Why haven't humans gone back to the Moon?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 11 вер 2024
- 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
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
ua-cam.com/video/ZXq0Pf1vVV8/v-deo.htmlm20s
Holy sh*t i see him too😂
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
☠️🤣
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?
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?
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.
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
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
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!
Right…because if our government is known for nothing else, it’s fiscal discipline
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.
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.
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!
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.
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 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"
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.
Last time I went there, an alien pissed on my spacecraft. 2/10. Never going there again
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
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 Givernment spends money on every year.
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
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.
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
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.
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).
@@entangledmindcells9359 where are you watching UA-cam then, Trump tower?
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. 🤔
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.
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.
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.
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.)
If space colonization were important enough politically, the US government would simply fund NASA, no matter the cost (provided NASA can be trusted not to hire unqualified people and gamble the governments trust away). If they could fund wars overseas and infinite support for Israel, this is not a matter of financing, it's a matter of political will.
Not solely financing, but is it worth investing that finance and what rewards will that investment reap? Risk v reward ratio, ? With all the other expensive projects going on it is basically a matter of where to invest that amount of money and prioritise it accordingly. After 6 trips to the moon I’m sure it’s not on their highest list of priorities.
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? 😂
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.
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?
Because after six other visits and billions upon billions of dollars spent to find there's nothing there of value.
why are these moon landing deniers so angry all the time
Because they're miserable losers.
Constantly denying reality is a strenuous task
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!
"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 😂
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.)
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!
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.
I always thought they hadn't been back because when the last crew returned to their rover the hub caps had been stolen...
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.
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...
Well done but the deniers will ignore logic and reality to continue spout rubbish.
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.
the analogy is very convenient. moon landing was pushed back again recently. either way we cant return people to the moon
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: ua-cam.com/video/kfjO7VCyjPM/v-deo.html
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.
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.
Politics is the answer. Man's greatest achievement, left behind
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 . ?
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.
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's something called safty and G forces. That's why the Concord isn't used for the public. People still own and use jets that go super sonic. Was money easier for every country 50 years ago. And your saying, our tax dollars at this cost were used just because of a race against Russia. And that China has desires to be the best at everything and own everything but didn't send even one person to the moon? That going to the bottom of the ocean and Antarctica are so much cheaper, easier and valuable that we do that all the time but never go to the moon. Sure, it's all about money and resources. Silly
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. 😂
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.
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.
"why don't we send people to the moon, after all we have all this new technology"
duhh, its precicesly because we have all this new technology, we don't have to send people to the moon anymore because we can just send drones now
However, the purpose of the Artemis program is to send astronauts to the moon. Artemis 1 was launched in November last year and it orbited the moon and returned. It was the first mission of the ongoing Artemis program. The purpose of the Artemis 3 is to land on the moon.
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
He right if you weren’t there to witness your parents birth then you don’t exist
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.
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.
Cost is sited as the main reason of not returning to the moon. But it's not the cost, the reason is, that there is absolutely no reason to go there. There is nothing to exploit, ie nothing of value to take from there! This explanation is the best reason, for not returning to the moon.
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
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.
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*.
Great video. Dave McKeegan is one smart dude with truck loads of common sense. Pretty impressive.
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
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...
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
3:00 And... now I want to play Kerbal Space Program.
Found this video by searching that exact question. Reasonable explanation.
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 question is kinda irrelevant now because we are on our way back to the Moon and beyond. Flerfs have started falling back upon their age old excuse of "NASA is faking it" now that they see Artemis is a thing.
It hardly matters. Those morons are denying Antarctica exists even tho there are regular trips there.
@Nerazmus Yep, deniers will deny it no matter what. Total losers.
Can't wait to watch them pick apart modern moon footage crying cgi.
@@K_End That's all they can do. Sit and cry.
your blissed-out snugglepup really made it for me 💙
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.
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.
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?
The rocket equation is indeed a cruel mistress.
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 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
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.
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 🤣👍
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!"
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.
Sure.. we did it 55 years ago and technology has advanced by a factor of 100 and we can go back in 2023
Technology was never the issue. Only funding.
Technology has advanced by a factor of of 100, maybe. But not necessarily in what is important to go to the Moon. How much as the rocket-engine technology advanced, for example? Or the chemistry of fuels and oxidizers?
*”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
I wonder what dogs think when we seemingly monologue in voip or when we are recording. Maybe they think we are singing.
hehehe 🤣
_My human is talking to the little box again. I must help!_
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.
No bucks, no Buck Rogers.
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.
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
Because technology are more advanced now you dmb fck if they tried to fake it again it will be easily exposed.
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?
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.
@@user-rp5pp8hr6x "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.
@@user-rp5pp8hr6x ok 1 month old account with no handle.
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.
We went to the moon because JFK set out that mission, simple as that.
They've never been there in the first place!
Let’s also forget to talk about the fact that a high ranking executive of Nasa admitted that every document, audio, video, and related sensitive material to document the missiona mysteriously erased or were lost once people started to catch up with the lies.
Yeah ok prove it
@@MuzixMaker it is a matter of public record and stated by a top director of NaSA. 🤣 I don’t need to prove it.
@@groupofcompaniesorganiza-jy4cv in other words you have nothing.
@@groupofcompaniesorganiza-jy4cv Name of this top director?
@@critthought2866 I think it would be in the interests of the top director not give his own name.