Why haven't humans gone back to the Moon?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 7 ก.พ. 2023
- 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 - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
![[TH] VCT Masters Shanghai Playoffs DAY 3 // FNC vs FUT | EDG vs PRX](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/pw2T5v0ogDI/mqdefault.jpg)
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😂
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
☠️🤣
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
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
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!
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?
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?
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.
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.
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
So we sent men to the moon, not for science or progress, but for politics and politics alone?
Humans are stupid.
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.
Found this video by searching that exact question. Reasonable explanation.
Great video as always
Another good analogy is nuclear weapons. They were only used in 1945, and testing has stopped for over 40 years. That doesn't change the fact that the bombs were dropped in Japan, or that nuclear weapons exist.
To add to that, it’s not really possible to built the bombs dropped on Japan today to the specs of the original blueprints. By these nuts logic, that means those two bombs never existed.
Thing is.. There's more than 1 who've claimed nuclear energy is fake as well.
@@mrandrat625 what a ridiculous conspiracy. Any conspiracy that requires millions of people is so insane
Even something as mundane as large naval rifles . The Iowa class battleships were pulled from service the last time not only because of high operating costs, but they ran out of replacement barrels for the big guns and cordite to fire them. No one on earth has the tooling to make more. We COULD tool up, but is it worth the cost? Same principle.
Great! Now you started a conspiracy about how a nuclear bomb was never developed!
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
I have learned so much from your videos! Thank you.
Imagine being a reasonable person talking to a conspiracy dummy:
- _If Nasa, with less technology, allegedly went to the Moon in the 60s-70s, and then stopped doing it with more advanced technology at its disposal, that means they never did it._
- _So, what's all the photo and video record of it?_
- _It was all staged in a Hollywood movie set!_
- _So, what you're saying is that, if Nasa, with less technology, was able to stage that in a Hollywood movie set in the 60s-70s, but then stopped staging it with more advanced technology at its disposal, that means they never staged it?_
Makes perfect sense.
That's a good one, I may have to borrow it.
Nice. Cheers from cloudy Vienna, Scott
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!
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.
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.
Great Video! Thank You! 👍
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
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
Thanks for presenting this very in-depth explanation for something that has stuck in my craw for decades.
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.
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.
Funding. It's always been funding. Because it stopped being popular and with how expensive it is, congress stopped funding it well enough.
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.
"Why haven't humans gone back to the Moon?" Very simple. We can't afford it, and it would serve no purpose.
Or maybe we never sent a human to the moon and it was all war propaganda. We have never sent and brought back a human outside the outer orbit. The model T explanation is hilarious, ford could do that easily. Lol This all is hilarious. All propaganda!
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 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?
Concord used to fly over my family house when I was a kid pretty regularly. Not very high up either. It was cool to see.
The only reason people went to the moon in 1969 is that nobody had been there before, now there has to be some scientific or economic reason, which I guess there isn't
There are, the moon can be used as a staging post for deep space exploration. It also has an abundance of natural resources, however, as you suggest, the economics have to be favourable and the cost of exploiting these with our current technology outweighs the gains.
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
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.
Thx! for pulling me of that fence dave
The rope-core memory design was super hardened from effects such as the Van Allen Belts. We simply do not make computers this way in 2024.
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.
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.
Because after six other visits and billions upon billions of dollars spent to find there's nothing there of value.
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. 🤔
The fact the Soviets never raised an objection to the claim that NASA got to the moon speaks volumes to me - not that I ever needed convincing.
but basement dwelling youtube watchers are more sophisticated that all the soviet engineers and scientist from the last 50 years.. get with the program.
@@entangledmindcells9359That is true. And one thing those (so called) scientists never got was a diploma from BCU (Batshit Crazy University).
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.
your blissed-out snugglepup really made it for me 💙
Omg the USA have been saying we’re going back for years , I will guarantee that no man will ever land on the moon ❤
Too late! 12 men already have. Were you asleep?
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.
In the most respectful way I can, I'd like to know how someone who has absolutely nothing to do with our space program would know the answer to this question.
bro is a freelance photographer he's super certified
Research
Can't go back if you've never been there.
It was a measuring contest with the Soviets that NASA won. USA got bored and stopped
And the Soviets' girthy, over-weight tool kept going off prematurely before orbital insertion.
(If you don't know the story, look up the Soviet N-1 rocket. Every one of their test flights blew up. One time it destroyed the launch facility. And it was way over weight. Even though it had more thrust than the Saturn V, its payload capacity was far less.)
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
"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.
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!
"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 😂
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.
Wow that was the best explanation ive heard about this.. Probably one of my biggest questions about that cknspiracy..
I always thought they hadn't been back because when the last crew returned to their rover the hub caps had been stolen...
Give them 50 valid arguements and they'll go "nah, it's all fake, you're a CGI chill".
How about … give them 50 years to go to the moon again.
@@thegrounder381 it doesn't matter. Even if someone lands on the moon tomorrow, it will be called a hoax.
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.
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
When they ask me why we've never been back. I reply with.... WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT??? WE'VE BEEN THERE 6 TIMES !!!
In the '60s, I went to Mexico a lot. My Texas grandparents liked traveling in Mexico, and so we went fairly often. But by the early '70s, my grandparents were taking fewer long car trips, so my last trip to Mexico c. 1972 was by plane. In the last 50 years, I never went back to Mexico.
The reasons for not going back (or lack of reasons for going) are many. It was my grandparents' thing, and when they got old and died, the motivation to go with them was gone. Also, there were other places to explore that I hadn't been to yet. But hey, it could be that Mexico is just fake...
Mexico is definitely FAKE! 😊🤗
Winner for the best analogy ever goes to…. 🎉🎉
Californians LOVED Mexico and its culture in the 40's and 50's...not now because of deliberate divisiveness in a rather successful attempt to create opposing groups in our society.
Notice they haven't send a man onto another body in outer space either. If they want to reach Mars, I think it would be wise to get to the Moon first
So NASA'S grandparents on the moon died?
Great video. Dave McKeegan is one smart dude with truck loads of common sense. Pretty impressive.
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.
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.
A perfectly rational and logical explanation. Which is completely wasted on conspiracy nuts who don't operate rationally and logically.
I've been to the ends of the earth (which is flat, despite the evidence...which is overwhelming but I'm not going to pay attention to that) I have a boat, and a crazy friend who said that millions, and then billions of dollars was spent faking the thing we, as humans, definitely didn't do. I'll finish this comment by telling you to educate yourself, while not following that advice myself.
😂😂 cheers mate!
@@Jedi.Toby.M nasa has admitted they can't make a radiation proof suit.
@@Jedi.Toby.Mimagine that, I big scam to bilk the taxpayers that would never happen in America
Challenge is good
@@Jedi.Toby.Mmentally ill
"a rover won't complain about being packed into a box with no air supply"
To be fair neither will the astronauts... At least not for long anyway
2:09 concord was also extremly loud and wasnt plesent for the people below in the cities, I believe theres a law that prevents super sonic aircraft use above land anyway
One of the main reasons we stopped going was the interest in going waned. The space race was over for now, so why continue? However, now that the Chinese have shown interest in setting up a base on the Moon, we have to do it before they do. It's all politics.
One big difference now is that we have private interests involved that will lower the cost of research and development for NASA. SpaceX and others will be involved in new projects to the Moon and Mars and will be looking to make a profit where NASA isn't. This may drive interest from the public as it may be possible for anyone with money to go 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!
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
Politics is the answer. Man's greatest achievement, left behind
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.
People tend to over exaggerated the story especially in this modern era of science influencers where people basically idolize science.
The simple story is just the space race was a dick measuring contest with the Russians and when the USSR fell the game was over. Who else were we racing? And we'd already been to the moon so why keep going?
The other major contributer is that the space program was rather unpopular following the first landing. The first landing was well supported by citizens, but following that many claimed it was a gross waste of federal taxes. Hell today people still look for any ways possible to reduce taxes and the space program was taking that money and throwing it away. It was the easiest program to cut funding from especially now that the original goal was accomplished already.
I've heard also that the risks were an issue: each launch was a possible total failure. Each new mission, instead of adding prestige to the US, could show an exploding Saturn V or, worse, the long and painful agony of US astronauts on the Moon after some unfixable issue would make them unable to go back.
Which is likely the main reason Apollo 18,19 and 20 were cancelled, even if about totally build and funded.
Right…because if our government is known for nothing else, it’s fiscal discipline
That dog tho! I bet he likes these videos!! He's gorgeous
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.
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? 😂
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!"
1. Dangerous
2. Expensive
3. Pointless
Is that approximately how this video goes?
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.
Flat earth 5G chemtrail 9/11 lizard people believers after watching this video:
“gasp… the Concorde jet was also fake”
No! Then they couldn't complain about chemtrails...
Very interesting!
Missed opportunity. Should totally have said the new car would be yeeted into a wall. That would have been funny.
A huge cost saver for unmanned programs is you don't need to plan for a return trip. Or if you are planning on returning some samples, it can be a tiny package, and isn't going to be nearly as big a deal if it doesn't make it back as a manned trip would be.
Also it costs an incredible amount of money to ensure enough confidence in the reliability of a crewed rocket. If a probe blows on the pad it's a big deal but not THAT big a deal, if a crewed rocket goes all Kerbal, well...
Any systems engineer will tell you that engineering for reliability quickly hits diminishing returns after a certain point and every extra percentage point costs exponentially more as you analyze and counter ever more unlikely sequences of events.
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.
Plus the Russians had MASSIVE problems with the N1/L3 rocket they were going to use for the Lunar missions... It KEPT blowing up on launch... 😎🇬🇧
Sure, that's what Russia *said* was happening. But we all know that they were in on it with the U.S., and faked all of those explosions, damage, injuries, deaths, etc. After all, you weren't there, so you only have the government's word that it happened, and that the video of the events and all of the following news reports were real and not state directed.
- typical moon landing denier response.
4:10 As it turns out, humans also don't complain when packed into a tiny room with no air supply!
I sometimes get sad that I live in a world where these things not only need to be explained to people, but also people argue against it.
I look at it in this way, there were always idiots like this in the world, dawn of internet age made it possible for everyone to share information easily and form into online groups, which unfortunately includes the village idiots, their voices that were before only heard on a local scale are now spread everywhere thanks to internet.
You think everyone should have the same opinion? 🤦🏻♂️
@@cityzens634 Do you feel better for typing a ridiculously stupid comment?
@@cityzens634 but we a discussing facts not opinions.
Your comment is the definition of gaslighting.
@@cityzens634, where did anyone mention “opinions” before you so eagerly jumped in with that non sequitur?
Everyone else was discussing heavily documented *facts*.
It baffles the mind that ANYONE would not understand the logic behind not going back b4 we were ready to go in the optics of putting a permanent base up there.
Yours is the most complete and intelligent explanation I have seen!
Kudos for an incredible job!!! 🤘😎
Oh they understand. But that doesn't stop them from still asking (because they aren't interested in the answer)
You think the sky is a vacuum? Wow. Why isn’t our atmos ripped into the void? Are you an entropy denier? Do you always deny natural law or just when it applies to your world view? 🙄
@@hillside6401 What do you mean "why isn't our atmos ripped into the void"? What do you think a vacuum is?
@@hillside6401 from your comment you seem to be the one who denies natural laws when they don't conform to your view. The sky is not a vacuum, space is. But vacuum does not mean that it sucks up everything. Gravity, yes gravity which has been demonstrated over and over again, accounts for out atmosphere not dissapating in space. Simple to prove and understand.
"It baffles the mind that ANYONE would not understand the logic behind not going back b4 we were ready to go in the optics of putting a permanent base up there.
Yours is the most complete and intelligent explanation I have seen!
Kudos for an incredible job!!! 🤘😎"
You have to remember that we also have to put warning labels on coffee, that it's hot. The width of the human "experience" is quite staggering at times.
EDIT and PS: And in all fairness, I too, have burnt myself on coffee often. Usually from the shaking hands of too little coffee, rather than being ignorant that coffee is hot.
I don't have anything to add but I wanted to leave a comment. This video was awesome 😁 🌙
A great question and a great answer.
If you’re interested in the Apollo missions, the U.S Space and Rocket Center in Huntsville, Alabama has an actual Saturn V rocket suspended from (mounted to?) the ceiling in the main exhibit hall. It’s one of of three Saturn V’s left in the world.
Very interesting...I was just asking this question yesterday, and boom youtube suggests this. 😅
The other thing about conspiracy theorists asking this question is that if it was all faked and NASA and co. have continued to safeguard their secret all these years, wouldn’t they just knock up another fake when people started asking “why haven’t you been back?”
I've never met a Moon landing denier that claimed that the Van Allen belts would be an issue that could say what the three types of radiation collected in the outer Van Allen belt are and what would be required to shield against it. Most aren't even aware that there's more than one type of ionizing radiation.
Spoiler alert: the three predominant types of radiation collected in the outer Van Allen belt range from one type that can't even penetrate human skin to one that is adequately shielded against by a quarter inch of plastic. Yes, there are types of ionizing radiation that require heavier shielding, but because they're non-charged, the Earth's magnetic field can't collect them into the Van Allen belts.
An additional note on testing the Orion capsule: OSEA regulations limiting radiation exposure in a work environment weren't an issue during Apollo, but they are now, so doing a little due diligence is a good idea.
Then you never met Jarrah White. He is an astrophysicist and calculates in his video "Moonfaker" the amount of radiation dose the astronauts would have received, if they really had gone beyond the Van Allen Belt.
There are probably more, but one example falsifies already a "never".
@@jflaplaylistchannelunoffic3951 Which video does he calculate it in? I'm not thrilled at the idea of wading through something like three hours of his "radioactive anomaly" series when in the first video of it he makes some rather questionable assumptions that he doesn't back up during that video.
He shows that 100 MeV protons can exist and then proceeds to discuss them as if they're the predominant form of radiation there, despite the fact that most of the radiation in the outer Van Allen belt is made up of electrons, not protons, and most of the protons in the outer belt are at least an order of magnitude less energetic.
This is the equivalent of showing that a high performance street legal car can exceed 200 mph, and then assuming that the flow of traffic on any highway is that fast based on that fact.
In fact, this first video doesn't show that he understands the different types of radiation, and if he does, he's deliberately avoiding acknowledging it.
Sorry I'm not motivated to plow through the entire sub-series looking for where he does the calculation you mention. If you want to point me to it, I'll take a closer look.
You can not survive outside Earth's magnetosphere. Doesn't matter what kind of shielding you think you have
@@timparziale8762 Any actual numbers or other evidence to back up your claim?
"A rover won't complain about being in a small box without air..." is an excellent point. I'd just add that folks don't think it immoral to NOT provide a way for the rover to come back. Two-way trips take a lot more than one-way.
That won't stop me from asking NASA to recover their rovers
#SaveOppy
Mike, the size of the capsule was the size of two phone booths 11 times the Bible says the Earth does not move if you wanted to debate that consider you’re here after you’ll probably wind up in hell for believing this bullshit
3:00 And... now I want to play Kerbal Space Program.
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.
Most people don't realise that the S-4B, the upper stage of the rocket that contained the LM and was attached to the Service Module, weighed 147 tons. That is a lot of weight to get into orbit.
Hence the S-IC and the S-II.
Great analogies.
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