying about where the camera was and what the astronauts were doing with it.
@@jimsmith7212 The best part is that, if you analyze how he fabricates his story in his "documentary," you can prove with 100% certainty that Bart Sibrel actually KNOWS that they DID go to the moon. Because he had to be consciously fabricating a lie around how he did certain edits in "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon." Because his story doesn't match up with the longer, original video.
We do NOT have the technology to send a man to the moon now and we certainly did NOT have it 50 + years ago!
Idk I’m on the fence about this one. I still don’t think that justifies a sucker punch
On the other hand, we already know exactly why not one Flerf will EVER go to Antarctica...
Is it the armed government NASA Jew penguins? I bet it's the armed government NASA Jew penguins.
...No Walmart?
@@frocat5163 I knew NASA was part of the Jewish Nazi Catholic Rosicrucian Masonic New World Order Illuminati headed up by George Bush, the Pope, and Queen Elizabeth II (you don't believe she actually died, do you?).
But I *seriously didn't realize* that *the penguins* were in on it, too!!!
@@ThatBoomerDude56 I wish I could take credit for that, but I stole it from one of Professor Dave's videos.
@@frocat5163 Makes sense. I made up the annoyingly long version a couple years ago when I was commenting on flat earthers saying satellites are not real. I explained that satellites are hoisted up across the sky by cables held up by stanchions installed in the bottom of the Crystal Dome by NASA for the NWO Illuminati.
Holes in the Dome caused by NASA's stanchions coming loose and letting the Waters of Heaven come down is the real cause of Sea Level Rise.
I always thought they hadn't been back because when the last crew returned to their rover the hub caps had been stolen...
Flat earthers: Why don't we go back huh?
Artemis missions: Allow us to introduce ourselves
Thank you Dave.
I always asked that question about why we dont have regularly humans on travels to the moon nowadays since its been like 60 plus years.
But I never researched with dedication on that subject, as that idea just came about when I was talking with friends around.
You actually explained that i a reasonably way.
Btw, good analogy bringing the Concord's case.
Now I can also explain this to family and friends when this topic come up.
Thank you .
Re: Concorde, I always thought it strange that they dropped Concorde because there are quite a lot of people for whom money is no objection so they could charge very high price.
That is until I first time flew first class. It was a revelation.
First time ever I hoped that the flight would last longer!! Because of the comfort and pampering that people in first class get on long haul flight, it is no priority to make it in three hours from London to New York. So the airlines could not actually charge a large premium for three hours in a cramped cabin with yesterdays comforts and services.
It been 51 year not mora than 60
You liked the case about the Concorde?
I thought the analogy to the Concorde was pretty flimsy.
The analogy would be the same, if ever since the Concorde stopped flying the The British Aircraft Corporation has been trying to build another Concorde.
Everyone has been wanting to fly in a Concorde, and Presidents keep promising us to bring back the Concorde on their campaign speeches! But for some reason, all the plans and designs to the plane have been destroyed! They say that it’s impossible to make another Concorde, because they no longer have the technology. Meanwhile, they’re designing air crafts with far superior technology, longer fuel range, and can out fly and out perform the Concorde.
This would be a better analogy. NASA has not been giving us the full picture.
It really boils down to two simple facts. 1) there was no scientific advantage for sending humans to the moon 2) there was no geopolitical advantage for sending humans to the moon.
Space is a 2nd law of thermodynamics violation. Space is fake. Quit listening to these liars.
You can tell you are a camera guy and not a physics/space guy because you messed up weight and mass in the video. It doesn't change the meaning, and only the most obtuse people will hold the minor mistake against you, but every time you said weight, you really meant mass. Weight is the pull of gravity an object feels from its parent body, while mass is the amount of matter. On Earth unless you are being super precise they are perfectly equivalent, but once you start modifying things like the distance between the two bodies significantly or changing the parent body the difference matters a lot.
Again the video is essentially correct if you replace weight with mass every time you say weight.
Thanks for the clarification, the takeoff weights would still apply but it was a schoolboy error on my part to keep referring to weight whilst in space 🤦🏻♂️
@@DaveMcKeegan I also have a somewhat minor correction for you.
The Soviets were the first to successfully perform a “soft” landing on February 3rd. 1966 using Luna 9.
The American Surveyor 1 landed on June 1st. 1966.
I realize that a successful lunar impacter smashing into the regolith also counts as a landing, but the Russians were the first to do that as well using Luna 2 on September 14th. 1959. It impacted at a speed of approximately 11,880 km/h.
Ranger 4 was the first American probe to impact the moon, which it did on April 26th. 1962. It impacted at a calculated speed of 9,600 km/h.
The are a lot of conflicting information from otherwise reputable sources, so it isn’t easy to get the facts straight.
(You’re still putting these charlatans to shame though. 😁)
Cheers from Denmark!
Maybe he used weight instead of mass with laymen in mind.
Asperger Alert, Will Robinson!
Flerfs can never comprehend that it wasn’t about NASA’s inability to get back to the Moon, but their decision not to go back.
More like their inability to get get funding from Congress.
Not really a decision, they had no choice once they lost the massive level of funding from the government. Apollo program wasn't even finished as planned, there were 3 more missions in the pipeline, 10 landings in total. They had to change up things for Apollo 17 when they realized it will be the last one instead of Apollo 20. Not to mention the whole successor Apollo Applications program, all canceled in 1970, when the first budget slashes started.
Not about NASA's decision. NASA would always love to have gone back.
Congress is the decision maker.
Again , idiot excuse.
dont need to be a sphere or flat person to understand that nasa LIES and they havnt gone back its very SHADY
Bedankt
Thanks for the support Matthijs
The best full explanation I’ve seen on this. Hope the FE community take the time to listen, though I’d be *very* interested in hearing rebuttals to it (but only if they were presented as cogently as this).
They won't.
🤣🤣🤣
Wait... were you serious about the FE community taking time to listen???
🤣🤣🤣
Yeah, that won't happen. They are way to petulant and foolish to sit there and actually listen. They will just call it all "lies" and "more conspiracy".
The Flatty community don't do rebuttals,
but they do seriously flawed excuses with aplomb.
"Da Urt is vedy flat cuz levil".
I have heard their best argument... It consists of "Nuh-uh". Very compelling.
Dave would you please stop talking common sense as it puts a dent into peoples conspires, oh by the way the earth is flat while every other planet we see is basically round
do we see really "see" any other planets? the sky is a plasma screen
Michael Collins book "Carrying the Fire" explains a bit about testing for radiation with badges placed on rockets in orbit. They sent astronauts on space walks to9 retrieve the badge after certain duration of exposure. One was stuck and it was interesting how he described trying to remove it without it suddenly coming loose and sending him off into space.
Oh dear, you are getting hooked into arguing with the least educated, silliest people in our community. My wife reckons it’s about as useful as standing at the barn door arguing with the goats about quantum mechanics. But there is the entertainment value!
Go Flatzoid for 2023 Top Left award!
I guess you are the kind of snob dude who refused to discuss with your neighbour how come that the experimental drug was labelled as "safe and effective".
@@nicolagianaroli2024 Which experimental drug? All drugs are required to pass experimental double blind tests. And safety is a matter of confidence for the vast majority of people. There is no claim that ANY drug, like any food is safe for everyone. And of course there is no drug without side effects. The decision to take a drug comes down to whether or not the benefit outweighs the risks.
Gotta love space deniers. “We’ve never been back to the moon, so we probably never went there”.
Well, in the early 80’s I went to France and I’ve never been back so France doesn’t exist or I never went there???
Well, one space denier got schooled so hard a few minutes ago he deleted his whole comment thread rather than admit he was wrong.
So that is pretty funny.
@@Diviance Apparently that means it never happened.
@@Diviance I’ve seen that a lot. Whole conversations of 100+ comments gone from my channel because I started asking questions some conspiracy theorist couldn’t answer.
@@Katy_Jones I hear them say that a lot too. Especially the Religiot types. If I had a quid for every time I’d been told “photos or it didn’t happen” I’d be a rich man. I just ask them how they know that genesis was true when “god” made man on the 5th day. There’s no way any man could have seen it happen if it happened 4 days before the first man was made.
@@SINTD_666 With religiots who use the "argument" about "Were you there? Did you see it happen?" ask them about the events described in the bible - were THEY there, did THEY see it happen? 😂
I love the Van Halen Belts.
Clearly you have consumed too much ToonShine
People say you can't get through them, but all you have to do is jump ... Sorry 🤣
@@DaveMcKeegan Ouch, dude. 😄😄
MCToon And I love the Van Allen belts, because they shield us from the radiation.
they rebranded "the firmament"
I love how the dog ensures that they're the number one priority for the host. Love the dog. And yet there's something about the space in the video. IDC, the dog is adorable.
Everything you said proves that we've never been there 🤣
Such as? Your singular best example. Go ahead, no use saying it with your stupid childish emoji attached that you goons seem to favour so much.
When was the last person in the Mariana Trench? Oh wait, the seabed is fake to...
To be fair, that's more in line with what the critics of the moon landing claim. It's been proven to be too dangerous and risky to do much on the bottom of the ocean; whereas, the Apollo missions suggest the danger and risks proposed by the anti-space people aren't there, or aren't that significant.
You believe in oceans? Sheep
@@mactallica9293 Water is always level?🙃
In fact, to date, only 1 more person has been to the Challenger Deep than walked on the Moon [allegedly ] . If you include the 6 CM pilots who didn't actually WALK on the Moon, but went there, the tables turn.
@@jquest99 Yes, except when it's not.
Saw a thing where modern engineers were subject to Mercury and Saturn rocket engines and were quick to say they understood the design but that we simply don't build rockets like that anymore. Which makes sense. Bottom line its not that we "can't" build Saturn V, its that its obsolete. Similarly with, say, the F-14 Tomcat.
Because they are engineers, not fabricators.
and how do you explain that Saturn rocket at least on paper it is still the most powerful rocket ever built? Rockets are things with clear military deployment and whenever the military are around money stop to be a problem.
Also most robotic mission can be one way while humans tend to want to come home after making a trip to the moon.
Also, modern electronics are much smaller and thus more susceptible to being damaged cosmic rays.
We never went there in the first place it is still a dream that has not yet been realized
You're 55 years late to the party. It's not 1968 anymore, pops.
20 years ago I did a nice trip to Italy. But never got back. I guess it means I never went in the first place.
Its no comparison going to Italy and going to the moon. Thats why nobody ever asked you to swear on the Bible that you indeed went to Italy.
@@sidiksamion3 Well, yeah. That's exactly the point. No comparison. It's a lot easier and cheaper going to Italy, and also, there are a hell lot more reasons to go back. Still, I haven't had the resources to travel back there all this years. Imagine going back to moon, when is a lot more expensive and difficult, and without any clear reason to go back.
Guess so. Sorry about your lost trip
there still is 1 saturn v at nasa in Houston, but it's been decommissioned. it's kept in a huuuuuuuge warehouse. it's crazy how large that rocket is. they let people in to see it, and you get to read about every apollo mission and also how the rocket was built and how it works. they also explain the artemis mission as well.
they have other rockets too, including a spaceX rocket that was actually out in space and came back.
living near Houston is so cool because of nasa tbh. if you ever get the chance, you gotta check it out.
That's not big.... Russian says haha
N1 greater thrust as too the Soyuz rocket .... Saturn's smart play toy
@@scottsuttan2123 N1 launches were also more spectacular.
@@ronjon7942 and more... explosive
Its twice the size of arianne5,and arianne flys 260 km into orbit
Really solid video, Dave. You pulled together the arguments in a nice tight package.
Of course, the deniers will still make their ad hoc excuses as to why everything you just said was wrong, or just use the good old "Shill!" or "Nuh-uh!"
Like talking to rocks at times :)
They're just NPCs. Why do you think they only say the same 10 all the time? Their dialog hasn't been updated in like 7 years.
I don’t happen to think they went to the moon. I admit I am a skeptic by nature. I am also a conservative. Therefore, am keep my opinions on the downlow not to trigger friends , family and aquaintences. I don’t think be should be mean to each other about this.
@@chevy4x466 Nothing wrong with being a skeptic, as long as it's informed skepticism. It's also important to be able to admit that our opinions are wrong, and in fact it's important to challenge our own opinions, trying to find flaws in our arguments and reasons. Unfortunately that's not something that's easy to do, or accept; none of us want to be wrong.
@@chevy4x466 And you would be wrong about that. Be a skeptic, not a denier. Actually be open to admitting you are wrong in the face of evidence (which there is plenty of).
I am not surprised you are a conservative though, no offense. Paranoia about authority is a conservative specialty.
I'm sorry, did he use Antarctica as an example of something being conquered and then left alone?!?! There are a number of sites with total population that fluctuates between 5,000 people in the warmer months and 1,000 people in the harsh winter months. So, that argument is about as solid and useful as a screen door on a submarine.
Eh?That's not what he said. He contended that there was significant interest in reaching the South Pole and at the turn of the 19th century, and consequently many expeditions mounted to achieve that goal which once attained there was barely any interest in sending more.
4:10 As it turns out, humans also don't complain when packed into a tiny room with no air supply!
A human mars mission could be one and done with a large motivation to be the first. One hundred years after the one and only human Mars mission, people will be asking "Why haven't we been back?"
Because they died?
Because sending money to Israel is more important?
NASA HAS STATED THAT THEY “LOST THE DESIGN INFORMATION” TO EVEN BUILD A SATURN 5 TYPE ROCKET CAPABLE OF GOING TO THE MOON!!!!
That’s why this video is bull crap! why didn’t he mention anything about that?
And why are so many of you people so blindly willing to just take in false information?!? y’all are the reason the country is in the predicament It is nowadays.
@@charlestaylor253 true, war import for govs that study space...
mars is easy, just to go the algerian desert where they filmed it.
They couldn’t get there the first time! So why would they waste the money to not go back?
Great video. Dave McKeegan is one smart dude with truck loads of common sense. Pretty impressive.
why are these moon landing deniers so angry all the time
Because they're miserable losers.
Constantly denying reality is a strenuous task
It's amazing how people try so hard to prove that something happened that never happened.
Why do you think Apollo never happened?
@@maxfan1591 he probably doesn’t, but for people who are starving for attention, it’s a… well, it’s a way of getting some. I can’t bring myself to say it’s a good way, because not all attention is good attention. In my opinion, of course.
Just because flat earthers don't know how to get a space vehicle to the moon, doesn't mean other people, ie people with intelligence, can't.
what we really want to know is what sort of mind control they use to maintain all their lies about space.
If a Pokémon card can be worth 5million, a tablespoon of moon dust would be worth 5 billion, sell that table spoon and go back for more
Well not saying there isnt people that might pay that for it. As I cant really know.
But the prize of something is about what someone is willing to pay. Not saying the pokemon card cant be resold for such price but I can imagine Logan having big trouble selling the card back if he wanted to cash on that amount, also some of the money was in more cards that are also subjective valued.
So yeah , sure you can pre sell it and see how much you can actually do from such an ordeal but again they wont make missions just to sell moon dust and back.
You do realize moon dust isn't exactly a sellable item considering what could be found in it.its a research item that the government wouldn't like getting out. Legit if they wanted to sell moon dust they have a lot in storage due to moon rovers which can collect dust
@@heckanice7278 would you buy it?
you sound stupid. why is that?
Monkey have 1 banana, banana valuable, monkey have many bananas, banana less valuable.
your blissed-out snugglepup really made it for me 💙
When they ask me why we've never been back. I reply with.... WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT??? WE'VE BEEN THERE 6 TIMES !!!
been where?
@@Paul-nu7nj Well the title of the video is WHY HAVEN'T WE BEEN BACK TO THE MOON . ?
When someone asks me why we haven't been back to the moon, I like to quote the line from The Right Stuff, "no bucks, no Buck Rogers."
"You know what makes that rocket go up? Funding!"
It’s simple. We had more wars, wars, wars!!! Those wars cost opportunity costs!!! We would have been making more progress if we didn’t spend it on wars!!
gone BACK huh ... oh you sweet, sweet summer child ...
Would you like to tell us why you think they never went in the first place?
@@maxfan1591 check the documentary "something funny happened on the way to the moon".
they utterly destroy the entire story piece by pieces with more evidences than anyone could possibly debunk.
if you want one of the best proof, check the tv interview they did right after "coming back from the moon", arguably humanity's greatest archivement huh
and see how they act, guilty as sin.
but tbh, what is the more likely, they went to the moon back in the 60's, or they faked the whole thing ?
if they went, how come space is the only industry who's technology not only doesn't improve, but goes backward ?
the burden of proof they went is on them given the size of the claim, and then you learn they lost the tapes of everything from the images to the telemetry, even the technology to build the saturn 5 engines, ...
oh and better yet, the "moon rocks" who were given to dignitaries were in fact petrified wood... so unless trees grow on the moon ...
gimme a break !
they want you to beleive a bunch of guys using pencils, paper and abacus could do more than modern tech with CAO, AI, 3D printing, ... am i the only one finding it fishy ?
you want the truth ? they needed an excuse to build ICBM nuclear delivery rockets, and people wouldn't have been willing to pay for that, PERIOD.
Humans were on the moon, you can literally do the calculations on your ti-84 or whatever and see that, in fact, the delta v requirements and other specifications we're met by the Apollo programs. It's not like we woke up one day and said "launch that rocket on the moon" it took us over a decade of hard work to design 3 different iterations of the same rocket.
@@andriys.1860 LOL, ok boomer ;)
@@slckb0y65 1) You still didn't provide any sources
2) I was born in 2001, so your boomer statement is a bit pointless.
Well done but the deniers will ignore logic and reality to continue spout rubbish.
I’m not a flerfer, but I have been skeptical of the moon landings for several years. Thanks to Dave’s highly detailed videos, I’m no longer a skeptic. Well done.
same here
Just remember, there's nothing inherently wrong with being a skeptic. It only becomes degenerate once people under the color of "skepticism" and "open-minded truth-seeking" start to denounce all things rational, sensible and scientific, in favor of some trendy occult ideology, such as the recent global spread of the flattardation pandemic 🤣👍
if you were going somewhere that important you'd take a decent camera but the pictures were lousy - and got worse when an australian relay station noticed a coke bottle in corner of shot
Sadly, your accurate explanation went through one ear and out the other for the ones denying. They will most likely even deny the next Moon missions and call it CGI, etc.
They've already done exactly that with the Artemis program...
Its funny because Marvel which is better funded than Nasa has regular complaints about CGI quality
@@deadlypandaghost NASA uses way better CGI tech obviously, duh
Moon landing hoax is a cult. The issue is not in the evidence or whatever, it's psychological. A person wants to be right and someone else to be wrong, to feel special that he uncovered some grand conspiracy, blah blah.
I have a friend (a programmer and a mathematician) who has this problem, and I explained all "his" arguments (I mean all standard arguments you need to learn by heart to get accepted) one by one, every time asking if he understands why it's wrong, or needs some more 'splaining? The next weekend he tells me exact same crap, when I asked didn't you say you get why it's wrong, you said yes last time. He didn't really care, so I went through it once again. A month later and to this day he brings up same crap over and over again. It's a delusion like flat earth or religion, some just can't snap out of it.
As a whole bunch of them are Christian fundamentalists they MUST deny all space travel because that shows the Bible is false (firmament, glass dome, whatever). send them up to the moon and land them there and they will still deny it, claiming you drugged them or something.
Why has no new supersonic plane been built? Try the Green Lobby when requesting an answer to that.
The reason is irrelevant. The fact remains that technology for supersonic air travel previously existed but is not in use now.
It has been built before, look up Concord. The reason why it hasn’t come back is money.
@@maxfan1591 It is not in use? I though that military jet fly beyond supersonic but evidently you know better
@@nicolagianaroli2024 "It is not in use? I though that military jet fly beyond supersonic but evidently you know better"
Dave's point was specifically about Concorde, which was a passenger plane. That's why I specifically said "supersonic air travel".
And in your OP you specifically asked "Why has no new supersonic plane been built?" and then you say "military jet fly beyond supersonic". Make up your mind what you're talking about.
ETA: Apologies, I should read more carefully. You weren't the OP.
@@maxfan1591 you guys are growing desperate in figuring out senseless example in which you try to prove it is absolutely normal that in the last 53 years nobody has not even flown beyond low orbit.
Concorde is a phenomenal retort 👏🏻
Yes, the development of Concorde was heavily subsidised by the British and French governments, just like Apollo- once the political will fades / gets focused elsewhere, the funding gets withdrawn
Until they say the concord is fake and deny all pictures and videos
@@mactallica9293 hahahahaha- I did see one strapped into a test rig to simulate repeated flight profiles. I also sat in the cockpit of one at Heathrow. The place I used to work at manufactured the seats for the refit in the 90’s. Still regret not be able to fly in one though.
I had this argument with someone just a few days ago, but they kept going on and on about using consumer grade electronics, and i had to keep telling them that they were not rated for space travel, that they were not hardened against radiation
There was a flerf in the comments section recently who, when told that electronics needed to be hardened against radiation and that's what the Orion video was talking about, kept repeating that electronics work fine in space because satellites work.
@@andysmith1996 sounds like the same flerf i was argueing with
@@andysmith1996 That's like saying my crappy car can race at 300 km/h because F1 cars exist. Jesus that is hilarious.
The flaw in the premise is that there is an alternative to Concorde. There has been no known alternative to a Moon-going craft, so the analogy does not hold.
There are no current commercial supersonic aircraft. Since we've progressed technologically since the 1970s, we should have had cheaper and more numerous commercial supersonic aircraft. Since we don't, we must never have had a commercial supersonic aircraft.
I remember the day it happened. I was 12 years old and we had an old black and white t.v. With an antenna on the roof of my house that we had to turn by hand to get reception from Memphis Tenn. It was really poor quality video, grainy and blurred but we were fascinated by the event. We were also proud to be Americans and very patriotic people back then. The Viet Nam war was still raging and I had 2 brothers serving in Viet Nam.
After the first moon landing, public interest dropped off real fast. It perked up again with Apollo 13 when we came close to losing 3 astronauts. At the end of the Apollo missions public interest was very low and people had other concerns, the economy tanked with Jimmy Carter and that was the end of it. Soon after though, the space shuttle came out but it didn't take long before people lost interest in that too. The same thing will happen if we ever decide to go back to the moon.
I travelled to Rome with my parents back in 1974. I vividly recall being in Varig's 707, the overnight ocean crossing, the landing, and walking away from the airplane toward the terminal, kind of sorry for leaving the 707 behind. And we visited the city, all the landmarks, all the nice places and went on travelling to other places. And then...
Almost 50 years passed by.
And as it happened, I never returned to Rome. So by flerfers' "logic", I surely have ever been there, or I would have returned.
I liked the analogy between moon landings and Concorde. I don't know why some people are so convinced it didn't happen when there is so much evidence to show it did across many platforms on the internet and in books in Libraries and people who own parts and reverse engineer them to reproduce how they worked etc.
My mum made parts for Concorde when she worked at an electronics factory. She remembers 'top people' coming round and watching how people worked and the quality of their work. She was hand picked to produce, by my deducing, ferrite core wire wound inductors. She wanted to know what they were for but couldn't be told at the time. Later her supervisor quietly told her they were for the radar in the nose cone. How cool when parents let their history drop on you with things like that!
So you have a dog in the fight...okay
3:00 And... now I want to play Kerbal Space Program.
They also don’t realize it’s expensive af too 😂
Considering inflation and what the Government spends, money is not the issue whatsoever.
The company you work for, assuming you are intelligent enough to hold a job, which is doubtful, has all kinds of money, why can't you go spend it?
NASA CANT SPEND MONEY THE GOVERNMENT DOESNT GIVE IT.
Mankind's incredible achievements in space travel should be celebrated. I just don't get the appeal of the conspiracy mindset where we haven't really achieved anything. It's just a terribly paranoid way of thinking
They're too feeble minded, look at how many of them also cling to conspiracy theories of aliens building the pyramids because they can't conceive of humanity alone taking on epic megaprojects and feats of engineering that challenge us to the extreme limits of our technology and capability and tools at the time, often leading to innovations in all of those efforts too
Flerfs wish they lived in the 1800's because things were less complicated.
No bucks, no Buck Rogers.
And to satisfy the demands of the flerps, not ONE but TWO rockets have to be sent to the the Moon. The first one with the guys that are to repeat the bravado from the 1960's and 70's and the second one filmen the first rocket and live-streaming 24/7 from lift-off to dropping down in the Pacific Ocean.
And maybe even a third rocket is needed to film the first two ....😉
And one of them must be a massive spirit level...
Thanks for presenting this very in-depth explanation for something that has stuck in my craw for decades.
A meteorite cost money so a piece of moon rock would be expensive as diamonds...why didn't take moon rock to cover expenses of next mission.
Because it is what it would cost them to gather it. But they are also pretty much the whole market.
I wonder what dogs think when we seemingly monologue in voip or when we are recording. Maybe they think we are singing.
hehehe 🤣
Funny how Nixon was able to communicate with Land Line phone with no delay to the Astronauts in 1969 !
Can you call a cell phone from a land line?
@@AnOfficialTH-camProfile Not from the moon. No you can't.
@@bargeman100There's this new invention you might have heard of that allows wireless communication. It's called "radio." It works very well at long distances, especially when there are no obstructions, such as between the Earth and the moon.
@@AnOfficialTH-camProfile Cool story bro.
@@bargeman100 Do you actually have a real reason why radio communication between the Earth and moon is somehow too difficult to achieve?
"We lost the technology, and its a painful process to build it back" Don Pettit.
If you had paid any attention to the context (a live interview in which Pettit was forced to give a paraphrased answer off the top of his head) you might understand that he's vastly oversimplifying. If he truly meant ALL Apollo technology was PHYSICALLY destroyed, it would be a blatant lie- the crawler transporter, the VAB, 3 surviving Saturn Vs, all excellent examples of surviving Apollo tech. So either Pettit is blatantly lying, or he's simplifying decades of geopolitics and funding shenanigans and new programs and cancellations into one sentence as best he can.
And a reminder: one sentence is not evidence of anything. 300,000 people worked on Apollo. Videos were taken on the moon which couldn't have been faked at the time. We went. Get over yourself.
Show Me The Edge - There is an ongoing Artemis program. Artemis 1 was launched in last November and the Orion spacecraft orbited the moon and returned.
So in other words, we had the ability to go to the moon. Nice to know you aren't an Apollo denier.
Technology doesn't work like that, we can't advance past our ability to do something. Wake up.
@@roosterbear "We can't advance past our ability to do something" Brilliant.
"does it mean that concord was faked?" and a new conspiracy is born! ;)
"Have you seen one in person?"
"Or do you know anyone actually living in Bielefeld?"
The: Why don't we make castles argument... is gonna age badly 😂
How did we get through the Van Allen belt?
The belts essentially for a ring doughnut around Earth, the route Apollo took was more skirting up and over the edge rather than through the middle of it
Dr James Van Allen who discovered the belts, himself stated that craft would basically need to park up in the belts for days on end before the radiation levels became lethal to humans
Okay, so it’s REALLY REALLY expensive and difficult to go to the moon. Accepted. Yet, very oddly, in only 4 short years NASA launched NINE manned spacecraft to the moon. Six of them landed on the moon. This feat accomplished while the United States was at war (expensive) and the general public endured two recessions. But still, NASA somehow flew to the freaking moon EVERY SIX MONTHS? Okay. Makes sense.
I keep coming back.
I wondered about this too, and for some reason decided to check other "new world" settlements.
The time between Columbus and the first settlement in N. America -- Roanoke -- is about 50 years.
The time between Armstrong and Artemis is about 55 years.
We're on schedule.
_My human is talking to the little box again. I must help!_
*”Id go to the moon in a nanosecond, 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.” -Don Pettit (NASA Astronaut)*
This again? Really? How many times?
Speaking in 2017 *_one astronaut_* used an unfortunate turn of phrase. Since then, conspiracy theorists and those that parrot their nonsense such as yourself have obsessively fixated upon it because that's what they do. However, if you have a modicum of intelligence, critical faculty, integrity and the will to objectively appraise the information that you receive and you place his sentence within it's full and intended context, then it's abundantly clear what he is referring to. The premature cancellation of Apollo in 1972 due to the retraction of funding from congress and the lack of political and public will, resulted in the abandonment of the specific expertise, the tooling, the production processes, the plants and most significantly, the heavy lift capability that sent crewed missions to the moon. Emphasis was placed instead on low Earth orbit, primarily, the development of the Space Shuttle which promised much, but failed to deliver in terms of it's commercial and financial returns and launch cadence. The other huge project was obviously the construction of the ISS. Neither of which send man to the surface of the moon. Deep space exploration became the preserve of unmanned missions - robotic landers and probes. Pettit was speaking prior to the approval of Project Artemis that will return man to the surface of the moon. The technology of Apollo is old and obsolete but since much of the hardware remains, you can understand that his use of the word 'destroyed' was metaphorical. Rebuilding a manned programme to the moon using modern technology that has superseded that of Apollo has been a protracted and painstaking process on a budget that is a fraction of that of Apollo.
Why is it even necessary to explain this?...again?
Sounds very reasonable 😂 Npcs still believe these clowns. Moon is a light read your bible
@@Lui-E
Seth lived for 800 years, Balaam met a talking donkey and a giant fish swallowed a man and regurgitated him three days later. Sounds reasonable. Read your bible.
why? Did people just die out? It was in 1969, people are still alive to this day. We have the technology from 100-200 years ago that we can recreate but we can't do the same with technology from 55 years ago? People still go to space, how do we can recreate the technology that is from 1961 but not 1969?
@@masterd_flabz7043because it’s extremely dangerous and expensive. Trying to revive the Apollo program would be like trying to start a trans-Atlantic airline with 1910’s era biplanes.
Attempting to start up an assembly line that no longer exists for a vastly inferior and dangerous vehicle is simply not worth the cost
We didn't go back to the moon because it's a pretty boring place and the American tax paying public lost interest.
Stup up u fool
before they got found out most likely
It takes a crap load of money and effort with no return. What’s so hard to understand?
having a brain the size of a walnut makes thinking hard apparently
And if we did keep going there, the conspiracy people would say: "if it was really that expensive they'd stop going".
You've cracked the conspiratard code.
Maybe when we go back, we should take them up and show them.
And leave them there.
MOON LANDING Fake, Fake, Fake, Fake, Fake, Fake, Fake, Fake, Fake, Fake, Fake, Fake, Fake, Fake, Fake, Fake, Fake, Fake, Fake, Fake, Fake, Fake, Fake, Fake, Fake, Fake, Fake, Fake, Fake, Fake, Fake, Fake
wow very thought provoking.
Among many things that make no sense about the "we haven't been back since 1972 because we faked it," argument (if one can call it an argument) is you could just as easily say, "we haven't faked it since 1972 because we never faked it." In fact, you could MORE easily say that since faking it is easier than doing it.
"We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too." - JFK.
Inspiring stuff.
@@avaggdu1 Yes. It was a very persuasive speech.
Great argument. I’m the only one in my family that believes in the moon landing and I’m definitely using this on my brother who’s so persistent that the entire ordeal was fake. Thanks!
@@Wadiyatalkinabeet_ Exactly. They all say "they can't fake it now because it's much harder to do." That's crazy. It would be infinitely easier now to fake it. Are they just moon landing deniers or are they flat earthers as well?
Not returning to the moon is something I’ve always considered to be a bit of a national disgrace really. If we continued, it would be quite a common thing for humans to be living on the moon at least that we know of, for we all we know humans are living on the moon but of course it was never revealed to the public - Listening to Dr. Steven Greer really brings.more insight to this, quite fascinating.
We never went and never are going.
Why do you think that?
@@maxfan1591 the original landing has to much to be skeptical about man. The worst part for me is the phone call and the video showing them leaving the moon. It’s soooo obviously not real. And the fact we haven’t been back even with the great technology we have these days makes me more skeptical. Lastly I believe we can’t get out of the earths orbit. ISS is about high as we can go I believe.
@@FightEuphoria "the original landing has to much to be skeptical about man."
Such as?
"The worst part for me is the phone call"
Right, well, phone calls had been patched through to radio stations since the 1930s, so can you clarify a little more what exactly is strange about that?
"and the video showing them leaving the moon. It’s soooo obviously not real."
How do you determine that? Just to be clear, the video of the lift off from the moon is from Apollo 17 in December 1972. The camera was on the lunar rover which had been parked a specific distance from the lunar module in order to record the lift off. Prior to that the camera had been used on all three moonwalks in the mission so that scientists and Mission Control could watch what the astronauts were doing. The camera was remotely controlled from Mission Control throughout. As for the lift off video, the guy controlling the camera knew where the lunar module would be from second to second, and therefore knew what commands to give at what times in order to keep the camera pointed at the lunar module; he then practiced that sequence of commands for weeks to get the timings right. It's also worth noting that this sort of camera was used on three missions, and he only got it right once.
"And the fact we haven’t been back even with the great technology we have these days makes me more skeptical."
That's because Congress cancelled Apollo and cut NASA's funding. That funding dropped from a peak of 4.5% of the budget in 1966 to less than 1% in 1975. Apollo was insanely expensive and Congress could see there weren't any votes in it. Sure, improved technology can allow you to do things more cheaply, but the cost of Apollo simply couldn't be cut that much that fast.
"Lastly I believe we can’t get out of the earths orbit. ISS is about high as we can go I believe."
That's been true up to the last couple of years. That's because Congress wouldn't fund NASA to keep building the Saturn V rocket, but instead funded the Shuttle. Since the cancellation of the Shuttle, Congress has been funding NASA to use shuttle-era technology to build the SLS, which can go to the Moon. Is it good use of money? Probably not. There's a reason that some people in the aerospace industry say that SLS stands for Senate Launch System.
Finally, there's the issue of the Apollo rocks - ~380 kilograms of rocks which have been studied by thousands of scientists from around the world for the last 50 years. They can explain how they know the rocks can't be from Earth, can't be fake, can't be lunar meteorites found here on Earth, and can't have been collected by unmanned sample retriever missions.
it's hard to understand how you lot managed to get to the moon in the 60's/70's but can't do that now. if you can't do it now, you didn't do it then either!
You have to press the Play button, silly.
The same reason why the Vikings weren’t able to settle Newfoundland in 1021 bce because it wasn’t feasible for them to stay. It took Europe to do that in 1492.
The cost........... and the will to do it again was not there after all the Apollo equipment building was halted.
BECAUSE WE NEVER WENT
Would you like to try again, and this time actually refute something in the video?
@@maxfan1591 SHOW ME VIDEO FROM LAUNCH ALL THE WAY TO THE MOON AND BACK THEN I BELIEVE 4K PLEASE.
@@jack-k6z7n "SHOW ME VIDEO FROM LAUNCH ALL THE WAY TO THE MOON AND BACK THEN I BELIEVE 4K PLEASE."
No point, because we know that whatever evidence we provide, you'll dismiss it as fake. The fact remains that thousands of scientists from around the world have studied the Apollo rocks for the last 50 years, and they have no doubt they're from the Moon. Likewise, there's no doubt that if the USA had tried to fake Apollo, the Soviets would have known it and published their evidence.
So I ask again, would you like to refute something in the video?
Sorry, we'll need more than your personal incredulity.
@@jack-k6z7n ok 1 month old account with no handle.
If humans could get to the moon, there would be a Double Tree by Hilton, a McDonalds, and a giant hole for mining.
Just like the funicular up Mt Everest and the Starbucks on the bottom of the Mariana Trench?
@yassassin6425 Mt Everest is known as the world's highest garbage dump, it's disgusting.
You inadvertently just proved my point
@@andrewdocherty8651 It is indeed but it's not in the slightest bit comparable to commercial habitation of the moon. So your comparison is still absurd.
@yassassin6425 What comparison? I never made a comparison, you did.
You know what, you're right. Humans went to the moon in 1969 and just decided not to go back. I'm an idiot
@@andrewdocherty8651
*_"What comparison? I never made a comparison, you did."_*
Incorrect. You are suggesting the commercial expansion and exploitation on Earth should work the same way on the moon.
*_"You know what, you're right. Humans went to the moon in 1969 and just decided not to go back. I'm an idiot"_*
Yes, you certainly are if you think that 1969 was the only year of the Apollo moon landings.
Apollo mission to the moon is as real as WWE
That's true. Humans doing a job successfully, with a relatively nerdy audience.
Are you using the front camera on your phone? Is your dog sitting on the other side than all the other vids I saw ( haven't seen enough to learn their name)? Your dog and my cat...hand seekers.
Really, the same argument can just as easily be used the other way to say "If NASA really was able to so convincingly fake the moon landings using just the special effects technology of the 1960s, why did they only do it a couple of times, and then haven't ever made any follow-up footage showing people continuing to go there since?" Surely it should be a whole lot easier (and more convincing) with modern video technology, and then nobody would have any reason to even ask these sorts of questions in the first place.
Logically, it makes far more sense that we wouldn't have done it again if we really _did_ go there, _which would be an incredibly complicated and expensive process to replicate and people just don't want to spend the money to do it all again_ rather than if it was all faked and could easily be redone any time we felt like it with just a movie studio and some CGI, but they just haven't bothered to ever do so for some unfathomable reason.
Good thinking... NASA could have asked for and gotten a lot more funding that way. 😂